Noting the order of these prohibitions, we may assume that they are written in a logical, descending order. The prohibition against murder, clearly the most grievous sin, is first, followed by the other “lesser” sins. In this manner, the Torah tells us that all of these acts are prohibited – not only the more serious ones. We wonder why the Torah joins these transgressions with the prefix “vav” – “and”? Horav David Feinstein, Shlita, explains that the Torah emphasizes to us that all mitzvos have equal significance. Had the Torah not used the “vav”, “and” prefix, we might think that…
Back to Home -> Va'eschanan ->
Noting the order of these prohibitions, we may assume that they are written in a logical, descending order. The prohibition against murder, clearly the most grievous sin, is first, followed by the other “lesser” sins. In this manner, the Torah tells us that all of these acts are prohibited – not only the more serious ones. We wonder why the Torah joins these transgressions with the prefix “vav” – “and”? Horav David Feinstein, Shlita, explains that the Torah emphasizes to us that all mitzvos have equal significance. Had the Torah not used the “vav”, “and” prefix, we might think that…
Noting the order of these prohibitions, we may assume that they are written in a logical, descending order. The prohibition against murder, clearly the most grievous sin, is first, followed by the other “lesser” sins. In this manner, the Torah tells us that all of these acts are prohibited – not only the more serious ones. We wonder why the Torah joins these transgressions with the prefix “vav” – “and”? Horav David Feinstein, Shlita, explains that the Torah emphasizes to us that all mitzvos have equal significance. Had the Torah not used the “vav”, “and” prefix, we might think that…
Noting the order of these prohibitions, we may assume that they are written in a logical, descending order. The prohibition against murder, clearly the most grievous sin, is first, followed by the other “lesser” sins. In this manner, the Torah tells us that all of these acts are prohibited – not only the more serious ones. We wonder why the Torah joins these transgressions with the prefix “vav” – “and”? Horav David Feinstein, Shlita, explains that the Torah emphasizes to us that all mitzvos have equal significance. Had the Torah not used the “vav”, “and” prefix, we might think that…
Calev sought to attract the people’s attention, in order to listen to what they were saying against Moshe: “Is it this alone that the son of Amram has done to us?” Calev gave the inaccurate impression that he would now disparage Moshe (here it was a matter of pikuach nefesh of Klal Yisrael). They were wrong. He only wanted their attention, so that he could reveal the wonderful things that Moshe had done for them. Is one permitted to resort to subterfuge, to give the impression that he is not very observant, only to clarify the matter shortly thereafter? The…
Calev sought to attract the people’s attention, in order to listen to what they were saying against Moshe: “Is it this alone that the son of Amram has done to us?” Calev gave the inaccurate impression that he would now disparage Moshe (here it was a matter of pikuach nefesh of Klal Yisrael). They were wrong. He only wanted their attention, so that he could reveal the wonderful things that Moshe had done for them. Is one permitted to resort to subterfuge, to give the impression that he is not very observant, only to clarify the matter shortly thereafter? The…
Calev sought to attract the people’s attention, in order to listen to what they were saying against Moshe: “Is it this alone that the son of Amram has done to us?” Calev gave the inaccurate impression that he would now disparage Moshe (here it was a matter of pikuach nefesh of Klal Yisrael). They were wrong. He only wanted their attention, so that he could reveal the wonderful things that Moshe had done for them. Is one permitted to resort to subterfuge, to give the impression that he is not very observant, only to clarify the matter shortly thereafter? The…
Calev sought to attract the people’s attention, in order to listen to what they were saying against Moshe: “Is it this alone that the son of Amram has done to us?” Calev gave the inaccurate impression that he would now disparage Moshe (here it was a matter of pikuach nefesh of Klal Yisrael). They were wrong. He only wanted their attention, so that he could reveal the wonderful things that Moshe had done for them. Is one permitted to resort to subterfuge, to give the impression that he is not very observant, only to clarify the matter shortly thereafter? The…
Calev sought to attract the people’s attention, in order to listen to what they were saying against Moshe: “Is it this alone that the son of Amram has done to us?” Calev gave the inaccurate impression that he would now disparage Moshe (here it was a matter of pikuach nefesh of Klal Yisrael). They were wrong. He only wanted their attention, so that he could reveal the wonderful things that Moshe had done for them. Is one permitted to resort to subterfuge, to give the impression that he is not very observant, only to clarify the matter shortly thereafter? The…
Calev sought to attract the people’s attention, in order to listen to what they were saying against Moshe: “Is it this alone that the son of Amram has done to us?” Calev gave the inaccurate impression that he would now disparage Moshe (here it was a matter of pikuach nefesh of Klal Yisrael). They were wrong. He only wanted their attention, so that he could reveal the wonderful things that Moshe had done for them. Is one permitted to resort to subterfuge, to give the impression that he is not very observant, only to clarify the matter shortly thereafter? The…
