Torah 101-Devarim Portion I.

ANSWERS TO LAST WEEKS STUDY QUESTIONS (from MatotMasei)

1) Question for Numbers 30 & 31: Is there a difference between a father or husband annulling the vow of a woman and a court of law doing the same thing elsewhere in Torah? HATARAH (courts annulment) is different from HAPARAH (father or husbands revocation of oath. (30:4-17) Stone Tanakh explains on p. 903: As mentioned in the notes to verse 2, vows and oaths can be annulled by expert acting alone or by a court of three. There is a basic difference between this process and the right of a father and husband to revoke. A court can rule that vow was made in error or ignorance, because if the vower had known all the facts or ramifications, he would not have vowed or sworn. For example, the court may ask, Had you known that the vow would have caused untold anguish and embarrassment to your parents, would you have made the vow? If the answer is no, the court may rule that the vow was made in error and therefore NEVER had validity. This annulment is retroactive, so that even if there had been a prior violation, it is as if the violation never occurred. The authority of a father or a husband is NOT retroactive. The vow DID exist, but they have the right to revoke it for the future. 2) Question for Numbers 32 & 33: Why were certain place names changed in Numbers 32, who did it and why? VEET NEVO VEET BAAL MEON MUSABOT SHEM (32:38) = and Nebo and Baal Meon, these names have been changed. The question though is who changed the names, from what were the changed and why were they changed? The Rabbis are split between the opinions that it was either Sihon who changed the names when he took the territory from Moab or if the Israelites changed the names when they took it from Sihon. I am inclined to the latter explanation as expounded on by Rashi, even if their choice of Baal Meon smacks of the residual pagan influence the Israelites obviously still had at that point. Putting the change on Sihon seems to be an effort to deflect charges of said pagan influences away from Israel, but the fact that they were just willing to lay with Midianite and Moabite women to join with their gods kind of disproves the assertion. 3) Question for Numbers 34:

1|Page

Why is another man put in charge of Ephraim when Joshua is Moshes second in command and is from that tribe? UL-MATEY VNEY EPHRAIM NASI KMUEL BEN SHIFTAN (34:24) = from the tribe of Ephraim, Kamiel the son of Shiftan. Although Joshua is the head of Ephraim, he is also chosen to be the head over all Israel after Moshe dies. Therefore, to ensure fairness so that the other tribes do not feel disadvantaged, a second leader from Ephraim is chosen, and this is the only tribe that technically speaking has two heads. 4) Question for Numbers 35 & 36: Due to special rulings, women who would have inherited their fathers estate per the criteria of Numbers 27 immediately forfeit that estate if they marry into another tribe, TRUE or FALSE? FALSE.
3

"But if they marry one of the sons of the other tribes of the sons of Israel, their inheritance will be withdrawn from the inheritance of our fathers and will be added to the inheritance of the tribe to which they belong; thus it will be withdrawn from our allotted inheritance. 4 "When the jubilee of the sons of Israel comes, then their inheritance will be added to the inheritance of the tribe to which they belong; so their inheritance will be withdrawn from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers." (Numbers 36:3-4 NAU) 5) Haftorah Question of the Week: Jeremiah 1:1-2:28 Jeremiah 2:19 has a word play that is similar to the way Abraham is named but it goes in reverse. What is that wordplay? RAAH (2:19) = evil, wickedness, but also another word spelled almost the same way and sounds alike it is SHEPHERD, one who feeds the flock. So there is a very fine line between feeding the flock and descending into evil. It is literally only a matter of minor accenting and inflection. Root also appears in 2:28translated as time of your TROUBLE in Stone but actually could mean time of your evil. It is the same difference between Abram and Abraham, just a letter HEH separates the given name from the covenant name, but in this case it is the HEH that is difference between the good activity (feeding) and the evil and the evil has the HEH.

2|Page

II.

QUESTIONS FOR THIS TORAH PORTION (Devarim) Please NOTE:

For clarity and time constraints, if I elect to not read the whole parsha (which is the case this week) I may still ask questions relating to the portions I did not read! 6) Question for Deuteronomy 1: How do details in this chapter help support the candidacy of Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia as the real Mount Sinai? 7) Question for Deuteronomy 2: What is the total period of time documented throughout the Torah and confirmed in this chapter for the interval between Exodus and the start of the entrance into Canaan? 8) Question for Deuteronomy 3: Why doesnt Moshe mention the specific sins of Israels idolatry when summing up the last 40 years? 9) Haftorah Question of the Week: Isaiah 1:1-28 Which NT writer seems to draw the most on the themes in Yeshayahu (Isaiah) chapter 1? I will give you my opinion. 10) Renewed Covenant Commentary: Yochanan 15:1-11 John 15:1 186) Here Yshua uses the divine form of I am (Ena-na) indicating that YHWH is speaking through him. However, the Speaker is acting as if it is Yshua speaking, because He refers to my Father is the Cultivator when in reality YHWH is speaking of Himself. If He were speaking directly to the talmidim He would have said, He is the vine and I am the cultivator". John 15:5 187) Aramaic "shebista" is the word for "branch"; however, the Netzer/branch of Isa_11:1-2 is also being pictured here. The Netzer wordplays with haNatzrati "the Nazarene" and "haNetzarim," "the Netzarim" title for disciples; see Act_24:5. See Netzer in Appendix.

3|Page

John 15:10 189) The "Commandments of my Father" always refers to Torah; see also Joh_15:5. Y'shua and his Talmidim (disciples) keep his Father's Commandments, but mainstream Christianity is not only anti-Torah; they turned rebellion against Torah into a "fashionable" form of lawlessness. See Dan_7:25; 2Th_2:7; 2Ti_2:19; Tit_2:14; 2Pe_2:21; 1Jn_3:4; Heb_2:2-4; Rom_4:15; Mat_7:23; Mat_13:41. See Renewed Covenant in Appendix.

4|Page