Sunday, July 03, 2011

Posts so far for parshat Balak

  1. Learning parshas Balak in your sleep.
  1. Balak sources -- revamped, with more than 100 meforashim on the parasha and haftorah.
  2. The land of whose peopleIbn Ezra vs. Mizrachi. And I suspect that neither one is right.
  3. The spelling of כְּתוֹעֲפֹת -- Considering whether the Samaritan text bolsters one side of a masoretic dispute.
  4. Why did Hashem get mad if He told him to goAccording to Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and Ibn Caspi.
  5. Petorah as Aramaism -- Rashi's midrashic explanation of Petora, and Aramaisms in general in parashat Balak.
  6. True peshat in Petorah -- A consideration of what makes true peshat according to Rashi, and according to his supercommentators. There is a difference, I think.
  7. Why does Rashi mention that the geder is made of stoneAn interesting Taz on Rashi, but I find my own way.
  8. Dreams of talking donkeys --  Ibn Caspi's thesis that the talking donkey and the angel with sword were part of an elaborate daydream.
  9. Does Rashi reject the very *idea* of magical objects? An analysis of a hyper-rationalist approach, which excludes the idea that Rishonim could be non-rationalists.
  1. How did Moshe know of Bilaam's prophecies? -- and why we can include this section in the Torah.
  2. Balak sources -- links by perek and aliyah to an online Mikraos Gedolos, as well as to many meforshim on the parsha and haftara.
  3. Masorah on Balak -- at least some of it, namely how the word par and vayikar in parshat Balak uniquely gets a kamatz; and some other words with localized kemeitzim.
  4. Some interesting censored text on Balak in the commentary of Siftei Kohen now that the black-out has faded.
  5. How did one "join" to Baal Peor? Considering a suggestion that the act of intercourse was the worship of Baal Peor. Ultimately, I don't think so.
  6. Why the war with Midian before Moshe's death? From Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz, that they should not think Moshe did not take revenge upon them on behalf of Klal Yisrael because he, too, was guilty.
  7. Others who believe Jews have a different number of teeth than gentiles. Based on Balak. And this followup.
  1. Shadal's framing of parshat Balak, such as whether Bilaam was an idolator, his profession, whether he used trickery, whether and how he had prophecy, whether the donkey spoke, and why Hashem saw fit to turn the words in Bilaam's mouth into blessing.
  2. Further thoughts on the etnachta in the last pasuk of Balak, as a followup to the 2006 post. I messed this post up, though.
  3. Balak saw something, and therefore Moav was afraid -- as a midrash, as a Rashi, as Ibn Ezra reading Rashi's midrash as peshat.
  1. Did Balak or Israel begin the hostilities?
    1. We get different perspectives from parshat Balak and parshat Devarim. It seems that conquering was disallowed, but minor raids were allowed.
  2. Bilaam Saddled His Donkey
    1. Either personally, or by command. And the implication of this.
  3. Midianites as a generic term
    1. which would resolve some confusion. Plus a tie in to the incident of the sale of Yosef.
  4. Why isn't Zimri mentioned by name?
    1. At least in parshas Balak?
  5. Holy Cow! A talking donkey?!
    1. Can a donkey speak? Shadal suggests that while Hashem is capable of anything, the reaction of Bilaam and his attendants suggests that it brayed in a different manner, and that Bilaam was adept at understanding animal speech. I make reference to Yerushalmi Berachot about Arabs capable of understanding animal speech.
  6. Some questions and thoughts on Balak
    1. questions which would arise from a surface reading of the parsha, which the commentators and midrashim set out to answer.
  • Why the Etnachta in the last pasuk of Balak?
    • somewhat of an attack piece. There is an etnachta there because of the demands of trup, for the trup marks the primary division point of the pasuk. Yet in a longer pasuk which contains that phrase, there is no etnachta because the primary division point of the pasuk is elsewhere. Etnachta (together with other disjunctive accents) is not absolute, but rather relative to the phrase/subphrase structure. Yet someone asks this question, why an etnachta here but not there, apparently unaware of how the system of trup operates, and offers a silly answer to a silly question.
  • Blog Roundup
    • what other blogs are saying about parshat Balak.
  • Bilaam the flying soothsayer
    • from parshat Matot. All discussing how Bilaam flew.
  • The Land of the Children of His People
    • Considers the possibility that eretz benei ammo - "the land of the children of his people," which is taken as meaning that Balak sent to his homeland - is really eretz benei Ammon - the land of the benei Ammon, with the nun sofit relaxing, where benei Ammon were the decendants of ben Ami, and is the usual name for Ammon, just as Moav were the descendants of Moav.
  • וַיַּרְא בָּלָק - The Mapik Aleph
    • Cross-listed from parshat Ki Tisa, discusses a midrash that notices there is no mapik in the aleph (!!) of וַיַּרְא, and deduces that the word means "feared" rather than "saw"
to be continued...

No comments:


Blog Widget by LinkWithin