New Story!

https://www.facebook.com/events/123898064741277/permalink/138219313309152/?notif_t=event_mall_comment&notif_id=1476632299734016

For anyone here learning עברית (Hebrew)...I have a new group dedicated to Hebrew study for anyone interested. :D

This article is quite long but very detailed. I copied and pasted one part which speaks on converts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The covenants with Abraham are unconditional and eternal. But they are limited only to the offspring of Abraham. The covenant at Sinai, on the other hand, included many people that had joined the Jewish people in their exodus from Egypt. Indeed, even those who were biological descendants were required to enter into this covenant—so that all Jews at that point were effectively converts.

From this we know that it is possible to become an heir to Abraham even if you are not a biological descendant. Indeed, a convert is called “a child of Abraham” for ritual purposes, including marriage. You need only to enter into the same covenant as the Jewish people did at Sinai, in the same way as they did. These, indeed, are the requirements of Jewish law.21

From a member:

A little late, but wanted to share this anyway.

Rabbeinu Bahya on Exodus 21:24...

עין תחת עין, “an eye for an eye.” Mechilta Nezikin section 8 understands these words as “the value of an eye for an eye,” and not that the guilty party is being deprived of his own physical eye. Proof that this interpretation is correct can be deduced from verse 19 where the Torah had legislated financial compensation for injuries caused to a fellow human being. If we would inflict upon a person who had struck and caused injury to another person a similar injury to the one he had inflicted, what would there be left for him to pay? He himself would then be in need of medical attention and he himself would then suffer loss of income while laid up?
Furthermore, if we were to apply the principle of “an eye for an eye” literally, this would often not be justice at all. If a man ruins the only eye of a one-eyed individual and he had an eye of his removed as a penalty, the former would remain blind whereas the guilty party would still have a good eye to see with. What kind of justice would this be? Moreover, a weak individual might not survive having his eye gouged out so that he would pay with his life for having ruined a strong person’s eye. Surely this would not be justice! The only way a semblance of justice could be arrived at in the situations described in verses 24-27 is to make financial compensation for the damage caused.
Furthermore, the Torah writes in Leviticus 24,19-20: “and if a man inflicts a wound on his fellow, as he did so shall be done to him; fracture for fracture, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; just as he will have inflicted a wound on a person, so shall be inflicted upon him!” It is quite impossible to carry out the instructions in this verse except by accepting the ruling of our sages that what is meant is financial compensation.
You may well ask how it is possible to fulfill an instruction such as “as he has done so shall be done to him,” unless we inflict the same kind of injury that the guilty party has inflicted? Surely giving someone money in compensation for experiencing pain and suffering is not what the Torah had in mind when writing: ”as he has done so shall be done to him?”
We need to answer that the meaning of the words: “as he has done so shall be done to him” is: “as he did something evil, so something evil shall be done to him.” The proof that this is what the Torah had in mind can be appreciated through the words of Shimshon who said: “as they have done to me so I have done to them” (Judges 15,11). When you read up you will find that the Philistines had stolen Shimshon’s wife and he had paid them back by burning their crops! There was no comparison at all between what the Philistines had done to Shimshon to the type of revenge he took upon them. The meaning of his words is obviously: “just as they have caused me personal harm and grief, so I have caused them plenty of harm.” We find something similar when the prophet Ovadiah (Ovadiah 1,15-16) prophesied about Esau “As you did, so shall be done to you (Esau). Your conduct shall be requited. That same cup you drank on My Holy Mount, etc.” You have now had a variety of ancient sources all proving that our sages never interpreted this verse of “an eye for an eye” to be understood literally. Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel.
The verse mentions injury of seven different kinds: 1) eye; 2) tooth; 3) hand; 4) foot; 5) burn wounds; 6) פצע, an “injury.” 7) חבורה, “a bruise.” Each of this injuries contains at least one element not contained in all the other six, thus making it impossible to omit any of these seven examples. An eye is something we have from birth; teeth we are not borne with; their loss might be considered as less serious. Teeth are also not included in the 248 organs which make up man as a healthy specimen. All the 248 organs are covered with tissue and flesh whereas the teeth appear in our mouth completely exposed. The function of the teeth is not to help man survive as a viable human being, but they are merely a tool to break down the food we eat. Just as we could not have assumed that the legislation contained in our verse applies to teeth unless the Torah had made a point of writing it, so the loss of none of the seven examples cited by the Torah would have been presumed to be a cause for the freeing of a slave forthwith.

Posting from a post

The Two Faces of Cold Indifference

Amalek waged war against Israel and took back a captive from them.
(Bamidbar 21:1)

Amalek first attacked the Jewish people when they were on the way to receive the Torah and again as they were preparing to enter the Land of Israel.

Similarly, our inner Amalek first attempts to cool our enthusiasm toward G-d and His Torah. As long as we are fulfilling our religious obligations, this might not seem to pose such a problem. But if we approach our Divine mission without warmth and enthusiasm, we will eventually lose interest in it, seeking diversions that offer more immediate material or spiritual gratification.

If our inner Amalek fails to cool our enthusiasm, it will attempt to take over our life in the "land," i.e., the material life we enter after our daily prayers and studies. It will argue, "Be holy while you're praying and studying the Torah, but when you're earning your living and dealing with the physical world, live by my rules."

Although this may sound like the voice of a clever businessman, we must recognize it as the voice of Amalek. Despite its concessions to our spiritual endeavors, its goal is to destroy us. The only proper response to Amalek is to wipe it out, by constantly renewing our enthusiasm for G-d and His Torah, and our desire that G-d be our guide in all aspects of life.

--From Kehot's Daily Wisdom

@eliyanah

Another good reason to learn Hebrew

THE IMPORTANCE OF LEARNING TORAH IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE

There seems to be a contradiction between Numbers 22:12 where God tells Balaam not to go with the emissaries of Balak and verse 20 where God says to get up and go with them.

There is another problem. If God told Balaam to go in verse 20, why does He get angry in verse 22 when he went with (v.21) these men?

The Gaon of Vilna beautifully explained that these issues hinge on two different Hebrew words for ‘with’ – IM and IT. IM means the joining with another not just physically, but in terms of intention, goals and motivation. It is being of one mind when going with another. IT only implies joining with someone in an activity but nothing more.

When this word is conjugated, IMAHEM means ‘with them in mind and action’ whereas ITAM just means ‘with them in action alone’.

Here is a summary of the critical words:

v.12 Don’t go IMAHEM
v.20 Go ITAM
v.21 He goes IM the emissaries
v.22 God gets angry

At first, God told Balaam not to go IMAHEM (verse 12, with them – the emissaries). This means that God was only opposed to him going with them and being of the same mindset – which was with the intention of cursing Israel. When Balaam pressed his case for going, God said he could go ITAM (verse 20 - just travelling with them), but he could not go IMAHEM.

However, verse 21 says that Balaam went IM (totally with) the emissaries of Balak, and this is why verse 22 tells us that God was angry with him.

What’s in a Name?

By Yehudis Golshevsky

Rebbe Nachman’s fourth daughter was born, he didn’t follow the common custom and name her at the next Torah-reading opportunity. Instead, days and days went by, and he had yet to provide his newest child with a name. T he Chassidim were confused by Rebbe Nachman’s strange practice, and people around Breslov began to whisper that something seemed to be wrong – the Rebbe was withholding his own daughter’s name! Reb Chaikel, one of Rebbe Nachman’s closest students, couldn’t hold back any longer. He went to visit his mentor at home to speak openly about people’s concerns. “Rebbe, if you don’t do something, people will begin to say that the Breslovers no longer name their children!” Reb Chaikel added that Rebbe Nachman already had a number of opponents who were looking for excuses to vilify his followers. Would the Rebbe himself provide his enemies with ammunition? In later years, Reb Noson would say that Rebbe Nachman never made a fuss about something unless it was extremely important to him. Generally, if someone wanted him to do something and it didn’t violate a principle of his, he would accommodate himself to their will. Rebbe Nachman shrugged. “Nu, if you think so ... Let her name among the Jewish people be Chayah!” Reb Chaikel ran out to the synagogue to spread the news. But later that day, unexpected news arrived from Mezhibuzh. Rebbe Nachman’s mother, Feiga, had passed away. Now it all was clear! The Rebbe had only been waiting for the news to reach Breslov before he named his daughter after his beloved mother. Even if he knew by ruach hakodesh (Divine inspiration) that his mother was gone, he couldn’t possibly give the name until the news reached Breslov by natural means. Reb Chaikel was beside himself. What had he done? After a time, Rebbe Nachman had another daughter, and this time he gave the name Feiga right away. But the girl died in infancy. The Chassidim would say, “Perhaps had it been reversed, and had the first girl been named Feiga and the second one Chayah [literally, ‘life’], the second daughter might have lived, too.” Afterward Reb Chaikel lamented, “When, oh when, will I stop mixing into the Rebbe’s business?!” Based on Or HaOrot I, pp. 220-221