https://workbench-jerusalem-salt.thenewjew.org/siddur/tehillat-hashem-weiss/938-939-936-937-appendix-explanation-of-r-yishmael-omer.xml /siddur/tehillat-hashem-weiss/938-939-936-937-appendix-explanation-of-r-yishmael-omer xml siddur-page

Explanation of “R’ Yishmael Omer”, pages 936-937, with pointed Hebrew, English, and transliteration.

/index.xml /siddur.xml /siddur/tehillat-hashem-weiss.xml /siddur/tehillat-hashem-weiss/938-939-936-937-appendix-explanation-of-r-yishmael-omer.xml https://workbench-jerusalem-salt.thenewjew.org/siddur/tehillat-hashem-weiss/938-939-936-937-appendix-explanation-of-r-yishmael-omer https://workbench-jerusalem-salt.thenewjew.org/siddur/tehillat-hashem-weiss/938-939-936-937-appendix-explanation-of-r-yishmael-omer.json <_xml>https://workbench-jerusalem-salt.thenewjew.org/siddur/tehillat-hashem-weiss/938-939-936-937-appendix-explanation-of-r-yishmael-omer.xml tehillat-hashem-weiss Chabad 938-939-936-937-appendix-explanation-of-r-yishmael-omer

Appendix

Explanation of “R’ Yishmael Omer” 936-937 938-939

Appendix

Explanation of “R’ Yishmael Omer” 936-937

Passage כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה בִּכְלָל וְיָצָא מִן הַכְּלָל לְלַמֵּד לֹא לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמוֹ יָצָא, אֶלָּא לְלַמֵּד עַל הַכְּלָל כֻּלּוֹ יָצָא <b>Whatever belonged within a general clause and was then set apart by the Torah so as to teach us some novel point is not instructing us solely concerning that which was set apart; rather, it is also instructing us in some novel point concerning the general clause.</b> By way of illustration, there is in the Torah a general clause forbidding the performance of labor on Shabbos. Subsequently it adds, “Do not light any fires on Shabbos.” This is set apart to teach us that if someone performed this forbidden labor, a distinct offering must be presented, even should that person already be presenting an offering for a different bout of forbidden labor. Yet we also extend this principle to the general clause, which comprised all remaining forbidden labor, showing that a distinct offering must be presented for every single forbidden labor performed on Shabbos. kol da|VAR she|ha|YAH bich|LAL ve|ya|TZA min hak|LAL le|la|MED lo le|la|MED al atz|MO ya|TZA, e|LA le|la|MED al hak|LAL ku|LO ya|TZA kol da|VAR she|ha|YAH bikh|LAL ve|ya|TZAʾ min hak|ke|LAL le|lam|MEDH loʾ le|lam|MEDH ʿal ʿatz|MO ya|TZAʾ, ʾel|LAʾ le|lam|MEDH ʿal hak|ke|LAL kul|LO ya|TZAʾ kol da|VAR she|ha|YAH bikh|LAL ve|ya|TZA min hak|ke|LAL le|lam|MED lo le|lam|MED ʿal ʿatz|MO ya|TZA, el|LA le|lam|MED ʿal hak|ke|LAL kul|LO ya|TZA kol do|VOR she|ho|YOH bich|LOL v'yo|TZO min hak'|LOL l'la|MEID loy l'la|MEID al atz|MOY yo|TZO, e|LO l'la|MEID al hak'|LOL ku|LOY yo|TZO Passage כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה בִּכְלָל, וְיָצָא לִטְעוֹן טַעַן אֶחָד שֶׁהוּא כְעִנְיָנוֹ, יָצָא לְהָקֵל וְלֹא לְהַחֲמִיר <b>Whatever belonged within a general clause and was then set apart to teach us a point already stated in the principle was set apart only to be more lenient in some respect, not more stringent.</b> By way of illustration, in the Torah a general clause holds that whoever slays another person incurs the death penalty, yet notes no distinction between killing by mishap or willfully. The Torah then states that someone who kills by mishap is required to enter a city of refuge. From this we gather that accidental murder is more lenient than willful killing, and that the killer proceeds to a city of refuge <b>instead</b> of incurring the death penalty, not in <b>addition</b> to it. kol da|VAR she|ha|YAH bich|LAL, ve|ya|TZA lit|ON ta-AN e|CHAD she|HU che-in|ya|NO, ya|TZA le|ha|KEL ve|LO le|ha|cha|MIR kol da|VAR she|ha|YAH bikh|LAL, ve|ya|TZAʾ liṭ|ʿON ṭa|ʿAN ʾe|ḥADH she|HUʾ khe|ʿin|ya|NO, ya|TZAʾ le|ha|QEL ve|LOʾ le|ha|ḥa|MIR kol da|VAR she|ha|YAH bikh|LAL, ve|ya|TZA lit|ʿON ta|ʿAN e|ḥAD she|HU khe|ʿin|ya|NO, ya|TZA le|ha|QEL ve|LO le|ha|ḥa|MIR kol do|VOR she|ho|YOH bich|LOL, v'yo|TZO lit|OYN ta-AN e|CHOD she|HU ch'in|yo|NOY, yo|TZO l'ho|KEIL v'LOY l'ha|cha|MIR Passage כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה בִּכְלָל וְיָצָא לִטְעוֹן טַעַן אַחֵר שֶׁלֹּא כְעִנְיָנוֹ יָצָא לְהָקֵל וּלְהַחֲמִיר <b>Whatever belonged within a general clause and was then set apart to teach us a point not stated in the principle was set apart to be more lenient in one respect and more stringent in another.</b> By way of illustration, in the Torah a general clause concerning the rules of tzara’at is given, and then it sets apart a form of tzara’at showing on the beard or the head, stating that yellow hair is a sign of impurity. This is a novel, distinctive law, and therefore shows that this form of tzara’at is, in one respect, more stringent than other forms, which yellow hair would not render impure. In another respect it is also more lenient, since for this form of tzara’as white hair does not mark impurity, though it does for other forms. kol da|VAR she|ha|YAH bich|LAL ve|ya|TZA lit|ON ta-AN a|CHER she|LO che-in|ya|NO ya|TZA le|ha|KEL u|le|ha|cha|MIR kol da|VAR she|ha|YAH bikh|LAL ve|ya|TZAʾ liṭ|ʿON ṭa|ʿAN ʾa|ḥER shel|LOʾ khe|ʿin|ya|NO ya|TZAʾ le|ha|QEL u|le|ha|ḥa|MIR kol da|VAR she|ha|YAH bikh|LAL ve|ya|TZA lit|ʿON ta|ʿAN a|ḥER shel|LO khe|ʿin|ya|NO ya|TZA le|ha|QEL u|le|ha|ḥa|MIR kol do|VOR she|ho|YOH bich|LOL v'yo|TZO lit|OYN ta-AN a|CHEIR she|LOY ch'in|yo|NOY yo|TZO l'ho|KEIL ul'|ha|cha|MIR Passage כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה בִּכְלָל וְיָצָא לָדוּן בְּדָבָר הֶחָדָשׁ אִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְהַחֲזִירוֹ לַכְּלָל עַד שֶׁיַּחֲזִירֶנּוּ הַכָּתוּב לַכְּלָל בְּפֵרוּשׁ <b>If the Torah names anything that belonged within a general clause and was then set apart to teach a novel, different law, one may not restore and gather that which was set apart back into the general clause unless the Torah plainly restores it and states that it belongs in the general clause.</b> By way of illustration, the Torah states that the household of a Kohen may all eat terumah, save daughters married to a non-Kohen. Should a daughter have married a non-Kohen and later become widowed or divorced, it would have been unknown to us that she may once more eat terumah. Hence the Torah gathers her into the general clause in a subsequent verse, showing that she counts among her father’s household and is permitted to eat trumah. kol da|VAR she|ha|YAH bich|LAL ve|ya|TZA la|DUN b'da|VAR he|cha|DASH i a|TAH ya|CHOL le|ha|cha|zi|RO lak|LAL ad she|ya|cha|zi|RE|nu ha|ka|TUV lak|LAL b'fe|RUSH kol da|VAR she|ha|YAH bikh|LAL ve|ya|TZAʾ la|DHUN be|dha|VAR he|ḥa|DHASH ʾi ʾat|TAH ya|KHOL le|ha|ḥa|zi|RO lak|ke|LAL ʿadh shey|ya|ḥa|zi|REN|nu hak|ka|THUV lak|ke|LAL be|fe|RUSH kol da|VAR she|ha|YAH bikh|LAL ve|ya|TZA la|DUN be|da|VAR he|ḥa|DASH i at|TAH ya|KHOL le|ha|ḥa|zi|RO lak|ke|LAL ʿad shey|ya|ḥa|zi|REN|nu hak|ka|TUV lak|ke|LAL be|fe|RUSH kol do|VOR she|ho|YOH bich|LOL v'yo|TZO lo|DUN b'do|VOR he|cho|DOSH i a|TOH yo|CHOYL l'ha|cha|zi|ROY lak'|LOL ad she|ya|cha|zi|RE|nu ha|ko|SUV lak'|LOL b'fei|RUSH Passage דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד מֵעִנְיָנוֹ, וְדָבָר הַלָּמֵד מִסּוֹפוֹ <b>A statute can be grasped from its placement within the Torah, or from verses that follow it.</b> By way of illustration, among the Ten Commandments stands, “Do not steal.” We infer that this signifies kidnapping, not mere ordinary theft, because it stands beside equally grave sins. In like manner, a statute can be grasped from the wording that follows it. da|VAR ha|la|MED me-in|ya|NO, ve|da|VAR ha|la|MED mi|so|FO da|VAR hal|la|MEDH me|ʿin|ya|NO, ve|dha|VAR hal|la|MEDH mis|so|FO da|VAR hal|la|MED me|ʿin|ya|NO, ve|da|VAR hal|la|MED mis|so|FO do|VOR ha|lo|MEID mei-in|yo|NOY, v'do|VOR ha|lo|MEID mi|soy|FOY Passage שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַמַּכְחִישִׁים זֶה אֶת זֶה עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא הַכָּתוּב הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וְיַכְרִיעַ בֵּינֵיהֶם <b>Should two verses appear to oppose each other, we can grasp them once a third verse is found that resolves the opposition between them by clarifying them.</b> By way of illustration, one verse states that God addressed Moses from above the Ark, and another verse states that He addressed Moses from the Tabernacle in its fullness. These verses appear to oppose each other. Yet a third verse states that while Moses stood in the Tabernacle, he heard God addressing Him from above the Ark. From this we gather that the first two verses are not opposing each other. The first verse informs us that God’s voice issued from the Ark, and the second verse informs us that Moses perceived that voice through the Tabernacle in its entirety. sh'NEI ch'tu|VIM ha|mach|chi|SHIM zeh et zeh ad she|ya|VO ha|ka|TUV hash|li|SHI ve|yach|RIA bei|nei|HEM she|NE khe|thu|VIM ham|makh|ḥi|SHIM zeh ʾeth zeh ʿadh shey|ya|VOʾ hak|ka|THUV has|she|li|SHI ve|yakh|RIAʿ be|ne|HEM she|NE khe|tu|VIM ham|makh|ḥi|SHIM zeh et zeh ʿad shey|ya|VO hak|ka|TUV has|she|li|SHI ve|yakh|RIAʿ be|ne|HEM sh'NEI ch'su|VIM ha|mach|chi|SHIM zeh es zeh ad she|yo|VOY ha|ko|SUV hash'|li|SHI v'yach|RIA bei|nei|HEM