I'm trying to understand the nature of exigetical machloches. I wonder if you could help.Let me ask my question via example. Regarding Shemot 20:1 and the nation's response to the giving of the luchot, Rabbi Akiva says they said yes after every commandment. Rav Ishmael says they said yes after the positive ones and no after the negative ones. Are Rabbis Akiva and Ishamel arguing about an actual event? Are they arguing whether all of Israel actually said "Yes, yes" or "yes, no"? Or are they not actually considering what words were literally said but what the mind set of the people was? Rav Solveitchik says the "yes, yes" refers to acceptance of mitzvos without reason. "no, yes" means a concurrence with the meaning of the mitzvos. See explanation by Rav Soloveithcik, pasted below. Lastly, are they actually disagreeing or each offering a different aspect of the story and the mindset of the people? In other words, sometimes when we say Chazal disagree, we are really saying that each was offering a way to look at the matter. Thank you. ****The following is a summary of one portion of a lecture presented to the Rabbinical Council of America by Rabbi Yosef Ber Soloveitchik on June 22, 1972.**** The Ten Commandments are introduced in the book of Exodus by the words: "Vayedaber Elokim et kol hadvarim ha'eleh *laimor*" (Shmot 20:1) "And Elokim spoke all these words *saying*" Use of the word "laimor" generally means "to be repeated". For example the ubiquitous biblical phrase "Vayedaber Hashem el Moshe laimor" indicates that Hashem's words to Moshe were subsequently to be repeated by Moshe to B'nai Yisrael. Yet, on the basis of this explanation, use of the word "laimor" would seem puzzling in the context of the Ten Commandments, since Moshe was not in this case an intermediary: the Ten Commandments were given directly by Hashem to B'nai Yisrael. Faced with this anomaly, the Mechilta implies that in this context "laimor" means verbal acceptance by the entire nation (1). The precise nature of this communal response is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva as quoted in the Mechilta on the above verse (2): "Laimor: 'Melamdim shehayu omrim al hen hen v'al lav lav' - divrei Rabbi Yishmael Rabbi Akiva omer: 'al hen hen v'al lav hen'" Rabbi Yishmael was of the view that B'nai Yisrael responded to each positive commandment with a positive affirmation ("yea"), and responded to each negative commandment with a "nay". For example: Anochi Hashem Elokecha (I am the L-rd your G-d) ---'hen' ("yea") Lo Tignov (You shall not steal) ---'lav' ("no") Rabbi Akiva, however, disagreed. He said that just as the positive commandments were received by a "yea", so too the negative commandments. For example: Anochi Hashem Elokecha---'hen' Lo Tignov---'hen' Two great rabbis have disagreed. What is the gist of this controversy, a disagreement which at first glance would seem trivial? To render the dispute understandable, the Rav used the following example. If he were to address himself to his grandson and say: "Moshe, don't associate with Johnny, he's a bad boy", his grandson's assent might be expressed in one of two ways. He could answer: "No, Zaidy, I shall not play with him" or "Yes, Zaidy, I shall not play with him". The difference between these two answers is one of motivation. If his response is "No Zaidy, I shall not play with him", Moshe means to say that he agrees with his grandfather's assessment of Johnny. He has no intention of playing with him because, indeed, Johnny is a bad boy. However, the affirmative response means "I accept your judgment even though I disagree with you: I myself do not see any harm in fraternizing with Johnny, but your order will be carried out". What motivation should prompt one's Mitzvah p

When we tell over the events of the Exodus on the night(s) of the Seder, we thank and praise G-d for saving us from slavery. When thinking about the chronicle of events, was it not G-d that originally brought us down to Egypt in the first place (during the time of Jacob & Joseph)? The question can be asked in a number of ways: If it was G-d that originally brought us down to Egypt & placed us into slavery as promised to Abraham, why we are we obligated to thank & praise him? OK, G-d did redeem His people and therefore we are obligated to thank & praise Him, but why is all the "blame" heaped on Pharaoh & the Egyptians - this was foretold to the Patriarchs by G-d Himself, so doesn't he bear some of the responsibility for what transpired to the Jews during their time in Egypt ?

I was baptized and confirmed Catholic, but finally decided to seek the truth on my own some years ago. Recently [over a year now] I began a new study of The Bible. Not just a ‘read’ - but an in depth study, including learning to work with the Hebrew and Greek languages. I expect I am a Hebrew at this point in my learning and understanding and moving toward being of similar beliefs as a messianic Jew or if you will... a ‘Jewish Christian’. Here is my 'problem’ or dilemma: As I have read and studied the Torah, and [I am up to Proverbs in my study] it seems over and over that God offers Man Earthly rewards - rewards of this world and of the flesh - I can't seem to shake this and I search more and more for a place where God CLEARLY promises eternal life with Him in heaven for love and repentance and obedience, etc. It seems to just not exist in the early Torah for all men…. Certainly, Moses and some others had this but... Was there no promise of eternal life until the coming of Christ? Why the dichotomy? Therefore - Do Jews believe in eternal life and WHY? Where in the torah is this [Eternal Life - Life with God in heaven] promised? Before Christ's coming and teaching? When does/where does God promise faithful, obedient, [repentant?] people a place in Heaven and everlasting life? I understand I am only part way through my study, but it just sort of nags at me that I'm going to not find it [these promises I refer to] before the coming of Christ... Thank you very much for your time and help and I’d appreciate any comments or thoughts.

Hi; When I do Hagbah in Shul on Shabbas... I always make sure to open the Torah so that at least three panels of scripture are visible. I was told that it is Halacha that three panels of scripture show, so that the Congregation can clearly see the text of the Torah. I looked in the Shulchan Aruch once, and remember seeing something about this... I mentioned this to someone in Shul.. who said that there is no "rule' about three panels of scripture showing.. its custom.. but not Halacha.... Is it just custom. or is it a "rule" that properly, thre panels should show. There is relevance ot the question. I have had the honor of doing Hagbah hunfreds of times.. and can d oit with no problem. Othere, who don't do it much, do have a problem. They have great difficulty when picking it up.. and out of fear of tearing the parchment, the gabbai tells them to just lift it, without spreading the torah apart to much.

can you leave pasta and other chometz in your house on pesach?