Mydvar gas definition chemistry


You can say “to teach my kids about leaving Egypt”, but what about people who don’t have kids? Or their kids fall asleep? And even if you have kids, it should be transformational for the parents as well! In fact, the Haggadah goes out of its way to say that this is an experience incumbent on everyone, even a Talmid Chacham having Seder alone.

The next step is to personalize it. It’s not just something that happened in the past, but something that each of us has to appreciate in our own lives. And when Maggid reaches its peak, we end off with לפיכך אנחנו חייבים להודות – therefore, we are obligated to say thanks. I suggest that the entire point of the Seder is to teach us gratitude.

And if the whole point of the Haggadah is to know how to say thanks, this might explain why the text of the hagaddah comes from Devarim and not Shemot. We take the text from the section of Bikkurim – a mitzvah whose focus is on saying Thank You for things we have now, and remembering to also say Thank You for everything it took to get us here.

Rashi, as well as most of the commentators, presents the well-known symbiotic relationship between Yissachar and Zevulun. 76 gas station jobs Yissachar and Zevulun made a partnership, whereby the tribe of Yissachar would spend all of its time learning, and Zevulun would go out and engage in commerce, in order to provide for themselves as well as to support the tribe of Yissachar. This support was so fundamental, that Zevulun was mentioned first in the Bracha, even though Yissachar is the older of the two.

(Rabbeinu Bachaya brings a nice side point, that usually people don’t rejoice so much when they start their business, but are more joyful when they return, having succeeded at making the money they had set out to make. Yet the Bracha here says that Zevulun are rejoicing in their “going out”. He answers by saying that since Zevulun were going out on a holy mission, to provide food not just for themselves but also for Yissachar, they were certain even from the very beginning that they would be successful, and rejoiced even then.)

The Netziv in HaEmek Davar, brings a radically different, and yet very similar answer to the question of why the brachot are bundled together. He says that usually, the term “בְּצֵאתֶךָ”, “going out”, refers to going out to war. We see in many places (for example Parshat Matot with the war with Midian), that whenever the Jewish people would go to war they would appoint soldiers to fight and an equivalent number of people to pray and learn for the welfare and success of those soldiers. The Daveners would go out to the military encampment near the soldiers, and provide the spiritual support that the soldiers needed in order to win the battle.

The Netziv says that Zevulun were the warriors, not the businessmen Rashi explained above, and Yissachar were their spiritual support. This is why it says “וְיִשָּׂשכָר, בְּאֹהָלֶיךָ”, “and, Yissachar, in your tents.” Yissachar was not sitting in the comfort of their homes while learning. When Zevulun went to war, Yissachar accompanied them, going to the battlefield to provide the religious support that their symbiotic partners needed, through prayer and learning.

I think that the answer can be understood from Purim. static electricity definition science On Purim, we drink “עד דלא ידע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי – until one can’t distinguish between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordechai”. This doesn’t mean that we simply get smashed. It means that we have to drink until we realize that there really isn’t a difference between Haman and Mordechai. At the end of the day, they were both playing the roles that Hashem gave them. As Mordechai told Esther:

When we make Kiddish, we make the distinction between Shabbat and the week that preceded it. But then we drink, reminding ourselves that really the distinction isn’t as great as we think. Friday is fundamentally different from Shabbat, but Friday is also a holy day meant to be used in service of Hashem. And when we make Havdalah, we remind ourselves that Sunday and the rest of the week are also days to grow spiritually. When we do a Brit Mila, we celebrate the fact that we are the chosen people, and remember that all people are created in the image of Hashem. And when we get married, we look forward to the life we are going to build together, and remember that someone who is single is also capable of great things.

The Or HaChaim answers this question by saying that HaShem didn’t need to prevent Adam and Chava from eating from the Eitz HaChaim. electricity quiz 4th grade Firstly, before eating from the Tree of Knowledge, they had no desire for the eternal physical life the Tree of Life would have provided. Secondly, HaShem realized that if He had forbidden consumption from both the Eitz HaDaat and the Eitz HaChaim, the snake would likely have convinced Adam and Chava to eat from both trees. By only forbidding the Tree of Knowledge, HaShem ensured that they wouldn’t end up tempted to eat from both.

The Radak gives a different answer. o gascon He says that the Tree of Life does not grant immediate immortality. Rather, whenever one eats from the tree, it makes them live a little longer. So continually eating from the Tree of Life would extend their lives indefinitely. Since the punishment from eating from the Tree of Knowledge was death, Adam and Chava had to be kicked out of the garden to prevent them from continually eating from the Tree of Life and avoiding the punishment. However, before they sinned, there was no problem with them eating from the Tree of Life and slightly extending their lives.

Perhaps we could even say that had Adam and Chava first “eaten” from the Tree of Life, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil wouldn’t have been forbidden at all. If they had first internalized the messages of the Torah, and then eaten from the Eitz HaDaat, they would have understood the differences between good and evil through the lens of the Torah. After eating from the Tree of Knowledge, however, they would have instead learned the Torah through their own understanding of good and bad, which could end up in a corruption of the ultimate truth the Torah contains. pass gas in spanish This is why Adam and Chava had to leave the Garden of Eden after eating from the Eitz HaDaat.

The parsha opens by God asking the Jewish People to donate materials for the building of the Mishkan. It occured to me that unlike modern day projects which often is funded by grants or a single donor or perhaps the government, the Mishkan was actually donated (mostly) by the Jewish People. The corally might or should be that a building donated entirely by fellow Jews evokes a more visceral meaning for visitors than a sanctuary built by an outside source.

Rav Leib Chasman in Ohr Yahel gives a parable to answer this question. An infant often refuses to eat what his or her mother wants it to. Eventually, though, the child gives in and opens its mouth for the food. The child might think that it has done a wonderful service for the mother, as she is now finally relieved. However, in actuality the child is one who is recieveing nourishment it needs.

Practically, this can relate to being a guest in some one’s home. Unless things are extremely hectic, the host is very glad to have the guest and wants to service him or her. The host might feel that they are being a burden by asking for things, but in reality the host feels a great sense of pride and accomplishment when they can help out their guest. To avoid asking for what one needs would perhaps irritate the host as the host may then feel inadequate to fulfill the guests’s needs.

The Chazon Ish explains that the point of the Torah’s punishments lie not always in their actual form but rather in its message. The Gemara says that a “murderous court” is one that puts someone to death every 7 years, or alternatively, every 70 years. With all the laws discussed in the Gemara about the 4 types of capital punishment, one would think that a court would employ them regularly. gas tax rates by state However, in actuality there are several stipulations for putting someone to death making it highly unlikely that it should happen often. The message of the Torah though still remains- the severity of killing someone else and the subsequent possible punishments for doing so should dissuade the would be murderer from carrying forth his crime.

The Rav explained similarly but added a point. He said that if the Torah said “money for the eye” or the “worth of an eye” it would have diminished the true worth of an eye. An eye is not something that can be monetarily replaced- it is not truly worth $500 or $2000, etc- a notion that one might have took from the phrasing of “money for an eye”.. Therefore it writes that one person’s eye can really only be valued at the worth of his fellow man’s eye.

The simple explination is that this verse refers to minors being warned not to do work on Shabbos. Or [you might claim that it refers] only to adults-!? You must admit that they (the adults) have already been commanded. Thus this [command] comes only to warn adults regarding the Shabbos rest of the minors. This is the implication of that which we learned: A minor who offers to extinguish a fire is not to be listened to (i.e., we do not allow it) because [the responsibility for] his Shabbos rest is upon you.

Asks Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski, why do we need a special pasuk by Shabbos to tell us that parents should not allow their children to do work? The Gemara in Yevamos (114) already quotes a teaching that the pasuk: “Do not eat bugs”- refers to not feeding children bugs (either). If that teaching can be generalized to all cases of warning the parents to disallow their children to sin (to the best of their ability) which it seemingly is, then why do we need a separate pasuk here by Shabbos?

One answer from the Imrei Bina is that by Shabbos we have the concept of “Meleches Mashsheves Assra Torah”- The Torah only prohibited acts on shabbos which are contemplative [meaning having in mind to actually do the sin as opposed havig in mind to do something else, but the sin still happening to occur- a basic understanding of very large sugya as everyone knows] as opposed to acts done unknowingly. Halachically, a minor does not have “knowledge”, as opposed to adults. electricity towers health risks Therefore, had the Torah not specified that even by Shabbos, a minor will be held responsible for a Melchaa that he does if the parent does nothing to stop it- we would not have known from the pasuk by the bugs that this is so. This is because the case of the bugs one is held responsible even for non-contemplative acts.

Rav Chaim Ozer disagrees with the premise of the Imrei Bina and states that Halachikcally a minor does accomplish contemplative acts. [Many Mishnayos tell us that a child is not considered a “Bar Daas” – e.g. if a child reads the Megila for the shul, no one has fulfilled their obligation, because presumably a child cannot be considered able to keep other people in mind. This might have to do with the “theory of mind” concept I am learning about in my Experimental Psychology, but I digress. So it seems that Rav Chaim Ozer and the Imrei Bina are disagreeing about whether a child has he capability for “Meleches Machsheves” which is unrelated to this concept of Katan Lav Bar Daas-?]

Rav Chaim Ozer gives an alternative answer. By the case of eating the bug and the generalizable concept of this, the father is prohibited from feeding his son a bug, but perhaps if the child took the bug and ate it (and the father was not around or the child was not made aware of the fact that eating a bug is prohibitive) the father (and of course son) is not liable. However, by Shabbos there is a concept laid forth by the pesukimof Shivas Avdo. We cannot let our servants do a Melcha if we . Therefore by Shabbos, we need a specific pasuk to tell us that even if a child does a Melcha on his own (without the father telling him to do so) but with the “daas of his parents” then the parents are liable.