There is an interesting bit of Aggadata at the top of the Omud where this Persian King tells this Huna Bar Nosson to adjust his belt to Mekayem the Possuk in Yisro now that is what is quoted in our Gemoro .Comes Rashi to tell us that you should know this Persian King was a Shtikel a Lamdan Why Because the "Meluchoh" of Kohanim in Yisro really means "Tiferes" of Kohanim like the Possuk in Yechezkel (which does not say Meluchoh or Tiferes) which Chazal Darshen on Daf 18b from this Possuk in Yechezkel.
Is Rashi really telling me that this Persian King had such a Groysser Yedioh of the Possuk in Yisro the Possuk in Yechezkel AND the Droshas Chazal of the Possuk in Yechezkel to put all this together when he adjusted his belt All I can say is "Hayitochen???"or am I learning Pshat wrong
Boruch Kahan, London England
Shalom Rav,
My first thought was that we do find many Nochrim, even among our greatest adversaries (such as Bil'am, Balak, and Haman) who displayed remarkable Lamdus, particularly when it came to causing us harm. It would therefore not be surprising to find a learned Persian king who is well-disposed towards us.
On second thought, however, I concluded that the Lamdan here was not Izgadar, but Rashi. Izgadar quoted the Pasuk verbatim, and he learned from it that we Jews are supposed to conduct ourselves regally. Based purely on logic, he maintained that this includes the location that we tie our belts. It is Rashi, in his wisdom, who teaches us that it is even an explicit Pasuk in Yechezkel. The reason why he uses the word "Tiferes" is that the Torah uses it in
Parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 28:2) to describe the Bigdei Kehunah.
B'Virchas Kol Tuv,
Eliezer Chrysler
There is an interesting bit of Aggadata at the top of the Omud where this Persian King tells this Huna Bar Nosson to adjust his belt to Mekayem the Possuk in Yisro now that is what is quoted in our Gemoro .Comes Rashi to tell us that you should know this Persian King was a Shtikel a Lamdan Why Because the "Meluchoh" of Kohanim in Yisro really means "Tiferes" of Kohanim like the Possuk in Yechezkel (which does not say Meluchoh or Tiferes) which Chazal Darshen on Daf 18b from this Possuk in Yechezkel.
Is Rashi really telling me that this Persian King had such a Groysser Yedioh of the Possuk in Yisro the Possuk in Yechezkel AND the Droshas Chazal of the Possuk in Yechezkel to put all this together when he adjusted his belt All I can say is "Hayitochen???"or am I learning Pshat wrong
Boruch Kahan, London England
Shalom Rav,
My first thought was that we do find many Nochrim, even among our greatest adversaries (such as Bil'am, Balak, and Haman) who displayed remarkable Lamdus, particularly when it came to causing us harm. It would therefore not be surprising to find a learned Persian king who is well-disposed towards us.
On second thought, however, I concluded that the Lamdan here was not Izgadar, but Rashi. Izgadar quoted the Pasuk verbatim, and he learned from it that we Jews are supposed to conduct ourselves regally. Based purely on logic, he maintained that this includes the location that we tie our belts. It is Rashi, in his wisdom, who teaches us that it is even an explicit Pasuk in Yechezkel. The reason why he uses the word "Tiferes" is that the Torah uses it in
Parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 28:2) to describe the Bigdei Kehunah.
Shkoyach so Be'Emes according to your second Heoroh he was not such a Lamdan this King but Rashi "Keilu" helps him out or helps us out by explaining the Kavonnoh behind the quote of the Possuk in Yisro.
Shkoyach again
Boruch Kahan