Redundancy in the Chumash itself is unacceptable -- but what about between Chumash and (elsewhere, such as) Navi? Please see Psachim 2b at the top, Rashi at top (4th wide line) s.v. "Hachi Ka'amar" where Chumash (parshat Mishpatim) and Iyov are apparently saying the same exact thing about the tunneling thief. Kindly advise.
Paul Davidowitz, Long Beach NY USA
Sholom Rav,
The Pasuk in Iyov to which you are referring must be seen in the context of the chapter in which it is written. Iyov is a difficult Seifer to study, and I am not clear exactly what the chapter is talking about. But it is something to do with the Hashgachah of Hash-m in connection with thieves. There is no reason why the author should not refer to a concept that is mentioned already in the Torah.
Be'Virchas Kol tuv
Eliezer Chrysler.
It appears that you are stating that in general, redundancy between Chumash and NaCh is fine.
Kindly advise.
Thank you & Chodesh Tov
Sholom Rav,
It is common to repeat a point even in the Chumash, sometimes to add a detail, sometimes to stress its importance. Certainly, there is no problem with Iyov mentioning an issue already discussed in the Torah - especially as he does this from a completely different angle.
Be'Virchas Kol Tuv,
Eliezer Chrysler.