1

"ויהי אחרי מות משה עבד ה..."

And it was after Moshe the servant of Hashem died...

Rashi explains why the following Pasuk says "משה עבדי מת...," Moshe My servant haso died. Here's a link to the Rashi. http://m.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15785#showrashi=true

Summary: "If Moshe were still alive, I [Hashem] would prefer him." It's referring to Moshe as the law-giver, not the leader. Moshe gave 3,000 laws that people forgot. Yehoshua` want to know them, so he asks Hashem. Hashem says, "Moshe my servant has died. The Torah is called by his name, implying that you cannot possibly understand it. Go out and occupy them with martial activities."

My question is: Why is the beginning of 1:1 necessary?

user13652
  • 61
  • 5
  • 1
    Would you mind quoting or summarizing Rashi, and clarifying the resultant question? – mevaqesh Nov 14 '16 at 00:35
  • @mevaqesh Basically, if Moshe were still alive, I [Hashem] would prefer him. It's referring to Moshe as the law-giver, not the leader. Moshe gave 3,000 laws that people forgot. Yehoshua` want to know them, so he asks Hashem. Hashem says, "Moshe my servant has died. The Torah is called by his name, implying that you cannot possibly understand it. Go out and occupy them with martial activities." – user13652 Nov 14 '16 at 00:56
  • consider adding any info that clarifies the question into the question itself. – mevaqesh Nov 14 '16 at 01:01
  • 2
    It sets the time for the events. Opening a story with "and it was at time X" is probably the most normal opening in tanakh. I don't understand why you find this odd – Double AA Nov 14 '16 at 02:36
  • It's redundant. If you read the next Pasuk, it's obvious. – user13652 Nov 14 '16 at 02:45

0 Answers0