I no longer write up and post  most of my notes on a regular basis for my Rashi and commentators class that I give on Monday. However, I have posted some of my notes, texts and auxiliary study material.

For information on current sessions contact Meyer at limmud@bethsholom.org

Questions - send a message from your email  to limmud@bethsholom.org"  and I will try to answer.

current study of   Mivchar HaPeninim by Ibn Gabirol on  Sefaria

Pirke -finished Avothttps://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2019/jewish/Chapter-Three.htm

 https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot?tab=contents 

https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/453485?lang=bi    chapter6

August 4 2025 Last page of Eight Chapters followed by https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot?tab=contents  פּרקי אבות

https://torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos-chapter6-1a/  lishma

https://cbi-nj.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Chapt6PA.pdf  kinyan torah

July 28 2025 https://www.sefaria.org/Eight_Chapters.6.3?langbi&with=all&lang2=en 

MISHNA: All of the Jewish people, even sinners and those who are liable to be executed with a court-imposed death penalty, have a share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And your people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever; the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, for My name to be glorified” (Isaiah 60:21)

Isaiah 60:21 - King James Version

21 Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. 

Rashi: מתני' כל ישראל יש להם חלק לעולם הבא - מעיקרא איירי בארבע מיתות ומפרש ואזיל להו לכולהו והדר מפרש הני דאין להם חלק לעולם הבא:

Steinsaltz: משנה כל ישראל ואפילו עבריינים וחייבי מיתות בית דין יש להם חלק לעולם הבא, שנאמר: "ועמך כלם צדיקים לעולם יירשו ארץ נצר מטעי מעשה ידי להתפאר" (ישעיה ס, כא), ורק אנשים בודדים המיוחדים ברשעם יוצאים מכלל זה.

Chidushei Agadot

ועמך כולם כו'. לפי שבפרקים הקודמין זכה כל החוטאין בגדולות שהם החייבים בד' מיתות ואמר עלהם כל ישראל שאע"פ שחטא ישראל הוא ויש להם חלק לעוה"ב כדאמרינן פרק נ"ה גבי עכן ודקדק לומר חלק שאין החלקים שוין כדאמרי' כל צדיק וצדיק נכוה מחופתו של חבירו ועיין בזה במפרשים. ומייתי ראיה לזה מקרא שנאמר ועמך כולם וגו'. ר"ל ועמך כולם אף החוטאים אחר שקבלו דינם בד' מיתות כולם צדיקים הן כדאמרינן נמי התם פרק נ"ה נתנו את נבלת עבדיך גו' חסידיך ממש עבדיך הנך דחייבי דינא דמעיקרא וכיון דאיקטול קרי להו עבדיך ולז"א שעל ידי שיקבלו דינם בעולם הזה יזכו לעולם יירשו ארץ דהיינו לעולם הבא דכתיב בהאי ענינא בארצם משנה ירשו ואמרי' פרק אין דורשין זכה צדיק נוטל חלקו וחלק הרשע בג"ע והיינו דקאמר נצר מטעי שהג"ע הוא נצר מטעיו של הקדוש ב"ה יתברך ב"ה שלא היה שולט יד בן אדם במטעיו מה שאין כן העולם הזה שנאמר ויחל נח וגו' ויטע כרם שבו זוכה הרשע בטובתו של העולם הזה כדאמרינן פרק בן סורר ואמר דאם כן מאי רבותיה דצדיק שזוכה לעולם הבא והרי הרשע זוכה לעולם הזה אל תאמר כן שהצדיק זוכה שהוא יכול להתפאר בדבר שהוא מעשה ידי הקב"ה דהיינו עולם הבא ונצר מטעי עולם נצחי בב"ת כמו פועלו שהוא יתברך ב"ה משא"כ טובותיו של עולם הזה ומטעיו שהוא מעשה ידי אדם שהוא ב"ת

translation

And all your people, etc. According to the previous chapters, all the sinners deserved great things that they are guilty of four deaths, and it was said about them that all Israel, even though Israel sinned, have a share in the world, as it is written in chapter 55. He was careful to say that the shares are not equal, as it is said, "Every righteous man is burned from the bridal canopy of his neighbor." Look this up in the commentaries. And he brings proof for this from the scripture that says, "And all your people, etc." that is to say And all your people, even the sinners, after they received their judgment in the four deaths, are all righteous, as it is said in chapter 55. "They gave the carcasses of your servants, the bodies of your faithful servants, these that are that are guilty by law originally ." And since they were killed, they are called your servants, and therefore, by means of them receiving their judgment in this world, they will deserve to inherit the land forever, that is, in the world to come, as it is written in this matter, in their land doubly will they inherit.  And it is said, in the chspter  אין דורשין  "The righteous man if he is worthy takes his share, and the wicked man's share in the garden of Eden." And this is what it says, "The branch of my groves" The Gan Eden is a branch from the plantation of the Holy One, blessed be He, that  the hand of a human being did not control his [G-Ds] plantation, which is not the case in this world, as it is said, "And Noah began, etc., and planted a vineyard in which the wicked man obtains the good of this world, as it is said in the chapter of Ben Sorer, and he said, "If so, what  is the superiority is a righteous man who is entitled to the world to come, since the wicked man is entitled to this world? Do not say thus as the righteous man is entitled to  boast of something that is the work of the Holy One, blessed be He, namely the world to come, and is a branch from the plantations of an eternal world . like his work,  blessed be He, which is not the case of this world and its  plants, which are the work of man, that is mortal.

Chokhmat Shlomo  See my Avot excerpt in Word for Talmudic original. HTTPs://cja.huji.ac.il/browser.php?mode=set&id=35696  cover page & bio

Sanhedrin page 90  Chokhmat Shlomo  translation

This section is not part of this but is a general Agada

and is written here in order to start the chapter with a good thing.

But the beginning of the chapter is thus "Chapter 10; Ellu Hen HaNechnakin

 ". and goes back to the previous chapter . And it appears to my teachers that "Chapter 9; HaNisrafin" is worthy that should precede this chapter that it originally deals with ;the 4 deaths etc. It should have been thus.

Reference from from: Eugene Korn 

GENTILES, THE WORLD TO COME, AND JUDAISM: 

THE ODYSSEY OF A RABBINIC TEXT

Published in-- Modern Judaism: A Journal of Jewish Ideas and Experience

רמב"ם  הלכות מלכים   https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/רמב"ם_הלכות_מלכים_ומלחמות_ח

Kings (hilkhot Melakhim), 8: 10—11. All printed editions read as follows: 

8:10. Moses our teacher bequeathed the Torah and the commandments only to Israel. as it is said, "(lt is an inheritance of the congregation Of Jacob," [Deut. 33:41 as well as one who wants to convert from the nations, as it is said, "there shall be one law) for you and for the convert." (Numbers 15: 151)

רמב"ם 

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/911896/jewish/Teshuvah-Chapter-Three.htm

Similarly, all the wicked whose sins are greater than their merits are judged according to their sins, but they are granted a portion in the world to come. For all Israel have a share in the world to come, as Isaiah 60:21 states “Your people are all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever.” “The land” is an analogy alluding to “the land of life,” i.e., the world to come.

וְכֵן כָּל הָרְשָׁעִים שֶׁעֲוֹנוֹתֵיהֶן מְרֻבִּים - דָּנִין אוֹתָן כְּפִי חֲטָאֵיהֶם. וְיֵשׁ לָהֶן חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁכָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשׁ לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָטְאוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: "וְעַמֵּךְ כֻּלָּם צַדִּיקִים לְעוֹלָם ירְשׁוּ אָרֶץ" - 'אֶרֶץ' זוֹ, מָשָׁל, כְּלוֹמַר: אֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים, וְהוּא הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.

Similarly, the “pious of the nations of the world” have a portion in the world to come

וְכֵן חֲסִידֵי אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם - יֵשׁ לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.

https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/453485?lang=bi

Tosefta Sanhedrin13  עכשיו שאמר הכתוב שכחי אלהים הא יש צדיקים בעובדי כוכבים שיש להם חלק לעולם הבא

https://prod.sefaria.org.il/Sanhedrin.105a.11?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en

“All the gentiles that forget God.” Rather, the wicked shall be turned back to the netherworld, and who are they? They are all the gentiles that forget God. Gentiles who fear God do have a share in the World-to-Come.

Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1:1

It says (Job 37:23): "With justice and an abundance of kindness, He does not deal harshly." G-d does not withhold reward from gentiles who perform His commandments.

https://www.amazon.com/Pirkei-Avos-Teachings-Times-Birnbaum/dp/1578197392  Berel Wein book

References

Jewish commentaries on the Bible - Wikipedia   Extensive list

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Ruth

 STRONG AS DEATH IS LOVE THE SONG OF SONGS, RUTH, ESTHER, JONAH, AND DANIEL A Translation with Commentary by  ROBERT ALTER

p 78 text   p 73 intro

https://www.sefaria.org/Ruth.1?lang=bi  text

https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Ruth.1.1?lang=bi

https://www.sefaria.org/Torah_Temimah_on_Ruth.1.1?lang=bi

https://www.sefaria.org/Ruth.1.1?lang=bi&with=Steinsaltz%20on%20Bava%20Batra|Quoting&lang2=en

https://www.sefaria.org/Ruth.1.1?lang=bi&with=Aramaic%20Targum%20to%20Ruth&lang2=en

Composed in (c.200 - c.600 CE). A classic book of midrash on the Book of Ruth. 

https://www.sefaria.org/Ruth_Rabbah%2C_Petichta?lang=en

https://www.sefaria.org/Ruth_Rabbah.1?lang=en

==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

2024 We were studying Isaiah and the 13th Century Sefer Hayashar 

We were (2021- 2022) studying the Book of Chronicles

also, the Kings stories in Kings1      November 28 chapter 13 

Robert Alter and Rashi are our major sources.

Nov 28,2022 Kings chapter 13, page 2661, chapter 14 notes p 2669 chronicles II, chapter 14 notes P6408

We were (early 2021) studying the Book of Ruth 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

david_kraemer

And they do not overwhelm him with threats, and they are not exacting with him about the details of the mitzvot. Rabbi Elazar said: What is the verse from which this ruling is derived? As it is written: “And when she saw that she was steadfastly minded to go with her, she left  off speaking with her” (Ruth 1:18). [When Naomi set out to return to Eretz Yisrael, Ruth insisted on joining her. The Gemara understands this to mean that Ruth wished to convert. Naomi attempted to dissuade her, but Ruth persisted. The verse states that once Naomi saw Ruth’s resolve to convert, she desisted from her attempts to dissuade her. The Gemara infers from here that the same approach should be taken by a court in all cases of conversion

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Frank Wilczek interview excerpt --

I came upon this concept of complementarity that helped me a lot: There can be different ways of approaching the same question. Often there are different ways of describing the same thing. They can be valid each in their own terms, but they may sometimes be very difficult or even impossible to reconcile.

Physics is my religious belief. 

Frank Wilczek in 2004 was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics, with two other scientists, for his contribution to quantum chromodynamics

Latest book  Fundamentals: Ten Keys to Reality, introduction to modern physics

“In studying how the world works, we are studying how God works, and thereby learning what God is,” he writes. “In that spirit, we can interpret the search for knowledge as a form of worship, and our discoveries as revelations.” 

Today he describes himself as a pantheist. To such a mind, the universe is identical to the divine: There is no distinction between God and the cosmos.

Although science has revealed the fundamental structures and laws of the physical world, it doesn’t contain the sum total of all possible human knowledge. “It can be illuminating,” Mr. Wilczek concludes, “to look at the world in different ways.”

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

A lecture series on Shakespeare plays by the Great Courses has ideas relevant to textual interpretation. Some of Shakespeare's words are shown to have a deeper meaning. he meanings are figurative and metaphoric. These are alternated with simple literal meanings. Furthermore one finds (puposely) multiple meanings in his words.

A book, the Graphic Canon of Chidrens Literature, deals with children"s classics. It states "One sign of a great work of literature or art is that it can be interpreted multiple ways, that it remains ambiguous, refusing to provide clear cut answers.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-===-=-=-=-=-=

We completed our (2020) studying of Ecclesiastes - קוהלת

The past year (2019) we  studyed משלי (Proverbs.)

http://www.sefaria.org/explore  is a great source for scholars. They use the latest computer techniques to connect Tanach with Talmud.

For the Complete Tanach with Rashi's Commentary and an English translation of Rashi's commentary use

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm

for my class

http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/olam_hatanah/perekT.asp?sefer=31&perek=1   

https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/ביאור:משלי_ו_א

See the Judaica page for further source text references.

Excerpts from prior items of interest.

Orthodox responses to Academic Bible research.

There are many articles on Orthodoxy and the Challenge of Biblical Criticism  at http://thetorah.com/

We studied material from the Rabbi Liebtag site http://www.tanach.org/dvrint.htm on sefer Devarim.

An  all-Hebrew Israeli project site aims to get people to read one chapter of the Bible a day (five days a week).

You can find the site  at http://www.929.org.il/.

Drawing its name from the 929 chapters of the Hebrew Bible, the project aims to get hundreds of thousands of Israelis from all walks of life to complete the corpus over three-and-a-half years by covering five chapters a week.

 The purpose of 929 is not to convert people from one point of view to another, but to put their perspectives in conversation with each other. “Everyone keeps his own beliefs—each with his own view, with his own path—but we have the same language,” he said. “We read the same book.”

Find a write-up/review at 

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/188150/israeli-bible-study-929

James Kugel, who now goes by his family’s original Sephardic name, Kaduri has written extensively about Biblical interpretation. 

His lectures are available at http://www.jameskugel.com/video/

I here provide an excerpt from one of his books which is relevant to our interpretive approach.

The beginnings of biblical interpretation / James L. Kugel  (from Chapter One)

What we call the Hebrew Bible is an anthology of texts that were composed over the course of several centuries. How these texts ultimately came to be gathered together is still something of a mystery, but their various components were apparently preserved, at least at first, by different groups and institutions within Israel. These probably included the royal palace, the priestly establishment(s), prophetic guilds, courts of law, schools of various sorts, and perhaps yet other establishments. Many of the texts included in today's Bible no doubt originally played a role in the ongoing life of such institutions, preserving a record of past events and pronouncements as well as a precise formulation of how their affairs were to be conducted.

The fate of this store of texts was obviously influenced by two major political upheavals in the region, the conquest of the northern kingdom (Israel) by the Assyrians in 722 B.C.E. and the conquest of the southern kingdom (Judah) by the Babylonians in 586. These two catastrophes were similar, but not symmetrical: exiled by the Assyrians, many of the northerners simply disappeared from history and with them, no doubt, some (but not all) of their literary horde. The southerners' lot was somewhat different: exiled to Babylon, they held together long enough to see the Babylonian Empire taken over by the Persian king, Cyrus the Great, in 539. Following the famous edict issued by Cyrus in 538, the Judeans began trooping back to their homeland and, once reestablished there, sought to rearrange their lives anew. It was then that their collection of ancient writings — mostly Judean texts, but as well some northern writings that had presumably made their way south either before or just after the Assyrian conquest of Israel — suddenly came to assume a new importance in their lives.

This new importance of the ancestral writings is reflected within the Bible itself. Preexilic parts of the Bible rarely refer to Scripture as such; but the books compiled after the returnees began to trickle in from Babylon (such as Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Malachi, and others) mention, inter alia, the "Torah of Moses" or the "Torah of God," and they sometimes explicitly cite scriptural passages and their interpretation.

Various factors combined to make for the new importance of Scripture within this group of returnees. The first was the fact of the Babylonian exile itself. In the harsh reality of exile, all that had been dear to the Jews was now a distant dream. The royal court, the Jerusalem temple, and other formerly crucial centers were no more; soon, the traditions and ways of thought associated with them began to fade. The exiles' heads were instead now filled with foreign institutions, a foreign language, and a way of thinking that hardly bothered to take account of the tiny nation from which they had come. Under such circumstances, Israel's ancient writings offered an island refuge. Here, the country's kings and heroes still lived in their full glory; here the God of Israel still reigned supreme, and his people and their history occupied center stage; and here was the exiles' old language, the Judean idiom, written down in the classical cadences of its greatest prophets and sages. It seems altogether likely that, during those years in Babylon, such writings as had accompanied the Judeans into exile only grew in importance — if not for all, then at least for some segment of the population. And once the exile was over, these same ancient texts continued in this role: they were the history of the nation and its pride, a national literature and more than that, a statement about the ongoing importance of the remnants of that kingdom, for its God and for the world.

Beyond this was the whole mode of return in which the returnees found themselves. After all, they could have chosen (as others indeed did choose) to remain in Babylon. Returning to Zion was itself fraught with peril, and the life that awaited them was full of unknowns. Those who nevertheless resolved to go back were thus a self-selected group; for the most part, they did what they did out of a desire to reestablish what had been, or at least to start afresh the Jewish polity on its native soil. But what exactly had existed in years gone by? And how should the returning community go about reorganizing its collective existence? The body of ancient writings seemed to hold the answer to both questions. So it was that these texts were looked to now as a guide; they were concerned with events from the past, but what they said could be used as a model for the future. To be sure, the exiles were divided on many important questions: Should they settle into being obedient servants of their distant Persian masters, or should they harbor the hope of one day rebelling and reestablishing an independent Jewish state? Should they seek to be reunited with their northern neighbors, recreating something like the great united monarchy of David and Solomon? Or were those inhabitants of the north mostly foreigners with whom Judea was to have no connection? Such questions were complex; there were good arguments on both sides. But precisely for that reason, exponents on either side sought to buttress their arguments with the ancient writings of prophets and sages and with examples from the people's history before the exile. In short, a new approach to Israel's ancient writings now emerged: They could tell you what to do now. This was a monumental change, and one that was to characterize the way Scripture was read for centuries and centuries to come.

The Importance of Laws

It is certainly no accident that so many of the postexilic evocations of Scripture found within the Hebrew Bible itself refer specifically to the "Torah of God" or the "Torah of Moses," both apparently appellations of the Pentateuch. For the returning exiles, the laws of the Pentateuch seem to have played a more important role in their everyday lives than any of the other texts preserved from earlier days.

This circumstance in itself points up something significant about life in ancient Judea and how it differed from our own. Nowadays, a country's laws usually do not exercise a very great influence on people's day-to-day thoughts and actions — certainly not insofar as their religious lives are concerned. But such a mentality need not be assumed to exist in all societies at all times; there are some — and postexilic Judea seems to be one example — in which the subject of obedience to laws plays a somewhat more important role in people's everyday consciousness. In part, this may be due to the rather unique claim of the Pentateuch that its laws come from God rather than from merely human legislators. After all, someone who breaks the law in our society may have to pay a fine or even go to prison, but this in itself has no particular spiritual dimension. Likewise, someone who upholds the law may be proud to be a good citizen, but little more. In a society in which the laws are held to come from God, by contrast, to break the law is not merely to commit a crime; it is also to commit a sin. Likewise, observing the laws and doing what they say is not merely good citizenship, but a form of divine service, a way of actively seeking to do God's will. It is, of course, difficult to know how early, and to what extent, this view of things became normative in postexilic society, but it must at some point be factored into any attempt to explain the importance of law as reflected in Jewish writings of that period.

For the same reason, it is not difficult to imagine that the returnees' recent history may have further fostered an interest in biblical law in Second Temple Judaism. Scarcely a one of them could have failed to ask himself or herself why it was that God had ever allowed the Judean homeland to be conquered by the Babylonians and — a potentially related question — why the Babylonian Empire had in turn collapsed shortly thereafter. The answer to both questions doubtless was, for some, purely pragmatic: Babylonian military might had simply overwhelmed tiny Judah; by the same token, once the Medes and the Persians had combined forces, they easily overcame the Babylonians and took over their whole empire. But the Bible contains a different, more theological explanation: God allowed his people to be conquered as a punishment for their failure to keep his laws, the great covenant he had concluded with their ancestors. "Surely this came upon Judah at the command of the Lord" (2 Kgs 24:3). Then, lest anyone think it was by any merit of the Babylonians that Judah had been overcome, God subsequently dispatched the Persians to take over their country. If so, it was incumbent on the Judeans who had returned to their ancient homeland to avoid repeating their ancestors' misstep. This time they would scrupulously obey all of God's commandments; this time, everyone would be an expert in the application of divine law, so that there would be no mistakes (Jer 31:31-34).

There was probably another, more practical side to the importance attributed to these ancient laws. The Bible reports that the Persian administration actually adopted them as part of the Israelite legal system to be instituted in their new colony. The Persian emperor Artaxerxes I is thus reported to have written a letter to Ezra, a Jewish priest and sage who took over as a leader of the reestablished community:

And you, Ezra, according to the God-given wisdom you possess, appoint magistrates and judges who may judge all the people in the province [of Judah] who know the laws of your God; and you shall teach those who do not know them. All who will not obey the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be strictly executed on them. (Ezra 7:25-26)

Of course, this account of the Persian promotion of Israel's laws may simply be the result of exaggeration or wishful thinking on the part of the biblical historian; all things considered, however, scepticism on this issue ought itself to be scrutinized carefully. After all, other, extrabiblical sources have shown the Persians to have generally been enlightened rulers who sought to accommodate their subject peoples by, among other things, maintaining the local legal system; it would simply have been good sense to adopt such an approach with the Judeans as well.

The Rise of Biblical Interpreters

All the factors mentioned above—the role ancient texts may have played during the Babylonian exile itself, the implications they seemed to hold for the returning Judeans and the various uses to which they were put in consequence—combined to give this written legacy from the past an unusual relevance in Judea's present. But when texts from the past are granted such a role in any given society (as are, in our own time, various sorts of foundational documents —oaths, constitutions and bylaws, creeds and principles of faith, mission statements, and the like) they rarely speak for themselves; interpreting their words becomes in itself a major undertaking.

In the case of the Hebrew Bible, the necessity for authoritative interpretation was obvious. On the most basic linguistic level, many words or expressions from the distant past were no longer understood. What is more, references to historical events, societal institutions, and the like often needed glossing, since many such things had long since passed from people's memories. But beyond such relatively straightforward matters, interpreters of Israel's Scripture came to play a more creative role. It was mentioned above that the resettled Judeans looked to ancient Scripture as a guide for re-creating their own new society; but of course there was no unanimity as to what sort of society that should be. Different sides in the debate thus sought to interpret Scripture in such a way as to bolster their arguments.

And then there was the matter of internal contradictions. If these ancient texts were to have an authoritative role in people's lives, they ought to speak with one voice — but often they did not. Take, for example, the matter of the sacrifice to be offered at the Passover festival. The instructions in the book of Exodus are rather clear:

Tell the whole congregation of Israel that on the tenth of this month they are to take a lamb for each family, a lamb for each household. If a household is too small for a whole lamb, it shall join its closest neighbor in obtaining one; the lamb shall be divided in proportion to the number of people who eat of it. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a year-old male; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats.... They shall eat the lamb that same night; they shall eat it roasted over the fire with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in water, but roasted over the fire, with its head, legs, and inner organs. (Exod 12:3-9)

The meat to be eaten at the Passover feast was to come "from the sheep or from the goats," and it was not to be boiled, but roasted. But if so, then how was an interpreter to explain this passage from Deuteronomy?

You shall offer the passover sacrifice for the Lord your God, from the flock and the herd, at the place that the Lord will choose as a dwelling for his name.... You shall boil it and eat it at the place that the Lord your God will choose; the next morning you may go back to your tents. (Deut 16:2, 7)

"From the flock and from the herd" implies that a herd animal, such as a bull or cow, may also serve for the paschal meal, and "you shall boil it" seems to run completely counter to the instruction in Exodus, "Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in water." Which text was to be followed? This was hardly an isolated case; Scripture had quite a few apparent contradictions. Deuteronomy 23:3 said that an Ammonite or Moabite was not to be admitted "to the assembly of the Lord," yet the book of Ruth reported the marriage of Boaz to the Moabite Ruth without any censure, and the descendant of their union, David, was to be no less than the founder of the Judean royal dynasty — the bluest blood in Israel. The Ten Commandments present God as punishing children for their parents' sins, "to the third and the fourth generation" (Exod 20:5), whereas Deut 24:16 specifically forbade such vicarious punishment: "Only for their own crimes may persons be put to death." In all such cases, there was a felt need for authoritative interpretation to resolve the perceived difficulty.

It is therefore significant that, in the Bible's account of the events that followed the return from exile, the Judeans are said to have assembled to hear a lengthy public reading of "the book of the law of Moses" (Neh 8:1-8). Whether or not this passage from Nehemiah is a factual recital or an idealized happening, it is remarkable in several respects. The need to know what Scripture says comes here from the grass roots; that is, it is at the people's behest that Ezra undertakes this great public reading. Apparently, "all the people" knew that this great book of law (presumably our Pentateuch) existed, but they were still somewhat fuzzy about its contents. So they willingly stood for hours, "from early morning until midday," in order to hear its words firsthand. It is also noteworthy that this assembly included "both men and women and all who could hear with understanding," that is, children above a certain age: the Torah's words were, according to this passage, not reserved for some elite, or even for the adult males of the population, but were intended for the whole people to learn and apply. But—most significantly for our subject—this public reading is accompanied by a public explanation of the text. The Levites "helped the people to understand the law, while the people remained in their places"; thus, "they read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation." (text Continues, but not on this site...)

Excerpted from A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism  by James L. Kugel 

A topic of concern is meeting the Divine. An example we  studied is Yakov encountering and wrestling with someone.

Here is a section on divine encounters from Maimonides  Guide for the Perplexed  in the Friedlander  translation

Book 2 CHAPTER XLI  end of chapter  41

The phrase, “And the Lord said to a certain person,” is employed even when this person was not really addressed by the Lord, and did not receive any prophecy, but was informed of a certain thing through a prophet. E.g., “And she went to inquire of the Lord” (Gen. xxv. 22); that is, according to the explanation of our Sages, she went to the college of Eber, and the latter gave her the answer; and this is expressed by the words, “And the Lord said unto her” (ibid. ver. 23). These words have also been explained thus, God spoke to her through an angel; and by “angel” Eber is meant here, for a prophet is sometimes called “angel,” as will be explained; or the angel that appeared to Eber in this vision is referred to, or the object of the Midrash explanation is merely to express that wherever God is introduced as directly speaking to a person, i.e., to any of the ordinary prophets, He speaks through an angel, as has been set forth by us (chap. xxxiv.).

Book 2  CHAPTER XLII    On Prophecy   chapter  42

WE have already shown that the appearance or speech of an angel mentioned in Scripture took place in a vision or dream; it makes no difference whether this is expressly stated or not, as we have explained above. This is a point of considerable importance. In some cases the account begins by stating that the prophet saw an angel; in others, the account apparently introduces a human being, who ultimately is shown to be an angel; but it makes no difference, for if the fact that an angel has been heard is only mentioned at the end, you may rest satisfied that the whole account from the beginning describes a prophetic vision. In such visions, a prophet either sees God who speaks to him, as will be explained by us, or he sees an angel who speaks to him, or he hears someone speaking to him without seeing the speaker, or he sees a man who speaks to him, and learns afterwards that the speaker was an angel. In this latter kind of prophecies, the prophet relates that he saw a man who was doing or saying something, and that he learnt afterwards that it was an angel. This important principle was adopted by one of our Sages, one of the most distinguished among them, R. Hiya the Great (Bereshit R abba, xlviii.), in the exposition of the Scriptural passage commencing, “And the Lord appeared unto him in the plain of Mamre” (Gen. xviii.). The general statement that the Lord appeared to Abraham is followed by the description in what manner that appearance of the Lord took place; namely, Abraham saw first three men; he ran and spoke to them. R. Hiya, the author of the explanation, holds that the words of Abraham, “My Lord, if now I have found grace in thy sight, do not, I pray thee, pass from thy servant,” were spoken by him in a prophetic vision to one of the men; for he says that Abraham addressed these words to the chief of these men. Note this well, for it is one of the great mysteries [of the Law]. The same, I hold, is the case when it is said in reference to Jacob, “And a man wrestled with him” (Gen. xxxii,25); this took place in a prophetic vision, since it is expressly stated in the end (ver. 31) that it was an angel. The circumstances are here exactly the same as those in the vision of Abraham, where the general statement, “And the Lord appeared to him,” etc., is followed by a detailed description. Similarly the account of the vision of Jacob begins, “And the angels of God met him” (Gen. xxxii.2); then follows a detailed description how it came to pass that they met him; namely, Jacob sent messengers, and after having prepared and done certain things, “he was left alone,” etc., “and a man wrestled with him” (ibid. ver. 25). By this term “man” [one of ] the angels of God is meant, mentioned in the phrase, “And angels of God met him”; the wrestling and speaking was entirely a prophetic vision. That which happened to Balaam on the way, and the speaking of the ass, took place in a prophetic vision, since further on, in the same account, an angel of God is introduced as speaking to Balaam. I also think that what Joshua perceived, when “he lifted up his eyes and saw, and behold a man stood before him” ( Josh. v. 13) was a prophetic vision, since it is stated afterwards (ver. 14) that it was “the prince of the host of the Lord.” But in the passages, “And an angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal” ( Judges ii. 1); “And it came to pass that the angel of the Lord spake these words to all Israel” (ibid. ver. 4); the “angel” is, according to the explanation of our Sages, Phineas. They say, The angel is Phineas, for, when the Divine Glory rested upon him, he was “like an angel.” We have already shown (chap. vi.) that the term “angel” is homonymous, and denotes also “prophet,” as is the case in the following passages:—“And He sent an angel, and He hath brought us up out of Egypt” (Num. xx. 16); “Then spake Haggai, the angel of the Lord, in the Lord’s message” (Hagg. i. 13); “But they mocked the angels of God” 2 Chron. xxxvi. 16).—Comp. also the words of Daniel, “And the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation” (Dan. ix. 21). All this passed in a prophetic vision. Do not imagine that an angel is seen or his word heard otherwise than in a prophetic vision or prophetic dream, according to the principle laid down:—“I make myself known unto him in a vision, and speak unto him in a dream” (Num. xii. 6). The instances quoted may serve as an illustration of those passages which I do not mention. From the rule laid down by us that prophecy requires preparation, and from our interpretation of the homonym “angel,” you will infer that Hagar, the Egyptian woman, was not a prophetess; also Manoah and his wife were no prophets; for the speech they heard, or imagined they heard, was like the bat-kol (prophetic echo), which is so frequently mentioned by our Sages, and is something that may be experienced by men not prepared for prophecy. The homonymity of the word “angel” misleads in this matter. This is the principal method by which most of the difficult passages in the Bible can be explained. Consider the words, “And an angel of the Lord found her by the well of water” (Gen. xvi. 7), which are similar to the words referring to Joseph—“And a man found him, and behold, he was erring in the field” (ibid. xxxvii. 15). All the Midrashim assume that by man in this passage an angel is meant. 

======================================================

We looked at the naming of Moshe by the daughter of Pharaoh and provide the notes here;

Good commentary will resolve difficulties and provide us with clearer understanding.

Here is an excellent example;

We are used to understanding text based on our previous experiences. We have seen how Leah and Rachel gave names to their children and their maidservant's children. With each name the Torah provides a reason for the name given. We therefore carry over this understanding to the following sentence  -- Shemot 2 sentence 10

וַיִגְדַּ֣ל הַיֶּ֗לֶד וַתְּבִאֵ֙הוּ֙ לְבַת־פַּרְעֹ֔ה וַֽיְהִי־לָ֖הּ לְבֵ֑ן וַתִּקְרָ֤א שְׁמוֹ֙ מֹשֶׁ֔ה וַתֹּ֕אמֶר כִּ֥י מִן־הַמַּ֖יִם מְשִׁיתִֽהוּ׃

An English translation reads;

10 The child grew up, and she brought him to Pharaoh's daughter, and he became like her son. She named him Moses, and she said, "For I drew him from the water."

Moses is the name given by Pharaoh’s daughter to the infant that she “drew from the water.” This implies that Pharaoh’s daughter spoke quite good Hebrew. This is very unlikely.  A web site notes

Yet, it seems improbable that an Egyptian princess would be capable of making such a sophisticated pun in Hebrew, or, for that matter, that she would even give her foster child a Hebrew name.

The name Moses is related to common Egyptian names like Amenmose, Ramose and Thutmose,* which are formed of a god’s name followed by mose. These compound names mean something like "Amen is born" or "Born of Amen" or "The offspring of Ra" or "The child of Thoth." When the name Mose appears by itself, as it occasionally does in Egyptian, it simply means "the Child" or "the Offspring."

The Haamek Davar has the following (and in my opinion, the best) peshat

First - he knows the actual Egyptian meaning of Moshe

 דבלשון מצרי תיבה זו כצורתה משמעו ילד.

העמק דבר על שמות ב, י

ויהי לה לבן. משום שהצילתו מן המיתה וגם גדלתו נחשב כאלו ילדתו וכמו שאמרה:

ותקרא שמו משה. ראיתי בשם הרב ר׳ שמואל נ״י במדינת בעהיים. דבלשון מצרי תיבה זו כצורתה משמעו ילד. וילד המלך נקרא במדינה הילד. באשר הוא ולד יולד למדינה. והוא ביאור נכון.

ופירשה הטעם שהוא ילד שלה

He then explains

כי מן המים משיתהו. הרי הוא כאלו נטבע במים. ואין לאביו ואמו חלק בו. ואני אם הילד. וזה הענין נקרא באמת קנין האדם. כמו שביארנו בשירה האזינו בפסוק אביך קנך יע״ש. ולפי דברינו אין שם משה יחס לתיבת משיתהו. אלא הענין הוא טעם על השם משה

So it was an explanation of her right to name him because she saved him. It is NOT an explanation of Moshe's name.