Exodus 25:10 – And they shall make for me an ark of shittim wood; two cubits and a half shall be its length and a cubit and a half its breadth and a cubit and half its height.

Gemora Yoma 72b: Rabbi Yochanan contrasted two biblical posukim as follows: in one posuk (Devarim/Deuteronomy 10:1) “you (Moshe) will make for yourself an ark” yet another posuk says (Shmos/Exodus 25:10) “and they shall make for Me an ark.” From here we see that it is fitting for a Torah scholar, that the people of his city do his work for him.”

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #12:

In other words, the principal commandment to build the ark was commanded to Moshe. The Jewish people actually, therefore, built the ark on his behalf. Additionally even though really only Betzalel and Ahaliav and other wise craftsman were really the only ones who made it, but since (perhaps) due to the fact that they were paid from the communal money that was raised by all the Jews to build the temple, therefore it is considered as if all the Jews, themselves, actually made it.  See also the Gemora Temura 31b.

Also, see what is written in the Gemora Shabbos 114a where it relates as follows: Rabbi Yochanan said “which type of Torah scholar is it for whom the people of his city are commanded to do work for him? One who abandons all his interests and occupies himself with the interests of heaven (G-d).”  

It is not clear what the source is of Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling. However in the previous note [where it explains that when Jews do G-d’s work, their own work gets done for them, while when they are not doing G-d’s work, then they must do their own work. This is seen exactly from this posuk where Moshe’s work is being done by others exactly because he is exclusively involved in G-d’s work.] We see that this principle is learned from Moshe. Therefore, Rabbi Yochanan concludes that it is only for a Torah scholar who acts like Moshe that the city is required to do work on his behalf.

A further explanation is appropriate also on Rabbi Yohanan’s question itself. According to the context in the Gemora’s discussion here there are three categories/levels [zirim]. The category of Altar, of Ark and of Table. Aaron [Moshe’s brother] merited the level of Altar and he took it;  [King] David merited the level of Table and he took it; the level of the Ark,  however, is still open and available for anyone who wants to come and take it. The explanation of this is just as it says in [Pirkei] Avot, that the Crown of Torah is available to all of Israel equally. Therefore it is extremely appropriate that it be about the Ark that the posuk should say in the plural “and they made it.” This was precisely to show this point that the Crown of Torah is available for all of Israel. The point of the explanation in the Gemora would be to explain why it doesn’t also say “and they made” [in the plural] in Devarim/Deuteronomy. Further investigation is needed.

Translator Note: In other notes also, the Torah Temimah stresses the value of work.  Specifically, a Torah scholar is not worthy of having others do work for him, unless he has reached the spiritual level of Moshe. The Torah Temimah means by this, I think, that it is never appropriate. We all know at the end of Devarim/Deuteronomy that the Torah itself states that there never will arise anyone of the same level as Moshe.

The Torah Temimah is stressing that everyone should earn a living and that it is not appropriate, as an optimal state, for the congregation to support Wise Sages through community funds. He ends the note with a teaching that stresses the egalitarian vision of learning Torah; it is not reserved for the chosen few, but is available to all who desire to learn.

Exodus 25:8 – And they shall make for me a sanctuary, and I will dwell amongst them.

Avot d’Rabbi Natan: We learn in a braitha: Rabbi Tarfon says, “Great is work as we see that even G-d did not allow His divine presence to dwell on the Jewish people until they did work.” We see this from the posuk: Make for me a sanctuary and I will dwell amongst them.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #9:

It is probable that the Avot d’Rabbi Natan is deducing this lesson from the exact wording of the posuk. The posuk should have said “make for me a sanctuary and I will dwell in it” rather than “I will dwell in them.”  Therefore, Avot d’Rabbi Natan concludes that the concept of a building is not for G-d and it does not pertain to him. This is shown by the posuk in Isaiah Chapter 66:1 “The heavens are my throne and the earth is my footstool, where is the house that you would build for Me?”

From here we see that the reason why G-d wanted the Jews to be involved in the work of the temple for His Name’s sake and He commanded them to build the temple as a way to endear them to Him through their efforts. After this, He caused His divine presence to dwell amongst them, wherever they may be.

It is clear from this that work itself is so great that it can cause G-d’s grace to be shown to the Jewish people through causing his divine presence to dwell amongst them.

DBS Note: In other notes also, the Torah Temimah stresses the value of work.

Exodus 20:1 – And God spoke all these words saying.

Gemora Chagiga: 3(b) [The reason why is says “all” of these words instead of just “these words” is] to instruct the Sages who sit together in groups and occupy themselves in Torah that even though some of them say “impure” and some say “pure”; or some say “invalid” and some say “valid”; or some say “forbidden” and some say “permitted”; nevertheless all of these opinions were given by the One.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #1:

Clearly the Gemora is being careful in its analysis of the word “all”. The text could have just plainly said “and God spoke these words, saying.” This topic is included in the topic of “these and these are the words of the Living God”. Rashi comments and considers in Gemora Ketubot (57a) that the reason why we say all of the opinions derive from the One is because sometimes one opinion is more appropriate while other times the other opinion is more appropriate depending on slight changes in the facts of the case.

Were it not for Rashi’s comment it would be possible to explain that it is precisely through various approaches that different opinions come into being. And through the different opinions [being considered] it is then possible to clarify the truth of a judgment. Were this not the case the sages would have fixed the halacha through their first, immediate intuition. [MUSKAL RISHON]; in this manner it is possible to make a mistake and to err.

This whole approach is according to the Gemora (Jerusalem Talmud: Sanhedrin: Chapter 11: Halacha 1) explanation of the verse in Ecclesiastes (12:11) “ The words of the wise are like spurs, and like nails well driven in are the sayings of the masters of collections, given from the One Shepherd.”  The Gemora there explains that the phrase “masters of collections” refers to the wise sages who sit together in groups and occupy themselves in Torah.

The idea is that through the give and take arguments and the different opinions that naturally occur; that the truth of an issue becomes clarified in a sound, fundamental and lasting manner. The value of the investigation and the discussion is like the well done plowing and the fundamental, lasting manner is analogous to the “nails well driven in”; and the whole purpose of the process is because all the opinions are given by the One Shepherd.   

This same idea is the reasoning for the statement in Gemora Berakos (63b) that the Torah can only be acquired with a group of people. When a wise sage occupies himself in Torah on his own, he becomes increasingly foolish. Also look in Gemora Taanis (7a). [R. Hama b. Hanina said: What is the meaning of the verse, Iron sharpneth iron?  This is to teach you that just as in the case of one iron sharpeneth the other so also do two scholars sharpen each other’s minds by halachah.] That is to say that it is impossible without the company of a fellow student or students to delve into the ultimate depths of an idea and the truth of a Torah teaching.

 We have more lengthy thoughts to say on this from an Aggadic standpoint, but here is not the place for lengthy comments.

DBS Note: This is a  fundamental theme of the Torah Temimah’s and he  never misses a chance to mention it. I also really enjoy when he speaks to the reader such as when he says he has more thoughts on this topic but now is not the place to mention them!

Lastly, again in this note, the Torah Temimah quotes Rashi’s opinion and then respectfully offers his own.

The summary of the Torah Temimah’s comment here is that while Rashi suggests that the reason for multiple opinions is that each is true in different circumstances, the Torah Temimah suggests that the reason for multiple opinions is that each person has a different mind, and therefore no individual can consistently arrive at the unitary truth on his or her own – it is only by comparing, contrasting, and debating the initial positions arrived at through our subjectively limited intuitions that we can discover the single objective truth of Torah. (Thanks to Rabbi Klapper for the succinct summary and to Rabbi Sendor for correcting a significant error I made in this note.)

Exodus 13:19 – Moshe took the bones of Yosef with him because he had made the Children of Israel swear saying that when God will visit you, take out my bones from here with you.

Gemora Yerushalmi Sotah: Chapter 1, Halacha 10: Rabbi Kruspi said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: Why does it say “with him” [isn’t that superfluous]? It is to teach “with your own self you are doing it.”

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #74:

This interpretation depends on the earlier interpretation on this same sentence. Because Moshe personally dealt with the matter of bringing Yosef’s bones out of Egypt, Moshe himself then merited to have God himself bury Moshe’s bones. In other words, due to this mitzvah of Moshe, he then merited to the huge honor of having God himself bury him.

Behold, even though we’ve already explained in our commentary in Genesis 46:4 that when God says “I will surely bring you up” [in Hebrew the idea of surely is conveyed by repeating the word: BRING YOU UP]. The word is repeated to teach that the bones of all of Yosef’s brothers were also brought out of Egypt by the Jews when they left. If so, why does Moshe receive a special reward for personally bringing up Yosef’s bones? The answer, as explained in the Gemora Yerushalmi quoted above is that the Egyptians refused to let the Jews take the bones of Yosef.  Perhaps their reason for this was because of what is noted in the Gemora Sotah 13(a) that the Egyptians had placed the casket of Yosef into the Nile River in order that the river be thereby blessed. Also in the Gemora Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah Chapter 3, Halacha 2 it mentions that the people of Kut used to observe a Yosef Festival because God had blessed the House of Egypt on Yosef’s behalf.

So, only Moshe merited a special reward for bringing up Yosef’s bones from Egypt because it involved this extra effort due to the Egyptians refusal to let him do this.

DBS Note: May we all merit large and small rewards for the extra efforts that we put forth in the world.

Shmos  12:27 – You shall say, “It is a Pesach feast offering to HaShem, Who passed over [pasach] the houses of the Children of Israel in Egypt when He smote the Egyptians”

Gemora: Pesachim 147(b): R. Gamliel used to say: Whoever does not mention these three things on Passover does not fulfill his obligation. They are: the Passover Offering, Unleavened Bread and Bitter Herbs[Pesach, Matzoh and Marror]. The Passover Offering is [sacrificed] because HaShem passed over the houses of our fathers in Egypt. As [our] posuk says: “You shall say ‘it is the sacrifice of the Lord’s Passover, because He passed over the houses…”. The Unleavened Bread is [eaten] because our fathers were redeemed from Egypt, as it is said, “And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought forth out of Egypt”. The Bitter Herb is [eaten] because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our fathers in Egypt, as it is said, “And they made their lives bitter”.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #203:

It is explained that the phrase “You shall say…” means that this is not the response to the son who is asking a question. Rather, it is an entirely separate mitzvah on its own that you should say [these three things aloud.] We’ve already written in the previous note why this is not a response to the son’s question. Further, these particular three items are chosen because they are the fundamental, foundational aspects of the enslavement to and redemption from Egypt.

Additionally, note that the Mishna in Bikurim (1:4) says that a convert does bring bikurim butdoes not read the “vidui bikurim”because he is not able to say “…the land which HaShem swore to our forefathers to give to us.” The convert cannot say this because he is not of the seed (i.e., a biological descendant) of Israel. Tosafot explain Gemora Baba Kama 81(a) the opinion of Rabbenu Tam is that we follow this position as halakhah, and that because of this Rabbenu Tam also did not allow a convert to say the standard text of the blessing after a meal since the convert is not able to say the phrase, “…. for the land that you caused our forefathers to inherit”. Rabbenu Tam was relying on the Mishnah of Bikurim mentioned above, and he added further that when the convert is praying by himself, he should say “the God of the forefathers of Israel” and when he is in synagogue he should say “the God of your forefathers”.

Amazingly, according to this it becomes apparent that the convert would not be able to fulfill the commandment of retelling the exodus from Egypt using the prescribed language since he is unable to say all of these key phrases:   “…because HaShem passed over the houses of our fathers in Egypt”, “because He redeemed our forefathers”and “because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers.” Yet saying that a convert is forbidden from saying these phrases in the Passover seder would be a totally new, unheard of opinion.

Consider that regarding the posuk in Parshat “Lech Lecha” describing Abraham as a ‘father of a multitude of nations.” the opinion of both the Rambam and Rabbi Yitzchak the Tosafist is that we do not follow the position of the above-cited Mishna in Bikurim as halakhah.  Rather,their opinionis that a convert does bring bikurim and reads the vidui bikurim exactly because Abraham was the forefather of a multitude of nations. This is also the one of the opinions expressed in the Jerusalem Talmud. According to them this would also apply to the commandments of Passover night, i.e. that a convert says the Haggadah just as a born-Jewish person would.

Additionally, it is amazing that the standard halachic decision makers do not mention this at all.

DBS Note: The final sentence of the Torah Temimah’s note says it all. Not only does he strongly feel that a convert would observe Passover exactly as any Jewish person would, but he feels it is an oversight that this commonly accepted opinion is not publicized more in the classical halachic literature.

Also, huge thanks to my neighbors Ploni Almoni and HaMaivin Yavin who are Torah Temimah enthusiasts. They provided significant editorial assistance in the background for this note.

YaYikra 1:2 – Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: When a man from [among] you brings a sacrifice to the Lord; from animals, from cattle or from the flock you shall bring your sacrifice.

Gemora: Kiddushin 36(a): [Regarding] the rites of laying [hands] because it is written: Speak unto the sons of Israel and he shall lay [his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering]: thus the sons of Israel lay [hands], but not the daughters of Israel.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #3:

The above gemora refers to the sacrifices that they [the women] themselves bring. Further the gemora does not mean that it is prohibited for women to [place their hands on the animal to be sacrificed] but rather it means that the women are not obligated to do so [for their own sacrifices].

This is according to the gemora Chagiga 15(b) where it states that women were allowed to perform the ceremonial placing of hands on the animal sacrifice. Note that the Rambam omits to mention this detail explicitly in his Mishnah Torah. However, if the women are bringing the sacrifice as an emissary for their husbands, they are forbidden to place their hands on the sacrifice as is explained further on in VaYikra  1:4 on the posuk “and he lays his hands”. Look also at the Tosafot on Gemora Rosh HaShana 33(a).

Similarly, we find the Gemora here concluding from this that woman are excluded from all the various details of the sacrificial service. They are excluded from the “waving”, “raising”, “kmitzaing” [measuring the flour with 4 fingers], “incense”, “melikut”, “collecting of the blood” and “sprinkling of the blood”. The reason for these exclusions is because in all of them the posuk uses the phrase “the sons of Israel” or “sons of Aaron”. Tosafot ask why the Gemora needed to learn from the wording of the posuk to exclude women, let women be excluded because of the general principle that women are exempt from positive commandments that are time bound as we learn from the posuk at the end of parshat Tzav.

I am astounded by this question of Tosafot. What did they see that caused this question? Behold, the sacrifices themselves are positive commandments that are time bound because they can only be done in the day. (See the same posuk noted above in parshat Tzav.) Since we see that the Torah permitted women to bring sacrifices because of their actual obligation  to bring some sacrifices even though they are a positive commandment bound by time; similarly they should be obligated in all the above listed particulars relating to the sacrifices.  Just as men are in the general commandment and the particulars, so too women should also be obligated regarding the details. There is no logic  at all in exempting women from the particulars if they are obligated in the over-all issue, of bringing sacrifices. Similarly there is no logic to exempt women from eating the Passover sacrifice even though it must be done exclusively at night nor from the commandment of burning them leftovers of the Passover sacrifice even though that must be done exclusively in the day. Due to the fact that women are commanded to observe the overall commandment of Passover, they are therefore automatically commanded in all its particulars.

So too in our case of the sacrifices, if there had not been a “decree from the King” [gezerat ha’katuv] regarding the sacrificial details and the commandment that women should not perform them, I would not have any logical reason to exclude them due to the issue of being positive commandments that are time-bound, since woman are obligated in the commandment of sacrifices.

Regarding this point, that women are obligated in sacrifices in a manner equal to men, the first source of this in from Torat Cohanim on parshat Emor, Leviticus 22:18. That is the first source for the law that women are commanded equally to men in the commandment of bringing sacrifices. The Rambam includes this law in Chapter 3 Halach 2 in the Laws of Sacrifices. The Rambam explicitly says “whether men, women or slaves; all are obligated equally in the commandment of sacrifices.” The Kesef Mishnah supports this view and says as follows “this [halacha mentioned by the Rambam] is obvious since the Torah makes equal men and women regarding its laws. We have already said that women don’t lay hands, perform the waving, etc. These details are done by men not by women. This teaches that women are obligated in the commandment of sacrifices [but not certain particulars.]And any commandment that a women is obligated to do, so also are slaves”.

So we see that, following the source in the Torat Cohanim, it is very amazing that the Kesef Mishna uses so many words for the purpose of finding a source for the words of the Rambam in some phrase in the gemora. In fact the source is clear and very explicit. He [Kesef Mishna] should have just written succinctly, “Torat Cohanim – Parshat Emor” and no further words.

DBS Note: The final sentence of the Torah Temimah here alludes to his key point, as it often does. In this note the Torah Temimah is pointing out that it is logical and has a clear source to say that women are equally commanded in the mitzvah of bringing sacrifices. He sees no need for long explanations of this. The only point that he sees a need for is to explain why women are excluded from certain particulars since there is no logical reason to do so. He concludes that it is simply a “decree from the King” without any particular logic.

Shmos 2:5 – Pharaoh’s daughter went down to bathe by the river and her maidens walked along the river. She saw the basket among the reeds and she sent her maidservant and she took it.

Gemora Sotah 12b: And sent her handmaid to fetch it — R. Judah and R. Nehemiah [differ in their interpretation]; one said that the word means ‘her hand’ and the other said that it means ‘her handmaid’. He who said that it means ‘her hand’ did so because it is written ammathah; he who said that it means ‘her handmaid’ did so because the text does not explicitly say yadah [her hand]. But according to him who said that it means ‘her handmaid’,it has just been stated that Gabriel came and beat them to the ground! — He left her one, because it is not customary for a king’s daughter to be unattended. But according to him who said that it means ‘her hand’, the text should have been yadah! — It teaches us that [her arm] became lengthened;

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #27:

Because she stretched out her hand in order to reach the basket. According to the one who believes that the word “ammathah” means maidservant, it is clearly because it did not write “yadah” explicitly as is often done. Further the one who thinks the word means maidservant, does not accept the teaching that her arm [hand] miraculously lengthened. The one who holds that the word means ‘hand’ it is from the phrase אמת יד  which means arm. Apparently, it is difficult to understand what forced this disagreement since the simple meaning of the word ammathah is indeed maidservant.

Perhaps the Midrash is being careful in explaining the words of this posuk. In the first part of the posuk it uses the word   נערתיה to mean “her maidservants”. So too in the second part of the posuk it should have used the same word to refer to the maidservants. Truly, it is the customary way to refer to a king or queens servants as נער out of respect for the king or queen instead of the using the word slave or maidservant. This is customary in the world at large and also in the Tanach. The word נער [youth or lad] is more polite than saying slave.

So from the fact that the posuk changed its phraseology from  נער to אמתה (ammathah) that is the source of the explanation that it actually means that it was her hand that she “sent” and stretched out because the basket was far away from her.

Additionally, in Midrash Rabba it mentions that the Rabbis say that Pharaoh’s daughter had tzaraat (a type of leprosy). That was the reason why she went down to the river to wash. As soon as she touched the basket, she was healed. That is why she had mercy on him and loved him so much. <end quote of the Midrash>

It is not clear where is the hint in this posuk to what the Midrash says. Perhaps it is from the idea that it just says she went down to the river to wash but it doesn’t mention whether she’s going to wash her face, her hands or her feet. You’d have to say, as we do in many places in the Tanach, that she was intending to wash her whole self. In other words, her intent was to immerse in the Nile and to wash off all the tumah/impurity. Since it wouldn’t make sense to say that she was immersing for religious reasons, one is forced to say that it was a physical washing of her whole body due to the leprosy.

DBS Note: I once heard a wonderful rabbi explain that Pharaoh’s daughter knew the basket was too far for her to reach. She stretched out her hand anyway because she had to do everything she could to rescue Moshe whether it seemed rational or not. Similarly, we must strive to accomplish great things whether we think they are rationally attainable or not.

Genesis 45:26 – They said to him [Yaacov] saying  “Yosef is still alive”, and he is the ruler over all the land of Egypt; but he had a turn of heart, for he did not believe them.

Avot D’Rabbi Natan (Chapter 30) – Rabbi Shimon said “this is the punishment of liars that even when they say the truth they are not believed.” This is what we find by the sons of Yaacov as it says “He recognized the garment and said this is the cloak of my son”. That is why afterwards even though they finally told him the truth, he didn’t believe them as it says “he had a turn of heart, for he did not believe them.”

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #12:

Even though in the end the brothers were believed, it was because of the signs [from Yosef] that they showed him such as the wagons that Pharoah had sent. Also, as is mentioned in the Midrash that they showed him the sign that indicated what Yosef and Yaacov had been studying together when he was taken away.

DBS Note: I wonder if the Torah Temimah went out of his way to quote Avot D’Rabbi Natan because of the important ethical lesson here.

Shmos – 6:26 – This is Aharon and Moshe to whom G-d said, “Take the Children of Israel out of Egypt according to their legions.”

Tosefta at the end of Kritot: In all places it mentions Moshe before Aharon. But in one place it says “Aharon and Moshe”. This is to teach you that they were equal.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #19:

In a Mishnah in Kritot 8(a) it lists many things that are equal and it doesn’t list Moshe and Aharon. We need to look further into why this is the case.

Possibly one can say that in the Mishnah it only lists items whose equality has a halachic importance. Also, possibly one can say that they are not listed because, really, in truth they were not equal. For example, we see that Moshe had some characteristics/ abilities that no one else had. He went up to heaven and stayed there for forty days and forty nights, etc.

Similarly, in Moshe’s personal attributes, the Torah explicitly says that “the man Moshe was very humble, more than any man on the face of the earth”. Obviously, this would include more than Aharon.  Furthermore, the posuk says “there will never rise in Israel a prophet like Moshe”. Also, it mentions in a Tosefta Megilla Chapter 3 ‘that a secondary person serves as translator for the main person but it is not honorable for the main person to serve as a translator for the secondary person; as the posuk says ‘Aharon will be your translator’”. Behold, it is calling Moshe the greater one, in comparison with Aharon. That is why the Mishnah did not include Moshe and Aharon in the list of things in this world that are equal.

So the idea mentioned that by the Tosefta that Moshe and Aharon are equal appears to be a result of an exact reading of the posuk above where it puts Aharon first and then Moshe when dealing with taking the Jews out of Egypt. Compared with the next posuk where it mentions going to speak to Pharoah and mentions Moshe first and then Aharon. Now, it is well known that the main “actor” on G-d’s behalf in taking the Jews out of Egypt was Moshe; Aharon was secondary. Conversely, in regards to speaking to Pharoah and his ministers and magicians, Aharon was the one doing it. In this particular of speaking to Pharoah, Moshe was secondary. So, according to this, when speaking about taking the Jews out of Egypt, Moshe should have been mentioned first and then Aharon. And when dealing with speaking to Pharoah, Aharon should have been mentioned first, and then Moshe.

But, amazingly, we see the exact opposite in the posuk 26 and posuk 27. Come and look and see that in posuk 26 where it discusses taking the Jews out of Egypt, Aharon is mentioned first. Then in posuk 27 where it discusses going and speaking to Pharoah, Moshe is mentioned first. This is astounding. Now we see why the Tosefta said that this shows that they were equal. Meaning to say that they were both equally fitting and appropriate to be the primary actors in either taking the Jews out of Egypt or in speaking to Pharoah. G-d gave each one a task to do, but either could have done either task. One was assigned the active role and one assigned the speaking role.

DBS Note: It is wonderful and unusual to say that Moshe and Aharon were actually equals. Perhaps this is a good lesson for people who are struggling with their roles in life.

Genesis:  18:4 – Let a little water be brought and wash your feet and recline under the tree.

Gemora: Bava Metziah 86(b): They [the travellers] protested to him [Abraham], ‘Dost thou suspect us of being Arabs, who worship the dust on their feet? Ishmael has already issued from thee.’

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #17:

In other words, this was Abraham’s punishment that Ishmael descended from him. One needs to say that it wasn’t actually that Abraham suspected them of being Arabs. Behold, Arabs didn’t even exist yet before Ishmael. Rather it means to say that Abraham suspected them of doing actions like those that Arabs would do in the future.

The reason why the Gemora comments on this posuk is because Abraham prefaced “washing the feet” to “recline under the tree” which is the opposite of what is normally said. We know this to be the case by seeing what Lot did and Laban did. They said first “rest” and then “wash”. However, Abraham did the opposite because he was very careful (מקפיד) about dust because it was used as idol worship by some. The Maharsha notes that the response of the travelers noted above is not explicitly mentioned in the bible. We would not actually not know about the traveler’s response except for the fact that Abraham was punished by having Ishmael descend from him, a nation who worshipped the dust of their feet.

We believe [Gemora Shabbos 97(a)] that one who is suspicious of innocent people will be stricken in his body.

DBS Note: The Torah Temimah quotes sections of the Talmud that are often not known to those who do not assiduously study Gemora. It seems amazing that Abraham is punished for being extra cautious and trying hard to avoid coming into contact with idol worship. Yet the point of the Gemora, and the Torah Temimah’s point in quoting this Gemora, seems to be to emphasize that it is wrong to be extra cautious with stringencies if it entails suspecting innocent people of transgressions for which they are not guilty.

By the way, an amazingly similar comment regarding Moshe’s actions is mentioned in the Torah Temimah’s comment on Shmos 4:1. Our translation of that is located here: http://temimahblog.com/?p=30