לֹא יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי - Not Alot for Lot's Lot - פרשת כי תצא
Aug 19, 2026 · 22 min · 8 segments
See sources here In this shiur, we examine the Torah's prohibitions regarding the nations of Ammon…
Aug 19, 2026 · 22 min · 8 segments
See sources here In this shiur, we examine the Torah's prohibitions regarding the nations of Ammon…
David SaltzmanHostPanelistPanelist
We are in Deuteronomy 23, verses 4 through 7, and the text lays down this permanent, uncompromising ban.
Yeah, an Ammonite or Moabite may not enter the assembly of the Lord forever.
It's intense.
And it explicitly says this is because they didn't greet the Israelites with bread and water on the road when they fled Egypt and because they hired the prophet Balaam to curse them.
And it ends with this really harsh directive to, you know, never seek their peace or prosperity like ever.
As a modern reader, my immediate reaction is that an eternal ban feels like a massive overreaction.
Right.
They failed at basic charity.
Banning an entire nation forever just because they wouldn't share their bread and water seems, I don't know, incredibly harsh.
What's fascinating here is that the classical commentators actually anticipated that exact modern discomfort.
Absolutely.
When you look at the writings of Rashi or the later work, Tortamima, you realize we are actually misreading the crime.
This wasn't just a case of mere stinginess.
It wasn't a panicked nation saying like, oh, our cupboards are bare.
We don't have enough for these refugees.
It was calculated malice.
But what makes it calculated rather than just, you know, an oversight or simple fear of foreigners?
We are in Deuteronomy 23, verses 4 through 7, and the text lays down this permanent, uncompromising ban.
Yeah, an Ammonite or Moabite may not enter the assembly of the Lord forever.
It's intense.
And it explicitly says this is because they didn't greet the Israelites with bread and water on the road when they fled Egypt and because they hired the prophet Balaam to curse them.
And it ends with this really harsh directive to, you know, never seek their peace or prosperity like ever.
As a modern reader, my immediate reaction is that an eternal ban feels like a massive overreaction.
Right.
They failed at basic charity.
Banning an entire nation forever just because they wouldn't share their bread and water seems, I don't know, incredibly harsh.
What's fascinating here is that the classical commentators actually anticipated that exact modern discomfort.
Absolutely.
When you look at the writings of Rashi or the later work, Tortamima, you realize we are actually misreading the crime.
This wasn't just a case of mere stinginess.
It wasn't a panicked nation saying like, oh, our cupboards are bare.
We don't have enough for these refugees.
It was calculated malice.
But what makes it calculated rather than just, you know, an oversight or simple fear of foreigners?
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.
