Friday, June 25, 2004
Friday, June 18, 2004
Updated: The Aberdeen Bestiary
is a manuscript, written and illuminated in England around 1200.
Here is a page from the Bestiary in which it discusses mice:
From the text:
The import of the above quoted (and bolded) text is that it is a description of spontaneous generation: mice produced from the damp soil. This was one belief about the spontaneous generation of mice. The other was that they were spontaneously generated from rotting wheat.
To that end, I should note that the middle picture on the page is that of the mouse, and the commentators on this Aberdeen Bestiary project note that the grey circles about the mouse are most probably meant to be wheat.
Why is this important? Because it is a 12th century manuscript. The Rambam lived in the 12th century, and so this can tell us a bit about the scientific beliefs of his time.
Why should we care what the contemporary scientific beliefs in the time of the Rambam were? Here comes the controversy...
Rabbi Avi Shafran penned an excellent article for Aish.com, in which he contrasted two attitudes of scientists. For years, reports of seeing giant quid (in the range of 60 feet) had been dismissed as legend. He quotes a French zoologist:
He contrasts this to the Rambam, who discusses a Mishna in his commentary on the Mishna.
The Mishna discusses the laws of impurity involved in a particular sheretz - a mouse, half of which is flesh and half of which is earth. If you touch the part of flesh you contact ritual impurity, and if you touch the part of earth you do not.
The Rambam writes:
That is, even though it is incomprehensible and defies scientific explanation, the Rambam is willing to believe eye-witness reports of the animal's existence. As Rabbi Shafran writes,
This is a nice point, and in fact accords with a scientific attitude. Even though you cannot explain some phenomenon, you do not dismiss is as impossible when you encounter it. You investigate the phenomenon, as well as your assumptions.
(Now, later some rabbi actually went to the Nile to investigate claims of such creatures, and spent several days trying to catch them, and came to the conclusion that they were just dirty mice.)
Unfortunately, Rabbi Shafran casts this in terms of spontaneous generation. That is, the Rambam had reason to doubt their existence because the Mishna was describing the spontaneous generation of mice from earth, and in those days they knew that mice were not spontaneously generated.
In fact, the proofs against spontaneous generation of fruit flies, and frogs (and questioning about mice) all happened in the late 17th century, while in the 12th century they still believes in all this. Evidence of this is the Aberdeen Bestiary above.
Rather, I would say the Rambam (and probably the Mishna as well) were discussing fantastic creatures of 1/2 earth and 1/2 flesh. Nowhere is any mention of spontaneous generation made, and the Rambam should have no reason to doubt the spontaneous generation of mice.
In the comments section on Protocols on this post, I write more about this.
Basically, Shmarya of FailedMessiah took Rabbi Shafran to task, complaining that since spontaneous generation had been scientifically disproved, the Rambam is not being a scientist in his attitude, but is rather defending the Talmud against modern science.
I pointed out that spontaneous generation had hardly been disproven in the Rambam's day, for Rambam was 12th century, and it was disproven in 17th century. (At the least, then, if the Rambam was defending it on spontaneous generation grounds, it would not be denying "proven scientific fact.") Thus, it is likely the Rambam was not dealing with spontaneous generation. Secondly, that this is indeed a scientific attitude - to believe countless eyewitness reports to accept that perhaps such a creature exists. And thirdly, that it is very hard to believe this of the Rambam, who often sides with contemporary science over the cures/scientific attitudes in the gemara.
Anyway, hopefully, that explains why I posted this link and picture. All right, I also posted it because I thought it looked nice... :)
Here is a page from the Bestiary in which it discusses mice:
From the text:
Of mice
The mouse is a puny animal; its name, mus, comes from the Greek, the Latin word deriving from it. Others say mures, mice, because they are produced ex humore, from the damp soil, of the earth; for humus means earth and from that comes mus, mouse. Their liver grows bigger at full moon, like the tides rise then fall with the waning of the moon.
The import of the above quoted (and bolded) text is that it is a description of spontaneous generation: mice produced from the damp soil. This was one belief about the spontaneous generation of mice. The other was that they were spontaneously generated from rotting wheat.
To that end, I should note that the middle picture on the page is that of the mouse, and the commentators on this Aberdeen Bestiary project note that the grey circles about the mouse are most probably meant to be wheat.
Why is this important? Because it is a 12th century manuscript. The Rambam lived in the 12th century, and so this can tell us a bit about the scientific beliefs of his time.
Why should we care what the contemporary scientific beliefs in the time of the Rambam were? Here comes the controversy...
Rabbi Avi Shafran penned an excellent article for Aish.com, in which he contrasted two attitudes of scientists. For years, reports of seeing giant quid (in the range of 60 feet) had been dismissed as legend. He quotes a French zoologist:
Just a few years before the monstrous tentacle was obtained and the giant squid passed from the realm of myth to reality, Arthur Mangin, a French zoologist, dismissed sailors' claims that they had seen the animal, urging that "the wise, and especially the man of science, not admit into the catalogue those stories which mention extraordinary creatures... the existence of which would be... a contradiction of the great laws of harmony and equilibrium which have sovereign rule over living nature."
He contrasts this to the Rambam, who discusses a Mishna in his commentary on the Mishna.
The Mishna discusses the laws of impurity involved in a particular sheretz - a mouse, half of which is flesh and half of which is earth. If you touch the part of flesh you contact ritual impurity, and if you touch the part of earth you do not.
The Rambam writes:
"...the existence of [such a creature] is something well-known; countless people have told me that they have seen it, even though the existence of such a living creature is incomprehensible and cannot be explained in any way." [Commentary to the Mishna, Chullin, chapter 9]"
That is, even though it is incomprehensible and defies scientific explanation, the Rambam is willing to believe eye-witness reports of the animal's existence. As Rabbi Shafran writes,
"Both are compelled to state that the reports before them defy scientific explanation. But whereas Mangin counsels a final rejection of the possibility that the report he received might have merit, Maimonides -- even as he notes the inadequacy of scientific knowledge to explain what he has heard - takes pains to allow for the incomprehensible."
This is a nice point, and in fact accords with a scientific attitude. Even though you cannot explain some phenomenon, you do not dismiss is as impossible when you encounter it. You investigate the phenomenon, as well as your assumptions.
(Now, later some rabbi actually went to the Nile to investigate claims of such creatures, and spent several days trying to catch them, and came to the conclusion that they were just dirty mice.)
Unfortunately, Rabbi Shafran casts this in terms of spontaneous generation. That is, the Rambam had reason to doubt their existence because the Mishna was describing the spontaneous generation of mice from earth, and in those days they knew that mice were not spontaneously generated.
In fact, the proofs against spontaneous generation of fruit flies, and frogs (and questioning about mice) all happened in the late 17th century, while in the 12th century they still believes in all this. Evidence of this is the Aberdeen Bestiary above.
Rather, I would say the Rambam (and probably the Mishna as well) were discussing fantastic creatures of 1/2 earth and 1/2 flesh. Nowhere is any mention of spontaneous generation made, and the Rambam should have no reason to doubt the spontaneous generation of mice.
In the comments section on Protocols on this post, I write more about this.
Basically, Shmarya of FailedMessiah took Rabbi Shafran to task, complaining that since spontaneous generation had been scientifically disproved, the Rambam is not being a scientist in his attitude, but is rather defending the Talmud against modern science.
I pointed out that spontaneous generation had hardly been disproven in the Rambam's day, for Rambam was 12th century, and it was disproven in 17th century. (At the least, then, if the Rambam was defending it on spontaneous generation grounds, it would not be denying "proven scientific fact.") Thus, it is likely the Rambam was not dealing with spontaneous generation. Secondly, that this is indeed a scientific attitude - to believe countless eyewitness reports to accept that perhaps such a creature exists. And thirdly, that it is very hard to believe this of the Rambam, who often sides with contemporary science over the cures/scientific attitudes in the gemara.
Anyway, hopefully, that explains why I posted this link and picture. All right, I also posted it because I thought it looked nice... :)
Thursday, June 17, 2004
Parshat Korach: Miracles and the natural order
It has been a tough week at work, leaving little time for parshablogging. I spent much of the week considering the issue of miracles and the natural order.
There is an assumption that miracles are outside of the natural order. That does not mean that, in Jewish tradition, there are no bounds. For example, Hashem lays out some guidelines as to how He interacts with the world, and sticks within those boundaries even while performing miracles.
Consider. The creation of Man, and Woman from the first Man, was miraculous. However, we see an interesting Midrash on Bereishit. Chava (Eve) had already eaten of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, and was trying to get Adam to eat of the fruit as well. Adam does eat of the fruit, and Hashem punishes him, saying, (Bereishit 3:17: כִּי-שָׁמַעְתָּ לְקוֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ, "'Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife."
The full pasuk is:
A Midrash I mention in the group of midrashic texts in the post below offers two competing explanations of what exactly Chava did to persaude Adam to eat the fruit.
The verse from Kohelet reads in full:
On a pshat level, it means that there is no real purpose in trying to innovate or gather wealth or really accomplish anything, because life and history are cyclical, and all that is done will be undone, and was done by others before you.
However, on a midrashic level, וְאֵין כָּל-חָדָשׁ, תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ, "there is nothing new under the sun," or I would say the entire pasuk, is saying that all that will be made or will exist is that which has existed in the past, and is talking about Hashem's creation. That is, there was a period of Creation in which Hashem created the world and the various creatures.
This is what Chava's argument seems based upon. In terms of *Creation*, in this pasuk Hashem is promising that all Creatures that are to be miraculously created have been Created during the 6 days of Creation. Thus, Chava says, you cannot expect Hashem to create a new Chava for you out of another of your ribs.
(In terms of violating laws of physics Created in the Genesis, that is another matter, which this Midrash on this pasuk in Koheleth does not seem to directly address.)
This is an issue in parashat Korach as well. Moshe seems to call for a new creation to destroy Datan and Aviram.
Bamidbar 16:28-31ff
So, Moshe seems to be asking for Hashem to make a new Creation - a mouth for the Earth.
Let us see Midrash Rabba on Bamidbar, on parashat Korach.
Rava is deconstructing the pasuk. One can read it on a pshat level - if Hashem creates a new creation, then it will show something - namely, that Hashem sent Moshe. However, Midrashically, אם בריאה need not mean "If a creation," to be followed by a verb, but rather can be taken, in a grammatically accurate matter (working really locally) to mean "If it has been created." יברא ה still means "Hashem should create." But why should Hashem create if it has been created? Thus, the two phrases are separate. If it has been created, then nothing needs be done but bring it forth. If not, Hashem should create.
I have a feeling that this is really the extent of Rava's drash. The question and answer seems stamaitic in nature to me. It asks, on the second possibility, how Hashem could make a new Creation after the 6 days of Creation, and answers that a new Creation is not meant, but rather the miraculous phenomenon of the mouth coming closer. That is, the mouth to Gehinnom is usually in one spot, and here it was moved closer, to their actual location.
This question and answer is not present in Midrash Rabba in Devarim. Further, the first part of the Midrash that Rava says is in Hebrew while the question and answer is in Aramaic. Further, this problem of "nothing new under the sun" is *specifically* that problem of being created during the 6 days of Creation or not. That is the plain meaning/import behind Rava's drash. If it was Creation, no big deal. If not, even though in general You do not Create things anew, here please do so.
We see this reflected in Pirkei Avot:
"Twilight on the eve of the first Sabbath" means just as the last of the 6 days of Creation was going out, Hashem created it. Why? Because there was to be "nothing new under the sun," so anything that would in the future go out of the bounds was not really - Hashem already created it.
This goes according to אם בריאה - if it had already been created. The opposite opinion would naturally be that this mouth was created later, not that it had been created but Moshe was asking for it to be moved over.
Perhaps more later. It is 12:30 and I've had a long day...
There is an assumption that miracles are outside of the natural order. That does not mean that, in Jewish tradition, there are no bounds. For example, Hashem lays out some guidelines as to how He interacts with the world, and sticks within those boundaries even while performing miracles.
Consider. The creation of Man, and Woman from the first Man, was miraculous. However, we see an interesting Midrash on Bereishit. Chava (Eve) had already eaten of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, and was trying to get Adam to eat of the fruit as well. Adam does eat of the fruit, and Hashem punishes him, saying, (Bereishit 3:17: כִּי-שָׁמַעְתָּ לְקוֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ, "'Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife."
The full pasuk is:
וּלְאָדָם אָמַר, כִּי-שָׁמַעְתָּ לְקוֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ, וַתֹּאכַל מִן-הָעֵץ, אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִיךָ לֵאמֹר לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ--אֲרוּרָה הָאֲדָמָה, בַּעֲבוּרֶךָ, בְּעִצָּבוֹן תֹּאכְלֶנָּה, כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ.
And unto Adam He said: 'Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying: Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.
A Midrash I mention in the group of midrashic texts in the post below offers two competing explanations of what exactly Chava did to persaude Adam to eat the fruit.
וּלְאָדָם אָמַר, כִּי-שָׁמַעְתָּ לְקוֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ רבי שמלאי אומר בישוב הדעת באת עליו א"ל מה את סבר שאני מתה וחוה אחרת נבראת לך (קהלת א) (וְ)אֵין כָּל-חָדָשׁ, תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ מה את סבור שאני מתה ואתה יושב לך הטליס (ישעיה מה) לֹא-תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ, לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ רבנן אמרין התחילה מיללת עליו בקולה הה"ד ולאדם אמר כי שמעת לדברי אשתך אין כתיב כאן אלא לקול אשתך וגו
Rabbi Simlai says, with a thought-out argument she came upon him. She said to him, 'What do you think? That I will die and another Eve will be created for you? (Kohelet 1:9) There is nothing new under the sun*! What do you think? That I will die and you will sit in solitude? (Isaiah 45:18) 'He created it not a waste, He formed it to be inhabited.'
The rabbis responded, she began to wail with her voice. This is what is written, 'And unto Adam He said: 'Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife...'
The verse from Kohelet reads in full:
מַה-שֶּׁהָיָה, הוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה, וּמַה-שֶּׁנַּעֲשָׂה, הוּא שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה; וְאֵין כָּל-חָדָשׁ, תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ.
"That which hath been is that which shall be, and that which hath been done is that which shall be done; and there is nothing new under the sun."
On a pshat level, it means that there is no real purpose in trying to innovate or gather wealth or really accomplish anything, because life and history are cyclical, and all that is done will be undone, and was done by others before you.
However, on a midrashic level, וְאֵין כָּל-חָדָשׁ, תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ, "there is nothing new under the sun," or I would say the entire pasuk, is saying that all that will be made or will exist is that which has existed in the past, and is talking about Hashem's creation. That is, there was a period of Creation in which Hashem created the world and the various creatures.
This is what Chava's argument seems based upon. In terms of *Creation*, in this pasuk Hashem is promising that all Creatures that are to be miraculously created have been Created during the 6 days of Creation. Thus, Chava says, you cannot expect Hashem to create a new Chava for you out of another of your ribs.
(In terms of violating laws of physics Created in the Genesis, that is another matter, which this Midrash on this pasuk in Koheleth does not seem to directly address.)
This is an issue in parashat Korach as well. Moshe seems to call for a new creation to destroy Datan and Aviram.
Bamidbar 16:28-31ff
וַיֹּאמֶר, מֹשֶׁה, בְּזֹאת תֵּדְעוּן, כִּי-ה שְׁלָחַנִי לַעֲשׂוֹת אֵת כָּל-הַמַּעֲשִׂים הָאֵלֶּה: כִּי-לֹא, מִלִּבִּי.
אִם-כְּמוֹת כָּל-הָאָדָם, יְמֻתוּן אֵלֶּה, וּפְקֻדַּת כָּל-הָאָדָם, יִפָּקֵד עֲלֵיהֶם--לֹא ה, שְׁלָחָנִי.
וְאִם-בְּרִיאָה ה, וּפָצְתָה הָאֲדָמָה אֶת-פִּיהָ וּבָלְעָה אֹתָם וְאֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם, וְיָרְדוּ חַיִּים, שְׁאֹלָה--וִידַעְתֶּם, כִּי נִאֲצוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה אֶת-ה.
וַיְהִי, כְּכַלֹּתוֹ, לְדַבֵּר, אֵת כָּל-הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה; וַתִּבָּקַע הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶׁר תַּחְתֵּיהֶם.
"And Moses said: 'Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works, and that I have not done them of mine own mind.
If these men die the common death of all men, and be visited after the visitation of all men, then the LORD hath not sent Me.
But if the LORD make a new thing, and the ground open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down alive into the pit, then ye shall understand that these men have despised the LORD.'
And it came to pass, as he made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground did cleave asunder that was under them."
So, Moshe seems to be asking for Hashem to make a new Creation - a mouth for the Earth.
Let us see Midrash Rabba on Bamidbar, on parashat Korach.
דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (במדבר טז) אם בריאה יברא ה' אמר משה רבון העולמים אם בריאה גיהנם מוטב ואם לאו יברא ה' למאי אילימא למברייה ממש והכתיב (קהלת א) אין כל חדש תחת השמש אלא לאקרובי פיתחא
Rava darshened, the pasuk states, אם בריאה יברא ה, "If Hashem creates a Creation..." Moshe said, Master of the Universe, if Gehennim was created - אם בריאה, well and good. And if not, יברא ה, Hashem should create. How so? If to actually create, the verse in Kohelet stated that אין כל חדש תחת השמש, there is nothing new under the sun. Rather, to bring the mouth of the earth near.
Rava is deconstructing the pasuk. One can read it on a pshat level - if Hashem creates a new creation, then it will show something - namely, that Hashem sent Moshe. However, Midrashically, אם בריאה need not mean "If a creation," to be followed by a verb, but rather can be taken, in a grammatically accurate matter (working really locally) to mean "If it has been created." יברא ה still means "Hashem should create." But why should Hashem create if it has been created? Thus, the two phrases are separate. If it has been created, then nothing needs be done but bring it forth. If not, Hashem should create.
I have a feeling that this is really the extent of Rava's drash. The question and answer seems stamaitic in nature to me. It asks, on the second possibility, how Hashem could make a new Creation after the 6 days of Creation, and answers that a new Creation is not meant, but rather the miraculous phenomenon of the mouth coming closer. That is, the mouth to Gehinnom is usually in one spot, and here it was moved closer, to their actual location.
This question and answer is not present in Midrash Rabba in Devarim. Further, the first part of the Midrash that Rava says is in Hebrew while the question and answer is in Aramaic. Further, this problem of "nothing new under the sun" is *specifically* that problem of being created during the 6 days of Creation or not. That is the plain meaning/import behind Rava's drash. If it was Creation, no big deal. If not, even though in general You do not Create things anew, here please do so.
We see this reflected in Pirkei Avot:
Ten things were created at twilight on the eve of the first Sabbath:
the mouth of the earth (Numbers 16:32);
the mouth of the well (Numbers 21:16);
the mouth of the ass (Numbers 22:28);
the rainbow;
the manna;
Aaron's staff;
the Shamir, writing;
the inscription on the tablets of the Ten Commandments;
and the tablets themselves.
Some also include the evil spirits, the grave of Moses, the ram of Abraham; and others add the original tongs, for tongs must be made with tongs.
"Twilight on the eve of the first Sabbath" means just as the last of the 6 days of Creation was going out, Hashem created it. Why? Because there was to be "nothing new under the sun," so anything that would in the future go out of the bounds was not really - Hashem already created it.
This goes according to אם בריאה - if it had already been created. The opposite opinion would naturally be that this mouth was created later, not that it had been created but Moshe was asking for it to be moved over.
Perhaps more later. It is 12:30 and I've had a long day...
ISRAEL CREATES SUPER-TOMATO (from Arutz Sheva)
An Israeli company has genetically created a super-tomato, one that can withstand a virus that devastates tomato crops every year the world over.
Hazera Genetics, an Israeli seed breeder, launched the world's first tomato strain that is immune to the ‘Yellow Lead Curl Tomato Virus,' according to a report in The Marker. The resistant tomato, called ‘Tracie’ by its researchers, is a breakthrough for tomato farmers, especially those cultivating the long-lived species that thrive over long periods rather than specific seasons. The resistant breed can be grown in open, ventilated hothouses throughout the summer, which reduces costs and improves both the quality of the fruit and the crop size.
Dr. Alon Haverfeld, who manages Hazera’s tomato seeds division, predicts that profits will be high. Dr. Haverfeld stated that price per kilogram of seed would range from $20,000 to $30,000, with the company aiming to reach sales of $1 million next year, and $5-7 million within three to four years.
Tomato Yellow Lead Curl Virus, or TYLCV, is devastating to Israeli tomato farmers. No resistant strains have been found since the plague first erupted in the 1930s, and conventional insecticides proved ineffective at preventing the spread of the virus. The result was a severe blow to the cultivation of tomatoes in open fields in favor of hermetically sealed hothouses. TYLCV affects tomato crops throughout the Mediterranean region, the Middle East and tropical areas of Africa and Central America. In Israel, cultivation of tomatoes in sealed hothouses has the downside of creating moisture and overheating problems.
Hazera Genetics, an Israeli seed breeder, launched the world's first tomato strain that is immune to the ‘Yellow Lead Curl Tomato Virus,' according to a report in The Marker. The resistant tomato, called ‘Tracie’ by its researchers, is a breakthrough for tomato farmers, especially those cultivating the long-lived species that thrive over long periods rather than specific seasons. The resistant breed can be grown in open, ventilated hothouses throughout the summer, which reduces costs and improves both the quality of the fruit and the crop size.
Dr. Alon Haverfeld, who manages Hazera’s tomato seeds division, predicts that profits will be high. Dr. Haverfeld stated that price per kilogram of seed would range from $20,000 to $30,000, with the company aiming to reach sales of $1 million next year, and $5-7 million within three to four years.
Tomato Yellow Lead Curl Virus, or TYLCV, is devastating to Israeli tomato farmers. No resistant strains have been found since the plague first erupted in the 1930s, and conventional insecticides proved ineffective at preventing the spread of the virus. The result was a severe blow to the cultivation of tomatoes in open fields in favor of hermetically sealed hothouses. TYLCV affects tomato crops throughout the Mediterranean region, the Middle East and tropical areas of Africa and Central America. In Israel, cultivation of tomatoes in sealed hothouses has the downside of creating moisture and overheating problems.
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Wow
Powerful interview with David N. Weiss, the scriptwriter for Shrek 2, over at Aish.com. (via the Town Crier)
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Source texts for a class in Midrash I am giving this coming Monday
Midrash Rabba Bereishit Parasha 20
וּלְאָדָם אָמַר, כִּי-שָׁמַעְתָּ לְקוֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ רבי שמלאי אומר בישוב הדעת באת עליו א"ל מה את סבר שאני מתה וחוה אחרת נבראת לך (קהלת א) (וְ)אֵין כָּל-חָדָשׁ, תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ מה את סבור שאני מתה ואתה יושב לך הטליס (ישעיה מה) לֹא-תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ, לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ רבנן אמרין התחילה מיללת עליו בקולה הה"ד ולאדם אמר כי שמעת לדברי אשתך אין כתיב כאן אלא לקול אשתך וגו'
Bereishit 3:17:
Kohelet 1:9
Isaiah 45:18:
Rabbi Simlai says, with a thought-out argument she came upon him. She said to him, 'What do you think? That I will die and another Eve will be created for you? (Kohelet 1:9) There is nothing new under the sun*! What do you think? That I will die and you will sit in solitude? (Isaiah 45:18) 'He created it not a waste, He formed it to be inhabited.'
The rabbis responded, she began to wail with her voice. This is what is written, 'And unto Adam He said: 'Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife...'
Midrash Rabba Devarim parasha 4:
א"ר אבין לא בקשה אלא לבכות וליילל עליו בקולה ואכל ממנו שכך כתיב לקול אשתך לדברי אשתך אין כתיב כאן אלא לקול אשתך
R Avin said, she did did not attempt anything except to cry and wail upon him with her voice and he ate from it, as it states, 'To the voice of your wife.' 'To the words of your wife is not written here, but to the voice of your wife.'
* There is nothing new under the sun probably means there can be nothing new created after the 6 days of creation.
Midrash Rabba Shemot parasha 10:
וַתַּעַל הַצְּפַרְדֵּעַ וַתְּכַס אֶת וגו' תני רבי עקיבא אומר צפרדע אחת היתה והיא
השריצה ומלאה את ארץ מצרים אמר לו רבי אלעזר בן עזריה עקיבא מה לך אצל הגדה כלה מדברותיך ולך אצל נגעים ואהלות צפרדע אחת היתה ושרקה להן ובאו.
Shemot 7:27-28
Shemot 8:2-4:
'And the frog[s] came up, and (it) covered, etc'. A brayta (See Sanhedrin page 67): R Akiva says, a single frog there was and she multiplied and filled the land of Egypt.
Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to him, Akiva, what have you to do with Haggada? End your words and go to (the Laws) of (the impurities) of Skin Ailments and Tents. (Rather,) there was a single frog and she whistled* to them and they came.
Tanchuma Vaera, 14:
כתוב אחד אומר וְשָׁרַץ הַיְאֹר, צְפַרְדְּעִים, וכתוב אחד אומר וַתַּעַל הַצְּפַרְדֵּעַ. רבי עקיבא אומר, צפרדע אחת היתה, והיו המצרים מכין אותה ומתזת צפרדעים הרבה.
One verse states 'And the river shall swarm with frogs' and the other verse states, 'And the frog(s) came up.' Rabbi Akiva says, it was a single frog, and the Egyptians would hit it and it spit out many frogs.
*שרקה (whistled) = I would claim there is a drash from Sharatz, with the voiced Tzadi switching with the voiced Kuf. Letters in consonantal groups switch off with one another.
וּלְאָדָם אָמַר, כִּי-שָׁמַעְתָּ לְקוֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ רבי שמלאי אומר בישוב הדעת באת עליו א"ל מה את סבר שאני מתה וחוה אחרת נבראת לך (קהלת א) (וְ)אֵין כָּל-חָדָשׁ, תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ מה את סבור שאני מתה ואתה יושב לך הטליס (ישעיה מה) לֹא-תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ, לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ רבנן אמרין התחילה מיללת עליו בקולה הה"ד ולאדם אמר כי שמעת לדברי אשתך אין כתיב כאן אלא לקול אשתך וגו'
Bereishit 3:17:
וּלְאָדָם אָמַר, כִּי-שָׁמַעְתָּ לְקוֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ, וַתֹּאכַל מִן-הָעֵץ, אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִיךָ לֵאמֹר לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ--אֲרוּרָה הָאֲדָמָה, בַּעֲבוּרֶךָ, בְּעִצָּבוֹן תֹּאכְלֶנָּה, כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ.
And unto Adam He said: 'Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying: Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.
Kohelet 1:9
מַה-שֶּׁהָיָה, הוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה, וּמַה-שֶּׁנַּעֲשָׂה, הוּא שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה; וְאֵין כָּל-חָדָשׁ, תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ.
"That which hath been is that which shall be, and that which hath been done is that which shall be done; and there is nothing new under the sun."
Isaiah 45:18:
כִּי כֹה אָמַר-ה בּוֹרֵא הַשָּׁמַיִם הוּא הָאֱלֹקִים, יֹצֵר הָאָרֶץ וְעֹשָׂהּ הוּא כוֹנְנָהּ--לֹא-תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ, לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ; אֲנִי ה, וְאֵין עוֹד.
"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens, He is God; that formed the earth and made it, He established it, He created it not a waste, He formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD, and there is none else."
Rabbi Simlai says, with a thought-out argument she came upon him. She said to him, 'What do you think? That I will die and another Eve will be created for you? (Kohelet 1:9) There is nothing new under the sun*! What do you think? That I will die and you will sit in solitude? (Isaiah 45:18) 'He created it not a waste, He formed it to be inhabited.'
The rabbis responded, she began to wail with her voice. This is what is written, 'And unto Adam He said: 'Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife...'
Midrash Rabba Devarim parasha 4:
א"ר אבין לא בקשה אלא לבכות וליילל עליו בקולה ואכל ממנו שכך כתיב לקול אשתך לדברי אשתך אין כתיב כאן אלא לקול אשתך
R Avin said, she did did not attempt anything except to cry and wail upon him with her voice and he ate from it, as it states, 'To the voice of your wife.' 'To the words of your wife is not written here, but to the voice of your wife.'
* There is nothing new under the sun probably means there can be nothing new created after the 6 days of creation.
Midrash Rabba Shemot parasha 10:
וַתַּעַל הַצְּפַרְדֵּעַ וַתְּכַס אֶת וגו' תני רבי עקיבא אומר צפרדע אחת היתה והיא
השריצה ומלאה את ארץ מצרים אמר לו רבי אלעזר בן עזריה עקיבא מה לך אצל הגדה כלה מדברותיך ולך אצל נגעים ואהלות צפרדע אחת היתה ושרקה להן ובאו.
Shemot 7:27-28
וְאִם-מָאֵן אַתָּה, לְשַׁלֵּחַ: הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי, נֹגֵף אֶת-כָּל-גְּבוּלְךָ--בַּצְפַרְדְּעִים.
וְשָׁרַץ הַיְאֹר, צְפַרְדְּעִים, וְעָלוּ וּבָאוּ בְּבֵיתֶךָ, וּבַחֲדַר מִשְׁכָּבְךָ וְעַל-מִטָּתֶךָ; וּבְבֵית עֲבָדֶיךָ וּבְעַמֶּךָ, וּבְתַנּוּרֶיךָ וּבְמִשְׁאֲרוֹתֶיךָ
"And if thou refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with frogs.
And the river shall swarm with frogs, which shall go up and come into thy house, and into thy bed-chamber, and upon thy bed, and into the house of thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thine ovens, and into thy kneading-troughs."
Shemot 8:2-4:
וַיֵּט אַהֲרֹן אֶת-יָדוֹ, עַל מֵימֵי מִצְרָיִם; וַתַּעַל, הַצְּפַרְדֵּעַ, וַתְּכַס, אֶת-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.
וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-כֵן הַחַרְטֻמִּים, בְּלָטֵיהֶם; וַיַּעֲלוּ אֶת-הַצְפַרְדְּעִים, עַל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.
וַיִּקְרָא פַרְעֹה לְמֹשֶׁה וּלְאַהֲרֹן, וַיֹּאמֶר הַעְתִּירוּ אֶל-יְהוָה, וְיָסֵר הַצְפַרְדְּעִים, מִמֶּנִּי וּמֵעַמִּי; וַאֲשַׁלְּחָה, אֶת-הָעָם, וְיִזְבְּחוּ, ה.
"And Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt; and the frogs came up, and covered the land of Egypt.
And the magicians did in like manner with their secret arts, and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt.
Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron, and said: 'Entreat the LORD, that He take away the frogs from me, and from my people; and I will let the people go, that they may sacrifice unto the LORD.'"
'And the frog[s] came up, and (it) covered, etc'. A brayta (See Sanhedrin page 67): R Akiva says, a single frog there was and she multiplied and filled the land of Egypt.
Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to him, Akiva, what have you to do with Haggada? End your words and go to (the Laws) of (the impurities) of Skin Ailments and Tents. (Rather,) there was a single frog and she whistled* to them and they came.
Tanchuma Vaera, 14:
כתוב אחד אומר וְשָׁרַץ הַיְאֹר, צְפַרְדְּעִים, וכתוב אחד אומר וַתַּעַל הַצְּפַרְדֵּעַ. רבי עקיבא אומר, צפרדע אחת היתה, והיו המצרים מכין אותה ומתזת צפרדעים הרבה.
One verse states 'And the river shall swarm with frogs' and the other verse states, 'And the frog(s) came up.' Rabbi Akiva says, it was a single frog, and the Egyptians would hit it and it spit out many frogs.
*שרקה (whistled) = I would claim there is a drash from Sharatz, with the voiced Tzadi switching with the voiced Kuf. Letters in consonantal groups switch off with one another.
Updates on parshat Shlach divrei torah
I updated two of my divrei Torah from last week. First, I found a local source for the midrash of Calev's threats to the other spies.
Second, I reconsidered the dual etymology of Nachal Eshkol, and saw it was more of a solution to another issue than a problem in its own right.
Follow the links for details...
Second, I reconsidered the dual etymology of Nachal Eshkol, and saw it was more of a solution to another issue than a problem in its own right.
Follow the links for details...
Friday, June 11, 2004
Shlach #3: Hoshea --> Yehoshua
In the list of the spies Moshe sends to spy out the land...
Bamidbar 13:8
and then, in pasuk 16:
This is something of a big deal. Consider the following pasuk, when Hashem tells His name to Moshe:
Shemot 6:2-3
Thus, Hashem tells His name YKVK, to Moshe.
There is backup to the assertion that this name was not known before.
A theophoric name is literally one which "carries God." That is, it is a name which contains the name of God in it. We see many such theophoric names in Chumash.
Examples: Shlumiel ben Tzurishaddai, עַמִּיאֵל בֶּן-גְּמַלִּי, סְתוּר בֶּן-מִיכָאֵל, גְּאוּאֵל בֶּן-מָכִי.
However, all those names use the divine names Shakkai and Kel. There is another form of theophoric name, which used Yeho or Yahu in the beginning or end. For example, Yirmiya -> Yirmiyahu. Yechonia -> YehoYachin. Tzidkiyahu. Shallum -> (I would claim) Shelemyahu. And we see Baruch ben Neryah had the theophoric name (they found a signet ring) Berechyahu ben Neryahu.
However, this is in Tanach in general. In Chumash we do not seem to find this. (One exception comes to mind - Yehuda - but that is not what the Yehu in the beginning of his name means.) In Chumash, all we find are the other names of God in theophoric names.
I would claim this shows the truth in Hashem's statement.
וָאֵרָא, אֶל-אַבְרָהָם אֶל-יִצְחָק וְאֶל-יַעֲקֹב--בְּאֵל שַׁדָּי; וּשְׁמִי ה, לֹא נוֹדַעְתִּי לָהֶם
Indeed, we see the Israelites only knew Hashem by the names Kel and Shakkai, and that is what made it into their theophoric names.
Meanwhile, Moshe was introduced to Hashem's name of YKVK, which corresponds to the Yeho/Yahu beginning and ending, and he is the one who gives Hoshea his theophoric name, and uses the Yeho beginning to form Yehoshua.
I just thought this was all really cool...
Bamidbar 13:8
לְמַטֵּה אֶפְרָיִם, הוֹשֵׁעַ בִּן-נוּן.
"Of the tribe of Ephraim, Hoshea the son of Nun."
and then, in pasuk 16:
אֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת הָאֲנָשִׁים, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁלַח מֹשֶׁה לָתוּר אֶת-הָאָרֶץ; וַיִּקְרָא מֹשֶׁה לְהוֹשֵׁעַ בִּן-נוּן, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.
"These are the names of the men that Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Hoshea the son of Nun Joshua."
This is something of a big deal. Consider the following pasuk, when Hashem tells His name to Moshe:
Shemot 6:2-3
וַיְדַבֵּר אֱלֹקִים, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה; וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, אֲנִי ה.
וָאֵרָא, אֶל-אַבְרָהָם אֶל-יִצְחָק וְאֶל-יַעֲקֹב--בְּאֵל שַׁדָּי; וּשְׁמִי ה, לֹא נוֹדַעְתִּי לָהֶם.
"And God spoke unto Moses, and said unto him: 'I am YKVK;
and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty (Kel Shakkai), but by My name YKVK I made Me not known to them.
Thus, Hashem tells His name YKVK, to Moshe.
There is backup to the assertion that this name was not known before.
A theophoric name is literally one which "carries God." That is, it is a name which contains the name of God in it. We see many such theophoric names in Chumash.
Examples: Shlumiel ben Tzurishaddai, עַמִּיאֵל בֶּן-גְּמַלִּי, סְתוּר בֶּן-מִיכָאֵל, גְּאוּאֵל בֶּן-מָכִי.
However, all those names use the divine names Shakkai and Kel. There is another form of theophoric name, which used Yeho or Yahu in the beginning or end. For example, Yirmiya -> Yirmiyahu. Yechonia -> YehoYachin. Tzidkiyahu. Shallum -> (I would claim) Shelemyahu. And we see Baruch ben Neryah had the theophoric name (they found a signet ring) Berechyahu ben Neryahu.
However, this is in Tanach in general. In Chumash we do not seem to find this. (One exception comes to mind - Yehuda - but that is not what the Yehu in the beginning of his name means.) In Chumash, all we find are the other names of God in theophoric names.
I would claim this shows the truth in Hashem's statement.
וָאֵרָא, אֶל-אַבְרָהָם אֶל-יִצְחָק וְאֶל-יַעֲקֹב--בְּאֵל שַׁדָּי; וּשְׁמִי ה, לֹא נוֹדַעְתִּי לָהֶם
Indeed, we see the Israelites only knew Hashem by the names Kel and Shakkai, and that is what made it into their theophoric names.
Meanwhile, Moshe was introduced to Hashem's name of YKVK, which corresponds to the Yeho/Yahu beginning and ending, and he is the one who gives Hoshea his theophoric name, and uses the Yeho beginning to form Yehoshua.
I just thought this was all really cool...
Thursday, June 10, 2004
Parshat Shlach #2:
Bamidbar 13:23
The midrash rabba on parashat shlach states:
וַיָּבֹאוּ עַד-נַחַל אֶשְׁכֹּל - לא רצו לטל מפרות ארץ ישראל. אלולי כלב ששלף את הזין וירץ לפניהם ואמר להם אם אין אתם נוטלים או אתם הורגים אותי או אני הורג אתכם, לא היו נוטלים. אִם-לֹא הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר דָּרְכָה רַגְלְךָ בָּהּ, לְךָ תִהְיֶה
"And they came unto the valley of Eshcol" - they did not wish to take from the fruits of the land of Israel. Had not Caleb unsheathed his sword and ran in front of them and said to them, 'If you do not take (the fruits to show to the Israelites), either you will kill me or I will kill you,' they would not have taken. (Then it cites the verse from Yehoshua, '...Surely the land whereon thy foot hath trodden shall be ___ to thee..." (the word inheritance from the full verse is not in the citation, so I left it out of the translation.)
The full verse in sefer yehoshua is:
Yehoshua 14:9
Why am I citing this midrash? Three reasons. First, I think it is exciting. Second, it fits in with a post I made earlier this week, about putting one's own life at risk to save another person's life.
There, I translated the following yerushalmi:
This is the same language as that used by Calev. Either you will kill me or I will kill you. It shows that you will stand up forcefully for something. Perhaps this midrash can be used to show how the phrase is used in the gemara, which can perhaps help determine what the halacha is on this matter.
Thirdly, I'm interested in how the prooftext from Yehoshua supports the midrash.
The commentaries address this (having to do with where the spies wanted to go, and Calev being rewarded with the land as an inheritance for going where they did not, which really does not fit in well with the midrash and specifically the taking of the fruit, Calev's action of unsheathing his sword, and the language of his threat). My own suggestion: the only cited text was אִם-לֹא הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר דָּרְכָה רַגְלְךָ בָּהּ, לְךָ תִהְיֶה, so we should not focus on the Nachala = inheritance aspects of it.
Rather, the midrash deconstructs the citation as follows: אִם-לֹא, "If not" - if you do not take from the fruit of the land. הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר דָּרְכָה רַגְלְךָ בָּהּ - "The earth upon which you," - the spies" - "are currently walking over", לְךָ תִהְיֶה, "will be to you," that is, you will be buried there, (sort of like a mes mitzvah is koneh his 4 amos for his burial) this earth will be yours. Perhaps we can add text from the end of the pasuk to the quote: עַד-עוֹלָם - "for ever" - with threatening finality.
Update: We should also look locally for the drasha. The local pasuk is:
וַיָּבֹאוּ עַד-נַחַל אֶשְׁכֹּל, וַיִּכְרְתוּ מִשָּׁם זְמוֹרָה וְאֶשְׁכּוֹל עֲנָבִים אֶחָד, וַיִּשָּׂאֻהוּ בַמּוֹט, בִּשְׁנָיִם; וּמִן-הָרִמֹּנִים, וּמִן-הַתְּאֵנִים.
Now, only the first part of the verse is cited: וַיָּבֹאוּ עַד-נַחַל אֶשְׁכֹּל. However, often the drasha comes from the part of the verse not cited.
Here, I think the drasha might actually come from the next verse:
We can say it is a mikra misuras, a verse which is out of order and must be shuffled (midrashicly, at least).
אֲשֶׁר-כָּרְתוּ מִשָּׁם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
עַל אֹדוֹת הָאֶשְׁכּוֹל
that the Jews (=spies) were (almost/threatened to be) cut off from there
on behalf of the cluster of grapes.
If so, the verse in Yehoshua might still be drashened as I suggested, in the context of this drash on the local pasuk, or we can revert to considering it Calev's reward (after all, the midrash does use the word לפיכך in introducing the pasuk from Yehoshua).
וַיָּבֹאוּ עַד-נַחַל אֶשְׁכֹּל, וַיִּכְרְתוּ מִשָּׁם זְמוֹרָה וְאֶשְׁכּוֹל עֲנָבִים אֶחָד, וַיִּשָּׂאֻהוּ בַמּוֹט, בִּשְׁנָיִם; וּמִן-הָרִמֹּנִים, וּמִן-הַתְּאֵנִים.
"And they came unto the valley of Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, and they bore it upon a pole between two; they took also of the pomegranates, and of the figs."
The midrash rabba on parashat shlach states:
וַיָּבֹאוּ עַד-נַחַל אֶשְׁכֹּל - לא רצו לטל מפרות ארץ ישראל. אלולי כלב ששלף את הזין וירץ לפניהם ואמר להם אם אין אתם נוטלים או אתם הורגים אותי או אני הורג אתכם, לא היו נוטלים. אִם-לֹא הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר דָּרְכָה רַגְלְךָ בָּהּ, לְךָ תִהְיֶה
"And they came unto the valley of Eshcol" - they did not wish to take from the fruits of the land of Israel. Had not Caleb unsheathed his sword and ran in front of them and said to them, 'If you do not take (the fruits to show to the Israelites), either you will kill me or I will kill you,' they would not have taken. (Then it cites the verse from Yehoshua, '...Surely the land whereon thy foot hath trodden shall be ___ to thee..." (the word inheritance from the full verse is not in the citation, so I left it out of the translation.)
The full verse in sefer yehoshua is:
Yehoshua 14:9
וַיִּשָּׁבַע מֹשֶׁה, בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לֵאמֹר, אִם-לֹא הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר דָּרְכָה רַגְלְךָ בָּהּ, לְךָ תִהְיֶה לְנַחֲלָה וּלְבָנֶיךָ עַד-עוֹלָם: כִּי מִלֵּאתָ, אַחֲרֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהָי.
"And Moses swore on that day, saying: Surely the land whereon thy foot hath trodden shall be an inheritance to thee and to thy children for ever, because thou hast wholly followed the LORD my God."
Why am I citing this midrash? Three reasons. First, I think it is exciting. Second, it fits in with a post I made earlier this week, about putting one's own life at risk to save another person's life.
There, I translated the following yerushalmi:
Rabbi Ami was captured by bandits. Rabbi Yonatan said, the dead one will be wrapped in his sheets. {that is, there is no way to save him.}
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, 'I will kill or be killed' (lit: Until I kill (or) I will be killed. i.e. I will try to save him, by killing all his captors, or will die in the process. We know from elsewhere that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was a bandit, skilled in weapons, before he repented and became a scholar.) I will go and save him by force.
He went and persuaded them (convinced them to turn R Ami over, perhaps with threats) and they gave him over to him.
He (Resh Lakish) said to them (the bandits) go to the Old One (Rabbi Yochanan) and he will pray for you. They went to Rabbi Yochanan (note, this is *not* Rabbi Yonatan of before, unless it is a typo.)
He (R Yochanan) said to them, 'that which was in your hearts to do to him should come to pass on you.' They did not reach Apipsiros before they all went (died).
This is the same language as that used by Calev. Either you will kill me or I will kill you. It shows that you will stand up forcefully for something. Perhaps this midrash can be used to show how the phrase is used in the gemara, which can perhaps help determine what the halacha is on this matter.
Thirdly, I'm interested in how the prooftext from Yehoshua supports the midrash.
The commentaries address this (having to do with where the spies wanted to go, and Calev being rewarded with the land as an inheritance for going where they did not, which really does not fit in well with the midrash and specifically the taking of the fruit, Calev's action of unsheathing his sword, and the language of his threat). My own suggestion: the only cited text was אִם-לֹא הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר דָּרְכָה רַגְלְךָ בָּהּ, לְךָ תִהְיֶה, so we should not focus on the Nachala = inheritance aspects of it.
Rather, the midrash deconstructs the citation as follows: אִם-לֹא, "If not" - if you do not take from the fruit of the land. הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר דָּרְכָה רַגְלְךָ בָּהּ - "The earth upon which you," - the spies" - "are currently walking over", לְךָ תִהְיֶה, "will be to you," that is, you will be buried there, (sort of like a mes mitzvah is koneh his 4 amos for his burial) this earth will be yours. Perhaps we can add text from the end of the pasuk to the quote: עַד-עוֹלָם - "for ever" - with threatening finality.
Update: We should also look locally for the drasha. The local pasuk is:
וַיָּבֹאוּ עַד-נַחַל אֶשְׁכֹּל, וַיִּכְרְתוּ מִשָּׁם זְמוֹרָה וְאֶשְׁכּוֹל עֲנָבִים אֶחָד, וַיִּשָּׂאֻהוּ בַמּוֹט, בִּשְׁנָיִם; וּמִן-הָרִמֹּנִים, וּמִן-הַתְּאֵנִים.
Now, only the first part of the verse is cited: וַיָּבֹאוּ עַד-נַחַל אֶשְׁכֹּל. However, often the drasha comes from the part of the verse not cited.
Here, I think the drasha might actually come from the next verse:
לַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא, קָרָא נַחַל אֶשְׁכּוֹל, עַל אֹדוֹת הָאֶשְׁכּוֹל, אֲשֶׁר-כָּרְתוּ מִשָּׁם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
"That place was called the valley of Eshcol, because of the cluster which the children of Israel cut down from thence."
We can say it is a mikra misuras, a verse which is out of order and must be shuffled (midrashicly, at least).
אֲשֶׁר-כָּרְתוּ מִשָּׁם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
עַל אֹדוֹת הָאֶשְׁכּוֹל
that the Jews (=spies) were (almost/threatened to be) cut off from there
on behalf of the cluster of grapes.
If so, the verse in Yehoshua might still be drashened as I suggested, in the context of this drash on the local pasuk, or we can revert to considering it Calev's reward (after all, the midrash does use the word לפיכך in introducing the pasuk from Yehoshua).
Parshat Shlach #1: A Dual Etymology
As the spies toured the land, they came to a spot called Nachal Eshkol (the Valley of Eshkol)
Bamidbar 13:24-25
The midrash Rabba on Shlach says:
לַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא, קָרָא נַחַל אֶשְׁכּוֹל, זה שאמר הכתוב, מַגִּיד מֵרֵאשִׁית אַחֲרִית, שהכל צפוי היה לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא. אשכול אוהבו של אברהם היה, ונקרא אשכול על אודות האשכול שעתידין ישראל לכרות ממקומו
Basically, the midrash cites a pasuk in Yeshaya 46:10:
מַגִּיד מֵרֵאשִׁית אַחֲרִית, וּמִקֶּדֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא-נַעֲשׂוּ; אֹמֵר עֲצָתִי תָקוּם, וְכָל-חֶפְצִי אֶעֱשֶׂה.
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done; saying: 'My counsel shall stand, and all My pleasure will I do'; "
to show that Hashem knows what will happen in the end, from the beginning. Eshkol was a friend of Avraham (and that is why he called it the valley of Eshkol), and it was called Eshkol (Hashem arranged that it be called such) because of the Eshkol=cluster of grapes that the Jews would eventually take from there.
How do we know Eshkol was Avraham's friend? We can look at Bereishit 14:24, where the king of Sodom offers Avraham spoils of war, and Avraham refuses, but tells him to give to those who went with him to war:
Anyway, the midrash is answering the issue of dual etymology. Since Eshkol was a contemporary of Avraham, it would make sense that a place names Nachal Eshkol from that area would be called that, especially since Mamrei was another of these friends of Avraham, and there was a place called Elonei Mamrei.
The midrash seems to be reading the pasuk thusly:
לַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא, קָרָא נַחַל אֶשְׁכּוֹל - to that place, Avraham (or Hashem), in the past, called Nachal Eshkol, עַל אֹדוֹת הָאֶשְׁכּוֹל, אֲשֶׁר-כָּרְתוּ מִשָּׁם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, also because of the Eshkol that the Jews (switch here from past כָּרְתוּ to future שעתידין לכרות) would cut from there.
Update: Come to think about it, the dual etymology is probably not the problem here (since there is nothing to force the dual etymology), but rather the answer. The problem is more likely that the previous pasuk calls it Nachal Eshkol (and they arrived at Nachal Eshkol) and then we read that they took an action that led to the place name. This implies that the place had this name before they arrived there, and the answer is that it indeed did.
Bamidbar 13:24-25
וַיָּבֹאוּ עַד-נַחַל אֶשְׁכֹּל, וַיִּכְרְתוּ מִשָּׁם זְמוֹרָה וְאֶשְׁכּוֹל עֲנָבִים אֶחָד, וַיִּשָּׂאֻהוּ בַמּוֹט, בִּשְׁנָיִם; וּמִן-הָרִמֹּנִים, וּמִן-הַתְּאֵנִים.
לַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא, קָרָא נַחַל אֶשְׁכּוֹל, עַל אֹדוֹת הָאֶשְׁכּוֹל, אֲשֶׁר-כָּרְתוּ מִשָּׁם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
And they came unto the valley of Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, and they bore it upon a pole between two; they took also of the pomegranates, and of the figs.
That place was called the valley of Eshcol, because of the cluster which the children of Israel cut down from thence.
The midrash Rabba on Shlach says:
לַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא, קָרָא נַחַל אֶשְׁכּוֹל, זה שאמר הכתוב, מַגִּיד מֵרֵאשִׁית אַחֲרִית, שהכל צפוי היה לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא. אשכול אוהבו של אברהם היה, ונקרא אשכול על אודות האשכול שעתידין ישראל לכרות ממקומו
Basically, the midrash cites a pasuk in Yeshaya 46:10:
מַגִּיד מֵרֵאשִׁית אַחֲרִית, וּמִקֶּדֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא-נַעֲשׂוּ; אֹמֵר עֲצָתִי תָקוּם, וְכָל-חֶפְצִי אֶעֱשֶׂה.
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done; saying: 'My counsel shall stand, and all My pleasure will I do'; "
to show that Hashem knows what will happen in the end, from the beginning. Eshkol was a friend of Avraham (and that is why he called it the valley of Eshkol), and it was called Eshkol (Hashem arranged that it be called such) because of the Eshkol=cluster of grapes that the Jews would eventually take from there.
How do we know Eshkol was Avraham's friend? We can look at Bereishit 14:24, where the king of Sodom offers Avraham spoils of war, and Avraham refuses, but tells him to give to those who went with him to war:
בִּלְעָדַי, רַק אֲשֶׁר אָכְלוּ הַנְּעָרִים, וְחֵלֶק הָאֲנָשִׁים, אֲשֶׁר הָלְכוּ אִתִּי: עָנֵר אֶשְׁכֹּל וּמַמְרֵא, הֵם יִקְחוּ חֶלְקָם.
"save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, let them take their portion.'"
Anyway, the midrash is answering the issue of dual etymology. Since Eshkol was a contemporary of Avraham, it would make sense that a place names Nachal Eshkol from that area would be called that, especially since Mamrei was another of these friends of Avraham, and there was a place called Elonei Mamrei.
The midrash seems to be reading the pasuk thusly:
לַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא, קָרָא נַחַל אֶשְׁכּוֹל - to that place, Avraham (or Hashem), in the past, called Nachal Eshkol, עַל אֹדוֹת הָאֶשְׁכּוֹל, אֲשֶׁר-כָּרְתוּ מִשָּׁם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, also because of the Eshkol that the Jews (switch here from past כָּרְתוּ to future שעתידין לכרות) would cut from there.
Update: Come to think about it, the dual etymology is probably not the problem here (since there is nothing to force the dual etymology), but rather the answer. The problem is more likely that the previous pasuk calls it Nachal Eshkol (and they arrived at Nachal Eshkol) and then we read that they took an action that led to the place name. This implies that the place had this name before they arrived there, and the answer is that it indeed did.
Parshat Behaalotcha #6: The Manna, on the other hand
Bamidbar 11:7
וְהַמָּן, כִּזְרַע-גַּד הוּא; וְעֵינוֹ, כְּעֵין הַבְּדֹלַח.
"Now the manna was like coriander seed, and the appearance thereof as the appearance of bdellium."
Coriander seed:
and the coriander plant looks like this:
Bdellium:
[Update: as per Eliyahu's suggestion - please note that I am just relying here on the JPS translation, for the purpose of making a cute point. I am not trying to specifically identify the words in the pasuk as specific fish, melons, onions, leeks, garlic, bdellium, or coriander seed.]
Update: Assuming the identification above is correct, then guggul resin, which is the sap that comes from the above branches, looks like this:
Courtesy of this website.
וְהַמָּן, כִּזְרַע-גַּד הוּא; וְעֵינוֹ, כְּעֵין הַבְּדֹלַח.
"Now the manna was like coriander seed, and the appearance thereof as the appearance of bdellium."
Coriander seed:
and the coriander plant looks like this:
Bdellium:
[Update: as per Eliyahu's suggestion - please note that I am just relying here on the JPS translation, for the purpose of making a cute point. I am not trying to specifically identify the words in the pasuk as specific fish, melons, onions, leeks, garlic, bdellium, or coriander seed.]
Update: Assuming the identification above is correct, then guggul resin, which is the sap that comes from the above branches, looks like this:
Courtesy of this website.
Parshat Behaalotcha #5: Would you go back to slavery in Egypt for this?
[Update: as per Eliyahu's suggestion - please note that I am just relying here on the JPS translation, for the purpose of making a cute point. I am not trying to specifically identify the words in the pasuk as specific fish, melons, onions, leeks, garlic, bdellium, or coriander seed.]
Bamidbar 11:5
We remember the fish, which we were wont to eat in Egypt for nought...
(the following are mummified fish from Egypt:)
the cucumbers...
and the melons...
and the leeks...
and the onions...
and the garlic
Bamidbar 11:5
זָכַרְנוּ, אֶת-הַדָּגָה, אֲשֶׁר-נֹאכַל בְּמִצְרַיִם, חִנָּם; אֵת הַקִּשֻּׁאִים, וְאֵת הָאֲבַטִּחִים, וְאֶת-הֶחָצִיר וְאֶת-הַבְּצָלִים, וְאֶת-הַשּׁוּמִים.
We remember the fish, which we were wont to eat in Egypt for nought; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic;
We remember the fish, which we were wont to eat in Egypt for nought...
(the following are mummified fish from Egypt:)
the cucumbers...
and the melons...
and the leeks...
and the onions...
and the garlic
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Parshat Behaalotcha #4: BeKetuvim
I know it is parshat Shlach, but I still have some more to say about parashat Behaalotcha so I will continue to post on that for a while. One of the psukim I mentioned earlier was about Eldad and Medad prophesying (there is no word prophesizing, or prophesize) in the camp. In Bamidbar 11:26:
What did they prophesy? Tg Yonatan gives several prophecies. One of them, that of Eldad, was:
This is a very deep mishrash. I do not think this is some random prophesy ascribed to Eldad. As I have seen on occasion, sometimes you have to look both near and far in order to fully appreciate the midrash.
Consider the next two psukim, 27 and 28:
We can already see what is happening. The words in close proximity are taken to be Eldad's prophesy. It is Eldad and not Medad because Eldad was listed first in the pasuk: אֶלְדָּד וּמֵידָד, מִתְנַבְּאִים בַּמַּחֲנֶה; Medad's prophecy will come later.
Then, וַיַּעַן is taken from the phrase וַיַּעַן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן-נוּן to mean "And he said," that is, Eldad said. What follows is Eldad's prophecy. And וַיַּעַן is singular, so it is only Eldad's prophecy, and not that of Medad. What did he prophesy? יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן-נוּן, מְשָׁרֵת מֹשֶׁה מִבְּחֻרָיו. Thus, he prophesied about Yehoshua ben Nun, who ministered to Moshe. Note that in the prophecy Yehoshua is referred to as משמש משריתא, who ministered, paralleling that of the pasuk.
Further, Yehoshua will stand in the place of Moshe. מִבְּחֻרָיו means "from his (Yehoshua's) youth. But, it can be taken as something like Ba Acharav, בא אחריו, "will come after him (Moshe)" thus, "will take his place," thus = קאי מן בתריה as in the prophecy.
Next, where do we get that Moshe will die? וַיֹּאמַר: אֲדֹנִי מֹשֶׁה, כְּלָאֵם could be Eldad speaking further, saying, My Master, Moshe, has perished. Alternatively, speaking about the conquering of the land of Israel: And My Master Moshe said, "Destroy them." Thus, we have Eldad's prophesy.
Medad's single prophesy (there is later a joint prophecy from both Eldad and Medad) is about the slav, the quail, and we see this in pasuk 31:
That was near? How about far?
Pasuk 26 said, again,
The simplest reading of the bolded words were that they were amongst those who had been recorded on paper to be brought to the Tent of Meeting, but they had not been gathered there, and so the spirit hit them in the midst of the camp.
However, perhaps וְהֵמָּה בַּכְּתֻבִים could mean "and they are in the recorded writings." If so, this could refer to some extra-Biblical book of their prophecies which were recorded but for whatever reason did not make it into Tanach. We know Biblical figures wrote down prophecies which were not in the Torah. Thus, Moshe wrote the Torah, sefer Bil'am (perhaps = parshat Bil'am) and perhaps Iyyov, and the chapters in Tehillim attributed to him. (e.g. תְּפִלָּה, לְמֹשֶׁה אִישׁ-הָאֱלֹקִים in Tehillim 90).
Further, there is a dispute about who wrote the last 8 verses of the Torah, that is, Dvarim 34:5-12.
Those psukim describe Moshe's death and burial and Yehoshua's taking over. The problem is, how could Moshe write this if he died. Some say Moshe wrote it in tears, and some say Yehoshua wrote it (see Bava Basra 15a).
Perhaps, then, we could say that these last eight psukim were actually written (or spoken) by Eldad, and this was what was referred to earlier by Moshe when he said VeHeima BaKesuvim, "and their words are in the writings." The issue of writing something that had not come to pass is not an issue since this was a prediction and description made as a nevuah.
We can say Medad's prophecy is also in the Ketuvim - namely, the pasuk I cited above about the quail. And, the joint prophecy of Eldad and Medad about the fight of Gog and Magog would refer to the prophecy as it appears elsewhere in Tanach.
וַיִּשָּׁאֲרוּ שְׁנֵי-אֲנָשִׁים בַּמַּחֲנֶה שֵׁם הָאֶחָד אֶלְדָּד וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִי מֵידָד וַתָּנַח עֲלֵהֶם הָרוּחַ, וְהֵמָּה בַּכְּתֻבִים, וְלֹא יָצְאוּ, הָאֹהֱלָה; וַיִּתְנַבְּאוּ, בַּמַּחֲנֶה
"But there remained two men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad; and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were recorded, but had not gone out unto the Tent; and they prophesied in the camp."
What did they prophesy? Tg Yonatan gives several prophecies. One of them, that of Eldad, was:
אלדד הוה מתנבי ואמר הא משה מתכניש מן עלמא ויהושע בר נון משמש משריתא קאי מן בתריה ומדבר עמא בית ישראל ומיעל יתהון לארע כנענאי ומחסין יתה להון
"Eldad prophesied and said, 'Behold Moshe will be taken from the world and Yehoshua son of Nun who ministered for him (Moshe) will arise in his stead and lead the nation of the House of Israel and enter them into the Land of the Canaanites and inherit it for them.'"
This is a very deep mishrash. I do not think this is some random prophesy ascribed to Eldad. As I have seen on occasion, sometimes you have to look both near and far in order to fully appreciate the midrash.
Consider the next two psukim, 27 and 28:
וַיָּרָץ הַנַּעַר, וַיַּגֵּד לְמֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמַר: אֶלְדָּד וּמֵידָד, מִתְנַבְּאִים בַּמַּחֲנֶה.
וַיַּעַן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן-נוּן, מְשָׁרֵת מֹשֶׁה מִבְּחֻרָיו--וַיֹּאמַר: אֲדֹנִי מֹשֶׁה, כְּלָאֵם.
"And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said: 'Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.'
And Joshua the son of Nun, the minister of Moses from his youth up, answered and said: 'My lord Moses, shut them in.'"
We can already see what is happening. The words in close proximity are taken to be Eldad's prophesy. It is Eldad and not Medad because Eldad was listed first in the pasuk: אֶלְדָּד וּמֵידָד, מִתְנַבְּאִים בַּמַּחֲנֶה; Medad's prophecy will come later.
Then, וַיַּעַן is taken from the phrase וַיַּעַן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן-נוּן to mean "And he said," that is, Eldad said. What follows is Eldad's prophecy. And וַיַּעַן is singular, so it is only Eldad's prophecy, and not that of Medad. What did he prophesy? יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן-נוּן, מְשָׁרֵת מֹשֶׁה מִבְּחֻרָיו. Thus, he prophesied about Yehoshua ben Nun, who ministered to Moshe. Note that in the prophecy Yehoshua is referred to as משמש משריתא, who ministered, paralleling that of the pasuk.
Further, Yehoshua will stand in the place of Moshe. מִבְּחֻרָיו means "from his (Yehoshua's) youth. But, it can be taken as something like Ba Acharav, בא אחריו, "will come after him (Moshe)" thus, "will take his place," thus = קאי מן בתריה as in the prophecy.
Next, where do we get that Moshe will die? וַיֹּאמַר: אֲדֹנִי מֹשֶׁה, כְּלָאֵם could be Eldad speaking further, saying, My Master, Moshe, has perished. Alternatively, speaking about the conquering of the land of Israel: And My Master Moshe said, "Destroy them." Thus, we have Eldad's prophesy.
Medad's single prophesy (there is later a joint prophecy from both Eldad and Medad) is about the slav, the quail, and we see this in pasuk 31:
וְרוּחַ נָסַע מֵאֵת יְהוָה, וַיָּגָז שַׂלְוִים מִן-הַיָּם, וַיִּטֹּשׁ עַל-הַמַּחֲנֶה כְּדֶרֶךְ יוֹם כֹּה וּכְדֶרֶךְ יוֹם כֹּה, סְבִיבוֹת הַמַּחֲנֶה--וּכְאַמָּתַיִם, עַל-פְּנֵי הָאָרֶץ.
"And there went forth a wind from the LORD, and brought across quails from the sea, and let them fall by the camp, about a day's journey on this side, and a day's journey on the other side, round about the camp, and about two cubits above the face of the earth."
That was near? How about far?
Pasuk 26 said, again,
וַיִּשָּׁאֲרוּ שְׁנֵי-אֲנָשִׁים בַּמַּחֲנֶה שֵׁם הָאֶחָד אֶלְדָּד וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִי מֵידָד וַתָּנַח עֲלֵהֶם הָרוּחַ, וְהֵמָּה בַּכְּתֻבִים, וְלֹא יָצְאוּ, הָאֹהֱלָה; וַיִּתְנַבְּאוּ, בַּמַּחֲנֶה.
But there remained two men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad; and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were recorded, but had not gone out unto the Tent; and they prophesied in the camp.
The simplest reading of the bolded words were that they were amongst those who had been recorded on paper to be brought to the Tent of Meeting, but they had not been gathered there, and so the spirit hit them in the midst of the camp.
However, perhaps וְהֵמָּה בַּכְּתֻבִים could mean "and they are in the recorded writings." If so, this could refer to some extra-Biblical book of their prophecies which were recorded but for whatever reason did not make it into Tanach. We know Biblical figures wrote down prophecies which were not in the Torah. Thus, Moshe wrote the Torah, sefer Bil'am (perhaps = parshat Bil'am) and perhaps Iyyov, and the chapters in Tehillim attributed to him. (e.g. תְּפִלָּה, לְמֹשֶׁה אִישׁ-הָאֱלֹקִים in Tehillim 90).
Further, there is a dispute about who wrote the last 8 verses of the Torah, that is, Dvarim 34:5-12.
Those psukim describe Moshe's death and burial and Yehoshua's taking over. The problem is, how could Moshe write this if he died. Some say Moshe wrote it in tears, and some say Yehoshua wrote it (see Bava Basra 15a).
Perhaps, then, we could say that these last eight psukim were actually written (or spoken) by Eldad, and this was what was referred to earlier by Moshe when he said VeHeima BaKesuvim, "and their words are in the writings." The issue of writing something that had not come to pass is not an issue since this was a prediction and description made as a nevuah.
We can say Medad's prophecy is also in the Ketuvim - namely, the pasuk I cited above about the quail. And, the joint prophecy of Eldad and Medad about the fight of Gog and Magog would refer to the prophecy as it appears elsewhere in Tanach.
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Risking one's own life to save another
Someone asked me to track down a certain Yerushalmi, which said that it was a Middat Chasidut to risk one's life to save another.
I found reference to it in a Kesef Mishna on the first perek in the Rambam, הלכות רוצח ושמירת נפש (this link is just the Rambam), at the end of 14, citing Hagahot Maymon:
This is a relevant source for organ donation, which is a hot topic right now. Can one endager himself by being an organ donor to save someone else? This source implies an obligation, others imply that putting oneself in danger is a good thing but not obligatory (middat chassidut), and others say it is foolish to do, and perhaps even forbidden.
Anyway, I finally tracked down that Yerushalmi, and want to examine it in more detail. It is in masechet trumot 44b, 8th perek, halacha 4
note that there is an obligation to make sure that teruma is not rendered impure.
Mishna:
דף מד, ב פרק ח הלכה ד משנה
There is an idea of taking a stand, or at least not compromising by giving over one loaf, or (in the latter case) one soul. Is this when situation seems unwinnable but there is some chance, or even when there is no chance?
[Note to self: kvar --> kikar, vehaketa nignaz ]
The gemara:
Before proceeding further with the translation, we should see who Sheva ben Bichri was. In Shmuel Bet, perek 20:
Thus, Sheva ben Bichri merited the death penalty, and to save the town, the townsfolk cut off his head and give it to Yoav. This would seem to be a good precedent. Back to the gemara.
The gemara which is cited from the above about risking one's life to save one's fellow is the first story with Resh Lakish, where R Ami was captured, and Resh Lakish said either he would kill or be killed. Thus, Resh Lakish put himself into threat of physical harm and possible death to save his fellow, who was certain to be killed. Did he consider this an obligation? Or Middat Chassidut? Further, we see R Yonatan gave up on him. Was this because R Yonatan felt is was no obligation? Would R Yonatan agree that it was a middat chassidut? Would he feel it was forbidden? Or perhaps he was not as tough a guy as Resh Lakish, who used to be a bandit and felt comfortable facing off with bandits? We see Resh Lakish went after bandits even when it was not a matter of pikuach nefesh (i.e. to save R Yochanan's possessions.)
I would think that the previous gemara about not giving over a man for death, even if he were specified, where the alternative is a fight, in which all would be killed, or maybe we could say that it is only a possible danger but they might all be able to survive, would also be a relevant yerushalmi. We see in such a case that it is only Mishnat Chassidut, whatever that means.
I found reference to it in a Kesef Mishna on the first perek in the Rambam, הלכות רוצח ושמירת נפש (this link is just the Rambam), at the end of 14, citing Hagahot Maymon:
בירושלמי מסיק אפילו להכניס עצמו בספק סכנה חייב עכ"ל. ונראה שהטעם מפני שהלה וודאי והוא ספק
"The yerushalmi implies that even to put himself into possible (mortal) danger he is obligated." And it seems the reason is that the other is in definite danger and he would only be in possible danger.
This is a relevant source for organ donation, which is a hot topic right now. Can one endager himself by being an organ donor to save someone else? This source implies an obligation, others imply that putting oneself in danger is a good thing but not obligatory (middat chassidut), and others say it is foolish to do, and perhaps even forbidden.
Anyway, I finally tracked down that Yerushalmi, and want to examine it in more detail. It is in masechet trumot 44b, 8th perek, halacha 4
note that there is an obligation to make sure that teruma is not rendered impure.
Mishna:
דף מד, ב פרק ח הלכה ד משנה
...
כיצד היה עובר ממקום למקום וככרות של תרומה בידו א"ל נכרי תן לי אחת מהן ואטמאה ואם לאו הרי אני מטמא את כולן ר' אליעזר אומר יטמא את כולן ואל יתן לו אחת מהן ויטמא ר' יהושע אומר יניח לפניו אחת מהן על הסלע. וכן נשים שאמרו להן גוים ע"א תנו לנו אחת מכם ונטמאה ואם לאו הרי אנו מטמאין כולכם יטמאו את כולן ואל ימסרו להם נפש אחת מישראל
How so? If he was travelling from place to place with loaves of Teruma in his hand. A gentile says to him, give me one of them and I will make it impure, and if not, I will render all of them impure. Rabbi Eliezer says to render impure all of them impure and not to give him one of them to make impure. Rabbi Yehoshua says, place one on them before him on the boulder.
And so too women that idolatrous gentiles say to them give over one of you and we will render her impure (rape her), and if not we will render all of you impure, they all should be rendered impure rather than giving over to them one soul from Israel.
There is an idea of taking a stand, or at least not compromising by giving over one loaf, or (in the latter case) one soul. Is this when situation seems unwinnable but there is some chance, or even when there is no chance?
[Note to self: kvar --> kikar, vehaketa nignaz ]
The gemara:
תני סיעות בני אדם שהיו מהלכין בדרך פגעו להן גוים ואמרו תנו לנו אחד מכם ונהרוג אותו ואם לאו הרי אנו הורגים את כולכם אפי' כולן נהרגים לא ימסרו נפש אחת מישראל ייחדו להן אחד כגון שבע בן בכרי ימסרו אותו ואל ייהרגו א"ר שמעון בן לקיש והוא שיהא חייב מיתה כשבע בן בכרי ורבי יוחנן אמר אע"פ שאינו חייב מיתה כשבע בן בכרי עולא בר קושב תבעתיה מלכותא ערק ואזיל ליה ללוד גבי ריב"ל אתון ואקפון מדינתא אמרו להן אין לית אתון יהבון ליה לן אנן מחרבין מדינתא סלק גביה ריב"ל ופייסיה ויהביה לון והוה אליהו זכור לטוב יליף מתגלי עלוי ולא אתגלי וצם כמה צומין ואיתגלי עלוי אמר ליה ולמסורות אני נגלה א"ל ולא משנה עשיתי א"ל וזו משנת החסידים רבי אימי איתצד בסיפסיפה אמר ר' יונתן יכרך המת בסדינו אמר ר' שמעון בן לקיש עד דאנא קטיל אנא מתקטיל אנא איזיל ומשיזיב ליה בחיילא אזל ופייסון ויהבוניה ליה אמר לון ואתון גבי סבון והוא מצלי עליכון אתון גבי ר' יוחנן אמר לון מה דהוה בלבכון איעבד ליה יתעבוד לון ימטא לההוא עמא לא מטון אפיפסירוס עד דאזלון כולהון זעיר בר חנינא איתצד בספסיפה סלק רבי אמי ורבי שמואל מפייסה עלוי אמרה להון זנביה מלכותא יליף הוא ברייכון עבד לכון ניסין מעשוקין ביה עלל חד סרקיא טעין חד ספסר אמר להון בהדא ספסירא קטיל בר נצר לאחוי ואישתיזיב זעיר בר חנינא ר' יוחנן אמר איקפח בעלי קנייה סליק לבית וועדא והוה ר"ש בן לקיש שאיל ליה והוא לא מגיב שאיל ליה והוא לא מגיב א"ל מהו הכין א"ל כל האיברים תלוין בלב והלב תלוי בכיס א"ל ומהו כן א"ל ומהו את כן א"ל איקפחת בעלי קנייה א"ל חמי לי זויתה נפיק מחוי ליה חמיתון מן רחוק ושרי מצלצל אמרין אין ר"י הוא יסב פלגא אמר לון חייכון כולה אנא נסיב
ונסיב כולה
We learned, a caravan of men were travelling together on the road. Gentiles accosted them and said, 'Give us one of you and we will kill him, and if not we will kill you all.' Even if all of them will be killed, they should not give over a single soul of Israel. {It sounds like they should put up a fight...} If they (the gentiles) single out one of them, as was the case by Sheva son of Bichri they should {or perhaps could} give him over and not be killed.
Before proceeding further with the translation, we should see who Sheva ben Bichri was. In Shmuel Bet, perek 20:
א וְשָׁם נִקְרָא אִישׁ בְּלִיַּעַל, וּשְׁמוֹ שֶׁבַע בֶּן-בִּכְרִי--אִישׁ יְמִינִי; וַיִּתְקַע בַּשֹּׁפָר, וַיֹּאמֶר אֵין-לָנוּ חֵלֶק בְּדָוִד וְלֹא נַחֲלָה-לָנוּ בְּבֶן-יִשַׁי--אִישׁ לְאֹהָלָיו, יִשְׂרָאֵל.
ב וַיַּעַל כָּל-אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵאַחֲרֵי דָוִד, אַחֲרֵי, שֶׁבַע בֶּן-בִּכְרִי; וְאִישׁ יְהוּדָה דָּבְקוּ בְמַלְכָּם, מִן-הַיַּרְדֵּן וְעַד-יְרוּשָׁלִָם.
יג כַּאֲשֶׁר הֹגָה, מִן-הַמְסִלָּה--עָבַר כָּל-אִישׁ, אַחֲרֵי יוֹאָב, לִרְדֹּף, אַחֲרֵי שֶׁבַע בֶּן-בִּכְרִי.
יד וַיַּעֲבֹר בְּכָל-שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אָבֵלָה וּבֵית מַעֲכָה--וְכָל-הַבֵּרִים; {ס} ויקלהו (וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ), וַיָּבֹאוּ אַף-אַחֲרָיו.
טו וַיָּבֹאוּ וַיָּצֻרוּ עָלָיו, בְּאָבֵלָה בֵּית הַמַּעֲכָה, וַיִּשְׁפְּכוּ סֹלְלָה אֶל-הָעִיר, וַתַּעֲמֹד בַּחֵל; וְכָל-הָעָם אֲשֶׁר אֶת-יוֹאָב, מַשְׁחִיתִם לְהַפִּיל הַחוֹמָה.
טז וַתִּקְרָא אִשָּׁה חֲכָמָה, מִן-הָעִיר; שִׁמְעוּ שִׁמְעוּ, אִמְרוּ-נָא אֶל-יוֹאָב, קְרַב עַד-הֵנָּה, וַאֲדַבְּרָה אֵלֶיךָ.
יז וַיִּקְרַב אֵלֶיהָ, וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה הַאַתָּה יוֹאָב וַיֹּאמֶר אָנִי; וַתֹּאמֶר לוֹ, שְׁמַע דִּבְרֵי אֲמָתֶךָ, וַיֹּאמֶר, שֹׁמֵעַ אָנֹכִי.
יח וַתֹּאמֶר, לֵאמֹר: דַּבֵּר יְדַבְּרוּ בָרִאשֹׁנָה לֵאמֹר, שָׁאוֹל יְשָׁאֲלוּ בְּאָבֵל וְכֵן הֵתַמּוּ.
יט אָנֹכִי, שְׁלֻמֵי אֱמוּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; אַתָּה מְבַקֵּשׁ, לְהָמִית עִיר וְאֵם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל--לָמָּה תְבַלַּע, נַחֲלַת ה.
כ וַיַּעַן יוֹאָב, וַיֹּאמַר: חָלִילָה חָלִילָה לִי, אִם-אֲבַלַּע וְאִם-אַשְׁחִית.
כא לֹא-כֵן הַדָּבָר, כִּי אִישׁ מֵהַר אֶפְרַיִם שֶׁבַע בֶּן-בִּכְרִי שְׁמוֹ נָשָׂא יָדוֹ בַּמֶּלֶךְ בְּדָוִד--תְּנוּ-אֹתוֹ לְבַדּוֹ, וְאֵלְכָה מֵעַל הָעִיר; וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה אֶל-יוֹאָב, הִנֵּה רֹאשׁוֹ מֻשְׁלָךְ אֵלֶיךָ בְּעַד הַחוֹמָה.
כב וַתָּבוֹא הָאִשָּׁה אֶל-כָּל-הָעָם בְּחָכְמָתָהּ, וַיִּכְרְתוּ אֶת-רֹאשׁ שֶׁבַע בֶּן-בִּכְרִי וַיַּשְׁלִכוּ אֶל-יוֹאָב, וַיִּתְקַע בַּשֹּׁפָר, וַיָּפֻצוּ מֵעַל-הָעִיר אִישׁ לְאֹהָלָיו; וְיוֹאָב שָׁב יְרוּשָׁלִַם, אֶל-הַמֶּלֶךְ.
1 Now there happened to be there a base fellow, whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite; and he blew the horn, and said: 'We have no portion in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse; every man to his tents, O Israel.'
2 So all the men of Israel went up from following David, and followed Sheba the son of Bichri; but the men of Judah did cleave unto their king, from the Jordan even to Jerusalem.
...
13 When he was removed out of the highway, all the people went on after Joab, to pursue after Sheba the son of Bichri.
14 And he went through all the tribes of Israel unto Abel, and to Beth-maacah, and all the Berites; {S} and they were gathered together, and went in also after him.
15 And they came and besieged him in Abel of Beth-maacah, and they cast up a mound against the city, and it stood in the moat; and all the people that were with Joab battered the wall, to throw it down.
16 Then cried a wise woman out of the city: 'Hear, hear; say, I pray you, unto Joab: Come near hither, that I may speak with thee.'
17 And he came near unto her; and the woman said: 'Art thou Joab?' And he answered: 'I am.' Then she said unto him: 'Hear the words of thy handmaid.' And he answered: 'I do hear.'
18 Then she spoke, saying: 'They were wont to speak in old time, saying: They shall surely ask counsel at Abel; and so they ended the matter.
19 We are of them that are peaceable and faithful in Israel; seekest thou to destroy a city and a mother in Israel? why wilt thou swallow up the inheritance of the LORD?'
20 And Joab answered and said: 'Far be it, far be it from me, that I should swallow up or destroy.
21 The matter is not so; but a man of the hill-country of Ephraim, Sheba the son of Bichri by name, hath lifted up his hand against the king, even against David; deliver him only, and I will depart from the city.' And the woman said unto Joab: 'Behold, his head shall be thrown to thee over the wall.'
22 Then the woman went unto all the people in her wisdom. And they cut off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri, and threw it out to Joab. And he blew the horn, and they were dispersed from the city, every man to his tent. And Joab returned to Jerusalem unto the king.
Thus, Sheva ben Bichri merited the death penalty, and to save the town, the townsfolk cut off his head and give it to Yoav. This would seem to be a good precedent. Back to the gemara.
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, only if he deserves capital punishment as did Sheva ben Bichri.
Rabbi Yochanan saud, even if he did not deserve capital punishment like Sheva ben Bichri {one would still give him over. and the purpose of mentioning Sheva ben Bichri is that this is a Biblical case in which a specific individual was specified.}
Ulah bar Koshav, the government wanted (to kill) him. He fled and went to Lud by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. The army came and encircled the state. They said to them, if you do not turn him over we will destroy the state. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi sent and persuaded him (convinced Ulah bar Koshav to turn himself in) and then gave him over to them.
And, Eliyahu, remembered for good, was wont to reveal himself to him, and now he did not reveal himself. And he (R Yehoshua ben Levi) fasted many fasts and he revealed himself to him. He (Eliyahu) said to him, "And to Mosers do I reveal myself?!?" (Moser = one who gives over other Jews) He replied, "And did I not do as the Mishna said?" (The Mishna said that if one was singled out one could (or should) give him over and not be killed. He thus seems to be holding like Rabbi Yochanan's understanding of the Mishna, unless you say that Ulla actually deserved the capital punishment.)
He (Eliyahu) replied, "And is this the Mishnah of the Chassidim." (Do chassidim act thus? It seems this is middat chassidut. I wonder though, how one can act as a chossid when others in the town would presumably not want to do middat chassidut.)
{What follows is the gemara referred to in the Kesef Mishna:}
Rabbi Ami was captured by bandits. Rabbi Yonatan said, the dead one will be wrapped in his sheets. {that is, there is no way to save him.}
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, 'I will kill or be killed' (lit: Until I kill (or) I will be killed. i.e. I will try to save him, by killing all his captors, or will die in the process. We know from elsewhere that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was a bandit, skilled in weapons, before he repented and became a scholar.) I will go and save him by force.
He went and persuaded them (convinced them to turn R Ami over, perhaps with threats) and they gave him over to him.
He (Resh Lakish) said to them (the bandits) go to the Old One (Rabbi Yochanan) and he will pray for you. They went to Rabbi Yochanan (note, this is *not* Rabbi Yonatan of before, unless it is a typo.)
He (R Yochanan) said to them, 'that which was in your hearts to do to him should come to pass on you.' They did not reach Apipsiros before they all went (died).
Zeir the son of Chanina was captured in a roundup (done by the thieves). Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Shmuel went out to appeal on his behalf. "King Zanvaya" (the head of the thieves - perhaps to be rendered as King of the Tails, from Rosh and Zanav, Head and Tail, thus a self-mocking name. actually literally (unless there is a typo) Kingdom of the Tails.) said to them, 'Your Creator is wont to do for you miracles.' While they were still involved on his (Zeir's) behalf, a Yishmaeli came carrying a sword, and said to them, 'With this sword Bar Netzer (who was a thief) slew the brother (of King Zanvaya).' (While all these happenings were going on, with King Zanvaya upset about this,) And Zeir ben Chanina escaped.
The Baalei Kania (lit. owners of possessions = a name for a band of thieves) stole from Rabbi Yochanan. He (R Yochanan) went to the meeting house, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish asked him and he did not respond. He asked him and he (R Yochanan) did not respond. He (Resh Lakish) said to him, 'what is this?' He (R Yochanan) said to him (Resh Lakish), "All of the limbs rely on the heart, and the heart relies on the purse." He (Resh Lakish) said to him, "And how so?" (i.e. what do you mean by this?) He (R Yochanan) said to him, 'Baalei Kania stole from me.' He (Resh Lakish) said to him, "Show me the corner (where they stole from you, or the path where they went, and Resh Lakish chased after them)." He (R Yochanan) went and showed him. He (Resh Lakish) saw them from afar and began to yell at them. They said, "If it is R Yochanan, we will return half." He said to them, "By your lives, I will take all," and he took all.
The gemara which is cited from the above about risking one's life to save one's fellow is the first story with Resh Lakish, where R Ami was captured, and Resh Lakish said either he would kill or be killed. Thus, Resh Lakish put himself into threat of physical harm and possible death to save his fellow, who was certain to be killed. Did he consider this an obligation? Or Middat Chassidut? Further, we see R Yonatan gave up on him. Was this because R Yonatan felt is was no obligation? Would R Yonatan agree that it was a middat chassidut? Would he feel it was forbidden? Or perhaps he was not as tough a guy as Resh Lakish, who used to be a bandit and felt comfortable facing off with bandits? We see Resh Lakish went after bandits even when it was not a matter of pikuach nefesh (i.e. to save R Yochanan's possessions.)
I would think that the previous gemara about not giving over a man for death, even if he were specified, where the alternative is a fight, in which all would be killed, or maybe we could say that it is only a possible danger but they might all be able to survive, would also be a relevant yerushalmi. We see in such a case that it is only Mishnat Chassidut, whatever that means.
Parshat Behaalotcha #3: No more, No End, Not Gathered
Bamidbar 11:24-25
There are two standard ways of explaining וְלֹא יָסָפוּ at the end of the middle pasuk.
1) "but they did so no more," as we have in the translation above. This is יָסָפוּ as adding. This is the meaning when Rachel called her son Yosef, in Bereishit 30:24
2) "and they did not stop," that is, they continued to be prophets in the future. The same root can mean "stop," the opposite of the previous. Onkelos gives this, saying ולא פסקין, "and they did not stop."
I thought of an additional possible explanation of the word. Given that the first verse I cited contained the phrase וַיֶּאֱסֹף שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ, מִזִּקְנֵי הָעָם, perhaps וְלֹא יָסָפוּ means "they were not gathered." The root would be אסף. We know, from the alternate etymology of Yosef's name, given a verse earlier, in , in Bereishit 30:23
where "taken away" is literally "has gathered."
We would also have to cut away those two words וְלֹא יָסָפוּ from the end of the second verse and move it to the beginning of the third. Thus,
יָסָפוּ would then be יאספו where the aleph became quiescent, and then dropped out of the spelling altogether.
The result would be somewhat awkward but not altogether impossible...
וַיֵּצֵא מֹשֶׁה--וַיְדַבֵּר אֶל-הָעָם, אֵת דִּבְרֵי ה; וַיֶּאֱסֹף שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ, מִזִּקְנֵי הָעָם, וַיַּעֲמֵד אֹתָם, סְבִיבֹת הָאֹהֶל.
וַיֵּרֶד ה בֶּעָנָן, וַיְדַבֵּר אֵלָיו, וַיָּאצֶל מִן-הָרוּחַ אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו, וַיִּתֵּן עַל-שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ הַזְּקֵנִים; וַיְהִי, כְּנוֹחַ עֲלֵיהֶם הָרוּחַ, וַיִּתְנַבְּאוּ, וְלֹא יָסָפוּ.
וַיִּשָּׁאֲרוּ שְׁנֵי-אֲנָשִׁים בַּמַּחֲנֶה שֵׁם הָאֶחָד אֶלְדָּד וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִי מֵידָד וַתָּנַח עֲלֵהֶם הָרוּחַ, וְהֵמָּה בַּכְּתֻבִים, וְלֹא יָצְאוּ, הָאֹהֱלָה; וַיִּתְנַבְּאוּ, בַּמַּחֲנֶה.
"And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the LORD; and he gathered seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the Tent.
And the LORD came down in the cloud, and spoke unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and put it upon the seventy elders; and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, but they did so no more.
But there remained two men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad; and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were recorded, but had not gone out unto the Tent; and they prophesied in the camp. "
There are two standard ways of explaining וְלֹא יָסָפוּ at the end of the middle pasuk.
1) "but they did so no more," as we have in the translation above. This is יָסָפוּ as adding. This is the meaning when Rachel called her son Yosef, in Bereishit 30:24
וַתִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ יוֹסֵף, לֵאמֹר: יֹסֵף יְהוָה לִי, בֵּן אַחֵר.
"And she called his name Joseph, saying: 'The LORD add to me another son.'"
2) "and they did not stop," that is, they continued to be prophets in the future. The same root can mean "stop," the opposite of the previous. Onkelos gives this, saying ולא פסקין, "and they did not stop."
I thought of an additional possible explanation of the word. Given that the first verse I cited contained the phrase וַיֶּאֱסֹף שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ, מִזִּקְנֵי הָעָם, perhaps וְלֹא יָסָפוּ means "they were not gathered." The root would be אסף. We know, from the alternate etymology of Yosef's name, given a verse earlier, in , in Bereishit 30:23
וַתַּהַר, וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן; וַתֹּאמֶר, אָסַף אֱלֹהִים אֶת-חֶרְפָּתִי.
"And she conceived, and bore a son, and said: 'God hath taken away my reproach.'"
where "taken away" is literally "has gathered."
We would also have to cut away those two words וְלֹא יָסָפוּ from the end of the second verse and move it to the beginning of the third. Thus,
וַיֵּרֶד ה בֶּעָנָן, וַיְדַבֵּר אֵלָיו, וַיָּאצֶל מִן-הָרוּחַ אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו, וַיִּתֵּן עַל-שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ הַזְּקֵנִים; וַיְהִי, כְּנוֹחַ עֲלֵיהֶם הָרוּחַ, וַיִּתְנַבְּאוּ.
,וְלֹא יָסָפוּ ,וַיִּשָּׁאֲרוּ שְׁנֵי-אֲנָשִׁים בַּמַּחֲנֶה שֵׁם הָאֶחָד אֶלְדָּד וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִי מֵידָד וַתָּנַח עֲלֵהֶם הָרוּחַ, וְהֵמָּה בַּכְּתֻבִים, וְלֹא יָצְאוּ, הָאֹהֱלָה; וַיִּתְנַבְּאוּ, בַּמַּחֲנֶה.
"And the LORD came down in the cloud, and spoke unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and put it upon the seventy elders; and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied.
But were not gathered, and thus remained, two men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad; and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were recorded, but had not gone out unto the Tent; and they prophesied in the camp."
יָסָפוּ would then be יאספו where the aleph became quiescent, and then dropped out of the spelling altogether.
The result would be somewhat awkward but not altogether impossible...
Monday, June 07, 2004
Disposing of hanaat avodah zarah continued
To elaborate on one of the the points I made earlier, about the burning of the (alleged) takrovet avodah zarah wigs.
I mentioned that if one gave them to Jews, one would be causing those Jews to benefit from that which was prohibited to benefit, and there would seem to be a problem of Lifnei Iver, putting a stumbling block before the blind.
I would add that this may extend to the giving of the wigs to non-Jews, for perhaps the non-Jews you give the wigs to may later give them to Jews. Why would I think this was a concern? Consider the following mishna and gemara, in the yerushalmi:
Mishna:
Translation from here.
The gemara:
My translation:
So there is a concern with selling to a gentile things prohibited in benefit to Jews, because Jews might eventually purchase it and come to use it. I would say wigs are more similar to clothing than to wine. (Note however that here we are dealing with a large amount of wine, and clothing. Donating to a non-Jewish charity? A similar concern. Watching to make sure only non-Jews receive them? Perhaps, but maybe the general principle that Chazal established even if in the specific instance one can make sure it does not come to pass (along the lines of Lo plug rabanan). Also, will the non-Jewish child, when he is done with the wig, sell it, or gift it? Perhaps it is only in cases of bulk items, but alternatively there is a problem putting it out into the world where a Jew may eventually come to make use of it.)
I mentioned that if one gave them to Jews, one would be causing those Jews to benefit from that which was prohibited to benefit, and there would seem to be a problem of Lifnei Iver, putting a stumbling block before the blind.
I would add that this may extend to the giving of the wigs to non-Jews, for perhaps the non-Jews you give the wigs to may later give them to Jews. Why would I think this was a concern? Consider the following mishna and gemara, in the yerushalmi:
Mishna:
נטל ממנה כרכר אסור בהנאה ארג בו את הבגד הבגד אסור בהנאה נתערב באחרים כולן אסורין בהנאה רבי אלעזר אומר יוליך הנייה לים המלך אמרו לו אין פדיון לעבודה זרה
Translation from here.
"The same is the case with a loom made of this wood and with the garment wrought therewith. If such a garment was mixed up with other garments and these again with others the benefit of them all is forbidden. R. Eliezar, however, said: Cast their worth into the salt lake, and he was answered: There is no redemption from idol-worship."
The gemara:
אמר רבי חגיי כד נחתית מן אילפא אשכחית רבי יעקב בר אחא יתיב מקשי נטל הימינה כרכר אסור בהנייה ארג בו את הבגד אסור בהנייה ותנינן ימכר כולו לנכרי חוץ מדמי יין נסך שבו אמר ר' יעקב בר אחא חגיי קשיתא חגיי קיימה מאי כדון תמן אין דרך בני אדם ליקח מן הנכרי ברם הכא דרך בני אדם ליקח בגד מן הנכרי
My translation:
Rabbi Chaggai said: when I went down from learning I found Rabbi Yaakov bar Acha sitting. I asked, (the Misha states) if you took from it a loom it is forbidden in benefit; if you weaved with it a garment it is forbidden in benefit. (And it continues, if the garment was mixed with others they all are forbidden in benefit.) Yet we learned in a Mishna (about if some wine libations to idolatry fell into a pit of wine) that you should sell it all (the entire contents of the pit) to a gentile minus the cost of the wine libations within it. (Thus, one would not derive benefit from it. So too here, why not say sell all of the garments except for the cost of the forbidden garment within it?!)
Rabbi Yaakov Bar Acha said, Chaggai asked, let Chaggai establish it (the answer).
(Rabbi Chaggai): How so? There (by the wine libations), it is not way of (Jewish) people to purchase wine from a gentile (because of stam yeynam, or yayin nesech), whereas here is is the way of people to purchase clothing from gentiles.
So there is a concern with selling to a gentile things prohibited in benefit to Jews, because Jews might eventually purchase it and come to use it. I would say wigs are more similar to clothing than to wine. (Note however that here we are dealing with a large amount of wine, and clothing. Donating to a non-Jewish charity? A similar concern. Watching to make sure only non-Jews receive them? Perhaps, but maybe the general principle that Chazal established even if in the specific instance one can make sure it does not come to pass (along the lines of Lo plug rabanan). Also, will the non-Jewish child, when he is done with the wig, sell it, or gift it? Perhaps it is only in cases of bulk items, but alternatively there is a problem putting it out into the world where a Jew may eventually come to make use of it.)
Friday, June 04, 2004
The trup charts:
Bet Hillel/Our trup:
Bet Shammai trup, as reflected in my post as to what the gemara suggests. I stop charting in this diagram at the first, and major, divergence.
Also, an alternative way of parsing the pasuk, according to Bet Shammai, which perhaps the gemara meant.
Also, revised Word document with all three of these charts.
Bet Shammai trup, as reflected in my post as to what the gemara suggests. I stop charting in this diagram at the first, and major, divergence.
Also, an alternative way of parsing the pasuk, according to Bet Shammai, which perhaps the gemara meant.
Also, revised Word document with all three of these charts.
A trup chart illustrating the pasuk breakdown for the dvar below
hope to post a picture tomorrow. for now, check out the Word Document.
Betza dvar/trup dvar
An interesting (alright, perhaps boring for those who dislike the science of trup) gemara in Yerushalmi Betza 11a (perek 2 halacha 4).
The Mishna:
Later, in the gemara, same page:
R Yose bei Rabbi Bon said: Resh Lakish passed before the Bet Midrash and heard their voice reading the verse (Divrei Hayamim 19:21)
He said, one who pauses in it is like Bet Shammai, and one who reads all of it is like Bet Hillel.
{The gemara}: It is good if you say the burnt-offerings the next day (as Bet Shamai, that they could not be brought that day). But the peace-offerings?? Cannot peace offerings be brought that day even according to Bet Shamai!? [***]
Rabbi Yose bei Rabbi Bon said (explaining why even the Shalmim were not brought that day), King David died on the Atzeret (=Yom Tov) and all the people were Onenim (mourners, who could not bring a sacrifice) amd so they brought the next day.
My take: Where I had ***, I think it would have been much simpler had it simply said Bet Hillel (check girsaot!!!). That is, Bet Shamai are the ones who according to the parsing DID have that they brought peace-offerings that day! Perhaps (even with our text saying Bet Shamai) it IS asking according to Bet Hillel, and saying, why would *Bet Hillel* require both to be that day, if *even Bet Shamai* in the Mishna allows peace-offerings, and certainly Bet Hillel. (That is, cite the more stringent opinion.) Instead people start referring to what is mentioned in the end of the verse I cited above, in the non-bold text, and we end up with a more convoluted pshat all around. Let us stick with my slightly-forced pshat.
R Yose's answer would show why both were brought according to Bet Hillel, but according to Bet Shamai, only burnt-offerings were brought the next day.
What I have to bring to the table is my knowledge of trup. What does it mean pausing, or reading it all. And further, our masorah does not stop at the end of the bolded text in the citation (which was all the gemara referred to), so what does it mean pausing or reading it all? Does דמפסק mean making the *pasuk* end there, at the end of the bolded text? And דקרי כולה means reading to the end of the pasuk as we have in our Tanachs? Possible - the entire pasuk is not cited, so it is difficult to say דקרי כולה means reading all the pasuk. (On the other hand, דמפסק would then refer to the cited portion of pasuk, and reading it all would mean more than what is cited, and Resh Lakish was then perhaps commenting that the voices he heard reading the pasuk read it like Bet Shammai.) In the end, I rejected it because I could find no way to explain how Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel's opinions could be reflected in the alternate break for psukim (silluq).
Rather, here is what I think the gemara means, on the basis of my knowledge of the science of trup.
וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לַיהוָה זְבָחִים וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת לַה, לְמָחֳרַת הַיּוֹם הַהוּא--פָּרִים אֶלֶף אֵלִים אֶלֶף כְּבָשִׂים אֶלֶף, וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם; וּזְבָחִים לָרֹב, לְכָל-יִשְׂרָאֵל.
Trup always breaks the verse into two parts, and each of the subparts into two parts, etc., until such time that a subpart has only one or two words, or until a certain level of subdivision has been reached. The major dichotomy of the verse, which breaks it into two parts, is the etnachta on the word וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם. Thus we have two parts:
וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לַיהוָה זְבָחִים וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת לַה, לְמָחֳרַת הַיּוֹם הַהוּא--פָּרִים אֶלֶף אֵלִים אֶלֶף כְּבָשִׂים אֶלֶף, וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם
and
וּזְבָחִים לָרֹב, לְכָל-יִשְׂרָאֵל.
The second part of the verse is divided by tipcha at לָרֹב into two parts:
וּזְבָחִים לָרֹב
and
לְכָל-יִשְׂרָאֵל
So much for the second part of the pasuk - it was well demarcated by the semicolon and comma, but this whole second part after the etnachta is not of concern to us.
The first part of the pasuk:
וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לַיהוָה זְבָחִים וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת לַה, לְמָחֳרַת הַיּוֹם הַהוּא--פָּרִים אֶלֶף אֵלִים אֶלֶף כְּבָשִׂים אֶלֶף, וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם
is divided into two parts at the word הַהוּא by a segolta, which is a form of zakef. Thus it is divided into two parts where there is the -- symbol, into
a)
וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לַה זְבָחִים וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת לַה, לְמָחֳרַת הַיּוֹם הַהוּא
and
b)
פָּרִים אֶלֶף אֵלִים אֶלֶף כְּבָשִׂים אֶלֶף, וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם
We do not care about [b] for now.
[a] is divided into two parts by the Revii at the second occurence of the word לַה, that is, at the comma, into
a1)
וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לַה זְבָחִים וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת לַה
and
a2)
לְמָחֳרַת הַיּוֹם הַהוּא
[a2] has only servus trup then, and so it not subdivided.
[a1] then is divided into two parts by the telisha gedola at זְבָחִים, into
a1i)
וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לַה זְבָחִים
and
a1ii)
וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת לַה
[a1ii] has a minor dichotomy in between the telisha gedolah and the Revii, and this is marked by a geresh and its servus kadma.
What does this all mean?? Well, after the major dichotomy by the etnachta, the second dichotomy was the segolta, by the word הַהוּא. Thus, everything in the first part of the pasuk belongs (is subject) to that phrase, which is modified by לְמָחֳרַת הַיּוֹם הַהוּא. Thus, both the peace-offerings and the burnt-offerings are brought the next day. Thus, the verse's trup (cantillation) is in accordance with Bet Hillel.
The alternative would have been that after the major dichotomy by the etnachta, the second dichotomy would have been by the word זְבָחִים. Based on the distance from the etnachta, the trup on that word would have also been a segolta (an interesting excercise would be to redesignate the trup in this way, and see what the rest of the trup would be). Then, bringing the peace-offerings would have been one segment, and the rest of the verse up to the etnachta would have been the second segment, all describing what was done with the burnt-offerings. (The current trup does not support this division because זְבָחִים has a telisha gedola which subdivides a section ending with Revii which in turn subdivides a section ending with Zakef (where here the Zekef=Segolta). This alternative trup would accord with Bet Shammai.
How does this fit in with the words of the gemara? Well, one who pauses in it, that is, within the words cited, has the primary pause (at Zevachim) accords with Bet Shammai. And one who reads it all - that is, there are pauses in there, but those are lesser pauses, and subservient to the pause at the end of the phrase at הַהוּא, so one reads it all as one half of the verse's secondary dichotomy, (that is, like we read it) accords with Bet Hillel.
This actually reads very well, even though it may not seem so to the causual reader because of the use of complicated and unfamiliar terminology to describe the trup theory behind it. But for one who is familiar with it, it is very intuitive and fits in well with the wording of the gemara.
Thus, perhaps, proof that the system of trup, if not the specific orthographic signs of Trup (see Shadal's Vikuach Al Chochmat HaKabbalah about the Zohar and Zarka), did in fact exist in the time of the Talmud.
Alternatively, that those who assigned the trup were aware of Bet Hillel vs. Bet Shammai's alternative parsing of the pasuk and correctly chose Bet Hillel. But the gemara certainly seems to assume some form of subdivision of text, at a lower level than just psukim (=silluq)!
The Mishna:
בית שמאי אומרים מביאין שלמים ואין סומכין עליהן אבל לא עולות ובית הלל אומרים מביאין שלמים ועולות וסומכין עליהן:
Bet Shammai say you may bring peace-offerings and do not lean on them {on Yom Tov}, but {do not bring} burnt-offerings.
And Bet Hillel say you may bring both peace offerings and burnt-offerings, and lean on them.
Later, in the gemara, same page:
א"ר יוסי בי ר' בון רשב"ל הוה עבר קומי סדרא ושמע קלהון קראיי ההן פסוקא (דברי הימים א כט) ויזבחו לה' זבחים ויעלו עולות לה' למחרת היום ההוא אמר מאן דמפסק לה כב"ש מאן דקרי כולה כב"ה ניחא עולות למחרת היום ושלמים למחרת היום ואין שלמים באין כבית שמי
א"ר יוסי בי ר' בון דוד מת בעצרת והיו כל ישראל אוננין והקריבו למחר
R Yose bei Rabbi Bon said: Resh Lakish passed before the Bet Midrash and heard their voice reading the verse (Divrei Hayamim 19:21)
וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לַה זְבָחִים וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת לַה, לְמָחֳרַת הַיּוֹם הַהוּא --פָּרִים אֶלֶף אֵלִים אֶלֶף כְּבָשִׂים אֶלֶף, וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם; וּזְבָחִים לָרֹב, לְכָל-יִשְׂרָאֵל.
"And they sacrificed sacrifices unto the LORD, and offered burnt-offerings unto the LORD, on the morrow after that day, even a thousand bullocks, a thousand rams, and a thousand lambs, with their drink-offerings, and sacrifices in abundance for all Israel;"
He said, one who pauses in it is like Bet Shammai, and one who reads all of it is like Bet Hillel.
{The gemara}: It is good if you say the burnt-offerings the next day (as Bet Shamai, that they could not be brought that day). But the peace-offerings?? Cannot peace offerings be brought that day even according to Bet Shamai!? [***]
Rabbi Yose bei Rabbi Bon said (explaining why even the Shalmim were not brought that day), King David died on the Atzeret (=Yom Tov) and all the people were Onenim (mourners, who could not bring a sacrifice) amd so they brought the next day.
My take: Where I had ***, I think it would have been much simpler had it simply said Bet Hillel (check girsaot!!!). That is, Bet Shamai are the ones who according to the parsing DID have that they brought peace-offerings that day! Perhaps (even with our text saying Bet Shamai) it IS asking according to Bet Hillel, and saying, why would *Bet Hillel* require both to be that day, if *even Bet Shamai* in the Mishna allows peace-offerings, and certainly Bet Hillel. (That is, cite the more stringent opinion.) Instead people start referring to what is mentioned in the end of the verse I cited above, in the non-bold text, and we end up with a more convoluted pshat all around. Let us stick with my slightly-forced pshat.
R Yose's answer would show why both were brought according to Bet Hillel, but according to Bet Shamai, only burnt-offerings were brought the next day.
What I have to bring to the table is my knowledge of trup. What does it mean pausing, or reading it all. And further, our masorah does not stop at the end of the bolded text in the citation (which was all the gemara referred to), so what does it mean pausing or reading it all? Does דמפסק mean making the *pasuk* end there, at the end of the bolded text? And דקרי כולה means reading to the end of the pasuk as we have in our Tanachs? Possible - the entire pasuk is not cited, so it is difficult to say דקרי כולה means reading all the pasuk. (On the other hand, דמפסק would then refer to the cited portion of pasuk, and reading it all would mean more than what is cited, and Resh Lakish was then perhaps commenting that the voices he heard reading the pasuk read it like Bet Shammai.) In the end, I rejected it because I could find no way to explain how Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel's opinions could be reflected in the alternate break for psukim (silluq).
Rather, here is what I think the gemara means, on the basis of my knowledge of the science of trup.
וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לַיהוָה זְבָחִים וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת לַה, לְמָחֳרַת הַיּוֹם הַהוּא--פָּרִים אֶלֶף אֵלִים אֶלֶף כְּבָשִׂים אֶלֶף, וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם; וּזְבָחִים לָרֹב, לְכָל-יִשְׂרָאֵל.
Trup always breaks the verse into two parts, and each of the subparts into two parts, etc., until such time that a subpart has only one or two words, or until a certain level of subdivision has been reached. The major dichotomy of the verse, which breaks it into two parts, is the etnachta on the word וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם. Thus we have two parts:
וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לַיהוָה זְבָחִים וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת לַה, לְמָחֳרַת הַיּוֹם הַהוּא--פָּרִים אֶלֶף אֵלִים אֶלֶף כְּבָשִׂים אֶלֶף, וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם
and
וּזְבָחִים לָרֹב, לְכָל-יִשְׂרָאֵל.
The second part of the verse is divided by tipcha at לָרֹב into two parts:
וּזְבָחִים לָרֹב
and
לְכָל-יִשְׂרָאֵל
So much for the second part of the pasuk - it was well demarcated by the semicolon and comma, but this whole second part after the etnachta is not of concern to us.
The first part of the pasuk:
וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לַיהוָה זְבָחִים וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת לַה, לְמָחֳרַת הַיּוֹם הַהוּא--פָּרִים אֶלֶף אֵלִים אֶלֶף כְּבָשִׂים אֶלֶף, וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם
is divided into two parts at the word הַהוּא by a segolta, which is a form of zakef. Thus it is divided into two parts where there is the -- symbol, into
a)
וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לַה זְבָחִים וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת לַה, לְמָחֳרַת הַיּוֹם הַהוּא
and
b)
פָּרִים אֶלֶף אֵלִים אֶלֶף כְּבָשִׂים אֶלֶף, וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם
We do not care about [b] for now.
[a] is divided into two parts by the Revii at the second occurence of the word לַה, that is, at the comma, into
a1)
וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לַה זְבָחִים וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת לַה
and
a2)
לְמָחֳרַת הַיּוֹם הַהוּא
[a2] has only servus trup then, and so it not subdivided.
[a1] then is divided into two parts by the telisha gedola at זְבָחִים, into
a1i)
וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לַה זְבָחִים
and
a1ii)
וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת לַה
[a1ii] has a minor dichotomy in between the telisha gedolah and the Revii, and this is marked by a geresh and its servus kadma.
What does this all mean?? Well, after the major dichotomy by the etnachta, the second dichotomy was the segolta, by the word הַהוּא. Thus, everything in the first part of the pasuk belongs (is subject) to that phrase, which is modified by לְמָחֳרַת הַיּוֹם הַהוּא. Thus, both the peace-offerings and the burnt-offerings are brought the next day. Thus, the verse's trup (cantillation) is in accordance with Bet Hillel.
The alternative would have been that after the major dichotomy by the etnachta, the second dichotomy would have been by the word זְבָחִים. Based on the distance from the etnachta, the trup on that word would have also been a segolta (an interesting excercise would be to redesignate the trup in this way, and see what the rest of the trup would be). Then, bringing the peace-offerings would have been one segment, and the rest of the verse up to the etnachta would have been the second segment, all describing what was done with the burnt-offerings. (The current trup does not support this division because זְבָחִים has a telisha gedola which subdivides a section ending with Revii which in turn subdivides a section ending with Zakef (where here the Zekef=Segolta). This alternative trup would accord with Bet Shammai.
How does this fit in with the words of the gemara? Well, one who pauses in it, that is, within the words cited, has the primary pause (at Zevachim) accords with Bet Shammai. And one who reads it all - that is, there are pauses in there, but those are lesser pauses, and subservient to the pause at the end of the phrase at הַהוּא, so one reads it all as one half of the verse's secondary dichotomy, (that is, like we read it) accords with Bet Hillel.
This actually reads very well, even though it may not seem so to the causual reader because of the use of complicated and unfamiliar terminology to describe the trup theory behind it. But for one who is familiar with it, it is very intuitive and fits in well with the wording of the gemara.
Thus, perhaps, proof that the system of trup, if not the specific orthographic signs of Trup (see Shadal's Vikuach Al Chochmat HaKabbalah about the Zohar and Zarka), did in fact exist in the time of the Talmud.
Alternatively, that those who assigned the trup were aware of Bet Hillel vs. Bet Shammai's alternative parsing of the pasuk and correctly chose Bet Hillel. But the gemara certainly seems to assume some form of subdivision of text, at a lower level than just psukim (=silluq)!
Parshat Behaalotcha #2: Who was Chovav? Who was Yisro? And who was Moshe's father in law??
This week's parsha contains an interesting exchange between Moshe and Chovav:
Bemidbar 10:29-32:
Who was Chovav? The pasuk states וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה, לְחֹבָב בֶּן-רְעוּאֵל הַמִּדְיָנִי חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה. The question is, does חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה, typically taken to mean "father-in-law of Moshe," refer to Chovav, or to Reuel? Locally, it can modify either.
However, earlier, we see that Reuel seems to be Moshe's father in law. In Shemot 2:15-22:
Thus, Tzippora was Reuel's daughter, which would make the Choten Moshe, the father-in-law of Moshe, Reuel.
However, in Shoftim 4:11
Thus, Chovav is the Choten Moshe, father-in-law of Moshe. Thus, the pasuk in Bemidbar is somewhat ambiguous, with חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה, "father in law of Moshe," attaching to either Reuel or Moshe.
To further complicate matters, more famous than either of these two is Yisro, who is generally taken to be Moshe's father in law. The basis of this is two-fold.
First, in Shemot 4:18
וַיֵּלֶךְ מֹשֶׁה וַיָּשָׁב אֶל-יֶתֶר חֹתְנוֹ, וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אֵלְכָה נָּא וְאָשׁוּבָה אֶל-אַחַי אֲשֶׁר-בְּמִצְרַיִם, וְאֶרְאֶה, הַעוֹדָם חַיִּים; וַיֹּאמֶר יִתְרוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה, לֵךְ לְשָׁלוֹם.
And Moses went and returned to Jethro his father-in-law, and said unto him: 'Let me go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren that are in Egypt, and see whether they be yet alive.' And Jethro said to Moses: 'Go in peace.'
So he seems to be staying by Yisro, not Reuel. Further, in parshat Yisro, in Shemot 18 he is referred to multiple times as the Choten Moshe.
Further, he is referred to as the priest of Midyan, which was the same term given to Reuel.
How to sort this out?
Some midrashim give Reuel, and/or Chovev, as alternate names for Yisro (among other names - e.g. we have Chever the Kini, so Kini was also a name for Yisro.) I would add - to have some plurality of names is not so far-fetched. After all, we have Avram/Avraham, Sarai/Sara, Yaakov/Yisrael, Yosef/Tzafnat Paneach, whatever Moshe's parents called him/Moshe, Ramses/Pharoah (positional name), Hoshea/Yehoshua (and of course Yitro in one verse is referred to as Yeter/Yitro). And Reuel has flocks and was a priest, so Reu = shepherd + El = of god is not bad as a name assumed when taking a position.
Rashi cites a midrash which explains that Av=father, but people can also call their grandfather father. Thus, the 7 daughters went to their father, that is their grandfather, and told him what happened - how Moshe saved them at the well. Reuel is their grandfather, and thus Chovav is Moshe's father in law, and thus the verse in Shoftim informs us how to parse the pasuk locally in BeMidbar. Rashi immediately beforehand equates Yisro with Chovav, and thus all verses work out. (hmm... perhaps Av as in Bet Av, with Reuel as head of the extended family, the paterfamilias?)
My thoughts on the matter more closely matched that of Ibn Ezra, and I thought I had come up with a groundbreaking pshat until I saw he beat me to it. Basically, Choten need not mean father in law, but can also mean brother in law (I thought in terms of meaning "male in-laws on the wife's side.") Then, Av can mean father, and so Reuel is the father-in-law. Chovav would be a brother-in-law, as would Yisro (if you look carefully at the psukim, none state Yisro's relation to Tzippora). Ibn Ezra also mentions the possibility, that Yisro=Chovev, as they both came to visit Moshe in the Midbar... see inside.
Thus, he dwelled in Midyan, near his brother-in-law Yisro, of whom he took his leave to go to Egypt. Moshe at some point left his wife and sons in care of his brother-in-law. I would follow a more open-canon approach, and say Chovav is not equal to Yisro, and they are two separate brothers-in-law. And what of Yisro being the priest of Midyan? There could be more than one priest, and/or perhaps he was being trained to succeed his father Reuel when the latter passed on.
Bemidbar 10:29-32:
וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה, לְחֹבָב בֶּן-רְעוּאֵל הַמִּדְיָנִי חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה, נֹסְעִים אֲנַחְנוּ אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אָמַר ה, אֹתוֹ אֶתֵּן לָכֶם; לְכָה אִתָּנוּ וְהֵטַבְנוּ לָךְ, כִּי-ה דִּבֶּר-טוֹב עַל-יִשְׂרָאֵל.
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, לֹא אֵלֵךְ: כִּי אִם-אֶל-אַרְצִי וְאֶל-מוֹלַדְתִּי, אֵלֵךְ.
וַיֹּאמֶר, אַל-נָא תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָנוּ: כִּי עַל-כֵּן יָדַעְתָּ, חֲנֹתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר, וְהָיִיתָ לָּנוּ, לְעֵינָיִם.
וְהָיָה, כִּי-תֵלֵךְ עִמָּנוּ: וְהָיָה הַטּוֹב הַהוּא, אֲשֶׁר יֵיטִיב ה עִמָּנוּ--וְהֵטַבְנוּ לָךְ.
And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses' father-in-law: 'We are journeying unto the place of which the LORD said: I will give it you; come thou with us, and we will do thee good; for the LORD hath spoken good concerning Israel.'
And he said unto him: 'I will not go; but I will depart to mine own land, and to my kindred.'
And he said: 'Leave us not, I pray thee; forasmuch as thou knowest how we are to encamp in the wilderness, and thou shalt be to us instead of eyes.
And it shall be, if thou go with us, yea, it shall be, that what good soever the LORD shall do unto us, the same will we do unto thee.'
Who was Chovav? The pasuk states וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה, לְחֹבָב בֶּן-רְעוּאֵל הַמִּדְיָנִי חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה. The question is, does חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה, typically taken to mean "father-in-law of Moshe," refer to Chovav, or to Reuel? Locally, it can modify either.
However, earlier, we see that Reuel seems to be Moshe's father in law. In Shemot 2:15-22:
וַיִּשְׁמַע פַּרְעֹה אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, וַיְבַקֵּשׁ לַהֲרֹג אֶת-מֹשֶׁה; וַיִּבְרַח מֹשֶׁה מִפְּנֵי פַרְעֹה, וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֶרֶץ-מִדְיָן וַיֵּשֶׁב עַל-הַבְּאֵר.
וּלְכֹהֵן מִדְיָן, שֶׁבַע בָּנוֹת; וַתָּבֹאנָה וַתִּדְלֶנָה, וַתְּמַלֶּאנָה אֶת-הָרְהָטִים, לְהַשְׁקוֹת, צֹאן אֲבִיהֶן.
וַיָּבֹאוּ הָרֹעִים, וַיְגָרְשׁוּם; וַיָּקָם מֹשֶׁה וַיּוֹשִׁעָן, וַיַּשְׁקְ אֶת-צֹאנָם.
וַתָּבֹאנָה, אֶל-רְעוּאֵל אֲבִיהֶן; וַיֹּאמֶר, מַדּוּעַ מִהַרְתֶּן בֹּא הַיּוֹם.
וַתֹּאמַרְןָ--אִישׁ מִצְרִי, הִצִּילָנוּ מִיַּד הָרֹעִים; וְגַם-דָּלֹה דָלָה לָנוּ, וַיַּשְׁקְ אֶת-הַצֹּאן.
וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל-בְּנֹתָיו, וְאַיּוֹ; לָמָּה זֶּה עֲזַבְתֶּן אֶת-הָאִישׁ, קִרְאֶן לוֹ וְיֹאכַל לָחֶם.
וַיּוֹאֶל מֹשֶׁה, לָשֶׁבֶת אֶת-הָאִישׁ; וַיִּתֵּן אֶת-צִפֹּרָה בִתּוֹ, לְמֹשֶׁה.
וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן, וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ גֵּרְשֹׁם: כִּי אָמַר--גֵּר הָיִיתִי, בְּאֶרֶץ נָכְרִיָּה.
"Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian; and he sat down by a well.
Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters; and they came and drew water, and filled the troughs to water their father's flock.
And the shepherds came and drove them away; but Moses stood up and helped them, and watered their flock.
And when they came to Reuel their father, he said: 'How is it that ye are come so soon to-day?'
And they said: 'An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and moreover he drew water for us, and watered the flock.'
And he said unto his daughters: 'And where is he? Why is it that ye have left the man? call him, that he may eat bread.'
And Moses was content to dwell with the man; and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.
And she bore a son, and he called his name Gershom; for he said: 'I have been a stranger in a strange land.'
Thus, Tzippora was Reuel's daughter, which would make the Choten Moshe, the father-in-law of Moshe, Reuel.
However, in Shoftim 4:11
וְחֶבֶר הַקֵּינִי נִפְרָד מִקַּיִן, מִבְּנֵי חֹבָב חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה; וַיֵּט אָהֳלוֹ, עַד-אֵילוֹן בצענים (בְּצַעֲנַנִּים) אֲשֶׁר אֶת-קֶדֶשׁ.
"Now Heber the Kenite had severed himself from the Kenites, even from the children of Hobab the father-in-law of Moses, and had pitched his tent as far as Elon-bezaanannim, which is by Kedesh."
Thus, Chovav is the Choten Moshe, father-in-law of Moshe. Thus, the pasuk in Bemidbar is somewhat ambiguous, with חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה, "father in law of Moshe," attaching to either Reuel or Moshe.
To further complicate matters, more famous than either of these two is Yisro, who is generally taken to be Moshe's father in law. The basis of this is two-fold.
First, in Shemot 4:18
וַיֵּלֶךְ מֹשֶׁה וַיָּשָׁב אֶל-יֶתֶר חֹתְנוֹ, וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אֵלְכָה נָּא וְאָשׁוּבָה אֶל-אַחַי אֲשֶׁר-בְּמִצְרַיִם, וְאֶרְאֶה, הַעוֹדָם חַיִּים; וַיֹּאמֶר יִתְרוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה, לֵךְ לְשָׁלוֹם.
And Moses went and returned to Jethro his father-in-law, and said unto him: 'Let me go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren that are in Egypt, and see whether they be yet alive.' And Jethro said to Moses: 'Go in peace.'
So he seems to be staying by Yisro, not Reuel. Further, in parshat Yisro, in Shemot 18 he is referred to multiple times as the Choten Moshe.
וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ כֹהֵן מִדְיָן, חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אֱלֹהִים לְמֹשֶׁה, וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַמּוֹ: כִּי-הוֹצִיא יְהוָה אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִמִּצְרָיִם.
"Now Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses' father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses, and for Israel His people, how that the LORD had brought Israel out of Egypt."
Further, he is referred to as the priest of Midyan, which was the same term given to Reuel.
How to sort this out?
Some midrashim give Reuel, and/or Chovev, as alternate names for Yisro (among other names - e.g. we have Chever the Kini, so Kini was also a name for Yisro.) I would add - to have some plurality of names is not so far-fetched. After all, we have Avram/Avraham, Sarai/Sara, Yaakov/Yisrael, Yosef/Tzafnat Paneach, whatever Moshe's parents called him/Moshe, Ramses/Pharoah (positional name), Hoshea/Yehoshua (and of course Yitro in one verse is referred to as Yeter/Yitro). And Reuel has flocks and was a priest, so Reu = shepherd + El = of god is not bad as a name assumed when taking a position.
Rashi cites a midrash which explains that Av=father, but people can also call their grandfather father. Thus, the 7 daughters went to their father, that is their grandfather, and told him what happened - how Moshe saved them at the well. Reuel is their grandfather, and thus Chovav is Moshe's father in law, and thus the verse in Shoftim informs us how to parse the pasuk locally in BeMidbar. Rashi immediately beforehand equates Yisro with Chovav, and thus all verses work out. (hmm... perhaps Av as in Bet Av, with Reuel as head of the extended family, the paterfamilias?)
My thoughts on the matter more closely matched that of Ibn Ezra, and I thought I had come up with a groundbreaking pshat until I saw he beat me to it. Basically, Choten need not mean father in law, but can also mean brother in law (I thought in terms of meaning "male in-laws on the wife's side.") Then, Av can mean father, and so Reuel is the father-in-law. Chovav would be a brother-in-law, as would Yisro (if you look carefully at the psukim, none state Yisro's relation to Tzippora). Ibn Ezra also mentions the possibility, that Yisro=Chovev, as they both came to visit Moshe in the Midbar... see inside.
Thus, he dwelled in Midyan, near his brother-in-law Yisro, of whom he took his leave to go to Egypt. Moshe at some point left his wife and sons in care of his brother-in-law. I would follow a more open-canon approach, and say Chovav is not equal to Yisro, and they are two separate brothers-in-law. And what of Yisro being the priest of Midyan? There could be more than one priest, and/or perhaps he was being trained to succeed his father Reuel when the latter passed on.
Thursday, June 03, 2004
Parshat Behaalotcha #1: Chovav as witness, or guide?
One of the more interesting parts of the parsha is the short exchange between Moshe and Chovav, his "Chatan" (father-in-law, = Yisro, but see my next post)
Bemidbar 10:29-32:
Thus, we have a non-Israelite, who wants to go home, and Moshe is trying to convince him to latch on to the Hebrew nation, and join in their destiny.
Why does Moshe want him to stay? Moshe says כִּי עַל-כֵּן יָדַעְתָּ, חֲנֹתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר, וְהָיִיתָ לָּנוּ, לְעֵינָיִם, which is taken by Chazal to mean this Chovav will go with them through their travels through the Midbar, and witness the miracles Hashem will do for them. Thus, לְעֵינָיִם means as eyes to witness the great things Hashem does for them. There is more to this midrash than just this interpretation of וְהָיִיתָ לָּנוּ לְעֵינָיִם; there is also the next pasuk, ְהָיָה, כִּי-תֵלֵךְ עִמָּנוּ: וְהָיָה הַטּוֹב הַהוּא, אֲשֶׁר יֵיטִיב ה עִמָּנוּ, that when we experience the good that Hashem does for us as we travel.
An alternate explanation also seems possible to me: that כִּי עַל-כֵּן יָדַעְתָּ, חֲנֹתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר is the reason Moshe wants him to travel with them. Moshe, and the Jews who were stuck in Egypt, were not familiar with the area of the Midbar. Chovav perhaps knew the area better. Thus, כִּי עַל-כֵּן יָדַעְתָּ, חֲנֹתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר, "because you know our encamping (or travels) in the Midbar (wilderness)." Chava knew the area and could tell them where they are, what the surrounding areas and nations were, where one might find an oasis, etc. Sure, Hashem told them when and where to travel, but a guide who would tell them where they were and who knew the territory would be comforting. Thus, וְהָיִיתָ לָּנוּ, לְעֵינָיִם, you will be for us as eyes, so that we can know where we are going in this unfamiliar territory.
It is not immediately clear whether Moshe convinced Chovav to stay.
Also, I thought about the parallel/contrast to Ruth's joining the Jewish nation, in which Naami tries convincing Ruth to go back to her home and family, and does not promise that life will be good, and Ruth in spite of this goes along.
Bemidbar 10:29-32:
וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה, לְחֹבָב בֶּן-רְעוּאֵל הַמִּדְיָנִי חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה, נֹסְעִים אֲנַחְנוּ אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אָמַר ה, אֹתוֹ אֶתֵּן לָכֶם; לְכָה אִתָּנוּ וְהֵטַבְנוּ לָךְ, כִּי-ה דִּבֶּר-טוֹב עַל-יִשְׂרָאֵל.
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, לֹא אֵלֵךְ: כִּי אִם-אֶל-אַרְצִי וְאֶל-מוֹלַדְתִּי, אֵלֵךְ.
וַיֹּאמֶר, אַל-נָא תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָנוּ: כִּי עַל-כֵּן יָדַעְתָּ, חֲנֹתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר, וְהָיִיתָ לָּנוּ, לְעֵינָיִם.
וְהָיָה, כִּי-תֵלֵךְ עִמָּנוּ: וְהָיָה הַטּוֹב הַהוּא, אֲשֶׁר יֵיטִיב ה עִמָּנוּ--וְהֵטַבְנוּ לָךְ.
And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses' father-in-law: 'We are journeying unto the place of which the LORD said: I will give it you; come thou with us, and we will do thee good; for the LORD hath spoken good concerning Israel.'
And he said unto him: 'I will not go; but I will depart to mine own land, and to my kindred.'
And he said: 'Leave us not, I pray thee; forasmuch as thou knowest how we are to encamp in the wilderness, and thou shalt be to us instead of eyes.
And it shall be, if thou go with us, yea, it shall be, that what good soever the LORD shall do unto us, the same will we do unto thee.'
Thus, we have a non-Israelite, who wants to go home, and Moshe is trying to convince him to latch on to the Hebrew nation, and join in their destiny.
Why does Moshe want him to stay? Moshe says כִּי עַל-כֵּן יָדַעְתָּ, חֲנֹתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר, וְהָיִיתָ לָּנוּ, לְעֵינָיִם, which is taken by Chazal to mean this Chovav will go with them through their travels through the Midbar, and witness the miracles Hashem will do for them. Thus, לְעֵינָיִם means as eyes to witness the great things Hashem does for them. There is more to this midrash than just this interpretation of וְהָיִיתָ לָּנוּ לְעֵינָיִם; there is also the next pasuk, ְהָיָה, כִּי-תֵלֵךְ עִמָּנוּ: וְהָיָה הַטּוֹב הַהוּא, אֲשֶׁר יֵיטִיב ה עִמָּנוּ, that when we experience the good that Hashem does for us as we travel.
An alternate explanation also seems possible to me: that כִּי עַל-כֵּן יָדַעְתָּ, חֲנֹתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר is the reason Moshe wants him to travel with them. Moshe, and the Jews who were stuck in Egypt, were not familiar with the area of the Midbar. Chovav perhaps knew the area better. Thus, כִּי עַל-כֵּן יָדַעְתָּ, חֲנֹתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר, "because you know our encamping (or travels) in the Midbar (wilderness)." Chava knew the area and could tell them where they are, what the surrounding areas and nations were, where one might find an oasis, etc. Sure, Hashem told them when and where to travel, but a guide who would tell them where they were and who knew the territory would be comforting. Thus, וְהָיִיתָ לָּנוּ, לְעֵינָיִם, you will be for us as eyes, so that we can know where we are going in this unfamiliar territory.
It is not immediately clear whether Moshe convinced Chovav to stay.
Also, I thought about the parallel/contrast to Ruth's joining the Jewish nation, in which Naami tries convincing Ruth to go back to her home and family, and does not promise that life will be good, and Ruth in spite of this goes along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
