Avoda Zara 60b: Falling into a vat

This is inyanei de-yoma, since this appears in today's daf, and since tomorrow is St. Patrick's Day. :)

In today's daf, we have the following:

נפל לבור ועלה: אמר רב פפא לא שנו אלא שעלה מת אבל עלה חי אסור מ"ט אמר רב פפא דדמי עליה כיום אידם: 

§ The mishna teaches that if a gentile fell into the wine collection vat and emerged, it is not prohibited to derive benefit from the wine. Rav Pappa says:The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where the gentile emerged from the vat dead. But if he emerged alive, the wine is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the wine is prohibited? Rav Pappa said: Sincethe gentile was rescued from death, he considers that day like their festival day, and he offers the wine as an idolatrous libation in thanksgiving.

Rashi explains Rav Pappa's reasoning as follows:

דדמי עליה כיום אידם - ואזיל ומודה על שניצל ומסתמא נסכיה בעלייתו ואסור בהנאה

That is, since he was saved, he will thank his deity, and therefore as he is pulled out of the cistern containing the wine, he will presumably libate some of the wine.

I would suggest another possibility, that since he lives, he was happy to be in the wine cistern, since he gets to enjoy the wine! And his thrashing around in there is shichshuch of someone who having a festival day.

Talking about Yom Eidem, festival days, tomorrow is St. Patrick's Day. And this story is just on point:

Old man O'Malley had worked down at the brewery for years, but one day he just wasn't paying attention and he tripped on the walkway and fell over into the beer vat and drowned. The foreman thought it should be his job to inform the Widow O'Malley of her old man's death. He showed up at the front door and rang the bell. When she came to the door, he said, "I'm sorry to tell you, but your poor husband passed away at work today when he fell into the vat and drowned." She wept and covered her face with her apron and after a time, between sobs, she asked, "Tell me, did he suffer?" "Knowing Brian O'Malley as well as I did, I don't think so," said the foreman, "He got out three times to go to the men's room."

How modern academic Talmud scholars can fulfill timcheh et zecher Amalek

In yesterday’s Daf Yomi, Bava Batra, Moo amud bet, there is a surprising mnemonic, עמלק סימן. That is, the four cases under discussion in the following section are arev (guarantor), malveh (lender), lokeach rishon (first purchaser) and qablan (a different type of guarantor), who may or may not testify on behalf of a certain other party as to ownership of a field. The letters spell out Amalek.

This is surprising, to use Amalek as a mnemonic, when we are supposed to blot out the memory of Amalek. And Hagahot Yaavetz (Rav Yaakov Emden) has an explanation about how it is OK to use it to remember Torah, and how there is a tipcha (disjunctive accent) on the lo of lo tishkash, לֹ֖א תִּשְׁכָּֽח , somehow telling us that it is sometimes OK for the sake of not forgetting.

The Masoret HaShas, besides pointing us to the Hagahot Yaavetz, points out that the Dikdukei Soferim notes that in many kitvei yad, this mnemonic isn’t present.

Thus, for example, we don’t find it in Ktav Yad Firenze, Paris, or Vatican.

Ktav Yad Vatican

Ktav Yad Firenze

Ktav Yad Paris

If so, perhaps we should cross out this siman, this zecher, from our gemaras. In this way, we can literally fulfill the positive command of תִּמְחֶה֙ אֶת־זֵ֣כֶר עֲמָלֵ֔ק.

Bilaam's true identity

Over Shabbos, I had a revelation about Bilaam:

a) He only had one eye. (Sanhedrin 105a, based on Bemidbar 24:3)
b) While not wanting to live a Jewish life, he wanted to die among the righteous Jews, and so could be considered quasi-Jewish. (Bemidbar 23:20) (Alternatively, ketoafot re'em lo, "he has the horn of the unicorn", in Bemidbar 23:22)
c) He could fly. (Midrash Rabba on Balak)
d) He was royalty - as Bela ben Beor, he was one of the kings of Edom. (Bereishit 36:32)
e) His name is a contraction of bala' 'am, swallower of a people.

Thus:

♫ He was a (a) one eyed, (b) one horned, (c) flying (d) purple (e) people eater. ♪

A troubling minhag

I have heard reports of a troubling minhag this coming Shabbos [edit: the Shabbos immediately following Pesach], one with seeming pagan origins -- a minhag which has become widespread in recent years -- to bake or eat challah.

To explain, etymologically, to call the braided Shabbos bread bchallah is a bit confusing. Chazal referred to Challah, but as the portion which was removed from the dough and given as a present to the kohen. (See Bamidbar 15:20 -- maybe it refers Biblically to a type of bread itself, as Philologos wrote.) It is only some time later (in a 15th century German work) that the Shabbos bread itself was called "Challah". (See also here for Otzar Ta'amei Haminhagim's explanation.)

To cite Menachem Mendel, who cites others:

I mentioned this to my colleague Rabbi Jill Hammer, and she suggested that I look into the connection between ḥallah and goddess worship. Not really knowing what to expect, I found the following in The Woman’s Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects (p. 482):

The braided bread loaves of Germanic tradition were invented by the women of Teutonic tribes, who used to make offerings of their own hair to their Goddess. Eventually they learned to preserve their braids by substituting the imitative loaf, which was called Berchisbrod or Perchisbrod, bread offered to the Goddess Berchta, or Perchta. The name of the braided Sabbath loaf among German Jews, Berches or Barches, was copied from this tradition.

Could it be that those nice braids that my wife makes when she bakes ḥallah really have their source in pagan goddess worship? The linguist Paul Wexler thinks that the original name was actually the German Holle which was

the name of a pagan Germanic goddess to whom braided bread was once given in offering. [The German] Holle was replaced at a later date-under the pressure of Judaization-by the [Hebrew] ḥallah, which bore formal and semantic similarity. (See his book The Non-Jewish Origins of the Sephardic Jews, pp. 68-69 and numerous other places in his writings.)

If so, we must protest this perversion of Judaism and introduction of pagan rites into our Shabbos festivities.

Yes, I am kidding. (Though given history, people will likely not read this far and assume I am speaking in all seriousness.)

What I wrote above wasn't made up. And it seems at the very least plausible that braided loaves for the pagan Germanic goddess Holle is the basis of both the name and form of the bread.

But some people are up in arms this week about shlissel challah, because of its similarity to hot cross buns. Perhaps. As I wrote in the past about this:

In the minds of the hamon am who practice this, there certainly are no such idolatrous intentions. Instead, they regard it as a holy segulah, and maybe associate all sorts of Torah-based justifications for the practice. So I would not condemn it as the worst thing in the universe.

My primary objection to shlissel challah -- besides of course poisoning yourself with lead leeching from the keys -- has to do with the adoption of the minhag by people for whom it was never a family minhag. As I wrote (same post):

What I find more problematic is what the widespread acceptance of this minhag means.

A) Initially, people's practice was more or less mimetic.
B) Then, people turned to texts and away from their mimetic traditions.
C) Then, with the advent of the Internet, each group's personal mimetic traditions become text (or become memes?) and become the expectation for the global Jewish community.

When you combine this chain-mail type of spread with the minhag's questionable background and somewhat negative messaging (of segulah-ism), there is what to oppose.

Anyway, it feels good to "oppose" something. It gives people something to do and something to talk about, heatedly. It is a fun way of channeling one's religious beliefs into a public statement.

Just realize that not just shlissel challah, but regular challah is well, can be subject to many of the same attacks.

Me too!

From a parsha sheet for Pinchas:

"HaRav Ben Zion would always flee from honor. Every Shabbat after Mincha, he would deliver a Shiur. In his great humility, he was bothered by the fact that everyone stood up for him when he entered the Shul. In order to avoid this, HaRav Ben Zion decided to enter the Shul when they will open the Aron Kodesh to take out the Sefer Torah. That way, everyone would stand up anyway, not purposely for him."

I do this to, only for Shachris.

;)

May the Sotah take the bitter waters intravenously?

I was in a bit of a fun mood, so I posted the following question (and subsequent answer) at Mi Yodea:

May the Sotah take the bitter waters intravenously?

In Naso, we read (Bamidbar 5:32) that the kohen blots out the curses (which include Hashem's name) in the bitter waters and then gives for the woman to drink (5:24).

What if the woman is unable to swallow the waters due to their bitterness? Could she instead take it as an intravenous injection? Or do we insist that she swallow it?

After a few hours, I posted this response:

This is actually something explicitly prohibited by one of the Aseres Hadibros, namely commandment #3.

Devarim 5:10 states לֹא תִשָּׂא אֶת-שֵׁם-ה אֱלֹקֶיךָ לַשָּׁוְא, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Hashem your God in vein."

Alas, the answer was deleted as per their Purim Torah policy. It took a few hours, though, and first attracted a few answers. Poe's Law in action, I suppose. There are plenty of questions of this sort on the site, asked entirely earnestly. Right now the question still stands, as if I thought the question was really a good question.

The Miracle of Chanukkah

This I heard from my father. The miracle of Chanukkah is recorded in the gemara, in Shabbat 21b, as follows:

מאי חנוכה דתנו רבנן בכ"ה בכסליו יומי דחנוכה תמניא אינון דלא למספד בהון ודלא להתענות בהון שכשנכנסו יוונים להיכל טמאו כל השמנים שבהיכל וכשגברה מלכות בית חשמונאי ונצחום בדקו ולא מצאו אלא פך אחד של שמן שהיה מונח בחותמו של כהן גדול ולא היה בו אלא להדליק יום אחד נעשה בו נס והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים לשנה אחרת קבעום ועשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודאה

In English:

A Cruise of Olive Oil?

What is [the reason of] Hanukkah? For our Rabbis taught: On the twenty-fifth of Kislew²²  [commence] the days of Hanukkah, which are eight on which a lamentation for the dead and fasting are forbidden.²³  For when the Greeks entered the Temple, they defiled all the oils therein, and when the Hasmonean dynasty prevailed against and defeated them, they made search and found only one cruse of oil which lay with the seal of the High Priest,²⁴  but which contained sufficient for one day's lighting only; yet a miracle was wrought therein and they lit [the lamp] therewith for eight days. The following year these [days] were appointed a Festival with [the recital of] Hallel²⁵  and thanksgiving.²⁶

The Greeks made all the oil impure. The one cruse of oil was not impure, since the seal of the Kohen Gadol was still on it, unbroken.

However, the "problem" with this evidence for purity is that the cruse of oil could be rendered impure with maga or masa, touching or carrying. Even if the unbroken seal were upon it, how did they know that it was not impure from masa?

And that is the true miracle of Chanukkah -- that no one thought to ask that question!

Berachot 42b: Why didn't Abaye get a shkoyach?

In Berachot 42b:

גמ' אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן לא שנו אלא בשבתות וימים טובים הואיל ואדם קובע סעודתו על היין אבל בשאר ימות השנה מברך על כל כוס וכוס אתמר נמי אמר רבה בר מרי א"ר יהושע בן לוי לא שנו אלא בשבתות וימים טובים ובשעה שאדם יוצא מבית המרחץ ובשעת הקזת דם הואיל ואדם קובע סעודתו על היין אבל בשאר ימות השנה מברך על כל כוס וכוס

Or, in English:

Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: This³  was meant to apply only to Sabbaths and festivals, because then a man makes wine an essential part of his meal.⁴  On others days of the year, however, a blessing is said over each cup,⁵  it has also been reported: Rabbah b. Mari said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: This was meant to apply only to Sabbaths and festivals, and to meals taken when a man leaves the bath or after bloodletting, because on such occasions a man makes wine an essential part of the meal. On other days of the year, however, a blessing is said over each cup. 

To illustrate this, two parallel stories, one of which took place during a weekday and the other during Yontiff.

בה בר מרי איקלע לבי רבא בחול חזייה דבריך לפני המזון והדר בריך לאחר המזון א"ל יישר וכן אמר ריב"ל רב יצחק בר יוסף איקלע לבי אביי בי"ט חזייה דבריך אכל כסא וכסא א"ל לא סבר לה מר להא דריב"ל א"ל נמלך אנא

Rabbah b. Mari was once at the house of Raba on a weekday. He saw him say a blessing [over the wine taken] before the meal and again after the meal. He said to him: 'Well done; and so said R. Joshua b. Levi!'

R. Isaac b. Joseph visited Abaye on a festival, and saw him say a blessing over each cup. He said to him: Does your honour not hold with the rule laid down by R. Joshua b. Levi? — He replied: I have just changed my mind.⁶

So, for the same action, but taken on Yom Tov, instead of getting an ayasher, which is equal to yeyasher kochacha, or shkoyach, Abaye gets a criticism!

I think the reason for this goes beyond the position of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Rather, both Shabbat and Yom Tov are referred to as Shabbaton. Thus, for example, Vayikra 23:39:

אַךְ בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי, בְּאָסְפְּכֶם אֶת-תְּבוּאַת הָאָרֶץ, תָּחֹגּוּ אֶת-חַג-יְהוָה, שִׁבְעַת יָמִים; בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן שַׁבָּתוֹן, וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי שַׁבָּתוֹן.

And we know from the zemer of Yona Matza that it is forbidden to say shkoyach on such a day:

יוֹם שַׁבָּתוֹן אֵין לִשְׁכּֽוֹחַ, זִכְרוֹ כְּרֵֽיחַ הַנִּיחֹֽחַ, 
יוֹנָה מָצְאָה בוֹ מָנֽוֹחַ, וְשָׁם יָנֽוּחוּ יְגִֽיעֵי כֹֽחַ. 

היוֹם נִכְבָּד לִבְנֵי אֱמוּנִים, זְהִירִים לְשָׁמְרוֹ אָבוֹת וּבָנִים, 
חָקוּק בִּשְׁנֵי לֻחוֹת אֲבָנִים, מֵרֹב אוֹנִים וְאַמִּיץ כֹּֽחַ. 
יוֹנָה מָצְאָה בוֹ מָנֽוֹחַ, וְשָׁם יָנֽוּחוּ יְגִֽיעֵי כֹֽחַ. 

וּבָֽאוּ כֻלָּם בִּבְרִית יַֽחַד, נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע אָמְרוּ כְּאֶחָד, 
וּפָתְחוּ וְעָנוּ יְיָ אֶחָד, בָּרוּךְ הַנּוֹתֵן לַיָּעֵף כֹּֽח. 
יוֹנָה מָצְאָה בוֹ מָנֽוֹחַ, וְשָׁם יָנֽוּחוּ יְגִֽיעֵי כֹֽחַ. 

דִּבֶּר בְּקָדְשׁוֹ בְּהַר הַמּוֹר, יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי זָכוֹר וְשָׁמוֹר, 
וְכָל פִּקּוּדָיו יַֽחַד לִגְמוֹר, חַזֵּק מָתְנַֽיִם וְאַמֵּץ כֹּֽח. 
יוֹנָה מָצְאָה בוֹ מָנֽוֹחַ, וְשָׁם יָנֽוּחוּ יְגִֽיעֵי כֹֽחַ. 

הָעָם אֲשֶׁר נָע כַּצֹּאן תָּעָה, יִזְכּוֹר לְפָקְדוֹ בְּרִית וּשְׁבוּעָה, 
לְבַל יַעֲבָר בָּם מִקְרֵה רָעָה, כַּאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּֽעְתָּ עַל מֵי נֹֽחַ. 
יוֹנָה מָצְאָה בוֹ מָנֽוֹחַ, וְשָׁם יָנֽוּחוּ יְגִֽיעֵי כֹֽחַ.

Rivkah darshens a pasuk

Summary: An amusing remez from the Vilna Gaon.

Post: There is a pasuk and Rashi at the beginning of Toldos:

22. And the children struggled within her, and she said, "If [it be] so, why am I [like] this?" And she went to inquire of the Lord.		כב. וַיִּתְרֹצֲצוּ הַבָּנִים בְּקִרְבָּהּ וַתֹּאמֶר אִם כֵּן לָמָּה זֶּה אָנֹכִי וַתֵּלֶךְ לִדְרֹשׁ אֶת יְ־הֹוָ־ה:
struggled: Perforce, this verse calls for a Midrashic interpretation, for it does not explain what this struggling was all about, and [Scripture] wrote,“If it be so, why am I [like] this?” Our Rabbis (Gen. Rabbah 63:6) interpreted it [the word וַיִתְרוֹצִצוּ] as an expression of running (רוֹצָה) . When she passed by the entrances of [the] Torah [academies] of Shem and Eber, Jacob would run and struggle to come out; when she passed the entrance of [a temple of] idolatry, Esau would run and struggle to come out. Another explanation: They were struggling with each other and quarreling about the inheritance of the two worlds (Mid. Avkir).		ויתרוצצו: על כרחך המקרא הזה אומר דורשני, שסתם מה היא רציצה זו וכתב אם כן למה זה אנכי. רבותינו דרשוהו לשון ריצה, כשהיתה עוברת על פתחי תורה של שם ועבר יעקב רץ ומפרכס לצאת, עוברת על פתחי עבודה זרה עשו מפרכס לצאת. דבר אחר מתרוצצים זה עם זה ומריבים בנחלת שני עולמות:

Here is an amusing Gra, in Kol Eliyahu. After citing the verse, he writes:

"There is to explain in the plane of remez, based on what is stated in the gemara in several places:

Shimon haAmsuni darshened every instance of the word את in the Torah. Once he reached the verse of את ה' אלקיך תירא he broke off [and rejected the methology], etc. Until Rabbi Akiva came and darshened את ה' אלקיך תירא to include Torah scholars.

And behold, Rashi za'l explains here in the name of the midrash upon ויתרוצצו הבנים בקרבה that when she passed the entryways of idolatry, Esav would kick to go out, and when she passed the entryways of Shem and Ever, Yaakov wished to go out. 


And behold, Rivkah was unaware that these were two fetuses, and she thought that it was a single fetus. If so, there was a place to ponder, chas veShalam, that there were two forces {in Heaven}, since here was a single fetus encompassing the two opposites. And therefore the thought, and she said, אם כן למה זה אנכי,  'If so, what is this אנכי', that is to say that which is written in the 10 Commandments, אנכי Hashem Your God, which was the opposite of what she was experiencing in this struggling [רציצה]. Therefore, she went לדרש את ה, that is to say, to darshen the pasuk of את ה' אלקיך תירא [in the manner Shimon HaAmsuni knew was false]. And {next pasuk} 'Hashem said to her, there are two nations in your womb', one who is a tzaddik and one who is a rasha. And it should not arise in your mind at all that there are, chas veShalaom, two forces."

Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai on Nir ben Artzi

Meh. Rashi on Chullin is prettier.

As a public service announcement, I bring here a message from Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai.

In Avos, 3:7, he states:

רבי שמעון אומר, המהלך בדרך ושונה ומפסיק ממשנתו ואומר, מה נאה אילן זה ומה נאה ניר זה, מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו מתחיב בנפשו.

Stam Rabbi Shimon is Rashbi.

Now, I know I have a lot of posts on Nir Ben Artzi, and that they have garnered a lot of hits and comments. But that is not the only focus of this blog. Far from it! As you are mehalech baderech on the Information Superhighway, you have the opportunity to do the opposite of the behavior Rashbi condemns. Besides coming to comment about how great this particular Nir is, you can also take a look at some of the other posts on this blog, about the parsha and more. And perhaps even join in the discussion on those posts as well! For example, the talking snake vs. the talking donkey. Or the Bnei Yissaschar on the authorship of Targum Yonasan. Or the Divrei Chaim about the Or HaChaim's ruach hakodesh and that whoever says we don't have ruach hakodesh nowadays is an apikores, contrasted with the Or HaChaim's statement that we don't have ruach hakodesh nowadays. Or various other posts, throughout the years, on parshas Balak.

The Rav, and Shadal, on Removing Yekum Purkan

It is a famous joke, and I've always heard it in the name of the Rav. What I did not know was that Shadal said it before him, or that the Rav credited Shadal with it, using a rabbinic appellation to refer to him (relying on the translation below.)  {Update: The translation was quite possibly wrong, as the Hebrew translation from Yiddish lacks this rabbinic appellation.}  The following is drawn from The Rav: the world of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Volume 2, by Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff and Joseph Epstein.

As the text states, the joke is based on the pasuk in parashat Noach, 7:23:

כג  וַיִּמַח אֶת-כָּל-הַיְקוּם אֲשֶׁר עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה, מֵאָדָם עַד-בְּהֵמָה עַד-רֶמֶשׂ וְעַד-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַיִּמָּחוּ, מִן-הָאָרֶץ; וַיִּשָּׁאֶר אַךְ-נֹחַ וַאֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ, בַּתֵּבָה.

23 And He blotted out every living substance which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping thing, and fowl of the heaven; and they were blotted out from the earth; and Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the ark.

and the words וַיִּמַח אֶת-כָּל-הַיְקוּם, "and he blotted out every Yekum". I was recently asked, in a conversation about Shadal and the Vikuach al Chochmat Hakabbalah, who Shadal is that we should listen to him. That is, which Gedolim list him as a credible and kosher source.

I am not sure that I agree with the various premises of the question, and would rather accept the truth from whoever says it. Even so, perhaps this can be taken as a sort of endorsement of Shadal, that he is quotable.

Anyway, see this post at On the Main Line, particularly the comment section starting with Lawrence Kaplan's comment, and how it develops into multiple attribution of this joke.

Parsha questions

From Junior's school parsha sheet, questions on the parsha for Shabbos table discussion.

This week's question (Vaychi):
Question: Why do you think Yaakov blessed his sons before his death?
My answer: Because it would have been much creepier had he blessed them after his death.

Last week's question (Vayigash):
Question: Why do you think Yosef sent out all the Egyptians before exposing himself to his brothers?
My answer: Tznius!

PS: And if you think I'm kidding, see this pasuk and Rashi:

4. Then Joseph said to his brothers, "Please come closer to me," and they drew closer. And he said, "I am your brother Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt.		ד. וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹסֵף אֶל אֶחָיו גְּשׁוּ נָא אֵלַי וַיִּגָּשׁוּ וַיֹּאמֶר אֲנִי יוֹסֵף אֲחִיכֶם אֲשֶׁר מְכַרְתֶּם אֹתִי מִצְרָיְמָה:
		גשו נא אלי: ראה אותם נסוגים לאחוריהם, אמר עכשיו אחי נכלמים, קרא להם בלשון רכה ותחנונים, והראה להם שהוא מהול:

Feel free to add your own answers in the comment section...

Why Didn't The Brothers Try To Stone Yosef To Death?

So asks Hillel, in a comment on my previous post. In that previous post, I suggested that they had determined that Yosef was a choleim chalomot, and thus a navi, sheker. And so they wished to put him to death as a false prophet.

Hillel asks in a comment:

R' Waxman,
Respectfully, your answer fails to explain why they did not perform sekillah k'din - or any sekillah at all!

This under the assumption that a false prophet is killed with sekilah. This is actually not so clear-cut. Yes, a pasuk in the approximate context in parashat Reeh does state {Devarim 13:10-11}:

י  כִּי הָרֹג תַּהַרְגֶנּוּ, יָדְךָ תִּהְיֶה-בּוֹ בָרִאשׁוֹנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ; וְיַד כָּל-הָעָם, בָּאַחֲרֹנָה.	10 but thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
יא  וּסְקַלְתּוֹ בָאֲבָנִים, וָמֵת:  כִּי בִקֵּשׁ, לְהַדִּיחֲךָ מֵעַל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, הַמּוֹצִיאֲךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים.	11 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to draw thee away from the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

However, there the topic is a meisis, one who entices others to sin in idolatry -- including perhaps a navi sheker for idolatry. But what the specific punishment for neviei sheker are, for different offenses, is a matter of dispute. Thus, for example, in Sanhedrin 84a, we read:

A ZAR WHO OFFICIATED IN THE TEMPLE. It has been taught: R. Ishmael said: It is here written, And the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death;¹³  whilst it is elsewhere said, Whosoever cometh anything near unto the tabernacle of the Lord shall die:¹⁴  just as there death was at the hands of Heaven, so here too. R. Akiba said: It is here written, And the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death; whilst it is elsewhere said, And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death:¹⁵  just as there, it is by stoning, so here too. R. Johanan b. Nuri said: Just as there, it is by strangling, so here too. Wherein do R. Ishmael and R. Akiba differ? — R. Akiba maintains, 'shall be put to death' must be compared with 'shall be put to death' but not with 'shall die'.¹⁶  Whilst R. Ishmael maintains, a layman must be compared to a layman, but not to a prophet. But R. Akiba avers, Since he seduced, no man is more of a layman than he.¹⁷ 

Let us say it was stoning. How did they try to stone?

Well, I'll remind you that stoning has two parts. The first is throwing the person down from a height. Then, the person is stoned.

By Yosef, in fact, we have precisely that. To remind you, they first cast him into the pit. It depends upon how deep the pit was, but we may conclude that it was the appropriate height.

If so, wouldn't Yosef have been severely injured? I would answer no. The Midrash Rabbah tells us:

והבור רק אין בו מים מים אין בו אבל נחשים ועקרבים יש בו.
שני בורות היו: אחד מלא צרורות.
ואחד מלא שרפים ועקרבים.

אמר רבי אחא:בור רק, נתרוקן בורו של יעקב.
אין בו מים, אין בו דברי תורה, שנמשלו למים, היך מה דאת אמר (ישעיה נה) הוי כל צמא לכו למים. 
כתיב: (דברים כד) כי ימצא איש גונב נפש מאחיו, ואתם מוכרים את אחיכם?!

Thus, there were snakes and scorpions in the pit to cushion his fall! The brothers didn't realize that there were snakes and scorpions there, when they performed this first act of sekilah.

What about the second portion of sekilah? Well, that was why they reserved the second pit. As the above midrash stated,

שני בורות היו: אחד מלא צרורות.
ואחד מלא שרפים ועקרבים

What is the point of a pit entirely filled with rocks and pebbles, if not for the sake of stoning Yosef?!

So, in the end, why didn't they stone Yosef?

I will venture a guess. The dispute between Reuven, Yehuda and the brothers about how to dispose of Yosef is the same as the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri.

The brothers said:

20. So now, let us kill him, and we will cast him into one of the pits, and we will say, 'A wild beast devoured him,' and we will see what will become of his dreams."

כ. וְעַתָּה לְכוּ וְנַהַרְגֵהוּ וְנַשְׁלִכֵהוּ בְּאַחַד הַבֹּרוֹת וְאָמַרְנוּ חַיָּה רָעָה אֲכָלָתְהוּ וְנִרְאֶה מַה יִּהְיוּ חֲלֹמֹתָיו:

In which case for some reason they thought to kill Yosef directly. Though the word וְנַהַרְגֵהוּ  might imply hereg, with a sayif, perhaps they were inexact in their language and meant chenek. They would then dispose of the body in the pit. Thus, they held like Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri.

Reuven meanwhile held like Rabbi Akiva, and thus stoning was the appropriate course of action:

21. But Reuben heard, and he saved him from their hand[s], and he said, "Let us not deal him a deadly blow."		כא. וַיִּשְׁמַע רְאוּבֵן וַיַּצִּלֵהוּ מִיָּדָם וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא נַכֶּנּוּ נָפֶשׁ:
22. And Reuben said to them, "Do not shed blood! Cast him into this pit, which is in the desert, but do not lay a hand upon him," in order to save him from their hand[s], to return him to his father.		כב. וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם רְאוּבֵן אַל תִּשְׁפְּכוּ דָם הַשְׁלִיכוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל הַבּוֹר הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר בַּמִּדְבָּר וְיָד אַל תִּשְׁלְחוּ בוֹ לְמַעַן הַצִּיל אֹתוֹ מִיָּדָם לַהֲשִׁיבוֹ אֶל אָבִיו:

Perhaps his reason for objecting, on halachic grounds, was to save him from their hands. (Alternatively, from their direct killing. Instead, it would be via their stones, and from the fall.)

Yehuda decided that, in keeping all the commandments, it would be better if they removed themselves from this machlokes between the two Torah greats, just as Yaakov took steps to avoid the safek on the correct bracha for lentils by providing Esav with bread, to make a hamotzi. Therefore, he counseled that they sell him to the Ishmaelites.

Compare with this vort, by krum as a bagel:


Thus, Yehuda said:

26. And Judah said to his brothers, "What is the gain if we slay our brother and cover up his blood?

כו. וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה אֶל אֶחָיו מַה בֶּצַע כִּי נַהֲרֹג אֶת אָחִינוּ וְכִסִּינוּ אֶת דָּמוֹ:

By מַה בֶּצַע, he is referring to betzias hapas, the breaking of bread after hamotzi. He is asking: what is the comparison to Yaakov's giving of bread to Esav so that he could make hamotzi to their present case? For whichever way they kill him, they are acting like one side in the machlokes. Better to avoid the machlokes entirely, just as Yaakov Avinu did. And so he counsels the selling of Yosef to the Yishme'eilim.

Why would the shivtei Kah try to kill their brother?

Summary: After all, isn't this a violation of lo tirtzach? And didn't the avos and, by extension, the shevatim, keep all 613 mitzvos?

Post: See this post by Rabbi Yaakov Haber who addresses this question, in another form. If they were great men, why did they do this? Based on the Seforno, because they thought that Yosef would be Yaakov's choice and that they would become the chaff.

This is also addressed in midrash, if we want to adopt a more "maximalist" perspective on the avos keeping the Torah. For example, this pasuk:

17. And the man said, "They have traveled away from here, for I overheard them say, 'Let us go to Dothan.' " So Joseph went after his brothers, and he found them in Dothan.

יז. וַיֹּאמֶר הָאִישׁ נָסְעוּ מִזֶּה כִּי שָׁמַעְתִּי אֹמְרִים נֵלְכָה דֹּתָיְנָה וַיֵּלֶךְ יוֹסֵף אַחַר אֶחָיו וַיִּמְצָאֵם בְּדֹתָן:

where Rashi offers the following explanation:

‘Let us go to Dothan.’: Heb. נֵלְכָה דֹתָינָה, to seek regarding you legal pretexts (נִכְלֵי דָתוֹת), by which they could put you to death. According to its simple meaning, however, it is a place-name, and a Biblical verse never loses its simple sense.

נלכה דתינה: לבקש לך נכלי דתות שימיתוך בהם. ולפי פשוטו שם מקום הוא, ואין מקרא יוצא מדי פשוטו:

Thus, perhaps their actions were done in an halachic manner.

If I might suggest a justification of the brothers' actions, I would suggest as follows. Obviously, they knew of the pesukim in Devarim 18 which state:

20. But the prophet who intentionally speaks a word in My name, which I did not command him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.		כ. אַךְ הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר יָזִיד לְדַבֵּר דָּבָר בִּשְׁמִי אֵת אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוִּיתִיו לְדַבֵּר וַאֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר בְּשֵׁם אֱ־לֹהִים אֲחֵרִים וּמֵת הַנָּבִיא הַהוּא:
21. Now if you say to yourself, "How will we know the word that the Lord did not speak?"		כא. וְכִי תֹאמַר בִּלְבָבֶךָ אֵיכָה נֵדַע אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא דִבְּרוֹ יְ־הֹוָ־ה:
22. If the prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, and the thing does not occur and does not come about, that is the thing the Lord did not speak. The prophet has spoken it wantonly; you shall not be afraid of him.		כב. אֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר הַנָּבִיא בְּשֵׁם יְ־הֹוָ־ה וְלֹא יִהְיֶה הַדָּבָר וְלֹא יָבוֹא הוּא הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא דִבְּרוֹ יְ־הֹוָ־ה בְּזָדוֹן דִּבְּרוֹ הַנָּבִיא לֹא תָגוּר מִמֶּנּוּ:

Elsewhere, a navi is lumped together with a cholem chalomot, of prophetic dreams, in this regard. Now, they knew that Yosef was offering prophetic dreams, and they believed these prophecies to be false. Thus, looking to parashat Vayeishev:

5. And Joseph dreamed a dream and told his brothers, and they continued to hate him.		ה. וַיַּחֲלֹם יוֹסֵף חֲלוֹם וַיַּגֵּד לְאֶחָיו וַיּוֹסִפוּ עוֹד שְׂנֹא אֹתוֹ:
6. And he said to them, "Listen now to this dream, which I have dreamed:		ו. וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם שִׁמְעוּ נָא הַחֲלוֹם הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר חָלָמְתִּי:
7. Behold, we were binding sheaves in the midst of the field, and behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves encircled [it] and prostrated themselves to my sheaf."		ז. וְהִנֵּה אֲנַחְנוּ מְאַלְּמִים אֲלֻמִּים בְּתוֹךְ הַשָּׂדֶה וְהִנֵּה קָמָה אֲלֻמָּתִי וְגַם נִצָּבָה וְהִנֵּה תְסֻבֶּינָה אֲלֻמֹּתֵיכֶם וַתִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶיןָ לַאֲלֻמָּתִי:

The brothers' reaction is one of disbelief:

8. So his brothers said to him, "Will you reign over us, or will you govern us?" And they continued further to hate him on account of his dreams and on account of his words.

ח. וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ אֶחָיו הֲמָלֹךְ תִּמְלֹךְ עָלֵינוּ אִם מָשׁוֹל תִּמְשֹׁל בָּנוּ וַיּוֹסִפוּ עוֹד שְׂנֹא אֹתוֹ עַל חֲלֹמֹתָיו וְעַל דְּבָרָיו:

They didn't think he would ever rule over them. Thus, he was uttering false prophetic dreams. Thus, regarding his dreams and his words relating the false dreams. In terms of the second dream:

9. And he again dreamed another dream, and he related it to his brothers, and he said, "Behold, I have dreamed another dream, and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were prostrating themselves to me."		ט. וַיַּחֲלֹם עוֹד חֲלוֹם אַחֵר וַיְסַפֵּר אֹתוֹ לְאֶחָיו וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה חָלַמְתִּי חֲלוֹם עוֹד וְהִנֵּה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְהַיָּרֵחַ וְאַחַד עָשָׂר כּוֹכָבִים מִשְׁתַּחֲוִים לִי:
10. And he told [it] to his father and to his brothers, and his father rebuked him and said to him, "What is this dream that you have dreamed? Will we come I, your mother, and your brothers to prostrate ourselves to you to the ground?"		י. וַיְסַפֵּר אֶל אָבִיו וְאֶל אֶחָיו וַיִּגְעַר בּוֹ אָבִיו וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מָה הַחֲלוֹם הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר חָלָמְתָּ הֲבוֹא נָבוֹא אֲנִי וְאִמְּךָ וְאַחֶיךָ לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֹת לְךָ אָרְצָה:

This prophetic dream couldn't come true, for Yosef's mother, Rachel, had already passed away! Indeed, the best proof is when they decide to kill Yosef:

19. So they said one to the other, "Behold, that dreamer is coming.		יט. וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו הִנֵּה בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה בָּא:
20. So now, let us kill him, and we will cast him into one of the pits, and we will say, 'A wild beast devoured him,' and we will see what will become of his dreams."		כ. וְעַתָּה לְכוּ וְנַהַרְגֵהוּ וְנַשְׁלִכֵהוּ בְּאַחַד הַבֹּרוֹת וְאָמַרְנוּ חַיָּה רָעָה אֲכָלָתְהוּ וְנִרְאֶה מַה יִּהְיוּ חֲלֹמֹתָיו:

They know that they are going to kill him. Therefore, neither of his dreams could come to fruition.  Therefore, he is a navi sheker who is deserving of death.

(This in contrast to Rashi / midrash that וְנִרְאֶה מַה יִּהְיוּ חֲלֹמֹתָיו is a statement by Hashem, rather than by the brothers.)

Their decision to kill Yosef is thus not an aveira, chas veShalom. It is a mitzvah, and is carrying out the Torah's instructions!

Why did Dinah recommend cursing Hashem?

Summary: Or, dybbyk min ha-Torah minayin?

Post: Since dybbuks, and dybbuk hoaxes, are in the news, this short and to the point devar Torah on last week's parasha, Vayishlach, is appropriate.

Dinah was a good, frum, Jewish girl. She grew up in Yaakov's household, and so learned to be meticulous not just in dinnim deOraysa but in derabbanans and minhagim as well. While the Avos learned in yeshiva Shem veEiver, Dinah learned in the very first Beis Yaakov. Yet, as we learn in Bava Basra, she later married Iyov.

Thus, it was Dinah who said to Iyov {2:9}:

ט  וַתֹּאמֶר לוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ, עֹדְךָ מַחֲזִיק בְּתֻמָּתֶךָ; בָּרֵךְ אֱלֹהִים, וָמֻת.

9 Then said his wife unto him: 'Dost thou still hold fast thine integrity? blaspheme God, and die.'

This is mystifying. It boggles the mind that someone with such an upbringing -- who would have even reformed Esav had she married him -- could say such a thing. It is near impossible!

But then, during laining yesterday, I noticed the following pasuk, regarding Shechem ben Chamor:

ג  וַתִּדְבַּק נַפְשׁוֹ, בְּדִינָה בַּת-יַעֲקֹב; וַיֶּאֱהַב, אֶת-הַנַּעֲרָ, וַיְדַבֵּר, עַל-לֵב הַנַּעֲרָ.

3 And his soul did cleave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spoke comfortingly unto the damsel.

As we know, his soul was dispatched towards the afterlife shortly thereafter, courtesy of Shimon and Levi. But this pasuk tells us that  וַתִּדְבַּק נַפְשׁוֹ בְּדִינָה. This is the Biblical source, in nigleh, for dybbuk. While Dinah was more or less a good girl, she was possessed by the dybbuk of this rasha, Shechem. When she spoke to Iyov, telling him to curse God and die, she presumably spoke from her stomach, rather than her lips.

A cute Bar Mitzvah Invitation

As the email forwards all say, watch until the end.

:)

Hershele Ostropoler and the bone

Relevant to this week's parasha, Vayera.

Hershele Ostropoler grew up poor. And one day, both he and his sister, Sarah, were hungrily eying a leftover chicken bone. Suddenly, he leaped up and grabbed it, and his sister began to cry.

His father said to him: But is says in the Torah {Bereshit 18:14) ul'Sarah bein. So Sarah should get the bone!

Replied Hershele: But if you look at the pasuk, it actually says ul'Sarah vein. Un takeh, zi veint!
(Meaning: and indeed, she is crying.)

Footnotes:
-------------------------
* The pasuk reads:

יד  הֲיִפָּלֵא מֵה', דָּבָר; לַמּוֹעֵד אָשׁוּב אֵלֶיךָ, כָּעֵת חַיָּה--וּלְשָׂרָה בֵן.

14 Is any thing too hard for the LORD. At the set time I will return unto thee, when the season cometh round, and Sarah shall have a son.'

And the ב has no dagesh in it, because of conjunctive trup on the preceding word, combined with the preceding word ending with a ה, and thus an open syllable. beyn in Yiddish means bone while veyn means cries.