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!

Doing the Daf summary #9

To see this picture debunked, see here

Here are some recent posts at my Daf Yomi blog you may have missed.

On Shabbat daf 12: Lice and teaching a trade -- Did these Amoraim drown the lice on Shabbat or chol? Perhaps the parallel Yerushalmi can help disambiguate. And in terms of the permitted activities on Shabbat:

One must not negotiate for the betrothal of children [girls],²³  nor for a boy, to teach him the book²⁴  and to teach him a trade

We know the associated Shabbos zemer, but what to make of lamnatzeach binginot?

On Shabbat daf 13: Why Ulla kissed his sisters' bosoms -- explaining how bosoms and hands might have switched off, girsologically speaking. And how Ulla does not necessarily hold 'Take a circuitous route, O nazirite, but do not approach the vineyard' applies to closeness to forbidden relations.

On Shabbat daf 14: When was the first gezeira enacted --I suggest that Tosafot's question is actually a rather strong question.

On Shabbat daf 17-18: Trying to get to the bottom of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel about starting a melacha which will finish on Shabbat.

Doing the Daf summary #8

To see this picture debunked, see here

Here are some recent posts at my Daf Yomi blog you may have missed.

Finishing up Berachot:

On Berachot 61-62, Rabbi Akiva forbids in every place. I suggest that this does not mean every location, but in every instance, and this leads to a reparse of the brayta and associated gemaras.

On Berachot 63, must we follow the pesak of Gedolim in Eretz Yisrael, under the theory of ki mitzion teitzei Torah udvar Hashem miyrushalayim, and in light of the fight for establishing the Jewish calendar inside and outside Eretz Yisrael. First I present the parallel Yerushalmi. Then I give some reasons one might distinguish between the cases.

On Berachot 64, Fate and Rabbinic leadership, I suggest that Rav Yosef did not avoid summoning the bloodletter to his home so as to avoid assuming any sort of power, but because he did not need to worry about his health so long as Rabba was in charge of the academy.

Then, we started masechet Shabbat.

On Shabbat daf 2 (and on), I consider the parallel "two which are four" in Shabbos and Shevuos, and whether they must be referring to the same set. I also begin the discussion of the identity of the four domains of Shabbat.

On daf 6, I continue the discussion of that identity in greater detail. Yerushalmi substitutes "closed alleyway" for mekom petur, with the rest of the brayta the same. Which fourth item reads better into the flow of the brayta. I also try to account for the usage of the word gemura (complete) on a peshat level. Either because what one might imagine is a complete private domain, an enclosed house, is left implicit, or because the very point is to contrast to a karmelit.

On daf 6-7, I consider the karmelit as the name of a class and the name of a specific domain. I believe it started as a known specific domain example, and was seized upon as a name for the class. Its identity as a class likely caused the forgetting of its precise identity. We can see Rabbi Yochanan in both Bavli and Yerushalmi giving a definition, and perhaps this is not then a relisting of karmelit in the brayta to include (in which case, as Tosafot asks, why not include tzidei reshut harabbim) but a definition. Finally, where Rabbi Yochanan identifies it as the chanut of bar Yustini, I venture a guess as to just what that is.

On daf 9, Bavel vs. Eretz Yisrael regarding the start of the meal, I consider in the ha lan ha lehu which is the practice of Bavel and which of Eretz Yisrael. It certainly makes more sense that the Babylonian practice was the girdle.

Related, on daf 10, girding oneself for prayer as a Zoroastrian practice picked up by Babylonian Amoraim.

On daf 10-11, Rava bar Mechasia, locating him in time and place. Was there some motivator to his collection of statements of Rav? Was he called bar Mechasia because he lived in Mata Mechasia? If the setama degemara disagrees with Rav Ashi and notes that Mata Mechasya was indeed destroyed, and we know that Mata Mechasia was still standing in the second half of the 7th century, does that provide an indication as to the late authorship of that particular setama degemara?

Beating baby rams for the cover of the Mishkan

Summary: Why doesn't Rashi suggest that that is what וְעֹרֹת אֵילִם מְאָדָּמִים means, if the Yerushalmi explains it in this manner? Rav Chaim Kanievsky asks and answers. And I give my own explanation.

Post: Consider this Rashi, towards the beginning of Terumah:

5. ram skins dyed red, tachash skins, and acacia wood;		ה. וְעֹרֹת אֵילִם מְאָדָּמִים וְעֹרֹת תְּחָשִׁים וַעֲצֵי שִׁטִּים:
dyed red: Heb. מְאֳָדָּמִים. They were dyed red after being tanned.		מאדמים: צבועות היו אדום לאחר עבודן:

After citing the pasuk and Rashi, Rav Chaim Kanievsky writes, in Taama deKra:

"And it is written in R' Ovadiah miBartenura, za'l, as follows:

'They were dyed red after being tanned', to explain, since it did not state adumim but rather מְאָדָּמִים, it is implied that they were red due to some other substance and not red because of themselves. However, in the Yerushalmi is written that they would strike the rams with rods while they were yet small, and the blood would collect when they hit them, and afterwards, they slaughtered them, end quote.

And this is in the Yerushalmi, perek 7, and see in the Tosefta, perek 9 of Shabbat. And this requires consideration, why Rashi za'l explained that they were dyed after being tanned, not like the Yerushalmi.


And there is to say that in Menachot, daf 42m Tannaim argue if we need dyeing lishmah for the priestly garments, see inside. And see in the Yerushalmi, perek 3 of Yoma, that the priestly garments need their weaving to be in holiness. And it stands to reason, certainly, that the same would be true for their dyeing, that they need to be in holiness. And presumably, it also stands to reason that the same would be true for all the labors of the Mishkan, that we need the dyeing to be lishmah. And that which the Israelites donated techeiles and argaman, etc., and it certainly implies that they donated that which was already dyed techeiles. Perforce one must say that it seems that they did the dyeing lishmah. And according to that which is explained in the Yerushalmi Yoma, that we need weaving to be done in holiness [and presumably, dyeing as well], one must say that those who donated it consecrated it before the dyeing, such that its tanning was lishmah and in holiness.


And according to this, is seems that so would be true for the dyeing of the red rams, that it would need to be in holiness, and lishmah. And based on this, it is impossible to explain like the Yerushalmi, that they made them red while alive via striking with rods when they were young, for if so, it was not done in holiness. [For after this, the hide would not become red via gathering of the blood. And the entire time of Israel's donation to the Mishkan was two days [as is written in Shemos Rabba, parasha 41]. And since they are now already {adult} rams, which would be at the very least 13 months, as is written in the Mishna at the beginning of Para, it comes out that they were not dyed lishmah, nor in holiness.


And therefore, Rashi za'l explained that they were dyed after they were tanned. And the aforementioned Yerushalmi, which explains that they were dyed while yet alive, perforce goes according to the opinion that we do not require dyeing lishmah."

All in all, a masterful construction, which required bekius across Shas Bavli, Shas Yerushalmi, and midrashim, and sevara to combine all these little facts together.

Even so, I don't think that the end result is true. I will try to offer my own analysis.

First, that Rashi does not cite the Yerushalmi, and explain according to it, is not exceptional, that it should rise to the level of a question. First one needs to demonstrate that Rashi even had access to the full Yerushalmi. In medieval times, it is documented that they did not have Yerushalmi in all countries. And even if it was available to him, that does not mean that it was something Rashi obtained and studied in great depth, such that this random Yerushalmi should be on the tip of his tongue, and such that it is surprising that Rashi did not cite it. And even if he knew the Yerushalmi, the Bavli in Shabbos does not give this as the definition of dyeing in the Mishkan, leaving it implicit (not explicit) that the dyeing was of the techeiles, argaman, and tolaas shani.

(As an aside, see how Rav Ovadia Yosef puts it in Halacha Yomit:

אחת מט"ל (משלשים ותשע) מלאכות האסורות מן התורה בשבת, היא מלאכת צובע. שכן שנינו במשנה במסכת שבת (דף עג.). שהרי כל מלאכה שהיו עושים במשכן, אסרה התורה לעשותה בשבת. ובכלל המלאכות שהיו נעשות במשכן, היתה מלאכת צובע, שהיו רגילים לצבוע את הצמר בצבע התכלת שהיה מצוי בידם, וכן היו רגילים לצבוע את עורות המשכן בצבע.

)

Perhaps, also, there is another way of understanding the Yerushalmi in question, such that the Yerishalmi is saying no such thing.

Aside from any analysis of Rashi or Yerushalmi, my mind recoils from the idea mentioned in the Yerushalmi. This is beauty, and this is what they would do to beautify the Mishkan?! To beat poor defenseless baby rams to cause painful bruising and internal bleeding? I don't think I could look at the red cover of the Mishkan and think of its beauty.

Halachically, there is a din of tzaar baalei chaim, not to cause unnecessary pain to animals. Yet one is allowed to cause pain for a constructive purpose, and there may be a threshold at which it is considered constructive. Thus, for instance, foie gras is the prepared liver of force-fed duck or goose. The force feeding it not pleasant for the duck or goose. Yet, it might fall within the realm of acceptable, halachically speaking. (Even so, the force-feeding seems to cause the ducks and geese to become treifahs, such that it would be forbidden from another perspective. Consult your local Orthodox rabbi.) And so it could well be acceptable to beat these calves to get red-dyed ram skins. Despite all this, I admit that I am a bit shocked.

On to the Yerushalmi! The Yerushalmi, in Shabbat 51a, reads as follows:

מה צביעה היתה במשכן שהיו משרבטין בבהמה בעורות אלים מאדמים.  א"ר יוסה הדא אמר העושה חבורה ונצרר בה דם חייב.

"What dyeing was there in the Mishkan? That the struck with rods [mesharbetin] animals, in the red ram skins.


Rabbi Yosa said: This informs us that one who makes a wound, and blood collects there, is liable."


This seems more or less along the lines of what Rav Chaim Kanievsky, and R' Ovadia MiBartenura, presented. Except one thing that leaps out is that the phrase beodam ketanim does not appear. If so, the resolution from R' Kanievsky that there would not have been enough time in the two days for them to go from young calves to full eilim is not entirely supported in our Yerushalmi.

But more than that. The explanation presented above is in accord with one of the standard commentaries on the page, namely the Korban HaEidah. Thus:

"shehayu mesharbetin beveheimah: That they would smite the animal with a rod, so that the hide would become red, when they flayed it.


venitzrar bah dam chayav: because of dyeing."

This explanation has going for it that it is extremely straightforward, and it is easy to see how the statement of Rabbi Yosa is directly extrapolated from the particulars of the prior statement.

Still, Pnei Moshe explains the Yerushalmi in an entirely different manner.

"{The Mishnah stated:} And one who dyes it. And it explains, 'what dyeing was there in the Mishkan? That they rodded the animal with the rod with dyeing, in order to make it recognizable, that it was set aside to be a korban. Or, in the manner that they did to the tenth one to leave, as we learn in the Mishna in the 9th perek of Bechorot, 'and the one that leaves tenth, they mark it red with red marking. And so did they dye in the red-dyed skins.


'{Rabbi Yosa said:} This tells us': From that which it stated that making any visible sign is called dyeing, we deduce that one who makes a wound and blood collects in it is liable because of dyeing, for the redness is recognizable..."


This is a very different sort of explanation. Nobody is beating poor defenseless baby rams to cause them to bruise. Instead, it is a (possibly temporary) painting with a marking to designate it.

It does not flow as well, because Rabbi Yosa's first din does not emerge entirely from the details of what they did in the Mishkan. And it is just happenstance that this din and the one which follow have to do with making things red. And also, mesharbetin beveheima ends up being something entirely different from beoros eilim meodamim, with an implicit "and" connecting them. Despite this difficulty, it is eminently possible, since the Aramaic of the Yerushalmi is not as worked-over and smooth as what we are used to in the Bavli.

If Pnei Moshe's explanation is correct, then all the difficulties for Rashi disappear. Even the Yerushalmi agrees that the dyeing was to the already-flayed (and tanned) skins of the rams, and so there is no contradiction.

I won't leave this sugya before offering my own suggestion, which might even eliminate some of the difficulties in the Pnei Moshe's explanation.

Now, in general, I agree that people all too-often look at Yerushalmis with Bavli-tinted spectacles. And so they reinterpret the Yerushalmi to accord with the Bavli, even if in truth there is disagreement. But this is just something to be aware of, and wary of. Even so, sometimes knowledge of the Bavli can indeed help with understanding the Yerushalmi, and vice versa.

I would point out the following Bavli, in Shabbat 75b:

והמולחו והמעבדו:

היינו מולח והיינו מעבד ר' יוחנן ור"ל דאמרי תרוייהו אפיק חד מינייהו ועייל שירטוט

Or, in English:

SALTING AND CURING IT. But salting and tanning are identical?³  — R. Johanan and Resh Lakish both said: Omit one of these and insert the tracing of lines.⁴

The tracing of lines was on the hides prior to cutting them. And so Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, both of whom were Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael, proposed changing the list of the 39 avos melachos in the Mishna to include sirtut.

And Rashi explains:

ועייל שירטוט - לפי שדרך הרצענין כשהוא בא לחתכו משרטטו תחלה כפי מה שהוא רוצה להאריך ולהרחיב ולקצר החיתוך ואחר כך מעביר הסכין דרך השירטוט וכן בעורות המשכן כשחתכום:

This tracing of lines in the hide seems remarkably similar to the slight marking on the beheimos mentioned in the Yerushalmi, according to the explanation of the Pnei Moshe.

More than that, the word here is שירטוט. And the word in Yerushalmi was משרבטין. Yes, I am going to suggest it -- that there was a taut sofer in the Yerushalmi, and it should read:

מה צביעה היתה במשכן שהיו משרטטין בבהמה בעורות אלים מאדמים.

"What dyeing was there in the Mishkan? That they would draw lines upon the [hides of] the animal, upon the hides of the red-dyed rams."

Further, the Yerushalmi is not listing two applications, of beheima and of orot eilim, but rather, there is an implicit "viz.", or "that is to day", between them. And so, by selecting the sirtut as the level of dyeing, rather than focusing on the dyeing of wool with techeilet, argaman, and tolaat shani, we have a much lighter activity which is prohibited. And so Rabbi Yosa extrapolates what he extrapolates.

If so, there is a difficulty in that Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, of Eretz Yisrael, want to include sirtut as a replacement for either salting or tanning. But according to the plain Yerushalmi, there would still be a clash with dyeing, which is already present. It is possible to resolve this, but I won't bother for now.

There is also the Tosefta that says sharbit, which Rav Kanievsky mentioned. That Tosefta reads:

ט,ב  המיסך [שלשה] חוטין בתחלה ה"ז חייב ר' יהודה אומר אף [השרביט] והמדקדק ע"ג אריג כל שהוא ה"ז חייב הצד חלזון והפוצעו [הרי זה חייב שתי חטאות].

But note that השרביט is in square brackets, indicating that this is a matter of girsological disagreement.

Darshening a psik, that the three days time period was elongated.

Summary: Such is the remez suggested by Birkas Avraham. Thus, "11. The trup symbol of psik alludes to the day that Moshe added at his own initiative."

Post:

"11. The trup symbol of psik alludes to the day that Moshe added at his own initiative.


In the verse (Shemos 19:11) והיו נכונים ליום השלישי, כי ביום השלישי ירד ה' לעיני כל העם על הר סיני, there is a trup symbol of psik (a vertical bar | ) after the word כי, and before the words ביום השלישי. And it is possible to say that this alludes to that which is stated in the sugya regarding Mattan Torah in Maseches Shabbos (daf 87a), that they ask from this verse, that it is written והיו נכונים ליום השלישי, upon Rabbi Yossi who maintains that on Shabbos, which was the seventh of Nissan, the Torah was given. And they answer that behold we say that Moshe added a day of his own initiative, even as in the commandment in this verse is stated that it should be on the third day from now, see inside in the gemara.


And it seems possible to say that the trup symbol of psik hints to this, that in actual fact the commanded time was extended and a day was added to it, and only on the third day of complete days, with the night of the day with it, did Hashem descend to the eyes of the entire nation upon Har Sinai."

The gemara in question is this:

Come and hear: And be ready against the third day: this is a difficulty according to R. Jose?¹⁵  — Surely we have said that Moses added one day of his own understanding!

Though this is not the primary verse from which the gemara asks. Rather, this is the stama degemara extended what was already stated earlier on the daf:

On Tuesday he said to them, and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests; on Wednesday he informed them of the order to set boundaries, and on Thursday they separated themselves. An objection is raised: And sanctify them to-day and to-morrow:³  this is difficult in the view of R. Jose?⁴  — R. Jose can answer you: Moses added one day of his own understanding.⁵  For it was taught, Three things did Moses do of his own understanding, and the Holy One, blessed be He, gave His approval:⁶  he added one day of his own understanding, he separated himself from his wife,⁷  and he broke the Tables. 'He added one day of his own understanding': what [verse] did he interpret? To-day and to-morrow: 'to-day' [must be] like 'tomorrow: just as to-morrow includes the [previous] night, so 'to-day' [must] include the [previous] night, but the night of to-day has already passed! Hence it must be two days exclusive of to-day.

This also forms the primary derivation, as opposed to this secondary remez / allusion.

Here is an image of the trup of the pasuk:

As we might already expect, this is not really a psik, but is rather a munach legarmeih. Note that it is before the short word כי, and note the munach revii following. This is a regular disjunctive accent, caused by syntax and mechanical considerations such as pasuk length and tree structure, rather than some semantic reason such as to hint that the three days were extended.

A Staff swallowing staffs, or a snake swallowing snakes?

Summary: A tradition like the peshat, that the snake swallowed snakes. Should we then reinterpret Rashi against what he says fairly plainly? No.

Post: Consider the following pasuk and Rashi in parashat Vaera:

12. Each one of them cast down his staff, and they became serpents; but Aaron's staff swallowed their staffs.		יב. וַיַּשְׁלִיכוּ אִישׁ מַטֵּהוּ וַיִּהְיוּ לְתַנִּינִם וַיִּבְלַע מַטֵּה אַהֲרֹן אֶת מַטֹּתָם:
but Aaron’s staff swallowed their staffs: After it had again become a staff, it swallowed them all. — [from Shab. 97a]		ויבלע מטה אהרן: מאחר שחזר ונעשה מטה בלע את כולן:

The Maharshal writes:

"And I have received via tradition that the snake of Aharon swallowed them all. And even the language of Rashi, one is able to explain like this. For so long as it did not turn back into a staff, its swallowing was not recognized, until it turned back into a staff and the other staffs were lost. And it is easy to understand. {?} Maharshal. But in the gemara, in perek haZorek, it does not seem like this. See there."

That gemara in HaZorek, in Shabbos 97a, reads:

But Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods:¹⁹  R. Eleazar observed, It was a double miracle.²⁰

A single miracle would be the snakes swallowing their snakes. But the double miracle would be that it was in rod state when it swallowed, as were the rods of the Egyptian magicians.

I think we can make this point even stronger. The gemara there reads:

ויבלע מטה אהרן את מטותם א"ר אלעזר נס בתוך נס

and it is Rashi who writes there:

נס בתוך נס - לאחר שחזר ונעשה מטה בלען ולא כשהוא תנין דלא כתיב ויבלע תנין אהרן:

"after it turned back into a staff, it swallowed them, and not when it was a serpent, for it is not written 'and the tanin of Aharon swallowed'."

Admittedly, the same kvetch you can make for Rashi on Vaera you can make for Rashi on Shabbos.

After presenting all this, here are my thoughts.

1) The pashut peshat in the pasuk it that Aharon's snake swallowed the other snakes. This is obvious. It is called Aharon's staff since it was Aharon's staff in a different form. Peshat is not being absolutely literal. It is realizing the flexibility of language, and not being so particular.

2) At the same time, a clever midrashist can see this textual irregularity and exploit it. And he can maintain that this is an encoded meaning of the verse, hidden in plain sight. And he can believe that this was historical, or he could use it to make some homiletic point.

3) I have mixed feelings about those who put this sort of interpretation forth as peshat, based on 'close-readings' of the pesukim.

4) As someone with pashtanic inclinations, I agree with Maharshal that this -- snake swallowing snakes --  is the meaning of the pasuk. But why is it necessary to put it forth as a kabbalah, a received tradition? As I noted above, this interpretation is an obvious one, and you can say it without a kabbalah. And why it is necessary to kvetch Rashi to accord with this interpretation? Can't it be a machlokes?

I think the answer is that if it were a mere peshat interpretation, and not a kabbalah, there would not have been an issue. The peshat might have to yield to the derash, as a matter of the historical record. Or peshat would yield to derash because the peshat is only a non-careful, non-close reading. Or one could give the derash a deeper mystical or allegorical significance, and establish the peshat as historical. Or, these could be two competing interpretations of the pasuk. There are all sorts of ways to sort this out.

But once it is a kabbalah, a received tradition, that which I labeled peshat becomes something more. Though I could just say this is a received tradition about how some Rabbi along the way (e.g. Ibn Ezra) interpreted the pasuk, a "kabbalah" sounds like a tradition all the way back to Moshe Rabbenu. It is what happened historically. Or at the least, it is no longer a non-close reading that would readily yield to the derash, but it gains substance as a legitimate interpretation -- derash? -- of its own.

If so, how could Rashi (and Chazal before him) put forth something that is historically inaccurate? Are we stating that they darshened incorrectly?

Or, since many supercommentators of Rashi insist that he always says peshat, how can his peshat, that the staff devoured staffs, coexist with a peshat interpretation that has this tradition behind it?

I can see why Maharshal would want to harmonize Rashi and the gemara with this.

5) Even so, the harmonization is a kvetch. Rashi means to say that a staff swallowed staffs, such that it was the double miracle mentioned in the gemara in Shabbos.

6) Finally, this is another instance where it is a good idea to see Rashi's sources, as an aid to divining Rashi's intent. And there is a merit to finding peshat in the derash, and thus peshat in Rashi.

7) Finally, if the snake swallowing another snake is a miracle, it is one found in the natural world. Consider the following YouTube video as an example:



If so, perhaps we should reevaluate what the nes besoch nes was. Or, we can say this it was still out of the ordinary, and significant in the context of the matter (Hashem's might vs. Pharaoh's might), and was amazing and surprising that it swallowed so many other snakes.

More Incorruptible Moroccan Kabbalists

Yeranen Yaakov takes note of a story from Arutz Sheva: Another Moroccan Kabbalist's Body Reburied Whole.

The body of Rabbi Reuven Ajeyani, Rosh Yeshiva of the Etz Chaim Yeshiva in Sefrou, Morocco was interred Wednesday in the Jerusalem Har Hamenuchot cemetery, 70 years after the rabbi passed on.

Rabbi Ajeyani was famous for his vast knowledge of Talmud and Kabbalah, and was known for his blessings that brought about Divine salvation for countless followers.

The body of Rabbi Ajeyani was found miraculously intact, without signs of decomposition, demonstrating his true virtue.

And he links it to an earlier story "about Moroccan Kabbalist brothers Ribbi Avraham Tangi and Ribbi Shelomo Tangi, where the same occurred".

I would link it to another phenomenon, which purportedly occurs to various Catholic saints: incorruptibility.

Incorruptibility is a Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox believe that supernatural (or Godly) intervention allows some human bodies (specifically saints) to avoid the normal process of decomposition after death as a sign of their holiness. Bodies that reportedly undergo little or no decomposition, or delayed decomposition, are sometimes referred to as incorrupt or incorruptable.

The Wikipedia page has multiple pages of saints to which this has happened. And see this web site all about the phenomenon:

What is most astounding of all is the fact that for each incorrupt body discovered, after research has been done to determine who the person was, it has always been determined that the person was an extremely devout Catholic. This inevitably leads to the question, How can the process of decay, which has no intelligence, choose which bodies to devour and not to devour, and why do they happen to be devout Catholics? (For claims of incorrupt Orthodox Christians, we could not find proof for them during our research. Please see our page on the subject here.) There is no other way to describe this phenomena than to state that it is supernatural rather than natural, and that it is simply miraculous.

One explanation why this only seems to occur to devout Catholics is that it is Catholics specifically who believe in and venerate saints, and that this is a trait specific to many saints.

Now, there are ways of accounting for incorruptibility aside from supernatural cause. There is the possibility of fraud, such as the embalming of the body or of people simply lying; and there is the possibility of natural causes:

Physical causes include conditions such that decomposition is significantly slowed down. There are a number of ways of retarding decomposition, but the mechanism commonly stated is that of saponification.^[3] Another environmental condition that can be the cause of retarding decomposition is a burial ground that is cool and dry. The retardation of decomposition also occurs if the ground is composed of soil that is high in certain compounds that bring the bodies' moisture to the surface of the skin. It is also suggested that bodies with low amounts of muscle and body fat tend to resist decomposition better.^{[citation needed]}

Alternatively, bodies may simply have been embalmed, which greatly decreases the rate at which they decompose.^[3]

Surely Orthodox Jews don't believe that this is really a supernatural occurrence happening to devout Catholics. And so, whatever explanation they would offer for the Catholics might readily be transferred to many or all of the cases involving Jewish saints kabbalists / tzaddikim.

How did this belief enter Judaism. Did it develop internally, or was it borrowed from the Catholics? Or did the Catholics get it from us?

There is a Talmudic basis for this belief. First, in Bava Metzia 84b:

On his death-bed he said to his wife, 'I know that the Rabbis are angry with me, and will not properly attend to me. Let me lie in an upper chamber,¹²  and do you not be afraid of me.' R. Samuel b. Nahmani said: R. Jonathan's mother told me that she was informed by the wife of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon: 'I kept him lying in that upper chamber not less than eighteen nor more than twenty-two years. Whenever I ascended there, I examined his hair, and [even] if a single hair had fallen out, the blood would well forth. One day, I saw a worm issue from his ear, whereat I was much grieved, but he appeared to me in my dream and told me that it was nothing. ["This has happened," said he,] "because I once heard a scholar insulted and did not protest, as I should have done." 

Perhaps Rabbi Eleazar beRabbi Shimon is different, for we see from a different story that (after he worried about a possible misdeed and complained that he was rotting) they performed an experiment and discovered that his extracted fat did not rot and develop worms. (See indeed Chiddushei Aggadat of Maharsha, who makes this connection.) But we might not extrapolate from this to the general case of tzaddikim, that they do not rot.

The other Talmudic basis comes from a story about a different Tanna, Rabbi Achai bar Yoshia, in Shabbat 152b:

R. Mari said: [Even] the righteous are fated to be dust, for it is written, 'and the dust return to the earth as it was'. Certain diggers were digging in R. Nahman's ground, [when] R. Ahai b. Josiah¹¹  snorted at them. So they went and told R. Nahman, 'A man snorted at us.' He went and asked him, 'Who are you?' 'I am Ahai b. Josiah.' 'But did not R. Mari say. [Even] the righteous are fated to be dust?' said he. 'But who is Mari,' he retorted 'I do not know him.' Yet surely a verse is written, 'and the dust returns to the earth as it was'? he urged. 'He who taught you Ecclesiastes did not teach you Proverbs,' he answered, 'for it is written, But envy is the rottenness of the bones:¹²  he who has envy in his heart, his bones rot away. [but] he who has no envy in his heart, his bones do not rot away.' He then felt him and perceived that there was substance in him. 'Let my master arise [and come] to my house,' he invited him. 'You have thus disclosed that you have not even studied the prophets, for it is written, And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves,'¹³  said he to him, 'But it is written, for dust art thou, and unto dust thou shalt return?'¹⁴  'That means one hour before the resurrection of the dead', replied he.

This would be a rejection of the thesis (of the Amora, Rav Mari) that even the bodies of tzaddikim decompose. However, note that they are discussing the rotting away of the bones, rather than the rotting away of the flesh. And the prooftext from Mishlei speaks about the bones, not the flesh. Though דאית ביה מששא, "that there was substance in him", might well refer to R' Achai bar Yoshia having flesh as well.

Still, we cannot necessarily extrapolate to the preservation of the entire body, including flesh.

The conflation of flesh not decomposing with the bones being intact is apparently something that has occurred in the past. Thus, as S. wrote in a comment in both Yeranen Yaakov posts about the Chida and the Gra:

In all likelihood their skeletons were intact. In at least two other cases of reinterment, the Gra and the Chida's skeletons were said to be intact by those who dealt with the bodies, and we have their words from the time or the reinterment, but in retellings it got expanded to intact bodies, hair, etc.

So, what is my reaction to hearing this recent miracle story?

1) It would be neat if it indeed happened.

2) Still, "pics or it didn't happen." I don't just believe every single claim put forth without evidence. There are people out there who accidentally distort aspects of stories. And even some (including some Jews) who deliberately distort or make up miracle stories in order to inspire others. Given that the people in question were kabbalists, such as this latest one, who "was famous for his vast knowledge of Talmud and Kabbalah, and was known for his blessings that brought about Divine salvation for countless followers", it would be a great disgrace if someone said that his body was not intact. And given the expectation in the past, based on other Moroccan kabbalists, it is a pretty safe bet that someone would ask. Certain people would then conclude that he (like the Gra and the Chida) as not the great kabbalist and tzaddik he was renowned to be. That would be a tremendous bizayon. Such pressure could influence someone shading the truth, or even getting embalmed. (A sort of a reverse of the Or HaChaim regarding Yaakov Avinu getting embalmed.)

3) Even with pics, it would be nice (though obviously not practical, or kavod hameis) to test for signs of embalming or saponification.

There is a famous Or HaChaim which explains why Yosef had his father Yaakov embalmed.

"And the physicians embalmed him -- Yosef did this because of his father's honor, for such was the rule of the honored ones, and all the more so the greats of the nobility. Or else, in order that they should not err regarding him, when they did not embalm him, [to think] that he did not die, or that he died and did not rot, and make him into a deity. For such is a wonder in the polluted nations, and this would result in them not allowing him to ascend to the land of his burial. And if not for one of the aforementioned reasons, the matter is simple that {even} without embalming, he would not have rotted, And go and learn from the incident of Rabbi Eliezer beRabbi Shimon ben Yochai, as is stated in Shas."

The Ohr HaChaim was also a Moroccan kabbalist, who passed away in 1743.

Did Rashi sin in saying פרשה זו יפה נדרשת במדרש רבי תנחומא?

Summary: The Taz brings up a prohibition Rashi might have violated in this regard, and explains why it was not forbidden in this instance -- something to do with the nature of peshat and derash on this pasuk. I analyze the topic in greater detail, and think I have a better explanation.

Post: Rashi begins his commentary on parashat Korach as follows:

1. Korah the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi took [himself to one side] along with Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, descendants of Reuben.		א. וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח בֶּן יִצְהָר בֶּן קְהָת בֶּן לֵוִי וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב וְאוֹן בֶּן פֶּלֶת בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן:
And Korach took: This parsha is darshened will in the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma.		ויקח קרח: פרשה זו יפה נדרשת במדרש רבי תנחומא:

He follows this up immediately with commentary on the actual substance of parshas Korach:

ויקח קרח: לקח את עצמו לצד אחד להיות נחלק מתוך העדה לעורר על הכהונה, וזהו שתרגם אונקלוס ואתפלג נחלק משאר העדה להחזיק במחלוקת, וכן (איוב טו, יב) מה יקחך לבך, לוקח אותך להפליגך משאר בני אדם. דבר אחר ויקח קרח משך ראשי סנהדראות שבהם בדברים, כמו שנאמר (במדבר כ, כה) קח את אהרן, (הושע יד, ג) קחו עמכם דברים:

The Taz is troubled by this. In his commentary on Rashi, Divrei David, he writes:

"This parasha is darshened well -- it appears to be difficult, for there is a prohibition in utilizing such language! For behold, Chazal said [Eruvin 64a; and here] that it is prohibited to say 'this halacha is good; this halacha is not good'. For one cannot say that specifically for saying both of them there is a prohibition to say. This is not so, for behold, 'this halacha is not good' one should prohibit by itself. Rather, perforce, this is what it means to say: Just as it is forbidden to say 'this halacha is not good', so is it forbidden to say 'this halacha is good', for from this it is implied that other halachot are not good, forfend! And if so, what does Rashi say 'this parasha...'?


And there is so say that here as well, there is an exclusion. For in other places, there are two paths -- one according to its peshat and the second according to the midrash. But here, there is only one path, for the midrash is the peshat, for there is no peshat here, but only the midrash is well darshened even according to its peshat, for there is no explanation on the word ויקח what he took, according to its peshat."

Before proceeding, a little biographical information about the Taz:

David ha-Levi Segal (c. 1586 – 20 February 1667), also known as the Turei Zahav (abbreviated Taz) after the title of his significant halakhic commentary on the Shulchan Aruch, was one of the greatest Polish rabbinical authorities...

Around 1641 he became rabbi of the old community of Ostrog, (or Ostroh), in Volhynia. There Segal established a famous yeshiva, and was soon recognized as one of the great halakhic authorities of his time. In Ostrog, Segal wrote a commentary on Joseph Caro's Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah), which he published in Lublin in 1646. This commentary, known as theTurei Zahav ("Rows of Gold"), was accepted as one of the highest authorities on Jewish law. Thereafter, Segal became known by the acronym of his work, the TaZ.

Thus, the Taz is a halachist, and so his random halachic concerns should probably be taken somewhat seriously. He also wrote a supercommentary on Rashi, Derech David, where he expresses his concerns about this Rashi.

I think I have a good response to this halachic concern, though my answer is different from his. Before proceeding further, I'd like to lay out a structure for analysis of this sugya, as a series of questions that I plan to answer systematically.

1. Where is this gemara? What does it say, precisely?
2. Is it brought down lehalacha by the Rif, Rosh, Rambam, Tur, Shulchan Aruch, or is it just a resurrected passing comment in the gemara which an acharon has now brought to prominence?
3. Does Rashi indeed say this? When looking at the manuscripts of Rashi I have in my possession (in my source-roundup), is this comment consistently there?
4. Assuming Rashi did indeed say this, how would I explain his intent? Why should he bother making such a comment?
5. The analysis in (4) will likely differ from the analysis in the Taz. Does this save Rashi in a different way?
6. What do I think of the Taz's explanation of Rashi and his saving of Rashi? Does it work out with Rashi's language, and the facts on the ground? Does Rashi really only say this about the single derasha  on ויקח קרח? Is there really no acceptable peshat here? Is the midrash here really peshat, to the exclusion of other places where Rashi channels midrash?
7. Others in the conversation

I - The Gemara in Eruvin

I did my best to track down this gemara, and I believe that the Taz is referring to this gemara in Eruvin, 64a:

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף היו שם חמשה שכירו וה' לקיטו מהו אמר ליה אם אמרו שכירו ולקיטו להקל יאמרו שכירו ולקיטו להחמיר גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אפילו שכירו ואפי' לקיטו נותן עירובו ודיו אמר רב נחמן כמה מעליא הא שמעתא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שתה רביעית יין אל יורה אמר רב נחמן לא מעליא הא שמעתא דהא אנא כל כמה דלא שתינא רביעתא דחמרא לא צילא דעתאי אמר ליה רבא מאי טעמא אמר מר הכי האמר ר' אחא בר חנינא מאי דכתיב (משלי כט, ג) ורועה זונות יאבד הון כל האומר שמועה זו נאה וזו אינה נאה מאבד הונה של תורה אמר ליה הדרי בי

For the English, I will simply cite the Point by Point Summary:

(g) Question (Abaye): If there are five Sechirim or Lekitim [of a Nochri; Ra'avad - or of a Yisrael], must they all give to the Eruv (Rashba - must we rent from all of them) [as if it was their house]?
(h) Answer (Rav Yosef): The law of Sachir or Lakit is a leniency, so do not derive stringencies from it (we are lenient regarding Eruvin).
(i) (Rav Yehudah): It suffices if the Sachir or Lakit gives towards the Eruv.
(j) Rav Nachman: This is a superb teaching!

2) RULING WHEN INTOXICATED

(a) (Rav Yehudah): One who drinks a Revi'is of wine may not give Halachic rulings.
(b) Rav Nachman: This is not a good teaching - my mind is not clear until I drink a Revi'is!

1. Rava: It is not proper to say that a teaching is not good!
2. (R. Acha bar Chanina): "V'Ro'eh Zonos Ye'abed Hon" - if one says that some teachings are nice and others are not, he will lose the glory of Torah (forget his learning. Rashi - Zonos is like 'Zo Na'eh (this one is nice)'; Me'iri - he is attracted only to some teachings, like men find some women more attractive than others. Rashash - one may disapprove of teachings that oppose other teachings.)
3. Rav Nachman: I retract.

And Rashi writes there:

מאי טעמא אמר מר הכי - זו נאה וזו אינה נאה:

הונה - כבודה של תורה וסופה להשתכח ממנו:

רועה זונות - נוטריקון זו נאה וארענה ואעסוק בה כדי שתתקיים בידי:

הדרי בי - לא אוסיף עוד:

If this is indeed the only gemara that makes such a statement, then there are a few differences between it and what the Taz brought down, and perhaps those differences can provide us with an answer. First, it does not speak of saying that one הלכה is nice and another is not nice, but rather that one שמועה is nice and the other not nice. Perhaps this could refer to only a specific type of teaching. Second, the two examples brought down are approval or disapproval of halachot, so perhaps midrash aggada is different. We indeed see distinctions in accepting or rejecting midrash aggada from Chazal, in Shmuel Hanagid's Mevo HaTalmud. Third, maybe we can say like the Rashash, above, that given competing traditions, one can select one over the other.

While there is room from the gemara to argue with the Taz about whether saying that a tradition is nice is unacceptable, or only  the reverse, there is enough in the gemara to support the Taz's position. After all, Rav Nachman said both, and then retracted. True, the retraction was listed only after him taking a negative position, but it seems like the entire process of approval / disapproval was being frowned upon. Perhaps this is only when one is engaging in both positive and negative review, that an approval would carry such an implication.

I also don't know that we should read a prohibition, and issur, into this. It could just be rather frowned upon, hashkafically, with the derasha from Mishlei as a support to such disapproval.

II - The Rishonim

Is this gemara brought down lehalacha in halachic literature, or is the Taz resurrecting a position which had been ignored until his time?

Well, the Rif cites it as part of the discussion from the gemara:

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What if there were five hired laborers or retainers {in the gentile's house, each of whom occupied a room in it, and one had forgotten to contribute his share in the eruv of the alley}?
He said to him: Even if they said the law of hired laborers and retainers to be lenient, do you think they spoke of hired laborers or retainers to be stringent?! {But rather, there is no problem.}

Gufa: {to return to the main text}
Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: even his hired laborer or retainer may contribute on his {=the gentile's} behalf to the eruv, and it is sufficient.
Rav Nachman said: How excellent a ruling is this!

And Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: One who has drunk a reviit of wine should not pray {our gemara: should not render a legal ruling}.
Rav Nachman said: This ruling is not excellent, for until I drink a reviit of wine, my mind is not clear.

Rava said to him {=Rav Nachman}: Why does Master speak in such a manner? Did not Rav Acha bar Chanina state: What is meant by what is written {Mishlei 29:3}:

ג אִישׁ-אֹהֵב חָכְמָה, יְשַׂמַּח אָבִיו;וְרֹעֶה זוֹנוֹת, יְאַבֶּד-הוֹן.

3 Whoso loveth wisdom rejoiceth his father; but he that keepeth company with harlots wasteth his substance.

{where זוֹנוֹת is reread as zo naot = this is beautiful.}
Whoever says this {zo} ruling is beautiful {naeh} and this ruling is not beautiful, it is as if he loses the substance of Torah.
He {Rav Nachman} said: I withdraw.

The Rosh also brings it down. It could just be a less selective editing, but we can also take it as evidence that one indeed should not do this, lehalacha. However, looking on the daf of the gemara, in Ein Mishpat, Ner Mitzvah, there is no lettered footnote. That would strongly suggest that it does not appear in Rambam, Tur, or Shulchan Aruch. This might have been an oversight, but on the other hand, there is some element of resurrecting a position mentioned merely in passing in the gemara.

III - Does Rashi actually say this?

My earliest Ktav Yad of Rashi (I think), from Munich, 1233, indeed has this statement of Rashi. On the other hand, this statement follows a large mass of inserted material, as is the general derech of this particular manuscript. Perhaps one could assert that this statement, as well, is an insertion. Personally, I don't think it is an insertion, because as we shall see, it serves an important methodological function, tied closely to what  Rashi himself is doing here.

I did find one manuscript -- which I think is early, but I am not sure from precisely when -- in which this first comment of Rashi does not appear. Thus, we find in the following Ktav Yad:

See how the parsha starts and it jumps immediately to Rashi's second comment. This might be an indication that this first Rashi is a later insertion, and is not from Rashi's hand.

IV - Rashi's Intent

Yet, I do think that Rashi made this comment. And here is how I would explain it. We should look to the Mekoros of Rashi, either in Avraham Berliner's critical edition of Rashi, or in Mekorei Rashi in Mechokekei Yehuda.

What were Rashi's sources for the previous segment, at the end of parashat Shelach? From Berliner's Beur:

In other words, Rashi relies heavily of the Sifrei, and also on scattered gemaros in Sanhedrin and Menachos.

The beginning of parashat Korach represents a shift in where Rashi gets his midrashim:

There is this sudden shift in which Rashi draws all of his midrashim from Midrash Tanchuma. This continues throughout perek 16, continues through perek 17, and then finally, in perek 18, we see a shift back to the Sifrei:

Why does Rashi abandon the Sifrei for the span of two whole perakim? It turns out that Rashi did not abandon the Sifrei so much as the Sifrei abandoned him. That is, there is no Sifrei on these two perakim, but rather Sifrei on Korach begins in chapter 18. And at the first opportunity, on Bemidbar 18:1, Rashi resumes citing the Sifrei,

V - Saving Rashi from Sin

Now we can understand Rashi's remark of פרשה זו יפה נדרשת במדרש רבי תנחומא. He is indicating, for those interested, that he has shifted his source for midrashic material. And why does he do it? Not because he prefers the content of Tanchuma over Sifrei, but because there is content in Tanchuma but not in Sifrei. When he says יפה נדרשת, he does not mean to praise the content, but rather means that it is consistently darshened, on a pasuk by pasuk-basis. He is praising coverage. And I suppose instead he could have looked through Shas and found midrashic material, but it is easier to get a consistent read when you pull material from a single source.

If so, the Taz has no reason for concern, because that is not what Rashi meant!

VI - Considering Taz's Analysis

In my estimation, we are standing on fairly firm ground in our understanding of Rashi. But what about the Taz's explanation? Recall that he explained it as follows:

And there is so say that here as well, there is an exclusion. For in other places, there are two paths -- one according to its peshat and the second according to the midrash. But here, there is only one path, for the midrash is the peshat, for there is no peshat here, but only the midrash is well darshened even according to its peshat, for there is no explanation on the word ויקח what he took, according to its peshat."

Here is why I would disagree with it. There are actually quite a number of derashot of ויקח קרח, even in Tanchuma. Thus, for example:

ויקח אין ויקח אלא משיכת דברים רכים, שמשך כל גדולי ישראל והסנהדראות אחריו. 

and

ויקח קרח לקח טליתו והלך ליטול עצה מאשתו. 

See inside for others. And Ibn Ezra gives a peshat explanation of ויקח. And so can Ibn Caspi. And I can offer a peshat explanation of ויקח, that it is a null value, selecting all the participants in an action prior to the mention of the action, in ויקומו in the next pasuk. Still, Rashi might well argue and think the midrash he presents is peshat, and only that.

But another problem is how often Rashi channels midrashim. I would say it is greater than 80% of the time, and not always does he present it alongside a 'peshat'. If so, why is this place different from all other places, especially if Taz buys into the idea (as I expect he does) that Rashi is almost always saying 'peshat'?

And another problem is that Rashi does not say that this pasuk was darshened well in Tanchuma. He says this 'parsha'. This does not mean sidra, but certainly it means a good portion of the following text. So how can the Taz just speak about the single midrash on ויקח קרח as something that excludes a separate path of peshat and of derash?

Perhaps this is salvageable, but in light of a more straightforward explanation, based on the shift in Rashi's sources and the lack in Sifrei, I would prefer the explanation I offered.

VII - Others in the Conversation

There are many other meforshei Rashi engaged in this conversation. Just to give a taste, Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi writes that Rashi means that the midrash in Tanchuma is close to peshuto shel Mikra:

And Maharshal, in Yeriot Shlomo, interprets this interpretation of Mizrachi as compelled by that gemara in Eruvin. for otherwise it would be forbidden to say:

This is along the same lines as the Taz. And see Levush HaOrah who claims a different motivation for Rashi, but with a similar conclusion, that he means that it is derash close to peshat. And see what Maharsha says, and so on and so forth.