Nature's Wealth on the seven species of Israel

Shirat Devorah has an interesting excerpt from a book called Nature's Wealth, about the seven species of Eretz Yisrael, in honor of Tu BeShvat. She writes at the bottom her source:

Source: "Nature's Wealth" -  Rabbi Moshe Cohen Shaouli and Rabbi Yaakov Fisher - based on the teachings of the Rambam

Also available here, perhaps for a bit less. It does look rather nice, and an interesting idea, though I wonder whether it is indeed based on the teachings of the Rambam. The Rambam's son said that we need not believe and defend every medical statement mentioned by Chazal:

…We are not obliged, on account of the great superiority of the sages of the Talmud, and their expertise in their explanations of the Torah and its details, and the truth of their sayings in the explanation of its general principles and details, to defend them and uphold their views in all of their sayings in medicine, in science and in astronomy, or to believe them [in those matters] as we believe them regarding the explanation of the Torah… we find that they made medicinally related statements in the Gemara which have not been justified or validated...

and the Rambam himself made a statement about Chazal relying on contemporary science, such that it may not be correct:

You must, however, not expect that everything our Sages say respecting astronomical matters should agree with observation, for mathematics were not fully developed in those days; and their statements were not based on the authority of the Prophets, but on the knowledge which they either themselves possessed or derived from contemporary men of science. 

If so, it might not be wise, or within the shitta of the Rambam, to cite statements from Chazal about the medicinal properties of various foodstuffs as if this is Torah miSinai, especially if any such statement is not also backed by present-day science.

To give two examples from Shirat Devorah's excerpt, first we will consider what it has to say about figs:

Our ancestors found figs to be of great medicinal value. The Bible mentions dried whole figs as a cure for boils. Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra writes that "fresh or dried figs stimulate blood circulation, and thus preserve life". Our Sages said that "one gripped with a powerful hunger should be given figs to eat" because they increase the flow of blood and are rejuvenating.

I am not sure where Ibn Ezra writes this. However, as we have seen several times in the past, Ibn Ezra repeats many things we find in Galen, presumably via Avicenna. This is not Torah miSinai but rather ancient Greek medicine. And often, the now-discredited theory of the four humours is the basis of certain statements. And note that he talks about stimulating blood circulation, where blood is one of the four humours.

Indeed, we find the following statement by Galen on the properties of foodstuffs:

So call it Ibn Ezra and it is suddenly kosher and divine revelation about the nature of these figs.

Further, what does it mean that

 The Bible mentions dried whole figs as a cure for boils. 

? Presumably, this is a reference to 2 Melachim 20:7, where Chizkiyahu had boils, and Yeshayahu instructed how to cure him:

ז  וַיֹּאמֶר יְשַׁעְיָהוּ, קְחוּ דְּבֶלֶת תְּאֵנִים; וַיִּקְחוּ וַיָּשִׂימוּ עַל-הַשְּׁחִין, וַיֶּחִי.

7 And Isaiah said: 'Take a cake of figs.' And they took and laid it on the boil, and he recovered.

These were not mere boils, but Chizkiyahu was near death at this point. But see what Rashi and Radak say about this, citing Chazal:

"In the words of Chazal, is it not that if you place fig sap upon flesh, immediately the flesh is smitten? Rather, this is a miracle within a miracle. Similarly, 'and Hashem showed him wood'. It was bitter wood. Such is the way of Hashem -- with bitter, he sweetens the bitter."

If so, this is not proof that the Biblle mentions dried whole figs as a general cure for boils. This was in fact a miracle.

Even Ralbag does not think it is a cure for boils, though as a rationalist, he sees this as Hashem performing the miracle in a way that one can point out other, quasi-natural causes:

"It is known that Hashem, when He performs wonders, seeks for them some causes, as it is possible, so that it is slightly less strange via the rule of nature. And therefore he commanded to take a cake of figs. For even though it does not have the power to effect this, behold, there is in it some effect in healing abscesses and in their בישול {?}."

And so the statement stands on slightly firmer ground, though it is still a bit shaky. The book might well give its sources, but I am not sure where the statement

Our Sages said that "one gripped with a powerful hunger should be given figs to eat" because they increase the flow of blood and are rejuvenating.

comes from, other than Yoma 83b, or whether this explanation, outside quotes, about increasing the flow of blood is in the Talmud or is the authors' interjection.

Second, in terms of barley, they write:

The Talmud warns that barley may cause intestinal worms. Also, because it is difficult to digest, barley should be avoided by those with gastrointestinal problems.

I don't think the authors mean to conflate the two. But the idea that it causes intestinal worms is find in Berachot 36a:

Over raw cabbage and barley-flour we say the blessing 'by whose word all things exist', and may we not infer from this that over wheat-flour we say 'who createst the fruit of the ground'? — No; over wheat-flour also we say 'by whose word all things exist'. Then let him state the rule for wheat-flour, and it will apply to barley-flour as a matter of course?⁷  — If he had stated the rule as applying to wheat-flour, I might have said: That is the rule for wheat-flour, but over barley-flour we need say no blessing at all. Therefore we are told that this is not so. But is barley-flour of less account than salt or brine, of which we have learnt:⁸  Over salt and brine one says 'by whose word all things exist'? — It was necessary [to lay down the rule for barley-flour]. You might argue that a man often puts a dash of salt or brine into his mouth [without harm], but barley-flour is harmful in creating tapeworms, and therefore we need say no blessing over it. We are therefore told that since one has some enjoyment from it he must say a blessing over it.

If it indeed means that barley-flour causes tapeworms, then this would, in all likelihood, be based on Chazal's belief in spontaneous generation. (The phrase used in the gemara, BTW, is that it is 'difficult for kukyanei'. This in turn is related to the anasakis worms found in fish. And it makes sense that it means that it causes them to exist, similar to how certain other activities are kasha for davar acher, meaning tzaraas.) One could plausibly explain that the tape-worm eggs were laid in the barley flour, and so ingesting it uncooked would allow those tapeworm eggs to hatch inside one's body. But if so, wouldn't the same be true for uncooked wheat-flour?

But one should not simply repeat the Talmudic advice as if it were a certainty. And even more so, one should not malign barley in general, where the Talmud only spoke about barley-flour causing this.

So I don't know that I would rely on this book to accurately and completely tell me about what Chazal said, or to learn practical information from Chazal about the medicinal properties of these foodstuffs. As a coffee-table book, an/or as a place to start (especially if they do have footnotes), it looks nice.

However, it looks like this book might be intended to offer practical medical advice, based on outdated medicine from the time of the Rambam an earlier. Thus:

Nature's Wealth is a unique treasure, discussing Health and Healing plants, based on the teachings of the Rambam! This book is recommended by Professors of Science and Medicine. It features many preventions of illnesses and their care. Compiled by: Rabbi Moshe Cohen Shaouli and Rabbi Yaakov Fisher.

If it is indeed practical advice, I would warn people to stay away. We are commanded by the Torah (Devarim 4:15) "And you shall guard yourselves very well...". Following medical advice from people using medieval medicine, and who even seem to misunderstand / accidentally misrepresent some basic sources in the Torah and Chazal, would not be keeping with that Biblical commandment, IMHO.

Pesach: The Prayer For An Edible Matza

While I opposed adopting the minhag of saying a special prayer on Tu BiShvat for a beautiful esrog, for reasons I describe there, I think a nice tefillah that we might adopt is one for an edible matza. While there is no fear nowadays that we will not have a kosher or mehudar esrog available, the situation is not so great for hand-matzot.

Part of the reason is that while we can inspect esrogim, we buy sealed boxes of matzos. So we cannot see that the matzot therein are unburnt. And there is a great likelihood that a matza will get burnt, because they have a chumra deAti liydei kulla, a stringency that leads to a leniency. As Rabbi Tendler notes, nowadays they bake matzas in much hotter ovens than they used to, for fear that it would become chametz. And since the ovens are so hot, they cannot leave it in too long, or else it will get burnt to a crisp. And therefore they bake them in 2000 degree ovens for just 25 seconds. Any longer and the matzah gets burned. To cite an article about this:

"The whole process takes 18 minutes from mixing to baking, no longer. Otherwise, there is a chance the flour will become leavened and start to rise. That's another reason why we poke holes in the rolled-out matzah before it is baked for 25 seconds in a 2,000-degree oven."

Rabbi Tendler is of the opinion that 25 seconds is not long enough to cook the dough inside the matzah, even in such a hot oven. And then they remove it from the oven. So he is of the opinion that such matzahs are likely to be chametz. In the past, they used ovens at a lower temperature for a longer period of time, such that both inside and outside would be baked. And he bakes his own matzahs at this lower temperature.

While I do not hold by this shitta of Rabbi Tendler and in fact I eat these hand-matzahs (though I do not know enough about the scientific process of baking and chimmutz to know one way or the other), it is a good example of how people in all ignorance, yet well meaning, set out to increase the chumra level of something but actually end up with a kullah, or a michshol.

At any rate, in such a hot oven, of course a bunch of matzas will get burned. We've encountered cases in the past in which an expensive box of matzas had maybe one or two that were not charred, or had burn holes, and did not taste good at all, or were broken. I am not making a halachic statement about this (all sorts of factors can come into play), but on a conceptual level, it is hard to see how this is not theft and cheating one's customers.

The solution may be to buy and use SoftMatzas, like I did last year, but more about this in a different post, bli neder.

At any rate, 30 days before the chag of Pesach, when we start learning the halochot thereof and such that it is in our minds, it might be a good idea to address Hashem and ask for kosher, tasty, and non-chometz-dikke matzas. You can say this in your own words, or you can use the following nusach, based on the nusach about esrogim, and tell people you got it from the Ri me-"Josh."

So, say the following on Purim:

May it be Your Will Hashem our God, and the God of our forefathers, that You bless all of the matzah ovens to send out their matzot at the proper time, and that they shall send out matzot that are good, nice, beautiful, and clean from all cracks, char, chametz and folds, and that they shall be complete and they should not have any deficiencies. May these matzot be available for us and for all of Israel in every place that they are, in order to fulfill the mitzvah of eating matzah on the Holiday of Pesach, that shall come to us with good life, and with peace, as You have written in Your Torah by way of Moshe, Your servant, "Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread." (Shemot 12:15)

Tu Bishvat: The Prayer for a Beautiful Esrog

I received the following via email the other day. It is a tefilla for a beautiful and kosher esrog. It appears and was instituted in the sefer Leshon Chachamim from the Ben Ish Chai. He writes that it is accepted amongst the Chachmei Ashkenaz that one needs to implore, on the day of Tu B'Shvat, specifically about the etrog, that Israel should manage to have good etrogim. And once they mention etrog, a prayer for the rest of the fruits of trees as well.

Choshvei Shemo has the text (rather than picture) in electronic form, and he provides a translation, though it is a shorter text and therefore a shorter translation.

Now, saying this particular tefillah, or for that matter any tefillah on Tu Be-shvat for an etrog on Succot, is not my minhag, even if it was mekubal etzel kol chachmei Ashkenaz. And I am not about to adopt a new minhag just because it is being passed around the intertubes, be it via email forwards or on blogs. I might evaluate whether I agree with the aims of the minhag or tefillah and decide to adopt it. But just because I am told it was mekubal a while back does not mean I will change my existing custom to incorporate this practice as well.

I have my suspicions that what is happening here, in modern times (rather than the motivation back then), is that there is a vacuum of ritual acts and prayer on Tu BeShvat, because it is an halachic fiscal new year, rather than a real chag like other Jewish holidays. Therefore, people look to adopt rituals and tefillot for this day, and so they seize upon the kabbalistic Tu BiShvat seder condemned by Rav Yaakov Emden, and so they say a prayer for an etrog even though they are not really worried about their etrog.

And this is the sticking point for me. Back then, amongst the Chachmei Ashkenaz, there was a real concern that the Jews in their community would not be able to gain access to a kosher or mehudar etrog. Etrogim were scarce, and it was common for there to be a single etrog for an entire Jewish community, which cost them a king's ransom. Since etrogim were so scarce, one could only hope and pray that the etrog they got would not have any of the potential problems mentioned in the tefillah. There was real reason for this prayer.

But nowadays, through the aid of Hashem, etrogim are in extreme abundance. You can buy a lulav and etrog set that Jewish communities in Europe could only dream of, for about $30. And if you are willing to spend more, you can get even more and more mehudar. Is anyone who says this tefillah nowadays in any degree really worried that the Jewish community will not get mehudar esrogim and will be unable to perform the mitzvah? I seriously doubt it. Rather, the resurgence of this tefillah is a fad, to fill the gap in ritual and prayer. As such, I will not say it and change my existing custom. Had the situation nowadays been true back then, I strongly suspect the Chachmei Ashkenaz would not have seen the need to say it either.

Tu BeShvat: "For Man Is Like A Tree In The Field"

A Google search for The Torah tells us that man is like the tree of the field yields many, many results, many of which make no mention of the fact that the pashut peshat of the pasuk is as a rhetorical question, that of course a man is not a tree in a field. Or rather, of course a tree in a field is not a man, so why should you attack it.

I wonder how many people who state this benichusa know the simple intent of the pasuk.

As the pasuk reads {Devarim 20:19}:

יט כִּי-תָצוּר אֶל-עִיר יָמִים רַבִּים לְהִלָּחֵם עָלֶיהָ לְתָפְשָׂהּ, לֹא-תַשְׁחִית אֶת-עֵצָהּ לִנְדֹּחַ עָלָיו גַּרְזֶן--כִּי מִמֶּנּוּ תֹאכֵל, וְאֹתוֹ לֹא תִכְרֹת: כִּי הָאָדָם עֵץ הַשָּׂדֶה, לָבֹא מִפָּנֶיךָ בַּמָּצוֹר.

19 When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by wielding an axe against them; for thou mayest eat of them, but thou shalt not cut them down; for is the tree of the field man, that it should be besieged of thee?

Rashi writes:

Is the tree of the field a man, to go into the siege before you? The word כִּי here means“perhaps:” Is the tree of the field perhaps a man who is to go into the siege by you, that it should be punished by the suffering of hunger and thirst like the people of the city? Why should you destroy it?

And so others.

What in the pasuk makes it a rhetorical question? Rashi considers it the word ki in כִּי הָאָדָם עֵץ הַשָּׂדֶה.

Shadal notes two other possibilities, and maintains the last as correct:

רש " י אומר שהיא במילת כי , ומדקדק גדול ספרדי ( הביאו ראב " ע ) אמר שנשמטה הה " א ( על דרך שם כ " ז כ " ג אתה זה בני עשו , וזולתו ), והנכון כדברי בעל העקדה שהתמימה היא באות ה " א שבמילת האדם , ואע " פ שהיא קמוצה איננה לידיעה , אלא לתמימה , כמו ( שם י " ט ט ') האחד בא לגור , האיש אחד יחטא ( במדבר ט " ז כ " ב ); כן כתב בעל העקדה , וכן נכון בלא ספק , כי ( כל זמן שלא נרצה לפרש כראב " ע כי חיי האדם עץ השדה , פירוש אשר כבר נדחה ונתבטל ), אין כאן מקום לה " א הידיעה , כי אדם הוא כאן לדברי הכול נשוא , לא נושא , ושם דבר שהוא נשוא לא יקבל הידיעה , כמו ( שם כ " ג י " ט ) לא איש קל ויכזב , לא אדם הוא להנחם ( ש " א ט " ו כ " ט ); ואין לתמוה שתבוא ה " א השאלה ולפניה " כי ", כי הנה לנו דוגמתה כי התחת אלקים אני ( בראשית נ ' י " ט ), כי האמנם ישב אלקים על הארץ ( מלכים א ' ח ' כ " ז )

.

Thus, one possibility, cited by Ibn Ezra, is that there was a heh chataf patach designating a question, which elided. An example of this phenomenon is in parshat Toldot, in which Yitzchak asks: וַיֹּאמֶר, אַתָּה זֶה בְּנִי עֵשָׂו; וַיֹּאמֶר, אָנִי.

(Update: Though Ibn Ezra does take this as a statement rather than a question. See inside.)

But Shadal sides with the Baal haAkeida, who claims that the heh kametz of הָאָדָם is the heh hashe`ela, asking a question, rather than heh hayidia, the definite article. For the definite article has no place here. As to the kamatz, this is acceptable for the questioning heh, as we see in parshat Vayera:

וַיֹּאמְרוּ גֶּשׁ-הָלְאָה, וַיֹּאמְרוּ הָאֶחָד בָּא-לָגוּר וַיִּשְׁפֹּט שָׁפוֹט--עַתָּה, נָרַע לְךָ מֵהֶם; וַיִּפְצְרוּ בָאִישׁ בְּלוֹט מְאֹד, וַיִּגְּשׁוּ לִשְׁבֹּר הַדָּלֶת.

and also here:
וַיִּפְּלוּ עַל-פְּנֵיהֶם, וַיֹּאמְרוּ, אֵל, אֱלֹהֵי הָרוּחֹת לְכָל-בָּשָׂר: הָאִישׁ אֶחָד יֶחֱטָא, וְעַל כָּל-הָעֵדָה תִּקְצֹף.

The upgrade of the chataf patach to kametz in this context presumably has to do with the aleph following it.

And in terms of heh hashe`eila following ki, we have examples of this, such as in the last perek of Bereishit, in parshat Vayechi:

יט וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם יוֹסֵף, אַל-תִּירָאוּ: כִּי הֲתַחַת אֱלֹהִים, אָנִי.

19 And Joseph said unto them: 'Fear not; for am I in the place of God?

Why I *Really* Oppose Tu BeShvat Seders

I did not elaborate on it last time, so here I will flesh it out. (Note there is a difference between modern Tu BeShvat Seders which people make up, as they see fit, and the kabbalistic Tu BeShvat Seder. I am talking specifically about the latter.) Rav Yaakov Emden opposed Tu BeShvat Seders, because the text of the seder came from an anthology put together by Nathan of Gaza, who was Shabbtai Tzvi's prophet. Modern scholars agree that Pri Etz Hadar, that sefer, is indeed from Nathan of Gaza, but that the kabbalah in the seder is purely Lurianic kabbalah. In the past, Ashkenazim in general did not practice this seder because of Rav Yaakov Emden's condemnation. But now, people (including Ashkenazim) are starting to do it.

What is the problem, then, if it is purely kosher Lurianic kabbalah?

1. The answer is that it could have been Sabbatean.

To elaborate, I will first go off on a tangent.

If I were malicious enough, I could convince plenty of frum Jews to (unwittingly) offer their child to Molech, in violation of the Biblical command.

How so? I would tell them that it was an old chassidic/kabbalistic custom, encouraged by (insert obscure chassidic or kabbalistic master here), and the practice was to line up two rows of lit candles. The meaning is "deep," but partly it is a reenactment of bris bein habesarim, but also because the right row of candles represents chessed while the left row of candles represents gevurah. And one should pass the infant between the two rows of candles, just in the middle, to allow him/her to achieve a proper balance of chesed and gevurah. (Of course, we are not talking about burning the infant, just passing him between the two rows of fire.) I would also give them a "kabbalistic" prayer to recite while performing the ceremony, in arcane Aramaic and even then speaking in code where possible, perhaps even using "Malcam" which they may interpret as "their king."

This is because there is an opinion that the Molech offering was not actually human sacrifice, but rather passing the child between two fires.

I wouldn't actually do this, of course, but if I did, and with the appropriate attachment of segulah and mystical explanations, I could probably get quite a few people to do this.

And this obscure custom would spread by email, even to people who had not practiced it before or did not come from kabbalistic / chassidic roots, just like the practice of saying parshat HaMan specifically on Tuesday of the week of Beshalach.

People are careful about the food and drink they put in their mouths but are not so discriminating in the rituals they practice and the tefillot they say.

Most of the people practicing Tu BeShvat seders today, who do not have a family tradition from years past, have no idea of the Sabbatean connection -- of the text coming from Nathan of Gaza's anthology, and of Rav Yaakov Emden's condemnation. They do not know that there was controversy, but it is OK because it turns out it is actually entirely Lurianic kabbalah.

In fact, they probably have no idea of the meaning of the words in the seder, for even if they know the straightforward translation of the words, they do not know the import. How many people who say kegavna instead of bameh madlikin know the straightforward translation of the words, let alone the meaning of the statement, even if they read it in English? You need to be well versed in kabbalah to understand its import, and the same is true to really understand the Tu BeShvat seder. (You can see an abridged English text here, and the full translation [though some pages are not in the preview] in Trees, Earth and Torah -- A Tu B'Shvat Anthology starting on page 135.)

Aside from this, given that it is Lurianic kabbalah. Is it Avodah Zarah? Most people are not kabbalists, and don't say kabbalistic tefillot, so they do not come across this issue. But the Tu B'Shvat seder is concerned with the sefirot, which Shadal in his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah charges is avodah zarah. The typical person who newly adopts this seder wants to do a new cool Jewish thing, but is not educated enough in kabbalah to make such a determination. (Of course, one can rely on greats who do not hold it is avodah zarah.)

That is the first issue.

2. The second issue is the general tendency to adopt new practices, be they hafrashat challah segulas, saying parshas Hamon during Tuesday of Beshalach, or Tu BeShvat Seders. This is somewhat related to the lack of discrimination mentioned above. The rituals we do have do not have enough significance for us, and so we seek to innovate, or adopt, new rituals.

Drinking four cups of wine and saying things over them (and over fruits), as part of a seder, and as a new instituted practice on a specific day of the Jewish calendar -- why is this not a violation of bal Tosif? There were issues concerning Purim (see Yerushalmi Megillah here, starting at the bottom), so why is there no problem making Tu B'Shevat into a chag, with its own rituals and tefillot?

The answer may be that there is no problem on the level of halacha, but on a conceptual level, couldn't this adoption of new ritual and prayer on specific days (Tu BeShvat seders and reading parshat haMan specifically on Tuesday of parshas Beshalach, or tens of other examples) reflect an attitude of Bal Tosif.

In terms of parshat Haman, Artscroll is getting in on the action this year. They give a text and translation of what to say this Tuesday, Jan 15, parshat B'shalach, in a downloadable PDF. Get it here. They write:

The Torah reading of this coming Shabbos -- Parashas Beshallach -- includes the chapter telling how the Jewish People in the Wilderness received manna, the Heavenly food that nourished them for forty years. Many people recite the chapter daily, as a special prayer for parnassah. There is also a widespread custom to recite this chapter on the Tuesday of the week of Beshallach, which this year is January 15.

As a public service, we offer the text and interlinear translation of the chapter, from the Schottenstein Edition Interlinear Siddur. Please feel free to download it.

So the practice now has the Artscroll seal, as a widespread custom. Perhaps it really is a widespread custom, but perhaps it is only widespread in recent years as a result of email campaigns of people forwarding it.

Don't take this as a final say not to say it, or to say it. These are just my thoughts on the matter.

Why I Oppose Tu BiShvat Seders

Citing Rabbi Miles Krassen at MyJewishLearning.com:

The kabbalistic seder text known as Peri Eitz Hadar was originally popular in Sephardic (Spanish and Mediterranean) communities and unknown in the Ashkenazic (Eastern European) world. According to the author, this is due to the fact that in the Ashkenazic community, the eminent halakhic authority Jacob Emden (1697-1776) attributed Peri Eitz Hadar to Nathan of Gaza, a theologist who considered himself a prophet of Shabbetai Tzvi, the 17th-century pseudo-Messiah. Jewish authorities reviled Shabbetai Tzvi as a heretic because of his conversion to Islam. This material, therefore, was condemned by Emden as a heretical Sabbatean text.

While Emden was eager to discover Sabbatean influences in many works, modern scholarship does support his contention regarding Hemdat Yamim, the Sabbatean anthology that contains Peri Eitz Hadar. Nevertheless, this seder is a pure kabbalistic text of the Lurianic school, despite its inclusion in the controversial anthology Hemdat Yamim.

Well, one reason I'm against 'em.

{Update: To clarify, the way I read the above is that Nathan of Gaza compiled it in an anthology, not that he authored it, and the work itself it non-Sabbatean kabbalah.}