Posts so far for parshat Chayyei Sarah

Sunday, November 08, 2009

2008

2007

2006
  • A Three Year Old Rivkah -- Plausible? Obscene?
    • I discuss plausibility of a three year old marrying, and of a three year old able to carry a heavy water pitcher. Also, whether a three year old could carry on such a conversation with Eliezer. Also, would this be obscene? Note that Rashi says the actual consummation of marriage was years later. Plus more.
  • Use of Time-of-Day To Convey Drama and Mood
    • in Vayera, in Chayyei Sara, and in Rut. I think in Chayyei Sarah it adds to the drama of the romantic meeting of Yitzchak and Rivka.
  • The Account of Betuel's Death By Poision, part i
    • What apparent problem in the text does this midrash solve? What is the textual basis for the resolution? How does this midrash fit in with the overall theme of the parsha?
  • The Account of Betuel's Death By Poison, part ii
    • The same midrash, but with a different spin, as it occurs in Bereishit Rabbati from Rav Moshe haDarshan. In terms of a different poisoner (Lavan) and a different, fairly positive, motivation for the attempted poisoning.
2005
2004
  • Was the Servant of Avraham Eliezer?
    • An analysis of the identification of Eliezer with the servant of Avraham. Most obviously, Chazal's closed canon approach. But even on a peshat level, we show a reason to equate the two. Why would the Torah not mention it, if so. From the perspective of literature, other people in this narrative are deliberately not mentioned by name - Rivka, Lavan, Betuel - even though their names are known from elsewhere - and this for deliberate literary effect. Compare with the story of Moshe being born and placed in the Nile, where proper names are also deliberately omitted.
2003
  • לוֹ, לוּ, לֹא אֲדֹנִי שְׁמָעֵנִי - part 1
    • Aleph and Vav are matres lectiones, "mothers of reading," and in reality can and do fill many vowel roles. What different perspective of the interaction between Efron and Avraham do we get it we revocalize all the above as לוּ and change the locations of pasuk break to always give us לוּ אֲדֹנִי שְׁמָעֵנִי?
  • לוֹ, לוּ, לֹא אֲדֹנִי שְׁמָעֵנִי - part 2 (2004)
    • Further thoughts and developments on the same subject. Plus what Tg Yonatan does with this.
  • Waterloo
    • A joke which matches well with the two aforementioned divrei Torah.
  • Sarah's Daughter
    • The derivation of a midrash that states that Sarah had a daughter who died on the same day that Sarah died.
to be continued...

Posted by joshwaxman at 11:38 AM 5 comments Links to this post

Labels: ,



Avraham teaches us humility and generosity

Saturday, November 07, 2009

With all the interesting happenings and ideas in parshat Vayera, it is possible to neglect the ethical and moral teachings in the parsha. And so, an excerpt of a toelet or two of Ralbag. He gives a whole lot more, of course, but I'd like to focus on the first two.


Avraham Avinu is our forefather, and his exemplary conduct might serve as an inspiration to us.

Ralbag writes that the first purpose in relating this narrative in Chumash is in middot, and this is humility. And this is that it is fitting for a person to conduct himself with the trait of humility. After all, Avraham, despite his great stature, immediately ran towards these men coming to him, as soon as he saw them, bowed to them, called himself a servant and all of them masters to him, and went with them to send them off when they separated from him. And from this one can see that it related the humility of Avraham, who compared himself to dust and ashes, when he said "I am but dust and ashes."

This is indeed an inspiring aspect of the story. Though I do wonder how much is local ancient conduct, speech patterns, and flavor. While being the perfect host, one might well say this. Compare the conduct of the bnei cheis and Ephron HaChitti, where they kept calling him adoni, and where Avraham bowed down to them. Or when Yaakov greeted Esav on his return. Perhaps it is ancient etiquette, and one should not make to much of it.

On the other hand, if it can help inspire humility in us, it might still be a great point to draw out from the text.

Ralbag further writes that the second purpose is in middot {traits}, and this is in generosity. For do you not see how Avraham stirred up with great diligence to bring these men to his house, and arranged for them his words for a specific purpose for what was possible in honoring, so that they would listen to him, and made for them a full fixed meal.

Indeed, we certainly should learn generosity and hospitality from Avraham, especially when we contrast it with the conduct of the Sodomites.

While these are indeed two important middot that we can learn from Avraham, perhaps we can also learn from the limitations he placed upon these middot. Yes, he said that he was but dust and ashes, but this was a preface to arguing with Hashem! And he basically accused the Judge of the entire world of not acting with Justice! And he bargained with Hashem to try to spare Sodom. Throughout, he acknowledged how small and insignificant he was, but he still did this great thing, which takes tremendous chutzpa. Compare with Moshe, who was the most humble, who dared to say to Hashem "lama hareiota laam hazeh". In this upcoming parsha, Chayei Sarah, he shows tremendous respect to the Bnei Chais, saying that he is but a stranger and sojourner, and bowing down to them in respect. Yet at the same time he conducts negotiations and gets his way.

It is not always optimal to prioritize humility. Tossing out one example, in terms of limmud Torah, one might think that out of deep respect, one is not permitted to argue with Rishonim, and that anyone post-Rishonim who does this a heretic. But Rav Chaim Volozhin interpreted the instruction והוי מתאבק בעפר רגליהם as that one should "wrestle" with the Chachamim. And the Shaagas Aryeh, and the Gra, argued with Rishonim. Whether or not "we" can (a matter of contemporary dispute), these were engaged in milchamta shel Torah, and these were not "wrong" or lacking in humility for arguing. Rather, they recognized that humility has its place, and that one can argue with humility. But still that one has an obligation to argue.

And so to in terms of generosity and hospitality. He was a tremendous host to these people / angels. And yet, the midrash makes a point of the limitations of this. While the typical order might not have had washing feet first (where washing feet is admittedly very important for someone who has been trudging through the hot sand for days), he moved the order earlier. This was because he wanted to be hospitable, but at the same time he did not want to bring the negative influences of avodah zarah into his house, and so first had them wash off the dust, which he suspected them of having worshiped, from their feet. I can understand this consideration. It is important to show hospitality, even to people who might be considered strange, or who might even have beliefs antithetical to Jewish beliefs. This is important in terms of kiruv as well as being an open and loving individual. But at the same time, without giving specific examples, it might be important to weigh the spiritual impact on one's family. But both are important goals and should be balanced and met.

Posted by joshwaxman at 7:28 PM 2 comments Links to this post

Labels: ,

Posts so far for parshat Vayera

Friday, November 06, 2009

2009
  1. Yaer Hashem as a revival of Yitzchak, after his soul flew from his body at the akeida.

  2. What was Yonah's message in the beginning of sefer Yonah? I think that כִּי עָלְתָה רָעָתָם לְפָנָי is parallel to what we find by Sodom, namely זַעֲקַת סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה כִּי-רָבָּה and הַכְּצַעֲקָתָהּ הַבָּאָה אֵלַי. And וַיַּהֲפֹךְ, which we find later, is certainly parallel.

  3. Vayera sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, as well as links to over 100 meforshim on the parasha and haftorah.

  4. Were Avraham's actions praiseworthy in washing the feet of the malachim first? I believe so. Rashi is not changing the midrash from the gemara, but basing himself on the midrash in Bereishit Rabba. But on the other hand, there does seem to be a contradiction between Rashi on Avraham's action and Rashi on Lot's action. I suggest that they are indeed contradictory, but that Rashi has a different focus. In the comment section, SoccerDad notes Artscroll's explanation. I cite the text of the explanation -- one, that perhaps Rashi never said it, and two, a possible harmonization, and explain what I like and dislike about the harmonization.

  5. Would Hashem condescend to talk to a woman? Three different approaches as to whether Hashem spoke to Sarah. The provocative title comes from the last position, that of Ibn Caspi. (Though see the comment section how this approach may have strong midrashic precedent.)

  6. Does Ibn Caspi maintain that Hashem appeared to Avraham in human form? He writes in a deliberately ambiguous manner, but after assembling all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, it would certainly seem so. This is a form of weak corporealism. God's true form is not human; this is just a disguise -- or rather, it is like God speaking from between the keruvim.

  7. Why does Rashi, or the Torah, specifically reference worshiping the dust of their feet? The question, I thinks, is based on mistaken assumptions. And the answer is that washing the feet is primarily an act of hospitality, and the Torah and Rashi agree to this. Once that is in place, there are derashot on the respective order of different acts of hospitality, where one resolution is that there is concern for this particular type of idolatry. One could not readily substitute another idolatry, since we are first bound by the peshat meaning and the historical sequence of events.

  8. The destruction of Sodom by lightning bolt? According to Shadal, lightning igniting natural deposits of tar and crude oil. Afterwards, a smell of sulfur.

  9. And related to this, the text of Clericus, translated into English, so we can see the full lightning-bolt theory.

  10. What was Avraham's relationship to Sarah? Was he lying or telling the truth that she was indeed his paternal sister? If telling the truth, how do we understand the words describing the relationship? And how do we make it accord with the genealogy given at the end of parshas Noach, and the midrash that Sarah was Yiskah?

  11. Avimelech, also stuffed up? And how we are to understand vayeileidu, if Avimelech also seems to be part of the group; and how to understand kol rechem in the next pasuk.

  12. Dual interpretation of Netziv Melach, from Ovid -- his Metamorphoses, the story of Baucis and Philemon, seems based on the story of the destruction of Sodom. Besides noting the parallels, I notice that there is a parallel both for looking at the city destroyed and turning into a monument.
2008
  1. In The Age of Trup, pt iv, we see that Ramban pays heed to the vowel points in the Divine Name in Vayera, when establishing his peshat. And see part v, where Rabbenu Bachya feels free to offer interpretations against the nikud in Vayera, in a portion I bring down myself. And in part vi, Abarbanel offering a peshat against the nikud in parshat Vayera.

  2. How Rabbinit Keren Is Tzniusdik, by dressing like a tent, like Sarah Imenu. And how she is not, based on Shir HaShirim.

  3. The Duplication in Sarah-As-Sister Stories, and why this is not problematic at all, based on an explicit pasuk.

  4. In Vayera sources, links by perek and aliyah to the appropriate page in an online Mikraot Gedolot.

  5. A Censored Baal HaTurim on Vayera, about Avraham protecting those with brit milah from Gehinnom, except for some. And an elaboration on the etiology of that midrash.

  6. What was the name of Lot's wife? And why should we care? A discussion of why midrashim supply names for Biblical characters which were previously without, of how they go about supplying these names, and what such names can teach all. Also, a tracking this particular midrash through three sources, and perhaps the aims of each source.

  7. Did Avimelech touch Sarah, while Pharaoh did not? Trying to understand the Baal Haturim, about how the setirah caused Hashem to decide to make her pregnant, and how there is a difference from the incident with Pharaoh. Also, whether Rashi gives a similar interpretation of משמוש here.

  8. Were the malachim who met with Avraham angels or prophets? And how, if they are men, they performed miracles in Sodom. Based on Ralbag.

  9. How sure was Avraham of Hashem's command to bind Yitzchak? According to Rambam, his decisive action was a clear demonstration of the clarity of his prophecy. According to Ralbag, it seems that this was the test, to see if he would interpret it in a different way.
2007
  1. Why Do We Care That Lot Ate Matza on Pesach, midrashic anachronism, and that perhaps the importance of this midrash here is to fix the time of this second promise of a child from Sarah.

  2. The Scribal Emendation of Avraham Standing, and whether this means actual emendation of the Biblical text, or something else.

  3. The Motivation of Lot's Daughters
    1. To preserve the world? Their family line? Because while men were present, they were not appropriate shidduch material? Seforno and Shadal on the latter.

  4. The Sin of Sodom Was Beating Up Women On Buses
    1. Relating the parsha to current events.

  5. The Sodomite Practice of Stretching or Amputating Legs
    1. and how it relates to the middat Sedom. Each person must conform, and take up exactly the space allocated to him.

  6. Tales From The Gemorrah
    1. a true, funny story.

  7. Hashem And Two Angels Walk Into A Tent
    1. A reading of Vayera that has Hashem assume human form. And how Rashi deals with each aspect of this.

  8. Noach And Lot
    1. various links between the two, who were survivors of massive destruction.

  9. A Star In The East?
    1. So says Zohar on parshas Vayera:
      "In the year sixty-six the Messiah will appear in the land of Galilee. A star in the east will swallow seven stars in the north, and a flame of black fire will hang in the heaven for sixty days, and there shall be wars towards the north in which two kings shall perish. Then all the nations shall combine together against the daughter of Yaakov in order to drive her from the world. It is of that time that it is written: "And it is a time of trouble unto Yaakov, but out of it he shall be saved" (Jeremiah 30:7)."
      Perhaps this was a partial basis of Jewish mystics believing that Venus portended the arrival of Moshiach.
2006
  1. Hashem Sent Wayfarers
    1. Discussing the textual footholds for various elements of the midrash: that Hashem took the Sun out of its sheath so as to keep away guests; that Avraham was troubled by their absence; that as a result of this, Hashem sent angels in the guise of men.

  2. Sending Eliezer to Look For Guests
    1. How do we know this was on the third day since circumcision? Several answers. How do we know that before he himself went out to look, Avraham sent Eliezer? The derasha from elav.

  3. How Long After Avraham's Bris Did Hashem Appear? How Soon After Sarah Laughed Did She Give Birth to Yitzchak?
    1. To the first question, three answers: 3 days; 0 days; 90 days. Bases for these answers.
2005
  1. Dr. Leiman's Speech At Etz Chaim
    1. which includes a tie-in to the parsha. Avraham would listen to an angel to save. But to kill (including placing someone under a ban) you need to here from Hashem himself. A story about Rav Shlomo Zalman of Velozhin.

  2. The Sin of Sodom
    1. on a peshat level like Chazal, that it was cruelty to strangers and inhospitality. Based on the contrast with Avraham's hospitality; based on comparison to the concubine of Giveah; protection due a guest; even if sodomy, it can be sodomy as a method of cruelty; finally, other verses in Tanach referring to the sin of Sodom.

  3. The Pluperfect יֹשֵׁב a
    1. cross-listed with Chayyei Sarah. How the word is pluperfect. The tension between the krei and the ketiv. Avraham was sitting, and Hashem tells him to stay sitting. Lot is sitting as judge, but only today. Ephron comes to a high position that day.

  4. וְהוּא אַחֲרָיו a
    1. What was behind him? The tent or tent door; Yishmael; the tent door at the opposite side of the tent -- matching the idea of a tent door to each of the compass directions.

  5. A Moral or Ethical Struggle?
    1. The story of the Binding of Yitzchak is a personal/emotional struggle, rather than a moral/ethical struggle. This is clear throughout the narrative but is stressed at the beginning. Moral/ethical questions here are misplaced, for reasons I get into.

  6. Avraham's Sacrifice and Struggle
    1. The poetic form of God's command and repetition of son in various ways is a way of underscoring the dramatic tension involved. And it is followed through throughout the narrative. Also, some E/J stuff.

  7. Rivka's Age
    1. What's the purpose in making Rivka 3 years old?

  8. An Elderly God?
    1. rather than an elderly husband

  9. Avraham's Special Tent
    1. with entrances in each compass direction. And two derivations for this special tent.
2004
2003
To be continued...

Posted by joshwaxman at 10:58 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: ,



Interesting Posts and Articles #231

  1. Ishim veShitos puts up some info on Triangle K hechsher on juices:
    Marc Shapiro told me that he asked R Ralbag and was told that: "all the grape juice in HiC, Minutemaid, etc. is made specially under Triangle K hashgachah, in a special "crush" for these, companies. They make all the grape juice they need for the year in a month, under a mashgiach temidi.
  2. Diet sodas may hurt kidneys:
    Researchers analyzing the health habits of thousands of nurses found that women who drank two or more diet sodas daily had a two-fold increase in the risk of a significantly faster drop in their kidneys' ability to filter blood compared with those who drank one or none.

  3. Eruv Online on Rashi, and whether shishim ribo applies to the city or the street:

    However, the source for Rashi, the Behag (Berlin edition, p. 131; see the following post The Reprinting of the Berlin Edition of the Behag), refers to a place/street:

    רשות הרבים דוכתא דדשין בה שית מאה אלפי גוברין בכל יומא

    Therefore, it is unlikely that Rashi or any of the other Rishonimmaintains that shishim ribo applies to a city.


  4. Snopes has a picture of representatives playing Solitaire during a legislative session.

  5. Vos Iz Neias reprints the Jewish Star editorial on boycotting the Toldos Aharon rebbes. And Matzav condemns the Jewish Star. The Five Towns Jewish Times has a mixed review, but also see here.

    Related, Emes veEmunah on Kavod HaTorah.

  6. On the Main Line on the Koranic origin of the expression donkeys laden with books.

  7. Rabbi Slifkin is going to be offering free classes on Zoology and the Torah, and Science and the Torah, at Torah in Motion.

  8. Here at parshablog, does Ibn Caspi profess a weak corporealism, which has Hashem appear to Avraham in human form?

Posted by joshwaxman at 8:34 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels:

Clericus on the destruction of Sodom by lightning bolt

Thursday, November 05, 2009

In an earlier post, I mentioned Shadal's suggestion, taken from Clericus, that Sodom was destroyed by lightning bolt igniting deposits of highly flammable material. I managed to find an English translation of Clericus on this matter. In order to better understand Shadal, it is a good idea to see precisely what his sources said. And so here it is. (I fixed up the text a bit.) There is what to say about it, but perhaps in a follow-up-post.

[ V ] And therefore the Divine Justice offended at these horrid Enormities, resolved utterly to destroy some Cities situated in the farthest part of the Plain of Jordan, which Moses relates to have been done in the following manner ,The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah Brimstone and Fire from the Lord out of Heaven, and he overthrew those Cities and all the Plain, and all the Inhabitants of the Cities and that which grew upon the ground, Gen. 19. 24, 25. We have already shown, that this whole Tract of Land was full of Bitumen, which as it will easily take fire, was soon kindled by the Lightning ; and the Flame was not only to be seen upon the Superficies of the Earth, which frequently happens in such places, without the Destruction of the Inhabitants, but so pierced into the Subterranean Veins of Brimstone and Bitumen, that that matter being destroyed, the whole Earth sunk down, and afforded a Receptacle to the Waters flowing thither. All which Particulars we will now endeavour to handle more copiously, and to illustrate by other Examples.

First, Though Moses only mentions two Cities which God destroy'd by Lightning, namely Sodom and Gomorrah, yet there were two more deftroy'd at the same time, Adma and Zeboim which lay near the two above-mentioned Cities, as appears from Chapter 14. 2. Nay, Moses himself affirms as much, Deut. 19. 13. where taking occasion to describe the Punishments with which God would visit the wicked Israelites, he tells them, that Strangers as they travelled that way should gaze upon their Lands, burnt up with Brimstone and Salt, in which there should be no sowing, nor should any thing grow, nor any Herb appear, as in the Destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Adma, which the Lord overthrew in his Anger and Wrath. See likewise Hosea II. 8. Now the reason why these two last Cities were omitted, seems to be, because perhaps the Kings of these places were tributary to those of Sodom and Gomorrah. Strabo indeed in his sixteenth Book does not mention that only four Cities were subverted by this Subterranean Fire, but thirteen ,- but perhaps he might be deceived in this matter, as well as he was in believing that the Lacus Serbonus was the fame with the Asphaltites. Perhaps to, nine other smaller Towns, which depended upon these four, were destroyed at the same time. 'Tis certain, that Ezekiel does not only make mention of Sodom but its Daughters,Chap. 16. that is, the Cities that were situate in the fame Province; As I live, faith the Lord God to Jerusalem, thy Sister Sodom, and the Daughters thereof, (that is to say, the Cities which it had built around it, or else sent Colonies into) have not done as thou and thy Daughters have done. It may not improbably be supposed, that Strata, a Man of great Diligence, and infinite Reading, might have an account of the number of these Cities from some Writer of the Phoenician History.

Secondly, God is said to have rained down Fire and Brimstone from the Lord, which is a Periphrasis for Lightning, as in Psalm 9. ver. 6. He will rain Whirlwinds upon the Wicked, Fire and Brimstone ; and Ezekiel 38. 22. I will punish him with Pestilence and Blood : a mighty Shower, Stones of Hail, FIRE and BRIMSTONE, Will I rain down upon him. Now Thunder is therefore called Fire and Brimstone, which is as much as to say, Brimstone set on fire, and lighted. So in the third of Genesis, v. 16. we find Pain and Conception, that is Pain which follows Conception. He that is desirous to see more Examples of this nature, let him consult H. Grotius upon John 3. 5. But the reason why Thunder is thus described, no one certainly can be ignorant of, that has either smelt those places that have been struck by Thunder, or has read what Learned Men have writ upon this occasion. I will only give my self the trouble to set down two or three Testimonies. Thunder and Lightning likewise, says Pliny, lib. 35, c. 15. have the Smell of Brimstone, and the very Light or Flame of them is sulphureous. And Seneca in the fecond Book of his Natural Questions, ch. 21. tells us, that all things that are struck

by Lightning, have a sulphureous Smell. And indeed, our Natural Philosophers have plainly demonstrated , that the Thunderbolt is nothing else but a sulphureous Exhalation. For this Persius, in his second satire, calls it Sulphus Sacrum,
Ignovisse putas, quia cum tonet, ocyus ilex,
Sulphur discutitur Sacro, quam tu'q; domusq;

On the other hand, because the Thunderbolt is of a Sulphureous nature, the Greeks seem to have called Brimslone in their Language, theion ; that is, Divine, by a proper name [GREEK TEXT], because it comes from God.

Now God is not barely said to have rained down Brimslone and Fire, but Brimslone and Fire from the Lord, where the Addition of 'from the Lord' which at first sight may appear to be superfluous, does more particularly describe the Thunder-bolt, which by the Hebrews and other Nations is frequently called the Fire of God, and Fire fromGod. Thus in the fecond Book of Kings, c. i. v. 12,. THE FIRE OF GOD came down from Heaven, and devoured him. See likewise Job i. v. 1 6. Isaiah uses the same Expression, c. 66. v. 16. He shall be punished with the FIRE OF THE LORD. After this manner the Latin Poets fpeaks, herein intimating the Grecians ; Met. l. 15.

Jamq; opus exegi, quod nec Jovis ira, nec Ignes, Nec poterit ferrum, nec edax abolere -vetustas

Statins, in the firft Book of his Thebias;

Ilicet Igne Jovis, lapsisq citatior astris,
Tristibus exiluit ripis.

Because Men have no power over these kinds of Meteors, and 'tis impossible for them by any contrivance to ascend up to the Clouds, therefore God is supposed to dwell there, and to cast his Darts from thence: although he is equally present in all places, and does not send his Thunderbolts for any peculiar reason.

Thirdly, Though Moses does not inform us after what manner the Thunderbolts subverted these unhappy Cities, and the adjoining Territory, yet once he makes mention of them, we cannot comprehend how it happen'd any otherwise, than that the Thunderbolts falling in great plenty upon some Pits of Bitumen, the Veins of that combustible Matter took fire immediately, and as the Fire penetrated into the lowermoft bowels of this bituminous Soil, these wicked Cities were subverted by a Tremor, and sinking down of the ground. We will not here enlarge how easily Naphtha, which is a fort of Liquid Bitumen, is set on fire. The Reader may at his leisure confult what Strabo, I. 16. Plutarch in the Life of Alexander, and Pliny, l. 2. c. 105-. have laid upon this Subject. Perhaps in some part of this delicious Plain which was overthrown, there was only the thick Bitumen, but


even the very Vapour of that Matter, which exhales from Grounds impregnated with it, is easily set on fire. In Lycia the Hephaestian Mountains if you do but touch them with a lighted Torch, immediately take fire, so that the very Stones in the Rivers, and the Sands in the Water burn, if you take a Stick out of these Waters, and draw Furrows upon the ground with it, according to the common report, a track of Fire follows it. These are Pliny's words, l 2 c 106. There is a small Hill in the Province belonging to Grenoble, from whence a Smoke of a Bituminous Smell is perpetually seen to proceed : Now this Smoke by a lighted Flambeau, or Chaff, is soon set on fire, which we our selves knew to be true by Ocular Experience.

In that lamentable Earthquake, which in the Month of January 1693. shook all Sicily after so prodigious and miserable a manner, some Authors of very good credit have assured us, that Thunderbolts fell in several places of the Island, And this Observation is not unknown to the Ancients; for Seneca, Quaest. Nat. l 2 c. 30. says, Aetna has sometimes burnt exceedingly, and thrown up a wonderful quantity of burning Sand, the day obfcur'd by the Smoke and Ashes, so that the People were terrified at so unexpected a Scene of Darkness. At these times, as the common Tradition goes, there is a great deal of Thunder and Lightning.

And therefore the Bitumen which is fo plentifully found in the Soil of Sodom, might be set on fire by a Thunderbolt; and since it flows, or is dug not from the Superficies of the Earth, but from Veins of a mighty depth, when once it had taken fire the Flame must of necessity run along all those Veins, and at last shake and subvert the ground. The same thing frequently happens to tht Fields about Aetna and Vesuvius for the very same reason. Innumerable Authors have written of the Soil of Sicily, but Juftin shall serve for all, who in the beginning of the fourth Book thus describes it. The Earth is naturally thin and friable, and by reason of the several Caverns and Pipes, so penetrable, that the greatest part of it is exposed to the violence of the Winds. Nay, the Genius of the Soil is proper for generating and nourishing of Fire, because it is said to be crusted within with Sulphur and Bitumen, which is the reason, that when the Wind struggles with the Fire under ground, it frequently belches out sometimes Flames, sometimes Vapours, and sometimes Smoke, and that in several places. Cornelius Severus prosecutes this Argument at large in his Poem, intituled, Aetna. The same Observations have been made of the Grounds that lye about the Vefuvius in the Kingdom of Naples, and several Towns have frequently been there overthrown by Earthquakes. Pliny the Younger in the 16th Epiftle, l. 6. where he relates the Death of his Learned Uncle, who was suffocated as he approached too near the fire of that Mountain. The Houses,says he, with frequent and prodigious Tremblings

nodded, and as if they had been removed from their Foundation, seemed to move this way and that way. And Seneca in the sixth Book of his Natural Questions, ch. i. has the following Passage. We are told that Pompeii, a famous City of Campania, was subverted by an Earthquake. —This

Concussion happen'd on the Nones {=our fifth} of February, under the Consulate of Regulus and Virginius, and occasioned incredible losses in Campania; which though it was never free from these Motions, yet it seldom suffer'd by them.

That which Seneca tells us happen'd to the City of Pompeii, do we say was the very fame Calamity which visited these Cities in the Plain of Jordan. Nor was this the first time that this Valley was shaken, as the Territory about Pompeii was not subverted the very first time it shook, as the Jewish Authors affirm, from whom St. Jerom has borrowed what follows in his Hebrew Traditions. 'It is frequently asked, says he, why Lot, after he had first prefer'd Segor to his flight up the Mountain, that he desired it might escape because he design'd to live there, should so soon alter his Mind, and depart from Segor to the Mountain? We answer, that the Conjecture of the Hebrews concerning Segor is agreeable to the Truth, viz. that it was frequently overthrown by Earthquakes, and was first called Bale,and afterwads Salissa ; and therefore Lot was afraid, and said to himfe/f, If while the other Cities were standing, this was often subverted, how can it now expect to escape in the common ruine? But to lay aside these uncertain Traditions, we will rather observe in the words of the Roman Philosopher, that God punished the Sodomites and their Neighbours, by a Calamity of a large extent, which has not only destroy'd single Houses, or Families, or Cities, but whole Nations, which sometimes buries all in Ruines, and sometimes in a deep Gulf, leaving no Remainders behind it. By which it may appear, that that which is not now, was formerly, but triumphs over the most magnificent Cities, and is not so merciful as to leave any footsteps of their ancient Glory.

Strabo in his first, and Pliny in his second Book, will furnish us with several Examples of this nature , some few of which, nearly sefembling the Destruction of these Cities situate in the Plain of Jordan, we have here selected. The former Author tells us out of Posidonius, p. 40. that in Phoenicia a certain City, situate above Sidon, was absorpt by an Earthquake. Out of Demetrius Scepsius, that several Earthquakes have happen'd in Asia Minor, by which whole Towns were devoured, and the Mountain Sipylus overthrown under the Reign of Tantalas, and Marishes turned into standing Lakes. And this happen'd at the Destruction of the Vale of Sodom, where the Lacus Asphaltites was occasion'd by the Water which there overflowed. Nor indeed cou'd it otherwise happen, the Soil easily giving way in marshy places. As the same Author tells us, p 37. Great as well as small things may be swallowed up, since Chasms in the Earth, and the burying of Towns and Habitations.as it happened at Bara, Bezona, and several other places, are said to be caused by Earthquakes. Pliny in his second Book, ch. 88. testifies, that the Mountain Epopos, a Fire on the sudden breaking out of it, was levelled to the Ground, and a Town buried in the Deep. For the Arch, that supported the Ground, breaking in, and the Matter underneath being wholly consumed, the Soil above must of necessity sink, and be swallowed up in these Caverns, if they are of a larger extent. For this reason 'twas suppos'd in Seneca's time that the Mountain Aetna consumed, and sunk by degrees, because the Sailors cou'd have discern'd it farther off in former times. See his 79th Epistle.

V. After this Territory adjoining to Jordan had thus sunk in, it must unavoidably fall out, (as we said before) that the Waters running to this place in so great an abundance must make a Lake of that place, which was marshy before; as Moses informs us,Gen. 14. 3. when he relates that the Forces of the Inhabitants near Jordan met /n the Valley of Siddim, which is now, says he, the Salt Sea ; by which name, as we shall hereafter observe, the Lacus Asphaltites was called. And that this was not the only place, where a Lake was occasioned by an Earthquake, we find from the above-mentioned Passage in Strabo. Nay, Pliny testifies that in one of the Pythecusae not only a Town was awallowed up in


the Deep, (as we have already observed) but that by another Concussion of the Earth a Pool broke out. In the beginning of 169 3. all Sicily was miserably shaken; and not only several Towns overturned, but the City Augusta, which was built by the Emperor Frederic in the Year 1229. was wholly swallowed up by the Sea.

If to these Waters perpetually running into it, we add the Bitumen which at once broke out of the Earth, and mingled with the Water, we shall have a full Description of the Lacus Asphaltites. We have evidently shown, that all that Country abounded with Bitumen before; and perhaps what Strabo affirms to have happen'd at Eubaea fell out here, which did not cease to feel Shakings in one part or another, that the Earth open'd in the Field of Lelantus, and vomited forth a Flood of fiery Mud.

After this manner the Lacus Asphaltites seems to be made, and nothing can be objected against it, unless it be that Abraham did not perceive the Earthquake, which we say happen'd in this place. For Moses tells us, Gen. 19.17. that he knew nothing of the matter, till he got up in the Morning, and went to the Mountains; from whence he saw the Smoke arise from the Earth, as from a Furnace. But besides that, Mofes no where denies that Abraham was senfible of this Earthquake ; it might very well be, that the Trembling was very inconsiderable, or none at all in the Neighbourhood. Often small Trafts of Ground are disturbed, as Seneca has observed, Quaest. Nat. 1.6. c.25. even this Earthquake which has filed the City with so many dreadful Stones, did not exceed the limits of Campania. Why should I mention that when Chalcis trembled,Thebes stood unmolested; that when Aegium was every moment expecting to be buried in ruines, the City Patrea, which stands so near it felt nothing of that Motion ? That prodigious Concussion which overwhelm'd two Cities, Buris and Helice, stopt on this side of Aegium ? 'Tis therefore a plain case, that the Motion only goes fo far, and no farther, as the Caverns and vacant spaces in the Earth, give it leave. According to the Depth or Breadth of the Caverns which fell in, the Motion must be heard farther or nearer. Now these Caverns seem neither to have been very far from the Superficies of the Earth, nor broader than the Valley which sunk in, since four Cities, with the Territories belonging to them, were so soon swallowed up, and yet the Calamity spread no farther.

The Memory of this strange Event was not only preserv'd among the Hebrews, who afterward inhabited the neighbouring Country, but was propogated among the Heathens. Strata indeed, l. 16. erroneously confounds this Lake with Sirbonis, but in the other part of his relation deserves to be heard. It is a vast Lake, the Compass of which some Persons estimate to be a thousand Furlongs, the Length of it above two hundred, (Josephus de Bell. Jud l. 4. c.26. tells us it is 580 Furlongs in Length, and 150 in Breadth;) the Water of it is extreamly deep and heavy upon which account divers are of no use there; for whoever goes into it as high as his Navil is immediately lifted up. It is full of Bitumen, which at uncertain Seasons boils up from the bottom, with Bubbels like hot Water, and then the Superficies of the Lake swells, and resembes the rising of a Hill. It emits vast quantities of smoaky Ashes, that deceive the Eye-sight; it immediately rusts silver and Brass, and in short, every thing that looks bright and polished, except Gold alone. When their utensils grow rusty,the Inhabitants know that an Eruption of Bitumen will soon happen, for which reason they go in flat-bottom'd Boats made of Reeds to gather it.

Bitumen is a sort of Earth,which being melted by the Heat spreads mightily,but with a little cold Water is soon condensed again into a solid Body, and therefore needs Incision. — Several other Signs convince us that in the Soil of this Country there is adual Fire, for they shew us rough Rocks burnt up near. Mosais, and Caverns Wrought out in several places, the Earth full of Ashies, drops of Pitch distilling from the Rocks, the Rivers hot, and casting forth an unsavory Smell, and their Houfes Frequently thrown down ; so that what the Natives of the place relate, may very well be credited, viz. that thirteen Cities were formerly inhabited in this Tract of Ground, the Metropolis of which, Sodom has still the compass of sixty Furlongs visibly remaining, that by Earthquakes, together With violent Eruptions of Fire, and hot bituminous

sulphurious Water, a great Lake was made, that the Stones took fire, that some of the Cities were swallowed up, and others abandoned by the Inhabitants that cou'd make their escapes. Erastothenes, on the other hand, was of opinion, that the Country was overwhelm'd by store of subterranean Pools. We will now introduce Tacitus to confirm what has been delivered by Strabo, who tells us in the fifth Book of his Hiftory, ch. 6. A Lake of a mighty compass, refembling a Sea, but of a more odious tast and for the noisomness of the Smells that proceed from it, often fatal to the Inhabitants: It is neither agitated by the, Wind, nor does it harbour any Fish, or Fowl accustomed to the Water. At certain seasons of the year it throws up Bitumen, the use of gathering which Experience has taught, as it has done other Arts. Hot far from thence are Fields, which they report to have been extreamly fruitful in former times.and inhabited by large and populous Cities, but afterwards were fet on fre by Thunder bolts, the Footsteps of which Calamity are still remaining ; but that the Earth, which seems to be parched and burnt up, has wholly lost its fertility. For every, thing, whether it grows Spontaniously, or is planted ly Man, whether herb or Flower, or arrived to full Maturity, if compressed, moulders away immediately into Ashes. Therefore as I readily grant, that some famous Cities were here destroy'd by Lightning in times past, so I suppose, that the Earth is infected by Steams from the Lake, and the circum-ambient Air corrupted, which putrifies the Fruits of the Earth. This Lake likewise, has been described by Diodorut Siculus, l. 19. by Pliny, l 5. c. 16. and by Solinus, c. 36. whom the Reader, if he thinks fit, may consult when he pleases. We will not here examine the particulars they relate, altho' we make no question, but that abundance of false Reports have been utter'd upon this Subject. We will only enquire into the Reasons of the several Names it goes by, with all convenient brevity.

Every one knows wherefore it received the name of Asphaltites, since it fo plentifully abounds in Alphaltus, or Bitumen; and the reason, why it is frequently called the Salt Sea in Scripture, is, because the Hebrews call all Lakes, Seas ; and because two other Lakes, viz. that of Semechon and Genesareth receive the River Jordan, in his passage above, both which are fresh Water, therefore this third, to be distinguished from them, was called the Salt Sea. Other wise the. Mediterranean Sea is like wise salt; altho' 'tis certain, there is some difference in the saltness. In succeeding times, it was called the Dead Sea, not becaufe the Water of it is immoveable, as Justin pretends, /. 36. 3. but becaufe, as Josepbus informs us, it is aganon, that is, it has no Fish in it. The above mentioned Writers, that give a Description of this Lake, confirm the opinion of Josephus, to whom we will add two Eye-witnesses: First, Pausanias, who in his fifth Book expressly tells us, he saw the River Jordan, which runs thro' the Lake of Tiberias, fall into another Lake, called the Dead Sea., by whom it is consumed; and afterwards adds, This Lake is void of Fish, who turn back to their accustomed Waters, as from a manifest Danger. The Second is, St. Jerome, who upon the 47th Chapter of Ezekiel: If Jordan, says he, swelled by the Rains, carries any fishes into it, they immediately die, and float upon the surface of the fat Water.

Posted by joshwaxman at 4:22 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: ,



Dual interpretation of Netziv Melach, from Ovid

In a previous post, I related Shadal's explanation of the destruction of Sodom by lightning bolt, igniting natural deposits of tar and crude oil. And at the end, he mentions that Clericus found many parallels between the narrative of the destruction of Sodom and Ovid's Philemon and Baucis. He attributes this to Ovid's story being based on the Biblical story. (Ovid lived from 43 BCE to 18 CE.)

There are numerous interesting parallels, such that we can therefore consider the Ovid story to be commentary on the Biblical narrative. I intend to focus on all the parallels I can spot, but that would make for a lengthy post.

And so, I am going to begin by pointing out what I think is the most interesting aspect of this -- there is a dual interpretation of Netziv Melach, demonstrating that even back then, both interpretations were known.

Specifically, while the Torah states that when Lot's wife looked back, "she" became a pillar of salt. "She" can either to the city (Ralbag, Chizkuni) or to the woman (the traditional interpretation). But Ovid's Philemon and Baucis has Philemon and Baucis become a merged tree, just as Lot became an immovable pillar. But also, when they look back at the destruction of the city, it is described as being utterly destroyed.

Thus, from Ovid's Metamorphoses, the story begins:

Upon the hills
of Phrygia I have seen two sacred trees,
a lime-tree and an oak, so closely grown
their branches interlace.
and much later,

'Now tell us, good old man and you his wife,
worthy and faithful, what is your desire?'
"Philemon counselled with old Baucis first;
and then discovered to the listening Gods
their hearts' desire, 'We pray you let us have
the care of your new temple; and since we
have passed so many years in harmony,
let us depart this life together-- Let
the same hour take us both--I would not see
the tomb of my dear wife; and let me not
be destined to be buried by her hands!'
"At once their wishes were fulfilled. So long
as life was granted they were known to be
the temple's trusted keepers, and when age
had enervated them with many years,
as they were standing, by some chance, before
the sacred steps, and were relating all
these things as they had happened, Baucis saw
Philemon, her old husband, and he, too,
saw Baucis, as their bodies put forth leaves;
and while the tops of trees grew over them,
above their faces, -- they spoke each to each;
as long as they could speak they said, 'Farewell,
farewell, my own'--and while they said farewell;
new leaves and branches covered both at once.
"The people of Tyana still point out
two trees which grew there from a double trunk,
two forms made into one.
But elsewhere in the story, they specifically look back and see the utter destruction. And their home in that city transforms into something:
Not farther from the summit than the flight
of one swift arrow from a hunter's how,
they paused to view their little home once more;
and as they turned their eyes, they saw the fields
around their own engulfed in a morass,
although their own remained,--and while they wept
bewailing the sad fate of many friends,
and wondered at the change, they saw their home,
so old and little for their simple need--
put on new splendor, and as it increased
it changed into a temple of the gods.
I think that Ovid got the two metamorphoses (people and city/house) from the ambiguity in the Biblical text. And if so, both interpretations of the ambiguous pasuk would be very old -- at the least, to the time of Chazal.


Now, a point by point comparison of the two stories. The full text follows. I will interject to point out parallels.

Ovid's Metamorphoses : Philemon & Baucis

Upon the hills
of Phrygia I have seen two sacred trees,
a lime-tree and an oak, so closely grown
their branches interlace. A low stone wall
960 is built around to guard them from all harm.
And that you may not doubt it, I declare
again, I saw the spot, for Pittheus there
had sent me to attend his father's court.

This is just a testimony to having seen these two, interlaced trees, an oak and a lime tree. This is taken to be the good couple, who loved one another and were transformed into trees.

"Near by those trees are stagnant pools and fens,
965 where coots and cormorants delight to haunt;
but it was not so always. Long ago
'Twas visited by mighty Jupiter,
together with his nimble-witted son,
who first had laid aside his rod and Wings.

Here, we have two gods, Jupiter and his nimble-witted son. Yet, they are traveling in disguise, so as not to be recognized as gods. Compare with the two of the three angels in the Sodom narrative.

970 "As weary travelers over all the land
they wandered, begging for their food and bed;
and of a thousand houses, all the doors
were bolted and no word of kindness given--
so wicked were the people of that land.

Thus, they are testing the hospitality of the people. And the people of that land are extremely inhospitable, and wicked. Much as in Sodom.

975 At last, by chance, they stopped at a small house,
whose humble roof was thatched with reeds and straw;--
and here a kind old couple greeted them.
"The good dame, Baucis, seemed about the age
of old Philemon, her devoted man;
980 they had been married in their early youth,
in that same cottage and had lived in it,
and grown together to a good old age;
contented with their lot because they knew
their poverty, and felt no shame of it;
985 they had no need of servants; the good pair
were masters of their home and served themselves;
their own commands they easily obeyed.

We don't really find much about Lot's wife in the Biblical narrative itself. In this case, both husband and wife are righteous. Perhaps we can draw a parallel to Avraham and Sarah, who are surely an old couple.

"Now when the two Gods, Jove and Mercury,
had reached this cottage, and with bending necks
990 had entered the low door, the old man bade
them rest their wearied limbs, and set a bench,
on which his good wife, Baucis, threw a cloth;
and then with kindly bustle she stirred up
the glowing embers on the hearth, and then
995 laid tinder, leaves and bark; and bending down
breathed on them with her ancient breath until
they kindled into flame. Then from the house
she brought a store of faggots and small twigs,
and broken branches, and above them swung
1000 a kettle, not too large for simple folk.
And all this done, she stripped some cabbage leaves,
which her good husband gathered for the meal.
"Then with a two-pronged fork the man let down
a rusty side of bacon from aloft,
1005 and cut a little portion from the chine;
which had been cherished long. He softened it
in boiling water. All the while they tried
with cheerful conversation to beguile,
so none might notice a brief loss of time.
1010 "Swung on a peg they had a beechwood trough,
which quickly with warm water filled, was used
for comfortable washing. And they fixed,
upon a willow couch, a cushion soft
of springy sedge, on which they neatly spread
1015 a well worn cloth preserved so many years;
'Twas only used on rare and festive days;
and even it was coarse and very old,
though not unfit to match a willow couch!
"Now as the Gods reclined, the good old dame,
1020 whose skirts were tucked up, moving carefully,
for so she tottered with her many years,
fetched a clean table for the ready meal--
but one leg of the table was too short,
and so she wedged it with a potsherd--so
1025 made firm, she cleanly scoured it with fresh mint.
"And here is set the double-tinted fruit
of chaste Minerva, and the tasty dish
of corner, autumn-picked and pickled; these
were served for relish; and the endive-green,
1030 and radishes surrounding a large pot
of curdled milk; and eggs not overdone
but gently turned in glowing embers--all
served up in earthen dishes. Then sweet wine
served up in clay, so costly! all embossed,
1035 and cups of beechwood smoothed with yellow wax.
"So now they had short respite, till the fire
might yield the heated course.
"Again they served
new wine, but mellow; and a second course:
1040 sweet nuts, dried figs and wrinkled dates and plums,
and apples fragrant, in wide baskets heaped;
and, in a wreath of grapes from purple vines,
concealed almost, a glistening honey-comb;
and all these orchard dainties were enhanced
1045 by willing service and congenial smiles.

This is just an account of the hospitality. Lot was also hospitable.

"But while they served, the wine-bowl often drained,
as often was replenished, though unfilled,
and Baucis and Philemon, full of fear,
as they observed the wine spontaneous well,
1050 increasing when it should diminish, raised
their hands in supplication, and implored
indulgence for their simple home and fare.
And now, persuaded by this strange event
such visitors were deities unknown,

They realize that these are deities. It would seem, as well, that at some point Lot recognized that his visitors were angels, when they performed the miracle of smiting people with blindness. And Avraham, as well, likely realized this at a particular point.

1055 this aged couple, anxious to bestow
their most esteemed possession, hastily
began to chase the only goose they had--
the faithful guardian of their little home --
which they would kill and offer to the Gods.
1060 But swift of wing, at last it wearied them,
and fled for refuge to the smiling Gods.

And they want to offer their best possession as a type of sacrifice. I don't think there is parallel here. Avraham and Lot gave their best to people they thought were mere mortals. Although earlier, so did Baucis and Philemon attempt great hospitality.

At once the deities forbade their zeal,
and said, 'A righteous punishment shall fall
severe upon this wicked neighborhood;
1065 but by the might of our divinity,
no evil shall befall this humble home;
but you must come, and follow as we climb
the summit of this mountain!'

This does not really make much sense -- if the home could be spared, let them stay! But in the Sodom narrative, they say they are going to bring judgment upon the wicked neighborhood of Sodom and the whole kikar, and that Lot and his family should flee with them, for they cannot begin until Lot leaves.

Perhaps we can compare to Lot living for a while in Tzoar, and their sparing that.

But these deities tell Baucis to go to the mountain, while the angels tell Lot to go to the mountain. And eventually, after Tzoar, he does go to the mountain.

"Both obeyed,
1070 and leaning on their staves toiled up the steep.
Not farther from the summit than the flight
of one swift arrow from a hunter's how,
they paused to view their little home once more;
and as they turned their eyes, they saw the fields
1075 around their own engulfed in a morass,
although their own remained,--and while they wept

They listen to the deities. But both of them turn around and look. Much as Lot's wife turned around and looked, against specific instructions.

Baucis and Philemon saw the destruction, and Lot's wife saw the destruction of Sodom, that it had become like a pillar of salt.

bewailing the sad fate of many friends,
and wondered at the change, they saw their home,
so old and little for their simple need--
1080 put on new splendor, and as it increased
it changed into a temple of the gods.
Where first the frame was fashioned of rude stakes
columns of marble glistened, and the thatch
gleamed golden in the sun, and legends carved,
1085 adorned the doors. And all the ground shone white
with marble rich, and after this was done,

This transformation of their home into a temple does not appear to have a parallel in the Sodom story.

the Son of Saturn said with gentle voice,
'Now tell us, good old man and you his wife,
worthy and faithful, what is your desire?'
1090 "Philemon counselled with old Baucis first;
and then discovered to the listening Gods
their hearts' desire, 'We pray you let us have
the care of your new temple; and since we

Nor this request that they become keepers of the temple.

have passed so many years in harmony,
1095 let us depart this life together-- Let
the same hour take us both--I would not see
the tomb of my dear wife; and let me not
be destined to be buried by her hands!'
"At once their wishes were fulfilled. So long
1100 as life was granted they were known to be
the temple's trusted keepers, and when age
had enervated them with many years,
as they were standing, by some chance, before
the sacred steps, and were relating all
1105 these things as they had happened, Baucis saw
Philemon, her old husband, and he, too,
saw Baucis, as their bodies put forth leaves;
and while the tops of trees grew over them,
above their faces, -- they spoke each to each;
1110 as long as they could speak they said, 'Farewell,
farewell, my own'--and while they said farewell;
new leaves and branches covered both at once.

This portion, in which they become long-standing testaments to the story (in this case in a way that demonstrates there love for one another) seems to match up with the idea of Lot's wife standing there forever, as evidence that this incident occurred.

"The people of Tyana still point out
two trees which grew there from a double trunk,
1115 two forms made into one. Old truthful men,
who have no reason to deceive me, told
me truly all that I have told to you,
and I have seen the votive wreaths hung from
the branches of the hallowed double-tree.
1120 And one time, as I hung fresh garlands there,
I said, 'Those whom the Gods care for are Gods!
And those who worshiped are now worshiped here.'"

So it ends. I can see how Clericus saw many parallels between these two stories. Certainly there is a relationship here.


It appears that Clericus saw other parallels. I give here what he wrote about the parallels, in English translation, taken from here.

VII. But to omit a farther disquisition of this matter, because it requires a larger Volume; we shall rather chuse to observe, That several circumstances of a Fable in Ovid's Metamorphoses, I.8. seem to derive their Original from this History; as,

  1. Jupiter and Mercury, like the two Angels in this Story, put on human Shape, and travel among men.

  2. They meet wirh very barbarous, inhospitable Men, just as among the Sodomites, they shewed no manner of respect to Strangers.

    Jupiter huc specie mortali, cumq parente
    Venit Atlantiades positis caducifer alis
    Mille domos adiere, locum requiemq; petentes.
    Mille domos clausere Jerae.

  3. Tamen Una recepit. But one House at last received them ; and so Lot gave a Lodging to thee Angels, who rnust otherwise have passed the Night in the Streets.

  4. At laft Jupiter and Mercury confess themselves to be Gods, and threaten to punish the Neighbourhood. So do the two Angels...

  5. These deities save Baucis and Philemon, as the Angels doe Lot and his Family.

  6. Baucis and Philemon escape by leaving their House, and following the Gods to a Mountain, after the same manner as Lot and his Daughters...

  7. The Neighbours of Baucis and Philemon are punished, their Town turned into a Pool of standing Water, as the Valley of Siddim became a Lake.

  8. The Scene of this surprising Event, Ovis lays ad phrygios collet, in the Hills of Phrygia, but does not mark out the place more distinctly: Perhaps he had somewhere read,that it happened [GREEK TEXT], by which name, part of Phrygia is called. Nay, the very name [GREEK TEXT] is derived [GREEK TEXT], from Roasting or Burning. Therefore the Country about Sodom, may as well be meant by both Apellations, as that Region in Asia Minor, as sufficiently appears by what has been already laid; but Ovid, according to the custom of Poets, puts down a better known name, instead of one that was less known. We might easily make a Parallel between that part of Phrygia, and the Country about Sodom, and shew wherein they agree, as anyone will soon find out, who will attentively consider what Strabo, /. 13. has written, [GREEK TEXT] but we have not time to discuss this matter more prolixly.

    Although I am not of the opinion of Some Learned Men, who suppose, that all the Fables of the Grecians are derived from Histories in the Bible, changed and corrupted: yet the concurrence of so many Circumstances, inclined me to believe, that the History of Lot, is in some manner shadowed in the Fable of Baucis and Philemon. We have shown in our Annotations upon Gen. c.18. v i. That something like this, might have happen'd in the Fable of Orion; and indeed 'tis reasonable to imagine, that the Phoenicians, relating to the Greeks things done in the Land of Canaan, partly mingled them with some Additions of their own,and partly might be misunderftood by the Greeks who had Vanity enough to adorn whatever they heard, with new fictions of their own invention ; which is the reason, that the footsteps of Truth can scarce be traced in their Fables; altho' they arose from true Histories. Consult our Observations upon ch. 9.10.

Posted by joshwaxman at 12:27 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: ,

Avimelech, also stuffed up?

In parashas Vayera, regarding Hashem healing Avimelech and company at the end of the incident with Sarah {20:17 and on}:


יז וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל אַבְרָהָם, אֶל-הָאֱלֹהִים; וַיִּרְפָּא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וְאֶת-אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְאַמְהֹתָיו--וַיֵּלֵדוּ.17 And Abraham prayed unto God; and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maid-servants; and they bore children.
יח כִּי-עָצֹר עָצַר ה, בְּעַד כָּל-רֶחֶם לְבֵית אֲבִימֶלֶךְ, עַל-דְּבַר שָׂרָה, אֵשֶׁת אַבְרָהָם. {ס}18 For the LORD had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham's wife.

Now, Targum Onkelos renders it:

כ,יז וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל אַבְרָהָם, אֶל-הָאֱלֹהִים; וַיִּרְפָּא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וְאֶת-אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְאַמְהֹתָיו--וַיֵּלֵדוּ.וְצַלִּי אַבְרָהָם, קֳדָם יְיָ; וְאַסִּי יְיָ יָת אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וְיָת אִתְּתֵיהּ, וְאַמְהָתֵיהּ--וְאִתְרְוַחוּ.
כ,יח כִּי-עָצֹר עָצַר ה, בְּעַד כָּל-רֶחֶם לְבֵית אֲבִימֶלֶךְ, עַל-דְּבַר שָׂרָה, אֵשֶׁת אַבְרָהָם. {ס}אֲרֵי מֵיחָד אֲחַד יְיָ, בְּאַפֵּי כָּל פָּתַח וַלְדָא לְבֵית אֲבִימֶלֶךְ, עַל עֵיסַק שָׂרָה, אִתַּת אַבְרָהָם. {ס}

Thus, in the first pasuk, Hashem healed Avimelech, his wife, and his maidservants, and they were given ease/relief. For Hashem had sealed up all openings of the womb.

Based on this, Rashi writes on pasuk 17:

and they gave birth: As the Targum renders: and they were relieved. Their orifices were opened, and they expelled that which needed to be expelled, and that is their birth. וילדו: כתרגומו ואתרוחו, נפתחו נקביהם והוציאו מה שצריך לצאת והיא לידה שלהם:

What is motivating Rashi here? That Avimelech is included in those healed, and he does not have a womb, nor does he give birth. Therefore, vayeileidu, based on the peshat-translation of the Targum, must mean something more general.

And then on pasuk 18:

every womb: Every [bodily] opening. — בעד כל רחם: כנגד כל פתח:

Thus, carrying the idea into the next pasuk. A rechem cannot be a womb, but must be a bodily opening.

Ibn Ezra is annoyed. That is not what the peshat is in vayeileidu, or in rechem! He writes:

כ, יז]
וילדו -
שב אל אשת אבימלך ואמהותיו. לא אל אבימלך.
וכן: וישם דמי מלחמה בשלום.
בעמוד ענן ידבר אליהם.
אלה בני עדה.
אשר עבדתי אותך בהן.
אבי אברהם ואבי נחור ויעבדו.
הלא תראה שהוא מפורש בפסוק השני: כי עצר עצר ה' בעד כל רחם לבית אבימלך ולא הזכיר אבימלך. והארכתי כל כך, בעבור מפרשים שהיו אומרים: שהיה עצור לצאת לחוץ.
That is, IIUC, of course Hashem healed Avimelech of some thing, as well as healing his wife and his maidservants. But the verb vayeileidu need not apply to the full list. Only vayirpa. He gives several examples. One example is in Bereishit 30, when Yaakov says to Lavan:

כו תְּנָה אֶת-נָשַׁי וְאֶת-יְלָדַי, אֲשֶׁר עָבַדְתִּי אֹתְךָ בָּהֵן--וְאֵלֵכָה: כִּי אַתָּה יָדַעְתָּ, אֶת-עֲבֹדָתִי אֲשֶׁר עֲבַדְתִּיךָ.26 Give me my wives and my children for whom I have served thee, and let me go; for thou knowest my service wherewith I have served thee.'

where he only worked for the wives, not for the children.

And don't you see that it is said explicitly in the second verse, "for Hashem had fast closed up all wombs to the house of Avimelech," and it does not mention Avimelech?! And I {=Ibn Ezra} wrote this at length, because of commentators {such as Rashi} who said that it was atzur {stopped up} from going out.

Thus, Ibn Ezra surely does not like the translation given by Rashi, on the basis of Targum, as peshat. I would guess that he must maintain that Hashem healed Avimelech in some way, but that it wasn't necessarily of stoppage. Rather, perhaps it was leprosy, or some other plague, as was the case by Pharaoh.

Ramban on this:
יז): וילדו -
אם הלשון כפשוטו, ושב לאשתו ואמהותיו כי עצר ה' בעד רחמם, תימה הוא, כי נראה כי גם בלילה הראשון אשר לוקחה שרה לבית אבימלך ולא קרב אליה עדיין בא אליו האלוהים בחלום, ובבקר השכים וקרא לעבדיו גם לאברהם, ומתי היה להם עצר רחם. אולי היו על פרקן ואחזום חבלי יולדה ולא יכלו להמליט, ואולי אברהם איחר תפלתו ימים רבים. והנה רפואות אבימלך גם חליו לא נתפרשו:

ולשון רש"י:
וילדו, ואתרוחו, נתפתחו נקביהם והוציאו, והוא לידה שלהן. בעד כל רחם, כנגד כל פתח.
ואין זה נכון, כי אם נאמר "בוילדו" שהוא יציאת החוץ, שמצינו לידה בענינים רבים, כגון הרה עמל וילד שקר (תהלים ז טו), לדת חק (צפניה ב ב), מה ילד יום (משלי כז א), מה יולידו ויחדשו הימים, אבל מלת "רחם" לא תבא על פתח אחר. ואין טענה מן בגיחו מרחם יצא (איוב לח ח), שהוא כנוי, כמו בטן האדמה (שם א כא):ש

ודעת אונקלוס איננה כדברי הרב, כי הוא שתרגם "ואתרוחו" עשה "רחם" כפשוטו "פתח ולדא", אלא שרצה לכלול גם אבימלך במלת וילדו.

ולשון בראשית רבה (נב יג):
כי עצור עצר ה', עצירה בפה, עצירה בגרון, עצירה בעין, עצירה באוזן, עצירה מלמעלה, עצירה מלמטה.
והמדרש הזה להם מיתור לשון הכפל עצור עצר, לא שיפרשו כל רחם, כל נקב:

והנכון בעיני כי מיום אשר נלקחה שרה, לקה אבימלך באברי התשמיש ולא יוכל לשמש, וזהו לא נתתיך לנגוע אליה, כי הנגיעה והקריבה בנשים הוא על התשמיש, כענין אל תגשו אל אשה (שמות יט טו), ואקרב אל הנביאה (ישעיה ח ג), ואשתו ואמהותיו שהן מעוברות עצר בעד רחמן ולא יכלו להמליט. כי "עצירת רחם" הוא שלא תהר, כדרך וה' סגר רחמה (ש"א א ה), אבל "עצירה בעד הרחם" הוא שלא תלד, כלשון גדר בעדי ולא אצא (איכה ג ז), ועמדה שרה בביתו ימים ולא שב אבימלך מדרכו הרעה כי לא הבין, עד שבא אליו האלוהים בחלום והודיעו. ולא פירש הכתוב חולי אבימלך והזכירו ברמז דרך מוסר וכבוד לשרה. ואחרי תפלת אברהם נרפא אבימלך ואשתו ואמהותיו וילדו הנשים.
He admits that on the peshat level, Ibn Ezra would be correct. The birth and initial stoppage of the wombs was to Avimelech's wife and maidservants. He cites Rashi and labels it incorrect. Even if you say the farfetched idea that vayeledu refers to general leaving outside the body, you cannot say that rechem means any opening. And he dismisses possible counter-proofs.

Ramban further divides Onkelos from Rashi. Granted, Onkelos does explain vayeledu in the first pasuk like Rashi. But in the second pasuk, Onkelos explicitly says פָּתַח וַלְדָא, the womb! Ramban cites the midrash from Bereishit Rabba, which speaks about closing every opening, but labels this midrash, which works on the basis of the doubling of atzor atzar, rather than making rechem refer to every possible opening {kol rechem}.

Finally, he gives his own position, that Avimelech was affected in his ever hatashmish, such that he was not given the ability to have intercourse. And he reads this into an earlier pasuk, that "I did not give you to touch her", for in this context it would refer to intercourse. And he gives examples. And furthermore, regarding his wife and maidservants who were pregnant, He closed up their wombs such that they couldn't give birth. And he distinguishes between atzirat harechem in sefer Shmuel, where it means not becoming pregnant, and atzira baad harechem which is not being able to give birth. And Sarah stayed a while in Avimelech's house, so long as he didn't understand. And the reason the pasuk was not explicit about his ailment was in respect to Sarah. And after Avraham's prayer, Avimelech, his wife, and maidservants were cured, and the women gave birth.

I will also note that this last pasuk is stylistically by way of realization. Oh, you are confused why they gave birth? Well, using the pluperfect, beforehand Hashem had done this. The realization was perhaps not so shocking in terms of Avimelech, since certain words can convey that he was affected in some way. That he was in danger of death may easily have been manifested before via some physical ailment.

Ralbag interprets like Rashi. And Shadal doesn't say precisely like Rashi, but effectively makes Rashi correct. Shadal writes:
יח] כי עצור עצר וגו
: נראה כי משעה שבאה שרה בבית אבימלך ה' מנע את אבימלך מלשמש עם אשה כלל (לא נתתיך לנגוע אליה) (הרמב"ן ), וכדי שלא יחשוב שהעדר תאותו בא מצד שרה שאיננה נושאת חן בעיניו, לפיכך מנע ממנו התשמיש גם עם אשתו וגם עם אמהותיו; ואף הנשים עצמן (אשתו ופילגשיו) עצר בעד רחמן באופן שלא יוכל שום אדם לבוא אליהן.
וילדו
: לשון נקיה, והטעם חזרה בהם היכולת לבעול ולהיבעל.
Thus, it also affected Avimelech. As we saw in Ramban's proof, from "I didn't give you the ability to touch her." And so that we don't think that this was because Avimelech didn't find her pretty (!), Hashem also prevented him from having intercourse with his wife and maidservents. And also the women themselves (his wife and concubines), Hashem closed up their wombs, so that no man could have intercourse with them. Finally, vayeileidu refers to a restoration of the ability of both the men and women to have intercourse (and thus procreate, eventually having children). Thus, he manages to keep Avimelech in with the rest of the group in terms of this verb. But he does not say that kol rechem refers also to Avimelech.

Posted by joshwaxman at 11:11 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: , , ,

What was Avraham's relationship to Sarah?

Avraham tells Sarah to claim more than once, seemingly falsely, that she is his sister. But then, in his justification to Avimelech, he asserts that she actually is his sister. Bereshit 20:12:

יב וְגַם-אָמְנָה, אֲחֹתִי בַת-אָבִי הִוא--אַךְ, לֹא בַת-אִמִּי; וַתְּהִי-לִי, לְאִשָּׁה.12 And moreover she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and so she became my wife.

What are we to make of this? One possibility is the Hurrian sister-wife concept, but we will ignore it here, because it might well be a red herring. Let us see how two major meforshim -- Rashi and Ibn Ezra -- deal with it.

This is not the only pasuk, of course, that might speak of Sarah's relationship to Avraham. Much earlier, at the end of parshas Noach, in Bereshit 11:29, we read:

כט וַיִּקַּח אַבְרָם וְנָחוֹר לָהֶם, נָשִׁים: שֵׁם אֵשֶׁת-אַבְרָם, שָׂרָי, וְשֵׁם אֵשֶׁת-נָחוֹר מִלְכָּה, בַּת-הָרָן אֲבִי-מִלְכָּה וַאֲבִי יִסְכָּה.29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.
ל וַתְּהִי שָׂרַי, עֲקָרָה: אֵין לָהּ, וָלָד.30 And Sarai was barren; she had no child.
לא וַיִּקַּח תֶּרַח אֶת-אַבְרָם בְּנוֹ, וְאֶת-לוֹט בֶּן-הָרָן בֶּן-בְּנוֹ, וְאֵת שָׂרַי כַּלָּתוֹ, אֵשֶׁת אַבְרָם בְּנוֹ; וַיֵּצְאוּ אִתָּם מֵאוּר כַּשְׂדִּים, לָלֶכֶת אַרְצָה כְּנַעַן, וַיָּבֹאוּ עַד-חָרָן, וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׁם.31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran, his son's son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.

On that pasuk in Noach, Rashi writes:

Iscah: This is Sarah [called Iscah] because she would see (סוֹכָה) through Divine inspiration, and because all gazed (סוֹכִין) at her beauty. Alternatively, יִסְכָּה is an expression denoting princedom, (נְסִיכוֹת), just as Sarah is an expression of dominion (שְׁרָרָה) . - [from Meg. 14a] יסכה: זו שרה, על שם שסוכה ברוח הקודש, ושהכל סוכין ביפיה. ועוד יסכה לשון נסיכות, כמו שרה לשון שררה:

This is based on Megillah 14a:

תנא משום רבינו מקום נתבצר להם בגיהנם ועמדו עליו שבע נביאות מאן נינהו שרה מרים דבורה חנה אביגיל חולדה ואסתר שרה דכתיב (בראשית יא) אבי מלכה ואבי יסכה ואמר ר' יצחק יסכה זו שרה ולמה נקרא שמה יסכה שסכתה ברוח הקדש שנאמר (בראשית כא) כל אשר תאמר אליך שרה שמע בקולה ד"א יסכה שהכל סוכין ביופיה


This was the gemara mentioned by BrooklynWolf in a comment on the previous post. Sarah was thus a prophetess, and thus called Yiska.

If so, her relationship with Avraham would be one of niece, for she is Avraham's brother's daughter. For Haran was Avraham's brother, and Haran has Milkah and Yiskah as daughters.

How then can she be Avraham's sister, from his father but not his mother?! Recall that Avraham said:

יב וְגַם-אָמְנָה, אֲחֹתִי בַת-אָבִי הִוא--אַךְ, לֹא בַת-אִמִּי; וַתְּהִי-לִי, לְאִשָּׁה.12 And moreover she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and so she became my wife.

After all, a daughter of a father is not the same as the daughter of a brother! And if somehow "father" means "brother", what would be meant by "not of my mother?" Of course his brother's daughter does not come of Avraham's mother. And strong implication is one of step-sister.

But Rashi explains, local to Vayera, on the basis of an idea in Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer, and gemaras as follows:

my sister, the daughter of my father: And the daughter of one’s father is permitted to a Noahide [for marriage], for a gentile has no father (i.e., his lineage is not traced from his father). And in order to justify his words, he answered him in this way.

Now if you ask: Was she not the daughter of his brother? [The answer is that]: grandchildren are considered like children (Tosefta. Yev. 8:8, Talmud Bavli, Yev. 62b); therefore, she was (considered as) Terah’s daughter.

And so did he say to Lot,“ For we are kinsmen” (אִנָשִׁים אַחִים) [lit. men, brothers], (although, in fact, Lot was his brother Haran’s son). - [from Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer , ch. 36]		 אחותי בת אבי היא: ובת אב מותרת לבן נח, שאין אבות לגוי. וכדי לאמת דבריו השיבם כן.

ואם תאמר והלא בת אחיו היתה, בני בנים הרי הן כבנים והרי היא בתו של תרח,

וכן הוא אומר ללוט (יג ח) כי אנשים אחים אנחנו:

but not the daughter of my mother: Haran was [born] of a different mother [than Abraham]. —		 אך לא בת אמי: הרן מאם אחרת היה:

I am not certain that Rashi's initial statement really works in sync with his second statement. For who says that it is forbidden for gentiles to marry a niece? Rather, perhaps the first statement, that the daughter of his father is permitted to a gentile, appears to assume that we are dealing with a direct daughter of Terach, not Haran. That is what וכדי לאמת דבריו השיבם כן suggests to me. And thus, he was merely "justifying his words", not telling the complete truth. Even now. For a niece is not the same as a sister.

The second statement makes everything work out perfectly, so that Avraham is not technically lying. Bnei Banim, Harei Hein Kevanim, so the daughter of his "father" is the daughter of his brother. And since Haran was the son of a different wife of Terach, she is not of Avraham's mother. According to this parse of Rashi, Avraham is still lying, but doing so in a technically accurate manner.

It is quite possible that I am kvetching this into Rashi, and that Rashi means what I guess everyone assumes he means, that here, he is being entirely honest with Avimelech, and that there would be a problem even for a fraternal niece.

The prooftext alone, from Lot's relationship, comes from Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer, perek 36. But I did not see anything about Sarah's relationship. So too in the gemara in Yevamot 62b-- I don't see anything about Sarah's relationship, only a general principle of bnei banim. So too the Tosefta; it just cites the halachic principle. And that gemara, and Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer, are looking for prooftexts, yet don't cite this. Is Rashi applying this idea himself, without an explicit midrash in Talmudic or Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer? It would seem that he is, in order to justify the above midrash from the end of Noach as peshat, rather than derash, and to harmonize the two pesukim.

But ultimately, I think that too much damage is done to the simple meaning of this verse, for this to be peshat.

What does Ibn Ezra say? Well, at the end of parashas Noach, he writes {on 11:29}:
וקדמונינו ז"ל אמרו:
שיסכה היא שרה, ואם קבלה נקבל.

והאומרים, כי אברהם היה עיקר ולא שרה, אמרו הפך הכתוב והעד ישמעאל בנו.

ובני קטורה -
והאומרים כי שרה הייתה אחות אברהם איננו ישר בעיני זה הטעם.
ואלו היה כן, היה הכתוב אומר: ויקח תרח את אברהם בנו ושרי בתו אשת אברם בנו, ג"כ אלו הייתה אחות לוט היה הכתוב אומר: ואת שרי בת בנו, כאשר כתב על לוט.
Thus, Chazal {in Megillah 14a} said that Yiska is Sarah. And if it is a tradition, it shall be accepted. Thus, he considers as a strong possibility that Chazal may have had an extra-Biblical tradition as to this identity. But he also acknowledges the strong possibility that it is not such, but rather is a derasha using midrashic methods, including {now I am putting some ideas forth} the closed-canon approach and that otherwise, neat parallelism of the two surviving brothers marrying their nieces, the seemingly extraneous mention of Yiskah, and a propensity to interpret the meanings of names of obscure figures to match attributes of known figures. (E.g. Avigdor as Moshe.) If so, he feels ready to argue with them, in terms of what the peshat of the
pasuk is, and presumably the historical reality was.

He is able to harmonize it with Avraham's statement to Avimelech in Vayera, as we will see soon. And so he is willing to accept Chazal's very midrashic sounding statement here as a possibility. But im kabbalah nekabel does convey his serious misgivings of it, as a peshat reading. (See Yahel Or who says the same.)

Then he continues that some people take the pasuk in Vayera entirely literally, which would make Sarah into Avraham's paternal sister, but not his maternal sister. Ibn Ezra rejects this on stylistic grounds. If this were so, the pasuk should have stated that Terach took Avraham his son and Sarai his daughter!

Then, Ibn Ezra turns to say why he rejects the Yiskah=Sarai equation. If this were so, then Sarai and Lot would be brother and sister, and the verse should have stated "and Sarai the daughter of his son," just as it said regarding Lot.

Thus, he rejects all answers here, and appears to maintain that Sarai was entirely unrelated to Avraham previous to this.

So what does Ibn Ezra do with Avraham's statement that Sarah is indeed his sister? Well, on parashat Vayera, Ibn Ezra writes:
כ, יב
אחותי בת אבי -
יש אומרים:
שהוא כמו: אלהי אבי אברהם.
והנכון בעיני, שדחה אבימלך בדברים כפי צורך השעה ובפסוק: אנכי עשו בכורך אביא חברים.
First he cites some who say that it is like elokei avi avraham. I am not positive how to parse this. But it seems to be that just as we say "the God of my father, {who is} Avraham", we can say "my sister, {who is} the daughter of my father." (And then either understand it as the daughter of Terach or the granddaughter of Terach.)

But what is correct in Ibn Ezra's eyes is that he was misleading Avimelech with words, in accordance with the needs of the time. And so Avraham's statement in the pasuk does not need to be true.

He says that he gives other examples where Yaakov lies and says "I am Esav your firstborn."

יט וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל-אָבִיו, אָנֹכִי עֵשָׂו בְּכֹרֶךָ--עָשִׂיתִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ אֵלָי; קוּם-נָא שְׁבָה, וְאָכְלָה מִצֵּידִי--בַּעֲבוּר, תְּבָרְכַנִּי נַפְשֶׁךָ.19 And Jacob said unto his father: 'I am Esau thy first-born; I have done according as thou badest me. Arise, I pray thee, sit and eat of my venison, that thy soul may bless me.'

While some meforshim see fit to explain how Yaakov is not technically lying, Ibn Ezra writes:
כז, יט
ויש אומרים:
חלילה לכזב הנביא, רק הוא כן.

אנכי -
מי שאנכי ועשו בכורך.

ואחרים אמרו:
כי בנחת אמר: אנכי, ונשא קול במלת עשו בכורך.
ואלה דברי רוח, כי הנביאים יתחלקו לב' חלקים:
החלק הראשון: שליח במצוות.
והחלק השני: נביאי העתיד.
ואם יצטרכו לאמר דבר שאיננו כהוגן לא יזיק, רק השליח לא יתכן שיכזב כלל.
גם הנה דוד נכתב עליו איש האלהים. ואמר: רוח ה' דבר בי. בלבל דבריו עם אחימלך ואמר: ויהיו כלי הנערים קדש לצורך שעה.
גם אלישע שאמר לחזאל: לך אמור לו חיה תחייה, אף על פי שפירושו חיה תחייה מחולי זה, הראני השם כי יהרג.
וכן מיכיהו אמר תפלת שוא, עלה והצלח דרך מוסר.
וכן אמר דניאל: מרי חלמא לשנאך ולהיות כנגד השם דרך דרש.
וכן אמר אברהם: וגם אמנה
ונשתחוה ונשובה.

Thus, even a navi can lie, and it is not a pegam in his nevuah.

I like Ibn Ezra's methodology here, but at the end of the day, I am not utterly convinced that he is correct. Saying that a statement was false seems like it might be a cop-out; and depending on the focus in the pasuk in Noach, where the ultimate purpose was Terach and Avraham moving, perhaps Sarah's sister-relationship was deemed unimportant, while the wife-relationship with Avraham was the most important.

R' Yosef Bechor Shor has an nice way of casting, and resolving the pasuk. He writes:

וגם לא־שקרתי, כי האמנה אחתי
בת אבי. קרובתי היא ממשפחתי ומבית־אבי.
ודרך לקרות קרובו אחיו, כמו [לעיל יג. ח] כי
אנשים אחים אנחנו דלוט, וכן [למלן כט, יב]
כי אחי אביה הוא. דיעקב, [ושם סו] והכי אחי
אתה. אך לא בת אמי! כלומר, לא נולדנו
מכרס אחד, שאינה אחותי ממש, רק קרובתי,
ולכך ותהי לי לאשה.

Thus, Avraham is saying the truth, that she is of his family (beit avi), though not an actual sister -- not even a step-sister! Rather, as a more distant relative, such that it is not incest. I like how he works this into the pesukim. Even so, this does not seem to be the most straightforward implication of the words, and the contrast between bat avi and bat imi.

Finally, let us see Shadal. On the pasuk in Vayera, he writes:
יב] וגם אמנה וגו' : מה שלא הגדתי לשום אדם היותה אשתי היה מפני היראה, אבל מה שאמרתי שהיא אחותי הוא אמת, כי אחותי בת אבי היא אך לא בת אמי. ונראין הדברים כי כך היה הענין באמת כמשמעו, ושקודם התורה היו נזהרים מן האחות מן האם בלבד ולא מן האחות מצד האב, ועיין למעלה י"א כ"ט .
Thus, Avraham did say the truth, and she is his paternal sister, though not his maternal sister. And before matan Torah such was permissible. (Of course, this would be against the midrashic assumption that the avos kept the entire Torah; we could answer like Rashi on the basis of conversion, if we wish.)

So what does Shadal do with the midrashic Sarai = Yiska equation? He writes:
כט ] ואבי יסכה : נראה שהיתה מפורסמת וידועה לישראל והוא על דרך אבי כל בני עבר (למעלה י' כ"א ) ורז"ל אמרו (מגלה י"ד ע"א) שהיא שרה, ואמרו זה שלא להכזיב את אברהם שאמר (למטה כ' י"ב) וגם אמנה אחתי בת אבי היא, ומצאנו שבני בנים נקראים בנים, ופירוש בת אבי בת בנו של אבי. גם היה רחוק בעיניהם שיהיה אברהם לוקה אחותו מן האב, לפיכך עשו אותה בת אחיו; אך אם כדבריהם ואם היו הלכות אישות בימי אברהם שוות לאותן שנצטוינו בתורה, מה לו להוסיף אך לא בת אמי? והלא בת האח היא מותרת בלי שום חילוק אם הוא אח מצד האב בלבד או גם מצד האם. ואולי ייתכן לומר כי גם יסכה היתה אשת נחור, ונשא נחור שתי אחיות כיעקב, והכתוב אמר ושם אשת נחור מלכה, כי היא העיקר, שממנה יצאו רבקה ולבן ורחל ולאה.
First, he makes the assumption that Yiska was a well-known figure to the ancient Israelites. Thus, a closed-canon approach is not required here. Further, Chazal equated the two, on the basis of benei vanim harei hein ke-vanim, in order to make Avraham not lie in parshat Vayera; while at the same time they thought it farfetched that Avraham would marry his paternal sister. Therefore, they made her into the daughter of his brother.

However, if like their words, and if the rules of marriage in the days of Avraham were equivalent to the rules after mattan torah, then why should he say "ach lo bat imi". {Me, interjecting: we could say like Bechor Shor. But still, I agree with Shadal here.} Isn't a fraternal niece permitted without any distinction if (the brother is) from the father alone or also from the mother's side? And perhaps it is possible to say that Yiska was also the wife of Nachor, and that Nachor married two sisters, just like Yaakov {and that is why Yiska is mentioned}; and the pasuk just says that the wife of Nachor was Milkah because she was primary, because Rikvah came from her.

I am not entirely certain that I agree that that was Chazal's motivations? I may well have missed seeing some midrashim about "she is my sister". Given an explicit midrash as to the interpretation of "sister", I would absolutely agree. Otherwise, I would attach it instead to the reasons I suggested above.

Posted by joshwaxman at 8:09 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: , , ,

The destruction of Sodom by lightning bolt?

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

The destruction of Sodom, as the Torah tells us:

כד וַה', הִמְטִיר עַל-סְדֹם וְעַל-עֲמֹרָה--גָּפְרִית וָאֵשׁ: מֵאֵת ה', מִן-הַשָּׁמָיִם.24 Then the LORD caused to rain upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

A fascinating explanation in Shadal, for the mechanism of the destruction of Sodom. Since the one in plaintext (here) obscures the names of the non-Jewish authorities he cites, and omits the Italian words which clarify his intentions. Therefore, I produce it below as an image and as plaintext.

כד] וה ' המטיר על סדום וגו' : דעת אחדים כי ירדה אש מן השמים והבעירה החמר והנפט שהיה מפוזר בקרקע הככר ההוא. ונקראה האש מן השמים גפרית, כי תניח אחריה ריח גפרית, וכן כתוב ימטר על רשעים פחים אש וגפרית (תהלים י"א ו'), ואבני אלגביש אש וגפרית אמטיר עליו (יחזקאל ל"ת כ"ב); ואולי האש שאחזה בחמר שהיה במעי הארץ גרם גם כן רעש ומפלה.

וענין מהפכת סדום הזכירוהו ג"כ סופרי העמים, עיין סטראבון ספר י"ג, טאציטוס (היסטוריות ספר ה' פרק ו') דיאודורוס סיקולוס ס' י"ט, פליניאוס ס' ה' פרק ט"ז ואחרים.

To translate:
"And Hashem rained on Sodom, etc." -- The opinion of Clericus and Rosenmuller is that fire descended from heaven (fulmina, Italian for lightning), and burned the tar and crude oil which is scattered in the ground of that plain. And the "fire from the heavens" {=the lightning} is called "sulfur" {brimstone} for it leaves after it the the odor of sulfur. And so is written {Tehillim 11:6}:

ו יַמְטֵר עַל-רְשָׁעִים, פַּחִים: אֵשׁ וְגָפְרִית, וְרוּחַ זִלְעָפוֹת--מְנָת כּוֹסָם.6 Upon the wicked He will cause to rain coals; fire and brimstone and burning wind shall be the portion of their cup.


כב וְנִשְׁפַּטְתִּי אִתּוֹ, בְּדֶבֶר וּבְדָם; וְגֶשֶׁם שׁוֹטֵף וְאַבְנֵי אֶלְגָּבִישׁ אֵשׁ וְגָפְרִית, אַמְטִיר עָלָיו וְעַל-אֲגַפָּיו, וְעַל-עַמִּים רַבִּים, אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ.22 And I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will cause to rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many peoples that are with him, an overflowing shower, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone.


and perhaps the fire {=lightning} seizing {and burning} the tar which is in the pools of the earth causes as well shaking and collapses.

And the matter of the overturning of Sodom is also mentioned by the gentile historians. See Strabon, book 16, Tacitus (Historiae, book 5, chapter 6), Diodorus Sicolus, book 19, Pliny book 5, chapter 16, Solinus chapter 16.

And Clericus saw as well a great comparison between this narrative and the story of Ovid (Metam. lib. 8. 616-724) in the matter of Philemon and Baucis, and says that that of Ovid was born from the overturning of Sodom.
I checked out the story of Philemon and Baucis, and there are interesting things to be gleaned from it. I plan on another post exploring this.

Posted by joshwaxman at 5:42 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: ,

Interesting Posts and Articles #230

  1. Bad for Shidduchim doesn't like the term shidduch resume. Bad PR for the Hebrews. Also:

    Shidduch resumes… I decided not to touch those. “Shidduch resume” is the sort of cynical nickname that people would give when they are gently mocking their own practice. But it sounds perfectly awful and I refuse to call them by that. Profile, people, it’s a profile!

    The definition of resume: “A résumé is a document that contains a summary or listing of relevant job experience and education.”

    But I heard the term early on, and it wasn't just cynical people who referred to it as this, to give a sense of what sort of document it would be. And also, we have Random House Dictionary give as the first definition:
    a summing up; summary.
    And the meanings of words change. I personally don't see this as a big deal.

    It would be interesting to see a "shidduch resume" with a summary of past girlfriends/boyfriends, with a description of how serious it was, what sort of things were done on dates (museums, bowling, dinner and a movie, etc.).

    Anyway, this is not only confined to the frum Jewish world. Google "dating resume" and note all the hits.

  2. HaEmtza on sinas chinam, and whether it is a motivating factor for questioning why Lubavitch makes it not just a petur but a lechatchila to not sleep in the Succah.

  3. Wolfish Musings contemplates the heavy cost of high school tuition, and has rational fears.

  4. On the Main Line has Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz's comments on Wessely.

  5. Will a giant crack in Africa create a new ocean? It seems so, given enough time.

  6. Ishim veShitot on what was considered heresy in Slabodka yeshiva:
    At the time of my father's boyhood, the Haskalah movement had already commenced to penetrate the walls of the ultra-Orthodox Yeshiva where even the study of the Prophets were prohibited. My father often related how he and other students would keep the Tanach hidden within the Talmud volume from prying eyes of their teachers in order to study this literature clandestinely. To read Isaiah or Jeremiah with the Malbim commentarywas blasphemy.

    and further:

    "Students at the Yeshiva would forego many a meal, made available to them by generous families to whom serving meals to Yeshiva students was considered a great privilege or mitzva, to take special lessons in modern Hebrew and grammar from dedicated young men. This was particularly prohibited"
    He thinks it odd. But if it is correct, it may serve as a reminder that a particular yeshiva's approach and limits do not necessarily define the Torah-true approach, to the exclusion of all else.

  7. HaEmtza on the phenomenon of going off the derech as caused in some instances by learning disabilities.
    He was forced to sit in front of his homework hour after hour every night until his bedtime. He had tutor after tutor. Nothing worked. His parents became harsher and harsher – accusing their son of being lazy.

    Long story short – his friends ostracized him and his teachers abandoned him. By the time he was in high school - public high school - he was OTD and into drugs and wild parties. Eventually he moved to Israel just to get away from all of his problems. But there he went from bad to worse.

    Fortunately for him a Charedi Kiruv group found him at his nadir and brought him back. Today he is fully integrated into the Frum community, married, – and has a great job.
  8. At Hirhurim, Rabbi Ari Enkin on the halachics of saying a bracha on seeing thunder or lightning.

  9. Rationalist Judaism posts an image of a new ban on certain color stockings, or stockings which are transparent to a specific degree. This is an old dispute, and we have Rav Moshe Feinstein, among others, upon whom to rely.

  10. DovBear on Ralbag's position that it was the city, rather than the wife, who the pasuk describes as turning into a pillar of salt.

  11. YU's Center for the Jewish Future is looking for input on the idea of creating a Kollel Boker at YU. You can take their survey here.

  12. Here at parshablog, see my Vayera parshablog post roundup (so far); and in particular, whether Avraham acted appropriately in washing the malachim's feet first.

Posted by joshwaxman at 2:40 PM 3 comments Links to this post

Labels:

Why does Rashi, or the Torah, specifically reference worshiping the dust of their feet?

Based on an interesting devar Torah at Divrei Chaim. I like the question:

Rashi writes that Avraham, not knowing his guests were angels, asked them to wash their feet before entering his home lest they be pagans who worshipped this dust and would bring their idolatry into his home. It could be that the Torah (or more accurately, Rashi) simply means to underscore the degree to which Avraham distanced himself from idolatry, but (as my son’s Rebbe asked yesterday) why mention specifically the detail of “worshipping dust of the feet”?
He goes on to give a very "pnimiyus" explanation of this, which I'll admit is not really up my alley. I certainly don't think that the answer given reflects Rashi's intent, but rather, that the question serves as a pretext to introduce some interesting kabbalistically oriented divrei Torah, about "katnus hamochin".

I would attempt to answer the question, on the level of peshat, in a different, straightforward way. On a peshat level, why does the Torah relate that Avraham said that they would be able to wash their feet, when the pasuk states:

ד יֻקַּח-נָא מְעַט-מַיִם, וְרַחֲצוּ רַגְלֵיכֶם; וְהִשָּׁעֲנוּ, תַּחַת הָעֵץ.4 Let now a little water be fetched, and wash your feet, and recline yourselves under the tree.

?

I would say that it is part of hospitality, rather than as part of Avraham's avoidance of avodah zarah. Indeed, this is not my own innovation. Besides being the obvious peshat of the pasuk, Rashi says as much:

and bathe your feet: He thought that they were Arabs, who prostrate themselves to the dust of their feet, and he was strict not to allow any idolatry into his house. But Lot, who was not strict, mentioned lodging before washing, as it is said (below 19:2): “and lodge and bathe your feet.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 54:4] ורחצו רגליכם: כסבור שהם ערביים שמשתחוים לאבק רגליהם והקפיד שלא להכניס עבודה זרה לביתו. אבל לוט שלא הקפיד, הקדים לינה לרחיצה, שנאמר (יט ב) ולינו ורחצו רגליכם:

Thus, Lot was not so strict about it. So why did he even do it? Because of hospitality. The derasha that the concern was idolatry, in that they worshiped that dust, was made on the basis of the switching of the order, between the incident with Avraham and the immediately following parallel incident with Lot. (See the midrash inside.)

And indeed, in perek 19, we see Rashi state:

and stay overnight and wash your feet: Now is it customary for people to first stay overnight and afterwards to wash? Moreover, Abraham said to them first, “and wash your feet!” But so did Lot say (i.e., he reasoned), “If, when the people of Sodom come, they will see that they have already washed their feet, they will invent false accusations against me and say, ‘Two or three days have already passed since they came to your house, and you did not let us know!’” Therefore, he said, “It is better that they remain here with the dust on their feet, so that they should appear as though they had just arrived now.” Therefore he said, “Stay overnight” first and afterwards, “wash.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 50:4] ולינו ורחצו רגליכם: וכי דרכן של בני אדם ללון תחלה ואחר כך לרחוץ, ועוד שהרי אברהם אמר להם תחלה (יח ד) ורחצו רגליכם. אלא כך אמר לוט אם כשיבאו אנשי סדום ויראו שכבר רחצו רגליהם, יעלילו עלי ויאמרו כבר עברו שני ימים או שלשה שבאו לביתך ולא הודעתנו, לפיכך אמר מוטב שיתעכבו כאן באבק רגליהם שיהיו נראין כמו שבאו עכשיו, לפיכך אמר לינו תחלה ואחר כך רחצו:

Now it is possible that Rashi didn't write the above comment. (See this parshablog post, the update at the bottom of that post, and the comments at the bottom of that post, for elaboration.) However, if he wrote it, the assumption therein is that there is a natural order of doing things when one has guests. And that is that it is customary to first wash and only then stay overnight. So this is basic hospitality.

Why then, does Rashi discuss idolatry? On the basis of a midrash, which is in turn on the basis of the switching of the order between the incidents by Avraham and by Lot.

Why mention the specific detail of "worshiping the dust of the feet?" Because Rashi, and the midrash, worked with what the Biblical text gave them. The verse already mentioned the washing of the feet, for other peshat reasons. How, then, could Rashi or the midrash be expected to mention a different form of idolatry? And it was because he suspected them of being Arabs who did this worship, and thus he wanted to eliminate this particular idolatry which was present. But that does not mean that there is some deep meaning to the type of idolatry mentioned!

I think this answer is so good that it undermines the very question. Of course, there is a different I like to draw between prooftext and pretext, and if I were asking the question, I would be regarding it as pretext. Regardless, it was a great question to ask, because it helps us get to a truer understanding of the peshat and just what it is that Rashi, and the pasuk, are saying.

On the other hand, the "danger" in posing questions such as this is that where the true answer to the question can be found by challenging faulty assumptions, but no one realizes this, and instead the answer given is the one matching the pretext, one can become trained to treat trivial questions as insurmountable, the faulty assumptions as axiomatic, and the "deep" and contrived answers as compulsory, as the text otherwise makes no sense.

Posted by joshwaxman at 11:25 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: , ,

Does Ibn Caspi maintain that Hashem appeared to Avraham in human form?

This would be quite a stunning position for a medieval French commentator to take. On the other hand, as discussed elsewhere, believe in certain types of Divine Corporeality may have been prevalent among certain French Rabbinical figures.


On the other hand, entirely separate from Ibn Caspi, I saw how this idea, of Hashem appearing in the form of a human, or three humans, can work out well according to the peshat of Vayera -- perhaps a separate post explaining just how it works out so nicely -- and so I may be reading this position into him.

Let us start with the beginning of Vayera. The first two pesukim read:

א וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה', בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא; וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב פֶּתַח-הָאֹהֶל, כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם.1 And the LORD appeared unto him by the terebinths of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
ב וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו, וַיַּרְא, וְהִנֵּה שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים, נִצָּבִים עָלָיו; וַיַּרְא, וַיָּרָץ לִקְרָאתָם מִפֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל, וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ, אָרְצָה.2 and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood over against him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed down to the earth,

Some may want to say that these three angels are God. This sort of approaches the Christian idea of a trinity. But Ibn Ezra handily rejects this, writing:
[יח, א]
וירא -
הנה קצת אמרו, כי השם ג' אנשים הוא אחד והוא ג' ולא יתפרדו. והנה שכחו ויבאו שני המלאכים סדומה ומפרשים אמרו: שהשם נראה אליו במראות נבואה ואחר כן נשא עיניו וראה ג' מלאכים:
האחד בא לבשר שרה.
והשנים הלכו לסדום:
האחד להשחית.
והשני להציל את לוט.
ופירוש ויאכלו, כי נאכל הלחם, כטעם אשר תאכל האש:

Thus, that they separate shows that they are not one unit, and so vayera elav Hashem is not elaborated upon by the next pasuk by the three "men" showing up. He then adds what classic meforshim say, to explain the role of these three angels.

Ibn Caspi, at the beginning of the narrative, and perhaps on this first pasuk, writes:

יח (א) האיש אשר נמצא הגביע בידו ידע כעת זה הסיפור

What is this gevia, goblet? I don't entirely know. There is a possible reference to Binyamin. And perhaps there is reference to the mashal brought by Avi Ezer in this very parsha (for another purpose) of the silver goblet split into pieces, where depending on how big the pieces, one might figure out the whole. In which case he certainly divides his explanation into different pieces here, and seems to be deliberately ambiguous in each section.

Or the somewhat likely, it is a reference to his work Gevia Kesef. To cite Wikipedia:
Gebi'a Kesef (Mug of Silver), or Yoreh De'ah (Teacher of Science), supplement to the mystical commentaries on the Bible ("Cat. Peyron." p. 208; Munich MS. No. 267). The initial chapters may have been written as refutation of the apostate Abner of Burgos (Herring 1982). Kaspi finds great theological significance in the number 3 (Chap.V), and he speaks in this work about the origins of the concept of The Trinity found in Christian philosophy, attributing it to an earlier ternary division made among the Separate Intelligences by Aristotelian thinkers (e.g., Abu-Nasr). He also expounds the different philosophical implications of the diverse names of God in the Bible.
Here, we are dealing with three entities appearing, immediately after vayeira eilav Hashem. It seems quite probable that he relates these to the ternary division of Separate Intelligences by Aristotelian thinkers, such as Abu-Nasr. Of course, I haven't read his sefer Gevia Kesef. Therefore, the gevia is not found in my hand, and so I will be unlikely to understand his intent about the meaning of this Biblical narrative.

(That he makes reference to the gevia later in his commentary here gives some weight to the idea that it is not a reference to this other work of his, but rather refers to a divided and deliberately ambiguous commentary.)

But let us say for now that I suspect that it has to do with the idea that one of the three "men" who appear is some physical manifestation of Hashem's Presence, while the other two are mere angels who accompany Him.

The next pasuk:

ג וַיֹּאמַר: אֲדֹנָי, אִם-נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ--אַל-נָא תַעֲבֹר, מֵעַל עַבְדֶּךָ.3 and said: 'My lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant.

And "Adonay" is spelled with a kametz, usually reserved for the Shem Hashem. See what various meforshim say, grappling with this, and even different textual variants of a patach or kametz in this word.

Ibn Caspi writes:
ש(ג) אל נא תעבור מעל עבדך. אע"פ שידוע בכל ספרי
הקודש, כי לדבר (?) פעם ליחיד פעם לרבים, הטיבו מאד רבותינו שאמרו
לגדול שבהם אמר (ב"ר פמ׳׳ה), וגם מה שאמרו ז"ל אברהם שהיו
כחו יפה נדמו לו בדמית אנשים לוט שהיה כחו רע נדמו לו כדמות
מלאכים(ב"ר פ"נ). אולם לא יבין זה אחד מני אלף, מצורף למה שכתב
הרב במדרגת הנבואה:
Do not pass on from your servant -- although it is known in all Holy Books, that to the matter (?) sometimes it is written in singular and sometimes plural, our Rabbis did very well in stating that he said this to the greatest of them (in Bereishit Rabba, perek 45). And also that which they, of blessed memory, said: Avraham, whose strength was good, they appeared to him in the form of people; Lot, whose power was poor, they appeared to him in the form of angels (Bereishit Rabba perek 50). Yet not one in a thousand understands this, combined with what the Rav {=Rambam?} wrote about the levels of prophecy.
I may not be the one in a thousand, but I will give it a shot nonetheless. He is being deliberately cagey and ambiguous, because he is saying something that many may deem heretical or quasi-heretical. Thus, he is instructing us to look more deeply at his words, to find the shocking message.

And this is it:

True, the word (adonai, my master) may be written in plural and singular, and in this instance, at one peshat level, it can merely mean just that. But there is a message in what Chazal said. The Gadol shebahem is one of the three, who is the greatest of them. Who is this? The manifestation of Hashem Himself! (Or alternatively, all three are. But if we say only one, it fits in better with gadol shebahem, where Chazal intended only one of them -- Gavriel?)

Further, this was prophecy, not mere visitation by heavenly beings. And so it was Hashem revealing Himself in the way each could receive it. Lot was on a lower level, so he saw them as angels. Avraham was on a higher level, so he saw them as humans. But I think what Ibn Caspi is hinting at, through the medium of Chazal's words, is that both of them saw something other than the reality. For both, it was נדמה לו כדמות. But that was not the real form, neither for Avraham nor for Lot. Rather, in both cases, it was a visitation by Hashem Himself! And this was the prophecy.

Ibn Caspi continues, not on the main theme I am trying to develop. But he does call it a malach. On Bereishit 18:10,

י וַיֹּאמֶר, שׁוֹב אָשׁוּב אֵלֶיךָ כָּעֵת חַיָּה, וְהִנֵּה-בֵן, לְשָׂרָה אִשְׁתֶּךָ; וְשָׂרָה שֹׁמַעַת פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל, וְהוּא אַחֲרָיו.10 And He said: 'I will certainly return unto thee when the season cometh round; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son.' And Sarah heard in the tent door, which was behind him.--

Ibn Caspi writes:
י) והוא אחריו. הנרמז במלת והוא הנה הוא לפתח האחל,
וכנוי אחריו למלאך המדבר 2 ) ואס סיבל העניין הפך זה 3 ) והענין אחד:

Thus, in vehu acharav, vehu refers to the door of the tent, while acharav refers to the speaking angel. Or the opposite, with the same meaning.

Finally, when the two angels finally reach Sodom, in 19:1:

א וַיָּבֹאוּ שְׁנֵי הַמַּלְאָכִים סְדֹמָה, בָּעֶרֶב, וְלוֹט, יֹשֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר-סְדֹם; וַיַּרְא-לוֹט וַיָּקָם לִקְרָאתָם, וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אַפַּיִם אָרְצָה.1 And the two angels came to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom; and Lot saw them, and rose up to meet them; and he fell down on his face to the earth;
Ibn Caspi writes:
יט (א) ויבואו שני המלאכים. אלו השנים היו מן האנשים
שלשה שנפרדו מאברהם שהלך עמם לשלחם. והגדול שבהם לא נראה
ללוט, ובאמת אלו השנים אינם השנים אשר להם
למשל שני הכרובים אשר מתוכם היה הקול נשמע
למשה , ואלו ענינים נכבדים, והכל נמצא בגביע:
"And the two angels came -- these two were from the three 'men' who had separated from Avraham, who had gone with them to send them off. And the greatest of them did not appear to Lot. In in truth, these two are not the two who, for example, are the two cherubs from which the Divine voice is heard to Moshe. And these are weighty matters, and all is now found in the goblet."
Thus, he counters Ibn Ezra's apparent claim that the fact that they divided, such that three became two, is a total disproof of the "revelation of God Himself" concept. It is indeed a disproof of a Trinity, joined as one.

So Ibn Kaspi asserts that these two angels are the same as two of the three men. But which one left? The "gadol shebahem." And as we said earlier, that gadol shebahem was likely intended as Hashem Himself!

Where he degrades the level of these angels, he is only degrading the level of "these two". They are not like cherubs, where Hashem's voice, and directives, came out to speak to Moshe Rabbenu. By the keruvim, we are dealing with a kind of manifestation of the Divine Presence Itself. But these two, who went to Sodom, were mere angels.

Not so for the "greatest of them." The Gadol Shebahem was like the keruvim. For michlal lav ata shomea hein. Those two were not like the keruvim, with the hinted implication that the third one was like the keruvim. And so the third one, which appeared in human form to Avraham, was a Manifestation of the Divine Presence. And that is why it is fitting that the kametz was there, when the gadol shebahem was addressed. And Hashem was accompanied by two regular angels.

All this works out remarkable well in terms of the peshat. To see how, read this post, for example, or Ephraim Speiser's translation and summary in the Anchor Bible Genesis.

By the way, this is not "real" corporealism. It is not a belief that Hashem Himself has human form. Rather, just like the midrash that has Hashem take equine form to tempt the horses of Pharaoh at the Yam Suf, this has Hashem take on human form as a disguise in order to communicate with mankind. Compare to how Manoach and his wife thought that after seeing the Ish Haelohim, that they would surely die. Even so, it is corporealism which nowadays is not just out of vogue, but considered heretical or quasi-heretical. On the other hand, if (and perhaps only if) this is what the Biblical text actually means, then by some definitions, it could not be heretical.

Regardless, it would be quite interesting if this is what Ibn Kaspi intended. And recall, once again, that some forms of corporealism were acceptable among the rabbis in France at that time.

Does anyone else have a plausible explanation of all of the references comments by Rabbi Yosef Ibn Kaspi?

Update: In order to better respond in the comment section, I am appending this segment from Speiser's Anchor Bible Genesis.

Posted by joshwaxman at 8:36 AM 20 comments Links to this post

Labels: , ,

Interesting Posts and Articles #229

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

  1. Wolfish Musings about an incident in Israel in which chareidi women discover that working at a call center for the government is not in keeping with their tznius dictates:
    “She answered a call that was supposed to go to a pharmacy,” recalls Rav Idan. “On the other end of the line was a man of about 60, who wanted advice on pills designed to increase virility. He asked her what it does. Because she was unfamiliar with the product he had to explain it to her and then proceeded to ask detailed questions. Only when she realized what he was referring to did she hang up on him.”
    It does seem plausible that this is a result of a culture clash rather than deliberate provocation by elderly Israeli men.

  2. In a province of Indonesia, a ban on tight trousers for women. While I can sort of appreciate the logic behind this, I am glad to live in a country which is not a theocracy. What is your ideal? For example, would you like Eretz Yisrael to be run in accordance with your particular religious standards, whatever they may be? What is lost?

  3. HaEmtza has a problem with people praying at Rachel Imeinu's tomb. But this is a problematic practice (IMHO) with a nice long history and a strong halachic defense. Also, a post calling for boycotting the Toldos Aharon Rebbe and the Toldos Aharon Yitzchak Rebbe, who are in America fundraising.

  4. Life In Israel about how the boycott of Hadassah is done on the backs of the little people:
    A 16 month old baby in Jerusalem - from Mea Shearim and the family is an Eidah follower/member - got burned by a pot of boiling water. Horrible burns - second degree over 20% or so of his body. The best hospital to care for such an issue, and the one recommended by the paramedics at the scene, is Hadassah Hospital. They are also the only ones in Jerusalem with a burn unit, and therefore the only ones capable of best treating serious burn patients like this.

    The father refused to allow his kid to be taken to Hadassah because of the ban on the hospital.
    Though it seems to me that if they, the hamon am as well as the leadership, truly believe that Hadassah staff are Nazis who conduct experiments on chareidi children, it is sensible for them not to want to be taken there. It doesn't seem, based on the summary of the father's refusal, that this is the reason in this case, but this is second-hand. Even if so, it is ultimately the fault of the leadership for convincing people of this.

    And he also relates that
    A story was going around recently about a Lubavitch couple who went childless for 28 years after their marriage, at which point they had a baby, and this was 20 years after they received a bracha and a dollar from the Lubavitcher Rebbe. They were crediting the Rebbe's bracha 20 years earlier as the reason for the successful birth.
    and wonders how in the world they know to relate the 20-year old event with the result.

  5. Dr. Marc Shapiro on the current false claim that Rabbi Gorelik never taught gemara at YU. As well as a partial justification for calling the sefer Meshaneh Halachos. In terms of the former:
    In the latest issue of Or Yisrael (Tishrei, 5770), p. 255, Heller publishes a letter in which he corrects what he had earlier written. He was contacted by Gorelik’s son, R. Mordechai Leib Gorelik... Apparently it bothers Gorelik that his colleagues might think that his father actually taught Talmud at YU. So he told Heller the following, and this is what appears in Or Yisrael: R. Yerucham Gorelik never taught Talmud at YU, and on the contrary, he thought that there was a severe prohibition (issur hamur) in both studying and teaching Talmud at this institution, even on a temporary basis, and even in order “to save” the young people in attendance there. The only subject he evertaught at YU was “hashkafah”... Yet in the end, it isdistressing to realize that the rewriting of history might actually work. In fifty years, when there are no more eyewitnesses alive to testify to R. Gorelik’s shiurim, how many people will deny that he ever taught at YU?Any written record will be rejected as a YU-Haskalah forgery, or something that God miraculously created to test our faith, all in order to avoid the conclusion that an authentic Torah scholar taught at YU.[6] I have no doubt that the editor of Or Yisrael, coming from a world far removed from YU, is unaware of the facts and that is why he permitted this letter to appear. I am certain that he would not knowingly permit a blatant falsehood like this to sully his fine journal.
    And Hirhurim has the text of the letter,
    אמנם זה עתה שמעתי מבנו של הגאון ר' ירוחם זצ"ל ה"ה ש"ב הגאון רבי מרדכי לייב גארעליק שליט"א שר' ירוחם גארעליק זצ"ל מעולם לא לימד שם גמרא כלל ואדרבה הי' סבירא לי' שאיסור חמור הוא ללמוד או ללמד גמרא בישיבה יוניברסיטה אפי' לשעה קלה ואפי' ע"מ להצילם, ועל אף שבידוע פעל רבי ירוחם זצ"ל רבות בכדי להציל את התלמידים דשם ולהוציא יקר מזולל, מ"מ לא עשה זאת ע"י שיעורים בגמרא אלא אך ורק ע"י שיעורים בהשקפה בלבד עכת"ד.

    as well as firm written proof that Rabbi Gorelik indeed taught gemara at YU.

  6. Hirhurim on how to pronounce vekovei / vekoyei.

  7. Material Maidel on secular college vs. the Stern / YU route. An excerpt:
    I think you can tell the difference between someone who went to a secular college versus someone who chose the YU/Stern/Touro route. Having a conversation with someone in Group 2 feels like talking with someone still in high school, who only knows about the world from what Mommy, Daddy and their Morahs have taught them. Because let's face it - YU is basically just an MO high school for older kids. Same people, same cliques, same ideas.

    People I know in Group 1 are a far more mature lot. They've been 'exposed' to people of other cultures and opinions. Which is not a bad thing, no matter what your Rebbe has told you.
    I don't really agree. There are likely serious and mature people in each.

  8. Here on parshablog, teva and the teiva. And the source for not using a fork.

Posted by joshwaxman at 6:16 PM 4 comments Links to this post

Labels:

Would Hashem condescend to talk to a woman?

This deliberately provocative title is designed to possibly capture the essence of the dispute between a few medieval French exegetes. Was Sarah a prophetess? If so, greater than Avraham? That is what Rashi says:

12. And God said to Abraham, "Be not displeased concerning the lad and concerning your handmaid; whatever Sarah tells you, hearken to her voice, for in Isaac will be called your seed.
יב. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱ־לֹהִים אֶל אַבְרָהָם אַל יֵרַע בְּעֵינֶיךָ עַל הַנַּעַר וְעַל אֲמָתֶךָ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר תֹּאמַר אֵלֶיךָ שָׂרָה שְׁמַע בְּקֹלָהּ כִּי בְיִצְחָק יִקָּרֵא לְךָ זָרַע:
hearken to her voice: (to the voice of the holy spirit within her.) We learn from here that Abraham was inferior to Sarah in prophecy. — [from Exod. Rabbah 1:1, Tan. Shemoth 1]
שמע בקולה: למדנו שהיה אברהם טפל לשרה בנביאות:

This is indeed in Midrash Tanchuma on Shemot:

מה עשה ישמעאל? ש
כשהיה בן ט"ו שנה התחיל להביא צלם מן השוק והיה מצחק בו ועובדו, כמו שראה לאחרים,
מיד, ותרא שרה את בן הגר המצרית אשר ילדה לאברהם מצחק (בראשית כא). ואין צחוק האמור כאן, אלא עבודה כו"ם. שנאמר: וישב העם לאכול ושתו ויקומו לצחק (שמות לב).
מיד, ותאמר לאברהם גרש האמה וגו' שמא ילמוד בני אורחותיו.
מיד וירע הדבר מאד בעיני אברהם על אודות בנו, ויאמר אלוהים אל אברהם אל ירע בעיניך וגו' כל אשר תאמר אליך שרה שמע בקולה.

מכאן אתה למד שהיה אברהם טפל לשרה בנביאות.
מיד וישכם אברהם בבקר ויקח לחם וחמת מים וגו'.

So age-old tradition has it that Sarah was an even greater prophetess than Avraham was a prophet.

However, Ralbag decidedly does not appear to maintain that Sarah was a prophetess. For he says that in regard to Avraham, the messengers of Hashem (who were prophets) were not called prophets, for they were not sent to him, for he, Avraham, was a prophet. Presumably, then, there would be no need for an additional prophet to him. But they were sent to Sarah, and that is why they first asked after Sarah's whereabouts before delivering the message. The more than slight implication here is that Sarah was not a prophetess, certainly not on the level of Avraham.

And indeed, a bit later, when discussing that aspect of the narrative in which Hashem tells Avraham to hearken to everything Sarah tells him, Ralbag first gives a practical motivating factor to Sarah, and then states vehinei haya siba meiHashem yitbarach legaresh yishmael mei'al yitzchak shelo yilmad yitzchak mimaasav haraim, veyimna mipnei zeh shleimuto. Thus, this is a pretext. Hashem had His own purposes, which differed from those of Sarah, but in this particular instance they were in alignment.


As a matter of peshat, I prefer Ralbag over Rashi. While the pasuk can be interpreted hyperliterally to indicate a general instruction to listen to all of Sarah's words -- after all, the pasuk states כֹּל אֲשֶׁר תֹּאמַר אֵלֶיךָ שָׂרָה שְׁמַע בְּקֹלָהּ -- almost certainly the peshat is that he should listen to everything Sarah says in this particular instance.

Though I don't believe Hashem is agreeing with the disenfranchisement. For while He says כִּי בְיִצְחָק יִקָּרֵא לְךָ זָרַע, the next pasuk is וְגַם אֶת בֶּן הָאָמָה לְגוֹי אֲשִׂימֶנּוּ כִּי זַרְעֲךָ הוּא.

Maybe one is the yerusha of Eretz Yisrael and the other is the yerusha of other lands. So perhaps Hashem agrees with this plan of Sarah's in terms of primary inheritance.

But if Hashem does not appear to agree with the idea of disenfranchisement, then there must be some other purpose in play. And that is keeping Yitzchak away from evil influences. And indeed, the pasuk itself, besides the fairly ambiguous metzachek, later states that Yishmael is to be a pere adam. So Ralbag does appear to make more peshat-sense.

There is also Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi, a contemporary of Ralbag, says. The pasuk in the beginning of Vayera states:

יג וַיֹּאמֶר ה', אֶל-אַבְרָהָם: לָמָּה זֶּה צָחֲקָה שָׂרָה לֵאמֹר, הַאַף אֻמְנָם אֵלֵד--וַאֲנִי זָקַנְתִּי.13 And the LORD said unto Abraham: 'Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying: Shall I of a surety bear a child, who am old?

and upon this pasuk, Ibn Caspi writes:
לא אמר זה לשרה כי אין
לנכבד ולקדוש שידבר עם הנשים ולכן נשמרתי אני
מזה כל ימי
He {=Hashem} did not say this to Sarah because it is not fitting for the Honorable and Holy to speak with women. And therefore I was careful about this all my days.

Thus, it would not be fitting with Hashem's honor to condescend to talk to women.

I would say that this is a cultural attitude which Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi is reading into the text. And that one can argue with it.

However, I would note that only heretics may say this. It seems that is not acceptable, from a Torah-true approach to peshat (defined as the methodology of a particular Israeli seminary for post-high school students), to contradict a Rishon. To cite:
I can come up with a pshat that is plausible. But there are, nevertheless, limits to what would constitute a Torah true pshat. When we were encouraged in Michallah [sic] to interpret the texts for ourselves, we were still given certain limits. One was not to contradict a Rishon. Yes, people like Ibn Ezra did do it. But when approaching Torah, one have enough humility to recognize that the average Joe or Jill simply is not on the caliber of Ibn Ezra.
Thus, if I understand correctly, the "Torah-true", Michlala approach, is that we must accept whatever we see in Rishonim, Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi included. Therefore, we must accept that women are somehow inferior, and that Hashem would not condescend to speak to a mere woman. That would not befit His honor and His holiness.

Luckily, there is an "out" here, in that we can say it is a dispute, and that we side with Rashi, one Rishon, over Ibn Caspi, another. Of course, how is this humility, to think we are able to decide who is right amongst Rishonim, just because we like the conclusion better? (Unless this person meant that one was not to contradict Chazal, rather than any random Rishon? I am not certain.)

Or we could allegorize Ibn Caspi -- but it is fairly clear, via his application to his personal conduct, that he took this seriously and literally.

I would rather conclude that of course different Rishonim inject their own culture and their own personality into the text. Yet at the same time they are brilliant, and try and succeed to a great extent in explaining the meaning of the Biblical text, and fleshing out the various possibilities in interpreting the text. And their culture and their personalities are part of Jewish history and the development of Torah through the ages in different locales, and is thus valuable in its own right for that.

At the same time, I do think that certain feminist promotion of minor Biblical characters into people of extreme importance, on the basis of their being simultaneously female and Biblical, is misguided. It is a reading of our own values into the Biblical text. And we might take a lesson from this instance about the dangers of doing this.

Posted by joshwaxman at 2:30 PM 11 comments Links to this post

Labels: , ,

Did Eliezer, or 318 men accompany Avraham? It can't be both!

Monday, November 02, 2009

Inspired by a post at Yachdus, some delving into a midrash brought down by Rashi, and how it might work alongside the peshat. The pasuk in Lech Lecha {Bereishit 14:14} states:


יד וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם, כִּי נִשְׁבָּה אָחִיו; וַיָּרֶק אֶת-חֲנִיכָיו יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ, שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת, וַיִּרְדֹּף, עַד-דָּן.14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued as far as Dan.

and Rashi there states that this is a reference to Eliezer:

three hundred and eighteen: Our Sages said (Gen. Rabbah 43:2, Ned. 32a): It was Eliezer alone, and it [the number 318] is the numerical value of his name. שמונה עשר ושלש מאות: רבותינו אמרו אליעזר לבדו היה, והוא מנין גימטריא של שמו:

Siftei Chachamim is troubled by the concept of ain mikra yitzei midei pshuto, and that since the peshat on the pasuk is clearly that there were 318 separate people, and only one of the two are possible historically, how does Rashi maintain both?

And two answers: One, from Maharan, is that they started with 318, but applied the Biblical rules about those who had just married, built a house, feared, sinned, returning from the battlefield, such that only Avraham and Eliezer was left.

I am not convinced that this is what Rashi, or the midrash meant. This is a charming enough story that if it were so, it should have and would have been mentioned by an explicit midrash somewhere.

Indeed, this is a famous skit from a certain yeshiva -- Israel is fighting a war, and they start out with a large army, and keep excusing people based on the Biblical rules until they only have two tzaddikim left. And then, between the two, they only have one gun. And they dispute who should be the one to fire first -- one says the other should have precedence because he is older, while the other one points out that the other should have precedence as a kohen. And then, the tale ends with the head of the yeshiva saying that it is no joke, that this is indeed what happened, but the greatest punch line is that they indeed won!

Regardless, I don't think that this first explanation, which resolves the contradiction, reflects the original intent of either the midrashic author of Rashi. Rather, it is a neo-midrash, sparked by classic concerns of ain mikra yotzei midei peshuto.

Also, later, even according to Rashi (who we are trying to harmonize), all the naarim who accompanied Avraham get a share. Why should they get a share if they all returned home from the battlefield? What did they do to deserve a share?

The second answer, from Gur Aryeh, works out better in terms of the pesukim, and the nearim who went with Avraham who get a chelek, in a later pasuk. Gur Aryeh has them accompany Avraham and Eliezer, but just to scare them.

My problem with Gur Aryeh is that this is also not explicitly mentioned in the midrash, where it might (though not as convincingly so) be interesting enough to mention. And further, there is a distinction drawn in the gemara as to whether they were in addition to Eliezer, such that Eliezer was just worth all of them, or whether they were indeed Eliezer. And Rashi appears to be adopting the latter. If so, it is not the strongest of answers.

In terms of questions, this is perhaps first a question on Rashi's sources. After all, Rashi wasn't the one who innovated this, and if אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, then the same is a valid question on them. Rashi basis himself on Nedarim 32a:
וירק את חניכיו ילידי ביתו רב אמר שהוריקן בתורה ושמואל אמר שהוריקן בזהב (בראשית יד) שמנה עשר ושלש מאות א"ר אמי בר אבא אליעזר כנגד כולם איכא דאמרי אליעזר הוא דחושבניה הכי הוי
And he armed his trained servants, born in his own house. Rab said, he equipped them by [teaching them] the Torah. Samuel said, he made them bright with gold [i.e., rewarded them for accompanying him].
Three hundred and eighteen: R. Ammi b. Abba said: Eliezer outweighed them all. Others say, It was Eliezer, for this is the numerical value of his name.
Thus, according to both Rav and Shmuel, there actually were 318 servants who accompanied him. So too R' Ami bar Abba -- Eliezer was there, and outweighed them, but they were still presumably present. Only the "others" say that it was Eliezer alone. And according to this "others", it is indeed difficult how to square it with the plain meaning of the pasuk.

However, I would also point out that, as I demonstrated many times in the past, ika deAmrei doesn't mean that there is another unnamed person in play. Rather, we are dealing with a variant manuscript of the gemara, both brought down in our Talmudic text. Thus, it is possible no one said it. And if someone said it, it was R' Ami bar Abba.

The midrash in Bereishit Rabba reads similarly:
אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש:
באבנים טובות ומרגליות הוריקן, היך מה דאת אמר: (תהלים סה) ואברותיה בירקרק חרוץ.

רבי לוי אמר:
בפרשת שוטרים הוריקן, היך מה דאת אמר: (דברים כ) מי האיש הירא ורך הלבב, ילך וישוב לביתו.

חניכיו, בעלי חניכתו. שמם אברם, כשמו.

שמנה עשר ושלוש מאות
ריש לקיש בשם בר קפרא:
אליעזר לבדו היה, מנין אליעזר, י"ח וג' מאות.
Thus, first Resh Lakish indicates that he gave all these servants gifts. And then he says in the name of Bar Kappara that it was only Eliezer, and that the gematria of Eliezer is 318. This would seem to be a contradiction, but often the gemara contrasts Resh Lakish with Resh Lakish in the name of Bar Kappara, and resolves that one is his own opinion and the other is the opinion he is citing.

Given the matching text in Bereishit Rabba, I would resolve that the ikka deAmrei is correct, and that the assertion is that it was only Eliezer, not Eliezer as well as 318 servants of Avraham.

What, then, do we make of this midrash? Do we not say ain mikra yotzei midei peshuto? I have at least two answers.

The first answer is that this is a midrash and was intended allegorically, to make a homiletic point. We don't have any evidence otherwise, and given that the pasuk states clearly that 318 people went, there is no other alternative. I don't like this answer.

The second answer is that it may indeed have been intended literally. But who says that they are maintaining ain mikra yotzei midei peshuto, or that we understand the principle? Indeed, the principle only occurs three times in all of Shas.

In the primary case, that of Rav Kahana, he had already learned through all of Shas and yet was unaware of this principle. Perhaps the midrashic author was also unaware of the principle?

But more than that, I think that there is a difference between how it is used in the primary case involving Rav Kahana and the other two cases in which it is harnessed by the setama digmara. And there is a further difference between how it is used in the gemara and how it is used by medieval Jewish commentators.

The primary case is in Shabbat 63a:
א"ל אביי לרב דימי ואמרי לה לרב אויא ואמרי לה רב יוסף לרב דימי ואמרי לה לרב אויא ואמרי לה אביי לרב יוסף מ"ט דר"א דאמר תכשיטין הן לו דכתיב (תהילים מה) חגור חרבך על ירך גבור הודך והדרך א"ל רב כהנא למר בריה דרב הונא האי בדברי תורה כתיב א"ל אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו א"ר כהנא כד הוינא בר תמני סרי שנין והוה גמירנא ליה לכוליה {תלמודא} ולא הוה ידענא דאין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו עד השתא מאי קמ"ל דליגמר איניש והדר ליסבר:
Abaye asked R. Dimi — others state, R. Awia, — others again state, R. Joseph [asked] R. Dimi — and others state, R. Awia whilst others state, Abaye [asked] R. Joseph: What is R. Eliezer's reason for maintaining that they are ornaments for him? — Because it is written, Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O mighty one, Thy glory and thy majesty.9 R. Kahana objected to Mar son of R. Huna: But this refers to the words of the Torah?10 — A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning, he replied.11 R. Kahana said: By the time I was eighteen years old I had studied the whole Shas,12 yet I did not know that a verse cannot depart from its plain meaning.13 until to-day. What does he inform us? — That a man should study and subsequently understand.
If I were to explain this gemara, and there were no other gemaras which referred to this principle, I would say one of two things. Firstly, what is meant by peshuto is not necessarily derash vs. peshat. Rather, it is Biblical mashal and Biblical nimshal. Rav Kahana's objection was that we know the meaning of the allegory, so of course the pasuk did not refer to a real sword, such that we cannot deduce some fact about the ornate nature of swords. And the response is that the text has a meaning on a literal level. The mashal has to first make sense, and then we understand the nimshal. And so we can deduce facts about the world, lehalacha, from the literal meaning of the allegory.

But this does not really have anything to do with midrash halacha, midrash aggadah, or the like. It could be that when using midrashic methods, this would establish the Truth and Reality in terms of the meaning of the pasuk, such that applying "peshat methodology" might reveal an interpretation which has been entirely uprooted. Because this is a completely different matter than that discussed in this gemara. (The disproof of this may well be evident in the gemara in which Rava applies it to a gezeira shava.)

Secondly, this occurs in the context of a halachic sugya. It is quite possible that ain mikra is itself a midda shehaTorah nidreshet bahen, a midrashic method. That even though we apply other midrashic methodology, when it comes to establishing halacha, the peshat meaning can still contribute. This does not necessarily mean that we must therefore restrict midrash aggada, and what can be said there, to assure that it does not contradict the reality as defined by the peshat.

The next instance of this phrase is in Yevamot 11b, as used by the setama de-gemara:
בעא מיניה רב יהודה מרב ששת המחזיר גרושתו משניסת ומת צרתה מהו אליבא דרבי יוסי בן כיפר לא תיבעי לך כיון דאמר ר' יוסי בן כיפר טומאה במחזיר גרושתו הוא דכתיבא צרתה כמותה ואי משום דכתיב בה (דברים כד) תועבה היא היא תועבה ואין בניה תועבין הא צרתה תועבה כי תיבעי לך אליבא דרבנן אע"ג דאמור רבנן טומאה בסוטה הוא דכתיב אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו או דלמא כיון דאיעקר איעקר איכא דאמרי אליבא דרבנן לא תיבעי לך כיון דאיתעקר איעקר כי תיבעי לך אליבא דרבי יוסי בן כיפר מאי אע"ג דאמר ר' יוסי בן כיפר טומאה במחזיר גרושתו הוא דכתיבא מיעט רחמנא היא תועבה ואין צרתה תועבה או דלמא היא תועבה ואין בניה תועבין הא צרתה תועבה
Rab Judah inquired of R. Shesheth: What is the law in regard to the rival of a woman whom her former husband remarried after her second marriage and died?18 According to the view of R. Jose b. Kipper the question does not arise. For R. Jose b. Kipper having stated that 'uncleanness' is mentioned in the case of him who remarried his divorced wife, it follows that her rival is subject to the very same restrictions. And if [objection be raised] from the Scriptural text, She is an abomination,19 [it may be replied that the implication is] that she is an abomination and not her children,20 her rival, however, being an abomination. The question, however, arises on the view of the Rabbis: Does the Scriptural text,21 despite the fact that the Rabbis had applied the expression 'uncleanness' to the sotah, also bear its ordinary meaning,22 or since it23 was once torn away [from its ordinary meaning] it must in all respects so remain?24 Others say: According to the Rabbis no question arises, for since the text has once been torn away [from its ordinary meaning] it must in all respects so remain. The question, however, arises according to the view of R. Jose b. Kipper: What is the law? [Is it assumed that] although R. Jose b. Kipper stated that the expression of 'uncleanness' refers to the remarriage of a divorced wife, the All Merciful has written 'She is an abomination' to indicate that 'she' is an abomination but not her rival,25 or is the implication, perhaps, that 'she' is an abomination, but her children are not; a rival, however, being an abomination?
Thus, different ways are given to understand the question of Rav Yehuda. And one option involves ain mikra yotzei, but at the same time they acknowledge the opposite possibility, that once it was torn away from its ordinary meaning, it was uprooted. And in the second version, according to the Sages, it is taken as a given that it has been uprooted.

I would point out three things. (1) It is the setama that suggests this. (2) It is not clear that even if this is the operating principle, we rule that it applies in this instance. So where it applies or not is unknown. (3) This is a question of midrash halacha, not midrash aggadah. It could be that we would not apply this to midrash aggadah, but rather just allow the midrash to entirely redefine the meaning of the text.

The third instance is also in Yevamot, daf 24a:
ת"ר (דברים כה) והיה הבכור מיכן שמצוה בגדול לייבם (דברים כה) אשר תלד פרט לאילונית שאין יולדת יקום על שם אחיו לנחלה אתה אומר לנחלה או אינו אלא לשם יוסף קורין אותו יוסף יוחנן קורין אותו יוחנן נאמר כאן יקום על שם אחיו ונאמר להלן (בראשית מח) על שם אחיהם יקראו בנחלתם מה שם האמור להלן נחלה אף שם האמור כאן לנחלה ולא ימחה שמו פרט לסריס ששמו מחוי אמר רבא אע"ג דבכל התורה כולה אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו הכא אתאי גזרה שוה אפיקתיה מפשטיה לגמרי
Our Rabbis learned: And it shall be, that the firstborn15 implies16 that the commandment of the levirate marriage devolves upon the [surviving elder brother];17 that she beareth15 excludes a woman who is incapable of procreation, since she cannot bear children: shall succeed in the name of his brother,15 in respect of inheritance.18 You say, 'in respect of inheritance';19 perhaps it does not [mean that]. but, 'in respect of the name':20 [If the deceased, for Instance, was called] Joseph [the child] shall be called Joseph; If Johanan he shall be called Johanan! — Here it is stated, shall succeed in the name of his brother15 and elsewhere it is stated, They shall be called after the name of their brethren in their inheritance,21 as the 'name' that was mentioned there [has reference to] inheritance, so the 'name' which was mentioned here [has also reference] to inheritance. That his name be not blotted out15 excludes a eunuch22 whose name is blotted out.

Said Raba: Although throughout the Torah no text23 loses its ordinary meaning, here the gezerah shawah24 has come and entirely deprived the text of its ordinary meaning.25

I would note that we see elsewhere (e.g. by the spelling of Binyamin) that bechol haTorah kullah need not be comprehensive. And I would also note that this is again an instance of midrash halacha. And in this case, we don't apply it. (I would further say that this is because this gezeira shava is no mere gezeira shava, but rather provides us with evidence as to the meaning of the term shem.)

Medieval Jewish commentators take this phrase and run with it. It becomes a rallying cry for the legitimacy of learning peshat, as opposed to merely derash. And for giving a peshat which is at odds with the derash in some way.

But I am pretty certain that this is not how it is meant in the gemara. If so, who says that Resh Lakish citing Bar Kappara, or R' Ammi bar Abba, need to fit the peshat with the derash?

Turning from the gemara now and considering Rashi, Rashi does subscribe to ain mikra yotzei midei peshuto. So how can he say what he says?!

I have a few answers, none of which are those of Gur Aryeh or Siftei Chachamim, et al.

First and foremost is that when one says ain mikra yotzei midei peshuto, the focus is typically on defense of the legitimacy of the peshat. This is far different than the way Siftei Chachamim and others are using it. They are asking to modify the derasha in order to accommodate what they feel is peshat. This is then a restriction on derasha (or an excuse for neo-midrash), rather than a legitimization of peshat.

Second is that who says that this derasha is not being put forth as peshat?! Just because to us it seems like it is not peshat does not mean that Rashi did not regard it as truth and midrasho-peshat!

Indeed, look at the previous Rashi:

his trained men: Heb. חִנִיכָיו It is written חִנִיכוֹ [in the singular], his trained man, (other editions: It is read). This is Eliezer, whom he had trained to [perform the] commandments, and it [חִנִיכָיו] is an expression of the initiation (lit. the beginning of the entrance) of a person or a utensil to the craft with which he [or it] is destined to remain, and similarly (Prov. 22: 6):“Train (חִנ‏ֹ) a child ;” (Num. 7:10):“the dedication of (חֲנֻכַּת) the altar ;” (Ps. 30:1):“the dedication of of (חֲנֻכַּת) the Temple,” and in Old French it is called enseigner [to instruct, train]. חניכיו: חנכו כתיב זה אליעזר שחנכו למצות והוא לשון התחלת כניסת האדם או כלי לאומנות שהוא עתיד לעמוד בה, וכן (משלי כב ו) חנוך לנער, (במדבר ז יא) חנכת המזבח, (תהלים ל א) חנכת הבית ובלע"ז קורין לו איניציי"ר [לחנוך]:

Thus, if we interpret the pasuk according to the way it is written, or else read (in fact, neither is true, according to our Masorah; see my post about this), then the entire pasuk refers to Eliezer. There is no other person present there.

What about the 318 people mentioned? Well, it does not say people. We can parse and translate this as:

14. And Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, and he armed his trained man, born in his house, "three hundred and eighteen", and he pursued [them] until Dan. יד. וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם כִּי נִשְׁבָּה אָחִיו וַיָּרֶק אֶת חֲנִיכָיו יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וַיִּרְדֹּף עַד דָּן:
Thus, 318 is being used in place of the name Eliezer.

There are of course apparent contradictions with other pesukim. For example:

15. And he divided himself against them at night, he and his servants, and smote them, and pursued them until Hobah, which is to the left of Damascus. טו. וַיֵּחָלֵק עֲלֵיהֶם לַיְלָה הוּא וַעֲבָדָיו וַיַּכֵּם וַיִּרְדְּפֵם עַד חוֹבָה אֲשֶׁר מִשְּׂמֹאל לְדַמָּשֶׂק:
Who are "his servants" in plural? Maybe we can answer that this is like baalav, and is a false plural. Or that since Eliezer has been defined earlier as the 318, we are going to carry this through.

Finally, by the chaluka, we have:

24. Exclusive of what the lads ate, and the share of the men who went with me; Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre they shall take their share." כד. בִּלְעָדַי רַק אֲשֶׁר אָכְלוּ הַנְּעָרִים וְחֵלֶק הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר הָלְכוּ אִתִּי עָנֵר אֶשְׁכֹּל וּמַמְרֵא הֵם יִקְחוּ חֶלְקָם:
the lads: My servants who went with me, and additionally, Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre, etc. Although my servants entered the battle, as it is stated (above verse 14): “he and his servants, and smote them,” while Aner and his companions stayed with the luggage to guard [it], nevertheless, “they shall take their share.” And from him, David learned, as he said (I Sam. 30:24): “for as the share of him who goes down into battle, so is the share of him who stays with the luggage; they shall share alike.” Therefore, it says (ibid. verse 25):“And it was so from that day (and had been so) from before, that he made it a statute and an ordinance.” It does not say וָהָלְאָה [and onwards], because that statute had already been enacted in the days of Abram. [from Gen. Rabbah 43:9] הנערים: עבדי אשר הלכו אתי, ועוד ענר אשכול וממרא וגו'. ואף על פי שעבדי נכנסו למלחמה, שנאמר לעיל (פסוק טו) הוא ועבדיו ויכם, וענר וחבריו ישבו על הכלים לשמור, אפילו הכי הם יקחו חלקם. וממנו למד דוד שאמר (ש"א ל כד) כחלק היורד למלחמה וכחלק היושב על הכלים יחדיו יחלוקו. ולכך נאמר (שם פסוק כה) ויהי מהיום ההוא ומעלה וישימה לחוק ולמשפט, ולא נאמר והלאה לפי שכבר ניתן החוק בימי אברהם:

Perhaps we can revocalize Avaday as Avdi, my servant. Or we could say again that Eliezer is in the plural because the text decided to refer to him as 318. Or we could try to kvetch this as referring to the members of the Baalei Berit Avraham, even though I agree with Rashi that what he gives is the best peshat.

(Besides the peshat, we also might want to resolve Rashi with himself. The difficulty is in this pasuk, about the division to the נערים, as well as to a variant version of Rashi, mentioned in this post, that reads:

חניכיו, בעלי חניכתו. שמם אברם, כשמו

instead of the non-existence chaser which is darshened in our version of Rashi.)

At the end of the day, I do think that the most likely is that Rashi is not thinking in terms of ain mikra, and so gives both peshat and derash which ultimately cannot have been simultaneously true historically. And furthermore, I think it quite possible that where he gives this midrash, he is envisioning it as peshat, even though we ourselves would not regard it as such. My "proof" for this is a michlal lav ata shomea hen from Ibn Ezra, who writes:
יד, יד]
וירק -
שנתן להם כלי מלחמה כטעם: והרק חנית.

ויש אומרים:
להוציא החרב מתערה, כטעם על הארץ יריקו.
מריקים שקיהם. גם יש לחנית כן.

חניכיו -
שחנכם פעמים רבות במלחמה ואם לא נזכר.
וחשבון אותיות אליעזר דרך דרש, כי אין הכתוב מדבר בגימטריא, כי יכול יוכל הרוצה להוציא כל שם לטוב ולרע, רק השם כמשמעו.

He writes "and the count of the letters Eliezer is by way of derash, for the Scriptures does not speak in gematria, for anyone who wishes is able to cast any name for good or for bad. Rather the name is as its simple implication."

From what he writes above, it is clear that Ibn Ezra thinks that literally (and I would guess historically) what is meant in the pasuk are a group of 318 people. He says shenatan lahem. And he says that this is not the way Scriptures speaks. Then, he either considers it untrue or, likely in this case, allegorical.

But why would he need to say this? My guess is that it seems to him that Rashi is regarding it as literal, and as peshat, just as I outlined above.

This, then, provides us with two answers to Siftei Chachamim's question. First, that the midrash is not meant literally. Second, that perhaps Rashi does regard it as literal and as a derech of peshat, in which case the question of ain mikra yotzei midei peshuto never arises.

Posted by joshwaxman at 3:30 PM 2 comments Links to this post

Labels: , , ,

Vayera Sources

by aliyah
rishon (Bereishit 18:1)
sheni (18:15)
shlishi (19:1)
revii (19:21)
chamishi (21:5)
shishi (21:22)
shevii (22:1)
maftir (22:20)
haftara (II Melachim 4)

by perek
perek 18 ; perek 19 ; perek 20
perek 21 ; perek 22

meforshim
Shadal (here and here)
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Gilyonot
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew)
Tiferes Yehonasan from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz
Chasdei Yehonasan -- nothing on vayera
Toldos Yizchak Acharon, repeated from Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz
Even Shleimah -- from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich
R' Saadia Gaon's Tafsir, Arabic translation of Torah (here and here)
Collected commentary of Saadia Gaon on Torah (Hebrew Tafsir and commentary)
Zohar, with English translation
Baal Haturim (HaAruch)
Imrei Shafer, Rav Shlomo Kluger
Ibn Gabirol -- nothing until Vayeitzei
Rabbenu Yonah -- nothing until Toldos
Sefer Zikaron of Ritva

The following meforshim at JNUL:
Ralbag (35)
Shach (18)
Sefer Hachinuch (pg 10) -- nothing until Vayishlach
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (40)

rashi
Daat, Rashi In Hebrew (perek 18)
Mizrachi, Mizrachi (31, JNUL)
Gur Aryeh (Maharal of Prague)
Commentary on Rashi by Yosef of Krasnitz
R' Yisrael Isserlin (on Rashi, 3, JNUL)
Two supercommentaries on Rashi, by Chasdai Almosnino and Yaakov Kneizel
Rav Natan ben Shishon Shapira Ashkenazi (16th century), (JNUL, pg 14)
Yeriot Shlomo (Maharshal)
Moda L'Bina (Wolf Heidenheim)
Mekorei Rashi (in Mechokekei Yehuda)
Meam Loez -- laazei Rashi
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Rashi with Sifsei Chachamim

ramban
Daat, Ramban in Hebrew (perek 18)
R' Yitzchak Abohav's on Ramban (standalone and in a Tanach opposite Ramban)
Rabbi Meir Abusaula (student of Rashba)

ibn ezra
Daat, Ibn Ezra in Hebrew (perek 18)
Mechokekei Yehudah (Daat)
Mechokekei Yehudah (HebrewBooks)
R' Shmuel Motot (on Ibn Ezra, pg 13, JNUL)
Ibn Kaspi's supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, different from his commentary (here and here)
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Ibn Ezra with Avi Ezer

targum
Targum Onkelos opposite Torah text
Shadal's Ohev Ger on Targum Onkelos
Avnei Tzion -- two commentaries on Onkelos
Or Hatargum on Onkelos
Commentary on Targum Yonatan and Targum Yerushalmi
Septuagint (Greek, English)


midrash
Midrash Rabba at Daat (18)
Midrash Tanchuma at Daat (18)
Bereishit Rabba, with commentaries
Midrash Tanchuma with commentary of Etz Yosef and Anaf Yosef
Commentary on Midrash Rabba by R' Naftali Hirtz b'R' Menachem
Matat-Kah on Midrash Rabba
Nefesh Yehonasan by Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz

haftara (II Melachim 4)
In a separate Mikraos Gedolos, with Targum, Rashi, Radak, Ralbag, Metzudat David.
As a haftara in a chumash Bereishit, with Malbim
Haftarah in Gutnick Edition
Daat, with Radak, Yalkut Shimoni, Gilyonot
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite
Sefer Melachim with Targum, Ralbag and Radak (JNUL, 133)
Abarbanel (270)

Posted by joshwaxman at 12:15 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: ,

Were Avraham's actions praiseworthy in washing their feet first?

And more importantly, did Rashi change the midrash?


The Jewish Worker points out two contrasting midrashim. In Bava Metzia daf 86b:
Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet: R. Jannai son of R. Ishmael said: They [the travellers] protested to him [Abraham], 'Dost thou suspect us of being Arabs, who worship the dust on their feet? Ishmael has already issued from thee.'
This is not necessarily punishment that his descendants will act this way (after all, hakol biydei shamayim chutz mir`at shamayim), but rather that Yishmael has already been born and is presently acting this way. So don't point fingers at others, who happen to be innocent, when you already have this going on in your own house.

In contrast, Rashi makes this suspicion into a positive thing:

and bathe your feet: He thought that they were Arabs, who prostrate themselves to the dust of their feet, and he was strict not to allow any idolatry into his house. But Lot, who was not strict, mentioned lodging before washing, as it is said (below 19:2): “and lodge and bathe your feet.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 54:4] ורחצו רגליכם: כסבור שהם ערביים שמשתחוים לאבק רגליהם והקפיד שלא להכניס עבודה זרה לביתו. אבל לוט שלא הקפיד, הקדים לינה לרחיצה, שנאמר (יט ב) ולינו ורחצו רגליכם:

Does Rashi change the midrash, or its tone? On occasion, Rashi does indeed do this. And in those instances, we get a sense of how Rashi harnesses midrashim and directs them in a way to present peshat. But this is not one of those instances. Jewish Worker was misled by the Mikraos Gedolos, which puts the source for Rashi as that gemara in Bava Metzia. Rather, as Judaica Press' chumash with translation notes, he gets this from Bereishit Rabba:
אל בית עבדכם ולינו ורחצו
אברהם מקדים רחיצה ללינה, ולוט מקדים לינה לרחיצה?!ש
אלא, אברהם מקפיד על טינופת עבודת כוכבים, לפיכך הקדים רחיצה, ולוט אינו מקפיד על טינופת עבודת כוכבים.

ויש אומרים:
אף זה עשה כשורה, כדי שיצאו ויראו אבק על רגליהם, שלא יאמרו היכן לנו.

Rashi's concern appears to be, here, how Avraham is a great guy. And also perhaps the contrasting of the two greeting stories. Rashi certainly bases himself on Bereishit Rabba, and he selectively cites the midrash. He does not cite the yesh omrim here, that Lot acted appropriately.

However, interestingly enough, Rashi contradicts himself. While he cites the avodah zarah concern local to the Avraham and the malachim story, local to the Lot and the malachim story he puts forth as the only peshat that Lot acted appropriately, because of particular circumstances; while Avraham acted in the entirely customary manner:

and stay overnight and wash your feet: Now is it customary for people to first stay overnight and afterwards to wash? Moreover, Abraham said to them first, “and wash your feet!” But so did Lot say (i.e., he reasoned), “If, when the people of Sodom come, they will see that they have already washed their feet, they will invent false accusations against me and say, ‘Two or three days have already passed since they came to your house, and you did not let us know!’” Therefore, he said, “It is better that they remain here with the dust on their feet, so that they should appear as though they had just arrived now.” Therefore he said, “Stay overnight” first and afterwards, “wash.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 50:4] ולינו ורחצו רגליכם: וכי דרכן של בני אדם ללון תחלה ואחר כך לרחוץ, ועוד שהרי אברהם אמר להם תחלה (יח ד) ורחצו רגליכם. אלא כך אמר לוט אם כשיבאו אנשי סדום ויראו שכבר רחצו רגליהם, יעלילו עלי ויאמרו כבר עברו שני ימים או שלשה שבאו לביתך ולא הודעתנו, לפיכך אמר מוטב שיתעכבו כאן באבק רגליהם שיהיו נראין כמו שבאו עכשיו, לפיכך אמר לינו תחלה ואחר כך רחצו:

There might be all sorts of ways of resolving these apparently (and I believe indeed) contradictory midrashim, both of which Rashi appears to put forth as peshat. Siftei Chachamim does not address this issue. My own guess is that Rashi is trying to develop two different themes in these two places, and cites the midrash that helps advance the particular theme, without really paying heed to whether two midrashim end up contradicting one another.

Update: See the comment section, with Soccer Dad's comment and my reply. As Artscroll on Rashi and Mosad HaRav Kook's Rashi both note, this second Rashi was not in the first printing of Rashi. See here in Yosef Daas where he brings this text from a klaf as well as another sefer of Rashi. If so, we can eliminate the contradiction. The harmonization offered in Artscroll, though, I don't like, for reasons I detail below in the comment section.

Posted by joshwaxman at 8:18 AM 2 comments Links to this post

Labels: ,

Interesting Posts and Articles #228

Sunday, November 01, 2009

  1. The Muqata has a sign from the New York City Health Department, in Yiddish and English, instructing people to wash their hands with soap, then wash again and say Asher Yatzar. I think this is necessary because otherwise people think that the ritual hand-washing is sufficient for the swine flu.


  2. Aish HaTorah on honoring abusive parents. An excerpt:

    It must be noted, however, that psychological and emotional factors have weight in the equation. If parents are abusive or the relationship is a toxic one, children are not obligated to tolerate pain or suffering. They may provide for their parents’ needs from a distance or through others. Subjecting oneself to unnecessary punishment is not mandated, indicated or desirable from a Torah perspective.

    The Talmud relates the instance of one of the great Sages who had a mentally deranged mother. It describes the abuse she subjected him to even in public settings. On one occasion, he was holding forth to an august body of scholars and his mother strode into the study hall and lashed out at him in front of the entire assemblage. The rabbi did not flinch or react. Clearly, he did not take it personally. He waited for her tirade to end and gently and lovingly escorted her out.

  3. At the Seforim blog, a review of Minhagei Lita. To excerpt, and give a taste of the tone of the critique:
    The author apparently spent eight years in Telshe Yeshiva in Lithuania, between 1930-38. It does not appear, according the brief biography at the end of the book, that the author went anywhere other than Telshe. See id. at 101-02. He makes no mention of visiting more established and larger Lithuanian cities of Vilna, Kovno, or Mintz for example. Indeed, in his introduction, he provides that he is "not so presumptuous and foolish to claim knowledge of all or even most of the area of Lithuanian avodah." Id. at 4. But, throughout the book, the author fails to remember this disclaimer. Instead, for example, the author asserts that "the minhag in Lithuania was to beat the Aravos," id. at 48, or that the neither "in the Telshe Yeshivah or anywhere else in Lithuania," id. at 50, did they repeat to the two readings of the zekher. How the author knew that these customs were uniform throughout Lithuania is unclear.

    This is not the only piece of his own advice the author ignores.
  4. Do these Orthodox behaviors indicate the Orthodox Jews don't believe in the power of prayer? E.g.:
    90 percent of the congregation comes late If you had an important meeting with someone far more important than you would you dream of shuffling in long after the start time? Of course not. The fact that the majority of nearly every Orthodox Jewish congregation arrives late to shul tells us something important about how the services are really viewed - at least by the latecomers.
    I am not persuaded. Maybe for some. But let us say that you have a regular meeting, 3 times a day, with the same important individual. And it is a group meeting, and people typically "waste" the first portion of the meeting anyway.

  5. Rechovot on a service for writing the perfect dvar Torah.

  6. At Revach, the Debriciner Rav on using an electric dryer for netilas yadayim.

  7. The burqa lady petitions the Red Cross. Just like certain people demonstrated in front of the UN on behalf of the Münchhausen mother. I understand working within the legal system to defend someone you think innocent, but this feels to me like a betrayal. I understand why Rafi G. wonders whether it is mesirah.

  8. HaEmtza on the tyranny of the majory imposing chumros on the public.

  9. A settlement in the flying imams case.

  10. Here at parshablog, what to do when the masorah opposes the Zohar, on the spelling of a word in Lech Lecha.

Posted by joshwaxman at 11:30 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels:

Teva and the Teiva

Nowadays, people grapple with many issues resolving the narrative in parshat Noach and what we know about the natural world. And we have some good questions, including many that were simply not questions centuries ago.

But as I was learning through Ibn Ezra on parshas Noach, it was interesting to see just how he grappled with similar issues, and how he managed to square the Biblical account with some measure of derech hateva. What follows are a few choice comments from Ibn Ezra which fit with this theme, together with some of my translations and elaborations.

Towards the end of his commentary on perek 6, Ibn Ezra writes:

ותועי רוח ישאלו: מה אכל כל עוף דורס וכל חיה כמו האריה שלא יחיה כי אם מבשר? ש
וזאת איננה שאלה, כי מי שלא ימצא בשר יאכל העשב ופרי העץ כאשר ירעב.
Thus, some misguided folk ask what carnivorous birds and animals ate on the ark. My brother-in-law, over Succot, was actually musing about this and suggested that Noach packed live animals into the ark for food, and that was part of the food gathered for the animals. That of course would require more space on the ark. I don't know that I agree, but it is an interesting ide.

Ibn Ezra dismisses this as even a question, saying that one who does not find meat would eat herbs and fruit when it is starving.

The problem with this is that Ibn Ezra is working off of medieval science, and thus believes that being a carnivore is merely a strong preference. But modern zoologists distinguish between facultative carnivores and obligate carnivores. Regarding the latter:

An obligate or true carnivore depends solely on the nutrients found in animal flesh for their survival. While they may consume small amounts of plant material they lack the physiology required for the efficient digestion of vegetable matter and in fact, some carnivorous mammals eat vegetation specifically as an emetic. The domestic cat is a prime example of an obligate carnivore, as are all of the other felids. The ability to produce synthetic forms of nutrients such as taurine in the lab has allowed feed manufacturers to formulate foods for carnivores (zoo animals and pets) with varying amounts of plant material.

A hypercarnivore feeds exclusively on meat and presents specialized dentition for a meat-only diet.

But I am not an expert in the matter, and indeed am relying on Wikipedia. Perhaps obligate carnivores would not get sufficient nutrients, but could survive for the period of time in the ark?

There is indeed a midrash, in perek Chelek, in Sanhedrin 108b, about how these animals were fed:
After their kinds they went forth from the ark.40 R. Johanan said: After their kinds, but not they [alone].41 R. Hana b. Bizna said: Eliezer [Abraham's servant] remarked to Shem [Noah's] eldest son,42 'It is written, After their kinds they went forth from the ark. Now, how were you situated?'43 — He replied. '[In truth], we had much trouble in the ark. The animals which are usually fed by day we fed by day; and those normally fed by night we fed by night. But my father did not know what was the food of the chameleon. One day he was sitting and cutting up a pomegranate, when a worm dropped out of it, which it [the chameleon] consumed. From then onward he mashed up bran for it, and when it became wormy, it devoured it. The lion was nourished by a fever, for Rab said, "Fever sustains for not less than six (days) nor more than thirteen."44 As for the phoenix,45 my father discovered it lying 'in the hold of the ark. "Dost thou require no food?" he asked it. "I saw that thou wast busy," it replied, "so I said to myself, I will give thee no trouble." "May it be (God's) will that thou shouldst not perish," he exclaimed; as it is written, Then I said, I shall die in the nest, but I shall multiply my days as the phoenix.'46
So the chameleon ate worms, but this was not a problem, because worms are generated from mashed up bran. My well-grounded assumption is that their assumption was not that the bran was wormy throughout, but that these worms continuously spontaneously generated from the pomegranate, or certainly from the mashed up bran. The lion, as an example of a carnivore, was stricken with a fever, which "sustained" it, in that it did not need to eat.

I don't know if this midrash in Chelek was intended literally, but it certainly addressed these questions Ibn Ezra asserts are non-questions.

Ibn Ezra continues:
וכן דרש שיש בבהמות גדול והוא רועה אלף הרים טוב הוא להשמעת אוזנים, וכן עוף שיכסה אור השמש בכנפיו,יש לו סוד ואיננו כמשמעו
Thus, how did the great Behemoth, which grazed 1000 mountains, fit into the ark? And how did the bird which obscures the light of the sun with its wings fit on the ark? He answers that it has a Sod, deep hidden meaning, and is not intended literally.

{The Behemoth from Tehillim 50:10:

י כִּי-לִי כָל-חַיְתוֹ-יָעַר; בְּהֵמוֹת, בְּהַרְרֵי-אָלֶף.10 For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.
and Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer expands upon this as an animal which grazes on 1000 hills; and also mentioned in Tanchuma and Bemidbar Rabba.

And the giant bird obscuring the Sun is based on the next pasuk:

יא יָדַעְתִּי, כָּל-עוֹף הָרִים; וְזִיז שָׂדַי, עִמָּדִי.11 I know all the fowls of the mountains; and the wild beasts of the field are Mine.
where in Vayikra Rabba, we read about how it spreads its wings and obscures the sun. See in Karnei Or.
}

Yahel Or tries to explain this Sod as the moon coming between the sun and the earth, blocking the sun. But regardless, Ibn Ezra regards these animals, which wouldn't fit in the ark, as allegorical.

I don't know what he would do with the Reem. But there is another giant animal, which Midrash Rabba indeed grapples with, in terms of how it fit in the ark:
ומכל החי מכל בשר שנים וגו'
אמר רבי הושעיא:
אפי' רוחות נכנסים עם נח אל התיבה, שנאמר: מכל החי, מאותן שנבראו להם נפשות ולא נברא להם גופין.

ר' יהודה ורבי נחמיה
ר' יהודה אומר:
ראם לא נכנס עמו אבל גוריו נכנסו.

רבי נחמיה אמר:
לא הוא ולא גוריו, אלא קשרו נח בתיבה והיה מתלים תלמיות, כמן טבריא לסוסתא, הה"ד: (איוב לט) התקשר ראם בתלם עבותו אם ישדד עמקים אחריך.

בימי רבי חייא בר אבא
עלה גורא אחד לא"י ולא הניח אילן עד שעקרו, ועשו תענית והתפלל ר' חייא וגעת אמו מן המדבר וירד לקולה.
Thus, spirits (sheidim) entered the ark. And how did the giant reem fit? Either its whelps (young ones, but not adults) fit, or else Noach tied it to the teivah.

When Ibn Ezra says that these creatures (Behemot and giant bird which blocks the sun) were not intended literally, but have a deep meaning, I think he was likely arguing about the existence of these creatures. And the midrash which testifies to their existence has a deep meaning.

I don't know that he would do the same in terms of the reem, where the various Tannaim are discussing how it practically fit on the ark. (And, where it is not a matter of how to interpret a pasuk, in a derash or peshat manner.) A small reem could fit; or it was tethered to the outside, much like Og, who also practically one would want to survive the flood. And the midrash appears to discuss a practical and historical case of a reem whelp appearing. And it is discussed along with sheidim, which they likely believed in as real creatures. While surely someone could invent a deep allegorical meaning for the reem, as well as for the efforts to make the species survive the flood, I don't know that that was the intent. It is possible that the intent was literal.

But when Ibn Ezra argues on midrash, does he always say that the midrash is true; either as historical truth though not revealed on the peshat level; or not literally true but with some deep mystical meaning? I am not convinced that he does. He certainly allegorizes some midrashim. But ones that seem to operate on a peshat level, where they were intended as peshat, I am not convinced that he does. He says, e.g. in Vayera, that if it is kabbalah (tradition), it should be accepted. But if not, it is not nachon. He argues with the idea that Avimelech was also stopped up, on the basis of grammar. And only in regard to certain midrashim, which seem very farfetched, does he explicitly raise the "deep sod" angle. This present case is a perfect example. Of course we would expect some deep sod about these fantastic and impossible creatures!

Unless of course Ibn Ezra means to include the reem, and Chazal's discussion, when discussing the Behemot and the giant bird.

In discussing the size of the teva, Ibn Ezra writes:

צהר -
מקום שיכנס ממנו האור והוא מגזרת צהרים, והוא נעשה למעלה כמשפט ואחר שהיה למעלה אמה אחת בארך, היה ברחב ששית אמה. והנה התיבה כדמות משלש וראשו חד, וכן מקצעותיו, על כן לא תתהפך והפתח בצד האחד והיה עולה אליו בסלם, וידענו כי התיבה גדולה מאד.
גם יתכן להיות קומת נח גדולה מקומתינו, כי האמה היא כמידתו.
ויתכן היותה כאשר היא נחלקת על שלוש, גובה התחתיים עשר אמות.

ויש אומרים:
כי רבים היו והכתוב אחז בדרך קצרה.
Thus, the teiva was very big. While certain meforshim (see e.g. Rambam) try to minimize Og's height and Goliath's height, here Ibn Ezra tries to make Noach's height bigger. I would understand this as that if he is bigger, then his cubit is bigger, and thus the ark can fit more animals.

The height of the teva was 30 cubits. So each section was 10 cubits high, which is quite a lot. But he cites some (though he does not appear to truly endorse this) who say that there were many levels, but the pasuk was speaking in shorthand. Bigger cubits, and more levels, and one can fit more animals.

In the next perek, when discussing the windows of heaven, he says that this is just an idiom:
וארבות -
כמו: הנה ה' עושה ארבות.
והאוצר והחלון כלשון בני אדם ומשפטם.
He also explains the sign of the keshet, and how it existed after the mabul as a sign, in a somewhat natural way:
ונראתה הקשת -
אילו היינו מאמינים בדברי חכמי יון שמלהט השמש תולד הקשת.
יש לומר: כי השם חזק אור השמש אחר המבול והיא דרך נכונה למבין.
All in all, of course there were nissim involved, in that Hashem decided to flood the world. But Ibn Ezra's picture of the process appears to be along the lines of derech hateva, where possible.

Posted by joshwaxman at 9:07 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: ,

Posts so far for parshat Lech Lecha

Friday, October 30, 2009

2009

  1. Lech Lecha sources -- by perek and aliyah in a Mikraos Gedolos, plus more than 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftorah.

  2. His journey(s) -- when the masorah opposes the Zohar. Ohr Torah has a somewhat dubious resolution (IMHO) in which the Zohar darshens the text as if it was written chaser. I think it is a genuine machlokes.

  3. How many words are Kedarlaomer? The masorah vs. the gemara. Once again, Ohr Torah has a resolution. And once again, I lean towards thinking that there is a genuine machlokes here.

  4. Did Rashi darshen a non-existent chaser? Minchas Shai has a pretty strong answer, that this is not the correct girsa of Rashi. Quite plausible, though I am not entirely convinced.


2008
  1. Lech Lecha sources -- by perek and aliyah, in an online Mikraos Gedolos.

  2. The Duplication in Sarah-As-Sister stories -- because this was a standing practice, in many places they went, including a great many that passed without incident.

  3. Brit Milah as Adopted, Adapted, and Directed Practice Taken from the Egyptians -- Shadal addresses the question that if the Egyptians also practice circumcision, how can it be a sign / covenant for the Israelites? And also deals with a Pheonician myth about Cronus and Uranus, child sacrifice and circumcision, and says this developed from the story about Avraham and Yitzchak.

  4. As a followup to this 2004 post on vehakenaani az baaretz, this 2008 post about Avraham pursuing as far as Dan, when the area of Dan was not named this until sefer Shofetim. Shadal rejects the idea that this a later addition to chumash; rather, this was another place called Dan. This same concern likely motivates Rashi to say that it was called this via ruach hakodesh.

  5. What was the name of Lot's wife? And why should we care? First, various answers as to her name. Where does it come from? Is it an extra-Biblical tradition, derived via midrashic methods from the Biblical text, made up in order to convey some message, or to put more focus on a previously minor character? I trace through various sources which discuss her name. Also, whether Lot's wife really turned into a pillar of salt.

    This last one really is rooted in Vayera, but Lot's decision to move to Sodom in the first place takes place in Lech Lecha, and comes into play here.
2007
2006
2005
  • "And I Will Make Your Name Great"
    • What is meant by "name?" Explores possibility that it literally means making the name larger by adding the letter heh, and the implications of that interpretation. On a pshat level, it most likely means "renown." Turn to another example, by yibum, where it means "title" to land/inheritance, proved by evidence internal to the text (Rut names her son Oved) and via lexical comparison to a similar phrase by Ephraim and Menashe. Discuss the idea of ain mikra yotzei midei peshuto, and how a gezera shava here uproots the pshat meaning entirely, with an eye to the meaning of the statement in general. Finally, apply this meaning of "name" to a pasuk in Haazinu.
  • Avraham's Sacrifice
    • Explores when the command to leave his homeland was made, and why the poetic repetition. Compare with the command to bind Yitzchak, and we see Biblical poetry and repetition used to highlight the drama and the difficulty of the request.
2004
2003
  • Is the Code of Hammurabi the Dina Demalchuta of Avraham?
    • Cross-listed for Vayera, this begins in parshat Lech Lecha.
      If so, a way in which Avraham kept the Torah, or the Torah of Shem and Ever. Yet the incident in which Sarah offers her maidservant; her insistence of Hagar's demotion back to maidservant despite bearing Avraham a son; and the recognizing of such a child vs. casting out of the house, all have basis in the Code of Hammurabi.
  • Avraham's Refusal to the King of Sodom - somewhat political
    • Had Avraham taken the gifts, the king of Sodom might have thought he was only in it for the money
  • Suggested KedorLaOmer etymology
    • as servant of the deity Gomer
  • Kings Goofus and Gallant, and the MIGGEN Avraham
    • In which Avraham *receives* 10% of the spoils from Malkitzedek, rather than *giving* it to him. If so, we have a contrast to his conduct with the King of Sodom. And an explanation is respective attitudes, a la Goofus and Gallant.
      Further, in the aftermath, Hashem is not saying that he will be a shield, but rather a gatherer of wealth. See the post inside.
to be continued...

Posted by joshwaxman at 11:35 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: ,

Does Rashi darshen a non-existent chaser? The masorah on chanichav

This week, we have been focusing on apparent disputes between Rabbinic texts and the masoretic notes. We focused on an apparent contradiction with Zohar, and with a gemara in Chullin. Now, a contradiction with Rashi.


The pasuk {Bereshit 14:14} states:

יד וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם, כִּי נִשְׁבָּה אָחִיו; וַיָּרֶק אֶת-חֲנִיכָיו יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ, שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת, וַיִּרְדֹּף, עַד-דָּן.14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued as far as Dan.

Rashi:

his trained men: Heb. חִנִיכָיו It is written חִנִיכוֹ [in the singular], his trained man, (other editions: It is read). This is Eliezer, whom he had trained to [perform the] commandments, and it [חִנִיכָיו] is an expression of the initiation (lit. the beginning of the entrance) of a person or a utensil to the craft with which he [or it] is destined to remain, and similarly (Prov. 22: 6):“Train (חִנ‏ֹ) a child ;” (Num. 7:10):“the dedication of (חֲנֻכַּת) the altar ;” (Ps. 30:1):“the dedication of of (חֲנֻכַּת) the Temple,” and in Old French it is called enseigner [to instruct, train]. חניכיו: חנכו כתיב זה אליעזר שחנכו למצות והוא לשון התחלת כניסת האדם או כלי לאומנות שהוא עתיד לעמוד בה, וכן (משלי כב ו) חנוך לנער, (במדבר ז יא) חנכת המזבח, (תהלים ל א) חנכת הבית ובלע"ז קורין לו איניציי"ר [לחנוך]:





But of course, it is not written chaser. Of course, other texts have that it is read as chanicho. But of course, we have no tradition to do this in terms of krei and ketiv, that we know of. And it is not a typical al tikrei X ela Y because the vowel pattern does not really support such a revocalization. My unsupported guess is that someone tried to fix the ketiv by making it say krei, which at least does not impugn the integrity of the Masoretic text.

Minchas Shai considers this issue.
He cites Rashi in our versions that chanicho is written, but there is one sefer of Rashi in which it states "chanichav is written". {perhaps with the implication that chanicho would then be the krei.} And he finishes citing Rashi.

These are extremely confounding words, for he does not see any midrash as basis of it; nor is the word found in any sefer he has seen, new or old -- only with two yuds, one before the kaf and one after it. And the Rama writes that it is malei with two yuds, one before the kaf and one written after it.

And Minchas Shai endeavored to find in an early manuscript of Rashi for many years, and in one of them he found the following:
chanichav: baalei chanichato {those trained by him}, and their names were Avraham just like his name, because they were converts.

And this is from Midrash Rabba parasha 43. {This is a precise citation from Bereshit Rabba:
חניכיו, בעלי חניכתו. שמם אברם, כשמו.
}

And from other manuscripts, it is written chanichav, that he instructed {שחינך} them to the precepts. And also in the commentary of Rashi printed in Isbona, in the year 251, it is written chanichav, that he instructed them to the precepts.

And these variant texts are have good quality in his eyes, and a consistent line of approach to them, in which does not occur the language in our sefarim. And whoever adds detracts.

And also the Rav Mizrachi and those like him, the supercommentators of Rashi did not write anything about this. It is thus apparent that this language was not written in their sefarim. And from the content, we can learn its extraneousness. For behold, Rashi writes after this that:

three hundred and eighteen: Our Sages said (Gen. Rabbah 43:2, Ned. 32a): It was Eliezer alone, and it [the number 318] is the numerical value of his name. שמונה עשר ושלש מאות: רבותינו אמרו אליעזר לבדו היה, והוא מנין גימטריא של שמו:

We deduce from here that until here no part of this topic had been broached.
He makes a persuasive argument. Of course, I could point out counterarguments. For example, this might be a point that Rashi is developing, reading into the pesukim. So first, read it into chanicho, and then when encountering the matter which would seem to contradict it, show how Chazal read this in as well. If there is no midrash, Rashi may have discovered this krei / ketiv as an additional basis to the Midrash that it was Eliezer alone.

And under lectio difficilior, it is possible that people grappling with this Rashi, at odds with the masorah of our verse, would have substituted another explanation of the word, and gravitated towards the one in midrash rabba. (A similar process, I would guess, more likely caused that chanichav ketiv variant.)

Also, the argument from silence is not so persuasive. It is an argument from silence. The question is whether they would necessarily have noticed and commented on it. Though perhaps they would have.

I don't find my own counterarguments entirely convincing either. And it is a lot easier to attribute the erroneous girsa to Rashi rather than to the Biblical text, especially where we actually have reports of those variant girsaot.

Posted by joshwaxman at 9:50 AM 3 comments Links to this post

Labels: , ,

The source for not using a fork

In a comment or two on my previous post about eating herring with your hands, frequent commenter Yosef Greenberg writes:
Dr. Segal was right, it seems.

See here from the Munkatcher Rebbe.

You weren't serious in your imaginings, I hope. They do use forks in other occasions. Regardless, would it have been such an issue the Church was mechaven to the same thing?
and
Whoops. He does write there that the Rebbe never used a fork.

He didn't use a spoon in this case either, though.

What Dr. Segal had cited was the old-timers in a particular shul, explaining why they are fish with their hands on the basis of וּבְכָל-דְּגֵי הַיָּם, בְּיֶדְכֶם נִתָּנוּ. As Yosef Greenberg points out, it states in Darkei Chaim veShalom that:

והי׳ מדקדק לאכול את
העין וגם מהראש של הדגים. ולא אכלן ע״י כף (וע״י מזלג שקורין גאפי״ל
לא השתמש בשום מאכל ) רק באצבעותיו. ואמר הרמז שנאמר וכל דגי הים
״בידכם״ נתנו.. לאכול דייקא בהידים ולא ע״י דבר אחר
And he was medakdek to eat the eye as well as from the head of the fish. And he did not eat them via a spoon (and via a fork, which they call a guppel, he never made use of it for any food) but rather with his fingers. And he said that the remez to it is that is stated "and all the fish of the sea I have given over in your hands. To eat specifically with the hands and not via another implement.
Did I mean the church parallel seriously? Half-seriously. Simple practices can become encoded as minhag.

And newfangled utensils could be regarded as a change from tradition.

We see this idea in the very same sefer, about eating fish:
שצד . (א) וכדי להשביע צחצחות את הנפש המתחקה אחר שורשן ומנהגן של
צדיקים איך שדקדקו בכל דבר כחוט השערה אפי׳ בהקדמת מאכלא׳
לחבירו לא אמנע פרי עטי לכתוב מה שסיפר רבינו ז״ל מעשה שהי׳ אחרי
הסתלקות אביהן ורבן של ישראל בעל דברי חיים מצאנז זי״ע שחי׳יו שב בראש
אדמו״ר הגה״ק בעל דברי יחזקאל משינאווע זי״ע והקדים לאכול סתם דגים
ואח״כ אכל דגים חמוצים ועמד אחיו הגה״ק הר״ב מגארליץ זי״ע וצווח ואמר
איך בשבת הראשון כבר אתה משנה מנהג אבינו רועינו אשר דרכו בקודש
לאכול מקודם הדגים חמוצים ואח״כ הסתם דגים. והשיב אחיו מרן משינאווא
והדים קולו ואמר רבותיי כתיב והייתם נקיים מה' ומישראל ויען כי אחי אמר
עלי שאני משנה מנהג אבי ע״כ אגיד לכם למען תדעו כי אבי הקדוש כשהי ׳ רב
בדודניק ושם לא הי' דגים מצויים ודאג כל השבוע שיהי' לו דגים על שב"ק
ובתחלת השבוע כשנזדמן בביתו דגים קנו אותן מידו כדי שלא יתקלקלו החמיצו
אותן שיוכלו לעמוד על ש״ק מבלי הפיג טעמם . ואח״כ סמוך לשבת ובעש״ק
כשנזדמנו דגים חיים לקנות קנו והכינו ובישלו אותן לכבוד ש״ק בלי חימוץ
וממילא כשהי' לפניו שני מיני דגים הללו הקדים לאכול את החמוצים מטעם
שהי' תדיר אצלו ותדיר קוד ם ואח״כ כשנעשה רב בצאנז . שכאן הדגים מצויים
ולא הוצרכו להכין באיזה ימים מקודם דגים חמוצים לצורך שבת רק עשו
הדגים חמוצים ג״כ בעש״ק אך עכ״פ כיון שהי' נהוג מאז לאכול הדגים חמוצים
בראשונה לא רצה גם בצאנז לשנות מנהגו להקדים הדגים חמוצים באכילתן
תמיד . משא״כ אנכי (סיים הגה״ק משינאווא ) מעולם לא באתי לידי כך שיהיו
הדגים חמוצים אצלי תדיר. ורגיל יותר כי על כן אין זה שינוי ח״ו רק הדגים
פשוטים הם חשובים וחביבים אצלי ביותר ועדיף להקדים אכילתן . ע״כ .

It is strange to apply tadir kodem to this. Regardless, simple actions such as having pickled fish were encoded as minhag even though the original reason (possible unavailability of the fish) no longer applied. And people got extremely upset over something as trivial as changing the order of the courses, until a reason was given explaining that he was applying halachic principles to the metzius just as the father would have done in a different situation.

So is it so surprising that forks, or spoons for fish, could be avoided for similar reasons. That is, to cite Wikipedia about the spread of forks:

The fork's adoption in northern Europe was slower. Its use was first described in English by Thomas Coryat in a volume of writings on his Italian travels (1611), but for many years it was viewed as an unmanly Italian affectation. Some writers of the Roman Catholic Church expressly disapproved of its use, seeing it as "excessive delicacy": "God in his wisdom has provided man with natural forks — his fingers. Therefore it is an insult to Him to substitute artificial metallic forks for them when eating." [5][6] It was not until the 18th century that the fork became commonly used in Great Britain, although some sources say forks were common in France, England and Sweden already by the early 1600s.[7][8]

It seems quite plausible to me that forks were not in use by the early rebbes, and a people so punctilious about table conduct, who ritualize every aspect of it, even those dictated by practical concerns, would view the introduction of a fork as a great heresy. Even as it spread in the general public, they would maintain their fork-free meals.

Of course, what is being dealt with here is a spoon. Perhaps if one does not eat with a fork, eating with a spoon is unwieldy. Or it was prepared in a way that no spoons were initially required. And that became encoded as minhag.

Posted by joshwaxman at 7:37 AM 3 comments Links to this post

Labels:

That 25% figure -- Orthodox Jews in secular colleges

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Recently, there was a big debate over the meaning of a study quoted in an article in the Jewish Star, which stated that 25% of Orthodox Jews attending secular colleges subsequently identified as Conservative Jews. According to the article, secular college is thus a dangerous place, and it is better to send one's kids to Touro or YU. And this was also debated on various blogs.


One commenter, Hillel, makes some insightful points, and actually read the original study. I'm going to give prominence to his words by placing them in the main text of this post.

He writes:
Re the article by Rabbi Spotler:
This is a pretty bad twisting of the data - and did any of the responders read the actual study?

The study just says 25% of those who self-identified as Orthodox (this is self-identification and has nothing to do with actual shmirat mitzvot) "changed their denominational identity while in college". That in no way demonstrates whether people became more or less observant, just how they defined themselves. As a strong hint, the study said half of them became Conservative. In all my years in secular colleges and universities, not once did I see someone who went to minyan regularly or keep strict kosher 'decide' to become Conservative. It just isn't a common occurrence - yet the survey says it happens all the time! The obvious conclusion is that the 'Orthodox' students identified in the survey are not your typical shomer shabbat/kashrut/year in Israel MO Jews, as Rabbi Spotler at least implies.

There is, however, a section of the survey dealing explicitly with observance, which Rabbi Spotler entirely neglected. That showed that overwhelmingly, students engaged in Jewish activities - student leaders - became MORE observant (55% became more observant, 21% less), while students who were 'unengaged' overwhelmingly became less observant (50% less observant, 9% more).

In other words, the lesson of the study is, if your child has a strong foundation and is engaged in Judaism, college is extremely likely to make them a better Jew
Also:
The study is available at:
http://www.avi-chai.org/Static/Binaries/Publications/Jewish%20Life%20on%20Campus_0.pdf

The relevant points are on pages 17-18 of the survey (24-25 of the pdf file).

B'kitzur, it says kids who don't know enough about religion going into college become less religious, kids who don't know much about Israel develop pro-palestinian sympathies, etc. There ain't much by way of chiddush, but it's nice to have some (relatively) hard data.
And from another blog:
This article, blog post and the comments they have engendered have been quite an eye-opening experience.

Specifically, I have learned that a surprising number of people will make incredibly broad statements about statistics contained in a study, when they have obviously not read the study and apparently know little or nothing about statistics.

The following are a few highlights of the myriad problems with many, many of the statements made (including, incidentally, the original article):

1) What is the sample size? If the study (of over 4000 students, over 2000 Jewish students) contained responses from 8 Orthodox students, 2 of whom stopped being Orthodox, the sample size is too small to make any determination at all. If anyone had read the survey, they would see that, at most, 8% of the respondents were shomer basic hilchot shabbat. I took the liberty of contacting Drs. Sales and Saxe, and they informed me the true number of Orthodox students was likely far less than that. If we are talking about 1 or 2% of the population of the survey (and again -we have no data) this broad indictment of all secular colleges may be based on the actions of five or ten students (out of 4000 surveyed) who may or may not have been shomer halacha in the first place.

2) 25% compared to what? The original article (and many of the posts in this thread) have not been comparing apples to oranges, they have been comparing apples to nothing! We have no data as to the 'attrition rate' (however one would wish to define the term) from YU or any other institution, however religious the reputation. I'm sure people would love to think whatever they want about the identities and practices of students who attended Yeshiva X or Y, but absent hard data - and there are none - any such comparisons are useless and invalid - and intellectually dishonest. This also shows the flaw in the approach taken in the above post, since nearly all institutions have some people go 'off the derech.' Let's say at frum yeshiva X, 1% of talmidim go off the derech. Shall we tell everyone not to go there since it's like playing roulette with a 1% chance of catching a bullet?

3) What percentage of the self-identified 'Orthodox' were shomer halacha? This comment has been touched upon by R' Willig and others, but the data provide a clue. According to the survey, over 50% of students involved in Jewish life (such as attending services and eating kosher food) became MORE observant over their college career, and only 21% became less observant (33%of those 'engaged' in Jewish life became less religious, 31% more religious). By definition, anyone who is shomer halacha must be considered at least engaged, and probably a leader, under the terms of the study. However, if 25% of Orthodox Jews changed denominations (half became Conservative, the other half something else, see point 4), that would mean close to 100% overlap between denomination change and lessening observance! In other words, under that interpretation of the data, Orthodox Jews who go to secular college either become more observant or stop being Orthodox, and almost never become somewhat less observant but still consider themselves Orthodox. This is technically possible, but seems counterintuitive. A far more logical explanation is that a certain percentage of students who self-identify as Orthodox do so because of family background or because they attended an orthodox shul 3 days a year or had an Orthodox bar/bat mitzvah, but were not engaged in Jewish life or shomer halacha. Is it any surprise that after a few years at college spending time with Conservative and Reform Jews, they would feel more comfortable with that identification? And yet, their practices may well not have changed at all.

4) What does 'denomination change' mean? It is important to note that the survey never says what the change in denomination means. Half the students became Conservative - what of the rest? Did they become Reform? Reconstructionist? Buddhist? Haredi/Ultra-Orthodox? Did they retain their practices but simply reject the denominational system? I certainly agree that the most likely result is that the students became identified with a less observant denomination, but there are no data to prove this, and when we may well be dealing with a very small sample size (see point 1), the actions of just 1 or 2 students could have a huge impact.

In conclusion - read the study, learn some stats, then reach you own conclusions. But doggone it if many of the statements made in the article and these posts haven't been made without regard to the data.

One additional point about the misuse of stats in the article and this blog post:

The assumption (again, with no data) of uniform distribution. This would be remarkably unlikely.

In other words, even if the sample of Orthodox students were large enough to be significant (and there's no data supporting that) AND assuming those who self-identified as Orthodox actually practiced halacha (again, no data) AND assuming their change in denominational identity meant becoming less observant (intuitive, but again no data), in that case... we would STILL not be able to say anything about 'the effect of secular college on Orthodox Jews.'

The reason is simple - distribution was not accounted for. What if substantially all those who lost their Orthodox identity went to small liberal arts colleges in cities with small or no Orthodox populations? What if they all came from single-gender schools and were suddenly thrust into a co-ed environment, or went to a school with strict doctrines and were suddenly confronted by seminars filled with people and professors who found their opinions about dinosaurs or sacred text downright comical?

The data would still tell us nothing about the effect of 'secular college' on 'Orthodox students', but we might learn something valuable about the effect of certain specific environments on certain types of students.

It's kind of sad that this survey, which could have served as the basis for a call to study the effects of all those factors on different types of students was instead perverted into an unsupported, blunderbuss attack on all 'secular colleges. Sigh.

One final (I think), intriguing thought.

What's the 'net loss' (or gain) in terms of Orthodox Jewry on campus?

Remember, according to the survey, some 30% of students change denomination, and Reform and Conservative and Reconstructionist Jews made up at least 92%, and probably more, of the >2000 students surveyed. If even a paltry 10% changed their identity to Orthodox (and remember that over 50% of leaders and over 30% of Jewish-ly engaged students became more observant over their college careers), then a total of some 60 students became Orthodox, while substantially fewer Orthodox students lost their denomination. (The exact number depends on the unknown number of Orthodox students, which in practice could not exceed 8%)

So, a system which loses some Orthodox students and gains many more - good thing or bad?

No doubt it's a complex question, but before deciding, remember this - we already have such a system, it's called kiruv. Every year an unknown number of non-Orthodox become observant thanks to kiruv work and an unknown (but non-zero) number of Orthodox kiruv workers go off the derech. To my knowledge there is no hard data on this subject and I am quite skeptical that there ever will be. Indeed, some authorities are opposed to the kiruv system for this very reason, but many other support it. I see no reason why secular college, which appears to have a similar effect, should be treated any differently.

Posted by joshwaxman at 6:38 PM 3 comments Links to this post

How many words are Kedarlaomer? the masorah vs. an explicit gemara

In a recent post, I discussed an apparent contradiction between our masorah about the Biblical text, on the one hand, and Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai in Zohar, on the other, about whether there was a weird kri on the word lemasaav. This did not perturb me, but depending on what believes about the date of authorship of the Zohar, this could be more or less perturbing.


However, there is a stronger problem in that our masoretic notes, and subsequently our texts, appear to be in direct contradiction to a gemara, about how to spell Kedarlaomer. First, the gemara in Chullin 64b-65aa:

אלא כתיב היענה וכתיב בת היענה ושאני הכא דפסק ספרא לשתי תיבות ומדפסיק להו ספרא
בתרתי תיבות ש"מ תרי שמות נינהו אלא מעתה (בראשית יד) את כדר לעומר דפסק להו ספרא בתרי הכי נמי דתרתי שמי נינהו אמרי התם בשתי תיבות פסיק להו בשני שיטין לא פסיק להו אבל הכא אפי' בשני שיטין נמי פסיק להו:

Thus, roughly, it contrasts Bat Hayaanah as a bird, and Kedar Laomer as king. The former it wants to say are two things, as they are two words. But then the gemara objects that Kedar Laomer is two words, with a separation, so they should be two names. And the answer is that they may be separated by a space, but they may not be on separate lines.

In modern terms, the answer is that the space in between Kedar and Laomer is a non-breaking space. This is a character you can insert into Microsoft Word, and something you can put into HTML as  

What this means is that one should put a space there, but though word-wrapping will typically choose to break to the next line if required at that point, this should not occur in this instance. Rather, keep them on the same line, and perform the line break before or after the set of words. So they should be regarded as one name.

Despite this, there is already a gemara in which our girsa has it as a single word with no space in between. In Shabbat 11a:

דכתיב (בראשית יד) שתים עשרה שנה עבדו את כדרלעומר ושלש עשרה שנה מרדו ובארבע עשרה שנה וגו'

I don't know if this reflects something original, or reflects a copyist's error, "correcting" the text to accord with what we see in chumash, in the text of a gemara that does not make particular use of that space. Perhaps looking at manuscript evidence could help resolve this.

As an aside, Kedar Laomer is at the least broken up into two words in the correct space. Kedar means "servant of" while Lagomer was an Elamite deity.

While the setama de-gemara states that there is a break between these two words, Kedar Laomer, throughout Chumash it is always written as one word. For example, from Lech Lecha:

א וַיְהִי, בִּימֵי אַמְרָפֶל מֶלֶךְ-שִׁנְעָר, אַרְיוֹךְ, מֶלֶךְ אֶלָּסָר; כְּדָרְלָעֹמֶר מֶלֶךְ עֵילָם, וְתִדְעָל מֶלֶךְ גּוֹיִם.1 And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim,

And indeed, the Leningrad Codex has it this way as well, as a single word.

Minchas Shai mentions this contradiction. He says that the gemara has it as two words. And that he has seen this as well in a few sefarim, and so too cited in the name of the Tikkun of Rabbenu Tam, that they are two words, on the same line.

However, in precise manuscripts, it is a single word, and the masorah upon it is milah chada ketiv, that it is written as a single word. And so writes Rama explicitly:

{
כררלעמר כדרלעמר מלך עילם• חדא מלה כתיב
וחסר דחסר וכולהון כתיב כן
}

and this is his language: kedarlaomer is written as a single word, and is written chaser {without a cholam malei in omer}, and the masoret upon it is that it is written as a single word. And so is implied in masechet Chullin. End quote.

I {=Josh} don't see the reference to masechet Chullin in Masoret Seyag LaTorah, so maybe there is another masoretic work by Rama where he makes these additional statements? I am not sure. But this is rather irregular, as the gemara in Chullin appears to contradict the masorah.

Then Minchas Shai cites Ohr Torah who discusses this at length. My rough summary follows, though placed in blockquote.

He writes that those printers who print it as two words are erring, even though they are connecting them with a makef (dash), for in manuscripts, it is a single word, and so is the masoret, that it is written as a single word, and so writes Rama. And also the Meiri writes so. That is why the resh gets a sheva {nach, rather than nothing under it}, and with no makef, and immediately juxtaposed to the lamed. And the daled has a kamatz only. And so too all instances of Kedarlaomer. And he is astounded at the printers, for if they are two words, why should there be nikkud {of sheva nach} for the resh? And if it is one word, why should there be a makef? And he notes two sefarim, manuscripts, which have it as two words, and he labels this an error.

Ohr Torah then cites the Rama, and how it is mashma from the gemara in Chullin like this. And Ohr Torah finds it extremely perplexing, as the gemara appears to be against it. Then Ohr Torah cites Rabbi Avraham of Motpeslir {Montpelier; =~Lunel} in his chiddushim, as well as the Ran, that the gemara means that it is two words.

In order to "fix" things, he is going to ask incisive questions on the gemara and come up with a better peshat in it as a result. From my {=Josh's} own perspective, even if the questions are rather good questions, it may simply be that they are good questions, rather than that we should reinterpret the gemara in an extremely farfetched and forced way. But anyway, his questions:

1. That it is extremely difficult that all our masorah, current sefarim, differs from the apparent meaning of the gemara.

2. Why did the gemara ask from Kedar Laomer -- it should have asked from Bat Sheva, which is similar to Bat Hayaanah. {J: The ready difference is that perhaps Bat Sheva was not her name, but it means that she was the daughter of someone named Sheva.} Or Beer Sheva or Baal Chanan. {Likewise, these are cases of semichut, the construct form, and one can pull them apart and say correctly that it was named that because it is the well of sheva. Kedarlaomer is surely one individual's name, despite being divided.}

3. If it is indeed two words, why not separate it by having it on separate lines? And if not on two lines, why can we have a space between those words? Compare to the instructions in Yerushalmi Megillah. {J: I would say that the point the setama digmara is making here is that they are two words that make up a single phrase. And Kedar Laomer would, e.g. write his name in two words, and so would people write to him. But since it is a single entity, that just weirdly for Biblical style is spelled in two words, one should not really separate the parts of the phrase overmuch, by line breaking at that point. I don't see this as a strong question.}

He continues that in order to escape all these questions, and also to establish the truth in its proper place, he will explain the gemara. In some places it says hayaana and in others bat hayaanah. That is that sometimes that call this bird one thing and sometimes another. And so too is the girsa of the gemara explicitly in one manuscript: "they call it this and they call it that." And it is different here because they make a break in it into two words. And if you say, since this bird indeed has this name, bnot yaanah, how could Chizkiyah have said that bat yaanah is its egg? And they answer that it is different, because they divide it into two words. That is, that if the intent here were on the species of bird itself, it would have said Yaanah. Since it said Bat Hayaanah, the intent was on its egg. For the definite article, the heh hayidia, in the middle indicates this, and demonstrates that they are two words.

But then, continues the gemara, consider Kedar Laomer, where the Lamed serves this function, is that, too, to be two words? Isn't it only one word?

And the answer it that there, where there are two words, there is a break in it. That is to say that in terms of pronunciation, and the reading, certainly KedarLaomer appears as two words, but in terms of writing it, it is only written as one word, which is not the case by Bat Ha-Yaanah, which is written as two words. And therefore, the Heh inside it breaks it up, which is not the case by the Lamed of KedarLaomer.

Thus, with this explanation, all the questions are answered up, and we also made the Rama correct, when he said that the gemara in Chullin supports the idea that it is one word; as well as established the Truth which is found in the sefarim. And even though it is a but forced to say that where the gemara stated "in two lines," the intent was to writing, while when it stated "in two words," its intent was the reading, it is preferable to sustain a slight amount of farfetchedness than to remain with grievous questions, and to cast the Truth to the ground, forfend.

And if you say, why do I rejoice in establishing the words of the Rama and Meiri? Does this not, via this, nullify the words of Rav Avraham and the Ran? And what do you see that this one's blood is redder? Perhaps this one's blood is redder?

There are two answers to the matter. One, that the words of the Rama and Meiri agree with the Truth {/reality} found in the sefarim, and therefore it is fitting to rejoice in the establishing of their words, etc.

Further, because the Rama and Meiri come specifically to do this, and this is their profession, to "fix" the Torah and to investigate and delve and inspect early sefarim to determine the truth, and therefore, an error in their words is something quite uncommon, for the assumption is that they were precise. And in particular, the Rama, who was a great rav muvhak, such that Ramban would ask him his doubts, and called him Nasi Nesiei Halevi. But R'A Mhrr {=Rabbi Avraham, as above}, and Ran did not come for this, and this was not their profession, but by way of traveling, as they explained masechet chullin, they reached this language and wrote upon it what seemed at first correct. And therefore, if their words do not stand, it is not something confounding.

And according to our way, we have learned how much one needs to delve and answer before he casts forth his hand to fix a sefer. For behold, two geonei olam, R"A and the Ran totter in judgment in the word Kedar Laomer.

Also from this you will understand the multitude of variants which are found in our times in many words of the Torah. For who will see two giants of the world say that Kedar Laomer is two words and not immediately go and correct his sefer Torah; in particular after seeing the language of the gemara that does indeed appear to imply this. Therefore I say to be conservative and patient.
I think it is telling that Minchas Shai still left it as a tzarich iyun.

And I would say that finding correct peshat in the gemara is the profession of the two geonei olam, who develop a sense of what is dochak and what is compelling peshat. And seeing manuscript evidence one way can sometimes be misleading, for you feel driven to interpret the gemara in accord with reality and not undermine your masorah. I am not persuaded by Ohr Torah's intepretation of this gemara; nor am I positive that this is what Ramah intended.

(Also, the lamed in kedarlaomer is not one of shimush; it is part of the Elamite deity's name.)

On the other hand, I certainly grant his point that sometimes specialized knowledge can grant one insights into the meaning of a gemara. Sometimes that can be knowledge of the actual manifested data in our Torah scrolls, as in this instance; sometimes it can be understanding what Chazal meant because of a knowledge of anatomy, or phonology, or Persian history. As Rabbi Yochanan said jokingly, Resh Lakish given his history would know about knives! But it is certainly true that specialized knowledge can give one an edge up, even upon the most expert learners, in understanding a sugya.

Even so, in this instance, I would choose to understand the setama digemara kipshuto. It is written with a gap, but it is also written as a single word, in that the space is a non-breaking space. If pressed on the contradiction, I would admit it was difficult; but that even in the time of Chazal, there was variants in the Masoretic text. For example, asher tziva hashem elokeinu etchem vs. otanu, between Bavli and Yerushalmi. So perhaps the author of the setamaitic statement had it in two words, but still maintained their integrity as a unit such that they should not be split.

Indeed, perhaps this was the genesis of the masoretic note. Stating it is written as one word may be meaningful in terms of whether one can line break. Is there a similar statement that Avraham is one word, or that Amraphel is one word? And then, a misinterpretation of the masoretic note could yield this standard girsa. Alternatively, it was an old dispute, and that the setammaist who wrote that statement was relying on an incorrect variant, and the masoretic note is intended to counteract that gemara.

Regardless, I most certainly agree with him in encouraging conservatism in emending Torah scrolls based on interpretations of gemaras. I just disagree with him in his approach before that, which was to harmonize a gemara against its plain meaning, because of playing favorites with rabbinic figures and the masorah. The true meaning of the gemara should rule the day, even if it causes difficulties. We then should cope with the consequences, whatever they may be. At least, that is what I prefer to believe is my own derech halimud.

In the next post, a difficult Rashi interacts with a contrary masorah.

Posted by joshwaxman at 11:14 AM 1 comments Links to this post

Labels: ,

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Blog Widget by LinkWithin