A theme: sibling[s] of the favorite, beloved son, use goat bits and the son's best garment to misrepresent to the father information about the son. Esav and Yosef.
Esav was beloved by Yaakov because he provided him with game. Bereishit 25:28:
Bereishit 37:3-4:
Yaakov pretended to be Esav with the help of Esav's choice garments and some goat skins, to trick his father into beleiving that he is Esav. Bereishit 27:15-17:
Bereishit 37:31-33:
Perhaps this, in part, is what motivates those who identify Yosef's coat with Esav's choice garments - the same ones taken by Esav from Nimrod.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Monday, November 29, 2004
Vayeishev Recap
Last year on parshablog, on parshat Vayeishev:
In Chutzpah! I note that the brothers are shepherding in Shechem, which they had destroyed in the previous parsha. Although Yaakov initially feared a reaction from the neighboring towns, the pasuk (Bereishit 35:5:) tells us that the fear of God was put into the inhabitants of the towns and the hostile reaction did not surface. Here they are, initially shepherding in Shechem, perhaps even the flocks taken as spoils from Shechem, and Yosef has no fear to go to Shechem alone to see how things fare. Also, Tg Yonatan has two points about the sale of Yosef: it being preordained, and being linked to the destruction of Shechem.
In Dibatam Ra'ah, I discuss the word נַעַר as a verb in the second pasuk of Vayeishev, in Bereishit 37:2. The midrash gives three bad things the brothers did, or appeared to do, that Yosef reported - eating 'ever min hachai, treating the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah as servants, and secual improprieties. I show how these might be derived from the pasuk. Finally, Tg Yonatan gives on sin - that he saw them eat the ears and tails separated from the live animals. I give Perush Yonatan's explanation for this, as well as a possible derivation from the text.
In Where Does the First Pasuk Belong?, I note the relationship between the first pasuk which says that Yaakov settled in the land of his forefathers, with a similar statement about Esav in the previous parsha. I suggest it logically belongs to the previous parsha. This may relate to the order of the narrative, such that the story of Yosef actually precedes the birth of Binyamin and thus Rachel's death. Some proofs that Binyamin is not yet born - Binyamin is not mentioned; Yosef is called the ben zekunim - son of old age; and Yaakov asks "will I and your mother bow down before you?" implying that Rachel, Yosef's mother, is still alive. Then, I suggest that the following
In Brand Name Recognition? Or Lack Thereof?, מהר"א אשכנזי, based on Islamic practice, explains Yehuda's command that Tamar be burnt is a command to brand her forhead to label her a harlot. The presence of the mark is the reason harlots would typically cover their faces, and the pasuk says that Tamar did this when pretending to be one.
In A Baaaad Report, I suggest that on a peshat level, rather than דִּבָּתָם רָעָה meaning an evil report, it actually means a report as to how the shepherding is going. Proofs to this effect - nowhere do we see explicitly what the bad things he reported were, nor that the brothers hated him for it. Further, it seems to set up the story such that we understand why Yaakov sends Yosef after his brothers to find out how the shepherding is going - this is his role.
In Chutzpah! I note that the brothers are shepherding in Shechem, which they had destroyed in the previous parsha. Although Yaakov initially feared a reaction from the neighboring towns, the pasuk (Bereishit 35:5:) tells us that the fear of God was put into the inhabitants of the towns and the hostile reaction did not surface. Here they are, initially shepherding in Shechem, perhaps even the flocks taken as spoils from Shechem, and Yosef has no fear to go to Shechem alone to see how things fare. Also, Tg Yonatan has two points about the sale of Yosef: it being preordained, and being linked to the destruction of Shechem.
In Dibatam Ra'ah, I discuss the word נַעַר as a verb in the second pasuk of Vayeishev, in Bereishit 37:2. The midrash gives three bad things the brothers did, or appeared to do, that Yosef reported - eating 'ever min hachai, treating the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah as servants, and secual improprieties. I show how these might be derived from the pasuk. Finally, Tg Yonatan gives on sin - that he saw them eat the ears and tails separated from the live animals. I give Perush Yonatan's explanation for this, as well as a possible derivation from the text.
In Where Does the First Pasuk Belong?, I note the relationship between the first pasuk which says that Yaakov settled in the land of his forefathers, with a similar statement about Esav in the previous parsha. I suggest it logically belongs to the previous parsha. This may relate to the order of the narrative, such that the story of Yosef actually precedes the birth of Binyamin and thus Rachel's death. Some proofs that Binyamin is not yet born - Binyamin is not mentioned; Yosef is called the ben zekunim - son of old age; and Yaakov asks "will I and your mother bow down before you?" implying that Rachel, Yosef's mother, is still alive. Then, I suggest that the following
In Brand Name Recognition? Or Lack Thereof?, מהר"א אשכנזי, based on Islamic practice, explains Yehuda's command that Tamar be burnt is a command to brand her forhead to label her a harlot. The presence of the mark is the reason harlots would typically cover their faces, and the pasuk says that Tamar did this when pretending to be one.
In A Baaaad Report, I suggest that on a peshat level, rather than דִּבָּתָם רָעָה meaning an evil report, it actually means a report as to how the shepherding is going. Proofs to this effect - nowhere do we see explicitly what the bad things he reported were, nor that the brothers hated him for it. Further, it seems to set up the story such that we understand why Yaakov sends Yosef after his brothers to find out how the shepherding is going - this is his role.
Alpacas
What I want for Chanukka :) - photo from the New York Times
In Vayikra 11:2-7, we read about some non-kosher animals:
Some (such as Rabbi Tendler) suggest that the Shafan might not the rock-badger, but rather the alpaca, and that the Arnevet mentioned in the next pasuk is not the hare but the llama.
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Note on viewing the trup in the Vayishlach posts
There seems to be a problem viewing the trup in Internet Explorer. Installing a trup font might help. Alternatively, there seems to be no problem seeing it in Mozilla Firefox.
Vayishlach #5: Come and Hear, or Come, then Hear?
In midrash rabba, someone suggests that a pasuk from Vayishlach should be added to a list of four pesukim with ambiguous parsing.
At issue is whether the word כְּשָׁמְעָם, "when they heard it" associates with the pasuk up to this point - they came as soon as they heard - or if is associates with the next part of the pasuk - so that they came, and when they heard, they were grieved and very wroth. The English translation above already disambiguates the parsing issue in favor of the former parsing of the pasuk. It also accords with the trup on the pasuk:
Bereishit 34:7:
ז וּבְנֵ֨י יַֽעֲקֹ֜ב בָּ֤אוּ מִן־הַשָּׂדֶה֙ כְּשָׁמְעָ֔ם וַיִּֽתְעַצְּבוּ֙ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים וַיִּ֥חַר לָהֶ֖ם מְאֹ֑ד כִּֽי־נְבָלָ֞ה עָשָׂ֣ה בְיִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל לִשְׁכַּב֙ אֶת־בַּֽת־יַעֲקֹ֔ב וְכֵ֖ן לֹ֥א יֵֽעָשֶֽׂה׃
Here, the disjunctive accent, in the form of a zaqef katon on the word כְּשָׁמְעָם, separates the pasuk such that the word belongs to the first half.
In Bereishit 34:7 we read:
ז וּבְנֵי יַעֲקֹב בָּאוּ מִן-הַשָּׂדֶה, כְּשָׁמְעָם, וַיִּתְעַצְּבוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים, וַיִּחַר לָהֶם מְאֹד: כִּי-נְבָלָה עָשָׂה בְיִשְׂרָאֵל, לִשְׁכַּב אֶת-בַּת-יַעֲקֹב, וְכֵן, לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה.
7 And the sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard it; and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought a vile deed in Israel in lying with Jacob's daughter; which thing ought not to be done.
ז וּבְנֵי יַעֲקֹב בָּאוּ מִן-הַשָּׂדֶה, כְּשָׁמְעָם, וַיִּתְעַצְּבוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים, וַיִּחַר לָהֶם מְאֹד: כִּי-נְבָלָה עָשָׂה בְיִשְׂרָאֵל, לִשְׁכַּב אֶת-בַּת-יַעֲקֹב, וְכֵן, לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה.
7 And the sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard it; and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought a vile deed in Israel in lying with Jacob's daughter; which thing ought not to be done.
At issue is whether the word כְּשָׁמְעָם, "when they heard it" associates with the pasuk up to this point - they came as soon as they heard - or if is associates with the next part of the pasuk - so that they came, and when they heard, they were grieved and very wroth. The English translation above already disambiguates the parsing issue in favor of the former parsing of the pasuk. It also accords with the trup on the pasuk:
Bereishit 34:7:
ז וּבְנֵ֨י יַֽעֲקֹ֜ב בָּ֤אוּ מִן־הַשָּׂדֶה֙ כְּשָׁמְעָ֔ם וַיִּֽתְעַצְּבוּ֙ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים וַיִּ֥חַר לָהֶ֖ם מְאֹ֑ד כִּֽי־נְבָלָ֞ה עָשָׂ֣ה בְיִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל לִשְׁכַּב֙ אֶת־בַּֽת־יַעֲקֹ֔ב וְכֵ֖ן לֹ֥א יֵֽעָשֶֽׂה׃
Here, the disjunctive accent, in the form of a zaqef katon on the word כְּשָׁמְעָם, separates the pasuk such that the word belongs to the first half.
Vayishlach #4: How to address a business letter
Yaakov sends messengers, or angels, to his brother Esav, and commands them to deliver a message. As we read in Bereishit 32:4-5:
The way the JPS translation parses pasuk 5 reflects the way it is most commonly taken. Namely, that he commands them, saying to them to tell his lord Esav something. The message then starts with "Thus saith thy servant Jacob." He then, in private conversation to his servants, is calling Esav his lord, which is strange.
Speiser (in Anchor Bible Genesis), following Ehrlich, writes:
He claims that "So say to my lord Esav" is actually part of the message. Speiser's translation is not exactly literal, so it might be worthwhile to show how JPS and Speiser seem to take each part of the verse.
a) וַיְצַו אֹתָם, לֵאמֹר = 'And he commanded them, saying' = 'and gave them this message:'
b) כֹּה תֹאמְרוּן, לַאדֹנִי לְעֵשָׂו = 'Thus shall ye say unto my lord Esau:' = 'To my lord Esau say as follows'
c) כֹּה אָמַר, עַבְדְּךָ יַעֲקֹב = 'Thus saith thy servant Jacob' = 'Thus speaks your servant Jacob'
The difference is that for Speiser the message really starts at the beginning of (b) while for JPS the message starts at the beginning of (c).
Speiser also notes that this reading is against the trup. This is not necessarily the case, but I will delay that discussion to later.
I would note that, while not conclusive evidence, we need not turn to extra-Biblical evidence for this epistolary formula. Though this too is parsed differently in JPS, let us turn to Ezra 4:11-12:
The way this is parsed in JPS is that (in pasuk 11) 'they sent unto him, even unto Artaxerxes the king.' Then presumably, the letter begings after the --, with 'thy servants the men beyond the River.'
Here, though, we have a duplication. Why say 'they sent unto him' and then 'unto Artaxerxes the king.' The reason the word 'even' is inserted in the translation is to note this duplication. But in fact, if we turn to extrabiblical evidence, we see that this is how letters were addressed.
Thus, if this is so, it should really read: 'This is the copy of the letter that they sent to him: To Artaxerxes the king, the men of [the province] Across the River, and now.' In fact, this is how Jacob Myers translates the pasuk in the Anchor Bible Ezra-Nechemia, pg 31, without even noting in a note or comment that he is doing this.
I do not beleive that this was necessarily not known to Chazal, even though Speiser credits Ehrlich as his source for this explanation. In fact, we might surmise as much from reading midrash rabba on this week's parsha. Yehuda Nesia sent a letter to the Roman Emperor Antoninus, with whom he was friendly. (Now, elsewhere in midrash rabba for this sedra, there is an idea to use Yaakov's interactions with Esav as a template for how to interact with the Romans.)Thus, Yehuda Nesia considers the message sent from Yaakov to Esav to be epistolic in nature, or at least a basis for an epistle. Note also that while the order of the sender and sendee is reversed, he still includes both components, and 'our master the king Antoninus' parallels 'my lord Esav.' The only thing at issue was how to refer to himself.
So, while not a clear-cut case, it appears that Yehuda Nesia may have parsed the pasuk the same way.
Now, on to the issue of the trup. Speiser noted that his reading was against the traditional accents. If so, I would guess this would be true for the pasuk in Ezra as well.
From Bereishit 32:5:
ה וַיְצַ֤ו אֹתָם֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר כֹּ֣ה תֹֽאמְר֔וּן לַֽאדֹנִ֖י לְעֵשָׂ֑ו כֹּ֤ה אָמַר֙ עַבְדְּךָ֣ יַֽעֲקֹ֔ב עִם־לָבָ֣ן גַּ֔רְתִּי וָֽאֵחַ֖ר עַד־עָֽתָּה׃
and from Ezra 4:11:
יא דְּנָה֙ פַּרְשֶׁ֣גֶן אִגַּרְתָּ֔א דִּ֚י שְׁלַ֣חוּ עֲל֔וֹהִי עַל־אַרְתַּחְשַׁ֖שְׂתְּא מַלְכָּ֑א עבדיך (עַבְדָ֛ךְ) אֱנָ֥שׁ עֲבַֽר־נַהֲרָ֖ה וּכְעֶֽנֶת׃
Note in both cases the etnachta (֑) is the accent that breaks the pasuk in twain. It appears on לְעֵשָׂ֑ו, to Esav, in Bereishit and on מַלְכָּ֑א , the king, in Ezra, thus appearing to break up the verse as in the JPS. Thus, in Bereishit, the "say to Esav" is divided from the rest of the message and the "so says your servant Yaakov," and in Ezra, the "unto the king Artaxerxes" is divided from the rest of the message and from "your servants on the other side of the river."
We would presumably like the division after the word לֵאמֹר in Bereishit, and after עֲלוֹהִי in Ezra.
However, the cantillation can be misleading in this regard, and you really need to know a lot about trup before you can make a statement that a reading is against the trup. In this case, it is advisable to see what one of te definitive books on trup has to contribute to the matter.
Let us turn to William Wickes' Two Treatises on the Accentuation of the Old Testament:In a chapter titled “The Dichotomy” of the second treatise, he writes:
Perhaps once we delay the etnachta from the word לֵאמֹר we would like to have it even later, so as not to divide the first part of the address from the second, but (one could say) this is already a syntactical and semantical division, since after all, even though it is part of the message, it is a command to relate the following message to the recipient.
The way the JPS translation parses pasuk 5 reflects the way it is most commonly taken. Namely, that he commands them, saying to them to tell his lord Esav something. The message then starts with "Thus saith thy servant Jacob." He then, in private conversation to his servants, is calling Esav his lord, which is strange.
Speiser (in Anchor Bible Genesis), following Ehrlich, writes:
An epistolary formula is one "[o]f or associated with letters or the writing of letters." Thus, he notes that in Akkadian, there is a matching formula to that in the verse. (Well, not exactly. He puts the word speaks in parentheses, where in the pasuk we have the word speaks.) Plus there is the issue of why he would refer privately to Esav as his lord.
Figure 1: Speiser, Anchor Bible Genesis, composite image
He claims that "So say to my lord Esav" is actually part of the message. Speiser's translation is not exactly literal, so it might be worthwhile to show how JPS and Speiser seem to take each part of the verse.
a) וַיְצַו אֹתָם, לֵאמֹר = 'And he commanded them, saying' = 'and gave them this message:'
b) כֹּה תֹאמְרוּן, לַאדֹנִי לְעֵשָׂו = 'Thus shall ye say unto my lord Esau:' = 'To my lord Esau say as follows'
c) כֹּה אָמַר, עַבְדְּךָ יַעֲקֹב = 'Thus saith thy servant Jacob' = 'Thus speaks your servant Jacob'
The difference is that for Speiser the message really starts at the beginning of (b) while for JPS the message starts at the beginning of (c).
Speiser also notes that this reading is against the trup. This is not necessarily the case, but I will delay that discussion to later.
I would note that, while not conclusive evidence, we need not turn to extra-Biblical evidence for this epistolary formula. Though this too is parsed differently in JPS, let us turn to Ezra 4:11-12:
The way this is parsed in JPS is that (in pasuk 11) 'they sent unto him, even unto Artaxerxes the king.' Then presumably, the letter begings after the --, with 'thy servants the men beyond the River.'
Here, though, we have a duplication. Why say 'they sent unto him' and then 'unto Artaxerxes the king.' The reason the word 'even' is inserted in the translation is to note this duplication. But in fact, if we turn to extrabiblical evidence, we see that this is how letters were addressed.
Thus, if this is so, it should really read: 'This is the copy of the letter that they sent to him: To Artaxerxes the king, the men of [the province] Across the River, and now.' In fact, this is how Jacob Myers translates the pasuk in the Anchor Bible Ezra-Nechemia, pg 31, without even noting in a note or comment that he is doing this.
I do not beleive that this was necessarily not known to Chazal, even though Speiser credits Ehrlich as his source for this explanation. In fact, we might surmise as much from reading midrash rabba on this week's parsha. Yehuda Nesia sent a letter to the Roman Emperor Antoninus, with whom he was friendly. (Now, elsewhere in midrash rabba for this sedra, there is an idea to use Yaakov's interactions with Esav as a template for how to interact with the Romans.)
מדרש רבה פרשה ע"ה
ה וַיְצַו אֹתָם, לֵאמֹר, כֹּה תֹאמְרוּן, לַאדֹנִי לְעֵשָׂו
רבינו אמר לרבי אפס
כתוב חד אגרא מן שמי למרן מלכא אנטונינוס
קם וכתב
מן יהודה נשיאה למרן מלכא אנטונינוס
נסבה וקרייה וקרעיה
אמר ליה כתוב
מן עבדך יהודה למרן מלכא אנטונינוס
אמר ליה רבי מפני מה אתה מבזה על כבודך?
אמר ליה מה אנא טב מן סבי?!
לא כך אמר
כֹּה אָמַר, עַבְדְּךָ יַעֲקֹב'And he commanded them saying, so say to my lord Esav'
Rabbenu said to Rabbi Apas:
'Write a letter from me (lit. from my name) to my master the king Antoninus.'
He (R Apas) got up and wrote: From Yehuda Nesia (the Prince) to our master the king Antoninus.
He (Yehuda Nesia) got up and read it and tore it up.
He (Yehuda Nesia) said 'Write: From your servant Yehuda to our master the king Antoninus.'
He (R Apas) said, 'Rebbi, for what cause do you degrade your honor?'
He (Yehuda Nesia) said to him, 'What, am I better than my ancestor?! Does it not say: So says your servant Yaakov?'
So, while not a clear-cut case, it appears that Yehuda Nesia may have parsed the pasuk the same way.
Now, on to the issue of the trup. Speiser noted that his reading was against the traditional accents. If so, I would guess this would be true for the pasuk in Ezra as well.
From Bereishit 32:5:
ה וַיְצַ֤ו אֹתָם֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר כֹּ֣ה תֹֽאמְר֔וּן לַֽאדֹנִ֖י לְעֵשָׂ֑ו כֹּ֤ה אָמַר֙ עַבְדְּךָ֣ יַֽעֲקֹ֔ב עִם־לָבָ֣ן גַּ֔רְתִּי וָֽאֵחַ֖ר עַד־עָֽתָּה׃
and from Ezra 4:11:
יא דְּנָה֙ פַּרְשֶׁ֣גֶן אִגַּרְתָּ֔א דִּ֚י שְׁלַ֣חוּ עֲל֔וֹהִי עַל־אַרְתַּחְשַׁ֖שְׂתְּא מַלְכָּ֑א עבדיך (עַבְדָ֛ךְ) אֱנָ֥שׁ עֲבַֽר־נַהֲרָ֖ה וּכְעֶֽנֶת׃
Note in both cases the etnachta (֑) is the accent that breaks the pasuk in twain. It appears on לְעֵשָׂ֑ו, to Esav, in Bereishit and on מַלְכָּ֑א , the king, in Ezra, thus appearing to break up the verse as in the JPS. Thus, in Bereishit, the "say to Esav" is divided from the rest of the message and the "so says your servant Yaakov," and in Ezra, the "unto the king Artaxerxes" is divided from the rest of the message and from "your servants on the other side of the river."
We would presumably like the division after the word לֵאמֹר in Bereishit, and after עֲלוֹהִי in Ezra.
However, the cantillation can be misleading in this regard, and you really need to know a lot about trup before you can make a statement that a reading is against the trup. In this case, it is advisable to see what one of te definitive books on trup has to contribute to the matter.
Let us turn to William Wickes' Two Treatises on the Accentuation of the Old Testament:In a chapter titled “The Dichotomy” of the second treatise, he writes:
(page 34)Since these are words that introduce a speech, we would not expect to find the division on the word introducing that speech, but a bit later. Thus we should not expect it on לֵאמֹר but rather later in the actual message, and we should not expect it on עֲלוֹהִי but rather later, in the actual message. In fact that is where we find it, within the address: after 'So say to my lord Esav' and after 'to the king Artexerxes.'III. α, It is on the same principle that the introductory part of the verse, although logically requiring the main accent (Athnach) after it, is constantly passed over, that this accent may be introduced where the weight of the meaning of the passage seems to lie. Observe the division in the following instances:
…
(page 35)
β. Particularly noteworthy is the way in which the words that introduce a speech – or anything similar, as a command, decree, oath, covenant, &c. – are treated. They constantly occupy a subordinate position, as far as the accents are concerned. The clause containing the speech itself, the command, &c, is counted the more important, and receives the main accentuation. In short, the division is made (as above) just as if the introductory words were absent, e.g.
‘And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' (Gen. i. 6).Such cases occur in every page.
'And the LORD said unto him: Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.' (Gen iv. 15). {J: The pasuk continues. Also, I took JPS's 'the LORD' in place of Wickes' writing of the name, and will do so in the other examples as well.}
'And Moses said unto the children of Israel, 'See, the LORD hath called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. (Ex. xxxv. 30)
The Lord GOD hath sworn by His holiness, Lo, surely the days shall come upon you, that ye shall be taken away with hooks, and your residue with fish-hooks. (Amos iv. 2).
'...and commanded to destroy all the wise men of Babylon.' (Dan.. ii. 12).
' Thou, O king, hast made a decree, that every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet, ..... and all kinds of music, shall fall down and worship the golden image' (iii 10).
Perhaps once we delay the etnachta from the word לֵאמֹר we would like to have it even later, so as not to divide the first part of the address from the second, but (one could say) this is already a syntactical and semantical division, since after all, even though it is part of the message, it is a command to relate the following message to the recipient.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Vayishlach #3:
Q: Where did the general keep his armies?
A: In his sleevies!
Not necessarily the case for Dina. A midrash in midrash rabba claims that she went out with her arm uncovered, and Shechem saw her and then grabbed her.
Where does it get this from?
Bereishit 34:1-2 reads:
perush explains, the prompting for such an interpretation is the word order - it might have placed שְׁכֶם בֶּן-חֲמוֹר before the word אֹתָהּ. That these are forced together prompts an additional reading of the pasuk bearing this meaning.)
If so, it would appear that she had her entire arm exposed, not just her elbows.
On a related note, a few weeks ago, in Pastoral Psychology, the professor told us about an Israeli Assessment test for children that had been translated into Yiddish for chareidi children. Some of their answers differed from the one that was expected. For example, they were asked what the following things had in common: knees and elbows. They were expected to say that they are both joints, but the answer the chareidi kids all gave was that they are both something that must be covered. :)
Update: This has turned into a fairly popular post. Hooray! :) To all visitors coming from Velveteen Rabbi, I'd like to clarify that I wouldn't categorize my post as advocacy - more along the lines of observation and analysis of the textual basis for the specific midrash in midrash rabba. Also, while you are here, why not take a look around?
Not necessarily the case for Dina. A midrash in midrash rabba claims that she went out with her arm uncovered, and Shechem saw her and then grabbed her.
Where does it get this from?
Bereishit 34:1-2 reads:
perush explains, the prompting for such an interpretation is the word order - it might have placed שְׁכֶם בֶּן-חֲמוֹר before the word אֹתָהּ. That these are forced together prompts an additional reading of the pasuk bearing this meaning.)
If so, it would appear that she had her entire arm exposed, not just her elbows.
On a related note, a few weeks ago, in Pastoral Psychology, the professor told us about an Israeli Assessment test for children that had been translated into Yiddish for chareidi children. Some of their answers differed from the one that was expected. For example, they were asked what the following things had in common: knees and elbows. They were expected to say that they are both joints, but the answer the chareidi kids all gave was that they are both something that must be covered. :)
Update: This has turned into a fairly popular post. Hooray! :) To all visitors coming from Velveteen Rabbi, I'd like to clarify that I wouldn't categorize my post as advocacy - more along the lines of observation and analysis of the textual basis for the specific midrash in midrash rabba. Also, while you are here, why not take a look around?
Vayishlach Recap from last year
Last year I had some interesting posts on parashat Vayishlach.
In "Dual Etymologies for Names" I discuss how various place names seem to have more than one reason for their naming. Specifically, מחנים (in the dual form), named at the end of Vayeitzei, is so named because Yaakov sees a single encampment of angels. But then we see in Vayishlach, shortly afterwards and in the same location, that he splits his family into two camps. I discuss a midrash on the matter in Tg Yerushalmi, and the Scriptural basis for the midrash. Tg Yonatan, Rashi, and Ramban seem to take on the issue of why there is a dual in מחנים.
Another dual place name in Vayishlach is Penuel, which Yaakov first names for having seen God face to face and living to tell the tale, yet later he uses the term to say that seeing Esav's face is like seeing that of God.
Also in Vayishlach is Bet El, which Yaakov seems to name multiple times, but I claim the psukim are speaking in the pluperfect, and he only names the place one time.
In "Dual Etymologies for People's Names" I treat dual etymologies for people rather than places as I did in the first post. Turning to Vayeitzei, I find dual etymologies for Yosef and Yissacher, and give possible explanations for this.
In "Shnayim Mikra VeEchad Targum?" I discuss two psukim that have only a single targum, and how the trup is constructed so as to omit the translation in shul. It is a pasuk about Reuven and Bilhah.
In "Commentators Who Live In Glass Houses?" Ibn Ezra takes a contemporary, Yitzchaki, to task for kefira in the dating of the psukim about the kings of Edom. I show how Ibn Ezra's approach differs from Yitzchaki.
In "Dual Etymologies for Names" I discuss how various place names seem to have more than one reason for their naming. Specifically, מחנים (in the dual form), named at the end of Vayeitzei, is so named because Yaakov sees a single encampment of angels. But then we see in Vayishlach, shortly afterwards and in the same location, that he splits his family into two camps. I discuss a midrash on the matter in Tg Yerushalmi, and the Scriptural basis for the midrash. Tg Yonatan, Rashi, and Ramban seem to take on the issue of why there is a dual in מחנים.
Another dual place name in Vayishlach is Penuel, which Yaakov first names for having seen God face to face and living to tell the tale, yet later he uses the term to say that seeing Esav's face is like seeing that of God.
Also in Vayishlach is Bet El, which Yaakov seems to name multiple times, but I claim the psukim are speaking in the pluperfect, and he only names the place one time.
In "Dual Etymologies for People's Names" I treat dual etymologies for people rather than places as I did in the first post. Turning to Vayeitzei, I find dual etymologies for Yosef and Yissacher, and give possible explanations for this.
In "Shnayim Mikra VeEchad Targum?" I discuss two psukim that have only a single targum, and how the trup is constructed so as to omit the translation in shul. It is a pasuk about Reuven and Bilhah.
In "Commentators Who Live In Glass Houses?" Ibn Ezra takes a contemporary, Yitzchaki, to task for kefira in the dating of the psukim about the kings of Edom. I show how Ibn Ezra's approach differs from Yitzchaki.
Vayishlach #2: Binyomin's name
In Vayishlach, Binyomin is named twice - first by his mother, and next by his father:
Bereishit 35:18:
The traditional understanding is that "Ben-oni" means "son of my suffering," and Yaakov renamed him to be "Ben Yamin," "son of my right-hand," meaning "son of my strength."
However, perhaps we can treat אוֹנִי as "my strength" as well, with Rachel calling him "son of my strength" in Aramaic and Yaakov in Hebrew.
We see Yaakov uses אוֹנִי to mean strength. When he tells his sons what will happen to them in the "end of days," in Bereishit 49:3, he says
Additionally, this might be a dialectal difference - we must recall that Rachel was from Charan, and the daughter of an Aramean, so she might give an Aramaicized name in his name, where as Yaakov would speak Hebrew, and would give the Hebrew. (If so, it is an Aramaic cognate Yaakov uses in Bereishit 49)
Something akin to this is in fact suggested by the midrash rabba on Vayishlach. They say that בֶּן-אוֹנִי is בר צערי, the son of my affliction, in Aramaic, and Yaakov gave him his name in Hebrew. Thus a linguistic difference based on place of origin, but also a different meaning. (One perush brought down in the likut on the side suggested, citing eventually Rashi, that they both mean strength, but she meant the strength of the difficulty of her childbirth, and Yaakov spun it in a more positive direction, strength in general. I would note that, with a bit of forced reading (perhaps made easier if there were some variant text) the midrash might be parsable to take the בר צערי as one explanation, and the Aramaic/Hebrew variation as a second perush, in which case it would be exactly what I initially suggested above.)
Update: My wife Racheli pointed out the parallel to the naming that occured in the previous parsha, Vayeitzei. Lavan pursues Yaakov, and in the end they make peace. We read, in Bereishit 31:46-47:
Lavan, Rachel's father, is an Aramean, so he gives the heap of stones an Aramaic name: Jegar-sahadutha = "heap of witness" in Aramaic. Yaakov speaks Hebrew so he calls it Gal Ed = "heap of witness."
Thus, the are calling it the same thing, but in different languages. The structure of this pasuk is remarkably similar to that of the pasuk in which Binyamin is named.
Bereishit 35:18:
יח וַיְהִי בְּצֵאת נַפְשָׁהּ, כִּי מֵתָה, וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ, בֶּן-אוֹנִי;וְאָבִיו, קָרָא-לוֹ בִנְיָמִין.
18 And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing--for she died--that
she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin.
The traditional understanding is that "Ben-oni" means "son of my suffering," and Yaakov renamed him to be "Ben Yamin," "son of my right-hand," meaning "son of my strength."
However, perhaps we can treat אוֹנִי as "my strength" as well, with Rachel calling him "son of my strength" in Aramaic and Yaakov in Hebrew.
We see Yaakov uses אוֹנִי to mean strength. When he tells his sons what will happen to them in the "end of days," in Bereishit 49:3, he says
רְאוּבֵן בְּכֹרִי אַתָּה, כֹּחִי וְרֵאשִׁית אוֹנִי--יֶתֶר שְׂאֵת, וְיֶתֶר עָז.
Reuben, thou art my first-born, my might, and the first-fruits of my
strength; the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power.
Additionally, this might be a dialectal difference - we must recall that Rachel was from Charan, and the daughter of an Aramean, so she might give an Aramaicized name in his name, where as Yaakov would speak Hebrew, and would give the Hebrew. (If so, it is an Aramaic cognate Yaakov uses in Bereishit 49)
Something akin to this is in fact suggested by the midrash rabba on Vayishlach. They say that בֶּן-אוֹנִי is בר צערי, the son of my affliction, in Aramaic, and Yaakov gave him his name in Hebrew. Thus a linguistic difference based on place of origin, but also a different meaning. (One perush brought down in the likut on the side suggested, citing eventually Rashi, that they both mean strength, but she meant the strength of the difficulty of her childbirth, and Yaakov spun it in a more positive direction, strength in general. I would note that, with a bit of forced reading (perhaps made easier if there were some variant text) the midrash might be parsable to take the בר צערי as one explanation, and the Aramaic/Hebrew variation as a second perush, in which case it would be exactly what I initially suggested above.)
Update: My wife Racheli pointed out the parallel to the naming that occured in the previous parsha, Vayeitzei. Lavan pursues Yaakov, and in the end they make peace. We read, in Bereishit 31:46-47:
Lavan, Rachel's father, is an Aramean, so he gives the heap of stones an Aramaic name: Jegar-sahadutha = "heap of witness" in Aramaic. Yaakov speaks Hebrew so he calls it Gal Ed = "heap of witness."
Thus, the are calling it the same thing, but in different languages. The structure of this pasuk is remarkably similar to that of the pasuk in which Binyamin is named.
Vayishlach #1: A Hebrew cognate in Amharic for Vayishlach
While I'm going on about Hebrew cognates in Amharic, I may as well list a parasha appropriate one. From page 50 in "Hebrew Cognates in Amharic" by Wolf Leslau:
lakä ‘send’:
[mälak ‘angel’, originally ‘messenger’;
mäl`ekt, mälekt ‘message’;
mälaktaňňa ‘messenger, envoy;]
G. lä`akä ‘send’;
In Hebrew the root l`k is preserved in מלאך mal`åk ‘angel, messenger’.
We encountered the word מלאך in the second to last pasuk in last week's parsha, Vayeitzei, in Bereishit 32:2:
and in the first pasuk of this week's parsha, Vayishlach, in Bereishit 32:4:
lakä ‘send’:
[mälak ‘angel’, originally ‘messenger’;
mäl`ekt, mälekt ‘message’;
mälaktaňňa ‘messenger, envoy;]
G. lä`akä ‘send’;
In Hebrew the root l`k is preserved in מלאך mal`åk ‘angel, messenger’.
We encountered the word מלאך in the second to last pasuk in last week's parsha, Vayeitzei, in Bereishit 32:2:
וְיַעֲקֹב, הָלַךְ לְדַרְכּוֹ; וַיִּפְגְּעוּ-בוֹ, מַלְאֲכֵי אֱלֹקִים.
And Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him.
and in the first pasuk of this week's parsha, Vayishlach, in Bereishit 32:4:
וַיִּשְׁלַח יַעֲקֹב מַלְאָכִים לְפָנָיו, אֶל-עֵשָׂו אָחִיו, אַרְצָה
שֵׂעִיר, שְׂדֵה אֱדוֹם.
And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother unto the land of
Seir, the field of Edom.
Monday, November 22, 2004
Another interesting cognate from "Hebrew Cognates in Amharic"
by Wolf Leslau is חם, which means "father-in-law" in Hebrew. Here is the entry, from page 25:
amat 'son-in-law, brother-in-law, daughter-in-law';
G. ḥam 'father-in-law';
Hebr. חם 'father-in-law'.
Note that while in Geez and Hebrew it only means father-law, it has completely different though related meanings in Amharic. I find this interesting because earlier, in a post on parashat bahaalotecha I suggested, and discovered that Ibn Ezra had suggested as well, that
while the pasuk described Yitro as the חותן משה, this might mean that he was the brother-in-law rather than the father-in-law, on the basis of other pesukim.
That we see a similar word function in a similar fashion in another language might lend credence to this suggestion.
Note also that the word means daughter-in-law in Amharic as well, presumable matching the Hebrew חמה. In a specific idea I've been developing about the threshing floor scene in Ruth (which I will not elaborate upon here, but some readers will know what I am talking about), I suggested that חמותה could mean daughter-in-law rather than mother-in-law, as it would normally mean (and we would expect כלתה anyway). But this might record an old usage of the term such that it is ambiguous and could mean daughter-in-law as well.
amat 'son-in-law, brother-in-law, daughter-in-law';
G. ḥam 'father-in-law';
Hebr. חם 'father-in-law'.
Note that while in Geez and Hebrew it only means father-law, it has completely different though related meanings in Amharic. I find this interesting because earlier, in a post on parashat bahaalotecha I suggested, and discovered that Ibn Ezra had suggested as well, that
while the pasuk described Yitro as the חותן משה, this might mean that he was the brother-in-law rather than the father-in-law, on the basis of other pesukim.
That we see a similar word function in a similar fashion in another language might lend credence to this suggestion.
Note also that the word means daughter-in-law in Amharic as well, presumable matching the Hebrew חמה. In a specific idea I've been developing about the threshing floor scene in Ruth (which I will not elaborate upon here, but some readers will know what I am talking about), I suggested that חמותה could mean daughter-in-law rather than mother-in-law, as it would normally mean (and we would expect כלתה anyway). But this might record an old usage of the term such that it is ambiguous and could mean daughter-in-law as well.
Did a dialectal difference between Babylonian and Galilean Aramaic lead to a mistaken psak?
From the Jerusalem Talmud, which is written in Galilean Aramaic:
At the same time, the kametz heh ending also occurs in Aramaic, to denote the absolute form of the feminine. In Galilean Aramaic in particular (as I recall from my Galilean Aramaic class), the heh and aleph may switch off at the end of a word since after all at the end of a word they are not pronounced (matres lectiones).
Thus (parentheses note letters written but not pronounced):
melek - a king
malka(`) - the king
malka(h) - a queen
but the last two can switch off, such that, for example, malka(h) - the king.
Kutscher claims that what happened here was a dialectal misunderstanding. The rabbis of the Jerusalem Talmud want to know about a man using the feminine form of the noun to describe and thus accept upon himself nezirut. To answer this, they mention that there, in Babylonia, they use the word nezira(h) to describe a male nazir. But, they did not realize that what was happening was that in Babylonia, the people were not using this ending as the feminine form, but as the absolute form of the masculine nazir. The reason they did not realize this is that in Galilean Aramaic, it would only be used for the masculine emphatic (definite) form, not the absolute!
It seems to me that Kutscher is correct in his analysis, at least in terms of what the Babylonians meant when they said this phrase.
If this is so, it means that a dialectal difference between Babylonian and Galilean Aramaic led to a mistaken psak!
I would not come to the conclusion that the speakers of Galilean Aramaic in the Jerusalem Talmud misunderstood the Babylonian Aramaic saying.
After all, tractates nedarim and nazir show incredible linguistic sopihstication. A large element of both is the study of linguistic and dialectal variants, and determining the intent of different speakers in different locales. Thus, for example, we find that the first mishna in nedarim begins:
That is, alternate names (nicknames) for nedarim, charamim, shevuot, and nezirut are accepted to accept each of these upon oneself.
The first mishna in nazir begins the same:
and continues נזיר נזיק נזיח פזיח ה"ז נזיר
Using the words Nazir, Naziq, Naziach, Paziach is efficacious in accepting nezirut.
In a gemara I read the other day in yerushalmi nedarim 3b (and the same segment occurs in yerushalmi nazir 1a):
Here, they wanted to know what the situation would be if one uses the feminine form for one of the forms of nezirut. In the case of nazir, it would be nezira. For naziq, it would be neziqa. What if one used that form.
They answer that in Babylonia, they call a nazir a nezira, saying "Behold a nezira passes."
This does not mean that they think the Babylonians were using the feminine. However, the form used in Babylonia for masculine absolute is the same as the the emphatic, definite form. That form is the same as the absolute feminine form in Galilean Aramaic. And we know, based on Rabbi Yossi, that even if it not the form in one location, if it is a valid form in another location, that is acceptable everywhere. Therefore the form is admissible.
(I may have made some mistake here since I did not finish yerushalmi nedarim + nazir yet. In a few weeks I hope to look this over and if necessary post a correction. But for now I think I am correct.)
Thus I think that Kutscher is right as to the meaning of the Babylonian statement, but mistaken as to how the Jerusalem Talmud understood it. Even so, it makes for a much richer reading of this yerushalmi.
{Update: Note also that in both gemarin I cited it is Rabbi Yossi who is speaking, though in one it is to deal with the latter question - a woman using lashon zachor.}
Yechezkel Kutscher, in Studies in Galilean Aramaic, uses this yerushalmi to show the distinction between Babylonian and Galilean Aramaic dialects. He explains (and we see this is so from other sources as well) that while the kametz aleph ending is used to denote the definite article ("the") in what is called the emphatic form, in some dialects, such as Babylonian Talmudic Aramaic, it is used also for the absolute form (that is, the noun without the word "the" preceding it). However, in Galilean Aramaic, the language of the Jerusalem Talmud, the kametz aleph ending is used only for the emphatic and not the absolute.איש מהו להתפיש לו נזירות בלשון אשה?
תמן אמרין הא נזירה איעבר
אשה מהו להתפיש לה נזירות בלשון איש
א"ר יוסי כל עצמו אינו קרוי נזירות אלא בלשון איש:
אִישׁ אוֹ-אִשָּׁה, כִּי יַפְלִא לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר...May a man seize upon himself nezirut using the language of a woman {that is, using the feminine form of the word, thus referring to a female nazir)?
There {in Babylonia} they say "behold a nezira (female nazir) passes.
{J: and the verb "passes" has a masculine form, thus making it clear that which normally refers to a female nazir here refers to the man who is a nazir. So when a nazir passes they say "behold a nezira passes." Thus one may.}
May a woman seize upon herself nezirut in the language of a man {saying "behold I am a nazir rather than a nezira} ?
Rabbi Yossi said the entire matter is only called nezirut in the language of a man... {then citing the pasuk to show that the masculine is used for both men and women:}
אִישׁ אוֹ-אִשָּׁה, כִּי יַפְלִא לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר
"When either man or woman shall clearly utter a vow"
{and the pasuk continues: נֶדֶר נָזִיר - the vow of a Nazirite - and this, נָזִיר, is clearly masculine. Thus she can.}
At the same time, the kametz heh ending also occurs in Aramaic, to denote the absolute form of the feminine. In Galilean Aramaic in particular (as I recall from my Galilean Aramaic class), the heh and aleph may switch off at the end of a word since after all at the end of a word they are not pronounced (matres lectiones).
Thus (parentheses note letters written but not pronounced):
melek - a king
malka(`) - the king
malka(h) - a queen
but the last two can switch off, such that, for example, malka(h) - the king.
Kutscher claims that what happened here was a dialectal misunderstanding. The rabbis of the Jerusalem Talmud want to know about a man using the feminine form of the noun to describe and thus accept upon himself nezirut. To answer this, they mention that there, in Babylonia, they use the word nezira(h) to describe a male nazir. But, they did not realize that what was happening was that in Babylonia, the people were not using this ending as the feminine form, but as the absolute form of the masculine nazir. The reason they did not realize this is that in Galilean Aramaic, it would only be used for the masculine emphatic (definite) form, not the absolute!
It seems to me that Kutscher is correct in his analysis, at least in terms of what the Babylonians meant when they said this phrase.
If this is so, it means that a dialectal difference between Babylonian and Galilean Aramaic led to a mistaken psak!
I would not come to the conclusion that the speakers of Galilean Aramaic in the Jerusalem Talmud misunderstood the Babylonian Aramaic saying.
After all, tractates nedarim and nazir show incredible linguistic sopihstication. A large element of both is the study of linguistic and dialectal variants, and determining the intent of different speakers in different locales. Thus, for example, we find that the first mishna in nedarim begins:
כל כינויי נדרים כנדרים חרמים כחרמים שבועת כשבועות נזירות כנזירות
The first mishna in nazir begins the same:
כל כינוי נזירות כנזירות...
and continues נזיר נזיק נזיח פזיח ה"ז נזיר
Using the words Nazir, Naziq, Naziach, Paziach is efficacious in accepting nezirut.
In a gemara I read the other day in yerushalmi nedarim 3b (and the same segment occurs in yerushalmi nazir 1a):
אמר ר' יוסי
נראין הדברים במקומות אחרים
אבל במקום שקוראין לנזיר נזיק
כן אני אומר נזיר פסילים לא יהא נזיר
Rabbi Yossi stated,Thus, what is a dialectal difference in one place makes it acceptable for that place. But additionally, in places where they do not have this dialect, is is also OK.
it seems these matters {saying Naziq rather than Nazir and it being OK} is in other places {than the places with this dialectic variation}.
But in the place itself where they call a Nazir a Naziq {it is obvious that it would be OK, for}
So would I say: A nazir who is a psilos {Greek for someone with a speech impediment - in this case pronouncing the q in place of the r} would not be able to become a nazir?!!?
Here, they wanted to know what the situation would be if one uses the feminine form for one of the forms of nezirut. In the case of nazir, it would be nezira. For naziq, it would be neziqa. What if one used that form.
They answer that in Babylonia, they call a nazir a nezira, saying "Behold a nezira passes."
This does not mean that they think the Babylonians were using the feminine. However, the form used in Babylonia for masculine absolute is the same as the the emphatic, definite form. That form is the same as the absolute feminine form in Galilean Aramaic. And we know, based on Rabbi Yossi, that even if it not the form in one location, if it is a valid form in another location, that is acceptable everywhere. Therefore the form is admissible.
(I may have made some mistake here since I did not finish yerushalmi nedarim + nazir yet. In a few weeks I hope to look this over and if necessary post a correction. But for now I think I am correct.)
Thus I think that Kutscher is right as to the meaning of the Babylonian statement, but mistaken as to how the Jerusalem Talmud understood it. Even so, it makes for a much richer reading of this yerushalmi.
{Update: Note also that in both gemarin I cited it is Rabbi Yossi who is speaking, though in one it is to deal with the latter question - a woman using lashon zachor.}
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Vayeitzei #2: the stone pillow
from the peshat department
Yaakov arrives at some place en-route to Charan, and sets up a stone pillow for himself. This may seem like a strange thing to do - stones are not the softest things in the world, but on the other hand, it is not necessarily harder than the ground, and it elevates the head.
In Bereishit 28:11 we read:
יא וַיִּפְגַּע בַּמָּקוֹם וַיָּלֶן שָׁם, כִּי-בָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, וַיִּקַּח מֵאַבְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם, וַיָּשֶׂם מְרַאֲשֹׁתָיו; וַיִּשְׁכַּב, בַּמָּקוֹם הַהוּא.
11 And he lighted upon the place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took one of the stones of the place, and put it under his head, and lay down in that place to sleep.
It turns out that the ancient Egyptians, or at least some of them, used stone pillows. Well, not exactly pillows; they used a crescent-shaped headrest made of ivory, stone, or wood. One website I saw ascribed the use of stone headrests to ascetics only, but I don't know how solid that info is - from what else I've read it seems like it was more common.
Figure 1: wooden and stone headrests. (see more here)
Yaakov arrives at some place en-route to Charan, and sets up a stone pillow for himself. This may seem like a strange thing to do - stones are not the softest things in the world, but on the other hand, it is not necessarily harder than the ground, and it elevates the head.
In Bereishit 28:11 we read:
יא וַיִּפְגַּע בַּמָּקוֹם וַיָּלֶן שָׁם, כִּי-בָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, וַיִּקַּח מֵאַבְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם, וַיָּשֶׂם מְרַאֲשֹׁתָיו; וַיִּשְׁכַּב, בַּמָּקוֹם הַהוּא.
11 And he lighted upon the place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took one of the stones of the place, and put it under his head, and lay down in that place to sleep.
It turns out that the ancient Egyptians, or at least some of them, used stone pillows. Well, not exactly pillows; they used a crescent-shaped headrest made of ivory, stone, or wood. One website I saw ascribed the use of stone headrests to ascetics only, but I don't know how solid that info is - from what else I've read it seems like it was more common.
Figure 1: wooden and stone headrests. (see more here)
Toldot #6: a neo-midrash on Yaakov and Esav's sibling rivalry
In several earlier posts, I discussed the midrash talking of fetal fighting between Yaakov and Esav, based on the words וַיִּתְרֹצְצוּ הַבָּנִים בְּקִרְבָּהּ.
I would suggest we can make an additional, neo-midrash on a pasuk in near proximity, Bereishit 25:27. After they are born, they grow, and go their separate ways, such that we see their separate natures.
וַיִּגְדְּלוּ, הַנְּעָרִים, וַיְהִי עֵשָׂו אִישׁ יֹדֵעַ צַיִד, אִישׁ שָׂדֶה; וְיַעֲקֹב אִישׁ תָּם, יֹשֵׁב אֹהָלִים.
"And the boys grew; and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a quiet man, dwelling in tents."
According to "Hebrew Cognates in Amharic" by Wolf Leslau, on the word gäddällä (I'm not going to write the Amharic with Ethiopic characters because I don't know how to encode it, but with try to encode the corresponding extended Latin characters he uses):
gäddällä 'kill':
G. tä-gadälä 'fight';
perhaps Hebr. גדל gådal 'be big'; for a possible passage of meaning, cf. Arabic ğadala 'be strong' but ta-ğadala 'to quarrel, to fight', that is, 'compete in strength' > 'kill'.
Thus, in Amharic it means to kill, and in Geez and Arabic it means to fight.
This would then extend the fight between Yaakov and Esav, already a theme in a few places both explicit and implicit, to a new venue.
I would suggest we can make an additional, neo-midrash on a pasuk in near proximity, Bereishit 25:27. After they are born, they grow, and go their separate ways, such that we see their separate natures.
וַיִּגְדְּלוּ, הַנְּעָרִים, וַיְהִי עֵשָׂו אִישׁ יֹדֵעַ צַיִד, אִישׁ שָׂדֶה; וְיַעֲקֹב אִישׁ תָּם, יֹשֵׁב אֹהָלִים.
"And the boys grew; and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a quiet man, dwelling in tents."
According to "Hebrew Cognates in Amharic" by Wolf Leslau, on the word gäddällä (I'm not going to write the Amharic with Ethiopic characters because I don't know how to encode it, but with try to encode the corresponding extended Latin characters he uses):
gäddällä 'kill':
G. tä-gadälä 'fight';
perhaps Hebr. גדל gådal 'be big'; for a possible passage of meaning, cf. Arabic ğadala 'be strong' but ta-ğadala 'to quarrel, to fight', that is, 'compete in strength' > 'kill'.
Thus, in Amharic it means to kill, and in Geez and Arabic it means to fight.
This would then extend the fight between Yaakov and Esav, already a theme in a few places both explicit and implicit, to a new venue.
Over the weekend
I read Hebrew Cognates in Amharic, by Wolf Leslau. The contents of the book match the title - a short discussion of Hebrew cognates in Amharic in general, followed by a listing and discussion of about 500 such words, and what they are in Geez and in Hebrew, first ordered by the Amharic, then by the Hebrew. Very interesting and useful stuff if you can take it.
The entry on בלס, which he rendered as "scratch the unripe sycamore fig," matching balas, "fig," in Amharic and Geez, brought back memories of Dr. Steiner's class in Amos, where we spent several weeks on Amos 7:14:
There are a bunch of other gems in this book I noticed, and may get around to mentioning sooner or later, perhaps when an appropriate parasha rolls along.
The entry on בלס, which he rendered as "scratch the unripe sycamore fig," matching balas, "fig," in Amharic and Geez, brought back memories of Dr. Steiner's class in Amos, where we spent several weeks on Amos 7:14:
The rendition of בלס as scratcher comes from the Septaugint which translates it as epiknizon, scratcher of the surface. We looked into French botany journals, which explained how this was a practice to cause the sycamore figs to ripen more quickly, so that the eggs the sycamore wasp laid in the figs would not develop before the fruit ripened, spoiling it. Various commentaries gave other explanations for the word. In the end we came to conclusion that the word בלס just meant fig, based on the Geez, as so Amos was a figger of sycamores.וַיַּעַן עָמוֹס, וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל-אֲמַצְיָה, לֹא-נָבִיא אָנֹכִי, וְלֹא בֶן-נָבִיא אָנֹכִי: כִּי-בוֹקֵר אָנֹכִי, וּבוֹלֵס שִׁקְמִים."Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah: 'I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son; but I was a herdman, and a dresser of sycamore-trees;"
There are a bunch of other gems in this book I noticed, and may get around to mentioning sooner or later, perhaps when an appropriate parasha rolls along.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Mustard seeds: is the small size of copepods reason enough to permit them?
from the copepod - and realia - department
Copepods are not elephants. Elephants are large. Copepods are much smaller. Specifically, (from the OU Fact Sheet):
Perhaps their small size means that we should not worry about them in terms of kashrut. After all, we do not worry about bacteria in the water.
For reference, a few typical measures of different species:
African elephants: average 3.2 meters for males, 2.5 meters for females
Gnats: c2.5 mm (1000 mm = 1 meter)
Copepods: adult cyclops females: 1.4 mm, males 0.8 mm. calanoids: males: 1.2 mm (1000 mm = 1 meter). However, cyclops begin life at about 90 microns, or slightly less than 1/10 of a mm.
e. coli bacteria: 2 microns (1000 microns = 1 mm)
Thus, scale-wise, adult gnats and copepods are both measurable in millimeters (mm). The difference in scale between an African elephant to a gnat is the same difference as an adult copepod to a bacterium. Thus, it is not clear that we should consider copepods and bacteria to be exactly the same. Still, a baby copepod is sufficiently small that it is only about 50 times the size of an e. coli bacterium, yet about 1/10th the size of a fully grown copepod.
Why not see what the Rambam has to say? Usually, to be liable for eating forbidden foods one must consume an olive's measure. However, when you consume a whole creature, this measurement does not apply. What measure does apply? I cited the Rambam in a post last week, from הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק ב:
Now, this is an open-ended measurement. After all, bacteria are smaller than mustard seeds. Would the Rambam prohibit bacteria? If so, everyone would be liable. Further, there is no way to prohibit eating them, since they are present in the air as well. The issue of bacteria was discussed by the Aruch HaShulchan, and he permitted, giving a quasi-shiur of that which is, vs. which is not, visible to the naked eye. (And, as I discussed elsewhere, copepods would seem to fall under the classification of visible for him, since he says that even if they are tiny and only visible with direct sunlight, one must filter.)
However, the Rambam did not know about bacteria and thus was not considering them. Therefore, he does not make a distinction between those the eye rules over and those the eye does not rule over.
The Rambam did mention a shiur, though. He said that one would be liable for consuming them even if they were smaller than a mustard seed.
Which brings us to the question of realia. Just how small is a mustard seed - a חרדל?
In the previous seif the Rambam spoke about gnats being forbidden, and we know gnats are about 2.5 mm. Saying that it is forbidden even smaller than a mustard seed seems to be trying to arrive at an even smaller shiur. Elsewhere, a mustard seed is used by Chazal to denote a reallt small measure - thus, Jewish women accepted a chumra in the laws of niddah to sit 7 clean days as if they were a zava even if they saw a drop of blood the size of a mustard seed. How small is a mustard seed?
M. Zohari, in his book, Plants of the Bible, identified the חרדל as Brassica nigra, black mustard, or else white mustard. Indeed, in Arabic it is called khardal. Black mustard seeds range from about 1 to 3 millimeters in size. Another possibility, raised by others, is Salvadora Persica, whose seeds are really tiny, like specks of dirt. The Salvadora Persica is also referred to as חרדל , khardal, by Arabs, but whether it is a serious contender is up to question.
{The reason it is so widely discussed is that the plant's identity is important to Christian theology. In a parable, Jesus spoke of a mustard seed, smallest among seeds, that grows to be largest among trees, such that birds nest in it. For example, in Matthew 31-32:
Personally, while I don't like to delve into Christian theological issues, I don't really see these particular verses as a problem - besides being allegory, assuming he spoke in the language of man, the mustard seed was referred to by people of this age when they wanted to refer to something very small, and it grows very swiftly (within a year) into something bigger than what other seeds grow into.
Some suggest as a result the Salvadora Persica, but others reject this suggestion as unfounded. }
At any rate, if it is a black mustard seed, as Zohari suggests, then this seed can range from 1 to 3 mm. So 1 millimeter could still be considered the size of a mustard seed. (Further, I would not assume the would be talking about the higher range, larger seeds, which after all are the same size as the gnats he mentioned earlier.)
If so, a fully grown female cyclops copepod, at 1.4 mm, would be the size of, or larger than, a mustard seed. A male (and presumably female also, since I am assuming based on the cyclops species that they are larger in general) calanoid copepod, at 1.2 mm, would also be the size of, or larger than, a mustard seed.
The male cyclops, at 0.8 mm, would be smaller than 1 mm, and would be smaller than a mustard seed. (The average, but not the largest, copepod that comes from the faucet seems to be also 0.8 mm.)
However, the Rambam said that even if it smaller than a mustard seed one is liable Biblically. Even if we don't carry this all the way down to bacteria (as I am fairly certain we should not), the Rambam was referring to something. What he likely had in mind were things that were approximately on the same scale, but are a bit smaller. If indeed a mustard seed is 1 mm, then 0.8 mm would be 8/10ths, or 4/5ths of that size, and would likely be what the Rambam had in mind.
Of course, if by חרדל he and Chazal meant Salvadora Persica, then he would be referring to a much smaller measure, and the copepods would almost certainly fall under that category.
Conclusion: Thus, I do not think that based on size alone we can say that the copepods in NYC water should be permitted; in fact, they seem to be exactly the size referred to by the Rambam.
{We might be able to say something about their being small and therefore not visible, or just both small and not visible, but it is not clear that this is in fact the reality. That is, they are hard to see only when dead, and in part because they are translucent and thus blend into the appearance of the water, rather than just because they are small. (Bacteria, on the other hand, are not visible solely because they are so small.) And we would not claim that a large chameleon would pose no problem, nor a worm that blends in to the color of a stalk of broccoli. This is deserving of a separate post, but at the least a previous post mentioning the Aruch HaShulchan partially addresses the issue.}
Copepods are not elephants. Elephants are large. Copepods are much smaller. Specifically, (from the OU Fact Sheet):
- The primary species is Diacyclops thomasi, a very common type of copepod. It begins life measuring about 90 microns (.09 mm) and grows up to about 0.8 mm (males) and 1.4 mm (females) in about five weeks time. [1 inch = 25.4 mm]. [1 mm = 1000 microns].
- A second species, Mesocyclops edax, is also present. Studies have shown that D. thomasi and M. edax alternate in a cyclical fashion in dominating the copepods population of a habitat. Samples taken in June contained D. thomasi exclusively, while July’s samples included a significant representation of M. Edax. [Both D. thomasi and M. edax are both of the same Order – Cyclopoida.]
- Another species, Skistodiaptomus pygmaeus, is appearing in smaller quantities. They are slightly larger, measuring up to 1.2 mm (males), and are wider in diameter as well. [S. pygmaeus is of another Order of copepods – Calanoida.]
Perhaps their small size means that we should not worry about them in terms of kashrut. After all, we do not worry about bacteria in the water.
For reference, a few typical measures of different species:
African elephants: average 3.2 meters for males, 2.5 meters for females
Gnats: c2.5 mm (1000 mm = 1 meter)
Copepods: adult cyclops females: 1.4 mm, males 0.8 mm. calanoids: males: 1.2 mm (1000 mm = 1 meter). However, cyclops begin life at about 90 microns, or slightly less than 1/10 of a mm.
e. coli bacteria: 2 microns (1000 microns = 1 mm)
Thus, scale-wise, adult gnats and copepods are both measurable in millimeters (mm). The difference in scale between an African elephant to a gnat is the same difference as an adult copepod to a bacterium. Thus, it is not clear that we should consider copepods and bacteria to be exactly the same. Still, a baby copepod is sufficiently small that it is only about 50 times the size of an e. coli bacterium, yet about 1/10th the size of a fully grown copepod.
Why not see what the Rambam has to say? Usually, to be liable for eating forbidden foods one must consume an olive's measure. However, when you consume a whole creature, this measurement does not apply. What measure does apply? I cited the Rambam in a post last week, from הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק ב:
Thus we see the Rambam explaining the concept of beria, the complete creature, for which one is liable for consuming as a matter of Biblical law. Note the measure he gives: "even if it is smaller than a mustard seed."כא זה שאמרנו בפרק זה, האוכל כזית--בשאכל כזית מבריה גדולה, או שצירף מעט מבריה זו ומעט מבריה זו שבמינה עד שאכל כזית. אבל האוכל בריה טמאה בפני עצמה כולה--הרי זה לוקה מן התורה, ואפילו הייתה פחותה מכחרדל, בין שאכלה מתה, בין שאכלה חיה; ואפילו סרחה הבריה, ונשתנת צורתה--הואיל ואכלה כולה, לוקה. [כב] נמלה שחסרה אפילו אחת מרגליה, אינו לוקה עליה אלא בכזית.
21: This that we have said in this chapter, one who eats an olive's measure -- is when he eats an olive's measure from a large creature, or combines a little from this creature and a little from that creature from the same type until he eats an olive's measure. But, if he eats an impure beria` (creature) by itself in its entirety -- behold he is lashed as a matter of Biblical law, even if it is smaller than a mustard {seed}, whether he ate it alive or dead, and even if the the creature decomposed and its appearance has changed -- since he ate it in its entirety, he is lashed. [22] An ant that is missing even a single one of its legs, he is not lashed for it unless it is an olive's measure.
Now, this is an open-ended measurement. After all, bacteria are smaller than mustard seeds. Would the Rambam prohibit bacteria? If so, everyone would be liable. Further, there is no way to prohibit eating them, since they are present in the air as well. The issue of bacteria was discussed by the Aruch HaShulchan, and he permitted, giving a quasi-shiur of that which is, vs. which is not, visible to the naked eye. (And, as I discussed elsewhere, copepods would seem to fall under the classification of visible for him, since he says that even if they are tiny and only visible with direct sunlight, one must filter.)
However, the Rambam did not know about bacteria and thus was not considering them. Therefore, he does not make a distinction between those the eye rules over and those the eye does not rule over.
The Rambam did mention a shiur, though. He said that one would be liable for consuming them even if they were smaller than a mustard seed.
Which brings us to the question of realia. Just how small is a mustard seed - a חרדל?
In the previous seif the Rambam spoke about gnats being forbidden, and we know gnats are about 2.5 mm. Saying that it is forbidden even smaller than a mustard seed seems to be trying to arrive at an even smaller shiur. Elsewhere, a mustard seed is used by Chazal to denote a reallt small measure - thus, Jewish women accepted a chumra in the laws of niddah to sit 7 clean days as if they were a zava even if they saw a drop of blood the size of a mustard seed. How small is a mustard seed?
M. Zohari, in his book, Plants of the Bible, identified the חרדל as Brassica nigra, black mustard, or else white mustard. Indeed, in Arabic it is called khardal. Black mustard seeds range from about 1 to 3 millimeters in size. Another possibility, raised by others, is Salvadora Persica, whose seeds are really tiny, like specks of dirt. The Salvadora Persica is also referred to as חרדל , khardal, by Arabs, but whether it is a serious contender is up to question.
{The reason it is so widely discussed is that the plant's identity is important to Christian theology. In a parable, Jesus spoke of a mustard seed, smallest among seeds, that grows to be largest among trees, such that birds nest in it. For example, in Matthew 31-32:
This presents a problem because there are other seeds which are smaller, and other trees which are bigger. Being who Christians regard him to be, could he not have known these botanical facts? Also, birds don't really nest in it. So act the atheists, and Christian theologians try to respond.
- 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
- 13:32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.
Personally, while I don't like to delve into Christian theological issues, I don't really see these particular verses as a problem - besides being allegory, assuming he spoke in the language of man, the mustard seed was referred to by people of this age when they wanted to refer to something very small, and it grows very swiftly (within a year) into something bigger than what other seeds grow into.
Some suggest as a result the Salvadora Persica, but others reject this suggestion as unfounded. }
At any rate, if it is a black mustard seed, as Zohari suggests, then this seed can range from 1 to 3 mm. So 1 millimeter could still be considered the size of a mustard seed. (Further, I would not assume the would be talking about the higher range, larger seeds, which after all are the same size as the gnats he mentioned earlier.)
If so, a fully grown female cyclops copepod, at 1.4 mm, would be the size of, or larger than, a mustard seed. A male (and presumably female also, since I am assuming based on the cyclops species that they are larger in general) calanoid copepod, at 1.2 mm, would also be the size of, or larger than, a mustard seed.
The male cyclops, at 0.8 mm, would be smaller than 1 mm, and would be smaller than a mustard seed. (The average, but not the largest, copepod that comes from the faucet seems to be also 0.8 mm.)
However, the Rambam said that even if it smaller than a mustard seed one is liable Biblically. Even if we don't carry this all the way down to bacteria (as I am fairly certain we should not), the Rambam was referring to something. What he likely had in mind were things that were approximately on the same scale, but are a bit smaller. If indeed a mustard seed is 1 mm, then 0.8 mm would be 8/10ths, or 4/5ths of that size, and would likely be what the Rambam had in mind.
Of course, if by חרדל he and Chazal meant Salvadora Persica, then he would be referring to a much smaller measure, and the copepods would almost certainly fall under that category.
Conclusion: Thus, I do not think that based on size alone we can say that the copepods in NYC water should be permitted; in fact, they seem to be exactly the size referred to by the Rambam.
{We might be able to say something about their being small and therefore not visible, or just both small and not visible, but it is not clear that this is in fact the reality. That is, they are hard to see only when dead, and in part because they are translucent and thus blend into the appearance of the water, rather than just because they are small. (Bacteria, on the other hand, are not visible solely because they are so small.) And we would not claim that a large chameleon would pose no problem, nor a worm that blends in to the color of a stalk of broccoli. This is deserving of a separate post, but at the least a previous post mentioning the Aruch HaShulchan partially addresses the issue.}
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Vayeitzei #1: Kissing Cousins: Chazal on premarital kissing
יב וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר רָאָה יַעֲקֹב [אֶת-רָחֵל, בַּת-לָבָן אֲחִי אִמּוֹ, וְאֶת-צֹאן לָבָן, אֲחִי אִמּוֹ;] וַיִּגַּשׁ יַעֲקֹב, וַיָּגֶל אֶת-הָאֶבֶן
א"ר יוחנן כזה שהוא מעביר פקק מעל פי צלוחית
וַיִּשַּׁק יַעֲקֹב, לְרָחֵל
כל נשיקה לתפלות בר מן תלת
נשיקה של גדולה
נשיקה של פרקים
נשיקה של פרישות
נשיקה של גדולה (ש"א י) וַיִּקַּח שְׁמוּאֵל אֶת-פַּךְ הַשֶּׁמֶן, וַיִּצֹק עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ--וַיִּשָּׁקֵהוּ
נשיקה של פרקים (שמות ד) וַיֵּלֶךְ, וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ בְּהַר הָאֱלֹהִים--וַיִּשַּׁק-לוֹ
נשיקה של פרישות (רות א) ותשק ערפה לחמותה ורות דבקה בה
רבי תנחומא אמר אף נשיקה של קריבות
שנאמר וַיִּשַּׁק יַעֲקֹב, לְרָחֵל
שהיתה קרובתו
וַיִּשָּׂא אֶת-קֹלוֹ, וַיֵּבְךְּ
למה בכה?
אמר אליעזר בשעה שהלך להביא את רבקה מה כתיב ביה
ויקח העבד עשרה גמלים וגו'
ואני לא נזם אחד ולא צמיד אחד
ד"א למה בכה?
שראה שאינה נכנסת עמו לקבורה
הדא היא דהיא אמרה לה לכן ישכב עמך הלילה
אמרה לה עמך הוא דמיך עמי לית הוא דמיך
ד"א למה בכה?
שראה האנשים מלחשים אלו לאלו מפני שנשקה
מה בא זה לחדש לנו דבר ערוה ?!
שמשעה שלקה העולם בדור המבול עמדו אומות העולם וגדרו עצמן מן הערוה
הדא אמרת שאנשי מזרח גדורים מן הערוה:
א"ר יוחנן כזה שהוא מעביר פקק מעל פי צלוחית
וַיִּשַּׁק יַעֲקֹב, לְרָחֵל
כל נשיקה לתפלות בר מן תלת
נשיקה של גדולה
נשיקה של פרקים
נשיקה של פרישות
נשיקה של גדולה (ש"א י) וַיִּקַּח שְׁמוּאֵל אֶת-פַּךְ הַשֶּׁמֶן, וַיִּצֹק עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ--וַיִּשָּׁקֵהוּ
נשיקה של פרקים (שמות ד) וַיֵּלֶךְ, וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ בְּהַר הָאֱלֹהִים--וַיִּשַּׁק-לוֹ
נשיקה של פרישות (רות א) ותשק ערפה לחמותה ורות דבקה בה
רבי תנחומא אמר אף נשיקה של קריבות
שנאמר וַיִּשַּׁק יַעֲקֹב, לְרָחֵל
שהיתה קרובתו
וַיִּשָּׂא אֶת-קֹלוֹ, וַיֵּבְךְּ
למה בכה?
אמר אליעזר בשעה שהלך להביא את רבקה מה כתיב ביה
ויקח העבד עשרה גמלים וגו'
ואני לא נזם אחד ולא צמיד אחד
ד"א למה בכה?
שראה שאינה נכנסת עמו לקבורה
הדא היא דהיא אמרה לה לכן ישכב עמך הלילה
אמרה לה עמך הוא דמיך עמי לית הוא דמיך
ד"א למה בכה?
שראה האנשים מלחשים אלו לאלו מפני שנשקה
מה בא זה לחדש לנו דבר ערוה ?!
שמשעה שלקה העולם בדור המבול עמדו אומות העולם וגדרו עצמן מן הערוה
הדא אמרת שאנשי מזרח גדורים מן הערוה:
Bereishit 29:10 states:
Rabbi Yochanan stated: Like one who removes the stopper from the mouth of a flask.
Bereishit 29:11 states:
וַיִּשַּׁק יַעֲקֹב, לְרָחֵל...
"And Jacob kissed Rachel..."
All kissing is folly {/pritzut} with the exception of three.
Kissing of greatness.
Kissing of a sudden occasion. {perakim. "when one meets his fellow suddenly"}
Kissing of separation.
Kissing of greatness: 1 Shmuel 10:1: וַיִּקַּח שְׁמוּאֵל אֶת-פַּךְ הַשֶּׁמֶן, וַיִּצֹק עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ--וַיִּשָּׁקֵהוּ; וַיֹּאמֶר--הֲלוֹא כִּי-מְשָׁחֲךָ ה עַל-נַחֲלָתוֹ, לְנָגִיד. - "Then Samuel took the vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said: 'Is it not that the LORD hath anointed thee to be prince over His inheritance?"
Kissing of perakim: Shemot 4:27:
וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-אַהֲרֹן, לֵךְ לִקְרַאת מֹשֶׁה הַמִּדְבָּרָה; וַיֵּלֶךְ, וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ בְּהַר הָאֱלֹהִים--וַיִּשַּׁק-לוֹ.
"And the LORD said to Aaron: 'Go into the wilderness to meet Moses.' And he went, and met him in the mountain of God, and kissed him."
Kissing of separation: Rut 1:14:
וַתִּשֶּׂנָה קוֹלָן, וַתִּבְכֶּינָה עוֹד; וַתִּשַּׁק עָרְפָּה לַחֲמוֹתָהּ, וְרוּת דָּבְקָה בָּהּ.
"And they lifted up their voice, and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law; but Ruth cleaved unto her."
Rabbi Tanchuma said, Also kissing of relatives, as it states (Bereishit 29:11) וַיִּשַּׁק יַעֲקֹב, לְרָחֵל -- "And Jacob kissed Rachel..."
{J: One might then frame this as a dispute, with those who do not agree to Rabbi Tanchuma and list kissing of relatives saying that kissing of relatives is not an exception, and is tiflut. Alternatively, Yaakov's kissing of Rachel could be classified under kissing of perakim.
Note also that this is only kissing of relatives. Kissing non-relatives of the opposite gender would still be tiflut, even according to Rabbi Tanchuma.
}
וַיִּשָּׂא אֶת-קֹלוֹ, וַיֵּבְךְּ...
"... and lifted up his voice, and wept."
... {skipping material irrelevent to this post - suggestions why Yaakov wept.}
Another explanation: Why did he cry?
For he saw the men {shepherds} murmuring to each other because he kissed her.
"What did this one come to introduce to us a new sexual impropriety?!"
For from the time the world was smitten in the generation of the Flood the nations of the world stood and fenced themselves off from sexual impropriety. ('arayot)
This is as is said that the peoples of the East are fenced off from sexual impropriety.
{J: When the shepherds objected to this new innovation, did they understand that she was a relative, according to this midrash? It is not clear. On the one hand, we read:
and thus he told her of their relationship only after kissing her. It is possible, and I have heard it explained so, that they did not know they were related and thus objected to this new innovation in 'arayot. On the other hand, he was just asking after Lavan, and they told him that Rachel was approaching:
Perhaps the midrash is assuming that they knew they were relatives, yet were still objecting. From the fact that they consider this a new type of 'arayot, I would assume that the first explanation is more likely in terms of how the midrash frames the pesukim.
Perhaps a look at the Rambam on this issue next...
י וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר רָאָה יַעֲקֹב אֶת-רָחֵל, בַּת-לָבָן אֲחִי אִמּוֹ, וְאֶת-צֹאן לָבָן, אֲחִי אִמּוֹ; וַיִּגַּשׁ יַעֲקֹב, וַיָּגֶל אֶת-הָאֶבֶן מֵעַל פִּי הַבְּאֵר, וַיַּשְׁקְ, אֶת-צֹאן לָבָן אֲחִי אִמּוֹ10 And it came to pass, when Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban his mother's brother, and the sheep of Laban his mother's brother, that Jacob went near, and rolled the stone from the well's mouth, and watered the flock of Laban his mother's brother.
Rabbi Yochanan stated: Like one who removes the stopper from the mouth of a flask.
Bereishit 29:11 states:
וַיִּשַּׁק יַעֲקֹב, לְרָחֵל...
"And Jacob kissed Rachel..."
All kissing is folly {/pritzut} with the exception of three.
Kissing of greatness.
Kissing of a sudden occasion. {perakim. "when one meets his fellow suddenly"}
Kissing of separation.
Kissing of greatness: 1 Shmuel 10:1: וַיִּקַּח שְׁמוּאֵל אֶת-פַּךְ הַשֶּׁמֶן, וַיִּצֹק עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ--וַיִּשָּׁקֵהוּ; וַיֹּאמֶר--הֲלוֹא כִּי-מְשָׁחֲךָ ה עַל-נַחֲלָתוֹ, לְנָגִיד. - "Then Samuel took the vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said: 'Is it not that the LORD hath anointed thee to be prince over His inheritance?"
Kissing of perakim: Shemot 4:27:
וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-אַהֲרֹן, לֵךְ לִקְרַאת מֹשֶׁה הַמִּדְבָּרָה; וַיֵּלֶךְ, וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ בְּהַר הָאֱלֹהִים--וַיִּשַּׁק-לוֹ.
"And the LORD said to Aaron: 'Go into the wilderness to meet Moses.' And he went, and met him in the mountain of God, and kissed him."
Kissing of separation: Rut 1:14:
וַתִּשֶּׂנָה קוֹלָן, וַתִּבְכֶּינָה עוֹד; וַתִּשַּׁק עָרְפָּה לַחֲמוֹתָהּ, וְרוּת דָּבְקָה בָּהּ.
"And they lifted up their voice, and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law; but Ruth cleaved unto her."
Rabbi Tanchuma said, Also kissing of relatives, as it states (Bereishit 29:11) וַיִּשַּׁק יַעֲקֹב, לְרָחֵל -- "And Jacob kissed Rachel..."
{J: One might then frame this as a dispute, with those who do not agree to Rabbi Tanchuma and list kissing of relatives saying that kissing of relatives is not an exception, and is tiflut. Alternatively, Yaakov's kissing of Rachel could be classified under kissing of perakim.
Note also that this is only kissing of relatives. Kissing non-relatives of the opposite gender would still be tiflut, even according to Rabbi Tanchuma.
}
וַיִּשָּׂא אֶת-קֹלוֹ, וַיֵּבְךְּ...
"... and lifted up his voice, and wept."
... {skipping material irrelevent to this post - suggestions why Yaakov wept.}
Another explanation: Why did he cry?
For he saw the men {shepherds} murmuring to each other because he kissed her.
"What did this one come to introduce to us a new sexual impropriety?!"
For from the time the world was smitten in the generation of the Flood the nations of the world stood and fenced themselves off from sexual impropriety. ('arayot)
This is as is said that the peoples of the East are fenced off from sexual impropriety.
{J: When the shepherds objected to this new innovation, did they understand that she was a relative, according to this midrash? It is not clear. On the one hand, we read:
and thus he told her of their relationship only after kissing her. It is possible, and I have heard it explained so, that they did not know they were related and thus objected to this new innovation in 'arayot. On the other hand, he was just asking after Lavan, and they told him that Rachel was approaching:
Perhaps the midrash is assuming that they knew they were relatives, yet were still objecting. From the fact that they consider this a new type of 'arayot, I would assume that the first explanation is more likely in terms of how the midrash frames the pesukim.
Perhaps a look at the Rambam on this issue next...
I think he's been doing fine without "kabbalah"
Oy.
Madonna: Bush should read Kabbalah
Madonna has urged American President George W Bush to study the Kabbalah to make him a better leader.
The spiritual Material Girl is convinced the mystical Jewish teachings would give Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair an improved outlook on the world, in light of their handling of the war in Iraq.
...
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
If you want to be really stringent...
from the copepod department:
How's this for a chumra?
How's this for a chumra?
Water Filters Rely on Nanotech
AMSTERDAM -- A slow, methodical transformation of the $400-billion-a-year water-management industry is currently in progress, and nanotechnology appears to be leading the way.
...
The promise of nanofiltration devices that "clean" polluted water, sifting out bacteria, viruses, heavy metals and organic material, is driving companies like Argonide and KX Industries, which developed technology used in Brita filters, to make nanotechnology-based filters for consumers. Two products incorporating nanotechnology are going to hit the market within the next year and are already being tested in developing nations.
"Nanowater is extremely exciting," said KX Industries President Kevin McGovern, emphasizing that 1.3 billion people do not have access to safe drinking water and past trends indicate that global consumption of water will likely double in the next 20 years. His Matrikx water filters will be on store shelves within the next year after already having experienced success in 50 pilot programs throughout central Asia.
Argonide's president, Fred Tepper, is trying to get his product in the hands of consumers in the next 60 to 90 days, he said, having recently secured a distribution deal with a European company.
Both companies claim their products are the first filters to block the passage of bacteria and viruses across a nanofibrous membrane effectively, making potable water available for people in places like Bangladesh who face horrific deformities due to high levels of naturally occurring arsenic in the water supply.
Though these breakthroughs seem cutting-edge, the technology is not terribly new. Water-treatment plants have been using nanofiltration and ultrafiltration membranes to separate good water from bad for more than five years. And already the technology is becoming the industry standard.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Using technological aids to determine halachic status
may as well be part of the copepod department
Can we use technological aids to ascertain facts in order to determine halachic status? What if you need a magnifying glass or microscope to see a bacterium? (Copepods are macroscopic, so you don't need a microsocope.) What if you need a buglight to see insects? What if you need a telescope to observe some phenomenon, say to observe the new moon for the purpose of kiddush hachodesh, back when we were still doing this?
Elsewhere (in Rosh HaShana 24b-25a), we see that Rabban Gamliel used his astronomical knowledge to ascertain the validity of testimony for declaring the New Moon.
Can we use technological aids to ascertain facts in order to determine halachic status? What if you need a magnifying glass or microscope to see a bacterium? (Copepods are macroscopic, so you don't need a microsocope.) What if you need a buglight to see insects? What if you need a telescope to observe some phenomenon, say to observe the new moon for the purpose of kiddush hachodesh, back when we were still doing this?
Muslims given OK for telescopes
IRANIAN supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has put an end to a major religious question here by authorising the use of a telescope to observe the moon and declare an end to the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan.
In a ruling that could prevent a repeat of last year's confusion over when to celebrate the Eid holiday, Mohsen Rezai - a close aide to the all-powerful leader - announced to the press that Khamenei had ruled that "looking at the moon with technical aids is valid".In an annual ritual, Muslims scan the sky for the crescent of a new moon that signals the start of Eid al-Fitr, a three-day feast celebrating the end of Ramadan and its dawn-to-dusk of grumbling stomachs.
But religious dignitaries generally prefer to do their moon-spotting with the naked eye - something that is not always practical given the presence of cloudy skies and even modern curses such as light pollution or smog.
Not to mention that many of Iran's grand ayatollahs are advanced in years, with their eyesight not what it used to be.
Last year some clerics in the holy city of Qom announced the end of Ramadan a day before the office of the supreme leader, sparking plenty of confusion.
We actually do have a precedent for this. Rabban Gamliel had a telescope which could see 2000 cubits on land and 2000 cubits on water, which he used to determine techum shabbat.
Mishna, Eruvin 41b:
פעם אחת לא נכנסו לנמל עד שחשיכה אמרו לו לרבן גמליאל מה אנו לירד אמר להם מותרים אתם שכבר הייתי מסתכל והיינו בתוך התחום עד שלא חשיכה:Eruvin 43b:
...One time they did not enter the port when it became dark (and therefore Shabbat). They said to Rabban Gamliel, 'May we disembark?' He said to them, 'You are permitted, for I had already looked and we were within the techum while it was not yet dark.'
תנא שפופרת היתה לו לרבן גמליאל שהיה מביט וצופה בה אלפים אמה ביבשה וכנגדה אלפים בים
הרוצה לידע כמה עומקו של גיא מביא שפופרת ומביט בה וידע כמה עומקו של גיא
It was taught in a brayta: Rabban Gamliel had a telescope that he would look through and see in it 2000 cubits on land, and corresponding to this, 2000 cubits on the sea.
One who wishes to know how much is the depth of a valley should bring a telescope and look through it, and he will know the depth of the valley.
Elsewhere (in Rosh HaShana 24b-25a), we see that Rabban Gamliel used his astronomical knowledge to ascertain the validity of testimony for declaring the New Moon.
Monday, November 15, 2004
Many have been citing a pasuk from Mishlei
- namely, 24:17 - בִּנְפֹל אוֹיִבְךָ אַל-תִּשְׂמָח - in reference to Arafat's death.
In light of the treatment he has received by much of the media and many world leaders, I think Mishlei 24:24 is more relevant:
אֹמֵר, לְרָשָׁע--צַדִּיק אָתָּה: יִקְּבֻהוּ עַמִּים; יִזְעָמוּהוּ לְאֻמִּים.
"He that saith unto the wicked: 'Thou art righteous', peoples shall curse him, nations shall execrate him."
In light of the treatment he has received by much of the media and many world leaders, I think Mishlei 24:24 is more relevant:
אֹמֵר, לְרָשָׁע--צַדִּיק אָתָּה: יִקְּבֻהוּ עַמִּים; יִזְעָמוּהוּ לְאֻמִּים.
"He that saith unto the wicked: 'Thou art righteous', peoples shall curse him, nations shall execrate him."
The Rambam about sheratzim of the water
from the copepod department:
הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק ב
יא [יב] האוכל כזית משרץ המים--לוקה מן התורה, שנאמר "אל תשקצו, את נפשותיכם, בכל השרץ, השורץ; ולא תיטמאו בהם" (ויקרא יא,מג): הרי כלל בלאו זה, שרץ הארץ ושרץ העוף ושרץ המים. איזה הוא שרץ המים--אלו הברייות הקטנות כמו התולעים והעלוקה שבמים, והברייות הגדולות ביותר שהן חיות הים: כללו של דבר--כל שאינו בצורת הדגים לא דג טמא ולא דג טהור, כגון כלב המים והדלפון והצפרדע וכיוצא בהן.
11: One who eats an olive's measure of a sheretz (swarming creature) of the water -- is lashed as a matter of Biblical law, as it stated in Vayikra 11:42, אַל-תְּשַׁקְּצוּ, אֶת-נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם, בְּכָל-הַשֶּׁרֶץ, הַשֹּׁרֵץ; וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ בָּהֶם, וְנִטְמֵתֶם בָּם - "Ye shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarmeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby."
{Note: the full context of the pasuk is as follows:
Pasuk 43 does not specify the sheretz that swarms on the earth, and is thus a good pasuk to be used to speak also of water sheratzim.
}
Behold there is gathered in this prohibition {in pasuk 43} the sheretz of the land and the sheretz of the flying creatures and the sheretz of the water.
Which are the sheretz of the water? These are {include} the small creatures such as the worms and the leech of the water, and the greatly large creatures which are the Sea Creatures: The rule of the matter - all that does not have the form of the fish is not an unclean fish nor a clean fish, such as the seal, the dolphin, the frog and those like them.
{We can basically skip to #17, but I will translate the intervening ones anyway.}
{Note: the full context of the pasuk is as follows:
Pasuk 43 does not specify the sheretz that swarms on the earth, and is thus a good pasuk to be used to speak also of water sheratzim.
}
Behold there is gathered in this prohibition {in pasuk 43} the sheretz of the land and the sheretz of the flying creatures and the sheretz of the water.
Which are the sheretz of the water? These are {include} the small creatures such as the worms and the leech of the water, and the greatly large creatures which are the Sea Creatures: The rule of the matter - all that does not have the form of the fish is not an unclean fish nor a clean fish, such as the seal, the dolphin, the frog and those like them.
{We can basically skip to #17, but I will translate the intervening ones anyway.}
יב [יג] אלו המינין הנבראין באשפות ובגופי הנבילות כגון רימה ותולעה וכיוצא בהן, שאינן נבראין מזכר ונקבה אלא מן הגללים שהסריחו וכיוצא בהן--הן הנקראין רומש על הארץ; והאוכל מהן כזית--לוקה, שנאמר "ולא תטמאו את נפשותיכם, בכל השרץ הרומש על הארץ" (ויקרא יא,מד), ואף על פי שאינן פרין ורבין. אבל "השרץ, השורץ על הארץ" (ויקרא יא,מא; ויקרא יא,מב), הוא שפורה ורובה מזכר ונקבה.
{Spontaneous generation:}
12: These species which are created in the heaps and in the bodies of carcasses, such as rima and tole'a and those like them, that are not created from a male and female but from the dung that spoils and the like -- those are called "creeping on the land"; and he that eats of them an olive's measure -- is lashed, as is stated in Vayikra 11:44, וְלֹא תְטַמְּאוּ אֶת-נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם, בְּכָל-הַשֶּׁרֶץ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל-הָאָרֶץ - "neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of swarming thing (sheretz) that moveth upon the earth." And even though they are not fruitful and multiplying. However, הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל-הָאָרֶץ - the sheretz which swarms (shoretz) on the land (as in pesukim 11:41 and 11:42) - this is the one that is fruitful and multiplies from a male and female.
{That is, when the pasuk uses the verb רֹמֵשׂ, move/creep it refers to spontaneously generated creatures, but when it uses the verb שֹּׁרֵץ, swarm, it refers to non-spontaneously generated creatures.
This makes sense, since שרץ may be associated with פריה ורביה， as we see in Shemot 1:7:
וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, פָּרוּ וַיִּשְׁרְצוּ וַיִּרְבּוּ וַיַּעַצְמוּ--בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד; וַתִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ, אֹתָם.
"And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly - וַיִּשְׁרְצוּ - and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them."
}
12: These species which are created in the heaps and in the bodies of carcasses, such as rima and tole'a and those like them, that are not created from a male and female but from the dung that spoils and the like -- those are called "creeping on the land"; and he that eats of them an olive's measure -- is lashed, as is stated in Vayikra 11:44, וְלֹא תְטַמְּאוּ אֶת-נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם, בְּכָל-הַשֶּׁרֶץ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל-הָאָרֶץ - "neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of swarming thing (sheretz) that moveth upon the earth." And even though they are not fruitful and multiplying. However, הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל-הָאָרֶץ - the sheretz which swarms (shoretz) on the land (as in pesukim 11:41 and 11:42) - this is the one that is fruitful and multiplies from a male and female.
{That is, when the pasuk uses the verb רֹמֵשׂ, move/creep it refers to spontaneously generated creatures, but when it uses the verb שֹּׁרֵץ, swarm, it refers to non-spontaneously generated creatures.
This makes sense, since שרץ may be associated with פריה ורביה， as we see in Shemot 1:7:
וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, פָּרוּ וַיִּשְׁרְצוּ וַיִּרְבּוּ וַיַּעַצְמוּ--בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד; וַתִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ, אֹתָם.
"And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly - וַיִּשְׁרְצוּ - and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them."
}
יג [יד] אלו המינין הנבראין בפירות ובמאכלות, אם פירשו ויצאו לארץ--אף על פי שחזרו לתוך האוכל--מי שאכל מהן כזית, לוקה: שנאמר "לכל השרץ, השורץ על הארץ--לא תאכלום, כי שקץ הם" (ויקרא יא,מב), לאסור אלו שפירשו לארץ. אבל אם לא פירשו, מותר לאכול הפרי והתולעת שבתוכו.
13: Those species which are created {J: not clear if this means spontaneously - seems not to matter. say eggs or larvae were deposited in the fruit} in fruits and foodstuffs, if they separate and go to the earth -- even though they return to the food -- one who eats from them an olive's measure is lashed, as it states in Vayikra 11:42 - לְכָל-הַשֶּׁרֶץ, הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל-הָאָרֶץ--לֹא תֹאכְלוּם, כִּי-שֶׁקֶץ הֵם - "even all swarming things that swarm upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are a detestable thing." But if they did not separate, it is permitted to eat the fruit and the worm which is in it.
יד [טו] במה דברים אמורים, שהתליע האוכל אחר שנעקר מן הארץ. אבל אם התליע והוא מחובר--אותה התולעת אסורה כאילו פירשה לארץ, שעל הארץ נבראת; ולוקין עליה. ואם ספק, אסורה; לפיכך כל מיני פירות שדרכן להתליע כשהן מחוברין--לא יאכל עד שיבדוק הפרי מתוכו, שמא יש בו תולעת. ואם שהה הפרי אחר שנעקר שנים עשר חודש--אוכל בלא
בדיקה, שאין תולעת שבו מתקיימת שנים עשר חודש.
14: In regards to what are these matters said? When the food became wormy after it was separated from the ground. But if it became wormy and is still connected -- that worm is forbidden as if it had separated to {crawl on} the earth, for on the earth it was created; and we lash for this. And if there is doubt it it forbidden; therefore all types of fruits whose way it is to become wormy while they are still connected -- one should not eat until he inspects inside the fruit lest there is a worm. And if he stores the fruit after it is picked, 12 months -- he may eat without inspecting it, for a worm within it will not last 12 months.
טו [טז] פירשו לאוויר ולא נגעו בארץ, או שפירשו מקצתן לארץ, או שפירשו אחר שמתו, או שנמצאת תולעת על הגרעינה
מבפנים, או שיצאו מתוך האוכל לתוך אוכל אחר--כל אלו אסורין מספק, ואין לוקין עליהן.
15: If they separated (from the food) to the air and did not touch the ground, or it only a part of them {a part of the sheretz} separated to the ground, or they separated after they died, or a worm was found on the seed within, or they went from one food to another food -- all of these are forbidden out of doubt, and we do not lash for them.
טז [יז] תולעת הנמצאת במעי הדגים, ובמוח שבראש הבהמה, והנמצאת בבשר--אסורה; אבל דג מליח שהתליע, הרי התולעת
שבו מותרת, שהן כפירות שהתליעו אחר שנעקרו מן הארץ, שמותר לאוכלן כולן כאחת בתולעת שבתוכן.
16: A worm found in the innards of fish and in the brain in the head of animals and which is found in the flesh -- is forbidden; however, a salted fish that became wormy, the worms in it arepermitted, for they are like fruit that became wormy after being detached from the ground, which are permitted to eat all of the them at once, with the worm that is in them.
יז וכן המים שבכלים שהשריצו--הרי אותן השרצים מותרין לשתותן עם המים, שנאמר "כול אשר לו סנפיר וקשקשת במים, בימים ובנחלים--אותם תאכלו" (ויקרא יא,ט): כלומר במים בימים ובנחלים הוא שאתה אוכל את שיש לו, ואין אתה אוכל את שאין לו; אבל בכלים--בין שיש לו בין שאין לו, מותר.
17: And so too the the water in vessels which developed sheratzim -- behold, these sheratzim are permitted to be drunk together with the water {J: as opposed to removing them and consuming them}, as it states in Vayikra 11:9: אֶת-זֶה, תֹּאכְלוּ, מִכֹּל, אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם: כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת בַּמַּיִם, בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים--אֹתָם תֹּאכֵלוּ. -- "[These may ye eat of all that are in the waters:] whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them may ye eat." That is to say, in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers - those are the ones that you eat the ones that have {fins and scales} and you don't eat those that do not have {fins and scales}; However, in the vessels, whether they have or do not have {fins or scales}, they are permitted.
יח שרץ המים הנברא בשיחין ובבורות ובמערות--הואיל ואינן מים נובעין, והרי הן עצורים--הרי הן כמים שבכלים, ומותר; ושוחה ושותה ואינו נמנע, ואף על פי שבולע בשעת שתייה מאותן השרצים הדקים.
18: The sheretz of the water which is created in ditches, cisterns, and cavities -- since they are not flowing water, and they are stopped, they are like water that is in vessels, and are permitted; and one may scoop upand drink and not refrain, even though he swallows at the time of drinking from those tiny sheratzim.
יט במה דברים אמורים, שלא פירשו ממקום ברייתן. אבל אם פירש השרץ--אף על פי שחזר לתוך הכלי או לתוך הבור, אסור: פירש לדופני החבית, וחזר ונפל לתוך המים או לתוך השיכר--מותר; וכן אם פירש לדופני הבור או המערה, וחזר למים--מותר.
19: In regards to what are these matters said - regarding those that did not separate from the place of their creation. However, if the sheretz separated -- even if it returned to the vessel or to the pit, it is forbidden. If is separates to the walls of the chavit (something akin to a barrel, made of clay) and returns and falls into the water or into the ale -- it is permitted. And so too if it separated to the walls of the the pit or the cavity, and returns to the water, it is permitted.
כ המסנן את היין או את החומץ או את השיכר, ואכל מן היבחושין או היתושין והתולעת שסינן--לוקה משום שרץ המים, או שרץ העוף ושרץ המים: ואפילו חזרו לכלי אחר שסיננן, שהרי פירשו ממקום ברייתן. אבל אם לא סינן, שותה ואינו נמנע, כמו
שפירשנו.
20: One who filters wine or vinegar or ale and eats from the gnats or the worms that he filtered, he is lashed because of sheretz of the water, or sheretz of flying creatures and sheretz of the water. And even if they returned to the vessel after he filtered them, for they separated from the place of their creation. But if he did not filter, he may drink and need not refrain, as we have explained.
כא זה שאמרנו בפרק זה, האוכל כזית--בשאכל כזית מבריה גדולה, או שצירף מעט מבריה זו ומעט מבריה זו שבמינה עד שאכל כזית. אבל האוכל בריה טמאה בפני עצמה כולה--הרי זה לוקה מן התורה, ואפילו הייתה פחותה מכחרדל, בין שאכלה מתה, בין שאכלה חיה; ואפילו סרחה הבריה, ונשתנת צורתה--הואיל ואכלה כולה, לוקה. [כב] נמלה שחסרה אפילו אחת מרגליה, אינו לוקה עליה אלא בכזית.
21: This that we have said in this chapter, one who eats an olive's measure -- is when he eats an olive's measure from a large creature, or combines a little from this creature and a little from that creature from the same type until he eats an olive's measure. But, if he eats an impure beria` (creature) by itself in its entirety -- behold he is lashed as a matter of Biblical law, even if it is smaller than a mustard {seed}, whether he ate it alive or dead, and even if the the creature decomposed and its appearance has changed -- since he ate it in its entirety, he is lashed. [22] An ant that is missing even a single one of its legs, he is not lashed for it unless it is an olive's measure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
