more on yerushalmi ketubot 1a, for shiur this shabbos

שו"ע אה"ע סימן סד סעיף ה

אין כונסין בתולה לחופה, בשבת
לפי שעל ידי החופה זוכה במציאתה ובמעשה ידיה
והוה לו כקונה קנין בשבת
ואלמנה, אין חופה קונה בה
אלא על ידי ייחוד של ביאה זוכה במציאתה ובמעשה ידיה
לפיכך צריך להתייחד עמה קודם שבת
כדי שלא יהא כקונה קנין בשבת (וע' בא"ח סימן של"ט

שו"ע או"ח סימן שלט סעיף ה

הכונס את האלמנה לא יבא עליה ביאה ראשונה

לא בשבת ולא בי"ט (וע"ל סי' ר"פ

bet shmuel:

בית שמואל אבן העזר סימן סד ס"ק ו

ואלמנה אין חופה קונה -

כן איתא בירושלמי הני דכנסין ארמלין בע"ש צריכים להכנס מבע"י וכן בין השמשות מותר דכל שבות לא גזרו ב"ה במקום מצוה ט"ז, והרא"ש פ"ק דכתובות הביא דברי ירושלמי זה וכן תוספות פ"ק דיומא ש"מ דנשתנה דין אלמנה מבתולה, ולמ"ד חופה היינו יחוד שראוי לביאה קונה בבתולה אז אלמנה אינו קונה ביחוד אלא בביאה ולמ"ד חופת בתולה היינו יחוד שאינו ראוי לביאה אז באלמנה א"צ ביאה אלא יחוד הראוי לביאה ולהר"ן דס"ל חופה היינו שהביא אותה לביתו אם כן באלמנה לא מהני, ולא כח"מ בסי' נ"ד והמ' פ' משילין פסק באלמנה צריך ביאה וכ"כ במהרי"ל וי"ל דס"ל כשיטות הפוסקים דס"ל חופה של בתולה היינו יחוד הראוי לביאה, והרמב"ם דס"ל חופה היינו יחוד הראוי לביאה מ"מ י"ל באלמנה א"צ ביאה כי י"ל דלא פסק בירושלמי אלא כש"ס שלנו דאין מחלק בין אלמנה לבתולה וכ"כ בתשו' רמ"א סי' קכ"ה לשיטת הרי"ף, מיהו בתשו' מהרי"ל תפס עיקר כפי' הרמב"ם דחופה היינו יחוד הראוי לביאה ופסק כירושלמי מ"ה פסק באלמנה צריך ביאה, לפ"ז דעת המחבר דפוסק כאן כירושלמי ובסימן ס"א פוסק כרמב"ם דחופה היינו יחוד הראוי לביאה צ"ל כאן בעינן יחוד של ביאה היינו ביאה ממש ולשונו לא משמע כן וצ"ע, ובתשו' מ"ב סימן הנ"ל פסק דמהני יחוד באלמנה היינו ע"פ פסק הרב רמ"א סימן ס"א דחופת נדה הוה חופה מ"ה מהני באלמנה יחוד הראוי לביאה ויחוד שאמרנו היינו אחר הקידושין אבל קודם הקדושין לא מהני דקי"ל חופה בלא קדושין אינו קונה גם אסור להתיחד עמה שם בתשו' מ"ב, ולשיטות הפוסקים דצריך ביאה באלמנה לאו גמר ביאה בעינן אלא העראה דהא כבר קידש אותה והעראה אחר הקידושין קונה כמ"ש בסימן נ"ה ומ"ש בתשו' מהרי"ל העראה לא מהני תמוה וכבר הקשה עליו בתשו' מ"ב שם וכל זה איירי אם היא טהורה אבל אם היא טמאה מותר לכונסה בערב שבת דהא הוא אין בא עליה בשבת ואינו קונה אותה בשבת וכ"כ בט"ז, וכת' עוד אע"ג חופה לא מהני באלמנה מ"מ אם הבעל הולך עמה מן החופה להוליכה לבית הנשואים קונה אותה בהולכה זו ואין נראה

To be continued...

Shemot #2: Who were Shifra and Puah?

Last year, I discussed of the midrash that Shifra and Puah = Yocheved and Miriam.

It is interesting that although this is the more famous tradition, it is actually a matter of dispute. Rav says it is Yocheved and Elisheva bat Aminadav, who is the sister of Nachshon ben Aminadav and who married Aharon. (See in parshat Vaera, in Shemot 6:23.) It is R' Shmuel bar Nachman who says Yocheved and Miriam. The latter is the more mainstream midrash, in the sense that many other midrashim refer to Miriam as the other midwife.

Shemot #1: Vayakam Melech Chadash Al Mitzrayim

In the first perek in Shmos, we read that a new king began ruling over Egypt. Shemot 1:8:

ח וַיָּקָם מֶלֶךְ-חָדָשׁ, עַל-מִצְרָיִם, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָדַע, אֶת-יוֹסֵף.

8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph.

However, this pasuk is at least three-ways ambiguous, and the midrash rabba on Shemot advances at least three explanations.

1. The simplest, peshat explanation is:
וַיָּקָם is the intransitive verb meaning arose.
מֶלֶךְ, king, is the subject of the sentence.
חָדָשׁ, new, is an adjective modifying the subject מֶלֶךְ, king.
Thus, "A new king arose over Egypt, who knew not Yosef."

An intransitive verb is one that operates only on one noun, its subject. Thus, "He grew," meaning "he became bigger" uses the intransitive verb grow, while "He grew tomatoes" uses the transitive verb grow.

2.
וַיָּקָם is a transitive verb. The root qym means decree, thus "He decreed/established."
מֶלֶךְ, king, is the subject of the sentence.
חָדָשׁ, new, is the object of the sentence, or else is an adjective modifying the implicit object "decrees."

Thus, "The king decreed new [decrees] on Egypt, which did not recognize [the historical importance to Egypt of] Yosef."

Rashi cites both explanations:

8. A new king arose. [There is a controversy between] Rav and Samuel. One says: He was really new, and the other one says: His decrees were new.

but people do not realize that these two alternatives are the result of two ways of parsing the pasuk, two understandings of the verb וַיָּקָם, and two understandings of the function of the adjective "new." Rather, they think it means that he is called a new king because he was an old king who acted as if he was a new king. I feel that half the fun in midrash is figuring out the derivation of midrash.

{Note the stama demidrash asks on #2 the meaning of "who did not know Yosef" if it was the same king, and answers that he made himself as if he knew not Yosef at all. I don't think this is necessary, but is an acceptable explanation of the rest of the pasuk.}

3. There is a third explanation, attributed to the Rabanan.
וַיָּקָם is an intransitive verb, arose.
מֶלֶךְ, king, is not the subject of the sentence, but part of the predicate.
חָדָשׁ, new, is an adverb, modifying the verb וַיָּקָם rather than the noun מֶלֶךְ.

Thus, "He arose anew as king, because he [agreed to] not know Yosef.

The Rabanan give the following narrative corresponding to this parse. The nobles came to Pharoah and ask that he array the Egyptians agains the Hebrews. He refused, saying "we are eating of theirs, for if not for Yosef we would not now be alive." As a result, the nobles removed him from power. After 3 months, he agreed to be with them in their counsel, and they restored him to power. Thus, וַיָּקָם מֶלֶךְ-חָדָשׁ.

None of the parsings I give are explicitly written in the midrash. You must reconstruct the parse from the opinion, but I think it is clear that this is how they respectively parse it.

Update: One could suggest a fourth interpretation of the pasuk: take מֶלֶךְ to mean council. Indeed, Jastrow links king and counsel as the same meaning - a king is king because he is head in counsel. Here is one smippet from Jastrow, available in this pdf.

melech - jastrow pg 791

Thus, a new counsel arose in Egypt, namely, not to recognize Yosef. {or, one which did not recognize Yosef.}

This fits well into the context:

ט וַיֹּאמֶר, אֶל-עַמּוֹ: הִנֵּה, עַם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--רַב וְעָצוּם, מִמֶּנּוּ.	9 And he said unto his people: 'Behold, the people of the children of Israel are too many and too mighty for us;
י הָבָה נִתְחַכְּמָה, לוֹ: פֶּן-יִרְבֶּה, וְהָיָה כִּי-תִקְרֶאנָה מִלְחָמָה וְנוֹסַף גַּם-הוּא עַל-שֹׂנְאֵינוּ, וְנִלְחַם-בָּנוּ, וְעָלָה מִן-הָאָרֶץ.	10 come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there befalleth us any war, they also join themselves unto our enemies, and fight against us, and get them up out of the land.'

can the mashiach come from the dead pt 4

bavli sanhedrin 98b:

מה שמו
דבי רבי שילא אמרי שילה שמו שנאמר
(בראשית מט) עד כי יבא שילה
דבי רבי ינאי אמרי ינון שמו שנאמר
(תהילים עב) יהי שמו לעולם לפני שמש ינון שמו
דבי רבי חנינה אמר חנינה שמו שנאמר
(ירמיהו טז) אשר לא אתן לכם חנינה
ויש אומרים מנחם בן חזקיה שמו שנאמר
(איכה א) כי רחק ממני מנחם משיב נפשי
ורבנן אמרי חיוורא דבי רבי שמו שנאמר
(ישעיהו נג) אכן חליינו הוא נשא ומכאובינו סבלם ואנחנו חשבנוהו נגוע מוכה אלהים ומעונה
אמר רב נחמן אי מן חייא הוא כגון אנא שנאמר
(ירמיהו ל) והיה אדירו ממנו ומושלו מקרבו יצא
אמר רב אי מן חייא הוא כגון רבינו הקדוש
אי מן מתיא הוא כגון דניאל איש חמודות
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב עתיד הקדוש ברוך הוא להעמיד להם דוד אחר שנאמר
(ירמיהו ל) ועבדו את ה' אלהיהם ואת דוד מלכם אשר אקים להם
הקים לא נאמר אלא אקים
א"ל רב פפא לאביי והכתיב
(יחזקאל לז) ודוד עבדי נשיא להם לעולם
כגון קיסר ופלגי קיסר

What is his [the Messiah's] name?
The School of R. Shila said: His name is Shiloh, for it is written (Bereishit 49:10)

י לֹא-יָסוּר שֵׁבֶט מִיהוּדָה, וּמְחֹקֵק מִבֵּין רַגְלָיו, עַד כִּי-יָבֹא שִׁילֹה, וְלוֹ יִקְּהַת עַמִּים.

10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, as long as men come to Shiloh; and unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be.

{taken as "until Shiloh come." Thus the scepter of kingship does not leave the tribe of Yehudah until the end, until Shiloh comes. Thus Shiloh, the last king of Yehuda, is mashiach. Note also that each school says that the master of the school bears the name of Mashiach.}
The School of R. Yannai said: His name is Yinnon, for it is written, (Tehillim 72:17)

יז יְהִי שְׁמוֹ, לְעוֹלָם-- לִפְנֵי-שֶׁמֶשׁ, ינין (יִנּוֹן) שְׁמוֹ: וְיִתְבָּרְכוּ בוֹ; כָּל-גּוֹיִם יְאַשְּׁרוּהוּ.

17 May his name endure for ever; may his name be continued as long as the sun; {N} may men also bless themselves by him; may all nations call him happy.

{and the Hebrew is Yinnon Shemo, Yinnon is his name.}
The School of R. Haninah maintained: His name is Haninah, as it is written (Yirmiyahu 16:13-15):

יג וְהֵטַלְתִּי אֶתְכֶם, מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת, עַל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר לֹא יְדַעְתֶּם אַתֶּם וַאֲבוֹתֵיכֶם; וַעֲבַדְתֶּם-שָׁם אֶת-אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים, יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-אֶתֵּן לָכֶם, חֲנִינָה. {פ	13 therefore will I cast you out of this land into a land that ye have not known, neither ye nor your fathers; and there shall ye serve other gods day and night; forasmuch as I will show you no favour.' {P}
יד לָכֵן הִנֵּה-יָמִים בָּאִים, נְאֻם-ה; וְלֹא-יֵאָמֵר עוֹד חַי-ה, אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָה אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.	14 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more be said: 'As the LORD liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt,'
טו כִּי אִם-חַי-ה, אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָה אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ צָפוֹן, וּמִכֹּל הָאֲרָצוֹת, אֲשֶׁר הִדִּיחָם שָׁמָּה; וַהֲשִׁבֹתִים, עַל-אַדְמָתָם, אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי, לַאֲבוֹתָם. {פ}	15 but: 'As the LORD liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the countries whither He had driven them'; and I will bring them back into their land that I gave unto their fathers. {P}

{Hebrew: Where I will not give you Haninah. Thus as long as Hashem does not give us Chanina, we are cast into a strange land. Until the redemption. Thus Chanina = mashiach.}
Others say: His name is Menahem the son of Hezekiah, for it is written, (Eicha 1:9)

ט טֻמְאָתָהּ בְּשׁוּלֶיהָ, לֹא זָכְרָה אַחֲרִיתָהּ, וַתֵּרֶד פְּלָאִים, אֵין מְנַחֵם לָהּ; רְאֵה יְהוָה אֶת-עָנְיִי, כִּי הִגְדִּיל אוֹיֵב. {ס}

9 Her filthiness was in her skirts, she was not mindful of her end; therefore is she come down wonderfully, she hath no comforter. 'Behold, O LORD, my affliction, for the enemy hath magnified himself.' {S}

{Thus Menachem (comforter) is taken to be a reference to mashiach, who was not coming at that point in time. Note it is Menachem son of Chizkiya. There is no mention of Chizkiya in the pasuk. This seems to be a reference to the tradition of the mooing cow of the yerushalmi, mentioned in an earlier post.}


The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' {Chivra debet Rabbi} as it is written, {Yeshaya 53:4}

ד אָכֵן חֳלָיֵנוּ הוּא נָשָׂא, וּמַכְאֹבֵינוּ סְבָלָם; וַאֲנַחְנוּ חֲשַׁבְנֻהוּ, נָגוּעַ מֻכֵּה אֱלֹהִים וּמְעֻנֶּה.

4 Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

R. Nahman said: if he [the Messiah] is of those living [to day], it might be one like myself, as it is written,(Yirmiyahu 30:21)

כא וְהָיָה אַדִּירוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ, וּמֹשְׁלוֹ מִקִּרְבּוֹ יֵצֵא, וְהִקְרַבְתִּיו, וְנִגַּשׁ אֵלָי: כִּי מִי הוּא-זֶה עָרַב אֶת-לִבּוֹ, לָגֶשֶׁת אֵלַי--נְאֻם-יְהוָה.

21 And their prince shall be of themselves, and their ruler shall proceed from the midst of them; and I will cause him to draw near, and he shall approach unto Me; for who is he that hath pledged his heart to approach unto Me? saith the LORD.

Rab said: if he is of the living, it would be {kegon} our holy Master; {Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi}
if of the dead, it would have been {kegon} Daniel the most desirable man.
Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The Holy One, blessed be He, will raise up another David for us, as it is written, (Yirmiyahu 30:9)

ח וְהָיָה בַיּוֹם הַהוּא נְאֻם יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, אֶשְׁבֹּר עֻלּוֹ מֵעַל צַוָּארֶךָ, וּמוֹסְרוֹתֶיךָ, אֲנַתֵּק; וְלֹא-יַעַבְדוּ-בוֹ עוֹד, זָרִים.	8 And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will break his yoke from off thy neck, and will burst thy bands; and strangers shall no more make him their bondman;
ט וְעָבְדוּ, אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיהֶם, וְאֵת דָּוִד מַלְכָּם, אֲשֶׁר אָקִים לָהֶם. {ס	9 But they shall serve the LORD their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them. {S}

not 'I raised up', but 'I will raise up' is said.
R. Papa said to Abaye: But it is written, (Yechezkel 37:25)

כד וְעַבְדִּי דָוִד מֶלֶךְ עֲלֵיהֶם, וְרוֹעֶה אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לְכֻלָּם; וּבְמִשְׁפָּטַי יֵלֵכוּ, וְחֻקּוֹתַי יִשְׁמְרוּ וְעָשׂוּ אוֹתָם.	24 And My servant David shall be king over them, and they all shall have one shepherd; they shall also walk in Mine ordinances, and observe My statutes, and do them.
כה וְיָשְׁבוּ עַל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לְעַבְדִּי לְיַעֲקֹב, אֲשֶׁר יָשְׁבוּ-בָהּ, אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם; וְיָשְׁבוּ עָלֶיהָ הֵמָּה וּבְנֵיהֶם וּבְנֵי בְנֵיהֶם, עַד-עוֹלָם, וְדָוִד עַבְדִּי, נָשִׂיא לָהֶם לְעוֹלָם.	25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob My servant, wherein your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, they, and their children, and their children's children, for ever; and David My servant shall be their prince for ever.

And my servant David shall be their prince [nasi] for ever?
E.g., an emperor and a viceroy.

Note that just as in yerushalmi brachot, we have a discussion of the name of mashiach, a reference to Menachem ben Chizkiya (of mooing cow fame), a pattern of "if from the living, X; if from the dead, Y," and a discussion of a living and a dead mashiach named David. The form of the sugyas seems to have a shared tradition.

*Rashi gives two explanations of this gemara which I will address in a later post. The word kegon means "like," and thus might not actually refer to Daniel and Rebbe specifically. However, assuming we take this sugya at its simplest, and that it refers to Daniel and Rebbe, it seems that mashiach can come from the dead. However, note that the person suggested is Daniel, a famous Biblical personality from the Davidic dynasty who wielded political power. Such is the candidate for the mashiach from the dead, if you were to agree that mashiach can indeed come from the dead. Also, Daniel did not mount a failed attempt to be a mashiach while he was still alive.

Note also that Rav does not say: if from the dead, like Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. That is in part because when he spoke Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was still alive. But further, there is a qualitative difference between a Daniel and a Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. One is Biblical, one is a contemporary great Rabbi. There is a difference, and he notes the difference by saying that if from the dead, it will be Daniel of someone of that caliber, but if from those of the living, then the greatest, the leader of the generation.

This should inform attitudes towards, say, the Lubavitcher Rebbe as a potential mashiach. While he was alive, one could argue that he was a great Rabbinical leader, and we might apply the first part of the statement - if from the living, like Rebbe. But, if from the dead, it would not be a late acharon. It would be Daniel, or someone on Daniel's level - king David, or Solomon, or Zerubavel. This seems to be the simple message in the gemara.

A further, speculative note: Rav seems to contradict himself. First he says that the mashiach, if from the living, is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and if from the dead, Daniel. Then he says that the mashiach from (it seems) the living will be named David, matching a bit the opinion of the Rabanan in the yerushalmi. Neither Daniel nor Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi are named David.

The answer, it would seem, is that one is Rav and the other is Rav Yehuda citing Rav. So is one inaccurate? I would say not. Rather, the first statement, by Rav, is clearly said while Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was still alive - after all, he says, "if of the living, like Rabbenu {=Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi}." Rav was a first generation Amora, and lived while Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, a last generation Tanna, was alive, and he must have said his statement at that point.

Meanwhile, the second statement is Rav Yehuda citing Rav. Rav Yehuda was a student of Rav and Shmuel, and was not contemporary to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. If Rav Yehuda is citing Rav, he must have heard it from Rav, which means that Rav said this latter statement after Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's death.

Thus we see that Rav refrained from saying that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could be mashiach after Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, instead teaching the opinion of a mashiach from the living named David. He did not say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had the same chances of being mashiach even after death.

Further, I would note that the interpretation of Rav's second statement as understood by Rav Pappa in his objection to Abaye, and nthat of the stama degemara (and the two may be linked - especially statements by Rav Pappa, as this is a phenomenon we see elsewhere) is not necessarily the real meaning of the statement. The focus on "will raise up" as opposed to "raised up" seems to be a derasha explaining the pasuk about a king named David as referring to the future, as opposed to the past, and thus a messianic king rather than referring to the historic reign of King David. This may then refer either to a new messianic king named David, or to the historical King David, who is raised up once again in the future as mashiach. (Indeed, in a pinch, we might understand Rav Pappa's question as asking how the historic king David ever lost power and would need to be raised to power, if another pasuk promised continuous reign.) It is the answer of the stama degemara, about the Caesar and half-Caesar=viceroy that definitively understands Rav as speaking about a new, living mashiach, with Rav Pappa's pasuk referring to the historical, dead King David.

sanhedrin 98b 

can mashiach come from the dead part 3:

I previously addressed the story of the mooing cow in the yerushalmi, as well a midrash rabba on vayechi in which Yaakov knew that Shimshon could not be mashiach once he saw that Shimshon died. There is another source in the gemara leading up to the mooing cow story, which suggests that mashiach can come from the dead:

yerushalmi brachot 17a:
רבנן אמרי
אהן מלכא משיחא
אין מי חייא הוא דוד שמיה

אין מי דמכייא הוא דוד שמיה.
א"ר תנחומא אנא אמרית טעמא
(תהילים יח) ועושה חסד למשיחו לדוד.
רבי יהושע בן לוי אמר צמח שמו.
ר' יודן בריה דר' אייבו אמר מנחם שמו.
אמר חנינה בריה דר' אבהו ולא פליגי
חושבניה דהדין כחושבניה דהדין הוא צמח הוא מנחם

The Rabbis said:
The messianic king -
if he is from the living David is his name
if he is from the dead David is his name.
Rabbi Tanchuma said: I said the reason:
(Tehillim 18:51)

נא מַגְדִּל, יְשׁוּעוֹת מַלְכּוֹ: וְעֹשֶׂה חֶסֶד, לִמְשִׁיחוֹ--לְדָוִד וּלְזַרְעוֹ; עַד-עוֹלָם.

51 Great salvation giveth He to His king; {N} and showeth mercy to His anointed, to David and to his seed, for evermore. {P}

{Thus David is called מְשִׁיחוֹ - his annointed, his mashiach. }
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said Tzemach is his name.
Rabbi Yudan son of Rabbi Aibo said Menachem is his name.
Rabbi Chanina son of Rabbi Abahu said: And they do not argue.
The gematria of this one is the gematria of that one. Tzemach = Menachem.

Thus we see an opinion that mashiach will be named David - either the famous King David, or else someone born in that generation whose name happens to be David. The focus is on someone named David being the mashiach, rather than whether or not mashiach can come from the dead. But this opinion that he can come from the dead is specifying someone named David - I would say only King David.

Thus, we see that, according to one opinion, a dead Biblical personality might be called upon to become mashiach. While this might be taken to mean that death in *general* is not an impediment to being mashiach, all we really see here is that King David might be mashiach.

Does this contradict the midrash that Yaakov knew Shimshon could not be mashiach when he saw that Shimshon, too, died? Perhaps it is a dispute. Or, perhaps the idea being expressed in midrash rabba is (as I suggested before) that if someone seems to be mashiach and then dies while in the process, the death is a major impediment to being mashiach, but not that someone (such as King David) cannot be ressurrected and at that point assume (and begin) the role of mashiach.

Note also that besides the difference of someone who has already begun the role and was killed as opposed to a reincarnated famous Biblical personality, there may as well be a difference between the likelihood of tzaddikim in our generation coming from the dead to be mashiach, and famous Biblical personalities doing the same. This seems to the gist of another Talmudic source I hope to address soon.

the mooing cow - more on whether mashiach can come from the dead

yerushalmi brachot 17:

דף יז, א פרק ב הלכה ד גמרא
רבי יהושע בן לוי אמר צמח שמו.
ר' יודן בריה דר' אייבו אמר מנחם שמו.
אמר חנינה בריה דר' אבהו ולא פליגי חושבניה דהדין כחושבניה דהדין
הוא צמח הוא מנחם.
ודא מסייעא להו דמר ר' יודן בריה דר' אייבו
עובדא הוה בחד יהודאי דהוה קאים רדי
דף יז, ב פרק ב הלכה ד גמרא
געת תורתיה קומוי
עבר חד ערביי ושמע קלה
א"ל בר יודאי בר יודאי שרי תורך ושרי קנקנך דהא חריב בית מקדשא
געת זמן תניינות
א"ל בר יודאי בר יודאי קטור תוריך וקטור קנקניך דהא יליד מלכא משיחא
א"ל מה שמיה
מנחם
א"ל ומה שמיה דאבוי
א"ל חזקיה
א"ל מן הן הוא
א"ל מן בירת מלכא דבית לחם יהודה
אזל זבין תורוי וזבין קנקנוי ואיתעביד זבין לבדין למיינוקא
והוה עייל קרייה ונפקא קרייה עד דעל לההוא קרתא
והויין כל נשייא זבנן ואימה דמנחם לא זבנה
שמע קלן דנשייא אמרין אימיה דמנחם אימיה דמנחם איתיי זובנין לברך
אמרה בעייא אנא מיחנקוניה סנאיהון דישראל דביומא דאיתיליד איחרוב בית מוקדשא
א"ל רחיציא אנן דברגליה חריב וברגליה מתבניי
א"ל לית לי פריטין
א"ל והוא מה איכפת ליה איתיי זובנין ליה אין לית קומך יומא דין בתר יומין אנא אתי ונסיב
בתר יומין עאל לההיא קרתא
אמר לה מהו מיינוקא עביד
א"ל מן שעתא דחמיתני אתון רוחין ועלעולי וחטפיניה מן ידיי.
א"ר בון מה לנו ללמוד מן הערבי הזה
ולא מקרא מלא הוא (ישעיהו י) והלבנון באדיר יפול
מה כתיב בתריה (ישעיהו יא) ויצא חוטר מגזע ישי.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said Tzemach is his name.
Rabbi Yudan son of Rabbi Aibo said Menachem is his name.
Chanina the sone of Rabbi Abahu said - and they do not argue:
The gematria of this name is the same as the gematria of that name.
Tzemach = Menachem.
And the following supports this that Rabbi Yudan son of Rabbi Aibo said:
There was an incident with a Jew who was ploughing
His cow moo'd before him.
An Arab passed by and heard her voice.
He said to him: Jew, Jew, unbind your cow and and unbind your plow for the Temple has been destroyed.
{J: At this point it seems the Jew followed his instructions.}
It moo'd a second time.
He said to him: Jew, Jew, hook up your cow(s) hook up your plow(s) for the king messiah has been born.
He {the Jew} asked him: What is his name?
"Menachem."
He {the Jew} said to him: And what is the name of his father?
He {the Arab} said to him: Chizkiyah
He {the Jew} said to him: From where is he?
He {the Arab} said to him: From the capital of the king, Bet Lechem Yehuda {Bethlehem}
He {the Jew} went and sold his cows {bulls} and sold his plows and made himself into a seller of swaddling clothes for infants.
And he would enter a city and leave a city until he got to that city {Bethlehem}
And all the women would buy, and the mother of Menachem did not buy.
He heard the voices of the women saying "Menachem's Mother, Menachem's Mother, come and buy for your son."
She says [sic] "I desire to strangle that the enemies of Israel, for on the day that he was born the Temple was destroyed!"
{J: note - the enemies of Israel is the phrase used to describe something bad happening to Israel or some specific person you do not wish evil to befall - this phrase is used to deflect or not ask to actually bring about the evil.}
He {the Jew} said to her: I trust that at his feet it was destroyed and at his feet it will be rebuilt.
She said to him: I have no prutin {money}
He said to her: what does it matter to me. Come and buy from me - if you have nothing before you on this day, after days I will come and take {collect}.
After days {some time} he entered that city.
He said to her: what is doing with the infant?
She said to him: Since the time I saw you, wind and whirlwind came and snatched him from my hands.
Rabbi Bon said: Why should we learn this {that on the day the Temple was destroyed mashiach was born} from this Arab?
Is it not a full {explicit} pasuk?
Yeshayahu 10:34: (last pasuk of perek 10)

לד וְנִקַּף סִבְכֵי הַיַּעַר, בַּבַּרְזֶל; וְהַלְּבָנוֹן, בְּאַדִּיר יִפּוֹל. {ס

34 And He shall cut down the thickets of the forest with iron, and Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one. {S}

What is written after it? Yeshayahu 11:1: (first pasuk of next perek)

א וְיָצָא חֹטֶר, מִגֵּזַע יִשָׁי; וְנֵצֶר, מִשָּׁרָשָׁיו יִפְרֶה.

1 And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a twig shall grow forth out of his roots.

By way of explanation, Levanon is taken most often in midrash to be a reference to the Temple, and a shoot coming out of the stock of Jesse, the father of King David, is a reference to the king mashiach.

Note also that this midrash does not refer to Jesus. The reason the midrash speaks of mashiach born in Bethlehem is that there was a tradition of the mashiach being born there (just as King David was from there). It is because this tradition exists that the Christian Bible has Jesus born there, because of the census, even though he is really from Nazereth. In general there seems a conscious effort in reality or in later writings to try to fulfill conditions of being the messiah. But just because the infant is born in Bethlehem does not mean this refers to Jesus.

In fact, the other details show it is not. The child's father is Chizkiyah, not Joseph. He is born on the day the second Temple is destroyed, and not while the Temple is still standing. His name is Menachem, not Jesus. He is carried off by wind and whirlwind while still an infant, and is not seem since - rather that growing up, beginning a messianic campaign, and being crucified. It is fairly clear the midrash is referring to someone else.

Does this midrash imply that mashiach can come from the dead? (This is relevant to my previous post.) Well, I would say that the plain intent of the midrash is that the child did not die, but rather was born the day the Temple was destroyed, and carried off by wind and whirlwind to a safe location, and in the meantime has grown up and is waiting to come and redeem the Jews. Not that he had died. So while some want to point to this aggada as proof that it is normative to expect a mashiach to die and come back, this does not seem to be the simplest reading of the text.

Even if you take the difficult position that it does refer to someone who has died, it would be someone who died in infancy, before starting any messianic career. I stress this because a while back, shortly after Dr. David Berger published his book on the The Rebbe, The Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference, an article in the Commentator addressed the issue without actually citing the aggada. At issue was the Rambam's statement that if the person thought to be the mashiach was killed {or died - one can have arguments about whether the Rambam meant only killed} he was certainly not the mashiach. Contrasted with statements which suggest that in certain instances one can say the mashiach could come from the dead. Someone (I think even David Berger) had said that the difference could be that the mashiach could come from the dead if he did not begin his messianic career before his death. But if he began his messianic career, Hashem would not play games with the Jewish people, having him start, and then dying, and yet he would return later to finish. The article suggested that this was nonsense and if the Rambam and the sources are talking about different cases, then it makes sense that it would be the one who started the messianic career who would be the one who could be expected to resume it, while if one did not even start a messianic career, of course he would not come back from the dead to start it! This is of course dumb because it treats the idea of mashiach from the dead as a disembodied and extrapolated idea, and divorces it from the actual source text. If this story is to be taken as referring to a mashiach who has died and will come back, then it clearly refers to one who did not begin his messianic career. After all, we are talking about an infant here. (The other source talks about King David, who did not really begin a messianic career either.)

Note also that this is aggada, and a strange one at that. The story refers to a mashiach who was carried off in infancy, not one who has died, but even if it said the latter, it is very difficult to utilize this to establish a belief as normative, especially when contradicted by standard Jewish belief throughout the centuries and even midrashim like the one previously cited about Yaakov Avinu knowing that Shimshon was not the mashiach once he saw that Shimshon died and was buried. (See next post.) Also, the text itself is somewhat dismissive of the story - we have a rejection of the idea that we should learn that mashiach was born on the day of the Temple's destruction from an Arab (who heard it from a cow)! Instead they prefer the Scriptural derivation. Perhaps other elements of the story (being carried off by whirlwind) were regarded as fanciful even by Chazal.

Shabbat Shalom.

Vayechi: Can mashiach return from the dead?

A midrash on this week's parsha, Vayechi, addresses the issue of - if you think someone is mashiach, and then he dies, should you still consider him the mashiach.

The midrash understands Bereishit 49:16-18 as referring to Shimshon, a shofet (~judge) from the tribe of Dan.

טז דָּן, יָדִין עַמּוֹ--כְּאַחַד, שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.	16 Dan shall judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel.
יז יְהִי-דָן נָחָשׁ עֲלֵי-דֶרֶךְ, שְׁפִיפֹן עֲלֵי-אֹרַח--הַנֹּשֵׁךְ, עִקְּבֵי-סוּס, וַיִּפֹּל רֹכְבוֹ, אָחוֹר.	17 Dan shall be a serpent in the way, a horned snake in the path, that biteth the horse's heels, so that his rider falleth backward.
יח לִישׁוּעָתְךָ, קִוִּיתִי יְהוָה. {ס	18 I wait for Thy salvation, O LORD. {S}

Besides the obvious that he is a descendant of Dan who ruled his people as a shoftet, the midrash explains the comparison to a snake.

midrash rabba 98:14
יְהִי-דָן נָחָשׁ עֲלֵי-דֶרֶךְ
מה נחש זה מצוי בין הנשים כך שמשון בן מנוח מצוי בין הנשים
מה הנחש נאסר בשבועה כך שמשון בן מנוח נאסר בשבועה
(שופטים טו) וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם, שִׁמְשׁוֹן, הִשָּׁבְעוּ לִי
מה נחש זה כל כחו אינו אלא בראשו כך שמשון (שם טז) אִם-גֻּלַּחְתִּי וְסָר מִמֶּנִּי כֹחִי
מה הנחש הזה ריסו מחלחל לאחר המיתה כך (שם) וַיִּהְיוּ הַמֵּתִים, אֲשֶׁר הֵמִית בְּמוֹתוֹ [רַבִּים, מֵאֲשֶׁר הֵמִית בְּחַיָּיו]
הַנֹּשֵׁךְ, עִקְּבֵי-סוּס
(שם) וַיֹּאמְרוּ, קִרְאוּ לְשִׁמְשׁוֹן וִישַׂחֶק-לָנוּ
אמר ר' לוי כתיב (שם) וְעַל-הַגָּג, כִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים
אלו מה שהיו על שפת הגג
אבל מה שהיו לאחוריהם ולאחורי אחוריהם אין בריה יודעת
ואת אמרת (שם) וַיֵּרְדוּ אֶחָיו וְכָל-בֵּית אָבִיהוּ, וַיִּשְׂאוּ אֹתוֹ, וַיַּעֲלוּ וַיִּקְבְּרוּ אוֹתוֹ ... בְּקֶבֶר מָנוֹחַ אָבִיו
...
וַיִּפֹּל רֹכְבוֹ, אָחוֹר
יחזרו דברים לאחוריהם
לפי שהיה יעקב אבינו רואה אותו וסבור בו שהוא מלך המשיח
כיון שראה אותו שמת אמר אף זה מת
לִישׁוּעָתְךָ, קִוִּיתִי ה'
אמר רבי יצחק הכל בקווי יסורין בקווי קדושת השם בקווי זכות אבות בקווי תאותו של עוה"ב בקווי
יסורין הה"ד (ישעיהו כו) אַף אֹרַח מִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ ה'
קִוִּינוּךָ אלו יסורין
לְשִׁמְךָ זו קדושת השם
וּלְזִכְרְךָ זו זכות אבות
תַּאֲוַת-נָפֶשׁ זו תאותו של עוה"ב
חנינה בקווי (שם לג) ה' חָנֵּנוּ, לְךָ קִוִּינוּ
סליחה בקווי (תהלים קל) כִּי-עִמְּךָ הַסְּלִיחָה
מה כתיב בתריה קִוִּיתִי ה'
לפי שהיה יעקב אבינו רואה אותו וסובר בו שגאולה מגעת בימיו
כיון שראה שמת מיד אמר לישועתך קויתי ה

"Dan shall be a serpent in the way"
Just as a serpent is found among the women so was Shimshon son of Manoach found among the women.
Just as the serpent is bound with an oath so was Shimshon the son of Manoach bound with an oath -
(Shoftim 15:12)

יב וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ לֶאֱסָרְךָ יָרַדְנוּ, לְתִתְּךָ בְּיַד-פְּלִשְׁתִּים; וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם, שִׁמְשׁוֹן, הִשָּׁבְעוּ לִי, פֶּן-תִּפְגְּעוּן בִּי אַתֶּם.

12 And they said unto him: 'We are come down to bind thee, that we may deliver thee into the hand of the Philistines.' And Samson said unto them: 'Swear unto me, that ye will not fall upon me yourselves.'

Just as the serpent all its power is at his head {J: fangs} so too Shimshon: (Shoftim 16:17)

יז וַיַּגֶּד-לָהּ אֶת-כָּל-לִבּוֹ, וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מוֹרָה לֹא-עָלָה עַל-רֹאשִׁי--כִּי-נְזִיר אֱלֹהִים אֲנִי, מִבֶּטֶן אִמִּי; אִם-גֻּלַּחְתִּי וְסָר מִמֶּנִּי כֹחִי, וְחָלִיתִי וְהָיִיתִי כְּכָל-הָאָדָם.

17 And he told her all his heart, and said unto her: 'There hath not come a razor upon my head; for I have been a Nazirite unto God from my mother's womb; if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man.'

Just as the serpent, his poison does damage after his death, so too (Shoftim 16:30)

כט וַיִּלְפֹּת שִׁמְשׁוֹן אֶת-שְׁנֵי עַמּוּדֵי הַתָּוֶךְ, אֲשֶׁר הַבַּיִת נָכוֹן עֲלֵיהֶם, וַיִּסָּמֵךְ, עֲלֵיהֶם--אֶחָד בִּימִינוֹ, וְאֶחָד בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ.	29 And Samson took fast hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house rested, and leaned upon them, the one with his right hand, and the other with his left.
ל וַיֹּאמֶר שִׁמְשׁוֹן, תָּמוֹת נַפְשִׁי עִם-פְּלִשְׁתִּים, וַיֵּט בְּכֹחַ, וַיִּפֹּל הַבַּיִת עַל-הַסְּרָנִים וְעַל-כָּל-הָעָם אֲשֶׁר-בּוֹ; וַיִּהְיוּ הַמֵּתִים, אֲשֶׁר הֵמִית בְּמוֹתוֹ, רַבִּים, מֵאֲשֶׁר הֵמִית בְּחַיָּיו.	30 And Samson said: 'Let me die with the Philistines.' And he bent with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead that he slew at his death were more than they that he slew in his life.

{Vayechi continues...} הַנֹּשֵׁךְ, עִקְּבֵי-סוּס - "that biteth the horse's heels..."

כה וַיְהִי, כי טוב (כְּטוֹב) לִבָּם, וַיֹּאמְרוּ, קִרְאוּ לְשִׁמְשׁוֹן וִישַׂחֶק-לָנוּ; וַיִּקְרְאוּ לְשִׁמְשׁוֹן מִבֵּית האסירים (הָאֲסוּרִים), וַיְצַחֵק לִפְנֵיהֶם, וַיַּעֲמִידוּ אוֹתוֹ, בֵּין הָעַמּוּדִים.

25 And it came to pass, when their hearts were merry, that they said: 'Call for Samson, that he may make us sport.' And they called for Samson out of the prison-house; and he made sport before them; and they set him between the pillars.

{J: at first glance and almost explicitly a reference to how he brought down the house. Biting the heels and making the rider fall is compared to pushing aside the columns supporting the house, making everyone fall. Alternatively, עִקְּבֵי means not "the heels" but "because of," and סוּס refers to שוש, sos, "merriment." Thus his bite was a result of the merriment. Which is why the prooftext is the portion of the pasuk referring to bringing Shimshon to the house for the purpose of merriment.}
Rabbi Levi said: It is written (Shoftim 16:27):

כז וְהַבַּיִת, מָלֵא הָאֲנָשִׁים וְהַנָּשִׁים, וְשָׁמָּה, כֹּל סַרְנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים; וְעַל-הַגָּג, כִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה, הָרֹאִים, בִּשְׂחוֹק שִׁמְשׁוֹן.

27 Now the house was full of men and women; and all the lords of the Philistines were there; and there were upon the roof about three thousand men and women, that beheld while Samson made sport.

Those were just those on the edge of the roof {who gathered at the edge and so were able to see Shimshon make sport}
But those who were behind them and behind those who were behind them no creature knows {their number} ... {J: also the word אָחוֹר is used to refer to the other ones behind those at the edge of the roof - לאחוריהם}

Shoftim 16:31: (the next pasuk)

לא וַיֵּרְדוּ אֶחָיו וְכָל-בֵּית אָבִיהוּ, וַיִּשְׂאוּ אֹתוֹ, וַיַּעֲלוּ וַיִּקְבְּרוּ אוֹתוֹ בֵּין צָרְעָה וּבֵין אֶשְׁתָּאֹל, בְּקֶבֶר מָנוֹחַ אָבִיו; וְהוּא שָׁפַט אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל, עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה. {פ

31 Then his brethren and all the house of his father came down, and took him, and brought him up, and buried him between Zorah and Eshtaol in the burying-place of Manoah his father. And he judged Israel twenty years. {P}

{Yaakov's address to Dan continues:} וַיִּפֹּל רֹכְבוֹ, אָחוֹר - "so that his rider falleth backward"
{literally - "and his rider falls backwards"}
אָחוֹר - The situation returned to the way it was { לאחוריהם }.
For our father Yaakov saw him {Shimshon} and thought that he was the King Meshiach.
Once he {Yaakov} saw that he {Shimshon} died he {Yaakov} said "Even this one has died.
{J: so he knew that Shimshon was not the mashiach and said}
לִישׁוּעָתְךָ, קִוִּיתִי ה - "I wait for Thy salvation, O LORD."
... {other things that one must wait for } ...
Since our forefather Yaakov saw him {Shimshon} and thought about hm that the redemption would be reached in his days
Once he saw that he {Shimshon} died he said "לִישׁוּעָתְךָ, קִוִּיתִי ה" - "I wait for Thy salvation, O LORD."

Thus we see that Yaakov originally thought Shimshon was the mashiach, but if the one you think is mashiach dies, then it is evidence that the person is not mashiach. Yaakov's reaction was not that Shimshon was still the mashiach but that he would return later, coming back from the dead.

This is not to say that mashiach might not be some famous Biblical character - say, King David - who comes back and starts acting in a messianic role. I will not rule this out - this might be, as there are sources that suggest this as a possibility. However, if someone is acting as mashiach, and then dies in the midst of it - well, this is a pretty strong sign that the person, even though his actions implied he was mashiach - was not in fact mashiach.

Unfortunately, historically this has not been the reaction of followers of messianic movements.

+8= masechet nedarim; + 6 nazir;

הדרן עלך אין בין המודר!
הדרן עלך השותפין שנדרו!
הדרן עלך הנודר מן המבושל!
הדרן עלך הנודר מן הירק!
הדרן עלך קונם יין!
הדרן עלך רבי אליעזר!
הדרן עלך נערה מאורסה!
הדרן עלך אילו נדרים!

וסליקא לה מסכת נדרים!
（prakim 4-11 of yerushalmi nedarim)

הדרן עלך כל כינוי נזירות!
הדרן עלך הריני נזיר!
הדרן עלך מי שאמר!
הדרן עלך מי שאמר בתרא!
הדרן עלך בית שמאי!
הדרן עלך שלשה מינין!

（prakim 1-6 of yerushalmi nazir)

Vayigash #3: Yehuda's Threat

As mentioned above, a theme in the midrash on this parasha is Jewish might, even though it looks as if the brothers are powerless before Yosef the vizier. Here is another drasha in midrash rabba parasha 93 siman 6:

The drasha is on the first pasuk in parshat Vayigash:

Bereishit 44:18:

יח וַיִּגַּשׁ אֵלָיו יְהוּדָה, וַיֹּאמֶר בִּי אֲדֹנִי, יְדַבֶּר-נָא עַבְדְּךָ דָבָר בְּאָזְנֵי אֲדֹנִי, וְאַל-יִחַר אַפְּךָ בְּעַבְדֶּךָ: כִּי כָמוֹךָ, כְּפַרְעֹה.

18 Then Judah came near unto him, and said: 'Oh my lord, let thy servant, I pray thee, speak a word in my lord's ears, and let not thine anger burn against thy servant; for thou art even as Pharaoh.

יְדַבֶּר-נָא עַבְדְּךָ...
יכנסו דברי באזנך
זקינתו של זה ע"י שמשכה פרעה לילה אחת
לקה בנגעים הוא וכל ביתו
דכתיב (בראשית יב) וינגע ה' את פרעה
הזהר שלא ילקה אותו האיש בצרעת
אמו של זה לא מתה אלא מקללתו של אבא ומן תמן מיתת לה
(שם לא) עם אשר תמצא את אלהיך לא יחיה
הזהר שלא יחול בך קללה אחת ואותו האיש מת
שנים ממנו נכנסו לכרך אחד שלם והחריבוה
להלן בשביל נקבה כאן בשביל זכר
על חיבת העין בא על אכסניא של הקב"ה שנאמר בו
(דברים לג) חופף עליו כל היום
על אחת כמה וכמה

"let thy servant speak {[a word in my lord's ears... for thou art even as Pharaoh.]}":
My words should enter into your ears
The grandmother of this one (Binyamin) because Pharoah kept her one night,
he was smitten with leprosy, him and his entire household
As it states in Bereishit 12:17:

יז וַיְנַגַּע ה אֶת-פַּרְעֹה נְגָעִים גְּדֹלִים, וְאֶת-בֵּיתוֹ, עַל-דְּבַר שָׂרַי, אֵשֶׁת אַבְרָם.

17 And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.

Beware lest that man {= the vizier, Yosef} is stricken with leprosy.
The mother of this one {Rachel = mother of Binyamin} only died from the curse of father, and from there she died -
{Bereishit 31:32 - to Lavan, regarding the missing trafim:}

לב עִם אֲשֶׁר תִּמְצָא אֶת-אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לֹא יִחְיֶה--נֶגֶד אַחֵינוּ הַכֶּר-לְךָ מָה עִמָּדִי, וְקַח-לָךְ; וְלֹא-יָדַע יַעֲקֹב, כִּי רָחֵל גְּנָבָתַם.

32 With whomsoever thou findest thy gods, he shall not live; before our brethren discern thou what is thine with me, and take it to thee.'--For Jacob knew not that Rachel had stolen them.--

Beware lest one curse befall you and that man {=you, the vizier} die.
Two of us entered one town {Shechem} complete and destroyed it
In that instance for a female, here for a male
Upon the Beloved of the eye he approaches upon the Abode of Hashem, that is said regarding him
(Devarim 33:12:)

יב לְבִנְיָמִן אָמַר--יְדִיד ה, יִשְׁכֹּן לָבֶטַח עָלָיו; חֹפֵף עָלָיו כָּל-הַיּוֹם, וּבֵין כְּתֵפָיו שָׁכֵן.

12 Of Benjamin he said: The beloved of the LORD shall dwell in safety by Him; He covereth him all the day, and He dwelleth between his shoulders.

Certainly {will they take action}.

Clearly one of the motivating factors for this midrash is the question why they did not take action. Compare their violent reaction on behalf on Dinah to their subdued reaction on behalf of Shimon and Binyamin. Further, if we say that Egpyt is mightier, we saw Avraham overcome the might of Egypt in the past with the help of Hashem, and the midrash has Yaakov's unintentional curse carry lethal force. If so, why should they act so subservient?

There are also prompts in the text that allow for the specific midrash, as it appears. Explicitly, we see that the request to "speak a word in my lord's ear" is taken to mean that there is some hidden message, either spoken privately and alluded to in the reported speech, or that he is alluding to something and this hidden message in the public words should enter Yosef's ears.

The first threat - of leprosy, is derived from the end of the verse. You should not get angry at your servant and refuse to release Binyamin. For you are as Pharaoh. Not the current Pharoah, but the one from Avraham's time. Both you and he restrained members of my family. You may well be as Pharoah, and become a leper. Thus, what looks like flattering speech is actually a coded threat.

The remaining two cases - Yaakov's curse and Shimon and Levi's conquering of Shechem - may just be spelling out the motivation for the midrash and noting the contrast in attitudes. Alternatively, perhaps the next pasuk is taken to be an encoded message as well:

יט אֲדֹנִי שָׁאַל, אֶת-עֲבָדָיו לֵאמֹר: הֲיֵשׁ-לָכֶם אָב, אוֹ-אָח.

19 My lord asked his servants, saying: Have ye a father, or a brother?

The reference to his father would be the source of referring to the power of his father's curse. The reference to his brother would be the source of referring to his brothers Shimon and Levi who destroyed Shechem.

Indeed, to bolster the idea that this in fact forms the textual base for these three cases, I would note that the order of the midrash - Sarah, Yaakov's curse, Shimon and Levi destroying Shechem, follows the order of what I posit are the source text for the drash in the beginning of Vayigash. (They also may be in chronological order if we take Yaakov's curse as the even rather than Rachel's death).

yerushalmi class #2

singular vs. plural
מֶלֶךְ – melek - king
מַלְכִין – malkin - kings
מַלְכָּה – malka(h) - queen
מַלְכָן – malkan - queens

Start yerushalmi ketubot:

מסכת כתובות פרק א
דף א, א פרק א הלכה א משנה

בתולה נישאת ביום הרביעי

ואלמנה ביום החמישי

שפעמים בשבת בתי דינין יושבין בעיירות ביום השני וביום החמישי

שאם היה לו טענת בתולים היה משכים לבית דין

The mishna thus gives a reason, though of course this reason is only applicable to betula, not almana.

The gemara then offers reasons for the din in the mishna:

דף א, א פרק א הלכה א גמרא

בר קפרא אמר מפני שכתוב בם ברכה
...

רבי לעזר מייתי לה טעם דמתני'

שאם היה לו טענת בתולים היה משכים לבית דין

Two issues. How can Bar Kappara argue on the mishna? And what is the point of Rabbi Laizer, an Amora, agreeing with the mishna? How does an Amora's words add force to the mishna? The meforshim frame this, based on various details in the gemara, as a dispute which reason has primacy.

It might help to know who Bar Kappara and Rabbi Laizer are. Bar Kappara was a student of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. He did not receive smicha because of personal reasons - he twice insulted Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his household. His name was Elazar HaKappar, and his father was Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, who was a member of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's bet midrash. To distinguish the son from the father, we call him Bar Kappara. He overlaps the end of the Tanaaim and the first generation of Amoraim.

While Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi compiled the Mishnayot, others around the same time compiled other collections of Tanaaitic sayings. Bar Kappara compiled a set of brayata. So did two of his contemporaries - Rabbi Chiyya Rubba and Rabbi Hoshaya Rubba.

Thus, there is some likelihood that even though the yerushalmi says "Bar Kappara said," it is really Bar Kappara citing one of his brayata. Indeed, in Bavli, the same saying, but worked over a bit to include Rabbi Yose's insight, is introduced as "Tnai Bar Kappara."

Rabbi Laizer, when occurs in yerushalmi without a patronymic, refers to Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat, a first generation Amora who came from Bavel and settled in Eretz Yisrael. Once there, he studied under Rabbi Hoshaya Rubba, and frequently in yerushalmi will cite a brayta from those of Rabbi Hoshaya Rubba. He will also often cite a brayta from Rabbi Chiyya Rubba.

(The initial aleph of Elazar drops off, BTW, to form Laizer. Elision of aleph is a fairly common occurrence in Galilean Aramaic.)

I would suggest that Rabbi Laizer is not functioning here as an Amora, suggesting his own view that happens to be the same as the mishna, or even arguing with Bar Kappara over which reason has primacy. Rather, he is speaking here as a student of Rabbi Hoshaya Rubba, as one who cites the traditions in the brayata. He is thus telling us the explanation as encoded in the brayata of Rabbi Hoshaya Rubba and possible even Rabbi Chiyya Rubba.

Thus, we have 3 or 4 compilations of Tanaaitic sources. The Mishna gives one reason. Bar Kappara has in his tradition a different reason. Rabbi Laizer pipes up to tell us what the story is in the other contemporary Tanaaitic compilations, and notes that it is is agreement with the Mishna.

Ha'avara for yerushlami ketubot class

There is a specific section in the first sugya in Ketubot that I think is stama degemara, even though it has an statement from Rabbi Mana. The material in this section comes from elsewhere. Some of the sources:

ketubot

דף א, א פרק א הלכה א משנה בתולה נישאת ביום הרביעי ואלמנה ביום החמישי שפעמים בשבת בתי דינין יושבין בעיירות ביום השני וביום החמישי שאם היה לו טענת בתולים היה משכים לבית דין:

דף א, א פרק א הלכה א גמרא
מפני שאין כתיב ברכה בבריות
הא אילו הוה כתיב ברכה בבריות היתה נישאת בשבת
לא כן תני לא יבעול אדם בעילה בתחילה בשבת מפני שהוא עושה חבורה
אלא כאחרים מפני שאחרים מתירין
כלום אחרים מתירין אלא בשכנס
שעד שלא כנס אינו זכאי לא במציאתה ולא במעשה ידיה ולא בהפר נדריה
משכנס זכאי במציאתה ובמעשה ידיה ובהפר נדריה
אם אומר את כן נמצאתה כקונה קניין בשבת
אמר ר' מנא הדא אמרה אילין דכנסין אמרלן צריך לכונסה מבעוד יום שלא יהא כקונה קניין בשבת

yoma:

דף א, א פרק א הלכה א משנה שבעת ימים קודם ליום הכיפורים מפרישין כהן גדול מביתו ללישכת פרהדרין ומתקינן לו כהן אחר תחתיו שמא יארע בו פסול ר' יהודה אומר אף אשה אחרת מתקינין לו שמא תמות אשתו שנאמר (ויקרא טז) וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו ביתו היא אשתו אמרו לו חכמים א"כ אין לדבר סוף:

דף ה, ב פרק א הלכה א גמרא

ויקדש מאתמול
וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו ולא בעד שני בתים
רבי גמליאל בר' איניוני בעא קומי רבי מנא לא נמצא כקונה קיניין בשבת
א"ל משום שבות שהתירו במקדש
אמר רבי מנא הדא אמרה אילין דכנסין ארמלן צריך לכונסן מבעוד יום שלא יהא כקונה קניין בשבת

brachot
דף יח, ב פרק ב הלכה ו משנה חתן פטור מקרית שמע לילה הראשון עד מוצאי שבת אם לא עשה מעשה. מעשה בר"ג שנשא וקרא לילה הראשון אמרו לו תלמידיו לימדתנו רבינו שחתן פטור אמר להם איני שומע לכם לבטל ממני מלכות שמים אפי' שעה אחת:

דף יח, ב פרק ב הלכה ו גמרא ר' אלעזר בן אנטיגנוס בשם ר' אליעזר בי ר' ינאי זאת אומרת שמותר לבעול בעילה בתחילה בשבת. א"ר חגיי קומי ר' יוסה תיפתר באלמנה שאינה עושה חבורה. א"ל והא תנינן ארבעה לילות אית לך למימר ארבעה לילות באלמנה. א"ר יעקב בר זבדי קשייתה קומי

דף יט, א פרק ב הלכה ו גמרא ר' יוסי מה בינה לבין שובר את החבית לאכול ממנה גרוגרות. א"ל ומור דבתרה ובלבד שלא יתכוין לעשותה כלי. וכאן שמתכוין לעשותה בעולה כמי שמתכוין לעשותה כלי. רב יצחק בר רב משרשיא או מקשי מה בינה למיפיס מורסא בשבת. א"ל ומור דבתרה ובלבד שלא יתכוין לעשותה פה. וכאן מתכוין שהוא מתכוין לעשותה בעולה כמי שהוא מתכוין לעשותה כלי.
תני לא יבעול אדם בעילה לכתחילה בשבת מפני שהוא עושה חבורה ואחרים מתירין.
א"ר יוסי בי ר' אבון טעמון ואחרים למלאכתו הוא מתכוין מאיליה נעשה חבורה.
אסי אמר אסור

First let us examine the statement of Rabbi Mana. I think it is clear that the sugya of origin is in Yoma. Why? Firstly, the statement in Yoma is grammatical.

אמר רבי מנא הדא אמרה אילין דכנסין ארמלן צריך לכונסן מבעוד יום שלא יהא כקונה קניין בשבת

Here, it states that those (plural) who marry widows (plural) must marry them (plural)... That is, there is number agreement. Meanwhile, the same statement in Ketubot does not have the agreement.

אמר ר' מנא הדא אמרה אילין דכנסין אמרלן צריך לכונסה מבעוד יום שלא יהא כקונה קניין בשבת

Here, "widows" is plural and "marry her" is singular.

Furthermore, in the gemara in Yoma, when leads up to the statement of Rabbi Mana is a conversation between Rabbi Gamliel the son of Rabbi Inyoni and Rabbi Mana! Contrast this with the gemara in Ketubot, in which Rabbi Mana is not a participant.

Further, in Yoma, we see:

רבי גמליאל בר' איניוני בעא קומי רבי מנא

לא נמצא כקונה קיניין בשבת

Thus the question that marrying is like making a kinyan on Shabbat is attributed to Rabbi Gamliel son of Rabbi Inyoni. Contrast this with Ketubot, where the statement:

אם אומר את כן נמצאתה כקונה קניין בשבת

is entirely anonymous. Sure, it is in a slightly different context, but it is the same question, and posed directly to Rabbi Mana. It would seem that in terms of this question, at least, the source sugya is the one in Yoma.

The remainder of the sugya leading up to this point in Ketubot is entirely anonymous, starting as a question on an answer of Bar Kappara.

Those elements brought up in the anonymous sugya may also be found scattered throughout Shas, and it seems that they are probably original to those other sugin as well. For example, we see the Tanaaitic source about the first intercourse. In Brachot, we get the citation together with the Acherim, as well as an analysis of the reason of the Acherim. In Ketubot, we get a partial citation, with no mention of Acherim, and then a mention of the Acherim, as if the reader is expected to be familiar with the entire source. It seems that they discuss the Acherim, then cite the Rabbi Mana discussion to show that even according to them there is another issue, and interject an explanation of why is would be like someone who is koneh a kinyan on Shabbat on the basis of another sugya that talks about the nisuin actually gaining rights like dismissing oaths and access to the work of her hands.

The meforshim read this as an attack on Bar Kappara. Perhaps this is the aim of the back and forth of the sugya, or perhaps it is a digression, once we reach the opinion of the Acherim. But I think that at the least, Rabbi Mana is not reacting to this gemara, but rather to the local discussion in Yoma.

{Conjecture: Note also that in Yoma, the discussion is of a betula, since that is the only one a kohen gadol can marry. The suggestion is to do kiddushin as of yesterday, while he still has another wife. This is rejected on the basis of a derasha. Thus perhaps for a betula the only problem is if he did not do kiddushin. Rabbi Mana talks about widows, who are not betulot, and for whom kiddushin alone would not suffice to effect the kinyan of hafarat nedareha and maaseh yadeha. (This does not seem to be true, but rather it is a matter of kiddushin vs. nisuin, is the basis for the acquisition.)

However, according to what I've seen in the meforshim, this hafarat nedareha and maaseh yadeha is associated with arusa vs. nesua, in which case it would be a problem for a betula for a kohen gadol as well. The distinction they make is that by a betula you can use chuppa to effect the kinyan as well, so it will happen before Shabbat, which is not the case for almana. Something further to look into...

Update: Perhaps R Mana is not saying that it would not be a problem for betulot as well, but rather, since there was a problem according to one opinion of chillul shabbat for making a chabura, and others argue on this, he is saying that even where making a chabura would not occur - those who marry widows - there is another, Rabbinic issue, inherent in the question raised to him, which is making an acquisition on Shabbat, and so even widows one would have to marry before Shabbat. We then don't have to explain that he was thinking of doing nisuin of betulot via chuppa before Shabbat, but just extending the problem to a new scenario.}

Yet More On Copepods

from the copepod department.

The following exchange is in this week's Jewish Press:

The Debate Over Copepods (Cont`d.)

David Berger`s Oct. 22 op-ed article, "On the Prohibition of Water: An Appeal to Poskim," reflects the views of one who is only casually familiar with copepods. Fortunately, there are scientists called copepodologists who dedicate their entire careers to the study of these fascinating creatures. They have graciously spent tens of hours relaying their knowledge of these animals, and the information they have provided dispels many of the points raised by Professor Berger.

One issue raised was whether "learned and pious" Jews throughout the ages have unknowingly consumed copepods in any significant amount. The likely answer to this question is no. Wells do not contain planktonic (open water) copepods. Fast moving rivers also are copepod-free. And even when bucket after bucket of water is hauled up from a lake (or reservoir), copepods typically do not appear. This is due to several factors, including built-in escape mechanisms and diurnal migration (copepods tend to sink to lower waters by day, and surface only at night).

New York City’s infestation problem is a unique modern-day phenomenon. Two pipes, each eighteen feet of diameter, suck a million gallons of water per minute out of Kensico reservoir. These pipes are positioned sixty feet below the surface level of the water. Since there is no filtration in the New York City system, we are, in effect, drinking water from the very center of the lake — an area infested with copepods. It is the modern-day method of water delivery that creates a new, modern-day infestation problem.

The second point, which states that the visibility of copepods is "not identical, but it is very close" to that of microscopic organisms, is inaccurate. Copepods are significantly larger (adults are typically from 0.8-1.4 mm long, not counting antennae and “tails”). Also, their unusual movement makes them easily visible. They move in rapid bursts, called “hops” by the scientists. The hops occur about once every second, and momentarily accelerate the copepod to a velocity of 80 mm/s. In between hops is a sinking phase, during which the copepod remains passive. These bursts of movement make live copepods easily visible to the unaided eye. The copepodologists have found written descriptions of copepods as far back as Aristotle.

In New York City tap water, the copepods are difficult to see (unless isolated) because all of the copepods that show up in tap water are dead, killed by the chlorine treatment and the rigorous journey through the distribution system.

Occasionally, a lake will become overpopulated by copepods, which then will turn up in hand-drawn water. A review of the halachic literature shows that there was a great awareness of a potential bug problem with water. This is reflected in the significant amount of material on the topic, in the Talmud, Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 84:1-3), and poskim (summarized in Darchei Teshuvah ad loc.). Even in Hilchos Shabbos, a method of filtering water from bugs on Shabbos is casually discussed (O.C. 319:16).

There is an interesting way to prove that even very small water creatures, in the copepod size range, are an issue in halacha. R` Yeruchim (quoted by Beis Yosef 84 and all later codifiers) prohibits bugs that infest vinegar. Well, there is one creature that survives (and indeed thrives) in the extreme conditions of acidity found in vinegar. This is the nematode Turbatrix aceti, commonly know as the vinegar eel. This extremely thin worm-like creature is similar in size range to the copepods.

The question of whether New York City water is permitted without filtration is indeed a serious one, due to the severity of the issur of tolaim on one hand, and the basic necessity of water on the other. It is also a complicated issue, with many factors weighing in to the ultimate decision. It nevertheless is a halachic issue, and should be left to the poskim to debate and decide. We encourage every individual to follow the guidance of his particular rav and posek on this issue.

Yaakov Lach

(Via E-Mail)

Editor’s Note: The writer does volunteer work for the Brooklyn-based Vaad L`kashrus Hamayim, which is dedicated to facilitating the availability of effective and affordable filtration for those who wish to filter their water. The organization’s hotline number is (718) 907-6498. The Vaad wishes to thank the Orthodox Union for sharing its scientific research into copepods.

Dr. Berger Responds: I am grateful for Mr. Lach`s observations about copepods in lakes. My article did note that the "percentage of these creatures in New York City tap water [may be] higher than the percentage in a bucket of water drawn from the upper level of a lake," but I assumed that the likelihood of their presence in lake water was somewhat greater than Mr. Lach indicates.

The key point of my article, however, does not stand in conflict with the data presented by Mr. Lach and in fact assumed the validity of those data. The piece began by citing a ruling "affirm[ing] that once copepods can be seen as moving entities in the city`s reservoirs, they remain prohibited even when they are not discernible in tap water." Thus, when I wrote that "the situation here is not identical [to that of genuinely microscopic organisms], but it is very close," I was saying that although — unlike microscopic organisms — copepods can be seen with the naked eye in some circumstances, they are — like microscopic organisms — generally not visible in a glass of New York City water.

“The proposition before us,” I wrote, “is that the Torah prohibits drinking a glass of perfectly clear water in which no one has ever observed a forbidden substance” — and which, of course, may contain no copepods at all. I then underscored the point by noting that a stellar array of gedolei Yisrael drank this water for generations without in fact noticing anything. (I should add that some observers report that after appropriate training they can see copepods — generally as mere dots — in a halachically relevant percentage of cases, while others assert that they cannot.)

I am in full agreement with Mr. Lach`s concluding paragraph.

ketubot 1a 

Post-yerushalmi shiur retrospective #1

I think the first yerushalmi shiur went well. I started with some show-and-tell of some editions of Yerushalmi I like (from Rav Kanievsky, and the Yedid Nefesh Yerushalmi from Rabbi Bar-Lev), talking a bit about the importance of having tzurat hadaf as well as having easy access to the various textual corrections.

I discussed how and perhaps why Yerushalmi is shorter and simpler than the Bavli.

(Also, in response to a question of what to do when Bavli argues with Yerushalmi, I brought up the Rif's explanation of why we should side like the Bavli. Why then learn Yerushalmi? Well, even with the Rif, Yerushalmi gives stereo vision. It can help us understand what is going on in the Bavli, ambiguous statements. We can see how other Amoraim dealt with the Tanaaitic sources. etc.)

I tried to cover the material in this post - and reached until the end of the Nedarim and Nazir material. This was essentially a bit of Aramaic grammar, and some dialectal differences between Babylonian and Galilean Aramaic. This led into the Nedarim, Nazir material, which is the subject of a post titled "Did a dialectal difference between Babylonian and Galilean Aramaic lead to a mistaken psak?" (Yechezkel Kutscher claims it did - I come to the conclusion that it did not.)

Afterwards, I mentioned the idea of ha'avara - a sugya which originates in one gemara and is carried over to another, sometimes with differences, and sometimes such that you must figure out what is part of the local sugya and what was carried over. To illustrate this, I first cited this gemara:

nazir 1a

דף א, א פרק א הלכה א גמרא
כתיב (במדבר ל) איש כי ידור נדר
מה תלמוד לומר נדר
אלא מיכן שכינויי נדרים כנדרים
(שם) או השבע
מה תלמוד לומר שבועה
אלא מיכן שכינוי שבועה כשבועה
גר"ש ראש"ה דנדרי"ם קדמית"א ע"ד דמט"י אשכח

The last line reads "it {the text of the gemara} is written in the beginning of the first perek of Nedarim until you reach {the word} Ashkach." Each word is marked with a quotation mark to make sure the reader knows this is not in fact the text of the gemara, but rather a scribe or printer who did not want to go to the trouble of copying the text again in Nazir, since after all the identical text may be found in the beginning of Nedarim. If you want to know what it says, look there! Thus, here the scribe was aware of the ha'avara and took advantage of it.

The second example, just to show the importance of comparative sugyology in instances of ha'avara is:

nazir 1b - importance of comparative sugyology

אמר ר' יוסי נראין דברים במקומות אחרים אבל במקום שקוראין לנזיר נזיק אנו אומרים נזיר פסילים אינו נזיר

The same text sugya occurs in Nedarim, except with slighly different language. In Nedarim, the text of the sugya teaches that using nicknames for Nedarim and Nazir is effective even in places where these nicknames are not in use, because for the Mishna to teach that they are effective in places where they are in use would be unneccessary - of course it would be good. Because, so would I say (=ask): would an attempt to become a Nazir from someone with a speech impediment (Greek psilos) not be good? {Of course it would be good.} In Nedarim, this is the explanation given by the two standard commentaries, the Korban HaEdah and the Penei Moshe.

In Nazir, we see the same girsa, more or less. The Penei Moshe gives no explanation on location, but says to look at his explanation in Nedarim. The Korban HaEda, though, is inconsistent, and offers a different explanation. Probably because of the slight difficulty inherent in reading the last portion as a question, and the strangeness of the greek word, he gives a different girsa. He changes the text to be:

אמר ר' יוסי נראין דברים במקום שקוראין לנזיר נזיק אבל במקומות אחרים אנו אומרים נזיר פסילים אינו נזיר

Thus, the Mishna only speaks about places where they have this specific dialect, but for other locations, we will assume it is a mocking, non-real language, and he is not a nazir.

Thus, with a slight change to the girsa, you have an entirely different conclusion. Locally, this is the only explanation you get because the Penei Moshe refers you elsewhere to see what he has to say. In the Yedid Nefesh Yerushalmi, he offers the emended text, and I did a double-take because I had learned the Nedarim gemara about two weeks earlier, and very similar words led to a completely different conclusion. That is why it is important to look at the tzurat hadaf, as well as the commentaries, and also to cover a lot of ground so you can recognize a duplicated sugya when you encounter it. Also, when Penei Moshe tells you to look at X, it may be worthwhile to check it out. {In this instance, I am convinced that the Nedarim explanation, which requires no emendation of the text, is the correct one.}

Vayigash #2: The Three Approaches

As I mentioned in the preceding post, Chazal read Yehudah's statements to Yosef in three ways - as prayer, as appeasement, and as threat. I suggested this might be patterned after the three steps Yaakov took when faced with the approaching threat of Esav.

To elaborate a bit on these three approaches, Chazal look to how the word Vayigash is used throughout Tanach. midrash rabba, parasha 93, siman 6:

ד"א וַיִּגַּשׁ אֵלָיו יְהוּדָה
ר' יהודה ר' נחמיה ורבנן
ר' יהודה אומר הגשה למלחמה
היך מד"א (שמואל ב י) וַיִּגַּשׁ יוֹאָב, וְהָעָם אֲשֶׁר עִמּוֹ, לַמִּלְחָמָה
רבי נחמיה אומר הגשה לפיוס
המד"א (יהושע יד) וַיִּגְּשׁוּ בְנֵי-יְהוּדָה אֶל-יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לפייסו
רבנן אמרי הגשה לתפלה
(מלכים א יח) וַיִּגַּשׁ אֵלִיָּהוּ הַנָּבִיא וַיֹּאמַר, ה' אֱלֹקֵי וגו'
ר"א אמר פשט להון אם למלחמה אני בא אם לפיוס אני בא אם לתפלה אני בא

Another explanation: וַיִּגַּשׁ אֵלָיו יְהוּדָה - "Then Judah came near unto him"
[A dispute of] Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Nechemiah, and Rabanan.
Rabbi Yehudah says "coming near" to battle.
Just as it states in 2 Shmuel 10:13:

יג וַיִּגַּשׁ יוֹאָב, וְהָעָם אֲשֶׁר עִמּוֹ, לַמִּלְחָמָה, בַּאֲרָם; וַיָּנֻסוּ, מִפָּנָיו.

13 So Joab and the people that were with him drew nigh unto the battle against the Arameans; and they fled before him.

Rabbi Nechemiah says, "drawing near" appease
Just at it states in Yehoshua 14:6:

ו וַיִּגְּשׁוּ בְנֵי-יְהוּדָה אֶל-יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, בַּגִּלְגָּל, וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, כָּלֵב בֶּן-יְפֻנֶּה הַקְּנִזִּי: אַתָּה יָדַעְתָּ אֶת-הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה אִישׁ-הָאֱלֹהִים, עַל אֹדוֹתַי וְעַל אֹדוֹתֶיךָ--בְּקָדֵשׁ בַּרְנֵעַ.

6 Then the children of Judah drew nigh unto Joshua in Gilgal; and Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite said unto him: 'Thou knowest the thing that the LORD spoke unto Moses the man of God concerning me and concerning thee in Kadesh-barnea.

to appease him.
Rabanan say "drawing near" {means} prayer.
1 Kings 18:36:

לו וַיְהִי בַּעֲלוֹת הַמִּנְחָה, וַיִּגַּשׁ אֵלִיָּהוּ הַנָּבִיא וַיֹּאמַר, ה' אֱלֹקֵי אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיִשְׂרָאֵל, הַיּוֹם יִוָּדַע כִּי-אַתָּה אֱלֹקִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וַאֲנִי עַבְדֶּךָ; ובדבריך (וּבִדְבָרְךָ) עָשִׂיתִי, אֵת כָּל-הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה.	36 And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening offering, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said: 'O LORD, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that Thou art God in Israel, and that I am Thy servant, and that I have done all these things at Thy word.
לז עֲנֵנִי ה, עֲנֵנִי, וְיֵדְעוּ הָעָם הַזֶּה, כִּי-אַתָּה ה הָאֱלֹקִים; וְאַתָּה הֲסִבֹּתָ אֶת-לִבָּם, אֲחֹרַנִּית.	37 Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that Thou, LORD, art God, for Thou didst turn their heart backward.'

Rabbi Elazar made it a non-dispute. "Whether to war I am coming or to appease I am coming or to pray I am coming {I am ready}."

Thus we have the three possible interpretations of Yehudah's drawing near.

Vayigash #1: Jewish Might

An interesting contrast is between what the brothers did for Dinah, and what they did for Shimon and then Binyamin. To save Dinah, the two brothers Shimon and Levi wiped out the male fighters of Shechem, and the remaining brothers took the rest for spoils. When Shimon is taken by the vizier of Egypt, they do not react violently, but rather try to appease him. The same is true later on, when Binyamin is taken. In parshat Vayigash, Yehuda approaches to speak to the vizier, who is Yosef, and pleads his case that they are being treated unfairly. Throughout, he tries to be polite, humble, and supplicative. For example, we see that Yehuda starts (Bereishit 44:18-19):

יח וַיִּגַּשׁ אֵלָיו יְהוּדָה, וַיֹּאמֶר בִּי אֲדֹנִי, יְדַבֶּר-נָא עַבְדְּךָ דָבָר בְּאָזְנֵי אֲדֹנִי, וְאַל-יִחַר אַפְּךָ בְּעַבְדֶּךָ: כִּי כָמוֹךָ, כְּפַרְעֹה.	18 Then Judah came near unto him, and said: 'Oh my lord, let thy servant, I pray thee, speak a word in my lord's ears, and let not thine anger burn against thy servant; for thou art even as Pharaoh.
יט אֲדֹנִי שָׁאַל, אֶת-עֲבָדָיו לֵאמֹר: הֲיֵשׁ-לָכֶם אָב, אוֹ-אָח.	19 My lord asked his servants, saying: Have ye a father, or a brother?

On a simple peshat level the distinction is obvious. By Dinah and Shechem, they dealt with a small town in Canaan. Even then, they needed to resort to subterfuge. In contrast, here they are dealing with the second in command of the great empire Egypt - as Yehudah says, "for thou art even as Pharaoh." They are not truly a match for the might of Egypt.

In the midrash rabba, Chazal treat it differently. The brothers are great warriors and surely a match for Egypt. One midrash explains the situation as reluctance to destroy the great empire, for while they could destroy Shechem with no major repercussions, if they destroy Egypt the entire world, which relies upon it, will be ruined.

I want to focus this week on one of the major themes of the midrash of Vayigash, that of Jewish might, and Jewish superheroes, especially because it fits in nicely with one theme of Chanukka and the Maccabees.

Yehudah's speech is interpreted in three strains at one point in the midrash - as attempted appeasement (= peshat), as prayer to God, and as threats of war. I would suggest that the template for this would be Yaakov's three ways of dealing with Esav in parashat Vayishlach (Bereishit 32). Yaakov sent presents to Esav with words of appeasement, and when he finally met him appeased him. He prayed (see pasuk 10). He split his camp into various camps in preparation for war.

I will leave for now with one concrete midrash showing how Yehudah's words can be interpreted as a threat.

As we read earlier,

יח וַיִּגַּשׁ אֵלָיו יְהוּדָה, וַיֹּאמֶר בִּי אֲדֹנִי, יְדַבֶּר-נָא עַבְדְּךָ דָבָר בְּאָזְנֵי אֲדֹנִי, וְאַל-יִחַר אַפְּךָ בְּעַבְדֶּךָ: כִּי כָמוֹךָ, כְּפַרְעֹה.

18 Then Judah came near unto him, and said: 'Oh my lord, let thy servant, I pray thee, speak a word in my lord's ears, and let not thine anger burn against thy servant; for thou art even as Pharaoh.

The words יְדַבֶּר-נָא means "please speak" or "now speak." However, the root dbr which means speech can also connote pestilence - deber. Further, נָא can be vowelized with a cholam - O sound, and become No. No is a city in Egypt - Alexandria.

We see that No is a city in Egypt (just like Denial is a river in Egypt) in Yechezkel 30:13-16:

יג כֹּה-אָמַר ה אלקים, וְהַאֲבַדְתִּי גִלּוּלִים וְהִשְׁבַּתִּי אֱלִילִים מִנֹּף, וְנָשִׂיא מֵאֶרֶץ-מִצְרַיִם, לֹא יִהְיֶה-עוֹד; וְנָתַתִּי יִרְאָה, בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.	13 Thus saith the Lord GOD: I will also destroy the idols, and I will cause the things of nought to cease from Noph; and there shall be no more a prince out of the land of Egypt; and I will put a fear in the land of Egypt.
יד וַהֲשִׁמֹּתִי, אֶת-פַּתְרוֹס, וְנָתַתִּי אֵשׁ, בְּצֹעַן; וְעָשִׂיתִי שְׁפָטִים, בְּנֹא.	14 And I will make Pathros desolate, and will set a fire in Zoan, and will execute judgments in No.
טו וְשָׁפַכְתִּי חֲמָתִי, עַל-סִין מָעוֹז מִצְרָיִם; וְהִכְרַתִּי, אֶת-הֲמוֹן נֹא.	15 And I will pour My fury upon Sin, the stronghold of Egypt; and I will cut off the multitude of No.
טז וְנָתַתִּי אֵשׁ, בְּמִצְרַיִם--חוּל תחיל (תָּחוּל) סִין, וְנֹא תִּהְיֶה לְהִבָּקֵעַ; וְנֹף, צָרֵי יוֹמָם.	16 And I will set a fire in Egypt; Sin shall be in great convulsion, and No shall be rent asunder; and in Noph shall come adversaries in the day-time.

Thus, he is threatening to destroy (bring pestilence to) No if the vizier does not release Binyamin.

I hope to post more on this this week, but may not be able to. Deadlines approach.