Sunday, December 31, 2006

Vayigash Discussions

There were several good responses and comments to Vayigash posts, so I thought I'd note them here.

On my post on "When Was Yosef Sold?" David Silverberg pointed out a typo in my counting -- I wrote 30 instead of 39 as Yosef's age where the brothers stood before him. He has further considerations of the post on his blog -- that this could explain Yosef's motivations in having Binyamin brought, whether the story of Yehuda and Tamar co-occurred or happened after, and whether Chevron was the same as Emek Chevron. Ayen Sham. In a separate post (on which I left a comment), he considers whether Yaakov at any point became aware of the sale of Yosef, according to Rashi.

In "Are Reuven's Children Tribbles?" I wonder how Reuven goes from two children to four in such a short timespan, and suggest this is additional proof that habaim mitzrayma does not mean those who physically entered Egypt but rather refers to the generation of entering Egypt as opposed to the generation which left Egypt. Steg suggested that et shnei vanai means not "my two sons" but rather "two of my sons." The parallel would be to Yosef and Binyamin, or perhaps to Shimon and Binyamin. Indeed, this is the classic explanation. To cite Shadal:

[ לז ] את שני בני : שנים מבני ( רד"ק , וכן דעת שאר הקדמונים). הן אמת כי מילת את מורה על דבר מיוחד וידוע, כמו ה"א הידיעה, ומשמעות את שני בני הוא שני בני הידועים, כלו' שלא היו לו אלא שני בנים, וידענו כי היו לו ארבעה בנים ( למטה מ"ו ט' ), לפיכך יש אומרים (י' ש' ריגיו ובוצר עוללות) כי חצרון וכרמי לא נולדו עדיין, ודעתי נוטה לדעת הקדמונים כי בכמה מקומות מצאנו ה"א הידיעה על דבר בלתי מיוחד, כמו למעלה פסוק כ"ז ויפתח האחד את שקו, עיין שם. על ידי : על אחריותי ( ר"ש דובנא ), מליצת על יד נמצאת להוראת הנתינה ביד שומר שאחריות הפיקדון עליו, עיין שמואל א' י"ז כ"ב , מלכים ב' י' כ"ד , י"ב י"ב , וכ"ב ה' וט ' .

Thus, some say that at this point he only had two sons, and others (Radak and so too others). The grammatical justification he gives is that et sometimes functions as a type of definite article, just as the heh hayedia, and the heh hayedia sometimes indeed goes on something that is not meyuchad. Thus, "and the one opened his sack" means one of them, and not specifically one who is meyuchad.

In a comment on "The Ambiguity of וְעָזַב אֶת-אָבִיו וָמֵת," Rabbi Nachman Levine points out how this can be multivalent, deliberately intending both, and shows that Rabbenu Bachya says this and reinforces this. In a comment on "The Three Approaches," he cites the Lubavitcher Rebbe about the implication of Vayigash by Sedom, and how since Avraham already stands before Hashem, Vayigash there must mean prayer or argumentation, and notes how the same applies here.

(Dis-)Like this post? Rate it!

Friday, December 22, 2006

Chanukka: Is the Beit Yosef's Question So Good?

The gemara stated the nes Chanukka:

מאי חנוכה, דתנו רבנן, בכ"ה בכסליו יומי דחנוכה תמניא אינון, דלא למספד בהון ודלא להתענות בהון (מגילת תענית, משנה כ"ג). שנכנסו יוונים להיכל, טימאו כל השמנים שבהיכל וכשגברה מלכות בית חשמונאי ונצחום,בדקו ולא מצאו אלא פך אחד של שמן, שהיה מונח בחותמו של כהן גדול, ולא היה בו אלא להדליק יום אחד.נעשה בו נס, והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים. לשנה אחרת קבעום ועשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודאה". (גמרא שבת כא

The question: If the oil was sufficient for one day's lighting anyway, then the nes was only for 7 days, not 8. So why establish 8 days of Chanukka?!

This is a useful question for rhetorical purposes, for those wanting to introduce the idea that it wasn't because of any nes but rather because of the late Succot they celebrated according to II Maccabees. But let us leave aside the controversy, whether or not there even is one. Is this really such a great question?

To my mind, only an anal-retentive accountant could ask this question and really be concerned. Let us assume, for the purpose of argument, that there were no other reasons for the 8 day holiday but the nes -- ignore the 8 day Chanukkat haMizbeach described in many sources, including traditional Jewish sources, and ignore the connection to Succot even in traditional Jewish sources. Let us pretend for a moment that it is just the 8 days of burning oil.

Let us say such a nes occurred, and Chazal saw this and decided to establish an 8 day holiday. All of a sudden, some tzurba meiRabbanan gets up and objects as follows: "Sure, it burned for 8 days due to a miracle. But it would have burned for one day anyway. So we should only establish an 7 day holiday!"

My guess is that they would have rolled their eyes, and perhaps kicked him out of the Beit Midrash just as was done to the ever-so-precise Rabbi Yirmiyah. (See Bava Metzia 21a and several other locations in Shas.) They would say, "Due to a miracle, it burned for this eight day period, so we will establish it for the timespan that it burnt!" Such is obvious.

Of course, I doubt that even the Bet Yosef was really troubled by the question. He asked the question for the purpose of offering his answers, in order to clarify the nature of the nes. And many, many others have offered answers as well.

While not troubled by the question, I find two resolutions/clarifications particularly useful:
1) Since oil sufficient for 1 day lasted 8 days, that means that every day it was burning more slowly, taking up less oil, so all days' burnings were miraculous. Such seems rather straightforward from a plain reading of the gemara, such that the question is a non-starter, even if it were serious.

2) According to the Hebrew Scholion of Megillat Taanit, the reason for 8 days for the Chanukkat haBayit, even though two known previous dedications were for 7 days (namely, Moshe for the Mishkan and Shlomo for the Bet HaMikdash) was that that was how long it took them. Thus, the miracle of the oil was the reason for establishing it on subsequent years, but the 8 day period was for various practical reasons. (This may or may not agree with I or II Maccabees, since both describe this as an 8-day Chanukkat haMizbeach, but the purification and repair was quite likely done previous to this.) Thus, the particular length of the miracle, would be irrelevant since the Yom Tov is patterned after the first one, which was 8 days for whatever reason.

That "whatever reason" can be Succot, but that is only mentioned in II Maccabees, not in I Maccabees or Josephus, (though could well be the reason of Bet Shammai's kineged parei haChag) and then one can ask the same question on the Succot reason as skeptics have asked about the nes Chanukka -- how come I Maccabees has no record of this, and how come Josephus does not record this? Also, II Maccabees contains much expansive material, including miracles which the skeptics among us wouldn't accept. Also it was written centuries after the event. True, it was an abridgment of a set of 5 books (and letters) which may (or may not, it is actually up for debate among scholars) have been written at the time of Judah the Maccabee, but for all we know this is a later insertion, dating as late as 80 CE, spicing up the chag and explaining why they had it for 8 days instead of 7 (as we would expect from other dedication ceremonies), giving some personality and motivation to the account. (That they remembered how they had lived like animals a short while ago during Succot, unable to celebrate in the Temple, whereas now they had access to the Temple.)

The question of why an 8 day dedication ceremony rather than a 7 day one strikes me as a much stronger question than the one about the miracle.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

parshat Mikeitz: What Is Bothering Joshy? רְדוּ-שָׁמָּה

A short while ago, someone asked me by email what I saw wrong with the "What's Bothering Rashi?" approach. I never got around to answering him, but perhaps I can point him to this post.

First, I will address this from a methodological perspective and then will give a concrete example of where the "What's Bothering Rashi?" approach can go wrong.

Methodologically, my problem is that the "What's Bothering Rashi?" approach
a) assumes that Rashi is dealing with a peshat level of the text, when in fact that vast majority of Rashi consists of citations of midrashim
b) often assumes that what motivates Rashi are the textual irregularities. Since Rashi so often cites a midrash, we will of course find textual irregularities which prompted the midrash. But what inspires the midrash is not necessarily what inspired Rashi.

(At least this is so in this particular instance I will analyze, and in some (but not all) others I have seen.)

Rashi reuses and selects midrashic material, often for peshat purposes. Thus, it is often productive to compare the original midrashic formulation with that of Rashi, to see if and how he changes it (the series Lifshuto shel Rashi often does this). It is useful to see if the midrash is on the same pasuk that Rashi places it, or if Rashi is applying a midrash on one verse to another verse to address a new issue. It is useful to see the array of midrashic material available, and how Rashi selects a specific midrash for peshat oriented ends. It is useful to see how the various midrashim Rashi selects form a thematic unit, or to contemplate what sorts of questions with the narrative Rashi is trying to answer.

In other words, there are indeed useful methodological questions to ask when reading a Rashi. However, coming in with incorrect assumptions, the questions one may ask could be inappropriate and misleading, and the answers one gives to these questions will lead one further astray.

A practical example of what I find problematic with the "What's Bothering Rashi?" approach, from parshat Miketz. We will analyze a Rashi, then compare it with the "What's Bothering Rashi?" approach.

Bereishit 42:1-2:
א וַיַּרְא יַעֲקֹב, כִּי יֶשׁ-שֶׁבֶר בְּמִצְרָיִם; וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב לְבָנָיו, לָמָּה תִּתְרָאוּ. 1 Now Jacob saw that there was corn in Egypt, and Jacob said unto his sons: 'Why do ye look one upon another?'
ב וַיֹּאמֶר--הִנֵּה שָׁמַעְתִּי, כִּי יֶשׁ-שֶׁבֶר בְּמִצְרָיִם; רְדוּ-שָׁמָּה וְשִׁבְרוּ-לָנוּ מִשָּׁם, וְנִחְיֶה וְלֹא נָמוּת. 2 And he said: 'Behold, I have heard that there is corn in Egypt. Get you down thither, and buy for us from thence; that we may live, and not die.'
Rashi says (taken from Judaica Press)
Go down there Heb. רְדוּ. But he did not say,“Go (לְכוּ).” He alluded to the 210 years that they were enslaved in Egypt, according to the numerical value of רְדוּ. — [from Gen Rabbah 91:2, Tan. Mikeitz 8]
They do us a great service by giving the sources so that we can look it up. Taking from Bereishit Rabba 91:2

ב ויאמר יעקב לבניו למה תתראו, אמר להם אל תוציאו בידכם פרוסה, (נ"א פרוטות), ואל תכנסו כלכם בפתח אחת מפני העין, ויאמר הנה שמעתי וגו', רדו ושברו לנו משם, א"ר אבא בר כהנא בישרם שהן עתידין לעשות שם ר"י שנה מנין רד"ו, וירדו אחי יוסף עשרה, א"ר בנימין ממשמע שנאמר אחי יוסף, איני יודע שהם עשרה אתמהא, אלא תשעה חלוקים לאחוה, ואחד לשבר בר, ואת בנימין אחי יוסף וגו'.

Of this, Rashi actually cites the latter two on each appropriate verse. The first part about למה תתראו he does not cite, though cites a related midrashic statement later when Yosef accuses them of being spies, because they entered from separate gates. So we know that Rashi is citing this from a midrash.

What about the introduction Go down there Heb. רְדוּ. But he did not say,“Go (לְכוּ)?” Rashi believes in the truth of midrash, but recognizes that it is on a separate level from peshat. On a peshat level, a simpler verb, לכו, would have sufficed. However, a more complex, more arcane verb is used - רדו. It happens to be that the gematria of רדו is 210. Thus, רדו שמה has the additional, midrashic connotation, "you will be there for 210 years."

Rashi surely knows that this is a midrash, rather than simple peshat in the pasuk. For what reason would he bring down this midrash here? What strikes him as important?

From a thematic perspective, this is part of the beginning of the exile in Egypt. It is a fulfillment of the promise made to Avraham at the berit ben habesarim. Thus, we should have a significant prediction about the exile, making it clear that this is part of the divine master plan.

Also thematically, Rashi cites midrashim that makes Yaakov aware of, and complicit in this descent to Egypt, even though from a surface reading of the text Yaakov knows nothing. For example, when Yaakov sends Yosef to check on his brothers, Rashi cites a midrash that he sent him to fulfill this exile in Egypt as stated in the berit bein habesarim. In Rashi on Bereishit 37:14:
from…Hebron But is not Hebron on a mountain? It is stated: “And they ascended in the south, and he came as far as Hebron” (Num. 13:22). But [it is to be understood that he sent him] from the deep counsel of the righteous man who is buried in Hebron (i.e., Abraham), to fulfill what was said to Abraham between the parts (Gen. 15:13). [From Gen. Rabbah 84:13]
{as a derasha on Emek Chevron}
{Update: This specific example is not necessarily so good, since one can modify the words in brackets above such that it is not Yaakov behind this but rather Hashem.}

A bit later, even though Yaakov thinks Yosef is dead, Yitzchak knows via ruach hakodesh that Yosef is still alive:
and his father wept for him This refers to Isaac. He was weeping over Jacob’s distress, but he did not mourn [for Joseph], for he knew that he was alive. [From Gen. Rabbah 84:21]
{taking "his father" as Yaakov's father rather than "Yosef's father."}

On the previous pasuk than the one we are considering, Yaakov sends them down because there is shever, grain, in Egypt. But it can also mean "hope." Thus, Rashi explains:
Jacob saw that there was grain being sold in Egypt From where did he see it? Is it not true that he did not see it, only that he heard of it, as it is said: “Behold, I have heard, etc.” (verse 2) ? What then is the meaning of “saw” ? He saw with the divine “mirror” that he still had hope (שֶׂבֶר) in Egypt, but it was not a real prophecy to explicitly inform him that this was Joseph. — [from Gen. Rabbah 91:6]
Thus, Yaakov is established as someone with more insight into this situation than one might realize at a first glance. In the Rashi under consideration, Yaakov says רדו, thus alluding to and announcing to them about the 210 years in exile. Within this midrash, did Yaakov realize he was doing this? Did the shevatim understand this? To the first question, the answer is unclear. To the second, the answer is probably "no."

I would also point out how Rashi favors ambiguous dialog, in which phrases have more than one meaning. (Perhaps this is an influence of being a darshanic pashtan.) Thus, where characters say things that either deliberately or accidentally have a deeper, true meaning, Rashi is apt to point it out, and say this is the Ruach haKodesh speaking through them. Thus Rashi brings down the midrashim on Anochi Esav Bechorecha from Yaakov's mouth, on Tzadka Mimeni from Yehuda's, and a bit later in this perek, כֻּלָּנוּ בְּנֵי אִישׁ-אֶחָד נָחְנוּ from Yosef's brothers. "We," as in English, can include or exclude the person you are addressing. (Some languages are not ambiguous in this way.) Thus, they are saying "we," including Yosef, are all the son of one man. Thus, Rashi says, citing a midrash,
We are all sons of one man The Holy Spirit flickered within them, and they included him with them, for he too was the son of their father. — [from Gen. Rabbah 91:7]
Thus, within the perspective of the midrash and/or within the perspective of Rashi (they need not be the same) Yaakov could have intended this prediction with רדו שמה or could have unwittingly made the prediction with this statement. Either way, it is the type of deep meaning that Rashi often cites.

There is another reason for bringing down this gematria. The issue of how many years the Israelites were in Egypt is problematic. An explicit pasuk stated 430 years. Yet based on calculation by Chazal based on evidence in various pesukim, they arrive at 210. As does Rashi and other pashtanim. (410 is taken as being from Yitzchak.) Citing this midrash bolters the 210 year account, by giving additional textual basis to it, and so this could be another reason for Rashi citing it.

{Update: One other significant point. We may take {or kvetch} רדו שמה as "be subjugated there," from rodeh rather than yrd. Thus, it is not only the gematria that hints to the exile and servitude of 210 years.}

This is my reading of this Rashi. It may be correct, or it may not. Note that methodologically, I don't assume that Rashi is operating at a peshat level such that he is bothered by some "difficulty." I don't assume that he find some problem with the wording of the text, such that he must suggest some resolution. I do note that Rashi gets this from a midrash, give the text of the midrash, and consider what could be motivating Rashi to cite this specific midrash here, as opposed to omitting it. These are considerations of what this midrash adds to our overall perspective of the story, and how it fits in thematically with other midrashim Rashi cites.

Now let us see the "What's Bothering Rashi?" approach. To cite from the article:
Genesis 42:2

"And he said 'Behold, I have heard that there are provisions in Egypt. Go down there and purchase for us there, that we may live and not die.' "

RASHI

Go down there - RASHI: He did not say 'go' (but rather 'Go down'). This is a hint to the two hundred and ten years that they (the Nation Israel) were to be enslaved in Egypt. For the Hebrew word 'R'du' ('Go down') is numerically 210."

Look at Rashi on verse Genesis 45:9.

Do you have a question on our Rashi-comment?
He does not provide it, so let us cite Genesis 45:9 and the Rashi there:
ט מַהֲרוּ, וַעֲלוּ אֶל-אָבִי, וַאֲמַרְתֶּם אֵלָיו כֹּה אָמַר בִּנְךָ יוֹסֵף, שָׂמַנִי אֱלֹהִים לְאָדוֹן לְכָל-מִצְרָיִם; רְדָה אֵלַי, אַל-תַּעֲמֹד. 9 Hasten ye, and go up to my father, and say unto him: Thus saith thy son Joseph: God hath made me lord of all Egypt; come down unto me, tarry not.
Note the word וַעֲלוּ, and go up. Rashi says there:

and go up to my father The land of Israel is higher than all [other] lands. [From Kidd. 69a, b]

Note also that this is from a difference source that the derasha on רדו, though of course Rashi does cite both. However, not necessarily is it appropriate to ask from one midrash to another. It might be in this case given that this עלו in the pasuk is the opposite of רדו, but still, it is something to note. The "What's Bothering Rashi?" approach continues:
A Question: Rashi assumes that the word "go" ('l'chu' in Hebrew) is more appropriate than 'r'du'. But this is not so. Rashi himself tells us further on (Genesis 45:9) that Eretz Yisrael is higher than all other lands, thus when speaking of going to Eretz Yisrael the Torah uses the word 'alu' ('go up') and conversely when one leaves Eretz Yisrael the Torah uses the word 'to go down.' So Jacob's word here - 'go down there (to Egypt)' are appropriate. How can Rashi imply that he should have said 'go' and not 'go down'?

A difficult question. Can you think of an answer?

Hint: Look carefully at verse 45:9. Granted that verse speaks of "going up" and our verse speaks of "going down" but in fact the idea is the same. Can you see any other difference between our verse and that one?
Thus, he assumes that Rashi is really bothered by the choice of words, such that it is inappropriate to use the word רדו. By citing another verse where עלו occurs, it is now a question on Rashi why he thinks such a word choice is inappropriate. Meanwhile, in our analysis above, this would never have been a question, because the issue is not whether such a word is inappropriate but rather since the word is more arcane and לכו would have sufficed, the word choice is enough to form the basis of a gematria-based midrash.

I will add another point which will in fact spoil the answer he is about the give. He made an error by saying "Granted that verse speaks of "going up" and our verse speaks of "going down" but in fact the idea is the same." In fact, the verse speaks both about going up and going down. Once again, that verse is:
ט מַהֲרוּ, וַעֲלוּ אֶל-אָבִי, וַאֲמַרְתֶּם אֵלָיו כֹּה אָמַר בִּנְךָ יוֹסֵף, שָׂמַנִי אֱלֹהִים לְאָדוֹן לְכָל-מִצְרָיִם; רְדָה אֵלַי, אַל-תַּעֲמֹד. 9 Hasten ye, and go up to my father, and say unto him: Thus saith thy son Joseph: God hath made me lord of all Egypt; come down unto me, tarry not.
Note that in the beginning of the verse there is the word וַעֲלוּ, "go up," while at the end of the verse we have רְדָה, "come down." Thus we have both "go up" to Israel and "come down" to Egypt. He does not realize this, probably since he looked in the Rashi, which does not cite this, rather than the pasuk. He asks whether we can see any difference. He answers:
An Answer: Rashi's point is well taken. Because while the Torah uses the words "going up" and "going down" when coming to or leaving Eretz Yisrael respectively, an individual does not. (Today of course we do speak of "Aliya" but in the Torah Jacob would not ordinarily have used this word.) Jacob's use of this word is therefore inappropriate. His word "going down" has a negative connotation and implied going down into slavery - for 210 years.

Can you find support for Rashi, that Jacob would not have used this word, had it not been for the implied hint that it conveys?

Hint: Look further on in the story.
He refers to this as "Rashi's point," but Rashi never said this. It is his deduction based on Rashi. To summarize his deduction, he is apparently stating that Rashi is saying that the narrator in Torah ("the Torah") will use עלו and רדו, we would not expect a Biblical character ("an individual") to use such terms. Basically, the author needed some way to answer up this contradiction, found what appeared to be such a division by careful analysis of the pasuk, and attributed such a distinction to Rashi.

There are two problems with this. Firstly, this distinction is arbitrary. Why should the narrator be able to use such language while a character is not. We might answer: perhaps because the Torah would use this to convey some important principle of the importance of Eretz Yisrael, but it would be unnatural in the mouth of a person speaking normally. However, the idea of Rashi's statement about ascending and descending to and from Israel can be taken as explaining this manner of speech, and that dibra Torah kilshon benei Adam, "the Torah speaks in the language of people."

Secondly, and more importantly, this distinction is incorrect, even in this very pasuk, and even in the word under discussion. This is not the narrator, the Torah, that is speaking. It is Yosef. Again, that pasuk is:
ט מַהֲרוּ, וַעֲלוּ אֶל-אָבִי, וַאֲמַרְתֶּם אֵלָיו כֹּה אָמַר בִּנְךָ יוֹסֵף, שָׂמַנִי אֱלֹהִים לְאָדוֹן לְכָל-מִצְרָיִם; רְדָה אֵלַי, אַל-תַּעֲמֹד. 9 Hasten ye, and go up to my father, and say unto him: Thus saith thy son Joseph: God hath made me lord of all Egypt; come down unto me, tarry not.
Yosef is speaking to his brothers and saying "Hasten ye, and go up to my father." This might not be immediately obvious to the very casual observer because the open quote is in pasuk 4, which states וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹסֵף אֶל-אֶחָיו גְּשׁוּ-נָא אֵלַי, וַיִּגָּשׁוּ; וַיֹּאמֶר, "And Joseph said unto his brethren: 'Come near to me, I pray you.' And they came near. And he said..." However, once I point this out, it is obvious.

Furthermore, there is the fact that he tells them what to say to Yaakov, and part of his words is רְדָה אֵלַי, "come down unto me." Thus, we see that an individual, a Biblical character, can in fact use this very word to refer to going down to Egypt.

If we wanted an example of narration, we could have found it in regard to Avraham:
וַיְהִי רָעָב בָּאָרֶץ וַיֵּרֶד אַבְרָם מִצְרַיְמָה לָגוּר שָׁם כִּי כָבֵד הָרָעָב בָּאָרֶץ

But we see it occurs even in non-narration, from the very pasuk under consideration.

Another example of an Individual, rather than Torah, using the words "ascend" and "descend," within this story: Bereishit 46:4:

ג וַיֹּאמֶר, אָנֹכִי הָאֵל אֱלֹהֵי אָבִיךָ; אַל-תִּירָא מֵרְדָה מִצְרַיְמָה, כִּי-לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל אֲשִׂימְךָ שָׁם. 3 And He said: 'I am God, the God of thy father; fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will there make of thee a great nation.
ד אָנֹכִי, אֵרֵד עִמְּךָ מִצְרַיְמָה, וְאָנֹכִי, אַעַלְךָ גַם-עָלֹה; וְיוֹסֵף, יָשִׁית יָדוֹ עַל-עֵינֶיךָ. 4 I will go down with thee into Egypt; and I will also surely bring thee up again; and Joseph shall put his hand upon thine eyes.'
Thus, it can be used in speech, although one may argue that Hashem's speech is different. Even so, we have Yosef's speech above.

Thus, his answer is incorrect, but even if it were to work out with the pesukim, it would have been arbitrary, and would have been arrived at by a non-question. Now, he continues, trying to find proof that Yaakov would not have used this word otherwise:
SUPPORT FOR RASHI

An Answer: Later on, after Joseph reveals himself to his brothers, Jacob prepares to go to see him (Genesis 45:28):

"And Israel said: It is great that my son Joseph is still alive. I will go (Hebrew 'ailcha') and see him before I die."

So we see that when Jacob speaks of going to Egypt himself, he uses the word "to go," and not "to go down." Thus Rashi's focusing on Jacob's use of the word "go down" in our verse is correct. Jacob himself would not have used this term (though the Torah itself does), had the word 'r'du not had other connotations in this context.
Thus, he has an example of using the simpler word. I would have pointed out examples where the specific form לכו was used. These are not hard to find in the narrative.

In Bereishit 42 (the very same perek):
יח וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם יוֹסֵף בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי, זֹאת עֲשׂוּ וִחְיוּ; אֶת-הָאֱלֹהִים, אֲנִי יָרֵא. 18 And Joseph said unto them the third day. 'This do, and live; for I fear God:
יט אִם-כֵּנִים אַתֶּם--אֲחִיכֶם אֶחָד, יֵאָסֵר בְּבֵית מִשְׁמַרְכֶם; וְאַתֶּם לְכוּ הָבִיאוּ, שֶׁבֶר רַעֲבוֹן בָּתֵּיכֶם. 19 if ye be upright men, let one of your brethren be bound in your prison-house; but go ye, carry corn for the famine of your houses;
though Canaan is not explicitly mentioned. Similarly, in Bereishit 45:19:
יז וַיֹּאמֶר פַּרְעֹה אֶל-יוֹסֵף, אֱמֹר אֶל-אַחֶיךָ זֹאת עֲשׂוּ: טַעֲנוּ, אֶת-בְּעִירְכֶם, וּלְכוּ-בֹאוּ, אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן. 17 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph: 'Say unto thy brethren: This do ye: lade your beasts, and go, get you unto the land of Canaan;
יח וּקְחוּ אֶת-אֲבִיכֶם וְאֶת-בָּתֵּיכֶם, וּבֹאוּ אֵלָי; וְאֶתְּנָה לָכֶם, אֶת-טוּב אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, וְאִכְלוּ, אֶת-חֵלֶב הָאָרֶץ. 18 and take your father and your households, and come unto me; and I will give you the good of the land of Egypt, and ye shall eat the fat of the land.
Note that up/down direction is not mentioned even though it is to the land of Canaan. Thus, since twice we see the simpler לכו, there is basis for an extra midrashic interpretation. (Calling it midrashic does not mean that Rashi thinks it is not true.) The example he gave, while a different grammatical form, is further evidence of this.

But nothing was bothering Rashi. Rashi was not kept up all night worrying about this, and would have been quite a silly Biblical commentator were he to do so.

One unfortunate example is not enough to discount an entire approach to Rashi interpretation (and it was unfortunate due to this accidental oversight leading to patently untrue results). I could do this for other similar analyses, and I might, though consistent criticism might be seen as picking on this author or approach. And, I should stress, depending on what type of questions are being asked, the "What's Bothering Rashi?" approach can come up with some valid insight. However, this post in itself will hopefully provide some insight into why I think this approach is often unproductive and misleading, which is unfortunate because it convinces people that they are conducting a deep analysis of Rashi and seeing his pashtanic methods.

Finally, since we are analyzing much of the original article, the conclusion:
A LESSON

The Torah's words as a narrative may be quite different from a quote in the Torah of an individual. There are other instances in the Torah where this is the case. The lesson is to closely examine Rashi's comments, especially when it seems that he contradicts himself. He was quite careful in his choice of words and in his comments.
All of this might well be true. I would have to see the other instances. However, we must also be careful not to take Rashi to mean more than what he actually means, which in turn can manufacture non-existent contradictions, which can lead in turn to incorrect or unfounded resolutions.

Monday, December 18, 2006

Some Topical Thoughts and Observations

* So, apparently, they located a Jamail (rather than Jamil) Hussein. Search on Arabic names transliterated to English is difficult. Of use in such problems are such approaches as described in this paper from the last HLT-NAACL Conference: "Cross Linguistic Name Matching in English and Arabic: A “One to Many Mapping” Extension of the Levenshtein Edit Distance Algorithm."

* Gold Chanukkah gelt is milk chocolate; Silver is dark chocolate.

* No, according to no midrash that I know was Yosef's special coat emblazoned with "Yechi haMelech."

* While I'm at it, here is a link to MOChassid, about an adoption opportunity.

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Administrative: The Best of Parshablog

Parshablog is unwieldy, in its interface and excess of posts. I'd like to move to blogger beta, to take advantage of new features (such as labels), but I think some of the unwieldiness is holding me back.

And so I'm now going through the archives of parshablog, in order to select the best and cull the rest. I'm posting it to what is for now called TestParsha. The move of actual blog name is saved for later, if this works out.

The Shifting, Shifting Miracle Of Chanukka?

One's analysis can only be as good as the data that goes into it. I previously analyzed and remixed DovBear's post on Chanukka on the basis of the assumption that the Hebrew gloss on Megillat Taanit dated to the same time as the Aramaic "Mishna" of Megillat Taanit. After reconsidering this dating in the previous post, we now reconsider the issue. Once again we can channel Rabbi Dr. David Berger, who I should note did not make this mistake in his analysis (which should have tipped me off.)

Indeed, of all the references DovBear mentioned as being in the interim 600 years from the incident of Chanukka to the redaction of Talmud, none of them turn out to be in the interim, but rather post-Talmudic. So let us reanalyze the situation with this in mind. Borrowing liberally from my previous post:

The Shifting Miracle of Chanukka?

DovBear recently posted about the changing nature of the miracle of Chanukka, in which it started as military victory and eventually became only the miracle of the cruse of oil. Then he speculated on the reason this occurred.

This is not necessarily so.

Firstly, what does it mean to say that there is no attestation of the miracle of the cruse of oil? This means that in I Maccabees, there is no mention of this miracle. However, what DovBear neglects to mention, but which Rabbi Dr. David Berger does mention (see here) was that there is evidence that there were a number of miracle stories circulating then (found in II Maccabees), none of which are cited by the author of I Maccabees. This is a historiographical point - I Maccabees does not see fit to include miracles. Thus, this is an attempt to argue from absence of evidence, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and in this case, it makes sense that there is an absence of evidence in this book.

Yet II Maccabees does not mention the miracle of the cruse of oil either. Again, this is arguing from absence of evidence, which is difficult given that II Maccabees is an abridgment of five books which we no longer have, and II Maccabees contains much more amazing miracles (e.g. appearance of angels).

Thus, the miracle of the cruse of oil might actually have been a fairly old one, dating even to the time of the Maccabees. Yet there is also the military victory aspect, as well as several other miracles. Saying there was one miracle does not contradict a claim that there was another miracle.

The first attestation we have for this miracle of the cruse of oil is indeed in the Talmud:

מאי חנוכה, דתנו רבנן, בכ"ה בכסליו יומי דחנוכה תמניא אינון, דלא למספד בהון ודלא להתענות בהון (מגילת תענית, משנה כ"ג). שנכנסו יוונים להיכל, טימאו כל השמנים שבהיכל וכשגברה מלכות בית חשמונאי ונצחום,בדקו ולא מצאו אלא פך אחד של שמן, שהיה מונח בחותמו של כהן גדול, ולא היה בו אלא להדליק יום אחד.נעשה בו נס, והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים. לשנה אחרת קבעום ועשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודאה". (גמרא שבת כא

While we might parse it (and indeed, many appear to do so), "What is Chanukka? The Sages learnt...," as I discussed in the previous post, it may well be that Tno Rabbanan refers only to the Aramaic "Mishna" of Megillat Taanit, and the answer may well be non-Tannaitic.

Of course, that something is first recorded in the Talmud does not necessarily mean that the genesis of the story is just then. It could have been transmitted Orally, or this could be a citation from a no-longer extant source.

For what I think is a good symbolic explanation of the significance of the miracle, see my post on parshablog here.

The next source we consider is the early Geonic midrash from 8th century, Pesikta Rabbati. Citing again from DovBear's post:
"[At Hanukah] we commemorate the dedication of the Temple by the Hasmoneans who fought and defeated the Hellenists, and we kindle lights -- just as when [we] finished the Tabernacle in the Wilderness . . . ." (Pesikta Rabbati, ch. 6)

"Why do we kindle lights on Hanukah? Because when the sons of the Hasmoneans, the High Priest, defeated the Hellenists, they entered the Temple and found there eight iron spears. They stuck candles on them and lit them." (Pesikta Rabbati ch. 2)
Thus, we see that the military miracle, and the eight iron spears, and the Chanukkat haBayit. The Chanukkat haBayit reason is that given in both I Maccabees and II Maccabees. (The reason of Succot, found in II Maccabees, will be the subject of another post.)

Thus, even with mention of a miracle in the gemara, the Geonim felt free to mention other reasons. Multiple reasons are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed, we then see Megillat Taanit. The Hebrew gloss is apparently post-Talmudic, though exactly when I am not sure. Let us say it is a bit later than Pesikta Rabbati. I don't have enough info at the moment, but it does not really seem to matter to the analysis. We find all three of these reasons side by side, covering different portions of Chanukka:
(In Aramaic) On the 25th of Kislev are eight days during which we may not fast nor deliver eulogies. (In Hebrew) For When the Hellenists entered the Temple, they desecrated all of the oil. And when the Hasmonean dynasty grew and defeated them, they searched but found only one cruse of oil sealed with the stamp of the High Priest, and there was only enough in it to burn for one day. A miracle happened and it burned for eight days. The next year they made these days a fixed annual commemoration ... "Why did the rabbis make Hanukah eight days? Because . . . the Hasmoneans entered the Temple and erected the altar and whitewashed it and repaired all of the ritual utensils. They were kept busy for eight days. And why do we light candles? Because . . . when the Hasmoneans entered the Temple there were eight iron spears in their hands. They covered them with wood and lit candles on them. They did this each of the 8 days."
According to this, the miracle with the cruse of oil is the reason for instituting a fixed annual commemoration. The reason of eight days was that that was how long it took to repair the Temple. The reason for lighting was to reenact what the Chashmonaim did, lighting a special menorah for each of the 8 days.

Does this show a shift in the nature of the miracle? Perhaps, but not away from the military aspect. The shift is from rededication of the Temple (and possibly a Succot tie-in as well, but I will address this in a later post) after their military victory (the the rededication is stresses as the reason for instituting Chanukka) towards the miracle of the cruse of oil when they rededicated the Temple after their military victory, towards rededication of the temple after their military victory coupled with the (potentially highly symbolic) Chashmonaim's lighting of a menorah made of spears in the Temple during this rededication ceremony.

More analysis to come in later posts.

Mai Chanukka? What is the question?

I'm a big fan of determining how to parse ambiguous pesukim and gemaras. And the one for Chanukka is a good one. Furthermore, the correct parse in this case is important to determining the date of a specific piece, which is in turn important for further analysis.

"מאי חנוכה, דתנו רבנן, בכ"ה בכסליו יומי דחנוכה תמניא אינון, דלא למספד בהון ודלא להתענות בהון (מגילת תענית, משנה כ"ג). שנכנסו יוונים להיכל, טימאו כל השמנים שבהיכל וכשגברה מלכות בית חשמונאי ונצחום,בדקו ולא מצאו אלא פך אחד של שמן, שהיה מונח בחותמו של כהן גדול, ולא היה בו אלא להדליק יום אחד.נעשה בו נס, והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים. לשנה אחרת קבעום ועשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודאה". (גמרא שבת כא

The standard parse of the question I've heard is as the OU gives on this webpage, appropriately titled "What is Chanuka?":

"What is Chanukah? The Rabbis have expounded: Beginning with the 25th of Kislev, eight days of Chanukah are observed, during which no eulogies are delivered, nor is fasting permitted. For when the Greeks entered the Sanctuary, they defiled all the holy oils used for the Menorah in the temple, and when the Hasmonean house prevailed and vanquished them, they searched and found only one remaining jar of oil with the Kohen Gadol's seal.
Although it contained only enough oil to burn for one day, a miracle occurred, and the oil burned for eight days. A year later they (the Rabbis) designated these days as Yamim Tovim (holidays) on which praise and thanksgiving were to be said." (Tractate Shabbat 21)
However, there are two things which potentially argue against this parse. First, there is a shift from Hebrew to Aramaic. בכ"ה בכסליו יומי דחנוכה תמניא אינון, דלא למספד בהון ודלא להתענות בהון is Aramaic and the rest of the gemara is quite obviously Hebrew. Second, this portion in Aramaic is a direct quote from Megillat Taanit, which is a scroll containing days upon which one should not fast or make eulogies because of great things that happened on those days.

However, the Hebrew also appears to be a direct quote from the Hebrew Scholium to Megillat Taanit, and appears just as it does here. The entire thing may then be a quote from Megillat Taanit.

On the other hand, while the Aramaic portion of Megillat Taanit is surely Tannaitic, according to the Talmud from Hananiah ben Hezekiah ben Gurion, student of Shammai from early 1st century CE, the dating of the Hebrew Scholium is unclear, with many dating it to post-Talmudic times. (When I first searched for this, I found someone dating it to around the same time as the Aramaic, and my earlier post worked on that premise.) Furthermore, we have the ד on דתנו רבנן.

I would thus parse it instead, "What is this 'Chanukka" about which the Sages learnt in {in Megillat Taanit} that 'Starting on the 25th of Kislev are the 8 days of Chanukka, during which one should not deliver a eulogy nor fast?"

The gemara then answers on its own or cites another source שנכנסו יוונים להיכל, טימאו כל השמנים שבהיכל וכשגברה מלכות בית חשמונאי ונצחום,בדקו ולא מצאו אלא פך אחד של שמן, שהיה מונח בחותמו של כהן גדול, ולא היה בו אלא להדליק יום אחד.נעשה בו נס, והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים. לשנה אחרת קבעום ועשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודאה

Thus, we understand the reference to 'Chanukkah' mentioned in Megillat Taanit, which is important, for Megillat Taanit was nullified except for Purim and Chanukkah.

Indeed, that is how I parsed it in my translation for the Rif.

The dating of this section of gemara's explanation is then unclear. It could be as late as Ravina II, though it could also be earlier, and regardless, it could be an explanation known through Oral Tradition from much earlier.

But the important conclusion of this is that the fact that it states "Tno Rabbanan" and that the Hebrew explanation appears in Megillat Taanit does not (necessarily) mean that the explanation is an early source.

Friday, December 15, 2006

The Shifting Miracle of Chanukka?

Update: I've reanalyzed the topic in light of some data about the composition date of the Hebrew gloss in Megillat Taanit. For the old post, see below.

One's analysis can only be as good as the data that goes into it. I previously analyzed and remixed DovBear's post on Chanukka on the basis of the assumption that the Hebrew gloss on Megillat Taanit dated to the same time as the Aramaic "Mishna" of Megillat Taanit. After reconsidering this dating in the previous post, we now reconsider the issue. Once again we can channel Rabbi Dr. David Berger, who I should note did not make this mistake in his analysis (which should have tipped me off.)

Indeed, of all the references DovBear mentioned as being in the interim 600 years from the incident of Chanukka to the redaction of Talmud, none of them turn out to be in the interim, but rather post-Talmudic. So let us reanalyze the situation with this in mind. Borrowing liberally from my previous post:

The Shifting Miracle of Chanukka?

DovBear recently posted about the changing nature of the miracle of Chanukka, in which it started as military victory and eventually became only the miracle of the cruse of oil. Then he speculated on the reason this occurred.

This is not necessarily so.

Firstly, what does it mean to say that there is no attestation of the miracle of the cruse of oil? This means that in I Maccabees, there is no mention of this miracle. However, what DovBear neglects to mention, but which Rabbi Dr. David Berger does mention (see here) was that there is evidence that there were a number of miracle stories circulating then (found in II Maccabees), none of which are cited by the author of I Maccabees. This is a historiographical point - I Maccabees does not see fit to include miracles. Thus, this is an attempt to argue from absence of evidence, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and in this case, it makes sense that there is an absence of evidence in this book.

Yet II Maccabees does not mention the miracle of the cruse of oil either. Again, this is arguing from absence of evidence, which is difficult given that II Maccabees is an abridgment of five books which we no longer have, and II Maccabees contains much more amazing miracles (e.g. appearance of angels).

Thus, the miracle of the cruse of oil might actually have been a fairly old one, dating even to the time of the Maccabees. Yet there is also the military victory aspect, as well as several other miracles. Saying there was one miracle does not contradict a claim that there was another miracle.

The first attestation we have for this miracle of the cruse of oil is indeed in the Talmud:

מאי חנוכה, דתנו רבנן, בכ"ה בכסליו יומי דחנוכה תמניא אינון, דלא למספד בהון ודלא להתענות בהון (מגילת תענית, משנה כ"ג). שנכנסו יוונים להיכל, טימאו כל השמנים שבהיכל וכשגברה מלכות בית חשמונאי ונצחום,בדקו ולא מצאו אלא פך אחד של שמן, שהיה מונח בחותמו של כהן גדול, ולא היה בו אלא להדליק יום אחד.נעשה בו נס, והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים. לשנה אחרת קבעום ועשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודאה". (גמרא שבת כא

While we might parse it (and indeed, many appear to do so), "What is Chanukka? The Sages learnt...," as I discussed in the previous post, it may well be that Tno Rabbanan refers only to the Aramaic "Mishna" of Megillat Taanit, and the answer may well be non-Tannaitic.

Of course, that something is first recorded in the Talmud does not necessarily mean that the genesis of the story is just then. It could have been transmitted Orally, or this could be a citation from a no-longer extant source.

For what I think is a good symbolic explanation of the significance of the miracle, see my post on parshablog here.

The next source we consider is the early Geonic midrash from 8th century, Pesikta Rabbati. Citing again from DovBear's post:
"[At Hanukah] we commemorate the dedication of the Temple by the Hasmoneans who fought and defeated the Hellenists, and we kindle lights -- just as when [we] finished the Tabernacle in the Wilderness . . . ." (Pesikta Rabbati, ch. 6)

"Why do we kindle lights on Hanukah? Because when the sons of the Hasmoneans, the High Priest, defeated the Hellenists, they entered the Temple and found there eight iron spears. They stuck candles on them and lit them." (Pesikta Rabbati ch. 2)
Thus, we see that the military miracle, and the eight iron spears, and the Chanukkat haBayit. The Chanukkat haBayit reason is that given in both I Maccabees and II Maccabees. (The reason of Succot, found in II Maccabees, will be the subject of another post.)

Thus, even with mention of a miracle in the gemara, the Geonim felt free to mention other reasons. Multiple reasons are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed, we then see Megillat Taanit. The Hebrew gloss is apparently post-Talmudic, though exactly when I am not sure. Let us say it is a bit later than Pesikta Rabbati. I don't have enough info at the moment, but it does not really seem to matter to the analysis. We find all three of these reasons side by side, covering different portions of Chanukka:
(In Aramaic) On the 25th of Kislev are eight days during which we may not fast nor deliver eulogies. (In Hebrew) For When the Hellenists entered the Temple, they desecrated all of the oil. And when the Hasmonean dynasty grew and defeated them, they searched but found only one cruse of oil sealed with the stamp of the High Priest, and there was only enough in it to burn for one day. A miracle happened and it burned for eight days. The next year they made these days a fixed annual commemoration ... "Why did the rabbis make Hanukah eight days? Because . . . the Hasmoneans entered the Temple and erected the altar and whitewashed it and repaired all of the ritual utensils. They were kept busy for eight days. And why do we light candles? Because . . . when the Hasmoneans entered the Temple there were eight iron spears in their hands. They covered them with wood and lit candles on them. They did this each of the 8 days."
According to this, the miracle with the cruse of oil is the reason for instituting a fixed annual commemoration. The reason of eight days was that that was how long it took to repair the Temple. The reason for lighting was to reenact what the Chashmonaim did, lighting a special menorah for each of the 8 days.

Does this show a shift in the nature of the miracle? Perhaps, but not away from the military aspect. The shift is from rededication of the Temple (and possibly a Succot tie-in as well, but I will address this in a later post) after their military victory (the the rededication is stresses as the reason for instituting Chanukka) towards the miracle of the cruse of oil when they rededicated the Temple after their military victory, towards rededication of the temple after their military victory coupled with the (potentially highly symbolic) Chashmonaim's lighting of a menorah made of spears in the Temple during this rededication ceremony.

More analysis to come in later posts.

The Old Post

DovBear recently posted about the changing nature of the miracle of Chanukka, in which it started as military victory and eventually became only the miracle of the cruse of oil. Then he speculated on the reason this occurred.

This is just not so, as I noted in the comments there, but I think this deserves its own post.

Firstly, what does it mean to say that there is no attestation of the miracle of the cruse of oil? This means that in I Maccabees, there is no mention of this miracle. However, what DovBear neglects to mention, but which Rabbi Dr. David Berger does mention (see here) was that there is evidence that there were a number of miracle stories circulating then (found in II Maccabees), none of which are cited by the author of I Maccabees. This is a historiographical point - I Maccabees does not see fit to include miracles. Thus, this is an attempt to argue from absence of evidence, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and in this case, it makes sense that there is an absence of evidence in this book.

What he doesn't mention is that there are numerous miracles mentioned in II Maccabees. The dating of this book is a matter of dispute. It is an abridgment of an earlier set of five books, which might have dated to contemporary to the Maccabees, but according to others, later.

Yet II Maccabees does not mention the miracle of the cruse of oil either. Again, this is arguing from absence of evidence, which is difficult given that II Maccabees is an abridgment of five books which we no longer have, and II Maccabees contains much more amazing miracles (e.g. appearance of angels).

Thus, the miracle of the cruse of oil might actually have been a fairly old one, dating even to the time of the Maccabees. Yet there is also the military victory aspect, as well as several other miracles. Saying there was one miracle does not contradict a claim that there was another miracle.

The next attestation we have for this miracle of the cruse of oil is in {update: the Hebrew scholion to} Megillat Taanit, which according to the Talmud was composed by Hananiah ben Hezekiah ben Gurion, a student of Shammai around the first century CE. The Chanukka story occurred around 165 BCE, so this is a span of about 175 years.

{Update
: Note that like many other things, there is dispute about the date of composition of the Hebrew commentary to the Aramaic in Megillat Taanit. Some date the Hebrew Scholion to Megillat Taanit as Late Medieval, post-Talmudic, in which case it is not pre-Talmudic. The question next up is what is meant by the Tno Rabbanan in the gemara -- just the Aramaic or also the Hebrew explanation. In which case all this needs to be reworked.}

That account reads (inserting the portion DovBear omitted at the start, which mentions the cruse of oil):
(In Aramaic) On the 25th of Kislev are eight days during which we may not fast nor deliver eulogies. (In Hebrew) For When the Hellenists entered the Temple, they desecrated all of the oil. And when the Hasmonean dynasty grew and defeated them, they searched but found only one cruse of oil sealed with the stamp of the High Priest, and there was only enough in it to burn for one day. A miracle happened and it burned for eight days. The next year they made these days a fixed annual commemoration ... "Why did the rabbis make Hanukah eight days? Because . . . the Hasmoneans entered the Temple and erected the altar and whitewashed it and repaired all of the ritual utensils. They were kept busy for eight days. And why do we light candles? Because . . . when the Hasmoneans entered the Temple there were eight iron spears in their hands. They covered them with wood and lit candles on them. They did this each of the 8 days." Thus, there are three accounts side by side, one of which is the miracle of the cruse of oil. These explanations are not mutually exclusive. True, none of these reasons are explicitly "military victory." But it does start "And when the hand of the house of Chashmonaim became strong and they defeated them..."

Now, are we to assume that Hananiah ben Hezekiah ben Gurion just made up all of the explanations in Megillat Taanit? That is quite an allegation to lay upon him, even if one attributes it to various motivations. More likely, he was recording existing accounts, which could have been were either accurate accounts or else embellished as people told over the Chanukka story. It is quite possible he had been told this by someone of the previous generation, and this was well known at the time, and so he recorded it. This would bring the date of the genesis of the cruse of oil story earlier. And it could well have been an oral tradition. Or it could well have been a written tradition. If II Maccabees was an abridgment work composed as late as 60 CE from five other extant books, it is quite possible that Hananiah ben Hezekiah ben Gurion (from around the same time) had access to these same books!

{Update: Once again, this assumed an early date for the Hebrew Scholion.}

The next account we consider is the gemara:
"What is Hanukah? When the Hellenists entered the Temple, they desecrated all of the oil. And when the Hasmonean dynasty grew and defeated them, they searched but found only one cruse of oil sealed with the stamp of the High Priest, and there was only enough in it to burn for one day. A miracle happened and it burned for eight days. The next year they made these days a fixed annual commemoration . . ." (TB Shabbat 21b; also Megillat Taanith ch. 9)
The gemara was redacted by Ravina I, Rav Ashi, and Ravina II, and Ravina II was around 475 CE. Should we date this account to that time? Well, it stated Tno Rabanan, which is used to introduce Tannaitic material, and in fact this is a direct quote from Megillat Taanit. Only the first aspect is mentioned, because at issue was for what miracle was the festival instituted. This is a quotation of an earlier first century account.

Thus, where DovBear says, "The small jug of oil first appears in the Talmud, codified about 600 years after the events of Chanuka. In the interim, a variety of rabbinic stories were told to answer the questions," he is incorrect. The small jug of oil first appears in Megillat Taanit, about 175 years after the events of Chanukka. That is was cited in something redacted much later means nothing, unless he wants to claim that Ravina II made up the brayta. {Update: Or unless the Aramaic is the brayta, which is plausible.} It is the same thing as noting that Tosafot cites this gemara, and then putting the date of composition that much later, in the time of the Tosafists. This would be silly, and this is silly.

{Update: However, as noted above, not necessarily silly. if the Hebrew explanations are later, then the earliest attestation is indeed in the Talmud. This still does not necessarily mean Ravina II, though.}

There are also quotes from Pesikta Rabbati. This he also accidentally assigns to "in the interim" of the 600 years. In fact, Pesikta Rabbati is an early Geonic work, an 8th century midrash. These citations read:
"[At Hanukah] we commemorate the dedication of the Temple by the Hasmoneans who fought and defeated the Hellenists, and we kindle lights -- just as when [we] finished the Tabernacle in the Wilderness . . . ." (Pesikta Rabbati, ch. 6)

"Why do we kindle lights on Hanukah? Because when the sons of the Hasmoneans, the High Priest, defeated the Hellenists, they entered the Temple and found there eight iron spears. They stuck candles on them and lit them." (Pesikta Rabbati ch. 2)

Thus, we see that the military miracle, and the eight iron spears, was known to the geonim even though it was not part of the gemara's quote. This is because Ravina and Rav Ashi knew that Megillat Taanit was an extant work, and they did not need to reproduce it in full in the gemara, because others would still have access to it. And we see the geonim did have access to it, and cited it in their midrashic work.

DovBear then asks how come this shift occurred from military victory to the miracle of the cruse. I am not convinced that there is any evidence of such a shift, which prompts his speculation into reasons for the shift. After all, the cruse of oil might have occurred in the five books which were abridged into II Maccabees, together with other miracles and significant events. It existed alongside other reasons in Megillat Taanit, and was cited partially by the gemara, but those other reasons continued to exist into Geonic times.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

The Significance of the Miracle of Chanukkah

First things first. I erred in my previous post, and retracted it quickly, but if you happened upon it in the few minutes it was up, know it was incorrect.

On the the substance of this post. I should preface this with a reminder that I generally dislike homiletics, but in this case I am writing this because in this case I think there is a good chance it is true.

The famous miracle of Chanukkah (there are others) is ... well, why not see it inside, where the Gemara in Shabbat daf 21 cites Megillat Taanit:

מאי חנוכה, דתנו רבנן, בכ"ה בכסליו יומי דחנוכה תמניא אינון, דלא למספד בהון ודלא להתענות בהון (מגילת תענית, משנה כ"ג). שנכנסו יוונים להיכל, טימאו כל השמנים שבהיכל וכשגברה מלכות בית חשמונאי ונצחום,בדקו ולא מצאו אלא פך אחד של שמן, שהיה מונח בחותמו של כהן גדול, ולא היה בו אלא להדליק יום אחד.נעשה בו נס, והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים. לשנה אחרת קבעום ועשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודאה".

A good-enough translation, taken from this webpage at OU:
"What is Chanukah? The Rabbis have expounded: Beginning with the 25th of Kislev, eight days of Chanukah are observed, during which no eulogies are delivered, nor is fasting permitted. For when the Greeks entered the Sanctuary, they defiled all the oils (used for the Menorah) in the temple, and when the Hasmonean house prevailed and vanquished them, they searched and found only one remaining jar of oil with the Kohen Gadol's seal. Although it contained only enough oil to burn for one day, a miracle occurred, and the oil burned for eight days. A year later they (the Rabbis) designated these days as Yamim Tovim (holidays) on which praise and thanksgiving were to be said."
One famous question is: why the need for undefiled oil? After all, tume`a hutera betzibbur, ritual impurity is permitted in the Temple when the community as a whole is impure. So they could have used the oil, even if it was defiled.

I would suggest the following: What is the significance of the oil, and the miracle of the oil, such that this deserves to be the basis for establishing the chag?

Well, as we say in Mishlei 20:27:
כז נֵר ה, נִשְׁמַת אָדָם; חֹפֵשׂ, כָּל-חַדְרֵי-בָטֶן. 27 The spirit of man is the lamp of the LORD, searching all the inward parts.
and so we can take the oil as referring to the neshamot of klal Yisrael. The Chashmonaim wished to maintain Jewish practice and beliefs unadulterated by Hellenism, but the Syrian Greeks defiled all the holy oils in the Temple - they defiled Jewish belief and practice by influencing it with Hellenism. Except they found one remaining jar of oil with the Kohen Gadol's seal. Since the seal was still on it, they knew it had not been opened and thus not defiled. What is this jar of pure oil, with the seal of the Kohen Gadol? This is Yochanan Kohen Gadol, his son Mattisyahu, and his sons (and their followers), whose neshamot, oils, had not been defiled by Hellenic influence.

Lighting the menorah in the Temple is keeping true to authentic Judaism and thus using one's oil to serve Hashem.

However, as we know, the Chashmonaim were few, compared with the Syrian Greeks and compared with their Hellenized fellow Jews. They should not have been able to prevail, to win the physical war, or the spiritual war for the soul of Judaism. Their oil was insufficient. It should have been able to burn for only one day. Yet the miracle of Chanukkah is the victory of rabbim beyad me'atim, teme`im beyad tehorim, reshaim beyad tzaddikim, zeidim beyad oskei toratecha. And so it burned eight days, long enough to get a resupply of pure oil, and to ensure the continuity of authentic Jewish practice.

Now, two important caveats:
1) That something lends itself to metaphoric interpretation does not mean that it is not simultaneously historically true. Historical truth and deep metaphorical significance are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
2) That such an interpretation seems to work out does not necessarily mean that it is a correct interpretation. The human mind is a machine that tries to make sense of things, and comes up with all sorts of explanations and rationalizations that seem to make sense. It takes great skill to distinguish between a true explanation and a rationalization. So perhaps this is true, and perhaps it is not. Personally, I think it is true.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Introducing Tanach Linkify (version 1.5) for Internet Explorer

What Is TanachLinkify?
Tanach Linkify is a free add-on to Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox which automatically transforms references to pesukim (verses) in Tanach (Bible) and pages of Gemara (Talmud) to a hyperlink to that resource on the Internet. Links go to a linear translation of pesukim at mechon-mamre and images of the relevant page of gemara at e-daf.

Thus, without TanachLinkify, if a web page referred to Bereishit 33:2 or Exodus 22:10, they would remain plain text. With TanachLinkify, they would look like Bereishit 33:2 or Exodus 22:10.

Similarly, without TanachLinkify, if a web page referred to Yevamos 32b or Shabbat 132a, these references would remain plain text. With TanachLinkify, they would look like Yevamos 32b or Shabbat 132a.

Installing TanachLinkify
For Firefox, you can just click on this link to install the extension. This post is to announce the release of TanachLinkify for Internet Explorer. For Internet Explorer, the installation process is a bit more complicated.

1) Click on this link to download and install Reify Turnabout Advanced.
2) Right-Click on this link and save the target to c:3) Restart Internet Explorer. There should be a little Reify button towards the top. Click on it, and on the menu that appears, select "Options..." In the dialog box that appears, click on the button labeled "Install Feature..." in the bottom left hand corner. Click OK, navigate to C:\ and double-click on ietanachlinkify.user.js. Click OK. A new item in the dialog box should appear, which is already checked off, which states "Turn seforim into links." You have successfully installed TanachLinkify. Click OK, and try going to a website that has a reference to a pasuk or gemara.

Posts so far for parshat Vayeishev

  • Reuven's Return (2005)
    • As repentance. I analyze various aspects and textual cues of this midrash, and how Rashi reinterprets or correctly understands the midrash.
  • The Chronology of Yehuda's Marriage (2005)
    • Was Yehuda's marriage subsequent to, or co-occurring with the general timespan of Yosef's sale. This is predicated on the meaning of baEt hahi.
  • Yaakov/Yosef Parallels (2004)
    While in a previous post I mentioned parallels between Yosef and Esav, a midrash highlights many parallels between the lives of Yaakov and Yosef.
  • Shortsighted Foresight (2004)
    People who see the future via prophecy or astrology, but misapprehend what they see.
  • Clothes "Make" The Man (2004)
    Twice, Yosef's clothing serves as a mark of identity
  • Mistaken Identities (2004)
    How many times does the theme of mistaken identity come up in Tanach?
  • Choice Garments and Goat Bits (2004)
    Parallels between two sibling rivalries.
  • In Chutzpah! (2003)
    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, (2003)
    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?, (2003)
    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.
  • In Brand Name Recognition? Or Lack Thereof?, (2003)
    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, (2003)
    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.
To be continued...

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin