Daf Yomi Yevamot 37b: Airspace in Halacha

There probably are authentic sources on this topic, perhaps in Bava Batra, but something struck me as I read Yavamot daf 37b.

This morning, I read this story:

A group of native Canadian tribes are seeking compensation from Manitoba Telecom Services for cell phone signals they claim are violating their air space.

According to the CBC, the Assembly of Manitoba chiefs is trying to negotiate revenue sharing for signals that cross the land, water and air space of their reserves and traditional territories.

"When it comes to using airspace, it's like using our water and simply because there's no precedent doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do," Chief Ovide Mercredi of the Grand Rapids First Nation told the news agency.

What do Chazal say of airspace, and the right to use someone else's without money?

Well, on Yevamot 37b:

For we learned: If a man went to a country beyond the sea and [in his absence] the path to his field was lost, he shall, Admon said, use the shortest cut; but the Sages said: He must purchase a path even though it will cost him a hundred maneh or else fly in the air.

We rule like the Sages.

"Fly through the air," of course, means that he has no recourse, since what is he to do? Fly through the air? The implication would be that were he able to fly through the air, he would not have to purchase the rights to pass through the airspace."

And, as we see in masechet Eruvin, Eliyahu haNavi was able to travel 10 handbreadths above the ground.

Of course, this is just an idiom, and should not stand in the way of other sources, such as the airspace acquiring objects on behalf of its owner, etc.
a
a

Mad Cow and Chumra-ism

I saw an interesting news article this morning:

The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease.

The Agriculture Department tests fewer than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. A beef producer in the western state of Kansas, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wants to test all of its cows.

Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone should test its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive tests on their larger herds as well.

The Agriculture Department regulates the test and argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry.

This struck me as an excellent illustration of the problem of the the impact of excessive chumra-ism. Why should I came if someone adopts a chumra, even if it is a dopey chumra. If they want to aspire to a "higher" religious level, who am I to object?

The answer is that as each individual adopts a chumra, and advertises the fact, it impacts Jewish religious society as a whole. Once enough people adopt a chumra, it becomes a de-facto standard, and anyone who does not conform with it is looked at as if he or she is doing wrong. Think glatt as an excellent example of this.

One example, amongst many, that have troubled me recently. There is a custom of some for the chatan not to see the bride the week before the wedding. As far as I have investigated, there is no real halachic basis for this custom. People try to attribute it to the Talmudic concept of dam chimud, but that is the fear she will have a drop of niddah blood upon the joy of becoming engaged. But here, if we would truly fear this over the joy of seeing her chatan, we should fear it once she sees him under the chuppa as well. Rather, it seems quite akin to the non-Jewish bridal superstition that it is bad luck for the groom to see the bride before the wedding, with some ex-post-facto rationalization based on faulty halachic reasoning.

To cite from someone's post on mail-jewish:

To cite I have previously researched this topic and could find no source for
such a custom.  I have been to weddings of Rabbi's children where the
pictures were taken before the chuppah.  A Rav that I spoke to (I cannot
yet quote him without his permission) said that davka one should do so,
because the "custom" of the chattan and kallah not seeing each other for
various periods of time before the wedding, (the day of, or the week
before) is really a non-Jewish custom, and do follow it id to violate
"Chukat Goyim". Another consideration is the "tircha" (burden) placed
upon the guest who have to wait significant amount of time after the
Chuppah for the pictures to be taken, when there is no basis for this
and they could have been done earlier.  As an aside (but a more
interesting thread) isn't it amazing how something with no basis has
become a "cardinal custom" of the wedding day?

Indeed, by my own wedding, consulting with Rav Schachter, I saw my kallah beforehand and indeed took pictures beforehand. And I agree with the above that one should davka see the bride beforehand -- to distance ourselves from the chukkat hagoyim, to not cause tircha to the tzibbur, and additionally, to combat the rise of this chumra.

Why is this a good example of how chumras spread? About two years ago, a friend of mine got married. Under specific religious influences, he and his kallah decided not to see each other the week before the wedding. However, some have additionally adopted the chumra atop this not to speak by phone. If they really really need to communicate, the chattan and kallah are to use an intermediary. So the chattan speaks to the bride's sister or mother on the phone, and this relative repeats what the chattan said to the kallah. The kallah replies to the sister, who repeats the words (or summarizes) into the telephone.

Now, as regards this friend of mine, a friend of a friend had taken a chassan class with a particular chareidi rabbi who had mentioned this custom of not even talking on the phone (but rather using an intermediary as described above if there is some need to communicate). And so, deciding that this more stringent custom must, by virtue of it being more stringent, be the really proper thing to do, they decided to adopt this custom. (Soon, no doubt, even via intermediary will be forbidden.)

The problem was that they were arranging several details of the wedding and surrounding issues themselves, and if they could not communicate, many things would fall apart. They had yet to get the marriage license, they were still looking into an apartment which they had not yet seen, etc.

And they were really willing to talk on the phone, but were worried what their friends would say, if they did not conform to the "utmost" halachic standard.

Also, because or certain time constraints, they would not be able to take pictures together because of the delay it would cause to the wedding. So they decided that they would take the pictures separately, and the photographer would Photoshop the chassan in, making it look like they were touching. Quite silly.

Perhaps not speaking at all is an OK chumra for some, though I think it is silly -- if everything is in order beforehand. However, once it becomes a societal standard, there are people for whom it will pose a hardship, yet they will still be pressured to conform.

Daf Yomi Yevamot 34b: Do not discredit the words of the Sages; Chazal and Science

There is a noteworthy gemara in Yevamot daf 34b:

When Rabin came he stated in the name of R. Johanan: A woman who waited ten years after [separation from] her husband, and then remarried, would bear children no more. Said R. Nahman: This was stated only in respect of one who had no Intention of remarrying: if, however, one's intention was to marry again she may conceive.

Raba said to R. Hisda's daughter: The Rabbis are talking about you. She answered him: I had my mind on you.

A woman once appeared before R. Joseph, and said to him: Master, I remained unmarried after [the death of] my husband for ten years and now I gave birth to a child — He said to her: My daughter, do not discredit the words of the Sages. She thereupon confessed, 'l had intercourse with a heathen'.

It is unclear where Rabbi Yochanan got this medical fact from. Was it "daat Torah?' I would assume otherwise -- that it was contemporary ancient science. Indeed, as I mentioned in Beitza, Greek science discussed that hens require excitement (stimulation) to lay eggs, and could get rubbed/excited from the ground. And perhaps this -- what we would call hormonal -- connection extended to other species as well. Or they might envision it arising from psychosomatic causes - thus, Rav Nachman elaborated that if she intended to marry someone, her body would not have had that reaction.

Yet, this pronouncement is challenged by empirical evidence. Thus, Rava's wife was originally married to Rami bar Chama. She married Rava more than 10 years after Rami's death.

Raba said to R. Hisda's daughter: The Rabbis are talking about you. She answered him: I had my mind on you.

Thus, the Rabbis were talking about her, either as a counterexample, or as someone who's conduct in the intervening time required explanation. She answered him based on Rav Nachman's elaboration. Depending on your reading, they were either wondering about the truth of Rabbi Yochanan's statement, or else never doubted it.

The woman who appeared before Rav Yosef seems to be challenging Rabbi Yochanan's statement with empirical evidence. Rav Yosef did not believe her, and asked her not to be motzi laaz on the words of the Sages. At which point she confessed.

This particular gemara does show concern for empirical evidence. On the previous Amud, the assumption was made that a woman cannot conceive from the first intercourse, and at the top of this amud, Rava points out that Tamar conceived from her first intercourse. But it is something to be resolved and harmonized, such that Rav Nachman answers what she did so as to be able to so conceive.

By the way, Rav Yosef's exchange with this woman reminded me of an earlier Biblical exchange, with a bit of midrashic elaboration. From Yehoshua 7:

טז וַיַּשְׁכֵּם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בַּבֹּקֶר, וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל לִשְׁבָטָיו; וַיִּלָּכֵד, שֵׁבֶט יְהוּדָה.	16 So Joshua rose up early in the morning, and brought Israel near by their tribes; and the tribe of Judah was taken.
יז וַיַּקְרֵב, אֶת-מִשְׁפַּחַת יְהוּדָה, וַיִּלְכֹּד, אֵת מִשְׁפַּחַת הַזַּרְחִי; וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת-מִשְׁפַּחַת הַזַּרְחִי, לַגְּבָרִים, וַיִּלָּכֵד, זַבְדִּי.	17 And he brought near the family of Judah; and he took the family of the Zerahites. And he brought near the family of the Zerahites man by man; and Zabdi was taken.
יח וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת-בֵּיתוֹ, לַגְּבָרִים; וַיִּלָּכֵד, עָכָן בֶּן-כַּרְמִי בֶן-זַבְדִּי בֶּן-זֶרַח--לְמַטֵּה יְהוּדָה.	18 And he brought near his household man by man; and Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, was taken.
יט וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶל-עָכָן, בְּנִי שִׂים-נָא כָבוֹד לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--וְתֶן-לוֹ תוֹדָה; וְהַגֶּד-נָא לִי מֶה עָשִׂיתָ, אַל-תְּכַחֵד מִמֶּנִּי.	19 And Joshua said unto Achan: 'My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the LORD, the God of Israel, and make confession unto Him; and tell me now what thou hast done; hide nothing from me.'
כ וַיַּעַן עָכָן אֶת-יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וַיֹּאמַר: אָמְנָה, אָנֹכִי חָטָאתִי לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְכָזֹאת וְכָזֹאת, עָשִׂיתִי.	20 And Achan answered Joshua, and said: 'Of a truth I have sinned against the LORD, the God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done.
כא ואראה (וָאֵרֶא) בַשָּׁלָל אַדֶּרֶת שִׁנְעָר אַחַת טוֹבָה וּמָאתַיִם שְׁקָלִים כֶּסֶף, וּלְשׁוֹן זָהָב אֶחָד חֲמִשִּׁים שְׁקָלִים מִשְׁקָלוֹ, וָאֶחְמְדֵם, וָאֶקָּחֵם; וְהִנָּם טְמוּנִים בָּאָרֶץ בְּתוֹךְ הָאָהֳלִי, וְהַכֶּסֶף תַּחְתֶּיהָ.	21 When I saw among the spoil a goodly Shinar mantle, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I coveted them, and took them; and, behold, they are hid in the earth in the midst of my tent, and the silver under it.'
כב וַיִּשְׁלַח יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מַלְאָכִים, וַיָּרֻצוּ הָאֹהֱלָה; וְהִנֵּה טְמוּנָה בְּאָהֳלוֹ, וְהַכֶּסֶף תַּחְתֶּיהָ.	22 So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran unto the tent; and, behold, it was hid in his tent, and the silver under it.

According to midrash, Achan disputed this. He had, after all, been singled out by lot. To cite the midrashic account:

Joshua inquired of God, why trouble had befallen Israel, but God refused to reply. He was no tale-bearer; the evil-doer who had caused the disaster would have to be singled out by lot. Joshua first of all summoned the high priest from the assembly of the people. It appeared that, while the other jewels in his breastplate gleamed bright, the stone representing the tribe of Judah was dim. By lot Achan was set apart from the members of his tribe. Achan, however, refused to submit to the decision by lot. He said to Joshua: "Among all living men thou and Phinehas are the most pious. Yet, if lots were cast concerning you two, one or other of you would be declared guilty. Thy teacher Moses has been dead scarcely one month, and thou has already begun to go astray, for thou hast forgotten that a man's guilt can be proved only through two witnesses."

Endued with the holy spirit, Joshua divined that the land was to be assigned to the tribes and families of Israel by lot, and he realized that nothing ought to be done to bring this method of deciding into disrepute. He, therefore, tried to persuade Achan to make a clean breast of his transgression. Meantime, the Judeans, the tribesmen of Achan, rallied about him, and throwing themselves upon the other tribes, they wrought fearful havoc and bloodshed. This determined Achan to confess his sins. The confession cost him his life, but it saved him from losing his share in the world to come.

The midrashic elaboration is based on Yehoshua saying

יט וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶל-עָכָן, בְּנִי שִׂים-נָא כָבוֹד לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--וְתֶן-לוֹ תוֹדָה; וְהַגֶּד-נָא לִי מֶה עָשִׂיתָ, אַל-תְּכַחֵד מִמֶּנִּי.

'My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the LORD, the God of Israel, and make confession unto Him; and tell me now what thou hast done; hide nothing from me.'

The midrash explains this was in response to Achan's denial of the efficacy of the lot, since he had been chosen in the previous verse by lot. Achan agrees, confessing, saying:
וַיַּעַן עָכָן אֶת-יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וַיֹּאמַר: אָמְנָה, אָנֹכִי חָטָאתִי לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְכָזֹאת וְכָזֹאת, עָשִׂיתִי.
And Achan answered Joshua, and said: 'Of a truth I have sinned against the LORD, the God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done.

Why did Yehoshua ask him to confess? Because

Endued with the holy spirit, Joshua divined that the land was to be assigned to the tribes and families of Israel by lot, and he realized that nothing ought to be done to bring this method of deciding into disrepute.

Similarly, Rav Yosef did not wish the words of Chazal to be brought into disrepute, and knowing that the woman must have withheld something, asked her to confess, which she did.

I don't know of any modern medical studies that would confirm this observation or the reverse, but must confess I would not be surprised if it were not the case.

I did see a recent article about how having intercourse actually can have an effect on a woman's body (hormonally), so that I can see the possibility that continuing to have intercourse or not could affect her ability to have children or prompt menopause.

a

Daf Yomi Yevamot 27a: Rav Ashi's Induction Redux

A while back, I posted on Rav Ashi's proof by induction that if the yavama is one of a certain class of forbidden relatives, she exempts not only her rival, but also her rival's rival, etc., up to 100 times {and actually more -- it means ad infinitum}.

I wrote:

As I was preparing Rif Yomi, I noticed a proof by induction. In induction, you prove a base case, and then show that if something is true for n, it is true for n+1 as well (the inductive step).

In terms of rivals and rival's rivals, there are two approaches. A general derasha to cover all, or an induction. To cite the gemara:

{Yevamot 2b}

כיצד פוטרות צרותיהן היתה בתו או אחת מכל העריות האלו נשואה לאחיו ולו אשה אחרת ומת כשם שבתו פטורה כך צרתה פטורה
הלכה צרת בתו ונישאת לאחיו השני ולו אשה אחרת ומת כשם שצרת בתו פטורה כך צרת צרתה פטורה ואפי' הן מאה

Mishna:
How do they exempt their rivals? If his daughter, or any one of these forbidden relatives, was married to his brother, and he {=his brother} had another wife, and he {=his brother} died, just as his daughter is exempt {from requiring yibbum or chalitza from him}, so too her rival is exempt.
If the rival of his daughter went and married {via yibbum} his second brother, and he {=his second brother} had another wife, and then he {=his second brother} died, then just as the rival of his daughter is exempt, so it the rival of his rival exempt {from yibbum or chalitza with him}, and even if they {the levels} are 100.

{Yevamot 13a resumes}
Gemara:

מה"מ אמר רב יהודה אמר קרא לצרור התורה ריבתה צרות הרבה אצל ערוה אחת
רב אשי אמר צרת צרתה לא צריכא קרא סברא הוא צרה מאי טעמא אסירא דבמקום ערוה קיימא צרת צרתה נמי במקום צרה קיימא:

From where do we know these words?
Rav Yehuda said: The verse stated {Vayikra 18}: לצרור. The Torah thus includes many rivals by one forbidden relation.
Rav Ashi said: The rival of the rival does not require a verse. It is logic. A rival, what is the reason she is forbidden? Because she stands {together} in place of the forbidden relation. The rival of a rival also, she stands {together for yibbum} in place with the rival.

Thus, there is a general rule that if someone is a rival with someone forbidden, they are forbidden {and thus exempt from yibbum and chalitza as well}.

I saw something the other day from today's daf Yomi {when reading Rif on Yevamot 27a}, that continues in their vein. To cite from my translation of the Rif:

גופא אמר שמואל חלץ לאחיות לא נפטרו צרות לצרות נפטרו אחיות חלץ לבעלת הגט לא נפטרה צרה לצרה נפטרה בעלת הגט חלץ לבעלת מאמר לא נפטרה צרה לצרה נפטרה בעלת מאמר

ואקשינן מאי שנא חלץ לאחיות לא נפטרו צרות משום דהויא לה אחות אשה בזיקה חלץ לצרות נמי לא נפטרו אחיות דהויא לה צרת אחות אשה בזיקה
ופריק רב אשי משום דלא אלימא זיקה לשוויי לצרה כערוה
ופסקו רבוואתא הלכה כשמואל

To return to the main text. Shmuel said: If he performed chalitza to the sisters, the rivals are not exempt; to the rivals, the sisters are exempt; to the woman who received a bill of divorce, the rival is not exempt; to the rivals, the woman who received a bill of divorce is exempt. If he performed chalitza on a woman who was the recipient of maamar {Rabbinic betrothal prior to yibbum} the rival is not exempt; to the rival, the recipient of maamar is exempt.
And we ask: Why is the case of one who performs chalitza on sisters distinct in that the rivals are not exempt? Because she {each of them} is the sister of the wife {=achot ishto} through the bond. If he performs chalitza on the rivals as well, the sisters should not be exempt because they are the rivals of the sister of the wife via levirate bond!
And Rav Ashi resolves: Because the levirate bond is not strong enough to make the rival like the forbidden relation itself.

And the {post-Talmudic} Sages ruled that the halacha is like Shmuel.

Rav Ashi is consistent. Earlier he put forth the notion that learning the rival's rival is obvious, because the rival stands in place of the forbidden relation, to give us n+1 from any n. Here, he posits that this is not the case for the Rabbinic levirate bond (see Rashi), such that she does not stand in place of the forbidden relation. Thus, Rav Ashi leshitato.

Daat Torah, Palmistry and Physiognomy

I don't typically read Frum Kiruv Maniac, but was recently referred to his blog. In his latest post, he cites, approvingly, an exchange by Rabbi Twersky about Daas Torah and science:

Q: I can't understand why a frum person should consult a psychologist. Doesn't the Torah have answers to all kinds of problems? Isn't consulting a psychologist demeaning to the Torah?

A: The Torah indeed has answers to all problems, both physical and psychological. The Zohar says that Hashem used the Torah as the blueprint for creating the world, so that everything in the world is contained in the Torah. Inasmuch as the Torah is the wisdom of Hashem, it is perfect and complete in every way.

The problem is that we do not know how to derive the information from the Torah. For example, the Shelah Hakadosh says that anyone who would fully understand the first passuk in perek 2 of Bereishis would know the entire science of physiognomy (knowing everything about a person by studying his face) and palmistry (being able to interpret the hand) But who can say he achieved such knowledge?

By the same token, the Torah has the solution to all physical diseases yet every posek will say that a person who has , for example, diabetes or pneumonia and does not consult a physician because he wants to find the answer in the Torah, is sinful in neglecting his health…

Of course gedolim have more access to the Torah's secrets than ordinary people. We know that there were instances where the Chazon Ish gave surgeons directions on how to operate.

What we know from the Torah cannot be compared even to the tip of the iceberg. Torah is infinite and we have access to such a small fragment of it. Consulting a psychologist is by no means demeaning to the Torah because many of the secrets of the Torah are beyond our reach.

The citation from the Shelah is troublesome to me. Once again, he said:

The problem is that we do not know how to derive the information from the Torah. For example, the Shelah Hakadosh says that anyone who would fully understand the first passuk in perek 2 of Bereishis would know the entire science of physiognomy (knowing everything about a person by studying his face) and palmistry (being able to interpret the hand) But who can say he achieved such knowledge?

That is, the Shelah said that if you understand Bereishit 2:1 entirely, you would know the entire science of physiognomy and palmistry. But, Rabbi Twersky continues (I assume), who can say he has achieved such knowledge.

Of course, physiognomy and palmistry are pseudo-sciences. Around the time of the Shelah, they were taught in universities -- until shortly before the Shelah was born. He was born in 1565, and
Henry VIII banned its teaching in 1531. Still, many believed in it as a scientific discipline:

Browne possessed several of the writings of the Italian Giambattista della Porta including his Of Celestial Physiognomy which argued that it was not the stars but the temperament which influences both man's facial appearance and character. In his book De humana physiognomia (1586) Porta used woodcuts of animals to illustrate human characteristics.

Thus, contemporary to the Shelah, these were believed to be actual sciences, and it is safe to assume the Shelah did as well. This is what he means when he says that if someone understood Bereishit 2:1 fully

א וַיְכֻלּוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, וְכָל-צְבָאָם.

1 And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

he would understand these sciences as well. Of course, the Shelah was a kabbalist, and perhaps related this chachmas hapartzuf to his kabbalah. I don't know.

Yet this is a perfect example about how imperfect scientific knowledge can lead to incorrect statements even in the field of Torah. One who fully understood this pasuk would not know all about the science of palmistry and physiognomy because these are pseudosciences, and the true Torah would not be encoding false information. And if physiognomy was a false scientific theory first developed in 5th century Athens, then even skeptics would not expect the Torah, written much earlier, to reflect this much-later false scientific theory.

Does Rabbi Twersky believe in palmistry and physiognomy? I don't know. It would be a good question to ask him. It is quite possible that he does not and was using the statement from the Shelah to advance his thesis, that all true scientific knowledge is encoded in the Torah, yet we do not know how to look -- and did not think about the implications, or considered such implications irrelevant.

Yet he holds that the Shelah was correct in making this statement. But if the Shelah was wrong about the specific subjects, the rest of the Shelah's statement rests on quite a shaky premise.

On the other hand, since subsequent mystical literature may make reference to these sciences (plus at least one fake midrash I know of about Pharaoh getting Moshe's face analyzed, a "midrash" which switches Moshe for Aristotle), he might believe in these pseudosciences on a mystical level, as a chareidi.

Breaking News: A Boy Calmly Jogs In Front of a Burning Tire!

I saw this picture in a local newspaper the other day, and it annoyed me:

The caption: A Palestinian boy runs in front of burning tyres at the entrance of the Bedawi Palestinian refugee camp in north Lebanon. Islamist guerrillas who have been locked in three days of ferocious gunbattles with Lebanese troops said they would observe a unilateral ceasefire amid mounting concern over civilians caught up in the conflict. Photo:Joseph Barrak/AFP

Of course, this has nothing to do with Israel, but it does have to do with the phenomenon of staged photos. The expression on this kid's face is utter calm, and the other kid in the photo is smiling and approaching the fire.

Another example of this type of staged scene, of a child running past a burning tire, is here:

A young Palestinian boy runs past a burning tire set alight during a march by Fatah militants, not seen, towards the Council of Ministers building in the West Bank town of Ramallah, Sunday, Oct. 1, 2006. Dozens of supporters from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas Fatah Party ransacked and torched the Council of Ministers building in Ramallah after marching in protest after Hamas militias broke a demonstration in Gaza clashing with Palestinian police loyal to Fatah Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. (AP Photo/Muhammed Muheisen)

This one also looks staged.

And here's another:

Photos supposedly do not lie, but of course they do when they are staged. And the fact that a child happened to be calmly jogging past a burning tire, perhaps instructed to do so by a photographer, does nothing to inform us about the situation. Of course, since it has more action in it, is is perhaps easier to sell to the news agencies.

What Is Bothering Rashi about Naomi's Complaint?

Or rather, what is motivating Rashi?

I would like to continue to develop my thoughts from the preceding post. In that post, I challenged Rashi's translation of ana to mean "testified" or "humbled," suggesting instead "afflicted." I wrote:

The Lord has *afflicted* me?
So goeth the JPS translation. Rut 1:21:

כ וַתֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶן, אַל-תִּקְרֶאנָה לִי נָעֳמִי: קְרֶאןָ לִי מָרָא, כִּי-הֵמַר שַׁדַּי לִי מְאֹד.	20 And she said unto them: 'Call me not Naomi, call me Marah; for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me.
כא אֲנִי מְלֵאָה הָלַכְתִּי, וְרֵיקָם הֱשִׁיבַנִי ה; לָמָּה תִקְרֶאנָה לִי, נָעֳמִי, וַה עָנָה בִי, וְשַׁדַּי הֵרַע לִי.	21 I went out full, and the LORD hath brought me back home empty; why call ye me Naomi, seeing the LORD hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me?'

Yet this is surely Biblical poetry, where we would expect poetic parallelism. But it follows Rashi, who suggests "testified" or "humbled":

has testified Heb. עָנָה, has testified against me that I dealt wickedly before Him. Another explanation: The Divine Standard of Justice has humbled me, as (Hosea 5:5): “And the pride of Israel shall be humbled (וְעָנָה).”

Given the expectation of parallelism, I would translate "afflicted." Another example where רע stands opposite ענה is Devarim 26:6:

ו וַיָּרֵעוּ אֹתָנוּ הַמִּצְרִים, וַיְעַנּוּנוּ; וַיִּתְּנוּ עָלֵינוּ, עֲבֹדָה קָשָׁה.

6 And the Egyptians dealt ill with us, and afflicted us, and laid upon us hard bondage.

Do I think I'm such a chacham? Such an explanation is obvious to any pashtan, or parshan. Surely this explanation did not elude Rashi. Yet Rashi does not mention it, not even to reject it, and he does not suggest it, even though it would seem to be the most straightforward and in keeping with peshat.

What is motivating Rashi?

I believe the answer is as follows: We can cast Naomi as an Iyyov, railing against Hashem for afflicting him without cause, where he is entirely innocent. Indeed, within the context of the narrative, we can indeed argue that the suffering she undergoes here is indeed without cause. Or we can say that this was indeed with cause, and that Naomi recognizes as much.

Rashi plays the role of Job's friends, saying that the suffering was with cause -- as punishment for something -- and indeed has Naomi admit as much, and do tzidduk haDin.

Thus, Elimelech's leaving is a sin:

and a man went He was very wealthy, and the leader of the generation. He left the Land of Israel for regions outside the Land because of stinginess, for he begrudged the poor who came to press him; therefore he was punished.

Of course, there is textual, and midrashic cause for such a statement, but more importantly, it establishes a theme.

A bit later, the reason for Elimelech's death is Naomi's actions:

Naomi’s husband Why is this stated? From here they (our Sages) derived (Sanh. 22b): A man does not die except concerning his wife. (And Scripture states, “Naomi’s husband” ; that is to say that because he was her husband and ruled over her, and she was subordinate to him, therefore the divine standard of justice struck him and not her.)

That is, she acted improperly, but he was punished since she was subordinate to him. I'm not certain this is really what Rashi intended, or what the gemara he is channeling intended. That gemara (Sanhedrin 22b) reads:

A Tanna taught: The death of a man is felt by none but his wife; and that of a woman, but her husband. Regarding the former, it is said: And Elimelech, Naomi's husband, died. And regarding the latter it is written: And as for me, when I came from Padan, Rachel died unto me.

At least according to the Soncino translation, the idea is that only the spouse feels it most. And the part of Rashi that blames Naomi is in parentheses. There is ample context in the gemara for both explanations. Thus:

R. Alexandri said: The world is darkened for him whose wife has died in his days [i.e., predeceased him], as it is written, The light shall be dark because of his tent and his lamp over him shall be put out. R. Jose b. Hanina said: His steps grow short, as it is said: The steps of his strength shall be straightened. R. Abbahu said: His wits collapse, as it is written, And his own counsel shall cast him down.

Thus we have the concept of emotional impact. On the other hand, we also have:

R. Johanan or, as some say, R. Eleazar said: The death of a man's wife may only be ascribed to his failure to pay his debts, as it is said: If thou hast not wherewith to pay, why should he take away the bed from under thee?

meisa alay Rachel can certainly be cast as "because of."

Now, once again considering the pasuk:

כא אֲנִי מְלֵאָה הָלַכְתִּי, וְרֵיקָם הֱשִׁיבַנִי יְהוָה; לָמָּה תִקְרֶאנָה לִי, נָעֳמִי, וַה עָנָה בִי, וְשַׁדַּי הֵרַע לִי.

21 I went out full, and the LORD hath brought me back home empty; why call ye me Naomi, seeing the LORD hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me?'

Rashi is just as capable as any pashtan to make the link of ana to "afflicted," given the context. But then, this would be a simple complaint, with no justification for the tragedy. Rashi terraforms the sefer, and Naomi's reaction. She is much frummer.

has testified Heb. עָנָה, has testified against me that I dealt wickedly before Him. Another explanation: The Divine Standard of Justice has humbled me, as (Hosea 5:5): “And the pride of Israel shall be humbled (וְעָנָה).”

If it is "testified," it is testimony of her guilt, such that she deserves her present position. If it is "humbled," it is being humbled by the Divine Standard of Justice, in that she was wicked and haughty, and it brought down to a fitting level. It is no longer oppression and affliction, which is the sense one gets from the simple bitterness expressed therein.

Whether or not one agrees with Rashi as to the meaning of this and other pesukim, it pays to see his overall theme and aim in interpreting the sefer. Whether one adopts it depends on how one weighs other textual cues and themes in the sefer.

No Cherem on MBD

You'll see this on other blogs as well (e.g. Life In Israel) but I thought it proper to participate in techiyas haMeisim.

A Creative Halachic Solution: Nursing From Your Colleagues

Heh.

OK, so it is Islamic law rather than halacha, but a very creative and amusing fatwa, or religious edict.

Ezzat Attiya had issued a fatwa, or religious edict, saying adult men could breast-feed from female work colleagues as a way to avoid breaking Islamic rules that forbid men and women from being alone together.

In Islamic tradition, breast-feeding establishes a degree of maternal relation, even if a woman nurses a child who is not biologically hers. It means the child could not marry the nursing woman's biological children.

He has been disciplined for this, alas.

The rough halachic parallel is as follows: Yichud, or men and women being alone together is forbidden. This is not true for family members. Therefore, transform the man and woman into family members.

It is not clear to me whether he meant this as a joke, or whether he held that the man must nurse directly from the breast (which besides being improper, could increase problems which prompted the geder of yichud) , or could drink from a bottle containing the milk. You must admit it is a creative solution for coping with religious law in the reality of the workplace.

Update: The source:

Chapter 28: SUCKLING OF A YOUNG (BOY)
------------------------
Book 008, Number 3424:
' A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be eupon him) and said: Messengerof Allah, I see on the face of Abu Hudhaifa (signs of disgust) on entering of Salim (who is an ally) into (our house), whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Suckle him. She said: How can I suckle him as he is a grown-up man? Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) smiled and said: I already know that he is a young man 'Amr has made this addition in his narration that he participated in the Battle of Badr and in the narration of Ibn 'Umar (the words are): Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) laughed.

Book 008, Number 3426:
Ibn Abu Mulaika reported that al-Qasim b. Muhammad b. Abu Bakr had narrated to him that 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail b. 'Amr came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, Salim (the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa) is living with us in our house, and he has attained (puberty) as men attain it and has acquired knowledge (of the sex problems) as men acquire, whereupon he said: Suckle him so that he may become unlawful (in regard to marriage) for you He (Ibn Abu Mulaika) said: I refrained from (narrating this hadith) for a year or so on account of fear. I then met al-Qasim and said to him: You narrated to me a hadith which I did not narrate (to anyone) afterwards. He said: What is that? I informed him, whereupon he said: Narrate it on my authority that 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) had narrated that to me.

Book 008, Number 3428:
Zainab daughter of Abu Salama reported: I heard Umm Salama, the wife of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon himy, saying to 'A'isha: By Allah, I do not like to be seen by a young boy who has passed the period of fosterage, whereupon she ('A'isha) said: Why is it so? Sahla daughter of Suhail came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Allah's Messenger, I swear by Allah that I see in the face of Abu Hudhaifa (the signs of disgust) on account of entering of Salim (in the house), whereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Suckle him. She (Sahla bint Suhail) said: He has a heard. But he (again) said: Suckle him, and it would remove what is there (expression of disgust) on the face of Abu Hudhaifa. She said: (I did that) and, by Allah, I did not see (any sign of disgust) on the face of Abu Hadhaifa.

megillat Ruth: The LORD has *Testified* Against Me?

So goeth the JPS translation. Rut 1:21:

כ וַתֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶן, אַל-תִּקְרֶאנָה לִי נָעֳמִי: קְרֶאןָ לִי מָרָא, כִּי-הֵמַר שַׁדַּי לִי מְאֹד.	20 And she said unto them: 'Call me not Naomi, call me Marah; for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me.
כא אֲנִי מְלֵאָה הָלַכְתִּי, וְרֵיקָם הֱשִׁיבַנִי יְהוָה; לָמָּה תִקְרֶאנָה לִי, נָעֳמִי, וַיהוָה עָנָה בִי, וְשַׁדַּי הֵרַע לִי.	21 I went out full, and the LORD hath brought me back home empty; why call ye me Naomi, seeing the LORD hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me?'

Yet this is surely Biblical poetry, where we would expect poetic parallelism. But it follows Rashi, who suggests "testified" or "humbled":

has testified Heb. עָנָה, has testified against me that I dealt wickedly before Him. Another explanation: The Divine Standard of Justice has humbled me, as (Hosea 5:5): “And the pride of Israel shall be humbled (וְעָנָה).”

Given the expectation of parallelism, I would translate "afflicted." Another example where רע stands opposite ענה is Devarim 26:6:

ו וַיָּרֵעוּ אֹתָנוּ הַמִּצְרִים, וַיְעַנּוּנוּ; וַיִּתְּנוּ עָלֵינוּ, עֲבֹדָה קָשָׁה.

6 And the Egyptians dealt ill with us, and afflicted us, and laid upon us hard bondage.

Did Boaz Perform Customary Maamar?

I'll start with a Ruth-related etymology. Do you know that Oprah Winfrey, the talk-show host, is named for Ruth's sister-in-law Orpah? (as noted also by Al Gore on the previous post.) As Winfrey explains:

Oprah Winfrey: I was born, as I said, in rural Mississippi in 1954. I was born at home. There were not a lot of educated people around, and my name had been chosen from the Bible. My Aunt Ida had chosen the name, but nobody really knew how to spell it, so it went down as "Orpah" on my birth certificate, but people didn't know how to pronounce it, so they put the "P" before the "R" in every place else other than the birth certificate. On the birth certificate it is Orpah, but then it got translated to Oprah, so here we are. But that's great because Oprah spells Harpo backwards. I don't know what Orpah spells.

On to the topic described in the post title.

From the last perek of Rut:

ז וְזֹאת לְפָנִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל עַל-הַגְּאֻלָּה וְעַל-הַתְּמוּרָה, לְקַיֵּם כָּל-דָּבָר, שָׁלַף אִישׁ נַעֲלוֹ, וְנָתַן לְרֵעֵהוּ; וְזֹאת הַתְּעוּדָה, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.	7 Now this was the custom in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning exchanging, to confirm all things: a man drew off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour; and this was the attestation in Israel.--
ח וַיֹּאמֶר הַגֹּאֵל לְבֹעַז, קְנֵה-לָךְ; וַיִּשְׁלֹף, נַעֲלוֹ.	8 So the near kinsman said unto Boaz: 'Buy it for thyself.' And he drew off his shoe.
ט וַיֹּאמֶר בֹּעַז לַזְּקֵנִים וְכָל-הָעָם, עֵדִים אַתֶּם הַיּוֹם, כִּי קָנִיתִי אֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר לֶאֱלִימֶלֶךְ, וְאֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר לְכִלְיוֹן וּמַחְלוֹן--מִיַּד, נָעֳמִי.	9 And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people: 'Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was Chilion's and Mahlon's, of the hand of Naomi.
י וְגַם אֶת-רוּת הַמֹּאֲבִיָּה אֵשֶׁת מַחְלוֹן קָנִיתִי לִי לְאִשָּׁה, לְהָקִים שֵׁם-הַמֵּת עַל-נַחֲלָתוֹ, וְלֹא-יִכָּרֵת שֵׁם-הַמֵּת מֵעִם אֶחָיו, וּמִשַּׁעַר מְקוֹמוֹ: עֵדִים אַתֶּם, הַיּוֹם.	10 Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I acquired to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place; ye are witnesses this day.'
יא וַיֹּאמְרוּ כָּל-הָעָם אֲשֶׁר-בַּשַּׁעַר, וְהַזְּקֵנִים--עֵדִים; יִתֵּן יְהוָה אֶת-הָאִשָּׁה הַבָּאָה אֶל-בֵּיתֶךָ, כְּרָחֵל וּכְלֵאָה אֲשֶׁר בָּנוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶם אֶת-בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַעֲשֵׂה-חַיִל בְּאֶפְרָתָה, וּקְרָא-שֵׁם בְּבֵית לָחֶם.	11 And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said: 'We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman that is come into thy house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel; and do thou worthily in Ephrath, and be famous in Beth-lehem;
יב וִיהִי בֵיתְךָ כְּבֵית פֶּרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר-יָלְדָה תָמָר לִיהוּדָה--מִן-הַזֶּרַע, אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן יְהוָה לְךָ, מִן-הַנַּעֲרָה, הַזֹּאת.	12 and let thy house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore unto Judah, of the seed which the LORD shall give thee of this young woman.'
יג וַיִּקַּח בֹּעַז אֶת-רוּת וַתְּהִי-לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, וַיָּבֹא אֵלֶיהָ; וַיִּתֵּן יְהוָה לָהּ הֵרָיוֹן, וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן.	13 So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife; and he went in unto her, and the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son.

Earlier I mentioned irregularities in the yibbum. After all, Boaz was no brother to Machlon and Kilyon (presumably), nor was that other redeemer, Ploni Almoni. Ramban suggests this is customary yibbum, not halachic, Torah yibbum. I mentioned this earlier in terms of Naomi's suggestion to Ruth and Orpah that they might perhaps wait for Naomi to give birth to another son, who would perform yibbum, which would be a problem of achiv shelo haya beOlamo as well as eshet ach min haEm (and not min haAv).

Interestingly, when Boaz does marry Ruth, there seems to be kiddushin as well. He states

י וְגַם אֶת-רוּת הַמֹּאֲבִיָּה אֵשֶׁת מַחְלוֹן קָנִיתִי לִי לְאִשָּׁה, לְהָקִים שֵׁם-הַמֵּת עַל-נַחֲלָתוֹ, וְלֹא-יִכָּרֵת שֵׁם-הַמֵּת מֵעִם אֶחָיו, וּמִשַּׁעַר מְקוֹמוֹ: עֵדִים אַתֶּם, הַיּוֹם.

10 Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I acquired to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place; ye are witnesses this day.'

Assuming he did not sleep with Ruth in the threshing floor (a fact about which I remain somewhat unconvinced, BTW, but that should be the topic of another post), he had not yet slept with her. How could he say he "acquired" her. This sounds like regular kiddushin.

Or later:

יג וַיִּקַּח בֹּעַז אֶת-רוּת וַתְּהִי-לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, וַיָּבֹא אֵלֶיהָ; וַיִּתֵּן יְהוָה לָהּ הֵרָיוֹן, וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן.

13 So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife; and he went in unto her, and the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son.

There are then three possibilities:

1) Indeed, this is mere customary yibbum, so sleeping with her without prior betrothal would be improper. He either performed betrothal here, or the right to perform betrothal, which was done later. Thus, she was a regular wife to him, and then they slept together. There was thus kiddushin and nisuin first, perhaps as described in pasuk 13.

2) I am misreading all this, or reading too much into this. He is making a formal "acquisition" that he is to be the goel, redeemer, and not the closer relation.

3) Later, Chazal innovate "maamar," a Rabbinic betrothal performed prior to halachic yibbum. Perhaps this is not such a new Pharisaic innovation, but was practice even in Biblical times, for customary yibbum, or if that is how they read Torah law, a practice even for halachic yibbum.

More on Ruth's Name

As I gave the various etymologies in the previous post:

What is the etymology of Rus' name? Putting aside Rabbi Yochanan's explanation on Berachot 7b, which may very well not be an etymology at all ( מאי רות א"ר יוחנן שזכתה ויצא ממנה דוד שריוהו להקדוש ברוך הוא בשירות ותשבחות). Some scholars connect Rus to the Moabite רות, which parallels the Hebrew word רעות, friendship, since Moabite did not pronounce and thus eliminated the letter ayin. (I wonder, then, how Rus pronounced her mother-in-law Naomi's name.)

there was one post I neglected to mention. What is the relationship to the English word "ruth?" Can we say that Tov, that is, Ploni Almoni, was a ruthless character? :)

In fact, the English word "ruth" has a different etymology. As Webster defines it, it means "compassion for the misery of another," from Middle English ruthe, from ruen to rue. Indeed, this fits nicely into the Biblical Ruth as well.

Ruth and Naomi's Names

A word or two on Ruth and Naomi's names.

What is the etymology of Rus' name? Putting aside Rabbi Yochanan's explanation on Berachot 7b, which may very well not be an etymology at all ( מאי רות א"ר יוחנן שזכתה ויצא ממנה דוד שריוהו להקדוש ברוך הוא בשירות ותשבחות). Some scholars connect Rus to the Moabite רות, which parallels the Hebrew word רעות, friendship, since Moabite did not pronounce and thus eliminated the letter ayin. (I wonder, then, how Rus pronounced her mother-in-law Naomi's name.)

Noami, we seem to get from Naomi's mouth herself. In the first perek she makes a play on words. {Ruth 1:19-21}:

יט וַתֵּלַכְנָה שְׁתֵּיהֶם, עַד-בּוֹאָנָה בֵּית לָחֶם; וַיְהִי, כְּבוֹאָנָה בֵּית לֶחֶם, וַתֵּהֹם כָּל-הָעִיר עֲלֵיהֶן, וַתֹּאמַרְנָה הֲזֹאת נָעֳמִי.	19 So they two went until they came to Beth-lehem. And it came to pass, when they were come to Beth-lehem, that all the city was astir concerning them, and the women said: 'Is this Naomi?'
כ וַתֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶן, אַל-תִּקְרֶאנָה לִי נָעֳמִי: קְרֶאןָ לִי מָרָא, כִּי-הֵמַר שַׁדַּי לִי מְאֹד.	20 And she said unto them: 'Call me not Naomi, call me Marah; for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me.
כא אֲנִי מְלֵאָה הָלַכְתִּי, וְרֵיקָם הֱשִׁיבַנִי יְהוָה; לָמָּה תִקְרֶאנָה לִי, נָעֳמִי, וַיהוָה עָנָה בִי, וְשַׁדַּי הֵרַע לִי.	21 I went out full, and the LORD hath brought me back home empty; why call ye me Naomi, seeing the LORD hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me?'

נעם means "pleasantness" {think deracheha darchei noam} and "sweetness," such that the opposite feminine form would be Mara, "bitterness." Perhaps there is some other etymology and this is just a handy play on words, but we may as well take this as definitional.

Interestingly -- and this is obvious, but deserves mention -- it seems that people do not listen to Naomi's request for a name change, if indeed she meant it in truth as opposed to as a bitter, caustic comment on her present situation. We read in the next perek:

ה וַיֹּאמֶר בֹּעַז לְנַעֲרוֹ, הַנִּצָּב עַל-הַקּוֹצְרִים: לְמִי, הַנַּעֲרָה הַזֹּאת.	5 Then said Boaz unto his servant that was set over the reapers: 'Whose damsel is this?'
ו וַיַּעַן, הַנַּעַר הַנִּצָּב עַל-הַקּוֹצְרִים--וַיֹּאמַר: נַעֲרָה מוֹאֲבִיָּה הִיא, הַשָּׁבָה עִם-נָעֳמִי מִשְּׂדֵי מוֹאָב.	6 And the servant that was set over the reapers answered and said: 'It is a Moabitish damsel that came back with Naomi out of the field of Moab;

and in the fourth perek:

ג וַיֹּאמֶר, לַגֹּאֵל, חֶלְקַת הַשָּׂדֶה, אֲשֶׁר לְאָחִינוּ לֶאֱלִימֶלֶךְ: מָכְרָה נָעֳמִי, הַשָּׁבָה מִשְּׂדֵה מוֹאָב.

3 And he said unto the near kinsman: 'Naomi, that is come back out of the field of Moab, selleth the parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech's;

How are we to pronounce her name? Is the standard English equivalent, Naomi, anywhere close? Or should we pronounce it Na'ami?

Well, throughout, the name is written נָעֳמִי, with a chataf kametz under the ayin. We pronounce this as a short kametz katon, thus as an /o/. The pronunciation of chataf kametz is a bit strange, since the elongated version in the letter preceding it is assumed to be a kametz gadol, /a/. Thus, Naomi (nuh-omi) is not bad.

Naso: Why Converts Are Great

Relevant to Naso, as it occurs in Bamidbar Rabba, as well as to Shavuot and Rut. I saw a beautiful midrash Rabba about why Hashem loves the convert.

The midrash discusses how various groups require yichus to enter. Thus, we have in Tehillim 118:

ב יֹאמַר-נָא יִשְׂרָאֵל: כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ.	2 So let Israel now say, for His mercy endureth for ever,
ג יֹאמְרוּ-נָא בֵית-אַהֲרֹן: כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ.	3 So let the house of Aaron now say, for His mercy endureth for ever.
ד יֹאמְרוּ-נָא יִרְאֵי ה: כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ.	4 So let them now that fear the LORD say, for His mercy endureth for ever.

We have bet Levi, and bet Aharon. But anyone, even a gentile, can be a tzaddik, a righteous person, and join those that fear the LORD. (I was unclear if this meant by converting.)

Further, the midrash makes a mashal of a king who has a flock of sheep, and a deer joins the flock, living in the way of the sheep. The king commands the shepherds to be especially careful, and watchful, over the deer. "Why?" -- ask the shepherds. "Do you not have many many sheep?" The king answers that living in this way is the natural way of these sheep, whereas the deer is unique in that it chose to live in this domesticated way.

Indeed, many Jews who are FFB (Frum From Birth) did not specifically choose to be Jewish. They were (luckily) born that way. It is natural to proceed along this course, in the way they were raised. On the other hand, converts -- and baalei teshuva as well -- made the choice to become Jewish and religious.

Sure, we have Shavuot every year, celebrating the acceptance of the Torah, where we relive naaseh veNishma. But in many cases we keep Torah because it is natural, having been brought up this way. It is something else entirely to accept the Torah, starting from not having Torah. This is an impressive act, and it is fitting to celebrate Ruth, who stated:

טז וַתֹּאמֶר רוּת אַל-תִּפְגְּעִי-בִי, לְעָזְבֵךְ לָשׁוּב מֵאַחֲרָיִךְ: כִּי אֶל-אֲשֶׁר תֵּלְכִי אֵלֵךְ, וּבַאֲשֶׁר תָּלִינִי אָלִין--עַמֵּךְ עַמִּי, וֵאלֹהַיִךְ אֱלֹהָי.	16 And Ruth said: 'Entreat me not to leave thee, and to return from following after thee; for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God;
יז בַּאֲשֶׁר תָּמוּתִי אָמוּת, וְשָׁם אֶקָּבֵר; כֹּה יַעֲשֶׂה ה לִי, וְכֹה יוֹסִיף--כִּי הַמָּוֶת, יַפְרִיד בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵךְ.	17 where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried; the LORD do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part thee and me.'

Cross-Dressing Ruth and Naomi

Hirhurim has a post about cross-dressing, and the situations in which is permitted or not. Since I'm focused now on megillat Rut, I would point out a midrash that Ruth and Naomi dressed as men on their way back to Bet Lechem Yehuda, for safety's sake, such that they would not be harassed. (After all, they were two women traveling alone.)

The basis of this is Ruth 1:19,

יט וַתֵּלַכְנָה שְׁתֵּיהֶם, עַד-בּוֹאָנָה בֵּית לָחֶם; וַיְהִי, כְּבוֹאָנָה בֵּית לֶחֶם, וַתֵּהֹם כָּל-הָעִיר עֲלֵיהֶן, וַתֹּאמַרְנָה הֲזֹאת נָעֳמִי.

19 So they two went until they came to Beth-lehem. And it came to pass, when they were come to Beth-lehem, that all the city was astir concerning them, and the women said: 'Is this Naomi?'

if I recall correctly and deduce correctly, from the word שְׁתֵּיהֶם rather than שתיהן. And this was only until they came to Bet Lechem, עַד-בּוֹאָנָה בֵּית לָחֶם.

Shavuot; Daf Yomi Yevamot 17a: How Naomi Proposes Yibbum For אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו and אחין מן האם

With Shavuot coming up, in which we read megillat Ruth, and with daf Yomi learning through Yevamot, this is a timely post. We read in today's daf Yomi that Yibbum does not extend to a maternal (rather than paternal) brother, nor to a brother born after the death of the deceased. Indeed, since it does not extend, there is a prohibition of eshet ach in play. (Assuming I am reading the gemaras correctly.)

Citing my translation of the Rif:

{Yevamot 17a}
Gemara:

אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו היכא כתיבא
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אמר קרא כי ישבו אחים אחים שהיתה להם ישיבה אחת בעולם פרט לאשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו
יחדיו המיוחדין בנחלה פרט לאחין מן האם:

The wife of the brother who was not in his world, where is it written?
Rav Yehuda cited Rav: The verse stated {Devarim 25:5}

ה כִּי-יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּו, וּמֵת אַחַד מֵהֶם וּבֵן אֵין-לוֹ--לֹא-תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת-הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה, לְאִישׁ זָר: יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ, וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וְיִבְּמָהּ.

5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad unto one not of his kin; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her.

Brothers who have a single {shared} dwelling in the world, to the exclusion of the wife of the brother who was not in his world. {The next word:} יַחְדָּו - together - who are distinct in inheritance, to the exclusion of brothers from the mother.

As we learn in Yevamot 55, the maternal brother's wife is prohibited under eshet ach. (thus אלמא אחות אשתו בין מן האב בין מן האם אסורות.) And so should eshet ach shelo haya beOlamo, since there is no yibbum or chalitza.

However, we run into problems when considering megillat Ruth. Sefer Bereishit itself gives us problems, since Yehuda performs yibbum on his widowed daughter-in-law. One can say this was an extended yibbum in play before mattan Torah, such that the relationship of kallato did not present problems.

In megillat Ruth, it appears that yibbum is fulfilled by Boaz on Ruth, where he seems to be an extended relative, not a brother to Machlon or Kilyon. Ramban explains this as being customary yibbum, rather than yibbum as laid out by halacha and Torah law. There are other options, which I won't go into right now.

This is good for the Boaz relationship, but what Naomi suggests earlier to Ruth and Orpah is somewhat troubling. Naomi says {Ruth 1:11 - 13}

יא וַתֹּאמֶר נָעֳמִי שֹׁבְנָה בְנֹתַי, לָמָּה תֵלַכְנָה עִמִּי: הַעוֹד-לִי בָנִים בְּמֵעַי, וְהָיוּ לָכֶם לַאֲנָשִׁים.	11 And Naomi said: 'Turn back, my daughters; why will ye go with me? have I yet sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands?
יב שֹׁבְנָה בְנֹתַי לֵכְןָ, כִּי זָקַנְתִּי מִהְיוֹת לְאִישׁ: כִּי אָמַרְתִּי, יֶשׁ-לִי תִקְוָה--גַּם הָיִיתִי הַלַּיְלָה לְאִישׁ, וְגַם יָלַדְתִּי בָנִים.	12 Turn back, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say: I have hope, should I even have an husband to-night, and also bear sons;
יג הֲלָהֵן תְּשַׂבֵּרְנָה, עַד אֲשֶׁר יִגְדָּלוּ, הֲלָהֵן תֵּעָגֵנָה, לְבִלְתִּי הֱיוֹת לְאִישׁ; אַל בְּנֹתַי, כִּי-מַר-לִי מְאֹד מִכֶּם--כִּי-יָצְאָה בִי, יַד-יְהוָה.	13 would ye tarry for them till they were grown? would ye shut yourselves off for them and have no husbands? nay, my daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes, for the hand of the LORD is gone forth against me.'

She is saying that she has no more sons. She presents a hypothetical in which she would sleep with a man that night and have sons. If so, would they wait for those sons to grow up?

The problem here is that Machlon and Kilyon have already died. Any sons born to her would be brothers who were never in the world of the deceased. Can we then say this is customary yibbum? Well, we could, but what about the prohibition of eshet ach?!

Furthermore, any brother would be a maternal brother to Machlon and Kilyon, rather than a paternal brother, since he would not be the son of Elimelech. Yibbum does not hold in such a case, and it is difficult to ascribe this to customary yibbum, since there is the prohibition of eshet ach.

Some possibilities occur to me. I'm sure there are others. I should check out meforshim, or you are free to and post in the comments. :)
1) They understood the pesukim differently than Rav, and we do not have to have Biblical characters keep Pharisee halacha. This may be true even within the Pharisaic system of halacha. The bet Din of each generation learns its own derashot and can decide against a bet Din from an earlier generation.
2) Ruth coverted at this point, so eshet ach did not present such a halachic problem.
3) Naomi was not a yoetzet halacha, or a rabbanit. She was talking in anguish over the loss of her sons, and attempting to persuade her daughters-in-law to remain in Moav. Who says she knew the correct halacha?

I'm leaning towards the first one.

Daf Yomi Yevamot 17a: Rav's Derashot About אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו and אחין מן האם as Peshat

On Yevamot daf 17a, Rav gives derivations for two halachot via derasha, but the derashot actually strikes me as true on a peshat level as well, as coming from those particular words or thereabout.

Citing my translation of the Rif:

{Yevamot 17a}
Gemara:

אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו היכא כתיבא
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אמר קרא כי ישבו אחים אחים שהיתה להם ישיבה אחת בעולם פרט לאשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו
יחדיו המיוחדין בנחלה פרט לאחין מן האם:

The wife of the brother who was not in his world, where is it written?
Rav Yehuda cited Rav: The verse stated {Devarim 25:5}

ה כִּי-יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּו, וּמֵת אַחַד מֵהֶם וּבֵן אֵין-לוֹ--לֹא-תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת-הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה, לְאִישׁ זָר: יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ, וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וְיִבְּמָהּ.

5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad unto one not of his kin; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her.

Brothers who have a single {shared} dwelling in the world, to the exclusion of the wife of the brother who was not in his world. {The next word:} יַחְדָּו - together - who are distinct in inheritance, to the exclusion of brothers from the mother.

This all sounds very midrashic, but in fact these deductions make good sense as peshat within the general parsha, and even good peshat on the words from which they are derived as well.

The pasuk states כִּי-יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּו, if two brothers dwell together. Let us step back a moment and think how it is that two brothers dwell together. In Biblical days past, there was an extended family unit headed by the paterfamilias, which we might call the bet av. Brothers, with their families, dwelled together. The idea seems to be that when a woman is widowed without children, she is not abandoned and alone in the world, but another brother steps up to the plate and takes her into his household, and furthermore that they continue that particular branch of the family. There is an element of duty to the brother as well, and also inheritance. As we read (same perek):

ו וְהָיָה, הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד--יָקוּם, עַל-שֵׁם אָחִיו הַמֵּת; וְלֹא-יִמָּחֶה שְׁמוֹ, מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.

6 And it shall be, that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel.

shem means inheritance, or as I like to translate it to English, "title." We see this explicitly by Ephraim and Menashe, or actually children after them, about whom we read {Bereishit 48}:

ו וּמוֹלַדְתְּךָ אֲשֶׁר-הוֹלַדְתָּ אַחֲרֵיהֶם, לְךָ יִהְיוּ; עַל שֵׁם אֲחֵיהֶם יִקָּרְאוּ, בְּנַחֲלָתָם.

6 And thy issue, that thou begettest after them, shall be thine; they shall be called after the name of their brethren in their inheritance.

and if further evidence is necessary, the yibbum by Rut is lehakim shem haMet al nachalato, and the child born is not named Machlon or Kilyon.

Considering all this -- when are the two brothers dwelling side by side under the same paterfamilias? When both are alive at the same time. (In fact, he does not, but we may stress yachdav.) If so, a brother born after the death of his brother does not dwell with him, and would not be expected to assume these responsibilities. Indeed, before he was born, she could have gone off to marry some stranger (or some other brother). And where there is no obligation of yibbum, there is a prohibition of eshet ach, the brother's wife, just as she is prohibited to him had she had children.

In terms of a maternal brother, such a brother would be in a different bet av, with a different paterfamilias. They would not be yachdav, or dwelling yachdav. And at issue is inheritance, (as indeed they darshen yachdav as מיוחדין בנחלה) and what business does a maternal brother have to inheritance from someone who is not his father?

Next up, how sefer Rut challenges these two laws.

Parshat Bamidbar: In the presence of Aaron their father - but who did what?

In parshat Bamidbar, we read {Bemidbar 3:4}:

ג אֵלֶּה, שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן, הַכֹּהֲנִים, הַמְּשֻׁחִים--אֲשֶׁר-מִלֵּא יָדָם, לְכַהֵן.	3 These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the priests that were anointed, whom he consecrated to minister in the priest's office.
ד וַיָּמָת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא לִפְנֵי ה בְּהַקְרִבָם אֵשׁ זָרָה לִפְנֵי ה, בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי, וּבָנִים, לֹא-הָיוּ לָהֶם; וַיְכַהֵן אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר, עַל-פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם. {פ	4 And Nadab and Abihu died before the LORD, when they offered strange fire before the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai, and they had no children; and Eleazar and Ithamar ministered in the priest's office in the presence of Aaron their father. {P}

There is a dispute amongst parshanim as to the meaning of עַל-פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם at the end of pasuk 4. Rashi explains it as rendered in the JPS translation above, that they, Eleazar and Itamar, ministered in their father's lifetime. This certainly seems like the most straightforward explanation, especially in light of the previous pasuk.

Ramban, however, points to a parallel in Divrei Hayamim I 24:2:

א וְלִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן, מַחְלְקוֹתָם: בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן--נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא, אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר.	1 And the courses of the sons of Aaron were these. The sons of Aaron: Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.
ב וַיָּמָת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא לִפְנֵי אֲבִיהֶם, וּבָנִים לֹא-הָיוּ לָהֶם; וַיְכַהֲנוּ, אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר.	2 But Nadab and Abihu died before their father, and had no children; therefore Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest's office.
ג וַיֶּחָלְקֵם דָּוִיד--וְצָדוֹק מִן-בְּנֵי אֶלְעָזָר, וַאֲחִימֶלֶךְ מִן-בְּנֵי אִיתָמָר: לִפְקֻדָּתָם, בַּעֲבֹדָתָם.	3 And David with Zadok of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahimelech of the sons of Ithamar, divided them according to their ordering in their service.

Ramban matches עַל-פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם in parshat Bamidbar to לִפְנֵי אֲבִיהֶם in Divrei Hayamim, and therefore interprets the pasuk in Bamidbar differently. It is rather Nadav and Avihu (rather than Elezear and Itamar) who died (rather than ministered) עַל-פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם (and also, of course לִפְנֵי ה). Thus, it the phrase attaches to a place much earlier in the verse, and much higher in the syntactic tree.

The trup appears to agree with Rashi's reading, putting the etnachta on lahem, thus clearly having עַל־פְּנֵ֖י אַֽהֲרֹ֥ן אֲבִיהֶֽם as part of the second portion of the verse.

א וְאֵ֛לֶּה תּֽוֹלְדֹ֥ת אַֽהֲרֹ֖ן וּמֹשֶׁ֑ה בְּי֗וֹם דִּבֶּ֧ר יְהוָ֛ה אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֖ה בְּהַ֥ר סִינָֽי׃ ב וְאֵ֛לֶּה שְׁמ֥וֹת בְּֽנֵי־אַהֲרֹ֖ן הַבְּכֹ֣ר ׀ נָדָ֑ב וַֽאֲבִיה֕וּא אֶלְעָזָ֖ר וְאִֽיתָמָֽר׃ ג אֵ֗לֶּה שְׁמוֹת֙ בְּנֵ֣י אַֽהֲרֹ֔ן הַכֹּֽהֲנִ֖ים הַמְּשֻׁחִ֑ים אֲשֶׁר־מִלֵּ֥א יָדָ֖ם לְכַהֵֽן׃ ד וַיָּ֣מָת נָדָ֣ב וַֽאֲבִיה֣וּא לִפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֡ה בְּֽהַקְרִבָם֩ אֵ֨שׁ זָרָ֜ה לִפְנֵ֤י יְהוָה֙ בְּמִדְבַּ֣ר סִינַ֔י וּבָנִ֖ים לֹֽא־הָי֣וּ לָהֶ֑ם וַיְכַהֵ֤ן אֶלְעָזָר֙ וְאִ֣יתָמָ֔ר עַל־פְּנֵ֖י אַֽהֲרֹ֥ן אֲבִיהֶֽם׃ {פ

Shadal points this out, stating:

על פני אהרון אביהם : לדעת רמב"ן חוזר למעלה, וימת נדב ואביהוא על פני אהרן אביהם, וכן הוא בד"ה א' כ"ד ב ', והאתנח ראוי תחת ואיתמר (נתה"ש

Thus, Shadal appears to agree with Ramban's reading, but points out that the etnachta should go under the word veItamar.

As it currently stands:


Click on the image to see the trup tree. If we move the etnachta to Itamar, the first division moves to that point, and we can say (for instance) that עַל-פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם modifies the entire first portion of the verse, where the main topic is Nadav and Avihu's death, with Eleazar and Itamar as an aside.

Shadal feels free to do this because he holds that the particular trup as we have it is post-Talmudic. What would Ramban say, though?

I would note the gemara in Chagiga 6b, where there is a machloket about the meaning of a specific pasuk in terms of which karbanot were brought, with the nafka mina being what trup there is (at least as Rashi explains it):

אל בעי רב חסדא האי קרא היכי כתיב (שמות כד) וישלח את נערי בני ישראל ויעלו עולות כבשים ויזבחו זבחים שלמים לה' פרים או דלמא אידי ואידי פרים הוו למאי נפקא מינה מר זוטרא אמר לפיסוק טעמים

Perhaps if this is really so we should move the position of etnachta when laining this Shabbos, and recalculate all the rest of the trup to match.

Perhaps one can point out the Wickes has the primary dichotomy as a logical one and all subsequent (minor) dichotomies as syntactic, and the present position of the etnachta is the one that divides the pasuk most into two discrete logical topics, even though it strands the last phrase in a syntactically invalid or awkward position.

Are We All Thieves? High Tech Heists and Halacha

I just received this in my email. A source book/shiur about intellectual property and piracy. Plus more. Check it out.


as

Misquoting Kohelet Rabba

I typically read the letters to the editor in the Jewish Press each week. This week's ended with a dvar Torah sent in showing how Chazal were big fans of environmentalism.

The letter starts:

Shavuos honors the receiving of the Torah, the time when Jews accepted the responsibility to be a light unto the world. Part of that responsibility is to accept God’s creations. Koheles Rabbah (VII, 13) states, “See my works, how beautiful and praiseworthy they are; and I created all of it for you. Be careful not to spoil or destroy my world because if you spoil it, there will be no one after you to repair it.”

The quote appears to be talking to all of man, and telling him to take care of the world and not ruin the environment, for if you spoil it, it cannot be undone.

In fact, the full quote is:

Thus, it was directed to Adam haRishon, not to all people. The beautiful and wonderous works were the trees of Gan Eden. The ruining of it was not by chopping down trees or polluting a river but rather by sinning by eating from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. And the quote would have made that clear since it continues from "there will be no one after you to repair it" with "and not only that, but you will cause death to that righteous person" (who is Moshe, as we continue to read). Thus, the topic is refraining from sin rather than environmental protection.

And as we see, he did mess up and caused all this.

Perhaps one can extrapolate from all this an environmental message (and perhaps not), but this is either deliberately or accidentally dishonest. And where you start manufacturing quotes by taking them out of context, I begin to wonder whether any of the sources legitimately bolster your claim. (In fact, this has been true in the past for other environmentalism devar Torah claims.)

Indeed, his other two quotes make use of ellipses, which make me wonder whether he is Dowdifying the quotes. I don't have time right now to examine them, though.

Scattered Thoughts on haftarat Bamidbar

The haftara for Bamidbar is the second perek of Hoshea, and I have a few points to note:

The mashal is to a cheating spouse, who is cast off, seeks her lovers but does not attain them, and then seeks to return to her first spouse - אֵלְכָה וְאָשׁוּבָה אֶל-אִישִׁי הָרִאשׁוֹן--כִּי טוֹב לִי אָז, מֵעָתָּה. Meanwhile, what she thought were the wages of her lovers (the Bealim) were really provided by her husband. And then he woos her and betroths her forever.

There is a connection to the previous perek where Hoshea followed Hashem's instruction to marry a harlot and "children of harlotry" (though my reading of it had the children born being fathered by Hoshea -- and I take וַיִּקַּח there to mean marry), and to name the children born as they are named.

According to halacha, though, I wonder whether the mashal could be realized. It is not really a machzir gerushato problem, since she did not marry the lovers after being sent off by her husband. But a sota is forbidden to her lover and to her husband. Luckily for us, this is a mashal, and one cannot ask such a question on it to uproot the nimshal.

The next two points are not original. In pasuk 18:

יח וְהָיָה בַיּוֹם-הַהוּא נְאֻם-יְהוָה, תִּקְרְאִי אִישִׁי; וְלֹא-תִקְרְאִי-לִי עוֹד, בַּעְלִי.	18 And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call Me Ishi, and shalt call Me no more Baali.
יט וַהֲסִרֹתִי אֶת-שְׁמוֹת הַבְּעָלִים, מִפִּיהָ; וְלֹא-יִזָּכְרוּ עוֹד, בִּשְׁמָם.	19 For I will take away the names of the Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be mentioned by their name.

Notice how the JPS translation deliberately does not translate Ishi and Baali. There is deliberate multivalence, here, or at least a pun. Ishi means husband, and Baali also can be used to mean husband. Malbim says that the former connotes the love aspect of the relationship while the latter refers to the memshala of the relationship. But of course it can also refer to Baal as in the idolatry (as in the immediate context in the next pasuk). This is a deliberate pun.

Finally, the last pasuk has a word we spoke about in a Biblical Hebrew class or two:

כב וְאֵרַשְׂתִּיךְ לִי, בֶּאֱמוּנָה; וְיָדַעַתְּ, אֶת-ה. {פ}

22 And I will betroth thee unto Me in faithfulness; and thou shalt know the LORD. {P}

וְיָדַעַתְּ is strange, but that is its grammatical form. What is strange about it is the dagesh in the tav at the end. If it were a dagesh chazak, we would expect a sheva na under it, which we clearly do not have -- and why should there be a dagesh chazak? It would therefore be a dagesh kal, but we have that only in a consonant cluster at the end of the word? -- if the ayin had a sheva nach, we could have the tav with a sheva nach as well. Since the ayin has a patach, we should expect the dagesh kal to be absent from the tav. It is thus a cross between veyada'ath and veyada't.

Is It Halachically Problematic to Make Use of Someone Else's Tunes?

Without linking to the "controversy" ... more specifically, can a Jewish artist take a tune from a secular source and make a Jewish variant of it -- and then make a profit, by selling CDs with the tune or performing it in concert.

I am not a lawyer, and will not address this from a legal angle. Nor am I giving a pesak halacha here.

However, classically, this is what has been done over and over, even for some secular songs. The tune to the Star Spangled Banner is a rip-off of a Russian drinking song. Many chassidish niggunim are Russian or Polish drinking songs or marches. Case in point -- the Tetris niggun.

Further, where the audience is small and specific - a niche market - then this is a classic case of zeh nehneh vezeh lo chaser - "this one benefits and this one does not lose" - which is halachically permissible. People who buy Uncle Moishe are typically not the same ones that buy Raffi, and people who buy MBD are typically not the type to listen to German rock bands. So I would say "no." Schlock Rock to regular rock - well, they are targeting the same audience as a kiruv endeavor, but still, one would have to see if people really would buy one as an alternative to the other (I would tend to doubt it, but don't know).

Meanwhile, copying a CD or tape where you really otherwise would have purchased it -- this can certainly be cast as zeh nehneh vezeh chaser, which is more problematic.