Daf Yomi Yevamot 64b: Chazaka, Epilepsy, and Leprosy

In about a week, we will encounter the following gemara in Daf Yomi (translation from a Rif Yomi post in preparation):

{Yevamot 64b}

אמר רבא לא ישא אדם אשה לא ממשפחת נכפין ולא ממשפחת מצורעים והוא דאיתחזק בתלתא זימני אבל בתרי זימני אקראי בעלמא הוא:

Rava said: A man should not marry a woman from a family of epileptics or from a family of lepers. And this is where it has been established from three times. But from two times, it is mere happenstance.

The idea is perhaps that we establish all things, including likelihood of physical malady, with chazaka, and this is no exception. Of course, if so, why give this justification that "it is mere happenstance." Of course! Why give this justification.

I would also point out that there is a possible distinction between the first and second half of Rava's statement. The first part is ambiguously Hebrew. It might pass for Aramaic, though we might anticipate inish and iteta rather than adam and isha. But, the second half of the statement, which clarifies with the word והוא, is unambiguously Aramaic. Thus the de prefix and the Aramaic vocabulary. So Rava might not have explicitly stated this, and this is the clarification of the setama digmara.

Is there reason to worry about a woman being from a family of epileptics or of lepers? That is, it is genetic? And if it is genetic, then shouldn't one instance be sufficient. (Absent genetic testing. And we assume here that these translations are accurate, which admittedly may not be so.)

It turns out that both epilepsy and leprosy are both genetic and developmental. For epilepsy (Wikipedia source):

Epidemiology

Epilepsy is one of the most common serious neurological disorders.^[9] Genetic, congenital, and developmental conditions are mostly associated with it among younger patients; tumors are more likely over age 40; head trauma and central nervous system infections may occur at any age.

and for leprosy:

Leprosy or Hansen's disease is a chronic infectious disease caused by the bacterium Mycobacterium leprae.^[1] Leprosy is primarily a granulomatous disease of the peripheral nerves, mucosa of the upper respiratory tract, and skin lesions.^[2]

...

Pathophysiology

The exact mechanism of transmission of leprosy is not known. The only other animals besides humans to contract leprosy are the armadillo, chimpanzees, sooty mangabeys, and cynomolgous macaques.^{[citation needed]} The bacterium can also be grown in the laboratory by injection into the footpads of mice.^{[citation needed]} There is evidence that not all people who are infected with M. leprae develop leprosy, and genetic factors have long been thought to play a role, due to the observation of clustering of leprosy around certain families, and the failure to understand why certain individuals develop lepromatous leprosy while others develop other types of leprosy.^{[citation needed]} However, the role of genetic factors is not clear in determining this clinical expression. In addition, malnutrition and possible prior exposure to other environmental mycobacteria may play a role in development of the overt disease.

Thus, epilepsy may be genetic, but they may also be the result of other factors. And leprosy might be the result of a certain bacterium, but genetic factors might make one more susceptible.
Thus, one occurrence is not really enough to establish a genetic trait in the family. Perhaps it was from some other cause. Two as well, especially if we are considering a somewhat extended family. With three in the same family, it stands to reason that there is some genetic trait being manifest, and there is what to worry about.

Balak/Pinchas/Mattot/Vayeshev: Midianites as a Generic Term

In parshat Balak and Pinchas, there is some fluidity between Moav and Midian. Balak deals with princes of both, and is himself king of Moav. (Some teirutzim place him as initially a prince of Midian, appointed over Moav.) He sends both Midianite and Moabite princes to Bilaam. But then, midway through the story, these become "the princes of Balak" and finally "the princes of Moav" arise with Bilaam, and no mention is made of the princes of Midian. (One midrash explains that they left already.)

At the end of Balak, it is the daughters of Moav with whom the Israelites commit harlotry:

א וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּשִּׁטִּים; וַיָּחֶל הָעָם, לִזְנוֹת אֶל-בְּנוֹת מוֹאָב.

1 And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moab.

Yet the sole concrete example is a Midianite woman:

ו וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּא, וַיַּקְרֵב אֶל-אֶחָיו אֶת-הַמִּדְיָנִית, לְעֵינֵי מֹשֶׁה, וּלְעֵינֵי כָּל-עֲדַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְהֵמָּה בֹכִים, פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד.

6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, while they were weeping at the door of the tent of meeting.

In Pinchas, they are told to harass the Midianites in general because of what they did:

יז צָרוֹר, אֶת-הַמִּדְיָנִים; וְהִכִּיתֶם, אוֹתָם.	17 'Harass the Midianites, and smite them;
יח כִּי צֹרְרִים הֵם לָכֶם, בְּנִכְלֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר-נִכְּלוּ לָכֶם עַל-דְּבַר-פְּעוֹר; וְעַל-דְּבַר כָּזְבִּי בַת-נְשִׂיא מִדְיָן, אֲחֹתָם, הַמֻּכָּה בְיוֹם-הַמַּגֵּפָה, עַל-דְּבַר-פְּעוֹר.	18 for they harass you, by their wiles wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of the prince of Midian, their sister, who was slain on the day of the plague in the matter of Peor.'

with no mention of Moav. And when they want to spare the Midianite women, in parshat Mattot, Moshe yells at them because it was the Midianite women (plural) -- rather than Moabite women -- who caused Israel to sin.

טו וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם, מֹשֶׁה: הַחִיִּיתֶם, כָּל-נְקֵבָה.	15 And Moses said unto them: 'Have ye saved all the women alive?
טז הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם, לִמְסָר-מַעַל בַּיהוָה, עַל-דְּבַר-פְּעוֹר; וַתְּהִי הַמַּגֵּפָה, בַּעֲדַת יְהוָה.	16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to revolt so as to break faith with the LORD in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD.
יז וְעַתָּה, הִרְגוּ כָל-זָכָר בַּטָּף; וְכָל-אִשָּׁה, יֹדַעַת אִישׁ לְמִשְׁכַּב זָכָר--הֲרֹגוּ.	17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
יח וְכֹל הַטַּף בַּנָּשִׁים, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָדְעוּ מִשְׁכַּב זָכָר--הַחֲיוּ, לָכֶם.	18 But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

The answer, I think, is that there is fluidity in the terminology of Midianite (and Moabite here), and one should not get too hung up upon it.

Indeed, people have a bunch of hangups about a similar issue in parshat Vayeshev. Who bought Yosef? Was it Midanites? Midianites? Ishmaelite merchants? There seems to be a switch, which is compelling evidence in favor of the Documentary Hypothesis.

But what if Ishmaelite is used for Arab, or for a specific type of merchant (it is used together with socharim), much as Canaani is used in other contexts to mean a specific type of merchant. And Midianite itself can be fluid, as we have seen. While it is still possible to divide the narrative on Documentary Hypothesis grounds, it is also possible to simply say that:

Reuven convinced them not to kill directly but to place him in the pit. He leaves (to, say, take care of his sheep).
While he is gone, a bunch of merchants pass, who can be described accurately as Ishmaelites, Midianites, or (a variant) Midanites.
Yehuda convinces his brothers that rather than letting Yosef starve to death in the pit, they should profit. They (meaning Yehuda and the brothers) draw him from the pit and sell him to the Midianites.
Reuven returns and is shocked to see that Yosef is no longer in the pit.

PS: Baruch Shekivanti. I appear to have made many of the same points two years ago, though without e.g. the tie in to the sale of Yosef.

Is Copyright Infringement Lo Tignov? Lo Tachmod? Or Something Else?

That is the post on William Patry's blog. Which is relevant in terms of hyperventilating people yelling borrowing tunes and remaking them as Jewish songs is a violation of "lo signov." Halacha is halacha, it is not subjective, and you don't get to just make it up to suit your subjective opinion. An excerpt from his post:

In Judaism, a different source is looked to address copyright issues, hasagut gevul ("infringement of boundary"), a form of trespass originally, and found in Sefer Devarim, Parsha Shoftim (19:14), which admonishes: “Do not move back the boundary of your neighbor.” See generally, The Principles of Jewish Law 344–345 (Menachem Elon ed., 1975, Encyclopedia Judaica, Jerusalem) and earlier post here for a quote from Elon). Elon also refers to a later recognition “of a full legal right in respect of one's own spiritual creation.” Id. at 346. See also Adin Steinsaltz, The Essential Talmud 78–79 (1992) (discussing copyrights granted by various European communities in the mid-18th century for the printing of the Talmud and disputes that arose).

My former colleague at Cardozo, Rabbi David Bleich, has written that in the very early rabbinic literature, the issue discussed was attribution of authorship rather than proprietary rights in the words spoken (it was an oral tradition at the time). See David Bleich, 2 Contemporary Halakhic Problems 121-131 (1983). Thus, in the Mishnah Pirkei Avot (6:6), in discussing the 48 qualities of character that permit one to understand Torah, one necessary quality is

"repeating a saying in the name of the one who said it. For you have learned this: Whoever repeats a thing in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world, as it is said: And Esther said to the king in the name of Mordechai (Esther 2:22)."

Check it out.

P.S.:

(A copy of the Mona Lisa by Mike Gorman, 1974. Mike ought to be ashamed of himself! The picture on top is of Ghengis Khan.)

The Slifkin Affair, in the Wall Street Journal

on the Taste Pages of OpinionJournal. Read it here.

An excerpt:

Yet there are important exceptions to this tradition of moderation, and in certain parts of the ultra-Orthodox world, Darwinism has always been denounced as subversive and dangerous. Take the case of Rabbi Natan Slifkin. A boyish-looking ultra-Orthodox Israeli scholar and science writer, Mr. Slifkin, who publishes his books in English, is popularly known as the "Zoo Rabbi" because of his consuming fascination with the animal kingdom and his Steve Irwin-esque pedagogical style. In recent years he has emerged as a central figure in the ultra-Orthodox struggle to define the proper place of science within Judaism.

Rabbi Slifkin's work has been publicly denounced by 23 prominent ultra-Orthodox rabbis who attacked his beliefs as "nonsense" and ordered that Rabbi Slifkin himself "burn all his writings." The basis for the rabbinical protest differs from that of most Christian fundamentalists who oppose Darwin. Whereas Christian creationism is based on a literal reading of the Bible, most Orthodox Jews who reject evolution tend to do so because they find it incompatible not only with the Torah, but with other Jewish texts and centuries of rabbinic commentary.

Balak/Pinchas: Why Isn't Zimri Identified by Name Initially?

So asks Rabbi Goldwicht in his weekly parsha email:

The end of Parashat Balak deals with the sin of B'nei Yisrael with the women of Moav. The Torah tells us that Pinchas took a spear in his hand and impaled Zimri ben Salu, the nassi of shevet Shimon, together with the Midianite woman with whom he was committing his sin. It is noteworthy that Zimri is not identified by name in Parashat Balak, but rather as an anonymous "ish Yisrael." He is named only in Parashat Pinchas. Why does the Torah leave Zimri anonymous during its telling of the actual incident, identifying him only in the next parasha?

It is a good question. He gives an answer:

In fact, so joined were B'nei Yisrael to Ba'al Pe'or and the women of Moav that even the nassi of shevet Shimon was completely nullified to Midianite princess, completely losing his unique identity. Only afterwards does the Torah identify him by name, in order to emphasize the degree to which B'nei Yisrael were attached to Ba'al Pe'or .

and deduces homiletic points from this. However, it is not just Zimri who is not identified by name. Kozbi bat Tzur is also pointedly not referred to by name in parshat Balak. She is only referred to as "a Midianitish woman." That is, in Bemidbar 25:6-8:

ו וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּא, וַיַּקְרֵב אֶל-אֶחָיו אֶת-הַמִּדְיָנִית, לְעֵינֵי מֹשֶׁה, וּלְעֵינֵי כָּל-עֲדַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְהֵמָּה בֹכִים, פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד.	6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, while they were weeping at the door of the tent of meeting.
ז וַיַּרְא, פִּינְחָס בֶּן-אֶלְעָזָר, בֶּן-אַהֲרֹן, הַכֹּהֵן; וַיָּקָם מִתּוֹךְ הָעֵדָה, וַיִּקַּח רֹמַח בְּיָדוֹ.	7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from the midst of the congregation, and took a spear in his hand.
ח וַיָּבֹא אַחַר אִישׁ-יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל-הַקֻּבָּה, וַיִּדְקֹר אֶת-שְׁנֵיהֶם--אֵת אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֶת-הָאִשָּׁה אֶל-קֳבָתָהּ; וַתֵּעָצַר, הַמַּגֵּפָה, מֵעַל, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.	8 And he went after the man of Israel into the chamber, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.

and then in the beginning of parshat Pinchas, we read {Bemidbar 25:14-15}:

יד וְשֵׁם אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל הַמֻּכֶּה, אֲשֶׁר הֻכָּה אֶת-הַמִּדְיָנִית--זִמְרִי, בֶּן-סָלוּא: נְשִׂיא בֵית-אָב, לַשִּׁמְעֹנִי.	14 Now the name of the man of Israel that was slain, who was slain with the Midianitish woman, was Zimri, the son of Salu, a prince of a fathers' house among the Simeonites.
טו וְשֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה הַמֻּכָּה הַמִּדְיָנִית, כָּזְבִּי בַת-צוּר: רֹאשׁ אֻמּוֹת בֵּית-אָב בְּמִדְיָן, הוּא. {פ}	15 And the name of the Midianitish woman that was slain was Cozbi, the daughter of Zur; he was head of the people of a fathers' house in Midian. {P}

Indeed, this pattern of narrative with anonymous characters followed by identification of parties is not unknown in Scriptures. We have encountered it at least two other times (specifically examples 1 and 2 below):

1) In Moshe's birth, for that first perek {Shemot 2}, it is "a man from the house of Levi," "a daughter of {perhaps the tribe of} Levi," "the daughter of Pharaoh," "the boy," and "his sister." Only later do we find out names. In the previous perek, the midwives are referred to as midwives, though there they are identified by name at the forefront. And when Moshe intervenes, it is to save an unnamed Israelite slave from an unnamed Egyptian taskmaster.

2) When the servant of Avraham goes to find a wife for Yitzchak, no names are given for a while, but just relationships. (Thus it is not farfetched to claim that this "servant of Avraham" is in fact Eliezer, based on other textual cues, though it is not required.)

See this post where I discuss this and the case of Moshe in more detail.

3) In Bereishit 3, it is "the man" and "his wife," and names only come later.

There are often stylistic and text-internal reasons for this, as I have argued in the past.

What could be motivating it in this instance, aside from homiletic concerns? Well, we could say that this shows that in acting zealously for Hashem, Pinchas disregarded class and social importance, so this information is missing initially. Then we are told later to teach that he so disregarded it.

Or, since this act was widespread, as the perek begins:

א וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּשִּׁטִּים; וַיָּחֶל הָעָם, לִזְנוֹת אֶל-בְּנוֹת מוֹאָב.

1 And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moab.

perhaps at the time of the sin and punishment, no names or positions were given, so as to make this case a representative example.

We might have omitted names to lay particular stress to the national identity of Cozbi as "a Midianitish woman" to anticipate better the next topic,

יז צָרוֹר, אֶת-הַמִּדְיָנִים; וְהִכִּיתֶם, אוֹתָם.	17 'Harass the Midianites, and smite them;
יח כִּי צֹרְרִים הֵם לָכֶם, בְּנִכְלֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר-נִכְּלוּ לָכֶם עַל-דְּבַר-פְּעוֹר; וְעַל-דְּבַר כָּזְבִּי בַת-נְשִׂיא מִדְיָן, אֲחֹתָם, הַמֻּכָּה בְיוֹם-הַמַּגֵּפָה, עַל-דְּבַר-פְּעוֹר.	18 for they harass you, by their wiles wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of the prince of Midian, their sister, who was slain on the day of the plague in the matter of Peor.'

as a Midianite act and not as the act of a single individual.

The midrash also grapples with this issue. Thus, it discusses the why of repeatedly giving Pinchas's genealogy, because people were saying "look at this nobody, whose maternal grandfather {Yitro} fattened calves for idolatry, who did this to such a high-ranking person." (Pinchas's father, Elezear, married a daughter of "Putiel," interpreted as "who fattened calves for deities.") This is in reaction to noticing the later focus on rank.

Straps on a Plane

So last week I was in Eretz Yisrael for the week, in order to attend a computational linguistics conference at Bar Ilan. More about my experiences on the way there and back in a different post.

The plane landed in Israel at about 9:10 AM. And so a bunch of folks davened Shacharit on the plane. One large fellow with a beard was just finished davening, and took off his tefillin. Then, he turned to a few non-religious Jewish (male) teenagers, who were on an organized tour of Israel. He offered them the opportunity to try putting on tefillin. He told them he would put it on for them, and they should repeat after him. (Yes, he most likely was Lubavitch, for those are the ones most likely to engage in such types of kiruv.)

(IIRC) For the tefillin shel yad, at every wrap he would say a phrase from the beracha and wait for the teen to repeat it. For the shel rosh, he had him say the pasuk Shema Yisrael and Baruch Shem, repeating phrase by phrase. A bit weird, but OK, perhaps efficient.

And then finally:
"We want"
"We want"
"Moshiach now."
"Moshiach now."

Yup, that was part of the formula for putting on tefillin! He had to go and ruin it.

I was annoyed.

Professing a belief and desire for mashiach to come has nothing to do with the mitzvah of putting on tefillin. And the teenager did not really desire or understand it. It is a formula now, on the same level as Shema Yisrael!

I don't know if that this is still a focus of Lubavitch in general, or just the meshichists that believe that the Rebbe is still mashiach, such that it enters such kiruv efforts as a matter of formula.

In Israel as well, I saw posters all around proclaiming the Rebbe was mashiach, but more specifically (at Tachana Merkazit of Yerushalayim, right outside Massouv Burger) posters encouraging people to put on tefillin because this is what the Rebbe, King Mashiach wants. Not that this is what Hashem wants. What the Rebbe MHM wants.

Bleh.

Perhaps it is time for Lubavitch to move on, past extreme Rebbe-focus and especially past Moshiach focus, at least as a horaat sha'a, until such time as they recover and dismiss the dangerous meshichist element. There were plenty of great thoughts and Rebbes in Lubavitch before this last one, and this would still be a Lubavitch chassidic movement.

Balak: Holy Cow! A Talking Donkey?!

There is a popular story that goes as follows:

Three racehorses were in the stable waiting for the big race. Trying to psych each other out, they began bragging.
First horse: I've been in 38 races and have only lost twice.
Second horse: Well, I've been in 47 races and have never lost.
Third horse: Huh, I've never lost either and I even beat Secretariat twice.
Just then, they heard a chuckle by the stable door, and there was a greyhound dog walking up to them.
The greyhound said, "That's nothing. I've been in over 200 races and have won every one by at least 3 lengths."
First horse: Wow! That's amazing - a talking dog!

This, we would have expected, would have been Bilaam's reaction to hearing his she-ass talk to him, instead of argument.

And how can a donkey speak? It is not just that a donkey lacks the intelligence to do so, to come up with words. The donkey's larynx is not developed enough to create human speech. (Unless more recent research shows otherwise.) Also, for those who believe in Chomsky's Universal Grammar (UG) -- I don't, but for linguistic rather than for religious reasons -- UG is unique to humans and genetic, so we would not expect a donkey to have the capacity to create grammatical sentences with X-bar structure, which the statements of Bilaam's donkey surely have.

Indeed, I've written in the past how there is metaphorical meaning to the story within the framework of Bilaam's mission -- though stressed that that that does not mean it didn't also happen.

And one can offer explanations of it being a dream or vision.

Shadal has an extensive introduction to parshat Balak, in which he sets out answers to various important points before going on a verse by verse commentary - some of which parallel my questions in the previous Balak post. Thus, was Bilaam an idolater or a worshiper of Hashem? What was his profession? Did he work honestly or through trickery? Was he a prophet or not? What was the nature of his prophecy? What did Hashem see to switch the curse to a blessing? And, what it relevant to this post: Did the donkey speak or not?

Shadal writes:

ו': האתון דיברה אם לא? לא ייבצר מהאל לעשות שתדבר, אבל לא היה אפשר שלא יחרד בלעם ושני נעריו חרדה גדולה עד מוות, ולא היה אפשר שיהיה בו כוח להשיב לה דבר, על כן ייתכן שלא דיברה כדיבור של בני אדם, כי "ותדבר" אין כתוב כאן, אבל השמיעה בפיה קול יללה שהיה מובן ממנו: כי התעללת בי וכו', והיא חזרה וצעקה כאילו תאמר: הלא אני אתנך וכו', אז נכמרו רחמיו עליה ואמר: לא , כלומר אין דרך הבהמה הזאת להתעלל בי, והנה אמת, כי ה' פתח את פי האתון, כי נערה באופן משונה מעט ממנהגה, אך לא היה הנס כל כך, עד שייבהל בלעם. והנה ה' שפתי תפתח ( תהלים נ"א י"ז ) אין ענינו דיבור חוץ מן הטבע; גם קרוב הדבר שבלעם היה מתפאר בהבנת קולות העופות והחיות, ע"כ כששמע קולה, פתר דבריה והשיב עליהם, על כן לא נבהלו נעריו, כי זה היה דרכו, אלא שהפעם הזאת היה שם נס אמיתי, אבל היה נס נסתר ולא הרגישו בו ולא חרדו לא הם ולא בלעם. ועוד אם דיברה, איך לא הצטדקה ולא אמרה לו שיש שם דבר המפחידה מללכת?

That is, Hashem could do anything, if he wanted to. Kol Yachol, as they say. But, on a peshat level, based on Bilaam's reaction, the donkey did not speak human speech. Otherwise, he would have been stunned into silence. Rather, the donkey brayed a bray, and Bilaam was able to understand what it meant.

This is how he interprets that "Hashem opened (vayiftach) the mouth of the donkey." That it brayed in a somewhat different manner. Ad he brings proof from "Hashem Sefatai Tiftach," "Hashem, open my lips, and my mouth will relate your praises," that Hashem opening a mouth is not something outside the realm of nature.

Then, he suggests in addition that Bilaam's skill was interpreting animal speech. And that is why his attendants were not stunned when he answered. Except this time, it was for real, because it was a miracle.

I would add that there are aggadot, stories in the gemara, that attribute to certain Arabs such understanding of animal speech.

For example, an except from a story in Yershalmi Berachot 2:4, which I discuss in full in this post on parshablog about the true significance of Nachamu:

A story happened with a Jew who was standing plowing. His cow moo'd before him. An Arab passed by and heard her (the cow's) voice. He said, {Josh: knowing how to speak cow} 'Jew, Jew, untie your cow, untie your plow, for the Bet HaMikdash has been destroyed.' (The cow) moo'd a second time, he (the Arab) said to him, 'Jew, Jew, tie your cow, and tie your vessels (of plowing), for the Messianic King has been born.' He (the Jew) said 'What is his name?' 'Menachem.' He (the Jew) said, 'From where is he?' He (the Arab) said, 'From the capitol of the king of Bet Lechem in Yehudah.'

Another story, in which Rav Nachman's daughters were captured, and turned out not to be so holy after all. From Gittin daf 45:

The daughters of R. Nahman used to stir a cauldron with their hands when it was boiling hot. R. 'Ilish was puzzled about it. It is written [he said], One man among a thousand have I found, but a woman among all those have I not found: and here are the daughters of R. Nahman! A misfortune happened to them and they were carried away captive, and he also with them. One day a man was sitting next to him who understood the language of birds. A raven came and called to him, and R. 'Ilish said to him, What does it say? It says, he replied, "'Ilish, run away, 'Ilish, run away". He said, The raven is a false bird, and I do not trust it. Then a dove came and called. He again asked, What does it say? It says, the man replied, "'Ilish, run away, 'Ilish run, away." Said ['Ilish]: The community of Israel is likened to a dove; this shows that a miracle will be performed for me. He then [said to himself], I will go and see the daughters of R. Nahman; if they have retained their virtue, I will bring them back. Said he to himself: Women talk over their business in the privy. He overheard them saying, These men are [our] husbands just as the Nehardeans [were] our husbands. Let us tell our captors to remove us to a distance from here, so that our husbands may not come and hear [where we are] and ransom us. R. 'Ilish then rose and fled, along with the other man. A miracle was performed for him, and he got across the river, but the other man was caught and put to death. When the daughters of R. Nahman came back, he said, They stirred the cauldron by witchcraft.

Vayeshev: The Shevatim Keeping the Commandments

There is a good proof in parshat Vayeshev that the Avot, and Shevatim, kept the Torah before it was given, and I don't think I've remarked on it before, so here it is before I forget:

Bereishit 37:26:

כד וַיִּקָּחֻהוּ--וַיַּשְׁלִכוּ אֹתוֹ, הַבֹּרָה; וְהַבּוֹר רֵק, אֵין בּוֹ מָיִם.	24 and they took him, and cast him into the pit--and the pit was empty, there was no water in it.
כה וַיֵּשְׁבוּ, לֶאֱכָל-לֶחֶם, וַיִּשְׂאוּ עֵינֵיהֶם וַיִּרְאוּ, וְהִנֵּה אֹרְחַת יִשְׁמְעֵאלִים בָּאָה מִגִּלְעָד; וּגְמַלֵּיהֶם נֹשְׂאִים, נְכֹאת וּצְרִי וָלֹט--הוֹלְכִים, לְהוֹרִיד מִצְרָיְמָה.	25 And they sat down to eat bread; and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites came from Gilead, with their camels bearing spicery and balm and ladanum, going to carry it down to Egypt.
כו וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה, אֶל-אֶחָיו: מַה-בֶּצַע, כִּי נַהֲרֹג אֶת-אָחִינוּ, וְכִסִּינוּ, אֶת-דָּמוֹ.	26 And Judah said unto his brethren: 'What profit is it if we slay our brother and conceal his blood?

The implication is that if they would have slaughtered him, then certainly they would have performed kisui hadam.

QED.

Daf Yomi Yevamot 65b, parshat Vayechi: An Open Canon Approach vs. Changing the Truth

Citing from a translation not yet posted on my Rif blog:

{Yevamot 65b}
אמר רבי אלעא משום רבי יהודה בר' שמעון מותר לשנות בדברי שלום שנאמר כה תאמרו ליוסף וגו
Rabbi Illa'a cited Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Shimon: It is permissible to change {a statement} for the purposes of peace, for it is stated {Bereishit 50:17}:

טז וַיְצַוּוּ, אֶל-יוֹסֵף לֵאמֹר: אָבִיךָ צִוָּה, לִפְנֵי מוֹתוֹ לֵאמֹר.	16 And they sent a message unto Joseph, saying: 'Thy father did command before he died, saying:
יז כֹּה-תֹאמְרוּ לְיוֹסֵף, אָנָּא שָׂא נָא פֶּשַׁע אַחֶיךָ וְחַטָּאתָם כִּי-רָעָה גְמָלוּךָ, וְעַתָּה שָׂא נָא, לְפֶשַׁע עַבְדֵי אֱלֹהֵי אָבִיךָ; וַיֵּבְךְּ יוֹסֵף, בְּדַבְּרָם אֵלָיו.	17 So shall ye say unto Joseph: Forgive, I pray thee now, the transgression of thy brethren, and their sin, for that they did unto thee evil. And now, we pray thee, forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of thy father.' And Joseph wept when they spoke unto him.

Did Yaakov really not command them to tell this to Yosef. In large part, the answer to this question feeds into the question of whether Yaakov ever knew of the brothers' sale of Yosef, and at what point he knew. Clearly, someone who is of the opinion that Yosef never told his father, and Yitzchak never told, and the brothers never told, is more likely to assume that Yaakov never found out. If so, this command would need to be fictional.

However, a closed-canon approach to the text (that everything pertaining to the text is in the text) also feeds into this stance that Yaakov never commanded this. For we saw, in the immediately preceding perek, exactly what Yaakov blessed and then commanded, and this command to say this Yosef in not present there. Looking there, we see {Bereishit 49:29}:

כט וַיְצַו אוֹתָם, וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם אֲנִי נֶאֱסָף אֶל-עַמִּי--קִבְרוּ אֹתִי, אֶל-אֲבֹתָי: אֶל-הַמְּעָרָה--אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׂדֵה, עֶפְרוֹן הַחִתִּי.	29 And he charged them, and said unto them: 'I am to be gathered unto my people; bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite,
ל בַּמְּעָרָה אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׂדֵה הַמַּכְפֵּלָה, אֲשֶׁר עַל-פְּנֵי-מַמְרֵא--בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן: אֲשֶׁר קָנָה אַבְרָהָם אֶת-הַשָּׂדֶה, מֵאֵת עֶפְרֹן הַחִתִּי--לַאֲחֻזַּת-קָבֶר.	30 in the cave that is in the field of Machpelah, which is before Mamre, in the land of Canaan, which Abraham bought with the field from Ephron the Hittite for a possession of a burying-place.
לא שָׁמָּה קָבְרוּ אֶת-אַבְרָהָם, וְאֵת שָׂרָה אִשְׁתּוֹ, שָׁמָּה קָבְרוּ אֶת-יִצְחָק, וְאֵת רִבְקָה אִשְׁתּוֹ; וְשָׁמָּה קָבַרְתִּי, אֶת-לֵאָה.	31 There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife; there they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife; and there I buried Leah.
לב מִקְנֵה הַשָּׂדֶה וְהַמְּעָרָה אֲשֶׁר-בּוֹ, מֵאֵת בְּנֵי-חֵת.	32 The field and the cave that is therein, which was purchased from the children of Heth.'
לג וַיְכַל יַעֲקֹב לְצַוֹּת אֶת-בָּנָיו, וַיֶּאֱסֹף רַגְלָיו אֶל-הַמִּטָּה; וַיִּגְוַע, וַיֵּאָסֶף אֶל-עַמָּיו.	33 And when Jacob made an end of charging his sons, he gathered up his feet into the bed, and expired, and was gathered unto his people.

Thus, this is what he charged them with. If they speak now of a different charge, how come this was not mentioned previously? Thus, a strict closed-canon approach will gravitate towards the position that Yaakov did not command this.

On the other hand (adopting a slightly looser, open-canon approach), who is to say that Yaakov did not also charge his sons with other commands. For example, did he only specify his burial? Might he also not have specified other instructions, such as how to conduct themselves, how to deal with various business interests if any, how to disperse his property? It states וַיְכַל יַעֲקֹב לְצַוֹּת אֶת-בָּנָיו, "and when Jacob made an end of charging his sons," which we might take to refer to other commands, of which the preceding was merely an excerpt worthy of note. And even without this diyuk, we could state the same thing.

Indeed, other times in Tanach things happen without note, though sometimes care is taken to refer to the fact that it had happened. Thus, in Yonah 1:10:

י וַיִּירְאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים יִרְאָה גְדוֹלָה, וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו מַה-זֹּאת עָשִׂיתָ: כִּי-יָדְעוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים, כִּי-מִלִּפְנֵי יְהוָה הוּא בֹרֵחַ--כִּי הִגִּיד, לָהֶם.

10 Then were the men exceedingly afraid, and said unto him: 'What is this that thou hast done?' For the men knew that he fled from the presence of the LORD, because he had told them.

the pasuk informs us that Yonah had told them he had fled from Hashem, because it is so jarring to see them refer to it when it appeared nowhere before. But it may be in general that facts may be presented when relevant and nowhere before. This might be a more peshat-oriented approach.

Balak: Some Questions and Thoughts

Looking over the parsha without Rashi, there are some obvious questions.

1) All of a sudden we have this non-Jewish prophet of Hashem, who is well-known and accepted among the nations. Why isn't Bilaam effectively Jewish? What about those who accept his power?

2) How is Bilaam allowed to go around doing bad things to people and nations, casting out effective curses hither and thither? If his power stems from God, why does God permit it?

3) The assumption until now is that Moshe is Hashem's prophet. All of a sudden Israel is not unique in its relationship to God?

4) How is it that a non-Jewish prophet's prophecies get into the Torah? How do we know of them?

5) It is a strange sudden shift to the personal narrative rather than a national Israelite narrative.

Rashi, and midrashim, deal with many of these points. Thus, Hashem does have a special relationship with the Israelites. Bilaam is the exception to the rule, to show what how the other nations would abuse such power. This is why Hashem permits effective cursing by Bilaam. Moshe can know prophetically of the events that happened to Bilaam. (One gemara says that Moshe wrote his sefer and sefer Bilaam. I've suggested elsewhere that this was this parsha, and that the verses flow around it if you remove the parsha in its entirely.) Another approach is that Bilaam's level of prophecy was much lower, etc.

It is also unclear that a curse is necessarily an evil thing. Cursing for the highest bidder may well be.

Finally, I had a really good post two years ago, about how Bilaam was his Donkey. Check it out. It accounts for the strange events on route to Balak, in spite of God's previous allowance for Bilaam to go.

A Meshichist Gimmel Tammuz Essay - Analysis

Last year, I pointed out that the Five Towns Jewish Times accidentally published a messianist essay in honor of Gimmel Tammuz, and gave an analysis. The reason this type of thing can be accidentally published is that many meshichists, messianists, believe that the Rebbe is mashiach even though dead, or that he is not dead, yet believe that it is often counterproductive to publicize this fact explicitly among non-messianists. Yet they still want to spread the Good News. And so, a new art form is born, in which on the overt level nothing is explicit, but a careful reading reveals a messianist message.

This was borne out by last year's analysis. On to this year's essay, which was published by a self-confessed messianist who believes even after the Rebbe's death that the Rebbe is mashiach. It was posted on Aussie Echoes, under the assumption that it was non-messianist.

Before getting to the actual essay, it is important to establish the beliefs of the author, a Rabbi Yossi Krauss. This because we can establish two facts about him:

1. He is a meshichist even after the Rebbe's death.
2. He is willing to disguise these beliefs to appeal to a specific audience.

We have a transcript of a radio interview with Rabbi Braun.

We see he believes that he can get answers from the Rebbe by putting letters into the Igros:

Yossi Braun: Talk about coincidence and statistics. We mentioned the letters of the Rebbeh; where the letters of the Rebbeh work they’re currently in print, 26 volumes of the Rebbeh’s letters in Hebrew. Those 26 volumes cover almost every topic on the face of the earth. People have written to the Rebbeh the letter, and put it into a volume of his old communications.

Rachael Kohn: At random?

Yossi Braun: At random. So take a volume off the shelf, if you have the entire set, you just take any volume, stick in the letter right there, and then people have opened the book because it’s after all a book of advice, and then again, at random, there was a letter relating particularly to that experience. Now I’m not a statistician but I would imagine that the statistics of having the letter to talk about a personal experience, which relates to all the three reasons why I didn’t want to buy a house in a particular location, there were three reasons in my mind: I was going to move out of the Eastern Suburbs, and go to another location. There were three difficulties. One difficulty was very difficult for my wife in that location; the other difficulty would be difficult for my kinds; and another difficulty was myself. Three specific issues. Open up the Rebbeh’s book and the last day there was about a person moving and the Rebbeh says the place you’re moving will be very hard for your wife because of such-and-such, for your kids because of that or that, relating exactly to the particular, now that as far as statistics are concerned, I think that goes a bit too far. I will check through the index of the 20 volumes, it’s in 20 volumes, I didn’t find any other letter with nature. So I find that a bit difficult to stick that in the realm of coincidence.

And then, at the very close of the interview:

Rachael Kohn: Do you think it has promoted more goodness for the Lubavitchers, or has it divided them?

Yossi Braun: That’s a difficult question because in some instances, promoting more goodness and kindness, some people when they see the Rebbe as the Meshiakh, it encourages them, not only the Lubavitchers but even non-Lubavitchers if they see someone, a potential Meshiakh so to speak, that encourages them to increase and uplift their game. For other people that’s a bit too much of a radical message, and it might give them a negative message. I believe in every single place every individual who’s in charge of his own household should set the tone for his own place. For me to tell my children that the Rebbeh’s the Messiah, I don’t think any negative consequences come out of it, at this particular stage. For someone else, there might be something completely negative; there’s no set rule about that, there’s no obligation to identify the Rebbeh as the Messiah. There’s no musts to say that he’s the Messiah. It’s your decision, it’s my decision, it’s our decision. We see the criteria of the Messiah and I come to the conclusion, I say, ‘Hey! that fits my Rebbeh’, I might be very, very excited about that. I might start to share that example with others, or I might say, ‘No, maybe I’m not going to share that excitement with others.’ If they reach that conclusion, fine; if they reach a different conclusion, that’s fine too. So I think it’s really up to the individual.

Thus, he is a meshichist, who believes that the Rebbe is mashiach, but realizes that in certain contexts it is not advisable to start proclaiming this. Thus, one can be a meshichist and loudly proclaim it, or else on can choose "not to share that excitement with others."

Now, Gimmel Tammuz is the Rebbe's yahrtzeit, and a natural day for meshichists to declare that the Rebbe is alive, and is mashiach. On the other hand, if you want your essay to be carried by mainstream outlets, either in ignorance or complicit since there is plausible deniability, it pays to disguise the message somewhat. This is indeed what Yanki Tauber did last year in the Five Towns Jewish Times on Gimmel Tammuz. You can read my post about it.

On to an analysis of the essay by Rabbi Yossi Braun:

Rebbe Oh Rebbe!
Reflections for Gimmel Tammuz
By Rabbi Yossi Braun

My fingers are numb, the keyboard buttons are stiff and rigid, the mouse has frozen and the computer screen is staring me right in the eye appearing as one mass of blurriness. I want to scream and shout; tell the world his glory…

I want to give a message loud and clear in CAPS, BOLD AND UNDERLINED – Let my people know….

He wants to tell the world "his glory." Leave aside that this is something one might say about Hashem. What does he want to tell? What is this glory about the Rebbe?

Well, it certainly is oddly reminiscent of what he said in the transcript above about the Rebbe's messiah-ship:

"I might be very, very excited about that. I might start to share that example with others"

This is quite plausible the message he wants to spread loud and clear, in CAPS, BOLD, AND UNDERLINED, to let his people know. But then the ellipses, because he knows it won't be accepted.

But it’s not happening. The words have become stuck in my throat. And my fingers are not cooperating.

I just can’t. I’m at a loss for words.

Then,

I have zero answers and loads of questions, doubts, confusions and uncertainties.
This is the wrong day, date and occasion. No, I can’t come to terms with it. I hate it.
The most eloquent speaker, the most meaningful metaphor, the most moving story – it just doesn’t work for me.

No explanation can do justice. No theory can cure the wound.
There is this huge gaping hole in my heart and no rationale can fill the hole and bridge the gap. You just can’t mend a broken heart.

What is there to have questions, doubts, and confusion about? What is in need of "explanation" and "theory?" Well, for a meshichist, which we know he is, it is the fact of the Rebbe's (apparent) death.

But depression, melancholy and grieving is so off the mark too.

And “remembering his legacy” and “getting on with life” is just so amiss, so wrong and anathema to everything we stand for.
It’s called “losing the plot”. Missing the point. Totally off.

No, silence is not an option either.

Yet one should not grieve. And one should not move on and remember his legacy. This misses the point, for the Rebbe is mashiach. So silence is not an option.

So he cannot come out and say it, yet he also cannot be silent. He tries to find middle ground by saying it yet not saying it:

Something must be said. Related. Announced. And possibly even shouted from the hilltops.
But what is that “something”? How do we go about it? Where is the secret formula?
It doesn’t exist. There is no secret formula

Which brings me back to the beginning: My fingers are numb, the keyboard buttons are stiff and rigid, the mouse has frozen…..

Thus, he wants to spread his excitement, but how to go about it? There is no secret formula by which he can spread this message. Thus, this essay, which begins "My fingers are numb, the keyboard buttons are stiff and rigid, the mouse has frozen..." This essay is his attempt to spread the message.

We’re lost, confused and torn. Torn between reality and another form of reality. Between heart and mind. Between The Truth and our truth. Between the present and the future.

Here is where it gets beautiful. How are we lost, confused and torn? Well, we are "torn between reality and another form of reality." This is a popular refrain of meshichists. That in one reality, which is what appears to our deficient perception, the Rebbe is dead and not with us. Just like Moshe appeared dead in a vision before the sin of the Golden Calf. But there is another form of reality, "The Truth" as opposed to "our truth," in which the Rebbe is not actually dead. I am not making this up. This is what has been argued. And it is what Rabbi Braun is, in code, arguing for right here.

This is also the difference "Between the present and the future." At present, we don't see that the Rebbe is here with us and is mashiach, but soon! soon, we will all see, in the near future!

This is the meaning of "Between heart and mind." The heart wrenches from the Rebbe's death, yet the sechel of Torah tells him that the Rebbe is not dead and is still mashiach. As he continues:

Sure, we know and understand: the Rebbe is here like before. With us and in us. Nothing has changed.

Yet, the heart is still aching: nothing has changed yet so much has changed; so much is lacking and wanting.

Thus, nothing has changed. The Rebbe is here like before. That is what he knows and understands. Yet people cannot see the Rebbe since the Rebbe's histalkus, and it is hard to keep and promote the faith.

And here is where he gets explicit. How does he transition from what we know and understand about the Rebbe's death, and how the Rebbe is here like before?

Certainly, we believe with perfect faith, we acknowledge the fact that Moshiach is coming any second; it’s going to be something like never before. But, “we need some spirits ‘til we get to the bar”.

There you have it. The Rebbe is Moshiach, and he "is coming any second. And it’s going to be something like never before." What in the world does this have to do with the Rebbe's absence and the confusion? It is a non sequitur, unless the Rebbe is mashiach. And just as "so much is lacking and wanting," so too "we need some spirits ‘til we get to the bar," we need further encouragement in believing that the Rebbe, Mashiach, is still around, until he manifests himself overtly. In part, this is the purpose of his essay.

Thus:

Certainly, we believe with perfect faith, we acknowledge the fact that Moshiach is coming any second; it’s going to be something like never before. But, “we need some spirits ‘til we get to the bar”.

Rebbe Oy Rebbe! How we long to see your holy face again and draw inspiration from your holy countenance! If only we can hear your voice once again. One more time.

The transition once again from waiting with perfect faith for Moshiach, but longing to see him for encouragement, to longing to see the Rebbe's face again.

Then:

Shir Hashirim feels so relevant like never before.

Oh Rebbe! “Show me your appearance, let me hear your voice, for your voice is pleasant and your appearance is comely”.

I remember the farbrengens; I remember the Rebbe’s voice. How good were the days when “I delighted and sat in his shade and his fruit was so sweet to my palate”.

“On my bed at night, I sought him whom my soul loves; I sought him but I did not find him. I will arise and go about the city, in the market places and in the city squares. I will seek him…”

Hey. Wait a minute. I hear something. True. I’m in a deep slumber but my heart is awake and beating fast. It’s coming. Here it is.

“Kol dodi dofek. My beloved is knocking: Open for me, my sister, my beloved….
I opened for my beloved, but my beloved had hidden and was gone. I sought him, but found him not; I called him, but he did not answer me”.

This is simply searching and longing for the Rebbe. Fine. But then:

A moment of truth, but it’s all gone. What now? So where do we go from here?

We all have those moments where it rings so true. Where we experience a glimpse of the future, a taste of “living with Moshiach”. Where we begin to appreciate our higher calling.

So you experience for a moment the Rebbe's presence, despite his death. For he was talking about seeking the Rebbe. As he says "we all have those moments where it rings so true." That is, special clarity that the Rebbe is mashiach. He writes "Where we experience a glimpse of the future, a taste of “living with Moshiach”."

He continues:

This was a moment which needs to be savoured. It was a moment where the heart has detected some of the brainwaves. It became in touch with The Truth. It has been washed, if only for a moment, with the Torah Truth.

He thus has returned to the themes he developed earlier in his essay, about heart vs. mind, and our truth vs. The Torah Truth. If you recall -- never mind, I will cite it again:

We’re lost, confused and torn. Torn between reality and another form of reality. Between heart and mind. Between The Truth and our truth. Between the present and the future.

Except now he has set up the future as the time of mashiach. And so, when he writes

This was a moment which needs to be savoured. It was a moment where the heart has detected some of the brainwaves. It became in touch with The Truth. It has been washed, if only for a moment, with the Torah Truth.

that the heart has detected the brainwaves, he means that the heart, which felt the Rebbe's lack, is for a moment aware of the Rebbe's presence. Which for a meshichist has much different meanings than the metaphorical. It has become "in touch with The Truth" instead of "our truth" -- that is, that the Rebbe is still present. As he said before, reality and another form of reality.

He continues:

“Behold, he is standing behind our wall, watching through the windows, peeking through the lattices”.

We ought to take those fleeting moments of inspiration and invest them. Build on them. ACT ON IT.

How so?

Create an ongoing dialogue between your heart and mind. The gap can be bridged and will be bridged. You can sync your heart with the reality of Torah. Align your emotions with the promise of a future.

That is, you can sync your heart (which denies the Rebbe's presence) with the quote unquote Torah reality, rather than the real reality, and thus become a meshichist. Thus again the heart and mind. And align emotions (heart) with "the promise of a future" -- namely, of messianic times, as he wrote above "we experience a glimpse of the future, a taste of “living with Moshiach”."

He concludes:

It works. Action is the place where heart and mind can meet.

Through “following in his footsteps”, learning about Moshiach and keeping his directives, it will happen. It will be for real. In this world. B’gashmiyus mamosh. And imminently, very very soon.

“The sound of my beloved, behold, he is coming, skipping over the mountains, jumping over the hills”.

Thus, all these actions - which are messianic in nature and intent (learning about Moshiach to bring mashiach), it will be "for real." What he was referring beforehand as reality. B’gashmiyus, a physically manifest and perceivable Rebbe. (Mamosh is used by some to refer cryptically to Menachem Mendel Shneerson.) And it should happen imminently, very soon.

He -- which is used earlier clearly to refer to the Rebbe -- is coming, skipping over the mountains. And this immediately following that mashiach is coming "imminently, very very soon."

This is obvious even without knowing from beforehand that the author is a meshichist. Sometimes the subtext needs to be pointed out, though. And sometimes people will be in denial even after it is pointed out. And even after it is also pointed out that the author has confessed to being a meshichist. In which case it is a waste of time to argue.

As I said in my initial reaction to this article, Blech.

Yevamot daf 63: An Interesting Derasha

Citing from my Rif blog, though from a post not posted up yet:

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: If one loves his neighbors and brings close his relatives, and marries his sister's daughter,
{Yevamot 63a}

and lends a sela to a pauper at his pressing time, upon him the Scriptures states {Yeshaya 58:9}:

ט אָז תִּקְרָא וַה יַעֲנֶה, תְּשַׁוַּע וְיֹאמַר הִנֵּנִי: אִם-תָּסִיר מִתּוֹכְךָ מוֹטָה, שְׁלַח אֶצְבַּע וְדַבֶּר-אָוֶן.

9 Then shalt thou call, and the LORD will answer; thou shalt cry, and He will say: 'Here I am.' If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking wickedness;

What is the nature of this derasha? Well, the context would seem to provide the list of positive acts:

ז הֲלוֹא פָרֹס לָרָעֵב לַחְמֶךָ, וַעֲנִיִּים מְרוּדִים תָּבִיא בָיִת: כִּי-תִרְאֶה עָרֹם וְכִסִּיתוֹ, וּמִבְּשָׂרְךָ לֹא תִתְעַלָּם.	7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?
ח אָז יִבָּקַע כַּשַּׁחַר אוֹרֶךָ, וַאֲרֻכָתְךָ מְהֵרָה תִצְמָח; וְהָלַךְ לְפָנֶיךָ צִדְקֶךָ, כְּבוֹד יְהוָה יַאַסְפֶךָ.	8 Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thy healing shall spring forth speedily; and thy righteousness shall go before thee, the glory of the LORD shall be thy rearward.
ט אָז תִּקְרָא וַיהוָה יַעֲנֶה, תְּשַׁוַּע וְיֹאמַר הִנֵּנִי: אִם-תָּסִיר מִתּוֹכְךָ מוֹטָה, שְׁלַח אֶצְבַּע וְדַבֶּר-אָוֶן.	9 Then shalt thou call, and the LORD will answer; thou shalt cry, and He will say: 'Here I am.' If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking wickedness;

"Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry" is obviously parallel to "lends a sela to a pauper at his pressing time." I would venture that וְכִסִּיתוֹ, וּמִבְּשָׂרְךָ לֹא תִתְעַלָּם, " that thou cover him, and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh" likely refers to marrying a niece. וַעֲנִיִּים מְרוּדִים תָּבִיא בָיִת, especially the part about bringing to your house, bayit, perhaps is the basis for bringing close relatives, and for loving neighbors. Still working on that.

Roshah Parua As Non-Braided

There is an interesting theory out there about skeletons found at Masada, and whether they were Roman or Jewish. Since the braided woman's hair found there was detached from the woman's head (not present) while she was still alive, some researcher suggests that the woman must have been Roman and subjected to Eshet Yefat Toar.

Personally, I highly doubt it -- that the woman had been subjected to shearing of hair exactly on the spot where captured. I suppose they assume the hair was detached while she was alive because the skeleton was not present. But all sorts of other possibilities exist. For example, someone moved the woman's body after death, so it would not be disgraced. Or a wig. Etc.

{Update: rereading the article, it is some forensic analysis, rather than absence of the skeleton, that leads to the conclusion that the hair was cut off while she was alive...}

Of interest to me was a remark on PaleoJudaica that

Her braided hair however suggests that she was married, since a woman in the Greco-Roman world changed her hairstyle after marriage to symbolize her unavailability to any man but her husband (Cosgrove 2005)

which would recommend the (minority) reading of Rosha Parua as unbraided rather than uncovered. Joined with the assumption (and reading of the gemara) of most that this distinction was of married vs. unmarried Jewish women.

With this custom manifesting itself of Jewish women, then becoming daat yehudit. (Rabbi Yishmael's scriptural derivation aside.)

A Plug for MBD's Latest CD -- The Yiddish Collection

I usually don't plug this kind of thing, but here feel it to be somewhat of an ethical obligation.

This latest CD is a collection of his Yiddish songs, and -- horror of horrors! -- it contains the song "Yiddin" on it.

Big deal that it is a Jewish adaptation of Genghis Khan! It is a funny point, but not a horrific one.

Some other bloggers are arguing that it is a problem of "yashrus" that he does not credit the original musicians and that he is not paying them royalties. Some are casting it as a "halachic" issue of "yashrus," ignoring that their specific conception of "yashrus" is by definition subjective, and it is quite possible that MBD does not share this particular conception.

I can see this fitting very well into the halachic, and ethical, class of "zeh neheneh vezeh lo chaser," this one benefits and this one does not lose anything. (But then just appeal to "yashrus!" Note I am not ruling halacha lemaaseh here.) And I can question just as well whether it is "yashrus" to act all high-and-mighty and full-of-yourself, and try to deprive a fellow Jew of his livelihood, via encouragement not to buy the album. And to be upset that MBD apparently did not read your blog and then do teshuva.

Plus, it does not seem like the German band is really that bothered. To cite from a certain blogger who corresponded with them, here is their response:

Hi Chaim , great to hear from you! I am the manager of Dschinghis-Khan, Yes I have heard about it and we are performing for a lot of Jewish weddings all over the world. Just coming up on Saturday we going to Moscow to perform at such a wedding!

There must be many covers on Dschinghis Khan and Moscow. I heard a big Jewish band playing the song "Walking down Broadway" some time ago In the middle of July we are performing for half a million people in Mongolia for the 800 year state celebration! We are really working on the case to come for a festival to Israel this year! Anyway I am very happy people enjoying our music there.

The very best of regards,
Heinz Gross

That is, he assumes there are many such "covers" (adaptations) and that he is happy that people are enjoying their music.

Anyway, check it out.

How The Trickster Maggid Fleeced A Misnaged

With all the hubbub recently about Artscroll's editorial decision to omit negative details about subjects of Rabbinic biographies, transforming such works into hagiographies, it is interesting to encounter a negative story, told over by Shlomo Carlebach and Susan Yael MeSinai, about a certain Chassidishe Rebbe.

Of cource, he actually believes it is a positive story, not recognizing the story's true import. Kind of like if he had told the misnagdish Chassidic story of "there was Shabbos to the left of us, Shabbos to the right of us, but where my Rebbe was, there was no Shabbos!" thinking this was in fact a powerful story. And I would venture, based on certain details, that it is in fact a true story. I encountered it at Heichal HeNegina:

Introduction
Most people are so out of touch with life in this world that they think it's crazy to speak of life on the Other Side. But it isn't. There's life in this world and the next. According to Jewish tradition, while Heaven is more pure, life in this world is the central focus. Men come here to be fixed and made whole.
Word has it that the tzaddikim run both worlds. Essentially, they run the whole show. The Heavenly Court is governed by tzaddikim who have died recently. They replace other righteous men, tzaddikim who've been in Heaven too long to remember the reality of struggle in this world.
Once Rebbe Michel Zlotchever passed away, he was called to judge on the Heavenly Court. As soon as he took his place, he came down harshly on all those he had to review.
"How could you do such wrong?" he yelled at them.
Finally, one of the tzaddikim on earth realized what was happening and began to complain: "You can't appoint, as a judge, a man who has never sinned! What does the Zlotchever know of the hardships of Moishe the Water Carrier? He comes from a family that for thirteen generations made no mistakes."
The worldly tzaddikim protested his severity so much that it was finally decreed that the Zlotchever would be retired and the tzaddik who had first complained should take his place. The decree went out just before Shabbos. The tzaddik on earth barely had enough time to say good-bye to his wife.
Judging is done in heaven, but fixing takes place in this world, sometimes before the Judgment, sometimes after. We are speaking here of fixing the souls of those who have left this world. Judging will determine whether you go to Heaven or Hell, whether you are permitted to come back to life.
But if the merchandise is damaged, it's not a question of Paradise or reincarnation. The vessels are broken. They need to be mended and made whole again. This kind of repair doesn't take place in Heaven. Nor can we do it ourselves.
A soul who needs fixing has to come back into the world and look for a tzaddik to help him. Naturally, if he was close to one while he was alive he will have no problem, because his soul is still attached to that tzaddik. But what happens to a person who was never attached to a tzaddik during his lifetime?


The Story
Everybody knows that the Trisker Maggid, Reb Avromoleh, was one of the eight sons of Rebbe Motteleh of Chernobyl who was mamash a tzaddik gadol. Reb Motteleh was the center of all the tzaddikim. He took care of the living and the dead and was the master of the lamed-vav tzaddikim, the Thirty-Six Righteous Men who hold up the world.
Before he passed away, Reb Motteleh divided his kingdom among his children and put the Trisker Maggid in charge of the people from the Other Side.
Reb Avromoleh lived like this. At eight o'clock in the morning he'd get up, go to the mikveh and pray. At two o'clock in the afternoon, he would start to yawn. "I'm so tired, I've got to lie down a little bit." He'd go to his room until three, then pray both afternoon and evening prayers. At ten o'clock at night he might start yawning again. "I'm so tired. I've got to go back to my room."
The fact of the matter is that the Trisker Maggid never ate and never slept. He also never kept any books in his room, because - as everybody knows - when he closed the door to his room he was dealing with souls from the Other World who needed fixing.
People from the Other Side are not able to read Torah. In order to avoid making them feel bad, the Trisker Maggid never permitted books in his room. If he found one, he put it out.
The Trisker Maggid once came to a village where only one Yiddeleh [Jew] had enough room in his house to accommodate the Rebbe and his Chassidim. But this man was a real Misnagid [an opponent of Chassidus]. He had heard many stories from his fellow Misnagdim and was suspicious of the rumor that the Trisker Maggid never slept and never ate.
"Eating I can believe. He sleeps so much, he doesn't need to eat. But he doesn't even keep a book in his room, so you can't tell me he isn't up there napping!"
This wealthy Yiddeleh was more than happy to have the Trisker Maggid as his guest, because it would give him a chance to prove what Reb Avromoleh was doing behind closed doors. "He's snoring, I'm sure."
While the Trisker Maggid was davening Ma'ariv, the evening prayer, the Yiddeleh managed to get into Reb Avromoleh's room and to hide under the bed.

At ten o'clock, the Trisker Maggid said to his Chassidim, "I have to go back to my room."
The rich Yiddeleh heard Reb Avromoleh come into the chamber and felt him sit down on the bed.
No sooner had the Chassidim closed the door to give the Rebbe a little privacy when it seemed to open again. A crowd pushed their way into the room. The man could hear the shuffle of feet, the murmuring appeals.
During the day, the host had already witnessed the Trisker Maggid's audiences with ten, maybe even thirty people, at a time. But this sounded like thousands. What was happening? Where were all these people coming from? How could there even be a place for them in this little bedroom?
During the day, people would complain: "Rabbi! I'm sick. Please cure my back." "I need money for my business."
"Would you find a wife for my son?"
But by night, the people were saying, "Rebbe! I'm so broken! They won't let me into Paradise. They won't let me into Hell. All I can do is wander. Rebbe, please fix my soul."
The worst was that the Misnagid heard so many voices in the room. But when he peeked out from underneath the bed, he couldn't see any feet. The Yiddeleh was so frightened that he was shaking and had to do his best to keep his teeth from chattering.
Suddenly, he heard another, different voice cry out: "Rebbe! Have compassion on my tormented neshama [soul]. Fix me! Fix my soul!"
"What can I do for you?" the Trisker Maggid asked. "While you were alive, you never bothered to come to me. You didn't even give me one kopeck for tzedaka, one penny for charity, to connect yourself to me. So how can I help you now?"
"There must be a way!" The poor soul pleaded with the Rebbe, from a place of deep anguish.
"Actually, there is one way. Your neighbor, Shmuelik, was one of my top Chassidim. Shmuelik gave me a great deal of charity during his lifetime. If he were to tell me now that one penny of the riches he gave as tzedaka was for you, then I could find a way to help you."
"Shmuelik would do that for me, I'm sure."
"Fine! Then I want you to go and ask him!"
"How can I do that? He won't believe that I come from you."
"Then I'll send somebody along to act as your witness." At this point, the Trisker Maggid gave a strong, swift kick under the bed and said to the Yiddeleh: "Come out!"
When the Yiddeleh realized that the Trisker Maggid was about to send him into the Other World as witness to an exchange between two souls, he began pleading from under the bed. "Please, Rebbe! Don't do this to me! I promise I won't tell anybody what I saw!"
"Come out!"
The Yiddeleh came out, crawling on his stomach. He was crying, screaming, clinging to the Rebbe's feet.
"Please, Rebbe! You've seen! I have a wife and three children. I don't want to die yet. I'm not ready to die!"
"G-d forbid you should die. But if you're going to spy on me, you must go as my witness. Take my stick and walk with the soul of this man to the cemetery."
The Yiddeleh looked around. The greatest nightmare of all was that there was absolutely no one else in the room, only himself and the Trisker Maggid.
"Knock on the first grave in the second row and say that Avraham ben Chana orders Shmuel ben Rivka to give one penny to fix the neshama of this Yiddeleh - Yosseleh, his neighbor."

Postscripts:
Reb Shlomo concluded the story by saying: The beautiful aspect of this story is that I actually heard it from the great-great-grandson of the man who hid under the bed. It goes without saying that he lived to become a very great Trisker Chassid.

And Yrachmiel of Ascent added: [This was] confirmed by the general manager of Ascent, who is the great-great-grandson of the Trisker Maggid.

Zechuso yagein aleinu v’al kol Yisrael – May the Trisker Maggid’s merits protect us all!

The "problem" with this story -- well, actually, the problems are many, but one big "problem" is that this misnaged only heard the soul speaking while he was under the bed. Once he was out of the bed and was able to see the Trickster Maggid's lips, amazingly, the soul fell silent! One would almost think -- dare I say it? -- that the Trickster Maggid was changing his voice and throwing his voice, to make it seem that there were souls in the room. The same is used by channelers when conducting a seance.

Indeed, he obviously knew throughout that the misnagid was under the bed. That is how he was able to give him a kick at the proper moment. A cynic might say that this was all a put-on.

And indeed, what was the import of his words? That a tormented soul, in need of fixing, could not get it, because he did not give tzeddaka to the Trickster Maggid! As the story above that one illustrated (see on Heichal HaNegina website), the Rebbe would use this money for the expenses of maintaining a Rebbishe court, serving many at his table. Thus, he was in need of constant influx of money. And indeed, this misnaged, after being sent on a literal fool's errand to knock on a gravestone, accompanying a figment of his imagination -- this misnaged became a big chassid of the Maggid, and likely a big financial supporter as well.

There is also the fact that it is nonsense to say that the Rebbe did not eat or sleep. Indeed, the gemara on Teruma daf 3a states that if someone took an oath not to sleep for three days or not to eat for seven days, this is a shevuat shav. Why not say that this is indeed possible for some people? If the Trisker Maggid could do it, couldn't a Tanna as well? Indeed, where Moshe says that he didn't eat bread and didn't drink water on Har Sinai, it is either idiomatic, representing his great devotion to the cause, or else is a great miracle assisted by God.

Indeed, if the chassidim though the Trisker maggid didn't eat, it must have been at his own design, such that he did not eat in front of them. This means that he must have eaten in seclusion in his own room (or else in the mikveh before davening!), in order to foster this impression.

Indeed, this is just like Pharaoh, about whom the midrash relates that in order to create the impression that he was a deity, would immerse in the Nile each morning, where he would attend to his bodily needs. This is not a good thing for Pharaoh to do, and it was not a good thing for the maggid to do.

His not having seforim in his room is also a peculiarity that seems designed to further this impression that he communicated with dead souls. It is also possible that he did not like to learn, and preferred to spend this time in seclusion resting on his bed and eating.

Is it important that this story be told, despite its negative aspects? I would say yes, because of the insights it gives us into chassidism and what people would fall for in those times. And indeed, they fall for it in our times as well -- after all, this is still told as a positive story, and people go to all sorts of fake mekubalim for miracles.

Note: Initially, I misread the Heichal HeNegina account that this second story was in an Artscroll work - in fact, it was the first story, which does not appear here.

Another Reason Not to Eat Foi Gras

There is a definite aspect of tzaar baalei chaim in force-feeding geese, one that was obviated in Europe in days of old because it was for a purpose, goose-liver prepared in this way being a necessary way of people to get their nutrients -- and this may not be obviated in America today. There is also the issue of whether this force-feeding causes the goose to be a teraifa.

But now there is further reason - chamira sakanta meIsura. And researches have found some troubling results. Reuters reports:

Geese force-fed and then slaughtered for their livers may get their final revenge on people who favor the delicacy known as foie gras: It may transmit a little-known disease known as amyloidosis, researchers reported on Monday.

Tests on mice suggest the liver, popular in French cuisine which uses it to make pate de foie gras and other dishes, may cause the condition in animals that have a genetic susceptibility to such diseases, Alan Solomon of the University of Tennessee and colleagues reported.

That would suggest that amyloidosis can be transmitted via food in a way akin to brain diseases such as Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, or CJD, which can cause a rare version of mad cow disease in some people who eat affected meat products or brains.

...

Sometimes Alzheimer's disease, the most common form of dementia, is described as a type of amyloidosis as well.

Read more there.

Of course, research has been found to cause cancer in mice. ;) And we will have to see if this is borne out, and whether it in fact translates to humans, and whether the likely impact is enough to call it sakanta, and whether shomer petaim Hashem applies, at it has applied until now.

Still, something to watch out for, even not from the perspective of halacha.

Note: Of course, not intended halacha lemaaseh.

(And check out BluishJoggers).