Interesting Computer Program

called "Assist Sketch Understanding System and Operation," from MIT.

The Return of Mr. Cuddles

The last few weeks, for various reasons, my parents have been temporarily hosting a cat named Mr. Cuddles. He is a house cat who rarely gets out, but recently they have been letting him stretch his legs in the backyard.

A few days ago, Mr. Cuddles left the backyard and disappeared. My mom walked down the block calling for him, but he did not return.

Three days later, still no cat. So my mother decides to say the thing associated with Rabbi Meir Baal HaNes. Just as she finishes saying it, they hear a mewing at the back door. Mr. Cuddles is back!

I don't know that this proves the effectiveness of this segulah, or that it should be permitted even if it does work. And perhaps an appeal to the Mouser Rebbe (or to Mouser Rabbenu) would have also been effective.

Regardless, just thought I'd put this story out there.

Interesting Posts #2

1. Over at Parsha Potpourri:

"The Brisker Rov answers that the Gemora in Yevamos (64b) teaches that Sorah was an איילונית – a woman who is unable to have children. Such a woman never develops the physical signs of adulthood. The Gemora in Yevamos (80a) rules that when a woman turns 20 without becoming physically mature, she is declared an איילונית and legally considered an adult from that time onward. Therefore, although sins which are committed before a person turns 20 are indeed considered sins even if they aren’t punishable at that time by the Heavenly Court, the transgressions of Sorah were not considered sins, as she was legally considered a minor until she turned 20!"

And more on the parsha, there. The alternative answer which uproots the question on the midrash is that there is another girsa in which 20 and 7 are reversed.

2. At Hirhurim, the Or HaChaim's approach to Peshat:

"I would suggest that to R. Chaim ben Atar, peshat means an explanation that reads smoothly with the words of the text. It can be based on a midrashic expansion of the text and assume a backstory which is not mentioned anywhere in the text, but as long as the text itself reads smoothly based on this explanation then it is peshat. In other words, he distinguishes between a derash, which is a non-literal reading of the words, and a midrash, which is a backstory that is not mentioned in the text. Unlike many peshat-oriented commentators who will not consider information that is not contained in the text, he will utilize midrash to establish peshat, a literal reading of the text."

3. CuriousJew posts some class notes, about the following question within the history of halacha:

"A yachid facing larger societal issues/ constructs, an apostate (someone who converts to Chrstianity and now wants to come back to Judaism), what does he need to do? Does he need ritual immersion?"

4. SeraphicSecret notes that Google removed detailed maps of Israel from GoogeEarth, which is a good thing:

"Last week we noted that jihadists in Gaza were using Goggle Maps to target Israel. Unlike some of our more, ahem, liberal commenters, we thought that this was an atrocity and unacceptable. We also tipped our readers to the facts that Google execs were in secret talks with the IDF. Well, we are glad to report that when the jihadists reference Israel, em excuse me, the Zionist entity, on their computers, they will come up blank."

5. Emes veEmuna discussed Rabbi Dr. David Berger

"What Lubavitchers do not understand is that Rabbi Berger is not attacking them. He is attacking their mistaken belief in their Rebbe’s Messiah-ship. It is a belief that is so entrenched, and so vast, and so harmful that it may end up destroying them! …or at least marginalizing them, if it hasn’t already."

6. Young Israel of KGH Torah Tape Library:

The Young Israel of Kew Gardens HIlls has an extensive torah tapes library that is open for lending to the community. Currently, the library is open on SUNDAY mornings ONLY, AFTER the 7:00am and 8:00am minyanim. You can download a copy of the list from the Young Israel of Kew Gardens Hills website at www.yikgh.org/tapes.xls.

7. For Halloween, the Codex blog discusses various Darkei Emori, from Mesopotamian omen texts:

If a white cat is seen in a man’s house — (for) that land hardship will seize it.
If a black cat is seen in a man’s house — that land will experience good fortune.
If a red cat is seen in a man’s house — that land will be rich.
If a multicolored cat is seen in a man’s house — that land will not prosper.
If a yellow cat is seen in a man’s house — that land will have a year of good fortune.

8. Google BlogScoped has screenshots of the new Gmail interface they are rolling out.

9. LifeInIsrael has an interesting post about a pesak from Rav Kanievsky:

"The mother packed up a home cooked meal. His father took the package to the bus station, found the bus that goes to Yerushalayim and stuck the package of food in the luggage compartment under the bus. He called his son and told him when to expect the bus to arrive and that he should be waiting by the station in Yerushalayim to remove the food.
...
The father was going to do this again and became concerned there might be a problem with this plan. He was concerned it might be considered Bassar She’nisalem Min Ha’ayin
...
Rav Zilbershtein said the meat is fine as far as his concern of unsupervised meat goes. However, Rav Zilbershtein added, there might be a different problem that he is stealing from Egged by sticking the package under the bus without paying for the transport."

10. ThanBook on Musical Instruments in the Synagogue:

"Some communities invited their congregants to come earlier to the shul, where instruments were played during the singing of the service! In fact, an organ was installed in Prague's famed Altneu Shul just for this purpose, where between 1594 and 1716, Kabbalat Shabbat was a festive musicale. The musicians had to stop their playing before sunset, and in some communities, it was done early enough so that the congregants had time to go home, dress for Shabbat, and return for the recitation of the "real" Kabbalat Shabbat hymn, Psalm 92, Mizmor Shir L'Yom HaShabbat."

Chayyei Sarah: The Benei Chet: Good For Purchasing Burial Plots From, But No Good For A Shidduch

At the beginning of parshat Chayyei Sarah, we have the exceedingly polite exchange between Avraham and the Benei Cheit. Yet in the very next perek, when choosing a wife for his son Yitzchak, Avraham passuls the shidduch. Why the difference?

First off, this may serve as a good maaseh avot siman labanim for us, or as a role model for us, as we interact in modern society. Just because you have strictures preventing forming close bonds such as marriage with gentiles, this does not mean that you cannot be civil to them. There can be mutual respect, even as religious and theological differences exist. Conversely, just because one must be polite to other humans, who were created in the image of God, this does not mean that one must sacrifice one's principles and religious ways.

Why did Avraham insist on a wife for Yitzchak from the city of Nachor? We might look to Shadal, who writes:

אשר לא תקח אשה לבני מבנות הכנעני : שאם היה מתחתן בהם, שוב לא ייתכן לישראל להוריש הכנעני מארצו אחרי היותם אחים, כמו שלא יתגרו מלחמה במואב עמון ואדום. והיה ג"כ מכוונת התורה באריכות הסיפור הוה להרחיק את ישראל מהתחתן בכנענים

Thus, the concern was twofold: so that there should be no issue driving out the Canaanites later on, if they were family; and as a lesson for future generations reading the story to distance the Israelites from joining with the Canaanites.

I would suggest a different reason -- so as to preserve the monotheistic tradition. After all, the Canaanites were idolaters.

After all, in Devarim 7, we read:

א כִּי יְבִיאֲךָ, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר-אַתָּה בָא-שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ; וְנָשַׁל גּוֹיִם-רַבִּים מִפָּנֶיךָ הַחִתִּי וְהַגִּרְגָּשִׁי וְהָאֱמֹרִי וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי וְהַפְּרִזִּי, וְהַחִוִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי--שִׁבְעָה גוֹיִם, רַבִּים וַעֲצוּמִים מִמֶּךָּ.	1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and shall cast out many nations before thee, the Hittite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
ב וּנְתָנָם יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לְפָנֶיךָ--וְהִכִּיתָם: הַחֲרֵם תַּחֲרִים אֹתָם, לֹא-תִכְרֹת לָהֶם בְּרִית וְלֹא תְחָנֵּם.	2 and when the LORD thy God shall deliver them up before thee, and thou shalt smite them; then thou shalt utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them;
ג וְלֹא תִתְחַתֵּן, בָּם: בִּתְּךָ לֹא-תִתֵּן לִבְנוֹ, וּבִתּוֹ לֹא-תִקַּח לִבְנֶךָ.	3 neither shalt thou make marriages with them: thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
ד כִּי-יָסִיר אֶת-בִּנְךָ מֵאַחֲרַי, וְעָבְדוּ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים; וְחָרָה אַף-ה בָּכֶם, וְהִשְׁמִידְךָ מַהֵר.	4 For he will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods; so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and He will destroy thee quickly.

Was Lot any better? Was Rivkah? Well, based on the words coming out of his mouth in the narrative, it seems that they believed in Hashem. Perhaps this was a belief that ran in Avraham's family, even in the city of Nachor. Sure, Avraham was chosen, but that did not mean that others in the family did not have, or adopt, his beliefs.

Thus, when Eliezer interacts with Avraham's extended family, Lavan says {Bereishit 24}:

לא וַיֹּאמֶר, בּוֹא בְּרוּךְ ה; לָמָּה תַעֲמֹד, בַּחוּץ, וְאָנֹכִי פִּנִּיתִי הַבַּיִת, וּמָקוֹם לַגְּמַלִּים.

31 And he said: 'Come in, thou blessed of the LORD; wherefore standest thou without? for I have cleared the house, and made room for the camels.'

and a bit later, we have:

נ וַיַּעַן לָבָן וּבְתוּאֵל וַיֹּאמְרוּ, מֵה יָצָא הַדָּבָר; לֹא נוּכַל דַּבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ, רַע אוֹ-טוֹב.	50 Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said: 'The thing proceedeth from the LORD; we cannot speak unto thee bad or good.
נא הִנֵּה-רִבְקָה לְפָנֶיךָ, קַח וָלֵךְ; וּתְהִי אִשָּׁה לְבֶן-אֲדֹנֶיךָ, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה.	51 Behold, Rebekah is before thee, take her, and go, and let her be thy master's son's wife, as the LORD hath spoken.'

Shadal understands this as originally being other speech, such as using Elohim, which the Torah adapted to match the Israelite speech pattern. Thus:

ברוך ה' : אין צורך שיהיה זה ממש מאמר לבן, כי התורה העתיקה דיבור זה מלשון המדבר ללשון ישראל, וכן אמרה : ברוך ה', גם כי לבן לא ידע את ה', ואמר : ברוך אלהים , או כיוצא בזה

However, we might treat them as monotheists, or else as polytheists who counted Hashem among other deities. This would then be the most optimal solution for Yitzchak's shidduch.

Rav Moshe Feinstein on Stockings

This is an interesting teshuva, in which the questioner perhaps asks about nude stockings, perhaps unaware that "nude" is a color, and not that it really is see-through.

Except of course that there seem to be two different aspects of stockings -- note that I am no expert, and this is as much as I was able to ascertain. It seems that "nude" is a color. But besides that, there is a quality of sheerness, which is measured in "deniers" -- 1 denier = 1 gram per 9 000 meters. The lower the denier count, the sheerer the garment, and thus, the less opaque it is. It is unclear what Rav Moshe would say about opacity. He might have a different teretz in terms of that. E.g., in terms of whether specific opacities are called ashashit. Not that it matters, because below the knee is not erva. Here, he assumes that the metzius under discussion is that the stockings appear see-through because of their flesh color, which is certainly true for some stockings.

It has applicability to the issue of wigs (in terms of appearance to people that it is visible), as well as to issues of general tznius.

This completes the excerpts from Igros Moshe, for now. A rough translation follows:

Igros Moshe, Even haEzer chelek 4, siman 100, seif 6:


6: If there is reason to insist that the daughters go out in stockings, when they are not insistent that they are not so fine that the flesh is not visible from inside:

And in this that there are men who are insistent that their wives and daughters do not go out without stockings on their feet, but they are not insistent that these stockings are in such a manner that it is impossible to see {the skin of the legs}, that you {kevod Torato} asked what difference there is, for if they consider it to be erva also that which is below the knee, this does not help them at all, for erva through a glass is forbidden. And if {as} in the Mishna Berura that it is not within the realm of erva, there is no need for stockings!

The truth is that it is for greater tznius, since lehalacha until the knee is not erva. However, there is also reason for this tznius in this, for in reality the threads, even of the fine stockings, are not able to show the flesh of the legs. And the proof of this is that when they are dyed white and black, the flesh of the legs is not visible. And only because they dye them in a color which is like the appearance of the flesh. Therefore in reality they are covered and are not visible at all, except that it looks to people like it is visible.


And therefore, even in a location {on the body} which is in fact considered actual erva, there is also a distinction, since after all the erva is covered, however, there is to forbid because of hirhur at any rate, since it appears to be the flesh.

And if so, if it is a place which does not bring to hirhur, like this which is below the knee, even if it were within the realm of erva there would be no prohibition. And it is applicable to actual din by female minors about whom there is no hirhur, but yet it is in th realm of erva, that they would be permitted in stockings such as this. And this is perhaps their reasoning.

Igros Moshe on Wigs -- part ii

Besides applicability to wigs, this teshuva has great relevance in terms of laying down rules for understanding local minhag and local pesak. Interestingly, a private correspondent by email, specifically in this matter, tried to claim to me that there is no such creature as local pesak. It would certainly appear that Rav Moshe Feinstein holds otherwise.

Consult your local Orthodox rabbi for any practical pesak.

The following is a rough translation.

Igrot Moshe, Even haEzer Chelek 4, siman 100, seif 4:


4: On the comment about what I wrote in Igros Moshe Even haEzer Chelek 1, siman 59 about the custom to shave the hair of married women, and in Igros Moshe Even haEzer Chelek 2, siman 12 in the matter of wigs:

And that which you {kevod Torato} asked about the matter of shaving the {head} hairs of a woman after marriage, that I wrote in Igros Moshe, Even haEzer Chelek 1, siman 59, that it is in the realm of minhag, and that since the woman is in her husband's domain, she needs to conduct herself like her husband's minhag, for it is comparable to one who goes to another place and his thoughts are not to return, that whether towards leniency or towards stringency, he needs to conduct himself like the minhagim of the second place.

And in the matter of wigs, where there are those who forbid because of marit ayin, I wrote in Igros Moshe Even haEzer chelek 2, siman 12, that the husband is not able to impose his stringencies upon his wife.

Behold there is certainly a distinction between a stringency of an established minhag in a certain place, on the one hand, and a stringency which the husband wishes to accept upon himself, as I have written. For even if the husband conducted himself multiple times in accordance with the minhag, such that it would have the status of a Rabbinic vow, this is not within the realm of minhag in terms of that his wife and children would be obligated to keep it, for this is only applicable to a minhag of the residents of the city which they were accustomed to keep based on the say-so of the chachamim of the city. However, a single individual, even if he is the Gadol haDor, does not have in terms of this the status of a minhag so as to obligate others, not even those in his own domain.

And the questioner there wanted to impose a stringency upon himself in accordance with the opinion that she is forbidden, and not from the side of the minhag of the city from which he came.


However, besides this, even for the minhag of the city it is dependent on how the minhag came about. For behold, we find two types of minhag: a minhag in some matter in which they were stringent in some location more than what is the law, such as this in Pesachim perek makom sheNahagu (50a) that by one who left from one place to another place, that if it is not his intent to return, he must conduct himself like the place to which he comes, whether leniently or stringently. And a minhag which arises from a dispute on a Biblical law, such as the fat which is upon the flat side of the stomach, upon which Rav and Shmuel argue with Rabbi Yochanan, and so in Bavel they practiced {nahagu} in it prohibition like Rav and Shmuel, while in Eretz Yisrael they practiced in it permittedness, like Rabbi Yochanan. That in this, as well, there is to this the law that where it is not his intent to return, he practices like the place that he comes to, whether leniently or stringently, as is in Pesachim daf 51a, and by the magrumta {where the knife slipped and the last part of the shechita was outside the tabaat} of Rav and Shmuel in Chullin 18b, but they are for other reasons:

A minhag of stringency more than the law is because there is permission {/authority} for the place, when they see that there is some fix to fence in a matter, or to greatly strengthen matters of faith and keeping of commandments, while there are other places which do not see a need to enact this, or even if they also see that there is some need, they do not wish to be stringent about it.

Meanwhile, a minhag which is a matter of dispute in law is from the domain of ruling {law}, that Rabbi Yochanan ruled for his students, who are residents of Eretz Yisrael, and for all who asked him, that the fats upon the straight side of the stomach are permitted. And Rav and Shmuel ruled for their students, who were residents of Bavel, and to all who asked them, that the fats upon the straight side of the stomach are forbidden. And they need to act in accordance with them, for before halacha was paskened in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, each Chacham was permitted to rule in accordance with his opinion, and those who asked him are required to act like him, whether leniently or stringently. And since the residents of the place are his students and those who ask him, as such the law for all the residents of the place


even for later generations, the law is as he ruled, so long as a Chacham did not arise there greater than him in wisdom and number. And thus, even one who comes afterwards, and he does not in and of himself rule, the ruling of the Chacham like whom they conduct themselves comes upon him, when he establishes his dwelling in that place. And since it was not clear the matter of the minhag, I did not wish to explain it in this, since in that teshuva it did not have any impact, as discussed above.

And since the minhag in disparate places in a matter which is a dispute in law is from the realm of ruling, for I have already explained that someone who issues a ruling is absolutely able to decide the halacha, see in Dibrot Moshe Shabbat siman 10. That therefore it depends if the minhag to forbid going in with a wig is one which comes from a ruling of a Chacham who decided that such is the law, then it is in the status of a minhag in which one who comes to there permanently is also forbidden. And if it is only because the law is in doubt to him, and he is stringent because of doubt, there is not in this the status of a minhag, such that others are not obligated to be stringent, since the majority of our Rabbis, from those upon whom we rely principally upon for ruling, permit. However, the minhag to shave the hair of married woman, that the entire world known that there is not any prohibition as a matter of law, but rather this is from those places in order to fence in the matter, so that they will not come to go out with uncovered head, and for other reasons, it is within the status of a clear minhag.

Chayyei Sarah: Does The Torah's Calling Rivkah A Naarah Mean That She Was *Not* Three Years Old?

This is a point that has been raised. Some meforshim look to the identification of Rivkah as a naarah and thus say she must have been 12 years old. As the pasuk in Chayei Sarah reads {Bereishit 24}:

טז וְהַנַּעֲרָ, טֹבַת מַרְאֶה מְאֹד--בְּתוּלָה, וְאִישׁ לֹא יְדָעָהּ; וַתֵּרֶד הָעַיְנָה, וַתְּמַלֵּא כַדָּהּ וַתָּעַל.

16 And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her; and she went down to the fountain, and filled her pitcher, and came up.

The problem with such a proof, on a peshat level, is that how do we know that naarah really means a girl only of that age?

Sure, in Rabbinic Hebrew, that is the meaning of naarah, as opposed to ketana and as opposed to bogeret, and Chazal even make derashot and halachic conclusions on that basis, based on pesukim. But must a pashtan agree to this assessment?

I will give a counterexample, from II Kings 5:

ב וַאֲרָם יָצְאוּ גְדוּדִים, וַיִּשְׁבּוּ מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל נַעֲרָה קְטַנָּה; וַתְּהִי, לִפְנֵי אֵשֶׁת נַעֲמָן.

2 And the Arameans had gone out in bands, and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a little maid; and she waited on Naaman's wife.

Thus, we can have a "little maid," a naarah who is little, ketanah. And throughout the rest of the perek she is called naarah. How is this possible?

Chazal deal with this, and Rashi explains:

a young girl Heb. naarah ketannah, a young girl from the town of Naaran.

Yet if we disagree with this assessment, then the term naarah might even encompass a very young girl.

Now, we might reject in locally in parshas Chayei Sara for other reasons, but still -- when you are going out to reject a midrash, it is questionable to base yourself on a midrashic assessment of a term as used elsewhere.

Chayyei Sarah: Can We Argue That Rivkah Was Not Three Years Old?

Or, as DovBear has recently been putting it, that midrash is non-canonical?

There are many proofs that this is indeed so. (Among other things, meforshim who say differently.)

One interesting one is in Rabbenu Bachya on this week's parsha. The pasuk Bereishit 24:19 states:

יט וַתְּכַל, לְהַשְׁקֹתוֹ; וַתֹּאמֶר, גַּם לִגְמַלֶּיךָ אֶשְׁאָב, עַד אִם-כִּלּוּ, לִשְׁתֹּת.

19 And when she had done giving him drink, she said: 'I will draw for thy camels also, until they have done drinking.'

Rabbenu Bachya writes:

הגבורה הזאת לשאוב לכל גמליו לא היה בחוק האפשרות כי אם בסיוע אלהי וכל שכן לפי דעת המדרש שהיתה בת שלש שנים אבל היה הענין מכלל ההצלחה שהבטיחו אברהם: הוא ישלח מלאכו אתך והצליח דרכך

That is,

This strength the draw water for all his camels is not within the natural possibility, except with Divine assistance. And certainly according to the opinion of the midrash that she was three years old. However, the matter was within the general "prospering" which Avraham promised him. Bereishit 24:40:

מ וַיֹּאמֶר, אֵלָי: ה אֲשֶׁר-הִתְהַלַּכְתִּי לְפָנָיו, יִשְׁלַח מַלְאָכוֹ אִתָּךְ וְהִצְלִיחַ דַּרְכֶּךָ, וְלָקַחְתָּ אִשָּׁה לִבְנִי, מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתִּי וּמִבֵּית אָבִי.

40 And he said unto me: The LORD, before whom I walk, will send His angel with thee, and prosper thy way; and thou shalt take a wife for my son of my kindred, and of my father's house;

(Brief digression -- this "pasuk" Rabbenu Bachya is citing here is actually a conflation of two pesukim: This pasuk #40, and pasuk#7:

ז ה אֱלֹהֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם, אֲשֶׁר לְקָחַנִי מִבֵּית אָבִי וּמֵאֶרֶץ מוֹלַדְתִּי, וַאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר-לִי וַאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע-לִי לֵאמֹר, לְזַרְעֲךָ אֶתֵּן אֶת-הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת--הוּא, יִשְׁלַח מַלְאָכוֹ לְפָנֶיךָ, וְלָקַחְתָּ אִשָּׁה לִבְנִי, מִשָּׁם.

7 The LORD, the God of heaven, who took me from my father's house, and from the land of my nativity, and who spoke unto me, and who swore unto me, saying: Unto thy seed will I give this land; He will send His angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife for my son from thence.

)

We see two points from Rabbenu Bachya. First, he is willing to say that a maiden drawing water for all the camels is impossible, and certainly that a three year old girl drawing all that water is impossible. The difference is that he is willing to read this into the text as Hashem's special providence and assistance, such that he is willing to stand by the midrashic reading.

Second, he appears willing to argue with the midrashic reading. He states וכל שכן לפי דעת המדרש שהיתה בת שלש שנים, implying that this is the opinion of the midrash, but that one could assess the text differently and that this would be a legitimate reading. But that there would still be Divine assistance at play here, since it would still be impossible.

This grants legitimacy, if any is needed, to readings of the story such that Rivkah could not possibly be three years old, or else she would not be able to draw the water (, converse with Eliezer, agree to marry, etc.)

On a related note, see my post from last year about the plausibility of a three year old Rivkah.

Chayyei Sarah: The Servant Becomes A Man

While reading through Rabbenu Bachya, I noticed an interesting comment. He notes the shift from the description of Eliezer from "servant" to "man," beginning in Bereshit 24:21, and states that it coincides with the meeting up with/intervention of the mal`ach.

I would suggest two other reasons for this sudden shift.

1. Until this point, he has been following the directives of Avraham, and is indeed Avraham's servant. However, once interacting with other people, and negotiating on Avraham's behalf, he must do so from a position of strength. Therefore, despite introducing himself to them as the servant of Avraham, he is described as "the man."

2. While we know that he is the servant of Avraham, the people in the city of Nachor, and specifically, Rivkah and family, have no idea who he is. To convey this lack of knowledge, he becomes simply "the man." This has a connection to the general loss of names in the entire narrative, including, for example, Rivkah, for similar purpose. I posted about this more general phenomenon in 2004 in the post "Was the servant of Avraham Eliezer?"

Igros Moshe On Wigs and Shavers, part i

Because of the big hullabaloo about wigs, and wigs that look like people's own hair, I thought it would be a big help to the public to publicize Rav Moshe Feinstein's teshuva on the subject, and to translate it into English. Below are scans, as well as Hebrew text and rough translation. See this in Even haEzer chelek 2, siman 12:

Siman 12

In The Matter of Wigs
11 Tammuz, 5724
To Rav Dovid Laffa,

הנה בענין פאה נכרית שנשאלתי מרעיתך הרנבית הכבודה תחיה, אשר כתר"ת רוצה לידע דעתי בזה

Behold, in the matter of wigs that I was asked from your friend the honorable Rebbetzin, may she live, which you (kevod Torato) wish to know my thoughts in this.

הנכון לע"ד אף שאיכא מאן דחושש לאסור פאה נכרית משום מראית עין, עיין בעטרת זקנים או"ח סימן ע"ה, מ"מ רוב רבותינו וגם מאלו שסומכין עיקרי ההוראה עליהם מתירים, והם הרמ"א שם ובסימן ש"ג בד"מ והמג"א והפמ"ג, וכן משמע גם מהגר"א שסובר כן שלא אסרו בזה משום מראית העין.

The truth, in my humble opinion, is that even if there is one who is concerned to forbid a wig because of marit ayin, see in Amrat Zekenim, Orach Chaim siman 75, even so, the majority of our Rabbis {rabboteinu} and also of those upon whom we rely fundamentally for ruling, permit. And they are the Rema there {in siman 75} and in siman 303 in Darkei Moshe, and the Magen Avraham and the Pri Megadim. And so is also mashma from the Gra, who holds like this, that they did not forbid in this because of marit ayin.

כמעט שמוכרח מהגמ' פ' במה אשה שאם איירי דיוצאה בפאה נכרית דוקא במכוסה לא היה שייך לומר דעל שערות זקנה לילדה ניחוש למחכו עלה.

And it is somewhat compelled from the gemara in Shabbat perek BaMeh Isha, for if it were dealing with a woman who went out with a wig, specifically where it was coverred, if would not be appropriate to say that on the hairs of an elderly woman for a young woman, we should worry that they will laugh at her.

ווהטעם פשוט שכיון שלא מצינו בגמ' שאסרו אין למילף ממקומות אחרים שאסרו משום מראית עין, דאין למילף חדא מאידך, ולכן נאמר איסור מראית עין ביחוד בכל דבר שאסרו. ובפאה נכרית ודאי הא אין למילף, חדא דאין זה איסור לאו אלא איסור עשה דעל האשה להיות צנועה ולכסות ראשה ואין למילף ממה שאסרו בשבת ועוד איסורי לאוין.

And the reason is straightforward, that since we do not find in the gemara that they forbade, we should not learn from other places that they forbade because of marit ayin, for we can not learn one from another, and therefore they state the prohibition of marit ayin specifically be each matter that they forbade. And by a wig, certainly one should not learn, firstly because this is not a prohibition coming from a negative commandment but rather a prohibition coming from a positive commandment, for it is upon the woman to be tzanua and to cover her head, and thus one should not learn from what they prohibited by Shabbat and other prohibitions arising from negative commandments.

ועוד משום שברוב הפעמים ניכר שהשערות הם מפאה נכרית, ואף אם אינו ניכר לאנשים שאין מסתכלין כ"כ בנשים עד שיכירו, מ"מ לנשים ודאי ניכר ברובא דרובא ואולי גם כולן ניכרות, ולכן בשביל מה שנזדמן לפעמים רחוקות שלא ניכר לא אסרו.

And furthermore, because in most instances it is recognized that the hairs are from a wig, and even if it is not recognizable to men who do not look so much at women until the recognize, still, to women certainly it is recognizable in the vast majority of cases, and perhaps they are even all recognizable, and therefore, because of what will occur in infrequent cases that it is not recognized, they did not forbid.

וכעין ראיה לזה מהא שמותר להתגלח הזקן במספרים כעין תער ולא אסרו משום מראית העין אף ששם הוא מאיסורי לאוין וגם הם חמש לאוין אלמא דלא בכל דבר אסרו. ואולי הוא נמי משום דברוב הפעמים ניכר להרגילים להתגלח שאינו גלוח דתער, לא אסרו בשביל פעמים רחוקים שלא ניכר, ואף שהם מצוים גם בין אנשים שאין מתגלחין שהם אין מכירין כ"כ מ"מ כיון שלהמתגלחים הוא ניכר כבר הוא כידוע זה לכל דחברך חברא אית ליה וידעו הכל שפלוני מתגלח במספרים ובסם וכדומה ולא בתער.
וא"כ כ"ש באשה שעיקר היא נמצאת בין הנשים שהן מכירות שהיא פאה נכרית שאין לאסור בשביל שיטעו אנשים שאין מכירין זה דנחשב כידוע גם להם. ואף אם היא אשה שמלאכתה בין אנשים נמי כיון שעכ"פ ניכר לנשים אין לאסור, וממילא אין לאסור גם כשלא ניכר לפעמים, אף אם היה זה מאיסורי לאוין, וכ"ש שהוא רק מאיסורי עשה שאפשר שליכא כלל איסור מראית עין בזה.

And there is something of a proof to this from the fact that it is permitted to shave the beard with scissors like a razor and they did not forbid because of marit ayin, even there where it is from prohibitions coming from negative commandments, and also they are five negative commandments. Thus it is clear that they did not prohibit {because of marit ayin} in every matter.
And perhaps it is also because in most cases it is recognizable to those who are used to shaving that it is not the shaving of a razor, they did not forbid just because of the remote instances in which it is recognized. And even if they are found among men who do not shave, such that they do not recognize so much, still, since to those who shave it is recognizable, this one is like one known to all that he has a fellowship, and all know that Ploni shaves with scissors and with sam {depilatory cream?} and the like, and not with a razor.
And if so, certainly by a woman, that in the main she is found among the women, who recognize that it is a wig, that we should not forbid just because the men will err because they do not recognize this, for it is considered known as well to them. And even if she is a woman whose job is among men, also, since at any rate it is recognizable to women, there is not to forbid. And thus, one should not forbid even when it is on occasion not recognized, even if this were from the prohibitions arising from negative commandments, and certainly where it is only from positive commandments, where it is possible that there is not at all any prohibition of marit ayin in this.

ויש עוד טעם גדול במה שלא אסרו בפאה נכרית, דכיון דידוע לכל שיש ללבוש פאה נכרית שתהיה נדמית כשערות האשה עצמה אין לאסור, דמה"ת (דמהיכא תיתי) יחשדוה הרואים מרחוק ואלו שאין מסתכלין כ"כ בנשים שהשער הנראה הוא משערות האשה עצמה, כיון שהיא מוחזקת לאשה כשרה ויודעין שמקרוב ודאי מכירין שאינן שערותיה והרואים אותה בקרוב ומסתכלין הרי ברוב הפעמים יכירו שהיא פאה נכרית.

And there is another great reason in this that they did not prohibit by wigs, that since it is known that there is this thing called a wig which looks like the hairs of the woman herself, there is not to prohibit. For for what reason they have to suspect, those who see her from afar and those who do not look so carefully at women, that the hair that is visible is from the woman's own hair, since she is after all under the presumption of being a kosher woman, and they know that close up they will know that it is not her hair. {And thus even far away they will not make this assumption, knowing that it is a result of being far away.} And those who see her close up and look, behold, in most instances they will recognize that it is a wig.

ואין לומר שבמדינתנו זו בזה"ז שנתפרצה שרוב נשים בעוה"ר אין מכסות ראשן שלכן יאמרו גם עליה שהיא מהפרוצות בזה, שלכן אף שלא אסרי רבנן אנן יש לאסור, חדא דאנן אין מחדשין איסור מה שלא אסרו מתחלה בגמ' והגאונים, ועוד הא א"א לחוש שיצא קלקול מזה דלהמכירין אותה לא יהיה שום חשד כיון שיודעין שהיא אשה כשרה, ולהאין מכירין אותה ויאמרו שגם היא מהפרוצות בזה הרי לא ילמדו ממנה יותר משאר הפרוצות שהן הרבה בעוה"ר, ולא מצינו שאסרו בכה"ג.

And there is not to say that in this country of ours, nowadays, that it has become a widespread breach, in that in our many sins, most of our women do not cover their heads, and that therefore they will say also about her that she is of those who are perutzot in this, and that therefore, even though the Sages have not forbade, we should forbid. Firstly, because we do not innovate a prohibition which they did not prohibit in the first place in the gemara and Geonim. And furthermore, it is not possible to worry that some negative thing will come out of this -- for those who recognize her will not have any suspicion, since they know that she is a kosher woman; and those who do not recognize her and will say that she too is of those who are perutzot in this, so behold, they will not learn from her any more than the other perutzot, who are many, due to our many sins, and we have not found that they prohibit in such a case.

וטעם זה הוא גם על מה שלא אסרו לגלח במספרים כעין תער ובסם שנמי כיון שידוע שאפשר לגלח כעין תער בדבר המותר לא יחשדוהו, ואף שנתפרץ בעוה"ר שהרבה מגלחין בתער מ"מ אין לאסור עתה מה שלא אסרו מתחלה, וגם להמכירין אותו לא יהיה שום חשד כיון שהוא בחזקת כשרות ולהאין מכירין לא יצא מזה שום קלקול בזה שיחשבו עליו שגם הוא מהעבריינים יותר ממה שנמצאים שאר העבריינים.

And this reasons is also applicable to that that they did not prohibit shaving with scissors which are like a razor {e.g. an electric shaver} and with sam {depilatory cream}. For there also, since it it known that is possible to shave with that {a scissors} which is like a razor with something which is permitted, they will not have suspicion about him, and even though there is a widespread breach, in our many sins, that many shave with a razor, still, there is not to forbid now what they did not forbid at first. And also because those who recognize him will not have any suspicion on him at all, since he is in the presumption of being kosher. And to those who do not recognize him, there will not come from this any negative result from this, for they will think that he about him that he is one of the violators on top of those that they find the rest of the violators.

ולכן לדינא אין כתר"ה יכול למחות ביד אשתו הרבנית החשובה מללבש פאה נכרית, שאף אם כתר"ה רוצה להחמיר אינו יכול להטיל חומרותיו עליה שזהו רק דין שלה, וכיון שהיא עושה כדין שהוא כרוב הפוסקים ושגם נראה כמותם, אינו יכול להחמיר עליה אף אם לא תכסה כלל הפאה נכרית, וכ"ש כשרוצה להלביש כובע עליה שיכסה רוב מהפאה נכרית שאין לכתר"ה להקפיד כלל.

And therefore, practically as a matter of law, you {kevod Torato} are not able to prevent {/protest} your wife, the honorable Rebbetzin, from wearing a wig. For even if you {kevod Torato} wish to be stringent, you cannot impose your stringencies on her, for this is only her own din. And since she is acting in accordance with din, which is like the majority of poskim, and also it appears {that the din is indeed} like them, I am not able to be stringent upon her, even if she did not cover the wig at all, and certainly when she wishes to wear a hat upon it which will cover most of the wig, that you {kevod Torato} should not be insistent upon this at all.

ואם כתר"ה הוא מהנוהגין להתגלח בסם ומספרים כעין תער ולא חש על עצמו למראית עין שהוא רק מטעמים שבארתי ודאי לא שייך שיחמיר עליה בפאה נכרית שהרי הוא כסותר הנהגת עצמו שאותן הטעמים איכא בזה עוד מכ"ש כדבארתי.

And if yuo {kevod Torato} are of those who are accustomed to shave with depilatory cream or a scissors which is like a razor, and you do not worry about yourself in terms of marit ayin, which is only because of the reasons I have explained, then certainly it is not appropriate to be stringent upon her as regards the wig, for this would be like contradicting your own practice, for those same reasons are true in this and even more, as I have explained.

Your Friend,
Moshe Feinstein

Pri Yitzchak on Tuition - part ii

The author of the following teshuva is Rav Itzel Peterburger (Blazer), who was the Rav of St. Petersburg and a talmid of Rav Yisroel Salanter.) The following is from She'elot uTeshuvot Pri Yitzchak, chelek 2, siman 27.

Click on any scan to see it larger.

This teshuva addresses the question covered in previous posts, whether one can pay tuition with maaser money.







Siman 27
To Rav Gershon Litch Rozenbaum, haLevi:

That which you (kevod Torato) have investigated for us in the matter which you were asked from a man who walks uprightly, who was accustomed for many years previous to separate maasar from all that he profited, and now his livelihood is not as profitable as it was before. And the aforementioned man raised all his sons on the Torah, and now the question comes if it is permitted for him to pay, from maaser money which he separates from this day all, the teacher of Torah of his son, who is now 15 years old. And you (kevod Torato) wrote at length about this, and wrote that you did not find a permit for this. Behold, here is not the place to write at length about this, and I write only that which appears to be true in my humble opinion, briefly, that there is no place to be stringent at all in this, and it is permitted ab initio {lechatchila} to pay the wages of the teacher from maaser money, since he {the questioner} is hard pressed at this time.

And behold, in Darkei Moshe, Yoreh Deah siman 249, he writes in the name of the Maharil, and this is his language: Those people who give their maaser for the lights of the synagogue are acting not in accordance with din, for the maaser is supposed to go to benefit paupers. And so it would seem in Beitza 20b. And so is it in Hagahot Shulchan Aruch in the aforementioned siman, that one should not use his maaser money for a matter of commandment {mitzvah}, etc., but rather should give it to papers.

However, the Derisha wrote in the name of Teshuvot haRav Menachem that any commandment which comes to his hand, such as to be a baal berit or to usher in a groom and bride to the wedding canopy, and so too to purchase sefarim to learn in them, if he does not have the ability on his own accord such that he would not otherwise do this commandment, he is able to purchase it from the maaser. End quote. And he also brings the Shach and the Taz there. And behold, certainly the Maharil and haRav Menachem argue on one another.

And the Baal Beer haGolah who writes that this that one should not do a commandment with maaser money, the explanation is that without this, he would still be obligated to do this commandment. However, if he wishes to do this commandment, which he is not obligated in, he is already permitted.

In She'elot uTeshuvot Chatam Sofer, he already argued on him, in siman 231, that the Maharil writes explicitly that the reason is that maaser is supposed to go to paupers, and how is he able to take lights for the synagogue from money of paupers? Even if he is not obligated to give them, how is he able to steal from paupers. See there.

And there, in siman 232, he argues as well on the Beer haGolah and writes that the Maharil maintains that the obligation of separating maaser of money is absolutely Biblical, and it is to the paupers, and the owners {current possessors} do not have anything in it except for tovat hanaah {that is, the choice of which pauper to give it to}.

However, those who differ, who the Shach brings, maintain that maaser or money is not comparable to maaser of the threshing floor, which is absolutely Biblical, but is rather from a derasha in the Sifrei -- "Aser Taaser" - from here that we separate maaser to those who engage in learning Torah. And not specifically those who engage in Torah but rather to any matter of commandment. See there.

And according to the opinion of the Chatam Sofer, that the Maharil and haRav Menachem argue about this, whether maaser of money is Biblical, and the Maharil maintains that it is absolutely Biblical and therefore one may not do a matter of commandment with this -- according to this, it appears to be the case that we do not establish like the Maharil in this. For the Acharonim have already reaches a consensus that maaser of money is not comparable to maaser ani {which is Biblical}. And the Bach, in siman 331 wrote that there is not in it an obligation, not Biblically nor Rabbinically. And so is written in the She'elot and Teshuvot of Penei Yehoshua, siman 2. And so is proven in clear proofs in Sheelot uTeshuvot Shevut Yaakov, siman 85 (?). See there.

And even according to the opinion of Rav Dovid Oppenheim, who asks on the aforementioned Bach in She'elot uTeshuvos Chavos Yair siman 224, even so, all that exceeds is only Rabbinic. And according to this, we do not establish like the Maharil.

However, I am confounding regarding the Gaon Chatam Sofer, who wrote that maaser of money is absolutely Biblical. For Maharil writes explicitly in She'elot uTeshuvot siman 54 -- this is his language: "However, maaser money which we take from the profit is only a minhag. Therefore he need not stipulate. Even so, since it has a support from Scriptures, etc." Behold that the Maharil maintains that it is only a minhag, except that it has a support from Scriptures. And from the language of the Maharil it is implied that there is not even a complete obligation on the Rabbinic level, but rather it is merely a support, and as the Bach writes, and as in the Teshuvor of Penei Yehoshua.

Rather, it is clear that the Maharil held that even though maaser of money is only a minhag, still it is supposed to go to paupers, and one should not use them for a matter of commandment, for we are already accustomed to give them to paupers.

And behold, this din which the Maharil wrote, I found explicitly in She'elot uTeshuvot Maharam MiRutenberg siman 75, and this is his language: maaser money it seems that after {/since} it is a chazaka to give them to paupers, one should not change them to another commandment, for it appears like robbing the paupers. For even though it is not Biblical but rather a minhag, the paupers have already acquired it {zachu} based on the minhag. For so does the entire Diaspora do, and one should not change from paupers to another commandment which the paupers have no need for. End quote.

Thus, the Maharam also holds that it is only a minhag, but still maintains that one should not change them to go towards another commandment, for all the Diaspora have conducted themselves so. And it is clean that this is also the opinion of the aforementioned Maharil. And the Chatam Sofer also contradicts his own words, in what he wrote there in his Teshuvot in siman 231, that also to the Maharil there is no absolute obligation.

In any case, since according to the words of the Maharil it explained, and also according to the Maharam miRutenberg, if so, it is clear that so we establish, and we cannot be lenient in this based on the words of haRav Menachem which the Derisha brought.

However, all of this is for other matters of commandment, such as lights for a synagogue and the like. But to pay wages for a teacher of Torah with his son, it is obvious that it is permitted according to all.

And behold, you (kevod Torato) wrote, and these are your words:

"And behold, in Shulchan Aruch siman 251 the Mechaber (=Rav Yosef Karo) ruled that one who gives his adult sons, whom he is not obligated in supporting, in order to teach the sons Torah, this is within the realm of charity. And this is learned from Ketubot 50a, which they darshen {from Tehillim 106:3}: "that do righteousness {=charity, tzedaka} at all times" -- this is one who supports his sons and daughters.

And according to this, according to what the Taz wrote in siman 249 plainly, and these are his words: "And would it arise in your thoughts that he is able to support his sons and daughters from maaser money, even though if it charity." See there.

And according to this, even for {children who are} adults, it is forbidden to give them from maaser money.

However, in my humble opinion, the Mechaber who selected in siman 251 his adult sons, it appears that he distinguishes between the adults and minors. And according to this, it is possible that for adults, to whom alone it is charity, it is permitted to give them from maaser money. However, it appears that since we force the father to support {לזון} his pauper son, even if he is an adult, if so even if it is charity, still it is a matter which is of obligation, and it only comes from the "unconsecrated" according to the opinion of the Maharil. And so we rule in siman 245, that the father is obligated to hire a teacher for his son who will teach him the entire written Torah. And even Mishnah and Gemara, the Shach writes in seif katan 6, that if it is possible, he is obligated to teach him. And perforce I have not found a permit to pay the wages of a teach from maaser money."

So ends your (kevod Torato) language.

And behold, this write you wrote in the name of the Raz, that he wrote "And would it arise in your thoughts that he is able to support his sons and daughters from maaser money...," and that according to this, even for adults it is forbidden to give them from maaser money, it would appear that I am astounded upon him. For behold, these are the words of the Taz, "that behold also what a man supports his minor children, we say in perek naarah that it is within the realm of 'he does righteousness {/tzedaka, charity} at all times.' And would it arise in your thoughts that a man can expend his maaser money to support his minor children." End quote.

Behold that the Taz writes explicitly only that it is not possible {/allowed} for a man to expend his maaser to support his minor sons, but of the adult sons, he does not speak at all. And it is possible that for adult sons, the Taz admits that it is permitted to support them from maaser money.

However, after delving, his words are correct. For behold, the Taz is speaking about minor sons who are within the realm of "he does righteousness {/charity} at all times," and upon this he writes that he does not expend from maaser money to support them. And behold, the gemara that takes out this verse of "he does righteousness {/charity} at all times," that this is one who supports his children when they are minors, this is by minors who are older than 6 years old, whom he is not obligated to support, for the halacha is not like the enactment at Usha, and is elucidated in Ketubot there, that when less than 6 years old, he is obligated to support them as a legal requirement. And see Tosafot there that really young ones, according to all opinions, he is obligated. And to is the explanation of Rashi there "this is one who supports, etc." And this is charity which is not an obligation upon him in them. And so writes the Bet Yosef in siman 251, that the gemara is speaking about minors who are older than 6 years old.

And also, that which the Rambam and the Tur wrote, that one who gives to his "adult" sons and daughters to whom he has no obligation in their support, this is within the realm of charity, upon this writes the Bet Yosef: that that is to say that they are older than 6 years old, for if they are younger than 6 years old, he is obligated in their support, as is stated at the end of Perek Af Al Pi. And we say in perek naarah 'he does righteousness {/charity} at all times' -- this is one who supports his minor sons who are older than 6, that he is not obligated in their support, and when he sipports them, it is considered charity {/righteousness, tzedaka} to him. End quote.

Behold that all who are older than 6 are called "adults" {gedolim} who he is not obligated to support, and it is only in the realm of charity, and there is no difference between older than 6 to an actual adult, that all of this is within the realm of charity, as is understood from the Rambam, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch.

However, even so, we force the father to support his pauper son, even if he is an adult. And this is like what the Rashba wrote, and so it is in Shulchan Aruch seif 4. And this is only within the law of charity, and we force regarding charity, and his son is first. And see in the Biur haGra there.

And even so, according to this, the Taz who wrote that by minors who are older than 6, one should not support them from maaser money, it appears that the same law would be so for adults who are paupers, for there is no distinction at all, for even minor, anyone older than 6, he is not required to support.

And according to this, the words of the Taz require great iyun {tzarich iyun gadol}. For behold, in the She'elot uTeshuvot Maharam MiRutenberg, siman 76, he writes explicitly, "and to distribute his maaser to his adult sons, with whom he is not obligated to deal, it is permitted, for even to his father, it is permitted to give, if he be a pauper, if not for the honor of his father."

And it appears that this which he {=Maharam MiRutenberg} wrote "his adult sons," these are the ones older than 6, anyone who he is not obligated in their support, and as the Rambam and Tur wrote, "one who gives to his 'adult' sons," and these are the ones older than 6, as the Bet Yosef and Shach wrote.

And therefore, it is permitted to give them from maaser money, since it is not an obligation upon him to support them, but rather from the realm of charity, and as we wrote above, and we do not force concerning this.

And behold, the proof of the Maharam is clear, for behold, even to his father he is permitted to give if he is a pauper, if not because of honor of his father, and his father is before his son, for he is not obligated in their support, as is clear in Shulchan Aruch siman 251. See there.

And this which is explained in Ketubot {49b} that if he is wealthy, we force him, this is based on the law of charity, and as Rashi explains, it is only charity. And therefore, it is permitted to support them from maaser money.

And so wrote the Maharil in her Teshuvot in siman 45, these are his words: And for this reason, by maaser of money which is Rabbinic, the Gadol haDor mahaRi Oppenheim permitted in a Teshuva to feed his mother and father, for if Biblical, curses should come upon him. And according to this, certainly his sons. And so it appears to me.

And now, the words of the Taz require great iyun {that is, they are difficult}. And according to this, also that which you {kevod Torato} wrote, that "since we force the father to support his pauper son, even if he is an adult, if so, even if it is charity, still it is a matter which is an obligation and does not come except from 'unconsecrated,' according to the opinion of the Maharil," this is greatly astounding, for the Maharam wrote explicitly that maaser money is only for paupers, and even so he holds that he is able to support his pauper sons. And also the Maharil holds that he is able to support his father from maaser money, even that we force him also from the realm of charity, and before his son, as written above. And this that the Maharil wrote that one should not give maaser for a matter of commandment, it is not because it is a matter of obligation. And in the Teshuvot of the Penei Yehoshua he already argued on him about this in siman 2, but rather, the Pnei Yehoshua wrote that maaser of money only a minhag. And see in Yad Shaul, siman 249. However, according to the words of the Pnei Yehoshua, it is clear in the Maharam and Maharil that it is only a minhag, and the reason is as the Maharam wrote, because they were already accustomed to give them to paupers, and as written above.

And after it has been made clear that it is permitted to support his sons who are older that 6 from maaser, and not like the Taz. If so, it is apparent that certainly it is permitted to give of maaser money for his 15 year old son's tuition. For he is not required to teach him via payment anything but Written Torah, and he is not obligated to teach him via payment Mishna and Gemara, and as was explained in Shulchan Aruch siman 245. And behold, to give maaser money to children of paupers to teach them Torah, it is plain that this is the primary mitzvah, and there is no charity greater than this, and as the Maharik wrote, and see in Knesset haGedolah sinam 249, see there.

And according to this, the same is true that he is able to pay tuition for his son for Mishna and Gemara, since the times are difficult for him. And even though where it is possible for him, it is a commandment {mitzvah} to teach him Mishna, gemara, halacha, and aggadah, still, it appears that since we do not compel regarding this, and it is not an obligation but rather only a mitzvah, it is permitted to pay from maaser money, for there is no greater mitzvah than supporting his father and mother, and even according to the opinion that this is of the father {'s assets}, certainly there is a mitzvah, for there is no mitzvah like honoring your father, which is attached to honoring the Omnipresent. And yet, since there is no obligation and we do not compel, it is permitted to support him from maaser money if not because of honor of his father. And according to the opinion of the Gadol haDor, MahaRi Oppenheim, even ab initio {lechatchila} as well. If so, the same is true that he is able to pay tuition for his son to teach him Mishna and Gemara, even where it is possible for him, and as written above.

And all of this is about money which was already separated, and certainly where he separated it in the first place on this condition. And certainly where the person giving this charity is a pauper, and the times are difficult for him. And as you {kevod Torato} wrote in the name of the Knesset haGedolah, in such an instance.

And according to this, there is no place to be strict at all in this, and as written above, and more that this, at this point, I will not elaborate.

Vayera: The Motivation of Lot's Daughters

Did they sleep with their father to preserve the human race? Or did they do it to preserve their family line? Or just because no other men were available?

The pesukim state the following, but of course a text can be interpreted in any number of ways:

ל וַיַּעַל לוֹט מִצּוֹעַר וַיֵּשֶׁב בָּהָר, וּשְׁתֵּי בְנֹתָיו עִמּוֹ, כִּי יָרֵא, לָשֶׁבֶת בְּצוֹעַר; וַיֵּשֶׁב, בַּמְּעָרָה--הוּא, וּשְׁתֵּי בְנֹתָיו.	30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar; and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
לא וַתֹּאמֶר הַבְּכִירָה אֶל-הַצְּעִירָה, אָבִינוּ זָקֵן; וְאִישׁ אֵין בָּאָרֶץ לָבוֹא עָלֵינוּ, כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל-הָאָרֶץ.	31 And the first-born said unto the younger: 'Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth.
לב לְכָה נַשְׁקֶה אֶת-אָבִינוּ יַיִן, וְנִשְׁכְּבָה עִמּוֹ; וּנְחַיֶּה מֵאָבִינוּ, זָרַע.	32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.'
לג וַתַּשְׁקֶיןָ אֶת-אֲבִיהֶן יַיִן, בַּלַּיְלָה הוּא; וַתָּבֹא הַבְּכִירָה וַתִּשְׁכַּב אֶת-אָבִיהָ, וְלֹא-יָדַע בְּשִׁכְבָהּ וּבְקוּמָהּ.	33 And they made their father drink wine that night. And the first-born went in, and lay with her father; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
לד וַיְהִי, מִמָּחֳרָת, וַתֹּאמֶר הַבְּכִירָה אֶל-הַצְּעִירָה, הֵן-שָׁכַבְתִּי אֶמֶשׁ אֶת-אָבִי; נַשְׁקֶנּוּ יַיִן גַּם-הַלַּיְלָה, וּבֹאִי שִׁכְבִי עִמּוֹ, וּנְחַיֶּה מֵאָבִינוּ, זָרַע.	34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the first-born said unto the younger: 'Behold, I lay yesternight with my father. Let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.'
לה וַתַּשְׁקֶיןָ גַּם בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא, אֶת-אֲבִיהֶן--יָיִן; וַתָּקָם הַצְּעִירָה וַתִּשְׁכַּב עִמּוֹ, וְלֹא-יָדַע בְּשִׁכְבָהּ וּבְקֻמָהּ.	35 And they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose, and lay with him; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
לו וַתַּהֲרֶיןָ שְׁתֵּי בְנוֹת-לוֹט, מֵאֲבִיהֶן.	36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
לז וַתֵּלֶד הַבְּכִירָה בֵּן, וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ מוֹאָב: הוּא אֲבִי-מוֹאָב, עַד-הַיּוֹם.	37 And the first-born bore a son, and called his name Moab--the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
לח וְהַצְּעִירָה גַם-הִוא יָלְדָה בֵּן, וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ בֶּן-עַמִּי: הוּא אֲבִי בְנֵי-עַמּוֹן, עַד-הַיּוֹם. {ס}	38 And the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi--the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day. {S}

Now, they left the city of Tzoar, and it was fine, so we should expect that they would know there are other people around. Yet their statement וְאִישׁ אֵין בָּאָרֶץ לָבוֹא עָלֵינוּ, "there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us," would imply that there are no men present, perhaps no men present on earth!

Rashi explains:

and there is no man on earth They thought that the entire world had been destroyed, as in the Generation of the Flood (Gen. Rabbah 51:8).

Thus, just as the duty after the flood was to repopulate the earth, so too the daughters of Lot thought to repopulate the earth. The only available male was their father, and thus they were acting properly.

Indeed, Chazal point to the pasuk in Tehillim 89:3:

ג כִּי-אָמַרְתִּי--עוֹלָם, חֶסֶד יִבָּנֶה; שָׁמַיִם, תָּכִן אֱמוּנָתְךָ בָהֶם.

3 For I have said: 'For ever is mercy built; in the very heavens Thou dost establish Thy faithfulness.

And note that chessed on occasion refers to incest, and thus this was permitted for the purpose of building the world, for Kayin, Hevel, and Shet, who perforce married their sisters.

The same would apply to the daughters of Lot. Except of course that they were mistaken.

Suggestions have been made such as that perhaps the angel only held off destroying Tzoar while they were present, but once they left, they thought that city might be destroyed as well.

I would note that such a fear finds purchase within the text, for it states that they feared to stay in Tzoar, and this was the motivation for withdrawing to a cave.

Many commentators follow in this path, that they mistakenly thought they were the last surviving humans.

One exception is Sforno, who says that they knew that others were present, but the custom of the place was to take a woman who was fit for him, and for some reason the men were unfit for them, or they for the men.

It seems to me that he is partly basing this on וְאִישׁ אֵין בָּאָרֶץ לָבוֹא עָלֵינוּ כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל-הָאָרֶץ, and specifically כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל-הָאָרֶץ. What does this phrase, "after the manner of all the earth," mean? Perhaps the way of the earth is to procreate. Or perhaps "the manner of all the earth" means non-incestuous relations, and since the normal derech eretz is not present, they must resort to the otherwise inconceivable.

But I would suggest that he reads כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל-הָאָרֶץ, "after the manner of all the earth," as because of the custom of all the land, and that custom must have been to only marry a woman who is fit for him and vice versa. Indeed, Targum Yerushalmi renders it as something like ke-nimus kol `ar'a`, like the law of the land, either referring to the ban on incestuous relations or else something like Seforno proposes here.

Shadal bases himself mainly on Seforno here, considering it peshat, although he makes a few tweaks:

אבינו זקן : ולא יתאמץ להרחיק נדוד אל ארץ אחרת ( ספורנו ) ולא יתעורר להשיאנו לאיש. ואיש אין בארץ : לא בכל העולם, אלא בגליל זה ( ספורנו ), והנה שם בהר היה יישוב ומשם היה להם לחם ויין, אמנם לוט לסיבה מן הסיבות לא היה חפץ בחברתם (אולי מפני שראה כי התחברותו עם אנשי סדום גרם לו רעה וסכנה), ועל כן ישב במערה ואמר לבנותיו כי אין אנשי הגליל ההוא ראויים להתחבר אליהם, זה טעם ואיש אין בארץ (ראוי והגון) לבוא עלינו כפירוש ספורנו

Thus, he explains וְאִישׁ אֵין בָּאָרֶץ, as referring to the particular place, but not that there is no man in the entire world. That is, he rejects the midrash that the daughters thought the entire world was destroyed, and says that of course they knew of other humans. But that Lot, after this bad experience with joining in marriage with the Sodomites, was wary of marrying his daughters to others in the region. (I would note that one should see Avraham and Yitzchak's similar take on the matter.) That is why he cut himself off from civilization and told his daughters that the men in the area were not fit to join with. He reads וְאִישׁ אֵין בָּאָרֶץ as there being no fit man to join in marriage with.

Shadal also notes an interesting proof. They had to get food {lechem} to eat while in the cave. And they had wine. The wine must have come from somewhere! Thus, there was a settlement on the mountain, and they got their bread and wine from there.

Rashi also addresses the issue, noting the strangeness of wine being available to them:

And they gave, etc., to drink Wine was made available to them in the cave to make it possible for two nations to emerge from them. — [from Sifrei Ekev 43]

I would point out that this could have been early on, and they could have brought this wine with them from Tzoar.

Vayera: The Sin Of Sodom Was Beating Up Women On Buses

What was it that caused the Sodomites to finally call down the wrath of God? Was it sodomy? Inhospitality? Or was it beating up righteous women?

The pasuk (in Bereishit 19:20) states:

כ וַיֹּאמֶר ה, זַעֲקַת סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה כִּי-רָבָּה; וְחַטָּאתָם--כִּי כָבְדָה, מְאֹד.	20 And the LORD said: 'Verily, the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and, verily, their sin is exceeding grievous.
כא אֵרְדָה-נָּא וְאֶרְאֶה, הַכְּצַעֲקָתָהּ הַבָּאָה אֵלַי עָשׂוּ כָּלָה; וְאִם-לֹא, אֵדָעָה	21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto Me; and if not, I will know.'

Rashi cites a midrash which takes כְּצַעֲקָתָהּ as "her" cry, a cry of a woman, and כִּי-רָבָּה as because of a maiden.

Our Sages, however, interpreted הַכָּצַעִקָתָה to refer to the cry of a certain girl, whom they killed with an unusual death because she gave food to a poor man, as is delineated in [chapter] Chelek. (Sanh. 109b)

As it says there in the gemara:

A certain maiden gave some bread to a poor man, [hiding it] in a pitcher. On the matter becoming known, they daubed her with honey and placed her on the parapet of the wall, and the bees came and consumed her. Thus it is written, And the Lord said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah, because it is great: whereon Rab Judah commented in Rab's name: On account of the maiden [ribah].

Within the city of Sodom, the Sodomites thought they were doing good and exacting justice, and it was the maiden they punished who acted badly.

Not only people of Sodom can be Sodomites. As Yeshaya says, even those in Jerusalem can act such. Yeshaya 1:

ח וְנוֹתְרָה בַת-צִיּוֹן, כְּסֻכָּה בְכָרֶם; כִּמְלוּנָה בְמִקְשָׁה, כְּעִיר נְצוּרָה.	8 And the daughter of Zion is left as a booth in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city.
ט לוּלֵי יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, הוֹתִיר לָנוּ שָׂרִיד כִּמְעָט--כִּסְדֹם הָיִינוּ, לַעֲמֹרָה דָּמִינוּ. {פ}	9 Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, we should have been like unto Gomorrah. {P}
י שִׁמְעוּ דְבַר-יְהוָה, קְצִינֵי סְדֹם; הַאֲזִינוּ תּוֹרַת אֱלֹהֵינוּ, עַם עֲמֹרָה.	10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.
יא לָמָּה-לִּי רֹב-זִבְחֵיכֶם יֹאמַר יְהוָה, שָׂבַעְתִּי עֹלוֹת אֵילִים וְחֵלֶב מְרִיאִים; וְדַם פָּרִים וּכְבָשִׂים וְעַתּוּדִים, לֹא חָפָצְתִּי.	11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? saith the LORD; I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats.
יב כִּי תָבֹאוּ, לֵרָאוֹת פָּנָי--מִי-בִקֵּשׁ זֹאת מִיֶּדְכֶם, רְמֹס חֲצֵרָי.	12 When ye come to appear before Me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample My courts?
יג לֹא תוֹסִיפוּ, הָבִיא מִנְחַת-שָׁוְא--קְטֹרֶת תּוֹעֵבָה הִיא, לִי; חֹדֶשׁ וְשַׁבָּת קְרֹא מִקְרָא, לֹא-אוּכַל אָוֶן וַעֲצָרָה.	13 Bring no more vain oblations; it is an offering of abomination unto Me; new moon and sabbath, the holding of convocations--I cannot endure iniquity along with the solemn assembly.
יד חָדְשֵׁיכֶם וּמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם שָׂנְאָה נַפְשִׁי, הָיוּ עָלַי לָטֹרַח; נִלְאֵיתִי, נְשֹׂא.	14 Your new moons and your appointed seasons My soul hateth; they are a burden unto Me; I am weary to bear them.
טו וּבְפָרִשְׂכֶם כַּפֵּיכֶם, אַעְלִים עֵינַי מִכֶּם--גַּם כִּי-תַרְבּוּ תְפִלָּה, אֵינֶנִּי שֹׁמֵעַ: יְדֵיכֶם, דָּמִים מָלֵאוּ.	15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood.
טז רַחֲצוּ, הִזַּכּוּ--הָסִירוּ רֹעַ מַעַלְלֵיכֶם, מִנֶּגֶד עֵינָי: חִדְלוּ, הָרֵעַ.	16 Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes, cease to do evil;
יז לִמְדוּ הֵיטֵב דִּרְשׁוּ מִשְׁפָּט, אַשְּׁרוּ חָמוֹץ; שִׁפְטוּ יָתוֹם, רִיבוּ אַלְמָנָה. {ס}	17 Learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. {S}

This distinction Yeshayahu is making is the distinction between being frum and machmir, on the one hand, and being a good person to your fellow Jew on the other hand. "Yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood."

When someone attempts to impose his chumras on others, and does so through violence, this is absolutely a perversion.

See Miriam Shear's recent article, and see Rabbi Horowitz's recent article about the assault on the bus in Bet Shemesh.

Vayera: Noach And Lot

Reading the parsha, I noticed an interesting parallel between the stories of Noach and Lot.

Both Noach and Lot survive an instance of large scale destruction at the hand of God, with special Divine Providence saving them. Noach via the ark, Lot through leaving the city and also by staying in Tzoar.

But then, at the end of Bereshit 19:

ל וַיַּעַל לוֹט מִצּוֹעַר וַיֵּשֶׁב בָּהָר, וּשְׁתֵּי בְנֹתָיו עִמּוֹ, כִּי יָרֵא, לָשֶׁבֶת בְּצוֹעַר; וַיֵּשֶׁב, בַּמְּעָרָה--הוּא, וּשְׁתֵּי בְנֹתָיו.	30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar; and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
לא וַתֹּאמֶר הַבְּכִירָה אֶל-הַצְּעִירָה, אָבִינוּ זָקֵן; וְאִישׁ אֵין בָּאָרֶץ לָבוֹא עָלֵינוּ, כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל-הָאָרֶץ.	31 And the first-born said unto the younger: 'Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth.
לב לְכָה נַשְׁקֶה אֶת-אָבִינוּ יַיִן, וְנִשְׁכְּבָה עִמּוֹ; וּנְחַיֶּה מֵאָבִינוּ, זָרַע.	32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.'
לג וַתַּשְׁקֶיןָ אֶת-אֲבִיהֶן יַיִן, בַּלַּיְלָה הוּא; וַתָּבֹא הַבְּכִירָה וַתִּשְׁכַּב אֶת-אָבִיהָ, וְלֹא-יָדַע בְּשִׁכְבָהּ וּבְקוּמָהּ.	33 And they made their father drink wine that night. And the first-born went in, and lay with her father; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
לד וַיְהִי, מִמָּחֳרָת, וַתֹּאמֶר הַבְּכִירָה אֶל-הַצְּעִירָה, הֵן-שָׁכַבְתִּי אֶמֶשׁ אֶת-אָבִי; נַשְׁקֶנּוּ יַיִן גַּם-הַלַּיְלָה, וּבֹאִי שִׁכְבִי עִמּוֹ, וּנְחַיֶּה מֵאָבִינוּ, זָרַע.	34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the first-born said unto the younger: 'Behold, I lay yesternight with my father. Let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.'
לה וַתַּשְׁקֶיןָ גַּם בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא, אֶת-אֲבִיהֶן--יָיִן; וַתָּקָם הַצְּעִירָה וַתִּשְׁכַּב עִמּוֹ, וְלֹא-יָדַע בְּשִׁכְבָהּ וּבְקֻמָהּ.	35 And they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose, and lay with him; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
לו וַתַּהֲרֶיןָ שְׁתֵּי בְנוֹת-לוֹט, מֵאֲבִיהֶן.	36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
לז וַתֵּלֶד הַבְּכִירָה בֵּן, וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ מוֹאָב: הוּא אֲבִי-מוֹאָב, עַד-הַיּוֹם.	37 And the first-born bore a son, and called his name Moab--the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
לח וְהַצְּעִירָה גַם-הִוא יָלְדָה בֵּן, וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ בֶּן-עַמִּי: הוּא אֲבִי בְנֵי-עַמּוֹן, עַד-הַיּוֹם. {ס}	38 And the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi--the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

Thus, he was made drunk and his two children (daughters) slept with him.

Compare/contrast to Noach, upon leaving the ark (in Bereshit 9), who became drunk, and whose children (at least two of them) covered their father's nakedness:

כ וַיָּחֶל נֹחַ, אִישׁ הָאֲדָמָה; וַיִּטַּע, כָּרֶם.	20 And Noah the husbandman began, and planted a vineyard.
כא וַיֵּשְׁתְּ מִן-הַיַּיִן, וַיִּשְׁכָּר; וַיִּתְגַּל, בְּתוֹךְ אָהֳלֹה.	21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
כב וַיַּרְא, חָם אֲבִי כְנַעַן, אֵת, עֶרְוַת אָבִיו; וַיַּגֵּד לִשְׁנֵי-אֶחָיו, בַּחוּץ.	22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
כג וַיִּקַּח שֵׁם וָיֶפֶת אֶת-הַשִּׂמְלָה, וַיָּשִׂימוּ עַל-שְׁכֶם שְׁנֵיהֶם, וַיֵּלְכוּ אֲחֹרַנִּית, וַיְכַסּוּ אֵת עֶרְוַת אֲבִיהֶם; וּפְנֵיהֶם, אֲחֹרַנִּית, וְעֶרְוַת אֲבִיהֶם, לֹא רָאוּ.	23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

Also, contrast Noach's awareness of what happened, after recovering from his drunkenness, with Lot's obliviousness. By Noach:

כד וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ, מִיֵּינוֹ; וַיֵּדַע, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה לוֹ בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן.	24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him.
כה וַיֹּאמֶר, אָרוּר כְּנָעַן: עֶבֶד עֲבָדִים, יִהְיֶה לְאֶחָיו.	25 And he said: Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

While by Lot:

לב לְכָה נַשְׁקֶה אֶת-אָבִינוּ יַיִן, וְנִשְׁכְּבָה עִמּוֹ; וּנְחַיֶּה מֵאָבִינוּ, זָרַע.	32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.'
לג וַתַּשְׁקֶיןָ אֶת-אֲבִיהֶן יַיִן, בַּלַּיְלָה הוּא; וַתָּבֹא הַבְּכִירָה וַתִּשְׁכַּב אֶת-אָבִיהָ, וְלֹא-יָדַע בְּשִׁכְבָהּ וּבְקוּמָהּ.	33 And they made their father drink wine that night. And the first-born went in, and lay with her father; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
לד וַיְהִי, מִמָּחֳרָת, וַתֹּאמֶר הַבְּכִירָה אֶל-הַצְּעִירָה, הֵן-שָׁכַבְתִּי אֶמֶשׁ אֶת-אָבִי; נַשְׁקֶנּוּ יַיִן גַּם-הַלַּיְלָה, וּבֹאִי שִׁכְבִי עִמּוֹ, וּנְחַיֶּה מֵאָבִינוּ, זָרַע.	34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the first-born said unto the younger: 'Behold, I lay yesternight with my father. Let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.'
לה וַתַּשְׁקֶיןָ גַּם בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא, אֶת-אֲבִיהֶן--יָיִן; וַתָּקָם הַצְּעִירָה וַתִּשְׁכַּב עִמּוֹ, וְלֹא-יָדַע בְּשִׁכְבָהּ וּבְקֻמָהּ.	35 And they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose, and lay with him; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

Also, the focus on repopulating the earth after the destruction. Thus, by Noach:

א וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹקִים, אֶת-נֹחַ וְאֶת-בָּנָיו; וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ, וּמִלְאוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ.

1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.

And by Lot:

לא וַתֹּאמֶר הַבְּכִירָה אֶל-הַצְּעִירָה, אָבִינוּ זָקֵן; וְאִישׁ אֵין בָּאָרֶץ לָבוֹא עָלֵינוּ, כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל-הָאָרֶץ.	31 And the first-born said unto the younger: 'Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth.
לב לְכָה נַשְׁקֶה אֶת-אָבִינוּ יַיִן, וְנִשְׁכְּבָה עִמּוֹ; וּנְחַיֶּה מֵאָבִינוּ, זָרַע.	32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.'

Nothing deep to say here. Rather, I just spotted this potential connection.