Masei: What Did The King Of Arad Hear?

In parashat Masei, we read:

לט וְאַהֲרֹן, בֶּן-שָׁלֹשׁ וְעֶשְׂרִים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה, בְּמֹתוֹ, בְּהֹר הָהָר. {ס}	39 And Aaron was a hundred and twenty and three years old when he died in mount Hor. {S}
מ וַיִּשְׁמַע, הַכְּנַעֲנִי מֶלֶךְ עֲרָד, וְהוּא-יֹשֵׁב בַּנֶּגֶב, בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן--בְּבֹא, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.	40 And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the South in the land of Canaan, heard of the coming of the children of Israel.--
מא וַיִּסְעוּ, מֵהֹר הָהָר; וַיַּחֲנוּ, בְּצַלְמֹנָה.	41 And they journeyed from mount Hor, and pitched in Zalmonah.

We do not hear the result of his hearing, which is battle. What did he hear? The way this pasuk is structured, with the first ב in בְּבֹא, it seems that he heard X, and he heard this when the Israelites were coming.

Rashi writes:

(מ) וישמע הכנעני -
כאן למדך שמיתת אהרן היא השמועה, שנסתלקו ענני הכבוד וכסבור שנתנה רשות להלחם בישראל, לפיכך חזר וכתבה:

Or in English:

The Canaanite…heard To teach you that it was the news of Aaron’s death that he heard, for the clouds of glory had withdrawn, and he thought that permission had been granted to wage war against Israel. This is why it [Scripture] repeats it [here]. — [R. H. 3a]

The repetition Rashi is referring to is that this already was related in parshat Chukat, at the beginning of Bemidbar 21:

א וַיִּשְׁמַע הַכְּנַעֲנִי מֶלֶךְ-עֲרָד, יֹשֵׁב הַנֶּגֶב, כִּי בָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל, דֶּרֶךְ הָאֲתָרִים; וַיִּלָּחֶם, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיִּשְׁבְּ מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁבִי.	1 And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the South, heard tell that Israel came by the way of Atharim; and he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive.
ב וַיִּדַּר יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶדֶר לַה, וַיֹּאמַר: אִם-נָתֹן תִּתֵּן אֶת-הָעָם הַזֶּה, בְּיָדִי--וְהַחֲרַמְתִּי, אֶת-עָרֵיהֶם.	2 And Israel vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said: 'If Thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities.'
ג וַיִּשְׁמַע יְהוָה בְּקוֹל יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיִּתֵּן אֶת-הַכְּנַעֲנִי, וַיַּחֲרֵם אֶתְהֶם, וְאֶת-עָרֵיהֶם; וַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם-הַמָּקוֹם, חָרְמָה. {פ}	3 And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities; and the name of the place was called Hormah. {P}

and there, Rashi makes a similar comment:

The Canaanite… heard He heard that Aaron had died and that the clouds of glory had departed… as is stated in [Tractate] Rosh Hashanah (3a). Amalek was always a chastising whip for Israel, ready at any time to mete out punishment. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukkath 18, Num. Rabbah 19:20]

If we actually examine the gemara in Rosh HaShana, there is no mention of the fact that the repetition in parshat Masei is that which informs of the content of the shmua. Indeed, the gemara in Rosh HaShana 3a only quotes the first few words of the pasuk, such that it is unclear whether the pasuk in Chukas or in Masei is intended. And the preceding pasuk, in both Chukas and Masei, tells over Aharon's death. And the gemara goes on to make a derasha based specifically on the pesukim in Chukas, where "and Israel saw" becomes "and Israel feared." And indeed, the Torah Or assumes that the gemara is referring to Bemidbar 21, in Chukas, rather than Bemidbar 33, in Masei.

Indeed, running with the idea, in theory, that it is only a derasha in Chukas, what could have told us this?

I could suggest that we have parallel in Bereishit 45:

א וְלֹא-יָכֹל יוֹסֵף לְהִתְאַפֵּק, לְכֹל הַנִּצָּבִים עָלָיו, וַיִּקְרָא, הוֹצִיאוּ כָל-אִישׁ מֵעָלָי; וְלֹא-עָמַד אִישׁ אִתּוֹ, בְּהִתְוַדַּע יוֹסֵף אֶל-אֶחָיו.	1 Then Joseph could not refrain himself before all them that stood by him; and he cried: 'Cause every man to go out from me.' And there stood no man with him, while Joseph made himself known unto his brethren.
ב וַיִּתֵּן אֶת-קֹלוֹ, בִּבְכִי; וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ מִצְרַיִם, וַיִּשְׁמַע בֵּית פַּרְעֹה.	2 And he wept aloud; and the Egyptians heard, and the house of Pharaoh heard.

There, the crying aloud causes וַיִּשְׁמַע בֵּית פַּרְעֹה. Similarly, at the end of Bemidbar 20, we have the crying by the Israelites:

כט וַיִּרְאוּ, כָּל-הָעֵדָה, כִּי גָוַע, אַהֲרֹן; וַיִּבְכּוּ אֶת-אַהֲרֹן שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, כֹּל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל.

29 And when all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead, they wept for Aaron thirty days, even all the house of Israel. {S}

This concept of repetition in Masei, is then Rashi's chiddush, and is not explicit in the gemara. What motivates Rashi in this assertion that the repetition is what causes this interpretation?

You may have noticed that the JPS translation provided with these verses, and how it differs from what Rashi has been saying. They say that he heard of the coming of Israel. This is in line with Ibn Ezra's explanation in Chukas:

ואם תבקש מה שמע הנה מפורש.

I do not believe Ibn Ezra is saying that it is explained here, that it is the death of Aharon at Har HaHar, though one could possibly read that into his words. Rather, he is comparing Chukas with Masei. Continuing to read in Ibn Ezra, it states:

ואם תבקש מה שמע הנה מפורש.
כי בא ישראל דרך האתרים -
האתרים

as the next dibur hamatchil, and as a continuation of the pasuk.

The fact is, in Chukas, one can easily read the כי of כִּי בָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל דֶּרֶךְ הָאֲתָרִים as "that." Thus, we have the peshat that the king of Arad heard that the Israelites were coming. We then do not need to go looking for other things that he heard. However, when it is repeated in Masei, we have instead בְּבֹא בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. Thus, in Masei, it is more difficult to say that the ב in בְּבֹא means "that." This then informs us about Chukas that the כי does not mean "that" but rather "when."

This, then, is Rashi's point. It is the repetition in Masei which is key, for in its repetitious, it becomes clear that it is not the Israelites' coming that he hears of, or "that Israel came by the way of Atharim." If so, vayishma stands alone. And what is left to do is look in the context shared by both Chukas and Masei. And that shared context is the death of Aharon in Har HaHar. Then, they could make that derasha on the preceding pasuk in Chukas.

But it is then not just a derasha. I think Rashi intends this as peshat. That he heard is stated, and on a peshat level, ki means when, as we know from Masei. What he heard must be implicit from the context, and that context is that Israel was down, right after Aharon's death.

What Ibn Ezra would do is force the pasuk in Masei to also mean that he heard "that" Israel was coming. And this is what the JPS translation does. I am not sure it is optimal local peshat, but it certainly is optimal global peshat.

This also relates to my earlier post, about the role of Masei. If Masei was assembled by culling, interpreting and summarizing other pesukim in sefer Bemidbar, this type of construction can be the result.

The Shaatnez Segulah

Seen on one of those molad calendars hanging in shul, where they promote shaatnez testing and the shaatnez lab, but reconstructed from memory, so I might be a bit off on the actual wording.

It is well known, as well as found in sefarim, that checking tefillin and mezuzos to find mistakes can bring great yeshuos. Why should shaatnez be any different?

The tefillin and mezuzah stories are already, IMHO, a bit too much. But this is yet another example of the segulah-ization of Judaism, taking things which are mitzvos -- aseh or lo saaseh -- and performing it not because it is mitzvas haBorei but because it is an easy magic ritual to get what you want. And here, it is not even with any quasi-valid source, but rather a "logical" extension.

Indeed, why should checking that your tzitzis are intact be any different?
Why should checking your food for bugs be any different?
Why should checking the lungs for sirchos be any different?
Why should a woman performing a bedika be any difference? Indeed, for this one, we even have a statement of Chazal we may misrepresent as promising a segulah -- כל היד המרבה לבדוק בנשים משובחת.
Why should bedikas chametz be any different?

(And perhaps segulahs already exist for these.)

Oy vey.

Masei: Did Ibn Ezra *Intend* To Go Against The Trup?

In an earlier post on Masei, I mentioned the dispute between Ramban and Ibn Ezra as to whether al-pi-Hashem binds to lemaseihem or to vayichtov. I omitted the point that, as will many choices of bindings and parsings, the trup can disambiguate. And in this case, the trup certainly appears to disambiguate in accordance with Ramban, that it goes on the writing, and not in accordance with Ibn Ezra, that it goes on their travels.

The pasuk in question is:

וַיִּכְתֹּ֨ב מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶת־מוֹצָֽאֵיהֶ֛ם לְמַסְעֵיהֶ֖ם עַל־פִּ֣י יְהוָ֑ה וְאֵ֥לֶּה מַסְעֵיהֶ֖ם לְמוֹצָֽאֵיהֶֽם׃

and as we can see in this trup chart I made, within the first half of the pasuk (marked by etnachta), the first thing marked off it al-pi-Hashem. Thus, "by the word of the LORD" applies to the full phrase, and the verb of that phrase is vayichtov.

Lion Of Zion noted this in a comment on that post, as well as in his own post, "Did Ibn Ezra Follow The Trup?" He notes that Simcha Kogut notes that Ibn Ezra makes several declarations about the importance of not varying from the peshat given by the author of the trup, yet in this instance, and elsewhere, Ibn Ezra diverges!

For more examples of Ibn Ezra diverging from trup, see Shadal's Vikuach Al Chochmat HaKabbalah, and specifically this post.

Whether or not the trup is like him, there is certainly reason to think that Ibn Ezra is correct in his parsing of the pasuk.

In terms of trup, presumably, if in accordance with Ibn Ezra, we should have a zakef on motzaeihem, so that lemaaseihem al pi Hashem goes together. But that would awkwardly separate motzaeihem from lemaasehem and keep it with vaiyichtov Moshe. Perhaps we should separate off vayichtov Moshe first, with its own zakef?

(I would note that this division, as pictured above, accords with Wickes' principle of continuous syntactic dichotomy, in which you take a phrase beginning with a verb -- in this case vayichtov and chop off noun phrases and prepositional phrases from the end. I wonder, then, whether a case could be made for Ibn Ezra, in which the fact that the prepositional phrase at the end, al-pi Hashem should be lopped off first, even though by rights it is part of another prepositional phrase. Especially if they pay heed to syntax in a way that is not extremely deep. I would like to see other examples or counterexamples of this construction before making judgment on this. However, since this is justa nagging idea, I will assume for now that indeed, Ibn Ezra's peshat is against the trup.)

However, the question is whether Ibn Ezra thinks he is against the trup. As Lion of Zion quoted Ibn Ezra:

"There is a general principle that there is no sage like the מפסיק [the one who divided up the text with trop], for we have seen that in all of Scripture he did not place a disjunctive accent except for where it belonged" (ספר צחות)

Note that as he is defining the actions of the mafsik, he talks about proper placing of disjunctive accents. The implication is the placing of a disjunctive accent as opposed to a conjunctive accent -- a melech as opposed to a meshares.

In this instance, however, we are not debating whether there should be a melech or a meshares, on any given word. All the melachim would remain melachim, and all the mesharsim would remain mesharsim, more or less. The question is which melachim should be placed, where different melachim would show that certain phrases are subphrases of others.

This is a function of the continuous dichotomy that we love to speak of, so often. However, it is quite likely that Ibn Ezra did not know about the principle of continuous dichotomy. Even though this was presumably a principle which guided the person or persons who originally developed the system and marked the accents, this principle was not known in medieval times. To cite Wickes, in a footnote on page 29, when discussing the principle of continuous dichotomy: "Jewish writers on the accents had no more idea of this law than they had of many of the chief grammatical rule. Its discovery is due to the unwearied diligence, with which the study of the accents was pursued by Christian scholars of the 17th century."

Shadal, then, would know of the rule of continuous dichotomy, as would Kogut, since both are after the 17th century. But Ibn lived in the 12th century!

As such, it is quite possible that he would see a bunch of melachim, properly separating off various phrases and subphrases. But lacking the idea of continuous dichotomy, it was equally admissable for al-pi Hashem to bind to lemaseihem as to vayichtov Moshe.

Thus, this is not necessarily Ibn Ezra diverging from trup intentionally. And we should examine the other example in Shadal and elsewhere with this in mind. He may be remaining (in general) true to his position that one should not diverge from the trup.

Fasting on the 17th of Tammuz, pt iii

In previous posts, we covered Rashi's position and Rabbenu Chananel's position. A quick recap:

1) Shalom: Forbidden to fast. Rashi: this is Jewish sovereignty. Rabbenu Chananel: This is the Temple standing.
2) No "Shalom" but yes shmad: Required to fast.
3) No "Shalom" but no shmad: Optional to fast.

So they differ as to their definition of shmad. As noted in the first post, the Divrei Yatziv claims that a close reading of the gemara and Rashi yield the correct interpretation, which is in harmony with Rabbenu Chananel. He writes:

שו"ת דברי יציב חלק אורח חיים סימן רלד
תשעה באב בזמן בית שני

ב"ה, קרית צאנז, עיוהכ"פ תש"ל

אחדשת"ה קבלתי ברוב עונג הספר שהו"ל מהר"ז סופר, וביקשני שאשים עין עליו על מ"ש בסי' ג' בדברי הר"ח, ואם כי אין העת ללבלר לצאת בקולמוסו בכותבת הגסה מפאת היום הקדוש והנורא המתקרב ובא אלינו לטובה, מ"מ ליקרא דאורייתא לא אוכל לחשות ואבוא בשורותיים עכ"פ להראות אות כי חביבין עלי דברי דודים.

א) מ"ש להרבינו חננאל בר"ה דף י"ח ע"ב בזמן שיש שלום כלומר כל זמן שביהמ"ק קיים וכו'.

הנה למה לן לעשות פלוגתא בין רש"י והר"ח, די"ל דגם מ"ש רש"י שאין יד העכו"ם תקיפה על ישראל, היינו הך בזמן שבית המקדש קיים, והש"ס קאמר להדיא התם הני הוא דתלינהו רחמנא בבנין ביהמ"ק, וע"כ דהיינו הך שאין יד עכו"ם תקיפה, וכ"כ רש"י להדיא שם בד"ה אין שלום צום ואע"ג דבזמן הבית קרינהו מועדים טובים.

ומ"ש הר"ח שם בד"ה איתמר וכו' וראיה אלו ג' תעניות וכו' הני ג' צומות הוא דתלינהו רחמנא בבנין הבית וכו', לדעתי הכוונה, שמת"ב אין ראיה דבטלה מגילת תענית, דשאני ת"ב דהוכפלו בו הצרות כדאמר לעיל שם, ולכך נקט רק הנך ג' ודו"ק

We will eventually get to the substance, but first let us talk people, places, and times. As I noted in the first post in the series, the practical application of Rashi's (and Ran's) position could well be a prohibition of fasting and eulogizing on the 17 of Tammuz. Or for that matter, any of the four fasts, including the 9th of Av. I deliberately left out the 9th of Av, because it is possibly made more complicated by the elimination of the state of reshut, such that fasting is either prohibited or required. Still, if Rashi really prohibits in one place, he would seem to also have to prohibit on the 9th of Av, since the laws of both are derived from the same pasuk in Zechariah.

This teshuva was written by the Divrei Yatziv, Rabbi Yekusiel Yehudah Halberstam, ztz"l, who passed away in 1994. He was the first Klausenberger Rebbe. He founded Kiryat Sanz in Netanya and later Kiryat Sanz in Jerusalem. He moved to Israel in 1960. He was also opposed to Zionism, and had disagreements with Hungarian Mizrachi leadership.

This teshuva is dated to Tisha BeAv, 1970, in Kiryat Sanz. Thus, he was in Israel, in an established State of Israel, which had Jewish sovereignty, when answering this. And if Rashi is read the standard way, at odds with Rabbenu Chananel, then as we established Rashi would say that it is forbidden to fast on this day. And this would be a very Zionist position to take.

That is not to declare that this was certainly what motivated him in harmonizing the positions. Firstly, there is a general desire to harmonize positions. And secondly, there are indeed interesting points he makes within the gemara that make his interpretation somewhat compelling. However, while these are the words of the Divrei Yatziv, we need to determine whether these words are "Divrei Nachon." And so, we shall have to go through the gemara, with Rashi, carefully.

However, I will state here the fact that Beis Yosef on Tur separates Rashi's position from that of Ramban and Tur strongly suggests to me that he viewed them as competing, rather than harmonious, readings of the gemara. (Though we should reexamine this as well.) The claim is that when Rashi defines "shalom" as "yad akum tekifa al yisrael," haynu hach, this is the same thing, as the Beis HaMikdash being built. And he has proofs from the gemara, and Rashi, a little lower on the same daf.

I will start by noting that there are two separate quotes from Zechariah that are relevant, and they are cited in different contexts. The first is in Zechariah 7, where the prophet Zechariah is explicitly asked whether to fast now (that the mikdash had been built), and he says no. Those pesukim read:

א וַיְהִי בִּשְׁנַת אַרְבַּע, לְדָרְיָוֶשׁ הַמֶּלֶךְ; הָיָה דְבַר-יְהוָה אֶל-זְכַרְיָה, בְּאַרְבָּעָה לַחֹדֶשׁ הַתְּשִׁעִי--בְּכִסְלֵו.	1 And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Darius, that the word of the LORD came unto Zechariah in the fourth day of the ninth month, even in Chislev;
ב וַיִּשְׁלַח, בֵּית-אֵל, שַׂרְאֶצֶר, וְרֶגֶם מֶלֶךְ וַאֲנָשָׁיו--לְחַלּוֹת, אֶת-פְּנֵי יְהוָה.	2 When Bethel-sarezer, and Regem-melech and his men, had sent to entreat the favour of the LORD,
ג לֵאמֹר, אֶל-הַכֹּהֲנִים אֲשֶׁר לְבֵית-יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, וְאֶל-הַנְּבִיאִים, לֵאמֹר: הַאֶבְכֶּה, בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַחֲמִשִׁי--הִנָּזֵר, כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי זֶה כַּמֶּה שָׁנִים. {פ}	3 and to speak unto the priests of the house of the LORD of hosts, and to the prophets, saying: 'Should I weep in the fifth month, separating myself, as I have done these so many years?' {P}
ד וַיְהִי דְּבַר-יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, אֵלַי לֵאמֹר.	4 Then came the word of the LORD of hosts unto me, saying:
ה אֱמֹר אֶל-כָּל-עַם הָאָרֶץ, וְאֶל-הַכֹּהֲנִים לֵאמֹר: כִּי-צַמְתֶּם וְסָפוֹד בַּחֲמִישִׁי וּבַשְּׁבִיעִי, וְזֶה שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה--הֲצוֹם צַמְתֻּנִי, אָנִי.	5 'Speak unto all the people of the land, and to the priests, saying: When ye fasted and mourned in the fifth and in the seventh month, even these seventy years, did ye at all fast unto Me, even to Me?
ו וְכִי תֹאכְלוּ, וְכִי תִשְׁתּוּ--הֲלוֹא אַתֶּם הָאֹכְלִים, וְאַתֶּם הַשֹּׁתִים.	6 And when ye eat, and when ye drink, are ye not they that eat, and they that drink?
ז הֲלוֹא אֶת-הַדְּבָרִים, אֲשֶׁר קָרָא יְהוָה בְּיַד הַנְּבִיאִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים, בִּהְיוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם יֹשֶׁבֶת וּשְׁלֵוָה, וְעָרֶיהָ סְבִיבֹתֶיהָ; וְהַנֶּגֶב וְהַשְּׁפֵלָה, יֹשֵׁב. {פ}	7 Should ye not hearken to the words which the LORD hath proclaimed by the former prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and in prosperity, and the cities thereof round about her, and the South and the Lowland were inhabited?' {P}

Thus, during the 70 years of exile, in between the first and second temple, they fasted. But now, these folks asked Zechariah whether to fast, and he says no. Rashi cites these pesukim in an interesting context, as we will see in a bit.

This is not the source for the derasha in the gemara about the prohibition vs. requirement to fast. (Or in Rav Pappa's recasting, the prohibition vs. option vs. requirement.) Rather, it is a pasuk in the next perek, in Zechariah 8:

יח וַיְהִי דְּבַר-יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, אֵלַי לֵאמֹר.	18 And the word of the LORD of hosts came unto me, saying:
יט כֹּה-אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, צוֹם הָרְבִיעִי וְצוֹם הַחֲמִישִׁי וְצוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וְצוֹם הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה לְבֵית-יְהוּדָה לְשָׂשׂוֹן וּלְשִׂמְחָה, וּלְמֹעֲדִים, טוֹבִים; וְהָאֱמֶת וְהַשָּׁלוֹם, אֱהָבוּ.	19 'Thus saith the LORD of hosts: The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness, and cheerful seasons; therefore love ye truth and peace. {P}

Is this pasuk saying the same thing as the previous perek, that there will be rejoicing on these days now that the Beis HaMikdash is kayam? Or is this something else entirely? Is the derasha for the days of Bayis Sheni, or are all parts of the derasha for after the churban habayis? That is the question, and we will try to find answers. Rabbenu Chananel defines "shalom" as the Temple standing, so I think it is safe to assume that he sees this pasuk as an echo of the previous perek, and the derasha as referring to during the Bayis vs. after the destruction (vs. perhaps or presumably after the Third Bayis is built). But let us read through the gemara with Rashi, carefully, to see how he takes it.

The gemara:

דף יח, א משנה על ששה חדשים השלוחין יוצאין על ניסן מפני הפסח על אב מפני התענית על אלול מפני ר"ה על תשרי מפני תקנת המועדות על כסליו מפני חנוכה ועל אדר מפני הפורים וכשהיה בהמ"ק קיים יוצאין אף על אייר מפני פסח קטן:

דף יח, א גמרא וליפקו נמי אתמוז וטבת

דף יח, ב גמרא דאמר רב חנא בר ביזנא אמר ר"ש חסידא מאי דכתיב (זכריה ח) כה אמר ה' צבאות צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי וצום העשירי יהיה לבית יהודה לששון ולשמחה קרי להו צום וקרי להו ששון ושמחה בזמן שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה אין שלום צום

אמר רב פפא הכי קאמר בזמן שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה יש [גזרת המלכות] {שמד} צום אין [גזרת המלכות] {שמד} ואין שלום רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין

The first thing to focus on is וליפקו נמי אתמוז וטבת דאמר רב חנא בר ביזנא אמר ר"ש חסידא מאי דכתיב (זכריה ח) כה אמר ה' צבאות צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי וצום העשירי יהיה לבית יהודה לששון ולשמחה קרי להו צום וקרי להו ששון ושמחה בזמן שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה אין שלום צום. Why should they go out to announce Rosh Chodesh during these two times? The first Rashi on the page explains:

"for all of them are days of fast bizman hazeh in which the Temple is not standing, and our Mishna is also speaking bizman hazeh, for that same Mishna on Rosh HaShana 18a states וכשהיה בהמ"ק קיים יוצאין אף על אייר מפני פסח קטן."

Thus, there is an assumption of fast days, because the Beis HaMikdash is not kayam. Is this reading already into the derasha of Rav Chana bar Bizna? There are two possibilities.

The first possibility is that he is within Rav Chana bar Bizna's derasha, and in saying that the Temple is not standing, he is reading this as the second state of Rav Chana bar Bizna's two states. This seems forced because as we will see, when given the opportunity to define "shalom," he does not simply say that the Temple is standing. Rather, he gives a lengthier and different definition, about Jewish sovereignty, and makes no mention of the Temple.

The second possibility is that he knows that Rav Chana bar Bizna's derasha of the pasuk in Zechariah 8 only applies after the Temple was destroyed. During the full length of the Second Temple, there is nothing to talk about, because of Zechariah 7. Indeed, as we will see, Rashi will make this point, that there was no fasting during Bayis Sheni, based specifically on that perek, perek 7, a bit later on. (I am overstating the distinction between the two sources here, for rhetotical effect. In truth, we can probably take the Second Temple period as a time of shalom, because of the Jewish sovereignty.) Thus, Rashi is explaining the gemara's question. The Mishna was not talking about during Bayis Sheni, but afterwards. If so, these are fast days. For according to Rav Chana bar Bizna's derasha, there are only two states after the churban. One is "shalom" and the other is "no shalom." And since Rashi goes on to define "shalom" as Jewish sovereignty, and we see that after the churban the Romans did not allow the Jews total sovereignty -- he would require fasts. And so the Mishna should relate that they sent out agents during those months.

A third possibility is that Rashi is being inconsistent.

I much prefer the second possibility, and so far it looks much more plausible.

The gemara states: בזמן שיש שלום. Rashi defines this as "the hand of the gentiles is not strong on Israel." The idea being Jewish sovereignty. Why not mention the Temple? According to the first possibility, this is difficult. According to the second, it works out perfectly.

And the gemara, and Rashi, proceed as before, defining the three states according to Rav Pappa, with the new intermediate states of shmad vs. no shmad, and the optionality of the fast.

However, there is a later gemara, and Rashi, as well, which I did not cite before. A bit lower on the same amud, we have:













Or in plain text:

איתמר רב ורבי חנינא אמרי בטלה מגילת תענית
רבי יוחנן וריב"ל אמרי לא בטלה מגילת תענית
רב ורבי חנינא אמרי בטלה מגילת תענית הכי קאמר בזמן שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה אין שלום צום והנך נמי כי הני
רבי יוחנן ורבי יהושע בן לוי אמרי לא בטלה מגילת תענית הני הוא דתלינהו רחמנא בבנין בהמ"ק אבל הנך כדקיימי קיימי

Thus, there was a scroll full of dates on which it was not permitted to fast. And that scroll was either annulled after the destruction of the Second Temple, or maintained. This is a matter of dispute between various first generation Amoraim. Interestingly, Rav and Rabbi Chanina were Amoraim of Bavel who came to Eretz Yisrael, while Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi were natives of the land of Israel. At any rate, the setama digmara explains the dispute between them as to whether they equate megillat Taanit with the four fasts discussed above.

Rav and Rabbi Chanina say that the scroll was nullified, such that any day was fair game for fasting. And they equate it with the rules for the four fasts as established in the derasha of Rav Chana bar Bizna.

Rashi now offers explanations which appear to have a lot more in line with "shalom" being the Temple standing. He now writes on אין שלום צום as follows: "and even though in the time of the Temple they were called moadim Tovim." This would seem to imply that the dichotomy is: shalom=bayit is when they are moadim Tovim; vs. no shalom=no bayit and therefore fast days. This ignores Rav Pappa's refinement of the statement, but so what? We see a definition within Rashi, in accordance with Rabbenu Chananel. However, as stated above, this would make the earlier Rashis somewhat awkward, for the reason given.

I believe we should focus on what Rashi does not say, as well as what he does say and upon what words he said it. I still believe we can salvage our earlier peshat. Note that Rashi did not say on yesh shalom that this is when the Temple is built. He also did not state that the definition of ain shalom is that the Temple is no longer standing.

Indeed, the point the gemara is trying to make here is the connection between megillat Taanit and these cancelled fasts. The days listed in megillat Taanit were days which were moadim Tovim of sorts, such that one could not fast or eulogize on them, during Bayit Sheni. But, so these two Amoraim theorize, after the destruction of the Temple, those moadim no longer stand in restricting fasting. So the proper thing to show is that another thing was instituted as a moed during the Second Temple period no longer holds, and it is permitted to fast. The connection is not full. Thus, no one would say that where there is no shalom, it is required to fast on these days in megillat Taanit {or in Rav Pappa's extension, it is required in times of shmad}. Nor are they trying to say, according to Rashi, that in times where there is "shalom," fasting would be forbidden on the days listed in megillat Taanit. It is extremely restricted -- show that something which was a moed during the second Temple can be a fast day, if one wants.

Now look again at what Rashi says on אין שלום צום. All that he says is "and even though in the time of the Temple they were called moadim Tovim." He means that this is the precedent we need from the 17th of Tammuz and the other four days, for a moed in Second Temple times being subject to a potential fast after the destruction of the Temple. The condition for the fast is "no shalom." But he does not define "no shalom" as the destruction of the Temple.

This is then no reversal of what was said before. And this goes to show how important it is to read the sources with due deliberation.

The gemara continues.

Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say that the megillat Taanit was not nullified. And the setama digmara again interjects to supply a reason for their position -- a reason they do not agree with Rav and Rabbi Chanina. The suggested answer: הני הוא דתלינהו רחמנא בבנין בהמ"ק אבל הנך כדקיימי קיימי.

What does this mean? That these days, such as the 17th of Tammuz and the other three days had the status of moed in Second Temple times, and not necessarily after, because the All-Merciful tied them into the building of the Temple. Which Temple? The second Temple, as Rashi will explain. Thus, after the destruction of the Temple, Rav Chana bar Bizna's derasha about shalom vs. not shalom, and Rav Pappa's extension of shmad vs. no shmad, could apply. Such that even some days would be prohibited from fasting, because there was shalom after the bayit. But other days not so. The point is, they no longer had the unquestioned status of moed they had during Second Temple times. In contrast, those days listed in megillat Taanit were not tied into the building of the Second Temple, so after its destruction, they maintain their status of moed, and one cannot fast on them. Again, nothing to do with shalom or no shalom, but rather, whether the status of moed was lifted universally after the churban.

This all makes sense as peshat in the gemara, but that does not mean that Rashi says it. We now need to examine Rashi's words.

On d"h "detalinhu bevinyan," Rashi explains

"that via the destruction they were established as a fast and via the building they were established as a Yom Tov. For when the Second Temple was built, the residents of the exile sent and asked {as we see in perek 7 of Zechariah} הַאֶבְכֶּה, בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַחֲמִשִׁי--הִנָּזֵר, כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי זֶה כַּמֶּה שָׁנִים? 'Should I weep in the fifth month, separating myself, as I have done these so many years?' And Hashem replied {in the same perek} כִּי-צַמְתֶּם וְסָפוֹד בַּחֲמִישִׁי וּבַשְּׁבִיעִי, וְזֶה שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה--הֲצוֹם צַמְתֻּנִי, אָנִי, 'When ye fasted and mourned in the fifth and in the seventh month, even these seventy years, did ye at all fast unto Me, even to Me?' And from then and on, it should be {and now Rashi channels and/or cites the pasuk in perek 8} לְשָׂשׂוֹן וּלְשִׂמְחָה, וּלְמֹעֲדִים, טוֹבִים, " joy and gladness, and cheerful seasons." "

Does this cement the idea that "shalom" means the building of the Mikdash? Not really. When Rashi says "that via the destruction they were established as a fast" he does not mean that via the destruction of the second Temple they were established as a fast. If he had meant that, that would have been a definition of ain shalom as churban habayit. Instead, Rashi meant that via the destruction of the first Temple these four fasts were established as fasts. And this is obvious, and the gemara explains how these came to be. Then, these particular fasts were turned into moed during the second Temple period specifically because of the Temple's construction. He cites the pasuk in perek 8, and this is unfortunate, because it can throw us off. On a peshat level, he is absolutely correct. This is likely what Zechariah meant in perek 8, that from now on, because of the Temple's construction, they would be moadim tovim. And thus, once the Temple is gone, this status of moed might well disappear, and then the full derasha of Rav Chana bar Bizna or Rav Pappa on that pasuk in Zechariah 8 would apply, such that there were times it would still be sasson besimcha, times it would be reshut, and times it would be chovah to fast. However, those days in megillat Taanit did not have this genesis.

But we can maintain a consistent reading throughout the gemara and Rashi, in which he only defines ain shalom as yad haAkum tekifah al yisrael, and not churban habayit. And thus I am not persuaded by the teshuva of the Divrei Yatziv. And so Rashi still means what he meant, with all the potential halachic ramifications.

Next up, Ran and Ramban.

Masei: Did Joshua Add The Section About Arad and Chormah?

In sefer Yehoshua, perek 12, we read:

ז וְאֵלֶּה מַלְכֵי הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר הִכָּה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן יָמָּה, מִבַּעַל גָּד בְּבִקְעַת הַלְּבָנוֹן, וְעַד-הָהָר הֶחָלָק הָעֹלֶה שֵׂעִירָה; וַיִּתְּנָהּ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְשִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, יְרֻשָּׁה--כְּמַחְלְקֹתָם.	7 And these are the kings of the land whom Joshua and the children of Israel smote beyond the Jordan westward, from Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon even unto the bare mountain, that goeth up to Seir; and Joshua gave it unto the tribes of Israel for a possession according to their divisions;
ח בָּהָר וּבַשְּׁפֵלָה, וּבָעֲרָבָה וּבָאֲשֵׁדוֹת, וּבַמִּדְבָּר, וּבַנֶּגֶב--הַחִתִּי, הָאֱמֹרִי, וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי הַפְּרִזִּי, הַחִוִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי. {ש}	8 in the hill-country, and in the Lowland, and in the Arabah, and in the slopes, and in the wilderness, and in the South; the Hittite, the Amorite, and the Canaanite, the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite: {P}
ט מֶלֶךְ יְרִיחוֹ, {ס} אֶחָד; {ס} מֶלֶךְ הָעַי אֲשֶׁר-מִצַּד בֵּית-אֵל, אֶחָד. {ר}	9 the king of Jericho, one; the king of Ai, which is beside Beth-el, one;
י מֶלֶךְ יְרוּשָׁלִַם {ס} אֶחָד, {ס} מֶלֶךְ חֶבְרוֹן {ס} אֶחָד. {ר}	10 the king of Jerusalem, one; the king of Hebron, one;
יא מֶלֶךְ יַרְמוּת {ס} אֶחָד, {ס} מֶלֶךְ לָכִישׁ {ס} אֶחָד. {ר}	11 the king of Jarmuth, one; the king of Lachish, one;
יב מֶלֶךְ עֶגְלוֹן {ס} אֶחָד, {ס} מֶלֶךְ גֶּזֶר {ס} אֶחָד. {ר}	12 the king of Eglon, one; the king of Gezer, one;
יג מֶלֶךְ דְּבִר {ס} אֶחָד, {ס} מֶלֶךְ גֶּדֶר {ס} אֶחָד. {ר}	13 the king of Debir, one; the king of Geder, one;
יד מֶלֶךְ חָרְמָה {ס} אֶחָד, {ס} מֶלֶךְ עֲרָד {ס} אֶחָד. {ר}	14 the king of Hormah, one; the king of Arad, one;
טו מֶלֶךְ לִבְנָה {ס} אֶחָד, {ס} מֶלֶךְ עֲדֻלָּם {ס} אֶחָד. {ר}	15 the king of Libnah, one; the king of Adullam, one;
טז מֶלֶךְ מַקֵּדָה {ס} אֶחָד, {ס} מֶלֶךְ בֵּית-אֵל {ס} אֶחָד. {ר}	16 the king of Makkedah, one; the king of Beth-el, one;
יז מֶלֶךְ תַּפּוּחַ {ס} אֶחָד, {ס} מֶלֶךְ חֵפֶר {ס} אֶחָד. {ר}	17 the king of Tappuah, one; the king of Hepher, one;
יח מֶלֶךְ אֲפֵק {ס} אֶחָד, {ס} מֶלֶךְ לַשָּׁרוֹן {ס} אֶחָד. {ר}	18 the king of Aphek, one; the king of the Sharon, one;
יט מֶלֶךְ מָדוֹן {ס} אֶחָד, {ס} מֶלֶךְ חָצוֹר {ס} אֶחָד. {ר}	19 the king of Madon, one; the king of Hazor, one;
כ מֶלֶךְ שִׁמְרוֹן מְרֹאון {ס} אֶחָד, {ס} מֶלֶךְ אַכְשָׁף {ס} אֶחָד. {ר}	20 the king of Shimron-meron, one; the king of Achshaph, one;
כא מֶלֶךְ תַּעְנַךְ {ס} אֶחָד, {ס} מֶלֶךְ מְגִדּוֹ {ס} אֶחָד. {ר}	21 the king of Taanach, one; the king of Megiddo, one;
כב מֶלֶךְ קֶדֶשׁ {ס} אֶחָד, {ס} מֶלֶךְ-יָקְנְעָם לַכַּרְמֶל {ס} אֶחָד. {ר}	22 the king of Kedesh, one; the king of Jokneam in Carmel, one;
כג מֶלֶךְ דּוֹר לְנָפַת דּוֹר, {ס} אֶחָד; {ס} מֶלֶךְ-גּוֹיִם לְגִלְגָּל, {ס} אֶחָד. {ר}	23 the king of Dor in the region of Dor, one; the king of Goiim in the Gilgal, one;
כד מֶלֶךְ תִּרְצָה, {ס} אֶחָד; {ס} כָּל-מְלָכִים, שְׁלֹשִׁים {ס} וְאֶחָד. {ר} {ש}	24 the king of Tirzah, one. All the kings thirty and one. {P}

Pasuk 14 is troubling, for it states "the king of Hormah, one; the king of Arad, one." But in parshat Masei, we see a king of Arad, who is a Canaanite. In Bemidbar 33:

מ וַיִּשְׁמַע, הַכְּנַעֲנִי מֶלֶךְ עֲרָד, וְהוּא-יֹשֵׁב בַּנֶּגֶב, בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן--בְּבֹא, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

40 And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the South in the land of Canaan, heard of the coming of the children of Israel.--

And in the earlier accounting of this, in parshat Chukat, not only do we have Arad, but Chormah as well:

א וַיִּשְׁמַע הַכְּנַעֲנִי מֶלֶךְ-עֲרָד, יֹשֵׁב הַנֶּגֶב, כִּי בָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל, דֶּרֶךְ הָאֲתָרִים; וַיִּלָּחֶם, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיִּשְׁבְּ מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁבִי.	1 And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the South, heard tell that Israel came by the way of Atharim; and he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive.
ב וַיִּדַּר יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶדֶר לַיהוָה, וַיֹּאמַר: אִם-נָתֹן תִּתֵּן אֶת-הָעָם הַזֶּה, בְּיָדִי--וְהַחֲרַמְתִּי, אֶת-עָרֵיהֶם.	2 And Israel vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said: 'If Thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities.'
ג וַיִּשְׁמַע יְהוָה בְּקוֹל יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיִּתֵּן אֶת-הַכְּנַעֲנִי, וַיַּחֲרֵם אֶתְהֶם, וְאֶת-עָרֵיהֶם; וַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם-הַמָּקוֹם, חָרְמָה. {פ}	3 And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities; and the name of the place was called Hormah. {P}
ד וַיִּסְעוּ מֵהֹר הָהָר, דֶּרֶךְ יַם-סוּף, לִסְבֹב, אֶת-אֶרֶץ אֱדוֹם; וַתִּקְצַר נֶפֶשׁ-הָעָם, בַּדָּרֶךְ.	4 And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way to the Red Sea, to compass the land of Edom; and the soul of the people became impatient because of the way.

Though the text in context, in pasuk 4 places this by Hor HaHar. On the other hand, this whole section might be read as insertion, in which case pasuk 4 tells us nothing.

Is it possible that this is a late insertion into the Torah by Yehoshua, of his own battle?

Ibn Ezra addresses this:

וישמע הכנעני מלך ערד -
אמרו הקדמונים:
שהוא סיחון ונקרא הכנעני כי כל אמורי כנעני.

ורבים אמרו:
כי זאת הפרשה יהושע כתבה והראיה מלך ערד אחד ומצאו שבני יהודה קראו שם המקום חרמה, ולא אמרו כלום כי אותו המקום יקרא בתחלה צפת וזה מלך ערד והאמת שני מקומות ורבים במקרא כמו הם ומלך ערד על פשוטו הוא מעבר לירדן מזרחה ונסמכה זאת הפרשה למות אהרן כי הכתוב ספר מה שאירע בהר ההר קודם נסעם משם והעד: וישמע הכנעני מלך ערד ואחריו ויסעו מהר ההר ואם תבקש מה שמע הנה מפורש.

I don't know who these "many" are, who say this. But why say this, that that place in sefer Yehoshua, in Tzfas (Sefad)? Because there is another pasuk, and another place, called Chormah. In Shofetim 1:17:

יז וַיֵּלֶךְ יְהוּדָה, אֶת-שִׁמְעוֹן אָחִיו, וַיַּכּוּ, אֶת-הַכְּנַעֲנִי יוֹשֵׁב צְפַת; וַיַּחֲרִימוּ אוֹתָהּ, וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שֵׁם-הָעִיר חָרְמָה.

17 And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they smote the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And the name of the city was called Hormah.

Shadal's take on this, in parshas Chukas, is as follows:

נראה כי המאורע הזה איננו אותו שבשופטים (א י"ז), אלא עכשו לקחו קצת מעריהם והשאר בימי יהושע.

I am not 100% certain of the point he is making here. Thus, it would appear that at the least, he does not equate the one in Tzfas to the one in Chukas and Masei. This is one point Ibn Ezra makes, though Ibn Ezra equates the cities in Yehoshua with the cities in Shofetim.

But by saying that now they took some of their cities and the others in the days of Yehoshua, he seems to me to be saying (though I could be wrong) that this is indeed the one mentioned in sefer Yehoshua. Except that it happened earlier, in Penteteuchal times, and just happened to be listed among other cities in sefer Yehoshua, which happened in post-Penteteuchal times, that is only in the days of Yehoshua.

Masei: The Egyptians, Occupied With Burial

Towards the beginning of Masei, we read

ג וַיִּסְעוּ מֵרַעְמְסֵס בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן, בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן: מִמָּחֳרַת הַפֶּסַח, יָצְאוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּיָד רָמָה--לְעֵינֵי, כָּל-מִצְרָיִם.	3 And they journeyed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the morrow after the passover the children of Israel went out with a high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians,
ד וּמִצְרַיִם מְקַבְּרִים, אֵת אֲשֶׁר הִכָּה יְהוָה בָּהֶם--כָּל-בְּכוֹר; וּבֵאלֹהֵיהֶם, עָשָׂה יְהוָה שְׁפָטִים.	4 while the Egyptians were burying them that the LORD had smitten among them, even all their first-born; upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments.

and Rashi explains:

ד) ומצרים מקברים -
טרודים באבלם

that is, occupied with their mourning.

Local to this pasuk, it makes a lot of sense on a peshat level. That is, the second pasuk explains, in part, the taking out of the Israelites with a high hand to the sight of all the Egyptians. They were busy with their burying and mourning.

It struck me that there is a parallel here to parshat Shelach, by the report of the meraglim. In Bemidbar 13:32:

לב וַיֹּצִיאוּ דִּבַּת הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר תָּרוּ אֹתָהּ, אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֵאמֹר: הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר עָבַרְנוּ בָהּ לָתוּר אֹתָהּ, אֶרֶץ אֹכֶלֶת יוֹשְׁבֶיהָ הִוא, וְכָל-הָעָם אֲשֶׁר-רָאִינוּ בְתוֹכָהּ, אַנְשֵׁי מִדּוֹת.

32 And they spread an evil report of the land which they had spied out unto the children of Israel, saying: 'The land, through which we have passed to spy it out, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of great stature.

where Rashi, citing a derasha from Rava in Sotah, explains:

consumes its inhabitants Wherever we passed, we found them burying dead. The Holy One, blessed is He, intended this for good, to keep them occupied with their mourning so they should not notice them [the spies]. — [Sotah 35a]

It may well be that their entrance into the land was to parallel their exiting of Egypt, and this is where Rava borrowed his idea in this midrash.

Interesting Posts and Articles #59

1. Some titles put online by JNUL. The first is a printing of Targum (Preudo-)Yonatan on the Torah. Though we can just use our mikraos gedolos for that. This one does not have the psukim in Hebrew for comparison.
   
   The second is "Gemul Ataliah," which is a play printed in Amsterdam, 1770, which tells over the story of Yoash, and of course Ataliah. It appears to have been a response to other fictionalized accounts. Click on "page 10" on the sidebar to jump to the cast of characters and the beginning of the actual play.
   
   Also, three works by Abarbanel on Jewish theology. He discusses Moreh Nevuchim. Also, Eliyahu will enjoy this one, I think. In Ateres Zekeinim, Abarbanel discusses at length such topics as the malach who went forth before the Israelites, in Shemos.
   
   
2. "Stuffed" -- a Bizarro comic.
   
   
3. A man is committed because he thinks there is a cat in his walls. Except there is. And then they save the cat. This Bizarro comic is appropriate.
   
   
4. Death by 1000 Papercuts thinks what happened (see there) is a fitting result for a pompous psychologist who caused a mistrial by interrupting a video to say that he thought a confession was coerced.
   
   He writes:
   
   "It would strike me as coercive to listen to such an ass. We are discussing the death of a baby."
   
   Yet while he spoke out of turn and perhaps he should not have, given court procedures, the fact that we are discussing an emotional topic does not mean that we should throw critical judgment out the window. See how that worked out from the child abuse witch hunts. In his professional judgment, he thought that the confession was coerced, and thus not valid. And indeed, there are many instances of police pressuring people to confess, including many cases in which the people confessing are innocent. And even in halacha, we have the principle of אין אדם משים עצמו רשע.
   
   
5. Mystical Paths cites various bloggers and new analyses that Obama staged the theft of his note in the kotel. I am no Obama supporter -- I favor McCain, but among the Democrats favored Hillary. However, I do not find this "dan lekaf chovah" to be persuasive. See my comment on that post explaining why.
   
   
6. Jacob Da Jew, Pravda Neeman, and DovBear all find fault with Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz's harmonization of a young earth with scientific findings. I disagree with their takes, and with some of their objections. Even if we disagree with the "young earth" theory, that does not mean that we cannot leave others to maintain it. (Indeed, I see no theological problems with an old earth, and believe that the science supports an old earth.) DovBear, let them kvetch if they want, if their theology compels it, and if it is kvetchable. Not everyone has to agree with your, or my, reading of psukim or rabbinic sources. Pravda, the fact that there are correspondences between the human and ape genome could easily be cast into the whole idea of creating a universe to look old, so your objection does not seem to be an objection. Jacob, yes it would have God appear to be perpetuating a fraud. However, how confident are we of our understanding of God and His Ways? If the alternative to "perpetuating a fraud" is to leave scientific evidence of the world suddenly coming into being in extremely improbable ways, that might well eliminate bechira chofshis. You can counter with arguments the other way, but then this becomes a theologic argument.
   
   
7. The Telegraph has an excerpt from Arthur C. Clarke's final sci-fi work, "The Last Theorem."
   
   
8. My son got a bad scrape, and I had to explain to him why he needed to wear a bandage. This video was quite helpful:
   
   

Fasting on the 17th of Tammuz, pt ii

Plug: Check out my Rif Yomi blog.

See part 1 in this series.

We are going to get back to Rashi's position, perhaps in the next post, but first we need to cover Rabbenu Chananel's interpretation of the gemara. The gemara again, with Rashi and Rabbenu Chananel, is pictured below:

Rabbenu Chananel, in interpreting the gemara, seems to also assume three states, but these states would appear to be (at least at first glance, but perhaps even at last glance) different from Rashi's three states.

Rabbenu Chananel's 3 states are:

1) Shalom: Defined as the Beis HaMikdash in a built state. Thus, he assumes that the Shalom stated by Rav Chana bar Bizna, in interpreting the pasuk from Zecharia, means that the Beis HaMikdash is built. This would be the entire length of Bayis Sheni and, presumably, in the future, at the time of Bayis Shlishi. He does not explain why this would be considered specifically "shalom." (As we interpreted Rashi, perhaps correctly, Rashi held that Shalom meant Jewish sovereignty, rather than the Beis Hamikdash being built.)

Nowadays is when there is no Shalom = Beis HaMikdash. Therefore, it is subject to the following two states:

2) Yesh Gzerat HaMalchut / Shmad, where there would be fasting.

3) No Gezeiras HaMalchus (but also no Shalom) is what Rabbenu Chananel says is "kegon ata," like now. Therefore, it is optional to fast, and since if they do not wish to, they do not have an obligation to fast, therefore, messengers do not go out to inform people about the date of Rosh Chodesh.

Nowadays, it would certainly seem to be a case where, according to Rabbenu Chananel, there is no "Shalom" for the Mikdash is not built in its place. (Those who seriously maintain that 770 is the mikdash in its place perhaps should be obligated to now eat on the four fast-days, but that is a snort-worthy proposition.) At the same time, there is no gezeras hamalchus or shmad in our days, so it should not be obligatory to fast, but rather optional.

However, on top of this optionality, there may or may not be other considerations -- e.g. the decision not to fast may be a communal rather than personal decision, or else while back then it was optional, since then it has (unfortunately) assumed the status of minhag, such that it cannot be undone or opted out of. This is to be the subject of later posts, beEzrat HaShem.

For now, though, we still have the idea developed in the previous post that according to Rashi, it is forbidden to fast, such that this should perhaps we should be machmir not to fast, and such that overcome the optionality or minhag within the other opinions.

We have the words of the Divrei Yatziv that Rashi actually maintains the same position as Rabbenu Chananel. Bli neder, I will get to address this in the next post in this series.

Masei: "And Moshe Wrote"

Parshat Masei begins:

א אֵלֶּה מַסְעֵי בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲשֶׁר יָצְאוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם--לְצִבְאֹתָם: בְּיַד-מֹשֶׁה, וְאַהֲרֹן.	1 These are the stages of the children of Israel, by which they went forth out of the land of Egypt by their hosts under the hand of Moses and Aaron.
ב וַיִּכְתֹּב מֹשֶׁה אֶת-מוֹצָאֵיהֶם, לְמַסְעֵיהֶם--עַל-פִּי ה; וְאֵלֶּה מַסְעֵיהֶם, לְמוֹצָאֵיהֶם.	2 And Moses wrote their goings forth, stage by stage, by the commandment of the LORD; and these are their stages at their goings forth.

And pasuk 2 seems somewhat repetitious of pasuk 1. There are indeed two new pieces of information -- that Moshe wrote their goings forth, and that something was by the commandment of the LORD. Still, it seems a bit awkward, and seems to backtrack a bit.

Indeed, this seems like an addendum to sefer Bemidar, and an index of sorts to their various travels in the desert. It gives us a quick overview of their itenerary. That, together with pasuk 2, suggests that this was a separate source, written by Moshe, and incorporated into the Torah at the end of this sefer.

If so, pasuk 2 could be read as a "defense" by the sadran (even saying it is Moshe or Yehoshua) for why this material should be included in the Torah -- that Moshe Rabbenu wrote the following information, which was then incorporated; and furthermore, this writing was עַל-פִּי ה, by the commandment of the LORD, such that it has the same sanctity.

It is actually a machlokes as to the meaning of עַל-פִּי ה, and to what words it binds.

Ibn Ezra writes:

על פי ה' -
דבק עם למסעיהם.

such that their travels were al pi hashem. He is most likely influenced by the earlier pasuk in Bemidbar 9:20, which states על פי ה' יחנו ועל פי ה' יסעו.

Ramban argues on Ibn Ezra and says that עַל-פִּי ה refers to the writing which Moshe did:

והנה מכתב המסעות מצוות השם היא מן הטעמים הנזכרים, או מזולתן עניין לא נתגלה לנו סודו, כי "על פי ה'" דבק עם "ויכתוב משה", לא כדברי ר"א שאמר שהוא דבק עם "למסעיהם", שכבר הודיענו זה (לעיל ט כ): על פי ה' יחנו ועל פי ה' יסעו

and (as I read it) he takes that earlier pasuk as a reason not to think that this is what it means locally.

Meanwhile, Baal HaTurim claims that the reversal in the second pasuk, of first saying אֶת-מוֹצָאֵיהֶם לְמַסְעֵיהֶם, followed by מַסְעֵיהֶם לְמוֹצָאֵיהֶם, is to show that both מַסְעֵיהֶם and מוֹצָאֵיהֶם were עַל-פִּי ה. I don't agree that this is true on a peshat level, nor am I entirely convinced this is valid on a midrashic level. Still, it appears to demonstrate that he understands עַל-פִּי ה in accordance with Ibn Ezra and not in accordance with Ramban.

Daf Yomi Gittin 9a: To Whom Did Rabbi Yossi Apply The Words In Mishlei?

A bit late, because I let it sit as a draft a bit too long.

Gittin 9a.

והאמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן אע"פ שקילס רבי יוסי את רבי שמעון הלכה כר' מאיר דתניא כשנאמרו דברים לפני ר' יוסי קרא עליו המקרא הזה (משלי כד) שפתים ישק משיב דברים

To whom did he apply this pasuk?

Soncino:
[But can Raba then rule thus, Seeing that] R. Joseph b. Manyumi said in the name of R. Nahman: Although R. Jose commended R. Simeon, the halachah follows R. Meir. For it has been taught: When the discussion was reported to R. Jose, he applied to him [R. Meir] the Scriptural words, He shall be kissed upon the lips that giveth a right answer.

But where, then, is the commendation of Rabbi Shimon? Is this commendation simply left out?

Rashi says on "Although R. Jose commended R. Simeon" the words כדמפרש ואזיל, making it clear that the praise it to come in the gemara, and thus the praise in the brayta is praise of Rabbi Shimon, not Rabbi Meir.

Tosefta Peah:

א,טז הכותב נכסיו לעבדו יצא בן חורין שייר קרקע כל שהוא לא יצא בן חורין ר"ש אומר האומר כל נכסי נתונין לפלוני עבדי חוץ מאחד [מרבוא שבהן לא אמר כלום חוץ מעיר פלונית חוץ משדה פלונית אף על פי שאין שם אלא אותה שדה ואותה העיר זכה עבד זה בנכסים וקנה עצמו בן חורין וכשנאמרו דברים לפני ר' יוסי אמר (משלי כד) שפתים ישק משיב דברים נכוחים.

and Rif makes this even clearer, by moving about the brayta, in to the middle of the quote:

והאמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן אע"פ שקילס ר' יוסי את ר"ש
דתניא כשנאמרו דברים לפני רבי יוסי קרא עליו המקרא הזה שפתים ישק משיב דברים נכוחים
הלכה כר"מ

{Thus, this statement of Rava was in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, it seems.}
But Rav Yosef bar Minyumi cited Rav Nachman: Even though Rabbi Yossi praised Rabbi Shimon, for they learnt {in a brayta}:

When these words were said before Rabbi Yossi, he applied to him {=Rabbi Shimon} this verse {Mishlei 24:26}:

כו שְׂפָתַיִם יִשָּׁק; מֵשִׁיב, דְּבָרִים נְכֹחִים.

26 He kisseth the lips that giveth a right answer.

The halacha is like Rabbi Meir {=the Tanna Kamma}.

Also, it occurred to me that perhaps what is happening here is that the pasuk in Mishlei is applied to Rabbi Shimon in light of his position. That is, perhsps מֵשִׁיב דְּבָרִים נְכֹחִים is a way of describing palginan diburah. Nochach means the one opposite, or opposing. And see in the gemara how this would work out.

Hilchos Rav Alfes

I've been spending a lot of time recently on HebrewBooks.org. What is nice is that besides allowing downloads of full PDFs, they also allow browsing of individual pages online. And in a way that supports direct links to that page. Therefore, if there is some source I want to link to, I can link to it, and people could read the context -- the text before and after, as well as any commentaries on the side, and so on.

And I came across this pdf, הלכות רב אלפס, on Gittin. I think has different pagination that the Rif in our gemaras, but it strikes me as useful. You get to compare our text with their text, to see that it is the same or different; there are sometimes gaps indicating change of topic; and you have convenient access to the Ran while sitting in front of the computer. And this is useful to me, as I post to my Rif Yomi blog.

Here is the first page of the Rif on Gittin. I am not sure who made the emendations -- the printer, or perhaps some shnook, so this is something to keep in mind. But anyway, there are some interesting features just on this first page.

The emendation on the bottom of the page is no doubt correct. While Rava sometimes switches for Rabba, our girsa in the gemara, and our girsa in the Rif in our gemara (see here), has Rabba. And indeed, this is a machlokes, and on the next page in the Rif (even in this printing) Rava argues with this first speaker. So it must be Rabba.

The emendation in the middle of the page is more interestin. There is a gap, followed by והמוליך והמביא ממדינה למדינה במדינת הים. Though there seems not to be a vav there in והמביא, such that it is simply המביא. This gap might indicate a new statement. But note the mark after והמוליך to mark it off. But then, someone inserted a two-letter word in between והמביא and ממדינה. It is hard to make out. The first letter seems to be a gimmel while the second letter seems to be an aleph. But this makes no sense. I would guess the second letter is really a tes. Then, the inserted word is get.

But why should that word get be inserted? The answer, I think, lies in the (accidental) gap, or in the lack of vav in והמביא.

The way one is supposed to read the Mishna (and so does e.g. Rashi read) is with והמוליך as attached to the previous sentence. Thus, not only one who brings from an overseas country (to Eretz Yisrael), but also one who takes it (from Eretz Yisrael to an overseas country). Meanwhile, והמביא (or perhaps without the vav) is the beginning of a separate statement. This may or may not be part of the statement of the Chachamim.

And, as the beginning of a separate statement, one might expect to have get there to explain what is being brought. Indeed, looking to the Yerushalmi Gittin 4b, I would point out the following statement from Rabbi Leizer, which does not have the vav in hameivi, and does indeed have the word get:

מתיב רבי לעזר לרבנן כמא דאית לכון המביא גט ממדינה למדינה במדינת הים צריך שיאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. אף אנא אית לי המביא ממדינה למדינה בא"י צריך שיאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם.

This is not in the Mishna as printed in our Yerushalmi, but it might well have been in the Mishna back then.

If so, this would imply that this is not some accidental emendation by some shnook, but rather making the text comply with a version of the Mishna as reflected in the Yerushalmi. Indeed, the Rif's girsa of the Mishna is (often?) the girsa of the Geonim, and often reflects the Mishna as found in the Yerushalmi.

Interesting Posts and Articles #58

1. "Offensive" advertising for Telma breakfast cereal ripped down. And the blame goes to the chareidim. However, there is no hard evidence that they did it. The advertising is said to be modest, but does show a woman's face, which the chareidim might well be against. On the other hand, we do not get to see the ads in question.
   
   
2. Meanwhile, we see that charedim are indeed against provocative billboards. My Machberes column this week is full of "Tznius News," about efforts to change advertising through legal means.
   
   
3. Yeshiva World News reports that Shas pushed through Knesset the Yeshiva Ketana law, which gives funding to yeshiva ketanas, even though they do not meet state standards at teaching secular subjects. The article does not delineate exactly what they are not teaching, but it is unfortunate that they think it is a good thing to raise a bunch of ignoramuses. Torah study is important, but so is a knowledge of mathematics and biology. See this article over at HaAretz as well.
   
   
4. Getting to know all about you....
   

   "I too come from a frum home (chassidish) and never associated with a male until my marriage. I actually found the idea of not really knowing my chassan until marriage thrilling. After we married we had the chance to connect in such a deep way and to talk about things I had never discussed before with anyone.

   The relationship exclusively between just the two of us made it so dear. I already loved telling him about myself during our sheva berachos."
5. At "New Scientist" a video interview with neuroscientist Chris Frith on "How we don't really use reason." He describes an experiment in which people are asked to choose the more attractive of two women, from photos. And in 20% of the cases, they then present the photo they did not choose and ask why they chose that one as more attractive. And the people come up with plausible reasons.
   
   
6. Over at Lion of Zion, a discussion of the merchah kefulah.
   
   
7. Preparing physically for the Tisha BeAv fast.
   
   
8. And finally, a letter to the editor in the Jewish Press:
   

   I have recently done my own, unscientific, study of the behavior of people in shul and have come to the following conclusion: There is no such thing as tefillah b’tzibur in our shuls. What we have are gatherings of yichidim, individuals, who are all davening in the same location but who appear to have no idea that they are supposed to be part of a congregation.

   In fact, our communities appear to be obsessed with the question of how each individual can improve his or her davening without giving a moment of thought to the question of the tzibur. Why did Chazal place such emphasis on tefillah with a minyan if all we are worried about is our own individual tefillah? Granted that at Borchu and Kaddish one can hear the entire shul answer. But what about during Psukei D’zimra?

   While you are saying Ashrei or one of the other parts of Tehillim, what is being said by the people around you? What about during the brachos of Krias Shema? If you pay attention, I think you’ll notice the same thing I did. We are not a tzibur – at least not when it comes to tefillah.

   
   

   
   I am not so convinced that it would be a good idea to have everyone daven every single part of davening in synch. As noted on the Web Yeshiva blog by Rabbi Chaim Brovender, the definition of tefillah betzibbur is specifically Shemoneh Esrei, and not kaddish and barchu, though one needs a minyan to say them.
   
   
   
   And while I privately lein Shema to myself, when I occassionally daven Friday nights in Etz Chaim, and everyone together leins out loud the first paragraph of Shema, I find that it disturbs my concentration and thus kavana. There are benefits to contemplation, and prayer, at one's own pace. The same I find true for Carlebach minyanim in which they sing together all of kabbalas Shabbas. As such, I think it would be awful for my concentration to institute this for psukei dezimra as well.
   
   Indeed, Chazal talk of spending an hour before tefillah {=Shemoneh Esrei} meditating in order to put oneself in the proper frame of mind. I think that psukei dezimra does an admirable job towards that end, but would not, so much, if it were coordinated as a tefillah betzibbur.
   

Fasting on the 17th of Tammuz, pt i

First, a plug: It is still (always!) a good time to hop onto Rif Yomi. Today we (and Daf Yomi) are up to Gittin daf 14. But it should only take half an hour to catch up. Check out my Rif Yomi blog here.

The gemara in Rosh haShana makes an interesting statement about fasting on the 17th of Tammuz:

Rosh Hashana 18a - b:

דף יח, א משנה על ששה חדשים השלוחין יוצאין על ניסן מפני הפסח על אב מפני התענית על אלול מפני ר"ה על תשרי מפני תקנת המועדות על כסליו מפני חנוכה ועל אדר מפני הפורים וכשהיה בהמ"ק קיים יוצאין אף על אייר מפני פסח קטן:

דף יח, א גמרא וליפקו נמי אתמוז וטבת

דף יח, ב גמרא דאמר רב חנא בר ביזנא אמר ר"ש חסידא מאי דכתיב (זכריה ח) כה אמר ה' צבאות צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי וצום העשירי יהיה לבית יהודה לששון ולשמחה קרי להו צום וקרי להו ששון ושמחה בזמן שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה אין שלום צום אמר רב פפא הכי קאמר בזמן שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה יש [גזרת המלכות] {שמד} צום אין [גזרת המלכות] {שמד} ואין שלום רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין

Here is an image of the gemara, with Rashi, and one of Beis Yosef on Tur siman 550, where he discusses this Rashi.

A few things to note. There are three different states, according to Rav Pappa:

1) Shalom

2) Gezeiras haMalchus

3) No Gezeiras HaMalchus.

Based on the set up of the gemara, it would seem that states 2 and 3 involve a lack of "shalom."

How does Rashi define these states? Firstly, he takes the Beis HaMikdash not being standing, but rather nowadays, as a given in the Mishna. (See the first Rashi.) Thus, the Beis HaMikdash appears to be taken out of the equation.

Then, he gives definitions:

1) Shalom: That the hand of the gentiles is not strong on Israel. In such a case, it is, as per the pasuk in Navi, a time of sasson and simcha, such that, writes Rashi, fasting and mourning is forbidden.

2) Where this is "gezeiras hamalchus" -- or according to a variant text of the gemara -- shmad -- and this is how Beis Yosef cites it -- these there is an obligation to fast on these days.

3) Where there is no gezeiras hamalchus -- then it is a reshus.

Now, in Outlines of Halachos, they write: "Rashi defines Shalom to be autonomy for Yisrael. The Ramban and Tur say that it means when the Mikdash stands."

As we see, all he is doing in Beis Yosef is citing the opinions. I don't see any extra interpretation here. So they are reading "shalom," that the hands of the gentiles are not strong on Israel, as autonomy for Israel.

It certainly cannot be simply lack of shmad, because that would be state 3. And the fact that the negation of it is divided into states, namely that the government over us is nice to us or that they are mean to us, would seem to support this idea of autonomy.

Assuming that it actually means autonomy in Israel (and so it seems as well when Tzitz Eliezer uses the term), then at present we actually have this. Then, according to Rashi, it is prohibited to fast on the 17th of Tammuz, at the very least in Eretz Yisrael, and perhaps throughout the world.

It is not a matter of reshus or chovah to fast, either on an individual or communal level. Rather, Rashi says that in state 1, it is prohibited to fast. If the reshus according to other opinions is on an individual level, perhaps individuals should be machmir to not fast, so as to be choshesh for the opinion of Rashi. And if the reshus is on a communal level, perhaps the communities should opt to be machmir for Rashi's opinion, and decide that as a community they will not fast.

I would note that Ran says the same thing as Rashi.

ומקשי' בגמ' וליפקו נמי אתמוז ואטבת דאמר רב חנא בר ביזנא אר"ש חסידא מאי דכתיב צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי וצום העשירי יהיה לבית יהודה לששון ולשמחה קרי להו צום וקרי להו ששון ושמחה אלא לאו הכי קאמר בזמן שיש להם שלום יהיה לששון ולשמחה אין שלום צום אמר רב פפא הכי קאמר בזמן שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה כלומר שאין העובדי כוכבים תקיפה על ישראל יהיו לששון ולשמחה כלומר שאסורים בהספד ובתענית יש גזירה יש צום אין גזירה ואין שלום רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין. פירוש וכיון דרשות הוא לא מטרחינן שלוחין עלייהו ומקשי' אי הכי ט"ב נמי אמר רב פפא שאני ט"ב הואיל והוכפלו בו צרות דאמר מר ט"ב חרב הבית בראשונה ובשניה ונלכדה ביתר ונחרשה העיר:

However, there is a point claimed by Shu"t Divrei Yatziv that Rashi is really saying the same thing as Rabbenu Chananel, that "shalom" is when the Temple is built. Bli neder, if I continue this series, I will address this when addressing Rabbenu Chananel. I will say up front that I do not find it persuasive.

שו"ת דברי יציב חלק אורח חיים סימן רלד
תשעה באב בזמן בית שני

ב"ה, קרית צאנז, עיוהכ"פ תש"ל

אחדשת"ה קבלתי ברוב עונג הספר שהו"ל מהר"ז סופר, וביקשני שאשים עין עליו על מ"ש בסי' ג' בדברי הר"ח, ואם כי אין העת ללבלר לצאת בקולמוסו בכותבת הגסה מפאת היום הקדוש והנורא המתקרב ובא אלינו לטובה, מ"מ ליקרא דאורייתא לא אוכל לחשות ואבוא בשורותיים עכ"פ להראות אות כי חביבין עלי דברי דודים.

א) מ"ש להרבינו חננאל בר"ה דף י"ח ע"ב בזמן שיש שלום כלומר כל זמן שביהמ"ק קיים וכו'.

הנה למה לן לעשות פלוגתא בין רש"י והר"ח, די"ל דגם מ"ש רש"י שאין יד העכו"ם תקיפה על ישראל, היינו הך בזמן שבית המקדש קיים, והש"ס קאמר להדיא התם הני הוא דתלינהו רחמנא בבנין ביהמ"ק, וע"כ דהיינו הך שאין יד עכו"ם תקיפה, וכ"כ רש"י להדיא שם בד"ה אין שלום צום ואע"ג דבזמן הבית קרינהו מועדים טובים.

ומ"ש הר"ח שם בד"ה איתמר וכו' וראיה אלו ג' תעניות וכו' הני ג' צומות הוא דתלינהו רחמנא בבנין הבית וכו', לדעתי הכוונה, שמת"ב אין ראיה דבטלה מגילת תענית, דשאני ת"ב דהוכפלו בו הצרות כדאמר לעיל שם, ולכך נקט רק הנך ג' ודו"ק.

To be continued, bli neder...

Please note: Not halacha lemaaseh. And we have not covered the entirety of the topic. But food for thought.