My theory about the runaway scapegoat

According to a Yerushalmi in Yoma (33b), in many cases, the scapegoat would run away:

כל ימים שהיה שמעון הצדיק קיים לא היה מגיע למחצית ההר עד שנעשה איברין איברין משמת שמעון הצדיק היה בורח למדבר והסרקין אוכלין אותו

"All the days Shimon the righteous was alive, it did not reach half down the mountain before it was turned to pieces {due to hitting the jagged rocks}. Once Shimon the righteous died, it would flee to the wilderness, and the desert-dwellers would eat it.

Now this is actually a large span of years from the death of Shimon haTzaddik until the churban bayis sheni.

My theory -- and it is no more than that -- is that this was no mishap, but was the result of deliberate action by Tzedukim. Locally, when put together in context of the other things which occurred of did not occur, the intent would seem to be that this was due to the lack of merit; but we can still theorize. I would note motive, opportunity, and prevalence of Tzedukim.

The goat running away every year is almost comical, though it was likely taken as an unfortunate omen every year by the people living through it. However, the pesukim in Acharei Mos never explicitly say to push the goat off the cliff, but rather to send it out into the wilderness, which is exactly what is happening here. Rashbam interprets the pesukim, on the peshat level, in this way, comparing it to the birds of the leper, one of which is slaughtered and one of which is sent out alive into the field. So it seems quite plausible that the facts on the ground corresponded with some otherwise un-noted Sadducee Biblical interpretation. This would be motive.

There was also opportunity. The designated man, the ish itti, went out alone to those cliffs. There was no one to witness him, and it is easy to claim it ran away, with no one able to accuse him of deliberately diverting from the ceremony.

Tzedukim were also prevalent in the kehunah in second-Temple times. There are famous incidents, such as King Yannai being pelted with Esrogim after misperforming the nisuach hamayim because of Sadducee beliefs. And the Tzeduki who boasted to his father about performing the ketores part of the ceremony in accordance with Tzeduki interpretation, where the father predicted correctly that his son would not live out the year. The Mishna tells us how they modified the ritual on Yom Kippur with an extreme leniency to counteract the position of the Tzedukim (about Tevul Yom, IIRC), and compensated by adding a bunch of stringencies. And the Mishna tells us how every year they would impose an oath on the Kohen Gadol not to divert, and they would turn away and cry, and he would turn away and cry, the reason being the suspicion that he may be a Tzeduki.

The gemara speaks about how almost no kohen gadol lived out the year. Bavli Yoma 9a reads:

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן מאי דכתיב (משלי י) יראת ה' תוסיף ימים ושנות רשעים תקצרנה יראת ה' תוסיף ימים זה מקדש ראשון שעמד ארבע מאות ועשר שנים ולא שמשו בו אלא י"ח כהנים גדולים ושנות רשעים תקצרנה זה מקדש שני שעמד ד' מאות ועשרים שנה ושמשו בו יותר משלש מאות כהנים צא מהם מ' שנה ששמש שמעון הצדיק ושמונים ששמש יוחנן כהן גדול עשר ששמש ישמעאל בן פאבי ואמרי לה י"א ששמש ר' אלעזר בן חרסום מכאן ואילך צא וחשוב כל אחד ואחד לא הוציא שנתו

This because they purchased the position, and were not worthy. Perhaps also because many were Tzedukim, for Tzedukim were indeed prevalent in the kehuna. We have the Chizkuni, discussed earlier, about how the ish itti, the one who conveyed the scapegoat to the wilderness, would also not survive the year, perhaps also because of not being worthy. Though I have my doubts about that midrash, as noted. And these were presumably the same who let the goat run into the wilderness, year after year after year. Maybe there is a hint to their following Tzeduki practices here.

This is all non-solid, and the theory approaches being a conspiracy theory. Yet it seems to me to be somewhat plausible.

Interesting Posts and Articles #143

1. Life In Israel posts about strawberries and creepy crawly things, particularly on strawberries in Israel. An excerpt:
   

   This year, they say, the strawberries are infested to the point that the bug party is not just at the top by the leaf, but all over the strawberry - by the seeds in the wall of the berry - thus making it impossible to clean properly and eat (unless perhaps if you would peel the strawberry - not very practical).
   ...
   Just for kicks, I bought strawberries on Friday for shabbos. I took a couple of random berries from the bag and inspected them very closely, but only with my naked eye. I pulled out the little pips and inspected them, and under them. I inspected the whole berry very thoroughly. Yet I was unable to see any creepy crawly or clingy buggies.

   I don't know if there were any thrips on them. I am no expert in identifying thrips. They are quite small, and hard to see. Though some say that once you are shown them, you can spot them even on other strawberries. Here is a YouTube video with the claim, and someone getting the thrips to move, and pointing them out on a berry; and how even after washing in soapy water, a thrip survives. This video is blown up -- the strawberries are larger than life, and even there, the thrips are hard to see, but are visible in the end. But this also means thrips are 1/2 or 1/3 the size. Check it out:
   
   
   It seems like they are moving in response to being prodded. It could be that this could have halachic impact, aside from the small size. Also, I wonder at this soap solution, which they are saying is not working on the present strawberries. Strawberries are spongy. Does the washing of the outside of the fruit, as shown, really get out soap absorbed into the internal flesh of the fruit, or is there still soap inside?
   
   
2. Blog In Dm points out a bunch on musical errors in a dvar Torah all about music, "The Seven Keys of Music." E.g.
   

   It is likely, then, that another tradition handed down from Yuval is for the keys that play major notes to be white, for happy songs, while the black keys, which play the minor notes, are black, for mournful music. White is a source ofchessed for Klal Yisrael (this may be one reason why doctors wear white); on the Yomim Nora'im we wear white kittels. Black, on the other hand, represents the trait of gvurah and is a source and an expression of melancholy.

   In response:
   

   The white key/black key distinction is fairly recent, as keyboard instruments and that color scheme are not that old. Most instruments don't have this distinction at all. A violin, or clarinet, for example, don’t have black keys. Yuval predates the concept of white/black keys by five thousand years or so. (That's a low-ball estimate assuming he takes the chronology of Maaseh Breisihis literally.)
   
   The key of A minor and some other minor modes use white keys only.

3. A bathroom mirror two inches too high drags a family-owned restaurant into a lawsuit.
   
   
4. At Thanbook, Cantor Sherwood Goffin posts from Rabbi Yehuda HaChassid, that trup goes all the way back:
   

   Proof Text #1: In Parshat Yitro (19:19) it says: “...Moses would speak and G-d would respond to him with a voice.”
   ...
   Rabbi Yehuda HeChasid ... writes that “voice” is the Taamei HaMikra, the musical “trop.” How could they listen to G-d reciting an entire parallel Oral Law as Moses taught the Torah? The answer given by the Sefer HaChassidim is that this was the heavenly melody of the Torah Trop that punctuates the text of the Chumash and therefore serves as a “code matrix” from which emanated the Torah she-b’al peh!

   I've posted about theories of the age of trup before on parshablog. Here, for example, is part xxx of a selection from Shadal's Vikuach where he addresses the age of trup. There is, admittedly, a difference between the orthography and the application of trup, but it seems that many famous Biblical commentators did not hold that trup was miSinai.
   
   
5. The Jewish Worker does not need prizes to give tzedakka. Maybe so, but these gimmicks serve as a way of reminding folks, "hey, we're here."
   
   
6. At Mystical Paths, Reb Akiva debunks an email going about:
   

   By email from a friend, alerting me to the amazing approach of Mars in August of 2009, which aligns with a blood moon statement of the Zohar during Elul...
   
   ...
   
   

   This comes right from the Zohar that tells us the Geulah will begin with the appearance of the blood moon in Elul!!!

   Man that sounds good! Except...it's not true. It's actually from 2003, when Mars did make it's closest approach in 60,000 secular years and appeared 6 times larger than usual for a few nights - which made it still 10 times smaller than the moon.

   I would add my own debunking. Who says a blood moon is Mars?! Surely Rashbi, or Ramdel, knew the Hebrew word for Mars. Meanwhile, the blood moon, or hunter's moon, (I think named for its color) is the first full moon after the autumn equinox, and I think it makes sense at around Elul. {Update: Or as Joe in Australia points out, a lunar eclipse, when the moon looks red.} I have not seen the particular Zohar inside, but I know how people kvetch Zohars. But I would guess that it is in part derived from the pasuk in Yoel 3,
   the continuation of the famous pasuk we cite in the Hagaddah:
   
   

   ג וְנָתַתִּי, מוֹפְתִים, בַּשָּׁמַיִם, וּבָאָרֶץ: דָּם וָאֵשׁ, וְתִימְרוֹת עָשָׁן.	3 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.
   ד הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ יֵהָפֵךְ לְחֹשֶׁךְ, וְהַיָּרֵחַ לְדָם--לִפְנֵי, בּוֹא יוֹם יְהוָה, הַגָּדוֹל, וְהַנּוֹרָא.	4 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the LORD come.

   If so, it stands to reason that this Zohar is a reference to the moon, rather than to Mars. But this is of course off the cuff, and I should check out this Zohar inside, I suppose.

Shaving as a sign of mourning, brief followup

Just a quick followup to the idea presented in a previous post, that on a peshat level, the prohibited shaving in the Torah was specifically in mourning for the dead. As pointed out there, one can intuit it from context.

But in this post, two more bits of evidence. The first in Yeshaya 15:

א מַשָּׂא, מוֹאָב: כִּי בְּלֵיל שֻׁדַּד עָר מוֹאָב, נִדְמָה--כִּי בְּלֵיל שֻׁדַּד קִיר-מוֹאָב, נִדְמָה.	1 The burden of Moab. For in the night that Ar of Moab is laid waste, he is brought to ruin; for in the night that Kir of Moab is laid waste, he is brought to ruin.
ב עָלָה הַבַּיִת וְדִיבֹן הַבָּמוֹת, לְבֶכִי: עַל-נְבוֹ וְעַל מֵידְבָא, מוֹאָב יְיֵלִיל--בְּכָל-רֹאשָׁיו קָרְחָה, כָּל-זָקָן גְּרוּעָה.	2 He is gone up to Baith, and to Dibon, to the high places, to weep; upon Nebo, and upon Medeba, Moab howleth; on all their heads is baldness, every beard is shaven.
ג בְּחוּצֹתָיו, חָגְרוּ שָׂק: עַל גַּגּוֹתֶיהָ וּבִרְחֹבֹתֶיהָ כֻּלֹּה יְיֵלִיל, יֹרֵד בַּבֶּכִי.	3 In their streets they gird themselves with sackcloth; on their housetops, and in their broad places, every one howleth, weeping profusely.

Note the juxtaposition, and how this is shaving as an emotional reaction to the destruction, and perhaps even as mourning.

The second bit of evidence is from Herodotus, father of history, or else father of lies. In The Histories 2.35-36, he writes:

Elsewhere priests grow their hair long; in Egypt they shave their heads. In other nations the relatives of the deceased in time of mourning cut their hair, but the Egyptians, who shave at all other times, mark a death by letting the hair grow both on head and chin.

Note the connection specifically with the priestly caste; this accords with the pasuk in Emor singling out the kohanim, and with Rambam relating it to avodah zarah practices. But also note the connection with death, and how in many cultures, cutting the hair is a sign of mourning.

Did the designated man live out the year?

A curious Chizkuni in parshat Acharei Mos. The pasuk states:

כא וְסָמַךְ אַהֲרֹן אֶת-שְׁתֵּי יָדָו, עַל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׂעִיר הַחַי, וְהִתְוַדָּה עָלָיו אֶת-כָּל-עֲו‍ֹנֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֶת-כָּל-פִּשְׁעֵיהֶם לְכָל-חַטֹּאתָם; וְנָתַן אֹתָם עַל-רֹאשׁ הַשָּׂעִיר, וְשִׁלַּח בְּיַד-אִישׁ עִתִּי הַמִּדְבָּרָה.

21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of an appointed man into the wilderness.

And Chizkuni writes: בְּיַד-אִישׁ עִתִּי: If is found in midrash: itti {denoting time}-- that he has reached his time to die, within that year. For behold, he who conveys the goat does not pass the year {alive}. Therefore, they would choose a man who had reached his time to die within that year. And the science of the zodiac was easy in their eyes.

My strong sense is that Chizkuni's quote of the midrash end before the word "For."

Thus, itti {denoting time}-- that he has reached his time to die, within that year.

And the rest is Chizkuni's interpretation of that midrash. I have not been successful in tracking down that midrash.

I would disagree with Chizkuni's interpretation here. He is transforming it from a single derasha into a double. The source for the fact that he would not live out that year is the word itti, that he was thus with a fixed time. Instead, he takes this as background, as a given, and claims that with astrological knowledge they chose someone who would die anyway within that year, so as not to condemn a man to death -- and that itti was "that he has reached his time to die" already before being chosen. Is this then to be the instruction of the Torah, to use astrology in this way because of what would be known to happen? I would hasten to add that even if this were the intent, one could choose a sickly individual, without having to resort to astrology (a science of those days, rather than a superstition).

We can compare this to others who did not live out the year. The Tzeduki Kohen gadol who put the ketores on at the wrong point, in accordance with Sadducee beliefs did not live out the year. And the gemara in Bavli Yoma 9a reads:

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן מאי דכתיב (משלי י) יראת ה' תוסיף ימים ושנות רשעים תקצרנה יראת ה' תוסיף ימים זה מקדש ראשון שעמד ארבע מאות ועשר שנים ולא שמשו בו אלא י"ח כהנים גדולים ושנות רשעים תקצרנה זה מקדש שני שעמד ד' מאות ועשרים שנה ושמשו בו יותר משלש מאות כהנים צא מהם מ' שנה ששמש שמעון הצדיק ושמונים ששמש יוחנן כהן גדול עשר ששמש ישמעאל בן פאבי ואמרי לה י"א ששמש ר' אלעזר בן חרסום מכאן ואילך צא וחשוב כל אחד ואחד לא הוציא שנתו

such that for a long stretch, the kohen gadol each year did not survive the year. But this was punishment, or not being of the proper level. In Yerushalmi Yoma, we see that for a similar span, the conveyor to Azazel was unsuccessful, with the goat running off, only to be eventually consumed by desert dwellers. I have a theory ... perhaps a conspiracy theory, but perhaps not ... that this too was the result of Sadducees, who interpreted the pasuk to mean that it should be released into the wilderness. Perhaps I will post more on this theory later. But anyway, perhaps this midrash took its cue from this gemara about kohanim gedolim of Yom Kippur not living out the year.

What would be the implication of itti almost meaning "condemned"? Perhaps as immediately above, but this would seem to be assuming the unworthiness of the individual. Perhaps the idea is that not only the goat was being condemned to death, but also he who conveyed it. Especially if we understand Azazel as Samael, this might be interpreted as a sort of human sacrifice. Or being impacted by the interaction with Samael. Or the person as a type of atonement for the community. Chizkuni does understand it as a bribe to Samael, and as such, he is mitigating this human sacrifice by choosing someone who would die anyway, and reads this into the pasuk. I don't know, but this midrash makes me uncomfortable.

Any other suggestions as to how to understand this midrash? Any leads on where to find this midrash, other than Chizkuni. Where is the Kli Yakar who discusses it?

Kedoshim: Zechuru or Dechuru

In parshat Kedoshim, a little girsological confusion within Onkelos and other Targumim. The pasuk states

לא אַל-תִּפְנוּ אֶל-הָאֹבֹת וְאֶל-הַיִּדְּעֹנִים, אַל-תְּבַקְשׁוּ לְטָמְאָה בָהֶם: אֲנִי, ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם.

31 Turn ye not unto the ghosts, nor unto familiar spirits; seek them not out, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.

and Onkelos translates:

יט,לא אַל-תִּפְנוּ אֶל-הָאֹבֹת וְאֶל-הַיִּדְּעֹנִים, אַל-תְּבַקְשׁוּ לְטָמְאָה בָהֶם: אֲנִי, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם.

לָא תִּתְפְּנוֹן בָּתַר בִּדִּין וּזְכוּרוּ, לָא תִּתְבְּעוּן לְאִסְתַּאָבָא בְּהוֹן: אֲנָא, יְיָ אֱלָהֲכוֹן.

while Targum Yerushalmi has it with a daled, as we would expect, and Targum Yonatan (which is Yerushalmi) has with a zayin, just like Onkelos. Shadal, in Ohev Ger, grapples with it, for this is zachar, as in the male organ, which is used for divination purposes. And in Hebrew it is with a zayin, but in Aramaic, which is the language of Targum, we should find a daled. Thus, in Ohev Ger:


But there are differing nuschaot in Onkelos, with the majority having a zayin.

I don't think this is such a challenging problem. It is possible that both are correct, but at the least, the one with the zayin is correct. Now it is true that there is the daled/zayin switch-off between Hebrew and Aramaic. And it is also probable that "male-genital" in this case is derived from the word zachar, "male," which indeed has the daled/zayin switchoff.

However, there are some words that have zayin in both languages, and some words which have daled in both languages. This is a result of the historical development and divergence of the two languages. There was initially a third sound, probably pronounced dh as in the English word "either," and it a mix of daled and zayin. It mapped in Hebrew to the zayin and in Aramaic to the daled. But words which were initially pure daled or pure zayin would remain constant between both languages.

Such a division would only occur in the development of the language. But if words were borrowed subsequently, as loan-words, who says that they would conform to this divergence. After all, Aramaic also has a zayin, and speakers would not necessarily modify the word to conform to the etymology. Who says the typical speakers of an organic language are grammarians?! And as this is a word prone to slang, it makes sense as a late borrowing.

Indeed, these seem to be the facts on the ground. As Jastrow writes on page 400 in his dictionary... well, look at the image to the right. The top entry is for the Hebrew word zachrut. The bottom entry is marked ch. same, which means Chaldean, that is Aramaic, of the same. And it is zachruta, with a zayin. And he gives multiple examples of clearly Aramaic words, with Aramaic suffixes and context, such that it has a zayin there.

Meanwhile, for דכר with a daled, Jastrow has an entry in Aramaic for "male," but not for "male genitals." Perhaps those texts with the zayin represent a correction by speakers of the language, or later writers of the language, such that it is a genuine entry. But it would seem somewhat likely to me that some scribe, knowing it to be Aramaic, would correct it in some manuscripts.

Shaving specifically for a meis

I've seen this before, and it does seem to make sense on a peshat level based on the pesukim in Torah as well as various pesukim in Nach, but anyway, this is propounded by Shadal as peshat, after Ibn Ezra. The pasuk in perek 19:

כז לֹא תַקִּפוּ, פְּאַת רֹאשְׁכֶם; וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית, אֵת פְּאַת זְקָנֶךָ.	27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
כח וְשֶׂרֶט לָנֶפֶשׁ, לֹא תִתְּנוּ בִּבְשַׂרְכֶם, וּכְתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע, לֹא תִתְּנוּ בָּכֶם: אֲנִי, יְהוָה.	28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor imprint any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

Note the context. Ibn Ezra here writes:

[יט, כז
וטעם להזכיר לא תקפו פאת ראשכם –
כמעשה הגוים להיות מובדלים מהם ואחר ששיער הראש והזקן לתפארת נברא, אין ראוי להשחיתו.

ויש אומרים:
כי זה הפסוק דבק עם ושרט לנפש, כי יש מי שישחית פאת ראשו גם פאת זקן בעבור המת.

and later in Emor, in perek 21, by kohanim, where the context is also for a dead relative:

א וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, אֱמֹר אֶל-הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן; וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם, לְנֶפֶשׁ לֹא-יִטַּמָּא בְּעַמָּיו.	1 And the LORD said unto Moses: Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them: There shall none defile himself for the dead among his people;
ב כִּי, אִם-לִשְׁאֵרוֹ, הַקָּרֹב, אֵלָיו: לְאִמּוֹ וּלְאָבִיו, וְלִבְנוֹ וּלְבִתּוֹ וּלְאָחִיו.	2 except for his kin, that is near unto him, for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother;
ג וְלַאֲחֹתוֹ הַבְּתוּלָה הַקְּרוֹבָה אֵלָיו, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-הָיְתָה לְאִישׁ--לָהּ, יִטַּמָּא.	3 and for his sister a virgin, that is near unto him, that hath had no husband, for her may he defile himself.
ד לֹא יִטַּמָּא, בַּעַל בְּעַמָּיו--לְהֵחַלּוֹ.	4 He shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself.
ה לֹא-יקרחה (יִקְרְחוּ) קָרְחָה בְּרֹאשָׁם, וּפְאַת זְקָנָם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ; וּבִבְשָׂרָם--לֹא יִשְׂרְטוּ, שָׂרָטֶת.	5 They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.

Note how the context from the earlier pesukim is for a dead relative, and once again how it is juxtaposed to making cuttings in the flesh, which in Kedoshim was specifically for the dead. Ibn Ezra there writes:

[כא, ה]
לא יקרחה קרחה בראשם -
על המת.

ופאת זקנם -
על המת כמנהג מקומות בארץ כשדים והנה התברר פירוש את פאת זקנך.

וטעם שרטת –
אפילו אחת וכבר נזהרו ישראל על אלה.
וטעם הזהירם כי ראש מוקרח וזקן מגולח ובשר שרוט, לא ישמש לפני השם.

So it seems that on a peshat level he endorses it being specifically for a meis.

Shadal, too, writes:

ולא תשחית את פאת זקנך : השחתת הפאה נזכרה אצל שרט לנפש מת , וכן בכהנים ( למט הכ " א ה ') ופאת זקנם לא יגלחו ובבשרם לא ישרטו שרת , ועיין הראב " ע שם . והנה לפי הפשט כל ישראל אסורים להשחית זקנם מפני אבלות על מת ולכהנים נאסר אפילו הגלוח , גם הוא על מת.

I will not analyze the pesukim in Nach in this post.

But we accept the Perushi interpretation. However, if someone turns around to argue against certain leniencies in Chazal, or later rabbinic interpretation of Chazal in this matter -- especially if they do it on the basis of claimed readings into pesukim in Tanach (... and I am not talking theoretically here) -- well, then we can appeal to this peshat level. We stand here in action based on Chazal and their interpretations, and the Rishonim and Acharonim and their interpretations, and if you want to undermine some interpretation to impose a stringency, we could undermine it all the way until we have massive leniency.

Thus, Baal HaTurim has a derasha about scissors vs. razors, a distinction found as well in the gemara. He notes that the gematria of וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית is zehu taar velo misparayim. This is useful, especially as he is also a halachic authority. Meanwhile, Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite takes pains to explain וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית as with any tool, whether a razor or a scissors.

Did a researcher "admit" swine flu was manufactured in a lab?

Snopes has not covered this, so I thought I would step up to the plate, by bringing prominence to this. Swine flu naturally has all the conspiracy theorists in a frenzy. Among the biggest claims for it all being a plot is the Dallas Country Health Director, John Carlo, referring to it as having been cultivated in a lab. Thus, in this video, at about the 52 second mark, he refers to "this strain of swine influenza that's been cultured in the laboratory..."



The implication would be that someone deliberately created this. However, a local reporter spoke to him to get clarification, in the wake of the reaction from conspiracy theorists. He clarifies:

"I'm 36, and I don't blog," Carlo says. "But it hit the blogosphere very quickly, and we need to figure out how to be available to that media as well. We've been tracking this element of the news, and I went back and reviewed the information and where this came from -- and to be honest, I didn't see how that impression had been directed. But, of course, at this point, this is something completely natural. There should be no consideration this is man-made. This is something that has happened throughout history. Swine flu isn't rare. We see it every other year in the U.S. The point was, it's a completely new virus and something not seen before anywhere -- this particular strain of swine flu."

For those needing further elucidation -- say, anyone who's never watched a television medical drama or been to a doctor -- when Carlo said the strain had been cultured in a lab, he just meant: "They took the swab off the individual infected with the illness and grew it in the lab," he says. "It's confusing, but it certainly wasn't created in a lab. I guess it seems obvious for the medical professionals. I'm working with my advisers to make it clear on the messaging. We definitely don't want to convey that it was created in the lab."

Interesting Posts and Articles #142

1. Rav Aviner on genuine spiritual aids, and against segulot.

   People often times turn to Rabbis asking for "segulot" [spiritual aids or shortcuts] to help the sick. Besides going to the doctor, they look for spiritual tricks, recitation of a particular verse, or an amulet, just so there is some change for the better. Unfortunately, they are searching in vain for something that does not exist.

   
   

   Some will respond: “Who says? My aunt had no children, she used a 'segulah' and now, thank G-d, there are children around her table.” Yet someone else had a childless aunt who used no "segulah," and children were born to her anyway. The fact is that ten percent of barren couples experience spontaneous cures without knowing the cause.
   
   

   ...
   
   “Repentance, prayer and charity ward off the evil decree!” These are our spiritual resources, and there is no need to look for all kinds of strange things. Where are all of these strange things mentioned? In the Torah? In the Tanach? In the Mishnah? Is it written that when our great Sages had troubles, they used "segulot," with mezuzot and amulets? Where have we heard of such a thing? Not in the Torah, not in the Mishnah and not in the Talmud. Rather, they prayed and they repented and performed kind deeds.
   

   And so on. Check it out. And yet, what if the Torah, Mishnah, or Talmud had mentioned segulot? Is it the case that every belief mentioned in the Talmud, if mentioned as a segulah, has weight? What about, e.g., Shabbat 67a:
   

   A tanna recited the chapter of Amorite practices before R. Hiyya b. Abin. Said he to him: All these are forbidden as Amorite practices, save the following: If one has a bone in his throat, he may bring of that kind, place it on his head, and say thus: 'One by one go down, swallow, go down one by one': this is not considered the ways of the Amorite. For a fish bone he should say thus: 'Thou art stuck in like a pin, thou art locked up as [within] a cuirass; go down, go down.'

   In a recent comment on a post discussing a dream a father had of his murdered son, we have:
   

   There is an excellent book "Dream Interpretation" by the great Rabbi Shelomo Almoli written in the 16th century (published by Ktav) and some further info on dreams can be read here.

   I also have a sefer on dream interpretation on my shelf, and beside that, we have these books from Rabbi Shlomo Almoli, a Rav in Constantinople in the early 1500s:
   
   

   מפשר חלמין	אלמולי, שלמה	שאלוניקי ?	רעה
   פתרון חלומות	שלמה אלמולי	אמשטירדאם	שצז

   
   But just because kabbalists develop a theory of dreams, or rishonim do, or indeed the gemara does, does not mean that such is true. And it may well be within the realm of frum rationalist Jews to reject these as false. At least in the Talmud, it was a "science," which is then perhaps easier to reject. As it later developed, they presumably built upon the earlier theories. Science knows a lot more about sleep and dreams than they knew back then, and not every Talmudic theory must we adopt.
   
   
2. Rabbi Slifkin, at his Rationalist Judaism blog, notes an article about netilat yadayim shel shacharit, and how an article claims it was originally understood by the gemara and rishonim as a hygenic measure, only to be reinterpreted by kabbalists and ritualized. Seems similar, to me, to how sefirat haOmer was coopted and reinterpreted to be all about Sefirot.
   
   
3. Shirat Devorah notes that a recent crop circle depicted the sun, and how this is meaningful so shortly after birchat hachammah. Unless of course it is a warning about a solar storm in 2012.
   
   This is surprising, because I did not know that Hashem was an alien from the planet Xenon.
   
   That is, there are two popular explanations for crop circles. One is that aliens leave them as messages for earthlings; and the other is that farmers seeking fame, or some distraction other than cow-tipping, make these designs in fields and then watch in amusement as the public reacts. Obviously, I favor the latter explanation.
   
   But that Hashem is communicating with us via these crop circles, which basically just conspiracy folk and ufologists pay attention too... I've never encountered this belief before. Interesting.
   
   
4. Life In Israel on pledging money to tzedakah to avoid jail. I wonder if that impacts their ability to appreciate the human action of the guy who let them go...
   
   
5. Finally, via DovBear, Martha Stewart tours Streit's. Nice video, check it out.
   
   

What are "their statutes"?

Toward the end of parshat Acharei Mos, we have a section detailing impermissible sexual relationships. In Vayikra 18:

א וַיְדַבֵּר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.	1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
ב דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם: אֲנִי, ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם.	2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: I am the LORD your God.
ג כְּמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ-מִצְרַיִם אֲשֶׁר יְשַׁבְתֶּם-בָּהּ, לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ; וּכְמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ-כְּנַעַן אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה, לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ, וּבְחֻקֹּתֵיהֶם, לֹא תֵלֵכוּ.	3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in their statutes.
ד אֶת-מִשְׁפָּטַי תַּעֲשׂוּ וְאֶת-חֻקֹּתַי תִּשְׁמְרוּ, לָלֶכֶת בָּהֶם: אֲנִי, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם.	4 Mine ordinances shall ye do, and My statutes shall ye keep, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.
ה וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת-חֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת-מִשְׁפָּטַי, אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם הָאָדָם וָחַי בָּהֶם: אֲנִי, ה. {ס}	5 Ye shall therefore keep My statutes, and Mine ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by them: I am the LORD. {S}

What then follows are a list of relationships with relatives which are not permitted. How does this flow? What is the meaning of these chukot of those of Egypt or Canaan which one should not engage in, compared with the chukot of Hashem, in pasuk 4, which one should follow?

Ibn Ezra has an attempt:

ובחקתיהם לא תלכו -
שלא ירגיל אדם ללכת בדרך הזה עד שיהיה לו חק.

which seems to me somewhat weak, as the meaning of chok.

But Ramban quotes Ibn Ezra:

ג): ועל דעת ר"א (לעיל יז טז):

הזכיר כמעשה ארץ מצרים - על השעירים הנזכרים, וכמעשה ארץ כנען - על העריות שהיו הכנענים בהם רעים וחטאים, כאשר אמר בסוף (פסוק כז): כי את כל התועבות האל עשו אנשי הארץ.

ועל דעת רבותינו בתורת כוהנים (אחרי ט ג):

היו גם המצרים שטופים בזימה בכל העריות ובזכור ובבהמה.

והוא האמת, כי גם קדש היה בארץ בזכור מאז ועד עתה. והכתוב מעיד בהן, בני מצרים שכניך גדלי בשר (יחזקאל טז כו), ואומר אשר בשר חמורים בשרם וזרמת סוסים זרמתם (שם כג כ). והבשר כנוי, וכן זב מבשרו (לעיל טו ב), דם יהיה זובה בבשרה (שם פסוק יט

Thus, this means practices, and one is distancing oneself from these practices, whether the ones above or below, and following Hashem's statutes.

Rashi explains it to mean customs, or superstitious practices, and explains why refer to them as law:

and you shall not follow their statutes: What did Scripture omit [until now] that it did not state [and includes in this clause]? However, these are their social practices, things that assumed the status of law (חָקוּק) for them, for example, [certain days set aside for attendance at] theaters and stadiums. Rabbi Meir says: These [practices referred to here,] are the “ways of the Amorites,” [the superstitious practices] enumerated by our Sages. — [see Shab. 67ab; Torath Kohanim 18: 139]

ובחקתיהם לא תלכו: מה הניח הכתוב שלא אמר, אלא אלו נמוסות שלהן, דברים החקוקין להם, כגון טרטיאות ואצטדיאות. רבי מאיר אומר אלו דרכי האמורי שמנו חכמים:

But -- and here we finally get to the point I was trying to develop -- Shadal as a pashtan would like this to be a statute, that is, instituted law, at some point. Thus,

ג ובחקתיהם לא תלכו : בכל התועבות הנזכרות לפנינו לא מצאנו ענין שיהיה חוק אלא העברת הבנים למולך . ונראה כי כמו שהייבום הוא חוק אצלנו , כך קצת מן העריות היה חוק אצל האומות ההן על פי תנאים ידועים .

The only "statute" in context would possibly be sacrificing children to Molech, but chukot are mentioned in plural! He suggests that for some of these close family members, there might be something akin to yibbum, where under certain circumstances, the law dictates a marriage. And thus, this would be a statute. I would interject here that we see Yehuda performing yibbum on Tamar, his daughter-in-law, who should otherwise be prohibited; and we have, according to Ramban, customary Yibbum that Boaz performs on Rut in megillat Rut. One could imagine statute in other cases, where it is not necessarily yibbum after a death of a husband, but in other situations as well.

I would add an alternative; by Canaanite law, there might be no statute requiring a marriage, but within their set of laws, these particular relationships might not be forbidden. As such, one should not conduct oneself in accordance with their statutes, which do not forbid these, but rather with Hashem's statutes.

Consider the following, from Ancient Near East C. 3000-330 BC, By Amélie Kuhrt.

Note that there are places considered less civilized. The Hittites had laws about these things, but he was writing to someone who lived in a place they did not have such laws. To quote,

"As for the fact that you have (married) their sister, for Hatti {=Hittite people} there is a law: 'a brother may not have intercourse with his own sister not his female cousin; that is not right. Whoever does such a thing, he does not live in Hattusa, he is killed.' Because your country is barbarous, it is usual (??) that a brother takes his sister or female cousin (sexually). But that is not right in Hattusa, etc."

This is in line with the idea I described above. What is meant by "usual?" I have not seen the original, but this language, in English, appears to echo the idea of Ibn Ezra of repetition making something as if a statute. Also, this text apparently continues by outlining all sorts of forbidden sexual relationships, which he is imposing upon this fellow by oath.

Thus, we have evidence here of differing codes of permitted vs. prohibited sexual relationships in the Ancient Near East, and in Canaan. And Hashem is laying out an Israel sexual code, and imposing it on the Israelites to the exclusion of whatever sexual conduct codes they may find already in place in Canaan. And the statutes in the code in place in Azzi-Hayasi is at odds with, e.g.:

ט עֶרְוַת אֲחוֹתְךָ בַת-אָבִיךָ, אוֹ בַת-אִמֶּךָ, מוֹלֶדֶת בַּיִת, אוֹ מוֹלֶדֶת חוּץ--לֹא תְגַלֶּה, עֶרְוָתָן. {ס}

9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother, whether born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

Kedoshim sources

by aliyah
rishon (19:1)
sheni (19:15)
shelishi (19:23)
revii (19:33)
chamishi (20:1)
shishi (20:8)
shevii (20:23)
maftir (20:25)
haftara (Amos 9:7)
haftara, according to Sefardim, Italians (Yechezkel 20)

by perek
perek 19 ; perek 20

meforshim
Judaica Press Rashi in English
Shadal (and here)
Mishtadel
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Lekach Tov, Yalkut Shimoni, Gilyonot.
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew)
Tiferes Yehonasan from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz
Chasdei Yehonasan -- not until Emor
Toldos Yitzchak Acharon, repeated from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz
Even Shleimah -- from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich
R' Saadia Gaon's Tafsir, Arabic translation of Torah (here and here)
Rashbam (and here)
Abarbanel
Vayikra Rabba, with commentaries
Torah Temimah
Kli Yakar
Zohar, with English translation
Baal Haturim
Baal Haturim (HaAruch)
Torat Hatur
Ibn Janach
Rabbenu Ephraim
Ibn Caspi
Ralbag
Dubno Maggid
Imrei Shafer, Rav Shlomo Kluger
Ateret Zekeinim
Mei Noach
Arugat HaBosem
Yalkut Perushim LaTorah
R' Yosef Bechor Shor
Meiri
Ibn Gabirol
Rabbenu Yonah
Seforno
Aderet Eliyahu (Gra)
Kol Eliyahu (Gra) -- not until Emor
Sefer Zikaron of Ritva -- not until Chukas
Malbim
Chiddushei HaGriz -- not until Bemidbar
Noam Elimelech
Michlal Yofi
Nesivot Hashalom

The following meforshim at JNUL. I've discovered that if you click on the icon to rotate sideways, change to only black and white, select only the portion which is text, it is eminently readable on paper.

Ralbag (pg 261)

Baal HaTurim (38)

Rabbenu Bachya (176)
Naftulei Elohim (upon Rabbenu Bachya) (27)

Chizkuni (100)

Abarbanel (257)

Shach (174)

Paneach Raza (57)

Yalkut Reuveni (pg 124)

Sefer Hachinuch (pg 67)

Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (172)

rashi
Daat, Rashi In Hebrew (perek 19)
Judaica Press Rashi in English and Hebrew
Mizrachi, Mizrachi (on Rashi, 206)
Gur Aryeh (Maharal of Prague)
Maharsha
Siftei Chachamim
Berliner's Beur on Rashi
Commentary on Rashi by Yosef of Krasnitz
R' Yisrael Isserlin (on Rashi, 12)
Two supercommentaries on Rashi, by Chasdai Almosnino and Yaakov Kneizel
Rav Natan ben Shishon Shapira Ashkenazi (16th century), (JNUL, pg 103)
Taz -- not until Emor
Levush HaOrah
Mohar`al
Yeriot Shlomo (Maharshal)
Moda L'Bina (Wolf Heidenheim)
Dikdukei Rashi
Mekorei Rashi (in Mechokekei Yehuda)
Bartenura
Yosef Daas
Nachalas Yaakov
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Rashi with Sifsei Chachamim

ramban
Daat, Ramban in Hebrew (perek 19)
R' Yitzchak Abohav's on Ramban (standalone and in a Tanach opposite Ramban)
Kesef Mezukak
Kanfei Nesharim
Rabbi Meir Abusaula (student of Rashba)

ibn ezra
Daat, Ibn Ezra in Hebrew (perek 19)
Mechokekei Yehudah, (Daat)
Mechokekei Yehudah (HebrewBooks)
Mavaser Ezra
R' Shmuel Motot (on Ibn Ezra, pg 37)
Ibn Kaspi's supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, different from his commentary (here and here)
Mekor Chaim, Ohel Yosef, Motot
Avi Ezer
Tzofnas Paneach
Ezra Lehavin
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Ibn Ezra with Avi Ezer

targum
Targum Onkelos opposite Torah text
Targum Onkelos and Targum Pseudo-Yonatan in English
Shadal's Ohev Ger
Berliner
Chalifot Semalot
Avnei Tzion -- two commentaries on Onkelos
Bei`urei Onkelos
Or Hatargum on Onkelos
Targum Yonatan
Commentary on Targum Yonatan and Targum Yerushalmi
Septuagint
Origen's Hexapla (JNUL)

masorah
Tanach with masoretic notes on the side
Commentary on the Masorah
Minchas Shai
Or Torah
Taamei Masoret
Masoret HaKeriah
Shiluv Hamasorot -- not until Emor
Masoret HaBrit HaGadol
Rama (but based on alphabet, not parsha)
Vetus Testamentum

midrash
Midrash Rabba at Daat (19)
Midrash Tanchuma at Daat (19)
Vayikra Rabba, with commentaries
Midrash Tanchuma with commentary of Etz Yosef and Anaf Yosef
Commentary on Midrash Rabba by R' Naftali Hirtz b'R' Menachem
Matat-Kah on Midrash Rabba
Nefesh Yehonasan by Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz

haftarah (Amos 9:7-15)

In a separate Mikraos Gedolos, with Targum, Rashi, Radak, Ralbag, Minchat Shai, Metzudat David.

Rashis in English

Haftarah in Gutnick edition

Daat, with Ibn Ezra and Yalkut Shimoni

Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (91)
Parshandata

alternate haftarah (Yechezkel 20:2-20, continuing into 22:1-16)
Haftarah in Gutnick Edition
Rashis in English
In a separate Mikraos Gedolos, with Targum, Rashi, Radak, Ralbag, Minchat Shai, Metzudat David.
Daat, with a link to Yalkut Shimoni, Gilyonot, and to Shadal (page 9 in PDF)
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite
Radak (pg 181)

alternate haftara (Yechezkel 22:1)

In a separate Mikraos Gedolos, with Targum, Rashi, Radak, Ralbag, Minchat Shai, Metzudat David.
Haftarah in Gutnick edition

Rashis in English

Daat, with a link to Yalkut Shimoni, Gilyonot, and to Shadal (page 16 in PDF)

Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (pg 83)

Radak (page 186)

Why mention that it was "acharei mot" the death of Aharon's sons?

It could simply be a way of fixing the general time these commandments were given. However, part of peshat is considering the nuances of context, and when we see:

א וַיְדַבֵּר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, אַחֲרֵי מוֹת, שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן--בְּקָרְבָתָם לִפְנֵי-ה, וַיָּמֻתוּ.	1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before the LORD, and died;
ב וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, דַּבֵּר אֶל-אַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ, וְאַל-יָבֹא בְכָל-עֵת אֶל-הַקֹּדֶשׁ, מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת--אֶל-פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל-הָאָרֹן, וְלֹא יָמוּת, כִּי בֶּעָנָן, אֵרָאֶה עַל-הַכַּפֹּרֶת.	2 and the LORD said unto Moses: 'Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil, before the ark-cover which is upon the ark; that he die not; for I appear in the cloud upon the ark-cover.

that juxtaposition might indeed imply something. At the most general level, and weakest claim, that one has to appreciate the bounds set due to the extreme degree of holiness, and the manifestation of Hashem, such that care must be taken.

On the other hand, this looming possibility of death in overstepping bounds in kodesh is not restricted to Aharon. If we look to the previous perek, we have:

לא וְהִזַּרְתֶּם אֶת-בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִטֻּמְאָתָם; וְלֹא יָמֻתוּ בְּטֻמְאָתָם, בְּטַמְּאָם אֶת-מִשְׁכָּנִי אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹכָם.

31 Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile My tabernacle that is in the midst of them.

If so, this could be mere coincidental juxtaposition.

But back to the first hand, note the repetition, spelling out the incident: "when they drew near before the LORD, and died." This might be cast as simple reminder, but it might be cast in a different direction as well.

One can say further, along the lines of this juxtaposition. The precise nature of Nadav and Avihu's sin is not clear. And midrash, and even peshat, may be to determine the nature of their crimes from this juxtaposition. Perhaps Nadav and Avihu trespassed in this exact way, and that is why Aharon is now being warned about it.

Now on to the meforshim and their positions. Rashi writes:

א) וידבר ה' אל משה אחרי מות שני בני אהרן וגו' -
מה תלמוד לומר?

היה רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מושלו משל לחולה שנכנס אצלו רופא.
אמר לו: אל תאכל צונן ואל תשכב בטחב.
בא אחר ואמר לו אל תאכל צונן ואל תשכב בטחב שלא תמות כדרך שמת פלוני.
זה זרזו יותר מן הראשון, לכך נאמר אחרי מות שני בני אהרן:

(ב) ויאמר ה' אל משה דבר אל אהרן אחיך ואל יבא -
שלא ימות כדרך שמתו בניו:
ולא ימות -
שאם בא הוא מת:
כי בענן אראה -
כי תמיד אני נראה שם עם עמוד ענני.
ולפי שגלוי שכינתי שם, יזהר שלא ירגיל לבא, זהו פשוטו.

ומדרשו:

לא יבא כי אם בענן הקטרת ביום הכיפורים:

Thus, what happened to Aharon's sons serves as a memorable warning, and so including this reference in the pasuk, dating it, is somehow akin to mentioning it. And Rashi works in the comparison there. Is the actual they did precisely this actions. One could read Rashi that way, I think.

Ibn Ezra writes:

אחרי מות -
אחרי שהזהיר את ישראל שלא ימותו, אמר השם למשה שיזהיר גם לאהרן שלא ימות כאשר מתו בניו וזאת הפרשה לאות, כי בני אהרן הכניסו הקטורת לפנים מהפרכת.

Thus, he maintains that this is precisely their sin.

Ramban writes:

טעם אחרי מות שני בני אהרן -
כי מיד כאשר מתו בניו הזהיר את אהרן מן היין ומן השכר שלא ימות (לעיל י ח ט), ואמר עוד למשה שיזהיר אותו שלא ימות בקרבתו לפני ה'. והקרוב, שהיו שתי המצוות האלה ביום המחרת למיתתם, כי בו ביום אונן היה, ואין רוח הקודש שורה מתוך עצבות (שבת ל ב). ואזהרת היין, הדבור לאהרן היה, ובאותו היום הייתה גם זאת המצוה למשה, אבל הקדים הכתוב האזהרות שהזהיר את ישראל שלא ימותו בטומאתם בטמאם את משכני אשר בתוכם, ואחרי כן כתב אזהרת היחיד.

ועל דעתי, כל התורה כסדר, שכל המקומות אשר בהם יאחר המוקדם יפרש בו כגון וידבר ה' אל משה בהר סיני (להלן כה א): בספר הזה, וכגון ויהי ביום כלות משה להקים את המשכן (במדבר ז א): בספר השני, וכיוצא בהן, ולכך אמר בכאן "אחרי מות", להודיע כי היה זה אחרי מותם מיד.

ועל דברי רבותינו (תו"כ פרשה א ג) שאמרו:

שלא תמות כדרך שמת פלוני, זה זרזו יותר מן הראשון, יהיה טעם הכתוב שאמר השם למשה בלשון הזה, אחרי שמתו שני בני אהרן בקרבתם לפני ה' אמור אליו שלא יבא בכל עת אל הקדש ולא ימות.

There are elements of merely fixing the time, but also connecting the cause, of not going at all times into the kodesh.

Seforno just has it as going past what one is commanded. Thus:

וְ"אַחֲרֵי מות שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אַהֲרן" אָמַר לְמשֶׁה "דַּבֵּר אֶל אַהֲרן.. וְאַל יָבא" שֶׁלּא יִכָּנֵס יותֵר מִמַּה שֶׁצֻּוָּה "וְלא יָמוּת", כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמֵּתוּ בָּנָיו בִּהְיותָם הורְסִים לַעֲשׂות קְטרֶת יותֵר מִמַּה שֶׁצֻּוּוּ. וְזֶה 'לְזַרְזו יותֵר מִן הָרִאשׁון'.

Rashbam also connects the cause, of not entering the mikdash when not in accordance with law:

אחרי מות -
הזהיר את אהרן שלא ימות בבניו על ביאת מקדש שלא כדת.

Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite takes issue with Ibn Ezra. It is entirely to fix the time, just as in the examples Ramban gives. It is to show that it was immediately after their death. But it is not showing their sin. For Aharon their father did not enter there, so how did they enter? And further, one can say according to his words that they were drunk, for the warning was after this immediately. (This is the position of Rabbi Yishmael, brought down by Rashi as the details of their sin.)

I don't know. Semichut overdone is drash, but some semichut is what we call context; and it pays to pay heed to nuances in the text. However, at the most, I would say that the purpose is to show the danger involved, and the awe one must have, in dealing with kodesh.

Shadal writes:

א אחרי מות : אעפ " י שהם לא נכנסו לקודש הקדשים , מכל מקום היתה מיתתם מפני זילזולם בכבוד ובמורא הראוי למשכן ה ' ולעבודתו .

Interesting Posts and Articles #141

1. Why did Hashem create flies? (Well, aside from as in this midrash.) Assuming that flies are indeed what are being mentioned, rather than assuming that they have no purpose, perhaps see what naturalists claim. According to this website, flies have the following impact on the ecosystem:
   

   Positive
   Flies and other insects, such as burying beetles, are very important in consuming and eliminating dead bodies of animals. Flies are also essential in the conversion of feces and decaying vegetation to soil. Flies serve as prey to many other animals. Some flies aid in pollination.

   Negative
   Because of their habits of being attracted to feces and decaying meat, flies have been implicated in transmission of disease such as dysentery, typhoid fever, and cholera.

2. A Beur on Sefer Bereishit by Naftali Hertz Weizel, at HebrewBooks. The edge is too often cut off, though. Here is another one. Perhaps will be useful to learn together with Shadal.
   
   
3. The NFL schedule had the Jets playing on both Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur. This bothered Jewish fans, and there were efforts to change the schedule. As I understand, they eventually succeeded, by moving one of the games a bit earlier. But here is Jimmy Kimmel talking about it, and he has an interview with a Jewish Jets player, who is upset about the situation:
   
   
   
4. Life In Israel about fighting over exercise equipment in a public venue, and whether the issue is tznius or public safety.
   
   
5. The Yeshiva World has how Rav Ovadiah Yosef came out strongly against smoking. At DovBear, Jameel notes the weirdness of the instruction to slap them. Must be a cultural thing.
   
   Update: In the comment section, Michael points us to this video:
   
   
   
6. Also at DovBear, A Mother In Israel talks about tznius and breastfeeding in shul. While not taking a position on it, I will note that it is not just culture vs. halacha. There is an intersection of culturally-based attitudes and halachah. For example, spitting in shul, into spitoons, was acceptable practice, and there used to be spittoons in certain shuls. And halachah permits spitting in shul. Nowadays, this is not so acceptable (except perhaps among some Lubavitz, who spit by shehem mishtachavim lahavel varik).