Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Is rain a negative omen on Succot?

Two years ago, at a Succos table, I was telling a friend of mine the parable of the kiton shel mayim, from the Mishna in Succah:
מתני' כל שבעת הימים אדם עושה סוכתו קבע וביתו עראי ירדו גשמים מאימתי מותר לפנות משתסרח המקפה משלו משל למה הדבר דומה לעבד שבא למזוג כוס לרבו ושפך לו קיתון על פניו:

Junior, who was carefully listening to every word of the conversation, was extremely upset with the mashal, before I got to the nimshal. He could not understand why the master would do such a thing to his servant, that the servant brought him a pitcher of water and he threw it in his face. So upset that I didn't try to give him the nimshal, that we, trying to sit in the Succah, are like the eved and Hashem is the Master.

What is the point of this allegory? There are two possibilities. One strong one is as a counter to those who would subject themselves to the pouring rain to sit in the Succah, regardless. Hashem doesn't want this, and it is then a bit impetuous. A second one is that we should consider rain on Succot, when we are trying to sit in the Succah, as a mark of Hashem's displeasure with us. Perhaps.

This year, on the first night of Succot, we had just finished kiddush, hamotzi and our challah, and had brought all the food of the main course into the succah when the sky opened up on us. Soon thereafter, we began eating the meal in the house, as the rain was not stopping. Junior was very upset. Why would Hashem do this to us, not letting us fulfill the mitzvah of eating in the Succah.

I wasn't about to use the mashal of the kiton shel mayim and besides, I didn't want to start him thinking of reasons Hashem would be displeased with us, for various reasons I won't go into, but the least of which is that he would take it extremely to heart and be incredibly sad, which is counter to the idea of simchat yom tov. But I told him the halachic explanation for leaving the succah. The mitzvah is teishvu ke'ein taduru, that you should treat the succah like your house and live in it as you live in your house. If it were raining cats and dogs into your house, and ruining your soup, wouldn't you leave and seek shelter elsewhere? This amused him, and made him happy.

So what are we to make of the rain on Succot. Besides the rain on the first night, there were other days it was raining heavily, such that we did not eat in the Succah. Is this is sign of Divine displeasure?

I am not so sure.

Consider the following pesukim from Shmuel Aleph, perek 12, just after the Bnei Yisrael asked for a king, to be like all the other nations:

טז  גַּם-עַתָּה הִתְיַצְּבוּ וּרְאוּ, אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה, אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה, עֹשֶׂה לְעֵינֵיכֶם.16 Now therefore stand still and see this great thing, which the LORD will do before your eyes.
יז  הֲלוֹא קְצִיר-חִטִּים, הַיּוֹם--אֶקְרָא אֶל-יְהוָה, וְיִתֵּן קֹלוֹת וּמָטָר; וּדְעוּ וּרְאוּ, כִּי-רָעַתְכֶם רַבָּה אֲשֶׁר עֲשִׂיתֶם בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה, לִשְׁאוֹל לָכֶם, מֶלֶךְ.  {ס}17 Is it not wheat harvest to-day? I will call unto the LORD, that He may send thunder and rain; and ye shall know and see that your wickedness is great, which ye have done in the sight of the LORD, in asking you a king.' {S}
יח  וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוּאֵל אֶל-יְהוָה, וַיִּתֵּן יְהוָה קֹלֹת וּמָטָר בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא; וַיִּירָא כָל-הָעָם מְאֹד אֶת-יְהוָה, וְאֶת-שְׁמוּאֵל.18 So Samuel called unto the LORD; and the LORD sent thunder and rain that day; and all the people greatly feared the LORD and Samuel.
יט  וַיֹּאמְרוּ כָל-הָעָם אֶל-שְׁמוּאֵל, הִתְפַּלֵּל בְּעַד-עֲבָדֶיךָ אֶל-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ--וְאַל-נָמוּת:  כִּי-יָסַפְנוּ עַל-כָּל-חַטֹּאתֵינוּ רָעָה, לִשְׁאֹל לָנוּ מֶלֶךְ.19 And all the people said unto Samuel: 'Pray for thy servants unto the LORD thy God, that we die not; for we have added unto all our sins this evil, to ask us a king.'

The reason it was clear that this was a sign from heaven, rather than a natural occurrence, was that besides being right after Shmuel's prediction, it was the day of the wheat harvest. I read this as rain not being expected during this time.

Consider if Shmuel had stood in Seattle and predicted rain. Here are some Seattle weather jokes:
What do you call two straight days of rain in Seattle?
A weekend. 

It only rains twice a year in Seattle:
August through April and May through July. 

What does daylight-saving time mean in Seattle?
An extra hour of rain. 

What's the definition of a Seattle optimist?
A guy with a sun visor on his rain hat. 

What did the Seattle native say to the Pillsbury Doughboy?
"Nice tan."
Succot, in the time of the Mishna, was right before the rainy season. It was possible for rain to come then, but not as likely. But then, the Hebrew calendar was fixed, and there is seasonal drift of this lunar calendar compared with the solar calendar. To cite Wikipedia on this:
The seriousness of the spring equinox drift is widely discounted on the grounds that Passover will remain in the spring season for many millennia, and the text of the Torah is generally not interpreted as having specified tight calendrical limits. On the other hand, the mean southward equinoctial year length is considerably shorter, so the Hebrew calendar has been drifting faster with respect to the autumn equinox, and at least part of the harvest festival of Sukkot is already more than a month after the equinox in years 1, 9, and 12 of each 19-year cycle; beginning in Hebrew year 5818 (2057 CE), this will also be the case in year 4. (These are the same year numbers as were mentioned for the spring season in the previous paragraph, except that they get incremented at Rosh Hashanah.) This progressively increases the probability that Sukkot will be cold and wet, making it uncomfortable or impractical to dwell in the traditional succah during Sukkot. The first winter seasonal prayer for rain is not recited until Shemini Atzeret, after the end of Sukkot, yet it is becoming increasingly likely that the rainy season in Israel will start before the end of Sukkot.
Once mashiach comes and we reestablish the calendar according to moon sighting, bet din could simply not make one leap year NOT a leap year, and we would be more or less back on track. But as it stands, as the years progress, it becomes more and more likely that it rains on succot. Nishtaneh hateva. This is derech hateva, and not necessarily a sign of Divine displeasure.

Succot-Related Posts

Nothing new on Succot (yet) this year. Here are posts from past years:


  • The surprising kosher Succah in Queens College. A photo.

  • Must one sit in a succah when one works in Manhattan? I think there is good reason to say that it is not required.

  • The Maharil on maamid, and why he holds that there is no basis for this requirement.
  • Covering one's sukkah with the Arba Minim, a practice of the Samaritans, but also partially a practice of us Prushim, in various forms. A discussion of the practices and their bases. Inpart one, noting the Samaritan practice and analyzing the pesukim to see if they support it. In part two, how Rabbi Yehuda actually holds like this, though his stated reason is far from the literalist reading. In part three, what the Karaites have to say. In part four, the Maharil speaking of how they covered their succahs with aravos.
  • May one buy a lulav / etrog from a minor? Why I have a strong inclination that the question is without foundation, but even if so, yes.
  • The prayer for a beautiful esrog, said on Tu BeShvat, and why I think such a tefillah is out of place today.
  • All of Rif on masechet Succah.
  • Succot To Go, 5770

  • Regarding Succah Intentions
    • Hirhurim has a post about a post-Talmudic innovation, require intention to remember the historical origin of succah, as a requirement for fulfilling the mitzvah. I suggest a Talmudic basis for this requirement.
  • Lima'an Yed'u *Diroteichem*
    • And this Talmudic basis is a derasha in masechet Succah which requires knowledge of sitting in the sukkah. Further, I claim it is an al tikra, "so that the people should know their dwelling," rather than "so that their generations should know."
  • Clouds as Schach, and Phytoplankton
    • How phytoplankton can change the weather to be more suited to their lifestyle. Plus a hook-in to succah, and whether clouds arose from above of below.
  • King David's Fallen Succah
    • hanofelet vs. hanofalet, and the distinction between the two. Plus, what is this fallen succah?
  • A Succah Higher Than 20 Amot
    • The same derasha as above.
  • Why Do We Sit In A Succah?
    • Homiletics. Three reasons for sitting in the succah.
  • HaGān, Mashiv HaRuach and the pseudo-pausal
    • should morid hatal be with a patach or kametz? The pseudo-pausal, and why thekametz is appropriate even if you say hageshem rather than hagashem.
  • Orthopraxy II - Sitting In A Succah
    • If you don't believe in God, how can you fulfill the obligation that God sat us in Succot when we left Egypt, and thus fulfill the mitzvah?

Posts so far for parshat Bereishit

2010
  1. Bereishit sources -- improved

2009
  1. Introducing Absolut Genesis, 2009 edition. From the same folks who brought you the Absolut Haggadah. See my review of Absolut Genesis here, and download Absolut Genesis here.

    Also, as part of my review, I give several of my own suggestions as to the meaning of the two clothes-giving incidents.

  2. Bereshit sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, and now, links to over 100 mefarshim on the parsha and haftarah.
    .
  3. In the beginning, Hashem separated?! Why I don't find this novel interpretation persuasive, or even that novel.
    .
  4. The Torah begins with the letter Bet. Ibn Ezra criticizes a midrash which explains why, and is criticized in turn by his supercommentator, Avi Ezer, who concludes that Ibn Ezra never wrote it, but that it was written by a talmid toeh. This is somewhat reminiscent of goings-on nowadays. I look into Ibn Ezra in Sefer Tzachot and see that the purported contradiction between Ibn Ezra and himself is readily answerable.
    .
  5. Is the second Pru Urvu a blessing or a mitzvah? Ibn Ezra "argues" with the traditional explanation of Chazal that is it a mitzvah, and explains why. Or rather, says that this was a din deRabbanan which Chazal attached to this pasuk as a sort of asmachta. And I defend him from an attack by Avi Ezer, his supercommentary.
    .
  6. From Junior, did Adam HaRishon name the T-Rex? And proof that no one created Hashem. And all about bechira chofshis.
    .
  7. Did Chava speak parseltongue? If not, how was she able to communicate with the snake in Gan Eden?
    .
  8. The unfinished north, like the letter Beis. Which means that in medieval times, some people considered east to be up. Does this mean that the world was flat?
    .
  9. Was Rashi's father an Am HaAretz? Why does Rashi ask such a "silly" question in the beginning of his perush, if not out of respect to his father?
    .
  10. How are the days of man 120 years? We can say that these Benei Elohim are angels, the nefilim of the context which follows. And since the descendants are also flesh, and not just spiritual beings, they shall have a similar lifespan as that of man, namely 120. Someone who is adam cannot have Hashem's spirit abide in them forever, and therefore they are mortal.

    Or alternatively, because of their sinning, their lifespan has been reduced. I still think it is plausible, and don't consider the explicit contradiction we find immediately after, in that Shem and company lived much longer, to be an unassailable contradiction.
    .
  11. The Torah is not a science book! When arguing this out with one another, the Rishonim do not seem to assume that such a question -- we don't see snakes speak -- is by its very nature heretical. Rather, such questions, and grappling with various features of the text, is talmud torah, and is what they are obligated to engage in. Compare with the attitude that some take nowadays.
    .
  12. The gimel / kaf switch, and the talmid toeh -- Or is Ibn Ezra simply reversing himself?
    .
  13. His journey(s) -- when the masorah opposes the Zohar -- Zohar on Bereishit, on a pasuk in Lech Lecha. In Lecha Lecha, we have a few instances in which rather old Rabbinic texts indicate something about a pasuk that goes against the masoretic notes as well as all our sefarim. In one instance, it is Zohar against the masorah; in another, the gemara; and in a third, Rashi.

    This is interesting in and of itself, but what is also interesting is the way that the mosereticcommentators handle this. In this first post, a contradiction between Zohar's version of a pasuk and our own.
2008
  1. Bereishit sources -- links to the appropriate page in an online Mikraot Gedolot, by aliyah and by perek.
  2. The World Was Created in 10 Statements, part i and part ii -- An attempted analysis of this curious declaration, and identification of which statements in Bereishit these may be.

2007
  1. The Snake's punishment: Taking the narrative of the sin in the garden of Eden as metaphor, how are we to understand the snake being punished. What I believe is a plausible explanation, in which the Snake is the evil inclination, and it is not punishment but rather a delineating of the role of the "snake" in terms of its relation to mankind.
    .
  2. Gilgamesh, Utanpishtim, and Gan Eden: cross-listed to Noach. Comparisons and contrasts to the Noach story, and to the Adam story. Such as sleep overtaking Adam, the tree of knowledge perhaps being intercourse, the mouth of the rivers as a place in which eternal life is possessed by those dwelling there. And so on.
    .
  3. Was Chava named for a snake? A response to a DovBear post. I doubt it, and explain why.
    .
  4. The appropriately named Er and Onan: Cross-listed from Vayeshev. But along the lines of the idea that Hevel was not Hevel's true name, but rather was a name chosen as appropriate to his fate.
2006
2005
  • Adam and Eve as Metaphor
    • This post is divided into three parts.
      [A. Motivations] claims that assigning Scripture a metaphorical role where it contradicts modern scientific beliefs is a sign of lack of faith - in which case the claim of metaphor is a means of rendering the text impotent without seeming a heretic; or abundance of faith - in which case one is sure both science and Torah are absolutely true, but this forces one to claim the Torah speaks metaphorically. Either approach is unfair to the text. An example of genesis on the basis of the four elements is given, as is an example of a midrash switching around the order of a verse about rotting manna to accomodate a scientific belief in spontaneous generation. (Before turning for this last, I offer a defense of this midrash.) It is fair to label a text metaphorical if there are features internal to the text that suggest it is metaphor.
      [B. Three Distinct Issues] puts forth that there are three issues that should not be conflated - age of the universe, age of the earth, and age of civilization. It is the last that is really under discussion. Age of the universe is no issue since a proper reading of the first three verses in Genesis, as well as comparison to other creation stories, implies a creation from primordial matter, rather than ex nihilo. The creation ex nihilo may still exist for the primordial matter. Creation and placement of celestial bodies on the fourth day should be understood in the context of the entire described creation, which is a different matter. The solution might lie in the pluperfect, or better, since the creation in 6-days is Earth-centered and the celestial bodies are explicitly placed there to mark time - day, night, years, and seasons - perhaps we might interpret this as the placing of the earth in relation to these celestial bodies - at a certain distance from the Sun, at a certain revolution about it, and at a specific axis and speed of rotation. Age of the Earth is also not necessarily truly an issue. The purpose of retelling the cosmogony, even if absolutely literal, is to show God's relationship with His creation. Thus, for example, He creates and keeps as pets the sea monsters, which in other cultures were the enemies of the pantheon of the gods. Also, actions of the unfathomable God are described, so they must be metaphor on at least some level - God has no arm, but has a zeroa netuya. Similarly, "days" are a tool to allow the human mind to wrap around whatever epoch or grouping (perhaps not even chronological) of God's creative acts. This may be separated by some time from Adam, especially if Adam is metaphor. Age of Civilization is no problem if the tale of the garden is metaphor, and if the genealogical lists with thousand-year old people, like that of the Sumerian king lists, is not meant to record historical fact but serves another purpose. Also, a curiosity about carbon dating and question if a 6000 year dating for civilization is truly problematic.
      [C. Adam and Eve as Metaphor] gets to the meat of the issue. What features of the story suggest it is metaphor. I propose how each story details the relationship of man to God or the world. Thus, Man as created in God's image, Man as dominating nature, man's relation to woman, and man's place in the world, as distinct from that of angels.
      I give reasons why the story seems metaphor. The Man and the Woman are given type names, and referred to with the definite article. Talking snakes and magic trees are not in the normal range of human experience. Disagreement between details of creation in this story vs. that of chapter 1 (accounted for since details of a metaphor may clash with reality or that of another metaphor). Consumption of the fruit changes mankinds nature. The punishment is not personal but establishes the very nature of Man and the natural order.
      I discuss the meaning of the metaphor. Man's eating from the tree was inevitable, and reflects his ability to choose between Good and Evil, a capacity angels lack. The serpent represented Man's yetzer, and the act of diverting from God's will, rather than something intristic in the fruit, actualized Man's ability to choose. This ability is a Good Thing (TM), for it makes choosing Good more valuable, and so there is no fall from Grace but rather a description of how Man is on a higher level than angels. The punishment is no punishment but rather a description of how the world must be to accomodate Man's special nature - life must be finite, rewards must be earned through hard work and pain, and there must be a struggle to overcome and crush the head of temptation. Other metaphors are surely present but this represents a major one.
  • Moshe's Name (cross-posted from Vayikra)
    • This post argues in favor of the Biblically given derivation of Moshe's name, which has many points in its favor over the proposed Egyptian one MSS. It begins with a discussion of how many Biblical derivations do not work out entirely etymologically, but are based on sound similarity. Several examples from parashat Bereishit are discussed: Noach, Kayin, Shet, Isha.
  • Hevel's Hark and the Skipper Too
    • We consider the meaning of kol in the phrase ק֚וֹל דְּמֵ֣י אָחִ֔יךָ צֹֽעֲקִ֥ים אֵלַ֖י מִן־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה, from the perspective of trup. Does it mean hark, or the voice of?
2004
  • Adam and Chava pull a Yeshaya
    • by hiding themselves in a tree, in a neo-drash I just made up. This leads to a discussion of Yeshaya hiding in a tree and being killed by the evil king Menashe, in the gemara and in pseudopigraphic work called The Ascension of Isaiah.
  • Moshe/Kayin parallels, and midrashic vs. peshat narrative (cross-posted from Shemot)
    • Parallels between two murders - of Hevel and of the Egyptian. Both killings take place in solitude, both killers try to pretend the murder did not happen, both go into exile as a result of the murder. In both instances the ground plays a role in covering up the murder. Brothers play a role in both. In both instances focus is made on potential descendants of the deceased.
      Then I highlight and discuss the difference between the two accounts of Moshe's actions, one midrashic, and one literal.
2003
  • Three paths to sin
    • Some homiletics I wrote, for a class in homiletics. From the three possible ways Adam came to sin, the subject of a Rabbinic dispute. 1) Carelessness caused by lack of chavivut for mitzvot; 2) Rationalization; 3) Sympathy and empathy.
  • HaGān, Mashiv HaRuach, And The Pseudo-pausal
    • HaGān, with a kametz appearing even where there is no etnachta or silluq, is good evidence of the pseudo-pausal, such that hatāl should be said even if you say hageshem.

to be continued...

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Tornado watch issued for New York-area until 6 p.m.

From the New York Post:

The National Weather Service has issued a Tornado Watch for much of the tristate region for Tuesday, September 28, 2010 until 6 p.m.

New York
BRONX, DELAWARE, DUTCHESS, KINGS, NASSAU, NEW YORK, ORANGE, PUTNAM, QUEENS, RICHMOND, ROCKLAND, SULLIVAN, ULSTER, WESTCHESTER
Connecticut
FAIRFIELD

New Jersey
BERGEN, ESSEX, HUDSON, HUNTERDON, MIDDLESEX, MONMOUTH, MORRIS, OCEAN, PASSAIC, SOMERSET, SUSSEX, WARREN

Hail, thunderstorms wind gusts up to 70 miles per hour and lightning are also possible in these areas.

A tornado watch means conditions are favorable for tornadoes and severe thunderstorms in and close to the watch area. You should be on the lookout for threatening weather this afternoon and be prepared for possible warnings.

Bereishit sources

by aliyah
rishon (Bereishit 1:1)
sheni (2:4)
shlishi (2:20)
revii (3:22)
chamishi (4:19)
shishi (5:1)
shvii (5:25)
maftir (6:5)
haftara (Yeshaya 42)

by perek
perek 1 ; perek 2 ; perek 3 ; perek 4 ; perek 5 ; perek 6

meforshim
Rashi, in English and Hebrew
Shadal (here and here)
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Gilyonot
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew)
Tiferes Yehonasan from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz
Chasdei Yehonasan -- nothing on parshat Bereishit
Toldos Yizchak Acharon, repeated from Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz
Even Shleimah -- from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich
R' Saadia Gaon's Tafsir, Arabic translation of Torah (here and here)
Kli Yakar (and here)
Zohar, with English translation
Baal Haturim (HaAruch)
Imrei Shafer, Rav Shlomo Kluger
Rashbam -- and here
Kol Eliyahu (Gra)
Sefer Zikaron of Ritva
Noam Elimelech
Michlal Yofi
Tzror Hamor
R' Eleazer miGermayza
Tanach with He'emek Davar -- Netziv
Nachalas Yaakov -- R' Yaakov ben Yaakov Moshe of Lissa
Divrei Emes -- Chozeh mi-Lublin
Ramchal
Or Hameir, R' Zev Wolf of Zhitomir
Alshich
Chida
Akedat Yitzchak
Melo HaOmer
Baalei Bris Avraham
Rav Chaim Vital
Rav Yosef Karo
Drashos Chasam Sofer
Chasam Sofer al HaTorah
Tzioni
Rikanti

When we come around again, make sure to copy Rambam to subsequent parshiot.

The following meforshim at JNUL:
Ralbag (6)
Chizkuni (3)
Abarbanel (3)
Shach (5)
Sefer Hachinuch (pg 10)
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (11)

rashi
Daat, Rashi In Hebrew (perek 1)
MizrachiMizrachi (3, JNUL)
Gur Aryeh (Maharal of Prague) -- and here
Berliner's Beur on Rashi
Commentary on Rashi by Yosef of Krasnitz
R' Yisrael Isserlin (on Rashi, 2, JNUL)
Two supercommentaries on Rashi, by Chasdai Almosnino and Yaakov Kneizel
Rav Natan ben Shishon Shapira Ashkenazi (16th century), (JNUL, pg 2)
Yeriot Shlomo (Maharshal)
Moda L'Bina (Wolf Heidenheim)
Mekorei Rashi (in Mechokekei Yehuda)
Meam Loez -- laazei Rashi
Yosef Daas
Nachalas Yaakov
Medayek HaRashi
Prachei Rashi
Pi Habe'er on Mizrachi
Baalei HaTosafot al HaTorah
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Rashi with Sifsei Chachamim

ramban
Daat, Ramban in Hebrew (perek 1)
R' Yitzchak Abohav's on Ramban (standalone and in a Tanach opposite Ramban)
Rabbi Meir Abusaula (student of Rashba)

ibn ezra
Daat, Ibn Ezra in Hebrew (perek 1)
Mechokekei Yehudah (Daat)
Mechokekei Yehudah (HebrewBooks)
R' Shmuel Motot (on Ibn Ezra, pg 4, JNUL)
Ibn Kaspi's supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, different from his commentary (here and here)
Avi Ezer
Tzofnas Paneach
Ezra Lehavin
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Ibn Ezra with Avi Ezer

targum
Targum Onkelos opposite Torah text
Shadal's Ohev Ger on Targum Onkelos
Berliner
Chalifot Semalot
Avnei Tzion -- two commentaries on Onkelos
Or Hatargum on Onkelos
Commentary on Targum Yonatan and Targum Yerushalmi
masorah
midrash
Midrash Rabba at Daat (1)
Midrash Tanchuma at Daat (1)
Bereishit 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
haftarah (Yeshaya 42:5)
In a chumash, with perush of Ibn Ezra and Malbim.
In a standalone Mikraos Gedolos, with Targum, Rashi, Mahari Kara, Radak, Ibn Ezra, Metzudat David.
Haftarah in Gutnick Edition
Daat, which includes Yalkut Shimoni, Radak, Gilyonot
Ahavas Yehonatan by Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite

****
skipped until now, handle
Tiferes Yosef, starting here:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44357&st=&pgnum=3

also, Targumna
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39661&st=&pgnum=56

also, Akedat Yitzchak,
http://hebrewbooks.org/14342

Also, torat Maharim
http://hebrewbooks.org/48191

Nimukei Rashi
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=2976&st=&pgnum=5

Bereshit \, nechmad veNaim
http://hebrewbooks.org/3110


Sunday, September 26, 2010

Interesting Posts and Articles #286

  1. I discussed this in the previous link roundup, but this story has legs. Matzav reports on a Rav Chaim Kanievsky miracle, that people in Bnei Brak drank contaminated water over the three-day Yontiff of Rosh Hashanah. They give proper attribution to Life In Israel, though they could have also provided a direct link. Perhaps struck by the cognitive dissonance, they try to explain just how this is a miracle:
    In Bnei Brak, it has been declared that the allowance issued by the Health Ministry to drink contaminated water for three days without first testing it is a miracle. Another aspect, not mentioned in the chareidi press, is the miracle that nobody got sick from drinking the contaminated water.
    But indeed, the chareidi Press, that is Kikar Shabbat, reports the miracle quite simply:
    "זה נס גלוי", אומרים תלמידיו של הגר"ח. "משרד הבריאות אישר את השימוש בבאר לימים ספורים, רק כדי שלא לגרום לחילול שבת".
    "It is an open miracle", say the students of the Gaon Rav Chaim. "The Health Ministry approves the use of the well for only those days, just so that this would not cause chillul Shabbat."

    Just because the talmidim of Rav Chaim Kanievsky assert that this is a nes does not make it a nes, nor does it mean that Rav Chaim Kanievsky himself would endorse it as a miracle. As I've written before, Rav Chaim Kanievsky is a gaon atzum surrounded by morons. Rav Kanievsky did not tell this company to use contaminated water. And he did not say, after the fact, that it was a great thing that people were able to drink the contaminated water. As for the people, they should have collected water in bottles beforehand so as to have enough. It was not necessary for the company to use this well.

    Why do the talmidim think this was a neis? I would guess it is because they do not attribute legitimacy to this state institution, the Ministry of Health. It was the government acting arbitrarily, not that there was a legitimate, rational reason for their "gezeira" that the water was forbidden or was permitted.

    Often, I dislike when people teitch up Ibn Ezra by saying that his words were written by a talmid toeh vechaser be'daas. However, this and other stories demonstrate that the phenomenon of a talmid toeh veChaser beDaas is all too real.
    .
  2. A Mother In Israel links to and cites this parshablog post. See the comment section there.
    .
  3. Wolfish Musings discusses a shocking ImaMother discussion forum. An important point is that 100% of the people who responded, including chareidim, disagreed with the Original Poster and were more than a bit horrified.
    .
  4. At Conversations in Klal, a chumra in a certain chassidish school not to use images of maps. Commenters speculate what the reason for this could be. For my part, I'd just point out that Mizrachi, the famous supercommentator of Rashi, includes maps where appropriate to explain what Rashi means.
    .
  5. On The Main Line on how Rav Moshe Feinstein wrote responsa. An important excerpt, I think:
    He sat there reading the whole time, rather than sleeping. I used to ask him, “Why do you read thischazeray (junk)?” He would respond to me, “Dos iz mayn vinde” – this is my window [to the world]. He understood society and his piskei Halachah show that. He used to say, “People think that because I’m aware of society, I became a meikel (lenient decisor). What do they want me to do – paskn incorrectly? I’m not a meikel – I paskn the way it has to be. The Halachah takes into account societal factors.” This willingness to be exposed to society made his teshuvos more meaningful and more acceptable.
    I think that michlal hein ata shomea lav.
    .
  6. ThanBook is opposed to Carlebach selichot:
    Walking around, and muttering to a neighbor from my home shul, this just doesn't seem right, it's falling into all the complaints I hear about Carlebach - it's shlepped out too long; if the words don't fit the tune phrasing, the words lose out; and the tune doesn't bear any relationship to the words.
  7. Life In Israel, opposed to quotas on Sefardim in schools.
    .
  8. The Modern Orthodox girl who publicly dropped Shabbos observance on national television, on Tyra Banks' show America's Next Top Model.
    .
  9. The following from Machon Shiloh, regarding Birkat Hachamah. I've commented on this topic in the past, and indeed haven't really finished my posts commenting. I don't know if I'll get to this very soon.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

The Kew Gardens Hills eruv is up, after the Tornado! The Forest Hills eruv is NOT!

There was a worry that the eruv in Kew Gardens Hills would not be up by Shabbos. If so, it would be have been forbidden to carry food from the house to the succah, without making your own private eruv. Baruch Hashem, this is not a concern, and the eruv is up.

But last I heard, the Forest Hills eruv is expected to be down this Shabbos, due to the recent tornado. Indeed, it may be down for the foreseeable future, due to lack of funds to reconstruct it. If so, there is a problem carrying 4 cubits outdoors, and there is a problem of transferring items from your house to the outside, and from the outside to the succah.

It is better to eat your meal in the house than to violate Shabbos by carrying, or from your house into the public domain (even if it has the status only Rabbinically), into your Succah. Shev ve'al taaseh adif. The best thing to do is consult your local Orthodox rabbi now, so that you can figure out appropriate steps.

These steps may be -- but consult your local Orthodox rabbi to make sure that the approach is valid, and would work for your specific situation:

  1. construct an eruv which encompasses your house and succah
  2. make an eruv chatzeiros if it is jointly-owned property
  3. make other plans, such as alternate meals
  4. maybe place your succah right next to your window and pass food from the window of the house directly into the window of the succah
  5. finding out if amira le'akum is acceptable in such a situation (shevus de'shevus be'makom mitzvah).
  6. leave the meals for Shabbos inside the Succah before Shabbos begins
If you've been in this situation in the past, then you likely know what to do. But for those of us who grew up with an eruv, we may well want to consult an expert to find out what to do.

Again, this post is not intended to be halacha lemaaseh. Consult your local Orthodox rabbi for some practical advice.

Update: From the Vaad Harabonim of Queens
Please be advised that our updated information is as follows:

Kew Gardens Hills, Kew Gardens, and the Eruv to Booth (NY Hospital) WILL BE in
operation.

Please look out for the updates to come for Forest Hills and others as they come in.

Who buried Moshe? and what this has to do with post-Mosaic authorship

Summary: A most straightforward local reading of the pasuk is that an unspecified human being buried Moshe. Considering the context, why this is difficult to say, and why midash, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and the Karaites all say otherwise. And how the alternative is a very late authorship for the last eight pesukim.

Post: Because the Torah states that "Moshe died there", Chazal discuss whether Yehoshua wrote the last eight pesukim of Chumash, or whether Moshe wrote it with tears. But there is another pasuk, just after this, which often flies under the radar. That pasuk reads:

6. And He buried him in the valley, in the land of Moab, opposite Beth Pe'or. And no person knows the place of his burial, unto this day.ו. וַיִּקְבֹּר אֹתוֹ בַגַּיְ בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹאָב מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר וְלֹא יָדַע אִישׁ אֶת קְבֻרָתוֹ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה:

What does it mean "he buried him", וַיִּקְבֹּר אֹתוֹ? If someone buried Moshe, how could the end of the very same pasuk state that "no person known the place of his burial until this day"? Whoever buried him would know!

That the identity of this person is not specified is not problematic. This is where, typically, a parshan would say vayikbor -- hakover. The unspecified person who buried him buried him. Compare this to the end of sefer Bereishit, with Rashi's commentary.

1. Now it came to pass after these incidents that [someone] said to Joseph, "Behold, your father is ill." So he took his two sons with him, Manasseh and Ephraim.א. וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַיֹּאמֶר לְיוֹסֵף הִנֵּה אָבִיךָ חֹלֶה וַיִּקַּח אֶת שְׁנֵי בָנָיו עִמּוֹ אֶת מְנַשֶּׁה וְאֶת אֶפְרָיִם:
that [someone] said to Joseph: One of the tellers, and this is an elliptical verse. Some say, however, that Ephraim was accustomed to study with Jacob, and when Jacob became ill in the land of Goshen, Ephraim went to his father to Egypt to tell him.ויאמר ליוסף: אחד מן המגידים, והרי זה מקרא קצר. ויש אומרים אפרים היה רגיל לפני יעקב בתלמוד, וכשחלה יעקב בארץ גושן, הלך אפרים אצל אביו למצרים והגיד לו:


vayomer without specification who did it. So who told? One of the tellers, that is, an unnamed person. Yet we don't say here vayikbor -- echad min hakovrim. And this is because then there would be someone who knew of Moshe's precise burial place, which would go against the end of the very same pasuk.

Thus, in zot haBracha, Rashi writes:

And He buried him: i.e., The Holy One, blessed is He, Himself, in His very glory [buried Moses]. — [Sotah 14a] Rabbi Ishmael, however, says that [the words“And he buried him” mean that] Moses buried himself. And this אֶת in the phrase here וַיִּקְבֹּר אוֹתוֹ is one of the three instances of the אֶת in Scripture which Rabbi Ishmael expounded on in this way [i.e., where the suffix attached אֶת is understood to be reflexive, meaning “to himself” , “to themselves” , and so on]. And similar to this case [are the following two instances]:“On the day when his Nazirite vow is completed, he must bring him (אֹתוֹ) ” (Num. 6:13), which means, “he shall bring himself” [i.e., present himself]. And likewise,“And they cause them (אוֹתָם) to bear the sin of their guilt” (Lev. 22:16). Surely does this refer to others causing them to bear that sin? Rather, the verse must mean that they cause themselves to bear the sin. — [Sifrei Nasso 32:124]ויקבר אותו: הקב"ה בכבודו. רבי ישמעאל אומר הוא קבר את עצמו, וזהו אחד משלשה אתין שהיה רבי ישמעאל דורש כן. כיוצא בו (במדבר ו, יג) ביום מלאת ימי נזרו יביא אותו, הוא מביא את עצמו. כיוצא בו (ויקרא כב, טז) והשיאו אותם עון אשמה, וכי אחרים משיאים אותם, אלא הם משיאים את עצמם:


vayikbor is thus referring to the actions of Hashem. Why? Because this way no man saw, or knows, his burial place. Alternatively, he buried himself, and it is reflexive. And Rabbi Yishmael darshens other ets in this manner, as reflexive. It can work out grammatically, or one can put forth a solid argument that it does. Yet it still feels a bit forced.

Ibn Ezra argues, as well, that it was Moshe burying himself, and gives other textual evidence of this grammatical phenomenon. Thus:
לד, ו]
ויקבר אותו -
הוא קבר עצמו, שנכנס במערה בגיא.
וכן: וירעו הרועים אותם.
ויראו שוטרי בני ישראל אותם. 


He is driven by the same motivation, to make the peshat in this pasuk work.

Shadal subscribes to the first explanation proffered by Rashi, or something akin to it:
ו ויקבור וגו ': כלו ' נקבר ברצון ה ' דרך נס בלא קובר.

I saw a rather interesting explanation from R' Eleazar miGermayza. He is bothered more by the precise specification of the place of Moshe's burial, followed by the assertion that no man knows the place. We could answer that there is a difference between general area and precise location. But what he writes is:

ולא ידע איש את קבורתו וכו' ה׳ זוגות
נקברו במערה ג׳ נגלות וב׳ נסתרות:
הגלויים הם אברהם ושרה יצחק ורבקה יעקב
ולאה : והנסתרים הם אדם וחוה משה וצפורה
ואע״פ שעל משה נאמר ויקבור אותו בגי, זהו
למשל, כי זה הפסוק מכחיש לזה שאמרו לא ידע
איש את קבורתו, אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים:
אמת שלא ידע איש את קבורתו אלא המלאכים
והראי׳ כי מנגד תראה הארץ ושמה לא תבא
בעצמך אלא יביאך בטהרך וזה למה ששם נקבר
משה על ידי המלאכים : ועל אדם וחוה יש להן
ענין קבלה לזה מדרבנן, ע״כ :

I hope I am interpreting this correctly. Moshe and Tzippora were one of the pairs buried in the Maarat Hamachpelah. The well-known pairs are Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah, Yaakov and Leah, and Adam and Chava. But he is adding here Moshe and Tzipporah! That the pasuk explicitly states otherwise, that he buried him in the valley is not true on the literal level. For if it were so, the Torah also states that no man knows his burial place. Eilu veEilu, but just it is not literally, or historically. Rather, it is true on an allegorical level. He doesn't explain just what that allegorical meaning is. I think it is dangerous to label random narrative pesukim as allegorical. Who knows? Next he may be saying Avraham and Sarah never existed, but were stand-ins for tzurah and chomer. :)

At any rate, no one human knows Moshe's burial, because they angels buried him, and this was in the Cave of the Patriarchs.

Here is the Chizkuni on the matter:
ויקבור אותו בגיא •
שלשה סימנים נתנו במקום קבורתו של משה שאמר
בגיא ובאי זה גיא בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹאָב ובאי זה מקום מול בית
פעור ואפילו הכי לא ידע איש את קבורתו ללמדך שלא
קברו איש: עד היום הזה ־ שלא יקבר איש אצלו
כענין שנעשה בבית אל ושלא ידרשו בו שואלי מתים

Thus, no man knew his burial, despite all these particular identifying details of the location, is because no human being buried him. Until this day -- that was buried by him, as was done by Bet El, and so that those who consult the dead don't do so for him.

So Chizkuni also understands that there was no human burier. There are other meforshim who say the same, either similar to the first or second answer of Rashi, but I will not belabor the point.

But again, if we ignored the context of the end of the pasuk, what would seem the most straightforward, from a grammatical perspective, is that there was a human being who buried him.Perhaps Yehoshua, or perhaps whatever chevra kadisha they had in those days. And that that this was after he descended from the mountain he ascended in the first pasuk of the perek. And he was buried in the valley, and the people who buried him, and Yehoshua, certainly knew where he is buried.

Despite this, the end of the pasuk states וְלֹא יָדַע אִישׁ אֶת קְבֻרָתוֹ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה. I would point out that ad hayom hazeh is a bit strange, even for Yehoshua to write. If Yehoshua wrote it just after Moshe's death, is a day or two ad hayom hazeh? Is it surprising? I suppose it could be 40 years later, after the partial conquering of the land of Canaan, but even this doesn't feel like it merits an "even until this day". They didn't know the place, and the same folks still don't know the burial place? Where is the chiddush? (In answer, we could always say that this was written beRuach haKodesh for any future time.)

Operating on a peshat level, and for the moment pushing aside theological considerations, a simple answer for all this is that this was written by a much later editor, such as Chizkiyahu, Yirmeyahu, Ezra, or the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah. If so, Moshe was buried by a human being, as is the simplest meaning of the pasuk. And they knew precisely where he was buried. But we only know the general area, that it was somewhere in this valley. Nowadays, until today, we don't know where he was buried.

Even Ibn Ezra, who propounds a post-Mosaic authorship of the last twelve pesukim, does not say this. He says that Yehoshua wrote these last pasukim. And that Moshe buried himself. Why doesn't he say as I just suggested? Well, there are theological problems with a really late author, which do not exist if it is a really early post-Mosaic author. Yehoshua was Moshe's attendant, who took over directly from him and who had prophecy. This would be understood as finishing up what needed finishing up, at the direction of Hashem. Late editing, on the other hand, looks much more like corrupting the Biblical text. We see that Ibn Ezra considered the books of Yitzchaki worthy of being burnt (here and here), and strenuously rejected Yitzchaki's suggestion that certain pesukim in Bereishit were written in the days of Yehoshafat.

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin