Posts so far for parshat Chukat

2012

1. Chukas sources

2. Running commentary on Chukas, part i.

3. YUTorah on parshas Chukas

4. Rav Mordechai Gifter on how to understand וְשָׁחַט אֹתָהּ לְפָנָיוץ



2011

1. Chukat sources -- further expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
   .
2. YU Torah on parashat Chukat.
   .
3. Minchat Shai on Chukat:
1. The fricative feh in פרה, and more Minchas Shai on Chukat
   .
2. A tevir in each shlishi, and other Minchas Shais on Chukas -- Continuing now from pasuk 19:7
   .
4. The well of Miriam, miraculously growing acacia trees -- An interpretation from Baal HaTurim, of trees growing wherever they went, conflicts with a midrash that Yaakov needed to plant acacia (or rather, cedar) trees for the mishkan. Can we resolve the contradiction?
   .
5. Should Onkelos on הֲבֵאתֶם read אֲתִיתוֹן or אעילתון?  Shadal vs. Maamar. In the end, I side with Shadal.
   .
6. Should Onkelos read דהא or ארי מית אהרון?  Revisiting a topic from last year, about Rashi's emendation of Onkelos.
   .
7. Did Moshe lose out Eretz Yisrael due to the chet hameraglim?!  Why does Moshe relate Hashem's anger, his losing out on entering the Land, and Yehoshua leading them in, as early as the chet hameraglim? Ibn Caspi answers based on essential and incidental causes, as well as free will coexisting with Divine foreknowledge. But I suggest ain mukdam, or that in fact Mei Merivah did occur much earlier.

Not from me. From Dvarman:

 1) Complaining on false pretenses

2) "Killing" yourself to acquire Torah

Perhaps an analysis later, in a separate post

2010

1. Chukas sources -- revamped, with more than 100 meforshim on the parasha and haftorah.
   a
2. What is bothering Rashi about וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ? The standard meforshei Rashi discuss what is bothering Rashi about the words וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ regarding the parah adumah and why the same words did not bother him regarding the shemen zayis. I explain why I differ from the methodologically, but then explain why indeed the instance by shemen zayis is irrelevant, in a way that I think provides the key to the entire derasha.
   a
3. Rashi's emendation of Onkelos on כִּי גָוַע אַהֲרֹן -- Rashi might suggest an emendation of Onkelos' translation of ki gava Aharon. And if so, Shadal takes issue with his reasoning, and establishes the unemended text as correct.
   a
4. Correct peshat in Rashi on Moshe's Sin -- I present what I think is a novel, consistent reading of Rashi on Moshe's sin in striking the rock. It seems at first glance that Rashi contradicts himself, but I believe he actually has a consistent reading.
   
   
   
   That reading is: Moshe was instructed to speak to the rock that formed Miriam's well. But when Miriam passed away, it disappeared amidst other rocks. Moshe began to search for that particular rock, the same one that had provided water in the past. The Bnei Yisrael pointed out that as it was a miracle -- perhaps, if it was a miracle -- then any rock should do. At this point, Moshe should have agreed with the Bnei Yisrael, that any rock would do. He should have chosen any rock, or accepted a rock of their choosing, spoken to it, and trusted that Hashem would have brought about the miracle. That would have created a tremendous kiddush Hashem. Instead, he castigated the Israelites and told them that not any rock would do, but only the one he had been instructed to hit, since that would be fulfilling Hashem's comment. The way he told them this was with שמעו נא המורים -- "you obstinate people who think you will teach the teachers". He told them that what they proposed was not possible, and thus missed out on an opportunity for kiddush Hashem, and that was the catastrophic sin. Then, he flubbed the followup. He thought he had the correct rock, and spoke to it, but nothing happened. Then, he hit another rock, and lucked into the correct, original rock which formed the well of Miriam in the past. But he had to hit it twice. The first time, only a few drops came out, because though it was the correct rock, he had not been commanded to hit it. But with persistence, and a second strike, the water flowed.
   a
5. Why does Rashi deviate from halacha in explaining וְשָׁחַט אֹתָהּ לְפָנָיו? He explains it as that a zar, that is a non-kohen, slaughtering it before Eleazar, but this is like Shmuel, while we pasken like Rav! I suggest a few reasons for this deviation.

2009

1. Chukat sources - links to an online Mikraos Gedolos by perek and aliyah; plus many meforshim on the parsha and haftara. New sections for Rashi and his supercommenters, Ibn Ezra and his; and Targum and Midrash.
   a
2. How do the ashes of the parah adumah work? And why should the kohanim interacting with it become tamei until evening?

2008

1. What does temimah mean?
   a
2. What was Moshe's sin? According to Shadal; according to David Hamelech (and Meiri); according to Radak on Tehillim; according to Ibn Ezra on Tehillim; according to Abarbanel (pt i, pt ii, pt iii, pt iv, pt v)
   a
3. The identity of the Sefer Milchamot Hashem.
   a
4. Does Homeopathy have a basis in authentic Jewish mysticism and thought? Or, how people with an agenda are misinterpreting a Ramban to mean the exact opposite of what he is truly saying.
   a
5. Cross-listed from Masei: Did Yehoshua add the section about Arad and Chormah? And what did the king of Arad hear?

2007

1. Moshe as Progenitor of Rabbi Eliezer -- a midrash I take figuratively! and which I think was intended figuratively.
   a
2. Buying water on the road -- comparing the approaches of the marchers at Jena with the deal Moshe tried to strike with Edom. 

2006

1. Blog roundup -- philology, straightforward dvars, and homiletics on parshas Chukas

2005

1. For the Border of Ammon Was Strong? how so? Does this not contradict Devarim that they did not because of Divine decree? I suggest it means that the border was firm. Or another answer, variant text (LXX) that has יעזר rather than עז for the border, such that it is a border town by the name of עז or יעזר. And a parallel to referencing a border town in the haftara. Then I discovered Targum gives my first explanation.
   a
2. Who Caused the Children of Ammon To Inherit? Hashem, or Chemosh? or both, in Yiftach's mind? Or is it diplomacy?
   a
3. Making Sense of Parah Adumah -- that tumah is a construct, by fiat

2004

1. For What Sin Was Moshe Punished? perhaps not for striking the rock, but for his words. and suggesting that this was the exact same event as earlier.
   a
2. Yiftach BeDoro KeShmuel BeDoro (cross-listed from Shoftim) -- since Yiftach appears in the haftarah, it pays to note that he was not a total am haAretz.

to be continued...

The definition of a talmid chacham

Prompted by a post on Shimush Chachamim... (And soon we'll get up to it in daf yomi.)

The relevant gemara (Brachos 4b-5a):

א"ר יהושע בן לוי אע"פ שקרא אדם ק"ש בביהכ"נ מצוה לקרותו על מטתו

אמר רבי יוסי מאי קרא (תהלים ד, ה) רגזו ואל תחטאו אמרו בלבבכם על משכבכם ודומו סלה

אמר רב נחמן אם תלמיד חכם הוא אין צריך 

אמר אביי אף תלמיד חכם מיבעי ליה למימר חד פסוקא דרחמי כגון (תהלים לא, ו) בידך אפקיד רוחי פדיתה אותי ה' אל אמת:

Or, in English:

R. Joshua b. Levi says: Though a man has recited the Shema' in the synagogue, it is a religious act to recite it again upon his bed. R. Assi says: Which verse [may be cited in support]? Tremble and sin not; commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still, Selah.³⁴  R. Nahman, however, says: If he is a scholar, then it is not necessary. Abaye says: Even a scholar should recite one verse of supplication, as for instance: Into Thy hand I commit my spirit. Thou hast redeemed me, O Lord, Thou God of truth.¹

What does it mean "if he is a scholar"? Rashi writes:

ואם תלמיד חכם הוא - שרגיל במשנתו לחזור על גרסתו תמיד דיו בכך

Which prompts Shimush Chachamim's comment:

The p'shat in the gemorah is that since he is a Talmud Chacham and has the 'shmirah' of his Torah he doesn't need to lein Krias Shema before going to bed. Although we see in this how Rashi describes a Talmud Chacham....שרגיל במשנתו לחזור על גרסתו תמיד

I'm not so sure I agree with that peshat in the gemara, that this is about shmira, rather than avoidance of sin. I think that just as there are rationalists and non-rationalists today, there were rationalist and non-rationalist Amoraim. Or rather, sometimes they put forth rationalist reasons and sometimes 'non-rationalist' reasons.

In terms of the purpose of krias shema al hamita, the Amoraim were divided. The "rationalists" took it as a way of regulating one's emotions and thoughts before otherwise uncontrolled sleep, in order to avoid seminal emissions. The "mystics" took it as a guard against mazikin.

An example of a mystic is Rabbi Yitzchak. In Berachos 5a:

א"ר יצחק כל הקורא ק"ש על מטתו כאלו אוחז חרב של שתי פיות בידו שנאמר (תהלים קמט, ו) רוממות אל בגרונם וחרב פיפיות בידם מאי משמע אמר מר זוטרא ואיתימא רב אשי מרישא דענינא דכתיב (תהלים קמט, ה) יעלזו חסידים בכבוד ירננו על משכבותם וכתיב בתריה רוממות אל בגרונם וחרב פיפיות בידם. ואמר רבי יצחק כל הקורא קריאת שמע על מטתו מזיקין בדילין הימנו שנאמר (איוב ה, ז) ובני רשף יגביהו עוף ואין עוף אלא תורה שנאמר (משלי כג, ה) התעיף עיניך בו ואיננו ואין רשף אלא מזיקין שנאמר (דברים לב, כד) מזי רעב ולחומי רשף וקטב מרירי.

R. Isaac says: If one recites the Shema' upon his bed, it is as though he held a two-edged sword in his hand.⁷  For it is said: Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand.⁸  How does it indicate this? — Mar Zutra, (some say, R. Ashi) says: [The lesson is] from the preceding verse. For it is written: Let the saints exult in glory, let them sing for joy upon their beds,⁹  and then it is written: Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand. R. Isaac says further: If] one recites the Shema' upon his bed, the demons keep away from him. For it is said: And the sons of reshef¹⁰  fly ['uf] upward.¹¹  The word 'uf refers only to the Torah, as it is written: Wilt thou cause thine eyes to close [hata'if]¹²  upon it? It is gone.¹³  And 'reshef' refers only to the demons, as it is said: The wasting of hunger, and the devouring of the reshef [fiery bolt] and bitter destruction.¹⁴

Thus, the fear is mazikin, demons.

Examples of 'rationalists' include Rabbi Assi. Thus, as above:

אמר רבי יוסי מאי קרא (תהלים ד, ה) רגזו ואל תחטאו אמרו בלבבכם על משכבכם ודומו סלה

R. Assi says: Which verse [may be cited in support]? Tremble and sin not; commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still, Selah.

From the beginning of the pasuk, we see Rabbi Assi's intent. Tremble and sin not. By directing one's heart to Hashem and thus trembling, and having this meditation in bed before sleep, then he will be still.

According to Rav Nachman, a rationalist, a Talmid Chacham does not to recite the Shema on his bed, because his mind is already focused on Hashem. He does not need the reminder. Thus, says Abaye:

אמר אביי אף תלמיד חכם מיבעי ליה למימר חד פסוקא דרחמי כגון (תהלים לא, ו) בידך אפקיד רוחי פדיתה אותי ה' אל אמת

Abaye says: Even a scholar should recite one verse of supplication, as for instance: Into Thy hand I commit my spirit. Thou hast redeemed me, O Lord, Thou God of truth.¹

What is this supplication, and committing of the spirit? We could read it as committing of the spirit to Hashem's protection, to save him from mazikin. Or, as I would understand it in context, this sort of supplication acts to establish a connection to Hashem and prevent sin.

(Alternatively, perhaps Abaye is a non-rationalist. We see elsewhere, Chullin 105b, that he gives rationalist explanations for certain religious acts, but then, based on his rebbe's say-so (either Rav Yosef or Rabba), concedes that it is due to more mystical reasons. For example:
ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דלא אכלי ירקא מכישא דאסר גינאה משום דמיחזי כרעבתנותא אמר לי מר משום דקשי לכשפים.

Maybe Abaye is playing the non-rationalist here and saying that even though the rationalist concern does not apply, the non-rationalist one still does, and so one should make a short supplication for protection.
)

We can see the reason of avoiding sin, as the gemara continues:

R. Levi b. Hama says in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: A man should always incite the good impulse [in his soul]²  to fight against the evil impulse. For it is written: Tremble and sin not.³  If he subdues it, well and good. If not, let him study the Torah. For it is written: 'Commune with your own heart'.⁴  If he subdues it, well and good. If not, let him recite the Shema'. For it is written: 'Upon your bed'. If he subdues it, well and good. If not, let him remind himself of the day of death. For it is written: 'And be still, Selah'.

Same pasuk, yet about fighting the yetzer hara.

(Admittedly, there is an idea of Shema [and based on the derivation, any words of Torah], providing a protection from demons.)

Still, I agree that there is Rashi's definition of a Talmid Chacham here. Perhaps, or perhaps not, we will be able to extrapolate from it to talmidei chachamim all over Sha"s. Rashi said:

ואם תלמיד חכם הוא - שרגיל במשנתו לחזור על גרסתו תמיד דיו בכך

"And if he is a talmid chacham [he need not recite Shema on his bed]: For he is accustomed in his learning, to review his girsa always, it is sufficient in this."

In other words, based on context, Rashi is not merely giving a definition but explaining why. Since a Talmid Chacham is ragil bemishnato, we may assume that he is already thinking about his learning. And this would have the effect of not needing his mind diverted away from sin, and towards fear of sin. (Or from a non-rationalist perspective, his learning will protect him from demons and suffering in general.) But maybe that is only in this narrow context in the gemara, that we can surmise that this is what is meant. But other times talmidei chachamim might be used more loosely.

YUTorah on parshas Chukas

Audio Shiurim on Chukat Rabbi Avi Billet: Don't Be A Snake in the Grass Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Moshe's Sin Rabbi Ally Ehrman: Rav Kook on How To Fix Everything Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: Self Discovery Rabbi Barry Gelman: Is Blind Obedience Good or, Are We Smarter Than God Rabbi Beinish Ginsburg: The Rav's approach to Parah Adumah Rabbi Shalom Hammer: Speak to the Rock (and the generation) Rabbi Jesse Horn: Why Hashem gives us Chukim Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: Chukas Hatorah and Chukas Hachaim Rabbi Yoni Levin: A New Generation, A New Leadership Rabbi Shmuel Maybruch: Zos Chukas HaTorah Rabbi Judah Mischel: What to Take Back With You Rabbi Hershel Reichman: Accepting Authority Rabbi Zev Reichman: Connecting Parah Adumah with Moshes Sin Mrs Ilana Saks: Good Intentions Rabbi Dr. Jacob J Schacter: Chukat and the Burning of the Talmud Rabbi Baruch Simon: Latent Kedusha Mrs. Shira Smiles: Amalek, Attack and Awakening Rabbi Reuven Spolter: The Rock of Og Rabbi Moshe Taragin: The Calculus of Meaning  Rabbi Michael Taubes: Chillul Shabbos and Yom Tov  Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg: Accepting and Living with the Gezeiros of Hashem Rabbi Ari Zahtz: Understanding a Chok Articles on Chukat Rabbi Asher Brander: Of Wonder and (Divine) Will Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman: Holy Cow Rabbi Ozer Glickman: The Fast of Chukas Rabbi Meir Goldwicht: The Importance of Dibbur Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: Life's Ultimate Paradox Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: Independance Day Rabbi Maury Grebenau: Of Red Cows & Golden Calves Rabbi Josh Hoffman: The Thirst Rabbi David Horwitz: The Sin of Moshe Rabbenu Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl: Come and make a Cheshbon Rabbi Eli Baruch Shulman: The Mystery of the Para Aduma - Why do we need it? Rabbis Stanley M Wagner and Israel Drazin: Symbols in Scripture and the Targum Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Chukat See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Chukat

New This Week Jewish History Crash Course: Framing the Talmud Rabbi Reuven Brand While the Letters Soar Heavenward: Burned books in Jewish History Rabbi Zvi Engel How long must one wait for dairy after eating meat Rabbi Jesse Horn Can Destiny be Reimagined in Tanach: The Saga of Shevet Levi Professor Smadar Rosensweig The Unique Derech Halimud of Chief Rabbi Pinchas Hirshprung zt”l  Rabbi Ezra Schwartz Five Minute Halacha - Starting Chazaras Hashatz Without Nine Answering Rabbi Michael Siev Yayin Nesech and Stam Yaynam Rabbi Baruch Simon The nature of the mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael Rabbi Eliav Silverman Pru Urevu or Talmud Torah Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky Agunos from the Israeli Submarine Dakar  Rabbi Mordechai Willig

Rav Mordechai Gifter on how to understand וְשָׁחַט אֹתָהּ לְפָנָיו

At the start of parashat Chukat, perek 19:

3. And you shall give it to Eleazar the kohen, and he shall take it outside the camp and slaughter it in his presence.

ג. וּנְתַתֶּם אֹתָהּ אֶל אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וְהוֹצִיא אֹתָהּ אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְשָׁחַט אֹתָהּ לְפָנָיו:

Rashi writes:

and slaughter it in his presence: A non- kohen slaughters it while Eleazar watches. — [Yoma 42a]

ושחט אותה לפניו: זר שוחט ואלעזר רואה:

The gemara in 42a reads in part:

It is reported: Concerning the slaughtering of the heifer and of his bullock [there is a dispute between] Rab and Samuel, one holding the heifer to be invalidated [if killed by alay Israelite], but that his bullock [so slaughtered]  is fit, while the other holds that his bullock is invalidated [if a commoner killed], but [so killed] the heifer is fit. It may be ascertained that it is Rab who holds that [the slaughtering of] the heifer [by a lay Israelite] renders it invalid. For R. Zei'ra5 said: The slaughtering of the heifer by a lay Israelite is invalid and Rab said thereupon: ‘Eleazar’ and ‘Statute’6  we learned in connection therewith... 

Now according to Samuel, who holds the killing of ‘his’ bullock by a lay Israelite is invalid, wherefore the difference [in law] in the case of ‘his’ bullock, in connection with which ‘Aaron and ‘Statute’ are written, when also in connection with the heifer ‘Eleazar’ and ‘Statute’ are written? — It is different there, because it is written: And he shall slay it before him,12 which means that a lay Israelite may slaughter and Eleazar should watch it.13 And [how does] Rab [explain this]? — [It means] he14 must not divert his attention from it. 

In other words, according to Rav, אֶל אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן is written, so it must be a kohen in play. And this is the חוקה. And so the actor of וְשָׁחַט אֹתָהּ is Eleazar. And even though it says וְשָׁחַט אֹתָהּ לְפָנָיו, implying that there is a different actor who is slaughtering before him, meaning before Eleazar haKohen, this is not so. Rather, Eleazar slaughters it before himself. So, לְפָנָיו refers to intent. And this is how we pasken, apparently.


Meanwhile, Shmuel differs. Yes, Eleazar HaCohen is in play, but only as an observer at this stage. Thus, לְפָנָיו means before Eleazar, while the non-Kohen slaughters.


And Rashi goes against how we pasken, and says like Shmuel, that there is another actor in play. And so too Ibn Ezra, that לְפָנָיו is evidence that Eleazar is merely watching, and there was another actor introduced.

R' Mordechai Gifter

Rav Gifter refers us to the pasuk and Rashi. And then writes:

"And it is like Shmuel in Yoma 42a, and Rav darshens there that לְפָנָיו means that he {Eleazar acts and while acting} should not divert his attention from it. And since the peshat of the pasuk is like Shmuel, therefore Rashi explains here like Shmuel, despite the halacha being like Rav.


And see there in Yoma 43a, that according to Rav, that Eleazar was the slaughterer, what is meant by [the next pasuk]:

4. Eleazar the kohen shall take from its blood with his finger and sprinkle it toward the front of the Tent of Meeting seven times.

ד. וְלָקַח אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן מִדָּמָהּ בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וְהִזָּה אֶל נֹכַח פְּנֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד מִדָּמָהּ שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים:

? For behold, we are dealing with Eleazar as well in slaughtering. And we say that for Rav, it is a miut [minimization] after a miut, which therefore includes something, that even a regular Kohen is valid, and not just Eleazar {or, segan Kohen or Kohen Gadol}, see there.


And it appears according to this that also in slaughtering, it is valid with a regular kohen. However, since the verse regarding slaughtering itself they explain that this was Eleazar himself and did not explain it as a non-kohen, like Shmuel, then it follows that the word לְפָנָיו means that he should not divert his attention from it. But after we learn from the [next] pasuk of וְלָקַח that it is valid also via another kohen, we explain לְפָנָיו as that another slaughters and Eleazar sees. For the Trah was makpid in the making of this first Para Aduma that it be made specifically with the intent of the choicest of the kehuna. And in the verse of 

5. The cow shall then be burned in his presence; its hide, its flesh, its blood, with its dung he shall burn it.

ה. וְשָׂרַף אֶת הַפָּרָה לְעֵינָיו אֶת עֹרָהּ וְאֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ וְאֶת דָּמָהּ עַל פִּרְשָׁהּ יִשְׂרֹף:

is, as well, explained in the Sifrei that another slaughters {!?} and Eleazar watches -- so is the girsa in Pesikta Zutrata, and not like it is before us: one another slaughters and Eleazar watches. {J: Typo in the one instance for שורף?} And so, as well, is the girsa in T"Y to Yoma 42b, see there.


[And there is also to say that from the verse of לְעֵינָיו, this is that he should not divert his attention, and this is the law as well for generations, and for that time, they explained it as well as that Eleazar watched it, as they explained by slaughtering, and this is our nusach, that by burning they say "another person slaughters and Eleazar watches.]


And according to this, even according to Shmuel, we interpret the verse as for that time, in terms of Eleazar watching it, and only in terms of the halacha ledoros it is that Rav and Shmuel argue, and delve well into all this.


And see here in Targum Yonasan {on 19:3}: And another kohen shall slaughter it before him. And this is like Rav, that the slaughtering of a Para is invalid with a non-kohen, and yet the explanation of לְפָנָיו is that Eleazar watches. And not in terms of the law of diverting attention.


[And according to the simple meaning of the Sifrei, it appears that the law of labor invalidating -- that it is a law of diverting attention, we learn it from אֹתָהּ {in pasuk 3}, and לְפָנָיו is that Eleazar sees, and so too by burning we learn that labor invalidates, from אֶת הַפָּרָה, and from לְעֵינָיו we derive that Eleazar sees. However, from the words of the Pesikta Zutrasa, that writes: "Another explanation: Another one slaughters and Eleazar sees"; it implies that diversion of attention we derive from לְפָנָיו, as it seems from masechet Yoma. And therefore it wrote the second derasha in this with the words davar acher. And see there in Malbim.]"


Nothing to add here.

Interesting Posts and Articles #374

1. MO Chassid comes out of temporary retirement to speak about the unspeakable.

2. Hezbos on faith in Hashem and Moshiach:

We are being squeezed spiritually because many Jews have yet to submit and yearn for Moshiach's second revelation.

As someone emailed me, oy.

3. Hazak weEmatz with more tznius hyperventilation, taking local definitions of tznius and applying it universally, and translating and promoting a specific kol korei. In part, it refers to, though summarizes, this Rabbenu Yonah (and here) (see right).

4. A stoning of a female driver in Bet Shemesh over lack of modesty.

5. A taanis dibur prevents a home-birth mother from going to the hospital.

In a ridiculous story, worse than ridiculous really as lives were in danger, a woman in Jerusalem refused to go to a hospital to give birth, or even after birth for examination and care, because she was in the middle of a taanis dibbur -  a speech fast -at the time of birth.

According to this report on Kikar, on this past Motzei Shabbos MDA and the police were called in to deal with a woman who had given birth earlier in the day but refused to allow herself to be brought to the hospital for care. Her husband called the authorities. he claims to not have been home at the time of birth, but at some point during the day he had come home and discovered his wife in the bedroom holding the newborn baby that was still attached by the umbilical cord.

They tried to persuade her to allow them to bring her and the baby to the hospital, but she refused to communicate with them.

It gets sillier.

6. A Jewish man won't help his wife, who is giving birth, because he is not allowed to touch her, as she is a niddah. Instead, he flags down a truck driver. I guess he had never heard of the idea of a chassid shoteh.

7. Mekubal shares some stories from his kabbalistic yeshiva. This posed question:

There is this girl, who’s mother ran off on her father years ago, got pregnant and had this girl.  The girl is now 12 or 13yrs old.  So it appears that she is a Mamzeret.  Should I publicize the fact with posters around town?

And second, this:

The guy explains that before he is willing to get married, he wants a prenuptial agreement.  At first I think it is one of those Halakhic prenups, after all they are both fairly modern.  It was not.  It was a prenup that gave the following conditions

1. She would unconditionally accept a Get if he wanted to give one.
2. She waives all rights to her Ketubah price.
3. If he passes she gets none of his assets nor her Ketubah.
4. If they have children and he passes, custody of the Children will go to his mother, if she is also deceased then to one of his siblings who will accordingly inherit his entire estate.

Nothing says love like sitting your intended down and telling her that you want to leave her bereft if you tire of her or predecease her. 

As a follow-up, who attends a kabbalistic yeshiva?

8. At Hirhurim, berachot in the course of the meal.

9. Rav Wosner asks a kallah for a blessing.

Important Correction regarding Rav Kaminetzky on the moon, and whether Chazal could be wrong

A week or so ago, I received the following email (hat tip upon request), pointing out a critical error in an earlier blogpost:

I am very concerned about a piece of misinformation on your blog. I do not mean to attack you; indeed I do not know if it was a malicious or innocent error. You wrote the following:  

Rav Yaakov Kaminetzsky watched the moon landing on TV, he did so to determine whether the Rambam was correct that the moon was of a different, non-substantial material. When Neil Armstrong touched foot on the moon, Rav Yaakov Kaminetzsky concluded that Chazal, including the Rambam, must have been wrong. (He likely didn't know that this was drawn from Aristotle, not Chazal in particular, and had been disproven centuries earlier based on optics.) He did not say that we must not believe our own eyes and our own seichel. In contrast, the Satmar Rebbe believed the moon landing must have been faked. (emphasis added) 

I am not contesting this theological standpoint per se, but rather that R' Yaakov ever said it. In the book Making of a Godol the story is clearly recorded that R' Yaakov concluded from the moon landing that the first three chapters of the Rambam were NOT taken from Chazal and rather must have been based on Greek philosophy which is fallible. I wondered if perhaps in R' Nosson's shiur he said it differently but I listened to it and he said it EXACTLY the same way. Thus R' Yaakov's position is the exact opposite as is stated on your blog (and others). R' Yaakov believed Rishonim could be wrong NOT Chazal (not precisely the inverse of the entire statement, but certainly the important part). Please correct this mistake which I assume was innocent.

It was my error, and was not the result of malice, but rather simple incompetence and poor reading comprehension on my part. I mis-remembered the story, or misunderstood the story when I first saw it.

Here it is at the Kabbalah UMadda blog:

R. Nosson Kaminetsky told the following story about his father, R. Yaakov Kaminetsky, and the moon landing. (It is a great lecture and well worth listening to if you haven’t already. Here is the link to Of Bans, Earthquakes and Tsunamis, ) When they were broadcasting the moon landing on TV, R. Yaakov went to a neighbor’s house to watch the moon landing. He wanted to see whether or not Rambam was correct about the moon being different from the Earth. After seeing Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldron on the moon, he concluded that the in fact Rambam was mistaken. In this instance his halakhah followed Aristotle and did not follow Chazal.

...

One final footnote to this story, one of my Rebbeim at Yeshiva told me another story about R. Yaakov and the moon landing. Apparently in the first version of the Emet l’Yaakov (R. Yaakov’s perush on the Chumash) he described watching the moon landing on TV. In the second edition of the sefer, there was a blank space where that description used to be. Finally in later editions there were no hints to the idea that R. Yaakov had watched the moon landing. Now my question is: which is the bigger danger - watching television, or stating that Rambam made a mistake?

To explain what I mean about poor reading comprehension, looking back to 2009, it seems that I misunderstood the statement that "In this instance his halakhah followed Aristotle and did not follow Chazal", taking it to mean that Rav Kaminetsky's halachah followed Aristotle rather than Chazal. And then I tried to show that in fact Aristotle maintained a similar position. (Meanwhile, Kabbalah UMadda meant that Rambam's halachah followed Aristotle rather than Chazal.)


My bad. I regret the error, and hope to emend the relevant blogposts to match.

Running commentary on parashat Chukat , part i

Parshas Chukas begins {Bemidbar 19}:

א  וַיְדַבֵּר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל-אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר.

1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying:

We know from Behaalotecha that Hashem does not regularly speak to Aharon, and not in the same manner as he does to Aharon. And in the regular course, two people do not receive the same prophecy. I can't recall which Rishon said it, but in these regular el Moshe veEl Aharon, it was only said to Moshe, and Moshe was instructed to say it over to Aharon. Or, Aharon was mentioned because this relates to the kehuna in generate, and so kohanim are the target of the instruction. Especially here, I think, where it is Eleazar in play rather than Aharon. (See also Ramban who writes: והנה עשה הקב"ה גם אהרן נביא במצווה הזאת, והוא ומשה רבנו יתנו אותה לאלעזר ). 

Next:

ב  זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה, אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה ה לֵאמֹר:  דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּמִימָה אֲשֶׁר אֵין-בָּהּ מוּם, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-עָלָה עָלֶיהָ, עֹל.

2 This is the statute of the law which the LORD hath commanded, saying: Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer, faultless, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke.

Rashi cites Chazal:

This is the statute of the Torah: Because Satan and the nations of the world taunt Israel, saying, “ What is this commandment, and what purpose does it have?” Therefore, the Torah uses the term “statute.” I have decreed it; You have no right to challenge it. — [Yoma 67b]

זאת חקת התורה: לפי שהשטן ואומות העולם מונין את ישראל לומר מה המצוה הזאת ומה טעם יש בה, לפיכך כתב בה חקה, גזירה היא מלפני ואין לך רשות להרהר אחריה:

What is bothering Rashi, and what is bothering Chazal? Why should Satan, and the nations of the world, taunt from specifically here? There are other difficult matters of tumah and tahara? See Ramban who discusses how this, being outside the camp, like the seir hamishtaleach, might cause them to think that this is to seirim.

But I think that what is bothering Chazal is the unnecessary repetition. Pasuk 1 introduced the matter. So what is the function of זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה, אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה ה לֵאמֹר? In answer, they reinterpret the phrase as 'this is the gezeira of the Torah, which Hashem commanded'. And thus this text, transformed, makes up the body of the midrash.


Perhaps, as an alternative, this section was initially said in a different context, arranged and moved here. See Ibn Ezra for a reason for placement. (And see Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite that ain mukdam, and it was given earlier.) And then the function of pasuk 1 is introduction to this section as something from Hashem and targeting the kohanim.


See Rashbam about how זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה refers to the segment to come about adam ki yamut beohel.


וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ implies that is should be from the community.

פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּמִימָה  -- Perhaps 'brown cow'. How now? Compare to adama, earth. Names of colors might refer to a wide range within a defined spectrum in Biblical Hebrew. See how yarok in the gemara can refer to green, yellow, or blue. And see how Yaakov's lentils were האדום האדום הזה, when cooked lentils are brown.

תְּמִימָה  -- does this refer to complete brownness, lack of blemish, or that it is of age? Ibn Ezra says age:

פרה אדמה תמימה -שלא תהיה קטנה. 

Rashi cites the traditional interpretation, that two black hairs disqualify:

perfectly red: Heb. אֲדֻמָּה תְּמִימָה, lit., red, perfect. It shall be perfect in redness, so that two black hairs disqualify it. — [Sifrei Chukath 5]

אדמה תמימה: שתהא תמימה באדמימות, שאם היו בה שתי שערות שחורות פסולה:

and Shadal says that it means no blemish:

תמימה אשר אין בה מום: כפל לשון, כמו (ויקרא כ"ב כ"א) תמים יהיה לרצון כל מום לא יהיה בו.

The Sifrei had entertained this "no blemish" as an alternative to "redness" in tamim, but rejects it because, as a midrash halacha, every phrase is meaningful, so there is no kefel lashon.

Just so that one does not dismiss Rashi / Chazal as not peshat, consider that the Karaites thought that is meant perfectly red as well:

The trup separates 

פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּמִימָה אֲשֶׁר אֵין-בָּהּ מוּם

into:

פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּמִימָה

אֲשֶׁר אֵין-בָּהּ מוּם

thus placing temima with aduma. But then, continuing the separate the three word clause, it breaks it into:

פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה

תְּמִימָה

so perhaps one could argue the trup can also support an alternate parse.

Shadal sounds most like peshat to me.

אֲשֶׁר אֵין-בָּהּ מוּם -- would then be kefel lashon, or else giving a deeper explanation of what temima means.

אֲשֶׁר לֹא-עָלָה עָלֶיהָ עֹל -- on a peshat level this need not be mere placement. Rather, it is idiomatic for not having been worked. Halacha appears otherwise:

Perhaps this total perfection, and lack of devotion to any other chullin purpose, has something to do with restoring a ritually impure person to this pristine state, able to appear before God and function before Him.

Next pasuk:

ג  וּנְתַתֶּם אֹתָהּ, אֶל-אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן; וְהוֹצִיא אֹתָהּ אֶל-מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה, וְשָׁחַט אֹתָהּ לְפָנָיו.

3 And ye shall give her unto Eleazar the priest, and she shall be brought forth without the camp, and she shall be slain before his face.

Why to Eleazar HaKohen? Rashi writes:

Eleazar: The mitzvah was performed by the deputy [to the kohen gadol]. — [Sifrei Chukath 8]

אלעזר: מצותה בסגן:

which is interesting. There is a lot to investigate here in Rashi's words. See Ramban, and see the Baal HaTurim, who writes a shorter version. Ramban writes:

והנה עשה הקב"ה גם אהרן נביא במצווה הזאת, והוא ומשה רבנו יתנו אותה לאלעזר שהוא גדול הכהונה אחרי אהרן והוא המשוח בשמן המשחה, וזה רמז לדורות שתעשה בגדול הכהונה והוא הכהן הגדול. 

Thus, the choice might be between kohen gadol and kohen hedyot, rather than a segan. 

Perhaps given the events in the very next perek (20), in which Aharon dies and Eleazar takes over as kohen gadol, we can view him in the role of Kohen Gadol here.

וְהוֹצִיא אֹתָהּ אֶל-מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה -- this would be Eleazar taking it out of the machaneh. Thus, the choicest of Kohanim takes the most special, unprofaned of cows, and brings it outside the camp, where usually the ritually impure are cast out. The idea may be to rescue and consecrate the profane.

וְשָׁחַט אֹתָהּ לְפָנָיו -- Who does this? There was no change in antecedent, to make us think that it is not Eleazar haKohen. But both Rashi and Ibn Ezra assert, on a peshat level, that it is some other kohen who acts here, while Eleazar watches. The proof to this is the word לְפָנָיו. And it certainly seems like peshat. לְפָנָיו refers to Eleazar, so some other "he" slaughters it before him.

Yet surprisingly, this is a machlokes between Rav and Shmuel in Yoma 42a. A wonderful way of phrasing the machlokes:

איתמר שחיטת פרה ופרו רב ושמואל חד אמר פרה פסולה פרו כשרה וחד אמר פרו פסולה פרה כשרה תסתיים דרב הוא דאמר פרה פסולה דאמר ר' זירא שחיטת פרה בזר פסולה ואמר רב עלה אלעזר וחוקה שנינו בה

The continuation of the gemara there is an analysis of how Rav and Shmuel (or rather, the traditions they are citing) respectively understand the pesukim. Shmuel allows for a zar, a non-kohen. And Rav disallows. But doesn't Rav, who invalidates for a zar, see the word לְפָנָיו? He says that it means no hesech hadaas.

Thus, Shmuel: שאני התם דכתיב (במדבר יט, ג) ושחט אותה לפניו שיהא זר שוחט ואלעזר רואה

And Rav: ורב שלא יסיח דעתו ממנה

and then it turns to see where Shmuel deduces this halacha.

This is dochak in that it is hard to see Rav as saying peshat. And this anonymous give and take, where each halacha and each word in the pasuk needs to be accounted for, in an overly-systematic fashion, is the mark of the setama degemara.

I'm not convinced that the setama degemara, composed by the Savoraim, is accurately capturing Rav's interpretation of the pesukim. I am admittedly not presently embedded in the sugya, but I would like to take up Rav's cause.


Perhaps according to Rabbi Zera, we can maintain that  לְפָנָיו means that Eleazar watches as another person slaughters, but that the identity of that other person is not determined. He is not Eleazar, but that could mean either a zar or a kohen hedyot. And then other factors can come in to select a kohen hedyot. For instance, see the heh hayediah of וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן in pasuk 6, where it cannot be who who burnt in pasuk 5.


But with Rav, and his slightly cryptic statement that אלעזר וחוקה שנינו בה, it does seem as though he views Eleazar as the actor and the chuka being that this selection of kohen is ledoros.

If so, we need another interpretation of לְפָנָיו. And so:


וְשָׁחַט אֹתָהּ לְפָנָיו -- And he, [Elazar] shall, slaughter it before it [, the camp].


That is, before the aforementioned machaneh.


This is the pattern of being outside looking in, but directing oneself towards the holy. Compare with the next pasuk:

ד  וְלָקַח אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן, מִדָּמָהּ--בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ; וְהִזָּה אֶל-נֹכַח פְּנֵי אֹהֶל-מוֹעֵד, מִדָּמָהּ--שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים.

4 And Eleazar the priest shall take of her blood with his finger, and sprinkle of her blood toward the front of the tent of meeting seven times.

where the Kohen stands outside the camp (and in later times, outside Yerushalayim), and directs the sprinkling from a great distance  אֶל-נֹכַח פְּנֵי אֹהֶל-מוֹעֵד.


On the other hand, we can match לְפָנָיו meaning "before him" with pasuk 5's  וְשָׂרַף אֶת-הַפָּרָה, לְעֵינָיו.

But, back to the first hand, it does not say לְעֵינָיו here, only the ambiguous לְפָנָיו.


מִדָּמָהּ--שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים -- perhaps this is to hark to the service of Yom Kippur. Though that sprinkling is all the way in the inner sanctum, in the kodesh kodashim, while this is all the way out of the tent. And this may be the purpose.


Next pasuk,

ה  וְשָׂרַף אֶת-הַפָּרָה, לְעֵינָיו:  אֶת-עֹרָהּ וְאֶת-בְּשָׂרָהּ וְאֶת-דָּמָהּ, עַל-פִּרְשָׁהּ יִשְׂרֹף.

5 And the heifer shall be burnt in his sight; her skin, and her flesh, and her blood, with her dung, shall be burnt.

Perhaps we can see a dual role in this -- outside the camp is the place of burning of invalidated korbanot, which have become impure. But this is like a burnt offering, being wholly burnt. It is לְעֵינָיו of Eleazar so that he has this role of presiding over the entire affair.

ו  וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן, עֵץ אֶרֶז וְאֵזוֹב--וּשְׁנִי תוֹלָעַת; וְהִשְׁלִיךְ, אֶל-תּוֹךְ שְׂרֵפַת הַפָּרָה.

6 And the priest shall take cedar-wood, and hyssop, and scarlet, and cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer.

The same items are found for the sprinkling of the metzora, with an addition of a live bird. The homiletic reasons which apply there (about making oneself small) don't seem to apply here. I don't have enough info to evaluate this. Ibn Ezra sees a link, and says that there, by metzora, he hints to the sod.


Next:

ז  וְכִבֶּס בְּגָדָיו הַכֹּהֵן, וְרָחַץ בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמַּיִם, וְאַחַר, יָבֹא אֶל-הַמַּחֲנֶה; וְטָמֵא הַכֹּהֵן, עַד-הָעָרֶב.

7 Then the priest shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he may come into the camp, and the priest shall be unclean until the even.

Rashi says it is a mikra mesuras:

and the kohen shall be unclean until evening: Transpose it [the verse] and explain it [thus]: He shall be unclean until evening, and then he may enter the camp.

וטמא הכהן עד הערב: סרסהו ודרשהו וטמא עד הערב ואחר יבוא אל המחנה:

The Karaites agree, that it is a mikra hafuch. This makes sense, without needing any transposition. After certain cleansing steps, including washing and bathing, he may enter the camp. By the way, the tumah lasts until evening. So he cannot enter the camp until then.


So, Ibn Ezra:
וטמא הכהן -וכבר ישב טמא. 


That he was already sitting tamei until evening. But he also mentions:


ויש אומרים: 
שיהיה טמא עד הערב, שלא יאכל מן הקדשים.


which, if I understand it correctly, means that he has already entered the camp, but has a bit of ritual impurity until evening, that he cannot eat of kodoshim.


Finally for this section:

ח  וְהַשֹּׂרֵף אֹתָהּ--יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו בַּמַּיִם, וְרָחַץ בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמָּיִם; וְטָמֵא, עַד-הָעָרֶב.

8 And he that burneth her shall wash his clothes in water, and bathe his flesh in water, and shall be unclean until the even.

We see from the repetition that the soref is not the same as the one who cast the hyssop etc. into the fire.


I don't know that it strikes the modern reader as strange, that these people involved in the purification process, become temporarily ritually impure. Computer scientists know about flip-flops, which toggle between states. Plus, if indeed the role is to form the bridge between pure and impure, between outside the camp and the holy of holies, then temporary distancing of the participants in the ceremony perhaps makes sense.


But here I must bring in the famous story, to teach us about the very nature of tumah and tahara, relating to the para aduma. In Midrash Rabba on Chukat:

שאל עובד כוכבים אחד את רבן יוחנן בן זכאי אילין עובדייא דאתון עבדין נראין כמין כשפים
אתם מביאים פרה ושורפין אותה וכותשין אותה ונוטלין את אפרה ואחד מכם מטמא למת מזין עליו ב' וג' טיפין ואתם אומרים לו טהרת
אמר לו לא נכנסה בך רוח תזזית מימיך?
אמר לו לאו
ראית אדם שנכנסה בו רוח תזזית?
אמר לו הן
א"ל ומה אתם עושין לו?
אמר לו מביאין עיקרין ומעשנין תחתיו ומרביצים עליה מים והיא בורחת
א"ל ישמעו אזניך מה שאתה מוצא מפיך
כך הרוח הזו רוח טומאה דכתיב (זכריה יג) וגם את הנביאים ואת רוח הטומאה אעביר מן הארץ מזין עליו מי נדה והוא בורח
לאחר שיצא אמרו לו תלמידיו רבינו לזה דחית בקנה לנו מה אתה אומר?
אמר להם חייכם לא המת מטמא ולא המים מטהרין!
אלא אמר הקב"ה חקה חקקתי גזירה גזרתי אי אתה רשאי לעבור על גזרתי דכתיב זאת חוקת התורה

A certain gentile (idolator) asked Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai: These acts which you do appear like sorcery!
You bring a heifer and burn it, and crush it, and take its ashes, and if one of you is impure from a corpse you sprinkle upon him two or three drops and you tell him he is pure!
He (Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai) said to him: Have you ever had a ruach tezazit{spirit of delirious fever} enter you in your life?
He said to him: No
He (Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai) said to him: Have you ever seen someone who aruach tezazit had entered him?
He said to him: Yes.
He (Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai) said to him: And what do you do for him?
He said to him: We bring {medicinal} roots and cause them to smoke under him, and we inundate it with water, and it {the ruach tezazit} flees.
After he {the idolator} left, his students said to him (Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai): To this one {the idolator} you have pushed away with a reed {that is, engaged in apologetics}; to us {who know better}, what will you say?
He said to them: By your lives! The corpse does not cause tum`a and the water {of the ashes of the Parah Adumah} do not cause him to be tahor!
Rather, the Holy One, Blessed Be He, said: A chok I have established, a decree I have decreed, and you are not permitted to violate my decree. As it states {in the second verse of parashat Chukat}: זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה - "This is the statute of the law."

I believe that what Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai was saying was this: There is no such thing astum'a and tahara - impurity and purity. They are not physical, nor spiritual conditions. Rather, Hashem made a decree that we should relate to someone or something that has touched a corpse as if he was impure. And similar to the decree that we should treat this as if it were impure, there is a decree that if one sprinkles Parah Adumah on him, we treat his as if he is no longer impure.

So too for the individual actors in this process. As we will see on the next pasuk, 

ט  וְאָסַף אִישׁ טָהוֹר, אֵת אֵפֶר הַפָּרָה, וְהִנִּיחַ מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה, בְּמָקוֹם טָהוֹר; וְהָיְתָה לַעֲדַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִשְׁמֶרֶת, לְמֵי נִדָּה--חַטָּאת הִוא.

9 And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of sprinkling; it is a purification from sin.

Ibn Ezra says regarding this ish tahor:

איש טהור -איננו הכהן השורף.

Thus, perhaps the process of rendering each kohen impure in turn, as the act out their part, is to ensure that different kohanim enact each part. For after performing, they are tamei and cannot participate further.

a