megillat Ruth: The LORD has *Testified* Against Me?

So goeth the JPS translation. Rut 1:21:

כ וַתֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶן, אַל-תִּקְרֶאנָה לִי נָעֳמִי: קְרֶאןָ לִי מָרָא, כִּי-הֵמַר שַׁדַּי לִי מְאֹד.	20 And she said unto them: 'Call me not Naomi, call me Marah; for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me.
כא אֲנִי מְלֵאָה הָלַכְתִּי, וְרֵיקָם הֱשִׁיבַנִי יְהוָה; לָמָּה תִקְרֶאנָה לִי, נָעֳמִי, וַיהוָה עָנָה בִי, וְשַׁדַּי הֵרַע לִי.	21 I went out full, and the LORD hath brought me back home empty; why call ye me Naomi, seeing the LORD hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me?'

Yet this is surely Biblical poetry, where we would expect poetic parallelism. But it follows Rashi, who suggests "testified" or "humbled":

has testified Heb. עָנָה, has testified against me that I dealt wickedly before Him. Another explanation: The Divine Standard of Justice has humbled me, as (Hosea 5:5): “And the pride of Israel shall be humbled (וְעָנָה).”

Given the expectation of parallelism, I would translate "afflicted." Another example where רע stands opposite ענה is Devarim 26:6:

ו וַיָּרֵעוּ אֹתָנוּ הַמִּצְרִים, וַיְעַנּוּנוּ; וַיִּתְּנוּ עָלֵינוּ, עֲבֹדָה קָשָׁה.

6 And the Egyptians dealt ill with us, and afflicted us, and laid upon us hard bondage.

Did Boaz Perform Customary Maamar?

I'll start with a Ruth-related etymology. Do you know that Oprah Winfrey, the talk-show host, is named for Ruth's sister-in-law Orpah? (as noted also by Al Gore on the previous post.) As Winfrey explains:

Oprah Winfrey: I was born, as I said, in rural Mississippi in 1954. I was born at home. There were not a lot of educated people around, and my name had been chosen from the Bible. My Aunt Ida had chosen the name, but nobody really knew how to spell it, so it went down as "Orpah" on my birth certificate, but people didn't know how to pronounce it, so they put the "P" before the "R" in every place else other than the birth certificate. On the birth certificate it is Orpah, but then it got translated to Oprah, so here we are. But that's great because Oprah spells Harpo backwards. I don't know what Orpah spells.

On to the topic described in the post title.

From the last perek of Rut:

ז וְזֹאת לְפָנִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל עַל-הַגְּאֻלָּה וְעַל-הַתְּמוּרָה, לְקַיֵּם כָּל-דָּבָר, שָׁלַף אִישׁ נַעֲלוֹ, וְנָתַן לְרֵעֵהוּ; וְזֹאת הַתְּעוּדָה, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.	7 Now this was the custom in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning exchanging, to confirm all things: a man drew off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour; and this was the attestation in Israel.--
ח וַיֹּאמֶר הַגֹּאֵל לְבֹעַז, קְנֵה-לָךְ; וַיִּשְׁלֹף, נַעֲלוֹ.	8 So the near kinsman said unto Boaz: 'Buy it for thyself.' And he drew off his shoe.
ט וַיֹּאמֶר בֹּעַז לַזְּקֵנִים וְכָל-הָעָם, עֵדִים אַתֶּם הַיּוֹם, כִּי קָנִיתִי אֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר לֶאֱלִימֶלֶךְ, וְאֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר לְכִלְיוֹן וּמַחְלוֹן--מִיַּד, נָעֳמִי.	9 And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people: 'Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was Chilion's and Mahlon's, of the hand of Naomi.
י וְגַם אֶת-רוּת הַמֹּאֲבִיָּה אֵשֶׁת מַחְלוֹן קָנִיתִי לִי לְאִשָּׁה, לְהָקִים שֵׁם-הַמֵּת עַל-נַחֲלָתוֹ, וְלֹא-יִכָּרֵת שֵׁם-הַמֵּת מֵעִם אֶחָיו, וּמִשַּׁעַר מְקוֹמוֹ: עֵדִים אַתֶּם, הַיּוֹם.	10 Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I acquired to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place; ye are witnesses this day.'
יא וַיֹּאמְרוּ כָּל-הָעָם אֲשֶׁר-בַּשַּׁעַר, וְהַזְּקֵנִים--עֵדִים; יִתֵּן יְהוָה אֶת-הָאִשָּׁה הַבָּאָה אֶל-בֵּיתֶךָ, כְּרָחֵל וּכְלֵאָה אֲשֶׁר בָּנוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶם אֶת-בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַעֲשֵׂה-חַיִל בְּאֶפְרָתָה, וּקְרָא-שֵׁם בְּבֵית לָחֶם.	11 And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said: 'We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman that is come into thy house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel; and do thou worthily in Ephrath, and be famous in Beth-lehem;
יב וִיהִי בֵיתְךָ כְּבֵית פֶּרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר-יָלְדָה תָמָר לִיהוּדָה--מִן-הַזֶּרַע, אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן יְהוָה לְךָ, מִן-הַנַּעֲרָה, הַזֹּאת.	12 and let thy house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore unto Judah, of the seed which the LORD shall give thee of this young woman.'
יג וַיִּקַּח בֹּעַז אֶת-רוּת וַתְּהִי-לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, וַיָּבֹא אֵלֶיהָ; וַיִּתֵּן יְהוָה לָהּ הֵרָיוֹן, וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן.	13 So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife; and he went in unto her, and the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son.

Earlier I mentioned irregularities in the yibbum. After all, Boaz was no brother to Machlon and Kilyon (presumably), nor was that other redeemer, Ploni Almoni. Ramban suggests this is customary yibbum, not halachic, Torah yibbum. I mentioned this earlier in terms of Naomi's suggestion to Ruth and Orpah that they might perhaps wait for Naomi to give birth to another son, who would perform yibbum, which would be a problem of achiv shelo haya beOlamo as well as eshet ach min haEm (and not min haAv).

Interestingly, when Boaz does marry Ruth, there seems to be kiddushin as well. He states

י וְגַם אֶת-רוּת הַמֹּאֲבִיָּה אֵשֶׁת מַחְלוֹן קָנִיתִי לִי לְאִשָּׁה, לְהָקִים שֵׁם-הַמֵּת עַל-נַחֲלָתוֹ, וְלֹא-יִכָּרֵת שֵׁם-הַמֵּת מֵעִם אֶחָיו, וּמִשַּׁעַר מְקוֹמוֹ: עֵדִים אַתֶּם, הַיּוֹם.

10 Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I acquired to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place; ye are witnesses this day.'

Assuming he did not sleep with Ruth in the threshing floor (a fact about which I remain somewhat unconvinced, BTW, but that should be the topic of another post), he had not yet slept with her. How could he say he "acquired" her. This sounds like regular kiddushin.

Or later:

יג וַיִּקַּח בֹּעַז אֶת-רוּת וַתְּהִי-לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, וַיָּבֹא אֵלֶיהָ; וַיִּתֵּן יְהוָה לָהּ הֵרָיוֹן, וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן.

13 So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife; and he went in unto her, and the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son.

There are then three possibilities:

1) Indeed, this is mere customary yibbum, so sleeping with her without prior betrothal would be improper. He either performed betrothal here, or the right to perform betrothal, which was done later. Thus, she was a regular wife to him, and then they slept together. There was thus kiddushin and nisuin first, perhaps as described in pasuk 13.

2) I am misreading all this, or reading too much into this. He is making a formal "acquisition" that he is to be the goel, redeemer, and not the closer relation.

3) Later, Chazal innovate "maamar," a Rabbinic betrothal performed prior to halachic yibbum. Perhaps this is not such a new Pharisaic innovation, but was practice even in Biblical times, for customary yibbum, or if that is how they read Torah law, a practice even for halachic yibbum.

More on Ruth's Name

As I gave the various etymologies in the previous post:

What is the etymology of Rus' name? Putting aside Rabbi Yochanan's explanation on Berachot 7b, which may very well not be an etymology at all ( מאי רות א"ר יוחנן שזכתה ויצא ממנה דוד שריוהו להקדוש ברוך הוא בשירות ותשבחות). Some scholars connect Rus to the Moabite רות, which parallels the Hebrew word רעות, friendship, since Moabite did not pronounce and thus eliminated the letter ayin. (I wonder, then, how Rus pronounced her mother-in-law Naomi's name.)

there was one post I neglected to mention. What is the relationship to the English word "ruth?" Can we say that Tov, that is, Ploni Almoni, was a ruthless character? :)

In fact, the English word "ruth" has a different etymology. As Webster defines it, it means "compassion for the misery of another," from Middle English ruthe, from ruen to rue. Indeed, this fits nicely into the Biblical Ruth as well.

Ruth and Naomi's Names

A word or two on Ruth and Naomi's names.

What is the etymology of Rus' name? Putting aside Rabbi Yochanan's explanation on Berachot 7b, which may very well not be an etymology at all ( מאי רות א"ר יוחנן שזכתה ויצא ממנה דוד שריוהו להקדוש ברוך הוא בשירות ותשבחות). Some scholars connect Rus to the Moabite רות, which parallels the Hebrew word רעות, friendship, since Moabite did not pronounce and thus eliminated the letter ayin. (I wonder, then, how Rus pronounced her mother-in-law Naomi's name.)

Noami, we seem to get from Naomi's mouth herself. In the first perek she makes a play on words. {Ruth 1:19-21}:

יט וַתֵּלַכְנָה שְׁתֵּיהֶם, עַד-בּוֹאָנָה בֵּית לָחֶם; וַיְהִי, כְּבוֹאָנָה בֵּית לֶחֶם, וַתֵּהֹם כָּל-הָעִיר עֲלֵיהֶן, וַתֹּאמַרְנָה הֲזֹאת נָעֳמִי.	19 So they two went until they came to Beth-lehem. And it came to pass, when they were come to Beth-lehem, that all the city was astir concerning them, and the women said: 'Is this Naomi?'
כ וַתֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶן, אַל-תִּקְרֶאנָה לִי נָעֳמִי: קְרֶאןָ לִי מָרָא, כִּי-הֵמַר שַׁדַּי לִי מְאֹד.	20 And she said unto them: 'Call me not Naomi, call me Marah; for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me.
כא אֲנִי מְלֵאָה הָלַכְתִּי, וְרֵיקָם הֱשִׁיבַנִי יְהוָה; לָמָּה תִקְרֶאנָה לִי, נָעֳמִי, וַיהוָה עָנָה בִי, וְשַׁדַּי הֵרַע לִי.	21 I went out full, and the LORD hath brought me back home empty; why call ye me Naomi, seeing the LORD hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me?'

נעם means "pleasantness" {think deracheha darchei noam} and "sweetness," such that the opposite feminine form would be Mara, "bitterness." Perhaps there is some other etymology and this is just a handy play on words, but we may as well take this as definitional.

Interestingly -- and this is obvious, but deserves mention -- it seems that people do not listen to Naomi's request for a name change, if indeed she meant it in truth as opposed to as a bitter, caustic comment on her present situation. We read in the next perek:

ה וַיֹּאמֶר בֹּעַז לְנַעֲרוֹ, הַנִּצָּב עַל-הַקּוֹצְרִים: לְמִי, הַנַּעֲרָה הַזֹּאת.	5 Then said Boaz unto his servant that was set over the reapers: 'Whose damsel is this?'
ו וַיַּעַן, הַנַּעַר הַנִּצָּב עַל-הַקּוֹצְרִים--וַיֹּאמַר: נַעֲרָה מוֹאֲבִיָּה הִיא, הַשָּׁבָה עִם-נָעֳמִי מִשְּׂדֵי מוֹאָב.	6 And the servant that was set over the reapers answered and said: 'It is a Moabitish damsel that came back with Naomi out of the field of Moab;

and in the fourth perek:

ג וַיֹּאמֶר, לַגֹּאֵל, חֶלְקַת הַשָּׂדֶה, אֲשֶׁר לְאָחִינוּ לֶאֱלִימֶלֶךְ: מָכְרָה נָעֳמִי, הַשָּׁבָה מִשְּׂדֵה מוֹאָב.

3 And he said unto the near kinsman: 'Naomi, that is come back out of the field of Moab, selleth the parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech's;

How are we to pronounce her name? Is the standard English equivalent, Naomi, anywhere close? Or should we pronounce it Na'ami?

Well, throughout, the name is written נָעֳמִי, with a chataf kametz under the ayin. We pronounce this as a short kametz katon, thus as an /o/. The pronunciation of chataf kametz is a bit strange, since the elongated version in the letter preceding it is assumed to be a kametz gadol, /a/. Thus, Naomi (nuh-omi) is not bad.

Naso: Why Converts Are Great

Relevant to Naso, as it occurs in Bamidbar Rabba, as well as to Shavuot and Rut. I saw a beautiful midrash Rabba about why Hashem loves the convert.

The midrash discusses how various groups require yichus to enter. Thus, we have in Tehillim 118:

ב יֹאמַר-נָא יִשְׂרָאֵל: כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ.	2 So let Israel now say, for His mercy endureth for ever,
ג יֹאמְרוּ-נָא בֵית-אַהֲרֹן: כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ.	3 So let the house of Aaron now say, for His mercy endureth for ever.
ד יֹאמְרוּ-נָא יִרְאֵי ה: כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ.	4 So let them now that fear the LORD say, for His mercy endureth for ever.

We have bet Levi, and bet Aharon. But anyone, even a gentile, can be a tzaddik, a righteous person, and join those that fear the LORD. (I was unclear if this meant by converting.)

Further, the midrash makes a mashal of a king who has a flock of sheep, and a deer joins the flock, living in the way of the sheep. The king commands the shepherds to be especially careful, and watchful, over the deer. "Why?" -- ask the shepherds. "Do you not have many many sheep?" The king answers that living in this way is the natural way of these sheep, whereas the deer is unique in that it chose to live in this domesticated way.

Indeed, many Jews who are FFB (Frum From Birth) did not specifically choose to be Jewish. They were (luckily) born that way. It is natural to proceed along this course, in the way they were raised. On the other hand, converts -- and baalei teshuva as well -- made the choice to become Jewish and religious.

Sure, we have Shavuot every year, celebrating the acceptance of the Torah, where we relive naaseh veNishma. But in many cases we keep Torah because it is natural, having been brought up this way. It is something else entirely to accept the Torah, starting from not having Torah. This is an impressive act, and it is fitting to celebrate Ruth, who stated:

טז וַתֹּאמֶר רוּת אַל-תִּפְגְּעִי-בִי, לְעָזְבֵךְ לָשׁוּב מֵאַחֲרָיִךְ: כִּי אֶל-אֲשֶׁר תֵּלְכִי אֵלֵךְ, וּבַאֲשֶׁר תָּלִינִי אָלִין--עַמֵּךְ עַמִּי, וֵאלֹהַיִךְ אֱלֹהָי.	16 And Ruth said: 'Entreat me not to leave thee, and to return from following after thee; for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God;
יז בַּאֲשֶׁר תָּמוּתִי אָמוּת, וְשָׁם אֶקָּבֵר; כֹּה יַעֲשֶׂה ה לִי, וְכֹה יוֹסִיף--כִּי הַמָּוֶת, יַפְרִיד בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵךְ.	17 where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried; the LORD do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part thee and me.'

Cross-Dressing Ruth and Naomi

Hirhurim has a post about cross-dressing, and the situations in which is permitted or not. Since I'm focused now on megillat Rut, I would point out a midrash that Ruth and Naomi dressed as men on their way back to Bet Lechem Yehuda, for safety's sake, such that they would not be harassed. (After all, they were two women traveling alone.)

The basis of this is Ruth 1:19,

יט וַתֵּלַכְנָה שְׁתֵּיהֶם, עַד-בּוֹאָנָה בֵּית לָחֶם; וַיְהִי, כְּבוֹאָנָה בֵּית לֶחֶם, וַתֵּהֹם כָּל-הָעִיר עֲלֵיהֶן, וַתֹּאמַרְנָה הֲזֹאת נָעֳמִי.

19 So they two went until they came to Beth-lehem. And it came to pass, when they were come to Beth-lehem, that all the city was astir concerning them, and the women said: 'Is this Naomi?'

if I recall correctly and deduce correctly, from the word שְׁתֵּיהֶם rather than שתיהן. And this was only until they came to Bet Lechem, עַד-בּוֹאָנָה בֵּית לָחֶם.

Shavuot; Daf Yomi Yevamot 17a: How Naomi Proposes Yibbum For אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו and אחין מן האם

With Shavuot coming up, in which we read megillat Ruth, and with daf Yomi learning through Yevamot, this is a timely post. We read in today's daf Yomi that Yibbum does not extend to a maternal (rather than paternal) brother, nor to a brother born after the death of the deceased. Indeed, since it does not extend, there is a prohibition of eshet ach in play. (Assuming I am reading the gemaras correctly.)

Citing my translation of the Rif:

{Yevamot 17a}
Gemara:

אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו היכא כתיבא
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אמר קרא כי ישבו אחים אחים שהיתה להם ישיבה אחת בעולם פרט לאשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו
יחדיו המיוחדין בנחלה פרט לאחין מן האם:

The wife of the brother who was not in his world, where is it written?
Rav Yehuda cited Rav: The verse stated {Devarim 25:5}

ה כִּי-יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּו, וּמֵת אַחַד מֵהֶם וּבֵן אֵין-לוֹ--לֹא-תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת-הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה, לְאִישׁ זָר: יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ, וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וְיִבְּמָהּ.

5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad unto one not of his kin; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her.

Brothers who have a single {shared} dwelling in the world, to the exclusion of the wife of the brother who was not in his world. {The next word:} יַחְדָּו - together - who are distinct in inheritance, to the exclusion of brothers from the mother.

As we learn in Yevamot 55, the maternal brother's wife is prohibited under eshet ach. (thus אלמא אחות אשתו בין מן האב בין מן האם אסורות.) And so should eshet ach shelo haya beOlamo, since there is no yibbum or chalitza.

However, we run into problems when considering megillat Ruth. Sefer Bereishit itself gives us problems, since Yehuda performs yibbum on his widowed daughter-in-law. One can say this was an extended yibbum in play before mattan Torah, such that the relationship of kallato did not present problems.

In megillat Ruth, it appears that yibbum is fulfilled by Boaz on Ruth, where he seems to be an extended relative, not a brother to Machlon or Kilyon. Ramban explains this as being customary yibbum, rather than yibbum as laid out by halacha and Torah law. There are other options, which I won't go into right now.

This is good for the Boaz relationship, but what Naomi suggests earlier to Ruth and Orpah is somewhat troubling. Naomi says {Ruth 1:11 - 13}

יא וַתֹּאמֶר נָעֳמִי שֹׁבְנָה בְנֹתַי, לָמָּה תֵלַכְנָה עִמִּי: הַעוֹד-לִי בָנִים בְּמֵעַי, וְהָיוּ לָכֶם לַאֲנָשִׁים.	11 And Naomi said: 'Turn back, my daughters; why will ye go with me? have I yet sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands?
יב שֹׁבְנָה בְנֹתַי לֵכְןָ, כִּי זָקַנְתִּי מִהְיוֹת לְאִישׁ: כִּי אָמַרְתִּי, יֶשׁ-לִי תִקְוָה--גַּם הָיִיתִי הַלַּיְלָה לְאִישׁ, וְגַם יָלַדְתִּי בָנִים.	12 Turn back, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say: I have hope, should I even have an husband to-night, and also bear sons;
יג הֲלָהֵן תְּשַׂבֵּרְנָה, עַד אֲשֶׁר יִגְדָּלוּ, הֲלָהֵן תֵּעָגֵנָה, לְבִלְתִּי הֱיוֹת לְאִישׁ; אַל בְּנֹתַי, כִּי-מַר-לִי מְאֹד מִכֶּם--כִּי-יָצְאָה בִי, יַד-יְהוָה.	13 would ye tarry for them till they were grown? would ye shut yourselves off for them and have no husbands? nay, my daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes, for the hand of the LORD is gone forth against me.'

She is saying that she has no more sons. She presents a hypothetical in which she would sleep with a man that night and have sons. If so, would they wait for those sons to grow up?

The problem here is that Machlon and Kilyon have already died. Any sons born to her would be brothers who were never in the world of the deceased. Can we then say this is customary yibbum? Well, we could, but what about the prohibition of eshet ach?!

Furthermore, any brother would be a maternal brother to Machlon and Kilyon, rather than a paternal brother, since he would not be the son of Elimelech. Yibbum does not hold in such a case, and it is difficult to ascribe this to customary yibbum, since there is the prohibition of eshet ach.

Some possibilities occur to me. I'm sure there are others. I should check out meforshim, or you are free to and post in the comments. :)
1) They understood the pesukim differently than Rav, and we do not have to have Biblical characters keep Pharisee halacha. This may be true even within the Pharisaic system of halacha. The bet Din of each generation learns its own derashot and can decide against a bet Din from an earlier generation.
2) Ruth coverted at this point, so eshet ach did not present such a halachic problem.
3) Naomi was not a yoetzet halacha, or a rabbanit. She was talking in anguish over the loss of her sons, and attempting to persuade her daughters-in-law to remain in Moav. Who says she knew the correct halacha?

I'm leaning towards the first one.

Daf Yomi Yevamot 17a: Rav's Derashot About אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו and אחין מן האם as Peshat

On Yevamot daf 17a, Rav gives derivations for two halachot via derasha, but the derashot actually strikes me as true on a peshat level as well, as coming from those particular words or thereabout.

Citing my translation of the Rif:

{Yevamot 17a}
Gemara:

אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו היכא כתיבא
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אמר קרא כי ישבו אחים אחים שהיתה להם ישיבה אחת בעולם פרט לאשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו
יחדיו המיוחדין בנחלה פרט לאחין מן האם:

The wife of the brother who was not in his world, where is it written?
Rav Yehuda cited Rav: The verse stated {Devarim 25:5}

ה כִּי-יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּו, וּמֵת אַחַד מֵהֶם וּבֵן אֵין-לוֹ--לֹא-תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת-הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה, לְאִישׁ זָר: יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ, וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וְיִבְּמָהּ.

5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad unto one not of his kin; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her.

Brothers who have a single {shared} dwelling in the world, to the exclusion of the wife of the brother who was not in his world. {The next word:} יַחְדָּו - together - who are distinct in inheritance, to the exclusion of brothers from the mother.

This all sounds very midrashic, but in fact these deductions make good sense as peshat within the general parsha, and even good peshat on the words from which they are derived as well.

The pasuk states כִּי-יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּו, if two brothers dwell together. Let us step back a moment and think how it is that two brothers dwell together. In Biblical days past, there was an extended family unit headed by the paterfamilias, which we might call the bet av. Brothers, with their families, dwelled together. The idea seems to be that when a woman is widowed without children, she is not abandoned and alone in the world, but another brother steps up to the plate and takes her into his household, and furthermore that they continue that particular branch of the family. There is an element of duty to the brother as well, and also inheritance. As we read (same perek):

ו וְהָיָה, הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד--יָקוּם, עַל-שֵׁם אָחִיו הַמֵּת; וְלֹא-יִמָּחֶה שְׁמוֹ, מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.

6 And it shall be, that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel.

shem means inheritance, or as I like to translate it to English, "title." We see this explicitly by Ephraim and Menashe, or actually children after them, about whom we read {Bereishit 48}:

ו וּמוֹלַדְתְּךָ אֲשֶׁר-הוֹלַדְתָּ אַחֲרֵיהֶם, לְךָ יִהְיוּ; עַל שֵׁם אֲחֵיהֶם יִקָּרְאוּ, בְּנַחֲלָתָם.

6 And thy issue, that thou begettest after them, shall be thine; they shall be called after the name of their brethren in their inheritance.

and if further evidence is necessary, the yibbum by Rut is lehakim shem haMet al nachalato, and the child born is not named Machlon or Kilyon.

Considering all this -- when are the two brothers dwelling side by side under the same paterfamilias? When both are alive at the same time. (In fact, he does not, but we may stress yachdav.) If so, a brother born after the death of his brother does not dwell with him, and would not be expected to assume these responsibilities. Indeed, before he was born, she could have gone off to marry some stranger (or some other brother). And where there is no obligation of yibbum, there is a prohibition of eshet ach, the brother's wife, just as she is prohibited to him had she had children.

In terms of a maternal brother, such a brother would be in a different bet av, with a different paterfamilias. They would not be yachdav, or dwelling yachdav. And at issue is inheritance, (as indeed they darshen yachdav as מיוחדין בנחלה) and what business does a maternal brother have to inheritance from someone who is not his father?

Next up, how sefer Rut challenges these two laws.

Parshat Bamidbar: In the presence of Aaron their father - but who did what?

In parshat Bamidbar, we read {Bemidbar 3:4}:

ג אֵלֶּה, שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן, הַכֹּהֲנִים, הַמְּשֻׁחִים--אֲשֶׁר-מִלֵּא יָדָם, לְכַהֵן.	3 These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the priests that were anointed, whom he consecrated to minister in the priest's office.
ד וַיָּמָת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא לִפְנֵי ה בְּהַקְרִבָם אֵשׁ זָרָה לִפְנֵי ה, בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי, וּבָנִים, לֹא-הָיוּ לָהֶם; וַיְכַהֵן אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר, עַל-פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם. {פ	4 And Nadab and Abihu died before the LORD, when they offered strange fire before the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai, and they had no children; and Eleazar and Ithamar ministered in the priest's office in the presence of Aaron their father. {P}

There is a dispute amongst parshanim as to the meaning of עַל-פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם at the end of pasuk 4. Rashi explains it as rendered in the JPS translation above, that they, Eleazar and Itamar, ministered in their father's lifetime. This certainly seems like the most straightforward explanation, especially in light of the previous pasuk.

Ramban, however, points to a parallel in Divrei Hayamim I 24:2:

א וְלִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן, מַחְלְקוֹתָם: בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן--נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא, אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר.	1 And the courses of the sons of Aaron were these. The sons of Aaron: Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.
ב וַיָּמָת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא לִפְנֵי אֲבִיהֶם, וּבָנִים לֹא-הָיוּ לָהֶם; וַיְכַהֲנוּ, אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר.	2 But Nadab and Abihu died before their father, and had no children; therefore Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest's office.
ג וַיֶּחָלְקֵם דָּוִיד--וְצָדוֹק מִן-בְּנֵי אֶלְעָזָר, וַאֲחִימֶלֶךְ מִן-בְּנֵי אִיתָמָר: לִפְקֻדָּתָם, בַּעֲבֹדָתָם.	3 And David with Zadok of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahimelech of the sons of Ithamar, divided them according to their ordering in their service.

Ramban matches עַל-פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם in parshat Bamidbar to לִפְנֵי אֲבִיהֶם in Divrei Hayamim, and therefore interprets the pasuk in Bamidbar differently. It is rather Nadav and Avihu (rather than Elezear and Itamar) who died (rather than ministered) עַל-פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם (and also, of course לִפְנֵי ה). Thus, it the phrase attaches to a place much earlier in the verse, and much higher in the syntactic tree.

The trup appears to agree with Rashi's reading, putting the etnachta on lahem, thus clearly having עַל־פְּנֵ֖י אַֽהֲרֹ֥ן אֲבִיהֶֽם as part of the second portion of the verse.

א וְאֵ֛לֶּה תּֽוֹלְדֹ֥ת אַֽהֲרֹ֖ן וּמֹשֶׁ֑ה בְּי֗וֹם דִּבֶּ֧ר יְהוָ֛ה אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֖ה בְּהַ֥ר סִינָֽי׃ ב וְאֵ֛לֶּה שְׁמ֥וֹת בְּֽנֵי־אַהֲרֹ֖ן הַבְּכֹ֣ר ׀ נָדָ֑ב וַֽאֲבִיה֕וּא אֶלְעָזָ֖ר וְאִֽיתָמָֽר׃ ג אֵ֗לֶּה שְׁמוֹת֙ בְּנֵ֣י אַֽהֲרֹ֔ן הַכֹּֽהֲנִ֖ים הַמְּשֻׁחִ֑ים אֲשֶׁר־מִלֵּ֥א יָדָ֖ם לְכַהֵֽן׃ ד וַיָּ֣מָת נָדָ֣ב וַֽאֲבִיה֣וּא לִפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֡ה בְּֽהַקְרִבָם֩ אֵ֨שׁ זָרָ֜ה לִפְנֵ֤י יְהוָה֙ בְּמִדְבַּ֣ר סִינַ֔י וּבָנִ֖ים לֹֽא־הָי֣וּ לָהֶ֑ם וַיְכַהֵ֤ן אֶלְעָזָר֙ וְאִ֣יתָמָ֔ר עַל־פְּנֵ֖י אַֽהֲרֹ֥ן אֲבִיהֶֽם׃ {פ

Shadal points this out, stating:

על פני אהרון אביהם : לדעת רמב"ן חוזר למעלה, וימת נדב ואביהוא על פני אהרן אביהם, וכן הוא בד"ה א' כ"ד ב ', והאתנח ראוי תחת ואיתמר (נתה"ש

Thus, Shadal appears to agree with Ramban's reading, but points out that the etnachta should go under the word veItamar.

As it currently stands:


Click on the image to see the trup tree. If we move the etnachta to Itamar, the first division moves to that point, and we can say (for instance) that עַל-פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם modifies the entire first portion of the verse, where the main topic is Nadav and Avihu's death, with Eleazar and Itamar as an aside.

Shadal feels free to do this because he holds that the particular trup as we have it is post-Talmudic. What would Ramban say, though?

I would note the gemara in Chagiga 6b, where there is a machloket about the meaning of a specific pasuk in terms of which karbanot were brought, with the nafka mina being what trup there is (at least as Rashi explains it):

אל בעי רב חסדא האי קרא היכי כתיב (שמות כד) וישלח את נערי בני ישראל ויעלו עולות כבשים ויזבחו זבחים שלמים לה' פרים או דלמא אידי ואידי פרים הוו למאי נפקא מינה מר זוטרא אמר לפיסוק טעמים

Perhaps if this is really so we should move the position of etnachta when laining this Shabbos, and recalculate all the rest of the trup to match.

Perhaps one can point out the Wickes has the primary dichotomy as a logical one and all subsequent (minor) dichotomies as syntactic, and the present position of the etnachta is the one that divides the pasuk most into two discrete logical topics, even though it strands the last phrase in a syntactically invalid or awkward position.

Are We All Thieves? High Tech Heists and Halacha

I just received this in my email. A source book/shiur about intellectual property and piracy. Plus more. Check it out.


as

Misquoting Kohelet Rabba

I typically read the letters to the editor in the Jewish Press each week. This week's ended with a dvar Torah sent in showing how Chazal were big fans of environmentalism.

The letter starts:

Shavuos honors the receiving of the Torah, the time when Jews accepted the responsibility to be a light unto the world. Part of that responsibility is to accept God’s creations. Koheles Rabbah (VII, 13) states, “See my works, how beautiful and praiseworthy they are; and I created all of it for you. Be careful not to spoil or destroy my world because if you spoil it, there will be no one after you to repair it.”

The quote appears to be talking to all of man, and telling him to take care of the world and not ruin the environment, for if you spoil it, it cannot be undone.

In fact, the full quote is:

Thus, it was directed to Adam haRishon, not to all people. The beautiful and wonderous works were the trees of Gan Eden. The ruining of it was not by chopping down trees or polluting a river but rather by sinning by eating from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. And the quote would have made that clear since it continues from "there will be no one after you to repair it" with "and not only that, but you will cause death to that righteous person" (who is Moshe, as we continue to read). Thus, the topic is refraining from sin rather than environmental protection.

And as we see, he did mess up and caused all this.

Perhaps one can extrapolate from all this an environmental message (and perhaps not), but this is either deliberately or accidentally dishonest. And where you start manufacturing quotes by taking them out of context, I begin to wonder whether any of the sources legitimately bolster your claim. (In fact, this has been true in the past for other environmentalism devar Torah claims.)

Indeed, his other two quotes make use of ellipses, which make me wonder whether he is Dowdifying the quotes. I don't have time right now to examine them, though.

Scattered Thoughts on haftarat Bamidbar

The haftara for Bamidbar is the second perek of Hoshea, and I have a few points to note:

The mashal is to a cheating spouse, who is cast off, seeks her lovers but does not attain them, and then seeks to return to her first spouse - אֵלְכָה וְאָשׁוּבָה אֶל-אִישִׁי הָרִאשׁוֹן--כִּי טוֹב לִי אָז, מֵעָתָּה. Meanwhile, what she thought were the wages of her lovers (the Bealim) were really provided by her husband. And then he woos her and betroths her forever.

There is a connection to the previous perek where Hoshea followed Hashem's instruction to marry a harlot and "children of harlotry" (though my reading of it had the children born being fathered by Hoshea -- and I take וַיִּקַּח there to mean marry), and to name the children born as they are named.

According to halacha, though, I wonder whether the mashal could be realized. It is not really a machzir gerushato problem, since she did not marry the lovers after being sent off by her husband. But a sota is forbidden to her lover and to her husband. Luckily for us, this is a mashal, and one cannot ask such a question on it to uproot the nimshal.

The next two points are not original. In pasuk 18:

יח וְהָיָה בַיּוֹם-הַהוּא נְאֻם-יְהוָה, תִּקְרְאִי אִישִׁי; וְלֹא-תִקְרְאִי-לִי עוֹד, בַּעְלִי.	18 And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call Me Ishi, and shalt call Me no more Baali.
יט וַהֲסִרֹתִי אֶת-שְׁמוֹת הַבְּעָלִים, מִפִּיהָ; וְלֹא-יִזָּכְרוּ עוֹד, בִּשְׁמָם.	19 For I will take away the names of the Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be mentioned by their name.

Notice how the JPS translation deliberately does not translate Ishi and Baali. There is deliberate multivalence, here, or at least a pun. Ishi means husband, and Baali also can be used to mean husband. Malbim says that the former connotes the love aspect of the relationship while the latter refers to the memshala of the relationship. But of course it can also refer to Baal as in the idolatry (as in the immediate context in the next pasuk). This is a deliberate pun.

Finally, the last pasuk has a word we spoke about in a Biblical Hebrew class or two:

כב וְאֵרַשְׂתִּיךְ לִי, בֶּאֱמוּנָה; וְיָדַעַתְּ, אֶת-ה. {פ}

22 And I will betroth thee unto Me in faithfulness; and thou shalt know the LORD. {P}

וְיָדַעַתְּ is strange, but that is its grammatical form. What is strange about it is the dagesh in the tav at the end. If it were a dagesh chazak, we would expect a sheva na under it, which we clearly do not have -- and why should there be a dagesh chazak? It would therefore be a dagesh kal, but we have that only in a consonant cluster at the end of the word? -- if the ayin had a sheva nach, we could have the tav with a sheva nach as well. Since the ayin has a patach, we should expect the dagesh kal to be absent from the tav. It is thus a cross between veyada'ath and veyada't.

Is It Halachically Problematic to Make Use of Someone Else's Tunes?

Without linking to the "controversy" ... more specifically, can a Jewish artist take a tune from a secular source and make a Jewish variant of it -- and then make a profit, by selling CDs with the tune or performing it in concert.

I am not a lawyer, and will not address this from a legal angle. Nor am I giving a pesak halacha here.

However, classically, this is what has been done over and over, even for some secular songs. The tune to the Star Spangled Banner is a rip-off of a Russian drinking song. Many chassidish niggunim are Russian or Polish drinking songs or marches. Case in point -- the Tetris niggun.

Further, where the audience is small and specific - a niche market - then this is a classic case of zeh nehneh vezeh lo chaser - "this one benefits and this one does not lose" - which is halachically permissible. People who buy Uncle Moishe are typically not the same ones that buy Raffi, and people who buy MBD are typically not the type to listen to German rock bands. So I would say "no." Schlock Rock to regular rock - well, they are targeting the same audience as a kiruv endeavor, but still, one would have to see if people really would buy one as an alternative to the other (I would tend to doubt it, but don't know).

Meanwhile, copying a CD or tape where you really otherwise would have purchased it -- this can certainly be cast as zeh nehneh vezeh chaser, which is more problematic.

parshat Behar, Bamidbar: Mah Inyan Shemitta Eitzel Har Sinai

Parshat Behar began {Vayikra 25:1}:

א וַיְדַבֵּר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, בְּהַר סִינַי לֵאמֹר.	1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying:
ב דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם, כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן לָכֶם--וְשָׁבְתָה הָאָרֶץ, שַׁבָּת לַה.	2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto the LORD.
ג שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְרַע שָׂדֶךָ, וְשֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְמֹר כַּרְמֶךָ; וְאָסַפְתָּ, אֶת-תְּבוּאָתָהּ.	3 Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the produce thereof.

Rashi asks the now-famous question, mah inyan shemitta eitzel har sinai? Rashi explains:

on Mount Sinai What [special relevance] does the subject of Shemittah [the “release” of fields in the seventh year] have with Mount Sinai? Were not all the commandments stated from Sinai? However, [this teaches us that] just as with Shemittah, its general principles and its finer details were all stated from Sinai, likewise, all of them were stated-their general principles [together with] their finer details-from Sinai. This is what is taught in Torath Kohanim (25:1). [And why is Shemittah used as the example to prove this rule, especially since the very fine details are not even specified here (Sefer Hazikkaron)?] It appears to me that its explanation is as follows: [At the plains of Moab, Moses reiterated the majority of the laws of the Torah to the Israelites before their entry into the land of Israel, this reiteration comprising most of the Book of Deuteronomy. Now,] since we do not find the laws of Shemittah [“release”] of land reiterated on the plains of Moab in Deuteronomy, we learn that its general principles, finer details, and explanations were all stated at Sinai. Scripture states this [phrase] here to teach us that [just as in the case of Shemittah,] every statement [i.e., every commandment] that was conveyed to Moses came from Sinai, [including] their general principles and finer details [and that the commandments delineated in Deuteronomy were merely] repeated and reviewed on the plains of Moab [not originally given there].

We see the following in the beginning of parshat Bamidbar, by Rashbam. On the first pasuk of Bamidbar {Bamidbar 1:1}:

א וַיְדַבֵּר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי, בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד: בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית, לְצֵאתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם--לֵאמֹר.	1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tent of meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying:
ב שְׂאוּ, אֶת-רֹאשׁ כָּל-עֲדַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם, לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם--בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת, כָּל-זָכָר לְגֻלְגְּלֹתָם.	2 'Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of names, every male, by their polls;

He notes בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד and explains that this is new, in the second year -- as the pasuk states, בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית. Until now, during the first year, before the Mishkan was established, all dibrot to Moshe were labelled beHar Sinai. Once the Mishkan was established, it is beMidbar Sinai beOhel Moed. He gives an interesting prooftext on the basis of the presence or lack of Nadav and Avihu in the toledot of Aharon, given that Nadiv and Avihu died during the inauguration of the Mishkan.

Also, Rashbam gives a nice reason for the count in Bamidbar. The entire point is כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא, which is a repeated refrain. After all, their next task is conquering eretz Yisrael. Recall that this was before the sin of the meraglim, the spies.

Daf Yomi Yevamot 21a: Who Is Rav's Fourth?

I ask questions here, and provide source materials. I have clear preferences in answers, but much more thought is due than what I give it here.

Bavli Yevamot 21a:

אמר רב ארבע נשים יש להן הפסק נקיט רב בידיה תלת אשת אחי האם מן האב ואשת אחי האב מן האם וכלתו וזעירי מוסיף אף אשת אבי אמו
אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק וסימניך דעילאי דרב
ורב מאי טעמא לא חשיב ליה מיחלפא ליה באשת אבי אביו
וזעירי להתם שכיח ואזיל להכא לא שכיח ואזיל

Rav said: Four women have a break {in that only they are forbidden but not their descendants or ancestors}.
And Rav had in his hand three: The wife of his mother's paternal brother, the wife of his father's maternal brother, and the daughter-in-law of his daughter.
And Zeiri added: even the wife of his mother's father.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: And your mnemonic is "above that of Rav" {since it is one more than what he had in his hand, and it is one generation above that of Rav, going to the third generation.
And Rav, for what reason did he not reckon it? It will be confused with the wife of his father's father {who is forbidden Biblically, and who has no such break. therefore, they set no limit by her}.
And Zeiri {what reason does he say they set the limit in this case}? There {to the father's family}, it is common to go; here {the mother's family} one does not usually go.

Rif cites both Rav and Zeiri, which means we pasken like both of them.

Let us set aside the setama digmara's analysis for a moment, in which there is a dispute between Rav and Zeiri, and a reason why each does not hold like the other.

Note that Rav states that four women have a "break," but is only able to identify three. Why, then, say four?

There are at least two possibilities here. Recall that Rav is a first generation Amora, who studied braytot in Eretz Yisrael. One possibility is that Rav is recalling some tradition in a brayta that there are four such women, but is only able to come up with three of them. If so, perhaps Zeiri is coming up with the fourth, and Rav is grateful to him for this. What then of the setama digmara's analysis? We can apply it to the reason Rav did not come up with it initially. (After all, we pasken like Zeiri anyway. Why not let Rav agree.) Or else the setama came up with an excellent reason, but in fact Rav would hold like Zeiri. Alternatively, even after Zeiri spoke, Rav still disagreed, and still searches for that fourth case.

Another possibility is that Rav himself came up with four, but could not remember the fourth that he came up with. And then we can bring in all the possibilities listed above.

This is all if we only work locally, in Bavel. However, if we cast our eyes to Eretz Yisrael, to the Talmud Yerushalmi, perhaps we can find Rav's forgotten fourth woman.

{In Bavli, Before Rav's statement, we have the following definition of secondary forbidden relatives: ת"ר מה הם שניות אם אמו ואם אביו ואשת אבי אביו ואשת אבי אמו ואשת אחי האב מן האם ואשת אחי האם מן האב וכלת בנו וכלת בתו ומותר אדם באשת חמיו ובאשת חורגו ואסור בבת חורגו וחורגו מותר באשתו ובתו ואשת חורגו אומרת לו אני מותרת לך ובתי אסורה לך:
Our Rabbis taught: Who are the forbidden relatives in the second degree? — His mother's mother, his father's mother, his father's father's wife, his mother's fathers wife, the wife of his father's maternal brother, the wife of his mother's paternal brother, the daughter-in-law of his son daughter-in-law his daughter. A man is permitted to marry the wife of his father-in-law and the wife of his step-son but is forbidden to marry the daughter of his step-son. His step-son is permitted to marry his wife and his daughter. The wife of his step-son may say to him, 'I am permitted to you though daughter is forbidden to you'.}

Yerushalmi Yevamot 12a:
דף יב,א פרק ב הלכה ד גמרא

ואלו הן השניות
אם אביו
אם אמו
אשת אבי אביו.
ואשת אבי אמו.
אשת בן בנו
ואשת בן בתו.
אשת אחי אמו
ואשת אחי אביו מאמו.

תני רבי חנין אומר כולהון אין להן הפסק חוץ מאשת אבי אמו.
בר קפרא אמר כולהון יש להן הפסק דבר קפרא מוסיף אם אבי אמו ואם אבי אביו.
רב אמר כלת בנו יש לה הפסק.
מה פליג. כלת בנו ממקום אחר באת

So first it lists all the shniyot, secondary Rabbinically forbidden relatives. Then, there is a definition of who has this "break."

They taught {a brayta}: Rabbi Chanin says that all of them {the shniyot} do not have this "break" property except for the wife of his mother's father.
Bar Kappara {also a quasi-tanna, arranger of braytot just as Rabbi arranged Mishnayot} said: All of them have "breakage" -- for Bar Kappara adds his mother's father's mother and his father's father's mother.
Rav said: His son's daughter-in-law has "breakage."
What is the source of the dispute? His son's daughter-in-law comes from another place.

Interestingly, Zeiri's addition -- the wife of his mother's father -- is in fact the only exclusion given by Rabbi Chanin in the brayta.

Rav's case of his daughter's daughter-in-law does not appear in Yerushalmi.

If we bring in the Bavli, though, Rav does not agree with bar Kappara -- which is fine, because Rav tanna hu ufalig. The question is whether he agrees with Rabbi Chanin, brought in the brayta, which is seems bar Kappara was reacting to. If so, Zeiri is reminding Rav of the opinion in the brayta, to give him his fourth.

However, the Yerushalmi also gives us an explicit fourth attributed to Rav. Therefore, it would seem that Rav also rejects Rabbi Chanin, and Rav's fourth is his son's daughter-in-law, parallel to his daughter's daughter-in-law.

Tzarich iyyun and zeman, which I don't have at the moment. There is much more to say, but things are going on in which I cannot focus. Maybe I will revisit this later. See also the suggested girsological changes on the Yerushalmi by the meforshim.

Note: This post underwent a hurried extensive stealth edit shortly after being posted. Hopefully it still makes sense.

Square Rectangular Mail

From the new postal guidelines:

All large envelopes (flats) will be required to be rectangular in shape. This includes square pieces.

This had triggered jokes such as -- wow, if a square is not rectangular, they cannot deliver it?

While this is somewhat bad and unclear writing, there is of course a straightforward explanation -- it is a ribbuy (inclusion) rather than a miut (exclusion). All large envelopes (flats) will be required to be rectangular in shape. Presumably for machines to be able to process better. Ah, but what is the definition of a rectangle? There is a lenient mathematical definition, under which squares are a type of rectangle. There is also a more stringent colloquial definition under which a rectangle is a shape in which the length is not equal to the width. And perhaps the machines might even have difficulty processing this. Thus, they say that the set "rectangular in shape" "includes square pieces."

Reduction of Choilam

This past Shabbos, I davened in Rabbi Shapiro's shul and noticed that the baal shacharit pronounced all his cholams as /oy/. Which is Oykay by me. But then I noticed that he pronounced some of his cholams as /o/. For example, he said ledor vador and be`or panecha.

I came up with a few incorrect hypotheses to attempt to explain this - perhaps early on he pronounced these words as cholam rather than choilam, they go reduced to kamatz (which was about how he was pronouncing them), which now prevented realization of them as choilam.

But then Rabbi Shapiro davened mussaf, and I noticed that he did exactly the same thing, in the same places. (In fact, the baal shacharit was a grandson of Rabbi Shapiro.) And the kid who sang Adoin Oilam did the same. So, it is not an error so much as a consistent pattern.

The answer seems to be that there is a phonological reduction of choilam to cholam where it is followed by resh in a closed syllable. (A closed syllable is one that ends with a consonant.) Why? Well, try saying be`oir or ledoir. Based on the configuration of the mouth for each sound, there is an automatic sheva insertion to allow pronunciation of the resh. Thus, it would have to be pronounced le-doy-er and be-oy-er. With conscious effort, one can avoid this, but otherwise, it is automatic. This is somewhat like patach ganuv in Hebrew, where a final chet or ayin is introduced by a leading patach. (Or the diphthong ay as in the English word "mile," which most people I know pronounce as one syllable, but which Dr. Suess clearly pronounced as one, as you can see by his meter.)

The alternative to insertion of shwa, which is in effect transforms the syllable into two syllables,
one can reduced the diphthong-ness of the diphthong, thus changing the choilam into a cholam.

This appeared to be true only in closed syllables, but in open syllables, the resh could begin the next syllable and so their was no reduction. Thus, be-or (which is closed), but oirois (where the first oi is open, and the resh begins the next syllable.)

I noticed the Rabbi Shapiro had similar reduction, though not total reduction, in the presence of other closing consonants. Something to pay attention to in the future (besides of course for the semantic meaning of the words ;) .

Daf Yomi Yevamot: A Slightly Non-Normative Interpretation of Machzir Grushato

The topic of machzir grushato, remarrying one's ex-wife -- Devarim 24, in Ki Teitzei:

א כִּי-יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה, וּבְעָלָהּ; וְהָיָה אִם-לֹא תִמְצָא-חֵן בְּעֵינָיו, כִּי-מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר--וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ, וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ.	1 When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house,
ב וְיָצְאָה, מִבֵּיתוֹ; וְהָלְכָה, וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ-אַחֵר.	2 and she departeth out of his house, and goeth and becometh another man's wife,
ג וּשְׂנֵאָהּ, הָאִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן, וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ, וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ; אוֹ כִי יָמוּת הָאִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן, אֲשֶׁר-לְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה.	3 and the latter husband hateth her, and writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife;
ד לֹא-יוּכַל בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר-שִׁלְּחָהּ לָשׁוּב לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה--כִּי-תוֹעֵבָה הִוא, לִפְנֵי ָה; וְלֹא תַחֲטִיא, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה. {ס}	4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD; and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. {S}

What is the cause from this prohibition? I have always read it as law intended to prevent legalized "swinging." In swinging, couples swap partners, which would be considered adultery. Perhaps, they thought, they could legally divorce, marry the other person, then divorce and remarry. This closes this loophole and possibility. And this becomes law even where it is not the case.

However, another, slightly non-normative interpretation struck me as I was reading through Yevamot:

תניא רבי יוסי בן כיפר אומר משום רבי אליעזר בן עזריה המחזיר גרושתו מן הנשואין אסורה מן האירוסין מותרת שנאמר אחרי אשר הוטמאה
וחכמים אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה אסורה אלא מה אני מקיים אחרי אשר הוטמאה לרבות סוטה שנסתרה

They learnt {in a brayta}: Rabbi Yossi ben Kipper cites Rabbi Eliezer ben Azarya: If one remarries his ex-wife, where there was an intervening marriage {in full, with nisuin}, she is forbidden; where there was an intervening betrothal, she is permitted, for it is stated {Devarim 24:4}:

ד לֹא-יוּכַל בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר-שִׁלְּחָהּ לָשׁוּב לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה--כִּי-תוֹעֵבָה הִוא, לִפְנֵי ה; וְלֹא תַחֲטִיא, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה. {ס}

4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD; and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

And the Sages say: Both this and that {either intervening nisuin or intervening kiddushin} is forbidden. If so, how do I establish "after that she is defiled"? To include a sotah who secluded herself {with the man}.

וקי"ל כרבנן דאמרי בין מן הנשואין בין מן האירוסין אסורה ואם החזירה הולד כשר דכתיב כי תועבה היא היא תועבה ואין בניה תועבין
והני מילי ישראל אבל כהן הולד חלל ואפילו לא נתארסה
וגרושה שזינתה לאחר שנתגרשה מותרת לחזור לבעלה מאי טעמא הויה ואישות כתיבה בה:

And we establish like the Sages who say that whether from marriage or from betrothal, she is forbidden, and if he retakes her as a wife, the child born is valid {and is not a mamzer}, for it is written

ד לֹא-יוּכַל בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר-שִׁלְּחָהּ לָשׁוּב לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה--כִּי-תוֹעֵבָה הִוא, לִפְנֵי ה; וְלֹא תַחֲטִיא, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה. {ס}

4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD; and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. {S}

{toevah hi} - she is an abomination, but her children are not abominations.

According to Rabbi Yossi ben Kipper, we understand what אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה means. In nisuin, there is consummation of the marriage with sexual intercourse. This was within the bounds of marriage, but it is somehow considered "defiled," perhaps for the reason I outlined above.

But according to the Sages, this encompasses betrothal, which is just a formal procedure (giving over the ring). Perhaps this is a type of lo plug, drawing no distinctions in outlining the goal. But what is going on here? Why is she called "defiled" from the act of marrying, or betrothing, someone else?!

I would suggest the following, reading the pesukim somewhat in line with Bet Shammai. The first pasuk was:

א כִּי-יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה, וּבְעָלָהּ; וְהָיָה אִם-לֹא תִמְצָא-חֵן בְּעֵינָיו, כִּי-מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר--וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ, וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ.

1 When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house,

There is a famous dispute between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel (which surfaced as a dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees) whether Judaism allows for no-fault divorce, based on how one reads עֶרְוַת דָּבָר and whether that is the only cause for divorce (as opposed to e.g. אִם-לֹא תִמְצָא-חֵן בְּעֵינָיו). Is this any matter, or only a matter pertaining to ervah, relations (with a derasha on ervah).

Reading like Bet Shammai, why did he divorce at first? For unseemly sexual conduct. Now, a sotah, an adulteress, is forbidden to both the husband and to the adulterer. The husband must divorce her. Thus, as the second pasuk states, וְיָצְאָה, מִבֵּיתוֹ; וְהָלְכָה, וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ-אַחֵר. She receives a divorce, and marries someone else -- something she may do provided this is not the adulterer.

Now, she receives her divorce from the second man -- say, for similar reasons. Do we now say that while she may not remain married to her first husband, she may now remarry the first husband who, after all, was not the immediately recent betrayed party?

The pasuk answers that she may not. לֹא-יוּכַל בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר-שִׁלְּחָהּ לָשׁוּב לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה. Where was the defiling? The answer is in the first pasuk -- כִּי-מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר -- rather than in the second pasuk -- וְהָלְכָה, וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ-אַחֵר!

And this may be the meaning of the Sages interpreting אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה as a sotah shenistera.

Of course, the halacha is that the law would apply across the board, even in cases this were not so, but there would not be cases where this was not so according to Bet Shammai.

P3: Winners Of And Solutions To Last Week's P3 Games

About half of the P3 (parsha punning puzzles) were solved, and where the solutions were not dead-on, they were still creative. What follows are the puzzles again, followed by a solution, followed by, where appropriate, a link to the winner's blog.

Each picture represents a phrase from parshat Emor. Each one is a bit more difficult, and arcane, than the previous one.

1)


was solved by yaak of Yeranen Yaakov. The answer is ayin tachat ayin = mammon. The pun in this is in the weird w-shaped symbol.
:)

An interesting recent post at Yeranen Yaakov is an essay question, in which he details all the times the phrase 40 years occurs in Tanach and asks which from this list the last 40 years where we have sovereignty over Yerushalayim is most like.

The fact that this number 40 appears over and over might be a hint that it is a canonical number connoting "a lot."

2) You might need to click this image to see it in more detail.



This one was solved by ADDeRabbi. The solution is שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים, תֵּעָשֶׂה מְלָאכָה
marbles + seas = female angel.
Because marble is shayish, yamim are seas, and this produces a female angel, where an angel is a mal'ach.
He is running his own series of punning puzzles, with a focus on Harry Potter.

3) The third one was more arcane:


Steg suggested, based on the ivory soap, ונתת על המערכת לבנה זכה, presumably because ivory soap is white and it is 99.44% pure.

Ephraim arrived at the solution. In Hebrew, Ivory is shen. The cowboy on the bottom is Shane. And Shane's picture is underneath. Thus, it is "Shane tachat shen."

4)
It might help to review Rashi or Bereishit Rabba on parshat Miketz for a hint on this one.

Yaak had a brilliant suggestion of sefirat haOmer for this one, the top image being a sapphire and the bottom being grain.

ADDeRabbi correctly identified this as being the Hope diamond.

The solution is shever tachat sever. Why? From Miketz {Bereishit 42:1}:

א וַיַּרְא יַעֲקֹב, כִּי יֶשׁ-שֶׁבֶר בְּמִצְרָיִם; וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב לְבָנָיו, לָמָּה תִּתְרָאוּ.

1 Now Jacob saw that there was corn in Egypt, and Jacob said unto his sons: 'Why do ye look one upon another?'

Corn means grain here. Rashi, citing Midrash Rabbi, midrashically changes the shin to a sin. He saw that there was hope in Egypt. The top picture is Hope. The bottom is grain. Thus, shever tachat sever.

5)

I didn't expect anyone to get this one, except perhaps by virtue of it being similar to the other puzzles.
It is supposed to represent nefesh tachat nefesh.

That fish is actually a yellow sole, a pun on "soul," nefesh.
The next picture is of two nuzzling and kissing unicorns. Some translate tachash as unicorn. And in Akkadian (and I claim in Biblical Hebrew as well), napishtu (=H nefesh) means neck.
Thus, a picture of necking unicorns is tachash nefesh.

Perhaps new puzzle(s) soon. If you have one to contribute, send it to me and I just might include it!

Skeik says it's OK to kill kids in battle

And I don't think I disagree. Here are some excerpts from the article in the Australian:

Sheik Shady Suleiman, a youth leader at Lakemba Mosque in Sydney's southeast, told his students in a one-hour Arabic and English lecture that it would be "self defence" to kill children who were attacking them in battle.

Muslim leaders yesterday attacked the 29-year-old cleric, who has a substantial following in Sydney, and accused him of delivering a message contrary to that of Prophet Mohammed who said children should not be killed in war. Prominent Sydney-based imam Khalil Shami said Sheik Shady's message was "dangerous" because it was open to being misconstrued by young Muslims.

...

He said the lecture was delivered to 60 young men who were advanced in Islamic studies and would not take it out of context and was "not an open lecture", despite being on his website.

"When I said children, I did not mean, of course, if you're going to get a five- or seven-year-old coming to attack you, you can stop him," he said yesterday.

"I was talking about self-defence. If you get attacked by someone, then you have the right to defend yourself. It doesn't mean you go kill them, especially if it's someone young."

To find a parallel, he may well be the equivalent of a rosh yeshiva giving a theoretical lecture on the finer points of law to his shiur, where there is no intent for them to put anything into practice. Under discussion was the exact parameters of an injunction on the killing of children in war. I can imagine parallels to that article a while back in Beis Yitzchak, which brought down in the course of a theoretical discussion one opinion as to whether the Biblical injunction on lo tirtzach applied to akum, which some silly people got upset about and made a whole hullabaloo, causing a major chillul Hashem. Here, some people might have blown this theoretical discussion out of proportion and applied PC principles to his lecture, and the other Muslim leaders are left to denounce him in order to reduce the chillul Allah.

Of course, context is key, and given the fact that in general, many Muslims are practically going out and waging jihad, and given that I don't know what he preaches generally, or what he defined as children attacking, it might be rather awful. A summary of his speech which heads the article is not promising in this regard:

THE deputy spiritual leader of Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali has told his students that it is "obligatory" for all Muslims to engage in jihad if an Islamic country is under attack, even if it means killing the enemy's children.

What is meant by "under attack?"

However, in principle, applied to the correct set of circumstances, he may well be correct. In war, it is considered immoral to kill civilians. Killing (civilian) women and children, presumed to be defenseless and not posing a threat, is considered wrong.

But what if the enemy uses this moral stand of yours to his advantage, and puts the children in harm's way, or even sends the children into battle. Must you stand stock-still and allow yourself or your fellow soldiers to be killed or wounded?

What if they send kids to throw stones (which can seriously injure) at soldiers, while in the background are gunmen shooting at the soldiers. The children are part of the attack. In Israel, this is what the Palestinians often do. In such a situation, where the children are part of the attack, I do not think that it is out of bounds to shoot and kill the hostile children, especially where the alternative is putting yourself at risk. Inevitably, the world condemnation which will result may be a reason not to do this, but perhaps -- probably -- there should not be world condemnation for this.

Daf Yomi Yevamot 13a: Rav Ashi's Proof By Induction

As I was preparing Rif Yomi, I noticed a proof by induction. In induction, you prove a base case, and then show that if something is true for n, it is true for n+1 as well (the inductive step).

In terms of rivals and rival's rivals, there are two approaches. A general derasha to cover all, or an induction. To cite the gemara:

{Yevamot 2b}

כיצד פוטרות צרותיהן היתה בתו או אחת מכל העריות האלו נשואה לאחיו ולו אשה אחרת ומת כשם שבתו פטורה כך צרתה פטורה
הלכה צרת בתו ונישאת לאחיו השני ולו אשה אחרת ומת כשם שצרת בתו פטורה כך צרת צרתה פטורה ואפי' הן מאה

Mishna:
How do they exempt their rivals? If his daughter, or any one of these forbidden relatives, was married to his brother, and he {=his brother} had another wife, and he {=his brother} died, just as his daughter is exempt {from requiring yibbum or chalitza from him}, so too her rival is exempt.
If the rival of his daughter went and married {via yibbum} his second brother, and he {=his second brother} had another wife, and then he {=his second brother} died, then just as the rival of his daughter is exempt, so it the rival of his rival exempt {from yibbum or chalitza with him}, and even if they {the levels} are 100.

{Yevamot 13a resumes}
Gemara:

מה"מ אמר רב יהודה אמר קרא לצרור התורה ריבתה צרות הרבה אצל ערוה אחת
רב אשי אמר צרת צרתה לא צריכא קרא סברא הוא צרה מאי טעמא אסירא דבמקום ערוה קיימא צרת צרתה נמי במקום צרה קיימא:

From where do we know these words?
Rav Yehuda said: The verse stated {Vayikra 18}: לצרור. The Torah thus includes many rivals by one forbidden relation.
Rav Ashi said: The rival of the rival does not require a verse. It is logic. A rival, what is the reason she is forbidden? Because she stands {together} in place of the forbidden relation. The rival of a rival also, she stands {together for yibbum} in place with the rival.

Thus, there is a general rule that if someone is a rival with someone forbidden, they are forbidden {and thus exempt from yibbum and chalitza as well}.

Jewish Blogmeiser Visits Le Marais

and details his visit. Check it out here.

I would eat there. Except of course that I don't get much chance to eat out in fancy restaurants nowadays.

I would disagree that the mashgiach is maliciously lying. It is quite possible that he interpreted certain things incorrectly, which led to a mistaken worldview, which led to further misinterpretations or, as a result of personality, to the belief in a coverup.

Similar to how some assume that Bush Lied! People Died! which is a very different thing from drawing the wrong conclusions from faulty intelligence.

Brain Death and Mandatory Organ Donation

Without taking a public position on the halachics of organ donation and whether brain death = death, I just would like to point out two salient articles.

The first is an opinion piece in Wired calling for mandatory organ donation (possibly with an opt-out):

"Routine recovery would be much simpler and cheaper to implement than proposals designed to stimulate consent because there would be no need for donor registries, no need to train requestors, no need for stringent government regulation, no need to consider paying for organs, and no need for permanent public education campaigns," wrote Aaron Spital, a clinical professor at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and James Stacey Taylor, an assistant professor of philosophy at the College of New Jersey, in a controversial article published this year by the American Society of Nephrology.

The other is that respiratory death is possibly reversible:

...
As recently as 1993, when Dr. Sherwin Nuland wrote the best seller "How We Die," the conventional answer was that it was his cells that had died. The patient couldn't be revived because the tissues of his brain and heart had suffered irreversible damage from lack of oxygen. This process was understood to begin after just four or five minutes. If the patient doesn't receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation within that time, and if his heart can't be restarted soon thereafter, he is unlikely to recover.

That dogma went unquestioned until researchers actually looked at oxygen-starved heart cells under a microscope. What they saw amazed them, according to Dr. Lance Becker, an authority on emergency medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

"After one hour," he says, "we couldn't see evidence the cells had died. We thought we'd done something wrong." In fact, cells cut off from their blood supply died only hours later.

...

But if the cells are still alive, why can't doctors revive someone who has been dead for an hour? Because once the cells have been without oxygen for more than five minutes, they die when their oxygen supply is resumed. It was that "astounding" discovery, Becker says, that led him to his post as the director of Penn's Center for Resuscitation Science, a newly created research institute operating on one of medicine's newest frontiers: treating the dead.

This metziut might well have implications for the halachics of organ donation.

Rif Yomi Awakens!

The Alfasi blog took a brief hiatus for the duration of Chagiga, since there is no Rif on Chagiga (or rather, as I wrote, there is only a single daf on Chagiga, as an introduction to Moed Katan). But today the daf Yomi cycle began Yevamot. And so Alfasi is back on track.

Hooray.

Check it out here.

P3: Parsha Punning Puzzle for Emor #5

What phrase from the parsha am I?

This is degrees higher than the previous one.
Knowledge of American slang, as well as Akkadian, should be helpful.

Winners to these, BTW, get listed in a nifty post with link-tos to recent blog postings.

P3: Parsha Punning Puzzle for Emor #4

What phrase from the parsha am I?
I should note that these puzzles get more and more difficult in progression. It might help to review Rashi or Bereishit Rabba on parshat Miketz for a hint on this one.


Click on the image to zoom in.

By the way, I notice that Dave at Balashon is running a similar game, punning by way of krei and ketiv. Check it out.

P3: Parsha Punning Puzzle for Emor # 3

What phrase from the parsha am I?

P3: Parsha Punning Puzzle for Emor #2

What phrase in the parsha am I?


Click on the image to zoom in.

P3: Parsha Punning Puzzle for Emor

What phrase from the parsha am I?