How do we know that לולב צריך אגד?

There is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Chachamim whether לולב צריך אגד, if the lulav bundle needs to be tied. We pasken like the Chachamim that it does not, though in practice on the street, we see people using lulavim to bind their lulav bundles, which is a requirement only according to Rabbi Yehuda.

What is Rabbi Yehuda's source? The (setama de-)gemara discusses it on Succah 33a:

דתניא לולב בין אגוד בין שאינו אגוד כשר ר' יהודה אומר אגוד כשר שאינו אגוד פסול 

מאי טעמא דר' יהודה יליף לקיחה לקיחה מאגודת אזוב כתיב הכא (ויקרא כג, מ) ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון וכתיב התם (שמות יב, כב) ולקחתם אגודת אזוב מה להלן אגודה אף כאן אגודה ורבנן לית להו לקיחה לקיחה 

מאן תנא להא דת"ר לולב מצוה לאוגדו ואם לא אגדו כשר מגי אי רבי יהודה כי לא אגדו אמאי כשר אי רבנן מאי מצוה קא עביד לעולם רבנן ומצוה משום (שמות טו, ב) זה אלי ואנוהו:

The brayta just gives the dispute, but the setama degemara gives the Scriptural basis. Namely, that Rabbi Yehuda learns a gezeira shava from the parallel use of the word ולקחתם.

it has been taught: A lulab, whether [the other prescribed species were] bound with it or not, is valid. R. Judah says, If it is bound [with the others] it is valid; if it is unbound, it is invalid.35 

What is the reason of R. Judah? — He deduces it from the word ‘take’ [which occurs here and with] the bundle of hyssop. It is written here, And ye shall take on the first day,36 and there it is written And ye shall take a bundle of hyssop.37 Just as there [it must be] a bundle, so here also [it must be] a bundle. And the Rabbis?38 - They make no deduction from the mention of the word ‘take’ in the two passages. 

Who is it that learned that which our Rabbis have taught: It is a pious deed to bind the lulab, but [even] if he did not bind it, it is valid? Now who is it? If R. Judah be suggested, why is it valid if he did not bind it? If the Rabbis are suggested, what pious deed does he perform?39 — It is in fact the Rabbis, and the pious deed spoken of is due to ‘This is my God and I will glorify Him’.40

The relevant pesukim are:

ויקרא 23:40:

וּלְקַחְתֶּם לָכֶם בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר כַּפֹּת תְּמָרִים וַעֲנַף עֵץ עָבֹת וְעַרְבֵי נָחַל וּשְׂמַחְתֶּם לִפְנֵי ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם שִׁבְעַת יָמִים.

שמות 12:22:

וּלְקַחְתֶּם אֲגֻדַּת אֵזוֹב וּטְבַלְתֶּם בַּדָּם אֲשֶׁר בַּסַּף וְהִגַּעְתֶּם אֶל הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְאֶל שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת מִן הַדָּם אֲשֶׁר בַּסָּף וְאַתֶּם לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח בֵּיתוֹ עַד בֹּקֶר.

שמו 15:2:

עָזִּי וְזִמְרָת יָהּ וַיְהִי לִי לִישׁוּעָה זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי וַאֲרֹמְמֶנְהוּ

such that the gezeira shava is between the bundle they use to paint the lintel in Egypt with the blood of the korban pesach.

Here I argue with the setama degemara in order to propose a different source for Rabbi Yehuda's din. Especially since some theorize that gezeira shava is just a mnemonic for an alternative but forgotten derasha, which is why ain adam dan gezeira shava leAtzmo. But even if it were not so, I am convinced it is so. The derasha is only based on this pasuk, in Vayikra 23:40:

מ  וּלְקַחְתֶּם לָכֶם בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן, פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר כַּפֹּת תְּמָרִים, וַעֲנַף עֵץ-עָבֹת, וְעַרְבֵי-נָחַל; וּשְׂמַחְתֶּם, לִפְנֵי ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם--שִׁבְעַת יָמִים.

40 And ye shall take you on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm-trees, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook, and ye shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days.

And more specifically, on the word כַּפֹּת. Immediately above it is translated as "branches".

However, the word also כַּפֹּת means a bundle tied together. Thus, to look in Jastrow for convenience, pg 662-663:

Thus, we have a derasha that the lulav and other species need to be in a bundle. And now we see why the esrog does not need to be in the bundle, וּלְקַחְתֶּם even though the word starts the pasuk:

מ  וּלְקַחְתֶּם לָכֶם בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן, פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר כַּפֹּת תְּמָרִים, וַעֲנַף עֵץ-עָבֹת, וְעַרְבֵי-נָחַל; וּשְׂמַחְתֶּם, לִפְנֵי ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם--שִׁבְעַת יָמִים.

40 And ye shall take you on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm-trees, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook, and ye shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days.

It is because the bundle is only כַּפֹּת תְּמָרִים, וַעֲנַף עֵץ-עָבֹת, וְעַרְבֵי-נָחַל.

What about the Chachamim? We can say that they simply don't make the same derasha on the word kapot.

There is perhaps a further argument between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, in which they agree that the lulav requires an egged but differ in what species may be used. The Mishna on Succah 36b:

מתני' אין אוגדין את הלולב אלא במינו דברי רבי יהודה רבי מאיר אומר אפי' בחוט במשיחה אמר רבי מאיר מעשה באנשי ירושלים שהיו אוגדין את לולביהן בגימוניות של זהב אמרו לו במינו היו אוגדין אותו מלמטה:

THE LULAB22 MAY BE BOUND ONLY WITH [STRANDS OF] ITS OWN SPECIES; SO R. JUDAH. R. MEIR SAYS IT MAY BE BOUND EVEN WITH A CORD.23 R. MEIR OBSERVED, IT ACTUALLY OCCURRED THAT THE MEN24 OF JERUSALEM USED TO BIND THEIR LULABS WITH STRANDS OF GOLD. THEY25 ANSWERED HIM, BUT THEY BOUND IT WITH [STRANDS OF] ITS OWN SPECIES UNDERNEATH [THE STRANDS OF GOLD].26

Perhaps we can say that Rabbi Meir even agrees to the derasha on כַּפֹּת, but holds that it merely needs to be a כַּפֹּת, a binding, of the species mentioned in the pasuk. Meanwhile, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the כַּפֹּת needs to be a כַּפֹּת תְּמָרִים, that is a binding made out of palm tree.

This is then what Rava says in the gemara:

גמ' אמר רבא אפי' בסיב אפי' בעיקרא דדיקלא

Raba stated, A lulab may be bound even with bast, or even with [strips of] the roots of the date-palm.

Bast is the fibrous substance of the palm tree, used for making ropes. And the strips of the roots of a palm tree are also from the palm tree.

Of course, here we would end up arguing with Rava, and Amora, as to the meaning of this dispute. Because he also says that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir is the same as the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Chachamim in the brayta, over whether lulav requires an egged.

Thus:

ואמר רבא מ"ט דרבי יהודה קסבר לולב צריך אגד ואי מייתי מינא אחרינא הוה חמשה מיני 

Raba further stated, What is the reason of R. Judah? He is of the opinion that the lulab22 must be bound so that if one uses another species, the wreath would contain five species.27

I am comfortable arguing with Rava here and saying that this is really a dispute in how to interpret the pasuk.

Would there be halachic implications if both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda agree with each other and argue with the Chachamim, and maintain that an egged is required?

Hebrew word of the day #4

posts so far for parshas Vayechi

2013
1. How could Yaakov see? Weren't his eyes dim from old age? Maybe his seeing wasn't literally seeing. Also, what purpose is there in noting that his eyes were dim?

2. Some quick ideas on Vayechi.

3. YUTorah on Vayechi, 2013 edition.

Dec 2012

1. YUTorah on parashat Vayechi.

2. Why is Vayechi setuma? Ibn Caspi suggests that a parsha break is required here for reasons of reading length, rather than on logical grounds.

January 2012

1. Vaychi sources, even further expanded.

2. Three reasons for Yaakov to avoid being buried in Egypt --  R' Yonasan Eibeshitz explains why each is necessary. These three reasons are:

in the end, its dust would become lice

that the dead of chul laAretz only live via the pain of underground rolling

so that the Egyptians should not make him a deity.

3. YUTorah on parashat Vayechi.

4. Chasam Sofer on מִטֶּרֶף בְּנִי עָלִיתָ -- Parsing it as referring to tarof toraf yosef, he interprets it in a consistent, positive, manner. That Yehuda has moved out from under the chashad of offing Yosef.

5. What nekitas chefetz was there, if Yaakov was nolad mahul? So asks Rav Chaim Kanievsky, further exploring the path set by Mizrachi. By Avraham, it was nekitas chefetz on the milah, and Avraham's very first mitzvah. Not so for Yaakov, on two counts. Rav Kanievsky's answer, and then I explore further.


2010

1. Vaychi sources -- further expanded.
   .
2. Is חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת a hendiadys? I don't know. But I think that this is what Rashi, following the midrash, is suggesting as a matter of peshat.
   .
3. Does Rashi predict moshiach in 2011? No. He cites Rav Saadia Gaon who predicts it in 1405, or rather, 1399. Of course, if you want to kvetch it, you can make Rashi or any sources say anything you want it to. But this shows only your own creativity and ability to distort Jewish sources. Also, a nice tie-in to this week's parasha, Vaychi.
   .
4. Darshening El Yisrael as Eil Yisrael --  Is this a revocalization for the sake of derash, or does it reflect their actual vocalization?
   .
5. Reuven and Bilhah --  In Midrash Rabba, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi takes a peshat-approach to the incident.
   .
6. Parsha questions -- From Junior's school parsha sheet, questions on the parsha for Shabbos table discussion. Coupled with my answers.
   .
7. The incident with Reuven and Bilhah, in light of Divrei Hayamim and the Code of Hammurabi --  The Torah's recording of the incident in Vayishlach is terse, and Chazal interpret it in two ways. And the seeming reference to the incident in Yaakov's blessing in Vaychi is cryptic. But Divrei Hayamim expands upon it. Plus, there is a fascinating parallel in the Code of Hamurabbi that sheds excellent light on the matter.
   .
8. A blessing for Yosef, or for his sons?  Rumors of a popular variant have been greatly exaggerated. And in fact, contextcan support a blessing for Yosef alone. Update: I am wrong about the Peshita on this post. I was misled by a mislabeled Targum.
   .
9. Salvation -- nothing to sneeze at! Why the sudden interjection in Yaakov's blessings?

Dec 2009

1. Vaychi sources -- more than 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftora.
   .
2. For how long does Binyamin consume his prey? A Chizkuni on Vaychi, where he parses apasuk apparently against its trup, past the etnachta, as baboker yochal ad la'erev. With the same justification he offered in last week's parsha.. 
3. The trup on va`ani -- A variant trup has revii on Bereishit 48:22 instead of gershayim. What would be the difference, in terms of the parse of the pasuk?
   .
4. Ibn Caspi on the "calling" of Yehuda -- Once again, Ibn Caspi interprets the trup, which informs us of meaning. This time the revii on Yehuda of Yehuda ata yoducha achecha. Also, a clarification of what Ibn Caspi means when referring to the gaaya -- namely, a zakef gadol, which is a disjunctive accent..
5. The yetiv on ad ki yavo Shilo -- According to Rabbenu Bachya's rebbe, the trup on ad ki yavo Shilo led Onkelos to renderad as forever, such that it is "forever once mashiach comes", rather than "until mashiach comes". This is a good response to Christians. But Shadal doesn't find it compelling.
   .
6. The possible double entendre of Lo Yasur Shevet Miyhuda -- namely, until Shelah comes.

Jan 2009

• Vayechi sources -- online sources, of a Mikraos Gedolos, and a plethora of meforshim, useful for preparing the sedra.
  .
• Rashbam vs. Zohar on deviating from parsha divided by Moshe, where Rashbam clames the communities changed the place of parsha division. A look at Aruch Hashulchan on the matter, based on Zohar.
  .
• Parallels between Vaychi and its haftarah -- maybe broadly thematic, and one point in language, but otherwise, the connection (and post) seems quite weak.
  .
• Yaakov wanted to reveal the ketz -- a Daat Zekeinim centered look at the midrash, and what it means. I disagree.
  .
• Yaakov's maggid -- and he told to Yaakov. But who was he?

December 2007

• The Missing Parsha Break
• and how it aids in stressing the parallelism to the previous verse, at the end of Vayigash.
• HaMelech HaGoel Oti
• and different approaches to dealing with the theological difficulties of asking an angel to bless.
• Mind The Gap: Is Vayechi Unique In Not Being Introduced With A Gap?
• Or is this true as well for parshat Vayeitzei, within Ben Naftali manuscripts?
• Was Gad, Son of Yaakov, Named After The deity?
• Or does it mean "with luck," or "luck has come?" Or does it mean that a troop has come, as it means in Yaakov's blessing in parshat Vayechi? Also, a Karaite promotes the krei reading as the correct pronunciation of the ketiv.
• How big a gap between Vayigash and Vaychi? (pt i, ii, iii).
  .
• Minchas Eluzer's Teshuvah on the gap (pt i, ii, iii, iv)
  .
• My own thoughts on the gap issue
  .
• From 2008, about Vayeitzei being setuma.
  .
• Shadal mentions how Rashbam follows the trup in explaining Miteref Beni Alita, in the course of his discussion of the age of trup in his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah.

2007

• An Open Canon Vs. Changing The Truth
• Did Yaakov really command the brothers to tell Yosef to forgive his brothers their transgression. This hooks into the question of whether Yaakov ever found out about the sale of Yosef. Now, the brothers relate this command to Yosef, but we never see Yaakov command this. And a gemara in Yevamot, 65b, states that this was a changing of the truth for the sake of peace, as a precedent for doing the same. It is also a closed-canon approach. An open canon approach would allow otherwise unknown event to occur. And an example from Yona where something happens without being previously mentioned.
• The Trup On "Asher Kana Avraham"
• and why on such similar words across pesukim, the trup shifts over. A Wickes-based explanation, featuring trup charts and Prepositional Phrases.

2006

• The Count of Pesukim in Sefer Bereishit
• Understanding the extended gematria in a masoretic note. Plus, ד appears to stand for shem haShem here!
• Yaakov Avinu Didn't Die
• We consider the famous midrash, and discussion in Taanit that Yaakov Avinu did not die. Was Rav Yitzchak going for a spit-take? What are the implications of this statement? How exactly is this deduced midrashically from the pasuk in Yirmiya, and how does that pasuk work on a peshat level, from the perspective of poetic parallelism?

Dec 2004

• Can Mashiach Return From the Dead?
• A source that he clearly cannot.

2004

• Maaseh Avot Siman LaBanim
• To Eliezer's oath to Avraham. An oath to a dying man, a theme of staying rooted in Eretz Yisrael. Also, where they differ.
• Why Did Yaakov Bow? And Did Yaakov Bow?
• I recommend this one. In it, I suggest that vayishtachu does not mean "bowed" but rather "lied prostrate," because he was weak and sick. This is in contrast to later, when the pasuk relates that he became strengthened and sat on the head of the bed.
• Further Maaseh Avot Siman LaBanim
• A striking similarity between the presentation of Ephraim and Menashe to Yaakov, and the earlier meeting of Esav and Yaakov.
• A Final Maaseh Avot Siman LaBanim
• In which Yaakov seemingly recreates his theft of Yitzchak's blessing when he blesses Ephraim and Menashe.

How could Yaakov see? Weren't his eyes dim from old age?

In Bereishit perek 48, Yaakov encounters Yosef and his sons.

ח  וַיַּרְא יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶת-בְּנֵי יוֹסֵף; וַיֹּאמֶר, מִי-אֵלֶּה.	8 And Israel beheld Joseph's sons, and said: 'Who are these?'
ט  וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹסֵף, אֶל-אָבִיו, בָּנַי הֵם, אֲשֶׁר-נָתַן-לִי אֱלֹהִים בָּזֶה; וַיֹּאמַר, קָחֶם-נָא אֵלַי וַאֲבָרְכֵם.	9 And Joseph said unto his father: 'They are my sons, whom God hath given me here.' And he said: 'Bring them, I pray thee, unto me, and I will bless them.'
י  וְעֵינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּבְדוּ מִזֹּקֶן, לֹא יוּכַל לִרְאוֹת; וַיַּגֵּשׁ אֹתָם אֵלָיו, וַיִּשַּׁק לָהֶם וַיְחַבֵּק לָהֶם.	10 Now the eyes of Israel were dim for age, so that he could not see. And he brought them near unto him; and he kissed them, and embraced them.
יא  וַיֹּאמֶר יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל-יוֹסֵף, רְאֹה פָנֶיךָ לֹא פִלָּלְתִּי; וְהִנֵּה הֶרְאָה אֹתִי אֱלֹהִים, גַּם אֶת-זַרְעֶךָ.	11 And Israel said unto Joseph: 'I had not thought to see thy face; and, lo, God hath let me see thy seed also.'

In pasuk 8, וַיַּרְא יִשְׂרָאֵל.
In pasuk 10, וְעֵינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּבְדוּ מִזֹּקֶן, לֹא יוּכַל לִרְאוֹת.
In pasuk11, רְאֹה פָנֶיךָ לֹא פִלָּלְתִּי; וְהִנֵּה הֶרְאָה אֹתִי אֱלֹהִים, גַּם אֶת-זַרְעֶךָ.

A silly question: I thought Yaakov couldn't see (pasuk 8)? So how did he see Yosef's sons (pasuk 8)? And how did he see in Yosef's face and Yosef's sons (pasuk 11)?

One possible answer is that "see" doesn't mean literally seeing. In parshat Balak

ב  וַיַּרְא בָּלָק, בֶּן-צִפּוֹר, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה יִשְׂרָאֵל, לָאֱמֹרִי.

2 And Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites.

need we claim that he literally saw with his eyes? If he had reports from scouts what Israel had done, wouldn't that be sufficient to say that he "saw"?

This is what Ibn Janach says, more or less:

 וַיַּרְא יִשְׂרָאֵל -- that is, it was known to him and he sensed their coming, even though he did not [literally] see them, as was written וְעֵינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּבְדוּ מִזֹּקֶן, לֹא יוּכַל לִרְאוֹת. (Sefer Hashorashim, 462)

Of course, there are degrees of blindness, such that he could possibly have recognized people he knew but in day-to-day life be functionally blind.

I was also thinking about the role of this interjection, of וְעֵינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּבְדוּ מִזֹּקֶן, לֹא יוּכַל לִרְאוֹת. Why is it necessary for the Torah to stress this, and right here? Here are a few answers, but I don't think they are all simultaneously true. That is, if it comes for reason X, then we should know that it is not coming for reason Y.

a) To explain why they should approach Yaakov. (But they should approach anyway, so that he could rest his hands upon them as he blesses them.)
b) To draw the parallel to Yitzchak's accidental blessing of Yaakov. Yitzchak confused his firstborn and second born, in part because of his blindness. Indeed, Yitzchak also asked Yaakov to draw near to him, and Yaakov only was able to deceive his father because of the fur.
c) To explain Yosef's mistaken impression later (in pasuk 18) that Yaakov had mistaken the older for the younger. וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹסֵף אֶל-אָבִיו, לֹא-כֵן אָבִי:  כִּי-זֶה הַבְּכֹר

YUTorah on parashat Vaychi

Download the YUTorah Parsha Reader for Vayechi 5774  Audio Shiurim on Vayechi Rabbi Hanan Balk: Should All Jews Be Buried In Israel? Rabbi Avi Billet: When did Eisav die? Rabbi Asher Brander: Did Yaakov ever find out about the mechira? Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Malkhut Yehuda Rabbi Avishai David: Yosef's Broken Relationship with his Brothers Rabbi Dovid Ebner: Yaacov's Genuine Brachot Rabbi Ally Ehrman: Menashe And The Trait Of Forgetfulness Rabbi Shlomo Einhorn: The Spark of Jacob Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein: Yaakov and Yosef's Machloket Rabbi Aaron Feigenbaum: Yosef and the Brothers after Yaacov's Death Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman: Chesed v Emes - Burying the Dead Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: Israel is Ours Rabbi David Fohrman: Who is Joseph's Real Father? Rabbi Beinish Ginsburg: Mesorah Rabbi Efrem Goldberg: Strange Way of Showing Love Mrs. Yael Goldfischer: Yosef and Yehuda: A Clash of Personalities Rabbi Yehuda Goldschmidt: The Gates of Tears are Not Closed! Dr. Naomi Grunhaus: Ephraim and Menashe: One Shevet or Two? Rabbi Yaacov Haber: Finding Your Tachlis Rabbi Shalom Hammer: The Meaning of life Rabbi Daniel Hartstein: Burial In Eretz Yisroel: A Vertical View Rabbi Jesse Horn: Yosef's challenge of remaining Jewish in a secular world Rabbi Eric Ifrah: Moshiach! Rabbi Shimon Isaacson: Being a Part of the Mesorah Community Rabbi Ari Kahn: Revelation and Confusion Rabbi Yisroel Kaminetsky: Yaakov, Yisroel, and the essence of the person Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg: Time to Think Rabbi Binyamin Kwalwasser: True Aquisition is Painful Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: Biebermania Hits Egypt Rabbi Aryeh Leibowitz: Calculating the Geulah Rabbi Eliezer Lerner: Only a Jew Knows the Value of a Jew Rabbi Ben Leybovich: Playing with all your pieces Rabbi Moshe N. Reichman: Yissocher and Zevulun Rabbi Michael Rosensweig: The National Lesson to Learn from Shimon, Levi, and Shechem Mrs Ilana Saks: A Sign of Things to Come Rabbi Hershel Schachter: Each Child is Different Rabbi Shay Schachter: Nothing But The Truth Rabbi Avi Schneider: Practice Makes Perfect Rabbi Avraham Shulman: Ona'as Devarim - Harmful Speech Rabbi Baruch Simon: Acting Like a Fish Mrs. Shira Smiles: Wondrous Whispers Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik: Why is Vayechi a Parsha Stuma? Rabbi Reuven Spolter: Seeing What's Real Rabbi Moshe Stav: האספו ואגידה לכם Rabbi Moshe Taragin: A Good Donkey Rabbi Michael Taubes: Saying Tehillim for the Sick Rabbi Moshe D. Tendler: Rachel's Legacy and Yaakov's Blessings Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner: Yosef wrestles with Yaakov Rabbi Ira Wallach: Blessing or Rebuke Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg: In Accordance with the Struggle is the Reward Rabbi Mordechai Willig: The Eternal Torah Rabbi Andi Yudin: Loving Torah Rabbi Eliezer Zwickler: Forgiving Articles on Vayechi Rabbi Ozer Glickman: Family as Formative Experience Rabbi Shmuel Goldin: Menashe and Ephraim: Tying up Loose Ends Rabbi Meir Goldwicht: Staying Connected to Israel Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: The Funeral Procession of Yaakov Avinu Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: Blessing our Children Rabbi Maury Grebenau: Motivation & Values Rabbi Mordechai Greenberg: שכל את ידיו Rabbi David Horwitz: The Reconciliation between Joseph and His Brothers Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl: Sanctity Versus Impurity Rabbi Eli Baruch Shulman: Fish and Ayin Harah Rabbi Shmuel Silber: Decisions & Direction Rabbi Dr. Jeffrey Woolf: הבכיר שבאבות: לדמותו של יעקב אבינו Parsha Sheets on Vayechi HALB: D'Varim HaYotzim Min HaLev YU-Torah miTzion Toronto Beit Midrash: Toronto Torah YULA Boys High School: Likutei Ohr YU High School for Boys: Shema Koleinu Shiurim on the Haftorah of Vayechi Rabbi Philip Moskowitz: Dovid Hamelech - Pious Rabbi or Cunning Military Operative? Rabbi Avraham Rivlin: למען תשכיל את כל אשר תעשה Rabbi Zvi Romm: Dovid's Charge to Shlomo Rabbi Ari Zahtz: Why Did David Ask Shlomo To Avenge Him? Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Vayechi See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Vayechi

New This Week Teves: Help I've Fallen and I Can Get Up Rabbi Mordechai Burg Coffee and Tea: Keurig, Teavana  and Other  Kashrut Concern Rabbi Dovid Cohen Nehama Leibowitz's  Lasting Impact on Bible Scholarship Rabbi Mordechai Cohen The Take Away  from Chanukah:  Increasing Our  Excitment for  Avodas Hashem Rabbi Yitzchok Cohen When Kosher Food's Not  Kosher: Bishul Akum Rabbi Menachem Genack The eighth of  Teves: the beginning of  the darkness Rabbi Beinish Ginsburg What's In a Jewish Name? Rabbi Lawrence Hajioff Being Proactive in  Avodas Hashem Rabbi Yisroel Kaminetsky Zeicher Leyetzias  Mitzrayim - The Tefilla and Kiddush of Shabbos Rabbi Michael Rosensweig The Dead Sea Scrolls and the  Hasmonean Dynasty Dr. Lawrence Schiffman Clapping, Dancing and Tapping the Table on Shabbat Rabbi Michael Siev Whats so Special About Dec 4th Rabbi Michael Taubes Asarah B'Tevet: The Tragedy of  Constriction Rabbi Ari Waxman The Ways of True  Tzaddikim: To Empathize With All Jews Rabbi Moshe Weinberger History of The Talmud:  Raban Gamliel and R. Yehoshua Rabbi Elie Weissman

Hebrew word of the day #3

Some quick ideas on parshat Vayechi

I've probably made some of these points in the past.

1) וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַל-רֹאשׁ הַמִּטָּה in 47:31, which is the second half of a pasuk, is immediately followed by (next pasuk) וַיְהִי, אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, וַיֹּאמֶר לְיוֹסֵף, הִנֵּה אָבִיךָ חֹלֶה. Say this does not mean bowing to Yosef, but that it is a sign of weakness and sickness. Yaakov gathers strength when Yosef visits him. Thus, immediately after (next pasuk) וַיַּגֵּד לְיַעֲקֹב--וַיֹּאמֶר, הִנֵּה בִּנְךָ יוֹסֵף בָּא אֵלֶיךָ; וַיִּתְחַזֵּק, יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיֵּשֶׁב, עַל-הַמִּטָּה. See how he gathers strength and is able to sit upon the bed.

And this all works together, despite the shift in Yaakov's name from Yisrael to Yaakov. Take that, Documentary Hypothesis!

2) וַיַּגֵּד לְיַעֲקֹב in Bereishit 48:2 prompts questions by meforshim as to who did the telling. HaMaggid, the one who told. The alternative is that this is the kal passive, a very rare form that some Biblical scholars think is not rare at all, just not often recognized. Instead of niphal, the pattern is that of kal. In the passive voice, it is "and it was related to Yaakov", not "and he related to Yaakov."

3) שִׂים-נָא יָדְךָ תַּחַת יְרֵכִי -- in 47:29. The famous fun fact is that one swore on one's testicles, and the penalty for perjury was losing them. Thus "testimony". It turns out that this is untrue:

The Mavens' Word of the Day

There is no evidence anywhere that a Roman or a Greek had to put his hand on his testicles in order to validate his testimony when swearing in court.

This etymology has appeared in a number of places, in print and on the Internet, but it isn't true.

4) In 50:15:
 וַיִּרְאוּ אֲחֵי-יוֹסֵף, כִּי-מֵת אֲבִיהֶם, וַיֹּאמְרוּ, לוּ יִשְׂטְמֵנוּ יוֹסֵף; וְהָשֵׁב יָשִׁיב, לָנוּ, אֵת כָּל-הָרָעָה, אֲשֶׁר גָּמַלְנוּ אֹתוֹ.

Maybe the brothers understood HaOd Avi Chai as a threat. Is father still alive? Then you are lucky.

Compare with Esav's plan for doing away with Yaakov after Yitzchak's death.

5) In 50:19, we saw this statement before:

וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם יוֹסֵף, אַל-תִּירָאוּ:  כִּי הֲתַחַת אֱלֹהִים, אָנִי.

We saw Yaakov say this to Rachel, when she complained that he was withholding sons from her.

What is the connecting line between the two instances? I would argue absolutely nothing. And this is an important lesson for those who would deduce deep "peshat" from repetition / concentration of words and phrases. Some words are simply necessary because of the story to be conveyed and the relatively small vocabulary of Hebrew. And even with no authorial intent, there will be some uneven distribution of vocabulary by mere chance. And the same for idiomatic expressions like the above. So don't start making your own gezeira shava and calling it peshat.

6) They embalmed Yaakov in 50:2:

ב  וַיְצַו יוֹסֵף אֶת-עֲבָדָיו אֶת-הָרֹפְאִים, לַחֲנֹט אֶת-אָבִיו; וַיַּחַנְטוּ הָרֹפְאִים, אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל.

Since Yaakov Avinu lo mais, this was a pretty mean thing for Yosef to do to Yaakov. I would imagine that the process was somewhat unpleasant.

John Conway speaking about Hebrew Calendar Calisthenics at Queens College

Tonight. I plan on attending.

Conway is a world renowned mathematician. Perhaps you've heard, e.g., of Conway's Game of Life?

Hebrew word of the day #2

From a poor closed captioning of a Marx Brothers movie.  The Israelis in the audience didn't get the joke...

Interesting posts and articles #390

1. Pop Chassid on how Baalei Teshuva should keep on rebelling.

And a baal teshuva is uniquely positioned to notice those mistakes.  He comes to Judaism with a fresh perspective.  While, yes, he needs to spend much of his process letting go of a lot of the falseness he picked up throughout his life, he also brought along plenty of his own truth.  That’s why he chose to be a baal teshuva in the first place: he already had a voice within him, guiding him, that caused him to finally choose to be an orthodox Jew. And so it is inevitable that he will notice inconsistencies in the culture of the orthodox world.  It is inevitable that he will be bothered by them.  It is inevitable that he will want to change things. And so, after he rebels against the world that brought him up, he now must rebel against the world that brought him in.

Frum Satire on how Baalei Teshuva are a danger to the Orthodox community (probably intended as satire, but there is a valid point about people from outside Judaism bringing in foreign values):

I’m not just talking about polluting the pure blood yichus and mesorah of the FFB master race, I’m actually talking about a full fledged movement that seeks to destroy Orthodoxy as we know it. Pop Chassid has written an article that explains exactly what I have been saying all along, that BT’s are seeking an escape from their former lives, only to try and bring snippets of their former lives with them. Unfortunately, these snippets of their former lives are usually the negative aspects, concepts such as sexy and tznius, art, culture, music, and other things which have been banished from our community in order that we stay strong and don’t assimilate.

And a followup rant by someone who took his satire seriously.

2. I just got a SodaStream, and was wondering whether I could use it on Shabbos. Mi Yodea covers the issue...

3. An interesting Imamother thread. Some of those comments denying legitimacy to the Rationalist Jewish position, from a baalas teshuva who doesn't know better, are quite aggravating. E.g.:

Sir, this is a religion. We believe in a talking snake. If you want rational, the science department is down the hall and across the quadrangle. They even have their own elevator. Sometimes they need to come here and sometimes we need to go there. But we can tell the difference. 

Your poor befuddled DH can't tell the difference.

And these poor befuddled commenter never was exposed to the Abarbanel.

Or from another commenter:

One more thing: IIRC, the exact quote from Rashi is "אני לא בא אלא לפרש פשוטו של מקרא" 
(My commentary is nothing except to interpret the pshat) It's a much stronger, precise statement than "favoring".

When this is not the exact quote, but rather - ואני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא ולאגדה המיישבת דברי המקרא, דבר דבור על אופניו, which undermines the claim that the only thing in Rashi is peshat.

4. It seems that World Net Daily is promoting a book by some guy who thinks Rav Kaduri ended up endorsing Jesus as mashiach. The claim is of course total nonsense. I wrote about this a few years back, analyzing Rav Kaduri's note. To quote one comment from there:

However, as I mentioned before, the cultural, intellectual, theological, and sociological divide for a Sefardi kabbalist initially from Iraq but who lived most of his life in Israel to become a sudden (closet) Christian seems just to wide as to be implausible.

There are other, more probable explanations. And even if he did somehow go off the deep end, that shouldn't that matter to us.

5. Rabbi Natan Slifkin has a series of posts subjecting Rabbi Moshe Meiselman's latest work to careful analysis.

My own take on this subject: There are many approaches to Torah and Science, and (seeming or real) contradictions between the two. Historically there are different approaches as well. Depending on which sources you choose (either before or after the fact) you can come up with an approach and bolster it. Either strongly or weakly. And the people involved in that approach believe that they are right, to the exclusion of the people / sources involved in the other approach.

Rabbi Meiselman has an approach. Some of it is grounded on sources. Some of it he has innovated (e.g. where he rejects explanations of gemaras by all the Rishonim and gives his own novel interpretation). That is nice, and fine. It might be true, or it might be false. The "problem" arises as he tries to write the competing approach out of Judaism, label those who follow that approach heretics, and so on. And that is why the critical analysis of Rabbi Meiselman's book becomes necessary, to show how he ignores certain sources (gemaras, Rishonim) and is inconsistent as he violates his own established principles of what is theologically acceptable to say.

6) As part of that series, see in particular about Metzitza and the Rav (part one and part two). Anda post at the Seforim blog. It demonstrates the importance of learning mipi soferim velo mipi sefarim. To quote:

In a post at the Seforim Blog, Dr. Marc Shapiro noted that Rav Schachter wrote a footnote in the second edition recording the view of one of the Rav's talmidim that the Rav was not opposed to metzitzah per se, just to metzitzah b'peh. Someone sent me the following comment:

I spoke to Rav Schachter after I read Marc Shapiro's post and he insisted that Rav Soloveitchik did not require metzitzah at all (he mentioned the Sdei Chemed to me when I asked him how Rav Soloveitchik could say such a thing). When I mentioned Marc Shapiro's post to him, he said one or two of the Rav's talmidim in Israel insisted that the Rav never said metzizah is unnecessary, so Rav Schachter added a footnote to this effect in the next edition of Nefesh Harav. However, Rav Schachter in his conversation with me was insistent that the Rav, indeed, did not require metzitzah at all.

7) Life In Israel wonders whom to credit for the rainstorms in Israel. He didn't consider HaRav Nir Ben Artzi, shlita who after all predicted it. (Oy.)

8) At Hirhurim, in a post by Rabbi Joshua Berman, a fifth essay about Orthodoxy and Biblical Criticism. Discrepancies Between Law in Sefer Devarim and the Other Books of the Torah: Laying Out the Questions. And now a sixth essay.

And Rabbi Gil Student responds, in The Art of Halachah.

I think that it is wonderful that people are "saving" Judaism from the threats posed by Biblical Criticism, with strong arguments. And they are frum arguments. But if in the course of this defense, one dramatically redefines the core beliefs from the traditional, I wonder if we are really saving it. Chazal and the Rishonim by and large believed that the Torah was deliberately written "poor" in some places and "rich" in others, that irregularities of language and seeming contradictions were part of that deliberateness, and that the hermeneutic rules of the Oral Law were part and parcel of the Authorial Intent, rather than a weak kvetch made after the fact to resolve difficulties. When one rejects that premise, saying for example that:

Abarbanel’s approach has value, and I shall review it more closely in my fourth essay. But it is also limited as a solution to the problem of discrepancies between law in Devarim and elsewhere. The notion that some of the mitzvot in Devarim may represent extensions, corrolaries—toladot—of some earlier mitzvot is well and good. It does not, however, help us reconcile the law of the first born in Bamidbar 18 and in Devarim 15. Here, there is no way to see the law in Devarim as an extension or a toladah of the law in Bamidbar 18. The law in Devarim 15 directly contravenes the law given in Bamidbar 18. Abarbanel was aware of this discrepancy, but does no more than to cite the harmonistic solution of the Sifre mentioned above.

thus implicitly rejecting the validity of the derasha of the Sifrei, then even if one does not go with the "Competing Legal Traditions" approach, but instead redefines what "Law" meant, and argues that it was meant to be fluid, then one is losing something.

Maybe what one is losing is the unnuanced haredi approach. (And yes, in other contexts, I myself have championed approaches that diverge from the simplistic traditional approach accepted by the hamon am.) But I wonder if we are redefining our tradition as something entirely separate from historic traditional rabbinic Judaism. And then I wonder if there is any point to the endeavor. (Well, of course there is a point, if one believes that these answers are correct. It is then the pursuit of truth.) Is it possible to defend the traditional approach, on its own grounds?

(Update: I should also note that the author intends to ground his position in traditional thought. Thus, he wrote about the upcoming third and fourth essays:

The [ed: third] essay concludes by demonstrating that the conclusions reached here are in concert with provocative comments by the Netziv (R. Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin; ) about the fluid and changing nature of halakhah. Finally, in the fourth essay I build on the previous essays and explain why law in Sefer Devarim diverges from law found in the earlier books of the Torah. I demonstrate that the conclusions I reach were already anticipated in the writing of R. Zadok Ha-Cohen Rabinowitz of Lublin (1823-1900).

)

9) Tablet Magazine on an important issue -- how to get wax off of your menorah.

Hebrew word of the day #1