Matos: Did Ibn Ezra Have Chalutz With A Kametz?

So suggests Rabbi Shmuel Motot the Sefaradi, in his supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, titled Megillat Setarim. The pasuk, in Bemidbar 32:27:

כז וַעֲבָדֶיךָ יַעַבְרוּ כָּל-חֲלוּץ צָבָא, לִפְנֵי ה--לַמִּלְחָמָה: כַּאֲשֶׁר אֲדֹנִי, דֹּבֵר.

27 but thy servants will pass over, every man that is armed for war, before the LORD to battle, as my lord saith.'

Ibn Ezra comments what he comments, namely that it is like ha`aron haberit, הָאָרוֹן הַבְּרִית {as in Yehoshua 3:14}.

So this supercommentary is bothered by "what is bothering Ibn Ezra?" He notes the example, of ha`aron haberit, is an example of juxtaposition to create the construct form, but it does not actually use the construct form, for there is a kamatz under the aleph. Therefore, this supercommentator makes the conjecture that the same must have been true in the manuscript before Ibn Ezra, that in חֲלוּץ צָבָא, it was in the absolute form, with a kametz under the chet. However, he notes that in our seforim, it has a chataf patach, so there is no question.

I believe that this supercommentary is incorrect in this instance. It just presumes an alternate girsa in Chumash in order to explain a cryptic Ibn Ezra. Show me evidence of such a girsa and I will be more persuaded. Ibn Ezra is often cryptic.

In this instance, there are two keys to correctly understanding Ibn Ezra. The first is that the word חלוץ is repeated. Here, to the right, is Ibn Ezra again. Thus, he says vehataam kol chalutz chalutz tzavah. The second key is that with the words haaron haberit, he is targeting a specific pasuk in sefer Yehoshua, as mentioned above. Together, these two keys will yield the answer.

What is "bothering" Ibn Ezra? Nothing in this pasuk. Rather, at issue is the previous occurence of chalutz, in the same perek. In pasuk 21:

כא וְעָבַר לָכֶם כָּל-חָלוּץ אֶת-הַיַּרְדֵּן, לִפְנֵי יְהוָה, עַד הוֹרִישׁוֹ אֶת-אֹיְבָיו, מִפָּנָיו.

21 and every armed man of you will pass over the Jordan before the LORD, until He hath driven out His enemies from before Him,

What is a chalutz? Ibn Ezra answers: vehattam "kol chalutz" is chalutz tzava. Thus, there is a long phrase, chalutz tzavah, and a short version of it, which is just chalutz, and they mean the same thing -- someone who is armed for war. And this was the first key.

Now for the second key. Ibn Ezra is saying that haaron haberit is identical. What in the world does this mean? We have to look in sefer Yehoshua to find this out. In Yehoshua 3:14, we read:

יד וַיְהִי, בִּנְסֹעַ הָעָם מֵאָהֳלֵיהֶם, לַעֲבֹר, אֶת-הַיַּרְדֵּן; וְהַכֹּהֲנִים, נֹשְׂאֵי הָאָרוֹן הַבְּרִית--לִפְנֵי הָעָם.

14 And it came to pass, when the people removed from their tents, to pass over the Jordan, the priests that bore the ark of the covenant being before the people;

On this pasuk, Radak has a strange comment, but at this point it is not so strange. He says that "haberit" is chaser, missing, and the explanation of ha`aron is aron haberit. But on this pasuk, it is not chaser. Rather, it explicitly states הָאָרוֹן הַבְּרִית. The answer is that in the very next pasuk, it states

טו וּכְבוֹא נֹשְׂאֵי הָאָרוֹן, עַד-הַיַּרְדֵּן, וְרַגְלֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים נֹשְׂאֵי הָאָרוֹן, נִטְבְּלוּ בִּקְצֵה הַמָּיִם; וְהַיַּרְדֵּן, מָלֵא עַל-כָּל-גְּדוֹתָיו, כֹּל, יְמֵי קָצִיר.

15 and when they that bore the ark were come unto the Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bore the ark were dipped in the brink of the water--for the Jordan overfloweth all its banks all the time of harvest--

where it only has haAron, without habrit. And yet it is as if it was not deficient. And furthermore, I might suggest, the context of verse 14 allows us to omit it in verse 15, just as the context provided by chalutz tzava allows us elsewhere (earlier) to just say chalutz.

And if so, this was what Ibn Ezra meant by the comparison to haAron haBerit, and it is not the case that he had a different girsa in the manuscript of Chumash before him, with a kamatz rather than a chataf patach.

At least, this is my best guess as to the meaning of Ibn Ezra's comment.

However, the supercommentary was at the very least useful in identifying a cryptic Ibn Ezra and getting us thinking about it.

Interesting Posts and Articles #57

1. Dreaming Of Moshiach thinks China will be first to be destroyed, because their gematria, of 120, is the same as ksil, and because they are trying to control the weather:
   

   Is it possible that China will be destroyed because the foolish Chinese are trying to do what man never has: Control the weather. (China) Sin is ambitiously trying to control the weather aiming for a dry Olympics - An event whose very purpose is to push the limits of human beings.
   
   The Talmud teaches that the power over rain is one of the three keys that the Almighty has kept for Himself - the key of Rain, the key of Childbirth, and the key of the Resurrection of the Dead” (Taanit 2A).
   
   Don't the foolish and wicked Sin know that they cannot change the weather? HaShem sent them so many signs to stop their foolishness but they refuse to listen.
   Tehillim 92:6, "וּכְסִיל לֹא־יָבִין אֶת־זֹאת A fool doesn't understand this."

   I would ask: "Eliyahu HaNavi" also has a gematria of 120. (See here.) Was he a fool when he borrowed the "keys" and controlled the weather, and then returned it in order to obtain the key to "techiyas haMeisim?"
   
   Chumus is also gematria 120. Is anyone who eats chumus a fool?
   
   And is China really the only ones who have tried to do this, and is such an attempt truly sinful? All the time, they seed to clouds with dry ice in order to induce rain. Is this not at attempt to control the weather? Is the inventor of the defibrillator, and a nurse or doctor who uses it, a sinner or a fool? Is the not attempting techiyas hameisim? And are nurses and doctors, or patients, who make use of artificial insemination, or give or take fertility hormones sinners or fools, for trying to control childbirth? How exactly does she make the distinction?
   
   
2. Meanwhile, she believes her prediction about the failing of all banks has come to fruition, and labels it as a dream that has materialized. Her "proof":
   

   The Reality:
   The Bank Panic of July 2008: Run, don’t walk to get your money out!
   
   NEW YORK (BNW) — With the stock market in freefall, the economy in the dumps, and inflation at an all time high, no wonder the banks across this country are beginning to fail. If you have one penny in any bank in America, you better run, don’t walk to your bank and withdraw it out before it’s too late. No bank has enough reserves on hand to cope with more than the fraction of deposits being taken out at once.

   What she does not note, or realize, it that she is quoting some hysterical person from "Black News Weekly." Their slogan is "We post the news the others refuse." Furthermore, this is advice. It is not confirmation that all the banks are bankrupt, and that people are rushing to withdraw their money from banks but are being refused, and will never see their money again.
   
   In contrast, Shirat Devorah has a better article. We will see if it pans out, but so far, the scenario has not. And it is not that I think the U.S. economy is so good. I had my concerns in the past as well, just al derech hateva, about the economy and the world situation. As such, bad economic news does not surprise me.
   
   
3. Mystical Paths posts about a rumor of mashiach. That at the behest of a "holy autistic," invitations were sent out to rabbanim across the country. And the ones who came met mashiach, and he will be coming this September.
   

   Right around Shavuos this year, an invitation was sent to leading rabbonim of all the different streams of Judaism. (The invitation was delivered at the request of one of the holy autistics.) The invitation was to come to a meeting with Moshiach, at the holy resting place of the Baal Shem Tov in the Ukraine.
   
   The invitation was sent to approximately 150 rabbonim, tzaddikim, rebbe's, and mekubalim. Some considered it a joke, or didn't take it seriously, or couldn't believe that it could be true. Less than half came, mostly chassidic rabbaim, rebbe's, and sephardi mekubalim.

   At Life In Israel, Rafi G. is upset that some of the rabbanim considered it a joke. I did not receive such an invitation, but I, too, would consider it a joke. As I commented there, I have seen enough of facilitated communication to know that these messages are not coming from the autistics, but from the "facilitator" moving the autistic's hand on the Ouija board. And I have seen some halachically and hashkafically problematic statements from these same autistics. And think that what they are doing may be halachically problematic. The group this is coming from is delusional, and it is not wrong to recognize a delusion and not take it seriously.
   
   Of course, we will see in September. Except if something does not materialize, it will be said that this was all just a rumor. And Rafi G. knows that rumors can come into being in the craziest ways. Here is an example from Yeranen Yaakov, where Mashiach was supposed to come in 2006, after Rav Kanievsky bought a suit to greet mashiach. Or didn't.
   
   I don't think spreading crazy rumors is helpful. In fact, in my opinion, it only weakens emunah. Lucy can only pull the football out from Charlie Brown's feet as he is about to kick it so many times before he begins to doubt she will ever hold the ball in place.
   
   
4. Meanwhile, a "holy autistic," Binyamin Golden, tells us that we should not be eating ice cream, french fries, hamburgers, mistic {chewing gum?}, pizza, Coca Cola, 7-Up, etc.
   
   
   הגלידות, הצ'יפסים, הבורגרים, המסטיקים והפיצות וכו', כל הדברים האלה לא שייכים לדרך החיים של יהודי אמיתי. וזה מכניס את התשוקות והטומאה של הרחוב לתוך היהודי. קוקה-קולה [''טעם החיים'' כאילו, לפי הפרסום הכפרני], 7-אפ, ג'אמפ וכו', הכל לא כשר, כי זה נובע מהתאוות והתשוקות של הגוים.
   
   
   Dumb.
   
   
5. But related, Life In Israel posts a kashrus survey of various restaurants in Israel, including Massouv Burger.
   
   
6. JudeoPundit notes a Yemen Times article on why some men prefer uneducated women.
   

   "Uneducated women rarely ask questions," notes one husband of an uneducated woman, adding that his wife never asks where he’s going or from where he’s coming. This first reflects her trust in him and second, it indicates that she recognizes her husband’s mood, avoiding anything that may agitate him.

7. Ishim veShitot posts about Rav Yaakov Emden's evaluation of Ibn Ezra.
   
   
8. I recently came across this commercial for Axe Dry Anti-Perspirant. Funny.
   
   

Matos: Yachel Meaning Forgive, Profane, Or Delay?

Note: Nothing to do with any of this, but I am plugging my Rif Yomi blog here. Keep pace with Daf Yomi, but learn only the Rif.

The pasuk towards the beginning of Matos:

ג אִישׁ כִּי-יִדֹּר נֶדֶר לַה, אוֹ-הִשָּׁבַע שְׁבֻעָה לֶאְסֹר אִסָּר עַל-נַפְשׁוֹ--לֹא יַחֵל, דְּבָרוֹ: כְּכָל-הַיֹּצֵא מִפִּיו, יַעֲשֶׂה.

3 When a man voweth a vow unto the LORD, or sweareth an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.

What is the meaning of לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ, and specifically the יַחֵל part of it? While Chazal do involve it in a derasha in which it has the meaning of mechilah, they also interpret it (in Sifrei) as coming from the root ch-l-l. Thus, he should not profane his word.

Rashi endorses that reading:

he shall not violate his word Heb. לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ, like לֹא יְחַלֵּל דְּבָרוֹ“he shall not profane his word,” he shall not treat his word as being unholy. — [Sifrei Mattoth 8]

And Siftei Chachamim offers his analysis of how this works out.

Ibn Ezra also endorses this explanation and rejects mechilah. I am not sure I understand, or agree with, his further point.

Then, we turn to Rashbam. I messed up in the image above, so here is a better clip. We see him state that those who explain, on a peshat level, that it means chilul, are mistaken. It would seem that he is targeting Rashi and perhaps Ibn Ezra as well. It would seem that he will allow it on the level of derash. He does not endorse mechila but rather y-ch-l as the root, it would seem, and that root means to delay. He gives examples. Thus, to offer some examples:
{Bereishit 8:10}

י וַיָּחֶל עוֹד, שִׁבְעַת יָמִים אֲחֵרִים; וַיֹּסֶף שַׁלַּח אֶת-הַיּוֹנָה, מִן-הַתֵּבָה.

10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark.

and in Shoftim 3:25:

כה וַיָּחִילוּ עַד-בּוֹשׁ, וְהִנֵּה אֵינֶנּוּ פֹתֵחַ דַּלְתוֹת הָעֲלִיָּה; וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת-הַמַּפְתֵּחַ, וַיִּפְתָּחוּ, וְהִנֵּה אֲדֹנֵיהֶם, נֹפֵל אַרְצָה מֵת.

25 And they tarried till they were ashamed; and, behold, he opened not the doors of the upper chamber; therefore they took the key, and opened them; and, behold, their lord was fallen down dead on the earth.

Rashbam divides לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ כְּכָל-הַיֹּצֵא מִפִּיו יַעֲשֶׂה into two parts. Thus, לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ goes on the neder, which is to bring an offering, where elsewhere we have bal te`acher. And כְּכָל-הַיֹּצֵא מִפִּיו יַעֲשֶׂה goes on the shevuah.

Talk of peshat vs. derash always makes me curious to see what the Karaites have to say on it. Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite endorses chilul, and says that whoever suggests not delaying - lo te`acher -- is making an error in dikduk, because the yud is not a radical here, but rather designates the future tense. The supercommentary says this is addressed to a different (perhaps Karaite) commentator, but the same would apply to Rashbam.

Perhaps Rashbam could claim that it is neutral (=what we normally call "present") tense, but passive, something like the kal passive. Especially is we are allowed to revocalize.

Matos: The Trup on Vekamu Nedareha

This is an easy, straightforward one. In the beginning of Matos, in Bemidbar 30:8, we have the pasuk pictured to the right. That is,

וְשָׁמַ֥ע אִישָׁ֛הּ בְּי֥וֹם שָׁמְע֖וֹ וְהֶֽחֱרִ֣ישׁ לָ֑הּ וְקָ֣מוּ נְדָרֶ֗יהָ וֶֽאֱסָרֶ֛הָ אֲשֶׁר־אָֽסְרָ֥ה עַל־נַפְשָׁ֖הּ יָקֻֽמוּ׃

The issue, noted by Shadal, is that there is a revii on the word nedareha. Now, based on the principle of continuous dichotomy in psukim, the pasuk is divided as pictured to the right, assuming the revii in that place.

That is, the second half of the pasuk:
וְקָמוּ נְדָרֶיהָ וֶאֱסָרֶהָ אֲשֶׁר-אָסְרָה עַל-נַפְשָׁהּ יָקֻמוּ

would be divided first into
וְקָמוּ נְדָרֶיהָ וֶאֱסָרֶהָ אֲשֶׁר-אָסְרָה עַל-נַפְשָׁהּ
and
יָקֻמוּ

At the next step, the first clause would be further subdivided into
וְקָמוּ נְדָרֶיהָ
and
וֶאֱסָרֶהָ אֲשֶׁר-אָסְרָה עַל-נַפְשָׁהּ

The problem with all this is that according to this, yakumu would go on וְקָמוּ נְדָרֶיהָ וֶאֱסָרֶהָ אֲשֶׁר-אָסְרָה עַל-נַפְשָׁהּ. This is obviously problematic, because we already have the first verb וְקָמוּ, which goes on וְקָמוּ נְדָרֶיהָ. The fact that there is a disjunctive accent on נְדָרֶיהָ is a good and correct thing, but the wrong disjunctive accent would appear to be here. We want to divide off that section much earlier.

That is, we want:
וְקָמוּ נְדָרֶיהָ וֶאֱסָרֶהָ אֲשֶׁר-אָסְרָה עַל-נַפְשָׁהּ יָקֻמוּ

to divide into

וְקָמוּ נְדָרֶיהָ
וֶאֱסָרֶהָ אֲשֶׁר-אָסְרָה עַל-נַפְשָׁהּ יָקֻמוּ

which is how the JPS translation indeed goes:
then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.

Thus, Shadal notes:

וקמו נדריה: ראוי להיות בזקף, וכן הוא בחומש יוסטיניאן

There should be a zakef katon on the word nedareha. With that in place, the division would be correct, and as described above.

And I would note that a revii only looks like a diamond because of present styles in printing. In manuscripts, it was merely a single dot above the word. (Revii does not mean "four" but is based on the Aramaic word equivalent to רבץ, with an ayin taking the place of tzadi.) Then, it is quite easy to lose one dot from zakef katon to yield a revii.

Shadal notes that this is not just conjecture based on theoretical principles, but that he has some corroborating evidence. Namely, the Justinian chumash {?} has the zakef there.

Update: Of course, the alternative is possible, though somewhat awkward:
"then shall stand her vows and her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul || they {meaning both vows and bonds} shall stand."

Talking in Shul pt i

Hirhurim recently posted another post about talking in shul. The issue, this time, is whether the sanctity of the synagogue precludes talking in shul even where it would otherwise be permitted to talk. E.g. after davening, or perhaps bein gavra legavra, and so on.

Rabbi Student made reference to a few sources, but two of them I can assemble quite easily from sources already available online. Here is the Aruch haShulchan, siman 151:1-5, and then Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim 1:45.

I do not attempt any translation or summarization here in this post. Perhaps in a later post, it I get around to it.

Abarbanel's Survey of Moshe's Sin, pt v

Abarbanel continues his survey of opinions on the identity Moshe's sin by Mei Merivah. (See previous segment here.)

10) This is one he saw from a contemporary chacham. This position is that Moshe did not sin. And if you find pesukim that seem to indicate his sin, other pesukim as well are found which seem to indicate that the punishment was not for a sin Moshe committed. These pesukim are:

{Devarim 3:26}

כו וַיִּתְעַבֵּר יְהוָה בִּי לְמַעַנְכֶם, וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֵלָי; וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֵלַי, רַב-לָךְ--אַל-תּוֹסֶף דַּבֵּר אֵלַי עוֹד, בַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה.

26 But the LORD was wroth with me for your sakes, and hearkened not unto me; and the LORD said unto me: 'Let it suffice thee; speak no more unto Me of this matter.

and also in Tehillim 106:32-33:

לב וַיַּקְצִיפוּ, עַל-מֵי מְרִיבָה; וַיֵּרַע לְמֹשֶׁה, בַּעֲבוּרָם.	32 They angered Him also at the waters of Meribah, and it went ill with Moses because of them;
לג כִּי-הִמְרוּ אֶת-רוּחוֹ; וַיְבַטֵּא, בִּשְׂפָתָיו.	33 For they embittered his spirit, and he spoke rashly with his lips.

{though he only cites pasuk 32, not 33}.

And the intellect admits that a complete man such as Moshe would not, forfend, sin. And thus it is fitting to explain the verses which {appear to} inform about his sin, for so is the way of verses which {apparently} contradict one another. And we can say that when the verse says maaltem, meritem, lo heemantem, lo kidashtem, it would be of the same type as what was stated by Achan {in Yehoshua 7}

יא חָטָא, יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְגַם עָבְרוּ אֶת-בְּרִיתִי, אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי אוֹתָם; וְגַם לָקְחוּ, מִן-הַחֵרֶם, וְגַם גָּנְבוּ וְגַם כִּחֲשׁוּ, וְגַם שָׂמוּ בִכְלֵיהֶם.

11 Israel hath sinned; yea, they have even transgressed My covenant which I commanded them; yea, they have even taken of the devoted thing; and have also stolen, and dissembled also, and they have even put it among their own stuff.

while it was only Achan who sinned, yet the nation is grouped in this. And certainly it is not difficult that when Israel is sinning and rebelling that Moshe and Aharon would be grouped among them, even though they did not sin. And indeed, the pasuk {in Bemidbar 20} says

יג הֵמָּה מֵי מְרִיבָה, אֲשֶׁר-רָבוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת-ה; וַיִּקָּדֵשׁ, בָּם. {ס}

13 These are the waters of Meribah, where the children of Israel strove with the LORD, and He was sanctified in them. {S}

Thus, they strove with his Creator, and it is attributed to Moshe since he was among them, even though he did not sin. And so do you find by the manna {which people improperly went out to collect on Shabbat}, that Hashem said to Moshe {Shemot 16:28}:

כח וַיֹּאמֶר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה: עַד-אָנָה, מֵאַנְתֶּם, לִשְׁמֹר מִצְו‍ֹתַי, וְתוֹרֹתָי.

28 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'How long refuse ye to keep My commandments and My laws?

and He included Moshe and Aharon in that statement even though they did not sin against Him, for this is they way of speaking. And yet, the punishment of Moshe, and his death, were for the sin of his generation, that they were not fit to enter the land, and therefore it states
לָכֵן, לֹא תָבִיאוּ אֶת-הַקָּהָל הַזֶּה, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר-נָתַתִּי לָהֶם -- "therefore ye shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them" and it says לֹא תָבִיאוּ, you shall not bring, and not lo tavou, you sall not enter. For this punishment was for Israel, and not for Moshe and Aharon. And it states vayekadesh bam {in the next pasuk in Bemidbar 20

יג הֵמָּה מֵי מְרִיבָה, אֲשֶׁר-רָבוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת-ה; וַיִּקָּדֵשׁ, בָּם. {ס}

13 These are the waters of Meribah, where the children of Israel strove with the LORD, and He was sanctified in them. {S}

}

as it is stated {Tehillim 68}

לו נוֹרָא אֱלֹהִים, מִמִּקְדָּשֶׁיךָ: אֵל יִשְׂרָאֵל-- הוּא נֹתֵן עֹז וְתַעֲצֻמוֹת לָעָם; בָּרוּךְ אֱלֹהִים.

36 Awful is God out of thy holy places; {N} the God of Israel, He giveth strength and power unto the people; {N} blessed be God. {P}

{through His holy ones}
for it is clear that if Israel had entered the land via Moshe and Aharon, they would not have been so lazy in the conquest and land distribution, and they would not have left their enemies in the land.

{Though Abarbanel does not explicitly cite these pesukim, this channels the pesukim in Tehillim 106, when goes on from Moshe's punishment to being lazy in conquest:

לב וַיַּקְצִיפוּ, עַל-מֵי מְרִיבָה; וַיֵּרַע לְמֹשֶׁה, בַּעֲבוּרָם.	32 They angered Him also at the waters of Meribah, and it went ill with Moses because of them;
לג כִּי-הִמְרוּ אֶת-רוּחוֹ; וַיְבַטֵּא, בִּשְׂפָתָיו.	33 For they embittered his spirit, and he spoke rashly with his lips.
לד לֹא-הִשְׁמִידוּ, אֶת-הָעַמִּים-- אֲשֶׁר אָמַר יְהוָה לָהֶם.	34 They did not destroy the peoples, as the LORD commanded them;
לה וַיִּתְעָרְבוּ בַגּוֹיִם; וַיִּלְמְדוּ, מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם.	35 But mingled themselves with the nations, and learned their works;
לו וַיַּעַבְדוּ אֶת-עֲצַבֵּיהֶם; וַיִּהְיוּ לָהֶם לְמוֹקֵשׁ.	36 And they served their idols, which became a snare unto them;

}

And it is already found within Chazal words which support this position. They say in masechet Shabbos, perek bameh beheimah: The ministering angels asked Hashem, "why did you impose the fine of death upon the First Man. Hashem said: I commanded him a light commandment and he was unable to keep it. They said: If so, Moshe and Aharon who kept the entire Torah, why didyou impose death upon them? He said to them {Kohelet 9:2}: "It is the same happening to a righteous man and to a wicked man."

And this informs that Moshe our master did not sin, but rather that he was complete and his Torah was complete.

And this position is also not correct, for it contradicts the verses in this sidra {of Chukat} in the death of Aharon, and in the sidra of Pinchas. And at the end of the sidra of Haazina, the Torah informs that Moshe and Aharon did not enter the land because of what they sinned at Mei Merivat Kadesh, and that this was not a punishment to Israel, but rather to them.

{However, I think one might salvage some portion of this, by having certain pesukim talking about Israel's rebellion. I might add that after 40 years, Moshe and Aharon should have instilled in the Bnei Yisrael the proper attitude, and this lack on Israel's part was therefore their leaders' fault. Lo Heemantam (rather than tem) Bi, velo kidashtem et shemi. Such that the people had this reaction.}

Interesting Posts and Articles #56

1. According to Reuters,
   

   Nearly two-thirds of Egyptian men admit to having sexually harassed women in the most populous Arab country, and a majority say women themselves are to blame for their maltreatment, a survey showed on Thursday.
   
   ...
   
   Egyptian women and female visitors frequently complain of persistent sexual harassment on Egyptian streets, despite the socially conservative nature of this traditional Muslim society.

   I am not so sure that the word "despite" is appropriate here.
   
   
2. McCain commercial on Obama's flip flops.
   
   
3. A judge rules on disclosing identities of anonymous commenters. See here.
   
   
4. PaleoJudaica reports on two ancient Tanach fragments from Qumran, perhaps Samaritan in nature.
   
   
5. A synagogue next to a store selling T-shirts, bathing suits, and racy undergarments. In the New York Times.
   
   
6. First it was Gwen Stefani with her version of "If I Was [sic] a Rich Girl," from Fiddler On the Roof's "If I Were A Rich Man." Now, Maaco adopts and adapts "Matchmaker, Matchmaker Make Me A Match" to promote their ability to exactly match any color you bring in, when they paint your car. I don't see it on YouTube yet, so here is a link to download and view it directly from Maaco.
   

When Today's Fast Ends, In Kew Gardens Hills

Based on the Etz Chaim Bulletin from this past Shabbos, here is the fast info:

Fast Begins at 4:29 AM & Ends at 9:04 PM

While I am at it, while I am still not sure I'll post on the issue of fasting on the 17th of Tammuz, I might as lead up to it by posting this clip from Rosh HaShana 18b. Relevant to this topic is of course the gemara, but also Rashi and Rabbenu Chananel.

Non-optional Optional Fasts

Rosh Hashana 18a - b:

דף יח, א משנה על ששה חדשים השלוחין יוצאין על ניסן מפני הפסח על אב מפני התענית על אלול מפני ר"ה על תשרי מפני תקנת המועדות על כסליו מפני חנוכה ועל אדר מפני הפורים וכשהיה בהמ"ק קיים יוצאין אף על אייר מפני פסח קטן:

דף יח, א גמרא וליפקו נמי אתמוז וטבת

דף יח, ב גמרא דאמר רב חנא בר ביזנא אמר ר"ש חסידא מאי דכתיב (זכריה ח) כה אמר ה' צבאות צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי וצום העשירי יהיה לבית יהודה לששון ולשמחה קרי להו צום וקרי להו ששון ושמחה בזמן שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה אין שלום צום אמר רב פפא הכי קאמר בזמן שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה יש [גזרת המלכות] {שמד} צום אין [גזרת המלכות] {שמד} ואין שלום רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין

So perhaps on an individual level, one can choose not to fast? See "Outlines of Halachos" on this, from 1b and on. Without having seen all of this inside, which is important to do: some seem to take it as a communal decision of reshut, or else only optional if the community is in general not fasting, or else that it has assumed the force of minhag over and above the gemara's statement. But these are just first impressions of it.

Perhaps a post later, looking at the specifics of the Rishonim and Acharonim.

Two Quick Links

1. The Fast of the Fourth Month, and addressing the error of it being the 9th of Tammuz rather than the 17th.
2. Rif Yomi on Gittin continues, here and then here. Learning through Rif Yomi is much faster than Daf Yomi. We just recently started Gittin, so this is an opportune time to jump on.
   

Ladies Should Wear Overcoats

I saw the following the other day in the "My Machberes" column in the Jewish Press:

Chassidishe Trends
Ladies Should Wear Overcoats

Ultimate Coats by Modest Design announced, in chassidishe advertising weeklies, that it has two styles of coats for weddings or other occasions. The ad notes that the Rimanover Rebbe, in his city, had ordained that Jewish daughters should wear an oiber malbush, loosely translated as an upper [outer] garment or overcoat. Presumably, this is a light overcoat that covers dresses, etc. When women are elegantly dressed, on their way to or returning from smachos, the overcoat would cover their nice outfits and embrace them in modesty. This, presumably, is similar to the linen coats worn by ladies (and gentlemen) while riding in stagecoaches, open wagons, as well as in (old) cars such as the Ford Model T (1908-1927).

Regarding Ultimate Coats, Rabbi Shraga Feivish Hager, Kosover Rebbe in Boro Park, writes that he has been troubled for years that when Jewish daughters go to smachos they are dressed in their finest Shabbos and Yom Tov outfits. Of course, they are going to a mitzvah in making their friend happy, especially kallos at their weddings. Nevertheless they are going through the streets or on the Boro Park/ Williamsburg bus, etc., where there are married men and bochurim. He has long been searching for a solution. Thank Heaven, the Kosover Rebbe writes, that righteous women have come up with an answer. A nice thin overcoat that will guard them well. Though it may be hot in warm weather, it is a good thing, he says. Rabbi Getzel Elyakim Berkowitz, Kiryas Yoel Dayan, in a letter written last year, also praises the new garment for street wear, especially when going to smachos.

Just ... wow.

I had a few reactions to this.

1. First, it seems that this was an innovation by Modest Design, people in the tznius business. Thus,
   

   Thank Heaven, the Kosover Rebbe writes, that righteous women have come up with an answer.

   They came up with an idea, found a old quasi-source for it, got some modern rabbinic approval, and created a market. This might all be lishmah, but I do not like the fact that that innovation in stricter tznius is coming from the bottom up, rather than from the top down.
   
   
2. Secondly, in the article, we read:
   

   This, presumably, is similar to the linen coats worn by ladies (and gentlemen) while riding in stagecoaches, open wagons, as well as in (old) cars such as the Ford Model T (1908-1927).

   Their basis is a statement by the Rimanover Rebbe, who was presumably Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Rimanov (famous for the parshas haMon sugulah). He was born in Neustadt (Germany) and was in Fristik and then Rimanov, in Poland. He was born in 1745 and died in 1815.
   
   It therefore indeed seems a bit presumptuous to presume that the fashion for outerwear in late 18th century and early 19th century Poland was identical with that of early 20th century America. It might randomly be true, but not presumably. This is an appropriate place to use Torah UMaddah. There are scholars who study 18th century and 19th century Polish dress, and one could ask them what Polish Jewish costume was like at this time.
   
   For example, the picture to the right, taken from this exhibit, "Beyond the Pale: A History of Jews in Russia" is "a chassid and his wife in typical dress of the 18th century."
   
   
   The image below it comes from another page on the same site. The top panel (the top two pictures) show "Polish Jewish dress in the 17th and 18th century," while the bottom panel shows "Jewish types in Warsaw in the 18th century."
   
   
   
   
   
   Read the full text on that website to see descriptions of the various items of clothing the women are wearing.
   
   
   
   
   It is unclear whether any of these women are wearing what Rabbi Menachem Mendel MiRimanov was referring to with "oiber malbush," and to really find this out, one should do further study, or really consult with an expert. But, it is certainly a possibility that the oiber malbush was the shawl the woman is wearing in the bottom right panel, or the apron worn by the woman in the top picture of the chassid and his wife. It is by no means certain, just based on this, that it was a linen jacket as worn by men and women while driving their Ford Model Ts in the early 20th century.
   
   
3. Thirdly, this appeal to a statement out of context by the Rimanover Rebbe, for people in his town, seems to be a further example of the phenomenon that Wolfish Musings noted last week. Namely, in that post he noted the strangeness of applying a prohibition of the Nodah Biyhudah (18th century Prague) about shoes (where shoes already purchased were perhaps still allowed) as a basis for a modern prohibition in Kiryas Yoel on stylish shoes that are "stunning and attention-getting."
   
   
4. Many halachic statements are context-dependent. I would have to see the statement of Rav Menachem Mendel of Rimanov inside. But what was this oiber malbush? What were the women wearing under this oiber malbush, such that they would just be wearing only this if they did not wear the oiber malbush? What were the societal expectations at the time? Tznius is context dependent, such that a veil might be appropriate tznius in an Arabic country. See the differences between Rambam and others on this score.
   
   The Aruch haShulchan, Orach Chaim, siman 91, seif 6, writes:
   
   ובמדינתינו אין להתפלל אף כשהראש מכוסה בכסוי קטן רק בענין כובע כמו שהולכין ברכוב וגם בבגד קצר שקורין קאפטי"ל אין להתפלל בו כי אין יוצאין בו לרכוב
   
   
   Note that the proper dress for tefillah is culturally defined -- he starts off clarifying that this is bimdinateinu, "our country." The formal attire people wear outdoors differs from country to country. Again, we would have to see exactly what the Rimanover Rebbe said, but it is quite possible that this should not be transferred, specifically because it is specific to his city in that century.
   
   
5. Furthermore, it overturns more than a century of precedent. I am sure that one can find arcane opinions made by individuals for their towns. But to scour the literature for these obscure positions in order to overturn minhag Yisrael of frum Jews, because you want to enforce stricter and stricter tnzius requirements on women is, in my humble opinion, misguided and an incorrect approach to take.
   
   
6. If we are really saying that we should rule in accordance with the Rimanover Rebbe, did he say this in terms of going to semachot, or did he say this in general? (The article puts the sentence about smachot bracketed by "presumably," so I am not sure.) If you adopt him, fine. If not, don't. But it would be incorrect to selectively apply his statement in order to bolster your newfangled chumra. (On the other hand, perhaps he said it specifically about semachot. We would have to see inside. Does anyone know of the source text?)
   
   
7. Women in these communities are already very tzniusdikly dressed. But imposing more and more extreme tznius restrictions fetishizes women and their clothing, such that apparently men cannot see women dressed in tznius Yom Tov finery without suffering the same ill-effects as if they had said Rachav Rachav. There has to be a point at which this stops. Or else, a decade from now, Modest Designs will come up with some clothing to cover up the attractive oiber malbush. At some point, rather than being so concerned and being troubled for years over this problem, men should decide that if they are so bothered, they can just avert their eyes.

Update: Now I see WolfishMusings has a post on this particular issue as well.

Interesting Posts and Articles #55

1. Eliyahu forwarded me the two following videos. This one
   
   
   and this one:
   
   
   
   
2. At BeyondBT, Rabbi Dovid Schwartz talks about crafting a new nomenclature. I agree. I think when the gemara was talking about baal teshuva, it was speaking about avaryanim who repented. "Baalei Teshuva" in modern times are more along the lines of tinok shenishba, and they actively sought out, found, and chose the Jewish religion. Which is more than many "frum from birth" folks have done. True, they may have committed sins beshogeg in the past, but they were good, moral, ethical people, who were motivated to seek out and choose Orthodox Judaism. This background is nothing to be embarrassed about.
   
   
3. Chaptzem notes that you, too, can own a kosher gym. And publishes a letter from the former owners explaining why they finally had enough.
   
   
4. WolfishMusings discusses an interesting case in shul where they had exactly ten people for the minyan and the kohen walked out in order to not receive the first aliyah.
   
   
5. Reb Akiva of Mystical Paths notes Ahmadinejad visits the UN for the third -- or the fourth -- time, and believes this may the beginning of the fulfillment of what is predicted in Midrash Eliyahu that the King of Persia will visit Rome three times, and then, revolt 12 months later. If this revolt does not occur by this September or next September, I wonder if that would be sufficient cause to reevaluate the whole Bush = God, US = Rome bit.
   
   
6. Nava at Dreaming Of Moshiach replies to a comment that her predictions don't make logical sense. Thus,
   

   How can Iran attack America and at the same time have Bush leading the world to occupy Israel. This is especially problematic if Iran cooks America goose.
   
   Why would Iran even threaten America before the elections. Any serious threats would help McLean. Iran and all the Arabs prefer Obama, so they wouldn't want to upset the people in America. Bush will not have justification to declare marshal law.

   I am no political pundit to assess whether his objections are valid, or whether his suggestions are any more sensible. However, her response is not to defend the logic of her predictions, but rather to declare that the fact that it is illogical is not a bug, but rather a feature. It is a good thing that it is illogical, because that is how things work on the religious, and spiritual realm.
   
   She gives an example, that spraying bug spray actually brings more bugs. And it is because on a spiritual level, the bugs are coming to mourn. It is a lofty explanation, ayin sham. I don't know whether this is scientific fact or urban legend, but if fact, it would indeed be scientifically explainable (and likely has been) as some function of alarm pheremones, or some other pheremones such as trail pheremones, the bugs emit shortly before death. Thus, for ants:
   

   One of the simplest examples of alarm communication is that of Acanthomyops colonies. These are subterranean ants that are large in size and dense in number and therefore it could be speculated that they would respond to alarm pheromones by the “fight” reaction because of the unlikeliness of dispersal.

Abarbanel's Survey of Moshe's Sin, pt iv

Abarbanel continues his survey of opinions on the identity Moshe's sin by Mei Merivah. (See previous segment here.)

8) Ibn Ezra: That Moshe, in his anger, severed the connection which he had with Hashem, through which he (typically) performed the signs and wonders. And this position is actually a collection or combination of positions. For it states that Moshe, because of anger (like Rambam) sinned when he did not speak but instead hit (like the first position, of Rashi and midrash), and thus water did not go out at the first striking and he needed to hit a second time (like the 5th position), for so did the Ran do, when he composed a position consisting of the other positions.

9) That of the author of sefer haIkkarim: That the sin was that they did not innovate the solution of themselves, by speaking to the rock to give its waters (without God first commanding them). For when a prophet decrees in the name of Hashem on natural matters that they should change, he speaks and Hashem will fulfill in. As a result, Hashem's name is sanctified. And this is like Eliyahu did when he said {I Kings 17:1}

א וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלִיָּהוּ הַתִּשְׁבִּי מִתֹּשָׁבֵי גִלְעָד, אֶל-אַחְאָב, חַי-ה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר עָמַדְתִּי לְפָנָיו, אִם-יִהְיֶה הַשָּׁנִים הָאֵלֶּה טַל וּמָטָר--כִּי, אִם-לְפִי דְבָרִי. {ס}

1 And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the settlers of Gilead, said unto Ahab: 'As the LORD, the God of Israel, liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word.' {S}

And so too when he said {II Kings 1:12}

יב וַיַּעַן אֵלִיָּה, וַיְדַבֵּר אֲלֵיהֶם, אִם-אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים אָנִי, תֵּרֶד אֵשׁ מִן-הַשָּׁמַיִם וְתֹאכַל אֹתְךָ וְאֶת-חֲמִשֶּׁיךָ; וַתֵּרֶד אֵשׁ-אֱלֹהִים מִן-הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַתֹּאכַל אֹתוֹ וְאֶת-חֲמִשָּׁיו.

12 And Elijah answered and said unto them: 'If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty.' And the fire of God came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.

And that this was the sin of Moshe -- that he did not fill his heart to sanctify the name of Heaven in public. And from there Yehoshua learned when he said "Sun in Giveon, stand still."

And behold, this is also not correct, for behold by the rock in Chorev, in which the people contended with him, Moshe did not do anything, and Hashem then commanded him what to do. (And that was no sin.) And also here, the speech came to him what to do, and how can it then be reckoned to him as a sin?

{Perhaps there we do not have Moshe fleeing. His asking Hashem for direction might be instantaneous. Here, it was apparent to the nation that Moshe was confounded. Even if the speech came to him what to do, it was the waiting for the speech that was problematic, not his fulfillment of the directives after the fact.}

On McCain, and Bad Jokes

Warning: This post contains some adult content and language, so you may wish to skip it.

The gemara in Bava Kamma 82a details some of the institutions of Ezra. One of them is:

That a woman must wear a sinnar — out of modesty.

A sinnar, according to Jastrow, is a sort of petticoat or breech-cloth.

Meanwhile, the gemara in Yerushalmi Megillah 29b goes into more detail on this account:

הוא התקין שתהא אשה חוגרת בסינר בין מלפניה בין מלאחריה א"ר תנחום בר חייה מפני מעשה שאירע מעשה באשה שבעלה קוף מכדרכה ושלא כדרכה

Thus, the institution of Ezra is to gird herself with this sinnar both before her and behind her. Rabbi Tanchum bar Chiyya explained that this (the entire institution, and/or the aspect of in front and in back) was because of an incident in which a woman was violated (against her will) by an ape in both ways.

Thus, incidents like this either happened, or were imagined to have happened, for quite a long time.

And 20 years ago, there is a possibility that McCain repeated a tasteless joke about gorilla rape, in front of a reporter. He denies this. She admits that she may have the joke wrong, but this is how she told it over:

"Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, “Where is that marvelous ape?”"

This telling makes it extremely mean. But according to an update at the original site:

"Huffington Post's Sam Stein spoke to reporter Norma Coile, who wrote the original article. Coile told Stein, "I'm not sure exactly what the wording was of the joke, but something was said. Some joke involving a rape and ape was said.""

A lot of nuance can go into the retelling of a joke. As I commented over at DovBear:

It is a sophomoric joke, but I think that it was told over here incorrectly. From the joke I remember, the girsa goes something like this Unix fortune, with a play on a question whether she was "hurt". Various other factors might also "mitigate" it, as she is the one who initiates the contact in the joke:

http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de...nes/fortunes2- o

" One of my favorite Zoo jokes has to do with a woman who, while visiting the zoo, desided to have a little fun with the Gorilla. She walks up to his cage, reaches in, and begins to fondle the beast. Needless to say, the animal becomes quite excited, and as he tries to reciprocate in kind, the woman steps back and gives him a raspberry...!
The gorilla becomes enraged. He rips the bars from his cage, grabs the woman, drags her back into the cage, and ravishes her. While doing so, he inflicts a great deal of harm upon her person.
Later, at the hospital, a neighbor of the woman visits and exclaims, "Oh, you poor dear...! Are you hurt?"
"Hurt!", "Hurt!?" the injured lady sobs, "He doesn't phone. He never writes..."

This would still be an extremely tasteless joke, but people are sometimes sophomoric. What is different here is that there is the "mitigating" factor (if you can call it that) that she initiates this type of contact. And that it is possible that she is not dreamily savoring the incident, but that rather than being upset about her horrific ordeal, she is acting like a woman being ignored by her boyfriend after he gets what he wants. This is obviously not what one would expect, and the disconnect is a large part of the humor. It is not claiming that women in general love rape and bestiality.

There are other versions of this joke. One commenter there (credited upon request) notes that the joke appears in The Bonfire of the Vanities, by Tom Wolfe, in the form as it appears to the right. And the italicized words are supposed to be said over in a sing-songy voice, as it is about a Jewish woman.

I would also add the following point, again from a comment I made there:

"Regardless of the correct version of the joke, or whether McCain said it, this will not change my vote. There are critical issues, and real differences between the candidates in terms of policy, that ought to outweigh whether at some point in the past he told a tasteless joke."

Abarbanel's Survey of Moshe's Sin, pt iii

Abarbanel continues his survey of opinions on the identity Moshe's sin by Mei Merivah. (See previous segment here.)

5) That he sinned by hitting twice as opposed to once. Once would not have been a sin. This is difficult for the reason the Ibn Ezra gives -- Aharon did not even hit once, for Moshe was the one who hit. And even so, Aharon was punished.

{The same question might apply to the theory that the sin was hitting even once. And indeed, Midrash Rabba is troubled by this issue, and answers that indeed Aharon did not sin, and the pasuk later comes and praises him, retracting from the accusation, though he still was punished on account of this:

ולמה נתפש אהרן?
שנאמר: ויאמר ה' אל משה יען לא האמנתם בי.
משל לבעל חוב שבא ליטול גורנו של לוה ונטל שלו ושל שכנו.
אמר לו הלוה: אם אני חייב שכני מה חטא?
אף כך אמר משה רבנו: אני הקפדתי אהרן מה חטא?
לפיכך הכתוב מקלסו: (דברים לג) וללוי אמר תומיך ואוריך לאיש חסידך אשר נסיתו במסה.

But even without that, we can say that both were responsible for the events as they went down, and Aharon was also an actor in the events and good have intervened or held back Moshe.
}

6) Some men say that Moshe and Aharon's sin was that they did not sing praises on the water coming out of the rock, yet Israel did sing praises. And therefore Moshe and Aharon were punished that they did not enter the land in the company of Israel. And these people say that {in the next perek, Bemidbar 21}

יז אָז יָשִׁיר יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶת-הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת: עֲלִי בְאֵר, עֱנוּ-לָהּ.	17 Then sang Israel this song: Spring up, O well--sing ye unto it--
יח בְּאֵר חֲפָרוּהָ שָׂרִים, כָּרוּהָ נְדִיבֵי הָעָם, בִּמְחֹקֵק, בְּמִשְׁעֲנֹתָם; וּמִמִּדְבָּר, מַתָּנָה.	18 The well, which the princes digged, which the nobles of the people delved, with the sceptre, and with their staves. And from the wilderness to Mattanah;
יט וּמִמַּתָּנָה, נַחֲלִיאֵל; וּמִנַּחֲלִיאֵל, בָּמוֹת.	19 and from Mattanah to Nahaliel; and from Nahaliel to Bamoth;
כ וּמִבָּמוֹת, הַגַּיְא אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׂדֵה מוֹאָב--רֹאשׁ, הַפִּסְגָּה; וְנִשְׁקָפָה, עַל-פְּנֵי הַיְשִׁימֹן. {פ}	20 and from Bamoth to the valley that is in the field of Moab, by the top of Pisgah, which looketh down upon the desert. {P}

that אָז יָשִׁיר יִשְׂרָאֵל and בְּאֵר חֲפָרוּהָ שָׂרִים is about this rock, and this time.

But the matter is not so, for there were many travels from Kadesh, which is in Midbar Tzin, until the well about which was the matter of the water and the song, and as Abarbanel will explain in its place.

7) From other people, who hold like Ibn Ezra wrote, that Israel said that they should bring water out of a different rock, such that we will see if "from this {other} rock we will bring out water." And Moshe was afraid to switch the word of Hashem from the rock which He has told him. And since they did not bring it out of the rock which they asked of him, they were punished. And this is the idea of lo heemantem and velo kidashtem.

And this explanation is also not correct, for the verse states meritem pi {rebelled against My Word}, and if they did {exactly} what He had commanded, they did not rebel against the Mouth of Hashem.

{We might answer metonymy, as Shadal suggested.}

The Ascension of Eliyahu

There are two links in the Pinchas = Eliyahu bit. One is that Eliyahu HaNavi lived forever, and the other is that Eliyahu is the same person as Pinchas, and that the promise of Beriti Shalom is this promise of eternal life. I want to eventually consider each in turn, and see if we can date each of these claims.

In general, the idea of ascension rather than death is only rarely found in Jewish thought. Thus, in Bereishit 5, we find mention of Chachoch:

כב וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ חֲנוֹךְ אֶת-הָאֱלֹהִים, אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ אֶת-מְתוּשֶׁלַח, שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת, שָׁנָה; וַיּוֹלֶד בָּנִים, וּבָנוֹת.	22 And Enoch walked with God after he begot Methuselah three hundred years, and begot sons and daughters.
כג וַיְהִי, כָּל-יְמֵי חֲנוֹךְ, חָמֵשׁ וְשִׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה, וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה.	23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years.

And Bereishit Rabbati, from Rabbi Moshe haDarshan casts this as an apotheosis. God replaced his flesh with fire, gave him his own Throne of Glory and ministering angels, and called him "Little YKVK." Indeed, he is Metatron. This might even be peshat in the pesukim, given that he lived the same number of years as there are days in a solar year, and given a possible reading of walked with God. The alternative, of course, was that he was a righteous individual, and this was called walking with God. (There is also the pseudopigraphic Enoch who ascends to heaven.)

We see the idea of entering Gan Eden (the source of the four rivers) and living forever for human beings in the epic of Gilgamesh. But even in Bereishit, it would seem that the original plan before eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was that Man would live forever, and God feared (or is alleged to have feared) that Man would become "as one of us."

Besides Eliyahu, we also have Serach bat Asher, who occurs in a late count, and so the suggestion arose that she was extremely long-lived and eventually ascended to heaven alive. Though pashtanim suggest another interpretation of the relevant pesukim.

What about Eliyahu? Did he become an angel who consistently interacts with the world as Hashem's emissary?

One set of relevant pesukim are in Melachim Beis, perek 2. Some excerpts:

א וַיְהִי, בְּהַעֲלוֹת יְהוָה אֶת-אֵלִיָּהוּ, בַּסְעָרָה, הַשָּׁמָיִם; וַיֵּלֶךְ אֵלִיָּהוּ וֶאֱלִישָׁע, מִן-הַגִּלְגָּל.	1 And it came to pass, when the LORD would take up Elijah by a whirlwind into heaven, that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal.
ב וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלִיָּהוּ אֶל-אֱלִישָׁע שֵׁב-נָא פֹה, כִּי יְהוָה שְׁלָחַנִי עַד-בֵּית-אֵל, וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלִישָׁע, חַי-יְהוָה וְחֵי-נַפְשְׁךָ אִם-אֶעֶזְבֶךָּ; וַיֵּרְדוּ, בֵּית-אֵל.	2 And Elijah said unto Elisha: 'Tarry here, I pray thee; for the LORD hath sent me as far as Beth-el.' And Elisha said: 'As the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee.' So they went down to Beth-el.--
ג וַיֵּצְאוּ בְנֵי-הַנְּבִיאִים אֲשֶׁר-בֵּית-אֵל, אֶל-אֱלִישָׁע, וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו, הֲיָדַעְתָּ כִּי הַיּוֹם יְהוָה לֹקֵחַ אֶת-אֲדֹנֶיךָ מֵעַל רֹאשֶׁךָ; וַיֹּאמֶר גַּם-אֲנִי יָדַעְתִּי, הֶחֱשׁוּ.	3 And the sons of the prophets that were at Beth-el came forth to Elisha, and said unto him: 'Knowest thou that the LORD will take away thy master from thy head to-day?' And he said: 'Yea, I know it; hold ye your peace.'--

and then a bit later:

ט וַיְהִי כְעָבְרָם, וְאֵלִיָּהוּ אָמַר אֶל-אֱלִישָׁע שְׁאַל מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה-לָּךְ, בְּטֶרֶם, אֶלָּקַח מֵעִמָּךְ; וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלִישָׁע, וִיהִי נָא פִּי-שְׁנַיִם בְּרוּחֲךָ אֵלָי.	9 And it came to pass, when they were gone over, that Elijah said unto Elisha: 'Ask what I shall do for thee, before I am taken from thee.' And Elisha said: 'I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me.'
י וַיֹּאמֶר, הִקְשִׁיתָ לִשְׁאוֹל; אִם-תִּרְאֶה אֹתִי לֻקָּח מֵאִתָּךְ, יְהִי-לְךָ כֵן, וְאִם-אַיִן, לֹא יִהְיֶה.	10 And he said: 'Thou hast asked a hard thing; nevertheless, if thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so unto thee; but if not, it shall not be so.'
יא וַיְהִי, הֵמָּה הֹלְכִים הָלוֹךְ וְדַבֵּר, וְהִנֵּה רֶכֶב-אֵשׁ וְסוּסֵי אֵשׁ, וַיַּפְרִדוּ בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם; וַיַּעַל, אֵלִיָּהוּ, בַּסְעָרָה, הַשָּׁמָיִם.	11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, which parted them both assunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
יב וֶאֱלִישָׁע רֹאֶה, וְהוּא מְצַעֵק אָבִי אָבִי רֶכֶב יִשְׂרָאֵל וּפָרָשָׁיו, וְלֹא רָאָהוּ, עוֹד; וַיַּחֲזֵק, בִּבְגָדָיו, וַיִּקְרָעֵם, לִשְׁנַיִם קְרָעִים.	12 And Elisha saw it, and he cried: 'My father, my father, the chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof!' And he saw him no more; and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces.
יג וַיָּרֶם אֶת-אַדֶּרֶת אֵלִיָּהוּ, אֲשֶׁר נָפְלָה מֵעָלָיו; וַיָּשָׁב וַיַּעֲמֹד, עַל-שְׂפַת הַיַּרְדֵּן.	13 He took up also the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of the Jordan.
יד וַיִּקַּח אֶת-אַדֶּרֶת אֵלִיָּהוּ אֲשֶׁר-נָפְלָה מֵעָלָיו, וַיַּכֶּה אֶת-הַמַּיִם, וַיֹּאמַר, אַיֵּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי אֵלִיָּהוּ; אַף-הוּא וַיַּכֶּה אֶת-הַמַּיִם, וַיֵּחָצוּ הֵנָּה וָהֵנָּה, וַיַּעֲבֹר, אֱלִישָׁע.	14 And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said: 'Where is the LORD, the God of Elijah?' and when he also had smitten the waters, they were divided hither and thither; and Elisha went over.
טו וַיִּרְאֻהוּ בְנֵי-הַנְּבִיאִים אֲשֶׁר-בִּירִיחוֹ, מִנֶּגֶד, וַיֹּאמְרוּ, נָחָה רוּחַ אֵלִיָּהוּ עַל-אֱלִישָׁע; וַיָּבֹאוּ, לִקְרָאתוֹ, וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ-לוֹ, אָרְצָה.	15 And when the sons of the prophets that were at Jericho some way off saw him, they said: 'The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha.' And they came to meet him, and bowed down to the ground before him.
טז וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו הִנֵּה-נָא יֵשׁ-אֶת-עֲבָדֶיךָ חֲמִשִּׁים אֲנָשִׁים בְּנֵי-חַיִל, יֵלְכוּ נָא וִיבַקְשׁוּ אֶת-אֲדֹנֶיךָ--פֶּן-נְשָׂאוֹ רוּחַ יְהוָה, וַיַּשְׁלִכֵהוּ בְּאַחַד הֶהָרִים אוֹ בְּאַחַת הגיאות (הַגֵּיאָיוֹת); וַיֹּאמֶר, לֹא תִשְׁלָחוּ.	16 And they said unto him: 'Behold now, there are with thy servants fifty strong men; let them go, we pray thee, and seek thy master; lest peradventure the spirit of the LORD hath taken him up, and cast him upon some mountain, or into some valley.' And he said: 'Ye shall not send.'
יז וַיִּפְצְרוּ-בוֹ עַד-בֹּשׁ, וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁלָחוּ; וַיִּשְׁלְחוּ חֲמִשִּׁים אִישׁ, וַיְבַקְשׁוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה-יָמִים וְלֹא מְצָאֻהוּ.	17 And when they urged him till he was ashamed, he said: 'Send.' They sent therefore fifty men; and they sought three days, but found him not.
יח וַיָּשֻׁבוּ אֵלָיו, וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב בִּירִיחוֹ; וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם, הֲלֹא-אָמַרְתִּי אֲלֵיכֶם אַל-תֵּלֵכוּ. {ס}	18 And they came back to him, while he tarried at Jericho; and he said unto them: 'Did I not say unto you: Go not?' {S}

The fact is that it does not literally describe death and burial, but rather ascension to heaven in a whirlwind. However, this may be intended to describe some form of death, as one does not ascend to heaven except when life is over. Perhaps just as Moshe received Neshika, so did Eliyahu receive this particular form of passing from this world.

There could be a nafka mina in terms of whether Eliyahu haNavi's wife could remarry.

Three interesting points, to my mind:

1. This ascension appears to have happened on a spiritual plane, such that Elisha's seeing of anything meant that he would have twice the spirit.
2. Elisha cried and tore his clothing, which would typically be considered signs of mourning. This is appropriate for someone's death, but only arguably appropriate for someone becoming an angel. In fact in Moed Katan 26a Resh Lakish objects that Eliyahu is alive, so why the tearing (and why learning about the status of such a tear), and Rabbi Yochanan answers that since he no longer saw him, he was considered as if dead.
   
3. Elisha knows that they can look all they want, but they will not find Eliyahu. It seems that Eliyahu is really taken from this world and is not interacting with it anymore. It would therefore be strange to have Eliyahu interacting within the same generation of even subsequent generations.
   

Yet even in Tanach we see a later promise of Eliyahu's interaction with the world. In the last of the books of prophets, Malachi, at the very end, we read:

כב זִכְרוּ, תּוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה עַבְדִּי, אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי אוֹתוֹ בְחֹרֵב עַל-כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל, חֻקִּים וּמִשְׁפָּטִים.	22 Remember ye the law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordinances.
כג הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי שֹׁלֵחַ לָכֶם, אֵת אֵלִיָּה הַנָּבִיא--לִפְנֵי, בּוֹא יוֹם יְהוָה, הַגָּדוֹל, וְהַנּוֹרָא.	23 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD.
כד וְהֵשִׁיב לֵב-אָבוֹת עַל-בָּנִים, וְלֵב בָּנִים עַל-אֲבוֹתָם--פֶּן-אָבוֹא, וְהִכֵּיתִי אֶת-הָאָרֶץ חֵרֶם.	24 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and smite the land with utter destruction. {P}

Perhaps we can read this figuratively, as a prophet in an Eliyahu HaNavi role, much as Eliyahu on har haKarmel. Or we can read this literally, in which case it is a promise to send Eliyahu haNavi.

If the latter, that tells us at the least how Malachi read the pesukim in Melachim Beis. This may or may not be the same as peshat in Melachim Beis -- though on the other hand, these are words of nevuah.

There is furthermore a difference between interacting only immediately before the yom hashem hagadol vehanorah on the one hand, and continuously interacting with people in multiple incidents, on the other.

In the words of Chazal, we find reference to Eliyahu as interacting with the world, so this conception had taken hold.

Abarbanel's Survey of Moshe's Sin, pt ii

My rough translation and brief commentary on Abarbanel's survey of positions on the nature of Moshe's sin continues.

3) Rambam wrote that Moshe's sin was in becoming angry for no reason with Israel, and anger rests in the lap of fools, and it is a bad trait, all the more so in the master of the prophets, for those who see will think that God is angry at them, while the matter was not so. For Hashem was not angry with them for their asking for necessary things like water and like manna.

{I would note that it was not just asking for necessary things, but their manner of speech in asking for it.}

And Ramban already asked on this position, for the pasuk states meritem et pi {which would suggest changing from a command} and lo heemantem bi {which would perhaps suggest lack of faith}, which informs us that it was because of a small amount of faith, and not because of anger.

{Perhaps one might answer by not doing what Hashem wanted in presenting this miracle, by becoming angry, that would be called meritem et pi. And perhaps we can give some answer similar to Shadal's claim that heemantem is metonymy, that it is like they did not believe in him. But there are indeed difficulties reading Rambam's peshat into the pesukim.

However, as noted in a previous, Rambam's peshat is extremely easy to be read into the pesukim in Tehillim describing the same event.}

4) This position was cited by Ramban in the name of Rabbenu Chananel, and Ramban follows him. The sin was that they said "from this rock shall we bring out for you water" when they should have said "shall He bring out for you water." Parallel to what is written {Shemot 16:8}

ח וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה, בְּתֵת יְהוָה לָכֶם בָּעֶרֶב בָּשָׂר לֶאֱכֹל וְלֶחֶם בַּבֹּקֶר לִשְׂבֹּעַ, בִּשְׁמֹעַ יְהוָה אֶת-תְּלֻנֹּתֵיכֶם, אֲשֶׁר-אַתֶּם מַלִּינִם עָלָיו; וְנַחְנוּ מָה, לֹא-עָלֵינוּ תְלֻנֹּתֵיכֶם כִּי עַל-יְהוָה.

8 And Moses said: 'This shall be, when the LORD shall give you in the evening flesh to eat, and in the morning bread to the full; for that the LORD heareth your murmurings which ye murmur against Him; and what are we? your murmurings are not against us, but against the LORD.'

The problem with this is that the statement was said rhetorically. "Do you think that we can bring out water from the rock? Only Hashem can do it!" And this is also what the Ramban himself says in explaining the pasuk.

{Except it appears that Abarbanel only briefly read through Ramban. Ramban writes:

(י): המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים -
חלילה חלילה שיהיה התימה למניעות, כי משה רבנו הנאמן בכל בית ה' לא יפלא ממנו כל דבר מה', והוא וכל ישראל עמו ראו גדולות ונפלאות מזו, ואף כי הוא אשר נעשה כן על ידו פעם אחרת בצור בחורב. ואמרו המפרשים שיש תמיהות מתקיימות, כמו הנגלה נגליתי (ש"א ב כז), הרואה אתה (ש"ב טו כז), התשפוט (יחזקאל כב ב), המן העץ אשר צויתיך (בראשית ג יא).

אבל ר"א כתב:

המן הסלע יש לנו כח להוציא לכם ממנו מים.

ירצה לפרש, שאמר להם שמעו נא המורים בה' האומרים ולמה הבאתם את קהל ה' אל המקום הרע הזה, המן החלמיש הזה יהיה לנו כח בטבע שנוציא אנחנו ממנו מים, רק תכירו כי מאת ה' הוא כי הוא אשר הוציא אתכם ממצרים והביא אתכם אל המקום הזה והוא אשר יפרנס אתכם בו, וזה כטעם שאמר להן במן (שמות טז ו): וידעתם כי ה' הוציא אתכם מארץ מצרים:

ולפי דעתי הה"א הזו לשאלה, המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים אם לא, כי הכתוב פעם יפרש בשאלה הן ולאו, היש בה עץ אם אין (לעיל יג כ), התשמור מצוותיו אם לא (דברים ח ב), ופעם יזכיר הן לבדו, הזה אחיכם הקטן (בראשית מג כט), הידעתם את לבן בן נחור (שם כט ה), האבכה בחדש החמישי הנזר (זכריה ז ג). אבל הייתה השאלה הזאת להם שאלת הניסיון, אמר שמעו נא המורים מה תחשבון על ה' המן הסלע הזה החזק נוציא לכם מים היהיה הדבר הזה אם לא, הפליג במרים והגיד כי הם קטני אמנה, וכאשר יריבו אליו הוא מפני מחשבתם שלא יעשה השם עימהם להפליא, כעניין שנאמר (תהילים עח יח - כ): וינסו אל בלבבם, היוכל אל לערוך שולחן במדבר, הגם לחם יוכל תת.

וכך אמרו (אבות ה ד): עשר ניסיונות נסו אבותינו להקב"ה במדבר. וכמו השאלה במחשבת הנשאל במקומות רבים, ההשב אשיב את בנך (בראשית כד ה), אם רצונך כן, הנלך אל רמות גלעד אם אחדל (דהי"ב יח ה), אם עצתך כן, אף כאן, אם מחשבתכם שנוציא לכם מים מזה. וכן דעתי בהנגלה נגליתי, הראית כי נכנע אחאב מלפני (מ"א כא כט), המן העץ אשר ציוויתיך, התשפוט, כי כולם שאלות, אבל עניינם לשאול בדבר מפורסם שיודה בו הנשאל על כורחו. אם נגליתי לבית אביך ובחרתי בכם אם ידעתם זה ולמה תבעטו בזבחי ובמנחתי, הלה' תגמלו זאת הגמולה. וכן אם מן העץ אשר ציוויתיך אכלת ותבוש ותחבא, או למה תתחבא. ובדרך הזה האחרים. אבל הרואה אתה, שאלה גמורה בדבר המסופק, אם יועץ אתה תשוב אל העיר, כלשון רואה אני את דברי אדמון (כתובות קח ב קט א), וכבר פירשתי בסדר בראשית (א ד):

Thus, the idea that it is asking rhetorically whether they themselves, naturally, without the aid of Hashem can do it is specifically the position of Ibn Ezra, not Ramban. He argues and takes it as the heh hashe`eilah. He takes it as a straightforward question, seeing whether they were of little faith or not. This could easily be read together with the claiming credit for the action.

Even as a rhetorical question, it could be a fault in not being careful enough in their speech, such that Bnei Yisrael could misinterpret it. But I will not elaborate here.
}

A Precedent For Soulmate Poaching?

I am not personally convinced that Madonna did anything more than kiruv with Alex Rodriguez, there is the fact that she apparently thought that they were soulmates.

PaleoJudaica points out something in the New Yorker about finding precedent for soulmate snatching.

He explained that he’d been exchanging e-mails with a colleague in Jerusalem about possible textual antecedents—say, in the Zohar or the Sefer Yetzirah—for soul-mate poaching, and they had been unable to come up with any.

Before looking to Zohar or Sefer Yetzirah, one could look to Bereishit Rabbah as cited by Rashi for such a textual antecedent. On Bereishit 39:

א וְיוֹסֵף, הוּרַד מִצְרָיְמָה; וַיִּקְנֵהוּ פּוֹטִיפַר סְרִיס פַּרְעֹה שַׂר הַטַּבָּחִים, אִישׁ מִצְרִי, מִיַּד הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים, אֲשֶׁר הוֹרִדֻהוּ שָׁמָּה.

1 And Joseph was brought down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hand of the Ishmaelites, that had brought him down thither.

Rashi writes, citing Bereishit Rabbah:

Now Joseph had been brought down to Egypt [Scripture] returns to the previous topic, which it had interrupted in order to juxtapose the demotion of Judah with the selling of Joseph, to imply that because of him (Joseph), they (his brothers) demoted him (Judah) from his high position; and also to juxtapose the incident of Potiphar’s wife with the incident of Tamar, to tell you that just as that one [the incident of Tamar] was meant for the sake of heaven, so too this one [the incident of Potiphar’s wife] was meant for the sake of heaven. For she saw through her astrology that she was destined to raise children from him (Joseph), but she did not know whether [they would be] from her or from her daughter. [From Gen. Rabbah 85:2]

Or in Hebrew:

(א) ויוסף הורד -
חוזר לענין ראשון, אלא שהפסיק בו כדי לסמוך ירידתו של יהודה למכירתו של יוסף לומר לך שבשבילו הורידוהו מגדולתו.
ועוד, כדי לסמוך מעשה אשתו של פוטיפר למעשה תמר, לומר לך מה זו לשם שמים אף זו לשם שמים, שראתה באצטרולוגין שלה שעתידה להעמיד בנים ממנו ואינה יודעת אם ממנה אם מבתה:

That quote from Bereishit Rabbah may be found here:

ב [סמיכות פרשת מכירת יוסף לירידת יהודה]

ויהי בעת ההיא
ולא היה צריך קרייה למימר, אלא ויוסף הורד מצרימה.
ומפני מה הסמיך פרשה זו לזו?
רבי אלעזר ור' יוחנן
רבי אלעזר אמר:
כדי לסמוך ירידה לירידה.

רבי יוחנן אמר:
כדי לסמוך הכר להכר.

ר' שמואל בר נחמן אמר:
כדי לסמוך מעשה תמר למעשה אשתו של פוטיפר.
מה זו לשם שמים, אף זו לשם שמים.

דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי:
רואה היתה באסטרולוגין שלה שהיא עתידה להעמיד ממנו בן, ולא היתה יודעת אם ממנה אם מבתה, הה"ד: (שם מז) מודיעים לחדשים מאשר יבואו עליך.

Thus, the adulterous actions of the wife of Potifar is cast by Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman, and perhaps by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi as well, as leshem shamayim, for the sake of Heaven, because they were destined to have children together.

I am not aware of how this is developed in kabbalistic sources, but I would imagine that this could provide plenty of fodder.

Update: Another one occurred to me, this time from a Talmudic source. In Sanhedrin 107a, we read that Batsheva was King David's soul-mate, but that he took her before the right time.

דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (תהילים לח) כי אני לצלע נכון ומכאובי נגדי תמיד ראויה היתה בת שבע בת אליעם לדוד מששת ימי בראשית אלא שבאה אליו במכאוב וכן תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל ראויה היתה לדוד בת שבע בת אליעם אלא שאכלה פגה

Raba expounded: What is meant by the verse, "For I am ready to halt {tzela, also a rib}, and my sorrow is continually before me?" Bath Sheba, the daughter of Eliam, was predestined for David from the six days of Creation, but that she came to him with sorrow. And the school of R. Ishmael taught likewise: She was worthy [i.e., predestined] for David from the six days of Creation, but that he enjoyed her before she was ripe.

and King David snatched her from Uriah haChitti. This does not mean that it was the right thing to do. Indeed, the idea in the gemara is that he should not have done it, and that because he did was he did, his sorrow was continuously before him. Furthermore, what the gemara says is different from stating that he knew that he and she were predestined.