Daf Yomi Gittin 39;42;

Two interesting (to me, at least) points I mentioned while learning through Rif on daf Yomi.

1) From yesterday's post at my Rif blog:

{Gittin 39b}

א"ר זירא א"ר אסי א"ר חנינא אמר רבי עבד שנשא אשה בת חורין בפני רבו יצא לחירות

ולא עוד אלא שכופין את רבו וכותב לו שטר שחרור

Rabbi Zera cited Rabbi Assi who cited Rabbi Chanina who cited Rabbi: A slave who married a free woman in the presence of his master {Gittin 40a} goes out to freedom.

But our gemara has a different order, and a different identification of one of the Amoraim:

Rabbi Zera cited Rabbi Chanina who cited Rav Ashi who cited Rabbi.

On our version, Soncino notes in footnote 20:

The mention of R. Ashi in this connection is very strange.

And indeed, this is so, for Rabbi Zera is earlier than Rav Ashi, and would we really place him one step before Rabbi, the Tanna? With the Rif's girsa, the train of tradition becomes much better.

Also, from Rif on Gittin 42b (to be posted two days from now):

דגרסינן בפ' כירה דילמא ה"מ במתני' אבל בברייתא לא
וכבר ביררנו זה הענין בקידושין:

For we learn in perek Kirah, "perhaps these words are for Mishnayot, but not for braytot." And we have already elucidated this matter in Kiddushin.

The implication of וכבר ביררנו is that Rif has Gittin after Kiddushin. This would follow the order of Yerushalmi rather than the order in Bavli.

Update: I was wrong. I spoke too soon. It looks like Yerushalmi also has Gittin before Kiddushin.

Ruth's Tznius, According to Oz VeHadar Levushah

Here is another segment from Oz VeHadar Levushah which I thought was overreaching. (Please see the picture to the right, and read it through before proceeding.)

There are actually three sources under discussion, and it would pay to discuss each separately. There is "the midrash," by which Rabbi Falk means Midrash Rabbah on Rus, which I believe is Geonic (though includes some material from Amoraim); Midrash Zuta, which is a later midrash on Rus (900-1000, so perhaps late Geonic), and Rashi.

There is a certain tension between two messages in Rus. If you read the third perek of Rus carefully, you will notice that there is a lot of sexual imagery, which either describes what actually happened or the sexual tension. Thus, for example, Rus uncovers Boaz's feet (meraglotav) and sleeps. And Boaz shakes, and notices the woman at his feet. And he tells her lini po halayla. (Midrash Zuta says Boaz was talking to his yetzer.) At the very least, even if nothing actually occurred there on the threshing floor, these actions were quite forward. On the other hand, he praises her for not going after the bachurim -- לְבִלְתִּי-לֶכֶת, אַחֲרֵי הַבַּחוּרִים--אִם-דַּל, וְאִם-עָשִׁיר.

Often, midrash assumes the role of taking a character who is a shade of gray and painting him or her black or white, emphasizing certain of their aspects. And this could either be because midrash likes starker heroes and villains, or in order to make a greater rhetorical point.

Therefore, in the context of her behavior vis a vis the bachurim, the midrash will take the heroine, Ruth, and stress this positive trait of modesty, especially in order to compensate for the events in the goren. There is also tension in the apparent breach of tznius in which Boaz asks after one of the women.

Thus, Midrash Rabba discusses her modest actions. (See right, and see here.) The proximate cause of the midrash is Boaz's asking about her.

Thus, the actions described in Rus Rabba are nowhere over the top. She is certainly more modest than the other Jewish women. But still, this is well within the realm of normal modesty, for someone to whom modesty is a concern. There is no claim that she made sure that no one saw her fingers, or that she never spoke such that they thought she was mute.

A bit earlier, there is the midrash in Rus Rabbah which Rabbi Falk referred to, that she was exceptionally beautiful. The midrash is actually a bit more extreme than that. Earlier, it puts her age at 40. But then they cite Rabbi Yochanan that any man who saw her immediately experienced a seminal emission. She was that striking. And this was discussing when she was gleaning in the sadeh.

Now, it is not clear that even within Midrash Rabbah, we should take two separate midrashim, from different sources, together. And the idea of מריק קרי (or in variant girsaot, מקרי קרי) may be in line with the sexual imagery of perek 3.

At any rate, we do not see within Midrash Rabbah that her tznius was extreme; and thus we do not see that her tznius chumras were motivated by the extenuating circumstances. This is a lesson Rabbi Falk would perhaps like to draw, but we do not see it in this source, at least.

There is, however, Midrash Zuta (available here), which Rabbi Falk cited -- that the naar testified they did not see her fingers or toes, and that they did not know if she was mute or capable of speech. I would interject here that just because a midrash says something does not mean that it historically happened. This is the midrash's insight into it, and the historical facts may be different -- or, the intent could well have been to stress that she was a tzanua, to resolve the tension in her character as above, by making her an exceptional frummette. At the very least, there is a dispute between midrash rabba and midrash zuta as to the extent of her modest conduct, and so it is slightly misleading to present only the most extreme, especially when working in other sources from midrash rabba.

Furthermore, there is no mention in Midrash Zuta of מקרי קרי -- Rabbi Yochanan's statement that Rus was "exceptionally good-looking." We do not know that within Midrash Zuta, this was the idea of what was motivating Rus. Rather, this appears to be a retrojection of the attitudes of a certain segment of society, that women must adopt much more than is technically required, because of yeridas hadoros or whatnot, so prevent men from sinning. That is, I think this is Rabbi Falk's take on the midrash, rather than what the midrash actually intended to state.

Rabbi Falk then goes on to attribute a certain view to Rashi -- that her standing to collect the standing grain was an aspect of her tznius, so that she would not stretch and possibly expose something. We will address whether we should attribute this to Rashi, but the fact is that the same raw material was available to him in Midrash Zutah itself, and perhaps he can even fashion a better argument there than in Rashi's commentary. A litte earlier in the perek than the midrash zuta he cited, we have what is pictured to the right. Here it lists other actions -- the ones which Boaz noticed, rather than the ones the naar stated. When she sat to harvest with the harvesters, she turned her face to another direction; that not one of her fingers were visible; that at the time she saw a standing sheaf, she stood and took it, while when she saw a cast-down sheaf, she sat down and took it. Boaz saw these three middot, and thus asked the naar.

Now, there are two ways of parsing this into three different middot. We could take standing vs. sitting as a single item, such that perhaps the tznius is only in the sitting. Or we could take each leading vav as introducing the next item, such that her fingers were not visible because (and note there is no vav) she would stand to collect standing grain.

I am not certain which of these two reading are correct. But if the latter, then Rabbi Falk does not need to make any diyuk in Rashi to claim that the standing was for tznius purposes.

But even so, this is one source, which is late Geonic, which is not echoed by Midrash Rabbah (but rather disputes it), and quite possibly not echoed by Rashi. And this source does not state that Rus was that exceptionally beautiful. And it is a midrash, rather than history, and perhaps was written to serve a rhetorical point. I am not convinced that the idea was that exceptional times call for exceptional tznius. And I do not think that we make use of aggadic material in this way to set halacha, or suggested attitudes for bnos yisrael.

Now let us turn to Rashi. (See here.) Unfortunately, Rabbi Falk dowdifies the quote. And while Maureen Dowd at least puts in ellipses, he does not. He cites Rashi as:

דברי צניעות ראה בה מלקטת עומדות מעומד ושוכבות מיושב כדי שלא תשחה

where Rashi says all that we see to the right. He thus cuts off the first part, which is the question, and jumps from the words divrei chochma to raah bah to malaketet, all without ellipses, which would tell someone that there might be some other relevant fact to be gleaned (pardon the pun) from the context in Rashi.

Secondly, in his translation of the above, he puts the words "[so as not to have to bend down]" without explaining why these words are in brackets. It seems almost as if Rashi does not say these words, but that this is by way of explanation. But looking at the Hebrew, the words are clearly there? Did he first leave them out, and decide to put them in?

At any rate, is Rashi really saying that Rus was being extremely tznius in standing up, as Rabbi Falk asserts? I do not believe so, for several reasons.

Firstly, Rashi does indeed select various midrashim, and he brings them in to his peshat explanation of the text. But he did not cite the midrash of Rus being so stunningly beautiful that she had the aforementioned effect on men. He had opportunity to do so, but in his commentary on those words, he has a different comment. And he also does not cite the midrash zuta that she covered her fingers and toes, such that they could never be seen. Again, Rashi had ample opportunity to cite this, as an example of her tznius. But instead, he cites a much more normal sense of tznius which Rus exhibited, more in line with the idea of tnzius discussed in midrash Rabba. No, we are not free to interpret Rashi based on any arcane midrash we happen to find, when he does not cite that midrash and when the plain sense of Rashi's words seems to be against it.

Furthermore, the normal way of gleaning sheaves of grain is to stand and glean them. And as you glean one, you move on to the next. This is the convenient way of doing it, and this is why all the other women who were collecting grain just bent over in order to collect the low-lying grain. Frankly, to sit on the ground and stretch way up to get to the top of the grain is just idiotic. Thus, if this was what was intended by Rashi's statement, it would not be divrei tznius. It would be divrei chochma!

Furthermore, this entire calculation of what would be exposed as one stretches this way and that, of clothing, as a requirement of modesty, may or may not be true. But this is the idea that is evident in the thought process of Rabbi Falk, and throughout Oz veHadar Levushah -- or anyone obsessed with tnius, to the extent that one comes up with quantifications, in the form of charts and ratios. I am not at all persuaded that Rashi would go through such a detailed analysis of tznius and suggest this in his peshat of the pasuk.

Furthermore, Rashi says why it is divrei tznius -- "so as not to have to bend down." Is is not highly irregular that Rashi would explain what is fairly simple to figure out -- that by sitting, she does not bend down and stick her rear end in the air -- but leave out the explanation of why standing to collect the standing grain is tznius?! Is someone -- other than Rabbi Falk -- likely to figure this out? Rear ends in the air seem more problematic in tznius than fingers, hands, or the top of the forearm. And recall that Rashi did not cite this arcane Midrash Zuta on Rus that Rus' fingers and hands were covered. How is his reader supposed to figure out that this part is for tznius purposes as well? If Rashi really held that this was for tznius, shouldn't he have said something, just as he did for the sitting, such as "so as not to expose her fingers"?

Perhaps this was why the words "so as not to have to bend down" was put in brackets -- he realized the difficulty posed by Rashi explaining the easier one and not the parallel more difficult one. Or perhaps it was just a strange editing error. Or perhaps because he realizes this is Rashi's additional comment, rather than the original words of the source Rashi is citing -- as we will see later -- but even so, it should not be in brackets.

So if so, why does Rashi mention the standing to collect the standing grain? Is this a good question? Not when we see the context which Rabbi Falk omitted, thinking it unimportant. The full Rashi, again, is pictured to the right. See how for divrei chochma, there is a parallel between what she did take and what she did not take:

"that two sheaves she did collect, while three she did not collect"

This was divrei chochma because this is in accordance with the halacha of how many sheaves left together were the gift to the poor to collect. Thus, the form is she collected when X was true, but she did not collect when Y was true.

This same form, it seems clear to me, applies for the divrei tznius.

"She collected the standing grain while standing, but the low-lying grain while sitting, so as not to bend over."

Thus, she stood -- the easier, more convenient thing to do -- where it was acceptable based on tznius to do so, but she did not stand when it was not acceptable based on tznius to do so. Again, the form is that she stood when A was true, but did not stand when B was true.

Thus, if we look a bit at the context, Rabbi Falk's question is not a good question. And his answer is extremely farfetched.

Furthermore, Rashi is not innovating this by himself. He is really simply citing, and slightly modifying, a gemara in Shabbat 113b (see here and here). That gemara reads:

ש (רות ב) ויאמר בועז לנערו הנצב על הקוצרים למי הנערה הזאת וכי דרכו של בועז לשאול בנערה
אמר ר' אלעזר דבר חכמה ראה בה שני שבלין לקטה שלשה שבלין אינה לקטה
במתניתא תנא דבר צניעות ראה בה עומדות מעומד נופלות מיושב

Thus, there is actually a dispute between Rabbi Eleazar and a brayta of whether Boaz saw divrei chochma or divrei tznius. Rashi combined the two opinions, such that Boaz saw both of these things in Rus.

Now, according to Rabbi Falk, the collecting grain while standing was tznius since we know she covered her hands, and sitting while collecting would then expose her hands. But Midrash Zuta, which is the source for her covered hands, is a late Geonic midrashic work. Thus, it is post-Talmudic. And the gemara here -- or rather, the brayta here, is a Tannaitic work. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the author of the brayta was aware of the derasha made in the late Geonic midrash. In fact, it is rather unlikely.

Indeed, if we follow this link to e-daf, we can see Rashi's comments on the side of the gemara. And in explaining the standing, Rashi does indeed comment. But it is only to explain that the shikcha of standing grain is also shikcha, so it was permitted for Rus to collect it. Meanwhile, on the words נופלות, Rashi writes that "those which the harvesters dropped, she collected while sitting, and did not bend to collect them, because of tznius." Thus, Rashi is explicitly explaining the second half of the statement as the divrei tznius. And he chooses, when explaining the source gemara, not to explain the first half of the statement as divrei tznius.

I do not know if Rabbi Falk looked up the source gemara before explaining as he did. Or if he did, how he could persist in offering this farfetched explanation of the standing as divrei tznius.

(The midrash about not standing vs. sitting is brought down from the gemara in Yalkut Shimoni, but this is a later source than Rashi. Or at the least, Rashi does not use Yalkut Shimoni as a source. Still, it is useful to see how this midrash is incorporated.)

Thus, I would conclude that rather than being the correct peshat in Midrash Zuta or in Rashi, it is really simply Rabbi Falk's retrojection of his own tznius attitudes into these earlier sources. This is a pitfall that people in general need to watch out for.

Interesting Posts and Articles #64

1. Life in Israel posts about Zionist parks and breaches in tznius.
   
   
2. Times Online has an article about how the birth control pill may change who women are attracted to, by changing what smell they are attracted to.
   
   
3. KallahMagazine posts about making shidduchim based on astrology and graphology. Though Rambam was against it, many of his contemporaries regarded it as a science, and astrology has worked its way well into Jewish mysticism and in some cases, halacha. In terms of graphology, though there is indeed what to argue about it, and it is controversial, it is not judging based on messiness of handwriting, or legibility, but rather determining specific personality traits based on lean (left, right, straight-up-and-down), loops, developed upper zones, etc., where specific traits might match specific other traits. See here.
   
   
4. The Seforim blog on standing during the Aseres HaDibros, and whether people consider the teshuva of the Rambam.
   
   
5. Daat Torah has an interesting translation from Rambam's letter to Yemen, about messianic predictions which failed to materialize.
   
   
6. Color war breakout at MaNaVu, based on Lipa and the Big Event.
   

Does The Gemara in Nedarim Prohibit Close-Fitting Skirts, As Rabbi Falk Claims?

Continuing with the very next paragraph in Rabbi Pesach Eliyahu Falk's book, Oz veHadar Levushah, on page 309, we see another, quite bold claim. (See right.) He writes:

"The damage caused by the thigh area not being hidden properly is spelt out by Chazal in no uncertain terms."

We will see if they really spell it out in no uncertain terms. Indeed, the claim he makes in the rest of the paragraph is not, IMHO, supported by the sources he cites.

The relevant gemara is in Nedarim 20a:

רבי אחא ברבי יאשיה אומר כל הצופה בנשים סופו בא לידי עבירה וכל המסתכל בעקבה של אשה הויין לו בנים שאינן מהוגנין
אמר רב יוסף ובאשתו נדה
אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש עקבה דקתני במקום הטנופת שהוא מכוון כנגד העקב

Rabbi Falk claims that this statement of Resh Lakish is actually referring to the thigh area, and one who looks at the thigh area will have children who are not fit.

But that is not the simple meaning of the gemara. Rather, it is that it is referring to someone who is gazing (deliberately) at a woman's vagina. And that it is talking about looking at it when she is naked, rather than clothed. But quite possibly, looking at that area when she is wearing undergarments, or looking at her naked buttocks or thighs, would not be what is being discussed in this particular gemara, and would not carry with it the threat of בנים שאינן מהוגנין.

This is indeed how Soncino translates it -- in accordance with the most straightforward peshat. Thus, he writes:

R. Aha of the school of R. Josiah said: He who gazes at a woman eventually comes to sin, and he who looks even at a woman's heel will beget degenerate children. R. Joseph said: This applies even to one's own wife when she is a niddah. R. Simeon b. Lakish said: 'Heel' that is stated means the unclean part, which is directly opposite the heel.

מקום הטינופת means the vagina, rather than "the thigh area," as defined above. (We will see how Rabbi Falk avoids this definition, a bit later.)

In my translation of the Rif on Nedarim 20a, we see that Rif has a slightly different girsa of the gemara:

ר' אחא ב"ר יאשי' אמר כל הצופה בנשים סופו בא לידי עבירה וכל המסתכל בעקבה של אשה הויין ליה בנים שאינן מהוגנים
א"ר יוסף ובאשתו נדה
אמר ר"ל עקב דקתני מקום התורף שהוא מכוון נגד העקב

Rabbi Acha beRabbi Yoshiya said: Anyone who gazes at women, his end is to come to sin. And anyone who looks at the heel of a woman will have children who are degenerate.
Rav Yosef said: This was talking about his wife who was a menstruant.
Resh Lakish said: The heel about which they taught is really the genital area {our gemara: במקום הטנופת}, which is directly opposite the heel.

Thus, in Rif's girsa, it is makom hatoref instead of makom hatinofes. This means the same thing, but perhaps makes it clearer that the vagina is meant. {Jastrow defines מקום התורף as the pudenda, that is the vagina, with good reason.}

Thus, in Targum Yonatan on Devarim 28:

נז וּבְשִׁלְיָתָהּ הַיּוֹצֵת מִבֵּין רַגְלֶיהָ, וּבְבָנֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד, כִּי-תֹאכְלֵם בְּחֹסֶר-כֹּל, בַּסָּתֶר--בְּמָצוֹר, וּבְמָצוֹק, אֲשֶׁר יָצִיק לְךָ אֹיִבְךָ, בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ.

57 and against her afterbirth that cometh out from between her feet, and against her children whom she shall bear; for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly; in the siege and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall straiten thee in thy gates.

the word תורפא is used, to translate מִבֵּין רַגְלֶיהָ.

And in Targum Yonatan on Bemidbar 25:8:

ח וַיָּבֹא אַחַר אִישׁ-יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל-הַקֻּבָּה, וַיִּדְקֹר אֶת-שְׁנֵיהֶם--אֵת אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֶת-הָאִשָּׁה אֶל-קֳבָתָהּ; וַתֵּעָצַר, הַמַּגֵּפָה, מֵעַל, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

8 And he went after the man of Israel into the chamber, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.

at the end of parshat Balak, in translating קֳבָתָהּ, in the context where Zimri was engaged in intercourse with Cozbi and Pinchas thrust through both of them through their genitals, the word בית תורפה is also used.

Also, in Bava Batra 16b:

חולל אילות תשמור אילה זו רחמה צר בשעה שכורעת ללדת אני מזמין לה דרקון שמכישה בבית הרחם ומתרפה ממולדה ואלמלי מקדים רגע אחד או מאחר רגע אחד מיד מתה

Or canst thou mark when the hinds do calve? This hind has a narrow womb. When she crouches for delivery, I prepare a serpent which bites her at the opening of the womb, and she is delivered of her offspring; and were it one second too soon or too late, she would die.

{Interestingly, the idea in this gemara appears to a natural episiotomy.}

Thus, it is fairly clear that that is what the word means -- vagina, rather than "thigh area." And Rabbi Falk really means the thigh area, including the entire length of the thigh, as is clear from the context from which I snatched the above paragraph.

Furthermore, there is an associated statement in Bavli about looking at the bet hatoref of a woman. Thus, Shabbos 64b:

כל המסתכל באצבע קטנה של אשה כאילו מסתכל במקום התורפה

where the implication is that it is so bad, it is like looking at her vagina. This is not in the context of looking at her heel, or her "heel," but still, the idea is out there.

However, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish is an Amora from Eretz Yisrael, and there is an extremely relevant Yerushalmi in Challah 12b:

הדא אמרה עגבות אין בהן משום ערוה. הדא דאת אמר לברכה. אבל להביט אפילו כל שהוא אסור. כהדא דתני המסתכל בעקיבה של אשה כמסתכל בבית הרחם. והמסתכל בבית הרחם כילו בא עליה.

Thus, looking at the heel of a woman is compared to looking at her vagina, her beit harechem. The bet harechem is surely not "the thigh area." It has a definite meaning, and the point is homiletic, to make mere looking at something as "innocent" as her heel to be like looking at her vagina.

What Resh Lakish appears to be doing in our gemara in Nedarim is saying that of course, one who merely looks at a heel of a woman is not bringing upon himself the בנים שאינן מהוגנים. Rather, Rabbi Acha beRabbi Yoshiya's source was using "heel" as a codeword, based on this brayta which equates the two. And so it was really talking about someone who was looking at the actual beit harachem.

And indeed, Artscroll also translates this as "unclean area," and explains in a footnote that this refers to the vagina. It refers to Rashi and other sources as a basis for this explanation, but states "cf. Meiri," without explaining what Meiri says and how he differs.

However, Rabbi Falk does have a partial basis in his interpretation of the gemara as referring to "the thigh area," and he explicitly refers to this basis. It is in the Meiri, in Beis HaBechira:

בית הבחירה למאירי מסכת נדרים דף כ עמוד א
וכן אמרו כל הצופה בנשים סוף בא לידי עבירה ואפילו בפנויה אסור וכל המסתכל בעקיבה של אשה אם באשתו ושלא בשעת נדתה וכדי לחבבה מותר ולא סוף דבר בעקיבה אלא אף במה שכנגד העקב ר"ל עגבותיה אחר שהיא לבושה והולכת וכן לפניה אלא שתופסה בכנגד עקיבה מפני שסתם הדברים נאמרה באשה שמהלכת לה ואדם צופה לה מאחריה ובאשתו נדה אסור וראוי ליענש בה בבנים שאינם מהוגנים ובאשה אחרת אפילו בפנויה ובשאינה נדה ושלא כנגד העקב אסור אפילו באצבע קטנה אלא שבמקום אחד התירו להסתכל בפני כלה כל שבעה כדי לחבבה על בעלה וכלל הדברים יהא מסוה הבשת על מצחו תמיד דרך הערה אמרו בעבור תהיה יראתו על פניכם זו בושה לבלתי תחטאו מלמד שהבושה מביאה לידי יראת חטא מכאן אמרו סימן יפה לאדם שהוא ביישן וכל מי שמתבייש לא במהרה הוא חוטא וכל שאין לו בשת פנים בידוע שלא עמדו אבותיו על הר סיני:

Thus, according to Meiri, it is talking about gazing at a woman as she is walking, looking at her buttocks as she is walking away, though the same would be to look at the front area as she walks forwards. And this is when she is clad.

(I would note the Yerushalmi Challah quote above, and how the topic was buttocks. Perhaps this was the basis, or supports, Meiri. He could say that eikev is being equated in that Yerushalmi with buttocks, since it follows from הדא אמרה עגבות אין בהן משום ערוה. הדא דאת אמר לברכה. אבל להביט אפילו כל שהוא אסור. Or alternatively, he is somehow deciding to interpret bet harechem as buttocks -- something more farfetched, but still a tiny possibility worth mentioning. Though I think the point being made is that looking at any part for the purpose of pleasure is forbidden, and the definition of buttocks as non-erva was just in terms of making a blessing in the presence of exposed buttocks.)

This is a rather "exceptional" interpretation of the gemara, and I have not seen any other Rishon give this explanation. Furthermore, I think it is an incorrect interpretation, though Meiri is certainly entitled to his position. Now, the work of the Meiri was lost for centuries, and thus did not work its way into the standard development of halacha. And so some modern poskim refuse to even consider Meiri. (See here.) Now, I do not agree with this, and think that his positions, just like any, should be evaluated on their merits. However, it is rather strange to see Meiri's exceptionally novel interpretation of this gemara being presented as if it were the only interpretation of the gemara -- in a way that misleads the reader -- and then to work from there.

Furthermore, let us let Rabbi Falk take this Meiri and rule in accordance with it. He certainly has the right, though he should have made it clearer that this is not the only interpretation. But if he holds like the Meiri, he should hold like the Meiri. Instead, he claims that Meiri is putting forth an even stricter position than Meiri actually holds.

1) The Meiri was defining it as looking at the buttocks as she walks away, or else looking at the front area of her pelvis. And this while she is clad. But this is עגבים, buttocks. This is not "the thigh area," which is what Rabbi Falk claimed. Perhaps one can speak about the very high thigh area.

2) It is clear from the Meiri that the women are dressed properly. The issue is that the man is going out of his way to gaze at her buttocks as she walks away. Thus, in the time of the gemara, women could certainly permissibly dress, in a way such that a man could decide to look at her clad buttocks in order to get pleasure. Thus, באשה שמהלכת לה ואדם צופה לה מאחריה ובאשתו נדה אסור וראוי ליענש בה בבנים שאינם מהוגנים. But if a man decided to do this, it was his fault. And as a result of this improper conduct on his part, the punishment was הויין ליה בנים שאינן מהוגנים.

Meiri does not continue by saying, "therefore women must take care that the form of their buttocks cannot be seen through clothing by perverts."

Rabbi Falk began:

"The damage caused by the thigh area not being hidden properly is spelt out by Chazal in no uncertain terms."

but nowhere do we see that the "thigh area" was not hidden "properly." This was Rabbi Falk's own diyuk, which he incorrectly attributed to Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and the gemara in Moed Katan, as we saw in the last post on this subject. And we do not know that it is "the thigh area" rather than the buttocks, according to Meiri. And we do not know that this is even referring to the woman's buttocks while she is clad. It could refer to the vagina, while the woman is unclad, if we read the gemara in its simpler way, in accordance with other Rishonim.

Thus, to say that it is spelled out by Chazal in "no uncertain terms" seems to be an unjustified claim.

Once again, one major problem with all of this is that this is being presented to girls who will not look up the original sources (indeed, for some of them, learning gemara is forbidden), and so they have no way of evaluating whether what is being claimed is actually accurate.

Does Rabbi Falk Have Correct Peshat in Shir HaShirim 7:2?

Continuing to flip through Oz Vehadar Levushah, I came across the passage to the right, on page 308-309. In it, Rabbi Falk gives an "interesting" and creative peshat in the pasuk, and appears to attribute this peshat to Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and the gemara. Then he derives from this "interesting" peshat some stringent rules of tznius.

He writes: "The verse says in Shir HaShirim: 'How beautiful are your shoe-clad footsteps O daughter [of Avraham Avinu] the nobleman; [how refined is your dress in that] your thigh is hidden and obscured.' חמוקי means 'to make disappear' as in the verse חמק עבר לו... and he gives sources ... The verse חמוקי ירכיך therefore means hidden or disguised, which is far more than just being very well covered."

But do his sources justify this interpretation? Recall, he inserts "how refined is your dress" -- way of dressing -- in that your thigh is covered. And he bases himself on Ibn Ezra and Rashi.

On Shir HaShirim 7:2, Judaica Press translates:

How fair are your feet in sandals, O daughter of nobles! The curves of your thighs are like jewels, the handiwork of a craftsman.

This is important because Judaica Press's declared approach is to translate in accordance with Rashi. This means that they believe Rashi would translate the phrase as "the curves of your thighs."

Is there basis for this? Yes. Rashi states:

The curves of your thighs are like jewels A collection of gold jewels is called חֲלִי כֶתֶם, al chali in Arabic. And our Sages interpreted this as referring to the holes of the foundations [of the altar] for the libations, which were created during the Six Days of Creation, round as a thigh.

like jewels Heb. חֲלָאִים, like the hollow of (חוּלְיַת) a pit.

Thus, we see two points. He refers to Chazal in Sukkah 49a who refer to the the holes in the foundations of the altar, which are round as a thigh, basing themselves on this verse. Thus, the attribute of thighs Rashi is highlighting here, and which Chazal highlighted there, was the roundness of the thigh. And furthermore, the comparison of the thigh made was that it was "like jewels," and once again Rashi stresses the hollow aspect of it. Thus, while he brings Rashi on Moed Katan, Rashi's actual peirush on the pasuk is not like that. Perhaps that is the intent of the Rashi is Moed Katan? We will have to see.

Rashi on Shir HaShirim 5:6 makes the connection to 7:2, but that connection does not imply that the praise is of the dress which makes sure that the thigh is well hidden. The Judaica Press translation of the pasuk there is:

I opened for my beloved, but my beloved had hidden and was gone; my soul went out when he spoke; I sought him, but found him not; I called him, but he did not answer me.

Rashi there states:

but my beloved had hidden and was gone Heb. חָמַק, was hidden and concealed from me, like (below 7:2): “the curves (חֲמוּקֵי) of your thighs,” the hidden places of your thighs, because the thigh is hidden. [Also] (Jer. 31:21): “How long will you hide (תִתְחַמָּקִי) ,” will you hide and cover yourself because of the shame that you betrayed Me?

Thus, there is the idea of it being hidden, but the intent in Shir HaShirim 7:2 is sitrei hayarech, "the hidden places of your thighs." (As an aside, perhaps we can link in the idea of beis hasetarim.) And as we saw there, the hidden curves of the thighs were what was being praised, for their similarity to curves jewels. Even though there is a definition of hidden, and a link between 5:6 and 7:2, what is being praised is the thigh itself, not the dress because it functions to obscure the thigh. This is not peshat of Rashi within Shir HaShirim.

What about Ibn Ezra? On 7:2, he writes:
חמוקי ירכיך: יש אומרים שהוא מקום שיסוב הירך וכן יפרש תתחמקין גם חמק עבר.

Thus, he explains that it means the place that encircles the thigh. He indeed links it to Shir HaShirim 5:6, which uses the term חמק עבר, just as Rabbi Falk claims. But the link does not serve to define the local חמק in 7:2 to mean hidden away. Rather, this is an extension of the definition of חמק as יסוב, to turn away or encircle, as an explanation of 5:6.

And indeed, on 5:6, Ibn Ezra does not define it as "hidden away" in the same way Rashi does. Rather, he defines it as הלך, making a connection to 7:2. He writes:
חמק: כמו הלך מן חמוקי ירכיך ויש אומרים כמוהו עד מתי תתחמקין בענין רחוק.

To see how יסוב fits in here, see Metzudat David on 5:6, where he writes כאשר פתחתי לו הדלת אז סבב עצמו ועבר משם. And this is a commentary on חמק עבר.

Based on this, Rabbi Falk is correct that Ibn Ezra links 5:6 and 7:2, but he appears to be entirely incorrect in the meaning of the link. Ibn Ezra is certainly not claiming that it means hidden, as Rabbi Falk claims it does. Thus, it is incorrect to state "See Ibn Ezra on Shir HaShirim (7:2)" as if this proves his point. It does not, and indeed argues against his point.

The final citation he makes is to Rashi on Moed Katan 16a. The Rashi in question may be found on the bottom of the daf. (See here.) But all Rashi says there is חמוקי ירכיך: כמו חמק עבר. Thus, he makes the link between the two pesukim, of 5:6 and 7:2. But does this establish Rabbi Falk's translation of the pasuk? I don't see how it does. After all, even Rashi in Shir HaShirim made the connection, and the point there was that it referred to the curves of the thigh, which were hidden away. Rashi here may be coming to explain the difficult word being cited from the pasuk - just as on Succah 49a he defined it as סתרי הירך, the hidden places of the thighs. Especially since the context in the gemara is a part that should be hidden, as we will see. But that does not mean that the translation of the pasuk is as given by Rabbi Falk.

The derasha made in the gemara, in Moed Katan 16a-b, is as follows:

גזר רבי שלא ישנו לתלמידים בשוק מאי דרש (שיר השירים ז) חמוקי ירכיך כמו חלאים מה ירך בסתר
אף דברי תורה בסתר

Rabbi decreed that the students should not learn in the marketplace. How did he expound? From Shir Hashirim 7:2 -- "the hidden places of your thighs are like jewels." Just as the thigh is in secret, so too words of Torah are in secret.

The derasha can easily be that the thigh is a concealed part, and this is the meaning of חמוק, that is סתר. So too words of Torah are in סתר.

Now, Rabbi Falk would like to make a whole derasha of his own out of the choice of the word סתר rather than מכוסה. But he, seemingly consciously, only cites the first part of the derasha -- מה ירך בסתר, and omits the second part of the derasha, which states אף דברי תורה בסתר. But derashot like these are rhetorical devices. Would Rabbi Falk really expect the derasha to end אף דברי תורה מכוסה?! This is an instruction to where the students should be learning Torah. Besides which, the derasha comes from חמוקי, which means סתר, hidden, rather than מכוסה. So why should it use מכוסה, which is not a word derivable from the pasuk?

This does not, by any means, imply the requirement for a deeper level of concealing than other places which need concealing. (Perhaps one can muster other sources for this idea, but he does not bring it in the book, as far as I have seen.)

Usually, the ones empowered to make derashot from pesukim are the Tannaim, and rarely the Amoraim. But we do not find Rishonim making derashot, and certainly not late Achronim. Yet this appears to be what Rabbi Falk is doing here, in order to establish that there are pesukim, gemaras, and Rishonim which support his tnzius preferences as a matter of required halacha.

And the problem is that your average Beis Yaakov girl is not going to look up these sources and learn them deeply to see if they really say what they supposedly say.

Fasting on the 17th of Tammuz, pt ix

I fully intend to continue this series. But before proceeding, I thought it important to establish the correct girsa of the Rambam. In an earlier post, I noted that Mechon Mamre's Mishna Torah, which is based on the majority of Yemenite manuscripts, had no leading vav in בשלשה עשר. And this had major relevance in terms of determining peshat in the Rambam. Namely, that he is not saying that all four fasts are minhag, as well as Taanis Esther, as Maggid Mishnah and Beis Yosef take it. Rather, only Taanis Esther is the topic.

Since then, I looked it up in the Frankel Rambam, and he notes that without the vav is what exists in the dfus rishonim and in the manuscripts. And from JNUL, I looked up such a manuscript. The relevant text begins six lines from the bottom of the image to the right, and indeed there is no leading vav. See it in context here, page 87. This text was from 1480.

Based on this, I believe that one would have to conclude that Maggid Mishnah is wrong. One is free to disagree with me on this, but from where I stand, it is fairly clear.

And so the Rambam never explicitly says that the reason we all fast nowadays is minhag. And this leaves it open -- it may indeed be because of minhag, but it may well be because the period of reshut only existed when the mikdash was standing, a position which seems clear from his peirush hamishnayot.

Bli neder, soon to come is a discussion of Rosh, how this may be a viable alternative to Ramban, and how this perhaps influences Tur.

A Tale of Two Elokims -- Is Elohim Holy or Profane?

In perek 4 of Devarim, there are two pesukim which talk about "Elohim" in ways that perhaps imply the existence of other gods. Though not really, when you come to really think about it, as we will discuss. The first is Devarim 4:7 and the second is Devarim 4:36.

The first one, pictured to the right (and available here) asks what nation is so great that it has "Elohim" close to him, like Hashem our God every time we call to him.

This could be interpreted as discussing the special relationship that Israel has with the One and Only God. The plural of kerovim to match Elohim is fine, since it is grammatical rather than connoting anything on the semantic level, and Elohim can be plural because of baalus. However, by the use of this plural and the contrast with the singular at the end of the pasuk and the use of the name YKVK there, it seems fairly clear on the level of peshat that this is Elohim rather than Elokim -- it is chol rather than kodesh. And so we see in Targum Onkelos, in Targum Yonatan, Targum Yerushalmi, and in Ibn Ezra.

How can we, chas veshalom, do this comparison?! Does a comparison not imply that these other gods exist? Not really. Hashem is the God of Israel, and other nations think they have gods. But we see that these gods are figments of their imagination, and that they are not close -- in that they do not respond to individual prayer.

Shadal appears to write it as Elokim with a kuf,

ז ] המצוות שני מינים , בין אדם לחברו ובין אדם למקום . על הראשונות יאמרו : רק עם חכם ונבון , יען מי גוי גדול אשר לו חוקים ומשפטים צדיקים וגו ', והשניות לא יבינו הגויים את טעמיהם , אבל יראו כי בשמירתן השגחת ה ' דבקה בישראל : כי מי גוי גדול אשר לו אלקים קרובים אליו וגו

but I do not think we can trust it, as we will see soon.

The next interesting occurrence is in Devarim 4:34, pictured to the right. (See here.) Once again, one could draw a contrast of the word Elohim and speaking in the general case in the first half of the pasuk, to YKVK Elokim with Hashem's actions on behalf of Israel in the second. Then, just as we read this contrast in 4:7, we should be able to read this contrast into 4:34.

But Ibn Ezra says that there are those who say it is lashon chol -- that is, referring to gods with a lowercase g, but chalila chalila -- forfend! Rather, it is referring to Hashem. Thus, Ibn Ezra finds something theologically troubling with this instance, even though he did not find anything theologically troubling with Devarim 4:7. What is the difference?

I would venture that this pasuk is discussing extent of action, rather than the basic question of whether the god listens to prayer. The implication may then be that these gods do exist, and do have some power, but not to the extent of being able to take one nation out of another nation.

Therefore, the question must refer even in the former case to Hashem. See Seforno for how to read this: "Even though it happens for a single individual or for several individuals that they are saved from amongst evildoers, even so this does not happen in general {perhaps to a wider group of people}."

I don't think Seforno intended that the deities of the nations are capable of saving individuals. Rather, I believe he agrees with Ibn Ezra, that the first Elohim is Elokim. Thus, this is speaking of Hashem's special love for Israel. In general, it does not occur that Hashem takes one nation out from another nation. This was a special, big deal that Hashem did.

Perhaps we can say that he agrees that it refers to gods. That is, in general it occurs by random chance. He says kara. And people would attribute it to their god. But the grand scale of this salvation of Israel makes clear that it is the actions of God.

The Targumim seem to take it almost not as a question, but rather referring even in the first half of the pasuk specifically to Hashem, and to Hashem's miracles in saving Israel -- thus rather than treating hanissa as "Has God {or a god} attempted," they take it as nissim, miracles.

In contrast, Rashi writes:

Or has any god performed miracles Heb. הֲנִסָּה אלֹהִים. Has any god performed miracles (נִסִּים) ?

Thus, he takes the position of the Targumim in terms of hanissa, but reads Elohim as profane, referring to the gods of the nations. Ibn Ezra says chalila! to Rashi.

See how great a deed Hashem did for us. This proves God's power, and His existence. The gods of the nations have never had such a miracle ascribed to them. And perhaps we can even apply something akin to the Kuzari Principle in interpreting the intent of this pasuk.

Shadal writes on this

לד ] או הנסה אלקים : אין ספק שהוא חול , כדעת רש"י ורמבמ"ן , ולפיניהם דונש בן לברט בהשגותיו על רבינו סעדיה הנמצאות בידי בכ " י . ובדברי ראב " ע בספר שפת יתר סימן ק " א נפלו טעויות סופר והשמטת מילות , אשר בגללן אין לסימן ההוא הבנה .

, that is, that there is no doubt that this Elohim is the profane one, in accordance with Rashi and Mendelssohn. Note the dibbur hamatchil has אלקים, even though Shadal is declaring the name to be chol.

I would add that Chazal have a list of Elohim which are profane -- in Shavuot daf 35, in masechet Soferim, and in the first perek of Yerushalmi Megillah -- and this instance is not listed among them.

In saying "there is no doubt," Shadal is actually echoing Dunash Ibn Labrat in countering the position of Rav Saadiah Gaon.

Berliner's comment on Rashi includes much of this, and so is worthwhile to repeat here. See picture.

The Shechinah Only Sheruyah After The Chuppah?

So I was browsing through Rabbi Falk's book, "Choson and Kallah During Their Engagement," and I came across this, pictured to the right, on page 103.

It is an interesting derasha, and he makes a lot out of it, as a basis for a chassan having limited contact with his kallah during the engagement period. But it is based on a Maharal, rather than the gemara itself. (See the Maharal here.) The gemara states:

איש ואשה זכו שכינה ביניהן לא זכו אש אוכלתן אמר רבא והאשה עדיפא מאיש האי מצטרף והאי לא מצטרף

Now this would appear to apply to married couples, who for various reasons could have the Shechina dwelling with them, or not. But it is not clear that the issue applies to non-married couples at all, to have the problem of esh. Soncino interprets this "fire" as domestic discord, something Rabbi Falk does as well in terms of shalom bayis. But Rabbi Falk is making a diyuk from the words of the Maharal that this unmarried couple are ish and isha, and since the Shechina can only (potentially) come at the time of marriage, there is potential for eish - discord - beforehand. But in truth, we do not know that Maharal would declare the gemara to be talking at all about a case before marriage -- perhaps only when they are beyachad as one individual will the Shechina either be Sheruyah to the full extent or not, and perhaps they are not ish and isha together beforehand to yield eish. We also do not know for certain that Maharal defines esh to be discord. As we will see, it is possible that Maharal does not even say the words "when the couple marry."

Once again, here is the Maharal inside:

There are other interpretations of the gemara, such as that of Rashi, or of Ramban. Sure, if one combs all sources, one can come up with support for any idea, and kvetch the source and extend it to convey the message you want conveyed. Rashi, meanwhile, explains that zachu vs. lo zachu means that the husband, or wife, are being faithful, vs. being unfaithful, to one another. And the eish is Divine punishment for niuf. Rashi's peshat in this gemara would not support the homiletic, mussar-oriented extension necessary to prevent an engaged couple from getting to know one another better.

Indeed, one can interpret the gemara in one of two ways. The context is that this is in gemara Sotah. It this referring to the marital discord that leads to straying or an accusation of Sotah? Or is it referring to the actions of a Sotah?

Also, there is the question, even within Maharal, of what he means when he says kaasher yitchabru yachad, "when they join together." Rabbi Falk says that the Maharal says this message explicitly, but then he says he will give an approximate translation. And "when they join together" is translated approximately as "when a couple marry." The idea is that they are completing one another to form a single entity. I would note we can see this in Bereishit 2:

כד עַל-כֵּן, יַעֲזָב-אִישׁ, אֶת-אָבִיו, וְאֶת-אִמּוֹ; וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.

where they form a single flesh, a single entity. Though this can be interpreted in a straightforward manner, as marriage, or in a perhaps hyper-literal manner, to refer to sexual intercourse.

What does Maharal mean by yitchabru? I would indeed initially lean towards the idea that it means marriage. This is when the husband and wife become a single entity. But we see how Ramban uses the term yitchabru in discussing the very same gemara in his Igeret HaKodesh:

איגרת הקודש לרמב"ן פרק ב
אמרו חז"ל בשעה שאדם מתחבר עם אשתו בקדושה ובטהרה שכינה שרויה ביניהם. נתחממו שכינה מסתלקת מביניהם וישאר אש ואש. כדגרסינן בסוטה (יז א) היה דורש ר"ע איש ואשה זכו שכינה ביניהם, לא זכו אש אוכלתם. פי' כשהאדם מתחבר לאשתו בקדושה שכינה ביניהם, תמצא בשם האיש יו"ד ובשם האשה ה' הרי זה שמו של הקב"ה מצוי ביניהם. אבל אם לא נתכוונו לחבור קדושה אלא למלאות תאותם ומתוך התאוה והחמוד נתחממו כאש, יו"ד של שם האיש וה' של שם האשה שהוא י"ה מסתלק מביניהם ונשאר אש ואש. [והבן זה כי בכאן יש כל הסוד].

Thus, when Ramban uses the term mitchaber in discussing the very same gemara, he uses it to refer to sexual congress. And the zachu vs. not zachu refers to their intent at the time of this physical joining. (Other sources connect this with the idea of the three-fold partnership in the creation of a child -- man, woman, and Hashem.) This interpretation of the gemara, just like Rashi's interpretation, would not provide a basis for restricting conversations between an engaged couple.

This same use of yitchabru in this sense:

תולדות יצחק בראשית פרק א
והנה בעת הזאת לא היה בין אדם ואשתו התשמיש לתאוה, אבל בעת ההולדה יתחברו ויולידו, ולכן היו האיברים כלם בעיניהם כפנים וידים ולא יתבוששו בהם, והנה אחרי אכלם מן העץ היתה בידו הבחירה, וברצונו להרע או להיטיב, עד כאן דבריו:

Of course, in other contexts, yitchabru could also mean join together, sometimes in matrimony. I think we can, with a bit of deliberation, see this in this source:

תשובות הגאונים שערי צדק חלק ג שער ב סימן ט
וגדול שבאלו הדברים שכשידע הנטען שהבעל היה מגרש קדם ועשה שידוכין לפי מה שהוזכר בשאלה זו והיא עדיין אשת איש, וכל שכן שנתייחד עמה אחר אלו השידוכין הארורים, ואילו היה כזה המעשה מאלו הדרכים היה ראוי למנוע איש זה מלישא אשה זו על אחת כמה וכמה שכולם היו. הילכך מחייבין על כל פנים את האיש להפריש ממנה ומזהירין אותם שלא יתחברו בדרך נישואין קל וחומר בדרך אחר

So let us say it does mean "join together" not in the physical sense, but in the sense of their fates being bound together. Even so, Maharal just says yitchabru, but does not specify the nature of that joining. For instance, would he consider erusin to be yitchabru? And back in the times of the gemara, erusin as betrothal was a real entity, and is somewhat akin to nowadays engagement (with the exception that at the end of a broken engagement, the woman can still marry a kohen).

And even if he means marriage, he is reading peshat into the gemara, such that there is possibly the Shechina sheruya in the marriage, in the joining, and possibly not. And in the case not, there is esh, whatever that means. This does not necessarily mean that absent this joining, there is a problematic aspect of the Shechina not being present.

And even if he meant that prior to marriage, there is this absence of Shechina, this not not mean that he intended his suggested explanation of an aggadic passage of Talmud to have wide-ranging impact on the practical level, of how an engaged couple should behave. And even if he did, that does not mean that we must subscribe to his interpretation of the gemara. After all, we have Rashi and Ramban's suggestions as well.

Ultimately, however, it is not going to come down to interpretations of gemaras or of Maharals, or of other sources -- even if one can clothe one's mussar in those terms. Rather, there is an overarching worldview that either sees communication between an engaged couple as something terrible, as opposed to something which is good and necessary. And I think this may be connected to the role in women in the respective societies, and the nature of the relationship between husband and wife. (This difference may have been at the root of why many people took offense at certain comments of a certain commenter, Yehuda, a while back.)

I may well be overstating this for effect, so I apologize if this is taken as stereotyping the other. In societies in which a woman is seen more as an equal, and as an intellectual being, the nature of the relationship is one of deep friendship, besides of course the physical attraction. And when the gemara in kiddushin 41a states:

אמר רב אסור לאדם שיקדש את האשה עד שיראנה שמא יראה בה דבר מגונה ותתגנה עליו ורחמנא אמר (ויקרא יט) ואהבת לרעך

it was talking about physical attraction. But as Chazal state, מה פרצופיהם שונים אף דעותיהם שונות. And with a different paradigm in our communities, the personality of one's spouse is just as important. That is why I read with horror the following, from an article in the Jewish Press.

"I too come from a frum home (chassidish) and never associated with a male until my marriage. I actually found the idea of not really knowing my chassan until marriage thrilling. After we married we had the chance to connect in such a deep way and to talk about things I had never discussed before with anyone.

The relationship exclusively between just the two of us made it so dear. I already loved telling him about myself during our sheva berachos."

In our days, such lack of knowledge of the other person's personality can cause serious violations of veahavta lereacha kamocha. (Though this may well be clothing my own hashkafa in sources.)

The types of relationships we cultivate when dating and while engaged is one of a deep connection, hopefully where each is enamored with the other. And cutting off such a relationship as soon as engagement occurs is a bad idea. Firstly because engagement is almost like a practice marriage. (Kind of like how erusin, which was about a year before nisuin, was a marriage in which the woman still lived in her father's house.) The couple can see how they deal with various life difficulties together. And people open up in different ways once engaged. If there is some major incompatibility, it is better if this comes out at this point -- something less likely if the chassan only makes a cursory phone call to his kallah once a week. Also, the nature of the relationship they are trying to develop -- of deep friendship and love -- is not one which is bolstered by suddenly declaring that there are spiritual dangers of the couple being in each other's company, and declaring that they should only communicate minimally.

This may or may not be the exactly the same paradigm of marriage they had in previous generations. But then, for example, in Tur we find the suggestion that the optimal number of wives to have is four, so that one wife is always available. (He does not note that they should be kept apart from one another, but medically speaking, this probably necessary since women living in the same house usually find their periods converging.) But putting aside Rabbenu Gershom, could you imagine this working nowadays in our society? (Even back then, they were called tzarot.) The reason, in part, is a shifting approach to the nature of marriage, and the type of relationship and connection we are trying to foster. But I will end this here, and perhaps develop this idea in another post.

Bal Tigra and Bal Tosif Because Law Codes Devolve

An interesting idea by Shadal, into the reason for Bal Tigra and Bal Tosif, as explained by the verses themselves.

ב ] לא תוסיפו : צריך שתשמעו אל החוקים והמשפטים האלה לא בלבד לעשותם , כי גם לעשותם בלי תוספת ומגרעת , וכל זה מפני שהרבה מתועבות העכו"ם נמשכו מעט מעט מן המנהגים הקדמונים אשר היו בעצמם ישרים ; וע ' למטה י"ב כ"ט , ל , ל"א י"ג א

That is, even the early practices of the gentiles were good - yesharim. But slowly, little by little, they devolved into the abominable idolatrous practices. Thus, these two concepts are connected. And he brings proof to this from later on, in Devarim 12:

כט כִּי-יַכְרִית יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת-הַגּוֹיִם, אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה בָא-שָׁמָּה לָרֶשֶׁת אוֹתָם--מִפָּנֶיךָ; וְיָרַשְׁתָּ אֹתָם, וְיָשַׁבְתָּ בְּאַרְצָם.	29 When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest in to dispossess them, and thou dispossessest them, and dwellest in their land;
ל הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ, פֶּן-תִּנָּקֵשׁ אַחֲרֵיהֶם, אַחֲרֵי, הִשָּׁמְדָם מִפָּנֶיךָ; וּפֶן-תִּדְרֹשׁ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם לֵאמֹר, אֵיכָה יַעַבְדוּ הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה אֶת-אֱלֹהֵיהֶם, וְאֶעֱשֶׂה-כֵּן, גַּם-אָנִי.	30 take heed to thyself that thou be not ensnared to follow them, after that they are destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying: 'How used these nations to serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.'
לא לֹא-תַעֲשֶׂה כֵן, לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ: כִּי כָל-תּוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר שָׂנֵא, עָשׂוּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם--כִּי גַם אֶת-בְּנֵיהֶם וְאֶת-בְּנֹתֵיהֶם, יִשְׂרְפוּ בָאֵשׁ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם.	31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God; for every abomination to the LORD, which He hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters do they burn in the fire to their gods.

leading into perek 13:

א אֵת כָּל-הַדָּבָר, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם--אֹתוֹ תִשְׁמְרוּ, לַעֲשׂוֹת: לֹא-תֹסֵף עָלָיו, וְלֹא תִגְרַע מִמֶּנּוּ. {פ}

1 All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. {P}

This idea of gradual transformation of a religion, little by little, is an interesting one. I wonder how much this in fact has been the case in Judaism -- via takana and minhag -- the halachically permitted forms of bal tigra and bal tosif. And whether this transformation is good -- as surely much of it is.

We Have Far To Go In Tznius

I saw an article to day that demonstrates that, Baruch Hashem, we have quite far to go in terms of extremes in tznius.

From the Daily Telegraph:

Besides the terrible killings inflicted by the fanatics on those who refuse to pledge allegiance to them, Al-Qa'eda has lost credibility for enforcing a series of rules imposing their way of thought on the most mundane aspects of everyday life.

They include a ban on women buying suggestively-shaped vegetables, according to one tribal leader in the western province of Anbar.

Sheikh Hameed al-Hayyes, a Sunni elder, told Reuters: "They even killed female goats because their private parts were not covered and their tails were pointed upward, which they said was haram.

"They regarded the cucumber as male and tomato as female. Women were not allowed to buy cucumbers, only men."

Should Jewish law extend so far? Luckily, so far it has not. But to prevent this law, about the goats, from appearing in the tznius book for farm animals, Eiz veHadar Levushah, I will preemptively rule it out. As we say in the fifth perek of Avos, הפוך בה והפוך בה דכולה בה. So even the regulations of the tznius of farm animals should be discoverable in Jewish sources.

Right off the bat, we can know that erva of animals is not considered erva. We only need to look to Yechezkel 23:20, אֲשֶׁר בְּשַׂר-חֲמוֹרִים בְּשָׂרָם, and associated derashot. But perhaps we can find out more, about the specific case under discussion.

We know some tznius rules from the sixth perek of Shabbos, במה אישה יוצאה. If a woman may go out on Shabbos in the public domain wearing something, without it being a violation of bringing something out into the public domain, presumably in terms of the laws of tznius it is also acceptable to go out wearing it.

For farm animals, we should look to the fifth perek of Shabbos, במה בהמה יוצאה. In the second Mishna, we find what is pictured (literally) to the right. The image is taken from Pnei Shabbos, which is a book of illustrated Mishnayos, based on the peirush of Bartenura.

The Mishna states that והרחלים יוצאות שחוזות, כבולות וכבונות. Thus, the sheep may go out shechuzot, kevulot, or kevunot, as pictured in the sheep below -- though I have my serious doubts that the tying was as in accordance with the picture. But at any rate, the ropes are not considered being carried.

The translation: Ewes may go out exposed, tied, or covered up.

"Exposed," shechuzot, would mean with their tails tied in an upward position, so that the rams could mount them. "Tied," kevulot, means that their tails are tied down to their legs, so that the rams cannot mount them. "Covered," kevunot, means with a protective cloth tied to them, to protect their wool.

The offending goats were perhaps not tied at all, and al Qaida wanted them to be kevulot, such that male goats could not mount them. Thus in their current state it was "haram." Or perhaps the goats had their tails tied up -- shechuzot -- since the owners wanted them to give birth to more goats. And this would be exceptionally forbidden, because of the accessibility to male goats, or the temptation to Al Qaeda terrorists. ;) Or perhaps their ideal would be the goat-burqa, as kevunot.

At any rate, according to halacha, sheep -- and goats -- can go out to the public domain while shechuzot. So this should never become an issue.

Should We Care About Ancient Apocalyptic Ideas?

This thought occurred to me as an outgrowth of my earlier post about Rome vs. Persia, and prompted further by the latest post at Yeranen Yaakov, in which he discusses at length from a work which was written during the Cold War, and which set out to demonstrate that Russia was Gog.

Look. There are prophecies which predict what will happen in the end of days. And these referred to Gog and Magog, which perhaps had concrete definitions back then. But as they have been applied throughout the generations, they have been reinterpreted to match the apocalyptic fears and messianic hopes of each generation.

Thus, as I noted in a post titled "Does the Gemara predict that America will fall at the hands of Iran?" I noted that when these statements by Tannaim and Amoraim were made, that Rome would fall at the hands of Persia or that Persia would fall at the hands of Rome, the Roman empire and the Persian empire were real entities. They were real empires, and were constantly warring with one another. And those who made those statements were living under Roman or Persian rule. Since then, the Russian and Persian empire have ended. And Iran, which is over Persian territory, is just a dinky little country. It is admittedly trying to get nuclear weapons, which is worrisome, but if a strike were made against America, it would be quickly obliterated, such that there is no way America would fall at the hands of Iran. And there is no more Roman empire, so people making modern predictions reinterpet Rome to refer to America, in somewhat dubious ways. But, as I pointed out there, perhaps one or both empires already won; and it is perhaps misguided to apply statements which were about the actual Roman and Persian empire to a situation, and to countries, which are entirely different. That is, the Tannaitic pr Amoraic statements were made in a specific cultural and historical context, and were perhaps an attempt to apply the Biblical words of prophecy to their present situation.

The same might be said about the statement of the Vilna Gaon. To cite the post at Yeranen Yaakov:

We have a tradition from the students of the Gr"a in the (Vilna) Gaon's name: "If the ships of the Russian government will cross over the Bosporus Strait ([and] the "Dardanelles"), we need to wear clothes of Shabbat" to tell you that at that time, it will soon be the coming of Mashiah."

The thing is, the Vilna Gaon was born in 1720 and died in 1797. Just prior to the Vilna Gaon's birth, the Russian empire and the Ottoman empire -- that is, the Turkish empire -- were warring. But then, to cite Wikipedia:

The Tulip Era (or Lâle Devri in Turkish), named for Sultan Ahmed III's love of the tulip flower and its use to symbolize his peaceful reign, the Empire's policy towards Europe underwent a shift. The region was peaceful between 1718 and 1730, after the Ottoman victory against Russia in the Pruth Campaign in 1712 and the subsequent Treaty of Passarowitz brought a period of pause in warfare. The Empire began to improve the fortifications of cities bordering the Balkans to act as a defence against European expansionism. Other tentative reforms were also enacted: taxes were lowered; there were attempts to improve the image of the Ottoman state; and the first instances of private investment and entrepreneurship occurred.

Just before the Vilna Gaon's 1797 death, in 1795, Vilna was annexed by the Russian empire. And shortly before this, the Turkish empire began a process of militarization:

Ottoman military reform efforts begin with Selim III (1789–1807) who made the first major attempts to modernize the army along European lines.

Thus, in the Vilna Gaon's time, the Turkish empire and the Russian empire were major empires. And so one could well imagine a war of Gog and Magog involving Russia and Turkey.

Nowadays, however, the Ottoman empire is no more, just as the Roman empire and the Persian empire are no more. There is Turkey, but comparatively, it is a dinky little country. And the same almost goes as well for Russia. They are no longer an empire, as much as they might like to be. This would not be any world war. As such, it may well be that even if Russia would attack Turkey rather than Georgia, it would not be time to don clothes to welcome mashiach. The question is what the Vilna Gaon would say today, and whether he meant it as a prophetic statement, or rather as his application of messianic sources to his modern day situation.

The same is true for the Napoleonic wars, which apparently many rabbis in those days believed were the wars of Gog and Magog.

And then, this would be true as well for this work noted by Yeranen Yaakov, namely Chevlei Mashiach biZmaneinu. Perhaps the stress should be on bizmaneinu. The author assessed his present-day situation and concluded that Russia was Gog, and found sources to back this up. After all, this was written in the midst of the Cold War. But that does not necessarily mean that we should apply his assessments to our modern day.

And just looking at the modern day, and what goes on on blogs. There are people out there claiming that Iran attacking America will be the apocalypse, or that this recent fight between Russia and Georgia will be the war to begin the apocalypse. And they can muster all sorts of sources, and interpret them as they want them. Bush is Gog. Now that he is almost out of office, Obama is Gog. No, Russia is Gog. It makes the mind dizzy. But they are just moving along in the same process. But perhaps we should be hesitant of reinterpreting sources which were never, ever intended for a different global picture.

And perhaps the same is true for predictive sources such as sefer Eliyahu -- perhaps the names of kings in the dispute were names or encodings, from successive generations, of various kings of those days. The Zohar, too, was "discovered" just into the beginning of the 6th millenium, and Rashbi makes predictions of the ketz mashiach, all of which somehow are in the sixth millenium -- and all of which have now long passed.

All this is tempting me towards the kefirah of wondering the same about the original prophecies themselves. They were said, presumably, when Gog and Magog were real entities. See Bereishit 10: בני יפת גומר ומגוג ומדי ויון ותובל ומשך ותירס. So when Yechezkel says בֶּן-אָדָם, שִׂים פָּנֶיךָ אֶל-גּוֹג אֶרֶץ הַמָּגוֹג--נְשִׂיא, רֹאשׁ מֶשֶׁךְ וְתֻבָל; וְהִנָּבֵא, עָלָיו, he could well be referring to real entities. Could his prophecies have already been fulfilled? Or, since a navi interprets Hashem's revelation, could he have cast it into that specific land which made sense in those days? So this might be a theologically fraught path to start upon.

At any rate, this may come down to the question, as yaak posed it. Is there an underlying reality to the milchemet Gog uMagog, such that all these guesses throughout the years are merely guesses? Or is the situation nondeterministic, in which there are all sorts of scenarios and possibilities, and indeed, all of these predictions were right? If the latter, in each case, this could have been the apocalyptic battle, but in the end, Hashem shuffled the scenarios. Even if the latter, should those discarded, shuffled off suggestions become fodder for modern-day scenarios, even when there is no more substance to the underlying reality which prompted the statement?

Erecting Partitions on Airplanes

An interesting article up at Yated, online:

Committee Working to Protect Public from In-Flight Movies Sends Delegation to HaRav Kanievsky

A delegation representing the Rabbinical Committee for Transportation Matters was received by HaRav Chaim Kanievsky shlita at his home and received his blessings for success in the efforts to protect travelers from immodest entertainment on airplanes.

During the visit the delegation demonstrated their new folding mechitzoh designed to hide the main cabin screens from view in order to protect people from seeing inappropriate images.

After erecting the mechitzoh — which can be folded to 25 cm (10 inches) — on HaRav Kanievsky's table, the delegation members asked whether it appeared bizarre and would be liable to cause chilul Hashem, but he allayed their concerns, saying "it's a kiddush Hashem!"

They also asked him about non-Jewish travelers sitting behind them who complain the mechitzoh obstructs their view of the screen, but HaRav Kanievsky dismissed these concerns as well.

At the end of their visit HaRav Kanievsky said he was pleased with the solution the delegation presented to improve modesty on airplanes and blessed them for success. For information on flights without movies and regarding the mechitzoh call

(Note: I see Emes veEmunah already has a post about this.)

I wish they had included me in their committee. I have some brilliant ideas which could be incorporated into the design of this mechitza.

Firstly, the mechitzah is going to have to be up for quite a long period of time, as there are many movies shown on this flight. If the religious passenger is going to be staring at it for so long, we might as well put words of Torah on the mechitza so that the passenger could learn Torah at the same time.

Associated with this, since the flight is so long, the traveler will eventually run out of inspiring words of Torah. The solution would be that instead of constructing a mechitza out of whatever material they are using, construct it out of many pieces of paper. That way, one could always flip to more Torah.

A problem might be the gentile behind him. Forget about the movie -- a gentile should not be taught Torah! The solution, to my mind, is to place the mechitzah on one's lap, and then look down onto it!

Seriously, though, several things bother me about this story.

First and foremost, this seems to be a self-appointed committee. Rather than Rav Kanievsky coming up with this idea, this came from the bottom-up from a bunch of askonim convinced that movies projected on airplanes is a terrible thing. And the specifics of the idea came from them. Of course, once they had a solution, they need Rabbinic approval, so they go around to various gedolim to get "blessings" for their work.

Secondly, there was no satan here -- no devil's advocate. From the accounting, they weakly brought up points people might raise as objections. When something like this is proposed, you need someone actively and forcefully arguing the other side. Someone to say that this is not what the people running the airplane want; that the gentile (or, in fact, Jew) will not only be miffed, but will complain to the flight attendant, who will ask the chareidi to take down his mechitza. That at that point, he will either take it down, in which case there was no blocking, or else he will refuse, at which point he will be tased by a federal marshall, or else kicked off the flight.

I think, furthermore, that to seriously propose this betrays an ignorance of how this will be received, or else a callousness to it. Forget about chillul Hashem, for he says it is a kiddush Hashem. Will this promote shalom, or sinah? And perhaps this will "fly" on El Al flights. On other flights, besides the selfishness of this, I can well imagine that this would frighten other passengers with fears about terrorism. I have to wonder at the grasp of metzius in all this.

Also, while they got this "endorsement," what was left unclear is whether this is obligation, a good idea, or just something acceptable for those who wish to adopt it as a middat chassidut. My impression is that it is the last, but by not being clear, it makes it seem as if the endorsement of this is a psak that one must purchase and utilize one of these mechitzot.

Finally, what concerns me is how this fits into the general theme of insisting on one's own chumras at the expense of other people. It is like being machmir on the shiur of water for netilas yadayim when a poor maidservant is the one who has to shlepp the water from the well. And even by endorsing this in this instance, it encourages to unfortunate general trend.