Interesting Posts and Articles #81

1. At Menachem Mendel, a suggestion that the famous midrash of the two brothers secretly helping each other and meriting to have the Temple built on their land is a response to another midrash about Kayin and Hevel arguing about where the Temple would be built.
   
   
2. Shelomo Alfassa is upset at the "pathetic men" who would not confront a lunatic on a subway.
   
   
3. YNet reports that Rav Elyashiv permits sick people to drink unlimited amounts of "stale water" on Yom Kippur, in response to requests by "medical activists." See the article for the definition of stale water.
   
   
4. Via Hirhurim, an article in the Jewish Press, "Hechsher Tzedek Revisited."
   
   
5. Something for Yom Kippur -- Rif on Yoma, in 11 posts.
   

Daf Yomi Gittin 89a: On nursing in public

I saw an interesting source in today's daf yomi (Gittin 89a).It makes it fairly clear that nursing in public was not considered proper behavior by the Tannaim.

It reads:

אמר רבא יצא לה שם מזנה בעיר אין חוששין לה

כתנאי אכלה בשוק גרגרה בשוק הניקה בנה בשוק על כולן אמר ר"מ תצא רבי עקיבא אומר משישאו ויתנו בה מוזרות בלבנה אמר לו רבי יוחנן בן נורי א"כ לא הנחת בת לאברהם אבינו שיושבת תחת בעלה והתורה אמרה כי מצא בה ערות דבר ולהלן הוא אומר על פי שנים עדים או על פי שלשה עדים יקום דבר מה להלן דבר ברור אף כאן דבר ברור:

Rava said: If there was a report about her in town that she had illicit intercourse, we are not concerned with this.
This is a matter of Tannaitic dispute. 'If she ate in the market, if she quaffed {as per Jastrow; Rashi: walked with outstretched neck} in the market, if she suckled in the market -- upon all of them Rabbi Meir says she must leave {her husband}. Rabbi Akiva says: {She must leave} as soon as gossips who spin in the moon begin to talk about her. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri said to him: If so, you will not leave our father Abraham a single daughter who can stay with her husband; ; and the Torah said {Devarim 24:1}

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

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

{and the word davar is there}
And elsewhere it states {Devarim 19:15}

טו לֹא-יָקוּם עֵד אֶחָד בְּאִישׁ, לְכָל-עָו‍ֹן וּלְכָל-חַטָּאת, בְּכָל-חֵטְא, אֲשֶׁר יֶחֱטָא: עַל-פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים, אוֹ עַל-פִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה-עֵדִים--יָקוּם דָּבָר.

15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established.

{and the word davar is there}
Just as elsewhere the "matter" {davar} must be clear, so too here the "matter" must be clear.

It seems pretty clear that the Tannaim did not look favorably on nursing in public.

Daf Yomi Gittin 86/88 -- Is Ktav Yado On The Resha Really Obvious??

I have a few posts I've accumulated on daf Yomi Gittin, but haven't gotten around to fleshing them out. We will have to see about them.

In the meantime, this is pretty short, so I will quickly develop the idea. As such, it is somewhat off the cuff. On Gittin daf 86, we have (relying on my translation of the Rif):

{Gittin 86a}

כתב בכתב ידו ואין עליו עדים

"IF THE HUSBAND WROTE IT WITH HIS OWN HAND BUT IT WAS ATTESTED BY NO WITNESSES":

אמר רב כתב ידו שנינו
אהייא אילימא ארישא פשיטא כתב ידו קתני
אלא אמציעתא הרי יש עליו עדים
אלא אסיפא יש בו זמן ואין בו אלא עד אחד וקתני שלשה גיטין פסולין ואם נשאת הולד כשר
אמר רב דוקא כתב ידו ועד אבל כתב סופר ועד אין הולד כשר
וכי קתני כתב סופר ועד כשר חתם סופר ועד הוא אבל כתב סופר לא מהני ולא מידי
וכן א"ר יוחנן כתב ידו שנינו
וכן הלכתא:

Rav said: We have learned "with his own handwriting."
Upon what {is this statement}? If you say on the resha, then it is obvious! It states {explicitly} in the Mishna "with his own handwriting." Rather, on the middle portion, behold it has witnesses! Rather, on the sefa -- "IF IT HAS A DATE BUT THE SIGNATURE OF ONLY ONE WITNESS," and it {=the Mishna} teaches "THE FOLLOWING THREE BILLS OF DIVORCE ARE INVALID BUT IF A WOMAN MARRIES ON THE STRENGTH OF THEM THE CHILD [BORN OF SUCH MARRIAGE] IS LEGITIMATE."
{Gittin 86b}
Rav said {in his earlier statement} that this is specifically his handwriting and a witness, but the handwriting of the scribe, plus a witness, the child would not be legitimate.
And where it taught that the handwriting of the scribe plus a witness is valid, this means the signature of the scribe and a witness, but the handwriting of the scribe does not help at all.
And so did Rabbi Yochanan say: We learnt "with his own handwriting."
And so is the halacha.

But as applied to the resha, it Rav and Rabbi Yochanan's statement really so obvious, such that the setama digmara should discard that possibility and apply it to the sefa?

I have my doubts.

Specifically, Rav and Rabbi Yochanan are both early Amoraim, and could be said to be quasi-Tannaim. Rather than making a diyuk into what is said, making a distinction in that it said ktav yado and not the ktav yad of the sofer, we should say that they are establishing the correct girsa of the Mishna.

Because on the Mishna in Gittin daf 88, we have a similar situation arise:

{Gittin 88a}
Gemara:

כתב סופר ועד כשר.
א"ר ירמיה חתם סופר שנינו.
ההיא כתובת חתנים דאתאי לקמיה דרבי אבהו דהוה ידע ליה לטופסא דשטרא ולחתימות ידיה דחד סהדא סבר לאכשורה
א"ל ר' ירמיה חתם סופר שנינו:

"WRITTEN BY A SCRIBE AND SIGNED BY ONE WITNESS IS VALID":
Rabbi Yirmeyah said: We learnt "the signature of the scribe."
There was a certain marriage ketuba which was brought before Rabbi Abahu, in which it was known to him the {handwriting of} the text {tofes} of the document and the signature of one of the witnesses. He thought to validate it. Rabbi Yirmeyah said: The signature {rather than handwriting} of the scribe we learnt.

Thus, in this other Mishna, despite the fact that our girsa of the Mishna as printed has ktav sofer, it is corrected to chatam sofer. And this has halachic impact.

Given this other rewriting of a Mishna, replacing ktav with chatam, it makes sense for Rav and Rabbi Yochanan to establish the girsa of the earlier Mishna and declare that the text of our Mishna is true, that it is ktav yado, the handwriting of the husband, and not the signature of the husband.

That is, we could imagine a hypothetical in which the husband writes a get, but he never intended to deliver it, just yet. If so, his affixing of his signature at the bottom makes it clear that he meant to empower it. And that might be the implication of this alternate girsa, if it would exist. Therefore Rabbi Yochanan and Rav come to establish the text of our Mishna correctly.

The diyuk made by the setama de-gemara might still be true -- and indeed it is convincing as true -- even if this was not a diyuk intended by either Rav or Rabbi Yochanan.

Interesting Posts and Articles #80

1. At Arutz Sheva, how Obama staff camp deceived the Ex-Deputy IDF Chief of Staff, and used his words to make a campaign ad. {Update: See in the comment section below that the Obama camp was not behind the ad. The article identified the people behind this as "a Jewish group backing Sen. Barack Obama -- The Jewish Council for Education and Research." By camp, they presumably mean Obama supporters.}
   
   
2. At Circus Tent, a very detailed questionnaire to allow entry into a school, into computers in the home and at work for the father and mother, MP4 players, videos which are not family simchas or shiurim, etc.
   
   
3. KallahMagazine on making a political statement with your sheitel -- the Sarah Palin sheitel.
   
   And also, the power of a single word could sway a shidduch.
   
   
4. The Seforim blog on Eliezer Hakallir and his identity, and whether he was assassinated. And some fun with gematriah, showing how if you use gematriah to assign various piyutim to Eliezer haKallir, then you can use the same methodology to assign all of Tanach, and Mishna, etc., to Eliezer haKallir.
   
   
5. Lion Of Zion on the question of whether missing dots over words passul a sefer Torah. And here is the midrash about why these dots are necessary. I can see the argument -- if it is a defensive mechanism of Ezra in case those words do not belong, then without those dots, we have extra words. But the answer is that it does not really invalidate. One should not use it lechatchila, and if it is taken out and this is discovered during leining, then if during the week and it is possible to easily fix, do so, but if not, they need not being out another sefer Torah. And this based on various sources including Rambam.
   
   By the way, a very nifty way of getting texts online. It looks like he uses a digital camera to protograph the open book, rather than scanning. Very nice!
   
   
6. BlogInDm about how at a simcha, a caterer (whose contract did not stipulate this) did not like the family dancing together since it was mixed dancing, and cut off the music by cutting the power; how the band disregarded this by playing without power and moving towards the dancers; and how the caterer restored power, especially after being threatened with non-payment. Nice. (And I mean that seriously.)
   
   
7. Also linked to from BlogInDm, Hamercaz has the latest ban, on the Chabad Simchas Beis HaShoevah. And now I see it is also at the Yeshiva World.
   

Shu"t Maharik 88 -- On The Definition of Chukat Akum, pt v

See part i, part ii, part iii, and part iv.

Furthermore, it appears fitting, in my humble opinion, to bring a proof to permit from the language of Rashi in perek Ben Sorer Umoreh (page 74) for behold, he explained there on that "even to change the strap of the shoe is forbidden," and this is his language:
"If it is the way of the gentiles to tie it in such a way and the way of the Israelites to tie it in another way, such that there is an aspect of Judaism in the matter, and it is the way of the Israelites to be modest {tzenuim}, even this change, to which there is not a precept {mitzvah} but rather merely a changing of custom, he should sanctify the Most High Name in the presence of his fellow Jew." End quote.

The implication is that even if the Israelites are accustomed to one clothing and the gentiles in another clothing, if the clothing of the Israelite does not inform upon the Judaism or the modesty more than that which the gentiles are accustomed to, there is no prohibition for an Israelite to wear the clothing customarily worn by gentiles since it is in a way of fitness and modesty just as that of the Israelites. For if you say that even in such a situation it is forbidden, since Israelites did not customarily wear it, it so, why should he comment and explain that specifically where there is an aspect of Judaism in the matter, etc. Let him say that even if there is no aspect of Judaism in the matter in this way over that way, even so, it is forbidden and he should sanctify the Name before his fellow Jew, since it is prohibited because of "not walking in their ordinances {chukoteihem}." Rather, certainly it is obvious that there is no prohibition in wearing a garment which they are used to, even if Israelites are not accustomed to wearing them, since they {=the Israelites} did not refrain in wearing it because of an aspect of Judaism or modesty, as Rashi explained.

And if one should say "did not Rav Alfes {=Rif} in perek Ben Sorer Umoreh, and this is has language:

"Even the shoe-strap is prohibited.
To explain, the gentiles in that specific time made their straps of their shoes red, and of Israelites, they made them red, so that they would not wear the garment of a gentile."

End quote. That it is implied from his words that there is to insist in the matter of wearing gentile clothing. In my humble opinion, it appears that where the gentiles made it red, etc., while the Israelites black, etc., it is specifically in this situation that there is to insist, for it is not the way of the modest {tznuim} to wear red and the color black is the way of modesty and humility. And as we say, "one whose inclination gets the better of him should don black, and cover himself with black, etc." And because of this they were accustomed with black clothes, so as not to wear a gentile garment, which was dyed red, for it {red} is the abomination of the Israelites. And even today, it is a tradition in our hands to insist about the wearing of red to the members of our nation. But if the Cutheans made their straps black, the Israelites would not change from them. For if you do not say this, Rav Alfes would not have been able to say "for the gentiles are accustomed to red, etc." Rather, he should have said "even the shoe-straps it is forbidden {to change} -- such as where the gentiles make the straps of their sandals of one color and the Israelites of another color." Rather, certainly, from the fact that it was necessary to explain the {particular} colors, we derive that he chose specifically black and red, and as we have explained. And now it is settled that Rabbenu Alfes does not argue with Rashi, who explains specifically that there is an aspect of Judaism and modesty, and the words of Rashi are the same as the words of Rabbenu Alfes.

And so wrote the Aruch in the entry of "Karbel," and this is his language --

"in perek Mi sheMetu, etc., this woman who was wearing a karbalta in the market -- to explain, a red garment such as the karbalta {crest} of a rooster, which it is not the way of daughters of Israel to cover themselves therewith, for it is pritzut, and brings to the hand of sin."

End quote.

The implication is that wearing red is pritzut, and because of this, Rabbenu Alfes attributed the red to the gentiles and the black to the Jews.

{The original Hebrew text of Maharik:

עוד נלע"ד להביא ראי' להתיר מלשון רש"י פרק בן סורר ומורה (דף עד) שהרי פי' שם ההיא דאפי' לשנויי ערקת' דמסאנא אסור וז"ל אם דרך הגוים לקשור דרך כך ודרך ישראל לקשור בדרך אחר כגון שיש צד יהדות בדבר ודרך ישראל להיו' צנועים אפי' שינוי זה שאין כאן מצוה אלא שינוי מנהגא בעלמא יקדש את השם יתעל' בפני ישראל חבירו עכ"ל. משמע דאפילו הנהיגו ישראל במלבוש אחד והגוים במלבוש אחר אם אין מלבוש הישראלי מורה על היהדות או על הצניעו' יותר מאותו שהגוים נוהגים בו אין שום איסו' לישראל ללבוש לבוש הנהוג בין הגוים מאחר שהוא בדרך כשרו' וצניעו' כאותו של ישראל דאי אמרת אפילו כה"ג אסור כיון שלא נהגו בה ישראל א"כ מה לו לפרש ולומ' דדווק' כגון שיש צד יהדות בדבר וכו' נימא דאפילו אין צד יהדות בזה מבזה מ"מ אסו' בפרהסיא ויקדש את השם בפני ישראל חבירו כיון שהוא אסו' משום בחקותיה' לא תלכו אלא ודאי פשיטא דאין איסו' בלביש' לבוש אשר הם רגילי' בו ואפי' אין ישראלי' רגילי' בו כיון שלא נמנעו בלבישתן משום צד יהדות וצניעו' כדפירש"י ואם יאמר האומר הלא כ' רב אלפס בפ' בן סורר ומורה וז"ל אפי' ערקת' דמסאנא אסו' פי' הגוים שבאותו זמן היו עושי' רצועו' במנעליהן אדומות ושל ישראל עושין שלהן שחורות כדי שלא ילבשו מלבוש נכרי עכ"ל דמשמע מתוך דבריו דיש להקפיד בלבישת נכרי נלע"ד דמפרש שהגוים היו עושי' אדומו' וכו' והיהודי' שחורות וכו' דדווק' בכה"ג הוא דיש להקפיד שאין דרך הצנועים להיו' אדום ללבושם וצבע השחור הוא דרך צניעו' והכנעה וכדאמרינן מי שיצרו מתגבר עליו ילבש שחורים ויתכס' שחורי' וכו' ומשום כך היו נוהגי' בשחורי' שלא ילבשו מלבוש נכרי דהיינו צבע אדו' כי תועב' ישראל הוא: (ג) ועוד היום מסורת בידינו להקפיד על לבישת האדום לבני עמינו. אבל אם היו הכותי' עושים רצועותיהן שחורו' לא היו הישראלים משנים מהם דאלת"ה לא היה לרב אלפס לומר לפי שהגוים הם נוהגי' באדום וכו' אלא הכי הוי ליה למימר אפילו ערקת' דמסאנא אסור כגון שהגוים עושי' רצועו' סנדליהם בצבע אחד והישראלי' מצבע אחר אלא ודאי מדהוצרך לפרש הצבעי' ש"מ דנקט דווק' שחור ואדום וכדפירש' וניחא השת' שלא יחלוק רבינו אלפס על רש"י שפי' דווק' שיש בו צד יהדות וצניעו' והן דברי רש"י הן הן דברי רבינו אלפס וכן כתב הערוך בערך כרבל וז"ל בפ' מי שמתו וכו' הך איתתא דלבש' כרבלתא בשוק' פי' בגד אדום כגון כרבלתא דתרנגול שאין דרך בנות ישראל להתכסו' בו שהוא פריצות ומביא לידי עביר' עכ"ל משמע דלביש' אדום פריצו' היא ומשום כך תלה רבינו אלפס האדום בגוי' והשחור ביהודי'.
}

Interesting Posts and Articles #79

1. Various bloggers on the phenomenon of Hamodiah not printing Tzipi Livni's first name. Life of Rubin is upset about it. DovBear notes that they draw a distinction between Livni and Golda Meir, stating:
   

   "Golda was an institution. She was a respected figure with decades of political experience before she became prime minister. But in recent years there has been depreciation in the level of politicians," he explained.

   But, as DovBear notes,
   

   The bolded words are a lie, of course. As has been pointed out to me, the real reason why Golda could be shown, while Tzipi is kept hidden is this: Just forty short years ago Charedi Judaism was much less insane.

   Meanwhile, the wife of FKM thinks that people are wrong to be upset with this development.
   
   
2. This is from a while back already, but as seen on Life Of Rubin, on this YouTube video, Mordechai Ben David explains the music hechsher.
   
   
   
   
3. My Machberes column in the Jewish Press on kapparot, and guidelines for it.
   
   
4. Chaptzem asks whether a man who appointed a shliach to do his son's bris in order that he could go to Uman for Rosh Hashanah was going too far.
   
   
5. Mystical Paths has a post about Geulah hints and speculation, which I do not buy into, but whatever. In the comment section, though, people are saying to move to Eretz Yisrael, even where I would say the true metzius may be that it will be very difficult and cause shalom bayit issues, and be ultimately unsuccessful. Another person is advised to take the $60,000 he has invested and disburse it to charity, presumably because money will be worthless anyway and this way he will get some value out of it.
   
   This is irresponsible advice. Making aliyah is good, but there are other considerations. Will your child adjust or go off the derech? Will you have shalom bayis issues? And just giving away massive amounts of money, $60,000, when that person spent a lifetime accumulating that money and may need that money in his retirement years -- blech. If done with thought and consultation with a spiritual adviser, perhaps, but this is being suggested by people who are hysterical because they believe mashiach is coming and the sky is falling.
   
   And what is going to happen if mashiach does not come in a year? This reminds me of the story of Gluckel of Hameln's father-in-law.
   
   
6. Jackie Mason replies to Sarah Silverman in this YouTube video:
   
   

Shu"t Maharik 88 -- On The Definition of Chukat Akum, pt iv

See part i, part ii, and part iii.

It {thus} implies that he only forbids because of the reason of the prohibition of kilaim, and not because of the reason of marit ayin. And this is obvious to one who understands.

And it is also obvious that there is to say that perforce, they only argue, etc., as I explained above. {See previous paragraph.} But in such a case as this, where there is no aspect of prohibition at all, even though the Jews are not used to wearing this, it is obvious that everyone agrees {that it is permitted}, according to the position of those who explain that this "to chase away the tax" is to make it appear that he is not an Israelite. And even according to the one who argues on them and explains that this "to chase away the tax" is that they do not pay a tax upon the clothing that a man wears, but to show {falsely} that he is not an Israelite, it is forbidden, it is obvious, and indeed obvious, that until here he did not forbid except there, for specifically his clothing proved upon him that he was a non-Israelite, since he is wearing something which is forbidden for Israelites, and also since he intends {exactly} this, that they not recognize him that he is an Israelite -- there is where it one could compare it to that case in perek Ben Sorer Umoreh {in Sanhedrin}, that even to change the shoe-strap is forbidden. But in this case, it is obvious that it is permitted, according to everyone, for behold this clothing is not forbidden to Israelites.

And know that this is so, for if you do not say this, it will be difficult, when it comes down to it, how it is permitted to wear such a garment in order to chase away the tax, for even if there is no prohibition in it of kilaim, for he holds that something which is not intended is permitted, even so, it should be prohibited because of the garments of gentiles, for behold, there is no greater clothing of the gentiles {levush hagoyim} than this one, since this garment is prohibited to Israelites by its own nature. Rather, it is certain that he did not intend towards the prohibition at all, except to profit money -- and the matters prove it so, by the fact that he only wears it in the place of the tax -- he is permitted, and they did not decree upon him because of the clothing of the gentiles. All the more so, indeed all the more so, in such an instance, as I have explained.

And furthermore, it appears that one should bring a proof to the permission from that which I found in the great glosses which they wrote as glosses on the Semak, and this is its language:
And say that this which it said, that even the shoe-strap is forbidden, etc., until this is specifically where the gentiles tell him "do such in order to desecrate the Name," then it is forbidden, even to change one's shoe-strap, but so as not to be recognized that he is an Israelite, such as to wear the garments of a gentile which they call a ra'yey or to conduct oneself in such a manner so that he is not recognized {as a Jew}, it is permitted -- or in order to evade the tax. For this is what it means to say: A person should not wear kilaim in order to evade the tax, but {to wear} something else, it is permitted. End quote of the language of the gloss in the old sefer.

Thus it is for you explicit that it is permitted to wear the clothing of gentiles, even where his intent is not to be recognized {as Jewish}, etc. All the more so, indeed all the more so here, as we have explained.

And even though there is one who argues there in the gloss and forbids the garment they call a rayey in Laaz {whichever foreign language it is}, and this is his language:
"And this that you asked if it is permitted to wear clothing of rayey in Laaz, so that they do not recognize him as a Jew in these ways {?}, it appears that it is forbidden from this of perek Ben Sorer Umoreh {of changing one's shoe-strap}."

Even so, it is obvious that with the wearing of the kapa, all would agree, as we have explained above, for it is not relevant at all that which is in the end of perek Ben Sorer Umoreh, as we have explained, and they only forbid because it is similar to that of perek ben Sorer Umoreh.

{The Hebrew text of Maharik:

משמע דלא אסור אלא משום טעם דאיסור כלאים ולא מטעם מראית העין וזה פשוט למבין וגם פשיטא די"ל דע"כ לא קא מפלגי אלא וכו' כדפי' לעיל אבל בכה"ג שאין בו משום נדנוד איסור כלל אע"ג דלא הורגלו בה היהודי' ללובשו פשיטא דמודו כ"ע לפי דעת המפרשים דהאי להבריח בו את המכס דהיינו להראו' בו שאינו יהודי ואפילו למאן דפליג עלייהו ומפרש דהאי להבריח בו את המכס דהיינו משום שאין פורעים מכס משום בגדי' שהאדם לובש בהם אבל להראות בו שא"י אסור פשיטא ופשיטא דע"כ לא קא אסר אלא התם דווק' שלבושו מוכיח עליו שא"י מאחר שהוא לבוש האסור ליהודים וגם מתכוין הוא בכך שלא יכירוהו שהוא יהודי התם הוא דיש לדמותו לההיא דפ' בן סורר ומורה דאפילו לשנויי ערקתא דמסאנא אסור אבל בכה"ג פשיטא דשרי לכולי עלמא שהרי אין הלבוש הזה אסור ליהודי' כלל ותדע דכן הוא דאלת"ה יקשה לך סוף סוף היאך מות' ללבוש אותו הבגד כדי להבריח בו את המכם /המכס/ נהי דאין בו משום איסור כלאי' דקסבר דבר שאינו מתכוין מותר מ"מ ליתסר משום מלבושי הגוי שהרי אין לך לבוש הגוים גדולה מזו מאחר שאותו לבוש אסו' לישראל מצד עצמו אלא ודאי שאין מתכוין לאיסו' אלא להרויח ממון והדברי' מוכיחי' כן בלובשו אותו במקו' המכס מותר הוא ולא גזרו עליו משום מלבושי הגוי כ"ש וכ"ש בכי האי גוונא כדפירש' ועוד נרא' להביא ראיי' להתי' ממה שמצאתי כתוב בהגהות הגדולו' אשר הוגהו על הסמ"ק וז"ל ואו' דהא דאמר אפילו ערקתא דמסאנא אסו' וכו'. עד היינו דווק' כשהגוים אומרים לו עשה כך כדי לחלל השם אז הוא אסו' אפי' בשנויי ערקת' אבל כדי שלא יהא ניכר שהו' יהודי כגון ללבוש בגדי נכרי שקורי' רא"יי או להתנהג בדבר שלא יהא ניכר מות' או כדי להעביר המכס דה"ק לא ילבש אדם כלאים כדי להעביר בו את המכס אבל ד"א מות' עכ"ל ההגהות בספר ישן. הרי לך בהדי' דמותר ללבוש בגדי נכרי ואפי' במכוין שלא יהא ניכר וכו' כ"ש וכ"ש הכא כדפרישית ואע"ג דאיכ' דפליג שם בהג"ה ואוסר בגד שקורין רא"יי בלעז וז"ל וששאלת אם מותר ללבוש בגדי רא"יי בלעז שלא יכירוהו ביהודי בדרכים נרא' דאסו' מההיא דפרק בן סורר ומורה. מ"מ דבר פשוט הוא דבלבישת הקאפ"א מודו כ"ע כדפירש' לעיל דהא לא שייכי כלל לההיא דסוף פרק בן סורר ומורה כדפי' ואינהו לא אסרו אלא משום דדמי להא דפ' בן סורר ומורה.

}

Shu"t Maharik 88 -- On The Definition of Chukat Akum, pt iii

See part i and part ii.

And all the more so, in the wearing of this kapa, that there is no prohibition in the matter. For it is not comparable to those things taught in the Tosefta. For behold, the purpose of its wearing is known, as a sign that they are accredited in that particular science, and one should only attribute its wearing to the purpose which extends from it, whether it is because of the honor or because of the monetary profit. From out of this, there will come out for him renown in this science, such that one who has an ache will go to him. And in such a situation, it is not applicable to forbid, since the matter itself proves that he does not wish to make himself resemble them, and even they do not conduct themselves so except for their honor, and for a purpose, and as I have explained.

Amd more than this, they say in the end of perk BaMeh Isha (daf 67), and so too in Chulin, in the end of perek Beheima Hamekasheh (daf 77) that any thing which has a purpose of healing, there is not in it darkei haEmori, and even though the Amorites were used to doing it -- from the fact that it was necessary to say that there is no issue of darkei haEmori to it. And so too we learned in the Tosefta {in Shabbat}: "One who says 'do not pass between us, lest our affection be severed,' there is a problem of darkei Emori. But if it is done out of honor {deference}, it is permitted." End the language of the Tosefta.

Behold for yourself, that whatever is for a purpose, or for honor, it is permitted -- and even though the Amorites were accustomed to doing it as their chok, even so, since he only intends for honor, it is permitted. All the more so here, where he only intends for a purpose and for honor, and even they only are typically make use of the kappa for a purpose and for honor, and not because of a chok at all in any way.

It further appears to me, in my humble opinion, to bring a proof to permit from that which they learn in a brayta, and which is brought down in perek hagozel batra (Bava Kamma 113a) regarding a garment of kilaim {forbidden mixtures}, it is forbidden to make use of it to chase away the tax, etc.. Rabbi Akiva says that it is permitted to chase away the tax, etc.

And I have seen in one gloss of the Semak {Sefer Mitzvot Ketanot} "and there are those who explain that the one who permits to chase away, which is to make it appear with it that he is not a Jew, and such as by a tax which is only incumbent upon Jews; and upon this the disputant argues and said that in such a situation, it is forbidden, just as is the case by the changing of one's shoe-strap, at the end of perek Ben Sorer Umoreh (Sanhedrin 74b)."

And from the words of the one who permits, we make learn a kal vachomer to the case in which we are standing upon, for now, even in a place where he appears to be a kofer, forfend, when he wears clothing which are Biblically forbidden to Israelites to wear, even so, it is permitted where he does not intend to wear it, and there is not in it a prohibition of kilaim. And even though he is wearing garments which are forbidden to Israelites, even so, in place of loss of money, they did not decree, such as to chase away the tax. And even though it is obvious that they are not talking about an instance of danger at all, from the fact that they ask on it {in the gemara, Bava Kamma 113a} "but Shmuel said that the law of the land is the law?" {and answer:} Even so, it is permitted because of profiting money, according to the one who says that something which is not intended {wearing the kilaim} is permitted, as exists there.

{Note: See the gemara carefully inside, that we are dealing with a tax collector bound by no limit, or one acting on his own authority. Maharik is not saying revach mammon as the only reason, or the reason for cheating, but rather as a motivation for wearing it as opposed to wanting to wear kilayim, so as to link it to the kapa, where there is also financial cause for wearing it.}

{And now, the other end of the kal vachomer:} All the more so, and even all the more so here, that there is to permit the wearing of the kapa in an instance of profit of money, for behold, there is not in at any concern of prohibition, not Biblically nor Rabbinically. And it is not appropriate to say that he appears as if a kofer, forfend, as is appropriate there by kilaim.

And it is obvious that perforce, the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Akiva do not argue except that one authority forbade it because of the prohibition of kilaim itself, and one authority permitted it, because he maintained that something which was not intended is permitted. However, if there was not in it the prohibition of kilaim itself, even though it is relevant to it the concern of marit ayin {giving a bad impression of doing something prohibited}, such that he appears like a kofer, forfend, even so it is permitted, as is implied their explicitly, as it states "This is all well and good to the matter of kilaim -- in that they argue, that one authority held that something which was not intended is {nevertheless} forbidden, etc."

{The text of the Maharik in Hebrew:

וכ"ש בלבישת הקאפ"א שאין איסור בדבר ופשיטא דלא דמי לאותן השנוין בתוספ' שהרי טעם לבישתה ידוע בסימן היותם ממשיגים בחכמ' ההיא ואין לתלות לבישתה כ"א לתועלת הנמשך ממנו הן מחמת הכבו' הן מחמת ריוח ממון שמתוך כך יצא לו שם באות' חכמ' ומאן דכאיב ליה כיבא ליזיל לוותיה ובכה"ג לא שייך לאסור מאחר שהדבר מוכיח שאין מתכוין להתדמו' אליה' וגם הם לא הנהיגו זאת אלא לכבוד' ולתועלת' וכדפי' וגדולה מזו אמרו בשילהי פרק במה אשה (דף סז) וכן בחולין בשלהי פרק בהמ' המקשה (דף עז) דכל דבר שיש בו משום רפואה אין בו משום דרכי האמירי /האמורי/ ואע"ג שהרגילו בו האמוריי' מדהוצרך לומר דאין בו משום דרכי האמורי וכן שנינו בתוספתא האומר אל תפסוק בינינו פן תפסוק אהבתינו יש בו משום דרכי האמורי ואם מפני הכבוד מותר עכ"ל התוספתא הרי לך דכל שהוא משום תועלת וכבוד מותר ואע"ג דהרגילו בו אמוריים משום חוקם אפילו הכי כיון שאינו מתכוין אלא מפני הכבוד מותר כ"ש הכא שאין מתכוין אלא לתועל' וכבוד וגם הם לא הרגילו בלביש' הקאפ"א ההוא אלא לתועלת' ולכבוד' לא משום חק כלל ועיקר עוד נלע"ד להביא ראיה להתיר מדתניא בבריית' ומייתי לה בפרק הגוזל בתרא (דף קיג) גבי בגד של כלאים אסור להבריח בו את המכס וכו' רבי עקיבא אומר מותר להבריח את המכס וכו' וראיתי בהגהת סמ"ק אחד ויש מפרשים דמאן דשרי להבריח בו דהיינו להראו' בו שאיני יהודי וכגון במכס שאינו מוטל אלא ליהודי' וע"ז נחלק החולק ואמר דבכי האי גוונא אסו' מידי דהוה אשינוי ערקתא דמסאנא דשילהו /דשילהי/ פרק בן סורר ומורה (דף עד) ומדברי המתיר נלמוד ק"ו לנדון שאנו עומדי' עליו (ב) דהשת' אפי' במקו' שנרא' ככופר ח"ו בלבשו בגדים האסורי' לישראל דבר תור' אפ"ה מותר היכ' שאינו מתכוין ללובשו ואין בה משום איסו' כלאים ואע"ג דלובש בגדים האסורי' לישראל מ"מ במקו' הפסד ממון לא גזרי כגון להבריח בו את המכס ואע"ג דפשיט' דלא מיירי במקו' סכנה כלל מדפריך עלה והא אמר שמואל דד"ד אפ"ה מותר משום ריוח ממון למ"ד דבר שאין מתכוין מותר כדאית' התם כ"ש וכ"ש הכ' שיש להתיר לבישת הקפ"א במקו' ריוח ממון שהרי אין בה משום חשש איסור ולא דאוריית' ולא דרבנן: ולא שייך למימר דנראה ככופר ח"ו כדשייך התם לגבי כלאים ופשיטא דע"כ לא קמפלגי תנא קמא ור"ע אלא דמר אסר משום איסור כלאים עצמו ומר שרי דקסבר דבר שאין מתכוין מותר אבל אי לא הוה ביה משום איסו' כלאי' עצמו אע"ג דהוה שייך ביה משום מראית העין דנראה ככופר ח"ו אפ"ה שרי כדמשמע שם בהדי' כדקאמר בשלמ' לענין כלאים בהא פליגי דמר סבר דבר שאין מתכוין אסור וכו'

}

Vayelech: And I Am Not Able

The second pasuk in Vayelech:

ב וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם, בֶּן-מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם--לֹא-אוּכַל עוֹד, לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא; וַה' אָמַר אֵלַי, לֹא תַעֲבֹר אֶת-הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה.

2 And he said unto them: 'I am a hundred and twenty years old this day; I can no more go out and come in; and the LORD hath said unto me: Thou shalt not go over this Jordan.

The most simple implication of this is that because of his age, Moshe can not more go out and come in. There is an apparent contradiction between this declaration of Moshe and the declaration at the end of parshat Vezot Haberacha that at 120 years old, Moshe retained his vigor:

ז וּמֹשֶׁה, בֶּן-מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה--בְּמֹתוֹ; לֹא-כָהֲתָה עֵינוֹ, וְלֹא-נָס לֵחֹה.

7 And Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.

How to resolve this contradiction? Off the cuff, one could say that one of the two is slight exaggeration, either Moshe in describing his aches and pains, or the verse, in eulogizing Moshe. (Obviously the latter is more difficult because it attributes a "lie" to the Creator.) But there are other possibilities to resolving this, and this contradiction is the basis of an interesting conversation amongst the commentators.

Thus, Rashi opens things up by noting that in Vayelech, in the pasuk:

ב וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם, בֶּן-מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם--לֹא-אוּכַל עוֹד, לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא; וַה' אָמַר אֵלַי, לֹא תַעֲבֹר אֶת-הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה.

2 And he said unto them: 'I am a hundred and twenty years old this day; I can no more go out and come in; and the LORD hath said unto me: Thou shalt not go over this Jordan.

we can bind the middle phrase, לֹא-אוּכַל עוֹד, לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא, in one of two ways. If we connect it to "I am a hundred and twenty years old this day" then it is a contradiction, because it connotes lack of vigor. However, if we bind it to "and the LORD hath said unto me: Thou shalt not go over this Jordan," then that last phrase is an explanation of lo uchal, rather than an additional point. Then, Moshe cannot go out or come in, to take the Jews into Canaan, only because of Hashem's command. But of course he retained his vigor. Another explanation Rashi offers, on a more midrashic level, and based on Sotah 13b, is that the channels of transmission of Torah were closed to him, and that it what לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא means. Indeed, we would have to look more closely at it, but this apparent contradiction may in part be a source for that midrash.

Ibn Ezra appears to maintain that it refers to strength, but a particular kind of strength:

לצאת ולבוא -
במלחמה.
והטעם: כי אילו לא הייתי מת עתה, אין בי יכולת להלחם ואין לכם צורך למי שיעזור אתכם, כי השם ישמיד הגוים גם יהושע, והעד מה שראיתם בעיניכם במלחמת סיחון ועוג

Thus, now is his time to pass away, for if he did not, he does not have the ability to battle. But meanwhile, Hashem can help them via Yehoshua, as they have already seen.

Perhaps his intent by making this about battle is that this is a different kind of vigor than the one described in Zos Habracha. And it certainly is plausible.

Seforno makes this about vigor (it would seem), but still manages to disconnect it from the 120 years old. He writes:

בֶּן מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנכִי הַיּום. וְאֵין לְהִתְעַצֵּב עַל מִיתָתִי, שֶׁלּא הָיִיתִי רָאוּי לִחְיות עוד בַּטֶּבַע.

לא אוּכַל עוד לָצֵאת וְלָבא. וְגַם אִם הָיִיתִי חַי, לא הָיִיתִי יָכול לָצֵאת וְלָבא לִפְנֵיכֶם בְּזִקְנוּתִי.

וַה' אָמַר אֵלַי לא תַעֲבר. וְגַם אִם הָיִיתִי יָכול לָצֵאת וְלָבא, הִנֵּה "ה' אָמַר אֵלַי לא תַעֲבר", וְאִם כֵּן טוב לָכֶם שֶׁאָמוּת כְּדֵי שֶׁתּוּכְלוּ לַעֲבר

Thus, there are three points. He is 120, and thus his years have run out; even if he would live further, he would not be able לָצֵאת וְלָבא before them in his old age; and finally, even if he would have the ability, Hashem has decreed otherwise.

The addition of לפניכם might well connote "in battle." But also, perhaps we can read this as that up to this point, he did have the vigor. But going forwards, if he would continue to live, he would not.

(Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (here, page 249, but you need a plugin to view these pages) has something similar to Seforno and Ibn Ezra. He says "if I would continue to live, I would not have the strength to go out in battle.)

Ramban writes:

ב): ויאמר אלהם בן מאה ועשרים שנה אנכי היום -
וזה לנחם אותם על ענינו, כלומר אני זקן ואין לכם עוד תועלת ממני, ועוד כי השם ציוני שלא אעבור שם. ואל תפחדו ואל תיראו, כי ה' יעבור עמכם לא יסלק שכינתו מכם בעבורי, ויהושע הוא העובר לפניכם במקומי. ואע"פ שמשה רבנו היה בתקפו ובבריאותו, כאשר העיד הכתוב (להלן לד ז): לא כהתה עינו ולא נס לחה, אמר להם כן לנחמם.

ורש"י כתב:

לא אוכל עוד לצאת ולבוא לפי שה' אמר אלי לא תעבור את הירדן.

ואינו נכון.

ועל דעת ר"א:

לצאת ולבוא למלחמה כי חלשו כוחותיו בזקנותו.

וגם זה איננו נכון.

ורבותינו אמרו (סוטה יג ב):

מלמד שנסתתמו ממנו מעיינות חכמה.

והיה זה במעשה נס, שלא ידאג לתת גדולה ליהושע בפניו:

Thus, besides giving his own interpretation, he lists the other interpretations of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and declared them incorrect. He has a bit more respect for the midrash from Sotah 13b which Rashi cited -- he cites it separately, and says this was bemaaseh nes, but he does not declare it incorrect, as he did to Rashi and Ibn Ezra. The midrash, perhaps, sits on a different plane. It does not contradict his words, and can be said to be a midrash simulaneously true with whatever peshat one decides upon. Also, perhaps it would be disrespectful (heretical?) to declare to midrash incorrect.

At any rate, we see from this that Ibn Ezra indeed intended the vigor of battle to be a harmonization, and we see that Ramban dismisses it.

Instead, Ramban declares that it is indeed a contradiction, but this was Moshe comforting the people, and so he was not entirely truthful in the nechama. And as I suggested before, Ramban is not about to say the Narrator was lying in the eulogy. Ramban makes good sense on a peshat level -- understand the words within the context of their role, and in terms of the general theme of the verses.

Shadal does not really offer a resolution to the apparent contradiction. Though he does take sides in the Ibn Ezra / Ramban debate. Thus:

לא אוכל וגו ': לא אמר : להוציאכם ולהביאכם , או : לצאת לפניכם ולבא לפניכם , אלא : לצאת ולבוא סתם , והוא כמו וצאתך ובואך ידעתי ( מ"ב י"ט כ"ז וישעיה ל"ז כ"ח ), ענינו להתנועע ולפעול בזריזות .

Thus, the pasuk does not state לפניכם, as in the words used by Seforno. And it does not state "to take you out and to bring you in" (as a transitive, where Moshe is taking them), but rather plainly, to go in and out. He gives examples of this usage in Melachim Bet and Yeshaya.

In Melachim Bet:

כז וְשִׁבְתְּךָ וְצֵאתְךָ וּבֹאֲךָ, יָדָעְתִּי; וְאֵת, הִתְרַגֶּזְךָ אֵלָי.

27 But I know thy sitting down, and thy going out, and thy coming in, and thy raging against Me.

And in Yeshaya:

כח וְשִׁבְתְּךָ וְצֵאתְךָ וּבוֹאֲךָ, יָדָעְתִּי; וְאֵת, הִתְרַגֶּזְךָ אֵלָי.

28 But I know thy sitting down, and thy going out, and thy coming in, and thy raging against Me.

See these pesukim in context. Shadal therefore says that this does not mean going in and coming out in battle, but rather to move about and act with vigor.

This would reinstate the contradiction. But then we could apply some other method of resolution, such as that this is going forward, or Ramban that this is for the purpose of nechama.

Shu"t Maharik 88 -- On The Definition of Chukat Akum, pt ii

See previous segment here.

And the Ramban wrote, and these are his words:

The chukim are the decrees of the King which he decrees in his kingdom without revealing their purpose to them.

Thus, both of them are of accord that the language of chok implies a thing whose reason is hidden away. Except that Rashi seized in his words as if their was no reason at all, neither hidden nor revealed, and the Ramban seized upon him for this and said that there is a reason, except that it is not revealed.

And similar to this is that which the Torah mentioned not to go in their chukot. For since he does something irregular which has no revealed reason, except that they conduct themselves so, therefore it is certainly apparent as if he is drawn after them and admits to them {and their idolatrous positions}. For if not so, why would he e act like these strange actions of theirs. And know that this is so, for behold, it is written in the Smag {Sefer Mitzvot Gedolot} in the commandment of Chukat HaGoyim, and this is his language:

In masechet Shabbat, it lists all that it a tradition in hands of the sages of their chukim and ways of the Amorites, and there I delved into the Tosefta of Shabbat, and there is not found there even one which is not divination of some baffling thing whose reason is not known, such as the Talmud brings in the end of perek BeMeh Isha, such as {Shabbat 67b} "Gad Gedi veSinok Lo" {which makes little sense, but which Soncino offers as a conjectured translation, "Be lucky, my luck [gad gedi] and tire not by day or night"}; and one who says to the raven "Scream." And so too, that they slaughter the rooster since it crowed in the evening, etc. {All examples there.} And many more, doubled, that these, and all of them are similar, in that they lack reason or known logic. And a few of them I will mention, and like them, the number is many before me, etc. {From Tosefta Shabbat 7:1 and on.}

A woman who tows her son between the dead, etc., {Book of Legends renders this as "reviving a [dead] child by dragging it around the cemetery"} one who counts and tosses stones into the sea or the river, and one who strikes hips, claps hands {our Tosefta has "and dances"} before a flame {Book of Legends: "[in order to extinguish it]"}. And so too one who plugs up a hole in the window {with thorns, perhaps in the room of a woman in labor}, etcetera, and a great many like this. And all of them are means of augury or baffling things. And this is what is written in Semag, that he learned in the Tosefta "chukoteihem and darkei Emori" -- "chukoteihem" are the baffling things, while the darkei Emori are the auguries. And if it be so that in all of them it teaches there {in Tosefta} that "behold this is of the ways of the Amorites," therefore the Semag explained to us that there are two types of darkei Emori -- one is because of augury and one is because of chukat hagoyim {=referring to the something baffling}.

And the second matter there is to forbid because of chukat hagoyim according to what is mentioned, in my humble opinion, is the matter to which is relevant an aspect of breaking down the fence of tzniut {modest} and humility, whihc the gentiles conduct themselves -- this too, is forbidden. And this if the halacha is like the Tanna of the brayta in the Sifrei, who teaches that one should not say "since they go out with argaman {purple, a mark of nobility}, I will also go out with argaman, etc. Since they go out with kilusin {praises} so will I, etc." For things like this are things of boastfulness and pride, and not in these things is the portion of Israel. Rather, the things of Israel, and their way, is to be modest {tzenuim}, and the humble {anavim} shall inherit the land {/earth}, and not in the presence of God are the prideful.

And even so, it appears that this is specifically when he does this in order to appear similar to them, and not for a known purpose, as is implied by the language, which states , "that one should not say since they go out, etc.," and it does not state plainly that one should not go out with argaman or with kelivasin like they go out. Rather, it is certainly apparent that it is not fitting to forbid because of going after their chukoteihem except where the matters demonstrate that the Israel is {deliberately} making himself similar to them, such as where he does a baffling action, where one cannot attribute the reason to its performance, except that it is their chok, as I explained above, to attribute. And so too "one who says 'since they go out etc.,'" that he intends to make himself similar to them, as I explained. But in another matter, no.

{The actual text in Hebrew of Maharik:

והרמב"ן כתב וז"ל החקי' הם גזרו' המלך אשר יחוק במלכותו בלי שיגל' תועלת' להם עכ"ל. הרי שהושוו שניה' דלשון חק משמע דבר אשר טעמו נעלם אלא שרש"י תפס בלשונו כאלו אין בו טעם כלל לא נסתר ולא נגלה והרמב"ן תפס עליו בכך ואמר שיש טעם אלא שאין נגלה ובכיוצא בזה הוא שהזכיר' תור' שלא לילך בחקותיה' דכיון שהוא עוש' דבר משונה אשר אין בו טעם נגל' אלא שהם נוהגי' כן אז נרא' ודאי כנמשך אחריה' ומודה להם דאל"כ למה יעשה כדברים התמוהים האלה ותדע דכן הוא שהרי כתוב בסמ"ג במצו' חקת הגוים וז"ל במסכת שבת מונה כל מה שהית' קבלה ביד חכמי' מחקותיה' ודרכי האמורי' ושם עיינתי מתוספת' דשבת ולא תמצא שם אפילו אחד שלא היה ניחוש או דבר תימה אשר לא יודע טעמו כאותם שמביא התלמוד בסוף פרק במה אש' כגון גד גדי וסינוק לא. והאומר לעורב צרח וכן שחטו את התרנגול שקרא ערבית וכו' ויותר מהמה כפליים וכולם כיוצא בהם שאין בהם לא טעם ולא סברא ידוע ומעט מהם אזכיר וכהנה רבות המספר קומי וכו' המגררת בנה בין המתי' וכו' המונה ומשליך צרורו' לים או לנהר והמספק והמטפח לשלהבת וכו' וכן הפוקק את החלון וכולי וכהנה רבות מאד וכולם דבר נחוש או דבר תימה וזה שכתוב בסמ"ג ששנה בתוספת' חקותיה' ודרכי האמורי חקותיה' הם דברי' התמוהי' ודרכי האמורי הם הנחושים ואם כי בכולם שנה שם הרי זה מדרכי האמורי או פירש לנו הסמ"ג ששני דרכי האמורי יש אחד משום נחוש ויש אחד משום חוקו' הגוים. וענין השני יש לאסור משום חקו' הגוים לפי הנז' לע"ד הוא הדבר אשר שייך בו נדנוד פריצת גדר הצניעו' והענו' ינהגו בו הגוים גם זה אסור ואם הלכ' בתנא דבריית' דספרי דקתני שלא תאמר הואיל ויוצאין בארגמן אף אני יוצא בארגמן וכו'. הואיל ויוצאין בקלוסין אף אני וכו' שדברו' הללו דברי שחץ וגאוה הם ולא באל' חלק יעקב אלא דברי ישראל ודרכם להיות' צנועי' וענוים ירשו ארץ ולא לפנות אל רהבי' ואף גם זאת נרא' דהיינו דווק' כשהוא עושה כדי להדמות אליהם ולא לתועל' ידוע' כדמשמע הלשון דקאמר שלא תאמר הואיל והם יוצאי' וכו'. ולא קאמר סתם שלא יצא בארגמן או בקלוסן כמו שהם יוצאי' אלא ודאי נרא' דלא שייך לאסו' משום הולך אחר חקותיה' אלא היכ' שהדברי' מראים שהישראל מתדמה אליה' כגון שעושה מעש' התמיה אשר אין לתלות טעם בעשייתן אלא מפני חקם כדפי' לעיל לתלו' וכן האומר הואיל והן יוצאין וכו' שהוא מכוין להתדמו' אליה' כדפי' אבל בענין אחר לא.

}

Interesting Posts and Articles #78

1. North Korea ousts UN nuclear inspectors. Worrisome.
   
   
2. Some interesting posts at the Yeshiva World. A pre-Yamim Tovim Tzitzit warning in Israel, as people hire those not kasher to make tzitzit to make the tzitzit. This reminds me of how kala ilan was widely used in the past, as a fake techelet. And another one how some rabbonim are concerned that mehadrin bus lines will fall with the advent of the new light rail system.
   
   
3. Two interesting posts at Life In Israel. First, about how the only tznius way to walk on the new bridge of strings may be with pants. And second, an interesting psak about not buying food in a restaurant owned by the mob.
   
   
4. A Simple Jew on not speaking during Rosh Hashanah.
   
   
5. DreamingOfMoshiach reposts a conspiracy theory, this time stripping out the Freemason portions (and anti-semitic portions) of it, since she believes it is now coming to pass. And Shirat Devorah recalls Dov Bar Leib's prediction of it all being over by this coming Succot, based on his own "knowledge" of the freemasons.
   
   Meanwhile, Mystical Paths has a good post on why we do not need to resort to conspiracy theories about Freemasons to explain the present economic crisis.
   
   
6. The Guardian has a funny article about Green efforts, if true:
   

   People who believe they have the greenest lifestyles can be seen as some of the main culprits behind global warming, says a team of researchers, who claim that many ideas about sustainable living are a myth.

   According to the researchers, people who regularly recycle rubbish and save energy at home are also the most likely to take frequent long-haul flights abroad. The carbon emissions from such flights can swamp the green savings made at home, the researchers claim.

   Stewart Barr, of Exeter University, who led the research, said: "Green living is largely something of a myth. There is this middle class environmentalism where being green is part of the desired image. But another part of the desired image is to fly off skiing twice a year. And the carbon savings they make by not driving their kids to school will be obliterated by the pollution from their flights."

   Some people even said they deserved such flights as a reward for their green efforts, he added.

Tzom Gedalia - When the Fast Is Over

The fast is over in Kew Gardens Hills, according to the Etz Chaim Bulletin, at 7:17 PM. For your own local times, check out kashrut.com/zemanim. (Updated to match this year's time, namely the year 2008.)

While I am at it, some of the Talmudic and Biblical basis for tzom Gedalia.

A pasuk in Zecharia 8 states:

יח וַיְהִי דְּבַר-ה צְבָאוֹת, אֵלַי לֵאמֹר.	18 And the word of the LORD of hosts came unto me, saying:
יט כֹּה-אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, צוֹם הָרְבִיעִי וְצוֹם הַחֲמִישִׁי וְצוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וְצוֹם הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה לְבֵית-יְהוּדָה לְשָׂשׂוֹן וּלְשִׂמְחָה, וּלְמֹעֲדִים, טוֹבִים; וְהָאֱמֶת וְהַשָּׁלוֹם, אֱהָבוּ. {פ}	19 'Thus saith the LORD of hosts: The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness, and cheerful seasons; therefore love ye truth and peace. {P}

It lists the fasts by their months, and connotes that they are times of sadness -- for the prophecy is that they will transform to be joy and gladness, and cheerful seasons.

There are two Jewish calendars. One starts in Nissan and the other starts in Tishrei. We end up taking the fast of the seventh month to be a reference to tzom Gedalia, so this is the 7th month in the Nissan based count.

The gemara in Rosh haShana 18b states:

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 אי הכי ט"ב נמי

...

צום השביעי זה ג' בתשרי שבו נהרג גדליה בן אחיקם ומי הרגו ישמעאל בן נתניה הרגו ללמדך ששקולה מיתתן של צדיקים כשריפת בית אלהינו ואמאי קרי ליה שביעי שביעי לחדשים

Thus, the fast of the seventh month is the 3rd of Tishrei (which is the day after Yom Kippur, except for today where it is the 4th, having been pushed off a day because of Shabbat). Why? Because on that day Gedalia ben Achikam died. And who killed him? Yishmael ben Netania killed him. To teach you {why this is listed among the other fasts which were for the destruction of the Temple} that the death of the righteous is weighed equally to the burning of our God's House. And why does it call it the 7th? The seventh to months.

This is a good explanation of the pasuk given that various fasts were known and traditional, and if searching for a fast, explain it as the known fast in the 7th month, which is related to the destruction of the Bet haMikdash.

Another possibility, of course, exists. The fast of the 7th month could be a reference to Yom Kippur, which also occurs in Tishrei. But then, why list it among these? It could be a reading of the fast, as other fasts, as one of anguish and worry, in this case because of fear of judgment. And so, there would be nothing to worry about then, and it would be a time of joy and gladness, as mentioned in the pasuk. As such, it would perhaps even be inappropriate to leave it out. And the known fast of the 7th month is surely Yom Kippur more than a minor fast commemorating the death of a minor Biblical figure.

Yet, the fast of Gedalia is a good candidate for the reasons given above.

This is an important homiletic point which we might take to heart on this fast. While we mourn destroyed buildings, and with it destroyed hopes, we should not ignore the human element. It is all too easy to focus on ritual, and on religious formality, and on edifice. But at least as dear is the human element, and the death of good people is just as much a tragedy.

It does not say that the loss of Jewish sovereignty caused by the assassination of Gedalia marked the true end from which there was no recovery. For Gedalia had been appointed as a Jewish governor, and who knows what might have happened had he remained in power. Instead, it focuses on the human element.

We can read about the story of Gedalia in Yirmeyahu 40:

ה וְעוֹדֶנּוּ לֹא-יָשׁוּב, וְשֻׁבָה אֶל-גְּדַלְיָה בֶן-אֲחִיקָם בֶּן-שָׁפָן אֲשֶׁר הִפְקִיד מֶלֶךְ-בָּבֶל בְּעָרֵי יְהוּדָה וְשֵׁב אִתּוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הָעָם, אוֹ אֶל-כָּל-הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינֶיךָ לָלֶכֶת, לֵךְ; וַיִּתֶּן-לוֹ רַב-טַבָּחִים אֲרֻחָה וּמַשְׂאֵת, וַיְשַׁלְּחֵהוּ.	5 Yet he would not go back.--Go back then to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, whom the king of Babylon hath made governor over the cities of Judah, and dwell with him among the people; or go wheresoever it seemeth right unto thee to go.' So the captain of the guard gave him an allowance and a present, and let him go.
ו וַיָּבֹא יִרְמְיָהוּ אֶל-גְּדַלְיָה בֶן-אֲחִיקָם, הַמִּצְפָּתָה; וַיֵּשֶׁב אִתּוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הָעָם, הַנִּשְׁאָרִים בָּאָרֶץ. {פ}	6 Then went Jeremiah unto Gedaliah the son of Ahikam to Mizpah, and dwelt with him among the people that were left in the land. {P}
ז וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ כָל-שָׂרֵי הַחֲיָלִים אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׂדֶה, הֵמָּה וְאַנְשֵׁיהֶם, כִּי-הִפְקִיד מֶלֶךְ-בָּבֶל אֶת-גְּדַלְיָהוּ בֶן-אֲחִיקָם, בָּאָרֶץ; וְכִי הִפְקִיד אִתּוֹ, אֲנָשִׁים וְנָשִׁים וָטָף, וּמִדַּלַּת הָאָרֶץ, מֵאֲשֶׁר לֹא-הָגְלוּ בָּבֶלָה.	7 Now when all the captains of the forces that were in the fields, even they and their men, heard that the king of Babylon had made Gedaliah the son of Ahikam governor in the land, and had committed unto him men, and women, and children, and of the poorest of the land, of them that were not carried away captive to Babylon;
ח וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל-גְּדַלְיָה, הַמִּצְפָּתָה; וְיִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן-נְתַנְיָהוּ וְיוֹחָנָן וְיוֹנָתָן בְּנֵי-קָרֵחַ וּשְׂרָיָה בֶן-תַּנְחֻמֶת וּבְנֵי עופי (עֵיפַי) הַנְּטֹפָתִי, וִיזַנְיָהוּ בֶּן-הַמַּעֲכָתִי--הֵמָּה, וְאַנְשֵׁיהֶם.	8 then they came to Gedaliah to Mizpah, even Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and Johanan and Jonathan the sons of Kareah, and Seraiah the son of Tanhumeth, and the sons of Ephai the Netophathite, and Jezaniah the son of the Maacathite, they and their men.
ט וַיִּשָּׁבַע לָהֶם גְּדַלְיָהוּ בֶן-אֲחִיקָם בֶּן-שָׁפָן, וּלְאַנְשֵׁיהֶם לֵאמֹר, אַל-תִּירְאוּ, מֵעֲבוֹד הַכַּשְׂדִּים; שְׁבוּ בָאָרֶץ, וְעִבְדוּ אֶת-מֶלֶךְ בָּבֶל--וְיִיטַב לָכֶם.	9 And Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan swore unto them and to their men, saying: 'Fear not to serve the Chaldeans; dwell in the land, and serve the king of Babylon, and it shall be well with you.
י וַאֲנִי, הִנְנִי יֹשֵׁב בַּמִּצְפָּה, לַעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי הַכַּשְׂדִּים, אֲשֶׁר יָבֹאוּ אֵלֵינוּ; וְאַתֶּם אִסְפוּ יַיִן וְקַיִץ וְשֶׁמֶן, וְשִׂמוּ בִּכְלֵיכֶם, וּשְׁבוּ, בְּעָרֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר-תְּפַשְׂתֶּם.	10 As for me, behold, I will dwell at Mizpah, to stand before the Chaldeans that may come unto us; but ye, gather ye wine and summer fruits and oil, and put them in your vessels, and dwell in your cities that ye have taken.'
יא וְגַם כָּל-הַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר-בְּמוֹאָב וּבִבְנֵי-עַמּוֹן וּבֶאֱדוֹם וַאֲשֶׁר בְּכָל-הָאֲרָצוֹת, שָׁמְעוּ, כִּי-נָתַן מֶלֶךְ-בָּבֶל שְׁאֵרִית, לִיהוּדָה; וְכִי הִפְקִיד עֲלֵיהֶם, אֶת-גְּדַלְיָהוּ בֶּן-אֲחִיקָם בֶּן-שָׁפָן.	11 Likewise when all the Jews that were in Moab, and among the children of Ammon, and in Edom, and that were in all the countries, heard that the king of Babylon had left a remnant of Judah, and that he had set over them Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan;
יב וַיָּשֻׁבוּ כָל-הַיְּהוּדִים, מִכָּל-הַמְּקֹמוֹת אֲשֶׁר נִדְּחוּ-שָׁם, וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶרֶץ-יְהוּדָה אֶל-גְּדַלְיָהוּ, הַמִּצְפָּתָה; וַיַּאַסְפוּ יַיִן וָקַיִץ, הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד. {ס}	12 then all the Jews returned out of all places whither they were driven, and came to the land of Judah, to Gedaliah, unto Mizpah, and gathered wine and summer fruits in great abundance. {S}
יג וְיוֹחָנָן, בֶּן-קָרֵחַ, וְכָל-שָׂרֵי הַחֲיָלִים, אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׂדֶה--בָּאוּ אֶל-גְּדַלְיָהוּ, הַמִּצְפָּתָה.	13 Moreover Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces that were in the fields, came to Gedaliah to Mizpah,
יד וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו, הֲיָדֹעַ תֵּדַע כִּי בַּעֲלִיס מֶלֶךְ בְּנֵי-עַמּוֹן שָׁלַח אֶת-יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן-נְתַנְיָה, לְהַכֹּתְךָ, נָפֶשׁ; וְלֹא-הֶאֱמִין לָהֶם, גְּדַלְיָהוּ בֶּן-אֲחִיקָם.	14 and said unto him: 'Dost thou know that Baalis the king of the children of Ammon hath sent Ishmael the son of Nethaniah to take thy life?' But Gedaliah the son of Ahikam believed them not.
טו וְיוֹחָנָן בֶּן-קָרֵחַ אָמַר אֶל-גְּדַלְיָהוּ בַסֵּתֶר בַּמִּצְפָּה לֵאמֹר, אֵלְכָה נָּא וְאַכֶּה אֶת-יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן-נְתַנְיָה, וְאִישׁ, לֹא יֵדָע; לָמָּה יַכֶּכָּה נֶּפֶשׁ, וְנָפֹצוּ כָּל-יְהוּדָה הַנִּקְבָּצִים אֵלֶיךָ, וְאָבְדָה, שְׁאֵרִית יְהוּדָה.	15 Then Johanan the son of Kareah spoke to Gedaliah in Mizpah secretly, saying: 'Let me go, I pray thee, and I will slay Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and no man shall know it; wherefore should he take thy life, that all the Jews that are gathered unto thee should be scattered, and the remnant of Judah perish?'
טז וַיֹּאמֶר גְּדַלְיָהוּ בֶן-אֲחִיקָם אֶל-יוֹחָנָן בֶּן-קָרֵחַ, אַל-תעש (תַּעֲשֵׂה) אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה: כִּי-שֶׁקֶר אַתָּה דֹבֵר, אֶל-יִשְׁמָעֵאל. {פ}	16 But Gedaliah the son of Ahikam said unto Johanan the son of Kareah: 'Thou shalt not do this thing; for thou speakest falsely of Ishmael.' {P}

and then the next perek:

א וַיְהִי בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי, בָּא יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן-נְתַנְיָה בֶן-אֱלִישָׁמָע מִזֶּרַע הַמְּלוּכָה וְרַבֵּי הַמֶּלֶךְ וַעֲשָׂרָה אֲנָשִׁים אִתּוֹ אֶל-גְּדַלְיָהוּ בֶן-אֲחִיקָם--הַמִּצְפָּתָה; וַיֹּאכְלוּ שָׁם לֶחֶם יַחְדָּו, בַּמִּצְפָּה.	1 Now it came to pass in the seventh month, that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, of the seed royal, and one of the chief officers of the king, and ten men with him, came unto Gedaliah the son of Ahikam to Mizpah; and there they did eat bread together in Mizpah.
ב וַיָּקָם יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן-נְתַנְיָה וַעֲשֶׂרֶת הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר-הָיוּ אִתּוֹ, וַיַּכּוּ אֶת-גְּדַלְיָהוּ בֶן-אֲחִיקָם בֶּן-שָׁפָן בַּחֶרֶב--וַיָּמֶת אֹתוֹ: אֲשֶׁר-הִפְקִיד מֶלֶךְ-בָּבֶל, בָּאָרֶץ.	2 Then arose Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and the ten men that were with him, and smote Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan with the sword, and slew him, whom the king of Babylon had made governor over the land.
ג וְאֵת כָּל-הַיְּהוּדִים, אֲשֶׁר-הָיוּ אִתּוֹ אֶת-גְּדַלְיָהוּ בַּמִּצְפָּה, וְאֶת-הַכַּשְׂדִּים, אֲשֶׁר נִמְצְאוּ-שָׁם--אֵת אַנְשֵׁי הַמִּלְחָמָה, הִכָּה יִשְׁמָעֵאל.	3 Ishmael also slew all the Jews that were with him, even with Gedaliah, at Mizpah, and the Chaldeans that were found there, even the men of war.
ד וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי, לְהָמִית אֶת-גְּדַלְיָהוּ; וְאִישׁ, לֹא יָדָע.	4 And it came to pass the second day after he had slain Gedaliah, and no man knew it,
ה וַיָּבֹאוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִשְּׁכֶם מִשִּׁלוֹ וּמִשֹּׁמְרוֹן, שְׁמֹנִים אִישׁ, מְגֻלְּחֵי זָקָן וּקְרֻעֵי בְגָדִים, וּמִתְגֹּדְדִים; וּמִנְחָה וּלְבוֹנָה בְּיָדָם, לְהָבִיא בֵּית יְהוָה.	5 that there came certain men from Shechem, from Shiloh, and from Samaria, even fourscore men, having their beards shaven and their clothes rent, and having cut themselves, with meal-offerings and frankincense in their hand to bring them to the house of the LORD.
ו וַיֵּצֵא יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן-נְתַנְיָה לִקְרָאתָם, מִן-הַמִּצְפָּה, הֹלֵךְ הָלֹךְ, וּבֹכֶה; וַיְהִי, כִּפְגֹשׁ אֹתָם, וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם, בֹּאוּ אֶל-גְּדַלְיָהוּ בֶן-אֲחִיקָם.	6 And Ishmael the son of Nethaniah went forth from Mizpah to meet them, weeping all along as he went; and it came to pass, as he met them, he said unto them: 'Come to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam.'
ז וַיְהִי, כְּבוֹאָם אֶל-תּוֹךְ הָעִיר; וַיִּשְׁחָטֵם יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן-נְתַנְיָה, אֶל-תּוֹךְ הַבּוֹר--הוּא, וְהָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר-אִתּוֹ.	7 And it was so, when they came into the midst of the city, that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah slew them, and cast them into the midst of the pit, he, and the men that were with him.
ח וַעֲשָׂרָה אֲנָשִׁים נִמְצְאוּ-בָם, וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל-יִשְׁמָעֵאל אַל-תְּמִתֵנוּ--כִּי-יֶשׁ-לָנוּ מַטְמֹנִים בַּשָּׂדֶה, חִטִּים וּשְׂעֹרִים וְשֶׁמֶן וּדְבָשׁ; וַיֶּחְדַּל, וְלֹא הֱמִיתָם בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵיהֶם.	8 But ten men were found among them that said unto Ishmael: 'Slay us not; for we have stores hidden in the field, of wheat, and of barley, and of oil, and of honey.' So he forbore, and slew them not among their brethren.
ט וְהַבּוֹר, אֲשֶׁר הִשְׁלִיךְ שָׁם יִשְׁמָעֵאל אֵת כָּל-פִּגְרֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר הִכָּה בְּיַד-גְּדַלְיָהוּ--הוּא אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה הַמֶּלֶךְ אָסָא, מִפְּנֵי בַּעְשָׁא מֶלֶךְ-יִשְׂרָאֵל; אֹתוֹ, מִלֵּא יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן-נְתַנְיָהוּ--חֲלָלִים.	9 Now the pit wherein Ishmael cast all the dead bodies of the men whom he had slain by the side of Gedaliah was that which Asa the king had made for fear of Baasa king of Israel; the same Ishmael the son of Nethaniah filled with them that were slain.
י וַיִּשְׁבְּ יִשְׁמָעֵאל אֶת-כָּל-שְׁאֵרִית הָעָם אֲשֶׁר בַּמִּצְפָּה, אֶת-בְּנוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ וְאֶת-כָּל-הָעָם הַנִּשְׁאָרִים בַּמִּצְפָּה, אֲשֶׁר הִפְקִיד נְבוּזַרְאֲדָן רַב-טַבָּחִים, אֶת-גְּדַלְיָהוּ בֶּן-אֲחִיקָם; וַיִּשְׁבֵּם, יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן-נְתַנְיָה, וַיֵּלֶךְ, לַעֲבֹר אֶל-בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן. {ס}	10 Then Ishmael carried away captive all the residue of the people that were in Mizpah, even the king's daughters, and all the people that remained in Mizpah, whom Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard had committed to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam; Ishmael the son of Nethaniah carried them away captive, and departed to go over to the children of Ammon. {S}
יא וַיִּשְׁמַע יוֹחָנָן בֶּן-קָרֵחַ, וְכָל-שָׂרֵי הַחֲיָלִים אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ, אֵת כָּל-הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה, יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן-נְתַנְיָה.	11 But when Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces that were with him, heard of all the evil that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah had done,
יב וַיִּקְחוּ, אֶת-כָּל-הָאֲנָשִׁים, וַיֵּלְכוּ, לְהִלָּחֵם עִם-יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן-נְתַנְיָה; וַיִּמְצְאוּ אֹתוֹ, אֶל-מַיִם רַבִּים אֲשֶׁר בְּגִבְעוֹן.	12 then they took all the men, and went to fight with Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and found him by the great waters that are in Gibeon.
יג וַיְהִי, כִּרְאוֹת כָּל-הָעָם אֲשֶׁר אֶת-יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אֶת-יוֹחָנָן בֶּן-קָרֵחַ, וְאֵת כָּל-שָׂרֵי הַחֲיָלִים אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ--וַיִּשְׂמָחוּ.	13 Now it came to pass, that when all the people that were with Ishmael saw Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces that were with him, then they were glad.
יד וַיָּסֹבּוּ, כָּל-הָעָם, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁבָה יִשְׁמָעֵאל, מִן-הַמִּצְפָּה; וַיָּשֻׁבוּ, וַיֵּלְכוּ, אֶל-יוֹחָנָן, בֶּן-קָרֵחַ.	14 So all the people that Ishmael had carried away captive from Mizpah cast about and returned, and went unto Johanan the son of Kareah.
טו וְיִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן-נְתַנְיָה, נִמְלַט בִּשְׁמֹנָה אֲנָשִׁים, מִפְּנֵי, יוֹחָנָן; וַיֵּלֶךְ, אֶל-בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן. {ס}	15 But Ishmael the son of Nethaniah escaped from Johanan with eight men, and went to the children of Ammon. {S}
טז וַיִּקַּח יוֹחָנָן בֶּן-קָרֵחַ וְכָל-שָׂרֵי הַחֲיָלִים אֲשֶׁר-אִתּוֹ, אֵת כָּל-שְׁאֵרִית הָעָם אֲשֶׁר הֵשִׁיב מֵאֵת יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן-נְתַנְיָה מִן-הַמִּצְפָּה, אַחַר הִכָּה, אֶת-גְּדַלְיָה בֶּן-אֲחִיקָם--גְּבָרִים אַנְשֵׁי הַמִּלְחָמָה, וְנָשִׁים וְטַף וְסָרִסִים, אֲשֶׁר הֵשִׁיב, מִגִּבְעוֹן.	16 Then took Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces that were with him, all the remnant of the people whom he had recovered from Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, from Mizpah, after that he had slain Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the men, even the men of war, and the women, and the children, and the officers, whom he had brought back from Gibeon;
יז וַיֵּלְכוּ, וַיֵּשְׁבוּ בְּגֵרוּת כמוהם (כִּמְהָם), אֲשֶׁר-אֵצֶל, בֵּית לָחֶם--לָלֶכֶת, לָבוֹא מִצְרָיִם.	17 and they departed, and dwelt in Geruth Chimham, which is by Beth-lehem, to go to enter into Egypt,
יח מִפְּנֵי, הַכַּשְׂדִּים, כִּי יָרְאוּ, מִפְּנֵיהֶם: כִּי-הִכָּה יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן-נְתַנְיָה, אֶת-גְּדַלְיָהוּ בֶּן-אֲחִיקָם, אֲשֶׁר-הִפְקִיד מֶלֶךְ-בָּבֶל, בָּאָרֶץ. {פ}	18 because of the Chaldeans; for they were afraid of them, because Ishmael the son of Nethaniah had slain Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, whom the king of Babylon made governor over the land. {P}

Fasting on the 17th of Tammuz, part x (and when the fast ends today)

Note: According to the Etz Chaim bulletin, the fast of Tzom Gedaliah ends in Kew Gardens Hills, New York, in this year, 2008, at 7:17 PM.

I was reading through Sh"ut Maharil over Rosh Hashanah, and encountered a few interesting teshuvot. Here, in teshuva 45, is one which bears some relevance to an ongoing topic, which I put aside for a while (but is still a work in progress) -- the series on the obligation, or option, or else prohibition, of fasting nowadays during the four fasts (Tzom Gedaliah included -- see the label shivasar betammuz).

I was actually reading it in a critical edition of Maharil, which noted alternate readings from difference printings, such as who it was addressed to, etc.

But anyway, the teshuva, as printed to the right, captures most of the essence. It is not made absolutely clear what the she`eilah was. But it seems to me that the situation was similar to the case presented before Shlomo haMelech, though with only one woman. (Though this is only my best attempt at reconstruction. See below, in parens.)

That is, a woman who was found by her a child that died -- perhaps when she awoke, and the thought was that she rolled over and smothered it by accident. According to the Geonim, such an instance is not just a tragedy, but one for which the woman is responsible -- it is an accident close to meizid, deliberate, in that it was an act of negligence, perhaps. Nowadays, we may or may not agree with this assessment. (See this Wikipedia article on co-sleeping.)

It also seems that in such a case, they were machmirim. That is, they were stringent upon her to perform some kind of physical atonement, some practical suffering or self-affliction as a means of atoning for meizid or near-meizid. And this would involve fasting. (I wonder at the usefulness of such a practice. In general, today, we do not engage in such self-affliction. Here, it has the effect of making the woman feel guilty for this incidence of SIDS -- which they obviously felt she was, and perhaps she was. But giving a definite fixed course of approved action in which one beats oneself up and then is declared to have atoned may -- or may not -- have a positive psychological effect.)

In the expanded teshuva, the Maharil says "tzar li" on the incident. And as we see here, he explains that he is conflicted. On the one hand, the Geonim said what they said. On the other hand, the woman in question is pregnant, and he says that he is not able to be machmir upon a pregnant woman that she should fast, for there are some women who -- the critical edition brings printings which inject "from the many fastings" -- lose the pregnancy.

That, I would note, would of course double the tragedy, besides for the fact that just for penance we would not put a fetus at risk. So he says he would not be machmir upon her in such a case.

(As noted above, this was only my best attempt at reconstruction of the case. If you have an alternative reading, please drop me a comment. For example, perhaps it is not an accidentally smothered infant, but rather a miscarriage, and the question is if she is at fault, such that it is shogeg karov lemaizid. But perhaps we can fault fasting for this miscarriage, which is why he is generally not machmir? There are difficulties with this reading.)

This may bear relevance to a post which exists two posts ago in this series, in which I discussed possible justification for a modern rabbinic position stating that pregnant and nursing women should not fast on Tisha BeAv. This despite the fact that there is an explicit gemara in which Rava states that pregnant and nursing women should fast (and complete/compensate for the fast, on Tisha BeAv). The other three fasts, we saw justification for not fasting, and I elaborated on that and showed how a new assessment of the teva might raise their level to that of cholah, such that they should not fast. See there.

What this teshuva would contribute is a historical acknowledgment that fasting can cause miscarriage, and a resulting halachic reluctance to prescribe fasting. This could then provide halachic precedence (not that any such is needed) for such a scientific realization, a different appreciation of the metziut. On the other hand, there are those alternate girsaot which make clear that this is the result of many fasts -- just as some studies show an impact on premature labor from prolonged fasting, such as for Ramadan. But back on that first hand, if other studies were to show that there is indeed an impact from such a fast as Tisha BeAv, then the same justification may apply. And back to that second hand, one could possibly draw a distinction from imposing this optional fast of affliction for shogeg karov lemeizid, as opposed to a required fast such as Tisha BeAv. And back to the first hand, if there is indeed a real danger, one may easily argue that the same reasoning should apply.

I should stress, not halacha lemaaseh. But I thought that this teshuva of the Maharil brings something interesting to the table in terms of this discussion.

The Form of Hatarat Nedarim

Continuing my discussion of hatarat nedarim. Here are a few nitpicks I have with the instructions given in the machzor.

First, the instructions at the top (circled in red):

"The three 'judges' sit while the petitioner stands before them and states:"

At issue is how the hatarah works. Based on their commentary, Artscroll thinks it does not work at all. In which case I suppose it makes sense to have the judges sit. The purpose is to make the person realize the severity of his sins by vowing, and the more formal we can make it, the better.

However, assuming that is actually supposed to work, there are two means an annulment can happen. One is to find a specific petach, an opening, such that if the person had known X, he never would have vowed. The other is to open the vow with charatah, regret. It seems that the idea within the formula is that they are opening with charatah. Whether the particular brand of charatah, of regretting the making of the vow but not the particular actions, is valid, I will not address here, but certainly, this seems to be the intent of the formula. The difference lehalachah between them is that for the former, real deliberation must be done, and so the judges must sit. But when we open a vow with regret, no deliberation need be done, and so the judges may stand. And yet the directions here are that the judges sit. I do not understand this requirement. The directions may be a matter of custom rather than halacha.

While on this subject, all sorts of other restrictions of a bet din are relaxed, for these are not judges but rather "judges," as the machzor makes clear. Thus, hatarah can be done at night, or on Shabbos if the neder needs be annulled for the sake of Shabbos. And the judges may be related to one another.

My next nitpick is with the formula the judges use in responding to the petitioner. According to the Rambam, the judges only need to say one time, one language of annulment. Thus, they can say muttar lach, or they can say machul lach, or they can say sharui lach.

The Tur (IIRC) has a more developed formula. Once again, they can say muttar lach (or they can say machul lach, or they can say sharui lach). But whatever they say, they say three times. Thus (see here)

טור יורה דעה סימן רכח

מי שנדר ונתחרט יש תקנה ע"י חרטה ואפילו נדר באלהי ישראל כיצד יעשה ילך אצל חכם מומחה וסביר ואם אין יחיד מומחה ילך אצל ג' הדיוטות והוא דגמיר דגמרי להו וסברי וידעו לפתוח לו פתח ויתירו לו והאידנא אין מומחה שיהא ראוי להתיר ביחיד בפחות מג': ואין לו לאדם להתיר במקום רבו ובמקום שיש גדול ממנו אא"כ יתן לו רשות וכיצד הוא ההתרה יאמר לו ג"פ מותר לך ואפילו מעומד ובקרובים ובלילה ובשבת אפילו אם היה אפשר לו מאתמול לישאל עליו ובלבד שיהא לצורך השבת כגון שנדר שלא לאכול או לבטל מעונג שבת.

Or according to Shulchan Aruch:

שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן רכח
כיצד היא ההתרה, יאמר לו ו ד] ג' פעמים: מותר לך, ה] או שרוי לך, או מחול לך, (<ד> בכל לשון שיאמר), (ב"י בשם הרמב"ם), ז ו] <ה> אפילו מעומד, (ב) ובקרובים, ובלילה, ובשבת, אפילו אם היה אפשר לו מאתמול לישאל עליו, ז] ובלבד שיהיה לצורך השבת, כגון שנדר שלא לאכול או ליבטל מעונג השבת. ח ח] <ו> וחרמי צבור, נהגו להתיר אף על פי שאינם לצורך השבת.

So that we see that it is one, or the other, or the other. Not all three, even though he adds this point, just as Tur, of repeating whichever lashon is chosen three times. And even that is not strictly required. As Shach says:

ש"ך יורה דעה סימן רכח
ג' פעמים - לאו דוקא דבחד זימנא נמי סגי אלא עושין כן כדי לחזק הענין עט"ז ומשמע דבדיעבד סגי בפעם אחת וכ"כ הב"י והב"ח בשם הרמב"ם דא"צ שיאמר רק פעם אחת:

The nusach in the machzor has all three leshonos, and the judges repeat the whole formula three times. Thus, there is a total of nine statements. Plus we have the whole paragraph, not just those three phrases, which they recite three times. This is exceptional overkill. But then, I suppose it makes for great ritual. Ritual likes repetition of threes. As you might guess, I take exception to this. (Perhaps we might say this is kedei lechazek hainyan to the nth degree. Or rather the threefold repetition is kedei lechazeik hainyan while the use of all three languages, plus more, is just the way that liturgy grows way past what is required...)

While on this subject, I might note that again lehalacha, it seems that the bet din can annul vows of multiple people, just as they can annul several vows simultaneously (though there is dispute about the latter, about several vows where one is chal on top of the other, such that it only takes effect once the first one is annulled). So the typical process in shul is possibly a tremendous time waster. It depends. If people always pair up in threes, then they get out pretty quickly. But an acceptable alternative is to let several people say their petitions, and have the bet din then grant the annulment to all of them.

Finally, a word as to the translation of hakol yihtu muttarim lach, hakol mechulim lach, hakol sheruyim lach. Artscroll translates

"May everything be permitted you, may everything be forgiven you, may everything be allowed you."

I forget where I saw it, but I seem to recall other explanations. Mutar as in untying, as with a knot, and the same for sharui. And for machul, not in the same of forgiven, but rather making profane, as in lo yachel devaro, and the associated derashot.

Note: Not halacha lemaaseh. Don't pasken or act based on blogs.