Rav Kanievsky Driving Psak Followup

So more, and less, details have come out regarding Rav Kanievsky's advice about expelling the students who got themselves licenses, as discussed here.

The new article, at YNet, clarified that it was against the particular yeshiva's policies from the outset, and the bachurim knew this, and got driver's ed and then licenses anyway. The yeshiva is now named. Is it for Israelis or for Americans? I am not familiar with the particular yeshiva, but if one of the students was doing to help his disabled father, who would be in Israel, I would guess that it indeed is for Israelis. The number of students expelled was downgraded from 10 to 4. And they were expelled conditionally -- they get to come back as soon as they cancel their licenses. The implication is that the one with the disabled father was only advised to cancel his license, but that he can decide, and in the meantime (and regardless), he can stay in yeshiva. The YNet article also does not mention Rav Kanievsky's name in this regard, perhaps because the sources to the reporter refused to mention Rav Kanievsky's name.

I still do not understand the advice to the bachur, which appears to be that one is not considered a "ben Torah" if he has a license, so one is advised to cancel it and make one's disabled father remain stuck in the house, unable to get places. And that that behavior would make one a ben Torah. (The general attitude regarding learning to drive, while I disagree with, I would chalk up to cultural differences. Let me add that this is nothing to do with defensiveness -- I don't have a license myself, but that is my flaw, not to my credit.)

"Adoshem" and "Elokeinu" In Teaching Kids Brachot

So we were lighting the Chanukkah candles tonight, and I was trying to walk Junior through saying the brachos together with me. So I got to Baruch Ata Adonai, and he stopped and got upset, because I was saying it wrong. His teachers had taught him the "proper" way to say it. I should have said "Adoshem," and "Elokeinu."

Now, whether one could or should use that particular made-up Divine name ("Adoshem," as opposed to "Hashem") in non-ritual contexts is up for dispute. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (6:3) is against it, based on Taz (Orach Chaim 621:2). See here, in Pitchei Halachot But apparently, the Rav would say Adoshem in certain contexts (citing a pasuk, if I heard correctly. And so did others.

Even so, when teaching children, the Mishnah Berurah, Orach Chaim 215:14, rules (again, see Pitchei Halachot) that even the teacher may use the shem Hashem, namely Adonai Eloheinu, and not a kinui, to ensure that the children learn it correctly. (And I would say, based on his language, that this is how he understands the Shulchan Aruch.) Not so fast, though! The Aruch Hashulchan, Orach Chaim 215:2, states that while the children may say it normally, even though they are only practicing, the teacher should substitute "Hashem" (he does not say Adoshem, though I can see why they use it, since it has the same number of syllables) and "Elokeinu." And that even though there are those who are mattir, it is proper to distance oneself from this. (Unless he is only saying this latter about the second clause, about using Shem Hashem in the course of expounding in public.)

So Juniors teachers certainly have what to rely on, in this chumra. But then, they should make sure that the children, when practicing, make use of the actual proper Divine names. And this, even Aruch Hashulchan allows. Unless there are other sources in play. I did only very surface research into this.

However, at the very least, they should make sure the kids know that when actually making the brachos, they should use Adonai and Eloheinu.

Note: Do not take this as paskened halacha. Consult your local Orthodox rabbi.

posts so far for Chanukka

2008

1. Why we should ban playing dreidels, pt i.
   
2. How Rav Kanievsky said that in Israel people would be in bomb shelters for Chanukkah. The possible implications. Then why I doubted he said it, and how he did not say that.
   
3. The Zohar did not predict Mumbai and Moshiach on the eighth day of Chanukkah.
4. An ad I posted up for Oh Nuts for gifts for Chanukkah, and a brief discussion of giving nuts as gifts to children on Chanukkah.
   

2007

• Which is Min HaMuvchar? Wax Candles or Oil Lamps?
• I say wax candles, based on my reading of the gemara.
• What is the Idea of Preferring Poppy Seed Oil or Olive Oil?
• Slightly homiletic, but perhaps true. Are we celebrating the miracle of the length of burning, such that we should optimize length of time? Or are we celebrating holiness and purity, and therefore clarity, such that we should optimize clarity explicitly as the expense of burning time?
  

2006

• The Shifting, Shifting Miracle of Chanukka
• An analysis of the sources in DovBear's popular post on the subject. The sources actually go in opposite chronological order than what was thought.
• Mai Chanukka? What Is the Question?
• It is quite possible that it is "What is Chanukka which is mentioned in the Tannaitic source of Megillat Taanit which states...," rather than "What is Chanukka?" This comes down to whether the brayta is part of the question or the answer, and whether the miracle of the oil is part of the brayta, or whether the Hebrew gloss was added later.
• Is the Bet Yosef's Question So Good?
• I don't think so. It is obvious why it was for 8 days, even though the miracle was that it extended an additional 7. We are humans, reacting to the miraculous span of time, not anal-retentive accountants. And neither were Chazal.
• The reaction to the Shifting Miracle of Chanukka
• And how it could have been presented, without uproar. And along the way, I think I give a pretty decent homiletic interpretation of the aggada of the miracle, such that this might even be the intent. But also why different people may have reacted the way they did.
  
• Rif Yomi, Chanukka Edition

2005

• Are These (Chanukka) Lights Indeed Sanctified?
• A reading of the gemara. It appears that the lamps are in fact not kodesh. Rather, the issue is bizui mitzvah. And it is also slightly inaccurate that we do not have any permission to make use of them, except to see them -- we pasken that we can use one lamp to light another, though the Rishonim clarify (or restrict) it to via an intermediary. For me, the song which states otherwise is no problem, because my family sings a nusach that omits these offending phrases.
• The Shitta of Rav About Making Use of Chanukka Lamps
• A further discussion of what was begun in the post above. This explores Rav's opinion (rather than Shmuel's, which we rule like). And a lot of girsology, to practical effect.
• How to Spell Chanukka - And Why
• The Etymology of Sufganiyot
• From sponge. And where the "n" comes from.

2004

• Jewish Might
• Really on Vayigash. On one level, Yehuda seems supplicative. But beneath the surface, there is unstated threat. And how this can be read concretely into at least one pasuk.
  

2003

• Shemen Sreifah for Chunukka Lamp
• the Yerushalmi says one may use it. But what about the shamash?

Interesting Posts and Articles #107

1. How elitism causes the phenomenon of kids at risk.
   
   
2. Why listen to the Lubavitcher rebbe as opposed to other "mekubalim" about details of mashiach, such as "no Jew will be left behind?"
   
   
3. The Klausenberger Rebbe on Mumbai. Not really, but here is a roundup. (here, here, here.) My own thoughts on the matter to follow, in a different post.
   
   
4. Last year, a posting at A Simple Jew on Peyos up or down, a topic I discussed in this recent post.
   
   
5. Divrei Chaim on Hilchos Borer, and taking the sticker off an apple on Shabbos.
   
   
6. At Cross Currents, Rabbi Avi Shafran posts his remarks on ethics and kashrut.
   
   
7. The Forward has an article on "I Want to be a Rebbe" video.
   
   
8. Chaptzem doesn't like the tznius standards of kosher women's clothing site.
   
   
9. Finally fighting back in Ramat Bet Shemet B, at Life In Israel and in the Five Towns Jewish Times.
   
   
10. Frum Satire notes that in Ramot, the "tznius police" want separate grocery lines. Wolfish Musings wonders what is next. Though unfortunately many of the suggested nexts are indeed already in force in some communities.
    

What Kind Of "Big Rav" Advises Against Making Aliyah??

A good one, that's who. One who is legitimately big. To cite Dreaming Of Moshiach:

Question:
Shalom, I had a very similar experience to your friend's turmoil regarding making Aliyah. We were very serious about making Aliyah 2 years ago. Then I visited a "Big Rav" who put a big fear in us about parnasah (making a living) and I told my wife (big mistake) and it caused my wife to change her mind.
I always pray to Hashem for another opportunity to make Aliyah, Amen.
Bsorot Tovot
Kol Tuv

Reply:
What kind of a "BIG RAV" puts doubts in people's mind about HKB"H??????????????
Doesn't HaShem זן את הכל (feed all)?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rabbi Chaim Vital, zs'kl, the student of the AriZal, said that at the End of Days it's going to be the "Rabbanim" who are going to cause Moshiach's delay.

...

This is your test - are you going to trust a Rav who doesn't trust HaShem to give a person a Parnassah or you going to trust HaKadosh Baruch Hu????!!!!!!!!!!!

Choose to trust HKB'H!!!!!!!!!! Parnassa of a person is determined by HKB'H on Rosh HaShana till Rosh HaShana - whether you are in Quebec, Zimbabway, New Jersey, or Tzfat iz not going to change the decree. Every penny/shekel has an address, date, and destination.

If you need more chizuk, remember that HaShem has PLENTY of money and it's us who need to work on our Emunah in HaShem.

In other words, Divrei haRav veDivrei HaTalmid, Divrei Mi Shome'in? And yet, the unnamed Rav is the one acting responsibly with his counsel. Dreaming Of Moshiach can enthusiastically and confidently tell them this, because she is full of her messianic beliefs. But it is disasterous to send someone off Israel, where Hebrew may likely be their second language, where they do not have the connections, where they will be like a fish out of water in a difficult economy, where they might not have the skills to support their family, where the recent layoffs are hurting US olim (see this recent article).

I know of more than one person who moved to Israel, did not succeed, and ended up having to move back to the States.

There is a famous Talmudic dispute about whether to dedicate oneself entirely to learning Torah and trust in Hashem, or to work. And many tried the former approach and did not succeed. Why?! Doesn't Dreaming Of Moshiach, who knows better than this rav, say "Doesn't Hashem Zan et HaKol?" Just perhaps, this is not applicable to all situations. And perhaps Rav Chaim Vital was talking about different rabbonim, such that it is not fair or appropriate to apply his words to whomever she happens to disagree with.

Perhaps this very situation is discussed by the gemara and poskim, about leaving Eretz Yisrael being permitted for three reasons -- parnassa, shidduch, and bittul Torah. See this halachic discussion from Rabbi Elchanan Lewis, about not making aliyah for these reasons.

(There is also the position of Rav Moshe Feinstein, about aliyah as a mitzvah kiyumis.)

Furthermore, a rav might be in a better position to assess the personal spiritual and physical needs of the individuals, assessing whether they should make aliyah. It is the "big" rav who will assess the metzius and not just pasken on theory and ideology.

Note that this is a big "issue" and I am not treating it fully here. Of course there is room for a back and forth. But this rabbi has sechel, and the sense not to ruin other people's lives because of ideology. If you are going to move to Eretz Yisrael, by all means do it. But set forth with your eyes wide open, and with good plans, if you want to be able to succeed. To do otherwise is not fair to your wife and children.

What do you think? Do you agree that this rav acted appropriately, or disagree? Please respond in the comment section. I am particularly insterested in the responses of the mystically inclined, mashiach is coming tomorrow, community.

Note: Not intended as psak, halacha lemaaseh. Consult your own local Orthodox rabbi.

Why we should ban playing dreidels

Or perhaps not. Here is the Aruch ha-Shulchan on the matter. He writes, in Orach Chaim Siman 670, Seif 9:

סימן תרע סעיף ט

ריבוי הסעודות שמרבין בהם – הם סעודות הרשות. שלא קבעום למשתה ושמחה כפורים, משום דגזירת המן היתה על הגופים: "להשמיד להרוג ולאבד" – לכך צריכין לשמח הגוף. אבל גזירות אנטיוכס היתה ביטול תורה ומצות. ואף שזה גרוע מגזירת הגוף, מכל מקום סוף סוף הם גזירות הנפש, לכך צריכין לשמח הנפש בהלל, ותודה, וזמירות, ושירות ותשבחות, ואין להגוף עניין בזה (ומתורץ קושית הט"ז סעיף קטן ג).מ

ומכל מקום יש אומרים שיש קצת מצוה להרבות בסעודות. חדא: דשמחת הנפש תלוי קצת גם כן בשמחת הגוף, כמושג בחוש. ועוד: לזכר חנוכת המשכן, שקבעום למשתה ושמחה. וגם יש לומר שירות ותשבחות בהסעודות, ואז וודאי הוי סעודת מצוה.

אבל השוחקים בקלפים – עונשן רב, ובעונותינו הרבים נתפשטה נגע צרעת הזה בבית ישראל. אוי לנו שעלתה בימינו כך, וכמה מיני עבירות תלויות בזה! והוא רחום יכפר עון. ומי שביכולתו לבטלה – שכרו מרובה מאד.

The increasing of festive meals which people increase, they are optional meals. For they {=Chazal} did not establish it {=Chanukkah} for parties and rejoicing, like Purim. For the decree of Haman was upon the bodies - "to obliterate, to kill, and to destroy" -- therefore, we are required to make the body rejoice. But the decrees of Antiochus was the nullification of Torah and Mitzvot. And even though this is worse than a decree against the body, still, at the end of the day, they were decrees against the soul. Therefore we are required to make the soul rejoice with Hallel, praise, Zemirot, Shirot veTishbachot, and the body has no connection to this. (And this answers the question of the Taz in seif katan 3.)

And still, there is to say that there is some amount of mitzvah to increase in festive meals. Firstly, that the rejoicing of the soul is somewhat connected as well in the rejoicing of the body, as is intuitively felt. And further, as a remembrance to the dedication of the Mishkan, which they established for festive meals and rejoicing. And also, there is to say Shirot and Tishbachot within those meals, and then certainly it will be a seudat mitzvah.

But those who play with cards -- their punishment is great, and in our great sins this disease of leprosy {of card-playing} in the House of Israel. Woe to us that such arises in our days! And how many types of sins are suspended from it! And He is merciful and forgives iniquity. And he who has in his ability to nullify this -- his reward is incredibly great.

The idea is that Chanukkah is not about fun. So favorable or unfavorable comparisons to Christmas, as occur on the Daily Show or South Park, are irrelevant. The point is the Hallel, and the praising of God. And physical rejoicing is only really relevant as a means to that end. So who cares how many presents you get, or if a Christmas tree is "cooler" than a menorah. The very comparison misses the point.

So too, playing with dreidel. It is an OK game, to entertain, especially kids. But if we turn dreidel into a card-game, played for high-stakes, then it is missing the point. If we make it into a game of poker, but played with dreidels, then it is certainly missing the point. And the Aruch HaShulchan would decry it.

And here is an article in the Jewish Week, about how an intermarried couple "fixed" the game of dreidel so that it is fun for adults, by adding elements of Texas Hold 'Em:

I’ve taken our ancestral Hebrew-adorned tops for many a spin.

But a full-fledged dreidel match, one in which competitors vie for the pot of gelt?
Let’s just say that the one time I tried it with a group of adults — back when my husband and I were 20-something, child-free and regular poker players — we were all bored well before the candles had burnt down low.

The simple parameters of take all, take half, take nothing or ante up may entertain small children like my daughters, who recently whiled away an afternoon doing the same 12-piece jigsaw puzzle over and over. But clearly dreidel is not much of an adult game.

So I was excited when I found out about No Limit Texas Dreidel, which entrepreneur Jennie Rivlin Roberts and her non-Jewish husband Webb Roberts dreamed up three years ago as they were driving from Florida to their home in Atlanta.

Their annual Chanukah party was coming up and Rivlin Roberts, now 37, recalls saying, “There really must be a way to make dreidel more fun.”

Since the two were poker enthusiasts, they livened up the traditional Gimel - Hey- Nun- Shin with elements of “No Limit Texas Hold ’Em.”

In the resulting product, players use multiple dreidels to create their best “hand” — a combination of communal and individual spins — and are then encouraged to bet.

And so on. See the whole article.

Note: This post is not intended halacha lemaaseh. Consult your local Orthodox rabbi.

What Was In The Empty Pit?

On Friday night, I like to learn with my 4 year old son. We usually learn through a Mishna or two in an illustrated Mishnayot Shabbos, and/or go through that week's or next week's parsha. I want to give him a bekius in parsha and midrashim, so that he has this as a background. And so usually we sit down on an easy chair together with a Mikraos Gedolos, and I tell him the story in English, embellishing from midrashim and meforshim along the way.

While I think that knowledge of midrashim and the famous interpretations is important, I also try to show occasions where there is machlokes, and try to explain why there is machlokes on these particular points, to try to get him to know, from an early age, the distinction between the Biblical text and midrash and commentary; and also to start thinking about the implications and possible connotations of the text.

For example, when learning through parshat Vayishlach, I first told him the end of Vayeitzei, where they met the encapment of malachim, which most understand as angels. Then, when starting Vayishlach, I told him that Yaakov sent malachim to Esav. I explained how malachim means messengers, including human messengers, and that angels are called malachim because they are messengers from Hashem. So then I asked him which type of malach he thought Yaakov sent. (I explained that Rashi said that it meant angels, just like the angels immediately prior, and that Ralbag said that it meant humans.) After a bit of rumination, his determination was that he thought it meant angels. (The specific conclusions are not really important, so much as thinking about the text.)

Last week, we went through much of Vayishlach and Vayeshev (including some age-appropriate glossing over specific details within the story of Yehuda and Tamar). When I got to the brothers casting Yosef in the pit, I told him that "the pit was empty, and there was no water." I added that "there was no water in it, but there were snakes and scorpions in it." My wife chimed in, "some people say that there were snakes and scorpions in it." So I stopped, and explained to him that all that the Chumash says is that the pit was empty, and there was no water in it. But if it already told us that it was empty, why say that there was no water in it? So some people sat that there must have been something else in it, even though there was no water. (Or another way of thinking about it, it was empty only of water.) And so (separate from the Biblical text) they say that there were snakes and scorpions in it*.

He thought about it for a bit and then said, "but Abba, the man with the multi-colored coat was in it!" So that is his explanation of the textual anomaly. There was no water in the pit -- Yosef was in the pit!

Whether or not this works as midrash, it is a nice explanation of the textual anomaly.
____________________________
Footnote:
* It is a separate exercise as to why the pasuk would go out of its way to say this, on a peshat level, with an answer or two already springing to mind -- the point was that there was no water, such that the brothers were not casting Yosef in there to drown. But not everything needs to be touched on at once.

Zuleika, The Wife Of Potifar, In The Koran and In Sefer HaYashar

In a discussion (on an earlier post) with Anonymous, something interesting arose. Various legends found in Sefer HaYashar find parallel in Muslim legends and in the Koran.

Thus, Zuleika is the wife of Potiphar, and so is it is Muslim tradition. And also many details of the Yosef and Eshes Potifar story match, concept for concept, in the Koran and in Sefer HaYashar. Thus, here is Sefer HaYashar (read for a few pages, until you get all the details mentioned in the list below) and here is the Koran. Here is a wikipedia page that mentions the parallel.

Parallel story points, which are not found elsewhere, such as in earlier midrashic works (as far as I can tell) include:

1. The neighbors mocking her obsession with Yosef, and her response of inviting them over, giving them citrons which they peel with knives, and them cutting off their fingers in distraction where they see Yosef.
2. An extremely young child miraculously speaking, and providing a defense for Yosef.
3. The determination of his guilt of innocence (though Yosef is still jailed) is whether the clothing was torn from behind (in which case he was fleeing when it ripped) or whether from the front (in which case he was coming towards her when she ripped his clothing).

And the fact that Sefer HaYashar makes use of the name found in Muslim tradition while echoing all these parallels, and is later than the Koran, makes me suspicious.

What also troubles me is that as a general rule, midrashim don't just make up stories. There must always be some kind of basis in the Biblical text, where the text locally or elsewhere is being interpreted hyperliterally. There might be some derivation here, but none that I can readily see. If someone can show me how this comes from pesukim, I would view it as more of a legitimate midrash.

Also, the very young child talking gives me pause. We have slight parallel with Shmuel paskening halacha at a young age, then echoed in Luke (IIRC) as Jesus asking questions of the Jewish scholars at a very young age. But this detail seems very Koran-like. Earlier, the Koran has baby Jesus speaking up miraculously, to defend his mother of charges of infidelity. And this seems to be echoed here, as a Koran-internal theme. This detail is then echoed other works, such as the quasi-pornographic medieval work "The Alphabet of Ben Sirah," where an extremely young Ben Sirah speaks up to defend his mother (Yirmeyahu's daughter) of such accusations in his apparent virgin birth, where really she became pregnant from the mikveh while toveling for eating terumah, after her father Yirmeyahu was forced by evil people of Menashe to spill seed in the bathhouse. (This "midrash" is actually brought up as evidence in halachic sources, unfortunately.) And then echoed in the midst of Arthurian legends, where Merlin defends her mother, who was impregnated by a demon.

On the other hand, Anonymous cites this source which gives bases for midrashim in Sefer HaYashar and which makes no mention of the Koran as a source.

מקורותיו הם התלמוד, בראשית רבה, פרקי דר"א, דברי ימי משה, יוסיפון, מדרש אבכיר ואגדות ערביות. כנראה נערך הספר במאה התשיעית או העשירית. מה שכתוב בהקדמת הספר כי הספר הזה נמצא ע"י הגמוני טיטוס בירושלים, זו המצאת המו"ל בנאפולי, שם נדפס הספר בראשונה בשנת

But I think that it actually does mention the Koran, somewhat. What is meant by אגדות ערביות? I would guess this would include Arabic legends, by which they would include the Koran. We would really have to check to see if any of these other sources make mention of these details, but from a preliminary check, it seems as if this is the first Jewish source to make use of it.

Of course, Sefer HaYashar, being regarded as a legitimate midrash, is a channel for these to enter the general lore of Judaism. If I am not mistaken, I remember seeing the citron-peeling incident first in The Midrash Says. But of course at some point it pays to keep track of where each of these ideas are coming from.

What Sort of Petil Did Yehudah Give Tamar As Surety?

There is an interesting discussion amongst meforshim as to the identity of the Petil that Tamar asked as surety. The pasuk states:

יח וַיֹּאמֶר, מָה הָעֵרָבוֹן אֲשֶׁר אֶתֶּן-לָךְ, וַתֹּאמֶר חֹתָמְךָ וּפְתִילֶךָ, וּמַטְּךָ אֲשֶׁר בְּיָדֶךָ; וַיִּתֶּן-לָהּ וַיָּבֹא אֵלֶיהָ, וַתַּהַר לוֹ.

18 And he said: 'What pledge shall I give thee?' And she said: 'Thy signet and thy cord, and thy staff that is in thy hand.' And he gave them to her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him.

Tg Onkelos renders this as shoshifach (we will see what this means), while Targum Yonasan renders it as chutyach, "your string."

Rashi endorses, and explains Onkelos:

Your signet, your cloak Heb. וּפְתִיל‏ ֶחֹתָמ‏ְ [Onkelos renders:] עִזְקָת‏ ָוְשׁוֹשִׁיפ‏ָ. Your ring, with which you seal, and your cloak, with which you cover yourself.

Ramban takes issue with this being his cloak. What is Yehuda supposed to do, go home naked, or in his gatkes? Besides, later, it uses the plural form, which would be syntactically inappropriate if it meant cloak. And how does cloak come to be described as petil, anyhow? Therefore he offers his own suggestions:

(יח): חותמך ופתילך -

עזקתך ושושיפך, טבעת שאתה חותם בה, ושמלתך שאתה מתכסה בה, לשון רש"י.

ואיננו נכון שיתן שמלתו וילך ערום ממנה. ואיך תקרא השמלה פתיל. ואיך יאמר הכתוב (בפסוק כה): "והפתילים" בלשון רבים. ואם תאמר כי על שם פתילי הציצית תקרא השמלה פתיל, חלילה שיקיים יהודה מצות ציצית ויזלזל בו לתת אותו בזמה?

ואולי היה בידו סודר קטן אשר יעטוף בו קצת הראש לפעמים. ויקרא פתיל בעבור שהוא קצר כפתיל, והוא תרגום שושיפא, ולא תמצא לאונקלוס בכל שמלה שבתורה שיתרגם אותה שושיפא, אבל לשון כסות ומלבוש תרגום בכלם, מלבד ופרשו השמלה (דברים כב יז): שאומר בו ויפרשון שושיפא, לפי שהוא הסודר הידוע בתלמוד (כתובות י א): שיודעו בו הבתולים, וכן תרגם יונתן בן עוזיאל (ישעיה ג כב): המעטפות "שושיפא", שהם סודרים קטנים יעטפו בהם הראש ויפרשו אותם הנכבדים על המגבעות והפארים אשר על ראשם, וזה המנהג עודנו היום בארצות המזרח.

ויתכן עוד כי היה ליהודה חותם כצורת אריה או צורה אחרת ידועה כמושלים, והיו בידו פתילים שבהם כצורה ההיא לצייר בה. והמטה היה בידו כמשפט שליט ונוגש, כענין שכתוב (יחזקאל יט יד): מטה עוז שבט למשול, וכתיב (להלן מט י): לא יסור שבט מיהודה, ואלה נתן בידה:

That is, he briefly considers that it could be called petil because if it were a 4-cornered garment, it would have tzitzit on it. (And we know the Avot, and shevatim kept the Torah, so they would also be wearing tzitzit. Notice the theme in these past few posts?)

But he dismisses this. Forfend! To pay a prostitute, even if only as a mashkon, with his tzitzis? That would be a terrible thing to do. {Indeed, there is the famous story about the Yid who was going to be with a prostitute, but his tzitzit hit him in the face, reminding him that he should not do this.}

Ramban then translates Onkelos in a way at odds with Rashi. He suggests what is meant is a small sudar used to wrap the head on occassion, which would be called a petil because it is short like a petil. And indeed, a small cloth is called a shoshipha in the gemara, showing that it can take that meaning.

Finally, he offers another suggestion, relating it to the form on the chotam (perhaps that of a lion). And thus it is being used as an identifying mark.

Rashbam:

פתילך -
אזור.

ומטך -
שלשה כלים הללו מזומנים לתת כי אינו מלבוש.

Thus, a belt is a chord, and all three items are not malbush. It seems to me he was responding to Rashi here, without mentioning Rashi by name, and is guided in this by Ramban's objection that he was not going to leave naked.

Sforno writes:

וּפְתִילֶךָ. צָמִיד פָּתִיל עָלֶיךָ, כְּמו 'סֻדָּר שֶׁבְּמָתְנָיו' שֶׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים. וּבָחֲרָה בְּאֵלֶּה הַכֵּלִים הַמּורִים הַגְּדֻלָּה וְהַגְּבוּרָה כְּחותָם וְשֵׁבֶט הַמּושֵׁל וְהָאֵזור, כְּאָמְרו "אֱזָר נָא כְגֶבֶר חֲלָצֶיךָ " (איוב לח, ג),וְזֶה עָשְׂתָה כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהַרְהֵר בְּמַעֲלַת יְהוּדָה וּגְדֻלָּתו.

And thus, the belt, as a sign of gedulah.

I would note that there Ramban, in the course of his proposals, makes a wonderful connection to the chotam. And he might not be so distant in his claim about tzitzit, though he was talking about the whole cloak because of the tzitzit.

It turns out that in the Ancient Near East, the nobility, prophets, and others, put strands of blue thread in the corners of their cloaks (perhaps woven into it, rather than dangling). And they used to use it as a type of signature. To cite one website that refers to this (though I have seen similar things in print):

• In Mari, an ancient city in what is now Syria, a professional prophet or diviner would enclose with his report to the King a lock of his hair and a piece of his hem....Sometimes the hem was impressed on a clay tablet as a kind of signature.
  
• Fringes could also be pressed onto the clay instead of the hem. E.A.Speiser has suggested that when we press the corner fringe of the tallit to the Torah scroll we are reflecting this ancient custom.

So when she says petil, she could well have meant the blue thread in his clothing, or a piece of it, or something like that, which would function as an identifying mark, the same as his signet ring and his personal staff. And it might, as well, have been a sign of his gedulah.

Ramban's objection of how could he trade his tzitzis for harlotry would not be a valid objection in this scenario, because we are not talking about the mitzvah of tzitzit but rather the ANE custom among the nobility.

One final fascinating explanation can be found in the commentary of the Baal HaTurim (right page, on page 14, about the middle). It isn't peshat IMHO, but it certainly deserves note. He says that פתילך is תפיליך, and הפתילין is התפילין. This acheived my switching around the order of the letters. But if Ramban thinks that giving your tzitzis as surety to a prostitute is sacrilegious, what would he say about giving your tefillin to a prostitute as surety?? And Baal HaTurim expresses his great regard for Ramban, and surely knew what Ramban said on this.

But this all calls to mind a certain gemara. As we learn in Brachos,

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: one who enters a privy should remove his tefillin at a distance of 4 cubits and enter, and when he leaves, he should distance himself 4 cubits and don them. These are the words of Bet Shammai. And Bet Hillel say: he grabs them in his hand and enters. Rabbi Akiva says: He grabs them in his garment and enters.
A garment, do you think? Perhaps they mat slip out and fall!
Rather say: he grabs them in his garment and his hand, and he enters.

And he should not place it in the holes which are close to the public domain, lest passersby take them and it comes to an instance of suspicion.
And there was a story of a student who placed his tefillin in the holes close to the public domain, and a prostitute came and took them, and came before the Sages. She said to them: see what Ploni gave me as my hire. Once that student heard this, he went to the roof and fell and died. At that hour, they established that he grabs it in his garment and his hand and enters.

Thus, Baal HaTurim, master of psak and halacha, also knew this gemara, and the idea of (purportedly) giving tefillin to a prostitute as wages, and the ensuing embarrassment when she presents them (causing suicide). So he did not really innovate the concept. And it is parallel to the embarrassment Yehudah would face when his tefillin were presented by the zonah.

Shadal says it was the string from which the chotam hung:

יח ] חותמך : כן כתב הירודוט כי כל אנשי בבל הולכים בחותם ומטה. ופתילך : שהחותם תלוי בו

A admirable peshat effort, but Shadal was not familiar with the findings at the royal archive at Mari, and was thus not aware of the significance of the petil. So I would still go with the peshat I presented above.

Interesting Posts and Articles #106

1. More discussion of the phrase "The Rebbe runs the world," "der rebbe firt der velt,"used by many in Lubavitch even after the Rebbe's death. See the discussion at Daas Torah and at Circus Tent.
   
   
2. Lion of Zion discusses an article by the New York Times public editor, about how they choose to use and when to avoid the word terrorist. And this is not as was suggested by some bloggers, that news outlets use this term interchangeably with militant and gunman.
   
   
3. Beyond BT and A Simple Jew have a guest post by Rabbi Ozer Bergman, about alarmists. A valuable read, and we will have to see how the comment sections shape up.
   
   
4. Divrei Chaim addresses from what age kol isha begins.
   
   
5. A security flaw in Internet Explorer, which allows hackers to get your passwords. Until you get and install the emergency security, I would avoid using Internet Explorer, at least for general browsing. But thousands of websites have been compromised already.
   
   
6. Kankan Chadash on Freud and Jam Theories.
   
   
7. Wolfish Musings posts (based on an article in HaMercaz) on how an Israeli yeshiva expelled 10 students for learning to drive, after consulting Rav Kanievsky about it.
   

   "A person who categorizes himself as a Ben Torah should not have a license, which takes him out of this category."

   He also posted a year ago about women driving being considered not frum.
   
   It is obviously a cultural difference in the significance of driving (they might use the car to go on trips and hang out), but despite the cultural difference, I am at a loss of what to say when I see:
   

   The Rosh Yeshiva asked about an additional boy who had also gotten his license only because his father was disabled, and getting around was difficult. R' Chaim Kanievsky responded that that student could be kept in the Yeshiva, but advised him to cancel his license anyway.

   There is kibbud av vaEm, a Biblical command, plus chessed, on one hand, and the advice of a Gadol on the other, based on concerns of what makes one a ben Torah. I think Rabbi Tarfon would have kept his license in order to be able to convey his mother around. And if being a ben Torah means that one should disregard the real needs of a disabled father, then I am not so sure I would want to categorize myself as a ben Torah. What is the ultimate goal of Torah, after all? Perhaps we can apply Divrei haRav vs. Divrei haTalmid, Divrei mi Shome'in? Though I would apply it one way, one could apply it either way.
   
   Though perhaps Rav Kanievsky's concern is that the availability of the license to a teenager, even for this very good reason, will quite possibly lead him to error when he uses it in other contexts.
   
   A solution might also be to drive without a license, since it is only the having of a license which is being forbidden by the words of the statement. I wonder, also, if there is a way to keep information about licenses issued private. These students were expelled when the yeshiva was provided with the licensing information, upon request.
   
   This is all if these reports are accurate. There might be some missing context, such that any commentary. And while everyone is eager to promulgate the latest psak, this is really prone to misunderstanding and perhaps should not have been promulgated.
   

What In The World Is Kesones Passim? And How Only Yosef and Tamar Were Tznius ...

And how Yosef (to the exclusion of the other shevatim) was exceptionally tznius; or else not tnius at all.

Rashi (here and here) says it was a fine woolen garment, noting the ketonet passim of Tamar, and noting that pas occurs in the word karpas.

פסים -
לשון כלי מלת.
כמו (אסתר א ו) כרפס ותכלת.
וכמו (שמואל ב' יג יח) כתונת הפסים, דתמר ואמנון.

ומדרש אגדה:
על שם צרותיו שנמכר לפוטיפר ולסוחרים ולישמעאלים ולמדינים:

fine woolen Heb. פַּסִים, a term meaning fine woolen garments, like“green wool (כַּרְפַּס) and blue wool” (Esther 1:6), and like the fine woolen coat (כְתֹנֶת פַּסִים) of Tamar and Amnon (II Sam. 13:18). The Midrash Aggadah, however, explains that it was called פַּסִים because of his (Joseph’s) troubles, namely, that he was sold to Potiphar (פּוֹטִפַר), to the merchants (סוֹחֲרִים), to the Ishmaelites (יִשְׁמְעִאלִים), and to the Midianites (מִדְיָנִים). [From Gen. Rabbah 84:8]

Rashbam translates similarly -- פסים - מעיל.
Ibn Ezra appears to give two perushim:
פסים -
כתונת מרוקמת.

פסים -
כמו: פס ידא בלשון ארמית.

But others have different explanations. Thus,

A many-colored coat (37:3)

Ketonet passim, in the Hebrew. The word passim can be translated as "colorful" (Radak; Septuagint), "embroidered" (Ibn Ezra; Bachya; Nachmanides on Exodus 28:2), "striped" (Ibn Janach; Radak, Sherashim), or "illustrated" (Targum Yonathan). It can also denote a long garment, coming down to the "palms" of the hands (Rashbam; Ibn Ezra; Baaley Tosafoth; Midrash Rabbah), and the feet (Lekach Tov). Alternatively, the word denotes the material out of which the coat was made, which was fine wool (Rashi) or silk (Ibn Janach). Hence, Ketonet passim, may be translated as "a full-sleeved robe," "a coat of many colors," "a coat reaching to his feet," "an ornamented tunic," "a silk robe," or "a fine woolen cloak."

(The Living Torah)

though I do not see how they get Rashbam as connecting to "palms."

Shadal has an interesting take, in this context. He says it means coming down to the hands and the feet. Thus:

כתנת פסים : שהיתה מגעת עד פס ידו (בראשית רבא פ"ד ה') ועד פס רגלו, וכן תירגם עקילס , ואורך הבגדים הוא סימן שיחרור וגדולה, שאינו צריך לעשות מלאכה. ומילת פס יד ורגל לדעת גזניוס הוא מענין קצה וסוף, כמו כי פסו אמונים (תהלים י"ב בי) ולדעת תלמידי דח"ו משורש פשה ופסיון, להיותה מקום מתיחת היד והרגל.

and that this is also the translation of Aqilas. He explains that the length of the garments was a sign of freedom and greatness, that he did not need perform (manual) labor.

This then functions as an explanation of why it was favoritism to give him a ketonet pasim. And it also makes sense in terms of Tamar, and all the virgins from bet David:

יח וְעָלֶיהָ כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים, כִּי כֵן תִּלְבַּשְׁןָ בְנוֹת-הַמֶּלֶךְ הַבְּתוּלֹת מְעִילִים; וַיֹּצֵא אוֹתָהּ מְשָׁרְתוֹ הַחוּץ, וְנָעַל הַדֶּלֶת אַחֲרֶיהָ.

18 Now she had a garment of many colours upon her; for with such robes were the king's daughters that were virgins apparelled.--And his servant brought her out, and bolted the door after her.

It would be a sign of gedulah. (Of course, other explanations could also work to show such gedulah.)

But this would mean that in the general case, men (based on Yosef) and women (based on Tamar) did not wear clothing which came to the wrists and ankles. Because it got in the way of work, according to Shadal. Or they just didn't, according to Rashbam; Ibn Ezra; Baaley Tosafoth; Midrash Rabbah, and Lekach Tov.

But how could that be? The Avos, and shevatim, surely kept the Torah, with all the proper tznius restrictions. And yet Yaakov's sons and their twin sisters did not wear clothing up to their wrists and ankles. And those girls not from malchut bet David likewise. What would Rabbi Falk, who takes the midrashic example of the Avot, Imahos, and shevatim as a basis for normative halacha / hashkafa in tznius, do?

Alternatively, look to Radak. Rabbi Falk bases himself on Radak's interpretation of a pasuk to show that an engaged couple should ideally not speak to one another at all. Yet here, he says that Yosef as well as Tamar and the rest of the daughters of David HaMelech wore a coat of many colors. How could girls wear coats of many colors? Does this not attract attention? (He might say that they were multicolored in the specific few colors he permits. I don't know. He says (I don't have the full book that black and blue are generally tzniusdik colors, but I think also likes certain "calm" colors.) But then again, the entire idea of a multicolored coat seems to be that it is bright and eye-catching.

Update: I should clarify (and preempt, before any comments arrive) that many possible terutzim come to mind. E.g. everyone else wore knee-highs; these ketonet passim were not so long as to be considered the "very long skirts" condemned by Rabbi Falk; the daughters of bet David were frum, and so they wore it, but so did other frum girls. And so on and so forth. It is very easy to come up with terutzim. But the question should give us pause, and take stock, at the least, before coming up with the terutz. Our our tnius standards identical (in either direction) with those of the Avos?

Update 2: Anonymous (same one? different one throughout? that's why pseudonyms are so great) points out in the comment section the Rabbenu Bachya who cites a midrash (we do not know which) that it is because it was such a large garment that it covered his palms. Presumably this midrash in question is in Breishis Rabba 84:8, which reads (relevant portion in red, and large):

ועשה לו כתונת פסים
ריש לקיש בשם רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אמר:
צריך אדם שלא לשנות בן מבניו, שעל ידי כתונת פסים, שעשה אבינו יעקב ליוסף, וישנאו אותו וגו'.

פסים שהיתה מגעת עד פס ידו.

דבר אחר:
פסים
שהיתה דקה וקלה ביותר, ונטמנת בפס יד.

פסים
שהפיסו עליה, איזה מהם יוליכה לאביו, ועלת ליהודה.

פסים
על שם צרות שהגיעוהו,
פ"א פוטיפר
סמ"ך סוחרים
יו"ד ישמעאלים
מ"ם מדינים.

דבר אחר:
פסים
רבי שמעון בן לקיש בשם רבי אלעזר בן עזריה:
(תהלים סו) לכו וראו מפעלות אלהים.
וכתיב: בתריה (שם) הפך ים ליבשה.

למה וישנאו אותו?
בשביל שיקרע הים לפניהם.
פסים, פס-ים

Rabbenu Bachya writes (click here, page 76, midway down the right side -- the text in the image is underlined in red):
ולשון פסים אמרו במדרש על שם שהיתה גדולה ומכסה שתי פסותיו

In my critical edition of Rabbenu Bachya, the printed text is slightly different, and reads:
ולשון פסים אמרו במדרש על שם שהיתה גדולה ומכסה שתי פסות ידיו

I don't know if that is the meaning of מגעת עד פס ידו. Perhaps he is taking it as ad vead bichlal. Yachol Lihyot, though I would certainly not read it that way. But it seems to me we can read this quite readily into Daat Zekeinim miBaalei haTosafot, who says that the ketonet pasim were סביבות פס ידו. So point taken.

But this is not necessarily what Ibn Ezra means in his second peshat. Or what Shadal means. I agree it would make it difficult to do work, or pretty much anything, so one could well argue that this is what Shadal means. But I am not convinced that this was Shadal's intent. Indeed, it would probably be fairly annoying and not a maaleh. How are you supposed to pick up anything? Write? Turn doorknobs? Long sleeves, especially when they do not fit tightly, can get in the way of serious work plenty. And who says ad means ad bichlal?

Also, if we take it like this, then Rabbi Falk is still in trouble, because if we assume like Shadal and Lekach Tov, then it also was so long it covered the feet (pas regel). And Rabbi Falk writes at length about how the "very long skirt" is untzniusdik, to the extent that in discussing the modesty of Shaul (I have a post about this in the works) in wearing a long cloak, he takes pains to say that it was long, but not excessively long, for that would be untznius.

Update 3:
Regardless of the correct meaning, what is Daat Zekeinim seeing, and what is Rabbenu Bachya seeing, that make them explain like this? One possibility is the gemara in Menachot 11a:
אמר רב חופה שלש אצבעותיו עד שמגיע על פס ידו וקומץ
where it refers to bringing the fingers over against the palm of the hand to do kemitza.

Compare with שהיתה מגעת עד פס ידו. And perhaps they even hand a slight different in nusach in the midrash, replacing עד with על.

On the other hand, let us take a look at Rambam. In Mishneh Torah, when discussing the begadim of the kohanim, he writes:

טז] וכיצד מעשה הבגדים: הכותונת, בין של כוהן הדיוט בין של כוהן גדול--משובצת הייתה, שהיא בתים בתים באריגתה, כמו בית הכוסות, כדרך שעושין האורגין בבגדים הקשים. ובית יד שלה נארג בפני עצמו, ומחברין אותו עם גוף הכותונת בתפירה. [יז] אורך הכותונת, עד למעלה מן העקב. ואורך בית יד שלה, עד פס ידו; ורוחבו, כרוחב היד.

Would we say that the length of the sleeves of his begadim were such that they covered his palms? This would make the avodah a little difficult, I would think, besides making it look like the kohanim all had bad tailors. And compare with the length of the beged going down -- it reaches to above the ankle. Indeed, at the Temple Institute, they have a picture of the kohanim's begadim (see image to the right of the kohen gadol's begadim) -- and they are even selling them to be stored in closets of kohen hedyots in preparation for mashiach, and they have a picture there, which I reproduce to the right. Note how it does not cover the palms. Does anyone know the literature on this? Do people say the kohen gadol and kohen hedyot had their palms covered?

Shoe Tossing As A Sign Of Contempt, and How It Intersects With Torah and Midrash

So fairly recently, an Iraqi journalist tossed his shoes at Bush at a press conference and shouted "It is the farewell kiss, you dog." (Making him a hero in the Arab world, and inspiring this Norwegian Flash game.) Apparently, tossing shoes, or showing the bottom of one's shoes, is a way of denigrating someone in Arab culture.

If Wikipedia is to be trusted,

The shoe represents the lowest part of the body (the foot) and displaying or throwing a shoe at someone or something in Arab cultures denotes that the person or thing is "beneath them." Showing the bottom of one's feet or shoes (for example, putting one's feet up on a table or desk) in Arab cultures is considered an extreme insult.[citation needed] Examples include Iraqi citizens smacking torn-down posters of Saddam Hussein with their shoes, and the depiction of President of the United States George H. W. Bush on a tile mosaic of the floor of the Al-Rashid Hotel's lobby, forcing all visitors entering the hotel to walk on Bush's face to enter the hotel.

I wonder if we can connect this to midrashim and or psukim, to grant us some additional insight. There is the famous midrash about the contract between Mordechai and Haman made in the desert:

The two delegates set out on their way to Persia at the same time. As their way took them through a desert they brought with them provisions for the journey. Haman, who was greedy, ate his all at once, while Mordechai allowed enough to remain for the whole journey. Soon Haman became very hungry and begged Mordechai to share the remainder of his fare with him. At first, Mordechai refused his request, but later, he relented on the condition that Haman agree to become Mordechai's slave. As they had no paper to upon which to write a contract, Haman wrote the following pledge upon the sole of Mordechai's shoe: "I, Haman the Agagite, have sold myself to Mordechai as his slave in consideration of bread."

Since then Haman could never forgive Mordechai for his humiliation, and he was in constant dread lest Mordechai enforce his slave claim over him.

Mordechai, of course, never dreamed of doing it. Later, however, when Haman became Prime Minister, and demanded that Mordechai bow down to him, Mordechai would merely remove his shoe and wave it at him. Haman had to hold his tongue and keep silent. The enraged Haman swore he would destroy Mordechai and all the Jews.

The fact that the contract was on the shoe, and the fact that Mordechai showed Haman the bottom of his shoe to demonstrate that Haman was below him could now, perhaps, take on an added significance.

Perhaps it can also give us added insight into chalitza.

ט וְנִגְּשָׁה יְבִמְתּוֹ אֵלָיו, לְעֵינֵי הַזְּקֵנִים, וְחָלְצָה נַעֲלוֹ מֵעַל רַגְלוֹ, וְיָרְקָה בְּפָנָיו; וְעָנְתָה, וְאָמְרָה, כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה לָאִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יִבְנֶה אֶת-בֵּית אָחִיו.	9 then shall his brother's wife draw nigh unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say: 'So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brother's house.'
י וְנִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל: בֵּית, חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל. {ס}	10 And his name shall be called in Israel the house of him that had his shoe loosed. {S}

Spitting clearly has connotations of degredation and contempt. And the fact that this fame follows him, as bet chalutz hanaal -- this seems to carry the same message. If so, perhaps we can say that loosening his shoe also is some sort of insult, as penalty for refusing to perform yibbum. And this might work well with the role of the shoe as it occurs in Arab culture.

Interesting Posts and Articles #105

1. Scientists extract images directly from brain. If true, very cool.
   
   
2. The Internet Archive launches free scan-on-demand for public domain books.
   
   
3. Kankan Chadash discusses the possible implications of Rabbi Cunin's statement about how the Rebbe runs the world.
   
   
4. Mystical Paths on Whisperings From Lakewood. Make of it what you will. And a post about messianic hopes and Gluckel of Hamelin. Here is my parshablog post on the relevant section of Gluckel's diary.
   
   
5. At Life In Israel, a report on violence in Bet Shemesh. And see the post, and discussion, at Emes veEmunah.
   

   There has to be some way to reach them and make them understand that the disease of Charedi violence in the name of God - is far worse than the disease of tolerating a lesser standard in others.

6. Ishim veShitot reprints a funny Gadol-story, probably not true.
   
   
7. Bluke discusses a kol korei, following Rav Elyashiv's statement on sheitels. And a question on parshat Vayeitzei - if Yaakov thought that Leah was Rachel, wouldn't that create a pegam?
   
   
8. WolfishMusings on the parsha, and parents playing favorites. Plus a song-and-dance number.
   
   
9. Dreaming of Moshiach on another possible identity of Gog -- Ahmadinejad.
   

Parallels Between The Incident of Tamar and Amnon, And Parshat Vayeshev

It seems clear that this is either a case of history repeating itself (maaseh avot siman la-banim) or deliberate echoing of themes. Where the author of Shmuel, who recorded the incident of Amnon and Tamar, was clearly was familiar with parshat Vayeshev, in which the selling of Yosef is juxtaposed with the incident of Yehuda and Tamar.

Because it is not just that the woman in play was named Tamar. Look at the following text:

יח וְעָלֶיהָ כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים, כִּי כֵן תִּלְבַּשְׁןָ בְנוֹת-הַמֶּלֶךְ הַבְּתוּלֹת מְעִילִים; וַיֹּצֵא אוֹתָהּ מְשָׁרְתוֹ הַחוּץ, וְנָעַל הַדֶּלֶת אַחֲרֶיהָ.	18 Now she had a garment of many colours upon her; for with such robes were the king's daughters that were virgins apparelled.--And his servant brought her out, and bolted the door after her.
יט וַתִּקַּח תָּמָר אֵפֶר עַל-רֹאשָׁהּ, וּכְתֹנֶת הַפַּסִּים אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיהָ קָרָעָה; וַתָּשֶׂם יָדָהּ עַל-רֹאשָׁהּ, וַתֵּלֶךְ הָלוֹךְ וְזָעָקָה.	19 And Tamar put ashes on her head, and rent her garment of many colours that was on her; and she laid her hand on her head, and went her way, crying aloud as she went.
כ וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלֶיהָ אַבְשָׁלוֹם אָחִיהָ, הַאֲמִינוֹן אָחִיךְ הָיָה עִמָּךְ, וְעַתָּה אֲחוֹתִי הַחֲרִישִׁי אָחִיךְ הוּא, אַל-תָּשִׁיתִי אֶת-לִבֵּךְ לַדָּבָר הַזֶּה; וַתֵּשֶׁב תָּמָר וְשֹׁמֵמָה, בֵּית אַבְשָׁלוֹם אָחִיהָ.	20 And Absalom her brother said unto her: 'Hath Amnon thy brother been with thee? but now hold thy peace, my sister: he is thy brother; take not this thing to heart.' So Tamar remained desolate in her brother Absalom's house.

Thus, Tamar is clothed in a ketonet passim, just like Yosef. And she remains desolate in her brother's house, just as Yehuda's Tamar was to remain an almana in her father's house.

And this is followed by the slaying of brothers (including Amnon) as revenge when they go down to the sheep-shearing -- and David hears and mourns. Yehuda's meeting of Tamar was when he went down to the sheep-shearing, and this is juxtaposed with the attempt to kill Yosef, the pretending they killed Yosef, Yaakov's hearing that Yosef was dead and then mourning.

The purpose of such thematic echoes is not clear to me at this time, but I just thought I would make note of the parallels.

Sarah and Rivkah Imeinu Wore Human Hair Wigs Which Looked Better Than Their Own Hair

DreamingOfMoshiach has the latest autistic message, of why the tzaddikim were killed in India. Everybody thinks they know, and just conveniently, the reason falls wonderfully in line with their previous agenda.

1. Some use it to reinforce the debunked rumor attributed to Rav Kanievsky about bomb-shelters by Chanukkah, or false predictions that Mashiach is coming this year, before President Gog Bush leaves office, by saying that the Zohar predicted this tragedy in Mumbai (by getting all the details of the attack wrong), right before a Mashiach ben Ephraim of the last day of Chanukkah.
   
   
2. The Neturei Karta use it (see here and here) to criticize Chabad for
   

   opening their homes and allowing "mechalelai shabbes" and "ochlei treifos" to sit and eat with "shomrei shabbos" and "ochleo kosher".
   That along with the fact that Chabad works together with the Zionist entity.

3. And naturally enough, the "autistics" (or rather the facilitators) use the tragedy to promote their own world-view and agenda.
   

Indeed, it is not surprising at all. The whole idea of these facilitated messages on high is that they take a personal tragedy, of a child being autistic, and claim that it is as a tikkun, and that the purpose is to deliver, via facilitated communication, messages from on high. So too, in the tragedy that occurred at Mumbai, they claim:

Why did such tzaddikim have to die? Because from the time of their birth they had a tikun [rectification] to do. That tikun was to bring a most important message to Am Yisrael. That message is: "Am Yisrael, do teshuva [repent]. Because if you don't, you will have to suffer terribly until you do - or else, chas veshalom, disappear from creation completely." That is the main message.

The message, of course, is the same message of the autistics themselves.

It is also interesting that they blame the attacks on the low spiritual level of Mumbai, and materialism, writing

Also, notice the place where all this happened. Mumbai, India, is a city centered around money [it is India's financial center]. It is a major city of the Olam Hazeh [materialism, the “golden calf”]: full of Western tourism, restaurants, fancy hotels, etc. Moreover, the essence of India is based on avodah zara and there is avodah zara in every corner. And along with that, Mumbai is also filled with the spiritual filth of the Western countries, gashmius [materialism] and many other things hated by Hakadosh Baruch Hu. That is why it was an appropriate place to pass on this message against the Golden Calf [materialism and the vanities of this world].

I find this interesting because it patterns what some who know India and Mumbai say was the motivations of the terrorists (see this NY Times article):

MY bleeding city. My poor great bleeding heart of a city. Why do they go after Mumbai? There’s something about this island-state that appalls religious extremists, Hindus and Muslims alike. Perhaps because Mumbai stands for lucre, profane dreams and an indiscriminate openness.

Mumbai is all about dhandha, or transaction. From the street food vendor squatting on a sidewalk, fiercely guarding his little business, to the tycoons and their dreams of acquiring Hollywood, this city understands money and has no guilt about the getting and spending of it. I once asked a Muslim man living in a shack without indoor plumbing what kept him in the city. “Mumbai is a golden songbird,” he said. It flies quick and sly, and you’ll have to work hard to catch it, but if you do, a fabulous fortune will open up for you. The executives who congregated in the Taj Mahal hotel were chasing this golden songbird. The terrorists want to kill the songbird.

By making God's message the same as the terrorists' message, they are essentially justifying the attacks, from a Divine perspective.

Another thing that annoyed me was how the autistics declare that some of the victims (the chareidim) were holier than others:

All the Jews that died there died al Kiddush Hashem [to sanctify Hashem's name] have the status of tzaddikim, yet those specific four stood out the most.

This is in sync with their general attitude, as seen in other such communications.

Part of this message of repentance is, of course, to not wear sheitels and that music needs a hechsher:

Women should dress like Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel and Leah [who certainly never wore wigs] and not like models from Paris [see more about this in message 35]. We should not bring into a Jewish home all sorts of written materials from the street or read books of the goyim. We should also not bring in books written by Jews who do not have real Torah hashkafos - even if they wear kippahs. And nowadays, even music needs a good hechsher.

See here about even music needing a good hechsher.

In terms of this message brought by Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg H"y"d, not to wear sheitels, it appears that as a frum Lubavitch woman, she did not receive that message herself. See picture to the right. I do not think that she would take too kindly to the use of her murder to promote an anti-sheitel agenda.

And as part of the general trend of the anti-sheitel crowd, it is interesting to note that a few posts earlier on the same blog, there was a blaming of all the terrible things happening to klal Yisrael on women wearing sheitels. This was accompanied by a collection of anti-sheitel statements from various prominent rabbonim which included:

Women that wear wigs do not have Yirat Shamayim - fear of heaven. The biggest problem is these women think it's allowed and they deny the Tzaddikim's cherem.

and

A woman that wears a wig is as if she does not cover her hair! Stupid women! How can a woman like you have fear of Heaven? A woman that wears a wig has no holiness.

So let me ask. Now that you want to take Rivka Holtzberg as an extremely holy tzaddik, in order to convey this message, would you say that she had no holiness? That she was a stupid woman who had no fear of Heaven? Chas veshalom!

But let us turn to this claim, purportedly made by the autistic Daniel, or perhaps in this particular case filled in by some editor -- after all, it is in square brackets.

Women should dress like Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel and Leah [who certainly never wore wigs].

I would guess that historically speaking, this is likely to be correct. But only because it is quite possible that they did not cover their hair for purposes of modesty back then in general. If and when there was any head covering in that hot climate, it was likely done as protection from the sun. But assuming we take literally, and historically, the midrashic assertion that the Avos and Imahos kept the Torah even before Matan Torah, then why assume that they did not wear wigs? Because you don't think wigs are muttar? There are others who disagree. And this is a retrojection of your own values and standards of modesty onto the Avos. (See this post on Oz Vehadar Levushah and Rachel covering herself with sheep, for more on this idea.)

For example, we know that Moshe Rabbenu was Satmar, and that he wore a plotche bibur, as the fellow in this video explains:

Or we have a proof that Yaakov wore a yarmulke. Because the pasuk says vayeitzei Yaakov. Would Yaakov have gone out without his yarmulke?!

Perhaps their proof that the Imahos wore tichels and not sheitels was from the pasuk

וַיָּבֹא יַעֲקֹב מִן-הַשָּׂדֶה, בָּעֶרֶב, וַתֵּצֵא לֵאָה לִקְרָאתוֹ וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלַי תָּבוֹא, כִּי שָׂכֹר שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ בְּדוּדָאֵי בְּנִי; וַיִּשְׁכַּב עִמָּהּ, בַּלַּיְלָה הוּא.

Would Leah have gone out without her tichel, or chas veshalom worse, with a sheitel?! Of course not!

(*Yes, I am aware of the irony of citing this pasuk given the midrashim interpretation of it.)

But I actually have proof positive that the Imahos did wear sheitels, and even realistic human hair sheitels which looked better than their own hair.

The proof is as follows. We know that the Avos and Imahos kept kol haTorah kulah. Which means that the Imahos must have kept the Das Moshe and Das Yehudis of a Jewish married woman covering her hair.

But on the other hand, we see that Avraham and Yitzchak continuously played a trick, passing their wives off as their unmarried sisters. As Avraham says:

וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר הִתְעוּ אֹתִי, אֱלֹהִים מִבֵּית אָבִי, וָאֹמַר לָהּ, זֶה חַסְדֵּךְ אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשִׂי עִמָּדִי: אֶל כָּל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר נָבוֹא שָׁמָּה, אִמְרִי-לִי אָחִי הוּא.

How could Sarah or Rivkah pass for unmarried women? After all, unmarried women do not cover their hair, so their tichels would have been a dead giveaway.

The answer must be that they held like Rav Moshe Feinstein, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and the many poskim they in turn relied upon (Mishnah Brurah, Pri Megadim, Rama, etc.), who permitted sheitels, even sheitels made from hair, and even sheitels made from the woman's own hair. And they wore such sheitels, and Avimelech and Pharaoh thought that it was their own hair, and that they were beautiful and single.

Two Noteworthy Comments About the Nature of Pshat and Drash

The first in last week's parsha, Vayishlach, and the second in this week's parsha, Vayeshev.

In last week's parsha {Bereshit 35:22}, we had:
וַיְהִי, בִּשְׁכֹּן יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּאָרֶץ הַהִוא, וַיֵּלֶךְ רְאוּבֵן וַיִּשְׁכַּב אֶת-בִּלְהָה פִּילֶגֶשׁ אָבִיו, וַיִּשְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל; {פ}וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי-יַעֲקֹב, שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר.

with Rashi citing that famous midrash:

and lay Since he (Reuben) disarranged his (Jacob’s) bed, Scripture considers it as if he had lain with her. Now why did he disarrange and profane his bed? [It was] because when Rachel died, Jacob took his bed, which had been regularly placed in Rachel’s tent and not in the other tents, and moved it in to Bilhah’s tent. Reuben came and protested his mother’s humiliation. He said,“If my mother’s sister was a rival to my mother, should my mother’s sister’s handmaid [now also] be a rival to my mother?” For this reason, he disarranged it. — [from Shab. 55b]

Ibn Ezra the pashtan is not one for derashot, but he makes a nice point here, in favor of the midrash, even as he does not endorse it as true. He writes:

וילך ראובן -
יפה פירשו רבותינו ז"ל:
וכסה קלון ערום.

In this week's parsha, there is the famous statement of Rashbam:

פסוק ב
אלה תולדות יעקב -
ישכילו ויבינו אוהבי שכל מה שלימדונו רבותינו, כי אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו. אף כי עיקרה של תורה באה ללמדנו ולהודיענו ברמיזת הפשט וההגדות וההלכות והדינין ועל ידי אריכות הלשון ועל ידי שלושים ושתים מידות של ר' אליעזר בנו של ר' יוסי הגלילי וע"י שלש עשרה מידות של ר' ישמעאל והראשונים מתוך חסידותם נתעסקו לנטות אחרי הדרשות שהן עיקר ומתוך כך לא הורגלו בעומק פשוטו של מקרא.

ולפי שאמרו חכמים: אל תרבו בניכם בהגיון. וגם אמרו: העוסק במקרא מדה ואינה מדה, העוסק בתלמוד אין לך מדה גדולה מזו ומתוך כך לא הורגלו כל כך בפשוטן של מקראות וכדאמרינן במסכת שבת: הוינא בר תמני סרי שנין וגרסינן כולה תלמודא ולא הוה ידענא דאין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו.

וגם רבינו שלמה אבי אמי מאיר עיני גולה שפירש תורה נביאים וכתובים, נתן לב לפרש פשוטו של מקרא. ואף אני שמואל ב"ר מאיר חתנו זצ"ל נתווכחתי עמו ולפניו והודה לי שאילו היה לו פנאי, היה צריך לעשות פירושים אחרים לפי הפשטות המתחדשים בכל יום. ועתה יראו המשכילים מה שפירשו הראשונים.

Vayeshev Sources

by aliyah
rishon (Bereishit 37:1)
sheni (37:12)
shlishi (37:23)
revii (38:1)
chamishi (39:1)
shishi (39:7)
shevii (40:1)
maftir (40:20)

by perek
perek 37; perek 38; perek 39; perek 40

meforshim
Rashi, in English and Hebrew
Chizkuni
Shadal (here and here)
Mishtadel
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Gilyonot
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew)
Tiferes Yehonasan from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz
Chasdei Yehonasan
Toldos Yizchak Acharon, repeated from Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz
Even Shleimah -- from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich
R' Saadia Gaon's Tafsir, Arabic translation of Torah (here and here)
Collected commentary of Saadia Gaon on Torah
Abarbanel
Torah Temimah
Kli Yakar (and here)
Zohar, with English translation
Baal Haturim
Baal Haturim (HaAruch)
Torat Hatur -- nothing until Vaychi
Ibn Janach
Rabbenu Ephraim
Ibn Caspi
Ralbag
Dubno Maggid
Imrei Shafer, Rav Shlomo Kluger
Ateret Zekeinim
Mei Noach
Arugat HaBosem
Yalkut Perushim LaTorah
R' Yosef Bechor Shor
Meiri
Ibn Gabirol
Rabbenu Yonah
Rashbam
Seforno
Aderet Eliyahu (Gra) -- not until Miketz
Kol Eliyahu (Gra)
Mipninei Harambam -- not until Vaychi
Sefer Zikaron of Ritva -- not until Vayigash
Malbim
Chiddushei HaGriz
Radak
Noam Elimelech
Michlal Yofi

The following meforshim at JNUL, with links directly to the page
Ralbag (pg 64)
Chizkuni (pg 37)
Baal HaTurim (pg 13)
Rabbenu Bachya (pg 74)
Abarbanel (pg 102)
Shach (pg 39) -- Ignore the parsha label at the top, which is incorrect
Paneach Raza (page 26)
Yalkut Reuveni (62)
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (pg 58)

rashi
Daat, Rashi In Hebrew (perek 37)
Judaica Press Rashi in English and Hebrew
Mizrachi, Mizrachi (60, JNUL)
Gur Aryeh (Maharal of Prague)
Maharsha
Siftei Chachamim
Berliner's Beur on Rashi
Commentary on Rashi by Yosef of Krasnitz
R' Yisrael Isserlin (on Rashi, 6, JNUL)
Two supercommentaries on Rashi, by Chasdai Almosnino and Yaakov Kneizel
Rav Natan ben Shishon Shapira Ashkenazi (16th century), (JNUL, pg 37)
Taz
Levush HaOrah
Mohar`al
Yeriot Shlomo (Maharshal)
Moda L'Bina (Wolf Heidenheim)
Dikdukei Rashi
Mekorei Rashi (in Mechokekei Yehuda)
Bartenura
Meam Loez -- laazei Rashi
Yosef Daas
Nachalas Yaakov
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Rashi with Sifsei Chachamim

ramban
Daat, Ramban in Hebrew (perek 37)
R' Yitzchak Abohav's on Ramban (standalone and in a Tanach opposite Ramban)
Kesef Mezukak
Kanfei Nesharim
Rabbi Meir Abusaula (student of Rashba)

ibn ezra
Daat, Ibn Ezra in Hebrew (perek 37)
Mechokekei Yehudah (Daat)
Mechokekei Yehudah (HebrewBooks)
Mavaser Ezra
R' Shmuel Motot (on Ibn Ezra, pg 16, JNUL)
Ibn Kaspi's supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, different from his commentary (here and here) -- nothing until Shemot
Mekor Chaim, Ohel Yosef, Motot
Avi Ezer
Tzofnas Paneach
Ezra Lehavin
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Ibn Ezra with Avi Ezer

targum
Targum Onkelos opposite Torah text
Targum Onkelos and Targum Pseudo-Yonatan in English
Shadal's Ohev Ger on Targum Onkelos
Avnei Tzion -- two commentaries on Onkelos
Bei`urei Onkelos
Or Hatargum on Onkelos
Targum Yonatan
Commentary on Targum Yonatan and Targum Yerushalmi
Septuagint (Greek, English)
Origen's Hexapla (JNUL)

masorah
Tanach with masoretic notes on the side
Commentary on the Masorah
Minchas Shai
Or Torah
Taamei Masoret
Masoret HaKeriah
Shiluv Hamasorot
Masoret HaBrit HaGadol
Rama (but based on alphabet, not parsha)

midrash
Midrash Rabba at Daat (37)
Midrash Tanchuma at Daat (37)
Bereishit Rabba, with commentaries
Bereishit Rabba with Yefei Toar
Midrash Tanchuma with commentary of Etz Yosef and Anaf Yosef
Commentary on Midrash Rabba by R' Naftali Hirtz b'R' Menachem
Matat-Kah on Midrash Rabba
Nefesh Yehonasan by Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz -- not until Miketz
Sefer HaYashar

haftara
haftara (Amos 2:6-3:8) in Mikraos Gedolos on Vayeshev, with Malbim and Ibn Ezra

Also, the haftara in Mikraos Gedolos on Amos, with Mahari Kara, Rashi, Radak, Ibn Ezra, Targum, Metzudat David:

Amos 2:6, Amos perek 3, 3:8

Haftarah in Gutnick Edition
Rashis in English
Daat, with Ibn Ezra, Radak, Yalkut Shimoni, Gilyonot
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite
Radak (JNUL, 247)
Ibn Janach
Ibn Caspi
Ahavas Yehonasan