Tuesday, November 11, 2008

A Censored Baal HaTurim on Vayera

I was looking through Baal HaTurim on JNUL, and decided to check out Vayera. I can across a text towards the beginning of Vayeira that is crossed out. It is pictured to the right. This text is available at JNUL, in this Baal HaTurim, page 7. According to JNUL, this is from ויניציאה : (דפוס זואני די פארי ואחיו ע"י אדילקינד), ש"ד. That is, from Venice, in the year 1544.

The text is obviously censored, but what is written there that would require censoring. So I checked out another Baal HaTurim, also from JNUL, page 7, which is uncensored. This one is from קושטנטינא : דפוס ש' נחמיאש, ב'ר'"ן' י'ח'"ד' [רע"ד].
ש
Thus, it is from Constantina (Constantinople), in the year 1514. It reads:

The text in question is:
וזה הוא שאמרו חכמים ז"ל שאברהם יושב על פתח גיהנם ואינו מניח למי שנימול ליכנס שם חוץ ממי שבא על הגויה שנמשכה ערלתו ואינו מכירו

It is obvious why the censor would see fit to censor this text. Funnily enough, though, the censor neglected to censor the subsequent text, on the same page: אבל איש בושת פירוש שבא על הגויה שאין לך בושת גדול ממי שבא על הגויה

A point we will draw out in a later post is that while gematria spices things up in Baal HaTurim, this is not necessarily the primary mechanism of his Biblical exegesis -- as Baal HaTurim says himself in his hakdama. Here, he cites a midrash Chazal, and reads it into a pasuk elsewhere of kechom hayom about Ish Boshet, where a close hyperliteral reading of that verse yields this. Especially when we consider all 4 instances of kechom in Scriptures. I am not certain that in the end I agree with his etiology of this midrash, but it is clearly insightful, and makes good use of a mastery of Tanach as well as his creative faculties. And yes, he brings a gematria -- that כחום היום in gematria is זהו בגיהנם, as well as the gematria of dam milah. But looking over the perush, this is not really the primary point. It does reflect the underlying themes he is trying to develop and bring out.

My own take on this midrash, at this moment, entirely aside from anything Baal HaTurim says:
1) The idea of brit milah, from the previous parsha (perek 17), was a covenant not just with Avraham but with all his descendants. And circumcision is something which keeps an Israelite under this covenant. Thus:
ז וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת-בְּרִיתִי בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶךָ, וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ לְדֹרֹתָם--לִבְרִית עוֹלָם: לִהְיוֹת לְךָ לֵאלֹהִים, וּלְזַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ. 7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.
ח וְנָתַתִּי לְךָ וּלְזַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ אֵת אֶרֶץ מְגֻרֶיךָ, אֵת כָּל-אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן, לַאֲחֻזַּת, עוֹלָם; וְהָיִיתִי לָהֶם, לֵאלֹהִים. 8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.'
ט וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל-אַבְרָהָם, וְאַתָּה אֶת-בְּרִיתִי תִשְׁמֹר--אַתָּה וְזַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ, לְדֹרֹתָם. 9 And God said unto Abraham: 'And as for thee, thou shalt keep My covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations.
י זֹאת בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְרוּ, בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם, וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ, אַחֲרֶיךָ: הִמּוֹל לָכֶם, כָּל-זָכָר. 10 This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised.
Now, kol Yisrael yesh lahem chelek leOlam haba. And this idea of special protection by virtue of this covenant, when this shows that Hashem is their God, to save them from Hell, is not such a stretch.

Nor is the idea that Avraham officiates at this. Not literally, but figuratively, he is certainly an appropriate figure.

Not keeping the covenant of brit milah will lead to being cut off, and going to gehinnom. We can almost see this explicitly in this pasuk:
יד וְעָרֵל זָכָר, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יִמּוֹל אֶת-בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ--וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא, מֵעַמֶּיהָ: אֶת-בְּרִיתִי, הֵפַר. {ס} 14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.' {S}
Thus, the soul being cut off from "the people" for violation of the covenant.

What about one who has intercourse with a gentile woman? Two possibilities. The first, which I will propose but do not consider the better of the two -- we can cast milah as some kind of sanctification of the ever, with the act this one did as undoing this sanctification.

The second, that all sorts of people are subject to brit, as miknat kesef or yelid bayit, and those regularly born. And the child from such a union would not be Israelite-born and subject to milah. And pasuk 10 again read:
י זֹאת בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְרוּ, בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם, וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ, אַחֲרֶיךָ: הִמּוֹל לָכֶם, כָּל-זָכָר. 10 This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised.
tishmeru is plural, so already speaks to the Israelites, as does בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם. But וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ, אַחֲרֶיךָ is not possible for the aforementioned union. And thus, the one who produces such offspring is not fulfilling the part of the covenant of וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ. Avraham does not recognize him, and he is subject to the cutting off mentioned later.

Monday, November 10, 2008

Lech Lecha followup: Pursuing As Far As Dan

In a post from 2004, I treated vehakenaani az ba`aretz, and explained how it did not concern me. In a comment, Gilui offered another suggestion, but noted that Avraham pursuing until Dan, when Dan was not named this until Shofetim. The problematic pasuk occurs in Lech Lecha, in Bereshit 14:14:
יד וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם, כִּי נִשְׁבָּה אָחִיו; וַיָּרֶק אֶת-חֲנִיכָיו יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ, שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת, וַיִּרְדֹּף, עַד-דָּן. 14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued as far as Dan.
Shadal notes the concern, stating:

עד דן : איננה ליש הנקראת דן בימי השופטים ( שופטים י"ח ז' ) אלא מקום אחר, כי אפי' לדעת האומרים שנוסף אחר זמן, לא ייתכן זה, כי אז היה ראוי שיהיה כתוב וירדף עד ליש היא דן, ואז היה אפשר לומר מילים "היא דן" נוספות, אבל שיגיה אדם ויחליף מילה בתורה, לא ראינו ולא שמענו.

That is, if we look at Shofetim 18:7 and on, we read:
ז וַיֵּלְכוּ חֲמֵשֶׁת הָאֲנָשִׁים, וַיָּבֹאוּ לָיְשָׁה; וַיִּרְאוּ אֶת-הָעָם אֲשֶׁר-בְּקִרְבָּהּ יוֹשֶׁבֶת-לָבֶטַח כְּמִשְׁפַּט צִדֹנִים שֹׁקֵט וּבֹטֵחַ, וְאֵין-מַכְלִים דָּבָר בָּאָרֶץ יוֹרֵשׁ עֶצֶר, וּרְחוֹקִים הֵמָּה מִצִּידֹנִים, וְדָבָר אֵין-לָהֶם עִם-אָדָם. 7 Then the five men departed, and came to Laish, and saw the people that were therein, how they dwelt in security, after the manner of the Zidonians, quiet and secure; for there was none in the land, possessing authority, that might put them to shame in any thing, and they were far from the Zidonians, and had no dealings with any man.
ח וַיָּבֹאוּ, אֶל-אֲחֵיהֶם, צָרְעָה, וְאֶשְׁתָּאֹל; וַיֹּאמְרוּ לָהֶם אֲחֵיהֶם, מָה אַתֶּם. 8 And they came unto their brethren to Zorah and Eshtaol; and their brethren said unto them: 'What say ye?'
ט וַיֹּאמְרוּ, קוּמָה וְנַעֲלֶה עֲלֵיהֶם, כִּי רָאִינוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, וְהִנֵּה טוֹבָה מְאֹד; וְאַתֶּם מַחְשִׁים--אַל-תֵּעָצְלוּ, לָלֶכֶת לָבֹא לָרֶשֶׁת אֶת-הָאָרֶץ. 9 And they said: 'Arise, and let us go up against them; for we have seen the land, and, behold, it is very good; and are ye still? be not slothful to go and to enter in to possess the land.
י כְּבֹאֲכֶם תָּבֹאוּ אֶל-עַם בֹּטֵחַ, וְהָאָרֶץ רַחֲבַת יָדַיִם--כִּי-נְתָנָהּ אֱלֹהִים, בְּיֶדְכֶם: מָקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אֵין-שָׁם מַחְסוֹר, כָּל-דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ. 10 When ye go, ye shall come unto a people secure, and the land is large; for God hath given it into your hand; a place where there is no want; it hath every thing that is in the earth.'
יא וַיִּסְעוּ מִשָּׁם מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת הַדָּנִי, מִצָּרְעָה וּמֵאֶשְׁתָּאֹל, שֵׁשׁ-מֵאוֹת אִישׁ, חָגוּר כְּלֵי מִלְחָמָה. 11 And there set forth from thence of the family of the Danites, out of Zorah and out of Eshtaol, six hundred men girt with weapons of war.
יב וַיַּעֲלוּ, וַיַּחֲנוּ בְּקִרְיַת יְעָרִים--בִּיהוּדָה; עַל-כֵּן קָרְאוּ לַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא מַחֲנֵה-דָן, עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה--הִנֵּה, אַחֲרֵי קִרְיַת יְעָרִים. 12 And they went up, and encamped in Kiriath-jearim, in Judah; wherefore that place was called Mahaneh-dan unto this day; behold, it is behind Kiriath-jearim.
Thus, Laish is renamed Machanei-Dan at this point. So how could Dan be referred to earlier?

Shadal answer is that this is a different place by the name of Dan. This is not so farfetched, IMHO. E.g. there was more than one Biblical town of Bethlehem. And if we believe those Biblical scholars who claim Dan was the name of a deity, then one could easily imagine a town named after it. Or what about rather than a city, the general territory (though that would also be determined later).

Shadal also rejects the idea that this could be a later addition. Some scholars/commentators felt comfortable claiming that certain words and phrases were later explanatory insertions, even as the main Biblical text was ancient. But Shadal argues that the construction would need to be different -- "and he pursued him until Laish -- this is Dan." Because at the time it was written, the Biblical text would have had to have said Layish. And a later editor would not have felt comfortable to switch a word, but only to add an explanatory note.

Obviously, the alternative is to say that there is late authorship of this narrative.

Rashi seems to intuit some of this difficulty. He has two comments, on pasuk 14 and then pasuk 15:
until Dan There he became weak, for he saw that his children were destined to erect a calf there (Sanh. 96a). The reference is to I Kings 12:29: “And he (Jeroboam) placed one in Beth-el, and the other he placed in Dan.”

until Hobah There is no place named Hobah, but Dan is called Hobah [culpable] because of the idolatry which would be practiced there [in the future]. [from Tan. Lech Lecha 13]
Thus, both Chovah and Dan are the same place, the place Yeravam set up his idol, which is presumably the same Machanei-Dan. But the reason Avraham stopped there is that he was enervated by the future events saw would occur there. This, of course, drags in future events as important in the present narrative. And then, the fact that Dan would be named this much later no longer seems to matter so much. Indeed, this may well be a good part of Rashi's motivation here.

Two final points on the subject. One is an interesting book written to Voltaire in defense of Judaism. In Letters of Certain Jews to Monsieur Voltaire, we have what is pictured to the right. The main text and footnote text broadly parallels the idea Shadal rejects -- that the name of the place may have been switched in later.

















Another idea, developed from the writings of Josephus, is that there is another place called Dan in play. This approximates Shadal's idea. Thus, we have what is pictured to the right:

We have reference to Dan in Devarim 34:1 as well:

א וַיַּעַל מֹשֶׁה מֵעַרְבֹת מוֹאָב, אֶל-הַר נְבוֹ, רֹאשׁ הַפִּסְגָּה, אֲשֶׁר עַל-פְּנֵי יְרֵחוֹ; וַיַּרְאֵהוּ יְהוָה אֶת-כָּל-הָאָרֶץ אֶת-הַגִּלְעָד, עַד-דָּן. 1 And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, that is over against Jericho. And the LORD showed him all the land, even Gilead as far as Dan;
ב וְאֵת, כָּל-נַפְתָּלִי, וְאֶת-אֶרֶץ אֶפְרַיִם, וּמְנַשֶּׁה; וְאֵת כָּל-אֶרֶץ יְהוּדָה, עַד הַיָּם הָאַחֲרוֹן. 2 and all Naphtali, and the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah as far as the hinder sea;

Thus, it might not be referring to the town of Dan at all.

Interesting Posts and Articles #91

  1. On the sheitel front, kallahmagazine posts her article -- "The Advent of the American Sheitel."

    And here is an online collection of sources on kisui harosh.

  2. Overlawyered posts about Obama's mandatory volunteerism at change.gov -- 50 hrs a year of community service from middle school until the end of high school, and 100 hrs a year in college. Then, they changed change.gov to take out the "required" language.

  3. Shirat Devorah sees Obama in many of the descriptions DreamingOfMoshiach had given in describing Gog (while claiming Bush was Gog). Great minds think alike! I said the same thing before the election as well, with the same sources, though I developed it a bit more. Of course, I was showing there how this is a partial quotation of sources, and how I did not believe that any of the candidates (nor George W. Bush) was Gog, by showing how it could be interpreted any way one pleased.

  4. And perhaps I am just ignorant of the Jewish literature on this messianic subject, but I was astounded to see the following words from Joel Gallis and Robert Wolf, of the now clearly incorrect Redemption5768, also cited at Shirat Devorah:
    Exactly 5 years after Rav Kaduri met Mashiach, a descendant of Yishmael, an evil anti-Semite, was elected as the 44th President of the United States. He is the anti-Mashiach, also known as Gog.
    This in an article called "The Anti-Mashiach." For those in the know, "Christ" is Greek for mashiach. So anti-Christ is anti-mashiach. As far as I am aware, the antichrist is a Christian, rather than Jewish doctrine. And a search on anti-mashiach in Google yields many christian and Jews for Jesus websites. Saying Obama is Gog is one thing -- an incorrect thing, IMHO, but it is one thing. Saying he is the antichrist is another.

    Perhaps someone can correct me in the comments. Or else correct them.

    Update: Thanks! to Yaakov Nathan, of {?} Yiddishkeit.org, who writes in the comment section:
    This is from the midrash אוצר המדרשים ע' 390, which is also included in "Tzipisa Lishua" compiled by the Chofetz Chayim.

    Armilus, however, is not Gog.

    האות השביעי, הקב"ה בעל נפלאות עושה מופת בעולם. אמרו שיש ברומי אבן של שיש ועליה דמות נערה יפת תואר, והיא אינה עשויה בידי אדם אלא הקב"ה בראה כן בגבורתו, ובאין רשעי אומות העולם בני בלייעל ומחממין אותה ושוכבים אצלה, והקב"ה משמר טיפתן בתוך האבן ובורא בה בריה ויוצר בה ולד, והיא מתבקעת ויוצא ממנה דמות אדם ושמו ארמילוס השטן, זה שהאומות קורין אותו אנטיקרישטו, ארכו שתים עשרה אמה, ורחבו שתים עשרה ובין שתי עיניו זרת והן עמוקות אדומות ושער ראשו כצבע זהב, פעמי רגליו ירוקין ושתי קדקדין יש לו. ויבוא אצל אדום הרשעה ויאמר להם משיח אני, אני אלוהיכם, מיד מאמינים בו וממליכים אותו עליהם ומתחברים בו כל בני עשו ובאים אצלו, והולך וכובש כל המדינות ואומר לבני עשו הביאו לי תורתי שנתתי לכם, ומביאים תיפלותם ואומר להם אמת היא שנתתי לכם ואומר לאומות העולם האמינו בי כי אני משיחכם, מיד מאמינים בו. באותה שעה משגר לנחמיה בן חושיאל ולכל ישראל ואומר להם הביאו לי תורתכם והעידו בי שאני אלוה, מיד מתפחדין ונתמהין.

    http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/haraayon/otot-2.htm
    I wonder at the date of this midrash though. It makes me quite uncomfortable, as it refers explicitly to the Christian belief by the Christian name. (And presumably thus at least accidentally endorsing the Christian interpretation of Scriptures which yield this.) However, read this article in the Jewish Encyclopedia about Antichrist from the Jewish perspective. And another one about Armilus.




    And Yeranen Yaakov notes sources that connect Armilus to Gog, pointing to footnote 9 here.

    While it finds expression in certain midrashim, it does not mean I am now comfortable or accepting of it. The JewishEncyclopedia article on Armilus gives some interesting details of how this midrash arose, and ends with the statement that:
    The alleged descent of Armilus from a stone is a Jewish version of the wide-spread legend connected with the name of Virgil and referring to a statue that became a courtezan among the Romans (Güdemann, "Gesch. des Erziehungswesens . . . der Juden in Italien," pp. 221 et seq., 332, 333). It is indeed not improbable that this borrowing from the Virgil legend was due to Christian influence. The antithesis, Christ and Antichrist, which is the distinctive feature in the Christian legend of the Antichrist, led already in the tenth century to the opinion that Antichrist also would be the offspring of a virgin and, of course, of Satan (see Bousset,"Antichrist," p. 92, and the description of St. Hildegarde, lib. iii., visio xi., ed. Migne, pp. 716 et seq.).

  5. That same essay refers to the reference to Obama in Yechezkel. Also pointed out to me by my parents, and seen at Mystical Paths and Yehudi Yerushalmi and Yeranen Yaakov:

    יחזקאל פרק לח


    ויהי דבר-יהוה, אלי לאמר. ב בן-אדם, שים פניך אל-גוג ארץ המגוג--נשיא, ראש משך ותבל; והנבא, עליו. ג ואמרת, כה אמר אדני יהוה: הנני אליך, גוג--נשיא, ראש משך ותבל. ד ושובבתיך, ונתתי חחים בלחייך; והוצאתי אותך ואת-כל-חילך סוסים ופרשים, לבשי מכלול כלם--קהל רב צנה ומגן, תפשי חרבות כלם.
    The reason I am not so impressed is my near-certainty that had McCain been elected, someone would have found a similarly impressive code for him being Gog. It is a question of motivation, and the malleability of the sources -- which is why they were able to come up with a McCain-Palin Torah code matrix, which was making the rounds before the election.

    And what of Gog Bush, that certain quarters were so sure of, and had a "firm" basis for? (We'll finally be able to put that to rest on Jan 20th.) We will see how an Obama presidency shapes up -- may it be for good! -- and whether there is any more basis in this than for the proof that the end of days must come in the days of Olmert.

    Meanwhile, in the comment threat at Mystical Paths, devash says it is not a legit Torah code since it lacks other detail. (Perhaps devash means other codes crossing it.)

  6. Already, proposals for a national holiday in honor of Obama. Heh.

  7. An interesting example of "objectivity" in the classroom:


Thursday, November 06, 2008

Brit Milah As Adopted, Adapted, And Directed Practice Taken From the Egyptians

An interesting Shadal in the last perek of Lech Lecha.

A while back, DovBear asked about how circumcision could be a special covenant with God if the bushmen also practice it. I personally think it obvious that there might be some widespread practice which is adopted and perhaps modified, investing it with special meaning. It can be a covenant even though it is preexisting, just as a rainbow can be a covenant with humanity even though rainbows existed prior to the flood. And just as the shevatim were going to use it as a covenant with the residents of Shechem -- though of course there are other practical aspects to the justification in that case.

I see Shadal makes a similar point for brit milah, noting it is an Egyptian practice -- based on a pasuk in Yirmiyahu -- yet offering a suggestion of how this could then be a sign of a special covenant with the descendants of Abraham.

Shadal writes:

המול : נפעל משורש מול בפלס הכון. והנה ידענו כי גם המצרים היו נמולים ( ירמיה ט' כ"ה ) ורחוק הוא לומר שלמדו זה מאברהם ; ונ"ל כי מתחילה היה מנהג המצרים, שהכהנים לבדם ימולו , וה' ציוה את אברהם שימול כל זכר, על דרך ואתם תהיו לי ממלכת כהנים ( שמות י"ט ו' ), וכמו שמפרש והיה לאות ברית ביני וביניכם, כלו' שהמילה היא סימן התקשרות ישראל עם אלהיהם, וסימן גדולה ופרישות מהמון בני אדם, וזה עצמו היה המכוון במילת כהני מצרים ; ואחר זמן אולי פשטה המילה בין המצרים גם בהמון.
וסנכוניאטון הכנעני כתב כי אחר שבא רעב ודבר
Cronus הקריב
לאביו
Uranus
את בנו יחידו , ונימול, וציוה לכל אנשיו לעשות כן ; ונראה כי סיפור זה נמשך מסיפור קורות אברהם (שמל את ביתו ועקד את יצחק יחידו) שנשתבש ביד הכנענים.

Thus, if we look at Yirmeyahu 9:
כד הִנֵּה יָמִים בָּאִים, נְאֻם-יְהוָה, וּפָקַדְתִּי, עַל-כָּל-מוּל בְּעָרְלָה. 24 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them that are circumcised in their uncircumcision:
כה עַל-מִצְרַיִם וְעַל-יְהוּדָה, וְעַל-אֱדוֹם וְעַל-בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן וְעַל-מוֹאָב, וְעַל כָּל-קְצוּצֵי פֵאָה, הַיֹּשְׁבִים בַּמִּדְבָּר--כִּי כָל-הַגּוֹיִם עֲרֵלִים, וְכָל-בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל עַרְלֵי-לֵב. {פ} 25 Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that have the corners of their hair polled, that dwell in the wilderness; for all the nations are uncircumcised, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart. {P}
, Shadal deduces that the Egyptians, too, were circumcised. Now I might suggest that there may be other ways of reading that pasuk, or that they adopted the practice later.

But Shadal says it is unlikely they adopted the practice from Avraham. It is, therefore, a general practice. Shadal's suggestion (founded on nothing, as far as I can see) is that the Egyptian custom was that the priests would circumcise themselves.

{Update: As Wolf of Ishim veShitot points out in the comment section, Shadal got this info about the Egyptian priests specifically from Herodotus. Thanks!}

By commanding Avraham that every male be circumcised, it is along the lines of being a nation of priests (mamlechet kohanim). If I recall correctly, this is how Jacob Milgrom attempted to explain the techeilet, as taking a practice of the nobility and casting it on every Israelite because of the idea of mamlechet kohanim vegoy kadosh.

And Shadal reads it into the reasoning given by the pasuk, that it should be as a sign, for it is indeed a sign demonstrating their special relationship to Hashem, that every male Israelite has the same close connection that priests do in other religions.

But nothing in Yirmeyahu suggests it was only the priests! Shadal answers that perhaps the practice spread from the priests to the general populace after that.

He also cites Senconiaton {Sanchuniathon} the Canaanite who wrote that at a time of famine and plague, Cronus sacrificed to his father Uranus his only son, and underwent circumcision, and commanded all his men to do likewise. And is appears that this story is drawn from the narrative of the happenings of Avraham (who circumcised his household and bound Yitzchak his only son), which was corrupted in the hands of the Canaanites.

What binds these two comments of Shadal together is that both are dealing with what to make of other cultures having traditions about brit milah, and whose tradition comes from whose.

There also exist slighly different versions of this circumcision / sacrifice / Cronus. To cite Wikipedia:
In ancient Greek myths, Cronus envied the power of his father, the ruler of the universe, Ouranos. Ouranos drew the enmity of Cronus' mother, Gaia, when he hid the gigantic youngest children of Gaia, the hundred-armed Hecatonchires and one-eyed Cyclopes, in Tartarus, so that they would not see the light. Gaia created a great adamant sickle and gathered together Cronus and his brothers to persuade them to kill Ouranos. Only Cronus was willing to do the deed, so Gaia gave him the sickle and placed him in ambush. When Ouranos met with Gaia, Cronus attacked him with the sickle by cutting off his genitals, castrating him and casting the severed member into the sea. From the blood (or, by a few accounts, semen) that spilled out from Ouranos and fell upon the earth, the Gigantes, Erinyes, and Meliae were produced. From the member that was cast into the sea, Aphrodite later emerged.[3] For this, Ouranos threatened vengeance and called his sons titenes (according to Hesiod meaning "straining ones," the source of the word "titan", but this etymology is disputed) for overstepping their boundaries and daring to commit such an act.

...

The account ascribed by Eusebius to the semi-legendary pre-Trojan War Phoenician historian, Sanchuniathon, indicates that Cronus was originally a Canaanite ruler who founded Byblos and was subsequently deified. This version gives his alternate name as Elus or Ilus, and states that in the 32nd year of his reign, he emasculated, slew and deified his father Epigeius or Autochthon "whom they afterwards called Uranus". It further states that after ships were invented, Cronos, visiting the 'inhabitable world', bequeathed Attica to his own daughter Athena, and Egypt to Thoth the son of Misor and inventor of writing[4].
I would note that this is the same Sanchuniathon that Shadal is citing, but presumably a different part of the legend.

The Duplication In Sarah-As-Sister Stories

In Lech Lecha, we hear of Sarah as Avraham's sister, in terms of Pharaoh. In Vayera, a similar story, with Sarah as Avraham's sister, in terms of Avimelech. Is this evidence of multiple sources, where there were two variants of the story, and both were recorded? And is the similar story involving Yitzchak and Rivkah another source?

I don't believe so. In terms of Avraham, we see that this is a regular tactic Avraham and Sarah use. In Vayera, in Bereishit 20:13:

יג וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר הִתְעוּ אֹתִי, אֱלֹהִים מִבֵּית אָבִי, וָאֹמַר לָהּ, זֶה חַסְדֵּךְ אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשִׂי עִמָּדִי: אֶל כָּל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר נָבוֹא שָׁמָּה, אִמְרִי-לִי אָחִי הוּא. 13 And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said unto her: This is thy kindness which thou shalt show unto me; at every place whither we shall come, say of me: He is my brother.'
So we see that they do it in every place.

So how come we do not hear about all those other places? Because nothing eventful happened in all those places. The people in those places were righteous enough and did not seize Sarah, and did not kill Avraham either.

Why would he do this after the first incident with Pharaoh? Because Pharaoh was an anomaly, perhaps, but in the thousand other places the strategy worked well, and perhaps better than the alternative of revealing it, in Avraham's reasoning. And it is no surprise for Yitzchak to follow in his father's strategy as well, where one incident occurred with no repercussions - just the king realizing that it was a trick.

Interesting Posts and Articles #90

  1. Techdirt discusses "Don't Download This Song," a song from Weird Al Yankovic: The uncensored version is here on YouTube. But on MTV's site, they have an embeddable version (below), where they bleep out the names of music download sites (many defunct) such as Kazaa and Grokster. See here:



  2. WolfishMusings notes an interesting post on SemGirl about Shidduch Madness -- a shidduch being canceled because of a dispute of whether the chassan would wear his peyos up or down.

    But I disagree with the second story in that SemGirl post:
    At one of the meals, one of the guests warmly greeted someone she hadnt seen for quite a while, "Chava Sara, how are you". Chava Sara was furious and demanded to know, who told her that her full name is Chava Sara. It seems that she only goes by Chava, because her son is "on the market", and he wont be able to date all the lovely Sarahs out there, if it became public knowledge that her few name includes Sarah. How one innocent greeting at a Yom Tov suddenly, puts its on a neon billboard on 13th Ave, I dont quite understand. Also, if that is in fact her name, then halachically speaking, does it matter who knows and who doesnt. You iz who you iz, to quote a famous rapper.. But I guess no one informed her of that, or maybe she was just too busy shopping.
    Chava Sarah is more correct than SemGirl here. Unfortunately, we live in a society in which the girl's name being equal to that of the future mother-in-law is enough to nix a shidduch. This has its basis in the Tzavaah (will) of Rabbi Yehuda haChassid, which, as noted recently, one YU Rosh Yeshiva called troubling and another called kefirah. The Nodah Be-Yehuda also considered it silly (read the intro to the teshuva carefully to see what I mean), and noted how it is at odds with explicit gemaras, but took pains in a teshuva to mitigate the restriction for those who insisted in believing and following this foolishness. E.g. he said this is only for Rav Yehuda haChassid's descendants, only three generations of names, and that combined names do not count (and some follow him on this last count, a very important loophole).

    So Chava Sarah "iz who she iz," but should that restrict her son's chances of having a fulfilling life, and of fulfilling a Biblical commandment to be fruitful and multiply. She has no hangups with this restriction (especially since she has a combined name). But she knows that (apparently) many shadchanim do follow this practice. And those shadchanim will consider a shidduch, and then dismiss it because the girl's name is Sarah, or one of the girl's names is Sarah. Sarah is a very common name, and these shadchanim might not know of this loophole of the Nodah Be-Yehuda, or might not hold by it.

    "One innocent greeting" does not put it on the billboard, but this person was not told directly, but must have heard it from someone else. Chava Sarah wants to find this initial person in order to suppress the information. This person might refer to Chava Sarah as "Chava Sarah" in casual conversation to multiple people, and some of those people may have daughters, and talk, or may be shadchanim.

    It is unfortunate, but sometimes one must, or one is smart to, take steps to suppress information, even if one personally really do not consider that information negative in truth.

  3. Lion of Zion quotes an Ibn Ezra, explaining why some of us have poor vocabulary.

  4. Mice cloned after many years dead and frozen.

  5. NY Times article: Conservatives have a better sense of humor than liberals. Social scientists offer some theories why. But the last paragraph captures something:

    Another possible explanation is that conservatives, or at least the ones in Boston, really aren’t the stiffs they’re made out to be by social scientists. When these scientists analyze conservatives, they can sound like Victorians describing headhunters in Borneo. They try to be objective, but it’s an alien culture.

    The studies hailing liberals’ nonconformity and “openness to ideas” have been done by social scientists working in a culture that’s remarkably homogenous politically. Democrats outnumber Republicans by at least seven to one on social science and humanities faculties, according to studies by Daniel Klein, an economist at George Mason University. If you’re a professor who truly “seeks new experiences,” try going into a faculty club today and passing out McCain-Palin buttons.

    Could it be that the image of conservatives as humorless, dogmatic neurotics is based more on political bias than sound social science?


    Read it all.

  6. HaMerkaz made an MP3 of that section of the shuir in which Rav Kanyevsky made his recent statement on sheitels. I discussed the implications, or lack thereof, in a post yesterday, discussing how this is an old, longstanding dispute in modern times. And today, Hirhurim covers the question.

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

My Reaction to Rav Elyashiv's Latest Statement on Wigs


The Yeshiva World reports that Rav Eliashiv recently had some harsh words against sheitels. To quote the article:
Maran HaRav Yosef Sholom Elyashiv Shlita had some very harsh words regarding today’s sheitels, stating the women who wear them today are as if they go outdoor bareheaded.

The Rav is quoted as saying there are permitted sheitels and those that are asur, but today’s are strictly forbidden. He called “today’s” sheitels “erva”, stating they are absolutely forbidden.

A participant in the shiur asked Rav Elyashiv how they wore human hair wigs in the time of the Gemara, to which he responded the wigs of those days were different, with the best at that time being comparable perhaps to today’s worst, adding today’s human hair wigs represent “erva” and are absolutely forbidden.

The Rav repeated over and over again the severity of the isur of wearing such sheitels, which the wife and her husband share equal responsibility.

But is this really news? We knew that Rav Eliashiv had this position. I noted that last year, in 2007, in a post which read in part:
Secondly, in recent times, some prominent rabbis such as Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach, Rabbi Shalom Elyashiv, and Rabbi Nissim Karelitz have declared that even if one says that wigs are permitted, modern wigs are Biblically forbidden since they are attractive and look like hair.
That summary was based on this YNet article from June 2006:
Citing decisions in Jewish law that forbid the wearing of wigs that look like hair, by among others, Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach, Rabbi Shalom Elyashiv, and Rabbi Nissim Karelitz, three of the most important ultra-Orthodox authorities on Jewish law.

...

“Modern wigs are forbidden according to the Torah since they are just as much a breach of the law as hair, if not more,” according to the announcement. “


According to the announcement, while there were a number of authorities in Jewish law who permitted the wearing of wigs for married women, they were referring to the older type of wig. The newer wigs, which look just like real hair, are clearly “forbidden according to the Torah.”
Now, one should point out that in this recent shiur (and likewise in that earlier 2006 article), Rav Eliashiv was distinguishing the newer wigs from the ones permitted in the time of the gemara. One could also perhaps continue this line of argument to the various halachic decisors who permitted along the way to the present day, such as e.g. the Pri Megadim, the Rama, the Mishna Brura, etc., including those who permitted a woman to use her own hair as a wig. I personally think this is questionable, and it potentially a cop-out of nishtana hateva to dismiss the poskim who would truly permit. But that is arguable.

However, there are poskim even in recent times who permitted wigs which are prettier than the woman's own hair, and which look like her own hair. This is what I will set out to prove in this next section.

As noted on the Dreaming Of Moshiach blog, Rav Shalom Schwadron apparently said:
I want to tell you a true story and I wish it was not a true story. 25 years ago a girl came to our house and she spoke to my wife for 4 hours. While I was sitting and learning, I thought to myself that any person that speaks for 4 hours must need a drink. I told my wife, "perhaps give this girl a drink and something to eat?" The girl heard me and said to my wife, "it's not necessary. I'm going home and I'll eat and drink at my home." When she said that I realized this girl is married and has a husband. So why does she look like a girl? You think it's funny??? It's not funny!!! They want to look like unattached women. This 'wanting' is טְרֵפָה unfit, not Kosher!

The Torah says, "ופרע ראש האשה …and let him uncover the head of the woman". A woman that was not faithful to her husband, a Sotah, is disgraced. They disgrace her by removing her hair covering and now, women want to look like a Sotah???!!! A married woman wants to look like a Sotah??? She wants to look like a girl, that she's not married and available? 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. Who gave women permission to wear hair on top of their hair? To wear a wig that looks better than her own hair and it doesn't even look like a wig! 24 Poskei HaDor of Israel forbid wigs. My grandfather ruled that Divrei Torah or even a blessing is forbidden to say infront of women that wears wigs. The only way Divrei Torah or a blessing can be said in such a situation is with closed eyes.
Now, Rabbi Shalom Schwadron passed away in 1997. Assuming he told this in the last year of his life (a very conservative estimate), and this story happened 25 years previous, then it happened in 1972 at the latest. It likely happened earlier than this. And yet, he has an objection to a sheitel because it looks better than her own hair and looks real, not like a wig.

So this type of objection to realistic looking wigs, and wigs that are prettier than the woman's own hair, is not new in 2008. It goes back at least to 1972.

Let us look at some of the statements in favor. We have the Lubavitcher Rebbe, in favor of sheitels. In the course of discussing it, he said:

In the past the custom was to cut off the hair. Later on the custom spread of wearing a sheitel. Wearing a sheitel is especially appropriate now, when one can obtain a sheitel in various shades, which looks even nicer than one's own hair.

Let the woman ponder this matter. It doesn't take an hour or even a half-hour of contemplation. Why doesn't she really want to wear a sheitel but only a kerchief: because she knows that a sheitel cannot be taken off when she is walking in the street or is at a gathering, while a kerchief can be moved all the way up and sometimes taken off entirely, as known from practice.

It is possible that she will say that she will wear a kerchief properly. If she does so, then surely it is well. But experience has shown that this is not the case.

Why place oneself in the path of temptation?
Thus, the Lubavitcher Rebbe was in favor of sheitels, despite Rav Shalom Schwadron's objection that it looked better than the woman's own hair. In fact, this was a point in their favor. And this was from a sicha of the Rebbe, on Rosh Chodesh Elul, 5714 -- meaning 1954.

(That site, actually a book, has several pages quoting the words of the Lubavitcher Rebbe about wigs.)

Similarly, we have Rav Moshe Feinstein. He also is discussing a sheitel which looks like the woman's hair -- so much so, that he had to respond to questions of whether it was marit ayin. He permits in cases when men cannot tell it is a wig {because they do not look carefully at women, presumably as in the case of Rav Schwadron}; and when men can't tell and even women cannot tell. And even in the latter case, when even women cannot tell, Rav Feinstein permit. Read it here, in the original Hebrew and my rough English translation, on parshablog. And nowadays, even with are modern wigs, women can certainly tell.

This teshuva of Rav Moshe was written in Tammuz 7724, or about 1964. Which again, is pretty long ago.

So this problem of wigs which looked real was pretty old, going to 1964 and to 1954.

You will say that the modern wigs look even more like real hair? This is a claim of nishtana hateva to disenfranchise those who permitted, based on a matter of degree. But we see from the words of those who were trying to permit, and those who were trying to forbid, that the concern was identical. If it was realistic enough back then to fool men (for that is what Rav Moshe addresses, and Rav Schwadron addresses), and realistic beautiful hair is Biblically erva, then Rav Moshe should have forbidden it on that count. It is, rather, clear that Rav Moshe Feinstein did not subscribe to this view. And the same could be said for the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Do not tell me now that because of beauty and realism, they would forbid. This is a matter of degree rather than some new innovative topic which was inapplicable back then.

So at this point, we have a very big and learned Rabbi in Eretz Yisrael saying one thing, and we have our own poskim saying something else. Are we permitted to ignore Rav Eliashiv in this matter and follow Rav Moshe and those rabbis who followed him?

Rav Moshe addresses this very issue, and specifically in terms of wigs, and states that we should rely on our local pesak. See this in this teshuva of Rav Moshe Feinstein, posted and roughly translated on parshablog.

Completely orthogonal to all this, I will just note that last year I posted an essay using a particular methodology Rav Elyashiv is unlikely to use, or likely approve of, to argue why wigs are permitted. This is also an entirely separate argument from the ones used by the traditional halachic authorities who permit wigs. You might wish to check it out.

See also Shirat Devorah's "To wig or not to wig," where she cites a particular sicha of the Rebbe, as well as a book or two culled from statement of the Rebbe, about the importance of wearing a sheitel.

Also, Reb Akiva at Mystical Paths has a take on it, though commenting on Rav Ovadia Yosef's condemnation of sheitels. He contrasts the Lubavitcher Rebbe's support and Rav Ovadia Yosef's condemnation, and says each was ruling for his own community. He also draws a distinction between some sheitels which are inappropriate and others.

I am not so sure that Rav Ovadia Yosef, Rav Eliashiv, et. al., are making these fine distinctions among modern wigs, but rather are contrasting modern wigs from the wigs of the gemara. It is also possible, since in general their community has forbidden wigs, that they are unfamiliar with all the styles of wigs, but are relying on descriptions from others -- or else are hypersensitive to the "sexual" allure of a sheitel because of the lack of this institution in the Iraqi, or Sefardic Jerusalemite -- or charedi communities, where they won't print photos of women in their newspapers. Much as by the sheitel display controversy over at Chaim Berlin a while back, some chareidim saw inappropriateness in the sheitel display (scroll down to bottom of my linked post to see the controversial display). Or much as Biz jean skirts are the tznius mode of dress of Beis Yaakov girls in America, while jeans material is considered horribly untznius in certain chareidi communities in Israel.

I am not entirely sure I agree with him that these Rabbonim are intending to rule only for their communities, but at the very least, I would say, as I put forth above, that this is a dispute between Gedolim and that we have the right to pasken as our community has paskened.

Note: Don't pasken from blogs, one way or another. Consult your local Orthodox rabbi.

Update: And now Emes ve-Emunah picks up the story, with his own take, and the title (since changed) of "wigged out." Heh. His prediction is that people will, by and large, ignore this halachic pronouncement in America; and he contrasts it with pronouncements about Rabbi Slifkin's works. It indeed plays in to this question of independent American psak vs. kowtowing to Gedolim appointed and anointed in Eretz Yisrael. And I can only hope that they indeed will ignore it.

Update #2: If you speak Yiddish, you can listen to Rav Elyashiv from that shiur over at HaMerkaz. (h.t. Danny)

Update #3: See how Hirhurim covers it.

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Voter Intimidation by Black Panthers? And More Election News

  1. See here:


  2. Also, according to YNet, Obama made secret promises to Palestinians. But that is contested:
    The sources said that during a recent meeting with Obama, the two Palestinian leaders "heard the best things they ever heard from an American president."

    According to the report, the Democratic senator told Abbas and Fayyad that he "supports the rights of the Palestinians to east Jerusalem, as well as their right to a stable, sovereign state", but asked them to keep the remarks a secret.

    Dennis Ross, a key advisor to Obama on foreign policy, denied the report outright. "As someone who was present in Senator Obama’s meeting with the Palestinian leadership, I can state definitively that there were no secret commitments made, and no discussion of Jerusalem whatsoever. This report is false,” his statement said.




Update: Here's another video, this time from earlier, of the black panther guy with the nightstick:

Interesting Posts and Articles #89

  1. Bob Krumm on the ups and downs of the McCain-Obama gap in polling, based on weekend surveys.

  2. In Indonesia, a cow ritually drowned after being impregnated by a man. The drowning of the cow served to erase any bad influences which were upon the village elder who was caught in the act of impregnating the cow.

    Poor cow.

    We might compare to the Biblical directive of death penalty for bestiality. There are a number of distinctions. Primary among them is that we no longer do it. But still, if that was the Biblical and Divine directive, it would be problematic. But other distinctions are that there is no belief that a man can impregnate a cow, with the penalty hinging upon it; the that the death of the cow does not pardon the man, but he himself gets the death penalty; and also, that midrashically, the cow is killed not for a violation but so that people do not point to the cow as this man's mate, which would embarrass the man.

  3. The oldest Hebrew writing found, on clay pottery. This may demonstrate ancient literacy, something previously questioned by some.

  4. Guy Ritchie cancels Madonna's order to fill a swimming pool with Kabbalah water. Makes sense.

  5. Hirhurim notes that HebrewBooks.Org now has Rav Yehuda Henkin's Bnei Banim online:
    שו"ת בני בנים - חלק א הנקין, יהודה הרצל
    תשמ"א
    שו"ת בני בנים - חלק ב הנקין, יהודה הרצל
    תשנ"ב
    שו"ת בני בנים - חלק ד הנקין, יהודה הרצל
    תשס"ה
    שו"ת בני בנים - חלק שלישי הנקין, יהודה הרצל
    תשנ"ח

  6. The end of journalism, about the media ignoring various generally important stories because of a pro-Obama bias.

  7. User Friendly, trying to put the US election into perspective.

  8. John McCain on SNL

  9. Live election results, via Google:

The Sarah Palin Matrix vs. The Obama Gematria

Today is election day in the US!

I saw this interesting post at Mystical Paths, (they were just repeating it because it was interesting), that purports to prove via Torah codes that Sarah Palin will be our next vice president, and that John McCain will be our next president. I noted some of the problems I have with this in the comment section there. But here is a larger list:

a) Interpreting "in pain shall you bring forth children" in the plain text, in something that does not even intersect with Sarah Palin, to be a reference to her Down Syndrome child, is insulting. And it is a kvetch to boot.

b) They show an impressive matrix, but that is because they are not showing most of the characters. The full rows are not shown, but as they note, there are 45,159 characters between rows. These words are not really very proximate to one another.

c) As far as I can make out, they are wrapping around the text. They are starting in Devarim and ending in Shemos, with Bereishit also in there! Apparently, they are doing some wrap-around to accomplish this. This is weird.

d) Furthermore, they are not even spelling Sarah Palin correctly. They are spelling it שרה פאילן. A Google web and news search reveals no such spellings. And it is a weird spelling, with no yud between the lamed and the nun, and with a yud after the aleph. To compare, a web search on שרה פאלין spelled as I just spelled it yields 10,000 hits, and spelled שרה פלין yields 17,000 hits. Now, you may argue that any transliteration is acceptable, and this is how they do Torah codes. No. This is the very problem of "wiggle room" for Torah codes -- if you can choose at will any spelling, rather than choosing one up front, then the codes are not statistically meaningful, and you can find similar codes in War and Peace. Why this is so, I won't explain here. Do some research on the matter, if you are interested in this difficulty.

Overall, unimpressive.

Compare with the equally unimpressive claim that Obama will be President because Barack Hussain Obama has a gematria of 501, the same as the Levi Jeans and of the word ראש. And words like ישמעאלים. I wonder how many past presidents had the same gematria of 501, and how many of their defeated opponents had 501.

They neglect to mention that John McCain's middle name is Sidney, and so his full name of יון סידני מקקאין is also 501. So why say this shows Obama as President more than McCain? The answer is that they do not realize how malleable gematria is, so when they abuse gematria to get the results they want and nothing else, they do not realize they are abusing it.

Choosing a gematria to this specific word, as opposed to נשיא, or הפרזידנט. Indeed, הפְּרֶזִידֶנְט has a gematria of 365, while יון מקקין has a gematria of 366, where you are allowed to be off by one. Also, it all depends on whether Barack's first name is a cognate of Baruch or of Baraq, Lightning, Mohammed's horse. The gematria which leads to 501 is based on Baraq, with a ק. But the spelling ck at the end of Barack, and the sometimes given etymology, would perhaps make it with a chaf or chaf sofit, which would mess up the entire gematria.

At the end of the day, both things are silly. Obama or McCain will win because of the votes of the American public and the Divine plan. But not because Obama's gematria is 501, and the fact that it is 501 has absolutely nothing to do with anything. But silly people try to create patterns, in gematria and in Torah codes, to reassure themselves and convince themselves that they know what is going on.

And if McCain wins, they will point to the Palin matrix. And if Obama wins, they will point to the Obama "Torah" code in Daniel, or to the gematria of his name. So they win either way. And the method will remain just as silly.

Monday, November 03, 2008

Maharil on Maamid

While we are on the topic of Maharil on Succot, we should not an important Maharil on the chumra, or else halacha, of maamid -- that the schach should not be supported by anything which is mekabel tumah. Maharil considers this requirement to be without foundation, for reasons he explains. Of course, halacha may develop or conclude not in accordance with Maharil. Another interesting aspect of this -- the basis is the Rif, and Maharil reveals that he was not in possession of a Rif, and finally was able to determine what their error was in understanding the Rif when he finally got his hands on one.

And a bit about the sefer. Shu"t Maharil, where the following is from, was actually written by the Maharil. In contrast, the more influential sefer Maharil on Minhagim (mentioned in the previous post about Maharil and burning aravot which had covered the succah) was written by a student, based on derashot given by the Maharil and heard by the student.

While I am at it, I might as well record the subsequent teshuva, which is also of interest. It is about using Shabbos belts, for keys made of iron, or silver.

Here is my rough translation of Maharil on maamid (page 80)

A succah in which the sechach is supported with something which is susceptible to ritual impurity, there are those of our Sages who ruled in this land to prohibit, and so did their students rule after them. And from the day that this was related to me that such was ruled in the name of the Alfasi {=the Rif}, I was extremely astounded, for I learned carefully in Asheri {=piskei haRosh} that it was permitted. And I asked them, "if so, how can they place the supports of the sechach upon the window of a wall, which is connected to the ground, or a wall of stones, and many the like?" And they did not answer me anything.

{The implication is that maamid of maamid would be the same; and further that there are two aspects of kosher schach -- it cannot be makebel tumah and cannot be mechubar lekarka, and if one aspect is invalid for maamid, so should the other.}

And in like manner to this the Rosh asked. And I was not able to investigate where the support for this was, until there was directed to my hand today the sefer haAlfasi {=the Rif}, and I found there from where this ruling came. For in the Mishna, Rabbi Yuda and the Sages argue about one who supports {somech} his succah with the legs of a bed, and the Sages permit. And Rav Alfes rules like Rabbi Yehuda. {See here on my Rif blog, in Rif Succah 10a, on Succah 21b -- there is an image of the daf as well, though the Baal HaMaor is very difficult to see.}

And in the gemara, two different Amoraim give explanations, one because he supported it with something which is susceptible to ritual impurity {but one giving a different reason}. And Rav Alfes does not bring the reasons, but Maharaz {=Baal HaMaor, Rabbi Zerachiah ben Isaac Ha-Levi Gerondi} writes in his commentary this reason only, and they learned from there the laws of Succah, and they thought that this is the reason of Rabbi Yuda. And because of this, they ruled to forbid, and they tie the supports of the succah with ropes, and pegs of wood, and leave off pegs of iron.

However, my humble opinion is not so. For the majority of the Geonim ruled like the Sages {and not as the Rif ruled like Rabbi Yehuda}. And even according to Rabbi Yehuda, other Amoraim explain a different reason, and that other reason is the primary one, as the Rosh proves. And so did all my teachers conduct themselves, and there is no doubt here.

And Maharaz {=Baal HaMaor} who wrote this reason, it is because it is the first one, and simpler, that he took it.

But your reason, that all goes after the support, it is not so. For that is stated about that which supports a vessel to receive liquid, which is what Rabbi Meir deals with in the first perek of Shabbat, and we establish like him. But whether the support is the primary part of the vessel, this is a dispute of Rabbi Nechemiah and the Sages in perek Bameh Isha {also in Shabbat}, and their topic is not relevant to here, and we do not learn from there to the matter of Succah, which is attached. And there, they argue in the matter of a vessel, which is the primary part of the vessel. And in the matter of a ring which is attached to a house, he said that it is nullified in respect to the house, and behold it is like it, and we do not go after the support.

And that which you have written that the Mordecha and Rabbi Shmuel require one to wait until midnight {presumably if it is raining}, this is a teshuva of Maharam. But I did not see our teachers conducting themselves so, but rather at the time of eating, we go after that time as is implied in the language of the others of our Rabbis, that a person should assess himself, if he would go out of his house because of pain {/annoyance, aggravation} such as this, such as in the gloss {Hagah} in Maimoni.
And at the top of the next page (pg 81) is the teshuva about Shabbos belts. Note that the siman brought for it is in Melachim Aleph, 20:11:
יא וַיַּעַן מֶלֶךְ-יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמֶר דַּבְּרוּ, אַל-יִתְהַלֵּל חֹגֵר כִּמְפַתֵּחַ. 11 And the king of Israel answered and said: 'Tell him: Let not him that girdeth on his armour boast himself as he that putteth it off.'
with a great pun, and a rereading of choger as chagor, and kimfateach as bemafteach. Heh.

Enjoy:








Note
: These are important halachic sources, and are relevant to halacha. But don't rely on these posts, by themselves, as halacha lemaaseh.

Daf Yomi Kiddushin 24b: The halacha like the words of the machria?

I was just going through this gemara, and Rif in the course of Rif Yomi:
{Kiddushin 24b}
ת"ר וכולן עבד יוצא בהן לחירות וצריך גט שחרור דברי ר"ש
ר"מ אומר אינו צריך
ר' אלעזר אומר צריך
ר' טרפון אומר א"צ
ר"ע אומר צריך
המכריעין לפני חכמים אומרים נראין דברי ר"ט בשן ועין שהתורה זכתה לו ודברי ר"ע בשאר אברים הואיל ומדרש חכמים הוא

והלכתא כר"ע
דר"ט חבירו הוא וקי"ל הלכה כר"ע מחבירו
ואע"ג דמכריעין לפני חכמים אמרו נראין דברי ר"ט בשן ועין לא סמכינן אהא דלא אמרינן כ"מ ששנים חולקין ואחר מכריע הלכה כדברי המכריע אלא במתני' אבל בברייתא לא
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: And all of them, a servant goes out for them to freedom. And he requires a deed of manumission. These are the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Meir says: He does not need it. Rabbi Eleazar says: He does need it. Rabbi Tarfon says: He does not need it. Rabbi Akiva says: He needs it.
These who are machria {/decide amongst opinions -- or quite likely, compromise} before the Sages say: The words of Rabbi Tarfon appear true by tooth and eye, for the Torah {itself} gives it to him. And the words of Rabbi Akiva by the remainder of the limbs, since it is a midrash of the Sages.

And the halacha is like Rabbi Akiva. For Rabbi Tarfon is his colleague, and we establish that the halacha is like Rabbi Akiva over his colleague. And even though those who are machria before the Sages said "the words of Rabbi Tarfon appear true by tooth and eye," we do not rely upon this, for we do not say that any place that two {people} argue and one is machria, the halacha is like the words of the machria, except by a Mishna, but in a brayta, no.

דגרסי' בפ' כירה בענין הא דתניא לא ישתטף אדם כל גופו בין בחמין בין בצונן דברי ר' מאיר
ר"ש מתיר
ר' יהודה אומר בחמין אסור בצונן מותר

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן הלכה כרבי יהודה
אמר ליה רב יוסף לרבב"ח בפירוש שמיע לך או מכללא שמיע לך
מאי כללא דא"ר תנחום א"ר יוחנן א"ר ינאי אמר רבי כ"מ ששנים חולקין ואחר מכריע הלכתא כדברי המכריע חוץ מקולי מטלניות שאע"פ שר' אליעזר מחמיר ורבי יהושע מיקל ור"ע מכריע אין הלכה כדברי המכריע דר"ע גבי ר' אליעזר ור' יהושע תלמיד הוא ועוד הא הדר ביה ר"ע לגבי רבי יהושע
ואמר ליה ואי מכללא מאי
דלמא הני מילי במתני' אבל בברייתא לא
אמר ליה אנא בפירוש שמיע לי:
For we learn in perek Kira {Shabbat 39b, here in the Rif}, in the matter of this which they learnt {in a brayta}:
A person must not souse his entire body, whether in hot or cold water. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon permits. Rabbi Yehuda says: In hot it is forbidden, while in cold it is permitted.
Rabba bar bar Channa cited Rabbi Yochanan: The halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda.
Rav Yosef said to Rabba bar bar Chana: Did you hear this explicitly, or are you deriving this from a principle?
What principle {was he referring to}? For R' Tanchum cited Rabbi Yochanan who cited Rabbi Yannai who cited Rabbi: Any place where two people argue and one is machria, the halacha is like the words of the machria, except for the leniencies related to rags {three square tefachim used for specific purposes, whether they become tamei, as discussed on Shabbat 29a}, where even though Rabbi Eliezer is stringent, Rabbi Yehoshua is lenient, and Rabbi Akiva is machria, the halacha is not like the words of the machria. {switch to Aramaic} For Rabbi Akiva in regard to Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua is a student, and furthermore, Rabbi Akiva retracted in this in regard to Rabbi Yehoshua.
And he {=Rabba bar bar Channa} said to him: and if it is derived from a principle, what of it?
{The response:} "Perhaps these words were by a Mishna, but by a brayta, no.
He said to him: I heard it explicitly.
It is interesting, this application of the rule by the Rif, which is a klal horaah he extracted from perek Kira. A few notes, though:

1) In that gemara in perek Kira, a lot of information is actually provided by the setama digemara, something we can discover by looking at the transition between the Hebrew and the Aramaic, and other cues.

I would declare that the original discussion between Rav Yosef and Rabba bar bar Chana did not include a discussion of the specific "kelal" involved. Thus, the discussion went:
אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן הלכה כרבי יהודה
אמר ליה רב יוסף לרבב"ח בפירוש שמיע לך או מכללא שמיע לך
אמר ליה אנא בפירוש שמיע לי

Even though Rif has the words
ואמר ליה ואי מכללא מאי
which would suggest that Rabba bar bar Channa uttered those words, in which case Rav Yosef would have had to have replied
דלמא הני מילי במתני' אבל בברייתא לא
in fact, the words ואמר ליה are supplied by Rif to explain the progression of that sugya, but in our text of gemara, the words ואמר ליה are absent. Thus, this explanation of
דלמא הני מילי במתני' אבל בברייתא לא
are not necessarily the words of Rav Yosef, but rather quite possibly the words of the setama, and one should keep this in mind before deciding that this is a limitation on one of the kelalei horaah.

2) Another point is that within the citation of the statement of Rabbi Tanchum, there is a distinction between the words of Rabbi and the setama's explanation. And this is made clear by a sudden shift from Hebrew to Aramaic. Thus,
מאי כללא דא"ר תנחום א"ר יוחנן א"ר ינאי אמר רבי כ"מ ששנים חולקין ואחר מכריע הלכתא כדברי המכריע חוץ מקולי מטלניות שאע"פ שר' אליעזר מחמיר ורבי יהושע מיקל ור"ע מכריע אין הלכה כדברי המכריע
דר"ע גבי ר' אליעזר ור' יהושע תלמיד הוא ועוד הא הדר ביה ר"ע לגבי רבי יהושע
The text in red is the actual statement cited by Rabbi Tanchum, while the text in blue is the explanation. We can tell because the text in red is Hebrew, and thus uses a shin to mean "that," while the text in blue, which is the explanation, is introduced with a daled to mean "that," and has the Aramaic word beih therein.

This distinction is possibly important, since this is then, once again, just a suggested reason for the divergence in this case, within the general class in which it is true, for Mishnayot.

3) Is Rif correct to extract this restriction, that halacha kidivrei hamachria only applies to Mishna and not to brayta? After all, it was quite possibly a suggestion by a setama, rather than a named Amora such as Rav Yosef.

And even if we do lend it full credence, whoever said it used the language of dilma, perhaps. In asking this, Rav Yosef is not entirely discounting it. Rather, he is uncertain, and perhaps it only applies to Mishnayot.

4) Does this restriction, to Mishnayot, make sense? I would say that it depends.

On the one hand, see who authored the original statement. If we follow the chain all the way up, it was Rabbi, that is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who compiled the Mishnayot. If so, we can readily say that he was making a declaration about the corpus he was responsible for, namely Mishna, and what metziut is true for that corpus.

But who is to say that the other compilers of Tannaitic material, Rabbi Chiyya Rabba and Rabbi Hoshaya, that the same general rule holds true.

On the other hand, we can understand Rabbi's rule as an observation of the structure of the Tannaitic literature. If one bothers to give two conflicting opinions and follow it up with a machria, one who compromises, the purpose is to endorse the machria as practical halacha. And if so, such would (or could) also be true for Tannaitic material in a brayta.

Or looking at it from a slightly different perspective, if another Tanna bothered to inspect other Tannaitic opinions, and feels capable of being machria, such that it applies one way in one situation and another in another situation, then perforce the halacha is like him. Perhaps something akin to hilcheta kebatrai. This would then also apply even to braytot.

Perhaps we can call back to mind that the reason for the exception was not made clear by Rabbi. Rather, the setama gave two different suggestions. If this is just the way that Rabbi happened to arrange the Mishnayot, then we do not need to give a reason for an exception to the rule, that in this particular case, Rabbi Akiva is not qualified as a machria, or that he retracted as a machria. But if one needs to give reasons for the exclusion as a machria, then perhaps this is a general rule that indeed should apply even by braytos, for why not?

5) If we ignore this kelal horaah restricting ruling like the machria, then it would perhaps be pashut that we rule like the machria.

But let us say we do decide to apply this exclusion to the general rule. Do we then just apply that the halacha is like Rabbi Akiva over his colleague?

Perhaps, and perhaps not. For example, let me suggest that the machria is also arguing with Rabbi Akiva. And then, while the halacha is like Rabbi Akiva over his colleague, the halacha is not like Rabbi Akiva over his colleagues. Would the machria indeed be considered his colleague, though?

6) Ignoring the machriin, one should point out the following:
ת"ר וכולן עבד יוצא בהן לחירות וצריך גט שחרור דברי ר"ש
ר"מ אומר אינו צריך
ר' אלעזר אומר צריך
ר' טרפון אומר א"צ
ר"ע אומר צריך

Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva are clearly contemporaries, and take different positions. And Rabbi Akiva says it is necessary. But Rabbi Eleazar (ben Shamua) was a student of Rabbi Akiva, and agrees with him. And Rabbi Shimon (ben Yochai) was also a student of Rabbi Akiva and agrees with him. But Rabbi Meir was a student of Rabbi Akiva and argues with him.

I am still learning kelalei horaah. But do we say that the halacha is like Rabbi Akiva over his colleague, when it is dispute also within the subsequent Tannaitic generation? It would seem so, but perhaps there is room for discussion. We have to see when this is generally applied.

Note: Obviously not intended halacha lemaaseh. I am only wandering about here.

Sunday, November 02, 2008

Covering One's Succah With the Arba Minim? pt iv

See previous posts in the series. part i, part ii, part iii.

In an earlier post in this series, I noted the practice mentioned in the sefer Minhagim of the Maharil, of children burning aravot taken off the top of succahs on Simchat Torah. This shows that they covered the succah with aravot. Perhaps this means the walls, but see the next quote, from earlier in the sefer, where it is clear that the aravot were for sechach.

Taken from the relevant page in that sefer, available here (pg 105), is the text of the Maharil. He addresses the potential halachic problems with the practice of these children, and why it is not problematic.
The Maharil says: That which the youths take an aravah {willow} and burn it on Simchat Torah, it is a good minhag for the joy of Yom Tov. And there is not in it an issue of taking down {unbuilding} a tent, if they take down the Succah, for it is not called setirah to make one liable unless {J: reading ach instead of af} one takes down for the purpose of building. And also the burning is not forbidden, even though it is not for cause {letzorech}, for there is no Biblical prohibition, for we are experts in the establishing of the moon, and only the first day of Yom Tov {Shemini Atzeres} is Biblical, and {yet} is is the custom of our fathers in our hands to make a second day of Yom Tov {Simchas Torah}. And furthermore, only the minors are doing this, and we are not required to separate them {from doing it}, just as by a minor who is eating neveilot {improperly slaughtered meat}, Bet Din need not separate them {from it}. And so did Maharam permit minors to drink the wine of kiddush in shul, even though there is no kiddush except in the place of the meal. Both those subject to the commandments {Benei Mitzvah, non-minors} are not acting appropriately, to take down and to burn the fire.

And so he said, that his father, Maharam {=Moshe} Segal {Segan Leviim} would protest, in the days of his youth, that they should not take down any Succah nor burn the fire on Simchat Torah.
{IIRC, in the critical edition of Maharil I was reading, or elsewhere in the Maharil, it was brought down that despite this position of his father, Maharil would specifically make sure children would take from his succah for this purpose, perhaps because this way they would not be committing theft as well, by taking aravot which did not belong to them and which the owners were not OK with them taking. But I would have to look back in that edition.

As Lurker points out, and as the Jewish Week article mentioned,
"At the end of the holiday, Samaritans burn the sukkah’s branches."
}


A bit earlier in the book (pg 101), we have clear reference to the arava, where he says "lehachazik et ha'aravah."

Note: Even though this is a halachic source, and does not contain any {or much} of my own contributions, not to be taken halacha lemaaseh. Consult your local Orthodox rabbi.

Saturday, November 01, 2008

No, Sarah Palin Is Not Jewish!

Note: Don't forget to set your clocks one hour back tonight, because of Daylight Savings.

So on erev Shabbos, I received an email chain forward with the title UNBELIEVABLE. Indeed. The claim is that Sarah Palin is Jewish, by maternal descent. I tend to doubt many things sent by email forwards, and the claim itself is in itself somewhat dubious. First the text, and then the debunking.

The text:
Based on Jewish tradition that makes one Jewish if born to a mother of Jewish ethnic decent, Sarah Palin is Jewish, though she touts a mask of evangelical christianity. Sarah Palin's mother, Sally Sheigam, was of Lithuanian Jewish heritage and so were both of her mother's parents, Louise Sheigam and Shmuel Sheigam. Her father, Chuck Heath, also comes from Jewish blood because his mother, Beatrice Coleman, was of Jewish decent. Further information on Governor
Palin's ancestors can be found in the vital records in the Lithuanian State Historical Archives in Vilnius ( http://www.archyvai.lt/ here).
The Archives holds birth, marriage, divorce, and death records for the Lithuanian Jewish community from 1851 until 1915 when the Jews were required to leave the country because of World War I. They are in 18th Century Cyrillic script and Yiddish. Many of these records include the mother's maiden name and town of registration.

Palin's maternal grandfather, Schmuel Sheigam, was a Lithuanian Jew, born in 1912 in Vilkaviskis, Lithuania, The Sheigams' grandmother was a Jewess named Gower. At the Ellis Island Immigration Center, the name was entered as Sheeran, instead of Sheigam, a standard practice when immigration officers were unable to understand the pronunciation of non-English speaking immigrants. They are buried in the Jewish cemetery at Budezeriai.
A good debunking is here at wiki answers. Basically, you can find a detailed ancestry of Sarah Palin at this website. On the maternal side, there are many generations which were born in America, not Lithuania. A partial excerpt from the wiki answers site:

*Palin's mother was born Sally Sheeran, in Oct 1940, in Richland, WA
*Her mother was born Helen Louise Gower, on 22 Jan 1910 in WI
*Her mother was born Cora Strong, on 4 Nov 1886, in Chippewa Co., WI
*Her mother was born Augusta L[odema] Godfrey, in Jul 1854, in Waverly, Morgan Co., IL

and so on and so forth, for several more generations.

My guess is that this is either from an Obama supporter who wants to alienate the Neo-Nazi from McCain, and thought to himself, "what would a Neo-Nazi hate more than an African-American President"; or a McCain supporter who thought (most likely incorrectly) that this would persuade Jewish voters to vote for McCain-Palin, rather than the Democratic candidate.

I did not see this on snopes, so it is important, I think, to post it here.

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin