6 in one womb simultaneously, or sequentually?

On a previous post discussing the idea of 6 in one womb, and how Rashi and others understood it and derived it, Shimon, of the blog Lahag, commented on that post:

R' Medan has an interesting take on be'keres echad meaning in one womb - not necessarily at the same time:

http://www.etzion.org.il/vbm/archive/9-parsha/16shmot.php

Rabbi Medan indeed has an interesting take. He listens to an objection of Shadal about looking at the genealogical lists and seeing how many each person had, and comparing it with the total number of years, such that to reach 600,000 you need the 400+ years and holid meaning being an anscestor rather than father to someone, which would be against the traditional understanding of Chazal. Rabbi Medan gives an answer for Chazal's chronology, wedging more generations in there, and more brothers not listed. See inside, as I am giving a rather rough summary. But part of his claim is that when Chazal say that they had "6 in one keres" this means sequentually, over the course of a woman's entire lifetime, rather than at one shot, because otherwise it would be exceedingly uncommon. And he works out the math such that this would work out, across 9 generations.

The thing about proposing novel reinterpretations of classic sources and claiming that Chazal intended this, is that IMHO one must demonstrate that it is likely that Chazal indeed intended this. As a stand-alone explanation, harnessing existing sources, this proposal is quite likely fine. But is that what Chazal intended when they said "six in one womb?" I have the same objection here as I have when people intepret midrashim allegorically because they do not think the literal interpretation likely. What was Chazal's intent here?

And I don't know. But certainly, a good way to try to ascertain this would be to look up this midrash in its various sources, and look up how Chazal use the phrase in general. I am not sure I will address every such source, but the following is a good beginning.

Let us begin with midrash Tanchuma on Shemot, since Tanchuma is Tannaitic. There, we read:

וימת יוסף וכל אחיו

ואף על פי כן ובני ישראל פרו וישרצו.

ר' ינאי אומר:

כל אחת ואחת יולדת שישה בכרס אחת.

יש אומרים:

י"ב, דכתיב: פרו שנים וישרצו שנים וירבו שנים ויעצמו שנים במאד מאד שנים ותמלא הארץ אותם הא י"ב.

This corresponds, seemingly, to the counting of leshonot, but also possibly, since the cut-off is on the word yishretzu, to the idea of multiplying like a sheretz.

With this source alone, it is not clear what the intent is. I would lean towards it being in one womb simultaneously, but within this source we cannot definitively say.

Also, Chazal are not monolithic, and sources, early and late, might not be monolithic. So it might be a dispute.

At any rate, the midrash appears later, in Shemot Rabbah. This is just about contemporary to Rashi. There, we read:

ובני ישראל פרו וישרצו
אף על פי שמת יוסף ואחיו, אלהיהם לא מת, אלא ובני ישראל פרו וישרצו.

דבר אחר:
כל אחת ואחת ילדה ששה בכרס אחד, שנאמר: ובני ישראל פרו וישרצו וגו'.

ויש אומרים:
שנים עשרה, דכתיב:
פרו שנים,
וישרצו שנים,
וירבו שנים,
ויעצמו שנים,
במאוד מאוד שנים,
ותמלא הארץ אותם שנים,
הרי שנים עשר.

ויעצמו
יש אומרים:
ששה בכרס אחד.
ואל תתמה, שהרי עקרב שהיא מן השרצים יולדת שבעים.

This appears to be identical to the midrash in the Tanchuma, but here we have an additional comparison to the scorpion.

Now, there are girsological differences at play, as one would discover by reading the commentaries on this midrash in Shemot Rabba. One is to change "70" into "60," and we find a parallel to the figure 60 in Vayikra Rabba, which is an earlier (7th century) source, and in Bereishit Rabba, which is a still earlier (Amoraic) source. Another is possibly to change this later "6 in one womb" to "60 in one womb."

The parallel in Breishit Rabbah is:

עקרב,זה יון.
מה עקרב זו יולדת לס' ס', כך העמידה מלכות יון מס' ס'.
and in Vayikra Rabba:

עקרב, זה יון.
מה עקרב זה משרצת ששים ששים.
כך היתה מלכות יון מעמדת ששים ששים.

and so the idea is clearly that each time the scorpion births 60, but may have multiple births of 60. And so says the heilige Wikipedia:

The size of the litter depends on the species and environmental factors, and can range from two to over a hundred scorplings. The average litter however, consists of around 8 scorplings.

Thus, when Chazal spoke of the scorpion as something capable of birthing 60, or 70, it meant at one time. And it is possible that the environmental factors and specific species Chazal were thinking of were the ones with 60 or 70 in a typical litter.

Now, what is meant by ואל תתמה? For a woman to have 6 children over the course of her entire lifetime is certainly not shocking. Say "and do not wonder," for Leah had 6 children over the course of her lifetime. Perhaps if we accept the emendation of 6 in one womb to 60, one could be shocked, such that the midrash would address it.

But even so, the connection to sheretz as explaining X in one keres, by linking it to a specific sheretz that gives forth 60 or 70 each time, strongly suggests to me that Chazal, or at least Shemot Rabba, intended this as simultaneously as opposed to sequentially.

Rashi, in using the dibbur hamatchil of vayishretzu, also seems to strongly endorse the connection to the akrav, and therefore to simultaneous rather than sequential births. And Ibn Ezra, by suggesting this connection to vayishretzu, and noting the possibility of twins, all the way up to septuplets, also endorses the idea that it was simultaneous rather than sequential.

The question then becomes which traditional explanation you are saving when reinterpreting these sources and reading it into them. Perhaps one can establish such a consistent opinion within Tanchuma, and perhaps more forced, in Shemot Rabbah. But surely others read it in a different manner, and at the least one should make note of this. (One is saving, of course, the chronology of Rashi, Ramban, etc., even if it is at odds with their understanding of bekeres...)

How do Chazal use this phrase in other contexts? With a few searches, I was able to find two other places the phrase is used. Thus, we have, in Shir Hashirim Rabba:

ג) רבי היה יושב ודורש ונתנמנם הציבור בקש לעוררן.
אמר: ילדה אשה אחת במצרים שישים רבוא בכרס אחת, והיה שם תלמיד אחד ורבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי שמו.
אמר ליה: מאן הות כן? ש
אמר ליה: זו יוכבד, שילדה את משה ששקול כנגד שישים רבוא של ישראל. הדא הוא דכתיב: (שמות ט"ו) אז ישיר משה ובני ישראל.

So he did not mean it literally, but it was certainly shocking, as was his intention. Does this mean simultaneously or sequentially? Obviously, if it is just Moshe, it is simultaneously. But on the other hand, the meaning of the phrase might just mean in her one womb, with no implication at all of simultaneous or sequential. Though if so, why mention it at all?! If it is one woman giving birth, of course it was all from her one womb! I would consider this as evidence that it means simultaneously. One can argue with this, of course.

Indeed, even without any of this evidence, this is what seems to be the import of the phrase. But still, we should look through the sources.

Here is another instance, in Brachot daf 63b-64a:

R. Eliezer the son of R. Jose the Galilean began to speak in praise of hospitality, expounding the verse, And the Lord blessed Obed-Edom and all his house … because of the Ark of God.38 Have we not here an argument a fortiori? If such was the reward for attending to the ark which did not eat or drink, but before which he merely swept and laid the dust, how much more will it be for one who entertains a scholar in his house and gives him to eat and drink and allows him the use of his possessions! What was the blessing with which God blessed him [Obed-Edom]? — R. Judah b. Zebida says: This refers to Hamoth39 and her eight daughters-in-law who each bore six children at a birth, as it says, Peullethai the eighth son1 for God blessed him,2 and it is written, All these were of the sons of Obed-Edom, they and their sons and their brethren, able men in the strength for the service, threescore and two of Obed-Edom.3

The idea is that in sefer Shmuel we are told that Hashem blessed Oved Edom and all his household, for hosting the aron. This blessing is echoed in Divrei Hayamim I perek 26, in the midst of the counting/genealogy:

ד וּלְעֹבֵד אֱדֹם, בָּנִים--שְׁמַעְיָה הַבְּכוֹר, יְהוֹזָבָד הַשֵּׁנִי, יוֹאָח הַשְּׁלִשִׁי וְשָׂכָר הָרְבִיעִי, וּנְתַנְאֵל הַחֲמִישִׁי.	4 And Obed-edom had sons: Shemaiah the first-born, Jehozabad the second, Joah the third, and Sacar the fourth, and Nethanel the fifth;
ה עַמִּיאֵל הַשִּׁשִּׁי יִשָּׂשכָר הַשְּׁבִיעִי, פְּעֻלְּתַי הַשְּׁמִינִי: כִּי בֵרְכוֹ, אֱלֹהִים. {ס}	5 Ammiel the sixth, Issachar the seventh, Peullethai the eighth; for God blessed him. {S}
ו וְלִשְׁמַעְיָה בְנוֹ נוֹלַד בָּנִים, הַמִּמְשָׁלִים לְבֵית אֲבִיהֶם: כִּי-גִבּוֹרֵי חַיִל, הֵמָּה.	6 Also unto Shemaiah his son were sons born, that ruled over the house of their father; for they were mighty men of valour.
ז בְּנֵי שְׁמַעְיָה, עָתְנִי וּרְפָאֵל וְעוֹבֵד אֶלְזָבָד אֶחָיו--בְּנֵי-חָיִל; אֱלִיהוּ, וּסְמַכְיָהוּ.	7 The sons of Shemaiah: Othni, and Rephael and Obed and Elzabad his brethren, valiant men; Elihu also, and Semachiah.
ח כָּל-אֵלֶּה מִבְּנֵי עֹבֵד אֱדֹם, הֵמָּה וּבְנֵיהֶם וַאֲחֵיהֶם, אִישׁ-חַיִל בַּכֹּחַ, לַעֲבֹדָה--שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם, לְעֹבֵד אֱדֹם.	8 All these were of the sons of Obed-edom: they and their sons and their brethren, able men in strength for the service; threescore and two of Obed-edom.

Now, if it began with Oved Edom and his eight sons, and each had a wife, there were a total of 9 wives and 9 men. But the tally is to 62 men. How do we arrive at that figure? Well, pasuk 5 echoes this idea from Shmuel, "for God blessed him." And pasuk 6, immediately following, gives a list of 6 sons to one of Oved Edom's sons. So we assume the blessing is that each of the 9 women has 6 sons bekeres echat, such that 9 X 6 = 54. Add this to the original 8 sons, and 54 + 8 = 62.

There is nothing much in evidence here that it must have been at a single birth. Although Oved Edom's wife already gave birth to 8, so if it meant across her entire lifetime, this should have been 14 bekeres echat. All in all, though I don't have definitive proof, I would strongly lean towards the idea that it means simultaneously rather than sequentially.

6 In One Birth?

So goes the midrash, and many pashtanim along with them. The pasuk in parshat Shemot (perek 1) reads:

ז וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, פָּרוּ וַיִּשְׁרְצוּ וַיִּרְבּוּ וַיַּעַצְמוּ--בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד; וַתִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ, אֹתָם. {פ}

7 And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them. {P}

and on that, Rashi writes:

and swarmed They bore six children at each birth.

This appears to be based on just the word vayishretzu, that their increase was like that of sheratzim. This based on what Rashi chose as his dibbur hamatchil. Another possibility is that there are 6 leshonot of increase:

1. פָּרוּ
   
2. וַיִּשְׁרְצוּ
   
3. וַיִּרְבּוּ
   
4. וַיַּעַצְמוּ--
5. בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד;
6. וַתִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ, אֹתָם
   

I would favor the latter. This Rashi (11th to 12th century) finds its parallel in Shemot Rabbah, which is 11th and 12th century, and so perhaps he used it as a source, or perhaps not. Maybe there are other sources which have this. Shemot Rabbah (1:8) reads:

ובני ישראל פרו וישרצו
אף על פי שמת יוסף ואחיו, אלהיהם לא מת, אלא ובני ישראל פרו וישרצו.

דבר אחר:
כל אחת ואחת ילדה ששה בכרס אחד, שנאמר: ובני ישראל פרו וישרצו וגו'.

ויש אומרים:
שנים עשרה, דכתיב:
פרו שנים,
וישרצו שנים,
וירבו שנים,
ויעצמו שנים,
במאוד מאוד שנים,
ותמלא הארץ אותם שנים,
הרי שנים עשר.

ויעצמו
יש אומרים:
ששה בכרס אחד.
ואל תתמה, שהרי עקרב שהיא מן השרצים יולדת שבעים.

Such that at first, it seems that it is the 6 leshonot, which is why subsequently the plural verbs are taken to be double each, for a total of 12. But then, though the dibbur hamatchil is vayaatzmu, it is clear that the comparison is to an akrav which births many at once (70), and the akrav is a type of sheretz. So this functions as a support from derech hateva, but simultaneously points to the source word, of vayishretzu. (Though see the commentaries on this midrash rabba, which note different girsaot.) Which means that Rashi probably was basing himself on vayishretzu, from the idea of a sheretz. Though how would that give us specifically the number 6? Maybe they first derived it by the first method (counting leshonot), maybe there is some other source, or maybe it was an existing idiom.

Ibn Ezra also picks up on vayishretzu. He is a pashtan, but there is the peshat concern of how to get from 70 souls to 600,000 at the time of the exodus. And so he writes:

אולי מלת וישרצו, רמז שילדו נשיהם תאומים ויותר ואני ראיתי ד' בנים שילדה אשה אחת, והרופאים נותנים טעם עד שבעה יגיע בבטן אחת.

Not that it necessarily as shocking as six at one shot, but twins and more are possible. He notes, based on his contemporary science, that doctors allow for the possibility of up to septuplets. Which means that he allows for the possibility of 6 mentioned in other sources.

What in the world does this mean, that the ropheim gave a taam for up to seven in a single womb? Well, to cite Conjunctures : medieval studies in honor of Douglas Kelly, see what is written to the right.

Thus, we see that the medieval doctors accounted for twins, all the way up to seven, for there were believed to be seven compartments in the womb, each holding a single child. On page 268 in the same book, the author writes that

"the two schools of thought with regard to the division of the uterus (into two or seven compartments) would go a long way to explain the preponderance of twins and septuplets in the stories."

So this is likely what Ibn Ezra meant, by referring first to twins, and then to septuplets.

Shadal refers us to his commentary on Bereishit 1, where he writes:

שרץ נפש חיה : שריצת נפש חיה, כלו' ריבוי נפש חיה, ואין שרץ זה ככל שאר שרץ שבמקרא שהוא שם למין השרצים, כי לא נאמר בשום מקום בהמה נפש חיה או עוף נפש היה ; אבל ענינו שריצה וריבוי והטעם כי השרצים אפי' אחד או שנים כשהם שורצים ומתנועעים על הארץ הם נראים כמרובים, וזה לקלות תנועתם וקוצר רגליהם או העדרם, ומזה הושאל שורש שרץ להורות על הריבוי, כמו פרו וישרצו (שמות א' ז').ש

Thus it is a language of ribuy, because sheratzim look like they are many when swarming. Ibn Ezra would likely agree that this is possible. He just endorses the idea of yishretzu with a different other connection to sheratzim, of multiple birth.

Shadal also appears to agree that the increase was more than what would be expected al derech hateva, with a comment on a pasuk a bit lower down in parshat Shemot:

וכן יפרץ " : שורש פרץ הוא פועל יוצא, וענינו שבירה, כמו יפרצני פרץ על פני פרץ ( איוב ט"ז י"ד ), ובפרט הריסת גדר וקיר כמו למה פרצת גדריה ( תהלים פ' י"ג ), ואח"כ שימשו בו כאילו הוא פועל עומד, ואמרו ופרצת ימה וקדמה ( ברא' כ"ח י"ד ) שענינו תהרוס כל גבול ותגבר על כל מונע ותתפשט ימה וקדמה, והושאל על כל דבר המתרבה יותר ממנהגו של עולם, כאילו הוא פורץ הגבול אשר שם לו הטבע, כגון כי מעט אשר היה לך לפני ויפרץ לרוב ( ברא' ל' ל' ), ומקנהו פרץ בארץ ( איוב א' י' ), וגם אמרו על האדם שהוא פורץ, והכוונה שנכסיו מתרבים, כמו ויפרץ האיש מאד מאד ויהי לו צאן רבות ( ברא' ל' מ"ג ), ואולי אמרו ג"כ לשון פריצה על תוספת כח וחוזק וזו דעת המתרגם הארמי שתירגם "כן סגן וכן תקפין", ולדעתי אינו זז מענין הריבוי במספר כאילו אמר וכאשר יענו אותו כן היו מתרבים, וכן היה ריבויים יוצא מן המנהג הטבעי.

Fine, this is what various mefarshim explain, and how they allow for these multiple births.

But what about the repeated language in the verse, which possibly sparked this 6 at a time midrash? This is still a textual feature, and so a pashtan should address it. Well, Ibn Ezra writes:

א, ז]
ובני ישראל פרו -
הולידו כעץ יתן פריו.

וישרצו -
כמו: ישרצו המים.
רק הראשון מהפעלים העומדים בעצמם כמו: הלך ישב עמד שכב.
והשני מהיוצאים תלוויה בדבר אחר, כמו: אכל שמר שכר.
אכל את הלחם. שמר את הדבר. שכר את החמור. אלו נקראים פועל יוצא.
והנה ישרצו המים מהפעלים היוצאים.
וזה השני וישרצו, מהפעלים העומדים. והנה זו הגזרה כגזרת שב. פעם עומד כמו: ושב וקבצך. ופעם יוצא כמו:ושב ה' אלוהיך את שבותך.
אולי מלת וישרצו, רמז שילדו נשיהם תאומים ויותר ואני ראיתי ד' בנים שילדה אשה אחת, והרופאים נותנים טעם עד שבעה יגיע בבטן אחת.

וירבו -
שלא יהיו מתים כדרך עם רב.

ויעצמו -
שהיו בעלי עצם תקיפין.

ומלת במאד מאד –
שלא היו יכולין להיות יותר. ובי"ת במאד כמו בי"ת ויסעו בראשונה, כי כתוב: ראשונה יסעו.

Thus, every word has a different implication. Similarly, Rashbam:

פרו -
בהריון.

וישרצו -
לידה. שלא שִׁכָּלָה הרחם. שבכל מקום קטנים, קרוין שרץ על הארץ.

וירבו.
גדלו ונעשו הקטנים גדולים ולא מתו בקטנותם.

ויעצמו -
שלא מתו אנשים, אלא היו הרבה ועצמו במאד מאד עד שנתמלאה הארץ אותם.
וכן: והחצר מלאה את נוגה כבוד ה'. כמו מילאה.
וכן: ושוליו מלאים את ההיכל כמו ממלאים את ההיכל.

Thus taking each verb as meaning something different. This might be somewhat surprising, since Ibn Ezra in general will take about kefel lashon, synonyms being used. But usually that is in the context of Biblical poetry, and this is not poetry but prose.

Fine, I will have to be the one to say it. The many languages of increase all just mean increase, but just as it shocked and scared the Egyptians, and seemed to be without bound, so too there are multiple languages here, just to convey the impression that this made. It is an intensification on top of an intensification on top of an intensification. And at that level, the midrashic approach of darshening each word as conveying more births at a single time goes well with that theme.

Finally, since this is on the topic, I will address it. In a comment on a previous post, an Anonymous commenter asks an interesting question:

I thought of something this morning and I'm quite puzzled by it. Midrash Rabbo comments on a six-fold expression for population increase by saying that Jewish women gave birth to six babies at once. But Moshe was born by himself - unless you suppose that he had an extra five siblings that are mentioned nowhere else. This is such an obvious question that there must be an obvious answer, but I can't think of one.

I cannot point to a source that answers this, because I forgot where I saw it and do not have the time to track it down. But there is indeed a standard answer to this. And this was the other midrash that shevet Levi was exempt from working, because when Pharaoh asked them to come work the first day, they excused themselves, since they already had the work of learning and teaching Torah. And the increase (at least the later increase, though this pasuk appears before any of Pharaoh's strategies, so it is troublesome) was tied to their work. Thus, the pasuk later says:

יב וְכַאֲשֶׁר יְעַנּוּ אֹתוֹ, כֵּן יִרְבֶּה וְכֵן יִפְרֹץ; וַיָּקֻצוּ, מִפְּנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad. And they were adread because of the children of Israel.

Perhaps the later increase was based on the amount of affliction.

Update: In the same book, I saw something else interesting. One of the authors writes what is pictured to the right.

Thus, if they actually did have six at a shot, then the term of pregnancy would be shorter, which could then lead an even greater increase.

Six at a time means a typical pregnancy of 25 weeks, which is about 6 months. Now, as noted above, Moshe was born alone. But there is a midrash explaining what is meant by that Yocheved could no longer hide him, that the Egyptians calculated pregnancies and figured 9 months, but he was born prematurely, at 6 months, and so she was able to hide him for 3 months. Just some free association and expanding upon the midrash here.

Also from this quote, is multiple births likely? As the author writes, while "in general multiple births occur at a certain ratio of the total birthrate," in fact it differs by geographical area. Geographical area might be a reflection of genetic disparities, or environmental factors. As such, an increase in a certain related populace in a specific area of Egypt (Goshen), higher than that of other places in Egypt, might not be so farfetched. Add to this a cultural difference. Compare Western birthrates with those of non-Western countries. Indeed, compare the population explosion of Arabs in Israel.

Also, we see from the narrative that Egypt had a concept of midwives. In the general case, the hormones produced by nursing (especially as they nursed back then, continuously rather than at set times) prevents further pregnancy. But with nursemaids, they could theoretically become pregnant quite soon after giving birth. Indeed, there is evidence of just this happening in a baby boom in England about a century (?) ago, because of the use of nursemaids.

Also, I don't think the following is the correct interpretation of the pasuk, but while I am free-associating:

יט וַתֹּאמַרְןָ הַמְיַלְּדֹת אֶל-פַּרְעֹה, כִּי לֹא כַנָּשִׁים הַמִּצְרִיֹּת הָעִבְרִיֹּת: כִּי-חָיוֹת הֵנָּה, בְּטֶרֶם תָּבוֹא אֲלֵהֶן הַמְיַלֶּדֶת וְיָלָדוּ.

19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh: 'Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwife come unto them.'

We might relate this, as well, to the idea of a shorter term of pregnancy.

Note: Read the next post for more posts on parshat Shemot, or else click on the Shemot label.

The Long-Lived Donkey

Al derech hateva, how long can a donkey live? According to this source:

Donkeys often live for twenty-five years or more. Some have been recorded as living to the ripe old age of sixty, although a forty-year-old donkey is considered to be elderly.

Now consider the following Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer (perek 31), proximally based on the Biblical story of Akeidat Yitzchak (see right). According to this, the donkey Avraham saddled was the son of the she-donkey who was created at twilight (of the last day of Creation). It seems to cite a prooftext of וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אַבְרָהָם בַּבֹּקֶר, וַיַּחֲבֹשׁ אֶת-חֲמֹרוֹ, but that would suggest to me that the proof is from boker as standing in contrast to twilight, which seems unlikely. More likely is that the prooftext is a bit later, from וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אֶל-נְעָרָיו, שְׁבוּ-לָכֶם פֹּה עִם-הַחֲמוֹר, where the definite article pins it down to some previously known chamor, which it then equates with the one created at twilight. Now, that was a she-donkey, so it must be the son of the she-donkey. It then equates it with the donkey which Moshe rode upon traveling back to Egypt, in this week's parsha:

כ וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת-אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֶת-בָּנָיו, וַיַּרְכִּבֵם עַל-הַחֲמֹר, וַיָּשָׁב, אַרְצָה מִצְרָיִם; וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת-מַטֵּה הָאֱלֹהִים, בְּיָדוֹ.

20 And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt; and Moses took the rod of God in his hand.

It thus understands that Moshe also rode on the same donkey as his wife and children; and perhaps the definite article in הַחֲמֹר functions to equate the two. And finally, this is the same donkey that the son of David (=Mashiach) will come riding on. Zechariah 9:9:

ט גִּילִי מְאֹד בַּת-צִיּוֹן, הָרִיעִי בַּת יְרוּשָׁלִַם, הִנֵּה מַלְכֵּךְ יָבוֹא לָךְ, צַדִּיק וְנוֹשָׁע הוּא; עָנִי וְרֹכֵב עַל-חֲמוֹר, וְעַל-עַיִר בֶּן-אֲתֹנוֹת.

9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, thy king cometh unto thee, he is triumphant, and victorious, lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Here, there is no definite article in play. I would add that perhaps וְעַל-עַיִר בֶּן-אֲתֹנוֹת is what allows the midrashic author to say that this is the son of the twilight-donkey.

Another consideration in the forming of the midrash is what people sometimes term the closed-canon approach. A Biblical character is not allowed to merely pop up for a moment and then fade into the background. Rather, it is the same person (or in this case, animal) in play again and again. Thus, e.g., the palit who informed Avraham of Lot's capture was Og.

There are other chamorim mentioned throughout Tanach, many even with the definite article, but not noted by this midrash. Do a search and see what I mean., E.g. the one Avigayil rides on, or that the navi sheker rides on.

Now, if only al derech hateva this could not be the case as a matter of historical fact. If a doney lives up to a ripe old age of 60, when pressing it, then let us see:

1) The she-ass created at twilight of the last day of Creation would be quite old by the time Bilaam rode upon her.
2) Let us say that she gave birth to this chamor not immediately, but rather in the time of Avraham. Though then she would have to give birth in old-age, and we have something akin to the dispute between Ramban and Ibn Ezra about the birth of Yocheved and of Moshe. So the chamor was born in Avraham's time.
3) But according to a popular counting, from Yitzchak's birth until the Exodus was precisely 400 years. If we assume an old Yitzchak at the akeida, of 37 years old, we are left with a span of 363 years.
4) And if this would be the same donkey mashiach rides in on to bring the redemption, it would need to be many thousands of years old. No wonder mashiach is taking so long! Can you imagine how slowly this donkey must walk?!

I would further add that this idea that the she-donkey was born at twilight may well be the development of this midrashic author, rather than the intent of Chazal in Pirkei Avot. The Mishnah in Avot:

"Ten things were created on the Sabbath eve at twilight. They are: the mouth of the earth [which swallowed Korach and his co-conspirators] (Numbers 16:32), the mouth of the well [which accompanied Israel in the desert], the mouth of the donkey [which rebuked Balaam] (ibid., 22:28), the rainbow, the Manna, the staff [of Moses], the shamir worm, the script [of the Torah], the inscription [on the Tablets of the Ten Commandments], and the Tablets. Some say: also destructive spirits, the burial place of Moses, and the ram of our father Abraham [which he slaughtered in place of Isaac] (Genesis 22:13). And some say, also tongs -- which are made with tongs."

The idea would seem to be (for many of them, at least), that certain "magical" creations are described as later developments at the hand of God, and also (perhaps) outside the derech hateva. The answer is that these exceptions to the rule were already part of the Divine Plan meireishit, from the beginning. Thus, the mouth of the earth might have been, or might not have been, a new creation (see Moshe's request of Hashem), but here, since it was known that this exception was to be needed later, it was created now.

Now, this Mishnah does not say that the she-donkey was created at twilight. It states that the mouth of the she-donkey was created at twilight. In other words, this miracle which is outside the realm of the natural order. And so the pasuk in parshat Balak states that Hashem opened the mouth of the she-donkey -- and this was part of Creation, as almost an afterthought. If the donkey were capable from sheshet yemei bereishit, would it not have talked to Bilaam before this? Rather, it is the nes which was prepared from sheshet yemei bereishit. And as such, Bilaam's she-donkey need not be so old. This might be the interpretation and the extension made by the midrashist in Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer. If the she-donkey were born later, then she would be unlikely to have birthed Avraham's donkey, though Moshe's might remain a possibility.

Now, Rashi cited this midrash, in part. He writes:

(כ) על החמר -
חמור המיוחד, הוא החמור שחבש אברהם לעקידת יצחק והוא שעתיד מלך המשיח להגלות עליו, שנאמר (זכריה ט ט) עני ורוכב על חמור:

or in English:

mounted them upon the donkey The designated donkey. That is the donkey that Abraham saddled for the binding of Isaac, and that is the one upon whom the King Messiah is destined to appear, as it is said: “humble, and riding a donkey” (Zech. 9:9). — [from Pirkei Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 31]

He does not echo this idea that it was the son of the she-donkey created at twilight, but the other points are there.

Does he mean this literally? It is certainly possible. And if so, I would simply disagree with Rashi, and declare that this is not peshat in the pasuk nor was it likely to have been the historical reality.

There is another possibility, that this was intended as midrash, and to pick up a message from the Biblical text. That message might be Moshe Rabbenu, redeemer of Israel from Egypt, as a precursor of mashiach. That is why Moshe rides on the donkey, just as mashiach will eventually ride in on a donkey. Perhaps there is even the personality point of humility, since Moshe was the most humble (he wrote so himself!), and according to Zechariah, mashiach will be "humble, and riding upon an ass." And the connection to Akeidat Yitzchak might be that zechut avot of the Akeidat Yitzchak is what helped enable that redemption, and our redemption as well. Either that, or all this was just free-association, which is certainly possible, and something to watch out for.

Interesting Posts and Articles #111

1. A new law, which will empty library shelves of children's books, because they haven't been tested for lead:
   

   From the sweeping language of the law, it appears Congress left them no choice. The Act covers any “consumer product designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age and younger.”

   “Consider for a minute that a twelve-year-old is a junior high school student,” says Adler. “This is not somebody who is likely to be chewing or sucking on a book.”

2. A politically correct jury?
   

3. Material Maidel on rude things people do at the Shabbos table. With an interesting issue of people drinking kiddush wine before passing it out.
   

4. Is the flu shot targeting the wrong strain, this year?
   

5. The gift of the Magi, the sequel?
   

6. Hirhurim has a post by Rabbi Michael Broyde about child conversions.
   

7. Rabin, scoffing at the Likud scare tactics claiming that there would be missiles shot into Israel from Gaza" (ht: Life In Israel)
   

8. Also from Life In Israel: A link to a destroy the Kassam game. And "Rav Steinman, the general, and Arab workers."
   

9. On bombing civilians during war, in the course of attacking Hamas, by Rav Aviner.
   

10. Three rockets from Lebanon hit northern Israel.
    
    

Interesting Posts and Articles #110

1. One frum skeptic about a surprise under the chuppah -- despite a previous agreement, the chassan now tells the kallah he will be growing a beard! And in another post, should a maamar Chazal which makes reference to the kidneys as the seat of intuition be explained figuratively? I would disagree, in that based on ancient science it is quite possible this was intended literally. It may be better to take it literally, and then say we disagree with it, on the basis of modern science.
   
   
2. Water-based eyeglasses for the masses
   
   
3. At Chaptzem -- Mishpacha magazine prints a clarification of why the Photoshopped Laura Bush out of a picture. With some silly comments in the comment section. Though as noted at Mystical Paths: fine, do not print photos of women (even though we may not agree to this chumra and it can have bad social repercussions). But to Photoshop, or more specifically, Photoshop to create a false impression, and not note that you have done so, but rather edit the caption, is another thing entirely.
   
   
4. Textbook piracy. Though of course the book publishers have a hand in this, with textbooks for exceptionally high prices and "new" editions every year or so to kill the secondhand book market.
   
   
5. A link between mouthwash and cancer?
   
   
6. Life in Israel on mehadrin flights. As he notes, a problem exists in which catering to a chumra leads to the standardization of that chumra as practice, and in turn criticism of those who don't subscribe to the chumra.
   
   
7. What do you think about this story, of chaplains accompanying soldiers, on Shabbos?
   
   
8. At DovBear, a post by Lurker -- the righteous men of Gaza.
   

The Shabbos the Eruv came down

Yesterday, some time Shabbos morning, someone noticed that the eruv was broken. It was fine on Friday night but was not up in the morning. And (as I understand it), they told the eruv rav, who sent out messengers to the various shuls that it was down.

Naturally, this caught many unawares -- those who were already out carrying, those in shul with keys to their house and no Shabbos belts, those who had almost no experience with no eruv on Shabbos, and so on. A while later, somehow, the eruv went back up, and messages went out to inform people -- though some shuls had already let out.

It raises interesting questions. Should the fellow who noticed this just have kept silent, and let people continue carrying in the karmelis? (One rav purportedly said so.) Do you tell someone who is already out carrying something or pushing a stroller? (It was suggested not to. If informed, what do you do?) If when Shabbos came in, the eruv was up, why not extend the permitted status throughout all Shabbos. (There are discussions about this in what I link to) How can a partition of the tzurat hapetach be erected on Shabbos, and take effect? Who directed this fix? Was it a Jew, bemeizid? If this is not really building, is such permitted? Was what fell down the electric line or telephone line and the company came and fixed it? And does the reerection of the eruv bring back the initial permitted status?

It has been a while since I've seen any of these issues inside, in depth, so I am not going to declare anything about the subject. But here is a bit of Aruch haShulchan on the issue.

See Aruch Hashulchan, siman 362, seif 7-11, and particularly seif 11. And see siman 374.

How the Zohar mentions Yishtabach and uses the expression Ta Chazei

So while scouring the Zohar parshat Vayakhel the other day in search of the Zohar which misused the term "parsha" to mean sidra, I chanced across an interesting one which mentions Pesukei deZimra (קנב) and then one which mentions Yishtabach (קנג).

Now, the gemara does discuss saying Hallel every day, which is interpreted to mean Pesukei deZimra, but it had the status of a reshut. But then, what seems to be post-Talmudically, they established it as part of davening, and put a blessing beforehand (Baruch sheAmar) and after it (Yishtabach). As no Mishna or gemara mentions these blessings, and they seem to surface in the time of the Geonim, it is "weird" for this purportedly Tannaitic source to discuss Yishtabach. Of course, by the time of Rav Moshe de Leon, Yishtabach was already firmly in place. (On the other hand, if the Zohar is indeed entirely an early source, it undermines the argument in my linked-to post. But there are other features of that post that make me believe it to be true.)

Another interesting feature I noticed while skimming through Zohar was the repeated use of תא חזי to introduce statements. Now, this is the Yerushalmi equivalent of תא שמע. (Ta chamei, with a mem, is equivalent.) And it is indeed used over and over again to introduce some brayta, and thus a Tannaitic source. The problem is that in Bavli and Yerushalmi, these are used only in answering a question. Thus, a question is posed by an Amora or by the gemara itself, and various braytot are mustered in support of one side or the other, introduced with ta shema. Yet the way the Zohar is using it is "weird" - just as an introduction of purportedly Tannaitic statements. I know Rashbi was much earlier than the gemara, such that this might be a change in usage with the passage of time, but this does not seem so convincing to me.

Is there any convincing explanation of this phenomenon? Has anyone addressed it?

Yaakov's Maggid

In the beginning of perek 48:

א וַיְהִי, אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, וַיֹּאמֶר לְיוֹסֵף, הִנֵּה אָבִיךָ חֹלֶה; וַיִּקַּח אֶת-שְׁנֵי בָנָיו, עִמּוֹ--אֶת-מְנַשֶּׁה, וְאֶת-אֶפְרָיִם.	1 And it came to pass after these things, that one said to Joseph: 'Behold, thy father is sick.' And he took with him his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim.
ב וַיַּגֵּד לְיַעֲקֹב--וַיֹּאמֶר, הִנֵּה בִּנְךָ יוֹסֵף בָּא אֵלֶיךָ; וַיִּתְחַזֵּק, יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיֵּשֶׁב, עַל-הַמִּטָּה.	2 And one told Jacob, and said: 'Behold, thy son Joseph cometh unto thee.' And Israel strengthened himself, and sat upon the bed.

Who is this "one"?

Rashi explains:

that [someone] said to Joseph One of the tellers, and this is an elliptical verse. Some say, however, that Ephraim was accustomed to study with Jacob, and when Jacob became ill in the land of Goshen, Ephraim went to his father to Egypt to tell him.

and

And [someone] told The teller [told] Jacob, but [the text] does not specify who [it was], and many [Scriptural] verses are elliptical.

So too Ibn Ezra:

[מח א]
ויאמר -
האומר ליוסף.
וכן: אשר ילדה אותה ללוי במצרים:

[מח, ב]
ויגד -
המגיד ליעקב.
או האומר ליוסף, או היה שליח מיעקב.

and Rashbam:

ויאמר ליוסף -
אדם אחד אמר וכן ויגד המגיד ליעקב.

And so too Shadal:

ויאמר : האומר : וכן (פסוק ב') ויגד ליעקב ; והיה עולה על הדעת לפרש ויאמר על ידי שליח, כמו ויאמר אל משה אני חתנך יתרו בא אליך ( שמות י"ח ו' ), אך לפי זה היל"ל אני אביך חולה ; גם היה עולה על הדעת לקרוא ויאמר ויגד, אלא שלפי זה היל"ל ויגד ליעקב לאמר, אבל ויגד ליעקב ויאמר היא מליצה זרה.

Rashi even identifies, on a midrashic level, the one who told -- Ephraim. What is bothering all of them is that it seems that in general, when ויגד appears, it can take two forms. Based on a survey on the 66 times it occurs:

1. It can be passive, vayugad le-, and then there need not be an explicit actor.
   
2. It can be active, in which case we should have an explicit actor as well.
   
3. The actor can be implicit, so long as he occurred in a previous verse, so that we know in this pasuk who he is.

Sometimes, where the particular person is not important (as here), the Biblical style will be to first say that a naar or an ish came, and told. Of all these cases, and in two pesukim in a row, we have an implicit actor.

This may indeed be said to be acceptable Hebrew. Ibn Ezra gave an example, and Rashi said that many verses are elliptical like this. Something else can be proposed -- that we should revocalize, as in (1). But then vayomer in pasuk 1 and 2 are difficult. Though we can say that the example in pasuk 1 may be passive as well, as in Yeshaya 4:3. I have seen some Biblical translations say "and Yosef was informed." But that need not mean that they are revocalizing. It might simply be that they are trying to make their translation clearer.

Yaakov wanted to reveal the ketz

In the beginning of parshat Vaychi, Rashi writes:

And Jacob lived Why is this section [completely] closed? Because, as soon as our father Jacob passed away, the eyes and the heart of Israel were “closed,” (i.e., it became “dark” for them) because of the misery of the slavery, for they (the Egyptians) commenced to subjugate them. Another explanation: That he (Jacob) attempted to reveal the End [of the exile] to his sons, but it was“closed off” (concealed) from him. [This appears] in Gen. Rabbah (91:1).

What is the meaning of this idea that he wanted to reveal the ketz? I believe that the answer lies three perakim later:

א וַיִּקְרָא יַעֲקֹב, אֶל-בָּנָיו; וַיֹּאמֶר, הֵאָסְפוּ וְאַגִּידָה לָכֶם, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-יִקְרָא אֶתְכֶם, בְּאַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים.

1 And Jacob called unto his sons, and said: 'Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the end of days.

Such that he promises to tell them what happens in the acharit hayamim, in the end of days. But what follows might be classified as blessings, or might be classified as predictions. Commentators are divided on it. After all, how can what is said to Reuven and Shimon be considered a blessing?

Aside from that, Shadal explains that on a peshat level, beacharit hayamim just means in later days, but for everyone else aside from Shadal, are these statements of Yaakov really about apocalyptic times? So Rashi, e.g., says:

and I will tell you, etc. He attempted to reveal the End, but the Shechinah withdrew from him. So he began to say other things. — [from Pesachim 56a, Gen. Rabbah 89:5]

So this explanation of the parsha setumah was not just pulled out of Rashi's streimel (or the streimel of the author of the midrash). There are other textual cues filling it the specifics of the midrash, just as is the case for almost any midrash.

Yet if we read the rest of Rashi's commentary, he explains Yaakov's words as prophecy, just not end-of-days prophecy.

On the other hand, we already have a Biblical pattern of fathers blessing their children beterem their death. And we have Yaakov blessing Ephraim and Menashe. And even within Yaakov's speech here, we have:

כה מֵאֵל אָבִיךָ וְיַעְזְרֶךָּ, וְאֵת שַׁדַּי וִיבָרְכֶךָּ, בִּרְכֹת שָׁמַיִם מֵעָל, בִּרְכֹת תְּהוֹם רֹבֶצֶת תָּחַת; בִּרְכֹת שָׁדַיִם, וָרָחַם.	25 Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee, and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee, with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that coucheth beneath, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb.
כו בִּרְכֹת אָבִיךָ, גָּבְרוּ עַל-בִּרְכֹת הוֹרַי, עַד-תַּאֲוַת, גִּבְעֹת עוֹלָם; תִּהְיֶיןָ לְרֹאשׁ יוֹסֵף, וּלְקָדְקֹד נְזִיר אֶחָיו. {פ}	26 The blessings of thy father are mighty beyond the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills; they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of the prince among his brethren.

So anyway, according to the aforementioned midrash, Yaakov wanted to reveal to them the ketz. But how did Yaakov know the ketz? This is a question posed by Daat Zekeinim miBaalei haTosafot. After all, he is not a mystical blogger who can skillfully interpret sefer Daniel, or Zohar, or Ramchal. So how in the world would Yaakov Avinu know the ketz?!

Zaat Zekeinim has an answer. He suggests that Yaakov counted the rungs of the ladder in his dream. That is, according to one midrash, he was dreaming about the various exiles.

The "problem" with this is that if I recall the midrash correctly, Yaakov specifically did not know how much the angel of Edom ascended. To cite Midrash Tanchuma:

דא"ר שמואל בר נחמן:
מלמד, שהראה לו הקב"ה לאבינו יעקב:
שרה של בבל עולה שבעין עוקים ויורד,
ושל מדי חמישים ושנים,
ושל יון מאה ויורד,
ושל אדום עלה ולא ידע כמה. באותה שעה נתיירא יעקב אבינו ואמר: שמא לזה אין לו ירידה?!
א"ל הקדוש ברוך הוא: (ירמיה ל) ואתה אל תירא עבדי יעקב ואל תחת ישראל, כביכול אפילו אתה רואהו עולה אצלי, משם אני מורידו, שנאמר: (עובדיה א) אם תגביה כנשר ואם בין כוכבים שים קנך, משם אורידך נאם ה'.

Hashem thus assures him that there will be an end, though Yaakov does not know what it is. So it would seem a stretch to claim that Yaakov now knew when the ketz was.

Indeed, I would say that the very point of the midrash cited by Rashi later about the Shechina withdrawing from him is that he would tell them, via prophecy, when the ketz was. Not that he was able to tell them at any time. (Though this might not have been how Daat Zekeinim understood the midrash.)

Daat Zekeinim also brings down a charming midrash about a conversation about being able to reveal to them the ketz. I have seen different versions which have different conversants -- either Hashem conversing with Yaakov (Daat Zekeinim), or Yaakov conversing with his sons (Baal HaTurim, same page, same link). Yaakov was wondering why the Shechina departed. According to Daat Zekeinim, Yaakov noted to Hashem that there was no letters chet or tav in all the letters of their name. Hashem replied that neither were the letters kuf or tzadi.

As an interesting aside, we see here that this midrash spelled chet, sin, without a final aleph. This plays into this issue about the gematria of egoz and not eating egozim on Rosh Hashana, discussed here, and then in terms of this midrash, here.

According to Baal HaTurim, Yaakov's sons make the point of having no chet in their names, and the rejoinder about lacking ketz in their names is Yaakovs. A pity, because we could have made a nice consistent pattern, connecting the conversants with the belief that Yaakov did or did not personally know the ketz, or whether this knowledge was held by Hakadosh Baruch Hu.

A separate point of consideration is which ketz? It could mean the final, apocalyptic end of days, or it could mean the ketz of galut Mitzrayim. Even if we read the Tanchuma like me, Yaakov could have seen the sar of Egypt ascending, so as to know the ketz. Of course, that midrash only discusses the 4 exiles, and so does not discuss galut Mitzrayim. Plus anyway, Daat Zekeinim himself proposes (in the same page linked above) that the acharit hayamim refers to the exile in Egypt for 430 years -- motivated by the heh hayidiya, and that otherwise it would have to say beacharit yamim besof yemei olam. But then he considers it means the final end-of-days, and in that context, discusses the ketz, as above.

Parallels Between Vaychi and Its Haftarah

Since I am on this kick, I might as well do this for parashat Vaychi as well. The obvious connection is in the leading words in the haftarah. The haftarah begins:

א וַיִּקְרְבוּ יְמֵי-דָוִד, לָמוּת; וַיְצַו אֶת-שְׁלֹמֹה בְנוֹ, לֵאמֹר.

1 Now the days of David drew nigh that he should die; and he charged Solomon his son, saying:

which parallels the second pasuk of the parsha:

כט וַיִּקְרְבוּ יְמֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, לָמוּת, וַיִּקְרָא לִבְנוֹ לְיוֹסֵף וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אִם-נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ, שִׂים-נָא יָדְךָ תַּחַת יְרֵכִי; וְעָשִׂיתָ עִמָּדִי חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת, אַל-נָא תִקְבְּרֵנִי בְּמִצְרָיִם.

29 And the time drew near that Israel must die; and he called his son Joseph, and said unto him: 'If now I have found favour in thy sight, put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh, and deal kindly and truly with me; bury me not, I pray thee, in Egypt.

Of course, there may be other parallels, but not so convincing as deliberate parallels, but rather just things that commonly happen when someone prominent passes on. Thus, Yosef swears to his father to bury him, and David tells his son what to do after his death. (Shimi violates an oath he made in the previous perek.)

There is also, in the previous perek, the construction of vayaged without specifying who is relating this. This might indeed indicate a deliberate echoing of the end of Yaakov's life.

נא וַיֻּגַּד לִשְׁלֹמֹה, לֵאמֹר, הִנֵּה אֲדֹנִיָּהוּ, יָרֵא אֶת-הַמֶּלֶךְ שְׁלֹמֹה; וְהִנֵּה אָחַז בְּקַרְנוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, לֵאמֹר, יִשָּׁבַע-לִי כַיּוֹם הַמֶּלֶךְ שְׁלֹמֹה, אִם-יָמִית אֶת-עַבְדּוֹ בֶּחָרֶב.

51 And it was told Solomon, saying: 'Behold, Adonijah feareth king Solomon; for, lo, he hath laid hold on the horns of the altar, saying: Let king Solomon swear unto me first of all that he will not slay his servant with the sword.'

Does anyone spot any other interesting parallels?