From the second perek of Vayikra:
seor, sourdough, is what causes bread to rise. But it can rise without it, just from the natural bacteria occurring in air, which is why after some estimate of time (such as 18 minutes or 40 minutes) we must be concerned lest matzah became chametz, or if it shows signs of chimutz.
But here, what is being prohibited? One could read the pasuk on a literal level that practically no meal offering will be chametz, because (ki) the ingredient they add deliberately to get good chimutz, namely sourdough, may not smoke as an offering by fire to Hashem. But that would not preclude naturally occurring limited chametz.
The alternative is the opposite, that there is a general prohibition of chametz which holds true. The reason might be seor, but it applies even without the seor; or the whole mention of seor is flowery language and repetition. What do you think about the merits of interpreting this pasuk in either direction?
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Baal HaTurim, Gematriot in Vayikra, and Cow and Sheep Gaits
The Baal Haturim, as usual has a fascinating perush on the parsha. I don't entirely agree with the methodology, but I can point out how he uses gematriot -- to reinforce and bring out points and themes already present from elsewhere.He first reinforces the theme found in midrashim about how the calling of Moshe is a mark of Moshe's distinction and gedulah. He therefore darshens semichut to the fire at the end of Pekudei.
He notes the small aleph, and interprets this as a mark of Moshe's humility, as an attempt to make himself as if he communication with Hashem was like that of Bilaam, whereas of course it was not.
The crowning of his mother -- see midrash rabba about the selection of Moshe, and the selection of Yocheved, and Bas Pharaoh.
The numerology to get the idea that anyone who learns Torah (in general?? or the laws of the korbanot??) is as if he offered all the korbanot. Perhaps addressing the question of why bother learning this when it is all not in practice, and transforming limmud Torah into the new avodah. Thus, it is participatory.
His gematria that ben bakar is 354, or שנד, which is one off from שנה, thus indicating that ben bakar means of the first year. But of course, it is just a gematria; and at that, it is one-off, and the phrase in the pasuk has a heh -- בן הבקר which would throw it off even further. And it not gematria ben shana, but just shana - 1.
{Update: Oops! I was being very silly here. As Peretz points out, it is 354 as in the days in the lunar year. In which case it works out, except of course for the missing heh for the definite article.}
What is his motivation? To fill in a detail known in halacha; Other pesukim that have that detail; because ben indicates something young, especially when we compare it with the just plain par.
He engages in very fine-grained comparisons between the sacrifice of the ben bakar and the tzon. This is motivated, I think, not just by a sense of subtlely in the Biblical text but also the repetition of almost entirely the same details, with occasional (if any) minor variations. The story then becomes about the differences as much as about what the text itself has to say. (In contrast, we might just say it is the Biblical style by korbanot to have lots of repetition, and slight variations may then be meaningless, accidental, or as means of introducing some variation to keep the text more lively. Of course, such may be theologically troublesome.) One variation is that damo is used by sheep, and he suggests that that is because of its similarity to human blood. That reminds me of the story of the sale of Yosef.
Then, the difference in terms of its kerev and its legs, in terms of how the pesukim differ in describing the identical features -- this is attributed by Tanna deVei Eliyahu to a difference in how sheep and cows walk. I did some research to confirm this, and this perush is rooted in a reality which most people do not get to experience nowadays. When a cow, or other large animal walks, it moves the legs on one side first, and then the legs on the other side. Meanwhile, a sheep moves legs on alternating sides of its body.
To quote a web page about the gait of sheep:
WalkingIn contrast, as this book on animation discusses, large animals such as horses and cows, move their legs as follows: back-left, front-left, back-right, front-right. Then they start the sequence with back-left again.
When walking slowly or steadily from one place to another they use a gait that consists of alternate steps with their front legs followed by steps with the opposite hind leg. (i.e. front left, back right, front right, back left, and so on.)
I found some videos on YouTube of cows and sheep walking. They walk fairly quickly, so it might be difficult to process it. But people who live on farms certainly experience and know this. That said, while an interesting derash, I am not persuaded that this is the reason for the divergence in description. Anyway, here is a cow walking:
and here is a sheep walking
Daf Yomi: Implicit Values in the Halachic System
Today, we are back on track in terms of Rif Yomi. For this brief period at least, we are caught up with Daf Yomi. From today's Rif:
This is perhaps applicable to people reading specific anti-feminist values into the halachic system, and then criticizing it on that basis, or endorsing specific worldviews on that basis. Perhaps we may maintain values and moralities which differ from, and are more liberal, than the strict law, and the strict law is as it is for certain other {perhaps unknown or unknowable} reasons.
Just my own musings. And perhaps relevant to those folks studying Akeidas Yitzchak (even though as I have explained, I think the entire question is irrelevant to this).
How would you interpret the above Yerushalmi? Must one, as a frum Jew, adopt and endorse the values in the halachic system?
Now, he did cite a pasuk, or at least apply a pasuk {big difference} to his servant. But still, it is a fascinating and perhaps important gemara. Just because the strict halacha is X, that does not mean that one must derive one's value system from that, even though one may argue that this is therefore Hashem's declaration of what it Right and Just. Here, despite ruling honestly that the halacha was X, he personally conducted himself in such a manner as not required at all by halacha, and endorsed a value of equality of all mankind. And Rabbi Yochanan was an early Amora!ירושלמיYerushalmi:
א"ר יוחנן הקוטע יד עבדו של חבירו רבו נוטל חמשה דברים והלה מתפרנס מן הצדקה דמצווין ישראל לפרנס עבדים הקטועים ולא שלימים
והא ר' יוחנן אכיל קופר ויהיב לעבדיה שתי חמר ויהיב לעבדיה וקרי עליה הלא בבטן עושני עשהו התם מדת רחמנות הכא מדת הדין:
Rabbi Yochanan said: If one cuts off the arm of a Hebrew servant of another, the master takes the five things {=nezek, tzaar, ripui, shevet, boshet} and this other one {=the servant} subsists off charity, for Israel is available {/ready} to support amputee slaves, but not complete ones.
But Rabbi Yochanan would eat a piece of meat and give it to his servant; drink wine and give it to his servant, and call upon him {Iyyov 31:15}There was the attribute of Mercy. Here was the attribute of Law {Din}.
טו הֲלֹא-בַבֶּטֶן, עֹשֵׂנִי עָשָׂהוּ; וַיְכֻנֶנּוּ, בָּרֶחֶם אֶחָד. 15 Did not He that made me in the womb make him? And did not One fashion us in the womb?
This is perhaps applicable to people reading specific anti-feminist values into the halachic system, and then criticizing it on that basis, or endorsing specific worldviews on that basis. Perhaps we may maintain values and moralities which differ from, and are more liberal, than the strict law, and the strict law is as it is for certain other {perhaps unknown or unknowable} reasons.
Just my own musings. And perhaps relevant to those folks studying Akeidas Yitzchak (even though as I have explained, I think the entire question is irrelevant to this).
How would you interpret the above Yerushalmi? Must one, as a frum Jew, adopt and endorse the values in the halachic system?
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
The role of korbanos, al pi Shadal
We all pray for the reestablishment of the Beis Hamikdash. But as we read through Vayikra, do we really get the sense that this order of karbanot is the optimal approach to our relationship to Hashem? Prayer, where we can muster up the kavanah and emotion, seems like a much more direct connection to Hashem, and an excellent replacement for korbanot. As Hosheah says, קְחוּ עִמָּכֶם דְּבָרִים, וְשׁוּבוּ אֶל-ה; אִמְרוּ אֵלָיו, כָּל-תִּשָּׂא עָוֹן וְקַח-טוֹב, וּנְשַׁלְּמָה פָרִים, שְׂפָתֵינוּ. Not to mention, does Hashem have a stomach that He hungers for the flesh of sacrifices? And the whole ritual with killing animals, sprinkling their blood, and burning their fats seems somewhat violent and primitive. On the other hand, we all eat meat, which involves killing and eating animals, so who am I to talk. Even so, the form of worship inherent in tefillah seems more optimal.
Perhaps the answer lies in the pasuk in Devarim: כִּי לֹא-דָבָר רֵק הוּא, מִכֶּם--כִּי-הוּא, חַיֵּיכֶם. If we see it as rek, it is mikem, something which is our own fault. This criticism is certainly more than justified. Our modern attitudes are in many cases not in accord with the values held by people in years past, and possibly the ones put forth in the Torah, and perhaps it is arrogance to think that we should be able to judge the Torah by our own values. Yet many commentators and rabbis, including Rambam, have grappled with this idea of korbanot. And this comes to the fore when we start parshat Vayikra.
Shadal grapples with the idea, and in the beginning of his commentary on Vayikra, he presents his take on the purpose of korbanot. What follows is the text and my own rough summary:
Perhaps the answer lies in the pasuk in Devarim: כִּי לֹא-דָבָר רֵק הוּא, מִכֶּם--כִּי-הוּא, חַיֵּיכֶם. If we see it as rek, it is mikem, something which is our own fault. This criticism is certainly more than justified. Our modern attitudes are in many cases not in accord with the values held by people in years past, and possibly the ones put forth in the Torah, and perhaps it is arrogance to think that we should be able to judge the Torah by our own values. Yet many commentators and rabbis, including Rambam, have grappled with this idea of korbanot. And this comes to the fore when we start parshat Vayikra.
Shadal grapples with the idea, and in the beginning of his commentary on Vayikra, he presents his take on the purpose of korbanot. What follows is the text and my own rough summary:
וכאן ראיתי לחוות דעתי בקצרה על עניני הקרבנות . הקרבנות לא היתה תחילתם בצווי אלא רשיון אנושי , כי התנדבו בני אדם לתת תודה לקל על חסדיו עמהם או להביא לפניו מנחה לשכך חמתו ולרצותו למען ימלא שאלותם , כי לא ייתכן לאדם להתנהג עם אלקיו כי אם על דרך שהוא מתנהג עם מלך בשר ודם , והנה בבואם להביא מנחה לאלהים לא מצאו תחבולה אלא שישרפוה באש , כי בשרפתה היו מוציאים אותה מרשותם ומרשות שאר בני אדם , ומרשות הבהמות והחיות והעופות , וגם בהיותה נשרפת ועשנה עולה למרום , היה נראה להם כאילו עלה אל האלהים . והדבר הנשרף לכבוד האל קראו לו קֹדֶשׁ , מן יְקוֹד אֵשׁ , ואחר כך הושאל לשון קדושה לענינים אחרים .The korbanot were originally not commanded but from man's initiative, to thank Hashem for his kindness, or to bring a present to try to make Him forget his anger and to appease Him so that He would fulfill their requests. For it is only appropriate for a person to relate to his God {at least} as he relates to a flesh-and-blood king. And their strategem in offering the korban was to burn it, and thus take it from their own domain and the domain of all other humans, animals and birds. And also, as it is burnt and its smoke ascends skyward, it appears to them as if it ascended to God. And the thing burnt to the honor of God was called to him "kodesh" from "yekod esh" {burnt on fire}, and afterward this language of kedusha was borrowed to other matters. {J: an interesting and creative etymology, though I am not convinced of it.}
התורה האלהית , אשר אין מגמתה ללמד את העם חכמה ודאת אלא להדריכם במעגלי צדק , לא ביטלה מנהג הקרבנות , לא שלא היה זה בכוחה , אלא מפני שאין המנהג הזה רע מצד עצמו ולא מזיק לבני אדם ולתיקון מידותם , אבל הוא מועיל להם , שאם היתה התורה מודיעה את העם שאין חפץ לה ' בעולות וזבחים , מחר יאמרו : מה חפץ לה ' כי נצדק ומה בצע כי נתם דרכינו ? ולהיות אחד מיסודות התורה האמונה שהאל משגיח על מעשי בני אדם ואוהב עושי הטוב ושונא את הרעים , היה מן ההכרח שלא יצוייר האל בתכלית הרוממות כפי מדרגתו האמיתית , אלא כביכול תושפל מעלתו מעט ויצוייר במחשבת בני אדם כמלך גדול המבין אל כל מעשיהם ושומע צעקתם ומקבל מנחותם .The Divine Torah, whose purpose is not to teach the nation wisdom and knowledge but rather to direct them in the path of righteousness, did not nullify the practice of the sacrifices, not that it was not in its power to do so, but rather that this custom was not bad from any aspect of itself, and was not harmful for people and for fixing their traits, but rather it helped them. For if the Torah informed the nation thast Hashem had no desire in burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, tomorrow they will say "what is the desire of Hashem that we act righteously, and what gain is there that we make our way straight? And since one of the foundations of the Torah is the faith that God supervises the actions of mankind and loves those who do good and hates the wicked, it is of necessity that God not be depicted in the absolute supremecy, according to His true level, but rather it is as if His greatness is lowered a bit and he is depicted in the conception of mankind like a great king who understands all their actions, hears their cries, and accepts their gifts.
וההכרח הזה לא היה בדור ההוא בלבד , אבל הוא בכל דור ודור בשוה . ואם במקום הקרבנות היה האל מצווה על התפילה והזמירות וקריאת התורה והשמעת דברי מוסר , ולא היה מצווה על הקרבנות , לא היתה גדולת האל ויראתו נרשמת בלב ההמון , כי היה נראה להם שאלתי העמים , שעובדיהם מקריבים לפניהם כמה זבחים , הם גדולים ונכבדים מאלהינו שאין עבודתו אלא בדברים בעלמא . כי כן היא מידת ההמון בכל דור ודור , ולא המון העם בלבד , אלא רוב בני אדם כך היא מידתם ; איזהו מכובד אצלם ? המכבד את עצמו ומגדיל מעלתו ; ואמנם מי שהוא מעביר על מידותיו ואינו מבקש גדולה לעצמו , איננו חשוב בעיניהם . ואלהי האמת אף על פי שאינו צריך לכבוד בשר ודם , הנה לתועלתינו ולטובתנו הוצרך להביא יראתו בלבנו לבלתי נחטא .And this necessity was not only in that generation, but rather in every generation equally. And if in place of the korbanot God had commanded upon prayer, songs, reading of the Torah and saying words of ethics, and did not command korbanot, the greatness of God and the fear of Him would not be registered in the heart of the general populace, for it would appear that the requests of the other nations, whose worship involved sacrificing before them many peace-offerings, were greater and more honorable that our God whose service is only with words. For such are the traits of the general populace in every generation. And not only the general populace {the common folk}, but this is indeed the trait of most people. What is considered more honored to them? One who honors himself and makes his stature great. Yet he who is transcends his traits and does not seek glory for himself is not important in their eyes. And the God of Truth, even though He does not need honor of flesh-and-blood, behold for our sakes and our good, He needs to bring in His fear into our hearts so that we do not sin.
ואחר שבימים ההם לא היה אפשר שתבוא יראתו בלב העם בזולת קרבנות , ציוה עליהם . והנה פרי הקרבנות שהיה הציבור מקריב במקדש היה זה , שהיה מתרשם בלב ההמון כי אלוה ומלך גדול שוכן בקרבם ושהם חביבים עליו , וציוה להם עבודות הרצויות לפניו .ושהם , בעשותם העבודות ההן במצוותו , הם מתרצים אליו יום יום וממשיכים עליהם תמיד אהבתו . וציותה התורה שלא יהיה כל אחד בונה במה לעצמו , אך כל העדה יקריבו את קרבנותיהם במקום מיוחד אשר יבחר בו ה '; ולא יהיה זה חלילה כדי למעט מעשה הקרבנות (כדעת הרמב " ם במורה חלק ג ' פ ' ל " ב ), אך היה לטובת האומה והצלחתה ולתיקון המידות ולשמירת הדת , כי בהיות לכל העם מקדש אחד יתקבצו כולם למקום אחד ויתקשרו לבותם בקשר האחווה ויהיו תמיד לאגודה אחת , ולא יהיה כל שבט וכל משפחה לעם בפני עצמו .ואם היה כל אחד בונה במה לעצמו , היה מספיק לכל אחד שיהיה האל מרוצה לו ומקבל זבחיו , ולא היה לבו דואג כלל לשאר בני אומתו ,תחת שרצון התורה הוא שיהיה הגמול כללי לאומה , וכל ישראל ערבים זה לזה .
And once in those days it was not possible to bring His fear into the heart of the nation without korbanot, he commanded upon them. And behold, the product of the sacrifices which the community offered in the Mikdash was this, that it registered in the heart of the general populace that God and a Great King dwelled in their midst, and that they were beloved to Him, and that He commanded them services which were desired before Him. And that they, when they performed these services at His command, were desired to Him day by day, and drew towards themselves, always, His love. And the Torah commanded that no individual should build a private altar for himself, but rather that the entire congregation should bring their korbanot in a designated place which Hashem had chosen for Himself. And this was not, forfend, in order to reduce the act of korbanot (as is the opinion of the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim, cheleck 3, perek 32), but rather to the benefit of the nation and its success, and to improve the traits and the keeping of the religion. For when the entire nation has a single Temple, they will all gather to one place and their hearts with be tied with a bond of brotherhood, such that they will always be a single group, and it will not be that each tribe and every family will be a nation of its own. And if every one built a private altar for himself, it would be sufficient to each person that God desired him and accepted his korbanot, and his heart would not be aggreived at all for the other members of his nation; in place of the desire of the Torah that the recompense {?} is general to the nation, and all Israel are guarantors for one another.
גם היה אפשר שתתקלקל העבודה אצל משפחה או שבט וימירו את חוקותיה , ומעט מעט ילכו בחוקות הגויים ויקבעו להם מנהגים נתעבים לפניו ית ' וגם את בניהם ואת בנותיהם יזבחו ; ובהיות העבודה רק במקום אחד - הקילקול יותר רחוק , כי תצטרך לזה הסכמת האומה כולה ( ועיין מה שכתבתי במדבר ט"ו ט"ו ). והנה קרבנות הציבור הם כדי שיהיה לישראל משכן ומקדש לעבודת האל , כדי שיתרשם בלבם כי ה ' בקרבם והוא מלכם ומנהיגם המשגיח על מעשיהם והגומל אותם כדרכם וכעלילותם , ולא יתרשם זה בלב ההמון בלי ענין מוחש שירמוז אליו . ולפיכך הוצרך שיהיה המקדש כתבנית היכל מלך והוצרך שיהיה בו שולחן ומנורה ועל השולחן מערכת לחם והכלים השייכים לשולחן , קערותיו וכפותיו .And it was also possible that the service would be corrupted by a family of tribe, and that they would exchange its laws, and little by little they would go in the laws of the gentiles and establish for themselves customs which were detested before Him, and also their sons and their daughters they would sacrifice. And since the service was only in a single place, the possibility of getting corrupted is more farfetched, for this would require the agreement of the entire nation. (And see what I have written on Bemidbar 15:15.) And behold, the korbanot of the community are in order that there be to Israel a Mishkan and Mikdash for worship of God, so that it be registered in their hearts that Hashem is in their midst, and that he is their King and director, who looks after their actions and who repays them in kind according to their ways and action. And this would not be registered in the hearts of the general populace without some tangible thing which hints to it. And therefore, it was necessary that the Mikdash was in the pattern of the palace of a king, and it was necessary that there be in it a Table and a candelabrum, and that there be upon the table an arrangement of bread and the vessels pertaining to a table, its plates and spoons.
ואחר שהיה המנהג להקריב לאלהים מנחה מן הדברים הנאכלים , היה מן הראוי שנביא לפני מלכנו מיני אכילה ושתייה , והנה הזבחים כנגד האכילה והנסכים כנגד השתייה . והוצרך שיהיו למלך משרתים העובדים בביתו ועומדים לפניו , והם הכהנים ; ואחד מהם רואה פני המלך היושב ראשונה במלכות , והוא הכהן הגדול . והוצרך שיהיו המקדש וכליו והכהנים ובגדיהם מפוארים בהוד והדר לכבוד , למען תתרשם בלב העם גדולת המלך השוכן בבית ותהיה יראתו על פניהם לבלתי יחטאו . ואם בתחילה כשהיה כל אחד בונה במה לעצמו היתה העבודה מסורה לכל אדם או לבכורות , עכשיו שאין מקריבים רק במקום אחד , הוצרך שתהיה העבודה ביד משפחה אחת המשרתת בשם האומה כולה . והמשפחה הזאת המקודשת לעבודת האל ראוי שתהיה פנויה משאר מלאכות ועבודות ; ולהיות עבודתה בבית ה ' בשם האומה כולה- ראוי שתהיה פרנסתה מזומנת לה מאת העם .And once it is the custom to offer to God a Mincha {present} from the things which are consumed, it is fitting that we bring before our King types of food and drink. And behold the sacrifices correspond to the food and the libations correspond to the drink. And it is necessary that the king have ministers who serve in his house and stand before him, and these are the kohanim. And one of them sees the face of the king first in kingship, and he is the kohen gadol. And it is necessary that the Mikdash and its vessels, and the kohanim and their clothing, are magnificent in splendor and glory, in order to register in the heart of the nation the greatness of the King who dwells in the house, and such that fear of Him will be on their faces, such that they not sin. And if initially, when any individual builds an alter for himself, the service is given over to each person or to the firstborns, now that we only sacrifice in a single place, it is necessary that the service be in the hands of a single family which ministers in the name of the entire nation. And this family which was consecrated to the service of God, it is fitting that they be unencumbered by other labors and services, and also so that the service in the house of Hashem be in the name of the entire nation, it is fitting that its support be designated to it from the nation.
ואמנם לא היה ראוי שיהיה כל כהן וכל לוי מקבל פרנסה קבועה , והיה כצדיק כרשע ; אבל הניחה התורה ברשות כל איש ואיש מישראל לתת מתנותיו לכל כהן ולכל לוי שירצה , ומתוך כך ישתדלו הכהנים והלויים להיות מרוצים לקהל בכשרון דרכיהם וביושר מעלליהם . ואמנם קרבנות היחיד כולם לתועלת היחיד בכל העתים אשר יעברו עליו . אם תבואהו טובה ,יתן תודה לה ' ויקריב קרבנו , ובזה יתרשם בלבו כי מאת ה ' היתה לו הטובה ויבטח בו ויתקן מעשיו כדי להמשיך עליו תמיד אהבתו וחמלתו ; ואם יהיה בצרה , יתפלל לאל וידור נדר , שאם יחלצהו יקריב לפניו קרבן , וכאשר רווח והצלה יעמוד לו ישלם נדרו ויתרשם בלבו כי ה ' הצילו . ואם חטא בשגגה , יביא קרבן ויתרשם בלבו כי אלהיו סלח לו והוא רצוי לפניו כבתחילה .And yet, it is not fitting that every kohen and every Levi accept a fixed support, for both the tzaddik and the rasha, but rather the Torah leaves it in the domain of each and every man of Israel to give his presents to any kohen and any Levi he wants, and from this, the kohanim and Leviim will strive to be desirous to the congregation by the validity of their ways and the straightforwardness of their actions. And yet the korbanot of the individual are all for the sake of the individual in all the times that pass upon him. If good comes upon him, he gives thanks to Hashem and offers his korban, and via this it is registered in his heart that this good came to him from Hashem, and he will trust in Him and fix his actions in order to have His Love and Favor continuously extend to him. And if he is is dire straights, he prays to God and vows a vow, that if he lets him escape he will offer before Him a korban, and then when he is saved he fulfills his vow, and it is registered in his heart that Hashem saved him. And if he sinned accidentally, he brings a korban and it is registered in his heart that his God forgave him, and he is desired before Him as he was initially.
ואם לא היתה כפרה לשוגג ,היה החוטא אומר בלבו ; מי יצילני מיד האל הקשה הזה ? כי הנה עתה בבלי דעת חטאתי וחרה אפו בי וישליכני מלפניו ואין לי תקוה להשיב חמתו ; אם כן , למה אשתמר עוד מחטוא מהיום והלאה ? - ואמנם החוטא בזדון לא היה מביא קרבן , כדי שלא יתרשם בלבו כמחשבת הגויים הקדמונים שהאל לוקח שוחד מן החוטאים וסולח להם על פשעיהם . ועוד תועלת אחרת היתה בקרבנות היחיד , והוא כי מלבד החלק המגיע מהם לכהנים , הנה גם מה שנשאר לבעלים היו הבעלים מוכרחים לאכלו בחברה עם זולתם , כי לא היו רשאים להשאיר ממנו עד המחרת או עד היום השלישי ואף לא למלוח בשר הזבח ולהביאו לביתם חוץ לירושלם ולאכלו עם בני ביתם ; והנה המשלם נדרו לה ' על חסד אשר עשה לו היה מוכרח לשמח עמו גם אחרים , ועל ידי זה היה מתקשר בקשר האהבה עם אנשים אשר לא ידע מתמול שלשום או לפחות היה מהנה מסעודתו העניים והאביונים, ועיין למטה י"ט טAnd if there were no atonement for the accidental violation, the sinner would say in his heart: "Who will save me from this strict God? For behold now, without knowledge I sinned, and His anger is burning against me, and He will cast me from before Him, and I have no hope to turn away his wrath. If so, who should I guard myself further from sinning, from this day and on." And yet the one who sins deliberately does not bring a korban, in order that it not be registered in his heart like the thoughts of the early gentiles that God takes bribes from the sinners and forgives the nation for their sins. And a further purpose their is in the individual sacrifices, and that is that besides for the portion that comes from them to the kohanim, behold there is also that which is left over to the owners {of the sacrifices, that is the bringers}, such that the owners are compelled to eat it in a gathering with their peers, for they are not permitted to leave over from it until the next day or until the third day, and they may not even salt the meat of the sacrifice and bring it to their houses outside of Jerusalem and eat it with the members of their household. And behold, one who fulfills a vow to Hashem upon the kindness that He did for him, others as well are compelled to rejoice with him, and via this he is joined in the bonds of love with men whom he did not know beforehand; or at the very least the paupers will benefit from his feast. And see below, {Vayikra} 19:9.
So ends my rough summary of Shadal. This reminds me of the discussion on LookJed about whether to teach that Hashem desires our good deeds, and whether it is a positive thing, or a heretical thing to teach. It is possible that the hamon am can only relate to God in this manner.
I also wonder if all of this is Shadal reading his own values into the pesukim. He accuses kabbalists of reading their values into the words of Chazal; and he levels the same accusations at philosophers. I wonder if one can accuse him of the same regarding pesukim. When confronted with a contradiction between your own values/beliefs and apparent Torah values/beliefs, it is awfully tempting to read your own values into it and thus eliminate any conflict. On the other hand, such rereading might be true. And if your values are truth and good, how indeed can the value of the Torah be any different. Another approach is to recognize that their is a conflict. If so, one can admit to being an oisvorf; or else reject the specific values as being culturally limited, or else entirely wrong. I am just laying out the options here.
I also wonder if all of this is Shadal reading his own values into the pesukim. He accuses kabbalists of reading their values into the words of Chazal; and he levels the same accusations at philosophers. I wonder if one can accuse him of the same regarding pesukim. When confronted with a contradiction between your own values/beliefs and apparent Torah values/beliefs, it is awfully tempting to read your own values into it and thus eliminate any conflict. On the other hand, such rereading might be true. And if your values are truth and good, how indeed can the value of the Torah be any different. Another approach is to recognize that their is a conflict. If so, one can admit to being an oisvorf; or else reject the specific values as being culturally limited, or else entirely wrong. I am just laying out the options here.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Interesting Posts and Articles #133
- Emes veEmunah criticizes Dov Hikind for not releasing the names of molesters, and calls on him to "do the right thing." The thing is, Hikind could have simply not sought out these names. He did so from the victims with their presumption that he would not simply be blabbing those names (something which could backfire on the victims), but would use it to cause positive change. While he may not have attorney-client privilege, or the equivalent for clergy, the fact is that it took his courage and initiative to get himself into this situation. So I believe that he is ethically due more than a bit of lattitude in how to use it, even though remaining quiet may well allow abusers to continue. And this is not a simple thing to say, but like is not simple. I think this comment there captures the idea nicely:
I know Dov Hikind, and I know that he is an honorable man who doesn't let political expediency get in the way of doing the right thing.
He is in an almost impossible situation right now - a situation, I might add, that he put himself into by actually getting involved and not sitting on his hands, which would have been the easiest thing to do.
The dilemma is this: Either sit on his information, knowing that his not divulging the names could allow molesters to continue their filthy work; or release the names, thus reducing to nil the chance that any other victims from the chassidic community would ever again confide in him on these matters.
I have to think that there is a lot going on behind the scenes that the public is not aware of. Perhaps Mr. Hikind has contacted some of the molesters, and privately let them know that he's on to them.Perhaps he is negotiating different cases on an individual basis. I don't know - I'm only guessing. But knowing Mr. Hikind, I'm sure he didn't just lock the names in a file and forget about them. I'm fairly sure he's up to something, which he probably can't talk about publicly.
All he's asking is that we trust him. Given that he's the first Orthodox leader to tackle the problem head-on, I think that trust is the least that he deserves. - The Creedmoorer Tznius play. An excerpt:Shprintzy is a rather rebellious, yet popular, 10th grade student in a well known "hymish" girls' school. Not one to conform with tznius rules, she is known for wearing short sleeves and short skirts at simchas as well as for making her uniform skirt hem so high that she has been sent home on several occasions.One day, she is stricken with a horrible infection that causes her to lose her arms and legs, so that, as her well respected principal announces to the class: "Mydlach, for once I want you should know that your friend Shprintzy is dressed tznius."I've seen similar, but intended forthrightly. For example a woman punished with cancer because she was beautiful and did not take steps to conceal it. For this disgusting presentation, for real, see this post at DreamingOfMoshiach. Thus, for example:
Then, the first warning came... one evening while preparing scrambled eggs, the flame underneath the pan burned my hair within a few short seconds. My beautiful long hair was totally burned. I remember while in the hospital and hysterically crying, my father sat next to me and tried comforting me, "Ravital, HaShem performed a miracle for us, you could have gotten completely burned. Please Ravital, change your ways." But I didn't listen, I was 16 years old and within 2 years my hair regrew to its original beauty. I completely forgot the heavenly warning that almost burned me to death. I became even more beautiful and exotic than before and putting on makeup was a daily must.
- A Simple Jew asks whether there is overemphasis on Birchas HaChammah. Rafi G answers.
- And at Life In Israel and DovBear, he asks whether there is any purpose in obtaining rabbinic approval for restricting parental spending on weddings (and subsequent apartment purchase). See the comment section.
- The Jewish Week on Roger Cohen's Willful Ignorance.
- Via Dixie Yid, a video from Oorah, and Moishe Mendlewitz -- "the Atheist Convention in LA." Cute. However, I wonder. The message is (partially) that there is no atheist in a foxhole. And (perhaps partially) that their experiencing of a miraculous salvation turned them around. But that this made the Muslim turn towards Allah and the Christian turn towards Yushke (not mentioned in the video, and they just make it instead his Father in Heaven, shared by Judaism) makes me wonder what exactly the inspirational message is here. Would they similarly show a former Baal-worshipper return towards his worship of molten idols? Is this a generic proof of any and all deities? At least in the narrative in sefer Yonah, all the idolators prayed to their gods to no avail, and
Also, after the video puts belief in evolution and the Big Bang as contrary to belief in God (or rather, that it is fact rather than theory), what are these reformed atheists doing now in terms of these beliefs. Have they been disproven? Is the video asserting that it is an either-or situation, and that Jewish belief precludes belief that evolution exists? Besides being a cute video, I would like to know just what lessons this video is teaching. Since it is a chassid who is the one in-the-know on the plane, and afterwards the Jewish atheist not only becomes religious but dons a streimel, is this asserting that this is the authentic Judaism, together with its associated rejection of evolution, the Big Bang, and secular learning? Or was this just a way of making the transformation more visually stark? Also, it is good to see that they know how to spell atheists. I don't know if there are any atheists in my audience, but what is your take on this video? Are you insulted by it? Amused? Does it speak to you, or the reverse? Who do you think the intended audience is? Frum folks, to make them feel better about their own life choices and perspectives?
The small aleph as indicating Moshe's loss of gedulah
In Tiferes Yehonasan, from Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz, an interesting take on the small aleph in the word Vayikra.He actually considers it to designate a pegam in Moshe! For Hashem said to Moshe לֶךְ-רֵד--כִּי שִׁחֵת עַמְּךָ, אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלֵיתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם, and we can interpret lech red as a reduction from his greatness. Because of an error of insisting on bringing along the Erev Rav, and converts are as difficult to Israel like a sore. And this was the primary basis of the sin of the Golden Calf. And thus, Hashem's punishment of Moshe, for causing this damage, by removing him from his greatness. And his support for this is that אלף means cow, as in שְׁגַר-אֲלָפֶיךָ וְעַשְׁתְּרֹת צֹאנֶךָ. And a small one means a small cow, which is a reference to the golden calf.
A very creative interpretation. Shadal has another explanation, that the small aleph had no deep meaning, but was an artifact of an old practice to not maintain spaces between words, and to not write letters which would appear in both words, and thus the aleph beginning the next word אל made the one of Vayikra drop. Aside from this, I would suggest that as an em hakriyah, this as well as many other final letters of Ehevi might have dropped, and that is the significance of the small aleph in this particular high-profile world.
In the "famous" interpretation of this phenomenon, the aleph appears to be interpreted in a very different way. The theme of the first pasuk, based on the preceding context (see Baal HaTurim about his glowing face) and based on Hashem's designation and calling out specifically to him, is to give to Moshe gedulah. And when they notice the small aleph and the resulting ויקר as a parallel to Bilaam, this is attributed to Moshe Rabbenu's initiative, that he was a great Anav, who tried -- which in turn is also an attributing of greatness to Moshe. (Or perhaps other midrashim connecting Vayikra to Yoker.)
That is not to say that Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz's interpretation is without it own internal support. ויקר is then not so flattering, and the small aleph can be interpreted that way, as Chet HaEgel. And he is surely not the first to say the Erev Rav were responsible for various troubles in the midbar. Just that this local interpretation it runs contrary to the theme Chazal try to develop in their midrash, of Moshe's greatness, and that it might run contrary to the gedulah inherent in Hashem specifically singling out Moshe for calling in this pasuk.
I admit that on an emotional level, the message in this interpretation bothers me. Even if ultimately it caused all these problems, Moshe as a personality was such that he strove to defend the weak, and so his championing the cause of Datan and Aviram to save them from the mortar was a sign of his greatness, IMHO, even as it ended up causing tremendous problems. (The purpose of that midrash might have been about questioning the middot of Hakadosh Baruch Hu.) And the acceptance of gerim and bringing them under kanfei haShechina, even if ultimately it caused a bunch of problems, should not be judged by later generations in hindsight as something negative. The effect was negative, but the act was reflective of the personality which exuded gedulah, not the opposite.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Interesting Posts and Articles #132
- An article in the Telegraph about a feathered dinosaur, and its impact on theories of bird evolution.
- On The Main Line about the Baal Shem of London. Certainly seems like an interesting character.
- In time for Pesach, Balashon has a post about the word mozeg, meaning pour or mix. He does not think their wine was much stronger -- it could not have been prior to distillation. But it was a Greek custom, to allow consumption of it in large quantities, and to allow drinking of water, since the alchohol made it safer to drink; or the spices in the wine made them dangerous in large quantities.
- Mystical Paths posts a video featuring Rabbi Tendler about Jews on Har HaBayit.
- In a comment on one of my posts about Lo Tevaaru Esh and the Karaitic interpretation, Michael P. pointed me towards a book which discussed later Karaitic practice, where some of them adopted the practice of lighting candles for Shabbat. An interesting read -- check it out.
Vayikra sources
rishon (1:1)
sheni (1:14), missing
shelishi (2:7)
revii (3:1)
chamishi (4:1)
shishi (4:27)
shevii (5:11)
maftir (5:24)
haftara (Yeshaya 43:21), with Malbim, Ibn Ezra
by perek
perek 1 ; perek 2 ; perek 3 ; perek 4 ; perek 5
meforshim
Judaica Press Rashi in English
Shadal (and here)
Mishtadel
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Lekach Tov, Yalkut Shimoni, Gilyonot.
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew)
Tiferes Yehonasan from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz
Chasdei Yehonasan -- not until Shemini
Toldos Yitzchak Acharon, repeated from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz -- not until Shemini
Even Shleimah -- from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich
R' Saadia Gaon's Tafsir, Arabic translation of Torah (here and here)
Collected commentary of Saadia Gaon on Torah
Rashbam (and here)
Abarbanel
Torah Temimah
Kli Yakar
Zohar, with English translation
Baal Haturim
Baal Haturim (HaAruch)
Torat Hatur
Ibn Janach
Rabbenu Ephraim
Ibn Caspi
Ralbag
Dubno Maggid
Imrei Shafer, Rav Shlomo Kluger
Ateret Zekeinim
Mei Noach
Arugat HaBosem
Yalkut Perushim LaTorah
R' Yosef Bechor Shor
Meiri
Ibn Gabirol -- not until Kedoshim
Rabbenu Yonah
Seforno
Aderet Eliyahu (Gra)
Kol Eliyahu (Gra) -- not until Shemini
Sefer Zikaron of Ritva
Malbim
Chiddushei HaGriz -- not until Bemidbar
Noam Elimelech
Michlal Yofi
Nesivot Hashalom
The following meforshim at JNUL. I've discovered that if you click on the icon to rotate sideways, change to only black and white, select only the portion which is text, it is eminently readable on paper.
Ralbag (pg 188)
Baal HaTurim (35)
Rabbenu Bachya (150)
Chizkuni (87)
Abarbanel (227)
Shach (148)
Paneach Raza (49)
Yalkut Reuveni (pg 112)
Sefer Hachinuch (pg 37)
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (138)
rashi
Daat, Rashi In Hebrew (perek 1)
Judaica Press Rashi in English and Hebrew
Mizrachi, Mizrachi (on Rashi, 149)
Gur Aryeh (Maharal of Prague)
Maharsha
Siftei Chachamim
Berliner's Beur on Rashi
Commentary on Rashi by Yosef of Krasnitz
R' Yisrael Isserlin (on Rashi, 11)
Two supercommentaries on Rashi, by Chasdai Almosnino and Yaakov Kneizel
Rav Natan ben Shishon Shapira Ashkenazi (16th century), (JNUL, pg 92)
Taz
Levush HaOrah
Mohar`al
Yeriot Shlomo (Maharshal)
Moda L'Bina (Wolf Heidenheim)
Dikdukei Rashi
Mekorei Rashi (in Mechokekei Yehuda)
Bartenura
Yosef Daas
Nachalas Yaakov
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Rashi with Sifsei Chachamim
ramban
Daat, Ramban in Hebrew (perek 1)
R' Yitzchak Abohav's on Ramban (standalone and in a Tanach opposite Ramban)
Kesef Mezukak
Kanfei Nesharim
Rabbi Meir Abusaula (student of Rashba)
ibn ezra
Daat, Ibn Ezra in Hebrew (perek 1)
Mechokekei Yehudah (Daat)
Mechokekei Yehudah (HebrewBooks)
Mavaser Ezra
R' Shmuel Motot (on Ibn Ezra, pg 35)
Ibn Kaspi's supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, different from his commentary (here and here)
Mekor Chaim, Ohel Yosef, Motot
Avi Ezer
Tzofnas Paneach
Ezra Lehavin
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Ibn Ezra with Avi Ezer
targum
Targum Onkelos opposite Torah text
Targum Onkelos and Targum Pseudo-Yonatan in English
Shadal's Ohev Ger
Chalifot Semalot
Avnei Tzion -- two commentaries on Onkelos
Bei`urei Onkelos
Or Hatargum on Onkelos
Targum Yonatan
Commentary on Targum Yonatan and Targum Yerushalmi
Septuagint
Origen's Hexapla (JNUL)
masorah
Tanach with masoretic notes on the side
Commentary on the Masorah -- not until Tzav
Minchas Shai
Or Torah
Taamei Masoret
Masoret HaKeriah
Shiluv Hamasorot
Masoret HaBrit HaGadol
Rama (but based on alphabet, not parsha)
Vetus Testamentum
midrash
Midrash Rabba at Daat (1)
Midrash Tanchuma at Daat (38)
Vayikra Rabba, with commentaries
Midrash Tanchuma with commentary of Etz Yosef and Anaf Yosef
Commentary on Midrash Rabba by R' Naftali Hirtz b'R' Menachem
Matat-Kah on Midrash Rabba
Nefesh Yehonasan by Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz
haftarah (Yeshaya 43:21)
Gutnick Edition HaftaraIn a separate Mikraos Gedolos -- with Targum, Rashi, Mahari Kara, Radak, Minchat Shai, Metzudat David.
In a Tanach with Radak (JNUL, pg 58, left, last pasuk on page)
Rashis in English, from Judaica Press
Daat, with Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitch on the haftarah
Ibn Ezra on Yeshaya
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (53)
Friday, March 20, 2009
Further thoughts on Lo Tevaaru Esh
As I noted in the previous post, I do not find the Karaite explanation of Lo Tevaaru Esh compelling at all, and indeed think it somewhat ridiculous. It is certainly an explanation on the level of peshat, but I don't think that this is the true meaning of the verse, even on the peshat level.
Why not? Well, אל יצא איש ממקומו ביום השביעי as interpreted most literally would keep Jews stuck in their homes on Shabbat. And לא תבערו אש בכל מושבותיכם ביום השבת as interpreted in this literal manner would keep those confined Jews huddled in the dark, and the cold, since they cannot have fire or light in their homes.
Yeshaya states וקראת לשבת עונג. But how is this Shabbos an Oneg, a delight, if one must stay huddled in the dark and cold all Shabbos?! This is no Oneg. This is the second-to-last of the 10 plagues Hashem inflicted on the Egyptians. In Shemot 10:
bemoshvotam.
(We see a similar value in Megillat Esther, perek 8: לַיְּהוּדִים, הָיְתָה אוֹרָה וְשִׂמְחָה, וְשָׂשֹׂן, וִיקָר.)
Can you imagine that with these values, and this appreciation of the joy of light, that Hashem would impose this makka, once every seven days, on the Jews?
Now, stranger things have happened. And peshat in pesukim may well go in a different direction than we might anticipate. But that the results seem so at odds with the Biblical conception of joy vs. sadness should perhaps cause one to question whether that is indeed peshat. And that is what I meant in my earlier statement that I regard it as just a bit ridiculous.
How then are we to understand the pasuk, on the level of peshat? At this point, I am not going to advance the Rabbinic interpretation, much of which involves derash. (In fact, I wonder how much the discussion was hampered by the urge to not just disprove the Karaite position but also advance the Rabbinic position.) I do think peshat-based interpretations are available which can lead us fairly close to Chazal's practical ending position. But first, I would like to explore other possibilities.
I would put forth that on a peshat level the injuction of lo tevaaru esh is not an example of a melacha. Rather, it is something that often must be done in the course of other melachot. We have earlier that they should prepare that which they bring, and prohibitions on performing the cooking and baking on Shabbat. Another example would be metalwork, or glasswork, or firing clay pottery, or boiling dyes, and so on. Thus, the previous pasuk says that one should not perform melacha on Shabbat. And to reinforce that message, this pasuk says that one should not be burning these fires for the purpose of this forbidden labor on Shabbat.
Indeed, the most appropriate comparison may be to the laws of Pesach: שִׁבְעַת יָמִים, מַצּוֹת תֹּאכֵלוּ--אַךְ בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן, תַּשְׁבִּיתוּ שְּׂאֹר מִבָּתֵּיכֶם: כִּי כָּל-אֹכֵל חָמֵץ, וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל--מִיּוֹם הָרִאשֹׁן, עַד-יוֹם הַשְּׁבִעִי.
Seor is sourdough. People do not eat sourdough. They eat chametz, leavened bread. Sourdough is used by bakers for the purpose of making bread rise. This pasuk states that sourdough should be given a rest from your homes, because they should not be eating chametz, and so presumably there is no reason to use the sourdough. (Whether that means it must be removed, or just that it is resting and not in use may be an interesting peshat-level question.) Did you notice the word מִבָּתֵּיכֶם?
It seems more than plausible to me, then, that there is a similar intent by lo tevaaru. One should not be burning these big fires in one's home, because that would be for the purpose of engaging in the forbidden "melacha."
If so, was the intent of the pasuk that the Israelites should sit huddled in the dark and cold in their homes, like Egyptians undergoing the 9th plague? Certainly not. And so lamps were not intended, and fireplaces were not intended. It was an esh shel melacha that the Torah assur-ed.
Yet we Pharisees even have such flames in our homes. We eat hot food. Well, who says that at that point it is considered "cooking." And perhaps a difference can be made between active melacha and letting it be done, or letting the process continue.
Mind you, this is not the same as the traditional Rabbinic position. For example, if it is only a flame of melacha the Torah assur-ed, then why shouldn't someone light a lamp on Shabbos? I do think that there are further peshat-level interpretations one can make, even along the same lines as above, that would explain this as well. (E.g. extending from the injunction against active work might yield lo tevaaru as active lighting which often starts melacha, and then the prohibition could extend to all cases of the act of kindling; or since it is part of a melacha or two the act of lighting is considered a melacha.) But I think enough for now. What I have above is sufficient for this post. I don't know whether it is true, but it seems to me like a compelling peshat-level interpretation, and more compelling than certain others.
Note: Obviously not intended halacha lemaaseh.
Why not? Well, אל יצא איש ממקומו ביום השביעי as interpreted most literally would keep Jews stuck in their homes on Shabbat. And לא תבערו אש בכל מושבותיכם ביום השבת as interpreted in this literal manner would keep those confined Jews huddled in the dark, and the cold, since they cannot have fire or light in their homes.
Yeshaya states וקראת לשבת עונג. But how is this Shabbos an Oneg, a delight, if one must stay huddled in the dark and cold all Shabbos?! This is no Oneg. This is the second-to-last of the 10 plagues Hashem inflicted on the Egyptians. In Shemot 10:
bemoshvotam.
(We see a similar value in Megillat Esther, perek 8: לַיְּהוּדִים, הָיְתָה אוֹרָה וְשִׂמְחָה, וְשָׂשֹׂן, וִיקָר.)
Can you imagine that with these values, and this appreciation of the joy of light, that Hashem would impose this makka, once every seven days, on the Jews?
Now, stranger things have happened. And peshat in pesukim may well go in a different direction than we might anticipate. But that the results seem so at odds with the Biblical conception of joy vs. sadness should perhaps cause one to question whether that is indeed peshat. And that is what I meant in my earlier statement that I regard it as just a bit ridiculous.
How then are we to understand the pasuk, on the level of peshat? At this point, I am not going to advance the Rabbinic interpretation, much of which involves derash. (In fact, I wonder how much the discussion was hampered by the urge to not just disprove the Karaite position but also advance the Rabbinic position.) I do think peshat-based interpretations are available which can lead us fairly close to Chazal's practical ending position. But first, I would like to explore other possibilities.
I would put forth that on a peshat level the injuction of lo tevaaru esh is not an example of a melacha. Rather, it is something that often must be done in the course of other melachot. We have earlier that they should prepare that which they bring, and prohibitions on performing the cooking and baking on Shabbat. Another example would be metalwork, or glasswork, or firing clay pottery, or boiling dyes, and so on. Thus, the previous pasuk says that one should not perform melacha on Shabbat. And to reinforce that message, this pasuk says that one should not be burning these fires for the purpose of this forbidden labor on Shabbat.
Indeed, the most appropriate comparison may be to the laws of Pesach: שִׁבְעַת יָמִים, מַצּוֹת תֹּאכֵלוּ--אַךְ בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן, תַּשְׁבִּיתוּ שְּׂאֹר מִבָּתֵּיכֶם: כִּי כָּל-אֹכֵל חָמֵץ, וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל--מִיּוֹם הָרִאשֹׁן, עַד-יוֹם הַשְּׁבִעִי.
Seor is sourdough. People do not eat sourdough. They eat chametz, leavened bread. Sourdough is used by bakers for the purpose of making bread rise. This pasuk states that sourdough should be given a rest from your homes, because they should not be eating chametz, and so presumably there is no reason to use the sourdough. (Whether that means it must be removed, or just that it is resting and not in use may be an interesting peshat-level question.) Did you notice the word מִבָּתֵּיכֶם?
It seems more than plausible to me, then, that there is a similar intent by lo tevaaru. One should not be burning these big fires in one's home, because that would be for the purpose of engaging in the forbidden "melacha."
If so, was the intent of the pasuk that the Israelites should sit huddled in the dark and cold in their homes, like Egyptians undergoing the 9th plague? Certainly not. And so lamps were not intended, and fireplaces were not intended. It was an esh shel melacha that the Torah assur-ed.
Yet we Pharisees even have such flames in our homes. We eat hot food. Well, who says that at that point it is considered "cooking." And perhaps a difference can be made between active melacha and letting it be done, or letting the process continue.
Mind you, this is not the same as the traditional Rabbinic position. For example, if it is only a flame of melacha the Torah assur-ed, then why shouldn't someone light a lamp on Shabbos? I do think that there are further peshat-level interpretations one can make, even along the same lines as above, that would explain this as well. (E.g. extending from the injunction against active work might yield lo tevaaru as active lighting which often starts melacha, and then the prohibition could extend to all cases of the act of kindling; or since it is part of a melacha or two the act of lighting is considered a melacha.) But I think enough for now. What I have above is sufficient for this post. I don't know whether it is true, but it seems to me like a compelling peshat-level interpretation, and more compelling than certain others.
Note: Obviously not intended halacha lemaaseh.
Karaite Interpretation, and Response, On "Lo Tevaaru Esh"
I should preface this with the statement that I personally think that the Karaitic interpretation of the pasuk to mean one must sit in one's house all Shabbos in the dark and cold to be ridiculous and not the true peshat in the pasuk. The reason for that I will have to save for another post, perhaps next week.
But looking at the Karaitic position, in their own words, is interesting. It lets us see this famous debate from their perspective, and how they reacted to the polemics and arguments from the Prushim. And so of course I knew I wanted to see what the Karaite scholar, Aharon ben Yosef, had to say about these pesukim. I present his commentary and the supercommentary on it, in my own rough summary, with occasional interjection.
In the beginning of Vayahkel:
The Ktav Ashru are the words of Aharon ben Yosef, and the Rashi script (below) is the supercommentary.
"Eleh HaDevarim" includes the construction of the Mishkan as well not doing work on Shabbat. And he shows with evidence from pesukim that prohibitions can fall under the lashon of tzivuy.
It mentioned refraining from work on Shabbos in Ki Sisa. Why did it not mention burning a fire - a short style.
He deals with why it needs to mention it (fire) here -- so that you should not say that since the work on the Mishkan did not cancel Shabbos, we might say there should be no fire on the altar, for burning is within not doing any work, therefore it lays out that in your homes (במושבותיכם) it is forbidden but not in the Beis Hamikdash.
The impetus for explaining the reason for specifying lo tevaaru is likely the Rabbinic derasha that it was for the sake of the lav, or else lechalek, as he continues. But I am not so impressed with this explanation. Surely many other pesukim discuss the burning of the korbanot for Shabbat, so who would possibly think that the fire could not be burning on
the altar?
He dismisses being liable on each violation individually as obvious. I am not so sure it is obvious, but anyway it is on the level of derash.
He considers that it was because ochel nefesh is permitted on Yom Tov, so it must specify that it is not on Shabbat -- the suggestion of Ibn Ezra -- because we can derive it anyway from the word Ach "Ach Asher Ye'achel l'Chol Nefesh." Is he now darshening, or arguing according to the Rabbinic approach? Karaites do have their own derash. But IIRC, on a peshat level, Ach does not mean "only" as a limiting term in Biblical Hebrew, and modern scholars will tell this to you -- that it is an intensification, such as "indeed" or "surely" on a peshat level in Biblical Hebrew.
And the word "esh" shows that it means a language of fire and lighting. This in contrast to the one who explains it means "cast out." He refers here to a nice explanation of Rav Saadiah Gaon, as part of this Rabbinic-Karaitic polemic. Rav Saadiah Gaon said it meant "cast out," as is "uviarta hara mikirbecha." Therefore, the pasuk is saying that you shoud not chase out the fire from your house, and thus we have a source that the ner shel Shabbos is a mitzvah. This is remarkably clever and probably riled up the Karaites, with an explanation exactly against their idea of sitting in the dark from the same pasuk. It is obviously not peshat but it does make something nice to say over at your Shabbos table.
He also argues against those who say "the day of Shabbat" would imply only the day and not the night, like "bayom haShemini." This would be Rav Saadia, who was arguing this, that one might say this if you did not rely on the tradition. (And apparently a similar argument put forth by Ibn Ezra.) Aharon ben Yosef gives a reason to make a distinction -- because the word Shabbat carries this implication, of from evening to evening. This seems to me like a "teretz." Maybe what was meant was the day portion of Shabbat, the day of rest? But my intent here in this post is not to wage war against the Karaites, so I will leave it here. One may argue it the other way, naturally.
Thus, we have a nice overview of a Karaitic approach to these pesukim. Perhaps in a later post, why I consider this approach most unlikely, and my own novel suggestion on the role of lo tevaaru.
But looking at the Karaitic position, in their own words, is interesting. It lets us see this famous debate from their perspective, and how they reacted to the polemics and arguments from the Prushim. And so of course I knew I wanted to see what the Karaite scholar, Aharon ben Yosef, had to say about these pesukim. I present his commentary and the supercommentary on it, in my own rough summary, with occasional interjection.
In the beginning of Vayahkel:
The Ktav Ashru are the words of Aharon ben Yosef, and the Rashi script (below) is the supercommentary."Eleh HaDevarim" includes the construction of the Mishkan as well not doing work on Shabbat. And he shows with evidence from pesukim that prohibitions can fall under the lashon of tzivuy.
It mentioned refraining from work on Shabbos in Ki Sisa. Why did it not mention burning a fire - a short style.
He deals with why it needs to mention it (fire) here -- so that you should not say that since the work on the Mishkan did not cancel Shabbos, we might say there should be no fire on the altar, for burning is within not doing any work, therefore it lays out that in your homes (במושבותיכם) it is forbidden but not in the Beis Hamikdash.
The impetus for explaining the reason for specifying lo tevaaru is likely the Rabbinic derasha that it was for the sake of the lav, or else lechalek, as he continues. But I am not so impressed with this explanation. Surely many other pesukim discuss the burning of the korbanot for Shabbat, so who would possibly think that the fire could not be burning on
the altar?He dismisses being liable on each violation individually as obvious. I am not so sure it is obvious, but anyway it is on the level of derash.
He considers that it was because ochel nefesh is permitted on Yom Tov, so it must specify that it is not on Shabbat -- the suggestion of Ibn Ezra -- because we can derive it anyway from the word Ach "Ach Asher Ye'achel l'Chol Nefesh." Is he now darshening, or arguing according to the Rabbinic approach? Karaites do have their own derash. But IIRC, on a peshat level, Ach does not mean "only" as a limiting term in Biblical Hebrew, and modern scholars will tell this to you -- that it is an intensification, such as "indeed" or "surely" on a peshat level in Biblical Hebrew.
And the word "esh" shows that it means a language of fire and lighting. This in contrast to the one who explains it means "cast out." He refers here to a nice explanation of Rav Saadiah Gaon, as part of this Rabbinic-Karaitic polemic. Rav Saadiah Gaon said it meant "cast out," as is "uviarta hara mikirbecha." Therefore, the pasuk is saying that you shoud not chase out the fire from your house, and thus we have a source that the ner shel Shabbos is a mitzvah. This is remarkably clever and probably riled up the Karaites, with an explanation exactly against their idea of sitting in the dark from the same pasuk. It is obviously not peshat but it does make something nice to say over at your Shabbos table.He also argues against those who say "the day of Shabbat" would imply only the day and not the night, like "bayom haShemini." This would be Rav Saadia, who was arguing this, that one might say this if you did not rely on the tradition. (And apparently a similar argument put forth by Ibn Ezra.) Aharon ben Yosef gives a reason to make a distinction -- because the word Shabbat carries this implication, of from evening to evening. This seems to me like a "teretz." Maybe what was meant was the day portion of Shabbat, the day of rest? But my intent here in this post is not to wage war against the Karaites, so I will leave it here. One may argue it the other way, naturally.
Thus, we have a nice overview of a Karaitic approach to these pesukim. Perhaps in a later post, why I consider this approach most unlikely, and my own novel suggestion on the role of lo tevaaru.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
