Kol Koreh, Purim 2009

Bumped to top, since people might find it of most interest.
Note: Download it as a Word document. Also, see last year's kol koreh.

!ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניהן

While we have made great strides in tznius in the past, a matter of deep concern remains in maintaining the kedusha of the machaneh yisrael. Namely, while women in our community take care to cover all the hair on their head, שער באשה ערוה may well apply to *all* of a woman's hair. As מהרם אלשקר writes, and as מהרץ חיות cites in his teshuvot, siman 53, ואלא מעתה ולפי דרכם שער גבות עיניה נמי היה להם לאסור, דשער קריה רחמנא, כתיב וגלח את כל שערו וגו' ואת גבות עיניו כו', עכ"ל הרב מהר"מ אלשקר. We thus see from the laws of Nazir that eyebrows are considered hair, and by extension should be covered or not revealed, just like any other שער באשה.

Already, some nashim tzidkaniyos have taken it upon themselves to be stringent in this regard. Realizing how attractive eyebrows can be, especially bushy eyebrows and unibrows, they have accepted the practice of plucking out some of their eyebrows. This is a good start, but does not approach the requirements of halacha.

One possible recommendation is to make use of eyebrow wigs. This is sufficient for those communities which accept the kula of wearing sheitels. For other communities, which accept only sheitels under a hat, one may wear an eyebrow wig but only under a knitted eyebrow cover. Others may opt for shaving the eyebrow completely.

One issue that some poskim raise with regard to eyebrow wigs is that while in past generations, the eyebrow wigs were made of straw or horsehair, today's eyebrow wigs are made of human hair, or special synthetic material, which looks *better* than the woman's own eyebrows, רחמנא ליצלן!

On a related note, eyelashes may similarly be problematic for a true bas yisroel. As the pasuk in איוב states, וְעַל עַפְעַפַּי צַלְמָוֶת! Eyelashes, especially in modern culture, can be used for flirtatious purposes. Indeed, Rabbi Yochanan's beauty was such that (in בבא מציעא פד.) Resh Lakish stated it belonged to women, and in בבא קמא קיז., we see that Rabbi Yochanan had extremely long eyelashes. And lest one say that this was only much later in Rabbi Yochanan’s life, note that Bach on ברכות כ. states that this co-occurred with his great beauty. Yeshayahu Hanavi criticizes the women who used their eyes for flirtatious purposes, stating וּמְשַׂקְּרוֹת עֵינָיִם. Certainly Jewish women must take care to avoid this potential pitfall. Instead, we must take our lead from our holy Imahos. Leah Imeinu, בבא בתרא קכג. informs us, cried for years, and in the end, all her eyelashes fell out. If our our daughters begin at the age of 3, we can hope that by the age of bat mitzvah, they will have achieved this lofty goal.

Yet suggestions to continuously weep, or to simply pluck out eyelashes, have for some reason been met with great resistance in some quarters. A solution might be to wear false eyelashes, as a sort of eyelash wig, but today's false eyelashes are enticing, unlike the straw ones of yesteryear. Thus, Rabbi Falk states that "false eyelashes... should be alien to the Bas Yisroel," and also refers to a teshuva in Igros Moshe (Yoreh Deah 3:62) about how it might constitute a chatzitza. Perhaps the best solution would be to wear large sunglasses. One should take take care that these sunglasses be a refined color such as black or dark blue, and not some bright color which will draw attention (לא עלינו) to the eye area.

Indeed, in general, a woman's eye might also be considered quasi-erva. After all, the beautiful woman in שיר השירים is praised for the beauty of her eyes, הִנָּךְ יָפָה רַעְיָתִי, הִנָּךְ יָפָה--עֵינַיִךְ יוֹנִים, מִבַּעַד לְצַמָּתֵךְ. According to שבת פ., the women who were tznuous indeed went out with only one eye exposed, with the other covered behind a veil. Even this may be halachically problematic, as later in that same perek in שיר השירים, we read לִבַּבְתִּנִי בְּאַחַת מֵעֵינַיִךְ, that she has ravished his heart with even one of her eyes. The idea of using a dark monocle for sunglasses is thus ruled out, but perhaps the same solution of large, dark, and dark-colored sunglasses may suffice as well.

The Bnei Yisrael were redeemed from Mitzrayim in the merit of the nashim tzidkaniyos. So too, if our endeavors to be גועל ישראל are successful, we will hopefully merit the ultimate redemption, במהרה בימינו אמן!

The tens sons of Haman

Some thoughts, as I listened to the megillah last night.

1)
Perek 5:

יא וַיְסַפֵּר לָהֶם הָמָן אֶת-כְּבוֹד עָשְׁרוֹ, וְרֹב בָּנָיו; וְאֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר גִּדְּלוֹ הַמֶּלֶךְ וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר נִשְּׂאוֹ, עַל-הַשָּׂרִים וְעַבְדֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ.

11 And Haman recounted unto them the glory of his riches, and the multitude of his children, and everything as to how the king had promoted him, and how he had advanced him above the princes and servants of the king.

There seems no reason to mention the multitude of his children here. This is a foreshadowing, and a setup for the later loss of all of these -- the riches, children, and promotion. Thus, it is here because of the later listing of the destruction of the 10 sons of Haman.

2) The megillah lists 10 sons. It is not a myth that he only had ten sons, just because a midrashic discussion of it lists more sons. On the other hand, the rov banav may indicate more. Indeed, in the gemara in Megillah they darshen a gematria, that he had rov children, meaning 208.

3) These are the sons:

ז וְאֵת {ר} פַּרְשַׁנְדָּתָא {ס} וְאֵת {ר} דַּלְפוֹן, {ס} וְאֵת {ר} אַסְפָּתָא. {ס}	7 And {S} Parshandatha, and {S} Dalphon, and {S} Aspatha,
ח וְאֵת {ר} פּוֹרָתָא {ס} וְאֵת {ר} אֲדַלְיָא, {ס} וְאֵת {ר} אֲרִידָתָא. {ס}	8 and {S} Poratha, and {S} Adalia, and {S} Aridatha,
ט וְאֵת {ר} פַּרְמַשְׁתָּא {ס} וְאֵת {ר} אֲרִיסַי, {ס} וְאֵת {ר} אֲרִידַי {ס} וְאֵת {ר} וַיְזָתָא. {ס}	9 and {S} Parmashta, and {S} Arisai, and {S} Aridai, and {S} Vaizatha, {S}

Why require in a single neshima? I think it is clear. These are difficult names to pronounce, and if one tries saying them in a single breath, he runs out of breath towards the end. This adds a feeling that there were so many, all these different sons, such that you run out of breath trying to say them all.

4) Why the small letters? There have been many explanations over the years, including the famous Purimfest one. The answer may indeed be some encoded message, but it seems to me, on a peshat level, that the following is apparent. Small letters are sometimes used in Tanach to indicate that one should read the word as if it were not there. veLibkota, vayikra, and so on. At the same time, these are arcane names and hapax legomena. It seems easy for a question to arise as to the proper spelling. And there is no other instance in the megillah to help resolve. And so the questionable letters were made smaller.

DovBear considers the pros and cons of the Purimfest 1946 story as fulfillment of those small letters. It is possible, but not necessarily a slam dunk. There were several millenia for this to work out in, and there is some slight kvetching involved. But even if we regard it as deliberately encoded into the megillah as a message by Chazal, this does not prove the Torah Codes or the Gematria Codes. Because the Torah Codes uses an entirely different methodology, and does not deal with specific letters which stand out for being small. And the Gematria Codes can be interpreted in so many different ways, because that is how gematria works. This is far different than interpreting specific small letters, which have been so marked, as a year. (Indeed, if these particular small letters represent questionable letters, then they might undermine Torah Codes, which require a certain skip length between characters; though they typically operate on Torah rather than Nach.)

Interesting Posts and Articles #127 (Purim edition)

1. At DovBear, Rafi G. on the curse of Purim weather, and whether it exists. Is this for real?
   

   Personally I have heard the curse as having been wrought by the Hazon Ish, the Steipler, Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld and the Brisker Rav. Maybe others have heard other names as the source of the curse.

2. Lion of Zion on women reading parshat Zachor, and the mappik heh. Without looking into any of the sources, I wonder if enough people have the practice of not pronouncing mapik hehs that it has become a dialect, and would be no different from someone not pronouncing ayins, or a tet distinct from a tav, or even a tav distinct from a thav.
   
   Rafi G. at Life In Israel notes something in honor of Purim, a notice that you should
   

   make sure you do not listen to Parshas Zachor beinmg read by a yeshiva bachur/kollel guy who learns full time.
   Just like it says that a woman should not read Zachor but a man should because only a man is part of the commandment of goign to war and wiping out Amalek, so also with yeshuva boys who learn full time - they are exempt from participating in "milchemes mitzva".

   The image of the notice is there.
   
   
3. Hirhurim discusses the origin of Taanis Esther. His theory:
   

   It seems to me that the source of our fast is that of Esther. Probably there were individuals who were following the minhag of fasting for 3 days in Adar and some of them ended up behind. They had fasted two days and they needed one more fast day before the next day of Purim. They knew that they could not fast and they asked a question of what to do on the 13th.

4. Is an Orthodox woman going to be appointed a rabbi? Apparently not. But see Rabbi Joshua Maroof's comments there.
   
   
5. Balashon has a nice post on the word birah. One important point that I've seen in the past, the ir of Shushan is different from Shushan haBirah, the citadel of Shushan. This makes major differences in peshat in the megillah.
   

   The idea that bira meant some kind of fortress (either one building or a compound) seems to have been universally accepted by both commentaries and translations until relatively recently. For example, Ibn Ezra on Esther 1:2 distinguishes between the city of Shushan and the bira of Shushan (see here for an extensive discussion of the Ibn Ezra in English, along with diagrams). This distinction seems quite necessary, since we see twice (3:15, 8:14-15) that both the city and the bira are mentioned - indicating two separate entities. This article by Avraham Korman (based partially on Reuvein Margolies in HaMikrah v'Hamesorah, which is also quoted here) points out a number of difficulties that our distinction helps resolve...

   Read it all, but for the aforementioned Google book marked in red, go to the direct page, here.
   
   
6. MOChassid on the unintended consequences of the ban on many shalach manos.
   

posts so far for Purim

2009

• R' Zechariah ben Saruk's perush on Megillat Achashverosh.
• Megillah sources online
• Thoughts on the ten sons of Haman
  
• This year's kol koreh -- the tznius of eyebrows and eyelashes.
  

2008

• The prayer for an edible matzah.
• Laining the megillah by day and night.
• Purifying the megillah - a kol koreh.

2007

• Rif on Bavli Megillah
• Not my own, but a woman laining megillah cast as a chumra. Purim Torah.
• The dangers of taking midrashim figuratively, about Esther's green skin.
• Further perils of taking midrashim figuratively, about Vashti's tail.
• And as a follow-up, considering Vashti's tail and Esther's green skin, on the matter of midrashic literalism and historicity

2006

• Bush's Daf Yomi shiur, which started as a Purim spoof. With Purim approaching, it may be a good idea to keep this possible repercussion in mind.
• Achashverosh's true identity

2005

• Multitude, majority, and lectio difficilior - lerov echav

2004

• Dual Etymology in Esther's Name, and the hidden miracle as a theme present in the megillah itself.

The *Implications* of Miracle Stories

Devarim 4:6
רַק עַם-חָכָם וְנָבוֹן, הַגּוֹי הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה

An interesting post at Matzav.com, which is a miracle story about miracle stories. We all hear miracle stories from time to time, and at the least, a good deal of them are made up. One such example is the talking Monsey fish, with the message that all should repent for the end is nigh. Another is the claim that Rachel Imeinu appeared to soldiers in Gaza, where it is clear how it developed: there was an initial core story (possibly true) about an Arab woman warning soldiers about a booby-trapped house, which was told over to Rabbi Lazer Brody at LazerBeams; he retold it with the unfounded suggestion that it must have been Rochel Imeinu; and later retellings had her say this; and other details were added with each retelling.

To be stupid and believe every urban legend that develops or is made up is not the mark of an Am Navon veChacham. And when one sees a whole bunch of stories like this made up, it is not a spiritual pegam to question it. One is not "Amalek." Yes, midrashically, Amalek is connected with doubt and the initial cooling. But accusing a fellow Jew of being Amalek, just like accusing the Israeli govt. of being the Erev Rav, is violent speech. After all, we will soon read about timcheh et zecher Amalek.

And Mishlei states that a fool believes everything. It is not a mark of righteousness to believe every crazy story. Especially as they may carry unintended, or perhaps intended, logical consequences. If someone told you a story of a Jew who was in trouble and davened to Yushke and was saved, the implication is that davening to Yushke is good and effective. For a less extreme case, if someone told you a story of someone who davened directly to a tzaddik, the implication is that such is good and effective. And yet there are many (most) who would say that such is possibly doreish el haMeisim and should not be done. The problem is that the fools who make up stories, and the fools who believe stories, are not necessarily theologically sophisticated enough to understand the implications of the stories, and that they are shifting people's hashkafa.

This was one major reason that Rav Weintraub criticized the Momma Rochel story in Gaza, saying that if if happened, at the most it would be a sheid. It is not that Rav Weintraub is chas veshalom Amalek, or a disbeliever. Rather, he realizes that there are philosophical and theological implications of a miracle story, since it relates to Divine intercession in the world, and he detected an improper message in the story. At least an improper message according to his hashkafa. I disagree with that hashkafa, but my point remains true all the same.

And now to the story reported in Matzav. There is an apparently old story about Rav Kanievsky and grasshoppers:

One of those lessons can be seen in the following story related by a rabbi from Brooklyn, who heard it directly from Rebbetzin Kanievsky, when he was in Bnei Brak about a month ago.

Approximately eight years ago, Harav Chaim Kanievsky shlit”a, was learning Maseches Chullin and a sugyah relating to chagovim, grasshoppers. Rav Chaim realized that he needed to see a grasshopper to better understand the Gemara - apparently he had never seen a live grasshopper before - and asked his daughter to bring him one. She tried, but reported to her father that she failed to find one. He went back to the sugyah, and lo and behold, a grasshopper came hopping through the window, landing on his Gemara. After examining it, he let it go. As he continued through the sugyah, he realized that he needed to study the hind legs a bit more, but the grasshopper was long gone. Before closing his Gemara, a second grasshopper hopped in and on to his Gemara, giving him the ability to study its hind leg in detail.

Whether or not the story is true, in all of its details, or was embellished, I don't know. I do know that sometimes stories get embellished in the telling. There is more to the story told over third-hand from Rebbetzin Kanievsky, but let us just focus on the message.

It is quite interesting and important (if true) that Rav Kanievsky wanted to study the actual metzius before coming to a conclusion in a gemara. There is the famous story about the "heilige kurkevan" (about Rav Baruch Ber?) when he finally saw the heilege kurkevan that he had written so much Torah about. But not knowing the actual metzius can lead to errors in understanding the sources, and from there to errors in pesak.

This is a specific level of Torah UMaddah -- that you need to learn the science to understand the Torah. This is somewhat obvious, and we have (IIRC) Rav apprenticing himself to a shepherd in order to study eye ailments of sheep in order to be able to pasken on Bechorot. While no one else in my shiur did this, when studying Chullin I took out books from the library on the anatomy of birds.

And here, Rav Kanievsky is apparently of similar opinion. He felt that to properly understand the gemara in Chullin, he had to actually take a look at the world. I would venture that most who have learned Chullin have not looked at grasshoppers, or if they have glanced at one, did not carefully examine it to learn about its construction.

I wonder how prevalent they are in Bnei Brak, that he would send out his daughter on a wild goose chase. Where would she look for it? They must be at least findable somewhere there. Perhaps a better way of approaching this, if not for the siyatta dishmaya, would be to go to a library and take out a book on it. For example, this book which discusses the anatomy and physiology of the grasshopper. Or to consult a zoologist. Or to go to a museum. Perhaps he would do that next, or perhaps not.

But then, if they randomly hop onto people's gemaras, or infest houses in Bnei Brak (as we will see), then maybe they are prevalent enough for it to be a reasonable request to his daughter. Even so, not every time one goes looking for something will one find it. There are plenty of ants in Queens, but if I were to go out today looking for an ant colony, I might not happen upon one. We also do not know how soon afterwards the grasshopper came.

Now, it is possible that this story happened. It is also possible this story did not happen. There are enough stories out there which are made up, or stretched beyond their initial state. Is one a rasha for disbelieving a story? Does one insult Rav Kanievsky by disbelieving the story? Elsewhere, Rav Kanievsky said that anything said in his name is false. And there was a previous misattribution to him, that he mystically predicted that during Chanukka, everyone in Israel would be in bomb shelters, something he did not do. No, one is not wicked for disbelieving these stories. One is not Amalek, despite what some people, who like to believe every silly story, would say.

So now on to the more recent twist, told over by an unnamed rabbi from Brooklyn -- gee, there are so few of those he is surely easily identifiable! -- who heard directly from Rebbetzin Kaneivsky (does she talk to men? I thought Rav Kanievsky talks to the men and she deals with the women?) -- a story about an unnamed Rav in Bnei Brak:

Two months ago, a rov giving a shiur in Bnei Brak criticized the tales people tell about gedolim, explaining that the stories cannot all be true, and sound silly. As a case in point, he brought the maaseh of Rav Chaim and the grasshoppers, viewing it as ridiculous and leading people to the wrong conclusions regarding Rav Chaim, who, after all, learns Torah like everyone else. After the shiur, the maggid shiur went home and found his house infested with grasshoppers (in the same Bnei Brak that Rav Kanievsky’s daughter - seeking to fulfill the mitzvah of kibbud av - could not find one). He tried for three days to rid his home of the insects, but could not. Someone suggested that he go to Rav Chaim and ask for mechilah.

The rov approached Rav Chaim and told him what had happened. Rav Chaim laughed, saying that he did not need his mechilah at all, as the grasshoppers could have come to anybody (after all, the window was open!), and he was certainly mochel him if he needed it. The maggid went home - and the grasshoppers were gone!

Forget for a moment about whether this story is true, or not. What is the implication of this story? It is precisely what we were saying above. Here is a rabbi, and thus a Torah-educated individual, with rabbinic bona-fides, who is telling everyone not to be fools and not to believe every single story. He was effectively saying that being gullible and stupid (to use harsher words to make the point) is not considered a middat chassidut in Judaism. And furthermore, he was making the important point that these stories carry messages of hashkafic import, and we should not simply allow any urban legend to shape our hashkafa.

He gave the example of the story with Rav Kanievsky. Again, I don't know that the story is true, or if true, in all its details. It is quite possible that it is true. After all, it is possible to investigate and hear directly from the people involved. But where people are making things up and attributing it to Rav Kanievsky, then it is reasonable to question it. (Similar to many other rebbe stories, which purportedly happened to Rabbi X, but others say Rabbi Y, and some say Rabbi Z). And it is reasonable to point out there there are intended or unintended messages.

In this case, perhaps he did not like the endorsement of Torah UMaddah, and that was the intention of "leading people to the wrong conclusions regarding Rav Chaim, who, after all, learns Torah like everyone else." Or perhaps what was meant was that he is a human being, rather than a malach. I don't know.

However, according to this story, this rav did something wrong. He was Amalek, and was cooling people's emunah. And by questioning a story about Rav Kanievsky, he was somehow insulting Rav Kanievsky!

And so, the Divine wrath. A plague of locusts in his house, as middah kenegged midah. It only went away after he went to Rav Kanievsky and asked mechila. Rav Kanievsky, of course, was a tzaddik and did not take offense, but did offer mechila. And the mechila was obviously needed, despite the fact that Rav Kanievsky explicitly said that mechila was not needed, because the grasshoppers only went away afterwards.

Now to return to validating the story. Here we have a story told over second-hand (or possibly more) from Rebbetzin Kanievsky, from an unknown Brooklyn rabbi. We don't know that he exists, or that he is not prone to embellish or make up stories in order to "inspire" people. (Some misguided people unfortunately do this.) We do not know the name of the rabbi in Bnei Brak this happened to, so we cannot call him up and confirm.

And so, a questionable and unconfirmable miracle story is brought with the intent of conveying the message that one should not question questionable and unconfirmable miracle stories; and it conveys a message discounting the idea of this rav that some of these stories convey questionable messages.

Yes, I am entirely persuaded!

R' Zecharia ben Saruk's Megillat Achashverosh

The other day, I saw on HebrewBooks.org a perush on Megillat Esther, which the author calls Perush al Megillat Achashverosh. The author is R' Zechariah ben Saruk, and in his perush, he brings in philosopy repeatedly. To the right is an excerpt from Esther in Medieval Garb, by Barry Waldfish, available on Google Books here, where he discusses the nature of ben Saruk's commentary, and gives examples.

The actual sefer at HebrewBooks is available here. Why not give it a glance or two?

This post in honor of Purim, which is coming up.

Megillah sources

Here are some online interesting sources for preparing the megillah.
JNUL:
R' Shlomo Alkabetz, Manot Halevi
R' Yehuda Livai, Or Chadash
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite, pg 114
Megillah, part of Ketuvim, על ידי שמואל בן שמואל, with a perush, pg 27

Hebrew Books:
Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz, perush on Megillat Esther, Yeshua Gedola
Vilna Gaon
Agadat Ester
Ester Rabbati
Zechariah ben Saruk, Perush Megillat Achashverosh
Perush of R' Yosef Ibn Yachya

Daat, with links to Torah Temima, Meshech Chochma, Mechokekei Yehuda (supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, with Ibn Ezra, Midrash Rabba)

Google Books
Peshitta on Esther
R' Yosef Ibn Kaspi on Megillah (pg 29 and on, you need to scroll up) Gelilei Kesef
Perushim al Esther to Rav Yosef Kara and Rashbam

Interesting Posts and Articles #126, including some on Kiddush HaChamma

1. Bad for Shidduchim discusses her experience with a segulah, namely taking pieces of the broken plate from the tenaim. Anyone know if this segulah is of recent origin, or if it is old? The twist on getting married when you lose it seems similar to the twist on the red string, that the first guy a girl sees after it falls off it her bashert. What about the segulah of catching the bouquet?
   
   
2. A nice upload from JNUL: A small pamphlet for Kiddush Hachamma, with a Yiddish introduction. This one was printed in 1896 in preparation for the blessing to be said in April 7, 1897. On the next page, they note the next date that Birkat Hachamma will be said, namely Erev Pesach, the 14th of Nissan, 1925. Indeed, this year it once again falls out on erev Pesach.
   
   
3. Meanwhile, courtesy of HebrewBooks, here is Aruch Hashulchan on Birchas Hachamma. Note how he only mentions the bracha, and not any of the other elements glommed onto it. That does not mean that he is necessarily against other additions, but he does not mention it as the halacha.
   
   The underlined portion reads that "God-willing, it will be in the year 1897, which should come upon us in peace." That year is the same year as the pamphlet from JNUL.
   
   Meanwhile, here is Mishna Berura on the same.
   
   And an 8 page pamphlet on Kiddush HaChamma from the Chasam Sofer.
   
   
4. A live-blogging of the Sunday night Lipa concert, The Event, with some video clips. And Blog In Dm has a whole lot about it, a nice long post, about failed attempts to manipulate gedolim. Read it.
   
   
5. ADDeRabbi on the Ashkenazic implications of Rav Ovadiah Yosef's ruling on a woman reading megillah for men. An excerpt:
   

   The whole attitude of “gee, I wish an Ashkenazi posek had the guts…” is totally misguided. This is a machloket between the Mechaber and the Rema. Thinking that it has to do with contemporary agenda, while perhaps not completely inaccurate, ignores 500 years of halakhic tradition.

   See also Hirhurim for an analysis, which he cites.
   
   
6. Joking Jewish teens legally married.
   

And the Winner of the Oh! Nuts Contest on parshablog is...

Bas~Melech!

While others came up with elaborate ways to pick the winner (e.g. this video), I just copied the list of contestants into Excel 2007, used the RANDBETWEEN function to assign each a number between 1 and 100, and then held down on the F9 key to recalculate a number of times. The winner was the one with the lowest number.

I will attempt to send you an email with the coupon code once I receive it from Oh! Nuts.

Meanwhile, this contest continues on other blogs. It is an interesting idea to do a rolling deadline. Thus, you can still compete at DovBear.

Update: If you are looking for my email, it is on the very bottom of the blog. Look for the word Yahoo.

Tetzaveh sources

by aliyah
rishon (Shemot 27:20)
sheni (28:13)
shelishi (28:31)
revii (29:1)
chamishi (29:19)
shishi (29:28)
shevii (30:1)
maftir (30:8)
haftara (Yechezkel 43:10), with Malbim and Tosafot Yom Tov

by perek
perek 28 ; perek 29 ; perek 30

mefarshim
Judaica Press Rashi in English
Shadal (and here)
Mishtadel
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Mechilta, Gilyonot.
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew)
Tiferes Yehonasan from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz
Chasdei Yehonasan -- not until Ki Tisa
Toldos Yitzchak Acharon, repeated from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz
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 (and here)
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 -- not until Ki Tisa
Ibn Gabirol -- not until Ki Tisa
Rabbenu Yonah -- not until Ki Tisa
Seforno
Aderet Eliyahu (Gra)
Kol Eliyahu (Gra)
Mipninei Harambam
Sefer Zikaron of Ritva -- not until Ki Tisa
Malbim
Chiddushei HaGriz
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 170)

Baal HaTurim (31)

Rabbenu Bachya (130)

Chizkuni (79)

Abarbanel (199)

Shach (125)

Paneach Raza (46)

Yalkut Reuveni (pg 104)

Sefer Hachinuch (pg 33)

Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (123)

rashi
Daat, Rashi In Hebrew (perek 27)
Judaica Press Rashi in English and Hebrew
Mizrachi, Mizrachi (on Rashi, 133)
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, 10)
Two supercommentaries on Rashi, by Chasdai Almosnino and Yaakov Kneizel
Rav Natan ben Shishon Shapira Ashkenazi (16th century), (JNUL, pg 86)
Taz
Levush HaOrah
Mohar`al -- not until Vayikra
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 27)
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 27)
Mechokekei Yehudah (Daat)
Mechokekei Yehudah (HebrewBooks)
Mavaser Ezra
R' Shmuel Motot (on Ibn Ezra, pg 28)
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
Berliner
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 (Greek, English)
Origen's Hexapla (JNUL)

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

midrash
Midrash Rabba at Daat (27)
Midrash Tanchuma at Daat (27)
Shemot 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
Mechilta -- not until Ki Tisa

haftarah (Yechezkel 43:10)
In a separate Mikraot Gedolot -- with Targum, Rashi, Mahari Kara, Radak, Minchat Shai, Metzudat David.
In a chumash, with Malbim and Tosfot Yom Tov
Gutnick edition
Rashis in English, from Judaica Press
Daat, with Radak and Yalkut Shimoni
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite, pg 86

Interesting Posts and Articles #125

1. Someone sent me an interesting link to a Masechet HaChamah. I previously saw it linked at Menachem Mendel. An interesting collection of sources relating to the sun. But I think that all this production is making too much out of it, or too much of a ritual out of it. There is a bracha to say at this time on the sun, and the meaning is one of marking our appreciation of Hashem and the glory of His creation. We need not tack on new rituals, or make up masechtas to learn about the subject of the sun, as I discuss at greater length in a comment at Yeranen Yaakov.
   
   
2. Jewish leaders blast Hillary over Israel criticism.
   
   
3. And they try to ban Lipa, yet again. This time not turning to the Gedolim, who won't be fooled this time, but to a bunch of school principals. See Blog in Dm for coverage and links.
   
   
4. On the Main Line has the Chofetz Chaim's ban of a condensed chumash. And another post on how Rav Chayim Palagi meets a British missionary.
   
   
5. At A Simple Jew, a presentation on the Lubavitch practice of eschewing non-kosher animal toys (part i and ii), as a guest posting by Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver.
   
   
6. Lion of Zion on Women Scribes in Jewish History.
   
   
7. Via LGF: Culture of Conspiracy -- the Birthers. At Politico. And Lou Dobbs and Christopher Hitchens and others on UN anti-blasphemy resolution:
   
   
8. Joy of Tech on the complaints about the text-to-speech function on the new Kindle and copyright issues.

Considering "Three Stories of Gadlus"

Life in Israel has three stories of Gadlus. And see the discussion in the comment section. Here is one such story:

Rav Shteinman said to one of his confidantes that on shabbos when bentching, one is required to add the paragraph of "r'tzeih". If one forgot to say it, he would have to repeat the bentching. If he is unsure of he said it or not, he would also be required to repeat the bentching, because we would assume that he said the most common bentching he is familiar with, which is the weekday version not including R'tzeih, meaning we would assume he skipped it and therefore he must repeat it.

Rav Shteinman continued, the question therefore is regarding me - I never eat bread during the week. So my regular bentching is one that includes r;tzeih. So if on shabbos I would bentch and be unsure whether or not I said r'tzeih, would the decision be any different?

Realizing that the question was not really relevant, one of the people present asked Rav Shteinman - how long has it been since the rav has not eaten bread during the week?

Rav Shteinman's answer: 70 years!

I see how one can read this as a type of middat chassidus. (The question of whether such asceticism is a good or bad thing in Judaism is a separate question.) However, I am not so sure that it was intended that way.

In Pirkei Avot, we read: כך היא דרכה של תורה פת במלח תאכל ומים במשורה תשתה ובתורה אתה עמל



It would seem that this would be the standard diet of deprivation. And this is even during the week! All of a sudden, bread is a luxury, such that one is depriving himself as a middat chassidut by avoiding bread?! And what does one eat instead? Surely he did not eat air and dirt, for 70 years. There are other foods available, certainly.

I can say about myself the same thing, by the way, that for many, many years on end, I did not eat bread during the week. This is not because I am such a righteous individual. Rather, this was based on the specific type of food my mother served, and then in college, the food that was served there. It was only on the rare occassion that I ate bread during the week. Of course, on Shabbos, there is challah or matzah, and an obligation to make hamotzi, and then bentch. I can further testify about myself that kegon ana, one such as myself, I did find that on the rare occasion I did eat bread during the week, if I was not paying careful attention, I did automatically begin to say retzei.

So maybe he did mean it as a middat chassidut, in which case I am not sure of the rationale. But it seems quite likely that it is not such, but the typical listener (in the shiur, the one who wrote the book, the one who read the book) who does eat bread during the week, and who is looking for inspirational practices from gedolim, this might well be considered a middat chassidut.

On the other hand, the next story does show that he holds by ascetic practices, such that the reading of it as an attempt at self-deprivation may well be correct.

In terms of the next story, I just don't know:

Similarly it is known that the rav only drinks hot water unflavored with tea, as drinking water flavored with tea is considered by him to be filling a desire. He would say "Why do I need to drink hot water that is colored brown?"

One time a doctor said to him that tea is good for his health, as it contains healthy nutrients. The doctor recommended he begin drinking tea. The rav agreed to drink a cup of tea. When he was about to drink the tea, he changed his mind and said,"For 90 years I have been fine without tea. Right now I have to start with new desires?"

And he did not drink the tea.

He was momentarily persuaded by the doctor that it contains healthy nutrients. It would seem to me that indeed there are two conflicting values here. One is depriving oneself of the pleasures life affords (which is debatable as a value, but certainly does have its proponents in some Jewish sources), while the other is the Torah's command to take good care of one's health. And a life of deprivation may indeed reduce one's health, especially if one limits one's intake without regard to the health impact. It seems that for a moment, he was persuaded by the doctor's recommendation.

I am not sure what he means by "For 90 years I have been fine without tea. Right now I have to start with new desires?" One can read this as "for 90 years I have been healthy without tea." In which case this is not a very convincing argument. At different stages in people's life, they may become frailer than at other stages. And there is also the cummulative impact of the various ascetic practices over the years. And Rabbi Tzaddok did not refuse the fig from the doctors after the years of fasting. One can also read this as "for 90 years I have been perfectly happy without tea." In which case his focus would be on the asceticism, where perhaps he regarded the momentary health consideration to be a moreh heter.

At any rate, I don't find this particularly inspirational. I hold more by the position that:

רבי אלעזר הקפר ברבי אומר: מה תלמוד לומר (בנזיר), וכפר עליו מאשר חטא על הנפש"? וכי באיזו נפש חטא זה? אלא שציער עצמו מן היין. והלא דברים קל וחומר. ומה זה, שלא ציער עצמו אלא מן היין, נקרא חוטא, המצער עצמו מכל דבר ודבר על אחת כמה וכמה

In terms of the third story, of course Rav Mordechai Reimer felt guilt and anguish over the incident, and not just over the halachic aspects of it. But certain personalities which are immersed in Torah express this feeling in halachic terms, which is not dry and technical, but reflects an underlying morality. See my previous post about how to be a chassid.

How to be a chassid

From Bava Kamma 30a, text and translation from my Rif Yomi blog.

ת"ר חסידים הראשונים היו מצניעין קוצותיהן וזכוכיותיהן בתוך שדותיהן ומעמיקין להן ג' טפחים כדי שלא תעלם המחרישה

רב ששת שדי להו בנורא רבא שדי להו בדגלת:

אמר רב יהודה האי מאן דבעי למהוי חסידא ליקיים מילי דנזיקין
רבינא אמר מילי דאבות ואמרי לה מילי דברכות:

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: The early pious ones {chassidim haRishonim} would hide their thorns and broken glasses in the midst of their fields at a depth of three handbreadths below the surface so that {even} the plough might not be hindered by them.

Rav Sheshet would cast them into the flame. Rava would cast them into the Tigris {river}.

Rav Yehuda said: If someone wishes to be a pious one {chassid}, let him fulfill the matters {=laws} of damages {making sure not to cause damage}.

Ravina {our gemara: Rava} said: Matters of {masechet} Avot {which deals in ethical matters}. And some {variants} say: Matters in {masechet} Berachot {having to do with blessings}.

The idea to extract from the brayta is that being pious means taking extra care in bein adam lachaveiro, to make certain you do not injure an innocent person. Now this might be only part of being a chassid. But Rav Sheshet and Rava put this idea into practice, it would appear.

With Rav Yehuda's statement, that message is not only extracted from the brayta but perhaps emphasized, that this is critical learning for subsequent application, for a chassid.

Now, our gemara already has girsological difficulties, in that we are unsure if the author of the next statement is Rava (as in our gemara) or Ravina (Rif). Whichever of these two Amoraim is speaking, he seems to say milei de-Avot. This presumably refers to Pirkei Avot. If so, what is encompassed in this? Soncino defines it as "Matters affecting ethics and right conduct." If so, it fits into this theme above, and is akin to Rav Yehuda's statement, where the focus is on bein adam lachaveiro, or at the least, right conduct. Of course, that is not the only thing in Avot. There are also ways of avoiding sin, what attitudes to have in serving Hashem, how to conduct yourself as a dayan, and so on. Rabbenu Chananel (on the side of the daf) defines this as Mashechet Avot, namely Moshe kibel Torah miSinai, but I think this is just a means of identifying that Avot means Pirkei Avot, rather than any theme in that particular Mishna.

Finally, we have ואמרי לה מילי דברכות. I do not believe that this constitutes a third opinion. Rather, this is a variant girsa of the previous. Compare אמר שמואל - ואמרי לה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, and אילפא ואמרי לה רבי אילפי, and דרש רבי יהודה איש כפר גבוריא, ואמרי לה איש כפר גבור חיל. This is in addition to the other girsological issue we had as to whether it was Rava or Ravina who was speaking. Depending on the script and smudging, the bet and resh squashed together might resemble to aleph, or vice versa, and the bet and kaf are orthographically similar, or might be interpreted as the other to make sense of the word after the first shibush.

What is meant by milei de-vrachot? Soncino says "The Tractate wherein the benedictions are set forth and discussed." The implication -- I don't know if it was intended -- is that one who wants to be a chassid needs to know the particular details of the ritual. If so, this is a very different theme than that of Nezikin or Avot. Rabbenu Chananel, perhaps motivated by this question, writes "as we say {in Brachot}, 'it is forbidden to benefit from this world without a blessing, and the like." That is, statements of this sort, rather than the technical aspects of it. Indeed, there are other like statements in Berachot. Even so, if that was the correct girsa, I would guess that the focus is on the ritual of making particular blessings, and that it is more difficult to cast this in a moral/ethical light than Nezikin.

Based solely on the context, I would strongly favor the first reading, that it is Avot rather than Berachot. But I wonder how this last statement, following ואמרי לה, has been taken through the generations, and what impact it has had on those who strive to be chassidim.

There are those that take all three as parallel. I don't think this was the intent. Thus:

ר' יוחנן שיבח¹ את רבי יוסי חסיד, ואיתא²: "אמר רב יהודה האי מאן דבעי למהוי חסידא לקיים מילי דנזיקין, רבא (ס"א רבינא ברי"ף ורשב"א) אמר מילי דאבות ואמרי ליה מילי דברכות". ולכן ר' יוסי שהיה חסיד מסתמא קיים מילי דנזיקין והיינו שממון חברו חביב עליו כשלו. כתב מהרש"א³ ז"ל כי מעשים הטובים של אדם נחלקים לג', טוב לשמים, טוב לבריות, טוב לעצמו. וכשיקיים מילי דניזקין יתקן שיהיה טוב לבריות, ובמילי דאבות יהיה טוב לעצמו, ומילי דברכות יהיה טוב לשמים, ועל פי זה אפשר לבאר דברי ר' יוסי שהיה חסיד והיה שלם בכל הג' חלקים האלו שזכרנו, ועל זה אמר תחלה "יהי ממון חברך חביב עליך כשלך" והיינו מילי דניזקין טוב לבריות. "והתקן עצמך ללמוד תורה שאינו ירושה לך" זה שיהיה טוב לעצמו. ו"התקן עצמך" שיתקן במדות שבאבות, כי על ידי קניית המדות הטובות שנכללות באבות יהיה זה הכנה גם כן ללימוד התורה, כי כשיהיה בעל מדות תתאהב התורה בלבו, וממילא ילמדנה כראוי. "וכל מעשיך יהי' לשם שמים" זה אמר לעומת מילי דברכות היינו שיהיה טוב לשמים.

Or in Chiddushi HaRashba:

חדושי הרשב"א על מסכת בבא קמא דף ל/א
לקיים מילי דנזיקין רבינא אמר מילי דאבות ואיכא דאמרי מילי דברכות. יש מפרשים דבכל חדא מהני אמרינן מילי דחסידותא, בניזקין הא דחסידים הראשונים מצניעין, ובאבות (פ"ה מ"י) האומר שלי שלך ושלך שלך חסיד, ובברכות (ל, ב) חסידים הראשונים היו שוהין שעה אחת ומתפללין:

See in Sefer Yuchsin how veAmri lah is taken to mean alternatively:

מאן דבעי למהוי חסידא – ליקיים מילי דנזיקים, ואמרי לה מילי דברכות, ואמרי לה מילי דאבות