Monday, April 06, 2009

Birchas Ha`ilanos: Where, And When?

  1. Via Ezzie, a list of places in different neighborhoods where one can make a blessing on trees. Here is for Kew Gardens Hills. And then someone made a map out of that database. Follow the link and look for your area.









  2. Along this topic, an interesting comment by an Anonymous commenter:
    By the way since I started I will take it up a level with a Kaf Hachaim on Birchas Illonos on Shabbos.He says you can not make the Bracha on shabbos because of Borer. Now if your like me you say WHAT BORER BY BIRCHAS ILLONOS? so he explains You are separating the Klipos.I discussed this with someone as it makes for good table talk(;he said Lishtosoi you cant eat on Shabbos because you are also Misakin the Klipos with eating? Someone at the table told me see Likutie Torah(Baal Hatanyah) on Chayah Sarah first piece you will have an answer see there for a real Kabbalistic answer which I don't understand. All Those that are interested "PUK CHAZI".I would love to hear your Take on the matter.
    My reaction to this is twofold. First, in terms of eating on Shabbos being mesaken the klipos, well we know that under certain circumstances removing klipos is permitted on Shabbos - e.g. if if it done by hand for immediate use, taking the food from the pesoles. Perhaps we can say that since is for the purpose of actual immediate eating, there is no issue of borer.

    Secondly, and I hope I do not offend with this too much with this ... this is ridiculous. It is surely not what Chazal intended when they discussed borer on Shabbos! Even if kabbalah is ancient, this is certainly not the meaning of Chazal by borer. And if one includes spiritual separations in the list, one indeed will come up with all sorts of ridiculous conclusions, just as the person at the Shabbos table was able to readily come up with one. This is not halacha, this is silly, and discussing the parameters of this and why X or Y does not fall under it is likely bittul Torah. Even though the Kaf Hachaim came up with it.

    I did a bit of searching to find the exact quote, and I found a discussion from Yeshiva Har Etyon, which more than does this topic justice. It seems I am not alone in my objections to this. I would go further than the conclusions below, and say that it should be specifically a mitzvah to do this particularly on Shabbos, kedei lehotzi milibam. Here is a link to the RTF, here is a link to the HTML version, and here is the text:

ברכת האילנות בשבת

לפני סיום נביא את מחלוקת הפוסקים הפיקנטית לגבי ברכת האילנות בשבת. וכך כתב בכף החיים:

"ונראה שלפי המקובלים שעל ידי ברכת האילנות בורר ניצוצי קדושה מן הצומח, יש איסור בורר בשבת, ולכן אסור לברך ברכת האילנות בשבת וביו"ט."

ובשו"ת באר מים חיים, המשיך כף החיים לדון מדוע ניתן להתפלל בשבת הרי גם בתפילה לדעת המקובלים יש ברור ניצוצות:

"וקיימא לן בורר אוכל לאלתר שרי. מה שאין כן בברכת האילנות שאינה צריכה לאותה שעה, שהרי יכול לברך ברכה זו בכל חודש ניסן, והרי זה כבורר לצורך אחר זמן שאסור".

ניתן להתפלל בשבת מאחר שהתפילה נעשית לאלתר וכאשר בוררים ואוכלים ולא מניחים בצד את הדבר הנברר אין בעיית ברירה[1] מה שאין כן בברכת האילנות שברירת הניצוצות שבה לא נעשה לצורך שעה.

על ערוב הלכה וקבלה, כתב החתם סופר (שות או"ח נא) כך :

"ואני אומר כל המערב דברי קבלה עם הלכות פסוקות, עובר משום לא תזרע כרמך כלאים פן תקדש המלאה".

כדי לא להכניס את ראשנו במחלוקת בין ענקי עולם, האם ניתן לערב דברי קבלה בדברי הלכה, נאמר שהרב עובדיה בשו"ת יחוה דעת (ח"א ס"ב) דחה את דברי כף החיים ופסק שניתן לברך ברכת האילנות בשבת, ולא צריך לחשוש לאיסור בורר[2], אולם לכתחילה עדיף לברך בחול.

[1] כדי לברור בשבת ולא לעבור על איסור תורה צריכים להתקיים שלושת התנאים הבאים:

1. לאלתר - הברירה נעשית בצמוד לאכילה.

2. אוכל מתוך פסולת - מוציאים את האוכל ולא את הפסולת.

3. ביד - בוררים את האוכל ביד ולא בכלי המיוחד לברירה.

כאשר מתקימים שלושת התנאים אז מעשה הברירה נחשב דרך אכילה, וכל דבר שהוא דרך אכילה לא נאסר בשבת.

[1] וכן אין לחשוש שמא יתלוש, ועיין שם.


[1] כדי לברור בשבת ולא לעבור על איסור תורה צריכים להתקיים שלושת התנאים הבאים:

1. לאלתר - הברירה נעשית בצמוד לאכילה.

2. אוכל מתוך פסולת - מוציאים את האוכל ולא את הפסולת.

3. ביד - בוררים את האוכל ביד ולא בכלי המיוחד לברירה.

כאשר מתקימים שלושת התנאים אז מעשה הברירה נחשב דרך אכילה, וכל דבר שהוא דרך אכילה לא נאסר בשבת.

[2] וכן אין לחשוש שמא יתלוש, ועיין שם.

Sunday, April 05, 2009

Why Birchas Ha*Chamah* and Not Birchas HaShemesh?

Some time today, someone came to this blog based on a search on this question. And I had an exchange about it some time ago with an anonymous commenter, so I thought that with birchat hachammah coming up I would bring it to the fore.

Anonymous:
What is the diffrence between Chamah and Shemesh meaning when does the torah say one and when does the torah use the other? Any Mareh Makom or answer would be apprecialted. 
Josh:
an interesting question. I think you can divide it into two questions: what is the story in Biblical Hebrew, and what is the story in Babylonian Aramaic.

As far as I could tell with a quick search, Chama appears in about 3 places in Tanach, once in Iyyov (always strange language) and twice in Yeshaya. My first impression is that Shemesh occurs much more often, and is of a kind with Yareach. Meanwhile, Chama, where it occurs, would be with Levana. Maybe an arcane word, borrowed from the Aramaic?

In terms of Babylonian Aramaic, both Shimsha and Chamta occur. From memory, my impression is that Chama is more common (134 times vs 19 times). But perhaps we can make a differentiation in usage between sunlight and the sun itself? Not always, though.

I think both occur in both languages, with different distributions, and I don't think a derasha based on the difference between them would necessarily be correct.

But as you can clearly see, this is all very off the cuff.
Anonymous:
SHKOOACH,
I was told after asking around a Bit that the Malbim or Reb Hirsch may talk about it in there Dictionaries and the person told me a DRUSH about Levana and Yerach I cant remember it from someone that Impressed I forget who. and the Ramban clearly states that Hebrew has no words that mean the same thing without at least a Nuance off difference (I HAVE A SNEAKING SUSPICION YOU DISAGREE) so Hopefully somne can lead me in the right direction MAREH MOKOM Wise so PUK CHAZI
Thanks for answering the question
Anonymous 
Josh:
your sneaking suspicion is more than justified (though I've heard of those claims and believe that they held this); this was a matter of dispute between pashtanim such as Ramban and pashtanim like Ibn Ezra, who held of the principle of kefel lashon.

I would maintain this especially where the words in question appear in disparate time periods in Tanach. (Shemesh seeming to appear early, in early books and in place names.)

Rav Hirsch, IMHO, does have one or two aspects of accuracy, but is mostly nonsense - a modern theory which I don't think is born out.

Clark's Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew, based of Rav Shamshon ben Refael Hirsch, has on page 265 an entry for shemesh: 
serve: use as intended
explanation/commentary: 1) serving (refers to Devarim 4:19 and Tehillim 19:5). 2) sun, serving God's purpose (refers to Bereshit 19:23 and Shemot 32:25). 3) window, opening to the sun (refers to Yeshaya 54:12).
cognate meaning: serve. (phonetic cognates שמץ, lack will.)

on page 82, Chamam:

glow, project extreme heat.
explanation/commentary: 1) being glowing hot (refers to Shemot 16:21). 2) exhibiting sexual heat (refers to Bereishit 6:10 and Bereishit 9:27). 3) Glowing anger (Bereishit 27:44 and 49:7). 4) sun (Tehillim 19:7). 5) sun-idol (Vayikra 26:30).

gradational variant: chamam: glow; chamah: protect; chom: darken; ycham: warm.

cognate meaning: develop by agitation [phonetic cognates: hamam: ferment; `amam: be dependent; 'amam: develop]
Does anyone reading this blog have any insight into this question? Have you heard any derasha on the basis of this difference?

A survey of Modern Orthodox beliefs about age of the earth

I am not going to get a large enough sample here, but based on a conversation I recently had with Rafi G. of Life In Israel. I would like to get a rough idea of the popularity of the idea, in Modern Orthodox circles, of the age of the earth. Less than 6000? Billions? Both? How does this contradict sefer Bereishit, or does this not contradict?

Interesting Posts and Articles #137

  1. ON THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND MEANING OF MAH NISHTANNAH AND THE HISTORY OF ITS REINTERPRETATION, by Dr. Richard Steiner, a 42 page article that analyzes how many questions there are in mah nishtanah (not necessarily the obvious answer), the meaning of the phrase, etc.

  2. ZooTorah on feeding pets on Pesach. I had a post, and active comment thread, last year, about what to feed my fish for Pesach.

  3. FailedMessiah on a ban on strawberries in Israel, because of a specific cause, with bugs that do not wash off even with soap. I also have my doubts as to the halachics of tiny, in many cases undetected bugs that don't seem to leave the fruit, but not enough to take any position on it. It does seem healthier, IMHO, to just declare certain fruits in certain seasons and circumstances as not to be eaten, rather than to encourage what seem to be over-the-top cleaning directions, with a corresponding attitudinal shift.

  4. Cross Currents: Tzniyus patrols, abuse, violence, and getting personal about Torah.

  5. Frum Satire on how to spot guys just home from their year in Israel. And in the comment section, the parallel for girls.

  6. In honor of Pesach, an analysis of the word Mitzrayim, from Balashon.

  7. On A Simple Jew, Beyond Tzniyus.

  8. Kallah Magazine blog is looking for absurd Pesach chumras.

  9. Via Hirhurim's audio roundup, Rav Schachter on the tuition crisis.

  10. Mystical Paths has a special cleaner for your computer screen, for Pesach.

  11. For another roundup, see today's Haveil Havalim.

Birchas HaChammah PSA: Do Not *Stare* Into The Sun For The Purpose of Birchas HaChammah!

At first, I thought to make a funny kol koreh, telling people that they needed to stare into the sun for a minimum shiur of one minute, or else throughout the entire ritual -- and that one should do this with one eye, so that 28 years later he will be able to use the other eye for birchat hachama, having burned out his retina in the first. But I was dissuaded by people who pointed out that previous kol korehs I put out were taken seriously, and who knows? All I would need it one person to do it.

So instead I will make this a helpful tip. Just glance at the sun, to see that it is there, and then say whatever you need to say. You do not want to blind yourself. Years of havdalah or kiddush wine will not fix it.

The same message is included in the book Once in 28 Years by Rabbi Moshe Goldberger:
One caveat: It is not necessary — moreover, it is dangerous — to stare into the sun before or after saying the berachah. All that is necessary is to glance at the sun briefly.
Indeed, not only is it dangerous -- does chamira sakanta mei-Issurah apply to non-fatal harm -- there are halachic reasons, though I don't find the halachic considerations so compelling. That is, just as by kiddush levana, the practice has developed that one should merely glance at the moon to ascertain it is there, but not look at the moon during, so that it does look like one is praying to the moon:
Although the Shulchan Aruch writes that one should view the moon during Kiddush Levana, some are wary of this practice lest it seem as if we are praying to the moon. Some suggest that one view the moon only during the beracha, while others only permit glancing at the moon before the beracha (MB 13 and Shaar Hatzion 14).
one may say the same thing about looking at the sun. Indeed, the Chabad poster at JNUL gives the same instruction and connects it to kiddush levana:


Also, for today, check out Ima on the Bima for the Haveil Havalim roundup!

Friday, April 03, 2009

Should Modern Orthodox Jews say Birchat HaChammah? Or is it a bracha levatalah?

While almost everyone is excited about the once-in-28-years opportunity to make a bracha, I wonder whether we should even be saying it; and whether to say it is a bracha levatala.

Let me lead off by noting this is not intended halacha lemaaseh, and that I have not looked sufficiently into the halachic sources involved for this post to be any more than an exploration. So, not halacha lemaaseh.

Part of the basis of saying Birchat HaChammah on erev Pesach this year is that it will be in the same position as it was at maaseh bereishit. Thus, the gemara just states:
Our Rabbis taught:2 He who sees the sun at its turning point,3 the moon in its power,4 the planets in their orbits,5 and the signs of the zodiac in their orderly progress,6 should say: Blessed be He who has wrought the work of creation. And when [does this happen]?7 — Abaye said: Every twenty-eight years when the cycle8 begins again and the Nisan [Spring] equinox falls in Saturn on the evening of Tuesday,9 going into Wednesday.
but Rashi explains Abaye {citing from a footnote in Soncino}:
As the sun and moon were created on the 4th day, the beginning of the 28 years cycle is always on a Wednesday which begins at the vernal equinox at 6 p.m. on Tuesday. This, according to computation coincides with the rise of Saturn, v. Rashi.
In needs to be in precisely that position -- after chatzos, e.g., it is already a question whether one may say it even bedieved.

This is a problem for Modern Orthodox people for three reasons:
  1. Do we believe in a Young Earth or an Old Earth? This is all predicated on it being the time the earth was created, thus on it being a Tuesday going into Wednesday, as Rashi explains Abaye's statement. But what if we do not understand Bereishit to be literal in this manner? This is what someone asked Wolfish Musings. And the question may indeed be a good one, and we should say אין הכי נמי.

  2. Continuing along the lines of the 28 year cycle, even if we assume a Young Earth, are we certain of the current year. Historians claim that there are some 165 years missing, a figure which does not divide evenly into 28.

  3. And even if we have an accurate date based on seder Olam Rabba, what we have is an approximation. And that approximation is slightly inaccurate, and over the millennia the date has slipped. Indeed, it presumably slipped from the time of Maaseh Bereishit, but nowadays, the vernal equinox occurs in March, not in April.

    Now, we might say that Chazal have the ability to declare the times of the moadim, but here, the brayta explicitly refers to the astronomical phenomenon, and Abaye is just helping us out by giving an accurate enough (for his time, and a long time afterwards) description of that time. This is not like deciding when Pesach is, which we may define. Rather, the bracha only kicks in when we actually see the sun when it is in the beginning of its tekufah, and this is a physical phenomenon, not a halachic one.
To cite an article in the Jewish Week, by Howard Smith, an astrophysicist:
The problem is that the year is not 365.25 days long. It is less than that — 365.24219 days (as was indeed known to the rabbis, although not to this accuracy). The difference might not seem like much, but over the course of 2,000 years the discrepancy in dating is over two weeks. This is the reason that the event has slipped from the spring equinox, which the Talmud alludes to — normally March 20 — to the current date of April 8. And the celebration date will continue to drift toward the summer — surely a crisis for an event that we celebrate specifically because it is supposed to mark the original spring equinox.

Of course the paradox of blessing the sun runs much deeper. The sun was not created on March 20, either. Nor, for that matter, was it created on a Wednesday, nor 5769 years ago. It was created about 4.6 billion years ago, when the universe was about 9.1 billion years old. Just as we humans are born and mature over a period of years, so too the sun was born from an embryonic cloud of interstellar gas and dust, and gradually reached a level of maturity after hundreds of thousand of years of development. Its nuclear reactions developed not only on one special Wednesday, but over lots of them. It is irrational, is it not, to celebrate a cosmic event that did not take place?
He feels that there is a rejoinder, and indeed there may be one. But perhaps we should not be looking for a rejoinder. Why be defensive? Instead, perhaps we should have been more proactive, taken control of the situation, and made a birkat hachama on about March 20th, the actual date of the spring equinox! (Or perhaps in whichever year March 20th comes out on a Wednesday? This year it is a Friday...) This would not be a deviation from rabbinic tradition, but rather understanding the fundamentals of the halacha and boldly applying halachic principles to state what the true halacha should be. There have been parallels of this in recent times. E.g. reevaluating gemaras to double the shiurim; declaring murex trunculus to be techeiles.

Again, this is not a problem for those who are not Modern Orthodox, for there are no missing years; and there is no old earth; and we don't pay heed to maddah.

Now, there might be a few responses we can offer, to defend the position. I don't know that it is optimal to defend it, but we can try, anyway.

The first is to say that Chazal instituted the blessing, and we follow the established pattern of Chazal. Vesalacha la-avoneinu, ki rav hu -- it is the fault of the rabbis. Or rather, this is how the blessing, and its time, has been instituted, and we cannot go wrong by following that pattern.

I would respond that they did not establish this pattern, but the brayta just spoke of one who saw the sun in its tekufah. Abaye was helpful in identifying that time for those in his generation, but he was not contemplating its use almost 2000 years later, with the resulting shift!

And as above, declarations of zemanim work for moadim, but not for physical astronomical phenonomena.

Furthermore, as we see from various halachic sources, including Aruch HaShulchan, seif 5,[ah.bmp]

despite the fact that the brayta says to bless the same bracha on the levana and the various kochavim, we do not do it nowadays because we are not bekiin. That is, despite the fact that, as far as I can tell, calculating the tekufot of the zodiac signs is given as well in Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer, since we do not think we will be getting the accurate times, we do not say the beracha. If we think similarly, then perhaps the frum thing to do is to respectfully declare that we are not bekiin (even if this is a polite way of saying that they were not bekiin, to the level of predicting the date so many centuries later). As such, our treatment of the other items in the brayta sets the correct precedent.

My brother-in-law pointed out another answer which he saw in Artscroll's Birchas HaChamma book. Apparently (I didn't see it inside), Pachad Yitzchak asks this question, and says that there is no inyan of beracha levatala for ברכת השבח. I don't know enough about the topic to say if this is so, or not. But practically, after chatzos, they say not to say the beracha. And there are situations they tell you not to say it with shem and malchus.

Perhaps all us Modern Orthodox Jews should travel to the Grand Canyon for erev Pesach, so that we have two causes for oseh maaseh bereishis, so that we can avoid the safek. Or perhaps we should say it without shem and malchus. Or perhaps we should avoid it entirely.

Yeranen Yaakov is monitoring the weather, hoping that a cloudy or rainy day will not obscure the sun, eliminating the mitzvah. But perhaps we should be hoping for the opposite, that Hashem will save us from a massive beracha levatalah performed berov am by pouring a kiton shel mayim in our faces. Or perhaps better, we will have a far-off storm such that we see both the sun as well as thunder and lightning, so that we will have no safek bracha in play.

I would have liked to have heard some modern rabbonim (from various sectors) address this issue head-on, before the event.

Update: As Aton points out in the comment section, Rabbi Bleich addresses a similar point in his shiur on Birchat HaChamma, from the Yom Iyun that YU had on it. Go here, and listen at about the 53 minute mark.

His point, as far as I can understand it, is why don't we use the more accurate calculation of Rav Adda. And the answer was that then it would only occur once every few thousand years, and so they were metaken it in such a way as to give Jews the opportunity to bless it.

I am not sure it addresses the question posed above, and even if it does, I am not sure I buy the answer.

Firstly, if it is a matter of the missing 165 years, this was not something Chazal realized. They thought that even if it was an approximation, it was an approximation in which there was a cycle of 28 years since creation. Similarly, if we don't think that there is a young earth, but rather an old earth, once again, it is not some multiple of 28 years since some initial position.

Where his answer does address the lack of precision (which s point three above), I'm not sure I buy it. The fact is that there is some degree of precision involved. That is, it was what people in those days called the vernal equinox. Forget Abaye for a moment. The brayta said that the time is when it is in its tekufah, and it is in its tekufah, in lashon benei adam, during the vernal equinox. We also have this extra limitation of the 28 year cycle. That is, there is a tekufah every year, but the particular tekufah we pay attention to, as per Abaye, and as per Shmuel's calendar, is once every 28 years.

So with Shmuel's approximation, it was good enough, and close enough, to claim that this was in the same position. (How precise do we need it exactly?) And it was a tekufah. The problem given by the astrophysicist above, as I understand it, is that nowadays, it is no longer a tekufah. During the days of Abaye and Shmuel, the rough approximation was good enough that it fell out on a tekufah. But after the passage of almost 2000 years, it is no longer a tekufah, but it is rather off from the vernal equinox by a few weeks! We are no longer fulfilling the brayta! And don't tell me that Abaye was metaken it this way. He was metaken it this way for his century or so, when it indeed fell out during the date of the vernal equinox; and he was helping with the metzius.

And Even You Shall Break His Teeth, pt v

Candle Lighting in KGH: 7:04 PM

See part one, part two, part three and part four.

There are three final sources I wish to mention in terms of hakheh et shinav. Two are courtesy of Wolf2191, who pointed them out in a comment. I am not really sure what to make of them, and so this will likely disappoint, since I do not really have any deep analysis. I just note the use of the phrases.

First, in terms of the pasuk. This is not really the use of the phrase in the wild, but is rather something like an Aesop's fable, making the use of the Biblical phrase as a type of punch line. And so I don't know that this really will tell us about how Chazal intended it when they say hakheh et shinav. On the other hand, the pasuk does use such language,

The pasuk, again, in Yirmeyahu 31, reads:
כח בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם--לֹא-יֹאמְרוּ עוֹד, אָבוֹת אָכְלוּ בֹסֶר; וְשִׁנֵּי בָנִים, תִּקְהֶינָה. 28 In those days they shall say no more: 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.'
כט כִּי אִם-אִישׁ בַּעֲו‍ֹנוֹ, יָמוּת: כָּל-הָאָדָם הָאֹכֵל הַבֹּסֶר, תִּקְהֶינָה שִׁנָּיו. {ס} 29 But every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man that eateth the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. {S}
The gemara in Bava Batra 38b - 39a reads (translation from Soncino):
R Johanan also said: R. Meir had three hundred parables of foxes, and we have only three left, [as illustrations to the verses]. [a] The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge;1 [b] Just balances, just weights,2 [c] The righteous is delivered out of trouble and the wicked comes in in his stead.3
On this, Rashi explains (once again, translation from Soncino):
Rashi gives the parables in question, as follows, combined in a single story. [Cf. however, Ms.M.: 'We have only one'.] A fox once craftily induced a wolf to go and join the Jews in their Sabbath preparations and share in their festivities. On his appearing in their midst the Jews fell upon him with sticks and beat him. He therefore came back determined to kill the fox. But the latter pleaded: 'It is no fault of mine that you were beaten, but they have a grudge against your father who once helped them in preparing their banquet and then consumed all the choice bits.' 'And was I beaten for the wrong done by my father?' cried the indignant wolf. 'Yes,' replied the fox, 'the fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge. However,' he continued, 'come with me and I will supply you with abundant food. He led him to a well which had a beam across it from either end of which hung a rope with a bucket attached. The fox entered the upper bucket and descended into the well whilst the lower one was drawn up. 'Where are you going?' asked the wolf. The fox, pointing to the cheese-like reflection of the moon, replied: 'Here is plenty of meat and cheese; get into the other bucket and come down at once.' The wolf did so, and as he descended, the fox was drawn up. 'And how am I to get out?' demanded the wolf. 'Ah' said the fox 'the righteous is delivered out of trouble and the wicked cometh in in his stead. Is it not written, Just balances, just weights'?
I don't know whether this parable, in all its details, was what the gemara referred to. (See here.) It does seem to have all three elements from the pesukim. But maybe details were added and changed, and we do after all have the alternate parable from Rav Hai Gaon (next). So this might only show how Rashi regarded the phrase.

In this parable, the fox was beaten, and this was the equivalent of וְשִׁנֵּי בָנִים תִּקְהֶינָה. This does not mean that the phrase means "break his teeth," since it is after all a parable, and so it may be intended allegorically. On the other hand, just weights and measures, and the wicked in place of the righteous, are taken quite literally in this interpretation. So we would expect the same for וְשִׁנֵּי בָנִים תִּקְהֶינָה. This would then likely refer to some physical harm, rather than emotional harm, and so perhaps breaking the teeth would be an appropriate rendition, at least in terms of the literal reading of that pasuk.

What about the phrase in common speech? Well, these pesukim were being taken hyperliterally, while idioms are often intended otherwise, so I don't know. It is indeed an interesting data point.

Meanwhile, Rav Hai Gaon has a different version of the parable:
There once was a hungry lion who was eyeing a fox with desire. The fox said to him: "What do you want with a scrawny little fox like me? Standing yonder is a well-rounded gentleman, who will make a much more satisfying dinner for you." The lion replied: "Don't you know that animals are forbidden to kill and eat human beings? I could be severely punished for that!" Said the fox: "Not to worry--the punishment will not overtake you, but rather your children; as you know, 'the fathers eat sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge'." The lion was seduced by this argument and ran towards the man to tear and eat him. As he was running, however, he was caught by a trap and found himself at the bottom of a deep pit. The fox gleefully ran over and looked into the pit. The lion cried from the bottom: "Liar! You said that only my children would be punished for my Sin!" The fox then said: "Fool! This punishment is not for what you just did, but rather for that which your father did. He once ate a human being himself." The lion cried out: "But that's not fair! Why should I have to suffer from my father's sins?" The fox answered with a sardonic laugh: "You yourself were just prepared to sin even though you knew that your children would suffer for it. How, then, do you dare to complain about what's fair!"
Here as well there is a punishment, but it is not as literal/physical.

Finally, we can see how Shadal used the phrase in his Vikuach al Chochmat HaKabbalah:
I {=the author} said to him: It is what it is, I do not wish to argue with you, for I am a youth, and you are a man of war from your youth; and behold I see in you that spirit of cleverness and trickery who only existed in days of old in the accursed serpent, who distanced us from the Garden of Eden, and this is the spirit found today in all the philosophers who throw off from themselves the yoke of Torah and the yoke of derech eretz, and all their words are in deception, to take in their trap the souls of the whole {/simple} of heart, to bring them down to the underworld.

Are you not also like one of them? And how not? The disputation of yesterday, in which you widened your mouth without bound against the faith of all of Israel that the night of Hoshana Rabba is the night of the sealing {/signing}, and I in my poverty did not immediately remember the answer which is to your side, and I heard your blasphemies and I did not blunt your teeth, as was fitting for me {to do}.
This usage is certainly borrowed from the Haggadah, and the idea is that when the rasha says something, giving a solid and forceful response is called hakheh et shinav.

So now, after all these words, have we got anywhere? I don't know. There might be dispute as to the Biblical meaning, and the meaning throughout different sources in Chazal and in later Rabbinic writing is mixed. Part of this may be different understandings of the actual word hakheh, but part of it may be the literal/figurative aspect of it.

At the end of the day, whatever it means, it surely means to give a forceful and perhaps somewhat insulting response that undermines the rasha's question. And certainly it is not meant literally here.

Thursday, April 02, 2009

Obama takes a bow

Should I care that Obama is bowing down to the Saudi king? Why should I? Certainly it is not that he is showing where his "true allegiances" lie.





For the sake of comparison, here is Obama wearing a kippah at the kotel, which some crazies undoubtedly took to show that he is a secret Jew (just as when Bush wore a kippah), or to show his allegiances.
And here is Bush holding hands with a Saudi prince.
People do strange things in the name of protocol. And if it is indeed so that the American president need not, and should not, bow to a monarch, then at the most it is indicative of Obama's lack of foreign policy experience.

Furthermore, from the looks of the video, it is not a bow as in showing that one is a servant of another. Rather, it is more of a bow of greeting that normal people do towards one another in Islamic countries. He does it while shaking the fellow's hand. For more information, see the definition of salaam (equivalent of "shalom").

Give the guy a break!

Rabbinic Fallibility (Bava Kamma 99b)

This need not be said, except for those who insist on a religious doctrine in which rabbis are such experts in even non-Torah matters that they can make no mistake.

Bava Kamma 99b:
There was a certain woman who showed a denar to R. Hiyya and he told her that it was good. Later she again came to him and said to him, 'I afterwards showed it [to others] and they said to me that it was bad, and in fact I could not pass it.' He therefore said to Rab: Go forth and change it for a good one and write down in my register that this was a bad business. But why [should he be different from] Dankcho and Issur42 who would be exempt because they needed no instruction? Surely R. Hiyya also needed no instruction?

We see here that Rabbi Chiyya could have made an error. So too on the next daf (Bava Kamma 100a):

Resh Lakish showed a denar to R. Eleazar who told him that it was good. He said to him: You see that I rely upon you. He replied: Suppose you do rely on me, what of it? Do you think that if it is found bad I would have to exchange it [for a good one]?

We see that Resh Lakish would consult another to obtain the metzius, rather than relying on his own omniscience. And he knew that even if Rabbi Eleazar told him this, Rabbi Eleazar could have erred.

And Even You Shall Break His Teeth, pt iv

See part one, part two and part three.

I would like to consider use of the phrase in still other sources -- later ones.

Here is Tosafot HaRosh:
תוספות הרא"ש מסכת סנהדרין דף פז עמוד ב
ר' יהושע אומר כהה. פרש"י כהה הנגע דהוא מסמני טהרה כשמשתנה מלובן שלו לאחר הסגר, וקשה והיכי פריך בסוף נזיר דילמא כהה וטמא הא כהה טהור, ועוד אי כהה וטמא היינו ת"ק, ונראה כגרסת ר"ח דגריס קהה בקו"ף ולא יגרוס אומר כלומר ר' יהושע הקשה ודקדק בדבר כמו הקהה את שיניו כמו מקהו אקהייתא (בטוכי') [בשוקא] מאסיפים אסיפות של בני אדם כלומר עמד על המנין, ולא ידענא אי להביא ראיה לדברי חכמים או לסתור דברי חכמים ולהכי בעי מאי קהה ומסיק קהה וטהור.

If I understand this correctly, he is saying that it means to ask and be medakdek in the matter. This, then, would be the meaning in the idiom in the haggadah, which he references. It is certainly intended figuratively even if elsewhere it can be literal. But it seems to mean not just being forceful and mean, but giving a forceful response to a question. By being medakdek and saying that just as you said lachem, so too it was li and not for you, that might be the act of hakheh et shinav. To distinguish this with a very fine line, this is different from independently being makheh his teeth and independently responding with the specific response.

Next, Rashi seems to interpret this as blunting, connecting it to blunting iron:

רש"י מסכת תענית דף ז עמוד ב
קהה הברזל - כמו הקהה את שיניו ושיני בנים תקהינה (ירמיהו לא.

In the haggadah of the Rashbatz, he also appears to take it as breaking the teeth, at the least figuratively:
הגדה של פסח לרשב"ץ
רשע מה הוא אומר מה העבודה הזאת לכם ובאומרו לכם הוציא עצמו מהכלל וכפר בעיקר התורה. והיתה התשובה לו בעבור זה עשה ה' לי לי ולא לו ואלו היה שם לא היה נגאל כי היה מת בג' ימי אפלה שמתו בהם רשעי ישראל ואעפ"י שזה הפסוק נאמר על מי שאינו יודע לשאול נרמז בו באמרו עשה ה' לי [תשובה] לשאלת הרשע כן פירש (הרמב"ן) [רש"י] ז"ל בפ' בא אל פרעה (שמות יג, ח) וז"ש אף אתה הקהה את שיניו מלשון אבות אכלו בוסר ושיני בנים תקהינה (ירמיה לא, כח) והוא כענין אלהים הרס שנימו בפימו מלתעות כפירים (תהלים נח, ז). והתשובה הכתובה בתורה על מה העבודה הזאת היא ואמרתם זבח פסח הוא לה' (שמות יב, כז). אבל [ל]תשובת לכם נרמזה התשובה באומרו עשה ה' לי:
Thus, he connects it to the (by-now) famous pasuk in Yirmeyah, but says that it is like the inyan of Tehillim 58:6:

ז אֱלֹהִים--הֲרָס שִׁנֵּימוֹ בְּפִימוֹ; מַלְתְּעוֹת כְּפִירִים, נְתֹץ ה. 7 Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth; break out the cheek-teeth of the young lions, O LORD.
This would thus seem to mean break, just as Ramban suggests.

Again, we are dealing here with late sources at this point.

Next up, we have Avudraham:

ספר אבודרהם סדר ההגדה ופירושה
אף אתה הקהה את שניו ל' חולש השינים כמו ושיני בנים תקהינה (ירמיה לא, כח) כלומר זה שכפר בעיקר הרי הוא בכלל בן נכר לא יאכל בו (שמות יב, מג) ושיניו תקהינה שרואה לאחרין אוכלים והוא אינו אוכל. ד"א הקהה את שינו כלומר הכעיסהו ואמור לו כנגדך דברה תורה בעבור זה עשה לי בצאתי ממצרים, אבל רשע כמותו לא היה כדאי להגאל. וא"ת היאך דורש לגבי רשע לי ולא לו שהוא כתוב אצל בעבור זה שהוא נדרש לגבי שאינו יודע לשאול. וי"ל אם אינו ענין לשאינו יודע לשאול תנהו ענין לרשע:
Here he offers two interpretations, in particular as to how it relates to the rasha at the seder. In the first, he explains like Ramban and that it means weaken, relying on the famous pasuk in Yirmeyahu. He says kelomar to rephrase it -- that since he was kafar beIkkar, he is considered a ben nechar, who is not allowed to eat of it, and his teeth are weakened, such that others eat and he does not eat. I am pretty certain that even here he means this metaphorically. (I myself came up with this explanation, but did not mean it seriously.)

In a second explanation, it means to make him upset, and say to him that the Torah spoke against you, etc. This is perhaps more along the lines of setting teeth on edge.

Two final sources for this segment. I don't know if I will have another one:
שו"ת תורת משה חלק חושן משפט סימן יא
ואם המצא ימצא כדבר הרע הזה מה לנו עם ערלים שאינם בני ברית, ברוך אלהינו שנתן לנו תורת אמת והבדילנו מן הטועים, אף אתה הקהה שיניהם ולך לכפרים שהולכים הערלים ובכח השר שלך עשה עמהם שלא כהוגן ואל תכנס בגבול חבריך בני בריתך, אשר על כן יורנו מורינו נר ישראל וקדושו את הדרך נלך בה, ושכרו כפול מן השמים לשלם שכר טוב לצדיקים.
In this case, it seems more (though not entirely) literal, or at the least figurative but within the general sense of not dealing nicely with them.

And finally:

שו"ת בעי חיי חושן משפט חלק א סימן סה
ואם לחשך אדם לומר אפי' תימא דבנ"ד הוי כנפרע מן הלוה עצמו מה בכך הרי אין המלוה בפנינו כדי שישבע על טענות הלוה אלא יורשיו וכתוב בספר הטורים ז"ל בסימן פ"ב בשם רב שר שלום גאון דכיון דאין המלוה כאן כדי שיוכל לישבע נפטר הלוה אחר שישבע אף אתה הקהה את שיניו ואמר לו הא ליתא שהרי הרי"ף ז"ל וכל הפוסקים רובם ככולם חולקים על הרב שר שלום גאון ז"ל בזה וסוברים שהיורשים נשבעים שבועת היורשים ונוטלין כ"ש לי"א שכתוב בספר הטורי' ז"ל בסימן הנז' שאפי' שבועה אין צריכין וכתבו מהרש"ך בח"ב סימן רל"ו והראנ"ח ז"ל בתשובה סי' ק"ט שסברת הרב שר שלום גאון ז"ל היא דחויה אצל הפוסקים ולא מצי המוחזק לומר קים לי וכן נראה דעת מהר"י אדרבי ז"ל בסי' שכ"ח ואפי' לדעת הרשד"ם ז"ל בחלק ח"מ סימן רצ"ד שהמוחזק יכול לומר קים לי וכן הסכמתי בתשובת שאלה. אחרת וישבתי סברת רב שר שלום ז"ל כפי סוגית הגמרא בנ"ד לכ"ע נשבעין ונוטין דע"כ לא פליגי רב שר שלום גאון ובני מחלוקתו אלא כשהלוה טוען בכה וזה אומר בכה אבל כשהלוה אינו טוען בבריא פרוע הוא אלא שמא פרוע הוא כנ"ד אף רב שר שלום גאון מודה דנוטלין וזה תלמוד ערוך הוא בפרק כל הנשבעין דמתמהינן עלה דתנן וכן היתומים מן היתומים לא יפרעו אלא בשבועה ממאן אלימא מלוה אבוהון שקיל בשבועה ואינהו בלא שבועה ה"ק וכן היתומים מן היתומים לא יפרעו אלא בשבועה ע"כ ומיירי במת מלוה בחיי לוה כמבואר שם אף כאן כיון שאין טענת הערב פרעתי אלא שמא פרע אבי הו"ל יתומים מן היתומים וכל דליכא טעמא דאין אדם מוריש שבועה לבניו נשבעין ונוטלין ועוד אפי' דבנ"ד אין כתוב נאמנות על יורשי הלוה מאחר שיש נאמנות על הלוה עצמו אפי' לרב שר שלום גאון נוטלין בלא שבועה כיון שאלו היה מלוה קיים וטוען פרעתיך היה גובה בלא שבועה הכי נמי יורשיו גובין בלא שבועה.

The sense here is of responding to an argument and entirely refuting it. And perhaps it can have that same sense in the haggadah shel pesach.

Interesting Posts and Articles #136

  1. Maybe this is why chareidim want mehadrim buses. Otherwise, who knows?! People might get engaged on them!

  2. Some lunatic, or else crafty businessman, had a dream of Rav Nachman, and told him to paint his likeness, and spread it. This patterned after the Na Nach song, which also had its basis in a dream in which Rav Nachman of Breslov told to sing the song. Shirat Devorah has the details, and which rabbis in Breslov suppoer the claim, which condemn the claim, and which have not seen/commented upon it. Then, in an important followup post, reprinted from Rabbi Lazer Brody's site, she explains that Rabbi Arush does not support the claim, and that he says it is a scam from someone trying to make a fast buck. Rabbi Brody explains why the picture is not real:
    1) Rebbe Nachman was very reddish blond, not like the blond at left.
    2) Rebbe Nachman fasted much, was lean and wiry without an extra ounce on his body, not like the well-fed gent illustrated here.
    3) Rebbe Nachman rolled his payis forward, not backward.
    4) Rebbe Nachman had happy eyes that illuminated one's soul - the dude in the picture doesn't cut it.
    5) Rebbe Nachman was much younger - he died at age 38.

    Now, it is interesting that they have to go out of their way to declare this a fake. Any normal sensible person would hear this story and snort. But the problem is that in the past, people in this "mystical community" have lent credence to people's dreams, considering them prophetic in some way. And if a rabbi appears in the dream, that that is a real communication from him, as opposed to a random dream or a delusion.

    The result of this is that any fringe character is allowed to define the theology. Because anyone can have a dream, or claim to have a dream. And then the messages of those dreams, reflecting the moral and religious values of that person, are attributed to Hashem, or to great deceased rabbis. Perhaps it is because they do not have any real leader in control, after Rav Nachman's death; or the acceptance and promotion as leaders of baalei teshuva, often with their own fringe ideas. But the result is direction and leadership from the crazies. And that is why they even had to bother to respond to this.

    Another interesting point is that there is likely gaavah involved in this leadership from elements of the hamon am. It is not enough to be a frum Jew. You are special in some way, and God selected you to be the one to receive the dreams and deliver his message. And so the story of the Jews is about you, rather than about Hashem and Klal Yisrael. And of all the qualified candidates, Rav Nachman chose you to reveal his visage and direct that his likeness be portrayed.

  3. Orthonomics on lowering Pesach costs. And Lion of Zion on pre-Pesach car washes, and their cost.

  4. An article in Front Page Magazine on Obama Derangement Syndrome. He mentions the narcissist article I debunked here.

  5. Hirhurim about the ordination of women.

  6. YUTorah's Pesach to Go, 2009 edition:


  7. A Mother Is Israel on a local kabbalah cult, posted at DovBear and her own blog:

  8. London Rabbi spooked by Ghost. See the reactions at CrownHeights.info and at Vos iz Neias. Shtuyot. Rather than consulting a kabbalist, he should look into hiring a contractor to fix his creaky floorboards, faulty windows, and settling house.

  9. Why not boost them again? The Absolut Haggadah, 2009 vintage. Download here.

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

A Kiddush HaChamma Roundup

  1. An e-book on kiddush hachammah, as a roundup of nice blog posts on the subject. (from SerandEz and Hirhurim)

  2. First, some more on Birkat haChamma. On the last blog roundup, I suggested a nigleh reason for Kiddush HaChama. I may have been hasty in suggesting that particular one, for all sorts of deep, yet surface reasons are plausible. It could be to appreciate Hashem's creating of the sun, or the wonder of the complex yet perfect movements of the stars and planets. Gilui noted in a comment on that post:
    In Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer, the discussion regarding the sun is only part of a larger discussion which includes the moon, then moving on to a combined cycle which doesn't mathematically exist of 84 years. I would suggest that one shouldn't try to attach meaning to the ritual until checking out the bigger picture.
    Indeed, he put together a very nice site (link is to Chapter 6, but see it all) all about Kiddush HaChamma, with halachos, and an analysis of the math involved. Check it out.

    I will admit that I do not have the time or patience to want to read through the mathematical and astronomic analysis right now. So I don't know if he is correct or incorrect that this is an entirely and obviously fictional calculation.

    He suggests that Chazal therefore had mystical reasons for wanting to arrive at the number 84, which is the mystical 7 times the mystical 12. Thus:
    Chazal knew this. There is no doubt, due to the arbitrary nature of the inaccuracy. The very plain goal of the entire chapter of Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer is to arrive at the number 84. So let us look at the number.

    ...


    Chazal wanted to hint at something by creating an 84 year cycle. It hints at its factors, which are cycles of their own: 7 and 12 years.
    It strikes me, if it is indeed inaccurate, that it might be a legitimate mistake. Perhaps a mistake in calculation, which would not be detected readily because of the long time span from the beginning of the cycle to the end. Or a typographical error which cascaded. I would not assume that Chazal would deliberately mess up the calculation, when the goal is presumably to accurately hit a specific time for a halachic purpose.

    Also, as I wrote in a comment on the previous roundup post, are we really taking about Tannaitic Chazal here? After all:
    In terms of Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer, this returns to the question of its date of authorship. If it is Tannaitic, from the Tanna Rabbi Eliezer, then it is giving deeper insight into the meaning of this bracha. If it was composed shortly after 833 CE, then it is post-Talmudic...
    I will add the following here. If this is really Chazal, or whoever the author of Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer is, hinting to us at something with deep mystical significance, then we should not expect other folk to be using this fictional 84 year cycle. And yet, it seems to have been pretty standard even outside Jewish circles. To cite Wikipedia on the lunisolar calendar:
    Rome used an 84-year cycle for Easter calculations from the late third century until 457. Early Christians in Britain and Ireland also used an 84-year cycle until the Synod of Whitby in 664. The 84-year cycle is equivalent to a Callipic 4×19-year cycle (including 4×7 embolismic months) plus an 8-year cycle (including 3 embolismic months) and so has a total of 1039 months (including 31 embolismic months). This gives an average of 12.3690476... months per year. One cycle was 30681 days, which is about 1.28 days short of 1039 synodic months, 0.66 days more than 84 tropical years, and 0.53 days short of 84 sidereal years.
    Maybe we can say that they got it from us. After all, we are talking about Easter calculations, and early Christians. But surely Rome had people skilled at astronomy and mathematics. If it really is entirely fictional and does not accord with any kind of calculations, why would they use it, and not simply discard it?

    Therefore, I would not leap to the conclusion that some deep mystical reason exists for the 84 year cycle.

    (The Julian calendar also uses the somewhat inaccurate approximation of 365 1/4 days, just as in PDE, and not in order to obtain some mystically significant result.)

    Another interesting point: In terms of the fictional cycle, perhaps this is why we no longer do the birchat halevana and for the other signs of the zodiac in their tekufah. The standard reason given is that anan lo bekiin, and that has merit, since even as the world at large has better astronomical knowledge, the particular calculations they did may not accord with our modern calculations; or, we might say respectfully that we are not bekiin, when in truth, it was they who were not bekiin. And since we cannot fulfill the law in accordance with the metzius, we fazed these out. More on this later, perhaps.

  3. Also, the Seforim blog has a nice overview on birchat hachammah.

  4. And Yeranen Yaakov has a post describing how one should look at someone named Avraham when reciting kiddush hachammah, and mentions the Ostravtza Gaon on this kiddush hachammah falling on erev Pesach, though misstating the uniqueness of this event.

    Also, whether or not Rabbi Yehuda's position is that birchat hachamah is avodah zarah.

  5. For the event, JNUL has a bunch of kiddush hachammah material. Check it out. In particular, this poster from Chabad. Perhaps I will discuss it later.

  6. Thanbook on liturgies for blessing the sun.

And Even You Shall Break His Teeth, pt iii

See part one and part two.

The next source I would like to consider in terms of the phrase ואף אתה הקהה את שיניו is in parshat Vayechi -- indeed, Bereishit Rabba on that very pasuk that Ramban discussed. Bereishit Rabba in general can be dated to the Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael, but some material might be earlier, and particular the midrash on parshat Vayechi has its issues. Regarding that pasuk, in Bereishit 49:10:
י לֹא-יָסוּר שֵׁבֶט מִיהוּדָה, וּמְחֹקֵק מִבֵּין רַגְלָיו, עַד כִּי-יָבֹא שִׁילֹה, וְלוֹ יִקְּהַת עַמִּים. 10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, as long as men come to Shiloh; and unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be.

Midrash Rabba states:
בראשית רבה (וילנא) פרשת ויחי פרשה צח
לא יסור שבט מיהודה, זה מכיר וגו', ומחוקק מבין רגליו, שבא ונתחבט לפני רגליו, עד כי יבא שילה, זה מלך המשיח, ולו יקהת עמים, שהוא בא ומקהה שיניהם של עובדי כוכבים, ד"א לא יסור שבט מיהודה, זו סנהדרין שהוא מכה ורודה, ומחוקק מבין רגליו, אלו שני סופרי הדיינים שהיו עומדים לפניהם אחד מימין ואחד משמאל, עד כי יבא שילה, נמנו ואמרו הלל משל מי, אמר רבי לוי מגלת יוחסים מצאו בירושלים וכתיב בה הלל מדוד, ר' חייא רבה מן דשפטיה בן אביטל, דבית כלבא שבוע מדכלב, דבית ציצית הכסת מן דאבנר, דבית כובשין מן דאחאב, דבית יצאה מן דאסף, דבית יהוא מן ציפורן, דבית ינאי מן דעלי, רבי יוסי בר חלפתא מן דיונדב בן רכב, רבי נחמיה מדנחמיה התרשתא.
Thus, it is the King Messiah, descended from Judah, who will come and makheh the teeth of the idolators, or perhaps the gentiles. It is not just, as per Ramban, that the meaning of this term might be common between the pasuk and the phrase in the Haggadah. Rather, we have here a midrash that takes the word in the pasuk and expands it into the very same phrase.

What do we imagine the melech haMashiach doing to the idolators. I suppose setting teeth on edge = irritating/scaring them might work. But one can more readily read a more active role for mashiach here, waging war on the nations and breaking/blunting their teeth. And this might be taken literally, in this instance, rather than merely figuratively.

From the same area, but parasha 99 instead of 98:
בראשית רבה (וילנא) פרשת ויחי פרשה צט
ולו יקהת עמים, מי שמקהה שיני כל האומות, שנאמר (מיכה ז) ישימו יד על פה אזניהם תחרשנה,
וְלוֹ יִקְּהַת עַמִּים {the pasuk in Vaychi}-- he who is makheh the teeth of all the nations, for it is stated {Michah 7:16}:
טז יִרְאוּ גוֹיִם וְיֵבֹשׁוּ, מִכֹּל גְּבוּרָתָם; יָשִׂימוּ יָד עַל פֶּה, אָזְנֵיהֶם תֶּחֱרַשְׁנָה. 16 The nations shall see and be put to shame for all their might; they shall lay their hand upon their mouth, their ears shall be deaf.
Once again, this would appear to be a reference to the melech hamashiach, and he is doing this to the nations. Based on the prooftext in Michah, this would seem even more literal, even if only as an intermediate step for the sake of the allegory. That is, putting their hands upon their mouth seems a reaction to his breaking or blunting their teeth.

Even so, in the context of the haggadah, it would not be intended literally, but rather that the leader is being severe in his verbal response and thus is as if breaking the teeth of the rasha.

While we are analyzing Midrash Rabba, we might as well consider a source in Bamidbar Rabba about that phrase:
במדבר רבה (וילנא) פרשת במדבר פרשה ב
יג ד"א והיה מספר בני ישראל א"ר ברכיה הכהן ברבי והיה מספר הסופר כמספר התורה נתבקש להם שכך אמר להם ע"י משה ברוך תהיה מכל העמים הוי והיה מספר בני ישראל כחול הים משלן בעפר משל בכוכבים בעולם הזה הם משולים כעפר מה עפר הארץ עשוי דייש לכל באי עולם כך ישראל עשוים דייש לאו"ה =לאומות העולם= שנאמר (מ"ב =מלכים ב'= יג) כי אבדם מלך ארם וישימם כעפר לדוש, ד"א מה עפר הארץ אם אינו נמצא אין אדם מתקיים אם אין עפר אין אילנות ואין תבואה כך אם אין ישראל אין העולם מתקיים שנא' (בראשית כב) והתברכו בזרעך כל גויי הארץ, בעוה"ז הם משולים כעפר לימות המשיח הם משולים לחול הים מה דרכו של חול מקהה שיניו כך ישראל לימות המשיח מכלין כל האומות שנאמר (במדבר כד) וירד מיעקב וגו' וכתיב (יחזקאל כה) ונתתי את נקמתי באדום ביד עמי ישראל, ד"א למה משלן כחול מה חול אדם נוטל ממנו מלא קמצו ונותן לעיסה או לתוך התבשיל אין כל בריה יכול לטעמו שהוא מקהה את שיניו כך הם ישראל כל מי שהוא בוזזן או גוזלן בעולם הזה הוא מקהה את שיניו לעתיד לבא למה שהוא קדש שנאמר (ירמיה ב) קדש ישראל לה' ראשית תבואתה כל אוכליו יאשמו רעה תבוא עליהם נאם ה' וכל מי שנוגע בקדשים חייב מיתה
Thus, "why is Israel likened to sand? If one puts a handful of sand into dough or into a cooked dish, no creature is able to taste it, for it would makheh his teeth. So too Israel -- whoever despoils them of steals from them in this world, he is makheh his teeth in the future to come."

Here, it most certainly seems to be literal within the expression, and the expression is to somehow ruin the teeth -- break them or blunt them.

Now, even though this is part of the Midrash Rabbah set, this is likely post-Rashi and post-Ramban. And so even Ramban was an earlier source. Yet, the literal interpretation, on occassion, of this phrase does have fairly early sources, as we have already seen.

Furthermore, in this particular instance, we have exactly the same mashal being made in an earlier, Geonic source. Pesikta Rabbati was composed about 845 CE. And it states:
פסיקתא רבתי (איש שלום) פיסקא יא - יהודה וישראל
ד"א מה עפר הארץ אם אינו אין העולם מתקיימת, אם אין עפר אין אילנות ואין תבואה, כך אם אין ישראל אין אומות העולם מתקיימים והתברכו בזרעך כל גוי /גויי/ הארץ (בראשית כ"ב י"ח), בעולם הזה הם משולים בעפר הארץ לימות המשיח הם משולים בחול הים, מה דרכו של חול מקהה שיני אדם כך ישראל לימות המשיח מכלים את כל האומות וירד מיעקב והאביד שריד מעיר (במדבר כ"ד י"ט) וכן נתתי נקמתי באדום ביד עמי ישראל (יחזקאל כ"ה י"ד), לעתיד לבא משולים בכוכבים מה הכוכבים מזהירים ברקיע כך הם לעתיד לבא והמשכילים יזהירו כזוהר הרקיע וגו' (דניאל י"ב ג'). ד"א למה משולים כחול הים מה חול הים אדם נוטל הימנו מלא קומצו ונותן לתוך העיסה או לתוך התבשיל ואין בריה יכולה לטעמה שמקהה שיניו כך ישראל כל מי שגוזלם או בוזזם בעולם הזה הוא מקהה שיניו לעתיד לבא, למה, מפני שהם קודש וכל הנוגע בהם מתחייב
Thus, this source is fairly early. It still would seem to be post-Talmudic, so maybe we should heed the Tannaitic and Talmudic sources first; but still, it bears out my earlier point that the phrase was used in different generations, and quite possibly in different ways. And the haggadah as initially written might have intended one of them, but just perhaps the haggadah becomes whatever people interpret it to be.

The same mashal appears in this source:

ספרי דאגדתא על אסתר - מדרש פנים אחרים (בובר) נוסח א פרשה א
[ויבז בעיניו]. משל למה הדבר דומה, לעוף שקינן על שפת הים, עמד הים וצף את הקן, בא העוף לקינו ולא מצאו, מה עשה התחיל ומילא פיהו מים והקיאו ליבשה, והיבשה לים, א"ל כו' סוף כמה תוסיף לעולם לא תחמי, ולא עוד אלא שישראל משולין לעפר, מלמד שאם אין עפר אין תבואה, ואם אין ישראל אין העולם מתקיים, שנאמר אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה וגו' (ירמיה לג כה), ועוד נמשלו ישראל לחול, שאם מילא אדם קדירה אוכלין והשליך בה מלוא קומצו חול, מקהה שיניו של אוכלו, וכן כל הנוגע בישראל תקהינה שיניו, שנאמר כל אוכליו יאשמו (ירמיה ב ג).

I am not sure what source this is. Is this Tannaitic? If so, that would be quite helpful, and goes against what I said earlier. Can someone help fill me in with details about this midrash?

The next midrashic source is Eliyahu Zuta, redacted about 10th century CE:

אליהו זוטא (איש שלום) פרשה כד
אבל אדם [אף על פי] שמעבירין (ומכעסין) [עליו טכסיסין] ומת מעמידין אותו לדין (ומאירין) [ומראין] לו כל מעשיו ודנין אותו עליהם, (ובכך) [וכך] היה בוכה ר' יוחנן בשעת פטירתו, אמרו לו תלמידיו, אם אתה בוכה רבינו אנחנו מה תהא עלינו, אמר להם, בני לא אבכה שמעמידין (אותו) [אותי] לדין (ומאירין) [ומראין] לי את מעשי ודנין אותי עליהם, ולא עוד אלא (שאומר) [שאומרים] לי מפני מתו בניך בחייך, ולא זכיתי לתיקונו של עולם, ולא די לו (לעולם) [לאדם] שמתין בניו בחייו אלא שדנין אותו עליהם, וכך אמר דוד בספר תהלים אל תשליכני לעת זקנה (/תהלים/ ע"א ט') (אמרה) [אמר] לפניו, רבש"ע אל תרפה ידי מן התורה ומן המצות, ככלות כחי אל תעזבני (שם /תהלים ע"א/) [אמר לפניו, רבש"ע] אל תקהה [את] שיניי בבניי [ובנותי], מכאן אתה למד שכל מי שמתין לו בניו בחייו שיניו (כהות) [קהות] ועיניו כהות (וכהה) [וכחו] כהה, לכך נאמר הכל הבל.

This perhaps touches on the pesukim in Yechezkel and Yirmeyahu relating to fathers and sons, and the idea developed in Sotah 49a -- that the deaths of the children are figuratively KHH the teeth of the person. At least, that is the intent of the expression as used in the first half of the statement; but then, from mikan ata omer in the second half of the statement, what is being derived appears to be intended literally -- that as a result of the death, his teeth literally are kehot. What that means, blunt or set on edge, I do not know. However, I would guess that it means blunt. This based on context -- we are discussing אל תשליכני לעת זקנה, and the other signs in context are signs of aging -- dimming eyes and fading strength. We should expect something similar for teeth, and this would be blunting of the teeth, rather than some sort of emotional reaction.

One final example of a literal reading can be found in the Chiddushei haRashba, where he cites Rabbenu Chananel. The gemara in Bava Batra 80a reads:
[IF HE BUYS] THE [ANNUAL] ISSUE OF A BEEHIVE, HE TAKES [THE FIRST] THREE SWARMS; AND [THE SELLER MAY THEN] EMASCULATE [THOSE REMAINING]. Wherewith does he emasculate them? — Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: With mustard. In Palestine it has been stated, in the name of R. Jose b. Hanina: It is not the mustard that emasculates them but the excessive quantities of honey, which the bitterness in their mouths [caused by the mustard], makes them consume.
How, exactly, does the mustard mesares the bees? Rashba explains:

חידושי הרשב"א מסכת בבא בתרא דף פ עמוד א
פירות כוורת נוטל שלשה נחילין ומסרסן. פר"ח ז"ל דרך הדבורים לבנות בכוורות חלות נקובות ובאותן הנקבים הדבורים מולידין, וכשמתגדלין ופורחין ממלאין הדבורים אותן הנקבים דבש, ועוד אוכלות הדבש ומגדלין בהן דבורים, ופי' שמואל מסרס ששנינו במשנה כך הוא, מאכיל הדבורים חרדל וכח החרדל מקהה שני הדבורים ואינן יכולות לרעות בשדה וחוזרות ואוכלות הדבש שבנקבים שעל החלות, וכיון שמתפנים הנקבים מן הדבש חוזרות הדבורים ומגדלות בהן דבורים, וזהו פירוש מסרס, ור' יוחנן אמר נוטל שלשה נחילים במסרס, פי' נוטל אחד ומניח אחד

That is, there is honey in the chambers in the beehive, which the bees fill, and bees consume. And Shmuel is explaining that the mesares we find in the Mishna is as follows: He feels the bees mustard {seed}, and the power of the mustard is mahkeh the "teeth" of the bees and they are not able to graze {for pollen} in the field, and so they return and consume the honey in the holes in the chambers, etc.

Here, it seems fairly clear that this is intended literally, and is something that physically affects the teeth.

Now, getting a bit into the zoology in analyzing this rabbinic source (just as Rabbi Slifkin does), we can ask that just as elephants cannot jump, bees do not have teeth! See here, because I am lazy, but I would assume that other more weighty sources would back me up. Now this is not Chazal, but rather Rabbenu Chananel and Rashba's interpretation of Chazal, and it is quite possible that neither one of them dissected a bee. After all, not everyone learns in the manner of Rav Chaim Kanievsky, who studies grasshoppers to arrive at the proper peshat in a gemara, or Rambam, about chagavim.

Another possibility, that would work out well with the scientific facts, is that teeth are not meant, but rather the bee's mandibles. These are not teeth, and they do not seem to use it to chew food. However, they do use them to bite into flower parts to release pollen, and so the description from Rashba quite nicely accords with the reality out in the field.

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin