You mean you *still* call this an apocalypse?!

Nava at Dreaming of Moshiach is standing firm in the Tzaddik Nistar's prediction, despite the fact that Rosh Chodesh Sivan has come and gone without incident. This despite her previously admitting "surprise" when her previous prediction, the apocalypse on Rosh Hashanah, failed to surface. Much as her prediction of nuclear holocaust several years back failed to surface.

I see she edited some of what she wrote, to make it shorter, so I will cite her post in its present state, though I will also analyze part of what was taken out.

Critical Moments

Unfortunatley, some people just don't get it -- the warning to come to Eretz Israel has NOT been extended. The deadline to come to Israel safely was Rosh Chodesh Sivan 5769!!!!!!

To better understand the crucial situation, I'll give an example from our holy Torah. When HKB'H ordered Noach HaTzaddik, zs'kl, to enter the ark with his family and all the animals, the flood did not begin on that day. People continued mocking Noach HaTzaddik even as he entered the ark.

SEVEN days after the deadline, it began drizzling but this clear sign did not stir the people. When the drizzle turned into rain, people continued to ridicule Noach HaTzaddik's warnings. By the time people realized the rain turned into a catastrophic world-wide flood, it was too late...

WAKE UP MY FRIENDS!!!!!

How many signs to you need to see in order to realize that something cataclysmic is arriving? Get out while you still can!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There's no time. The decree began 3 days before Rosh Chodesh Sivan with a 30 day margin. It can happen tonight, in 7 days... the maximum amount of time it will transpire is within 26 days! It will happen -- this is NOT a false alarm!!!!

At any given moment from Rosh Chodesh Sivan, it can strike!!!

Many of you that will choose to remain in the diaspora, c'v, after it will strike, will not be able to sit behind a computer and mock that this warning was bugos!!!!!!!! KNOW that if you mocked and ridiculed the warning, for my part you are completely forgiven!!!!

If you cannot leave the diaspora for whatever reason, use these precious moments to do Teshuva, return to HKB'H.

The thing is, to say it has not been extended, and then to turn around and say that there is a thirty day wiggle room, is self-contradictory. By Noach, there is a midrash that it extended for an extra seven days to allow for the burial of Metushelach. That does not mean that every such deadline has some wiggle room.

Moshe gave Pharaoh warnings of impending plagues. Did those arrive a week or a month later than when Moshe said? Indeed, Moshe said about midnight, so that if the mitzrim were a bit off in their counting, they would not be able to claim that Moshe was incorrect, if it arrived (so they thought) a minute after midnight.

Yes, they mocked Noach as he entered the teva, according to midrash. And they laughed at Newton, and Galileo. But the also laughed at Bozo the clown. And not everyone who is mocked is in the right.

At any rate, we should now really set up another clock, this time for 26 days from now. I am truly curious to see what Nava will say at that point!

I have a clue what she will say. My guess is that she will treat it as a step towards geulah. In the portion she removed, or didn't -- it keeps popping in and out for me -- she already started saying how significant events happened on that day, such as:

ON ROSH CHODESH SIVAN, May 24...
* 6th Yeshiva closed due to the recent swine flu outbreak
* Russia dumps U.S. Dollar and adopts the Euro as reserve currency.
* North Korea defiantly conducted its second and more powerful nuclear test

Nothing happens coincidentally, everything has an indication, we just have to observe the connections.

WAKE UP MY FRIENDS!!!!!

Get out while you still can!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The answer to this is that, whether or not these particular items are true as written (e.g. this was reported by Pravda on last Wednesday, the 20th, so it could not have happened Russia on Rosh Chodesh Sivan, the 25th), it does not matter.

We live in an information age, where local and national news from all over the globe is instantly available, and in an age with the media trying to sell papers by increasing the drama. Some time last year, the AP published an article titled "Everything Seemingly Is Spinning out of Control", with a subtitle of "Out-of-control weather, gas prices, economy chip away at American self-confidence." Read this article for a counter-argument.

As a result of this overblown media hype, OpinionJournal's Best of the Web made Everything Seemingly Is Spinning out of Control a regular feature. They take the crazy things that happen mamesh bechol yom and lump it under that category. Whatever their point is, the point to my mind is that anyone can latch onto any random events and claim that a particular day was supremely meaningful. And that, had we had the media resources we have nowadays, 1000 years ago, they would have similarly been able to claim everyday that everything seemingly is spinning out of control.

For example, from the 22nd of May:

"Wind Turbines 'Killed Goats' by Depriving Them of Sleep"--headline, Daily Telegraph(London), May 22

"18-Stone Prostitute Shatters the Peace for Neighbors"--headline, Scotsman, May 22

"Tasmanian Devils Officially Endangered"--headline, Toronto Star, May 22

"Real Soldiers Love Their Robot Brethren"--headline, LiveScience.com, May 22

"With 'Dance Flick,' It's Wall-to-Wall Wayans"--headline, USA Today, May 22

And from April 26-27:

"Closing In on Goat Scrapie"--headline, USDA/Agricultural Research Service press release, April 26

"Shin Bet: 'Pope Mobile' Not Good Enough to Protect Pontiff"--headline, Haaretz, April 26

"Pajama-Clad Toddlers Ransack Neighbor's Home"--headline, WYFF-TV Web site (Greenville, S.C.), April 27

"Waterford Township Winds Blow Chihuahua Away"--headline, Detroit News, April 27

"Obama's Host Dies From 'Flu-Like Symptoms' "--headline, Independent (London), April 27

You call this an apocalypse?!

So Rosh Chodesh Sivan came and went, and the Tzaddik Nistar was shown to be wrong. To recap, he told Nava the following:

Tzaddik Nistar Message to American Jews
July 28, 2008

"American Jews in the Diaspora should begin preparing returning to Eretz Israel - the latest possible date to return to Israel is Rosh Chodesh Sivan, 5769 (May 24, 2009). Those that will not return by that date, will 'miss the boat'"

Now that this day, May 24, 2009, has come and gone, what of it? Was he lying? Was he delusional? Well, this is how Nava has chosen to interpret it, a few hours before Rosh Chodesh Sivan passed:

Countdown Ticking!

Today the deadline Rosh Chodesh Sivan approaches. Those that made it safely to Eretz Israel, count your blessings!!! Israel will be the safest haven when it hits...

It's now a matter of weeks, days, hours, seconds... it could happen as soon as tonight or next week tomorrow morning without a second's notice.

Get out if you can NOW wherever you are in the world ~~~~~~

The deadline quickly approaches and the countdown is ticking.

This is NOT a false alarm!!!!!!!
וקודשא בריך הוא יתער עלייהו אשא וברדא ואבני אלגביש

The clock is no longer ticking. So there is no more warning, seems to be the message. This going, of course, against the autistics who purportedly say that no one knows when it will come, and Rosh Chodesh Sivan is not it, but there will be warning before it comes.

So what happens now? Let us say tomorrow someone travels to Eretz Yisrael? He will have disproved the statement that anyone who has not already arrived has missed the boat.

Here are some flights. From Delta:

Departs Departs	Arrives Arrives	Stops Stops	Travel Time Travel Time	Flights & Cabin (Class)	Price per Passenger (USD) Full trip Price per Passenger (USD) Full trip
5:55pm LGA	5:25pm TLV Arrives 26 May	1-stop Atlanta (1 hr 57 min layover)	16 hr 30 min	Delta 1793 Boeing 757 In-Flight Services Coach (Y) View Seats Delta 152 Boeing 777 In-Flight Services Coach (Y) View Seats	Segment Base Fare $2,781.10 Trip Type full trip + Taxes $14.00 Taxes/Fees = Full Fare $2,795.10

From El Al:

OutBound: New York-Tel Aviv Yafo Mon, May 25	Flexible Economy
dep: 02:05 New York (JFK) arr: 19:50 Tel Aviv Yafo (TLV) El Al Israel Airlines (LY) 10:45 0 stop(s) e flight details	$1,355.10

Let us see if all these flights somehow do not take off, and nobody can get to Israel. If they can, then this is a quick disproof to the Tzadik Nistar.

Meanwhile, attached to her recent post, Nava fleshes out the apocalyptic scenario by including a YouTube video of a crazy woman telling over her apocalyptic dream. To cite the summary of a commenter on that video:

She dreamed about fire shooting out of heaven and people running everywhere (just as is shown in that video). Very loud noises. It all happened very fast. Lots of smoke coming up from the earth. She couldn't comprehend what was happening. There were some people who were crouched down and not looking up who were not hit by the debris. Suddenly there was very quiet among all the noise and destruction. She saw white people landing upon the large white stones that came down from the sky. They came to explain by telepathy what took place. They said that she and those others are the only one's who survived. (The fellow at the end was a little cut off but he began to say that her dream related to the war of "gog and magog".) Shalom, may the Lord have mercy on us and the world. Shalom to your soul.

(You can learn more about this baalas teshuva, Saada, on this video.) This false prophecy is not without repercussion. Nava herself was persuaded by this crazy Tzaddik Nistar, and moved to Israel. I hope it all works out well for her there, but that is a major life change with all sorts of possible negative repercussions, on the say-so of this one person, who was in error!

I have seen on the web (link taken down by request) someone who was similarly persuaded a while back, and now regrets it:

I am going to dedicate exactly one post to this subject and no more as my feelings are very strong about this as these messages have had a direct and tangible effect on my life (basically, one of my former Rabbis in Israel told me that I would be dead in 5 years if I didn’t make aliyah immediately).

This is perhaps something to think about before you go rushing off shouting to others that the sky is falling, or before you assume that there is no harm in this expression of emunah.

Update: See how Nava tries to rationalize. I'll comment on how and why this is silly a bit later.

The rules of trup, pg v

The Rules of Trup by Wolf Heidenheim continues. See previous segment. He now begins chapter two, in which he distinguishes the melachim from the mesharsim, and describes which ones are not considered melachim because of their small number. The text of his work follows:

Chapter II

The distinction between the taamim {=melachim; disjunctive accents} and the meshartim {conjunctive accents}

That which distinguishes between the taam and the mesharet is that the taam rests without a mesharet, such as in {the first word of Torah} בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית {with a tipcha}, while there is no mesharet without a taam. Because it is not possible for a mesharet to stand without a taam, it is therefore called a mesharet {servant}.

One cannot set a taam to be a mesharet nor a mesharet to be a taam except for the shalshelet, in the three {poetic} books, Iyov, Mishlei, and Tehillim, where sometimes it is a taam and sometimes a mesharet. But in the 21 {prose} books, it is only found in 7 places, and there at the beginning of the verse, with a pesik {vertical bar} after it, and they are {see also my post here}

1. In Bereishit 19:16 וַיִּתְמַהְמָהּ
   
2. In Bereishit 24:12, וַיֹּאמַר
3. In Bereishit 39:8, וַיְמָאֵן
4. In Vayikra 8:23, וַיִּשְׁחָט
   
5. In Yeshaya 13:8, וְנִבְהָלוּ
   
6. In Amos 1:2, וַיֹּאמַר
7. In Ezra 5:15, וַאֲמַר-לֵהּ

(And so does it say in the masoret, in parshat Tzav, "there are 7 words with the trup of Mar'imin and Peseikin {=Shalshelet followed by paseik}".)

And since they are in {small, finite} number, they are not counted either to the taamim nor to the meshartim.

And so too the segolta (and there are those who call it shari} which is three dots, is not enumerated either with the taamim nor the meshartim, for it only comes after the zarka, and if not for the zarka, the segolah would not come, and wherever the zarka comes, the segolah comes after it, with the exception of

Apocalypse? Bring it on!

More and more these days, I empathize with the doubters in the days of Yirmeyahu. One of the navi Yirmeyahu's biggest struggles was with some of the people of his time thinking him a navi sheker. This may be due, in part, to his opening prophecy, which seems to be about an invasion from the mishpechot Tzafon that was historically likely when he gave it, but did not come to pass. (See Yeshaya Leibowitz about this.) And see Yirmeyahu's contention with Chanania ben Azzur, and throughout the struggles against false prophets with opposite messages.

So some people doubted that Yirmeyahu's predictions of doom and gloom would come to pass. And so we see, in sefer Yirmeyahu, 17:14 and on:

יד רְפָאֵנִי ה וְאֵרָפֵא, הוֹשִׁיעֵנִי וְאִוָּשֵׁעָה: כִּי תְהִלָּתִי, אָתָּה.	14 Heal me, O LORD, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved; for Thou art my praise.
טו הִנֵּה-הֵמָּה, אֹמְרִים אֵלָי: אַיֵּה דְבַר-ה, יָבוֹא נָא.	15 Behold, they say unto me: 'Where is the word of the LORD? let it come now.'
טז וַאֲנִי לֹא-אַצְתִּי מֵרֹעֶה אַחֲרֶיךָ, וְיוֹם אָנוּשׁ לֹא הִתְאַוֵּיתִי--אַתָּה יָדָעְתָּ; מוֹצָא שְׂפָתַי, נֹכַח פָּנֶיךָ הָיָה.	16 As for me, I have not hastened from being a shepherd after Thee; neither have I desired the woeful day; Thou knowest it; that which came out of my lips was manifest before Thee.
יז אַל-תִּהְיֵה-לִי, לִמְחִתָּה; מַחֲסִי-אַתָּה, בְּיוֹם רָעָה.	17 Be not a ruin unto me; thou art my refuge in the day of evil.
יח יֵבֹשׁוּ רֹדְפַי, וְאַל-אֵבֹשָׁה אָנִי--יֵחַתּוּ הֵמָּה, וְאַל-אֵחַתָּה אָנִי; הָבִיא עֲלֵיהֶם יוֹם רָעָה, וּמִשְׁנֶה שִׁבָּרוֹן שָׁבְרֵם.	18 Let them be ashamed that persecute me, but let not me be ashamed; let them be dismayed, but let not me be dismayed; bring upon them the day of evil, and destroy them with double destruction.

I would understand this as that the people are sick of hearing his prophecies, and tell him to "put up or shut up." Thus, he characterizes it in pasuk 15 as 'Where is the word of the LORD? let it come now.'

That is, you keep telling us to repent to avoid the impending doom. We challenge you to produce it? Where is the word of the LORD you keep promising us? Bring it on!

His response to them is they surely will not like it, when it actually does come. And feeling hurt by this challenge, he turns to Hashem and actually asks him to bring these prophecies into being. That'll show them!

In pasuk 16: "As for me, I have not hastened from being a shepherd after Thee; neither have I desired the woeful day; Thou knowest it; that which came out of my lips was manifest before Thee." That is, he didn't ask for the job, nor avoids it. He is only repeating to the Israelites what Hashem is telling him to say. And when saying the dire prophecies of doom, it was not because he desired the woeful doe. But if Hashem does not bring it, he will be labeled a false prophet. (Even though there are terutzim of Hashem reconsidering threats of woe.)

In pasuk 17: "Be not a ruin unto me; thou art my refuge in the day of evil." That is, LORD, don't fail me now! Come through for me!

And in pasuk 18: "Let them be ashamed that persecute me, but let not me be ashamed; let them be dismayed, but let not me be dismayed; bring upon them the day of evil, and destroy them with double destruction." Who will win this contest? Yirmeyahu, when Hashem brings upon them the day of evil. Then they will be ashamed, and not he.

But a navi sheker who thinks himself a navi emet could grapple with the same issues, and likely get similar reaction from the people. Should a reaction to a navi sheker from the populace be condemned? I would guess not.

*Implications* of the dots on veAharon

The other day, I noted the dots over "veAharon" and considered various explanations. Backed by a midrash or two, I suggested the existence of a variant text which the masoretic scribes were trying to account for, in which veAharon was missing. And then, I indeed discovered that variant text, missing veAharon, in the Samaritan Torah. 

This is not merely a nice, and likely true, explanation is an interesting textual feature. Rather, there are some interesting possible ramifications of adopting such a position. 

For example, many interpret the Rambam's 8th ikkar of emunah to be that not a letter or word of Torah has changed from the time it was given, in the strictest sense. (Read up that principle here; it might just mean that Moshe did not innovate anything of his own, rather than it being Torah min hashamayim) Yet if what I suggested is true, the strict interpretation does not hold true, for here is a word they were willing to consider was not original.

Another possible ramification is to the age of trup. As Shadal proved, many medieval meforshim understood the trup to be the work of some intelligent human author, conveying his own opinions, rather than being miSinai. And therefore, they felt free to argue with it. Meanwhile, other rabbinic figures saw fit to ascribe Sinaitic origin to the trup.

If trup were miSinai, then there should be no question here. Look at the pasuk: there is a darga on Moshe and a tevir on veAharon. The former accent is the mesharet of the latter. And the darga would not appear without a tevir. If the trup had been set from Sinai, then there should have been no question about the word. Unless somehow two parallel versions of the trup had developed, something more difficult than a scribe merely mistakenly adding or deleting a word...

The kametz in the zakef on tikkach

On Bemidbar 3:47, there is a slight irregularity in the nikkud on one word. The word tikkach would normally have a patach rather than the kametz which is present. With the kametz, it is a pausal form of the word. This had no impact on meaning, but it is an ornate form of the word usually found at a major pausal juncture, most often the sof pasuk and the etnachta.

Yet the trup on the word tikkach is zakef katon! This is out of the ordinary, but not so much so that it never happens. When this occurs, a masoretic note (as exists here, with that little hollow circle referring to it) will indicate a kametz in a zakef.

In this particular instance, I can understand on logical grounds why the author of trup would indicate such a level of pause. There are three independent thoughts in this pasuk, which can even stand independently on the level of syntax, and Esrim Gera Hashekel deserves to be off on its own. This makes it almost as if there are two etnachtas in this pasuk, reflecting this.

The alternative to this is to claim (as Shadal has done elsewhere) that the trup and the nikkud reflect two different traditions in this case, one with the etnachta on tikkach, and one with the etnachta on lagulgolet.

It would be interesting to do a study on all these instances of pausal forms on zakef, and see if any consistent theory can emerge. Indeed, someone probably has already done this, but I simply did not hear of it...

Posts so far for parshat Bemidbar

2010

1. Bemidbar sources -- revamped, with over 100 meforshim on the parasha and haftara.
   a
2. What is bothering Rashi? Why specify nesiim? Rashi appears to make a rather simplistic statement, and so his supercommentators trip over themselves trying to explain just what is bothering Rashi, and why he should go out of his way to point out the obvious. But they arrive at an incorrect solution. Here, I offer just what is motivating Rashi, and how Rashi is very much a pashtan, rather than the darshan they end up making him.
   a
3. What is bothering Rashi? part ii -- After composing the previous post, I saw that Aish HaTorah posted a selection from Rabbi Dr. Avigdor Bonchek on the same topic, how to understand this particular Rashi, about the nesiim. My comments is interspersed with the text of his article. Much I like, but some I disagree with.
   a
4. How the Jews merited mattan Torah -- Trying to trace a midrash, and its meaning. As far as I can tell, the idea that they traced their lineage via sifrei yuchsin is a late midrash, and the midrash itself tells us the import.

2009

1. Bamidbar sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, and links to many meforshim on the parshah and haftarah.
   
   
2. Was Nadav, or Aharon, the firstborn? An analysis of the role of a pasek. Baal Haturim claims that this is to associate habechor with Aharon, and not with Nadav, who died childless. I disagree with Baal Haturim as to its purpose, and I bring pesukim to prove it.
   
   
3. Two faced humans -- as a quick followup to the two hundred foot tall, two-headed hermaphrodites envisioned for yemos hamashiach in a previous post, here a Zohar about Adam and Chava intially one.
   
   
4. The dots over Aharon, the meaning of Rashi's explanation according to the supercommentaries, and how really their purpose is to mark the word's doubtful status. The Samaritan Torah omits the word veAharon. And in a followup post, the implications of such an approach, in terms of ikkarei emunah and in terms of the age of trup.
   
   
5. The pasek between Moshe, and Aharon and his sons: Once again I disagree with Baal HaTurim. Simply put, that is no pasek. It is an entirely expected munach legarmeih, and so does not shout out darsheini!
   
   
6. The krei of kru'ei. Baal HaTurim ascribes it to the presence of Zimri. Unsatisfied with that answer, I explore other possibilities.
   
   
7. The kametz in the zakef on tikkach -- and why the variant nikkud makes so much sense.

2008

1. Bemidbar Sinai: Why mention it, and how is it different from Behar Sinai? Is it to date it, to distinguish it from Behar Sinai, just the standard way of beginning a Biblical book, or something else?
   
   
2. How the sums of two separate censuses can be identical -- as per Shadal, and my expansion upon him.
   
   
3. Eleph as military unit -- rather than thousand. And how this would shrink the number of Israelites in the desert to non-miraculous size. And in the comment section, why I don't find this necessarily compelling, nor am I troubled by the initial "problem".
   

2007

• In the presence of Aharon their father
• whether this phrase is connected to service or death, associated with the beginning or end of the pasuk, and how that interacts with trup. I was about to recreate this post in 2008, but then realized that I had already done it in 2007. One extra point is that the note about redrawing the trup appears to be based on Mendelssohn's Biur.
  
• Mah Inyan Shemitta Etzel Har Sinai
• cross-listed with Behar. I consider Rashi's explanation that this is just one example of many, and then cite Rashbam (echoed by Shadal) on Bamidbar that for the first year, it always said Behar Sinai, and this changes to beMidbar Sinai beOhel Moed once the Mishkan is constructed. Other Rashbams are that the count was to assemble an army to enter Eretz Yisrael.
• haftarat Bamidbar
• How the mashal in the haftara from Hoshea seems ahalachic; how "you will not call me 'my Baal' is a pun; the irregular word vayadaat.

2006

• The Duel Between Deuel and Reuel
• how to account for the discrepancy? Shadal and Cassuto both suggest the name had both letters, but one letter was dropped in different instances, and gives parallels to this. The letters are also similar, so one might intuit a scribal error. The fact that the Septuagint and the Samaritan Torah have opposites, but are consistent across the board, is evidence that these are not attestations of alternate girsaot but rather harmonizations. Finally, I suggest that this was a deliberate change from one theophoric name to another, to eliminate reference to the Egyptian deity Ra.
  I consider other evidence of this in a post on Shelach, about the names of the spies in the parsha.

2005

• Lift Up The Heads
• in its various connotations
  
• cross-listed from Parshat Pinchas: A Real Shlumiel
• Why is Shlumiel ben Tzurishaddai the namesake of all Shlumiels?

2004

• The count as an excel spreadsheet and as a graph

to be continued...

The krei of keru'ei

In Bamidbar 1:16, the word keru`ei is spelled funny, with a yud instead of a vav. I've got nothing. Perhaps it reflects a grammatic form which fell out of favor, with a chirik in that place, but meaning the same thing. Or the matres lectiones were not originally in the words, either in the beginning and end, and this could have been placed in like this before standardization, as we see in other instances (e.g. lo with an aleph, as we encountered recently, or with a heh).

Baal Haturim naturally picks up on it, calling the yud a vav ketiah, a cut-off vav. Thus, the implication may be, it is no yud. All agree it a vav, but it is deficient for some cause. The cause is Shelumiel ben Tzurishaddai, who is the same as Zimri. Compare with the same word קראי by Korach, again a krei / ketiv, but without even a cut-off vav. (Or rather, the word there is with a chirik, but even that is not present.) The reason is that there they were all wicked, whereas here it is just Zimri. Was he a sinner even at this point, though, or is this preemptive?

I have no list of those who treat this form. But we do have Avi Ezer (also pictured above). On the above pasuk, Rashi writes:

טז) אלה קרואי העדה -
הנקראים לכל דבר חשיבות שבעדה:

That is, it is the passive, that they are called (constantly) for every important matter of the congregation.

Ibn Ezra wrote:

[א, טז
קרואי העדה -
הטעם שהעדה לא יעשו דבר עד שיקראום.

Avi Ezer cites this and suggests that according to this, it is correct to explain both the krei and the ketiv in their respective manners. Namely, that the congregation is called by these Nesiim (the yud?), and further, that the Nesiim are called by the congregation (the vav).

Meanwhile, we should compare with Bemidbar 26, in parshas Pinchas.

ט וּבְנֵי אֱלִיאָב, נְמוּאֵל וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם: הוּא-דָתָן וַאֲבִירָם קרואי (קְרִיאֵי) הָעֵדָה, אֲשֶׁר הִצּוּ עַל-מֹשֶׁה וְעַל-אַהֲרֹן בַּעֲדַת-קֹרַח, בְּהַצֹּתָם, עַל-ה.

9 And the sons of Eliab: Nemuel, and Dathan, and Abiram. These are that Dathan and Abiram, the elect of the congregation, who strove against Moses and against Aaron in the company of Korah, when they strove against the LORD;

I did not see this one mentioned in Baal Haturim. Here we have the precise reverse of the former, with a kesiv with the vav and the keri otherwise. Will we now say that the vav was specifically put in because Dasan and Aviram were so holy? Was that not the reverse of what he said on the previous pasuk, in parshas Korach?

Perhaps I can innovate a derash here (for the yud), that they were the ones who called out to, and stirred up, others, in their fight against Moshe and Aharon.

It would seem that it means elect in all cases, but the word takes different forms. But why alternate the krei and ketiv in each of these cases?

Rosh Chodesh Sivan: The day of the apocalypse?

Well, as noted in the past, it is coming up soon -- about three days. Navi was told by a delusional person in America, the "Tzaddik Nistar," that 

"American Jews in the Diaspora should begin preparing returning to Eretz Israel - the latest possible date to return to Israel is Rosh Chodesh Sivan, 5769 (May 24, 2009). Those that will not return by that date, will 'miss the boat'"

and she believed him, going to far as to make aliyah. Now she is literally counting down the seconds to the coming apocalypse:

But it is strange. Just now, she linked approvingly to a site associated with the autistics. And she has provided them space (and translations?) in the past. And here is what Daniel (or rather, the "facilitator" pretending to speak for Daniel) responded to a query about Rosh Chodesh Sivan

10

Q. Dear Daniel, Thank you so much for the opportunity to ask and thank you for your holy work. My question: A date was given of Rosh Chodesh Sivan 2009 for the "deadline" when all Jews should leave America or it will be "too late" for them afterwards. My husband is not ready to leave and both our elderly mothers are not ready to leave. I will not leave on my own just to "save" myself. Is this date accurate and how can American Jews that can not leave survive to be gathered in and greet Mashiach? Thank you so much for answering. May Hashem bless and favor you, your family and your holy messages. Thank you so much for responding. With deep gratitude and respect for your incalculable contribution and help. S.

A. I don't know what the deadline is, I never said a deadline. I know it's soon.
But, there will a very strong warning to the American Jews and other Jews.
There will be a warning and they should think about the warning when it happens, but if your family refuses to go, then you daven to Hashem, and cry to Him, and beg Him, tell Him your difficulty, and I'm sure He will save you with Nissim gedolim (great miracles).

Q. Will there be a warning before the true deadline?
A. Of course. It can't be after the deadline. Nobody really knows the deadline. I know it's soon.

Take that, Tzaddik Nistar! I wonder if she noticed the contradiction, and how she resolves it. Oh well, at least, after Rosh Chodesh Sivan passes without incident, she will be able to continue on with other nonsense to support the sense of impending doom.

Shirat Devorah, to her credit, has a measured response to the prediction. Based on Lubavitch beliefs, there is no obligation for Jews to move to Eretz Yisrael before the coming of mashiach. But just in case, here are a list of direct flights... 

I don't know that a measured is the best response, though...

The pasek between Moshe, and Aharon and his sons: were they each alone?

On Bemidbar 3:38, Baal Haturim points out that there is a pasek (a vertical bar) between Moshe and Aharon and his sons. He explains this as there being Moshe in one place, alone, and Aharon and his sons in another place, alone.

The motivating factor would appear to be the pasuk which calls out "darshen me," for it works on top of trup, often coming between a meshares and its melech.

But doesn't this derasha go against the pasuk? The pasuk intended that those encamped -- chonim, plural, east before the Tent of Meeting were all these people. Then, this divides them. Where and how, precisely? There might be an answer.

My real issue with this interpretation is that that vertical bar is no pasek! The meshares before it is a munach, and it is in the clause of a revii. This is no pasek! Rather, it is the marker of a munach legarmeih, showing that that munach is not a meshares but rather a melech! Unfortunately, various signs are reused by the masoretes, and this can lead to confusion. But this is no pasek.

Would Baal Haturim darshen it if he thought it was not really a pasek? I doubt it. It is no longer "weird," meaning unexpected and out of place. Rather, this is the trup we would expect, exactly where we would expect it. He does not darshen every pashta, or every etnachta. So even though the munach legarmeih marks a stronger division, the entire derasha still falls apart.

Why should there be a munach legarmeih there? The standard rules of continuous dichotomy. Where there are three of more words in a clause, it must be subdivided with a melech appropriate for that context. Since Moshe veAharon uVanav consists of three words, it must be subdivided. And since the sons belonged to Aharon, presumably, and not to Moshe, the proper place to divide it was after the word Moshe.

The dots over Aharon

There is an interesting textual feature in parshat Bemidbar Sinai, in Bemidbar 3:39. On the word "veAharon", there is a dot over every letter.

There is a midrash discussing Ezra's fixing the text of the Chumash. Where he was unsure of whether a word should be present, he put the word in but put dots over the word. To explain, rather than cross out words, scribes put dots over words they accidentally insert, to note that it should be deleted. We see this in various manuscripts. Ezra's reasoning was that if Eliyahu comes and determines that the word should be there, behold, it is in there. And if he comes and complains that the word should not in fact be in there, behold, there are dots over the word!

Elsewhere, a fairly standard method of derasha is that if there are dots over certain letters (specifically a minority), to interpret the word as if those letters were missing.

This seems like a likely explanation of the dots over Aharon -- that there is some standard variant text in which Aharon is missing. And the grammar would not be harmed by deleting Aharon, for pakad is the singular.

I came to this conclusion before checking any variant text. And then I checked, and what follows are my results.

In the Septuagint, Aharon appears. Thus:

39. πᾶσα ἡ ἐπίσκεψις τῶν *λευιτῶν οὓς ἐπεσκέψατο *μωυσῆς καὶ Aαρων διὰ φωνῆς κυρίου κατὰ δήμους αὐτῶν πᾶν ἀρσενικὸν ἀπὸ μηνιαίου καὶ ἐπάνω δύο καὶ εἴκοσι χιλιάδες

However, in the Samaritan Bible, Aharon is indeed missing. Thus, what is pictured to the right. Should we say that this is the "correct" text? No. We should try to evaluate based on other merits, and possibly come to know concrete conclusion, if one is not possible. And that is just what we have in our Masoretic text.

Meanwhile, Rashi notes the dots and explains it based on a gemara in Bechoros. Either he is not familiar with the Samaritan text, or else he is drawn anyway to explain this on traditional, midrashic grounds. Or because this is a fairly old explanation. He writes:

counted by Moses and Aaron: There are dots over the word וְאַהֲרֹן to show that he was not included in the sum of the Levites. [Bech. 4a]

That gemara reads:

לא קשיא כדמר בריה דרב יוסף משמיה דרבא
דאמר פטר רחם בפטר רחם תלה רחמנא ואהרן שלא היה באותו מנין לא ליפקע

דתניא למה נקוד על אהרן שבחומש הפקודים שלא היה באותו מנין

Thus, this explanation goes back at least to Tannaitic times, and the dots go back to Tannaitic times, which makes sense, given how far back the Samaritan Chumash cropped up.

Now, the straightforward reading of Rashi, and of this gemara, is that Aharon was not included in the countees, rather than the counters. This troubles some supercommentaries on Rashi. See Sifsei Chachamim.

Thus, Mizrachi poses this counters / countees issue. And Sifsei Chachamim suggests that Aharon was included in neither. And that was why it bothered to first include it, and then put the dots over it, to be able to teach us this extra point.

I find this unlikely, even within this midrashic explanation. Because there is a difference between giving an extra midrashic twist and making your midrash explicitly contradict a pasuk, and make it a falsehood. By way of comparison, with the dots on Esav's kissing Yaakov, the explanation is put forth that he bit under the guise of kissing. To say that Aharon was nowhere, not even among the counters, is to declare the Torah false. And I do not believe a midrash would do that. Rather, the midrash might be saying that he was there in one respect, namely counting, but there is a pegam in his presence, in that he was not counted.

Update: See also my follow-up post on the implications of my answer of the reason for these dots.

Two faced humans

As a quick followup to the post on last week's parsha, about man being created with two faces, and how Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz took it, I would note that this idea is found in the Zohar, with some of the prooftexts I mentioned, and some others. I believe the capital letters are the translator's insertions:

2. And though it was settled, we must look into this verse: "So Elohim created man in His own image, in the image of Elohim He created him." Since it already said, "His image," why REPEAT AGAIN, "in the image of Elohim He created him"? HE ANSWERS: There were two levels IN THE MAN, SINCE he was composed of male and female. THEREFORE, there is one for the male, THAT IS, "SO ELOHIM CREATED..." and one for the female, THAT IS, "IN THE IMAGE..."

3. And as a result of this, there were assuredly two faces, MALE AND FEMALE, and the end of the verse proves it, since it is written, "male and female He created them" (Ibid.). And he was composed of both aspects. Although the female was attached to his side, she ON HER OWN was also composed of two sides, WHICH ARE CHESED AND JUDGMENT, to be complete in all.

The rules of trup, pg iv

The Rules of Trup by Wolf Heidenheim continues. He now discusses different enumerations of melachim, which ones were or were not considered, and finally turns to discuss the mesharetim. For the forms of these trup, see how they appear on the Hebrew side. Also, see the previous segment.

in chapter 2. And there are those of the early ones who incorporated the shalshelet and the segolta in the count of melachim, even though they do not have the tactics {rules, strategy} of all kingship; and they also divided the Yetiv from the Pashta, and counted it as two. Therefore they set up the number of melachim as 15. And there were some who set it at 16, for they divided further between the two types of Zakef. And there were those who divided also between the two types of Pazer, and therefore set the number of melachim at 17. And there is not in this any distinction at all in the primary laws except in the manner of their explanation. Therefore, we will go in the footsteps of our ancient ones, for they traveled in a path better paved.

And the meshartim {servants} for the taamim are nine. And these are they:
Shofar, and it is divided into three parts. One is the shofar munach and shofar ilui; the second is the shofar karbalta; and the third is the shofar hafuch (this is the mahpach).

And the (4) telisha katana; and (5) azla; and (6) mercha; and (7) darga. (And there are some who call it shishla, as well as shofar galgal.) And (8) me`ayla (and its form is like the form of the tipcha {except this is a mesharet rather than a melech}). And (9) galgal, this is yerach ben yomo.

And even though munach and ilui are similar to one another, those which come before etnachta, zarka, and zakef -- and its mnemonic is Azaz -- are called ilui, while those before the remainder of melachim are munach. And some call the ilui a "shofar yashar" or "shofar holech".

Was Nadav, or Aharon, the firstborn?

In parshat Bemidbar Sinai, there is some interesting trup on a pasuk, which Baal HaTurim comments on. In Bemidbar 3:2, we have the pasuk, and trup, pictured to the right. Note the vertical line right after the word habbechor. What is the meaning of this line? Why not just say that the bechor was Nadav??

The Baal Haturim picks up on this, and he writes what is pictured to the right. Namely, that there is a pasek between habechor and Nadav, to say that it does not refer to Nadav. For Nadav died without children, and there was no purpose to his bechora. Rather, it refers to Aharon, who was the bechor compared to Moshe. (This despite Miriam presumably being older than either.)

Meshech Chochmah cites this Baal HaTurim approvingly, and extends it.

I am not certain how to take this Baal HaTurim. Does he mean this on the level of peshat or derash? Is he claiming that this is the intent of the author of the trup (whether that author is Hashem, or some parshan)? Is he saying this to the exclusion of any other explanation the Baal HaTeamim puts forth? Depending on the answer, I either would view it as a nice and cute derasha or an incorrect peshat.

I can confirm that it is actually a pasek. Even though the trup on the word preceding is a munach, this is not an instance of munach legarmeh (which is orthographically identical). For a munach legarmeih occurs in the clause of a revii, while this is in a clause of an etnachta.

If the Baal HaTurim is saying that this is the only position of the Baal HaTeamim, that he is trying to bind habechor to Aharon rather than Nadav, then I would certainly disagree. Note that there is a tipcha on the word Aharon. If the author of trup really meant what Baal HaTurim claims he did, he would simply have placed the tipcha on the word bechor. Rather, as it stands, tipcha subdivides a clause ending in etnachta, and so the division is into:

"And these are the names of the children of Aharon || the firstborn Nadav"

Any subsequent pasek does not have enough force to redraw these lines, and why draw the lines incorrectly in the first place?

Furthermore, we encounter the same pasek in other places, where it is clear that it does not refer to the preceding person -- once, even with identical trup. Thus, in Divrei Hayamim Aleph we encounter the following three. The first is from perek 2, and is the closest match. One could kvetch some sort of peshat in which the word habechor latches on the Chezron, but there is no need to do this. And this is identical trup to what we have locally in parshat Bemidbar. Rather, it seems that this is the patters.

The next example is from perek 3. The vertical bar after habechor is not a pasek here; rather, it designates the munach as a munach legarmeh. Regardless, there is a division here, perhaps justified by the length of words in the subclause. But habechor is separated a bit from Amnon, and we do not claim that it is supposed to go on Chevron.

The third example is also from perek 3. There is no pasek, but the pashta, rather than munach, on habechor means that it is a dividing trup. And so habechor is separated from Yochanan. There are actually irregularities on this pasuk, because of other pesukim in Yirmeyahu and elsewhere, such that bechor might mean first to kingship rather than age. See the midrashim on this. But still, I don't think that these midrashic explanations are influencing the trup.

Rather, in each instance, if we had a conjunctive, non-dividing trup mark on habechor, one might think for just-an-instance to treat it as the construct form: the firstborn of Nadav. Since it is the bechor, namely Nadav, the dividing accent is appropriate.

William Wickes gives several reasons one would have a pasek. One is the pasek distinctivum, used to make a slight distinction between words. This case would seem to meet the criteria. He also gives paseq emphaticum. Perhaps there might be some reason to highlight the bechor and give extra emphasis. But I would lean towards the first explanation. And Baal Haturim's explanation simply does not work out.

If the rabbi forgets to count, should he say a bracha levatalah the next day?

Note: The following is not well-researched, and is just my musings before looking into whether this has been discussed.

The other day, over at Hirhurim, Rabbi Ari Enkin covered the practice of the rabbi leading the sefirat haOmer for the congregation, and what the basis for this might be. Thus:

Another reason that the rabbi leads the counting of the omer is because one who missed a day and did not count the omer is no longer permitted to recite the blessing when counting the omer on consecutive nights. As such, in order not to embarrass the one leading the services who may have missed a day in the sefira count and would be embarrassed if this information was made public, the rabbi is designated to lead the sefirat ha'omer service, as it is unlikely that he would have missed counting a day of the omer.[2]
[2] Rivevot Ephraim 1:334

If so, we see that this kavod habriyos makes its way into halacha, just as it does in other situations. (E.g. a baal koreh for leining, for vidui maaser, for kiddushin.)

What if the rabbi goes elsewhere during the course of sefirah, and somehow missed a day? The next day in shul, everyone looks expectantly to him to make the bracha. And he is no mere hedyot. The embarrassment of a person is in line with his stature before this. What will people say, that the rabbi missed saying sefirah?

Perhaps, from the rabbi's perspective, since he does not want to make a bracha levatalah, the appropriate and courageous thing to do is declare that he missed a day. He cannot say the bracha anyway, and so he is willing to take the hit in order to do what is right. And that is admirable.

And as Rabbi Enkin notes:

No one should be embarrassed or feel inferior for having missed counting the omer and thereby disqualified from reciting the blessing. We're all only human.

But we also see that that embarrassment is not enough to allow saying a bracha, such that the first line of defense is to preempt by appointing the rabbi in the general case.

Related, is it the case that the rabbi's bracha is not covering anybody? Or does it cover someone? He writes, as another possible reason, that the rabbi, and not ignorant congregants, know the following:

It is explained that the one leading the counting of the omer is supposed to have in mind not to discharge the mitzva on behalf of the congregation in order that they be able to perform the mitzva themselves.

But perhaps the reason for saying the bracha out loud is for someone who can legitimately make the bracha do so in mind for people who are uncertain whether they can make the bracha. If you miss a day, you don't say the bracha, because of a safek that we might pasken like the Behag, that the count needs to be complete, and that this is now lacking. But this is the Behag's surprising chiddush. You might indeed fulfill the mitzvah. To be on the safe side, you don't make the bracha, but still count.

So what if someone -- say the rabbi -- is placed into this situation? The same kavod haberiyot which worked to place him in this situation should work to take him out of the situation. I would not say so in general, for any bracha levatalah. But this case is different, since it is not so clear that it is a bracha levatalah. Rather, it is only within the surprising shita of the Behag, which people are choshesh for. And we don't even extend it to other cases which are akin. (See Aruch haShulchan for this.)

If so, the halacha might well be that the rabbi should make this pseudo- bracha levatalah because of this concern ofkavod habriyos.

After I wrote this, I looked back at the comment section on Hirhurim, and I saw the following:

r' vosner is mechadeish (and rav asher weiss argues) that if the rov missed a day, he can still count with a bracha. if i remember correctly, part of his rationale is kavod habriyos of the rov.

This teaches me to read the comment sections. So I might be on the right track here. If someone can point me to where these sources can be found, we might have a nice followup.

Interesting Posts and Articles #146

1. Chazal say hafoch bah, hafoch bah, dechulah bah. Of course, there is also the danger of misreading what you want into the text. For example, when Chizkuni engaged in Torah uMaddah, for incorrect science, and reads it into a pasuk in Shir Hashirim. In this interesting post, I Life World reads various sources about shedim as referring to aliens.
   
   
2. Are strawberries kosher, despite possible infestation by thrips? Life in Israel notes a pesak by Rav Amar, permitting it, purportedly since one need not be concerned about bugs you can only see with a microscope. Yeranen Yaakov wonders about this, and how to make this fit with the video (also shown here on parshablog) with visible bugs. There might be a dispute as the metzius; or it might be that these bugs only look like specks of dust, where you can only see it is a bug by its movement, or under a microscope. This came into play by copepods. See the discussion in the comment section at Vos Iz Neias. FrumSatire is meanwhile in favor of it.
   
   
3. At BeyondBT, someone asks a question to the public: should he start learning kabbalah?
   
   
4. At A Simple Jew, Rabbi Tanchum Burton grapples with the place of segulos.
   
   
5. Rabbi Lazer Brody posts some ancient Hebrew meditation, which is Tai Chi set to Native American music. The claim:
   

   People ask me if meditation is kosher; if it brings you to cling to Hashem, by all means. In case you don't know, meditation originated with our ancestors, the ancient Hebrews.

   Hebrew meditation is a form of "hitbodedut", or secluded personal prayer where a person yearns to cling to The Almighty with all his or her cognitive faculties, body, and soul. Nothing is so conducive to inner peace as merging with G-d, in the way that a small flame of a candle merges with and completely nullifies itself to a great flame.
   
   ...
   
   The music in this clip is Native American, composed by Grandmother White Eagle, esteemed elder of the Texas Cherokee nation and our very dear friend. Fiercely monotheistic, the Cherokee Nation has its roots in the ten lost tribes of Israel. The lovely native American melodies are therefore strikingly similar to the ancient Hebrew shepherds' flute, conveying a yearning to commune with God, as we see in this sea-side meditation based on the prayer "Nishmat" coupled with a Hebrew Tai-Chi style meditative exercise.

   I don't know that I buy the idea that the Cherokee Nation has its roots in the ten lost tribes. Has anybody done genetic testing to see the connection? Did they have the technology back then to cross the Atlantic? Did ancient Bavel and Ashur know about the new world? In there any similarity in language?
   
   Are they fiercely monotheistic? I think that many have adopted Christianity. But we have:
   

   According to Payne, the Cherokee believed the world to have been created by a number of beneficent beings from an upper world; a similar belief is found among the Sioux people in the form of Wakan Tanka. The Sun and the Moon, having been created by these beings, were left to finish and rule the world, and in turn, according to Payne, were both adored as the Creator (Payne, about 1835, quoted in Mooney:1995 pp.436, 440). Also, the word that Mooney translates as the "great Apportioner" in the origin of strawberries myth, and which he identifies with the Sun, has been said by the Cherokee scholars Jack and Anna Kilpatrick to be used most commonly to designate the "Supreme Being: The Provider"; the identity of the Supreme with the sun is said to be in error, which assertion is supported by Payne's account above which states that Sun and Moon were created.

   So maybe yes, and maybe no.
   
   Also, even if ancient Israelites engaged in meditation, that does not mean it originated with them. And noting there is a word which can be translated as that does not mean that practices are equal and equivalent to Tai Chi.
   

6. A Reform rabbi agrees with R' Elya Svei that Rabbi Lamm is a Sonei Yisroel. But I don't know whether this analysis should be considered sinas chinam. Nor do I think that gemaras discussing appropriate behavior between rabbinic colleagues were even intended to be applied toward other sectarian movements of Judaism.
   
   
7. Geulah Perspectives on Moshiach Now. An excerpt:
   

   You know, I don't think there is anyone who will say that we aren't in a very significant moment in history. As I have said in the past, I do not like to make predictions, and the main reason is because predictions for the near future look rather silly when they do not come true. I honestly think that what is currently going on is heading in a certain direction, and it doesn't take a genius to see. If I am right, it is truly the time for us to start doing more than just talk. It is rather easy to jump from one blog to another and find something to buzz the brain and be excited about. And while it is nice, and I'm sure Hashem is happy that we are looking forward to Moshiach, Hashem wants action. I'm sorry to say this, but it's not worth too much when we sit around for an hour and check every news source to see if Obama is going to be Gog. It's just not. What is worth something is actually doing something.

   To chime in, while I agree with some of what it written, I am willing to say that there is a strong possibility than we are not in a very significant moment in history. Of course, we are living in it, so we tend to inflate our own importance, and our own tragedies and successes. But the same type of analysis that leads to the conclusion that we are in a significant moment in history could be applied successfully to every decade in recorded time.
   
   
8. Check out Wolfram Alpha, a computational knowledge engine.