I'm passing on this email that I received - Harav hamekubal nissim
Shalom dreamt of his grandfather and was told that moshiach is near,
and says that whoever hurries and publicizes this to at least 12
people they will be saved from the birth pangs of moshiach and whoever
doesn't may be subject to a great financial loss please forward
quickly this is a sh'at Ratzon.
Summary: Let me count the ways. It turns out, in two or three ways, not just one. And there might be an over-correction or two in the Yerushalmi and Bavli.
תנו רבנן (דברים יא, ל) הלא המה בעבר הירדן מעבר לירדן ואילך דברי רבי יהודה (דברים יא, ל) אחרי דרך מבוא השמש מקום שחמה זורחת (דברים יא, ל) בארץ הכנעני היושב בערבה אלו הר גריזים והר עיבל שיושבין בהם כותיים (דברים יא, ל)מול הגלגל סמוך לגלגל (דברים יא, ל) אצל אלוני מורה שכם ולהלן הוא אומר (בראשית יב, ו) ויעבר אברם בארץ עד מקום שכם עד אלון מורה מה אלון מורה האמור להלן שכם אף כאן שכם תניא אמר רבי אלעזר ברבי יוסי בדבר זה זייפתי ספרי כותיים אמרתי להם זייפתם תורתכם ולא העליתם בידכם כלום שאתם אומרים אלוני מורה שכם אף אנו מודים שאלוני מורה שכם אנו למדנוה בגזרה שוה אתם במה למדתום
Our Rabbis taught: Are they not beyond Jordan?5 [This means] on the other side of the Jordan and beyond; such is the statement of R. Judah. Behind the way of the coming of the sun6 — the place where the sun dawns.7 In the land of the Canaanites which dwell in the Arabah6 — i.e., mount Gerizim and mount Ebal where the Cutheans8 dwell. Over against Gilgal6 — [this means] near Gilgal.9 Beside the terebinths of Moreh6 — [this means] Shechem. Elsewhere it states: And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Shechem unto the terebinth of Moreh;10 as the terebinth of Moreh mentioned in this latter verse is Shechem, so in the former verse it means Shechem.
It has been taught:11 R. Eleazar son of R. Jose said: In this connection I proved the Samaritan Scriptures12 to be false. I said to them, 'You have falsified your Torah13 but you gained nothing thereby.14 You declare that 'the terebinths of Moreh' means Shechem; we too admit that 'the terebinths of Moreh' means Shechem. We learnt this by an inference from analogy;15 but how have you learnt it!'16
Note that the pasuk in Reeh, in Devarim 11:30, refers to אלוני מורה, in the plural, while the one in Bereishit 12:6 refers to עד אלון מורה, in the singular. It is not necessarily clear that these are the same place, such that we may simply rely on identical place names and the juxtaposition of Shechem in Bereishit informs us about the place in Devarim. (See also Nachalas Yaakov on Rashi, that there were multiple such places, and other meforshei Rashi wondering where he got this idea from.)
In Talmud Yerushalmi, Sota 30b, we have a parallel sugya.
אמר ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון נמייתי לסופרי כותים זייפתם תורתכם ולא הועלתם לעצמיכם כלום. שכתבתם בתורתכם אצל אלוני מורהשכם. והלא ידוע שהוא שכם אלא שאין אתם דורשין לגזירה שוה ואנו דורשין לגזירה שוה. נאמר כאן אלוני מורה ונאמר להלן אלוני מורה. מה אלוני מורה האמור להלן שכם אף אלוני מורה האמור כאן שכם.
They have the Samaritan Sefer Torah saying "Eitzel Elonei Moreh, Shechem". Thus, the only change in Shechem. But then something strange. The derasha, the gezera shava, is that it says here "Elonei More" and it says there "Elonei Moreh".
But in one of those places (presumably the second one listed), it actually states "Elon Moreh", not "Elonei Moreh". Some scribe over-corrected it would seem.
What do the Samaritans actually have in their present Sifrei Torah? This is where it gets interesting. From Vetus Testamentum:
First, note the additional word מול before Shechem. This indicates that they understand מול הגלגל in the previous statement in a similar manner to the way the gemara understands it.
Second, note that they changed אלוני, in the plural, to אלון, in the singular. They keep the singular, like us, in Lech Lecha. Thus, they did not only add two words, מול שכם, but changed the plural to singular to make the place names match.
I wonder, then, if the Yerushalmi (and Bavli as well) originally had the quote from the Samaritan Pentateuch correct, but scribes corrected it. We see in the Yerushalmi that there was one over-correction of אלון to אלוני. Perhaps this was prompted by an earlier, more straightforward correction, from שכתבתם בתורתכם אצל אלון מורה שכם to אלוני. Though that would then be a faulty correction prompting the over-correction.
Re'eh sources -- I improve this from year to year. I gather a nice group of meforshim on the parsha and haftarah, and link to a mikraos gedolos, by perek and aliyah. This is a very useful starting point for learning through the parsha with meforshim. In subsequent years, I added more meforshim. This year, I added even more, in several different categories. For instance, there are many more meforsheiRashi and even a few manuscripts of Rashi. .
How has the eved ivri served you 'twice as much as a hired servant'? Considering the approaches of a group of meforshim on this phrase, and pasuk. Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Caspi, Seforno, Rashbam, and Shadal. While I add a bit of my own analysis to Rashbam's analysis, the topic is not yet settled in my mind, so I don't end up taking sides. Plus, in the comment section, Rav Chaim Kanievsky's take on the issue. .
The movement of the Shalach -- Targum Yonasan on Re'eh is unduly influenced by the Targum and pasuk in parashat Shemini. Or is it working from a Samaritan text? Based in part on a comment in Taama de-Kra, from Rav Chaim Kanievsky. .
The hyrax as ruminant -- in which I explain, in a systematic manner, how to read the pasuk in this week's parasha with shafan as hyrax, even if hyrax is not a true ruminant, but ancient people just thought it was. And in the comment section, a lot of discussion, given video evidence that it is actually maaleh gerah, brings up the already chewed food, to rechew, in that it practices merycism.
2010
The Gra on the trup of asser ta'aser -- Part of a series focusing on the Vilna Gaon's interpretation of trup, this one focuses on the pasuk in Re'eh, 'asser te'asser, and works the trup into the famous derasha on those words. -
The trup on acharei derech mevo hashemesh -- An analysis of the trup on acharei derech mevo hashemesh, according to Rashi, Rashbam, and Shadal. Does Rashi have a complete theory of trup? -
The other side of the Jordan -- A pasuk which must have been written in the midbar. What about the reference to Gilgal, then? -
Hashem testing you with false signs, or is this just dibra Torah kilshon bnei Adam? The Torah indicates that the signs of a false prophet of idolatry are really simply Hashem testing you, which seemingly indicates that the signs are real, and that Hashem would mislead in this way. While theologically possible, is this indeed so? Ibn Caspi gives another way, in which this is a (near-) false statement in the Torah, for the hamon am who would not otherwise understand. -
Korbanos as compromise -- Ibn Caspi. If so, do we really desire them in messianic times? -
How did the Samaritans falsify their Torah?
Let me count the ways. It turns out, in two or three ways, not just one. And there might be an over-correction or two in the Yerushalmi and Bavli.
In 2009, in Re'eh sources, I gather a nice group of meforshim on the parsha and haftarah, and link to a mikraos gedolos, by perek and aliyah. This is a very useful starting point for learning through the parsha with meforshim.
In Why shouldn't we eat the chassidah, I consider the gemara which explains its traits, and draw a rationalist / non-rationalist distinction regarding timtum halev in whether to agree with the Kotzker Rebbe's premise that the bird would only be non-kosher if its had an undesirable trait.
In A good friend will help you move; a true friend will help you move the body, I manage a tie-in to the parsha, in that a meisis to Avodah Zarah who is a friend who is like your soul should nevertheless be reported rather than concealed. The main body of the post consists of tracing the history of story which appeared in Rabbi Bibi's article in the Jewish Star, about how none of the youngster's friends would assist him when he came to them claiming that he had killed someone, but his father's half-a-friend did.
In The target of Re'eh, I grapple with why Re'eh is singular but the remainder of the verse is plural. Ibn Ezra says it is distributive; Ibn Caspi suggests it refers to the entire nation, and Avi Ezer says that it is a ziruz and hazmana and thus does not take gender or number.
In Why specifically the son of your mother?, I continue on a point started last year (2008) about "your brother, the son of your mother." Ibn Ezra's remarks seem to contain some cryptic, philosophical derash. Avi Ezer dismisses this idea and provides a straightforward explanation, but I would side with Mechokekei Yehuda and Ibn Caspi who say otherwise. However, I don't think I agree with the substance of their interpretation of Ibn Ezra's philosophical derash.
In Chizkuni and You are not *Able* to Eat, I consider Chizkuni's explanation of Rashi's midrashic remarks about the identity of the Yevusi, in different places as descendants of the Chiti with whom Avraham dealt when purchasing the Cave of the Patriarchs, or as descendants of Avimelech. I disagree with him in one or two points.
In Rav Papa Stumbles, I consider a curious gemara in which Rav Pappa's stumbling upon a ladder is blamed on possible lack of charity. I consider the Gra's tie-in to the names of the trup symbols on a pasuk, but then give an explanation I believe is more likely, based on the symbolism of ladders.
In Why pour out the blood like water, I consider the explanation of Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz, and then my own suggestion on the level of peshat, that it is spilling it rather than sprinkling it on the mizbeach.
In Who Was The Baal HaTurim's Woman, I consider just who she was. I have reasons to doubt Rabbi Akiva Eiger's explanation that it is a reference to Mary and her son, and instead believe that he is referring to the Intellect.
In 2008, in Shadal on Tithes, I note an interesting explanation Shadal has about tithes -- that there is only one, which is to be eaten in Jerusalem. And that at the end of the third year, if the produce has not been eaten in Yerushalayim, it should be distributed to the Levi or to the pauper. Shadal claims that the practice of giving all the produce of that year to the pauper rather than taking it to Yerushalayim is a rabbinic enactment so that people should not lie to the paupers and tell them that it was all already consumed in Yerushalayim. And the Biblical vidui maaser is also to ensure that the maaser is distributed correctly, for people would not lie to God.
In Would Hashem Empower A False Prophet, I discuss an interesting theological question which relates to a sequence of psukim in Reeh. If a false prophet makes an os or mofes, and it comes to pass, yet he says to worship idols, we do not believe him. This, states the next verse, is Hashem testing us. Does this mean that Hashem is granting this false prophet actual power to predict the future or to perform wonders? Different commentators offer their different takes on the question, and how to read peshat in those pesukim.
In Your Brother, The Son of Your Mother, I consider this case of apparent duplication from the perspective of the gemara, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite, Targum, and trup. Is this an instance of poetic duplication or is it dealing with two separate individuals?
In 2004, in The Blessing and the Curse, I cite the opening words to Re`eh: רְאֵה, אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לִפְנֵיכֶם--הַיּוֹם: בְּרָכָה, וּקְלָלָה.
אֶת-הַבְּרָכָה--אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְעוּ, אֶל-מִצְוֹת ה אֱלֹקֵיכֶם
and suggest that the keeping of the Torah, and living a life of Torah and mitzvot, is the blessing. Homiletical, I know, but clearly marked as such, and I think the message behind it is true.
In 2003, I focused on false prophets, as well as a bal tosif/bal tigra issue.
I point out that based on the context, although the pasuk in Devarim 13:1 mentions that which Hashem commands, the intent seems to be not that one should not add or subtract commandments, but rather methods of worshipping Hashem. That is, do not see idolatrous practices and do similar things for Hashem, nor remove modes of worship which Hashem has commanded. This context is the preceding chapter. The perek division, imposed later by Christians, contradicts the Jewish subdivisions of the text in the form of whitespace breaks (petuchot and setumot) makes it seem to have another meaning, either mitzvot in general, or related to whether a prophet can add or subtract mitzvot (the juxtoposition of which doubtless forms a basis of drashot that a prophet cannot do this.)
One point I did not make at the time is that there is another bal tosifu/tigre'u, in Devarim 4: 2 which is more explicitly about commandments in general, based on the context.
Two opinions: either Hashem is actually doing this as a test, or else this is a true prophet who performed miracles for true prophecies in the past, and is now relying on his chazaka, established precedent as a true prophet, {and , I would fill in, Hashem let this happen even though He knew the prophet would later do this.}
In Re`eh #3: How can you tell if a prophet is false?- I detail the criteria for declaring a prophet false, on the basis of the Rambam in his peticha to his perush HaMishnayot. In short, he has to give a public, positive prophecy which does not come to pass. This is because Hashem can backtrack on negative prophecy if the people repent (think Yonah in Ninveh). Further, Hashem can recant a promise to an individual not made public, if the merits of the person are reduced (think of Yaakov's fear when about to confront Esav, according to the midrash on katonti miKol hachadasim). Another major precedent/source-text: Yirmiyahu's showdown with the false prophet Chananya ben Azur in Yirmiyahu perek 28. This should form the basis for determining a true and false prophet, and in fact, in Shofetim, next week's parsha, in the devar torah entitled Dvar torah for Shoftim #4: Was the Lubavitcher Rebbe a Navi Sheker?, I dealt with the fact that if we accept (which we don't), as many Lubavitchers claim, that the Rebbe said certain things as prophecy, then he would be a false prophet, rather than that those things must be true even though it is readily apparent that they are not.
This for shul rabbis. You can forward it to your local Orthodox rabbi for inclusion in the shul bulletin, I guess. Received by email.
Produced by: Rabbi Kenneth Brander with thanks to Rabbi Hershel Schachter for his guidance in producing these protocols
If hurricane is happening on Shabbat, stay home. We will lain 2 parshiyot next week.
If no electricity on Shabbat and storm is over. If safe...
Minyan only during daylight hours
Shacharit _____am
Mincha will be held at ______
Parshat _________ will be read next week for those unable to attend
If there is electricity, services are as regularly scheduled
Assume no Eruv
Carrying permitted for life/limb threatening situations.
Carrying permitted for individuals who need medical attention without which a person's functionality is compromised, (even for a bed-ridden headache). In this case carrying should be done, only if possible, in an irregular fashion (i.e. carrying medicine in ones belt or shoe).
Carrying permitted to allow a baby, infirm seniors or a child traumatized by the event to function without compromise. In this case carrying should be done, if possible, in an irregular fashion (i.e. two people carrying or wheeling the stroller/person).
Use of Candles & Flashlights
Use yahrzeit or hurricane candles lit before Shabbat placed in designated locations.
Hang/place lit flashlights with fresh batteries in key locations before Shabbat.
It is recommended to use LED flashlights over incandescent flashlights because they will last longer.
If Flashlight/Candle goes out:
When necessary (to take care of children, to eat etc..) and there is no other light, a non-Jew can relight or change batteries.
If not having the light may create a life threatening situation, you may do it yourself.
Be careful about using candles in an area that might cause a fire.
Moving Candles and Flashlight is permitted in the following situations
For any medical concerns no matter how slight.
Carrying permitted for comfort and welfare of seniors and children under eight (or above eight years old when child is traumatized by the event).
When possible, moving a candle, should be done by two individuals.
Television or Radio
TV or radio should be left on in a side room.
Channel should not be changed.
Volume on radio (if switch is not digital) may be adjusted on Shabbat. Better to keep it on low for it preserves the battery and only raise it when necessary.
Questions: Call Rabbi ____________ at phone number ___________________
In parashat Re'eh, we read of the non-kosher animals which are non-kosher even though they are ruminants. In Devarim 14:7:
7. But you shall not eat of those that chew the cud, or of those that have the split hooves: the cloven one, the camel, the hyrax, and the hare, for they chew the cud, but do not have split hooves; they are unclean for you.
There are difficulties with the identifications of many Biblical animals, and looking at the identities provided by various Geonim and Rishonim indeed yields a lot of machlokes. The shafan is one such example. In seems that some meforshim who lived in Spain identified it as a rabbit. But Rav Saadia Gaon, who lived in closer proximity to Eretz Yisrael, and Rabbi Maryonis {=Rabbenu Yonah Ibn Janach} identified it as the hyrax. The behavior of the hyrax matches closely with descriptions of the shafan as found in Tehillim and Mishlei, while the behavior of the rabbit is not as consistent. And in the Ekhili dialect of Arabic, the hyrax is called thufun, a cognate of shafan. That is a lot of good evidence in favor of this identification.
The difficulty, though, is that the hyrax does not actually chew its cud, as far as we know. If so, what are we to make of the pasuk?
Recall that Aristotle thought that the hare was a true ruminant. He was wrong, but this demonstrates ancient belief. Presumably he (or some other ancient zoologist) saw the mouth motions of the hare (continuous chewing motions) and thought that they ruminated. The same is true for the hyrax, even though Aristotle did not specifically discuss it. There is an observed behavior of hyraxes which appears like rumination.
(Note that this might actually be merycism, which involves regurgitation, and which certain opponents of the hyrax identification have said that the hyrax does not practice. But at the very least, we can see how ancient zoologists might have thought that the hyrax was a ruminant.)
If so, there are at least three explanations of the verse, assuming we adopt hyrax as the translation of shafan:
The Torah is not Divine, but reflects only mankind's flawed knowledge of nature. Moshe Rabbenu did not know that the hyrax did not ruminate, and so he encoded an error in the Torah. I include this because it is intellectually honest to do so, and to stress that we cannot exclude an interpretation which has this rather strong support just because we will end up reaching a conclusion we do not like. This option cuts off many of the objections to hyrax-shafan opponents. .
The Torah is Divine, but it is not a science book. It is willing to accept, and work within, the mistaken assumptions of the time. This is dibra Torah kilshon benei Adam, according to some Rishonim. Maybe. Or maybe this is an extension of their conception of dibra Torah. Therefore, it is willing to call a shafan a maaleh geira even though it is not actually a ruminant. .
Maaleh geira is a noun phrase, not a verb phrase. As Ibn Ezra writes elsewhere, there is no real present tense verb in Hebrew. Rather, the noun is co-opted for this task. Hu Shomer can mean "he is watching", or it can mean "he is a watchman". Ki Maaleh Geirah Heimah can mean "for bringing up the cud they are" or "for ruminants are they". By ruminants, one would include whatever in antiquity people considered a ruminant, even if they were wrong about the actual act of rumination. A tomato is called a vegetable because it is not so sweet in the fruit sense, and we would put it in a vegetable salad. Speaking from the perspective of a botanist, it is a fruit. A whale would be considered a dag or daga, according to the classification in ancient times of dag as a sea-creature. The Torah is saying that it is a ruminant (a noun), where the definition is that of the speech of contemporaries. This is different from a claim that it ruminates (a verb).
Now, need there be a single consistent definition for maaleh geirah? After all, it is one expression applying in the pasuk to the gamal, arneves, and shafan. I don't see this as a requirement. There need not be a consistent, single, definition of maaleh geirah, just so long as each can be described as a maaleh geirah. For instance, the gamal practices true rumination. If the rabbit and hare are to be considered maaleh geirah because they practice cecotrophy (poop-eating), then this can be said to comprise a multiple definition.
But, it turns out that we can adopt a single definition. Considering the three possibilities above:
(1) That it actually ruminates. But, the Torah was wrong about it.
(2) That ancient people, contemporary with Matan Torah all the way down to Rav Saadia Gaon, and perhaps even much later, thought, correctly or incorrectly, that it ruminates.
(3) The same as (2), more or less. It was called a maaleh geirah by ancient people.
Now, there is a midrash which possibly demonstrates that Chazal actually thought it possessed a single physical sign of Kashrut:
ויקרא רבה(וילנא) פרשה יג ה' ד"ה א"ר שמואל
את השפן זו מדי, רבנן ור' יהודה ברבי סימון, רבנן אמרי מה השפן הזה יש בו סימני טומאה וסימני טהרה, כך היתה מלכות מדי מעמדת צדיק ורשע, אמר רבי יהודה ברבי סימון דריוש האחרון בנה של אסתר היה טהור מאמו וטמא מאביו.
It has the signs of tumah and it has the signs of taharah. Great. That is what the pasuk itself says. But perhaps this can be taken to refer to physical signs. We know the sign of tumah. What of the sign of taharah?
Well, besides trying to reinterpret that midrash and the meaning of simanim, we could say that it still refers to the hyrax, and that Chazal were among the ancient people, just like Aristotle, who had incorrect zoological knowledge about hares and hyraxes. Just the other day, we saw that Chazal thought that cats and foxes deliberately inject venom into their victims via claws. And we don't then say that we must not know the chatul. Chazal believed in spontaneous generation. We don't say that we must not know what Chazal really meant when they spoke of worms and lice. Chazal spoke of snakes as having a gestational period of seven years, and a man's spine turning into a snake. We don't say that Chazal must have been talking about different creatures called adam and nachash! This works with options (1, 2, 3) above. (Note: See also here, which is the partial prompt for this post. See also a chapter from Rabbi Natan Slifkin's old book, which discusses hyraxes as shafan. And you can purchase his newly republished (and modified) book, The Camel, the Hare, and the Hyrexhere. See also Rabbi Slifkin's post for today, Hyrax Day.)
There could also be other definitions of maaleh geirah which the Torah deems sufficient to classify it as a maaleh geirah. Thus, for example, in the Living Torah, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan writes:
hyrax Hyrax syriacus or Procavia capens syriaca. Shafan in Hebrew; chiorogryllios in Greek, (Septuagint); tafan in Arabic. The hyrax is a small mammal, around 20 inches long, living in the Negev mountains. It has short feet, covered with elastic, a flexible tail-less body, and pads. It nests in the clefts of rocks (Psalms 104:18), and lives in small groups (Proverbs 30:26). Since it has a maw like a ruminant, it is considered to 'bring up its cud.'Saadia similarly translates it into the Arabic wabr, denoting the hyrax or rock badger (cf. Malbim). Other sources translate it as a coney or jerboa.
I am not sure if by 'maw' like a ruminant he means jaw or stomach. The hyrax has both features like a ruminant. And once the Torah deems it sufficiently like a ruminant, it would say that it is maaleh geirah. Indeed, then, the midrash in Vayikra Rabba can be taken literally and as correct, that the simanim of maaleh geirah are in it.
This is just by way of illustration, that there are people who know their stuff who translate shafan as hyrax, and who have ways of explaining the pasuk.
התנשמת: היא קלב"א שורי"ץ [עטלף] ודומה לעכבר ופורחת בלילה. ותנשמת האמורה בשרצים היא דומה לה, ואין לה עינים וקורין לה טלפ"א [חפרפרת]:
The shalach, rendered as either the gull or the cormorant in the English above, is moved four positions from one place to the other.
Rav Chaim Kanievsky, in Taama diKra, analyzes this movement from the perspective of remez. But in the course of this, parenthetically notes the Targum Pseudo-Yonatan on the pasuk in Re'eh.
There is some difficulty, where the resolution is that presumably it was copied from the Tg Yonatan on Vayikra, meaning from parashat Shemini. Let us examine this in greater detail.
Note the translation of Shalach, and its placement. It is correct on both counts.
Now consider it as it appears in Tg Yonatan, as it appears in our Mikraos Gedolos:
I underlined shali nuna, the translation of shalach. It is moved from its proper place, and occurs instead in the position it occupies in parashat Shemini.
In Dr. Moshe Ginsberger's critical edition of Tg Yonatan, however, it is in its correct position.
See footnotes 12 and 13, for explanation of the two bracketed phrases. My German is not good, but "am Schlusse von Vers 17" means "from the end of verse 17." I don't know what Msc. is short for. Probably "manuscript". I think he is transferring it, but I don't know if this is the result of sevara or manuscript evidence. I would guess the former, but maybe someone can comment and help me out. He refers in the next note to the text of Shemini, which would influence the textual corruption we saw. He also refers to Sam., meaning the Samaritan text. This is what I would have guessed, and was my next destination anyway.
The text on the left is the Samaritan, while the text on the left is our Masoretic text. As you can see, the text is moved.
This does not mean that originally, the text was in any way likely to have been as in the Samaritan text. Rather, the scribes behind the Samaritan text make a deliberate effort to harmonize the Biblical text, across the Torah. The most likely scenario is that they consciously emended the text to match the text in Shemini.
On the bottom of the same page in Vetus Testamentum, a listing of variant masoretic texts:
In pasuk 16, one masoretic text adds ve'et hashalach, just as in the Samaritan text. But it does not seem to remove it from its later position. So it seems to be a simple error.
Now, it is possible that the author of Targum Pseudo-Yonatan was working off a text which matched the Samaritan version. I think there are other instances of such correspondence. But, this requires a comprehensive study, to determine how likely it is. The other possibility is that this was an accidental copying, by a scribe who had the pasuk in Shemini in mind. It would be helpful to know if Dr. Ginsberger, above, had manuscripts to support him in this change.
That is, even though both derashot occur in the Sifrei, what is the need for a specific limud about this dam? Isn't it only applicable to birds and wild animals? This is a pasuk, after all. In Vayikra 17:13:
13. And any man of the children of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who traps a quarry of a wild animal or bird that may be eaten, and sheds its blood, he shall cover it [the blood] with dust.
One never have thought to include domesticated animals, beheimot, in the first place. So, one would say that this includes specifically chaya and of, but not beheima. Mizrachi suggests that perhaps, since the Torah connected it {beheima} to the gazelle and the deer {in the immediately preceding pasuk in Reeh -- הַטָּמֵא וְהַטָּהוֹר יֹאכְלֶנּוּ כַּצְּבִי וְכָאַיָּל} , it should require covering like them.
The Taz addresses this question, as apparently many have before him:
After citing the pasuk, Rashi, and Mizrachi, he notes that many have pointed out that he forgot about an explicit gemara that addresses this very point. In perek Kisuy HaDam (the sixth perek of Chullin), daf 84a:
אמר ליה יעקב מינאה לרבא קי"ל חיה בכלל בהמה לסימנין אימא נמי בהמה בכלל חיה לכסוי אמר ליה עליך אמר קרא (דברים יב, טז) על הארץ תשפכנו כמים מה מים לא בעי כסוי אף האי נמי לא בעי כסוי
Thus, without this verse, we would have indeed thought that beheimah would require kisuy. Maybe because it is encompassed in chayah in the pasuk in sefer Vayikra.
A good answer. It was still a good question. It shows how the meforshei Rashi engage in direct analysis of midrashim, something I've discussed in the past.
In Taama Di-Kra, Rav Chaim Kanievsky addresses this phrase in this pasuk.
He refers to the derashot, and suggests what a remez could be -- that one should only salt meat over a perforated vessel, so that the blood will fall on the ground, and not within the vessel in which the meat rests.
But he notes that on a peshat level, it is extraneous, for there is no nafka mina is you pour it out or not, for the main thing is that you do not eat it.
But perhaps, one could say that the peshat is indeed the derasha, that it does not need kisuy. After all, as Mizrachi suggested -- in lucky ignorance of the gemara -- perhaps since it had been connected in the previous verse to the gazelle and deer, I would think that not only may one not eat it, but that it requires kisuy hadam like them. Therefore, this comes to teach us, on a peshat level, that it does not.
I like to sometimes cite the Karaites. They are concerned with peshat, and when they give forth a derashafrom Chazal as peshat, it might be worthy considering that it is indeed peshat, rather than derash.
"and He commanded regarding the blood; now that it {=the beheima} had been associated with the gazelle and the deer, and it appeared from the context that one should cover its blood, it was required to say 'pour it out like water'."
I wonder if this phrase was an existing idiom, that carried a value judgement. We see in Shmuel Beis 14:14:
14 For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect any person; but let him devise means, that he that is banished be not an outcast from him.
This could be a way of connoting utter and irrecoverable loss. Maybe there is an associated message with the nefesh, which is in the blood, being lost, even as one benefits from the flesh. But maybe I'll return to consider this another day.
People have asked me this in the past. Especially if you want to print out a bunch of parsha posts for Shabbos reading. The difficulty is that the sidebars (with the ads) also print, producing an excess number of pages. But I recently came up with a solution.
So, here was the question:
Hi Josh,
I have recently started reading your blog, what is a easy way to print an article? or in my case all the articles on each parsha?
Do you have them all in printable say word format?
And here was my answer:
The mobile version might make for easier printing.
The re%60eh is the parsha, which I got from clicking
on the re`eh label. And then I added ?m=1 to the URL
to get the mobile version of it.
Indeed, it does seem to work.
Simply selecting, copying and pasting to Microsoft Word rarely works, because the Hebrew gets reversed. One would need to select the Hebrew sentences after that and change the text direction. This is possible, but too time consuming.
Update: Someone (credited upon request, otherwise the default is to leave anonymous) wrote in to let me know about the website PrintFriendly.com. You can use their website, plugging in URLs as you wish, or you can install their toolbar plugin. Here is what he wrote:
screen shot of what happens when you click the “printfriendly” or “printability” toolbar thingies in firefox
2011
