parshablog

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Interesting Posts and Articles #243

1) Shirat Devorah with people who say that the judgement / major catastrophic war has been delayed until Hoshanah Rabba. I assumed that people would say this, eventually.

2) Lazer Beams with a new message from Rabbi Shalom Arush.

3) And Mystical Paths weighs in, about the week of warning.

4) Meanwhile, Life In Israel reports that Rav [sic] Nir Ben Artzi is upsetting Breslovers, by saying that anyone who leaves Eretz Yisrael on Rosh Hashanah is bringing shame to Eretz Yisrael. Also, the following predictions (cut and paste from the post):

Turkey will soon be destroyed. Expect a major earthquake with many killed and major destruction.
Even if Turkey sends 20 ships to destroy Eretz Yisrael, God forbid, within minutes Israel will destroy all of them.
Within 12 months all the holy and righteous in chutz laaretz will come to Israel, to daven by the Me'aras HaMachpela.
The Americans will at some point allow Israel to bomb the Iranian nuclear reactor.
Israel will discover great stores of wealth of oil beneath the ground. Israel will be protected while the evil around the world comes apart and the world goes crazy

I am not holding my breath. What is "soon"? And does anyone recall this, from a year ago?

"God will cleanse the world and erase China from the world this year, and there will be rough winds there," Nir Ben-Artzi, a local kabbalist rabbi, told a conference on Yom Kippur held in Telamim.

People will remember the dubious successful predictions and forget, or explain away, all the ones which were way off the mark. We will see whether within 12 months all the holy and righteous in chu"l will come to Israel. If not, I guess they were not holy and righteous. And we already know about the great stores of oil wealth beneath the ground in Israel. It is called shale.

5) Also at Life In Israel, an interesting letter discovered from David Ben Gurion.

6) At Hirhurim, R' Gil Student considers whether the kosher switch will bring mashiach. He discusses the halachics of it, according to various rabbis, and briefly considers the strength of their rabbinic approbations. And R' Aryeh Leibowitz has a brief, 10 minute shiur about it. In the comment section at Hirhurim, R' Daniel Eidensohn promulgates Rav Sternbuch's objection to it. Also, on his own blog, Daas Torah. This in contrast to the company's website which has an endorsement, or seeming endorsement, from Rav Sternbuch. (It is possible to misconstrue well-wishes or statements about gerama in general as endorsements.) It seems that Rav Belsky has, as well, clarified that he does not endorse it, and they have removed his endorsement from their site.

And more about the problematic haskamos, described in a letter from Tzomet. For instance, Rabbi Neuwirth wrote by his signature that this is only for refuah and bitachon (medical and security) purposes, and the claim is (I think -- check there to be sure) that this caveat was deleted. And Rav Nevenzahl says he does not recall signing on to any such thing, etcetera.

Related, about problematic haskamos, this time regarding the recent special election. I backed David Weprin, and Bob Turner won. One major reason for this was a letter put out, signed by many rabbonim, that it was forbidden to vote for Weprin because of his support for gay marriage. Here is such a letter, by a bunch of Flatbush rabbonim, [plus several non-Flatbush signatories] including Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky and Rav Simcha Bunim Cohen. One local Democratic booster contacted the Agudah asking about this letter. (At least, I think this is the letter in question.) They said they would get back to him. Later, they told him that they asked many of the signatories, and about half said that they never signed upon such a letter!

If this is true, then this is just awful. People are being led, once again, not by rabbonim but by printers of kol koreihs. And if so, they should get to the bottom of this, find out who is behind the letter, and expose them.

7) At Wired and the Wall Street Journal, the Psychology of yogurt.

8) A new finding of the closest human ancestor may rewrite steps in evolution.

9) Here on parshablog, Torah is accessible to all and Torah on the moon.

Hashem is your God. Does this make Moshe a heretic?

Summary: Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz asks a question based on a non-existent pesik, darshened in a particular manner. Does this derasha then make Moshe a heretic, as bad as Yeravam ben Navat?

Post: In the third pasuk of Vayelech, we read:

Note the munach under the word hu and the vertical bar after it. This is a munach legarmeih, a disjunctive accent which precedes a revii, in this case the revii which appears over the word lefanecha. Alas, some have mistaken the vertical bar associated with munach legarmeih for a pesik, which is a lighter separating accent, which divides words in special (often semantically motivated) cases, where the typical division of trup would otherwise fail.

In Tiferes Yehonasan on Vayelech, after citing this pasuk, Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz writes:

"And there is written after the word hu as pesik, which informs that the word hu is associated to that which precedes it, namely Hashem Elokecha."

To interject, what I think he means is that this then forms a sentence "Hashem, Elokecha Hu" -- "Hashem is your God." This, to the exclusion of my {=Moshe Rabbenu's} God. This would be a somewhat heretical statement. He continues:

"It seems that one should explain. For apparently, there is to analyze. For behold, Yeravam sinned in this, that he said "Hashem your God", which was like being kofer be'ikkar, chas veshalom."

To interject once again, Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz is referring to I Melachim 13:6. A prophet predicts the destruction of Yeravam's alter at Bethel 300 years from then by King Yoshiyahu. King Yeravam puts forth his hand to command the seizure of the prophet, and his hand was frozen. He asks the prophet to pray on his behalf:

ו וַיַּעַן הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל-אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים, חַל-נָא אֶת-פְּנֵי ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְהִתְפַּלֵּל בַּעֲדִי, וְתָשֹׁב יָדִי, אֵלָי; וַיְחַל אִישׁ-הָאֱלֹהִים, אֶת-פְּנֵי ה, וַתָּשָׁב יַד-הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵלָיו, וַתְּהִי כְּבָרִאשֹׁנָה.

6 And the king answered and said unto the man of God: 'Entreat now the favour of the LORD thy God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored me.' And the man of God entreated the LORD, and the king's hand was restored him, and became as it was before.

In asking for this prayer, he refers to Hashem as "your God", meaning the God of the prophet, but not his own God. Thus, this is heresy. Is Moshe saying the same thing? Rav Eibeshitz continues:

"And would Moshe, the faithful shepherd, speak such words?! Rather, in a simple way we are able to answer that the Shechina was speaking from within Moshe's throat. And if the Shechina was speaking, it is perfectly fine to say 'Hashem your God'.

But, in another way, it seems to me that according to the first answer, it is difficult to fit with Rashi's commentary, who {on the second pasuk in Vayelech:

2. He said to them, "Today I am one hundred and twenty years old. I can no longer go or come, and the Lord said to me, "You shall not cross this Jordan."

ב. וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם בֶּן מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם לֹא אוּכַל עוֹד לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא וַי־הֹוָ־ה אָמַר אֵלַי לֹא תַעֲבֹר אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה:

on לֹא אוּכַל עוֹד לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא, in saying
דבר אחר, לצאת ולבא בדברי תורה, מלמד שנסתמו ממנו מסורות ומעינות החכמה:
, }

said that the wellsprings of wisdom were closed to him. And if so, prophecy was taken from him. {And so, the first answer is difficult, for it could not have been Hashem speaking from his throat.}

Rather, it appears such, that it is stated in the gemara that whoever dwells outside the land of Israel is compared to one who has no God. And here, the nation of Israel is traveling to Eretz Yisrael, while he did not go. Thus, he is like one who has no God. And therefore he said, "Hashem is your God".

This ends my citation of Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz.

While I interspersed my comments throughout, I'll put a bit more analysis here. I am reluctant to grant each of the assumptions along the way. (a) First, this is not a pesik. It is a munach legarmeih. (b) Even if it were a pesik, it would not serve to join hu to the previous phrase. Rather, it would introduce a pause into the new phrase, starting with hu. In other words, in hu over lefanecha, it would perhaps bring greater distance between the action and the Actor, with a capital A. (c) Indeed, if we lop off hu to fit with the preceding, then the following statement, over lefanecha, does not work grammatically. In the present tense, Biblical Hebrew does not drop pronouns. (d) While Yeravam does say "Hashem Elokecha", this is in context of his having made an idolatrous altar and opposing a prophet of Hashem. And Yeravam does not say specifically "Hashem Elokecha Hu". Moshe uses the word "Hashem Elokecha" many many times throughout Chumash, albeit without "Hu". We can find an innocuous implication to "Hashem Elokecha Hu", which needs not be heretical.

Granting all these assumptions, though, there are clever and nice answers.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Would Moshe's death pain Yocheved if she was already deceased?

Summary: There are two ways of interpreting the Yalkut Shimoni, and Rav Chaim Kanievsky supports each one. Then, I bring in some girsological evidence.

Post: In Taama Dikra, Rav Chaim Kanievsky discussed a midrash from Yalkut Shimoni.

"In Yalkut:

Moshe said before Hashem, 'Yocheved my mother, whose teeth were blunted by the death of her two children, her teeth will be blunted by my death.'

And in Zayit Raanan {=the Magen Avraham's commentary on Yalkut Shimoni, though I am not sure where, since I have not found the specific midrash in Yalkut Shimoni}:

And one is compelled to say that even the righteous feel anguish in the grave.

(And this is clear explicitly in Berachot 18b:

Meanwhile his father came. Samuel observed that he was both weeping and laughing. He said to him: Why are you weeping? He replied: Because you are coming here soon.

)

However, in Seder Olam, perek 9, there is, according to the girsa of the Gra, that Yocheved was of those who entered the land. {J: in which case she would have been alive to have her teeth blunted by Moshe's death.} And see in the kuntres beShaar haMelech, we have gone on at length about this."

Here is the short kuntres, written by Rav Chaim Kanievsky, as a commentary upon the introduction of the Rambam, all about the chain of tradition of the Oral law. I am uncertain on what page he discusses this at length -- presumably he discusses just when Yocheved died. He certainly discusses who died in whose lifetime, and who is considered among the zekeinim who received from Yehoshua.

I did not find this midrash yet in Yalkut Shimoni. But it does appear in Midrash Tanchuma on parashat Vaetchanan:

אמר לפניו: ריבון העולמים, יוכבד אמי שהוקהו שיניה בחייה בשני בניה, יקהו עוד שיניה במיתתי.
אמר לו: כך עלתה במחשבה וכן מנהגו של עולם, דור דור ודורשיו, דור דור ופרנסיו, דור דור ומנהיגיו. עד עכשיו היה חלקך לשרת לפני, ועכשיו אבד חלקך והגיע שעה של יהושע תלמידך לשרת.

According to this text, the word בחייה, 'in her lifetime' is present in the death of her two sons {presumably Eldad and Medad}. And so there is the implicit contrast to Moshe's death, which would then not be in her lifetime. If so, there is no need to turn to Seder Olam, according to the girsa of the Gra, for confirmation.

However, it is not so clear that this is the correct girsa of Midrash Tanchuma. This edition of Midrash Tanchuma strips out the word בחייה, because the Midrash Tanchuma as quoted by Rabbenu Bachya is missing it. If so, the ambiguity resurfaces, and Seder Olam can help prop up one of the interpretations.

I would have to see what the manuscript evidence was in favor of one girsa vs. the other. Without this, I can only grope around in relative darkness. Now, I generally consider it more difficult for a scribe to insert a word than to delete it, since deletion can occur accidentally. Here, for such an insertion, a scribe would have to see the ambiguity that Rav Kanievsky discussed and decide to deliberately change the text to clarify that only the death of Yocheved's two sons were in her lifetime.

Another interesting girsological observation is that the Yalkut Shimoni, as quoted by Rav Kanievsky, has במיתת שני בניה, with the word במיתת inserted. I don't see this in either of the two variants of Midrash Tanchuma. What might have occurred was a sofer, or perhaps the author of Yalkut Shimoni, changed בחייה to במיתת and stripped out the leading ב from בשני.

This appears to revolve around the question of what the parallel is. It is a parallel of the death of two sons vs. the death of Moshe, or is the parallel between Yocheved's teeth blunting in her lifetime vs. Yocheved's teeth blunting further (in her death) from Moshe's death? The former makes for a better parallelism than the latter, and this might drive such an emendation.

Which leads me to my completely unsupported suggestion of textual emendation of the Tanchuma. I would propose that maybe במיתתי was originally במיתתה, and the ending was knocked off and replaces by a striechel (a single quote indicating the end of the word). Moshe's death was implicit, because it was the subject of the conversation. And the death of her two sons was the topic, but death was not explicitly mentioned. Thus,

אמר לפניו: ריבון העולמים, יוכבד אמי שהוקהו שיניה בחייה בשני בניה, יקהו עוד שיניה במיתתה.

"Yocheved my mother, whose teeth were blunted in her lifetime because of her two sons, her teeth will be further blunted now that she is deceased."

This makes for a perfect parallel.

But I don't know, and at the moment, all this is speculative and unsupported. Tzarich iyun.

Torah on the Moon

Summary: Must we fetch it from there? Did Chazal think we could travel to the moon?

Post: In Nitzavim, we encounter the following pasuk and Rashi.

12. It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"		יב. לֹא בַשָּׁמַיִם הִוא לֵאמֹר מִי יַעֲלֶה לָּנוּ הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וְיִקָּחֶהָ לָּנוּ וְיַשְׁמִעֵנוּ אֹתָהּ וְנַעֲשֶׂנָּה:
		לא בשמים היא: שאלו היתה בשמים היית צריך לעלות אחריה וללומדה:

13. Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"

יג. וְלֹא מֵעֵבֶר לַיָּם הִוא לֵאמֹר מִי יַעֲבָר לָנוּ אֶל עֵבֶר הַיָּם וְיִקָּחֶהָ לָּנוּ וְיַשְׁמִעֵנוּ אֹתָהּ וְנַעֲשֶׂנָּה:

In Taama deKra, Rav Chaim Kanievsky cites the gemara in Eruvin 55a, or else just the Rashi who cites it.

והיינו דאמר אבדימי בר חמא בר דוסא מאי דכתיב (דברים ל, יב) לא בשמים היא ולא מעבר לים היא לא בשמים היא שאם בשמים היא אתה צריך לעלות אחריה ואם מעבר לים היא אתה צריך לעבור אחריה

Or, in English:

This is in harmony with the following statement of R. Abdimi b. Hama b. Dosa: What is the significance of the text: It is not in heaven, [that thou shouldst say: ‘who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us’], neither is it beyond the sea [that thou shouldst sat, ‘Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us’]? ‘It is not in heaven’, for if it were in heaven you should have gone up after it; and if it were ‘beyond the sea’, you should have gone over the sea after it.

Then, he writes:

"From here is implied that men are able to ascend to the moon and the stars. And this is called shamayim, as is written (in Devarim 4:19, וּפֶן תִּשָּׂא עֵינֶיךָ הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וְרָאִיתָ אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְאֶת הַיָּרֵחַ וְאֶת הַכּוֹכָבִים כֹּל צְבָא הַשָּׁמַיִם, 'And lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and see the sun, and the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven.' "

Rav Kanievsky also writes there another explanation. After citing the pasuk and Eruvin, that if it were in heaven you should have gone up after it; and if it were ‘beyond the sea’, you should have gone over the sea after it, he writes:

"And the Chazon Ish {?} said that this was via the Divine Name, as Rashi explains in Chagiga 14b, that four entered the pardes, meaning that they ascended to shamayim via the Divine Name. And across the sea, via ships.

And it is difficult, for it is stated in Bava Metzia 94a,

AND WHATEVER CAN BE FULFILLED EVENTUALLY etc. R. Tabla said in Rab's name: This is the view of R. Judah b. Tema. But the Sages say: Even if it is impossible to fulfil it eventually, and one stipulates it at the beginning, the stipulation is valid. For it has been taught: [If one says,] Here is thy divorce, on condition that thou ascendest to Heaven or descendest to the deep, on condition that thou swallowest a hundred cubit cane or crossest the great sea on foot; if the condition is fulfilled, the divorce is valid, but not otherwise.¹³ R. Judah b. Tema said: In such a case it is a [valid] divorce. R. Judah b. Tema stated a general rule: That which can never be fulfilled, and he [the husband] stipulates it at the beginning, it is only to repel her,¹⁴ and is valid.

which is a condition which is impossible to fulfill. (And there is what to answer.)

Further, there is so say that they can ask prophets and they can inform us what they are saying in Heaven regarding this or that halacha. Therefore it informs us that the Torah was given on earth, and that which they rule in the bet din below, this is what they are ruling in Heaven, as is stated in Bava Metzia 59b."

Thus, it either refers to outer space or to the spiritual heavens, and both need to be places one can physically or indirectly access. He could have referred to the Yerushalmi which has Alexander the Great ascend on high via griffin. Though the Yerushalmi does not give the explicit details we want, that Alexander met an angel in Heaven after ascending in this manner. For that, we need to know the non-Jewish accounts.

I don't know that in this gemara, Chazal (or specifically R' Avdimi bar Chama bar Dosa) expected that people would be able to ascend, either to the moon, or to the place of the angels, as a real expectation of what was possible. (Indeed, perhaps the aish up there in the sky would burn anything up; or perhaps the moon was entirely insubstantial, such that we would not expect to be able to land on the moon.)

The concern might have been more homiletic. In the pesukim, Moshe is telling the people that it is NOT in the heavens or over the sea, such that one could say objection of 'who shall ascend? Who will cross'. These can be treated as rhetorical questions in this counterfactual scenario. They would have objected that it is impossible, or just too difficult, to accomplish this, and so we have an excuse to not learn of the commandments and fulfill them. But one cannot lay out those objections, for Moshe has already brought the commandments to the people, such that it is in their mouths and in their hearts to fulfill it.

What R' Avdimi bar Chama bar Dosa does is take the rhetorical questions / objections and assume that, given such a scenario, it would be incumbent upon people to do this. For Hashem's commandments are so dear, and important. They would need to ask who would fetch them, even from Heaven or across the Sea. This highlights for us just how dear the mitzvos and words of Torah are, such that we must take extraordinary measures to learn and preserve them in our mouths and minds -- the mnemonic signs discussed immediately previous in the gemara in Eruvin. If so, within this homiletic message, this might be just for dramatic effect. One would need to take such extreme, indeed, impossible, measures, to ascend all the way to heaven. Even if it indeed deemed impossible by Chazal, it is an extreme statement that then has its dramatic and therefore homiletic effect.

Related to all of this, I have heard some people claim that in Tanach, and perhaps as understood by Chazal as well, the Shamayim and Rakia is a physical place -- the sky and the firmament, and that this physical Shamayim is understood as the abode of the angels. We clearly make this distinction nowadays. But in the Greek story about Alexander, it seems that there was no such distinction. Perhaps we can also point to young Abayei in Berachot 48a:

Rav Nachman said: A child who knows whom we bless counts for a zimun. Abayei and Rava were sitting before Rabba. Rabba asked: "Whom do we bless?" They said: "Rachmana" (Hashem, in Aramaic). "Where does He live?" Rava pointed to the roof. Abayei went outside and pointed to the sky. Rabba said: "Both of you will be rabbis."

This is against the Rambam, most probably. But perhaps Chazal disagreed with the Rambam, and felt that Hashem could be located in a specific place / abode. And, that that was the sky, shamayim, and not just a homonym.

Torah is accessible to all

Summary: A lovely homiletic, midrashic, explanation of the pesukim by Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz. We don't need ruach hakodesh, mazal, or living in Eretz Yisrael to attain Torah.

Post: The relevant pesukim in Nitzavim, discussed also in this other post:

11. For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away.		יא. כִּי הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם לֹא נִפְלֵאת הִוא מִמְּךָ וְלֹא רְחֹקָה הִוא:
12. It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"		יב. לֹא בַשָּׁמַיִם הִוא לֵאמֹר מִי יַעֲלֶה לָּנוּ הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וְיִקָּחֶהָ לָּנוּ וְיַשְׁמִעֵנוּ אֹתָהּ וְנַעֲשֶׂנָּה:
13. Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"		יג. וְלֹא מֵעֵבֶר לַיָּם הִוא לֵאמֹר מִי יַעֲבָר לָנוּ אֶל עֵבֶר הַיָּם וְיִקָּחֶהָ לָּנוּ וְיַשְׁמִעֵנוּ אֹתָהּ וְנַעֲשֶׂנָּה:
14. Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.		יד. כִּי קָרוֹב אֵלֶיךָ הַדָּבָר מְאֹד בְּפִיךָ וּבִלְבָבְךָ לַעֲשֹׂתוֹ:

In Tiferes Yehonasan, after cited portions of these pesukim, Rav Eibeshitz writes:

"That you should not say that to understand Torah and to learn it, this mitzvah he speaking of, requires the achieving of ruach hakodesh, as the generation of the wilderness attained, for from the heavens Hashem spoke with them. And there are, as well, many mitzvos which were commanded of old because they attained ruach hakodesh, when they were upon the Sea {yam}, as they {=Chazal} said, 'a maidservant saw upon the {Reed} Sea more that Yechezkel and the prophets saw {Mechilta, 3}.'

Or you might say that it is dependent upon mazalot {planetary influence}, for {Shabbat 156a} "mazal makes one wise". And this is 'it is not in heaven'. And also, when you are in chutz la'aretz -- in the Diaspora, which is called medinat haYam, as is stated in the gemara in Gitten -- you could say that Torah is only understood in Eretz Yisrael, for 'the air makes one wise'; and this is 'over the sea'. And this tells us that it is not so, but rather, in every place, all is in the hands of mankind. And understand this."

I don't really have anything to add to this devar Torah. It is a nice homiletic message. And one that runs somewhat counter to what certain unnamed individuals would say, in boosting Eretz Yisrael as the only purpose of Judaism.

Interesting Posts and Articles #242

1) Bat Aliyah (current publisher of Nir Ben Artzi's messages in English) fields a reader's question about an aliyah snag:

Earlier this week, I got an email from someone in America who has hit a snag in aliyah planning. They are on track to get here soon, but their house hasn't sold and they are beginning to panic. In the somewhat rambling email, the writer wondered aloud if the lack of even one offer on their very desirable home was an indication that Hashem does not want them to leave. The email asked for tefillot for their successful aliyah and that they get an offer on their house at a very good price very soon.

She gives her answer, which is basically to take a loss on the house, get out of America while you still can, and don't listen to any American rabbi, because their perspective on aliyah is off. Here is what I would say. Making aliyah is a mitzvah, like many other mitzvos in the Torah. And sometimes one hits a snag. A snag is not necessarily an indication that Hashem does not want them to leave. Sometimes one must overcome obstacles in the course of performing a mitzvah. And sometimes one must live with frustration until one succeeds. I don't know what this specific person should do. Perhaps consult with a financial advisor, to see if there is any way to make aliyah prior to selling the house. Maybe take a loss. Maybe, if it is not presently financially feasible, to push it off a few years. (I hope for a resurgence of the real estate market, but I cannot predict whether or when it will improve.) One can do mitzvos, learn Torah, and live a good Jewish life even in the States.

What I would not advise is to put oneself in dire financial straits, because the world is ending, and because the apocalypse is coming, at which point it will be too late to make aliyah. I understand that Bat Aliyah believes this, and that that is a good part of why she believes in the delusional tractor driver, Nir Ben Artzi -- he is saying what she believes is true, and thus precisely what she wants to believe.

But personally, I don't think that it is true. And too many times in the past, people put themselves into dire financial straits, and as a result their aliyah was not successful. And when the predicted mashiach or end of the world did not arrive at the time and in the way predicted, they felt like saps and idiots. This sort of hysterical impulsive action can leave to financial ruin, shalom bayis issues, chinuch issues, and so on. (Also see this post and the comments.)

2) The Daily Beast reprinted a Newsweek article from 1995. It is hilarious, in retrospect. An excerpt of the best part:

Then there's cyberbusiness. We're promised instant catalog shopping—just point and click for great deals. We'll order airline tickets over the network, make restaurant reservations and negotiate sales contracts. Stores will become obselete. So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire Internet handles in a month? Even if there were a trustworthy way to send money over the Internet—which there isn't—the network is missing a most essential ingredient of capitalism: salespeople.

3) Life In Israel with more OROT updates. A rabbi blasts the kanoim as remnants of Christian influence. And more pashkevils pro and con the kannoim.

4) Reactions to the Aish HaTorah Rosh HaShanah video. See at Blog In Dm, who has a roundup. Also see Frum Satire.

As per the discussion on various blogs, these are not actually Aish HaTorah students. They are from an agency in Tel Aviv, and are just dressing up as yeshiva students.

I don't think it is as bad as almost everyone seems to think. I think people are seeing the conversation in the beginning, where fellow #1 asks regarding Rosh Hashanah that it is just a bunch of people praying, and what is the fun in that. Fellow #2 (in yeshivah garb) says that it is the holiest time of the year, a time for introspection, etc. Fellow #1 snores. And then, fellow #1 says "let me explain it to you a little bit differently." And then this leads into the breakdancing.

But forget that framing. The point of the video was the song, the lyrics, the performance. It was a song about Rosh Hashanah, by Schlock Rock, which could be appreciated by baalei teshuvah or perhaps people soon to be baalei teshuvah. It makes Rosh HaShanah 'cool'.

Here is the song and lyrics:

Perhaps the framing was ill-advised. But I would consider it only as a pretext to get into the song, and to establish its connection to Aish HaTorah.

Also, the answer is not that Rosh HaShanah is all about breakdancing in the streets. The answer is in the lyrics to the song. But the baal teshuvah was snoring, since he considered the presentation of what Rosh HaShanah was about to be boring. The breakdancing and the 'rock anthem' was a way of presenting the lyrics about Rosh HaShanah in a more engaging manner. Though I think it is hard to focus on the lyrics with all the busy-ness of the break dancing in the foreground.

See also Mekubal's take on it, in favor of it.

5) Little Green Footballs reacts negatively to Michele Bachmann's connection of vaccines and autism. See here and then here.

6) How to boost your wifi signal using only a beer can.

7) A guest post on Circus Tent about a woman visiting the Satmar Rebbe's kever on his yortzeit.

8) Emes veEmunah on Kol Isha, the IDF, on Frumkeit.

9) Jewish Worker about a feeling of entitlement to tzedakah.

10) Here on parshablog, Nitzavim sources. And Vayelech sources.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

YU Torah on parashat Nitzavim / Vayelech

Audio Shiurim on Nitzavim-Veyelech

Rabbi Etan Moshe Berman: A Deeper Look at the Mitzvah to Write a Sefer Torah
Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Wrapping up the Torah
Rabbi Avishai David: Do it Today!
Rabbi Ally Ehrman: Where Hashem Resides
Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein: Vidui vs. Teshuva, Kapara vs. Tahara
Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: The Shofar of Connection
Mrs. Shayna Goldberg: Teshuva, In GoD We Trust
Rabbi Yehuda Goldschmidt: Teshuva: It's Not That Hard
Rabbi Moshe Gordon: The Final Bris
Rabbi David Hirsch: Why is Rosh Hashana before Yom Kippur?
Rabbi Jesse Horn: Understanding the Yetzer Hara for Avodah Zara
Rabbi Yisroel Kaminetsky: Roots of Sin
Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg: The Opportunity of Teshuva
Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: The Tipping Point
Rabbi Shmuel Marcus: Hester Panim
Rabbi Yonason Sacks: Why is Nitzavim read before Rosh Hashana?
Rabbi Hershel Schachter: What is "Eleh Hachukim" That Moshe Taught?
Rabbi Avi Schneider: Family Business
Rabbi Baruch Simon: Achdus and Rosh Hashana
Mrs. Shira Smiles: Double Image
Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky: Teshuva Me'ahava and Talmud Torah
Rabbi Reuven Spolter: Follow Your Heart?
Rabbi Moshe Taragin: Falling and Rising
Rabbi Michael Taubes: Why is Nitzavim before Rosh Hashana?
Rabbi Avraham Willig: King Menashe and his Path to Teshuva
Rabbi Michael Taubes: Looking Out For Each Other

Articles on Nitzavim-Vayelech
Rabbi Yitzchok Cohen: Learn Torah
Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: Lessons of Heaven and Earth
Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: Yes I Can
Rabbi Maury Grebenau: Choose Life
Rabbi David Horwitz: Repentance - The Astounding Statement of Resh Lakish
Rabbi Aharon Kahn: Teshuvah--It's Time!
Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl: Zichronot - We Help Determine our Fate
Mrs. Shira Siev Shechter: The Promise of Teshuva

Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Nitzavim-Vayeilech
See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Nitzavim-Vayeilech

Get ready for Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur with Rosh Hashana To-Go 5772, the newest volume of the To-Go series, with 48 pages of articles from YU faculty and Roshei Yeshiva on topics of Teshuva, renewal and more. The perfect way to get into the Teshuva mindset and apreciate the meaning of the Yamim Noraim. You can also download copies of Rosh Hashana To-Go from the past 4 years if you are looking for even more inspiration.

Click here to see the Rosh Hashana To-Go page

New This Week

Inconsistences in the Torah: Looking Beyond R. Breuer and Source Criticism
Rabbi Dr. Joshua Berman

Teshuva - Tzaddik, Rasha and Beinoni
Rabbi Josh Blass

Introduction to Sefer Melachim
Rabbi Avishai David

Rav Saadiah Gaon - Faith, Doubt, and Heresy
Rabbi Aryeh Leibowitz

The Battle Between Talmud Yerushalmi and Talmud Bavli: Which is superior?
Rabbi Yoni Levin

Foundations of Teshuva
Rabbi Uri Orlian

5 Models of Teshuva and Redemption
Rabbi Allen Schwartz

The Significance of Teshuva Tefilla Utzedaka
Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky

Tehillim 81: Song of the Shofar
Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner

Achas Shaalti - Elul a
Rabbi Moshe Weinberger

Vayelech sources -- 2011 edition

by aliyah

rishon (Devarim 31:1)

sheni (31:4), shlishi (31:7)

revii (31:10)

chamishi (31:14)

shishi (31:20)

shevii (31:25)

maftir (31:28)

haftara (Hoshea 14)

by perek

perek 31

meforshim

Rashi, in English and Hebrew

Chizkuni

Monday, September 19, 2011

Onkelos' rendition of וְעָבַדְתָּ שָּׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים, עֵץ וָאָבֶן, and its censorship

Summary: Both Rashi and Onkelos diverge from the most literal rendition. Why? Also, why was this Onkelos crossed out by a censor?

Post: While flipping through a Chumash with Onkelos, dfus Savyonita, 1557, last week, I noticed something censored out. It was two words within the Targum of Devarim 28:36.

What has been crossed out? The text I mark below in red:

כח,לו יוֹלֵךְ יְהוָה אֹתְךָ, וְאֶת-מַלְכְּךָ אֲשֶׁר תָּקִים עָלֶיךָ, אֶל-גּוֹי, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָדַעְתָּ אַתָּה וַאֲבֹתֶיךָ; וְעָבַדְתָּ שָּׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים, עֵץ וָאָבֶן.

יַגְלֵי יְיָ יָתָךְ, וְיָת מַלְכָּךְ דִּתְקִים עֲלָךְ, לְעַם, דְּלָא יְדַעְתָּא אַתְּ וַאֲבָהָתָךְ; וְתִפְלַח תַּמָּן לְעַמְמַיָּא פָּלְחֵי טָעֲוָתָא, אָעָא וְאַבְנָא.

Similarly, when the phrase reappears in Onkelos on 24:64, it seems to be partially crossed out:

That is,

כח,סד וֶהֱפִיצְךָ יְהוָה בְּכָל-הָעַמִּים, מִקְצֵה הָאָרֶץ וְעַד-קְצֵה הָאָרֶץ; וְעָבַדְתָּ שָּׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָדַעְתָּ אַתָּה וַאֲבֹתֶיךָ--עֵץ וָאָבֶן.

וִיבַדְּרִנָּךְ יְיָ בְּכָל עַמְמַיָּא, מִסְּיָפֵי אַרְעָא וְעַד סְיָפֵי אַרְעָא; וְתִפְלַח תַּמָּן לְעַמְמַיָּא פָּלְחֵי טָעֲוָתָא, דְּלָא יְדַעְתָּא אַתְּ וַאֲבָהָתָךְ--אָעָא וְאַבְנָא.

The Aramaic itself represents a divergence from the most literal rendition of the Hebrew Biblical text. Each time, it is translating וְעָבַדְתָּ שָּׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים, 'and you will serve, there, foreign gods'. Compare with the earlier translation, of Devarim 28:14:

כח,יד וְלֹא תָסוּר, מִכָּל-הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם הַיּוֹם--יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאול: לָלֶכֶת, אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים--לְעָבְדָם. {פ}

וְלָא תִּסְטוֹן, מִכָּל פִּתְגָמַיָּא דַּאֲנָא מְפַקֵּיד יָתְכוֹן יוֹמָא דֵּין--לְיַמִּינָא וְלִסְמָאלָא: לִמְהָךְ, בָּתַר טָעֲוָת עַמְמַיָּא--לְמִפְלַחְהוֹן. {פ}

where אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים--לְעָבְדָם is rendered by Onkelos as 'after the idols of the nations, to serve them." I would guess that even this is careful wording, in that the אחרים are the nations, and thus, 'the idols of others', elohim shel acheirim, rather than 'other gods', which would imply that there are other forces in shamayim, competing with Hashem.

I should note that Rashi, as well, endorses Onkelos' explanation. At least on the last of these three, in 28:64:

64. And the Lord will scatter you among all the nations, from one end of the earth to the other, and there you will serve other deities unknown to you or your forefathers, [deities of] wood and stone.		סד. וֶהֱפִיצְךָ יְ־הֹוָ־ה בְּכָל הָעַמִּים מִקְצֵה הָאָרֶץ וְעַד קְצֵה הָאָרֶץ וְעָבַדְתָּ שָּׁם אֱ־לֹהִים אֲחֵרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַעְתָּ אַתָּה וַאֲבֹתֶיךָ עֵץ וָאָבֶן:
and there you will serve other deities: As the Targum [Onkelos] renders: [and there you will serve nations that worship idols. Thus, the verse is] not referring to actual idolatry, but rather paying customs and head taxes to idolatrous priests.		ועבדת שם אלהים אחרים: כתרגומו, לא עבודת אלהות ממש, אלא מעלים מס וגולגליות לכומרי עבודה זרה:

But Rashi does not say this on pasuk 14, where Onkelos does not deviate in translation. And he does not even say this on pasuk 36, which was the first time Onkelos said this. This is something which requires investigation.

Regardless, 28:14 introduces the idea of Israel serving foreign idols, so why does Onkelos divert from that explanation in these two places, and why does Rashi divert from that explanation in this one place?

Two ideas come to mind:

If they are serving other gods in other lands, just what is their Jewish identity? How would one expect them to ever return to Hashem? And it does not match the galus that we have experienced.
In terms of placement, there are the misdeeds and the punishments. Devarim 28:14 described the misdeeds, and so serving idols makes sense as a misdeed. But Devarim 28:64, as well as Devarim 28:36 are about punishments. How would their serving other gods be a punishment? It makes more sense to recast this as working for the gentiles who serve idols, rather than worshiping the idols themselves.

(Of course, this was prior to the Anusim, the Marranos, in Spain, who felt compelled to be closet Christians while secretly practicing Judaism to the best of their ability.)

How does the pasuk support such a reading? How does וְעָבַדְתָּ שָּׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים become וְתִפְלַח תַּמָּן לְעַמְמַיָּא פָּלְחֵי טָעֲוָתָא? There is a duplication of פלח, but clearly וְתִפְלַח is the direct translation. I would assume it is something like a synecdoche, or metonym, calling the part by the whole (e.g. 'all hands on deck', referring to a sailor as a hand); or calling an eved by the name of his adon. Rashi, by saying מעלים מס וגולגליות לכומרי עבודה זרה, takes Onkelos (or perhaps expanding upon Onkelos) as more specifically targeting idolatrous priests than idolatrous peoples. If so, perhaps it is vicarious working for of the idols, via the intermediate of the priests. I think Rashi casts it that way to allow it to better fit into peshat in the pasuk.

What about this cross-out? It is not a correction, to better match Onkelos to the peshat in the pasuk, but is censorship of offensive text. What is so offensive? Well, in this galus, who are the Jews serving? The Christians, of course. And if those they are serving are described as worshipers of wood and stone, then one is calling the Christian faith idolatry. This then sparks the censorship.

Interesting Posts and Articles #241

This week's Haveil Havalim at To Kiss a Mezuzah.
.
An Opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal about Congress possibly imposing draconian punishment for lying on the Internet. Not good. And then, perhaps in response, they fix the law, a bit. I still have reservations.
.
As with every year, opposition to using chickens as kapparot. I don't see the need to end it, though I am not in favor of the minhag. Rather, make sure that it is well-supervised, hygienic, kosher, and that it does not involve tzaar baalei chayim or chillul Hashem from the mess. Perhaps the local rabbinic establishment should guide and regulate this.
.
At Life in Israel, thugs attack woman on a mehadrin bus. Well, demanded that these fare-paying women disembark. And the other passengers and the bus driver stood by.
.
At Hirhurim, Rabbi Ari Enkin and Rabbi Gil Student consider whether one can pronounce J's Witnesses. This reminds me of this Monty Python clip, from Life of Brian:

.
At Matzav, a report of how sikrikim vandalized Manny's seforim store in Yerushalayim. See also comment #12 there, somewhat in favor of their goals, and telling people not to judge because it is Elul. Also comment #33. It takes all kinds, I guess.
.
A fourth trimester abortion.
.
Also at Matzav, the Rachmastrivke Rebbe's gabbai is almost stabbed by petitioner. This story is still very from
.
At An Aspiring Mekubal, how they are burning a sefer Torah which was written by a righteous sofer but commissioned on behalf of a pedophile who molested over 100 children. The pedophile completed some letters towards the end. It seems wrong to burn the entire sefer Torah on that basis, even though of course what this pedophile did was really really awful. In another post, he gives more details and names the alleged pedophile (useful for people who live in Nachalot), and then has a follow-up that the fellow was released because the victims were too young to adequately testify.
.
The Yeshiva World points us to the Lakewood Scoop which has a story about Rav Chaim Kanievsky segulah wine being used in a fundraiser. At the same fundraiser, they will be raffling off a siddur inscribed by Rav Shteinman.
.
Here on parshablog, thou shalt not sleep with the fishes.