posts so far for parshat Ki Tavo

Here is a link to the mobile version of these posts. This will allow you to print each post without worry for the advertisements on the sides.
2012

1. Ki Tavo sources -- 2012 edition

2. YUTorah on parshas Ki Savo


2011

1. Ki Tavo sources -- begun in 2008, as links by perek and aliya to the relevant page in an online Mikraos Gedolos. In 2009, revamped,
   by adding a bunch of meforshim on the parashah and haftorah. In 2010, improved further. In 2011, added many more meforshim. For instance, many more meforshei Rashi.
   .
2. YU Torah on parshas Ki Savo.
   .
3. Thou shalt not sleep with the fishes -- Considering a derasha from Rav Chaim Kanievsky, about mermaids. Plus my own tongue-in-cheek interpretation of the pasuk.
   .
4. The Chasam Sofer on Arami oved avi -- A question on Ibn Ezra's peshat, given a midrash on a later part of the pasuk.
   .
5. For who is able to argue and say this its meaning is אבוד אתה? Well, Onkelos, for one... Further analysis of Mizrachi on Arami Oved Avi, and on עַד אָבְדֶךָ.
   .
6. Onkelos' rendition of וְעָבַדְתָּ שָּׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים, עֵץ וָאָבֶן, and its censorship --  Both Rashi and Onkelos diverge from the most literal rendition. Why? Also, why was this Onkelos crossed out by a censor?

 2010

1. Ki Tavo: Is the blessing on hafrashat maaser Biblical? What about on shechita? According to the sefer Hilchot Eretz Yisrael, saying the beracha on shechita ismeakev. But this makes little sense if all berachot on mitzvot are a Rabbinic innovation. Apasuk in Ki Tavo, darshened by Sifrei and by a Mishna in Maaser Sheni, and brought by Rashi, might counter this. But I don't think so.
   .
2. The spelling of ויוציאנו -- Is this a typo in Minchat Kohen, or does he reverse himself?
   .
3. Bringing the bikkurim to the kohen who exists in those days -- Ramban criticizes Rashi (respect) based on a Sifrei (kashrut), but Rashi is really just restating a different version of the Sifrei. And Ramban's peshat explanation, that it refers to the mishmar of that week, is not as convincing as that of Ibn Ezra, that it holds as long as kohanim are presiding. Though I would suggest something even smoother, that it is part of the future-tense tone.
   .

2009

1. If you sin too much, will you come back as an unripe fruit? An "interesting" interpretation of bevoecha and betzeitecha, via Revach, about gilgul as unripe fruit. And then a disproof from a gemara in Bava Metzia.
   .
2. Why is the krei / ketiv of yishkavena / yishgalena not a problem of reading not from the ketav? And an interesting story of someone who insisted it indeed was a problem.
   .
3. Hayom Hazeh -- these are the words of Moshe. Who else would be speaking? In which the standard interpretation of Ibn Ezra is that it is Moshe, rather than the farmer. But I suggest he means Moshe rather than a later peson issuing the Biblical command to the farmer.
   .oes Arami Oved Avi refer to a wandering / poor Aramean, or to Lavan who sought to destroy? This post deals with an interpretation of Arami Oved Avi by Ibn Ezra and Radak which goes against the classic midrashic interpretation, and the reaction of two supercommentaries of Rashi to this "daring" interpretation. What comes into play is whether Ibn Ezra and Radak can claim to have absolute knowledge of Hebrew to be able to declare the midrashic interpretation to not work out according to the rules of dikduk; and whether one can argue on midrash, as they are doing, if after the midrashic interpretation goes all the way back to Sinai! It could also be that as supercommentators of Rashi, they are simply defending Rashi's interpretation as one of peshat.
4. .
5. Arami Oved Avi -- the Karaites have their cake and eat it too! Related to the above. The purpose of this post is to bring forth an interesting explanation I saw in the commentary of Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite. It seems like he wants to have his cake and eat it too. That is, he agrees that אובד is a poel omed, an intransitive verb, and thus means that he was a pauper, as per Ibn Ezra. But at the same time, the Arami is Lavan!
   .
6. The Rav on Arami Oved Avi in the Haggadah -- Dr. David Segal told me over a peshat he heard from the Rav zt"l, in which Arami Oved Avi as expounded in the haggadah is in line with Ibn Ezra and Radak's insistence that Oved is an intransitive verb. Rabbi Wohlgelenter also heard this from the Rav. The chiddush here is that we would think that the haggadah is understanding it as Lavan, but really, it refers to Yaakov, even in the derasha.
   .

2008

Shadal on Tithes -- and how there is really only one tithe.

A Beautiful Midrash About Kinas Soferim, and about wanting Torah as a cherished inheritance, rather than a weird midrash brought down by Rashi.

2007

Adoption in public of required behavior in private -- as a theme in the klalot

Why plaster them with plaster? Well, it would be silly to plaster them with peanut butter. ;) But seriously, to make them long-lasting, for the future.

It's not so odd -- and how choosing God made us into the Am Segulah.

Vaytzav -- An important grammatical form, and how it saps the energy out of a multiple authorship proof.

Bikkurim -- an interesting theme and underlying message.

2006

From parshat Matot, Pinchas the Flying Priest. In the course of this, I mention Arami Oved Avi, and how this is interpreted to be the saga of Bilaam from the time he was Lavan, until when he (Lavan rather than Yaakov) went down to Egypt, and so on and so forth, as Bilaam.

2003

Talk of a Death Cult: Is this being doresh Torah shelo kehalacha? I analyze לֹא-אָכַלְתִּי בְאֹנִי מִמֶּנּוּ and show how each phrase may refer to practices of a death cult, which he is proclaiming that he did not participate in.

In Bowdlerization of Torah I mention the possibility that certain krei and ketiv pairs were formed because the original term changed in connotation and became a crude word.

to be continued...

YUTorah on parshas Ki Savo

Audio Shiurim on Ki Tavo Rabbi Elchanan Adler: Hashkifa Mimon Kadshecha  Dr. Shawn Zelig Aster: Yeshayahu Perek 60, "Kumi Ori"  Rabbi Eli Belizon: Vidui Maasros  Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Torah Writ on Stone! For Whom?  Rabbi Zevulun Charlop: Why Sefer HaYashar and Not Sefer HaSimcha? Rabbi Avishai David: Hakaras HaTov  Rabbi Ally Ehrman: Lev La'daas  Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein: Rejoicing in Oneself Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: The Mezuzah of Israel  Rabbi Efrem Goldberg: An Exercise in Humility and Appreciation Rabbi Yehuda Goldschmidt: Run YOUR Route  Rabbi Shalom Hammer: Individual and Communal  Rabbi David Hirsch: Hakaras HaTov as a Foundation for Middos  Rabbi Jesse Horn: Why the Torah values Happiness  Rabbi Ari Kahn: Coming Home  Rabbi Yisroel Kaminetsky: Understanding, Seeing and Hearing  Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg: The Lesson of Viduy Ma'aser  Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: The Beauty of Black  Rabbi Aryeh Leibowitz: Yeridas Hadoros  Rabbi Yoni Levin: The Connection Between Bikurim and Hagaddah  Rabbi Ben Leybovich: Refilling with Taste  Rabbi Yaakov Neuburger: New Kabalat haTorah  Rabbi Yona Reiss: Teshuva Means Recognizing Our Capacity  Rabbi Yonason Sacks: Tochacha and Arvus Rabbi Jeffrey Saks: Blessings and Curses  Rabbi Hershel Schachter: Dinei Bikurim Shay Schachter: Chazaras Hashatz and Private Shmone Esreh in a Different Nusach  R' Dr. Jacob J Schacter: Why is there such a celebration for the bringing of bikkurim?  Rabbi Avi Schneider: Something Seems Different About You  Rabbi Baruch Simon: V'Samachta B'chol Ha'Tov  Mrs. Shira Smiles: Judgement on Joviality  Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky: Simchas Kreiso vs. Simchas Halev  Rabbi Reuven Spolter: Viduy Maaser - Our Money, Ourselves  Rabbi Moshe Taragin: Mission Man Rabbi Michael Taubes: The Nature of Birchos HaMitzvah  Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner: The Bilateral Covenant with Gd  Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg: The Berachah within the Tochachah Rabbi Andi Yudin: Elul and Direction  Rabbi Ari Zahtz: The Writing on the Rocks  Articles on Ki Tavo Rabbi Solomon Drillman: Reading the Klalos before Rosh Hashana Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman: Confessions of a Tzaddik Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: All-Encompassing Responsibility Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: The Key to Torah Observance Rabbi Maury Grebenau: Torah on the Rocks Rabbi Josh Hoffman: Beginnings Rabbi David Horwitz: Writing the Teaching on Stones and Building an Altar Rabbi Yitzchak Korn: Why is it called Viduy Ma'asrot? Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl: The Sanctity and Power of the Jewish Nation Rabbi Zvi Shiloni: Arami Oved Avi Rabbi Netanel Wiederblank: The Creative Power of Words Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Ki Tavo See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Ki Tavo

New This Week Elul and The Chimney Sweeper's Broken Shidduch  Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein Pray Like You Mean It: Finding Meaning in Selichos Rabbi Efrem Goldberg Checking Fruits and Vegetables for Bugs  Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz Can we find reasons for Chukim?  Rabbi Zev Reichman Centrality of Talmud Torah  Rabbi Yona Reiss Elul: Invigorating Our Spiritual Essence  Rabbi Bezalel Rudinsky Introduction to Bava Metzia Rabbi Hershel Schachter Tekiat Shofar In Elul  Rabbi Ezra Schwartz The Shofar of Rav Kook - A Poem  Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner Chazon Ish - Emunah and Bitachon Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg Challenges to free will  Rabbi Netanel Wiederblank Dealing with Conflicts  Rabbi Mordechai Willig

Ki Tavo sources -- 2012 edition

by aliyah

rishon (Devarim 26:1)

sheni (26:12)

shlishi (26:16)

revii (27:1)

chamishi (27:11)

shishi (28:7)

shevii, maftir (29:1, 6)

haftara (Yeshaya 60)

by perek

26 ; 27 ; 28 ; 29

meforshim
Geonim (589-1038)

R' Saadia Gaon(882-942) -- see Wikipedia entry:

1. Arabic translation of Torah,  here  at Temanim.org. This is a beautiful PDF, with the Chumash text, Rashi, Onkelos, and Rav Saadia's Tafsir. All of these have nikkud, which is a very nice feature. It also designates the Temani and standard aliyah breaks, and two commentaries, Shemen HaMor and Chelek HaDikduk, on the kriyah, trup, nikkud, and dikduk, on the basis of Yemenite manuscripts, which would be worthwhile even absent the other features. Quite excellent, overall.
2. The same Arabic translation, the Tafsir,  here at Google books. No nikkud, Chumash text, Rashi, or Onkelos. But there is a brief supercommentary by Yosef Direnburg at the bottom of each page. 
3. Collected commentary of Saadia Gaon on Torah , selected from the writings of various Rishonim and from his commentaries on other works.

Rabbi Yona Ibn Janach (Spain, 990-1050) -- see Wikipedia 

Rishonim (11th - 15th centuries)

Not really Abarbabel

Judaica Press   Rashi in English  and Hebrew (France, 1040 - 1105) -- ואני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא ולאגדה המיישבת דברי המקרא, דבר דבור על אופניו

Chizkuni (France, 13th century) -- see Wikipedia  

Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Gilyonot 

Shiluach HaKen as a light mitzvah

In parshat Ki Teitzei, the following pasuk:

ו  כִּי יִקָּרֵא קַן-צִפּוֹר לְפָנֶיךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּכָל-עֵץ אוֹ עַל-הָאָרֶץ, אֶפְרֹחִים אוֹ בֵיצִים, וְהָאֵם רֹבֶצֶת עַל-הָאֶפְרֹחִים, אוֹ עַל-הַבֵּיצִים--לֹא-תִקַּח הָאֵם, עַל-הַבָּנִים.

6 If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young;

Rav Yitzchak Karo, the uncle of the Mechaber, wrote:

כִּי יִקָּרֵא קַן-צִפּוֹר לְפָנֶיךָ -- there is to ask, a light mitzvah such as this, which has no monetary loss at all, nor bodily effort, why is its reward so great, that לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ, וְהַאֲרַכְתָּ יָמִים. And further, to a world that is completely tov and a world that is completely aruch.

And the answer in this is that the reward for the lightest of the mitzvot is very great, for the {hidden} treasure of the mitzvot, who sees them and who knows their greatness? For it is without limit, no eye has seen it except for that of God. And all the more so by virtue of the commander, the king, king of kings, Hakadosh Baruch Hu. And from here we will recognize the elevated nature of the more severe commandments.

And some say that the sar {heavenly prince} appointed upon the birds cries out before Hashem, because of its mercy upon the mother who is calling out and crying upon her children, and Hashem dresses himself in mercy upon his sons who were exiled between the nations. For he says "If a bird weeps and cries upon its children, kal vachomer I upon my sons." And it is written {Yirmeyahu 13:17}:

יז  וְאִם לֹא תִשְׁמָעוּהָ, בְּמִסְתָּרִים תִּבְכֶּה-נַפְשִׁי מִפְּנֵי גֵוָה; וְדָמֹעַ תִּדְמַע וְתֵרַד עֵינִי, דִּמְעָה, כִּי נִשְׁבָּה, עֵדֶר יְהוָה.  {ס}

17 But if ye will not hear it, my soul shall weep in secret for your pride; and mine eyes shall weep sore, and run down with tears, because the LORD'S flock is carried away captive. {S}

because of the pride of Israel which was humbled. And is appears that for that reason it did not state by kibud av vaEm the words יִיטַב לָךְ,  but rather yaarichun yamecha, while by shiluach kan tzipor is wrtten  יִיטַב לָךְ, because Hashem will be filled with mercy for his children."

In terms of the light mitzvah with the same reward as the heavy mitzvah, I've always understood this as what seems, from our limited human perspective, to be light and heavy, for the true value of each mitzvah is beyond our ken. Just as one might correctly classify the severity of prohibitions on the basis of their penalty. Alternatively, this is indeed a light and a heavy mitzvah, respectively, but Hashem declared the reward for each to be identical so that in general, we don't start assessing mitzvos in this manner and come to treat the light ones lightly.

In terms of the kabbalistic reason of causing Hashem to have mercy on us, see Rabbi Natan Slifkin's essay on Shiluach haKein, the Transformation of a Mitzvah.

Berachot 31a: Shlish beMikra, and peshat in Daniel's prayer 'as he did aforetime'

Cross-posted to my Daf Yomi blog.

(The content directly related to the gemara in Berachot appears towards the end of this post. But I have an elaborate and interesting introduction first.)

Many people unfortunately think they learn all the Tanach by learning the gemara. After all, the gemara cites all these pesukim!

Such is the position of Tosafot. That is, there is a gemara in Kiddushim, 30a, which reads:

אמר רב ספרא משום ר' יהושע בן חנניא: מאי דכתיב (דברים ו, ז) "ו וְשִׁנַּנְתָּם לְבָנֶיךָ "? אל תקרי "ושננתם" אלא "ושלשתם" - לעולם ישלש אדם שנותיו: שליש במקרא שליש במשנה שליש בתלמוד. מי יודע כמה חיי? לא צריכא – ליומי.

"Rav Safra cited Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chanania: What is meant by 'veshinantam levanecha' {'and you shall teach them to your children'}? Read not veshinantam but veshilashtam. A person should always divide his learning / years (שנותיו -- perhaps this is the ambiguity?). A third in Scripture, a third in Mishna, and a third in Talmud. Who knows how long he will live? No, it is necessary. For each day."

Rashi there explains:

ליומי - ימי השבוע:

"For days: the days of the week."

That is, alternate days of the week, each day devoted to one such topic.

Tosafot there writes:

לא צריכא ליומי. פירש בקונטרס ימי השבת כלומר שני ימים מקרא ושני ימים משנה ושני ימים גמרא ולא נהירא דא"כ אכתי הוה מצי למיפרך מי ידע כמה חיי ונ"ל לפרש בכל יום ויום עצמו ישלש על כן תיקן בסדר רב עמרם גאון כמו שאנו נוהגים בכל יום קודם פסוקי דזמרה לומר מקרא ומשנה וגמרא ור"ת פי' שאנו סומכין אהא דאמרינן בסנהדרין (דף כד.) בבל בלולה במקרא במשנה ובגמרא דגמרת בבל בלול מכולם:

"No, it is necessary, for days. It is explained in the notebook [of Rashi] 'the days of the week'. That is to say, two days of Scripture, two days of Mishna, and two days of Gemara. And this is unconvincing, for if so, one could still ask, 'who knows how long he shall live'? And it appears to me to explain that within each day itself, one should divide into three. Therefore, it was instituted in the seder [siddur] of Rav Amram Gaon before Pesukei deZimra to say Mikra, Mishna, and Gemara. And Rabbenu Tam explained that we rely on that which we say in Sanhedrin (daf 24a) that Babel is mixed, in Mikra, Mishna, and Gemara; that the gemara of Bavel is mixed with all of them.

That gemara in Sanhedrin 24a reads:

What does [the name] Babel connote?³⁰  — R. Johanan answered: [That the study of] Scripture, Mishnah and Talmud was intermingled [therein].³¹

I am not at all convinced by Tosafot's argument against Rashi. Yes, one does not know how many days he will live, but it does not need to be such a precise accounting. Where the gemara asked that a man does not know the days of his life, this was because one might devote 15 years to Mikra, then next 15 years to Mishna, and then never reach Gemara. Or only end up devoting 2 years to gemara.

But, if one devotes 10 years to Mikra, 10 years to Mishna, and 10 years minus 2 days to Gemara, then Rav Safra and Rabbi Yehohua ben Chanania would still consider this as shlish for each. To expect such precision seems a bit silly, and reminiscent of Rabbi Yirmiyah, who was kicked out of the bet midrash for such precise measurements.

Still, splitting each day into thirds is a rather plausible reading of the gemara as well. I dislike the proof but I do like the reading of the gemara.

In terms of the siddur of Rav Amram Gaon, is it really so clear that his purpose was this shlish in each field? If he said so, fine, but I always assumed that the basis was what we learned earlier in masechet Berachot, about whether Birchat HaTorah was necessary for each of the three, and if it is necessary later when one picks up the later field; this sets the stage at the start of the day, after the berachot, with a selection from each of the three.

But no, we are talking about a different selection from all three, namely the Korbanot ending with the hermeneutical rules of Rabbi Yishmael.

In terms of the gemara in Sanhedrin, here is what Tosafot says there:

בלולה במקרא ובמשנה וכו'. פירש רבינו תם דבתלמוד שלנו אנו פוטרין עצמנו ממה שאמרו חכמים (מסכת ע"ג דף יט.) לעולם ישלש אדם שנותיו שליש במקרא שליש במשנה שליש בש"ס אע"פ כן אנו קוראים בכל יום פרשת התמיד ושונים במשנת איזהו מקומן וגורסין רבי ישמעאל אומר בשלש עשרה מדות וכו':

Is Rabbi Yochanan, an early Amora from Eretz Yisrael, really talking about Talmud Bavli, which was closed and redacted well after his death? And why would he not say the same about Talmud Yerushalmi, which also encompasses all three?!

At any rate, now to our gemara, just to give a little taste of what one might be missing if one relies on learning gemara as one's only source of Mikra, which unfortunately many people do.

The gemara in Berachot 31a reads:

יכול יתפלל אדם כל היום כלו כבר מפורש על ידי דניאל (דניאל ו, יא) וזמנין תלתא וגו' יכול משבא לגולה הוחלה כבר נאמר (דניאל ו, יא) די הוא עבד מן קדמת דנא

Or, in English:

I might say that a man should pray the whole day? It has already been expressly stated by the hand of Daniel, And three times. etc.²³  But perhaps [this practice] began only when he went into captivity? It is already said, As he did aforetime.²⁴ 

So, one would think that it is clear, on a peshat level, that the purpose of די הוא עבד מן קדמת דנא is to indicate that this was a practice of Daniel since before he went into galut. However, if we consider the context of the pasuk in sefer Daniel, we realize that:

1) this was not in the days of Nevuchadnezzar, but of Darius, a successor, which means that "aforetime" could have even been while in galut.

2) this was part of a plot in which certain people who were jealous of Daniel convinced the king to outlaw prayer to anyone but the king. Despite knowledge of this decree, Daniel continued his regular practice of prayer. The function of this statement of די הוא עבד מן קדמת דנא on a peshat level is to say that Daniel payed no heed to their conspiracies and to the king's decree, but continued his established practice of facing Yerushalayim and praying three times a day while bowing on his knees.

This is explicit in Daniel, perek 6:

א  וְדָרְיָוֶשׁ, מדיא (מָדָאָה), קַבֵּל, מַלְכוּתָא--כְּבַר שְׁנִין, שִׁתִּין וְתַרְתֵּין.

1 And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

and then:

ה  אֱדַיִן סָרְכַיָּא וַאֲחַשְׁדַּרְפְּנַיָּא, הֲווֹ בָעַיִן עִלָּה לְהַשְׁכָּחָה לְדָנִיֵּאל--מִצַּד מַלְכוּתָא; וְכָל-עִלָּה וּשְׁחִיתָה לָא-יָכְלִין לְהַשְׁכָּחָה, כָּל-קֳבֵל דִּי-מְהֵימַן הוּא, וְכָל-שָׁלוּ וּשְׁחִיתָה, לָא הִשְׁתְּכַחַת עֲלוֹהִי.	5 Then the presidents and the satraps sought to find occasion against Daniel as touching the kingdom; but they could find no occasion nor fault; forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him.
ו  אֱדַיִן גֻּבְרַיָּא אִלֵּךְ, אָמְרִין, דִּי לָא נְהַשְׁכַּח לְדָנִיֵּאל דְּנָה, כָּל-עִלָּה; לָהֵן, הַשְׁכַּחְנָא עֲלוֹהִי בְּדָת אֱלָהֵהּ.  {ס}	6 Then said these men: 'We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him in the matter of the law of his God.' {S}
ז  אֱדַיִן סָרְכַיָּא וַאֲחַשְׁדַּרְפְּנַיָּא, אִלֵּן, הַרְגִּשׁוּ, עַל-מַלְכָּא; וְכֵן אָמְרִין לֵהּ, דָּרְיָוֶשׁ מַלְכָּא לְעָלְמִין חֱיִי.	7 Then these presidents and satraps came tumultuously to the king, and said thus unto him: 'King Darius, live for ever!
ח  אִתְיָעַטוּ כֹּל סָרְכֵי מַלְכוּתָא, סִגְנַיָּא וַאֲחַשְׁדַּרְפְּנַיָּא הַדָּבְרַיָּא וּפַחֲוָתָא, לְקַיָּמָה קְיָם מַלְכָּא, וּלְתַקָּפָה אֱסָר:  דִּי כָל-דִּי-יִבְעֵא בָעוּ מִן-כָּל-אֱלָהּ וֶאֱנָשׁ עַד-יוֹמִין תְּלָתִין, לָהֵן מִנָּךְ מַלְכָּא--יִתְרְמֵא, לְגֹב אַרְיָוָתָא.	8 All the presidents of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the ministers and the governors, have consulted together that the king should establish a statute, and make a strong interdict, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions.
ט  כְּעַן מַלְכָּא, תְּקִים אֱסָרָא וְתִרְשֻׁם כְּתָבָא:  דִּי לָא לְהַשְׁנָיָה כְּדָת-מָדַי וּפָרַס, דִּי-לָא תֶעְדֵּא.	9 Now, O king, establish the interdict, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not.'
י  כָּל-קֳבֵל, דְּנָה--מַלְכָּא, דָּרְיָוֶשׁ, רְשַׁם כְּתָבָא, וֶאֱסָרָא.	10 Wherefore king Darius signed the writing and the interdict.
יא  וְדָנִיֵּאל כְּדִי יְדַע דִּי-רְשִׁים כְּתָבָא, עַל לְבַיְתֵהּ, וְכַוִּין פְּתִיחָן לֵהּ בְּעִלִּיתֵהּ, נֶגֶד יְרוּשְׁלֶם; וְזִמְנִין תְּלָתָה בְיוֹמָא הוּא בָּרֵךְ עַל-בִּרְכוֹהִי, וּמְצַלֵּא וּמוֹדֵא קֳדָם אֱלָהֵהּ, כָּל-קֳבֵל דִּי-הֲוָא עָבֵד, מִן-קַדְמַת דְּנָה.  {ס}	11 And when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house--now his windows were open in his upper chamber toward Jerusalem--and he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime. {S}
יב  אֱדַיִן גֻּבְרַיָּא אִלֵּךְ, הַרְגִּשׁוּ, וְהַשְׁכַּחוּ, לְדָנִיֵּאל--בָּעֵה וּמִתְחַנַּן, קֳדָם אֱלָהֵהּ.	12 Then these men came tumultuously, and found Daniel making petition and supplication before his God.

I think it quite plausible that your typical student of Daf Yomi, or even yeshiva student learning this gemara somewhat be-iyun, would not realize the peshat intent of this pasuk of become aware of the background to this story.

Of course, the gemara is entitled to reinterpret the pasuk as it wishes, to show this as a prior practice of prayer from before churban bayis rishon. But people should not think that they are really getting their shlish bemikra such that they are now experts in Mikra.

Guest Essay: Proper Performance of Mitzvas Bris Milah

Note: This is a guest post, meaning that I, Josh, did not write this. Perhaps I will weigh in in a subsequent post. I see this essay was also posted at Emes veEmunah

PROPER PERFORMANCE OF MITZVAS BRIS MILAH

Rabbi Moshe Zuriel

Bnei Brak, Israel

It is always sad to see dispute and bickering amongst brethren. It is even more aggravating to see anger and emotional outbursts, bitter accusations and personal attacks in the public domain. The present controversy regarding how to do the metzitzah of blood during Bris Milah, if by mouth or by tube, is a case in point.

If we check the Gemarah source[1] and so too the Rambam[2] , and the Shulchan Aruch[3] , we see no mention of the “Peh,” the mouth. The Hebrew word for suction is "motzetz" and this can be performed also by the use of a tube using mouth suction. It is important to precede all discussion on this topic by "putting everything on the table". We are not discussing a Biblical Commandment, nor are we referring to a Rabbinical enactment from the Gemarah's time. We are referring to a hallowed Minhag from days of yore to use the mouth only. Certainly the withdrawal of blood is a Rabbinical enactment, but the direct application of the mouth is only a Minhag. Beyond that, using a tube by mouth suction is also a utilization of the mouth and should not to be considered as abolition of the use of the mouth[4]. This understanding is important to know before we clarify what a parent should decide in cases of doubt.

The world famous Chasam Sofer wrote a responsum to permit using other methods than the mouth ("Bris Olam", page 216)[5]. The great Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsh permitted the use of a short tube (Shemesh Marpeh, page 70). Rabbi Yitzchok Herzog wrote[6] that since the medical experts claim that there is a danger of infection in many cases, it is advisable to use a tube. He adds that those who insist adamantly that the withdrawal should be done by direct application of the mouth "are mistaken and so too cause others to make a mistake". The illustrious Rabbi Avraham Kook permitted the use of a tube when in doubt of infection (Da'as Kohen, 142) [also, see the words of the Aruch Hashulchan[7] and Rabbi Chaim Berlin[8]]. Rabbi Zvi Pesach Frank claimed[9] that since the entire purpose of the Rabbinical enactment of withdrawing the blood from the wound is to avoid infection, this act being done by the tube is part and parcel of that healing process. May we add that this would even be a "hiddur Mitzva" since this is even safer that the personal physical contact of the Mohel to the open wound.

But why is there such a vehement outcry against the usage of the tube? The answer is that for nearly two hundred years there is fear of Gentile government intervention making the essential circumcision ritual illegal. This started in Paris in 1843, reached Germany and Poland and today in California a small group of "humanists" appealed to the State Legislature to ban the practice. This move was defeated. The fear is that if we ourselves admit that this mitzvah could be damaging to the child, the Department of Health might make capital of our admission. The second cause of the great emotional outbursts of resistance to any change in the ceremony is the worry to keep intact all of Jewish way life, to stay as close as possible to the customs of our forefathers; to forestall all reforms.

But as intelligent human beings we must always weigh the pros and the cons. Many medical doctors claim that there is a danger of delivering the Herpes virus to an infant. As of now, one out of six Americans bears in his body the latent virus of Herpes. True the potential risk of life endangerment to an infant from Metzitzah B’Peh is exceedingly low. However, for the particular parents that this tragedy occurs to their child it is a tremendous torture. Must not every parent do his best not to enter this potential risk? If we are dealing with a Torah law, or at least a Rabbinical enactment, certainly it is Chassidus to be stringent and rely on "Shomer Mitzva Lo Ye-da Davar Ra". But we are referring here not to religious law but to medical advice tendered by our sages, calculated to save the child from danger. This is not a "mitzvah" per se. If as per modern medical advice we are doing the opposite, we are exposing the child to danger, how is this in any way Chassidus? True we should perform Metzizah, but why by direct contact with the mouth?

Beyond the life or death question, there is another moral problem. Five out of six of Americans do not bear in their bodies this painful Herpes virus. How are we justified to expose this infant to that one-sixth of the population who will eventually suffer painful skin eruptions, twice thrice or four times during their life? True religiosity is to be extra careful not to cause chagrin unnecessarily to any fellow creature.

I am aware that knowledgeable doctors have claimed that without absolute verification, such as DNA tests, we cannot be certain that it is the Mohel who has transmitted the virus to the infant. Especially so since there are varied types of the Herpes virus. However this does not mean that we cannot take into probability, into plausible consideration, that immediately following the circumcision these infants came out with the disease. The doubt is still there.

I would suggest that every conscientious father or mother take every true consideration for the benefit of the newborn infant, and ask the Mohel in advance to use the tube. And if he denies or objects, they should find another Mohel willing to accede to the psak of the Chasam Sofer, Rabbi Kook, of Rabbi Herzog, or Rabbi Frank. True Chassidus is not to be belligerent but to be intelligent and thoughtful, to be precautious within the limits of Torah Law.

Why is it that when taking blood samples to be tested in the medical laboratory, the nurses don nylon gloves so not to be endangered; why is it that dentists before treating another patient take off the previous gloves and exchange for a new pair of nylon gloves? Why be backwards? What is the religiosity involved to make a creed of being against anything that is modern, to stand stubbornly against any medical advances? How is it that when someone needs medical attention he chooses the best medical advice, price being no object. However, when it comes to metzizah, which according to Chazal was only enacted due to worry for medical health, there he will stand with fierce antagonism and wish to remain as we were years ago, using a "no-no" exclamation as a standard way of life?

The paramount question is, is that what G-d wants?   

It must be emphasized that the resolution of this controversy will not be achieved by government involvement or regulation. Any government entanglement with the manner in which Bris Milah is performed, would be a severe blow to the foundation of religious rights and freedom which is a cornerstone of the magnificent beacon of liberty, The United States of America. The arguments and facts cited above are directed to the parents of the infants to be able to decide for themselves, and to explain why they should not be concerned on a halachic level to use a tube (if done with a proper suction), since for 180 years, the greatest Torah authorities [from the time of the Chasam Sofer] have already permitted it.

---

[1] )שבת קלג,ב): "אמר רב פפא האי אומנא דלא מייץ סכנה הוא ועברינן ליה"

[2] (הלכות מילה פרק ב הלכה ב): "כיצד מוהלין? חותכין את כל העור המחפה את העטרה עד שתתגלה כל העטרה וכו' וכו' ואח"כ מוצץ את המילה עד שיצא הדם ממקומות רחוקים כדי שלא יבא לידי סכנה. וכל מי שאינו מוצץ מעבירין אותו ואחר שמוצץ נותן עליה אספלנית או רטייה וכיוצא בהן"

[3] (יורה דעה, רסד סעיף ג): "ואח"כ מוצצין המילה עד שיצא הדם מהמקומות הרחוקים כדי שלא יבוא לידי סכנה. וכל מוהל שאינו מוצץ מעבירין אותו". ואחר שמצץ נותן עליו אספלנית או רטייה או אבק סמים העוצרים הדם".

[4] עדות מעניינת הביא הרב משה שטרנבוך (תשובות והנהגות, ח"ב סי' תקג): כי אמר לו הגרי"ז סולובייציק כי אביו הגר"ח התיר בעת מגפת שחפת בזמנו שישתמש המוהל עם שפופרת "קצרה מאד שלדבריו הוי כגופו ממש". ובשו"ת שמש מרפא לרש"ר הירש (עמ' 70) שהתיר שפופרת באורך 6.5 ס"מ, כלומר כרוחב שלש אצבעות.

[5] “…ועוד אני אומר אפילו היה מפורש בש"ס מוצץ בפיו, מכל מקום כיון שאין זה מהכשר מילה אלא משום סכנה, והמל ופרע ולא מצץ כבר גמר מצותו, והתינוק מותר בתרומה ואביו עושה פסח, אלא שהוא בסכנה עד שתעשה פעולה להוציא דם ממקומות רחוקים. ופארד"מ [פרק רבי אליעזר דמילה] יליף רב פפא דומיא דאספלנית וכמון שהוא משום סכנה, הכי נמי במציצה. והרי כמון ואספלנית גופא אין אנו נוהגים בכמון כלל, גם לא באותה אספלנית שנזכרו בש"ס באביי ורבא, שמע מינה (כיון דמשום רפואה הוא אין להקפיד אם המציאו הרופאים רפואה אחרת במקום) והוא הדין נמי למציצה, אפילו היה מוזכר במשנה 'מציצה בפה' מכל מקום יכולים להמיר בדבר אחר כיוצא בו. אך יזהירו הרופאים שיעידו באמת אם הספוג עושה פעולת מציצה בפה. יותר מזה אין לחוש לפענ"ד. הק' משה סופר מק"ק פפד"מ עכ"ל”

[6] "פסקים וכתבים", )חלק ד, תשובה פ"ד(, מתאריך תשט"ו: "כמה פלפלו גאוני הדורות האחרונים בענין זה של מציצה אם דוקא בפה וכו'. אבל אין רצוני עכשיו להזדקק לפלפולים. ברור לענ"ד כשמש בצהרים שאין המציצה חלק מהמצוה, לא לכתחילה ואצ"ל לא דיעבד. והרי פשטות הלשון מעידה על כך שלא אמרו שאומנא דלא מייץ לא רק שעבריין הוא היינו שהוא עובר על המצוה, אלא אמרו הוא יתר על כך מסכן את חיי הילד. אלא [אמרו] סכנתא ותו לא. וכו'.

אכן השאלה היא היות וחכמי הרופאים מחליטים היום שיש חשש סכנה לילד מפי המוהל, ובכגון זה ודאי שצריך לחוש. וכו' וכו'. וכבר הוסכם בין חכמי הרופאים שהמציצה בכלי כנ"ל היא עושה אותה הפעולה שהפה עושה. ועתה במקום שמאידך גיסא, היינו בפה ממש, יש לפי דברי המומחים או על כל פנים לפי דבריהם של כמה מהמומחים חשש סכנה ח"ו להילד, ולמיחש מיבעי. ועל כן העומד על כך שהמציצה תיעשה דווקא בפה, הרי הוא לדעתי טועה ומטעה בדבר שיש בו חשש של סכנה.

וכבר אמר רבינו הקדוש החתם סופר זצוק"ל (הובא בספר ברית עולם) שאין לנו עסק בנסתרות, ועליהם [תוספת המעתיק: המוחים נגד השימוש בשפופרת] לחזור מדעתם זו, ואדרבה לדאוג לכך לצאת ידי הרופאים הגדולים. וכן לרבות לצאת גם ידי הגאון האמיתי קודמי זיע"א [הרב אברהם קוק, דעת כהן סי' קמא-קמב) ולעשות המציצה ע"י הכלי שהפה משתתף בה במדה ידועה. וכו'.

[7] הבעל ערוך השולחן עונה בשנת תרנ"ט למוהל ר' אלכסנדר טערטיס שהמציא את המכונה למציצה, ודבריו הובאו בספר "קובץ דם ברית" (שנת תרס"א) וכן שוב ב"ספר הברית" של הרב משה בונם פירוטינסקי (סוף עמ' רכג) ואלו הם דבריו: "בדבר המכונה מהמציצה, למותר להאריך, ודבר שפתים אך למחסור. ותבוא ברכה על הממציאים המכונה הלזו, ואותם פשוקי השפתים השוכבים בין שפתים, דבריהם בלי טעם ובלי ריח. ולאשר הדברים פשוטים, לא ראיתי להאריך בזה מגודל הטרדה, ואו"ש וברכה, ידידו הדוש"ת באהבה. יחיאל מיכל הלוי עפשטיין החופ"ק נווהארדק.

ואמנם צריכים ליישב סתירה בדברי הגאון. בספר ההלכות "ערוך השולחן" (יורה דעה סי' רסד ס"ק יט) כותב: "ודע שיש בזמנינו שאומרים שיותר טוב לעשות המציצה לא בפה אלא באיזה ספוג שמספג את הדם. ולא נאבה להם ולא נשמע להם. ורבותינו חכמי הש"ס היו בקיאים ומחוכמים יותר מהם. אך זהו בודאי שהמוצץ יהיה לו פה נקי בלא שום מחלה, ושיניים נקיים" עכ"ל לעניננו. אבל ליישב הסתירה הוא קל. כי בספר ההלכות התנגד הרב לשימוש הספוג שאינו מושך את הדם ממקומות הרחוקים. וספר זה כתב קודם, ולפי "בית עקד ספרים" חלק יורה דעה נדפס הספר בורשה שנות תרנ"ד-תרנ"ח. אבל המכתב הנ"ל למוהל  טרטיס בענין מכשיר המושך הדם, נכתב בשנת תרנ"ט. ולדעתו הוא שיפור על השיטה הקודמת. וכן למכתב שכתב עלינו לשמוע כי הוא בתרא מול מה שכתב בספרו על ההלכה, שהיה מוקדם וגם על השיטה הקודמת.

וכן בנו של מחבר "ערוך השולחן", הרב ברוך עפשטין הוא תומך נלהב במציצה ע"י שפופרת ואחרי שמביא דברי הרופאים המומחים שהתריעו מפני סכנה או לכל הפחות נזק, כותב "ובזמן הזה רוב המוהלים בארצות המערב משתמשים בכלי מציצה שהוא מכונה של שפופרת" (מקור ברוך, ח"ג עמ' תרנב).

[8] הגאון ר' חיים ברלין (דבריו הובאו בספר "דם ברית" עמ' 43 במכתבו להרב יצחק סובלסקי) "מתפלא אנכי על כבודו ועל הרב ר' אלכסנדר טרטיס שהתעוררו לאסוף דעות רבנים להתיר את המציצה בכלי. וכי כלום מתירים את המותר? ומטהרים את הטהור? ומעולם לא נזכר בשום מקום בדבר חז"ל שחיוב המציצה דוקא בפה וכו' ואע"פ שאין ראיה לדבר, זכר לדבר [עיי"ש דבריו] אלא שבכל זה אין לשנות מנהג אבותינו מעולם שהיו מוצצין בפה. אבל היכא דאיכא שום שמץ ספק ספיקא לסכנה ח"ו, ודאי אין לדקדק על קיום מנהג אבותינו, ורשאים לשנותו מחשש סכנה" [ושם ממשיך שאין רצונו להיות חתום על תקנה שיהיו חייבים כולם לעשות מציצה בכלי, כי אין רצונו להיות ממתקני תקנות].

[9] שו"ת הר צבי, יו"ד סי' ריד :"ואעתיק מה שנדפס בספר תשובות רשב"ן שנדפס בשנת תר"ס לאחד מגדולי הונגריא וכו' ושם בסימן קמ"ג, באשר שהיו מקרים בכמה ילדים נימולים ע"י מומחה אשר פרחה בעור בשרם צרעת, שפטו הרופאים שהמחלה באה מהמציצה בפה. ושאלו מהחתם סופר והשיב שהמציצה היא רק לרפואת התינוק כמ"ש בגמרא (שבת קלג). ואחר שהרופאים מעידים שגם ספוג עושה את הפעולה, למה לא נאמין להם? וכן בתשובת מהר"ץ חיות מקיל גם בלא ספוג ודי לו במה שנותנים סמי רפואה. הנה גם בזמן הזה דשכיחי מחלות ע"י מציצה בפה, מאן דמיקל לעשות המציצה ע"י שפופרת של זכוכית, לא משתבש אם עושה כן מפני שיש חשש [בימינו]”…

Interesting Posts and Articles #381

1. Over at Mi Yodeya, I earned the following badge for answering this question:

I'm not so sure this is something to be proud of.

2. A Queens woman searches for a purse-nabber. Funny that I'm linking to a blog in Eretz Yisrael about this local issue.
 

3. Rationalist Judaism on the El Al ticket fiasco and rationalism.

4. At the Gematriot blog, why there is no better time to start Daf Yomi. Mostly nonsense, going on for pages and pages, but at least it is nonsense with a positive end result.

5. At COLLive, a new book takes on messianics [sic?]. Here it an image:


6. And at Hezbos in your Backyard, posts decrying those Lubavitch who are not overt meshichists.

7. Related to this, I don't know what to make of Tidbits of Torah. In comments there and elsewhere, they are very much in favor of this belief in mashiach from the dead which, in ways, often borders on idolatry. And meanwhile, on their blog, Tidbits of Torah, they describe how they are geirim, and used to be, respectively, an "ordained a pastor in the Methodist Church" and a "Christian minister in the African American community both in Chicago and Los Angeles for 14 years". Is this just switching from one false messianism and idolatry to another?

The reason I point it out is that so many of the discussions on the English Geulah blogs are framed by people with outside influences, be they "Noahides", baalei teshuva, gerim, or Christians.

8. At Frum Satire and DovBear, Great Moments in Marketing:


9. At Fink or Swim, Can Judaism Survive the Internet?

10. Here at parshablog, check out my running commentary on Ki Teitzei.

Doing the Daf summary #4

To see this picture debunked, see here

Here is a summary of this week's Daf Yomi posts at my Daf Yomi blog from last week.

On Berachot 24: Rav Elyashiv and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi -- if Rav Elyashiv, or Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, is observed doing something at odds with some rabbinic dictum, there is a real possibility that it is because he rejects that specific rabbinic dictum.

Also, the definition of shok, part one and part two. The gemara declares that a woman's shok is erva. But is this the calf or the thigh? Based on certain gemaras, the pasuk which forms the prooftext, and Akkadian, I argue in favor of thigh.

Berachot 25: The Chazon Ish's glasses, and whether translucent glass creates an improper separation for kriat hatorah.

Berachot 26-27: Some thoughts. Hard to summarize, so just check it out.

Berachot 27-28: A quick comparison of the Bavli vs. Yerushalmi's account of the conflict between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua.

Berachot 28: How do we count the 18 vertebrae in the human spine? After all, contemporary as well as modern accounts give a different number. I don't have a good answer.

Also, how was Resh Lakish in doubt? I suggest that he did not mean that he was uncertain whether Rabbi Yochanan or Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said it, but that, based on the position of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, which Rabbi Yochanan adopts, it is a novelty that Rabbi Yochanan would pasken against Rabbi Yehuda in the brayta.

Berachot 29: Havinenu, focus in davening, and whether the widespread existence of siddurim might represent a significant enough change in metzius to trigger a change in halacha.

Berachot 31: A drop of blood no bigger than a mustard seed as halacha psuka, why I would personally find that example distracting, and that Abaye might not making a point of the universality of the practice.