Thursday, January 17, 2013

Thoughts on Bo

1) Why introduce these makkos with a forewarning that Hashem will harden Pharaoh's heart, and that this is indeed the Divine plan? Shemot 10.

The Lord said to Moses: "Come to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, in order that I may place these signs of Mine in his midst, א. וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל משֶׁה בֹּא אֶל פַּרְעֹה כִּי אֲנִי הִכְבַּדְתִּי אֶת לִבּוֹ וְאֶת לֵב עֲבָדָיו לְמַעַן שִׁתִי אֹתֹתַי אֵלֶּה בְּקִרְבּוֹ:


My intuition tells me that this is because Pharoah tries bargaining with Moshe, in terms of who may leave Egypt for the chag, and with what. If Moshe's priority is to get the Hebrews out of Egypt, then he may well give in. However, with Hashem's directive here, the priority changes. If Pharaoh gives in entirely, fine. If not, it is further hardening of the heart, and the bringing of the makkah upon failed negotiation is indeed a good thing.

2) The next pasuk:
and in order that you tell into the ears of your son and your son's son how I made a mockery of the Egyptians, and [that you tell of] My signs that I placed in them, and you will know that I am the Lord." ב. וּלְמַעַן תְּסַפֵּר בְּאָזְנֵי בִנְךָ וּבֶן בִּנְךָ אֵת אֲשֶׁר הִתְעַלַּלְתִּי בְּמִצְרַיִם וְאֶת אֹתֹתַי אֲשֶׁר שַׂמְתִּי בָם וִידַעְתֶּם כִּי אֲנִי יְהֹוָה:

I don't know that we explicitly darshen this. However, this seems like a source for listing the makkos, and Detzach Adash BeAchav, on the seder night. As well as other otot. It is not just darshening from Arami Oved Avi, but a specific listing of the signs.

3) In perek 11:

and every firstborn in the land of Egypt will die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne to the firstborn of the slave woman who is behind the millstones, and every firstborn animal. ה. וּמֵת כָּל בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבְּכוֹר פַּרְעֹה הַיּשֵׁב עַל כִּסְאוֹ עַד בְּכוֹר הַשִּׁפְחָה אֲשֶׁר אַחַר הָרֵחָיִם וְכֹל בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה:
to the firstborn of the captive: Why were the captives smitten? So that they would not say, “Our deity has demanded [vengeance] for their [our] degradation, and brought retribution upon Egypt.” -[from Mechilta, Bo, on Exod. 12:29] עד בכור השבי: (שמות יב כט) למה לקו השבויים, כדי שלא יאמרו, יראתם תבעה עלבונם והביאה פורענות על מצרים:
from the firstborn of Pharaoh… to the firstborn of the slave woman: All those inferior to the Pharaoh’s firstborn and superior to the slave woman’s firstborn were included. Why were the sons of the slave women smitten? Because they too were enslaving them [the Israelites] and were happy about their misfortune. — [from Pesikta Rabbathi, ch. 17] מבכור פרעה עד בכור השפחה: כל הפחותים מבכור פרעה וחשובים מבכור השפחה היו בכלל. ולמה לקו בני השפחות, שאף הם היו משעבדים בהם ושמחים בצרתם:
and every firstborn animal: Because they [the Egyptians] worshipped it, and when the Holy One, blessed be He, punishes any nation, He punishes its deity. — [from Mechilta, Bo, on Exod. 12:29] וכל בכור בהמה: לפי שהיו עובדין לה, וכשהקדוש ברוך הוא נפרע מן האומה נפרע מאלהיה:


Why bring in the captive, who are listed in place of the slave, in the actual fulfillment of the plague? Because here is the place to discuss why all these seeming innocents are being smitten.

We didn't (necessarily) ask before, by the previous plague attacking cattle, what the poor cows did. Nor did we ask what the poor crops did. Aside from this midrashic answer, I think the answer is that these are all tafel. What did the firstborn babies do? Or were they punished for their parents' actions? Rather, they are tafel. The purpose is an all-encompassing punishment for all Egypt, and a distinction from the Hebrews, who are entirely spared from this punishment. As it states two pesukim later:

But to all the children of Israel, not one dog will whet its tongue against either man or beast, in order that you shall know that the Lord will separate between the Egyptians and between Israel.' ז. וּלְכֹל | בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יֶחֱרַץ כֶּלֶב לְשֹׁנוֹ לְמֵאִישׁ וְעַד בְּהֵמָה לְמַעַן תֵּדְעוּן אֲשֶׁר יַפְלֶה ה בֵּין מִצְרַיִם וּבֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל:

If any distinctions were made within the Egyptians, then this point would not be made. Indeed, that is possibly the point of the Mechilta on Bo which Rashi cited above in עד בכור השבי.
Posted by joshwaxman at 10:15 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels:

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

YUTorah on parshas Bo



Audio Shiurim on Bo
Articles on Bo
Haftorah Shiurim on Bo
Parsha Sheets on Bo
Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Bo
See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Bo
New This Week

Posted by joshwaxman at 6:13 AM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: ,

Monday, January 14, 2013

Doing the Daf summary #10

To see this picture debunked, see here

Here are some recent posts at my Daf Yomi blog you may have missed.

On Shabbat daf 53: Abaye as a classic rationalist. In terms of the nursing man, he considers Hashem working wonders within the natural order as more wondrous, and evidence of the perfection of the Divine Plan in Creation.

On Shabbat 92-93: Many Leviim washing one kohen's hand -- I wonder how the gemara's discussion of multiple actors, where each is capable, or where one is merely assisting, plays out in terms of the frequent situation in which hordes of Leviim crowd around to wash one kohen's hands.

On Shabbat 94-95: Is plaiting building? And a fundamental definition of melacha -- I analyze the proof from vayiven et hatzela, and do not come away convinced that it proves that plaiting is encompassed within building, as a natural form of building. Rather, it is a foreign-language pun, as a method of derash. If so, what is the answer to it not being derech boneh? I think that it is that the avot are mere organizational aids -- as one source puts it, those involved in the Mishkan. But all are Biblical, as defined by Chazal. If so, cholev really is because of cholev.
Posted by joshwaxman at 6:50 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: , ,

Friday, January 11, 2013

Is Chuck Hagel an Amalekite?

From the always silly Rav Fish, some troubling news about Chuck Hagel:
  • Chuck Hagel:
    • can be spelled in Hebrew צ'ק איגל [using a silent H].  צ'ק is the same letters as קץ, while איגל is the gematria of דם [blood]. 
    • And his father has German heritage. 
    • And he was born in North Platte, Nebraska, signifying מצפון תפתח הרעה. 
    • Also, this can be spelled נור ת, meaning "the fire of Tav" - the 400 men of Esav and Amalek
    • He worked at Firestone Tires, again "fire".  Also, פַיֶירְסְטוֹן is the gematria of משיח בן דוד.
This stuff always reminds me of the uncanny similarities of the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations:
Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.

Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.

The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters.

Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.

Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.

Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.

Both were shot in the head.

Lincoln's secretary, Kennedy, warned him not to go to the theatre.
Kennedy's secretary, Lincoln, warned him not to go to Dallas.

Both were assassinated by Southerners.

Both were succeeded by Southerners.

Both successors were named Johnson.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

John Wilkes Booth was born in 1839.
Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939.

Both assassins were known by their three names.

Both names are comprised of fifteen letters

Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse.
Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.

Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.
A month before he was shot, Lincoln was in Monroe, Maryland. 
 See Snopes' debunking of this. For instance, this paragraph:
The coincidences are easily explained as the simple product of mere chance. It's not difficult to find patterns and similarities between any two marginally-related sets of data, and coincidences similar in number and kind can be (and have been) found between many different pairs of Presidents. Our tendency to seek out patterns wherever we can stems from our desire to make sense of our world; to maintain a feeling that our universe is orderly and can be understood. In this specific case two of our most beloved Presidents were murdered for reasons that make little or no sense to many of us, and by finding patterns in their deaths we also hope to find a larger cosmic "something" that seemingly provides some reassuring (if indefinite) rhyme or reason why these great men were prematurely snatched from our mortal sphere.
Yes, the "frum" approach is to counter this with the assertion that, since Hashem controls the world (down to every falling leaf), there are no coincidences.

But even if we grant that every factoid was set in place by Hashem, the corresponding of the millions of little facts to establish a meaningful relationship is something done by humans. Rabbi Fish's last name is Fish, and I would assert that his methodology is fishy. Just because I, a human being, established a connection between the last name (a matter established by God) and the adjective "fishy" (also a matter established by God), that does not mean that God intended the correspondence to have meaning.

Even in pesukim, directly authored by God, not every human interpretation reflects Hashem's intent. The pasuk says Naaseh Adam Betzalmeinu, and a midrash states that Moshe objected that the human heretics would use this as proof of multiple gods. Hashem said that if humans want to err, let them err. Hashem wanted to make a homiletic point about the importance of consulting others.

If you line up any two historical events, or any two persons, there will be millions of factiods associated with them. And by the rules of large numbers, there will be a number of factiods from each set which match. To then point out the similarities reveals absolutely nothing.

And misusing gematria, synonyms, and multiple alternate spellings (e.g. spell Hagel with an aleph rather than a heh) to arrive at a predetermined outcome is bittul Torah in every sense of the word.
Posted by joshwaxman at 12:47 PM 30 comments Links to this post
Labels: , ,

Wednesday, January 09, 2013

YUTorah on parshat Vaera



 Audio Shiurim on Va'era
Articles on Va'era
Haftorah Shiurim on Va'era
Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Va'era
See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Va'era

New This Week
Posted by joshwaxman at 9:21 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: ,

Monday, January 07, 2013

Did הבתים transform into ויבן?

Summary: At first glance, it looks like Rashi miquoted a pasuk in Melachim. The Lubavitcher Rebbe explains the steps in its transformation, such that Rashi cited the pasuk correctly and scribes corrupted it. But perhaps Rashi never gave this pasuk as prooftext. I have a manuscript to back this idea up. Also, the prooftext is not very persuasive, since the midrash is speaking of the kingly and levite families, while the pasuk is speaking about physical structures, a palace and a Temple.

Post: I saw this interesting dvar Torah from the Lubavitcher Rebbe over Shabbos. Consider the following Rashi:

21. Now it took place when the midwives feared God, that He made houses for them.כא. וַיְהִי כִּי יָרְאוּ הַמְיַלְּדֹת אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים וַיַּעַשׂ לָהֶם בָּתִּים:
He made houses for them: The houses of the priesthood, the Levitic family, and the royal family, which are called houses, as it is written: And he built the house of the Lord and the house of the king, (I Kings 9:1) [sic] 5, the priesthood and the Levitic family from Jochebed and the royal family from Miriam, as is stated in tractate Sotah (11b).ויעש להם בתים: - בתי כהונה ולויה ומלכות שקרויין בתים. (ויבן) [הבתים] את בית ה' ואת בית המלך (מלכים א' ט א) (לקוטי שיחות חלק כ"א, ע' 2 הערה 29). כהונה ולויה מיוכבד, ומלכות ממרים, כדאיתא במסכת סוטה (סוטה יא ב):


The pasuk in sefer Melachim, 9:10, reads:
י  וַיְהִי, מִקְצֵה עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, אֲשֶׁר-בָּנָה שְׁלֹמֹה, אֶת-שְׁנֵי הַבָּתִּים--אֶת-בֵּית ה, וְאֶת-בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ.10 And it came to pass at the end of twenty years, wherein Solomon had built the two houses, the house of the LORD and the king's house--

so how could Rashi cite it as וַיִּבֶן אֶת-שְׁנֵי הַבָּתִּים--אֶת-בֵּית ה, וְאֶת-בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ? The Hebrew above refers to a sicha of the Lubavitcher Rebbe in which he explains that probably, initially Rashi cited the pasuk correctly. And so it said הַבָּתִּים. But then, Rashi would say the word בָּתִּים twice in a row. The second was written in short as הַבָּ'ש. Then, because heh sometimes looks in some manuscripts like a vav and a yud, some scribe reinterpreted it as a vav and yud, and interpreted the single quote at the end of the abbreviation to be an abbreviation for a nun sofit. Thus, habatim became vayiven.

This sounds possible.

Here are two other possibilities.

If we look at a ktav yad of Rashi from Rome, 1470, we don't see the offending misquotation of the pasuk. Instead, all we have is:

There is also no reference to specifically Masechet Sotah, as opposed to the gemara in general, or Masechet Megillah, which perhaps precedes, something which the Lubavitcher Rebbe also makes some diyukim about.

Now, earlier manuscripts from elsewhere do have the surrounding statements -- of בתי כהונה ולויה ומלכות שקרויין בתים. (ויבן) [הבתים] את בית ה' ואת בית המלך, and of כדאיתא במסכת סוטה. But I would suggest that these were the work of an overeager scribe, who inserted these 'helpful' comments into his Rashi text.

Indeed, the prooftext from sefer Melachim that the kingly and Levite family are called houses is not found in the gemara in Sotah. It offers other prooftexts to other aspects of the idea. Further, if we look at the pasuk in Melachim, it is talking about physical houses, namely the palace and the Bet Hamikdash. How in the world can it be a prooftext to the idea that The houses of the priesthood, the Levitic family, and the royal family, [...] are called houses? It seems like this was written by a talmid toeh, an erring student, rather than by Rashi himself. (A better proof would be, e.g. vayelech ish mibet Levi from elsewhere in Shemot, and maybe וְאֵת שֶׁבַע הַנְּעָרוֹת הָרְאֻיוֹת לָתֶת-לָהּ מִבֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ from Esther perek 2.)

If so, it would not be so surprising if this erring student misquoted the pasuk in Melachim.

And it is not such a bad misquote, anyway. It gives the main gist of the pasuk, without being too verbose. Instead of the roundabout  אֲשֶׁר-בָּנָה שְׁלֹמֹה, אֶת-שְׁנֵי הַבָּתִּים--אֶת-בֵּית ה, וְאֶת-בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ, it communicates that someone built these houses. Say it is a minor rewording in place of an ellipses (...). Furthermore, look in the preceding perakim which discuss the building, and the word וַיִּבֶן  is indeed used. Thus, Melachim 6:1:
ט  וַיִּבֶן אֶת-הַבַּיִת, וַיְכַלֵּהוּ; וַיִּסְפֹּן אֶת-הַבַּיִת גֵּבִים, וּשְׂדֵרֹת בָּאֲרָזִים.9 So he built the house, and finished it; and he covered in the house with planks of cedar over beams.


Chazal in the gemara often "misquote" pesukim. I've argued elsewhere that this was them following (and sometimes darshening) a Samaritan text. Other explanations are that the gemara, rather than the pasuk, was corrupted by scribal error (as was the Lubavitcher Rebbe's explanation of Rashi here). Another explanation is that they are deliberately misquoting the pasuk, for religious reasons, because of its status of Torah shebichtav.
Posted by joshwaxman at 8:25 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: , ,

Sunday, January 06, 2013

Posts so far for parshat Vaera


Jan 2012

  1. Vaera sources -- further expanded
    .
  2. Darshening psiks in Vaera --  Or should that be munach legarmeihs? Two such vertical bars, and a distinction to be made between Moshe's description of what would be (Moshe hitting the water) and what was (Aharon hitting the water).
    .
  3. YUTorah on parashat Vaera
    .
  4. Should we translate כָּבֵד as אִתְיַקַּר or יַקִּיר, in Onkelos?  Some printers follow Rashi's emendation. But did he intend it as an emendation, or was he arguing with Onkelos?
    .
  5. A Staff swallowing staffs, or a snake swallowing snakes?  A tradition like the peshat, that the snake swallowed snakes. Should we then reinterpret Rashi against what he says fairly plainly? No.
    .
  6. Is marrying two sisters intrinsically or extrinsically obnoxious? We consider the perspective of Rashi (intrinsically), Ibn Ezra (based on the land), and Ibn Caspi (who rejects Ibn Ezra and gives a rationalist reason for the prohibition). I suggest that it is extrinsically bad, based on intent and social mores.
Dec 2010 - Jan 2011

  1. When did the Bnei Yisrael say חֲדַל מִמֶּנּוּ? It makes sense, chronologically, that it would fall somewhere in Va'era. I explore some approaches which are open and closed canon to varying degrees.
    .
  2. Va'era sources -- further expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
    .
  3. Moshe makes a kal vachomer -- Considering the ten kal vachomers in the Torah (really, Tanach).
    .
  4. Did Levi outlive Ephraim? This is unlikely. Rashi's mention of shevatim who died is perhaps imprecise -- he means Yosef's brothers, which would not include Ephraim and Menashe.
    .
  5. Yocheved His Aunt, and the Length of the Servitude -- If Yocheved was literally Amram's aunt, it is difficult to make the servitude 210 years, and even more, 400 years. Relax this and you have more leeway. Rav Saadia Gaon and the Targum Hashiv'im give us this leeway.
    .
  6. Who said 'I am the LORD'?  A silly change in Divine appellation, by Samaritan scribes, at the start of Vaera.
    .
  7. Moshe, and Yonah's, reluctance --  A cute vort from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz, reinterpreting the kal vachomer.
    .
  8. How did the chartumim turn water to blood?  One possible suggestion, based on Shadal's approach. Plus, is magic real in general.
    .
  9. The abomination of Egypt?   If so, how could Moshe Rabbenu say this to Pharaoh?
    .
  10. A liver is the heart of Pharaoh --  So goes a midrash or two. What this may indicate in terms of whether Chazal literally saw the heart as the seat of the intellect.
    .
  11. Rabbenu Bachya, Locusts, and Crocodiles --  Rabbenu Bachya has two fascinating explanations of pesukim regarding the makkos, and Moshe's removal of them. Unfortunately, at least one of them is demonstrably false.
    .
  12. What was Arov?  Wild beasts, or vicious flies. What do Jewish sources say?
    .
  13. What is meant by leimor in Vayikra 1:1? Zehu midrasho --  Further, does Rashi intend this as peshat or derash?
    .
  14. One big frog -- did derash become peshat?   Just because Rashi lists one giant frog as derash and 'frog' as collective noun does not mean that he did not think both were historically true.

January 2010
  1. Is the derivation of Putiel's name knowable? Can we know the derivation of the name Putiel? A four-way machlokes between Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Caspi, and Shadal reveals something about their methodology, and their approach to peshat..
  2. Vaera sources - links to over 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftara.
    .
  3. Was Pharaoh's heart hard, or did it become hard? Evaluating Rashi's emendation of Onkelos, from an itpa'el verb to an adjective, on the basis of the dikduk of the Hebrew word being translated.
    .
  4. Getting Pharaoh to play ball -- What was Pharaoh doing at the bank of the Nile? Ibn Caspi visits Egypt, and emerges with some realia with which to understand the Biblical narrative. Also, a difference between peshat and derash..
  5. Dodato as female first cousin -- An alternative way of translating dodato, from Rav Saadia Gaon and in the Septuagint, which eliminates a strong chronological difficulty in Yocheved and Moshe's birth.
    .
  6. Spontaneous generation of frogs and lice -- Ibn Caspi, a Rishon, explains the workings of two of the plagues based on the scientific workings of spontaneous generation. This should be taken as additional evidence that Rishonim can be wrong in matters of science.
    .
  7. How do we count the 430 years? Assuming we take the 430 years in Egypt literally how do we reckon it? Also, how the Samaritan Torah differs, and whether this is persuasive.
    .
  8. Egyptian magic and barley seeds -- A short response to a DovBear post on Chumash, alas in error.
    .
  9. Was Pinchas descended from Yisro or Yosef?  Or both? Should we indeed follow the gemara's harmonization? A study in Rashi, and in approaches to midrash aggada.

2009
  1. Vaera sources -- links by aliyah and perek to a mikraos gedolos, and a whole slew of links to meforshim on the parashah and haftarah.
    .
  2. 430 years or 210 years? -- and how Shadal feels compelled to say it was 430 years, and explains how the generations of Levi, Kehat, and Amram, span that time.
    .
  3. Did the Egyptians dig, or did they dig for water? A minor difference which may manifest itself at the level of trup.
2008
  1. Executing judgments against the gods of Egypt, or making use of the gods of Egypt in executing judgment.
    .
  2. Were the ten plagues natural? An explanation of Shadal's take on the matter, which I decided to present in partial response to a complaint about a 2007 post about how the Egyptian magicians created frogs.
    .
  3. How did one frog become many? An exploration of the themes in the midrashim.

2007
2006
  • Did The Avot Not Know Shem Hashem?
    • Yet many times through Bereishit the Shem YKVK is mentioned. There are all sorts of possible answers -- Moshe changed it after the fact, editorially, the Documentary Hypothesis solution, grammatical distrinctions, nodati vs. hodati, etc. In this post, I focus on names not just being names, but carrying very specific implications -- something we get a sense of from the text itself (and which Rashi mentions as well).
      Finally, two of my favorite dealings with this issue, from Tg Yonatan and Rashbam, in how they manage to reparse the pasuk. (And I always like reparsings.)
    2005
    • Spitting blood and whistling frogs: the tzadi - quf switchoff (2005)
      • Two midrashim which I argue stem from a linguistic tzaddi -- quf switchoff. Thus, yishretzu becomes yishrequ, whistled, and thus the frog whisted in the process of yishretzu. Second, eretz mitzrayim becomes roq mitzrayim, and thus even their spittle turns to blood. More details in the post.
    • Pharaoh's multivalent dreams (2005)
      • Another way of interpreting Pharaoh's dreams -- as a fall from power, which finds fulfillment in this week's parsha.
    • Why couldn't the magicians create lice? (2005)
      • Daat Zekenim has an amusing answer. Just as we know by the story with Shimon ben Shetach and the witches, witchcarft draws power from the earth, but the plague had turned all the earth to lice!
    • Ganymedes Copies Military Tactic From Hashem (2005)
      • Depriving the Egyptians of their water supply. And Caesar responds the same way the Egyptians of old did, according to one way of reading the pesukim, and that they managed to circumvent the makkat dam.
    2004
    • All's Well That Ends Well (2004)
      • Were the Egyptians successful in their attempt to get water by digging around the river? Or did these wells also produce blood? Targum Yonatan's textual insertion. Ibn Ezra's take, against Chazal, that they were indeed successful, and the ever-frum Avi Ezer's reaction to this (that it was a mistaken student, and not, chas veshalom, Ibn Ezra who wrote this). Plus, a connection to Yitzchak's wells, a homiletic lesson we may draw, and a joke.
    • Why was Pharoah in de Nile? (2004)
      • The textual source for Pharoah using the Nile as his bathroom. And a new reason -- to do magic on it. And how this fits in with the narrative. Both from Tg Yonatan.
    to be continued...
    Posted by joshwaxman at 7:37 PM 1 comments Links to this post
    Labels: ,
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

    LinkWithin

    Blog Widget by LinkWithin