Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's Tefillin
A week or so ago, I picked up a wonderful book from the local seforim store. It is called Yahadus, and is a curriculum for learning Yahadus, in a rather nice format. Check out this PDF sample of one of their lessons, on Kiddush Hashem. You can find out more, and purchase it, at their website. I also saw it the other day at the YU Seforim Sale in the children's section for about $10 less than their listed price, so maybe check it out there.
It follows the order of the Rambam's Mishneh Torah, and presents units all all 613 Mitzvos. Such that volume 1 (for grade 4) is Sefer Madda and Ahava, volume 2 (for grade 5) is Zmanim, Nashim, Kedusha and Haflaah. Volume 3 (for grade 6) is due to come out shoftly after Pesach.
My third-grade son has greatly enjoyed these books, and I would highly recommend them.
Anyway, on page 78 of volume 2, in the section on Shevisas Yom Tov, they tell a story of Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's tefillin. To paraphrase, here is what happened.
A certain Jew came to Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's town and, for an unspecified reason, without permission, decided to open up Rav Yosanan Eibeshitz's tefillin. He found the boxes to be empty! Since Chazal say awful things about those who never wear tefillin in their lives, he took Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz to bet din.
In bet din, Rav Eibeshitz asked him just when he examined the tefillin. The fellow replied that it had been on chol hamoed. Rav Eibeshitz then explained that his personal minhag was not to wear tefillin on chol hamoed, but that in the town he currently resided, the minhag was to wear it. If he overtly refrained from wearing it, then people might feel compelled to follow his minhag. Therefore, specifically on chol hamoed, he removed the parchment and wore the empty tefillin.
I find this story fascinating, on a number of levels. Not that I am entirely convinced that the story is true, for reasons I'll explain below in item 3.
1) First, why should a random Jew pick on Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz like that? It is almost like a tzitzis-check that some Rebbes in Jewish day-schools do. While talking to one of their young charges, they pat him affectionately on the back, to see if he is wearing tzitzis. Why would someone tefillin-check a Torah-great like Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz, zatza'l? And what was the thought process to suspect this -- that is, why would someone go to the trouble of actually donning tefillin yet remove the parchments inside?
The answer is that R' Eibeshitz was accused by Rav Yaakov Emden of being a secret follower of the deceased Shabbatai Tzvi, and a believer in the perversion of true kabbalah, following Sabbatean kabbalah as formulated by Shabtai Tzvi's prophet, Nathan of Gaza.
Part of the beliefs of these closet Sabbateans was that it was a positive thing to outwardly appear to keep all the mitzvot but to surreptitiously violate all of them. Because in the messianic era, the mitzvos were abrogated. Not mattir assurim (who releases the bound) but mattir issurim (who permits the forbidden). Thus, a closet Sabbatean would indeed outwardly wear tefillin but secretly remove the parchment so as not to fulfill the mitzvah and to be secretly one of the poshei yisrael begufan, those in Israel who sin with their bodies.
2) Second, I find the defense offered by Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz almost as damning as the actual absence of the parshiyot inside the tefillin.
For there is an overt meaning to the words, that he was trying to be non-imposing of his own personal minhag / accepted halacha on the community.
But there is a plausible secondary meaning. Recall that Sabbatean kabbalists held that it was a positive thing to secretly violate the commandments. This was because the mitzvot have a metaphysical impact on Creation and on the Divine. This is, however, time-bound. In the generations past, it was positive to do mitzvos. But in the present, in the messianic era, it was negative and damaging to do mitzvos.
The Talmud is somewhat unclear on whether one should wear tefillin on chol hamoed. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, while it was a matter of Tannaitic dispute, the conclusion is that it is not zman tefillin and is prohibited. Shabbos is already an os, a sign, and we don't need a secondary os. But does this halachic conclusion apply to chol hamoed as well. This was a dispute of Rishonim.
And then, in the late 13th century, the Zohar was revealed, and took sides in this machlokes. It declared that whoever wears tefillin on chol hamoed is chayav misa, as if liable to the death penalty. This naturally had a profound effect on kabbalists, as well as many non-kabbalists. After all, now we have Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, a Tanna, taking a stand on a matter which was left unclear in the Talmud. Even so, many communities stuck with their nigleh (revealed-Torah) based halachic practice, and still wore tefillin on chol hamoed. They should not change their practice just because the kabbalists act otherwise.
Now think about the hidden message. For profound kabbalistic reasons, what the community at large is doing, and which they think is quite positive -- wearing tefillin on chol hamoed -- is actually quite negative. And those who are privy to this mystical secret are not proselytizing to the masses to change their practice. But secretly, they might act in accordance with this profound kabbalistic reason and not don tefillin. And the reason that not putting it on is negative has to do with the timing. At any other day, a weekday, it would be a mitzvah. But now donning tefillin is really a great aveira.
To spell out the parallel, wearing tefillin in general, or doing any mitzvah, in general, is now secretly, for kabbalistic reasons, a very negative thing. It used to be good, but given the timing, of the messianic era, it is actually quite negative.
In other words, the defense could serve well as a pro-Sabbatean argument.
3) Thirdly, here is why I have my doubts that the story even occurred. (Which then would make the story stand as an metaphorical defense of Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz in the other charges.)
The story of the empty tefillin has obvious parallels to a story that actually did happen. I heard this from Rabbi Dr. Shnayer Leiman, and I hope I get the details right.
Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz was a kabbalist, and he wrote kameyot, amulets, for people in need. One possibly suspicious aspect of this amulet-writing was that he made people swear that they would not ever open the amulets and examine the contents. (One could imagine that he specified this requirement to protect their sanctity; or to protect against false charges based on misinterpretation; or because they contained heretical Sabbatean kabbalistic ideas.)
However, he wrote an amulet for an ill woman, and the amulet was not effective. She died, and her husband gave over the amulet to Rav Yaakov Emden to examine. Rav Yaakov Emden published a copy of the amulet in a sefer and, being a kabbalist himself, analyzed the amulet. He demonstrated references to Shabtai Tzvi.
Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's published response was that this was a misreading of the amulet. Was Rav Emden asserted was a tav, for instance, was really a chet. They look similar, you see, so it is easy to understand his mistake.
Then, Dr. Shnayer Leiman came across a bit of evidence. It was a reproduction of the amulet, with all the details as described by Rav Yaakov Emden. It was notarized by a French court, and signed by two students of Rav Yonanan Eibeshitz, who declared reluctantly that indeed, this was what the amulet looked like.
Given that Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's response was to challenge the reproduced text, but to admit (as is fairly clear to those who can understand this stuff) that if the text were as Rav Emden said, it would be Sabbatean, the obvious conclusion is that, indeed, Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz was a closet Sabbatean.
But anyway, we have ample documentation for the amulet story, where a Jew opened it up, made a discovery, and there was a rejoinder by R' Eibeshitz which put him in the clear. The opened tefillin just seems like a duplicate of the story, with some details changed.
It follows the order of the Rambam's Mishneh Torah, and presents units all all 613 Mitzvos. Such that volume 1 (for grade 4) is Sefer Madda and Ahava, volume 2 (for grade 5) is Zmanim, Nashim, Kedusha and Haflaah. Volume 3 (for grade 6) is due to come out shoftly after Pesach.
My third-grade son has greatly enjoyed these books, and I would highly recommend them.
Anyway, on page 78 of volume 2, in the section on Shevisas Yom Tov, they tell a story of Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's tefillin. To paraphrase, here is what happened.
A certain Jew came to Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's town and, for an unspecified reason, without permission, decided to open up Rav Yosanan Eibeshitz's tefillin. He found the boxes to be empty! Since Chazal say awful things about those who never wear tefillin in their lives, he took Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz to bet din.
In bet din, Rav Eibeshitz asked him just when he examined the tefillin. The fellow replied that it had been on chol hamoed. Rav Eibeshitz then explained that his personal minhag was not to wear tefillin on chol hamoed, but that in the town he currently resided, the minhag was to wear it. If he overtly refrained from wearing it, then people might feel compelled to follow his minhag. Therefore, specifically on chol hamoed, he removed the parchment and wore the empty tefillin.
I find this story fascinating, on a number of levels. Not that I am entirely convinced that the story is true, for reasons I'll explain below in item 3.
1) First, why should a random Jew pick on Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz like that? It is almost like a tzitzis-check that some Rebbes in Jewish day-schools do. While talking to one of their young charges, they pat him affectionately on the back, to see if he is wearing tzitzis. Why would someone tefillin-check a Torah-great like Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz, zatza'l? And what was the thought process to suspect this -- that is, why would someone go to the trouble of actually donning tefillin yet remove the parchments inside?
The answer is that R' Eibeshitz was accused by Rav Yaakov Emden of being a secret follower of the deceased Shabbatai Tzvi, and a believer in the perversion of true kabbalah, following Sabbatean kabbalah as formulated by Shabtai Tzvi's prophet, Nathan of Gaza.
Part of the beliefs of these closet Sabbateans was that it was a positive thing to outwardly appear to keep all the mitzvot but to surreptitiously violate all of them. Because in the messianic era, the mitzvos were abrogated. Not mattir assurim (who releases the bound) but mattir issurim (who permits the forbidden). Thus, a closet Sabbatean would indeed outwardly wear tefillin but secretly remove the parchment so as not to fulfill the mitzvah and to be secretly one of the poshei yisrael begufan, those in Israel who sin with their bodies.
2) Second, I find the defense offered by Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz almost as damning as the actual absence of the parshiyot inside the tefillin.
For there is an overt meaning to the words, that he was trying to be non-imposing of his own personal minhag / accepted halacha on the community.
But there is a plausible secondary meaning. Recall that Sabbatean kabbalists held that it was a positive thing to secretly violate the commandments. This was because the mitzvot have a metaphysical impact on Creation and on the Divine. This is, however, time-bound. In the generations past, it was positive to do mitzvos. But in the present, in the messianic era, it was negative and damaging to do mitzvos.
The Talmud is somewhat unclear on whether one should wear tefillin on chol hamoed. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, while it was a matter of Tannaitic dispute, the conclusion is that it is not zman tefillin and is prohibited. Shabbos is already an os, a sign, and we don't need a secondary os. But does this halachic conclusion apply to chol hamoed as well. This was a dispute of Rishonim.
And then, in the late 13th century, the Zohar was revealed, and took sides in this machlokes. It declared that whoever wears tefillin on chol hamoed is chayav misa, as if liable to the death penalty. This naturally had a profound effect on kabbalists, as well as many non-kabbalists. After all, now we have Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, a Tanna, taking a stand on a matter which was left unclear in the Talmud. Even so, many communities stuck with their nigleh (revealed-Torah) based halachic practice, and still wore tefillin on chol hamoed. They should not change their practice just because the kabbalists act otherwise.
Now think about the hidden message. For profound kabbalistic reasons, what the community at large is doing, and which they think is quite positive -- wearing tefillin on chol hamoed -- is actually quite negative. And those who are privy to this mystical secret are not proselytizing to the masses to change their practice. But secretly, they might act in accordance with this profound kabbalistic reason and not don tefillin. And the reason that not putting it on is negative has to do with the timing. At any other day, a weekday, it would be a mitzvah. But now donning tefillin is really a great aveira.
To spell out the parallel, wearing tefillin in general, or doing any mitzvah, in general, is now secretly, for kabbalistic reasons, a very negative thing. It used to be good, but given the timing, of the messianic era, it is actually quite negative.
In other words, the defense could serve well as a pro-Sabbatean argument.
3) Thirdly, here is why I have my doubts that the story even occurred. (Which then would make the story stand as an metaphorical defense of Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz in the other charges.)
The story of the empty tefillin has obvious parallels to a story that actually did happen. I heard this from Rabbi Dr. Shnayer Leiman, and I hope I get the details right.
Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz was a kabbalist, and he wrote kameyot, amulets, for people in need. One possibly suspicious aspect of this amulet-writing was that he made people swear that they would not ever open the amulets and examine the contents. (One could imagine that he specified this requirement to protect their sanctity; or to protect against false charges based on misinterpretation; or because they contained heretical Sabbatean kabbalistic ideas.)
However, he wrote an amulet for an ill woman, and the amulet was not effective. She died, and her husband gave over the amulet to Rav Yaakov Emden to examine. Rav Yaakov Emden published a copy of the amulet in a sefer and, being a kabbalist himself, analyzed the amulet. He demonstrated references to Shabtai Tzvi.
Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's published response was that this was a misreading of the amulet. Was Rav Emden asserted was a tav, for instance, was really a chet. They look similar, you see, so it is easy to understand his mistake.
Then, Dr. Shnayer Leiman came across a bit of evidence. It was a reproduction of the amulet, with all the details as described by Rav Yaakov Emden. It was notarized by a French court, and signed by two students of Rav Yonanan Eibeshitz, who declared reluctantly that indeed, this was what the amulet looked like.
Given that Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's response was to challenge the reproduced text, but to admit (as is fairly clear to those who can understand this stuff) that if the text were as Rav Emden said, it would be Sabbatean, the obvious conclusion is that, indeed, Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz was a closet Sabbatean.
But anyway, we have ample documentation for the amulet story, where a Jew opened it up, made a discovery, and there was a rejoinder by R' Eibeshitz which put him in the clear. The opened tefillin just seems like a duplicate of the story, with some details changed.
Friday, February 08, 2013
Update on the KGH Eruv
This seems like the same message as earlier, to assume the eruv will be down after time X.
From Rav Marcus…
As per the KGH Eruv hotline, although the eruv is currently up and functional, one may not carry tomorrow due to the likelihood that the storm will bring down critical wires.
Consequently:
1. Carry your talis to shul tonight or wear it tomorrow while walking to shul and back;
2. If you have lunch plans tomorrow that necessitate carrying or wheeling a stroller, please make alternate arrangements;
3. Do not carry any house keys with you tomorrow.
I regret the inconvenience this inevitably will cause many of you; bear in mind that this one weekend of inconvenience certainly pales in comparison to the luxury we enjoy every other Shabbos of the year.
KGH Eruv down for Shabbos after 11PM; Shoveling snow on Shabbos
Via email:
Also via email, from a rabbi in KGH:
The coming snow storm carries with it numerous challenges to our safety, our schedules and our Halakhic observances. To help navigate through this rough patch, here are a few ideas and resources:1. Make sure to check up on people you know who might need an errand run or their well being insured. Even if they just need to feel less isolated, your call will be a great Mitzvah.2. Be aware that the Raffle Drawing scheduled for Motzaei Shabbat is being postponed due to the weather. We will let you know of the rescheduled date as soon as a decision has been reached.3. Know that the Mayor has issued a Weather Advisory concerning the storm. It is attached to this note, with our thanks to QJCC Exec Cynthia Zalisky.(Be aware, as well that Sunday afternoon the QJCC is having a Legislative Town Hall Meeting at New York Hospital of Queens. It will be particularly hard for them to draw a crowd under the circumstances.)4. I am also attaching the guidelines for Hurricanes and power outages prepared by Rabbi Kenneth Brander of YU with the counsel of Rabbi Hershel Schachter. Hopefully circumstances will not be so severe as to require their application, but it's good to be prepared. You do not need to assume that the Eruv is down. We will be trying to stay on top of the Eruv situation.5. Snow RemovalFor those who have a little time, here is a link to a ten minute shiur by Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz on Snow and its removal on ShabbatIf you have a little more time, here is a link to a 20 piece on the topic by Rabbi Zvi SobolofskyThese pieces provide a nice overview of the issues dealt with by poskim in dealing with snow removal.However, I must disagree with them in one important point: Both Rabbis maintain that falling in fluffy, powdery snow is not a major safety issue. I don't think that such a blanket statement can be made (pun intended.) If you feel that there is a safety concern of people falling and getting hurt in the snow on your property, sidewalk, etc, the bottom line is that shoveling IS PERMITTED. You will hear Rabbi Hershel Schachter say so in the middle of this longer shiur: (at approx 29:30 into the shiur.)Because there are issues of excess exertion (tircha yeseira) and weekday activity (uvda d'chol) that may be entailed, you will find various poskim recommending, if possible, to have a non-Jew clear the snow, or to use a broom rather than a shovel, etc. But these arrangements may not be feasible for most people, and so it is important to know that halakha is that shoveling is permissible for safety.Salting is also permissible. Some recommend that the lower layer of snow that has become ice, should not be broken and shoveled, but may be salted and melted.
Shabbat Protocols in Case of a Hurricane or Other Disasters
See also this article here, explaining the halachic basis of these protocols. This is a customizable document, so Rabbis can fill in the blanks.
SHABBAT PROTOCOLS IN CASE OF A HURRICANE OR OTHER DISASTERS
Developed by Rabbi Kenneth Brander with profound thanks to Rabbi Hershel Schachter for his guidance.
Developed by Rabbi Kenneth Brander with profound thanks to Rabbi Hershel Schachter for his guidance.
If a hurricane occurs on Shabbat or Yom Tov, stay home. In the case of Shabbat, we will lain two parshiyot next week.
If there is no electricity on Shabbat or Yom Tov but storm is over. If safe...
If there is no electricity on Shabbat or Yom Tov but storm is over. If safe...
- Minyan only during daylight hours
- Shacharit _____am.
- Mincha will be held at ______.
- Parshat _________ will be read next week for those unable to attend shul this week.
- If there is electricity, services will be held as regularly scheduled.
Assume no Eruv
- Carrying permitted for life/limb threatening situations.
- Carrying permitted for individuals who need medical attention without which a person's functionality is compromised, even for a bed-ridden headache. In this case carrying should be done, if possible, in an irregular fashion (i.e. carrying medicine in one’s belt or shoe).
- Carrying permitted to allow a baby, infirm senior, someone with psychological challenges, or a child/adult traumatized by the event to function without compromise. In this case, carrying should be done, if possible, in an irregular fashion.
Use of Candles, Glowsticks & Flashlights
- Light yahrzeit or hurricane candles before Shabbat and place them in designated locations.
- Be careful about using candles in an area that might cause a fire.
- Hang/place lit flashlights with fresh batteries in key locations before Shabbat.
- It is recommended to use LED flashlights over incandescent flashlights because they will last longer.
- Glowsticks, if possible, they should be opened before Shabbat.
- A point of consideration: Open glow sticks prior to Shabbat and then freeze them. This decelerates the chemical reaction allowing them to last longer (when removed from the freezer).
- In a state of darkness and there are no prepared glow sticks, it would certainly be permitted to ask a Gentile to crack the glow stick and, when that option is not available, a Jew him/herself would be permitted to do so to insure that no trauma nor any other physical danger adversely affect any individual.
If Flashlight/Candle goes out:
- When necessary (to take care of children, to eat etc...) and there is no other light, a Gentile can relight or change batteries.
- If not having the light may create a life threatening situation, one may do so oneself.
Moving a Flashlight is permitted.
Moving Candles is permitted in the following situations:
- For any medical concerns no matter how slight.
- For the comfort and welfare of seniors and children under eight (or above eight years old when child is traumatized by the event).
Television or Radio
- TV or radio should be left on in a side room.
- The TV or radio should only be used to listen to the news
- Channel should not be changed.
- Volume on radio (if dials are not digital) may be adjusted on Shabbat or Yom Tov. Better to keep it on low for it preserves the battery and only raise volume if necessary.
Questions: Call Rabbi ____________ at phone number ___________________
Thursday, February 07, 2013
Why Photoshop out women's shoes?
The Rambam in Mishneh Torah, Issurei Biah, 21:21:
In English:
Tznius is often culturally set. A tefach of a place on the body normally uncovered is erva, such that if a community regularly covers some area (e.g. feet), it is erva, where if they do not, it is not. Because now, people in that society will regard that specific uncovered tefach as illicit and sexual.
By making common women's shoes into erva, they are not being holy. And this is not a greater level of holiness we should all aspire to. Rather, by making common women's shoes into erva, this newspaper is helping to transform the societal mindset, and fetishize everything about women.
Related, see the latest from Saudi Arabia:
כ [כא] וְכֵן אָסוּר לְאָדָם לְהִסְתַּכַּל בַּנָּשִׁים, בְּשָׁעָה שְׁהֶן עוֹמְדוֹת עַל הַכְּבוּסָה; וְאַפִלּוּ לְהִסְתַּכַּל בְּבִגְדֵי צְבָע שֶׁלְּאִשָּׁה שְׁהוּא מַכִּירָהּ--אָסוּר, שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי הִרְהוּר.
In English:
The footnotes in the English above read:Halacha 21
So, is it so surprising that a Chareidi paper Photoshopped out a woman's shoes from a picture? Yes, except nothing should surprise us anymore. Via Life in Israel:
56. 57.
A young child, a 1 year old baby, in Jerusalem opened up a cabinet door that prevented the room door from being opened. That meant the kid was stuck in the room. The parents called the Fire Station, who sent a team out that dismantled the door and rescued the child. Good job.
The funny part comes next.
Hamodia (Hebrew edition) reported the story yesterday, but altered the picture that accompanied it. They did not remove the image of the child's mother - she was not in the picture anyway. The picture showed the child laying on the floor next to the open drawer. The drawer had various pairs of shoes in it. One of those pairs was a pair of womens shoes. Hamodia removed the shoes from the image.
They weren't even a pair of high-heeled sexy shoes, or anything like that, that their removal might be understood in some sort of crazy way. This was simply a pair of beat up old flats - nothing enticing or provocative, just a pair of beat-up old shoes.
Here are the pictures:
the original:
the Hamodia version:Of course, this is not a woman that (most of) HaModiah's readership knows. And the prohibition is to look with intent to derive sexual pleasure, while no one (normal) would see the shoes in the above picture and have improper thoughts.
Tznius is often culturally set. A tefach of a place on the body normally uncovered is erva, such that if a community regularly covers some area (e.g. feet), it is erva, where if they do not, it is not. Because now, people in that society will regard that specific uncovered tefach as illicit and sexual.
By making common women's shoes into erva, they are not being holy. And this is not a greater level of holiness we should all aspire to. Rather, by making common women's shoes into erva, this newspaper is helping to transform the societal mindset, and fetishize everything about women.
Related, see the latest from Saudi Arabia:
Are they holier because they require this? And, will requiring baby burqas actually help reinforce this cultural attitude of considering female babies as sexual?A cleric has called for female babies to wear the full-body burka in order to prevent sexual molestation.In an interview on Saudi Arabia’s Al-Majd station, Sheikh Abdullah Daoud explained that sexual molestation of babies was common in the country and cited unnamed medical and security sources, according to a report on the Al-Arabiya website.
Wednesday, February 06, 2013
Death penalty for mere intent to sell?
Parshat Mishpatim lays out the death penalty for human traffickers. The pasuk reads:
I think we can parse this pasuk in at least three ways:
According to (1), person A kidnapped X, sold X, and X is found in A's possession.
According to (2), person A kidnapped X, and then either sold X or still has X in his possession.
According to (3), person A kidnapped B, person C sold B, and person D has B in his possession (either conveying B from place to place or guarding him, or else by purchasing him).
According to Rashi, it is (1). The difficulty with this is that if A sold B, how can B still be be found in A's possession? Channeling the Mechilta, he explains:
Perhaps we could alternatively imagine this as the kidnapper being caught in the act of selling, right after the money has been exchanged.
According to Ibn Ezra, it is (2). Thus:
In other words, whether he is found in his hand with intent to sell, he also gets the death penalty.
Ibn Caspi seems to say that it is (1). He who explains that the verb "selling" encompasses a range of actions:
"And sells him -- there are, of the verbs and movements [which inform] either [?] on the stirring up of the soul and the intent at the start; and there are those that are about the intermediate [actions], where its meaning is made clear by understanding of nature, that then it is the completed movement; and there are those which are about the completed movement. And here, the intent is upon the beginning of the movement [/action], that is the movement of the selling. And therefore it states 'and it was found in his hand', and this is where he kidnapped him and then hid him in a room of his house, or he conveys him to a specific place, and he could claim that his intent was not to sell him... behold, the matters are seen that his intent was to sell him, and therefore, he shall surely be put to death."
Perhaps we can read this into Ibn Ezra as well.
See also Ramban:
ויתכן שהיה עוד כסדרו, ונמצא בידו של לוקח, שאם גנב את הנפש והביאו לביתו והביא שם הלוקח ומכרו לו ולא הוציאו הלוקח משם אינו חייב שלא נגמר המכר ביניהן, או אפילו כשנגמר המכר יפטר, כמו שכתבתי:
My parse #3 was already explained above, but I'll describe it again. In human trafficking, there are often multiple actors. The initial kidnappers, those who transport the kidnapped person, and the sellers. Perhaps also the purchasers. Consider the sale of Yosef. He was snatched. He was conveyed by caravan to Egypt. And he was sold to Potiphar. (Yes, there was another sale / other sales along the way.)
It is an interesting, though perhaps already tired point, that the peshat interpretation of Ibn Ezra and Ibn Caspi are against the halacha.
| 16. And whoever kidnaps a man, and sells him, and he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death. | טז. וְגֹנֵב אִישׁ וּמְכָרוֹ וְנִמְצָא בְיָדוֹ מוֹת יוּמָת: |
I think we can parse this pasuk in at least three ways:
- It speaks of one offender
- of two offenders
- of three offenders
According to (1), person A kidnapped X, sold X, and X is found in A's possession.
According to (2), person A kidnapped X, and then either sold X or still has X in his possession.
According to (3), person A kidnapped B, person C sold B, and person D has B in his possession (either conveying B from place to place or guarding him, or else by purchasing him).
According to Rashi, it is (1). The difficulty with this is that if A sold B, how can B still be be found in A's possession? Channeling the Mechilta, he explains:
| and he is found in his possession: [I.e., this means] that witnesses saw him that he kidnapped him and sold him, and he [the kidnapped man] was found in his hand prior to the sale. -[From Mechilta] | ונמצא בידו: שראוהו עדים שגנבו ומכרו ונמצא בידו כבר קודם מכירה: |
Perhaps we could alternatively imagine this as the kidnapper being caught in the act of selling, right after the money has been exchanged.
According to Ibn Ezra, it is (2). Thus:
ונמצא בידו -בשוק לפני המכרו יומת."And is found in his hand -- in the market, before he sells him, he shall be put to death."
In other words, whether he is found in his hand with intent to sell, he also gets the death penalty.
Ibn Caspi seems to say that it is (1). He who explains that the verb "selling" encompasses a range of actions:
"And sells him -- there are, of the verbs and movements [which inform] either [?] on the stirring up of the soul and the intent at the start; and there are those that are about the intermediate [actions], where its meaning is made clear by understanding of nature, that then it is the completed movement; and there are those which are about the completed movement. And here, the intent is upon the beginning of the movement [/action], that is the movement of the selling. And therefore it states 'and it was found in his hand', and this is where he kidnapped him and then hid him in a room of his house, or he conveys him to a specific place, and he could claim that his intent was not to sell him... behold, the matters are seen that his intent was to sell him, and therefore, he shall surely be put to death."
Perhaps we can read this into Ibn Ezra as well.
See also Ramban:
ויתכן שהיה עוד כסדרו, ונמצא בידו של לוקח, שאם גנב את הנפש והביאו לביתו והביא שם הלוקח ומכרו לו ולא הוציאו הלוקח משם אינו חייב שלא נגמר המכר ביניהן, או אפילו כשנגמר המכר יפטר, כמו שכתבתי:
My parse #3 was already explained above, but I'll describe it again. In human trafficking, there are often multiple actors. The initial kidnappers, those who transport the kidnapped person, and the sellers. Perhaps also the purchasers. Consider the sale of Yosef. He was snatched. He was conveyed by caravan to Egypt. And he was sold to Potiphar. (Yes, there was another sale / other sales along the way.)
It is an interesting, though perhaps already tired point, that the peshat interpretation of Ibn Ezra and Ibn Caspi are against the halacha.
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
YUTorah on parashat Mishpatim
Monday, February 04, 2013
Corpses all the way down
A funny story, illustrating the infinite regress problem, is Turtles all the way down:
Thus, Hashem did bring about the killing to the accidental killer's hand -- as a way of bringing the accidental killer to justice for a prior accidental killing, and as a way of bringing about a death penalty to a prior deliberate killing.
However, what about that prior accidental killing? Was that not also וְהָאֱלֹהִים אִנָּה לְיָדוֹ, that God brought it to his hand? If so, why should he have any guilt in the matter, if it was Hashem's act even there? And why, in that prior incident, did God bring it to his hand?
We are forced to say that there was an even prior accidental killing to that prior accidental killing. And so, there are corpses all the way down!
Alternatively, say that that prior accidental killing was brought about by Hashem because he had committed some other sin which merited exile. But if so, what need is there for the intermediate prior accidental killing?
I believe that the resolution to this is that the midrash, and Rashi, is not saying that every accidental killing is וְהָאֱלֹהִים אִנָּה לְיָדוֹ, brought about by God so that he would get the exile he deserved for a prior action. Rather, this is but one example of how an accidental killing could come about. The midrash is making a diyuk into this language in order to give an example of Divine justice in action, in its far reaching scope which is beyond most people's awareness.
The implication of the above would be that there are some occurrences which were not וְהָאֱלֹהִים אִנָּה לְיָדוֹ, but were simply the results of human negligence. There are certainly those in Chazal and Rishonim who take such a position.
Alternatively, we can say that this was meant as an illustrative example of how everything is within the Divine plan, so yes, even that earlier incident would have been brought about as part of the Divine plan, though this does not excuse the accidental killer for his negligence in it; and asking questions about turtles all the way is to miss the point.
On a peshat level, some say that HaElohim, as opposed to Elokim, denotes "the gods". I can see this possibility here, that on a peshat level, this is merely an idiom. Instead of saying that it was bad luck, or fate, it was an "act of God", or that "God brought it to his hand". But that one should not (on a peshat level) attempt to create a whole theology on the basis of this idiom.
This came to mind when I saw this Rashi on parashat Mishpatim:A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"—Hawking, 1988
| 13. But one who did not stalk [him], but God brought [it] about into his hand, I will make a place for you to which he shall flee. | יג. וַאֲשֶׁר לֹא צָדָה וְהָאֱלֹהִים אִנָּה לְיָדוֹ וְשַׂמְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יָנוּס שָׁמָּה: |
| but God brought [it] about into his hand: Now why should this go out from before Him? That is what David said, “As the proverb of the Ancient One says, ‘From the wicked comes forth wickedness’” (I Sam. 24:14). The proverb of the Ancient One is the Torah, which is the proverb of the Holy One, blessed is He, Who is the Ancient One of the world. Now where did the Torah say, “From the wicked comes forth wickedness” ? [This refers to:] “but God brought [it] about into his hand.” To what is the text referring? To two people, one who killed unintentionally and one who killed intentionally, but there were no witnesses who would testify to the matter. This one [who killed intentionally] was not executed, and that one [who killed unintentionally] was not exiled [to the refuge cities]. So the Holy One, blessed is He, brings them [both] to one inn. The one who killed intentionally sits under a ladder, and the one who killed unintentionally is ascending the ladder, and he falls on the one who had killed intentionally and kills him, and witnesses testify about him and sentence him to exile. The result is that the one who killed unintentionally is exiled, and the one who killed intentionally was killed. -[From Mechilta, Makkoth 10b] | והא-להים אנה לידו: ולמה תצא זאת מלפניו, הוא שאמר דוד (שמואל א' כד יג) כאשר יאמר משל הקדמוני מרשעים יצא רשע, ומשל הקדמוני היא התורה, שהיא משל הקב"ה שהוא קדמונו של עולם. והיכן אמרה תורה מרשעים יצא רשע, והא-להים אנה לידו. במה הכתוב מדבר, בשני בני אדם, אחד הרג שוגג ואחד הרג מזיד, ולא היו עדים בדבר שיעידו, זה לא נהרג וזה לא גלה, והקב"ה מזמנן לפונדק אחד, זה שהרג במזיד יושב תחת הסולם, וזה שהרג שוגג עולה בסולם ונופל על זה שהרג במזיד והורגו, ועדים מעידים עליו ומחייבים אותו לגלות, נמצא זה שהרג בשוגג גולה, וזה שהרג במזיד נהרג: |
However, what about that prior accidental killing? Was that not also וְהָאֱלֹהִים אִנָּה לְיָדוֹ, that God brought it to his hand? If so, why should he have any guilt in the matter, if it was Hashem's act even there? And why, in that prior incident, did God bring it to his hand?
We are forced to say that there was an even prior accidental killing to that prior accidental killing. And so, there are corpses all the way down!
Alternatively, say that that prior accidental killing was brought about by Hashem because he had committed some other sin which merited exile. But if so, what need is there for the intermediate prior accidental killing?
I believe that the resolution to this is that the midrash, and Rashi, is not saying that every accidental killing is וְהָאֱלֹהִים אִנָּה לְיָדוֹ, brought about by God so that he would get the exile he deserved for a prior action. Rather, this is but one example of how an accidental killing could come about. The midrash is making a diyuk into this language in order to give an example of Divine justice in action, in its far reaching scope which is beyond most people's awareness.
The implication of the above would be that there are some occurrences which were not וְהָאֱלֹהִים אִנָּה לְיָדוֹ, but were simply the results of human negligence. There are certainly those in Chazal and Rishonim who take such a position.
Alternatively, we can say that this was meant as an illustrative example of how everything is within the Divine plan, so yes, even that earlier incident would have been brought about as part of the Divine plan, though this does not excuse the accidental killer for his negligence in it; and asking questions about turtles all the way is to miss the point.
On a peshat level, some say that HaElohim, as opposed to Elokim, denotes "the gods". I can see this possibility here, that on a peshat level, this is merely an idiom. Instead of saying that it was bad luck, or fate, it was an "act of God", or that "God brought it to his hand". But that one should not (on a peshat level) attempt to create a whole theology on the basis of this idiom.
Friday, February 01, 2013
Do any readers of parshablog read Arabic?
For the sake of a blogpost, I am in need of a transcription (that is, the words in Arabic), transliteration (into Latin characters), and translation (into English) of the following words in Ibn Janach:
I would greatly appreciate any help in this regard.
I would greatly appreciate any help in this regard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
