Tuesday, July 23, 2013
The general and specific of Hashem's love
In Ekev, Devarim 7:13:
This is a nice example of how the parse of the pasuk and the trup of a pasuk interrelate.
In Netivot HaShalom, Rambeman writes:
וַאֲהֵבְךָ, וּבֵרַכְךָ וְהִרְבֶּךָ -- for it is characteristic of one who loves (אהב) to rejoice in the joy of the beloved, and to do good for him as much as he is able.
וּבֵרַכְךָ וְהִרְבֶּךָ -- is the klal, the general. Therefore it is marked with an etnach [trup symbol].
וּבֵרַךְ פְּרִי-בִטְנְךָ etc. -- is the perat, the specifics [of that klal]
---------------------
Thus, this is the appropriate place to break the verse in two.
| יג וַאֲהֵבְךָ, וּבֵרַכְךָ וְהִרְבֶּךָ; וּבֵרַךְ פְּרִי-בִטְנְךָ וּפְרִי-אַדְמָתֶךָ דְּגָנְךָ וְתִירֹשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ, שְׁגַר-אֲלָפֶיךָ וְעַשְׁתְּרֹת צֹאנֶךָ, עַל הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶׁר-נִשְׁבַּע לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ לָתֶת לָךְ. | 13 and He will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee; He will also bless the fruit of thy body and the fruit of thy land, thy corn and thy wine and thine oil, the increase of thy kine and the young of thy flock, in the land which He swore unto thy fathers to give thee. |
Note the etnachta on וְהִרְבֶּךָ. The etnachta marks the midpoint of a pasuk:
In Netivot HaShalom, Rambeman writes:
וּבֵרַכְךָ וְהִרְבֶּךָ -- is the klal, the general. Therefore it is marked with an etnach [trup symbol].
וּבֵרַךְ פְּרִי-בִטְנְךָ etc. -- is the perat, the specifics [of that klal]
---------------------
Thus, this is the appropriate place to break the verse in two.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Rav Saadia Gaon on Ashterot Tzonecha
Most of this is done with pictures.
At the start of Ekev, Saadia Gaon that ashterot tzonecha is vegafrat jinmak:
The Arabic word ghanam is sheep, so ghinmak means your sheep. The word before, we-gaphrat, I don't know.
Rabbenu Yonah Ibn Janach on the meaning of this:
and in Sefer Hashorashim of Ibn Janach, where this compilation is getting it from:
What does it mean to say that the ghufar is from the בני השה? Is it a term for a young sheep, as I think?
Elsewhere, we see this Arabic ghufar as a cognate of Hebrew עפר, as in עפר האילים. From Keil and Delitzsh's commentary on Song of Songs:
At the start of Ekev, Saadia Gaon that ashterot tzonecha is vegafrat jinmak:
The Arabic word ghanam is sheep, so ghinmak means your sheep. The word before, we-gaphrat, I don't know.
Rabbenu Yonah Ibn Janach on the meaning of this:
and in Sefer Hashorashim of Ibn Janach, where this compilation is getting it from:
What does it mean to say that the ghufar is from the בני השה? Is it a term for a young sheep, as I think?
Elsewhere, we see this Arabic ghufar as a cognate of Hebrew עפר, as in עפר האילים. From Keil and Delitzsh's commentary on Song of Songs:
עפר is the young hart, like the Arab. ghufar (ghafar), the young chamois, probably from the covering of young hair; whence also the young lion may be called כּפיר.The chamois is a goat-antelope species. But I think the idea is the young of the species. And here, the young females of the sheep species.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Deuteronomy based on a different Biblical tradition? Simple vs. Simplistic
In a recent article, by Rabbi Zev Farber, Ph.D., this summary appeared:
If I disbelieved in Torah miSinai and believed in multiple authorship, I would say something like the following, which I think is much simpler and straightforward. And nowhere near as silly.
Sefer Devarim was obviously written for an audience who were already familiar with the Biblical narrative, and the author wishes to exploit it for its own ends. That is, Numbers ends the desert experience, and particularly Numbers 32 is the end of the narrative. The remainder of Numbers is summary -- 33 as a helpful accounting of all the stops in the wilderness, 34 and 35 as the command and parameters of inheriting the land, and 36 as it applies to the tribes staying on this side of the Jordan. Thus, Numbers ended the Torah.
Now some author wants to take advantage of the Torah's popularity, and penned a sequel, as a first person recounting of the Bible from the perspective of Moshe. Call this author Moshe, call this person Yehoshua, call this person Chilkiyahu, Ezra, or even Fred. It does not matter. Someone would do this with a particular religious or political agenda.
That is why there are so many references to what "you have seen with your own eyes" in Deuteronomy -- 3:21, 4:9, 11:7, etc. The author knows his audience already knows this -- from the Torah they have -- and he is building upon it.
Since it is not meant as a parallel first-telling of the Biblical story, but as a retelling of the existing Biblical story, the author of Deuteronomy does not have to retell every single darned historical point. If he mentions Datan and Aviram but not On ben Pelet, the role of On is not going to be lost to posterity. If he introduces a slight change to the narrative that still works with the narrative, it is possible -- in some cases, likely -- that the author did this to further his agenda. If he introduces discrepancies in arcane points, it is possibly simply an error from the human author, rather than an accurate reporting of an alternate tradition.
Meanwhile, from the traditional standpoint, it is easy to say that it was Moshe Rabbenu as the author, with the agenda of exhorting to Israelites prior to their entering their next stage of existence. That other explanations exist which the article-writer considers "hollow apologetic explanations" does not mean that one cannot offer this extremely straightforward answer with a twist. Meanwhile, it also does not mean that alternative explanations (I'd have to see them) are indeed a davar reik. In many cases, these explanations of textual discrepancies simply function on a different plane of existence, in a midrashic universe where minor textual features are carefully analyzed and creatively interpreted. If so, this is standard midrashic discourse, rather than a hollow apologetic answer.
Let us examine a few of the ten discrepancies the article-author has offered. (Please note that this is not intended as an attack on him. It is rather a careful analysis of the ideas which don't originate from him, I think, but from other Biblical scholars. The author of the article has accepted this approach as the most simple and straightforward, and moves on from there. And there is much to praise in his intellectual honesty and willingness to expose himself to the slings and arrows that will inevitably result, given his position in life. But it is the ideas I am analyzing here.)
The first discrepancy I would like to consider is this one:
In Deuteronomy 1, Moses does not claim exclusive credit for the idea. He does not mention Jethro because Jethro is irrelevant. Jethro would be a distraction to Moses' exhortation. Rather, he is reporting what he said to the Israelites when he implemented this action (or even, a portion thereof). And the purpose of mentioning this is not dry history, but of the transitioning of power from Moses to others, in this cases, lower judges.
Another one:
This was the author of Deuteronomy filling in additional details, that they were uncertain and requested it. He fully knows that in Shelach, God commanded it, but would interpret this as a command in response to the request. In this way, he stresses the Israelites prior uncertainty about taking the land, which is part of his agenda.
In a footnote, the article-author acknowledges that even in Deuteronomy there is mention of spies saying negative:
My own "academic approach" answers this in a more straightforward manner. Earlier, it did not serve the author's agenda (or Moses' agenda) to emphasize the negative portion of the spies' report. Now, where Moses is about to dismiss the Israelites' concern in this regard, it does serve the author's agenda.
Another one:
Not as a loyal spy. That was not said explicitly, I readily admit. Instead, it is because Joshua is to take the reigns of leadership from Moses. Which is a huge part of the Deuteronomy-author's agenda.
If you look at Numbers 14, this can be interpreted as consistent as well. Numbers 14:24 singles out Caleb as the loyal spy who will survive. Numbers 14:30 also mentions Joshua, but does not give a explicit reason for Joshua. And Deuteronomy 1:38 steps into that void, sees the opportunity, and provides a different reason for Joshua. (Though obviously if he had been a rebellious spy he would not have been an allowable replacement. And of course he would have been spared anyway, but the focus was on his being Moses' replacement, and that just as the Israelites would not enter, so would Moses not enter)
Could you see why, in retelling, an author with an agenda might shift focus, and so, while not writing direct contradictions, reframing the narrative in such a way to advance his agenda?
This is not (necessarily) a result of Deuteronomy's author relying on a separate tradition, and being unaware of our Biblical text.
I could do the same for most of the objections people raise. And I would not do it as apologetics.
I think that many academics of Bible are good at finding discrepancies in the text but lousy at reading literature and divining authorial intent. And as a result, they don't see how an author might be reinterpreting a text rather than not knowing it. And it would be a real pity if we "recogniz[e] the simplicity and straightforwardness of the academic approach", and not recognize how simplistic it is.
I have always thought that this academic approach was rather silly, as it applies to Devarim vs. the rest of Torah. For the academics, it is as if the only tool they have is a hammer, and so to them, everything looks like a nail. And then, since it is the "academic" approach, everyone considers it to be the most simple and straightforward. Thus, any discrepancy between Devarim and the rest of the Torah arises from a different tradition.Despite [ed: Deuteronomy] sharing many details with the desert story as told in Exodus and Numbers, there appears to be no way to make the two versions work with each other without unreasonably stretching the meaning of the texts. The simplest literary approach is the academic one which posits multiple authors with multiple traditions. How such an approach meshes with traditionalist belief requires serious thought but it is necessary to start by recognizing the simplicity and straightforwardness of the academic approach.Finally, it appears to me that being able to accept that there are contradictory perspectives expressed in the Torah allows us to offer meaningful interpretations of each and to address significant tensions in the text without feeling the need to create hollow apologetic explanations. Think of our other holy texts, the Mishna and the Talmud, for instance. They are filled with debates about Torah principles, and yet we say that eilu ve-eilu divrei Elokim chayim – each position is the word of the Living God. We are a religion that loves incongruity and debate and our Torah study thrives on the productive tension inherent in multivocality and conflicting perspectives.
If I disbelieved in Torah miSinai and believed in multiple authorship, I would say something like the following, which I think is much simpler and straightforward. And nowhere near as silly.
Sefer Devarim was obviously written for an audience who were already familiar with the Biblical narrative, and the author wishes to exploit it for its own ends. That is, Numbers ends the desert experience, and particularly Numbers 32 is the end of the narrative. The remainder of Numbers is summary -- 33 as a helpful accounting of all the stops in the wilderness, 34 and 35 as the command and parameters of inheriting the land, and 36 as it applies to the tribes staying on this side of the Jordan. Thus, Numbers ended the Torah.
Now some author wants to take advantage of the Torah's popularity, and penned a sequel, as a first person recounting of the Bible from the perspective of Moshe. Call this author Moshe, call this person Yehoshua, call this person Chilkiyahu, Ezra, or even Fred. It does not matter. Someone would do this with a particular religious or political agenda.
That is why there are so many references to what "you have seen with your own eyes" in Deuteronomy -- 3:21, 4:9, 11:7, etc. The author knows his audience already knows this -- from the Torah they have -- and he is building upon it.
Since it is not meant as a parallel first-telling of the Biblical story, but as a retelling of the existing Biblical story, the author of Deuteronomy does not have to retell every single darned historical point. If he mentions Datan and Aviram but not On ben Pelet, the role of On is not going to be lost to posterity. If he introduces a slight change to the narrative that still works with the narrative, it is possible -- in some cases, likely -- that the author did this to further his agenda. If he introduces discrepancies in arcane points, it is possibly simply an error from the human author, rather than an accurate reporting of an alternate tradition.
Meanwhile, from the traditional standpoint, it is easy to say that it was Moshe Rabbenu as the author, with the agenda of exhorting to Israelites prior to their entering their next stage of existence. That other explanations exist which the article-writer considers "hollow apologetic explanations" does not mean that one cannot offer this extremely straightforward answer with a twist. Meanwhile, it also does not mean that alternative explanations (I'd have to see them) are indeed a davar reik. In many cases, these explanations of textual discrepancies simply function on a different plane of existence, in a midrashic universe where minor textual features are carefully analyzed and creatively interpreted. If so, this is standard midrashic discourse, rather than a hollow apologetic answer.
Let us examine a few of the ten discrepancies the article-author has offered. (Please note that this is not intended as an attack on him. It is rather a careful analysis of the ideas which don't originate from him, I think, but from other Biblical scholars. The author of the article has accepted this approach as the most simple and straightforward, and moves on from there. And there is much to praise in his intellectual honesty and willingness to expose himself to the slings and arrows that will inevitably result, given his position in life. But it is the ideas I am analyzing here.)
The first discrepancy I would like to consider is this one:
2. The Court System
According to Deuteronomy (1:9-13), the court system devised in the desert was Moses’ idea. However, according to Exodus (18:17-22), the idea was not Moses’ but that of his father-in-law Jethro.In Exodus 18, the focus is on Jethro's role as visitor and influencer of the Israelites. And so, Jethro proposes this, and in the end, 18:24, וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה, לְקוֹל חֹתְנוֹ; וַיַּעַשׂ, כֹּל אֲשֶׁר אָמָר. We are not told there Moshe's words in instructing the Israelites.
In Deuteronomy 1, Moses does not claim exclusive credit for the idea. He does not mention Jethro because Jethro is irrelevant. Jethro would be a distraction to Moses' exhortation. Rather, he is reporting what he said to the Israelites when he implemented this action (or even, a portion thereof). And the purpose of mentioning this is not dry history, but of the transitioning of power from Moses to others, in this cases, lower judges.
Another one:
Which serves the author's agenda better in Deuteronomy, that the Israelites were uncertain and thus wanted a feel for the land, or that God initiated it? See how the Samaritans work it out, blending the two texts such that they asked, Moshe was pleased with the idea, asked God, and God approved. (Forget about the focus on "lecha" in shelach-lecha which is either apologetics or finding further midrashic support for an already apparent resolution.)
- The Scouts
According to Deut. 1:22, it was the people’s idea to send scouts to get a feel for the land before the invasion. However, according to Numbers 13:1-2 it was God who first commanded that scouts be sent.
This was the author of Deuteronomy filling in additional details, that they were uncertain and requested it. He fully knows that in Shelach, God commanded it, but would interpret this as a command in response to the request. In this way, he stresses the Israelites prior uncertainty about taking the land, which is part of his agenda.
Emphasis mine. In Number 13:27, the spies indeed say positive things about the land. That ten of them also say negative things, while two of them argue, is beside the point. That is not part of Deuteronomy-author's agenda, which is a mussar shmuess. His point is that once the Israelites heard these positive things, they should have moved forward.
- The Panic
According to Deut. 1:25-26 the Israelites react with panic at the idea of conquest, even after the scouts say positive things about the land.2 However, according to Numbers (13:26-14:3) the panic of the Israelites follows upon the negative report of the scouts.
In a footnote, the article-author acknowledges that even in Deuteronomy there is mention of spies saying negative:
2 They do eventually say that the scouts frightened them (v. 28), but this is only after their initial panic and rebellion and the narrator/Moses never makes it clear that this in fact occurred.Is he seriously suggesting that the Israelites simply made up a fact that the narrator / Moses disagrees with? And this made-up fact just so happens to correspond with a tradition in Numbers? This is "the simplicity and straightforwardness of the academic approach"?!
My own "academic approach" answers this in a more straightforward manner. Earlier, it did not serve the author's agenda (or Moses' agenda) to emphasize the negative portion of the spies' report. Now, where Moses is about to dismiss the Israelites' concern in this regard, it does serve the author's agenda.
Another one:
Actually, while only Caleb is mentioned in Deuteronomy 1:36, we hear that Joshua will go in immediately thereafter, in Deuteronomy 37-38.
- The Loyal Scout
God references only Caleb in Deuteronomy 1:36 as the loyal scout who survives the punishment of the desert generation due to his loyalty. Although this parallel’s Numbers 14:24, it contradicts God’s claim in Numbers 14:30.
Not as a loyal spy. That was not said explicitly, I readily admit. Instead, it is because Joshua is to take the reigns of leadership from Moses. Which is a huge part of the Deuteronomy-author's agenda.
If you look at Numbers 14, this can be interpreted as consistent as well. Numbers 14:24 singles out Caleb as the loyal spy who will survive. Numbers 14:30 also mentions Joshua, but does not give a explicit reason for Joshua. And Deuteronomy 1:38 steps into that void, sees the opportunity, and provides a different reason for Joshua. (Though obviously if he had been a rebellious spy he would not have been an allowable replacement. And of course he would have been spared anyway, but the focus was on his being Moses' replacement, and that just as the Israelites would not enter, so would Moses not enter)
Could you see why, in retelling, an author with an agenda might shift focus, and so, while not writing direct contradictions, reframing the narrative in such a way to advance his agenda?
This is not (necessarily) a result of Deuteronomy's author relying on a separate tradition, and being unaware of our Biblical text.
I could do the same for most of the objections people raise. And I would not do it as apologetics.
I think that many academics of Bible are good at finding discrepancies in the text but lousy at reading literature and divining authorial intent. And as a result, they don't see how an author might be reinterpreting a text rather than not knowing it. And it would be a real pity if we "recogniz[e] the simplicity and straightforwardness of the academic approach", and not recognize how simplistic it is.
Friday, July 19, 2013
Making the fence clear
In VaEtchanan, 4:1-2, we are told not to add.
Ramban comments:
ומה שתקנו חכמים משום גדר, כגון שניות לעריות וכיוצא בהן, זו היא מצווה מן התורה, ובלבד שידע שהם משום הגדר הזה ואינן מפי הקב"ה בתורה:
It is a good thing for Chazal to add a geder. However, this is only so long as they inform the people that it is a geder and not that it is the mitzvah itself.
We can look back to parashat Breishit. According to Rashi, Chava added to Hashem's command. Hashem only said not to eat, and she added a geder.
In Avos deRabbi Nassan 1:5, it is explained that Adam added it, and presented it as if it were the Divine command:
Alas, this is all to common today. Either because traditional sources (e.g. Shulchan Aruch) don't indicate what is deRabbanan, what is deOraysa, and what is minhag. Or, for contentious topics, in order to persuade the populace to abstain from a practice, people find a way to make it a violation a deOraysa.
| ב לֹא תֹסִפוּ, עַל-הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם, וְלֹא תִגְרְעוּ, מִמֶּנּוּ--לִשְׁמֹר, אֶת-מִצְוֹת ה אֱלֹקיכֶם, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי, מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם. | 2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God |
Ramban comments:
ומה שתקנו חכמים משום גדר, כגון שניות לעריות וכיוצא בהן, זו היא מצווה מן התורה, ובלבד שידע שהם משום הגדר הזה ואינן מפי הקב"ה בתורה:
It is a good thing for Chazal to add a geder. However, this is only so long as they inform the people that it is a geder and not that it is the mitzvah itself.
We can look back to parashat Breishit. According to Rashi, Chava added to Hashem's command. Hashem only said not to eat, and she added a geder.
| . But of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God said, "You shall not eat of it, and you shall not touch it, lest you die.'" | ג. וּמִפְּרִי הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן אָמַר אֱלֹהִים לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ וְלֹא תִגְּעוּ בּוֹ פֶּן תְּמֻתוּן: | |
| and you shall not touch it: She added to the command; therefore, she came to diminish it. That is what is stated (Prov. 30:6): “Do not add to His words.” - [from Sanh. 29a] | ולא תגעו בו: הוסיפה על הצווי, לפיכך באה לידי גרעון, הוא שנאמר (משלי ל ו) אל תוסף על דבריו: |
In Avos deRabbi Nassan 1:5, it is explained that Adam added it, and presented it as if it were the Divine command:
לא רצה אדם הראשון לומר לחוה כדרך שאמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא, אלא כך אמר לה, ועשה סייג לדבריו יותר ממה שאמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא: "ומפרי העץ אשר בתוך הגן אמר אלוהים לא תאכלו ממנו ולא תגעו בו פן תמותון". שרצה לשמור את עצמו ואת חוה מן העץ אפילו בנגיעה.
באותה שעה היה נחש הרשע נטל עצה בלבו, אמר: הואיל ואיני יכול להכשיל את האדם, אלך ואכשיל את חוה.
"Adam HaRishon did not with to say to Chava in the same way that Hashem had told him. Rather he told her, making a fence to his words more than Hashem told him, 'And from the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, Hashem said not to eat from it nor touch it, lest you die.' For he wished to guard himself and Chava from the tree, even from touching. At that time, the wicked snake took counsel in his heart, saying 'Since I am unable to cause Adam to stumble, I will go and cause Chava to stumble."The point of this is that it is fine in many cases to put up fences. However, one should not attribute the fences themselves to the Divine.
Alas, this is all to common today. Either because traditional sources (e.g. Shulchan Aruch) don't indicate what is deRabbanan, what is deOraysa, and what is minhag. Or, for contentious topics, in order to persuade the populace to abstain from a practice, people find a way to make it a violation a deOraysa.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Review of the Enigma of the Biblical Shafan, pt iii: Llama as shafan
This is the third post in a series reviewed Dr. Isaac Betech's book, The Enigma of the Biblical Shafan.
So far, I haven't been impressed. See my first post, about how the book covers the klal regarding fins and scales, and my second post, about how the book covers evidence of merycism in hyraxes. In both cases, the book deliberately conceals information from the reader, and in the case of hyraxes, uses carefully chosen (and thus dishonest) language to cover up the existence of evidence. In each case, the information which has been concealed would have weakened the position put forth in the book.
In this post, I begin considering the arguments set forth in the chapter Why The Llama Cannot Be The Biblical Shafan.
The gemara in Eruvin 13b states:
1)
First, if we look at Rabbi Slifkin's discussion of the llama, on page 71 of The Camel, The Hare, and The Hyrax, we find the following footnote:
When we compare with the footnotes on page 133 in Dr. Betech's book, we find something rather surprising and bizarre.
That is, he writes:
However, having read through these sources, I can see why he does this. Rabbi Lubin argued specifically for arnevet as Bactrian camel, gamal as Arabian camel, and shafan as llama. The random parsha sheet just cites Rabbi Lubin, and thus puts forth the exact same claim. Rabbi Presworsky also puts forth the exact same claim.
However, Rabbi Dr. Tendler has a slightly different claim. He asserts that the gamal is the camel (both Bactrian and Arabian), the arnevet is the vicuna, and the shafan is the llama. (As we saw above in Rabbi Slifkin's book, Rabbi Dr. Zeliger identifies them as mini-camels, unknown to us, so it is not entirely relevant to a chapter on llama as shafan.)
If the reader knew of Rabbi Tendler's position, then he would have a ready answer to Dr. Betech's objection #1.
To summarize Dr. Betech's objection #1:
If the arnevet is the Bactrian camel and the gamal is Arabian camel, then they are different minim. Yet Bava Kamma 55a discusses the Bactrian camel and the Arabian camel and asserts that, despite minor physical differences, they are the same min and thus are not kilayim! And extend this to the shafan as llama, another camelid.
To this objection, the reader will answer:
According to Rabbi Dr. Tendler, the Bactrian and Arabian camel are indeed the same min, the gamal. And scientifically, they belong to the genus Camelus. However, there are other genuses in the Camelidae family, which scientists have distinguished enough to declare them to be in separate genuses. The arnevet is the vicuna, and the shafan is still the llama!
I think Rabbi Dr. Levinger's opinion was not brought not only because it is not a llama, but also because it would undermine Dr. Betech's reason #6, but that is for another post.
2)
If we look at Rabbi Slifkin's discussion of the Arabian and Bactrian camel regarding the aforementioned gemara in Bava Kamma 55a, we see that he provides pictures. From page 66 of The Camel, The Hare, and The Hyrax:
And Rabbi Slifkin also explains, in the text, that the Arabian camel has one hump and the Bactrian camel has two. So too, in the parsha sheet, Dr. Betech cited in his footnote, we see them summarize Rabbi Lubin as follows:
Yet surprisingly (?) Dr. Betech does not provide pictures of the Arabian and Bactrian camel in this chapter at all!
It is true that on page 179, at the end of a different chapter, Dr. Betech includes pictures of the Family Camelidae:
But this just states Camel, and does not show a number of humps.
Meanwhile, in his chapter on Why The Llama Cannot Be The Biblical Shafan, no picture of Bactrian camel and Arabian camel exists. This is strange because most other times in the book, when an animal is mentioned -- a hyrax, a llama, a kangaroo -- an image is provided.
OK, so no picture is provided. Surely the text would make the distinction, right? Let us look again at the first page of Dr. Betech's chapter, to find reference to one hump or two humps:
Nope. Just, on the first page, that the arnebet is the Bactrian camel and the gamal is the Arabian camel. And then, spanning from the first to the second page:
Why is this relevant? Wait for point #3, and then I will explain.
3)
Further, why not translate the gemara and Rashi to English? The gemara said that the distinction between the גמלא פרסא and the גמלא טעייא was that one was אלים קועיה and the other was קטין קועיה, and Rashi explains that אלים קועיה means that צוארו עב, it has a thick neck.
Yet all Dr. Betech does is vaguely refer to it as "minor physical differences".
To present the gemara:
Thus, a reader, or a llama as shafan proponent, might have readily responded to Dr. Betech's objection #1 with:
Wait! Who says that the Talmud is equating the Bactrian and Arabian camel? Given that it only speaks of neck-thickness, which is indeed a minor physical difference, it would not conflate two camelid species with a different number of humps. And therefore the gamal can have one hump, the arneves can have two humps, and the shafan can be the llama, with zero humps.
However, because Dr. Betech has conveniently left out all this information, the poor reader is unable to respond with anything.
4)
Just a parting observation: I wonder whether, even if the gemara is indeed speaking of Arabian and Bactrian camels, whether their not being kilayim zeh bazeh means that they could not have been described by the Torah using three different names. Maybe yes, maybe no, but it is something that needs proving. Especially since Rabbi Tendler interpreted a gemara (Chullin 59b) that all these three were called by the term gamal. I would need to ruminate on this for a while.
Bli neder, further posts can consider other of Dr. Betech's six objections to the llama as shafan. Objections #2, #3, #4, and #5 can be rejected with a single blow, whether rejection can come from Rishonim who thought the shafan was a rabbit; I think Dr. Betech has stated, after publication of his book, that these should not be used to prove the validity of an identification; he left it unclear whether he admits that they may be used to prove the invalidity of an identification. And #6 can be rejected based what the book has about rabbits, in footnote 237 on page 99 and the main body text spanning from page 100 to page 101. However, I will have to expand on this (bli neder) in a further post.
So far, I haven't been impressed. See my first post, about how the book covers the klal regarding fins and scales, and my second post, about how the book covers evidence of merycism in hyraxes. In both cases, the book deliberately conceals information from the reader, and in the case of hyraxes, uses carefully chosen (and thus dishonest) language to cover up the existence of evidence. In each case, the information which has been concealed would have weakened the position put forth in the book.
In this post, I begin considering the arguments set forth in the chapter Why The Llama Cannot Be The Biblical Shafan.
The gemara in Eruvin 13b states:
מפני מה זכו בית הלל לקבוע הלכה כמותן? מפני שנוחין ועלובין היו, ושונין דבריהן ודברי בית שמאי. ולא עוד, אלא שמקדימין דברי בית שמאי לדבריהן.
"Why did Bet Hillel merit that the halacha was encoded like them? Because they were kindly and modest, and taught their words and the words of Bet Shammai. And not only that, but they preceded the words of Bet Shammai to their own words."Such that even if the purpose of the book is to argue that the rabbit is the Biblical shafan and the llama is not, it is proper to provide readers with a fair presentation of the pro-llama position. We shall investigate whether the book does this, or if the book (deliberately) omits information which would undermine its anti-llama agenda.
1)
First, if we look at Rabbi Slifkin's discussion of the llama, on page 71 of The Camel, The Hare, and The Hyrax, we find the following footnote:
When we compare with the footnotes on page 133 in Dr. Betech's book, we find something rather surprising and bizarre.
That is, he writes:
Some have published [374][375] even recently [376] the claim that the Biblical "shafan" is the llama (Lama glama, family Camelidae), the "arnebet" is the Bactrian camel and the "gamal" is the Arabian camel.In his footnotes, he gives:
[374] Rabbi Meyer Lubin, 1973, Identification of the Gamel, Shafan and Arnevet, "Intercom", (published in May 1973 by the Association of Orthodox Jewish scientists)This is a different list. Since Dr. Betech has read The Camel, The Hare, and The Hyrax, he knows about these other sources. Why would he omit Rabbi Dr. Tendler's article in the Torah UMadda Journal? Why would he omit Rabbi Dr. Yosef HaLevi Zeliger? And to remove Rabbi Tendler's (a rosh yeshiva of RIETS and professor and chairman of a department of biology) article in a journal and put in a random parsha sheet (by a Mr. David Levi) seems quite strange.
[375] North Henden Adath Yisroel Synagogue Sedra Sheet - Shabbos Re'eh - 03/09/05 - Issue 48
[376] Rabbi Pinchus Presworsky, Animals of the Torah, SYS Marketing, USA, 5770, pages 34-36.
However, having read through these sources, I can see why he does this. Rabbi Lubin argued specifically for arnevet as Bactrian camel, gamal as Arabian camel, and shafan as llama. The random parsha sheet just cites Rabbi Lubin, and thus puts forth the exact same claim. Rabbi Presworsky also puts forth the exact same claim.
However, Rabbi Dr. Tendler has a slightly different claim. He asserts that the gamal is the camel (both Bactrian and Arabian), the arnevet is the vicuna, and the shafan is the llama. (As we saw above in Rabbi Slifkin's book, Rabbi Dr. Zeliger identifies them as mini-camels, unknown to us, so it is not entirely relevant to a chapter on llama as shafan.)
If the reader knew of Rabbi Tendler's position, then he would have a ready answer to Dr. Betech's objection #1.
To summarize Dr. Betech's objection #1:
If the arnevet is the Bactrian camel and the gamal is Arabian camel, then they are different minim. Yet Bava Kamma 55a discusses the Bactrian camel and the Arabian camel and asserts that, despite minor physical differences, they are the same min and thus are not kilayim! And extend this to the shafan as llama, another camelid.
To this objection, the reader will answer:
According to Rabbi Dr. Tendler, the Bactrian and Arabian camel are indeed the same min, the gamal. And scientifically, they belong to the genus Camelus. However, there are other genuses in the Camelidae family, which scientists have distinguished enough to declare them to be in separate genuses. The arnevet is the vicuna, and the shafan is still the llama!
I think Rabbi Dr. Levinger's opinion was not brought not only because it is not a llama, but also because it would undermine Dr. Betech's reason #6, but that is for another post.
2)
If we look at Rabbi Slifkin's discussion of the Arabian and Bactrian camel regarding the aforementioned gemara in Bava Kamma 55a, we see that he provides pictures. From page 66 of The Camel, The Hare, and The Hyrax:
And Rabbi Slifkin also explains, in the text, that the Arabian camel has one hump and the Bactrian camel has two. So too, in the parsha sheet, Dr. Betech cited in his footnote, we see them summarize Rabbi Lubin as follows:
And so too, Rabbi Pinchus Presworsky, in the cited pages, calls them the one-hump camel and the two-hump camel:We don’t have space here to go into detail, but he deduces that the Gomol is the one humped camel (Dromedary) found in Egypt and Israel, Arneves is the two humped (Bactrian) camel found further to the east in Central Asia (where Avrohom originated from), and Shofon is the Llama, found only in South America (unknown by our civilisation until the sixteenth century).
and
Yet surprisingly (?) Dr. Betech does not provide pictures of the Arabian and Bactrian camel in this chapter at all!
It is true that on page 179, at the end of a different chapter, Dr. Betech includes pictures of the Family Camelidae:
But this just states Camel, and does not show a number of humps.
Meanwhile, in his chapter on Why The Llama Cannot Be The Biblical Shafan, no picture of Bactrian camel and Arabian camel exists. This is strange because most other times in the book, when an animal is mentioned -- a hyrax, a llama, a kangaroo -- an image is provided.
OK, so no picture is provided. Surely the text would make the distinction, right? Let us look again at the first page of Dr. Betech's chapter, to find reference to one hump or two humps:
Nope. Just, on the first page, that the arnebet is the Bactrian camel and the gamal is the Arabian camel. And then, spanning from the first to the second page:
The Talmud in Baba Kama 55a concludes that the Persian (probably the Bactrian camel) and the Arabian camel, in spite of minor physical differences, are the same "min". [Then cites the gemara and Rashi.] So it is difficult to accept that the Talmud would consider the "arnebet" to be the Bactrian camel, and the "gamal" the Arabian camel."What are these "minor physical differences"? By this, he surely means to encompass the one-hump vs. two hump distinction, but how come he did not make this explicit. The poor typical reader has no clue that this is the distinction!
Why is this relevant? Wait for point #3, and then I will explain.
3)
Further, why not translate the gemara and Rashi to English? The gemara said that the distinction between the גמלא פרסא and the גמלא טעייא was that one was אלים קועיה and the other was קטין קועיה, and Rashi explains that אלים קועיה means that צוארו עב, it has a thick neck.
Yet all Dr. Betech does is vaguely refer to it as "minor physical differences".
To present the gemara:
Or, in English:אמר ר"ל כאן שנה רבי תרנגול טווס ופסיוני כלאים זה בזה פשיטא אמר רב חביבא משום דרבו בהדי הדדי מהו דתימא מין חד הוא קמ"ל:אמר שמואל אווז ואווז הבר כלאים זה בזה מתקיף לה רבא בר רב חנן מאי טעמא אילימא משום דהאי אריך קועיה והאי זוטר קועיה אלא מעתה גמלא פרסא וגמלא טייעא דהאי אלים קועיה והאי קטין קועיה הכי נמי דהוו כלאים זה בזה
SO ALSO BEASTS AND BIRDS ARE LIKE THEM etc. Resh Lakish said: Rabbi taught here19 that a cock, a peacock and a pheasant are heterogeneous with one another.20 Is this not obvious?21 — R. Habiba said: Since they can breed from one another it might have been thought that they constitute a homogeneous species; we are therefore told [by this that this is not the case]. Samuel said:22 The [domestic] goose and the wild goose are heterogeneous with each other. Raba son of R. Hanan demurred [saying:] What is the reason? Shall we say because one has a long neck and the other has a short neck? If so, why should a Persian camel and an Arabian camel similarly not be considered heterogeneous with each other, since one has a thick neck and the other a slender neck?It is somewhat strange that the Bactrian camel and the Arabian camel, which differ in the number of humps, are distinguished by an Amora as merely long vs. short neck. Rabbi Slifkin makes this point about this gemara explicitly in The Camel, The Hare, and The Hyrax, on page 66, right above his Bactrian and Arabian camel pictures, saying:
so Dr. Betech surely knows that this objection can be made.It seems that the “Persian camel” is the Bactrian camel—Bactria is a province of the ancient Persian Empire. Its neck is indeed far thicker than that of the dromedary, although it is curious that the Talmud did not mention the even more striking difference of the number of humps. Another possibility is that the “Persian camel” is a variety of dromedary.
Thus, a reader, or a llama as shafan proponent, might have readily responded to Dr. Betech's objection #1 with:
Wait! Who says that the Talmud is equating the Bactrian and Arabian camel? Given that it only speaks of neck-thickness, which is indeed a minor physical difference, it would not conflate two camelid species with a different number of humps. And therefore the gamal can have one hump, the arneves can have two humps, and the shafan can be the llama, with zero humps.
However, because Dr. Betech has conveniently left out all this information, the poor reader is unable to respond with anything.
4)
Just a parting observation: I wonder whether, even if the gemara is indeed speaking of Arabian and Bactrian camels, whether their not being kilayim zeh bazeh means that they could not have been described by the Torah using three different names. Maybe yes, maybe no, but it is something that needs proving. Especially since Rabbi Tendler interpreted a gemara (Chullin 59b) that all these three were called by the term gamal. I would need to ruminate on this for a while.
Bli neder, further posts can consider other of Dr. Betech's six objections to the llama as shafan. Objections #2, #3, #4, and #5 can be rejected with a single blow, whether rejection can come from Rishonim who thought the shafan was a rabbit; I think Dr. Betech has stated, after publication of his book, that these should not be used to prove the validity of an identification; he left it unclear whether he admits that they may be used to prove the invalidity of an identification. And #6 can be rejected based what the book has about rabbits, in footnote 237 on page 99 and the main body text spanning from page 100 to page 101. However, I will have to expand on this (bli neder) in a further post.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
YUTorah on parshas Vaeschanan
Posts so far for parshat vaEtchanan
2013
1. The importance of calculating tekufot -- and why rabbis don't learn how to calculate this nowadays.
2012
1. Vaeschanan sources, 2012 edition -- further expanded, and organized somewhat chronologically. Also with pictures and descriptions of the character of many of the works.
2. YUTorah on parshas VaEschanan.
3. Running commentary on vaEtchanan, pt i
4. The correct trup on לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן, and whether to keep mitzvos in chutz laaretz -- The trup on the words לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן might teach us a diyuk against the Ramban, who understands that primary observance of mitzvos is in Eretz Yisrael, chas veshalom. But there is a dispute as to the trup. Ohr Torah and HaTorah vehaMitzvah explain, and I give my own (Wickes' based) explanation of the trup.
2011
1. The importance of calculating tekufot -- and why rabbis don't learn how to calculate this nowadays.
2012
1. Vaeschanan sources, 2012 edition -- further expanded, and organized somewhat chronologically. Also with pictures and descriptions of the character of many of the works.
2. YUTorah on parshas VaEschanan.
3. Running commentary on vaEtchanan, pt i
4. The correct trup on לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן, and whether to keep mitzvos in chutz laaretz -- The trup on the words לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן might teach us a diyuk against the Ramban, who understands that primary observance of mitzvos is in Eretz Yisrael, chas veshalom. But there is a dispute as to the trup. Ohr Torah and HaTorah vehaMitzvah explain, and I give my own (Wickes' based) explanation of the trup.
2011
- Va'eschanan sources -- further expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
. - See | I teach you: Can this be a literal 'see'? There is a pesik (actually a munach legarmeih) after the word re'eh. This is taken by Birkas Avraham as cause to interpret it literally, as something one could actually look at.
. - Why should Moshe Rabbenu desire the gashmiyus of Eretz Yisrael? Maybe indeed he did. Or maybe it represented the completion of his mission. Or maybe the gashmiyus was only means to a spiritual end.
. - Changes between the luchos -- the reason for Shabbat: Perhaps the elaboration on why servants get to rest is related to the changed reason of Exodus over Genesis.
. - Was the Torah taken / adapted from contemporary law? Shadal argues against it, based on a pasuk in Va'eschanan. How we might say differently.
. - YU Torah on parashat vaEtchanan
. - Why does Rashi wait until Ekev to explain gedolim va'atzumim? The Taz has his explanation of this phenomenon. And I offer my own, based on an analysis of Rashi's sources.
. - The reason for mezuza -- Well, Rambam states rather clearly that one should not regard the mezuzah as an amulet. Yet, there are clearly those who so regard it, or else the Rambam would not have to make such a strong contrary statement. Indeed, in the gemara in Menachot 33, there are two positions,one (Rabanan) which stresses the psychological impact of encountering it as one enters one's home, while the other (R' Chanina of Sura) regards it as a protective measure of the entire home. They thus had both 'rationalists' and non-rationalists even in the days of the gemara. Of course, one can explain that it is Hashem who protects the house, and in the merit of keeping his commandments. Here is how I would explain it, both tefillin and mezuzah...
. - Would Moshe's death pain Yocheved if she was already deceased? There are two ways of interpreting the Yalkut Shimoni, and Rav Chaim Kanievsky supports each one. Then, I bring in some girsological evidence.
2010
- vaEtchanan sources -- revamped, with more than 100 meforshim on the parasha and haftorah.
a - Elohim as kodesh or chol -- Did Elohim assay to take out a nation? Rashi diverts from Targum Onkelos in claiming that this is chol. What might spark this? Also, how Ibn Ezra and Ibn Caspi differ. (See also this 2008 post.)
a 
The masorah regarding the spelling of mezuzot -- Since the word ha-mezuzot appears in parshat Bo, Minchas Shai discusses the issue of the spelling of mezuzot in VaEtchanan and in general. There is a Rashi in VaEtchanan which darshens the word against the masoretic spelling. And this is one example of divergence among many? How can we deal with this? Shall we harmonize it, or leave it alone? I explain why I think the text indeed diverges.
a- Distant binding for Eretz Zavas Chalav Udvash? How should eretz zavat chalav udvash bind? Distantly, or close by? There are irregularities in each, but why this might be another instance of distance binding. Ibn Ezra and Ibn Caspi.
. - Ibn Ezra as a Round-Earther -- While there is a seeming Rashi / midrash, and an explicit Mizrachi, in Va'etchanan that the earth is flat, Ibn Ezra on that parasha's haftorah indicates that the earth is round.
. - Ibn Ezra on the Aseres HaDibros, part one, two, three, four -- Here Ibn Ezra gives a lengthy, and important, essay on whether to make a big deal about minor deviations in the Torah's description of events, malei vs. chaser, etc.
2009
- VaEtchanan sources -- links by perek and aliyah to an online mikraos gedolos, and links to a large number of meforshim on the parsha and haftara.
. - The masorah about the bald field and ox.
. - The makef vs. the requirement not to run words together in Shema.
. - Was Mizrachi a flat earther? It would seem so, in which case he would join the ranks of the Vilna Gaon (perhaps) and the Shevus Yaakov. It also might well be the case that the underlying gemara in Chagiga also reveals Chazal (or some of them) to have believed in a flat earth. And this ties into the whole question of whether Chazal (or even later authorities) can err in science; and also, whether disregarding the science of our times in favor of the position of Chazal, or what we perceive to be Chazal, is a brilliant idea.
. - How does keeping the mitzvot make us a wise and discerning nation? A nice devar Torah in Avi Ezer's supercommentary on Ibn Ezra.
a - The parsing of Temunat Kol -- depending on whether the phrase continues on or not.
a - Is is ve'etchanan or va'etchanan? Compensatory lengthening of the patach.
2008
- In this excerpt from Shadal's Vikuach, Shadal discusses Rabbenu Bachya's discussion about revocalization, where one pasuk under discussion is in vaEtchanan.
. - Bal Tigra and Bal Tosif, because law codes devolve. It is Shadal's idea of gradual mutation from a good set of laws to a bad one, and that this happened to gentile law codes.
a - A Tale of Two Elokims -- Is Elohim holy or profane, in these two instances in vaetchanan?
2005
In Hear O Israel, I discuss the midrash that the beginning of Shema was a discussion between Yaakov and his sons.
2004
In When Did Moshe Pray?, I consider the meaning of בָּעֵת הַהִוא and attempt to show that it implies two events co-occurring rather than happening sequentially.
In a post in 2005 about the Chronology of Yehuda's Marriage, I make a related point.
2003
In Parshat VeEtchanan - The significance of Nachamu I examine an appropriate story from the second perek of yerushalmi brachot, about the destruction of the bet hamikdash and the birth of the mashiach, and show how Nachamu consoles. :)
In VeEtchanan - Nachamu: Every Valley Shall Be Lifted Up I examine the verse about each valley being lifted up from the perspective of Ibn Ezra and Chazal, but then turn to a yerushalmi in the 8th perek of eruvin and show how this messianic prophecy about the end of days plays a concrete role in a dispute about eruvs between Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish.
In Nachamu Parsing Issue I pull apart the third verse of the haftara. I could probably do a better job at it now with a trup chart like I had in the recent past - as it is it is somewhat difficult to follow. A picture is sometimes worth 1000 words, so I'll put the chart on my To Do List.
Then, in Proof by contradiction in the thought of Chazal, I return to that yerushalmi in the 8th perek in eruvin, and show how a method of proof called Proof by Contradiction seems to be employed in that gemara. It is axiomatic that a public domain must exist for there to be a Biblical prohibition of transfer from one domain to another to exist. Rabbi Yochanan attempts to prove another law by demonstrating that if one assumes the opposite you arrive at an absurdity and falsehood.
to be continued...
In Hear O Israel, I discuss the midrash that the beginning of Shema was a discussion between Yaakov and his sons.
2004
In When Did Moshe Pray?, I consider the meaning of בָּעֵת הַהִוא and attempt to show that it implies two events co-occurring rather than happening sequentially.
In a post in 2005 about the Chronology of Yehuda's Marriage, I make a related point.
2003
In Parshat VeEtchanan - The significance of Nachamu I examine an appropriate story from the second perek of yerushalmi brachot, about the destruction of the bet hamikdash and the birth of the mashiach, and show how Nachamu consoles. :)
In VeEtchanan - Nachamu: Every Valley Shall Be Lifted Up I examine the verse about each valley being lifted up from the perspective of Ibn Ezra and Chazal, but then turn to a yerushalmi in the 8th perek of eruvin and show how this messianic prophecy about the end of days plays a concrete role in a dispute about eruvs between Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish.
In Nachamu Parsing Issue I pull apart the third verse of the haftara. I could probably do a better job at it now with a trup chart like I had in the recent past - as it is it is somewhat difficult to follow. A picture is sometimes worth 1000 words, so I'll put the chart on my To Do List.
Then, in Proof by contradiction in the thought of Chazal, I return to that yerushalmi in the 8th perek in eruvin, and show how a method of proof called Proof by Contradiction seems to be employed in that gemara. It is axiomatic that a public domain must exist for there to be a Biblical prohibition of transfer from one domain to another to exist. Rabbi Yochanan attempts to prove another law by demonstrating that if one assumes the opposite you arrive at an absurdity and falsehood.
to be continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
