posts so far for parshat Ki Tavo

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

1. Ki Tavo sources -- 2012 edition

2. YUTorah on parshas Ki Savo


2011

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

 2010

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

2009

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

2008

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

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

2007

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

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

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

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

Bikkurim -- an interesting theme and underlying message.

2006

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

2003

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

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

to be continued...

Running Commentary on parashat Ki Teitzei, part ii

See part one here. Ki Teitzei continues with the ability, or lack thereof, of the father to change the inheritance of favored or disfavored sons. This section reads (Devarim 21-15-17):

טו  כִּי-תִהְיֶיןָ לְאִישׁ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים, הָאַחַת אֲהוּבָה וְהָאַחַת שְׂנוּאָה, וְיָלְדוּ-לוֹ בָנִים, הָאֲהוּבָה וְהַשְּׂנוּאָה; וְהָיָה הַבֵּן הַבְּכֹר, לַשְּׂנִיאָה.	15 If a man have two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be hers that was hated;
טז  וְהָיָה, בְּיוֹם הַנְחִילוֹ אֶת-בָּנָיו, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-יִהְיֶה, לוֹ--לֹא יוּכַל, לְבַכֵּר אֶת-בֶּן-הָאֲהוּבָה, עַל-פְּנֵי בֶן-הַשְּׂנוּאָה, הַבְּכֹר.	16 then it shall be, in the day that he causeth his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved the first-born before the son of the hated, who is the first-born;
יז  כִּי אֶת-הַבְּכֹר בֶּן-הַשְּׂנוּאָה יַכִּיר, לָתֶת לוֹ פִּי שְׁנַיִם, בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר-יִמָּצֵא, לוֹ:  כִּי-הוּא רֵאשִׁית אֹנוֹ, לוֹ מִשְׁפַּט הַבְּכֹרָה.  {ס}	17 but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath; for he is the first-fruits of his strength, the right of the first-born is his. {S}

The main thrust of this section are contained in the words לֹא יוּכַל. He is not able to effect such a change, on a mere whim or preference, because the laws imposed by society take precedence, such that לוֹ מִשְׁפַּט הַבְּכֹרָה, emphasis on mishpat.

כִּי-תִהְיֶיןָ לְאִישׁ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים -- Note that this is not a recommendation. It is ki tihiyeha, if there would be, not that there should be. And the purpose is the set up for deciding the situation. Perhaps even sequential marriage, instead of simultaneous marriage would fit the bill. Yet the Torah does not outlaw multiple wives.

הָאַחַת אֲהוּבָה וְהָאַחַת שְׂנוּאָה -- Not literally hated. These are what Ibn Caspi calls ממאמר המצרף. Comparatively, he loves one more than the other.

The preference is the preference of the mothers, not of the sons, but it carries over to the sons. Think Rachel and Leah. [Perhaps indeed שְׂנוּאָה by Leah is ממאמר המצרף.] Which means that this is not the result of poor conduct by the son.

The Code of Hammurabi has the following:

52  If a man present field, garden or house to his favorite son and write for him a sealed deed, when the brothers divide the property after their father’s death, the favorite son shall take the present which his father gave him and the rest shall be divided equally among all the brothers.  165

53  If a man set his face to disinherit his son and say to the judges, “I will disinherit my son”, the judges shall inquire into his antecedents and if the son have not committed a crime sufficiently grave to cut him off from being recognized as a son, the father may not disinherit him.  168

Thus, he is allowed to allocate to a favored son over and above the general rules of inheritance. And entire disinheritance is not allowed at the father's whim. It must come before judges.

The law under discussion seems to fall somewhere along the spectrum, since the question is one of disinheriting the non-favored son of his extra portion, and not as a result of his personal conduct. Which is why the father is not able.

Did Yaakov not favor Yosef over Reuven, and indeed give Yosef the double-portion, namely true tribes and a Shechem Echad over his brothers? In answer, see Vaychi:
3. Reuben, you are my firstborn, my strength and the first of my might. [You should have been] superior in rank and superior in power.ג. רְאוּבֵן בְּכֹרִי אַתָּה כֹּחִי וְרֵאשִׁית אוֹנִי יֶתֶר שְׂאֵת וְיֶתֶר עָז:4. [You have] the restlessness of water; [therefore,] you shall not have superiority, for you ascended upon your father's couch; then you profaned [Him Who] ascended upon my bed.ד. פַּחַז כַּמַּיִם אַל תּוֹתַר כִּי עָלִיתָ מִשְׁכְּבֵי אָבִיךָ אָז חִלַּלְתָּ יְצוּעִי עָלָה:

More explicitly, meaning not as cryptic, see Divrei Hayamim I, 5:1-2:

א  וּבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן בְּכוֹר-יִשְׂרָאֵל, כִּי הוּא הַבְּכוֹר--וּבְחַלְּלוֹ יְצוּעֵי אָבִיו, נִתְּנָה בְּכֹרָתוֹ לִבְנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן-יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְלֹא לְהִתְיַחֵשׂ, לַבְּכֹרָה.	1 And the sons of Reuben the first-born of Israel--for he was the first-born; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's couch, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel, yet not so that he was to be reckoned in the genealogy as first-born.
ב  כִּי יְהוּדָה גָּבַר בְּאֶחָיו, וּלְנָגִיד מִמֶּנּוּ; וְהַבְּכֹרָה, לְיוֹסֵף.  {ס}	2 For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came he that is the prince; but the birthright was Joseph's-- {S}

This

To cite myself:

See the Code of Hammurabi, law 158. People translate it in more and less expansive ways. Here are two renderings of it:

158. If a free man has sexual relations with his father's first wife, who is the mother of sons, after the death of his father, that man shall lose his paternal inheritance.

158. If any one be surprised after his father with his chief wife, who has borne children, he shall be driven out of his father's house.

As I understand it, "surprised" means caught in the act, in flagrante delicto, such that there is no room for doubt. "After his father" is all that is said, but it is understood to mean after his father's death. (Otherwise, wouldn't this merit the death penalty?) Note that this is thechief wife, rather than a second wife, a concubine, or a sexual slave. And even there, it is the chief wife who has borne children, such that she retains this status of mother of his father's children after the father's death.

Obviously, this is not 100% parallel to Reuven and Bilhah, but there are remarkable similarities, such that one could envision a local law code covering his case. Reuven was not caught with Bilhah in the act. Rather, וַיִּשְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל, Yisrael heard of it. That should potentially make the penalty less. Yet it was during his father's lifetime, which should make the penalty greater. Yet, this was not with a chief-wife who had borne offspring -- it was a concubine, or a slave given by Rachel to Yaakov for the purpose of procreating. That she is a pilegesh might well lessen the offense, in this pre-Mosaic law.

The end result is that Reuven loses aspects of his inheritance, or if you will, thebechora status of his inheritance over that of his other brothers. A fitting punishment, given local laws.

We thus see that Yaakov Avinu held by the dina d'malchusa.

לָתֶת לוֹ פִּי שְׁנַיִם, בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר-יִמָּצֵא, לוֹ -- there is some tumult over what this might mean. Thus,

 The Mari and Nuzi texts (though not formal law codes in the sense of the others) describe situations where the firstborn son receives double the share of an adopted son. Finally, the mid first millennium NeoBabylonian laws stipulate that the sons of a first wife share 2/3 of the estate between them, while the sons of a second wife share only 1/3, half as much.

I see no reason not to say like Ibn Ezra, that he counts as if he were two sons.

The royal archives at Mari were found, with a nice parallel:

Dozens of legal tablets were also found, mostly contracts concerning transactions and loans of silver or grain (ARM, 8), revealing that the palace served as a sort of exchange. Of exceptional interest is an adoption contract which ensured the "primogeniture" of the "eldest" (i.e., first adopted) son, stipulating that he receive a double portion of the inheritance; this is in full accord with biblical law (cf. Deut. 21:15–17).

כִּי-הוּא רֵאשִׁית אֹנוֹ-- meaning first of his strength. See Reuven's blessing for the comparison. An interesting use of the idiom here.

YUTorah on parashat Ki Teitzei

Audio Shiurim on Ki Teitzei Rabbi Elchanan Adler: Hashavas Aveidah Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Divine Justice and Avot u-Banim Rabbi Ari Cutler: Eishet Yifat Toar: How is this Allowed Rabbi Avishai David: The Ben Sorer U'moreh and Yishmael Rabbi Ally Ehrman: Learning Mercy Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein: Marriage as a Metaphor for Torah Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: Marriage Advice Rabbi Beinish Ginsburg: The war against the Yetzer Hara is winnable Rabbi Efrem Goldberg: Are You a Statistical Anomaly? Rabbi Yehuda Goldschmidt: Elul and The Eshet Yifat Toar Rabbi Shalom Hammer: System of One and his nation Rabbi Aryeh Hendler: Living a Lichatchila Life Rabbi Jesse Horn: Aspiring for religious greatness Rabbi Ari Kahn: Captive Wives Rebellious Sons and Palace Intrigue Rabbi Yisroel Kaminetsky: Returning the Lost Soul Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg: A New Beginning Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: Hakaras Hatov Rabbi Eliezer Lerner: Starting Over Rabbi Ben Leybovich: Nobody knows me Rabbi Shmuel Marcus: Hashavas Aveida Rabbi Yaakov Neuburger: Shiluach HaKan, The Deep Meaning Behind Mtzvos Rabbi Zev Reichman: Life is a war! Rabbi Hershel Reichman: Do Mitzvos Have Rewards in this World? Rabbi Yonason Sacks: What was the Issur of Eishes Yefas To'ar? Shay Schachter: "Shanah Rishonah" - Myth or Minhag? Rabbi Dr. Jacob J Schacter: Why is Moav forbidden to enter Klal Yisrael? Rabbi Avi Schneider: One small step for man..... Rabbi Baruch Simon: Fighting the Yetzer Hara at its Youth Mrs. Shira Smiles: The Ultimate Battle Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky: But isnt it allowed? Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik: Kilaim and Yefet Toar Rabbi Reuven Spolter: Falling into God's Hands Rabbi Moshe Taragin: The Prison of our "Plans" Rabbi Michael Taubes: The Nature of the Mitzvah of Chalitzah Rabbi Moshe D. Tendler: Taamei HaMitzvos Rabbi Yaacov Thaler: Give! Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg: The Torah Doesn't Ask Us to Do the Impossible Rabbi Mordechai Willig: The Importance of Listening Rabbi Andi Yudin: Beginning Right Rabbi Ari Zahtz: Yefas Toar Articles on Ki Teitzei Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: Amalek and Dishonesty Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: Spiritual Warfare Rabbi Maury Grebenau: Is Sensitivity for the Birds? Rabbi Mordechai Greenberg: אמחה ותמחה Rabbi Yehuda Henkin: Amalek and its Legacy Rabbi David Horwitz: Mitzvot concerning Gifts to the Poor Rabbi Yitzchak Korn: Amon and Moav - the Antithesis of the Torah Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl: Defeating the Yetzer Hara Rabbi Avraham Rivlin: לא תבושי ולא תכלמי Rabbi Jeffrey Saks: Parenting Secrets of the Ben Sorer u-Moreh YU-Torah miTzion Toronto Beit Midrash: Toronto Torah Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Ki Teitzei See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Ki Teitzei

New This Week Rachav: Paradigm of Teshuva Mrs. Rebecca Belizon Is Beit Din Stricter than God?! Rabbi Yonatan Emmett Eternal Lessons of Teshuva: Yonah Chapter 1 Rabbi Zev Goldberg Gemara Methodology: The connection between the Chakira and the Nafka Minah Rabbi Jesse Horn No One Ever Said It Was Going to be Easy: Rav Dessler on the Rewards for the Performance of Mitzvot Rabbi Beni Krohn Three Unique Aspects of Teshuva Rabbi Aryeh Leibowitz Using Ovens for Meat and Dairy Rabbi Shmuel Marcus Minhagim of Elul, Shofar, Selichos, Sheliach Tzibbur Rabbi Jeff Rothman Can One Un-Accept Shabbat? Rabbi Michael Siev Eruvin and Mezuzah Rabbi Baruch Simon The Meaning of Shevah Brachot Rabbi Reuven Taragin

a

posts so far for parshat Ki Teitzei

Printable version of each Ki Teitzei post here. (You might need to click on the right arrow to see more posts.)

2012

1. Ki Teizei sources -- including dates, bios, and pics, of many of the meforshim.

2. YUTorah on parashat Ki Teizei.

3. Running commentary on Ki Teiztei, part one.

4. Shiluach HaKen as a light mitzvah -- Rav Yitzchak Karo: there is to ask, a light mitzvah such as this, which has no monetary loss at all, nor bodily effort, why is its reward so great, that לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ, וְהַאֲרַכְתָּ יָמִים. And further, to a world that is completely tov and a world that is completely aruch.

And the answer in this is...
2011

1. Ki Teitzei sources -- links to pages in an online Mikraos Gedolos by perek and by aliyah. Then, greatly expanded to include a good number of meforshim on the parsha and haftarah. Each year, further improved. This year, for instance, many more meforshim, meforshei Rashi, kitvei yad, and meforshei Onkelos.
   .
2. Esnoga, and the Authenticity of the Zohar -- Many people discuss it, pro and con, but I get the sense that not even everyone discussing it has seen the relevant Zohar inside. And so, I present it in this post.
   .
3. The reformative laws of Ki Teitzei -- In inheritance law, in treatment of rebellious children, and in giving women a voice. HaMaamar on some of the laws and their details, in parashat Ki Teitzei.
   .
4. Not leaving an executed corpse hanging overnight as a reformative law -- to correct a practice prevalent in the general culture, according to HaMaamar.
   .
5. Was the naara betrothed at the time? And, is this required in order to apply the death penalty? Shadal, Ibn Ezra and Karaites, and Chazal, take different approaches as to when this occurs in the timeline, and the certainty of it.
   .
6. Abarbanel asks about yibum, Yehuda, and Boaz -- Abarbanel's 19th doubt in Ki Seitzei is about the incident with Yehudah and Tamar, and how that meshes (or does not) with the laws ofyibbum. Yehuda was a father to the deceased, not a brother! And how comehalacha does not recognize this as effective, patterned after Yehuda. Abarbenel's 20th doubt is about theyibbum described in sefer Rut. Was he a brother or a distant relative? Where was the spitting for Ploni Almoni? This all seems to contradict the laws ofyibbum and chalitza.
   .
7. Abarbanel on Yehuda and Tamar's "yibbum" -- As described in the aforementioned post, Don Yitzchak Abravanel asks some incisive questions about the nature of the apparent yibbum by Yehuda and Tamar. Here, he resolves those questions. It was certainly not a complete yibbum, for yibbum is for brothers, not fathers. (And he explains why.) Tamar took the steps necessary, but it was certainly not Yehuda's intent. And this particular joining does not form the pattern for subsequent yibbum.
   .
8. Abarbanel on Boaz and Ruth's "yibbum" --  On parashat Ki Teitzei, Abarbanel had asked about the nature of the apparentyibbum of Yehuda and Tamar, and the apparent one of Boaz and Rus. There are things which seem 'off' about the yibbum as it occurs in sefer Rus, as he explained in the question. Here, he gives his answer.
   .
9. Yehuda and Tamar, and Boaz and Rus, as performing real yibbum --  My own thoughts about the points raised by Abarbanel. Could we find a way for the actions of Yehuda and Tamar, and of Boaz and Ruth, to be actual yibbum, rather than just 'customary'yibbum, or no yibbum at all?
   .
10. Why did Amalek חותך מילות וזורק כלפי מעלה? An analysis by the Chasam Sofer. My own suggestion, plus an analysis of a bit ofgirsology. 
    .
11. YU Torah on parashat Ki Teitzei.

2010

1. Need the Eshet Yefat Toar be objectively, or even subjectively, beautiful? Not on the level of derash, or even on the level of peshat. But to what degree?
   .
2. Distracting dress on the sidelines of battle? Did the eshet yefat toar dress so beautifully to distract the enemy armies?
   .
3. Are the Taliban barbaric for executing the eloping lovers? How we react to a modern-day reenactment of naarah hameorasah, and what that says about us.
   .
4. Ibn Caspi and Diber Torah BeHoveh -- He established this principle, as a signpost, by eshet yefat toar. Then, he uses it to explain other mitzvot, such as maakeh and divorce.
   .
5. Ibn Caspi, that Edom is not Rome or Christianity -- Offered in defense of the practice of lending for interest to local non-Jews, he asserts that even ifachicha does extend to Edom, they are not Edom. This has implications for all these modern predictors of the apocalypse who take as a given that Rome, or Christianity, or the US, is Edom.
   .
6. Ki Teizei: Could Bilaam's curse or blessing harm or help? According to Ibn Caspi, no. This was catering to the superstitions of the hamon am.
   .
7. Peshat in יָקוּם עַל שֵׁם אָחִיו הַמֵּת -- While Ibn Caspi and Rashbam says it means literal naming, something not even Karaites say, I agree with the gemara in Yevamos that it certainly doesn't mean this. I would rather call it bad peshat.
   .
8. Shiluach HaKein as a segulah for having sons -- A variant of it does have midrashic basis. But not precisely, I think. Furthermore, a little knowledge of statistics and Jewish fertility goes a long way.
   .
9. Length of days -- Does it refer to long life, or long dwelling in the land of Israel?

2009

1. Why one with crushed stones may not enter into the kahal. I suggest an alternate reading that we might have thought this was a matir. And ka mashma lan.
.

2. The milchemet yachid, with one's will, and whether such a derasha is justified. It does not seem to be so, despite the Baal HaTurim's assertion, because the word is malei, rather than chaser as he asserts. It is possible that he misreads and misapplies the masoretic note from the end of Shofetim, as Minchas Shai suggests. Or perhaps we can say there was a variant text.
   .
3. The first of his strength, and how Ibn Ezra becomes a darshan -- how he heeds smichut, and gives an interpretation as the first of his seed, even though elsewhere he appears to offer a peshat interpretation as opposite that one, given by Rashi.
   .
4. Is the Mamzer a bastard, or a nation? How Ibn Ezra explores this, and gives different impressions as to his peshat judgement in two separate places. And what in the world he means by his description of Targum taking the short, midrashic path.
   .
5. The mother's fault, according to Ibn Ezra, for the bad nature of her sons, as this applies to various Biblical characters, including the ben sorer umoreh who is the son of the eshet yefat toar. But was Elisheva, wife of Aharon, responsible for the good nature of Eleazar, or the wicked nature of Nadav and Avihu. Ibn Ezra is cryptic and while all the supercommentators I have seen suggest the former, I would suggest the latter as a possiblilty.
   .
6. What does it mean that they did not greet you with lechem? I would take it as idiomatic, but not the real cause for the pegam; and that this is poetic exaggeration to provide a contrast with their actual actions, of hiring against you Bilaam ben Beor to curse.
   .
7. Which naarah is plene? Did Rambam forget the gemara? Here, I attempt to rescue that Rambam from the questions of Kesef Mishnah and then Minchas Shai. I suggest that the Rambam understood the gemara to mean that several pesukim in context had naarah plene, and how one can parse the gemara this way. Which then explains why he would use the derasha rather than the alternate derivation -- in the new reading of the gemara, this is not an alternate derivation.

2008

1. Shadal on Shiluach haKen -- so that we do not look down on the trait of mercy, by penalizing the mother bird's mercy on her children.
   .
2. Zachor -- Why does it matter that they were faint and weary? In which I suggest that back then they were unable to stand up for themselves and their honor, but now they can.
   .
3. Shadal on the betrothed Naarah, that the Torah does not want the charge laid out against her, and that she is an entirely unmarried, and unbetrothed girl. And the Torah is acting to subdue certain tribal customs. Finally, why I don't like this explanation, for various peshat reasons.
   .
4. Cutting off her hand?! Different explanations of this shocking instruction. My own take, but also how the Karaites maintain that one actually cuts off her hand, and does not take kofer, unlike other maimings, such as in the case of ayin tachat ayin. And Ibn Ezra that this is only when she does not pay kofer. And Shadal like one Tannaitic position, that it is a case of rotzeiach, but later reverses himself to more resemble Ibn Ezra.
   .
5. Shoe-tossing as a sign of contempt, and how this might intersect with the laws of chalitza, as well as a midrash about Mordechai and Haman.

2007

1. Taking the Mill or Upper Millstone as Pledge -- In which I suggest that nefesh hu chovel is a pun.
   .
2. Collecting Interest -- In which taking interest in not a sin in and of itself, but this is an extra restriction to promote a society with the value of fraternity.
   .
3. Not Giving Up An Escaped Slave -- Yet you must help your fellow Jew recover his wandering sheep. Why the difference? There is law and there is what is morally right.
   .
4. When you go to war against your enemy -- Just because you win does not mean that you get to do whatever you like. The rules don't go out the window. Rather, you must behave in a prescribed, moral manner. Also, we can interpret this homiletically, in which the "enemy" is the evil inclination.
   .
5. Is Rudy Guliani an Adulterer? No, because the woman he was with was single. And even if married, he would not commit Biblical adultery. And it seems that he was possibly not really considered married.
   .
6. A Slightly Non-Normative Reading of Machzir Gerushato -- Based in part on a Bet Shammai reading, and somewhat supported by statements in Chazal. That her "defilement" was not her intervening marriage, but rather the adultery which broke up the first marriage in the first place.
   .
7. Request for Explanation of Naar/Naara -- With my own explanation offered, but more requested. And an explanation already given in the comments.

2006

1. VeKatzota et Kappa As Din Rodef: Within this relatively unknown opinion in Chazal that this is din Rodef, because the woman is still crushing and this can put the man's life in danger, and that this is an instruction to prevent a rodef with the minimum damage necessary (here her hand rather than her life), we point out an instance where a woman did just this and thus almost killed her husband, and could have been on trial for murder.
   .
2. Orthopraxy III - Remembering What Amalek Did -- How can you remember what Amalek did if you do not believe that Amalek did it?

2004

1. The Damsel's Father (and Not Her Mother, and Not the Damsel) - I point out an interesting Sifrei, but never got a chance to develop it. This Sifrei states אמר אבי הנערה אל הזקנים מכאן שאין רשות לאשה לדבר במקום האיש, which is one source text on Chazal's attitude towards women assuming public communal roles.
   .
2. In Motzi Shem Ra I suggest that the purpose of the further penalty that the man shouldn't divorce her afterwards is deterrence. I elaborate in the post.
   .
3. Three (Non-Contradictory) Explanations of וְהֶחֱזִיקָה בִּמְבֻשָׁיו: Chazal's payment of money for embarrassment; the Middle Assyrian Law and Ibn Ezra's attempt at reconciliation with halacha, and a new, not-well known one, which might even be said to be on the level of peshat - under the din rodef, in which she is still grabbed on.

2003

1. Eshet Yefat Toar As Progressive Feminist Legislation -- We examine the laws and language of the yefat toar, finding that the novelty of the law may actually be protection of captive women.
   .
2. Ben Sorer UMoreh - Why? I suggest something based on the root KLL.
   .
3. In Ben Sorer UMoreh I suggest that this was a reform intended to take honor killings for misbehavior out of the realm of family judgement and into the formal court system.

to be continued...

Daf Yomi Pesachim: Leaving at Ki Tov

I just started more seriously learning through Pesachim, this time around, for Daf Yomi. Eruvin was a killer, but I just finished that. So I am about 50 blatt behind.

I checked out the Artscroll app. It is nice. I like how I can focus just on the tzuras hadaf and read it, and just when I want to double-check that I have the nukkud right, or that I am translating it for myself correctly, I touch the word or phrase and phrase and see the pop-up. I also like how, when I click on a word of phrase, it will highlight for me the associated Rashi and Tosafot, and that when I click on a Tosafot, it will highlight the relevant section of gemara. I just clicked on a Rashi, and it highlighted the associated gemara as well as a Gilyon HaShas on that Rashi. Very need, and it will hopefully encourage users to stay on the actual daf.

Anyway, here is something on Pesachim 2a. I would like to respond to certain questions raised by Tosafot. The gemara is trying to advance evidence that Or means either night or day. And its first proof it this:

מיתיבי (בראשית מד, ג) הבקר אור והאנשים שולחו אלמא אור יממא הוא מי כתיב האור בקר הבקר אור כתיב כמאן דאמר צפרא נהר וכדרב יהודה אמר רב דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם יכנס אדם בכי טוב ויצא בכי טוב

"They [the scholars producing the setama degemara] raised an objection [from a verse in Bereishit 44:3, about the brothers of Yosef, when they left Yosef's house, just after Yosef had commanded his steward to hide his goblet in Binyamin's sack]: 

ג  הַבֹּקֶר, אוֹר; וְהָאֲנָשִׁים שֻׁלְּחוּ, הֵמָּה וַחֲמֹרֵיהֶם.

3 As soon as the morning was light, the men were sent away, they and their asses.

Thus, Or means day! Does it say the Or was morning? Rather, it says the morning was Or. And it is like one who says "Tzafra Nahar" [the day is light]. And this [their action?] is in accordance with Rav Yehuda citing Rav. Because Rav Yehuda cited Rav, 'a person should always enter with Ki Tov [=at Boker] and exit with Ki Tov."

The setama degemara here is referencing a statement of Rav Yehuda citing Rav which is found in Bava Kamma daf 60a-b:

Rab Judah stated that Rab said: A man should always enter [a town] by daytime and leave by daytime, as it say's, And none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning.¹

The pasuk cited is in Shemot 12:22, about Makkat Bechorot:

כב  וּלְקַחְתֶּם אֲגֻדַּת אֵזוֹב, וּטְבַלְתֶּם בַּדָּם אֲשֶׁר-בַּסַּף, וְהִגַּעְתֶּם אֶל-הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְאֶל-שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת, מִן-הַדָּם אֲשֶׁר בַּסָּף; וְאַתֶּם, לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח-בֵּיתוֹ--עַד-בֹּקֶר.	22 And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two side-posts with the blood that is in the basin; and none of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning.
כג  וְעָבַר ה, לִנְגֹּף אֶת-מִצְרַיִם, וְרָאָה אֶת-הַדָּם עַל-הַמַּשְׁקוֹף, וְעַל שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת; וּפָסַח ה, עַל-הַפֶּתַח, וְלֹא יִתֵּן הַמַּשְׁחִית, לָבֹא אֶל-בָּתֵּיכֶם לִנְגֹּף.	23 For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side-posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.

This is either Hashem by Himself, with no shaliach, or else his angelic agents of destruction.

Tosafot write, in Pesachim 2a, as follows:

יכנס בכי טוב. אור"י דבפרק הכונס (דף ס ושם:) משמע דטעם הוי משום מזיקין דמפיק ליה התם מלא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו וקרא משום מזיקין קא מזהיר דמפקינן מיניה התם כיון שניתן רשות למשחית וכו' ולפי זה אפילו מעירו אדם צריך ליזהר שיצא בכי טוב והא דנקט כניסה תחלה היינו משום דאורחא דגמרא למינקט הכי כמו מטפס ועולה ומטפס ויורד בפרק עושין פסין (דף כא.) דנקט עליה תחלה ובפ' במה מדליקין (דף לד:) בין השמשות כהרף עין זה נכנס וזה יוצא וקשה הא דריש רב יהודה הא דרשה גופה מקרא אחרינא דלא תצאו בפרק הכונס (דף ס. ושם:) ואומר רשב"א דצריכי תרי קראי הבקר אור צריך לעיר אחרת ואפי' היכא דליכא למיחש למזיקין כגון אחי יוסף דהוו י"א והטעם מפני הפחתים וקרא דלא תצאו איצטריך לעירו ומפני המזיקין:

I will respond to their last point first:

 וקשה הא דריש רב יהודה הא דרשה גופה מקרא אחרינא דלא תצאו בפרק הכונס (דף ס. ושם:) ואומר רשב"א דצריכי תרי קראי הבקר אור צריך לעיר אחרת ואפי' היכא דליכא למיחש למזיקין כגון אחי יוסף דהוו י"א והטעם מפני הפחתים וקרא דלא תצאו איצטריך לעירו ומפני המזיקין:

"And it is difficult, that Rav Yehuda [citing Rav] darshens this derasha itself from a different pasuk, namely that [of Makkat Bechorot, in Shemot] of לֹא תֵצְאו, in perek HaKones [daf 60a]. And Rashba says that we need both verses, that of [Bereishit, Yosef's brothers] because of [going to] another city, such that it is even where one need not worry about mazikin [demons, evil spirits], such as the brothers of Yosef, who numbered 11, and the reason is because of the pits. Meanwhile, the verse refers to his own city {Josh: perhaps since one need not fear pits}, and because of the evil spirits."

I must confess that what bothers Tosafot does not bother me the slightest. The pasuk in Shemot is the prooftext for Rav's statement, as we see in Bava Kamma. The pasuk in Bereishit, mentioned in our gemara in Pesachim, is not a prooftext! Indeed, Rav and Rav Yosef know nothing about this pasuk. It is the setama degemara that is trying to determine the meaning of Or and brings in this pasuk, and then references this idea of Rav Yehuda citing Rav Yosef to explain the pasuk.

The idea is that the Shevatim kept the entirety of the Torah, including Rabbinic law, and so naturally followed the statement of Rav when leaving the abode of the vizier of Egypt. In other words, why did they leave in the morning? Because of Rav. But don't then turn around and take their action as a source for Rav's rule. It is a target, not a source. And indeed, the actual source sounds like a source for an injuction, לֹא תֵצְאו.

[A peshat explanation of this might be that daytime is the proper time to start a journey, and the pasuk is informing us that they left at their earliest possible opportunity because they so desperately wanted to escape that fraught situation. And then that plan was shattered.]

Also, the Rashba explained the distinction between the two prooftexts as that one was a concern for mazikin, while the other was a concern for pits. I would like to question this assumption, at the same time that I question the first part of Tosafot:

אור"י דבפרק הכונס (דף ס ושם:) משמע דטעם הוי משום מזיקין דמפיק ליה התם מלא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו וקרא משום מזיקין קא מזהיר דמפקינן מיניה התם כיון שניתן רשות למשחית

"The Ri said that in perek HaKones [Bava Kamma 60a-b] it imples that the reason is because of demons, because they derive it there from [the pasuk in Shemot] לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח-בֵּיתוֹ, and that verse is because of mazikin that it warns, for we derive from it there [in Bava Kamma immediately above], 'once permission was given to the [Mashchis] Destroyer...'"

However, I do not believe that this reading can sustain a careful examination of the sugya in Bava Kamma 60a-b. The gemara there reads:

תאני רב יוסף מאי דכתיב (שמות יב, כב) ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר כיון שניתן רשות למשחית אינו מבחין בין צדיקים לרשעים ולא עוד אלא שמתחיל מן הצדיקים תחלה שנאמר (יחזקאל כא, ח) והכרתי ממך צדיק ורשע בכי רב יוסף כולי האי נמי לאין דומין א"ל אביי טיבותא הוא לגבייהו דכתיב (ישעיהו נז, א) כי מפני הרעה נאסף הצדיק

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם יכנס אדם בכי טוב ויצא בכי טוב שנאמר (שמות יב, כב) ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר 

ת"ר דבר בעיר כנס רגליך שנאמר ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר ואומר (ישעיהו כו, כ) לך עמי בא בחדריך וסגור דלתיך בעדך ואומר (דברים לב, כה) מחוץ תשכל חרב ומחדרים אימה 

R. Joseph learnt: What is the meaning of the verse, And none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning?²⁴  Once permission has been granted to the Destroyer, he does not distinguish between righteous and wicked. Moreover, he even begins with the righteous at the very outset, as it says:²⁵  And I will cut off from thee the righteous and the wicked.²⁶  R. Joseph wept at this, saying: So much are they²⁷  compared to nothing!²⁸  But Abaye [consoling him,] said: This is for their advantage, as it is written, That the righteous is taken away from the evil to come.²⁹

Rab Judah stated that Rab said: A man should always enter [a town] by daytime and leave by daytime, as it say's, And none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning.¹

Our Rabbis taught: When there is an epidemic in the town keep your feet inside [the house], as it says, And none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning,¹  and it further says, Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers and shut thy doors about thee;²  and it is again said: The sword without, the terror within shall destroy.³  Why these further citations? — Lest you might think that the advice given above⁴  refers only to the night, but not to the day. Therefore, come and hear: Come, my people, enter thou into thy chamber, and shut thy doors about thee.⁵  And should you say that these apprehensions apply only where there is no terror inside,⁶  whereas where there is terror inside⁶  it is much better to go out and sit among people in one company, again come and hear: The sword without, the terror within shall destroy,³  implying that [even where] the terror is'within'⁶  the 'sword'⁷  will destroy [more] without. In the time of an epidemic Raba used to keep the windows shut, as it is written, For death is come up into our windows.⁸

There are thus three different sources which interpret the pasuk ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר. There is Rav Yosef, Rav Yehuda citing Rav, and the brayta. Though they are juxtaposed because of interpreting the same pasuk, that does not prove that they are speaking about the same topic, namely the Mashchis.

Furthermore, what is the "Mashchis" of Rav Yosef? He is connecting to the peshat meaning of the pasuk, where there was a destructive force wiping out the Egyptian firstborn. That destructive force was either an angel from Hashem, or else Hashem Himself. And despite the target being the Egyptian firstborn, the Israelites were commanded to stay inside, lest they be harmed as well. The "Mashchis", "Destroyer", of the pasuk is not a sheid, a demon.

And Rav Yosef is extrapolating from this case to general cases where the Mashchis has been given authority to act. This, again, is not sheidim. Think instead of widespread disaster -- a tornado, a hurricane, pestilence. In such cases, he says, the righteous are taken along with the wicked, and even targeted first. This is a far cry from sheidim which happen to attack solitary people at night. So, one should not extrapolate from Rav Yosef's mention of a Mashchis to the conclusion that Rav was speaking about sheidim.

However, as I wrote above, this does not rule out shedim. After all, who says that there is any semantic connection between Rav and Rav Yosef, further than that they are interpreting the same pasuk? Indeed, Rashi there explains that Rav Yosef's concern includes shedim:

בכי טוב - בעוד חמה זורחת ילין במלון ולא ימתין עד שתחשך ולבקר לא ישכים לצאת עד שיאיר כי טוב לישנא מעליא האור כי טוב כלומר טוב הוא לצאת בו וליכנס בו מפני המזיקין והליסטין:

Because of mazikin and robbers. But note that it is not solely demons; it is also robbers. Basically, Rashi is helpfully explaining why someone would be concerned with going out at night.

If so, the same concern can apply to Yosef's brothers, even though they number eleven.