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.

Judging kefira

In Rabbi Yitzchak Blau's recent guest-post at Morethedoxy, after addressing various salient points about Biblical criticism, he closes with the following paragraphs, which I agree with:

I would like to close with a couple of personal notes.  If someone is intellectually convinced of the DH, this does not make them evil and they are not necessarily involved in a sinister plot.  For all I know, the authors contributing to thetorah.com are very fine human beings and I have no interest in saying derogatory things about them.  Yet we can still strongly disagree with them and conclude that their views are incompatible with Orthodoxy. 

Secondly, there are voices in our community obsessed with kicking left wing Modern Orthodox rabbis out of Orthodoxy.  I view this as an unhealthy and problematic obsession and I want no part of it.  However, this does not mean that those criticizing are always wrong.   In this case, I think the traditional critics of R. Farber are correct. 

Finally, a word to my friends on the left.  It is the nature of things that those who feel persecuted and those who have experienced unfair criticism see all episodes in that light.  In the same way, some Jews cry anti – Semitism every time a Jew does not get a job or a Jew is censured.   Such a victim complex is extremely unhelpful and it prevents acknowledgment of real problems.   Whether or not your right wing critics are always correct or consistently fair now is the time to affirm that R. Farber’s views are incompatible with Orthodoxy.

In response, this guest post by Rabbi Dr. Avi Kadish, with these closing paragraphs:

At the same time, as a Torah Jew, there is no need to debate the “Orthodoxy” of people whose intellectual quests take them where you don’t see a need to go. Despite all the current verbiage to the contrary, there is no mitzvah nor any halakhic need to do so. 

To engage in this is the עצת יצר הרע, [counsel of the "evil inclination"], its greatest tool today for creating hatred and stifling thought and discussion in Am Yisrael. The yetzer works to cause evil specifically through Torah scholars and committed Jews, whom it has convinced that doing this is both necessary and right. Of course they sound convincing, and many of them like yourself are not at all malicious, but the very need for this cannot ultimately be justified. It simply isn’t Torah. 

The constant effort to define “Orthodoxy” and make decisions about who is “in” and who is “out” has nothing to do with living our covenant with God in today’s reality. The Torah is about loyalty and action out of love and fear of God, not about judging other Jews’ honest intellectual struggles or challenging their self-definitions. So instead please just keep writing what Orthodoxy means to you (and to me), not what you think it needs to mean for others.

Now I'll weigh in.

To summarize Rabbi Blau's concluding point as I understand it, and to expand upon it a bit, these folks at thetorah.com are not wicked people, who we should chas veShalom hate. We shall assume they are fine people with excellent conduct, the best of intentions, and intellectual honesty. We are evaluating whether the ideas they propound are true or not, and whether these ideas are kefira, not whether these people are the devil.

Furthermore, there might be various rabbis who are silent, and yet hold these beliefs. For example, maybe there are others in YCT who privately agree with this. But it is not our job to conduct tzitzis checks, patting them on the back to surreptitiously determine whether they are wearing tzitzis. We should not set out to delegitimize people on the left.

However, the folks participating in thetorah.com have come out publicly with their beliefs, such that we know them. Further, they created their website with the express purpose of convincing other Jews of the truth of their beliefs, and want to persuade other intellectually honest Jews to adopt these beliefs.

To say:

The Torah is about loyalty and action out of love and fear of God, not about judging other Jews’ honest intellectual struggles or challenging their self-definitions.

simply ignores that those being "judged" are trying to persuade others of these beliefs, and to convince others of these beliefs, and that these are within the realm of acceptable beliefs.

As such, it is entirely within the scope of correct and polite discourse to evaluate the repercussions of adopting these beliefs. Are these beliefs within the realm of Orthodoxy, or does adopting these beliefs make one a kofer?

Or, at the least, if some rabbis have engaged in tzitzis-checks, and determined that a belief has put someone outside the realm of Orthodoxy, we can evaluate whether such a claim is correct and, in Rabbi Blau's opinion, the claim is indeed correct.

Indeed, it would be irresponsible for Orthodox rabbis, who do maintain that according to Torah and Rabbinic law, certain beliefs constitute heresy, to remain quiet and not inform their flock about the status of such beliefs. This, even though there are sometimes practical repercussions to such a conclusion. And this, even though the people who profess these heretic beliefs are likely going to be very insulted by your conclusion.

Many on the right want to label discussion, such as Torah miSinai vs. Biblical Criticism, out of bounds, because it is heresy.

Many on the left want to label discussion, such as whether a belief is heresy, out of bounds, because it is hurtful.

Those on the right say discussing these heretical ideas is an aveira.

Now, those of the left say that discussing whether these are heretical ideas is an aveira.

Personally, I think both are part of an honest discussion.

Now, why should we care whether a belief is "heretical". I am sure that many of my own beliefs are "heretical" to Orthodox Muslims. For example, I don't believe that Mohammed was a true prophet. And I am sure that many of my own beliefs are "heretical" to Orthodox Christians. For example, I don't believe that Jesus was either messiah nor a god. And I am sure that many of my own beliefs are "heretical" to many Orthodox Jews, and thus to some definition of Orthodox Judaism. For example, I don't think that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai authored the Zohar, or that the world is likely less than 6000 years old.

Heresy should not stop discussion, in an ideal world. Heresy is not the same as falsehood. I can comfortably deny the divinity of Oto HaIsh, and be comfortable that within the structure of Orthodox Christianity, I would be deemed a non-believer.

Some would say that Orthodox Judaism is truth, and if we determine that a belief is true, then it cannot be heresy. I would argue and say that Orthodox Judaism is a system like any other, and truth and heresy have separate existence. (I happen to think that many of the beliefs professed on thetorah.com are both untrue and heretical, but they still stand apart.) The proper balance might be to say these things are true and, if these beliefs stand outside of the system, then I and the ideas are indeed outside the system. And then make a new system.

Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. In our actual world, labeling something heretical shuts down discussion. And that is why it is not such a good thing to label ideas as heretical. Often, those who declared beliefs outside of bounds were simply closed-minded, are were not exposed to all the relevant facts. And then other closed-minded individuals will follow them, because the opposing view has been delegitimized as kefira.

Thus, surely there are people who believe in geocentrism because heliocentrism is kefira:

"Ma'amar Mevo HaShemesh" - a booklet (in Hebrew) by Rabbi Pinchas David Weberman which "proves" that heliocentrism is heresy. It's available on the "Controversy" page of the "Books" section of [Rabbi Slifkin's] website, www.zootorah.com. 

On the other hand -- well, now is the time to insult people, unfortunately. Not everyone is cut out to be a Biblical scholar or a great rabbi. There is the hamon am, who might not be able to effectively weigh the merits of the arguments pro and con -- though they might be just educated enough to think they can. And a rabbi, as a shepherd of his flock, has an obligation to guide them and let them know that not only does he deem these ideas wrong, but within the framework of Orthodox Judaism, these ideas are outside the pale.

And many are willing to entertain interesting ideas within the spectrum of the theologically "acceptable" (an Ibn Ezra on the secret of the 12, for example), but want to stick within the theologically acceptable because they have sufficient faith in the overarching system. So, they would not want to entertain ideas about a Trinity, or a Satan with powers and motivation entirely independent of God. And so, a judgement of what is within or without the system would be useful for such people, especially when proponents of the idea are strongly asserting that these ideas function within the system.

Also, I don't know how easy it is to say that it is an aveira to write ideas (and by extension, those who hold those ideas) out of Orthodoxy. The Rambam would almost certainly disagree.

Finally, within classic Judaism, there is an idea of forcefully shutting up someone whose ideas are outside the theological pale. A thousand degrees of separation between the present situation of alleged heresy and what I am about to say! And if you think to carry it out, then you would be an ignoramus and a terrible sinner. I am only bringing this up to weigh whether Judaism traditionally shuts down conversation. But the prophet towards idolatry in Devarim 13 is put to death, so that וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ. And in the same perek, a close relative who entices towards idolatry is put to death:

ט  לֹא-תֹאבֶה לוֹ, וְלֹא תִשְׁמַע אֵלָיו; וְלֹא-תָחוֹס עֵינְךָ עָלָיו, וְלֹא-תַחְמֹל וְלֹא-תְכַסֶּה עָלָיו.	9 thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him;
י  כִּי הָרֹג תַּהַרְגֶנּוּ, יָדְךָ תִּהְיֶה-בּוֹ בָרִאשׁוֹנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ; וְיַד כָּל-הָעָם, בָּאַחֲרֹנָה.	10 but thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

Even though you have strong feelings of camaraderie and brotherhood with him, you do not have intellectual discussions with him, and see if his arguments are persuasive. By physically shutting down his biological functions, you are effectively shutting off conversation.

Putting someone in cherem, or putting the ideas in cherem, is a parallel means of shutting down conversation. And there is a long tradition of that in Judaism, people and ideas placed outside the pale. Jewish Christians, Sadducees, Karaites, Sabbateans, Hassidim, and so on,  It is a bold assertion that this "stifling [of] thought and discussion in Am Yisrael" is the עצת יצר הרע, and that "the very need for this cannot ultimately be justified. It simply isn’t Torah. "

YUTorah on parashat Shofetim

Audio Shiurim on Shoftim Rabbi Avi Billet: Finding A Middle Road Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Egla Arufa Rabbi Ally Ehrman: Law Enforcement Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein: The Mitzvah of Appointing Judges Rabbi Aaron Feigenbaum: Asking Questions and the Strength of Kabalah Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman: Rabbinic Authority Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: Social Contract Rabbi Efrem Goldberg: Are All Rabbis Created Equal? Rabbi Yehuda Goldschmidt: Set up Your Guards and Stay Grounded Rabbi Shalom Hammer: Team of Nations Rabbi Aharon Kahn: The Importance of Creating Internal Judges for Ourselves Rabbi Akiva Koenigsberg: The prohibition of returning to Egypt Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg: The Role of Humility in the Process of Teshuva Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: Soldiers in God's Army Rabbi Yoni Levin: Creating Court Systems Rabbi Yaakov Neuburger: Lo Tasur Mrs. Nechama Price: The Jewish King Rabbi Dani Rapp: Magic & the Supernatural Rabbi Hershel Reichman: Connecting the Heart and Mind Rabbi Yonason Sacks: Rabbinic Authority: Parameters and Limitations Rabbi Dr. Jacob J Schacter: Religion in Thought and Religion in Manifestation Rabbi Avi Schneider: Picking up the Pieces Rabbi Aaron Selevan: Is Rabbinic Law Binding in Error? Rabbi Baruch Simon: Ha'Adam Etz Ha'Sadeh Rabbi Reuven Spolter: Temimut - A Critical Key for Teshuvah Rabbi Moshe Taragin: Heroes Who Loved Their People Rabbi Michael Taubes: Testimony by Criminal Witnesses Rabbi Yaacov Thaler: Bribery Rabbi Andi Yudin: Responsibility: The Measure of Man Articles on Shoftim Rabbi Yisrael Balsim: Authority Lishma Rabbi Ozer Glickman: Rationality, Not Rationale Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: The Role of the Navi Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: A Time NOT For Fear Rabbi Maury Grebenau: The Benefits & Limitations of Reason Rabbi Mordechai Greenberg: שום תשים עליך מלך Rabbi David Horwitz: The Imperatives of Truth and Law Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl: Crowning Hashem King Over Us Rabbi Eli Baruch Shulman: בענין שרביטו של מלך Haftorah Shiurim on Shoftim Rabbi Hanan Balk: Hamakom Y'nacheim: A New Explanation Rabbi Avraham Rivlin: מהר צועה להפתח...רוגע הים ויהמו גליו Rabbi Gidon Rothstein: Haftarat Shofetim Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Shoftim See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Shoftim

New This Week Saying Vayechulu on Friday Night Rabbi Yehuda Balsam Eliyahu: The Lone Ranger Rabbi Barry Gelman Elul: Anchor Yourself Before the Storm Rabbi Yehuda Goldschmidt Balancing Intensity With Normalcy Rabbi Yisroel Kaminetsky סמכות, מחאה ומקומו של היחיד בכתבי עגנון Rabbi Jeffrey Saks Davening for a Choleh by the Mother's Name Shay Schachter Ovadiah 1: Introduction Rabbi Allen Schwartz Nature of V'ahavata l're'acha Kamocha Rabbi Eliav Silverman Sefer Bnei Yissaschar: Understanding Chodesh Elul Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg The Din of 12 Months and Issurei Simcha Rabbi Yaakov Werblowsky

Shoftim: Why the hands of the witnesses first?

An interesting idea I saw in Rabbenu Ephraim, on the pasuk in Shofetim (Devarim 17:7):

ז  יַד הָעֵדִים תִּהְיֶה-בּוֹ בָרִאשֹׁנָה, לַהֲמִיתוֹ, וְיַד כָּל-הָעָם, בָּאַחֲרֹנָה; וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע, מִקִּרְבֶּךָ.  {פ}

7 The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee.

Rabbenu Ephraim writes:

יד העדים תהיה בו בראשונה להמיתו;
 מאי טעמא? שאם העידו עדות שקר יחול עליהם
 עונש שפיכת רמים — דם נקי, ויד כל העם
 באחרונה: דגברא קטילא קטלו
"The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death. What is the reason? That if they testified falsely, the punishment will fall upon them for the shedding of blood -- innocent blood.
and afterward the hand of all the people -- for [then] they are killing an already killed person."

I would say that this still is society carrying out, and enabling, his execution. So if they executed a person incorrectly, the fault still lies with society.

But it is an interesting idea, in which false witnesses are the ones who carry it out, and cannot imagine that they are simply standing back, or merely indirectly causing his death. And that can also stand as a deterrent against false witnesses.

Perhaps we can read it as part of the separation of evil from one's midst. Where does one's fealty lie? Elsewhere, in Reeh (Devarim 13), we see the tempter towards idolatry, the following idea -- note in particular the idea that יָדְךָ תִּהְיֶה-בּוֹ בָרִאשׁוֹנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ; וְיַד כָּל-הָעָם, בָּאַחֲרֹנָה:

ז  כִּי יְסִיתְךָ אָחִיךָ בֶן-אִמֶּךָ אוֹ-בִנְךָ אוֹ-בִתְּךָ אוֹ אֵשֶׁת חֵיקֶךָ, אוֹ רֵעֲךָ אֲשֶׁר כְּנַפְשְׁךָ--בַּסֵּתֶר לֵאמֹר:  נֵלְכָה, וְנַעַבְדָה אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים, אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַעְתָּ, אַתָּה וַאֲבֹתֶיךָ.	7 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, that is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying: 'Let us go and serve other gods,' which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
ח  מֵאֱלֹהֵי הָעַמִּים, אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתֵיכֶם, הַקְּרֹבִים אֵלֶיךָ, אוֹ הָרְחֹקִים מִמֶּךָּ--מִקְצֵה הָאָרֶץ, וְעַד-קְצֵה הָאָרֶץ.	8 of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
ט  לֹא-תֹאבֶה לוֹ, וְלֹא תִשְׁמַע אֵלָיו; וְלֹא-תָחוֹס עֵינְךָ עָלָיו, וְלֹא-תַחְמֹל וְלֹא-תְכַסֶּה עָלָיו.	9 thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him;
י  כִּי הָרֹג תַּהַרְגֶנּוּ, יָדְךָ תִּהְיֶה-בּוֹ בָרִאשׁוֹנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ; וְיַד כָּל-הָעָם, בָּאַחֲרֹנָה.	10 but thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

So maybe this is supposed to be the individual, and societal, reaction to idolatry. The idea is to engage in וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ, and thus reject this negative influence. And so those who witnessed it directly take action to uproot it, and the rest of society follows their lead.

Interesting Posts and Articles #388

First, some catch-up, since it has been a while.

1) Did the Avos keep the Torah? At Aspaqlaria:

A consequence of the rise of the liberal movements is that maximalist hashkafic positions are pushed in some circles so as to avoid their mistake of compromise. Another consequence which feeds this is a focus on studying halakhah to the exclusion of machashevah. (There are other consequences too, but I’ll stick with the relevant ones.) Between these effects, people see Rashi and think that anyone who holds a position embraced by R’ Shimi Bar Chiya, rishonim of both sides of the qabbalah-scholasticism divide, and the Rama is watering down their Torah.

More recently (relatively speaking — going back 110 years or so), a different position emerged — siding like Rav Ashi, but assuming that he didn’t mean that they literally followed every detail.

Rav Chaim Volozhiner writes (Nefesh haChaim 1:21) that the avos were in tune with the needs of their souls, and could see the spiritual impact in all the worlds by their actions, and were thus able to intuit the Torah. And then he concludes that this is why Noach and the avos were not given the Torah. Because, for example, Yaaqov could not marry two sisters nor accomplish the spiritual / metaphysical repairs thereby had the prohibition been commanded already. According to R’ Chaim Volozhiner, “kept the entire Torah” refers to accomplishing the goals of the entire Torah, not that each law of each mitzvah was observed.

But is this position so new? I think that Rav Chaim Volozhiner's interpretation is indeed the simple peshat in the Rashba (see here), which in turn has its basis in Midrash Rabba.

2) Hirhurim on baby wipes on Shabbos. Note the rewriting of history in part 4:

4) Did He Retract?

However, R. Neuwirth, the author of Shemiras Shabbos Ke-Hilkhasah, is reported to have said that R. Auerbach continued permitting babywipes entirely toward the end of his life (link). Therefore, R. Neuwirth retained this ruling in later editions of his book. R. Eliezer Melamed (Harchavos Peninei Halakhah, Shabbos 14:6:4 n. 2) quotes from Or Ha-Shabbos that R. Auerbach’s descendant, R. Ch[aim?] Goldberg, a noted Torah scholar, testified that R. Auerbach permitted the use of babywipes shortly before his passing.

I suggest that, despite the esteem in which we hold the authors of Orechos Shabbos, we cannot accept this posthumous report of a retraction because: 1) it is questionable because they did not hear it directly from R. Auerbach, 2) we have contradictory testimony, and 3) the same reason that the Noda Bi-Yehudah‘s son gave (link)–the testimony, in this case indirect, is insufficient to remove a presumption.

4) DovBear on idiots and jerks.

Now, newer stuff.
5) At Morethedoxy, a guest post by Rabbi Yitzchak Blau, about whether the documentary hypothesis is necessarily so compelling. This is in response to various posts by Rabbi Zev Farber and others on thetorah.com. E.g.:

Context affects which details appear:  Professor Marc Brettler says that Vayikra 23 portrays Sukkot as an eight day festival whereas Devarim 16 only has a seven day celebration.  Actually, Vayikra 23 knows of a seven day Sukkot festival (see Vayikra 23:34) but also adds another celebration on day eight.  Since the Devarim passage is primarily interested in the three times a year we travel to the mikdash, there is no need to mention Shmini Azaret which does not call for another journey.

And whether the people advancing such views are reshaim (no), and whether these views are incompatible with Orthodoxy (yes):

I would like to close with a couple of personal notes.  If someone is intellectually convinced of the DH, this does not make them evil and they are not necessarily involved in a sinister plot.  For all I know, the authors contributing to thetorah.com are very fine human beings and I have no interest in saying derogatory things about them.  Yet we can still strongly disagree with them and conclude that their views are incompatible with Orthodoxy.

You can see some of my recent posts on this topic, here, here and here.

6) Some Neturei Karta guy offered to spy for Iran. Which sparked criticism of Neturei Karta, for example in this opinion piece at Matzav. In defense of Neturei Karta, note this sentence:

(I understand that the man convicted of offering to spy for Iran recently became religious and was not raised in this environment. My point is being made on a more general level.)

I think this is an important point. Neturei Karta has some pretty over-the-top positions, and have made public overtures which are indeed offensive.

However, within a group, I would imagine that people intuitively know how to distinguish between rhetoric and what they would actually do. So they might talk of Zionists being terrible, but that does not mean that they would actually murder a Zionist. Someone coming new into this community might not be able to make this sort of distinction between rhetoric and action.

Meanwhile, different people speculate what this "spy" might have offered the Iranians. For instance, at Failed Messiah, this comment by Barry:

When this unnamed Neturei Karta chossid walked into the Iranian embassy in Berlin in 2010 he sold them the following information:-

a) one should not completely close up the opening of a window (or door) so that the sheidim should be able to go out. One is permitted to close up a window if he makes a little hole in the wall covering the opening.

b) One is not allowed to remove an oven from its place since doing so is putting himself in danger. The reason is because sheidim are underneath an oven and when one moves the oven one is starting up with the sheidim.

c) One should not cut ones fingernails on a new moon even if its a Friday because of the danger and otherwise not to cut fingernails in order but rather in the order 42531 for the left hand and 24135 for the right

Here is a video of the Iranian spymaster's reaction on being given a statement of account showing that 5 million dollars was paid for this information

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boAmijQ-Uo0

From a comment at Kikar Shabbat:

הנה תקציר השיחה של המחבל איש נטורי קרתא שהגיע לשגרירות איראן והציע שירותי ריגול

 ?שלום, כאן זה שגרירות איראן-

 כן=

 .אני חרדי ישראלי שרוצה לרגל עבורכם-

 ?הו, כמה נפלא. אם כך תוכל לתת לנו מידע על הצבא=

 .לא שירתתי בצבא-

 ?אוקיי. אז אולי בתחום התעשייה. היכן אתה עובד=

 .אני לא עובד-

 .אז אולי תוכל ללמד אותנו על הכלכלה הישראלית. שיטת המיסוי למשל=

 .אני לא משלם מיסים-

 ??חינוך=

 .אני לא לומד איתם-

 ???צרכנות= 

 .לא, אני לא קונה כשרות שלהם-

 ????תרבות=

 !לא נחשף. הכל אצלם זה תועבה-

?אוקיי. תקשיב, רואה את הדלת החומה בקצה המסדרון=

 .כן-

 זה שגרירות צפון קוריאה. תנסה אצלם=

(נלקח מבעולם של חרדים)

Ibn Caspi on the where of Aharon's death

In my previous post, I mentioned the yada yada yada theory of Aharon's death, that a seeming discrepancy between the location of Aharon's death in Masei (Hor Hahar) and Ekev (Mosera) could be explained as a difference in purpose. In the mussar shmuess in Ekev, Moshe's concern is not detailed history, but that Aharon died at a later encampment, and not at Har Sinai. As such, the shortened list of masaot are meant as a quick stand-in, and the reader can be expected to fill in the rest, and know that שָׁם מֵת אַהֲרֹן וַיִּקָּבֵר שָׁם means not at that very next encampment, Mosera, but somewhere along the lines.

I mentioned that Ibn Caspi said likewise, that it was a yada yada yada. Here I present Ibn Caspi's words.

The pasuk in Ekev, in Devarim 10:6:

ו  וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, נָסְעוּ מִבְּאֵרֹת בְּנֵי-יַעֲקָן--מוֹסֵרָה; שָׁם מֵת אַהֲרֹן וַיִּקָּבֵר שָׁם, וַיְכַהֵן אֶלְעָזָר בְּנוֹ תַּחְתָּיו.

6 And the children of Israel journeyed from Beeroth-benejaakan to Moserah; there Aaron died, and there he was buried; and Eleazar his son ministered in the priest's office in his stead.

Ibn Caspi writes:

וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, נָסְעוּ מִבְּאֵרֹת...: it is known that the matter of the first and second Tablets [mentioned in the preceding section] were at Har Sinai. And behold, at the beginning of the second year they traveled from there, for then, Hashem said to him לֵךְ עֲלֵה מִזֶּה (Shemot 33:1). And so too [in parallel], קוּם לֵךְ לְמַסַּע לִפְנֵי הָעָם (in Devarim 10:11).

And the separation of the Levites was then, for to this is that בָּעֵת הַהִוא, הִבְדִּיל ה אֶת-שֵׁבֶט הַלֵּוִי is alluding to (in Devarim 10:8).

And further it said (Devarim 10:10) וְאָנֹכִי עָמַדְתִּי בָהָר, relating what was involved in his standing for the second set of Tablets.

If so, it is a great wonder that, inserted into this story [between the second Tablets in Devarim 10:1 and the standing for those Tablets in 10:10], is [verse 10:6] וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, נָסְעוּ מִבְּאֵרֹת בְּנֵי-יַעֲקָן. And certainly that it states שָׁם מֵת אַהֲרֹן, whereas Aharon only died on Har HaHar [see Bemidbar 33 for example].

Therefore I say that Moshe intended in this to shorten and skip over all the matters who occurred from their traveling from the wilderness of Sinai until the death of Aharon, which was in the 40th year, for at that point he began to chastise him, as he said [Devarim 10:12]:

יב  וְעַתָּה, יִשְׂרָאֵל--מָה ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, שֹׁאֵל מֵעִמָּךְ:  כִּי אִם-לְיִרְאָה אֶת-ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לָלֶכֶת בְּכָל-דְּרָכָיו, וּלְאַהֲבָה אֹתוֹ, וְלַעֲבֹד אֶת-ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשֶׁךָ.

12 And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul;

This is as if saying: behold, your fathers committed many sins in the wilderness of Sinai, and from there we traveled and arrived here. And no leader is left for you except me, for Aharon has died, and so will I do in this year. 

Howbeit, that which Ibn Ezra wrote [in resolution of the order discrepancy / Aharon death discrepancy] that the place names mentioned here are not like the named mentioned in parashat Masei, it indeed is true according to my opinion, for [in Devarim 10:7] גֻּדְגֹּדָה and יָטְבָתָה are general names for the later travelings, for it is very correct that a Big Name [? perhaps a Proper Noun ?] or an individual place can describe both the general and the specific, and all the more so by virtue of the fact that there is a great length to that border."

End quote Ibn Caspi.

posts so far for parshat Shofetim

2012

1. Shofetim sources, 2012 edition.

2. YUTorah on parashat Shofetim.

3. Running commentary on parashat Shofetim, part i.

2011

1. Shofetim sources -- links to an online Mikraos Gedolos by perek and aliyah, as well as a slew of meforshim on the parsha and haftara. Now, further expanded. For instance, many more meforshei Rashi.
   .
2. How is the failed negative prophecy exclusion encoded in Shofetim? part i -- Rav Chaim Kanievsky addresses it, with a remez based on beShem Hashem. And I analyze some of the pesukim in parashat Shofetim and sefer Yirmeyah myself.
   .
3. And part ii -- The same issue as before. How shall we resolve the exclusion of negative prophecy from a prophet test, with the absence of such an exclusion in the plain meaning of the pasuk? This bothers Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi, as a pashtan, and so he puts forth a different elaborate theory from that of the Rambam. Namely, there is no distinction between a positive or negative prophecy. Rather, the distinction is whether there is an explicit condition attached or not. And then, in a separate post, some concluding thoughts.
   .
4. YUTorah on parashat Shoftim.
   .
5. Was Ibn Ezra killed by demons? So goes the story, showing how Ibn Ezra got his comeuppance, after claiming that demons did not exist. Though whether he actually claimed this is uncertain. I don't really believe the story, though.
   .
6. The trail of worms -- Is the pasuk about abolishing the shedding of blood really relevant by the eglah arufah, where we don't know the identity of the murderer? Yes. It depends on what you think it means. But even if you believe it refers to catching the murderer, there is a good reading according to Rashi and according to Rav Chaim Kanievsky.
   .
7. Ibn Janach on כִּי הָאָדָם עֵץ הַשָּׂדֶה לָבֹא מִפָּנֶיךָ בַּמָּצוֹר --  What I think may be a unique way of reading it.

2010

1. More on Ibn Ezra and sheidim -- Considering an Ibn Ezra that might, once again, indicate disbelief in sheidim.
   .
2. "Or any of the host of the heavens, which I have not commanded": What is bothering Rashi? What did Hashem not command? Rav Moshe Feinstein on how to interpret a Rashi (or a pasuk according to Rashi). And how Rashi might interpret that Rashi.

2009

1. A fun story of bribery in Sefarad -- from the Meiri, and how it ties in to tzedek tzedek tirdof.
   .
2. Are all matzeivot forbidden, or just idolatrous ones? The dispute between Rashi and Ibn Ezra works out to one in dikduk, and how to understand asher.
   .
3. Why send back the betrothed man, if all is preordained? How different meforshim look at this issue of fate and fatality, and how Divine Providence works on the battlefield.
   .
4. What is the point of the Eglah Arufah? According to Rambam, to prompt an investigation. Ramban's objection to this, Abarbanel's defense, and finally, Shadal's take on all this.

2008
In The Role of the Shoter and the Shofet, I explain Shadal's position that the shoteir is not an enforcement officer of bet din, with a rod to strike people.

In "How does לִשְׁבָטֶיךָ bind?" Shadal states that he (and Rashi) deviate from trup, and thus that it means a shofet and shoter from the tribe.

In Capital Punishment Based On Two Or Three Witnesses, and the False vs. Failed Witness, I address what three witnesses adds over two, and what the pasuk is trying to tell us here. Furthermore, how this interacts with the single eid zomem, rather than eidim zomemim.

If you want to learn through the parsha in Mikraot Gedolot, I broke apart an online one for Shoftim by perek and by aliyah in Shofetim Sources.

2004

In Double Jeopardy, I discuss how the Sifrei derives from צֶדֶק צֶדֶק, תִּרְדֹּף--לְמַעַן תִּחְיֶה that a court should retry a case after a guilty verdict if subsequently evidence is found that clears the accused, but should not retry a case once the person has been found innocent if subsequently evidence is found that would convict him. I propose two derashot: either צֶדֶק means innocent - zakkai, and so multiple times we should run after finding his innocent; or צֶדֶק means justice, but we should run after it multiple times only לְמַעַן תִּחְיֶה, if we will save the accused life.

2003

In "Was The Lubavitcher Rebbe a Navi Sheker?", I explain why if the Rebbe was actually stating as prophecy that he was mashiach or that mashiach would come in his generation, as some in Chabad claim, then he would be a navi sheker. I don't think that the Rebbe was a navi sheker.

On the other hand, here is evidence that the Rebbe did consider himself a navi.

Related, from 2004: The Rambam on how one establishes a navi sheker, in Hebrew and in my translation.

Yiftach Bedoro keShmuel Bedoro -- A joke I heard in Rav Schachter's shiur.

Turning to the Right / Left - I analyze this famous derasha in the Sifrei, and then examine Rashi, Siftei Chachamim, and Ramban, to see how they understand it. Then, in A Conflicting View of יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל, I consider the aternate version of this statement which is cited in Yerushalmi Horayot, which states that one should only follow them if they say that right is right and left is left, but not vice versa. I should really go back now and analyze all these sources again. I think I would have a very different take now.

to be continued...

Re'eh: The Bible Critic and the Rabbi

Over at A Fire Burns In Breslov, a post I'd like to comment on. It is short, so I will first reproduce a good portion of the story which forms the post:

A certain rabbi once ran into a “freethinker” who considered himself quite a scholar. With hardly a word of introduction, the non-believer declared that he was learning Bible criticism and had spoken to many religious people who were unable to reply to the compelling questions he posed. 
The rabbi asked the academic what Rishonim he had learned. The academic was obviously taken aback and his halting reply showed that he had never studied rishonim at all. He defended himself with the statement, “Clearly, the Torah must be a work that is complete in and of itself, requiring no added exposition by the rabbis...” he began.
“Anyone who thinks so has not learned it carefully,” replied the rabbi. “For example, the verse tells us, [Josh: in Re'eh] ‘and you shall slaughter of your cattle...as I have commanded you,’ yet nowhere in the rest of the Torah do we find instructions as to how we are meant to slaughter animals. Obviously, the accompanying instruction was transmitted orally—the oral Torah of the rabbis that you find superfluous.”
The academic was flustered for only a moment before blurted out his ignorant response, “There is no such verse.”
“Try parshas R’ei,” the rabbi replied. “And it’s not just there. Many mitzvos cannot possibly be fulfilled with only the written instructions.....

An inspirational story, meant to inspire. There seem three points to this story.

1. The questions raised by Biblical critics are addressed by the Rishonim.
2. Biblical critics are ignoramuses, which is why they even think these are real questions.
3. And so you should not be threatened by questions raised by them. Even if you don't know, a better educated person would know the answers.
4. Here, indeed, is a great proof 

On the other hand, it might be an authentic exchange. There are some good points made in this story, but others are not so strong. To consider this story line by line:

A certain rabbi once ran into a “freethinker” who considered himself quite a scholar.

This story is then, likely, a polemic, meant to prove a point. Once, a rabbi, a freethinker, and a chimpanzee walk into a bar...

With hardly a word of introduction, the non-believer declared that he was learning Bible criticism and had spoken to many religious people who were unable to reply to the compelling questions he posed.

This is indeed a weak point. Many religious people don't really know how to learn in depth, and are not trained to address specific types of questions. It seems that the rabbi in this story was better prepared to engage Biblical criticism -- even though as it develops, the discussion turns into one of Karaism.

The rabbi asked the academic what Rishonim he had learned. The academic was obviously taken aback and his halting reply showed that he had never studied rishonim at all. He defended himself with the statement, “Clearly, the Torah must be a work that is complete in and of itself, requiring no added exposition by the rabbis...” he began.

This might well be a good response to many an individual. And yet, other Biblical scholars / critics probably have studied at least some rishonim. Just as it was silly for this "Biblical scholar" to think that the inability of random Jews to answer his questions demonstrated anything, it it silly to think that the deficiencies of this particular fellow demonstrates anything about the validity, or lack thereof, of Biblical criticism.

The idea behind this seems to me to be that Biblical critics raise "difficulties" in the text. But these difficulties are not new discoveries, and have been adequately addressed by Rishonim who acted as Biblical commentators.

Now, the assumption in this story appears to be that the Rishonim, as commentators, only act in accordance with Oral Law and tradition. This is not necessarily the case. Some operated on a peshat level, and tried to resolve difficulties not on Oral Traditions (if that is what midrashim are), but based on other textual cues.

“Clearly, the Torah must be a work that is complete in and of itself, requiring no added exposition by the rabbis...” he began.

This is a silly argument by the Biblical scholar. Every text needs exposition. There are scholars of Shakespeare. And there are (religious and nonreligious) scholars of Bible, who explain the meaning of verses. An explanation by Rashi, or Ibn Ezra, of the Biblical text is a deep, close reading of the text itself. Furthermore, if he subscribes to Biblical criticism, why should he think that the Torah, as a single entity, is a complete work? Couldn't something have been left on the cutting-room floor, in a non-canonized work?

“Anyone who thinks so has not learned it carefully,” replied the rabbi. “For example, the verse tells us, ‘and you shall slaughter of your cattle...as I have commanded you,’ yet nowhere in the rest of the Torah do we find instructions as to how we are meant to slaughter animals. Obviously, the accompanying instruction was transmitted orally—the oral Torah of the rabbis that you find superfluous.”

This is Pharisee / Karaite Polemics 101. It is a fairly standard argument in favor of the existence of an Oral Torah. The Bible critic's response,

The academic was flustered for only a moment before blurted out his ignorant response, “There is no such verse.”

is indeed a flustered and ignorant response.

However. Just as this particular Bible critic did not know Rishonim, this particular Rabbi did not know the work of Aharon ben Yosef, the Karaite scholar. This proof is indeed Pharisee / Karaite Polemics 101. And so we should expect the Karaites to have some response to this particular proof. And indeed, the Karaites do respond. Aharon ben Yosef wrote a running commentary on all of Tanach, so you are not going to surprise him with some verse he is unaware of. And he is well aware of the traditional rabbinic interpretation of many pesukim, as well as the commentaries of Rishonim, Ibn Ezra especially.

Since this story turned into an anti-Karaite polemic, I wonder how the story would have developed were the Biblical critic to respond with the Karaite response to this prooftext. That is, the prooftext was about shechitas chullin, in parashat Re'eh. In Devarim 12:

כא  כִּי-יִרְחַק מִמְּךָ הַמָּקוֹם, אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לָשׂוּם שְׁמוֹ שָׁם, וְזָבַחְתָּ מִבְּקָרְךָ וּמִצֹּאנְךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן ה לְךָ, כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ--וְאָכַלְתָּ, בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ, בְּכֹל, אַוַּת נַפְשֶׁךָ.

21 If the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to put His name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the LORD hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat within thy gates, after all the desire of thy soul.

Yet while earlier, we find commands regarding bringing olot and zevachim, we do not find a place regarding chullin that could function as an expansion of וְזָבַחְתָּ ... כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ.

Therefore, this must have been explained to Moshe orally. That is the proof.

So what do the Karaites respond? Let us look to Aharon ben Yosef, the Karaite scholar:

"כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ, as I have commanded you: you shall [specifically] slaughter and then eat [Josh: as in Devarim 12:15, six pesukim earlier, תִּזְבַּח וְאָכַלְתָּ]. For that which is slaughtered is permitted and not that which is strangled, nor that which had a messed up slaughter. And shechita in the Hebrew language is the severing of the signs of the throat [trachea and esophagus]. And that which is stated [in Bemidbar 14] וַיִּשְׁחָטֵם בַּמִּדְבָּר [Josh: that the Egyptians would say, ch"v, that Hashem has slain the Israelites in the wilderness, in an instance which is not severing of the trachea and esophagus], this is an idiom that He has slain them like sheep.

And it is more correct [to say] that כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ means that he had commanded them in the wilderness that they eat chullin [non-korban meat] according to the laws of the sacrificed, now that He came and permitted them to eat them as chullin, He said 'as I commanded you' when they were korbanot, you shall eat them as chullin in every place, just so long as they are slaughtered as they were initially when they were korbanot."

End quote of Aharon ben Yosef.

To summarize, Aharon ben Yosef does not take כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ to mean the specific details of shechita, which would then need to be explicitly commanded, and would then need to appear in the written text, unless there were an Oral Law. Rather כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ simply means that, as I mentioned immediately above in pasuk 12:15, they need to be shechted. And don't then tell me that the definition of shechted needs to be an explicit Divine definition, and command. The Hebrew language has words, and words have meaning. And the meaning of shechita as a word was known to the Israelites. Further, the link to pasuk 15 can be that it is as I have commanded you in pasuk 15 about korbanot andthat they need shechita, just with this minor other distinction now that your borders have expanded, in pasuk 20.

If so, the Bible critic has his ready answer.

It is nice to have our own arguments, and even to find them convincing. But as we develop, it pays to also understand the difference between peshat and derash, and maybe to realize (if it is indeed so) that there are other ways of understanding the pasuk. This famous explanation of kaasher tzivisicha is found in Rashi, who is citing Chazal:

you may slaughter… as I have commanded you: We learn [from here] that there is a commandment regarding slaughtering, how one must slaughter. [Since this commandment is not written in the Torah we deduce that] these are the laws of ritual slaughtering given orally to Moses on [Mount] Sinai. — [Sifrei ; Chul. 28a]

וזבחת וגו' כאשר צויתך: למדנו שיש צווי בזביחה היאך ישחוט, והן הלכות שחיטה שנאמרו למשה בסיני: