Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Interesting Posts and Articles #256

It has been a while since these roundups, and so some of these links are slightly aged. Not too much, though.

1) Haveil Havolim has started up again. It is a nice roundup, and you get to check out interesting posts on blogs you don't usually follow. They also now have a FaceBook group. Here is #343, #344, and #345.

2) Rabbi Lazer Brody tells over a warning he was reluctant to share in the past:
Many people have written and asked what was the third thing that Rabbi Yehuda Zev Lebowitz said before he died to Rav Shalom Arush. I didn't want to repeat it. But, this past week, Rabbi Nir Ben Artzi said the same thing in his weekly shiur in Hebrew; "There will be a sharp increase of shock in the world and severe hatred of the Jews!" The main points of the shiur are translated to English at Rivka's Bat Aliyah blog.
Meanwhile, if you don't plan to make aliya in the near future, do two things:
1. Start praying every day that you and your family will be able to make aliya;
2. Do what you can to spread emuna - that way, you are Hashem's shaliach (emissary) wherever you are.
Rav Lebowitz ob"m, Rav Nir Ben Artzi, and the autistics have all said the same thing. No one can say that they didn't know.
In terms of the last statement, that "know one can say that they didn't know", I am not sure that this is really true. What if you are walking down the street and a lunatic, frothing at the mouth, says to you that the aliens are coming, that Obama is a secret Muslim alien from Krypton is disguise, that he is Napoleon, and also that Hashem told him that it is going to rain today. And then, it rains that day, and you neglected to bring your umbrella. Could you say that you didn't know?

It is foolish to believe the autistics, for reasons I have elaborated on in the past. (In short, the facilitated communication that they do is not within the autistics' control, as even scientific proponents of facilitated communication have made clear. They are Ouija boards being deliberately or non-deliberately exploited. Other autistics, depending on the case, might either be real or not real.) And if Rabbi Lazer Brody believes the autistics are really talking, then he is either ignorant or foolish.

Rav [sic] Nir Ben Artzi is not a rabbi, but rather a self-declared psychic. And his concrete "predictions" have failed in the past, and his "successes" are fairly easy for any intelligent person to duplicate. (See here.) If Rabbi Lazer Brody believes that Nir Ben Artzi is really a psychic, then he is either ignorant or foolish. Indeed, a lot of Rabbi Brody's beliefs are of a similar nature, it seems to me.

Now he is telling me about a deceased hidden tzaddik, who said the same thing, though not within a specific timeframe. I don't know how to evaluate such claims. During his lifetime, he was hidden. And now he is not living, to be able to converse with him and evaluate if he is for real. So I don't know that I would consider this as more than a doubt.

It is a simple equation. For R' Lazer Brody, it is 5 + 5 + 20 = 30. For me, it is -10 + -10 + x, where x is an unknown.

Here is Shirat Devorah's take:
I'm inclined to believe the last words of a tzaddik, such as Rabbi Lebowitz zt"l, especially as they were said prior to his passing, although I don't think he pinpointed a date, whereas ben Artzi has said it will happen this week.   Ben Artzi has often been incorrect both with events and timelines - he is able to see things, but so far has not been able to give accurate dates for his visions, which caused many people to dismiss him outright.  I guess we'll just have to wait and see.  On the bright side, to date, most of his negative predictions have not come to pass. 
It is interesting that Nir Ben Artzi has made a prediction of a specific date, something not said by Rabbi Lebowitz.

3) Shul Politics on the kindness of seat eviction.

4) A practice that seems to be spreading as folk-religion. Doing "Chatzos". That is, being completely ready for Shabbos on Friday at Chatzos. It is a nice idea, and it has it merits. But there are aspects of it that I dislike. Here are their rabbinic sources to bolster this.

5) Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is coming out with a book on Kosher Jesus. Some takes on it. From Hirhurim, Fink or Swim, and On the Main Line.

6) At Revach: Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Tzitz Eliezer, & ybc"l Rav Elyashiv - Reporting Abuse If The Child May Be Placed In A Non-Jewish Home.

7) Check out Hands on the Parsha. The most recent post is on Bo.

8) A new blog is out, called Tagin in Exodus. An excerpt from the first post, to give a sense of the purpose:
MS Bodleian 202 is valuable, for it is a commentary on Exodus, from the school of the Hasidé Ashkenaz, which comments on the meaning behind these graphical features of the text. It is attributed to Eleazar ben Moshe Ha-darshan.

I know of no other such commentary, certainly not of this scope. (Mind you, the commentary comments on many other features of the text, too -- the bit about the graphical features is only a small piece of it. And if I feel like it, I might include some of the non-graphically-based comments on this blog, too.)

Each week, I hope to present some piece of this, related to the weekly parasha.
Sounds fascinating.

9) Here at parshablog, check out the Beshalach posts.

Beshalach sources -- 2012 edition


by aliyah
rishon (Shemot 13:17)
sheni (14:9)
shelishi (14:15)
revii (14:26)
chamishi (15:27)
shishi (16:11)
shevii (17:1)
maftir (17:14)
haftara (Devorah and Shirat Devorah, sefer Shofetim 4:4 - 5:31) with Malbim and Ralbag

by perek
perek 14
perek 15 (az yashir)
perek 16
perek 17

meforshim
Judaica Press Rashi in English and Hebrew (France, 1040 - 1105) -- ואני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא ולאגדה המיישבת דברי המקרא, דבר דבור על אופניו
Chizkuni (13th century, commentary written about 1240)-- see Jewish Encyclopedia entry.
Shadal (1800-1865) -- see Wikipedia entry:
  1. In plain text  here , though not encoding some of the trup and nikkud, and omitting certain references to non-Jewish scholars.
  2. In Google book form   here , but with all that was omitted above. Also, with Shadal's Italian translation of the Chumash text.
  3. Mishtadel , an earlier and shorter commentary
  4. In determining the correct girsa of Targum Onkelos,  Ohev Ger
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Gilyonot.
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew -- see Wikipedia entry.
Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz (1690-1764) -- see Wikipedia entry:
  1. Tiferes Yehonasan
  2. Chasdei Yehonasan  -- chiddushim and pilpulim on midrashim, Toras Kohanim, Sifrei, and Rashi al haTorah. With supercommentary of R' Yaakov Goldshlag.
  3. Toldos Yitzchak Acharon, repeated from R' Yonasan Eibeshitz
  4. Divrei Yehonasan -- not until Beshalach -- discussing halacha and aggada together, interpreting difficult midrashim
  5. Nefesh Yehonasan   -- commentary on midrashim and pilpulim + Tanchuma, and suygot in Shas connected to each parsha.
  6. Midrash Yehonasan -- on difficult midrashim
Even Shleimah -- from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Milah of slaves meakev korban pesach -- a real Scriptural interpretation or a rabbinic decree?


Summary: Shadal suggests it is a decree, but everyone agrees what the peshat and actual meaning of the pasuk is. Then, a lengthy presentation from Shadal in Kerem Chemed as to the nature of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai. Why were they called that, if Hillel and Shamai almost always agreed. And I present my own resolution to some of the difficulties posed.

Post: Consider this pasuk and then Rashi in parashat Bo:

44. And every man's slave, purchased for his money you shall circumcise him; then he will be permitted to partake of it.מד. וְכָל עֶבֶד אִישׁ מִקְנַת כָּסֶף וּמַלְתָּה אֹתוֹ אָז יֹאכַל בּוֹ:
you shall circumcise him; then he will be permitted to partake of it: [I.e., he means] his master. [This] tells [us] that the [failure to perform the] circumcision of one’s slaves prevents one from partaking of the Passover sacrifice. [These are] the words of Rabbi Joshua. Rabbi Eliezer says: The [failure to perform the] circumcision of one’s slaves does not prevent one from partaking of the Passover sacrifice. If so, what is the meaning of “then he will be permitted to partake of it” ? [“He” in this phrase is referring to] the slave. — [from Mechilta]ומלתה אתו אז יאכל בו: רבו, מגיד שמילת עבדיו מעכבתו מלאכול בפסח, דברי רבי יהושע. רבי אליעזר אומר אין מילת עבדיו מעכבתו מלאכול בפסח, אם כן מה תלמוד לומר אז יאכל בו, העבד:

Shadal has an interesting take on the nature of this machlokes. He feels that Rabbi Eliezer says peshat and Rabbi Yehoshua / Chachamim agree, but that this is a Rabbinic gezeira with an asmachta thrown in. And so, Rabbi Eliezer adamantly opposes such innovations, as we see elsewhere. Thus, Shadal writes:


"וְכָל עֶבֶד -- the circumcision of slaves is an obligation on the master from [the time of] Avraham and on (Bereishit 17:12). We are also commanded that slaves should rest on Shabbat and Yom Tov. And all of this raises up the status of the slave, that he is [but] a bit less than his master. and therefore, immediately when he is circumcised, he made eat of the paschal offering like his master.


And at the end of the second Temple, good traits were corrupted via the kings of the house of Herod and Israel learned the ways of the gentiles. And in particular, the kings, nobility, and the wealthy loved to make themselves similar to the Romans. And we know that the Romans were cruel to their servants, and so there were in Israel some masters who did not wish to circumcise their slaves such that they [=the slaves] should not consider themselves Israelites and human beings.


Then, the Sages of Israel arose and decreed that one who does not circumcise his slaves will not be able to eat of the paschal offering. And their intent, in my opinion, is that one who does not consider slaves to be human is not fit to be considered among those who celebrate the festival of freedom. This was the thought-process of most of the Sages; and [so] it is taught without attribution in the Mechilta. (And according to the girsa of Rashi here, it is the position of Rabbi Yehoshua, while according to the girsa of Tosafot in Yevamot 70b it is the position of Rabbi Akiva.) But Rabbi Eliezer says that the circumcision of one's slaves is not a requirement for being able to eat the paschal offering, for he seized upon the path of Shamai, which I explained in Kerem Chemed, page 220, and he did not with that anything be innovated at all, which was not in the Torah or in Kabbalah (tradition), and he did not say anything unless he heard it from his teacher. Meanwhile, the rest of the Sages of Israel were innovating institutions {takkanot} according to the needs of the times, and they needed to place Rabbi Eliezer in cherem, for he rose up against anything which leaned away from that which he received from his teacher (29 Sivan, 5614)."

Here is what Shadal explains in Kerem Chemed (volume 3):

"Letter #20: ...


Behold I will record before you, my dear friend, that which I wrote three years ago regarding the matter of Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel. And I wrote this at a time that it arose in my heart to explain the language of the Mishnah (see Bikkurei HaItim, page 123). And I began from מאמתי {J: in the beginning of Masechet Berachot} and I explained every single word precisely until the end of the fourth perek, with intent to order afterwards the items in alphabetic order. And after that I abandoned the labor, in order to direct my heart towards the studies which I was called to study in this collegium, which did not leave me free to turn at all to other studies. And this is its language:


Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai, a name of two groups of Sages who were in Israel at the end of Second Temple times, and who were divided in many matters in details of the particulars of the Torah. Hillel the Babylonian was the Nasi of the Sanhedrin in the year 100 before the Churban. And Shammai was the Av Bet Din under him. And Hillel was the Nasi and head for a span of 40 years. And Hillel and Shammai only argued in two or three matters (Shabbat 15a), and (Sotah 47b) when their students who did not sufficiently serve [their teachers] increased, disputes increased in Israel, and the Torah was made into two Torahs.


And there is to ask: Why were these called the students of Shammai and these called the students of Hillel, after the difference in their positions did not extend to them from their teachers, but rather from their own logic, while their teachers Hillel and Shammai did not argue, and the Torah of Hillel is the same Torah of Shammai, and when the students divided


into two groups, they should have been called by the name 'the stringent ones' and 'the lenient ones', or some other innovated name, but not based on the name of Hillel and Shammai, for not from them came the mishap of dispute*.


Besides which, according to what it seems, Hillel did not have specific students and Shammai have specific students. And so wrote as well the author of Sefer HaYochasin, and this is its language:
For all of the students of Hillel were also to Shammai, for I have already seen that they said that there were 80 students to Hillel Hazaken, and R' Yochanan ben Zakkai was one of them. And despite that  they say in Avos: R' Yochanan ben Zakkai received from Hillel and Shammai. For they were always om the bet midrash together, one as the Nasi and Shammai as the Av Bet Din. And so too all the pairs.
End quote, in the entry on Shammai Hazaken.


And if so, why should these be called Bet Hillel and these be called Bet Shammai?


And what seems to me is that since Hillel was humble in his character traits, a lover and pursuer of peace, who loved people and brought them close to Torah; and as he said to that gentile, 'Love your neighbor as yourself; that is the entirety of Torah'. From there extends that most of the students who did not serve [their teachers] sufficiently and cleaved to Hillel to learn his traits and to follow in his path, when they had a doubt in a matter of one of the chukkim or mishpatim, they chose to be lenient, in order to draw the common folk to Torah, so that the yoke upon their necks should not become too weighty, such that they might cast it off their necks entirely. And these students were called Bet Hillel, since they seized the path of Hillel, despite the fact that these details in which they argued did not come out to them from his [=Hillel's] mouth.


And so the reverse. Shammai was a strict, insistent man. And he was insistent in every matter not to lean from the line of the law even a hairsbreadth. And this is as we have seen, that he pushed off with a builder's measuring rod that gentile who said to him 'teach me Torah on one foot', as well as to the one who said to him 'Convert me on condition that you make me a High Priest.' And some of the students chose his path, and when a doubt came about for them because they did not serve sufficiently, they chose to be stringent. And they are called Bet Shammai since they were drawn after the position of Shammai who was insistent to be stringent, despite their reasoning not coming to them from him.


And we have already seen Shammai Hazaken say like the words of Bet Hillel and not like the words of Bet Shammai. Thus, Bet Shammai says it even renders impure, and Bet Hillel say it only renders impure once it possesses an egg's volume. Duschai, a resident of Kfar Yatma was of the students of Bet Hillel, and he said 'I heard from Shammai Hazaken who said that it only renders impure once it possesses an egg's volume (Orlah 2).


And similar to this in Masechet Eduyot, perek 1: Bet Shammai say 1/4 of the bones, whether from two or three, etc. Shammai says even from a single bone. Thus it is explicit that Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai did not receive their reasoning from Hillel and Shammai, for the Torah of Hillel was the same Torah of Shammai. But their students did not serve [their teachers] sufficiently, as they said in Sotah daf 47b and Sanhedrin daf 88, and when there was a doubt, these inclined to be lenient and these to be stringent.


As an example, if one stole a beam and built it into a citadel, Bet Shammai say that one uproots the entire citadel and returns the beam to its owner,


(this is the trait of Shammai, and so is the midat hadin, not that Shammai said this), while Bet Hillel say that he only has the value of the beam, (such was the trait of Hillel, and so is the midat harachamim) (Gittin daf 55). And so too, how do they dance before the bride, Bet Shammai say they describe the bride as she is (midat hadin), and Bet Hillel say 'beautiful and kind bride' (lover and pursuer of peace) (Ketubot daf 16).


And despite this, we find that there are a few things which are of the stringencies of Bet Hillel and the leniencies of Bet Shammai (Eduyot perek 4 and 5), and also in these, Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel did not budge from their positions.


For example, Bet Shammai permits the co-wives to the brothers and Bet Hillel forbids. That is to say, one who marries a woman who is an erva {prohibited relation} to his brother, such as that he married his brother's daughter, and he has another wife or other wives beside her, and he dies without children, and his brother comes to perform levirate marriage upon one of the wives of deceased, Bet Shammai permit him to perform levirate marriage upon the woman who is permitted to him, even though her co-wife is an erva to him, and Bet Hillel forbid one to perform levirate marriage upon the co-wife of an erva.


Behold, here Bet Shamai stood firm in their words upon the line of the law and permitted, for there is nothing that prohibits the taking of a woman just because her co-wife was forbidden. However, Bet Hillel saw that the nature of the co-wives was to hate one another, and a person's way was to love his relatives. Ad behold the arayot {prohibited relations} mainly loved and were loved by the person to whom they were an erva, for they were of his flesh. And what extends from this was that if a person took the co-wife of an erva {to him}, in most cases he would not have peace with her, for his relatives would hate her, and they would endeavor to extinguish the love between them. And his wife as well, since she hates his relatives, the matter is likely that she would also hate him. And therefore, Bet Hillel, who loved and pursued peace forbade the co-wives {of erva} to the brothers, for they saw that their match-up was not successful**.


And at times, the intent of Bet Hillel was to make a fence


more than the letter of the law, in order to distance a person from sin. And this as well was in the position of Hillel who drew the people close to the Torah. And in contrast, Bet Shammai established their words upon the line of the law.


For example, fowl may ascend together with cheese upon the table but may not be eaten {together}, in accordance with the words of Bet Shammai (the line of the law) and Bet Hillel says it may not ascend and may not be eaten (a fence to the Torah, to distance man from sin).


And so too an egg which was laid on Yom Tov, Bet Shammai say one may eat (for there is, in truth, nothing which forbids it consumption), and Bet Hillel say you shall not eat, as a decree because of fruits which drop off, and this and that so that one should not ascend {the tree} and pick it off. And since the matter is one which involves no loss, for tomorrow it is permitted, and even today if he needs an egg, he can find another one readily, Bet Hillel decreed, in order to distance man from sin.


And in terms of halacha like the words of whom, so they said in the Talmud: For three years Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel argued. These said 'the halacha is like us' and these said 'the halacha is like us'. A bat kol came out and said 'These and these are the words of the Living God, and the halacha is like Bet Hillel.' Now, since both of these are the words of the Living God, why did Bet Hillel merit that the halacha was established like them? Because they were patient and sustained insult, and taught both their position and that of Bet Shammai; and not only that, but that preceded the words of Bet Shammai to their own words (Eruvin daf 13). And this as well is testimony to what I said, that Bet Hillel seized the traits of Hillel in their hands, and therefore there is not to be surprised that they merited to have the halacha established like them, for the trait of humility and peace are beloved Above and considered dear below.


They also said: The halacha is always like Bet Hillel, and the one who wishes to act like the words of Bet Shammai may do so; like the words of Bet Hillel may do so; from the leniencies of Bet Shammai and the leniencies of Bet Hillel is a rasha; like the stringencies of Bet Shammai and the stringencies of Bet Hillel, upon him the verse says 'and the fool walks in darkness'. Rather, if like Bet Shammai, it is in their leniences and stringencies, and if like Bet Hillel, it is in their leniencies and stringencies. This contains an internal contradiction. You have said that the halacha is like Bet Hillel, and then you turned around and said that one who wishes to act like Bet Shammai may do so! This is no contradiction. Here was before the bat kol and there was after the bat kol. Or alternatively, both of these are after the bat kol, and it is Rabbi Yehoshua, who pays no heed to a bat kol (Eruvin daf 5).


They also said (Yevamot 14b): 
Although Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel are in disagreement on the questions of rivals, sisters,15  an old bill of divorce,16  a doubtfully married woman,17  a woman whom her husband had divorced18  and who stayed with him over the night in an inn,19  money, valuables, a perutah and the value of a perutah,20  Beth Shammai did not, nevertheless, abstain from marrying women of the families of Beth Hillel, nor did Beth Hillel refrain from marrying those of Beth Shammai. This is to teach you that they shewed love and friendship towards one another, thus putting into practice the Scriptural text, Love ye truth and peace.21 


We see that Rabbi Eliezer HaGadol is called Shamutei (Shabbat daf 130). And some explain this as a language of shamta (ban), for his colleagues placed him under a ban in the dispute about the oven of Achnai, that he did not wish to admit to the consensus of the majority of the Sages, even though a bat kol came out and said 'What have you verses Rabbi Eliezer, for the halacha is like him in every place' (Bava Metzia 59). And from the Talmud Yerushalmi it is apparent that he is called Shamutei because he was from Bet Shammai. And behold, if Rabbi Eiliezer held fast to the words of Bet Shammai, it is a bat kol contradicting a bat kol, since a bat kol stated that the halacha was like Rabbi Eliezer in every place, and a bat kol said that the halacha was not like Bet Shammai. And perhaps a person can say to explain that the halacha is like him in every place where it is his own opinion and not the opinion of Bet Shammai. And this as well is not possible, since this was the trait of Rabbi Eliezer, that he did not ever say anything that he did not hear from his teacher (Succah daf 27). And behold, we know that the principal teacher of Rabbi Eliezer was R' Yochanan ben Zakkai, who was of the students of Hillel Hazaken, and then it does not seem that Rabbi Eliezer was from Bet Shammai.


But according to what I have explained in the beginning, the problem goes away, for Rabbi Eliezer is not called Shamutei by virtue of being of the students of Shammai, nor because he seized upon the reasoning of Bet Shammai. Rather, he is called this because he seized upon the trait of Shammai, which is insistence and the harsh midat hadin, which most of the world cannot withstand.


And know that the Karaites, in order to suspend themselves by a tall tree, say that they as well are of the students of Bet Shammai, and that therefore they seize upon stringencies; and that Rabbi Eliezer was a Karaite, and that therefore his colleagues condemned him. However, this is entirely falsehood which has no legs, for behold Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel, and Rabbi Eliezer as well, all of them accepted upon themselves the Oral Law, and did not throw off the its from upon their necks; and this is as the Raavad za'l writes in the sefer haKabbalah: Chazal never argued in the principal aspects of the commandment, but only in its toldot, for they heard the principal from their teachers and did not ask them about their toldot, since they did not serve [their teachers] sufficiently. They did not argue if one lights the Shabbat candle or not, but upon what did they argue? With what may one light and with what may one not light. And how different is the path of these Sages from the path of the Karaites!


Padua, in the fourth (month), in the 25th of the month, 5591.


Shmuel David Luzzatto."

While I can stand back and admire this explanation, I don't find it persuasive. First, here is how I would answer some of the early questions which serves as an impetus for this explanation. Shadal wrote:
Why were these called the students of Shammai and these called the students of Hillel, after the difference in their positions did not extend to them from their teachers, but rather from their own logic, while their teachers Hillel and Shammai did not argue, and the Torah of Hillel is the same Torah of Shammai, and when the students divided into two groups, they should have been called by the name 'the stringent ones' and 'the lenient ones', or some other innovated name, but not based on the name of Hillel and Shammai, for not from them came the mishap of dispute*.
My (presumably more conventional) assumption is that, though Hillel and Shammai agreed about most things, and indeed worked together in the Sanhedrin, they established their own respective academies. And these academies had students, and thus these were the Academies of Hillel and of Shammai.

Now, it is true that the takalah of machlokes did not come from Hillel and Shammai, whose Torah was identical. However, Hillel and Shammai only taught the law that applied in some cases. It is inevitable that some cases are not discussed, either for lack of time, lack of comprehensiveness, or lack of imagination. But when you have a body of law, you don't only know the conclusions. You also hopefully know, or develop, a system or a methodology which produces those conclusions. Thus, there are the laws as stated in the Rambam's Mishneh Torah, and schools of lomdus have arisen to explain those laws, and to explain surprising deviations within that law. There is cheftza vs. gavra, for example. And that analysis, and that sevara, not explicitly present in the Rambam's words, can then be applied to help address new or in-between cases that arise. Or in the gemara, you have a brayta or Mishna stating a Tannaitic dispute, and Amoraim suggest different motivations for the dispute. And depending on the motivation, there will be important nafka minahs for new cases. Why can't the height of a Succah exceed 20 cubits? If we adopt Rabbi Zera's explanation, about tzel succah vs. tzel defanos, then perhaps a wider succah, wider than 4 X 4 cubits, may exceed 20 cubits in height. This is within the give and take of the gemara itself.

So too Hillel and Shammai. They said the same laws. But given there very different personalities, they might have used different language to express those same laws. And then there were cases which were not explicitly covered, but relied upon the background system to produce those laws. And the students in the respective academies, due to not attending their teachers sufficiently, did not correctly grasp the system in many cases. In many cases, but not all or even the majority of cases. We only know of the disputes between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai. But in the vast majority of cases, there is no dispute. Still, sometimes, one or the other did not correctly grasp the underlying system, and this produced a dispute.

Or, say what I said in the preceding paragraph, but without the need to say that there was a difference in the expression by Hillel and Shammai. Say instead (or as well) that in any academy, there is a culture of thought, and so in those gaps, the students discussed among themselves and created a system. And so, different systems arose in the two academies.

What about the following?
Besides which, according to what it seems, Hillel did not have specific students and Shammai have specific students. And so wrote as well the author of Sefer HaYochasin, and this is its language:
For all of the students of Hillel were also to Shammai, for I have already seen that they said that there were 80 students to Hillel Hazaken, and R' Yochanan ben Zakkai was one of them. And despite that  they say in Avos: R' Yochanan ben Zakkai received from Hillel and Shammai. For they were always om the bet midrash together, one as the Nasi and Shammai as the Av Bet Din. And so too all the pairs.
I would say that R' Yochanan ben Zakkai was of the students of Hillel. But Hillel and Shammai had the same Torah, with only a few disputes between them, and so the next chain in the tradition, which until that point was Hillel and Shammai, was Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai. All sorts of other explanations are possible. For instance, he principally studied under Hillel but also learned a bit from Shammai.

What of the general trend towards leniency vs. stringency? Shadal reads it as a deliberate application of their traits, taken from Hillel and Shammai. Thus, for instance:
From there extends that most of the students who did not serve [their teachers] sufficiently and cleaved to Hillel to learn his traits and to follow in his path, when they had a doubt in a matter of one of the chukkim or mishpatim, they chose to be lenient, in order to draw the common folk to Torah, so that the yoke upon their necks should not become too weighty, such that they might cast it off their necks entirely. And these students were called Bet Hillel, since they seized the path of Hillel, despite the fact that these details in which they argued did not come out to them from his [=Hillel's] mouth.
I would imagine that some would label this as beyond the pale. But I would stress that Shadal is not saying that this one or that one perverted the law to be in accordance with their traits. He is not saying that where there is a Rabbinic will, there is a halachic way. Rather (at least in his particular examples), he is saying that there was room to establish a gzeira (or takkana) or not. They agreed what the primary Biblical law was, but the only question is what sort of institutions one should establish.

How would I account for Bet Shammai generally being more stringent than Bet Hillel? Well, Hillel and Shammai had drastically different personalities, which may have been reflected in how they presented the material. In turn, this would have influenced the models the students built up to support the data. Alternatively, certain types of people are drawn to teachers with certain personality types, more or less as Shadal wrote above. If so, the sorts of models they would come up to explain the data would reflect their personalities.

What about the occasional kulot of Bet Shammai and occasional chumrot of Bet Hillel? I think Shadal's explanation of it is a tad ridiculous. It is creative, I will grant. But it seems to me a bit farfetched, and a way of kvetching the data to to work with his theory.

Straightforwardly, I would just say that different underlying models produce chumros in one area and kulos in other areas. This is likely inevitable. And so, even if in most places, Bet Hillel is lenient, being consistent within the system entails endorsing certain stringencies over Bet Shammai's system. And this consistency is a positive, and intellectually and spiritually honest thing. Thus, one who simply adopts the leniencies of both systems is called a rasha.

I am not going to try to untangle the issue of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai as a student of Hillel and his student Rabbi Eliezer being labeled a Shammaite. There are ways to untangle it, certainly, but I don't feel compelled to resolve every single difficulty. I'll point to what someone wrote on Wikipedia about Rabbi Eliezer [ben Hyrcanus]:
The main feature of his teaching was a strict devotion to tradition: he objected to allowing the Midrash or the paraphrastic interpretation to pass as authority for religious practice. In this respect he sympathized with the conservative school of Shammai, which was also opposed to giving too much scope to the interpretation. Hence the assertion that he was a Shammaite, though he was a disciple of Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, who was one of Hillel's most prominent pupils. 

Friday, January 27, 2012

Posts so far for parshat Bo


2012

  1. Bo sources, new edition.
    .
  2. Darshening psiks in parashat Bo --  Birkas Avraham interprets three of them. I present them, with minimal comment.
    .
  3. YUTorah on parashat Bo
    .
  4. Why the plural לֵילֵי in Targum Onkelos regarding לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִיםGrammatically, it functions fine as a singular. But some remez based on a plural interpretation.
    .
  5. As a followup to the above, Further thoughts on לילי vs ליל in Onkelos on Bo
    .
  6. Why does Rashi discuss עד בכור השבי in a pasuk that does not state itIt is not evidence that Rashi had a different girsa in the pasuk. I think it is just bringing in a related derasha, where it is apprpriate in context. What various meforshim suggest.
    .
  7. Milah of slaves meakev korban pesach -- a real Scriptural interpretation or a rabbinic decreeShadal suggests it is a decree, but everyone agrees what the peshat and actual meaning of the pasuk is. Then, a lengthy presentation from Shadal in Kerem Chemed as to the nature of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai. Why were they called that, if Hillel and Shamai almost always agreed. And I present my own resolution to some of the difficulties posed..
  8. A censored Onkelos and Rashi in parashat Bo --  דְּיִשְׁתַּמַּד in Onkelos and ישראל משומד in Rashi were perceived as offensive to Christians, and so some texts cross them out or replace them with more innocuous alternatives.

2011

  1. Bo sources -- further improved and expanded.
    .
  2. Rabbenu Bachya, Locusts, and Crocodiles -- Rabbenu Bachya has two fascinating explanations of pesukim regarding the makkos, and Moshe's removal of them. Unfortunately, at least one of them is demonstrably false.
    .
  3. Westbound locusts -- was Rashi a Flat Earther?  Why, according to Rashi, did the locusts come from the east? Nimukei Rashi investigates, as do I.
    .
  4. Is the Rambam Torah-Code Against Chazal?  A masoretic codex (Hilleli) and a Rishon (Rikanti) both record different texts in the Chumash. each of these would mess up the neat 50 skip pattern. similarly, there are a number of other variant textual readings recorded, which would also mess up the 613 skip. this is in like with the statement of the Amora Rav Yosef that we don't have all the yuds and vavs correct, and we are not experts on which should be where. this effectively undermines the Rambam Torah code.

2010
  1. Bo sources -- over 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftara, organized by topic.
    .
  2. Bo as "come to Pharaoh"? Does it make sense to tell someone to come to person X, instead of to go to person X? I favor Baal HaTurim's answer over that of Avi Ezer.
    .
  3. Was Ibn Ezra's comment that וְאַחֲרָיו לֹא יִהְיֶה-כֵּן is prophecy written by an erring student? What will we say about Ramban, then? Avi Ezer thinks a fairly frum comment of Ibn Ezra is quasi-heretical, and so frumly suggests that it was really written by an erring student. But then he would end up calling Ramban an erring student; and besides, there is a ready answer to just what novelty Ibn Ezra is suggesting.
    .
  4. The non-surprising chaser vav in Leshono -- should we darshen it? In Midrash Lekach Tov, a derasha on a chaser spelling of a word. But is it fit to make such aderasha, when this is the entirely expected spelling?
    .
  5. The masorah regarding the spelling of mezuzot -- Since the word ha-mezuzot appears in parshat Bo, Minchas Shai discusses the issue of the spelling of mezuzot in VaEtchanan and in general. There is a Rashi in VaEtchanan which darshens the word against the masoretic spelling. And this is one example of divergence among many? How can we deal with this? Shall we harmonize it, or leave it alone? I explain why I think the text indeed diverges.
    .
  6. Why eat maror? It is to remind of the bitterness, or from some medical reason? Can we ascribe it to practical cause against the Rabbinic tradition (which also happens to make good sense)? Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Caspi. Also, how Ibn Ezra is thus frum.
    .
  7. Is blood on the doorposts le-dorot? Two parses of a pasuk yields the blood on the doorposts as a command for just in Egypt, and as a recurring commandment. Similar to the structure by amah ivriya. I strongly favor the traditional parse as the better parse.
    .
  8. Spontaneous generation of frogs and lice -- Ibn Caspi, a Rishon, explains the workings of two of the plagues based on the scientific workings of spontaneous generation. This should be taken as additional evidence that Rishonim can be wrong in matters of science.
    .
  9. How do we count the 480 yearsAssuming we take the 430 years in Egypt literally how do we reckon it? Also, how the Samaritan Torah differs, and whether this is persuasive?
    .
  10. Is darkness a separate entity, or simply absence of light? Science vs. proofs from gemaras -- Is a question of scientific metzius as to the nature of light and dark really up for discussion, on the basis of the implications of pesukim and or gemaras?! It would seem that it indeed is, in some quarters.
    .
  11. How the Zohar spells matzos -- How shall we spell מצות in Behaaloscha? The Zohar on parshat Bo seems to indicate that it ischaser, which goes against all known sefarim as well as the masores. But I rescue the Zohar's statement.

2009
  1. Bo sources -- in a mikraos gedolos, and a collection of meforshim, all online, for parshat Bo and its haftarah.
    .
  2. Darkness as thick as a dinar? A controversial Torah Temimah, and why I think it is wrong.
    .
  3. Is Ran an apikores, by his own definition? The first part of a three-part series. I contrast Ran's statement that anyone who disputes a midrash is an apikores with his own position regarding makkat bechorot, where he argues with both Midrash Tanchuma and the Mechilta as to the meaning of bechor.
2008
  1. Executing Judgments Against the gods of Egypt -- What does this mean? Perhaps using their deities. But no. Perhaps they were smashed during the plague of the firstborn. A parallel to Dagan. Plus, a connection to fertility, frogs, midwives, and middah kineged middah.
    .
  2. See that Ra is against you -- Rashi, as a star, but could we interpret it as a reference to the Egyptian deity?
    2006
    1. Everyone vs. Every House -- A lengthy, close analysis of several midrashim and pesukim about makkat bechorot. Recommended.
      .
    2. All Quiet On The Kushite Front -- How the locust plague made peace. And how to generate every detail of this midrash.
    2005
    1. How far did Pharaoh's voice carry? According to one midrash, when calling for Moshe, all across Egypt. A textual basis for this.
      .
    2. Yoel to Moshe: My Locusts Can Beat Up Your Locusts -- Who had meaner locusts? Two pesukim appear to contradict one another, saying that these locusts are the worst ever. How to resolve such that both are the worst? Different approaches. A humorous homiletic approach. Measuring in different vectors. Or for variety (though there is a difficulty with this approach). Rashi locally and his supercommentaries take this on. And then Rashi in sefer Yoel has a different approach (that they came in waves). Finally, my two peshat-based approaches: 1) it is an idiom used in both places, and thus there is no contradiction, and 2) Yoel's locusts are not literal locusts but rather an invading army on horseback.
      2004
      1. Pharaoh's Servants' Hearts -- Though usually we hear of Pharoah's heart hardening, etc., once Hashem says that he has hardened the hearts of the servants. What cause to mention this? How does this fit in in general. Also, the same pasuk mentions that Hashem will show his signs in his (/their) midst. How can something be in the midst of one person?
        .
      2. How Did Moshe Know the Next Plague Would Be Locusts? If Hashem does not explicitly tell him? It was on the staff! Or from a gezera shava to Yoel. Or it was told to him but the pasuk doesn't mention this. See inside.
        .
      3. Further thoughts on foreknowledge of plagues -- Based on the above. Doesn't Moshe see one additional letter on the staff? Thus, wouldn't he know that makkat bechorot is coming? Then how come he seems not to know?
        .
      4. A Simple Count -- Headaches in deciding how long the Israelites were in Egypt. Constraints based on the fact that Amram married Yocheved, the (literal) daughter of Levi. A quasi-heretical solution and a midrashic solution, such that she was not literally the daughter of Levi.

      Thursday, January 26, 2012

      Why does Rashi discuss עד בכור השבי in a pasuk that does not state it?

      Summary: It is not evidence that Rashi had a different girsa in the pasuk. I think it is just bringing in a related derasha, where it is apprpriate in context. What various meforshim suggest.

      Post: Consider the following pasuk and Rashi from parashat Bo, in 11:5:

      5. and every firstborn in the land of Egypt will die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne to the firstborn of the slave woman who is behind the millstones, and every firstborn animal.ה. וּמֵת כָּל בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבְּכוֹר פַּרְעֹה הַיֹּשֵׁב עַל כִּסְאוֹ עַד בְּכוֹר הַשִּׁפְחָה אֲשֶׁר אַחַר הָרֵחָיִם וְכֹל בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה:
      to the firstborn of the captive: Why were the captives smitten? So that they would not say, “Our deity has demanded [vengeance] for their [our] degradation, and brought retribution upon Egypt.” -[from Mechilta, Bo, on Exod. 12:29]עד בכור השבי: (שמות יב כט) למה לקו השבויים, כדי שלא יאמרו, יראתם תבעה עלבונם והביאה פורענות על מצרים:

      There is a seeming mismatch between the pasuk and the dibbur hamatchil. The pasuk says עַד בְּכוֹר הַשִּׁפְחָה while the dibbur hamatchil is עד בכור השבי. That phrase only occurs in Shemot 12:29, and indeed, the Mechilta is drawn from there.

      The commentary Chelek Hadikduk in this PDF presenting R' Saadia Gaon's Tafsir, page 80, writes:
      So is it in all printings, though in this pasuk is not written עד בכור השבי, but rather in Shemot 12:29.
      So that it where I first saw this issue.

      I would note that the very next Rashi does cite words from the pasuk, and a derasha, appropriate to the local pasuk:

      from the firstborn of Pharaoh… to the firstborn of the slave womanAll those inferior to the Pharaoh’s firstborn and superior to the slave woman’s firstborn were included. Why were the sons of the slave women smitten? Because they too were enslaving them [the Israelites] and were happy about their misfortune. — [from Pesikta Rabbathi, ch. 17]מבכור פרעה עד בכור השפחהכל הפחותים מבכור פרעה וחשובים מבכור השפחה היו בכלל. ולמה לקו בני השפחות, שאף הם היו משעבדים בהם ושמחים בצרתם:

      So certainly before suggesting that Rashi had a different text in his sefer Torah, we should carefully explore other options. Because the temptation might be to note that 11:15 and 12:29 are quite similar, and השבי begins similarly to השפחה, such that this is an error in Rashi's sefer Torah (or worse, our sifrei Torah).

      Here is a manuscript from Rome, 1470, which has both Rashis, in the order presented above. And here is another from Munich, 1233 -- see the second column. And here is another, from Cod Hebr 3 -- see the middle of the first column. So too, early printings.

      The Septuagint has hashifcha, just like our Masoretic text. And the Samaritan text has hashifcha. Vetus Testamentum mentions only one Jewish text that has השבי here, which is undoubtedly the result of an error, from some scribe recollecting the wrong pasuk at the wrong time.

      It would seem that Rashi, or some later scribe, simply placed this midrash here, since it is akin to the local midrash. Perhaps he would equate שבי with שפחה, since conquered people became slaves, or because the two midrashim are addressing similar points. And the dibbur hamatchil would be placed here, despite it being of a foreign pasuk, to make clear that the midrash was not really going on the local pasuk.


      Rabbi Chaim Hirschenson, in Nimukei Rashi, cites this Rashi and then writes:

      "According to this nusach which is before us in Rashi, with first the designation מבכור השבי [sic] and then the designation מבכור פרעה עד בכור השפחה, it appears as if there was before Rashi this nusach in Scriptures:  מבכור פרעה עד בכור השפחה עד בכור השבי.


      And chas veShalom to think this!


      And IMHO, there was omitted from the language of Rashi za"l a statement, and one should say, and designate:


      'מבכור פרעה, and to Israel he said later עד בכור השבי. And why were the captives smitten? So that they would not say, “Our deity has demanded [vengeance] for their [our] degradation, and brought retribution upon Egypt מבכור פרעה עד בכור השפחה.” All who were less than the firstborn of Pharaoh and more important that the firstborn of the maidservant were encompassed.'


      That is to say, so would the captives say, who were not encompassed, that only those who were lesser than the firstborn of Pharaoh and more important than the firstborn of the maidservant, but those who were less than the firstborn of the maidservant, who were the captives, were not encompassed, for the main portion of the plague came upon Egypt, in their opinion, because their deity demanded vengeance for their degradation. Therefore, Moshe said to Israel that also the firstborn of the captives would die, and in the warning he said 'until the firstborn of the maidservant' because he warned all of the enslavers. 'For even the maidservant was of the enslavers.' "

      This seems rather unlikely for a number of reasons, but I am not going to go into that here.

      Mizrachi writes:

      "Though בכור השבי isn't written here, but rather בכור השפחה, Rashi wishes to resolve the difficulty of the verses. For in the implementation is written 'and Hashem smote all firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne until the firstborn of the captives.' And this implies that the firstborn of the captives was also smitten. And in the warning is written 'until the firstborn of the maidservant', which implies 'and not the firstborn of the captives', which is lesser than the firstborn of the maidservant, as the Rav [=Rashi] writes himself. And he says that that which the verse states by the inplementation עד בכור השבי is to say that even the בכור השבי were smitten, despite not subjugating Israel, since they were also subjugated like Israel, so that they should not say that their deity brought retribution for their degradation, and that this plague came upon the Egyptians not because of Israel.


      And that which the verse states by the warning עד בכור השפחה, such that the בכור השבי is not encompassed within it, this is because the primary force of this plague only came because they were subjugating Israel, and those who were subjugating them were only until the firstborn of the maidservant, for since their fathers were Egyptians they had dominion over Israel, and subjugated them. But the בכור השבי, who did not subjugate Israel, since they were themselves subjugated like Israel, they were only smitten so that they should not say that their deity brought retribution for their degradation, they were not encompassed in the warning. For the warning was only for the sake of Israel, and they were not encompassed.


      And now it is no question at all, for in the warning it speaks of those who were subjugating Israel, and in the actual implementation it was speaking about all those who were smitten. And the happiness at their [=the Israelites'] suffering which is stated by the sons of the maidservants is כדי נסבה {?}, for they were not liable for smiting because of this had they not also subjugated Israel, for if they were liable also for this [alone], also the captives who were happy in their [=Israel's] misfortune, as Rashi wrote, they would be liable to be smitten. And if so, also the firstborn of the captives would be encompassed, just like the firstborn of the maidservant, and so why were the firstborn of the captives not encompassed in the warning."

      There is a lot more to this sugya, but this seems just about sufficient. I'll just close with a reference to the discussion about why this midrash on that non-local pasuk is brought here. To cite Yosef Daas:

      LinkWithin

      Blog Widget by LinkWithin