Abarbanel chapter 1, into to Vayikra

After the preface to his introduction, Abarbanel begins the first chapter [of the introduction], which deals with the materials of the korbanot: (See prior post.)

"The word זבח and the word קרבן are not synonyms referring always to the same thing. While every זבח is a קרבן, the reverse is not the case, that every קרבן is a זבח. For the זבח refers to a living creature which is slaughtered and offered upon the altar, for זביחה is the name for slaughter, as is stated [Devarim 12:21] 'and you shall slaughter [וזבחת] of your cattle and sheep as I have commanded you.' Therefore every זבח is a קרבן which is offered upon the altar. But there is a קרבן which is not a זבח, which is the קרבן of fowl, for there is no slaughter [שחיטה] in it. And the מנחה as well, which is called a קרבן and is not a living creature for the name זבח to apply to it. If so, the קרבן is a more inclusive term than the זבח, for it refers to anything which is slaughtered and [thus] נזבח which is offered [/brought near] [שיתקרב] upon the altar, and upon the fowl and the מנחה, even though the name זבח does not apply to them. 

And the name קרבן is called so because of two reasons. The first is that it is נקרב [offered] upon the altar. And the second is that is creates great closeness between the owners bringing it and God. And this is as is stated [Devarim 4:7] 'And who is [likewise] a great nation has God so close [קרובים] to them?'

And the Torah mentioned [e.g. at the start of parashat Vayikra] that the קרבן in general, some of them are from the domesticated animals, and these are the three species of בהמה, which is the bovine, sheep, and goats. And some of those are flying species, namely the turtle-doves and young pigeons only. And some of those are from the growing plants which come from the ground, namely the מנחה, and this is of three types, namely the bread, oil, and wine. And added onto them is the frankincense.

And there is no doubt that the choicer and better קרבנות before Him are the three species, namely from the bovines, sheep, and goats only. And therefore there are no turtle-doves or young pigeons in the communal offerings, nor is there a מנחה in a נדבה [voluntary offering]. Rather, all the זבחים of the community are only from these three animal species.

And it is fitting to give a reason, why these that I mentioned were singled out as material for the קרבנות, in contradistinction from the other options and from their larger categories, and this according to that which the Rav, author of Moreh Nevuchim suggested.

Behold, the three species, bovine, sheep and goats are singled out as זבחים and to be offered on the alter for two reasons.

1. Because these three species in their temperament, character, and nature of feeding are choicer and better than all living creatures, save those that speak.
2. They are more readily available. 

Therefore there is no קרבן from the wild animal species, for Hashem did not wish to burden us to bring a קרבן from that which is difficult to find. And this is also why He commanded that the קרבן of fowl be only from the turtle-doves and young pigeons, for these same reasons. And so wrote the Ralbag in his commentary to the Torah.

And their words in this are correct. However, to my mind, there are an additional two reasons.

1. One of them is that these three species [bovine, sheep, goat] hint to our holy forefathers, for behold the bovine alludes to Avraham Avinu. For just as the bovine is the largest of the species of domesticated living creatures, so was Avraham the greatest of the Avos. Also because it is stated about him 'and to the cattle ran Avraham, and he took a calf, soft and good'. And the sheep allude to Yitzchak, for the sheep is the next level after the bovine. And also because of the איל [ram - male sheep] which his father offered as an burnt-offering in his place at the time of the Akeida, as it states 'and he took the ram and offered it as a burnt offering in place of his son'. And the goat alludes to Yaakov, for it is a step down from the sheep, and we find that it was said [by Rivkah] to Yaakov 'Go now to the flock, and take for me from there two young goats'. (And because of the skins from two young goats) which he wore upon his hands and his neck at the time of his father's blessing. And since these three species allude to the three forefathers, Hashem commanded [at the Brit Bein HaBetarim, Bereshit 15:9]:

ט  וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, קְחָה לִי עֶגְלָה מְשֻׁלֶּשֶׁת, וְעֵז מְשֻׁלֶּשֶׁת, וְאַיִל מְשֻׁלָּשׁ [וְתֹר, וְגוֹזָל].

9 And He said unto him: 'Take Me a heifer of three years old, and a she-goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, [and a turtle-dove, and a young pigeon].'

to hint to them as I explained above. And still, the turtle-dove and the young pigeon allude to Moshe and Aharon, as I will explain there. And perhaps for this reason as well, there came in the קרבנות turtle-doves and young pigeons. And this is the first reason.

 2. And the second reason that these species were chosen from the category of those which travel on four legs and those which fly for קרבנות, is to allude to the Israelite nation. For behold the prophets often call them by the name cattle, as is stated [Hoshea 4:16] 'For Israel is stubborn like a stubborn cow..' And they called them the cows of Bashan, and Ephraim a trained cow, and many such. And therefore the קרבן for the communal shegaga was a young bull.

And there are times that they called them by the name שה [individual sheep] and by the name צאן [flock of sheep], such as [for שה specifically, Yirmeyahu 50:17] 'Israel is a scattered sheep'. And Yechezkel said [Yechezkel 34:22] 'and I will judge between sheep and sheep.' And therefore the continual communal offerings [תמידים] was one sheep in the morning and one sheep in the evening. And so too in the language of צאן [flock of sheep, Yechezkel 34:17], 'And as for you, O My flock...', and [Yechezkel 34:31], 'And ye My sheep, the sheep of My pasture', [Yirmeyahu 50:6] 'My people hath been lost sheep', and there are many such.

And there are times that they called the nation by the name goat [עז] and he-goat [שעיר]. And therefore Yeshayahu said [Yeshayahu 25:3] עַל-כֵּן, יְכַבְּדוּךָ עַם-עָז 'Therefore a goat nation [rendered otherwise a strong nation] shall glorify you.' And Yirmeyahu said regarding the nation [Yirmeyahu 48:17] אֵיכָה נִשְׁבַּר מַטֵּה-עֹז, [typically rendered 'How is the strong staff broken', not 'how is the goat staff broken']. And Yechezkel said [Yechezkel 7:24], וְהִשְׁבַּתִּי גְּאוֹן עַזִּים [typically rendered 'I will also make the pride of the strong to cease'], the pride of your strength, such that therefore the he-goat upon which the lottery is to Hashem corresponds to the nation. And Chazal said [Beitza daf 25b, Resh Lakish], there are three עזים [fierce things] and it enumerates Israel among them.

And since these three species allude to the nation, the Navi refers to it as such in the pain of the exile, when he says [Yeshayahu 53:7], 'as a lamb [שה] that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep [רחל] that before her shearers is dumb; yea, he opened not his mouth,' for the words צאן [plural of שה] and רחלים encompass both sheep and goats.

And therefore Hashem commanded that they sacrifice their קרבנות from these species which are similar to them, such that it is like their offered their [own] blood and their [own] flesh. And upon this is said [Vayikra 1:2] אָדָם כִּי-יַקְרִיב מִכֶּם קָרְבָּן, לַה, 'when any man from among you [מִכֶּם] brings a קרבן to Hashem', that from them and those that are similar to them, namely [as the pasuk concludes to inform, מִן-הַבָּקָר וּמִן-הַצֹּאן], which is the bovines and the צאן, which means the שה of sheep and the שה of goats, [תַּקְרִיבוּ, אֶת-קָרְבַּנְכֶם] shall they offer their קרבן.

However, if he is poor, and he is not able to afford this, He commanded that he offer from the turtle-doves and from the pigeons, since the nation is compared to them as well, as is stated [Shir Hashirim 2:14] 'O my dove [יונתי], that art in the clefts of the rock', and it refers in poetic matter to the prayer of the nation, [Shir Hashirim 2:12] 'the time of singing is come, and the voice of the turtle-dove [תור] is heard in our land'.

And the Ramban wrote that these specific two species were chosen from the birds because turtle-doves only have intercourse with their mate, and the pigeons do not abandon their mate. And so too is Israel with Hashem. And his words are correct.

And I have found support for his words in the sefer Deot HaPhilosophim on parashat Shemini, for it is written there as follows:

[Josh: I don't know which of these it is:

]

"And the יונים [pigeons] only mate with the one they are accustomed to of the females, except if she dies, for in rare instances they will then mate with another female. And regarding the females of the תורים [turtle-doves] , there will only be a single male for a given female, and she will not yield to another male." End quote [of Deos Haphilosophim].

And it is possible to say further that the turtle-doves and pigeons were chosen since they are of the portion of stars which impact the houses of the worship of Hashem, which are [the planets] Jupiter [צדק] and Venus [נוגה], for it is written in the Sefer Reishit Chochma [Josh: from Ibn Ezra?] as follows:

Jupiter [צדק], in its portion are the houses of prayer and the place of service of Hashem, and the pure places, and among the birds, the יונים [pigeons]. And Venus [נוגה] has in its portion the love of righteousness [צדק], houses of service of Hashem, and from among the birds, the תורים [turtle-doves]. 

End quote [from Reishit Chochma].

Meanwhile, the substance of the Mincha offering is flour, oil, frankincense, and wine to libate. For behold, since the manner of a Mincha [present] which a person sends to his master, to ascend upon the table of the king, He commanded that its substance be of those more necessary and choice items in the table-food, which are bread, oil, and wine. And this is as the poet said [Tehillim 104:15]: 'And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, making the face brighter than oil, and bread that stayeth man's heart.'

And since it is the manner of people, when they offer a mincha present to their masters, that if it is the harvest time they offer the produce of the land, and if it is the time where there are no fresh fruits, they bring from the flour and oil, and spices to improve the odor of the mincha, and wine to drink upon it -- therefore, Hashem commanded that so should they do as well before the Master of the entire world, that at the start of the fruits they should bring a minchah of bikkurim, and at other times they should bring their mincha from those good things which grow from the field, and those are the bread, oil, and wine. To improve its smell they place upon it frankincense.

And behold, there are four types of Mincha, according to what their custom was at that time, to bring before their masters. And I will further give regarding this another reason, regarding "forms" [צורות] another reason, in the following, second chapter.

Behold, it has been explained that the substance which is most honored and choice to bring from it a korban to Hashem is from the three species of domestic animals which move on four legs; and less than that is chosen, for the one who cannot afford that, two flying species; and less than that was the mincha, whose substance is from the three species of plants which are most choice of the produce of the ground, which come from the field.

End first chapter of Abarbanel's introduction to sefer Vayikra.

Abarbanel Intro to Sefer Vayikra, the foreword

What follows is a rough translation of Abarbanel's introduction to Vayikra, the foreword (four chapters follow). Forest and trees.

"Since, in the first sefer of God's Torah, the Scriptures related the Creation of the World; its renewal; the branching out of the first generations; the matters of our holy forefathers until the descent of Yaakov and his children to Egypt;

and in the second sefer the Torah related that which the Egyptians dealt poorly with them in the exile and servitude; that Hashem redeemed them via Moshe and Aharon; the miracles performed for them in Egypt, upon the Sea, and in the wilderness until they came to Har Sinai; that there all of them reached the level of prophecy and received from the Almighty the Torah and Mitzvot; that they sinned there with the golden calf; how their iniquity was atoned for; that they constructed the Mishkan in order that the Divine Shechina and Upper Providence should reside amongst them, as they saw with their eyes on the day the Mishkan was constructed, that the cloud of Hashem covered the tent and the Glory of Hashem filled the Mishkan;

[therefore] the Torah needed to write after it this third sefer in order to explain it it the service of the Mikdash and how the kohanim serve their God and gain atonement for the sins the Israelites. And that they endeavor always to delve into and know the Torah of Hashem, its statutes, commandments, and laws, in order to keep the nation straight, to teach them the path in which to go, and the actions to take, as is said [Malachi 2:7]:

ז  כִּי-שִׂפְתֵי כֹהֵן יִשְׁמְרוּ-דַעַת, וְתוֹרָה יְבַקְשׁוּ מִפִּיהוּ:  כִּי מַלְאַךְ ה-צְבָאוֹת, הוּא.

7 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.

And it is stated [Devarim 17:9]:

ט  וּבָאתָ, אֶל-הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם, וְאֶל-הַשֹּׁפֵט, אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם; וְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְהִגִּידוּ לְךָ, אֵת דְּבַר הַמִּשְׁפָּט.

9 And thou shall come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days; and thou shalt inquire; and they shall declare unto thee the sentence of judgment.

And it is stated [Devarim 33:10, Moshe's blessing to the tribe of Levi]:

י  יוֹרוּ מִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ לְיַעֲקֹב, וְתוֹרָתְךָ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל; יָשִׂימוּ קְטוֹרָה בְּאַפֶּךָ, וְכָלִיל עַל-מִזְבְּחֶךָ.

10 They shall teach Jacob Thine ordinances, and Israel Thy law; they shall put incense before Thee, and whole burnt-offering upon Thine altar.

And see [??] with this to give  the kohanim from the nation their necessary food and required sustenance without effort, such that they should not be distracted by this and them refrain from their task when seeking out their needs and the needs of their wife and children.

And to elevate them, He wished that they be exceptional from the rest of the nation in their dress, virtues, and intellectual level; and that they not become tamei to corpses, nor make a bald patch in their heads nor shave their beards, because of the glory of their faces; and that they should not marry any random woman they encounter, but only one who was fitting for them in purity and cleanliness; and that they stay away from wine and intoxicating beverages when they come to perform the service; and that one with a physical blemish nor an (old person) [non-kohen] should not serve at the altar; and that they should be sanctified in all their matters, just as is said [Vayikra 21:6]

ו  קְדֹשִׁים יִהְיוּ, לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם, וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ, שֵׁם אֱלֹהֵיהֶם:  כִּי אֶת-אִשֵּׁי ה לֶחֶם אֱלֹהֵיהֶם, הֵם מַקְרִיבִם--וְהָיוּ קֹדֶשׁ.

6 They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God; for the offerings of the LORD made by fire, the bread of their God, they do offer; therefore they shall be holy.

 And He commanded the nation to honor the kohen, as is stated [two pesukim later, 21:8]

ח  וְקִדַּשְׁתּוֹ--כִּי-אֶת-לֶחֶם אֱלֹהֶיךָ, הוּא מַקְרִיב; קָדֹשׁ, יִהְיֶה-לָּךְ--כִּי קָדוֹשׁ, אֲנִי ה מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם.

8 Thou shalt sanctify him therefore; for he offereth the bread of thy God; he shall be holy unto thee; for I the LORD, who sanctify you, am holy.

-- he shall be holy to you.

And since the essence of this sefer is the study of the kohanim and their proper conduct, this sefer is called, in the words of raboteinu za'l, "Torat Kohanim".

Yet this sefer is divided into two main sections. The first deals with the sanctity of the kohanim and the details of their service, and this is from the beginning of seder [=parshat] Vayikra until כמעשה ארץ מצרים [Vayikra 18:3, towards the end of Acharei Mot], which is five and a half sedarim.

And the second section deals with the sanctity of the nation in what they do, and warns them; and this is as stated [towards the beginning of that second section, Vayikra 20:7]:

ז  וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם--וִהְיִיתֶם, קְדֹשִׁים:  כִּי אֲנִי ה, אֱלֹהֵיכֶם.

7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy; for I am the LORD your God.

And in this way comes the rest of the sedarim in this sefer. Now also within this second section are mixed the commandments and warnings relating towards kohanim, such as you will see in the seder of Emor el haKohanim, since the sanctity of

the nations relates to the sanctity of the kohanim, and the sanctity of the kohanim sanctifies the nation.

And from this perspective, Chazal placed this sefer within the order of Kodshim, since it is entirely dealing with the sanctity of the kohanim, the sanctity of the service, as well as the sanctity of the nation.

And since the knowledge of the sacrifices, despite it being explained in the verses of the Torah, are hidden from us today, since it is not practices and the service has been lost with the destruction of our Temple and glory. And this is as the great Rav the Rambam wrote in the introduction to Mishnayot for the seder of Kodshim. Also because the details of the korbanot are scattered and distributed through the other sefarim of the Torah, for some of them already came in the seder of Tetzaveh, and some of them come afterwards in the seder of Naso, such as the korban Sotah and of the Nazir, and like the korban of the Princes; and some of them in the seder of Behaalotecha such as the korban of the Leviim, and of them many in the seder of Shelach. And some of them in the seder of Korach, in the gifts to the Kohanim; and some of them in the seder of Chukat, namely the Parah Aduma. And some of them in the seder of Pinchas, namely the korbanot of the Temidim and Musafim.

Therefore, I have seen fit to mention here in this place the details of all of the korbanot. I will not innovate from own mind anything, for I will not budge from that which is taught by the text of the Torah and the true kabbalah [Oral Law]. And I will go on at length in the matters according to how they were explained by the great Rav, the Rambam, whose eyes saw with dear intellect. However, I will order them and gather them from all the places they are scattered, and place them in a correct and fittings manner, and in a way of ordered division in such manner that they will not leave our mouths. And so that the matter will be known in its completeness, when its causes and beginning are known, I will explain the details of the korbanot with their causes, and will make, in this study, four chapters.

The first chapter deals with the substance [chomer] of the korbanot. [Josh: e.g. birds, cows]
The second chapter deals with the forms [tzurot] of the korbanot which distinguish them. [Josh: e.g. olah, shelamim, korban tzibbur]
The third chapter deals with the actor [poel] of the korbanot, that is to say he who brings them.
The fourth chapter deals with the purpose [tachlit] of the korbanot, that is to say the encompassing purpose in them; for the individual purposes will be explained afterwards, each one in its place."

End quote.

'Obvious' interpretations of pesukim

In a previous post, I put forth the interesting explanation by Abarbanel, that Moshe did not tell them initially, and perhaps did not even know, that he would be up for 40 days. In a comment on that post, Hillel wrote:

R' Waxman,
From 24:14 this seems pretty evident, no? If Moshe knew it'd be 40 days, why would he give such vague instructions? The midrash seems to be playing up the fact that BNY were desperate for leadership - so much so that they couldn't even wait one more day...
KT,
Hillel

He is pointing to Shemot 24:14:

יד  וְאֶל-הַזְּקֵנִים אָמַר שְׁבוּ-לָנוּ בָזֶה, עַד אֲשֶׁר-נָשׁוּב אֲלֵיכֶם; וְהִנֵּה אַהֲרֹן וְחוּר עִמָּכֶם, מִי-בַעַל דְּבָרִים יִגַּשׁ אֲלֵהֶם.

14 And unto the elders he said: 'Tarry ye here for us, until we come back unto you; and, behold, Aaron and Hur are with you; whosoever hath a cause, let him come near unto them.'

That is a nice point, deducing from the vagueness of the initial instructions.

Though one could always point out that this is specifically to the zekeinim, and then interpret this pasuk not as anything to do with time, but to do with place and position -- that they had accompanied Moshe this far, and 'saw the God of Israel', but they were to go no further, and were to be in charge until the return. The specifics of the time was irrelevant to this particular instruction, and its omission need not constitute 'vagueness'.

Yet regardless, I think that the Abarbanel adds something to the peshat, even if we could have deduced it for ourselves.

A 'famous' midrash is often transformative. It colors how we look at the pesukim. It becomes unclear just what is stated by the pasuk and what is not. While we might consider some overt portion of the midrash to be midrash -- in this instance, the interpretation of boshesh ("tarried") to be ba shesh, that the sixth hour which he had appointed had arrived -- the other perhaps less overt assumptions of the midrash, that he expected to arrive on this 40th day, approximately, we might not realize are not stated explicitly by a pasuk. After all, Shemot 24:18 mentions the 40 days without extra comment, and 40 is a nice round number. And if we are not absolute bekiim in Torah, given that different parts of the narrative are stated in different places, we might not take careful stock and realize what background assumption is pasuk and what background assumption is midrashic interpretation.

Only once we realize that could we add this additional suggestion by Abarbanel, that this was not a one-time request by the bnei Yisrael on the fortieth day, but that they had been nagging Aharon about this for quite some time.

This matter of reevaluating our axioms is not just because the axioms fade into the background, to become unquestioned assumptions. There may be hashkafic resistance as well. We see the midrash state it. We see Rashi state it. If we look in a Mikraos Gedolos and no Rishon explicitly contradicts it, it becomes their unstated assumption as well. Demonstrating that a Rishon took a different approach may be just the helping hand to do so ourselves, both in case where the Rishon says it, and in other cases where no Rishon explicitly says it.

How late was Moshe?

The Abarbanel says, contra the midrash and Rashi, that there was no expectation of 40 days on the mountain.

I saw this in a rather nice sefer, Ateres HaMikra. The author quotes the pasuk and presents a short question, and then summarizes one or two answer from classic meforshim to this question.

Consider the pasuk and Rashi pasuk in Ki Tisa (32:1):

1. When the people saw that Moses was late in coming down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aaron, and they said to him: "Come on! Make us gods that will go before us, because this man Moses, who brought us up from the land of Egypt we don't know what has become of him."

א. וַיַּרְא הָעָם כִּי בשֵׁשׁ משֶׁה לָרֶדֶת מִן הָהָר וַיִּקָּהֵל הָעָם עַל אַהֲרֹן וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו קוּם | עֲשֵׂה לָנוּ אֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ כִּי זֶה | משֶׁה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֹא יָדַעְנוּ מֶה הָיָה לוֹ:

that Moses was late: Heb. בשֵׁשׁ, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders אוֹחַר, an expression for lateness. Likewise, [in the verse] “is his chariot late (בֹּשֵׁשׁ) ” (Jud. 5:28); “and they waited until it was late (בּוֹשׁ) ” (Jud. 3:25). When Moses went up the mountain, he said to them [the Israelites], “At the end of forty days I will come, within six hours” [from sunrise of the fortieth day]. They thought that the day he went up was included in the number [of the forty days], but [in fact] he had said to them, “forty days,” [meaning] complete [days], including the night. But the day of his ascent did not have its night included with it [because Moses ascended in the morning], for on the seventh of Sivan he ascended. Thus, the fortieth day [of Moses’ absence] was the seventeenth of Tammuz. On the sixteenth [of Tammuz], Satan came and brought confusion into the world and showed a semblance of darkness, [even] pitch darkness, and confusion, [as if] indicating [that] Moses had surely died and therefore, confusion had come upon the world. He [Satan] said to them, “Moses has died, for six [additional] hours have already passed, and he has not come, etc.,” as is found in tractate Shabbath (89a). We cannot say that their [the Israelites’] only error was that on a cloudy day [they were confused] between before noon and after noon, because Moses did not descend until the next day, as it is said: “On the next day, they arose early, offered up burnt offerings…” (verse 6).

כי בשש משה: כתרגומו, לשון איחור, וכן בשש רכבו, (שופטים ה כח), ויחילו עד בוש (שם ג כה) כי כשעלה משה להר אמר להם לסוף ארבעים יום אני בא בתוך שש שעות. כסבורים הם, שאותו יום שעלה מן המנין הוא, והוא אמר להם שלימים, ארבעים יום ולילו עמו, ויום עלייתו אין לילו עמו, שהרי בשבעה בסיון עלה, נמצא יום ארבעים בשבעה עשר בתמוז. בששה עשר בא השטן וערבב את העולם והראה דמות חשך ואפילה וערבוביא לומר ודאי מת משה, לכך בא ערבוביא לעולם. אמר להם מת משה, שכבר באו שש שעות ולא בא וכו', כדאיתא במסכת שבת (דף פט). ואי אפשר לומר שלא טעו אלא ביום המעונן בין קודם חצות בין לאחר חצות, שהרי לא ירד משה עד יום המחרת, שנאמר וישכימו ממחרת ויעלו עולות:

the following Q and A:

 ק. וכי בשביל יום אחד לפי דעתם שמשה איחר לרדת מן ההר ,מיהרו לבקש תחליף?ב

ת. (אברבנאל) משה רבינו לא אמר להם כי ירד בסוף ארבעים יום, ואולי גם לו לא היה ידוע מקודם כמה זמן יהיה בהר.  והם נקהלו על אהרן במשך הרבה ימים ואמרו לו יום יום  ׳קום עשה לנו אלהים שילכו לפנינו כי זה משה האיש לא   ידענו מה היה לו׳.

Q: Now because of a single day, according to their opinion, that Moshe delayed descending, they hurried to request a substitute?

A: (Abarbanel) Moshe Rabbeinu did not tell them that he would descend at the end of 40 days, and perhaps he himself did not know initially how long he would be on the mountain. And they gathered to Aharon at the end of many days and said to him, each day, 'arise, fashion for us gods that will go before us, for this man Moshe, we know not what has happened to him'.

End quote.

Perhaps we could further say that even this 40 was not in the original plan, as we see that Moshe only descends because the people have sinned. Perhaps he would have otherwise stayed up longer.

7. And the Lord said to Moses: "Go, descend, for your people that you have brought up from the land of Egypt have acted corruptly.

ז. וַיְדַבֵּר ה אֶל משֶׁה לֶךְ רֵד כִּי שִׁחֵת עַמְּךָ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלֵיתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:

Shadal on ayin hara

Summary: That ayin hara is not real, but that the Torah works with the belief rather than uprooting it because it is founded on actual principles of Divine Providence, and is therefore a positive belief to maintain. And also, together with Abarbanel, that the idea of kofer was not ledoros.

Post: Shadal writes at the start of Ki Tisa:

"When you count -- when a person counts his silver and his gold, or when the king counts his army, the matter is likely that he would trust in his wealth and in his large army, become haughty in his heart, and say, "With my strength and the might of my hand I have accomplished this", or "will accomplish this." And then, in most instances, the wheel of fortune will turn upon him and bring him unanticipated destruction. (For indeed this is one of the laws of Providence, {Mishlei 16:18} 'Pride goeth before destruction.' And this is true and shown to be true in all the generations, both for individuals, nations, and kings.)


And from this was born in all the nations the belief in ayin hara {the evil eye}. And it appears that this belief already spread in Israel in the generations before Matan Torah. And behold, Hashem did not desire to nullify this belief entirely, since it was based on belief in Providence, and because it distanced a person from trusting in his strength and wealth, and this is the main thrust of the entire Torah.


Therefore, what did He do? He commanded that they be counted at that time, at the start of their becoming a single nation, and that they should give a kofer {redemption} of a beka per skull, and that the silver be given for the service in the Tent of Meeting, as a remembrance before Hashem to atone for their souls, in such manner that from that day and on, the would be able to be counted without fear of ayin hara, since the Mishkan which was made from the silver of the kofers {redemptions} is what would atone for them.


And behold, it said 'when you count, etc., and each man shall give a kofer for his soul, etc., etc.' And the implication of these words is that this would be something which was practices as well for generations, that any time they count, and do not give a kofer, there would be a negef upon them. But, at the end of the discussion, it states, 'and you shall take the silver of the kippurim from 


the Israelites and place it for the service of the Tent of Meeting, and it shall be for the Israelites as a remembrance before Hashem to atone for their souls." This teaches that this silver would stand as a remembrance before Hashem for the coming generations, and that they would have no further need of kofer. For though those counted would require kofer, behold, the Mishkan which was made with the silver of the kippurim would atone for them. And according to this, ki tisa is only a mitzvah for that hour alone, as is the opinion of Don Yitzchak Abarbanel.


However, in the following point I do not agree with him, in that he said that the main thrust of the commandment was to collect the silver which was needed for the construction of the Mishkan. For I think that even without this trick / strategem, they would have brought much more silver than was necessary for the word, just as they brought of gold, gems, and the other sorts of materials. Rather, the primary intention in this mitzvah was that there would be a single donation in which rich man and pauper would be equal, and that from this donation they would make the base sockets from which the Mishkan and paroches stood, in such manner that the wealthy man would not be able to say to the pauper 'my portion is greater in the Mikdash than yours.' (This is as the sages of Tosafot wrote in the sefer Daat Zekeinim.)


And this, secondarily, in order to ameliorate the fear of ayin hara when they were counted for some purpose, for the Mishkan which stood upon that silver that each person gave as a kofer for his soul would atone for them. And so do we find, that many times after this, the Israelites were counted, and kofer is not mentioned, and (yet) there was no negef. However, all of this was where they were counted for some purpose, but if they were counted not for a constructive purpose, but only because of the haughtiness of the ruler, then it is possible that a evil happenstance would reach them, as a punishment for the haughtiness, and in accordance with the ways of the Divine Providence. 


And so did they say in Midrash Tanchuma, that so long as Israel was counted for a purpose, they were not reduced; when not for a purpose, they were reduced. And behold, David, at the end of his days, had a temptation to know the count of the nation, and this was not for a need, for he was waging no further wars, but this was only by way of pride and haughtiness, and therefore Yoav feared lest there be a ketzef from Hashem, and so the word of the king was detestable in his eyes, and indeed Hashem sent a negef within the nation. And at that time, David was stirred up to establish a house for Hashem, that it would atone upon Israel, and he pledged and prepared with all his strength gold, silver, copper, bronze, wood, precious stones, and marble, and asked as well from the entire congregation that they pledge as well, and immediately they pledged with full heart a large pledge, 


and all this was to atone upon Israel for future generations. 


And I come to the heart of the matter, which is the matter of ayin hara, and I say that a few of the philosophers, such as Ralbag, sought to explain it via the laws of nature, and said that the rays which came out of the eyes of the one looking to the pace of the made peered at are able to become poisons, and to damage him or to kill him, all according to the nature of the recipient.


And the scholars of our generation are the opposite, with most of them mocking the belief in ayin hara, as well as many other things which cannot be understood via the laws of nature.


And in my opinion, both of these are erring. Rather, the world does not operate on the material laws of nature alone, but rather, there are other laws as well, which the Upper Wisdom established at the start of Creation, upon which various incidents are caused, to bring upon nation and individual person alike the good and the bad, which testify to Providence. Which the philosopher (מתפלסף) looks upon and says that it is random chance, and which the hamon (general populace) looks upon and says that it is a miraculous occurrence.


And in truth, they are from natural causes which automatically occur from natural causes, but these are from direct and indirect causes which are set up from the beginning of Creation by the Wisdom of the One Above who set them up, Yisbarach Shemo. And this is that He decreed that the cold {?} be harsh and early in the year 5573 {1813}, such that the king of Aritz {the tyrant} should fall, and to quiet the world and all in it. {Josh: He presumably is talking about the fall of Napoleon in 1813, in which the harsh winter played a role.} This was set out in terms of events happening to the community and the individual, the decree that 'pride goeth before the fall.' And from it was drawn out that when a person (or an entire nation) stands at the height of success, and becomes haughty and glorifies in it, and brings jealousy in the heart of those who see him, it will befall him that the wheel of fortune will turn upon him, and being him to unanticipated destruction. And the hamon {unschooled masses} attributed this to ayin hara, and at times attributed this to the curse of enemies, while in truth, the eye does not harm, nor do curses bring about bad things. Rather, the law is to God, and He decreed and established in the order of the causes of good and evil, {Mishlei 29:23} that the haughtiness of man lays him down low, while he of humble spirit will obtain honor.


And the French poet said:

Du triomphe à la chute il n'est souvent qu'un pas. (Volaire, La Mort de César)

[And in factions as in battles] from triumph to the fall there is often a step .

And the Maamar wrote that the men of that generation were required to give a kofer because they sinned in the golden calf and were thus deserving of obliteration. And he did not remember that this command preceded the incident of the golden calf."


A very interesting take on this subject. Shadal allows himself to acknowledge the ayin hara connection to the belief underlying the donations of the shekalim for counting. Yet at the same time, not being superstitious, and at the same time believing that the Torah is true, he assumes that this is Hashem working with the backwards contemporary beliefs of the Israelites who received the Torah, encouraging it in some ways and ameliorating it in other ways. And we see perhaps that Shadal cannot really be pigeonholed as a rationalist. Also, he believes that there are metaphysical laws as play aside from any physical laws.

In terms of beams from eyes damaging, see Ibn Ezra on seeing at a distance. This is Galenic science, as opposed to Aristotelian science. And, if I am not mistaken, contemporary Muslims still believe this to be true, such that a woman's uncovered eyes can drive a man mad from a distance.

Was the new king over Egypt from the zera hamelucha?

Summary: Considering Ibn Ezra's fit of 'prophecy'.

Post: In parashat Shemot:

8. A new king arose over Egypt, who did not know about Joseph.

ח. וַיָּקָם מֶלֶךְ חָדָשׁ עַל מִצְרָיִם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַע אֶת יוֹסֵף:

Rashi explains:

A new king arose: [There is a controversy between] Rav and Samuel. One says: He was really new, and the other one says: His decrees were new. [From Sotah 11a, Exod. Rabbah 1:8] Since the Torah does not say: The king of Egypt died, and a new king arose, it implies that the old king was still alive, only that his policies had changed, and he acted like a new king. [Rashi on Sotah 11a]		ויקם מלך חדש: רב ושמואל חד אמר חדש ממש. וחד אמר, שנתחדשו גזרותיו:
and who did not know: [means that] he acted as if he did not know about him.		אשר לא ידע: עשה עצמו כאלו לא ידע:

Presumably, the reinterpretation of asher lo yada is more necessary (only necessary?) according to the one who says it is the same king.

Ibn Ezra writes, arguing with Rashi and the midrash (or one midrashic opinion, anyway):

[א, ח]
ויקם מלך חדש -פירושו כמשמעו בלא תוספת, שלא היה מזרע המלוכה. על כן כתיב: ויקם כמו: כי הקים בני את עבדי.

"And a new king arose: its explanation is as its simple implication, without addition, that he was not from the descendants of the [previous] dynasty. Therefore it is written ויקם, just as in כי הקים בני את עבדי."

The reference is to I Shmuel 22:8:

ח  כִּי קְשַׁרְתֶּם כֻּלְּכֶם עָלַי, וְאֵין-גֹּלֶה אֶת-אָזְנִי בִּכְרָת-בְּנִי עִם-בֶּן-יִשַׁי, וְאֵין-חֹלֶה מִכֶּם עָלַי, וְגֹלֶה אֶת-אָזְנִי:  כִּי הֵקִים בְּנִי אֶת-עַבְדִּי עָלַי לְאֹרֵב, כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה.  {ס}

8 that all of you have conspired against me, and there was none that disclosed it to me when my son made a league with the son of Jesse, and there is none of you that is sorry for me, or discloseth unto me that my son hath stirred up my servant against me, to lie in wait, as at this day?' {S}

the reference being to David, who was not from his dynasty.

Abarbanel disagrees with Ibn Ezra about this:

"And the Scriptures mentions that a new king arose over Egypt who did not know Yosef. And there is no need for the words of Ibn Ezra who said that this king was not of the zera hamelucha, since it states ויקם מלך חדש על מצרים אשר לא ידע את יוסף. For, for every new king it states קם. And it is possible that there passed after Yosef's death three or four other kings, or more. And if all of them were of the zera hamelucha, and of the Partemim, behold they did not know Yosef, since he was not in their days. And there is no remembrance to the early occurences, with what was at the end. 


And it is fitting that you know that this verse is not connected to what is mentioned above, 'and Yosef died and all his brothers, and all that generation', for behold, there was already a parasha petucha break between them..."

Ibn Caspi is also critical of this explanation of Ibn Ezra. After citing Ibn Ezra, he writes:

"And I am astonished, where he gets these prophecies from. For the word ויקם as well as חדש does not signify this at all. And therefore it is as its simple meaning, and the meaning is that this king came after the time of a king who loved Yosef. And this is the meaning of 'who knew not Yosef', where holding back ידעה refers to the ידיעת אהבה."

I am not persuaded by Ibn Ezra's argument either, but we might still isolate inputs into his peshat. I don't think it is solely the word ויקם at work here. He only uses this as support. But we might consider practical considerations. If the lack of knowledge is the lack of simple knowledge of the existence / role of Yosef, then someone from the zera hamelucha would not likely be ignorant of the vizier. A completely new government would account for this. If it is lack of gratitude, then that approaches the quasi-midrashic explanation offered by Rashi. But, both Abrabanel and Ibn Caspi offer alternatives.

What is the simple "mashmaut" of lo yada? Should we treat it as an idiom?

Only after all this does he support it with a deconstruction of the word ויקם. Besides and before his prooftext from Sefer Shmuel, ויקם means "arose", which can signify coming up in power from some lower stature. Of course, this can be defeated by counter-proof-texts.

Yehuda and Tamar, and Boaz and Rus, as performing real yibbum

Summary: My own thoughts about the points raised by Abarbanel. Could we find a way for the actions of Yehuda and Tamar, and of Boaz and Ruth, to be actual yibbum, rather than just 'customary' yibbum, or no yibbum at all?

Post: The Abarbanel raises several good points in his objection to considering the yibbum practiced by Yehudah and Tamar, and by Boaz and Rus, as true yibbum. See his questions in this post, his answer about Yehuda and Tamar in this post, and his answer about Boaz and Rus in this post. With this assumed background, I can now present my own thoughts on the matter.

1) Firstly, Abarbanel seems to adopt the midrashic idea that Yehuda was the innovator of yibbum, pre-mattan Torah. I don't know that he was really the innovator. After all, in Vayeshev, he says to Onan, after the death of Er:

ח  וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה לְאוֹנָן, בֹּא אֶל-אֵשֶׁת אָחִיךָ וְיַבֵּם אֹתָהּ; וְהָקֵם זֶרַע, לְאָחִיךָ.

8 And Judah said unto Onan: 'Go in unto thy brother's wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her, and raise up seed to thy brother.'

This is a verb, yabbem, and I would rather assume that at the time Yehuda employed it, it already had meaning. Yes, the root is used to mean sibling-in-law (see in sefer Rus, for instance: וַתֹּאמֶר, הִנֵּה שָׁבָה יְבִמְתֵּךְ, אֶל-עַמָּהּ, וְאֶל-אֱלֹהֶיהָ; שׁוּבִי, אַחֲרֵי יְבִמְתֵּךְ). Even so, this indicates to me the chance that this was already a cultural institution, before Yehuda came on the scene.

And it exists in the Hittite laws. Thus, in Hittite Law #193, in Roth, LCMAM, 236:

If a man has a wife, and the man dies, his brother shall take his widow as wife. (If the brother dies,) his father shall take her. When afterwards his father dies, his (i.e., the father's) brother shall take the woman whom he had.

This seems to be yibbum, and indeed, quite similar to the case in parashat Vayeshev.

2) Secondly, Abarbanel came to the conclusion that what happened between Yehuda and Tamar was not real yibbum, was not Yehuda's intent, etcetera. Maybe so. But it seems to me to be a safe supposition that yibbum to the father, after the death of the son, was something known in the cultural context.

Why? The Hittite law, above.

And that, therefore, when Yehuda slept with Tamar, the typical Israelite reader would understand that this was a yibbum, where after the death of the second son, the father was selected instead of the son, even if both were viable alternatives. That Yehuda did not continue to live with her, though he presumably supported her, is indicative of his lack of interest of Tamar. Yet he did succeed in establishing zera for Er, or Onan.

3) If so, does that establish the rules of yibbum even post-mattan Torah? As the Abarbanel asks, how does this differ from circumcision?

To my mind, the answer is that circumcision was directly commanded by Hashem to Avraham, and so can serve as a model for the later Torah law. Meanwhile, this yibbum was a secular cultural law, albeit one later endorsed by the Torah. They had kinyan back then, in Mesopotamia, and the avos presumably utilized the appropriate kinyanim which were in effect at that time. That does not mean that our kinyan needs to be the same. In the past, I've discussed other laws and actions, such as the sending away of Hagar, as found in the Code of Hammurabi. See here.

So yibbum as practiced by Onan, Yehuda and Tamar does not need to be binding ledoros, even if we call it 'yibbum'. The Torah can modify and restrict existing practices in interesting and reformative ways.

That does not mean that it did. Perhaps yes, and perhaps no. On to Boaz and Ruth!

4) In terms of Boaz and Rus, I agree that וְזֹאת לְפָנִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל עַל-הַגְּאֻלָּה וְעַל-הַתְּמוּרָה, לְקַיֵּם כָּל-דָּבָר, שָׁלַף אִישׁ נַעֲלוֹ, וְנָתַן לְרֵעֵהוּ; וְזֹאת הַתְּעוּדָה, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל does not refer to chalitza. I don't think the text could be clearer. And  indeed, the Targum and the Yaavetz explain it to be a glove, rather than a shoe.

However, it does seem possible that the customary yibbum, or perhaps even the Torah-law of yibbum, was still at play. Rus was married to Machlon or Kilyon. But neither the other brother nor the father could perform halachic yibbum, for they died as well.

However, sometimes the Torah is not explicit about the details of its laws, and they are known via Oral law or via close derivation of pesukim. For instance, thought the pasuk at the end of Ki Teitzei says ארבעים יכנו לא יסיף, 40 lashes and that one should not add, we then say to detract and have a maximum of 39. And though we are told in Ki Teitzei that an Ammonite and Moabite may not marry into the Israelites, this is taken (at a later stage) as just the men, and not the women. When the pasuk in Ki Teitzei states וְלֹא-יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה, we can take this to extend to things used for beautification, such as looking in a mirror. These are close derivations into the wording, but the point is, some things may be inferred, by wording, or by comparison and transfer to other laws.

It could be understood that when the pasuk states:

ה  כִּי-יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּו, וּמֵת אַחַד מֵהֶם וּבֵן אֵין-לוֹ--לֹא-תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת-הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה, לְאִישׁ זָר:  יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ, וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וְיִבְּמָהּ.	5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad unto one not of his kin; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her.
ו  וְהָיָה, הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד--יָקוּם, עַל-שֵׁם אָחִיו הַמֵּת; וְלֹא-יִמָּחֶה שְׁמוֹ, מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.	6 And it shall be, that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel.

the word אַחִים does not mean a literal brother, but rather a close relative. After all, Abarbanel pointed out how in sefer Rus, Avimelech was described as a 'brother' to Boaz and Ploni Almoni, even though he was not a literal brother. And indeed, throughout parashat Ki Teitzei, the word אח appears, in the sense of relative. For instance, לֹא-תְתַעֵב אֲדֹמִי, כִּי אָחִיךָ הוּא. Or in the sense of co-religionist, as in לֹא-תַשִּׁיךְ לְאָחִיךָ, נֶשֶׁךְ כֶּסֶף נֶשֶׁךְ אֹכֶל: נֶשֶׁךְ, כָּל-דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁךְ. It is a 'relative' term, perhaps one can say. Compared with someone else, a person may be an אח. And so, a יבם may be such a close relative who will perform the levirate marriage.

Alternatively, אחים might be literal brothers in the laws in Ki Teitzei, but the Torah simply chose the closest relative and first to this geulah / nachalah. And implied and understood was that where there was no brother to fulfill this role, the next closest relative would step in. What would be the line of succession? This might be obvious, and transferred from the laws of goel for nachalah of land. Indeed, we see in sefer Rus that the same goel was selected to do both.

Yes, Ki Teitzei also has the laws of chalitzah, which can be taken as a boolean choice of the yibbum or chalitzah at the very first stage. But, we can find a place in the grander scheme for chalitzah. Either that this is only where the first line of goel exists and refuses. Or, that the closest goel can act to unilaterally refuse, in which case he is condemned and spat upon, or else he can pass it on to a more distant goel, in which case he is not condemned, for he has not totally abandoned his brother's widow. Or, this is a stand-in for all relatives, where no one wishes to be the goel, and the mechanism where she can marry an ish zar.

The precise details do not matter, unless we were concerned in establishing it as the halacha and definitive peshat. My concern is, rather, to demonstrate that such a peshat may be formed.

5) Therefore, we can suggest that this was the halachic understanding of yibbum in the time of Boaz. There was no brother of the deceased, but there still was a zika for one of the relatives. Ruth was a Moabite, and so could have avoided all of this trouble. But, due to a sense of obligation or loyalty, she cleaved to her mother-in-law.

Early in the narrative we already see hints of actual yibbum. Naomi says in the first perek, as she returns, bereft of her husband and sons, from Sdei Moav:

יב  שֹׁבְנָה בְנֹתַי לֵכְןָ, כִּי זָקַנְתִּי מִהְיוֹת לְאִישׁ:  כִּי אָמַרְתִּי, יֶשׁ-לִי תִקְוָה--גַּם הָיִיתִי הַלַּיְלָה לְאִישׁ, וְגַם יָלַדְתִּי בָנִים.	12 Turn back, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say: I have hope, should I even have an husband to-night, and also bear sons;
יג  הֲלָהֵן תְּשַׂבֵּרְנָה, עַד אֲשֶׁר יִגְדָּלוּ, הֲלָהֵן תֵּעָגֵנָה, לְבִלְתִּי הֱיוֹת לְאִישׁ; אַל בְּנֹתַי, כִּי-מַר-לִי מְאֹד מִכֶּם--כִּי-יָצְאָה בִי, יַד-ה.	13 would ye tarry for them till they were grown? would ye shut yourselves off for them and have no husbands? nay, my daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes, for the hand of the LORD is gone forth against me.'

According to halacha as we understand it today, any subsequent brother born to Naomi would not be eligible to perform yibbum or chalitza. They did not coexist in the world with the deceased. And they would be mere maternal brothers, for which yibbum does not apply. Yet, it 'smells' like a suggestion of yibbum.

Later, in the third perek, on the threshing floor:

ט  וַיֹּאמֶר, מִי-אָתְּ; וַתֹּאמֶר, אָנֹכִי רוּת אֲמָתֶךָ, וּפָרַשְׂתָּ כְנָפֶךָ עַל-אֲמָתְךָ, כִּי גֹאֵל אָתָּה.	9 And he said: 'Who art thou?' And she answered: 'I am Ruth thine handmaid; spread therefore thy skirt over thy handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.'
י  וַיֹּאמֶר, בְּרוּכָה אַתְּ לַה בִּתִּי--הֵיטַבְתְּ חַסְדֵּךְ הָאַחֲרוֹן, מִן-הָרִאשׁוֹן:  לְבִלְתִּי-לֶכֶת, אַחֲרֵי הַבַּחוּרִים--אִם-דַּל, וְאִם-עָשִׁיר.	10 And he said: 'Blessed be thou of the LORD, my daughter; thou hast shown more kindness in the end than at the beginning, inasmuch as thou didst not follow the young men, whether poor or rich.

He praises her for going after her near kinsman for marriage. He continues by saying that there is a nearer kinsman than he. It seems like, at the least, it is deemed exemplary to find the closest kinsman to marry her. This 'smells' of yibbum, whether customary or legal.

Finally, in the last perek, Ploni comes forward to redeem the field, and is told that whoever redeems the field will also marry (acquire) Rus, the wife of the deceased. This is a function of closeness for geulah.

And then, there is the drawing off of the naal and giving to one's fellow. This is not chalitzah. Certainly not. The pasuk takes pains to tell us that this was the custom for confirming all things in Israel: וְזֹאת לְפָנִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל עַל-הַגְּאֻלָּה וְעַל-הַתְּמוּרָה, לְקַיֵּם כָּל-דָּבָר, שָׁלַף אִישׁ נַעֲלוֹ, וְנָתַן לְרֵעֵהוּ; וְזֹאת הַתְּעוּדָה, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. If it were simply chalitzah, then the pasuk would specify that it was chalitzah! And there was no spitting on Rus' part.

It does seem plausible that the closeness in form between the שָׁלַף אִישׁ נַעֲלוֹ and the chalitzah described in parashat Ki Teitzei was recognized by the Biblical author. This detail, while absolutely true, might still have safely been omitted. It was included because of its surface similarity to chalitzah, coupled with its function in this particular case to allow Ploni Almoni to avoid this familial obligation, just like a chalutz. But it is not chalitza, and we need not try to force the narrative into the law or the law into the narrative.

The assumption of Boaz and company would be that these obligations could be transferred and fulfilled. The assumption would be that the path of priority to be goel would be identical for both land acquisition and performing yibbum. And so, he first had to resort to this strategem to allow him to obtain both Rus and the field. And it succeeded.

6) This does not mean that we must now decide the halacha of yibbum and chalitzah to be in accordance with the narratives by Yehudah and Tamar. The halachah is in the hands of Chazal to interpret and lay out. And a later (actual) Bet Din can override an earlier one. In terms of Yehudah, that is before mattan Torah and so the custom or law from that time is non-binding. In terms of Boaz, just because he interpreted the pesukim in one way does not mean that Chazal must interpret it in the same manner.

Indeed, I could bolster this with a midrash. When Ploni Almoni refuses to marry Rus, he says לֹא אוּכַל לִגְאָל- לִי--פֶּן-אַשְׁחִית, אֶת-נַחֲלָתִי, ''I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance'. In what way would he mar his own inheritance. The answer is that the Biblical injunction of marrying an Ammonite and Moabite was taken, until this point, to refer to both males and females from those nations. Boaz convened a Bet Din and declared (and darshened) this pasuk in another way, such that Moabite and Ammonite women were permitted. Another midrash explains that for a while, people thought that even in war, one could not violate Shabbos. The Hasidim didn't fight on Shabbos, and were slaughtered. And then Chazal darshened appropriate pesukim and came to the conclusion that one could violate one Shabbos to live and keep Shabbos many other times.

And indeed, I've discussed how Yechezkel may have acted as talmid chacham rather than prophet, and understood the laws of whom a kohen hedyot may marry in a different way than we (and Chazal) understand it. Biblical books composed in those earlier eras may, then, exhibit this different halacha. But this is not necessarily binding, and we (and specifically Chazal) might well understand the pesukim in different ways. As the pasuk in Shofetim declares, וּבָאתָ, אֶל-הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם, וְאֶל-הַשֹּׁפֵט, אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם; וְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְהִגִּידוּ לְךָ, אֵת דְּבַר הַמִּשְׁפָּט.

Thus, at the end of the day, maybe we can say that what Yehuda and Tamar did, and what Boaz and Rus did, was yibbum.

Abarbanel on Boaz and Ruth's "yibbum"

Summary: On parashat Ki Teitzei, Abarbanel had asked about the nature of the apparent yibbum of Yehuda and Tamar, and the apparent one of Boaz and Rus. There are things which seem 'off' about the yibbum as it occurs in sefer Rus, as he explained in the question. Here, he gives his answer.

Post: Read the summary. Read the questions here. Read his answer to Yehuda and Tamar here. And now, here is Abarbanel's answer to doubt 20:

"And indeed, the matter of Boaz and Ruth the Moabite, people have already believed that it was yibbum and that the removal of the naal which was there was the chalitza which the Torah commands. So much so that from there they learned that the firstborn son who the yevama births shall not be called {literally} by the name of the deceased, just as the son Rut gave birth to was not called Machlon, but rather Oved.


But this in truth is a deficient position, and is in error. For Machlon, just as I mentioned in the 'doubts', was not the brother of Boaz, such that he would be obligated to perform yibbum upon his wife. And although Boaz said to the elders who were by the gate, 'the parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech's...Naomi is selling, who has returned from the field of Moav', he only called him this to mean that he was of his family, not that he was strictly his brother. And the verse said explicitly, 'And Naomi had a kinsman of her husband's, a mighty man of valour, of the family of Elimelech, and his name was Boaz.' And she as well said  'The man is nigh of kin unto us, one of our near kinsmen.' Not that he was a brother to Elimelech, and all the more so, not to Machlon. And even if he was {the brother} of Elimelech, as he said {ach} he should not perform yibbum upon Rut, the wife of Machlon the son of Elimelech!


And the removal of the naal is not the chalitza mentioned by the Torah. For behold, Ruth did not come before the elders at the gate to remove the shoe from the leg of the redeemer or the yavam, and the obligation was upon her to say 'he does not wish the perform levirate marriage upon me', and to spit before him, and to say, 'so shall be done to the man, etc.' And these acts are not mentioned at all in the incident of Boaz.


She as well, according to the true tradition, when there are two brothers to the deceased, if the bechor of them does not wish to perform yibbum, the younger is not able to perform yibbum. And therefore, if the redeemer mentioed by Boaz was a redeemer closer, according to the law, Boaz would not be able to perform yibbum, for he was not as close. And all this is what informs that the matter of Boaz was not yibbum from any aspect. Rather, because the Torah commanded by inheritance that when a man sells his ancestral land, then his closest relative comes and redeems, therefore there were found


by the parcel of land which was to Elimelech redeemers -- Boaz and the other, closer redeemer. And their purpose was to purchase that inheritance, and to redeem it. And this is what Boaz said to the closer relative, 'Naomi, that is come back out of the field of Moab, selleth the parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech's. and I thought to disclose it unto thee, saying: Buy it before them that sit here, and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it; but if it will not be redeemed, then tell me, that I may know; for there is none to redeem it beside thee; and I am after thee.'


And look closely, for for the redemption and the words, all of them are in the matter of the inheritance. The redeemer immediately responded at first, 'I will redeem it.' For he wanted to redeem the field and to acquire it.


And when Boaz saw his answer, he said to him further, 'What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi--hast thou also bought of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance?' That is to say, when you acquire the field, it is also fitting that you acquire with it the wife of the deceased, for she as well is selling the inheritance, and she as well has a potion in it. And she should not sell it except to one who takes her as a wife. For these two things are joined, the woman and the field. Therefore, in the second speech which Boaz mentions, he mentions Ruth the Moabite in the selling of the field, something that he did not mention at first, for he had only said 'Naomi is selling'.


And then, the redeemer retracted to say I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance; take thou my right of redemption on thee; for I cannot redeem it.' That is to say, since the field will not be redeemed unless I take the woman, I do not desire that field, lest I mar my inheritance, which is the first wife that he had. Or he is saying, lest I mar my inheritance for I cannot work that field if I do not leave as desolate the other portion {nachala} that he had.  And then the meaning would be that he did not wish to take the woman, and he {falsely} attributed the reason to the field.


And then, Boaz said that he would redeem the field and take the woman. And he said {pasuk 10}, 'to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place; ye are witnesses this day.'


If it was {?} as Rashi explained it there, that when Ruth comes to the field, they will say 'this is the wife of Machlon', and if this is because there is sustained with the woman and the field the name of the deceased, as is explained after this in the concerns of yibbum.


And indeed, they said {pasuk 7}, 'Now this was the custom in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning exchanging, to confirm all things: a man drew off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour; and this was the attestation in Israel.' This is not the topic of chalitza, but this was the law from early days on a matter of acquisition and trade, to establish any matter in a manner that one could not retract from it further, he would remove the naal and give it to the seller, and it as if that seller acquired that naal and in giving it over, he acquired that thing via acquisition and trading, and all rights which the seller had to it.

And this was evidence on the establishment of the acquisition and trade. And behold, if so, Ploni Almoni withdrew his naal and gave it to Boaz, as he granted him his rights in this redemption. And Boaz took it, and with it acquired that which he acquired. And then, he said to the elders, {pasuk 9} 'Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought...' and the elders and all the people at the gate answered him, 'The LORD make the woman that is come into thy house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel; and do thou worthily in Ephrath, and be famous in Beth-lehem; and let thy house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore unto Judah, of the seed which the LORD shall give thee of this young woman.''


That is to say to Boaz, do not think that these was duplicity and lewdness in that which that woman did, who came to your house and revealed your legs, and that the requested and petitioned with her mouth, 'and spread out the corner of your garment over your maidservant', for you are a redeemer. For greater 'pritzus' than these, if it were fit to call it that, did Rachel, Leah, and Tamar do. With Rachel, when she said to Yaakov 'give me children, and if not, I will die'. And with Leah, that she said 'Come to me, for I have hired you, etc.' For behold, both of them, with this, went out from the ways of tznius in order to establish seed from the tzaddik. And all the more so Tamar, who gave birth, for Yehuda her father-in-law, in the maner of an adulterous woman, so much that he thought her to be a prostitute! And will all this, their intent was desirable, and their actions were for the sake of heaven, and their righteousness will last forever, and both of them build the house of Israel.


And so shall this woman be, though the of her own accord came to your house to request that you take her as a wife. But, may it be the will from before Hashem Yisbarach that it should not happen to you as happened to Yaakov with his wives, that he left from that land to go to the land of Canaan. But you should not do this, but rather do thou worthily in Ephrath, and be famous in Beth-lehem, and not leave from here.


Behold, the matter of the redemption stated by Boaz is explained, that it is not a matter of yibbum. And so does Rashi says regarding the גאולה, that it is the sale, and תמורה, that it is the chalipin; שלף איש נעלו is the acquisition. And just as they acquire with a sudar {handkerchief} in place of a naal.


And Ibn Ezra as well, in his commentary on the Megilah, wrote that Boaz removed his naal and gave it to Ploni {the reverse of what was suggested above}.  And the reason that he gave him the naal was in trade for his rights that he had to redeem, and he received the naal and gave him rights via chalipin. And that which I {=Abrabanel} wrote is more correct.


And he wrote as well that the reason of the naal is that it is always present {to be utilized}. And it is not possible to remove the overgarment, undergarment, and the pants, so that he does not be left naked.

And it is appropriate that you know that שליפה for a naal is like the חליצה. But it is, in our holy tongue, that in the matter of naals comes three terms.


The first is like that (in parashat Shemot) {Hashem to Moshe Rabbenu}, של your naal from upon your foot.


The second is שלף, such as {by sefer Ruth} שלף the man his naal.


And the third is חליצה, as in וחלצה his naal.


And after seeking out the truth, all three of them are interchanged based on their aspects. {?} Since in the land of Egypt, as well as in all the land of Yishmael, the people are accustomed to carry upon their feet a מנעל of hard leather. Just as the scholar Ibn Caspi wrote in his Sefer HaSod. And those shoes were not tied to anything, and therefore when one wished to abandom the מנעל, he would shake the foot and the naal would fall of its own accord. And on things like this is stated the language of של, which is from the pattern of (Ruth 2:16) שֹׁל-תָּשֹׁלּוּ, which has a meaning of abandoning of its own accord.


And there are other shoes which are not as hard and wide, but they attach more to the feet, and it is of their way that one removes that מנעל with one's hands, rather than it falling of its own accord. And upon this was stated a language of שליפה, as in 'the one man would שלף his naal', that he would remove it with his hands, just like the שליפה {drawing out of a sheath} of a sword, which is done by the hand of man.


But if the shoe is even softer and thinner, it is toes and more connected to the foot, and this is with straps, and when one removes {שלף} it, one needs to untie the knots and release the shoe with the hands. This is called חליצה, from the meaning of (parashat Metzora) {14:40}, וחלצו את האבנים. {And they shall remove the stones which have the affliction...} And so is the naal of the yavam, with straps and tied, that the woman should untie it with her hands.


This is all from what it informs, that the matter of Boaz was not חליצה but rather שליפה, and not יבום but rather גאולה {of the field}, as the verses prove. And in this way, the 20th doubt is resolved."

My own thoughts, perhaps, in a separate post.