Showing posts with label acharei mot. Show all posts
Showing posts with label acharei mot. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 09, 2014
Tuesday, April 08, 2014
Acharei Mos: Why is the esnachta on לַפָּרֹכֶת?
The placement of the etnachta on the second pasuk in Acharei Mot seems a bit odd:
The etnachta usually marked the logical midpoint of the pasuk, yet this does not seem to be the case here. Namely, the etnachta is at the place of the double-dashes, [--]:
Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg, in his sefer haKsav vehaKabbalah, asks this very question:
He writes:
The etnachta usually marked the logical midpoint of the pasuk, yet this does not seem to be the case here. Namely, the etnachta is at the place of the double-dashes, [--]:
and the LORD said unto Moses: 'Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil [--] before the ark-cover which is upon the ark; that he die not; for I appear in the cloud upon the ark-cover.We should expect that it would appear after the word "ark", or after the phrase "that he die not", rather than in the middle of the description of the holy place.
Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg, in his sefer haKsav vehaKabbalah, asks this very question:
He writes:
 |
| haKsav vehaKabbalah |
"within the veil -- the author of the trup connected אֶל-פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת [namely, the phrase immediately following the etnachta] with the end of the verse, rather than putting the break in the statement via the etnachta upon וְלֹא יָמוּת, for the primary reason that he should not come [there] is because of the revelation of the Divine Presence, and that is upon the ark-cover [kapores] between the cherubs. Therefore he placed the etnacha on the word לַפָּרֹכֶת."
I am not sure who רל"ש is. Anyone know?
Meanwhile, here is how Shadal addresses the issue:
"וְאַל-יָבֹא בְכָל-עֵת אֶל-הַקֹּדֶשׁ -- The trup assigned here is quite strange, for the etnachta should properly be under וְלֹא יָמוּת. [Josh: Here he rewrites the trup as it would be were the etnachta moved over.] And perhaps the position of the author of the trup is like Rabbi Yehuda [in Menachot 27b], that within the veil is a prohibition [punishable by lashes] while before the ark-cover is [punishable] by death:
[Thus:
'Rabbi Yehuda said: the entire heical as well as mibeit laparochet is with forty [lashes], while el penei hakapores is [punished] with death'.
]
And it is further possible to say that perhaps, in the Second Temple, there was one who said that nowadays, that there is no ark and no ark-cover, it is fitting that it would be permitted to enter into the Holy of Holies. Therefore the Sages saw fit to split the statement in the verse as if it were two statements, namely
[Thus] during the time that the ark is there, there is death, and at the time the ark is not there, there is not death, but there is still a prohibition [warning]. And the authors of the trup (who were after the closing of the Talmud) appointed the trup based on the reading which was received orally from the Sages of the Second Temple era."
I would note that the Chachamim in the gemara, as per the gemara's parsing, also separate the pasuk in an odd way:
רבנן סברי אל הקודש בלא יבא מבית לפרכת ואל פני הכפרת בלא ימות
ור' יהודה סבר אל הקודש ומבית לפרכת בלא יבא ואל פני הכפרת בלא ימות
The Malbim has the same idea as Shadal. In his commentary on the Sifra, HaTorah veHamitzvah, he writes the following.
The red arrow points to where he mentions the specific pasuk:
In a lengthy footnote, #21, he discusses this pasuk and argues with Shadal, Malbim, Geiger and Dillman in attributing the trup to the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda in Menachos. While he is not unwilling to say that trup, particularly strange trup, was influenced by Rabbinic interpretation, here he does not think it likely since Rabbi Yehuda is a daas Yachid. On the contrary, he suggests that perhaps Rabbi Yehuda drew on the trup (really caused by reason Wickes gave) in order to support his own unique position.
See also Rashi on Yoma 52b, d"h vayaalu olot kevasim:
If there is a nafka mina in disputes as to the proper trup, and if as Malbim and Shadal say, the trup is like Rabbi Yehuda, and if Rambam paskens like the Chachamim, should we change our trup to match?
Meanwhile, here is how Shadal addresses the issue:
"וְאַל-יָבֹא בְכָל-עֵת אֶל-הַקֹּדֶשׁ -- The trup assigned here is quite strange, for the etnachta should properly be under וְלֹא יָמוּת. [Josh: Here he rewrites the trup as it would be were the etnachta moved over.] And perhaps the position of the author of the trup is like Rabbi Yehuda [in Menachot 27b], that within the veil is a prohibition [punishable by lashes] while before the ark-cover is [punishable] by death:[Thus:
רבי יהודה אומר כל היכל כולו ומבית לפרכת בארבעים ואל פני הכפרת במיתה
'Rabbi Yehuda said: the entire heical as well as mibeit laparochet is with forty [lashes], while el penei hakapores is [punished] with death'.
]
And it is further possible to say that perhaps, in the Second Temple, there was one who said that nowadays, that there is no ark and no ark-cover, it is fitting that it would be permitted to enter into the Holy of Holies. Therefore the Sages saw fit to split the statement in the verse as if it were two statements, namely
- "that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil" (even if there is no ark or ark-cover there, it is forbidden to approach there, and still)
- "before the ark-cover which is upon the ark" (do not come at all times) - "lest you die" --
[Thus] during the time that the ark is there, there is death, and at the time the ark is not there, there is not death, but there is still a prohibition [warning]. And the authors of the trup (who were after the closing of the Talmud) appointed the trup based on the reading which was received orally from the Sages of the Second Temple era."
I would note that the Chachamim in the gemara, as per the gemara's parsing, also separate the pasuk in an odd way:
רבנן סברי אל הקודש בלא יבא מבית לפרכת ואל פני הכפרת בלא ימות
ור' יהודה סבר אל הקודש ומבית לפרכת בלא יבא ואל פני הכפרת בלא ימות
The Malbim has the same idea as Shadal. In his commentary on the Sifra, HaTorah veHamitzvah, he writes the following.
 |
| Malbim |
"And the position of Rabbi Yehuda that מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת relates to the earlier part [of the verse], and also it is only with a warning [prohibition], and אֶל-פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת alone falls under 'lest he die'. (And the author of the trup who pointed the etnachta upon the word לַפָּרֹכֶת, it appears that his position was like Rabbi Yehuda."Meanwhile, William Wickes, in his book on the system of trup, on page 41-42, considers this pasuk to be one instance of many of a trup pattern which occurs during specification:
The red arrow points to where he mentions the specific pasuk:
In a lengthy footnote, #21, he discusses this pasuk and argues with Shadal, Malbim, Geiger and Dillman in attributing the trup to the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda in Menachos. While he is not unwilling to say that trup, particularly strange trup, was influenced by Rabbinic interpretation, here he does not think it likely since Rabbi Yehuda is a daas Yachid. On the contrary, he suggests that perhaps Rabbi Yehuda drew on the trup (really caused by reason Wickes gave) in order to support his own unique position.
See also Rashi on Yoma 52b, d"h vayaalu olot kevasim:
If there is a nafka mina in disputes as to the proper trup, and if as Malbim and Shadal say, the trup is like Rabbi Yehuda, and if Rambam paskens like the Chachamim, should we change our trup to match?
Monday, April 07, 2014
posts so far for Acharei Mos
2014
1. How do we get fasting from תְּעַנּוּ אֶת-נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם?
2. Who was the ish iti?
1. Acharei Mot sources -- further developed.
2. YUTorah on parshas Acharei Mos. And from 2013, YUTorah on Acharei Mot and Kedoshim.
3. Is marrying two sisters intrinsically or extrinsically obnoxious? We consider the perspective of Rashi (intrinsically), Ibn Ezra (based on the land), and Ibn Caspi (who rejects Ibn Ezra and gives a rationalist reason for the prohibition). I suggest that it is extrinsically bad, based on intent and social mores.
2011
1. How do we get fasting from תְּעַנּוּ אֶת-נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם?
2. Who was the ish iti?
2012
1. Acharei Mot sources -- further developed.
2. YUTorah on parshas Acharei Mos. And from 2013, YUTorah on Acharei Mot and Kedoshim.
3. Is marrying two sisters intrinsically or extrinsically obnoxious? We consider the perspective of Rashi (intrinsically), Ibn Ezra (based on the land), and Ibn Caspi (who rejects Ibn Ezra and gives a rationalist reason for the prohibition). I suggest that it is extrinsically bad, based on intent and social mores.
2011
- Achrei Mos sources -- further expanded.
. - Is there a vav in וְעַל הַכֹּהֲנִים? Yes and no. Is there some way of deciding between these competing masorahs?
. - The trup on הַשֹּׁכֵן אִתָּם בְּתוֹךְ טֻמְאֹתָם -- The difference between our masorah in trup and that of the Teimanim. In this instance, there is no practical difference, according to the rules as explained by Wickes.
. - Was Ibn Ezra killed by demons? So goes the story, showing how Ibn Ezra got his comeuppance, after claiming that demons did not exist. Though whether he actually claimed this is uncertain. I don't really believe the story, though.
. - Et zachar vs. Ve'et zachar -- Another analysis of the absence or presence of a leading vav. In this instance, our Masoretic text is supported by the Samaritan text.
. - YUTorah on parashat Acharei Mot.
2010
- Achrei Mot sources -- revamped, with over 100 meforshim on the parasha and the haftara, organized by sections, such as Rashi's supercommentators.
. - What are 'their statutes'? Further thoughts -- Further thoughts on what was meant by the statutes we are not meant to follow, in parashat Acharei Mot. I consider the idea of mandated mariages, as well of prohibited marriages. In particular, if the places they left and they places they went also defined prohibited relations, but differently that Biblical law, one might be prone to thinking of Biblically prohibited relations as not true incest. Therefore, the instruction not to follow intheir statutes, but in our own.
.
2009
- Acharei Mos sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, as well as a slew of meforshim on the parsha and haftara.
- Why mention that it was after the death of Aharon's two sons? -- and whether on a peshat level there is some connection, more than chronological proximity, between that tragic event and the instructions to the kohanim.
- What are "their statutes"? In plural, when the only statute seems to be Molech. Shadal suggests positive instructions regarding marrying these Torah-forbidden relatives, in situations akin to yibbum. I suggest an alternative, in which these particular set of relatives are considered fair game, and permitted, within the statutes of different societies.
- Did the designated man live out the year? The midrash brought down and expanded by Chizkuni, about how he did not, and how they therefore chose someone destined to die anyway that year. And some analysis of how this midrash might have formed.
- My theory about the runaway scapegoat, and how this could have been a Sadducee trick, year after year, in order to fulfill the Yom Kippur ritual in accordance with their own interpretation. And the text of the Yerushalmi I am basing this theory on.
- You can also check out DovBear's extensive blogging this year about the goat to Azazel.
2008
- Goral LaAzazel
- Two issues: It looks like idolatry, and why do we push it off a cliff when the pasuk says to send it into the wilderness? Rashi, Shadal, and Aharon ben Yosef solve this in their own ways.
2005
- The Goat to Azazel
- may look like syncretism, but it really is sending it off to a place. Compare with the next perek which requires bringing sacrifices to the Ohel Moed as opposed to the demons of the field. A comparison to the birds of the metzorah. And a possible Sadducee trick of "losing" the goat in the wilderness before being able to push it off the cliff.
- דמו בנפשו
- and how Ibn Ezra's comment on this verse is not evidence of ruach hakodesh showing knowledge of oxygenated vs. non-oxygenated blood. An excerpt:
I show why this assertion is incorrect.He noted that this commentary by Ibn Ezra seems to recognize a modern medical fact - that there is a dual circulation , one of oxygenated blood (blood carrying oxygen, the oxygen obtained from the lungs) and unoxygenated blood. Further, as we know, the oxygenated blood is pumped out of the left side of the heart, and the unoxygenated blood comes in to the right side of the heart. Ibn Ezra thus seems to know of arteries, which carry oxygenated blood, and veins, carrying unoxygenated blood.
This would be astounding, for Ibn Ezra was born in 1092 and passed on in 1167, and it was only in 1628 that William Harvey suggested the modern model. - Speak, Speak
- But say what?
Two midrashic explanations, and then attempts at peshat explanations.The problem is that we have the first pasuk saying that Hashem spoke to Moshe, but we are not told what He said. The second verse says that Hashem spoke to Moshe and states the contents of Hashem's speech.
2004
- BeDibur Echad: (this includes reference to the issur Bamot in parashat Acharei Mot and a related, slightly opposing laws in sefer Devarim)
Different accounts, different perspectives - A link to an Opinion Journal article: "These United States - Will same-sex marriage lead to incest and polygamy? Let's hope so!"
- Nadav and Avihu vs. Korach's Edah (also see posts on parshat Shemini on this)
- How the descriptions of act and death are similar, so perhaps the sin is similar. Yet the midrash directly contradicts this presumption. And how it does so.
- Seirim: post I, post II, post III.
- What were they and what were their role in the Israelite mind. In retrospect, I could have done these better...
- to be continued
Sunday, April 06, 2014
Who was the ish iti?
 |
| יַד-אִישׁ עִתִּי? |
Vayikra 16:21:
כא וְסָמַךְ אַהֲרֹן אֶת-שְׁתֵּי יָדָו, עַל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׂעִיר הַחַי, וְהִתְוַדָּה עָלָיו אֶת-כָּל-עֲוֹנֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֶת-כָּל-פִּשְׁעֵיהֶם לְכָל-חַטֹּאתָם; וְנָתַן אֹתָם עַל-רֹאשׁ הַשָּׂעִיר, וְשִׁלַּח בְּיַד-אִישׁ עִתִּי הַמִּדְבָּרָה.
21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of an appointed man into the wilderness.I agree that the most straightforward meaning of Ish Iti is the man appointed for this task.
Rabbi Yonah Ibn Janach (995-1050) in Sefer Hashorashim gives the following explanation, based on other pesukim in Tanach in which the word is used associated with people:
איש עתי: חכם ובקי בדינים, יודע מה שיעשה בשעה
ההיא, מל׳ יודע בינה לעתים (דה״א י״ב, ל״ג) וכן יודעי
העתים (אסתר א׳ י״ג). (סה״ש 361).
"איש עתי -- a scholar and expert in the laws, who knows what to do at the time, from the language of [I Divrei Hayamim 12:33]:
| לג וּמִבְּנֵי יִשָּׂשכָר, יוֹדְעֵי בִינָה לַעִתִּים, לָדַעַת, מַה-יַּעֲשֶׂה יִשְׂרָאֵל--רָאשֵׁיהֶם מָאתַיִם, וְכָל-אֲחֵיהֶם עַל-פִּיהֶם. {ס} | 33 And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do; the heads of them were two hundred; and all their brethren were at their commandment. {S} |
and [Esther 1:13]:
| יג וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ, לַחֲכָמִים יֹדְעֵי הָעִתִּים: כִּי-כֵן, דְּבַר הַמֶּלֶךְ, לִפְנֵי, כָּל-יֹדְעֵי דָּת וָדִין. | 13 Then the king said to the wise men, who knew the times--for so was the king's manner toward all that knew law and judgment; |
"
End quote.
Though to argue against this, there might be a difference between yode'ei haitim and ish iti.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Daf Yomi for Yoma 74: How do we get fasting from תְּעַנּוּ אֶת-נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם
From A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, we see the word napishtu, which is a cognate of the Hebrew word נפש. It means "throat."
Consider in Tehillim 124 whether soul or neck might be the better translation.
With that in mind, when the pasuk says in Vayikra 16 (in Akkadian):
Consider how one afflicts his throat, if not by fasting.
This could then be a neat answer to the brayta's question on Yoma 74b:
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite agrees that it means fasting as well, with nefesh as part of this idea of fasting, as well as bringing in the concept of hachnaah. Thus:
Consider in Tehillim 124 whether soul or neck might be the better translation.
With that in mind, when the pasuk says in Vayikra 16 (in Akkadian):
| כט וְהָיְתָה לָכֶם, לְחֻקַּת עוֹלָם: בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי בֶּעָשׂוֹר לַחֹדֶשׁ תְּעַנּוּ אֶת-נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם, וְכָל-מְלָאכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ--הָאֶזְרָח, וְהַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכְכֶם. | 29 And it shall be a statute for ever unto you: in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and shall do no manner of work, the home-born, or the stranger that sojourneth among you. |
This could then be a neat answer to the brayta's question on Yoma 74b:
ת"ר (ויקרא טז, כט) תענו את נפשותיכם יכול ישב בחמה או בצנה כדי שיצטער תלמוד לומר (ויקרא טז, כט) וכל מלאכה לא תעשו מה מלאכה שב ואל תעשה אף ענוי נפש שב ואל תעשה
Or perhaps this alternate derivation is just me being silly. Putting aside any of the derashot in the gemara, or any peshat attempts to deduce this, perhaps this all comes down to masorah (tradition). Or if not "tradition", an innate understanding of the nuances and idioms of the Hebrew language, such as is available to ancient native Hebrew speakers, such that they would understand what was intended (and were expected to understand this phrase, which would otherwise be too ambiguous). And we can see it used in that way elsewhere in Biblical Hebrew, and cite pesukim to that effect.Our Rabbis taught: Ye shall afflict your souls.2 One might assume that one must sit in heat or cold in order to afflict oneself, therefore the text reads: And ye shall do no manner of work;2 just as the [prohibition of] labour [means]: sit and do nothing, so does [the enjoinment of] affliction [signify]: sit and do nothing.3
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite agrees that it means fasting as well, with nefesh as part of this idea of fasting, as well as bringing in the concept of hachnaah. Thus:
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
YUTorah on parashat Acharei Mot and Kedoshim
Friday, May 04, 2012
Is marrying two sisters intrinsically or extrinsically obnoxious?
Summary: We consider the perspective of Rashi (intrinsically), Ibn Ezra (based on the land), and Ibn Caspi (who rejects Ibn Ezra and gives a rationalist reason for the prohibition). I suggest that it is extrinsically bad, based on intent and social mores.
Post: Consider the following pasuk (and Rashi) in parashat Acharei Mot, after a list of improper sexual relationships:
Thus, it seems that these relationships are intrinsically obnoxious, and the holiness of the land of Israel could not stand this.
The alternative would be that these relationships are not intrinsically bad, but rather are inappropriate for the specific land of Israel. Consider e.g. Ibn Ezra, who writes in Vayelech that certain actions are appropriate for some lands and inappropriate for others, and in particular his closing words:
So too here in parashat Acharei Mos, Ibn Ezra writes on pasuk 26:
as follows:
and My ordinances -- that you shall fulfill the sentence that I command upon the one who violates one of them. And the intent of 'and you shall not do like any of these abominations' repeated is to include the stranger, for this command is equal for the native and the stranger, since he dwells in the land of Israel. And if you have a heart {=mind}, you will be able to understand, that in the days of Yaakov, who took two sisters in the land of Charan, and afterwards Amram who married his aunt in Egypt, were not defiled by them."
This is the same idea, once again.
Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi writes to reject this notion of Ibn Ezra. A rather rough translation:
"The author writes: The Torah forbade sleeping with the aforementioned females in order to prevent the damage within our nation, for due to this, a man won't lift his sword to another man, and the brotherhood will increase between relatives and others, and the peace of the household will indeed be great. And behold, it explained, stating {pasuk 27} כִּי אֶת כָּל הַתּוֹעֵבֹת הָאֵל עָשׂוּ אַנְשֵׁי הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵיכֶם וַתִּטְמָא הָאָרֶץ, 'For the people of the land who preceded you, did all of these abominations, and the land became defiled.' And so did it say {next pasuk} וְלֹא תָקִיא הָאָרֶץ אֶתְכֶם בְּטַמַּאֲכֶם אֹתָהּ כַּאֲשֶׁר קָאָה אֶת הַגּוֹי אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵיכֶם, 'And let the land not vomit you out for having defiled it, as it vomited out the nation that preceded you.'
And I will not believe the words of the scholar Ibn Ezra that the prohibition is by virtue of the place, such that he says
And the gist of this is that the matter is understandable to those who understand. And though the cause we mentioned is the primary and first cause, there is in the prohibition of the aforementioned females other causes, even side-effects or secondary causes, however it shall be. Behold, the minimizing of intercourse with the female is quite positive, such that we need not inquire now a cause for the prohibition of some number of females. For had they been even further reduced, it would have been even better. And the minimization {of eligible relationships with females} is sufficient cause in and of itself, and it justifies itself.
Therefore, it is fitting for all intelligent and complete individuals who know the primary intent is the חוש, and will conduct himself in it as is appropriate to him, being stringent as it is appropriate to be stringent and being lenient as is appropriate to be lenient. But, he should guard himself from the commands of the heart and be stringent in them always with great stringencies, as David the complete one went on at length in this in the Mizmor {Tehilim 51} when he came to [Bat]sheva, and distinguished in hints between himself and Shaul, who sinned in hearts, and he in the intent of the soul in sacrifices -- read the entire Mizmor and comprehend, and this suffices for us for our purpose."
I don't really find either approach (of Ibn Ezra or Ibn Caspi) entirely persuasive. That is, I agree with Rashi that these are intrinsically obnoxious behaviors, with just an excessive reaction in Israel because of the holiness of the land. And I disagree with the somewhat rationalist approach of Ibn Caspi, who finds shalom bayis as the primary cause of these prohibitions, and a secondary cause in reducing intercourse with women in general.
Still, it would be nice to account for the behavior of Amram, who married his aunt, and Yaakov, who married two sisters. Were they perverts, chas veshalom? How could the Torah condemn this behavior when these great men engaged in this behavior, with hint of Biblical condemnation?
The answer, to my mind, is that context is key. When looking at the pesukim in Acharei Mos, we see quite a number of Canaanite practices which overstepped the bounds of propriety and morality. Thus, the first example is:
and next, there is:
In this context, every listed forbidden relationship was an example of sexual wantonness. They slept with animals, with their neighbor's wife, a woman and her daughter, and so on. They did not care about the incest or the sanctity of marriage, but trampled roughshod over that. If so, marrying an aunt (father's sister), or marrying two sisters together, was an expression of such sexual wantonness. Surely intent matters, and here there is the intent of the individual and the intent of society as a whole.
In contrast, let us say that a society does respect such familial boundaries, and does consider adultery a sin; and indeed, would consider sleeping with a father's wife (even after his death) to be incestuous. However, their precise definitions of incest are slightly different, such that marrying two sisters is not considered incestuous. The social mores of a rural society is not the same as that of an urban society. This is from a social perspective.
Then, consider it from the individual's perspective. Yaakov Avinu did not leap into this sort of marriage from the start. He did not set out to build himself a harem of four women. Rather, he fell in love with Rachel, and was all-but-betrothed to her. That was why he worked for her for seven years. His father-in-law tricked him and made the switch, and he was not going to cast Leah out in disgrace. Still, he worked for longer and married his beloved and betrothed. And then, his wives insisted that he sleep with their maidservants, in an effort to have more children, and he agreed to their request. This is a very different approach that your typical Canaanite pervert.
Of course, this would mean that the acts are not entirely intrinsically evil and impure. It depends on intent and social context. I am reminded of the issur of bal teshakatzu, which also involved acting in a manner which is abhorrent, where the definition might well depend on the zeitgeist.
I can think of two other examples, indeed within the bounds of halacha, in which the social mores changed. Polygamy is permitted as a matter of Biblical and Rabbinic law. But, the cherem deRabbeinu Gershom came and outlawed it, for the Ashkenazic community, for quite some time. So too, marrying your brother's daughter is Biblically permitted and Rabbinically encouraged, until it was actively discouraged by R' Yehuda haChassid, and in most circles nowadays considered quite improper.
The Torah forbade those acts which were practiced by the Canaanites in wanton manner and which were understood to be improper at that time.
This would then cover Yaakov Avinu. What about Amram? The answer would cover his case as well, if need be. This is not the post for it, but I'll quickly reassert my theory here that Amram did not marry his paternal aunt. The key pasuk is found in parashat Shemot, in Shemot 2:1:
Paying heed to context, peshat is not the most literal, that it is a literal daughter of Levi. Rather, peshat is that bat Levi is idiomatic, to refer to a woman from the tribe of Levi, matching the pattern of ish mibeit Levi.
(Yes, there are other pesukim. In Vaera, ויקח עמרם את יוכבד דודתו לו לאישה ותלד לו את אהרון ואת משה. And in Pinchas, וְשֵׁם אֵשֶׁת עַמְרָם, יוֹכֶבֶד בַּת-לֵוִי, אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה אֹתָהּ לְלֵוִי, בְּמִצְרָיִם; וַתֵּלֶד לְעַמְרָם, אֶת-אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת-מֹשֶׁה, וְאֵת, מִרְיָם אֲחֹתָם. I can resolve these in various ways. I have Saadia Gaon to rely upon that this was not a paternal aunt. And I can teich-up these pesukim. But one shouldn't interpret the pasuk in Shemot as referring to a literal daughter, despite the context of these pesukim, and against the idiomatic peshat.)
a
a
Post: Consider the following pasuk (and Rashi) in parashat Acharei Mot, after a list of improper sexual relationships:
| 28. And let the land not vomit you out for having defiled it, as it vomited out the nation that preceded you. | כח. וְלֹא תָקִיא הָאָרֶץ אֶתְכֶם בְּטַמַּאֲכֶם אֹתָהּ כַּאֲשֶׁר קָאָה אֶת הַגּוֹי אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵיכֶם: | |
| And let the land not vomit you out: This can be compared to a prince who was fed obnoxious food, which could not stay in his intestines; so he vomited it out. Likewise, the Land of Israel cannot retain transgressors [and thus, it vomits them out]. — [Torath Kohanim 20:123] The Targum renders וְלֹאתָקִיא, as: וְלֹא תְרוֹקֵן as:, denoting “emptying out” (רִקּוּן), i.e., the Land empties itself of the transgressors. | ולא תקיא הארץ אתכם: משל לבן מלך שהאכילוהו דבר מאוס, שאין עומד במעיו אלא מקיאו, כך ארץ ישראל אינה מקיימת עוברי עבירה. ותרגומו ולא תרוקין, לשון ריקון, מריקה עצמה מהם: |
Thus, it seems that these relationships are intrinsically obnoxious, and the holiness of the land of Israel could not stand this.
The alternative would be that these relationships are not intrinsically bad, but rather are inappropriate for the specific land of Israel. Consider e.g. Ibn Ezra, who writes in Vayelech that certain actions are appropriate for some lands and inappropriate for others, and in particular his closing words:
It thus seems that Ibn Ezra regards certain types of arayos only dependent upon the place. Not necessarily that they are only extrinsically labelled as bad, but rather that they are inappropriate for the particular place. (Perhaps we can relate to this the idea in Ramban of the avos keeping the Torah, including Yaakov not marrying two sisters, specifically in Eretz Yisrael.)אחרי אלהי נכר הארץ -
ידענו כי השם אחד והשנוי יבוא מהמקבלים והשם לא ישנה מעשיו, כי כולם בחכמה. ומעבודת השם לשמור כח הקבול כפי המקום, על כן כתוב: את משפט אלהי הארץ, על כן אמר יעקב: הסירו את אלהי הנכר והפך המקום הדבק בעריות, שהם שאר. והמשכיל יבין"After the foreign gods of the land" {J: emphasis on the land, implying a specific land.} We know that Hashem is One and the difference comes from the recipients {?}, while Hashem does not change His actions, for all of them are with wisdom. And part of the service of Hashem is to keep with the power of the recieving in accordance with the location. And therefore it is written {II Melachim 17:26}"
כו וַיֹּאמְרוּ, לְמֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר לֵאמֹר, הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר הִגְלִיתָ וַתּוֹשֶׁב בְּעָרֵי שֹׁמְרוֹן, לֹא יָדְעוּ,אֶת-מִשְׁפַּט אֱלֹהֵי הָאָרֶץ; וַיְשַׁלַּח-בָּם אֶת-הָאֲרָיוֹת, וְהִנָּם מְמִיתִים אוֹתָם, כַּאֲשֶׁר אֵינָם יֹדְעִים, אֶת-מִשְׁפַּט אֱלֹהֵי הָאָרֶץ. 26 Wherefore they spoke to the king of Assyria, saying: 'The nations which thou hast carried away, and placed in the cities of Samaria, know not the manner of the God of the land; therefore He hath sent lions among them, and, behold, they slay them, because they know not the manner of the God of the land.' And so did Yaakov say {Bereishit 35:2; see also Yehoshua 24:23}:
And the opposite of the place of attachment to arayos, which are near relatives. And the intelligent will understand.
ב וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל-בֵּיתוֹ, וְאֶל כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עִמּוֹ: הָסִרוּ אֶת-אֱלֹהֵי הַנֵּכָר, אֲשֶׁר בְּתֹכְכֶם, וְהִטַּהֲרוּ, וְהַחֲלִיפוּ שִׂמְלֹתֵיכֶם. 2 Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him: 'Put away the strange gods that are among you, and purify yourselves, and change your garments;
So too here in parashat Acharei Mos, Ibn Ezra writes on pasuk 26:
| 26. But as for you, you shall observe My statutes and My ordinances, and you shall not do like any of these abominations neither the native, nor the stranger who sojourns among you. | כו. וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אַתֶּם אֶת חֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת מִשְׁפָּטַי וְלֹא תַעֲשׂוּ מִכֹּל הַתּוֹעֵבֹת הָאֵלֶּה הָאֶזְרָח וְהַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכְכֶם: |
as follows:
[יח, כו]"you shall observe My statutes -- these that I have specified to you, they should be forbidden.
ושמרתם את חקתי -אלה שאמרתי לכם, אלה תהיינה אסורות.
ואת משפטי -שתעשו המשפט שאצוה על העובר על אחת מהן. וטעם ולא תעשו מכל התועבות האלה.
שנית להכניס הגר, כי זאת המצוה היא שוה לאזרח ולגר בעבור שהוא דר בארץ ישראל ואם יש לך לב תוכל להבין, כי בימי יעקב שלקח שתי אחיות בחרן ואחריו עמרם שלקח דודתו במצרים, לא נטמאו בהם.
and My ordinances -- that you shall fulfill the sentence that I command upon the one who violates one of them. And the intent of 'and you shall not do like any of these abominations' repeated is to include the stranger, for this command is equal for the native and the stranger, since he dwells in the land of Israel. And if you have a heart {=mind}, you will be able to understand, that in the days of Yaakov, who took two sisters in the land of Charan, and afterwards Amram who married his aunt in Egypt, were not defiled by them."
This is the same idea, once again.
Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi writes to reject this notion of Ibn Ezra. A rather rough translation:
And I will not believe the words of the scholar Ibn Ezra that the prohibition is by virtue of the place, such that he says
And if you have a heart {=mind}, you will be able to understand, that in the days of Yaakov, who took two sisters in the land of Charan, and afterwards Amram who married his aunt in Egypt, were not defiled by themFor without a doubt the impurity and evil was in Charan and in the land of Egypt, and in every place, just as in the land of Canaan, for the cause is encompassing. But the completeness {?} is complete in every place and he that is wise wins souls {Mishlei 11:30}. And yet, there was discord and jealousy in Yaakov's household from the two sisters, and what would be in the house or a lesser man than he?
And the gist of this is that the matter is understandable to those who understand. And though the cause we mentioned is the primary and first cause, there is in the prohibition of the aforementioned females other causes, even side-effects or secondary causes, however it shall be. Behold, the minimizing of intercourse with the female is quite positive, such that we need not inquire now a cause for the prohibition of some number of females. For had they been even further reduced, it would have been even better. And the minimization {of eligible relationships with females} is sufficient cause in and of itself, and it justifies itself.
Therefore, it is fitting for all intelligent and complete individuals who know the primary intent is the חוש, and will conduct himself in it as is appropriate to him, being stringent as it is appropriate to be stringent and being lenient as is appropriate to be lenient. But, he should guard himself from the commands of the heart and be stringent in them always with great stringencies, as David the complete one went on at length in this in the Mizmor {Tehilim 51} when he came to [Bat]sheva, and distinguished in hints between himself and Shaul, who sinned in hearts, and he in the intent of the soul in sacrifices -- read the entire Mizmor and comprehend, and this suffices for us for our purpose."
I don't really find either approach (of Ibn Ezra or Ibn Caspi) entirely persuasive. That is, I agree with Rashi that these are intrinsically obnoxious behaviors, with just an excessive reaction in Israel because of the holiness of the land. And I disagree with the somewhat rationalist approach of Ibn Caspi, who finds shalom bayis as the primary cause of these prohibitions, and a secondary cause in reducing intercourse with women in general.
Still, it would be nice to account for the behavior of Amram, who married his aunt, and Yaakov, who married two sisters. Were they perverts, chas veshalom? How could the Torah condemn this behavior when these great men engaged in this behavior, with hint of Biblical condemnation?
The answer, to my mind, is that context is key. When looking at the pesukim in Acharei Mos, we see quite a number of Canaanite practices which overstepped the bounds of propriety and morality. Thus, the first example is:
| 7. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother; you shall not uncover her nakedness. | ז. עֶרְוַת אָבִיךָ וְעֶרְוַת אִמְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה אִמְּךָ הִוא לֹא תְגַלֶּה עֶרְוָתָהּ: |
and next, there is:
| 8. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. | ח. עֶרְוַת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה עֶרְוַת אָבִיךָ הִוא: |
In this context, every listed forbidden relationship was an example of sexual wantonness. They slept with animals, with their neighbor's wife, a woman and her daughter, and so on. They did not care about the incest or the sanctity of marriage, but trampled roughshod over that. If so, marrying an aunt (father's sister), or marrying two sisters together, was an expression of such sexual wantonness. Surely intent matters, and here there is the intent of the individual and the intent of society as a whole.
In contrast, let us say that a society does respect such familial boundaries, and does consider adultery a sin; and indeed, would consider sleeping with a father's wife (even after his death) to be incestuous. However, their precise definitions of incest are slightly different, such that marrying two sisters is not considered incestuous. The social mores of a rural society is not the same as that of an urban society. This is from a social perspective.
Then, consider it from the individual's perspective. Yaakov Avinu did not leap into this sort of marriage from the start. He did not set out to build himself a harem of four women. Rather, he fell in love with Rachel, and was all-but-betrothed to her. That was why he worked for her for seven years. His father-in-law tricked him and made the switch, and he was not going to cast Leah out in disgrace. Still, he worked for longer and married his beloved and betrothed. And then, his wives insisted that he sleep with their maidservants, in an effort to have more children, and he agreed to their request. This is a very different approach that your typical Canaanite pervert.
Of course, this would mean that the acts are not entirely intrinsically evil and impure. It depends on intent and social context. I am reminded of the issur of bal teshakatzu, which also involved acting in a manner which is abhorrent, where the definition might well depend on the zeitgeist.
I can think of two other examples, indeed within the bounds of halacha, in which the social mores changed. Polygamy is permitted as a matter of Biblical and Rabbinic law. But, the cherem deRabbeinu Gershom came and outlawed it, for the Ashkenazic community, for quite some time. So too, marrying your brother's daughter is Biblically permitted and Rabbinically encouraged, until it was actively discouraged by R' Yehuda haChassid, and in most circles nowadays considered quite improper.
The Torah forbade those acts which were practiced by the Canaanites in wanton manner and which were understood to be improper at that time.
This would then cover Yaakov Avinu. What about Amram? The answer would cover his case as well, if need be. This is not the post for it, but I'll quickly reassert my theory here that Amram did not marry his paternal aunt. The key pasuk is found in parashat Shemot, in Shemot 2:1:
| 1. A man of the house of Levi went and married a daughter of Levi. | א. וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ מִבֵּית לֵוִי וַיִּקַּח אֶת בַּת לֵוִי: |
Paying heed to context, peshat is not the most literal, that it is a literal daughter of Levi. Rather, peshat is that bat Levi is idiomatic, to refer to a woman from the tribe of Levi, matching the pattern of ish mibeit Levi.
(Yes, there are other pesukim. In Vaera, ויקח עמרם את יוכבד דודתו לו לאישה ותלד לו את אהרון ואת משה. And in Pinchas, וְשֵׁם אֵשֶׁת עַמְרָם, יוֹכֶבֶד בַּת-לֵוִי, אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה אֹתָהּ לְלֵוִי, בְּמִצְרָיִם; וַתֵּלֶד לְעַמְרָם, אֶת-אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת-מֹשֶׁה, וְאֵת, מִרְיָם אֲחֹתָם. I can resolve these in various ways. I have Saadia Gaon to rely upon that this was not a paternal aunt. And I can teich-up these pesukim. But one shouldn't interpret the pasuk in Shemot as referring to a literal daughter, despite the context of these pesukim, and against the idiomatic peshat.)
a
a
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
