Did Rav Moshe Feinstein read newspapers?

Recently, Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi posted the following on Facebook, presumably copied and pasted from this Revach post:

Rav Moshe Feinstein reading a newspaper.
Brought to my attention by
Mississippi Fred MacDowell.

The Steipler once sent a shaliach to Rav Moshe Feinstein regarding an important issue which the Steipler wanted Rav Moshe to become involved in. The shaliach discussed the issue with R' Moshe and told him all the details. When he was finished, he pulled out a Hamodia newspaper, explaining that this newspaper happens to have an article about the inyan. Rav Moshe declined to take the newspaper, saying that he had already heard the details so there is no need for him to see the article. The shaliach persisted, explaining that it was possible that he missed one or two important details. 

Rav Moshe responded, "I have not held a newspaper in my hands for seventy years. As soon as I read a newspaper, I will no longer be qualified to pasken because my mind will not be one hundred percent Da'as Torah."

This is an interesting story. It puts forth the idea that Gedolim have daas Torah, seemingly defined here as an oracular quality in which their pronouncements reflect the Divine Will, and that this daas Torah could be spoiled by paying attention to secular sources of information such as newspapers. We are perhaps meant to deduce that we should not read newspapers either, that we should respect Gedolim more than sources of secular knowledge, and should be impressed with deliberate ignorance of the world, because that is more likely to lead to an accurate, Torah-sourced, answer. The idea is that secular influences are a pernicious, corrupting force, and one should avoid it at all costs.

It is strange that the shaliach could discuss the details with Rav Moshe orally, and this didn't spoil Rav Moshe's daas Torah. Even though the shaliach had read HaModia. Or that, had the shaliach written down the details in the newspaper, then reading those same details from the shaliach but in newsprint would have spoiled Rav Moshe's daas Torah, such that he would not be qualified to pasken.

Besides the picture above, which shows Rav Moshe Feinstein holding a newspaper in his hands, and even (lo aleinu!) reading it, there are other reasons to believe that the story is bogus:

1) Rabbi Moshe Tendler has stated (see here, which excerpted from a Mevaser article here) that this claim about his father in law (Rav Moshe Feinstein) is in all the books, but that he and a thousand talmidim can testify that it is false, and further, that Rav Moshe's teshuvot benefited from this window to the world:

My shver was uniquely sensitive to society. Despite what they write in all the books about him, my shver never failed to read the Yiddish newspaper – either the Tog in the early years or the Morgn-Zhurnal later on – cover-to-cover every single day. People publish that he would walk down the street and avert his eyes when he passed by newspaper stands. There are a thousand talmidim of his who will testify, “I bought the paper and handed it to him in the lunchroom in the yeshivah,” but it does not make a difference for some people – they do not want to hear that. Even when he was not well and the doctor insisted that he must lie down to sleep for an hour, he would go home, put on a bathrobe, and smuggle a newspaper into the bedroom so that his wife would not see it. He sat there reading the whole time, rather than sleeping. I used to ask him, “Why do you read this chazeray (junk)?” He would respond to me, “Dos iz mayn vinde” – this is my window [to the world]. He understood society and his piskei Halachah show that. He used to say, “People think that because I’m aware of society, I became a meikel (lenient decisor). What do they want me to do – paskn incorrectly? I’m not a meikel – I paskn the way it has to be. The Halachah takes into account societal factors.” This willingness to be exposed to society made his teshuvos more meaningful and more acceptable.

2) Rabbi Dovid Feinstein, Rav Moshe's son, says something which falsifies the part of the story in which Rav Moshe asserts daas Torah as the basis for his authority and thus as a necessary qualification for a posek:

Rav Dovid Feinstein (personal communication): In response to the question of whether his father ever justified his halachic decisions Rav Feinstein told me the following, “I never heard my father claim that his authority was from Daas Torah. He always insisted that the authority of his rulings was because they involved correct reasoning.”

3) On that Facebook thread, someone (a named person) writes:

Did it occur to you to confirm this? Cause i just confimed with Reb Moshes family that its false.

Did Linnaeus classify the hare as a ruminant?

Yes and no. Or maybe.

The common claim is:

In fact, Linnaeus at first classified the hare as a ruminant, even though the four-stomach apparatus was lacking.

Yet, see this recent comment by David Ohsie:

BOGUS CLAIM #2: Linnaeus originally classified hare as a ruminant. This copy of what I think is his first edition table doesn't seem to agree with that "myth".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Linnaeus_-_Regnum_Animale_%281735%29.png

The specific portion of the table is in the first column, third box down, Glires, which is a grouping of rodents and lagomorphs:

Thus, he puts them with rodents, not with ruminants, which would be Pecora, the group of hoofed mammals that contain most of the ruminants, in the same first column, but in the bottom box.

However, this table from the First Edition of Systema Naturæ is not necessarily the beginning and end of Linnaeus' classification. I assume that he wrote a lot of material, and this table is just a summary of his conclusions.

Here is another report of Linnaeus and hares, which seems to me to be the more precise version of what Linnaeus did, from Field sports of the north of Europe, by Captain Llewelyn Lloyd, in 1885.

That is, of course Linnaeus classified it as Glides, not Pecora. However, that was because it differed in its level of rumination.

Yet, he considered it a ruminant, because he thought it used two cavities rather than four, and macerated the food in one cavity and digests it in the other.

Further, we should find where in his work Linnaeus writes the above, about ruminating though less than Pecora. It might even be that, within that portion of text, he even classified it as Pecora, and only later changed it, within the table of the first edition of Systema Naturæ, to Glides. Or maybe not. However, this claim I only traced as far back as Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Hard Sayings of The Bible, 1996, page 158.

The first edition of Systema Naturæ had only eleven pages. The final edition, the 13th, had approximately 3000 pages. During the development of the work, Linnaeus did change classifications. (See here.) If so, it seems probable that the claim was of some original classification, which then seems not to be the case. Unless somewhere in one of the middle editions he changed it and changed it back? There is a lot to look through, and it is in Latin.

In sum, the claim seems to have been mangled, but there is a separate claim, that:

Linnaeus tells us that such is the case, though in an inferior degree to the Pecora, which have a stomach of four cavities, whereas the hare has only two; that the hare macerates the food in one cavity and digests it in the other.

Ruminating rabbits

Here is an interesting and possibly relevant source to rabbits and hares ruminating. It is to be found in Dictionnaire raisonné universel d'histoire naturelle, the Universal Dictionary of Natural History, a multi-volume work by the French scientist Jacques Christophe Valmont de Bomare, in the year 1776.

In the one paragraph in this entry on the rabbit (LAPIN, cuniculus), Valmont de Bomare writes (6 lines down):

On prétend qu`ils ont , ainsi que le lievre, la propriété de ruminer. 

Or, in English:

It is claimed that they [rabbits] have, and the hare, the property ruminating.

Note that he only says "it is claimed", rather than that he is personally testifying to this behavior. But it does seem that this was a belief about rabbits and hares, that they ruminated. Not that they engaged in caecotrophy, which seems to only have been first reported in 1882.

Below, I reproduce the article in full. I don't speak French, and likely neither do you. However, this website will take the images and perform OCR in French. You can then correct the OCR and run it through Google Translate.




The full text of the entry follows:

Yosef Mokir Shabbos and Polycrates

There is a germara in Shabbat 119a:

Joseph-who-honours-the-Sabbaths had in his victory a certain gentile who owned much property. Soothsayers¹⁷  told him, 'Joseph-who-honours-the-Sabbaths will consume all your property.¹⁸  — [So] he went, sold all his property, and bought a precious stone with the proceeds, which he set in his turban. As he was crossing a bridge the wind blew it off and cast it into the water, [and] a fish swallowed it. [Subsequently] it [the fish] was hauled up and brought [to market] on the Sabbath eve towards sunset. 'Who will buy now?' cried they. 'Go and take them to Joseph-who-honours-the-Sabbaths,' they were told, 'as he is accustomed to buy.' So they took it to him. He bought it, opened it, found the jewel therein, and sold it for thirteen roomfuls¹⁹  of gold denarii.²⁰  A certain old man met him [and] said, 'He who lends to the Sabbath,²¹  the Sabbath repays him.'

In a recent post at On the Main Line, there is a humorous ode to chulent from 1899, which contains the following line:

As to fishes, I shall remark that the legend about the ring and the fish ('the ring of Polycrates') already appears in the Talmud.

This is a reference to a story told by Herodotus ('father of history, father of lies', [c. 484 – 425 BCE]). According to Wikipedia

Polycrates (Greek: Πολυκράτης), son of Aeaces, was the tyrant of Samos from c. 538 BC to 522 BC.

He took power during a festival of Hera with his brothers Pantagnotus and Syloson, but soon had Pantagnotus killed and exiled Syloson to take full control for himself. He then allied with Amasis II, pharaoh of Egypt, as well as the tyrant of Naxos Lygdamis...

According to Herodotus, Amasis thought Polycrates was too successful, and advised him to throw away whatever he valued most in order to escape a reversal of fortune. Polycrates followed the advice and threw a jewel-encrusted ring into the sea; however, a few days later, a fisherman caught a large fish that he wished to share with the tyrant. While Polycrates' cooks were preparing the fish for eating, they discovered the ring inside of it. Polycrates told Amasis of his good fortune, and Amasis immediately broke off their alliance, believing that such a lucky man would eventually come to a disastrous end.

Herodotus probably predates the story told in the gemara. There is also the following two midrashim telling of Shlomo Hamelech and a ring of power swallowed by a fish, which (according to one of the midrashim) is later recovered by Shlomo.

First this:

Solomon's ejection from the throne is stated in Ruth R. ii. 14 as having occurred because of an angel who assumed his likeness and usurped his dignity. Solomon meanwhile went begging from house to house protesting that he was the king. One day a woman put before him a dish of ground beans and beat his head with a stick, saying, "Solomon sits on his throne, and yet thou claimest to be the king." Giṭṭin (l.c.) attributes the loss of the throne to Asmodeus, who, after his capture by Benaiah, remained a prisoner with Solomon. One day the king asked Asmodeus wherein consisted the demons' superiority over men; and Asmodeus replied that he would demonstrate it if Solomon would remove his chains and give him the magic ring. Solomon agreed; whereupon Asmodeus swallowed the king (or the ring, according to another version), then stood up with one wing touching heaven and the other extending to the earth, spat Solomon to a distance of 400 miles, and finally seated himself on the throne. Solomon's persistent declaration that he was the king at length attracted the attention of the Sanhedrin. That body, discovering that it was not the real Solomon who occupied the throne, placed Solomon thereon and gave him another ring and chain on which the Holy Name was written. On seeing these Asmodeus flew away (see Asmodeus, and the parallel sources there cited). Nevertheless Solomon remained in constant fear; and he accordingly surrounded his bed with sixty armed warriors (comp. Cant. iii. 7).

And then this:

This legend is narrated in "'Emeḳ ha-Melek" (pp. 14d-15a; republished by Jellinek,l.c. ii. 86-87) as follows: "Asmodeus threw the magic ring into the sea, where it was swallowed by a fish. Then he threw the king a distance of 400 miles. Solomon spent three years in exile as a punishment for transgressing the three prohibitive commandments [see above]. He wandered from city to city till he arrived at Mashkemam, the capital of the Ammonites. One day, while standing in a street of that city, he was observed by the king's cook, who took him by force to the royal kitchen and compelled him to do menial work. A few days later Solomon, alleging that he was an expert in cookery, obtained the cook's permission to prepare a new dish.The king of the Ammonites was so pleased with it that he dismissed his cook and appointed Solomon in his place. A little later, Naamah, the king's daughter, fell in love with Solomon. Her family, supposing him to be simply a cook, expressed strong disapproval of the girl's behavior; but she persisted in her wish to marry Solomon, and when she had done so the king resolved to kill them both. Accordingly at his orders one of his attendants took them to the desert and left them there that they might die of hunger. Solomon and his wife, however, escaped starvation; for they did not remain in the desert. They ultimately reached a maritime city, where they bought a fish for food. In it they found a ring on which was engraved the Holy Name and which was immediately recognized by Solomon as his own ring. He then returned to Jerusalem, drove Asmodeus away, and reoccupied his throne."

Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's Tefillin

A week or so ago, I picked up a wonderful book from the local seforim store. It is called Yahadus, and is a curriculum for learning Yahadus, in a rather nice format. Check out this PDF sample of one of their lessons, on Kiddush Hashem. You can find out more, and purchase it, at their website. I also saw it the other day at the YU Seforim Sale in the children's section for about $10 less than their listed price, so maybe check it out there.

It follows the order of the Rambam's Mishneh Torah, and presents units all all 613 Mitzvos. Such that volume 1 (for grade 4) is Sefer Madda and Ahava, volume 2 (for grade 5) is Zmanim, Nashim, Kedusha and Haflaah. Volume 3 (for grade 6) is due to come out shoftly after Pesach.

My third-grade son has greatly enjoyed these books, and I would highly recommend them.

Anyway, on page 78 of volume 2, in the section on Shevisas Yom Tov, they tell a story of Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's tefillin. To paraphrase, here is what happened.

A certain Jew came to Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's town and, for an unspecified reason, without permission, decided to open up Rav Yosanan Eibeshitz's tefillin. He found the boxes to be empty! Since Chazal say awful things about those who never wear tefillin in their lives, he took Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz to bet din.

In bet din, Rav Eibeshitz asked him just when he examined the tefillin. The fellow replied that it had been on chol hamoed. Rav Eibeshitz then explained that his personal minhag was not to wear tefillin on chol hamoed, but that in the town he currently resided, the minhag was to wear it. If he overtly refrained from wearing it, then people might feel compelled to follow his minhag. Therefore, specifically on chol hamoed, he removed the parchment and wore the empty tefillin.

I find this story fascinating, on a number of levels. Not that I am entirely convinced that the story is true, for reasons I'll explain below in item 3.

1) First, why should a random Jew pick on Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz like that? It is almost like a tzitzis-check that some Rebbes in Jewish day-schools do. While talking to one of their young charges, they pat him affectionately on the back, to see if he is wearing tzitzis. Why would someone tefillin-check a Torah-great like Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz, zatza'l? And what was the thought process to suspect this -- that is, why would someone go to the trouble of actually donning tefillin yet remove the parchments inside?

The answer is that R' Eibeshitz was accused by Rav Yaakov Emden of being a secret follower of the deceased Shabbatai Tzvi, and a believer in the perversion of true kabbalah, following Sabbatean kabbalah as formulated by Shabtai Tzvi's prophet, Nathan of Gaza.

Part of the beliefs of these closet Sabbateans was that it was a positive thing to outwardly appear to keep all the mitzvot but to surreptitiously violate all of them. Because in the messianic era, the mitzvos were abrogated. Not mattir assurim (who releases the bound) but mattir issurim (who permits the forbidden). Thus, a closet Sabbatean would indeed outwardly wear tefillin but secretly remove the parchment so as not to fulfill the mitzvah and to be secretly one of the poshei yisrael begufan, those in Israel who sin with their bodies.

2) Second, I find the defense offered by Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz almost as damning as the actual absence of the parshiyot inside the tefillin.

For there is an overt meaning to the words, that he was trying to be non-imposing of his own personal minhag / accepted halacha on the community.

But there is a plausible secondary meaning. Recall that Sabbatean kabbalists held that it was a positive thing to secretly violate the commandments. This was because the mitzvot have a metaphysical impact on Creation and on the Divine. This is, however, time-bound. In the generations past, it was positive to do mitzvos. But in the present, in the messianic era, it was negative and damaging to do mitzvos.

The Talmud is somewhat unclear on whether one should wear tefillin on chol hamoed. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, while it was a matter of Tannaitic dispute, the conclusion is that it is not zman tefillin and is prohibited. Shabbos is already an os, a sign, and we don't need a secondary os. But does this halachic conclusion apply to chol hamoed as well. This was a dispute of Rishonim.

And then, in the late 13th century, the Zohar was revealed, and took sides in this machlokes. It declared that whoever wears tefillin on chol hamoed is chayav misa, as if liable to the death penalty. This naturally had a profound effect on kabbalists, as well as many non-kabbalists. After all, now we have Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, a Tanna, taking a stand on a matter which was left unclear in the Talmud. Even so, many communities stuck with their nigleh (revealed-Torah) based halachic practice, and still wore tefillin on chol hamoed. They should not change their practice just because the kabbalists act otherwise.

Now think about the hidden message. For profound kabbalistic reasons, what the community at large is doing, and which they think is quite positive -- wearing tefillin on chol hamoed -- is actually quite negative. And those who are privy to this mystical secret are not proselytizing to the masses to change their practice. But secretly, they might act in accordance with this profound kabbalistic reason and not don tefillin. And the reason that not putting it on is negative has to do with the timing. At any other day, a weekday, it would be a mitzvah. But now donning tefillin is really a great aveira.

To spell out the parallel, wearing tefillin in general, or doing any mitzvah, in general, is now secretly, for kabbalistic reasons, a very negative thing. It used to be good, but given the timing, of the messianic era, it is actually quite negative.

In other words, the defense could serve well as a pro-Sabbatean argument.

3) Thirdly, here is why I have my doubts that the story even occurred. (Which then would make the story stand as an metaphorical defense of Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz in the other charges.)

The story of the empty tefillin has obvious parallels to a story that actually did happen. I heard this from Rabbi Dr. Shnayer Leiman, and I hope I get the details right.

Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz was a kabbalist, and he wrote kameyot, amulets, for people in need. One possibly suspicious aspect of this amulet-writing was that he made people swear that they would not ever open the amulets and examine the contents. (One could imagine that he specified this requirement to protect their sanctity; or to protect against false charges based on misinterpretation; or because they contained heretical Sabbatean kabbalistic ideas.)

However, he wrote an amulet for an ill woman, and the amulet was not effective. She died, and her husband gave over the amulet to Rav Yaakov Emden to examine. Rav Yaakov Emden published a copy of the amulet in a sefer and, being a kabbalist himself, analyzed the amulet. He demonstrated references to Shabtai Tzvi.

Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's published response was that this was a misreading of the amulet. Was Rav Emden asserted was a tav, for instance, was really a chet. They look similar, you see, so it is easy to understand his mistake.

Then, Dr. Shnayer Leiman came across a bit of evidence. It was a reproduction of the amulet, with all the details as described by Rav Yaakov Emden. It was notarized by a French court, and signed by two students of Rav Yonanan Eibeshitz, who declared reluctantly that indeed, this was what the amulet looked like.

Given that Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's response was to challenge the reproduced text, but to admit (as is fairly clear to those who can understand this stuff) that if the text were as Rav Emden said, it would be Sabbatean, the obvious conclusion is that, indeed, Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz was a closet Sabbatean.

But anyway, we have ample documentation for the amulet story, where a Jew opened it up, made a discovery, and there was a rejoinder by R' Eibeshitz which put him in the clear. The opened tefillin just seems like a duplicate of the story, with some details changed.

Targum Onkelos, and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon

Summary: Why translate כְּגַנֹּת עֲלֵי נָהָר as כְּגִנַּת שִׁקְיָא דְּעַל פְּרָת, making it refer specifically to a garden on the Euphrates. Rav Chaim Kanievsky answers with a unique fertile property of the Euphrates. Rabbi Yitzchak Zeev Diskin suggests the same, as well as that it is a reference to Gan Eden. I suggest that there is a gzeira shava of nahar nahar to earlier in the parasha, to where the speaker, Bilaam, lived. And finally that it is a reference to one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.

Post: A curious targum for a pasuk in Balak. Bemidbar 24:6:

כד,ה מַה-טֹּבוּ אֹהָלֶיךָ, יַעֲקֹב; מִשְׁכְּנֹתֶיךָ, יִשְׂרָאֵל.	מָא טָבָא אַרְעָךְ, יַעֲקוֹב; בֵּית מִשְׁרָךְ, יִשְׂרָאֵל.
כד,ו כִּנְחָלִים נִטָּיוּ, כְּגַנֹּת עֲלֵי נָהָר; כַּאֲהָלִים נָטַע ה, כַּאֲרָזִים עֲלֵי-מָיִם.	כְּנַחְלִין דְּמִדַּבְּרִין, כְּגִנַּת שִׁקְיָא דְּעַל פְּרָת; כְּבֻסְמַיָּא דִּנְצַב יְיָ, כְּאַרְזִין דִּנְצִיבִין עַל מַיָּא.

"Like a watered garden upon the Euphrates." Two aspects which strike me as strange are:

1) ganot in the Biblical Hebrew is plural, whereas ginat in the Aramaic is singular
2) Nahar is rendered not as river, nor as (typical unspecified Nahar) Nile, but as Peras, the Euphrates (the Nehar Hagadol Nehar Perat).

In terms of (1), we could just say that the nikkud is incorrect, and it should be plural. But why specifically the Euphrates? I've seen some answers, and I have one additional one I'll save for the end.

a) According to Rav Chaim Kanievsky, in Taama deKra:

Rav Chaim Kanievsky

כגנות עלי נהר ובתרגום כגנת שקיא דעל פרת וצ״ע למה דוקא על פרת וי״ל דמבואר בתוס׳ גיטין נ׳ א׳ ד״ה מאי דא״א לזרוע על שפת הנהר משום שהמים מקלקלין הזרעים א״כ איזה שבח זה כגנות על הנהר, אמנם בפרת אי׳ בב״ר פט״ז מעשי מודיעים עלי אדם נוטע בי ירק והיא' עומדת לג׳ ימים א״כ שם הגנות  מוצלחים ביותר וודאי לזריעה ולכן תרגם דעל פרת

"And it requires investigation, why specifically on the Euphrates? And there is to suggest that it is stated in Tosafot in Gittin 50a, d"h mai, that planting is not possible on the side of the river, because the water ruins the seeds. If so, what benefit is there in כְּגַנֹּת עֲלֵי נָהָר? However, regarding the Euphrates river, it is stated in Bereishit Rabba parasha 16, 'my actions testify upon me. A man plants me an herb and it flourishes in 3 days.' If so, there the gardens are extremely successful for planting, and therefore it translated 'upon the Euphrates'."

Perhaps; but perhaps if a garden is not directly on the riverbank, it can still prosper, such that the gemara and Tosafot is not such a problem.

Rabbi Yitzchak Zeev Diskin, in Zivchei Tzedek, offers two explanations.

The first is as Rav Kanievsky suggested. The second is to link it to Gan Eden, which is the כְּגִנַּת שִׁקְיָא, as we see in Bereishit that it is watered by the Euphrates.

I would suggest a third explanation. Who is the speaker here? It is Bilaam, who lived in Petor, which is on the Euphrates.

As we read earlier in the parasha:

ה  וַיִּשְׁלַח מַלְאָכִים אֶל-בִּלְעָם בֶּן-בְּעֹר, פְּתוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר עַל-הַנָּהָר אֶרֶץ בְּנֵי-עַמּוֹ--לִקְרֹא-לוֹ:  לֵאמֹר, הִנֵּה עַם יָצָא מִמִּצְרַיִם הִנֵּה כִסָּה אֶת-עֵין הָאָרֶץ, וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב, מִמֻּלִי.

5 And he sent messengers unto Balaam the son of Beor, to Pethor, which is by the River, to the land of the children of his people, to call him, saying: 'Behold, there is a people come out from Egypt; behold, they cover the face of the earth, and they abide over against me.

The Nahar is the one in Aram Naharayim, and refers to the Euphrates. If so, there is an obvious gezeira shava of Nahar Nahar, that when Bilaam speaks of Nahar, he is speaking of the Euphrates.

A 16th-century hand-coloured engraving of the
 "Hanging Gardens of Babylon" by Dutch artist
 Martin Heemskerck, with the Tower of Babel in
the background

Finally, there was a famous garden, or even better, a group of gardens, which are on the Euphrates river. They are one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World: The Hanging Gardens of Babylon.

To cite a description by Strabo (ca. 64 BCE – 21 CE):

"Babylon, too, lies in a plain; and the circuit of its wall is three hundred and eighty-five stadia. The thickness of its wall is thirty-two feet; the height thereof between the towers is fifty cubits; that of the towers is sixty cubits; and the passage on top of the wall is such that four-horse chariots can easily pass one another; and it is on this account that this and the hanging garden are called one of the Seven Wonders of the World. The garden is quadrangular in shape, and each side is four plethra in length. It consists of arched vaults, which are situated, one after another, on checkered, cube-like foundations. The checkered foundations, which are hollowed out, are covered so deep with earth that they admit of the largest of trees, having been constructed of baked brick and asphalt – the foundations themselves and the vaults and the arches. The ascent to the uppermost terrace-roofs is made by a stairway; and alongside these stairs there were screws, through which the water was continually conducted up into the garden from the Euphrates by those appointed for this purpose, for the river, a stadium in width, flows through the middle of the city; and the garden is on the bank of the river."^[5]

Note the text I bolded. This famous garden, or gardens (ganot / ginat) was watered (shikya) by the waters of the Euphrates (Perat).

It makes sense, in this poetic pasuk, to refer to that famous watered garden.

A choice in garb

I saw the following interesting bit of history in Vayakhel Moshe (R' Moshe HaKohen Gordon) on parashas Yisro:

"And on a related note -- in 5610 (1850), the decree went out from Russian rulership in Poland to change the traditional Jewish dress, and to shave their beards and peyos. And the police force assembled in Warsaw, and any Jew who passed was grabbed, and his beard and peyos were shaved off. A great dispute then prevailed between all the Gedolim of Poland. The Rim, and with him his friend, Rabbi Avraham of Tchechinov za'l, opposed with all force accepting of the decree. They saw in it the status of ערקתא דמסאני {the shoelace, which if compelled under Shmad to change, one should not}, whose law is 'be killed rather than violate.' When this came out{?}, the Rim was imprisoned. A great multitude of people gathered by the prison. The Rim endured great hardship during his short imprisonment. The turbulence increased, and various missives came and went from the house of the Russian rulership, gatherings of protests of thousands of residents of the city. In the meantime, the tumult came as well to the Prince Constantine, the brother of the Russian Czar. And when messengers reached him regarding this matter, he accepted it nicely and apologized to them, that the command to imprison was issued without his knowledge, and the Rim was released from his imprisonment.


The Russian rulership gave the Jews two choices: (a) to wear European garb. That is to say, short, and without a beard and peyos; or (b) Russian garb, in which case they would need to wear Russian hats with visors ("dashikes"). In this manner, the beard and peyos were permitted. The Rim chose the second choice, and all the chasidim of Paland carried from then on hats with visors ("Yidisheh hitlech.") This minhag remained until the holocaust of the Polish Jews, h"y"d. As an aside, interestingly, the Kotzker Rebbe za'l did not accept the decree, and all who came to the Rebbe were forced to enter with kippot, and to leave their hats outside."

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

"Letter #20: ...


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


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


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

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


Besides which, according to what it seems, Hillel did not have specific students and Shammai have specific students. And so wrote as well the author of Sefer HaYochasin, and this is its language:

For all of the students of Hillel were also to Shammai, for I have already seen that they said that there were 80 students to Hillel Hazaken, and R' Yochanan ben Zakkai was one of them. And despite that  they say in Avos: R' Yochanan ben Zakkai received from Hillel and Shammai. For they were always om the bet midrash together, one as the Nasi and Shammai as the Av Bet Din. And so too all the pairs.

End quote, in the entry on Shammai Hazaken.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


They also said (Yevamot 14b): 

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

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


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


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


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


Shmuel David Luzzatto."

While I can stand back and admire this explanation, I don't find it persuasive. First, here is how I would answer some of the early questions which serves as an impetus for this explanation. Shadal wrote:

Why were these called the students of Shammai and these called the students of Hillel, after the difference in their positions did not extend to them from their teachers, but rather from their own logic, while their teachers Hillel and Shammai did not argue, and the Torah of Hillel is the same Torah of Shammai, and when the students divided into two groups, they should have been called by the name 'the stringent ones' and 'the lenient ones', or some other innovated name, but not based on the name of Hillel and Shammai, for not from them came the mishap of dispute*.

My (presumably more conventional) assumption is that, though Hillel and Shammai agreed about most things, and indeed worked together in the Sanhedrin, they established their own respective academies. And these academies had students, and thus these were the Academies of Hillel and of Shammai.

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

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

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

What about the following?

Besides which, according to what it seems, Hillel did not have specific students and Shammai have specific students. And so wrote as well the author of Sefer HaYochasin, and this is its language:

For all of the students of Hillel were also to Shammai, for I have already seen that they said that there were 80 students to Hillel Hazaken, and R' Yochanan ben Zakkai was one of them. And despite that  they say in Avos: R' Yochanan ben Zakkai received from Hillel and Shammai. For they were always om the bet midrash together, one as the Nasi and Shammai as the Av Bet Din. And so too all the pairs.

I would say that R' Yochanan ben Zakkai was of the students of Hillel. But Hillel and Shammai had the same Torah, with only a few disputes between them, and so the next chain in the tradition, which until that point was Hillel and Shammai, was Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai. All sorts of other explanations are possible. For instance, he principally studied under Hillel but also learned a bit from Shammai.

What of the general trend towards leniency vs. stringency? Shadal reads it as a deliberate application of their traits, taken from Hillel and Shammai. Thus, for instance:

From there extends that most of the students who did not serve [their teachers] sufficiently and cleaved to Hillel to learn his traits and to follow in his path, when they had a doubt in a matter of one of the chukkim or mishpatim, they chose to be lenient, in order to draw the common folk to Torah, so that the yoke upon their necks should not become too weighty, such that they might cast it off their necks entirely. And these students were called Bet Hillel, since they seized the path of Hillel, despite the fact that these details in which they argued did not come out to them from his [=Hillel's] mouth.

I would imagine that some would label this as beyond the pale. But I would stress that Shadal is not saying that this one or that one perverted the law to be in accordance with their traits. He is not saying that where there is a Rabbinic will, there is a halachic way. Rather (at least in his particular examples), he is saying that there was room to establish a gzeira (or takkana) or not. They agreed what the primary Biblical law was, but the only question is what sort of institutions one should establish.

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

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

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

I am not going to try to untangle the issue of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai as a student of Hillel and his student Rabbi Eliezer being labeled a Shammaite. There are ways to untangle it, certainly, but I don't feel compelled to resolve every single difficulty. I'll point to what someone wrote on Wikipedia about Rabbi Eliezer [ben Hyrcanus]:

The main feature of his teaching was a strict devotion to tradition: he objected to allowing the Midrash or the paraphrastic interpretation to pass as authority for religious practice. In this respect he sympathized with the conservative school of Shammai, which was also opposed to giving too much scope to the interpretation. Hence the assertion that he was a Shammaite, though he was a disciple of Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, who was one of Hillel's most prominent pupils.