Cappadocia, and the Authenticity of the Zohar

Bumped to the top, so that people can comment without my prior approval. Rabbi Miller has recently visited parshablog, and while I have his attention, I was hoping that he would consider and answer to the points raised here.

Summary: More debunking of debunkings, from an article by Rabbi Moshe Miller. Was Kapotkia in Israel or in Asia Minor? Previous posts in this series discuss Rabbi Yesa and Rabbi Abba, as mentioned in the Zohar.

Post: Continuing the list of purported debunkings from this five-part article, we have this:

Scholem (and his student Tishby) cites 18 places in the Zohar where a place called Kapotkia is mentioned. Scholem argues that no such place ever existed in Israel, and it was never mentioned in Talmudic or Midrashic sources as a place in Israel, but rather as a province named Kappadokia in Asia Minor. Yet, "there is absolutely no doubt that the Zohar did not intend to refer to Kappadokia in Asia Minor but (correctly or incorrectly) to a village or town in the Land of Israel, close to Lod, as mentioned several times in the Zohar." (She'elot Bikoret, Tzion p. 43.) 

The obvious conclusion is that "the author had never so much as set foot in Palestine and that his knowledge of the country was derived entirely from literary sources which he misunderstood!" (She'elot Bikoret, Tzion, ibid.)

The following is a list of sources where the place Kapotkia appears - in Targum Onkelos, Targum Yonatan, Mishnah, Babylonian Talmud and several Midrashim! An examination of these sources reveals that none other than Scholem and Tishby were either ignorant of basic sources… or attempted to deliberately mislead their readers. 

Targum Onkelos to Devarim 2:23; Targum Yonatan to Amos 9:1 ("the Philistines from Kapotkia" - the land of the Philistines is in the Gaza Strip area, not very far from Lod); Mishnah Ketubot 13:10, 11; Shabbat 26a, 134a; Yevamot 25b, 121a; Ketubot 10a, 110b; Bava Batra 58b; Chulin 47b; Yerushalmi Yevamot 38a; Shir Hashirim Rabba 7:5; Kohelet Rabba 11:1; Tanchuma Va'era 13; ibid. BeHa'alotecha 1. 

Also: Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 38a tells about a trip from Casarea to Kapotkia (Caesarea was also in the Mediterranean coastal region. See #3 below).

Bolding, in this instance, is my own. An examination of these sources does NOT reveal Scholem and Tishby to be ignorant of basic sources. If we start looking through this list -- for this is what it is, a mere list -- we see support for Scholem and Tishby. Indeed, in such a way that either Rabbi Miller does not know how to learn, never bothered to carefully examine the sources, or is attempting to deliberately mislead his readers.

Let us begin with the Mishna in Ketubot 13:10, which we would find in Ketubot 110b. The relevant part of the Mishna reads:

IF A MAN MARRIED A WOMAN IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND DIVORCED HER IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL, HE MUST PAY HER [HER KETHUBAH] IN THE CURRENCY OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL. IF HE MARRIED A WOMAN IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND DIVORCED HER IN CAPPADOCIA HE MUST PAY HER [HER KETHUBAH] IN THE CURRENCY OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL.²¹  IF HE MARRIED A WOMAN IN CAPPADOCIA AND DIVORCED HER IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL, HE MUST A GAIN PAY [HER KETHUBAH] IN THE CURRENCY OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL.²¹  R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL, HOWEVER, RULED THAT HE MUST PAY HER IN THE CAPPADOCIAN CURRENCY.

IF A MAN MARRIED A WOMAN IN CAPPADOCIA AND DIVORCED HER IN CAPPADOCIA, HE MUST PAY HER [HER KETHUBAH] IN THE CURRENCY OF CAPPADOCIA.

That is, the Mishna is contrasting the land of Israel, and the currency of Israel, to that of Cappadocia. This would indicate that Cappadocia is not in the land of Israel!

The next source he cites to "prove" that Kapotkia is in Eretz Yisrael is Shabbat 26a:

[To turn to] the main text: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: One may not kindle [the Sabbath lamp] with balsam. And thus did R. Simeon b. Eleazar say: Balsam [zari] is merely the sap of resinous trees. R. Ishmael said: All that proceeds from trees, one may not light. R. Ishmael b. Berokah said: One may light only with the produce of fruit.¹¹  R. Tarfon said: One may light [the Sabbath lamp] with nought but olive oil. Thereupon R. Johanan b. Nuri rose to his feet and exclaimed, What shall the Babylonians do, who have only sesame oil? And what shall the Medeans do, who have only nut oil? And what shall the Alexandrians do, who have only radish oil? And what shall the people of Cappadocia¹²  do, who have neither the one nor the other, save naphtha?

There is certainly nothing here to indicate that that Cappadocia is in Eretz Yisrael. And indeed, Soncino puts a footnote there indicating that Cappadocia is a district in Asia Minor. And indeed, compare the list of nations and places -- the Babylonians, the Medeans, the Alexandrians, and the people of Cappadocia. Why should we suddenly take this as some town in Eretz Yisrael, given a context that indicates otherwise?

To add a further proof -- if Cappadocia is in Eretz Yisrael, why would they only have naphtha? Why can't they get the olive oil Rabbi Tarfon demands, and which is surely present in every other town in Eretz Yisrael. This is a proof against Rabbi Miller's position.

What in the world is Rabbi Miller doing with this list?! And to bring these sources to indicate that Scholem and Tishby were ignorant of basic sources! Yikes!

Rabbi Miller's next "proof" is from Yevamot daf 25b:

'I KILLED HIM' etc., 'WE KILLED HIM' … MAY MARRY etc. What is the practical difference between 'I killed him' and 'we killed him'?¹¹  — Rab Judah said: [Our Mishnah speaks of the case] where he said, 'I was present together with his murderers' — 12 Has it not, however, been taught: They said to R. Judah, 'It once happened that a robber when led out to his execution in the Cappadocian Pass¹³  said to those present,¹⁴  "Go and tell the wife of Simeon b. Kohen that I killed her husband when I entered Lud" [others Say: When he entered Lud], and his wife was permitted to marry again'!¹⁵  He answered them: Is there any proof from there? [It was a case] where he said, 'I was present together with his murderers'.¹²  But it was stated, 'a robber'! — He was apprehended on account of robbery.¹⁶  But it was stated, 'led out to his execution'! — [He was sentenced by] a heathen court of law who executed without due investigation.¹⁷ 

I suppose if one reads this gemara not so carefully, one could draw the conclusion that this Cappadocia is near Lud, and thus in Eretz Yisrael. But the Cappadocian Pass, or Ford, was only the place of execution. That does not mean that the murder took place in the same country!

His next proof is a mere mention of Cappadician coins. It is as if Rabbi Miller mistakenly believes that a mere mention of the place is enough to debunk that it is in Asia Minor! The gemara is Ketubot 10a:

We have [already] heard that R. Simeon the son of Gamaliel said that thekethubah is from the Bible, for we learnt: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: He²²  gives her²³  [the kethubah] in Cappadocian coins.²⁴

Which Soncino explains means as opposed to the coins of Eretz Yisrael. So does Rashi:

נותן לה ממעות קפוטקיא - בפרק בתרא תנן נשא אשה בא"י וגירשה בקפוטקיא נותן לה ממעות א"י שהן קלות נשא אשה בקפוטקיא וגירשה בא"י נותן לה ממעות א"י מנין הכתוב בכתובה דאזלינן לקולא רשבג"א נותן לה ממעות קפוטקיא שנשתעבד בהן כשאר מלוה דקסבר כתובה דאורייתא:

This isn't so surprising, since it is, after all, a mere reference to the Mishna we saw above.

His next source is Ketubot 110b. But that is the Mishna we saw above, just giving the daf it appears on in the Bavli. It is almost as if he is trying to increase the number of sources! I could have advised him to give the daf in the Yerushalmi where this Mishna appears as well, and he would have had a third source!

Next up, he cites Bava Batra 58b:

Over the gateway of Kaputkia²  there was an inscription, Anpak, anbag, antal.³  And what is an 'antal'?⁴  It is the same as the 'fourth part in Jewish ritual measurements.⁵

This is Cappadocia. So? What is there to indicate where this Kaputkia is?!

His next proof is from Chullin 47b:

רבי נתן אומר פעם אחת הלכתי לכרכי הים באתה אשה אחת לפני שמלה בנה ראשון ומת שני ומת שלישי הביאתו לפני ראיתיו שהיה אדום אמרתי לה בתי המתיני לו עד שיבלע בו דמו המתינה לו ומלה אותו וחיה והיו קורין אותו נתן הבבלי על שמי ושוב פעם אחת הלכתי למדינת קפוטקיא באתה אשה לפני שמלה בנה ראשון ומת שני ומת שלישי הביאתו לפני ראיתיו שהיה ירוק הצצתי בו ולא היה בו דם ברית אמרתי לה בתי המתיני לו עד שיפול בו דמו המתינה לו ומלה אותו וחיה והיו קורין אותו נתן הבבלי על שמי

What proof, besides that he encountered a Jewish woman there, is there that the medina of Cappadocia (rather than the sea towns) is in Eretz Yisrael?

The next source (which he lists twice) is Yerushalmi Yevamot 38b:

תני אמר רבי נתן מעשה שהלכתי לקיסרין של קפוטקייא והיתה שם אשה אחת והיתה יולדת זכרים והיו נימולים ומתים.  ומלת את הראשון ומת שני ומת שלישי ומת.  רביעי הביאתו לפני נסתכלתי בו ולא ראיתי בו דם ברית.  אמרתי להם הניחוהו לאחר זמן והניחוהו ומלוהו ונמצא בן קיימא והיו קורין אותו נתן בשמי.

But this is an identical story to the one that appears immediately above, from Chullin 47b, of Rabbi Natan's travel to the medina of Cappadocia, gives halachic advice to a woman, such that the baby is named Natan HaBavli after him!

But this time, at least, Rabbi Miller explains why he thinks this is a proof, more than the mere mention:

Also: Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 38a tells about a trip from Casarea to Kapotkia (Caesarea was also in the Mediterranean coastal region. See #3 below).

But the Yerushalmi does not tell "about a trip from Casarea to Kapotkia"! The words are מעשה שהלכתי לקיסרין של קפוטקייא, "there was an incident in which I traveled to Cesarea of Cappadocia"!

Apparently, Rabbi Miller is under the mistaken assumption that the Caesaria in Eretz Yisrael was the only one in the world. It is most assuredly NOT. To cite Wikipedia,

Caesarea, a city name derived from "Caesar", was the name of numerous cities and locations in the Roman Empire, many of which bear different names at present (or might have had alternate names also in the Roman period itself). Among them:

Caesarea Maritima/Caesarea Palaestina, Roman provincial capital of Palestine

• Eusebius of Caesarea was bishop of this Caesarea

Caesarea Philippi (Banias), in the Golan Heights

Caesarea Mazaca, city in Cappadocia, modern Kayseri, Turkey

Anazarbus, name of the city of Caesarea in Cilicia after the fall of the Roman Empire

Antioch, Pisidia, proper name of the city of Caesarea Antiochia, near modern Yalvaç, Turkey

Germanicopolis (Bithynia), the city of Caesarea Germanice in Bithynia

Cherchell, modern name of the city of Caesarea in Algeria

• This Caesarea was the capital of the province of Mauretania Caesariensis

Shaizar (or Saijar), the proper name of the city of Caesarea Magna, in Syria

The island of Caesarea, modern Jersey, in the Channel Islands (the derivation of the island's name is disputed)

Caesarea, in Italy, was a disappeared city, forming a Pentapolis with Ravenna, Forlì, Forlimpopoli and Classe

Thus, there is a Caesara in the medina of Cappadocia, and when Rabbi Natan said לקיסרין של קפוטקייא, it was a way of making sure you didn't confuse it, e.g., with the one in Eretz Yisrael. And Rabbi Miller has the chutzpa to call Scholem and Tishbi amaratzim?!

Rabbi Miller's next source is Shir Hashirim Rabba 7:5. But this is the same incident with Rabbi Natan, where it is refered to as the Medina of Cappadocia!

אמר רבי נתן:
מעשה שבאתי למדינת קפוטקיא והיתה שם אשה אחת והיתה יולדת בנים זכרים ונמולים ומתים. מלה ראשון ומת, שני ומת, שלישי ומת, רביעי הביאתו לפני וראיתי בשרו ירוק נסתכלתי בו ולא מצאתי בו דם ברית.
אמרו לי: מה אנו מולין אותו? 
אמרתי להם: המתינו והניחו אותו, עד שיבא לו דם ברית.
דתנינן תמן:
הקטן החולה אין מולין אותו עד שיבריא והניחו אותו.
מלו אותו ונמצא הבן של חיים והוציאו שמו נתן כשמי, הוי, כמו חלאים. 

Rabbi Miller's next source is Kohelet Rabba 11:1:

But this is Rabbi Akiva traveling at sea, seeing a ship sink, and then arriving at the medina, that is, country, of Cappadocia. Just as Rabbi Natan HaBavli!

Rabbi Miller's next "proof" is from the Midrash Tanchuma on parashat Vaera.

אמר רבי אליעזר:
כל צר חסר שבמקרא, במלכות אדום הכתוב מדבר, שהיא מצירה לישראל.
וכל צור מלא, בקפוטקייא הכתוב מדבר. מצרים לקו בדם, אף אדום כן. 

The point is in disambiguating the two Tyres, Tzor. When it is chaser, it refers to the one of the kingdom of Edom, while is malei, it refers to that of Cappadocia. But what is there to show that this refers to Eretz Yisrael? Indeed, one might well be able to demonstrate this one way or another, by examining every instance of Tzor spelled malei in Tanach, and seeing which makes sense in context. I won't bother, because there is no reason yet given by Rabbi Miller for thinking there was a Cappadocia in Eretz Yisrael!

His next "proof" is from Midrash Tanchuma on Behaalotecha, which is just another rehash of something already cited above. It is great how one can multiply these lists in this manner:

רבי טרפון אומר:

אין מדליקין אלא בשמן זית בלבד. 

עמד רבי יהודה על רגליו ואמר ליה לרבי טרפון:
מה יעשו אנשי מדי שאין להם אלא שמן אגוזים, מה יעשו אנשי אלכסנדריא שאין להם אלא שמן צנונות, ומה יעשו אנשי קפוטקיא שאין להם לא זה ולא זה? 

This is about what sort of oil one may use to light. As I demonstrates above, this is actually a proof against Rabbi Miller's position.

There was also the Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonatan. It has been a while since we've seen Rabbi Miller's words, so I'll give the relevant quote:

Targum Onkelos to Devarim 2:23; Targum Yonatan to Amos 9:1 ("the Philistines from Kapotkia" - the land of the Philistines is in the Gaza Strip area, not very far from Lod)

The pasuk in Devarim 2:23 reads:

כג  וְהָעַוִּים הַיֹּשְׁבִים בַּחֲצֵרִים, עַד-עַזָּה--כַּפְתֹּרִים הַיֹּצְאִים מִכַּפְתֹּר, הִשְׁמִידֻם וַיֵּשְׁבוּ תַחְתָּם.

23 and the Avvim, that dwelt in villages as far as Gaza, the Caphtorim, that came forth out of Caphtor, destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead.--

So Caphtorim came from Caphtor, destroyed the Avim who lived in Gaza, and dwelt in their stead. Did these Caphtorim come from nearby or from far away? To be determined. But Onkelos writes:

ב,כג וְהָעַוִּים הַיֹּשְׁבִים בַּחֲצֵרִים, עַד-עַזָּה--כַּפְתֹּרִים הַיֹּצְאִים מִכַּפְתֹּר, הִשְׁמִידֻם וַיֵּשְׁבוּ תַחְתָּם.

וְעַוָּאֵי דְּיָתְבִין בִּרְפִיחַ, עַד עַזָּה--קְפֻטְקָאֵי דִּנְפַקוּ מִקְּפֻטְקְיָא, שֵׁיצִיאוּנוּן וִיתִיבוּ בַּאֲתַרְהוֹן.

Thus, Caphtor = Keputkeya.

The pasuk in Amos reads:

א  רָאִיתִי אֶת-אֲדֹנָי נִצָּב עַל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וַיֹּאמֶר הַךְ הַכַּפְתּוֹר וְיִרְעֲשׁוּ הַסִּפִּים וּבְצַעַם בְּרֹאשׁ כֻּלָּם, וְאַחֲרִיתָם, בַּחֶרֶב אֶהֱרֹג:  לֹא-יָנוּס לָהֶם נָס, וְלֹא-יִמָּלֵט לָהֶם פָּלִיט.

1 I saw the Lord standing beside the altar; and He said: Smite the capitals, that the posts may shake; and break them in pieces on the head of all of them; and I will slay the residue of them with the sword; there shall not one of them flee away, and there shall not one of them escape.

where "smite the capitals" is smite the Kaphtor in Hebrew. The Targum takes this as a reference to the Kaphtorites, or at least the Plishtim who were initially in Kaphtor. I don't see it inside this Targum, but perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place. Maybe there is some other Targum of this pasuk somewhere.

So, where did they come from. Where is the Biblical Caphtor? Where did the Plishtim initially come from? Well, read this:

This fits with the idea that the Plishtim originated among the "sea peoples"

and read up on Caphtor:

"The Septuagint translates the name as "Kappadokias" and the Vulgate similarly renders it as "Cappadocia". The seventeenth-century scholar Samuel Bochart[5] understood this as a reference to Cappadocia in Anatolia but this was not the understanding of the Jewish targumists who rendered this name in Aramaic as "Caphutkia" meaning the town of Pelusium at the eastern edge of the Nile delta. This identification is also made by the tenth century commentator Saadia Gaon and Benjamin of Tudela, the twelfth-century Jewish traveller from Navarre, who both wrote that "Damiata" (Arabic Dumyat), the name for the region of Pelusium in their day, was the biblical Caphtor. "

So this is not the only source that puts it as Cappadocia. Either one of these Cappadocias -- meaning, even the one at Pelusium, is not in Eretz Yisrael. So why take this mere reference to the city or country as evidence that it is in Eretz Yisrael. Certainly others put Caphtor as Cappadocia and yet located this place outside of Eretz Yisrael.

What gets me upset about this piece is that it is written in such an erudite style that the reader is just astonished at how much the writer knows and how little Scholem and Tishby know. Hardly any reader will bother to look up the sources, and discover the truth. And that truth is that Scholem and Tishby likely looked up these very sources, and this was what led them to the conclusion that Kapotkia is not in Eretz Yisrael, but is in Asia Minor.

The copious errors in this article might give us insight into what misled Rav Moshe de Leon, or whoever the late author of the Zohar was. For example, he might have seen the Yerushalmi mention Ceasaria of Cappodocia, and thought that Caesaria is in Eretz Yisrael, though attributing such amaratzus to Rav Moshe de Leon seems unlikely. But he might have simply seen the Onkelos in parashat Devarim and assumed that the Philistines conquered from nearby. Or seen that Rabbi Akiva arrived in Kapodkia, and for some reason assumed that it is a place in Eretz Yisrael.

Archeih, and the Authenticity of the Zohar

Note: Bumped this rather old post (from 2/13/2011) to the top so that comments can go through without my explicit approval each time.

Summary: Continuing to debunk Rabbi Moshe Miller's debunkings. This time, based on the word ארחיה.  Here are some earlier posts responding to the article on the basis of Rabbi Yesa, Rabbi Abba, Cappadocia, and Kefar Kanya, as mentioned in the Zohar.

Post: Rabbi Moshe Miller wrote a seemingly erudite article debunking many proofs of late authorship of the Zohar. But when we actually look up the sources, we see that he is either incapable of understanding peshat in a gemara or else is deliberately misleading his readers.

Here is  what Rabbi Miller writes:

The claim is that Hebrew expressions first used in medieval times were used by the author of the Zohar, showing that it must have been compiled by someone [i.e., Moshe de Leon] during this era. As demonstrated below, many of these expressions are also found in early sources, contrary to the skeptics' claims.

Demonstrate away!

Archeiha, meaning "manner" or "way" found many times in Zohar. Also found in Niddah 20b. This is also written many times as orcheiha in Zohar and in Shabbat 11b, 123b, Eruvin 42a, 68a; Rosh HaShanah 15a; Ketuvot 31b, etc., etc.

(It seems that Rabbi Miller does not know the correct nikkud for this Aramaic word.) So, if we look at Niddah 20b, will we find the word archeiha, or rather archeih, meaning "manner" or "way"? This is the gemara in Niddah:

דההיא אתתא דאייתא דמא לקמיה דרבי אלעזר הוה יתיב רבי אמי קמיה ארחיה אמר לה האי דם חימוד הוא בתר דנפקה אטפל לה רבי אמי א"ל בעלי היה בדרך וחמדתיו קרי עליה (תהלים כה, יד) סוד ה' ליראיו אפרא הורמיז אמיה דשבור מלכא שדרה דמא לקמיה דרבא הוה יתיב רב עובדיה קמיה ארחיה אמר לה האי דם חימוד הוא

So the word appears. But what does it mean?

Because a woman once brought some blood before R. Eleazar when R. Ammi sat in his presence. Having smelt it he⁶  told her, 'This is blood of lust'.⁷  After she went out R. Ammi joined her and she told him, 'My husband was away on a journey but I felt an intense longing for him'. Thereupon he⁸  applied to him⁶  the text, The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear Him.⁹

Ifra Hormiz,¹⁰  the mother of King Shapur, once sent some blood to Raba when R. Obadiah was sitting in his presence. Having smelt it he said to him, 'This is blood of lust'.⁷ 

This is NOT the word orach, as a translation of the word derech! Rather, it would appear to be based on the word re'ach, smell.

What about the other examples? It seems that Rabbi Miller has changed the goalposts. He is inserting a vav into the word, to make it urcheih. Is this part of the original claim? I would guess not, and that the point was that in the Zohar, all these times, it says archeih instead of urcheih.

But the word with a vav indeed appears in Shabbat 11b:

א"ל אביי אימור דשמעת ליה לרבי מאיר במידי דלאו היינו אורחיה במידי דהיינו אורחיה מי שמעת ליה

Or, in English:

Abaye said to him. When have you heard R. Meir [to give this ruling], in respect to something which it is not natural [to carry thus]; but have you heard him in respect to something which demands that mode [of carrying]?

Thus, his normal way or manner of carrying. I won't bother investigating these other cases, because I agree that orcheih / urcheih would mean that. But this does not seem to match the argument put forth by the Zohar skeptics.

Of course, he could simply claim that all these chaser vav examples are scribal errors, or that the word is similar enough that it would have existed in all these forms. Whether one finds this plausible is another story, but regardless, he hasn't uprooted the question posed by these scholars.

Teva, and the Authenticity of the Zohar

Summary: Is the use of teva to refer to nature unique to Zohar, or is there precedent in the Talmud Bavli? Continuing to debunk the debunking of the debunking of the Zohar. Here are some earlier posts responding to the article on the basis of Rabbi Yesa, Rabbi Abba, Cappadocia, Kefar Kanya, Archeih, Yellow, and Guardians, as mentioned in the Zohar.

Post: To continue analyzing Rabbi Moshe Miller's attack of the analysis of the Zohar's language by Jewish scholars, we turn to consider what he says about the word tava. 


To cite from his article,

The claim is that Hebrew expressions first used in medieval times were used by the author of the Zohar, showing that it must have been compiled by someone [i.e., Moshe de Leon] during this era. As demonstrated below, many of these expressions are also found in early sources, contrary to the skeptics' claims.

But what does he mean by "found in early sources"? Let us say that some text X uses bulb to mean light bulb. This would indicate that it was written fairly late, after the invention of light bulbs. If I show that an early text uses bulb to refer to tulip bulbs or garlic bulbs, this other usage does not demonstrate that bulb has early use and thus text X can similarly be early. This, even if light bulbs were not a fairly recent invention, but even if the application of this lexical item to an existing concept was not in use until recently. This was the case for "yellow", as we saw earlier.

Here is another example. Rabbi Moshe Miller writes:

Tava (Zohar Chadash, Midrash HaNeelam maamar Tadshe 2) in the sense of "Nature." But this is also obviously the sense of Mishna Sanhedrin 4:5 ("HaKadosh Barchu tava kol adam b'chotmo"). See also Niddah 20b ("Tava d'bavel garma li"); several more occurrences of the word are found on that same page.

Consider that Mishna in Sanhedrin. It appears in Sanhedrin 37a. (Hebrew; English) The Mishna reads:

ולהגיד גדולתו של הקב"ה שאדם טובע כמה מטבעות בחותם אחד כולן דומין זה לזה ומלך מלכי המלכים הקב"ה טבע כל אדם בחותמו של אדם הראשון ואין אחד מהן דומה לחבירו לפיכך כל אחד ואחד חייב לומר בשבילי נברא העולם

IF A MAN STRIKES MANY COINS FROM ONE MOULD, THEY ALL RESEMBLE ONE ANOTHER, BUT THE SUPREME KING OF KINGS,⁴²  THE HOLY ONE, BLESSED BE HE, FASHIONED EVERY MAN IN THE STAMP OF THE FIRST MAN, AND YET NOT ONE OF THEM RESEMBLES HIS FELLOW. THEREFORE EVERY SINGLE PERSON IS OBLIGED TO SAY: THE WORLD WAS CREATED FOR MY SAKE.⁴³

But tava there comes in context of matbei'a. Consider the expression matbaya shetavu bo Chachamim. This appears in Yerushalmi Berachot, 62b:

אמרו לו אין לך רשות להוסיף על מטבע שטבעו חכמים בברכות

'Coining', whether by blessings or body and facial structure, is being used as a metaphor. This does not mean that Nature is the meaning of the word טבע, in the time of Chazal.

Yet this is the closest Rabbi Miller gets to his desired meaning. Yes, he wrote that:

 See also Niddah 20b ("Tava d'bavel garma li"); several more occurrences of the word are found on that same page.

with the implication that 'Nature' is the meaning of those several more occurrences. If we actually examine them, we find:

אמר רבי זירא טבעא דבבל גרמא לי דלא חזאי דמא דאמינא בטבעא לא ידענא בדמא ידענא למימרא דבטבעא תליא מלתא והא רבה הוא דידע בטבעא ולא ידע בדמא כל שכן קאמר ומה רבה דידע בטבעא לא חזא דמא ואנא אחזי

Or, in English:

R. Zera remarked: The Babylonian coinage was the cause of my refusing to examine blood; for I thought: If I do not understand the coinage system would I understand the nature of blood? This then implies that capability to examine blood depends on an understanding of the coinage; but did not Rabbah in fact understand the coinage system and yet did not understand the qualities of blood? — He was really drawing an inference a minori ad majus: If Rabbah who understood the coinage system refused to examine blood, should I²  examine it?

Thus, it means its meaning we already knew, "coin" or "coinage". Why does Rabbi Moshe Miller think this makes for good proof?!

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.

Was Baba Elazar a con-artist?

Baba Elazar advising someone,
 surrounded by wealth

I am not going to address this question head-on, at least initially. I would prefer to start with a story, which happened to some close family friends of mine, a few years back.

The family was a couple, with a single daughter in her late 20's. They were concerned about the daughter's marriage prospects, and when this 'renowned' kabbalist from Eretz Yisrael came to Kew Gardens Hills, and was hosted at one of their friend's homes, they (husband, wife, and daughter) joined the throng of people to have an audience with the kabbalist.

He asked a bit about the situation and then declared that the problem was either that they had done construction, and had blocked off a window, or else that the daughter's name was spiritually problematic. He could fix the name for them. It was only $500 for the renaming, plus an additional $300 for meditating on the proper new name to give. The wife of the couple did not fall for this, saying that there was nothing wrong with the name, and that they were not going to change the name.

After a bit of cajoling which did not work, he rolled out his second package. A better deal, perhaps. Instead of a total of $800, it would only be $500 dollars. For that sum, he would arrange to have a group of talmidei chachamim pray for some number of days for the daughter at the kever of Shimon Hatzadik. But, he added, with this package, he could not guarantee success. The wife: If we are going to shell out $500, it should be for a guaranteed success. And she was not willing to pay the money. The kabbalist then tried to undermine the wife and introduce discord between husband and wife, saying to the husband, 'are you going to listen to her?' He asked the wife (in the presence of the daughter), "Do you hate your daughter? If you don't do this, then she will never get married.'  (I think there was also the explicit statement, or allusion, to the presence of a curse which could be removed via this mechanism.)

The husband eventually wrote a $500 check, not because he believed it, but because he was worried about the placebo effect, the psychological effect it would have on the daughter. And who knows? It might even have a positive psychological effect. They regretted this, shortly thereafter, and canceled the check. But other friends of theirs fell for the scam, and paid the $800 for a name change.

They called a prominent rabbi in Kew Gardens Hills and told him this story. (He will remain anonymous.) They asked him what steps the rabbonim of the neighborhood could take to stop these con-artists from operating in the neighborhood. His reply was that, indeed, these are con-artists, but he did not want to step in. He had done so in a case several years back, publicly coming out against a kabbalist con-artist, and was visited shortly thereafter by a group of burly thugs who threatened to break his kneecaps. These are not just con-artists, but thugs.

What did this teach me? First, that there are these con-artists coming from Eretz Yisrael and preying on the innocent and trusting folk in New York. Second, that the rabbis are not stepping up to the plate, for whatever reason, and one should not take their shetika as hodaah.

Now what about Baba Elazar, who was recently murdered by Rabbi Asher Dahan? (Read the link.) Was Baba Elazar a con-artist, or the real deal?

On the one hand, he was the grandson of Baba Sali. On the other hand, he visited New York and charged for his consultations. In 2011, his assets were estimated at $80 million dollars. So what? People are allowed to have, and accumulate money. But the details mentioned in this Haaretz article I found telling:

Ellowich first heard about Abuhatzeira in 2004 through a friend, Chezkel Roth. "I didn't know a thing about him except that his grandfather was the Baba Sali," Ellowich said.

The rabbi told Ellowich that to receive the desired blessing, he would have to bring him $100,000 within five days. "You have to believe in me," Ellowich quoted the rabbi as saying. "I'm a great righteous person and I promise you your daughter will have children and grandchildren. Her luck will change. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Don't tell anyone, just bring the money."

"I don't know how he does it, but I felt I had met an angel, or God Himself," Ellowich said. "I don't know how he hypnotized me. He probably makes a million dollars a day with that magic."

Ellowich said he borrowed money from friends, one of whom demanded $7,000 in interest. "Then I came to him with the check and he said: 'You're late, but I'll do it for you anyway.' With the check in his hand, he stood up with this hood over his face where you see only his lips, and said in a loud voice in Hebrew: 'I say to you, as you are standing here, that I, Rabbi Elazar Abuhatzeira, in the presence of Hezkel Roth and Menachem Ellowich and God, attest in the name of God that your daughter will be healed and will have children. You have nothing to worry about, it's in my hands now.'"

Shortly after the blessing, his daughter met a young ultra-Orthodox man. "When they got married, Rabbi Abuhatzeira sent a message through his sexton that the miracle would take six months," Ellowich said. But the months passed and nothing happened.

It gets worse, with asking for more money, and the implications of a curse. And this was just one person. There are others who corroborate, with similar stories. They sound quite similar to what the fake kabbalist, one of many kabbalist con-men, did to my friends.

Am I going to trust the anti-chareidi, anti-religious, HaAretz? Look, I don't trust them for spin. But they are referring to a known, named person, whose story rings true, and who has documentation. And they did not just make up all these other people.

Furthermore,

In 2009, a 47-year-old man was indicted for going to the rabbi's house with a knife and threatening to kill him. That man said he was angry because the rabbi made him a medical promise that hadn't come true.

That same year, a prosecutor in Brooklyn, New York began investigating Abuhatzeira on suspicion of defrauding dozens of people who sought his advice by demanding money in exchange for promises that they or their loved ones would recover from a terminal illness or have children.

Where there is smoke, there is often fire. He was indeed finally done in by someone who was upset at his marital advice. And a prosecutor has access to real, dozens of people. This does not strike me as something completely baseless. It sounds like he was a con-man.

This is perhaps a slight criticism of the rabbis who did not step in. Why didn't the rabbonim of the community step him from defrauding their constituents? Why didn't the rabbis in Eretz Yisrael monitor such a public situation and condemn such behavior?

In terms of the latter, I have my suspicions. It would be against "Achdut" for an Ashkenazi to condemn. He was inspiring thousands of the superstitious / quasi-religious, so it is a positive influence. He is the grandson of the Baba Sali, so how could one say he is doing wrong? He has many miraculous-seeming stories, and conducts himself like the Baba Sali. If one sets about debunking him and showing how he pulls off his successes, wouldn't we shatter people's emunah. For how could we expect them to draw the distinction between this fraud and the Baba Sali? Or, they did not know of the allegations, because they did not read secular papers. Or, if the secular papers reported it, we will assume that it is false, because they have an agenda against the religious. Or these rabbis are paragons of honesty, heard the stories of his miraculous successes, did not see how an unscrupulous person could manage this, and so determined that he was for real.

There are all sorts of possible reasons they did not speak up while he was alive. But I would not take the rabbis' silence as proof that Baba Elazar was for real, especially when up against dozens of people with similar stories, credible enough for a NY prosecutor to set up a case against him, such that he wisely chose not to come to the US this year.

What of the fact that they eulogized him? For instance (as someone noted in a comment on a previous post):

Rav Shteinman: http://www.kikarhashabat.co.il/article.php?id=76756

Rav Moshe Tzadka:  http://www.kikarhashabat.co.il/article.php?id=76795

Rav Amar:  http://www.kikarhashabat.co.il/article.php?id=76766

Tzanzer Rebbe:  http://www.kikarhashabat.co.il/article.php?id=76763

His brother, R' David Abuhatzeira: http://www.kikarhashabat.co.il/article.php?id=76758

And, Rav Ovadia Yosef cried when he heard the news.

It is a good question. One possible answer is the saying, אחרי מות קדושים אמור. This is a sequence of parshiyot in the Torah, and taken together refer to the fact that often, after someone's death, everyone says that he is a tzaddik.

Do I find this list impressive? Not really. Rav Shteinman, for instance, did not know who Schwecky is, when Rabbi Amnon Yitzchak came to him to get him to ban him. What is a Schwecky?! Before paskening on credit cards, people had to explain to him how credit cards work. So was he up on what the secular press was saying about a specific rabbi?

As to the others, I don't know. But a similar reason could exist as to why they eulogized him as to why they did not speak up when he was alive. Unless I know that they made their own investigations, interviewing the dozens of people who accused Baba Elazar, and concluded that the allegations were false, I see no reason see their hespedim as evidence that Baba Elazar was innocent, and that the many accusers are the no-goodniks.

I want to speak a bit about toelet, but I think I have enough at this point to respond to a representative comment objecting in a previous post:

Dear Reb Josh

I am very surprised on the tone of your comments knowing that you usually approach things with a critical Torah analysis.

Please do not judge a Rav and Tzaddik from some lawsuit from a party who has self interest

How do we know that he is a tzaddik? Yes, this is from some lawsuit, but that person had given a donation check to Baba Elazar, or there would be no lawsuit. He has self-interest? Yes, to win the lawsuit because he thinks Baba Elazar wronged him. It is amazing how only one side is seen, and the other side is dismissed.

Meanwhile, it is not just the one party. It is dozens of people (that means at least 24) who tell similar stories of being ripped off by Baba Elazar. And these stories were credible enough for a New York prosecutor to open up an investigation, and enough for Baba Elazar to avoid traveling to the US this year.

And meanwhile, Baba Elazar has $80 million in assets.

Why make the assumption that this is NOT being approached in a similar spirit of critical analysis? (See a criticism of kabbalistic charlatans, including various unspecified Babas, by Rabbi Yaakov Hillel. And see this blogpost by Mekubal.)

The commenter continues:

take into consideration that you are speaking about the son,grandson and descendant of some of the greatest Tzaddikim.

So am I and so are you. Are we not descended from Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov? Wasn't Moshe grandson a priest for Avoda Zara? Look, I certainly am not going to malign Baba Sali. But that does not mean that a descendant cannot know a good racket / opportunity where he sees it, and take advantage of it.

Take into consideration the thousands of testimonies by Jews from every sector of this man's greatness

I do take this into consideration. I assume that these thousands of testimonies are true. Here is how it works. I call up 10,000 people on the phone and tell them stock X will go up, and 10,000 other people that stock X will go down. Stock X goes up, so I discard 10,000 people I told the wrong information to. Then, I call up the first 10,000 people. To 5000 I tell them stock Y will go up; to 5000 I tell that stock Y will go down. Stock Y goes down. Stock Y goes down. I then call the 5000 people and ask them for money for my stock advice. And since I have given accurate advice in the past, they are all willing.

There are other factors. There is regression towards the mean, where situations can improve simply on average. And people tend to focus on successes and ignore the failures. And one can be ambiguous, or can take several tries (and money) before something works. Or one can blame the victims for the failure, saying that they didn't do random thing Z right. And recall that it is typically only those who believe it worked who will breath

This is how non-Jewish con-men work, and how some Jewish con-men work as well.

So I do take into consideration those thousands of Jews from every sector.

take into consideration what the greatest Rabbi's of our generation have to say about his awesome holiness knowing him first hand.

I do take it into consideration, but I don't find this persuasive enough, given what I have written above.

For further examples of even Gedolim erring in matters such as this:

Rabbi Lipa Yisraelzon, grandson of Rav Elyashiv, affirmed before the students, as one who has accompanied Rabbi Tropper on his Israel trip, on the warm connections he has merited in the homes of Gedolei Yisroel.

So, on his trip, Rabbi Tropper came to the homes of Gedolei Yisroel. Aside from the Halachic questions that he placed before Gedolei Yisroel, he received their blessings for his holy work.

This was after the sex scandal. And recall Rabbi Elior Chen?

You may remember that leading haredi rabbis – including haredi leader Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, haredi number two Aryeh Leib Shteinman, and Chaim Kanievesky – wrote a letter endorsing Chen, calling him a talmud chacham and insisting on his innocence – despite the reams of evidence and eyewitness testimony against him, and despite the fact that one of his tiny victims lies in a persistive vegetative state to this day with little hope for recovery.

What is the point of writing all this, though? There are issues of lashon hara about the dead, just as there are about the living. (See here; though it being widespread public knowledge, mitigates it.)

Well, I am just sickened by the response of the frum world in this case. We don't have our heads on straight. Some yeshiva bachurim smuggle ecstasy into Japan and are caught, and the lesson is not 'don't smuggle', and 'respect dina demalchusa', but rather that we are all guilty because we are not tznius enough, and that Japan is an evil country who was punished by the tsunami.

So a con-man victimizes gullible and trusting religious people for years, as the rabbis stand idly by. Some victims are angry enough to even try to kill the con-man. Finally, an advisee actually does kill him, reportedly upset at his advice. (Though Asher Dahan is presumably also insane, as we may surmise from his killing someone and claiming that he is the gilgul of Pinchas.) Could it be that the thing we should learn from this is that one should not be a con-man, cheating desperate people out of their hand earned money, and often money they cannot afford? Or perhaps that we as a community should not stand by as these con-men operate. Or, we could learn from the act of murder itself, which was indeed reprehensible, even if Baba Elazar was a con-man. Collectively, it would be good to work on bein adam lachaveiro, as Rav Shteinman said.

But how are people viewing it? Well, they are assuming that the con-man was a tzaddik. Indeed, a lamed-vav-nik. Or that he was mashiach ben Yosef, such that his death was extremely meaningful. The apocalypse is surely upon us! Or that it is the fault of Jewish musicians, like Mordechai Ben David and Shwecky. Or that there was a gzeira on the tzibur, and he saved us, dying for our sins. They would not be drawing such broad conclusions had it been some other Jewish con-man who was murdered by a fellow Jew. By painting a likely con-artist as a tzadik yesod olam, they pave the way to being motzi laaz on Jewish singers, or on klal Yisrael in general.

Meanwhile, many con-men continue to visit and prey on suspecting Jews, as the rabbis, and the general populace, stand by.