Should our masoretic text read וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא as malei or chaser?

Summary: Another instance of Chazal darshening what appears in the Samaritan text. But in this 'promising' instance, perhaps we should emend our text to match.

Post: The following variant, from Vetus Testamentum, from parashat Metzora, on Vayikra 15:10:

The text on the right is our Masoretic text, while the text on the left shows the changes we find in the Samaritan text. Thus, while the Masoretic text is malei in both וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא  and אוֹתָם, the Samaritan text is chaser in both. Now, the general trend of the Samaritan text is to make the Biblical text more readable, and this typically involves transforming chaser into malei. This goes against the grain, and therefore is quite promising as being the original text.

Perhaps one could argue that והנשא is perfect (=past) tense. However, given that אתם accompanies it and is also divergently chaser, this is less likely. Also, semantically I don't think it makes as much sense. We could perhaps confirm by examining the Samaritan Targum, but unfortunately, the scan available at Google Books skips all of sefer Vayikra. I would consider the following as evidence that the Samaritans understood it as with a cholam chaser rather than a kametz associated with the nun -- Vetus Testamentum gives two Samaritan texts which have it malei:

Nor should we really consider this to be purely a "Samaritan" text. Quite a number of Jewish, 'masoretic' texts also have this chaser spelling, both for vehanosei and osam. Again, from Vetus Testamentum:

I would also add that, all else being equal, a chaser reading is more compelling than a malei reading, because of its seeming irregularity and the late introduction of internal Hebrew vowel letters.

It appears that Chazal had this spelled chaseir. For this pasuk is darshened in masechet Niddah, based on its chaser value. Thus, the Mishna in Niddah 31b reads:

מתני' בנות כותים נדות מעריסתן והכותים מטמאים משכב תחתון כעליון מפני שהן בועלי נדות והן יושבות על כל דם ודם ואין חייבין עליהן על ביאת מקדש ואין שורפין עליהם את התרומה מפני שטומאתן ספק:

Or, in English:

MISHNAH. THE DAUGHTERS OF THE SAMARITANS⁴⁴  ARE REGARDED AS MENSTRUANTS FROM THEIR CRADLE;⁴⁵  AND THE SAMARITANS IMPART UNCLEANNESS TO A COUCH UNDERNEATH AS TO A COVER ABOVE,⁴⁵  SINCE THEY COHABIT WITH MENSTRUANTS BECAUSE [THEIR WIVES] CONTINUE [UNCLEAN FOR SEVEN DAYS] ON ACCOUNT OF A DISCHARGE OF ANY BLOOD.⁴⁶  ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR [UNCLEANNESS,]⁴⁷  HOWEVER, NO OBLIGATION⁴⁸  IS INCURRED FOR ENTRANCE INTO THE TEMPLE NOR IS TERUMAH⁴⁹  BURNT ON THEIR ACCOUNT, SINCE THEIR UNCLEANNESS⁵⁰  IS ONLY OF A DOUBTFUL NATURE.⁵¹

The gemara on Niddah 33a reads:

<והנושא נמי יטמא ומאי ניהו נישא מ"ט והנשא כתיב>

Soncino does not translate it, likely because this text is removed from many a gemara. Rashi emends this text out of the gemara, writing:

ומאי ניהו נישא - בגד הנישא על הזב מאי טעמא והנושא והנישא כתיב לא ידענא מאי היא ונראה בעיני שהוא פי' משובש:

"ומאי ניהו נישא  {and what it is, nisa} -- clothing which is carried {nisa = supported} upon a zav {rather than what is under him}. What is the reason? The word והנישא , והנושא {with a yud} is written. I don't know what this is, and it appears in my eyes that it is a messed-up explanation."

I believe the 'peirush meshubash' means that the gemara's explanation, meaning the mai tayma; that is, some post-Talmudic author inserted into the Talmudic text this erroneous explanation, and we should not be gores it. (Or else some explanation existed and the text became corrupted. The alternative is to suggest that someone was saying that this was an erroneous or corrupted explanation in Rashi; but this seems much less likely.)

Tosafot differs with Rashi, and explains:

והנשא כתיב. חסר וי"ו. תימה דבמסורת הוא מלא מיהו מצינו שהמסורת הוא חולק על הש"ס במסכת שבת (דף נה:) גבי בני עלי מעבירם כתיב ובמקראות שלנו כתיב מעבירים מלא:

"והנשא is written: with the vav deficient. This is a wonder, for in the Masoret, it is plene. However, we have found that the Masoret contradicts the gemara in Masechet Shabbat (55b) regarding the children of Eli, that it states that מעבירם  is written, while in our texts is written מעבירים, plene."


I discussed this textual variant, in a slightly different way, just last year. See that post for my translation of Or Torah, Minchas Shai, and Chasam Sofer about this.

One rather interesting idea occurred to me this year. Who is under discussion in the Mishnah? The כותים. (Minchas Shai renders this akum, taking it to be a euphemism for or by the censors, but Kutim, Samaritans, makes some good sense.) And whose Torah text has this word written like this? The Samaritans! Thus, we could say, why are the Samaritans specifically מטמאים משכב תחתון כעליון? Not (just) because שהן בועלי נדות. Rather, perhaps they themselves, the Samaritans, regard themselves as such. Or perhaps this derash, since it applies to Samaritans, is derived from a Samaritan text.

I would dismiss this possibility, since the derasha in question applies just as well to Israelites, to zav in general, and it is extrapolated from there.

Some more sources to examine -- (a) the Hagahot veChiddushim on this daf, and this Tosafot, regarding what happens if a sefer Torah diverges, in accordance with Chazal, and where not; (b) Chachmas Shlomo on the girsa of Tosafot.

Truth be told, I consider the evidence in favor of this girsa so compelling that I am tempted to say that our Torah texts should be emended to match this. But there is no real need to enter into a machlokes on this matter, I think, since this is just a malei / chaser distinction, and anan la bekiin in plene and deficient spellings in our sifrei Torah. Presumably, there are a great number of such corruptions, yet they don't invalidate our sifrei Torah; and even if they would, then surely this is not the only one, so we are not practically fixing anything.

Sleeping on the left or right side -- a scientific and halachic perspective

No worry about kochos hachitzonim here!

Summary: Considering Chazal, Rambam, and modern science. How should one conduct oneself nowadays? This is only a beginning exploration, so one should certainly NOT rely on any of this halacha leMaaseh.

Post: According to a recent short article in the New York Times, research indicates sleeping on the left side might be deleterious for the heart and heart pressure, though it might simply be people with heart problems avoided sleeping on the left side due to discomfort. Further, that sleeping on the left side significantly increases the total amount of digestive reflux time.

What does halacha have to say about sleeping on various sides? Well, there is the gemara in Berachot 13b:

R. Joseph said: A man lying on his back should not recite the Shema'. [This implies] that he may not read [the Shema' lying on his back], but there is no objection to his sleeping in this posture. But did not R. Joshua b. Levi curse anyone who slept lying on his back?²³  In reply it was said: To sleeping thus if he turns over a little on his side there is no objection, but to read the Shema' thus is forbidden even if he turns over somewhat. But R. Johanan turned over a little and read the Scripture? — R. Johanan was an exception, because he was very corpulent.

Rashi explains there:

לייט אמאן דגני אפרקיד - שמא יתקשה אברו בתוך שנתו ונראה לרבים והוא דרך גנאי:

"Lest he develop an erection within his sleep, which would be visible to the public, and this is a disgrace."

He does NOT, as far as I can make out, consider this to be because of fear of causing a seminal emission, which would be zera levatala. (Presumably because he is lying on his back, and this leads to exposure, rather than to said hardening of the ever.)

However, see Rashi to the parallel gemara, in Niddah 14a:

אפרקיד - פניו למעלה וגנות הוא שפעמים שיתקשה אבר תוך שינתו ויתגלה ועוד שידיו מונחות לו על אברו ומתחמם:

There, the additional reason is given that his hands might cause warming of the ever.

See also Tosafot there:

לייט אמאן דגני אפרקיד. פי' בקונטרס שידיו מונחות על מילתו ומתחמם ורשב"ם פירש שבגדיו נופלין על אמתו ומתחמם ומה שפי' עוד שפעמים [מתקשה ומתגלה] לא נראה דבבית סגור או אפל מאי א"ל:

The Rif cites this give and take in the gemara, but it might just be for the sake of discussing the halachos of kriyas Shema:

Rav Yosef said: One who is lying on his back should not read Shema,
This implies that he may not read, but he may, with no problem, go to sleep such!
But Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi cursed anyone who slept lying on his back!
In terms of sleeping, if he turns a bit to the side, it is fine, but in terms of reading {Shema}, even if he turns a bit to the side it is forbidden.

But Rabbi Yochanan would turn on his side and read {Shema}?!
Rabbi Yochanan was different, because he was fat.

Looking at Ayin Mishpat, Ner Mitzvah, I see no note for it. This would be significant, because it would mean that the Tur, Shulchan Aruch, and Rema do not bring this down lehalacha. So, while it might not be a good idea, I don't know that we should necessarily resurrect this as an issur chamur.

In Gittin 47a, we read that Resh Lakish refused a mattress offered by his daughter, because "my belly is my cushion":

אמרה ליה ברתיה לא בעית מידי למזגא עליה אמר לה בתי כריסי

And see Rashi and Tosafot there. This would appear to be during eating, not during sleeping, though.

According to this website, Mishna Berura lists sleeping on back or front as an issur gadol, in siman 239 seif katan 6, though I don't see it there. This within a discussion of saying Kriyas Shma on one's back.

The Rambam does bring down halachot of sleeping on one's side, in Hilchot Deot, perek 4, halacha 5:

ז  [ה] לֹא יִישַׁן אָדָם לֹא עַל פָּנָיו, וְלֹא עַל עָרְפּוֹ, אֵלָא עַל צִדּוֹ--בִּתְחִלַּת הַלַּיְלָה עַל צַד שְׂמֹאל, וּבְסוֹף הַלַּיְלָה עַל צַד יָמִין.  וְלֹא יִישַׁן סָמוּךְ לַאֲכִילָה, אֵלָא יַמְתִּין אַחַר אֲכִילָה כְּמוֹ שָׁלוֹשׁ אוֹ אַרְבַּע שָׁעוֹת.  וְלֹא יִישַׁן בַּיּוֹם.

However, an examination of the context reveals that this is health-advice. It was not likely based on the gemara, but of positive effects of sleeping in this manner.

Aristotle spoke of benefits of sleeping on the right side:

Q. Why do men sleep better and more at ease on the right side than on the left? A. Because when they be on the left side, the lungs do lie upon and cover the heart, which is on that side under the pap; now the heart, the fountain of life, being thus occupied and hindered with the lungs, cannot exercise its own proper operation, as being overmuch heated with the lungs lying upon it, and therefore wanting the  refreshment of the air which the lungs do give it, like the blowing of a pair of  bellows, is choked and suffocated, but by lying on the right side, those inconveniences are avoided.

Compare Rambam with the recommenation of the Arab physician Avicenna:

A short sleep after a meal is useful ; one should lie first on the right side, then on the left, and finally turn back again to the right side.

though maybe this is only after a meal. I didn't take the time, yet, to fully research this. But it certainly seems, based on cultural and textual context, that Rambam is giving medical advice. I would wonder whether something similar is actually motivating Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

Turning to more recent summaries of halacha, consider the following, from Halacha Yomi:

5. A person should train himself to sleep on his side. Sleeping on one's back or on one's stomach is a severe transgression. It is beneficial to begin one's sleep while lying on the left side, and afterwards to change to the right side. 

This is beneficial to one's health, since the liver is on one's right side, and the stomach on one's left. When one leans to the left, the liver will lie on the stomach and warm it with its heat. This will hasten the digestion of the food. After the food is digested, it is preferable to lean to the right, thus allowing the stomach to rest and the wastes to descend. One should not turn frequently from side to side.

Not much in the way of explanation of what the transgression is, and where it is sourced. But once we see this medieval explanation about the liver lying on the stomach and aiding digestion, and allowing the stomach to rest, etc., I wonder strongly whether this is really binding halacha. Just as we do not listen to the cures listed in the Talmud, we should not necessarily need to listen to the health-advice. And if these recommendations are based on the Rambam, and based on medieval medicine, all the more so!

And now, it seems that according to modern medicine, it is bad for the heart and for certain types of digestion to lie on one of those sides, at least for people with digestive reflux or heart conditions.

Here is another summary. Naturally enough, kabbalah comes into it. This is unfortunate because kabbalah comes and adds mystical explanations to what is often something entirely halachic or medical. And then, with the mystical rationale in place, any efforts to overturn or reevaluate the halacha are thwarted, for there is a deep mystical reason for the practice. For example, fish with meat is a halacha motivated by a medical concern, for tzaraat. Yet kabbalists added kabbalistic reasons, which would prevent a reevaluation. Even though as metzius, or evaluation of metzius, changes, the appropriate applied halacha might change as well.

The summary is from Halachically Speaking, reviewed by Rav Yisroel Belsky:

Sleeping on one's Side

In the beginning of the night, one should sleep on his left side and at the end of the night one should sleep on his right side.(67) It is much healthier to sleep on the side because doing so allows the lungs to work better, so one gets more out of his sleep.(68)

Those footnotes:

(67)Rambam Hilchos Deos 4:5, Siddur Yaavetz page 587, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 71:5, Kaf Ha'chaim 170:72, Tov Yehoshua page 116:10, Pela Yoetz "yemin" page 283. This applies to lefties as well (refer to Yemin Moshe pages 27 and 58). The reason is because in this way his food will be digested properly (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 71:5). (68) Horav Yisroel Belsky Shlita.

So one is the Rambam, but then Kaf Kachaim comes into it. The explanation of lungs working better may be true -- it could also prevent snoring -- but it does not mean that such working better is what was motivating the Rambam, motivating Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, or that such benefit of better breathing would raise this to an obligation. The intent might have been to give modern scientific rationale, but I think one should question whether it is really a halachic obligation, especially if someone finds other sorts of sleep more comfortable.

Another discussion of this, From Halachah For Today:

1)One should not sleep on his stomach nor on his back, rather on his side.

In the beginning of the night he should sleep on his left side and at the end of the night on his right side. (Rambam Hilchos Dei’os Perek 4 Halacha 5)

One of the reasons given for this is that the liver is on the right side and the stomach is on the left side, and thus when one sleeps on the left side, the liver’s heat will warm the stomach and will help the digestive system. (Sefer Aleh L’Terufah quoted in Sefer HaLikutim back of the Shabsi Frankel edition of the Rambam. See also Kitzur Shulchan Aruch Siman 71:5)

Another reason for the prohibition of sleeping on the back or on the stomach is to prevent embarrassing situations and/or nocturnal emissions while sleeping. (See Rashi to Brachos 13b Dibur Hamaschil Layit Aman. See also Pele Yoetz, “Yemin” and Shu”t Az Nidberu Vol. 6 Siman 50 regarding if these positions apply only to when going to sleep or to any time one lays down. See also Mishna Berura Siman 239:6 where he refers to sleeping on the back or stomach as an “Issur Gadol, a big sin”) 

Lastly, there are kabalistic reasons for not sleeping on the back and the stomach. (See Kaf HaChaim Siman 238:11) 

2) This Halacha applies equally to men and women (as even though the second reason cited does not apply to women, the first and third reason do. Though for women it isn’t considered a big sin if they do not follow this Halacha) 

This Halacha also applies equally to right handed people and left handed people.

Note how the kabbalistic reason, from the Kaf KaChaim, siman 238:11, would be a reason women should keep it; together with the outdated science. What is the kabbalistic reason? That it helps a lot to nullify the kochos hachitzonim, which appear to be negative forces of tumah.

At the end of the day, the halachic reasoning would still seem to apply, though I would not be persuaded by the kabbalistic or scientific reasons. But that would be the halachic reasoning for not sleeping on one's back, rather than being particular about the left side and then the right. Even within that halachic reasoning for the back and front, I am not so convinced. This deserves further analysis. Was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's reason medical, or based on embarrassment / shichvas zera levatala? While Rishonim discuss this gemara, do they bring it down lehalacha? If it is based on embarrassment, perhaps the halacha is different nowadays, since we no longer sleep in the nude.

Two further interesting discussions. One going through many of the sources in a nice organized way, and another discussing if one should wake someone up (!) who is sleeping in an improper manner.

Did Chazal believe in Gigantic Fish Eyeballs?

My answer is "almost certainly not", though this is indeed how Rashi understands the gemara. Let us start with the post, and question, at Rationalist Judaism:

Dear Rabbi!

I'm having difficulty with a passage the gemara (Zevachim 22) quotes from a braita, stating that if the eye of a large fish were to dissolve and pool in its socket; one would be able to immerse himself in it as if it were a mikva, provided it has the 40 saah required for a mikva. And this is codified as law in Rambam and Y"D (201.33). 

Without doubting chazal for a second, can this be explained or reconciled with modern science?
From what I recall the largest eye ball is that of a horse and or a squid (while the large fish whose primary senses are scent and sound have relatively small eyes) Which is still drop in the bucket from the 25-35 cubic feet of volume required for 40 saah. 

Any information or guidance would be greatly appreciated.

It is not the brayta actually which says this, but rather an Amora, Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi, and as interpreted by a Rishon, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (=Rashi). Rabbi Slifkin explains that this cannot be explained with modern science, if one does not doubt Chazal for a second. See inside. This may well be true, assuming that this is the correct explanation of the gemara. But I don't think it is the correct explanation of the gemara.

And while the scientific difficulties are icing on the cake, there are text-internal reasons for thinking the gemara means something else.

The largest known eyeball of an animal, the collosal squid, is 27 centimenters, which is approximately 11 inches. Make this the diameter of a sphere, and the volume will be nowhere near the volume required for a mikveh. Maybe there are larger eyeballs, of larger animals, which we don't know about. I don't know.

However, let us turn to the gemara, in Zevachim 22a:

אמר ריש לקיש כל המשלים למי מקוה משלים למי כיור לרביעית אינו משלים למעוטי מאי אילימא למעוטי טיט הנדוק היכי דמי אי דפרה שוחה ושותה ממנו אפי' לרביעית נמי ואי אין פרה שוחה ושותה ממנו אפילו למקוה נמי אין משלים אלא למעוטי יבחושין אדומין אפילו בעינייהו נמי דהא תניא רשב"ג אומר כל שתחילת ברייתו מן המים מטבילין בו ואמר רב יצחק בר אבדימי מטבילין בעינו של דג

The text I marked in red is the voice of the narrator of the gemara, the setama de-gemara. Now, what is the gemara trying to prove, in this segment? The following: אלא למעוטי יבחושין אדומין אפילו בעינייהו נמי. Well, more as a rhetorical question. That is, do you think it is to minimize יבחושין אדומין?! This cannot be so, because אפילו בעינייהו נמי!

There are two aspects that the gemara needs to prove. The first is the יבחושין אדומין, which originated in the water. The second is that this is so even if it בעין. To this end, the setama harnesses two sources. Addressing the first aspect is a brayta  about things originating in the water: דהא תניא רשב"ג אומר כל שתחילת ברייתו מן המים מטבילין בו. Addressing the second aspect is a statement by an Amora: ואמר רב יצחק בר אבדימי מטבילין בעינו של דג.

This is strange, because how does one immerse in the eyeball of a fish? It is, after all, solid. And most fish are small, and their eyeballs will likely be small as well. Rashi helps us out:

בעינו של דג - דג גדול שנימוק שומן עינו בחורו:

Thus, Rashi solves the problem for us by saying that its eye melted in its socket, and it is a big fish. But both these facts are missing from the explicit gemara. Rashi may be right, that this was the intent of the gemara. But I am fixated on this choice of word בעינו, when what it is supposed to address the second aspect, אפילו בעינייהו נמי. I dislike the odds that an eyeball just happened to have been chosen as the example, when the setama is trying to prove something about fish creatures which are be'en.

Rather, I am more than a bit inclined to posit that בעינו של דג was understood by the setama digemara as the actual substance of the fish, in its original form. The words match, and we don't have to imagine gigantic fish and melted eyeballs, not explicitly mentioned in the gemara. And I would further posit that the setama digemara got this right, and the Amora didn't intend this either, but was talking about an actually possible case, which works out with modern science.

Alas, Rashi would then be wrong. While I will say that Chazal, as well, are wrong about some scientific matters, some people will be more comfortable with Rishonim erring in matters of science than Chazal doing the same.

Now, Chazal might well have believed in enormous fish with enormous eyeballs. From Bava Batra 73b:

Rabbah b. Bar Hana further stated: Once we were travelling on board a ship and saw a fish in whose nostrils a parasite had entered. Thereupon, the water cast up the fish and threw it upon the shore. Sixty towns were destroyed thereby, sixty towns ate therefrom, and sixty towns salted [the remnants] thereof, and from one of its eyeballs three hundred kegs of oil were filled. On returning after twelve calendar months we saw that they were cutting rafters from its skeleton and proceeding to rebuild those towns.

Rabbah b. Bar Hana further stated: Once we were travelling on board a ship and saw a fish whose back was covered with sand out of which grew grass. Thinking it was dry land we went up and baked, and cooked, upon its back. When, however, its back was heated it turned, and had not the ship been nearby we should have been drowned.

and from the next amud, 74a:

R. Johanan related: Once we were travelling on board a ship and we saw a fish that raised its head out of the sea. Its eyes were like two moons, and water streamed from its two nostrils as [from] the two rivers of Sura.

Now, these gemaras in Bava Batra regarding Rabba bar bar Chana might well be allegorical. Though Tosafot in Chullin uses this to demonstrate that fish have nostrils, this is just establishing a basic biological fact about fish.

However, one thing to bear in mind is that others around that time took similar tales literally. Thus, there is the aspidochelone, mentioned by Pliny the Elder (where we find other parallels from Pliny in Chazal):

Pliny the Elder's Natural History tells the story of a giant fish, which he names pristis, of immense size; he also relates the tale of sailors landing on its back, only to discover that it was not in fact land when it submerged.

Also, in the Physiologus, an allegorical work based on "known" facts about the world.

"There is a monster in the sea which in Greek is called aspidochelone, in Latin "asp-turtle"; it is a great whale, that has what appear to be beaches on its hide, like those from the sea-shore. This creature raises its back above the waves of the sea, so that sailors believe that it is just an island, so that when they see it, it appears to them to be a sandy beach such as is common along the sea-shore. Believing it to be an island, they beach their ship alongside it, and disembarking, they plant stakes and tie up the ships. Then, in order to cook a meal after this work, they make fires on the sand as if on land. But when the monster feels the heat of these fires, it immediately submerges into the water, and pulls the ship into the depths of the sea.
Such is the fate of all who pay no heed to the Devil and his wiles, and place their hopes in him: tied to him by their works, they are submerged into the burning fire of Gehenna: for such is his guile."

Compare this with Rabba bar bar Chana's account of thinking it was dry land, lighting a fire, and the beast turning, such that they almost drowned. So it might well be intended allegorically, but maybe not.

In terms of gigantic eye-sockets, there is also the following from Niddah 24b, which also might be allegorical.

It was taught: Abba Saul stated, I was once a grave-digger and on one occasion there was opened a cave under me and I stood in the eye-ball of a corpse up to my nose. When I returned I was told that it was the eye of Absalom.

So it seems to be not outside the bounds of reason that Chazal believed in giant fish with gigantic eyeballs, in which one could immerse. Even so, I believe that my explanation in the gemara is better than the one proffered by Rashi. Of course, feel free to argue.

BTW, here is the Rambam on this, from Hilchot Mikvaot, perek 8:

 יא] כָּל שֶׁתְּחִלַּת בְּרִיָּתוֹ מִן הַמַּיִם, כְּגוֹן יַבְחוּשִׁין אֲדֻמִּין--מַטְבִּילִין בּוֹ; וּמַטְבִּילִין בְּעֵינוֹ שֶׁלַּדָּג.