Daf Yomi Pesachim: Leaving at Ki Tov

I just started more seriously learning through Pesachim, this time around, for Daf Yomi. Eruvin was a killer, but I just finished that. So I am about 50 blatt behind.

I checked out the Artscroll app. It is nice. I like how I can focus just on the tzuras hadaf and read it, and just when I want to double-check that I have the nukkud right, or that I am translating it for myself correctly, I touch the word or phrase and phrase and see the pop-up. I also like how, when I click on a word of phrase, it will highlight for me the associated Rashi and Tosafot, and that when I click on a Tosafot, it will highlight the relevant section of gemara. I just clicked on a Rashi, and it highlighted the associated gemara as well as a Gilyon HaShas on that Rashi. Very need, and it will hopefully encourage users to stay on the actual daf.

Anyway, here is something on Pesachim 2a. I would like to respond to certain questions raised by Tosafot. The gemara is trying to advance evidence that Or means either night or day. And its first proof it this:

מיתיבי (בראשית מד, ג) הבקר אור והאנשים שולחו אלמא אור יממא הוא מי כתיב האור בקר הבקר אור כתיב כמאן דאמר צפרא נהר וכדרב יהודה אמר רב דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם יכנס אדם בכי טוב ויצא בכי טוב

"They [the scholars producing the setama degemara] raised an objection [from a verse in Bereishit 44:3, about the brothers of Yosef, when they left Yosef's house, just after Yosef had commanded his steward to hide his goblet in Binyamin's sack]: 

ג  הַבֹּקֶר, אוֹר; וְהָאֲנָשִׁים שֻׁלְּחוּ, הֵמָּה וַחֲמֹרֵיהֶם.

3 As soon as the morning was light, the men were sent away, they and their asses.

Thus, Or means day! Does it say the Or was morning? Rather, it says the morning was Or. And it is like one who says "Tzafra Nahar" [the day is light]. And this [their action?] is in accordance with Rav Yehuda citing Rav. Because Rav Yehuda cited Rav, 'a person should always enter with Ki Tov [=at Boker] and exit with Ki Tov."

The setama degemara here is referencing a statement of Rav Yehuda citing Rav which is found in Bava Kamma daf 60a-b:

Rab Judah stated that Rab said: A man should always enter [a town] by daytime and leave by daytime, as it say's, And none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning.¹

The pasuk cited is in Shemot 12:22, about Makkat Bechorot:

כב  וּלְקַחְתֶּם אֲגֻדַּת אֵזוֹב, וּטְבַלְתֶּם בַּדָּם אֲשֶׁר-בַּסַּף, וְהִגַּעְתֶּם אֶל-הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְאֶל-שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת, מִן-הַדָּם אֲשֶׁר בַּסָּף; וְאַתֶּם, לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח-בֵּיתוֹ--עַד-בֹּקֶר.	22 And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two side-posts with the blood that is in the basin; and none of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning.
כג  וְעָבַר ה, לִנְגֹּף אֶת-מִצְרַיִם, וְרָאָה אֶת-הַדָּם עַל-הַמַּשְׁקוֹף, וְעַל שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת; וּפָסַח ה, עַל-הַפֶּתַח, וְלֹא יִתֵּן הַמַּשְׁחִית, לָבֹא אֶל-בָּתֵּיכֶם לִנְגֹּף.	23 For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side-posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.

This is either Hashem by Himself, with no shaliach, or else his angelic agents of destruction.

Tosafot write, in Pesachim 2a, as follows:

יכנס בכי טוב. אור"י דבפרק הכונס (דף ס ושם:) משמע דטעם הוי משום מזיקין דמפיק ליה התם מלא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו וקרא משום מזיקין קא מזהיר דמפקינן מיניה התם כיון שניתן רשות למשחית וכו' ולפי זה אפילו מעירו אדם צריך ליזהר שיצא בכי טוב והא דנקט כניסה תחלה היינו משום דאורחא דגמרא למינקט הכי כמו מטפס ועולה ומטפס ויורד בפרק עושין פסין (דף כא.) דנקט עליה תחלה ובפ' במה מדליקין (דף לד:) בין השמשות כהרף עין זה נכנס וזה יוצא וקשה הא דריש רב יהודה הא דרשה גופה מקרא אחרינא דלא תצאו בפרק הכונס (דף ס. ושם:) ואומר רשב"א דצריכי תרי קראי הבקר אור צריך לעיר אחרת ואפי' היכא דליכא למיחש למזיקין כגון אחי יוסף דהוו י"א והטעם מפני הפחתים וקרא דלא תצאו איצטריך לעירו ומפני המזיקין:

I will respond to their last point first:

 וקשה הא דריש רב יהודה הא דרשה גופה מקרא אחרינא דלא תצאו בפרק הכונס (דף ס. ושם:) ואומר רשב"א דצריכי תרי קראי הבקר אור צריך לעיר אחרת ואפי' היכא דליכא למיחש למזיקין כגון אחי יוסף דהוו י"א והטעם מפני הפחתים וקרא דלא תצאו איצטריך לעירו ומפני המזיקין:

"And it is difficult, that Rav Yehuda [citing Rav] darshens this derasha itself from a different pasuk, namely that [of Makkat Bechorot, in Shemot] of לֹא תֵצְאו, in perek HaKones [daf 60a]. And Rashba says that we need both verses, that of [Bereishit, Yosef's brothers] because of [going to] another city, such that it is even where one need not worry about mazikin [demons, evil spirits], such as the brothers of Yosef, who numbered 11, and the reason is because of the pits. Meanwhile, the verse refers to his own city {Josh: perhaps since one need not fear pits}, and because of the evil spirits."

I must confess that what bothers Tosafot does not bother me the slightest. The pasuk in Shemot is the prooftext for Rav's statement, as we see in Bava Kamma. The pasuk in Bereishit, mentioned in our gemara in Pesachim, is not a prooftext! Indeed, Rav and Rav Yosef know nothing about this pasuk. It is the setama degemara that is trying to determine the meaning of Or and brings in this pasuk, and then references this idea of Rav Yehuda citing Rav Yosef to explain the pasuk.

The idea is that the Shevatim kept the entirety of the Torah, including Rabbinic law, and so naturally followed the statement of Rav when leaving the abode of the vizier of Egypt. In other words, why did they leave in the morning? Because of Rav. But don't then turn around and take their action as a source for Rav's rule. It is a target, not a source. And indeed, the actual source sounds like a source for an injuction, לֹא תֵצְאו.

[A peshat explanation of this might be that daytime is the proper time to start a journey, and the pasuk is informing us that they left at their earliest possible opportunity because they so desperately wanted to escape that fraught situation. And then that plan was shattered.]

Also, the Rashba explained the distinction between the two prooftexts as that one was a concern for mazikin, while the other was a concern for pits. I would like to question this assumption, at the same time that I question the first part of Tosafot:

אור"י דבפרק הכונס (דף ס ושם:) משמע דטעם הוי משום מזיקין דמפיק ליה התם מלא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו וקרא משום מזיקין קא מזהיר דמפקינן מיניה התם כיון שניתן רשות למשחית

"The Ri said that in perek HaKones [Bava Kamma 60a-b] it imples that the reason is because of demons, because they derive it there from [the pasuk in Shemot] לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח-בֵּיתוֹ, and that verse is because of mazikin that it warns, for we derive from it there [in Bava Kamma immediately above], 'once permission was given to the [Mashchis] Destroyer...'"

However, I do not believe that this reading can sustain a careful examination of the sugya in Bava Kamma 60a-b. The gemara there reads:

תאני רב יוסף מאי דכתיב (שמות יב, כב) ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר כיון שניתן רשות למשחית אינו מבחין בין צדיקים לרשעים ולא עוד אלא שמתחיל מן הצדיקים תחלה שנאמר (יחזקאל כא, ח) והכרתי ממך צדיק ורשע בכי רב יוסף כולי האי נמי לאין דומין א"ל אביי טיבותא הוא לגבייהו דכתיב (ישעיהו נז, א) כי מפני הרעה נאסף הצדיק

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם יכנס אדם בכי טוב ויצא בכי טוב שנאמר (שמות יב, כב) ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר 

ת"ר דבר בעיר כנס רגליך שנאמר ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר ואומר (ישעיהו כו, כ) לך עמי בא בחדריך וסגור דלתיך בעדך ואומר (דברים לב, כה) מחוץ תשכל חרב ומחדרים אימה 

R. Joseph learnt: What is the meaning of the verse, And none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning?²⁴  Once permission has been granted to the Destroyer, he does not distinguish between righteous and wicked. Moreover, he even begins with the righteous at the very outset, as it says:²⁵  And I will cut off from thee the righteous and the wicked.²⁶  R. Joseph wept at this, saying: So much are they²⁷  compared to nothing!²⁸  But Abaye [consoling him,] said: This is for their advantage, as it is written, That the righteous is taken away from the evil to come.²⁹

Rab Judah stated that Rab said: A man should always enter [a town] by daytime and leave by daytime, as it say's, And none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning.¹

Our Rabbis taught: When there is an epidemic in the town keep your feet inside [the house], as it says, And none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning,¹  and it further says, Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers and shut thy doors about thee;²  and it is again said: The sword without, the terror within shall destroy.³  Why these further citations? — Lest you might think that the advice given above⁴  refers only to the night, but not to the day. Therefore, come and hear: Come, my people, enter thou into thy chamber, and shut thy doors about thee.⁵  And should you say that these apprehensions apply only where there is no terror inside,⁶  whereas where there is terror inside⁶  it is much better to go out and sit among people in one company, again come and hear: The sword without, the terror within shall destroy,³  implying that [even where] the terror is'within'⁶  the 'sword'⁷  will destroy [more] without. In the time of an epidemic Raba used to keep the windows shut, as it is written, For death is come up into our windows.⁸

There are thus three different sources which interpret the pasuk ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר. There is Rav Yosef, Rav Yehuda citing Rav, and the brayta. Though they are juxtaposed because of interpreting the same pasuk, that does not prove that they are speaking about the same topic, namely the Mashchis.

Furthermore, what is the "Mashchis" of Rav Yosef? He is connecting to the peshat meaning of the pasuk, where there was a destructive force wiping out the Egyptian firstborn. That destructive force was either an angel from Hashem, or else Hashem Himself. And despite the target being the Egyptian firstborn, the Israelites were commanded to stay inside, lest they be harmed as well. The "Mashchis", "Destroyer", of the pasuk is not a sheid, a demon.

And Rav Yosef is extrapolating from this case to general cases where the Mashchis has been given authority to act. This, again, is not sheidim. Think instead of widespread disaster -- a tornado, a hurricane, pestilence. In such cases, he says, the righteous are taken along with the wicked, and even targeted first. This is a far cry from sheidim which happen to attack solitary people at night. So, one should not extrapolate from Rav Yosef's mention of a Mashchis to the conclusion that Rav was speaking about sheidim.

However, as I wrote above, this does not rule out shedim. After all, who says that there is any semantic connection between Rav and Rav Yosef, further than that they are interpreting the same pasuk? Indeed, Rashi there explains that Rav Yosef's concern includes shedim:

בכי טוב - בעוד חמה זורחת ילין במלון ולא ימתין עד שתחשך ולבקר לא ישכים לצאת עד שיאיר כי טוב לישנא מעליא האור כי טוב כלומר טוב הוא לצאת בו וליכנס בו מפני המזיקין והליסטין:

Because of mazikin and robbers. But note that it is not solely demons; it is also robbers. Basically, Rashi is helpfully explaining why someone would be concerned with going out at night.

If so, the same concern can apply to Yosef's brothers, even though they number eleven.

Women riding animals

As a followup to an earlier post, I would like to discuss the gemara in Pesachim 3a-b, about Tanach's description of woman riding animals. Here is the outline for my discussion.

I) Present the gemara and its translation.
II) Show that the portion discussion Rivkah, Tzipporah, and Avigail riding on animals is the setama degemara (post-Amoraim), on the basis of three features:
     a) transition from Hebrew to Aramaic
     b) anonymous
     c) an attempt to systematize the derasha
III) Explain why the setama's question is not a good question. That is, that the derasha was not claiming that 'sitting' is a general synonym for riding, just that in terms of tum'ah, it would be equivalent if one sat or rode on an item.
IV) Explain how the gemara's answer for Avigail is not a good answer, because while it might answer for רכבת, each of the suggested answers account for ותרכב which occurs later in the same perek in sefer Shmuel.
V) Even so, explain how this gemara is to be parsed without it forbidding women riding animals normally
VI) An alternative explanation of ישב vs. רכב
VII) How obscure sources are kvetched to obtain modern tznius rules

I) First, the gemara, Pesachim 3a-3b:

לישנא מעליא הוא דנקט וכדר' יהושע בן לוי דאמר ר' יהושע בן לוי לעולם אל יוציא אדם דבר מגונה מפיו שהרי עקם הכתוב שמונה אותיות ולא הוציא דבר מגונה מפיו שנאמר (בראשית ז, ח) מן הבהמה הטהורה ומן הבהמה אשר איננה טהורה רב פפא אמר תשע שנאמר (דברים כג, יא) כי יהיה בך איש אשר לא יהיה טהור מקרה לילה רבינא אמר עשר וי"ו דטהור רב אחא בר יעקב אמר שש עשרה שנאמר (שמואל א כ, כו) כי אמר מקרה הוא בלתי טהור הוא כי לא טהור תניא דבי רבי ישמעאל לעולם יספר אדם בלשון נקיה שהרי בזב קראו מרכב ובאשה קראו מושב ואומר (איוב טו, ה) ותבחר לשון ערומים ואומר (איוב לג, ג) ודעת שפתי ברור מללו מאי ואומר וכי תימא הני מילי בדאורייתא אבל בדרבנן לא תא שמע ואומר ותבחר לשון ערומים וכי תימא הני מילי בדרבנן אבל במילי דעלמא לא ואומר ודעת שפתי ברור מללו 

ובאשה לא כתיב בה מרכב והכתיב (בראשית כד, סא) ותקם רבקה ונערותיה ותרכבנה על הגמלים התם משום ביעתותא דגמלים אורחא היא והכתיב (שמות ד, כ) ויקח משה את אשתו ואת בניו וירכיבם על החמור התם

משום בניו אורחא הוא והכתיב (שמואל א כה, כ) והיא רוכבת על החמור התם משום ביעתותא דליליא אורחא הוא ואיבעית אימא משום ביעתותא דליליא ליכא משום ביעתותא דדוד איכא ואיבעית אימא ביעתותא דדוד נמי ליכא משום ביעתותא דהר איכא ובאורייתא מי לא כתיב טמא אלא כל היכא דכי הדדי נינהו משתעי בלשון נקיה כל היכא דנפישין מילי משתעי בלשון קצרה כדאמר רב הונא אמר רב ואמרי לה אמר רב הונא אמר רב משום ר"מ לעולם ישנה אדם לתלמידו דרך קצרה וכל היכא דכי הדדי נינהו משתעי בלשון כבוד והא רוכבת ויושבת דכי הדדי נינהו וקאמר רוכבת רכבת כתיב

Or, in English:

He employs a refined expression, and in accordance with R. Joshua b. Levi. For R. Joshua b. Levi said: one should not utter a gross expression with his mouth, for lo! the Writ employs a circumlocution of eight letters20 rather than utter a gross expression, for it is said, of every clean beast . . . and of the beasts that are not clean.21 

R. Papa said: Nine, for it is said, If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of that which chanceth by night.22 Rabina said: Ten, [including] the waw of tahor.23 R. Aha b. Jacob said: Sixteen, for it is said, for he thought, Something hath befallen him he is not clean; surely he is not clean.24

The School of R. Ishmael taught: one should always discourse in decent language, for lo!, the case of a zab25 it is called riding, while in connection with a woman it is called sitting;26 and it is said, and thou shalt choose the tongue of the subtle;27 and it is said, and that which my lips know they shall speak purely.28 

Why [quote] ‘and it is said [etc.]’?29 — [For] should you object, that is only in the case of Scripture,30 but not in the case of Rabbinical [discussions], then come and hear, ‘and it is said, and thou shalt choose the tongue of the subtle’.31 Yet should you [still] object, that is only in reference to Rabbinical [discussions] but not secular matters, — then come and hear, ‘and it is said,and that which my lips know they shall speak purely’.

Now, is riding not written in connection with a woman, but surely it is written, And Rebekah arose, and her damsels, and they rode upon the camels?32 — There it was natural through fear of the camels.33 But it is written, and Moses took his wife and his sons, and made them ride upon an ass?34 — There it was natural on account of his sons. But it is written, And it was so, as she rode on her ass?1 — There it was natural through fear of the night. Alternatively, there was no fear of the night, but there was fear of David. Another alternative: there was no fear of David either, but there was the fear of the mountain. 

Yet is not ‘unclean’ written in Scripture?2 Rather wherever they are equal[ly convenient], [Scripture] discourses in a refined language; but wherever more words would be required, the shorter phraseology is employed. As R. Huna said in Rab's name — others say, R. Huna said in Rab's name on R. Meir's authority: one should always teach his pupil in concise terms. And where they are equal he discourses in refined speech? Yet surely ‘riding’ [rokebeth] and ‘sitting’ [yoshebeth] are alike [in length], yet ‘riding’ [rokebeth] is stated? — Rakebeth is stated.3

II) That marked in red above is the setama degemara:

Modern scholars (as well as some traditional scholars, in some places) assert that certain parts of the gemara are later additions, from the time of the Savoraim or even Geonim. There are a few characteristics which can be used to identify this setama degemara.

a) Transition from Hebrew to Aramaic. Note how even the Amoraim, Rav Papa and Rav Acha bar Yaakov employ the word שנאמר, which is Hebrew. Meanwhile, throughout the red marked section, we have דכתיב, which is Aramaic.

b) Anonymous. The Aramaic analysis is not attributed to any named Amora.

c) Systematizing the derasha. The named Amoraim did not explain that this usage was the case across Tanach -- when making a homiletic point, once instance of divergence from the norm might be enough to teach the lesson -- nor did they explain why both derashot (ואומר) were required. Once the setama degemara steps in, its first concern is why both prooftexts were needed -- מאי ואומר. Its second concern is whether, across Tanach, women are described as riding. Its third concern is whether across Tanach 'not tahor' is consistently used, and if not, to explain why.

III) Why the setama's question is not a good question.

Following the lead of the aforementioned derashot, I will avoid saying that it is a bad question. But I don't believe that a good one.

The brayta had stated:

תניא דבי רבי ישמעאל לעולם יספר אדם בלשון נקיה שהרי בזב קראו מרכב ובאשה קראו מושב ואומר (איוב טו, ה) ותבחר לשון ערומים ואומר (איוב לג, ג) ודעת שפתי ברור מללו

The School of R. Ishmael taught: one should always discourse in decent language, for lo!, the case of a zab25 it is called riding, while in connection with a woman it is called sitting;26 and it is said, and thou shalt choose the tongue of the subtle;27 and it is said, and that which my lips know they shall speak purely.28

The meaning of this is, in terms of tumah, we must deal with what a person has sat upon. And by the man, the zav, it speaks about merkav, riding, while by the woman, the zava, it speaks about moshav, sitting. They are functionally equivalent in terms of tuma. That does not mean that one is a synonym for the other, and that if I wanted to say "Ploni rode his horse to town", I could equivalently say "Ploni sat his horse to town." That is not the way Hebrew works.

So, when the setama asks ובאשה לא כתיב בה מרכב, the proper answer is: Of course riding is written by women, because women rode! Only by tumah, when the act of sitting and the act of riding were functionally equivalent in terms of transfer of ritual impurity would the Torah select sitting over riding.

IV) How the gemara's answer for Avigail is not a good answer.

The gemara asks that it seems, from Avigail's travel to David, that Tanach would describe women riding using merkav (and that it would do so even if they were riding side-saddle, where moshav would have been an acceptable synonym):

והכתיב (שמואל א כה, כ) והיא רוכבת על החמור התם משום ביעתותא דליליא אורחא הוא ואיבעית אימא משום ביעתותא דליליא ליכא משום ביעתותא דדוד איכא ואיבעית אימא ביעתותא דדוד נמי ליכא משום ביעתותא דהר איכא

But it is written, And it was so, as she rode on her ass?1 — There it was natural through fear of the night. Alternatively, there was no fear of the night, but there was fear of David. Another alternative: there was no fear of David either, but there was the fear of the mountain. 

The reference is to I Shmuel 25:20:

כ  וְהָיָה הִיא רֹכֶבֶת עַל-הַחֲמוֹר, וְיֹרֶדֶת בְּסֵתֶר הָהָר, וְהִנֵּה דָוִד וַאֲנָשָׁיו, יֹרְדִים לִקְרָאתָהּ; וַתִּפְגֹשׁ, אֹתָם.

20 And it was so, as she rode on her ass, and came down by the covert of the mountain, that, behold, David and his men came down towards her; and she met them.--

Her husband Naval had committed a trespass against David, and David was going to commit bloodshed in response. Covertly, without her husband's knowledge, Avigail visited David and appeased him.

a) This was at night, as we see in pasuk 34: כִּי לוּלֵי מִהַרְתְּ, ותבאתי (וַתָּבֹאת) לִקְרָאתִי--כִּי אִם-נוֹתַר לְנָבָל עַד-אוֹר הַבֹּקֶר, מַשְׁתִּין בְּקִיר, except thou hadst made haste and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light so much as one male.'.

b) This was in fear of David, because she knew that, if she did not act, he was going to massacre her household.

c) This was בְּסֵתֶר הָהָר, by the covert of the mountain, and a mountain pass might be more dangerous.

Thus, these are the three factors that the setama degemara suggests (via איבעית אימא) to account for why רכבת is used rather than יושבת. One of these fears would have caused her to ride in a way that would preclude describing it as יושבת.

The problem I have with each of these answers is that later in the perek, Naval dies and Avigail goes with her handmaidens to David, who marries her. How does she travel to him? ותרכב.

מב  וַתְּמַהֵר וַתָּקָם אֲבִיגַיִל, וַתִּרְכַּב עַל-הַחֲמוֹר, וְחָמֵשׁ נַעֲרֹתֶיהָ, הַהֹלְכוֹת לְרַגְלָהּ; וַתֵּלֶךְ, אַחֲרֵי מַלְאֲכֵי דָוִד, וַתְּהִי-לוֹ, לְאִשָּׁה.

42 And Abigail hastened, and arose, and rode upon an ass, with five damsels of hers that followed her; and she went after the messengers of David, and became his wife.

There is no indication that this was at night. David wanted to marry her, so there was no fear of David. And there was no need for secrecy that would make her take mountain pass.

Perhaps the last two are not true. Perhaps out of honor for David, she "hurried". Perhaps this was the only path to David from her home, and בסתר means something else.

However, at the very least this is a complication in the gemara's answer.

At any rate, at the very end of the gemara, it appears that there is a retraction from the assessment that she rode in this manner, compelling the use of רכבת.

והא רוכבת ויושבת דכי הדדי נינהו וקאמר רוכבת רכבת כתיב

That is, the assumption here is that the author would still use יושבת, were רכבת not shorter by one letter. (See Tosafot grapple with the difficulty of this answer, since ישבת could also be written chaser.)

If so, then maybe all of these assumptions about women riding side-saddle in the hava amina would also fall away, since they are not necessary. Maybe not, and it is only regarding Avigail, where the assumption is now that she rode side-saddle. After all, there is still the fear of camels.

Here is a question, though, given the setama degemara's conclusion. The word ותרכב, which the gemara does not think to mention, is 5 letters. ותשב is four letters. This is both derech ketzara and lashon nekiyah. So why is it not used?

Making halachic or hashkafic conclusions based on this back-and-forth of the gemara, which I think has several flaws and does not accord with the opinion of the Amoraim, is ill-advised.

V) How to parse the gemara:

Though I gave my reasons for displeasure with the give and take of the gemara, let us run with it.

It is possible, with all this, that the only problem is in describing a woman doing these actions. While it might be true that, in general, women even in the days of Chazal rode side-saddle, that does not mean that, where the riding was not otherwise possible otherwise, they refrained from riding.

The statement of the brayta was just that one should use polite language:

The School of R. Ishmael taught: one should always discourse in decent language, for lo!, the case of a zab25 it is called riding, while in connection with a woman it is called sitting;26 and it is said, and thou shalt choose the tongue of the subtle;27 and it is said, and that which my lips know they shall speak purely.28 

There was nothing in it that stated that it was forbidden, or improper, for women to actually ride. Only that it was improper to describe it, if alternative language was available. Or that it was better to select the more refined language.

Thus, we have Rabbenu Chananel explain:

That is, to translate Rabbenu Chananel:

And why did it not mention riding by a woman? For riding is with separation of the legs. And it is a way of disgrace for a woman, the mentioning of separation of the legs, in an instance where it was possible to describe the matter in a praiseworthy manner. But by riding on a camel, and the like, where because of fear she would fear to ride by way of sitting lest she fall, and so it is not possible to mention 'riding', there is no issue with it.

The gemara then asks about Scriptural instances of women described as 'riding'. Ignore my objection above, about synonyms. Why is Rivkah mentioned as riding, rather than sitting?

The gemara answers this by finding something very specific about this instance. Namely, it was על הגמלים, on a camel. This then forms an exception.

By making it exceptional, the gemara has transformed, or at least solidified, the definition of רכב and ישב. That is, prior to the question, we could assume that every form of riding, whether with legs split by a saddle or via side-saddle, could be called either רכב or more politely ישב. Now we see that only side-saddle (RIDE1) could be called either ישב or רכב, but the type of riding most people (men, certainly, and women at times) do can only be called רכב (RIDE2).

Once we have this definition, and where we committed to the specificity of camels, Tzippora forms a great objection, since she was on a donkey. The answer appears to be that, indeed, we would not have used רכב there due to politeness concerns, but it was a relevant word to use since Moshe's two sons were also involved in this riding.

But then we have Avigail, who was a lone woman, and it is רכב on a donkey, not a camel. The answer is to extend the ביעתותא, the fear. When making camels exceptional, it was due to a fear. So, we can find some other fear that would compel Avigail to similarly perform the more extreme 'riding', such that ישב would not be applicable. And so, based on textual cues, the gemara suggests three possible factors that could compel such fear: night, David, mountain.

At the very end of the gemara, there appears to be a possible retraction. For Avigail, one need not posit fear. Since they establish by tuma that brevity is also of value, they ascribe the use of רכבת to brevity. This is strange, since they already have an answer in place (ביעתותא) and because, as Tosafot points out (though answers as well), ישבת can also be written chaser.

Does this mean that generally women would engage in RIDE1, except for where there is fear? This seems to be the underlying assumption.

However, I don't think that this is the case, based on the way that prooftexts work. Once the gemara had defined RIDE1 (side-saddle) and RIDE2 (straddling), any instance of רכב was ambiguous, and could be RIDE1 or RIDE2, and so in asking the question, the assumption was made that it was RIDE1. In order to reject the premise of the question, the gemara repeatedly asserted that it was RIDE2, and provided textual cues which would force it to be RIDE2. The forcing of it to be RIDE2 (straddling) solidly answers the question. But that does not mean that, in the general case, women did not engage in RIDE2.

VI) An alternative explanation of ישב vs. רכב

An alternative is not that the gemara is speaking of different forms of riding, RIDE1 and RIDE2. Rather, ישב connotes detachment, while רכב connotes a greater engagement. If someone was merely sitting, they might fall off! Therefore, giving what was going on, the fear would compel greater attachment to the act of riding, and so רכב is the better term to use.

With this explanation, we have what I would deem a more consistent usage of אורחא היא, as purely referring to the normal pattern of speech, for Rivkah, Tzipporah, and Avigail.

VII) How obscure sources are kvetched to obtain modern tznius rules.

This give and take in the gemara is not cited lehalacha by the Rif, the Rosh, or the Rambam. The immediately preceding gemara, about using proper speech, is cited by them.

So even if one dismisses my objections to the gemara itself; and even if one interprets the gemara contrariwise to how I did above, and deduces that straddling while riding itself is improper, it is interesting that this gemara has been resurrected to prohibit modern activities (e.g. riding a bicycle or wearing pants), circumventing the absence of real discussion lehalacha by Rishonim.

Why does it surface in modern discussions of tznius? Because there is a vacuum. There is an lack of sources which talk about such issues. And modern halachic decisors end up going back to gemaras, or partial quotes of Rabbenu Chananel, and try to create new simanim in Shulchan Aruch on this basis.

I am not sure about the legitimacy of this approach.

May a girl ride a bicycle?

Here is an interesting "teshuva" (I am unsure that these are actual questions posed to him) from Rabbi Yitzchak Zilberstein, in Chashukei Chemed on Pesachim. Based on (what I believe is a misquote of) a Rabbenu Chananel in the beginning of Pesachim, he rules that young girls should not ride bicycles.

The teshuva:

"Pesachim 3a: "By a woman it is not written riding"
It is improper for a girl to ride a bicycle

Q: Is it permitted for a girl to ride a bicycle?

A: It appears that it is improper for a girl [and certainly a woman] to ride a bicycle, for in Masechet Pesachim, daf 3a it is stated: 'A person should always speak in pristine language, for by a zav it is called 'riding' while by a woman is is called 'sitting'. And Rashi says that this is because it is not proper to mention riding and the separation of legs by a woman, and in Rabbenu Chananel he adds 'and it is a way of disgrace for a woman'. And from here we learn that it is improper for girls [naarot and yeladot] to ride on bicycles.

And there is to comment regarding that written in Masechet Bava Metzia (daf 9b) that a woman acquires an animal by riding, because it is the usual way in this. Thus it is usual for a woman to ride on a donkey. And the Yaabetz already evaluated this (in his glosses to Masechet bava Metzia there) and he is left with a tzarich iyun. And perhaps it is possible to answer that it is speaking of her sitting on the donkey and not riding, and the primary novelty of the gemara there is that it is not the way of a woman to pull, and it was not an easy thing there to distinguish between riding and sitting. And it is possible that it was speaking about where there were no men, for behold in the public domain a man as well acquires with riding.

And behold, it is stated in the Torah (Shemot 4:20)

כ  וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת-אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֶת-בָּנָיו, וַיַּרְכִּבֵם עַל-הַחֲמֹר, וַיָּשָׁב, אַרְצָה מִצְרָיִם; וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת-מַטֵּה הָאֱלֹהִים, בְּיָדוֹ.

20 And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt; and Moses took the rod of God in his hand.

and Ibn Ezra wrote 

והוצרכו הזקנים לתרגם על החמור. על נושא אדם. בעבור שהוא דרך גירעון שתרכב אשת הנביא על חמור אחד היא ושני בניה. 

that it is a deficiency that the wife of the prophet rode on a single donkey, she and her two sons. And in sefer Parperet Moshe [from Rabbi Moshe Rubinstein] he understands [in Ibn Ezra's words] that it was a deficiency in tznius, and therefore [says Ibn Ezra] the [72] elders [who translated the Torah for Ptolemy, the Septuagint, as related in Megillah daf 9a] translated it as regarding the carriers [plural] of a person. [Josh: see here in Septuagint, where they translate it in the plural, and about beasts in general: And Moses took his wife and his children, and mounted them on the beasts... ] And in the gemara [in Pesachim] they answered that it wrote וירכיבם because of his sons.

And it is fitting to insist about this, that a girl, and certainly a woman, should not ride on a bicycle."

End quote from this teshuva.

I don't believe that this is the correct interpretation of Rabbenu Chananel, because it omits the very continuation of Rabbenu Chananel's words! That is, he cited R' Chananel as: והוא דרך גנאי באשה, as an addition to Rashi's words. Thus, to cite the relevant words above:

And Rashi says that this is because it is not proper to mention riding and the separation of legs by a woman, and in Rabbenu Chananel he adds 'and it is a way of disgrace for a woman'.

This is, that it is a way of disgrace for a woman to ride, for the separation of legs by a woman is a disgrance. But that is not what Rabbenu Chananel said (click to see large):

That is, to translate Rabbenu Chananel:

For riding is with separation of the legs. And it is a way of disgrace for a woman, the mentioning of separation of the legs, in an instance where it was possible to describe the matter in a praiseworthy manner. But by riding on a camel, and the like, where because of fear she would fear to ride by way of sitting lest she fall, and so it is not possible to mention 'riding', there is no issue with it.

Rabbenu Chananel was saying that the hazkara of pisuk raglayim was derech genai. The mentioning, and the language, not the actions.

And if so, this is not really such an innovation of Rabbenu Chananel. Recall that the lead in to all of this in the gemara was דאמר ר' יהושע בן לוי לעולם אל יוציא אדם דבר מגונה מפיו. Thus, the description of 'riding' instead of 'sitting' would be דבר מגונה, or using the same root, גנאי. It would be indelicate.

Indeed, the implication is that there is no prohibition or impropriety of a woman riding a camel, even though this would entail splitting of the legs while riding. Or of riding on a donkey. The only problem is in describing it. Where it is possible to use other terminology, the gemara (and R' Chananel) asserts, the Torah would use it, but where such terminology is not possible, it would not.

If so, perhaps problem with the gemara in Bava Metzia saying that it is the derech of women to ride on animals. Indeed, they would historically take such actions as riding on animals. What Rav Yaakov Emden (Yaavetz) was reacting to in Bava Metzia was that, based on the gemara in Pesachim, it was not the derech of women in an ir, but only on the derech. And this does find purchase in Pesachim, in particular the discussion on 3b of Avigail riding a donkey to David:

והכתיב (שמואל א כה, כ) והיא רוכבת על החמור התם משום ביעתותא דליליא אורחא הוא ואיבעית אימא משום ביעתותא דליליא ליכא משום ביעתותא דדוד איכא ואיבעית אימא ביעתותא דדוד נמי ליכא משום ביעתותא דהר

with the implication that in general, women would ride side-saddle, but specifically by Avigail, it was not the case for the reasons given. This still is not a statement that is a gnai. Bli neder, in a separate post, I will discuss how to understand this particular sugya in Pesachim. (After all, if women would generally ride side-saddle, then maybe there is some impropriety.)

Even if they were getting correct peshat in that gemara in Pesachim, I don't know that this would extend to riding a bicycle. To the right, see the "horse stance", from martial arts. This is the pisuk raglayim involved in riding on an animal, and it should be obvious why it might not be lashon nekiyah to describe a woman engaged in such spreading of her legs. But does riding a bicycle involve such leg-spreading?










Here is an image of someone riding a bicycle: Does it involve the same level of pisuk raglayim?

It does not, because a horse's body is much wider than a bicycle's frame.

[Unless one defines pisuk raglayim as any form of sitting in which something comes between the legs; in this case, the bicycle seat.]

Daf Yomi Pesachim daf 2-3: naghei vs. leilei

Back in 2006, I wrote a series of posts delving into the true meaning of the naghei / leilei gemara in the beginning of Pesachim.

I will link here to all eight posts, and also in this post repeat the text of the final post. It is really good stuff, so I would recommend checking it out.

1) The Ambiguous אור
2) Leilei Leilei Mamash
3) Naghei vs. Leilei
4) Naghei vs. Leilei - Based on Location?
5) Posts so far on the word אור
6) `or does NOT mean `oreta`
7) Mar Zutra's Proof
8) Reconstruction of the Original Sugya

The basic idea is that both Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda were explaining that when the Mishna said Or -- which obviously meant night based on the very next Mishna which contrasted it to day -- that word Or was not the same as Aramaic Oreta, meaning late afternoon of the 13th. Rather, it meant Leilei / Naghei, when it was actually nightfall of the 14th. Mar Zutra tries to prove this very point from a Mishna in Keritut. But then, the setama degemara does not understand this point, conflates Oreta with Naghei / Leilei, and thinks that they are trying to argue against Or meaning Yom, that is day. And most of the Ta Shemas target that.

I repeat here my final post:

In previous posts, I addressed the true meaning of Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda's statement about the definition of אור, showed how Mar Zutra's proof fit in to that end, and showed how a great many difficulties can be thusly resolved. What I would like to do it reconstruct the original sugya in the beginning of Pesachim, and explain what each statement means and how it fits in with the whole.

Reconstructing the original sugya is a fairly easy task in this instance. All that is involved is citing the statements by named Amoraim and omitting the rest, which is stamaitic.

The sugya I can reconstruct in this was is as follows:

דף ב, א משנה אור לארבעה עשר בודקין את החמץ לאור הנר כל מקום שאין מכניסין בו חמץ אין צריך בדיקה ובמה אמרו ב' שורות במרתף מקום שמכניסין בו חמץ בית שמאי אומרים ב' שורות על פני כל המרתף ובית הלל אומרים שתי שורות החיצונות שהן העליונות:

דף ב, א גמרא מאי אור רב הונא אמר נגהי ורב יהודה אמר לילי

דף ב, ב גמרא מיתיבי מר זוטרא

דף ג, א גמרא המפלת אור לשמונים ואחד בית שמאי פוטרין מקרבן ובית הלל מחייבים אמרו <להן> [להם] בית הלל לבית שמאי מאי שנא אור שמנים ואחד מיום שמנים ואחד אם שיוה לו לטומאה לא ישוה לו לקרבן

תני דבי שמואל לילי ארבעה עשר בודקין את החמץ לאור הנר

דף ד, א גמרא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק בשעה שבני אדם מצויין בבתיהם ואור הנר יפה לבדיקה אמר אביי הילכך האי צורבא מרבנן לא לפתח בעידניה באורתא דתליסר דנגהי ארבסר דלמא משכא ליה שמעתיה ואתי לאימנועי ממצוה

Mishna:
The אור of the 14th we search for chametz by the light of a candle. Any place where we do not bring in chametz does not require searching. And regarding what did they discuss two rows in a wine-cellar? A place into which we bringchametz.
Bet Shammai say: Two rows over the entire cellar;
and Bet Hillel say:The two outer rows, that are the uppermost.

Gemara:
What is אור?
{We might think this is equal to its Aramaic cognate, אורתא, and thus means thelate afternoon of the 13th, going into the 14th, and thus the Mishna states אורלארבעה .עשר}
Rav Huna said: Naghei.And Rav Yehuda said: Leilei.
{Both agree, and are saying that אור means night and not late afternoon.}
Mar Zutra attempted to prove this {from the Mishna in Keritut 9b}: If a woman miscarries on the אור to the 81st. Bet Shammai exempt from a{n additional}korban and Bet Hillel require. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: Why should the אור of the 81st differ from the day {=morning} of the 81st. If it is equivalent to it in terms of ritual impurity {that if she saw menstrual blood, she would be considered a niddah at this time}, should it not be equivalent to it in terms ofkorban?
{This proves that אור is night and not late afternoon, because late afternoon is still part of the 80th day and if she saw menstrual blood she would not be considered a niddah.}
Indeed - in the academy of Shmuel they taught {the Mishna as}: Leilei of the 14th we search for chametz by the light of a candle.
{Thus, it is clear that they regard אור to be leilei, which is not and not late afternoon. Now, why at night, and perhaps, why not earlier, in late afternoon?}
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: At the hour that people are found in their houses and the light of the candle is good for searching.
Abaye said: Therefore a Torah scholar should not begin his seder of learning on the אורתא of the 13th which goes into the נגהי of the 14th lest his learning draw him in and he will then come to neglect the precept.

Perhaps rather than מיתיבי we should have something along the lines of תא שמע. Also, perhaps one can argue on my interpretation of Abaye's usage of אורתא, and thus manage to undermine this entire tower I have just built up. Comments welcome. :)