Crocodile bile

In the news recently was the tragic tale of many people killed of hospitalized because of accidental consumption of crocodile bile in beer served after a funeral.

To cite the article in Forbes:

Crocodile bile is literally the digestive juice from the gall bladders of the Nile crocodile, Crocodylus niloticus. Its use traces back to witchcraft accusations in 1899, according to Professor N.Z. Nyazema, in the Department of Clinical Pharmacology at the University of Zimbabwe, writing in the Central African Journal of Medicine in 1984 and 1985. The university, in Harare, is about 300 miles southwest across the Mozambique border from where the poisonings occurred.

Bile contains detergent molecules, called bile salts or bile acids, that animals use to dissolve or emulsify fats. They also bind to hormone receptors that regulate their own production. But more simply, bile salts or bile acids could conceivably be quite toxic in very high concentrations, as would any strong detergent. However, this isn’t consistent with the amounts allegedly used in traditional poisoning cases.

Professor Nyzema explains,

It is widely believed that the bile from the gall bladder of a crocodile is very poisonous. The bile nduru is used as poison which is added to beer or stiff porridge, sadza, of an unsuspecting victim. It is not easy to buy this poison neither is it easy for anyone to kill a crocodile solely for the purpose of obtaining the bile. But with a good fee one can obtain some of the poison from a special n’anga [a traditional healer of the Zimbabwean Shona tribe]. At times the n’anga may undertake to poison the victim thus adding mystery to the ingredients of the poison. It is reported that the poisoning occurs at special occasions like beer drinking: The nduru is said to be introduced into the beer by dipping the finger or nail where a small amount is placed: This will suffice for the purpose. The unfortunate victim is supposed to die within 24 hours. The poison is supposed to manifest itself when the patient develops pains mainly in the abdomen. 

However, as the article discusses, there is not enough poison in the crocodile bile itself to kill or even injure. Rather, it seems that it is one of the other ingredients in the crocodile bile concoction that kills.

I would note that many centuries ago, Egyptian doctors were writing about crocodile poison which can can injure someone who touches it even after the crocodile's death. As I discuss here, Rabbenu Bachya on parshat Vaera (who asserts that tzrafdea are crocodiles) cited these doctors and reported this as fact. I fixed up this quote from the Revach site's translation.

"Even to this day... there is an animal called an 'Altimasa' or crocodile that lives in the Nilus. Every now and then it will come out and swallow two or three people in one shot. It cannot be killed with spears or arrows unless it is struck in its stomach. It has a poison that can harm people who touch it even after it is already dead. 

Rabbenu Bachya does not say that the poison is on its body, just that it has a poison which can injure someone who touches the crocodile after death. So this might be a reference to the same.

Many facets of Torah

Summary: What was the miracle of the luchos? That letters were suspended, or that they could be read in any which way?

Post: Consider this pasuk and Rashi from parashat Ki Tisa:

15. Now Moses turned and went down from the mountain [bearing] the two tablets of the testimony in his hand, tablets inscribed from both their sides; on one side and on the other side they were inscribed.		טו. וַיִּפֶן וַיֵּרֶד מֹשֶׁה מִן הָהָר וּשְׁנֵי לֻחֹת הָעֵדֻת בְּיָדוֹ לֻחֹת כְּתֻבִים מִשְּׁנֵי עֶבְרֵיהֶם מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה הֵם כְּתֻבִים:
from both their sides: the letters could be read. This was a miraculous phenomenon. -[from Shab. 104a, Meg. 2b]		משני עבריהם: היו האותיות נקראות, ומעשה נסים היה:

Pashut peshat, before any midrashic explanation, is that there was different writing on the obverse and on the reverse side of each of the two tablets. Thus, in the Code of Hamurabbi:

The code is set down in horizontal columns of cuneiform writing: 16 columns of text on the obverse side and 28 on the reverse.

But, according to the gemara in Shabbat 104a, according to Rav Chisda, this pasuk means that the writing went all the way through, such that letters with centers, such as samech, had their middles suspended in the air miraculously:

 R. Hisda said: The mem and the samek which were in the Tables stood [there] by a miracle.

and:

It was stated above, R. Hisda said: The mem and the samek which were in the Tables stood [there] by a miracle. R. Hisda also said: The writing of the Tables could be read from within and without,⁷  e.g., nebub [hollow] would be read buban; — behar [in the mountain] [as] rahab; saru [they departed] [as] waras.⁸

The miracle was in the suspension, but not that it could be read from either side the same way. Indeed, it could not. I recall hearing about some Yemenite Jews who hold the siddur sideways or upside down. This because they did not have enough sifrei Torah or Torah books to go around, and so they all gathered around the table and looked at the same book lying on the table. And so some learned to read right-side up, some upside-down, some sideways, and so on. So too here, one might be able to read the luchos but in reverse. Rashi is just citing the gemara, so he presumably agrees.

Rabbenu Bachya interprets the pasuk, and the miracle, at odds with the explanation provided by the gemara:

"לֻחֹת כְּתֻבִים מִשְּׁנֵי עֶבְרֵיהֶם מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה הֵם כְּתֻבִים -- this was a great wonder, that the text could be read in its regular order from both sides, something which is not so in our writings, where one the obverse it is in order and on the reverse side it is backwards. And yet here, it says מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, from both sides, which refers to the obverse and reverse sides.


And it is possible to explain מִשְּׁנֵי עֶבְרֵיהֶם that it comes to allude to the idea that there is, to the implications of the words of Torah, two sides: the revealed and the hidden. Just as Shlomo ob"m said {Mishlei 25:11} "Like apples of gold in settings of silver [is a word spoken in right circumstances]." And {Iyov 11:6} "[And that He would tell thee the secrets of wisdom, the תַּעֲלֻמוֹת חָכְמָה], that sound wisdom is manifold!" This is to be explained as that the Torah is doubled, and that besides the simple meaning of the Torah, there is in it other secrets of wisdom, תַּעֲלֻמוֹת חָכְמָה. And upon this the verse stated {Tehillim 62:12} "God hath spoken once, twice have I heard this..." "

According to Siftei Chachamim, Bereshit Rabba gives the same explanation. I'd have to see it inside. And this is what appears in Yerushalmi Shekalim, though I don't see that there that it was miraculous. Apparently, some interpret Rashi on Chumash as saying that the maaseh nisim was that it could be read identically from either side, but Gur Aryeh explains like I did above, that Rashi is being consistent with our gemara.

I vaguely recall that there was a scholarly article which tried to show how this could work, al derech hateva, with a sort of 'bagel writing', in which light would come in one side for one letter and come out from another nook to form part of another letter.

Aside from any of that, there is a machlokes whether the letters on the luchot were ktav ashurit, in which case the mem and samech would stand miraculously, or whether the letters on the luchot were ktav ivri, or Paleo-Hebrew, in which case the ayin and tet would stand miraculously:


The chet would also need to stand miraculously, as would the bet, dalet, kuf, and resh. But the choice of ayin and tet are because they are the most obviously circular letters, and thus most parallel to the ashurit letters samech and mem sofit.

Looking at the letters in Paleo-Hebrew, I could imagine an easier time constructing something that could be read backwards and forwards, since there are lines of symmetry in the zayin, chet, tet, tav, samech, etc. Still, it would not be the same as the text as it appears in the luchot.

Regardless of the specifics of the nes, I would note that you can support the idea of it being a miraculous  text, and that it had something to do with the nature of its inscription, from the pasuk which immediately follows:

16. Now the tablets were God's work, and the inscription was God's inscription, engraved on the tablets.

טז. וְהַלֻּחֹת מַעֲשֵׂה אֱ־לֹהִים הֵמָּה וְהַמִּכְתָּב מִכְתַּב אֱ־לֹהִים הוּא חָרוּת עַל הַלֻּחֹת:

This would then lend its weight to influence a midrashic interpretation of the preceding pasuk.

Rav Yechezkel Abramsky cites this Rashi, juxtaposes it with Rabbenu Bachya (perhaps implying that one is modifying the other?), and provides nice homiletic lesson from the nes:

In Birkas Avraham, the author refers us Rashi, Rashi's sources, Sifsei Chachamim, and Maskil LeDavid. Then:

"And in the commentary of R' Ovadia miBartenura to maseches Avos, chapter 5 mishna 6, he writes that the letters on the luchos were readable from all four sides. And his language implies that the miracle mentioned by Rashi was doubled, and they were readable from all four side.


And see in Talmud Yerushalmi, maseches Shekalim, perek 6, halacha 1, that the position of Rabbi Simai was that the luchos were written 40 {commandments} on this tablet and 40 {commandments} on this tablet, for it is written מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה הֵם כְּתֻבִים, namely tatruga [square in the Greek language]. And see the commentary to the Yerushalmi in the Shu"t of the Radva"z, volume 3, siman 549. And perhaps the intent of Rabbi Simai was to darshen that מִשְּׁנֵי עֶבְרֵיהֶם makes for two, and מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה was double that which was impled before, in which case they were readable from all four sides."

I'll just close with my own interpretation of that gemara in Yerushalmi, without examining what other meforshim have to say (so forgive me if someone has already said it):

כיצד היו הלוחות כתובים ר' חנינה <בן אחיה ר' יהודה> בן גמליאל אומר חמשה על לוח זה וחמשה על לוח זה הה"ד (דברים ד) ויכתבם על שני לוחות אבנים חמשה על לוח זה וחמשה על לוח זה ורבנן אמרי עשרה על לוח זה ועשרה על לוח זה הה"ד (דברים ד) ויגד לכם את בריתו אשר צוה אתכם לעשות עשרת הדברים עשרה על לוח זה ועשרה על לוח זה ר"ש בן יוחאי אומר עשרים על לוח זה ועשרים על לוח זה דכתיב ויכתבם על שני לוחות אבנים עשרים על לוח זה ועשרים על לוח זה רבי סימאי אמר ארבעים על לוח זה וארבעים על לוח זה דכתיב (שמות לב) מזה ומזה הם כתובים מטרוגה

I would guess that in interpreting מזה ומזה, a gematria is at play. Mem zeh and mem zeh they were written, with mem, 40, on this one tablet and mem, 40, on that tablet. And then, how so? By repeating it in a square, with all ten on each side.

If not, then as merely one-upmanship in derashot, with each rabbinic figure building upon the words of his predecessor, finding another reason to double the preceding figure, where what preceded is a given, and with the new derasha building on it. Sort of like the number-of-miracle contests in the haggadah.

Does Onkelos render וְאַשְׂמְאִילָה as וְאַצְפְּנָךְ or אֲנָא לְצִפּוּנָא?

Summary: and the ramifications. It is plausible that Onkelos follows a midrash. Or it could be a taus sofer. I try to explain away the variant.

Post: In parashat Lech Lecha, we have an interesting deviation from the norm in Targum Onkelos, looking at the Nusach of the Teimanim:

יג,ט הֲלֹא כָל-הָאָרֶץ לְפָנֶיךָ, הִפָּרֶד נָא מֵעָלָי:  אִם-הַשְּׂמֹאל וְאֵימִנָה, וְאִם-הַיָּמִין וְאַשְׂמְאִילָה.

הֲלָא כָּל אַרְעָא קֳדָמָךְ, אִתְפָּרַשׁ כְּעַן מִלְּוָתִי:  אִם אַתְּ לְצִפּוּנָא אֲנָא לְדָרוֹמָא, וְאִם אַתְּ לְדָרוֹמָא וְאַצְפְּנָךְ.

In our Mikraos Gedolos, and so in texts that Shadal uses, such as dfus Savyonita (1557), we have instead אֲנָא לְצִפּוּנָא. Thus:

Is there a difference between the two? Some people say yes. For instance, the following in Chelek HaDikduk:

"Our Targum has וְאַצְפְּנָךְ, to explain, against your will [I will make you go to the North]. For the entire intent of Avraham was to go to the South, which was the Right. And so wrote the Rabbenu Bachya and the Shalah, that so was in the precise Nuschaos. And so writes the Ir Giborim."

Perhaps I could explain וְאַצְפְּנָךְ in a different manner. 'If you go to the right, then I will 'North' myself of you." I will make myself to the North of you. That would account for the ach ending. And the aleph patach beginning could be a first person singular imperfect, rather than some sort of aphel causative. Or, perhaps it indeed means this, but someone emended the text of Onkelos to mean what he wanted it to mean, based on objections from other pesukim. Or, perhaps it does mean this and it was original. All are possibilities.

Here is Rabbenu Bachya on this variant, referred to above:

"אִם-הַשְּׂמֹאל וְאֵימִנָה -- That is to say, if you go to the left, וְאֵימִנָה, I will go to the south, for so he intended to go, for so is written above [Bereishit 12:9], הלוך ונסוע הנגבה.


וְאִם-הַיָּמִין, that is to say, if you want to go to the South, וְאַשְׂמְאִילָה, that is to say I will make myself go to the left. So did Rashi explain. 


And there is to be confounded, he could he say אשמאיל את עצמי, when the intent of Avraham was to travel in the South? Rather, the explanation of וְאַשְׂמְאִילָה is that the intent is וְאַשְׂמְאִילָה אותך, that is to say, against your will, you will be required to go to the North. 


And so I have heard that the Targum Onkelos is, in precise nuschaot, אִם אַתְּ לְצִפּוּנָא אֲנָא לְדָרוֹמָא, וְאִם אַתְּ לְדָרוֹמָא וְאַצְפְּנָךְ. That is to say, against your will, for I will not give you permission to stay about in the South because of the weight of the cattle which I have."

I would note that that pasuk of הלוך ונסוע הנגבה does not need to mean, on a peshat level, that Avraham's intent was to travel always to the South. It could just mean that at that point in time, he was moving about in the South of Eretz Yisrael. Now, Rashi brings a midrash on that pasuk that does indeed reflect such an intent:

9. And Abram traveled, continually traveling southward.		ט. וַיִּסַּע אַבְרָם הָלוֹךְ וְנָסוֹעַ הַנֶּגְבָּה:
continually traveling: lit. going and traveling. [He traveled] in intervals, staying here for a month or more, traveling from there, and pitching his tent elsewhere. And all his travels were southward, to go to the south of the Land of Israel, and that is to the direction of Jerusalem, (The meaning is that Jerusalem was in the middle of the world and the end of the Land of Israel. So it is explained in Isaiah.) which is in the territory of Judah, who took [his portion] in the south of the Land of Israel, to Mount Moriah, which was his [Judah’s] heritage. (Gen. Rabbah 39:16). [Note that the parenthetic addendum appears in several editions of Rashi , but its connection to this verse is obscure, because the location of Jerusalem in the middle of the world is irrelevant.]		הלוך ונסוע: לפרקים, יושב כאן חדש או יותר ונוסע משם ונוטה אהלו במקום אחר, וכל מסעיו הנגבה ללכת לדרומה של ארץ ישראל והוא לצד ירושלים שהיא בחלקו של יהודה, שנטלו בדרומה של ארץ ישראל הר המוריה שהיא נחלתו:

But it could be that this new situation emerged and he indeed offered Lot his choice in any direction, despite this previous desire. It is certainly difficult, on a peshat level, to say like Rabbenu Bachya. The pesukim continue with Lot choosing the nice land in the kikar hayarden, seeing how nice it was, indicating that there was a choice of which land to take.

R' Bentzion Berkowitz, in his Chalifot Semalot, writes as follows:

Without being aware of this alternate girsa, but discussing something else -- the presence or absence of of vavs in the two instances of אֲנָא (as opposed to va'ana) in Onkelos -- he brings a midrash:

"Rabbi Yochanan said: [This is comparable to two men who had to kur, one of wheat and one of barley. He said to him: If the wheat is mine, my barley is yours, and if my barley is your, the wheat is mine. Regardless, the wheat is mine.

 And it is implied there that so was the Targum, as is explained there -- if you are to the left, I to the Sourth, and if I am to to South, you are to the left.


And behold, the language of the midrash is indeed extremely difficult to understand the mashal corresponding to the nimshal, which is regarding Avraham. Is he seeking to best out {and trick} Lot his brother after he said to him, 'let there not be contention between us'? So how can he tell him that 'regardless, the wheat it mine, in the manner of the allegory? However, it is so that in truth Avraham knew at first that Lot wished to go to the North, for only Avraham was  הלוך ונסוע הנגבה. But Avraham gave the choice to Lot to choose if he would go first to travel to the North or if he, Avraham, we begin his travel to the South, and afterwards Lot to the North. And this is what is being darshened from the language of ואשמאלה is not written here but וְאַשְׂמְאִילָה, that regardless, I will make that person go to the left [?], for I leave to left open before you. And behold, according to this, it is precise the vav of וְאֵימִנָה and וְאַשְׂמְאִילָה, for it as well is drawn after the choice of Lot, if he wanted to go to the left via my going to the right, as well as וְאַשְׂמְאִילָה. But according to the pashut, the vavs are extra, for the choice was not given to him except to go to one of the sides, and from what is understood is that the second side is left before him, and this is the reason for the omission of the vavs in Onkelos."

Then, in square brackets, he writes of his friend informing him of this Rabbenu Bachya. And after citing it, he [=the friend, I think] says: And behold, though the language of Chazal might be יצפין and ידרים, still, in Targum Onkelos it is meshubash.

We can find the midrash in Midrash Rabba on Lech Lecha:

אם השמאל ואימינה ואם הימין ואשמאילה אמר ליה: אם את לשמאלה, אנא לדרומה. 
ואם אנא לדרומה, את לשמאלה. 

אמר רבי יוחנן:לשני בני אדם שהיו להם שתי כורים, אחד של חטים ואחד של שעורים. 
אמר ליה: אם חטייא דידי, שערי דידך. 
ואם שערי דידך, חטייא דידי. 
מן כל אתר חטייא דידי! 
כך, אם השמאל ואימינה, ואם הימין ואשמאילה
. 
אמר רבי חנינא בר יצחק:ואשמאלה אין כתיב: כאן, אלא ואשמאילה מן כל אתר, אנא משמאיל לההוא גברא: 

This would seem to be a derasha based on the nikkud in the pasuk, rather than what appears in Targum Onkelos. But it is plausible that Targum Onkelos followed suit, or else was modified to conform to this idea.

I would note that the Peshitta has an interesting twist on this pasuk, possibly of some relevance. It swaps the two directions:

הא כלה ארעא קדמיך פרוש מני אן אנת לימינא אנא לסמלא ואן אנת לסמלא אנא לימינא :

Even so, it still is an either/or choice, so it is not really so relevant.

The azla geresh on ve'et ha'elef

Summary: Two theories to explain this nikkud, one mechanical and the other quasi-midrashim. I lean heavily towards the former.

Post: In parashat Pekudei, in Shemot 38:28, we encounter the following pasuk with the following trup:

Note the red-underlined beginning two words. The trup on ve'et haEleph is a conjunctive accent, which is commonly called today the kadma. This from a chumash with Shadal's commentary. In our own Mikraos Gedolos, the trup is a bit different:

Note the red-underlined beginning two words. The trup on ve'et haEleph is a disjunctive accent, a melech rather than a mesharet, which is commonly called today the azla geresh, since it is not joined with a kadma. (The Leningrad Codex also has this azla geresh.)

What would prompt the azla geresh, or perhaps the kadma, on this word? For this, I would turn to William Wickes' treatise on the cantillation of the 21 prose books of Tanach. He has a consistent and tested theory of a continuous dichotomy of each verse, in which the major dichotomy (split into two) is made on logical semantic grounds, usually by an etnachta, and the phrases in the verse are continuously split in two, again and again, so long as a clause contains three words or more, this time on purely syntactic grounds. The specific disjunctive (melech) trup symbol used is mechanically based on the trup symbol which stands at the end of the clause under consideration and the number of words from the end of the clause. The azla geresh will thus split a phrase which ends with pashta, especially when it is only two words away from that pashta. Thus, the azla geresh stands there on the word ve'et-ha'eleph because of the pashta on hame'ot. This all makes much more sense if you read through Wickes in its entirety, rather than if you rely on my explanation which is just al regel achat.

Wickes writes, about phrases that end with pashta, tevir, or zarka:

This is precisely our case. A pashta stands at the end of the clause, and the dichotomy stands at the second word away from that pashta. Therefore, it is marked with geresh, which we call azla geresh, just as he writes in (1). Still, it also matches the case he writes about in (2), for there are only three words in the clause, since ve'et-ha'eleph, joined by the makef, counts as only one word, just as in his first example of mei'al-sefer. If so, it can often take the lighter melody of a mesharet, namely kadma. And this is precisely what we saw in this pasuk in the chumash with Shadal's peirush, above.

Even more than that, see above in Wickes, footnote 4. He writes that codices, as we might expect, often vary from one another, with one having kadma and the other having azla geresh. And this is precisely the situation under discussion.

Thus, I agree with Wickes that most often, the particular trup on a particular word is more or less mechanical. Therefore, I don't usually believe that there is specific semantic content associated with these trup symbols. (Shalshelet might be one of the few exceptions to the rule, and even Wickes believes there to be semantic meaning there.) Still, the trup has much to tell us, for by clearly delineating the syntactic division of the pasuk, it also excludes certain semantic interpretations which only work with a particular syntactic interpretation. Further, the major dichotomy (usually marked with etnachta) is made on logical rather than syntactic grounds.

Nature abhors a vacuum, as to Biblical commentators. Without knowledge of Wickes' comprehensive explanation, the trup cries out darsheini! And one could even come up with novel systems of interpretation. The test of such a system, I think, is whether it can be applied consistently and systematically without kvetch. In Birkat Avraham, by R' Avraham Albert, the author appears to apply such a system of interpretation to trup. Though it is difficult to see if it can indeed be systematically applied, since he just takes one example per parsha, and associates it with some existing midrashic explanation. I would like to see a convincing application to an entire parsha or perek, trup symbol by trup symbol. Otherwise, it is pick-and-choose for the easy examples with which one can associate a midrash from out of left field. For more, see my thoughts about the pesik in Et | Mizbach HaOlah.

At any rate, this is what he writes about the azla (or perhaps kadma!) under discussion:

Thus, he asserts that the azla geresh (always) denotes great emphasis. And thus it appears that it hints to what is in Shemot Rabba (perek 51:4) that Moshe was performing an accounting of the donated raw materials to show an honest application to the completed Mishkan and its vessels, and he forgot regarding to 1775, etc., and he sat not knowing what to do, and Hashem enlightened his eyes and he saw that they were made into hooks (vavim) for the pillars.

That Midrash Rabbi, 51:6, can be seen here:

משכן העדות אשר פקד על פי משה כל מה שהיו עושין עושין על פי משה, שנאמר: אשר פקד על פי משה.
וכל מה שהיה משה עושה על ידי אחרים, שנאמר: עבודת הלוים ביד איתמר בן אהרן הכהן, לא עשה אלא משנגמרה מלאכת המשכן.
אמר להם: בואו ואני עושה לפניכם חשבון!
אמר להם משה: אלה פקודי המשכן, כך וכך יצא על המשכן עד שהוא יושב ומחשב, שכח באלף ושבע מאות וחמשה ושבעים שקל, מה שעשה ווים לעמודים.
התחיל יושב ומתמיה אמר: עכשיו ישראל מוצאין ידיהם לאמר: משה נטלן.

מה עשה? האיר הקב"ה עיניו וראה אותם עשוים ווים לעמודים, אותה שעה נתפייסו כל ישראל על מלאכת המשכן.

מי גרם לו? ע"י שישב ופייסן.
הוי, אלה פקודי המשכן.
ולמה עשה עמהם חשבון?
הקב"ה יתברך שמו מאמינו, שנאמר: (במדבר יב) לא כן עבדי משה בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, ולמה אמר להם משה בואו ונעסוק במשכן ונחשב לפניכם?!
אלא ששמע משה ליצני ישראל מדברים מאחריו, שנאמר: (שמות לג) והיה כבוא משה האהלה ירד עמוד הענן ועמד פתח האהל ודבר עם משה ... והביטו אחרי משה. 
ומה היו אומרים? ר' יוחנן אמר:
אשרי יולדתו של זה.

ומה הוא רואה בו? כל ימיו הקב"ה מדבר עמו כל ימיו הוא מושלם להקב"ה זהו והביטו אחרי משה. 

I {=Josh} am not sure we need to resort to the trup to derive the midrash. Rather, it is based first on pekudei, that Moshe was making an accounting, coupling with the heh of  וְאֶת הָאֶלֶף וּשְׁבַע הַמֵּאוֹת וַחֲמִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעִים. You don't really find the heh hayidia on the other numbers in the surrounding context. Thus, this is explaining just what this particular sum went to. Or maybe meforshim explain this in another way.

Perhaps we can say that the choice of azla geresh rather than the optional kadma shows greater pausal value and thus greater emphasis. Maybe. But again, this is just me not buying into his interpretive system.

He continues that he found further in the sefer Tosafot Hashalem, here, from ktav yad Hamburg, that those who are precise regularly read in a loud voice the words ve'et haeleph ushva me'ot vachamisha vishiv'im asa vavim {=the entire phrase}, because of this reason. {Which reason? The midrash about the resolution of Moshe's confusion, or the trup? I haven't see it inside, but I would guess the midrash. Does someone have access to this sefer to check?}

Here is someone who says that Moshe said this in a loud voice:

Moshe said, "I know that Bnei Yisrael are complainers. Therefore, I will give an accounting of all of the donations that were given to the Mishkan." However, he forgot what he had done with 1,775 shekel, and he felt bad. Later Hashem enlightened him, and he felt better. Then he announced in a loud voice (verse 28), "And from the one thousand seven hundred seventy-five [shekel] he made hooks for the pillars, covered their tops and banded them."

R' Albert continues that one should see Rabbenu Bachya who established it based on their mention using the heh hayedia, the definite article (Baruch shekivanti!), and who wrote that this is because they were already mentioned above in the half-shekels and further brings the midrash that Moshe forgot where they were placed.

At the end of the day, I think Chazal were darshening as Rabbenu Bachya assessed, rather than darshening the trup.

Rabbenu Bachya, Locusts, and Crocodiles

Summary: Rabbenu Bachya has two fascinating explanations of pesukim regarding the makkos, and Moshe's removal of them. Unfortunately, at least one of them is demonstrably false.

Post: Revach has a fascinating citation from Rabbenu Bachya on this week's parasha, Bo, which I will cite in full and then discuss:

During Makas Arbeh, Paroh asked Moshe to daven to take away the dreadful locust. Moshe davened and the Torah says (Bo 10:19), "Lo Nishar Arbeh Echad Bichol Gvul Mitzrayim; "Not a single Arbeh remained in Egypt's borders."

Rabbeinu Bichaye, who lived in the 13th century, says that Moshe's tefila helped to this day. "It is well known," he writes, "that locust do not do damage in Mitzrayim. Even when there is locust that ravage Eretz Yisrael, when they cross the border to Mitzrayim, they do not eat anything. The tefilos of Moshe are trustworthy forever," says Rabbeinu Bichaye.

"Similarly," he says, "to conclude Makas Tzfardei'a, Moshe told Paroh (Vaeira 8:5) that he can rid Mitzrayim of Tzfardei'a, 'Rak BaYi'or Tishoarna.' They will remain in the Nilus.' "

"Even to this day," says Rabbeinu Bichaye, "there is an animal called an 'Altimasa' or crocodile that lives in the Nilus. Every now and then it will come out and swallow two or three people in one shot. It cannot be killed with spears or arrows unless it is struck in its stomach. It has a poison on its body that can harm people even after it is already dead. These are the Tzfardei'a of the Makos. True to Moshe's words, they still remain in the Nilus."

Here is Rabbenu Bachya in the Hebrew original:

One thing I would slightly change in Revach's presentation is that where he writes:

Every now and then it will come out and swallow two or three people in one shot. 

He should have written "Every now and then it will come to the bank of the river, אל שפת הנהר, and swallow two or three people in one shot." After all, I'm pretty certain that in interpreting the pasuk in parshat Vaera, in Shemot 8:7,

ז  וְסָרוּ הַצְפַרְדְּעִים, מִמְּךָ וּמִבָּתֶּיךָ, וּמֵעֲבָדֶיךָ, וּמֵעַמֶּךָ:  רַק בַּיְאֹר, תִּשָּׁאַרְנָה.

7 And the frogs shall depart from thee, and from thy houses, and from thy servants, and from thy people; they shall remain in the river only.'

it is not just that it will remain in the Nile is the sense that the species will never disappear or migrate from there, but also, I would think, that they would stay in the Nile rather than invading Egypt. Maybe I am reading too much into Rabbenu Bachya's words, though.

As noted above, Rabbenu Bachya also had a derasha on a pasuk in parashat Bo, on Shemot 10:19:

יט  וַיַּהֲפֹךְ ה רוּחַ-יָם, חָזָק מְאֹד, וַיִּשָּׂא אֶת-הָאַרְבֶּה, וַיִּתְקָעֵהוּ יָמָּה סּוּף:  לֹא נִשְׁאַר אַרְבֶּה אֶחָד, בְּכֹל גְּבוּל מִצְרָיִם.

19 And the LORD turned an exceeding strong west wind, which took up the locusts, and drove them into the Red Sea; there remained not one locust in all the border of Egypt.

that no locust, or swarm of locusts, invaded Egypt again. This is something which is yadua, well-known.

All in all, a very inspiring devar Torah. Unfortunately, it is demonstrably false. To cite a news report from 2004:

Millions of the insects swept into Cairo and the surrounding Nile Delta region throughout Wednesday.

The infestation of red desert locusts was Egypt's largest since the 1950s.

UN officials believe the locusts, which can consume vast swathes of crops in warm weather, will head to the sea, away from the fertile Nile Valley.

Thus, there was at least one locust invasion in 2004, and at least another in the 1950s. And this was the "largest since", implying that there were others in the intermediate time.

The article also has:

... said the locusts arrived in Egypt after strong southerly winds blew them away from the Mediterranean Sea.

That is, if you look at the picture to the right, the Mediterranean Sea is north of Egypt, and so southerly winds blew them downward. Also from the article,

The insects are likely to head towards breeding grounds by the Red Sea, he added

The Red Sea is to the West. If we look at the makkah in the parsha, a wind from the east blew them, perhaps from those breeding grounds, into Egypt, and then a wind from the west blew them back to the Red (=Reed) Sea.

Some more evidence of locust swarms in Egypt follows. Shadal writes, in his commentary on the parsha,

ד ] ארבה : מכה זו אינה מצויה במצרים אלא לעתים רחוקות . ואייכהארן אמר כי להיות שהארבה נוסע בסדר כאנשי צבא , החלוץ לפניו והמאסף אחריו , משה ראה החלוץ והבין כי מחר יבוא הארבע ;ויפה השיב ראזנמילר , כי לא ייתכן שמשה לבדו בכל מצרים ראה זה ושאר המצרים לא ראו , ואם ראו , היו מבינים שאין כאן מעשה נסים 

"locusts -- this plague is only found in Egypt infrequently. And Eichhorn said regarding it that the locusts travel in order like men of war, with the chalutz {men at the front lines} first and the me'asef {gatherer} after it; that Moshe saw the chalutz and understood that the next day, the locusts would come. And Rosenmuller rebutted this well, that it is not possible that Moshe, alone in all of Egypt, saw this while all the Egyptians did not see it; and if they saw it, they would have understood that there was no miracle at work here."

Thus, Shadal is of the opinion that locusts do sporadically invade Egypt. I don't know what his specific evidence for this was, though.

Here is some further evidence that Egypt was not immune to locusts. From Building a New Empire, we have:

Thus, locusts devastated Egypt in the middle ages. Maybe this was after Rabbenu Bachya wrote what he wrote.

Also, from a Report of the United States Entomological Commission,

Thus, they frequently cross the Red Sea and return to Egypt. It would seem that locusts indeed do visit Egypt.

The yetiv on ad ki yavo Shilo

Summary: According to Rabbenu Bachya's rebbe, the trup on ad ki yavo Shilo led Onkelos to render ad as forever, such that it is "forever once mashiach comes", rather than "until mashiach comes". This is a good response to Christians. But Shadal doesn't find it compelling.

Post: A famous pasuk in parashas Vaychi about Yehuda's kingship, often understood to bear messianic import:

י  לֹא-יָסוּר שֵׁבֶט מִיהוּדָה, וּמְחֹקֵק מִבֵּין רַגְלָיו, עַד כִּי-יָבֹא שִׁילֹה, וְלוֹ יִקְּהַת עַמִּים.

10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, as long as men come to Shiloh; and unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be.

The trup on this pasuk is:

And Targum Onkelos on that pasuk is:

מט,י לֹא-יָסוּר שֵׁבֶט מִיהוּדָה, וּמְחֹקֵק מִבֵּין רַגְלָיו, עַד כִּי-יָבֹא שִׁילֹה, וְלוֹ יִקְּהַת עַמִּים.

לָא יִעְדֵּי עָבֵיד שֻׁלְטָן מִדְּבֵית יְהוּדָה, וְסָפְרָא מִבְּנֵי בְּנוֹהִי עַד עָלְמָא, עַד דְּיֵיתֵי מְשִׁיחָא דְּדִילֵיהּ הִיא מַלְכוּתָא, וְלֵיהּ יִשְׁתַּמְעוּן עַמְמַיָּא.

Now, where does עַד עָלְמָא  come from? It could simply be implied as part of  וּמְחֹקֵק מִבֵּין רַגְלָיו. Alternatively, it could be a translation of the Hebrew word עַד. But if so, the next Aramaic phrase,  עַד דְּיֵיתֵי מְשִׁיחָא , has the word 'ad in it as well. Is this a dual translation at play?

Rabbenu Bachya quotes his Rebbe, Rabbi Shlomo, on this, on the basis of the trup:

And the position of Onkelos is "Shiloh -- that the kingship is his". And Rav, my teacher Rabbi Shlomo za"l explained that the {Hebrew} word 'ad in this place is like la'ad {forever}, therefore there is the stress {of the melech, the disjunctive accent of yetiv} in 'ad to teach that it is not drawn after ki yavo shiloh. And from this Onkelos translated 'ad 'almah. And he {Onkelos} translated ki yavo shilo as deyeitei meshicha {"that mashiach comes", NOT "until that mashiach comes"}. And one who translates {or is gores in Onkelos} 'ad deyeitei meshicha errs. 


And {as a result of this translation} the import of the verse is that once mashiach arrives, the kingship shall not cease from Yehuda forever, and it is like the language stated in Daniel {2:44} דִּי לְעָלְמִין לָא תִתְחַבַּל {that "in those days Hashem will raise up a kingdom which will never be destroyed"}. And since those who contend with us {=the Christians} think to prove from this verse that mashiach already came {namely, Jesus}, and they say that since it promises "the scepter shall not depart from Judah until mashiach comes" -- and we see that the kingship and the scepter is departed from Judah, behold this is proof that he already came. And my teacher, za"l, responded to them so, that the prophet {=Yaakov} promised that the kingship would not depart from Yehuda forever, once mashiach came. And since we see that until today, it is departed from Yehudah, this is great evidence that he has not yet come.

All in all, an excellent devar Torah which combines Targum, trup, girsology, and polemic. The trup, with the melech on 'ad, compels Onkelos to offer this explanation, and in particular one that makes sense when we do not repeat the word 'ad. And then, this is a great response to Christians, since the havtacha only begins when mashiach arrives, rather then ending when mashiach arrives. Of course, even if we understand it as continuous until the arrival of mashiach, there are good responses possible to counter their argument.

Shadal, in his commentary on Tg. Onkelos, Ohev Ger, cites this Rabbenu Bachya, but does not find it compelling. He writes:


עד כי יבא שילה , בכל הספרים עד דייתי = ו ז ה לשון ר׳ בחיי :
ומזה תרגם אנקלוס עד עלמא , ותרגם כי יבא שילה דייתי משיחא
והמתרגם עד דייתי משיחא טועה עכ"ל , ונראה לי שאין זה מוכרח .


That is, he notes that the girsa in all of the sefarim is indeed to have this repetition of the word 'ad. Shadal then cites this Rabbenu Bachya which would declare the repetition an error, and says that it appears to him that this is not muchrach.

Is there an alternative explanation of the yetiv? Quite possibly. Mechanically in trup, when there are three words in a clause there must be a division, even if the word(s) divided off  does not ultimately have very strong stand-alone meaning. And so there really had to be a yetiv or a pashta on that first word 'ad. The trup need not inform Onkelos.

And in terms of Onkelos, we could e.g. read the first 'ad 'alma as implicit in the first phrase, as I suggested above.

How does Shadal deal with this, in his own commentary? Well, it is not an issue to start out with, since he does not take acharit hayamim to refer to the end of days, but rather to later times. As such, it is no problem that since that time, the scepter has moved on from Yehudah. A relevant excerpt:

 . לא יסור : לא יחדל ויפסוק, כמו וסר מהם הנגע (ויקרא י"ג נ"ח ), וסר ממני כוחי (שופטים ט"ו י"ז ) לא תסור מעליו אולתו (משלי כ"ז כ"ב ), לפיכך אין הכוונה כפירוש רמב"ן , כל זמן שיהיה שבט בישראל יהיה ביהודה, ולא יסור ממנו לשבט אחר; אלא הכוונה: בהחלט לא יפסוק שבט מיהודה, אלא שעם כל זה אין הכוונה עד סוף כל הדורות, שתמיד יהיה שבט ביהודה, כי לא על סוף כל הדורות נתנבא יעקב אבינו, עיין למעלה פסוק א'. עד כי : לא מצאנו מילת אלה להוראת הזמן אלא להפלגת השיעור וילך הלוך וגדל עד כי גדל מאד (ברא' כ"ו י"ג ) עד כי חדל לספר (שם מ"א מ"ט ) עד כי יגעה ידו ותדבק ידו אל החרב (ש"ב כ"ג י' ) הפליא להיעזר עד כי חזק (ד"ה ב' כ"ו ט"ו ), אבל להוראת הזמן אומרים עד אשר (עד אשר תשוב חמת אחיךלמעלה כ"ז מ"ד ), עד אם (עד אם דברתי דברי) (שם כ"ד ל"ג ) או עד אשר אם (עד אשר אם שאו ערים, ישעיה ו' י"א) או עד ואחריו מקור עד שוב אף אחיד ממך (למעלה כ"ז מ"ה ) או עתיד (עד יגדל שלה בני למעלה ל"ח י"א ) בלא מילת כי. עד כי יבא שילה : שם עיר ושם השליך יהושע גורל לישראל וחילק להם את הארץ, ושם השכינו את אוהל מועד (יהושע י"ח). ואולי לשון זה של יעקב, שנשאר להם בקבלה ושנכתב בתורה, היה הסיבה לשיבחר יהושע את שילה לתת שם אוהל מועד ולהשליך שם הגורל.

The Satan dancing between its horns in the month of Nisan

An anonymous commenter posed a bunch of interesting questions based on Rabbenu Bachya on Mishpatim. While I won't get to most of them, I covered the first one in a previous post. Another one:

2) Then in כא, כז by "סקל יסקל השור" he says I believe it’s a Chazal in Nissan the Satan dances on the bull's horns what does that mean?

Here is the relevant Rabbenu Bachya.

What is means is subject to dispute. Rabbenu Bachya is very much a kabbalist, and he would read all sorts of kabbalistic interpretations into that gemara in Pesachim 112b. Though some statements are decidedly mystical, I would say that this gemara is not one of them, but rather was metaphorical, describing a specific zoological phenomenon that exists, or which they believed existed. Namely, that the ox is more worked up, because of the heat, or because it is breeding season. Perhaps more on that later.

To consider the psukim, the pasuk says סקול יסקל השור. Is this punishment for the owner or for the cow? There are two ways of looking at it. One is what Rabbenu Bachya labels as peshat, as does Ramban, that it is a monetary penalty for the ox's owner. It makes sense when we consider it in context, but perhaps that later, if I get to it in my running commentary. On the other hand, we should not forget Bereshit 9, in parshat Noach:

ה וְאַךְ אֶת-דִּמְכֶם לְנַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם אֶדְרֹשׁ, מִיַּד כָּל-חַיָּה אֶדְרְשֶׁנּוּ; וּמִיַּד הָאָדָם, מִיַּד אִישׁ אָחִיו--אֶדְרֹשׁ, אֶת-נֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם.

5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it; and at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man's brother, will I require the life of man.

where there is an idea of penalty for the beasts for killing man. And so this could also be a peshat interpretation, even though Rabbenu Bachya does not mention it.

Rabbenu Bachya's other explanation is kabbalistically oriented, that somehow it is connected to the original serpent, etc., etc. I am out of my element, here. But he clearly is reading mystical significance into various gemaras. Thus, it is connected with pestilence based on how the brayta, within the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, links the establishing of pestilence with the establishing of a shor muad.

From a non-kabbalistic perspective, I would explain the linking of the two on the basis of the surface level of the two dinim. And by shor, it is because of a diyuk in the pasuk which states מִתְּמוֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם, where one is taken to mean yesterday, and the other to mean two days ago, such that it needs to be on separate days. And also something about the establishing of a chazaka, that a single intensive episode is not enough to make it a plague or a repetitively goring ox. There needs to be an aspect of consistency to the repetition. And this underlying principle influences both halachot, and so it makes sense to group them together.

What about the gemara about the Satan dancing between the horns. As far as I can understand, Rabbenu Bachya understands this literally. Note his comment at the very end about how the Satan was visible in the Talmudic times, such that they needed to request mercy that he be hidden from them. Putting that statement in that context strongly suggests to me that he understands that gemara literally, and thus that it reinforces his kabbalistic point that a shor specifically is connected to the original serpent, etc.

From a peshat perspective, I would most certainly take this gemara non-literally. And not because of any reluctance to understand things mystically, but because certain aspects of that gemara, in context, strongly suggest this to me.

In Pesachim 112b:

ואל תבריח עצמך מן המכס דילמא משכחו לך ושקלי מנך כל דאית לך
ואל תעמוד בפני השור בשעה שעולה מן האגם מפני שהשטן מרקד בין קרניו
אמר רבי שמואל בשור שחור וביומי ניסן
תני רב אושעיא מרחיקין משור תם חמשים אמה משור מועד כמלא עיניו

How do the classic commentators understand this? Rashi says on וביומי ניסן that it is שהצמחים עולין וגס לבו בהם ונגח. Rashbam on the daf says on שהשטן מרקד בין קרניו that this is lav davka, but rather that it is meshuga, as is later explained. And then on וביומי ניסן he explains the same thing Rashi explains.

Also, note the juxtaposition to Rabbi Oshaya about distancing oneself from various oxen, presumably because of fear of getting gored, as we see from the distinction made between tam and muad. And note the clarification of the statement that it is a specific type of ox (black) and at a specific time of year. I am sure kabbalists could find some mystical connection, perhaps with the zodiac (though Nisan is a kid), but on a peshat level it seems clear they are discussing a natural phenomenon, and the concern is of getting gored, not that the Satan will hurt you, or that the Satan will spark the shor to hurt you. {See the Arizal's explanation of it.}

I would add that Chazal elsewhere talk about dangers of specific types of animals -- e.g. a male horse into battle, or the bite of a white donkey, which IIRC one should not have in one's house. So if a black ox is meaner, Rabbi Shmuel's clarification would make sense. What about Nisan? Well, that is spring, which is mating season. See here:

Since pastures are usually at their peak of quality in spring and summer, a natural concentration of calving may occur in late winter and spring.

That is, the natural mating season is when the pastures are at their peak, including in spring. And if there are these tzemachim coming up, as is reality, and as Rashi and Rashbam write, then is is not just that גס לבו בהם, but perhaps one does not want to disturb an ox during mating season, because he may take a challenge the wrong way and charge.

The idea of the Satan dancing on its horns -- literally, that would have to be a mighty small Satan. Rather, as Rashbam says, it means that it is making him crazy, with perhaps dancing on his horns implying that he is itchy to gore someone with them. Such seems to me to be clearly peshat in these gemaras. But as for kabbalistic interpretations -- either they are supporting themselves with consistent misinterpretations and misreadings of gemaras, as Shadal says, or else they have some sort of deeper insight into the meaning just below the surface, and recognize hints and make connections others cannot because they are privy to the connecting information.