Cappadocia, and the Authenticity of the Zohar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next up, he cites Bava Batra 58b:

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

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

His next proof is from Chullin 47b:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caesarea Maritima/Caesarea Palaestina, Roman provincial capital of Palestine

• Eusebius of Caesarea was bishop of this Caesarea

Caesarea Philippi (Banias), in the Golan Heights

Caesarea Mazaca, city in Cappadocia, modern Kayseri, Turkey

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

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

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

Cherchell, modern name of the city of Caesarea in Algeria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

רבי טרפון אומר:

אין מדליקין אלא בשמן זית בלבד. 

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

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

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

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

The pasuk in Devarim 2:23 reads:

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, Caphtor = Keputkeya.

The pasuk in Amos reads:

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

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

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

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

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

and read up on Caphtor:

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

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

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

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

Archeih, and the Authenticity of the Zohar

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

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

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

Here is  what Rabbi Miller writes:

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

Demonstrate away!

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

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

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

So the word appears. But what does it mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or, in English:

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

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

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

Teva, and the Authenticity of the Zohar

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

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


To cite from his article,

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

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

Here is another example. Rabbi Moshe Miller writes:

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

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

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

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

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

אמרו לו אין לך רשות להוסיף על מטבע שטבעו חכמים בברכות

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

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

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

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

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

Or, in English:

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

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

Did the Gra predict 2012, or 1840?!

The Cosmic Clock?

Summary: Debunking the popular 'cosmic clock' theory, according to the Gra.

Post: A little while back -- I wrote most of this post back on June 14th -- some Jewish mystics were in line with Harold Camping's first (or rather, second) predicted apocalypse date of May 21, 2011. Thus:

According to the Gra, the Vilna Gaon, one of the ways he taught (or rather wrote down, it wasn’t really to be shared) to calculate the ketz on it being “before it’s time in it’s time” gives an “early” date of the 17th of Iyar, 5771 and a “late” date of Rosh Chodesh Av, 5771.

I've read that they really just said 'spring', and people then latched on to the strange Christian sect's date as the prediction spread like wildfire. What about Rosh Chodesh Av of 5771?

Well, the recent -- now fairly old -- post at Yeranen Yaakov makes it a bit clearer how this date came to be. Let me make absolutely clear at the outset that this is NOT yaak speaking. Rather, he is presenting the interpretations of Rabbi Yekusiel Fish.

We found in the Zohar (Va'et'hanan 270a):

   "אוֹי לָנוּ כִּי פָנָה הַיּוֹם כִּי יִנָּטוּ צִלְלֵי עָרֶב", יוֹם וְצֵל הוּא סוֹף גָּלוּתָא, וְשִׁיעוּרָא דְּהַאי צֵל שִׁית קְמָצִין וּפַלְגָּא.

Similar to this, we also found the Zohar (Vayikra 16a):

וְדָא בְּגָלוּתָא בַּתְרָאָה הוּא כְּהַאי אֶרֶז דְּאֶתְעַכֵּב לְסַלְּקָאָה, וּמִשַּׁעְתָּא דִּסְלִיק עַד דְּקָאִים בְּקִיּוּמֵיהּ הוּא יוֹמָא וְשִׁירוּתָא יוֹמָא אַחֲרִינָא עַד דְּעָבִיד צֵל בִּנְהוֹרָא דִּימָמָא.

The Gr"a explains there, "It means to say that 1000 years of the Galut and another half of the day until one half hour after Hatzot because then, the sun starts to set." And similarly explained the Matok Midevash, "שית קמצין ופלגא means 6½ hours on the 6th day, since then, it is recognizable that the shadow bent toward the West. And if we divide the sixth millennium into 24 hours, and multiply by 18.5, we get to the end of Tammuz, 5771, upon which the Zohar says in 2 places is the end of the exile.

And naturally, if the last date is the end of Tammuz, then it must come at the very, very latest, on the next day, Rosh Chodesh Av!

See the Zohar on Vayikra here -- the capital letters as explanatory interpolations into the text:

267. In the last exile, THE HOLY ONE, BLESSED BE HE, is like a cedar that is slow to FLOURISH AND grow. From the time it starts growing until it is mature - NAMELY, UNTIL REDEMPTION COMES - a day passes; NAMELY THE DAY OF THE HOLY ONE, BLESSED BE HE, WHICH IS A THOUSAND YEARS LONG. And the beginning of the second day, until it throws a shadow in the daylight - NAMELY, AFTER MIDDAY WHEN THE SUN BEGINS TO DECLINE - WHICH, IN THE DAY OF THE HOLY ONE, BLESSED BE HE, LASTS 500 YEARS. AFTER 1,500 YEARS, REDEMPTION WILL COME. And the cedar grows only when supplied with water, as it says, "Like cedar trees beside the waters" (Bemidbar 24:6) so "he grows like a cedar in Lebanon," whence, FROM LEBANON, WHICH IS CHOCHMAH, a source of water and a river - WHICH IS BINAH - issues to water THE CEDAR. The cedar is the Holy One, blessed be He, ZEIR ANPIN, WHICH RECEIVES THE WATER, as written, "Excellent as the cedars."

Note that in the presentation at Yerenen Yaakov, all that is attributed to the Gra is:

"It means to say that 1000 years of the Galut and another half of the day until one half hour after Hatzot because then, the sun starts to set."

The rest is from Matok Midvash, a different author, I think Rabbi Daniel Frisch. Though that is formed from a collection of earlier, well-known commentators.

The reason that it is important to note that is that part of this commentary is the part I will now bold and mark in red:

"שית קמצין ופלגא means 6½ hours on the 6th day, since then, it is recognizable that the shadow bent toward the West. And if we divide the sixth millennium into 24 hours, and multiply by 18.5, we get to the end of Tammuz, 5771, upon which the Zohar says in 2 places is the end of the exile.

The Gra never said it was speaking of the 6th millennium. This assumes a start date of the beginning of the millennium. But we are talking about the length of the exile. The Gra may very well assume a start date of the destruction of the second Bet Hamikdash. Indeed, he does, and I will try to prove this to you.

Let us perform the same calculations as above. 1000 years + [(1000/24) * 18.5] = 1770.833.

So, if we start at the beginning of the fifth millennium, 4000, then 4000 + 1770.833 = 5770.833. And add a year because we start with the year 1, not 0. Thus, we get to the appropriate date in Tammuz.

As to why we should start specifically in the fifth millennium, even though the Zohar is talking about the length of the entire exile, I am sure someone has a ready teretz.

However, we know that the Gra and his talmidim expected mashiach to arrive in 1840. They went to Eretz Yisrael. And there was a great churban in 1840 when mashiach did not arrive, with many people converting to Christianity.

1840 - 1770.833 = 69.166

Did anything happen in 69 or 70 CE? How about the destruction of Yerushalayim and the Bet HaMikdash? Does this strike you as a good candidate for the length of the exile? It certainly does to me.

So what it seems is that the Gra's calculation failed -- miserably, and with horrific results. But people are rescuing it and reinterpreting it, and attributing their recalculations to the Gra. And even if you say it was not a failure, per se, but rather an important step along the way, it should be fairly clear that this was the Gra's calculated ketz; if both interpretations (length of the galut vs. counting from a random millennium) were equally likely, it does not seem to be coincidence that using the Gra's calculated number of years, it brings us from the Churban directly to the most well-known ketz of the Gra. The metzius supports me.

Now, one can make a counterargument in favor of a millennial interpretation. For instance, yaak wrote me (in a private correspondence):

The six "days" correspond to the six thousand years.  It obviously starts from the beginning of the millennium as that's when the "day" starts - not at the Hurban.

I pointed out that it is not at all obvious. First, (a) because of the metzius that the Gra's talmidim believed in a 1840 ketz. But secondly, and more importantly, (b) nthe plain sense of the words of the Zohar, וּמִשַּׁעְתָּא דִּסְלִיק עַד דְּקָאִים בְּקִיּוּמֵיהּ -- from the time that it leaves, meaning the Churban; and this as a measure of וְדָא בְּגָלוּתָא בַּתְרָאָה הוּא כְּהַאי אֶרֶז דְּאֶתְעַכֵּב לְסַלְּקָאָה; and (c) that if it were just a certain number of years into the millennium, why mention the first thousand?! Either say five days plus shade, or say simply shade. The day of day + shade 'obviously' accounts for something, not just a random millennial start.

(d) Yes, one can posit that this is the start of the 'two millennia of mashiach'. But that is not what the Gra explicitly says:

וְרוֹצֶה לוֹמַר אֶלֶף שָׁנָה
שֶׁל הַגָּלוּת, וְעוֹד חֲצִי הַיּוֹם עַד חֲצִי
שָׁעָה אַחַר חֲצוֹת, שֶׁאָז מַתְחִיל
הַיּוֹם לְהַעֲרִיב.

Or, in English:

"It means to say that 1000 years of the Galut and another half of the day until one half hour after Hatzot because then, the sun starts to set."

Not 1000 years of the sixth millennium, but 1000 years of the Galut. It seems that he is counting from the Churban.

Now, despite this, the first-mentioned Zohar, in Vaeschanan, might be taken to imply that the calculation is from the beginning of the millenium, rather than the time of the Churban. It reads -- the capital letters as explanatory interpolations into the text (from the folks at the cultish Kabbalah Center):

188. Once a shadow started to form at the beginning of the other day AFTER THE FIFTH MILLENNIUM, as during the time when the Temple was destroyed when the shadow was about to be gathered, THAT IS, JUST LIKE DURING THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE WAS WHEN THE SHADOW BEGAN TO BE GATHERED, SO WILL REDEMPTION COME WHEN THE SHADOW WILL BEGIN TO EMERGE. WHEN THERE WILL BE day and shadow, it will be the end of exile. The measure of that shadow is six thumbs long for the height of a man among men, NAMELY, AN AVERAGE PERSON. This secret is remembered among the friends through the verse, "for we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow" (Iyov 8:9). "for we are but of yesterday," namely in exile; "and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow," which means the Holy One, blessed be He, wants the shadow and day to rest upon the earth.

Thus, ומדשארי צל למעבד בשירותא דיומא אחרא can be rendered as "once the shadow starts to form at the beginning of the last/other day", meaning that it is the last 'day' or millennium of the world's existence. 

But one is not at all compelled to render it in this manner. אחרא means 'latter'. They knew of two days. The first 'day', or thousand years, of exile since the Churban already passed. And now we are into the second 'day', or thousand years, of exile.

And indeed, the very next phrase is:

כמה בזמנה דאתחריב מקדשה הוה

Thus, the very continuation of the phrase brings in the destruction of the Bet Hamikdash.

________________________________

Now, 1840 has already passed. Doesn't that mean that this could NOT be the correct interpretation of the Zohar? Absolutely not. We see from the gemara that various Tannaim and Amoraim predicted the ketz, and they were wrong. Why should Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, another Tannai, be any different? Not that he must be wrong, but he could be wrong. And further, this is not the only ketz prediction in the Zohar. There are actually a whole bunch of them, which have already passed. And if you want to say that something meaningful happened in 1840, since the Gra's talmidim began the process of modern settlement of Israel, and thus the beginning of the Geulah, you can say that. And you can also say the gemara in Sanhedrin 97b has already said:

Rav said: All the predestined dates [for redemption] have passed, and the matter [now] depends only on repentance and good deeds.

And the Lubavitcher Rebbe popularized this as well, adding that 

"For so many years have passed since all the predestined times have passed,"

If so, it is not the end of the world (pun intended) that this is one of the predestined times which have passed. We don't need to re-manufacture one of the predestined times which have already passed.

And if we do -- believing this is the correct meaning of the Zohar -- we should not falsely and erroneously attribute this view to the Vilna Gaon!

Clasping one's hands together

Shirat Devorah reposts a halacha discussion from Rabbi Eli Mansour. He is a Sephardic rabbi, and so it might more reflect practices of Sefardim -- though plenty of Ashkenazim hold by this as well. Here is the post:

by Rabbi Eli J. Mansour

The Zohar Ha’kadosh, in Vayikra (p. 24), writes that when a harsh judgment is issued against a person, Heaven forbid, his fingers will unwittingly begin moving, and the fingers of his two hands will become interlocked.  As interlocking hands is a sign of harsh judgment, it is improper for a person to intentionally hold his hands in this position.  The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in Parashat Pinhas (18), cites this Halacha in the name of the Arizal (Rav Yishak Luria of Safed, 1534-1572).  This is mentioned in other sources, as well, including the Sefer Ha’hasidim (by Rabbenu Yehuda Ha’hasid, Germany, d. 1217) and the Kaf Ha’haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939).  Thus, while it is permissible to place one hand on top of the other, one should not interlock the fingers of the two hands.

The Ben Ish Hai goes even further, writing that one should never place his hands behind his back, and should rather keep them in front of him at all times.  Indeed, there are different kinds of spiritual powers associated with the positioning of one’s hands and fingers, as Rabbenu Bahya discusses at length.

The Sefer Hazechira mentions that those who are accustomed to interlocking their fingers run the risk of experiencing extreme anxiety, Heaven forbid.

There are many warnings of this kind that we hear as children, and many people are unable to distinguish between those that stem from folklore and superstition, and those which have a clear basis in Jewish tradition.  When it comes to interlocking fingers, this is a well-documented warning that originates already from the Zohar and the teachings of the Arizal.

Summary: According to Kabbalistic tradition, one should not merge his hands together such that the fingers of the two hands interlock.  According to some sources, one should also refrain from placing his hands behind his back.

Click here to listen [length 2:42]

Devorah researched more into this, and so has more, in the comment section. See there.

Rav Elyashiv, clasping his hands together

Now, not everyone worries for this kabbalistically-rooted practice. See the image to the right, of Rav Elyashiv clasping his hands together, with interlocking fingers. (And see here for a discussion about it. At least one person there appears to believe that the image has been PhotoShopped, because it is impossible that Rav Elyashiv would do such a thing!)

Let us start, perhaps, with the contrary gemara. Kabbalistic sources might say this, but Talmudic sources strongly suggest otherwise. The gemara in Shabbat 10a reads as follows:

רבא בר רב הונא רמי פוזמקי ומצלי אמר הכון לקראת וגו' רבא שדי גלימיה ופכר ידיה ומצלי אמר כעבדא קמיה מריה אמר רב אשי חזינא ליה לרב כהנא כי איכא צערא בעלמא שדי גלימיה ופכר ידיה ומצלי אמר כעבדא קמי מריה כי איכא שלמא . לביש ומתכסי ומתעטף ומצלי אמר הכון לקראת אלהיך ישראל

Or, in English:

Raba son of R. Huna put on stockings and prayed, quoting, 'prepare to meet etc.' Raba removed his cloak,⁶  clasped his hands and prayed, saying, '[I pray] like a slave before his master.' R. Ashi said: I saw R. Kahana, when there was trouble in the world, removing his cloak, clasp his hands, and pray, saying, '[I pray] like a slave before his master.' When there was peace, he would put it on, cover and enfold himself and pray, quoting, 'Prepare to meet thy God, O Israel.'⁷

Rashi defines פכר ידיה as clasping of hands with fingers intertwined:

פכר ידיה - חובק ידיו באצבעותיו מרצי"ר (טריציי"ר: לשלב (מלה במלה: לקלוע)) בלע"ז כאדם המצטער מאימת רבו:

What, then, of the Zohar? Well, where Zohar contradicts the gemara, we should follow the gemara. But in fact, the Zohar does not prohibit clasping together the hands. The Zohar, on Vayikra (24a), reads as follows:

411. When Judgment is made complete and rests on man, it is concluded and the fingers are placed five against five, right within the left, as an indication that everybody agreed on that Judgment. Then his hands are straightened; TO WIT, THE FINGERS ARE INTERLACED, which shows that it was done without the man's intention and without his meaning to do so. It is therefore written, "Your right hand, Hashem, is glorious in power: Your right hand Hashem, has dashed the enemy in pieces" (Shemot 15:6), WHICH MEANS that left was included within the right and Judgment is complete. Then everything is resolved. Therefore, when the Holy One, blessed be He, wishes that everything be set, it is written, "Hashem has sworn by His right hand, and by the arm of His strength. Surely I will no more give your corn to be food for your enemies..." (Yeshayah 62:8).

That is, clasping the fingers of each hand together does not cause the bad judgement. Rather, when there is bad judgement, the hands will subconsciously clasp together in this manner. This is the difference between saying that one blinks one's eyes when someone throws sand in it, versus saying that blinking one's eyes causes people to throw sand in it. There is, then, no contradiction between the Zohar and the gemara.

Next, in chronological order, is the Sefer HaChassidim, by Rabbenu Yehuda Ha’hasid, Germany, d. 1217. This is that it is improper to place one's hands in this position. There are a number of such novelties in the sefer haChassidim and in the Tzavaah of Rabbi Yehuda HaChassid. They are not obligatory, but pious individuals may adopt them.

But this is not the only instance in which something in the sefer ha-Chassidim contradicts an explicit gemara and practice of the Tannaim and Amoraim. The Noda be-Yehuda notes such contradictions. For instance:

1. The sefer Chassidim says one should not marry one's niece. The gemara, meanwhile, recommends it.
2. The sefer Chassidim says one should not marry someone with the same name as his parent. The Noda Be-Yehuda gives examples of Amoraim who did precisely this. (For example, Rami had a father-in-law named Rami.)
3. This, then, is the third such instance -- clasping the hands.

And he has various teirutzim, such as that it was only intended for direct descendants of Rabbi Yehuda Ha-Chassid. In general, though, not to follow these various innovations in the sefer Chassidim, which are motivated by kabbalah.

The Kaf HaChaim and the Ben Ish Chai obviously hold differently, and they are allowed to. But that does not mean that it is binding on everyone. This is a dispute as to the boundaries of halacha and kabbalah. Even if the Arizal maintains this. We don't follow, or have to follow, every kabbalistic hanhaga of the Arizal. (Well, I suppose one can debate who "we" are. Chassidim might incorporate more kabbalistic practices than Misnagdim.)

Devorah, in the comment section, also cited from this Revach post, about the Aruch HaShulchan:

The Aruch HaShulchan brings L'Halacha (OC 91:7) that in times of Za'am or raging tzorus, one should daven with his hands clasped together and his fingers interlocking. However says the Aruch HaShulchan in times of peace you should not do so because it causes Din Shamayim to be brought down on you.

I would surmise, before looking at it inside, that this distinction comes directly from the gemara in Shabbos listed above, with the two different practices, in times of tza'ara vs. in times of shalama, of Rav Kahana. In the former, he would remove his cloak and clasp his hands together. In the latter, he would enwrap himself in the tallis. Note that Rava did not make any such distinction. My guess is that someone was bothered by the contradiction of the kabbalistic practice and the explicit gemara to the contrary, and seized upon Rav Kahana's differing practice as a way of harmonizing the two sources. (Looking further, it seems that this is what the Taz says.) Note that the gemara is not, on the level of a simple reading, distinguishing between clasping and not clasping as bringing down judgement to the world. Rather, it has to do with removing one's cloak or enfolding oneself in it. In times of trouble, he would strip himself of the cloak, to make himself more like a servant, and assume the pose of a beseeching servant. In times of peace, there was no need for it, so he wrapped himself in his cloak, for better focus. And the pose was presumably not needed, rather than being a bad and counter-productive idea.

Looking now at the Aruch Hashulchan, I see that he mentions that Rava made no such distinction. Still, he does state what is stated above:

סימן צא סעיף ז

וכתבו רבותינו בעלי השולחן ערוך בסעיף ו:

דרך החכמים ותלמידיהם שלא יתפללו אלא כשהם עטופים. ובעת הזעם יש לחבק הידים בשעת התפילה כעבדא קמי מאריה. ובעת שלום יש להתקשט בבגדים נאים להתפלל.

עד כאן לשונו, וכבר כתבנו מזה. ו"חיבוק ידים" הוא שחובק אצבעות ידיו זה בשל זה, כאדם ששובר אצבעותיו כשמצטער. ויש מהחכמים שהיו עושים כן גם בעת שלום (רבא בשבת י א). ומכל מקום יש ליזהר שלא לחבוק אצבעותיו בעת שלום, כי בזה מוריד דין על עצמו. אלא יניח ידיו זו על זו כפותין (הגר"ז).

ואין טבעי בני אדם שוים בזה. ויש שקשה עליהם להתפלל באופן זה, אלא מניחים הידים על הסטענדע"ר או על הדף הדבוק בכותל. ואין כלל קבוע בזה, וכל אחד יעשה כפי מה שמוטב לו להתפלל באופן זה. ולא יתפלל בבתי ידים (האנטשו"ך).

There are other halachic sources I haven't mentioned. This is one instance in which kabbalah has made significant inroads into halacha, especially in terms of hand position during davening.

Personally, I would not consider it problematic to be clasping my hands together as a comfortable hand position or nervous habit. Even during prayer, clasping them together in this matter does not seem problematic to me, for the reasons I described above. Still, I would avoid certain types of hand clasping in prayer, due to its adoption within Christian prayer.

Note: I wrote this up last week. Today, just before publishing, I noticed Daat Torah posted about it. He has video of REav Elyashiv.