Is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's Passing Precedent For Denial of the Lubavitcher Rebbe's Death?

In one of the few posts on parshablog that sparked reader comment, a posting about an article in the Five Towns Jewish Times that seems to suggest that the Lubavitcher Rebbe was not dead, but just pining for the fjords, an anonymous commenter commented:

why is all hell breaking loose when you see talmidim of a rebbe, that can not come to terms with the demise of their teacher, dosen't chazal tell us that by rabenu hakodesh the talmidim said whoever will proclaim that rebbe died will be stabbed with a sword look in the yevetz on the spot.

I posted what I think is a good response in the comments there, which I will reproduce here as a post. This is a good example of the tendency to spout random statements of "Chazal" without carefully considering them inside and seeing what they actually say. In this instance, there seems to be a complete misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the gemara and the Ya'betz, which leads to justification of the false belief that it is acceptable to believe that the Rebbe is not dead. Here is my response:

cite this "Chazal" inside, please, rather than making fuzzy reference to it and drawing broad conclusions on its basis.

That is, you should not say "Chazal," but rather, "The gemara in Ketubot 104a states," and then give an exact quote. Then give an exact quotation of the Yabetz. Then explain why you think these two cases are parallel. Simply stating "Chazal" and giving an inaccurate summary of the gemara might serve to persuade people who are not familiar with the gemara, but does a disservice to arriving at truth.

first, I'll respond broadly, and then specifically to your point.

the major difference is that this is many years after, and in a situation in which this belief is tangled up in a belief that the Rebbe is mashiach. and so, the belief that the Rebbe is alive props up false messianism. (see how exactly the same thing occurred in Christianity and Sabbateanism.) furthermore, there is a difference between private emotional denial and someone who teaches the public by, for example, writing many articles, who will thus spread the false belief.

that is my broad response. my specific response to the sources will follow.

Then:

and here is my response, rooted in the source you mentioned.

The gemara in Ketubot 104a (which can be read here) states:

ההוא יומא דנח נפשיה דרבי גזרו רבנן תעניתא ובעו רחמי ואמרי כל מאן דאמר נח נפשיה דר' ידקר בחרב סליקא אמתיה דרבי לאיגרא אמרה עליוני' מבקשין את רבי והתחתוני' מבקשין את רבי יהי רצון שיכופו תחתונים את העליונים כיון דחזאי כמה זימני דעייל לבית הכסא וחלץ תפילין ומנח להו וקמצטער אמרה יהי רצון שיכופו עליונים את התחתונים ולא הוו שתקי רבנן מלמיבעי רחמי שקלה כוזא שדייא מאיגרא [לארעא] אישתיקו מרחמי ונח נפשיה דרבי אמרו ליה רבנן לבר קפרא זיל עיין אזל אשכחיה דנח נפשיה קרעיה ללבושיה ואהדריה לקרעיה לאחוריה פתח ואמר אראלים ומצוקים אחזו בארון הקדש נצחו אראלים את המצוקים ונשבה ארון הקדש אמרו ליה נח נפשיה אמר להו אתון קאמריתו ואנא לא קאמינא

That is, they stated this not when Rabbi Yehuda haNasi was already dead, but rather when he was *sick* and on the verge of death.
When bar Kappara saw that Rabbi Yehuda haNasi died, rather than tell them directly, such that the pain would cause them to say that bar Kappara was worthy of being pierced with a sword, he spoke in allegory. They immediately surmised that he meant that Rabbi Yehuda haNasi had died and they exclaimed, "he has died." He then told them, "You have said it and not me."

That is, bar Kappara, immediately upon seeing Rabbi Yehuda haNasi had died, tore kriya and accepted that his Rebbe had died. When bar Kappara told the Rabbanan in careful terms, they also immediately surmised that Rabbi Yehuda haNasi had died.

*After* hearing that he had died, they did NOT continue to deny that he had died.

Now it is your turn. Argue based on sources quoted directly.

Upon no response (prbably because it was a hit and run posting):

since you haven't responded yet, let me help you out by giving the text of the Ya'betz you mentioned. what do you think it means, and what relevance does it have to the case at hand?
(i'll wait a little bit, and then provide and explanation about how it is irrelevant to the case at hand, and perhaps how you are misreading it in a meshichist manner -- and why this is a misreading)

ידקר בחרב:
שמא מתוך שגזרו כך לא היה יכול למות, מאחר שאין אדם רשאי להודיע דבר מיתתו, א"כ כשימות ואין רואה ומודיע להתעסק בקבורתו, יהא מוטל בבזיון, לפיכך מתוך כך לא היה יכול להפטר מן העולם, ולא קרב אליו אדם לראותו עד שנתנו רשות לבר קפרא

Then:

to translate:
"[he who informs us that Rabbi Yehuda haNasi has died] shall be pierced with a sword:
Perhaps by decreeing this he was not able to die. For once no man is permitted to make known the matter of his death, when he dies and no one sees and makes it known to take care of his burial, he would remain in a state of disgrace. Therefore, because of this, he was unable to pass from the world. And no one came close to him to see him until they game permission to Bar Kappara."

Now, what does what the Ya'betz say have anything whatsoever to do with students in denial of their teacher's passing? If anything, his words take any aspect of an emotional state of denial from the story. So, in sum, this oblique reference to "Chazal" and Ya'betz is simply incorrect.

UNLESS...

Unless you did not intend a state of denial at all in reference to the Ya'betz. Unless you are a meshichist, and think that the first ferw words of his commentary, cited out of context - שמא מתוך שגזרו כך לא היה יכול למות - is relevant to the Lubavitcher Rebbe, zt"l. That similarly, since some of the Rebbe's students are in a similar state of denial, the Rebbe actually is NOT dead and is in fact alive.

If so, I can understand why you would only make oblique reference rather than spelling it out.

And just to make clear to all, this is not a sensible explanation of the Ya'betz's commentary.

The Ya'betz was NOT saying that there is a mystical state of affairs that if students of a rebbe deny his death, he is still alive. Rather, quite clearly, the Ya'betz is saying that when Rabbi Yehuda haNasi was still alive, a decree like this would be efficacious to keep him alive, since Hashem would not want Rabbi Yehuda haNasi's body to rod and remain in a disgraceful state. In comparison, the students of the Lubavitcher Rebbe *have* been informed of his passing, and the Lubavitcher Rebbe was in fact buried by the community with great honor. And the Rebbe, tz"l, has been dead already for many years. The lesson simply does not translate.

Note, BTW, that I would take issue even with the Ya'betz's explanation of the gemara. After all, the gemara states ונח נפשיה דרבי as a result of the maidservant's actions, BEFORE they gave permission to Bar Kappara to check on Rabbi Yehuda haNasi's state.

parshat Balak: Why the Etnachta in the Last Pasuk?

On erev Shabbat, I saw this devar Torah, and could not help but think of a gemara in Berachot 55a. It begins:

The following was apparently told over in a dream to his son by R' Shraga Feivel of Smargan...

and the gemara in Berachot states:

Yirmiyahu 23:28:

כח הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר-אִתּוֹ חֲלוֹם, יְסַפֵּר חֲלוֹם, וַאֲשֶׁר דְּבָרִי אִתּוֹ, יְדַבֵּר דְּבָרִי אֱמֶת: מַה-לַתֶּבֶן אֶת-הַבָּר, נְאֻם-ה.

28 The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath My word; let him speak My word faithfully. What hath the straw to do with the wheat? saith the LORD.

What is the connection of straw and wheat with a dream? Rather, Rabbi Yochanan cited Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai: Just as it is impossible to have wheat without straw, so is it impossible to have a dream without nonsense.

That is, included in a dream, together with matters of substance, will be nonsense. In this instance, it is easy to find the chaff but less easy to find the wheat.

The dvar continues with a question: Why is there an etnachta in the middle of the last pasuk in parshat Balak, while there is no etnachta in the middle of a very similar statement in parshat Korach?

The pasuk at the end of Balak is Bemidbar 25:9:

ט וַיִּהְיוּ, הַמֵּתִים בַּמַּגֵּפָה--אַרְבָּעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים, אָלֶף. {פ}

9 And those that died by the plague were twenty and four thousand. {P}

with an etnachta, a disjunctive accent, on the word בַּמַּגֵּפָה. Yet, in parshat Korach, in Bemidbar 17:15:

יד וַיִּהְיוּ, הַמֵּתִים בַּמַּגֵּפָה, אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר אֶלֶף, וּשְׁבַע מֵאוֹת--מִלְּבַד הַמֵּתִים, עַל-דְּבַר-קֹרַח.

14 Now they that died by the plague were fourteen thousand and seven hundred, besides them that died about the matter of Korah.

where there is no etnachta on the word בַּמַּגֵּפָה; rather, it is on the word מֵאוֹת, and thus, the entire pasuk up to that point has no conceptual division. Why the difference in our parsha?

There are several reasons I consider this question to be chaff.

The first is that the rules of trup are such that every pasuk is divided in two. This major dichotomy is most often marked by an etnachta, though on occasion it can be marked by a tipcha or zakef, two other disjunctive accents, when the point of division is extremely close to the end of the verse.

Therefore, the proposition that a pasuk should not have a major dichotomy, marked by etnachta, is not one that makes sense in the context of the science of trup. Of course there must be an etnachta in the last pasuk of Balak.

Why, then, is there no etnachta in the similar phrase in parshat Korach? Simply put, there was a better location to place it. There is an etnachta in the pasuk. That pasuk, again, is:

וַיִּהְיוּ, הַמֵּתִים בַּמַּגֵּפָה, אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר אֶלֶף, וּשְׁבַע מֵאוֹת--מִלְּבַד הַמֵּתִים, עַל-דְּבַר-קֹרַח

and the etnachta is on the word מֵאוֹת.

Why is this placement different for this pasuk? Well, the major dichotomy in the pasuk is always a logical dichotomy (while subsequent subdivisions are most often syntactic). In this pasuk in Korach, the best logical division one can find is on the word מֵאוֹת, such that we divide between those who died in the plague from those who died in the matter of Korach. In the pasuk at the end of Balak, there is no such stark logical division, and so the next best logical division is chosen - the statement that people died, from the actual number of people who died.

Do not think that just because the same symbol for dusjunctive accent is used in both instances, the semantic strength of the division is the same. The specific accent chosen does not bear an absolute disjunctive value, but rather bears a value relative to the clause it subdivides. (And on this and other matters in the posts, see Wickes' book, "Two Treatises on the Accentuation of the Old Testament.")

Indeed, it is also not the case that the phrase in parshat Korach is left undivided. So long as there are three words in a phrase, trup engages in a continuous dichotomy, dividing into smaller and smaller chunks.

Because there is another general rule that we cannot have two etnachtas in a single pasuk, this division is not carried out with an etnachta, but rather another taam which functions relative to the etnachta at the end of the clause. That is, in

וַיִּהְיוּ, הַמֵּתִים בַּמַּגֵּפָה, אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר אֶלֶף, וּשְׁבַע מֵאוֹת--מִלְּבַד הַמֵּתִים, עַל-דְּבַר-קֹרַח

it is true that the etnachta is on the word מֵאוֹת, but then the statement

וַיִּהְיוּ, הַמֵּתִים בַּמַּגֵּפָה, אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר אֶלֶף, וּשְׁבַע מֵאוֹת

is further subdivided into two parts with a zakef on the word בַּמַּגֵּפָה. A zakef is chosen since it is the trup relative to an etnachta at the end of a phrase, when the position of subdivision is this many words from the end of the phrase.

The end result of this is that both phrases -- both the one in Korach and the one in Balak -- are divided equally, with the appropriate relative disjunctive accent on the word בַּמַּגֵּפָה.

But instead of giving this correct answer, dream R' Shraga Feivel gives an answer that "in order to lessen the blow of this plague, HaShem made it so that included in the 24,000 would be those who had reached their time to die anyway." Thus, the etnachta in the middle of the pasuk, such that we have the phrase by itself:

וַיִּהְיוּ, הַמֵּתִים בַּמַּגֵּפָה

And it was, the meitim {those who were destined to die anyway} were in the plague.

The Weekly Shtikle adds an interesting parallel case of a midrash cited by Rashi about ki yipol haNofel mimenu.

And this all might stand nicely as derash, since it is close reading of text and granting omnisignificance to a specific phrase. And the question is a good one, because it allows us to focus on some features and behaviour of trup.

Why am I noting this and picking on this devar? There are several reasons. First, the attempt to prop up the dvar Torah as coming from R Shraga Feivel.

Second, that it came in a dream, and thus perhaps from the Yeshiva shel Maalah.

Third, in general I see rather silly divrei Torah, in which a question is asked which demonstrates lack of understanding of the sources, and a solution is proposed which takes it even further from the sources. And people are trained on this fare, and then cannot distinguish the good from the bad.

Or perhaps I'm just ornery.

blog roundup for parshat Balak

Category: Homiletics
Rafi G. at Torah Thoughts discusses the theme of stubbornness in the parsha in pesukim and Rashi.

Category: Analysis
Sedra Shorts (Parshablog) suggests that Balak's fear was that he would never get back the land that they had captured from Sichon and Og which had formerly been Moabite territory. I see a slight difficulty in this focus on Israel's past actions in trying to mesh this with Moav's next words to Midian.

Rafi G. at Torah Thoughts takes note that Bilaam did not react in surprise when his donkey began to talk, and suggests that this is part and parcel of being a prophet - one comes to expect unusual things. If I recall correctly, commentators have made a similar point about Avraham's household, in terms of Hagar and/or in terms of Lot.

Category: Misc.

Rabbi Lazer Brody discusses a pasuk in Bilaam's curse => blessing,

"It is a nation that will dwell in solitude and won't be considered among the nations" (Bamidbar 23:9).

in the context of assimilation, a separate spiritual plane for Israel, and economic reliance upon Hashem directly.

Shlomi P has a roaming summary of events and threats to the Israelites in the past few parshas, up to Balak, concluding with Jewish survival as dependent on "connecting to the eternality of Torah."

Really related to parshat Chukat and the dvars posted in the "straightforward Dvar" category of the blog roundup for that parsha (but I didn't see it until after posting), Choshevei Shemo posts on the relationship between Gilad Shalit , the parsha, the gemaras learned in the Daf Yomi cycle during the 9th of Tammuz, and the Tamid offering.

The Chazon Ish's Glasses

Last week in shul, I was reading through Ateres Hashavua, a parsha sheet from the high school I went to (Ateres Yaakov), and right at the end, they printed the following inspirational story:

Before the Chazon Ish zt’l moved to Eretz Yisroel, he lived in Vilna, where Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzenski zt’l was the Rav and Dayan. When the Chazon Ish first moved into Vilna, Rav Chaim Ozer invited him to daven in his Shul, where the Chazon Ish received an aliyah. Rav Chaim Ozer noticed that before the Chazon Ish began to make the brachos on the Torah, he removed his glasses. Curious, Rav Chaim Ozer asked the Chazon Ish why he had removed his glasses. “Don’t you need them to see?” The Chazon Ish simply answered, “Yes, I do,” but did not explain why he had removed his glasses. It was only later that someone revealed that the Chazon Ish loved the Torah so much that he could not bear to have any physical barrier between himself and the Torah!

The next week, the Chazon Ish received an aliyah once again. Rav Chaim Ozer noticed that before the Chazon Ish began to make the brachos on the Torah, he removed all of his clothing. Curious, Rav Chaim Ozer asked the Chazon Ish why he had removed his all of his clothing. “Won’t you be cold?” The Chazon Ish simply answered, “Yes, I will,” but did not explain why he had removed his all of his clothing. It was only later that someone revealed that the Chazon Ish loved the Torah so much that he could not bear to have any physical barrier between himself and the Torah!

All right, so the second paragraph is my addition. But at least the punch line makes more sense!

Note that it is not the Chazon Ish that revealed the "reason," nor does it account why specifically glasses, more than anything else he was wearing, were a physical barrier. Nor does it strike me as a particularly plausible explanation for the Chazon Ish's actions - begause of his great love for Torah, he removed the physical barrier, even though it would prevent him from seeing what the baal koreh was reading!

My father suggested that perhaps the Chazon Ish's nose was feeling pinched by his glasses. My father-in-law suggested that perhaps his perscription was such that he needed to remove his glasses in order to read.

My intuition is that there was an halachic, rather than emotional, cause to the Chazon Ish's actions. In Brachot 25b (page 16b-17a in the Rif, on the Rif blog) we encounter the following:

Rava said: excrement through a glass, it is permitted to read Shema opposite it. erva through a glass, it is forbidden to read Shema opposite it.
What is the reason? There {by excrement}, Dvarim 23:15:

טו כִּי ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ מִתְהַלֵּךְ בְּקֶרֶב מַחֲנֶךָ, לְהַצִּילְךָ וְלָתֵת אֹיְבֶיךָ לְפָנֶיךָ, וְהָיָה מַחֲנֶיךָ, קָדוֹשׁ: וְלֹא-יִרְאֶה בְךָ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר, וְשָׁב מֵאַחֲרֶיךָ. {ס

15 For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy; that He see no unseemly thing in thee, and turn away from thee. {S}

and there is {a separation}. And here {via erva}, it is written (Dvarim 23:15)

טו כִּי ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ מִתְהַלֵּךְ בְּקֶרֶב מַחֲנֶךָ, לְהַצִּילְךָ וְלָתֵת אֹיְבֶיךָ לְפָנֶיךָ, וְהָיָה מַחֲנֶיךָ, קָדוֹשׁ: וְלֹא-יִרְאֶה בְךָ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר, וְשָׁב מֵאַחֲרֶיךָ. {ס

15 For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy; that He see no unseemly thing in thee, and turn away from thee. {S}

and behold he {the one saying Shema} sees!

Thus, there are times that glass functions as a partition in terms of the laws of reading Shema. Perhaps the Chazon Ish felt that his glasses would be considered an halachic separation from actually seeing the Torah during his aliyah. Why not tell this to Rav Chaim Ozer? Perhaps he considered this a chumra he accepted upon himself as a middat chassidut, but did not want this to become normative law. (Or perhaps he did not want to go into extended halachic discussions bein gavra legavra, or so as not to hold up the tzibbur, etc.)

Indeed, such an explanation could perhaps be found in the words of whoever revealed the reason after the fact.

"It was only later that someone revealed that the Chazon Ish loved the Torah so much that he could not bear to have any physical barrier between himself and the Torah!"

Perhaps at the root of this is that "the Chazon Ish loved the Torah so much that he could not bear did not wish to have any physical barrier between himself and the Torah."

late parshat Shelach: Why Is the Mateh Yosef Missing?

There is an oddity in the list of spies Moshe sent to spy out the lad in Bemidbar 13:

ג וַיִּשְׁלַח אֹתָם מֹשֶׁה מִמִּדְבַּר פָּארָן, עַל-פִּי יְהוָה: כֻּלָּם אֲנָשִׁים, רָאשֵׁי בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵמָּה.	3 And Moses sent them from the wilderness of Paran according to the commandment of the LORD; all of them men who were heads of the children of Israel.
ד וְאֵלֶּה, שְׁמוֹתָם: לְמַטֵּה רְאוּבֵן, שַׁמּוּעַ בֶּן-זַכּוּר.	4 And these were their names: of the tribe of Reuben, Shammua the son of Zaccur.
ה לְמַטֵּה שִׁמְעוֹן, שָׁפָט בֶּן-חוֹרִי.	5 Of the tribe of Simeon, Shaphat the son of Hori.
ו לְמַטֵּה יְהוּדָה, כָּלֵב בֶּן-יְפֻנֶּה.	6 Of the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh.
ז לְמַטֵּה יִשָּׂשכָר, יִגְאָל בֶּן-יוֹסֵף.	7 Of the tribe of Issachar, Igal the son of Joseph.
ח לְמַטֵּה אֶפְרָיִם, הוֹשֵׁעַ בִּן-נוּן.	8 Of the tribe of Ephraim, Hoshea the son of Nun.
ט לְמַטֵּה בִנְיָמִן, פַּלְטִי בֶּן-רָפוּא.	9 Of the tribe of Benjamin, Palti the son of Raphu.
י לְמַטֵּה זְבוּלֻן, גַּדִּיאֵל בֶּן-סוֹדִי.	10 Of the tribe of Zebulun, Gaddiel the son of Sodi.
יא לְמַטֵּה יוֹסֵף, לְמַטֵּה מְנַשֶּׁה--גַּדִּי, בֶּן-סוּסִי.	11 Of the tribe of Joseph, namely, of the tribe of Manasseh, Gaddi the son of Susi.
יב לְמַטֵּה דָן, עַמִּיאֵל בֶּן-גְּמַלִּי.	12 Of the tribe of Dan, Ammiel the son of Gemalli.
יג לְמַטֵּה אָשֵׁר, סְתוּר בֶּן-מִיכָאֵל.	13 Of the tribe of Asher, Sethur the son of Michael.
יד לְמַטֵּה נַפְתָּלִי, נַחְבִּי בֶּן-וָפְסִי.	14 Of the tribe of Naphtali, Nahbi the son of Vophsi.
טו לְמַטֵּה גָד, גְּאוּאֵל בֶּן-מָכִי.	15 Of the tribe of Gad, Geuel the son of Machi.
טז אֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת הָאֲנָשִׁים, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁלַח מֹשֶׁה לָתוּר אֶת-הָאָרֶץ; וַיִּקְרָא מֹשֶׁה לְהוֹשֵׁעַ בִּן-נוּן, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.	16 These are the names of the men that Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Hoshea the son of Nun Joshua.

Compare pasuk 8 with pasuk 11. In pasuk 8:

ח לְמַטֵּה אֶפְרָיִם, הוֹשֵׁעַ בִּן-נוּן.

8 Of the tribe of Ephraim, Hoshea the son of Nun.

there is no mention made of the tribe of Yosef, whereas in pasuk 11:

יא לְמַטֵּה יוֹסֵף, לְמַטֵּה מְנַשֶּׁה--גַּדִּי, בֶּן-סוּסִי.

11 Of the tribe of Joseph, namely, of the tribe of Manasseh, Gaddi the son of Susi.

The JPS translation above is actually already attempting to solve this irregularity. The word "namely" does not correspond to any specific word in the Hebrew original.

Thus, the Hebrew of pasuk 11 could be rendered:
Of the tribe of Yosef, of the tribe of Menashe, Gaddi ben Sussi.

That is, that the tribe of Menashe was a part of the greater tribe of Yosef. The problem with this is: what is your definition of tribe -- can you have two "tribes" within a "tribe" -- and secondly, it does not say "Of the tribe of Yosef" by Ephraim.

"Namely" seems a good explanation here. That is, the tribe of Yosef is the tribe of Menashe, who is the firstborn. Since Yosef gets a double-portion, Ephraim gets to be a tribe of its own.

Here is one interesting example, which might be an exception. In Bemidbar 34:23-24:

יז אֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת הָאֲנָשִׁים, אֲשֶׁר-יִנְחֲלוּ לָכֶם אֶת-הָאָרֶץ: אֶלְעָזָר, הַכֹּהֵן, וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ, בִּן-נוּן. יח וְנָשִׂיא אֶחָד נָשִׂיא אֶחָד, מִמַּטֶּה--תִּקְחוּ, לִנְחֹל אֶת-הָאָרֶץ. יט וְאֵלֶּה, שְׁמוֹת הָאֲנָשִׁים: לְמַטֵּה יְהוּדָה, כָּלֵב בֶּן-יְפֻנֶּה. כ וּלְמַטֵּה בְּנֵי שִׁמְעוֹן, שְׁמוּאֵל בֶּן-עַמִּיהוּד. כא לְמַטֵּה בִנְיָמִן, אֱלִידָד בֶּן-כִּסְלוֹן. כב וּלְמַטֵּה בְנֵי-דָן, נָשִׂיא--בֻּקִּי, בֶּן-יָגְלִי. כג לִבְנֵי יוֹסֵף, לְמַטֵּה בְנֵי-מְנַשֶּׁה נָשִׂיא--חַנִּיאֵל, בֶּן-אֵפֹד. כד וּלְמַטֵּה בְנֵי-אֶפְרַיִם, נָשִׂיא--קְמוּאֵל, בֶּן-שִׁפְטָן. כה וּלְמַטֵּה בְנֵי-זְבוּלֻן, נָשִׂיא--אֱלִיצָפָן, בֶּן-פַּרְנָךְ. כו וּלְמַטֵּה בְנֵי-יִשָּׂשכָר, נָשִׂיא--פַּלְטִיאֵל, בֶּן-עַזָּן. כז וּלְמַטֵּה בְנֵי-אָשֵׁר, נָשִׂיא--אֲחִיהוּד, בֶּן-שְׁלֹמִי. כח וּלְמַטֵּה בְנֵי-נַפְתָּלִי, נָשִׂיא--פְּדַהְאֵל, בֶּן-עַמִּיהוּד.

Thus, among the descendants of Yosef, their is the tribe of Menashe. Ephraim is in a pasuk by himself. However, one might say that livnei yosef is distributive in this instance - something easy to say because of the vav hachibbur (which, though, occurs by every other tribe as well save the first) and because Ephraim immediately follows Menashe.

When dividing the land in sefer Yehoshua, we find {Yehoshua 16}:

א וַיֵּצֵא הַגּוֹרָל לִבְנֵי יוֹסֵף, מִיַּרְדֵּן יְרִיחוֹ, לְמֵי יְרִיחוֹ, מִזְרָחָה; הַמִּדְבָּר, עֹלֶה מִירִיחוֹ בָּהָר--בֵּית-אֵל. ב וְיָצָא מִבֵּית-אֵל, לוּזָה; וְעָבַר אֶל-גְּבוּל הָאַרְכִּי, עֲטָרוֹת. ג וְיָרַד-יָמָּה אֶל-גְּבוּל הַיַּפְלֵטִי, עַד גְּבוּל בֵּית-חוֹרֹן תַּחְתּוֹן--וְעַד-גָּזֶר; וְהָיוּ תֹצְאֹתָו, יָמָּה. ד וַיִּנְחֲלוּ בְנֵי-יוֹסֵף, מְנַשֶּׁה וְאֶפְרָיִם. ה וַיְהִי גְּבוּל בְּנֵי-אֶפְרַיִם, לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם...

so both are considered benei Yosef in terms of the goral.

Another interesting but, I think, unlikely, possibility occurred to me: By Ephraim, mention of the tribe of Yosef is not necessary, because the previous two words serve double-duty:

ז לְמַטֵּה יִשָּׂשכָר, יִגְאָל בֶּן-יוֹסֵף.	7 Of the tribe of Issachar, Igal the son of Joseph.
ח לְמַטֵּה אֶפְרָיִם, הוֹשֵׁעַ בִּן-נוּן.	8 Of the tribe of Ephraim, Hoshea the son of Nun.

Must Read Noah's Rainbow Sighted Over Idaho; Correct Peshat in the Pesukim in Parshat Noach

Forget this business of Noah's ark being "discovered" in Iran. I have got even more exciting news: the correct identification of Noah's arc.

The keshet in parashat Noach is not a typical rainbow, but an extremely rare sort of rainbow.

I saw the following on Snopes the other day, labelled as "True." Forgive the ALL-CAPS. I can't be bothered to retype it. The following text was going around:

THIS IS A FIRE RAINBOW — THE RAREST OF ALL NATURALLY OCCURING ATMOSPHERIC PHENOMENA.

THE PICTURE WAS CAPTURED ON THE IDAHO/WASHINGTON BORDER. THE EVENT LASTED ABOUT 1 HOUR.

CLOUDS HAVE TO BE CIRRUS, AT LEAST 20K FEET IN THE AIR, WITH JUST THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF ICE CRYSTALS AND THE SUN HAS TO HIT THE CLOUDS AT PRCEISELY 58 DEGREES.

Snopes' comment on it:

This is a real photograph of an atmospheric phenomenon known as a circumhorizon(tal) arc, the example shown above was captured on camera as it hung for about an hour across a several-hundred square mile area of sky above northern Idaho (near the Washington border) on 3 June 2006.

In general, a circumhorizontal arc (or "fire rainbow") appears when the sun is high in the sky (i.e., higher than 58° above the horizon), and its light passes through diaphanous, high-altitude cirrus clouds made up of hexagonal plate crystals. Sunlight entering the crystals' vertical side faces and leaving through their bottom faces is refracted (as through a prism) and separated into an array of visible colors. When the plate crystals in cirrus clouds are aligned optimally (i.e., with their faces parallel to the ground), the resulting display is a brilliant spectrum of colors reminiscent of a rainbow.

Thus, this is a real, but extremely rare phenomenon. This rainbow is beautiful. It looks like it is made of fire because it is within cirrus clouds. It looks like a celestial rainbow, from God Himself. (Thus, in the pasuk, Hashem refers to it as kashti, My Bow.)

Indeed, there is a dispute between Ramban and others (discussed in DovBear's post from 2005) whether there were rainbows before the mabul. The others maintain that it did not exist before the Flood, for God sets it as a sign with a specific import, and perhaps the simplest reading of the verse is that this is a new phenomenon. The Ramban, while admitting that this would seem to be the most straightforward meaning of the pesukim, disputes this. Based on Greek science, he states that a rainbow is a naturally occuring phenomenon, and of course there would be plenty of naturally occurring rainbows before this. He darshens the past tense of the word natati (as well as the word kashti) as evidence that it was pre-existing, and so God was appointing it with a new message and meaning. See Ramban inside.

But with this celestial fire-rainbow, we need not resort to the "farfetchedness" of the Ramban. Since these are so rare, and very specific conditions need to be met, it is quite possible that (since Adam) until this point a fire-rainbow had not been seen by human eyes, or perhaps could even not have occurred at all. (I am taking the text on a literal level here, so even if you don't accept a literal account, within the framework of the narrative.)

Indeed, we find evidence in the pesukim themselves that this is our rainbow, and we may learn an incredible new peshat in the pesukim in the process. Look at Bereishit 9:

יב וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, זֹאת אוֹת-הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר-אֲנִי נֹתֵן בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם, וּבֵין כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, אֲשֶׁר אִתְּכֶם--לְדֹרֹת, עוֹלָם.	12 And God said: 'This is the token of the covenant which I make between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
יג אֶת-קַשְׁתִּי, נָתַתִּי בֶּעָנָן; וְהָיְתָה לְאוֹת בְּרִית, בֵּינִי וּבֵין הָאָרֶץ.	13 I have set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between Me and the earth.
יד וְהָיָה, בְּעַנְנִי עָנָן עַל-הָאָרֶץ, וְנִרְאֲתָה הַקֶּשֶׁת, בֶּעָנָן.	14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring clouds over the earth, and the bow is seen in the cloud,
טו וְזָכַרְתִּי אֶת-בְּרִיתִי, אֲשֶׁר בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם, וּבֵין כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, בְּכָל-בָּשָׂר; וְלֹא-יִהְיֶה עוֹד הַמַּיִם לְמַבּוּל, לְשַׁחֵת כָּל-בָּשָׂר.	15 that I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
טז וְהָיְתָה הַקֶּשֶׁת, בֶּעָנָן; וּרְאִיתִיהָ, לִזְכֹּר בְּרִית עוֹלָם, בֵּין אֱלֹהִים, וּבֵין כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה בְּכָל-בָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר עַל-הָאָרֶץ.	16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.'
יז וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, אֶל-נֹחַ: זֹאת אוֹת-הַבְּרִית, אֲשֶׁר הֲקִמֹתִי, בֵּינִי, וּבֵין כָּל-בָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר עַל-הָאָרֶץ. {פ}	17 And God said unto Noah: 'This is the token of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is upon the earth.'

The pesukim repeat over and over: "and the bow shall be in the cloud." I would posit that the rainbow in the cloud means that the rainbow is in the cloud.

It shall come to pass, states verse 14, when I shall bring (cirrus) clouds over the earth, and the rainbow is seen in the cloud.

Not just any rainbow, but this specific, extremely rare meteorological phenomenon.

(Note: Sorry for that error in Jrants that made this post look inordinately large. I was trying to make it a bit bolder and misHTML-ized it, such that it came up much larger than anticipated. Attempts to fix just resulted in reposts, so I gave up.)

blog roundup for parshat Chukat

This is not a comprehensive list of all blogposts on the parsha, but just a repreesntative sample. If you have a posting on the parsha you would like included in next roundup, drop me a note:

Category: Philology

Balashon analyzes the word שרפ from a very Hirschian perspective.

Category: Straightforward Dvar

Nafka Mina offers a plausible allegorical interpretation of the famous midrash involving the 10 cubit Moshe taking on the much larger Og.

Aussie Dave at Israellycool reads parallels to the parsha in current Israeli events.

Bluke at The Jewish Worker makes a related point in this post (point 4).

Category: Homiletics

Rafi G. at Torah Thoughts discusses the implication of a midrash cited by Rashi about what the Israelites would have derived from Moshe speaking to the rock. And what they would derive from his hitting the rock. And thus why Moshe was punished as he was. I find the first two points more plausible than the last.

A wonderful interpretation of the incident of Moshe hitting the rock by Rabbi Gurkow at Inner Stream. In fact, I will excerpt some of it:

It was Moshe’s nature to lead by words, to entice, to cajole, to encourage and even to rebuke but never to hit.

To hit is to resort to violence out of sheer desperation. To hit is to allow your anger to get the better of you. To hit is to be destructive instead of constructive. To hit is to submit to the animal within and allow it to dominate. As humans and as Jews we are capable of more.

Remember: one destructive deed can destroy a hundred constructive words but one carrot accomplishes more than ten sticks.

Korach Minyan this past Shabbos

This past week, we held a minyan which in part tried to resolve one of the problematic inequalities in halacha (Jewish law) -- the inferiority of leviim and yisraelim as opposed to kohanim. In a regular minyan, a levi or yisrael is not called up for the first aliya where there is a kohen present, and a levi or yisrael may not duchen.

This is an unfortunate situation, for were not all Jews present at Har Sinai? Did not all Jews hear Hashem give the Ten Commandments? All of Israel is holy (see Bemidbar 16:3), yet the kohanim have taken upon themselves a special role!

So I gathered a group of likeminded Leviim (including some Korach Leviim, of the Horowitz family, who can trace themselves to Korach and refer to him as the heilege zeide Korach) and Yisraelim, and we set about making a minyan in which we could get the first aliya and could duchen.

To this end, we excluded kohanim from the minyan. Thus, we had no problem of getting the first aliya.

In terms of duchening, I came up with the following ingenious solution: As the time in Shemoneh Esrei approached for birkat leviim veyisraelim, the select few used the facilities. Afterwards, we had other leviim wash their hands, after which they said asher yatzar.

Meanwhile, these prechosen few had deliberately omitted birchat haTorah in the beginning of davening. Now they said it, and immediately thereafter, stood before the tzibbur, faced them, and said in a loud voice "yevarechecha Hashem veyishmerecha..."

Don't think I did this without getting prior Rabbinic approbation. I approached Rav Schachter outlined my plans, and asked if he thought that they met halachic requirements.

He replied: Don't be a schnook.
I asked him: Does this mean that there are no halachic issues?
He replied: Don't do it.

I surmised from this that there are no halachic reasons to refrain from doing this, but he did not think it was a good idea from a sociological perspective. And he and I clearly differ on this aspect. But at least on purely halachic standing, I was good to go!

// yes, satire
// and there is a story behind it besides just being parshat Korach
// what do you think? comments welcome.

Milk on my laptop keyboard -- my network saga

Or, how my various computers went down last week, depriving me of Internet access.

So, last Monday a friend of mine came over and helped me out with my network, by getting my modem to recall the username and password so that I did not have to have my laptop manually dial, and set up my router so that I could connect my other laptop (though I did not at the time set up the second laptop).

Later that night, I was in the other room and came in to the living room to see Meir standing on my desk chair with his hands over my laptop. He likes the laptop since he uses it to work on his "documents" (he likes to type in Word) and watch Baby Einstein DVDs. He also likes pressing keys and buttons, particularly the one that turns on and off the power. I left Meir to his own devices, since he often plays with my laptop without harm.

I checked in on him a few minutes later and saw what he had been up to -- he had poured mikl from his sippy cup onto the laptop keyboard and was merrily splashing about in it.

I panicked slightly, fearful of frying the motherboard, and cut power to the computer. I saw some milk pooled under the Alt key and figured it was a benign enough key to start off on -- if I couldn't get it back on, I had another Alt key, and it was the right Alt key, not the left one I use to switch to typing in Hebrew.

Sure enough, I couldn't get it back on. And for some reason the laptop was convinced the Alt key was pressed down, such that it interfered with the use of all other keys on the keyboard as well -- as well as interfering with the mouse.

My other laptop was still attempting to manually connect the DSL model, and could not figure out that it was already connected.

I would have been better off turning the laptop upside down and letting it drain. I was a bit annoyed at Meir, but more annoyed at myself, because I was the one who actually caused the damage.

The next morning, someone with more hardware experience got the key back on with a screwdriver, but the Alt key was still acting up -- now I could press some keys, but not others.

Finally, I asked some folks at a local computer repair shop if they could fix it. They said they would order the part and get back to me. Meanwhile I bought a USB keyboard to plug into the back of my laptop as a keyboard alternative. This worked a bit better but the Alt key was still interfering and I could not effectively work, even through gotomypc to my workplace.

The next day I found out they had forgotten to order the part. I left my laptop at the repair shop, and later that day put an order in for a new desktop PC. Which finally arrived Erev Shabbat, the same time the laptop was fixed.

Yesterday I started to set up the computer, install necessary programs, and am more of less back in business. Hooray!

posts so far for parshat Chukat

2004

• For What Sin Was Moshe Punished?
• perhaps not for striking the rock, but for his words
  
• Yiftach BeDoro KeShmuel BeDoro (cross-listed from Shoftim)
• since Yiftach appears in the haftarah, it pays to note that he was not a total am haAretz.
  

Year 2

• For the Border of Ammon Was Strong?
• how so? Does this not contradict Devarim that they did not because of Divine decree? I suggest it means that the border was firm. Or another answer, variant text (LXX) that has יעזר rather than עז for the border, such that it is a border town by the name of עז or יעזר. And a parallel to referencing a border town in the haftara. Then I discovered Targum gives my first explanation.
  
• Who Caused the Children of Ammon To Inherit?
• Hashem, or Chemosh? or both, in Yiftach's mind? Or is it diplomacy?
  
• Making Sense of Parah Adumah
• that tumah is a construct, by fiat
  

I likely will not get a chance to post for the next week.


to be continued...

Mashiach from the Dead in The Five Towns Jewish Times

I was surprised to read an article in the Five Towns Jewish Times last week which seemed to propound the belief that either a) the Rebbe is not really dead, or that b) he will return from the dead to be mashiach.

The article, "Gimmel Tammuz," was written by Yanki Tauber and also appears at Chabad.org. When reading such articles, one needs to realize that it is an art form to hint at these matters without explicitly saying so, so that there is plausible deniability. And what is not said is almost as important as what is said.

Gimmel Tammuz is the yartzeit of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, tz"l. So one would expect a mention that the Rebbe is dead - a zecher tzaddik livracha. Now, perhaps he omits this based on this statement by the Rebbe, which he cites from the Rebbe. (Though depending on how he understands this statement and why he thinks it is an important statement to mention, that might be further proof that he believes the Rebbe to not truly be dead.) However, when there are people around who actively believe that the Rebbe is not really dead, or that he went into hiding and will return, then omitting it carries meaning, and if one wishes to avoid that meaning, one should use zatzal.

Further, thoughout the article, he never mentions that the Rebbe has died. He talks about the funeral and the cemetery, but omits the fact that the Rebbe died:

I remember hearing the news early Sunday morning (Israeli Time) and rushing to the airport. I remember arriving at the cemetery hours after the funeral, in midst of the throng still pouring in, as it would through the night and the days and nights to follow, from all over the world.

He omits what the news is, and talks around it by mentioning cemetery and funeral, such that his readers know to what he is referring while cleverly avoiding a statement that the Rebbe died.

The closest he gets to stating that the Rebbe died is the following:

I remember thinking: The Rebbe, who has redefined virtually every aspect of life, has also redefined death.

The Rebbe thus did not die, but rather redefined death.

Wow. Could you elaborate? He writes later in the article:

In one of his talks, the Rebbe quoted the Talmudic dictum that "Sleep is one sixtieth of death." Well, said the Rebbe, if sleep is a form of death, then death is a form of sleep. Sleep is not a termination or even an interruption of life -- it is a time of foment, the means by which body and soul recoup their energies for a fresh and refreshed onslaught upon the coming day. So is death. Death, said the Rebbe, is a "descent for the sake of ascent," a retraction of the arrow of life so that it can be impelled by the bow of vacuity with redoubled force.

The Rebbe, zatzal, was presumably talking about death in general, for everyone, and eventual techiyat hameitim. In the context of this article, it is talking specifically about the Rebbe.

The impression one gets (or one could get) from this quote is that, unlike normal people who simply die, the Rebbe redefined death. Death is a form of sleep, so he is not dead, just resting. ("No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.") He is in hiding somewhere obscured from us, in a "descent for the sake of ascent." It is a retraction of the arrow of life so that it can be impelled by the bow of vacuity with redoubled force. And that redoubled force is presumably the Rebbe's Second Coming.

(Alternatively, the Rebbe is dead, but his death is preparation for his eventual Second Coming.)

Early in the article, he writes:

There was shock and incredulity. There was grief and agony. There was passionate disagreement and fervent expectation and many, many unanswered and unanswerable questions.

What does he mean by these "unanswered and unanswerable questions?" The Rebbe had died. What are the questions?

He answers at the end, after citing the Rebbe that

Death, said the Rebbe, is a "descent for the sake of ascent," a retraction of the arrow of life so that it can be impelled by the bow of vacuity with redoubled force.

he writes:

How? When? Why? The unanswered questions remain unanswered. But we know what we need to do. And we're doing it. You can go see for yourself -- if you reside on planet earth, chances are that you are within driving distance of a Chabad-Lubavitch center.

Thus, the unanswered questions about the Rebbe's death -- or in the later context, it seems the Rebbe's return (being "impelled by the bow of vacuity with redoubled force") -- are: How? When? Why?

What does he mean by these questions? My best guess is: How will the Rebbe return? When? Why did he need to remove himself from the world?

But they know what to do -- to bring the Mashiach -- just as Chabad is always focused on. And they are doing it.

To me, this seems the correct elucidation of this deliberately oblique article. My question is if the editor of the paper realized this as well.

I wonder whether there will be any Letters to the Editor regarding this.

Anyway, consider this blogpost a sign of my "Orthodox Difference."

Shadal on Midrashic Literalism - Analysis

The following occurs in vikuach al chochmat hakkaballah, which I read over Shavuot. At the beginning of the second day of the dispute, Shadal begins by speaking about peshat and various commentators, before moving on to attack philosophy and kabbalah based on this philosophy. Starting from the first line on the page, he states the following.

(The Author is speaking): ... Behold, the Rashbam and Ramban waged war to place peshat in its {rightful} place; and they themselves, though all their words are sweeter than honey, behold their words only come on the books of the Torah, but not on the rest of the holy books {=Nach} (except for Iyyov which the Ramban explained). And if we turn to the rest of the great commentators -- Ibn Ezra, Radak, and Abarbanel -- we find that in many places they divert from the peshat to another side - is this not the philosophic derash.

And the man {=his guest, but Shadal is really writing both sides of the discussion} replied to me and said: You have spoken correctly. A great and grievous damage has the mixed up philosophy damaged us -- which spread in the world via the Arabs, who took Aristotle as head and chief, and in his name they swear, and they wish to make his words agree with their beliefs which they received from their fathers, and they innovated a confused wisdom which confuses the hearts - which when the kingdom of Ishmael spread in the lands, this (ideology) also spread, and confused the de'ot and ruined the beliefs.

And the chachmei yisrael also, in order to make the words of this philosophy agree with our Complete Torah, forced and pressed the words of the Torah, Nevi`im, and the chachamim of the Mishna and the Talmud in order that they say what they did not say and never entered their hearts in {all} their days. And in order to do this they {the chachmei yisrael} brought out the {tools of} derash, remez and mashal {allegory}. And they abandoned the peshat and did not serve it....

This actually somewhat accords with the third category of the Rambam in terms of midrashic literalism - that if a statement by Chazal does not work with the sechel and the emet. I did not get to translating the Rambam in full, but compare the Hebrew of Shadal with the following statement of the Rambam (towards the end):



Again, my problem with this approach is brought out well by Shadal's words. If we allegorize where Chazal never intended allegory, we transform Chazal's words into what they were never intended to mean, just to make it accord with our own philosophical beliefs.

Now, one might argue that Shadal felt that Aristotelean philosophy was falsehood (and in fact it is falsehood), and so allegorizing pesukim, mishnayot and gemaras was moving away from the truth. But nowadays, we know the truth, in the form of modern science, and so we are moving towards truth. Of course, those perpetrating the allegory - the derash haphilosphy in Shadal's days and before also thought they knew the truth.

Conversely, Shadal might not feel the same way about modern science which he might have felt was truth. That is applying the same approach to something that actually is truth would not be in keeping with Shadal

On the other hand, as I have pointed out elsewhere, the social and intellect inputs to Josh Waxman are not the same as the social and intellectual inputs to the authors of various midrashim, and so just because I do not find something plausible does not mean that it was inplausible in the midrashic author's milieu. Declaring that the authorial intent was allegorical just because I disagree with a midrash on a historical level may well be forcing the words of the chachamim in order that they say what they did not say and never entered their hearts in all their days.

I do believe that many midrashim are allegorical, but that we must take care in identifying them rather than just labelling any midrash we disagree with as allegorical.

(Of course, this citation from Shadal does not necessarily touch on the issue of whether and which midrashim are allegorical, just on the issue of reinterpreting sources to fit your worldview.)

Here again, is Shadal.

Shadal (on midrashic literalism) - source

Rambam on Midrashic Literalism (source) - I

If we are to discuss midrashic literalism intelligently, it would help to have some of the sources available to us. To this end, I am uploading a scan of the Rambam's perush hamishnayot in his introduction to the 10th perek of Sanhedrin, where he discusses midrashic literalism and three groups which have different approaches to midrashic literalism. He takes the third approach, which (roughly) favors understanding (some?) midrashim allegorically where otherwise they would contradict the sechel. But this is a rough summary, and we should read this source carefully. Perhaps a translation to follow, and a discussion. Also, Shadal's take on the subject.

It begins in the first column, one line up from the large bold word harishona. Right click and open link in a new page, to see full screen.

parshat Shelach: Earlier Theophoric Names Involving Shem Hashem; Keshem Shemikablim Sechar Al HaDrisha...

In a previous post on parshat Shelach, I suggested that Yehoshua was the first with a theophoric name involving YKVK. Mississippi Fred MacDowell (S.) pointed out that Yocheved may be such a name. Indeed, names beginning with "Yo" such as this may indeed be theophoric, with "Yo" short for "Yeho." Thus, Yonatan and Yehonatan.

(I would not consider Yehuda to be a theophoric name, BTW.)

As I pointed out in the comment thread on that post, Yosef may also be such an example. After all, we see in Tehillim 81:6:

ה כִּי חֹק לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא; מִשְׁפָּט, לֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב.	5 For it is a statute for Israel, an ordinance of the God of Jacob.
ו עֵדוּת, בִּיהוֹסֵף שָׂמוֹ-- בְּצֵאתוֹ, עַל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם; שְׂפַת לֹא-יָדַעְתִּי אֶשְׁמָע.	6 He appointed it in Joseph for a testimony, when He went forth against the land of Egypt. {N} The speech of one that I knew not did I hear:

Clearly as it occurs in Tehillim, Yosef is understood as Yehosef, which would then be a theophoric name incorporating Hashem's name.

However, this might be a bit ambiguous within sefer Bereishit. In Bereishit 30:23:24, Yosef is named:

כג וַתַּהַר, וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן; וַתֹּאמֶר, אָסַף אֱלֹהִים אֶת-חֶרְפָּתִי.	23 And she conceived, and bore a son, and said: 'God hath taken away my reproach.'
כד וַתִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ יוֹסֵף, לֵאמֹר: יֹסֵף יְהוָה לִי, בֵּן אַחֵר.	24 And she called his name Joseph, saying: 'The LORD add to me another son.'

Thus there is a dual etymology. The first does not involve YKVK, but rather Elokim, with a root of אסף. The second etymology does indeed involve YKVK, in which case perhaps it is theophoric, meaning "Hashem should add." On the other hand, there is no letter heh there, and the name Yosef (spelled with a cholam malei ) is matched in the same pasuk with Yosef - יֹסֵף - with a cholam chaser. So it does not really need a shem Hashem within the name, even though Hashem is mentioned. Indeed, other names of the tribes involve action by YKVK or Elokim in the etymology and are non-theophoric. So again, perhaps in Bereishit it is ambiguous.

On a related note, the following story. I know the person involved, but from what I've seen happen on the blogosphere, I try to omit names in stories that might be taken by anyone as controversial.

This fellow was on the subway and he saw a girl from Drisha learning Gemara. Her boyfriend was sitting next to her and had his arm around her, and they were occasionally nuzzling. {Slight clarification: she was trying to learn her sefer while her boyfriend was trying to nuzzle.} So he had a great line, and so, when it was his stop, before exiting the subway car he walked over to the girl and told her: כשם שמקבלים שכר על הדרישה כך מקבלים שכר על הפרישה.

Heh.

An interesting and useful article about Rambam's approach to midrashic literalism

by Dr. Avraham Elkayam can be found here. (from 1996)

Perhaps I will eventually get to addressing the Rambam.

Active Comment Thread on a Midrashic Literalism Post

The author of one of the two pieces, Avi Goldstein, has posted a response in the comments of my second post in the series. Since commenting is (alas!) so rare on parshablog, I thought I would call attention to it - so scroll down or follow the link.

parshat Shelach + parshat Korach: A source for Mashiach ben Yosef; Aviram named after his ancestor?

can be found in the very beginning of parshat Shelach. Namely, in the list of spies/scouts, in pasuk 7:

ז לְמַטֵּה יִשָּׂשכָר, יִגְאָל בֶּן-יוֹסֵף.

7 Of the tribe of Issachar, Igal the son of Joseph.

יִגְאָל בֶּן-יוֹסֵף can be translated as the descendant of Yosef shall redeem. Of course, he is from the tribe of Yissachar. And this is said in fun.

Another interesting point to mention is that we have hear the reuse of a name, something that happens infrequently but does occur (e.g. genealogical lists in beginning of Bereishit), or see other . Here, we have Yosef not only as a son of Yaakov but as a descendant of Yissachar's brother. Perhaps this Yosef was even named after his great (...) uncle.

While on the subject of naming after others, one interesting one occurs in the very beginning of this week's parsha, Korach. We have Datan and Aviram.

As Speiser writes in Anchor Bible Genesis:

The underlying form Abram and its doublet Abiram are best explained as "the (not `my') father is exalted"...

Update on WMDs in Iraq Story

I posted a bit about this last week (WMDs found in Iraq?), and this is a followup. Rick Santorum and Peter Hoekstra have an article in the Wall Street Journal about it: "Sadaam's WMDs"

Some excerpts:

On Wednesday, at our request, the director of national intelligence declassified six "key points" from a National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) report on the recovery of chemical munitions in Iraq. The summary was only a small snapshot of the entire report, but even so, it brings new information to the American people. "Since 2003," the summary states, "Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent," which remains "hazardous and potentially lethal." So there are WMDs in Iraq, and they could kill Americans there or all over the world.

This latest information should not be new....
...

On Thursday, Mr. Negroponte's office arranged a press briefing by unnamed intelligence officials to downplay the significance of the report, calling it "not new news" even as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was reiterating the obvious importance of the information: "What has been announced is accurate, that there have been hundreds of canisters or weapons of various types found that either currently have sarin in them or had sarin in them, and sarin is dangerous. And it's dangerous to our forces. . . . They are weapons of mass destruction. They are harmful to human beings. And they have been found. . . . And they are still being found and discovered."

etc. If you haven't already, check it out.

Late parshat Shelach: the names of the spies in the parsha; theophoric, but which deity?

Yes, I know it is parshat Korach, but I did not get a chance to post this last week.

I was looking through the list of the spies and I noticed something interesting. Bemidbar 13:4-6:

ד וְאֵלֶּה, שְׁמוֹתָם: לְמַטֵּה רְאוּבֵן, שַׁמּוּעַ בֶּן-זַכּוּר.	4 And these were their names: of the tribe of Reuben, Shammua the son of Zaccur.
ה לְמַטֵּה שִׁמְעוֹן, שָׁפָט בֶּן-חוֹרִי.	5 Of the tribe of Simeon, Shaphat the son of Hori.
ו לְמַטֵּה יְהוּדָה, כָּלֵב בֶּן-יְפֻנֶּה.	6 Of the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh.
ז לְמַטֵּה יִשָּׂשכָר, יִגְאָל בֶּן-יוֹסֵף.	7 Of the tribe of Issachar, Igal the son of Joseph.
ח לְמַטֵּה אֶפְרָיִם, הוֹשֵׁעַ בִּן-נוּן.	8 Of the tribe of Ephraim, Hoshea the son of Nun.
ט לְמַטֵּה בִנְיָמִן, פַּלְטִי בֶּן-רָפוּא.	9 Of the tribe of Benjamin, Palti the son of Raphu.
י לְמַטֵּה זְבוּלֻן, גַּדִּיאֵל בֶּן-סוֹדִי.	10 Of the tribe of Zebulun, Gaddiel the son of Sodi.
יא לְמַטֵּה יוֹסֵף, לְמַטֵּה מְנַשֶּׁה--גַּדִּי, בֶּן-סוּסִי.	11 Of the tribe of Joseph, namely, of the tribe of Manasseh, Gaddi the son of Susi.
יב לְמַטֵּה דָן, עַמִּיאֵל בֶּן-גְּמַלִּי.	12 Of the tribe of Dan, Ammiel the son of Gemalli.
יג לְמַטֵּה אָשֵׁר, סְתוּר בֶּן-מִיכָאֵל.	13 Of the tribe of Asher, Sethur the son of Michael.
יד לְמַטֵּה נַפְתָּלִי, נַחְבִּי בֶּן-וָפְסִי.	14 Of the tribe of Naphtali, Nahbi the son of Vophsi.
טו לְמַטֵּה גָד, גְּאוּאֵל בֶּן-מָכִי.	15 Of the tribe of Gad, Geuel the son of Machi.
טז אֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת הָאֲנָשִׁים, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁלַח מֹשֶׁה לָתוּר אֶת-הָאָרֶץ; וַיִּקְרָא מֹשֶׁה לְהוֹשֵׁעַ בִּן-נוּן, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.	16 These are the names of the men that Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Hoshea the son of Nun Joshua.

First off, we have שַׁמּוּעַ בֶּן-זַכּוּר. Zakkur is the shorthand of a theophoric name. Just as Shallum is short for Shelemyahu, 'Azzur is short for Azaryahu and Baruch is short for Berechyahu, Zakkur is short for Zecharyahu, or Zecharya.

This of course assumes the deity in question is Hashem. Other theophoric names are possible, simply inserting another deity's name in its place. As I noted in the past, shemi hashem lo nodati lahem is something that we see in these lists of names. Until Yehoshua, we do not see a theophoric name with yahu or yeho. Only el or shaddai in the names. And indeed we see in verse 16 that Moshe calls Hoshea Yehoshua. He seems to be the first with such a name. (Thus: ushmi Hashem lo nadati lahem - see my blogpost here.)

Indeed, some suggest that Moshe's name was Egyptian diety plus MSS, like Ra-MSeS, though see my posts addressing this.

I also pointed out (here) that Achi-Ra ben Einan seems to bear the Egyptian deity's name, and suggested lightly that this might be the basis for the Deuel/Reuel variance in the next of the nesiim's names - after witnessing the Exodus, he changed his name from Ra+El (Ra is Mighty/God) to Da+El (knowing God).

Zaccur is theophoric name, and perhaps the omission of the deity is deliberate. Similarly, perhaps Hoshea was also a theophoric name and Moshe changed it to include Hashem.

What about other theophoric names in the list? Are there any? Two look somewhat suspicious.
The first:

י לְמַטֵּה זְבוּלֻן, גַּדִּיאֵל בֶּן-סוֹדִי.

10 Of the tribe of Zebulun, Gaddiel the son of Sodi.

יא לְמַטֵּה יוֹסֵף, לְמַטֵּה מְנַשֶּׁה--גַּדִּי, בֶּן-סוּסִי.

11 Of the tribe of Joseph, namely, of the tribe of Manasseh, Gaddi the son of Susi.

Thus, we have Gadi + El is pasuk 10, but just Gadi in pasuk 11.

The second:

יג לְמַטֵּה אָשֵׁר, סְתוּר בֶּן-מִיכָאֵל.

13 Of the tribe of Asher, Sethur the son of Michael.

טו לְמַטֵּה גָד, גְּאוּאֵל בֶּן-מָכִי.

15 Of the tribe of Gad, Geuel the son of Machi.

Thus, in 13 we have Micha + El, but just Machi in pasuk 15. And his son is Geu + El, as we would expect.

Perhaps once again we have deliberate omission of the theophoric element of the theophoric name where the deity was not Hashem.

Are there other names that fit this pattern in the list?

How about pasuk 12:
למַטֵּה דָן, עַמִּיאֵל בֶּן-גְּמַלִּי
Ami + El is the son of Gamli, instead of the name we all know and love, Gamli + El.

There are a few which end in "i," and just perhaps might do with a deity appended.

If so, my light suggestion about Reuel vs. Deuel might have more basis than I initially thought.