Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Daf Yomi Nedarim 10b-11a: Does Rabbi Meir Not Hold Of Michlal Lav Ata Shomea Hen?
A thought or two about the gemara Nedarim's analysis of the Mishna on Nedarim 10b. (Girsaot and translation taken from my Rif blog.)
But is this really so? The basis for this assertion is what he says in a Mishna in Kiddushin:
But, this is a statement in the context of stipulations. Who says that a simple statement in the form of negative cannot imply a positive by Nedarim, where after all both yadot and kinuyim are in force? Indeed, who says that this is anything which should be extrapolated out of the specific context of stipulations? It is, after all, derived from a pasuk, and Rabbi Chanania ben Gamliel has a reply in the context of the intent of that pasuk. Perhaps it is a gezeirat hakatuv only by stipulations. Instead, we make this more general rule that Rabbi Meir purportedly subscribes to, and this causes problems to a local understanding of the Mishna in Nedarim.
Indeed, the same extrapolation presents another problem, with a Mishna in which Rabbi Meir explicitly speaks. On Nedarim 11b:
In terms of the Mishna, which states:
Nedarim 10b:The gemara:
Mishna:לא חולין שאוכל לך לא כשר לא דכי לא טהור וטמא נותר ופיגול אסור כאימרא כדירים כעצים כאישים כמזבח כהיכל כירושלים כא' מכל משמשי המזבח אע"פ שלא הזכיר קרבן הרי זה נדר בקרבן.{IF ONE SAYS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR}, 'THAT WHICH I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS BE NOT CHULLIN, NOT KOSHER, NOT PURE, NOT RITUALLY CLEAN, AND IMPURE, LEFTOVER, PIGGUL {with improper intent}, FORBIDDEN, LIKE THE LAMB {of the daily sacrifice}, LIKE THE SHEDS OF CATTLE, LIKE THE WOOD, LIKE THE FIRE, LIKE THE ALTAR, LIKE THE TEMPLE, LIKE YERUSHALAYIM, LIKE ONE OF ALL THE UTENSILS OF THE ALTAR, THEN EVEN THOUGH HE HAS NOT MENTIONED A KORBAN, HE HAS VOWED BY KORBAN.
ר' יהודה אומר האומר ירושלים הרי זה לא אמר כלום
RABBI YEHUDA SAYS: IF ONE SAYS "LIKE YERUSHALAYIM," HE HAS NOT SAID ANYTHING.
{Nedarim 11a}This explanation of the Mishna, as being in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, seems quite a bit forced. It would have been much easier to make it accord with Rabbi Meir, except of course that Rabbi Meir does not hold of the principle of מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן.
Gemara:סברוה מאי לחולין לא חולין הוי אלא קרבן
מני מתני' אי ר"מ הא לית ליה מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן דתנן רמ"א כל תנאי שאינו כתנאי ב"ג וב"ר אינו תנאי
ואלא ר' יהודה?
אימא סיפא רי"א האומר ירושלים לא אמר כלום
ומדסיפא ר"י רישא לאו ר"י
לא קשיא כולה ר' יהודה והכי קתני
שר"י אומר האומר ירושלים לא אמר כלום
וכי אמר כירושלים לר"י מי מיתסר
והתניא ר' יהודה אומר כירושלים לא אמר כלום עד שידור בדבר הקרב בירושלים.
כולה ר' יהודה ותרי תנאי אליבא דר' יהודה.
They thought that what is lechulin {in the Mishna, in a certain girsa}? la chullin is it, but rather an offering.
Who is the author of our Mishna? If it is Rabbi Meir, behold he does not have the principle of from the negative you can infer the positive! For they learnt {in a Mishna}: Rabbi Meir says: Any stipulation which is not like the stipulation of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuven is not a valid stipulation.
But can we say it is Rabbi Yehuda? The sefa {latter part of the Mishna} states: Rabbi Yehuda says, "One who says Yerushalayim does not say anything." And from the fact that the sefa is Rabbi Yehuda, the resha is not Rabbi Yehuda.
This is no question. It is all Rabbi Yehuda, and this is what it means to say: For Rabbi Yehuda says, "One who says 'Yerushalayim' has not said anything."
But if he said "Like Yerushalayim, would Rabbi Yehuda forbid?" But they learnt {in a brayta}, "One who said 'like Yerushalayim' has not said anything, until he vows with what is sacrificed in Yerushalayim.
{The answer:} It is all Rabbi Yehuda, and it is two Tannaim within the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
But is this really so? The basis for this assertion is what he says in a Mishna in Kiddushin:
ג,ד רבי מאיר אומר, כל תנאי שאינו כתנאי בני ראובן ובני גד--אינו תנאי, שנאמר "ויאמר משה אליהם, אם יעברו בני גד ובני ראובן איתכם . . . ואם לא יעברו חלוצים, איתכם . . ." (במדבר לב,כט-ל). רבי חנניה בן גמליאל אומר, צורך היה הדבר לאומרו--שאלמלא כן, יש במשמע שאף בארץ לא הונחלו.
But, this is a statement in the context of stipulations. Who says that a simple statement in the form of negative cannot imply a positive by Nedarim, where after all both yadot and kinuyim are in force? Indeed, who says that this is anything which should be extrapolated out of the specific context of stipulations? It is, after all, derived from a pasuk, and Rabbi Chanania ben Gamliel has a reply in the context of the intent of that pasuk. Perhaps it is a gezeirat hakatuv only by stipulations. Instead, we make this more general rule that Rabbi Meir purportedly subscribes to, and this causes problems to a local understanding of the Mishna in Nedarim.
Indeed, the same extrapolation presents another problem, with a Mishna in which Rabbi Meir explicitly speaks. On Nedarim 11b:
Yet it would be simpler to say that Rabbi Meir indeed holds of deriving the positive statement from the negative statement. But in the brayta, which statesתנא חולין החולין כחולין בין שאוכל לך בין שלא אוכל לך מותר.
לא חולין שאוכל לך אסור
לא חולין לא אוכל לך מותרIt was taught: Chullin, haChullin, keChullin, whether "that I eat of yours," or "that I do not eat of yours," is permitted.
It is not chullin, that I eat of yours, it is forbidden.
It is not chullin that I do not eat of yours, it is permitted.רישא מני ר"מ היא דלית ליה מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן
אימא סיפא לחולין לא אוכל לך מותרThe resha is who? Rabbi Meir, who does not have the principle of deriving the positive statement from the negative statement. But then the sefa says "lachullin {=not chullin} I will not eat from you, it is permitted!
{And this cannot be Rabbi Meir, because:}והתנן לקרבן לא אוכל לך רבי מאיר אוסר
וקשיא לן
הא לית ליה לרבי מאיר מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן
וא"ר אבא נעשה כאומר לקרבן יהא לפיכך לא אוכל לך
ה"נ לא חולין ליהוי לפיכך לא אוכל לךהאי תנא סבר לה כותיה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא ס"ל בחדא דלית ליה מכלל לאו וכו' ופליג עליה בחדא בקרבןרב אשי אמר הא דאמר לחולין הא דאמר לא חולין דמשמע לא ליהוי חולין אלא קרבןBut we learnt {in a Mishna}: lakorban {=not a korban} that which I do not eat of yours, Rabbi Meir forbids. {With the simple understanding that: since that which I do not eat is not a korban, that which I would eat of your would be forbidden like a korban.} But Rabbi Meir does not hold of the principle of deriving the positive statement from the negative statement?!
And Rabbi Abba {there} says: He is made as if he said "for a korban {=lekorban} it should be, and therefore I will not eat of yours."
So too {here, by the sefa of the brayta, we should interpret it as} "it is not to be chullin, and therefore I will not eat of yours."
The answer: This tanna holds like him {Rabbi Meir} in one and argues upon him in one. He holds in one {=the resha} that there is no principle of deriving the positive statement from the negative statement. And he argues with him in one of them -- by the korban. {and the meaning of lakorban.}
Rav Ashi said: This {=resha} is where he said leChullin, and this is where he said la chullin, which implies that it should not be chullin but rather korban.
לא חולין שאוכל לך אסור
לא חולין לא אוכל לך מותר
it is not about whether one can make such a derivation. Rather, the former implies that that which I eat from you is not chullin {but rather korban}, and thus is forbidden. While the latter, with the double negative, implies that that which he did not eat is not chullin, but that which he would eat is chullin, and thus permissible. Indeed, this would appear to be like (part of) Rav Ashi's resolution.לא חולין לא אוכל לך מותר
In terms of the Mishna, which states:
והתנן לקרבן לא אוכל לך רבי מאיר אוסר
this is not an issue of deriving a positive from a negative statement, but rather since it says lekorban, rather than la korban, in two separate words. And indeed, that is how it appears in the citation from the Mishna. While in the Mishna, it is la chullin as two separate words.
And this appears to accord with Rabbi Abba, above.
This is all complicated, or hidden, by the fact that the girsa as it appears in our gemara, as opposed to how it appears as cited above from the Rif, does not have these marked distinctions.
And if so, we do not really need to have the prompting the setama digmara gives in these places for Rav Ashi and Rabbi Abba. And this prompting is the claim that Rabbi Meir does not hold of michlal lav ata shomea hen. But as above, we can dispense with that.
And once we do, we do not need the claim for the first Mishna that it is a Tanna based in part or Rabbi Yehuda and who argues on him in part. And we do not need the claim in the latter case that it is a Tanna who agrees with and disagrees with Rabbi Meir.
I would suggest that all of this is a later stammaic reworking of the gemara, from a particular extrapolation from Kiddushin about Rabbi Meir's views.
And this appears to accord with Rabbi Abba, above.
This is all complicated, or hidden, by the fact that the girsa as it appears in our gemara, as opposed to how it appears as cited above from the Rif, does not have these marked distinctions.
And if so, we do not really need to have the prompting the setama digmara gives in these places for Rav Ashi and Rabbi Abba. And this prompting is the claim that Rabbi Meir does not hold of michlal lav ata shomea hen. But as above, we can dispense with that.
And once we do, we do not need the claim for the first Mishna that it is a Tanna based in part or Rabbi Yehuda and who argues on him in part. And we do not need the claim in the latter case that it is a Tanna who agrees with and disagrees with Rabbi Meir.
I would suggest that all of this is a later stammaic reworking of the gemara, from a particular extrapolation from Kiddushin about Rabbi Meir's views.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Vayechi: Minchas Eluzer's Teshuva On The Gap - pt i
I am splitting the following teshuva, about the gap between Vayigash and Vayechi, into several parts, because it is long and complicated. This is from the Minchas Eluzer, chelek 1:
Siman 10:
Question:
I have seen, and have placed it in my heart. Behold, it is found in several sifrei Torah, both new and old, at the beginning of parshat Vayechi, where there is no need for there to be a setuma at all, and despite this the scribes place there a gap equal to the width of three letter yuds, of that font, and perhaps even more than that. And also in the place of the close of the parshiyot of {each of} the 7 readings, which they etch and print in Chumashim, even where there is no petucha or setuma at all, they leave a space of two or three yuds. And also, in sifrei Torah from expert sofrim, I have seen this, and they are certainly following in this custom after the scribes who preceded them. There is to consider if they are acting correctly, since there is in this a fear of a{n unwarranted} setuma, according to opinions of the Rishonim, as will be explained in the answer, with the aid of Heaven.
Answer:
Behold, when I saw like this in one sefer Torah, in parashat Vayechi, I was astounded at the sight. For it is obvious that there need not be there any gap between the word meod (the close of parashat Vayigash) to the word Vayechi, except as there is between the word Vayechi to the word Yaakov which is after it (as we will explain later on with the aid of Heaven, that even between one pasuk and the next pasuk, one should not place a gap, ab initio, more than between one word and the next). And who learned and permitted them to make such a large gap there? And so too in Tanach and Chumashim.
Ezra the scribe and other exacting scribes wrote {in the Masoretic note}: This parasha, there is not in it a gap at all, except for a gap of a single letter. And the simple explanation is that this is the single letter gap which needs to be between one word and the next, in every place. And so too here it should be so, with no distinction in gap.
And thus, it comes out that it was a minhag of ignorance of the soferim, that they appear to have thought that the explanation of it was that there needs to be an additional gap of a letter more than there is between other words, one to the other.
And so too informed be one sofer, even though he is a Torah scholar! And I told him that this is a mistake.
And so too informed me a certain person who was wise in his own eyes, that perhaps the explanation was "a large letter," such as a resh or a daled, and at times they expand and elongate it {the resh or daled}. And thus is comes out that it is able to be, because of this, a large gap of whitespace. And this is an error which it is not worth responding to, for if so, when they measure {gaps} in terms of letters, they are able to extend to elongate the letter, and if so, there is no measure to the gap! Rather, it is obvious that this {one letter gap here} is the width of a full, small letter, which is what it is every place, between one word and the next. And it comes to say that "expect for the width of a single letter," this is that there is no gap at all, but rather that its law is as it is between every other pair of words.
And I have seen in Masoretic books, in the sefer Or Torah from Maharam di Lunzano, z"l, in the beginning of Vayechi, he writes:
hyperliterally so, for we need to leave space between one word and the next word the width of a letter, see there. And the intent of the Or Torah is obviously that they do not leave more than that, even a hairsbreadth, more than other instances of between one word and the next word, and not like the erroneous minhag of certain scribes in this, as mentioned.
[And I kind of thought that perhaps they were drawn in this, and the minhag developed in this for them, from one boor who thought that the explanation in Rashi {who is citing Bereishit Rabba} who said "parasha zo setuma," that it is a setuma rather than a petucha. And therefore he left a space of three yuds like the law of setuma from Masechet Soferim, as we will mention in this with the help of Hashem, may He Be Blessed. And see the explanation of the Maharzu {Rav Zev Wolf} in Midrash {Bereishit Rabba}, Vilna printing, who writes that "this needs delving," because he thought to explain like this, that "parasha zo setuma" is that there is a setuma {rather than a petucha}. However, after this, he resolves it and explains it appropriately. And see Mizrachi there, and Gur Aryeh to the Maharal miPrague, z"l, and Siftei Chachamim, that also {initially} wish to make it enter their minds explain like this, and they write that this is not so, but rather that it is obvious that the explanation is that there is no gap at all.]
And also in Zohar haKadosh, on Vayechi (216b):
Thus, he explains like our words, that one should not make a separation between וַיִּרְבּוּ מְאֹד and וַיְחִי יַעֲקֹב.
And see in Kli Yakar, parashat Vayechi there, that he writes, and these are his words:
to be continued...
Siman 10:Question:
I have seen, and have placed it in my heart. Behold, it is found in several sifrei Torah, both new and old, at the beginning of parshat Vayechi, where there is no need for there to be a setuma at all, and despite this the scribes place there a gap equal to the width of three letter yuds, of that font, and perhaps even more than that. And also in the place of the close of the parshiyot of {each of} the 7 readings, which they etch and print in Chumashim, even where there is no petucha or setuma at all, they leave a space of two or three yuds. And also, in sifrei Torah from expert sofrim, I have seen this, and they are certainly following in this custom after the scribes who preceded them. There is to consider if they are acting correctly, since there is in this a fear of a{n unwarranted} setuma, according to opinions of the Rishonim, as will be explained in the answer, with the aid of Heaven.
Answer:Behold, when I saw like this in one sefer Torah, in parashat Vayechi, I was astounded at the sight. For it is obvious that there need not be there any gap between the word meod (the close of parashat Vayigash) to the word Vayechi, except as there is between the word Vayechi to the word Yaakov which is after it (as we will explain later on with the aid of Heaven, that even between one pasuk and the next pasuk, one should not place a gap, ab initio, more than between one word and the next). And who learned and permitted them to make such a large gap there? And so too in Tanach and Chumashim.
Ezra the scribe and other exacting scribes wrote {in the Masoretic note}: This parasha, there is not in it a gap at all, except for a gap of a single letter. And the simple explanation is that this is the single letter gap which needs to be between one word and the next, in every place. And so too here it should be so, with no distinction in gap.
And thus, it comes out that it was a minhag of ignorance of the soferim, that they appear to have thought that the explanation of it was that there needs to be an additional gap of a letter more than there is between other words, one to the other.
And so too informed be one sofer, even though he is a Torah scholar! And I told him that this is a mistake.
And so too informed me a certain person who was wise in his own eyes, that perhaps the explanation was "a large letter," such as a resh or a daled, and at times they expand and elongate it {the resh or daled}. And thus is comes out that it is able to be, because of this, a large gap of whitespace. And this is an error which it is not worth responding to, for if so, when they measure {gaps} in terms of letters, they are able to extend to elongate the letter, and if so, there is no measure to the gap! Rather, it is obvious that this {one letter gap here} is the width of a full, small letter, which is what it is every place, between one word and the next. And it comes to say that "expect for the width of a single letter," this is that there is no gap at all, but rather that its law is as it is between every other pair of words.
And I have seen in Masoretic books, in the sefer Or Torah from Maharam di Lunzano, z"l, in the beginning of Vayechi, he writes:
In all scrolls we have seen this verse connected with the end of parashat Vayigash, with nothing between them, not even a hairsbreadth. Also the Rambam z"l does not list it. And therefore the printers erred, in that they placed at the beginning of this parsha a gap just as occurs by a parsha setuma, for there should not be a gap at all, neither a petucha nor a setuma. Etcetera.And in sefer Em laMesoret (printed in Mantua, 508 = 1732), he suggests on this which was written in Or Torah, "there is not between them even a hairsbreadth," that this is not
hyperliterally so, for we need to leave space between one word and the next word the width of a letter, see there. And the intent of the Or Torah is obviously that they do not leave more than that, even a hairsbreadth, more than other instances of between one word and the next word, and not like the erroneous minhag of certain scribes in this, as mentioned.[And I kind of thought that perhaps they were drawn in this, and the minhag developed in this for them, from one boor who thought that the explanation in Rashi {who is citing Bereishit Rabba} who said "parasha zo setuma," that it is a setuma rather than a petucha. And therefore he left a space of three yuds like the law of setuma from Masechet Soferim, as we will mention in this with the help of Hashem, may He Be Blessed. And see the explanation of the Maharzu {Rav Zev Wolf} in Midrash {Bereishit Rabba}, Vilna printing, who writes that "this needs delving," because he thought to explain like this, that "parasha zo setuma" is that there is a setuma {rather than a petucha}. However, after this, he resolves it and explains it appropriately. And see Mizrachi there, and Gur Aryeh to the Maharal miPrague, z"l, and Siftei Chachamim, that also {initially} wish to make it enter their minds explain like this, and they write that this is not so, but rather that it is obvious that the explanation is that there is no gap at all.]
And also in Zohar haKadosh, on Vayechi (216b):
Why is this parasha satum, etc. וַיֵּאָחֲזוּ בָהּ, וַיִּפְרוּ וַיִּרְבּוּ מְאֹד {=the end of Vayigash} and it is written וַיְחִי יַעֲקֹב, that it is not fit to have a separation between this and that, etc.Until here are the words of the Zohar.
Thus, he explains like our words, that one should not make a separation between וַיִּרְבּוּ מְאֹד and וַיְחִי יַעֲקֹב.
And see in Kli Yakar, parashat Vayechi there, that he writes, and these are his words:
And here there is no gap at all. Certainly, the intent of Ezra the Scribe was to juxtapose the pasuk of Vayechi Yaakov to the pasuk beforehand, of וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, בְּאֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן; וַיֵּאָחֲזוּ בָהּ, וַיִּפְרוּ וַיִּרְבּוּ מְאֹד, as if it were that all of it were a single pasuk.It appears from this that also according to the opinion of the Rema, that one should put a bit of a space between one verse and the next verse in every place {in Tanach} (as will be mentioned later on), here however, one should not leave any {extra} space at all, for we must say that it is as if all of it were a single verse. However, it comes out of this that also, if in every place, we do not have this minhag in this like the Rema, as is mentioned later on, therefore certainly we should not leave any gap in this.
to be continued...
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Vayechi: How Big A Gap Between Vayigash and Vayechi? pt iii
We may eventually translate this teshuva from the Minchas Eluzer, chelek 1, siman 10. For now, just the Hebrew. It is about the gap, or lack thereof, between Vayigash and Vayechi.
Vayechi: How Big A Gap Between Vayigash and Vayechi? pt ii
Over Shabbos, I did a little research into this. I asked three baalei keriah in the neighborhood (KHG). One said there was no gap at all, but rather it was just the next work. Another (my brother-in-law) said he seemed to recall it was a gap of two letters. And another (my father-in-law) was sure it was a gap of two letters. So a machloket.
We looked in two different tikkunim. One, from Ktav (1946) had a gap of exactly two letters. Another, more modern one, had a gap of exactly one letter - that is, there was no gap, but rather the regular gap between words. Thus, a machloket.
The masoretic note (brought down e.g. in the Stone Chumash) says "besefer Torah ain piska ela ot echat," that in a sefer Torah there is only a gap of a single letter. Even before seeing this, I intuited that the masoretic note would say this. My guess is that both traditions (of one gap or two) stem from this one masoretic note.
That is, there are two possible interpretations of this masoretic note. It could be that it is saying that there is no gap at all, and so there is only the gap of a single letter - namely, the gap of a single letter that is always present between two words. Or, it could mean that *in addition* to the usual inter-word gap, there is an additional gap of one letter space, thus making it a very tiny setuma. (I would further posit that the former is more likely the true meaning, but feel free to draw your own conclusions.) This may also work with the two interpretations I offered in the previous post, that there are two readings of "mi" in "lama parasha zo setumua *mi*kol parshiyot shebaTorah.
(Indeed, in the commentary in Stone Chumash, and in the Judaica Press translation of Rashi, they indicate that it is *entirely* closed.)
Also, a 19th century acharon (prior to Aruch haShulchan), in the sefer Shulchan HaKeriah, in the commentary of the Misgeret HaShulchan, writes specifically about the gap or lack thereof by Vayechi. He writes that there need not be a gap of more than one letter ("ain tzurich lihyot pitcha ki im revach ot achat") which perhaps means it is allowed, or perhaps means there should be. (Thus, this is in accord with masoretic note, whatever it means.) If there is a gap of up to five letters, it is fine, because this is not a parsha setuma, but it would be good thing to correct it, if it is easy to correct it (but otherwise not). If there is gap of a parsha setuma (which all over we say is a 9 letter gap), then one should seek another sefer Torah. But, if there is no other sefer Torah available, one should read from that sefer Torah, *with* brachot.
(Both the masoretic note and the Shulchan haKeriah credited to my father-in-law.)
Also, the fact that there were seforim with larger gaps *perhaps* shows a masoretic dispute in what sort of gap should be there, again perhaps based in interpretations of either the masoretic note or interpretations of the statement in Bereishit Rabba.
Someone on that group (credit upon request) also pointed me towards the Minchas Eluzer. Perhaps a scan and translation in the next post in this series.
We looked in two different tikkunim. One, from Ktav (1946) had a gap of exactly two letters. Another, more modern one, had a gap of exactly one letter - that is, there was no gap, but rather the regular gap between words. Thus, a machloket.
The masoretic note (brought down e.g. in the Stone Chumash) says "besefer Torah ain piska ela ot echat," that in a sefer Torah there is only a gap of a single letter. Even before seeing this, I intuited that the masoretic note would say this. My guess is that both traditions (of one gap or two) stem from this one masoretic note.
That is, there are two possible interpretations of this masoretic note. It could be that it is saying that there is no gap at all, and so there is only the gap of a single letter - namely, the gap of a single letter that is always present between two words. Or, it could mean that *in addition* to the usual inter-word gap, there is an additional gap of one letter space, thus making it a very tiny setuma. (I would further posit that the former is more likely the true meaning, but feel free to draw your own conclusions.) This may also work with the two interpretations I offered in the previous post, that there are two readings of "mi" in "lama parasha zo setumua *mi*kol parshiyot shebaTorah.
(Indeed, in the commentary in Stone Chumash, and in the Judaica Press translation of Rashi, they indicate that it is *entirely* closed.)
Also, a 19th century acharon (prior to Aruch haShulchan), in the sefer Shulchan HaKeriah, in the commentary of the Misgeret HaShulchan, writes specifically about the gap or lack thereof by Vayechi. He writes that there need not be a gap of more than one letter ("ain tzurich lihyot pitcha ki im revach ot achat") which perhaps means it is allowed, or perhaps means there should be. (Thus, this is in accord with masoretic note, whatever it means.) If there is a gap of up to five letters, it is fine, because this is not a parsha setuma, but it would be good thing to correct it, if it is easy to correct it (but otherwise not). If there is gap of a parsha setuma (which all over we say is a 9 letter gap), then one should seek another sefer Torah. But, if there is no other sefer Torah available, one should read from that sefer Torah, *with* brachot.
(Both the masoretic note and the Shulchan haKeriah credited to my father-in-law.)
Also, the fact that there were seforim with larger gaps *perhaps* shows a masoretic dispute in what sort of gap should be there, again perhaps based in interpretations of either the masoretic note or interpretations of the statement in Bereishit Rabba.
Someone on that group (credit upon request) also pointed me towards the Minchas Eluzer. Perhaps a scan and translation in the next post in this series.
Vayechi: How Big A Gap Between Vayigash and Vayechi? pt i
(Unrelated to this post, I wish to note that today daf Yomi starts Nedarim. You can see Rif on Nedarim [daf 2a - 5b] here, at my other blog. Now on to the actual post.)
On the Yahoo Leining group, someone (credit upon request) posted that in their sefer Torah, there was a gap, not a full setuma (an enclosed gap 9 letter spaces wide) but less than that, between the end of Vayigash and the beginning of Vayechi. Does this require fixing? What follows is the first of my two responses. The second response is better, and continues where this left off. I'll post that response later. But here was my initial take:
On the Yahoo Leining group, someone (credit upon request) posted that in their sefer Torah, there was a gap, not a full setuma (an enclosed gap 9 letter spaces wide) but less than that, between the end of Vayigash and the beginning of Vayechi. Does this require fixing? What follows is the first of my two responses. The second response is better, and continues where this left off. I'll post that response later. But here was my initial take:
Fascinating question.
I don't know the answer to this, or even how it is supposed to look in a sefer Torah (my assumption was just one space as a divider between words). But Rambam in general considers petucha changing to setuma and vice versa to be a pesul in a sefer Torah.
See here in the Rambam, halacha 11. Based on Shabbat 103b.
Here, it is not a real setuma, because of the small gap. In which case, perhaps it could be that it would not invalidate. But rather an issue of mitzvah min hamuvchar, as he speaks about in 9.(Rambam is actually talking about swapping petucha for setuma, but the same would presumably be true for omitting the gap, or putting a gap where it should not be.) Again, I don't know.
Can you contact the sofer and ask him about it? It seems to me likely that this was deliberate, and so he may well have a tradition for this. Indeed, I could argue that this comes directly out of the Midrash. That midrash, in Bereishit Rabba, stated "lama parasha zo setuma mikol haparshiyot shel Torah."
Now, the source (which Rashi cites) in Bereishit Rabba 91:1. And Bereishit Rabba is very early, and is from the Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael. In Eretz Yisrael, they did not have our laining, which is called sidra. Rather, they had something called parasha, which was about 1/3. Or alternatively, parasha all over means something delineated by petuchot and setumot. So it is likely that it is not talking about sidrat Vayechi, but rather just this segment, up to the petucha at the end of the perek.
But why call this a parasha? And the use of setuma here *seems* different than other uses, for here it means *entirely* closed.
I would suggest that the key may be the word "mikol" in the question "lama parasha zo setuma mikol haparshiyot shel Torah." It can mean "of." That is, "of all the parshiyot in the Torah, why is this one entirely closed?" In which case we have difficulties in terms of what makes this into a parsha (not a sidra, but a parsha, with implications of being bounded on both sides by a gap)?
But it can also mean "more than." That is, "Why is this parsha more closed than other parshiyot in the Torah."
In which case, this particular Torah scroll makes sense. It is a parsha, in that is delineated on both sides by gaps. But the setuma there is *more* setuma than any other setuma in the Torah.
If so, it would be a pity to obliterate this fascinating variant.
Anyhow, I don't know the halachic answer to the question.
Shemot: Why Stretch Out Her Arm?
From Chabad.org's parsha in depth:
And Pharaoh's daughter... saw the box among the rushes; and she sent her maid and fetched it (Exodus 2:5)This is not just a cute pshetle, in my opinion. Rather, the Lubavitcher Rebbe's explanation here is quite possibly the pashut peshat of the midrash, and captures the theme the midrash is trying to convey with the miraculous extension. There are other slight variances in explanation which might instead be the peshat in the midrash, but this is generally a good way of thinking about midrash.
The Hebrew word ammatah ("her maid") can also be translated "her arm." This, says the Talmud, is to teach us that "her arm was extended for many arm-lengths" (to enable her to reach the basket).
But if Moses' basket lay "many arm-lengths" beyond her reach, why did Pharaoh's daughter extend her arm in the first place? Says the Lubavitcher Rebbe: Often, we are confronted with a situation that is beyond our capacity to rectify. So we resign ourselves to inactivity, reasoning that the little we can do won't change anything anyway. Yet Pharaoh's daughter heard a child's cry and extended her arm. An unbridgeable distance lay between her and the basket, making her action seem utterly pointless. But because she did the maximum of which she was capable, G-d did the rest.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Interesting Posts and Articles, #9
- OnTheMainLine has a Samaritan parallel to a saying in Pirkei Avot, that of lefum tzara agra. He suggests, based on evidence, that this was a common, popular saying, that was attributed to different Rabbis and authorities.
This makes sense, and strikes me as similar to the golden rule being attributed to Yushke, Hillel, and in the book of Tobit. - TheYeshivaWorld has an interesting letter about rabbinic names being wrongly associated with the rental vaad, which tries to keep rental prices low. Also a bunch of images to letters signed by various Rabbonim. Fascinating.
- A commenter on one of my old posts, about Whether a Potential Bride Must Mention She Has Not Yet Experienced Menarch, suggests that Dorkatei is Androgen Insensitivy Syndrome. It certainly makes sense.
- "A convicted criminal has moved in with a married couple against their wishes after giving their address in court as his home."
Choice quote:
"How can he get away with giving false details? Can crooks pick anywhere they like and just move in? Who needs to break into a house when the courts will do it all for you?"
His claim is that the daughter said he could move in. - E-Lamdan On Whether Lomdus is ahistorical.
- The "Consensus" on Global Warming:
"Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. "
...
"Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated."
Demonstrate To Help Agunot
Received from the Center for the Jewish Future:
I last mentioned this issue in this prior post.
Our esteemed chaver and RIETS Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Hershel Schachter is once again asking our participation in a demonstration at the home of a Brooklyn rabbi who has engaged in activities that have prolonged the agunah status of a number of women. To see the appeal from Rav Schachter, and for further information, please click here.
The demonstration will take place 9:45 AM this Sunday at 534 East 4th Street in Brooklyn.
The link is to a PDF of a signed letter by Rav Schachter calling on people to join in the demonstration. The Brooklyn rabbi in question facilitates improper heter meah rabbonims.
I last mentioned this issue in this prior post.
Veyeitzei, Vayechi: Was Gad, The Son of Yaakov, Named After The Deity?
So asked an anonymous commenter on a previous post talking about the deity of Fortune named Gad. One could ask the same about the Navi Gad, though there we can simply say that he was named after Gad son of Yaakov.
Indeed, there is an irregularity in terms of krei and ketiv where Gad is named. In parshat Vayeitzei, in Bereishit 30, we read:
krei is Ba Gad, the ketiv has it as one word. One could translate it in many different ways.
But one possibility is that with the ketiv as it is, it could be read as "with {the help of} Gad." In which case it refers to an idol, rather than to Hashem's intervention. Of course, even if we do have the sheva under there, Gad there could just mean Fortune.
Indeed, fortune, rather than the specific deity of fortune, would seem to be the context given by the Biblical Author here, and indeed the intent of Leah, for see what she names her next son from Zilpah: Asher, because of "BeAshri." The JPS translation about is "Happy," or one could say "overjoyed." However, many translate Ashrei as Fortunate. Thus, "With My Fortune," and for Gad, "With Fortune." It makes a nice pair, and so I think this is the correct translation.
Yet, perhaps because of the potential negative theological overtones, it was pronounced Ba Gad, with the implication that Fortune has come, with the arrival of this son.
Shadal only says that one need not read it as with the krei to have it mean Fortune. He writes:
Thus even with the ketiv, it means he has come to me "with luck." And finds in the Alexandrian Targum this. But still, the deep intent is the same, even if the word בא is not explicitly present.
Wonderfully, we have a Karaite scholar, Aharon ben Yosef, come to boost the Oral tradition of the pronunciation of the word as the only literal meaning. He claims, based on other Biblical precedent, that the aleph is chaser, but this irregularity is something that can happen in Biblical Hebrew. He cited the word במה from I Kings 3, but I could not find it there and so do not know which pasuk he is referring to. Still, he writes:
Thus, he understands Gad as troop. And rejects as silly and falsehood the idea that it comes from Gid, the male reproductive organ.
And thus, the literal meaning of both the krei and the ketiv is Ba Gad, a band of troops has come, from the Hebrew word Gedud.
It is possible that in this, he is influenced by the pasuk in our parsha, Vayechi. In Yaakov's blessing, he says:
{Update: As Shadal notes in his vikuach al chochmat hakabbalah, Karaites accept the nikkud, so this is unsurprising.}
Indeed, there is an irregularity in terms of krei and ketiv where Gad is named. In parshat Vayeitzei, in Bereishit 30, we read:
krei is Ba Gad, the ketiv has it as one word. One could translate it in many different ways.
But one possibility is that with the ketiv as it is, it could be read as "with {the help of} Gad." In which case it refers to an idol, rather than to Hashem's intervention. Of course, even if we do have the sheva under there, Gad there could just mean Fortune.
Indeed, fortune, rather than the specific deity of fortune, would seem to be the context given by the Biblical Author here, and indeed the intent of Leah, for see what she names her next son from Zilpah: Asher, because of "BeAshri." The JPS translation about is "Happy," or one could say "overjoyed." However, many translate Ashrei as Fortunate. Thus, "With My Fortune," and for Gad, "With Fortune." It makes a nice pair, and so I think this is the correct translation.
Yet, perhaps because of the potential negative theological overtones, it was pronounced Ba Gad, with the implication that Fortune has come, with the arrival of this son.
Shadal only says that one need not read it as with the krei to have it mean Fortune. He writes:
בגד : אין צורך לחלק התבה לשתיים. אך הכוונה במזל טוב, כמו למטה באשרי, וכן בתרגום אלכסנדרי ; ומ"מ עומק הכוונה אינו אלא בא גד, כלו' הבן הזה בא לי במזל טוב, וכן באשרי, הבן הזה בא לאשרי , כי עתה יאשרוני .
Thus even with the ketiv, it means he has come to me "with luck." And finds in the Alexandrian Targum this. But still, the deep intent is the same, even if the word בא is not explicitly present.
Wonderfully, we have a Karaite scholar, Aharon ben Yosef, come to boost the Oral tradition of the pronunciation of the word as the only literal meaning. He claims, based on other Biblical precedent, that the aleph is chaser, but this irregularity is something that can happen in Biblical Hebrew. He cited the word במה from I Kings 3, but I could not find it there and so do not know which pasuk he is referring to. Still, he writes:
Thus, he understands Gad as troop. And rejects as silly and falsehood the idea that it comes from Gid, the male reproductive organ.
And thus, the literal meaning of both the krei and the ketiv is Ba Gad, a band of troops has come, from the Hebrew word Gedud.
It is possible that in this, he is influenced by the pasuk in our parsha, Vayechi. In Yaakov's blessing, he says:
| יט גָּד, גְּדוּד יְגוּדֶנּוּ; וְהוּא, יָגֻד עָקֵב. {ס} | 19 Gad, a troop shall troop upon him; but he shall troop upon their heel. {S} |
{Update: As Shadal notes in his vikuach al chochmat hakabbalah, Karaites accept the nikkud, so this is unsurprising.}
Setting A Table Of Eliyahu, pt. ii
The following is from the sefer Midrash Eliyahu, mentioned at the end of the previous post on the subject, and which is mentioned by Birkei Yosef on YD 179.
End translation. Perhaps some analysis in another post, perhaps not.
As an interesting note, in the Jewish Quarterly Review, in an article called "The Karaites in European Turkey," Abraham Danon notes that the Karaite scholar Calev Afendopolo recorded various Karaite customs, and makes mention of "The Table of Elijah." Thus the Karaites also apparently practiced it:
And if you see, in these days of ours, many righteous women who have pain of pregnancy and pain of childbirth, this is because of various sins found in them. And because their merits are greater, this is the reason for their salvation {from death}. And they undergo pain at the time of childbirth to demonstrate that they have to them some aspect of sins in their hands.
And if you see women who are not fit, who are saved from death at the time of childbirth, this is because of repentance which the contemplate at that specific time, and her sin is expunged with the pain of childbirth, and a person who repents {baal teshuva} is like a newly born person {J: heh}.
And I, the author, have seen many women make a table of Eliyahu which they vowed at the time of their childbirth, if the Holy One, Blessed Be He, saved them.
And since we have arrived at this matter, about how they are accustomed to make a "Table of Eljah," I will write to you what I have found from a manuscript {attacking the practice}. And I, the author, do not approve of his words, for the reason I will elaborate, with the help of Heaven. And this is the language recorded in the writing that I have found, but I do not know his name or the name of his son:
I, the youth, have seen that some Jews, both in our locale and in other places, that at a time that distress or accident comes upon them, they vow that if they are saved, they will make a feast for Eliyahu the Prophet, the memory of a righteous one for a blessing, thinking that via this they will be saved from their distress. And they think that he is the one who makes the dead live and who grants weath, because we find that he brought to life the son of the Tzarfatit {see I Kings 17:17} and the jar of grain and the cruse of oil {in 17:12-16} which did not decrease, etc. And all of this is fixed in their hearts -- for I have seen one who is accustomed to place, from time to time, a barrel of wine especially saved for this meal, and he has basically forbidden it upon all men until the time of the feast.
And I have always been pained by this custom, and it appears in my eyes like the prohibition of yayin nesech for another purpose (??) and like the offering to idols, chas veshalom. And in truth I asked my teachers, and to all the Sages with whom I corresponded, if they knew a reason to the matter, and none of them responded. And if it is only that the idolaters are accustomed to make it as a set practice for all their festivals, every year, it would be fitting for us to refrain from it. For it is known to all who understand and know the reason of wisdom and has seen the reason of the commandments, that the majority of the commandments which the Torah writes are only in order to distance from him the set practices of the pagans, as the great Rav z"l wrote in Moreh Nevuchim, part 3, in the known chapters of it. And upon this, Yitzchak our forefather came, of blessed memory, and said know, to our Father in Heaven, that I am not anything -- in order that they not make him into an idol, chas veshalom. And as we learn from the burial of Moshe Rabbenu, peace be upon him, that that which is stated "and no man knew the place of his burial" was so that the gentiles should not make him into an idol. For just as the worshipers are punished, so too the worshiped are punished, for it is stated "to make in them judgments, and in their gods." And so did Yaakov Avinu, of blessed memory, worry, and commanded to Yosef, "do not bury me in Egypt," so that they would not make him into an idol, for the land was blessed for his sake. And the gentiles say that the Holy One, Blessed Be He, requires an intermediary between them. And we, the congregation of Israel, do not say this, but rather Hashem is one and his Name is one.
End quote.
And I, the author, it appears to me that they are acting appropriately. And certainly since there many geonim, pillars of the world, did not protest the matter, there certainly is some basis {/support} to the matter. And what with that Chazal already said that a man needs to vow at a time of distress, to do charity and the like, and they learned this from Yaakov, etc.
And those who vow to make the feast of Eliyahu, their intent is to vow to feed and support paupers, and the feast is called the feast of Eliyahu because a miracle is done suddenly for the paupers, in that they are called to eat and to restore their soul. And Eliyahu is prepared and appears on the miracle, as Chazal say, and as we find in several place in the Talmud, etc.
And because of this it is called
the feast of Eliyahu, for it is as if Eliyahu appears to the paupers to make for them a miracle. And always, when one vows to make a feast of Eliyahu, their intent is to vow charity to paupers.
And it may also be stated that those who vow in the merit of Eliyahu are doing well, for we find in the gemara, in Bava Metzia {84b}, by the incident or Rabbi Eleazar bar Shimon, that "60 sailors came and brought to him 60 servants carrying 60 purses, and prepared for him 60 kinds of pap, and he ate it."
And Rashi z"l explains that "they brought him 60 servants because they had encountered a problem {e.g. a violent storm} at sea, and they prayed to be saved in the merit of Rabbi Eleazar, and they were saved in his merit. When they came out from the sea, they sent him a present."
Thus we learn that a man is able to vow at the time of his distress that Hashem should save him in the merit of whichever righteous person he wishes to mention. And so too those who vow in the merit of Eliyahu at the time of their distress.
And in a place where they are unable to give a gift, such as those sailors gave to Rabbi Eleazar, they make a feast for paupers or for Torah scholars, for the fact that Hashem saved them in the merit of Eliyahu.
And if you say that those sailors were gentiles, and they erred by praying to be saved in the merit of Rabbi Eleazar, if so, how did Rabbi Eleazar accept the gift, and eat of it? Rather, certainly it is permitted for someone to pray that the Holy One, Blessed Be He, save him in the merit of a specific righteous person who he wishes to mention. And what with that the sailors were Israelites, as is understandable, etc.
And furthermore, in the matter of the Golden Calf, where Moshe Rabbenu, peace be upon him, prayed that Hashem save them in the merit of the forefathers, for it is written "recall Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yisrael, etc."
And that which he writes that there is one who places a barrel of wine from one time to the next for this feast, etc., this is certainly good, for it is making the commandment dear to him, for since it is encumbent upon him to make this feast for paupers every year, he prepares this from the beginning of the year.
And further, those who vow do not say that they are making a table for Eliyahu, in which case it would appear like an offering, chas veshalom, but rather they say that it is a table of Eliyahu. The intent of this is that they vow to make a feast of Eliyahu, which is a feast of paupers, becayse they were saved in the merit of Eliyahu, z"l, and on this it is called the feast of Eliyahu.
And this that he says, "and if it were only that the idolaters are accustomed to do such a thing as a fixed practice for all their festivals, every year, we should have refrained from it," the appearance of this is not like the appearance of that. For there, the entire nations does this on a day known to them, and it is a fixed practice for them for idolatry. And in this, the Jew does not make the feast with them, at the day of their festival, but rather for another day, in order to praise the Great and Awesome Name, who performed wonderously with him, and to publicize his Blessed Godhood, before those partaking in that particular meal, and the power of His Great deeds, in that he performs wonders at all times. And thus, this one sanctifies, publicizes, praises and makes dear during every single year His Great Name during this feast. And with absolute certainty, Eliyahu and all the angels accompany in this feast, in order to hear the voice relating the greatness of our God. And blessings should come upon all who make this feast called the Feast of Eliyahu, z"l.
And also this that this one accepts upon him to make this feast every year at a certain known day of the miracle, the result of this is that the Good that Hashem, and so that it is known how much the value of the righteous is worth
before the Holy One, Blessed Be He, for behold, he was saved in the merit of Eliyahu, z"l.
And the reasons that they vow in the merit of Eliyahu is that he is found among the living and is prepared on each miracle, etc.
End translation. Perhaps some analysis in another post, perhaps not.
As an interesting note, in the Jewish Quarterly Review, in an article called "The Karaites in European Turkey," Abraham Danon notes that the Karaite scholar Calev Afendopolo recorded various Karaite customs, and makes mention of "The Table of Elijah." Thus the Karaites also apparently practiced it:
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Setting A Table For Fortune, part i
Note: Not intended halacha lemaaseh. Consult your local Orthodox rabbi.
In Yeshaya, perek 65, we read:
Rashi writes:
As noted in Wikipedia, "Gad was the name of the pan-Semitic god of fortune, and is attested in ancient records of Aram and Arabia[.]" And Meni "was the pan-Semitic god of destiny," mentioned "in archeaological records of Aram and Arabia." There is thus Biblical parallelism in play, with Gad placed in parallel to Meni.
Now, need this really be paganism1?
While Gad and Meni (cut and apportion, or thereabouts) are the names of deities which were worshiped by pagans, perhaps Yeshaya is speaking poetically, and exaggerating. He is speaking of those who abandoned Hashem and forget his Holy mountain2 -- וְאַתֶּם עֹזְבֵי ה, הַשְּׁכֵחִים אֶת-הַר קָדְשִׁי. There are two reasons one might do this. One might abandon Hashem in order to worship pagan deities. Or one might stop believing in Divine intervention in the world, and leave all happenings in this world to Fate and Destiny. And this might be the metaphorical intent of the end of the pasuk, הַעֹרְכִים לַגַּד שֻׁלְחָן, וְהַמְמַלְאִים לַמְנִי מִמְסָךְ.
This is brought down practically in the gemara, in Sanhedrin 92a:
Besides Fortune receiving a table, he also gets a bed. While this pasuk in Yeshaya appears to be criticizing a practice (though perhaps not, as above), a passage in Nedarim 56a-b speaks about setting a bed for fortune:
Regardless, it would seem that this ערסא דגדא is not prohibited, for the Mishna is permitting people who vowed off beds to use a darga (because it is not classified as such), and does not mention that a darga in general should not be in someone's house. And Ulla, who introduces it, gives no sense that it is negative.
2. The pasuk was speaking about setting a table and mixing drinks for Gad and Meni, which it thus takrovet avoda zara. Having a special bed for the domestic genius to sleep in does not approach this. Even to shedim, sacrifice is a no-no. Devarim 32:
3. This is not really what ערסא דגדא means. Or Ulla is defining something that was present, but is not saying that it is really a good thing to possess for that reason.
4. Indeed, Rabbi Eleazar, and Rabbenu Yerucham had he lived in those times, would have opposed the darga as well.
I favor (1) and (2), but whatever the source of distinction, it is time to move on to the next item. The custom apparently developed, in certain countries, to set up a table with different foods leMazal hattinnok. Rav Yosef Karo discusses this in Bet Yosef and then in Shulchan Aruch, but we will come to him eventually. He bases himself on Rabbenu Yerucham, who writes:
Rav Natronai Gaon writes in a teshuva:
Endnotes:
1) Also, were these deities worshiped in the Babylonian captivity, as has been asserted? The basis for this assertion would presumably be this pasuk. But I think this would assume a Deutero-Isaiah, since the known Yeshaya was pre-exilic:
But regardless of whether pre-exilic or post-exilic, we may still wonder whether these deities are meant as deities.
2) (which, by the way, might imply that the Har HaBayit was present but they did not go there, implying before the Babylonian captivity)
In Yeshaya, perek 65, we read:
Rashi writes:
who forsake the Lord The wicked of Israel who adopted paganism and died in their wickedness.Thus, Rashi understands this as paganism, and worshiping the deity of the zodiac, Gad. However, Rashi understands "LaMeni" as "for a number." He is apparently unaware that, just as Gad, Meni was also a pagan deity. (But read on a bit to see that he is aware of this.)
who set a table for Gad The name of a pagan deity on the name of the zodiac, and in the language of the mishnah, (Shabbath 67b) “May my fate be lucky (גָד גַּדִּי) and not fatigued.”
for a number Heb. לַמְנִי. According to the number of the computation of the priests, they would fill basins of mingled wine.
mingled wine wine mingled with water as was customary. Comp. (Prov. 23: 30) “To search for mingled wine” Also (ibid. 9:2), “She mingled (מָסְכָה) her wine.” Some interpret לַמְנִי, to the pagan deities that you appointed (מִנִּיתֶם) over yourselves, but אֶתְכֶם וּמָנִיתִי, which is not punctuated וּמִנִּיתִי with a ‘dagesh,’ indicates that it is an expression of counting.
As noted in Wikipedia, "Gad was the name of the pan-Semitic god of fortune, and is attested in ancient records of Aram and Arabia[.]" And Meni "was the pan-Semitic god of destiny," mentioned "in archeaological records of Aram and Arabia." There is thus Biblical parallelism in play, with Gad placed in parallel to Meni.
Now, need this really be paganism1?
While Gad and Meni (cut and apportion, or thereabouts) are the names of deities which were worshiped by pagans, perhaps Yeshaya is speaking poetically, and exaggerating. He is speaking of those who abandoned Hashem and forget his Holy mountain2 -- וְאַתֶּם עֹזְבֵי ה, הַשְּׁכֵחִים אֶת-הַר קָדְשִׁי. There are two reasons one might do this. One might abandon Hashem in order to worship pagan deities. Or one might stop believing in Divine intervention in the world, and leave all happenings in this world to Fate and Destiny. And this might be the metaphorical intent of the end of the pasuk, הַעֹרְכִים לַגַּד שֻׁלְחָן, וְהַמְמַלְאִים לַמְנִי מִמְסָךְ.
This is brought down practically in the gemara, in Sanhedrin 92a:
ואמר רבי אלעזר כל שאינו משייר פת על שלחנו אינו רואה סימן ברכה לעולם שנאמר אין שריד לאכלו על כן לא יחיל טובו והאמר רבי אלעזר כל המשייר פתיתים על שלחנו כאילו עובד ע"ז שנאמר (ישעיהו סה) העורכים לגד שלחן והממלאים למני ממסך לא קשיא הא דאיכא שלימה בהדיה הא דליכא שלימה בהדיהR. Eleazar also said: He who leaves no bread on the table [at the end of his meal] will never see a sign of blessing, as it is written, There be none of his meat left; therefore shall he not hope for his prosperity. But did not R. Eleazar say: He who leaves crumbs on his table is as though he engaged in idol worship, for it is written, That prepare a table for Gad, and that furnish the drink offering unto Meni? — It is no difficulty: in the latter case a whole loaf is left therewith [i.e., with the pieces], but in the former there is no whole loaf left therewith.
As an interesting digression to modify what we said about Rashi above, here locally on the gemara he asserts that Meni is the name of a particular deity:
שכן עושין, שמניחין שלחן ערוך במאכל ומשתה לשם אותה עבודה זרה שקורין גד, וממלאים כוסות של מרקחים נסוכים לעבודה זרה ששמה מני.
דף נו, א משנה הנודר מן המטה מותר בדרגש דברי רבי מאיר וחכ"א דרגש בכלל מטה הנודר מן הדרגש מותר במטה:דף נו, א גמרא מאי דרגש אמר עולא ערסא דגדא אמרו ליה רבנן לעולא הא דתנן כשהן מברין אותו כל העם מסובין על הארץ והוא מיסב על הדרגש כולה שתא לא יתיב עלה ההוא יומא יתיב עלה מתקיף לה רבינא מידי דהוה אבשר ויין דכולה שתא אי בעי אכיל ואי בעי לא אכיל ההוא יומא אנן יהבינן ליה אלא הא קשיא דתניא דרגש לא היה כופהו אלא זוקפו ואי אמרת ערסא דגדא
הוא והתניא הכופה את מטתו לא מטתו בלבד הוא כופה אלא כל מטות שיש לו בתוך הבית הוא כופה הא לא קשיאמידי דהוה אמטה המיוחדת לכלים דתניא אם היתה מטה המיוחדת לכלים אין צריך לכפותה אלא אי קשיא הא קשיא דתניא רשב"ג אומר דרגש מתיר קרביטיו והוא נופל מאליו ואי דרגש ערסא דגדא הוא קרביטין מי אית ליה כי אתא רבין אמר שאילתיה לההוא מרבנן ורב תחליפא בר מערבא שמיה דהוה שכיח בשוקא דצלעי ואמר לי מאי דרגש ערסא דצלא איתמר איזהו מטה ואיזהו דרגש אמר רבי ירמיה מטה מסרגין אותה על גבה דרגש מסרגין אותו מגופו מיתיבי כלי עץ מאימתי מקבלין טומאה המטה והעריסה משישופם בעור הדג ואי מטה מסתרגת על גבה למה לי שיפת עור הדג אלא הא והא מגופן מטה אעולי ואפוקי בבזיני דרגש אעולי ואפוקי באבקתא א"ר יעקב בר אחא אמר רבי מטה שנקליטיה יוצאין זוקפה ודיו א"ר יעקב בר אידי אמר ר' יהושע בן לוי הלכה כרשב"ג:
MISHNAH. ONE WHO VOWS [ABSTINANCE] FROM A BED IS PERMITTED DARGESH: THIS IS R. MEIR'S VIEW. BUT THE SAGES SAY: DARGESH IS INCLUDED IN 'BED'. IF HE VOWS [ABSTINENCE] FROM A DARGESH, HE IS ALLOWED [THE USE OF] A BED.GEMARA. What is dargesh? — 'Ulla said: A bed reserved for the domestic genius. Said the Rabbis to 'Ulla: But we learnt, When he [sc. the High Priest] was given the mourner's meal, all the people sat on the ground, whilst he reclined on the dargesh. Now, in normal times he does not sit upon it, yet on that day he does! Rabina demurred to this: Let it be analogous to meat and wine, of which at other times he partakes or not, as he pleases, whereas on that day we give them to him? But this is the difficulty. for it was taught: The dargesh was not lowered but stood up [on its legs]. Now if you say that it is the bed of the domestic genius, has it not been taught: He who lowers his bed, lowers not merely his own bed [as mourner], but all the beds of the house? — This is no difficulty:
for it may be similar to the trestle reserved for utensils. For it was taught, If there was a trestle reserved for utensils [in the house], he need not lower it. But if there is a difficulty, it is this: For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: As for the dargesh, its thongs are untied and it automatically collapses; but if the dargesh is the bed of the domestic genius, has it then thongs? When Rabin came, he said, I consulted one of the scholars named R. Tahlifa b. Tahlifa of the West, who frequented the leather-workers' market, and he told me, What is dargesh.? A leather bed. It has been stated: What is a mittah, and what a dargesh? — R. Jeremiah said, [In] a mittah [a bedstead] the strapwork is drawn on top; a dargesh has the strapwork inside.
Thus, the dargesh might be an ערסא דגדא, an arsa degada. What is that? Soncino translates as A "bed reserved for the domestic genius," where by "genius" he means tutelary spirit of the house. Rashi gives it as the mazal of the house.
This comes from Gad, meaning Fortune. And thus can be translated as Mazal. It shares a name with the deity Gad, but that does not mean that it is the deity. But rather, we can interpret this as some quasi (or wholly) superstitious practice, on par with belief in shedim (demons). And this one is reserves for this tutelary spirit which brings good luck to the house. Or perhaps we could say that it is merely a "bed of luck," without elaboration that it is actually for some spirit.Regardless, it would seem that this ערסא דגדא is not prohibited, for the Mishna is permitting people who vowed off beds to use a darga (because it is not classified as such), and does not mention that a darga in general should not be in someone's house. And Ulla, who introduces it, gives no sense that it is negative.
I could offer four different explanations for why setting a table is negative while a bed is not negative:
1. The pasuk was speaking about a deity, with the result of a violation of avoda zara, while the gemara was speaking about good luck in general, or else was speaking of a "domestic genius," which is on par with shedim -- in that Chazal believed in them, and permitted some interaction with them.2. The pasuk was speaking about setting a table and mixing drinks for Gad and Meni, which it thus takrovet avoda zara. Having a special bed for the domestic genius to sleep in does not approach this. Even to shedim, sacrifice is a no-no. Devarim 32:
3. This is not really what ערסא דגדא means. Or Ulla is defining something that was present, but is not saying that it is really a good thing to possess for that reason.
4. Indeed, Rabbi Eleazar, and Rabbenu Yerucham had he lived in those times, would have opposed the darga as well.
I favor (1) and (2), but whatever the source of distinction, it is time to move on to the next item. The custom apparently developed, in certain countries, to set up a table with different foods leMazal hattinnok. Rav Yosef Karo discusses this in Bet Yosef and then in Shulchan Aruch, but we will come to him eventually. He bases himself on Rabbenu Yerucham, who writes:
רבינו ירוחם - תולדות אדם וחוה נתיב יז חלק ה דף קנט טור ד
מה שנוהגין בארצות ידועות לערוך שלחן ולשים עליו מיני מאכלין בלילה שלמחרתו מלין התינוק ואומרי' שעושין אותו למזל התינוק הנולד ראיתי לרבותי שנוהגין בו איסור ומוחין בידם ואומרין שזה בכלל העורכין לגד שלחן כדאמרינן המשייר פתיתין על שלחנו
That which they have the custom in certain lands to set a table and to place upon it various foods on the night which, on its morrow, they circumcise the infant, and they say that they are doing it for the mazal of the infant who has born -- I have seen to my teachers that they treat it as prohibited, and they say that there is in this an issue of {Yeshaya 65} "that prepare a table for Fortune," as we say {in Sanhedrin 92a}, "One who leaves crumbs on his table."Rav Natronai Gaon writes in a teshuva:
תשובות רב נטרונאי גאון - ברודי (אופק) אורח חיים סימן נג
והא דאמר ר' אלעזר (סנהדרין צב סע"א) כל המשייר פתיתין על שולחנו כעובד עבודה זרה, הוא דאמר "לגדא דביתא", דמשמע דעובד לשר הבית
This does not explicitly link it to the practice in the time of Rabbenu Yerucham, but is rather explaining the gemara in Sanhedrin. Note that he does say that when leaving the crumbs, he must explicitly say that it is for the domestic genius, such that the implication is that he is worshiping the officer {sar -- I would propose to emend the resh to a daled, so that it reads shed -- demon} of the house. And this in explaining the pasuk in Yeshaya. We thus have a link to Ulla about darga. And the difference is as I proposed above -- a bed vs. an offering to a shed.
We can extend this to the practice mentioned by Rabbenu Yerucham. They not only set the table, but say it is for the mazal of the infant, implying his tutelary spirit. And this is exactly what Rav Natronai Gaon is talking about, setting the table and making the dedication explicit.
Note that it is difficult to read the gemara, in my opinion, with Rav Natronai Gaon's explanation. After all, the setama digemara had opposed to statements by Rabbi Eleazar about leaving crumbs on the table, and offered the resolution of: "in the latter case a whole loaf is left therewith [i.e., with the pieces], but in the former there is no whole loaf left therewith." If Rav Natronai is right that it is only a problem where he explicitly says that it is for the domestic genius, then there is no contradiction to resolve -- and he has offered a better explanation than the gemara. I would suggest that this particular setamaic statement in the gemara was a rather late insertion, such that Rav Natronai is free to offer his own. But we would need to see more evidence on this one way or another.
Bet Yosef (Yoreh Deah 178:3) cites the issue of leaving crumbs on the table, and notes, and wonders, why all the poskim left out this din.
Radvaz opposes the prohibition, explaining that all the poskim, such as Rosh and Rif, omit this law, and nowadays even those who worshiped them forgot about it, and certainly us. And other elements which must be present, and so on. An excerpt:
This does not explicitly link it to the practice in the time of Rabbenu Yerucham, but is rather explaining the gemara in Sanhedrin. Note that he does say that when leaving the crumbs, he must explicitly say that it is for the domestic genius, such that the implication is that he is worshiping the officer {sar -- I would propose to emend the resh to a daled, so that it reads shed -- demon} of the house. And this in explaining the pasuk in Yeshaya. We thus have a link to Ulla about darga. And the difference is as I proposed above -- a bed vs. an offering to a shed.
We can extend this to the practice mentioned by Rabbenu Yerucham. They not only set the table, but say it is for the mazal of the infant, implying his tutelary spirit. And this is exactly what Rav Natronai Gaon is talking about, setting the table and making the dedication explicit.
Note that it is difficult to read the gemara, in my opinion, with Rav Natronai Gaon's explanation. After all, the setama digemara had opposed to statements by Rabbi Eleazar about leaving crumbs on the table, and offered the resolution of: "in the latter case a whole loaf is left therewith [i.e., with the pieces], but in the former there is no whole loaf left therewith." If Rav Natronai is right that it is only a problem where he explicitly says that it is for the domestic genius, then there is no contradiction to resolve -- and he has offered a better explanation than the gemara. I would suggest that this particular setamaic statement in the gemara was a rather late insertion, such that Rav Natronai is free to offer his own. But we would need to see more evidence on this one way or another.
Bet Yosef (Yoreh Deah 178:3) cites the issue of leaving crumbs on the table, and notes, and wonders, why all the poskim left out this din.
ולא ידעתי למה השמיטו הפוסקים דבר זה
He fixes this by reinstating it in Shulchan Aruch, on the same siman, and also mentioning the prohibition on the practice noted by Rabbenu Yerucham:שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קעח סעיף ג
מי שאכל ושייר פתיתין על שלחנו, ה (א) לא יביא פת שלימה ויניח על השלחן. הגה: ח] יש מקומות שנהגו לערוך שולחן ולשום עליו מיני מאכל בלילה שלמחר מלין תינוק, ו ויש בזה איסור משום העורכים לגד שלחן (ישעיהו סה, יא) (תא"ו ני"ז), ט] אבל לערוך מטה למזל התינוק יש מתירין. (כן כתבו האחרונים). ש
Radvaz opposes the prohibition, explaining that all the poskim, such as Rosh and Rif, omit this law, and nowadays even those who worshiped them forgot about it, and certainly us. And other elements which must be present, and so on. An excerpt:
שו"ת רדב"ז חלק ד סימן רא ד"ה תשובה גרסינן
תדע דהא בעלי הפסקים לא כתבוהו והרא"ש ז"ל בפסקיו כתב מימרא קמייתא דר' אלעזר ואידך השמיטה וכן הריא"ף ז"ל השמיטה ואיך נחוש אנחנו לגד ומני אשר אבד זכרם ואדרבא אני אומר כי המדקדק בזה לא טוב הוא עושה דמשמע דחששא אית בהו דקפיד שלא נעשה כאשר היו עושין. כללא דמלתא דהאידנא כבר נשתכח שם עכו"ם אפי' מעובדיה וכ"ש אנחנו. ותו דלא חיישינן להכי אלא כשהיו מניחים את השלחן ערוך כל היום כדי שיהיה מזומן לעניים אז איכא למיחש אם יביאו פת שלימה משום העורכים לגד שלחן שכן היו עושים מניחין שלחן ערוך במאכל ובמשתה לשם אותה ע"ז שקורין גד וכן כתב עלה רש"י ז"ל.
תדע דהא בעלי הפסקים לא כתבוהו והרא"ש ז"ל בפסקיו כתב מימרא קמייתא דר' אלעזר ואידך השמיטה וכן הריא"ף ז"ל השמיטה ואיך נחוש אנחנו לגד ומני אשר אבד זכרם ואדרבא אני אומר כי המדקדק בזה לא טוב הוא עושה דמשמע דחששא אית בהו דקפיד שלא נעשה כאשר היו עושין. כללא דמלתא דהאידנא כבר נשתכח שם עכו"ם אפי' מעובדיה וכ"ש אנחנו. ותו דלא חיישינן להכי אלא כשהיו מניחים את השלחן ערוך כל היום כדי שיהיה מזומן לעניים אז איכא למיחש אם יביאו פת שלימה משום העורכים לגד שלחן שכן היו עושים מניחין שלחן ערוך במאכל ובמשתה לשם אותה ע"ז שקורין גד וכן כתב עלה רש"י ז"ל.
I am not so sure that this has truly been forgotten. If in the gemara the intent was the deities, then perhaps. But if like Rav Natronai's explanation, that the house demon is intended, many in those days, and even today, are superstitious in this manner.
Rav Yosef Karo appears to believe it has to do with shedim, for he lists it in Yoreh Deah 179:
Rav Yosef Karo appears to believe it has to do with shedim, for he lists it in Yoreh Deah 179:
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קעט סעיף יז
הנוהגים לערוך שלחן עם מיני מאכל בליל המילה ואומרים שהוא למזל התינוק, אסור (ועיין לעיל סוף סימן קע"ח). ש
and this is surrounded on both sides with rules about shedim, such as:
מעשה שדים, אסור. ויש מי שמתיר לישאל בהם כ על הגניבה.
on one side and
לקטר הבית בעשב שיש לו ריח טוב, יש מי כא שאוסר, אא"כ עושה כן כדי להסיר ריח רע.
on the other.
In Bet Yosef (YD 179), he discusses the prohibition of setting up the table:
The Levush compares setting a bed to setting a table, and explains the difference, on the same siman:
מעשה שדים, אסור. ויש מי שמתיר לישאל בהם כ על הגניבה.
on one side and
לקטר הבית בעשב שיש לו ריח טוב, יש מי כא שאוסר, אא"כ עושה כן כדי להסיר ריח רע.
on the other.
In Bet Yosef (YD 179), he discusses the prohibition of setting up the table:
בית יוסף יורה דעה סימן קעט אות יז ד"ה כתב רבינו
כתב רבינו ירוחם (ני"ז ח"ה קנט ע"ד) מה שנוהגין בארצות ידועות לערוך שלחן ולשים עליו מיני מאכל בליל המילה ואומרים שעושין אותו למזל התינוק הנולד ראיתי לרבותי שנוהגין בו איסור ומוחים בידם ואומרין שזה בכלל העורכים לגד שלחן (ישעיה סה יא) עכ"ל. ואיכא למידק עלה מדגרסינן בפרק הנודר מן הירק (נדרים נו.) מאי דרגש אמר עולא ערסא דגדא ופירשו המפרשים דהיינו שהיו נוהגין להציע מטה למזל הבית ומשמע התם דליכא איסורא במילתא דהא מייתי עלה ההיא דתנן (סנהדרין כ.) כשמברין כהן גדול מיסב על הדרגש וכן ההיא דדרגשא לא היה כופהו (שם) דדוחק לומר דהנך בדעבד איסורא מיירי וצריך לומר דשאני שלחן דמפרש ביה קרא העורכים לגד שלחן:
The Levush compares setting a bed to setting a table, and explains the difference, on the same siman:
הנוהגים לערוך שולחן עם מיני מאכל בליל המילה ואומרים שהוא למזל התינוק, כבר כתבנו לעיל סימן קע"ח סעיף ג' שהוא אסור משום העורכין לגד שלחן. אבל העורכים מטה ומציעים אותו למזל הבית אין בו איסור, שלא היה זה מעולם עבודה לעבודה זרה, דבפירוש אמר קרא [ישעיה סה, יא] העורכים לגד שולחן ולא מטה.
Thus, it is to the domestic genius both for darga and the table, but one is established in sefer Yeshayah as Avodah Zara while the other is not.
With all of this in place, we should take a step back and consider that setting up a table lemazal hatinnok can have many different implications.
1. The child is named Mazal, and it is being set up in his honor. (Yes, a joke, by my wife.)
2. Perhaps the (original) intent is not one of sacrifice. Rather than meaning "for the tutelary spirit of the infant," it means "for the good luck of the infant." Some have the custom as well on Rosh haShana, to set a table with various foods, for simanim. And even there on Rosh haShana, customs varied and in some places they just looked at the food but did not eat it.
3. Perhaps the intent was to the Zodiac sign, the constellation, of the infant. This would be really avodat kochavim umazalot.
4. Perhaps it meant the tutelary spirit of the infant, and would be similarly problematic.
I think it could be reason #2, but on the other hand, superstition and belief in shedim was unfortunately prevalent, so #4 certainly is quite plausible.
As such, I would agree with Bet Yosef that this is a problematic practice. And there is no reason to engage in this practice. And when people hear segulot and adopt them without knowing any background to them, they can easily stumble into a problematic practice like this one.
Another problem with segulot is that they evolve, and that new ones come in to being all the time. Bet Yosef, or Rabbenu Yerucham, might have succeeded in quashing this particular manifestation of this segula, new segulot are always being added, and old ones are being modified. Which means that Shulchan Aruch is out of date, and had he been writing today he would have been opposing some of our modern segulot, such as the kabbalah red string and instead of the nichush he writes about, he would have perhaps opposed facilitated communication and consulting Igros haKodesh.
Indeed, Birkei Yosef on YD 179 writes about a similar minhag associated sometimes with childbirth and setting up a table: The Table of Eliyahu. It is not presently in Bar Ilan, so I will type it:
As Birkei Yosef notes, there may indeed be problems with setting it for Eliyahu. I have not yet seen the problems inside, but Eliyahu is a human who "ascended" in some form, and setting a table for him just might be like offering him, rather than Hashem, offerings.
Birkei Yosef says that a certain (unnamed) individual complained about this new custom, saying for many reasons that it is forbidden. But the sefer midrash Eliyahu contains a rebuttal. But a close inspection of the rebuttal reveals that one can rebut some of the rebuttal.
Lucky for us, HebrewBooks.org happens to have the sefer Midrash Eliyahu available. I will not translate it in this particular post but perhaps in a followup post.
This "table of Eliyahu" was apparently a custom in which women, in pain of labor, would vow to make this shulchan shel Eliyahu if Hashem saved them. I will not translate and analyze here, but will post scans. This is not really fair, since this defense in English does not appear in the same post as the offense, but on the other hand, the post is already quite long, and the defense will get its own post.
But I would also note that the kos shel Eliyahu we pour at the seder is not really a cup of wine for Eliyahu, and this is a mistaken belief based on a misinterpretation, as I explained in a prior post. Besides this, if setting up a table for him is problematic, so should setting out a mixed drink for him, for that is the second half of the pasuk in Yeshaya.
The following is from Midrash Eliyahu, Drush 11, page 142 in the aforementioned PDF on the bottom and on. Click on each image to see it larger:
With all of this in place, we should take a step back and consider that setting up a table lemazal hatinnok can have many different implications.
1. The child is named Mazal, and it is being set up in his honor. (Yes, a joke, by my wife.)
2. Perhaps the (original) intent is not one of sacrifice. Rather than meaning "for the tutelary spirit of the infant," it means "for the good luck of the infant." Some have the custom as well on Rosh haShana, to set a table with various foods, for simanim. And even there on Rosh haShana, customs varied and in some places they just looked at the food but did not eat it.
3. Perhaps the intent was to the Zodiac sign, the constellation, of the infant. This would be really avodat kochavim umazalot.
4. Perhaps it meant the tutelary spirit of the infant, and would be similarly problematic.
I think it could be reason #2, but on the other hand, superstition and belief in shedim was unfortunately prevalent, so #4 certainly is quite plausible.
As such, I would agree with Bet Yosef that this is a problematic practice. And there is no reason to engage in this practice. And when people hear segulot and adopt them without knowing any background to them, they can easily stumble into a problematic practice like this one.
Another problem with segulot is that they evolve, and that new ones come in to being all the time. Bet Yosef, or Rabbenu Yerucham, might have succeeded in quashing this particular manifestation of this segula, new segulot are always being added, and old ones are being modified. Which means that Shulchan Aruch is out of date, and had he been writing today he would have been opposing some of our modern segulot, such as the kabbalah red string and instead of the nichush he writes about, he would have perhaps opposed facilitated communication and consulting Igros haKodesh.
Indeed, Birkei Yosef on YD 179 writes about a similar minhag associated sometimes with childbirth and setting up a table: The Table of Eliyahu. It is not presently in Bar Ilan, so I will type it:
יש שנוהגין לעשות שולחן של אליהו, ואחד קדוש ערעור על מנהג זה שהוא איסור גמור. אבל הרב מהר"ר אליהו כהן בספר מדרש אליהו דף נ"ג ע"ב דחה כל דברי הכוונת המערער וקיים המנהג ע"ש טעמו ונימוקו ויש להשיב קצת כאשר יראה המעיין ודוק היתיב
As Birkei Yosef notes, there may indeed be problems with setting it for Eliyahu. I have not yet seen the problems inside, but Eliyahu is a human who "ascended" in some form, and setting a table for him just might be like offering him, rather than Hashem, offerings.
Birkei Yosef says that a certain (unnamed) individual complained about this new custom, saying for many reasons that it is forbidden. But the sefer midrash Eliyahu contains a rebuttal. But a close inspection of the rebuttal reveals that one can rebut some of the rebuttal.
Lucky for us, HebrewBooks.org happens to have the sefer Midrash Eliyahu available. I will not translate it in this particular post but perhaps in a followup post.
This "table of Eliyahu" was apparently a custom in which women, in pain of labor, would vow to make this shulchan shel Eliyahu if Hashem saved them. I will not translate and analyze here, but will post scans. This is not really fair, since this defense in English does not appear in the same post as the offense, but on the other hand, the post is already quite long, and the defense will get its own post.
But I would also note that the kos shel Eliyahu we pour at the seder is not really a cup of wine for Eliyahu, and this is a mistaken belief based on a misinterpretation, as I explained in a prior post. Besides this, if setting up a table for him is problematic, so should setting out a mixed drink for him, for that is the second half of the pasuk in Yeshaya.
The following is from Midrash Eliyahu, Drush 11, page 142 in the aforementioned PDF on the bottom and on. Click on each image to see it larger:
Endnotes:
1) Also, were these deities worshiped in the Babylonian captivity, as has been asserted? The basis for this assertion would presumably be this pasuk. But I think this would assume a Deutero-Isaiah, since the known Yeshaya was pre-exilic:
| א חֲזוֹן, יְשַׁעְיָהוּ בֶן-אָמוֹץ, אֲשֶׁר חָזָה, עַל-יְהוּדָה וִירוּשָׁלִָם--בִּימֵי עֻזִּיָּהוּ יוֹתָם אָחָז יְחִזְקִיָּהוּ, מַלְכֵי יְהוּדָה. | 1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. |
2) (which, by the way, might imply that the Har HaBayit was present but they did not go there, implying before the Babylonian captivity)
Vayechi: Mind The Gap: Is Vayechi Unique In Not Being Introduced With A Break?
According to the Karaite scholar Aharon ben Yosef, there also was no break before parshat Vayeitzei. And similar reasons of given/develop for this.
In the explanation (right), we see that the sefarim in hand all had the gap before Vayeitzei. The suggestion is that Ben Asher manuscripts only omit the gap by Vayechi, while Ben Naftali manuscripts omit the gap also by Vayeitzei.
Can anyone confirm this assertion by comparison to some known Ben Naftali manuscript?
Update: a slight clarification. The commentary on Torah is by the Karaite Aharon ben Yosef, and the only tradition he reports is one that lacks the gap by both Vayeitzei and Vayechi. And the supercommentary (by someone else) suggests that Aharon ben Yosef was working specifically off of a Ben Naftali tradition.
The supercommentary was by Yosef Shlomo Luzki, a 19th century Karaite. And all *his* manuscripts were ben Asher, which is why he suggests that the much earlier Aharon ben Yosef was working off Ben Naftali.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
