parshablog

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Interesting Posts and Articles #202

Hirhurim on the seder and the symposium, and the suggestions that the parallels are not necessarily as meaningful as is typically understood.
Rationalist Judaism, in an interlude in his series reviewing Chaim BeEmunaso, explains why he bothers to respond to the sefer. Does anyone take it seriously?

His answer is that some people are indeed taking it seriously, and gives examples.

I would add to this that I, as well, agree that something is poorly researched or deceptive can still be taken quite seriously, especially if the intended reader is not an expert and will not look up the sources himself, in context. I found, when critiquing a certain tznius book, that many of the purported sources don't say what the author claimed they did without some extreme kvetching. But people don't often look up sources. And in this instance, where he actually provides the citation, but modifies it by omitting words or rearranging them, people might think the source has been provided and not look it up. Especially once it has all these major rabbinic endorsements. And even if they do look it up, context is key, and that context might be what e.g. Rambam says in a different source, which lends a completely different interpretation to the source at hand.

What about the fact that the author of this book is a minor figure, and surely these prominent rabbonim didn't actually read the work in great detail? This strikes me as no excuse, in this particular instance. While this may be true in general, this particular work sets out to show that there is only one allowable hashkafah, and in doing so sets out to ban and declare heretical other hashkafot, and those granting approbations knew this. If so, granting a haskamah to this book is somewhat akin to signing a ban or a kol koreh. And they should have learned to be responsible in their approbations, especially given the history involved here and the fact that this is, in effect, a polemic. If they read it and it is wrong, that means something. But if they couldn't be bothered to read it before endorsing it, and it is still wrong, then that is quite meaningful as well.
The latest xkcd comic. Very true. Make sure to hover over the image to see the alt text.
Life In Israel's interesting post roundup. One of his links is to Material Maidel's identification of the latest shidduch question, about how many hair coverings are worn by the mother when lighting Shabbos candles.
Shirat Devorah still thinks the world will end this year, and so we should prepare.
Vos Iz Neias on how a Beit Shemesh man was arrested from attacking "immodestly dressed" women.

See this comment there, for the general situation regarding "immodest dress":
while we were there, there were a number of violent incidents against women. These were not women with exposed midriffs- it was usually middle aged religious women whose cars were attacked. while these women were not covered up wrist-to-ankle, they certainly had long skirts and reasonablae-length sleeves. I personally know a number of the women involved; one is a well-know doctor in the community. This was not an issue of modesty- scantily-clad teenagers were not involved.
Though another commenter says that in this particular case, it was two secular women wearing bathing suits, and that multiple people threw garbage at them.

I don't know what he would consider immodestly dressed, but no matter what, this fellow does not have the right to physically attack people like this. It is good that he was arrested; and hopefully this will have a positive impact on the general situation.

And of course, check out the comments, some of whom are real crazies, just like this fellow.
Wolfish Musings on the Kennedy curse.
At parshablog, Good middot make good neighbors.
The haunted ham, in the Ghostbusters video game.

The Mother's Fault

In Ki Teitzei, in Devarim 21:

יח כִּי-יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ, בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה--אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ, בְּקוֹל אָבִיו וּבְקוֹל אִמּוֹ; וְיִסְּרוּ אֹתוֹ, וְלֹא יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיהֶם.

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, that will not hearken to the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and though they chasten him, will not hearken unto them;

Ibn Ezra makes a lot in these parshiyot of semichut of one section to the other. He finds all sorts of threads, many of them quite plausible, accounting for why these laws are lumped together, in their respective order. It is free-association as peshat.

In terms of the connection between yefat toar and ben sorer umoreh, Ibn Ezra writes:

ונסמכה זו הפרשה אשת יפת תאר
והעד ושם אמו והרמז שרמזתי בבני
אהרן

Mechokekei Yehuda, in Yahel Or explains:

כי הבן יתייחס אחר האס והעד ושם אמו שלומית בת
דברי (ויקרא כל יא) ושס אמו מעכה (מ״א סו ב) כי
הבן על הרוב יקבל טבע אמו , וכן אמר דוד אני עבדך
בן אמתך (תהילים, קטז טז)ש

שזכו בני אהרן לכהונה
בעבור אמם שהיתה בת עמינדב אחות נחשון , עיין
ש(שמות ו כג) בפי׳ הח׳ זיל ובבאורי שם

Thus, it is to be attributed to the mother and her status. The son, in most cases, takes the nature of the mother. That is why Ibn Ezra noted the smichut and then said that "and the name of his mother" is the proof, together with the secret he hinted at in terms of the sons of Aharon.

That Ibn Ezra he refers to is on Shemot 6:23:

כג וַיִּקַּח אַהֲרֹן אֶת-אֱלִישֶׁבַע בַּת-עַמִּינָדָב, אֲחוֹת נַחְשׁוֹן--לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה; וַתֵּלֶד לוֹ, אֶת-נָדָב וְאֶת-אֲבִיהוּא, אֶת-אֶלְעָזָר, וְאֶת-אִיתָמָר.

23 And Aaron took him Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab, the sister of Nahshon, to wife; and she bore him Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.

where Ibn Ezra says:

[ו, כג]
ויקח -
הזכיר אשת אהרן בעבור כבוד אלעזר והזכיר אחות נחשון בעבור כבוד הכהונה.

Before seeing it inside, it seemed possible that his remez was to gnay rather than to shvach. After all, local to Ki Teitzei, he is talking about a bad seed going after the mother. And some of Aharon's sons were punished with death for misdeeds. Yet here it is all for shevach, for Aharon and the Kehuna.

Unless... he did after all say it is a hint he is hinting at. Tt could be that he is indeed hinting at gnay here. For the honor of Eleazar and the honor of the Kehuna, it refers to the wife of Aharon (lo leIsha), thus tying her and thus him, to Aharon. And it says the sister of Nachshon because of the honor of the priesthood, tying it again to good, perhaps only via Nachshon, and not via Elisheva herself. But the other aspects are not so good, and they manifested badly in two of her children. But the pasuk is still trying to rescue Eleazar's honor and the priesthood's honor. And if it were such a straightforward positive thing, why should he leave it as a remez?

I don't know if this is so, but given that it is a remez, it seems that it is potentially somewhat ambiguous.

Mekor Chaim says that it is for good, and that is the reason for all those positive associations. Over against Moshe's children, who did not merit the priesthood, because of

Perhaps we could suggest that this is the secret in Ibn Ezra discussed in this post, by taking the Mekor Chaim here and stuffing it into Meshech Chochma there -- why Moshe's descendants were not a good alternative.

Is a mamzer a bastard, or a member of a certain nation?

In Devarim 23, a bunch of instructions of who may not enter into the congregation of the Lord:

א לֹא-יִקַּח אִישׁ, אֶת-אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו; וְלֹא יְגַלֶּה, כְּנַף אָבִיו. {ס}	1 A man shall not take his father's wife, and shall not uncover his father's skirt. {S}
ב לֹא-יָבֹא פְצוּעַ-דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה, בִּקְהַל ה'. {ס}	2 He that is crushed or maimed in his privy parts shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD. {S}
ג לֹא-יָבֹא מַמְזֵר, בִּקְהַל ה': גַּם דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי, לֹא-יָבֹא לוֹ בִּקְהַל ה'. {ס}	3 A bastard shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of the LORD. {S}
ד לֹא-יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי, בִּקְהַל ה': גַּם דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי, לֹא-יָבֹא לָהֶם בִּקְהַל ה' עַד-עוֹלָם.	4 An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the assembly of the LORD for ever;

and later on, it continues with the Edomi. But what is a "mamzer"? If we did not know the meaning of the word, but had to figure it out from immediate context, there would be two possibilities. The preceding context has to do intercourse. One should not have illicit relations with his father's wife -- or likely, marry her. And also various people, who are already presumably Israelites, who because of problems with their procreative organ, cannot marry into the kehal Hashem. A mamzer could then be of a similar sort, an Israelite, but with some pegam that renders him unfit.

The other possibility is that a mamzer is a person of a nation called Mamzer. After all, compare the 10th generation bit from one to the other. And all these nations are being given in the succeeding context. On the other hand, all of the members of those nations end with an iy sound -- Mitzri, Ammoni, Edomi. It does not say Mamzeri!

At any rate, Ibn Ezra actually offers both as possibilities. Thus, he writes:

ממזר. אחז״ל הבא מן העריות והשנים ממי״ן נוספין כממיין, נהרסו ממגורות (יואל א יז) ואחרים אמרו כי הוא שם גוי , וישב ממזר באשדוד (זכריה ט ו) כי רחוק הוא שיקרא שם ישראל , ואף כי בעת הישועה בשם גנאי, והמתרגם תפש דרך קצרה ודרש

Thus, he gives the possibility, as per Chazal, that it is a "bastard," and that it is based on the root זר with two additional mems, giving another example of this phenomenon. And that others say that it is the name of a nation. He points us to Zecharia 9:6:

ו וְיָשַׁב מַמְזֵר, בְּאַשְׁדּוֹד; וְהִכְרַתִּי, גְּאוֹן פְּלִשְׁתִּים.

6 And a bastard shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines.

and that since this for the future time, at the time of redemption, it is not fitting that even those children from illicit relations would be called by a derogatory name such as Mamzer. Rather, it refers there to the nation called Mamzer.

It is somewhat unclear what Ibn Ezra means by והמתרגם תפש דרך קצרה ודרש. This confounds Mechokekei Yehuda, Ibn Ezra's supercommentator, who writes:

ולא ידעתי אל מי מהמתרגמים יכוון, כי או״ת

ממזירא , ואם נחשוב שכבר היה לפני הראב״ע

תרגום המיוחס ליונתן, מדוע יאמר דרך קצרה

ויונתן הרחיב הדברים, כאשר יראה המעיין שם, אם לא נאמר

שאמר הרב זה בדרך התול כדרכו (המעמר) ולפי גירסת המקור חיים

שהבאתי ביהל אור סרה קושית המעמר

That is, he does not know which of the Targumists Ibn Ezra intended. For Onkelos merely renders it Mamzera; and if we think that there was already before the Ibn Ezra the targum (incorrectly) attributed to Yonatan ben Uziel, why should he say "in a brief way" when Yonatan expands on the words, as one who looks will discover -- unless one says that Ibn Ezra said this in jest, in his manner (the position of the Maamer, Rav Meir Wolf). And according to the girsa of the Mekor Chaim cited in Yahel Or, the question of the Maamer goes away.

In Yahel Or, the Mechokekei Yehuda writes:

והמקו"ח גרס ,"תפס דרך דרש" ר"ל שתרגם יונתן בן עוזיאל שם "ויתיבין ישראל באשדוד דהוו בה כנוכראין" הוא דרך דרש ולא פשט ועיין קרני אור

That is, while Pseudo-Yonatan on Torah might well not have been before Ibn Ezra, Targum Yonatan on Neviim certainly was. And there, it goes on at length, as you can see here. In which case, derech ketzara was either a jest, or else should be eliminated from the girsa of Ibn Ezra's commentary. You can see the Mekor Chaim here, note 58, though I don't see his change of girsa.

This lengthy translation of Yonatan of the pasuk in Zechariah is that these were Israelites in Ashdod, who were nevertheless strange to it. And we see Rashi say it there, as well as Mahari Kara. Metzudat David considers that they might be actual bastards, or if not, as per Rashi said. Radak gives all three possibilities.

And Ibn Ezra there expands on his perush, and lets us know who came up with the idea of Mamzer being a nation, as well as if he agrees with it! He writes what is pictured to the right. Thus, it is a 10th century Spanish parshan, Yehuda ben Rabbi Shmuel Ibn Balaam, HaSefaradi, who likely wrote this in Judeo-Arabic. I am not sure whether on the pasuk in Zecharia, on the pasuk in Ki Teitzei, or on both.

But Ibn Ezra asserts that his own position is that it is, here in Zecharia, the mamzer of arayot, illicit relations, who dwelled by themselves close to Yerushalayim, and thus the import of the verse is to the degraded and lowly people in Israel would dwell by themselves in the cities of the Philistines, and not be reckoned among those of valid lineage.

Is this a reversal of Ibn Ezra, or not? In Zecharia, he clearly decides in accordance with Chazal, more or less -- mamzer refers to children from illicit relations. In Ki Teizei, he gives both positions, and he labels what the Targumist translates to be derech ketzara uderash. But maybe only derech derash. Or maybe both, but the ketzarah bit was a jest. And we don't know which Targumist he meant, and whether the Targum on Ki Teitzei or Zechariah. Depending on how you choose to interpret Ibn Ezra, he either can remain consistent or else he reverses himself.

I would assert that if Ibn Ezra was referring to the pasuk in Zechariah, then he either spoke in jest or else we must emend to match the girsa of the Mekor Chaim. And then Ibn Ezra is entirely consistent, because Targum Yonatan there is somewhat midrashic, understanding mamzer not in its classic sense but as regular Israelites who are zarim.

But if Ibn Ezra refers to the pasuk in Ki Teitzei, then I assert that there is no problem. The Targumist is the classic Targumist, Onkelos. And By translating it as mamzeira, Onkelos is not translating. He is letting us stay with our perceptions of mamzer, as defined for us by Chazal. And it is much shorter to say that than to say "the nation of Mamzer." This is what Ibn Ezra means by derech ketzara. And the derash would be following Chazal's interpretation of mamzer as opposed to Ibn Bilaam's definition. If so, Ibn Ezra would be reversing himself, and an interesting question would then be which perush he authored first.

Even so, I think the former possibility is the most likely. He is bringing a prooftext from Zechariah, but he has a "weird" interpretation of that prooftext, not in accord with the Targum, as he spells out. And so Ibn Ezra preempts a question by explaining that the Targum there is not peshat, so his proof is a valid proof to the meaning of mamzer. To say that it is Onkelos locally could work, but it comes out of left field -- Ibn Ezra does not need to justify translating a pasuk differently from Onkelos, and we would not expect that Onkelos's translation local to Ki Teitzei is particularly midrashic; and finally, it is not good to create a dispute between Ibn Ezra and himself unnecessarily.

Now, Ibn Ezra does not contradict himself. While the Targum on Zechariah is surely midrashic, that does not mean that Ibn Balaam's explanation is the true explanation. Rather, in both places, Ibn Ezra ends up holding that mamzer means bastard.

Some if this might be clarified if we could just look at Ibn Bilaam's perush.

Good middot make good neighbors

From todays Daf Yomi (which you can read in the Rif here and here), Bava Batra 5a.

[One] Ronya had a field which was enclosed on all four sides by fields of Rabina. The latter [fenced them and] said to him: pay me [towards] what I have spent for fencing. He refused to do so. Then pay [towards] the cost of a cheap fence of sticks. He again refused. Then pay me the hire of a watchman. He still refused. One day Rabina saw Ronya gathering dates, and he said to his metayer: Go and snatch a cluster of dates from him. He went to take them, but Ronya shouted at him, whereupon Rabina said: You show by this that you are glad of the fence. If it is only goats [you are afraid of], does not your field need guarding? He replied: A goat can be driven off with a shout. But, he said, don't you require a man to shout at it? He appealed to Raba, who said to him: Go and accept his last offer, and if not, I will give judgment against you according to R. Huna's interpretation of the ruling of R. Jose.
Ronya bought a field adjoining a field of Rabina. The latter thought he was entitled to eject him in virtue of his right of preemption. Said R. Safra the son of R. Yeba to Rabina: You know the saying, The hide costs four zuzim, and four are for the tanner.

What is the meaning of this common saying, "the hide costs four zuzim, and the tanner costs four zuzim"?

Before attempting to answer that, I would just pass judgement on the first incident. (I know -- who is this nobody that seeks to pass judgement on an Amora, but still I will say what my reaction to this is.) While in terms of the dictates of the law, Ravina is in the right, he still strikes my 21st century Western sensibilities as somewhat of a bully. It feels unjust, as he did not ask for the fence, and it was constructed somewhat against his will only because Ravina entirely encompassed him. And Ravina resorted to a sort of trick to extract this "admission" -- by sending someone to snatch dates. Who says that thieves, or goats, are prevalent. And even if prevalent, perhaps Ronia would not have gone to the trouble of building a fence, and would absorb the damage; but if he sees someone about to steal, why shouldn't he shout to keep the person away. Still, it is nicha leih, but it feels unjust; and indeed, when dealing with money matters, often people conduct themselves in ways they might not were their own money not at stake. So Ravina might be right, but I am pretty certain that Ronia deeply resented him for this.

In the second incident, Ravina sought to eject Ronia by virtue of his right of preemption, again because he owned the field. Some may try to explain the application of this popular saying, which is cryptic to us, as a halachic judgement. See for example Nimukei Yosef. Since בר מצרא is a takkana, and since Ronia was poor, כוון דדינא דבר מצרא אינו [ב״מ לף קח.] אלא משוס ועשית הישר והטוב אין ישר וטוב גדול מזה הלכך לא מפקינן מידו. And there is another explanation there, of this cryptic statement. (Regardless, Rif does not bring this story down lehalacha, so maybe one should not identify halachic reasons for this, which might then be used to pasken in other cases.)

I would attempt the following explanation. The gemara did not state that he thought he was entitled to eject him, but rather that he thought to eject him. So Rav Safra's statement might not be a reason why Ravina is not entitled, but rather a reason not to do it nonetheless. We saw earlier that good fences do not necessarily make good neighbors, because the cost of the fence became a point of contention between them.

The same here. Ravina was absolutely entitled to eject him. But Ronia was a local farmer, and had at least one other field which was adjacent to Ravina's.

When you say "the hide costs four zuzim, and the tanner costs four zuzim", the meaning is as follows. You calculate the cost of buying a hide, and think it is a good deal, at four zuz. But you need to also factor in the costs which will accrue related to this initial purchase. Your four-zuz hide really ended up costing you double what you reckoned, because you have to pay the tanner!

Good fences don't make good neighbors. Good middot make good neighbors. And sometimes that means not pressing your rights to your full advantage, when it causes others to suffer a loss. Ronia would not be happy being ejected from his newly bought field, with all his work in purchasing it now done in vain. Ravina would be entirely in the right, but he would make an enemy out of his neighbor, Ronia. And since Ronia was a local farmer who owned other fields, Ravina would likely have to deal with him in the future. Maintaining cordial relations in this regard was essential. And this was Rav Safra's mussar, and practical life- and business- advice.

Indeed, if Ravina set this precedent of bar mitzra, the next time Ravina sought to buy a field, his newly made resentful enemy might try to use bar mitzra to foil his business plans.

The first of his strength, and how Ibn Ezra becomes a darshan

A father must acknowledge his firstborn son of his two wives, as we are told in parshat Ki Teitzei:

יז כִּי אֶת-הַבְּכֹר בֶּן-הַשְּׂנוּאָה יַכִּיר, לָתֶת לוֹ פִּי שְׁנַיִם, בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר-יִמָּצֵא, לוֹ: כִּי-הוּא רֵאשִׁית אֹנוֹ, לוֹ מִשְׁפַּט הַבְּכֹרָה.

17 but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath; for he is the first-fruits of his strength, the right of the first-born is his. {S}

I would assert that on a peshat level, reishit ono is idiomatic. It means bechor, but specifically the first child that he has had. And bechor is not sufficient, for both of them are bechor, just from different wives. This idiom shifts the focus to the father's output.

But Ibn Ezra has a suprisingly midrashic comment on this pasuk:

כי הוא ראשית אונו . הנודע עם הישר ידבר וכל ישראל בחזקת ישרים

As Yahel Or (=Mechokekei Yehuda) and Avi Ezer write, this is just as we saw regarding Yaakov Avinu in Vaychi, in describing Reuven as reshit oni, in accordance with Rashi's explanation over there:

3. Reuben, you are my firstborn, my strength and the first of my might. [You should have been] superior in rank and superior in power.		ג. רְאוּבֵן בְּכֹרִי אַתָּה כֹּחִי וְרֵאשִׁית אוֹנִי יֶתֶר שְׂאֵת וְיֶתֶר עָז:
and the first of my might: That is, his first drop [of semen], for he had never experienced a nocturnal emission. — [from Yeb. 76a]		וראשית אוני: היא טפה ראשונה שלו, שלא ראה קרי מימיו:

What Ibn Ezra is thus saying, local to Ki Teitzei is that reshit ono in terms of the son of the senuah was the result of his first drop, and the audience are righteous upright people, with all of Israel being under the assumption of being upright.

This dores not strike me as peshat, however brilliant this comment is. Rather reshit ono is an idiom, which more or less parallels bechor. Indeed, I would assert that this is its role in parshat Vaychi as well -- firstly to provide a poetic repetition to bechori, and secondly to single out Reuven over three other brothers as the paternal bechor, rather than maternal bechor. The first of his strength can be so even if he experienced a seminal emission before.

Indeed, I get the sense that Ibn Ezra is in a more midrashic frame of mind in Ki Teitzei, from other statements he makes here -- perhaps because specifically in legal codes there are major arguments with Karaites. He refers several times to the divrei hamakchishim when presenting his contrary commentary in support of Chazal.

Looking to Ibn Ezra on Vaychi, we see that he specifically does not explain it as Rashi does. He thus does not endorse this as the peshat meaning of reishit on.

ראובן בכורי אתה בחי. בך נראה בתחלה כחי

(והבכור יקרא ראשית און וכמוהו ״ראשית אונים" (תה׳ עח נא

And I say this even though Mechokekei Yehuda, in his Yahel Or commentary, might try to bring this idea back in, as this "koach" is a melitza for semen.

Ibn Ezra referred to Tehillim 78:51, where it is used as a poetic parallel for first-born.

נא וַיַּךְ כָּל-בְּכוֹר בְּמִצְרָיִם; רֵאשִׁית אוֹנִים, בְּאָהֳלֵי-חָם.

51 And smote all the first-born in Egypt, the first-fruits of their strength in the tents of Ham;

Ibn Ezra has no comment there, which can help us out.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

What is the point of the Eglah Arufa?

Towards the very end of Shofetim, we are instructed in the laws of Eglah Arufah, which begins:

א כִּי-יִמָּצֵא חָלָל, בָּאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ לְרִשְׁתָּהּ, נֹפֵל, בַּשָּׂדֶה: לֹא נוֹדַע, מִי הִכָּהוּ.

1 If one be found slain in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath smitten him;

The entire ceremony seems somewhat weird and ritualistic, but not if you understand in its full poetic import.

Regardless, this is perhaps a motivation for Rambam to offer a highly rationalistic explanation of the whole ceremony. He explains, in Moreh Nevuchim, volume 3, chapter 40, that the arranging of the entire ceremony and involving of the elders of that city will cause there to be investigation as well as publicity. And this will get people talking, and thinking about the murder; and perhaps someone, even possibly not kasher le'edut, to come forth to identify the killer, or their strong suspicions of the killer. And that person could then be killed by Bet Din, or by the king outside the typical rules of jurisprudence; or else by the goel hadam. And since the land can never be used, this might impel the owner of the land {inherited as mentioned in pasuk 1 above, I would add} to try to save his land by investigating the murder.

The same idea is then put forth in the sefer Hachinuch, Mitzvah 530. He essentially channels the Rambam, that since everyone is going to want to see the spectacle, they will turn out in great numbers. And those who hear will quake and their thoughts will be awakened on the matter, such that anyone who knows will tell what he knows before the elders. In this way, they will eliminate the evildoers and murderers from among themselves. And another idea, also from the Rambam, that this will publicize among the people that the elders and men of knowledge wish to find the murderer to visit vengeance upon him on behalf of the victim.

Abarbanel, on his commentary on the parsha, also cited this Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim. He says basically the same thing, but ends by citing the RambaN's objection that while there is indeed this toelet, the details of the ritual do not bear out the stated shoresh. They should pick specifically the best field in the vicinity if the goal is to encourage the owner of the field to investigate the murder. And according to him {=RambaN's} position, there is some aspect of korban to this. And therefore Chazal list this among the Chukim.

Abarbanel's reaction to this is to explain each of the details of this ritual and its meaning. See inside.

Mincha Belula also gives this idea that it is to catch the murderer, but then concludes with a statement that the ways of Hashem are deeper than our comprehension; and also that Chazal say that it is a chok.

So is apparently the position of the מעמר, Rav Meir Wolf, in a commentary I have not seen inside.

Shadal, after briefly noting all this, argues. He writes:

א ] כי ימצא חלל : מצוות עגלה ערופה איננה למען יתגלה הרוצח ( כדעת הרמב " ם מורה חלק ג ' פרק מ '. ואחריו בעל ס ' החינוך ודון יצחק ובעל מנחה בלולה והמעמר ) , אלא לשתי כוונות : האחד , לחזק האמונה המפורסמת באומה שכל ישראל ערבם זה לזה ושלארץ לא יכופר לדם אשר שופך בה כי אם בדם שופכו ; ולכן אחרי שאין הרוצח ידוע להם ואל יוכלו לעשות בו דין , יערפו תחתיו העגלה וירחצו הזקנים את ידיהם , לסימן , כי הם ושולחיהם נקיים וכפיהם לא נגואלו בדם ההרוג .

והשנית , כדי שבתוקף אמונתם בעונש המגיע לארץ בשביל הדם אשר שופך בה, לא יבואו להרוג נקי שיהיה נחשד על הרציחה ההיא , בזולת ראיה גמורה ועדות ברורה . כי אמנם אעפ"י שיודעים היו שאין כל העם ערבים על מכה רעהו בסתר , היה אפשר להם לחשוב שזה אמנם אינו אלא כשאין ההרוג ידוע , אבל בנדון שלנו שהחלל נמצא , ייתכן שיהיו כל הקהל נענשים , אם לא ישתדלו עד שיימצא הרוצח

He asserts that the purpose is not to reveal the identity of the murderer, but rather for two reasons. Firstly, to strengthen the widespread belief of the people that all of Israel are guarantors for one another, and that the land will not accept atonement for the blood which was spilled upon it unless blood is spilled. And therefore, since the murderer is not known to them and they cannot render judgement upon him, the break the neck of the heifer in his place, and the elders wash their hands, as a sign that they and their agents are innocent, and their palms are not stained by the blood of the murdered person.

And the second reason, since in the might force of their faith in the punishment which will affect the earth because of the blood {of the victim} which was spilled on it, they not come to kill an innocent who happens to be suspected of this murder, unless there is complete evidence and clear testimony. For if not for this, even though they know that it is not so that all the nation are guarantors on one who smites his fellow in secret, it is possible for them to think that this, however, is only when the murder is not known, but in our case, where the corpse was found, it is possible that all the congregation would be punished, if they do not endeavor until they find the murderer.

Thus, Shadal views this as intended to push the nation towards one belief and to protect them from acting rashly on the basis of that same belief.

Keep Kids Safe.. Prevention-Awareness - Strategies -- in KGH

Received via email:

To quote from the text:

Keep Kids Safe .. from inappropriate behavior in school, camp and the neighborhood
NATIONAL COUNCIL AND QUEENS JEWISH COMMUNITY TO HOST CHILD SAFETY PROGRAM

In an effort to educate people about protecting children from improper behavior and sexual predatory acts, the National Council of Young Israel together with the Queens Jewish community is hosting a critical program for parents, teachers, and rabbonim that will focus on prevention, awareness and action strategies. The program, which is entitled "Keep Kids Safe from inappropriate behavior at school, in camp, and in the neighborhood," will take place on Tuesday, September 1, 2009, at 7:00 PM at the Young Israel of Kew Gardens Hills, which is located at 150-05 70th Road in Kew Gardens Hills, New York.

This program is open to the entire community and is being sponsored by the National Council of Young Israel, the Queens Jewish Community Council, the Queens County District Attorney's Office, the Vaad Harabonim of Queens, Jewish Connections - Pride Of Judea - Ezrat Chayim, Jewish Board of Family & Children's Services, and the Young Israel of Kew Gardens Hills.

Opening remarks will be delivered by Rabbi Herschel Welcher, the Mara D'asra of Congregation Ahavas Yisroel. The guest speaker will be David Pelcovitz, Ph.D., the Strauss Professor of Education and Psychology at the Azrieli School of Jewish Education at Yeshiva University.

"The abhorrent act of sexual molestation against children is a real threat that people need to be cognizant of at all times," said Rebbetzin Judi Steinig, the Director of Programming for the National Council of Young Israel. "This program will provide parents and teachers with the essential information necessary to combat these heinous acts and properly protect our children from sexual predators."

Rebbetzin Steinig noted that a similar program is being planned for the Brooklyn Jewish community in the fall.

Interesting Posts and Articles #201

At Rationalist Judaism, in part four of his series on Chaim BeEmunasam, Rabbi Slifkin points out a major misrepresentation of Rambam's position, when Chaim Be'Emunasam claimins that Rambam maintains that every position in a dispute was MiSinai. Rambam says the opposite, explicitly in hilchot Mamrim:
דברי קבלה אין בהן מחלוקת לעולם, וכל דבר שתמצא בו מחלוקת בידוע שאינו קבלה ממשה רבינו

The author manages to provide a different position for the Rambam by dowdifying quotes from the Rambam, at times without even providing ellipses.
Vos Iz Neias posts a YNet story that the Meah Shearim mother who might have Munchhausen's was possibly abusing her other children as well. If true, this is terrible. But it is fascinating how either 'side' (and it is unfortunate that there are 'sides') processes each new bit of information. Check out the comment section.

And also check out The Jewish Worker's post about the Eidah Chareidis' continued campaign to defend this mother, with a fifty-page booklet attacking Hadassah hospital, which ends with the following extremely offensive cartoon:
Bad 4 Shidduchim on hiding skeletons, and what is considered to be a skeleton.
Orthonomics considers the hybrid school model.
Life In Israel wonders (also at DovBear) whether boycotts of Scottish whiskey pose a danger to kiddush clubs. Cute.

In terms of kiddush clubs in general, despite the possible dangers of alchoholism, it seems to me to be an organic innovation, much as the modern innovation of a sermon every Shabbos during morning davening, and perhaps as a reaction to it. Not everyone appreciates speeches, and perhaps the shul experience need not be the same ideal for everybody. מה פרצופיהם שונים כך דיעותיהם שונות. And the people who condemn the kiddush club as entirely improper and a great disrespect to the rabbi seem of the sort for whom, if they would participate, it would indeed be entirely improper and a great disrespect for the rabbi. But not necessarily for others. It might be better to harness this tendency and direct it in a more proper direction, but that is another story.
Blog in Dm, in his emptying his mailbag, posts a link to the following amusing performance:
A post on Hirhurim about checking your tefillin.
This point was raised on a mailing list. In this JPost article about Neturei Karta:
One of the community's leaders, Yoelish Krauss, has a sign on his door stating that "Here lives a non-Zionist Jew" and drags himself daily to a nearby Arab village to purchase some "non-Zionist" milk and bread for his large family. Lest it be said otherwise, he refuses to accept even one Zionist shekel from the National Insurance Institute.
If true, he is violating pas akum and chalav akum prohibitions because of his stupidity. {Update: See comment thread for why he is not violating anything.}
Here at parshablog, Ki Teitzei sources. And also, whether knowing that moonlight is reflected sunlight demonstrates Chazal's ruach hakodesh, since they obviously couldn't have gotten it from contemporary science.

The Milchemet Yachid, with one's will -- and whether such a derasha is justified

Ki Teitzei begins {Devarim 21}:

י כִּי-תֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה, עַל-אֹיְבֶיךָ; וּנְתָנוֹ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּיָדֶךָ--וְשָׁבִיתָ שִׁבְיוֹ.

10 When thou goest forth to battle against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God delivereth them into thy hands, and thou carriest them away captive,

In the word oyevecha, the segol under the bhet and the unpronounced yud which follows marks it as a plural noun. Thus, "your enemies," in plural. Constrast this to, for example, Devarim 28:55:

נה מִתֵּת לְאַחַד מֵהֶם, מִבְּשַׂר בָּנָיו אֲשֶׁר יֹאכֵל, מִבְּלִי הִשְׁאִיר-לוֹ, כֹּל--בְּמָצוֹר, וּבְמָצוֹק, אֲשֶׁר יָצִיק לְךָ אֹיִבְךָ, בְּכָל-שְׁעָרֶיךָ.

55 so that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat, because he hath nothing left him; in the siege and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall straiten thee in all thy gates.

There, oyivcha, with a chirik under the first yud, a sheva under the bhet, and no unpronounced yud following demostrates that this is a singular noun, rather than plural. Thus, "enemy."

Sometimes, the krei and ketiv can differ, and the word can be pronounced as plural, as if the yud were there, even though as written in the sefer Torah is it absent. One such example was in last week's parsha, in Shofetim:

דברים פרק כ

פסוק א: כִּי-תֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה עַל-אֹיְבֶךָ, וְרָאִיתָ סוּס וָרֶכֶב עַם רַב מִמְּךָ--לֹא תִירָא, מֵהֶם: כִּי-ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ עִמָּךְ, הַמַּעַלְךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.

But also a few pesukim before the examples in Devarim 28:

דברים פרק כח

פסוק נג: וְאָכַלְתָּ פְרִי-בִטְנְךָ, בְּשַׂר בָּנֶיךָ וּבְנֹתֶיךָ, אֲשֶׁר נָתַן-לְךָ, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ--בְּמָצוֹר, וּבְמָצוֹק, אֲשֶׁר-יָצִיק לְךָ, אֹיְבֶךָ.
פסוק נה: מִתֵּת לְאַחַד מֵהֶם, מִבְּשַׂר בָּנָיו אֲשֶׁר יֹאכֵל, מִבְּלִי הִשְׁאִיר-לוֹ, כֹּל--בְּמָצוֹר, וּבְמָצוֹק, אֲשֶׁר יָצִיק לְךָ אֹיִבְךָ, בְּכָל-שְׁעָרֶיךָ.
פסוק נז: וּבְשִׁלְיָתָהּ הַיּוֹצֵת מִבֵּין רַגְלֶיהָ, וּבְבָנֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד, כִּי-תֹאכְלֵם בְּחֹסֶר-כֹּל, בַּסָּתֶר--בְּמָצוֹר, וּבְמָצוֹק, אֲשֶׁר יָצִיק לְךָ אֹיִבְךָ, בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ.

Thus, the first example was oyevecha (plural), while the other two were oyivcha (singular).

It can also go in the opposite direction, with the yud present in the Biblical text but with an Oral tradition that it is pronounced as if without. Thus:

שמואל א פרק כד

פסוק ד: וַיֹּאמְרוּ אַנְשֵׁי דָוִד אֵלָיו, הִנֵּה הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר-אָמַר יְהוָה אֵלֶיךָ הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן אֶת-איביך (אֹיִבְךָ) בְּיָדֶךָ, וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ, כַּאֲשֶׁר יִטַב בְּעֵינֶיךָ; וַיָּקָם דָּוִד, וַיִּכְרֹת אֶת-כְּנַף-הַמְּעִיל אֲשֶׁר-לְשָׁאוּל--בַּלָּט.

Or in Mishlei, 24:17:

יז בִּנְפֹל אויביך (אוֹיִבְךָ), אַל-תִּשְׂמָח; וּבִכָּשְׁלוֹ, אַל-יָגֵל לִבֶּךָ.

17 Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thy heart be glad when he stumbleth;

In certain instances it does not really matter, from a peshat perspective, which one it is, because many enemies can be considered plural, or else singular if viewed as a collective. Sometimes when it deals with one person being an enemy, the choice really matters.

At any rate, Baal Haturim notes in his commentary to this pasuk in Ki Teitzei that oyevecha is written with the yud deficient. And he gives the naturally sensible derash on this -- if one were to insist on making a derash on it -- that the pasuk is speaking of a milchemet yachid. In our Mikraos Gedolos, the cited words are indeed written chaser yud.

Though in earlier printings, the citation is written as maleh yud -- though not, I think, to indicate a text contrary to Baal Haturim's very comment, but to show how to pronounce it, and thus highlight that the chaser yud is contrary to the way it is pronounced, such that it should certainly be darshened.

What does Baal HaTurim mean by milchemet yachid? I would guess that milchemet yachid, he means the milchemet hayetzer. This is a man's struggle with his own inclination. Indeed, the pasuk is only speaking keneged the yetzer hara. As we see in Kiddushin 21b:

ת"ר וראית בשביה בשעת שביה אשת ואפילו אשת איש יפת תואר לא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצר הרע מוטב שיאכלו ישראל בשר תמותות שחוטות ואל יאכלו בשר תמותות נבילות (דברים כא, יא) וחשקת אע"פ שאינה נאה בה ולא בה ובחברתה ולקחת ליקוחין יש לך בה לך לאשה שלא יקח שתי נשים אחת לו ואחת לאביו אחת לו ואחת לבנו (דברים כא, יב) והבאתה מלמד שלא ילחצנה במלחמה:

and the idea is found locally in Rashi as well; and this would influence Baal Haturim in his novel derasha, in bolstering an existing message.

In our own times, we see Rav Mordechai Eliyahu make a similar derasha, though without focusing on the krei and ketiv. Thus:

ואומר הגאון הרב מרדכי אליהו שליטא: הדבר רמוז בפסוק במעבר שבין הפתיחה בלשון רבים לסיום בלשון יחיד. בתחילה אומרת התורה "כי תצא למלחמה על אויביך" – לשון רבים, ובסוף – "ונתנו ה' אלוקיך בידך ושבית שביו". שהתורה רומזת כאן למלחמה של האדם כנגד יצרו. דרכו של היצר הרע לבוא אל האדם בערמה ותחבולה בדמות "אויבים רבים" אותו יצר (יחיד) בא לו לאדם בצורות ודרכים שונות על מנת להחטיאו לבל יקיים תורה ומצוות, ובאה התורה ללמד את האדם שידע מהי הדרך בה ילחם עם יצרו עד שיקויים בו "ונתנו ה' אלוקיך בידך ושבית שביו".ש

Certainly the lashon yachid that occurs later in the pasuk, in וּנְתָנוֹ and perhaps as well in שִׁבְיוֹ, helps this along. But the Baal Haturim's prooftext is still the almost krei and ketiv, that it is written chaser, even though it is pronounced as if malei.

The problem with this, as Minchas Shai points out, is that this word oyevecha is not written chaser. Scroll up and examine the pasuk again.

Indeed, looking at a Tanach with masoretic notes on the side, we see that it is written malei, and no masoretic note on the side indicates otherwise. Minchas Shai attributes this error to Baal Haturim's hurriedness. There is indeed such a masoretic note, but on the previous instance of ki teitzei lamilchama al oyevecha, which occurred in parshat Shofetim. There, we have {Devarim 20}:

א כִּי-תֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה עַל-אֹיְבֶךָ, וְרָאִיתָ סוּס וָרֶכֶב עַם רַב מִמְּךָ--לֹא תִירָא, מֵהֶם: כִּי-ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ עִמָּךְ, הַמַּעַלְךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.

1 When thou goest forth to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, thou shalt not be afraid of them; for the LORD thy God is with thee, who brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

and so do the Rama and Meiri write, that this instance of oyevecha is malei. And one should not ask from the singular unetano and shivyo, because there are other such examples. And that Or Torah writes the same thing.

We can see Or Torah here. Basically, he says, with apologies to Baal Haturim, that Baal Haturim was not exacting here and misread the masoretic note, which was actually referring to the pasuk in parshat Shoftim. And that it is indeed malei, in all the holy sefarim, as well as ancient sefarim.

Looking again at our Tanach with masoretic notes on the side, this time in parshat Shofetim, we encounter what is pictured to the right. It states that there are two which are chaser, despite being plural and pronounced with a segol. Perhaps this can provide us with an inside with Baal Haturim's motivation. Perhaps he did know that it was on the pasuk in Shofetim, but he thought that the second occurrence was the next plural oyevecha, which occurred in close proximity. Whereas in reality the only other time this occurs in Tanach is in Devarim 28, in the example discussed above.

Or else, the following happened to me yesterday. I was called up for Levi for Mincha, and had difficulty finding the place for about 30 seconds. Neither could the baal korei. This because it had opened to the earlier column, such that I glanced at Ki Teizei and thought that I was in the correct parsha. It was only after being confounded in finding the second aliyah that I looked more closely. Perhaps he could have done the same.

Or perhaps he was not looking in a chumash or sefer Torah for this -- since much of this commentary is based on malei or chaser, or tagin on certain letters, perhaps when writing this he only looked at the text of the masoretic notes.

Or perhaps despite Minchas Shai, Or Torah, Rama and Meiri, there indeed was a variant text in which the word is written chaser. I would note that the masoretic note claims there are two such chaser instances, and we have identified those two. But perhaps he still had a variant. I would point to another pasuk in parshat Ki Teitzei, which presumably everyone has malei, since it is not one of these two, and since I saw no discussion of it in Minchas Shai. That pasuk is in Devarim 23:10:

י כִּי-תֵצֵא מַחֲנֶה, עַל-אֹיְבֶיךָ: וְנִשְׁמַרְתָּ--מִכֹּל, דָּבָר רָע.

10 When thou goest forth in camp against thine enemies, then thou shalt keep thee from every evil thing.

However, if we look in Yerushalmi, where this pasuk is cited, we find it written chaser! Thus, in Yerushalmi Kiddushin 45b:

רבי שמואל בר נחמן בשם רבי יונתן כתיב (דברי הימים א ז) והתייחשם בצבא במלחמה זכות יחסיהם עומדת להם במלחמה עד כדון מן הקבלה מדברי תורה (דברים לז) לא יבא ממזר בקהל י"י. (דברים לז) לא יבא פצוע דכא וגו' וגו' מה כתיב בתריה כי תצא מחנה על אויבך וגו':

Confounding this of course is the malei vav, but we saw Baal Haturim write it as such as well, in terms of the first pasuk. And that malei is more necessary as a cue to how to pronounce. At any rate, perhaps one can use this to mount a defense of Baal Haturim's purported nusach. Though I don't know that one should.

Did Chazal know the moon's light was reflected light through ruach hakodesh?

I saw the following gem recently:

i saw in the kuntres that the breslover chassidim in my neighborhood put out on birkas hachamah entitled 'tizrach hashemesh', a medrash that says 'lo nivroh leho'ir elah galgal hachamoh bilvad - the zohar in parshas veyakhel(reish-tes-vav) 'delais nehorah leseharoh elah nehora di'shimshoh' - this fits exactly with what was discovered about the moon, that it has no light of its own, and that it receives light from the sun - it only looks like it's shining by itself. chalk this one up to the list of things chazal would have had no way of knowing without the torah being from hashem.

You don't need to go to a late 13th century work such as the Zohar to show this. As someone notes there, you can read this into the assumptions of the gemara in Bava Basra 75 about Moshe's countenance being as the Sun and Yehoshua's as the Moon.

But someone can really only say the above, that one should

chalk this one up to the list of things chazal would have had no way of knowing without the torah being from hashem

if he has no idea of the history of science, and just what was known by the Greek scientists in the days of Chazal. To cite a website discussing this in terms of possible Koranic knowledge of this phenomenon:

It is correct that the moon does not emit its own light but only reflects the light of the sun. But this was known already at least a thousand years before Muhammad, for example to the ancient Greek astronomers, and can hardly be called miraculous knowledge.

For example when Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) discussed the shape of the earth. One of his arguments to prove the earth's sphericity was the fact that during a lunar eclipse, as the moon enters or emerges from the earth's shadow, the shape of the shadow seen on the moon is always round. Only a spherical object always produces a round shadow. If the earth were a disk, for example, there would be some occasions when the sunlight would be striking the disk edge on, and the shadow on the moon would be a line.

It is clear from this information that Aristotle understood that the light coming from the moon was reflected light.

That it, in this case it is the shocking ignorance of the history of science that leads to this conclusion that Chazal must have known this true fact via Divine sources, and resulting awe. Yes, scientists back then knew things, some by direct observation, and some via reasoning from observed facts. Some of those things they knew were wrong, and some were right.

But it is an unfortunate pattern of finding a correspondences between what we now know to be true, and what Chazal know to be true, and attributing it to ruach hakodesh, without seriously asking the question, "Well, what did contemporary scientists know?"

Monday, August 24, 2009

Why may one of crushed stones not enter into kehal Hashem?

I don't think this is necessarily true, but the following possibility occurred to me. In Devarim 23:

ב לֹא-יָבֹא פְצוּעַ-דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה, בִּקְהַל ה'. {ס}	2 He that is crushed or maimed in his privy parts shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD. {S}
ג לֹא-יָבֹא מַמְזֵר, בִּקְהַל ה': גַּם דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי, לֹא-יָבֹא לוֹ בִּקְהַל ה'. {ס}	3 A bastard shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of the LORD. {S}
ד לֹא-יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי, בִּקְהַל יְהוָה: גַּם דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי, לֹא-יָבֹא לָהֶם בִּקְהַל ה' עַד-עוֹלָם.	4 An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the assembly of the LORD for ever;

The traditional interpretation, which has tremendous merit, is that one who has crushed or maimed private parts has a pegam, and this pegam, just like that of mamzerut or coming from one of these nations, is sufficient to prevent him from marrying into the kehal Hashem. He can convert if not Jewish, and if already Jewish may marry a giyoret, but not into kehal Hashem.

Another thought, and interpretation occurred to me -- that being wounded in the private parts is not a pegam, but rather a mitigating circumstance. At least in the hava amina. A bastard cannot marry into the kehal Hashem so as not to propagate the mamzerut. And similar, there is this pegam for several generations for the Ammoni and Moavi. But what if someone is evidently, and outwardly infertile. He would not be able to propagate the mamzerut, or the pegam of these other nations. Perhaps then he should be able to marry into kehal Hashem. All he would get out of it would likely be companionship. Could he perhaps marry into kehal Hashem. The answer is a definite no. And the nafka mina is what of a perfectly kosher Israelite who is already in the kehal Hashem? The pasuk would then not be addressing him at all.

These are just my speculations. Obviously not halacha lemaaseh, and I am not really endorsing this as the plausible interpretation of these pesukim.

Interesting Posts and Articles #200

Esser Agaroth hosts this week's Haveil Havalim, the Jewish blog carnival.
On ZooTorah, Rabbi Slifkin posts a link to an article he wrote about halachic considerations about exotic shofars.
At Reuters, how a building block for life was found on a comet.
Rav Elyashiv says not to visit the Kotel on Shabbos due to the security cameras.
On the Main Line on Artscroll's patent on their method of intralinear translation.
Chaptzem posts the trailer for the DVD of the big event:
On the Main Line, and DovBear, among others, on how the Chaim Berlin Apikorus does teshuva. I think it is very funny, and might well reflect on a desire for conformity and a willingness to whitewash inconvenient truths. But it might also simply have been the designer acting on his own, either for ideological or artistic reasons.

That it helps undermine faith in an essential tenet of Orthodox Judaism, that those giving over the masorah won't fictionalize history, it can also be harnessed to demonstrate a point in the "Kuzari Principle": that even if someone would take it upon themselves to lie and fictionalize history (and the massive revelation at Har Sinai), it would not be accepted by the populace, who would see it as a lie. And indeed, see here how this took the Jewish Blogosphere by storm.
Blog in Dm notes the second in the trilogy of songs, from the band who gave us "United Breaks Guitars.

I wonder at the legality and liability involved here, since this seems to have been made and performed after the whole mess had been sorted out.
Daat Torah on circumstantial evidence and lashon hara. The machlokes he delineates helps illustrate a point I made about the "problem" with sefer Chofetz Chaim, namely that there is no consistent bar plugta.
Rabbi Slifkin, at Rationalist Judaism, continues his series critiquing Chayim BeEmunasam. In part three, his point is that the sefer claims to present Rambam's definition as heretics those who argue with the truth of any statement of Chazal, when the Rambam himself argues with certain statements; and would then be a heretic under his purported definition.

This reminds me of my recent series (see here, here, and here), and how people cite the Ran that anyone who argues on any of Chazal's midrash aggada in order to present their own interpretation is a heretic, when if this is what Ran means, he is declaring himself a heretic. Indeed, on the same scanned page of Chaim BeEmunasam is this quote from the Ran.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Ki Teitzei sources

by aliyah

rishon (21:10)
sheni (21:22)
shlishi (22:8)
revii (23:8)
chamishi (23:25)
shishi (24:5)
shvii (24:14)
maftir (25:17)
haftara (Yeshaya 54; here with meforshim, on parshat Noach)

by perek
perek 22
perek 23
perek 24
perek 25

meforshim

Rashi, in English and Hebrew

Chizkuni

Shadal (here and here)

Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Gilyonot

Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew)

Tiferes Yehonasan from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz (nothing on Ki Teitzei)

Toldos Yizchak Acharon, repeated from Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz

Even Shleimah -- from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich

R' Saadia Gaon's Tafsir, Arabic translation of Torah (here and here)

Abarbanel

Torah Temimah

Kli Yakar

Zohar, with English translation

Baal Haturim

Baal Haturim (HaAruch)

Imrei Shafer, Rav Shlomo Kluger

Ateret Zekeinim

Mei Noach

Arugat HaBosem

Yalkut Perushim LaTorah

Aderet Eliyahu (Gra)

Kol Eliyahu (Gra)

Mipninei Harambam -- nothing on sefer Devarim

The following meforshim at JNUL. I've discovered that if you click on the icon to rotate sideways, change to only black and white, select only the portion which is text, it is eminently readable on paper.

Ralbag (376)

Chizkuni (148)

Baal HaTurim (60)

Rabbenu Bachya (262)

Abarbanel (379)

Shach (308)

Paneach Raza (81)

Yalkut Reuveni (pg 169)

Sefer Hachinuch (pg 158)

Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (238)

rashi

Daat, Rashi In Hebrew (perek 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)