Daf Yomi Shabbat 73a/75b - Salting and Curing

The Mishna on Shabbat 73a perhaps diverts from its usual sytle for the forbidden labor of curing {hides} on Shabbat.

The Mishna states:

CAPTURING A DEER, SLAUGHTERING IT, OR FLAYING IT, OR SALTING IT, CURING ITS HIDE, SCRAPING IT [OF ITS HAIR], CUTTING IT UP, etc.

Typically, we see a specification of the object of the labor when it changes from the previous subject. Thus, the Mihsna begins with SOWING, PLOUGHING, REAPING, etc., until we reach the last stage of this process, BAKING. The next stage begins with SHEARING WOOL, BLEACHING IT, HACKLING IT, etc. -- that is, we begin a new process upon the wool of sheep, and so we specify "wool" as the object, and all the other labors listed are processes in the production in something from that wool, ending in TEARING IN ORDER TO SEW TWO STITCHES. We then begin a new subcategory, beginning with CAPTURING A DEER and ending with creating parchment and writing/erasing on that parchment: CURING ITS HIDE, SCRAPING IT [OF ITS HAIR], CUTTING IT UP, WRITING TWO LETTERS, ERASING IN ORDER TO WRITE TWO LETTERS [OVER THE ERASURE]. The remaining elements in the Mishna are relatively distinct, either existing individually or in sets of two, and one does not specify the object of these labors.

Now, within these subgroups of labors, when the object was specified at the start, one occasionally finds a ו at the end of each verb. Thus, at the start, הגוזז את הצמר, SHEARING WOOL, there is no ו needed since the object is indicated directly by means of the noun הצמר. Subsequent actions can use the pronoun ו, meaning "it," to specify that the action takes place on the same object. Thus, המלבנו, BLEACHING IT, והמנפצו, HACKLING IT, etc.. Not every action uses the pronoun.

Within the group of labors which begin CAPTURING A DEER, many of the actions do use the pronoun ו. Thus השוחטו, והמפשיטו, המולחו - SLAUGHTERING IT, OR FLAYING IT, OR SALTING IT. However, the next action contains both a possessive ו, as well as a noun: והמעבד את עורו - CURING ITS HIDE. Subsequent labors, SCRAPING IT [OF ITS HAIR], and CUTTING IT UP, which use the pronoun ו, presumably use it to refer to the skin of the deer, rather than the deer itself. While this seems an accurate shift, one might question if such a shift is necessary, or if if we had stuck with the first noun "deer," we would have been fine, since after all one scrapes the deer when one scrapes the deer's hide.

In fact, if one looks at the Rif's version of the Mishna (daf 31b in the Rif, available at my Rif blog), we see that he does not write והמעבד את עורו, CURING ITS HIDE, but rather והמעבדו, CURING IT. Furthermore, if we look at the pesikta in the gemara in the Rif (which is Shabbat 75b in the gemara, and daf 32b in the Rif), you will see that once again it has והמעבדו. (The full citation is הצד צבי השוחטו, והמפשיטו, המולחו והמעבדו.)

By way of explanation, a pesikta is the citation between the sets of two dots citing a portion of the Mishna, in order to show what portion of the Mishna the gemara is discussing. This was not part of the original gemara, but was added by the Geonim as a helpful tool. Thus, this is a citation of the Mishna by the Geonim, and one again they have והמעבדו instead of והמעבד את עורו, CURING IT instead of CURING ITS HIDE. So one should not dismiss it as a mere typographical error in the Mishna in the Rif.

Furthermore, it is not just the pesikta in the Rif that has והמעבדו instead of והמעבד את עורו. In our gemara as well, in the peskita, on Shabbat 75b, we also have והמעבדו instead of והמעבד את עורו. The pesikta in this case is different, and shorter - המולחו והמעבדו. This means that it is not just the Rif that has this girsa, but apparently the geonim who had input into the manuscript(s) that eventually yielded our gemara had this girsa in the Mishna as well.

How could the pesikta on the gemara be inconsistent with the Mishna in our gemara? It is a simple matter. Initially, gemaras did not have the Mishna as part of it. Some had all the Mishnayot listed in the very beginning, for convenience. So when forming the printed text, the printers inserted a Mishna. This is not necessarily the same one, with the same text, as the one the Geonim used. Meanwhile, the Rif includes a Mishna in his text, and presumably his version of the Mishna matched that of the Geonim.

Is this all academic, or does this have any repercussions lehalacha, or even in terms of understanding the gemara? I believe that there is in fact a critical distinction.

If we turn to Shabbat 75b, we encounter a discussion about the labors of salting and curing {=tanning hides}:

SALTING AND CURING IT.
But salting and curing are identical?
Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish both said: Omit one of these and insert the making {tracing} of lines.
Rabba bar Rav Huna said: He who salts meat is liable on account of curing.
Rava said: Curing does not apply to foodstuffs.
Rav Ashi observed: And even Rabba bar Rav Huna ruled thus only when he requires it for a journey; but [when he needs it] for his house, one does not turn his food into wood.

Thus, Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish both maintain that salting and curing are not each an independent av melacha, but rather they are together an av melacha, or else one is an av and the other a toleda. This would mean that if someone both salted and cured in a single session of forgetfulness, he would be obligated to bring a single sin-offering, rather than two. Meanwhile, by declaring the making of lines (sirtut) an av melacha, as opposed to declaring it the todela of some other labor, the result is that if one makes lines and does that other melacha in a single period of forgetfulness, he would be obligated to bring two sin-offerings, rather than one.

One can argue with this coalescing of the labors of salting and curing. Specifically, one might point out that salting is not just the beginning portion of curing, but is also used in the preparation of meat. Thus, salting should count as its own primary labor, and curing should count as another primary labor.

I would posit that this is in fact what Rava is saying. He states that curing does not apply to foodstuffs. Thus, if someone salted meat, rather than hide, he would not violate the av melacha of curing. Further, he would not violate it even as a toleda of curing, since curing does not apply to foodstuffs. Perhaps this means that his act is entirely permitted? I would posit that Rava is stating that this falls under an entirely different av melacha, that of salting.

It would seem that Rabba bar Rav Huna argues. He maintains that he who salts meat is liable on account of curing. Thus, this is either the av melacha of curing, or a toleda of the av melacha of curing. Therefore, even salting meat counts as curing, and there is no justification for listing salting and curing as separate entities in the Mishna. He would then agree to both Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish that one should remove "salting" from the Mishna and insert "making lines."

However, Rav Ashi, in a later generation, partially harmonizes Rabba bar Rav Huna with Rava. Rav Ashi explains that Rabba bar Rav Huna only ruled that salting meat falls under the rubric of curing when one salts it sufficiently to turn it into jerky, which one does when preparing for a long journey. Thus, in certain cases salting meat can fall under the category of curing. However, when salting meat normally, one does not render it jerky, and thus it is not a toleda of curing. Does this mean it is entirely permitted? Perhaps, but I would posit that in fact Rav Ashi is saying that it is a separate av melacha, that of salting. Thus, there is justification for listing salting and curing as two separate avot melachot in the Mishna.

If so, Rava, Rabba bar Rav Huna, and Rav Ashi argue with Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish whether salting or making lines on parchment is counted as a separate av melacha. Since they are batrai, the law should be like them.

If we examine the Rif, we discover that he only cites the statement of Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, but omits Rabba bar Rav Huna, Rava, and Rav Ashi. Thus, it seems he rules like Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish. Similarly, the Rosh cites the pesikta of המולחו והמעבדו as well as the statement of Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, but omits the rest. Perhaps they read the rest of the gemara differently, or perhaps different kelalei hora`a are in play.

At any rate, consider once again the changed girsa in our Mishna. Rather than והמעבדו, we have והמעבד את עורו. What is the effect of this change? First, curing is something that applies specifically to the hide of the deer, as opposed to its meat. Second, it is only curing and on that is specifically for its hide. Salting, which appears earlier in the list, might apply to something other that the hide - for example, meat. Thirdly, perhaps the specification of curing its hide is a rejection of Rabba bar Rav Huna, that in certain situations salting meat might also be considered curing, and an endorsement of Rava, who states that curing does not apply to foodstuffs.

Thus, the changed girsa appears to support my conclusion, that we rule like Rav Ashi (and perhaps Rava as well) over Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish.

It is not immediately apparent when this girsa change came to be. Clearly the Rif, the Rosh (in his citation of the pesikta), and some Geonim had the girsa of והמעבדו. This girsa change might be post-Geonic, or else it could have came into being much earlier, and existed in a parallel girsa which merely was not cited. Meanwhile, we have the Mishna as recorded in the Rif, as well as the Mishna as cited by the Geonim in the pesikta, as it appears in both the Rif and in our gemara.

I would be remiss if I did not briefly mention the Yerushalmi. In the Mishna in the Yerushalmi, we once again have והמעבד את עורו. However, in the pesikta in the Yerushalmi (daf 52a) we have והמעבדו. Further, the statement there is telling: המעבדו - מה עיבוד היה במשכן? שהיו משרטטין בעורות. "What type of curing did they perform in the mishkan? They traced lines in the hides." Thus, they leave in curing meat, but tie it in to the mishkan by recalling the making of lines on skins. This roughly parallels the statement of the Palestinian Amoraim, Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, who replace curing with the making of lines.

It would then seem that, according to Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, the making of lines would not replace salting, but rather would replace curing, and not because curing and salting are identical, but rather because the labor performed in the mishkan was tracing lines (of which curing would be a toleda). What then, to make of the statement in the beginning of the gemara of "But salting and curing are identical?" This is an interpretation of the setama degemara, who understands this in the context of the discussion of Rabba bar Rav Huna, Rava, and Rav Ashi, and who did not see the Yerushalmi. Thus, surely, salting should not be omitted from the list, and salting and curing/making lines are two separate avot melachot.

Update, and Partial Rebuttal:
How could one learn the Bavli otherwise? Simple.
Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish both say that one should remove one of the set of salting/ curing and instead insert making lines. Thus, there is no dispute in the matter, and all other Amoraim would agree. Since this is a matter of definition and the important matter of what one chooses to include in the list of avot melachot in the Mishna, the Rif (and Rosh) list this statement.

Now, Rabba bar Rav Huna, Rava, and Rav Ashi all agree to Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish. Thus, mere salting is not a matter under consideration. Rather, the issue is whether salting meat (or any food) in varying degree might fall under the authentic av melacha, curing. Rabba bar Rav Huna says yes, Rava says that curing does not apply to foodstuffs, and Rav Ashi says that even Rabba bar Rav Huna only speaks of extreme salting, to make jerky.

It is an interesting issue how to treat arguments about assigning actions to an av melacha. Does saying that salting falls under curing mean only under curing, or even under curing? We see this at the bottom of 75b to the top of 76a, in the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. Shmuel states one is liable for slaughtering on the score of taking a life. Meanwhile Rav says he is liable on the score of dyeing (that is, coloring something). The setama degemara protests - only dyeing? What aboout taking of a life? And the setama answers that he means even for dyeing.

What then, to make of the two girsaot in the Mishna? Well, the change from והמעבדו to והמעבד את עורו could easily be read as an endorsement of Rava, that ibbud only applies to the hide of the animal, and not to foodstuffs.

In terms of the Yerushalmi, I'd have to learn it in more detail, but one might say that asking what form of ibbud existed in the Mishkan, and answering making lines in the hides, is an answer for the span of avot melachot from curing until making lines. That is, capturing and slaughtering have other parallels in the construction of the Mishkan, but from ibbud until making lines, they explain that this is all part of the process up to making the lines, which was in the construction of the Mishkan. And they would agree with the removing of salting and inserting making lines, as after all both Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, usually disputants, both agree that one should insert making lines as one of the melachot. Perhaps.

The Jewish Press Website is Once Again Back Up

After many, many, weeks of being down. Here.
But they don't seem to have this week's edition up yet.

The 1050 Sheep That Survived

From AP:

First one sheep jumped to its death. Then stunned Turkish shepherds, who had left the herd to graze while they had breakfast, watched as nearly 1,500 others followed, each leaping off the same cliff, Turkish media reported.

In the end, 450 dead animals lay on top of one another in a billowy white pile, the Aksam newspaper said. Those who jumped later were saved as the pile got higher and the fall more cushioned, Aksam reported.

Read more here.

We started the seventh perek of Shabbat on Friday

in Daf Yomi - perek Klal Gadol. The topic: the melachot of Shabbat. Now would be a great time to join in the cycle, by doing Rif Yomi. So far, we are only two amudim in in the Rif, and that covers us until about the end of the week.

The Dodecagamist

Yeshaya 4:1:

א וְהֶחֱזִיקוּ שֶׁבַע נָשִׁים בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד, בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לֵאמֹר, לַחְמֵנוּ נֹאכֵל, וְשִׂמְלָתֵנוּ נִלְבָּשׁ: רַק, יִקָּרֵא שִׁמְךָ עָלֵינוּ--אֱסֹף, חֶרְפָּתֵנוּ

1 And seven women shall take hold of one man in that day, saying: 'We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name; take thou away our reproach.'

I'd like to share one of my favorite Yerushalmis. It occurs in Yerushalmi Yevamot 28b, the fourth perek, halacha 12.

The Mishna:

דף כח, ב פרק ד הלכה יב משנה

ארבעה אחין נשואין לארבעה נשים ומתו
אם רצה הגדול שבהם מייבם את כולן הרשות בידו
היה נשוי לשתי נשים ומת
ביאתה או חליצתה של אחת מהן פוטרת צרתה
היתה אחת כשירה ואחת פסולה
אם היה חולץ חולץ לפסולה
ואם היה מייבם מייבם לכשירה

Four brothers are married to four women {who are not related to each other}, and they {the men} die.
If the eldest of them {of the remaining brothers - not the four brothers who died} wishes to perform levirate marriage on all of them {the four widows}, he is permitted to do so.

{However,} if one man was married to two women and he died,
The performance of levirate marriage or chalitza upon one of them exempts her fellow wife {such that he need not, and may not, perform levirate marriage or chalitza on the other widow}.

If one of them {the two widows} was fit {to marry a Kohen} and one was unfit,
If he performs chalitza {to allow the widow to marry anyone else}, he should perform chalitza on the unfit.
{The reason for this is that just as divorce renders a woman "unfit" to marry a Kohen, so does the act of chalitza. If he would perform chalitza on the "fit" widow, she would then be unable to marry a Kohen if she so desired. There is no reason to do this chalitza and harm her in this way. Rather, he should perform chalitza on the widow who was unfit already, for other reasons, to marry a Kohen, since the chalitza will not harm her. Then, based on the rule laid down earlier in the Mishna, the co-widow is also free to marry anyone else, now including a Kohen.}

If he chooses to perform levirate marriage, he may perform levirate marriage with the "fit" one.
{That is, if he wishes to marry the "unfit" one he may, and if he wishes to marry the "fit" one he may. The idea is that since he is marrying her, he may marry whichever one he wants to marry. This differs from the preceding case because in the preceding case he was not going to marry either of them anyway, so we choose the scenario that lacks the damage to either of them.}

The Gemara:

דף כח, ב פרק ד הלכה יב גמרא
ארבעה אחין כו'
דלמא תלת עשר אחין הויין ומתין תרין עשר דלא בנין
אתיון בעיון מתייבמה קומי רבי
אמר ליה רבי איזיל ייבם
אמר ליה לית בחיילי.
והם אומרות כל חדא וחדא אנא מזייננא ירחי.
אמר ומאן זיין ההוא ירחא דעיבורא?
אמר רבי אנא זייננא ירחא דעיבורא
וצלי עליהון ואזלון להון
בתר תלת שנין אתון טעינין תלתין ושיתא מיינוקין אתון וקמנו להן קומי דרתה דרבי.
סלקין ואמרין ליה לרע קרייא דמיינוקין בעיין מישאל בשלמא.
אודיק ר' מן כוותא וחמתון.
אמר לון מה עיסקיכון.
אמרין ליה אנן בעיין תיתין לן ההוא ירחא דעיבורא.
ויהיב להון ההוא ירחא דעיבורא

"Four brothers, etc."

There was an incident in which there were thirteen brothers, and twelve of them died without sons.
They {the twelve widows} came and declared their wish to undergo levirate marriage, before Rabbi.
Rabbi said to him {the surviving brother} go and perform levirate marriage.
He said to him {Rabbi}: I do not have the means {to support such a large family}.
And each one of them {the widows} said: I am prepared to provide support for my month. {and, since there were twelve widows, all 12 months of the year are covered.}
He {the surviving brother} said: And what about the extra month of the leap year?
{That is, in the Hebrew calendar, seven times every nineteen years is a leap year, in which there is an extra month of Adar added, for a total of 13 months. Even if each of the twelve widows takes on one month of the year, in a leap year there will be an uncovered month, and the surviving brother did not wish to accept the responsibility of providing for such a large family during that month.}
Rabbi said: I will provide for the leap month.
And he prayed for them {to succeed} and they went off to themselves.
After three years, they came carrying 36 infants. They came stood before the residence of Rabbi.
His attendants went out and said to him: below is a village of infants coming to greet you.
Rabbi looked from the window and saw them.
He said to them: What is your business?
They said to him: We desire that you give us sustenance for this leap month.
And he gave them sustenance for that lape month.

The gemara continues with the story (and derivation of the story) of someone who also had many descendants, Oved Edom, and then with the derivation of the law mentioned in the Mishna that chalitza on one widow exempts other widows from that same marriage, and how the same goes for yibbum. I won't translate in this post, but here it is:

כתיב (שמואל ב ו) וישב ארון יי עם עובד אדום בביתו שלשה חדשים ויברך יי וגו' במה בירכו בבנים. הדא הוא דכתיב (דברי הימים א כו) כל אלה מבני עובד אדום המה ובניהם ואחיהם איש חיל בכח לעבודה ששים וגו'. דהוות כל חדא מינהן ילדה תריי בכל ירחא. הא כיצד טמאה שבעה. וטהרה ז' וילדת. טמאה ז' וטהרה ז' וילדת שית עשר לכל ירח לתלתא ירחין הא ארבעין ותמניי' והוא אשתין הא חמשין וארבעה

דף כט, א פרק ד הלכה יב גמרא ותמנותיהון הא אשתין ותריי. הדא היא דכתיב ששים ושנים לעובד אדום א"ר בא בר זבדא כתיב (דברים כה) ונקרא שמו בישראל בית חלוץ הנעל. בית שהוא ניתר בחליצה אחת. אף בביאה כן. חליצה פוטר וביאה פוטר. כמה דאת אמר בחליצה. כן את אמר בביאה.

Finally, the gemara asks a question relevant to the aforementioned case of the yibbum involving 12 widows. The following is my own interpretation of the conclusion of the gemara:

ומהו להערים?
וכי רבי טרפון אביהן של כל ישראל לא הערים?
קידש שלש מאות נשים בימי רעבון על מנת להאכילן בתרומה!
תמן אין כל אחת ואחת ראויה לוכל בתרומה.
ברם הכא כל אחד ואחד ראוי לייבם

May they resort to trickery?
{That is, he did not want to support all these wives, as well as children that might result -- and we see there were many. The brother + 12 wives + 36 children = 49 people. Could they have made a sham marriage, to create a family unit, in which they were halachically married, but not really intend to really consummate? This would presumably be the Rabbinic yibbum betrothal called maamar, but alternatively would be not having all those children. The gemara will suggest why this should be possible.}
Did not Rabbi Tarfon, the father of all of Israel, not resort to such trickery?
He betrothed 300 women during a famine in order to feed them teruma!
{Only Kohanim and members of a Kohen's household may eat teruma. On a Biblical level, a woman betrothed to a Kohen may eat teruma. Since Rabbi Tarfon was a Kohen, he made a sham marriage to all these women so that they could eat teruma during the time of famine. The gemara will explain why this case is different.}
There, without this, none of those women were allowed to eat teruma.
However, here, each of them {the 12 widows} were fit {and waiting} to do yibbum {and thus there was an obligation to either do real yibbum or else do chalitza.}

New Scientist Article -- Patent singles out Ashkenazi Jewish women

WOMEN in Europe who happen to be of Ashkenazi Jewish descent may want to keep that fact from their doctor when being tested for breast cancer genes.

Myriad Genetics of Salt Lake City won a European patent on 1 July covering a specific mutation in the BRCA2 gene, which increases the risk of breast cancer. The mutation is found in 1 in 100 women of Ashkenazi Jewish descent. The ruling means that doctors offering tests for BRCA2 mutations are now legally obliged to ask women if they are Ashkenazi Jews. If they say they are, doctors must pay a licence fee to Myriad. No fee is due if a patient says she does not know.

Read it all here.

Chukat #3: Making Sense of Parah Adumah

Parshat Chukat begins {Bemidbar 19} by discussing the chukat haTorah - the statute of the Torah - of Parah Aduma, the red heifer:

א וַיְדַבֵּר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל-אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר.	1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying:
ב זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה, אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה ה לֵאמֹר: דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּמִימָה אֲשֶׁר אֵין-בָּהּ מוּם, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-עָלָה עָלֶיהָ, עֹל.	2 This is the statute of the law which the LORD hath commanded, saying: Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer, faultless, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke.

Chazal distinguish between the two types of law, chok and mishpat, stating that a mishpat is an understandable law, whereas a chok is not understandable, and which we follow because it it the decree of the King.

Indeed, underscoring this point, King Shlomo, who was granted great wisdom by Hashem (see e.g. Melachim Aleph 5:9 and on), still did not understand Parah Adumah.

Part of the mystery is that the ashes of the Para Adumah act to remove tum`a (ritual impurity), yet if you read the details, each of the people involved in its preparation become impure (though with a passing tum'a).

One of my favorite midrashim is on this parsha, which details how the Parah Adumah functions to remove tum'a. It is my favorite because it establishes an important principle which I feel is applicable to many other aspects of Torah.

It may be found in Midrash Rabba on Chukat:

שאל עובד כוכבים אחד את רבן יוחנן בן זכאי אילין עובדייא דאתון עבדין נראין כמין כשפים
אתם מביאים פרה ושורפין אותה וכותשין אותה ונוטלין את אפרה ואחד מכם מטמא למת מזין עליו ב' וג' טיפין ואתם אומרים לו טהרת
אמר לו לא נכנסה בך רוח תזזית מימיך?
אמר לו לאו
ראית אדם שנכנסה בו רוח תזזית?
אמר לו הן
א"ל ומה אתם עושין לו?
אמר לו מביאין עיקרין ומעשנין תחתיו ומרביצים עליה מים והיא בורחת
א"ל ישמעו אזניך מה שאתה מוצא מפיך
כך הרוח הזו רוח טומאה דכתיב (זכריה יג) וגם את הנביאים ואת רוח הטומאה אעביר מן הארץ מזין עליו מי נדה והוא בורח
לאחר שיצא אמרו לו תלמידיו רבינו לזה דחית בקנה לנו מה אתה אומר?
אמר להם חייכם לא המת מטמא ולא המים מטהרין!
אלא אמר הקב"ה חקה חקקתי גזירה גזרתי אי אתה רשאי לעבור על גזרתי דכתיב זאת חוקת התורה

A certain gentile (idolator) asked Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai: These acts which you do appear like sorcery!
You bring a heifer and burn it, and crush it, and take its ashes, and if one of you is impure from a corpse you sprinkle upon him two or three drops and you tell him he is pure!
He (Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai) said to him: Have you ever had a ruach tezazit {spirit of delirious fever} enter you in your life?
He said to him: No
He (Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai) said to him: Have you ever seen someone who a ruach tezazit had entered him?
He said to him: Yes.
He (Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai) said to him: And what do you do for him?
He said to him: We bring {medicinal} roots and cause them to smoke under him, and we inundate it with water, and it {the ruach tezazit} flees.
After he {the idolator} left, his students said to him (Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai): To this one {the idolator} you have pushed away with a reed {that is, engaged in apologetics}; to us {who know better}, what will you say?
He said to them: By your lives! The corpse does not cause tum`a and the water {of the ashes of the Parah Adumah} do not cause him to be tahor!
Rather, the Holy One, Blessed Be He, said: A chok I have established, a decree I have decreed, and you are not permitted to violate my decree. As it states {in the second verse of parashat Chukat}: זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה - "This is the statute of the law."

I believe that what Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai was saying was this: There is no such thing as tum'a and tahara - impurity and purity. They are not physical, nor spiritual conditions. Rather, Hashem made a decree that we should relate to someone or something that has touched a corpse as if he was impure. And similar to the decree that we should treat this as if it were impure, there is a decree that if one sprinkles Parah Adumah on him, we treat his as if he is no longer impure.

I think the same may be true for many other mitzvot. For example, why should the possession of split hooves and the ability to chew cud make an animal kosher, and lacking this ability make an animal unkosher? Rather, Hashem wants us to relate to these animals in this way, for whatever reason He has - as a decree. I believe this attitude forms a handy answer to some questions - to be treated in later posts.

On the permissibility of circuses - take 2

There is an important sugya at the end of the second perek of masechet Shabbat, on Shabbat daf 36a-b:

דא"ר חסדא הני תלת מילי אישתני שמייהו מכי חרב בית המקדש
חצוצרתא שופרא שופרא חצוצרתא
למאי נפקא מינה לשופר של ראש השנה
ערבה צפצפה צפצפה ערבה
למאי נ"מ ללולב
פתורה פתורתא פתורתא פתורה
למאי נ"מ למקח וממכר
אמר אביי אף אנו נאמר הובלילא בי כסי בי כסי הובלילא
למאי נפקא מינה למחט שנמצאת בעובי בית הכוסות דמצד אחד כשירה ומשני צדדים טריפה
אמר רב אשי אף אנו נאמר בבל בורסיף בורסיף בבל
למאי נפקא מינה לגיטי נשים:

In English (Soncino translation):

For R. Hisda said: The following three things reversed their designations after the destruction of the Temple: [i] trumpet [changed to] shofar, and shofar to trumpet. What is the practical bearing thereof? in respect of the shofar [blown] on New Year. [ii] 'Arabah [willow] [changed to] zafzafah and zafzafah to 'Arabah. What is the practical bearing thereof? — In respect of the lulab [iii] Pathora [changed to] pathorta and pathorta to Pathora. What is the practical bearing thereof? — In respect of buying and selling. Abaye observed: We too can state: Hoblila [changed to] be kasse and be kasse to hoblila. What is the practical bearing thereof? In respect of a needle which is found in the thickness of the beth hakosoth, which if [found] on one side, it [the animal] is fit [for food]; if through both sides, it [the animal] is terefah. R. Ashi said, We too will state: Babylon [changed to] Borsif and Borsif to Babylon.

It is thus important to understand the terminology of the gemara as it was intended at the time it was used. This is a potential pitfall, as Latin and Greek may be found at the base of many English words, and one might assume that they mean exactly the same thing that they mean today. I believe this is true of the Gemara in Avodah Zarah 18b, which refers to circuses and theaters. People today think of a circus as a place to see clowns, jugglers, and performing elephants. And people today think of a theater as a place where movies are shown. In fact, this is not exactly the primary meaning of these words, as used in the gemara.

The gemara:

תנו רבנן אין הולכין לטרטיאות ולקרקסיאות מפני שמזבלין שם זיבול <לעבודת> {לעבודה זרה} דברי ר' מאיר
וחכמים אומרים מקום שמזבלין אסור מפני חשד <עבודת> {עבודה זרה} ומקום שאין מזבלין שם אסור מפני מושב לצים

Our Rabbis taught: One should not go to theaters or circuses because entertainments are arranged there in honor of the idols. This is the opinion of R. Meir. But the Sages say: Where such entertainments are given there is the prohibition of being suspected of idolatrous worship, and where such entertainment is not given the prohibition is because of being in (Tehillim 1:1) 'the seat of the scornful.'

In terms of a circus, it is useful to see the entry for the word in the American Heritage Dictionary, and particularly the Word History:

cir•cus

n.

1. 1. A public entertainment consisting typically of a variety of performances by acrobats, clowns, and trained animals.
   2. A traveling company that performs such entertainments.
   3. A circular arena, surrounded by tiers of seats and often covered by a tent, in which such shows are performed.
2. A roofless oval enclosure surrounded by tiers of seats that was used in antiquity for public spectacles.
3. Chiefly British. An open circular place where several streets intersect.
4. Informal. Something suggestive of a circus, as in frenetic activity or noisy disorder: “The city is a circus of the senses” (William H. Gass).

---

[Middle English, round arena, from Latin, circus, circle. See circle.]

---

circus•y adj.

Word History: The modern circus owes its name, but fortunately not its regular program of events, to the amusements of ancient times. The Latin word circus, which comes from the Greek word kirkos, “circle, ring,” referred to a circular or oval area enclosed by rows of seats for spectators. In the center ring, so to speak, was held a variety of events, including chariot races and gladiatorial combats, spectacles in which bloodshed and brutality were not uncommon. The first use of circus recorded in English, in a work by Chaucer written around 1380, probably refers to the Circus Maximus in Rome. Our modern circus, which dates to the end of the 18th century, was originally an equestrian spectacle as well, but the trick riders were soon joined in the ring by such performers as ropedancers, acrobats, and jugglers. Even though the circular shape of the arena and the equestrian nature of some of the performances are carried over from its Roman namesake, the modern circus has little connection with its brutal namesake of long ago.

That is, it had a different basic connotation in Roman times. In Roman times, they had "spectacles including chariot races and gladiatorial combats."

What about theater? Under theater, there are two entries to look up. First, theater:

the•a•ter or the•a•tre 
n.

1. A building, room, or outdoor structure for the presentation of plays, films, or other dramatic performances.
2. A room with tiers of seats used for lectures or demonstrations: an operating theater at a medical school.
3. 1. Dramatic literature or its performance; drama: the theater of Shakespeare and Marlowe.
   2. The milieu of actors and playwrights.
4. 1. The quality or effectiveness of a theatrical production: good theater; awful theater.
   2. Dramatic material or the use of such material: “His summation was a great piece of courtroom theater” (Ron Rosenbaum).
5. The audience assembled for a dramatic performance.
6. A place that is the setting for dramatic events.
7. A large geographic area in which military operations are coordinated: the European theater during World War II.

---

[Middle English theatre, from Old French, from Latin thetrum, from Greek thetron, from thesthai, to watch, from the, a viewing.]

Word History: Theories about the development of the theater in the West generally begin with Greek drama; this is etymologically appropriate as well as historically correct, since the words theory and theater are related through their Greek sources. The Greek ancestor of theater is thetron, “a place for seeing, especially for dramatic representation, theater.” Thetron is derived from the verb thesthai, “to gaze at, contemplate, view as spectators, especially in the theater,” from the, “a viewing.” The Greek ancestor of theory is theri, which meant among other things “the sending of theroi (state ambassadors sent to consult oracles or attend games),” “the act of being a spectator at the theater or games,” “viewing,” “contemplation by the mind,” and “theory or speculation.” The source of theri is theros, “an envoy sent to consult an oracle, spectator,” a compound of the, “viewing,” and -oros, “seeing.” It is thus fitting to elaborate theories about culture while seeing a play in a theater.

and second, amphitheater:

am•phi•the•a•ter

1. An oval or round structure having tiers of seats rising gradually outward from a central open space or arena.
2. An arena where contests and spectacles are held.
3. A level area surrounded by upward sloping ground.
4. An upper, sloping gallery with seats for spectators, as in a theater or operating room.

---

[Middle English amphitheatre, from Latin amphithetrum, from Greek amphithetron : amphi-, amphi- + thetron, theater; see theater.]

---

amphi•the•atric (-trk) or amphi•the•atri•cal adj.
amphi•the•atri•cal•ly adv.

Thus, is is possible that "theater" refers to an amphitheater, which is also where people gather to watch spectacles involving gladiatorial combat.

Indeed, in Tertullian's On Spectacles, which is a Christian condemnation of the same thing Chazal are condemning here, talks about both circuses and amphitheaters, which he sometimes refers to as plain theaters (because the sense of it, after all, is a viewing). Of course, he also talks about dramatic theaters and condemns them.

Consider the following choice quotes. I apologize if anyone dislikes my use of Christian sources, but I think one needs to use contemporary source material to make sense of what Chazal are aiming at.

First, the following quote:

Now, to be sure, nowhere do we find it laid down with the same precision as 'Thou shalt not kill,' 'Thou shalt not worship an idol,' 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' 'Thou shalt not commit fraud'--nowhere do we find it thus clearly declared: 'Thou shalt not go to the circus,' 'Thou shalt not go to the theater ,' 'Thou shalt not watch a contest or show of gladiators.'

Here is a citation of circuses and theaters in close proximity, just as it occurs in the brayta. The context of "a contest or show of gladiators" leads me to believe he addresses here such theaters - amphitheaters, though it is also possible later he does in deed address dramatic theater.

A reference to the amphitheater:

Are we now to wait for a scriptural repudiation of the amphitheater , also? If we can claim that cruelty, impiety, and brutality are permitted us, let us by all means go to the amphi-theater. If we are what people say we are, let us take delight in human blood.

At the very end:

Things of greater delight, I believe, than circus, both kinds of theater, and any stadium.

And a reference to stadiums, in which apparently the apparently held this circus:

To add a supplementary remark concerning the place: as you may expect from a place where the arts of the Muses, of Minerva, of Apollo, and even of Mars meet in common, with contest and sound of trumpet they endeavor to equal the circus in the stadium, which is no doubt a temple, too--I mean of the very idol whose festival is celebrated there.

And finally, a reference to races and combat in the stadiums:

Now, if you maintain that the stadium is mentioned in the Scriptures, I will admit at once that you have a point. But as for what is done in the stadium, you cannot deny that it is unfit for you to see--punches and kicks and blows and all the reckless use of the fist and every disfiguration of the human face, that is, of God's image.

Never can you approve the foolish racing and throwing feats and the more foolish jumping contests ; never can you be pleased with either harmful or foolish exhibitions of strength nor with the cultivation of an unnatural body, outdoing the craftsmanship of God; you will hate men bred to amuse the idleness of Greece.

I will leave off citing Tertullian, for now, and turn to the gemara.
The gemara, again:

תנו רבנן אין הולכין לטרטיאות ולקרקסיאות מפני שמזבלין שם זיבול <לעבודת> {לעבודה זרה} דברי ר' מאיר
וחכמים אומרים מקום שמזבלין אסור מפני חשד <עבודת> {עבודה זרה} ומקום שאין מזבלין שם אסור מפני מושב לצים

Our Rabbis taught: One should not go to theaters or circuses because entertainments are arranged there in honor of the idols. This is the opinion of R. Meir. But the Sages say: Where such entertainments are given there is the prohibition of being suspected of idolatrous worship, and where such entertainment is not given the prohibition is because of being in (Tehillim 1:1) 'the seat of the scornful.'

Recall that we have defined circus as this place of chariot races and also of gladiatorial combat, and theaters as amphitheaters.

Now, one may object that one should not consider a circus and theater as a place of gladiatorial combat, for if you look earlier in the gemara, you see the term stadium used. Two responses to this objection immediately spring to mind. Firstly, Tertullian refers to all of these in his condemnation - in terms of stadium - "punches and kicks and blows and all the reckless use of the fist and every disfiguration of the human face," in terms of amphitheater, "if we can claim that cruelty, impiety, and brutality are permitted us, let us by all means go to the amphi-theater."

Secondly, the Aruch regards stadium as the generic term and circus and (amphi)theater as the specific terms. To cite Artscroll's explanation of Itztadin (stadium), on Avoda Zara 18b1, foornote 11:

A place where bulls are incited to gore men (Rashi). The Mishna in Bava Kamma 39a speaks of "a bull of the stadium," which Rashi to our Mishna (16a ד"ה איצטדייא) explains as "a bull that gores and kills people, and this is an entertainment of theirs."

The Romans built two types of stadiums: the circus and the amphitheater. "Stadium" here apparently refers to the amphitheater, a round or oval building with a central arena surrounded by banks of seats for spectators. Gladiatorial combats to the death were held in the amphitheaters, pitting animals against animals, men against animals, and men against men (See Aruch ע' אצטנין). The gladiators were usually drawn from among captives of war, criminal prisoners, or slaves. Occassionally amphitheaters were used for performances of pantomimes and acrobatics.

Indeed, it is possible that Tertullian also uses stadium as the generic term.

Now, Rabbi Meir had said that one should not go to theaters and circuses because they arrange entertainments there in honor of idolatry. To see what he means, we can once again turn to Tertullian, who speaks about this in some detail.

In Chapter 8 of "On Spectacles":

In accordance with my plan, I shall deal next with the places. The circus is primarily consecrated to the Sun. His temple stands in the middle of it, and his image shines forth from the pediment of the temple. For they did not think it proper to worship beneath a roof a god whom they see above them in the open.

Those who maintain that the first circus show was exhibited by Circe in honor of the Sun, her father, as they will have it, conclude also that the name is derived from her. Plainly, the sorceress undoubtedly transacted the business in behalf of those whose priestess she was, namely, the demons and evil spirits. How many evidences of idol worship do you recognize accordingly in the decoration of the place?

Every ornament of the circus is a temple by itself. The eggs are regarded as sacred to Castor and Pollux by people who do not feel ashamed to believe the story of their origin from the egg made fertile by the swan, Jupiter. The dolphins spout water in honor of Neptune; the columns bear aloft images of Seia, so called from "sementatio" ('sowing'); of Messia, so called as deity of "messis" ('reaping'); and of Tutulina, so called as 'tutelary spirit' of the crops.

In front of these are seen three altars for the triple gods: the Great, the Potent, the Prevailing. They think these deities are Samothracean.

The huge obelisk, as Hermateles maintains, has been set up in honor of the Sun. Its inscription which, like its origin, is Egyptian, contains a superstition. The gathering of the demons would be dull without their Great Mother, so she presides there over the ditch.
Consus, as we have mentioned, keeps in hiding underground at the Murcian Goals. The latter are also the work of an idol. For Murcia, as they will have it, is a goddess of love to whom they have dedicated a temple in that part (of the valley).

and in Chapter 9:

Next let us consider the arts displayed in the circus games. In times past, equestrian skill was simply a matter riding on horseback, and certainly no guilt was involved the ordinary use of the horse. But when this skill was pressed into the service of the games, it was changed from a gift God into an instrument of the demons.

Accordingly, this kind of exhibition is regarded as sacred to Castor and Pollux to whom horses were allotted by Mercury, as Stesichorus tells us. Also, Neptune is an equestrian deity, since the Greeks call him "Hippios" ('Lord of Steeds').

Moreover, concerning the chariot, the four-horse team was consecrated to the Sun; the two-horse team, to the Moon. But we also read: "Erichthonius first dared to yoke four steeds to the car And to ride upon its wheels with victorious swiftness." This Erichthonius, a son of Minerva and Vulcan, fruit of lust, in truth, that fell to earth, is a demon-monster, or, rather, the Devil himself, not a mere snake.

...

The chariots having been produced by such inventors, it was only fitting that they clad their drivers in the colors of idolatry. For at first there were only two colors: white and red. White was sacred to Winter because of the whiteness of its snow; red, to Summer because of the redness of its sun. But afterwards, when both love of pleasure and superstition had grown apace, some dedicated the red to Mars, others the white to the Zephyrs, the green to Mother Earth or Spring, the blue to Sky and Sea or Autumn.

and in Chapter 12, in terms of gladiatorial combat:

For in time long past, in accordance with the belief that the souls of the-dead are propitiated by human blood, they used to purchase captives or slaves of inferior ability and to sacrifice them at funerals.

Afterwards, they preferred to disguise this ungodly usage by making it a pleasure. So, after the persons thus procured had been trained--for the sole purpose of learning how to be killed!-- in the use of such arms as they then had and as best as they could wield, they then exposed them to death at the tombs on the day appointed for sacrifices in honor of the dead. Thus they found consolation for death in murder.

Such is the origin of the gladiatorial contest. But gradually their refinement progressed in the same proportion as their cruelty. For the pleasure of these beasts in human shape was not satisfied unless human bodies were torn to pieces also by wild beasts. What was then a sacrifice offered for the appeasement of the dead was no doubt considered a rite in honor of the dead. This sort of thing is, therefore, idolatry, because idolatry, too, is a kind of rite in honor of the dead: the one and the other is a service rendered to dead persons.

And in Chapter 5, about the games (ludii), though much more tenuous:

And though Varro derives "ludii" from "ludus," that is, from "lusus" ('the play'), as they used to call also the Luperci "ludii," because, as "ludendo" ('in play') indicates, they ran to and fro, this play of the youths belongs in his view to festal days, temples, and religious ceremonies. But it is, after all, not the name that matters; the real issue is idolatry. For, since the games also went under the general name of Liberalia, they clearly proclaimed the honor of Father Liber. They were first held in honor of Liber by the country folk because of the blessing which they say he bestowed upon them by making known to them the delicious taste of wine.But there is more than what I cited. Read it all.

The Sages agree to Rabbi Meir about the idolatrous aspect, but maintain that even in the absence of the idolatrous aspect, there is an issue of 'the seat of the scornful.'

What is the seat of the scornful? This is a reference to Tehillim 1:1:

 א  אַשְׁרֵי הָאִישׁ--    אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָלַךְ, בַּעֲצַת רְשָׁעִים;
וּבְדֶרֶךְ חַטָּאִים, לֹא עָמָד,    וּבְמוֹשַׁב לֵצִים, לֹא יָשָׁב. 

Happy is the man that hath not walked in the counsel of the wicked, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of the scornful.

Tehillim is Biblical poetry, and a feature of Biblical poetry is poetic repetition. Thus, first "walking in the counsel of the wicked," then "stood in the path of sinners," and finally "sat in the seat of the scornful." One the peshat level, these three classes of people - reshaim, chataim, leitzim - are probably related. Thus, leitzim probably does not mean merely idle people, but as it is typically translated, scornful people. Thus, for example, Metzudat Tzion explains that leitzim is from the language of melitza, for one who mocks men or the righteous path, it is his way to choose his words carefully so that it enters the person's heart. Malbim does render it those who sit on street corners (yoshevei qeranot), which is a different meaning of leitzim. But the basic message of this pasuk, on the peshat level, is that there are various groups of evildoers, and one should not associate with them, or keep their company. Why? Because this may lead a person to sin. (The next verse, that he desires and studies Torah, could be as an alternative to keeping any of the aforementioned company, or else as a separate statement that "Only [=ki im] Hashem's Torah is his desire...)

I would posit that this is how the Sages in this brayta makes use of the pasuk. They take the plain sense meaning, and apply it to circuses and theaters. The spectacles in general had many aspects not to like, particularly the gladiatorial combat, but others as well, and it is exactly these evildoers who would spend their time enjoying such pleasures. In general, then, attending the circus or amphitheater is keeping the company of such men, and enjoying the activities they enjoy. Happy is the man who does not do so!

To reinforce this, I once again turn to Tertullian, who understands this verse as prohibiting spectacles,

Now, to be sure, nowhere do we find it laid down with the same precision as 'Thou shalt not kill,' 'Thou shalt not worship an idol,' 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' 'Thou shalt not commit fraud'--nowhere do we find it thus clearly declared: 'Thou shalt not go to the circus,' 'Thou shalt not go to the theater,' 'Thou shalt not watch a contest or show of gladiators.'

But we do find that to this special case there can be applied that first verse of David, where he says: 'Happy is the man who has not gone to the gathering of the ungodly, nor stood in the ways of sinners, nor sat in the chair of pestilence.'

For, even though David seems to have praised that well-known just man, because he took no part in the gathering and meeting of the Jews deliberating on the killing of the Lord, divine Scripture admits always a broader interpretation wherever a passage, after its actual sense has been exhausted, serves to strengthen discipline. So, in this case, too, the verse of David is not inapplicable to the prohibition of spectacles.

For, if then he called a mere handful of Jews 'a gathering of the ungodly,' how much more such a vast crowd of heathen people? Are the heathens less ungodly, less sinners, less the enemies of Christ that the Jews were then?

Thus, he understands it as keeping bad company, and joining in a gathering of evildoers, which, once again, is the plain meaning of the text. (Obviously, I disagree with what Tertullian labels the "actual sense" regarding the killing of Jesus.)

Thus, the Sages in the brayta are disallowing the spectacles in general, which happened in the circuses and amphitheaters, because one 'keeps the company of the scornful,' that is, gathers in an assembly of wicked people.

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, the Amora, offers two drashot on this pasuk. The first one is how the first step of walking in the counsel of the wicked takes one to stand in the way of sinners, and how standing in the way of sinners causes one to sit with scorners, etc..

The second drasha is relevant to spectacles. While in the brayta the Sages simply labelled the entire enterprise in circuses and theaters a moshav leitzim, Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi is going to take the pasuk, and the spectacles, apart, and show how each part of the pasuk  refers to a different part of the spectacles. To this end, he is going to offer a midrashic explanation of the pasuk:

 

 דרש ר' שמעון בן פזי
 אשרי האיש אשר לא הלך {בעצת רשעים זה שלא הלך} לטרטיאות ולקרקסיאות של <עובדי כוכבים> {גוים
ובדרך חטאים לא עמד זה שלא עמד בקנגיון
ובמושב לצים לא ישב שלא ישב בתחבולות
שמא יאמר אדם הואיל ולא הלכתי
לטרטיאות ולקרקסיאות ולא עמדתי בקנגיון אלך ואתגרה בשינה
ת"ל ובתורתו יהגה יומם ולילה

(Soncino's translation) :
R. Simeon b. Pazi expounded [that verse as follows]:
'Happy is the man that hath not walked' — i.e., to theatres and circuses of idolaters
'nor stood in the way of sinners' — that is he who does not attend contests of wild beasts;
'nor sat in the seat of the scornful' — that is he who does not participate in [evil] plannings.
And lest one say, 'Since I do not go to theatres or circuses nor attend contests of wild animals, I will go and indulge in sleep.'
Scripture therefore continues, 'And in His Law doth He meditate day and night.'

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi takes advantage of the fact that the common parlance is "going" (holech) to theaters and circuses (such that it appears in this form in the brayta as well), and thus terms as "walking in the counsel of evildoers." (Note this is no longer the same usage of the pasuk as in the brayta, for in the brayta they termed it a moshav leitzim, not atzat reshaim.)

He applies derech chataim lo amad to refer to another aspect of the spectacles, the kanigin, the contests of wild beasts. We see in Vayikra Rabba parasha 13 that Hashem will reward the righteous for not attending the kanigin with the spectacle of animal combat between the Leviathan and the Behemoth. While this likely is meant figuratively, it shows what kanigin means. It is probably not a hunt using dogs, as Rashi suggests, firstly because we see what kanigin means from Vayikra Rabba, and secondly, this animal combat is indeed part of the spectacle that is present at circuses and amphitheaters.

He applies moshav leitzim to participating in evil plannings. This is somewhat strange. How is this part of the spectacles? I would not agree to Soncino's translation, but will adopt that of Artscroll, who translates:

"and sat not at a session of jesters" - this refers to one who never sat at antics.

In footnote 50, they explain:

תחבולה (singular of תחבולות), a trick or a strategem, more generally connotes an effect achieved through cunning and artifice. Here R' Shimon presumably alludes to such acrobatics and sleights of hand as those listed in the brayta above.

We have not yet discussed "the brayta above," as we are approaching the gemara out of order, but will turn to it in due time.

At any rate, Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi is now translating leitzim not as "scoffers," which is what it means in the plain sense, but rather as "jesters." Sorcerers, tightrope walkers, buffoons, etc., are all types of entertainers/jesters, and these, not the audience, are the leitzim. Thus, sitting in attendance of them may be termed a moshav leitzim. (The fact that it these may be termed jesters, and leitzim may be taken as jesters, makes it clear that this is an element of his derasha. He is not taking leitzim to be those who sit idle, but rather, those who jest.)

Thus, we have identifies another element of the spectacles that takes place in the circuses and amphitheaters.

This does not mean that Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi disagrees with the brayta above. Rather, he agrees with the brayta that circuses and amphitheaters, where the spectacles take place, are forbidden. Indeed, he probably even agrees that they may be termed moshav leitzim as a crowd of evildoers. However, he is presenting a derasha, in a lecture, for the purpose of demonstrating how every element of the spectacles in the circus and amphitheater is referenced, and forbidden, in the very verse.

Finally, he brings in the next verse into his derasha, by stating:

And lest one say, 'Since I do not go to theatres or circuses nor attend contests of wild animals, I will go and indulge in sleep.'
Scripture therefore continues, 'And in His Law doth He meditate day and night.'

This is all part of the style of the derasha.

Indeed, Tertullian does the same thing as Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi - after declaring in general that circuses and amphitheaters, contests, and shows of gladiators are a moshav leitzim because it is the keeping of bad company, the company of scorners, he writes:

Moreover, the other details also fit in well. For at the spectacles there is both sitting 'in the chair' (in cathedra) and standing 'in the way' (in via). For 'ways' (viae) they term both the gangways that run round the girding walls and the aisles that slope down the incline and divide the seats of the populace; in like manner is the very place for chairs in the curving gallery called 'chair' (cathedra).

Now let us move earlier in the gemara, to the brayta mentioned earlier.

 תנו רבנן ההולך לאיצטדינין ולכרקום וראה שם את הנחשים ואת החברין בוקיון ומוקיון ומוליון ולוליון בלורין סלגורין הרי זה מושב לצים ועליהם הכתוב אומר (תהילים א) אשרי האיש אשר לא הלך וגו' כי אם בתורת ה' חפצו הא למדת שדברים הללו מביאין את האדם לידי ביטול תורה

Soncino renders:

The Sages taught: Thosewho visit stadiums or a camp and witness there [the performance] ofsorcerers and enchanters, or of bukion and mukion, lulion and mulion,blurin or salgurin — lo, this is 'the seat of the scornful,' andagainst those [who visit them] Scripture says, Happy is the man thathath not walked in the counsel of the wicked … nor sat in the seat ofthe scornful, but his delight is in the law of the Lord. From here youcan infer that those things cause one to neglect the Torah.

Now, bukion and mukion, lulion and mulion, blurin or salgurin are all types of buffoons and performers - that is, jesters. Now, there are other braytot that prohibit visiting a stadium or a camp. One, which prohibited circuses and amphitheaters, we just saw. But there is another we will see later. What then is the purpose of this brayta.

I would posit that at issue are the "kosher" activities. In general, we know that there is gladiatorial combat at these places, and perhaps idolatry - various reasons not to attend. Further, according to Rashi, this is a Roman seige, so perhaps one should not go these. But what if one watches just the "kosher entertainments," such as lulion and mulion? Perhaps this should be permitted. Thus, the brayta comes to tell us that it is not so.

To this end, it interprets moshav leitzim in the manner of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi - that is, that one should not watch jesters.

What is the stadium, and what is the karkom? In terms of karkom, there is a dispute between Rashi and Ran. Both know that karkom is offered as the Targum to Dvarim 20:20 for the word matzor, siege. Thus, Rashi holds that it is an encirclement, a siegework, of the Roman, where they just happened to make these entertainments. Ran takes the primary meaning as a building make like a matzor, encirclement, where they engage in such entertainments. In this instance, I think Ran is more correct. I proffer the following: Just as a circus means a circular structure in Latin, so does karkom mean a circular structure in Hebrew/Aramaic. This is simply another type of stadium. Indeed, perhaps we might say that stadium here equals an amphitheater and a karkom equals a Roman circus. Alternatively, it is yet another structure in which they conducted activities similar to that of an amphitheater, circus, and stadium. It would seem, though, that there at least no human/human combat in the karkom (this based on a later brayta).

The stadium, elsewhere, is a place specifically of animal and human combat, but perhaps it means something different here. From the continuation of the gemara, in which they contrast with Rabbi Natan who states that attending a stadium is permitted because one may save someone, it seems that this is indeed a place of gladiatorial combat.

Now, there are two ways of parsing this brayta. The first is: One who attends a stadium (in order to watch the gladiatorial combats), and furthermore, One who attends a karkom to see the sorcerers and enchanters, or of bukion and mukion, lulion and mulion, blurin or salgurin - this is a moshav leitzim. That is, stadium is separate.

Stylistically, I believe (and Artscroll goes along with me - see the end of footnote 18) that the correct parsing is different: One who attends either a stadium or karkom, and sees there (in the stadium or karkom) sorcerers and enchanters, or of bukion and mukion, lulion and mulion, blurin or salgurin - this is a moshav leitzim.

However, I think that the stama degemara, in its contrast with a brayta involving Rabbi Natan, takes it as attending a stadium for gladiatorial combats, or else they would not have to say it is a Tanaaitic dispute, or for that matter find a contradiction with the next brayta.

Once again, we are speaking about attending these entertainments which are part of the more general phenomenon of spectacles, and so Chazal want to prohibit every aspect, not just the most violent, and turn to the same re-interpretation of moshav leitzim that Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi offered - that it means jesters.

Further, the brayta ends:

Scripture says, Happy is the man that hath not walked in the counsel of the wicked … nor sat in the seat of the scornful, but his delight is in the law of the Lord. From here you can infer that those things cause one to neglect the Torah.

It is decidedly not because these things cause neglect of Torah that the "kosher" amusements are called moshav leitzim. Rather, they are called moshav leitzim in the derasha because the jesters, the leitzim, are performing. Once we have assigned even the kosher amusements to this pasuk, as an afterthought, and derivative, we know from the continuation into the next verse that these things cause one to neglect Torah.

It furthermore seems from the brayta that these things will cause one to neglect Torah, but that problem is not what causes it to be labelled as a moshav. (Meanwhile, regarding the Mishna in Pirkei Avot that talks about two people who sit and there is not amongs them words of Torah, being a moshav leitzim - that needs to be treated separately, in terms of what that means. However, that is not the derasha of moshav leitzim here.)

The gemara now contrasts this with another brayta:

 ורמינהי [הולכין] לאיצטדינין מותר מפני שצווח ומציל ולכרקום מותר מפני ישוב מדינה ובלבד שלא יתחשב עמהם ואם נתחשב עמהם אסור
קשיא איצטדינין אאיצטדינין קשיא כרקום אכרקום
בשלמא כרקום אכרקום ל"ק כאן במתחשב עמהן כאן בשאין מתחשב עמהן
אלא איצטדינין אאיצטדינין קשיא
תנאי היא [דתניא] אין הולכין לאיצטדינין מפני מושב לצים ור' נתן מתיר מפני שני דברים אחד מפני שצווח ומציל ואחד מפני שמעיד עדות אשה להשיאה

It is permitted to go to stadiums, because by shouting one may save [the victim]. One is also permitted to go to a camp for the purpose of maintaining order in the country, providing he does not conspire [with the Romans], but for the purpose of conspiring it is forbidden.

There is thus a contradiction between [the laws relating to] stadiums as well as between [those relating to] camps! There may indeed be no contradiction between those relating to camps, because the one may refer to where he conspires with them, and the other to where he does not; but the laws relating to stadiums are surely contradictory! — They represent the differing opinions of [two] Tannaim. For it has been taught: One should not go to stadiums because [they are] 'the seat of the scornful', but R. Nathan permits it for two reasons: first, because by shouting one may save [the victim], secondly, because one might be able to give evidence [of death] for the wife [of a victim] and so enable her to remarry.

Thus, in terms of stadiums, they dispense with the contradiction by saying that the brayta that permits is like Rabbi Nathan, and that which forbids, forbids because of moshav leitzim.

(I have my own solution which would be acceptable even according to Rabbi Nathan - since he will not have opportunity to save someone when seeing the "kosher" amusements, moshav leitzim is not overridden. However, as I said earlier, it is possible that the gemara understands stadium as standing on its own. Let us leave this for now, and continue on according to the gemara.)

In terms of karkom, Rashi now makes much more sense than the Ran. A siegeworks is where one might go to conspire [with the Romans], but a circular arena built for amusement?! Why would one think one conspires there?

I will address this shortly, but it seems that according to Rashi, one may go to a karkom so long as he does not go there to conspire. Thus, in the first brayta, going to the seigeworks and seeing the amusements was only forbidden because one was going to conspire. In the second one, since one did not go their to conspire, it was permitted.

I would just point out that according to this, at a modern circus, which offers "kosher" amusements, people do not attend to conspire with Romans or even in general. And it seems that the stadiums being discussed are places where gladiatorial combat is held, and in the first brayta, it is forbidden (probably because of the peshat meaning of moshav leitzim, the company of evildoers), while in the second brayta, this stricture is overridden because of the possibility of saving someone. Modern circuses do not have this gladiatorial combat. It would then seem clear that a modern circus should be permitted.

I will now offer an answer according to the Ran, who translated karkom as a circular structure built like seigeworks for the purpose of amusement. As I asked before, "Why would one think one conspires there?"

I believe the answer is that the work נתחשב should not be translated as "conspire." Rather, it means perform feats of skill. As I noted before, Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi referred to תחבולה. Soncino rendered this as an evil planning - that is, the act of consipiring. Artscroll meanwhile, translated this as "trick or strategem - feats of skill." That is, the performances mentioned in the brayta about the sorcerers and enchanters, or of bukion and mukion, lulion and mulion, blurin or salgurin performing in the karkom.

Recall that the brayta forbidding bukion and mukion etc. had done so by labelling this a "company of jesters," a moshav leitzim, in a midrashic take on the pasuk. The gemara now states that to truly be reckoned in the company of jesters, one needs to be a jester/entertainer himself. Thus, in the first brayta, which forbad it, he is participating in the activities himself. In the second brayta, which permits - that permits so long as he is not one of the entertainers.

According to this, a modern circus, like a karkom with "kosher" activities, is permitted, since one goes there to be a spectator, as opposed to being an entertainer.

Closing Remarks:
Chazal intended to forbid the Roman spectacles, because it was a very un-Jewish thing to do, and was not a kosher environment, but more like a moshav leitzim. They found sources to forbid even kosher aspects of these entertainments, because of their association with the spectacles in general (though according to my interpretation, according to the Ran, it seems that in one instance it was actually permissible).

Today, we have modern circuses which offer simply the kosher elements. They are not associated with the general Roman spectacle, which involves many unkosher activities and elements, including bloodshed for fun. The typical crowd that attend a modern circus is not a Roman heathen wanting to see bloodsport, but rather a family that wants to see clowns and dancing tigers. I would not assume that Chazal would forbid this. Further, above, it seems that the gemara may even explicitly allow it - according to Rashi, since no one is conspiring with the Romans, and according to my interpretation according to the Ran, because one is attending as a spectator instead of as a performer.

Chukat #2: Who caused the children of Ammon to inherit?

Two perspectives.
In parshat Devarim {Devarim 2:18-19}, God tells Moshe:

יח אַתָּה עֹבֵר הַיּוֹם אֶת-גְּבוּל מוֹאָב, אֶת-עָר.	18 'Thou art this day to pass over the border of Moab, even Ar;
יט וְקָרַבְתָּ, מוּל בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן--אַל-תְּצֻרֵם, וְאַל-תִּתְגָּר בָּם: כִּי לֹא-אֶתֵּן מֵאֶרֶץ בְּנֵי-עַמּוֹן לְךָ, יְרֻשָּׁה--כִּי לִבְנֵי-לוֹט, נְתַתִּיהָ יְרֻשָּׁה.	19 and when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, harass them not, nor contend with them; for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon for a possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession.--

That is, Hashem has given it to them as an inheritance/possession.

Meanwhile, in sefer Shofetim, in Shofetim 11:23-24, Yiftach tells the king of the children of Ammon:

כג וְעַתָּה ה אֱלֹקֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, הוֹרִישׁ אֶת-הָאֱמֹרִי, מִפְּנֵי, עַמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְאַתָּה, תִּירָשֶׁנּוּ.	23 So now the LORD, the God of Israel, hath dispossessed the Amorites from before His people Israel, and shouldest thou possess them?
כד הֲלֹא אֵת אֲשֶׁר יוֹרִישְׁךָ, כְּמוֹשׁ אֱלֹהֶיךָ--אוֹתוֹ תִירָשׁ; וְאֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר הוֹרִישׁ ה אֱלֹקֵינוּ, מִפָּנֵינוּ--אוֹתוֹ נִירָשׁ.	24 Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD our God hath dispossessed from before us, them will we possess.

So, while Hashem gives the Israelites their inheritance, Chemosh gives the children of Ammon their inheritance.

One need not say that Yiftach believed this. This was diplomacy, and da lifnei ata omed, Yiftach knew that his intended audience was an idolator who followed Chemosh, and so he spoke to him in a way that he hoped would be successful.

Chukat #1: For the border of Ammon was strong?

In a confusing statement towards the end of parshat Chukat, we read {Bemidbar 21:24}:

כג וְלֹא-נָתַן סִיחֹן אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל, עֲבֹר בִּגְבֻלוֹ, וַיֶּאֱסֹף סִיחֹן אֶת-כָּל-עַמּוֹ וַיֵּצֵא לִקְרַאת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַמִּדְבָּרָה, וַיָּבֹא יָהְצָה; וַיִּלָּחֶם, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.	23 And Sihon would not suffer Israel to pass through his border; but Sihon gathered all his people together, and went out against Israel into the wilderness, and came to Jahaz; and he fought against Israel.
כד וַיַּכֵּהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְפִי-חָרֶב; וַיִּירַשׁ אֶת-אַרְצוֹ מֵאַרְנֹן, עַד-יַבֹּק עַד-בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן--כִּי עַז, גְּבוּל בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן.	24 And Israel smote him with the edge of the sword, and possessed his land from the Arnon unto the Jabbok, even unto the children of Ammon; for the border of the children of Ammon was strong.

This seems to imply that the Israelites would have conquered further, into the territory of the children of Ammon, but for the fact that their border was strong, such that they could attack no further.

This would seem to contradict Dvarim 2:17-19:

יז וַיְדַבֵּר ה, אֵלַי לֵאמֹר.	17 The LORD spoke unto me saying:
יח אַתָּה עֹבֵר הַיּוֹם אֶת-גְּבוּל מוֹאָב, אֶת-עָר.	18 'Thou art this day to pass over the border of Moab, even Ar;
יט וְקָרַבְתָּ, מוּל בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן--אַל-תְּצֻרֵם, וְאַל-תִּתְגָּר בָּם: כִּי לֹא-אֶתֵּן מֵאֶרֶץ בְּנֵי-עַמּוֹן לְךָ, יְרֻשָּׁה--כִּי לִבְנֵי-לוֹט, נְתַתִּיהָ יְרֻשָּׁה.	19 and when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, harass them not, nor contend with them; for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon for a possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession.--

That is, in Dvarim they do not invade the land of Ammon because of Divine decree, while in Bemidbar they do not invade because the border is strong!

Rashi gives an explanation of the pasuk in Bemidbar on the basis of the pasuk in Dvarim. The reason the border was strong was not the physical strength of the people, or their fortifications, or the geography, but the Divine decree of Devarim 2:19.

(I would read, then: for the border of Ammon was firm.)

There is another possible resolution, however, and that is that the word in pasuk 24 is not עז, strong, but rather יעזר, the city of Yaazer, which is perhaps situated about 10 to 15 miles north of Cheshbon, the city of Sichon, and thus on the Emorite/Ammonite border. Thus, the city is on the border of the sons of Ammon, but belonging to the Emorites, and thus they attack there but no further.

This variant text is found in LXX, that is the Septuagint:

In Greek:
21:24 και επαταξεν αυτον ισραηλ φονω μαχαιρης και κατεκυριευσαν της γης αυτου απο αρνων εως ιαβοκ εως υιων αμμαν οτι ιαζηρ ορια υιων αμμων εστιν.

In English:
24 And Israel smote him with the slaughter of the sword, and they became possessors of his land, from Arnon to Jaboc, as far as the children of Amman, for Jazer is the borders of the children of Amman.

We see later on in the same chapter that they attack Yaazer. Bemidbar 21:31:

לא וַיֵּשֶׁב, יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּאֶרֶץ, הָאֱמֹרִי.	31 Thus Israel dwelt in the land of the Amorites.
לב וַיִּשְׁלַח מֹשֶׁה לְרַגֵּל אֶת-יַעְזֵר, וַיִּלְכְּדוּ בְּנֹתֶיהָ; ויירש (וַיּוֹרֶשׁ), אֶת-הָאֱמֹרִי אֲשֶׁר-שָׁם.	32 And Moses sent to spy out Jazer, and they took the towns thereof, and drove out the Amorites that were there.
לג וַיִּפְנוּ, וַיַּעֲלוּ, דֶּרֶךְ, הַבָּשָׁן; וַיֵּצֵא עוֹג מֶלֶךְ-הַבָּשָׁן לִקְרָאתָם הוּא וְכָל-עַמּוֹ, לַמִּלְחָמָה--אֶדְרֶעִי.	33 And they turned and went up by the way of Bashan; and Og the king of Bashan went out against them, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei.

Or in Greek:

21:32 και απεστειλεν μωυσης κατασκεψασθαι την ιαζηρ και κατελαβοντο αυτην και τας κωμας αυτης και εξεβαλον τον αμορραιον τον κατοικουντα εκει

This would resolve the Dvarim/Bemidbar contradiction, which makes the Yaazer option somewhat suspicious under lectio difficilior (in that it is a reason for the change from Az --> Yaazer). Note also the slight possibility that the adjoining letters in the surroinding Greek words: οτι ιαζηρ ορια. In Hebrew, there is the י of the word כי and the ג of גבול perhaps might be mistakes for a ר, depending on the specific pronunciation of each.

If the word was indeed originally יעזר, the yud, at least, could have been dropped, because it duplicated the י of כי in the preceding word, under the theory of Shadal, mentioned in this post, in which the following is cited:

He says that the ancient scribal practice was to leave out one letter when the same letter begins the next word. (He speculates that perhaps instead of this letter a certain sign was used to indicate that one letter stands for two.)

Update: There is an interesting parallel pasuk in the halftara, in the story of Yiftach, in Shofetim 11:14-18, Yiftach is answering the claim of the king of Ammon that the Israelites took away his land, when they came out of Egypt. Yiftach counters that the land they took was that of the Emori, and they did not intrude or take away from the land of either Moav or the children of Ammon.

יד וַיּוֹסֶף עוֹד, יִפְתָּח; וַיִּשְׁלַח, מַלְאָכִים, אֶל-מֶלֶךְ, בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן.	14 And Jephthah sent messengers again unto the king of the children of Ammon;
טו וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ, כֹּה אָמַר יִפְתָּח: לֹא-לָקַח יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת-אֶרֶץ מוֹאָב, וְאֶת-אֶרֶץ בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן.	15 and he said unto him: 'Thus saith Jephthah: Israel took not away the land of Moab, nor the land of the children of Ammon.
טז כִּי, בַּעֲלוֹתָם מִמִּצְרָיִם; וַיֵּלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר עַד-יַם-סוּף, וַיָּבֹא קָדֵשָׁה.	16 But when they came up from Egypt, and Israel walked through the wilderness unto the Red Sea, and came to Kadesh;
יז וַיִּשְׁלַח יִשְׂרָאֵל מַלְאָכִים אֶל-מֶלֶךְ אֱדוֹם לֵאמֹר אֶעְבְּרָה-נָּא בְאַרְצֶךָ, וְלֹא שָׁמַע מֶלֶךְ אֱדוֹם, וְגַם אֶל-מֶלֶךְ מוֹאָב שָׁלַח, וְלֹא אָבָה; וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּקָדֵשׁ.	17 then Israel sent messengers unto the king of Edom, saying: Let me, I pray thee, pass through thy land; but the king of Edom hearkened not. And in like manner he sent unto the king of Moab; but he would not; and Israel abode in Kadesh.
יח וַיֵּלֶךְ בַּמִּדְבָּר, וַיָּסָב אֶת-אֶרֶץ אֱדוֹם וְאֶת-אֶרֶץ מוֹאָב, וַיָּבֹא מִמִּזְרַח-שֶׁמֶשׁ לְאֶרֶץ מוֹאָב, וַיַּחֲנוּן בְּעֵבֶר אַרְנוֹן; וְלֹא-בָאוּ בִּגְבוּל מוֹאָב, כִּי אַרְנוֹן גְּבוּל מוֹאָב.	18 Then he walked through the wilderness, and compassed the land of Edom, and the land of Moab, and came by the east side of the land of Moab, and they pitched on the other side of the Arnon; but they came not within the border of Moab, for the Arnon was the border of Moab.

Compare this with Bemidbar 21:23-24, as cited above:

כג וְלֹא-נָתַן סִיחֹן אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל, עֲבֹר בִּגְבֻלוֹ, וַיֶּאֱסֹף סִיחֹן אֶת-כָּל-עַמּוֹ וַיֵּצֵא לִקְרַאת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַמִּדְבָּרָה, וַיָּבֹא יָהְצָה; וַיִּלָּחֶם, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.	23 And Sihon would not suffer Israel to pass through his border; but Sihon gathered all his people together, and went out against Israel into the wilderness, and came to Jahaz; and he fought against Israel.
כד וַיַּכֵּהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְפִי-חָרֶב; וַיִּירַשׁ אֶת-אַרְצוֹ מֵאַרְנֹן, עַד-יַבֹּק עַד-בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן--כִּי עַז, גְּבוּל בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן.	24 And Israel smote him with the edge of the sword, and possessed his land from the Arnon unto the Jabbok, even unto the children of Ammon; for the border of the children of Ammon was strong.

There is a marked parallelism here between the two verses. The one in Shofetim is stressing how they did not intrude past Moab's border, namely Arnon. The one in Bemidbar also stresses how they did not intrude past the children of Ammon's border, namely the Yabbok river. Thus, they only conquered current Emorite territory.

Indeed, the continuation in Bemidbar speaks about how Sichon king of the Emorites had previously captured Cheshbon from Moab, which makes it fair game. Indeed, the general trend (in Bemidbar and in Shofetim) seems to be the respecting of the borders of Ammon and Moav, in consonance with Hashem's decree, as spelled out in Devarim.

We would then expect this to be a reference to the border town, with the word "Ki" functioning as the reason they did not intrude farther . After all, just as Arnon was the border of Moav, Yabbok (or Yaazer) was the border of Ammon. Perhaps we can say that עז was a place name? :) Or perhaps this is a reference to the firmness of the border, because of the Divine decree.

Update: See here:

remained firm
(Targum). This was because God told the Israelites not to attack Ammon (Deuteronomy 2:19; Sefer HaYashar; Lekach Tov; Bachya). Others see Az here as a proper noun, which the Septuagint renders as Y'azer, see Numbers 21:32. The Torah is thus saying, 'Az was the border of Ammon.' Other sources apparently identify Az with Ar (Numbers 21:15, Lekach Tov ad loc.).

Posts so far for parshat Chukat

Year 1

• For What Sin Was Moshe Punished?
• Yiftach BeDoro KeShmuel BeDoro (cross-listed from Shoftim)

Year 2

to be continued...

Midrashic Methods #2: Miut (Exclusion)

m1

Middah 2:
Via a miut {exclusion}, howso?
The miut consists of three terms: אך, רק, מן.
אך, to exclude, how?

For it is written (Bereishit 7)

כב כֹּל אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁמַת-רוּחַ חַיִּים בְּאַפָּיו, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בֶּחָרָבָה--מֵתוּ.	22 all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, whatsoever was in the dry land, died.
כג וַיִּמַח אֶת-כָּל-הַיְקוּם אֲשֶׁר עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה, מֵאָדָם עַד-בְּהֵמָה עַד-רֶמֶשׂ וְעַד-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַיִּמָּחוּ, מִן-הָאָרֶץ; וַיִּשָּׁאֶר אַךְ-נֹחַ וַאֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ, בַּתֵּבָה.	23 And He blotted out every living substance which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping thing, and fowl of the heaven; and they were blotted out from the earth; and Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the ark.

What does אך come to teach us?
That even Noach in the ark was spitting up blood because of the cold.

Discussion: What is the feel of the perek. How does this expand upon the idea of a single person surviving of the entire world, while massive forces were wreaking havoc outside. The ark as a flimsy refuge.

begin cite:
Similarly you say (Vayikra 23:27):

כו וַיְדַבֵּר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.	26 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
כז אַךְ בֶּעָשׂוֹר לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי הַזֶּה יוֹם הַכִּפֻּרִים הוּא, מִקְרָא-קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם, וְעִנִּיתֶם, אֶת-נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם; וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם אִשֶּׁה, לַה.	27 Howbeit on the tenth day of this seventh month is the day of atonement; there shall be a holy convocation unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls; and ye shall bring an offering made by fire unto the LORD.

If it had said בֶּעָשׂוֹר לַחֹדֶשׁ I would have said - to atone for those who return and upon those who do not return. Once it states אך it restricts the atonement to only those who return.

Discussion: what does it mean to afflict, and how those who do not afflict will be cut off - in the subsequent psukim? Could this feed into the message here?

begin cite:
רק to exclude, how?
Bereishit 20:

י וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִימֶלֶךְ, אֶל-אַבְרָהָם: מָה רָאִיתָ, כִּי עָשִׂיתָ אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה.	10 And Abimelech said unto Abraham: 'What sawest thou, that thou hast done this thing?'
יא וַיֹּאמֶר, אַבְרָהָם, כִּי אָמַרְתִּי רַק אֵין-יִרְאַת אֱלֹהִים, בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה; וַהֲרָגוּנִי, עַל-דְּבַר אִשְׁתִּי.	11 And Abraham said: 'Because I thought: Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake.

Perhaps this means that there was no fear of God at all? Therefore it tells us רק. Say now, until they heard, they did not fear - once their ears hear they will fear.

Discussion: see pasuk 8, which this is a reference to. What is it that Avimelech told them that made them "sore afraid." What insight is the midrash giving us about the men's character?
Further, why did they ask about Sarah? Is Avraham justified? Why does Hashem need to give a threat about not returning her to Avraham?

begin cite:
And so it states

ח וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אֲבִימֶלֶךְ בַּבֹּקֶר, וַיִּקְרָא לְכָל-עֲבָדָיו, וַיְדַבֵּר אֶת-כָּל-הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם; וַיִּירְאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים, מְאֹד.

8 And Abimelech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants, and told all these things in their ears; and the men were sore afraid.

Similarly you say: I Kings 22:

טז וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הַמֶּלֶךְ, עַד-כַּמֶּה פְעָמִים אֲנִי מַשְׁבִּיעֶךָ: אֲשֶׁר לֹא-תְדַבֵּר אֵלַי, רַק-אֱמֶת--בְּשֵׁם ה.

16 And the king said unto him: 'How many times shall I adjure thee that thou speak unto me nothing but the truth in the name of the LORD?'

This teaches that he did not speak with his full heart, but rather because Yehoshafat was there.

Discussion: How could Micah lie? Was this a blessing/prayer, or a prophecy? Look at the context of the perek. Who suggested bringing the prophet? What is the king of Israel's (as opposed to that of Judah) attitude in general towards Micah? Does he believe in the truth of prophecy? Why then, his calling the prophet? Why then the objection to Michah's initial words?


m2

begin cite: min to exclude, howso?
Shemot 18:13:

יב וַיִּקַּח יִתְרוֹ חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה, עֹלָה וּזְבָחִים--לֵאלֹהִים; וַיָּבֹא אַהֲרֹן וְכֹל זִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֶאֱכָל-לֶחֶם עִם-חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה--לִפְנֵי הָאֱלֹקִים.	12 And Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, took a burnt-offering and sacrifices for God; and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses' father-in-law before God.
יג וַיְהִי, מִמָּחֳרָת, וַיֵּשֶׁב מֹשֶׁה, לִשְׁפֹּט אֶת-הָעָם; וַיַּעֲמֹד הָעָם עַל-מֹשֶׁה, מִן-הַבֹּקֶר עַד-הָעָרֶב.	13 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood about Moses from the morning unto the evening.

Is it possible the entire day? When do the disciples learn? Therefore it comes to teach "from the morning" as an exclusion, which teaches that he did not sit there the entire day. And the chachamim gave an estimate of until 6 hours.

Discussion/Clarification: Not that this is how long Moshe judged, because otherwise what is meant by "until evening. Rather, this is a reference to Shabbat 10a {Rif Shabbat 4a}:
Rav Chisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna were sitting all day engaged in judgements, and their hearts grew faint. {Rashi: since they were not able to learn Torah. Alternatively, they grew faint because they had not opportunity to eat all day.} Rav Chiyya bar Rav, of Difti, taught {tnei} (Shmot 18:13:)

יג וַיְהִי, מִמָּחֳרָת, וַיֵּשֶׁב מֹשֶׁה, לִשְׁפֹּט אֶת-הָעָם; וַיַּעֲמֹד הָעָם עַל-מֹשֶׁה, מִן-הַבֹּקֶר עַד-הָעָרֶב. 13 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood about Moses from the morning unto the evening. And does it enter your mind that Moshe sat and judged the entire day? And the {teaching/learning of} Torah, when was it done? Rather, to tell you that every judge who judges a true judgment {that is, a fair judgement}, even for one hour, the Scriptures considers him a partner in Creation. It is written here מִן-הַבֹּקֶר עַד-הָעָרֶב - from the morning unto the evening, and it is written there, by the Creation {Bereishit 1}, וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר - "and there was evening and there was morning."

Until when must they {the judges} sit at judgment?
Rav Sheshet said: Until the time of the [main] meal [of the day].

And this is the sixth hour, which is the time of eating for a {Torah} scholar.

so this is what is meant by how the Sages estimated it. And note that besides the exclusive min, there is another midrashic method in play here - that of parallel language.

begin cite:

Similarly, Shmuel Bet 22:14:

יד יַרְעֵם מִן-שָׁמַיִם, ה; {ר} וְעֶלְיוֹן, יִתֵּן קוֹלוֹ. {ס

14 The LORD thundered from heaven, and the Most High gave forth His voice.

It is possible that the thundering was heard from all corners of Heaven, therefore it teaches us min to exclude, that it is only heard from the curtain from which is is requested from. {in other words, there aple designated sections that handle specific matters}

And so it says:

ה יַרְעֵם אֵל בְּקוֹלוֹ, נִפְלָאוֹת; עֹשֶׂה גְדֹלוֹת, וְלֹא נֵדָע.

5 God thundereth marvellously with His voice; great things doeth He, which we cannot comprehend.

In the place that He needs to introduce a new thing.

(The explanation of this method, too, is that these three words come always to exclude, from that subject matter that it is speaking of. And within this method are other words or letters that come to exclude when they are extra.)

{I would categorize it differently - that these three words literally, and by themselves, connote exclusion, and thus they are being taken hyper-literally.}

A new version of Tanach Linkify (1.3)

Should be faster, covers more alternative spellings.
Available here.