posts so far for parshat Emor

2011

1. Emor sources -- further expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
   .
2. YUTorah on parashat Emor.
   .
3. יִקְרְח֤וּ written as יקרחה, etcetera -- Considering some Minchas Shais on parashat Emor.
   .
4. The kadma foretone in וְקִ֨דַּשְׁתּ֔וֹ, etcetera --  And whether it should be present. Again, elaborating upon Minchas Shai.
   .
5. בִבְתוּלֶ֖יהָ with two fricative vets, etcetera --  Continuing Minchas Shai on parashat Emor, Vayikra perek 21.
   .
6. Impure to the bone? Part ii --  Continuing a topic from last year on parshat Naso, about whether לטמי means bone or impure, and whether דאינשא should be present. 

2010

1. Emor sources -- revamped, with over 100 meforshim on the parasha and haftara.
   a
2. The tipecha on tisperu -- analyzing a suggestion that the trup indicates a division which corresponds to the halacha of counting 49 days rather than 50. I believe that it does not pan out.
   a
3. The difference between karet and ibud, and if there is such a difference, just because different pesukim utilize different terminology.
   .
4. When you cause to ascend the lamps -- What is bothering Rashi? He explains בְּהַעֲלֹתְךָ in a particular way in Behaalotecha, but is inconsistent elsewhere, in Emor, in explaining לְהַעֲלֹת נֵר תָּמִיד. Meanwhile the derasha is not initially on Behaalotecha. I consider Gur Aryeh, and then differ, and explain my own take on the matter.

2009

1. Shaving, as specifically for a meis? In part one, a possible peshat meaning; in part two, evidence from Yeshaya and Herodotus; in part three, evidence from Iyov and Yirmeyah.
   .
2. Emor sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, and links to many meforshim on the parshah and haftarah.
   .
3. Emor veAmarta -- is the duplication just normal Biblical style, or does it convey some special meaning?
   .
4. Where is the kohen's wife mentioned? Explicitly, implicitly, or not at all? And what is to be done for the married sister?
   .
5. The day after the Shabbat: what is it? First, why I think there is a compelling argument for the Rabbinic view, that it is the day after the first day of Yom Tov of Pesach. Second, why if we disagree with the rabbinic view, I would sooner adopt an explanation of it after the "week" of Pesach over the Karaite view. Third, the Karaite view, from Aharon ben Yosef, and my reaction to it. Fourth, Rav Shamshon ben Refael Hirsch's defense of the rabbinic position, based also on Rambam. Fifth, Shadal, and with him Ibn Ezra and Kuzari, that the Karaites are correct but that Saturday is just an example, but that it could be any day of Chazal's choosing. Still more planned, but we will see if I get to it.... Yes. Sixth, some concluding thoughts.
   .
6. Mum's the word -- grappling with the exclusion of maimed sacrifices and kohanim from the Temple service.

2008

1. LeNefesh lo yitamma beAmav, but which am and whose am? The class of deceased, or of potential actors? Rashi, Shadal, and my own suggestion. I assume in this post that it means the am of kohanim. This year (2009), I intend to offer a different suggestion.
   .
2. Covering one's sukkah with the arba minim, which might be based in part on a pasuk in parshat Emor. Part i, part ii, part iii, part iv.

2007

• Parsha Punning Puzzles for Emor, numbers one, two, three, four, and five. And then solutions.

2006

• The Blasphemer Left -- But From Where?
• It states vayetzei - but from where? Rashi: From the world. But which world? Of religiosity, from this world, from Olam haBa?
  Rabbi Levi says the same thing in Toledot about Esav. And refers to Golaith as well.
  Siftei Chachamim has a brilliant suggestion based on semichut, where olam is the immediately preceding word in our parsha. Of course, this is not the case elsewhere.
  An alternative, cited by Rashi: He went out, deriving from the contents of the previous parsha; or that he left the courtroom of Moshe, having lost his case. And some pointers as to what other textual cues spark this interpretation about a court case.
  Ibn Ezra says he left his tent. Perhaps he is reading emotion into this, based on his choice of prooftexts (Datan and Aviram), or perhaps not.
  Tg Yonatan explains that he left Egypt together with the Israelites, an explanation with great homiletic promise.
  Ramban associates it with the target location, betoch benei Yisrael.
  A discussion about what others do with betoch benei Yisrael. And a relation to the conversion of the blasphemer, or perhaps his father.
  Then, my own take on all of this, and the role of vayetzei.
• No Punishment for Cursing/And Excusing the Woman Who Vows?
• Cross-listed with Matot. A creative midrashic endeavor without the bounds of narrative and halachic derash.
• Haftarat Emor: Yechezkel the Torah Scholar, Yechezkel the Prophet
• Rather than harmonizing apparently contradictory laws between Torah and Yechezkel about who a kohen may marry, I point out what pesukim in Torah Yechezkel is apparently interpreting differently from Chazal. And argue that Yechezkel may do so as a Torah scholar, and not as a prophet. And Elu veElu. And hilchesa kebatrai, so we rely on Chazal's understandings of the same.

2005

• An "Eye" for an Eye: The Concept of Proportional Punishment
• A discussion of "an eye for an eye" as it appears in parshat Emor. Chazal say it means monetary payment. I agree as a matter of peshat, not just derash. I examine the psukim in context, which is a contrast between the death penalty for one who murders a man, as opposed to monetary payment when one kills an animal. This contrast is repeated, framing the verses stating "an eye for an eye." One does not pay wergild for deliberately murdering a man, nor does one lose his life for killing an animal. We do see such payment in parshat Mishpatim if one's animal kills a man, and we see in the same chapter that there is monetary payment for injuring one's fellow (as opposed to being injured oneself). I made another analysis, coming to the same conclusion, for the "eye for an eye" mentioned in parshat Mishpatim.
• The Blasphemer
• A contrast between the Midrash which states that the Egyptian killed by Moshe in Egypt for striking the Hebrew was the father of the blasphemer, and that he had just slept with Shlomit, and the Midrash which states that when Moshe looked to and fro and saw there was no man, he saw into the future that there would be no descendant who would be part of the Jewish people. An obvious harmonization is that the reason Moshe looked for descendants was not that the merit of such descendants would save the Egyptian, who deserved what he got, but that by killing the Egyptian, he would be preventing said descendants from coming into being. This parallels the bloodguilt Kayin had not only for Hevel but for all of Hevel's descendants. Even had the blasphemer been an upright guy, he had already been conceived. I consider this idea and others in more detail on a post on parshat Shemot.
• Is Blasphemy A Crime Even In America?
• I note the case of a Hindu man suing a company for blaspheming Ganesh.

to be continued...

יִקְרְח֤וּ written as יקרחה, etcetera

Summary: Considering some Minchas Shais on parashat Emor.

Post: As I started to discuss in this previous post, many of Minchas Shai's comments are corrections to the Bomberg Mikraos Gedolos. (There, I got the edition wrong, and linked to a Bomberg Chumash, but Mississippi Fred MacDowell helpfully corrected me on several of the facts.) Here, I'd like to present a few of the comments of Minchas Shai on parashat Emor.

Minchas Shai writes:

His first comment is on Vayikra 21:3, that in the word הקרובה, there is a dagesh chazak in the kuf. This is something it seems that the Mikraos Gedolos had correct:

Perhaps there were other texts which had it wrong. Or perhaps this was prone to error. Why might one expect the dagesh to be absent? Well, it should be present because of the definite article ha- which geminates the following letter. But with a sheva present under that letter, sometimes (usually where there is a mem or yud) the dagesh chazak drops out. But here, it is correctly present.

His next comment is on Vayikra 21:5, on the word יִקְרְח֤וּ. There is a krei / ketiv here:

ה לֹֽא־יקרחה (יִקְרְח֤וּ) קָרְחָה֙ בְּרֹאשָׁ֔ם וּפְאַ֥ת זְקָנָ֖ם לֹ֣א יְגַלֵּ֑חוּ וּבִ֨בְשָׂרָ֔ם לֹ֥א יִשְׂרְט֖וּ שָׂרָֽטֶת׃

Naturally, the Samaritans 'correct' this heh to a vav. How would I account for this, on a peshat level? Simply what scholars write, that early on, when these consonants were introduced as matres lectiones, indicators of vowels, there was no regularization to their spelling. And so this heh indicates that there is a vowel present, but not which vowel it is. And the weirdness of it, yet the fact that it is still acceptable, reinforces the likelihood that it is the original -- the principle of lectio difficilior.

Minchas Shai writes:

"and it is one of 14 words which are written with a heh at the end of the word and yet read with a vav, and the siman in the Mesorah Gedolah is at the end of the fourth aleph bet which is there. And that that it is written with a heh and not with a vav, this is a hint to what our Sages said in Mesechet Makkot {20a}, in perek Elu Hen Halokin, that if he makes five bald spots, such that he anoints his fingers with Nasa {see next amud}, that is to say, a potion which causes hair to fall out, and applies it at once to five places, while they gave him only a single warning, even so he is liable to five. And so is is darshened in Lekach Tov on the Torah, from R' Moshe Gagara and in the Pesikta of R' Tovyahu ben Rabbi Eliezer. And see another reason in the Zohar page 89."

Here is where Lekach Tov / Pesikta darshens this.

And here is the Zohar he mentions:

21. "They shall not make baldness (Heb. yikrechuh) on their head" (Vayikra 21:5). Rabbi Yosi said, What is the reason 'yikrechuh' is spelled with Hei AT THE END? HE ANSWERS, That supernal ointment, THE PLENTY OF ABA, is the holy anointing oil that consecrates all seven days, CHESED, GVURAH, TIFERET, NETZACH, HOD, YESOD AND MALCHUT, as we learned from the words, "for seven days shall he consecrate you" (Vayikra 8:33). That supernal oil is removed from him and baldness is made on him, if he blemishes his head. For the head of the High Priest, NAMELY THE FIRST THREE SFIROT OF ZEIR ANPIN, is this supernal oil, THE LIGHTS OF ABA. Hence the priest below must not demonstrate any blemish in himself, as we have already learned, FOR CORRESPONDING TO THE PRIEST ABOVE, HIS OWN DEEDS BLEMISH HIM. Hence, "MAKE BALDNESS" is spelled with Hei.

In terms of Lekach Tov / Pesikta Zutrata, this is fine if it is a mere hint. The derivation in the gemara is different, though. That gemara reads:

תנו רבנן (ויקרא כא, ה) לא יקרחו יכול אפילו קרח ארבע וחמש קריחות לא יהא חייב אלא אחת תלמוד לומר קרחה לחייב על כל קרחה וקרחה

It seems like a classic plural / singular derash -- that  yikrechu is plural, even though the plurality is on the actors, not on the action. But we might take it to refer to many actions. Comes the singular korcha and tells us that he is liable for each and every korcha, even among the plural.

Note that in this brayta, it is not specifically five. It is four or five. In analyzing this braysa, on the next amud, the setama degemara suggests that it is one action with five korchot.  Thus:

הני ד' וה' קריחות ה"ד אילימא בזה אחר זה ובחמש התראות פשיטא

אלא בחדא התראה מי מחייב והתנן נזיר שהיה שותה יין כל היום אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תשתה אל תשתה והוא שותה חייב על כל אחת ואחת 

 לא צריכא דסך חמש אצבעותיו נשא ואותבינהו בבת אחת דהויא ליה התראה לכל חדא וחדא

Thus, anointing his five fingers with Nasa and applying it at once, such that the previous single hatraah applies to each and every one of them, is a heicha timtza of applying the din discussed in the brayta. It is not something that needs to be darshened independently via the ketiv of the heh at the end of יקרחה. And four is equally a possibility as five. (Or six, if one used a tool to apply it.) Still, it is nice, in that we can read it as לֹֽא־יקרח ה קָרְחָה֙, you shall not make five bald patches.

Meanwhile, I see that this particular Minchas Shai has been discussed elsewhere:

What is the significance of the number five? At first glance, there would seem to be none. After all, the rule that one receives a new set of flagellations for each bald spot is independent of the total number, so long as there is a separation between each empty patch. Why then does the Torah seem to emphasize the importance of the number five? 

There is an argument between Rashi and Tosafos regarding whether, in order to receive multiple sets of lashes, one must make the bald spots all at once. Rashi explains the gemara’s law based on the idea that when all the acts are done simultaneously, we cannot say that the warning applies to any one of them, to the exclusion of the others. Therefore we apply it to all of them, and it is as though there were a separate warning for each act, in which case we have a general rule that each act is punished separately. 

Tosafos, however, hold that even if one were to make the bald spots consecutively, rather than simultaneously, he would be liable, so long as one does not pause too long in between each act. They base this on the “g’zeiras ha-kasuv”. 

According to our midrash, it seems to me that we have a specific emphasis on the number five. This seems to almost explicitly evoke the five-fingered application of depilatory powder described by the gemara, which of course is significant in that it allows for the patches to be created all at once. Thus it seems credible to suggest that the “g’zeras ha-kasuv” was made only in reference to the five-fingered case; when the bald spots are made consecutively, however, the Torah tells us nothing, and we revert to the normal rule that only one set of lashes is administered.

In other words, that this midrash is siding with Rashi over Tosafot. Perhaps. I would not put too much stock in it, especially not lehalaha. It is rather just post-Talmudic darshanim taking the heicha timtza suggested by the setama degemara and using it to account for the irregular ketiv. But the darshan would never think to replace the actual derasha as it appears in the brayta, with halachic ramifications.

Perhaps more Minchas Shai in a subsequent post.

Interesting Posts and Articles #312

1. A nice rendition of the William Tell Overture:
   
   .
2. Haveil Havalim #311. And 312. And 313. And 314. Yup, it has been a while since I've posted one of these roundups. I have had extremely spotty Internet access. Still having some issues, due to the rain, but I'll hopefully get back to everyone soon.
   .
3. At the Seforim blog, about the proper nusach of Hadran:

   Did the creator of this prayer, Rabbi Nehunia Ben HaKana, or anyone from Hazalrecite this verse? (If so, there would certainly be a a good reason for it.) A survey of the sources reveals a resounding: no. Not only does it not appear in Gemara Brachos 28b, but it does not appear in any of the known manuscripts, Rambam[2], or any of the many poskim rishonim that quote the prayer. Early versions of the Hadaran prayer do not include the verse either! See the attached photo of the early Venice and Soncino editions of the Talmud.[3] Nowhere. Gornisht.

4. At DovBear, Ten Questions for Dr. David Berger. For example:

   Do you eat Chabad shchita? I do not eat shechitah of Lubavitch shochtim unless I have reason to believe that the non-Chabad supervising agency is sufficiently concerned about the relevant issues that it is unlikely that the shochtim believe in the divinity of the Rebbe. I do not regard messianism alone as something that renders the meat unkosher bedieved (or, for the grammarians, be-di-avad). At the same time...

5. On the Main Line on Mei Raglayim.

   Getting back to urine - it is interesting to take note of the fact that apparently the idea that urine could even have been considered in the first place was considered shocking, so there are traditions which deny that mei reglayim, in this context, meant urine. Probably most famously there is the Kol Bo (#38), which says the following:

   
   

   

   
   

   Namely, "some say that mei raglayim come from a certain spring called Raglayim; it is not possible to say mei raglayim literally (i.e., urine) since God forbid that it should enter anyone's mind to include urine in the making of the incense." According to this interpretation, then, what was proposed was that water from a spring called Raglayim might have sufficed for the incense. Since "water from Raglayim" is the same word/ name as mei raglayim, i.e., urine, then it would be wrong to use an ingredient with the same name as urine. But urine itself? Come on, don't be ridiculous.

6. The Daily Daf, on Menachot, asks:

   So, it is only reasonable to ask – if the volume of a kometz, the amount contained under the middle three fingers when folded down unto the palm of the hand, is the size of 2 kezeitim, and twice the size of a kezayit, wouldn’t that make a kezayit pretty small?   I mean, wouldn’t that make a kezayit about the size of an olive?!  And then wouldn’t that mean that when it comes to mitzvot of eating – particularly the upcoming mitzvah of eatingmatzah – that even a pretty moderate amount would count as a kezayit?

   The obvious answer to these questions is yes – a kezayit is only the size of an actual olive. 

   He then links to Rabbi Natan Slifkin's article about the development of the size of the olive.
   .
7. Shirat Devorah on Speech Therapy, from the writings of the Ben Ish Chai.
   .
8. Divrei Chaim in favor of some level of dissembling in kiruv. Rabbi Nosson Slifkin, at Rationalist Judaism, against it. Perhaps related, I've often wondered if massive Modern Orthodox kiruv could be successful. It is hard to convey nuance, and often, that nuance is not as persuasive and exciting as many of the clear and straightforward messages found in more chareidi kiruv organizations. For example, one I remember from the Discovery seminar was a proof of the integrity of the masorah, such that there is only one difference between our Sifrei Torah and that of the Teimanim, for example. This would not stand up to critical examination by one versed, for example, in Minchas Shai. That there is now a standard text is due in large part to a regularization in line with the Rama's decisions. But otherwise, on every page in Minchas Shai, one finds many arguments in competing mesorot. And there is the famous midrash about the three Sifrei Torah found in the azara, where our modern Sifrei Torah are the ruling like the majority in each case, such that our Torot are not like any of them. Or instances, I've pointed out, in which Chazal darshen the Samaritan text rather than our own masoretic text. (For instance, here, here, and a followup to the last here and here.) Not to mention plenty of disputes in the trup. The truth is less encouraging / convincing. My sense is that in many of these cases, the presenters themselves are unaware of the nuance and the strong counter-arguments. Which is good, I suppose, in that they are not lying, but just presenting the exciting truth as they see it to be. Perhaps the next generation can become more modern Orthodox.
   .
9. Here on parshablog, why does Onkelos translate Yidoni as Zechuru?

YUTorah on parashat Emor

Audio Shiurim on Emor
Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik: The Definition of Purity and Impurity 
Rabbi Yaakov Neuburger: Sefiras Haomer - Transforming Din to Rachamim
Rabbi Dovid Miller: Completely Thanking Hashem
Rabbi Avishai David: Shlomis Bas Divri; The Power of a Mother 
Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg: Consistency in Avodas Hashem 
Rabbi Baruch Simon: The Rebbe/Talmid Connection 
Mrs. Nechama Price: The Mekalel 
Rabbi Chaim Brovender: HaMekalel: Cursing God 
Rabbi Hershel Reichman: The Four Kingdoms 
Rabbi Meir Goldwicht: The Centrality of Israel in Judaism 
Rabbi Michael Taubes: Collecting and Paying Ribbis for Tzedakah and Other Mitzvos 
Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein: The dual nature of kriyah and the lessons of kriah beshas chimum 
Rabbi Moshe Taragin: Dont Go Anywhere 
Rabbi Etan Moshe Berman: Is Sefiras HaOmer Today a Torah Law 
Rabbi Ally Ehrman: Humility 
Mrs. Shira Smiles: Embracing Holiness
Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky: Kedushas Kehuna 
Rabbi Avi Schneider: Who do you Idolize? 
Mrs Ilana Saks: Simply Sukkot
Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: Honor Thy Cohen 
Rabbi Eliezer Zwickler: A Marriage of Flesh and Blood
Rabbi Yaacov Thaler: The Lessons of Rabbi Akiva's Students
Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: Never Give Up On Torah! 
Rabbi Zvi Romm: Haftarat Emor - Kohanim in the Third Beis Hamikdash

Articles on Emor
Rabbi David Horwitz: The Various Aspects of Hag Ha-Shavuot
Dr. Shawn Zelig Aster: What Were the Ananei ha-Kavod?
Rabbi Shlomo Einhorn: My Issue Ain't Your Issue
Rabbi Shmuel Goldin: Why Do We Count?
Rabbi Beinish Ginsburg: The Special Status of the Kohen
Rabbi Meir Orlian: "Temimot" in Sefirat Ha'Omer 
Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: Kohanim and Death
Rabbi Ephraim Meth: Completion and Happiness
Rabbi Maury Grebenau: The Difference Between an Explanation and an Excuse
Rabbi Josh Hoffman: It's about Time
Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: Sefiras Ha-Omer - A Bridge from Past to Future
Rabbis Stanley M Wagner and Israel Drazin: Treating Blemishes That Disqualify Priests 

Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Emor
See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Kedoshim

New This Week	Minhagei Aveilus  During Sefirah   Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg	The Omer - Linking  Pesach and Shavuot   Rabbi Ari Kahn	Celebrating the Death of Osama bin Laden  Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz
Inyanei Eretz Yisroel  Rabbi Baruch Simon	Guardians of the Tradition: Champions of Change   Rabbi Nachman Cohen	The "Survival of the Jew"  Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky	Kiddush Hashem and Making a stand in  the name of God Rabbi Moshe Taragin
Attending Weddings During Sefirah  Rabbi Shmuel Marcus	Geula from out  of Hardships Rabbi Meir Goldwicht	Ahavas Eretz Yisrael Rabbi Aharon Kahn	Israel as Motherland  and Mother  Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner

Derech HaTeva is a publication of the Undergraduate students of Stern College for Women, on the interface of Torah and Science. The latest issue, volume 15, is out now on YUTorah.

Click here to view the archives