Cappadocia, and the Authenticity of the Zohar

Bumped to the top, so that people can comment without my prior approval. Rabbi Miller has recently visited parshablog, and while I have his attention, I was hoping that he would consider and answer to the points raised here.

Summary: More debunking of debunkings, from an article by Rabbi Moshe Miller. Was Kapotkia in Israel or in Asia Minor? Previous posts in this series discuss Rabbi Yesa and Rabbi Abba, as mentioned in the Zohar.

Post: Continuing the list of purported debunkings from this five-part article, we have this:

Scholem (and his student Tishby) cites 18 places in the Zohar where a place called Kapotkia is mentioned. Scholem argues that no such place ever existed in Israel, and it was never mentioned in Talmudic or Midrashic sources as a place in Israel, but rather as a province named Kappadokia in Asia Minor. Yet, "there is absolutely no doubt that the Zohar did not intend to refer to Kappadokia in Asia Minor but (correctly or incorrectly) to a village or town in the Land of Israel, close to Lod, as mentioned several times in the Zohar." (She'elot Bikoret, Tzion p. 43.) 

The obvious conclusion is that "the author had never so much as set foot in Palestine and that his knowledge of the country was derived entirely from literary sources which he misunderstood!" (She'elot Bikoret, Tzion, ibid.)

The following is a list of sources where the place Kapotkia appears - in Targum Onkelos, Targum Yonatan, Mishnah, Babylonian Talmud and several Midrashim! An examination of these sources reveals that none other than Scholem and Tishby were either ignorant of basic sources… or attempted to deliberately mislead their readers. 

Targum Onkelos to Devarim 2:23; Targum Yonatan to Amos 9:1 ("the Philistines from Kapotkia" - the land of the Philistines is in the Gaza Strip area, not very far from Lod); Mishnah Ketubot 13:10, 11; Shabbat 26a, 134a; Yevamot 25b, 121a; Ketubot 10a, 110b; Bava Batra 58b; Chulin 47b; Yerushalmi Yevamot 38a; Shir Hashirim Rabba 7:5; Kohelet Rabba 11:1; Tanchuma Va'era 13; ibid. BeHa'alotecha 1. 

Also: Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 38a tells about a trip from Casarea to Kapotkia (Caesarea was also in the Mediterranean coastal region. See #3 below).

Bolding, in this instance, is my own. An examination of these sources does NOT reveal Scholem and Tishby to be ignorant of basic sources. If we start looking through this list -- for this is what it is, a mere list -- we see support for Scholem and Tishby. Indeed, in such a way that either Rabbi Miller does not know how to learn, never bothered to carefully examine the sources, or is attempting to deliberately mislead his readers.

Let us begin with the Mishna in Ketubot 13:10, which we would find in Ketubot 110b. The relevant part of the Mishna reads:

IF A MAN MARRIED A WOMAN IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND DIVORCED HER IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL, HE MUST PAY HER [HER KETHUBAH] IN THE CURRENCY OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL. IF HE MARRIED A WOMAN IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND DIVORCED HER IN CAPPADOCIA HE MUST PAY HER [HER KETHUBAH] IN THE CURRENCY OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL.²¹  IF HE MARRIED A WOMAN IN CAPPADOCIA AND DIVORCED HER IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL, HE MUST A GAIN PAY [HER KETHUBAH] IN THE CURRENCY OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL.²¹  R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL, HOWEVER, RULED THAT HE MUST PAY HER IN THE CAPPADOCIAN CURRENCY.

IF A MAN MARRIED A WOMAN IN CAPPADOCIA AND DIVORCED HER IN CAPPADOCIA, HE MUST PAY HER [HER KETHUBAH] IN THE CURRENCY OF CAPPADOCIA.

That is, the Mishna is contrasting the land of Israel, and the currency of Israel, to that of Cappadocia. This would indicate that Cappadocia is not in the land of Israel!

The next source he cites to "prove" that Kapotkia is in Eretz Yisrael is Shabbat 26a:

[To turn to] the main text: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: One may not kindle [the Sabbath lamp] with balsam. And thus did R. Simeon b. Eleazar say: Balsam [zari] is merely the sap of resinous trees. R. Ishmael said: All that proceeds from trees, one may not light. R. Ishmael b. Berokah said: One may light only with the produce of fruit.¹¹  R. Tarfon said: One may light [the Sabbath lamp] with nought but olive oil. Thereupon R. Johanan b. Nuri rose to his feet and exclaimed, What shall the Babylonians do, who have only sesame oil? And what shall the Medeans do, who have only nut oil? And what shall the Alexandrians do, who have only radish oil? And what shall the people of Cappadocia¹²  do, who have neither the one nor the other, save naphtha?

There is certainly nothing here to indicate that that Cappadocia is in Eretz Yisrael. And indeed, Soncino puts a footnote there indicating that Cappadocia is a district in Asia Minor. And indeed, compare the list of nations and places -- the Babylonians, the Medeans, the Alexandrians, and the people of Cappadocia. Why should we suddenly take this as some town in Eretz Yisrael, given a context that indicates otherwise?

To add a further proof -- if Cappadocia is in Eretz Yisrael, why would they only have naphtha? Why can't they get the olive oil Rabbi Tarfon demands, and which is surely present in every other town in Eretz Yisrael. This is a proof against Rabbi Miller's position.

What in the world is Rabbi Miller doing with this list?! And to bring these sources to indicate that Scholem and Tishby were ignorant of basic sources! Yikes!

Rabbi Miller's next "proof" is from Yevamot daf 25b:

'I KILLED HIM' etc., 'WE KILLED HIM' … MAY MARRY etc. What is the practical difference between 'I killed him' and 'we killed him'?¹¹  — Rab Judah said: [Our Mishnah speaks of the case] where he said, 'I was present together with his murderers' — 12 Has it not, however, been taught: They said to R. Judah, 'It once happened that a robber when led out to his execution in the Cappadocian Pass¹³  said to those present,¹⁴  "Go and tell the wife of Simeon b. Kohen that I killed her husband when I entered Lud" [others Say: When he entered Lud], and his wife was permitted to marry again'!¹⁵  He answered them: Is there any proof from there? [It was a case] where he said, 'I was present together with his murderers'.¹²  But it was stated, 'a robber'! — He was apprehended on account of robbery.¹⁶  But it was stated, 'led out to his execution'! — [He was sentenced by] a heathen court of law who executed without due investigation.¹⁷ 

I suppose if one reads this gemara not so carefully, one could draw the conclusion that this Cappadocia is near Lud, and thus in Eretz Yisrael. But the Cappadocian Pass, or Ford, was only the place of execution. That does not mean that the murder took place in the same country!

His next proof is a mere mention of Cappadician coins. It is as if Rabbi Miller mistakenly believes that a mere mention of the place is enough to debunk that it is in Asia Minor! The gemara is Ketubot 10a:

We have [already] heard that R. Simeon the son of Gamaliel said that thekethubah is from the Bible, for we learnt: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: He²²  gives her²³  [the kethubah] in Cappadocian coins.²⁴

Which Soncino explains means as opposed to the coins of Eretz Yisrael. So does Rashi:

נותן לה ממעות קפוטקיא - בפרק בתרא תנן נשא אשה בא"י וגירשה בקפוטקיא נותן לה ממעות א"י שהן קלות נשא אשה בקפוטקיא וגירשה בא"י נותן לה ממעות א"י מנין הכתוב בכתובה דאזלינן לקולא רשבג"א נותן לה ממעות קפוטקיא שנשתעבד בהן כשאר מלוה דקסבר כתובה דאורייתא:

This isn't so surprising, since it is, after all, a mere reference to the Mishna we saw above.

His next source is Ketubot 110b. But that is the Mishna we saw above, just giving the daf it appears on in the Bavli. It is almost as if he is trying to increase the number of sources! I could have advised him to give the daf in the Yerushalmi where this Mishna appears as well, and he would have had a third source!

Next up, he cites Bava Batra 58b:

Over the gateway of Kaputkia²  there was an inscription, Anpak, anbag, antal.³  And what is an 'antal'?⁴  It is the same as the 'fourth part in Jewish ritual measurements.⁵

This is Cappadocia. So? What is there to indicate where this Kaputkia is?!

His next proof is from Chullin 47b:

רבי נתן אומר פעם אחת הלכתי לכרכי הים באתה אשה אחת לפני שמלה בנה ראשון ומת שני ומת שלישי הביאתו לפני ראיתיו שהיה אדום אמרתי לה בתי המתיני לו עד שיבלע בו דמו המתינה לו ומלה אותו וחיה והיו קורין אותו נתן הבבלי על שמי ושוב פעם אחת הלכתי למדינת קפוטקיא באתה אשה לפני שמלה בנה ראשון ומת שני ומת שלישי הביאתו לפני ראיתיו שהיה ירוק הצצתי בו ולא היה בו דם ברית אמרתי לה בתי המתיני לו עד שיפול בו דמו המתינה לו ומלה אותו וחיה והיו קורין אותו נתן הבבלי על שמי

What proof, besides that he encountered a Jewish woman there, is there that the medina of Cappadocia (rather than the sea towns) is in Eretz Yisrael?

The next source (which he lists twice) is Yerushalmi Yevamot 38b:

תני אמר רבי נתן מעשה שהלכתי לקיסרין של קפוטקייא והיתה שם אשה אחת והיתה יולדת זכרים והיו נימולים ומתים.  ומלת את הראשון ומת שני ומת שלישי ומת.  רביעי הביאתו לפני נסתכלתי בו ולא ראיתי בו דם ברית.  אמרתי להם הניחוהו לאחר זמן והניחוהו ומלוהו ונמצא בן קיימא והיו קורין אותו נתן בשמי.

But this is an identical story to the one that appears immediately above, from Chullin 47b, of Rabbi Natan's travel to the medina of Cappadocia, gives halachic advice to a woman, such that the baby is named Natan HaBavli after him!

But this time, at least, Rabbi Miller explains why he thinks this is a proof, more than the mere mention:

Also: Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 38a tells about a trip from Casarea to Kapotkia (Caesarea was also in the Mediterranean coastal region. See #3 below).

But the Yerushalmi does not tell "about a trip from Casarea to Kapotkia"! The words are מעשה שהלכתי לקיסרין של קפוטקייא, "there was an incident in which I traveled to Cesarea of Cappadocia"!

Apparently, Rabbi Miller is under the mistaken assumption that the Caesaria in Eretz Yisrael was the only one in the world. It is most assuredly NOT. To cite Wikipedia,

Caesarea, a city name derived from "Caesar", was the name of numerous cities and locations in the Roman Empire, many of which bear different names at present (or might have had alternate names also in the Roman period itself). Among them:

Caesarea Maritima/Caesarea Palaestina, Roman provincial capital of Palestine

• Eusebius of Caesarea was bishop of this Caesarea

Caesarea Philippi (Banias), in the Golan Heights

Caesarea Mazaca, city in Cappadocia, modern Kayseri, Turkey

Anazarbus, name of the city of Caesarea in Cilicia after the fall of the Roman Empire

Antioch, Pisidia, proper name of the city of Caesarea Antiochia, near modern Yalvaç, Turkey

Germanicopolis (Bithynia), the city of Caesarea Germanice in Bithynia

Cherchell, modern name of the city of Caesarea in Algeria

• This Caesarea was the capital of the province of Mauretania Caesariensis

Shaizar (or Saijar), the proper name of the city of Caesarea Magna, in Syria

The island of Caesarea, modern Jersey, in the Channel Islands (the derivation of the island's name is disputed)

Caesarea, in Italy, was a disappeared city, forming a Pentapolis with Ravenna, Forlì, Forlimpopoli and Classe

Thus, there is a Caesara in the medina of Cappadocia, and when Rabbi Natan said לקיסרין של קפוטקייא, it was a way of making sure you didn't confuse it, e.g., with the one in Eretz Yisrael. And Rabbi Miller has the chutzpa to call Scholem and Tishbi amaratzim?!

Rabbi Miller's next source is Shir Hashirim Rabba 7:5. But this is the same incident with Rabbi Natan, where it is refered to as the Medina of Cappadocia!

אמר רבי נתן:
מעשה שבאתי למדינת קפוטקיא והיתה שם אשה אחת והיתה יולדת בנים זכרים ונמולים ומתים. מלה ראשון ומת, שני ומת, שלישי ומת, רביעי הביאתו לפני וראיתי בשרו ירוק נסתכלתי בו ולא מצאתי בו דם ברית.
אמרו לי: מה אנו מולין אותו? 
אמרתי להם: המתינו והניחו אותו, עד שיבא לו דם ברית.
דתנינן תמן:
הקטן החולה אין מולין אותו עד שיבריא והניחו אותו.
מלו אותו ונמצא הבן של חיים והוציאו שמו נתן כשמי, הוי, כמו חלאים. 

Rabbi Miller's next source is Kohelet Rabba 11:1:

But this is Rabbi Akiva traveling at sea, seeing a ship sink, and then arriving at the medina, that is, country, of Cappadocia. Just as Rabbi Natan HaBavli!

Rabbi Miller's next "proof" is from the Midrash Tanchuma on parashat Vaera.

אמר רבי אליעזר:
כל צר חסר שבמקרא, במלכות אדום הכתוב מדבר, שהיא מצירה לישראל.
וכל צור מלא, בקפוטקייא הכתוב מדבר. מצרים לקו בדם, אף אדום כן. 

The point is in disambiguating the two Tyres, Tzor. When it is chaser, it refers to the one of the kingdom of Edom, while is malei, it refers to that of Cappadocia. But what is there to show that this refers to Eretz Yisrael? Indeed, one might well be able to demonstrate this one way or another, by examining every instance of Tzor spelled malei in Tanach, and seeing which makes sense in context. I won't bother, because there is no reason yet given by Rabbi Miller for thinking there was a Cappadocia in Eretz Yisrael!

His next "proof" is from Midrash Tanchuma on Behaalotecha, which is just another rehash of something already cited above. It is great how one can multiply these lists in this manner:

רבי טרפון אומר:

אין מדליקין אלא בשמן זית בלבד. 

עמד רבי יהודה על רגליו ואמר ליה לרבי טרפון:
מה יעשו אנשי מדי שאין להם אלא שמן אגוזים, מה יעשו אנשי אלכסנדריא שאין להם אלא שמן צנונות, ומה יעשו אנשי קפוטקיא שאין להם לא זה ולא זה? 

This is about what sort of oil one may use to light. As I demonstrates above, this is actually a proof against Rabbi Miller's position.

There was also the Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonatan. It has been a while since we've seen Rabbi Miller's words, so I'll give the relevant quote:

Targum Onkelos to Devarim 2:23; Targum Yonatan to Amos 9:1 ("the Philistines from Kapotkia" - the land of the Philistines is in the Gaza Strip area, not very far from Lod)

The pasuk in Devarim 2:23 reads:

כג  וְהָעַוִּים הַיֹּשְׁבִים בַּחֲצֵרִים, עַד-עַזָּה--כַּפְתֹּרִים הַיֹּצְאִים מִכַּפְתֹּר, הִשְׁמִידֻם וַיֵּשְׁבוּ תַחְתָּם.

23 and the Avvim, that dwelt in villages as far as Gaza, the Caphtorim, that came forth out of Caphtor, destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead.--

So Caphtorim came from Caphtor, destroyed the Avim who lived in Gaza, and dwelt in their stead. Did these Caphtorim come from nearby or from far away? To be determined. But Onkelos writes:

ב,כג וְהָעַוִּים הַיֹּשְׁבִים בַּחֲצֵרִים, עַד-עַזָּה--כַּפְתֹּרִים הַיֹּצְאִים מִכַּפְתֹּר, הִשְׁמִידֻם וַיֵּשְׁבוּ תַחְתָּם.

וְעַוָּאֵי דְּיָתְבִין בִּרְפִיחַ, עַד עַזָּה--קְפֻטְקָאֵי דִּנְפַקוּ מִקְּפֻטְקְיָא, שֵׁיצִיאוּנוּן וִיתִיבוּ בַּאֲתַרְהוֹן.

Thus, Caphtor = Keputkeya.

The pasuk in Amos reads:

א  רָאִיתִי אֶת-אֲדֹנָי נִצָּב עַל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וַיֹּאמֶר הַךְ הַכַּפְתּוֹר וְיִרְעֲשׁוּ הַסִּפִּים וּבְצַעַם בְּרֹאשׁ כֻּלָּם, וְאַחֲרִיתָם, בַּחֶרֶב אֶהֱרֹג:  לֹא-יָנוּס לָהֶם נָס, וְלֹא-יִמָּלֵט לָהֶם פָּלִיט.

1 I saw the Lord standing beside the altar; and He said: Smite the capitals, that the posts may shake; and break them in pieces on the head of all of them; and I will slay the residue of them with the sword; there shall not one of them flee away, and there shall not one of them escape.

where "smite the capitals" is smite the Kaphtor in Hebrew. The Targum takes this as a reference to the Kaphtorites, or at least the Plishtim who were initially in Kaphtor. I don't see it inside this Targum, but perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place. Maybe there is some other Targum of this pasuk somewhere.

So, where did they come from. Where is the Biblical Caphtor? Where did the Plishtim initially come from? Well, read this:

This fits with the idea that the Plishtim originated among the "sea peoples"

and read up on Caphtor:

"The Septuagint translates the name as "Kappadokias" and the Vulgate similarly renders it as "Cappadocia". The seventeenth-century scholar Samuel Bochart[5] understood this as a reference to Cappadocia in Anatolia but this was not the understanding of the Jewish targumists who rendered this name in Aramaic as "Caphutkia" meaning the town of Pelusium at the eastern edge of the Nile delta. This identification is also made by the tenth century commentator Saadia Gaon and Benjamin of Tudela, the twelfth-century Jewish traveller from Navarre, who both wrote that "Damiata" (Arabic Dumyat), the name for the region of Pelusium in their day, was the biblical Caphtor. "

So this is not the only source that puts it as Cappadocia. Either one of these Cappadocias -- meaning, even the one at Pelusium, is not in Eretz Yisrael. So why take this mere reference to the city or country as evidence that it is in Eretz Yisrael. Certainly others put Caphtor as Cappadocia and yet located this place outside of Eretz Yisrael.

What gets me upset about this piece is that it is written in such an erudite style that the reader is just astonished at how much the writer knows and how little Scholem and Tishby know. Hardly any reader will bother to look up the sources, and discover the truth. And that truth is that Scholem and Tishby likely looked up these very sources, and this was what led them to the conclusion that Kapotkia is not in Eretz Yisrael, but is in Asia Minor.

The copious errors in this article might give us insight into what misled Rav Moshe de Leon, or whoever the late author of the Zohar was. For example, he might have seen the Yerushalmi mention Ceasaria of Cappodocia, and thought that Caesaria is in Eretz Yisrael, though attributing such amaratzus to Rav Moshe de Leon seems unlikely. But he might have simply seen the Onkelos in parashat Devarim and assumed that the Philistines conquered from nearby. Or seen that Rabbi Akiva arrived in Kapodkia, and for some reason assumed that it is a place in Eretz Yisrael.

Archeih, and the Authenticity of the Zohar

Note: Bumped this rather old post (from 2/13/2011) to the top so that comments can go through without my explicit approval each time.

Summary: Continuing to debunk Rabbi Moshe Miller's debunkings. This time, based on the word ארחיה.  Here are some earlier posts responding to the article on the basis of Rabbi Yesa, Rabbi Abba, Cappadocia, and Kefar Kanya, as mentioned in the Zohar.

Post: Rabbi Moshe Miller wrote a seemingly erudite article debunking many proofs of late authorship of the Zohar. But when we actually look up the sources, we see that he is either incapable of understanding peshat in a gemara or else is deliberately misleading his readers.

Here is  what Rabbi Miller writes:

The claim is that Hebrew expressions first used in medieval times were used by the author of the Zohar, showing that it must have been compiled by someone [i.e., Moshe de Leon] during this era. As demonstrated below, many of these expressions are also found in early sources, contrary to the skeptics' claims.

Demonstrate away!

Archeiha, meaning "manner" or "way" found many times in Zohar. Also found in Niddah 20b. This is also written many times as orcheiha in Zohar and in Shabbat 11b, 123b, Eruvin 42a, 68a; Rosh HaShanah 15a; Ketuvot 31b, etc., etc.

(It seems that Rabbi Miller does not know the correct nikkud for this Aramaic word.) So, if we look at Niddah 20b, will we find the word archeiha, or rather archeih, meaning "manner" or "way"? This is the gemara in Niddah:

דההיא אתתא דאייתא דמא לקמיה דרבי אלעזר הוה יתיב רבי אמי קמיה ארחיה אמר לה האי דם חימוד הוא בתר דנפקה אטפל לה רבי אמי א"ל בעלי היה בדרך וחמדתיו קרי עליה (תהלים כה, יד) סוד ה' ליראיו אפרא הורמיז אמיה דשבור מלכא שדרה דמא לקמיה דרבא הוה יתיב רב עובדיה קמיה ארחיה אמר לה האי דם חימוד הוא

So the word appears. But what does it mean?

Because a woman once brought some blood before R. Eleazar when R. Ammi sat in his presence. Having smelt it he⁶  told her, 'This is blood of lust'.⁷  After she went out R. Ammi joined her and she told him, 'My husband was away on a journey but I felt an intense longing for him'. Thereupon he⁸  applied to him⁶  the text, The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear Him.⁹

Ifra Hormiz,¹⁰  the mother of King Shapur, once sent some blood to Raba when R. Obadiah was sitting in his presence. Having smelt it he said to him, 'This is blood of lust'.⁷ 

This is NOT the word orach, as a translation of the word derech! Rather, it would appear to be based on the word re'ach, smell.

What about the other examples? It seems that Rabbi Miller has changed the goalposts. He is inserting a vav into the word, to make it urcheih. Is this part of the original claim? I would guess not, and that the point was that in the Zohar, all these times, it says archeih instead of urcheih.

But the word with a vav indeed appears in Shabbat 11b:

א"ל אביי אימור דשמעת ליה לרבי מאיר במידי דלאו היינו אורחיה במידי דהיינו אורחיה מי שמעת ליה

Or, in English:

Abaye said to him. When have you heard R. Meir [to give this ruling], in respect to something which it is not natural [to carry thus]; but have you heard him in respect to something which demands that mode [of carrying]?

Thus, his normal way or manner of carrying. I won't bother investigating these other cases, because I agree that orcheih / urcheih would mean that. But this does not seem to match the argument put forth by the Zohar skeptics.

Of course, he could simply claim that all these chaser vav examples are scribal errors, or that the word is similar enough that it would have existed in all these forms. Whether one finds this plausible is another story, but regardless, he hasn't uprooted the question posed by these scholars.

Teva, and the Authenticity of the Zohar

Summary: Is the use of teva to refer to nature unique to Zohar, or is there precedent in the Talmud Bavli? Continuing to debunk the debunking of the debunking of the Zohar. Here are some earlier posts responding to the article on the basis of Rabbi Yesa, Rabbi Abba, Cappadocia, Kefar Kanya, Archeih, Yellow, and Guardians, as mentioned in the Zohar.

Post: To continue analyzing Rabbi Moshe Miller's attack of the analysis of the Zohar's language by Jewish scholars, we turn to consider what he says about the word tava. 


To cite from his article,

The claim is that Hebrew expressions first used in medieval times were used by the author of the Zohar, showing that it must have been compiled by someone [i.e., Moshe de Leon] during this era. As demonstrated below, many of these expressions are also found in early sources, contrary to the skeptics' claims.

But what does he mean by "found in early sources"? Let us say that some text X uses bulb to mean light bulb. This would indicate that it was written fairly late, after the invention of light bulbs. If I show that an early text uses bulb to refer to tulip bulbs or garlic bulbs, this other usage does not demonstrate that bulb has early use and thus text X can similarly be early. This, even if light bulbs were not a fairly recent invention, but even if the application of this lexical item to an existing concept was not in use until recently. This was the case for "yellow", as we saw earlier.

Here is another example. Rabbi Moshe Miller writes:

Tava (Zohar Chadash, Midrash HaNeelam maamar Tadshe 2) in the sense of "Nature." But this is also obviously the sense of Mishna Sanhedrin 4:5 ("HaKadosh Barchu tava kol adam b'chotmo"). See also Niddah 20b ("Tava d'bavel garma li"); several more occurrences of the word are found on that same page.

Consider that Mishna in Sanhedrin. It appears in Sanhedrin 37a. (Hebrew; English) The Mishna reads:

ולהגיד גדולתו של הקב"ה שאדם טובע כמה מטבעות בחותם אחד כולן דומין זה לזה ומלך מלכי המלכים הקב"ה טבע כל אדם בחותמו של אדם הראשון ואין אחד מהן דומה לחבירו לפיכך כל אחד ואחד חייב לומר בשבילי נברא העולם

IF A MAN STRIKES MANY COINS FROM ONE MOULD, THEY ALL RESEMBLE ONE ANOTHER, BUT THE SUPREME KING OF KINGS,⁴²  THE HOLY ONE, BLESSED BE HE, FASHIONED EVERY MAN IN THE STAMP OF THE FIRST MAN, AND YET NOT ONE OF THEM RESEMBLES HIS FELLOW. THEREFORE EVERY SINGLE PERSON IS OBLIGED TO SAY: THE WORLD WAS CREATED FOR MY SAKE.⁴³

But tava there comes in context of matbei'a. Consider the expression matbaya shetavu bo Chachamim. This appears in Yerushalmi Berachot, 62b:

אמרו לו אין לך רשות להוסיף על מטבע שטבעו חכמים בברכות

'Coining', whether by blessings or body and facial structure, is being used as a metaphor. This does not mean that Nature is the meaning of the word טבע, in the time of Chazal.

Yet this is the closest Rabbi Miller gets to his desired meaning. Yes, he wrote that:

 See also Niddah 20b ("Tava d'bavel garma li"); several more occurrences of the word are found on that same page.

with the implication that 'Nature' is the meaning of those several more occurrences. If we actually examine them, we find:

אמר רבי זירא טבעא דבבל גרמא לי דלא חזאי דמא דאמינא בטבעא לא ידענא בדמא ידענא למימרא דבטבעא תליא מלתא והא רבה הוא דידע בטבעא ולא ידע בדמא כל שכן קאמר ומה רבה דידע בטבעא לא חזא דמא ואנא אחזי

Or, in English:

R. Zera remarked: The Babylonian coinage was the cause of my refusing to examine blood; for I thought: If I do not understand the coinage system would I understand the nature of blood? This then implies that capability to examine blood depends on an understanding of the coinage; but did not Rabbah in fact understand the coinage system and yet did not understand the qualities of blood? — He was really drawing an inference a minori ad majus: If Rabbah who understood the coinage system refused to examine blood, should I²  examine it?

Thus, it means its meaning we already knew, "coin" or "coinage". Why does Rabbi Moshe Miller think this makes for good proof?!

Bo: Rashi's choice of midrashim

I am short on time this week, but I answered a question on Mi Yodea about Rashi's choice of midrashim in parashat Bo. I will reprint the question and my answer here.

The question:

Why does Rashi on Shmos 12 (41) not quote the Sifrei which he does quote on Devorim 32 (48)?

In relation to the words בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה and the Exodus from Egypt, the Sifrei there says,

“Scripture states, “On that very day, the Lord brought [the children of Israel] out [of the land of Egypt]” (Exod. 12:51). The Egyptians said: “We swear by such and such, that if we notice them about to leave, we will stop them! And not only that, but we will take swords and other weapons, and kill them!” So, the Holy One, Blessed is He, said: “I will bring them out in the middle of the day, and let anyone who has power to prevent it, come and prevent it!”

This would seem to be a relevant quote on Shmos 12 (41).

My answer:

Rashi on Chumash channels midrashic works, selecting those midrashim that fit his stated criteria and reworking them to form a commentary.

Rashi has favored midrashim on different chumashim.

On sefer Shemot, he channels the Mechilta, which is a midrash composed on Shemot. Indeed,follow your link to Shemot 12 and see how many of his sources are from the Mechilta. This forms the main body of his commentary, will only occasional digressions to bring in salient points from other sources.

On sefer Devarim, he channels the Sifrei, which is a midrash composed on Devarim. Indeed, follow your link to Devarim 32 and see how many of his sources are from the Sifrei. This forms the main body of his commentary, will only occasional digressions to bring in salient points from other sources.

The citation from the Sifrei in question reads:

וידבר ה' אל משה בעצם היום הזה: בשלשה מקומות נאמר בעצם היום הזה, נאמר בנח (שם ז, יג) בעצם היום הזה בא נח וגו', במראית אורו של יום, לפי שהיו בני דורו אומרים בכך וכך אם אנו מרגישין בו אין אנו מניחין אותו ליכנס בתיבה, ולא עוד אלא אנו נוטלין כשילין וקרדומות ומבקעין את התיבה. אמר הקב"ה הריני מכניסו בחצי היום, וכל מי שיש בידו כח למחות יבא וימחה. במצרים נאמר (שמות יב, נא) בעצם היום הזה הוציא ה', לפי שהיו מצרים אומרים בכך וכך אם אנו מרגישין בהם אין אנו מניחים אותם לצאת, ולא עוד אלא אנו נוטלין סייפות וכלי זיין והורגין בהם. אמר הקב"ה הריני מוציאן בחצי היום וכל מי שיש בו כח למחות יבא וימחה. אף כאן במיתתו של משה נאמר בעצם היום הזה, לפי שהיו ישראל אומרים בכך וכך אם אנו מרגישין בו אין אנו מניחין אותו, אדם שהוציאנו ממצרים וקרע לנו את הים והוריד לנו את המן והגיז לנו את השליו והעלה לנו את הבאר ונתן לנו את התורה אין אנו מניחין אותו. אמר הקב"ה הריני מכניסו בחצי היום וכו':

And the Lord spoke to Moses on that very day: Heb. בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה. In three places Scripture employs the phrase: בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה [which has the meaning, “at the strongest light of the day”]. First, regarding Noah, Scripture states,“On that very day (בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה) Noah entered [… the ark]” (Gen. 7:13), which means in the glare of full daylight. Noah’s contemporaries said: “We swear by such and such, that if we notice him about to enter the ark, we will not let him proceed! Moreover, we will take axes and hatchets and split open the ark!” So the Holy One, Blessed is He, said: “I will have Noah enter at midday, and let anyone who has the power to prevent it, come and prevent it!” Second, regarding Egypt, Scripture states, “On that very day, the Lord brought [the children of Israel] out [of the land of Egypt]” (Exod. 12:51). The Egyptians said: “We swear by such and such, that if we notice them about to leave, we will stop them! And not only that, but we will take swords and other weapons, and kill them!” So, the Holy One, Blessed is He, said: “I will bring them out in the middle of the day, and let anyone who has power to prevent it, come and prevent it!” Likewise here, regarding Moses’ death, Scripture states,“on that very day (בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה) .” The children of Israel said, “We swear by such and such, that if we notice Moses [ascending the mountain to die], we will not let him do so! The man who brought us out of Egypt, divided the Red Sea for us, brought the manna down for us, made flocks of quails fly over to us, brought up the well for us, and gave us the Torah-we will not let him!” Thereupon, the Holy One, Blessed is He, said: “I will have Moses ascend the mountain [to his resting place] in the middle of the day!” - [Sifrei 32:47]

It appears in Sifrei on this verse at the end of Haazinu (in Sefer Devarim), but serves to analyze three pesukim throughout Torah which contain this phrase -- one in parashat Noach (sefer Bereishit), one in Bo (sefer Shemot), and one in Haazinu. And Rashi cites the local midrash on the local verse.

Meanwhile, in parashat Bo in Shemot, Rashi cites from his go-to midrash for Sefer Shemot, the Mechilta, and writes:

ויהי מקץ שלשים שנה וגו' ויהי בעצם היום הזה: מגיד שכיון שהגיע הקץ לא עכבן המקום כהרף עין, בחמישה עשר בניסן באו מלאכי השרת אצל אברהם לבשרו, בחמישה עשר בניסן נולד יצחק, ובחמישה עשר בניסן נגזרה גזירת בין הבתרים:

It came to pass at the end of four hundred and thirty years, and it came to pass in that very day: [This] tells [us] that as soon as the end [of this period] arrived, the Omnipresent did not keep them [even] as long as the blink of an eye. On the fifteenth of Nissan, the angels came to Abraham to bring him tidings. On the fifteenth of Nissan Isaac was born; on the fifteenth of Nissan the decree of “between the parts” was decreed. — [from Mechilta]

To restate your question with this new information, you are asking why, if Rashi finds the midrash in the Sifrei relevant to Devarim, and that Sifrei is also commentary on the pasuk in parashat Bo, then why does Rashi in parashat Bo not make use of the same midrash and the same explanation of the phrase?

And, I think the answer is that Rashi does not see the need to be consistent and always proffer the same consistent explanation across Tanach. Rather, his aim is to present a midrashically grounded traditional approach that explains salient points of the text, and particularly those which address issues of peshat or make sense of irregular phrases in a way that works well in the overarching context. In order to do this, he reworks classical works of midrash.

Here, local to parashat Bo, he already had a midrash from the Mechilta which addressed the phrase בעצם היום הזה, and one which fit into his framework of other midrashim from the Mechilta. He therefore had no need to look for a non-local midrash to explain the phrase. This even though he used that non-local midrash elsewhere, in a place where it was, in turn, local.

Note: I think the above answer is correct and answers not just this question but a plethora of other questions. However, an interesting related question is why, in parashat Noach, Rashi turned to this Sifrei and not to the parallel midrash (with the same idea as presented in the Sifrei) from Bereishit Rabba:

בעצם היום הזה בא נח אמר רבי יוחנן, אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא: אם נכנס נח לתיבה בלילה, עכשיו יהיו כל דורו אומרים כך: לא היינו יודעים בו, ואלו היינו יודעים בו, לא היינו מניחין אותו ליכנס! אלא בעצם היום הזה בא נח, דרגיש ליה ימלל.

Posts so far for parshat Vaera

Jan 2015

1. Some Samaritan emendations from the beginning of Vaera. And brief analysis of the nature of these emendations.

2. Crocodile bile. Drawn from the news, we find a matching belief from the time of Rabbenu Bachya.

Dec 2013 - Jan 2014

1. *Now* you will see. Why the emphasis on the word now? A midrash, now as opposed to later. That midrash also speaks about the war against the 31 kings. Why?

2. Could Pharaoh have simply let them go? No, because this was Hashem's plan all along. Until this point, Hashem was "merely" the Creator. This creative act wasn't witnessed by anyone, and it seems plausible that various nations could even attribute this feat to their own local deity. For example, Marduk slaying Tiamat and making from her ribs the vault of heaven and earth.

By waging war of Egypt and all its imaginary deities (ובכל אלהי מצרים אעשה שפטים) Hashem is taking concrete action in the world and displaying His יָד חֲזָקָה. Of course He could do these mighty acts, and indeed these mighty acts are beneath him, because He could just cause the Egyptians to blink out of existence if He so willed it. But all this Divine power was just in potential, not brought into being.
3. Why we don't know Yocheved's mother's name. Perhaps because the author of the editorial insertion would not dare to insert into the Torah information he could not derive from another pasuk.



Jan 2012

1. Vaera sources -- further expanded
   .
2. Darshening psiks in Vaera --  Or should that be munach legarmeihs? Two such vertical bars, and a distinction to be made between Moshe's description of what would be (Moshe hitting the water) and what was (Aharon hitting the water).
   .
3. YUTorah on parashat Vaera. As well as for Jan 2013.
   .
4. Should we translate כָּבֵד as אִתְיַקַּר or יַקִּיר, in Onkelos?  Some printers follow Rashi's emendation. But did he intend it as an emendation, or was he arguing with Onkelos?
   .
5. A Staff swallowing staffs, or a snake swallowing snakes?  A tradition like the peshat, that the snake swallowed snakes. Should we then reinterpret Rashi against what he says fairly plainly? No.
   .
6. Is marrying two sisters intrinsically or extrinsically obnoxious? We consider the perspective of Rashi (intrinsically), Ibn Ezra (based on the land), and Ibn Caspi (who rejects Ibn Ezra and gives a rationalist reason for the prohibition). I suggest that it is extrinsically bad, based on intent and social mores.

Dec 2010 - Jan 2011

1. When did the Bnei Yisrael say חֲדַל מִמֶּנּוּ? It makes sense, chronologically, that it would fall somewhere in Va'era. I explore some approaches which are open and closed canon to varying degrees.
   .
2. Va'era sources -- further expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
   .
3. Moshe makes a kal vachomer -- Considering the ten kal vachomers in the Torah (really, Tanach).
   .
4. Did Levi outlive Ephraim? This is unlikely. Rashi's mention of shevatim who died is perhaps imprecise -- he means Yosef's brothers, which would not include Ephraim and Menashe.
   .
5. Yocheved His Aunt, and the Length of the Servitude -- If Yocheved was literally Amram's aunt, it is difficult to make the servitude 210 years, and even more, 400 years. Relax this and you have more leeway. Rav Saadia Gaon and the Targum Hashiv'im give us this leeway.
   .
6. Who said 'I am the LORD'?  A silly change in Divine appellation, by Samaritan scribes, at the start of Vaera.
   .
7. Moshe, and Yonah's, reluctance --  A cute vort from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz, reinterpreting the kal vachomer.
   .
8. How did the chartumim turn water to blood?  One possible suggestion, based on Shadal's approach. Plus, is magic real in general.
   .
9. The abomination of Egypt?   If so, how could Moshe Rabbenu say this to Pharaoh?
   .
10. A liver is the heart of Pharaoh --  So goes a midrash or two. What this may indicate in terms of whether Chazal literally saw the heart as the seat of the intellect.
    .
11. Rabbenu Bachya, Locusts, and Crocodiles --  Rabbenu Bachya has two fascinating explanations of pesukim regarding the makkos, and Moshe's removal of them. Unfortunately, at least one of them is demonstrably false.
    .
12. What was Arov?  Wild beasts, or vicious flies. What do Jewish sources say?
    .
13. What is meant by leimor in Vayikra 1:1? Zehu midrasho --  Further, does Rashi intend this as peshat or derash?
    .
14. One big frog -- did derash become peshat?   Just because Rashi lists one giant frog as derash and 'frog' as collective noun does not mean that he did not think both were historically true.

January 2010

1. Is the derivation of Putiel's name knowable? Can we know the derivation of the name Putiel? A four-way machlokes between Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Caspi, and Shadal reveals something about their methodology, and their approach to peshat..
2. Vaera sources - links to over 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftara.
   .
3. Was Pharaoh's heart hard, or did it become hard? Evaluating Rashi's emendation of Onkelos, from an itpa'el verb to an adjective, on the basis of the dikduk of the Hebrew word being translated.
   .
4. Getting Pharaoh to play ball -- What was Pharaoh doing at the bank of the Nile? Ibn Caspi visits Egypt, and emerges with some realia with which to understand the Biblical narrative. Also, a difference between peshat and derash..
5. Dodato as female first cousin -- An alternative way of translating dodato, from Rav Saadia Gaon and in the Septuagint, which eliminates a strong chronological difficulty in Yocheved and Moshe's birth.
   .
6. Spontaneous generation of frogs and lice -- Ibn Caspi, a Rishon, explains the workings of two of the plagues based on the scientific workings of spontaneous generation. This should be taken as additional evidence that Rishonim can be wrong in matters of science.
   .
7. How do we count the 430 years? Assuming we take the 430 years in Egypt literally how do we reckon it? Also, how the Samaritan Torah differs, and whether this is persuasive.
   .
8. Egyptian magic and barley seeds -- A short response to a DovBear post on Chumash, alas in error.
   .
9. Was Pinchas descended from Yisro or Yosef?  Or both? Should we indeed follow the gemara's harmonization? A study in Rashi, and in approaches to midrash aggada.

2009

1. Vaera sources -- links by aliyah and perek to a mikraos gedolos, and a whole slew of links to meforshim on the parashah and haftarah.
   .
2. 430 years or 210 years? -- and how Shadal feels compelled to say it was 430 years, and explains how the generations of Levi, Kehat, and Amram, span that time.
   .
3. Did the Egyptians dig, or did they dig for water? A minor difference which may manifest itself at the level of trup.

2008

1. Executing judgments against the gods of Egypt, or making use of the gods of Egypt in executing judgment.
   .
2. Were the ten plagues natural? An explanation of Shadal's take on the matter, which I decided to present in partial response to a complaint about a 2007 post about how the Egyptian magicians created frogs.
   .
3. How did one frog become many? An exploration of the themes in the midrashim.

2007

• Hashem's Great Pinky -- The meaning of the idiom "Etzba Elohim"
  .
• An Interesting Etymological Connection -- between French and Frogs
  .
• How Did The Egyptian Magicians Create Frogs? An interesting rationalist approach from Shadal, and one which just happens to work according to modern science. Plus, some good comments.
  .
• "And In You And In Your People" -- Hyperliteralism and Anagram -- What textual basis for the frogs going into people's intestines and croaking?
  .
• Ve'alu: Ascend or Upon? Two different parsings, and interpretations, of what the frogs did.

2006

• Did The Avot Not Know Shem Hashem?
• Yet many times through Bereishit the Shem YKVK is mentioned. There are all sorts of possible answers -- Moshe changed it after the fact, editorially, the Documentary Hypothesis solution, grammatical distrinctions, nodati vs. hodati, etc. In this post, I focus on names not just being names, but carrying very specific implications -- something we get a sense of from the text itself (and which Rashi mentions as well).
  Finally, two of my favorite dealings with this issue, from Tg Yonatan and Rashbam, in how they manage to reparse the pasuk. (And I always like reparsings.)

2005

• Spitting blood and whistling frogs: the tzadi - quf switchoff (2005)
• Two midrashim which I argue stem from a linguistic tzaddi -- quf switchoff. Thus, yishretzu becomes yishrequ, whistled, and thus the frog whisted in the process of yishretzu. Second, eretz mitzrayim becomes roq mitzrayim, and thus even their spittle turns to blood. More details in the post.
• Pharaoh's multivalent dreams (2005)
• Another way of interpreting Pharaoh's dreams -- as a fall from power, which finds fulfillment in this week's parsha.
• Why couldn't the magicians create lice? (2005)
• Daat Zekenim has an amusing answer. Just as we know by the story with Shimon ben Shetach and the witches, witchcarft draws power from the earth, but the plague had turned all the earth to lice!
• Ganymedes Copies Military Tactic From Hashem (2005)
• Depriving the Egyptians of their water supply. And Caesar responds the same way the Egyptians of old did, according to one way of reading the pesukim, and that they managed to circumvent the makkat dam.

2004

• All's Well That Ends Well (2004)
• Were the Egyptians successful in their attempt to get water by digging around the river? Or did these wells also produce blood? Targum Yonatan's textual insertion. Ibn Ezra's take, against Chazal, that they were indeed successful, and the ever-frum Avi Ezer's reaction to this (that it was a mistaken student, and not, chas veshalom, Ibn Ezra who wrote this). Plus, a connection to Yitzchak's wells, a homiletic lesson we may draw, and a joke.
• Why was Pharoah in de Nile? (2004)
• The textual source for Pharoah using the Nile as his bathroom. And a new reason -- to do magic on it. And how this fits in with the narrative. Both from Tg Yonatan.

to be continued...

Crocodile bile

In the news recently was the tragic tale of many people killed of hospitalized because of accidental consumption of crocodile bile in beer served after a funeral.

To cite the article in Forbes:

Crocodile bile is literally the digestive juice from the gall bladders of the Nile crocodile, Crocodylus niloticus. Its use traces back to witchcraft accusations in 1899, according to Professor N.Z. Nyazema, in the Department of Clinical Pharmacology at the University of Zimbabwe, writing in the Central African Journal of Medicine in 1984 and 1985. The university, in Harare, is about 300 miles southwest across the Mozambique border from where the poisonings occurred.

Bile contains detergent molecules, called bile salts or bile acids, that animals use to dissolve or emulsify fats. They also bind to hormone receptors that regulate their own production. But more simply, bile salts or bile acids could conceivably be quite toxic in very high concentrations, as would any strong detergent. However, this isn’t consistent with the amounts allegedly used in traditional poisoning cases.

Professor Nyzema explains,

It is widely believed that the bile from the gall bladder of a crocodile is very poisonous. The bile nduru is used as poison which is added to beer or stiff porridge, sadza, of an unsuspecting victim. It is not easy to buy this poison neither is it easy for anyone to kill a crocodile solely for the purpose of obtaining the bile. But with a good fee one can obtain some of the poison from a special n’anga [a traditional healer of the Zimbabwean Shona tribe]. At times the n’anga may undertake to poison the victim thus adding mystery to the ingredients of the poison. It is reported that the poisoning occurs at special occasions like beer drinking: The nduru is said to be introduced into the beer by dipping the finger or nail where a small amount is placed: This will suffice for the purpose. The unfortunate victim is supposed to die within 24 hours. The poison is supposed to manifest itself when the patient develops pains mainly in the abdomen. 

However, as the article discusses, there is not enough poison in the crocodile bile itself to kill or even injure. Rather, it seems that it is one of the other ingredients in the crocodile bile concoction that kills.

I would note that many centuries ago, Egyptian doctors were writing about crocodile poison which can can injure someone who touches it even after the crocodile's death. As I discuss here, Rabbenu Bachya on parshat Vaera (who asserts that tzrafdea are crocodiles) cited these doctors and reported this as fact. I fixed up this quote from the Revach site's translation.

"Even to this day... there is an animal called an 'Altimasa' or crocodile that lives in the Nilus. Every now and then it will come out and swallow two or three people in one shot. It cannot be killed with spears or arrows unless it is struck in its stomach. It has a poison that can harm people who touch it even after it is already dead. 

Rabbenu Bachya does not say that the poison is on its body, just that it has a poison which can injure someone who touches the crocodile after death. So this might be a reference to the same.

Some Samaritan emendations from the beginning of Vaera

Here is a snip of Vetus Testamentum, from the beginning of parashat Vaera. The Samaritan text is to the left and the Masoretic text is to the right. Dashes mean no change and asterisks mean that the text is missing.

1) The first interesting change is from עתה (now you will see) to אתה (you will see). Perhaps this fluidity reflects how the gutturals ayin and aleph were pronounced, or not pronounced.

2) The next is that instead of the Masoretic Elokim, they have YKVK. On the surface, this makes more sense, since later in the verse God says "Ani YKVK". Furthermore, see how one pasuk earlier (Shemot 6:1), it is "YKVK spoke", not Elokim spoke. If we join pasuk 1 with pasuk 2, then the shift in Divine name is somewhat jarring. The Christian division is to join pasuk 1 with pasuk 2, which is why perek 6 begins with pasuk 1. Meanwhile, the Jewish division is to join pasuk 6:1 with what came before, at the end of perek 5. Perek 5 ends with YKVK speaking. And then, after 6:1, there is a setuma break, as well as a sidra break.

I wrote about this change elsewhere, suggesting this is deliberate transition, and that the Samaritan change is one of harmonization.

3) Instead of ובשפטים, the more common ובמשפטים.

4) The Samaritans insert a non-existent pasuk here, to have the Israelites say somewhere it would be relevant, חדל נא ממנו. The impetus for this is that the Israelites at the Reed Sea say, in Shemot 14:12:

יב  הֲלֹא-זֶה הַדָּבָר, אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְנוּ אֵלֶיךָ בְמִצְרַיִם לֵאמֹר, חֲדַל מִמֶּנּוּ, וְנַעַבְדָה אֶת-מִצְרָיִם:  כִּי טוֹב לָנוּ עֲבֹד אֶת-מִצְרַיִם, מִמֻּתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר.

12 Is not this the word that we spoke unto thee in Egypt, saying: Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For it were better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness.'

Rather than assuming that this was something they said, but just hadn't been explicitly mentioned earlier (an open-canon approach) or that the text had summarized this very reaction in Shemot 6:9 ('And Moses spoke so unto the children of Israel; but they hearkened not unto Moses for impatience of spirit, and for cruel bondage'), the Samaritans just insert this quote in its logical place, between 6:9 and 6:10. See also here, where I discuss what meforshim say in greater detail.