The Significance of the Miracle of Chanukkah

First things first. I erred in my previous post, and retracted it quickly, but if you happened upon it in the few minutes it was up, know it was incorrect.

On the the substance of this post. I should preface this with a reminder that I generally dislike homiletics, but in this case I am writing this because in this case I think there is a good chance it is true.

The famous miracle of Chanukkah (there are others) is ... well, why not see it inside, where the Gemara in Shabbat daf 21 cites Megillat Taanit:

מאי חנוכה, דתנו רבנן, בכ"ה בכסליו יומי דחנוכה תמניא אינון, דלא למספד בהון ודלא להתענות בהון (מגילת תענית, משנה כ"ג). שנכנסו יוונים להיכל, טימאו כל השמנים שבהיכל וכשגברה מלכות בית חשמונאי ונצחום,בדקו ולא מצאו אלא פך אחד של שמן, שהיה מונח בחותמו של כהן גדול, ולא היה בו אלא להדליק יום אחד.נעשה בו נס, והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים. לשנה אחרת קבעום ועשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודאה".

A good-enough translation, taken from this webpage at OU:

"What is Chanukah? The Rabbis have expounded: Beginning with the 25th of Kislev, eight days of Chanukah are observed, during which no eulogies are delivered, nor is fasting permitted. For when the Greeks entered the Sanctuary, they defiled all the oils (used for the Menorah) in the temple, and when the Hasmonean house prevailed and vanquished them, they searched and found only one remaining jar of oil with the Kohen Gadol's seal. Although it contained only enough oil to burn for one day, a miracle occurred, and the oil burned for eight days. A year later they (the Rabbis) designated these days as Yamim Tovim (holidays) on which praise and thanksgiving were to be said."

One famous question is: why the need for undefiled oil? After all, tume`a hutera betzibbur, ritual impurity is permitted in the Temple when the community as a whole is impure. So they could have used the oil, even if it was defiled.

I would suggest the following: What is the significance of the oil, and the miracle of the oil, such that this deserves to be the basis for establishing the chag?

Well, as we say in Mishlei 20:27:

כז נֵר ה, נִשְׁמַת אָדָם; חֹפֵשׂ, כָּל-חַדְרֵי-בָטֶן.

27 The spirit of man is the lamp of the LORD, searching all the inward parts.

and so we can take the oil as referring to the neshamot of klal Yisrael. The Chashmonaim wished to maintain Jewish practice and beliefs unadulterated by Hellenism, but the Syrian Greeks defiled all the holy oils in the Temple - they defiled Jewish belief and practice by influencing it with Hellenism. Except they found one remaining jar of oil with the Kohen Gadol's seal. Since the seal was still on it, they knew it had not been opened and thus not defiled. What is this jar of pure oil, with the seal of the Kohen Gadol? This is Yochanan Kohen Gadol, his son Mattisyahu, and his sons (and their followers), whose neshamot, oils, had not been defiled by Hellenic influence.

Lighting the menorah in the Temple is keeping true to authentic Judaism and thus using one's oil to serve Hashem.

However, as we know, the Chashmonaim were few, compared with the Syrian Greeks and compared with their Hellenized fellow Jews. They should not have been able to prevail, to win the physical war, or the spiritual war for the soul of Judaism. Their oil was insufficient. It should have been able to burn for only one day. Yet the miracle of Chanukkah is the victory of rabbim beyad me'atim, teme`im beyad tehorim, reshaim beyad tzaddikim, zeidim beyad oskei toratecha. And so it burned eight days, long enough to get a resupply of pure oil, and to ensure the continuity of authentic Jewish practice.

Now, two important caveats:
1) That something lends itself to metaphoric interpretation does not mean that it is not simultaneously historically true. Historical truth and deep metaphorical significance are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
2) That such an interpretation seems to work out does not necessarily mean that it is a correct interpretation. The human mind is a machine that tries to make sense of things, and comes up with all sorts of explanations and rationalizations that seem to make sense. It takes great skill to distinguish between a true explanation and a rationalization. So perhaps this is true, and perhaps it is not. Personally, I think it is true.

Introducing Tanach Linkify (version 1.5) for Internet Explorer

What Is TanachLinkify?
Tanach Linkify is a free add-on to Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox which automatically transforms references to pesukim (verses) in Tanach (Bible) and pages of Gemara (Talmud) to a hyperlink to that resource on the Internet. Links go to a linear translation of pesukim at mechon-mamre and images of the relevant page of gemara at e-daf.

Thus, without TanachLinkify, if a web page referred to Bereishit 33:2 or Exodus 22:10, they would remain plain text. With TanachLinkify, they would look like Bereishit 33:2 or Exodus 22:10.

Similarly, without TanachLinkify, if a web page referred to Yevamos 32b or Shabbat 132a, these references would remain plain text. With TanachLinkify, they would look like Yevamos 32b or Shabbat 132a.

Installing TanachLinkify
For Firefox, you can just click on this link to install the extension. This post is to announce the release of TanachLinkify for Internet Explorer. For Internet Explorer, the installation process is a bit more complicated.

1) Click on this link to download and install Reify Turnabout Advanced.
2) Right-Click on this link and save the target to c:3) Restart Internet Explorer. There should be a little Reify button towards the top. Click on it, and on the menu that appears, select "Options..." In the dialog box that appears, click on the button labeled "Install Feature..." in the bottom left hand corner. Click OK, navigate to C:\ and double-click on ietanachlinkify.user.js. Click OK. A new item in the dialog box should appear, which is already checked off, which states "Turn seforim into links." You have successfully installed TanachLinkify. Click OK, and try going to a website that has a reference to a pasuk or gemara.

Posts so far for parshat Vayeishev

• Reuven's Return (2005)
• As repentance. I analyze various aspects and textual cues of this midrash, and how Rashi reinterprets or correctly understands the midrash.
  
• The Chronology of Yehuda's Marriage (2005)
• Was Yehuda's marriage subsequent to, or co-occurring with the general timespan of Yosef's sale. This is predicated on the meaning of baEt hahi.
  
• Yaakov/Yosef Parallels (2004)
  While in a previous post I mentioned parallels between Yosef and Esav, a midrash highlights many parallels between the lives of Yaakov and Yosef.
  
• Shortsighted Foresight (2004)
  People who see the future via prophecy or astrology, but misapprehend what they see.
  
• Clothes "Make" The Man (2004)
  Twice, Yosef's clothing serves as a mark of identity
  
• Mistaken Identities (2004)
  How many times does the theme of mistaken identity come up in Tanach?
  
• Choice Garments and Goat Bits (2004)
  Parallels between two sibling rivalries.
  
• In Chutzpah! (2003)
  I note that the brothers are shepherding in Shechem, which they had destroyed in the previous parsha. Although Yaakov initially feared a reaction from the neighboring towns, the pasuk (Bereishit 35:5:) tells us that the fear of God was put into the inhabitants of the towns and the hostile reaction did not surface. Here they are, initially shepherding in Shechem, perhaps even the flocks taken as spoils from Shechem, and Yosef has no fear to go to Shechem alone to see how things fare. Also, Tg Yonatan has two points about the sale of Yosef: it being preordained, and being linked to the destruction of Shechem.
• In Dibatam Ra'ah, (2003)
  I discuss the word נַעַר as a verb in the second pasuk of Vayeishev, in Bereishit 37:2. The midrash gives three bad things the brothers did, or appeared to do, that Yosef reported - eating 'ever min hachai, treating the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah as servants, and secual improprieties. I show how these might be derived from the pasuk. Finally, Tg Yonatan gives on sin - that he saw them eat the ears and tails separated from the live animals. I give Perush Yonatan's explanation for this, as well as a possible derivation from the text.
• In Where Does the First Pasuk Belong?, (2003)
  I note the relationship between the first pasuk which says that Yaakov settled in the land of his forefathers, with a similar statement about Esav in the previous parsha. I suggest it logically belongs to the previous parsha. This may relate to the order of the narrative, such that the story of Yosef actually precedes the birth of Binyamin and thus Rachel's death. Some proofs that Binyamin is not yet born - Binyamin is not mentioned; Yosef is called the ben zekunim - son of old age; and Yaakov asks "will I and your mother bow down before you?" implying that Rachel, Yosef's mother, is still alive.
• In Brand Name Recognition? Or Lack Thereof?, (2003)
  מהר"א אשכנזי, based on Islamic practice, explains Yehuda's command that Tamar be burnt is a command to brand her forhead to label her a harlot. The presence of the mark is the reason harlots would typically cover their faces, and the pasuk says that Tamar did this when pretending to be one.
• In A Baaaad Report, (2003)
  I suggest that on a peshat level, rather than דִּבָּתָם רָעָה meaning an evil report, it actually means a report as to how the shepherding is going. Proofs to this effect - nowhere do we see explicitly what the bad things he reported were, nor that the brothers hated him for it. Further, it seems to set up the story such that we understand why Yaakov sends Yosef after his brothers to find out how the shepherding is going - this is his role.

To be continued...

parshat Bereishit: Are The Antediluvian Ages Symbolic?

I've been discussing the ages in the genealogies in Bereishit 5 over the past few days (in a different context) with littlefoxling, and one thing I thought to consider is whether the ages given are intended to be symbolic.

Hirhurim did a bit on this, in another context about parallel genealogies between Shet and Kayin, noting, for example, that

Cain was told that he would suffer seven-fold vengeance (4:15). Kenan, in contrast, had Mehalalel when he was seventy years old and lived to the age of eight hundred forty (7 x 120; 5:12-13). It seems that Kenan very pointedly lacked Cain's seven-fold punishment.

and

In the fifth and sixth generations, the Cainite Mehujael and Methushael represent the destruction of their lines while the Cainite Enoch was taken up by God (Gen. 5:24) and Methuselah had the longest life.

I would note three other points. Other significant lifespans might not be immediately apparent to me, but might yield to further investigation.

The first significant lifespan is that of Adam. Here I am merely echoing the midrash that Adam was supposed to live 1000 years, but was shown by Hashem that David would die while being born, and so he gave 70 of his years to David. Indeed, 930 as Adam's age might well be significant in this way, even if we choose to part ways from this midrash. As we read in Tehillim, the days of man are 70 years, and for the mighty, 80 years. If we take 1000 to be the ideal human lifetime at this time period, and 70 to be the typical lifespan in the Biblical period, then Adam's losing 70 years might be cast e.g. as a fulfillment of God's promise of death to those who ate from the Etz haDaat.

Chanoch lived a short period of time, and walked with God, before God took him away. Much extra-biblical material has been written about Chanoch, including midrashic material. Bereishit Rabbati has him turn his body of flesh into one of flame and become a little YKVK with his own Kisei HaKavod, etc. Is it significant that this short-lived person lived a total of 365 years, the same number of days in a solar year?

Metushelach lived a total of 969 years, the longest of anyone in the list. Why? One midrash says that the flood waited for Metushelach to be buried, and indeed, if one does the calculation, he lived all the way up to the flood. This could be stating that he was an ideal human, who would have lived 1000 years if not for the flood, or that Metushelach, Noach's grandfather, was not welcome on the ark, and so died in the flood.

No insights into the other ages at the moment.

posts so far for Chanukka

• The Etymology of Sufganiyot
  
• How to Spell Chanukka - and Why
  
• Using Shemen Seraifa for Chanukka
• Are These Lights Indeed Sanctified?
• The Shitta of Rav About Making Use of Chanukka Lights
• Rif Yomi Chanukka Edition

parshat Vayishlach: Why No Adult Male Camels?

In Yaakov's gift to Esav, there appears to be a break in pattern. In general, it is male and females which are given, so as to propagate the gift. Yet by camels, it is 30 nursing camels and their children. As least according to the peshat explanation of Rashi. From Bereishit 32:

יד וַיָּלֶן שָׁם, בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא; וַיִּקַּח מִן-הַבָּא בְיָדוֹ, מִנְחָה--לְעֵשָׂו אָחִיו.	14 And he lodged there that night; and took of that which he had with him a present for Esau his brother:
טו עִזִּים מָאתַיִם, וּתְיָשִׁים עֶשְׂרִים, רְחֵלִים מָאתַיִם, וְאֵילִים עֶשְׂרִים.	15 two hundred she-goats and twenty he-goats, two hundred ewes and twenty rams,
טז גְּמַלִּים מֵינִיקוֹת וּבְנֵיהֶם, שְׁלֹשִׁים; פָּרוֹת אַרְבָּעִים, וּפָרִים עֲשָׂרָה, אֲתֹנֹת עֶשְׂרִים, וַעְיָרִם עֲשָׂרָה.	16 thirty milch camels and their colts, forty kine and ten bulls, twenty she-asses and ten foals.
יז וַיִּתֵּן, בְּיַד-עֲבָדָיו, עֵדֶר עֵדֶר, לְבַדּוֹ; וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל-עֲבָדָיו, עִבְרוּ לְפָנַי, וְרֶוַח תָּשִׂימוּ, בֵּין עֵדֶר וּבֵין עֵדֶר.	17 And he delivered them into the hand of his servants, every drove by itself; and said unto his servants: 'Pass over before me, and put a space betwixt drove and drove.'

What can account for this? One midrashic explanation (cited by Rashi) is that וּבְנֵיהֶם means "and their builders," בַּנָאֵיהֶם, those who impregnate them, but the Torah was using clean language.

I am no expert in animal husbandry, but I would offer the following suggestion. Female camels typically give birth once every 2 years, to a single baby camel. The period of gestation is 13 months. Presumably, the presence of young causes the camel to lactate. And finally, lactation begins to decrease in the 6th month of pregnancy. See for example here.

I would suggest that the purpose of these camels was to provide camel milk. Thus, they were גְּמַלִּים מֵינִיקוֹת. One would need to send their babies with them, firstly so as not to deprive the baby camels of milk, but presumably to keep up the lactation, which was the whole point. Thus, וּבְנֵיהֶם.

And why no adult male camels? If the whole point of the camels was camel milk, and in the 6th month of pregnancy lactation begins to decrease, one might want to keep adult male camels away from them as long as possible (until lactation stops, at which point one wishes to get the female camel pregnant again). Thus, uniquely for these camels, no adult males are given.

That would be my partially-educated guess.

Reminder: Tonight We Say VeTein Tal Umatar Livracha

Thus ends this public service announcement.

parshat Vayishlach: Im Lavan Garti ... VeTaryag Mitzvot Shamarti?

It's a famous Rashi:

דבר אחר גרתי בגימטריא תרי"ג, כלומר עם לבן הרשע גרתי ותרי"ג מצות שמרתי ולא למדתי ממעשיו הרעים:

and it is easy to remember because it rhymes. Of course, a lot of the rhyming has to do with the suffix standard for sg. first person past ("ti"), but still, both end "arti." People also tend to drop the הרשע to improve the meter {update: and of course also because this makes it an exact citation of the pasuk}: עם לבן גרתי ותרי"ג מצות שמרתי, and also drop ולא למדתי ממעשיו הרעים, since it doesn't rhyme.

But is this true?! Didn't he marry two sisters? Is that not against the Torah?

Ah, you will say, this was outside Eretz Yisrael, and the Avot did not have to keep the Torah outside or Eretz Yisrael.

Shkoyach! But then you have no explanation for VeTaryag Mitzvot Shamarti. He said he did keep all 613 mitzvot, and this specifically while by Lavan!

There are several answers to this, and the answer varies by source.

Rashi: I believe Rashi is actually modifying the midrash and giving a perush here. He writes רתי בגימטריא תרי"ג, כלומר עם לבן הרשע גרתי ותרי"ג מצות שמרתי ולא למדתי ממעשיו הרעים. It seems as if ולא למדתי ממעשיו הרעים is by way of explanation of ותרי"ג מצות שמרתי. The point of the midrash is not that he literally kept 613 commandments, but "613 commandments" are a stand-in for Torah true attitude and middot. Thus, he stayed true to Torah ideals, as symbolized by תרי"ג, though it would be difficult to do in proximity of the wicked Lavan.

Midrash Aggada does not offer this explanation, just leaving it as his having fulfilled the 613 commandments:

עם לבן גרתי. אעפ"י שהייתי דר עם לבן הרשע, קיימתי כל התורה כולה, גרתי בגימטריא תרי"ג מצות:

Pesikta Zutreta explains that this does not mean fulfillment of each of the 613 commandments while with Lavan, but rather he fulfilled many of the commandments while in his father's house, but missed on on "be fruitful and multiply," and at Lavan he fulfilled that one, thus having fulfilled all 613. Of course, there is no aspect of evil influence from Lavan here. An interesting perspective on it, though apparently at odds with Rashi's understanding:

עם לבן גרתי. מדרש אמר יעקב אבינו קיימתי כל התורה, חוץ מכבוד אב ואם, חוץ מפריה ורביה, עם לבן השלמתי תרי"ג מצות, מנין גרת"י, וכה"א ויעבוד ישראל באשה ובאשה שמר (הושע יב יג), שמר כל המצות:

Finally, Rav Moshe haDarshan, in Bereishit Rabbati, understands this not as fulfilling of commandments but rather learning of Torah, symbolized 613 for the 613 commandments. Once again we have the theme that this was עם לבן, in spite of the difficulty of the work as he labored for Lavan:

עם לבן גרתי, שלא תאמר כשהייתי בבית אבי הייתי לומד תורה ובבית לבן לא למדתי מטורח העבודה, אלא בבית לבן כל שעה למדתי תורה. חשבון גרתי כנגד תרי"ג מצות.

Update: Meanwhile, others will try to show that he actually kept all 613 commandments. A good example is Meshaneh Halachot, giving answers from e.g. Maharsha such as: since they converted, they were not considered related. Here is a quote that gives the flavor:

גם מה שכתב דרק אברהם אבינו קיים כל התורה כולה ולא האבות וביאר הא דכתיב גבי יעקב אבינו ותרי"ג מצות שמרתי דהיינו רק המצווה דאורייתא ולא המצות דרבנן גם זה אינו שהרי אפי' תפלת ערבית שהוא רשות תקן וקיים, והתוס' שתי' בתי' השני שקודם שתקנה יצחק נמי הי' אברהם שתיקנה אומרה אלא שלא עשאה כלל לכל בני ביתו עד שתיקנה יצחק, ומבואר דלאחר שתיקנה יצחק גם לכל בני ביתו עשאה כלל וקיימו גם תפלה דרבנן. וכן כל מילי דרבנן כאשר קיים אברהם אבינו ויצחק אביו, ולא רק זאת שהאבות קיימו כל התורה כולה קודם שנתנה אלא אפי' בניהם אחריהם קיימו כל התורה כולה גם קודם שניתנה, והרמב"ן הקשה איך הקים יעקב מצבה ונשא ב' אחיות ועמרם נשא דודתו דהא קיימו התורה כולה, ותי' דבחו"ל לא היו מקיימין אבל בא"י ודאי היו מקיימין לכ"ע, והמהרש"א תי' דנשא שתי אחיות שנתגיירו דכקטן שנולד דמי ע"ש. ויוסף צוה פרע להם בית השחיטה פרש"י שומרי מצות היו דאע"פ שלא נתנה תורה מקובלים היו מאבותיהם, ועיין רמב"ן עה"ת עה"פ ויצא בן אשה ישראלית מחלוקת בעלי התוס' עם הרמב"ן דס"ל משעה שמל אברהם אבינו יצאו מכלל ב"נ ובאו לכלל ישראל. ועיין רא"ם עה"ת שהקשה מגמ' פסחים קי"ט ע"ב בסעודה לעתיד שיאמרו לו ליעקב טול ובריך אומר איני מברך שנשאתי ב' אחיות שעתידה תורה לאסור.

ובשו"ת הרשב"א ח"א סי' צ"ד כ' ולענין מ"ש קיים יעקב תרי"ג מצות ונרמז בעם לבן גרתי, וק' לך הא עדיין לא נצטוו ועוד דיעקב נשא ב' אחיות, דע לך כי אז"ל קיים א"א אפי' עירובי תחומין, ואל תתמה כי כבר נתעוררת כי אין בכל פרטי מצות מצוה שאינה רומזת אל עניני החכמה ושחייבה החכמה להיות השפלים מצווים במעשיהם וברמזיות שירמזו על החכמה, ונמצאת החכמה מחייבת את המעשה ואת המניעה והמעשה והמניעה מידיעת מה שנרמזו בהם מן החכמה, והאבות הגיעו ברוב חכמתם אל העקרים ההם, וכמשאחז"ל באברהם שתי כליות מודיעות לו חכמה כשני מלמדים, וכן האבות עד שיהודה המקובל מאבותיו קיים מצות יבום אע"פ שעדיין לא נצטוו עליה וצוה את בניו וכו', עיי"ש. מבואר מיהו דהאבות כולם הם ובניהם קיימו כל התורה כולה, ואדרבה הרי התורה כתבה מפורש כי ידעתיו למען אשר יצוה את בניו ואת ביתו אחריו ושמרו דרך ה', וודאי שכן צוה לבניו ועשו שלא הלך בדרכי אבותיו נקרא ישראל מומר עיין קידושין י"ח ודילמא ישראל מומר שאני, והוא פשוט מאד.
בלב ונפש, מנשה הקטן

A Rabbi, A Priest, and a Gorilla Walk Into a Bar... (The Play)

Or so it seems from the description of the play given in the Jewish Week:

"DAI (ENOUGH)
Moments before a suicide bombing, an Israeli general and peer of Ariel Sharon, a Latina dancer, a Palestinian intellectual, an extremist West Bank settler, and a Russian prostitute sit in a cafe blindly awaiting their fate. Iris Bahr's one-woman show, enlivens all of their lives in this powerful new drama."

I hope against hope that the Hebrew title of the play was not intended as a pun. And I wonder if it's gonna bomb.

In An Effort To Pacify Muslims, Pope Prays Towards Mecca; We'll Consider Dropping the First Yekum Purkan

In An Effort To Pacify Muslims, Pope Prays Towards Mecca; We'll Consider Dropping the First Yekum Purkan
If this Reuters report can be believed, the Pope prayed towards Mecca in a mosque, as a conciliatory gesture! Bleh!

"The Pope's dreaded visit was concluded with a wonderful surprise," wrote daily Aksam on its front page.

"In Sultan Ahmet Mosque, he turned towards Mecca and prayed like Muslims," popular daily Hurriyet said, using the building's official name.

Reminds me of this joke:

In mighty ecumenical conclave, the religions of the world decide to iron out their differences for the good of humanity, eliminating once and for all the petty doctrinal disputes that have blinded their followers to their common ethical teachings. In quick succession, the Sunnis announce that they have deemphasized the Haj, the Shiites issue a renunciation of jihad, the Patriarch and the Pope, in a joint statement, give up the Trinity and the virginity of Mary, the Hindus give up on idolatry, the Shintoists animism, the Zoroastrians dualism, and so on. The Dalai Lama renounces the doctrine of reincarnation a couple of days later, and the world waits, with bated breath, as the Rabbi Lau, Rav Schach, and Rishon LeTzion Ovadiah Yosef remain locked in closed session eighteen hours a day. Week after week goes by, as wild rumors fly up the alleys of Jerusalem and across the world's airwaves. Finally, the sages step out in front of the flashbulbs, sweaty and pale. In a quavering voice, one of them reads from a prepared statement, and simultaneous translators relay his words to a billion living rooms around the globe:

After deep consideration of the momentous nature of this occasion, and with abiding faith in heaven, we have undertaken an unprecedented step, and have decided, in the greater cause of peace between the children of Adam, to eliminate the second Yekum Purkan from the Shabbat Musaf service.

I'm sure he thought of it as nothing - who cares what direction one prays, after all? But it is a big mistake, policy-wise and I think theologically as well. Especially as some Muslims were calling on the Pope to renounce Christianity and convert to Islam -- demanding it. Policy-wise, this is

Praying towards Mecca is to an extent acknowledging Mohammed's role as a prophet - as Mohammed grew up in Mecca and instituted (in the Koran) to pray in that direction, changing the direction from Jerusalem, when he parted ways with Jews. And theologically, Mohammed's message is, e.g. that Jesus was a prophet but not a son of God, etc.. Christians, and the Pope especially, I would think, cannot acknowledge Mohammed's message.

Policy-wise, this act of dhimmitude is quite dumb. If he wants to make nice, and show that religions can get along and respect one another, that is one thing. But this act is quite another thing -- the leader of another religion subjecting himself to sharia, and if the Pope doesn't think so, he can be sure that hundreds of thousands of Muslims worldwide will see it this way.

At least, that's my take on it. Discuss.

Update: Alright, no discussion. My bad for posting relatively just before Shabbat. Reconsidering the above, it is quite possible that the mosque was oriented towards Mecca, so it was the natural way to be facing. The quote of "he turned towards Mecca" might suggest otherwise, but perhaps not.

And it stands to be seen how the Muslim world will take this, and whether it matters.

parshat Chayyei Sarah: The Account Of Betuel's Death By Poison #2

The previous post was about the standard midrashic account of Betuel's death by poison, and how it works from the perspective of answering a difficulty, of derivation from close reading of the text, and of theme.

The same midrash appears with quite a different spin in Bereishit Rabbati, from Rav Moshe haDarshan.






Here, it is Lavan who attempts the trick of poisoning, and ends up killing his own father.

To recap the three perspectives, the textual difficulty is that Betuel disappears midway in the story. He first interacts with Eliezer together with Lavan, but later it is just Lavan and his mother, rather than Lavan and his mother. The basis for the midrashic explanation (namely that he died when an angel switched the plate with poison) in the text is that the pasuk states ויישם (וַיּוּשַׂם) לְפָנָיו, לֶאֱכֹל, וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא אֹכַל, עַד אִם-דִּבַּרְתִּי דְּבָרָי; וַיֹּאמֶר, דַּבֵּר, in which Eliezer at first refused to eat, that וַיּוּשַׂם has the root sam which can mean poison rather than placed, and ויישם (וַיּוּשַׂם) לְפָנָיו is a krei and ketiv, with the krei being the active voice that he placed or poisoned, and the krei is that it was placed before him, the poisoner, or before Betuel. The theme is that elsewhere in the story they overtly agree to Eliezer but then try to prevent him from succeeding in his mission.

But again, in this account, it is Lavan who attempts the trick of poisoning, and ends up killing his own father. And we end up sympathizing with Lavan! This midrash takes a wider perspective. Eliezer came and interacts with Rivkah, and she comes running home adorned with jewels. Bereishit 24:

כח וַתָּרָץ, הַנַּעֲרָ, וַתַּגֵּד, לְבֵית אִמָּהּ--כַּדְּבָרִים, הָאֵלֶּה.	28 And the damsel ran, and told her mother's house according to these words.
כט וּלְרִבְקָה אָח, וּשְׁמוֹ לָבָן; וַיָּרָץ לָבָן אֶל-הָאִישׁ הַחוּצָה, אֶל-הָעָיִן.	29 And Rebekah had a brother, and his name was Laban; and Laban ran out unto the man, unto the fountain.
ל וַיְהִי כִּרְאֹת אֶת-הַנֶּזֶם, וְאֶת-הַצְּמִדִים עַל-יְדֵי אֲחֹתוֹ, וּכְשָׁמְעוֹ אֶת-דִּבְרֵי רִבְקָה אֲחֹתוֹ לֵאמֹר, כֹּה-דִבֶּר אֵלַי הָאִישׁ; וַיָּבֹא, אֶל-הָאִישׁ, וְהִנֵּה עֹמֵד עַל-הַגְּמַלִּים, עַל-הָעָיִן.	30 And it came to pass, when he saw the ring, and the bracelets upon his sister's hands, and when he heard the words of Rebekah his sister, saying: 'Thus spoke the man unto me,' that he came unto the man; and, behold, he stood by the camels at the fountain.

This midrash focuses on Lavan's reaction to hearing the news. וַיְהִי כִּרְאֹת אֶת-הַנֶּזֶם, וְאֶת-הַצְּמִדִים עַל-יְדֵי אֲחֹתוֹ. Lavan thought: why would this strange man give my sister jewels? And he thought the man had compromised her. As the brothers react to the incident with Dinah, such a thing should not be done -- she should not be treated as a zonah! In anger her grabbed a weapon and ran to kill Eliezer.

But then:
וַיָּבֹא, אֶל-הָאִישׁ, וְהִנֵּה עֹמֵד עַל-הַגְּמַלִּים, עַל-הָעָיִן
When he came near Eliezer, he saw he was performing an amazingfeat of strength! Eliezer was standing וְהִנֵּה עֹמֵד - and carrying his camels עַל-הַגְּמַלִּים -- on his shoulders, over the stream -- עַל-הָעָיִן. Why? Because there was a lot of miry clay, and so he just lifted his camels to take them to the city.

Lavan then realized he could not defeat a strong guy like Eliezer in a fair fight, and would have to resort to poison. Thus, initially וַיָּרָץ לָבָן אֶל-הָאִישׁ in order to kill him, but then וַיָּבֹא אֶל-הָאִישׁ, to bring him into the house, not because he no longer wanted to kill him but because he wanted to kill him in another way.

And of course we still have the vayusam of later that fits in to all of this. And that is the next comment in Bereishit Rabbati, with the krei and ketiv, that he placed the poison before him but it ended up being placed before Betuel.

parshat Chayyei Sarah: The Account Of Betuel's Death By Poison #1

There is a famous midrash that Betuel tried to kill Eliezer (in order to prevent him from taking Rivkah) by poisoning his food, but an angel switched around the food and Betuel ended up eating it. We can consider this midrash from three different perspectives.

1) What apparent problem in the text does this midrash solve?
2) What is the textual basis for the resolution?
3) How does this midrash fit within the overall theme of the parsha?

In terms of what problem the midrash is solving, this is readily apparent. First Betuel appears, and then he doesn't. That is, in Bereishit 24, in parshat Chayyei Sarah, we see:

נ וַיַּעַן לָבָן וּבְתוּאֵל וַיֹּאמְרוּ, מֵה' יָצָא הַדָּבָר; לֹא נוּכַל דַּבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ, רַע אוֹ-טוֹב.

50 Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said: 'The thing proceedeth from the LORD; we cannot speak unto thee bad or good.

So Betuel is there. Then, suddenly, he is not. We see:

נד וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׁתּוּ, הוּא וְהָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר-עִמּוֹ--וַיָּלִינוּ; וַיָּקוּמוּ בַבֹּקֶר, וַיֹּאמֶר שַׁלְּחֻנִי לַאדֹנִי.	54 And they did eat and drink, he and the men that were with him, and tarried all night; and they rose up in the morning, and he said: 'Send me away unto my master.'
נה וַיֹּאמֶר אָחִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ, תֵּשֵׁב הַנַּעֲרָ אִתָּנוּ יָמִים אוֹ עָשׂוֹר; אַחַר, תֵּלֵךְ.	55 And her brother and her mother said: 'Let the damsel abide with us a few days, at the least ten; after that she shall go.'
נו וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם אַל-תְּאַחֲרוּ אֹתִי, וַה' הִצְלִיחַ דַּרְכִּי; שַׁלְּחוּנִי, וְאֵלְכָה לַאדֹנִי.	56 And he said unto them: 'Delay me not, seeing the LORD hath prospered my way; send me away that I may go to my master.'

It is suddenly her mother and brother. Where did her father disappear to?

Also a bit earlier:

נג וַיּוֹצֵא הָעֶבֶד כְּלֵי-כֶסֶף וּכְלֵי זָהָב, וּבְגָדִים, וַיִּתֵּן, לְרִבְקָה; וּמִגְדָּנֹת--נָתַן לְאָחִיהָ, וּלְאִמָּהּ.

53 And the servant brought forth jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment, and gave them to Rebekah; he gave also to her brother and to her mother precious things.

the servant gives this to the brother and mother, but not to the father.

There are various ways of answering this, on a peshat level. For example, some try to claim this was an erroneous insertion of "her father" in the first verse, based on the fact that Betuel had been mentioned, and really, he was never in this story at all. One need not say that. One could just say, "nu nu," and point out that earlier, her mother never said anything, though her brother did. It may simply be the case that historically, different family members said different things at different points, and interacted with Eliezer at different points. So it need not be such a question. However, this is the type of thing that commentators like to pick up upon, and most certainly that the midrash likes to notice and comment upon.

So, why is Betuel missing? The answer of this midrash is that Betuel died, trying to poison Eliezer. So we have the answer to (1) What apparent problem in the text does this midrash solve?

On to point 2. What textual basis do we have for this, besides for Betuel's diappearance? Well, the textual basis is:

לג ויישם (וַיּוּשַׂם) לְפָנָיו, לֶאֱכֹל, וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא אֹכַל, עַד אִם-דִּבַּרְתִּי דְּבָרָי; וַיֹּאמֶר, דַּבֵּר.

33 And there was set food before him to eat; but he said: 'I will not eat, until I have told mine errand.' And he said: 'Speak on.'

when they set food before Eliezer. The pasuk states ויישם (וַיּוּשַׂם) לְפָנָיו. Note that sam means place, but also means poison. Thus, poison was set before him, that is Eliezer, most probably. We also have the krei and ketiv, where the word is pronounced vayusam, but rather than a vav, there is a yud in the ketiv. This would be the difference between active and passive. With the yud, it would be "and he placed," or "and he poisoned," but as we pronounce it, it is "and it was placed" or "and it was poisoned." We then link this with Betuel's disappearance and note that Betuel tried to place and poison, but instead it was placed (by the angel) before him and he was poisoned.

Further, Eliezer refuses the food initially, until he finishes speaking. Thus, he is saved from death, and this is when the angel switches the food.

It is then quite dramatic that immediately before his death, Betuel declares that he will not interfere:

נ וַיַּעַן לָבָן וּבְתוּאֵל וַיֹּאמְרוּ, מֵה יָצָא הַדָּבָר; לֹא נוּכַל דַּבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ, רַע אוֹ-טוֹב.	50 Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said: 'The thing proceedeth from the LORD; we cannot speak unto thee bad or good.
נא הִנֵּה-רִבְקָה לְפָנֶיךָ, קַח וָלֵךְ; וּתְהִי אִשָּׁה לְבֶן-אֲדֹנֶיךָ, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהוָה.	51 Behold, Rebekah is before thee, take her, and go, and let her be thy master's son's wife, as the LORD hath spoken.'
נב וַיְהִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׁמַע עֶבֶד אַבְרָהָם אֶת-דִּבְרֵיהֶם; וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אַרְצָה, לַה.	52 And it came to pass, that, when Abraham's servant heard their words, he bowed himself down to the earth unto the LORD.
נג וַיּוֹצֵא הָעֶבֶד כְּלֵי-כֶסֶף וּכְלֵי זָהָב, וּבְגָדִים, וַיִּתֵּן, לְרִבְקָה; וּמִגְדָּנֹת--נָתַן לְאָחִיהָ, וּלְאִמָּהּ.	53 And the servant brought forth jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment, and gave them to Rebekah; he gave also to her brother and to her mother precious things.
נד וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׁתּוּ, הוּא וְהָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר-עִמּוֹ--וַיָּלִינוּ; וַיָּקוּמוּ בַבֹּקֶר, וַיֹּאמֶר שַׁלְּחֻנִי לַאדֹנִי.	54 And they did eat and drink, he and the men that were with him, and tarried all night; and they rose up in the morning, and he said: 'Send me away unto my master.'
נה וַיֹּאמֶר אָחִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ, תֵּשֵׁב הַנַּעֲרָ אִתָּנוּ יָמִים אוֹ עָשׂוֹר; אַחַר, תֵּלֵךְ.	55 And her brother and her mother said: 'Let the damsel abide with us a few days, at the least ten; after that she shall go.'

According to the way this works out, Betuel must have declared this, knowing that Eliezer would be poisoned, then took a bite of his food and died, or maybe he died that night. Then Eliezer eats and drinks, and subsequently speaks solely to the brother and mother.

What about from the perspective of theme? Well, we see them say that they cannot do anything to prevent it, and then try, in a tricky manner, to prevent it. After saying that this has come from God and they won't prevent it, they say "let her tarry יָמִים אוֹ עָשׂוֹר, which either means "a few days or ten day," or else "a year or ten months," to which Eliezer replies:

נו וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם אַל-תְּאַחֲרוּ אֹתִי, וַה הִצְלִיחַ דַּרְכִּי; שַׁלְּחוּנִי, וְאֵלְכָה לַאדֹנִי.

56 And he said unto them: 'Delay me not, seeing the LORD hath prospered my way; send me away that I may go to my master.'

and then they suggest putting it up to Rivkah, in the hopes that she will agree with them. This midrash, in which Betuel overtly agrees but takes hidden, tricky steps to prevent it, works in well with the theme.

parshat Vayeitzei: How old was Rachel?

Two weeks ago, in honor of parshat Chayyei Sarah, the blogosphere held its second annual silly tumult over the question of how old Rivkah was when Yitzchak betrothed and subsequently married her. A related interesting issue is how old Rachel and Leah were when they married Yaakov. And there is a nice midrash in that regard -- I think I saw it in Bereishit Rabbati, by Rav Moshe haDarshan.

This midrash asks why Yaakov waited 14 years learning in the Yeshiva of Shem and Ever.

To digress briefly, the basic problem that sparked that midrash that he learned in the Yeshiva of Shem and Even for 14 years is chronological. Various pesukim give hard dates for various events, though they are subject to interpretation. Working within these constraints, we fit the various events. And based on these hard constraints, there seems to be a gap of 14 years. This idea of learning in yeshiva 14 years is fleshed out in various midrashim. For example, the pasuk says vayikatz Yaakov mishenato, and it is interpreted as mimishnato, that he did not sleep all those 14 years. And so on.

So this midrash asks why Yaakov chose to wait. After all, his father told him {Bereishit 28}

א וַיִּקְרָא יִצְחָק אֶל-יַעֲקֹב, וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתוֹ; וַיְצַוֵּהוּ וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ, לֹא-תִקַּח אִשָּׁה מִבְּנוֹת כְּנָעַן.	1 And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him: 'Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.
ב קוּם לֵךְ פַּדֶּנָה אֲרָם, בֵּיתָה בְתוּאֵל אֲבִי אִמֶּךָ; וְקַח-לְךָ מִשָּׁם אִשָּׁה, מִבְּנוֹת לָבָן אֲחִי אִמֶּךָ.	2 Arise, go to Paddan-aram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother's father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother's brother.
ג וְאֵל שַׁדַּי יְבָרֵךְ אֹתְךָ, וְיַפְרְךָ וְיַרְבֶּךָ; וְהָיִיתָ, לִקְהַל עַמִּים.	3 And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a congregation of peoples;

Shouldn't he be zariz. This midrash answers that his father told him וְקַח-לְךָ מִשָּׁם אִשָּׁה, מִבְּנוֹת לָבָן אֲחִי אִמֶּךָ. Yaakov set out to do so but then heard that Lavan did not have any daughters. So, trusting in Hashem, he stayed in the yeshiva of Shem and Even for 14 years, time enough for Lavan's wife to get pregnant and give birth to Rachel and Leah, and for them to grow old enough to marry. (Then, of course, it was several years before he was able to marry them...)

There are many influences on this midrash. First, the 14 year issue, with the desire to give Yaakov's motivation for waiting. But also there is the comparison and contrast we can make with Rivkah. Rivkah, according to one midrashic/pashtanic accounting made popular by Rashi, was 3 years old. This is in large part based on the fact that we are told that Avraham was told of her birth right after the akeida. We thus assume that it was after the akeida that Avraham was told, plus also that she had just been born. Based on other calculations, Yitzchak was 37 at the Akeida, and we know he was 40 when Rivkah came back. So she must have been 3, based on this calculation. But part of the theme of this midrash is that right after the akeida, where Avraham is promised continuity through Yitzchak, he is told that Rivkah was born. Thus the impression that Rivkah and Yitzchak were made for each other, and thus it is only now that Rivkah is born, made just for him.

By saying that Rachel and Leah are to be born now that Yaakov must marry is to say, similarly, that there is this idea of them being created just for him, for it is a match made in heaven. This theme of match made in heaven was stressed by Rivkah, by having Rivkah come out to the well just when Eliezer declared his test, and then having her family declare that this is the will of God. And the parallels exist in the case of Rachel, for when Yaakov arrives, he asks for her family, and suddenly Rachel comes to water the sheep.

CT Scans Confirm Midrashic Account of Pharaoh's Death

That he died in a horse accident. Well, maybe. From HorseTalk, following more standard news sources.

A CT Scan survey of King Tut has confirmed he was not murdered, and instead may have died following a fall from a horse or chariot, linking his untimely demise with a curious story preserved in the Jewish Talmud.

Tutankhamun was not murdered - that's the official line from Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities following a recent CT scan survey of his remains.

...

In addition to this, no trace of the aberration, or 'dark area', first noted at the back of the skull following an x-ray examination of the remains by Professor Ronald Harrison of Liverpool University back in 1968, was seen, further confirming that Tutankhamun did not suffer a blow to the head, or suffer any kind of brain haemorrhage as a result of it.

...

Another rumour dismissed by the recent CT scan survey is that the boy king suffered from a crippling medical condition.

...

Yet with speculations concerning Tutankhamun's murder fast fading, another mystery raises its head. The pathologists who examined the CT scan results determined that the king's thigh bone and ribcage were both broken. Since embalming material had seeped inside the thigh wound, and there is no obvious evidence that the bones had started to heal, the Egyptian team admit it is possible that these fractures occurred shortly before death.

On learning this news, Robert Connolly, Senior Lecturer in Physical Anthropology at Liverpool University's Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, re-examined the original x-rays from 1968, and admitted that if the breakages did not occur when the body was autopsied in 1925, then it is clear evidence that the young pharaoh might have suffered an accident before death.

In his opinion: "It's possible Tutankhamun's thigh injury could have been sustained in an accident. There are remarkable similarities between his ribcage injuries and those of a British mummy - St Bees Man in Cumbria - who sustained fatal damage to his chest in a jousting accident. It is therefore highly possible that the king could have died as a result of a chariot or sporting accident, or even at war."

...

It is a theory explored by Andrew Collins and Chris Ogilvie-Herald in their book Tutankhamun: The Exodus Conspiracy (Virgin, 2002). They found support for the idea that the young king fell from a horse or chariot, leading eventually to his death, in a most unlikely source - the Jewish Talmud, the collected folklore of the Jews. Here an unnamed Egyptian pharaoh, equated with the biblical Exodus and identified by the authors as Tutankhamun, is said to have sustained injuries after a fall, and died shortly afterwards.

According to the account, as the king's steed passed into a narrow place on the borders of Egypt, other horses, running rapidly through the pass, "pressed upon each other until the king's horse fell while he sate upon it, and when it fell, the chariot turned over on his face, and also the horse lay upon him. The king's flesh was torn from him ... [and his] servants carried him upon their shoulders ... and placed him on his bed. He knew that his end was come to die, and the queen Alfar'anit and his nobles gathered about his bed, and they wept a great weeping with him."

Collins and Ogilvie-Herald believe that this account from the Talmud is consistent with the injuries sustained by Tutankhamun shortly before his death. What is more, if correct, it places the ancestors of the Jewish people in Egypt at the time of Tutankhamun's reign, and indicates that they might have preserved a tradition concerning his untimely death for over 3300 years. Should this theory prove correct, then it reignites the debate over the identity of the Pharaoh of the Exodus, an event which Collins and Ogilvie Herald firmly believe took place around the time of Tutankhamun's reign.

Read it here.


From Forbes (Healthday News):

"I think the femur fracture probably is significant," Tashjian said. "Number one, it's not healed. Number two, femur fractures -- any long-bone fracture -- can have a number of complications, any of which can lead to death, either from infection or an embolism. It's an unusual way to die, from a fracture, but it does happen, even now."

The citation appears to have been taken from Ginzberg's The Legends of the Jews, chapter 16 I don't have a copy of it here to check his footnotes where he took it from. Help?

Here is the citation:

The latter years of Israel's bondage in Egypt were the worst. To punish Pharaoh for his cruelty toward the children of Israel, God afflicted him with a plague of leprosy, which covered his whole body, from the crown of his bead to the soles of his feet. Instead of being chastened by his disease, Pharaoh remained stiffnecked, and he tried to restore his health by murdering Israelitish children. He took counsel with his three advisers, Balaam, Jethro, and Job, how he might be healed of the awful malady that had seized upon him. Balaam spoke, saying, "Thou canst regain thy health only if thou wilt slaughter Israelitish children and bathe in their blood." Jethro, averse from having a share in such an atrocity, left the king and fled to Midian. Job, on the other hand, though he also disapproved of Balaam's counsel, kept silence, and in no wise protested against it,[101] wherefor God punished him with a year's suffering.[102] But afterward He loaded him down with all the felicities of this life, and granted him many years, so that this pious Gentile might be rewarded in this world for his good deeds and not have the right to urge a claim upon the beatitude of the future life.[103]

In pursuance of the sanguinary advice given by Balaam, Pharaoh had his bailiffs snatch Israelitish babes from their mothers' breasts, and slaughter them, and in the blood of these innocents he bathed. His disease afflicted him for ten years, and every day an Israelitish child was killed for him. It was all in vain; indeed, at the end of the time his leprosy changed into boils, and he suffered more than before.

While he was in this agony, the report was brought to him that the children of Israel in Goshen were careless and idle in their forced labor. The news aggravated his suffering, and he said: "Now that I am ill, they turn and scoff at me. Harness my chariot, and I will betake myself to Goshen, and see the derision wherewith the children of Israel deride me." And they took and put him upon a horse, for he was not able to mount it himself. When he and his men had come to the border between Egypt and Goshen, the king's steed passed into a narrow place. The other horses, running rapidly through the pass, pressed upon each other until the king's horse fell while he sate upon it, and when it fell, the chariot turned over on his face, and also the horse lay upon him. The king's flesh was torn from him, for this thing was from the Lord, He had heard the cries of His people and their affliction. The king's servants carried him upon their shoulders, brought him back to Egypt, and placed him on his bed.

He knew that his end was come to die, and the queen Alfar'anit and his nobles gathered about his bed, and they wept a great weeping with him.

Perhaps. Certainly it is interesting. I wonder if one could connect it with a non-midrashic, but rather Biblical account, of Pharaoh in pursuit of Israel as they fled Egypt. This would make him slightly later Pharaoh.

Update: Another distinct possibility. There were Egyptian historical accounts that have been lost. It is possible that the midrashist had access to these accounts, and blended Egyptian historical documents with midrash and Bible to create a new account. This would then not necessarily shed light on the identity of the historical Pharaoh of Exodus.

Plug: Rif Yomi Beitza Videos

I mentioned it briefly when I started this, but just want to remind folks and perhaps drum up an audience. Whereas my initial estimate was that it would be 5 to 10 minutes per video, it ended up more along the lines of 10 to 15 minutes, sometimes even 20.

I present the Rif on the day's daf, often with additional commentary not found in the pure-text version.
Here is today's Rif Yomi: All of the ones for Beitza are now posted up on YouTube, and I'll post one for each day until the end of the masechet.

Rif Yomi Video Edition -- Beitza Daf 32 (runtime 12 min)

Runtime: 12 minutes


17b
{Beitza 32a}
Mishna:

אין פוחתין את הנר מפני שהוא עושה כלי
ואין עושין פחמין ואין חותכין את הפתילה לשנים
ר' יהודה אומר חותכה באור לשתי נרות

We may not hollow out a lamp {press into clay to make a hole for the lamp} because he is making a vessel.
And we may not make charcoal, nor may we cut the wick into two. {our Mishna lacks "into two"}
Rabbi Yehuda says: He may cut it with flame into two lamps {our Mishna lacks "into two lamps}.

{Beitza 32b}
Gemara:
מאי שנא בסכין דלא דקא מתקן מנא באור נמי קא מתקן מנא
תני ר' חייא חותכה באור בפי שתי נרות

Why is {with} a knife different that no {one may not cut}? Because he is fixing a vessel. With a flame as well, he is fixing a vessel!
Rabbi Chiyya taught {a brayta}: He may cut it with a flame {when} its ends are in two lamps.

אמר רב נתן בר אבא אמר רב מוחטין את הפתילה ביום טוב
מאי מוחטין
Rav Natan bar Abba cited Rav: We may trim a wick on Yom Tov?
From what may we trim it?

18a

{Beitza 32b continues}

אמר רב חנינא בר שלמיה משמיה דרב לעדויי חשוכא

Rav Chinena bar Shelemia cited Rav: to remove the darkness {=the charcoal residue on top that darkens the light}.

תאני בר קפרא ו' דברים נאמרו בפתילה שלשה להחמיר ושלשה להקל אין גודלין אותה לכתחלה ביו"ט ואין מהבהבי' אותה באור ואין חותכין אותה לשנים. ג' להקל ממעכה ביד ושורה אותה בשמן וחותכה באור בפי שתי נרות

Bar Kappara taught {a brayta}: There are six things said regarding a wick -- three stringent and three lenient. We may not twist it initially on Yom Tov, and we may not singe it with flame, and we may not cut in into two. The three lenient: he may press it together by hand, and he may soak it in out, and he may cut it with a flame {when its ends are} in two lamps.

Mishna:

אין שוברין את החרס ואין חותכין את הנייר לצלות בו מליח
ואין גורפין תנור וכירים אבל מכבשין
ואין מקיפין שתי חביות לשפות עליהן את הקדירה
ואין סומכין את הקדירה בבקעת וכן בדלת
ואין מנהיגין את הבהמה במקל ביו"ט

We may not break a shard {of pottery}, nor may we cut paper to roast salted fish in it.
And we may not shovel out an oven or a stove, but we may press down {the ashes to level it}.

And we may not position two barrels together in order to set a pot upon them.
And we may not support a pot with a piece of wood, and also a door .
And we may not direct an animal with a staff on Yom Tov.

Gemara:
ואין גורפין תנור וכירים וכו':
תני רבי חייא בריה דרב יוסף קמיה דר' יוחנן ואם אי אפשר לו לאפות אלא א"כ גורפו מותר

"And we may not shovel out an oven or a stove...":
Rabbi Chiyya son of Rav Yosef taught before Rabbi Yochanan: And if it is impossible to bake unless he shovels it out it is permitted.

דביתהו דרבי חייא נפל לה אריח' בתנורא ביומא טבא
א"ל רבי חייא חזי דאנא רפתא מעלי' בעינא מינך

The wife of Rabbi Chiyya had a {half-}brick fall into the oven on Yom Tov.
Rabbi Chiyya said to her: See that I desire a good loaf from you. {thus, you may shovel it out}

א"ל רבא לשמעיה טוי לי בר אווזא ואזדהר מחרוכא
א"ל רבינא לרב אשי אמר לן רב אחא מהוצל דמר שרקין ליה תנורא ביומא טבא
א"ל אנן ארקתא דפרת סמכינן
כלומר אין אנו גובלין טיט ביו"ט אלא ארקתא דפרת סמכינן והוא הטיט והרפש שסביבות הנהר
אמר רבא והוא דציירי' מאתמול
אמר רבינא וקיטמא שרי שהאפר אינו בר גיבול לפיכך מותר לגבלו ביו"ט לטוח בו פי התנור על הלחם או על הצלי

Rava said to his attendant: Roast a goose for me and be careful not to singe it. {thus, shovel out the oven}
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Rav Acha of Hutzal said to us that Master {=Rav Ashi} had mud spread over his oven on Yom Tov {to assist it; and this should be forbidden, because of the labor involved}.
He {=Rav Ashi said to him: We rely on the banks of the Euphrates.
That is to say: we do not knead clay on Yom Tov, but rather we rely on the banks of the Euphrates, and this is the clay and mud on the sides of the river.
Rava said: And this was where they marked it off from yesterday.
Ravina said: And ashes is permitted. {Rif:} because the ashes are not subject to kneading {well}, therefore it is permitted to knead it on Yom Tov to spread upon the oven for bread of for roasting.

אמר רב נחמן אבנים של בית הכסא מותר לצדדן ביו"ט
דבנין קבע אסרה תורה ובנין עראי לא אסרה תורה וגזרו רבנן על בנין עראי אטו בנין קבע והכא משום כבודו לא גזרו רבנן

Rav Nachman said: Stones of a privy it is permitted to align {to sit upon} on Yom Tov.
For the Torah prohibited permanent construction, and a temporary construction the Torah did not prohibit, and the Sages decreed upon a temporary construction because of a permanent construction, and here, because of his honor, the Sages did not decree.

א"ר יהודה האי מדורתא מלמעלה למטה שרי מלמטה למעלה אסור
Rav Yehuda said: A bonfire, from top down it is permitted, but bottom up is forbidden.

{Beitza 33a}
וכן קדירה וכן ביעתא וכן פוריא וכן חביתא.
פירוש כשהוא עושה מדורה של אש לא יהא מניח עצים מלמטה ומניח אחרים עליהם מלמעלה שנמצא כדרך בנין אלא אוחז את העץ מלמעלה ומניח אחר תחתיו שאין זה דרך בנין
וכן קדירה כששופת אותה לא יניח אבנים בתחלה ויתן עליהם את הקדרה שנמצא כמאהיל אהל
אלא אוחז את הקדירה בידו ומכניס אבנים תחתיה
וכן ביצים כשרוצה לצלות אותן אוחז את העליונה ונותן אחרת תחתיה
וכן פוריא שאוחז הקרשים בתחלה ומכניס את הרגלים תחתיהם
וכן חביתא כשרוצה להטותה ע"ג אבנים מטה אותה ואח"כ מכניס אבנים תחתיה

And so too a pot, and so too eggs, and so too a bed, and so too barrels.
To explain: When he makes a bonfire, he should not place the wood underneath and place others upon them above, because then it comes out the way of construction, but rather he should grab onto the wood above and place another one under it, for this is not the way of construction.
And so too a pot, when he places it, he should not place the stones first and then put the pot on top of them, because it comes out like making a tent, but rather he should grab the pot in his hand and place stones underneath it.
And so too eggs, when he wishes to roast them, he should grab the top one and place another one under it.
And so too a bed, he should grab the boards at first and place the feet under them.
And so too a barrel, when he wishes to incline it on stones, he should incline it and afterwards enter stones underneath it.

אין סומכין את הקדירה בבקעת וכן בדלת: בדלת סלקא דעתך אלא אימא וכן הדלת
"We do not support the pot with a piece of wood, and so too with a door":
{We do not support} with a door, do you thing?
Rather, say: And so too a door {we do not support}.

{Thus, ב means "by" rather than "with."}

parshat Vayeitzei: Was Lavan Right To Move The Sheep?

Speculation:
What was Lavan and Yaakov's arrangement in parshat Vayeitzei? We read {Bereishit 30:31-35}:

לא וַיֹּאמֶר, מָה אֶתֶּן-לָךְ; וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב, לֹא-תִתֶּן-לִי מְאוּמָה--אִם-תַּעֲשֶׂה-לִּי הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, אָשׁוּבָה אֶרְעֶה צֹאנְךָ אֶשְׁמֹר.	31 And he said: 'What shall I give thee?' And Jacob said: 'Thou shalt not give me aught; if thou wilt do this thing for me, I will again feed thy flock and keep it.
לב אֶעֱבֹר בְּכָל-צֹאנְךָ הַיּוֹם, הָסֵר מִשָּׁם כָּל-שֶׂה נָקֹד וְטָלוּא וְכָל-שֶׂה-חוּם בַּכְּשָׂבִים, וְטָלוּא וְנָקֹד, בָּעִזִּים; וְהָיָה, שְׂכָרִי.	32 I will pass through all thy flock to-day, removing from thence every speckled and spotted one, and every dark one among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats; and of such shall be my hire.
לג וְעָנְתָה-בִּי צִדְקָתִי בְּיוֹם מָחָר, כִּי-תָבוֹא עַל-שְׂכָרִי לְפָנֶיךָ: כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-אֵינֶנּוּ נָקֹד וְטָלוּא בָּעִזִּים, וְחוּם בַּכְּשָׂבִים--גָּנוּב הוּא, אִתִּי.	33 So shall my righteousness witness against me hereafter, when thou shalt come to look over my hire that is before thee: every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and dark among the sheep, that if found with me shall be counted stolen.'
לד וַיֹּאמֶר לָבָן, הֵן: לוּ, יְהִי כִדְבָרֶךָ.	34 And Laban said: 'Behold, would it might be according to thy word.'
לה וַיָּסַר בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא אֶת-הַתְּיָשִׁים הָעֲקֻדִּים וְהַטְּלֻאִים, וְאֵת כָּל-הָעִזִּים הַנְּקֻדּוֹת וְהַטְּלֻאֹת, כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-לָבָן בּוֹ, וְכָל-חוּם בַּכְּשָׂבִים; וַיִּתֵּן, בְּיַד-בָּנָיו.	35 And he removed that day the he-goats that were streaked and spotted, and all the she-goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had white in it, and all the dark ones among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons.

Was the arrangement that any spotted or speckled sheep or goat that was born would be Yaakov's? This seems to be the common understanding. Thus Speiser explains that Lavan has played a trick on Yaakov, in verses 35-36:

לה וַיָּסַר בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא אֶת-הַתְּיָשִׁים הָעֲקֻדִּים וְהַטְּלֻאִים, וְאֵת כָּל-הָעִזִּים הַנְּקֻדּוֹת וְהַטְּלֻאֹת, כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-לָבָן בּוֹ, וְכָל-חוּם בַּכְּשָׂבִים; וַיִּתֵּן, בְּיַד-בָּנָיו.	35 And he [=Lavan] removed that day the he-goats that were streaked and spotted, and all the she-goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had white in it, and all the dark ones among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons.
לו וַיָּשֶׂם, דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים, בֵּינוֹ, וּבֵין יַעֲקֹב; וְיַעֲקֹב, רֹעֶה אֶת-צֹאן לָבָן--הַנּוֹתָרֹת.	36 And he set three days' journey betwixt himself and Jacob. And Jacob fed the rest of Laban's flocks.

for without sheep and goats which are currently spotted and speckled, it is unlikely that any offspring from the remaining sheep will have spotted or speckled sheep. Thus, Lavan plays a trick by removing all such sheep and giving them over to his sons to watch, at a distance of three day's journey. Yaakov will get zero sheep and goats for his effort. This is in keeping with Lavan as trickster, as he switched Leah for Rachel in their first arrangement.

Yaakov then tricks Lavan in return, and receives his just reward, by using striped rods of poplar when the sheep and goats mate.

I would offer an alternative. Perhaps Lavan did nothing wrong when he removed the sheep to three days journey away. Perhaps the arrangement was not that Yaakov should have the offspring. Now, certainly this seems to be the arrangement, from Yaakov's description in the next perek:

ז וַאֲבִיכֶן הֵתֶל בִּי, וְהֶחֱלִף אֶת-מַשְׂכֻּרְתִּי עֲשֶׂרֶת מֹנִים; וְלֹא-נְתָנוֹ אֱלֹקִים, לְהָרַע עִמָּדִי.	7 And your father hath mocked me, and changed my wages ten times; but God suffered him not to hurt me.
ח אִם-כֹּה יֹאמַר, נְקֻדִּים יִהְיֶה שְׂכָרֶךָ--וְיָלְדוּ כָל-הַצֹּאן, נְקֻדִּים; וְאִם-כֹּה יֹאמַר, עֲקֻדִּים יִהְיֶה שְׂכָרֶךָ--וְיָלְדוּ כָל-הַצֹּאן, עֲקֻדִּים.	8 If he said thus: The speckled shall be thy wages; then all the flock bore speckled; and if he said thus: The streaked shall be thy wages; then bore all the flock streaked.

But what if that were not in fact their arrangement?

What if the arrangement was actually to divide the flocks as they stood right then at that day, such that there were now Lavan's flocks and Yaakov's flocks. Such a division would be difficult to maintain, for who knows which sheep or goat belongs to which flock? The solution to this difficulty would be to choose some salient property of sheep, such that they could be distinguished from the others, and then one would know which sheep is Yaakov's and which sheep is Lavan's. Similarly, for offspring. Since Yaakov's sheep are all spotted and speckled, their offspring will likely be entirely spotted and speckled. And Lavan's sheep and goats, none of which are spotted and speckled, will likely produce offspring which are not spotted and speckled.

Let us see this in the pesukim:

לא וַיֹּאמֶר, מָה אֶתֶּן-לָךְ; וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב, לֹא-תִתֶּן-לִי מְאוּמָה--אִם-תַּעֲשֶׂה-לִּי הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, אָשׁוּבָה אֶרְעֶה צֹאנְךָ אֶשְׁמֹר.

31 And he said: 'What shall I give thee?' And Jacob said: 'Thou shalt not give me aught; if thou wilt do this thing for me, I will again feed thy flock and keep it.

Thus Yaakov proposes that he continue to watch Lavan's flock. Only Lavan's flock, not his own.

לב אֶעֱבֹר בְּכָל-צֹאנְךָ הַיּוֹם, הָסֵר מִשָּׁם כָּל-שֶׂה נָקֹד וְטָלוּא וְכָל-שֶׂה-חוּם בַּכְּשָׂבִים, וְטָלוּא וְנָקֹד, בָּעִזִּים; וְהָיָה, שְׂכָרִי.

32 I will pass through all thy flock to-day, removing from thence every speckled and spotted one, and every dark one among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats; and of such shall be my hire.

Yaakov those proposes they divide the flocks on that day. In fact, that is what Lavan (or perhaps Yaakov) later does. These current ones are Yaakov's hire.

לג וְעָנְתָה-בִּי צִדְקָתִי בְּיוֹם מָחָר, כִּי-תָבוֹא עַל-שְׂכָרִי לְפָנֶיךָ: כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-אֵינֶנּוּ נָקֹד וְטָלוּא בָּעִזִּים, וְחוּם בַּכְּשָׂבִים--גָּנוּב הוּא, אִתִּי.

33 So shall my righteousness witness against me hereafter, when thou shalt come to look over my hire that is before thee: every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and dark among the sheep, that if found with me shall be counted stolen.'

For every day thereafter {=בְּיוֹם מָחָר}, Lavan will have to trust Yaakov - and Yaakov promises on his righteousness, that any that is not speckled or spotted among the sheep shall be considered stolen. Why stolen? Not just because that is not what he is entitled to among the joint offspring. Rather, if a non-spotted or speckled sheep is among Yaakov's flock, it is probably the offspring of Lavan's flock. Thus Yaakov must have stolen it!

לד וַיֹּאמֶר לָבָן, הֵן: לוּ, יְהִי כִדְבָרֶךָ.	34 And Laban said: 'Behold, would it might be according to thy word.'
לה וַיָּסַר בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא אֶת-הַתְּיָשִׁים הָעֲקֻדִּים וְהַטְּלֻאִים, וְאֵת כָּל-הָעִזִּים הַנְּקֻדּוֹת וְהַטְּלֻאֹת, כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-לָבָן בּוֹ, וְכָל-חוּם בַּכְּשָׂבִים; וַיִּתֵּן, בְּיַד-בָּנָיו.	35 And he removed that day the he-goats that were streaked and spotted, and all the she-goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had white in it, and all the dark ones among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons.

It is not clear who is doing the removing. It seems Lavan, but Yaakov is also a possibility. Either way, he is doing exactly what Yaakov proposed in verse 32, removing on that day the sheep. Why remove them? Because there are to be two separate flocks.

The flocks are not to interbreed or it would defeat the purpose. Thus:

לה וַיָּסַר בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא אֶת-הַתְּיָשִׁים הָעֲקֻדִּים וְהַטְּלֻאִים, וְאֵת כָּל-הָעִזִּים הַנְּקֻדּוֹת וְהַטְּלֻאֹת, כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-לָבָן בּוֹ, וְכָל-חוּם בַּכְּשָׂבִים; וַיִּתֵּן, בְּיַד-בָּנָיו.	35 And he removed that day the he-goats that were streaked and spotted, and all the she-goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had white in it, and all the dark ones among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons.
לו וַיָּשֶׂם, דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים, בֵּינוֹ, וּבֵין יַעֲקֹב; וְיַעֲקֹב, רֹעֶה אֶת-צֹאן לָבָן--הַנּוֹתָרֹת.	36 And he set three days' journey betwixt himself and Jacob. And Jacob fed the rest of Laban's flocks.

The idea being that they would not interbreed, and so Yaakov would have his own flock, and Lavan would have his own flock. Should some speckled or spotted sheep come about, perhaps they somehow were fathered by Yaakov's sheep and belonged to Yaakov - or Yaakov he had come and taken his flocks.

If so, Yaakov's trick to increase the number of speckled and spotted sheep amongst Lavan's flock is even trickier than before - he would not be merely acting cleverly within the rules, but actually breaking the rules by appropriating sheep that weren't his. Alternatively, the rules were indeed that any speckled or spotted sheep and goat would be Yaakov's, but this was the result of assumptions of what would be naturally be produced, and any exceptions were to just be assigned to Yaakov, so that reckoning would be easier.

What then to make of Yaakov's complaint?

ז וַאֲבִיכֶן הֵתֶל בִּי, וְהֶחֱלִף אֶת-מַשְׂכֻּרְתִּי עֲשֶׂרֶת מֹנִים; וְלֹא-נְתָנוֹ אֱלֹקִים, לְהָרַע עִמָּדִי.	7 And your father hath mocked me, and changed my wages ten times; but God suffered him not to hurt me.
ח אִם-כֹּה יֹאמַר, נְקֻדִּים יִהְיֶה שְׂכָרֶךָ--וְיָלְדוּ כָל-הַצֹּאן, נְקֻדִּים; וְאִם-כֹּה יֹאמַר, עֲקֻדִּים יִהְיֶה שְׂכָרֶךָ--וְיָלְדוּ כָל-הַצֹּאן, עֲקֻדִּים.	8 If he said thus: The speckled shall be thy wages; then all the flock bore speckled; and if he said thus: The streaked shall be thy wages; then bore all the flock streaked.

Perhaps we could say that Lavan changed the rules as to what flock in its entirety (including offspring) was to be Yaakov's. These verses are admittedly somewhat problematic to this speculative theory.

Another alternative, which sits better:
What was the purpose of moving away the speckled sheep and goats? Perhaps Yaakov was only arranging for the hire to be the speckled and spotted offspring, and not any of the existing sheep. If so, we would not want to confuse the existing sheep with the speckled and spotted offspring of the flock. To avoid such confusion, Yaakov suggests that Lavan go through the flock that day and remove any speckled and spotted sheep and goats. Lavan rightly moves these sheep and goats three day's journey away.
Now, non-spotted and speckled sheep are expected to yield a certain percentage of spotted and speckled sheep, and Yaakov increased that percentage. But Lavan, in moving the sheep, did exactly what Yaakov asked him.
This also explains why Lavan entrusted the current spotted and speckled sheep to his sons.

Translator's Notebook: Translating Ambiguous Present-Tense Plural

I have been translating Rif for a while now, and have developed a sense of some of the difficulties of translation. Should one translate literally at the expense of stilted language? Or translate to generate the general sense, in more flowing language? What if the language is ambiguous? In most works of translation (and, e.g. in machine translation), you need to give a single translation, as opposed to an n-best-list of the top n best possible translations.

One thing I've found myself struggling with is the plural present tense. In past and future tenses, Hebrew is fine. It is a pro-drop language, which means there is no explicit pronoun there, because it has rich morphology, with the pronoun modifying the verb instead (e.g. amarti, amarta, yichtov, etc.). In present, neutral tense, though, Hebrew is not pro-drop. Thus, omer is not enough to tell me who is speaking. Is it ani omer, ata omer, hu omer? The pronoun is really required, and is often present. Thus, holech adam el chenvani, a person may go to a shopkeeper -- we specify adam, which shows that this is the third person (hu).

Indeed, it seems fairly consistent in Mishnayot/baryata that for the singular case, it is either past tense third person or present tense first person.

However, it feels more difficult when we encounter the plural present tense case. The word omrim might occur in a Mishna or brayta, and we do not know who is talking. Is it atem omrim, anachnu omrim, or hem omrim? It is somehow the style to leave it out, which leaves this ambiguous. It does not really matter since what is at play is the command of what one may or may not do, and this is conveyed regardless of the pronoun attached. Yet a translator -- at least into English -- must resolve this ambiguity.

The most logical assumption would be that it would be third person plural (hem), just as the standard third person singular (hu). The approach I've seen most commonly in other translations is to render it as the third person singular ("one, he"), or as the first person plural ("we").

Why render it "we?" Especially where a third person singular already exists (e.g. machzirin oto), the inclination may be to say, "well, we already have the third person here, so the Mishna is telling us how to deal with him." But also, if no other pronoun is specified, and it is instructions about what to do or not to do, somehow "we" do something or should not do something feels more natural.

I recently came across a case that makes clear, at least in one case, how Shmuel the Amora understood a neutral tense plural verb. Citing from my own translation at Alfasi:

Mishna:

אין מבקעין עצים מן הקורות ולא מן הקורה שנשברה ביו"ט ואין מבקעין לא בקרדום ולא במגל ולא במגרה אלא בקופיץ.

בית שהוא מלא פירות סתום ונפחת נוטל ממקום הפחת ר"מ אומר אף פוחת לכתחלה ונוטל

They do not chop wood from beams or from a beam which broke on Yom Yov, nor may they chop with an axe, a saw or a sickle, but {only} with a cleaver {of a butcher}.

{Beitza 31b}
A closed {our Mishna lacks the word סתום} house which is full of fruits which became breached, he may take from the place of the breach.
Rabbi Meir said: He may even breach it initially and take.

Gemara:

והא אמרת רישא אין מבקעין כלל
א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני אין מבקעין עצים לא מן הקורות ולא מן הקורה שנשברה ביו"ט אבל מן הקורה שנשברה מעיו"ט מבקעין
וכשהן מבקעין אין מבקעין לא בקרדום ולא במגל ולא במגרה אלא בקופיץ
תנ"ה אין מבקעין עצים לא מן הסואר של קורות ולא מן הקורה שנשברה ביו"ט לפי שאינו מן המוכן

But the reisha {beginning of the Mishna} said that one should not chop at all!
Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: The text is deficient and this is what it means to say: "They may not chop from beams, nor from a beam which broke on Yom Tov, but from a beam which broke from erev Yom Tov they may chop. And when they chop, they may not chop they with an axe, a saw or a sickle, but {only} with a cleaver.
A brayta also says so: They may not chop from the stack of beams nor from a beam which broke on Yom Tov because it is not "prepared."

How should we go about translating אין מבקעין. I will tell you what Artscroll does. It remains consistent with it usual style and translates "we may not chop." There is a problem with this, though. Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel that the Mishna was as if deficient in its language:

א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני אין מבקעין עצים לא מן הקורות ולא מן הקורה שנשברה ביו"ט אבל מן הקורה שנשברה מעיו"ט מבקעין
וכשהן מבקעין אין מבקעין לא בקרדום ולא במגל ולא במגרה אלא בקופיץ

The key phrase here is וכשהן מבקעין, "and when they do chop." The word hen is there, and so it must be third person plural. So what does Artscroll do? Throughout this entire statement of Shmuel, they make every אין מבקעין into "they may not chop." But, they do not then go back and change their translation of the Mishna, just a bit earlier -- they leave it as "we."

I went back and changed it. I would guess that I really should be consistent and change all the hundreds of other instances of ambiguous neutral tense plural as well, but at least I was consistent in this instance. Until I see evidence otherwise, I am going to try in general to render it as "they," even though it feels a bit more stilted.