Friday, May 18, 2007

Parshat Bamidbar: In the presence of Aaron their father - but who did what?

In parshat Bamidbar, we read {Bemidbar 3:4}:
ג אֵלֶּה, שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן, הַכֹּהֲנִים, הַמְּשֻׁחִים--אֲשֶׁר-מִלֵּא יָדָם, לְכַהֵן. 3 These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the priests that were anointed, whom he consecrated to minister in the priest's office.
ד וַיָּמָת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא לִפְנֵי ה בְּהַקְרִבָם אֵשׁ זָרָה לִפְנֵי ה, בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי, וּבָנִים, לֹא-הָיוּ לָהֶם; וַיְכַהֵן אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר, עַל-פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם. {פ 4 And Nadab and Abihu died before the LORD, when they offered strange fire before the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai, and they had no children; and Eleazar and Ithamar ministered in the priest's office in the presence of Aaron their father. {P}
There is a dispute amongst parshanim as to the meaning of עַל-פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם at the end of pasuk 4. Rashi explains it as rendered in the JPS translation above, that they, Eleazar and Itamar, ministered in their father's lifetime. This certainly seems like the most straightforward explanation, especially in light of the previous pasuk.

Ramban, however, points to a parallel in Divrei Hayamim I 24:2:
א וְלִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן, מַחְלְקוֹתָם: בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן--נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא, אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר. 1 And the courses of the sons of Aaron were these. The sons of Aaron: Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.
ב וַיָּמָת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא לִפְנֵי אֲבִיהֶם, וּבָנִים לֹא-הָיוּ לָהֶם; וַיְכַהֲנוּ, אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר. 2 But Nadab and Abihu died before their father, and had no children; therefore Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest's office.
ג וַיֶּחָלְקֵם דָּוִיד--וְצָדוֹק מִן-בְּנֵי אֶלְעָזָר, וַאֲחִימֶלֶךְ מִן-בְּנֵי אִיתָמָר: לִפְקֻדָּתָם, בַּעֲבֹדָתָם. 3 And David with Zadok of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahimelech of the sons of Ithamar, divided them according to their ordering in their service.
Ramban matches עַל-פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם in parshat Bamidbar to לִפְנֵי אֲבִיהֶם in Divrei Hayamim, and therefore interprets the pasuk in Bamidbar differently. It is rather Nadav and Avihu (rather than Elezear and Itamar) who died (rather than ministered) עַל-פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם (and also, of course לִפְנֵי ה). Thus, it the phrase attaches to a place much earlier in the verse, and much higher in the syntactic tree.

The trup appears to agree with Rashi's reading, putting the etnachta on lahem, thus clearly having עַל־פְּנֵ֖י אַֽהֲרֹ֥ן אֲבִיהֶֽם as part of the second portion of the verse.
א וְאֵ֛לֶּה תּֽוֹלְדֹ֥ת אַֽהֲרֹ֖ן וּמֹשֶׁ֑ה בְּי֗וֹם דִּבֶּ֧ר יְהוָ֛ה אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֖ה בְּהַ֥ר סִינָֽי׃ ב וְאֵ֛לֶּה שְׁמ֥וֹת בְּֽנֵי־אַהֲרֹ֖ן הַבְּכֹ֣ר ׀ נָדָ֑ב וַֽאֲבִיה֕וּא אֶלְעָזָ֖ר וְאִֽיתָמָֽר׃ ג אֵ֗לֶּה שְׁמוֹת֙ בְּנֵ֣י אַֽהֲרֹ֔ן הַכֹּֽהֲנִ֖ים הַמְּשֻׁחִ֑ים אֲשֶׁר־מִלֵּ֥א יָדָ֖ם לְכַהֵֽן׃ ד וַיָּ֣מָת נָדָ֣ב וַֽאֲבִיה֣וּא לִפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֡ה בְּֽהַקְרִבָם֩ אֵ֨שׁ זָרָ֜ה לִפְנֵ֤י יְהוָה֙ בְּמִדְבַּ֣ר סִינַ֔י וּבָנִ֖ים לֹֽא־הָי֣וּ לָהֶ֑ם וַיְכַהֵ֤ן אֶלְעָזָר֙ וְאִ֣יתָמָ֔ר עַל־פְּנֵ֖י אַֽהֲרֹ֥ן אֲבִיהֶֽם׃ {פ
Shadal points this out, stating:
על פני אהרון אביהם : לדעת רמב"ן חוזר למעלה, וימת נדב ואביהוא על פני אהרן אביהם, וכן הוא בד"ה א' כ"ד ב ', והאתנח ראוי תחת ואיתמר (נתה"ש
Thus, Shadal appears to agree with Ramban's reading, but points out that the etnachta should go under the word veItamar.

As it currently stands:


Click on the image to see the trup tree. If we move the etnachta to Itamar, the first division moves to that point, and we can say (for instance) that עַל-פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם modifies the entire first portion of the verse, where the main topic is Nadav and Avihu's death, with Eleazar and Itamar as an aside.

Shadal feels free to do this because he holds that the particular trup as we have it is post-Talmudic. What would Ramban say, though?

I would note the gemara in Chagiga 6b, where there is a machloket about the meaning of a specific pasuk in terms of which karbanot were brought, with the nafka mina being what trup there is (at least as Rashi explains it):

אל בעי רב חסדא האי קרא היכי כתיב (שמות כד) וישלח את נערי בני ישראל ויעלו עולות כבשים ויזבחו זבחים שלמים לה' פרים או דלמא אידי ואידי פרים הוו למאי נפקא מינה מר זוטרא אמר לפיסוק טעמים

Perhaps if this is really so we should move the position of etnachta when laining this Shabbos, and recalculate all the rest of the trup to match.

Perhaps one can point out the Wickes has the primary dichotomy as a logical one and all subsequent (minor) dichotomies as syntactic, and the present position of the etnachta is the one that divides the pasuk most into two discrete logical topics, even though it strands the last phrase in a syntactically invalid or awkward position.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Are We All Thieves? High Tech Heists and Halacha

I just received this in my email. A source book/shiur about intellectual property and piracy. Plus more. Check it out.


as

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Misquoting Kohelet Rabba

I typically read the letters to the editor in the Jewish Press each week. This week's ended with a dvar Torah sent in showing how Chazal were big fans of environmentalism.

The letter starts:
Shavuos honors the receiving of the Torah, the time when Jews accepted the responsibility to be a light unto the world. Part of that responsibility is to accept God’s creations. Koheles Rabbah (VII, 13) states, “See my works, how beautiful and praiseworthy they are; and I created all of it for you. Be careful not to spoil or destroy my world because if you spoil it, there will be no one after you to repair it.”
The quote appears to be talking to all of man, and telling him to take care of the world and not ruin the environment, for if you spoil it, it cannot be undone.

In fact, the full quote is:

Thus, it was directed to Adam haRishon, not to all people. The beautiful and wonderous works were the trees of Gan Eden. The ruining of it was not by chopping down trees or polluting a river but rather by sinning by eating from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. And the quote would have made that clear since it continues from "there will be no one after you to repair it" with "and not only that, but you will cause death to that righteous person" (who is Moshe, as we continue to read). Thus, the topic is refraining from sin rather than environmental protection.

And as we see, he did mess up and caused all this.

Perhaps one can extrapolate from all this an environmental message (and perhaps not), but this is either deliberately or accidentally dishonest. And where you start manufacturing quotes by taking them out of context, I begin to wonder whether any of the sources legitimately bolster your claim. (In fact, this has been true in the past for other environmentalism devar Torah claims.)

Indeed, his other two quotes make use of ellipses, which make me wonder whether he is Dowdifying the quotes. I don't have time right now to examine them, though.

Scattered Thoughts on haftarat Bamidbar

The haftara for Bamidbar is the second perek of Hoshea, and I have a few points to note:

The mashal is to a cheating spouse, who is cast off, seeks her lovers but does not attain them, and then seeks to return to her first spouse - אֵלְכָה וְאָשׁוּבָה אֶל-אִישִׁי הָרִאשׁוֹן--כִּי טוֹב לִי אָז, מֵעָתָּה. Meanwhile, what she thought were the wages of her lovers (the Bealim) were really provided by her husband. And then he woos her and betroths her forever.

There is a connection to the previous perek where Hoshea followed Hashem's instruction to marry a harlot and "children of harlotry" (though my reading of it had the children born being fathered by Hoshea -- and I take וַיִּקַּח there to mean marry), and to name the children born as they are named.

According to halacha, though, I wonder whether the mashal could be realized. It is not really a machzir gerushato problem, since she did not marry the lovers after being sent off by her husband. But a sota is forbidden to her lover and to her husband. Luckily for us, this is a mashal, and one cannot ask such a question on it to uproot the nimshal.

The next two points are not original. In pasuk 18:
יח וְהָיָה בַיּוֹם-הַהוּא נְאֻם-יְהוָה, תִּקְרְאִי אִישִׁי; וְלֹא-תִקְרְאִי-לִי עוֹד, בַּעְלִי. 18 And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call Me Ishi, and shalt call Me no more Baali.
יט וַהֲסִרֹתִי אֶת-שְׁמוֹת הַבְּעָלִים, מִפִּיהָ; וְלֹא-יִזָּכְרוּ עוֹד, בִּשְׁמָם. 19 For I will take away the names of the Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be mentioned by their name.
Notice how the JPS translation deliberately does not translate Ishi and Baali. There is deliberate multivalence, here, or at least a pun. Ishi means husband, and Baali also can be used to mean husband. Malbim says that the former connotes the love aspect of the relationship while the latter refers to the memshala of the relationship. But of course it can also refer to Baal as in the idolatry (as in the immediate context in the next pasuk). This is a deliberate pun.

Finally, the last pasuk has a word we spoke about in a Biblical Hebrew class or two:
כב וְאֵרַשְׂתִּיךְ לִי, בֶּאֱמוּנָה; וְיָדַעַתְּ, אֶת-ה. {פ} 22 And I will betroth thee unto Me in faithfulness; and thou shalt know the LORD. {P}
וְיָדַעַתְּ is strange, but that is its grammatical form. What is strange about it is the dagesh in the tav at the end. If it were a dagesh chazak, we would expect a sheva na under it, which we clearly do not have -- and why should there be a dagesh chazak? It would therefore be a dagesh kal, but we have that only in a consonant cluster at the end of the word? -- if the ayin had a sheva nach, we could have the tav with a sheva nach as well. Since the ayin has a patach, we should expect the dagesh kal to be absent from the tav. It is thus a cross between veyada'ath and veyada't.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Is It Halachically Problematic to Make Use of Someone Else's Tunes?

Without linking to the "controversy" ... more specifically, can a Jewish artist take a tune from a secular source and make a Jewish variant of it -- and then make a profit, by selling CDs with the tune or performing it in concert.

I am not a lawyer, and will not address this from a legal angle. Nor am I giving a pesak halacha here.

However, classically, this is what has been done over and over, even for some secular songs. The tune to the Star Spangled Banner is a rip-off of a Russian drinking song. Many chassidish niggunim are Russian or Polish drinking songs or marches. Case in point -- the Tetris niggun.

Further, where the audience is small and specific - a niche market - then this is a classic case of zeh nehneh vezeh lo chaser - "this one benefits and this one does not lose" - which is halachically permissible. People who buy Uncle Moishe are typically not the same ones that buy Raffi, and people who buy MBD are typically not the type to listen to German rock bands. So I would say "no." Schlock Rock to regular rock - well, they are targeting the same audience as a kiruv endeavor, but still, one would have to see if people really would buy one as an alternative to the other (I would tend to doubt it, but don't know).

Meanwhile, copying a CD or tape where you really otherwise would have purchased it -- this can certainly be cast as zeh nehneh vezeh chaser, which is more problematic.

parshat Behar, Bamidbar: Mah Inyan Shemitta Eitzel Har Sinai

Parshat Behar began {Vayikra 25:1}:
א וַיְדַבֵּר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, בְּהַר סִינַי לֵאמֹר. 1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying:
ב דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם, כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן לָכֶם--וְשָׁבְתָה הָאָרֶץ, שַׁבָּת לַה. 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto the LORD.
ג שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְרַע שָׂדֶךָ, וְשֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְמֹר כַּרְמֶךָ; וְאָסַפְתָּ, אֶת-תְּבוּאָתָהּ. 3 Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the produce thereof.
Rashi asks the now-famous question, mah inyan shemitta eitzel har sinai? Rashi explains:
on Mount Sinai What [special relevance] does the subject of Shemittah [the “release” of fields in the seventh year] have with Mount Sinai? Were not all the commandments stated from Sinai? However, [this teaches us that] just as with Shemittah, its general principles and its finer details were all stated from Sinai, likewise, all of them were stated-their general principles [together with] their finer details-from Sinai. This is what is taught in Torath Kohanim (25:1). [And why is Shemittah used as the example to prove this rule, especially since the very fine details are not even specified here (Sefer Hazikkaron)?] It appears to me that its explanation is as follows: [At the plains of Moab, Moses reiterated the majority of the laws of the Torah to the Israelites before their entry into the land of Israel, this reiteration comprising most of the Book of Deuteronomy. Now,] since we do not find the laws of Shemittah [“release”] of land reiterated on the plains of Moab in Deuteronomy, we learn that its general principles, finer details, and explanations were all stated at Sinai. Scripture states this [phrase] here to teach us that [just as in the case of Shemittah,] every statement [i.e., every commandment] that was conveyed to Moses came from Sinai, [including] their general principles and finer details [and that the commandments delineated in Deuteronomy were merely] repeated and reviewed on the plains of Moab [not originally given there].
We see the following in the beginning of parshat Bamidbar, by Rashbam. On the first pasuk of Bamidbar {Bamidbar 1:1}:

א וַיְדַבֵּר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי, בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד: בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית, לְצֵאתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם--לֵאמֹר. 1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tent of meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying:
ב שְׂאוּ, אֶת-רֹאשׁ כָּל-עֲדַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם, לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם--בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת, כָּל-זָכָר לְגֻלְגְּלֹתָם. 2 'Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of names, every male, by their polls;
He notes בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד and explains that this is new, in the second year -- as the pasuk states, בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית. Until now, during the first year, before the Mishkan was established, all dibrot to Moshe were labelled beHar Sinai. Once the Mishkan was established, it is beMidbar Sinai beOhel Moed. He gives an interesting prooftext on the basis of the presence or lack of Nadav and Avihu in the toledot of Aharon, given that Nadiv and Avihu died during the inauguration of the Mishkan.

Also, Rashbam gives a nice reason for the count in Bamidbar. The entire point is כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא, which is a repeated refrain. After all, their next task is conquering eretz Yisrael. Recall that this was before the sin of the meraglim, the spies.

Daf Yomi Yevamot 21a: Who Is Rav's Fourth?

I ask questions here, and provide source materials. I have clear preferences in answers, but much more thought is due than what I give it here.

Bavli Yevamot 21a:

אמר רב ארבע נשים יש להן הפסק נקיט רב בידיה תלת אשת אחי האם מן האב ואשת אחי האב מן האם וכלתו וזעירי מוסיף אף אשת אבי אמו
אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק וסימניך דעילאי דרב
ורב מאי טעמא לא חשיב ליה מיחלפא ליה באשת אבי אביו
וזעירי להתם שכיח ואזיל להכא לא שכיח ואזיל

Rav said: Four women have a break {in that only they are forbidden but not their descendants or ancestors}.
And Rav had in his hand three: The wife of his mother's paternal brother, the wife of his father's maternal brother, and the daughter-in-law of his daughter.
And Zeiri added: even the wife of his mother's father.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: And your mnemonic is "above that of Rav" {since it is one more than what he had in his hand, and it is one generation above that of Rav, going to the third generation.
And Rav, for what reason did he not reckon it? It will be confused with the wife of his father's father {who is forbidden Biblically, and who has no such break. therefore, they set no limit by her}.
And Zeiri {what reason does he say they set the limit in this case}? There {to the father's family}, it is common to go; here {the mother's family} one does not usually go.
Rif cites both Rav and Zeiri, which means we pasken like both of them.

Let us set aside the setama digmara's analysis for a moment, in which there is a dispute between Rav and Zeiri, and a reason why each does not hold like the other.

Note that Rav states that four women have a "break," but is only able to identify three. Why, then, say four?

There are at least two possibilities here. Recall that Rav is a first generation Amora, who studied braytot in Eretz Yisrael. One possibility is that Rav is recalling some tradition in a brayta that there are four such women, but is only able to come up with three of them. If so, perhaps Zeiri is coming up with the fourth, and Rav is grateful to him for this. What then of the setama digmara's analysis? We can apply it to the reason Rav did not come up with it initially. (After all, we pasken like Zeiri anyway. Why not let Rav agree.) Or else the setama came up with an excellent reason, but in fact Rav would hold like Zeiri. Alternatively, even after Zeiri spoke, Rav still disagreed, and still searches for that fourth case.

Another possibility is that Rav himself came up with four, but could not remember the fourth that he came up with. And then we can bring in all the possibilities listed above.

This is all if we only work locally, in Bavel. However, if we cast our eyes to Eretz Yisrael, to the Talmud Yerushalmi, perhaps we can find Rav's forgotten fourth woman.

{In Bavli, Before Rav's statement, we have the following definition of secondary forbidden relatives: ת"ר מה הם שניות אם אמו ואם אביו ואשת אבי אביו ואשת אבי אמו ואשת אחי האב מן האם ואשת אחי האם מן האב וכלת בנו וכלת בתו ומותר אדם באשת חמיו ובאשת חורגו ואסור בבת חורגו וחורגו מותר באשתו ובתו ואשת חורגו אומרת לו אני מותרת לך ובתי אסורה לך:
Our Rabbis taught: Who are the forbidden relatives in the second degree? — His mother's mother, his father's mother, his father's father's wife, his mother's fathers wife, the wife of his father's maternal brother, the wife of his mother's paternal brother, the daughter-in-law of his son daughter-in-law his daughter. A man is permitted to marry the wife of his father-in-law and the wife of his step-son but is forbidden to marry the daughter of his step-son. His step-son is permitted to marry his wife and his daughter. The wife of his step-son may say to him, 'I am permitted to you though daughter is forbidden to you'.}

Yerushalmi Yevamot 12a:
דף יב,א פרק ב הלכה ד גמרא

ואלו הן השניות
אם אביו
אם אמו
אשת אבי אביו.
ואשת אבי אמו.
אשת בן בנו
ואשת בן בתו.
אשת אחי אמו
ואשת אחי אביו מאמו.

תני רבי חנין אומר כולהון אין להן הפסק חוץ מאשת אבי אמו.
בר קפרא אמר כולהון יש להן הפסק דבר קפרא מוסיף אם אבי אמו ואם אבי אביו.
רב אמר כלת בנו יש לה הפסק.
מה פליג. כלת בנו ממקום אחר באת
So first it lists all the shniyot, secondary Rabbinically forbidden relatives. Then, there is a definition of who has this "break."

They taught {a brayta}: Rabbi Chanin says that all of them {the shniyot} do not have this "break" property except for the wife of his mother's father.
Bar Kappara {also a quasi-tanna, arranger of braytot just as Rabbi arranged Mishnayot} said: All of them have "breakage" -- for Bar Kappara adds his mother's father's mother and his father's father's mother.
Rav said: His son's daughter-in-law has "breakage."
What is the source of the dispute? His son's daughter-in-law comes from another place.
Interestingly, Zeiri's addition -- the wife of his mother's father -- is in fact the only exclusion given by Rabbi Chanin in the brayta.

Rav's case of his daughter's daughter-in-law does not appear in Yerushalmi.

If we bring in the Bavli, though, Rav does not agree with bar Kappara -- which is fine, because Rav tanna hu ufalig. The question is whether he agrees with Rabbi Chanin, brought in the brayta, which is seems bar Kappara was reacting to. If so, Zeiri is reminding Rav of the opinion in the brayta, to give him his fourth.

However, the Yerushalmi also gives us an explicit fourth attributed to Rav. Therefore, it would seem that Rav also rejects Rabbi Chanin, and Rav's fourth is his son's daughter-in-law, parallel to his daughter's daughter-in-law.

Tzarich iyyun and zeman, which I don't have at the moment. There is much more to say, but things are going on in which I cannot focus. Maybe I will revisit this later. See also the suggested girsological changes on the Yerushalmi by the meforshim.

Note: This post underwent a hurried extensive stealth edit shortly after being posted. Hopefully it still makes sense.

Square Rectangular Mail

From the new postal guidelines:

All large envelopes (flats) will be required to be rectangular in shape. This includes square pieces.

This had triggered jokes such as -- wow, if a square is not rectangular, they cannot deliver it?

While this is somewhat bad and unclear writing, there is of course a straightforward explanation -- it is a ribbuy (inclusion) rather than a miut (exclusion). All large envelopes (flats) will be required to be rectangular in shape. Presumably for machines to be able to process better. Ah, but what is the definition of a rectangle? There is a lenient mathematical definition, under which squares are a type of rectangle. There is also a more stringent colloquial definition under which a rectangle is a shape in which the length is not equal to the width. And perhaps the machines might even have difficulty processing this. Thus, they say that the set "rectangular in shape" "includes square pieces."

Monday, May 14, 2007

Reduction of Choilam

This past Shabbos, I davened in Rabbi Shapiro's shul and noticed that the baal shacharit pronounced all his cholams as /oy/. Which is Oykay by me. But then I noticed that he pronounced some of his cholams as /o/. For example, he said ledor vador and be`or panecha.

I came up with a few incorrect hypotheses to attempt to explain this - perhaps early on he pronounced these words as cholam rather than choilam, they go reduced to kamatz (which was about how he was pronouncing them), which now prevented realization of them as choilam.

But then Rabbi Shapiro davened mussaf, and I noticed that he did exactly the same thing, in the same places. (In fact, the baal shacharit was a grandson of Rabbi Shapiro.) And the kid who sang Adoin Oilam did the same. So, it is not an error so much as a consistent pattern.

The answer seems to be that there is a phonological reduction of choilam to cholam where it is followed by resh in a closed syllable. (A closed syllable is one that ends with a consonant.) Why? Well, try saying be`oir or ledoir. Based on the configuration of the mouth for each sound, there is an automatic sheva insertion to allow pronunciation of the resh. Thus, it would have to be pronounced le-doy-er and be-oy-er. With conscious effort, one can avoid this, but otherwise, it is automatic. This is somewhat like patach ganuv in Hebrew, where a final chet or ayin is introduced by a leading patach. (Or the diphthong ay as in the English word "mile," which most people I know pronounce as one syllable, but which Dr. Suess clearly pronounced as one, as you can see by his meter.)

The alternative to insertion of shwa, which is in effect transforms the syllable into two syllables,
one can reduced the diphthong-ness of the diphthong, thus changing the choilam into a cholam.

This appeared to be true only in closed syllables, but in open syllables, the resh could begin the next syllable and so their was no reduction. Thus, be-or (which is closed), but oirois (where the first oi is open, and the resh begins the next syllable.)

I noticed the Rabbi Shapiro had similar reduction, though not total reduction, in the presence of other closing consonants. Something to pay attention to in the future (besides of course for the semantic meaning of the words ;) .

Friday, May 11, 2007

Daf Yomi Yevamot: A Slightly Non-Normative Interpretation of Machzir Grushato

The topic of machzir grushato, remarrying one's ex-wife -- Devarim 24, in Ki Teitzei:
א כִּי-יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה, וּבְעָלָהּ; וְהָיָה אִם-לֹא תִמְצָא-חֵן בְּעֵינָיו, כִּי-מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר--וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ, וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ. 1 When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house,
ב וְיָצְאָה, מִבֵּיתוֹ; וְהָלְכָה, וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ-אַחֵר. 2 and she departeth out of his house, and goeth and becometh another man's wife,
ג וּשְׂנֵאָהּ, הָאִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן, וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ, וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ; אוֹ כִי יָמוּת הָאִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן, אֲשֶׁר-לְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה. 3 and the latter husband hateth her, and writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife;
ד לֹא-יוּכַל בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר-שִׁלְּחָהּ לָשׁוּב לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה--כִּי-תוֹעֵבָה הִוא, לִפְנֵי ָה; וְלֹא תַחֲטִיא, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה. {ס} 4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD; and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. {S}
What is the cause from this prohibition? I have always read it as law intended to prevent legalized "swinging." In swinging, couples swap partners, which would be considered adultery. Perhaps, they thought, they could legally divorce, marry the other person, then divorce and remarry. This closes this loophole and possibility. And this becomes law even where it is not the case.

However, another, slightly non-normative interpretation struck me as I was reading through Yevamot:

תניא רבי יוסי בן כיפר אומר משום רבי אליעזר בן עזריה המחזיר גרושתו מן הנשואין אסורה מן האירוסין מותרת שנאמר אחרי אשר הוטמאה
וחכמים אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה אסורה אלא מה אני מקיים אחרי אשר הוטמאה לרבות סוטה שנסתרה
They learnt {in a brayta}: Rabbi Yossi ben Kipper cites Rabbi Eliezer ben Azarya: If one remarries his ex-wife, where there was an intervening marriage {in full, with nisuin}, she is forbidden; where there was an intervening betrothal, she is permitted, for it is stated {Devarim 24:4}:
ד לֹא-יוּכַל בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר-שִׁלְּחָהּ לָשׁוּב לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה--כִּי-תוֹעֵבָה הִוא, לִפְנֵי ה; וְלֹא תַחֲטִיא, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה. {ס} 4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD; and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
And the Sages say: Both this and that {either intervening nisuin or intervening kiddushin} is forbidden. If so, how do I establish "after that she is defiled"? To include a sotah who secluded herself {with the man}.

וקי"ל כרבנן דאמרי בין מן הנשואין בין מן האירוסין אסורה ואם החזירה הולד כשר דכתיב כי תועבה היא היא תועבה ואין בניה תועבין
והני מילי ישראל אבל כהן הולד חלל ואפילו לא נתארסה
וגרושה שזינתה לאחר שנתגרשה מותרת לחזור לבעלה מאי טעמא הויה ואישות כתיבה בה:
And we establish like the Sages who say that whether from marriage or from betrothal, she is forbidden, and if he retakes her as a wife, the child born is valid {and is not a mamzer}, for it is written
ד לֹא-יוּכַל בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר-שִׁלְּחָהּ לָשׁוּב לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה--כִּי-תוֹעֵבָה הִוא, לִפְנֵי ה; וְלֹא תַחֲטִיא, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה. {ס} 4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD; and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. {S}
{toevah hi} - she is an abomination, but her children are not abominations.
According to Rabbi Yossi ben Kipper, we understand what אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה means. In nisuin, there is consummation of the marriage with sexual intercourse. This was within the bounds of marriage, but it is somehow considered "defiled," perhaps for the reason I outlined above.

But according to the Sages, this encompasses betrothal, which is just a formal procedure (giving over the ring). Perhaps this is a type of lo plug, drawing no distinctions in outlining the goal. But what is going on here? Why is she called "defiled" from the act of marrying, or betrothing, someone else?!

I would suggest the following, reading the pesukim somewhat in line with Bet Shammai. The first pasuk was:
א כִּי-יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה, וּבְעָלָהּ; וְהָיָה אִם-לֹא תִמְצָא-חֵן בְּעֵינָיו, כִּי-מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר--וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ, וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ. 1 When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house,
There is a famous dispute between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel (which surfaced as a dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees) whether Judaism allows for no-fault divorce, based on how one reads עֶרְוַת דָּבָר and whether that is the only cause for divorce (as opposed to e.g. אִם-לֹא תִמְצָא-חֵן בְּעֵינָיו). Is this any matter, or only a matter pertaining to ervah, relations (with a derasha on ervah).

Reading like Bet Shammai, why did he divorce at first? For unseemly sexual conduct. Now, a sotah, an adulteress, is forbidden to both the husband and to the adulterer. The husband must divorce her. Thus, as the second pasuk states, וְיָצְאָה, מִבֵּיתוֹ; וְהָלְכָה, וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ-אַחֵר. She receives a divorce, and marries someone else -- something she may do provided this is not the adulterer.

Now, she receives her divorce from the second man -- say, for similar reasons. Do we now say that while she may not remain married to her first husband, she may now remarry the first husband who, after all, was not the immediately recent betrayed party?

The pasuk answers that she may not. לֹא-יוּכַל בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר-שִׁלְּחָהּ לָשׁוּב לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה. Where was the defiling? The answer is in the first pasuk -- כִּי-מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר -- rather than in the second pasuk -- וְהָלְכָה, וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ-אַחֵר!

And this may be the meaning of the Sages interpreting אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה as a sotah shenistera.

Of course, the halacha is that the law would apply across the board, even in cases this were not so, but there would not be cases where this was not so according to Bet Shammai.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

P3: Winners Of And Solutions To Last Week's P3 Games

About half of the P3 (parsha punning puzzles) were solved, and where the solutions were not dead-on, they were still creative. What follows are the puzzles again, followed by a solution, followed by, where appropriate, a link to the winner's blog.

Each picture represents a phrase from parshat Emor. Each one is a bit more difficult, and arcane, than the previous one.

1)


was solved by yaak of Yeranen Yaakov. The answer is ayin tachat ayin = mammon. The pun in this is in the weird w-shaped symbol.
:)

An interesting recent post at Yeranen Yaakov is an essay question, in which he details all the times the phrase 40 years occurs in Tanach and asks which from this list the last 40 years where we have sovereignty over Yerushalayim is most like.

The fact that this number 40 appears over and over might be a hint that it is a canonical number connoting "a lot."

2) You might need to click this image to see it in more detail.



This one was solved by ADDeRabbi. The solution is שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים, תֵּעָשֶׂה מְלָאכָה
marbles + seas = female angel.
Because marble is shayish, yamim are seas, and this produces a female angel, where an angel is a mal'ach.
He is running his own series of punning puzzles, with a focus on Harry Potter.

3) The third one was more arcane:


Steg suggested, based on the ivory soap, ונתת על המערכת לבנה זכה, presumably because ivory soap is white and it is 99.44% pure.

Ephraim arrived at the solution. In Hebrew, Ivory is shen. The cowboy on the bottom is Shane. And Shane's picture is underneath. Thus, it is "Shane tachat shen."

4)
It might help to review Rashi or Bereishit Rabba on parshat Miketz for a hint on this one.

Yaak had a brilliant suggestion of sefirat haOmer for this one, the top image being a sapphire and the bottom being grain.

ADDeRabbi correctly identified this as being the Hope diamond.

The solution is shever tachat sever. Why? From Miketz {Bereishit 42:1}:
א וַיַּרְא יַעֲקֹב, כִּי יֶשׁ-שֶׁבֶר בְּמִצְרָיִם; וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב לְבָנָיו, לָמָּה תִּתְרָאוּ. 1 Now Jacob saw that there was corn in Egypt, and Jacob said unto his sons: 'Why do ye look one upon another?'
Corn means grain here. Rashi, citing Midrash Rabbi, midrashically changes the shin to a sin. He saw that there was hope in Egypt. The top picture is Hope. The bottom is grain. Thus, shever tachat sever.

5)

I didn't expect anyone to get this one, except perhaps by virtue of it being similar to the other puzzles.
It is supposed to represent nefesh tachat nefesh.

That fish is actually a yellow sole, a pun on "soul," nefesh.
The next picture is of two nuzzling and kissing unicorns. Some translate tachash as unicorn. And in Akkadian (and I claim in Biblical Hebrew as well), napishtu (=H nefesh) means neck.
Thus, a picture of necking unicorns is tachash nefesh.

Perhaps new puzzle(s) soon. If you have one to contribute, send it to me and I just might include it!

Skeik says it's OK to kill kids in battle

And I don't think I disagree. Here are some excerpts from the article in the Australian:
Sheik Shady Suleiman, a youth leader at Lakemba Mosque in Sydney's southeast, told his students in a one-hour Arabic and English lecture that it would be "self defence" to kill children who were attacking them in battle.

Muslim leaders yesterday attacked the 29-year-old cleric, who has a substantial following in Sydney, and accused him of delivering a message contrary to that of Prophet Mohammed who said children should not be killed in war. Prominent Sydney-based imam Khalil Shami said Sheik Shady's message was "dangerous" because it was open to being misconstrued by young Muslims.

...

He said the lecture was delivered to 60 young men who were advanced in Islamic studies and would not take it out of context and was "not an open lecture", despite being on his website.

"When I said children, I did not mean, of course, if you're going to get a five- or seven-year-old coming to attack you, you can stop him," he said yesterday.

"I was talking about self-defence. If you get attacked by someone, then you have the right to defend yourself. It doesn't mean you go kill them, especially if it's someone young."

To find a parallel, he may well be the equivalent of a rosh yeshiva giving a theoretical lecture on the finer points of law to his shiur, where there is no intent for them to put anything into practice. Under discussion was the exact parameters of an injunction on the killing of children in war. I can imagine parallels to that article a while back in Beis Yitzchak, which brought down in the course of a theoretical discussion one opinion as to whether the Biblical injunction on lo tirtzach applied to akum, which some silly people got upset about and made a whole hullabaloo, causing a major chillul Hashem. Here, some people might have blown this theoretical discussion out of proportion and applied PC principles to his lecture, and the other Muslim leaders are left to denounce him in order to reduce the chillul Allah.

Of course, context is key, and given the fact that in general, many Muslims are practically going out and waging jihad, and given that I don't know what he preaches generally, or what he defined as children attacking, it might be rather awful. A summary of his speech which heads the article is not promising in this regard:

THE deputy spiritual leader of Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali has told his students that it is "obligatory" for all Muslims to engage in jihad if an Islamic country is under attack, even if it means killing the enemy's children.

What is meant by "under attack?"

However, in principle, applied to the correct set of circumstances, he may well be correct. In war, it is considered immoral to kill civilians. Killing (civilian) women and children, presumed to be defenseless and not posing a threat, is considered wrong.

But what if the enemy uses this moral stand of yours to his advantage, and puts the children in harm's way, or even sends the children into battle. Must you stand stock-still and allow yourself or your fellow soldiers to be killed or wounded?

What if they send kids to throw stones (which can seriously injure) at soldiers, while in the background are gunmen shooting at the soldiers. The children are part of the attack. In Israel, this is what the Palestinians often do. In such a situation, where the children are part of the attack, I do not think that it is out of bounds to shoot and kill the hostile children, especially where the alternative is putting yourself at risk. Inevitably, the world condemnation which will result may be a reason not to do this, but perhaps -- probably -- there should not be world condemnation for this.

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Daf Yomi Yevamot 13a: Rav Ashi's Proof By Induction

As I was preparing Rif Yomi, I noticed a proof by induction. In induction, you prove a base case, and then show that if something is true for n, it is true for n+1 as well (the inductive step).

In terms of rivals and rival's rivals, there are two approaches. A general derasha to cover all, or an induction. To cite the gemara:
{Yevamot 2b}
כיצד פוטרות צרותיהן היתה בתו או אחת מכל העריות האלו נשואה לאחיו ולו אשה אחרת ומת כשם שבתו פטורה כך צרתה פטורה
הלכה צרת בתו ונישאת לאחיו השני ולו אשה אחרת ומת כשם שצרת בתו פטורה כך צרת צרתה פטורה ואפי' הן מאה

Mishna:
How do they exempt their rivals? If his daughter, or any one of these forbidden relatives, was married to his brother, and he {=his brother} had another wife, and he {=his brother} died, just as his daughter is exempt {from requiring yibbum or chalitza from him}, so too her rival is exempt.
If the rival of his daughter went and married {via yibbum} his second brother, and he {=his second brother} had another wife, and then he {=his second brother} died, then just as the rival of his daughter is exempt, so it the rival of his rival exempt {from yibbum or chalitza with him}, and even if they {the levels} are 100.

{Yevamot 13a resumes}
Gemara:
מה"מ אמר רב יהודה אמר קרא לצרור התורה ריבתה צרות הרבה אצל ערוה אחת
רב אשי אמר צרת צרתה לא צריכא קרא סברא הוא צרה מאי טעמא אסירא דבמקום ערוה קיימא צרת צרתה נמי במקום צרה קיימא:

From where do we know these words?
Rav Yehuda said: The verse stated {Vayikra 18}: לצרור. The Torah thus includes many rivals by one forbidden relation.
Rav Ashi said: The rival of the rival does not require a verse. It is logic. A rival, what is the reason she is forbidden? Because she stands {together} in place of the forbidden relation. The rival of a rival also, she stands {together for yibbum} in place with the rival.
Thus, there is a general rule that if someone is a rival with someone forbidden, they are forbidden {and thus exempt from yibbum and chalitza as well}.

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Jewish Blogmeiser Visits Le Marais

and details his visit. Check it out here.

I would eat there. Except of course that I don't get much chance to eat out in fancy restaurants nowadays.

I would disagree that the mashgiach is maliciously lying. It is quite possible that he interpreted certain things incorrectly, which led to a mistaken worldview, which led to further misinterpretations or, as a result of personality, to the belief in a coverup.

Similar to how some assume that Bush Lied! People Died! which is a very different thing from drawing the wrong conclusions from faulty intelligence.

Brain Death and Mandatory Organ Donation

Without taking a public position on the halachics of organ donation and whether brain death = death, I just would like to point out two salient articles.

The first is an opinion piece in Wired calling for mandatory organ donation (possibly with an opt-out):
"Routine recovery would be much simpler and cheaper to implement than proposals designed to stimulate consent because there would be no need for donor registries, no need to train requestors, no need for stringent government regulation, no need to consider paying for organs, and no need for permanent public education campaigns," wrote Aaron Spital, a clinical professor at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and James Stacey Taylor, an assistant professor of philosophy at the College of New Jersey, in a controversial article published this year by the American Society of Nephrology.
The other is that respiratory death is possibly reversible:
...
As recently as 1993, when Dr. Sherwin Nuland wrote the best seller "How We Die," the conventional answer was that it was his cells that had died. The patient couldn't be revived because the tissues of his brain and heart had suffered irreversible damage from lack of oxygen. This process was understood to begin after just four or five minutes. If the patient doesn't receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation within that time, and if his heart can't be restarted soon thereafter, he is unlikely to recover.

That dogma went unquestioned until researchers actually looked at oxygen-starved heart cells under a microscope. What they saw amazed them, according to Dr. Lance Becker, an authority on emergency medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

"After one hour," he says, "we couldn't see evidence the cells had died. We thought we'd done something wrong." In fact, cells cut off from their blood supply died only hours later.

...

But if the cells are still alive, why can't doctors revive someone who has been dead for an hour? Because once the cells have been without oxygen for more than five minutes, they die when their oxygen supply is resumed. It was that "astounding" discovery, Becker says, that led him to his post as the director of Penn's Center for Resuscitation Science, a newly created research institute operating on one of medicine's newest frontiers: treating the dead.

This metziut might well have implications for the halachics of organ donation.

Saturday, May 05, 2007

Rif Yomi Awakens!

The Alfasi blog took a brief hiatus for the duration of Chagiga, since there is no Rif on Chagiga (or rather, as I wrote, there is only a single daf on Chagiga, as an introduction to Moed Katan). But today the daf Yomi cycle began Yevamot. And so Alfasi is back on track.

Hooray.

Check it out here.

Friday, May 04, 2007

P3: Parsha Punning Puzzle for Emor #5


What phrase from the parsha am I?

This is degrees higher than the previous one.
Knowledge of American slang, as well as Akkadian, should be helpful.

Winners to these, BTW, get listed in a nifty post with link-tos to recent blog postings.

P3: Parsha Punning Puzzle for Emor #4

What phrase from the parsha am I?
I should note that these puzzles get more and more difficult in progression. It might help to review Rashi or Bereishit Rabba on parshat Miketz for a hint on this one.


Click on the image to zoom in.

By the way, I notice that Dave at Balashon is running a similar game, punning by way of krei and ketiv. Check it out.

P3: Parsha Punning Puzzle for Emor # 3


What phrase from the parsha am I?

Thursday, May 03, 2007

P3: Parsha Punning Puzzle for Emor #2

What phrase in the parsha am I?


Click on the image to zoom in.

P3: Parsha Punning Puzzle for Emor

What phrase from the parsha am I?

Monday, April 30, 2007

Helping Giant Pandas Conceive

I saw this on CNN.com.

They are showing videos of panda pornography to pandas to increase their sex drive so that they conceive. From one article:

Giant pandas, especially those in captivity, have such low sexual desires it is threatening their future, prompting workers to turn to artificial insemination to keep the endangered species going.

...

The Chengdu Giant Panda Breeding and Research Base in Sichuan Province is also in on the act, showing sex education films once in the morning and again in the evening.

"Through this kind of sex education, we expect to arouse the sexual instincts of giant pandas, enhance their natural mating ability and raise their reproductive capacity," said Zhang Hemin, director of the China Giant Panda Breeding and Research Center.

A video report at at CNN.

Yaakov Avinu did something similar. In Bereishit 20:

לז וַיִּקַּח-לוֹ יַעֲקֹב, מַקַּל לִבְנֶה לַח--וְלוּז וְעַרְמוֹן; וַיְפַצֵּל בָּהֵן, פְּצָלוֹת לְבָנוֹת--מַחְשֹׂף הַלָּבָן, אֲשֶׁר עַל-הַמַּקְלוֹת. 37 And Jacob took him rods of fresh poplar, and of the almond and of the plane-tree; and peeled white streaks in them, making the white appear which was in the rods.
לח וַיַּצֵּג, אֶת-הַמַּקְלוֹת אֲשֶׁר פִּצֵּל, בָּרְהָטִים, בְּשִׁקְתוֹת הַמָּיִם--אֲשֶׁר תָּבֹאןָ הַצֹּאן לִשְׁתּוֹת לְנֹכַח הַצֹּאן, וַיֵּחַמְנָה בְּבֹאָן לִשְׁתּוֹת. 38 And he set the rods which he had peeled over against the flocks in the gutters in the watering-troughs where the flocks came to drink; and they conceived when they came to drink.
לט וַיֶּחֱמוּ הַצֹּאן, אֶל-הַמַּקְלוֹת; וַתֵּלַדְןָ הַצֹּאן, עֲקֻדִּים נְקֻדִּים וּטְלֻאִים. 39 And the flocks conceived at the sight of the rods, and the flocks brought forth streaked, speckled, and spotted.
I would think that one could translate וַיֵּחַמְנָה and וַיֶּחֱמוּ as "went into heat."

I've been working on my academic presence on the web

very much a work in progress.
But check it out, if you wish. Some of what I've been working on is up there, and more will be added later.

A few weeks ago, I participated in a poster session at CUNY. Because of closeness to the deadline, I made my poster as a series of PowerPoint slided.

My poster is about creating a bitext transliteration corpus for Babylonian Talmud. You can follow find it on that webpage, or see it here.

It only looks good in Internet Explorer, not Firefox, though.

Is Rudy Giuliani an Adulterer?

No.

I try to shy away from politics on parshablog, but am willing to digress to comment when it touches on Torah and parsha related issues.

Via town crier,

who links favorably to this blog, which claims the Guliani is a notorious adulterer.
Rudy Giuliani, one of the most pro-gay politicians in America, is now pulling a Mitt Romney and trying to pretend that he's really not THAT pro-gay.
...
Sorry, Rudy. You're an adulterer. You cheated on your wife - which wife was that? - blatantly, flagrantly, publicly. And now you want us to believe that you're the great defender of marriage. You don't get the right to defend other people's marriages when you can't defend your own. How serious a moral crime is adultery, Rudy? Well, since you're doing this flip-flop in order to curry favor with America's Taliban, let's check the Bible, the King James version, to be precise (it's the version my people use), and see what God has to say about adultery:
Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Hmmm... surely put to death - now, no one is suggesting that you and your lover need to be put to death, Rudy, but the Bible makes it pretty clear that adultery is a big no-no. The kind of no-no that disqualifies you from suddenly, a few years after that adultery, becoming the great moral defender of marriage.

Let me quote that Biblical passage again, Rudy, just to get it straight:
the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death
Yeah, no ambiguity there, Rudy.
...
No ambiguity there, either.

You committed a moral crime that the Bible says is worthy of death. And now you want to turn around and sell yourself as the great purveyor of moral virtue in the very area, marriage, where you committed such a grievous offense.
I do not think that Jewish bloggers should parrot this, though.

Let us consider point by point what this fellow says.

Firstly,
You cheated on your wife - which wife was that?
That snide comment reflects a particular view that no-fault divorce is illegitimate. This is a Catholic view, following the views of Jesus, who followed the views of Bet Shammai. But we rule like Bet Hillel, that allows divorce and remarriage. Rudy Giuliani may be Catholic (he attended a Catholic school), but I consider it here from a Torah perspective.

Second, the author here says that he cheated on his wife, and this is adultery. And he quotes a verse from Vayikra, Leviticus, which states
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Yet he ignores the words of the verse which state with another man's wife. Specifically, the verse defines adultery as sleeping with another man's wife.

There is a reason for this. The Torah allows polygamy, but not polyandry. A woman may not have two husbands simultaneously, but a man may have two wives simultaneously.

Indeed, in parshat Ki Teitzei {Devarim 21:15}, we read:
טו כִּי-תִהְיֶיןָ לְאִישׁ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים, הָאַחַת אֲהוּבָה וְהָאַחַת שְׂנוּאָה, וְיָלְדוּ-לוֹ בָנִים, הָאֲהוּבָה וְהַשְּׂנוּאָה; וְהָיָה הַבֵּן הַבְּכֹר, לַשְּׂנִיאָה. 15 If a man have two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be hers that was hated;

Judith Nathan had been married previously, but at the time she began dating Guliani, she was already divorced.

If you point out that Guliani did not marry Judith Nathan immediately, and so perhaps they engaged in relations out of wedlock, the fact that Guliani was married bears no relevance. The situation is simply that of a man having relations with an unmarried woman, which is spelled out elsewhere. The next chapter of Deuteronomy gives the case for rape:
כח כִּי-יִמְצָא אִישׁ, נַעֲרָ בְתוּלָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא-אֹרָשָׂה, וּתְפָשָׂהּ, וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ; וְנִמְצָאוּ. 28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
כט וְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִמָּהּ, לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָ--חֲמִשִּׁים כָּסֶף; וְלוֹ-תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה, תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנָּהּ--לֹא-יוּכַל שַׁלְּחָהּ, כָּל-יָמָיו. {ס} 29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.
and some pesukim in Shemot 22 give the law for seduction:
טו וְכִי-יְפַתֶּה אִישׁ, בְּתוּלָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא-אֹרָשָׂה--וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ: מָהֹר יִמְהָרֶנָּה לּוֹ, לְאִשָּׁה. 15 And if a man entice a virgin that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely pay a dowry for her to be his wife.
טז אִם-מָאֵן יְמָאֵן אָבִיהָ, לְתִתָּהּ לוֹ--כֶּסֶף יִשְׁקֹל, כְּמֹהַר הַבְּתוּלֹת. {ס} 16 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. {S}
Of course, this is for a virgin, which she was not, but she was unmarried also, and so it is not considered adultery, but at the most, seduction.

Guliani's wife charged adultery as a reason for divorce based on definitions within American law. But that is not the same as Jewish law. And she charged that in response to a hurtful reason that Guliani listed as the reason for the divorce.
The filing by Donna Hanover, 52, came more than a year and a half after Giuliani filed to divorce her, citing cruel and inhuman treatment.

Hanover's lawyer, Helene Brezinsky, said her client rejected the grounds on which Giuliani's divorce was based.

"If there's going to be a divorce, let's have the truth about why — Rudy's open and notorious adultery," she said.
Meanwhile, the couple had been separated for quite a while, and it was major news when they were seen together.

Within Jewish law, this might well be sufficient for Giuliani to not be considered married. Not to judge him as a Jew, for he is not, but to judge him as a Ben Noach, a gentile who follows the 7 Noachide rules, which contains an injunction against adultery.

That is, it is quite possible that we do not require formal divorce with papers, but being separated from each other, in a way that everyone knows they are separated, might well be sufficient, to declare him, and his then-wife, Donna Hanover, unmarried, such that any actions on their part would not be considered adultery.

Rav Nachman As Mashiach?

Hat tip: Eliyahu.

An article in HaAretz, a review of "Megilat starim: hazono hamishikhi hasodi shel reb nachman mibratslav" ("Scroll of Secrets: The Hidden Messianic Vision of R. Nachman of Bratslav") by Zvi Mark, Bar-Ilan University, 253 pages:
Mark's first important conclusion is that the Messiah referred to in the scroll is a tzaddik (pious scholar) in Rabbi Nachman's own image. The messianic times portrayed here are "a perfect fulfillment of the Bratslav code of values." Indeed, Rabbi Nachman's personal messianic pretensions emerge loud and clear from various remarks attributed to him in his lifetime, particularly the statement that "everything the Messiah does for the benefit of the Jewish people, I can do, too. The difference is that the Messiah can carry out his mission ... whereas I do not yet have that capability."

Rabbi Nachman regarded himself as having all the necessary qualifications to be the Messiah. What kept him from fulfilling his messianic potential was a lack of recognition.

...

As we have said, Mark claims that the messianic figure described in "Scroll of Secrets" is a kind of reflection of Nachman himself. To be more exact, not only does Rabbi Nachman have a messianic mission, but the Messiah is an embodiment of all his qualities and abilities. It comes as no surprise, then, that the niggun, or Hasidic melody, that figures so highly in Rabbi Nachman's world, is slated to play a pivotal role in the messianic era.

...

Another special talent of Rabbi Nachman's, which he also ascribes to the future Messiah, is healing. According to his student Rabbi Nathan, Nachman had a book with cures for every illness in the world, but he chose not to use it. In the end, he had it burned. Rabbi Nachman's messiah, on the other hand, will plant a garden of plants and herbs for medicinal purposes, and supply each and every sick person with medicines providing a cure.
There is more. Check it out.

A Woman Drinking From A Man's Cup

Recently, I encountered what is either a new chumra, or a strange new twist on a segula. It was at a separate-seating sheva-brachot, and the chassan's wine and kallah's wine was being distributed.

The cup came to a single girl and she asked someone, concernedly, whether a man had drank from it, for if so, she did not wish to drink from it. She was assured by the other party that only women had drunk from it.

What exactly was the concern here?

There are three possibilities I can think of.

#1: There is a harchaka that a woman should not drink directly from her husband's cup when she is a niddah. Since this girl was unmarried, she never went to the mikveh, and thus had the halachic status of niddah. Therefore, she did not wish to drink from the same cup as a man.

This is silly, of course, because it is specifically a harchaka for a woman and her husband, so they they do not forget and progress to other things. It is most assuredly not for women in general. And especially where here, she did not even know whether a man had imbibed from this cup -- who would she become overly familiar with?

#2: Perhaps there is some injunction in general that some have adopted, not to have mixed drinking (just as there is separate seating), to prevent mingling of the sexes, which would be defined as drinking from the same cup. I've never heard of this before, but it is possible.

#3: There were two cups in play, and this is a segulah for finding a mate. Perhaps her fear was that if she drank from the cup for the men, she would be matched with a woman rather than with a man.

:)

In any case, I am of the opinion that this is an entirely unnecessary, silly practice.

5/5 Annual Lag Ba'Omer Bonfire - Rabbi Friedman's Shul

In Local Announcements:
Rabbi Friedmans shule(Corner 141 st & 72 rd) will be having their
annual lag b'omer hatlaka, bonfire & music event, this motzei shabbos may 5
starting at 10:15 pm. the entire community is invited. Please bring along your
children, to help make it a great night.
thank you
eli glaser

Friday, April 27, 2007

More on Schlissel Challah


Check out In Moyl Arayn about Schlissel Challah, for a good bibliography and discussion.

She writes, among other things:
Marvin Herzog’s discussion of the geography of hallah decoration includes mention of traditional hallah ornaments including “birds, ladders, hands, keys, and other objects that might facilitate the ascent of prayers into heaven.” Herzog also cites Uriel Wienreich’s 1962 article “Cultural Geography at a Distance: Some Problems in the Study of East European Jewry,” which demonstrates that the distribution of these designs was regional (32). These articles only mention dough shaped like keys, not baking actual keys in the dough.

This would argue in favor of it being a segulah from the get-go, in contrast to my prior suggestion...

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Posts so far for parshat Acharei Mot

At the moment, I am just barely treading water, so nothing new, just a recap of last years' posts.

Year 1
Year 2
to be continued

Saturday, April 21, 2007



parshablog

hello

Thursday, April 19, 2007

I've been busy the past few weeks...

and not just because of my brother's wedding this week. And will continue to be so until Sunday, and perhaps until next Friday. So blogging has been, and will be, light. As will be responding to comments.

Here's hoping that it is to some avail. If so, I'll blog about it. :)

Shabbat Shalom.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Vayeshev: Why Mention That Yosef Got Lost?

Yes, it is parshat Tazria-Metzorah, but I was thinking about this, and felt like writing it down.

Bereishit 37:
יד וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ, לֶךְ-נָא רְאֵה אֶת-שְׁלוֹם אַחֶיךָ וְאֶת-שְׁלוֹם הַצֹּאן, וַהֲשִׁבֵנִי, דָּבָר; וַיִּשְׁלָחֵהוּ מֵעֵמֶק חֶבְרוֹן, וַיָּבֹא שְׁכֶמָה. 14 And he said to him: 'Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren, and well with the flock; and bring me back word.' So he sent him out of the vale of Hebron, and he came to Shechem.
טו וַיִּמְצָאֵהוּ אִישׁ, וְהִנֵּה תֹעֶה בַּשָּׂדֶה; וַיִּשְׁאָלֵהוּ הָאִישׁ לֵאמֹר, מַה-תְּבַקֵּשׁ. 15 And a certain man found him, and, behold, he was wandering in the field. And the man asked him, saying: 'What seekest thou?'
טז וַיֹּאמֶר, אֶת-אַחַי אָנֹכִי מְבַקֵּשׁ; הַגִּידָה-נָּא לִי, אֵיפֹה הֵם רֹעִים. 16 And he said: 'I seek my brethren. Tell me, I pray thee, where they are feeding the flock.'
יז וַיֹּאמֶר הָאִישׁ, נָסְעוּ מִזֶּה--כִּי שָׁמַעְתִּי אֹמְרִים, נֵלְכָה דֹּתָיְנָה; וַיֵּלֶךְ יוֹסֵף אַחַר אֶחָיו, וַיִּמְצָאֵם בְּדֹתָן. 17 And the man said: 'They are departed hence; for I heard them say: Let us go to Dothan.' And Joseph went after his brethren, and found them in Dothan.
Why bother mentioning all this? Why not just say that he found his brothers?

One might say, that the Torah records it because it happened, and it is thus rightly part of the narrative. But unimportant details are often glossed over. Why bother mentioning this portion of the incident.

Obviously, there is the midrash on this, that he met the angel Gavriel, and he was hinting/warning that they had moved to judgment.

Two thoughts occurred to me about this.

1. It increases the dramatic tension. Not so much the first time around, of course, because we don't know what will happen. But the second time around, when we have a sense that Yosef is headed towards his doom, or at least years of servitude, if he is earnestly seeking his brothers, and cannot find them, then perhaps he will return to his father and avoid this fate. Yet he diligently wanders the area, and the fields in Shechem, where they usually graze their sheep. And a man finds him, and directs him elsewhere. And then, rather than giving up, he seeks them where they are, troubling himself to travel to another location. Similarly, perhaps it increases the sense of injustice (even on a first read), as he was innocently seeking them.

2. Another possibility is that Dotan was a more remote place than Shechem, and this accounts for why there were no witnesses to the proceeding. (Though it could have said "and he found them in Dotan).

Or to make the cover story more plausible that in seeking his brothers, he wandered here and there and was attacked by a wild animal on the way, before he was able to reach them.

Sunday, April 15, 2007

וִהְיִיתֶם לִי סְגֻלָּה מִכָּל-הָעַמִּים -- My Schlissel Challah



This past Friday, I participated in a poster session at the CUNY Grad Center, describing some of my recent research, and as such, got back a bit later in the day than I usually would. When I got to G&I (or I think it is now Mendy's) Bakery on Main Street, they were all out of medium challas and challah rolls, so I bought a large challah roll and a large challah.

That night, before washing, I noticed something about my challah. There was a key embedded in it.

My first thoughts were that one of the workers had somehow dropped his or her key into the dough, that I should cut around it, and return the key to the bakery after Shabbat.

But then I decided to show my brother-in-law and sister-in-law the challah, before cutting into it, and so went down the hall of my apartment building to summon them. The reaction: "Cool! You bought schlissel challah?"

Apparently, schlissel challah (from Yiddish -- the German word for key is Schlüssel) is a custom, or segulah, to bake a key into the challah (or else shape the challah in the form of a key) the week after Pesach. It is a segulah for parnassah. But it is usually done by people with the custom baking the challah in their homes. This was an innovation, for a bakery to sell schlissel challah. (And my b-i-l and s-i-l also bought challah from there, but bought a medium challah earlier in the day.) I don't know if this was a marketing gimmick or if I somehow accidentally got someone else's specially requested schlissel challah.

I looked into a bit, and found two blogposts on the subject, one very recent on the FRUM Toronto blog:
The minhag of women (or men) baking the house key into the challah on the Shabbat following Pesach (also known as a shliss [=key'> challah) is explained with the following reasons:

1. Based on "Pitchi Li Achoti, Ra'ayati..." ("Open up, my darling..."-- Shir HaShirim 5:2), on which the Medrash states "Pitchu li petach ke-chudo shel machat...," (cf. Shi HaShirim Rabbah 5, s.v. "Kol Dodi Dofek") = something like "Open your hearts (in teshuvah) like the eye of the needle, and I (God) will open the rest like [a very large opening'>.

2. According to Kabbalah on Pesach the gates to heaven were open, and following Pesach the lower gates are shut, and it's up to us to open them again, therefor on the 1st Shabbat we put the key on the challah to show that through the mitzvah of Shabbat we are opening the locks.

3. In the desert the Jewish people ate from the manna until after Pesach upon entering the land at which point they ate from the produce of the land, and became dependant on their livelihood for the first time (now they had no manna). The key in the challah after Pesach is a request the God should open the Sha'arei Parnasah (gates of livelihood). Alternatively, the manna began to fall in the month of Iyyar, and this Shabbat is always Shabbat Mevarchim Iyyar.
Orthomom posted the same info last year, and linked to the source, a post on mail-jewish, by Jeffrey Saks. He concludes with:
See: Sefer Ta'amei HaMinhagim, pp. 249-50. 
See: Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, pp. 1419-20 for a photo of a shluss
challah (and other "special" challot). It seems (from both of the above
sources) that the minhag was to bake the key on top of the challah not
inside (a la the old jail break trick).

My wife prepares a shliss-challah each year--however I had to go out and
buy an antiquated looking skeleton key, both to make it look more
authentic, and because the top of keys in Israel ("pladelet" keys) are
generally made of plastic, and there's a fear it will melt in the
baking! We have also begun the custom of using a shliss-challah for the
meal on the night of Yom aAtzmaut--for the reasons see the story related
at the beginning of "O! Jerusalem," pp. 9-10--ve-ha-mavin yavin.
In the post immediately above, Jeannette Friedman gives a different reason:
this had to do with a blood libel, where a chassidishe rebbe found blood
in his wine bottles (after his shul key fell off the wall a few times on
the Friday night before Pesach). See, after the key fell off the wall,
the rebbe went back to the shul and found that the wine bottles were
filled with blood, so he threw them all out. The next day the powers
that be came to the shul to prove a blood libel, but there was no blood
in the wine bottles, so the town was saved.

So now, people either put the key into the challah or make an impression
of the key in challah, and its called "Shlissel Challah" and its a
segulah for parnassa, and they do it the shabbos after pesach.
Perhaps, to all these explanations. It is always hard to tell where an explanation is an ex-post-facto rationalization, especially for segulot.

Someone at the table at the aufruf this week said it was because Hashem has three keys, and this one is the key of parnassah.

I could suggest other rationales for this. For example, it is a siman -- it is the key to obtaining dough (or the key to obtaining bread). Or perhaps because we just encountered Pesach, it behooves us to obtain the mafteach (key) -- this pun works best with an Ashkenazic accent, but the name of the custom is Yiddish, which would allow this.

Alternatively, I have a rationalist suggestion for the development of the custom, with no mystical connotations (which would then have been added later).

Baking (even private baking) in Europe was often done in communal ovens, and right after Pesach, there was presumably a lot of demand for the oven in perhaps limited time, since Pesach might have finished later in the week. How, then, do you identify which challah is yours?

The first Mishna in the second perek of Bava Metzia (perek Elu Metziot) lists items which bear no distinguishing mark and therefore may be kept if found. Two examples are: round cakes of pressed figs, and loaves of bread from a baker. The Mishna continues:
רבי יהודה אומר כל דבר שיש בו שינוי חייב להכריז כיצד מצא עיגול ובתוכו חרס ככר ובתוכו מעות ר' שמעון בן אלעזר אומר כל כלי אנפוריא אינו חייב להכריז
"Rabbi Yehuda says: Anything which is distinguished one is obligated to announce. How so? If he found a round cake of pressed figs and inside it a shard of clay, or a loaf of bread and inside is money."

Baking money into bread is thus a way of distinguishing it... Unless, of course, everyone is putting money into theirs. However, baking a key into the top of the bread can help, because the key is identifiable as yours, either by sight or by the ability to open your front door.

Once people saw this custom of doing a strange thing after Pesach, various segulah reasons were associated with it.

Of course, I should stress, I have absolutely no basis, historical or otherwise, for positing this theory. I'm just floating it as a practical possibility. Any thoughts?

The particular key in my challah would have been no help, by the way. It was kikar shel nachtom, a baker's loaf! And the key opened no particular door, for it was a blank! I think they bought a bunch of blank keys from Towne Variety or from the hardware store for this purpose.

Heh.

The picture at the top of the post, by the way, is a scan of the key I extracted. There is still some challah attached to it. And surrounding it are various challah crumbs.

Avraham Gets A Vista PC

I came across this relatively unknown midrash this week. Interestingly, it makes reference to relatively recent innovations, which just goes to show that it was written with ruach haKodesh...

Avraham is telling Yitzchak about the new Dell PC he ordered. "It has all the best features. A 21 inch monitor, a DVD-writer, a 200 Gigabyte hard drive, a 3 Gigahertz processor ... and it comes preloaded with the new Windows Vista operating system."

"But father," Yitzchak interjects, "I've heard that unless you have at least a Gig of memory, Windows Vista slows to a crawl, as it keeps swapping memory to disk. Aren't you worried about that?"

Avraham replies: "Don't worry, my son. God will provide the RAM."

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Latest Popular Chumrah

Flour ground after Pesach. Such that they didn't rely on sale to a non-Jew. Over at Life in Israel. Check it out.

Update: I would suggest the following precaution to make sure not to end up using flour owned by a gentile on Pesach. Only use flour from wheat that took root after the 16th of Nissan (the second day of Pesach).

;)

Monday, April 02, 2007

Why Bedika With A Candle?

Some things are obvious, but only in retrospect. Some things are obvious when pointed out, but still merit being said.

Why bedika with a candle, such that it can even be better that searching for chametz in broad daylight?

I believe the answer is what it forces you to do, and thus empowers you to do.

With all the lights on, or with broad daylight, you see everything at once. As such, you might not have patience to look at each place carefully. You see it all, your eye sweeps over it, and does not see any chametz. And as such, you can miss something.

With a candle, only certain areas are lit at once. In order to see if there is chametz, you need to focus that light on a specific area, and focus your attention on that area, to the exclusion of all else -- which is easier, since you cannot really see anything else anyway. To get a sense that you have covered every area, you focus on one area and thus move on to the next small area, meticulously covering every spot. Searching effectively with a candle requires such process, and thus empowers it.

And of course, the homily is free to flow from here, casting this as careful introspection.

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin