Another Take On Megirot

I {=Josh} do not entirely agree with all the following, but I thought I would do "Yehuda" a favor and give his comment prominence. Bli neder, and if I get the time, I may dissect this next week to explain what parts I agree and disagree with, and why. (Update: Here is my first reaction post.) At any rate, here is Yehuda's comment, posted in response to this old blogpost of mine, or perhaps initially to a post at another blog:

Great Loshon Horah. Great Motzei shem Rah!...Congratulations on spreading lies about people, their families, their children, all on the hearsey of others who hold grudges and have ulterier motives.
I am sorry to break up your motzei shem rah party. I have read Shmirot Haloshon about 14 times in detail, including in depth, and you are no different than any other group of Ballei loshon horah, or even worse, Motzei Shem Rah, which is considered by the Rambam to be equal to the severity of the 3 major sins of, avodah zorah, murder, and arios.
My Chardei wife has been involved in megeriot for 4 years. It has absolutely changed her life and mine. She couldn't take care of our household of 8. I was washing dishes. I was doing alot of the cooking and I almost couldn't take anymore the non stop arguments between me and my wife. It was gehinnom. when I saw my wife changing, little by little, each month it was amazing. She became a Yiddeshe mother. No more anger. Her strength came back, and she does EVERYTHING in the house. She is a real kiddush hashem and speaks very nicely to the children, and me her husband. ....what a cult.!!!
I saw her each day doing megirot. what did she do? she went through the shelves and drawers in the house "that she had made", and was able to find many many things that she didn't need. When you ask yourself a real question...why am i holding on to things I no longer use etc, you just may get to know yourself. The idea is to free ourselves from all of our negative thoughts, and limitations. And, each time she did this, she did it with a prayer. "Anah Hashem.....please help me with this middah or that middah." Everyday she was saying over and over again ..Ana Hasem, (what a cult). It doesn't surprise me that in our velt today, saying "anah Hashem is a cult".
Of course in the time of the Bal Shem Tov, the vilna goan and many others called him an epikores. In fact many Litveshe Rabbanim were very very against the Chassidic Admorim and put those in cherem who belonged to these "cults" as well.
So, when I saw one day an article in the hamodia-English, filled with Motzei Shem Rah, with the name of this Rav and that Rav, that a new cult has been discovered..called megirot, I was very very disappointed. Why? I knew that these Rabbanim did not know anything about megirot and certainly didn't go to a class, but they have their askanim who look around for problems and come back and report on things they see as problems. The rabbanim completely rely upon these askanim and that is it.
Now, I have been learning in known Yeshivot for many years, and am considered a respectful Chareidi family. I am sorry, but I have seen for years with "my own ears and eyes," (a prerequisite of shmirot Haloshon), and I know that saying "Anah Hashem", (something that I myself should be saying more often,) and clearing out drawers, is in NO WAY whatsoever a cult or avoda zorah. I was ver dis heartened to see how low in this long golus we have sunk, to use such big names of Rabbanim and to say in their names "CULT", avodah zorah", and if they allowed their names to be used this way, then I am even more dis heartened.
I myself have spoken to Sylvia for many many hours on the phone, and I never heard once a word of Kefirah, or avodah zorah etc. ANd I did keep my ears open to be sure. She is a Yirei Shemayim, and as is her derech, she will never respond to any criticism since she knows it is all from Hashem and for her to grow.
I went to Harav Moshe Halbershtam, zt"l, with my wife, and he himself said, "What, clearing out your drawers is avodah zorah"?? He did not forbid my wife to do it, we in fact we asked why they came out with their P'sak, (i.e the aidah Hacharadit) against it. The answer... "WE don't want our Chareidishe women mixing with the mizrachi type" This was the answer from Harav Shternbuch who I know personally.(So, if this is the reason, then say so,,, but to call it and everyone involved in it cult members and ovdei avoda zorah?)
It should be known that the Chasidishe admorim did not assur it, Belz, and one very well know Tdadik type admore (I will not mention his name on the internet) Has 2 of his daughters still doing it, (with a Chareidi counselor).
The one who wrote the artcile above (Erlich), I can promise you she is not very "Erlich" at all. She with out any permssion went into someone's private home, (not a public building) with the direct intention to defame someone. I promise that the house owner would not have agreed, (g'neives daas). She is a friend of another mizrachi women who had a grudge against sylvia for not allowing her to continue with the shiurim.they planned this set up, and there you have it, lies about sex, money etc.
I can tell you, that my wife has spent hundreds of hours on the phone with Sylvia over the years, and she was never charged one shekel!!!!! I myself have spoken to her on the phone, and she never asked for money. The one's who pay are the one's who are able to. She does not care about money. I am saying because I know first hand.
Just like when someone comes to a dyan for a judgment, can the dyan hear the diyyun if he has personal gripe against the person? this Erlich is no better.
I know of another chareidishe women from Meah Shearim, (I met her personally), and she begged Rav Halbershtam to allow her to continue with this "CULT", and he did. (can you imagine a rav in the aida allowing a frum women to continue going to cult meetings.?
Isn't it disheartning that all of us poor nebech, chareidim with yeshiva and bais yaakov backgrounds, all of that Torah education...we can't know what a cult is..avodah zora, etc.
And all of those lies about sex, taking things out of context to do the final asassination.
If I had lived 250 years ago, I would have chosen to be in cherem and follow the Baal Shem tovs cult, and of cours Rabbi Nachman's. I also would have followed the Ramchal's cult as well, (as they were all called in those days). Well, now I have a real wife, she cooks she cleans, she davens, she honors me and respects me, and she honors herself as well. This is another cult that I will stay in.
Let it be known, not ever shiur is for everyone, not every shul is for everyone, and not every neighborhood is for everyone....but the Emmes must be spoken!
I swear that all of the above I know personally, and not hearsay. All is true and factual.

Does Rashi in Sotah endorse studing Kabbalah specifically?

I chanced across this entertaining blog the other day, NaNach.net. Here, for example, is how Rav Na Nach explains an interesting way of learning gemara, which I never encountered in yeshiva:



In a recent post, a lot of fascinating opinions and positions. E.g.

"The second aliyah does in fact discuss how the special status of firstborns in the service of G-d was taken from them and given to the Leviites, which strongly promotes the status of the Nanach, as it has been said that perhaps when Mushiach comes the Nanach will be proclaimed priests."

At any rate, in the same post, he notes how Rashi on the gemara in Sotah 21a stresses the importance of learning kabbalah:

"Someone showed me that in the Daf Yomi, tractate Sota daf 21a where the talmud discusses the supremacy of learning Tora above the fulfillment of all the other commandments, it is clear from the commentary of Rashi that the talmud is referring to study of Sod – the secrets of the Tora (the Talmud brings the verse, great waters can not extinguish the love, and Rashi says that this is Sod), this is truth consistent with Rashi in tractates Sanhedrin and Shabos where he explains that the study of Tora Lishma means that the study is with the intent of reaching the secrets of the Tora."

Now, this is a surprising reading of the gemara, given the context in the gemara. To borrow the Soncino translation of that gemara:

AND ANOTHER FOR THREE YEARS etc. What sort of merit {suspends the efficacy of the mei Sotah}? If I answer merit of [studying] Torah, she is [in the category] of one who is not commanded and fulfils!

...

Another explanation is: A transgression nullifies [the merit of] a commandment but not of [study of] Torah; as it is said: {Shir haShirim:} Many waters cannot quench love! — Said R. Joseph: A commandment protects and rescues while one is engaged upon it; but when one is no longer engaged upon it, it protects but does not rescue. As for [study of] Torah, whether while one is engaged upon it or not, it protects and rescues. Raba demurred to this: According to this reasoning, did not Doeg and Ahitophel engage upon [study of] Torah; so Why did it not protect them? — But, said Raba, while one is engaged upon [study of] Torah, it protects and rescues, and while one is not engaged upon it, it protects but does not rescue. As for a commandment whether while one is engaged upon it or not, it protects but does not rescue.

Rabina said: It is certainly merit of [the study of] Torah [which causes the water to suspend its effect]; and when you argue that she is in the category of one who is not commanded and fulfils, [it can be answered] granted that women are not so commanded, still when they have their sons taught Scripture and Mishnah and wait for their husbands until they return from the Schools, should they not share [the merit] with them?

Read the gemara in context, starting even earlier than what I cited. If women get vicarious reward for their children's study of Scripture and Mishnah, then it is extremely difficult to claim that only learning kabbalah is intended.

I see the same or similar claim being made here at Israel613.com:

במסכת סוטה (דף כ"א): עבירה מכבה מצוה ואין עבירה מכבה תורה, ופירוש רש"י: לכבות את האהבה זו תורה, דכתיב הביאני אל בית היין, ודגלו עלי אהבה, יין סוד, עד כאן לשונו.

ונראה דרש"י בא להשמיענו כדברי רבותינו מתלמידי הבעל שם טוב הקדוש זי"ע, כי מה שכתוב בתורה המאור שבה מחזירו למוטב, לא על פלפולי התורה הנגליות לנו בלבד נאמרו הדברים, דהרי עינינו רואות ההיפך הרבה פעמים בעונותינו הרבים, וכמו שכתוב בזה בספר דרך אמת להה"ק מוהר"ר פייביש מזבריזא זי"ע, וכן בשארי ספרים הקדושים, ובפרט בספרי המעוררים ומלהיבים לבות בני ישראל ללימוד חכמת האמת, וכמו בספר סור מרע ועשה טוב והוספות מהרצ"א זי"ע ודומיהן, עיין שם דעיקר קאי על מי שלומד ומאמין בפנימיות התורה וסודותיה אשר טמונים בתורה, אז יזכה בלימודו לדביקות בהשם יתברך והמאור שבה מחזירו למוטב. וזה שאמר רש"י בפירושו על הך דאין עבירה מכבה תורה דהיינו אהבה שנקרא יין סוד כנזכר.

and though he uses the word בלבד, with the implication that this is in addition to regular learning, the rest of the discussion seems to hold that this is the ikkar.

Does Rashi indeed say such a thing, and if so, how in the world does this work out with the context in the gemara?

Once again, what Rashi specifically said was:

רש"י מסכת סוטה דף כא עמוד א
לכבות את האהבה - זו תורה דכתיב (שיר /השירים/ ב) הביאני אל בית היין ודגלו עלי אהבה יין סוד.

And this was upon the gemara Sotah 21a which said

ד"א עבירה מכבה מצוה ואין עבירה מכבה תורה שנאמר (שיר השירים ח) מים רבים לא יוכלו לכבות את האהבה

I think this is wishful thinking, in order to get Rashi to endorse the importance of this type of study. Indeed, as noted, the gemara just says "Torah" and later in the gemara it is clear this is referring to non-mystical learning.

So how do we explain Rashi?

Rashi is coming to explain the path the derasha is taking. The pasuk from Shir haShirim 8 only stated

ז מַיִם רַבִּים, לֹא יוּכְלוּ לְכַבּוֹת אֶת-הָאַהֲבָה, וּנְהָרוֹת, לֹא יִשְׁטְפוּהָ; אִם-יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶת-כָּל-הוֹן בֵּיתוֹ, בָּאַהֲבָה--בּוֹז, יָבוּזוּ לוֹ.

7 Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it; if a man would give all the substance of his house for love, he would utterly be contemned. {S}

But how do we know that "the love" refers to Torah, in order to establish that עבירה מכבה מצוה ואין עבירה מכבה תורה שנאמר? If I felt like arguing with Rashi, I could establish this derasha differently. I could say simply that what was to be quoted was מַיִם רַבִּים לֹא יוּכְלוּ לְכַבּוֹת, without the final words אֶת-הָאַהֲבָה. Since ain mayim ela Torah, this is telling us that where there is mayim rabim, much Torah, one cannot put out the flame. But that is a digression. Rashi needs to explain how this derasha is functioning. To his reading, the many waters are coming to put out the flame (mentioned in the previous pasuk), but ahava, love cannot be put out. So ahava needs to be established as Torah.

To accomplish this, he looks thematically, within the book of Shir haShirim, to show that this is the nimshal of the mashal of ahavah. And so Rashi turns to Shir haShirim 2:

ד הֱבִיאַנִי אֶל-בֵּית הַיָּיִן, וְדִגְלוֹ עָלַי אַהֲבָה.

4 He hath brought me to the banqueting-house, and his banner over me is love.

And the house of yayin must now somehow equal Torah. To this end, Rashi makes use of another gemara which equates yayin and sod in gematria, and establishes a link between the two.

In Eruvin 65a:

אמר ר' חייא כל המתיישב ביינו יש בו דעת ע' זקנים יין ניתן בע' אותיות וסוד ניתן בע' אותיות נכנס יין יצא סוד

Thus, bet hayayin becomes bet hasod.

That is why Rashi ended with the words יין סוד -- to explain the connection in the derasha, not to establish the specific type of limmud haTorah. Had Rashi wanted to do that, he could have made it clear in the beginning of his statement. He does not. Rather, all he says is זו תורה. He does not say zo Torat hanistar!

But does sod not equal kabbalah? We certainly are conditioned to think of it in these terms, but I do not believe that Rashi did. Do a search for sod in Rashi and see what comes up, and whether he specifically connects sod to kabbalah. The closest he comes, as far as I could find, is on Ketubot 11a:

'What was the purpose of those six adjurations? — Three for the purposes just mentioned and the others, that [the prophets] shall not make known the end, that [the people] shall not delay the end, and that they shall not reveal the secret to the idolaters'.

רש"י מסכת כתובות דף קיא עמוד א

ושלא יגלו את הסוד - אמרי לה סוד העבור ואמרי לה סוד טעמי התורה.

and even there, I am not convinced that טעמי התורה means kabbalah.

Of course one can argue that it is obvious that sof refers to Torat haNistar. However, we see from elsewhere that Rashi considers sod to simply refer to Torah. To cite two Rashis to this effect:

רש"י מסכת מנחות דף עא עמוד א
סודני - תלמידי חכמים על שם סוד ה' ליראיו (תהלים כה) ל"א רב פפא רמי שכרא הוה כדאמרינן בפסחים (דף קיג) אי לאו דרמאי שכרא לא איעתרי וסודני מיקרי כדאמרי' התם תמרי באוכלזך אבי סודנא רהוט ואמאי קרו ליה סודנא סוד נאה שמעשרת וגמילות חסדים.

רש"י מסכת נדה דף יב עמוד ב
סודני - תלמיד חכם על שם (תהלים כה) סוד ה' ליראיו.

Thus, because in Tehillim it states סוד ה' ליראיו (and see סודרא סוד ה' ליראיו in Shabbat 77b), Talmidei Chachamim in general are referred to as סודני. The alternative is that it means that Rav Pappa was a brewer. But Rashi is willing to posit it means Talmid Chacham on this basis. And there is nothing to suggest that he means specifically kabbalists, and specifically kabbalah.

So too here, sod is a stand in for Torah in general, and thus Rashi's explanation fits in well with the context. And once again, he only mentions it to explain how the gemara's derasha is working, rather than to define the specific type of Torah learning.

(See also Balashon on the word sod.)

Shelach: Did Kalev Go By Himself to Chevron?

There is a textual irregularity in describing the path of the spies, with a sudden shift from plural to singular:

כב וַיַּעֲלוּ בַנֶּגֶב, וַיָּבֹא עַד-חֶבְרוֹן, וְשָׁם אֲחִימַן שֵׁשַׁי וְתַלְמַי, יְלִידֵי הָעֲנָק; וְחֶבְרוֹן, שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים נִבְנְתָה, לִפְנֵי, צֹעַן מִצְרָיִם.

22 And they went up into the South, and came unto Hebron; and Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were there.--Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.--

This verse begins with the plural -- וַיַּעֲלוּ -- and progresses to the singular -- וַיָּבֹא. Such irregularities often spark midrash, and this is no exception. Did only one person go to Chevron? Rashi cites Chazal that only Calev did:

and he came to Hebron Caleb went there alone [hence the singular “he came”] to prostrate himself on the graves of the patriarchs [in prayer] that he not be enticed by his colleagues to be part of their counsel. Thus, it says, “I will give him [Caleb] the land on which he has walked” (Deut. 1:36), and it is written, “They gave Hebron to Caleb” (Jud. 1:20). - [Sotah 34b]

Except this midrash belongs to a class of midrashim which works out extremely well with the text. Not only does it explain the shift in number of the verb, but it also works out well with pesukim in parshat Devarim and sefer Shoftim which suggests that Calev specifically went to Chevron, and got rewarded for this.

Of course, one can counter that of course Calev went to Chevron -- for all the spies went to Chevron. They, of course, did not make it into the land, and shouldn't be rewarded for their evil behavior anyway, and Yehoshua, the other good spy, was not about to go about rewarding himself. So those other pesukim need not convey that it was only Calev. Still, this does not account for the shift in number of the verb.

On the other hand, there is evidence that all the spies went to Chevron. After all, in their report, the spies say that they saw the children of Anak there:

כח אֶפֶס כִּי-עַז הָעָם, הַיֹּשֵׁב בָּאָרֶץ; וְהֶעָרִים, בְּצֻרוֹת גְּדֹלֹת מְאֹד, וְגַם-יְלִדֵי הָעֲנָק, רָאִינוּ שָׁם.

28 Howbeit the people that dwell in the land are fierce, and the cities are fortified, and very great; and moreover we saw the children of Anak there.

One can dismiss this and say that they meant that one of the things the spies in general saw as a group, even if only one individual witnessed it. Or else one can say that וְשָׁם where they saw the children of Anak does not refer to Chevron specifically, but the Negev in general.

Aharon ben Yosef, the Karaite scholar, claims that it was all the spies who went to Chevron. He claims that וַיָּבֹא can function as plural, citing Yechezkel 14:

א וַיָּבוֹא אֵלַי אֲנָשִׁים, מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיֵּשְׁבוּ, לְפָנָי. {פ}

1 Then came certain of the elders of Israel unto me, and sat before me. {P}

Rashi, of course, knows of this pasuk as well, and even comments there:

Now there came to me some men Heb. וַיָבוֹא. All of them with one accord for evil. Therefore, it is said: וַיָבוֹא, and came [the singular form]. The Midrash Aggadah says that [the word is in the singular] because the Holy One, blessed be He, revealed to the ear of the prophet beforehand, “Behold so-and-so and so-and-so will come to you.”

Still, even if it can function as such in this form, this does not totally account for the irregularity, or the fact that the vav is there for the same word in the next pasuk in Shelach:

כג וַיָּבֹאוּ עַד-נַחַל אֶשְׁכֹּל, וַיִּכְרְתוּ מִשָּׁם זְמוֹרָה וְאֶשְׁכּוֹל עֲנָבִים אֶחָד, וַיִּשָּׂאֻהוּ בַמּוֹט, בִּשְׁנָיִם; וּמִן-הָרִמֹּנִים, וּמִן-הַתְּאֵנִים.

23 And they came unto the valley of Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, and they bore it upon a pole between two; they took also of the pomegranates, and of the figs.--

It is interesting to see how the various mefarshim deal with this irregularity / difficulty, and how seriously they take the midrash which is compelling because of several peshat-oriented features.

First, we have Rashbam. He initially endorses the midrash as appearing to be peshat, because of the tie-ins to sefer Devarim and sefer Shofetim, together with the choice of singular verb. But still, he says in the end, the basic peshat is that the singular וַיָּבֹא is distributed across each individual of the spies. And as proof he notes that they say that "we" saw the children of Anak, and that "we" were in their eyes as grasshoppers.

Ibn Ezra hides behind Chazal, attributing their explanation to them. He says that it refers to Kalev, but gives a practical reason why only he went to Chevron. Namely, the 12 meraglim split up, and each one went in a different direction to explore and scout out the land. This as opposed to mentioning going to Chevron to pray by the kever avos to Hashem to save him from the counsel of the other scouts.

Shadal also endorses the Calev theory. Indeed, in the next perek (14), on

כד וְעַבְדִּי כָלֵב, עֵקֶב הָיְתָה רוּחַ אַחֶרֶת עִמּוֹ, וַיְמַלֵּא, אַחֲרָי--וַהֲבִיאֹתִיו, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר-בָּא שָׁמָּה, וְזַרְעוֹ, יוֹרִשֶׁנָּה.

24 But My servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed Me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it.

says that this refers to Chevron specifically, rather than Eretz Yisrael in general. And on the pasuk in the present perek (13) he writes:

המרגלים יראו מבוא בעיר בצורה וכלב בטח בה' ובא בתוכה; ומה שכתוב (פסוק ל"ג) ושם ראינו את הנפילים ונהי בעינינו כחגבים, אומר מוהר"ר יצחק פארדו שאינו ראיה שהיו בחברון, כי לא בחברון לבדו היו ענקים אלא בכל הפלך ההוא וכמ"ש ביהושע ( י"ד י"ב ) ועתה תנה לי את ההר וכו' כי ענקים שם וערים גדולות ובצורות, א"כ "ושם" האמור כאן הכוונה שם בנגב, לא שם בחברון

That is, Shadal endorses that it was Calev only, but gives a grounded explanation of why it was Calev only -- that perhaps the city was fortified, and Calev trusted in Hashem and entered into it. To my mind, this is within the realm of midrash, though as midrash it fits in well with the theme of Calev later saying to trust in Hashem despite the fortifications of the cities, and thus with Calev's attitude in general.

In terms of the scouts in general saying that "we" saw the children of Anak, he cites Rabbi Yitzchak Pardo that it was not specifically Chevron but rather the general province. As further evidence of this, he notes a pasuk in sefer Yehoshua {14:12}, from Calev's request for an inheritance:

יב וְעַתָּה, תְּנָה-לִּי אֶת-הָהָר הַזֶּה, אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר ה, בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא: כִּי אַתָּה-שָׁמַעְתָּ בַיּוֹם הַהוּא כִּי-עֲנָקִים שָׁם, וְעָרִים גְּדֹלוֹת בְּצֻרוֹת--אוּלַי ה אוֹתִי וְהוֹרַשְׁתִּים, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה.

12 Now therefore give me this mountain, whereof the LORD spoke in that day; for thou heardest in that day how the Anakim were there, and cities great and fortified; it may be that the LORD will be with me, and I shall drive them out, as the LORD spoke.'

This, he says, shows that שָׁם refers to the general area.

Interesting Posts and Articles #46

1. Aharon's staff discovered
   

   This amazing photo shows the writhing reptile trying to devour an orange-naped snake, known as a moon snake, as it coiled in defence, wrapping around its killer's body.

   Click on the link to see the picture and article.
2. LifeInIsrael reports on a psak from Rav Ovadiah Yosef about allowing the automatic washing of a soldier's uniform on Shabbos.
   
3. The Chafetz Chaim and the Cantonist
   

   The Chofetz Chaim reached out to the man. "Let me shake your hand. he said shaking the man's hand with both hands. " I have so much respect for you. You've made an unbelievable sacrifice to remain a Jew. Please promise me that you'll speak for me in the next world if you get there before me. Your word will carry a lot of weight. You are a living saint."

   One real point of the story is that regardless of the effect (kiruv of the cantonist), the point the Chafetz Chaim was telling the truth and did have true regard for him.
4. A good illustration of the need to be dan lekaf zechut.
5. "Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab." After 20 years:
   

   But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

   Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

6. The Edah Chareidis says not to make counter-protests of the gay pride parade:

   "בהחלט, אנחנו מודים בטעות. רק גאוותנים ואינטרסנטים לא מודים בטעויות. ההפגנות בשנתיים האחרונות יצאו מכלל שליטה, והמשתתפים בהם כלל לא היו מהציבור שלנו. זה היה חילול ה' איום ונורא, וזו לא הייתה הכוונה שלנו. כיוון שהרבנים הגיעו למסקנה שרב הנזק על הרווח, הם החליטו לעצור את כל הדבר הזה
   

Cute Music Video: Shenemar

Here is a cute music video of Eli Gerstner's song Shenemar [sic]:

Shelach: Was Sending the Spies a Good Thing?

The command to send the spies in parshas Shlach seems to stem from Hashem, yet in Moshe's criticism in sefer Devarim it seems to have been the idea of the Benei Yisrael. I've already addressed this issue in the past, I think nicely.

Probably spurred on by this issue, Rashi notes:

Send for yourself According to your own understanding. I am not commanding you, but if you wish, you may send. Since the Israelites had come [to Moses] and said, “Let us send men ahead of us,” as it says, “All of you approached me…” (Deut. 1:22), Moses took counsel with the Shechinah . He [God] said, “I told them that it is good, as it says, ‘I will bring you up from the affliction of Egypt…’ (Exod. 3:17). By their lives! Now I will give them the opportunity to err through the words of the spies, so that they will not inherit it.” - [Midrash Tanchuma 5]

Thus, first the Jews asked and then Hashem agreed and told them to do it. And the word lecha is taken as being "for yourselves," not as a command.

Of course, elsewhere in Midrash the word lecha is taken as being for your benefit. One famous example is Lech Lecha, which was for Avraham Avinu's benefit.

Of course, on a peshat level, I am not sure one should be making derashot on the word lecha, but should just say that this is Biblical style and grammar. "Take yourself a muffin."

Other meforshim, besides Rashi, take up this issue. Thus Shadal writes:

שלח לך : לטובתך, שידעו ענין הארץ והעם מתחילה, ולא יערערו עליך לבסוף. שלח לך אנשים: בדברים (א' כ"ב) כתוב כי ישראל אמרו נשלחה אנשים לפנינו, וכאן הוא אומר כי ה' דיבר אל משה שלח לך אנשים, ונראה כי הם שאלו וה' הסכים וציוה למשה שיעשו כדבריהם, וכאן לא הזכיר שהם שאלו, כדי שלא יהא נראה שחטאו בשאלתם. ונראה כי הכל היה סבה מאת ה', וכמו שכתב הרמב"ם (מורה ח"ב פרק ל"ב), אלא שהוא אומר שהיה מחכמת ה' להסב אותם במדבר עד שלימדו גבורה, כמו שנודע שההליכה במדבר ומיעוט הנאות הגוף מרחיצה וכיוצא בהם יולידו הגבורה ונולדו ג"כ (באותם ארבעים שנה) אנשים שלא הורגלו בשפלות ובעבדות; ואני אומר שלא היתה כוונת האל שיקנו גבורה, כי לא בחרבם ירשו ארץ וזרועם לא הושיעה למו, אבל סבב שיתעכבו במדבר, למען יעמדו במשך ימים רבים אצל משה, שאם היה משה מביאם אל הארץ, היו מתפזרים איש בנחלתו ולא היה משה יכול ללמדם דעת, גם לא היו צריכים להתפרנס דרך נס, ולא היתה האמונה בתורת משה נקבעת בלבותם לדורות עולם, כמו שהיה הענין על ידי שישבו ארבעים שנה במדבר, ומשה מנהיגם ומפרנסם באותות ובמופתים ומלמדם דרכי ה'; והחינוך הזה אשר לא היה כמוהו בכל הארץ שיהיו מאתים ריבוא נפשות יושבים אצל מלמדם במשך ארבעים שנה, בלי שיהיו טרודים בבקשת מזונותיהם, זה הוא שהעמיק האמונה בלב בני ישראל, באופן שבתעות כל יושבי הארץ אחרי האלילים, נשארו תלמידי משה גוי אחד ויחיד בארץ, שומר האמונה הטהורה, וממנו התפשטה והתפשט לטובת המין האנושי כולו, ומלאה הארץ דעה את ה'.

Thus, he has two separate comments. First, he takes a natural explanation of the words shelach lecha: שלח לך : לטובתך, שידעו ענין הארץ והעם מתחילה, ולא יערערו עליך לבסוף. Does he indeed take this in its midrashic spirit, that lecha means letovatecha? I would like to see how Shadal handles the general case of lecha throughout Tanach. For example, he makes no such comment in parshat Lech Lecha. Perhaps this is a stylistic way of responding to Rashi, who makes the derasha in the opposite direction, that Hashem does not agree with the decision, and that it is going to be bad.

In the second comment, he is not considering the pretext of lecha per se, but rather the contrast between Devarim in which it the Israelites idea and in sefer Bemidbar where it appears to be Hashem's idea. He answers that it appears they asked and Hashem agreed, and it does not mention the asking so that it would not appear that there was a sin in their asking.

Further, Shadal opposes the idea, brought by Rashi, that Hashem now thought He would mess up bnei Yisrael, giving them opportunity to sin, because of the sin of asking to send spies. Rather, he says that Hashem did know that they would end up caught in the midbar for 40 years, but this was a good thing for them. (And this could be read into שלח לך : לטובתך, though Shadal does not explicitly do this.)

He cites Rambam that this was a good thing because staying in the midbar for 40 years hardened the bnei Yisrael, and made them stronger, to bring about people not used to lowliness and servitude.

Shadal also agreed this stay was planned, and good for the Israelites, but specifically because they would have 40 years to stay with Moshe, and learn Torah and internalize the faith. Had the entered Eretz Yisrael immediately, they would have spread out to settle the land, and been concerned with worldly things such as parnassa.

This idea is similar though not identical to the idea suggested by Rabbenu Bachya {ben Asher}. First he cites Rashi. But then suggests (citing "yesh mefarshim") that lecha means "to your benefit," as in other places. The purpose here is as follows: Had they entered Israel immediately, Moshe would have died 40 years sooner, for this fate of dying and not entering the land had already been decreed upon him. I am not sure if this is regarded as to the benefit of Moshe himself (which it surely is) or to the benefit of klal Yisrael (who get the benefit of hanging out with Moshe for an additional 40 years).

Tzedek vs. Maadim in Aruch Hashulchan O"C siman 271

This is an interesting and perhaps important Aruch haShulchan, in terms of the principle it sets up. From Aruch Hashulchan Orach Chaim siman 271, seif 11:

Our teacher the Beit Yosef {=Rav Yosef Karo{ wrote in seif 1 that "when he comes to his home {on Friday night} he should hurry to eat immediately." End quote. And this is to make kiddush, in order to mention {yizkor} Shabbos as it enters [Magen Avraham, seif karan 1], and as a natural consequence, he would eat immediately because of having kiddush in the place of the meal, and even before it gets dark [Taz seif katan 1]. And he is able to eat via this kiddush [see there]. And we {=Aruch haShulchan} have already explained this in siman 267, see there.

And it is obvious that of he is not yet able to eat, that he is able to wait several hours into the night [מ"ע in a teshuva].

And I have seen one who wrote that one should make kiddush specifically before nightfall, for at the beginning of Saturday night is the constellation of Maadim {Mars} while at the end of the 6th day {Friday} is the constellation of Tzedek {Jupiter}. Therefore, one should make kiddush with Tzedek. [Magen Avraham, there].

And in my opinion, this is astounding. For forfend, chas veshalom, to say that we are under the influence of the constellations. And just the opposite, I have seen from the kadmonim that the nations in generations of old would sit on Saturday in darkness and cry, because the constellations of Shabbat informed for bad {for it is Mars}. And Hakadosh Baruch Hu commanded us to do the opposite, to light much light and to have joy, to demonstrate that we are above the constellations, and that Hashem took us to bring us out from under the array of Heaven. And how can we say like this {like the Magen Avraham that we should look to make kiddush under the influence of Tzedek and to avoid the constellation of Mars}? And it requires a great deal of iyyun {to justify}. {Tehillim 32:10} "But he that trusteth in the LORD, mercy compasseth him about."

{The following is a challenge to the idea that one is permitted to make kiddush and the meal before nightfall:}
[The Magen Avraham there brings a Yerushalmi from the beginning of Berachot that it is the way to eat an hour or two at night, see there. However, see there in the commentary of Chareidim that "two" means two fractions of an hour, and the reason is that synagogues were in the fields, distant from the city, and until one came {home} the time extended automatically. And just the opposite, from the fact that they answer that this is specifically by these small towns, see there, it is implied that it is a precept {mitzvah} to eat earlier.]

Thus, to sum up, Aruch haShulchan thinks that one is allowed {at the least} to make kiddush and begin the meal before nightfall on erev Shabbos. But, he takes extreme exception to the idea of doing it early specifically because of influence of the mazalot. We are not under the influence of the mazalot, but under Hashem's guidance and protection. He brought a counterexample which holds true exactly in this case, about negative astrological influences of Mars on Shabbos. But it is clear that this is true in general, for the idea is that Hashem in general has taken out out from under the influence of the host of heaven. Perhaps nowadays, now that astrology has been moved from the realm of science to superstition, we should furthermore say "nishtaneh hateva" and that there are other reasons not to pay heed astrological influences. Back then, even if it was regarded as a science (with tremendous potential to grow into avodah zarah), it did not apply to Israel, and we should ignore it. Now, people believing in it are not holding by a real science but rather subscribing to something in the realm of superstition, and this may have its own halachic problems. (This even if it worked its way into our halachic and mystical literature.)

Interesting Posts and Articles #45

1. I usually do not watch Dr. Phil, but he has a worthy series continuing today about Katherine, an American girl who ran away to Jericho to date Abdullah, who was supposed to have returned earlier, and who may be under duress.
2. Orthonomics discusses a return on investment, whether fathers-in-law who support kollel learners should be giving informal fahers. Chaim B. has an insightful comment there which captures more or less what I would say about it: "I read the problem as a blurring of lines between family relationship and business / professional relationship." I would add that while I personally maintain a blog devoted to Torah topics and the parsha, sometimes when asked by someone in an elevator for a devar Torah, I feel put on the spot, simply because it is difficult to suddenly produce, especially something concise and self-contained which can be delivered to someone without background in a small amount of time.
3. Daat Torah again speaks with Rav Shternbuch, and clarifies his position on calling the police. Daat Torah also has a posting about the upcoming gay pride parade in Jerusalem, and I comment somewhat extensively.
4. Lazer Beams advises a young bride that she and her husband should not move in with her in-laws.
5. In the Bizarro comic strip, a new angel gets a surprise.
6. Bill Cosby's recent book, Come On People: On the Path from Victims to Victors. From the interview I saw and the excerpt I read, it looks interesting, and with Amazon search inside, you can read a good excerpt of the book before deciding whether to buy.
   

Interesting Posts and Articles #44

1. All the mezuzos stolen off apartment doors. It could well not be a bias crime, but just someone seeing that these expensive religious articles are available for the taking and reselling. On a separate note, remember the midrash in which Avraham argues with the idolator, and asks: "If they cannot defend themselves, how can they defend you?" If mezuzos are to provide shmirah, how can they do so if they cannot even defend against their getting stolen themselves. There may be a valid answer to this.
   
2. The influence of non-Jewish maids, at Daas Torah. Though it is from "Jersey Girl," who is generally a bit over the top: par
   

   I have repeated similar incidents many times over the years. When I meet frum children who I know have been cared for by maids, I converse with them in Spanish (in front of and with the permission of their parents). More often than not, when the young child is spoken to in Spanish, he will repeat parts of the Catechism etc.

3. Saudi women not revealing their faces even to their husbands. This might not be particularly Muslim practice, but might be a Bedouin custom among some Bedouins.
4. JewishAnswers discusses how we don't believe in a Divine messiah:
   

   If you read Isaiah 9:5-6 in the Hebrew text, you get a distinctly different understanding than when you read an English translation in a Christian bible. Read correctly, the text is as follows:
   

   For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called, “A wonderful counselor is the mighty God,” “The everlasting father,” “The ruler of peace,” that the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts does perform this.

   The implication of this statement is that this particular king is going to bring glory to God. Without writing an entire book on the subject, Rabbinic authorities and historians alike have said that this passage was about king Hezekiah.

5. Rabbi Dr. Aryeh Frimer reviews Rabbi Dr. Daniel Sperber's book. I did not read Sperber's book, so I cannot really intelligently comment. But to my mind, an important excerpt:
   

   One was penned by R. Mendel Shapiro[3] who argues that kevod ha-tsibbur is a social concept – and a woman’s general standing in society was lower than men’s. Nowadays when this is no longer true, a community can be mohel on its kavod – voluntarily set aside its honor. He errs, however, since the vast majority of rishonim and aharonim disagree with his analysis.

   How does the fact that the vast majority of rishonim and acharonim disagree with his analysis mean that "he errs?" The question is what Chazal meant when they used the term in the gemara? How does Rabbi Dr. Frimer know that it is not Rabbi Mendel Shapiro who is correct in his assessment, and the "vast majority" who are in error?
   
   The answer is that precedent, and specifically precedent of interpretation, indeed has an important role in the determining of the halacha (particularly in choshen mishpat). But there is still place for chiddush within the determination of any individual rabbi. Indeed, the only thing which is really binding are the words of the Mishna and Gemara. Anything past Ravina and Rav Ashi is fair game, including interpretations of rishonim. People often do not argue, but that they argue does not automatically put them into a place where they are in error. The sefer Maaneh LeIgros criticized Rav Moshe Feinstein's Igros Moshe for repeatedly deviating from understandings of gemaras as given by various rishonim and acharonim, but the truth is that such chiddush is valid.
   
   Along these exact lines, Sperber makes a point about the way Chazal make use of a particular phrase:
   

   Indeed, ke-darko ba-kodesh, Prof. Sperber surveys all the places where it states אבל אמרו חכמים and shows that some cases are merely expressions of the ideal, while others refer to things that are actually assur.

   And Frimer argues that that is not the way Meiri understands it, the way Semag and Rambam understand it, and the way various acharonim understand it. Great! But the question is perhaps a methodological one -- should we care? Perhaps this is a dispute, and we should hold like Sperber because of his demonstration of Chazal's use of this phrase.
   
   It is possible that Sperber has a line of defense even within this methodology, and can appeal to other Rishonim and acharonim, or reinterpret the ones cited. But this was just one point that struck me.
   

Behaalosecha: "Miracle Grow"

This Shabbos I saw a parsha sheet which was both ridiculously awesome and awesomely ridiculous. The dvar Torah, available here, may be summarized as follows:

1. A midrash relates that when Moshe asked how he was to appoint the Kohein Gadol from the Leviim, Hashem told him that it was with the shemen hamishchah. Moshe's response was to exclaim how beloved the Levites must be to Hashem.
   
2. Why should such a detail cause Moshe to exclaim this, and react in this manner?
3. To answer, they digress to a dvar Torah from Rabbi Yehoshua Leib Diskin:
4. The pasuk in the beginning of parshat Behaalotecha states וַיַּעַשׂ כֵּן, אַהֲרֹן--אֶל-מוּל פְּנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה, הֶעֱלָה נֵרֹתֶיהָ: כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה, אֶת-מֹשֶׁה. Rashi explains that this was praise of Aharon that he did not deviate. But why should he deviate?
5. Maharil Diskin notes three points:
1. The Mishna states there were three steps leading up to the menorah, and Bartenura says this was to be able to stand at a height comfortable enough to reach the menorah, which was three amos tall.
2. He derives from a gemara in Shabbos 92a that not only Moshe, but all Leviim, were 10 amos tall.
3. Shaul was taller than anyone in klal Yisrael by a head, yet the pasuk tells us that David, a youth, put on Shaul's armor. How would it have fit him? It must be that when he was previously anointed by Shmuel with the shemen hamishcha, that caused him to grow. Thus, shemen hamishcha is miracle grow! That is the conclusion of Vayikra Rabba 27:9.
6. If Aharon started at 10 amos and then got the shemen hamishcha, he was extremely tall and would not have needed these steps. (Indeed, if this were true, he would have to stoop to reach the menorah!) Therefore, it was to his credit that he still used the staircase to light the menorah.
7. Rabbi Yonasan Eibeshitz answers on this basis to explain Moshe's exclamation in the midrash. (Though he lived earlier than Maharil Diskin, so I wonder what exactly he brought in -- did he bring the same sources, but earlier?)
8. We see that Rashi in the gemara Megillah states that the aron took no space in the kodesh kodoshim in their Beis haMikdash, and that explains the measurements from the aron to the wall on either, which equals the full length and width.
9. So too, the mishkan was 10 amos tall. So how could Aharon fit? Especially after the miracle grow!?
   
10. The answer must be a similar constant miracle, just like the aron. If Hashem is so insistent that it be from the tall tribe of Levi, such that a constant miracle is necessitated, then He must really love the tribe of Levi.

To really appreciate this devar Torah, you need to first have suspension of disbelief, just as you must have to appreciate science fiction. Of course, this is all ridiculous, but once one accepts these impossibilities and improbabilities, it all works out quite nicely. They are able to apply ideas introduced in one context and apply them in other contexts, and pull to ideas from many different contexts in this manner. And there is artistry in that.

But of course, this is not peshat. And not only is it not peshat in the pesukim, but it was surely not the intent of the authors of the midrash either. So it is not pashut peshat in the midrash, either the one about Aharon's service or the one about the shemen hamishcha. It is an extremely creative exercise, and a wonderful craft, but it is not true. In fact, it could well be classed as Purim Torah, except I wonder whether any of the authors regarded it as such.

Much more likely is that shemen hamishcha is used to anoint kings, and shows a special mark of designation. To use this to appoint the head of the tribe of Levi to his appointment shows the special regard Hashem has for the tribe of Levi. But I would have to see the midrash inside, in context, to make a real determination.

Behaaloscha: Pesach Sheni, If A Convert Converts -- Updated

Towards the ends of the laws of Pesach Sheni, we see:

יד וְכִי-יָגוּר אִתְּכֶם גֵּר, וְעָשָׂה פֶסַח לַה'--כְּחֻקַּת הַפֶּסַח וּכְמִשְׁפָּטוֹ, כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה: חֻקָּה אַחַת יִהְיֶה לָכֶם, וְלַגֵּר וּלְאֶזְרַח הָאָרֶץ. {ס}

14 And if a stranger shall sojourn among you, and will keep the passover unto the LORD: according to the statute of the passover, and according to the ordinance thereof, so shall he do; ye shall have one statute, both for the stranger, and for him that is born in the land.' {S}

This bringing in of the stranger and the ezrach is not unique, but occurs elsewhere, so it is not so jarring. But what is its particular role here? Rashi writes:

If a proselyte dwells with you, and he makes a Passover sacrifice I might think that anyone who converts should immediately make a Passover sacrifice. Therefore, Scripture teaches us, “One statute [shall apply to you, to the proselyte and to the native-born citizen].” And this is its meaning: If a proselyte dwells with you, and he comes (Reggio ed. - and the time comes) to make a Passover sacrifice with his friends,“according to the statutes of the Passover sacrifice and its ordinances he shall make it.” - [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:30]

which is also found in Pesachim 93. On a peshat level, I am not sure what would make someone think that a convert, besides bringing a regular korban, would immediately bring a korban Pesach, not in its proper time.

Ibn Ezra simply says that it means that Pesach Sheni, or else in another reading, Pesach Rishon, is something that applies to a ger.

Ramban suggests the chiddush here (since it seems a repetition of parshat Bo) is that, based on context, one would say that the only ones subject to Pesach for generations were those who went through pesach mitzrayim, so those gerim in parshat Bo were the erev rav. But those converts who convert after pesach mitzrayim, no. Therefore this tells us that all converts are obligated in bringing the korban Pesach.

I have a suggestion that probably does not work according to halacha, and may well not work at all once we consider the general role of mentioning the ger in context throughout various halachos. That suggestion is:

We are talking about Pesach Sheni, for one who was distant, or ritually impure, for Pesach Rishon. What is the law for someone who was non-Jewish during Pesach rishon? They obviously cannot participate. For one thing, uncircumcised men cannot partake of the korban Pesach. So then, וְכִי-יָגוּר אִתְּכֶם גֵּר, in between Pesach Rishon and Pesach Sheni, וְעָשָׂה פֶסַח לַה'--כְּחֻקַּת הַפֶּסַח וּכְמִשְׁפָּטוֹ, he can partake of this second korban Pesach.

I would guess (but have not bothered to look it up -- can someone confirm?) that al pi halacha, one must be of the proper class to to bring the korban pesach during Pesach rishon, but there is some passing factor that temporarily holds him back -- such as distance or ritual impurity. Such that in fact such a ger would not bring pesach sheni.

Update: So I looked it up, and it turns out that al pi halacha, such a convert does bring a Pesach sheni. Baruch shekivanti! On Pesachim daf 93, it is a dispute between Rabbi and Rabbi Natan whether he brings a pesach sheni, and we pasken like Rabbi {=Rabbi Yehuda haNasi}. The gemara explains that the dispute between them is rooted in the pesukim, where they all read the same {earlier} pesukim about pesach sheni in parshas Behaalosecha, but Rabbi Yehuda haNasi holds that Pesach Sheni is a separate chag severed from Pesach Rishon, while Rabbi Natan holds that one comes in to play when one misses the first one. And this conceptual dispute is brought to bear both in the case of a convert and one who reaches majority in between Pesach and Pesach Sheni:

דתניא גר שנתגייר בין שני פסחים וכן קטן שהגדיל בין שני פסחים חייב לעשות פסח שני דברי רבי רבי נתן אומר כל שזקוק לראשון זקוק לשני כל שאין זקוק לראשון אין זקוק לשני במאי קמיפלגי רבי סבר שני רגל בפני עצמו הוא רבי נתן סבר שני תשלומין דראשון הוא תקוני לראשון לא מתקין ליה ורבי חנניא בן עקביא סבר שני תקנתא דראשון הוא ושלשתן מקרא אחד דרשו (במדבר ט) והאיש אשר הוא טהור ובדרך לא היה רבי סבר (במדבר ט) וחדל לעשות הפסח ונכרתה דלא עבד בראשון אי נמי (במדבר ט) קרבן ה' לא הקריב במעדו בשני וממאי <דהא> [דהאי] חטאו ישא כרת הוא
דף צג, ב גמרא קסבר מגדף היינו מברך השם וכתיב במברך את השם (ויקרא כד) ונשא חטאו וגמר האי חטאו דהכא מחטאו דהתם מה להלן כרת אף כאן נמי כרת ור' נתן סבר (במדבר ט) וחדל לעשות הפסח ונכרתה דהאי כי לשון דהא הוא וה"ק רחמנא דהא קרבן ה' לא הקריב במועדו בראשון האי חטאו ישא מאי עביד ליה קסבר מגדף לאו היינו מברך את השם וגמר האי חטאו דהתם מהאי חטאו דהכא מה הכא כרת אף התם כרת ור' חנניא בן עקביא סבר וחדל לעשות הפסח ונכרתה אי קרבן ה' לא הקריב במועדו בשני והאי חטאו ישא מאי עביד ליה כדאמרן הלכך הזיד בזה ובזה דברי הכל חייב שגג בזה ובזה דברי הכל פטור הזיד בראשון ושגג בשני לרבי ולר' נתן מחייבי לרבי חנניא בן עקביא פטור שגג בראשון והזיד בשני לרבי חייב לר' נתן ולר' חנניא בן עקביא פטור:

I would suggest that besides this conceptual (three-way) dispute, the pasuk I mentioned above may come into play, for it can read as stating Rabbi's view, and perhaps we can argue as stating Rabbi Natan's view as well (since he must be like the ezrach in all the laws of the Pesach). After all, I am not coming to this after the fact, but rather was able to read the pasuk as stating exactly what Rabbi stated, and was thus able to generate his position with no preconceived notions.

Behaaloscha: Their Prophecy Did Not Cease

In parshas Behaalosecha, the seventy elders receive prophecy:

כד וַיֵּצֵא מֹשֶׁה--וַיְדַבֵּר אֶל-הָעָם, אֵת דִּבְרֵי ה; וַיֶּאֱסֹף שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ, מִזִּקְנֵי הָעָם, וַיַּעֲמֵד אֹתָם, סְבִיבֹת הָאֹהֶל.	24 And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the LORD; and he gathered seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the Tent.
כה וַיֵּרֶד ה בֶּעָנָן, וַיְדַבֵּר אֵלָיו, וַיָּאצֶל מִן-הָרוּחַ אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו, וַיִּתֵּן עַל-שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ הַזְּקֵנִים; וַיְהִי, כְּנוֹחַ עֲלֵיהֶם הָרוּחַ, וַיִּתְנַבְּאוּ, וְלֹא יָסָפוּ.	25 And the LORD came down in the cloud, and spoke unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and put it upon the seventy elders; and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, but they did so no more.
כו וַיִּשָּׁאֲרוּ שְׁנֵי-אֲנָשִׁים בַּמַּחֲנֶה שֵׁם הָאֶחָד אֶלְדָּד וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִי מֵידָד וַתָּנַח עֲלֵהֶם הָרוּחַ, וְהֵמָּה בַּכְּתֻבִים, וְלֹא יָצְאוּ, הָאֹהֱלָה; וַיִּתְנַבְּאוּ, בַּמַּחֲנֶה.	26 But there remained two men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad; and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were recorded, but had not gone out unto the Tent; and they prophesied in the camp.

Was this gift of prophecy permanent, or just a temporary effect of the spirit of Hashem resting upon them in this instance? Rashi cites both possibilities, but I think favors the position that it was a one-time-only deal.

but they did not continue They prophesied on that day only-Thus it is stated in Sifrei (Beha’alothecha 1:42:21). The Targum renders “and they did not cease” [meaning] that their prophetic powers remained.

I could see how both are readable into the text on a peshat level. Certainly וַיְהִי כְּנוֹחַ עֲלֵיהֶם הָרוּחַ could carry the implication that it was only then, when this spirit of Hashem rested on them. But it could be read otherwise. Similarly, Moshe's reaction to Yehoshua a bit later might, but need not necessarily, be read as stating that these are more permanent prophets.

I am not going to get into this into detail here, because this is not the point of this post.

Rather, I had a fleeting thought which may well be nonsensical, but I wanted to record it here so that I could look back at it later to reconsider. Namely, how about placing the sof pasuk in pasuk 25 on the word וַיִּתְנַבְּאוּ? If so, the next pasuk would begin with וְלֹא יָסָפוּ. Then, it would refer to Eldad and Medad who were not gathered and thus remained in the camp. And thus they prophesied in the camp, for the spirit of Hashem rested upon them while they were still in the camp. Then, יָסָפוּ would not mean cease and would not mean continue. It would mean gather, just as the several instances in the immediate context, e.g. וַיֶּאֱסֹף in pasuk 24, וַיֵּאָסֵף in pasuk 30, and the examples in the next incident of the slav as well.

McCain: America Was Established As A Christian Nation

I don't want transform parshablog into a political blog. But to be fair, just as I posted an Obama clip, I will post this McCain clip, in which he says that America was established as a Christian nation:



However, I will lay out why this does not disturb me as much.

1. Whereas the Obama clip was a straight, uninterrupted clip of Obama making a speech, this clip consists of snippets of a much longer interview. They do not show the questions which prompted these responses. And they keep cutting at places where a bit of context would mitigate the view. The full interview is available here at beliefnet, as a video and as a transcript. Thus, for example:
   

   I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.

   The above video clip makes sure to discard the part in which he says
   

   But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, “I only welcome Christians.”

   I feel that is dishonest.
   
   Another example:
   

   A lot of Republican activists say the separation of church and state is a myth. What do you think?

   Our Founding Fathers believed in separation of church and state and they stated it unequivocally. But, they also continued to emphasize the Christian principle. In God We Trust or [all men are] created equal—every statement that they made had to do with the belief in a Divine Creator… They sought guidance from their Creator. So, when some people interpret their desire for separation of church and state as a failure to acknowledge the importance and influence of our Creator, I think that they have a different view of history than I do.

   So he does hold that there is, unequivocally, a separation of church and state, though there is a balance to be had. The clip makes sure to weed out "Our Founding Fathers believed in separation of church and state and they stated it unequivocally." And this is once again dishonest. I also agree that people sometimes overapply the separation of church and state to a degree that it was not intended, to the extent that they discriminate against (Christian or Jewish) religious organizations. For example, I am against certain steps taken against the Boy Scouts.
   
   As it stands, the quotes taken out of context provide a caricature. He has real positions, and one can agree or disagree with them, after consideration of what he actually says.
   
   
2. The intent of this seems to be that there is a shared sense of American values which is based on certain Christian, or Western sensibilities. This means that when one becomes an American, he subscribes to some of these basic values. For example, polygamy is out. So is the idea of honor killings. And so on and so forth. What McCain exactly means needs some definition.
   
   
3. This is pandering in an interview to beliefnet, in which he is courting Christian voters. This does not mean that he totally believes this, or will take concrete steps to establish America as a Christian nation once in office. It is pandering, and all politicians do it to some degree. This doesn't scare me.
   
   
4. On a similar note, I would not be voting for McCain as chief historian. What is the concrete fallout of such a belief? These clips, taken out of context, do not provide any intended course of action. There may indeed be some fallout, but explain it to me and then I can decide whether I should be concerned. Whether Obama meant what he said or not, or whether they were better understood in context of a much broader political plan, at the least he was outlining a course of actions he would take if elected.
   
   
5. And on a similar note, I am not voting for president based on mistaken religious beliefs. Bush, Obama, and McCain are all Christians. I think that such beliefs are nonsense and possible idolatry. But the fact that they hold silly beliefs does not bother me, unless it leads to specific unfortunate policy. Such is not evident in this clip, or interview. But I could be wrong.
   

We now return to the main focus of this blog. :)

OU Conference on Kedushas Ha'Aretz and Its Mitzvos

Sun. Jun. 15 at Lander College 75-31 150th St. 9:30 - 5:30

Topics of the conference are:
Mitzvos Hateluyos Ba'Aretz Beazman Hazeh (Rabbi Belsky)
Korbonos Today? (Rabbi Genack)
Kedushas Ha'aretz and its Ramifications (Rabbi Oelbaum)
Shmitas Kesofim (Rabbi Hershel Schacter)
Unique Halachot of Yerushalayim: A Mikdash Extension ((Rabbi Dr. Zivitofsky)
The shape of the Menorah and its Base (Rabbi Mandel)
Heter Mechira (Rabbi Genack)
Seeing Boundaries of Israel through Google (Rabbi Kelman)
Har Habayit (Dr. Ari Greenspan)
Location of Mizbeach JaChitzon (Rabbi Reznick)
Unearthing Tanach - Yerushalayim Shel Matah (Rabbi Dr. Zivitofsky)
Halachic Archeology- Menorah in Rome (Dr. Greenspan)
Shulchan and Shulchanot of Shlomo HaMelech (Rabbi Kelman)
Expandable Boundaries as found in Tanach (Rabbi Leibtag)

Me and Women Invited. $10 Admission fee (OU Memebers free)
Pre registration required.
(212) 613-8212 Fax: (212) 613-0621
email: grossman at ou. org

Chai Rotel Mashkeh: Considering Women To Be Human!

Someone saved me this pamphlet from a Chai Rotel Mashke organization. These organizations provide liquid to thirsty people in Meiron on Lag BaOmer, as they visit the kever of Rashbi. Someone a while back declared it a segulah to provide 18 rottel (a liquid measure) to people at this event, and several organizations were set up on the basis of this segulah (though see here).

This particular pamphlet is quite entertaining. Click on the images in order to read them. (I now see that it is also available at their website, here.) Besides the segulah stories, this organization was describing what they did over-and-above other Chai Rottel organizations, presumably so that you would donate to them.

To quote (see image, right column):
"Lag Beomer '07 was the first time in history that women were also considered human. It was the very first time that they received cold water just like the men. Walking up the hill to the gravesite in this hot weather without any anything tocume [sic] drink absolutely endangers to be dehydrated. Therefore, R' Chaim Leib rented off some space right across 'Halpern's Hotel' and the women did not stop blessing him for this major breakthrough."

This way of over-the-top speaking is common through the pamphlet. Still, it is a very good thing that women do not dehydrate, and it is good that this organization is stepping in to fill the gap.

Why were women not "human" before '07? As far as I can make out, it is as follows: It seems that there are two paths to get to the kever. One of this is the "Mehadrin" path, for men only. And it is on this path that all the organizations typically distribute drinks.

Still, the extent of women's humanity is that they merit to receive cold water. They do not get coffee, or American coffee, since that is only distributed on the Mehadrin path. To cite (same image, left column):

"It is well known that on Lag Beomer there are thousands of foreigners visiting the gravesite, especially Americans. The majority of the Americans had a problem with the taste of the Isreali coffee which they weren't used to. So in 2007, R' Chaim Leib notified everybody that here will be American coffee available. Everybody that took route on the "Kvish Hamhadrin" (path for men only) was astonished to see their dream coming true. The Americans in particular, couldn't believe their eyes. They thought they'd visited a five star hotel. Right at the entrance there were six faucets with Boiled water, coffee, sugar, milk, hot cups and even covers!"

Wow! Even covers! If only the rating of hotels went up to six stars!

Heh. They have no hasaga of what a five-star-hotel is.

The segulah aspect of it helped as well in allowing distribution to women. See this picture:

In general, I am not so much in favor of the idea of going to Meiron for Lag BaOmer, or of all the segulah-ism that is associated with it and with chai rottel. Still, while I know nothing about the internal workings of this organization, it looks like they make use of donations to perform gemilus chassadim, which is worthy in and of itself.

Interesting Posts and Articles #43

1. Rav Heinemann gives a 47 minute shuir explaining and defending his position on Yom Tov mode ovens.
2. Reb Wolf Zhitomir Does Teshuva For Clapping His Hands
   

   "Reb Volf's way was to never show any outward sign of emotion in serving
   Hashem, such as clapping hands or davening loudly. He said this could only
   be done when you feel inside the way you want to express yourself outside."

   I agree with the sentiment against over-the-top expressive and perhaps insincere piety, though the story given to illustrate it is almost a maaseh listor, as it is a case when the inner feeling matched the outer expression, by definition, and was even a muted expression of what would be justified. I also have difficulty seeing such extreme applications of this rule and feelings of guilt for "violating" what was a middas chassidus he invented in the first place, as tzidkus. It seems more like a personality disorder.
3. Meanwhile, BeyondBT has a post by Rabbi Label Lam, about someone who is expressive in davening:
   

   He states that Olam Haba- the world to come is not a necessary result of the external performance of Mitzvos but rather a function of the internal dimension of those Mitzvos. He informs us that the outer aspect of the Mitzvos yields a “this worldly” benefit while the next world is a consequence of the depth and direction of the heart. Ultimately, Olam Haba is based on a relationship.
   ...
   When I was yet an unmarried Yeshiva student, we had the great honor of meeting a holy man. The Manchester Rav, Rabbi Yehuda Zev Segal ztl. prayed with us the afternoon service. Long after most of us had finished saying our prayers he remained bent over, shaking and weeping all the while. We watched in awe without knowing exactly what we were witnessing. I remember saying quietly to the fellow next to me, “I wonder what he did so wrong!”
   
   Days later while eating a Shabbos meal at the home of one of the rabbis we were discussing the visitor we had been treated to that week. The Rabbi told us that Rabbi Moshe Feinstein ztl. had considered the Manchester Rav to be one of the thirty-six hidden Tzadikim of the generation. I had a knack for asking obvious questions that elicited sharp responses, so I queried aloud, “If he is singled out, publicly as one of these hidden Tzadikim then he’s no longer hidden. His true identity has been exposed, his cover is blown and he cannot by definition be one of the thirty-six hidden Tzadikim in whose merit the world exists.”

   His rebbe gives him an answer.
   
4. Freedom from Bondage, pt. 2, at Hirhurim.
   
5. Guidelines of calling the police, part 5, at Daas Torah.
6. Over at Chaptzem, an interesting post about male boss shmoozing with the ladies in the workplace:
   And some choice comments:
   

   thekvetcher said...
   you need to chill out a little i think you really enjoy it but are afraid to let go. in any other than heimishe atmosphere this goes on and it is normal. you are tooo uptight.
   
   June 04, 2008 12:03 PM
   
   Hey Kvetcher, You got some serious problems saying this to a frum married women. Just because you don't give a darn about HASHEM and his mitzvos and the issur to protect oneself against an ervah doesn't mean there aren't other people that do care and are disgusted by inappropriate interaction between married women and men that aren't their husbands. You are considered a rosho by your comments and one who causes others to sin as well, and disregards the mitzvos. I pity your soul when you get up to heaven

   and also
   

   I feel for your boss. Try to understand his point of view. He buys a business and tries to be nice to the girls and the more he tries, the more they get upset. He is confused and unsure as to why the air is so tense. Why are they so upset at me? So he tries even harder.
   I don't know anything about your marriage, but I can tell you this. If you don't learn the skill of communicating and talking over things before they go out of control, your marriage won't last for too long.
   Communication is the key.

7. OnTheMainLine notes that Hagahot notes the forged Yerushalmi Kodshim is online at JNUL.
   

Behaalotecha: "And is not on a journey" as "Or is not on a journey"

An entertaining analysis of Ibn Ezra of Bemidbar 9:13:

יג וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-הוּא טָהוֹר וּבְדֶרֶךְ לֹא-הָיָה, וְחָדַל לַעֲשׂוֹת הַפֶּסַח--וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא, מֵעַמֶּיהָ: כִּי קָרְבַּן ה, לֹא הִקְרִיב בְּמֹעֲדוֹ--חֶטְאוֹ יִשָּׂא, הָאִישׁ הַהוּא.

13 But the man that is clean, and is not on a journey, and forbeareth to keep the passover, that soul shall be cut off from his people; because he brought not the offering of the LORD in its appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.

Ibn Ezra says:

Thus he says that וּבְדֶרֶךְ לֹא-הָיָה means או בְדֶרֶךְ לֹא-הָיָה. Similar to what occurs in Shemot 21:15:

טו וּמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, מוֹת יוּמָת. {ס}

15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. {S}

It is much easier to understand what he means non-locally, in this instance, so we will focus on that. When the pasuk states וּמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, it does not mean that he needs to smite both his father and his mother in order to be liable. Rather, וּמַכֵּה is distributive, and it is two cases -- makei aviv and makei imo. Or put another way, we can look at the vav of וּמַכֵּה as meaning "or."

That is the clear case, and apparently Ibn Ezra is applying the same idea here as well. Thus, וּבְדֶרֶךְ לֹא-הָיָה means "or he was not on the road."

This is very difficult to grapple with. For what is Ibn Ezra saying? That if he was pure but on the road, or impure but not on the road, and does not bring the Pesach initially, he is liable to karet and is not eligible to bring the Pesach Sheni? That is surely not his intent. Surely he hold that both conditions are required! This is rough going, but we are compelled to say something like this. Earlier the pasuk stated:

י דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֵאמֹר: אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי-יִהְיֶה-טָמֵא לָנֶפֶשׁ אוֹ בְדֶרֶךְ רְחֹקָה לָכֶם, אוֹ לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם, וְעָשָׂה פֶסַח, לַה'שם.	10 'Speak unto the children of Israel, saying: If any man of you or of your generations shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the passover unto the LORD;
יא בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם, בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם--יַעֲשׂוּ אֹתוֹ: עַל-מַצּוֹת וּמְרֹרִים, יֹאכְלֻהוּ.	11 in the second month on the fourteenth day at dusk they shall keep it; they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs;

Thus, there were two exclusions. Ritual uncleanliness and distance. Now, with this pasuk, we have:

יג וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-הוּא טָהוֹר וּבְדֶרֶךְ לֹא-הָיָה, וְחָדַל לַעֲשׂוֹת הַפֶּסַח--וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא, מֵעַמֶּיהָ: כִּי קָרְבַּן ה, לֹא הִקְרִיב בְּמֹעֲדוֹ--חֶטְאוֹ יִשָּׂא, הָאִישׁ הַהוּא.

13 But the man that is clean, and is not on a journey, and forbeareth to keep the passover, that soul shall be cut off from his people; because he brought not the offering of the LORD in its appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.

Perhaps Ibn Ezra is saying this וְחָדַל לַעֲשׂוֹת הַפֶּסַח and וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא (or וְהָאִישׁ) is distributive across the two conditions. Thus, the pasuk is stating that it is not the case that he is impure, yet he does this. Or, the negation of the other condition, so he is not on the road. And in each case, he still refrains from bringing the Pesach. Though when you think about it, of course in each case the other condition must also be true.

Shadal considers this a big mistake made in Ibn Ezra. It must be שלא היה טמא וגם לא היה בדרך, אז אם לא יעשה פסח, ייכרת. He attributes this mistake in Ibn Ezra to hurriedness, and criticizes Avi Ezer's supercommentary:

ובדרך לא היה : שלא היה טמא וגם לא היה בדרך, אז אם לא יעשה פסח, ייכרת. וראב"ע אגב שיטפיה לא דק, ופירש: ובדרך או בדרך. והמבאר הבין כי זה שיבוש גדול ונדחק ליישב דבריו ואמר שכוונתו ללמדנו קריאת וי"ו שורק בראש תבה (!!), והמעמר ראה והבין כי הבל המה הדברים הללו של המבאר, והתמיה עליו ופירש דברי ראב"ע על אמיתתם ולא ראה השיבוש היוצא מהם ולא הבין מה זה ועל מה זה נדחק המבאר לפרש כך

Avi Ezer, as supercommentary of Ibn Ezra, works to make sense of what is placed before him, and comes up with a teretz.


Ibn Ezra was not talking about the meaning of the vav, but the pronunciation of the vav. He is explaining that according to phonological principles, a vav sheva before the labials BMPV is transformed from "ve" to "OO." Thus, when Ibn Ezra wrote או בדרך he was making clear that it was pronounced OO. How do we make this work with the pasuk in sefer Shemot, וּמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ? The answer is that we are focused on the wrong vav. Not on the vav of veImo, but on the vav of umakei. And since that vav is followed by a mem, which is a labial, it is pronounced OO.

Needless to say, this seems extremely farfetched. How many shuruks are there until this place in parshas Behaalotecha, well into sefer Bemidbar, that in the middle of the fourth sefer he is compelled to explain this? Perhaps one could say that since there are three conditions, and an action, and all but this have vav sheva, one might think that the uvderech has some different role. Therefore he informs us no. But as noted, this is all quite farfetched. The better answer is that Ibn Ezra was not being precise.

But even this is difficult. For it occurs not just in Ibn Ezra, but also in Karaitic literature, in the work of Aharon ben Yosef (who was a bit after Ibn Ezra, but still is trying to make a point using the very same words). Would two normally deliberate commentators write this imprecise, and plain wrong, commentary? Aharon ben Yosef writes:

It looks to me like he defines bederech rechoka as one who does not reach Yerushalayim. Then, he has some lead-in words: umi shelo higia baAzara: uvderech lo haya . o bederech, kemp umakei aviv veimo.

Firstly, by putting that preceding phrase, umi shelo higia baAzara, which flows into o bederech, it seems clear that he is setting up a situation of alternatives. If we assume that as a commentator, using the same words, he has the same intent as Ibn Ezra, this should be sufficient to tell us that Avi Ezer is incorrect in making this a phonological point. Whether Shadal is right that Ibn Ezra is not being precise, or whether he has some intent that we cannot get to the bottom of, it surely is not a phonological claim being made here!

It seems that Aharon ben Yosef is understanding וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-הוּא טָהוֹר means that he was pure and yet did not come to the temple court. The alternative is one who was not on a journey. Though surely sure a person should also presumably be pure. So it is difficult.

The supercommentary on Aharon ben Yosef also tries his hand at resolving this. I am not entirely persuaded by the explanation. I have to think about it some more, and experiment with other permutations. The binding of the forbearance to Pesach Sheni certainly seems to be linked to it, as Aharon ben Yosef takes pains to say that he forebears to bring either the first or the second.


He writes: "many ask on the Rav {=Aharon ben Yosef} that the vav of uvderech is in place of the word o {=or}. For behold it appears from the text that if he was pure and was on a long journey, or if he was not on a long journey but was impure, and forebears to bring the Pesach, he is not liable karet. Rather, if he is pure and was not on a long journey, then he is liable karet when he forebears to bring the Pesach offering. This is the question. And the answer is that the opinion of the Rav that it says "and he forbears to bring the Pesach" is not discussing the Pesach Rishon, but rather the Pesach Sheni. And his intent is that the man who is pure, but was on a long journey for the first Pesach. Or alternatively, was not on a journey but was impure for the first Pesach. And then he neglects to make the Second Pesach. Then, that person's soul will be cut off. And so says Ibn Ezra {the same thing as Aharon ben Yosef}, see there."

It seems troublesome and weak that each case is defined by the condition that was not the cause for missing Pesach Rishon. But there feels like there is something here, something I am still grappling with.

I would suggest the following permutation, and have greater confidence in this permutation than in any solution offered above (except perhaps my other suggestion)-- Avi Ezer's phonological one, Shadal's one that Ibn Ezra was imprecise, and the Karaite supercommentary that each case is defined by the presence of the other condition (he was pure means that he was pure but was a distance away). I would suggest instead that each alternative is a correction of the previous state. That is, beforehand there were two possible things holding him back from bringing the Korban Pesach the first time -- ritual impurity, and distance from Yerushalayim. Now we are talking about Pesach Sheni.

If
1) he had been impure for Pesach Rishon, but now is pure for Pesach Sheni, and thus, הוּא טָהוֹר

OR

2) he had been on a long journey for Pesach Rishon, but now is in Jerusalem for Pesach Sheni, and thus וּבְדֶרֶךְ לֹא-הָיָה

and yet he neglects to bring the Pesach Sheni, וְחָדַל לַעֲשׂוֹת הַפֶּסַח.

then he gets karet, וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא.

Thus, it is two separate cases, paralleling the two separate cases above, where here, the monea' in each case had been removed.

I think this is able to be read into Aharon ben Yosef, and thus also into Ibn Ezra.

What gives me pause is what Aharon ben Yosef writes: venichresa: the karet is for one who has no excuse and does not do the Pesach in its time, whether the first Pesach or the second Pesach. Therefore, the lack of excuse would seem to be intended for both Pesach Rishon and Pesach Sheni, and the וְחָדַל לַעֲשׂוֹת הַפֶּסַח applies equally to both. Thus, I would revert back to my earlier explanation, where I talked of the phrase being distributive, and of each case being the negation of the case in the earlier verse, even though of course implicitly the other condition is also met.

Tzarich iyyun gadol.