Monday, November 30, 2009

Various Gedolim on the Latest Kupat HaIr Segulah

of the 9th hour of the 9th day of the 9th month of the 9th year since Yovel:

הגרמ"י לפקוביץ: זה מעלה גדולה לתרום לקופת העיר וביותר שמצאו שזהו עת רצון מיוחד.
הגראי"ל שטינמן: אף פעם לא שמענו מכך, אבל הם מראים בספר אז כנראה זה נכון, אבל צדקה לבד זה גם סגולה.
רבי דוד אבוחצירא: אכן זוהי סגולה חשובה עד מאד, ובודאי ראוי לנצל עת רצון גדולה שכזאת.
הגר"ח קניבסקי: לא שמעתי על כך, מי שרוצה ישועה שיתפלל, אפשר להתפלל תמיד מתי שרוצים.
Rabbi Lefkowitz: This is a great thing, to donate to Kupat Ha-Ir, and especially that they found that this is a particular time of favor.
Rabbi Steinman: We have never heard of such a thing, but they show it in the sefer. Thus, it appears that this is correct. But tzedakka alone is also a segulah.
Rabbi Abuchatzeira: Indeed, this is a very respectable segulah, and certainly it is appropriate to utilize a time of favor such as this.
Rabbi Kanievsky: I have not heard of this. One who wishes for salvation via praying, it is possible to always pray, whenever one wishes.
Rav Steinman's comment, that he never heard of such a thing, but since it comes from a credentialed sefer, it must be correct, reminds me of a comment from about a month and a half ago on a Hirhurim thread, by S.:
200 years ago the hamon believed in ghosts and devils. There was a modernizing, rationalizing turn for some decades, and now it's turned again. People used to be far more superstitious, even if today it seems like Orthodox society has become more superstitions than it was 20 years ago. Go back even further and you had people doing things like holding mock weddings in cemeteries to ward off a cholera epidemic, I kid you not.

Personally I think the return to sgulos and the like is another aspect of 'textualism.' There is a tendency 'out there' to believe anything in a 'sefer,' or to put it another way, if it's in a sefer it is an unquestioned part of our tradition. Since people are beginning to read old, neglected seforim, and they are not employing critical skills to distinguish between things, many practices and beliefs are being revived, but they're not really new. For example, lead casting may seem like a new shtus-avoda-zara, but actually its an old one.

But indeed, we have this tremendous corpus of Rabbinic literature, and it is filled with all sorts of ideas. Some of those ideas might be superstitious; some might even dance at the edges of Lo Seonein, as defined by Rabbi Akiva. And people discover these old practices and do not know how to filter. If it is in a sefer (and this arcane sefer approved by a major kabbalistic figure or two), then it must be correct.

Contrast Rav Shteinman's position with that of Rav Kanievsky. I don't know if I am reading too much into Rav Kanievsky's words, but I think that he does not support any and every segulah, just because it is in an arcane kabbalistic sefer. He never heard of it, and one can -- and perhaps should -- focus on the davening, rather than on davening at this precise propitious time. Because we can always daven. And, I would add, turning tefillah into a segulah misses the point, and cheapens it. Turn to Hashem and pour out your heart, rather than calculating precise times like a modern-day Bilaam!

I see in Rabbi Kanievsky's words an echo of a response from Rav Elyashiv, regarding the segulah of davening 40 consecutive days at the kotel. This segulah indeed does have some basis, with a rabbi in the past endorsing the practice. But,
Rav Elyashiv's answer is that there is no basis for this. Any time, and every time, one goes to the Kotel to daven his prayers are accepted.
Note the idea and stress of any time and every time, just as in the words of his son-in-law.

See also Yeranen Yaakov for a roundup of posts on this. And see The Cool Jew who has scanned in quite an extensive writeup.

Are Bet El and Luz really the same place?

Summary: Despite the pasuk at the start of Vayeitzei that Luz was the original name of Bet El, a pasuk in sefer Yehoshua suggests otherwise, for the border went from Bet El to Luz! How can we resolve this? Shadal, Malbim and Radak attack this problem, and solve it by interpreting the pasuk in Yehoshua in different ways.

The pasuk at the start of Vayeitzei:


יט  וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שֵׁם-הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא, בֵּית-אֵל; וְאוּלָם לוּז שֵׁם-הָעִיר, לָרִאשֹׁנָה.
19 And he called the name of that place Beth-el, but the name of the city was Luz at the first.
I might be tempted to draw a distinction between the general area and the city. But we also have in the beginning of Sefer Shofetim, when they conquer Luz:

*More* moral lessons on parshat Vayeitzei

In a previous post I considered (and critiqued) a few of the purposes Ralbag offers on parashat Vayeitzei. Here are a few more. I am focusing on the ones in middot, rather than the ones in deot, and so I skip here from 4 to 9.
4. The fourth purpose is in traits, and this is that it is not fitting for a person to pursue after delights, but rather should take from them only what is necessary. Do you not see that adjacent to this place was a city called Luz {see 28:19, that Luz was the name of this city at first} and it was possible for Yaakov to sleep there on a corner of a couch and leg of a bed {poetic language takes from Amos 3:12}, and he made do with one of the stones of the place upon which to put his head. This too aided him in his zeal in his journey, to get up and to travel when he wanted.


9. The ninth purpose is in traits, and that is that it is fitting for a person to stand in honored placed with awe and fear, and with increased holiness, and should not do in them the actions that he does in the lesser places. And for this reason Yaakov feared in his thoughts {?} regarding the place that he slept.


10. The tenth purpose is in traits, and that is that it is not fitting for a person to urgently seek great wealth, but rather it should suffice for him that which is necessary. Do you not see that Yaakov Avinu only requested from Hashem the basic needs, and that is bread to eat and a garment to wear.

All of these are worthy lessons, and I appreciate how Ralbag derived each of these via careful analysis of the narrative.

Still, I am not certain whether I agree with each of these readings.



Interesting Posts and Articles #240

  1. Rabbi Feldman responds to Rabbi Slifkin about his essay:


    Thank you for your e-mail. I do not recall any “factual errors or serious flaws” in my article, “The Slifkin Affair,” which were brought to my attention; otherwise I would certainly have corrected them...

  2. Hirshel Tzig on Rebbeshe Inyonim, with a video clip of the Tosher Rebbe making Hamotzi. Apparently, he has done this consistently since when he was a bachur, and does not do this for other brachot. Which might well indicate that this is not the result of old age, or OCD. Presumably he has certain kavvanos when saying this bracha. Not my cup of tea, of course:

  3. In the Coffee Room at The Yeshiva World, all about how Yaakov Avinu was not frum, because he helped out Rachel's sheep and spoke to her, and then asked to marry her without using a shadchan. Let us be thankful that Lavan was not frum! Sorry, that was my summary.

    The actual story:




    A friend of our's has a son who was driving home from yeshiva a few weeks ago on Sunday and he saw in the curb lane a car with the hazard lights flashing, and two "dressed up" girls standing beside it. Since he was raised properly by his parents (sorry, I am editorializing here), he pulled over and asked the girls if they needed help. They had a flat tire, told him that they had called for help, but that the towing company said it would be an hour and they were going to be late for a vort. So (because this is a boy whose parents taught him well), the boy (let's call him Dovid) offered to change the tire for them. The girls were kind of astounded, but they actually took him up on the offer; he changed the tire.
    While he was changing the tire they made small talk and it turns out that one of the girls knows his aunt, and we figure that she used that information to obtain his address later that week, and she (the driver of the car) and the other girl sent him a thank you note with a gift certificate to a local seforim store - they explained they would have probably spent four times that much on the towing company, and they really appreciated his help.
    So, one thing leads to another, the boy calls his aunt, gets the girl's number, and calls to thank her for the gift.
    Nice story so far, right? Gets better.
    They have a nice conversation and agree to meet for a coffee. And this is where the craziness starts.
    Two nights later Dovid gets a call from the girl, who tells Dovid that she cannot meet him. Why? Because she was about to be redt to a very choshuve bochur, and the shadchanis told her that if word got around that this girl was going to go on a date with a guy she had met WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION OF THE SHADCHAN, (a) the choshuve bochur would not meet her, and (b) the shadchanis would no longer help her because "my clientele does not talk to boys who have not been checked out and cleared." Of course, Dovid is upset, because he liked the girl and thought it would be worthwhile to meet with her; the girl is upset because she is torn between wanting to meet Dovid again, but not sure she wants to risk her relationship with the shadchanis if the Dovid thing doesn't go anywhere.





  4. Moment Magazine has an article about Rabbi Slifkin:

  5. Matzav on Sefardic girls and the shidduch crisis.

  6. Life In Israel writes of a lack of understanding regarding the secular protests:



    R' Goldknopf, head of the rabbinic committee for guarding the sanctity of shabbos, doesn't understand them. He says we are all Jews, and how can they protest for chilul shabbos. We all heard the same commandments to keep shabbos. "I don't understand how any Jew can protest against the shabbos".



    That might actually be a large part of the problem. They don't understand. The secular are not protesting against shabbos. They are protesting against people who are trying to enforce their way of life on others who do not want to be bound by that lifestyle.



  7. The latest Haveil Havalim.

  8. Here at parshablog, a roundup of previous years' posts for parshat Vayishlach.

Sunday, November 29, 2009

Oh! Nuts Chanukka Offer

Once again, Oh! Nuts is offering special treats for Chanukkah. Check it out below:


Hanukkah Gifts


This Chanukah, treat your guests with Hanukkah candy thank your host with a Hanukkah gift Baskets and delight your kids with Chanukah Gelt or with Hanukkah gifts for kids. All from Oh! Nuts. As the leading source for kosher candy, chocolates, nuts and gifts, Oh! Nuts is fully stocked with all your Chanukah party and Chanukah gift needs.

Update: Also, you can compete in their contest over at DovBear, or at "Just Call Me Chaviva" (no relation).

Why did Yaakov weep? part i

Summary: I analyze Rashi's two answers for Yaakov's weeping, as contrasted with that of Ibn Ezra. Rashi suggests that it was because he saw that Rachel wouldn't be buried with him, and secondly that he came without money, in contrast to Eliezer who came laden with wealth. Maharshal harmonizes the two reasons, so that Rashi can intend to say both simultaneously, but I explain why I think this harmonization is extremely farfetched. Finally, I give my own suggestion as to Rashi's motivations in bringing down these two midrashim from Bereishit Rabba.

Post: After greeting Rachel with a kiss, Yaakov weeps.





יא וַיִּשַּׁק יַעֲקֹב, לְרָחֵל; וַיִּשָּׂא אֶת-קֹלוֹ, וַיֵּבְךְּ.
11 And Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept.


Why should he weep? Various commentators have different ideas, which I might explore in another post, but Rashi gives two answers:





and wept: Since he foresaw with the holy spirit that she (Rachel) would not enter the grave with him.

Another explanation: Since he came empty-handed, he said, “Eliezer, my grandfather’s servant, had nose rings, and bracelets and sweet fruits in his possession, and I am coming with nothing in my hands. [He had nothing] because Eliphaz the son of Esau had pursued him to kill him at his father’s orders; he (Eliphaz) overtook him, but since he had grown up in Isaac’s lap, he held back his hand. He said to him (Jacob), ”What shall I do about my father’s orders?“ Jacob replied,”Take what I have, for a poor man is counted as dead." - [from Bereishit Rabbathi by Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan]


ויבך: לפי שצפה ברוח הקודש שאינה נכנסת עמו לקבורה.
דבר אחר לפי שבא בידים ריקניות, אמר אליעזר עבד אבי אבא היו בידיו נזמים וצמידים ומגדנות, ואני אין בידי כלום. לפי שרדף אליפז בן עשו במצות אביו אחריו להורגו והשיגו, ולפי שגדל אליפז בחיקו של יצחק משך ידו. אמר לו מה אעשה לציווי של אבא, אמר לו יעקב טול מה שבידי, והעני חשוב כמת:





While the explanation of Elifaz taking all his possessions may have come from Rabbi Moshe HaDarshan, Rashi's approximate contemporary, both these explanations are found in Bereishit Rabba, a much earlier work:


Saturday, November 28, 2009

The Karaites fire a return salvo!

In a previous post, I focused on Ibn Ezra's insult to (Yaakov) ben Ephraim the Karaite. He said that ben Ephraim was chaser aleph, such that he was Ben Parim, or else that he was deficient in wisdom. See my post inside.

This was on the pasuk about Leah's eyes:


יז וְעֵינֵי לֵאָה, רַכּוֹת; וְרָחֵל, הָיְתָה, יְפַת-תֹּאַר, וִיפַת מַרְאֶה.
17 And Leah's eyes were weak; but Rachel was of beautiful form and fair to look upon.
יח וַיֶּאֱהַב יַעֲקֹב, אֶת-רָחֵל; וַיֹּאמֶר, אֶעֱבָדְךָ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים, בְּרָחֵל בִּתְּךָ, הַקְּטַנָּה.
18 And Jacob loved Rachel; and he said: 'I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.'


where the Karaite commentator Ben Ephraim claimed that rakos was missing an aleph and thus meant long (somewhat along the lines of Rabbi Eleazar in the gemara). And in response, Ibn Ezra leveled the aforementioned insult.

Meanwhile, many years later, Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite gave a different interpretation. He says that rakot mean צעירות, afflicted, weak, or tender. He points to a pasuk in parshas Vayishlach, where Yaakov explains why he cannot accompany Esav:


Friday, November 27, 2009

Interesting Posts and Articles #239

  1. On the Main Line points out an argument to establish a Jewish school for girls, in 1861, in order to combat the spread of Chassidus in Russia.

  2. Remember that story a short time ago about the guy in the coma for 23 years, who now woke up, and claims that he merely had locked-in syndrome, but was fully awake? Well, if you watch the CNN video, his purported "communication" is via FC, facilitated communication. And it looks like it is the facilitator who is communicating. See below:


    And Wired takes note of this.

  3. Vos Iz Neias links to a COLLive (Chabad) article about how the RCA rejects as members those who believe in mashiach from the dead:
    The clause states: "By checking this box and with my signature below, I affirm that the following resolution, adopted at the RCA's 1996 Annual Convention, reflects my beliefs:

    "In light of disturbing developments which have recently arisen in the Jewish community... declares that there is not and never has been a place in Judaism for the belief that Mashiach ben David will begin his Messianic mission only to experience death, burial and resurrection before completing it."
    For a moment there, despite my thinking that meshichists are silly and have silly beliefs, and my thinking that the Lubavitcher Rebbe, who died, is certainly not mashiach, I wondered whether I would be able to sign such a statement. But then, I noticed that they mentioned "will begin ... only to experience death", etc. The idea being that they won't reject someone who says that it is possible that King David, or Daniel, or Menachem ben Chizkiyah, could return from the dead and begin a messianic career. But Yushke, or Shabtai Tzvi could not, because they began their messianic career. And Hashem would not disappoint the Jewish people like that. And this works out well with Bereishit Rabba on Vaychi, and with Rambam about knowing how someone is certainly not mashiach.

  4. The Jerusalem Post on the potential dangers of compact florescent lightbulbs.

  5. DovBear does not like the appeal for tips from his kids' school. Also discussed at In the Pink.

  6. A recent story is about how Google took down from its image search a picture of Michelle Obama modified to look like a monkey. But while I see how it can be interpreted as offensive and racist, and indeed it would be if it were intended as such, in fact it seems that there is a much more innocuous explanation for it.

    As FlyStyleLife points out, this image originated at a rather stupid website called celebrityape.com. And they take all sorts of celebrities and politicians, both black and white, and make them into apes. For example, here is Barack Obama as an ape. But here is Cindy McCain as an ape.

    On the other hand, if someone then takes that image and deliberately uses it for racist purposes, then that is indeed terrible and ought to be condemned.

  7. Bad 4 Shidduchim wonders whose wedding it is anyway, and how she had to retract from having a fishbowl as a centerpiece.

  8. At Yeshiva World, A chareidi family under investigation for abandoning the children. The mother went off to give birth, the father went off to central Israel to work, and they left the 14 year old in charge, as far as I understand for a few days. This might be a matter of differing cultural attitudes.

  9. Here at parshablog, my roundup of posts for parshas Vayeitzei.

Rabbi Chanoch Waxman as Scholar in Residence at Etz Chaim of KGH

From an Etz Chaim of Kew Gardens Hills update:
This Shabbat, November 27-28, Parashat Vayetze, we welcome Rabbi Chanoch Waxman as our Scholar in Residence. On Friday night, at 7:30 PM, at the home of Deena & Larry Rabinovich, 144-33 72 Dr., Rabbi Waxman will speak on Lifnim Mishurat Hadin, then at 9:00 PM, at the home of Rabbi Moshe & Dina Rosenberg, 147-46 77 Rd., he will hold a Tisch with Teens. On Shabbat Day, at Congregation Etz Chaim (147–19 73rd Avenue, Kew Gardens Hills), at approximately 10:30 AM, the Shabbat Drasha will be delivered by Rabbi Waxman, who will speak again after the Mincha service (3:55 PM), at Seudah Shlishit, on Crisis and Faith: The Precedent of Ya'akov and the Problem of Nedarim.
Rabbi Waxman currently serves as a Rav at Yeshivat Hamivtar. He has served as Rabbi of the Albert Einstein Synagogue, and has taught at Drisha Institute and at MaTan in Jerusalem. He is a featured speaker and writer for Yeshivat Har Etzion’s Virtual Beit Midrash.

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Posts so far for parshat Vayeitzei

2009
  1. Vayeitzei sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, as well as over 100 meforshim on the parsha and aliyah, grouped into categories such as masorah, rashi supercommentators, and so on.

  2. Once again, how is Vayeitzei setumah? I discuss how Minchas Shai and Or Torah harmonize the conflicting traditions in a way that makes our present texts entirely accurate -- that by Vayeitzei rather than Vaychi, it is talking about a lack of internal gap rather than initial gap. But then I point out that in Codex Hilleli (contrary toMinchas Shai), it *does* seem to mention a lack of initial gap as a primary possibility; and Ibn Caspi and Chizkuni also assume a lack of initial gap ; and perhaps also Aharon ben Yosef.

    For earlier posts on the matter, scroll down and see my description of posts from previous years.

  3. Is there a gap before Vayelech Reuven? I think I agree that there should not be. But if it were present, it would cause us to reject the interpretation of vayeitzei as setuma as merely lacking internal gaps, rather than an initial gap.

  4. The meaning of Yaakov's dream -- what various meforshim believe it is. Perhaps it is literal, with no "significance". Or perhaps there is a philosophical pnimiyus. Another approach is to attempt to determine what these symbols meant in the Ancient Near East.

  5. Moral lessons from parshas Vayeitzei -- from Ralbag. We could learn kibbud av vaEm, zerizus, and not putting oneself in danger. This gives us insight into how Ralbag interpreted the narrative, as well. Though I could take issue with some of his interpretations.

  6. Why did Yaakov prefer Rachel? In part, because she was pretty! But Ralbag has more respectable reasons.

  7. How many stones did Yaakov put about his head? Was it one, or many? And how not just Ibn Ezra, but the vast majority of meforshim, part ways with Chazal here, and reject the midrashic interpretation on the peshat level.

  8. Did Ibn Ezra insult ben Ephraim the Karaite by calling him a cow? Or just an unlearned person. The merits of each interpretation.
2008
  1. Why was Levi called Levi? A late pun once the name Levi exists?

  2. Did Rachel Really Cover Herself With Sheep, Historically? And does this obligate us nowadays in anything? Rabbi Falk taking a rather late midrash at face value, rather than assuming that there are values being read into the Biblical narrative by the midrashist.

  3. Did Yaakov Stray After His Eyes In Preferring Rachel? So says Rabbenu Bachya. I am not so sure I agree, as a matter of peshat.

  4. Vayeitzei sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraot Gedolot.

  5. Malachim as Angels or Human -- first in Vayera, what of the malachim who met with Avraham and Lot? And then in Vayeitzei and Vayishlach -- what of the malachim in Yaakov's dream, the ones he encountered at Machanayim, and the ones he sent to Esav?

  6. When Yaakov kissed Rachel, was it derech chibba? On I peshat level, I would say that it was not.

  7. Why did Rachel blame Yaakov for her difficulty in conceiving? Ralbag offers a fascinating suggestion.

  8. How exactly is the "parsha" of Vayeitzei "setuma"? Not as per the gloss on the Baal HaTurim, I think.

  9. Did Rachel really cover herself with sheep? Why a late midrash by the Ben Ish Chai should not establish normative Jewish practice.

  10. And as a followup, the Ben Ish Chai's statement that Rachel wore a veil, based on a paseik. But it is not a paseik! It is a munach legarmeih. But besides this, it seems that this reflected normative practice in the time and place of Ben Ish Chai. So Ben Ish Chai took his normative practice (that is, of his time and place) and attributed it in a midrash to Rachel. We should not then take it from the midrash and apply it to ourselves, to establish our normative practice.
2007
  1. Where did Yaakov sleep? And from where the motivation to make this the makom hamikdash as opposed to Bet El?

  2. Did Yaakov Promise a Temple at Bet El? Related to the above, and the troubling idea of him doing so, given the eventual alternate Temple at Bet El. And in Vayishlach, Shadal develops the idea that the eventual construction of the Temple at Bet El provides an early date for the Torah's authorship.

  3. Is Lifting the Stone off the Well a Superhuman Feat? Two possibilities on a peshat level, and I am not certain which one works better on a peshat level -- the one minimizing the superhuman feat or the one which works better with the theme of the text. I prefer the latter.

  4. Rav Moshe Feinstein on the Avot Keeping the Torah -- is there some meaningful message here, or is it historical?

  5. Is Vayechi unique in being introduced with no gap? There are a bunch of posts here on parshablog on the issue of that gap in Vayechi. But is there similarly no gap by Vayeitzei? We will have to clarify, perhaps in other posts in 2008.

  6. Was Gad, the son of Yaakov, named after the deity? And the related krei and ktiv.
2006
  1. Was Lavan Right To Move The Sheep? Speculation about Lavan and Yaakov's arrangement, specifically which sheep were to belong to Yaakov, and reasons for moving the sheep far away.

  2. Helping Giant Pandas Conceive -- using panda pornography. How Yaakov did a similar thing, and how we can understand וַיֵּחַמְנָה and וַיֶּחֱמוּ as "went into heat."

  3. How Old Was Rachel? A video, and text, post. 14 years old. And the influences on this midrash, and the theme of this midrash of being fated, and made for each other. And how this fits in with the 3 year old Rivkah.
2005
  • Twelve Boys and Only One Girl?
    • Cross-listed to Vayishlach. I discuss the possibility that Dinah was not the only girl, but was named because of the Incident With Dinah a bit later. But then scientifically, the possibility that the Avot in general did not have girls because, apparently, the longer before one has a child, the less likely one is to have a girl.

  • Triple Etiologies for Place Names
    • Cross-listed to Vayishlach. Triple Etiologies for Peniel, Machanayim.
2004
  • Who Named Levi?
    • I take on Anchor Bible smoothing emendation of the text, discussing whether קרא is passive ("he was called"), past tense third person singular ("he," meaning Yaakov or "He" meaning Hashem), or a final possibility that it is really קראה. Speiser in Anchor Bible chose a local optimum, emending it to "she," based on Samaritan and LXX. I show that firstly, this is a harmonizing emendation, to Samaritan and LXX which go for harmonizations are not necessarily evidence of another textual tradition; that actually no emendation of the unvocalized Masoretic text is necessary to get at "she"; and finally, that the emendation only finds a local optimum, and if we want to emend the text, we should emend the other קראה to match this קרא, as passive, based on a global usage.

  • Binyamin's Name
    • Binyamin's name in Hebrew and Aramaic. For Vayishlach, but a note at the end which ties this in to Vayeitzei, in terms of Gal-Ed.

  • An Amharic Hebrew Congnate for Vayeitzei/Vayishlach
    • lakä, ‘send’, found in malach, angel or messenger.

  • The Stone Pillow
    • and how the Egyptians, just like Yaakov, used stone pillows. However, from what I've seen since this post, though I cannot find the reference, it seems that there were actually real pillows they put on these headrests. Just that those pillows decayed into nothing, such that eventually they found a few, but until then, people thought the Egyptians actually used stone pillows. If so, a prime example about how absence of evidence is not equal to evidence of absence.

  • Kissing Cousins
    • Chazal on premarital kissing.
2003
  1. Dual Etymologies for Names -- which includes discussion of the two meanings of Machanayim

  2. An Interesting Midrash In Targum Yonatan on Bereishit 28:12; about the two angels who went to Sodom in parshat Vayera. Yaakov now sees them ascend to Heaven. Does this bolster the two angels accompanying Hashem reading? See the post inside.
2002
  1. Rachel the Wrestler, Yaakov the Wrestler -- and how they struggled with both Hashem and with people.

  2. Kefitzat HaDerech: Going Somewhere Fast, But Where? an analysis of some of the sources. To Bet-el, to Charan.

    I don't cover Rabbenu Bachya here, who I recently noticed has an interesting take.

  3. An alternative to the Rav's explanation of Targum Yonatan on Bereishit 32:3 (2002); in which I take issue with a devar Torah, which appears to be based on a mistranslation of Targum Yonatan's words belishan bet kudsha, such that he thinks that the name of the place machanayim has connection to the Bet HaMikdash, while in truth belishan bet kudsha means "in Hebrew," as is used elsewhere in Targum where Binyamin is given a Hebrew name.

Did Ibn Ezra insult ben Ephraim the Karaite by calling him the son of cows?

In a comment on an earlier post, Z wrote:

I wonder if you could do a post about the Ibn Ezra on וְעֵינֵי לֵאָה, רַכּוֹת and what he means by והוא היה חסר אלף
I always have disagreements with people about this and I would love to see your take on it.


The Torah relates that Leah's eyes were rakot.


יז וְעֵינֵי לֵאָה, רַכּוֹת; וְרָחֵל, הָיְתָה, יְפַת-תֹּאַר, וִיפַת מַרְאֶה.
17 And Leah's eyes were weak; but Rachel was of beautiful form and fair to look upon.
יח וַיֶּאֱהַב יַעֲקֹב, אֶת-רָחֵל; וַיֹּאמֶר, אֶעֱבָדְךָ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים, בְּרָחֵל בִּתְּךָ, הַקְּטַנָּה.
18 And Jacob loved Rachel; and he said: 'I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.'

but it is not clear just what rakot means. It could be praise, juxtaposed to praise of Rachel. Or, it could be describing a deficiency, such that Rachel was more beautiful, such that Yaakov loved Rachel.

The gemara in Bava Basra 123a puts forth two opinions:

How many stones did Yaakov put about his head?

Because of the general assumption that it is only Ibn Ezra who argues on midrash, I'd like to present an instance in which several of the classic commentators argue on the midrash. Before Yaakov slept, he took of the stones of the place:





יא וַיִּפְגַּע בַּמָּקוֹם וַיָּלֶן שָׁם, כִּי-בָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, וַיִּקַּח מֵאַבְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם, וַיָּשֶׂם מְרַאֲשֹׁתָיו; וַיִּשְׁכַּב, בַּמָּקוֹם הַהוּא.
11 And he lighted upon the place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took one of the stones of the place, and put it under his head, and lay down in that place to sleep.





Now, admittedly, avnei is plural. But mei means from those, and so the minimum one could take is one of the many stones. And later on it is clear that there was only one stone:






יח וַיַּשְׁכֵּם יַעֲקֹב בַּבֹּקֶר, וַיִּקַּח אֶת-הָאֶבֶן אֲשֶׁר-שָׂם מְרַאֲשֹׁתָיו, וַיָּשֶׂם אֹתָהּ, מַצֵּבָה; וַיִּצֹק שֶׁמֶן, עַל-רֹאשָׁהּ.
18 And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put under his head, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.






If so, there is no difficulty; it always was a single stone. But a midrash might take the plural portion, and run with it; particularly if there is a good lesson to derive from it.



Thanksgiving: Did the Pilgrims wear tzitzis?!

Last week, Junior came home from school with a bunch of Thanksgiving projects. And among them were two figures on Popsicle sticks.

The first one, an Indian (or if you prefer, Native American), with reddish skin and a bow and arrow for hunting. So far so good.



















But then, a rather shocking portrayal of a Puritan. Since when does a Puritan wear a kippah, tzitzis, and hold a sefer? While I can understand the urge to remake the Avos in the mold of modern Jews; and while I can somewhat understand wanting the children to identify with the first new American settlers, surely the Puritans weren't Orthodox Jews! Wouldn't this just confuse them? What were his teachers thinking?

Then, the answer -- this wasn't supposed to be a portrayal of Indians and Pilgrims. It was his parshas Toldos project, and it was Esav and Yaakov! (Indeed, see Esav's body hair.)

The initial reaction was not my own, but rather someone else's. Still, it was understandable based on the context, in that it was among many Thanksgiving projects.

Of course, there are still other anachronisms here, but these are more common ones, and not as bothersome. Did Yaakov Avinu actually wear a yarmulke, tzitzis, and learn from a bound sefer written in ksav ashuris?! Well, maybe according to the popular position from Chazal, that the avos kept the entire Torah.

But would Yaakov have worn a kippah? That we know, since the pasuk says Vayeitzei Yaakov, and surely Yaakov would not have traveled 4 amos without his yarmulkah. (On the other hand, since it was kefitzas haderech, perhaps his actual strides did not amount to four amos...) Would he have worn tzitzis? Perhaps we can argue it, as it was the practice of the elite in those times to have something akin to this (techeiles on the edge of their garment). And the sefer? Well, what else would he be learning in the yeshiva of Shem and Ever? Although this type of book, rather than scroll, seems to have been a fairly late invention. And we would expect Paleo-Hebrew rather than ksav ashuris.

Why did Yaakov prefer Rachel?

The answer, I think, is that the heart wants what the heart wants. And perhaps that it was love at first sight (at the well, but that is admittedly debatable). And that she was the prettier sister:


טז וּלְלָבָן, שְׁתֵּי בָנוֹת: שֵׁם הַגְּדֹלָה לֵאָה, וְשֵׁם הַקְּטַנָּה רָחֵל.
16 Now Laban had two daughters: the name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel.
יז וְעֵינֵי לֵאָה, רַכּוֹת; וְרָחֵל, הָיְתָה, יְפַת-תֹּאַר, וִיפַת מַרְאֶה.
17 And Leah's eyes were weak; but Rachel was of beautiful form and fair to look upon.
יח וַיֶּאֱהַב יַעֲקֹב, אֶת-רָחֵל; וַיֹּאמֶר, אֶעֱבָדְךָ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים, בְּרָחֵל בִּתְּךָ, הַקְּטַנָּה.
18 And Jacob loved Rachel; and he said: 'I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.'

unless rakkot means soft, as in beautiful. Perhaps the juxtaposition means nothing, but it seems like a deliberate juxtaposition. She was the prettier sister, and Yaakov fell in love with her. I can understand, though, how this idea might make more conservative people squirm. Is Yaakov straying after his eyes? Shouldn't he look to her middot tovot? What is a tzaddik and a prophet focusing on such matters? Sheker hachain vehevel hayofi!

Ralbag admits at the end that this was a partial consideration, but he also first gives a few other reasons for Yaakov's preference.


Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Moral lessons from parshat Vayeitzei

Over-focus on the fine points of grammar, philology, and the meaning of particular pesukim might make us forget an important and overarching goal of learning Torah -- it is to make us into better human beings. Ralbag addresses this aspect in his commentary on Torah, by discussing what lessons we are to draw from the parsha, in terms of conduct and belief.

Of course, one can only derive these lessons once we arrive at the true meaning of the narrative. For how can one learn the Torah's lesson that X if the Torah never said X? Well, one could. But still, we would like to ascertain that the Torah actually said X.

This means that while I like many of the lessons Ralbag teaches, I might nitpick on whether the Biblical text really is teaching us this. Three first three lessons from Ralbag follow.
1. The first purpose is in traits, and that is that it is fitting for a person to listen to the voice of his parents. And therefore Scriptures testified that Yaakov's leaving from Beer Sheva was to go to Charan, as his parents instructed him.



2. The second purpose is in traits, and that is that it is fitting for a person, when he takes his actions, to do them with zeal, and not be lazy in it. For laziness is an extremely disgraceful trait, which distances a person from all completeness. And therefore, the Torah relates that Yaakov slept in that place because the sun already set. And if not for this, he would not have been lazy in traveling further on that day. And for this reason, as well, it mentioned that he already got up {early} in the morning to go on his way.


3. The third purpose is in traits, and that is that it is not fitting for a person to put himself into danger. And therefore, it related that Yaakov already slept there because the sun set, because at night, danger is found on the road. And therefore, it is fitting for a person to distance himself from traveling on the road at night, if not in a matter that he is certain to be safe from danger.

All good lessons. In terms of lesson (1), this close reading seems more like a derash that Ralbag is innovating.

The Meaning of Yaakov's dream


In Vayeitzei, Yaakov has a dream, which goes as follows:


יב וַיַּחֲלֹם, וְהִנֵּה סֻלָּם מֻצָּב אַרְצָה, וְרֹאשׁוֹ, מַגִּיעַ הַשָּׁמָיְמָה; וְהִנֵּה מַלְאֲכֵי אֱלֹהִים, עֹלִים וְיֹרְדִים בּוֹ.
12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.
יג וְהִנֵּה יְהוָה נִצָּב עָלָיו, וַיֹּאמַר, אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם אָבִיךָ, וֵאלֹהֵי יִצְחָק; הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה שֹׁכֵב עָלֶיהָ--לְךָ אֶתְּנֶנָּה, וּלְזַרְעֶךָ.
13 And, behold, the LORD stood beside him, and said: 'I am the LORD, the God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac. The land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed.
יד וְהָיָה זַרְעֲךָ כַּעֲפַר הָאָרֶץ, וּפָרַצְתָּ יָמָּה וָקֵדְמָה וְצָפֹנָה וָנֶגְבָּה; וְנִבְרְכוּ בְךָ כָּל-מִשְׁפְּחֹת הָאֲדָמָה, וּבְזַרְעֶךָ.
14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south. And in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
טו וְהִנֵּה אָנֹכִי עִמָּךְ, וּשְׁמַרְתִּיךָ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר-תֵּלֵךְ, וַהֲשִׁבֹתִיךָ, אֶל-הָאֲדָמָה הַזֹּאת: כִּי, לֹא אֶעֱזָבְךָ, עַד אֲשֶׁר אִם-עָשִׂיתִי, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-דִּבַּרְתִּי לָךְ.
15 And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee whithersoever thou goest, and will bring thee back into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.'


It seems somewhat likely that all aspects of the dream are meant to be significant. But I would consider it a strong possibility that a knowledge of Ancient Near Eastern culture would be necessary for understanding the full import of the symbolism in the dream.

Why the ladder? Why does it extend from earth to heaven? What is the significance of the angels ascending and descending?


Unless it wasn't even meant to be symbolic.

The merits of a baal teshuva vs. those of an FFB, in parshat Toledot

I recently saw a post at BeyondBT which brought me to the following dvar Torah, excerpted below:

Rashi explains "lenochach" by saying that Isaac and Rebecca prayed in opposite corners of the room. We can imagine how they prayed for hours, intently, for a child, Abraham in one corner and Rebecca in the other, until G-d answered their prayer. Why then does it say: "the L-rd let himself be entreated by him [Isaac]"? What was wrong with Rebecca's prayers? Rashi explains this again, by saying: "By him, and not by her, since the prayers of a tzaddik (righteous person) who is the son of a rasha (wicked person) cannot be compared to the prayers of a tzaddik who is the son of a tzaddik." (Isaac's father, Abraham, was clearly a tzaddik, and Rebecca's father, Bethuel, is considered here to be a rasha.) This seems a little shocking, and unfair to Rebecca. Why should her prayers be ignored because of her father?

Furthermore, this Rashi seems to be contradicted by a well-known Gemara, which says that in the place of a baal teshuva (someone who "returns" to Judaism), not even a completely righteous person can stand. The argument for this is that it is easy enough to be observant if one grows up in an observant environment, but a baal teshuva, who tries to become observant later in life, is usually forced to make changes in his or her lifestyle and circle of friends, which can be quite difficult. How can this be reconciled with Rashi's statement?

Besides whatever answer is offered, I think I can provide a fairly straightforward answer. When the gemara uses the terms "complete tzaddik" and "one who repents" (baal teshuva), this is not the same as FFB and BT, terms which are in use nowadays. The modern baal teshuva and the baal teshuva of the gemara are distinct.

For example, we can readily say that Rivkah was a complete tzaddekes, even though she was not Frum From Birth. As the midrash testifies, based on pesukim, she was a betula entirely even though the people in her place had found ways around the mere technical requirements. And the water arose for her, in her merit. And she showed remarkable gemilat chessed when facing the camel test.

Indeed, Rivkah was never a wicked person. A baal teshuva according to the gemara's definition is one who once sinned, and has now repented. It is not someone who was brought up in a non-religious household. And therefore she can be a tzaddik gamur and yet not a tzaddeket bat tzaddik.

And Yitzchak also was never a wicked person. And so he was not a baal teshuva. Therefore, considerations about baal teshuva vs. tzaddik gamur are irrelevant. And so the gemaras are non-contradictory.

To understand tzaddik son of tzaddik and tzaddik son of a rasha, a good starting point would be Yechezkel 18. But there is much after this. Perhaps an idea of zechus avos; perhaps something else. But regardless, midrashically there was this distinction between Rivkah and Yitzchak in this respect.

Interesting Posts and Articles #238

  1. Bluke has an image of the latest random segulah from kuppat haIr, about a special eis ratzon in which they will pray for you. The segulah is taken from Bris Menucha, by Rabbi Avraham ben Yitzchak of Grenada, and can be found on the top of the page of the sefer at HebrewBooks. (look a few lines down, to the line which begins Vayigash Eliyahu.) In terms of who the author was, see here (also copied below). He might be an early Rishon, but on the other hand if he quotes the Zohar, he might be later, such as 13th century or later:

  2. Avraham ben Yitzchak of Granada(Rimon). Although it is disputed among scholars, some authorities identify him
    with Rabbi Avraham ben Yitzchak of Narbonne. He is one of the earliest
    kabbalists to quote the Zohar. [However, passages he quotes are not found in the
    extant versions of the Zohar.] He is the author of Brit Menucha
    (published in Amsterdam 5408 / 1648 CE) an early kabbalistic treatise regarded
    by the Ari zal as a significant contribution to the literature of the Kabbala.

    Avraham ben Yitzchak of Narbonne. 4870-4939 (1110-1179 CE), Av Beit Din of Narbonne,
    author of Sefer HaEshkol. Student of Yehuda ben Barzilai of Barcelona,
    from whom he learned Kabbala. He is also reputed to have received
    secrets of Kabbala from Elijah the Prophet. He is sometimes referred
    to as Raavad II (Rabbi Avraham Av Beit Din). Some identify him
    as the kabbalist Avraham ben Yitzchak of Granada, the author
    of Brit Menucha.

    Life In Israel on kabbalah red strings and the tooth fairy.

  3. The Lakewood Scoop on a date-by-video-conference studio opening in Lakewood, using an expensive T1 line rather than Skype for quality but more importantly because it doesn't use the traife internet, and is able to get haskamos. And R' Malkiel Kotler about it. And DovBear and his commenters comment.

  4. At Vos Iz Neias, still more about the tragic case of the chareidi infant in Israel who doctors say is brain-dead. Everybody takes sides, but still, it appears that one side is simply ignorant about the medical facts.

  5. At Rationalist Judaism, Rabbi Slifkin notes the publication of a book by Rabbi Feldman, which contains the unchanged essay from a few years back opposing Rabbi Slifkin's work.
    I recently acquired your newly published book, "The Eye of the Storm: A Calm View of Raging Issues." It was with great surprise that I saw that it includes the essay of several years ago, "The Slifkin Affair: Issues and Perspectives," entirely unchanged from its original form. This was even though a number of rabbis and academic scholars publicly pointed out the many, many factual errors and serious flaws that this essay contained. Especially disturbing was that in describing the "discarded minority view" that Chazal occasionally erred in their statements about the natural world, you omitted any mention of the more than three dozen further sources which I sent to you a few years ago, in a letter to which you never responded. Attached is the letter, along with the most comprehensive of the critiques of your essay that were circulated.

    In response, Rabbi Slifkin is considering publishing a complete book about the controversy.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Is there a gap before Vayelech Reuven?

Related to my earlier post about the presence or absence of an initial gap in parshat Vayeitzei, there is a dispute (or perhaps a non-dispute) about an internal gap in the same parasha. We can see mention of this in the Codex Hilleli:


Here, there is no gap preceding the word vayelech, and the masoretic note (I reconstruct it here, based on sevara) on the side states that man deamar devayelech reuven it beih piska ta'ei -- those who say that there is a gap before Vayelech Reuven are making an error.

I first saw a discussion of it in Minchas Shai, who writes:

וילך ראובן אין כאן פיסקא
כי בפרשה זו אין פיסקא כלל כ״ש בריש סדרא וכן כתיב בספר חגי ומאן דאמר וילך ראובן בימי קציר חטים פרשה טעי:


I am not certain I understand this fully. Isn't the beginning of the sidra by Vayeitzei Yaakov. What is meant by kol shekein? Especially if Minchas Shai maintains that there is a gap at the beginning of the sidra.


Once again, how is Vayeitzei setumah?

I peeked at the sefer Torah this past Shabbos when they were just about finished with kriat haTorah, and spotted the gap preceding Vayeitzei. And so once again, to discuss this topic!

I was reading through Minchas Shai the other day, and in trying to harmonize and balance reports of / midrashim upon Vayeitzei being setuma, he cites Or Torah that for Vaychi it means that there is no break before it, while for Vayeitzei it means that there are no petuchot or setumot within the parsha. This may well be a good answer, and resolve many difficulties. But I have my reasons for regarding it as suspect.

First, let us see what we have in three codices. In the Lisbon Codex, there most certainly appears to be a gap present. Which is fine, and is the standard nowadays.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Vayeitzei sources

by aliyah
rishon (Bereishit 28:10)
sheni (29:1)
shlishi (29:18)
revii (30:14)
chamishi (30:28)
shishi (31:17)
shvii (31:43)
maftir (32:1)
haftara (Hoshea 12)

by perek
perek 29 ; perek 30
perek 31 ; perek 32

meforshim
Shadal (here and here)
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Gilyonot
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew)
Tiferes Yehonasan from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz
Toldos Yizchak Acharon, repeated from Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz
Even Shleimah -- from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich
R' Saadia Gaon's Tafsir, Arabic translation of Torah (here and here)
Collected commentary of Saadia Gaon on Torah
Zohar, with English translation
Baal Haturim (HaAruch)
Imrei Shafer, Rav Shlomo Kluger
Rabbenu Yonah - nothing until vayeshev
Aderet Eliyahu (Gra) - nothing until vayishlach
Sefer Zikaron of Ritva -- not until Vayigash

The following meforshim at JNUL:
Ralbag (52)
Shach (30)
Sefer Hachinuch (pg 10) -- nothing until Vayishlach
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (51)

rashi
Daat, Rashi In Hebrew (perek 25)
Judaica Press Rashi in English and Hebrew
Mizrachi, Mizrachi (47, JNUL)
Gur Aryeh (Maharal of Prague)
Commentary on Rashi by Yosef of Krasnitz
R' Yisrael Isserlin (on Rashi, 4, JNUL)
Two supercommentaries on Rashi, by Chasdai Almosnino and Yaakov Kneizel
Rav Natan ben Shishon Shapira Ashkenazi (16th century), (JNUL, pg 27)
Yeriot Shlomo (Maharshal)
Moda L'Bina (Wolf Heidenheim)
Mekorei Rashi (in Mechokekei Yehuda)
Meam Loez -- laazei Rashi
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Rashi with Sifsei Chachamim

ramban
Daat, Ramban in Hebrew (perek 28)
R' Yitzchak Abohav's on Ramban (standalone and in a Tanach opposite Ramban)
Rabbi Meir Abusaula (student of Rashba)

ibn ezra
Daat, Ibn Ezra in Hebrew (perek 28)
Mechokekei Yehudah (HebrewBooks)
R' Shmuel Motot (on Ibn Ezra, pg 14, JNUL)
Ibn Kaspi's supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, different from his commentary (here and here)
Mekor Chaim, Ohel Yosef, Motot
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Ibn Ezra with Avi Ezer

targum
Targum Onkelos opposite Torah text
Shadal's Ohev Ger on Targum Onkelos
Avnei Tzion -- two commentaries on Onkelos
Or Hatargum on Onkelos
Commentary on Targum Yonatan and Targum Yerushalmi
Septuagint (Greek, English)

masorah
Rama (but based on alphabet, not parsha)

midrash
Midrash Rabba at Daat (28)
Midrash Tanchuma at Daat (28)
Bereishit Rabba, with commentaries
Bereishit Rabba with Yefei Toar
Midrash Tanchuma with commentary of Etz Yosef and Anaf Yosef
Commentary on Midrash Rabba by R' Naftali Hirtz b'R' Menachem
Matat-Kah on Midrash Rabba
Nefesh Yehonasan by Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz

haftara (Ashkenazim begin Hoshea 12:13; 11:17-14:10)
In a separate Mikraos Gedolos, with Targum, Rashi, Radak, Mahari Kara, Metzudat David.
As a haftara in a chumash Bereishit, with Malbim and Ibn Ezra
Haftarah in Gutnick Edition
Daat, with Ibn Ezra, Radak, Yalkut Shimoni, Gilyonot
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite
Radak (JNUL, 240)

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin