Monday, April 30, 2012

Acharei Mos sources -- 2012 edition


by aliyah
rishon (16:1)
sheni (16:18)
shlishi (16:25)
revii (17:1)
chamishi (17:8)
shishi (18:6) 
shevii (18:22)
maftir (18:28)

by perek

meforshim
Judaica Press Rashi in English and Hebrew (France, 1040 - 1105) -- ואני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא ולאגדה המיישבת דברי המקרא, דבר דבור על אופניו

Shadal (1800-1865) -- see Wikipedia entry:
  1. In plain text  here , though not encoding some of the trup and nikkud, and omitting certain references to non-Jewish scholars.
  2. In Google book form    here , but with all that was omitted above. Also, with Shadal's Italian translation of the Chumash text.
  3. Mishtadel, an earlier and shorter commentary
  4. In determining the correct girsa of Targum Onkelos, Ohev Ger
Chizkuni
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Lekach Tov, Yalkut Shimoni, Gilyonot.
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew -- see Wikipedia

Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz (1690-1764) -- see Wikipedia entry:
  1. Tiferes Yehonasan
  2. Chasdei Yehonasan  -- chiddushim and pilpulim on midrashim, Toras Kohanim, Sifrei, and Rashi al haTorah. With supercommentary of R' Yaakov Goldshlag.
  3. Toldos Yitzchak Acharon, repeated from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz -- not until Kedoshim
  4. Divrei Yehonasan -- discussing halacha and aggada together, interpreting difficult midrashim
  5. Nefesh Yehonasan -- commentary on midrashim and pilpulim + Tanchuma, and suygot in Shas connected to each parsha.
  6. Midrash Yehonasan -- on difficult midrashim

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Metzora sources -- 2012 edition


by aliyah
rishon (14:1)
sheni (14:13)
shlishi (14:21)
revii (14:33)
chamishi (14:54)
shishi (15:16)
shevii (15:29), maftir (15:31)
haftara (II Melachim 7:3) -- four lepers

by perek
perek 14 ; perek 15

meforshim
Judaica Press Rashi in English and Hebrew (France, 1040 - 1105) -- ואני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא ולאגדה המיישבת דברי המקרא, דבר דבור על אופניו

Shadal (1800-1865) -- see Wikipedia entry:
  1. In plain text  here , though not encoding some of the trup and nikkud, and omitting certain references to non-Jewish scholars.
  2. In Google book form here , but with all that was omitted above. Also, with Shadal's Italian translation of the Chumash text.
  3. Mishtadel, an earlier and shorter commentary
  4. In determining the correct girsa of Targum Onkelos,  Ohev Ger
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Lekach Tov, Yalkut Shimoni, Gilyonot.
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew-- see Wikipedia

Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz (1690-1764) -- see Wikipedia entry:
  1. Tiferes Yehonasan
  2. Chasdei Yehonasan  -- chiddushim and pilpulim on midrashim, Toras Kohanim, Sifrei, and Rashi al haTorah. With supercommentary of R' Yaakov Goldshlag.
  3. Toldos Yitzchak Acharon, repeated from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz -- not until Kedoshim
  4. Divrei Yehonasan   -- not until Acharei Mos -- discussing halacha and aggada together, interpreting difficult midrashim
  5. Nefesh Yehonasan  -- commentary on midrashim and pilpulim + Tanchuma, and suygot in Shas connected to each parsha.
  6. Midrash Yehonasan  -- on difficult midrashim
Even Shleimah -- from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich
R' Saadia Gaon(882-942) -- see Wikipedia entry:
  1. Arabic translation of Torah,  here  at Temanim.org. This is a beautiful PDF, with the Chumash text, Rashi, Onkelos, and Rav Saadia's Tafsir. All of these have nikkud, which is a very nice feature. It also designates the Temani and standard aliyah breaks, and two commentaries, Shemen HaMor and Chelek HaDikduk, on the kriyah, trupnikkud, and dikduk, on the basis of Yemenite manuscripts, which would be worthwhile even absent the other features. Quite excellent, overall.
  2. The same Arabic translation, the Tafsir,  here at Google books. No nikkud, Chumash text, Rashi, or Onkelos. But there is a brief supercommentary by Yosef Direnburg at the bottom of each page. 
  3. Collected commentary of Saadia Gaon on Torah , selected from the writings of various Rishonim and from his commentaries on other works. 

Friday, April 27, 2012

posts so far for parashat Tazria

2012

1. Tazria sources, 2012 edition. Further expanded.

2. Rav Mordechai Gifter on Isha Ki Tazria -- The Ramban gives two explanations of isha ki tazria, one according to Aristotle and the other according to Galen. Are they both simultaneously true, on some plane? And does this solve all our problems of Torah seeming to contradict science?

3. Why does ואת עמלני refers to sons specifically?
 Rav Chaim Kanievsky explains, based on a gemara that רוצה לעשות כל בניו זכרים יבעול וישנה, which entails greater tircha. And this is related to the beginning of parashat Tazria, and the famous derasha about how to have male children.

4. YUTorah on parashat Tazria.

5. Chess in Rabbinic sources -- "Ibn Ezra wrote the following poetic riddle about the game of Chess. {J: ishkaki / shach-mat = Check Mate."


2011
  1. Tazria sources -- further improved. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
    .
  2. YU Torah on parshat Tazria.
    .
  3. Why no 'famous' derasha on Isha Ki TazriaMaybe there is. Regardless, what about the law of conservation of derashot?
    .
  4. Why does Rashi explain the pasuk of וּבְיוֹם הֵרָאוֹת בּוֹ בָּשָׂר חַי יִטְמָא out of orderBartenura gives his answer; I give my own, that maybe it is not out of order, and if it is, it is a logical order.
    .
  5. A Taz I can agree with --   About revisiting the midrashei halacha Rashi is merely citing, and whether we are skilled enough to do it.
    .
  6. Why is וְכִבַּסְתֶּם translated as וּתְחַוְּרוּן?  Onkelos strays from his usual path. Is this a violation of the rule laid down by Rashi in parshat Tazria?

2010

  1. Tazria sources -- expanded
    .
  2. All about Chazal and contemporary science. First, How did Chazal know that 'drop exudes from the brain and develops into semen'? A better question, IMHO, is how the Pythagoreans knew. Before kvetching and reinterpreting to make Chazal know this with ruach hakodesh, why not check to see if ancient science, contemporary to Chazal, asserted precisely the same thing?
    .
  3. Next, How did Chazal know that hemophilia is transmitted by the mother's DNA? With what I think is a good answer.

2009
  1. Tazria sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, and links to many meforshim on the parshah and haftarah.
    .
  2. The famous midrash of Isha Ki Tazria; who promotes and who rejects the midrash (at least as peshat); and thought about the motivations for this midrash.
    .
  3. As an alternative to the advice in the aforementioned famous midrash, Chizkuni offers other reproductive advice on how to have male children, based on contemporary science. And how he reads this into, or out of, a pasuk in Shir HaShirim.
2008
  • Dam Tohar
    • and various unsuccessful and successful attempts to uproot this halachic entity declared by the Torah and Chazal.
2006
  • Tekiat Shofar and Sisera's mother
    • Where parshat Tazria factors in in that a midrash there states that a woman wails and cries out 100 times when giving birth, with possible parallels to the custom of 100 shofar blasts.
2004
  • An updated account of the midrash that if a woman is tazria first (before the man), she has a boy (isha ki tazria veyalda zachar.) The original midrash operated under the assumption that she gave forth this seed on orgasm. But there is a debated theory that if a woman ovulates before coitus, she is more likely to have male offspring, but if coitus happens before ovulation, she is more likely to have female offspring, on the basis of endurance vs. speed of the two types of sperm. This is debated for humans, but is a known matter for several animal species. A link to some of the research, plus pictures of some of the animals for which this is true.
to be continued...

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Rav Mordechai Gifter on Isha Ki Tazria

Summary: The Ramban gives two explanations of isha ki tazria, one according to Aristotle and the other according to Galen. Are they both simultaneously true, on some plane? And does this solve all our problems of Torah seeming to contradict science?

Post: Parashat Tazria begins:

2. Speak to the children of Israel, saying: If a woman conceives and gives birth to a male, she shall be unclean for seven days; as [in] the days of her menstrual flow, she shall be unclean.ב. דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר וְטָמְאָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כִּימֵי נִדַּת דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא:

And the Ramban discusses the famous derasha of Chazal:
ובמשמעותו אמרו (נדה לא א): ש
אשה כי תזריע, אשה מזרעת תחילה יולדת זכר. 
ואין כוונתם שיעשה הולד מזרע האשה, כי האשה אע"פ שיש לה ביצים כביצי זכר, או שלא יעשה בהן זרע כלל, או שאין הזרע ההוא נקפא ולא עושה דבר בעובר, אבל אמרם "מזרעת", על דם הרחם שיתאסף בשעת גמר ביאה באם ומתאחז בזרע הזכר, כי לדעתם הולד נוצר מדם הנקבה ומלובן האיש, ולשניהם יקראו זרע.  ש

וכך אמרו (שם):  ש 

שלושה שותפין יש בו באדם, איש מזריע בו לובן שממנו גידים ועצמות ולובן שבעין, אשה מזרעת אודם שממנו עור ובשר ודם ושער ושחור שבעין. 
ש וגם דעת הרופאים ביצירה כך היא. ש

ועל דעת פילוסופי היונים:  ש 

כל גוף העובר מדם האשה, אין בו לאיש אלא הכח הידוע בלשונם היולי שהוא נותן צורה בחומר, כי אין בין ביצת התרנגולת הבאה מן הזכר לנולדת מן המתפלשת בעפר שום הפרש, וזו תגדל אפרוח וזו לא תזרע ולא תצמיח, בהמנע ממנה החום היסודי שהוא לה היולי. 
ואם כן יהיה מלת תזריע כמו זרועיה תצמיח (ישעיה סא יא).  ש

וכן אמר אונקלוס:  ש 

ארי תעדי.
I'll only translate the beginning of it:
"And regarding its implication they wrote (Niddah 31a):
אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ -- 'if a woman gives seed first, she will give birth to a male.' 
And their intent was not that the child would be made from the seed of the woman, for the woman, though she has eggs like the eggs of a male, either no seed at all is made from them, or that seed has no impact in the fetus. But what they said 'gives seed', they are referring to the blood of the womb which collects at the end of completion of intercourse in the mother, and seizes upon the seed of the male, for in their opinion, the fetus is fashioned from the blood of the female and the white material of the man, and to both of them {blood and white material} is called zera.


And so did they say (there):
There are three partners in a human being -- the man gives forth white seed, from which are fashioned sinews, bones, and the whites of the eyes, and the woman gives forth the red material, from which are fashioned the skin, flesh, blood, hair, and the black of the eye.
And so too is the position of the doctors of gestation.


And based on the position of the Greek philosophers:
The entire body of the fetus is from the blood of the woman, and the only contribution of the man is the force known in their language {Greek} as hyuli, which gives form {tzura} to the substance {chomer}, for there there is not between a chicken egg which came from {the hen after intercourse with} the male, and a chicken egg from {a hen which} was excited by the ground, yet this one will develop into a chick while this one will not have seed and will not flourish, since the primal heat called hyuli was kept from it.
And if so, the word tazria is like {Yeshaya 61:11} '[as a garden that] sprouts forth its seedlings'. And so does Onkelos say, ארי תעדי."
We see here a dispute between the Greek philosophers and Chazal. Likely Chazal in turn relied on other own non-Jewish scientists, for instance, Galen:
 For in the treatise On Seed, it was shown that most parts of the body arise from seed, with the fleshy parts alone formed from blood.
We see Ramban willing to find Scriptural support for either position, and that he is willing to consider the possibility that Chazal were wrong on this scientific matter. This is an important observation in its own right.

And we also know that both of these positions, of Chazal (and scientists) and of the Greek philosophers are not scientifically correct. (The form is determined by the DNA from both of them, and the body of the fetus is from a single fertilized egg from the woman (combined with a single sperm cell from the man), not from the blood.

Rav Mordechai Gifter, in Pirkei Torah, wrote:

"In all matters of the science of nature which Chazal said which contradict the words of the scholars of nature, such as that worms which grow from the cheese itself {Josh: via spontaneous generation}are not forbidden, while according to what is known about nature, there is no such thing that it spontaneously generates from itself (but rather it is formed via other things which come from outside, and others like this). But there are here two different approaches. For the Torah law was stated according to what the chush {senses, instinct} could recognize in this matter, and not according to the knowledge of chochma{lit. wisdom, science}, and there is no contradiction at all.


And I heard from a certain Gadol that this explains the distinction between shav and sheker. For anyone who changes from that which is known via chush is shav, while {one who changes from} that known by chochma {science, wisdom} is only sheker and not shav


And behold, the intent of the Ramban here are that the words of the gentile scholars are correct by virtue of their seeing this in the nature of the things, that according to their observation, the father gives the force of the hyuli, but according to what Chazal saw in this with the viewing of the Torah, there is in the giving from the father an aspect of the giving of the white of the sinews and bones, and from the point of the observation of science, this as well is found in the words of the holy Torah -- and there is not here a matter of contradiction between truth and falsehood. And understand this, for it touches upon quite a number of matters of faith."

An interesting idea, and one which harmonizes the two points brought up by the Ramban. Though saying that both are true across different paths (גישות) in this instance of isha ki tazria might not leave a path for the third view, namely modern science, which contradicts both of these. (And Rav Gifter would have known of modern science.) Of course, we can say that Ramban was wrong in his endorsement of Greek philosophy as one of those two paths, and let modern science take its place in the secondary path.

This approach allows Torah to diverge in all instances from what is actually true in the observable world, since it functions on a separate plane, that of "chush". And this might be taken to apply to modern practical halachic questions, rather than just hashkafic questions. For example, the anisakis worm.

I don't know that I agree with this approach, however. I don't think Chazal thought that they were operating on a different plane. They thought there was just a single reality. And that is why they consulted medical experts, occasionally conducted experiments, and so on and so forth.

What I think is happening in this particular instance is that there was a divergence in Greek medicine.

  1. Aristotle put forth the idea of chomer and tzura:  "Aristotle claimed that form (eidos, morphe] inheres in or is "immersed" in matter (hyle)" . Thus, this falls under Greek philosophy, and medicine as influenced by Greek philosophy. Aristotle writes " "It follows that what the female would contribute to the semen of the male would be material for the semen to work upon." In other words the semen clots the menstrual blood."
  2. Galen (and I think Hippocrates) put forth the idea of red and white seed forming different parts of the baby. This was adopted by Chazal. And it was also the contemporary medical belief at the time of the Ramban, presumably via Avicenna. 
Meanwhile, there was other theories which developed across time. Here is an interesting article, as it touches upon Islamic belief. 

Ramban didn't mention both for both of them to be correct. He thought either one was plausible, and (in his day) impossible to determine. So he showed how either could be worked into the pesukim. But one of them is still incorrect.

The Rambam on timtum halev

Summary: Did he really endorse the kabbalistic understanding of timtum halev?

Post: Towards the end of Shemini, we read:

43. You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping creature that creeps, and you shall not defile yourselves with them, that you should become unclean through them.מג. אַל תְּשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ בָּהֶם וְנִטְמֵתֶם בָּם:
44. For I am the Lord your God, and you shall sanctify yourselves and be holy, because I am holy, and you shall not defile yourselves through any creeping creature that crawls on the ground.מד. כִּי אֲנִי ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם וִהְיִיתֶם קְדֹשִׁים כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אָנִי וְלֹא תְטַמְּאוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ:
This is the basis for a rather famous derasha about timtum halev, on Yoma 39a:
תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל עבירה מטמטמת לבו של אדם שנאמר (ויקרא יא, מג) ולא תטמאו בהם ונטמתם בם אל תקרי ונטמאתם אלא ונטמטם
They taught in the academy of Rabbi Yishmael: a sin dulls {from the root טמם} the heart of man, as it states לֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ בָּהֶם וְנִטְמֵתֶם בָּם.
The basis of the derasha seems to be the krei vs. ketiv, leading to an al tikrei. That is, we should have expected an aleph in the word וְנִטְמֵאתֶם. Indeed, the Samaritans have that aleph. Since it is missing, the second ת is read as if it were a ט, and thus we have ונטמטם, 'and you will be dulled'.

Rashi explains there:
מטמטמת - אוטמת וסותמת מכל חכמה:

Now, there are two plausible readings of this gemara. One is that the gemara means specifically eating maachalos asuros, forbidden foods. After all, the prooftext is drawn from Shemini, where the peshat context was eating forbidden foods. Then, this is the basis of, or else is linked to, the (later) kabbalistic concept of timtum halev. And then, even accidental consumption of forbidden foods would have a deleterious spiritual effect on a person.

A second plausible reading is that the gemara is talking about any sin. After all, despite how it is often misquoted, the gemara actually says עבירה מטמטמת לבו של אדם, and aveira, not specifically eating a forbidden food. And the idea, perhaps from a rationalist perspective, is that acting in such a manner, deliberately, will have this negative effect on a person. He starts with one sin, thus making himself impure, and the consequence is this negative intellectual or spiritual effect. If so, it does not stand as the Talmudic basis or support for the kabbalistic idea, but is rather another example, which falls into a general pattern, of kabbalists retrojecting their ideas onto Chazal.

With this as background, I was surprised to see the following in Ateres HaMikra:
"Q: Is there an example how eating tereifos and neveilos has an impact on the soul of a talmid chacham?
 A: (The Gaon, Rav Chaim Soleveitchik of Brisk) (brought in the michtav yado of the Maggid of Ritteveh, HaGaon Rav Yissacher Ber {=a Rebbe, a student of the Chozeh of Lublin}:
"When the Rambam visited Yemen, he met a certain gaon of the geonim of the time. And after the Rambam returned home, this gaon would regularly write him questions and answers. One time, a letter reached him from the gaon, and on the page was a deep question in philosophy. The Rambam was much astounded at this question, and he said, 'I don't understand how this is so, that a question like this could arise in the mind of a Jew... for questions such as this do not arise in the Jewish mind until his soul is an impure soul. And the Rambam refrained from answering him regarding his question.
After some length of time, this fellow continued sending many letters, until the Rambam felt that he had to answer him. And his answer to the gaon was: Go and check the slaughterers and the inspectors in your community.
 Upon receipt of the letter, the gaon followed the instructions of the Rambam. And then was revealed that for thirteen years, they had fed him and the entire city neveilos and tereifos, such that even a gaon such as himself came up with a question of minus and apikorsus."
This story is just too perfect. Brought by a Rebbe, citing a scholar of Rambam, it presents the uber-rationalist Rambam endorsing, in a practical instance, the kabbalistic idea of timtum haleiv. Thus, it had an impact even though it was not consumed knowingly, and it was specifically maachalos asuros, as opposed to any sin.

There is the possibility of broken telephone at play here. Ideally, I would like to see this directly from  Rav Chaim Brisker (to see whether he said it, and if so if he was repeating a story he had heard or something he had seen directly), and more ideally, I would like to see this in an exchange from the Rambam and the gaon in Yemen directly. Otherwise, it is just too perfect a story, and seems apocryphal.

With some slight Googling, I see that this story is mentioned in a post at Havolim and discussed in this post at Rationalist Judaism about Tylenol and timtum halev.

From the Havolim post:
The sefer Mishuchan [sic] Gavo’ah here brings from the Ramban (discussed above) that the ma’acholim that the Torah assered were assered because they are bad for our health, and brings the Abravenel (discussed above) says that the Torah is not a medical book, and that these dinim are to protect our neshamos, not our bodies. He brings from the Magid from Ritteveh, Reb Yissochor Ber, that he heard from Reb Chayim Brisker that once the Torah made them assur, they are indeed mazik the body, as we see the din of timtum halev. He brings from the Brisker Rov that according to Reb Chaim, the timtum is only where al pi din the thing is assur to eat, but not for a choleh. He brings a story from the Briskers that the Rambam once visited Teiman, and met a great Gaon there, with whom he began a correspondence. Once he got a question from him that showed apikursus, and he refused to continue the correspondence. When the Teimani kept sending him inquiries, the Rambam told him to be bodeik the local kashrus. He later got a letter from the Gaon that he did investigate, and found that one local shochet had been ma’achil neveilos and treifos to the community for the past 13 years.
So there certainly is this tension here between an uber-rationalist reading of Rambam, and a more kabbalistic reading. It seems that Rav Chaim Brisker was harmonizing the two and brought the story as support.

In the comment section on Rationalist Judaism, Rabbi Natan Slifkin writes:
A "story from the Briskers" about Rambam which goes entirely against Maimonidean philosophy in several ways, does not have very much credibility.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

YUTorah on parashat on Tazria-Metzora

parsha banner




Audio Shiurim on Tazria-Metzora
Rabbi Elchanan Adler: Why does the Torah list the levels of Tzara'as in reverse order? 
Rabbi Eli Belizon: How to deal with the conflict of tzaaras and milah 
Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Tum'ah - What Does it Mean?
Rabbi Yitzchok Cohen: The Seriousness of Lashon Harah 
Rabbi Ally Ehrman: Why Don't We Have Tzara'as Anymore? 
Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman: Halachos of Lashon Hora 
Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: Beyond Nature 
Rabbi Barry Gelman: Is Anything Wrong With Mothers? 
Rabbi Beinish Ginsburg: The Kohen's role in Tzora'as 
Rabbi Efrem Goldberg: Bris - Couldn't We Make A Sign With Hashem Somewhere Else? 
Rabbi Yehuda Goldschmidt: Learn Torah and be Protected
Rabbi Yonah Gross: A Machlokes with God?
Rabbi Shalom Hammer: Purity of the Jew
Rabbi Yisroel Kaminetsky: A Relationship With Hashem Through Tumah & Tahara 
Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg: Living in Denial 
Rabbi Akiva Koenigsberg: Tzara'as discoloration on clothing
Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: Loving Every Jew 
Rabbi Ben Leybovich: Tragic Responses
Rabbi Yaakov Neuburger: Tumah as Loss of Potential
Mrs. Chani Newman: Red, White and Green - The Many Colors of Tzaraas 
Rabbi Hershel Reichman: The Severity of Lashon Harah
Rabbi Yonason Sacks: Esa Doche Lo Taseh, Milah and Tzara'as 
Mrs Ilana Saks: A Guide to Purity 
Rabbi Hershel Schachter: Privilege or Punishment 
Rabbi Baruch Simon: Turning the Nega of Tzaraas into Oneg of Shabbos 
Mrs. Shira Smiles: Mirror Image 
Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky: The Jewish Home as a Mikdash 
Rabbi Reuven Spolter: There Will Be Blood
Rabbi Moshe Taragin: Don't Play G-d
Rabbi Michael Taubes: Using Glasses or a Mirror in Halacha
Rabbi Yaacov Thaler: Is Milah One Mitzvah or Two? 
Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg: Power of Our Thoughts
Rabbi Mordechai Willig: Marriage and Dating 
Rabbi Ari Zahtz: Why Does Birth Cause Tumah 
Rabbi Eliezer Zwickler: A Deeper Look Into The Dirty Clothes 

Articles on Tazria-Metzora
Aliza Berk Retter: Biblical Leprosy: A Confusion for Centuries
Rabbi Shlomo Einhorn: Gold in the Medina
Rabbi Ozer Glickman: On Vision Born of Time
Rabbi Shmuel Goldin: Simcha or Sin?
Rabbi Meir Goldwicht: Achieving Spiritual Rebirth
Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: The Yoledes' Sin
Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: Tzara'as As An Opportunity for Greatness
Rabbi Maury Grebenau: The Covenant of Eight
Nechama Hochbaum: Were Our Predecessors Lepers?
Rabbi Josh Hoffman: In His Own Right
Rabbi David Horwitz: The Solitude of the Leper
Rabbi Yaacov Jaffe: An Explanation of a Metzora through his Sacrifices
Rabbis Stanley Wagner and Israel Drazin: Onkelos’s End-Oriented Definition Of Tzara’at
Rabbi Aharon Kahn: Of Gechazi, the Rasha in the Haggadah, and the Rambam’s “talmid she’eno hagun”
Rabbi Ari Kahn: Turning Pain into Pleasure
Rabbi Ephraim Meth: The Value of Wealth
Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl: Positive vs Negative Speech
Rachel Secunda: How Would You Define Tzaraas?
Rabbi Eli Baruch Shulman: The Punishment Fits the Crime

Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Tazria-Metzora
See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Tazria-Metzora
For Israel:
Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Acharei Mot-Kedoshim
See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Acharei Mot-Kedoshim
New This Week
















kyr banner

Shiurim from the program on Sunday, April 22.Ms. Miriam Coren: Chodesh Iyar: A Prelude to Matan Torah or Chag Habikurim?
Rabbi Meir Goldwicht: Yom Haatzmaut: Zeh Hashem Kivinu Lo Nagila Veneismecha Beyeshuato
Rabbi Menachem Leibtag: The Best Hallel for Yom Haatzmaut
Rabbi Hershel Schachter: Inyanei Eretz Yisrael

Why does ואת עמלני refers to sons specifically?

Summary: Rav Chaim Kanievsky explains, based on a gemara that רוצה לעשות כל בניו זכרים יבעול וישנה, which entails greater tircha. And this is related to the beginning of parashat Tazria, and the famous derasha about how to have male children.

Post:
The famous derasha in the Haggada is that  ואת עמלני refers to the sons, whom Pharaoh ordered cast in the Nile. But it is non-obvious why that should refer specifically to the banim.

I saw the following in Taama deKra, by Rav Chaim Kanievsky:

ואת עמלנו אלו הבנים כמו שנא׳ כל הבן
 הילוד וגו. וקשה למה הבנים נקראין עמלנו טפי
 מהבנות, וי״ל משום דאמרי׳  בעירובין ק׳ ב׳
 הרוצה לעשות בניו זכרים יבעול וישנה ואמרי׳
 שם שאסור לבעול ולשנות בלא דעת האשה
 והיינו שמטריחה  ביותר כדפירש״י לכן קרי  לה
 ואת עמלינו.

"That is, why are sons called 'our toil' more so than daughters? There is to say, based on Eruvin daf 100b, that one who wishes to have male children should have intercourse and then repeat. And we say there that it is forbidden to have intercourse and then repeat without the consent of the wife. And this is because it troubles her excessively, as Rashi explains. Therefore it is rightly called  ואת עמלינו."

The gemara in Eruvin reads:
ואמר רמי בר חמא אמר רב אסי אסור לאדם שיכוף אשתו לדבר מצוה שנאמר ואץ ברגלים חוטא וא"ר יהושע בן לוי כל הכופה אשתו לדבר מצוה הווין לו בנים שאינן מהוגנין אמר רב איקא בר חיננא מאי קראה (משלי יט, ב) גם בלא דעת נפש לא טוב תניא נמי הכי גם בלא דעת נפש לא טוב זה הכופה אשתו לדבר מצוה ואץ ברגלים חוטא זה הבועל ושונה איני והאמר רבא הרוצה לעשות כל בניו זכרים יבעול וישנה ל"ק כאן לדעת כאן שלא לדעת:
Or, in English (citing my translation of the Rif):
And Mari bar Abba cited Rav Ashi {our gemara: Rami bar Chama cited Rav Assi}: It is forbidden to compel {=force} one's wife to engage in a mitzvah {=marital relations}, for it is stated {Mishlei 19:2}:

ב גַּם בְּלֹא-דַעַת נֶפֶשׁ לֹא-טוֹב ;וְאָץ בְּרַגְלַיִם חוֹטֵא.2 Also, that the soul be without knowledge is not good; and he that hasteth with his feet sinneth.
{and raglayim is a common Biblical allusion to genitals.}

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Whoever compels his wife to engage in a mitzvah {=marital relations} will have unworthy children.

Rav Ika bar Chanina said: What is the Scriptural reference? {The first part of the same pasuk:}
ב גַּם בְּלֹא-דַעַת נֶפֶשׁ לֹא-טוֹב; וְאָץ בְּרַגְלַיִם חוֹטֵא.2 Also, that the soul be without knowledge is not good; and he that hasteth with his feet sinneth.
{perhaps: also without daat = consent; there will be a soul, person = nefesh born who is not good}

brayta also says so: גַּם בְּלֹא-דַעַת נֶפֶשׁ לֹא-טוֹב - this is one who compels his wife to engage in a mitzvah {=marital relations}. וְאָץ בְּרַגְלַיִם חוֹטֵא - this is one who has intercourse and then repeats.

Is this so? But Rava said: One who wants male children should have intercourse and repeat! This is no question. Here {=the former,where it is a sin} is without her consent, and here {the latter, where it is no sin} is with her consent.
And Rashi on that gemara reads:
הבועל ושונה - שמטריחה:
לדעת - האשה:
יבעול וישנה - שמחמת ביאה ראשונה נתאוה האשה והולבשה תאוה וכשבא ביאה שניה היא מזרעת תחילה והיכא דהיא מזרעת תחילה יולדת זכר:
I am not certain that I agree with Rav Kanievsky's rendition of the gemara in Eruvin. After all, it is not just הבועל ושונה which must be with consent, but indeed every sort of intercourse. And שמטריחה does not mean that she is bothered, in the sense of finding it annoying, troublesome, and hard work, but rather that he has intercourse and continues at it with her. And indeed, looking at the Rashi in d"h יבעול וישנה, it is clear that this first ביאה awakens תאווה such that as he continues, she will be מזרעת first.

This seems far from the characterization in Taama deKra.

Even so, this is something that requires more effort on the part of both participants, such that it could well be considered  ואת עמלני. And Rashi's explanation, that this will cause the woman to give seed first is quite plausible in explaining this gemara. After all, this is accordance with the theory, described in Niddah 31a, that if the woman gives forth seed first, then she will give birth to males. And this, in turn, is based on the beginning of this week's parasha, Tazria:

א וַיְדַבֵּר ה אֶל-משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר: 
ב דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר וְטָמְאָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כִּימֵי נִדַּת דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא: 

See also the Ramban on this, where he advances the gemara's theory and explains it in terms of Greek science.

So perhaps it was just an editing error in Taama deKra, and he meant to simply say that, based on הבועל ושונה defined as שמטריחה, there is greater effort, such that male children can rightly be called amaleinu, more so than daughters.

Even so, I don't think that this is "pshat" in the derasha in the Haggadah. I am not truly convinced that the Haggadist meant to highlight sons rather than daughters in ואת עמלנו. Rather, the decree happened to be on the sons, and thus involved destroying some children of the Hebrews. And just as anyeinu was one aspect of the decree, the prishut derech eretz, and lachatzeinu was another aspect of the decree (perhaps), so too amaleinu was another aspect of the decree. So we should not be looking to explain it in terms of sons vs. daughters.

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin