tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-86072266387194863902024-03-28T01:53:56.572+02:00lobashamayimHello. The goal of this blog is to enhance our understanding of the Torah and the practice of Judaism. The discussions in the blog are a portion of a more extensive commentary on the Torah, which I will be happy to send to you. You can contact me at ajayschein@gmail.com. Please feel free to send comments. Also, if you want to receive an email with a link to the new posts, send me a request, and I will add you to the email group. Best wishes,
Andrew ScheinAndrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.comBlogger356125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-69810355675287387722024-03-25T22:24:00.003+02:002024-03-27T10:23:14.370+02:00Vayikra 11:2 - The definition of the words behamot and hayyot in the TorahVayikra chapter 11 records different animals that can be eaten (that is to say they are kosher) and animals that cannot be eaten. After the introductory sentence, Vayikra 11:2 records, “These are the <i>hayyot</i> that you can eat from all the <i>behamah</i> that are (is) on the land. Which animals are classified as <i>hayyot</i> and which animals are classified as <i>behemot</i>? <br /><br />In modern Hebrew the definition of <i>hayyot</i> are wild animals and <i>behamot</i> are large domesticated animals. I believe that this definition derives from the halakhah of kosher animals. Devarim 14:4,5 record, "These are the <i>behamot</i> that can be eaten: ox (cows), sheep and goats, gazelle, deer, roebuck, bison, antelope, wild goat, ibex, and mountain sheep." The Rambam (Laws of forbidden foods, 1:8) writes that the animals listed in Devarim14:4, the ox, sheep and goats are <i>behamot</i>, while the other seven animals listed in Devarim 14:5 are <i>hayyot</i>. The Rambam (Laws of forbidden foods, 6:1, also see Rashi on Devarim 14:4) also writes that <i>hayyot</i> are a sub-category of <i>behamot</i>. This definition has important practical implication. Vayikra 17:13 records that if a person hunts (kills) a <i>chaya</i> (or a bird), then the blood of the animal has to be covered with dirt. Based on this verse, the blood of an animal that is classified as a <i>behama</i> does not have to covered with dirt. <br /><br />I do not understand this distinction between <i>hayyot</i> and <i>behamot</i> since Devarim 14:4 records "These are the <i>behamot</i> that you can eat" before the list of all ten animals, and there is no mention of <i>hayyot</i> in the verses. It seems obvious that the ten animals listed in Devarim 14:4,5 are <i>behamot</i>. In addition, <i>hayyot</i>, based on the name, living things (see also Vayikra 11:47), refers to all animals, and then <i>behamot</i> are a subcategory of <i>hayyot</i>. With regard to Vayikra 17:13, according to my more expansive definition of the term <i>behamot</i>, the blood of all the animals listed in Devarim 14:4,5 do not have be covered, which would be a leniency. Note with regard to which animals can be eaten, the difference between my understanding and the traditional understanding is just a question of semantics since there are still just ten land animals that can be eaten. It is just that I think that all ten animals listed in Devarim 14:4,5 are <i>behamot</i>, while the traditional view lists three as <i>behamot</i> and seven as <i>hayyot</i>. However, the different definitions of the term <i>behamot</i> lead to some differences how to understand various verses in the Torah. <br /><br />If we return to 11:2, the verse means these are the <i>hayyot</i>, the animals, that can be eaten: (Example one:) With regard to the <i>behamah</i>, a sub-category of <i>hayyot</i>, (animals that move) on the land. And then 11:3 explains that “with regard to the <i>behamah</i>” means those <i>behamot</i> that have split hooves and bring up their cud can be eaten. Thus, some <i>behamot</i> can be eaten, while others cannot be eaten. Afterwards, 11:9 records a different sub-category of <i>hayyot</i>, example two, animals that move in the water that can be eaten, and 11:13 records a third sub-category of <i>hayyot</i>, example three, animals that fly that cannot be eaten. <br /><br />Another example is Vayikra 7:25, which records “for whoever eats <i>helev</i> (fat) from the <i>behamah</i> that is offered as a sacrifice…” This verse means that there are some <i>behamot</i> which can be offered as a sacrifice and some that cannot be. If the term <i>behamot</i> refers to the ten animals (or more) listed in Devarim 14:4,5, then there exists the possibility that some <i>behamot</i> are offered as sacrifices and some are not. However, if <i>behamot</i> are only ox, sheep and goats, then all <i>behamot</i> can be offered as sacrifices, and Vayikra 7:25 cannot be understood in its simple sense. <br /><br />In addition, Vayikra 11:26 records that any <i>behama</i> that has hoofs but the hoofs are not split and does not chew its cud is <i>tamei</i>. Yet, if <i>behamot</i> are only ox, sheep and goats, then all <i>behamot</i> have split hoofs. Instead, 11:26 is noting that some <i>behamot</i> do not have split hoofs, such as horses, donkeys, zebras (see Luzzatto on 11:26) and these <i>behamot</i> differ from animals whose hoofs are split and chew the cud who are kosher and not <i>tamei</i>. This distinction between <i>behamot</i> that are <i>tamei</i> and those that are <i>tahor</i> is also recorded in 20:25. <br /><br />11:27 then records that any animal that walks on its paws among the <i>hayyot</i> that walk on four legs is <i>tamei</i>. This implies that an animal that walks on paws (bears, cats, dogs?) is a type of <i>hayya</i>, but it is not a <i>behama</i>. This means that a <i>behama</i> is a hoofed animal (ungulates) and all the animals listed in Devarim 14:4,5 seem to be ungulates. (Note that Rashi on Shemot 14:7 seems to define horses as being <i>behamot</i>, which supports the idea that animals that have hoofs are <i>behamot</i>.) <br /><br />Some other verses where the two terms, <i>hayyot</i> and <i>behamot</i> appear are in Bereshit 2:19,20, by the Garden of Eden. In Bereshit 2:19 the Torah uses the word <i>hayya</i> when referring to all land animals. In the following verse, 2:20, the Torah separates out the <i>behamot</i> (deer? sheep?), the sub-category of <i>hayyot</i>, from all the other <i>hayyot </i>in the Garden of Eden. 2:20 also refers to the <i>behamot</i> before the remaining land animals, <i>hayyot</i>, maybe because Adam was more likely to have found help (<i>ezer</i>) from these animals, the ungulates, who are relatively tamer than the <i>hayyot</i>. <br /><br />Another case is in Bemidbar 35:3, where first the <i>behamot</i> are listed since they are more likely to be in one's field since some of them are raised for food or work, and then the general term for all animals, who may happen to be in one's fields (i.e., dogs? birds?), <i>hayyot</i> is recorded. <br /><br />There is a third term in the Torah for a group of animals, <i>mikneh</i>, livestock, cattle, sheep, pigs and horses(?). <i>Behamot</i> are a larger category of animals than <i>mikneh</i>, as all <i>mikneh</i> are <i>behamot</i> but not all <i>behamot</i> are <i>mikneh</i>. Thus, Bereshit 36:6 starts with the smallest group, the <i>mikneh</i>, then it becomes more expansive, the <i>behamot</i>, all ungulates, which would be horses and donkeys, and then it refers to all possessions. In Bemidbar 31:9, the Torah first refers to women and children, then to <i>behamot</i>, the larger group of animals, and then to <i>mikneh</i>, the smaller group of animals. <br /><br />In Tanakh, Micah 5:7 records that lions will eat <i>behamot</i> in the forest, but farm animals like cows, sheep and goats usually are not living in the forest. On the other hand, deer, antelopes and gazelle do live in forests and are eaten by lions. <br /><br />After writing this, my son Yishai, pointed out to me that this discussion of what animal is defined as a <i>behama</i> is not new. Ibn Ezra in his commentary on Tehillim 8:8 quotes from the Karaite commentator Yefet that <i>behamot</i> refer to animals who eat grass, which would be ungulates, but Ibn Ezra rejected this interpretation since Mishlei 30:30 refers to a lion as being a <i>behamah</i>. Note Ibn Ezra in his comments on Bemidbar 31:30 refers to camels as <i>behamot</i>, and if a lion is considered a <i>behama</i>, then this would also contradict the traditional definition of the word <i>behama</i>. I am not convinced by this refutation from Mishlei since a verse from a prophetic writing is not sufficient to overturn the simple understanding of the verses in the Torah. It could be that the definition of the word <i>behama</i> changed from the time of the Torah to when Mishlei was written. Also, maybe, one can understand Mishlei 30:30 that it means that lions, who are not <i>behamot</i>, are stronger than <i>behamot</i>, which includes rhinoceros and hippopotamuses. <br /><br /> Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-58129884582454329212024-02-29T11:28:00.000+02:002024-02-29T11:28:02.705+02:00Shemot 32:11-35 – Sin and forgiveness by the sin of the golden calfShemot 32:7-10 record that when Moshe was up on Mount Sinai, G-d told Moshe that the people sinned with the golden calf, and then 32:11-13 record that Moshe prayed for the people to be forgiven. These verses indicate that Moshe prayed for the people immediately upon hearing about their sin when he was on Mount Sinai. G-d quickly agreed to forgive the people, 32:14. Yet, even though G-d forgave the people, when Moshe came down from the mountain, he broke the tablets, 32:19, told the Levites to kill the people, 32:27, and then on the following day he told the people that he had to go pray for them that maybe G-d would forgive them, 32:30. Why did Moshe break the tablets, have the Levites kill people and need to pray again when 32:14 records that G-d forgave the people? Also, 32:33-35 indicate that G-d did not accept Moshe’s prayers in 32:31,32, but had not G-d already accepted Moshe’s prayers in 32:14? <br /><br />Ibn Ezra (on 32:11) explains that really Moshe only prayed (once) on the day after he came down from Mount Sinai. This appears to accord with Moshe's account of the sin of the golden calf in the book of Devarim, that there he said that he first went down from the mountain, broke the tablets and only afterwards began to pray for the people, Devarim 9:15-18. Ibn Ezra argues that Moshe could not have prayed before he destroyed the golden calf. With this approach, Ibn Ezra is forced to argue that the verses 32:11-14, which indicate that Moshe prayed on the mountain immediately upon hearing of the people's sin, are recorded out of their chronological order and really follow 32:30. Yet, still there remains the problem that 32:14 (even recorded out of order) indicates a complete pardon for the people, and 32:33-35 indicate that there was only a partial pardon for the people. <br /><br />Ramban (on 32:11) asks that if Moshe really only prayed once, why would the Torah split the prayers by recording half the prayer sixteen verses before the other half of the prayer? Furthermore, Ibn Ezra's proof from Moshe's account in Devarim is not so convincing. Devarim 9:19 records that G-d listened to Moshe for a second time, which implies that there were two prayers. Also, in Devarim, Moshe was not giving a complete recording of the events, and hence maybe he skipped mentioning his first prayer since he did not want the people to know that they had been forgiven so quickly for their sins. <br /><br />Ramban argues that Moshe had to pray immediately for the people's welfare when he heard of their sins since he believed that there was a possibility that the people would have been destroyed at that moment. Thus, he claims that Moshe prayed twice, once as recorded in 32:11-14, when he heard about the sin on Mount Sinai, and then again as recorded in 32:30-34, after he had come down from Mount Sinai. Why was there a need for two prayers? <br /><br />The Ramban (also see Hoffmann on Devarim 9:18,19) suggests that when 32:14 records that G-d agreed to Moshe's prayer on the mountain this just meant that the people would not be wiped out at that moment, but the people had not been truly pardoned and they could be punished later for the sin with the golden calf. Hence, Moshe had to pray again on the day after he came down from Mount Sinai. This approach is difficult since 32:14 seems to mean that G-d renounced punishing the people, and not that G-d might punish the people a few days later. <br /><br />Abravanel accepts the Ramban's answer (1997, p. 542) and then he suggests (p. 546, also see N. Leibowitz, 1976a, p. 579) that the second prayer was for those people who did not participate in the sin but who did not attempt to stop the people from sinning. I doubt this since 32:14 seems to mean that everybody had been forgiven. <br /><br />In his comments on Devarim, Abravanel (1999, p. 162) suggests two additional reasons why Moshe prayed twice. One, while the Torah records that G-d renounced punishing the people in 32:14, he suggests that this information was not told to Moshe. And, then if Moshe did not know that the punishment was rescinded, Moshe had to pray a second time. This approach is difficult since there is no reason to think that Moshe was not informed that G-d renounced punishing the people, and if Moshe did not know this fact then he would have kept on praying before descending from the mountain. <br /><br />Abravanel's other answer in his comments on Devarim is a variation on the Ramban's approach. This suggestion is that when G-d renounced punishing the people, this meant that G-d would not directly kill the people, but G-d was still going to indirectly destroy the people by leaving them to fend for themselves in the desert. With this idea, one would understand that the threatened destruction recorded in Devarim 9:19 was indirect and not complete. Yet, the word in Devarim 9:19, <i>le-hashmid</i>, means to destroy and not simply to let the people fend for themselves, and again 32:14 seems to mean that the people would not be punished at all for their sin of the golden calf. Also 32:35 records that G-d would send a plague on the people, which is not just letting the people fend for themselves. <br /><br />A different approach is that Moshe had to pray a second time due to the events that occurred after Moshe came down from Mount Sinai. When Moshe came down from Mount Sinai, he saw not only the golden calf but the dancing (around the idol?) and he broke the tablets, 32:19. N. Leibowitz (1976a, pp. 610,611) quotes Isaac Arama and the Netziv that Moshe broke the tablets to shock the people. This makes sense to me since there was pandemonium in the camp and he needed to do something to restore order in the camp. However, N. Leibowitz rejects this approach since she claims that with this approach Moshe's act was premeditated while 32:19 implies that it was a "spontaneous reaction sparked off by indignation." Yet, afterwards she writes (p. 612), "It is difficult to accept that Moshe deliberately planned to break the tablets. But the alternative – that it happened in a spontaneous fit of anger without any thought at all is equally implausible." <br /><br />I would understand that after Moshe heard that G-d had forgiven the people, 32:14, he took the tablets with the idea that he would speak to the people and tell them that G-d had forgiven them. He did not intend to break the tablets when he was going down the mountain. However, when he came down, he was angry since he had not realized the mad frenzy scene that was occurring and he had to think of a way to get the people to stop. Moshe's solution was to break the tablets in front of the people, Devarim 9:17. However, this plan did not succeed. <br /><br />32:25 records that even after Moshe broke the tablets and destroyed the golden calf, still the people were going wild. Accordingly, he went to plan B. He asked the people "Who is with G-d, come to me," 32:26. However, only the Levites responded. They compromised approximately 4% (22,000 males/603,000 men 20 years and up) of the population, which meant that 96% of the population was not with G-d. Moshe then sent out the Levites to kill the people who sinned, and as we discuss on 32:20-28, "<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2016/02/shemot-3220-28-ki-tissa-spiked-water.html">Spiked water and the aftermath of the sin of the golden calf</a>," they only killed people who had marks on their bodies which indicated that they had sinned. These people were not being killed for their actions with the golden calf, which no longer existed and for which they had been forgiven, but because they had not responded to Moshe when he asked who was with G-d. By not responding to Moshe’s call, this showed that they rejected G-d and were in essence continuing with the sin by golden calf even though the idol had been destroyed. Note, it could be that the Levites had also sinned by the golden calf, but once Moshe called to them, then they repented and answered Moshe’s call. <br /><br />After this killing by the Levites, it seems that the pandemonium in the camp ended, and on the following day, Moshe told the people that they had sinned greatly and that he would pray for them, 32:30. What was the need for this prayer? One possibility is that G-d's forgiveness of the people in 32:14 was no longer relevant since the people continued to sin by not responding to Moshe when he asked who was with G-d, 32:26. A second possibility is that in 32:14, G-d forgave the people for their worship of the golden calf, a full scale idolatry, while in 32:30, Moshe needed to pray for the people for making the golden calf independent of their worship of the golden calf. Thus, in Moshe prayer’s he refers to the making of the golden calf, 32:31, and in G-d’s response that there would be a plague for the people’s sin, again the reference is to making the golden calf, 32:35. Moshe also refers to this sin as being a great or large sin, <i>chataah gedolah</i>, when he spoke to the people, 32:30, in his prayer, 32:31, and when he questioned Aharon about his actions, 32:21. The reason for this designation is that people might have thought that just making the golden calf was not such a terrible action since the goal might have been to use the idol to worship G-d, and hence to impress on Aharon, the people, and readers of the Torah, Moshe uses the phrase great sin to teach that even just making the golden calf was a terrible sin. <div><br /></div><div>Bibliography:<br /><br />Abravanel (1437-1508), 1997, Commentary on Shemot. 1999, Commentary on Devarim, Jerusalem: Horev. <br /><br />Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976a, Studies in Shemot, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.</div>Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-51189844041908708222024-01-31T21:33:00.000+02:002024-01-31T21:33:06.528+02:00Shemot 20:5 – The term kanah in reference to G-d in the DecalogueShemot 20:5 records the prohibition of idolatry, and within this prohibition, the Torah states that G-d is <i>kel kanah</i>. This same description of G-d also appears in Shemot 34:14, Devarim 4:24, 5:9 and 6:15. What does this phrase <i>kel kanah</i> mean? The word <i>kel</i> means G-d, but what does the work <i>kanah</i> mean? Also, Pirkei Avot 4:28 records that R. Elazar ha-Kappar said that <i>ha-kinah </i>takes a person out the world, which implies that it is a negative trait, why would G-d be described as a G-d of <i>kanah</i>? <br /><br />Rashi (on Bemidbar 25:11, also has similar comments on Devarim 29:19) writes that the term <i>kinah</i> always refers to a person taking vengeance. Does this mean that <i>kel kanah</i> means that G-d is the G-d of vengeance? While vengeance might be appropriate on some occasions, this would not seem like a flattering description of G-d. <br /><br />Rashi (on Bemidbar 11:29) gives a slightly different definition that <i>kinah</i> means that a person sets their heart on doing something, whether to help or to take revenge. This would be the idea of being zealous or ardent, and has a potential positive element to the term. <br /><br />Rashi on our verse, 20:5, offers a third variation of the definition of the word <i>kanah</i> or <i>kinah</i>, that G-d is determined to punish people who worship idolatry. Does Rashi here think this term <i>kanah</i> only refers to idolatry? Does this definition in reference to G-d differ from when the term <i>kanah</i> is used by people unrelated to idolatry? For example, Bereshit 26:14 records that Philistines were <i>kaneh</i> of Yitzhak, and Bereshit 37:11 records that Yosef’s brothers were <i>kaneh</i> of Yosef, and both cases seem unrelated to idolatry. <br /><br />Even-Shoshan (1988, p. 1020) explains that this description of G-d as <i>kel kanah</i> means that G-d is very strict and exacting, but this seems to contradict the idea that G-d is merciful, 34:6. Also, again, can this same definition apply to other cases of the word in the Torah? For example, when the Philistines were <i>kaneh</i> of Yitzhak, were they being strict? Or, were Yosef’s brothers being strict with Yosef? <br /><br />Robert Alter (2004, p. 430) writes on 20:5 that “the leading edge of the word here may in fact be jealousy.” If jealousy is interpreted to mean envy, could one say that G-d is envious? <br /><br />I think we need to understand the word <i>kanah</i> in the same way in reference to G-d and in reference to regular people. As we discussed on Bereshit 26:14-33, “<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2023/11/bereshit-2612-33-yitzhak-and-wells-true.html">Yitzhak and the wells: True grit</a>,” in the Torah the word, <i>kanah,</i> means that a person will act in aggressive manor to defend a perceived attempt to limit or end a person’s rights. This same definition applies to G-d. Once the Jewish people entered into a covenant with G-d, and this process was beginning with the Decalogue, then the obligation of the people was just to worship G-d. This was a right of G-d. All the verses that refer to G-d as being <i>kanah</i> are cases where the people are either worshipping idolatry (Bemidbar 25:3,11,13) or they are being warned not to worship idolatry, like in 20:5. The point of 20:5 is to warn the people that G-d will act aggressively to punish them if they commit the sin of idolatry, as the verse ends that G-d will punish idol worshippers for up to four generations. Thus, both by G-d and people, the term <i>kanah</i> refers to acting to defend an attempt to limit or end a person’s right, but by G-d, the limiting or ending the right is referring the right of G-d to be worshipped and then the term <i>kanah</i> is only in reference to G-d acting against people who worship idolatry, but by people the limiting or ending rights can refers to various rights that a person claims. Accordingly, in Pirkei Avot, R. Elazar ha-Kappar can be referring to all types of rights that people make up and then fight about them since they believe their rights are being limited or ended. This fighting will take people out of the world, but his statement does not refer to G-d, where the <i>kinah</i> is only in reference to the sin of idolatry.<div><br /></div>References<br /><br />Alter, Robert, 2004, <i>The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary</i>, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.<br /><br />Even-Shoshan, Avraham, 1981, <i>A new dictionary</i> (Hebrew), Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer Publishing House.Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-59492252147585134742023-12-20T12:26:00.001+02:002023-12-25T11:04:45.057+02:00Bereshit 41:25-44, 47-49, 54-57; 42:5,6; 47:13-26: Yosef’s economic and administrative policies in EgyptBereshit 41:25-32 records that Yosef interpreted Pharaoh’s dreams that there would be seven good years of agricultural abundance and seven years of famine in Egypt. Yosef then gave Pharaoh advice how Egypt could survive the seven years of famine, and Pharaoh appointed Yosef to administer Egypt, 41:33-44. <br /><br />Yosef’s plan was for Egypt to collect the food from the good years and then dispense it in during the seven years of famine. The advice to store up food is not surprising because this would seem to be the obvious implication of Yosef’s interpretation of the dream. How was the food to be collected? It could have been collected through force (Rashbam on 41:34,35), as with taxes, or the Egyptian government could have bought the food (Ibn Ezra on 41:34). The implication of 47:24, which records that Yosef imposed a tax on the Egyptian people, is that the taxation appears to have been something new. If this is true, then Yosef’s advice was to buy the food in the seven good years and this can be understood with basic economics. During the seven good years, there would be an increase in the supply of grains (the supply curve would switch right), which would drive the price of wheat down. The government could buy the grain at the lower price knowing that the costs would be recuperated during the bad years since then the price would rise due to the shortages (the supply curve would shift left). Yosef‘s advice was then based on him having perfect information about future prices due to Pharaoh’s dream. <br /><br />One potential problem with Yosef’s plan to store the food, was that the food could go bad until the seven years of famine. Can wheat be stored so long (see Ibn Ezra on 41:35 and Rashi on 41:48), or was this a miracle in the story that G-d made sure that there was enough wheat for Yosef’s plan to succeed and for Yosef to meet his brothers? <br /><br />41:47-49 record how Yosef gathered up all of the produce in Egypt. This surely required a large government bureaucracy to coordinate all of the purchasing (or taking), storing and distributing the food. Interestingly, MacGregor (2012, pp. 88-95) in his discussion of the Rhind mathematical papyrus, a papyrus from Egypt from around 1550 BCE that listed 84 mathematical questions which are believed to be preparations for the Egyptian civil servant exams at that time, noted how the papyrus shows the well-developed and mathematically well-trained bureaucracy in Egypt. It is not clear when Yosef lived, a little before 1550 BCE or maybe a little afterwards, but we see that in Egypt there was a talented bureaucracy at his time that could have implemented his policies. <br /><br />Instead of having this large government bureaucracy, Yosef could have informed the people of the coming famine, and relied on the people themselves to store up their food. Did Yosef think that the people would not have listened since they would not trust him or because people in general are short-sighted? Or, maybe Yosef needed to have the government apparatus in order that he would be able to “catch” his brothers? <br /><br />Yosef’s policies were an example of big government. Government policies usually suffer from two problems. One, government officials usually do not have sufficient information to solve problems, and two, many times the officials are more concerned with their own welfare than the welfare of the people. However, these problems did not exist in this case since Yosef was a fearer of G-d (39:9, 41:38, 42:18), and through the dreams Yosef had all the necessary information. Yet, while Yosef solved the problem of famine, in the end his solution caused the Jewish people to be in Egypt, where they eventually ended up as slaves. Yosef only had information for fourteen years, and he could not foresee the consequences of his actions after the fourteen years. <br /><br />41:54-57, 42:5,6 and 47:13-26 record the implementation of Yosef’s plan during the seven years of the famine. Yosef’s actions in these years can be divided into several stages. Firstly, as we discuss on 41:54,56,57; 42:5-7; 47:15, “<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2011/12/bereshit-4212-mikketz-breadbasket-of.html" target="_blank">Was Egypt the breadbasket of the world in the time of Yosef</a>?” I believe that there were three stages to Yosef selling the wheat. Initially, for a short time, he sold the food to anybody who came to Egypt, then for two years or so, he sold wheat both to people from Canaan and of course the Egyptians, and then in the end he only sold/ distributed the wheat to the Egyptians. <br /><br />Secondly, Yosef’s policies just with regard to the Egyptians had four stages. First, Yosef acquired all of the people's money, then Yosef acquired their animals, and then when the people offered to sell themselves and their land, he bought their land as well. After the famine was almost over, in the fourth stage, Yosef gave the Egyptian people seeds to start over, but he instituted a tax of twenty percent which he justified since he had bought them and their land. The net result of the famine was that the people survived due to Yosef, which they acknowledged, 47:25, and then afterwards they had to pay an annual income tax of 20%. <br /><br />One question about these policies during the seven years of famine is why did the Torah record them as the section of 47:13-26 seems peripheral to the main focus of the story of Yosef and his brothers? The Torah could have recorded in one sentence that the Egyptians survived the famine due to Yosef and they were thankful to him, without recording all the details of Yosef’s actions. <br /><br />A second question is while we can understand why Yosef sold the wheat to foreigners (from the Egyptian perspective), should Yosef have given the Egyptians the food for free? Benno Jacob (1974, p. 318) argues that it was just for the Egyptians to pay for the food since they had received money when they sold the grains to Yosef during the good years. Yet, after the Egyptians ran out of money, Yosef made them pay for the food by the Egyptians giving him their animals and their land. Why did Yosef not give the Egyptians the food for free after their money was gone? It is true that when people get things for nothing, they waste them, and during the famine the goal was to conserve the food, which implies that the food should have not been distributed completely free, but was it necessary for Yosef to take all of the Egyptians’ money, animals and their land? Maybe Yosef's goal was to have the people agree to a tax of 20% (47:24). With this idea, after the people gave Yosef their lands, then the food was given freely since there was nothing left for the people to pay. Furthermore, with this understanding, maybe the reason why the Torah records the details of the implementation of Yosef’s polices was to provide proof of Pharaoh's statement in 41:39 that Yosef was brilliant, as Yosef was able to institute a tax of 20% with complete acceptance by the public. <br /><br />A third question is, was the 20% tax reasonable or fair? The answer here, as in many cases by the question of fairness, depends on one’s perspective. A tax of 20% is reasonable to a person who pays more than 20% in taxes (see Ramban on 47:19), but for somebody who did not pay any taxes before the famine to pay 20% after the famine was surely a lot. <br /><br />A fourth question is why would the people trade their animals for food when they could eat the animals? The answer could be that the nourishment from the wheat they received was much greater than what they would have attained by eating their animals. This could be because they received comparably more grains than the value of their animals, and it could have been that the animals had become quite scrawny (like in Pharaoh’s dream) during the famine. <br /><br />After the Egyptians sold their lands to Yosef, he moved the people throughout the country to the cities, 47:21. Not only is this a difficult process logistically, but it also would have increased the suffering of the Egyptians in those years, who were already suffering from the famine. Why did Yosef do this? (A fifth question.)<div><br />Rashi (on 47:21) explains that Yosef moved the people from one city to another city in order that they should realize that they had sold their land and that they should not look upon Yaakov's family as foreigners. This is a difficult since the verse just states that the people were moved to the city and not that they were moved from city to city. Also, is this second rationale of helping his family in some minor way sufficient to justify uprooting people from their homes? <br /><br />Luzzatto (on 47:21) tries to mitigate the suffering of the Egyptians from this action by Yosef by arguing that Yosef maintained the initial groupings of the people. The idea is that all the people from each town were moved together to a new town in order that there were no problems of social adjustment. Furthermore, since the Egyptian people were willing participants in selling the land, there probably was no need to forcibly move the people. Yet, the Egyptians were probably not happy to be moved from their homeland. <br /><br />Ibn Ezra (on 47:21) first writes that Yosef moved each person from his place, and then he adds a second opinion that Yosef moved all the people from the rural areas to the cities. This second opinion accords with the words of the verse, but why would Yosef do this? Ibn Ezra writes that by moving the people, then the land could be worked. This seems unlikely since during a famine there was no farming at all, 45:6. <br /><br />Bekhor Shor (on 47:21, also see Rashbam on 47:21) first quotes Rashi's first explanation, and then the Bekhor Shor adds a second possibility that Yosef moved the people from city to city after each city ran out of food. The idea here is that the cities were the places where the food was sold/ distributed, and then when there was no more food to give out, the people moved to another city to get food. The Bekhor Shor writes that Rashi’s explanation is more correct, but Hertz (1960, p. 177) follows the second approach, as he writes "the cities became depots for facilitating the distribution of the food." This idea that the cities were the points of distribution accords with 41:48 that the food was gathered in the cities during the seven good years. <br /><br />There was no reason for the Egyptian people to remain in the fields during the famine since due to the famine there was no possibility to farm the lands, so, following Hertz's understanding, Yosef moved the people to the cities where it would be easier to feed them. Maybe the people worked at crafts in the city during the famine, and then when the famine ended the Egyptian people would have returned to their lands. Thus, Yosef’s action to move the Egyptians was only temporary until the famine was over, and was to ease the lives of the Egyptians during the famine. <br /><br />Another (sixth) question is that the Torah makes a point of specifying that Yosef did not buy the land of the Egyptian priests, which implies both that they paid either less or nothing for the food that they received from Yosef and that the tax was not instituted on them, 47:22,26. Independent of why the Torah records all the details of Yosef’s action by the Egyptian population in selling them food, why did the Torah mention Yosef’s special policies with regard to the Egyptian priests? <br /><br />N. Leibowitz (1976, pp. 520-529, also in Jacobson, 1986) offers two explanations. One, the Torah is ridiculing the Egyptian system of justice that allowed a difference in land ownership between the elite, the priests, and the common people. However, it was Yosef who caused the Egyptians to lose their land and who made this difference in land ownership. <br /><br />N. Leibowitz’s second answer is that the Torah mentions that the Egyptian priests owned their land to contrast the future Jewish law that the Jewish priests would not own land. This point is not entirely correct since while the Jewish priests did not have land in the countryside, they did have their own cities in which presumably they owned property, Bemidbar 35:2. Also, what is to be learned from this contrast? N. Leibowitz writes that it is to show that “the Levites were not chosen in order to enable them to accumulate wealth and exploit their flock” but to work for G-d. It is true that the Torah attempts to prevent the religious elite, the priests, from being the economic elite, and this separation may not have occurred in Egypt, but I doubt this is the point of this section. Here, we do not see the Egyptians priests benefiting at the expense of the people, rather we see the Egyptian people losing their land due to Yosef. <br /><br />Instead, it could be that this differentiation that Yosef made between the general Egyptian population and the priests is to explain how it was that the Egyptian people seemingly easily agreed to Pharaoh to enslave the Jewish people, Shemot 1:8-10, and then to murder the male Jewish children, Shemot 1:22. Pharaoh must have had popular support from at least a majority of the population when he enslaved and tried to kill the Jewish male children. Yet, why would the people have given Pharaoh this support if 47:25 records how thankful the Egyptians felt towards Yosef? Did all the Egyptians have amnesia? One might argue that Egyptians would have had no compunctions against enslaving the Jewish people since that was normal in those times and it provided free labor, but I think to commit genocide there needed to be some underlying antagonism. <br /><br />Maybe the answer is Yosef’s policies during the famine. Initially the people were happy with Yosef, but what happened after the famine was over? The people were left without their money, animals and with a new tax of 20%, and they would have forgotten how perilous their existence was during the famine. Yosef would have quickly changed from a hero to a villain. A mere 17 years after Yaakov came to Egypt, Yosef had to have Pharaoh’s officials intercede with Pharaoh to get Yosef permission to bury Yaakov in the land of Israel, 50:4,5. Furthermore, the fact that the priests were given food (either for free or cheaper), did not lose their land and did not have to pay the tax would only have increased the resentment of the Egyptians towards Yosef and his family, the Jews, since this showed that it was not necessary for Yosef to have sold the food to them. Only Pharaoh would have had a reason to remember Yosef since he was the only person who benefited in the long run after the famine was over from Yosef’s plans. Thus, once Shemot 1:8 records that a new king came to Egypt who did not know Yosef, there was nothing to stop the Jewish people from suffering at the hands of the Egyptians. Accordingly, it could be that Yosef's polices was partially responsible for the Jewish people being enslaved in Egypt, see Lerner (1989) and Wildavsky (1993, p. 8). <br /><br />To conclude, were Yosef’s policies in Egypt good or bad? From a short-term perspective, during the 14 years of the good and bad years, they were successful both in saving Egypt and in re-uniting Yosef with Yaakov and his brothers, but from a long-term perspective, it is not clear if Yosef implemented the best policies during the years of the famine. <br /> <div><br /></div>Bibliography:<br /><br />Hertz, J. H. (1872-1946), 1960, <i>The Pentateuch and Haftorahs</i>, second edition, London: Soncino Press.<br /><br />Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1974, <i>The first book of the bible: Genesis</i>, commentary abridged, edited and translated by Earnest I. Jacob and Walter Jacob, New York: Ktav Publishing House.<br /><br />Jacobson, B. S. 1986, <i>Mediations on the Torah</i>, Tel Aviv: Sinai Publishing.<br /><br />Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, <i>Studies in Bereshit</i>, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.<br /><br />Lerner, Berel Dov, 1989, "Joseph the unrighteous," <i>Judaism</i>, 38:3, pp. 278-281.<br /><br />MacGregor, Neil, 2012, <i>A history of the world in 100 objects</i>, London: Penguin Books.<br /><br />Wildavsky, Aaron, 1993, <i>Assimilation versus separation: Joseph the administrator and the politics of religion in biblical Israel</i>, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. </div>Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-59617091769482698692023-11-12T23:17:00.001+02:002023-11-13T09:56:52.198+02:00Bereshit 26:12-33 – Yitzhak and the wells: True grit Bereshit 26:6 records that Yitzhak went to live in Gerar, and 26:12 -14 record that he became successful in Gerar. This success led the inhabitants of Gerar, the Philistines, to be jealous of him. In the Torah the term jealousy means that a person will act in an aggressive manor to defend a perceived attempt to limit or end the person’s rights. In this case, the Philistines believed or claimed that Yitzhak’s success was taking away their right to water. Thus, the following verse, 26:15, informs us that the Philistines filled in the wells that Avraham had dug, which was an action by the Philistines to protect their water rights. <br /><br />26:16 then records that the king of Gerar, Avimelekh, told Yitzhak to leave. Presumably, this was because the filling in of the wells was viewed as being insufficient by the Philistines. <br /><br />26:17 then records that Yitzhak complied with this request (order?) and moved to Nahal Gerar. <br /><br />26:18 then records that Yitzhak opened the wells up that the Philistines had filled in. What was the purpose of this act as he already left the area? Also, the following verse, 26:19, records that his servants dug a well in Nahal Gerar, why did he open the wells that Philistines had filled in (26:18)? Why did his servants have to dig new wells (26:19), after he had opened up the wells of Avraham? <br /><br />Sarna (1989, p. 186) explains that the new wells were found accidentally when re-digging the wells of Avraham. I find this idea difficult since most likely the wells of Avraham were in Gerar, while the new wells were in Nahal Gerar (see Rashi on 26:17). Also, I doubt that new wells would be found accidentally when just re-digging old wells. <br /><br />Rashi (on 26:18) explains that Yitzhak dug the wells (mentioned in 26:18) right before he left Gerar and Rashbam, Radak and Bekhor Shor (on 26:18) point out that Yitzhak renamed the wells based on Avraham’s names to show his ownership of the wells. This suggests that Yitzhak’s digging up of the wells of Avraham as recorded in 26:18 was a protest and not for deriving water from the wells. <br /><br />Yitzhak left Gerar seemingly without a fight (26:17), but either before he left or he returned to re-dig the wells without Avimelekh’s permission to show that the wells were his and not the Philistines. He knew the Philistines would not let him stay and use the water, but this was his protest against the Philistines. Thus, as the digging of the wells of Avraham did not give Yitzhak any water, he had to dig new wells, as recorded in 26:19. <br /><br />The Torah continues that local shepherds disputed the first well that his servants had dug in Nahal Gerar, so they dug another well (still in Nahal Gerar?), 26:20,21. The local shepherds also fought over this well, so Yitzhak moved (the second or third time) and dug another well in a new locale, 26:21,22. Even though there is no record in the Torah of a fight over this well, Yitzhak left the area and went to Beer Sheva, 26:23. <div><br /></div><div>Why do we have to know that Yitzhak dug three wells that he abandoned? Ramban (on 26:20) writes that this section by the wells shows no credit to Yitzhak, and that really the wells symbolize the Bet ha-Mikdash. Ramban claims that by the third well there was no dispute between Yitzhak and the Philistines, and so too the third bet ha-Mikdash will also exist without strife. <br /><br />I have never understood this explanation since not only do I not see any intrinsic connection between wells and the Bet ha-Mikdash, but also Yitzhak abandoned the third well, 26:23, and dug another well, 26:25,32. Does this mean that according to Ramban’s logic, the third Bet ha-Mikdash will also be abandoned (G-d forbid) and we will have to wait for the fourth Bet ha-Mikdash? Also, when Yitzhak left for Be’er Sheva after digging the third well, G-d told him not to be afraid, 26:24. This means that while the Philistines (or other people) did not fight over the third well, still there was some reason why Yitzhak was scared, and presumably this is why he abandoned the third well (see Rashbam on 26:23). According to the Ramban, does this mean that in the time of the third Bet ha-Mikdash, the people will also be in fear? <br /><br />I think the point of the story of the wells is to portray Yitzhak in a very positive light. In the beginning of chapter 26, 26:2-5, G-d blessed Yitzhak and Yitzhak did his best to succeed by planting and digging wells. However, even with all his determination, he constantly had to move on and never was permanently successful. After Yitzhak moved to Beer Sheva, G-d then blessed him again, 26:24, but Yitzhak had a different response to this second blessing. He continued his work by digging another well, but now he also built an altar and called out the name of G-d, 26:25. Not only did Yitzhak work to fulfill the blessings, but he also publicly stated his recognition of G-d. This action by Yitzhak showed his religious development and finally he had permanent success by the last well in Be'er Sheva (26:32,33). <br /><br />26:26 then records that Avimelekh, and two other Philistines came to see Yitzhak in Be'er Sheva. Yitzhak was quite surprised by their visit, and asked them why they came to see him? They answered that they realized that Yitzhak was blessed by G-d and that they wanted to make a treaty with Yitzhak, 26:27,28,29. 26:30,31 then record that Yitzhak made a treaty with them, and then this episode ends, as 26:32,33 record how Yitzhak's servants found a well in Be'er Sheva. <br /><br />This recognition by other people that Yitzhak was blessed indicates that Yitzhak was a respected figure that people wanted to make a treaty with him. Also, it is likely that this idea is important not only for our understanding of Yitzhak, but also for the narrative concerning Esav and Yaakov. Before the events that transpired in chapter 26, we read that Esav despised the birthright of Yitzhak, 25:34. However, in chapter 27 we see that Esav was crying that he did not get Yitzhak’s blessing, 27:38. What caused this change in Esav? Maybe the treaty between Avimelekh and Yitzhak changed his attitude towards his father. Once Esav saw that other important people wanted to make a treaty with Yitzhak then he changed his evaluation of Yitzhak and wanted to get Yitzhak’s blessings.<br /><br />Bibliography:<br /><br />Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, <i>The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis</i>, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.</div>Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-35685469549972936512023-10-09T15:50:00.009+03:002023-11-12T16:10:40.453+02:00Bereshit 5:3,4 – Longevity and the aging process in the Torah<p>Bereshit 5:3 records that Adam had a child when he was 130 years old, something that is not possible in the 21st century. 5:4 then records that Adam lived another 800 years afterwards. This also is not physically possible. The remainder of chapter 5 lists ten more individuals who also lived extremely long lives. Similarly, 11:10-32 lists nine more individuals who had extremely long lives. The people listed in chapter 11 lived less years than all the people listed in chapter five, except for Chanoch (5:23), but still eight of them lived more than 200 years, which again does not seem possible. Afterwards the lifespans continued to decrease, but still the Torah lists many people who lived longer than humanely possible in the 21st century, Sara, 127 years (23:1), Avraham, 175 years (25:7), Yishmael, 137 years (25:17), Yitzhak, 180 years (35:28), Yaakov, 147 years (47:9, 48:28), Levi and his descendants’, 137 years, 133 years and 137 years, (Shemot 6:16-20), Aharon, 123 years (Bemidbar 33:39) and Moshe lived 120 years (Devarim 31:2). Yosef also lived 110 years (Bereshit 50:26), which also seems incredible for the period of the Torah. <br /><br />The Rambam (Moreh 11:47) writes, apparently in reference to all the people who had long lives in the Torah, that only these people lived so long, as the other people who are not named as having long lives, lived regular lives. The Rambam suggests that the long lives of these individuals could have been due to their diet and behavior or due to a miracle. The Ramban (on 5:4) rejects this approach and claims that the people listed in chapters five and eleven were not unique in their lifetime. He notes that if the Rambam’s suggestion of diet and behavior was correct, then many people should have followed their behavior. Also, he claims that not all of these people were worthy of G-d making them miracles. It seems to me that even the Ramban relies on miracles for the long lives of the patriarchs. The Ramban also seems to claim that until the period of the sin of the Tower of Bavel people would naturally live long lives, which again appears to be impossible. <br /><br /> A different approach is that the years listed in the Torah are not full solar years. Ha-Ketav Ve-haKabbalh (on 5:5) notes that some people claim that the years in chapter five are based on a one-month lunar cycle which he rejects. Beck (1967, pp. 25-29) suggests that a year in the Torah is a six-month period, and then the lives of the patriarchs would be half of what is recorded in the Torah. <br /><br />My guess is that the years in the Torah are similar to our years, that the Rambam is correct that only those people who are listed as having had a long life, had a long life and that this was a miracle that G-d did for them. It is not clear why it was necessary for these people to have long lives, and my guess is that it is a literary way of marking a large passage of time with a relatively limited number of people.<br /></p><p>In addition, with regard to the people who had long lives, it must be that their aging process was a much slower process than our aging in the 21st century. David Tzvi Hoffmann (1969, p. 383, introduction to chapter 25) follows this idea when discussing how old was Avraham when he had more children apparently after Sara had died, 25:2. He writes that even though Avraham was officially 140 then (if these children were born right after Yitzhak married Rivka), he was really 56 years ago. This calculation would be that 140/175, his present age divided by the age when he died, equals 0.8 and 0.8*70 = 56. Thus, he claims Avraham was able to father the children recorded in 25:2. While I think Avraham had the ability to father the children recorded in 25:2 due to a special blessing from G-d (see our discussion on 24:1, “<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2013/10/bereshit-241-2512-hayyei-sara-to-be.html">To be virile again</a>”), it must be that Hoffmann is correct that the aging process for the people who had very long lives in the Torah was at a proportional rate.<br /><br />I think that even by the early years of the people who had long lives in the Torah that their development was at a slow pace, and then they reached puberty later than modern people. Thus, the youngest age that people in chapter five began to have children was 65. In chapter 11, the aging process had quickened to some extent compared to the people in chapter five, as the youngest age that people had children in chapter 11 was twenty-nine years (11:24), and their life span had shortened from between 400 years to 148 years, but still their aging was slower than people in modern times. Afterwards by the age of the patriarchs until, and including, Moshe, the development and aging of the people with long lives were proportional to a person who lived seventy/ eighty years.<br /><br />Thus, Sara was considered beautiful when she came to Egypt (12:11,15), even though she was sixty-five years old, since she had not yet aged that much because she was going to live until 127, 23:1. Hence, she was around 35 years old based on a lifespan of seventy years. This slower proportional aging is also why the Torah had to tell us that Sara had stopped menstruating when she was 89/90, 18:11, which should have been obvious, but with proportional aging, one might have thought that at 89/90 (17:17), which was proportional to 49 years ((89/127)*70), that she was still menstruating, but she was not.</p><p>Avraham was equivalent physically to a 30-year-old ((75/175)*70) when he left Haran and fought with the four kings and not to a seventy-five year old (12:4), which in antiquity and today was/is possible, but it is very unlikely for a seventy five year old to have the strength to fight a war. In addition, Sara thought that there was a good possibility that Avraham would be able to have a child with Hagar even though he was 85 years old then, since if it was not possible, she would not have been willing for him to have another wife, 16:1-3. Also, Avraham agreed to her proposal and did not claim that he could not have a child when he was 85 since really he was physically around 34 years old (86/175)*70).</p><p>14 years later, when Avraham was officially 99 years old, both Avraham and Sara doubted whether Avraham could father another child, 17:17,24; 18:10,12; 21:1-7. 18:11 (also 21:2), which is information provided by the “narrator” records that Avraham and Sara were old when they were told that Sara was to have a child, but also adds the phrase “and advancing in years.” This phrase is qualifying the previous word, that they were old, that while they were getting older, they were not necessarily not “functioning” and then the verse continues to inform us that Sara was post-menopausal since, as mentioned above, this was not obvious. Yet, according to this theory of proportionate aging, Avraham was then equivalent to being 40 years old (99/175)*70), so why did Sara and Avraham doubt that he could have a child? Maybe Avram and Sara were considered old even in their 40s, since in those days, life expectancy was around 40, even for people who did not die at childhood. In addition, maybe Avraham’s and Sara’s doubt that Avraham could have a child just “six years” after fathering Yishmael was because they did not think that a person at Avraham’s age (physically equivalent to 40 years) would be able to recover sufficiently from the circumcision, which G-d had just commanded him to do, 17:10-14, and he had done, 17:23,24, to have a child. <span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1cm;">Maybe then, Avraham’s ability to
have Yitzhak was due to a miracle. </span></p><p>This idea of proportionate aging could also explain why Yishmael seems to have been small when he and Hagar had to leave Avraham’s house, even though he was 14-years-old, 21:14-20. Also, while Yishmael was officially 13 years old when he was circumcised this would have been equivalent to being six and a half (17:25; 25:17 (13/137)*70). <br /></p><div>In addition, with this idea, Yitzhak was in modern terms around 15.5 years old when he married Rivka, (25:2, (40/180)*70)) and Yaakov was in modern terms around 40 years old when he married Lea and Rahel ((84/147)*70).<p>Also, with this understanding, Yosef was not mentally or physically 17 years old (37:2) when he tattled on his brothers, but around 12 years in modern terms, and he was equivalent to an 18-year-old ((28/110)*70) when Potifar’s wife tried to seduce him, 39:7-12. This might explain why Reuven also refers to him as the child, 37:30 and 42:20. This would also mean that when Yaakov sent Yosef to look for his brothers in Shekhem, 37:13, Yosef was equivalent to a ten-year old in modern times, which might be considered as being too young for such a mission. However, as we explain in our discussion on 37:3-14, “<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2013/11/bereshit-372-14-va-yeshev-parenting.html" target="_blank">Yaakov's parenting</a>,” Yaakov accepted that the dreams of Yosef were a prophecy, and hence he probably felt that Yosef would be protected. <br /><br />This slow aging process might also help explain the conversation between Pharaoh and Yaakov when they met, 47:8,9. First, Pharaoh asked Yaakov how old he was since he knew that Yosef was not aging in the normal manner. Secondly, this proportional aging can explain why Yaakov knew that he would not reach the lives of his father and grandfather since he knew at 130 years that he was aging faster than they had been aging at the same age, 47:9. </p><p>The net result is that since the long lifespans recorded in the Torah of various people was a miracle, the miracle was also that the development and the aging process of the different people were also a slower process than in modern times, and starting in the time of the patriarchs, the development and aging process of the people with long lives was proportional to the lifespan of each person. <br /><br />Bibliography:<br /><br />Beck, Samuel, 1967, <i>From Sinai to Navo</i>, Jerusalem: Raphael Chayyim Hacohen Publishing. <br /><br />Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1969, <i>Commentary on Genesis</i>, Bnei Brak: Nezach.<br /></p></div>Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-21745104666727617472023-09-18T15:54:00.001+03:002023-09-18T17:25:15.447+03:00Devarim 32:10 – Who did G-d find and protect in the desert?Devarim 32:10 records “He (G-d) found him in the wilderness land, in the waste of the howling desert. He encircled him, gave mind to him, watched him like the apple of his eye.” Alter, 2004, p. 1040, translation. This verse is part of the beginning section of the song of Hazinu (Devarim 32:1-43), which records that the people are to learn from their history to see that G-d was good to the people. <br /><br />One question concerning this verse is who did G-d find in the howling desert? I believe that the standard explanation is that the someone is the Jewish people that G-d found them in the desert. With this approach the singular pronoun in the verse is understood as referring to the plural, them, but did G-d find the people in the desert? G-d "found" the people in Egypt, which was not the desert, and then G-d took the people to the desert. Seemingly to answer this question, Rashi (on 32:10) argues that the finding is that G-d found that the people were loyal, faithful to Him by the Decalogue at Mount Sinai. This is difficult since the people were not so loyal at Mount Sinai as forty days after the Decalogue, they committed the sin of the golden calf (see Shemot 32:1-6 and Devarim 9:8). <br /><br />Rashi himself seems bothered by this approach and towards the end of his comments on the verse, he quotes a second explanation from Targum Onkelos (also quoted by the Rashbam on 32:10), that based on Bemidbar 11:22 one can claim that the word find means that G-d provided the people with food. N. Leibowitz (1982a, p. 342) notes that this explanation is "rather strained linguistically" and she prefers Rashi's first explanation that the finding is by the Decalogue since this approach accords with the following verse, 32:11, which has a connection with the events at Mount Sinai, see our discussion on 32:11, “<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2016/09/devarim-3211-also-shemot-194-on-wings.html" target="_blank">On the wings of eagles</a>.” <br /><br />Another problem with the idea that 32:10 is referring to the time of the giving of the Torah is that the implication of 32:10 is that prior to this finding by G-d, someone or some people was/ were on the verge of dying in the barren desert. Were the people on the verge of dying at Mount Sinai? G-d had already given them the <i>mahn</i>, Shemot chapter 16. Also, Devarim 9:21, seems to refer to some river/ creek by Mount Sinai when the people were there, which implies that the people were not in a barren desert at the time of the giving of the Torah. <br /><br />These problems suggest that the reference to G-d finding someone in 32:10 is referring to a specific person who was in trouble in the desert, but who could be this person? One possibility could be Moshe when he ran away from Pharaoh, Shemot 2:15, but was Moshe on the verge of dying in the desert before he found the wells by Midyan? Maybe yes, but 32:10 also implies that this finding signaled the beginning of the people, and the Jewish people existed prior to Moshe. <br /><br />Another possibility is that the verse is referring to Avraham that some time prior to G-d's call in Bereshit 12:1, he had got lost in the desert. Could this be the reference to Bereshit 20:13? <br /><br />Another possibility is that the verse is referring to Yaakov, who was mentioned in the previous verse, 32:9, that maybe at some point when Yaakov was running away from Esav, he was on the verge of dying in a desert. <br /><br />A fourth possibility is that the verse is referring to Terah, who was the progenitor of the Jewish people both on the male line (Avraham) and the female line (Rivka, Rahel and Leah, and maybe Sara). The verse would then be telling us that there was an incident when Terah was on the verge of dying in the desert and G-d saved him and then protected his descendants. <br /><br />There is no explicit reference to such an incident in the Torah, but there are two hints that this might have happened. One, Bereshit 11:31 records that Terah, on his own, decided to go the land of Canaan/ Israel from Ur Kasdim (southern Iraq?) but he did not make it and ended up in Haran (Northern Syria). What is the significance of this verse? Why is it important that that he wanted to go to the land of Canaan/ Israel but did not make it? The Torah is giving him credit for his effort even though he did not make it, why? Our verse might suggest an answer. Maybe when he was trying to get to the land of Canaan/ Israel, he got lost and ended up in the Syrian Desert near death. At this point G-d found him and saved him, but after this experience he did not want to try again and he lived out the rest of his life in Haran. However, this moment was crucial since maybe this is when the Jewish people were founded in the sense that at that point, G-d decided to watch over Terah’s family and this is why Bereshit 11:31 recorded Terah’s effort to get to the land of Canaan/ Israel. <br /><br />A second hint is that Bereshit 12:1 records that G-d told Avraham to "go to the land that I will show you." Why did G-d not say explicitly the land of Canaan? A possible answer is that since Avraham had travelled with Terah (Bereshit 11:31) when Terah had been saved by G-d, he knew which land G-d was referring to, but he also knew how dangerous was the trip that he could get lost again in the desert, so G-d had to tell him that I will show you the way in order that you will not get lost this time.<div><br /></div>Bibliography:<br /><br />Alter, Robert, 2004, <i>The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary</i>, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.<br /><br />Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1982a, <i>Studies in Devarim</i>, translated and adapted by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization. Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-59648805015393835212023-08-29T02:13:00.001+03:002023-08-30T21:36:03.993+03:00Devarim 31:20, 21 - G-d’s last message in the Torah to Moshe concerning the peopleDevarim 31:20,21 record that G–d explained to Moshe (and seemingly also Yehoshua) that the people were going to worship other gods when they would come to the land of Israel since G-d knew "their <i>yetser</i> even before they entered the land that I promised them." The word <i>yetser</i> is usually translated as devisings, but as we discuss on Bereshit 8:21 "<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2010/10/bereshit-821-noah-is-man-evil.html">Is man evil</a>?" I think it means people’s selfish nature. In any event, these verses raise several questions, and maybe answer a question from the flood in the beginning of the Torah. <br /><br />One question is do these verses state that the people were destined to sin when they would come into the land of Israel? Note, this same question would seem to apply to 30:16, 29; also 4:25. If the answer is yes, then the people have no free will. However, Moshe seems to affirm the principle of free will at the end of his speech by the establishment of the covenant on the plains of Moav, 30:15,19. Yet, if people have free will, then how could G-d state the people were destined to worship other gods? Thus, either one must understand these verses as being conditional that if the people would sin, which seems difficult, or that in these verses G-d was saying that there was a high probability, but not 100%, that the people would sin. Note, as one refers to more and more generations of people, then the cumulative odds would get higher and higher that some generation would sin. <br /><br />A second related question is do these verses imply that G-d does not know the future? 31:21 states that G-d knew the people would sin since He knew their <i>yetser</i>, but if He knows the future, then there is no reason to relate G-d’s knowledge of the future to the people’s <i>yetser</i> in the present. Ibn Ezra (on 31:21) writes that the verse means that even if G-d did not know the future, still G-d would have known that the people were going to sin. My impression is that the Torah (see Bereshit 6:6) is written based on the idea that G-d does not know the future, and hence 31:20,21 should be understood that since G-d knew that people are selfish, He could predict with a very high certainty that the people would worship idolatry in the future. One might wonder how being selfish would lead a person to worship other gods, but it could be that people would worship other gods in order to get the “benefits” they would think come from worshipping these other gods, that the person would think that he/ she is “covering his/ her bases.” With regard to the basic question of does Judaism believe that G-d knows the future, this might depend on how one understands Pirkei Avot 3:19. <br /><br />A third unrelated question is if there was a high probability that the people would sin when they would come into the land of Israel, why would G-d give the people the land of Israel? One answer could be there was still a small chance the people would not sin. A second answer is that they received the land of Israel based on their present status, and while they had the <i>yetser</i> even before they entered the land of Israel, it had not yet caused them to sin. A third answer is that they received the land since G-d had promised it to the patriarchs, which is re-called in 31:20. <br /><br />The connection between these verses and the flood is that the word <i>yetser</i> only occurs three times in the Torah, here, before the flood, Bereshit 6:5, and after the flood, Bereshit 8:21. Alter (2004, p. 1035) writes, "This relatively unusual word, <i>yetser</i>, is surely a pointed allusion directing us to G-d's bleak words about human nature after the Flood: For the <i>yetser</i> of the human heart is evil from youth." This word establishes a connection between the beginning of the Torah and the end, but what is the connection? <br /><br />Why did G-d re-start the world after the flood if people have this <i>yetser</i> which can cause them to be evil? Maybe, the entire Torah is to answer the question can people be good even though people have this <i>yetser</i>? If the answer is a categorical no, then there was no point to re-starting the world after the flood. However, G-d did re-start the world after the flood, which means that even though people have this <i>yetser</i>, this selfishness, a (the) point of the Torah was to teach man to overcome/ modify or channel his <i>yetser</i> to become a good person. <br /><br />When it is all said and done at the end of the Torah, does G-d think that people will succeed or not in overcoming/ modifying or channeling their <i>yetser</i> to do good? The answer from 30:20,21 is not a resounding yes, as otherwise G-d would not have stated that the people were going to sin in the future. However, since we have argued that the verses are speaking in probable terms, even highly probable that the people will sin, still there is some chance that people will not sin. Some people at some time, will be able overcome/ modify or channel their <i>yetser</i> and be good people, but others, maybe the majority, will fail. This possibility leaves people with the free will to be good or bad even though we have this <i>yetser</i>.<div><br /></div>Bibliography:<br /><br />Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and CompanyAndrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-84227425226052929192023-08-02T23:22:00.006+03:002024-02-13T10:34:09.496+02:00The definition of the word shamor in Moshe's speeches in the book of Devarim - To remember Most of the book of Devarim records Moshe’s speeches to the Jewish people at the end of his life. One of the key words in Moshe’s speech in the book of Devarim is <i>shamor</i>, and there is great confusion about the meaning of this word since the word in the Torah has a different meaning than its meaning in modern day Hebrew. In modern Hebrew it means to watch, guard, protect, but in the Torah, the word <i>shamor</i> means to remember. I will now give several examples.<div><span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1cm;"><br /></span></div><div><div>The first time the word <i>shamor</i> appears in the book of Devarim is 2:4, when Moshe was re-telling the people G-d’s instructions to the people when they had circled around Edom/ Esav. 2:4 records that the people were told that even though Edom was scared of them, <i>ve-nishmartem meod</i>. Tigay (1996, p. 24) translates the phrase as “be very careful” that the people were to be careful not to provoke Edom, the following verse. This definition follows the idea that <i>shamor</i> relates to guarding but does it accord with the definition of keeping, which is how the word <i>shamor</i> is explained in most cases in the book of Devarim? Instead, the phrase should be understood to mean that people are to strongly remember that Edom/ Esav is considered their brother, which is mentioned in the beginning of the verse, and hence they should not provoke Edom, the following verse.<br /><br />The next case of the word <i>shamor</i> is Devarim 4:2, which records that Moshe told the people that they are to <i>lishmor</i> the <i>mitzvot </i>of G-d. Can this phrase mean to guard or protect the <i>mitzvot</i>? Instead, the usual explanation/ translation is to keep the <i>mitzvot</i> (see for example Alter, 2004, p. 897) which can fit the context, but it is not the idea of guarding. Instead, the phrase should be interpreted to mean that Moshe told the people to remember the <i>mitzvot</i>. This same idea appears in 5:10,26, 8:2, 10:13, 12:28, 13:5, 26:17, 18, and 28:9.<br /><br /> Devarim 4:6 records that Moshe told the people, <i>u-shemartem va-asitem</i>. Alter (2004, p. 898) translates the phrase as meaning that Moshe said “you shall keep and do,” as again he translates the word <i>shamor</i> as meaning keep. How does keep differ from do? It is redundant to say to do, to do. Instead, the word <i>shamor</i> means to remember, and Moshe was telling the people to remember the laws to do them. Similarly, 5:1, 5:29, 6:3, 6:25, 8:1, 11:32, 12:1, 13:1,19, 16:5,12, 17:10,19, 19:9, 24:8 (the second and third times the word appears in the verse), 26:16, 28:1,13,15, 28:58, 29:8, 31:12 and 32:46 have the phrase of <i>shamor la-asot</i>, which again means to remember to do. <br /><br />Devarim 4:9 then records that Moshe told the people “But, <i>he-shamer lecha, ushemor nafeshcha moed, pen tishkach</i>.” In this phrase, the word <i>shamor</i> appears twice. Alter (2004, p. 898) explains the phrase as meaning “Only be you on the watch and watch yourself closely lest you forget.” In this phrase, Alter is translating the word s<i>hamor</i> to mean on the watch. Is this the same meaning as keep, his translation of the word <i>shamor</i> in 4:6? What does it mean for a person to be on their watch? Instead, Devarim 4:9 means, “But, you should remember, remember greatly with your <i>nefesh</i>, do not forget.” This double language of remembering stresses the importance of the people remembering. 6:17 and 11:22, also record the word <i>shamor</i> twice, which again is to stress to the people to remember. 9:18 also had the double language of remembering, though with the word <i>zachor</i>, the synonym of <i>shamor</i>. In addition, 4:15 records remembering with regard to a person’s <i>nefesh</i>. <br /><br />4:23 records that Moshe told the people, “<i>he-shamru lachem pen tishkachu</i>.” Alter (2004, p. 901) translates the phrase as "Be you on the watch, lest you forget," similar to his translation of the word <i>shamor</i> in 4:9. However, the phrase means that Moshe told the people to remember, do not forget. This phrase has both the positive injunction to remember and the negative injunction not to forget, as in 4:9, 6:12, 9:7 (with the word <i>zachor</i>) and 8:11. This charge to remember, <i>hishamer</i>, in order not to do something wrong also appears in 11:16, 12:13,19,30, 15:9, and 24:8 (the first time the word appears in the verse and this remembering connects with the remembering in 24:9).<br /><br />4:40 records that Moshe ended his first (?) speech in the book of Devarim by saying “<i>ve-shamarta et chukov ve-et mitzvotov</i>.” Alter (2004, p. 904) translates the word <i>shamor</i> here as keep as he did in 4:6, but Tigay (1996, p. 39) writes that the word <i>shamor</i> should be translated as “take to heart.” This is similar to idea of remembering, and 4:40 should be understood to mean that Moshe was telling the people to remember G-d’s laws. This same idea appears in 7:11, 8:6, the end of 8:11, 9:13, 11:1, and 11:8. Similarly, 27:1 records that Moshe told the people to remember to follow his instructions when they would cross the Jordan River. Also, in 33:9, the idea is that the tribe of Levi remembered G-d’s words.<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>In Moshe’s second speech to the people in the book of Devarim, he re-calls the Decalogue and he stated, <i>shamor et yom ha-Shabbat le-kadsho</i>, 5:12. On this phrase, Tigay (1996, p. 68) writes, “the verb <i>shamor</i> is commonly used for keeping a holiday and fulfilling obligations.” This understanding creates an inconsistency with the Decalogue in the book of Shemot (20:8), which records the phrase, “<i>zachor et yom ha-Shabbat lekadsho</i>.” However, as should be clear from all the examples above, the words <i>shamor</i> and <i>zachor</i> are synonyms, and in both cases the phrase has exactly the same meaning, that the people are to remember the Shabbat to make it <i>kadosh</i> (to separate it from the other days of the week), see our discussion on Devarim 5:6-18, “<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2009/07/devarim-56-18-va-ethanan-decalogue-in.html" target="_blank">The Decalogue in Shemot 20 and Devarim 5</a>.” This similar idea also occurs in 16:1, that the people are to remember (<i>shamor</i>) the month of Aviv.<br /><br />The beginning of 6:2 records that the people should fear G-d, which will lead <i>lishmor</i> all the laws, and the beginning of 6:3 records that the people should hear, <i>shamarta</i>, to do. Tigay (1996, p. 75) explains that the beginning of 6:3 means “literally, obey and faithfully do,” as now he is explaining the word <i>shamor</i> to mean faithfully. However, again the word <i>shamor</i> means to remember. The beginning of 6:2 means that Moshe told the people that they should fear G-d and this fear will lead them to remember the laws, as in 4:40, and the beginning of 6:3 means that Moshe was telling the people to listen, to remember (<i>shamor</i>) and to do (<i>la-asot</i>). <br /><br />Towards the end of <i>parashat Va-ethannan</i>, Moshe told the people that G-d <i>shomer</i> the covenant, 7:9, and this idea is repeated in the second half of the first verse of <i>parashat Ekev</i>, 7:12. In between these verses, 7:11, records that the people are <i>ve-shamarta et ha-mitzvah</i> and the first half of 7:12 record that if the people <i>shemartem va-asitem</i>, then G-d will <i>shomer </i>the covenant. In these four verses, 7;9-12, the word <i>shamor</i> appears four times, twice in reference to G-d and twice in reference to people. Tigay (1996, p. 88) writes that in reference to the people, the word <i>shamor</i> means to observe, while in reference to G-d, the word means to keep or maintain, maybe since he did not want to say that G-d observes the covenant. Again, the simplest explanation is that <i>shamor </i>means to remember that the people are to remember the covenant, and G-d will remember the covenant, see Vayikra 26:42,45.</div><br />One case that is not clear is 23:10. This verse records that when the people go to war, <i>ve-nishmarta</i> from all bad things. In this case, one might be tempted to interpret the word <i>shamor</i> as guard, that when the people go to war, the soldier should guard himself from all bad things. What are the bad things? Something dangerous, but then the soldier would have known this on his own. Also, how does this verse relate to the ensuing verses which refer to a person having a nocturnal emission? I think the verse is usually understood to mean that a soldier should not do bad things, that is to say to keep from bad things. These bad things are undefined and then the verse is unrelated to the following verses. A different possibility based on the definition of <i>shamor</i> meaning to remember, is that the verse is stating that when a soldier in the war camp remembers some bad things, something sexual, then this can lead the soldier to have a nocturnal emission, see Talmud Avodah Zara 20b. <br /><br /></div><div>One interesting case in the section of laws is 23:24 which records that what comes out of one’s lips, <i>tishmor</i>. The usual translation is that a person should keep the promises that he/ she makes, but really it means that a person needs to remember his/ her promises and vows. <div><br />This understanding that the word <i>shamor</i> means to remember is not unique to the book of Devarim. In the story of Yosef, Bereshit 37:11 records that after Yosef told his second dream to his father and brothers, that Yaakov <i>shamor</i> the words, and this means that Yaakov remembered the dream, see Rashi on 37:11. My impression is that the majority of cases where the word appears in the Torah, the definition it to remember and not to watch. Hopefully in the future, I will add posts about the word in the other four books of the Torah.<div><br /></div><div>I did not examine the word <i>shamor</i> in Neviim and Ketivum, but in Tehillim 121:3,4,5,7,8 the word <i>shamor</i> has the meaning to watch and protect, the modern interpretation of the word. However, Tehillim 130:3, follows the meaning of the word <i>shamor</i> in the Torah that the verse records a plea to G-d not to <i>shamor</i>, not to remember, the sins of the people. Three verse later, Tehillim 130:6, the word <i>shamor</i> (twice) also probably refers to remembering.</div><div><div><br /></div>Bibliography:<br /><br />Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company<br /><br />Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1996, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society. </div></div></div>Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-28817365426526752812023-07-26T10:51:00.001+03:002023-07-26T10:51:27.001+03:00The kinah Zekhor et asher asah tzar be-finnim - הקינה זכר את אשר עשה צר בפניםThe k<i>inah Zekhor et asher asah tzar be-finnim</i> is again by R. Elazar haKalir. The first word of each line corresponds to the first word of each verse in chapter five of Eicah and the second word of each line follows the aleph bet. Two exceptions are that since the fifth chapter in Eicah has 22 verses and there are 24 lines to the kinah, so lines 22 and 24 do not begin with the first word of a verse from Eicah chapter five. (If one wants to, they can argue that lines 21 and 23 are double lines, and then the kinah only has 22 lines, as line 23 becomes line 22.) In addition, each set of two lines ends with a rhyme by both the end of each line and by the end of the first half of each line, in total four rhymes. Also, each pair of lines usually has the same theme. <br /><br />In the first line of the kinah, the <i>aleph</i> line, we ask G-d to remember that the enemy (<i>tzar</i>) drew his sword in the Holy of Holies. The enemy is referring to Titus, the Roman general and later Caesar, who was in charge of the Roman army that destroyed the second Bet ha-Mikdash. Josephus (re-print 2004, pp. 359-362) records that Titus did not desire for the Bet ha-Mikdash to be burnt, but one soldier on his own set fire to the Bet ha-Mikdash. Josephus also claims that Titus tried to stop the fire, but in the bedlam his orders were not heard. Rav Soloveitchik (2010, p. 369, see also Rav Soloveitchik, 2006, p. 205) is quoted as saying “that Josephus’ account is clearly false.” In any event, one might wonder how could or would Titus enter the Bet ha-Mikdash if it was burning? According to his kinah, he entered before it was burning, but even according to Josephus, he went in to the Holy of Holies when it was burning. <br /><br />The second line of the kinah, the <i>bet</i> line, describes what Titus did when he went into the Holy of Holies, he defiled the show bread and pierced the curtain, the parokhet, that separated the inner room and the outer room of the Bet ha-Mikdash. This latter act is recorded in Gittin 56b and Bereshit Rabbah 10:7. The end of the line follows the idea that the curtain was embroidered on two sides, which as Goldschmid (2002, p. 72) notes is based on the Yerushalmi Shekalim, 8:4, 51b. <br /><br />The third line of the kinah, the <i>gimmel</i> line, is that Titus disgraced the Jewish people, called orphans in the kinah, by entering the Holy of Holies with a bloody shield and then by making marks in the Holy of Holies with his bloody sword. <br /><br /> The fourth line of the kinah, the <i>daled</i> line, seems also to refer to Titus that he defaced the Bet ha-Mikdash with blood. Maybe Titus here represents all the Romans who defaced the Bet ha-Mikdash. <br /><br />The fifth and sixth lines of the kinah, the <i>heh</i> and <i>vav</i> lines, note how Titus bragged that he could fight G-d that he was able to enter the Holy of Holies and left unscathed. Rav Soloveitchik (2010, p. 365) notes that this line is based on Gitten 56b. <br /><br />The seventh line of the kinah, the <i>zayin</i> line, records the wonderment that how was Titus able to enter and leave the Holy of Holies unscathed? The kinah notes that when the people were in the desert, Nadav and Avihu were killed instantaneously when they sinned, Vayikra 10:1,2, but Titus was not harmed at all. Note it seems that R. Elazar haKalir is following the idea that Nadav and Avihu brought their fire inside the mishkan, but I think they sinned in front of the mishkan, <a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2010/04/vayikra-1012-shemini-nadav-and-avihu.html">see our discussion on the verses</a>. The second half of the seventh line claims further impudence of Titus that he even brought a prostitute with him into the Holy of Holies. Goldshmidt (2002, p. 73) notes that this idea is based on Vayikra Rabbah 22:3. <br /><br />The eighth line of the kinah, the <i>chet</i> line, continues with the wonderment, but now the question is more general, how could G-d allow or even cause to burn the place where sacrifices had been burnt to G-d? R. Elazar haKalir does not yet offer any answers to these questions. <br /><br />The ninth line of the kinah, the <i>tet</i> line, changes the theme of the kinah as the line refer to Titus and all the Romans taking the vessels from the Bet ha-Mikdash and sending them to Rome on ships. Evidence of this can be seen today in Rome by the Arch of Titus. When I was by the Arch in the summer of 1982, somebody had etched in the words, am yisrael chai, the Jewish people live, but when I came back in 2007, the Arch was fenced off (maybe to stop people from etching on it). <br /><br />The tenth line of the kinah, the <i>yud</i> line, notes the shock (horror ?) of the people when the High Priest awoke and he could not find the 93 vessels of the Bet ha-Mikdash, which had been taken away, as mentioned in line nine of the kinah. Rav Soloveitchik (2002, p. 367) notes that this line is puzzling as how could the High Priest have not known that the vessels had been taken away and that the Bet ha-Mikdash had been destroyed? What could it mean that he awoke? Did he go to sleep oblivious to what was happening in the Bet ha-Mikdash? Maybe R. Elazar haKalir does not just refer to the High Priest but to all the priests, and he was not referring to the literal morning after the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, but to when the people had recovered sufficiently to survey the damage, and then the priests were shocked at the extent of the robbery by Titus and the Romans. <br /><br />The eleventh line of the kinah, the <i>chaf</i> line, returns to the first theme of the kinah, Titus entering the Holy of Holies, and refers to women being scared of him. Were women in the Bet ha-Mikdash battling the Romans? Possibly, this reference to women is because R. Elazar haKalir was “forced” to refer to women since he was following the fifth chapter of Eicah and the first word in Eicah 5:11 is women. The second half of the eleventh line claims that Titus scarred the floor of the Bet ha-Mikdash with his boots, as maybe there was blood on the boots. <br /><br />The twelfth line of the kinah, the <i>lamed</i> line, begins with a reference to leaders, following Eicah 5:12, and that they were scared of Titus, but it is not clear which leaders are being referred to. Could be the Jewish leaders of the rebellion who were scared of being killed by Titus? The second half of the twelfth line reverts back to Titus’ action in the Holy of Holies with the prostitute. The connection between these two half lines and with the eleventh line (its pair) is not clear. <br /><br />The thirteenth line of the kinah, the <i>mem</i> line, begins a new theme unrelated to Titus, but maybe related to R. Elazar haKalir’s question in line eight, how could G-d allow the Bet ha-Mikdash to be destroyed. The thirteenth line refers to a Midrash (Devarim Rabbah 1:17) that there were 600,000 demons who were going to defend the Bet ha-Mikdash, and the young people were counting on them. The idea being that the people knew that they could not defeat the Romans militarily, but they believed that G-d would do a miracle to save them. It is possible that R. Elazar haKalir refers to these angels again in the kinah that begins (depending on different versions) <i>Al elah ani bociyah</i> or <i>Tesater lealam</i>. <br /><br />In the fourteenth line, the <i>nun</i> line, the kinah continues the theme of the thirteen line (its pair) as it states that the elders knew that G-d had allowed for the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, so the demons could not act and G-d, as it were, was chained, a<i>sur ba-zikkim</i>. Thus, G-d did not stop the Romans. This phrase, <i>asur ba-zikkim</i> is from Yirmiyahu 40:1 but there it did not refer to G-d, as it is a daring concept in the kinah that G-d could be “in chains.” Rav Soloveitchik (2006, p. 174) explains that the phrase that G-d was <i>asur ba-zikkim</i> means that G-d “arrested the attribute of mercy and allowed the attribute of judgment to prevail.” The combination of lines 13 and 14 is that idealistic young people tend to act rashly without concerning themselves of the consequences of their actions, but they cannot depend on G-d to save them from their folly, as G-d could be “in chains.” This lesson from the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash is very important today in Israel, but it seems that it is being ignored. <br /><br />The fifteenth line of the kinah, the <i>samech</i> line, notes that the Romans (<i>admon</i>) were repeating what Nebuchadnezzar (<i>soten</i>) had done, which just raises the question how could G-d twice let the Bet ha-Mikdash be destroyed? Maybe R. Elazar haKalir was not enthralled with the idea that G-d could be “in chains,” so he raised the question again. <br /><br />The first half of the sixteenth line of the kinah, the <i>ayin</i> line, refers to the Jewish people as the descendants of Yaakov, who peeled branches when working for Lavan to get more spotted sheep and goats, Bereshit 30:37,38, that G-d let His anger vent against the Jewish people. The second half of the line explains that G-d’s anger led Him to abandon the Bet ha-Mikdash. This line is different than the idea of G-d being “in chains” (line 14) that here the idea is that G-d was upset with the people for their sins and that is why the Bet ha-Mikdash was destroyed. <br /><br />The seventeenth line of the kinah, the <i>peh</i> line, momentarily reverts back to Titus, that he had a meeting with his commanders telling them to destroy the Bet ha-Mikdash. Josephus (re-print 2004, p. 359) also reports that Titus met with his commanders prior to the final battle for the Bet ha-Mikdash, though as mentioned above, Josephus claims that Titus did not want the Bet ha-Mikash to be destroyed. R. Elazar haKalir clearly did not accept this claim of Josephus. <br /><br />The eighteenth line of the kinah, the <i>tzaddi</i> line, notes that even though the Romans were determined to destroy the Bet ha-Mikdash, G-d limited them, and kept the western wall, the Kotel, from being destroyed. This idea also differs from the idea of G-d being in chains (line 14) and that G-d completely abandoned the Bet ha-Mikdash (line 16). <br /><br />Rav Soloveitchik (2010, p. 370) makes the interesting point that this line of the kinah is the earliest reference to the Western Wall, as it is not mentioned in the Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi, and even by the Rambam when he visited Yerushalayim. He notes that the Kotel is referred to in the Midrash Shemot Rabbah 2:2 explaining the verse in Shir ha-Shirim 2:9. Goldschmidt (2002, p. 74) notes that this same reference to the Kotel is recorded in Midrash Tehillim 11:3 and in a version (not my version) of Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah 2:4. However, Rav Soloveitchik (see also 2006, p. 207) thinks these references to the Kotel are late additions to the Midrash. Rav Soloveitchik (2006, p. 138) seems to be following his idea that R. Elazar haKalir lived in the 10th century and the Midrash(im) were written beforehand. However, more likely R. Elazar haKalir lived prior to when the Midrashim were written, and then this kinah would be the earliest written reference to the Kotel that we have. <br /><br />The nineteenth line of the kinah, the <i>kuf</i> line, returns to the idea from line ten of the Romans taking valuables from the Bet ha-Mikdash and shipping them to Rome, but now the valuables are young children, more like teenagers. <br /><br />The second half of the twentieth line of the kinah, the <i>resh</i> line, records how the children were sent to Rome (the land of utz, see Eicah 4:21) in three boats. The first half of the twentieth line, similar to lines seven and eight, is a question how could G-d allow this destruction of the people, especially children? This question is particularly poignant with the continuation of the kinah. <br /><br />The twenty-first line of the kinah, the <i>shin</i> line, records that the children pleaded with G-d to have the boats turn back, but when their prayers went unheeded, they jumped into the sea. The source for this sad story is Gittin 57b and Eicah Rabbah 1:16. These sources explain that there were 400 children, and that they realized that they were going to be sold as slaves for immoral purposes, see the kinah Ve-et naveh chatati, which has this same idea in reference to the children of Rebi Yishmael. Thus, they committed suicide to thwart the Romans. <br /><br />The twenty-second line of the kinah, the <i>taf</i> line, records how the children sang songs of praise as they jumped into the sea, and R. Elazar haKalir compared their singing to the singing of the people after the splitting of Yam Suf by the Exodus from Egypt, Shemot chapter 15. <br /><br />The first half of twenty-third line of the kinah, a <i>taf</i> line again, records that the children died at sea. The second half of the line starts with a phrase from Tehillim 44:18 and records that even with all the suffering, we have not forgotten G-d. <br /><br />The last two words of the first half of the twenty-fourth and last line of the kinah, again a <i>taf</i> line, is based on Tehillim 68:23. According to the Talmud, the children asked one of the more knowledgeable ones in their group whether they would have a share in the world to come if they committed suicide, and he answered by quoting this verse from Tehillim, that some people will return from Bashan from the depths of the ocean, which was understood to mean that they would have a share in the word to come. This answer led them to jump in the sea. Clearly, R. Elazar haKalir looked upon it positively that the children committed suicide and one wonders if this kinah contributed to other Jews, especially in the times of the Crusaders to kill themselves, or their children. <br /><br />The last three words of second half of the twenty-fourth line, and the end of the kinah is from Tehillim 44:24, but R. Elazar haKalir has transformed the verse to be a call for us to pray to G-d, and this corresponds to the second half of the twenty-third line. The idea could be that after reciting this kinah which includes references to almost all the tragedies by the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, we have an obligation to pray, and specifically to recite kinot. <div><br /></div>Bibliography:<br /><br />Goldschmidt, Daniel (1895-1972), 2002, first printed 1972, <i>The kinot of Tisha B’av: Following the custom of Poland and Ashkenazi communities in the land of Israel,</i> 2nd edition, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.<br /><br />Josephus, Flavius (37-100?), re-print 2004, <i>The great Roman-Jewish war</i>, The William Whiston translation as revised by D. S. Margoliouth, Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.<br /><br />Soloveitchik, Joseph (1903-1993), 2006, <i>The Lord is righteous in all of his ways: Reflections on the Tish`ah be-Av kinot</i>, edited by Jacob J. Schacter, New York: The Toras Harav Foundation by Ktav Publishing House. <br /><br />Soloveitchik, Joseph, 2010, <i>The Koren mesorat harav kinot: Commentary on the kinot based on the teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik</i>, edited by Simon Posner, Jerusalem: Koren Publishers; New York: OU Press.<div><br /></div>Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-49425644594117993902023-06-27T01:05:00.000+03:002023-06-27T01:05:45.126+03:00Bemidbar 29:13-32 - The musaf sacrifices on the holiday of Sukkot: Seventy bullsBemidbar chapters 28 and 29 record additional sacrifices (<i>korban musaf</i>) that are to be brought on different festivals/ special days. One oddity in the list is that on all the special days referred to in chapters 28 and 29, except Sukkot, either one bull or two bulls are to be brought as a sacrifice, but on Sukkot, a total of seventy bulls are offered on the seven-day festival, 29:13-32. The Bekhor Shor (on 29:13) suggests that the large quantity of animals is due to the extra happiness of the Sukkot festival. Yet, why 70 bulls? For example, why not seven bulls each day, 49 bulls in total, or three bulls each day, 21 bulls in total? <br /><br />Rashi (on 29:18) quotes from the Talmud Sukkah 55b that the seventy bulls symbolize the seventy nations, i.e., the seventy children of Shem, Ham and Yefet, Bereshit chapter 10. <div><br /></div><div>Hizkuni (on 29:32) suggests that the number of bulls relate to the seventy special days during the year, not including Rosh Chodesh. <br /><br />My guess is that the seventy bulls relate to the seventy families in the count of the people in Bemidbar 26:5-49, which relates to the seventy descendants of Yaakov who went to Egypt with him, Bereshit, 46:27, also Devarim 10:22. This connection might explain why the sacrifices are recorded soon after the count of the seventy families. <br /><br />In fact, each of the three festivals has a sacrifice of the people, which connects them to the <i>mishkan</i>/ <i>ohel moed</i>/ Bet ha-Mikdash. By the festival of Matzot, the korban pesach is brought by each person prior to the festival of Matzot. This connection could be why the korban pesach is recorded in 28:15, even though there are no additional sacrifices on this day. With regard to the festival of Shavuot, 28:26 records that the day has a new <i>minhah</i> offering, and Vayikra 23:17 records that this minhah offering is to be brought from the people’s farms. By Sukkot, the sacrifice that relates to the people would be the seventy bulls following the idea that they represent the seventy families of the Jewish people. My son Yishai added that the main law of Sukkot is living in the booths for seven days, which is because the people lived in booths during the desert, Vayikra 23:43, and it was these seventy families who lived in these booths, so then the seventy families are recalled through the sacrifices of the seventy bulls on Sukkot. <br /><br />The sacrifices by Sukkot are also unique that the number of bulls offered each day declines by one a day (from 13 bulls to 12 bulls to 11 bulls to 10 bulls to 9 bulls to 8 bulls to 7 bulls). Why is there a decrease in the number of bulls each day? If in total seventy bulls are offered why were not ten bulls offered each day? Or, why not start with seven bulls and go up to 13 bulls by the seventh day? This enters pure speculation, but here goes three reasons. <div><br /></div><div>One, by going down on the number of bulls being offered as sacrifices instead of increasing the number of bulls each day or offering ten bulls a day means that at least for one day, the seventh day, the number of bulls match the day of the festival, seven. </div><div><br /></div><div>Two, as suggested by the Bekhor Shor, the large number of bulls relates to the obligation to be happy on Sukkot, Vayikra 23:40 and Devarim 16:14,15, and the decline in the number of bulls being offered each day is a recognition that there is a decrease in the happiness on each successive day of the holiday. This would not be due to something intrinsically negative about the later days, but due to the difficulty in maintaining the same level of happiness over time. This would accord with the principle of diminishing marginal utility, that each additional good, here days of the holiday, provide less utility to a consumer. This would differ by the sacrifices by the holiday of Matzot which do not decline, but there is no commandment to be happy on the festival of Matzot unlike by Sukkot.</div><div><br /></div><div>A third idea is that the countdown in the number of bulls informs us that there is something coming which is the last special day, the eighth day, Shemini Azeret, 29:35-38. In addition, maybe the countdown stops at seven bulls by the seventh day of Sukkot and then jumps to one bull by Shemini Azeret to inform us that even though Sukkot leads into Shemini Azeret still the two holidays are distinct in some ways, see our discussion in the file on Jewish holidays and customs, “<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2009/10/shemini-azeret-separate-holiday.html">Shemini Atzeret: A separate holiday from Sukkot?</a>”</div></div>Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-43546242156554101542023-05-29T16:46:00.000+03:002023-05-29T16:46:23.130+03:00Bemidbar 8:1-4 - Two laws about the menorah in the book of BemidbarBemidbar 8:1-4 (the beginning of <i>parashat Beha`alothekha</i>) record two laws relating to the <i>menorah</i> that was situated in the <i>mishkan/ ohel moed</i>. 8:1,2 record that G-d told Moshe to tell Aharon that when he would set up the lights (wicks?) on the <i>menorah</i> to light the <i>menorah</i>, he should set up the lights/ wicks in such a way that the light would illuminate the area in front of the <i>menorah</i> facing toward the table of bread, which was opposite the <i>menorah</i> in the <i>mishkan/ ohel moed</i> (see Rashbam and Hizkuni on 8:2). 8:3 records that Aharon fulfilled this command. <br /><br />Why did the Torah have to tell us at this point in the Torah that Aharon set up the lights/ wicks on the <i>menorah</i>? This command seems to repeat Shemot 25:37, and Shemot 40:25 records that Moshe fulfilled this command of how to place the lights/ wicks in the <i>menorah</i>. Shemot 25:30 records that bread was to be placed on the table in the <i>mishkan/ ohel moed</i>, and the only time the Torah records that this instruction was fulfilled was also by Moshe in Shemot 40:23. <br /><br />Why is there is a specific commandment to Aharon how to set up the lights/ wicks on the <i>menorah</i> and why does the Torah record that he fulfilled this command? The Torah does not record that Aharon brought the incense offering every day. Also, it is surprising that this information concerning Aharon’s role by the <i>menorah</i> is not recorded in the book of Vayikra which records the work of the priests. Various answers have been proposed to these questions, see Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ramban and Hizkuni all on 8:2. <br /><br />My thought is that the importance of 8:1-3 is that the setting up of the lights/ wicks in the <i>menorah</i> was considered part of the building of the <i>menorah</i>, and this could be why the instructions how to place the lights/wicks were included within the instructions to build the <i>menorah</i>, Shemot 25:37, and not at the end of Shemot 25. With this idea, by Aharon placing the lights/ wicks in the <i>menorah</i>, he completed not only the building of the <i>menorah</i>, but also the construction of the <i>mishkan/ ohel moed</i> since this was the last item in the <i>mishkan/ ohel moed</i> to be built. Moshe had already placed the lights/ wicks in the <i>menorah</i> but the idea of 8:2,3 was for Aharon to set (re-set?) up the lights/ wicks on the <i>menorah</i> to make him the person to complete the building of the <i>mishkan/ ohel moed</i>. 8:2 is a new commandment for how the lights/ wicks were to be set up in the <i>menorah</i> separate from the instructions in Shemot 25:37, and 8:3 records the fulfillment of this new commandment. <br /><br />The significance of Aharon fulfilling this command, which meant that Aharon completed the building of the <i>mishkan/ ohel moed</i>, was that this act symbolized that Aharon, and the priests who he represented, were the “owners” of the <i>mishkan/ ohel moed</i>, and hence responsible for running the <i>mishkan/ ohel moed</i>. The act of placing the lights/ wicks in the <i>menorah</i> was recorded after the lengthy list of gifts and sacrifices of the tribal leaders in chapter seven to show that the priests were “taking control” of the <i>mishkan/ ohel moed</i> from the people. While the people were connected to the <i>mishkan/ ohel moed</i> though their gifts and sacrifices, they were not the “owners” of the <i>mishkan/ ohel moed</i> and they had no say in the running of the <i>mishkan/ ohel moed</i>. <br /><br />After the Torah records that Aharon set up the lights/ wicks in the <i>menorah</i>, 8:4 records the law that the <i>menorah</i> was to be made from one piece of gold. Presumably this means that pieces of gold were to be combined (melted) to form a large slab of gold (via a mold), and then the slab of gold would have been chipped away/ hammered, <i>mikshah</i>, to form the <i>menorah</i>. Why was this information recorded here? This information is already recorded in Shemot 25:31-40 and Shemot 37:17-24. Also, 8:3 records that Aharon lit the <i>menorah</i>, so obviously it existed already. Why now was the Torah again recording how the <i>menorah</i> was to be constructed? <br /><br />Maybe this particular law was recorded in the book of Bemidbar because the <i>menorah</i> with its flower designs was fragile, and this could have led to some of the petals and decorations chipping or even breaking, especially when it was being transported. 8:4 is then telling us that when the <i>menorah</i> needed to be fixed, one could not just add a part back to the <i>menorah</i>. Instead, the whole <i>menorah</i> was to be turned back into a slab of gold and then remade as one unit.<br /><br />Note, this idea is not obvious. From the instructions in Shemot 25 with regard to the <i>menorah</i>, one might have thought that the <i>menorah</i> only had to be one piece of gold when it was first constructed, but afterwards, if needed, pieces could be added to it. Accordingly, 8:4 informs us that the <i>menorah</i> always had to consist of one piece of gold, and since this law is pertinent only after the <i>menorah</i> was completed, the law in 8:4 is recorded after we read of the <i>menorah</i> being used in 8:3.<br /><div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><br /></div></div>Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-45895398811113269452023-04-24T23:38:00.001+03:002023-04-24T23:38:48.515+03:00Vayikra 16:7-10, 21, 22 – To azazel, to where?Vayikra 16:7-10 record that as part of the service, <i>avodah</i>, on Yom Kippur, Aharon, the high priest, would take two goats and by lottery choose one for/ to G-d and one for/ to <i>azazel</i>. Afterwards, 16:21,22 record that Aharon would confess the sins of the people on the goat that was for/ to <i>azazel</i>, and the goat was then sent to the desert, possibly to die. What does the term <i>azazel</i> mean? The term appears four times in the chapter, 16:8, 10(2), 26, but nowhere else in Tanakh. There are at least four definitions to the word, all of them educated guesses. <br /><br />Before reviewing the various definitions of the word <i>azazel</i>, we need to review the reason why this goat is part of the ceremony of Yom Kippur altogether. The point of the ceremony of Yom Kippur was to <i>le-taher</i>, purify, the <i>ohel moed</i>/ <i>mishkan</i>, 16:30, see our discussion on 16:3-34, “<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2012/04/vayikra-163-34-avodah-on-yom-kippur.html">The avodah on Yom Kippur</a>.” This means that all the elements of the ceremony were to contribute to this <i>taharah</i>, purification, process. With regard to the goat that was sent to <i>azazel</i>, 16:22 records that the goat was to carry the sins of the people to <i>eretz gezerah</i> in the desert, which seems to refer to a remote desolate place in the desert. Clearly, the goat could not literally carry away sins, but even symbolically, how is this carrying to be conceived? The goat “received” the sins from Aharon’s confession, but could Aharon really confess the sins of other people he did not even know? Instead, the problem on Yom Kippur of the sins of the people is that they caused the <i>ohel moed</i>/ <i>mishkan</i> to be <i>tamei</i>. The goat was then “carrying” away the <i>tumah</i> that derived from the sins of the people, and since this <i>tumah</i> is symbolic, the whole process of Aharon placing the sins of the people on the goat and the goat carrying away the <i>tumah</i> from sins works on the symbolic level. This process parallels the sending away of the bird in the purification ceremony of the person with <i>tsara’at</i> that the bird carried away the <i>tumah</i> of the person with <i>tsara’at</i>, 14:7. (The parallelism between these cases has been noted by many people.) <br /><br />Indeed, the purification process of the person with <i>tsara’at</i> with two birds is exactly the same as the process with the two goats on Yom Kippur but on a lower level since the person with <i>tsara’at</i> generated less <i>tumah</i> than the sins of the people. Thus, on Yom Kippur a goat was used to send away the <i>tumah</i>, while by the person with <i>tsara’at</i>, a bird was sent away. Also, while the bird was sent out on the field, the goat was sent to a remote desolate region (16:22) since it encompassed more <i>tumah</i>. In both cases, the animal can take away the <i>tumah</i> since <i>tumah</i> is a symbolic concept and symbols can be “moved.” <br /><br />To return to a review of the various definitions that have been proposed for the word <i>azazel</i>. One definition is based on the goat's destination. Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon (on 16:8,10) suggests that <i>azazel</i> refers to the name of a mountain in the region of the people. Ibn Ezra (the beginning of his comments on 16:8) adds that maybe this was a name of a mountain near Mount Sinai, which was a mighty peak, and then this became the name for the goat even if the name was not relevant in future generations. Similarly, Rashi (on 16:8, based on Yoma 67b, also Bekhor Shor on 16:8) explains that <i>azazel</i> means a mighty peak that the goat was to be sent to a mighty peak. Milgrom (1991, p. 1020) quotes a variation of this idea that according to this approach, the term <i>azazel</i> means "a rough and a difficult place," without any reference to a peak or mountain. With this approach, the preposition <i>lamed</i> before the word <i>azazel</i> means to, to the mountain or to a remote and desolate place. <br /><br />These explanations are based on the phrase, <i>eretz gezerah</i> in 16:22, since this phrase, <i>eretz gezerah</i>, can be understood as a synonym for <i>azazel</i>. Notwithstanding this textual support, still the lottery is then between G-d and a place, which is not parallel. Possibly to answer this question, Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon (on 16:8,9) writes that when the Torah records that the lottery was to G-d, this was to the house of G-d. With this understanding, the two possibilities in the lottery are both to places. We will return to this approach since it has the most textual support of any of the other suggestions. <br /><br />The second interpretation of the term <i>azazel</i> is that the term refers to the act of sending away the goat that the term <i>azazel</i> means the one or the animal to be sent away. This explanation can be found in the Septuagint, corresponds to the term in the Mishnah (Yoma 6:2) <i>sair ha-mishtalleah</i>, the goat that is sent away, and is the basis for the term scapegoat in English translations. However, this interpretation is difficult since it is not clear what the <i>lamed</i>, the preposition to/ for, before the term <i>azazel</i> means unless, the <i>lamed</i> is part of the word, and the term should be <i>lazazel</i>. <br /><br />The third explanation, which is mentioned by Ramban (on 16:8), Hizkuni (on 16:8) and maybe by Ibn Ezra (end of comments on 16:8, though see alternative explanation of Ibn Ezra’s cryptic comment by R. Isaac Mehler, quoted by Klein, 2005, p. 194) is that the term<i> azazel</i> is a name of a demon that the goat was sent to a demon. With this idea, the preposition <i>lamed</i> can mean for, for the demon. However, Hertz (1960, p. 481) notes that once 17:7 denounces sacrifices that were offered to satyrs, goat demons, how could something, even if not a sacrifice, be given to demons as part of the service on Yom Kippur? <br /><br />Maybe one can vary the third approach and argue that the term <i>azazel</i> was an anachronism even in the time of the Torah. The idea is that while people once believed in demons, the term had already lost its original meaning to the people in the desert, but by using the term the people could easier understand the idea of sending <i>tumah</i> away, see Luzzatto on 16:8, quoted in Bulah, 1992, footnote 11 on chapter 16. The problem with this explanation is that in 17:7 we see that some people still believed in demons, so if <i>azazel</i> refers to a demon, it was not an anachronism to all the people living at that time in the desert. <br /><br />Or, maybe the idea of referring to a demon on Yom Kippur was to deny the powers of demons indirectly. Yehezkel Kaufmann (1972a, p. 114, quoted by Jacobson, 1986, p. 130) argues that the sending of the goat to azazel was a transformation of a pagan ritual. He claims that the original pagan ritual was an expulsion of the satyr <i>azazel</i> to the desert, but in the Torah, “the Azazel of chapter 16 is not conceived of either as (being) among the people or as the source of danger or harm; he plays no active role at all. He is merely a passive symbol of impurity, <i>tumah</i>… The world of old gods has become transformed into the desolate haunts of dancing satyrs who keep company with wild animals. All decisive power, divine and demonic, has been taken from them and given to the messengers of G-d.” The idea here is that while the term <i>azazel</i> might refer to a demon, the Torah gives <i>azazel</i> no power since <i>azazel</i> just receives the goat sent to it. This idea could accord with our explanation of Shemot 20:3 that the Torah does not prohibit belief in other gods, as it only prohibited to believe that they are equal or greater to G-d, see our discussion on Shemot 20:3, "<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2013/01/shemt-203-yitro-forces-and-gods.html">Forces and gods</a>." <br /><br />Yet, if <i>azazel</i> refers to a powerless demon, why is it mentioned altogether? Maybe the idea is that it is better to acknowledge demons but to make them powerless since some people believed in them, than to leave demons to people’s imagination. Thus, maybe <i>azazel</i> is mentioned for those people who think demons exist that they should know that the supposed demons are powerless. I used to follow this idea, but from the actions with regard to the goat to <i>azazel</i> in the service on Yom Kippur, we see that the goat that was for/ to <i>azazel</i> was also to/ for G-d. This point was made by Rav Shmuel ben Hofni, the Gaon of Sura from 998 to 1012, quoted by Ibn Ezra on 16:8. <br /><br /> Firstly, the point of the lottery is that either goat could be for G-d or <i>azazel</i>, so then if <i>azazel</i> refers to a demon, then this would be making G-d equivalent to the demon and not making the demon powerless. Secondly, even after the goat was selected for <i>azazel</i>, 16:10 records that the goat was to stand before G-d, which shows that it too was to/ for G-d. Thirdly, the two goats work together. The blood of the goat that was selected to/ for G-d was sprinkled in the <i>mishkan</i>/ <i>ohel moed</i> to <i>le-taher</i> the <i>mishkan</i>/ <i>ohel moed</i>, and the goat that was selected to/ for <i>azazel</i> carried away the sins that caused the <i>tumah</i> which had to be purified. If the <i>mishkan</i>/ <i>ohel moed</i> was just sprinkled with the blood of goat to/ for G-d, then the problem of <i>tumah</i> would have remained if the sins of the people had not been carried away (symbolically) by the goat for/ to <i>azazel</i>. Fourthly, by the sprinkling of the blood by the goat selected to/ for G-d, and the carrying away of the sins by the goat selected to/ for <i>azazel</i>, the Torah uses the exact same words, 16:16,21, which shows that the goats are a team, and cannot be separated, as both are for/ to G-d. <br /><br />A fourth definition of the term <i>azaze</i>l is quoted by Hertz (1960, p. 481, also Hoffmann, 1953, p. 305 and Hartom, 1999, p. 53) that the term is based on the purpose of the sending away of the goat, and means "dismissal or entire removal." Hertz explains that the word <i>azazel</i> "is the ancient technical term for the entire removal of the sin and guilt of the community, that was symbolized by the sending away of the goat into the wilderness." The problem with this explanation is that it is an odd word to signify destruction and the term is not parallel with G-d by the lottery. <br /><br />In the end, my guess is to slightly vary the first approach that the term <i>azazel</i> means a desolate forlorn place based on the phrase <i>eretz gezerah</i> in 16:22, but it was not a specific place. Anywhere in the desert which was particularly desolate and lacking any possibility of life would be called <i>azazel</i>. <br /><br />The idea of the lottery is that the goat which would be for/ to G-d symbolized/ represented <i>taharah</i> since its blood was sprinkled in the inner room of the <i>mishkan</i>/ <i>ohel moed</i>, and the goat which was for/ to <i>azazel</i>, symbolized/ represented <i>tumah</i> due to the sins of the people being “placed” upon it. Both <i>tumah</i> and <i>taharah</i> are symbolic concepts and both are determined by G-d. Thus, both goats are before G-d in 16:7,9,10, and either goat could have been chosen to symbolize or represent the two concepts. The randomness of the lottery shows that G-d decides who and what are considered <i>tamei</i> and who and what are considered <i>tahor</i>. The goat which symbolized/ represents <i>taharah</i> goes to G-d since being <i>tahor</i> is a symbolic movement towards G-d, while the goat that symbolized/ represented <i>tumah</i> goes to a forlorn place, <i>eretz gezerah</i>, since <i>tumah</i> is a symbolic movement away for G-d to nothingness. The parallelism of the lottery is a movement towards G-d or a movement away from G-d, but both goats remain symbolically before G-d, just a question of how distant. A variation of this idea is, following Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon, that the preposition, lamed, both in reference to G-d and <i>azazel</i> by the lottery, 16:8, means to a place, either a place associated with G-d, the Holy of Holies, by the goat which symbolized <i>taharah</i>, or to a place that is associated with desolation or nothingness by the goat which symbolized <i>tumah</i>. <br /><br />My son-in-law Yuri Lubomirsky has pointed out to me that if <i>azazel</i> is referring to a specific place (like some of the proponents of the first definition claim), then the Torah should not have used the preposition <i>lamed</i>, before the term, and instead should have written <i>azazelah</i>, like <i>midbarah</i> in 16:10,22 and <i>Sedomah</i> in Bereshit 19:1, see Rashi on Bereshit 32:3. Also, he claims that when something is sent to a place, then there is no need for a preposition at all. However, if <i>azazel</i> is not a defined place, but a description of any forlorn place that occurs in the desert, then the preposition <i>lamed</i> could be appropriate. The idea being that the person who took the goat to <i>azazel</i> was to search in the desert to find a particularly remote and desolate area, <i>azazel</i>, in the desert to release the goat, 16:10,22.<div><br /></div><div>Bibliography:</div><br />Bulah, Menachem, 1991, 1992, Vayikra: Da'at Mikra, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.<br /><br />Hartom, E. S. 1999, Commentary on Vayikra, Tel Aviv: Yavne Publishing House.<br /><br />Hertz, J. H. (1872-1946), 1960, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, second edition, London: Soncino Press.<br /><br />Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1953, Leviticus, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.<br /><br /><div>Kaufmann, Yehezkel (1889-1963), 1972, The Religion of Israel, Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Tel Aviv: Dvir Co.<br /><br />Klein, Alexander, 2005, The law of the scapegoat, in in Professors on the Parashah: Studies on the weekly Torah readings, edited by Leib Moskowitz, Jerusalem: Urim Publications. <br /><br />Milgrom, Jacob, 1991, Leviticus: The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.</div>Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-8517425047162006192023-04-04T03:36:00.000+03:002023-04-04T03:36:15.022+03:002023 version of commentary on the Haggadah Hello, <br /><br />While admittedly it is a little late, the 2023 version of my commentary on the Haggadah (114 pages, 1.5 spacing) is now available. It has some additions/ corrections (found some mistakes)/ revisions from the previous versions. If you are interested in receiving the file, send me an email, ajayschein@gmail.com, and I will send you the file. I wish everybody a <i>chag kasher ve-samaech</i> and good health. <br /><br />Andrew ScheinAndrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-74412260527834372812023-03-30T01:41:00.000+03:002023-03-30T01:41:13.467+03:00How is one to sit at the Seder: Hasibah - הסבה<br />משנה פסחים י:א - אפילו עני שבישראל לא יאכל עד שיסב.<br /><br /><div>The Mishnah (Pesachim 10:1) records that even a poor person should not eat on the first night of Pesach (the Seder) until <i>she-yesev</i>. This requirement in the Mishnah is recorded by the Shulchan Arukh (16th century, Orah Chayyim 472:3), but what does it mean to <i>yesev</i>? Apparently because the term <i>yesev</i> was a known practice, the Mishnah did not explain what the term means. Also, this could explain why the Mishnah (Pesachim 10:4) did not include a question concerning <i>hasibah</i> within its list of the <i>mah nishtanah</i>, though it is now part of the <i>mah nishtanah</i>, see our discussion on the Haggadah “<i>Mah nishtanah</i>: How many questions compromise the <i>mah nishtanah</i>?” Note, we will refer to different conjugations of the word <i>yesev</i>, such as <i>mesev</i>, <i>mesubin</i>, <i>hasibah</i> and <i>hasabah</i> interchangeably. <br /><br />The Mishnah Berurah (end of 19th century, beginning of 20th century, comments on Shulchan Arukh 472:7) explains that <i>hasibah</i> means to turn one’s head towards the left with a pillow under one’s head. Presumably this means also that one’s body is to be turned towards the left as a person slouches somewhat to the left. Note it is not clear why a person needs a pillow for <i>hasibah</i>, and the Shulchan Arukh does not refer to a pillow. <br /><br />The Rambam (13th century, Laws of hametz and matzah, 7:8) records that <i>hasibah</i> is required when one eats <i>matzah</i> and drinks the four cups of wine at the Seder. The Rambam adds that for the remainder of the meal if one is <i>hesev</i>, then this is preferable but not obligatory, see also Rama on 472:7 who quotes from R. Yaakov Weil (15th century, Germany) that it is best to <i>yasev</i> throughout the entire meal. <br /><br />The Shulchan Arukh records that one does <i>hasibah</i> when drinking the wine (473:2, 479:1, 480:1) when eating the <i>matzah</i> (475:1, 477:1, see also Be'er Hetev 472:8), but not when eating the <i>maror</i> (475:1, see Talmud Pesachim 108a). (The Shulchan Arukh does not mention <i>hasibah</i> by the second cup of wine but presumably once he wrote to <i>mesev</i> by three of the cups of wine, he also meant that one was to <i>mesev</i> by the second cup of wine, see Mishnah Berurah 472:23.) Encyclopedia Talmudit (1981, vol. 9, on Hasibah, footnotes 134 and 150) quotes the Meiri (13th century) that one should <i>mesev</i> even when reciting the Maggid, but as the Meiri was lost for generations this opinion is not quoted by later authorities. <br /><br />This understanding of the word <i>yesev</i>, to turn to the left (what is commonly referred to as leaning), is problematic since it is an odd and an uncomfortable way to eat and drink. Why by the meal of the year, when we fulfill the biblical <i>mitzvah</i> of eating <i>matzah</i>, do we eat in a strange manner? The Rambam (Laws of hametz and matzah 7:7) writes that this way of eating and drinking signifies freedom, but how does eating in a strange manner signify freedom? The answer I have been told is that this way of eating was the way the wealthy Greeks/ Romans ate, even if it is/ was uncomfortable. This answer raises more questions. Why are we copying the Greeks/ Romans? The Romans destroyed the second Bet ha-Mikdash, and we are supposed to eat like them by the Seder? <br /><br />Two, did Greeks/ Romans really eat and drink by turning to the left and slouching? Why would they eat in an uncomfortable manner? I happened to be at a museum in Sicily, which showed Greeks having a feast where they were reclining on couches with their legs extended, but they were sitting upright to drink in the picture. In fact, this was the reason for the pillow to prop up their backs in order that they could sit upright to drink. In other pictures of Romans that I have seen on the internet, they also were not eating and drinking leaning to the left. <br /><br />A separate question is that the understanding that the word <i>yesev</i> refers to turning to one’s left when eating the <i>matzah</i> and drinking the four cups of wine does not accord with the Mishnah Pesachim 10:1. The Mishnah is referring to preparation a person makes before the meal, and records that even a poor person is to <i>yesev</i> before eating. This means that the action associated with <i>yesev</i> happens before one eats or drinks and not when one eats and drinks. One might be tempted to understand that the Mishnah means to prepare to <i>yesev</i> before one eats, like by putting out pillows to recline on, but the Mishnah records that a person should not eat until he is <i>yesev</i>, which means the person has done this action before eating and not that one is preparing to do the action. <br /><br />Possibly, the confusion of the term <i>yesev</i> developed since there are two ways to understand the term in the Torah. Bereshit 42:24 uses the term to refer to turning, that Yosef turned from his brothers, which would be the source for the definition of <i>yesev</i> to mean to lean, but in other verses, such as Bereshit 19:4, Shemot 13:18, 28:11, 39:6, the term means to circle around something. Note even the definition of to turn away is related to the second definition of circling since turning away is the beginning of the circling around. <br /><br />This second definition of <i>yesev</i> gives a very simple understanding of the Mishnah, which accords with the Greek/ Roman practice. The crucial point of the Greeks and the Romans by their feasts with regard to the Seder was not that they ate with their feet raised and extended but that they sat in a circle. The Greek would put the couches along the edges of the room, to circle the room, while the Romans in their <i>triclinium</i>, (three couches) would arrange the couches in a U shape, which would be a three-quarter circle around the table. Thus, the meaning of <i>hasibah</i> is to sit in a circle. The Mishnah in Pesachim 10:1 means that the poor person was to arrange to sit with other people in a circle by the Seder, as apparently during the entire year he/ she ate by him/herself. This seating arraignment was to be done before the meal began since the Mishnah is referring to preparations before the meal. <br /><br />This same understanding also occurs in the Mishnah Berachot 6:6, which records that if people <i>hesebo</i>, then one person can recite a blessing for the other people. Rav Hai Gaon (quoted in the commentary of the Melechat Shelomo on the Mishnah) explains that the Mishnah means that the people are seating in a circle together, which shows that they joined together to eat. Similarly, Tosefta Berachot 5:5 asks how does one arrange the order of <i>hisav</i>? The Tosefta does not answer to turn to one’s side, but it discusses how to arrange the beds and who sits where. Note also that the Yerushalmi (Pesachim 37b), which records that <i>mesubin</i> is a sign of freedom, does not indicate that one is to turn or lean or slouch when one eats, but rather it just contrasts <i>mesubin</i> with slaves, who it claims ate standing up. <br /><br />This same term <i>hasibah</i> also appears later in the Haggadah, which records that five scholars were <i>mesubin</i> in Bnei Brak, which means that they were sitting in a circle in the town of Bnei Brak. I would think this is the definition of term whenever it appears in the Talmud, as for example in Pesachim 100a and 113b. <br /><br />Today if we sit around a table at the Seder, then this should be considered <i>hasibah</i> even if we do not sit with our legs raised and extended on couches like the Greeks and Romans did, but we do not have to copy everything they did. Also, from a practical point of view to recline on couches around a table either requires a very big room or very few people at the Seder. With this understanding we do <i>hasibah</i> for the entire meal, which is the simple understanding of the Mishnah, and not just by the <i>matzah</i> and the four cups of wine. In addition, the question of <i>hasibah</i> in the <i>mah nishtanah</i> would be that on all nights we sit either by ourselves or together around a table, while tonight we only seat together around a table. With this approach, is it right or appropriate for a person to follow the understanding that <i>hasibah</i> means to turn/ lean when eating in addition to seating around the table since then one is performing the <i>mitzvot</i> of eating <i>matzah</i> and drinking the wine in a strange manner? <br /><br /> Regardless of how the term <i>hasibah</i> is defined, in the Middle Ages, some opinions stated that there is no obligation at all to do hasibah at the Seder. The Ravan (1090-1170, Germany, Katzenelnbogen 1998, p. 28, also quoted in Safrai and Safrai, p. 114), following the understanding that <i>hasibah</i> means to eat turning to one’s left, writes that the obligation to do <i>hasibah</i> was only because in the times of the Mishnah important officials (the Greeks/ Romans) would eat in such manner, but in his time since important officials did not eat that way when they had fancy banquets, there was no longer a requirement to do <i>hasibah</i> at the Seder. Thus, the Ravan's grandson, the Ravyah (1140-1225, Germany, quoted by the Tur 472, and the Rama on 472:4,7) writes that one sits regularly by the Seder following his grandfather’s ruling. This opinion of the Ravan and the Ravyah is fascinating since they were arguing that our custom can change due to changes in the culture of the non-Jews. <br /><br />The Ravan and Ravayah’s opinions were so revolutionary that it led to a large backlash. The Rosh (Rabenu Asher, Germany 1250-1327, quoted in the Shulchan Arukh 472:7), who was also a descendant of the Ravan, was so upset by his relatives’ view that he claimed that if a person ate the <i>matzah</i> and/ or drank the four cups of wine without doing <i>hasibah</i>, then the person did not fulfill the <i>mitzvot</i> and had to repeat the eating or drinking. This view is incredible since it makes the fulfillment of the biblical <i>mitzvah</i> of eating <i>matzot</i> dependent on Greek and Roman practices! Apparently, for the Rosh, <i>hasibah</i> had become one of the rituals of Seder, while for the Ravan and the Ravyah, <i>hasibah</i> was not a ritual of the Seder, and hence could be changed. <br /><br />Rav Yosef Caro (1488-1575) in the Bet Yosef (472) follows the Rosh and quotes the Haghot Maimonides that the Ravyah's position was a singular opinion, and he makes no mention of it in the Shulchan Arukh. This was clearly not true, as at a minimum it was stated by the Ravan and the Ravyah, and quoted by the Tur, but most likely he was so bothered by the idea that one could change the law based on non-Jewish practices, that he wanted to minimize it. However, the Rama (on the Shulchan Arukh 472:4,7) writes that women need not do <i>hasibah</i> due to the opinion of the Ravyah and that if a man did not do <i>hasibah</i> when eating the <i>matzah</i> or drinking the four cups of wine, then he is not obligated to drink wine or eat <i>matzah</i> again because of the Ravyah’s opinion. (However, the Rama re-tracts a little bit from his acceptance of the Rabyah’s opinion since he adds that it is best to eat <i>matzah</i> again and drink the first two cups of wine a second time if on the first occasion, they were done without <i>hasibah</i>.) <br /><br />The Bach (1561-1640, Poland, 472) is more accepting of the Ravyah’s opinion. He writes that while the law is like the Ravyah, still according to the Ravyah one can do <i>hasibah</i>, so he thinks it is preferable to do <i>hasibah</i>. Also, he writes that if one ate <i>matzah</i> without doing <i>hasibah</i> one has fulfilled his obligation, but still if one can, he should eat more <i>matzah</i>. However, if one drank the four cups of wine without <i>hasibah</i>, then he thinks one should not drink again. <br /><br />The Arukh Hashulchan (1829-1908, 472:6) is bothered why the Rama wrote that women do not do <i>hasibah</i> because they rely on the Ravyah since he notes that based on this logic, men should also rely on the Ravyah and not be <i>mesev</i>. Thus, he suggests a new reason for <i>hasibah</i> following the understanding that <i>hasibah</i> means to turn towards one’s left and eat and drink in an uncomfortable manner. He suggests (472:3) that we do <i>hasibah</i> today to show a difference between the Seder and other nights, and he claims the <i>hasibah</i> is obligatory. Yet, if the rationale is to just to make differences then it cannot be obligatory, as otherwise anybody can do anything weird (summersaults at the Seder?) and claim it is obligatory. It seems that the Arukh Hashulchan realizes that the Ravyah is correct that today <i>hasibah</i> does not show freedom, but he does not want to accept the Ravyah since he believes that most Rabbis did not accept the Ravyah's opinion. (Aharon Israel, a friend, told me, maybe in jest, that people still do <i>hasibah</i>, lean, since the practice of <i>hasibah</i> is now one of the four questions in the <i>mah nishtanah</i>.) <br /><br />In conclusion, the term <i>hasibah</i> really means to sit around in a circle, and most people do this at the Seder when they eat together as a family. Even if one believes, for reason not clear to me, that <i>hasibah</i> means to lean, then as noted by the Ravan and the Ravyah, leaning by the Seder has lost its initial meaning of signifying a fancy meal, and there is no need to do it today, except that one wants to be traditional even though it lessens the celebration at the meal since one is eating and drinking in an uncomfortable manner.</div><div><br /></div>Bibliography:<br /><br /><i>Encyclopedia Talmudit</i>, 1947 – present, first edited by R. Zevin, Jerusalem: Yad Harav Herzog.<div><br />Katzenelnbogen, Mordechai, 1998, <i>Haggadah Torat Chayyim</i>, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.<br /><br /></div><div>Safrai, Shmuel and Zev Safrai, 1998, <i>Haggadah of the Sages</i>, Jerusalem: Carta,</div>Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-91109283672695422242023-02-26T21:42:00.000+02:002023-02-26T21:42:41.350+02:00Shemot 28:30 (also Vayikra 8:8) – The priestly clothing: The urim and tummim<div dir="rtl" style="text-align: right;">שמות כח:ל - ונתת אל חושן המשפט <b>את האורים ואת התמים</b> והיו על לב אהרן בבאו לפני ה' ונשא אהרן את משפט בני ישראל על לבו לפני ה' תמיד.</div><div><br /></div>Shemot 28:30 records that the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i> were to be placed <i>al </i>(to? on? in?) the <i>hoshen</i> (a priestly garment that Aharon was to wear on his chest) on his <i>lev </i>(not his heart), and the Aharon was to carry the judgment of the people on his <i>lev</i>. The <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i> are mysterious since it is unclear what they were and what was their purpose. Are they clothing? <br /><br />Many claim, based on Bemidbar 27:21, that the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i> were to enable the high priest to ask G-d questions, and then there are various suggestions as to how this was to be done. Rashi (on 28:30) explains that the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i> was a parchment with G-d's name which was inserted into a pouch of the <i>hoshen</i>, and this would cause the stones on the <i>hoshen</i> to light up to answer the questions. Luzzatto (on Vayikra 8:8) suggests that the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i> were twenty-two letters, and the high priest would pull out the letters to answer the question. Modern scholars (see for example Sarna, 1991, on 28:30 and maybe Ibn Ezra, long comments on 28:6) believe that the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i> were two items which functioned as lots to answer yes and no questions. Benno Jacob (1992, p. 920) suggests that the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i> were some text (24:7?) that accompanied the <i>luchot</i>, and they gave a sign to Aharon when it was time for the people to march in the desert. All of these suggestions are based on the idea that the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i> were placed or put into the <i>hoshen</i>. <br /><br />If the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i> were something written, then I would think it was the priestly blessing that the high priest would have carried parchment that consisted of these verses. Note, silver amulets were found from the 7th century BCE which consisted of the priestly blessings (see Barkay 2009), but in one of the amulets, the beginning of the second blessings, <i>yaer Hashem panav eilecha</i>, and the end of the third blessings, <i>ve-yasem lecha shalom</i>, were combined. Maybe this combined blessing was the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i>, as the blessing of <i>yaer</i> would correspond to the <i>urim</i> and the blessing of <i>shalom</i> would correspond to the <i>tummim</i>. <br /><br />Nonetheless, this idea that <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i> were parchment or stones is problematic since it is never recorded in the Torah that a person constructed or made the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i>. Chapter 39 records how the people made all the items of the priests’ clothing, but nothing is mentioned of the people making the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i>. The Ramban (on 28:30) writes that this absence of someone making the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i> shows that Moshe wrote the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i> and according to one version of the Ramban, that G-d wrote the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i>. Both of these suggestions are difficult since if Moshe wrote the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i> then the Torah should have recorded this action. Also, if G-d wrote the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i>, then this also could have been recorded and it would counter the whole idea that the people constructed the <i>mishkan</i>/ <i>ohel moed</i> and made all the clothing of the priests. <br /><br />Apparently due to the absence of the Torah describing the making of the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i>, Chacham (1991, pp. 202,203) suggests that the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i> were the twelve stones that were on the <i>hoshen</i>. He then explains that 28:30 (and Vayikra 8:8) can be understood to mean that the stones were to be fixed into the <i>hoshen</i>. <br /><br />I would expand Chacham’s idea and suggest that the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i> were the two sets of stones on the high priests, the stones on his shoulders on the <i>efod</i> (another item wore on the chest with straps over the shoulders) and on the <i>hoshen</i>. The beginning of 28:30 and Vayikra 8:8 then mean that the <i>hoshen</i> was to be secured or tightly connected to both sets of stones by securing the connection between the <i>hoshen</i> and the <i>efod. </i> The Torah records with great detail how these two items of clothing were to be connected, 28:13,14; 22-28. 28:30 is then a concluding sentence to both sets of stones, which form the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i>. In Vayikra 8:8, the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i> are the last items recorded by Moshe dressing Aharon in reference to the clothing relating to the body (not the clothing relating to Aharon's head) since Moshe’s last action was to tighten the cords connecting the <i>hoshen</i> to the <i>efod</i>, which then connected the two set of stones, the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i>. <br /><br />This idea might also explain the terms <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i>. The term <i>urim</i> probably refers to light, which would be the reflection of light from the stones. The term <i>tummim</i> might refer to completeness, as both sets of stones signify the twelve tribes of the people. Both sets of stones have both ideas, and the plural of each term, <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i>, could then signify the double reflection and the double completeness. <br /><br />This idea does not explain the purpose of the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i>. I doubt that <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i> were to ask questions of G-d, and the reference to the <i>urim</i> in Bemidbar 27:21 was that they were used once by the division of the land. <br /><br />One interesting possibility is the Seforno’s (on 28:30, also Tzror haMor, quoted by Menachem Kasher, Torah Shelemah, footnote 90 on 28:30) suggestion that the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i> would help or remind the high priest to pray for the people in order that G-d would judge them favorably. <div><br /></div><div>A different possibility is that in our discussion on 28:6-29, “<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2018/02/shemot-286-29-stones-of-remembering.html">Stones of remembering</a>,” we suggested that each set of stones was to cause either the high priest or the people to remember, and then this could have been the purpose of the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim</i>, the two sets of stones. </div><div><br /></div><div>Also, following the idea that the word <i>lev</i> in the Torah means mind or brain, 28:30 can be understood to mean that Aharon should have in mind the <i>urim</i> and <i>tummim, </i>the two sets of stones which were connected to the <i>hoshen</i>, when he went before G-d and that he should have in mind the judgement (or the means to judge) of the people before G-d all the time. <br /><br />Bibliography:<br /><br />Barkay, Gabriel, 2009, The riches of Ketef Hinnom, <i>Biblical Archaeology Review</i>, Vol. 200, pp. 23-35.</div><div><br /></div><div>Chacham, Amos, 1991, <i>Da'at Mikra: Commentary on Shemot</i>, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.<br /><br />Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1992, <i>The second book of the Bible: Exodus</i>, translated with an introduction by Walter Jacob, Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House.</div><br />Sarna, Nahum, (1923-2005), 1991, <i>The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus</i>, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society. <div><br /><br /></div>Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-52098975062105464242023-01-18T11:35:00.000+02:002023-01-18T11:35:22.611+02:00Shemot 11:4 – The timing of Moshe and Pharaoh’s conversation after the ninth plague and the narrative order of Shemot 10:24 (21?) – Shemot 12:28 Shemot 10:24-11:8 record a conversation between Moshe and Pharaoh after the ninth plague, the plague of darkness, and within this conversation, 11:4-8 records that Moshe told Pharaoh about the tenth plague, that G-d would kill the firstborn sons and firstborn animals of Egypt. How did Moshe know of this plague? It is not recorded that G-d had told Moshe about the plague. G-d had referred to the plague in 4:23, but that verse only refers to G-d killing the firstborn son of Pharaoh and not to all the firstborn male Egyptians and the firstborn animals. 11:1 records that G-d told Moshe that there would be one more plague, but the verse does not record any specifics about the plague. Another question about Moshe’s statement in 11:4-8, is that 11:4 records that Moshe told Pharaoh that the tenth plague would be at midnight. Was Moshe referring to a specific night? <br /><br />Benno Jacob (1992, p. 288) explains that in 11:4 Moshe was referring to the upcoming night that tenth plague was going to happen that night. (Hoffmann, 2010, p. 114, mentions this as a possibility.) This understanding of 11:4 means that Moshe told Pharaoh the conversation of 11:4-8 on the morning of the 14th of Nisan since the tenth plague was on the night of the 14th/15th of Nisan, and the Jewish people left Egypt on the 15th of Nisan, Bemidbar 33:3, see also Vayikra 23:5,6. Furthermore, since it is generally assumed that 11:4 is a continuation of the conversation in 10:24-29, this would mean that the entire passage from 10:24-11:8 occurred on the morning of the 14th of Nisan. If this is true, then 10:24-11:8 is not recorded in chronological order since 12:2 records G-d's instructions to Moshe about the tenth plague, at least from the 10th of Nisan and maybe even on the 1st of Nisan, 12:1-20. Moshe relayed this information to the Jewish people no later than the tenth of the month, 12:21-28. With this understanding, the events recorded in 12:1-28, transpired prior to the conversation between Moshe and Pharaoh in 10:24-11:8. <br /><br />In addition, it could be that the conversation of 10:24-11:8 transpired immediately after the end of the plague of darkness, 10:21-23, which means that the plague of darkness was on the 11th, 12th and 13th of Nisan, as suggested by Benno Jacob (1992, p. 301). This would mean that also 10:21-23, is recorded not in chronological order. <br /><br />On the other hand, it could be that the conversation between Moshe and Pharaoh recorded in 10:24-11:8 did not occur immediately after the plague of darkness. Instead, following the idea that 12:1-28 occurred before 10:24-11:8, maybe Pharaoh saw the Jewish people had taken their sheep on the tenth of Nisan, and this prompted him to speak to Moshe and Aharon. With this latter possibility, the plague of darkness could have been earlier than the 11th of Nisan, and then only the passage from 10:24-11:8 is recorded out of chronological order. <br /><br />A possible reason for the Torah recording 10:24 (21?) – 11:8 prior to 12:1-28, even though the conversation recorded in 10:24 (21?) -11:8 occurred afterwards is that had the passage of 10:24 (21?) -11:8 been recorded in its chronological order, then this section would have interrupted between the instructions for the tenth plague, 12:1-28, and the tenth plague, 10:29. <br /><br />With this understanding, we now know how Moshe told Pharaoh about the tenth plague in 11:4-8. G-d told Moshe about the tenth plague in 12:12,13, and this conversation occurred before the conversation between Moshe and Pharaoh that is recorded in 11:4-8. <br /><br />In addition, this timing of 10:24 (21?) – 12:28 can explain Moshe’s statement to Pharaoh in 10:29, that they would not see each other again. If the conversation of 10:24-11:8 occurred before 12:1-28, how did Moshe know that he would not see Pharaoh again? The answer is that since the conversation of 10:24-11:8 was on the morning of the 14th of Nisan, Moshe knew that the Jewish people were leaving the next day, so Moshe could tell Pharaoh that they would not see each other again. <br /><br />Bibliography:<br /><br />Hoffmann, David (1843-1921), 2010, <i>Commentary on Shemot</i>, translated by Asher Vestreel, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.<br /><br />Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1992, <i>The second book of the Bible: Exodus</i>, translated with an introduction by Walter Jacob, Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House. <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 1.3pt; tab-stops: right 1.0cm left 423.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: -.15pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></span></p>Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-6734785956223728942022-12-18T21:33:00.003+02:002022-12-20T00:23:46.974+02:00Bereshit 42:9 – The beginning of the game between Yosef and his brothers<div dir="rtl" style="text-align: right;">בראשית מב:ט - ויזכר יוסף את החלומות אשר חלם להם ויאמר אלהם מרגלים אתם לראות את ערות הארץ באתם.</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div>When the ten sons of Yaakov went to Egypt to buy food, Yosef recognized them, 42:7, but instead of acknowledging that they were his brothers, he began to play a game with them. He accused them of spying, and then he told them that to prove their innocence, they would need to bring Binyamin, his “full brother,” 42:9-20. It is likely that Yosef had this plan in mind beforehand since he knew that they would be forced to come to Egypt due to the famine, see Bekhor Shor on 42:7. </div><div><br /></div><div>Why did Yosef not reveal himself to his brothers? A related question is why did Yosef not seek out his father when he had become head of Egypt? <br /><br />N. Leibowitz (1976, pp. 457-461) reviews three possible reasons for Yosef’s behavior towards his brothers. One possibility is that he was acting out of revenge, and from 50:15 we see that this was the brothers' understanding even seventeen years after Yosef had revealed himself to them, see our discussion on 50:15-21 "<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2012/12/bereshit-5015-21-va-yehi-happy-ending.html">A happy ending?</a>" Yet, she doubts this possibility since Yosef cried immediately after he released them from jail, 42:24 (also 43:30), and a person seeking revenge does not usually cry when he is successful in his revenge. <br /><br />The second possibility is mentioned by the Ramban (on 42:9) that Yosef acted to have his dreams fulfilled. With this idea, Yosef purposely did not seek out his father because he was waiting to have his dreams fulfilled. The bowing recorded in 42:6 was not the fulfillment of even the first dream since he needed Binyamin to also bow down for the first dream to be fulfilled. When the brothers returned with Binyamin and bowed down to Yosef, 43:26,28, the first dream was fulfilled, and the Netziv (on 43:27) explains that Yosef wanted to keep Binyamin as a hostage in order that Yaakov would come and bow down to him, which would fulfill the second dream. Yosef did not make a condition that Binyamin would go free if Yaakov came to Egypt, but maybe he was going to but Yehuda's speech (44:18-34) stopped him. Or, it could be that Yosef thought that Yaakov would figure out on his own to come to Egypt if Binyamin was being held as a slave. <br /><br />N. Leibowitz (1976, p. 460) doubts this approach since she claims that Yosef could have had his dreams realized without making his brothers and father suffer. I am not sure what she has in mind and we will return to this approach below. <br /><br />The third possibility, which is also mentioned by the Ramban (see also S. R. Hirsch 1989), is that Yosef wanted the brothers to repent from their actions towards him. True repentance is when the former sinner is in the same situation as before and does not sin. Thus, Yosef recreated the situation when he was thrown into the pit, but used Binyamin instead of himself. This time the brothers offered to be slaves with Binyamin, 44:16, and Yehuda offered to take Binyamin’s place so that Binyamin could return home, 44:33. According to this approach Yosef accomplished his goal. <br /><br />While it is true that the brothers repented, the approach is highly problematic. Even if Yosef wanted his brothers to repent, this noble goal was causing great pain to his father. If he thought this repentance was more important than his father’s suffering, then he should have been happy or at least content when the brothers passed his test, yet, he could not control his crying, 45:1,2. Also, twice they admitted their guilt, once explicitly, 42:21, and once obliquely, 44:16. They also offered to be slaves to Yosef, 44:16, which was an acknowledgment of Yosef's "superiority," see our discussion on 44:16, "<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2020/12/bereshit-4416-middle-of-game-you-win.html">The middle of the game between Yosef and his brothers: You win.</a>" This showed their repentance, but Yosef did not accept their offer, 42:17, and did not reveal himself. This shows that Yosef wanted something more than their repentance. In addition, from 50:15, we see that they did not think of themselves as having repented and that Yosef had forgiven them since they were still worried that Yosef would take revenge on them. My wife, Yonina, also doubts this repentance approach since they only “repented” according to this approach under duress, but they could have looked for Yosef for many years, and it is never recorded that they made any effort to locate Yosef after they returned home without Yosef. (For other questions on this approach, see Yoel Bin-Nun quoted below.) <br /><br />A fourth approach (not mentioned by N. Leibowitz) is that Yosef acted as an abandoned child. (I thought this was a "modern" approach, but Eli Silverman pointed out to me that a commentator on the Yerushalmi referred to as ha-Meassef, suggested this idea.) Elie Wiesel (1976) writes that who can blame Yosef for breaking with his family since Yosef felt abandoned by his father who had sent him to his brothers. Furthermore, Yosef must have wondered why did Yaakov not search for him? Wiesel explains that Yosef identified himself only when he was able to vanquish his bitterness, but Wiesel does not explain how Yehuda’s speech (44:18-34) vanquished this bitterness. <br /><br />David Henshke (1987) follows this idea and suggests that Yosef acted not out of bitterness, but that he simply wanted to forget his history and assimilate into Egyptian society. However, once he saw his brothers, then he thought that he could get them to bring him Binyamin and have Binyamin stay with him to build a family together in Egypt. However, Yehuda’s speech brought back strong memories of his father, and then he was forced to acknowledge his past history, which meant identifying himself as Yosef. This is an appealing approach, but did Yosef intend to force Binyamin to separate from Yaakov and his family? Binyamin already had 10 children (46:21), did Yosef not know and/ or did he not care? If Yosef really wanted to forget his past, then this meant forgetting about Binyamin and not trying to force him to stay in Egypt. <br /><br />Yoel Bin-Nun (1986) develops this idea of Yosef as an abandoned child slightly differently. He argues that Yosef was seeking information about Yaakov’s involvement with the brothers because Yoel Bin-Nun believes that Yosef thought that Yaakov might have been part of a conspiracy to send Yosef away. Accordingly, Yosef wanted Binyamin to stay with him so he could speak to Binyamin and find out whether Yaakov abandoned him. However, in his speech to Yosef, Yehuda said that Yaakov said “Yosef had been ripped to pieces and I have not seen him again,” 44:28. According to Yoel Bin-Nun, Yosef understood these words to mean that Yaakov was depressed about not seeing him, which meant that Yaakov was not part of any conspiracy to send him away and also that Yaakov thought that he was dead, so he should not have expected Yaakov to look for him. With this new information, according to Yoel Bin-Nun, there was no need for Yosef to hold Binyamin to get information from him and also Yosef was no longer an abandoned child, so he revealed himself. <br /><br />Yaakov Medan (1987) raises numerous problems with this approach. If Yosef’s goal was to get information, then there were many others ways to do so. For instance he could have sent spies to find and speak to Yaakov. Yosef could have investigated the brothers when they first came down to Egypt. Even when Binyamin came to Egypt, Yosef could have kept all the brothers in Egypt until he had time to speak to Binyamin alone, without threatening to make Binyamin a slave. Furthermore, Yosef could have revealed himself earlier, and spoke directly to Yaakov. Also, Yoel Bin-Nun’s approach ignores the main idea of Yehuda’s speech, the suffering Yosef was causing Yaakov. In addition, according to Yoel Bin-Nun, Yosef should have stopped Yehuda after he heard that Yaakov thought he was dead, but Yehuda continued on for another six verses. <br /><br />One of Yoel Bin-Nun's arguments is the name Menashe, that the name implies that Yosef wanted to forget his past. Yet, while one could argue that the name indicates that Yosef felt abandoned, it is quite a jump to argue that Yosef really thought that Yaakov sent him to his brothers to send him away. <br /><br />Yoel Bin-Nun also points out that Yishmael was sent away (21:14), so there was a precedent in the family to send away one of the sons. (Also Yitzhak sent Yaakov away, see our discussion above on 28:11, "<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2017/11/2811-wealth-test-va-yetse.html">The wealth test.</a>") Yet, not only is the precedence not exact since Yishmael was sent out of the house, while Yosef was sold into slavery and was almost killed by his brothers before they “sent” him off. Also, Yosef was Yaakov's favorite son, so if one brother was going to be chosen from the family, then Yosef was going to be the chosen one and all the other brothers would have been sent away. <br /><br />I find it inconceivable that Yosef really suspected that Yaakov sent him to his brothers in order that they would send him away as a slave. Did Yosef really think that Yaakov intended for him to be thrown into the pit? Even if Yaakov criticized Yosef when Yosef announced his second dream (37:10), still this would not contradict 37:3, that Yosef was the beloved son of Yaakov. (I told this to Yoel Bin-Nun, but I do not think my question made an impression on him.) <br /><br />The best explanation for Yosef’s behavior is the Ramban's explanation that Yosef wanted to fulfill the dreams and this is the only explanation that is supported by the Torah. 42:9 states explicitly that Yosef remembered the dreams and it is implausible that Yosef ever forgot his dreams. 42:9 is an insertion by the Torah to explain the ensuing narrative like by 2:25, 3:1a, 25:26, 29:17, end of 39:6, Bemidbar 12:3, the end of Bemidbar 13:20, and numerous other verses. In all cases, the insertion is to explain the ensuing narrative. <br /><br />In this case, the insertion in 42:9 is to explain that Yosef was acting to have his dreams fulfilled, and in fact, the word<i> zachor</i> in the Torah means not just to remember but to act based on the memory, see 8:1. Furthermore, just as the brothers immediately re-called the dreams and acted upon them when Yosef went to meet them in Shekhem, 37:19,20, so too Yosef took the initiative to have his dreams fulfilled when he saw the brothers in Egypt. In addition, when he interpreted Pharaoh’s dreams, Yosef said that the repetition of Pharaoh’s dream meant that it was about to occur, 41:32, and for sure Yosef was also referring to his own dreams, which he never forgot.<br /><br />Akedat Yitzhak (quoted by N. Leibowitz, 1976, p. 459) argues that Yosef should have left the fulfillment of the dreams to G-d and not have caused his father to suffer. Maybe he is correct, but only if one assumes that Yosef was acting righteously would this imply that Yosef did not act to fulfill the dreams. More likely, Yosef was so absorbed by his dreams that in his determination to fulfill the dreams that he sinned in his actions towards his brothers and father. This determination might have been due to Yosef’s personality and/ or because he viewed himself as an abandoned child. Maybe he did not realize the pain he was causing his father by not revealing himself, and once he started his plan, the fulfillment of the dreams took on a life of their own. We also see that by Yosef's interaction with the Egyptian public when they came to buy food that he took a very tough position that they had to sell all their animals and then all their land to get food, 47:15-21. A friend of mine, Yossi Moskowitz has suggested that after all the events in his life of going from a slave to being the second in charge in Egypt, Yosef might felt that he had some special destiny, which prompted him to attempt to have the dreams fulfilled. This determination does not necessarily mean that Yosef did not feel bad about how he was treating Yaakov and his brothers.<br /><br />Was it possible for Yosef to fulfill the second dream, which refers to a sun and a moon? It is not clear who is the reference to these items (see our discussion on 37:9,10, "<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2008/12/bereshit-37910-dreams.html">Yosef’s second dream: The sun, the moon and the stars</a>"), and hence one cannot know definitely if they were fulfilled. Most likely, Yaakov was either the sun or the moon, and then maybe Yosef wanted Yaakov to bow down to him to fulfill the dream as much as possible. <br /><br />It is also possible that Yosef was not really concerned about Yaakov bowing down to him since for Yosef the crucial issue was his fight with his brothers and it was enough that his brothers fulfilled their part of the dreams by twice bowing down to him, 43:26,28. In fact, 42:9 states, that Yosef remembered he dreams that he dreamed for his brothers, which implies that Yosef was acting just in reference to his brothers and not his father. <br /><br />With this idea, after his brothers bowed down to him a second time, they sat down to eat, 43:34, and this was Yosef's "victory" party. Furthermore, as part of the party, he seated them according to their birth order, 43:33, which was his way of indicating to them that they had bowed down to him, see our discussion, on 43:23-34, "<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2008/12/bereshit-4323-34-game.html">The middle of the game between Yosef and his brothers: Know thy opponent.</a>" <br /><br />If the dreams were fulfilled enough for Yosef, why did Yosef not reveal himself to his brothers after they bowed down to him a second time? Was he getting "greedy" and then trying to get Yaakov to come down and bow down to him? Or, maybe, at this point the issue of being an abandoned child arose, not that Yosef thought that Yaakov had sent him away to be sold into slavery, but still maybe Yosef was bothered why did Yaakov not find him? Was it because Yaakov did not look or because Yaakov thought that Yosef was dead? Possibly, Yosef always gave Yaakov the benefit of the doubt, but he must have been troubled by Yaakov's inaction with regard to Shimon. Shimon was locked up and Yaakov knew that he was alive, but he did nothing to try to free him. This raised the question in Yosef's mind did Yaakov abandon him? Thus, maybe at this point, after his "victory" over his brothers, Yosef decided to test Yaakov if he would abandon Binyamin. Accordingly, he continued his deception of his brothers until Yehuda's great speech moved him to reveal himself. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div>Bibliography:<br /><br />Bin-Nun Yoel, 1986, A tragic misunderstanding: Why did Yosef not send word to his father? <i>Megadim</i>, 1, pp. 20-31.<br /><br />Henshke, David, 1987, Response to articles by R. Yehuda Shaviv and Rabbi Yoel bin Nun, <i>Megadim</i>, 2, pp.106-108.<br /><br /><div>Hirsch, S. R. (1808-1888), 1989, <i>The Pentateuch</i>, rendered into English by Isaac Levy, second edition, Gateshead: Judaica Press.<br /><br />Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, <i>Studies in Bereshit</i>, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.<br /><br />Medan, Yaakov, 1987, In the place where repentants stand (Yosef and his brothers), <i>Megadim</i>, 2, pp. 54-78. <br /><br />Wiesel, Elie, 1976, <i>Messengers of God: Biblical portraits and legends</i>, New York: Random House.</div>Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-17271688886745978362022-11-21T22:09:00.000+02:002022-11-21T22:09:29.806+02:00Bereshit 27:11-14,19 – Why did Yaakov fool his father Yitzhak? Bereshit 27:6-10 records that Rivka told Yaakov how he could fool Yitzhak and receive Yitzhak’s blessing instead of Esav. 27:11,12 then record that Yaakov was concerned that the plan would fail since Esav was very hairy and he apparently had smooth skin. 27:13 then records that Rivka told Yaakov not to worry that if the plan failed the blame would fall on her, which was either because she was confidant in the plan or because she was willing to take the chance that it would fail. 27:14-30 then records that Yaakov proceeded to follow Rivka’s instruction, Yaakov lied to his father and Yaakov succeeded in fooling his father Yitzhak. Why did Yaakov agree to fool his father? <br /><br />One possibility is that Yaakov agreed with Rivka that it was crucial for him to receive the blessing from Yitzhak even if he was not the intended recipient of the blessing. Yet, as noted by many (see N. Leibowitz, 1976, 266-267 and Sarna, 1989, p. 262), Yaakov later suffered by his intended wife, Rahel, being switched, 29:25, and for his sons claiming that Yosef was dead, 37:32,33. In both cases the Torah connects the events to Yaakov fooling Yitzhak. After Yaakov complained to Lavan about not being married to Rahel, Lavan said that in our place we do not switch the older for the younger, 29:26, and Yaakov’s sons fooled him about Yosef by using the same animal, goats, 37:31, that he used to fool Yitzhak. Also, there is a literary connection through the word <i>se'ir</i>. 27:23 (also 27:11) records that Yitzhak was fooled since Yaakov’s hands/ arms were <i>seirot</i>, and the Torah refers to the goat that was used to fool Yaakov as being a hairy goat, <i>se'ir izim</i>, 37:31. <br /><br />These connections indicate that Yaakov was being punished when Rahel was switched for Lea, and for thinking that Yosef was dead, and this indicates that Yaakov acted wrongly by fooling Yitzhak. Yaakov (and Rivka) should have accepted that Yitzhak would bless Esav to be the dominant brother, and let G-d determine what would actually happen. Yet, still one could claim that Yaakov (and Rivka) were mistaken that they thought that they had to act to fool Yitzhak to receive the blessings or maybe they mistakenly thought that by receiving the blessings then this would serve as some type of immunity for fooling Yitzhak. <br /><br />A different possibility for why Yaakov participated in the trick on his father is that really he did not want to fool his father, but he felt compelled to listen to his mother Rivka. The Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 65:16) seems to follow this idea. <br /><br />Another possibility is that maybe Yaakov thought that he was entitled to the blessing since he bought the title of being the firstborn from Esav, 25:33. The problem with this idea is that then he should have told Yitzhak that he had bought the title of being the firstborn and was entitled to the blessings. However, he never made this claim. Also, from Esav’s statement in 27:36, it appears that being the firstborn and receiving the blessing were independent of each other. Hence, when Yitzhak summoned Esav to bless him, Yitzhak did not refer to Esav as the firstborn but as his older son, 27:2. <br /><br />A fourth possibility is that Yaakov acted simply out of spite for Esav. Maybe he did not like Esav, and he knew that if he received the blessings Esav would be upset. With this idea, Yaakov was willing to fool Yitzhak to annoy Esav. <br /><br />A fifth possibility is that Yaakov thought that this was another opportunity to show that it is wrong to favor one son simply because the son was born first. This is what Yaakov tried to show when he bought the title of the firstborn son (see our discussion on Bereshit 25:29-34, “<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2014/11/bereshit-2529-34-toledot-code-red.html">Code red</a>”), and Yaakov would demonstrate this belief in the end of his life when he placed his right hand on Efrayim instead of Menashe, 48:14. <br /><br />In this case and when Yaakov bought the title of the firstborn son, it appears that Yaakov did not plan to point out the unfairness of the concept of the firstborn, but when the opportunity presented itself, he jumped on it. In this case, it is not just that Yaakov, the younger son receives the blessing, but the crucial aspect was for Yaakov to receive the blessings first before Esav. Yaakov knew that Yitzhak and Esav would figure out that he had fooled Yitzhak, but then they would also realize that it was unfair or even ridiculous that one son should receive the blessings just because Yitzhak said the blessings first in front of one son before the second son arrived. This is the same idea that it is wrong that the firstborn child is favored simply because he was born first. <br /><br />The Torah gives a clue that there is a connection between Yaakov receiving the blessing first and the birth of Esav and Yaakov though the double word <i>ya-so yasa</i> in 27:30, which records that after Yitzhak finished blessing Yaakov, Yaakov left Yitzhak, and Esav came back from his hunting. These are the same words in 25:25,26, which record that Esav first left Rivka’s womb (was born first) and then Yaakov left the womb afterwards. When Yaakov left Yitzhak after Yitzhak’s blessing there is a reversal of the births of Esav and Yaakov, as at the time of their births, Yaakov went out from his mother after Esav, while by Yitzhak’s blessing, Yaakov left his father before Esav. <br /><br />An indication that Yaakov participated in the deceit of Yitzhak to show the silliness of the firstborn title can be seen from the word <i>me-tateah</i> in 27:12. In this verse, Yaakov is telling Rivka what Yitzhak will think if Yitzhak figures out that Yaakov was trying to impersonate Esav to get the blessings. It is well known that when a person projects the thoughts of somebody else, then this hints what the person is actually thinking. In this case, Yaakov said that Yitzhak will think that Yaakov is me-tateah. What does this word mean? Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon (on 27:12, also Benno Jacob, 1974, p. 179) explains the word as mocking. Yaakov was worried that Yitzhak would think that Yaakov was mocking him. We do not see that Yaakov mocked his father, but Yaakov’s thoughts about what his father was thinking, shows that he was participating in this deception to mock. He was not intending to mock his father, but to mock the idea that just because a person is born first or receives the blessing first, then that person should be blessed. <br /><br />Based on this idea, I imagine that when Yaakov told his father, that he was Esav the firstborn, 27:19, he was laughing inside. Yaakov did not have say the word firstborn, as he could have just said that he was Esav. Instead, Yaakov might have imagined to himself that all he had to do to become the firstborn was to wear some clothing, and say that he was the firstborn son. This shows again how silly is the idea that a person is treated more special since he is born first. <div><br /></div><div>Even with this rationale, Yaakov should not have participated in the deceit of his father, but we can understand why he did it. This moral issue of repudiating the special status of the firstborn sons was so important to him, that he could not grasp that it was wrong to fool his father and that fooling his father would pain his father. Also, he would not have been bothered that his actions would be very upsetting to Esav. A similar issue would arise by Yosef that he was so determined to have his dreams fulfilled that he was unaware of the pain it was causing Yaakov that he did not contact Yaakov after he became a ruler in Egypt. This would then be anther way that Yaakov was punished measure for measure for fooling Yitzhak. <br /><br />Bibliography:<br /><br />Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1974, <i>The first book of the bible: Genesis</i>, commentary abridged, edited and translated by Earnest I. Jacob and Walter Jacob, Hoboken City, NJ: Ktav Publishing House.<br /><br />Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, <i>Studies in Bereshit</i>, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.<br /><br />Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, <i>The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis</i>, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.<br /></div>Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-78960908713196118782022-10-16T02:47:00.001+03:002022-10-21T01:43:02.622+03:00A brief history of Hoshana Rabbah - הושענא רבהIn the Torah, the seventh day of Sukkot is called the seventh day of Sukkot (Bemidbar 29:32), and nothing is recorded that differentiated the day from the second to six days of Sukkot, what we call today <i>chol ha-moed</i> Sukkot. Today the seventh day of Sukkot has a special name, <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i>, and it has become almost a new holiday, very different from the other days of <i>chol ha-moed</i> Sukkot. <div><br /></div><div>The first mention of any significance to the seventh day of Sukkot is from the Mishnah (Sukkot, 4:5), which records that in the time of the Bet ha-Mikdash, the people would circle the altar seven times on this day. However, the Mishnah did not record any special name to the day or explain the significance of these seven circles, see our discussion, "<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2017/09/aravot-in-bet-ha-mikdash.html">Aravot in the Bet ha-Mikdash.</a>" <br /><br />The Talmud Yerushalmi (Rosh Hashanah, 4:8) derives from Yishayahu 58:2 that there is a connection between the shofar and the <i>aravot</i>, and the reference to<i> aravot</i> most likely refers to the beating of the willow on the seventh day of Sukkot, which today we do after reciting the <i>hoshanot</i> prayers, see our discussion, "<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2017/10/beating-willows.html">Beating the willows</a>." This passage suggests a special significance to the seventh day of Sukkot in the Talmudic period, but nothing is spelled out.</div><div><br />In the times of the Geonim, Rav Saadiah Gaon (10th century) and Rav Hai Gaon (11th century) write that the custom was for people to circle seven times in the synagogues on the seventh day of Sukkot. It is also recorded that Rav Hai Gaon would go to Jerusalem and circle around the Mount of Olives, seven times on the seventh day of Sukkot (Zevin, 1956, pp. 124,125). <br /><br />A little after the time of Rav Hai Gaon, Rashi (1040-1105, commentary on Yuma, 21b) refers to the seventh day of Sukkot as the day of completion of the judgment on the water. This accords with the idea of the Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 1:2), that on Sukkot, G-d judges how much water there will be for the coming year, and the idea of completion refers to the seventh day as being the last day of Sukkot. <br /><br />Around this time or a little afterwards, the term <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i> was coined, most likely due to the practice to recite <i>piyyutim</i> with the word <i>Hoshana</i> many times, <i>rabbah</i>, when people would circle the <i>bimah</i> (<i>bamah</i>) in the synagogue seven times.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span>This name is found in the Manhig, 1155-1215, Laws of Etrog 38, and Midrash Tehillim, 11th century?, on Psalm 17, see Elbogin, 1972, p. 420, footnote 33, and Zevin, 1956, p. 124.</div><div><br />Apparently also around the 12th century, the prayers on <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i> were increased by reciting some of the prayers for Shabbat/ Yom Tov on <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i>, Machzor Vitry, quoted by Elbogen, p. 105. These additions are adding <i>mizmoring</i> (chapters) from Tehillim, the <i>piyyut nishmat</i> at the end of <i>pesukei de-zimra</i> and an expanded <i>kedusha</i> by <i>Musaf</i>. The Darkei Moshe (Orah Chayyim 664) quotes from R. Yitzhak Tyrnau (late 15th century) that on <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i> we do not recite <i>nishmat</i> and we do recite the chapter 100 in Tehillim, <i>mizmor letodah</i>, which indicates that the day is a regular weekday and not a special day, though R. Yitzhak Tyrnau also said to recite extra short prayers when taking the Sefer Torah out of the <i>aron kodesh</i> as we do on Shabbat/ festivals. These additions do not include the reciting of the 13 attributes of G-d, which we recite today on <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i>, since mentioning the 13 attributes of G-d when taking the <i>Sefer</i> Torah from the <i>aron kodesh</i> was only introduced into the <i>Siddur</i> on any occasion in the 17th century by Natan of Hanover (Millgram, 1971, p. 497). These additions to <i>Shacharit</i> on <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i> in the Middle Ages also do not include reciting Tehillim chapter 130, <i>shir hamalot mimakim</i> right before <i>barkhu</i> in Shacharit, which today we recite on <i>Hoshana Rabbah,</i> since this chapter seems only to have begun to be recited in the ten days of repentance in the late 16th century. <br /><br />Zevin (p. 126) also quotes that in a footnote to the Shibolei Haleket (Zedekiah ben Abraham Anaw, 13th century, Rome) it is recorded that some communities recited the additions that we make to the <i>Shemoneh Esrei</i> during the ten days of repentance and <i>Avinu Malkenu</i> on <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i>, but we do not do follow this practice. <br /><br />The next stage in the development of <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i> was that it went from being a day of judgment of water to being a day of judgment of people. It is not clear when this development occurred. <br /><br />Zevin (1956, p. 126) writes that this is from the Zohar (Tzav, 3:31b) which develops the idea of the judgment being on Yom Kippur, but that the decree, "the papers," are sent out on the seventh day of Sukkot. This development contradicts the discussion in the Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 16a) that a person's fate is sealed on Yom Kippur and all our prayers on Yom Kippur that are based on this idea, as for example, <i>Unetanneh tokef</i> and <i>Neilah</i>. Also, this idea of sending out "the papers" with the judgment seems incredible in reference to G-d. <br /><br />While this is a delicate subject since it relates to the question when was the Zohar written (my understanding is around the 13th century), my guess is that the idea that <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i> was a final, final day of judgement was pre-Zohar, which the Zohar incorporated and maybe refined. <br /><br />This understanding is because we see two customs on <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i> which indicate that the day was a day of judgment of people and the customs seem to predate the Zohar. One custom was the strange custom of a person going out with just a robe (toga?) on the night of <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i>, and then disrobing (in a secluded place?) to see his/ her shadow in the moonlight. The idea was that by seeing or not seeing the shadow a person could tell if he/ she would live and/or other ominous events in the coming year. Trachtenberg (2004, p. 215) writes that the first Jewish reference for this custom is from the Rokeah, R. Eliezer of Worms, 1176-1228, and it is briefly referred to in the Ramban's commentary on Bemidbar 14:9. (For more on this custom, see Abduraham, 14th century, Laws of Sukkah, the Rama, 16th century, in the Darkei Moshe, Orah Chayyim, 664, and on the Shulchan Arukh, 664:1, and Sperber 1990, pp. 15,16, and 1998, pp. 173-182. Note, the Abduraham and the Rama advice people not to do this custom.) <br /><br />A second custom which also pre-dates the Zohar and indicates that <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i> was viewed as a day of judgement is that the Manhig noted that in France people would like candles on <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i> like they did on Yom Kippur, quoted by Zevin, p. 126. The idea of these candles was that if they did not go out on Yom Kippur or <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i>, then they were also supposed to show that a person would survive the year, see Trachtenberg (2004, p. 214), and comments of the Rama on Orah Chayyim 610:4 by the candles on Yom Kippur. The Tur (14th century, Orah Chayyim 664), which is not a Kabbalistic work, mentions this custom of lighting the candles on <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i> like by Yom Kippur. Similarly, the Shulchan Arukh (16th century, Orah Chayyim 664:1), which is influenced by the Kabbalah, mentions that people are to lite candles on <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i> like by Yom Kippur. I do not think that anybody does either of these customs today, but they indicate that <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i> was considered a day of judgment amongst Ashkenazim in the early Middle Ages seemingly prior and independent of Kabbalistic beliefs. <br /><br />Other customs which relate to <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i> being viewed as a day of judgement but are apparently from the late Middle Ages since they are not quoted by the Tur but they are quoted by the Rama (664:1) are for people to go to the <i>mikvah</i> before dawn on <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i> and that some people, not just the <i>chazzan</i> as we do today, would wear a <i>kittel</i> (white robe) on <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i> as people do on Yom Kippur.</div><div><br /></div><div>The next stage in the development of the seventh day of Sukkot was that many prayers were added relating to water, see Tur Orah Chayyim 664. On <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i>, we first circle around the <i>bimah</i> (<i>bamah</i>) seven times, and by each circle, we recite a <i>piyyut</i>, altogether seven <i>piyyutim</i>, based on the phrase “<i>anna G-d hoshiah na</i>.” Afterwards, we recite another seven <i>piyyutim</i>, some of whom are prayers for rain, after we return to our places in the synagogue. After reciting the two sets of seven <i>piyyutim</i> an extra <i>piyyut kol mevasser</i> is added, and we beat the willows. The <i>piyyut kol mevasser</i> is a prayer for the messiah to come. It is possible that this messianic <i>piyyut</i> was added by the people who were expelled from Spain or their descendants since this tragedy generated a fervent messianic belief.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>The Kabbalists of Sefat (16th century), many of whom were expelled from Spain or were the descendants of people expelled, seem to have added another element to Hoshana Rabbah, the custom of having a tikkun on the night of <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i>. Abuduraham mentions a custom to learn on the night of <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i> in order for a person to read all of the Torah twice and the Targum once, as the reading of the Torah was about to be completed on Simhat Torah. Abuduraham thinks this is too much to do in one night and advices people to do this learning on the ten days of repentance. It is not clear if the Kabbalists in Sefat were influenced by Abuduraham's comments, but they developed their own customs as to what texts to study on the night of <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i>, see Faierstein, 2012, and our discussion, "<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2009/05/shavuot-tikkun-lel-shavuot.html">Tikkun leil Shavuot</a>."</div><div><div> <br />With all of these developments, <i>Hoshana Rabbah</i> has become a special day, more significant than the other days of <i>chol ha-moed</i> Sukkot. <br /><br />Bibliography:<br /><br />Elbogen, Ismar (1874-1943), 1972, <i>Prayers in Israel</i>, Hebrew, Tel Aviv: Dvir.<br /><br />Faierstein, Morris M., 2012,Tikkun Leil Hoshana Rabbah, <i>Conservative Judaism</i>, 63:4 Number 4, pp. 92-95.</div><div><br />Millgram, Abraham, 1971, <i>Jewish Worship</i>, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society. <br /><br />Sperber, Daniel, 1990 (vol. 1), 1991 (vol. 2), 1995 (vol. 3), 1995a (vol. 4), 1995b (vol. 5), 1998 (vol. 6), 2003 (vol. 7), 2007 (vol. 8), Minhagei Yisrael: Sources and history, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.</div><div><br />Trachtenberg, Joshua (1904-1959), 2004 (re-print of 1939 edition), Jewish magic and superstition: A study in folk religion, Jerusalem: Sefer ve-Sefed Publishing.<br /><br />Zevin, Shlomo Yosef (1890-1978), 1944, first edition, 1956, seventh edition, Ha-Mo'adim ba- Halakhah, Jerusalem.<br /><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1cm; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></span></p></div></div></div></div>Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-70207750050730748792022-09-29T21:11:00.000+03:002022-09-29T21:11:18.888+03:00Devarim 31:9,25 - Who carried the aron when the Jewish people were in the desert? Devarim 31:9 records that after Moshe wrote the Torah, he "gave it to the priests, sons of Levi, who carried the<i> aron</i> of the covenant." This verse implies that the priests carried the <i>aron</i> (the box that contained the<i> luchot</i>) when the people were in the desert, but Bemidbar 4:15 (also 3:31?) and Devarim 10:8 and 31:25 record that the Levites carried the <i>aron</i> and not the priests. <br /><br />Hizkuni (on 31:9) writes that 31:9 should not be understood to mean that the priests carried the <i>aron</i> and he suggests two reasons why in 31:9 the Torah refers to the priests as the people carrying the <i>aron</i> even though he claims they did not carry the <i>aron</i>. One, this reference is because very shortly afterwards the priests would carry the <i>aron</i> when the people crossed the Jordan River, Yehoshua 3:3,6,8, when the people circled Yericho, Yehoshua 6:6,12, and during the ceremony on Mount Eval and Mount Gerizim, 8:33 (also Melachim I 2:26 and 8:4-6), but these were exceptions to the general rule, see Sotah 33b. Two, the priests helped prepare the <i>aron</i> for travel (see Bemidbar 4:5,6), so 31:9 can refer to them as if they also carried the <i>aron</i>. <br /><br />Abarbanel (1999, p. 491) suggests that the phrase “who carry the <i>aron</i>” in 31:9 refers just to the “sons of Levi’ and not to the priests. The idea being that the Abarbanel splits the phrase "the priests, the sons of Levi" into two groups: The priests and the sons of Levi. According to this idea, 31:9 should be understood to mean that Moshe gave the Torah to the priests, and to the sons of Levi, who carried the <i>aron</i>, and to the elders of the people. <br /><br />Both of these suggestions are difficult since the phrase, the priests, the sons of Levi, occurs several times in Devarim (17:9, 18:1, 21:5) and the implication of all these verses is that the phrase is just referring to the priests. The phrase, the sons of Levi, is a description of the priests that they are part of the tribe of Levi. Hoffmann (1961, comments on 17:9) explains that with regard to the events recorded in the books of Shemot, Vayikra, and Bemidbar, the priests were just Aharon and his immediate family, and they are sometimes referred to as the sons of Aharon. However, in the book of Devarim, which transpired at the end of the fortieth year of the people’s stay in the desert, the number of priests had grown and hence they are described based on their tribal affiliation, which is Levi. <br /><br />If the phrase, "the priests, the sons of Levi," just refers to the priests, then the question remains that 31:9 implies that the priests carried the <i>aron</i>, and not the Levites. <br /><br />My guess is that during the people's stay in the desert there was a change with regard to who carried the aron. When the people first entered the desert, the only priests were Aharon and his four sons, and two of his sons, Nadav and Avihu, died in the second year of the people's stay in the desert, Vayikra 10:2. Thus, initially there were not enough priests to carry the <i>aron</i>, and hence, the Levites carried the <i>aron</i>. Accordingly, Bemidbar 4:15 and Devarim 10:8 which refer to the beginning of the people's stay in the desert only mention that the Levites carried the <i>aron</i>. However, by the end of the forty years, there were enough priests who could carry the <i>aron</i>, and they began to carry the <i>aron</i> either along with the Levites or just by themselves. Thus, shortly after the events recorded in chapter 31, when the people crossed the Jordan and were in the land of Israel, the priests carried the <i>aron</i>, Yehoshua 3:3-8, 6:6,12, and 8:33. However, instead of these cases being exceptions to the general rule, these cases are examples of the change that transpired during the forty years of the people living in the desert that the priests carried the <i>aron</i> instead of or in addition to the Levites. <br /><br />Rav Soloveitchik (2010, p. 277) in his comments on the <i>kinah</i>, <i>eicha yashvah chavselet ha-sharon</i>, notes that there is an argument between the Ramban and the Rambam as to who was supposed to carry the <i>aron</i> after the people came to the land of Israel. The Ramban’s (on Sefer ha-Mitzvot <i>shoresh</i> 3, <i>ve-khen</i>) view is that the Levites were to carry the <i>aron</i> even in the land of Israel, while the Rambam’s (Sefer ha-Mitzvot positive commandment no. 34) view was after the people reached the land of Israel, then the priests were responsible for carrying the <i>aron</i>. Our understanding of 31:9 accords with the Rambam’s view, and 31:9 might be the basis for the Rambam’s view. <br /><br />If this approach is correct, it remains to explain 31:25, which records that Moshe commanded the Levites who carried the <i>aron</i>. Why does the verse not refer to the priests as the people who carried the <i>aron</i> as in 31:9? First of all, Ibn Ezra (on 31:25), suggests that 31:25 could be understood as a shortened version of 31:9, and then 31:25 would mean that Moshe was referring to those Levites who carried the <i>aron</i>, namely the priests. A different idea is that this change at the end of the forty years of the people’s stay in the desert that the priests carried the <i>aron</i> did not preclude the Levites from carrying the <i>aron</i> even when there were enough priests to carry the <i>aron</i>. Thus, in 31:25, Moshe was referring to anybody, the entire tribe of Levi, who might carry the <i>aron</i>. Yet, if this is true, why did Moshe not refer to the Levites also in 31:9? <br /><br />The difference in the references to who carried the <i>aron</i> between 31:9 and 31:25 relates to how the two verses connect to their surrounding verses. In 31:9, Moshe referred to the priests and the elders since in the ensuing verses Moshe gave the instructions for the <i>Hahkel</i> ceremony, 31:10-13, and it was the responsibility of the priests and the elders but not the Levites to ensure that the <i>Hahkel</i> ceremony was to occur every seven years. Thus, Moshe could not have referred to all the members of the tribe of Levi in 31:9. Also, in 31:9, Moshe mentioned that the priests carried the <i>aron</i>, which they had begun to do at some point in the desert, since just like they had the responsibility to carry the <i>aron</i>, they had the responsibility to ensure that the <i>Hahkel</i> ceremony would happen. <br /><br />On the other hand, the context of 31:25 is that Moshe had just added the “song” to the Torah to teach the people not to sin, 31:24. This undoubtedly took time, and Moshe was then somewhat rushed for time since he had not known about the song when he had planned his last day. After writing the Torah with the song, Moshe needed it to be placed in the <i>aron</i> (or on its side), and this could have been done by either a priest or a Levite since both groups could carry the <i>aron</i>. In order for this to be done quickly, Moshe referred to the Levites in 31:25 since he wanted to increase the pool of people who would place the Torah in the <i>aron</i>. In addition, 31:28 records that some people were to go and gather the leaders of the nation. The reference to some people can only be to the Levites referred to in 31:25, and again the more people Moshe could get to gather the people the quicker the job would be done. Accordingly, in 31:25 Moshe refers to the Levites, which includes the priests, to increase the number of people who would place the Torah in the <i>aron</i> and who would go about gathering the elders and leaders of the people. <br /><br />It should also be noted that the message concerning the song, and now the Torah, after the song was added to the Torah, was for all the people to learn, 31:19. Accordingly, in 31:25, it could be from a metaphorical perspective that Moshe refers to everybody who can carry the Torah, which is all the Levites and the priests, to take the Torah, and not just to place the Torah in the <i>aron</i> but also to teach the people, the Torah and the song that it contained. With this idea, Moshe’s message in 31:25 was more geared to the Levites. who were going to live throughout the people in the land of Israel, than the priests, even if the Levites were no longer the main group of people who carried the <i>aron</i>. <br /><br />Bibliography<br /><br />Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1961, <i>Commentary on Deuteronomy</i>, translated by Tzvi Har-Shefer, Tel Aviv: Nezach.<br /><br />Soloveitchik, Joseph, (1903-1993), 2010, <i>The Koren Mesorat Harav Kinot</i>, <i>with commentary on the kinot based upon the teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik</i>, edited by Simon Posner, New York: OU Press and Jerusalem: Koren Publishers.<br /><br />Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-87218891208734882142022-08-31T11:25:00.000+03:002022-08-31T11:25:41.025+03:00Devarim 21:1-8 – The eglah arufa ceremony Devarim 21:1-8 records a set of rituals that are to take place, the eglah arufa ceremony, if a corpse, which was presumed to have been murdered, was found in the field but the killer is unknown. The ceremony involves actions by the elders, judges and the priests, and the killing (decapitating) of a heifer in or near a wadi. Note, it is not clear if 21:9 is part of the ceremony or a charge of Moshe to the people when he was relating to them the laws of the eglah arufa ceremony. <br /><br /> What is the reason for this ceremony? 21:8 refers to the some of the participants of the ceremony asking for kapparah for the Jewish people, but kapparah for what? Also, why was the ceremony only done if the corpse was found in a field and not in the city? <br /><br />One approach to understanding the eglah arufa ceremony is that it is to "neutralize" the effect of the murder on the land, see Patai 1939, Milgrom 1971, and maybe the Ramban on 21:5-8. Bemidbar 35:33 records that murder defiles the land, and that the land needs to be atoned when there is a murder. Bemidbar 35:33 also records that the atonement of the land is supposed to result from punishing the murderer, but in this case the murderer is unknown so according to the adherents of this approach the ceremony is a replacement to bring atonement to the land, the kapparah referred to in 21:8. Yet, with this rationale, the ceremony should also have been required if the corpse was found in the ground in a city or town, which probably is more likely than finding a dead body in the field since more people live in cities and towns, though maybe in antiquity more people lived in the country. <br /><br />A second approach is that the local authorities have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the public and in this case they failed. Rashi (on 21:7), quoting from the Talmud Sotah 45b, writes that the local authorities might have been indirectly responsible for the death of the person since maybe they let the victim leave their city without an escort. For this failure to provide public security, the local authorities and the public as a whole need atonement, kapparah, and this explains why the elders, the judges and the priests are involved in the ceremony. <br /><br />The approach can explain some of the details of the ceremony. 21:3,4 record that the heifer that is killed had never worked, and that the ceremony takes place by a wadi which had never been tilled or could not be tilled afterwards, which emphasizes the loss of life due to the murder, see Rashi on 21:4. The seeing of the dead heifer and the wadi by the local authorities and the priests might make them aware of their failure in not maintaining public security. Maybe one can then claim that this ceremony was only done for a murder in the fields since in the city the local authorities would take responsibility to provide public security, but they might be tempted to shirk responsibility for people outside of their jurisdiction. Yet, can one really fault the elders for not escorting the victim, does every person who leaves a city need an escort? Can local authorities protect every person from being killed? <br /><br />The Rambam (Moreh, 3:40) suggests a third approach that the ceremony was in order to help catch the murderer. He writes, “there will be many stories and discussions among the people because of the investigation, the going-forth of the elders, the measurements, and the fact that the heifer is brought there.” The talk will lead to the discovery of the murderer. Furthermore, since the land where the heifer was to be killed could never be used, the owner of the land would make every possible effort to ensure that the murderer is caught. I do not understand this last point since I understand that the heifer was killed in a deserted area. It would seem to me that doing the ceremony in the land of a person unconnected with the crime would be stealing, see our discussion on 21:4, "<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2011/08/devarim-214-shoftim-wadi.html">The eglah arufah ceremony: A wadi in the land of Israel</a>." <br /><br />With this approach the prayer for kapparah in 21:8 would be for the local authorities and the people who did not find the murderer. A possible proof for this idea is that 21:9, whether it was part of the ceremony or not, stresses the importance of purging the innocent blood shed, which means to punish the murderer, see 19:13. (The Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 9:6, suggests that maybe the guilt of the local authorities is that they let the murderer go free and failed to punish him, though this seems to be a very low probability event.) <br /><br />N. Leibowitz (1980a, pp. 201-208, see also Ramban on 21:5-8, and Abravanel 1999, p. 324) rejects the Rambam’s suggestion since she doubts that “all this elaborate ritual was designed merely as a device for detecting the murderer.” Yet, it could be that the killing of the heifer was a sign for the penalty the murderer was supposed to receive (Driver, 1902, p. 242), and the fact that heifer had never been worked highlights the innocent blood that was shed, as by the second approach. Also, the going to a wadi in a deserted area would make the ceremony more burdensome for the local authorities, which would give them an incentive to work hard to catch the murderer to avoid having to do the ceremony. Furthermore, it could be that for the Rambam the crucial issue is the ceremony itself and not the details of the ceremony. <br /><br />Would the ceremony really lead to that much more knowledge of the murderer? 21:1 implies that an investigation was done to find the murderer before proceeding with the ceremony (see Tigay 1996, p. 191, quoting Josephus, Antiquities 4.220). If the investigation failed it would be unlikely that the ceremony would produce more evidence. Yet, maybe it is important to mark an end to the investigation and then one can learn from the failures. If one just allows an investigation to drift off, then there is no accounting for how to improve an investigation for the next murder. According to this idea, could one claim that a murder investigation in a city never ends and/or is usually fully investigated, while by a murder in a field where nobody lives, there is barely any investigation at all. Accordingly, the eglah arufa ceremony was by the finding of the corpse in the field to increase the incentive to have an investigation and to help find the murderer in this case and other cases.<br /><br />A different idea is that it is well known that if one repeats a ceremony even if it is meaningful, too many times, the ceremony loses its specialness, and people become annoyed with the ceremony. Maybe the same idea is relevant here. Really, the ceremony is appropriate wherever the body is found, but if it is done in every case where a murder is unknown, then the ceremony will lose its impact. Just doing the ceremony when a corpse is found in the field makes the ceremony a unique event, which will impart the participants with a greater sense of responsibility. With this idea, the prayer of 21:8 (and 21:9?) that the Jewish people should be forgiven would not be just for the corpse found in the field that necessitated the ceremony, but for all cases of unsolved murders. This idea would only be relevant to the second and third approaches, as with the first approach even if the ceremony had no meaning to the people involved still the land “needs” the ceremony to attain kapparah. <br /><br />A historical curiosity of the eglah arufa ceremony is that the Mishnah (Sotah 9:9) writes that the ceremony was discontinued when there were many murderers in the country. Yet, one would think that specifically when there were many murders, then the ceremony was more crucial. The Rambam (Laws of murder and preservation of life, 9:12) seems to explain that when there were many murders, then there was always somebody who had information about the murder, and the ceremony was not done even if there was just one witness to the event. Yet, even if the ceremony was not done when there existed one witness, still the ceremony should still occur when there is no known witness because if this is not true, then the ceremony could never have occurred since one could always say maybe there is some witness out there. Instead, maybe the idea is that when there were many murders, there were many unsolved murders, and then the ceremony became too frequent and lost its effect, so Chazal discontinued the ceremony. <br /><br />Bibliography:<br /><br />Abarbanel, Yitzhak (1437-1508), 1999, Commentary on Devarim, Jerusalem: Horev Publishing<br /><br />Driver, Samuel Rolles, 1902, A critical and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy, third edition, Edinburgh: T & T Clark.<br /><br />Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1980a, Studies in Devarim, translated and adapted by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization. <br /><br />Milgrom, Jacob, 1971, Eglah Arufah, in Encyclopedia Judaica, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, Vol. 6, pp. 475-477.<br /><br />Patai Raphael, 1939, The 'egla 'arufa or the expiation of the polluted land, Jewish Quarterly Review, 30, pp. 59-69.<br /><br />Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1996, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society<br /><br />Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-62099925861664446172022-08-04T00:09:00.002+03:002023-07-27T00:47:24.521+03:00The kinah: Eicah eli konenu - The tragic death of Yoshiyahu - איכה אלי קוננוOn Tisha B’av there is a custom to recite <i>kinot</i> at night and in the morning, and in previous years we have discussed the <i>kinot <a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-kinah-shabbat-suru-meni.html">Shavat suru meni</a></i> and <i><a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-kinah-eicah-asta-be-apcha.html">Eicah asta be-apcha</a></i>, the first two <i>kinot</i> that are recited in the morning. This year we will discuss the sixth <i>kinah</i> that is recited in the morning, <i>Eicah eli konenu</i>.<br /><br />The <i>kinah</i>, <i>Eicah eli konenu</i>, again by R. Elazar haKalir, has twenty-two lines, and an addendum with four more lines. The first word in each of the twenty-two lines is the first word in each verse of chapter four of Eicah, and as the order of the verses in chapter four of Eicah, as well as the first three chapters of Eicah, follow the <i>aleph bet</i>, the order of this <i>kinah</i> is also based on the order of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The relationship between chapter four in Eicah and this <i>kinah</i> is that many people understand Eicah 4:20 to be referring to Yoshiyahu (Talmud Ta’anit 22b). Also, since Divrei Hayamim II 35:25 records that Yirmiyahu wrote a <i>kinah</i> about Yoshiyahu, there developed the idea that all of chapter four in Eicah is a <i>kinah</i> about Yoshiyahu, see Rashi on Eicah 4:1. <br /><br />This <i>kinah</i> is a fairly well-known <i>kinah</i> since the <i>kinah</i> is relatively less obscure than other <i>kinot</i>. This <i>kinah</i> is based on the tragic death of Yoshiyahu (Josiah), who was the King of Yehuda from 639-608 BCE. (His death is recorded very briefly in Melachim II 23:29,30 and with a little bit more detail in Divrei Ha-Yamim II 35:20-25.) When Yoshiyahu was 39 years old, in 608 BCE, Egyptian forces came by boat to Israel and wanted to march through the land apparently to aid the Assyrians (in northern Syria/ Iraq) who were fighting the Babylonians. Yoshiyahu attempted to stop the Egyptians, and he was killed fighting the Egyptians in Megiddo, around 100 kilometers north of Jerusalem. <br /><br />The first line of the <i>kinah</i>, <i>aleph</i>, notes that Yoshiyahu started to rule when he was eight years, as he began to rule after his father, Amon, was assassinated. <br /><br />The second line of the <i>kinah</i> records how the Egyptians wanted to pass through the land of Israel, and that Yoshiyahu’s good deeds did not save him. This is the question of the <i>kinah</i>, how could it be that such a righteous king was killed by the Egyptians? Note the Egyptians are referred to as the children of Ham, the son of Noah who was cursed in some manner (Bereshit 8:19-27), and also in the third blessing by kriat shema at <i>arvit</i>, Egypt is referred to as the children of Ham. This disparaging reference to Egypt only increases the question how could such a righteous king die by the hands of descendant of the cursed Ham? <br /><br />The third line of the <i>kinah</i> describes how great was Yoshiyahu, as it says that he was the best leader the people had since Moshe (called Avigdor in the <i>kinah</i>). This line is based on Melachim II 23:25, which makes the same point. I have always wondered what happened to King David or Yehoshua? Rav Soloveitchik (2010, p. 294) writes that Yehoshua was greater than Yoshiyahu, but Yehoshua was not a king. This idea accords with the verse in Melachim II, which stresses that Yoshiyahu was the greatest king. With regard to King David, Rav Soloveitchik suggests that Yoshiyahu was greater than David in the sense that Yoshiyahu had to destroy idols and David did not have to fight against idol worship. This might be, but traditionally David is remembered as the greatest king. Perhaps, Yoshiyahu is not remembered as prominently as David because Yoshiyahu had such a tragic end as discussed in the <i>kinah</i>. <br /><br />After stating how great Yoshiyahu was, lines four, six and the second half of line 8 of the <i>kinah</i> try to explain how it was that Yoshiyahu suffered such a tragic death if he was so righteous. The answer in the <i>kinah</i> is that he suffered due to the sins of his generation who sinned secretly. For example, line four states that people kept idols on the two sides of the door, which meant that the idols would not be seen if the door was open, but when the door was closed then the people would see and worship the idols in their homes (Midrash Eicah Rabbah 1:53). <br /><br />Line five of the <i>kinah</i> presages the end of the <i>kinah</i> that Yoshiyahu who was considered to be like gold would instead be completely tarnished like coal by the Egyptians when they killed home so cruelly.<br /><br /><div>Line seven records that Yoshiyahu ripped his clothing, when he realized that he had not succeeded in reforming the people. The source for this line is a statement by R. Yaakov on Eicah 2:17 (recorded in Midrash Eicah 1:1 and 2:21). <br /><br />The first half of line eight notes the approaching Egyptian army, and lines nine and ten of the <i>kinah</i> quote from Divrei Hayamim II 35:21 that the Egyptian king Neco sent a messenger to ask Yoshiyahu not to intervene and to let the Egyptian forces pass through the land of Israel. <br /><br />Line 11 of the <i>kinah</i> records that Yoshiyahu did not agree to this request from Neco, and Yoshiyahu justified his refusal by referring to the blessing recorded in Vayikra 26:6 that a foreign army would not cross through the land of Israel. <br /><br />Line 12 then records that Yoshiyahu also did not listen to Yirmiyahu who urged him to let the Egyptians pass through. Rav Soloveitchik explains (2010, p. 296) explains that Yirmiyahu understood the verse in Vayikra only to mean that an enemy army would not pass through the land of Israel, but Egypt at that time was not an enemy, which meant that they should be allowed to pass through. However, the Talmud (Ta’anit 22b) quotes that Yoshiyahu argued that the verse also referred to a peaceful foreign army, and hence he thought that he had divine support to stop the Egyptian army. <br /><br />Line 13 of the<i> kinah</i> ignores this argument about Vayikra 26:6, but states that in any event the people were not worthy of receiving the blessing from G-d since they sinned secretly and ignored the words of Yirmiyahu who was from Anatot (a little north of Jerusalem). <br /><br />Line 14 of the <i>kinah</i> records how the Egyptians slaughtered the Jewish people in the battle and line 15 records how some people (Yirmiyahu?) tried to tell the people to retreat and stop fighting, but the people continued to fight the Egyptians. <br /><br />Line 16 of the <i>kinah</i> records how the Egyptian archers succeeded at shooting at Yoshiyahu, and lines 17 and 18 state how even after they wounded Yoshiyahu, they continued to shoot more arrows at him, as altogether three hundred arrows pierced him. The source for these lines is that Divrei Hayamim II 35:23 records that Yoshiyahu was fatally wounded by Egyptian arrows, while Midrash Eicah Rabbah (1:53) quotes R. Manni that three hundred arrows pierced him to such an extent that his body became like a sieve. Horrible. <br /><br />Lines 19 and 20 of the <i>kinah</i> record that as Yoshiyahu’s attendants went to him in his dying moments, they heard him say that “G-d was righteous and that I had sinned” a verse from Eicah 1:18. This indicates that Yoshiyahu did <i>teshuvah</i> in his dying moments that he recognized that he had sinned by not listening to Yirmiyahu. The source for these lines is the Talmud Ta’anit 22b and Eicah Rabbah 1:53, which states that Yoshiyahu said these words to Yirmiyahu. <br /><br />Line 21 of the <i>kinah</i> notes that Egypt would be punished for what they did and three years later, in 605 BCE, the Egyptian army was decisively defeated by the Babylonians in two battles in northern Syria. <br /><br />Line 22, the last line of the <i>kinah</i>, returns to Yoshiyahu, who again (as in line five) is compared to the finest gold, and again the <i>kinah</i> states that he was punished due to the sins of the people, which is the answer to the question how could such a righteous person die in such a horrible manner. <br /><br />The next four lines are the addendum to the<i> kinah</i>, and they state that Yoshiyahu died at Megiddo and in a post-<i>shemitta</i> year. I am not sure why it is important that he died in a post-<i>shemitta</i> year, but maybe this was to connect his death with the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash which according to Seder Olam (quoted in Erechin 12b) was also destroyed in a post-<i>shemitta</i> year. <br /><br />The <i>kinah</i> then notes that 22 years after Yoshiyahu died, 586 BCE, the first Bet ha-Mikdash was destroyed which corresponds to the twenty-two words or lines of the <i>kinah</i>. <br /><br />The last two lines of the addendum are obscure, but seem to refer back to the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, that an anonymous person is quoted as saying that he thought that G-d would protect the people, but G-d let the Bet ha-Mikdash be destroyed. Maybe these lines are here since Yoshiyahu also thought that G-d would protect him, but G-d let his die so horribly. <br /><br />One question about this <i>kinah</i> is that I have never understood why Yoshiyahu did not listen to Yirmiyahu and why would he have thought that he knew the interpretation of the Torah better than Yirmiyahu. While one can give a political answer that no king wants to have a foreign army march though his/ her territory, or that Yoshiyahu was worried that Egypt was not going to just march through peacefully or that Yoshiyahu thought that by attacking the Egyptians, he would become an ally of the Babylonians, the rising power in the world, still Yirmiyahu had told him to allow the Egyptians to pass through. My guess is that maybe Yoshiyahu understood that he was a righteous king and he thought that it was obvious that G-d would save him, and this seems to be a conception of some religious people that they become very confident that G-d will intervene to save them even if they are acting recklessly. <br /><br />Another question concerning this <i>kinah</i> is why do we recite a<i> kinah</i> about the death of one person? Rav Soloveitchik (2010, pp. 292, 293) proposed three answers. One, the <i>kinah</i> about one person shows that what happens to one person is important. Two, Yoshiyahu was great leader and king, and the loss of a “great” person can be comparable to the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, and three, Yoshiyahu’s death signaled the ensuing destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash since if a righteous king like Yoshiyahu could not save the people, then all was lost. <br /><br />I would add that it is “obvious” that R. Elazar haKalir would write a<i> kinah</i> about Yoshiyahu’s tragic death once Divrie Hayamim II 35:25 states that Yirmiyahu wrote a <i>kinah</i> about Yoshiyahu, and, as mentioned above, there is the idea that chapter four of Eicah is a <i>kinah</i> about Yoshiyahu. The question is why did Yirmiyahu write a <i>kinah</i> about Yoshiyahu, and the answer could be that since Yirmiyahu knew Yoshiyahu personally, his death was a great blow to Yirmiyahu and Yirmiyahu might have even felt guilty that he was unable to have stopped Yoshiyahu from fighting the Egyptians.<div><br /></div>Bibliography:<br /><br />Rav Soloveitchik, 2010, <i>The Koren mesorat harav kinot: Commentary on the kinot based on the teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik</i>, edited by Simon Posner, Jerusalem: Koren Publishers; New York: OU Press.</div>Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-13742373751968785392022-07-21T14:29:00.001+03:002023-02-26T22:38:48.341+02:00Bemidbar 1:1 – The terms mikdash, mishkan, and ohel moed in the books of Bemidbar and DevarimIn our discussions on Shemot 25:8,9; 27:21, “<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2022/02/shemot-2589-2721-terms-mikdash-mishkan.html">The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Shemot</a>,” and on Vayikra 1:1, “<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2022/03/vayikra-11-terms-mikdash-mishkan-and.html">The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra</a>,” we attempted to explain that the term <i>mishkan</i> only refers to the walls and ceiling of the special cultic building, which consisted of two rooms containing the <i>aron</i>, the <i>menorah</i>, the inner altar and the table of bread that the Jewish people built in the desert, while the term <i>ohel moed</i> refers to the entire complex, the <i>mishkan</i>, the special ritual furniture, and the courtyard around the <i>mishkan</i>. In addition, the term <i>mikdash</i> refers to the collection of ritual items, independent of the building or tent where they are located. Now, we want to examine all cases of these three terms in the book of Bemidbar and the book of Devarim (only one verse). <br /><br />1:1 records that G-d spoke to Moshe in the <i>ohel moed</i>, and according to our understanding this could have been anywhere in the entire complex. <br /><br />1:50 refers to the <i>mishkan</i> three times, that the Levites would be in charge of the <i>mishkan edut</i>, that they will carry the mishkan, and that they will serve or guard the <i>mishka</i>n (Milgrom, 1990, p. 10). 1:51 continues with this theme, that the Levites would take down and put up the <i>mishkan</i>. 1:53 concludes this short section with another two references to the <i>mishkan</i> (altogether seven from 1:50-53) that the Levites would camp around the <i>mishkan ha-edut</i> and that the Levites would be in charge of watching/ protecting the <i>mishkan ha-edut</i>. (This term <i>mishkan ha-edut</i> appears three times in the section of 1:50-53.) 1:50 twice refers to the vessels, i.e., the ritual furniture that is situated in the <i>mishkan</i>, and hence we see that the <i>mishkan </i>is the walls but not the items within the walls. Possibly the Torah uses the word <i>mishkan</i> here and not ohel moed because of the second term <i>ha-edut</i>. The term <i>edut</i> is never use in the Torah in conjunction with <i>ohel moed</i>, only <i>ohel edut</i> or the <i>mishkan edut</i>, maybe because <i>ohel moed</i> refers to the entire complex and one should not think that that entire complex is considered <i>edut</i>, testimony. On the other hand, <i>ohel ha-edut</i> refers to the inner room of the <i>mishkan</i>, which housed the <i>aron</i>, which contained the tablets, which are the <i>edut</i>. <br /><br />2:2 records that the Jewish people were to camp around the <i>ohel moed</i>, and this would mean around the entire complex. <br /><br />2:17 records that the <i>ohel moed</i> would travel with the people. Again, this is referring to the entire complex, which would be carried with the people travelled, and not just the special building within the complex. <br /><br />3:7,8 refer to both the<i> ohel moed</i> and the <i>mishkan</i>. Following Milgrom (1990, p. 16, and Levine, 1993, pp. 141,142) the first half of 3:7 records that the Levites are to guard the ohel moed, the entire complex from the Jewish people approaching it inappropriately. In addition, the first half of 3:8 means that the Levites were to guard the items in the <i>ohel moed</i>, the complex, when they were being transported. The end of both 3:7,8 refer to the Levites work in the <i>mishkan</i>, and I would understand that these verses refer first to the taking down of the walls and ceiling of the special building when the people travelled, and then afterwards to the re-assembling of these walls and ceiling when the people reached their next camp. <br /><br />3:23 records that the Gershonite clan within the Levites, camped on the side of the back of the <i>mishkan</i>, which continues the designation from 1:53, which also used the word <i>mishk</i>an, see our discussion above on the verse. <br /><br />3:25 records the work of the Levite family, Gershon, in moving parts of the <i>ohel moed</i> when the people travelled in the desert. 3:25 refers to the <i>ohel moed</i>, then the mishkan, then the <i>ohel</i>, and then its cover. The verse indicates that the <i>ohel moed</i> is distinct from the <i>mishkan</i> since if they are synonyms, why would both terms be mentioned twice, one after each other in the verse? 3:25 should be understood to mean that first the verse refers to the entire complex, the <i>ohel moed</i>, and then it specifies the <i>mishkan</i>, the walls and the first or second ceiling of the special building, see 4:25 and Levine, 1993, p. 159. <br /><br />The next term in 3:25 is ohel, tent, which tent? Rashi (on 3:25 and on 4:25, and followed by Milgrom, 1990, p. 20), explains that the word <i>ohel</i>, tent, in 3:25 refers to the second layer of covering on top of the <i>mishkan</i>. This accords with Shemot 26:7, that the second covering on top of the <i>mishkan</i>, was considered as the tent of the mishkan, and was not part of the <i>mishka</i>n. It could also refer to the third covering, if the second ceiling was also considered part of the mishkan. <br /><br />The following word in 3:25 is its cover, and this probably refer to the cover of the second covering, namely the third and/ or the fourth covering to the area of the <i>mishkan</i>, as recorded in Shemot 26:14, 36:19, and 40:19. <br /><br />The last phrase in 3:25 is the curtains of the opening, <i>petach</i>, to the <i>ohel moe</i>d, and this is the opening to the courtyard coming from the <i>mishkan</i> since the following verse, 3:26, refers to the opening of the courtyard. However, as we discuss in Shemot 25:8,9; 27:21, “<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2022/02/shemot-2589-2721-terms-mikdash-mishkan.html">The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Shemot</a>,” and on Vayikra 1:1, “<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2022/03/vayikra-11-terms-mikdash-mishkan-and.html">The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra</a>,” I think that the term <i>petach ohel moed</i> can sometimes also refer to the opening to complex from outside the complex. <br /><br />3:26 refers to the curtains “on the <i>mishkan</i>” and this refers to the curtain that cordoned off a courtyard that was around the walls of the special cultic building (and the outer altar). Accordingly, the term “on the <i>mishkan</i>” means surrounding the <i>mishkan</i>. <br /><br />3:29 records that the Kehat clan amongst the Levites camped on the south side of the <i>mishkan</i>, which follows method of designating their camping spot from 3:23 and 1:53. Similarly, 3:35 records that the Merari clan amongst the Levites camped on the north side of the <i>mishkan</i>. <br /><br />3:36 records that men of Merari were to carry the beams that made up the <i>mishkan</i>, that is to say the walls of the special building. <br /><br />3:38 refers to Moshe and Aharon camped before the <i>mishkan</i> on the east and before the <i>ohel moed</i> on the east. Again, we see that the <i>ohel moed</i> is distinct from the <i>mishkan</i> since if they are synonyms, why would both terms be mentioned twice, one after each other in the verse? The verse first mentions the camping of Moshe and Aharon in reference to the <i>mishkan</i>, as occurred by the three clans of the Levites, 3:23, 29, 35. Why then does the Torah add that Moshe and Aharon were also before the <i>ohel moed</i>,<i> lifnei ohel moed</i>? The answer is that if the Torah had only written that they were to camp before the mishkan, then one might have thought that they were to camp in the courtyard of the complex. To reject this possibility, the Torah records that they were to camp before the <i>ohel moed</i>, as this is the entire complex, and being before the entire complex means to be outside the complex. The phrase before the <i>mishkan</i> would then mean to camp in the direction of the opening of the special building but not next to the special building. Note, Milgrom (1991, p. 209) argues that from Bemidbar 8:9,10, we see that the phrase <i>lifnei ohel moed </i>means outside of the complex, and see also our discussion on Vayikra 3:8,13 in our discussion on Vayikra 1:1, “<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2022/03/vayikra-11-terms-mikdash-mishkan-and.html">The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra</a>.” <br /><br />3:38 also refers to the <i>mikdash</i>, and this means the collection of special ritual furniture that was within the <i>mishkan</i>/ <i>ohel moed</i> since Aharon and his sons were responsible for these items being packed when the people travelled, 4:5,15,19. <br /><br />4:3,4,15 record that the work of the Levite family of Kehat was in the <i>ohel moe</i>d, referring to the work of carrying the special ritual furniture that was in the entire special complex when the people travelled in the desert. The verse did not use the term <i>mishkan</i> since the family of Kehat carried the special ritual items within the <i>ohel moed,</i> but not the walls and the ceiling of the special building, which constituted the <i>mishkan</i>. <br /><br />The first half of 4:16 records that Elazar was to be charge of various items associated with the sacrifices that were not ritual furniture. The second half of 4:16 records that Elazar was in charge of the <i>mishkan</i>, meaning the walls and ceiling of the special building, and all items, the special ritual furniture and supplementary vessels, within the <i>mishkan</i>, ostensibly when the <i>mishkan</i>/ ohel moed was being dismantled. Again, the fact that 4:16 records “within” indicates that the <i>mishkan</i> is just the exterior of the special cultic building. Yet, why does 4:16 refer to the <i>mishkan</i> in 4:16 since Elazar’s brother Itamar was in charge of the Levites families of Gershon and Merari and they carried the walls and the ceiling of the <i>mishkan</i>? Milgrom (1990, p. 28) suggests that based on 3:32, Elazar was in charge of his brother, and then overall in charge of the transporting of the <i>mishkan</i>. Thus, his father Aharon was only in charge of covering the special ritual furniture, 4:4,15,19, but not of overseeing the transport of the items. The second half of 4:16 is then a summary sentence not just in reference to the work of the family of Kehat, the preceding verses, and possibly this summary is mentioned at this point due to the first half of 4:16 recording that Elazar was directly in charge of the transport of the various items that were not ritual furniture. (Note it is not obvious that the family of Kehat had to carry the items mentioned in the first half of 4:16.) <br /><br />4:23 records that the family of Gershon was to work in the <i>ohel moed</i>, which refers to these Levites carrying different parts of the entire complex. If the term <i>ohel moed</i> just means the <i>mishkan</i>, the special building, then this description of their work is difficult since 4:26 records that they were to carry various items from the courtyard. Yet, if the term <i>ohel mo</i>ed refers to the entire complex, then 4:23 refers both their work carrying items from the special building and from the courtyard, as recorded in 4:25,26. <br /><br />4:25 is similar to 3:25 and refers to the work of family of Gershon of carrying the curtains (ceilings) of the <i>mishkan </i>and the curtains of the <i>ohel moe</i>d. Again, if these terms are synonyms, then it is odd that both are mentioned in the verse. Instead, the first item are the curtains of the <i>mishka</i>n, and this was the first cover on top of the area that had the special cultic furniture, excluding the outer altar. <br /><br />The second phrase in 4:25 is “and <i>ohel moed</i>” referring to some curtains mentioned in the beginning of the verse, yet what are the curtains of the <i>ohel moed</i>? As noted by Rashi (on 4:25) the reference is probably to the second (third?) covering above the enclosed area of the <i>mishka</i>n, which was made from goat’s hair. Shemot 26:7 refers to this covering as a tent to the <i>mishkan</i>, which could imply that this second (third?) covering was not part of the <i>mishka</i>n, but it would be part of the <i>ohel moed</i>. With this idea, only the first (second?) covering is part of the <i>mishkan</i>, but not the additional coverings. The additional coverings (third and fourth) of the area enclosed by the <i>mishkan</i> are referred to in the following words of the verse. Accordingly, if the second covering is also considered part of the <i>mishkan</i>, then the phrase “and <i>ohel moed</i>” is a general statement, which is explained by the following words, “its cover,” the cover to the <i>mishkan</i>, and the skin of the <i>tachash</i>, the fourth covering, while if the second covering is not considered part of the <i>mishkan</i>, the phrase “and <i>ohel moed</i>” is referring to the second covering of the <i>mishkan</i>. <br /><br />The end of 4:25 refers to the curtain by the opening of the <i>ohel moed</i>, see our discussion above of this phrase in 3:25. <br /><br />4:26 has the phrase “on the <i>mishkan</i>” and this has the same meaning as in 3:36. <br /><br />4:28 concludes the section on the work of the Levite family Gershon, and refers to them working in the <i>ohel moed</i> like in 4:23, the beginning of the section. This term ohel moed is more general than the term <i>mishkan</i>, and some of the items carried by the family of Gershon were part of the <i>ohel moed</i> and not the <i>mishkan</i>. <br /><br />4:30 records that the work of the family of Merari was also in the <i>ohel moed</i>, just like by the family of Gershon, 4:23. <br /><br />4:31,32 specify the work in the <i>ohel moed</i> of the family of Merari. They were to carry the walls, bolts and sockets of the <i>mishkan</i>, and the columns that formed the wall of the courtyard, which were not part of the <i>mishkan</i> but are subsumed under the term <i>ohel moed</i>. <br /><br />4:33 is the concluding verse to the description of the work of the family of Merari, and refers to the <i>ohel moed</i>, as in the beginning of the section, 4:30, and this pattern is similar to the section on the work of the family of Gershon. <br /><br />4:35,37,39,41,43,47 all refer to the three different Levite families working in the <i>ohel moed</i>, the entire complex, in reference to a count of how many men in each family between the years thirty and fifty. This reference to working in the <i>ohel moed</i> accords with the mention of the <i>ohel moed</i> by the opening and closing verses of the description of the work of each family in chapter four. <br /><br />5:17 records that the priest was to take some dirt from the <i>mishkan</i> to create some type of drink for the suspected adulteress. This means that the priest was to take some dirt that was between the walls of the special building since there was no floor to this building. <br /><br />6:10,13 records that the nazir who accidently became <i>tamei</i> needs to bring two birds to the <i>petach ohel moed</i> to offer as sacrifices. As mentioned in our discussion above on 3:25, this place is probably the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, though it could be the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex. <br /><br />6:18 records that the nazir was also to cut/ shave the hair on his head at the <i>petach ohel moed, </i>and again as 6:10,13, this could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, though it could be the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex. In this case, my inclination is that the location is the entrance from the outside the complex, as would a person or many people be cutting their head by the opening to the special cultic building? <br /><br />7:1 records that when Moshe finished putting up the <i>mishkan</i>, meaning the wall and ceiling of the special building, then he anointed it, the vessels that were inside the special building, the outer altar, which was not in the <i>mishkan</i>, and the other vessels in the courtyard. <br /><br />7:3 then records that the tribal leaders offered sacrifices before the <i>mishkan</i>, which means that they offered sacrifices on the altar in the courtyard. The altar was situated before or in front of the special building, which was the <i>mishkan</i>. <br /><br />7:5 then records that the tribal leaders gave wagons to Moshe to help the Levites in their work in the <i>ohel moed</i>, which accords with the description of the work of the three Levite families mentioned in chapter four. <br /><br />7:89 then record that after the sacrifices of the tribal leaders, Moshe went into the <i>ohel moed</i>, and he heard a sound coming from inside the special building, which was G-d speaking to Moshe. While it could be that Moshe went into the special building, it could also be that he was in the courtyard when he heard G-d speaking to him. <br /><br />8:9 records that as part of the ceremony to induct the Levites, the Levites were to be brought before, <i>lifnei</i>, the <i>ohel moed</i>, and all the people were to gather around. 8:10 then records that the Levites were to be brought closer before G-d, and the people were to place their hands upon them. Milgrom (1991, p. 209) points out that 8:9 should be understood to mean that the Levites were first brought outside the complex, and this where the people gathered. Afterwards, as recorded in 8:10, they entered the courtyard of the <i>mishkan,</i> passing by the people. This explanation accords with the idea that the <i>ohel moed</i> is more encompassing than the <i>mishkan</i>. <br /><br />(If one wants to claim that the terms <i>mishkan</i> and <i>ohel moed</i> are synonyms, that both terms refer to the enclosed area with the two rooms, then one would understand that 8:9 means that initially the Levites were in the courtyard of the <i>mishkan</i> with the people, and then in 8:10 they either went into the special building with the two rooms or they scrunched up within the courtyard. Both options seem logistically unreasonable.) <br /><br />8:15, 19, 22, 24, 26 record that after the Levites were inducted, then they were to work in the <i>ohel moed</i>, which again follows the description of their work in chapter four, see our discussion on 4:23. <br /><br />9:15, records that on the day when the <i>mishka</i>n was constructed (see 7:1) then the cloud of G-d covered the <i>mishkan</i> (2), and specifically the <i>ohel edut</i> (also mentioned in 9:17). As discussed above on 1:50-53, the ohel edut is the inner room of the special building, and the cloud of G-d was then partially above the special building. 9:18, 19, 20, 22 all continue to discuss the cloud of G-d being above the special building. The Torah did not use the term <i>ohel moed</i> in these verses, since the cloud of G-d did not cover the courtyard. <br /><br />10:3 records that trumpets would be blown to call the people to come to the <i>petach ohel moed</i>. As discussed above on 3:25, 6:10-18, this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex. In this case, my inclination is that the location is the entrance from the outside to the complex since very few people could fit inside the courtyard of the<i> ohel moed</i>. <br /><br />10:11 again refers to the cloud of G-d on top of the <i>mishkan</i>, like in 9:15-22. <br /><br />10:17 refers to the taking down of the <i>mishkan</i>, the opposite of 9:15, and the transporting of the <i>mishkan</i> by the families of Gershon and Merari. While one might have expected 10:17 to use the term <i>ohel moed</i> instead of the <i>mishkan</i>, maybe since the main work in transporting the special complex, was the taking down of the walls and the ceiling of the <i>mishka</i>n, so then the Torah refers to the <i>mishkan</i> in 10:17. <br /><br />10:21 records that the family of Kehat transported the <i>mikdas</i>h, which means the collection of special ritual furniture. 10:21 ends by recording that the <i>mishkan</i> was to be re-built when the people got to the new camp, and again putting back up the walls and ceiling of the special building was the most difficult part of the re-constructing the special complex, which could be why the Torah uses the term <i>mishkan</i> and not <i>ohel moed</i> in 10:17. Also, the <i>mishkan</i> needed to be re-assembled in order to house the special cultic items being carried by the family of Kehat. <br /><br />11:16 refers to <i>ohel moed</i>, but this was a tent that Moshe had outside the camp, and is unrelated to the special building and courtyard that was within the camp, see Benno Jacob, 1992, pp. 960-966. <br /><br />12:4 records that Moshe, Aharon and Miryam were to meet at the <i>ohel moed</i>, and it is not clear if this was referring to Moshe’s tent outside the camp, or to the entrance to the courtyard of the special building within the camp. <br /><br />14:10 records that the glory of G-d appeared in the <i>ohel moed</i>. Most likely this vision of the glory of G-d was within the cloud that was on top of the <i>mishkan</i>, and the cloud moved to be over the courtyard. This was a frightening vision to stop the people from stoning Moshe, Aharon, Yehoshua and Calev. <br /><br />16:9 records that Moshe asked the Levites within Korah’s rebellion that was it not enough that they worked in the <i>mishkan</i>? I think the reference is to the Levites carrying the <i>mishkan</i> when the people travelled in the desert since they did not work in the <i>mishkan</i>. Maybe, Moshe mentioned the <i>mishkan</i> and not <i>ohel moed</i> since the work carrying the <i>mishkan</i> was more special than transporting parts of the courtyard. <br /><br />16:18 records that Aharon and the 250 men were to stand by the <i>petach ohel moed</i>, and 16:19 records that they were joined by Korah and other people at the<i> petach ohel moed</i>. As we discuss above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex. <br /><br />16:24,27 refers to the <i>mishkan</i> of Datan, Aviram and Korah, but this means a regular tent as indicated by 16:25, without any cultic functions. <br /><br />17:7,8 record that the glory of G-d appeared over the <i>ohel moed</i>, and then Moshe and Aharon could only go up to the <i>ohel moed</i>, but not into the <i>ohel moe</i>d since they could not approach the glory of G-d. The <i>ohel moed</i> here refers to the entire complex, and the it seems that just like in 14:10, the glory of G-d was within the cloud of G-d and the cloud moved over the courtyard towards the people. <br /><br /> 17:9,10 then record that G-d spoke to Moshe, and 17:11 records that Moshe told Aharon to take coals from the outer, apparently from the outer altar. Yet, if the cloud of G-d was over the <i>ohel moed</i>, which encompassed the courtyard of the <i>mishkan</i>, and the outer altar was in the courtyard, how could Aharon go to the outer altar? It must be that the glory of G-d and maybe the cloud of G-d has left the courtyard by the time that Moshe spoke to Aharon. <br /><br />17:15 records that after going around the people with a pan of incense, Aharon returned to Moshe who was <i>petach ohel moed</i>. Initially Moshe and Aharon had approached the <i>ohel moed</i> in 17:8, and then apparently the cloud of G-d departed from the <i>ohel moed</i>. Moshe was then able to go into the <i>ohel moed</i> and he went to the entrance of the <i>ohel moed</i>, which as we discuss above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18,19, this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex. <br /><br />17:19 refers to the <i>ohel moed</i> that the staffs of the tribal leaders and Aharon were to be placed in the <i>ohel moed</i> before the <i>edut</i>, the <i>aron</i> which had the <i>luchot</i>. This might refer to inner room of the <i>mishkan</i>, which has the <i>aron</i>, but could these tribal leaders enter that room or even the outer room of the special building? More likely, 17:19 means that the tribal leaders put their staffs in the courtyard near the special building, and then 17:22 records that Moshe took the staffs into the <i>ohel edut</i>, the inner room of the <i>mishkan</i>. Maybe, the phrase “before the <i>edut</i>” in 17:19 was to specify that the <i>ohel moed</i> being discussed was of the special building and not Moshe’s private <i>ohel moed</i>. <br /><br />17:28 records that the people said that they realized that they would die if they entered the <i>mishkan</i>, and this refers to entering the area enclosed by the walls and the ceiling of the special building. This did not include the courtyard surrounding the special building since at certain times or in certain areas, people could enter the courtyard, and hence 17:28 does not use the term <i>ohel moed</i>. <br /><br />18:1 refers to the <i>mikdash</i>, concerning some sin relating to the collection of the special ritual items. <br /><br />18:4 refers to the Levites watching or guarding the <i>ohel moed</i>. The following verse. 18:5, refers to watching the altar, and if this refers to the outer altar, then the term <i>ohel moed</i> must refer to the courtyard where the outer altar was situated. <br /><br />18:6 repeats (a type of bookend) that the Levites were to work in the <i>ohel moed</i>. This could refer to transporting the <i>ohel moed</i>, as recorded in chapter four or maybe it means to stand in the courtyard (see our discussion on Devarim 18:6,7, “<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2020/08/devarim-1867-to-stand-before-g-d.html">To stand before G-d</a>”) since the Levites did not do any work in the <i>mishkan</i>, other than carrying it when the people travelled in the desert. <br /><br />18:21,23,31 mention the Levites working in the <i>ohel moed</i>, and would have a similar understanding to 18:6. <br /><br />18:22 records that a regular Jew (i.e., not a priest or a Levite) could not enter the <i>ohel moed</i>, which I understand to mean that they could not regularly enter the courtyard. Most likely there could be exceptions to this rule, as for example by the new mother, Vayikra 12:6, unless one claims that after Korah’s rebellion, even these exceptions were no longer allowed. If one claims that <i>ohel moed</i> means just the <i>mishkan</i>, then it is not clear when any regular Jew would ever have gone into the <i>mishkan</i>. However, during the rebellion of Korah, it might be that many regular Jews entered the courtyard of the <i>mishkan</i> some with permission but many without, see our discussions above on 16:19 and on Chapter 16, “<a href="https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2021/06/bemidbar-chapter-16-great-rebellion-by.html">The great rebellion by an unholy coalition</a>.” <br /><br />19:4 records that the blood of the red cow was to be sprinkled in the direction of the <i>ohel moed</i>, the entire complex. <br /><br />19:13 records that if a person is <i>tamei</i> and does not purify him/herself, then he/ she has made the <i>mishkan tamei</i>. 19:20 expresses a similar idea, but records that the person has made the <i>mikdash tamei</i>. The <i>mikdash</i> is the collection of special ritual items, and all of them except the outer altar are situated in the area enclosed by the <i>mishkan</i>. Possibly 19:13 refers to the <i>mishkan</i> and not the <i>ohel moed</i> to express the gravity of the person remaining <i>tamei</i>. <br /><br />20:6 records that when the people were complaining for water, Moshe and Aharon went to the <i>petach ohel moed</i>, and we discussed above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18, 16:19 this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex. <br /><br />24:5 records that in Bil’am’s third set of blessing he praised the <i>mishkenotecha</i> of the Jewish people. This word refers to the tents that were the dwellings of the people, and not to the special cultic building. <br /><br />25:6 records that the leaders of the nation were weeping at the entrance of the <i>ohel moed</i>, <i>petach ohel moed</i>, and as we discuss above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18, 16:19, 17:15, and 20:6, this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex. <br /><br />Similar to 3:25, 4:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18, 16:19, 17:15, 20:6 and 25:6, 27:2 records that the daughters of Tzelofhad spoke to the leaders of the people and the whole assembly <i>petach ohel moed</i>, and this can either mean the entrance to the entire complex or to the entrance to the courtyard. In this case, I think it means the entrance to the entire complex since I do not think that all these people referred to in 27:2 could be in the courtyard of the <i>ohel moed</i>. <br /><br />31:30 records the instructions from G-d to Moshe that part of the booty from the war with Midyan was to go to the Levites who guarded the <i>mishkan</i>. This refers back to 1:53, which records that the Levites watched the <i>mishkan ha-edut</i>, and this was their principle area that they guarded. Possibly this guarding is mentioned here since the share of the booty in the verse was from the Jewish people to the Levites, and the people should realize that the Levites were protecting them when they guarded the <i>mishkan</i>, see 1:53 again. <br /><br />31:47 records that Moshe fulfilled G-d’s instructions in 31:30 that Moshe took some of the booty that the people got from the war with Midyan and gave it to the Levites who guarded the <i>mishkan</i>. <br /><br />31:54 records that Moshe and Elazar took all the gold from the soldiers who had defeated Midyan and placed it into the <i>ohel moed</i>. It is unlikely that they could put all the gold into the outer room of the <i>mishkan</i>, and then 31:54 means that they put it in the courtyard, or maybe some was put in the courtyard and some in the outer room of the <i>mishkan</i>. This concludes the mention of these three terms, <i>mikdash</i>, <i>mishkan</i> and <i>ohel moed</i>, in the book of Bemidbar. <br /><br /> In the book of Devarim, only the term <i>ohel moed</i> appears (twice) in 31:14. 31:14 records that Moshe and Yehoshua were to go the <i>ohel moed</i>, they went there, and they stood in the ohel moed. <br /><br />As mentioned above on Bemidbar 11:16, there were two <i>ohel moeds</i> when the people were in the desert, one within the camp connected to the special cultic building, and two, Moshe’s private tent outside the camp. It is not clear which<i> ohel moed</i> is being referred to in Devarim 31:14. Benno Jacob (1992, pp. 960-966), believes it is Moshe’s private tent since 31:14 records that Moshe and Yehoshua had to walk to the tent. This could be, but my inclination is that the <i>ohel moed</i> being referred to in 31:14 is within the camp since I think the point of the appearance of the cloud of G-d goal was to show the people that G-d was with Yehoshua, and this lesson could best be shown if the cloud of G-d appeared in the midst of the people. <br /><br />Following this idea, 31:14 means that Moshe and Yehoshua went to the courtyard of the <i>mishkan</i>. I doubt they went into the special building since Yehoshua who was not a Levite or a priest could not enter the building. <br /><br />The first half of 31:15 records that the cloud of G-d appeared in the <i>ohel</i>, which from 31:14 would mean the <i>ohel moed</i> (within the camp), and then the second half of 3:15 records that the cloud was by the entrance to the ohel, again apparently the <i>ohel moed</i> (within the camp). Most likely, the first half of the verse means that the cloud of G-d appeared in the courtyard surrounding the special building, and not inside the special building. The second half of 3:15 then specifies where in the courtyard the cloud of G-d appeared, at the entrance to the courtyard. Again, this entrance could be from outside the complex or the entrance into the courtyard leaving the special building, see our discussions above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18, 16:19, 17:15, 20:6, 25:6, and 27:2. Moshe and Yehoshua would have been standing between these two points/ areas, and would have turned to face the cloud of G-d depending on where it was located. Note the Torah needed to specify that the cloud of G-d was by the entrance since if it was in all of the courtyard, Moshe and Yehoshua could not have been in the courtyard, see Shemot 40:34,35. (If one believes that the first half of 3:15 means that the cloud of G-d appeared in the special building, then the second half of 3:15 means that the cloud moved from the inside the special building to the entrance to the building).<div><br /></div>Bibliography:<br /><br />Levine, Baruch A., 1993, Numbers 1-20, The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.<br /><br />Milgrom, Jacob, 1990, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.<br /><br />Milgrom, Jacob, 1991, Leviticus: The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.<br /><br /><br />Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8607226638719486390.post-80272510268248747262022-06-28T00:28:00.001+03:002022-06-28T22:39:09.032+03:00Bemidbar 20:16 – A window into Moshe’s perception of his life<div dir="rtl" style="text-align: right;">במדבר כ:טז - ונעצק אל ה' וישמע קולנו וישלח מלאך ויצאנו ממצרים והנה אנחנו בקדש עיר קצה גבולך. </div><br />20:14-17 records Moshe’s request to the king of Edom to let the people pass through his country, and within this request Moshe recalled some of the history of the people. Moshe mentioned that when the people were in Egypt, they had cried out to G-d, G-d heard the cries of the people, G-d sent a <i>malakh</i>, and G-d took the people out of Egypt. Moshe’s reference to a <i>malakh</i> in this message to the king of Edom is perplexing. It is not clear who is being referred to, what incident is being referred to, its importance to the Exodus from Egypt, and why this information should be relevant to the king of Edom. <br /><br />Rashi (on 20:16) writes that the <i>malakh</i> is referring to Moshe, the messenger of G-d. Yet, would Moshe, the humblest person, Bemidbar 12:3, refer to himself as a <i>malakh</i>? Why would Moshe need to tell the king of Edom that he was a messenger from G-d? Was this information supposed to scare the king of Edom? Moshe could have just mentioned that the people cried out to G-d and G-d saved them, without any reference to himself. <br /><br />Ibn Ezra (on 20:16) notes that many people believe that Moshe was referring to himself, but he thinks that Moshe was referring to a real <i>malakh</i>. Yet, did a <i>malakh</i> have an important role in the Exodus from Egypt? Shemot 14:19 refers to a <i>malakh</i> who stood between the Jewish people and the Egyptians prior to the miracle of the splitting of the Yam Suf. However, this was a minor part in the miracle of the splitting of the Red Sea, and occurred after the people left Egypt. <br /><br />Some translators (see for example, in JPS, Milgrom, 1990, p. 168 and Kaplan, 1981, p. 439) write that in 20:16 Moshe was saying that a <i>malakh</i> had taken the people out of Egypt. The only possible reference to a <i>malakh</i> by the Exodus is that Shemot 12:13,23 refer to a <i>mashchit</i>, destroyer, by the tenth plague, who according to some commentators (Hizkuni on Shemot 12:23) was a <i>malakh</i>. Yet, Shemot 12:29 records that G-d killed all the firstborn Egyptians and not a <i>malakh</i>. Also, 20:16 refers to G-d, and then records three verbs relating to actions of G-d, that G-d heard the cries of the people, that G-d sent a <i>malakh</i> and that G-d took the people out of Egypt. These three separate verbs imply that G-d’s sending of the <i>malakh</i> was distinct in some way from G-d taking the people out of Egypt, and then in 20:16, Moshe was not saying that the <i>malakh</i> took the people out of Egypt. <div><br /></div><div>My guess is that in 20:16, Moshe was referring to the <i>malakh</i> he saw by the burning bush, Shemot 3:2. This incident happened after the people cried to G-d, and G-d heard their cries, Shemot 2:23,24, which follows the order of events Moshe recalled in 20:16. Yet, this incident was only crucial to Moshe, and was only indirectly related to the Exodus of the people from Egypt since this vision of the <i>malakh</i> was to induce Moshe to be the leader of the people. Moshe did not have to mention this sending of the <i>malakh</i> by G-d to the king of Edom, but it could be that he mentioned it as a personal matter. Many times, a speaker or writer, will include a point in a speech or in a book, which has meaning only to the speaker and the writer, and not to the public who will be hearing the speech or reading the book. The person mentions the point since it is important to the person even if the intended audience will not grasp the significance of the point. In this case, when G-d sent the <i>malakh </i>by the burning bush, this was the turning point in Moshe’s life, and hence for him this was a crucial point of the story. Thus, in his recollection of the basic facts of the Exodus from Egypt, Moshe mentioned this point. This recollection is even more poignant coming at the end of the 40 years of the people’s stay in the wilderness, and right after Moshe was told that he would not take the people to the land of Israel, 20:12.<br /><br />My daughter Talia has pointed out to me that also Moshe’s first recollection in 20:16, that we cried, is an anomaly since Moshe did not cry out to G-d due to the suffering from slavery as the people did as recorded in Shemot 2:23. Shemot 5:22 does record Moshe crying out to G-d, but this crying out was due to G-d’s actions. Talia suggests that by using the pronoun we, in 20:16, Moshe was tying himself to the people, and their crying out to G-d. Furthermore, Talia notes that combining this point with the idea above that in 20:16 Moshe was referring to his personal vision of the <i>malakh</i>, then in Moshe’s message to the king of Edom, there is a synthesis of Moshe and the people that what happened to the people is a part of who he was, and what happened to him is a part of the history of the Jewish people.</div><div><br /></div><div>Bibliography:<br /></div><div><br /></div>Kaplan, Aryeh, 1981, <i>The Living Torah</i>, New York: Moznaim Publishing Corporation.<br /><br />Milgrom, Jacob, 1990, <i>The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers</i>, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.Andrew Scheinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14142855830959986250noreply@blogger.com0