Shemot 2:2-6 – Moshe, a foundling?

Shemot 2:2 records Moshe’s birth and that Moshe's mother hid him, apparently from the Egyptians, for the first three months of his life. After three months, she was no longer able to continue hiding him, 2:3. Was this because she had a close call that some Egyptian soldiers just barely missed finding him? She then build a basket for him and placed him in the reeds by the Nile, and lo behold, Pharaoh's daughter found him, 2:3-6. Was this a coincidence? Moshe's mother did not place Moshe in the middle of the Nile where he could have floated away, but in a specific place where the reeds held the basket from moving. Did Moshe's mother think that someone would find him at the specific place where she placed him? Was that a known place for people to bath? Also, how was she able to get to this place if the princess of Egypt bathed there?

It must be that the place where Moshe was placed was a pubic bathing place off the Nile (a canal?), which was safe from crocodiles, and it was open both to commoners and to the royal family though at different times. For instance it could be that in mid-day it was open to the public, and during this time period, Moshe's mother brought him and placed him in the reeds. At this same time, Moshe's sister also hid herself in the area, 2:4, as how else could she have gotten so close to the princess to speak to her, 2:7. After the commoners were cleared out, then the daughter of Pharaoh came to bath, and found Moshe. 2:6 records that Moshe was crying, and it is possible that he had been crying for a while, and this is what led Pharaoh's daughter to find him.

Thus, Moshe being found in the basket was most likely not a coincidence, but Moshe's mother placed him in a place where she knew that Pharaoh's daughter was known to bath. It is even possible that Moshe's sister would have taken Moshe out of the basket, if Pharaoh's daughter did not find him since he could only have survived a short while in the basket. Accordingly, Moshe's mother did not abandon Moshe.

It has been pointed that Moshe's early life follows the literary pattern of the birth of heroes (Fox, 1995, p. 260, see also Raglan, 1936). This pattern includes that the father is a relative of the mother, there is an attempt to kill the child at birth, the child is abandoned at birth, foster parents raise the child, and eventually the child becomes a hero. According to this idea, maybe the Torah recorded how Moshe's early years followed this pattern in order for people to be more inclined to accept Moshe. However, Sarna (1991, pp. 267,268) points out that there are significant differences between Moshe and the hero pattern. For instance, usually the child is abandoned to die while here Moshe was not abandoned at all. Also, usually the child was born into royalty and then when abandoned grew up in humble circumstances, while here Moshe's real parents were slaves and the daughter of the king adopted and raised him.

Instead, maybe the point of this episode is to show that Moshe was a regular human being. Moshe was about to perform many miracles, which might lead one to think that Moshe was almost like a god. Thus, the Torah records a normal birth for Moshe that he did not just appear, and we have an image of Moshe as a baby, crying, which gives us a depiction of Moshe as a regular baby as opposed to always thinking of Moshe as a man who does miracles. Furthermore, we see how precarious his life was when he was a baby, and this precariousness also makes him more human.

This idea suggests a reason why the Torah records Moshe’s birth and not Avraham’s. We are not told Avraham's early childhood since he did not perform miracles, but by Moshe, with his incomparable greatness, the Torah wants to point out from the very beginning that he was a human being and not divine.

Bibliography:

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Raglan, Lord (Fitzroy Richard Somerset), 1936, The Hero: A study in tradition, myth and drama, London: Methuen & Co., Ltd.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1991, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Bereshit 44:16 – The middle of the game between Yosef and his brothers: You win

בראשית מד:טז - "ויאמר יהודה מה נאמר לאדני מה נדבר ומה נצטדק? האלהים מצא את עון עבדיך, הננו עבדים לאדני גם אנחנו גם אשר נמצא הגביע בידו."

After Yosef's steward “found” Yosef's goblet in Binyamin’s pack, Bereshit 44:12, the situation for the brothers was more precarious than ever.  When the brothers first came to Egypt, Yosef accused them of being spies without any evidence, 42:9, but now there was some apparent evidence that they were thieves.  At a minimum Binyamin was going to be a slave, or all of them could have been punished.

Donald Seybold (1974, p. 70) notes that the situation was completely reversed from when the brothers threw Yosef into the pit, 37:24.  Egypt was the pit for the brothers, and Yosef had the option of killing them or making them slaves.

In this desperate situation, Yehuda stated, "What shall we say to my lord? What shall we speak and how shall we prove ourselves right? Elohim has found out your servant's crime. Here we are, slaves to my lord, both we and the one in whose hand the goblet was found," 44:16, slight revision of Altar, 2004, p. 256, translation. This statement by Yehuda raises several questions.

What does it mean "Elohim has found out your servant's crime?" Elohim is usually translated as G-d, but was Yehuda then talking to G-d? Was Yehuda telling Yosef that G-d was controlling the scene and not Yosef?  What does it mean "found out?" Did G-d know not beforehand? Rashi (on 44:16) explains that Yehuda was talking on the side, and noting that G-d was paying them back for their sin of selling Yosef.  Yet, how were they being punished?  Only Binyamin was going to be enslaved.  Yehuda would have let his father down, but he could justify it by saying that it was not his fault, and for the other brothers there was no punishment at all.

In addition, why did Yehuda offer that everybody would be slaves?  It was worse for all the brothers to be slaves instead of just Binyamin. If the goal was to free Binyamin, then it would have been better if the brothers were free men which would have enabled them to earn money to redeem Binyamin from slavery.  Or, Yehuda could have offered that he would be a slave instead of Binyamin, which he did later, 44:33, or that everybody would be slaves instead of Binyamin? 

Hizkuni (on 44:16, also see Luzzatto on 44:16), explains that Yehuda was worried that Binyamin was going to be killed since the brothers had stated, before the goblet was found, that the person in whose possession the goblet was found should be killed, 44:9.  Thus, the offer to be slaves was better than Binyamin being killed.  However, it seems that the steward had rejected the brother's statement that the guilty person should be killed, 44:10.

A different idea is that, as we discussed on 43:23-34, "The middle of the game: Know thy enemy," Yehuda knew that he was speaking to Yosef and then his offer for all the brothers to be slaves was both an admission to Yosef that the brothers were wrong for throwing him into the pit, and an acknowledgement of the realization of Yosef’s dreams, 37:8.  Also, in 44:16, Yehuda twice referred to Yosef as his lord (and many times in his great  speech in 44:18,19,20,22,33) and this was copying how Yaakov had spoken to Esav when they met when Yaakov was returning to the land of Israel, 32:5.  Just like Yaakov was trying to "give back" Yitzhak's blessing to Esav, Yehuda was acknowledging that Yosef was the dominant brother as Yosef has dreamed.  Furthermore, in the beginning of the verse, “what shall we say to my lord?” Yehuda was saying that they could not defend what they did to Yosef when they threw him into the pit and allowed or caused him to be sold as a slave, which again was an admission of their guilt.

The word Elohim in 44:16 refers to Yosef and his steward and not to G-d, as in Shemot 21:6, and Shemot 22:7,8, where the word refers to judges.  The phrase "Elohim has found out your servant's crime" means that Yehuda was telling Yosef, that you, Yosef and your steward, made us understand what we did to you by your continued re-enactment of the sale with the silver on their first visit to Egypt, 42:28, and now with the goblet.    

Yehuda thought that this admission of guilt and his acknowledgement of Yosef would end the game with Yosef since he admitted that Yosef had won, but this was not sufficient for Yosef, 44:17.  Accordingly, in Yehuda’s great speech in the ensuing verses, he tried a different track.  In the speech, he made clear to Yosef the pain Yosef was causing to Yaakov, and this worked, 44:18-34, see our discussion on 44:18-45:3, "Almost the end of the game: Yehuda’s great speech."   

References:

Seybold, Donald, 1974, Paradox and Symmetry in the Joseph Narrative, in Literary Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, edited by Kenneth R. R. Gros Louis, with James S. Ackerman and Thayer S. Warshaw, Nashville: Abingdon Press, pp. 59-73.

Bereshit 25:28; 27:3,4,25,27,33 – Yitzhak and Esav: Love the hunter

בראשית כה:כח - ויאהב יצחק את עשו כי ציד בפיו ורבקה אהבת את יעקב. 

Bereshit 25:28 records that Yitzhak loved/favored Esav, and the Torah explains that this favoritism was because of the "game in his mouth." Who does the phrase “his mouth” refer to: Esav’s mouth or Yitzhak’s mouth? Also, how does the "game in the mouth" explain Yitzhak's love/ favoritism of Esav?

Rashi (on 25:28) quotes two explanations. One, the phrase "game in his mouth," refers to game in the mouth of Yitzhak that Esav regularly brought Yitzhak food that he got from hunting, and Yitzhak loved Esav due to these gifts of food. This explanation is difficult for two reasons. One, Yitzhak desired to eat mataamin, 27:4,7, which is meat after it had been seasoned and cooked. Rivka when she helped Yaakov to trick Yitzhak said that she would prepare mataamin for Yitzhak, 27:9,14,17, and when Esav came to Yitzhak to be blessed, Esav stated that he brought the mataamin, 27:31. We see that Yitzhak did not like raw meat. Two, is food really the reason why a father would favor one son over another?

Rashi's second explanation of 25:28 is from the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 63:10) that the phrase his mouth in 25:28 is referring to Esav's mouth, as Esav tricked Yitzhak by his speech that Yitzhak would think that Esav was a loving son. Following this idea, S. R. Hirsch (1989, p. 427) suggests that the phrase "game in his mouth," could mean that Esav "enthralled Yitzhak with tales of adventures and deeds of derring-do at his hunting," and that Esav's "lusty active nature" appealed to Yitzhak.

Ibn Ezra (on 25:28, see also Altar, 2004, p. 130) explains that the phrase "game in his mouth," refers to Esav’s mouth that Esav would literally bring home some of his hunt in his mouth, like an animal, a wild animal. We see this uncouth behavior again when he demands the soup from Yaakov, 25:30, "let me gulp down some of this red red stuff," (Altar, 2004, p. 131, translation). With this understanding, the Torah is presenting a grotesque portrayal of Esav from the beginning of the story.

Why would Yitzhak love Esav because Esav had game in his mouth? My thought is that Yitzhak's love of Esav was due to the oracle that Rivka heard from G-d about her sons, 25:23. The third phrase in the oracle was that one brother would be mightier than the other, and presumably the mightier of the two would be the dominant brother. Yitzhak believed that the dominant brother was going to be Esav since he thought that Esav the hunter would dominate Yaakov, the one who sat in tents, 25:27. For Yitzhak, Esav's uncouth behavior was an indication that Esav was destined to be the dominant brother. Could such an uncouth successful hunter lose a physical brawl to a person who lived in the tents? Hence, it was Esav's behavior of having game in his mouth that led Yitzhak to love him since he thought it indicated that Esav was the blessed son by G-d. Note, Yitzhak was correct that the brothers would have a physical fight to determine who would be the dominant brother, 32:22-32, see our discussion on the verses, Who fought with Yaakov?, just that he was incorrect who would win the fight.

This idea is based on the understanding that Rivka told Yitzhak the oracle, which is very reasonable, and this is indicated by the blessing that Yitzhak intended to give Esav but gave to Yaakov by mistake. 27:29 records that as part of the blessing, Yitzhak stated that Yaakov would be “the master of his brother,” and that “your mother’s son would bow down to you.” After Esav asked for another blessing, Yitzhak said there was no other blessing since he had blessed Yaakov that he would be Esav’s master, 27:37. The most Yitzhak was able to bless Esav was that Esav would be able to break free from Yaakov’s rule, 27:40. If the blessing was for material goods, then Yitzhak could have also blessed Esav for material goods. Accordingly, the main blessing that Yitzhak had intended for Esav was to bless Esav that he was to be the dominant brother. Note, this blessing was unrelated to the covenantal blessing in 28:3,4, see our discussion on 28:3,4, "Endogamy"

It is strange for a father to bless one son to be dominant over another son. Why not bless both sons? It is true that a king picks one son to be his successor, but here there was no kingdom to be ruled. Instead, Yitzhak gave this blessing for one brother to be dominant because he knew that the oracle had stated that one brother would be mightier and dominate the other.

This understanding of 25:28 is also based on the idea that the oracle did not have a single undisputed interpretation. While many people understand the oracle as meaning the elder (Esav) would serve the younger (Yaakov), as pointed out by the Radak (on 25:23, also see Alter, 2004, p. 129) the oracle could also be understood, that Yaakov was to serve Esav, "the elder, the younger shall serve." Thus, Yitzhak attempted to infer who was to be the mightier dominant son of the oracle by their actions, and his mind it was obvious that Esav was to be the dominant son.

This idea that Yitzhak loved Esav since he thought that Esav was going to be the dominant son since he was a hunter who was also very uncouth can explain several verses in chapter 27. 27:3,4 (also see 27:25,33) record that Yitzhak requested from Esav to go hunting and to prepare the meat in order that he would bless Esav. Why was it necessary for Esav to go hunting to receive the blessing? The answer is that Esav's ability to hunt was an indication to Yitzhak that Esav was destined to be the dominant brother, and Yitzhak wanted this "proof" prior to giving the blessing. This proof for Yitzhak was stronger than his disappointment in Esav for Esav’s choice of wives, 26:35.

27:27 records that when Yitzhak smelled Yaakov's clothing (thinking that they were Esav's), immediately prior to reciting the blessing intended for Esav, Yitzhak said "See, the smell of my son is like the smell of a field that (asher) G-d has blessed," (Fox, 1995, p. 125, translation). This verse is usually understood to mean that Yitzhak is noting how G-d has blessed the fields, but why should a blessing of the fields be relevant at this particular time? The Bekhor Shor (on 27:27) explains that the phrase means that Yitzhak was saying that Esav had been blessed by G-d and the proof was that G-d had helped him hunt successfully so quickly. Or, Yitzhak all along thought that Esav's prowess as a hunter (that his smell was the smell of the field, see also 25:27) was a sign that Esav had been blessed by G-d, and Yitzhak was then saying that since G-d had blessed Esav, he too was going to bless Esav. With this reading, the last three words of 27:27 are somewhat separate from the previous words, the word, asher, translated above as that should be translated as who, the phrase then is “Who G-d has blessed,” and the phrase refers to Esav, who Yitzhak thought was blessed by G-d.

Finally, after Yitzhak learned that he had been tricked by Yaakov, he said that Yaakov was still to be blessed, 27:33. Maybe Yitzhak said this because he thought that blessings could not be rescinded or maybe he said this because he was somewhat impressed with Yaakov that Yaakov was able to trick him. Previously, Yitzhak thought that for sure Esav, the uncouth hunter, was destined to be the dominant brother, but maybe after Yaakov tricked him, he realized that Yaakov could be the mightier brother.

Bereshit 7:6-11,24 – Water from the great depths of the earth during the flood by Noah

בראשית ז:יא - בשנת שש מאות שנה לחיי נח בחדש השני בשבעה עשר יום לחודש ביום הזה נבקעו כל מעינת תהום רבה וארבת השמים נפתחו.

7:11 records that G-d brought forth water from all the great depths during the flood. Were these great depths referring to water from the bottom of the oceans? More likely, the reference is to water that was/is below the upper mantle of the earth in a region called the transition zone, which is thought to contain more water than all the oceans (Frances, 2017, pp. 10,11). This water seems to be locked inside minerals, 500 to 660 kilometers below the surface, and if this is the water referred to in 7:11, then during the flood, G-d caused this water to separate from the minerals and rise to the surface. This would certainly be water from great depths.

Regardless of the source of this water from below, its presence can answer two questions concerning the flood. One, 7:1-4 records G-d’s final instructions to Noah before the flood. This conversation was on the tenth of the month since G-d told Noah that the rain was to begin in seven days, and the rain began to fall on the 17th of the month, 7:11.  7:6 then records that the water from the flood were on the land, and 7:7 records that Noah and is family went into the ark due to the water of the flood. Both of these verses happened on the 10th of the month. Afterwards, 7:11 records that that all the fountains of the deep and of the sky opened on the 17th of the month. How was there water from the flood already on the earth in 7:6,7? Are 7:6,7 anticipating 7:11? A simple answer is that 7:6,7 are referring to the water rising from springs not so deep or that water from the depths of the earth was starting to percolate on the land before the water from below gushed forth and the rain began.

The appearance of this water in 7:6,7 does not contradict 7:4 since 7:4 only refers to the rain that would be in seven days, and this water was not rain but springs from under the ground. This water was not yet sufficient to flood the world, but still this water was part of the flood. Later, on the 17th, then 7:11 records that all of the springs from under the earth shot up since previously only a few of the springs had "sent" water to the surface.

A second question is that 7:24 records that the water on the land swelled for 150 days, but 7:4,12 (and 7:17) record that it only rained for forty days. How could the water swell if there was no more rain?

Ibn Ezra (on 7:24) explains that during the period of 150 days there was rain, but it was not continuous, as opposed to the initial 40-day period where the rain did not stop. He brings a proof from 8:2 which records that the rain stopped, and as this is recorded after the mention of the 150 days, this implies that there was rain after the initial forty days.

Ramban (on 8:4) seems to explain that during the 150 days the water was unable to evaporate but there was no new water. The water from the initial 40 days remained with their full destructive power for all the 150 days and this is what the phrase va-yigbaru ha-mayim in 7:24 means (see his comments on 7:18).

I doubt these answers. According to the Ramban, the water stayed at the same level, which means the water did not swell up. Ibn Ezra is correct that 8:2 implies that the rain continued after the forty days, but the question is whether the rain in this period was significant or not. If it was just regular rain, then this quantity could not be said to cause the water to swell. However, if it was a significant amount of rain, then why does the Torah state in 7:12 that it rained for forty days, when it according to Ibn Ezra it rained more than forty days even if the rain was not continuous?

My understanding is that when 8:2 records that the floodgates of the shamayim were stopped and the rain ended, this means that when the land was drying up, G-d stopped even normal rain from falling to not hinder the drying up process. With this understanding, 8:2 implies that after the forty days of very significant torrential rain, there was normal rain in the ensuing period, but this rain would not have been enough to cause the water to swell up. What then caused the water on earth to swell after the significant forty-day rain stopped?

One possibility is the extent of the flood was limited after the forty days of flood. The basic amount of water remained the same during the ensuing 110 days (or 103 days according to my understanding, see our discussion on 7:11- 8:19, The chronology of the flood), but then G-d started to limit the area covered by the flood, which would lead the water in the remaining areas to rise further. Admittedly, this would require another miracle of some "fence" to keep the water from running off, but the flood can only be understood by invoking miracles, and this miracle of a "fence" reduces the amount of water, which lessens the dependence on miracles to explain the amount of water. It was during this period, after the forty days, that the mountains were covered, but this was only in the smaller area that remained flooded. (Note this idea that the area under water contracted could be whether the initial flood of forty days was global or local.)

A second possibility is that while the torrential rains stopped after forty days, the water from the great depths of the earth continued rising up until the end of the hundred and fifty-day period. This water could not have been seen by Noah, even if he was awake in this period, since it was coming from below, but it would have caused an increase in the water level on earth. 8:2 records that after one hundred and fifty days the water from the depths of the earth was stopped up since until then this water had continued to rise and had caused the water level on earth to swell.

Bibliography:

Frances, Peter, 2017, Natural Wonders of the World, London: Dorling Kindersley (DK) Limited, a division of Penguin Random House LLC.

Devarim 31:2 and 34:7 – Moshe's physical condition at the end of his life

דברים לא:א,ב - וַיֵּלֶךְ מֹשֶׁה וַיְדַבֵּר אֶת-הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה אֶל-כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל.  וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם בֶּן-מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם לֹא-אוּכַל עוֹד לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא וַה' אָמַר אֵלַי לֹא תַעֲבֹר אֶת-הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה.

דברים לד:ז -  וּמֹשֶׁה בֶּן-מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה בְּמֹתוֹ לֹא-כָהֲתָה עֵינוֹ וְלֹא-נָס לֵחֹה.

Devarim 31:2 records that Moshe told the people that he was no longer able to come and go, and that G-d had told him that he could not cross over the Jordan River to get to the land of Israel. The beginning of this verse, “I am no longer able to come and go” indicates that there was a deterioration in Moshe's physical abilities. However, Devarim 34:7 records that "his eyes were undimmed and his vigor unabated" (JPS translation in Tigay, 1996, p. 338), which seems to imply that there was no diminishment in Moshe's physical condition.

Rashi (on 31:2) suggests two solutions to this question. One, the reason Moshe could not go about was because of G-d's command, which is referred to in the second half of 31:2, but really he was completely fit. This is problematic since the second half of 31:2 appears to be an additional reason why Moshe was not able to be the leader of the people. Rashi's second suggestion is that the phrase coming and going in 31:2 refers to Moshe's ability to learn and expound the Torah and not his physical abilities. Yet, the phrase coming and going seems to refer to physical abilities, and it is difficult to claim that Moshe was no longer able to expound the Torah since he still has various messages to give to the people, from 31:3 to the end of the Torah.

Ibn Ezra (on 31:2) suggests that the coming and going in 31:2 refers to Moshe's ability to lead the people in war, which required extraordinary physical strength. He claims that 31:3, which refers to the upcoming conquest of the land of Israel, is a proof to this idea. However, the point of 31:3 is that G-d will take care of the fighting and then Moshe would not need to have great physical strength. Furthermore, Moshe was not going to be the general going out to battle. Even by the war with Amalek, forty years earlier, Moshe did not fight Amalek physically, Shemot 17:9. In addition, the people had just had several wars with Sihon, Og and Midyan (Bemidbar 21:35, 31:3-6) without Moshe having to be directly involved in the war. Also, Luzzatto (on 31:2) notes that the phrase "coming and going" in 31:2 just refers to going about and not to leading the people in battle.

The Ramban (on 31:2) writes that Moshe was completely fit, and his statement that he could not come and go was just to comfort the people about his upcoming death. The idea is that Moshe was not being completely honest with people that he was telling them that he was not well, even though really he was feeling fine, in order that they would accept his death. This seems very unlikely.

The Abarbanel (1999, pp. 489,490) suggests that Moshe was telling the people that shortly in the future he would be losing his strength. This is problematic because 31:2 seems to mean that at the moment when Moshe was speaking his strength was already beginning to ebb.

A simple answer is to re-examine the meaning of 34:7. Does 34:7 state that Moshe's vigor was unabated? Tigay (1996, p. 338) points out, based on the Ibn Ezra's comment on 34:7, that 34:7 means that Moshe's skin had not become wrinkled. This means that Moshe showed no signs of aging, but many times a person can look fine but still not feel well. Thus, 31:2 could just mean that Moshe was telling the people that even though he looked young and fit, still he knew that his physical strength was ebbing and consequently he no longer had the physical strength to be their leader. In fact, because he looked young, he had to tell the people that really he was not completely fit. 

This deterioration might have been in some ways a comfort to Moshe that he would accept his impending death. If he had the vigor of a twenty year old, then it might have been harder for him to accept that it was time to die, while if he understood that he was aging, then it could have made it easier for him to accept that he was about to die.

Devarim 18:6,7 – The Leviim in the mishkan/ ohel moed: To stand before G-d

דברים יח:ו,ז - וְכִי-יָבֹא הַלֵּוִי מֵאַחַד שְׁעָרֶיךָ, מִכָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲשֶׁר-הוּא, גָּר שָׁם; וּבָא בְּכָל-אַוַּת נַפְשׁוֹ, אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר-יִבְחַר ה'. וְשֵׁרֵת בְּשֵׁם ה' אֱלֹקיו כְּכָל-אֶחָיו הַלְוִיִּם הָעֹמְדִים שָׁם לִפְנֵי ה'.

Devarim 18:6,7 record that a Levi from anywhere in the country had a right to serve G-d in the chosen place with all of his Levite brothers who stand there before G-d. What does it mean that the Levi can serve in the chosen place? What work is he able to do? What is the meaning or importance of standing before G-d?

The traditional answer (see Rashi, Rashbam and D. Hoffmann on 18:6) is that the Levi here is not just a Levi but also a priest and his service is offering the sacrifices in the chosen place. Yet, it seems odd that the Torah would use the general term Levi if it only meant the priests, especially since the law of the previous verses refers specifically to priests, 18:3. Also, the phrase “all of the tribe of Levi” in 18:1 would not be related to any of the following verses.

The Talmud (Erechin 11a) quotes R. Yehuda in the name of Shmuel that the verses are referring to a regular Levi, and the service is their singing in the chosen place. This could be, and while in modern times singing is considered a basic part of the worship of G-d, the Torah never refers to any singing in the mishkan/ ohel moed or in the future chosen place.

Ibn Ezra (on 18:6, also quoted by Hizkuni on 18:6, see also Rambam, Laws of shemitta and yovel, 13:12)) follows the idea that the verses are referring to a Levi, and he suggests that the service is that the Levi was to teach Torah, presumably in the chosen place. This idea might be hinted at in Devarim 33:10, but the Ibn Ezra claims the proof is from Divrei ha-Yamim II 17:7-9. Again this is possible, but Devarim 33:10 and the verses in Divrei ha-Yamim do not refer to the Levites teaching Torah in the chosen place.

None of these approaches relate to the word standing in 18:7. My understanding is that the verses refer to the Levites, as Shmuel and the Ibn Ezra maintained, but the service of the Levites was literally to stand in the chosen place. This standing in reference to the Levites is mentioned two other times, Devarim 10:8 and Bemidbar 16:9, again in reference to the work of the Levites. It also applies to the priests, 17:12 and 18:5, just that the priests would also bring the sacrifices. The standing by the Levites and the priests would give respect to the chosen place that there would always be an honor guard in the chosen place. Furthermore, when the Levites were standing they could do many tasks, such as clean up if there was a mess or dirt in the chosen place, they could offer assistance to the priests or to people coming to offer sacrifices, and they could function as guards.

Furthermore, it seems from 18:7 that the Torah envisions that in the land of Israel some Levites would take these tasks upon themselves and specialize in this work. Other Levites would live in their cities throughout the country and work regular jobs. However, if a Levi who lived in the cities throughout the country was having a hard time supporting himself, or if he just wanted to help in the worship of G-d, then 18:6,7 record that he would have the option of going to the chosen place to stand there with his fellow Levites.

Bereshit 7:4- 8:19 – The chronology of the flood by Noah and parallelism in the flood narrative

One of the prominent aspects of the flood narrative is the numerous references to specific dates and time periods, 7:4,11,12,17,24; 8:4-6,13,14. Why are these dates important? For instance, 8:5 records that on the first day of the tenth month, the tops of the mountains were visible. Was Noah and his family able to see the tops of the mountains? Why is this significant? Conceivably the Torah could have recorded the events of the flood in a few verses. Why all the dates? One answer is from S. R. Hirsch (1989, p. 154) who writes that these dates "raise the whole catastrophe out of the realm of the blind workings of the forces of nature, and stamps it as the free-willed administration of the Divine Providence." Or, maybe the dates are a literary way to convey the magnitude of the flood. Or, maybe these dates are to contradict the possible thought that the flood was just a metaphor and did not happen.

A different set of questions is how do all the dates mesh together? No date is given for the first communication between G-d and Noah, 6:13-21, maybe since it was not clear how long it would take Noah to build the ark. Cassuto (1964, p. 43) suggests that the first communication was on the first day of the first month, but then Noah would have had to build the ark in forty days, which seems very difficult even if he had easy access to wood. Rashi (on 6:3,14) follows the idea in Chazal that it took Noah 120 years to build the ark, but this seems too much. More likely, it took Noah several years to build the ark.

The second communication between G-d and Noah, 7:1-4, was on the tenth day of the second month since 7:4 records that the rain would start in seven days and 7:11,12 record that on the 17th day of the second month, there began torrential rains for forty days. Note we do not know which is the second month, and if these dates, the tenth and the 17th, have any importance. It could be that the tenth day of the second month was close to the time that Noah finished building the ark.

If every month is 30 days, then the forty days of rain starting from the 17th day of the second month ended on the 27th day of the third month, while if a month is reckoned as 29.5 days (the more exact calculation), then forty days of rain might have ended on the 28th day of the third month.

The next verse which refers to the timing of the flood is that 7:24 records that the water swelled for 150 days. What is the connection between the forty days of rain, 7:4,12,17 and the 150 days when the water swelled, 7:24? One possibility is that these were two separate periods, altogether 190 days (Rashi on 8:3-5, Radak on 7:24), and then 7:24 is referring to the 27th of the eighth month (if a month is 30 days) or the 30th of the eighth month or the first of the ninth month (if a month is 29.5 days). The second option is that the forty days of torrential rains are part of the 150 days (Ramban on 8:4), and then the 150 days ended on 17th of the seventh month (if a month is 30 days) or the 20th of the seventh month (if a month is 29.5 days). A third option, is that I believe that already on the tenth of the second month, water started to rise from the depths of the earth (see our discussion on 7:1-11, “Water from the great depths of the earth”), and then the 150 days when the water swelled would include the forty days of torrential rains and the seven days when only the water from the depths rose to the surface. With this calculation, the swelling of water referred to in 7:24 would have ended on the 10th of the seventh month (if a month is 30 days) or on the 13th of the seventh month (if a month is 29.5 days).

The next date is that 8:3 records that the waters began to dimmish and this diminishment occurred for 150 days. This diminishment of the water for 150 days is parallel to the water swelling for 150 days (see Radak on 8:3). Presumably, these 150 days of the water level diminishing began immediately after the 150-day period of the water swelling ended, and there would be three sets of possibilities as to when this second 150 period ended. If the first set of 150 days did not include the forty days of torrential rains, then the second set of 150 days ended on 27th day of the first month of the second year (if a month is 30 days) or on the 3rd day of the second month of the second year (if a month is 29.5 days). Note that as we discuss below, this possibility cannot be correct since it contradicts 8:13. A second set of possibilities would be if the first set of 150 days included the forty days of torrential rains, and then the second set of 150 days ended either on the 17th day of the 12th month (if a month is 30 days) or on the 23rd day of the 12th month (if a month is 29.5 days). The third set of possibilities follows my idea that waters starting come up from the depths of the earth on the 10th day of the second month, and then the second set of 150 days ended on either the 10th of the 12th month (if a month is 30 days) or on the 16th of the 12th month (if a month is 29.5 days).

8:4 then records that the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat on the 17th day of the seventh month. This verse begins a new section of the episode as the 17th day of the seventh month was way before the end of the second set of 150 days for all three possibilities.

One question about 8:4 is whether the ark would have rested on the mountain when the water was rising or only when the water was dropping? If it was only when the water was dropping, then this means that the waters had to start receding by the 17th of the seventh month. This could only have happened if the first set of 150 days included the 40 days of torrential rain, and each month is 30 days, as then the ark would have lodged into the mountain immediately when waters stopped rising, or if the first set of 150 days includes the 40 days of torrential rains and the seven days when the water was rising from the depths of the earth, as then the water peaked on the 13th of the seventh month, and began to recede on the 14th day of the seventh month.

A second question about 8:4, is did the ark stayed lodged in the mountain until the end of the flood? I believe that many people think that the ark did not move from this point, but I doubt this since it is unlikely that Noah and his family left the ark high up in the mountains. More likely, the ark rested for a short time on the mountains of Ararat, but then as water continued to diminish, the ark went down with the water. If this is true, then this mention of the ark being on the mountains was to show how high the waters reached, similar to 7:20 when the water level was rising.

8:5 then records that on the first day of the tenth month, the water receded enough that the tops of the mountains could be seen. This implies that the ark was now below the mountains and not on the mountains of Ararat. This might indicate that the ark reached its final resting point. This information was also to show the magnitude of the flood, similar to the information in 7:19. Cassuto (1964, p. 106) notes that the word here ad, until, does not indicate that the waters stopped receding at this point, just that it reached a significant point, as in Bereshit 28:15.

8:6 then records that at the end of forty days, Noah opened the window in the ark. We do not know when these forty days began. Cassuto (1964, p. 106) writes that the forty-day period began on the first day of the tenth month since this was the date in the preceding verse, and then Noah opened the window on the tenth day of the eleventh month. This seems reasonable. This forty-day period from the first day of the tenth month to the tenth day of the eleventh month parallels the forty-day period of torrential rains in the beginning of the flood. Also, in the first forty-day period, the ark remained in one spot even as the water was rising, 7:17, while possibly now when the water was receding, the ark remained in its final spot for forty days. Also, at the beginning of the first forty-day period, G-d closed up the ark, 7:16, while at the end of the second forty- day period, Noah opened the window in the ark. Furthermore, the first 40 days was part of the first 150 days, and the second set of 40 days was part of the second set of the 150 days.

After Noah opened the window on the tenth day of the eleventh month, he sent out a raven and three doves, 8:7-12. Between the sending of the first and second doves and second and third doves, the Torah records that Noah waited seven days, but we do know how soon Noah sent out the raven after he opened the window, and how much time elapsed between when Noah sent out the raven and when he sent out the first dove. Cassuto (1964, p. 44) writes that Noah immediately sent out the raven when he opened the window and that there was a week between the sending out of the raven and the first dove. If this correct, then it took twenty-one days to send out the birds, and this process ended around the first day of the 12th month. This could be, but maybe Noah did not send out the raven right after he opened the window and maybe the end of the process of sending out the birds coincided with the end of the 150 days of the diminishment of the water. Also, the two seven days period between the sending out of a dove a second and third time corresponds to the seven-day period when G-d spoke to Noah on the tenth of the second month, 7:1-4. Note the seven-day period prior to the 40 days of torrential rains is mentioned twice, 7:4,10, and twice the Torah mentions Noah waiting seven days in between the sending the doves, 8:10,12.

The next date recorded is on the first day of the first month of the second year, and this was significant since on that day Noah took off the roof of the ark, 8:13. Until this point, Noah, and whoever was awake on the ark, was only able to look out of window.

8:13 also records that the land had dried out, which Rashi (on 8:13) writes means that it was still muddy, as there were no large puddles, but still the ground was soft. This description of the ground as dry, even if muddy, contradicts the possibility mentioned above that the first set of 150 days did not include the 40 days of torrential rains since with that possibility there was still water on the earth on the first month of the second year. With the other two possibilities as to when the first set of 150 days began, the first day of the first month of the second year was at most twenty days after the second set of 150 days period of the diminishment of the water ended.

Most likely, it took Noah some time to remove the roof, as it was 300 amot by 50 amot, and that he started to take off the roof after the third sending of the dove. This period would correspond to the period of the building of the ark, and both periods were not part of either of the two periods of one hundred and fifty days.

8:14 records the last date in the chronology of the flood and this was the 27th day of the second month, when the land was dry, and apparently on this day, Noah, his family and the animals left the ark, 8:15-19. This was one solar year from the time the rain started on the 17th day of the second month of the previous year if one counts both days and a month is 29.5 days. It could be that the need to have a complete solar year is why Noah, his family and the animals were unable to leave the ark earlier. Also, during the time from when the roof was removed until they left the ark, Noah and family could have looked at the earth from the ark. This seeing parallels 6:12 that G-d looked at the earth before he spoke to Noah the first time.

With this chronology, we have six parallel periods in concentric order: One, the looking at the world in the very beginning and the end of the flood, 6:12 and 8:14. Two, the building of the ark and taking apart its roof, 6:13-22 and 8:13. Three, the seven days periods, 7:1-5, and 8:7-12. Four, the two forty-day periods, 7:6-17 and 8:5,6. Five, the covering and then seeing the tops of the mountains within the two periods of 150 days, 7:19,20 and 8:4,5. Six, the two periods of 150 days, 7:18-24, and 8:3. The center of this literary structure is that G-d remembered Noah, and all of the animals, and stopped the water, 8:1,2. One could even add a seventh parallel to this structure, that 6:5-8 corresponds to 8:20,21. (Two other scholars, Wenham (1978) and Radday (1981) have also argued for a chiastic structure in the flood narrative centering on 8:1, though with different structures than what is presented here.)

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1964, A commentary on the book of Genesis, part two: From Noah to Abraham, Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

Hirsch, S. R. (1808-1888), 1989, The Pentateuch, rendered into English by Isaac Levy, second edition, Gateshead: Judaica Press.

Radday, Yehuda T., 1981, Chiasmus in Hebrew Biblical Narrative, in Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structure, Analysis, Exegesis, ed. John W. Welch, Provo, UT: Research Press, pp. 99–100.

Wenham, Gordan J., 1978, The Coherence of the Flood Narrative, Vetus Testamentum, 28, pp. 336–348.

The kinah shavat suru meni - הקינה שבת סורו מני

On Tisha B’av there is a custom to recite kinot, prayers that re-call the suffering that happened when the Bet ha-Mikdash was destroyed or for other events. The kinot can be viewed as replacing selihot, which are the usual extra prayers that we recite on the other fast days, but not on Tisha B’av.

The kinah Shavat suru meni is the first kinah that is recited in the daytime, and it is written by R. Elazar haKalir, who lived in the land of Israel, maybe around the 6th or 7th century. The kinah consists of nine stanzas, the first eight are based on the last eight letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and the ninth kinah has the acrostic of the name Elazar.

The kinah follows Megillat Eichah by quoting words or phrases from Megillat Eichah to begin each line of each stanza. Each stanza follows the same pattern in quoting Eichah, and while the kinah follows the order of the Hebrew alphabet, it follows Eichah in a backwards fashion since the first quote in each stanza is from the last chapter of Eichah, and the last quote in each stanza is from the first chapter of Eichah. 

To be more specific, the first word of the first eight stanzas is not in alphabetical order, but is the first word from the last eight verses of chapter five of Megillat Eichah, which is the only chapter in Eichah which does not follow alphabetical order. Afterwards, the stanza has a word from chapter four in Eichah. The next three lines in each stanza begin with words from the third chapter of Eichah, which record three lines for each letter of the alphabet. The following line in the stanza begins with the corresponding word in the second chapter of Eichah, and the last line of each stanza is a phrase from the first chapter of Eichah. All these words from chapter four to chapter one begin with the same letter, and the letter of each stanza follow the order of the aleph bet, starting from the letter samech. This intricate pattern shows the artistry of R. Elazar haKalir, and as this is the first kinah that is recited during the day it connects all the kinot with Eicah.

This kinah shows the development of the custom of reciting kinot on Tisha B’av by the fact that it begins with the letter samech, and then follows the Hebrew alphabet for the next eight letters. What happened to the stanzas of the first fourteen letters of the Hebrew alphabet? In turns out that the beginning of the kinah, which follows the first fourteen letters of the Hebrew alphabet, has been found as a kerovot in the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei by the chazzan. The kerovot were prayers that a chazzan would add in the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei on certain occasions.

Daniel Goldschmidt (2002, pp. 7-16) in his introduction to the kinot discusses the development of the custom of reciting kinot on Tisha B’av. He notes that initially (6th century?, 7th century?) the kinot were recited as kerovot in the morning of Tisha B’av when the chazzan would recite the Shemoneh Esrei, but as the kinot got longer, then they were moved from being part of the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei to being recited as an independent unit after the reading of the Torah and Haftorah in Shacharit. Apparently, this kinah, Shavat suru meni, was only one-third moved, either on purpose or by mistake, and the first two-thirds of the kinah are no longer recited on Tisha B’av.

The kinah also shows how R. Elazar haKalir integrated Eichah together with the Midrashim, and specifically Midrash Eichah. For example, in the second stanza, the fifth line, he begins by quoting the verse from chapter two, for the letter ayin, Eichah 2:17. This verse states that the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash was due to G-d, but Midrash Eichah records how G-d was weeping when the Bet ha-Mikdash was destroyed (Proem 24, Cohen, 1961, p. 43; on 1:1, 1961, pp. 67,68; on 1:2, 1961, p. 94). R. Elazar haKalir recounts this idea from the Midrash, after quoting Eichah 2:17, and this crying by G-d leads into the last line of the stanza which refers to crying in chapter one, Eichah 1:16.

In the fourth line of each stanza there is a reference to one of the 24 priestly families (mishmerot). This occurs either by name: In stanza sameach, the family Bilgah, in stanza peh, the family Hezir, in stanza resh, the family Yechezkel, in stanza sin, the family Yachin, and in stanza taf, the family Hapeetzet (this is the least clear), see Divrei haYamim I 24:14-17. Or, in the other stanzas, the connection is with the place where priests lived, which is based on the kinah Eichah yashva havezelt haSharon: In stanza ayin, the place Yevanit, in stanza tzadi, the place Natzrat, in stanza kuf, the place Arav, and in the last stanza, the place Kabul. R. Elazar haKalir changes the names slightly and within the kinah, the word has a meaning not related to the place or family name. The inclusion of the names and places show R. Elazar haKalir’s artistry with Hebrew, but I am not sure if there any significance to these names and places other than that they are being mentioned.

The stanza of the letter peh shows how R. Elazar haKalir refers to numerous periods and not just the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash. For example, the first line refers to the Euphrates River, which was only relevant to the exiles from the first Bet ha-Mikdash, and Goldschmidt (2002, p. 35, footnote 7) notes that according to the Midrash, many of these exiles died from drinking the water from the Euphrates. Also, the third line in the stanza, R. Elazar haKalir refers to a sin by Shiloh and Rav Soloveitchik (2010, pp. 208-210) explains that this refers either to the sins of the sons of Eli when the mishkan was in Shiloh or to the fact the mishkan in Shiloh has been forgotten.

The stanza of the letter kuf refers to various other nations who did not help the Jewish people. One case is the fourth and fifth lines of the stanza which refer to an incident recorded in Midrash Eichah (2:4) that when the people were running away to the east by the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash, Arabs gave them salty food and them bottles which were supposed to be filled with water, but were just empty. According to the Midrash, this caused the people’s stomach to split open. R. Elazar haKalir also refers to this incident in the lamed line of the kinah im tochalnah nashim. 

Another example is from the last line in the stanza, which is based on Eichah 1:19, that the Jewish people called to her lovers but they deceived her. This line in Eichah (also Eichah 1:2) refers to the lack of support the Jewish people received from Egypt when the Babylonians were attacking Jerusalem in 586 BCE. After the Babylonians had defeated Egypt in 605 BCE, the kingdom of Yehuda was under Babylonian rule. However, it seems that in 591 BCE, Zedekaiah, a son of Yoshiyahu, tried to break away from Babylonian rule and he made an agreement with Egypt. This caused the Babylonians, Nebuchadnezzar to attack Jerusalem, and this led to the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash in 586 BCE. Yirmiyahu 37:5 records that Egypt’s army initially came to help Zedekaiah, but when the Babylonians came back and surrounded the city for two years (January 588 BCE to July 586 BCE), the Egyptians provided no help, and this is what Eichah 1:19 and the line in the kinah are referring to.

The first line in the penultimate stanza, which is based on the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, taf, states that Yaakov’s image was engraved within the throne of G-d. This idea of G-d having a throne is popular in many prayers though it is a difficult concept. I think the idea should be understood as a metaphor that there is a special connection between G-d and Yaakov. Thus, R. Soloveitchik (2010, pp. 212,213) notes that Yaakov connotes the Jewish people more than any other figure, and the idea that his image is engraved in the throne of G-d shows that the relationship between G-d and the Jewish people is eternal. This is also the basis for the second to last verse in Eichah, 5:21, that we pray to renew the bonds between G-d and the Jewish people.

The remaining line in the penultimate stanza are calls for revenge. This idea also appears in the end of chapters one, three and four in Eichah, and in several of the kinot, especially those composed for the tragedies of the Jews in Germany from the Crusaders. The desire for revenge is problematic. Many people view revenge as an act of justice since if there is no allowance for people to take revenge, then many times murderers go free. Was it wrong for people after WWII to take revenge and kill Nazis who killed Jews? However, revenge killings also lead to innocent people being killed. Was R. Elazar haKalir, writing maybe 500 - 600 years after the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash, in this kinah really calling for people to take revenge? R. Jonathan Sacks (2016, p. 246) quotes two scholars who argue that when people ask G-d to take revenge they are sparing humans from taking revenge. Thus, here and in the other kinot, the call of revenge should be understood as a prayer to G-d to punish the people who harm the Jewish people, but not as a call for people to take revenge themselves.

Within the last stanza, R. Elazar haKalir inserted the letters of his first name as the beginning of each line. This is a common practice of paytanim to spell out their names in a piyyut, as it is the only way that they can claim authorship of the piyyut. R. Elazar haKalir does not do it in every kinah, and even when he does insert his name, he just refers his first name, while others paytanim sometime refer to their whole name (son of) and give themselves a blessing (usually chazak).

Bibliography:

Cohen, Abraham, 1961 (first edition 1939), Midrash Rabbah: Lamentations, London: The Soncino Press.

Goldschmidt, Daniel (1895-1972), 2002, first printed 1972, The kinot of Tisha B’av: Following the custom of Poland and Ashkenazi communities in the land of Israel, 2nd edition, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Sacks, Jonathan (1948-2020), 2016, Not in God’s name: Confronting religious violence, London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Soloveitchik, Joseph (1903-1993), 2010, The Koren mesorat harav kinot: Commentary on the kinot based on the teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, edited by Simon Posner, Jerusalem: Koren Publishers; New York: OU Press.

Bemidbar 19:2 – How red did the red cow have to be?

 :במדבר יט

פסוק ב: זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה, אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה ה' לֵאמֹר:  דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּמִימָה אֲשֶׁר אֵין-בָּהּ מוּם, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-עָלָה עָלֶיהָ, עֹל.  ....  יג כָּל-הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּמֵת בְּנֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר-יָמוּת וְלֹא יִתְחַטָּא, אֶת-מִשְׁכַּן ה' טִמֵּא--וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא, מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל:  כִּי מֵי נִדָּה לֹא-זֹרַק עָלָיו, טָמֵא יִהְיֶה--עוֹד, טֻמְאָתוֹ בוֹ. 

Bemidabr 19:1-12 record a process of purifying a person who became tamei since the person came into contact with a dead body. The process involves sprinkling ashes from a red cow, parah adumah, on the person being purified.

19:2 records that the cow is to be adumah, which is usually translated as red, but there are many shades to the color of red. If the Torah means a bright red, like the color of tomatoes, then having a cow with such a color would be rare. However, if the Torah means a reddish, brown color like bordo, then there are many types of cows who fit this qualification.

19:2 also records the word temimah, whole, after the word adumah, and that the cow cannot have a blemish and not have been worked. Does this word temimah modify the term cow, parah, or the term red, adumah in the verse? Rashi (on 19:2), following the Sifrei, writes that the word temimah modifies the word adumah, and then the Torah is requiring that the cow be completely red to the extent that even if there are two black hairs on the cow it cannot be used to purify the tamei person. The logic of this reading is that the phrase after the word temimah is “that the cow had no blemish,” and if the word temimah was referring to the cow, then it is claimed that the phrase “that the cow has no blemish” would be redundant. Hence, according to this approach, it must be that the word temimah means that the cow must be completely red. With this reading of 19:2, a red cow without even two black hairs, and presumably any other color, would be rare.

Rashi is following the opinion of R. Yehoshua ben Bethyra in the Mishnah in Parah 2:5, but there are other opinions that the cows can have more than two non-red hairs and still be acceptable. For instance, the Mishnah quotes R. Akiva that even if there are four or five non-red hairs that are not together, then they can be plucked from the cow and the cow can be used for the purifying process. The Mishnah also quotes R. Eliezer that even if there were fifty non-red hairs, which are dispersed on the animal, then they can be plucked off the animal. A different Mishnah (Parah 2:2) notes that if the horns and hoofs of the cow are black, then they also can be cut off. These opinions recognize the difficulty to have a cow which is literally red all over, though these opinions only minimally reduce the rareness of the appearance of a red cow.

A different reading of 19:2 is that the word temimah does not refer to the color red but to the cow, that the cow has to be whole. With this understanding, the following phrase in the verse “that the cow has no blemish” is just coming to explain what is meant by the term temimah. The phrase “that the cow has no blemish” would not be viewed as being redundant but as being explanatory and Luzzatto (on 19:2) points out that a similar case with the word tamim and the phrase “that there is no blemish” occurs in Vayikra 22:21. The Torah Temimah (on 19:2) notes that in the Torah the word temimah refers to the state of the animal, and if the Torah meant for the cow to be completely red, then the Torah should have stated have used the word “all” or “completely” instead of the word temimah.

With this latter understanding of 19:2, one can understand that the parah adumah was not 100% red, but rather that it was mostly red (bordo). This would follow the general rule in halakhah that a majority is like everything, rubu kekulo. The question would then be how much of a majority? The Mishnah Parah (2:5) notes the possibility that some of the hairs on the cow might have different colors in different parts of the hair, and the Mishnah rules that that status of the hair as being red or another color would depend on what is more evident. The same rule could apply to the red cow that if it looks red (bordo), then it would qualify for the purifying process even if it was not completely red.

It is possible that such a view exists in the Mishnah. The Mishnah (Parah 3:7) discusses the case of what happens when a designated red cow would not be willing to go to the ceremony (a stubborn cow). The Mishnah states that one cannot take out a black cow or another red cow to walk with the first red cow because in the case of the two red cows, people might say that two red cows were killed. This idea that there could be two red cows living at the same time is difficult according to the understanding that the red cow had to be completely red since this was a such a rare occurrence. It is true that the Mishnah (Parah 3:5) states that in two people’s lives there were two red cows, but still this was only in their lifetime, while the case of Parah 3:7 is when the two red cows were living at the same exact time. I think that this possibility in the Mishnah to have two red cows alive at the same time shows that for some opinions (not all) the parah adumah did not have to be completely red.

Regardless of how one understands the Mishnah Parah 3:7, the two different ways to read 19:2 have several different implications. If one understands that the word temimah refers to the color red and that the cow has to be completely red, then the appearance of such cow would be very rare. This accords with the Mishnah (Parah 3:5), which records an argument about the number of parot adumot, red cows, that existed until the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash. R. Meir claims that from the time of Moshe to the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash there were only seven red cows, while the Chachamim, who did not discuss the period before Ezra (5th century BCE?) state that from Ezra to the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash there were seven red cows. This opinion would be seven red cows in around 500 years, while according to R. Meir there were seven reds cows in around 1400 years. Both opinions attest to the rarity of the red cow. (The Rambam, Laws of parah adumah, end of chapter three, combines the two opinions in the Mishnah to claim that there were in total nine red cows from the time of Moshe until the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash, and then he adds that there will be one more red cow by in the messianic age. I am not sure where the Rambam knew about the tenth parah adumah.) On the other hand, if the word temimah relates to the cow, then the cow could just be a cow that looks red, though not completely red, and then the red cow would not be such a rare case.

This difference is how rare was the red cow has other implications. If the cow is very rare, just once in a century, then there is a need to both limit the need for the ashes from the cow and to increase the supply of the ashes that come from the red cow. With regard to the need for the ashes, the simple reading of 19:13 (and Vayikra 15:31?) is that a person who comes into contact with a dead body must purify him or herself, and that a person cannot remain in a state of tumah. This creates a huge need for red cows, which could only be fulfilled if the red cow was only a majority red. However, if the red cow had to be completely red, and hence very rare, then there would not be enough red cows for people to be purifying themselves on a regular basis. Instead, the traditional understanding of 19:13 (see Rashi on 19:13) is that only the person entering the Bet ha-Mikdash needs to purify him/ herself, but everybody else can remain in a state of tumah.

With regard to the supply of ashes from the red cows, if one thinks that a red cow is such a rare event, then there is a need to increase the ashes through other means. One other mean could be to have a larger pyre to burn the red cow, as then the wood would give more ashes, but the pyre could not be that large since the high priest has to take the cow up to the pyre and come down after killing the cow on the pyre, Mishnah Parah 3:9. Another way to increase the ashes is by adding more water to the combination of water and ashes, that is to say diluting the combination of water and ashes. Yet, the Chachamim (Mishnah Parah 6:2) maintain that any ashes that have been mixed with some water cannot be mixed with other water.

Another difference between the two different understandings of 19:2 is more philosophical. Is the Torah to be understood in a miraculous manner or is the Torah to be understood a guide for people to live in a normal manner without relying on miracles. According to the idea that the red cow had to be completely red, then the Torah is making a law which is based on miracles, while if 19:2 is understood to mean that the cow could be mostly red (bordo), then the Torah was setting rules for people to live without having to rely on events that at best occurred once in a century. This blog, as indicated by its name, obviously follows the non-miraculous approach.

Bemidbar 6:11 - The nazir: In the danger zone

Bemidbar 6:11 records that after a nazir accidently came into contact with a dead body, then he/she has to bring an olah and a hatta`t and these sacrifices are le-khapper for the nazir who sinned al ha-nefesh (nafesh). This verse raises at least two questions. 

One, what was the nazir's sin? The nazir is forbidden to come into contact with a dead body, but 6:9 records that the case is where the nazir accidently came into contact with the dead body, as the dead person died suddenly. Two, what does the phrase al ha-nefesh in 6:11 mean?

Rashi (on 6:11) first quotes that the nazir's sin was that he/ she was not careful about not coming into contact with a dead body. With this approach, the phrase al ha-nefesh refers to the dead person that the nazir sinned due to the dead person. However, 6:9 states that the person died suddenly. How can the nazir be considered a sinner when he/ she accidentally came in contact with the dead body? Is the nazir supposed to live secluded with no human contact to protect him or herself from not coming into contact with a dead body?

Rashi also quotes a second approach from R. Eliezer Hakappar (Talmud, Ta'anit 11a) who argued that the phrase al ha-nefesh, refers to the nazir and not to the dead body, and the nazir's sin was becoming a nazir since he/ she was then denying him/ herself the enjoyment of wine. This approach is also difficult. If it was a sin not to drink wine, then the Torah could have made the laws of nazir to only involve two items, not to cut one's hair and not to become tamei. Also, the context of 6:11 is referring to the dead body and not to the prohibition of wine which is mentioned in 6:3,4. Furthermore, if it is really a sin to abstain from wine, then the Torah should have stated this idea in reference to all people. (My inclination is that R. Eliezer Hakappar's explanation is because he was bothered by the contradiction between the laws of nazir for whom part of becoming kadosh requires one not to drink wine, and our practice of using wine to me-kadesh Shabbat, festivals and people.)

It must be that the sin in 6:11 refers to the nazir coming into contact with the dead body since that is the context of the verse, but what can be the sin if it was a complete accident? The answer is from the similar word nafshotam in reference to the 250 people who joined with Korah to rebel against Moshe and Aharon, 17:3. What is the connection between these two cases? A possible answer is that in both cases, the nazir and the 250 people, wanted to serve G-d more. The phrase al ha-nefesh by the nazir would then signify this desire of the soul (person) to serve G-d more. Yet, still what was the nazir's sin by the unexpected death?

The answer is that while coming into contact with the dead body was an accident the person did not have to declare himself a nazir. If a regular person comes into contact with a dead body, then there is no prohibition and no sin. The sin of coming into contact with a dead body by the nazir is because the person made himself into a nazir and that was a voluntarily act. Thus, the sin was al ha-nefesh, due to the soul's desire to serve G-d more. A person can choose to become a nazir, which is not a sin, but then the person is responsible for anything that happens even if it is not his/her fault. The person by making him or herself a nazir is putting him/ herself in the "danger zone."

This explanation of 6:11 relates to the larger question of should everybody become a nazir? Or, to phrase the question differently, is becoming a nazir a desirable act? The answer to this question has been debated through the years.

As mentioned above, R. Eliezer Hakappar viewed being a nazir negatively but a second opinion in the Talmud (Ta'anit 11a), R. Eleazar argues that being a nazir is a positive act. This argument continued in the Middle Ages. Rambam (Laws of Opinions 3:1) argues that one should not be ascetic based on the view of R. Eliezer Hakappar. However, Ramban (on 6:14) views the nazir positively. As N. Leibowitz (1980, p. 56) points out, according to the Rambam it is sin to become a nazir while according to the Ramban it is a sin to stop being a nazir.

This argument between the Rambam and the Ramban relates to the different approaches to G-d, whether through mysticism or rationalism. The mystic approach, the Ramban, would be that one can get closer to G-d by subjective experience and thus the more experiences or here more restrictions, the more religious one is. The rational approach, the Rambam, would be that one can only get closer to G-d by following the laws that were commanded, and thus one would not add on what was not required.

N. Leibowitz claims that the positive approach to the nazir follows the simple sense of the text since Bemidbar 6:8 states that the nazir is kadosh. She seems to follow the idea that the word kadosh means holy or exalted, but the word kadosh just means separated, as the nazir has partially separated him/ herself from the world by not being able to become tamei, by not drinking wine, and by not cutting his/ her hair. According to our explanation of 6:11 this separation is not necessarily good since the nazir is more prone to sinning, even for events that are not his/her fault, like accidently coming into contact with a dead body. The end of 6:11 records that after bringing the olah and hatta`t sacrifices, the nazir is kadosh again, but this is not indicative of his/ her desire to be close to G-d, but that since he/ she failed the first time, then he/ she has to separate him/ herself again.

Why are the laws of nazir optional? According to the positive approach these laws should be obligatory. According to the negative approach, why are people given the chance to increase their chance of sinning?

The answer according to the positive approach is that while a being a nazir is a good thing, it would be too difficult to require all people to follow these extra prohibitions, and it can increase the sins of people. However, according to the negative approach, why can one become a nazir?

Rambam (Moreh, 3:48, 1963, pp. 599,600) writes “the reason for nazaritism is to bring about abstinence from drinking wine, which has caused the ruin of the ancients and the moderns…All of the high esteem for the nazir is because he abstains from drink.” The idea would seem to be that while being a nazir is not praiseworthy still it is better to be a nazir than a drunk. Thus, the Rambam, in the end of the Laws of Nazir, 10:14, writes that if one becomes a nazir for bad reasons then being a nazir is bad, but if one does it for sincere religious reasons, then it is a positive action. (See statement by Shimon ha-Tzaddik quoted in Nazir 4b, and Rama quoted by N. Leibowitz, 1982, p. 58.) Yet, according to this reasoning, the law of the nazir should only have involved an abstenence from wine.

A different answer is that the ability of a person to become a nazir is an opportunity for a person, usually the mystically inclined person, who feels a need to do more than required, the chance to do more. This feeling is very common in the religious persona. Thus, within the framework of the Torah, there is the opportunity to do more than one is commanded if one feels so compelled. If this outlet was not allowed, then possibly the person would end up creating new laws, which is prohibited, Devarim 4:2 and 13:1. Thus, while the nazir put him or herself in the "danger zone," the alternative is that the nazir would actually begin to worship G-d in an inappropriate manner, which would be a worse outcome. Yet, according to the adherents of the negative approach, it would have been better if the person never had any feeling to do more than required since according to this approach one should worship G-d as commanded by G-d without "extras."

My understanding of the nazir would be an intermediate position between the positive and negative approaches, as becoming a nazir would not be a sin, and can be viewed positively if a person truly feels this need to worship G-d more than what he/ she is commanded. However, since 6:11 refers to the nazir as having sinned even by an accident, the nazir would not be considered as being more exalted or praiseworthy than a person who did not become a nazir. Furthermore, since becoming a nazir makes a person more exposed to sinning, even unintentionally, it can be a mistake to become a nazir, and then if a person does not have the need to do more than what is commanded, a person should not become a nazir.

Bibliography:

Leibowitz, Nehama, 1982, Studies in Bemidbar, translated and adapted by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.