Were the dudaim in season? Does this impact our identification of dudaim?

Summary: A three way machlokes about what dudaim means in Sanhedrin. Though we might then take those Aramaic identifications in different ways. Rashi seizes the explanation of סיגלי and identifies it with one species. Ramban uses other gemaras to argue with that identification and propose another identification for סיגלי, but then points out a botanical problem with that other identification -- they were out of season, so how could Reuven find it. He then chooses an alternate identification for dudaim, from the gemara and from Onkelos. Then Chasam Sofer weighs in to save from the botanical problem. But there are complications.

Post:

Here is a pasuk from Vayeitzei, and Rashi:

Reuben went in the days of the wheat harvest, and he found dudaim in the field and brought them to Leah, his mother, and Rachel said to Leah, "Now give me some of your son's dudaim."		יד. וַיֵּלֶךְ רְאוּבֵן בִּימֵי קְצִיר חִטִּים וַיִּמְצָא דוּדָאִים בַּשָּׂדֶה וַיָּבֵא אֹתָם אֶל לֵאָה אִמּוֹ וַתֹּאמֶר רָחֵל אֶל לֵאָה תְּנִי נָא לִי מִדּוּדָאֵי בְּנֵךְ:
in the days of the wheat harvest: [This is] to tell the praise of the [progenitors of] the tribes. It was harvest time, and he did not stretch out his hand upon stolen property, to bring wheat or barley, but only upon an ownerless thing, which no one cares about. — [from Gen. Rabbah 72: 2]		בימי קציר חטים: להגיד שבחן של שבטים, שעת הקציר היה ולא פשט ידו בגזל להביא חטים ושעורים אלא דבר ההפקר שאין אדם מקפיד בו:
dudaim: (Sanh. 99b) Sigli. This is an herb, [called] jasmine in Arabic.		דודאים: סיגלי, עשב הוא ובלשון ישמעאל יסמי"ן:

Note that Rashi first cites Sanhedrin 99b for this identification. And then, in a separate step, he further identifies which species Chazal were talking about.

Though it is actually a dispute amongst Chazzal in Sanhedrin:

And Reuben went in the days of the wheat harvest [and found mandrakes in the field]. Raba b. Isaac said in Rab's name: This shews that righteous men do not take what is not theirs.¹⁹  And found dudaim²⁰  [mandrakes] in the field. What are dudaim? — Rab said: mandrakes;²¹  Levi said: violets; R. Jonathan said: mandrake flowers.

Or, in Aramaic:

וימצא דודאים בשדה מאי דודאים אמר רב יברוחי לוי אמר סיגלי ר' יונתן אמר (סיבסוך) [סביסקי]:

Note how different people can interpret Levi's סיגלי as referring to different plants. (סיגלי might connote purple and thus violets.)

According to Ramban, there is a problem with Rashi's explanation of Dudaim. He writes:

(יד): דודאים - 

סיגלי (סנהדרין צט ב), ובלשון ישמעאל יאסמין. כך מצאתי בפירוש רש"י. 

ואינו כן, כי יאסמין בלשון ערבי כך שמו בדברי רבותינו, כדאמרינן בפרק במה טומנין (שבת נ ב): האי כוספא דיאסמין שרי, וסיגלי אומרים שהם "כנפסגא" שאמרו בהן (ברכות מג ב): מברכין עליהם בורא עשבי בשמים. אבל אין זמנם בימי קציר חטים, אולי מצאם שם במקרה:
והראוי לקבל בדודאים דעת אונקלוס שתרגם בהן: 

יברוחין, ובבראשית רבה (עב ב): גם כן, ר' חייא ב"ר אבא אמר יברוחין, והן יברוח בלשון ערבי. 

"Dudaim: Sigalei (Sanhedrin 99b), and in Arabic it is jasmine. So have I found in Rashi's commentary.

And it is not so, for jasmine, in Arabic has the identical name (jasmine) in the words of our Sages, as we say in perek Bameh Tomnin (Shabbat 50b): This kusfa of yasmin in permitted. Meanwhile, regarding sigalei, they say that they are 'Kanpasga', regarding which they said about them (Berachot 43b) 'We bless upon them בורא עשבי בשמים. However, their time is not in the days of the wheat harvest [Josh: namely, during Shavuot, during spring]. Perhaps he found them by chance. And what is fitting is to accept the position of Onkelos, who renders tham as יברוחין. And in Bereishit Rabba (72:2) likewise, Rabbi Chiya beRabbi Abba said Yavruchin, and this is יברוח in Arabic."

Interestingly, we see in Sanhedrin 99b that Rav translated it as יברוחי. And Onkelos had translated it so. So Rashi is choosing one position in Sanhedrin, against another position in Sanhedrin, and against Onkelos. Unless he had understood everyone to be in agreement and just giving local names.

If I read Ramban correctly, he is saying that the true sigalei (of Berachot 43b) are not in that season. But that יברוחין would be in season. I don't know enough about the identity of these species, about Arabic, and then about botany to say whether this is so. This requires greater investigation to learn properly.

However, I would point out that Soncino and Jastrow both render יברוח as mandrake, and that mandrakes do flower in the spring. Which means that Onkelos' translation, and thus Ramban's translation, would work out with the timing.

Here is what the Chasam Sofer has to say about this:

"And Reuven went in the season of the wheat harvest: Ramban argues that these are not the species which Rashi explains as jasmine, and yavruchin [Josh: as per Rav and Onkelos] are not found in the days of the wheat harvest.

And it appears to me that this is what the verse is coming to inform us.  Based on what Chazal say, that the angel appointed on lust compelled Yehuda to turn on the path to be with Tamar, so that two tzadikim would result. So too, Hashem prepared dudaim not in their time in order to produce Yissachar."

And here is where I am a bit confounded. This summary of Ramban seems slightly off. By my read of Ramban, he indeed rejects Rashi's explanation of dudaim as jasmine; but then explains what the gemara actually meant by סיגלי and rejects that other species on the basis of season -- though giving a similar explanation to Chasam Sofer, in that Ramban's אולי מצאם שם במקרה matches nicely to dudaim not in their proper time by Divine direction. But finally, Ramban recommends יברוחין, which is another position in the gemara and is in Onkelos. And Ramban does not reject this on the basis of season. That was my read. Meanwhile, it seems like Chasam Sofer understands Ramban to reject יברוחין on the basis of season. I don't see how to read this into Ramban's words (ignoring even that it is the proper season).

On the other hand, as I described above, I haven't done my due diligence in researching the Arabic, the botany, etc. So I shouldn't necessarily leap to the conclusion that the Chasam Sofer read too hastily and so misrepresented the Ramban. (Regardless, his explanation works equally well assuming an identification of סיגלי as opposed to יברוחין.)

Suggestions welcome. Am I missing something here?

Yaakov, davening early maariv and hovering on Shabbos

There is a great Chasam Sofer I noticed this week, parashas Vayeitzei. Forget about the angst regarding whether we really say the Avos kept the Torah, and just sit back and enjoy the fabulous construction. See the pesukim here.

"ויפגע במקום, and he reached the place [J: where ויפגע is classically darshened as meaning tefillah and מקום is classically darshened as referring to Hashem; and Yaakov here was seen as having instituted Maariv] -- see Magen Avraham in Orach Chaim siman 267 seif katan 1 [J: about davening Maariv of Shabbat on Erev Shabbat, like Rav, because Maariv was instituted corresponding to the burning of the leftover limbs and fats]. This was Erev Shabbat Kodesh close to nightfall, and therefore he davened Maariv before the sun set [בא השמש, as the pasuk says] for the limbs and fats of Erev Shabbat may not be brought on Shabbat.

And behold, Elifaz took his money, all that he had [J: as per a Midrash that he robbed him after pursuing him on Esav's command], based on the idea that one may give his purse to a non-Jew [J: on Erev Shabbat, so that one is not carrying it on Shabbat].

Therefore [J: because we see from these two acts that he was keeping the Shabbat], he saw in his dream וּפָרַצְתָּ יָמָּה וָקֵדְמָה וְצָפֹנָה וָנֶגְבָּה, and you shall spread west, east, north and south. For anyone who keeps Shabbat, he is granted an inheritance without limits.

Therefore he set up a matzeiva and poured oil upon it, for שמן, oil, with its lettered spelled out in full, is שין מם נון, which is the gematria of שומר [J: the ש and מ and ו are in both, and then, to get the ר, which is 200, see that there are 3 נ worth 50 each, a מ worth 40, and a י worth 10]. And מצבה spelled out in full is מם צדיק בית הא, which is gematria שבת [J: namely, the ב and ת are in both, and then, to get to the ש of שבת, which is 300, you have ק, which is 100, two מ and two י for the next 100, then צ for 90 + the ד and א and ה for 10, for a sum of 300]. And so, you have שומר שבת.

And it appears that until now, Yaakov did not make use of the Holy Name to perform the act of traveling [J: quickly, קפיצה, as per the midrash that here was kefitzat haderech] higher than 10 tefachim , for he worried that perhaps he would have to depend on others, and one who depends [on others] is forbidden to make use of the holy names, as is stated in Yerushalmi Yoma.

However, now, it was stated to him in his dream כִּי לֹא אֶעֱזָבְךָ, 'for I will not abandon you', and this is [J: what Yaakov says in his vow on awaking] וְנָתַן-לִי לֶחֶם לֶאֱכֹל, וּבֶגֶד לִלְבֹּשׁ, 'and He gives me bread to eat and clothing to wear', as Rashi explains

[J: namely,

and He will give me bread to eat: As He said, “for I will not forsake you,” for if one must seek bread, he is called “forsaken,” as it is said, (Ps. 37:25): “and I have not seen a righteous man forsaken and his seed seeking bread.” [from Gen. Rabbah 69:6]

ונתן לי לחם לאכול: כמו שאמר (פסוק טו) כי לא אעזבך, והמבקש לחם הוא קרוי נעזב, שנאמר (תהלים לז כה) ולא ראיתי צדיק נעזב וזרעו מבקש לחם:

]

and he was promised that he would not have to depend on other people. Therefore [J: as in the conclusion of his vow], וְהָיָה ה לִי לֵאלֹהִים, that he would make use of the Names. And therefore [Bereishit 29:1] וַיִּשָּׂא יַעֲקֹב רַגְלָיו, to explain, that based on the Name used for kefitza he lifted up his feet from upon the ground, and traveled on Shabbat higher that 10 tefachim, in accordance with the opinion that there is no techum Shabbat higher than 10 tefachim."

End quote of Chasam Sofer. This is as described for Eliyahu Hanavi in Eruvin 43a, see my discussion. Note how the term קפיצה is used there in Eruvin. Does קפיצה mean swift travel or hovering travel? It is interesting how these interplay here.

Also interesting to me was the neatness of the two gematriot. They were both regular, in that both used the full spellings of the letters of the words; and in finding that two items possessed identical gematria, one could first find the matching letters, and then, having eliminated those, the remaining letters formed a multiple of 100. I think this is an artefact of it being produced by a human using his natural, though remarkably astute, faculties. This is the sort of gematria one might come up with, using skills of pattern recognition. Whereas other gematriot with arbitrary matches on every single letter to add up to arbitrary sums might be much harder, without the aid of books or programs which point out correspondences. Maybe. I haven't made a study of it, but I wonder if there might indeed be some signature to the type of calculations involved in various human-produced gematriot.

Chasam Sofer explains the small aleph of Vayikra

He writes:

"Vayikra, with a small aleph. There is to explain the matter, that the measure of a small letter, this is that it is 1/4 smaller than a regular letter {?} in that particular sefer, and the large letter are a measure of four times the size of a regular letter in that sefer, as is known. 

And behold, the Torah is interpreted in four different ways, namely PaRDeS, which is Peshat, Remez, Derush and Sod. And behold, the different in Peshat between Vayikra and Vayikar is that Vayikar does not allude to such greatness and glory as does Vayikra. However, according to Derush, Vayikar is a language of keri [happenstance?] and impurity while Vayikra is a language of endearment and calling from the ministering angels. As Vekara Zeh el Zeh we translate into Aramaic 'and they received, this one from that one'. And so too according to Remez and according to Sod. And see the Zohar in this parasha the remazim and sodot of this aleph.
And Moshe Rabbeinu, in accordance with his great humility, only wished for the peshat meaning. Therefore he wrote it with a small aleph, missing the other thre facets, so that one would only understand from it the peshat explanation."

There is something subversive about this explanation, I think...

Why did the Sages change חֲמוֹר to chamud, in the Septuagint?

Summary: My thoughts, that it is of course a scribal error, and the braysa which says otherwise is making a nice derasha based on existing facts. The Chasam Sofer has a detailed explanation, based on whether Moshe Rabbenu was entitled to a share in the spoils, and if not, at least a donkey to help carry the bones of Yosef.


Post: Also see this post, this post, and this post.

Consider Shemot 16:15:

טו  וַיִּחַר לְמֹשֶׁה, מְאֹד, וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל-יְהוָה, אַל-תֵּפֶן אֶל-מִנְחָתָם; לֹא חֲמוֹר אֶחָד מֵהֶם, נָשָׂאתִי, וְלֹא הֲרֵעֹתִי, אֶת-אַחַד מֵהֶם.

15 And Moses was very wroth, and said unto the LORD: 'Respect not Thou their offering; I have not taken one ass from them, neither have I hurt one of them.'

In the Septuagint {=Targum Hashivim}, instead of Moshe indignantly saying that he has not taken anyone's chamor, they have:
15 καὶ ἐβαρυθύμησε Μωυσῆς σφόδρα καὶ εἶπε πρὸς Κύριον· μὴ πρόσχῃς εἰς τὴν θυσίαν αὐτῶν· οὐκ ἐπιθύμημα οὐδενὸς αὐτῶν εἴληφα, οὐδὲ ἐκάκωσα οὐδένα αὐτῶν.
15 And Moses was exceeding indignant, and said to the Lord, Do thou take no heed to their sacrifice: I have not taken away the desire of any one of them, neither have I hurt any one of them.

and the Samaritans have an identical error, swapping the daled for a resh, with the Samaritan text on the left side.


This is a clear error, and we have confirmation when Shmuel echoes Moshe, in I Shmuel 12:3:

ג  הִנְנִי עֲנוּ בִי נֶגֶד ה וְנֶגֶד מְשִׁיחוֹ, אֶת-שׁוֹר מִי לָקַחְתִּי וַחֲמוֹר מִי לָקַחְתִּי וְאֶת-מִי עָשַׁקְתִּי אֶת-מִי רַצּוֹתִי, וּמִיַּד-מִי לָקַחְתִּי כֹפֶר, וְאַעְלִים עֵינַי בּוֹ; וְאָשִׁיב, לָכֶם.

3 Here I am; witness against me before the LORD, and before His anointed: whose ox have I taken? or whose ass have I taken? or whom have I defrauded? or whom have I oppressed? or of whose hand have I taken a ransom to blind mine eyes therewith? and I will restore it you.'

Note shor set opposite chamor.

While this seems to be a mere textual error, Megillah 9a-b sets it up as a deliberate change:

ותניא א"ר יהודה אף כשהתירו רבותינו יונית לא התירו אלא בספר תורה ומשום מעשה דתלמי המלך דתניא מעשה בתלמי המלך שכינס שבעים ושנים זקנים והכניסן בשבעים ושנים בתים ולא גילה להם על מה כינסן ונכנס אצל כל אחד ואחד ואמר להם כתבו לי תורת משה רבכם נתן הקב"ה בלב כל אחד ואחד עצה והסכימו כולן לדעת אחת וכתבו לו (בראשית א, כז) אלהים ברא בראשית (בראשית א, א) אעשה אדם בצלם ובדמות (בראשית א, כו) ויכל ביום הששי וישבות ביום השביעי (בראשית ה, ב) זכר ונקבה בראו ולא כתבו בראם (בראשית יא, ז) הבה ארדה ואבלה שם שפתם (בראשית יח, יב) ותצחק שרה בקרוביה (בראשית מט, ו) כי באפם הרגו שור וברצונם עקרו אבוס (שמות ד, כ) ויקח משה את אשתו ואת בניו וירכיבם על נושא בני אדם (שמות יב, מ)ומושב בני ישראל אשר ישבו במצרים ובשאר ארצות ארבע מאות שנה (שמות כד, ה) וישלח את זאטוטי בני ישראל (שמות כד, יא) ואל זאטוטי בני ישראל לא שלח ידו  (במדבר טז, טו) לא חמד אחד מהם נשאתי (דברים ד, יט) אשר חלק ה' אלהיך אתם להאיר לכל העמים (דברים יז, ג) וילך ויעבוד אלהים אחרים אשר לא צויתי לעובדם וכתבו לו את צעירת הרגלים ולא כתבו לו (ויקרא יא, ו) את הארנבת מפני שאשתו של תלמי ארנבת שמה שלא יאמר שחקו בי היהודים והטילו שם אשתי בתורה:

Or, in English:

"And it goes on to state, ‘R. Judah said: When our teachers permitted Greek, they permitted it only for a scroll of the Torah’.14 This was on account of the incident related in connection with King Ptolemy, 15 as it has been taught: ‘It is related of King Ptolemy that he brought together seventy-two elders and placed  them in seventy-two [separate] rooms, without telling them why he had brought them together, and he went in to each one of them and said to him, Translate16  for me the Torah of Moses your master.17 God then prompted each one of them and they all conceived the same idea and wrote for him, God created in the beginning,18 I shall make man in image and likeness,19 And he finished on the sixth day, and rested on the seventh day,20 Male and female he created him21 [but they did not write ‘created them’],22 Come let me descend and confound their tongues,23 And Sarah laughed among her relatives;24 For in their anger they slew an ox and in their wrath they digged up a stall;25 And Moses took his wife and his children, and made them ride on a carrier of men; 26 And the abode of the children of Israel which they stayed in Egypt and in other lands was four hundred years, 27 And he sent the elect of the children of Israel; 28 And against the elect of the children of Israel he put not forth his hand;29 I have taken not one valuable of theirs;1 Which the Lord thy God distributed to give light to all the peoples;2 And he went and served other gods which I commanded should not be served.3 They also wrote for him ‘the beast with small legs’ and they did not write ‘the hare’,4 because the name of Ptolemy's wife was hare,5 lest he should say, The Jews have jibed at me and put the name of my wife in the Torah."

If I recall correctly, very few of the changes listed here do we find in the Septuagint, but this is one of them. Despite this testimony, I am not convinced that this was not a mere scribal error, with the braysa speaking on a homiletic level. After all, it seems unlikely that the deliberate change, when translating into Greek, would also reflect a single change in letter, between ר and ד, which look extremely alike, and which the Samaritans indeed in their corrupted Hebrew text.

The Chasam Sofer writes about this topic as follows:

Chasam Sofer

"I have not taken away the ass of any one of them -- they changed it for Talmay the king into חמד (Megillah 9b). There is to say that חמור is not to be understood in its simple sense, but rather as Chazal said (in Pesachim? Bechorot 5b)

Moreover, they [the asses] helped the Israelites when they departed from Egypt, for there was not an Israelite who did not possess ninety Libyan asses laden with the silver and gold of Egypt.

And Moshe Rabbenu turned away to fulfill the oath to Yosef, and did not take anything. And so he rightfully could have requested from them the carrying of a single donkey, at least, for behold the oath was upon them, for 'he had certainly imposed the oath upon the Bnei Yisrael' {Shemot 13:19} upon all of them. And Chazal said (Sotah 9b) in our Mishnah at the end of the first perek, that upon the Gadol it was fitting to engage with Yosef. 

{Thus:
  WHOM HAVE WE GREATER THAN JOSEPH SINCE NONE OTHER THAN MOSES OCCUPIED HIMSELF WITH HIS BURIAL? MOSES EARNED MERIT THROUGH THE BONES OF JOSEPH AND THERE WAS NONE IN ISRAEL GREATER THAN HE, AS IT IS SAID, AND MOSES TOOK THE BONES OF JOSEPH WITH HIM.¹⁶  WHOM HAVE WE GREATER THAN MOSES SINCE NONE OTHER THAN THE OMNIPRESENT OCCUPIED HIMSELF [WITH HIS BURIAL], AS IT IS SAID, AND HE BURIED HIM IN THE VALLEY?¹⁷  NOT ONLY CONCERNING MOSES DID THEY SAY THIS, BUT CONCERNING ALL THE RIGHTEOUS, AS IT IS SAID, AND THY RIGHTEOUSNESS SHALL GO BEFORE THEE, THE GLORY OF THE LORD SHALL BE THY REARWARD.¹⁸

}

Upon this he said {in the continuation of the pasuk}  וְלֹא הֲרֵעֹתִי, אֶת-אַחַד מֵהֶם, 'neither have I hurt one of them'. Meaning, was there any of them who wished to engage, and I wronged him, saying 'you are not fit, and only I am fit'? And this was not so, but rather he was like a meis mitzvah, where there were none engaged with him, and I engaged with him. If so, by all rights, I should have borrowed from you a single donkey, and I did not take this from you. This, it appears to me, is the explanation of the verse.


However, it is known that the residents of Alexandria, of Egypt, complained about Israel before Alexander the Macedonian, and requested that Israel return to them the spoils of Egypt. And they {=the Israelites} answered that they owe them the wages of 600,000 for 400 years, see there, in perek Chelek {in Sanhedrin 91a}. 


{Thus:
On another occasion the Egyptians came in a lawsuit against the Jews before Alexander of Macedon. They pleaded thus: 'Is it not written, And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, and they lent them [gold and precious stones, etc.]²⁰  Then return us the gold and silver which ye took!' Thereupon Gebiha b. Pesisa said to the Sages, 'Give me permission to go and plead against them before Alexander of Macedon: should they defeat me, then say, "Ye have merely defeated an ignorant man amongst us;" whilst if I defeat them then say, "The Law of Moses has defeated you."' So they gave him permission, and he went and pleaded against them. 'Whence do ye adduce your proof?' asked he, 'From the Torah,' they replied. 'Then I too,' said he, 'will bring you proof only from the Torah, for it is written, Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.²¹  Pay us for the toil of six hundred thousand men whom ye enslaved for four hundred thirty years.' Then King Alexander said to them, 'Answer him!' 'Give us three days' time,' they begged. So he gave them a respite; they sought but found no answer. Straightway they fled, leaving behind their sown fields and planted vineyards. And that year was a Sabbatical year.²²
}


It comes out, according to this, that the aforementioned is not so, for behold, Moshe was not in the work of Mitzrayim, such that not a peruta of the spoils was due to him. And since he could not rightly ask for silver and gold vessels, he went and engaged in the bones of Yosef. And so it was like a case of this one benefits and this one does not lose out.


However, it is known that this answer was only to push off the Egyptians with straw. For the spoils were not the wages of the work. And furthermore, they did not work for 400 years {but rather only were in Egypt for 210}. And if was only the spoils of war, such that it was for Moshe to take a portion at the head. (Like a king he takes a portion at the head of the spoils and conquered items.) And well did he say לֹא חֲמוֹר אֶחָד מֵהֶם. And yet, before Talmay king of Egypt, they were not able to reveal this secret, for then he would say, 'if it was not the wages of work, then I require it of you that you return to me those spoils, for behold he was the king of Egypt. Therefore, they changed it for him into 'not a single חמד did I take from them'. (One needs to say, as above, that a single chamor from them means that he did not take from those chamorim which they took out of Egypt laden with spoils.)"


I never had understood the claim in the gemara in Sanhedrin that it was wages for work. Rather, that it was a counterclaim, and that if the Egyptians would open up with this complaint, the Jews could respond and be owed much more money. Nevertheless, this is a very nice construction and interplay between sugyos.

The Chacham's desire to learn Greek wisdom

Summary: And that is why he wants to learn all Torah -- so that he may then study Greek wisdom. However, the response to this is אין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומן.

Post: The Chasam Sofer writes, commenting on the Haggadah shel Pesach:

What does the wise son say? {Devarim 6:20}

כ  כִּי-יִשְׁאָלְךָ בִנְךָ מָחָר, לֵאמֹר:  מָה הָעֵדֹת, וְהַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים, אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, אֶתְכֶם.

20 When thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying: 'What mean the testimonies, and the statutes, and the ordinances, which the LORD our God hath commanded you?

Thus, the Chacham is requesting that he learn with him the laws of the Torah, in order that after that he shall be exempt {? יפטר -- note this word} and learn Greek wisdom and the other wisdoms. See the commentary of Rashi on the verse of {Devarim 32:47

47. For it is not an empty thing for you, for it is your life, and through this thing, you will lengthen your days upon the land to which you are crossing over the Jordan, to possess it."

מז. כִּי לֹא דָבָר רֵק הוּא מִכֶּם כִּי הוּא חַיֵּיכֶם וּבַדָּבָר הַזֶּה תַּאֲרִיכוּ יָמִים עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם עֹבְרִים אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ:

}

That a person should not say 'I have learn Torah. I shall now learn other realms of wisdom. Rather, {Yehoshua 1:8}

ח  לֹא-יָמוּשׁ סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֶּה מִפִּיךָ, וְהָגִיתָ בּוֹ יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה, לְמַעַן תִּשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת, כְּכָל-הַכָּתוּב בּוֹ:  כִּי-אָז תַּצְלִיחַ אֶת-דְּרָכֶךָ, וְאָז תַּשְׂכִּיל.

8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein; for then thou shalt make thy ways prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

And see in parashat Vaeschanan in the answer to the wise son, and you will see that this answer alludes to  the idea that we should engage in Torah all the days, and not leave off of it {נפטר ממנה} even. And this is the answer of the maggid {of the Haggadah}: אין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומן, that he should keep the taste of the {korban} Pesach in his mouth always."

 To provide a bit of background, see Menachot daf 99b:

 שאל בן דמה בן אחותו של ר' ישמעאל את ר' ישמעאל כגון אני שלמדתי כל התורה כולה מהו ללמוד חכמת יונית קרא עליו המקרא הזה לא ימוש ספר התורה הזה מפיך והגית בו יומם ולילה צא ובדוק שעה שאינה לא מן היום ולא מן הלילה ולמוד בה חכמת יונית ופליגא דר' שמואל בר נחמני דאמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן פסוק זה אינו לא חובה ולא מצוה אלא ברכה 

"Ben Dama the nephew of Rabbi Yishmael asked Rabbi Yishmael: Someone like me, who has learned the whole Torah - is it permissible to learn Greek wisdom? He responded: … 'You should meditate on it (Torah) day and night' (Yehoshua 1). Go and see if you can find a time that is neither day nor night, and then learn Greek wisdom! This opinion conflicts with that of Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani ... Rabbi Yonatan says: This verse is not an obligation or a commandment, but rather a blessing." 

So we see the idea of being allowed to study Greek wisdom if one has learned the entirety of Torah.

Perhaps we can randomly associate this with something I heard in Rabbi Dr. Shnayer Leiman's shiur the other day: The classic picture of the chacham in many Haggados was actually an image of Herodotus {Update: My error. The chacham Herodotus was actually an earlier depiction, not shown here}:

It makes sense, then, that the chacham would desire to study Greek wisdom. For a discussion of what "Greek wisdom" is, see this post on the Seforim blog.

Beating baby rams, continued

Summary: Presenting the Chasam Sofer on that Yerushalmi about beating baby rams for the red-skinned ram hides for the Mishkan.

Post: Once again, consider the following pasuk in Terumah:

5. ram skins dyed red, tachash skins, and acacia wood;

ה. וְעֹרֹת אֵילִם מְאָדָּמִים וְעֹרֹת תְּחָשִׁים וַעֲצֵי שִׁטִּים:

and consider the Yerushalmi, in Shabbat 51a, which reads as follows:

מה צביעה היתה במשכן שהיו משרבטין בבהמה בעורות אלים מאדמים.  א"ר יוסה הדא אמר העושה חבורה ונצרר בה דם חייב.

"What dyeing was there in the Mishkan? That the struck with rods [mesharbetin] animals, in the red ram skins.


Rabbi Yosa said: This informs us that one who makes a wound, and blood collects there, is liable."


The Chasam Sofer cites the pasuk and Yerushalmi, and then writes:

"To explain, they smote the rams while alive with a pole and rod until the hide reddened and was dyed from the blood.


And the Korban HaEdah asks: But there was techeiles, argaman, and tolaas shani. And his answer there is not so good. Is it not so that all the labors of plowing, reaping, and cooking, all are learned from the samemanim. And so why did we not learn dyeing from them?


And behold, in Noda Beyehuda {Mahadura} Kamma, at the end of siman 1, he wants to say that the dyeing black of tefillin is permitted from an impure creature, and we do not need מותר בפיך, since it is merely appearance. And one needs to say that although we say that the only thing permitted for melechet shamayim {here, meaning the Mishkan} was the hide of a kosher animal, from that which is מותר בפיך, appearance is not considered melechet shamayim. And if so, it is not called in terms of the realm of Shabbat a melacha. And perforce, we learn dyeing from the rams, for dyeing such as this certainly is a large act.


However, according to this, one would only be liable on Shabbat if one dyed in like manner to this large act, of the red-dyed rams. And we do not establish so {lehalacha}. And if so, we also don't establish like this of the Noda Beyhuda."

I just thought I'd present this as another facet of this sugya. It is interesting that according to ideas extrapolated from the Korban HaEdah, the threshold level of action required to be liable for dyeing is high. In contrast, according to the interpretation of the Pnei Moshe, the point of the gemara was to set the threshold level of action pretty low.

See also my discussion here.

Calculations regarding stolen blessings and mitzvos

Summary: an elaborate construction from the Chasam Sofer.

Post: In parashat Mishpatim, the following pasuk and Rashi:

37. If a man steals a bull or a lamb and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five cattle for the bull or four sheep for the lamb.		לז. כִּי יִגְנֹב אִישׁ שׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה וּטְבָחוֹ אוֹ מְכָרוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה בָקָר יְשַׁלֵּם תַּחַת הַשּׁוֹר וְאַרְבַּע צֹאן תַּחַת הַשֶּׂה:
five cattle, etc.: Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai said: The Omnipresent was considerate of people’s honor. [For] a bull, which walks with its [own] feet, and the thief was not disgraced by carrying it on his shoulder, he pays fivefold. [For] a lamb, which he [the thief] carries on his shoulder, he pays [only] fourfold because he was disgraced by it. Rabbi Meir said: Come and see how great the power of work is. [For the theft of] a bull, which caused [the owner] to stop working, he [the thief] pays five. [For the theft of] a lamb, which did not cause [the owner] to stop working, [the thief pays] four. -[From Mechilta, B.K. 79b, Tosefta B.K. 7:3]		חמשה בקר וגו': אמר רבן יוחנן בן זכאי חס המקום על כבודן של בריות, שור שהולך ברגליו ולא נתבזה בו הגנב לנושאו על כתפו, משלם חמישה, שה שנושאו על כתפו, משלם ארבעה הואיל ונתבזה בו. אמר רבי מאיר בא וראה כמה גדולה כחה של מלאכה, שור שבטלו ממלאכתו משלם חמשה שה שלא בטלו ממלאכתו ארבעה:

The Chasam Sofer refers us to this pasuk and Rashi. Then, he writes:

"It is stated in Chullin {daf 87a} 

Another [Baraitha] taught: ‘He shall pour out . . . and cover it’: that is, he who poured it out shall cover it up. It once happened that a person slaughtered but another anticipated him and covered up the blood, and R. Gamaliel condemned the latter to pay ten gold coins.7

The question was raised: Was this the reward for [being deprived of the performance of] the
commandment or for [being deprived of] the Benediction? But where would there be any practical difference [between these two views]? In the case of the Grace after meals.8 If you say that it was the reward for [being deprived of the performance of] the commandment, then here there is also but one [commandment]; but if you say that it was the reward for [being deprived of] the Benediction, then here the reward should be forty gold coins. 

What is the answer then? — Come and hear from the following incident. A certain min9 once said to Rabbi, ‘He who formed the mountains did not create the wind, and he who created the wind did not form the mountains, for it is written: For, lo, He that formeth the mountains and createth the wind’.10 He replied. ‘You fool, turn to the end of the verse: The Lord, [the God] of hosts, is His name’. Said the other: ‘Give me three days’ time and I will bring back an answer to you’. Rabbi spent those three days in fasting; thereafter, as he was about to partake of food he was told. ‘There is a min waiting at the door’. Rabbi exclaimed, ‘Yea they put
poison into my food.’11 Said he [the min]. ‘My Master, I bring you good tidings; your opponent could find no answer and so threw himself down from the roof and died’. He said: ‘Would you dine with me?’ He replied. ‘Yes’. After they had eaten and drunk, he [Rabbi] said to him, ‘Will you drink the cup of wine over which the Benedictions of the Grace [after meals] have been said, or would you rather have forty gold coins?’ He replied: ‘I would rather drink the cup of wine’. Thereupon there came forth a Heavenly Voice and said: The cup of wine over [which] the Benedictions [of Grace have been said] is worth forty gold coins. R. Isaac said: The family [of that min] is still to be found amongst the notables of Rome and is named ‘The family of Bar Luianus.'

{Thus, for each of the four blessing of Birkat HaMazon, 10 gold coins.}


And Tosafot there write:

או ארבעים זהובים אתה נוטל. שתיה לא שייכא לשכר ברכה אלא היה רוצה לסלקו מברכת המזון לפי שהיה צדוקי וא"ת או נ' זהובים ה"ל למימר דהא איכא ברכת בפה"ג שלאחר בהמ"ז וי"ל דסבר כמ"ד בערבי פסחים (דף קג: ושם ד"ה לאו) דאין צריך לברך אכסא דברכתא אלא אכסא קמא ותו לא:

that there should have been 50 gold coins, for there was the Borei Pri HaGafen which was after Bikas HaMazon. And there answer is a bit farfetched. 


And IMHO, the reason he should pay 10 zehuvim for a mitzvah snatched from his friend, is that behold, it is brought in Rashi {here in parashat Mishpatim, cited above}:

Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai said: The Omnipresent was considerate of people’s honor. [For] a bull, which walks with its [own] feet, and the thief was not disgraced by carrying it on his shoulder, he pays fivefold. [For] a lamb, which he [the thief] carries on his shoulder, he pays [only] fourfold because he was disgraced by it.

Behold it is evident that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai maintains that the primary obligation to pay for a theft is five times, except that for a sheep, since he was disgraced, he only pays four.


And behold, Eliezer, the servant of Avraham, gave to Rivkah two bracelets on her hands, of weight 10 gold. And Rashi explains {in Chayei Sarah}:

22. Now it came about, when the camels had finished drinking, [that] the man took a golden nose ring, weighing half [a shekel], and two bracelets for her hands, weighing ten gold [shekels].

כב. וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר כִּלּוּ הַגְּמַלִּים לִשְׁתּוֹת וַיִּקַּח הָאִישׁ נֶזֶם זָהָב בֶּקַע מִשְׁקָלוֹ וּשְׁנֵי צְמִידִים עַל יָדֶיהָ עֲשָׂרָה זָהָב מִשְׁקָלָם:

weighing ten gold [shekels]: An allusion to the Ten Commandments [inscribed] on them. — [Gen. Rabbah 60:6]

עשרה זהב משקלם: רמז לעשרת הדברות שבהן:

If so, parallel to each dibbur was 1 zahav. And it is evident that each dibbur {which is a single mitzvah} is worth a single zahav. However, according to the calculation, after Mattan Torah, the coinage of kodesh was double that of chullin, as is stated in Rashi in parashat Pekudei, pasuk 23, that that of kodesh was double.


And if so, the mitzvah is equal to two gold coins. And according to Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, the thief is liable to pay five times for the ox. If so, the calculation is precise, that 2 {gold coins} X 5 = 10 gold coins.


Meanwhile, this is not so according to Rabbi Meir {who is Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai's disputant above}, who says:

Rabbi Meir said: Come and see how great the power of work is. [For the theft of] a bull, which caused [the owner] to stop working, he [the thief] pays five. [For the theft of] a lamb, which did not cause [the owner] to stop working, [the thief pays] four.

It is evident that the primary obligation of paying is only 4X, but that by the ox, since he caused him to stop working, he needs to pay 5X. If so, the reward for a mitzvah is only 8 gold coins, as is understood.


And there is to say that Rabbi {in the gemara in Chullin above} held like Rabbi Meir (for in his teaching {?}, a plain Mishnah is in accordance with Rabbi Meir}, and according to him, the reward for a blessing was only 8 gold coins, and five blessings inclusive of Borei Pri HaGafen of the cup of blessing would only amount to 40. And the question of Tosafot is thus resolved."

This is a very neat and entertaining construction, though I am not convinced that this is actually the intent of Rabbi, or the intent of the gemara. If it is just meant as a neat construction, then it is fine. But to say that it is peshat in the gemara, and that there is a hidden multiplier of 8 rather than 10, strikes me as a bit ridiculous. This it an extremely salient point that surely would not have been left implicit in the discussion in the gemara.

On a related note, here is the Rambam about this:

טז  [יד] וכן מי ששחט חיה או עוף, ובא אחר וכיסה הדם שלא מדעת השוחט--חייב ליתן כמו שיראו הדיינים.  ויש מי שהורה שהוא נותן קנס קצוב, והוא עשרה זהובים; וכן הורו הגאונים שכל המונע הבעלים מלעשות מצות עשה שהן ראויין לעשותה, וקדם אחר ועשאה--משלם לבעלים עשרה זהובים.

At least as cited, the Geonim associate this with the mitzvah, rather than specifically with each bracha. Is it an either / or situation? What about mitzvos for which one would not have otherwise pronounced a blessing?

I myself wonder if Tosafot's question is rather strong, and indeed better than the answer anyone offers. And whether there is a distinction between drinking the kos shel bracha and leading the bentching, such that only the former was offered. And therefore whether this story only illustrated valuing mitzvos highly, with forty being a representative high number, rather than being a calculation of ten coins per blessing. In which case, the penalty would indeed be for the stolen mitzvah, rather than for the stolen blessing.

See more on this topic here.

Who's the man? Moshe's the man!

Summary: But why not Yisro, who is called HaIsh is Shemos? And why not another prooftext local to sefer Shemot? The Chasam Sofer answers that it really was a function of Moshe's humility (mentioned in the continuation of the prooftext). Plus my own suggestion.

Post: At the start of parashas Yisro, the following pasuk and Rashi:

7. So Moses went out toward Jethro, prostrated himself and kissed him, and they greeted one another, and they entered the tent.

ז. וַיֵּצֵא מֹשֶׁה לִקְרַאת חֹתְנוֹ וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ וַיִּשַּׁק לוֹ וַיִּשְׁאֲלוּ אִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ לְשָׁלוֹם וַיָּבֹאוּ הָאֹהֱלָה:

prostrated himself and kissed him: I do not know who prostrated himself to whom. [But] when it says, “one another (אִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ),” [lit., a man to his friend,] who is called "a man"? This is Moses, as it is said: “But the man (וְהָאִישׁ) Moses” (Num. 12:3). [from Mechilta]

וישתחו וישק לו: איני יודע מי השתחוה למי, כשהוא אומר איש לרעהו, מי הקרוי איש, זה משה, שנאמר (במדבר יב ג) והאיש משה:

After citing this pasuk and Rashi, the Chasam Sofer writes:

"So is it in the Mechilta. And in Nachalas Yaakov it asks that behold, we find that Yisro as well is called ish, as is stated {in parashat Shemot, in Shemot 2:21}: וַיּוֹאֶל מֹשֶׁה לָשֶׁבֶת אֶת הָאִישׁ וַיִּתֵּן אֶת צִפֹּרָה בִתּוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה, "Moses consented to stay with the man, and he gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses." 


Further, there is to analyze. Why did he not bring an earlier pasuk to that one {namely, the one in Sefer Bamidbar 12:3}, namely the one in parashat Ki Tisa {Shemot 32:23}, that is is written, וַיַּרְא הָעָם כִּי בֹשֵׁשׁ מֹשֶׁה לָרֶדֶת מִן הָהָר וַיִּקָּהֵל הָעָם עַל אַהֲרֹן וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו קוּם עֲשֵׂה לָנוּ אֱ־לֹהִים אֲשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ כִּי זֶה מֹשֶׁה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֹא יָדַעְנוּ מֶה הָיָה לוֹ,  "When the people saw that Moses was late in coming down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aaron, and they said to him: "Come on! Make us gods that will go before us, because this man Moses, who brought us up from the land of Egypt we don't know what has become of him." "


And there is to say behold, it is a question in the gemara in Kiddushin 33b, 'his son who is his teacher, should his father stand before him.' And the same in reverse, 'should he stand for his father'?

{That gemara is:

The scholars propounded: What if his son is his teacher? Must he rise before his father? — Come and hear: For Samuel said to Rab Judah: Keen scholar!6  rise before your father!7  — R. Ezekiel was different, because he had [many] good deeds to his credit, for even Mar Samuel8 too stood up before him. Then what did he tell him?9  — He said thus to him: Sometimes he may come behind me;10 then do you stand up before him,11 and do not fear for my honour.

    The scholars propounded: What if his son is his teacher; must his father stand up before him? — Come and hear: For R. Joshua h. Levi said: As for me, it is not meet that I should stand up before my son, but that the honour of the Nasi's house [demands it].12 Thus the reason is that I am his teacher:13 but if he were my teacher, I would rise before him.14  — [No]. He meant thus: As for me, it is not meet that I should stand up before my son, even if he were my teacher, seeing that I am his father,but that the honour of the Nasi's house [demands it].

}

And the doubt is because of kibbud av vs. kibbud talmid chacham. And behold, in this they were equal. Moshe was obligated in honor of Yisro more, since he was his father-in-law, whom he was obligated to honor, just as David called King Shaul 'my father', as is known; that we learn from there that a person is obligated in honoring his father-in-law. And so Moshe honored Yisro. Yet opposing this is that Moshe was a talmid chacham and the teacher of all of Israel, and so Yisro was obligated in honoring him. And since they were equal in terms of precedence of honor, 'I don't know' {says Rashi / Mechilta} 'who prostrated to whom.' However, in truth, it was Moshe, who was humbler than any other person on the face of the earth; without a doubt, Moshe bowed first to Yisro. And this is what Rashi explains: I do not know who bowed to whom, for they were equal in this matter. When it says ish lerei'eihu, who is called here the ish who bowed? Say it is certainly Moshe, as is stated, 'And the man Moshe was exceedingly humble."

This is a beautiful construction. And it explains why this particular verse was selected, and why the opposing verse bolstering Yisro was not selected.

To bolster this interpretation even more, I will note that the text of the midrash itself, in the Mechilta, mentions the obligation of honoring one's father-in-law:

וישתחו וישק לו - איני יודע מי השתחווה למי או מי נשק למי, כשהוא אומר: וישאלו איש לרעהו, מי קרוי איש? 
הלא משה, שנאמר: והאיש משה, הוי אומר: לא השתחווה ולא נשק אלא משה לחמיו. 

מכאן אמרו: 
שיהא האדם מוכן לכבוד חמיו. 

One might still ask based on this, if this is going to be a primary source for honoring one's father-in-law, with no kvod talmidei chachamim explicitly mentioned.

Despite how nice I find the construction, I must admit that I don't find it persuasive. If so, it would be a good thing to account for these two details. Why isn't Yisro a viable candidate for האיש, and why not select an earlier pasuk about Moshe being an איש?

(1) In terms of Yisro as candidate vs. Moshe as candidate, I think there is a difference between האיש משה and someone who happens to be called האיש in one particular verse. There are many people / beings who are referred to as איש. Indeed, Moshe's father עמרם is the איש who went from the house of Levi. But האיש משה midrashically equates in one's mind that איש means משה. So even if in one particular verse, יתרו is referred to as האיש -- indeed, even in relationship to his son-in-law Moshe -- it is not the same as setting up this mental equation that Ish = Moshe.

(2) In terms of the other candidate pasuk in sefer Shemot to establish Moshe as the ish, I don't think we should underestimate the force of the famous pasuk. The verse in praise of Moshe's humility is a famous one, on the tip of everyone's tongue. So it is the obvious verse to cite to establish Moshe as the ish. Yes, perhaps the more local pasuk would have served equally well, but it would not necessarily have been the one to come to mind, either in the mind of the midrashic author, or in the minds of his audience.

Along similar lines, the lengthy pasuk about Moshe being late represents the words of the people. But the pasuk about HaIsh Moshe is a narrative statement, or else from the mouth of Hashem himself. This might be a stronger basis for establishing Moshe as HaIsh.