parshablog: yeshaya

Showing posts with label yeshaya. Show all posts

Saturday, February 05, 2011

Did Obama botch a verse from Isaiah?

Summary: Yup. But who cares?

Post: From a FoxNews article:

President Obama misquoted a familiar Bible verse during a faith-based address at the National Prayer Breakfast.
"Those who wait on the Lord will soar on wings like eagles, and they will run and not be weary, and they will walk and not faint," the president said during a speech to several thousand people at the breakfast.
But the actual passage, from Isaiah 40:31, states: "But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."

Media Matters claims that this is Fox's error; they are citing King James, while Obama was citing New International version:

Somewhat ironically, while Fox Nation appears to be positioning themselves as the arbiters of authentic Christianity, they seem unfamiliar with the fact that there is more than one version of the Bible.
Obama was quoting from the New International Version, while Fox Nation was pointing to the King James Version to "debunk" him.
This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
Most likely, they won't bother to correct their story, and their goal will be accomplished: the readers that trust them will remember the time Obama "misquoted" the Bible, some more people will question the authenticity of Obama's faith, and the smear machine will move on.

But I don't think that the particular Bible translation was the point of the Fox News article. Rather, it was a missing phrase. Here it is from mechon mamre:

לא וְקוֹיֵ יְהוָה יַחֲלִיפוּ כֹחַ, יַעֲלוּ אֵבֶר כַּנְּשָׁרִים; יָרוּצוּ וְלֹא יִיגָעוּ, יֵלְכוּ וְלֹא יִיעָפוּ. {ס}

31 But they that wait for the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; they shall walk, and not faint. {S}

The New International Version would not likely omit the phrase, and indeed, they don't:
³¹ but those who hope in the LORD
   will renew their strength.
They will soar on wings like eagles;
   they will run and not grow weary,
   they will walk and not be faint.

We can simply compare Obama's quote with that of the NIV:

Obama	NIV
Those who wait on the Lord *********************** will soar on wings like eagles and they will run and not be weary and they will walk and not faint	31 but those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint.

This was likely Fox News' point. They were just lazy and sloppy in looking up the closest matching translation to point out the error. The question is whether Media Matters will retract their own error.

Still, this is not news. It is a non-issue. And it certainly doesn't cast doubts as to whether he is a real Christian, as opposed to a closet Muslim.

Update: I just checked, and they noted their own error, but persist in their criticism of Fox. You can see how they choose to do so -- that Fox was complaining about the entire verse, unaware that it was a different translation, but Media Matters was wrong to assert that he was citing precisely the NIV translation. But it is unconvincing, and seems to me to just be a way of avoiding the realization of their own error and misunderstanding of the Fox news report.

Further update: It could have been worse. Barack Obama might have pronounced it vekovei instead of vekoyei. ;)

Thursday, February 03, 2011

Are current events in Egypt a fulfillment of Yeshaya 19:2?

Summary: No. Maybe. For now, not unless you ignore half of the pasuk, and the rest of the perek.

Post: Tomer Devorah is rather excited about all the goings-on in the world of late. It is snowing! This is surely a sign of the apocalypse. So all the more so, current events in Egypt are such a sign:

"...And I will stir up Egyptians against Egyptians, and they shall war one man against his brother, and a man against his friend,...." (Yeshayahu 19.2)
Violent Scenes As Egyptians Turning On Each Other
Protests in Cairo turned violent on Wednesday afternoon, with protesters throwing large rocks at each other as pro-Mubarak demonstrators tore down anti-Mubarak banners that have decorated Tahrir Square for three days. Tanks on the periphery of the square were starting to move in anticipation of unruly crowds.

Live video broadcast by Al Jazeera showed men on camels and horseback hitting people in the square with whips as they rode through the crowds.

Women and children were hiding behind tanks in the streets as men in suits threw stones at each other. The protests have not been this violent in nearly a week. The army was using tear gas to disperse crowds.

Note the ellipses in this Dowdified quote of the navi. The full pasuk in Yeshaya is:

ב וְסִכְסַכְתִּי מִצְרַיִם בְּמִצְרַיִם, וְנִלְחֲמוּ אִישׁ-בְּאָחִיו וְאִישׁ בְּרֵעֵהוּ, עִיר בְּעִיר, מַמְלָכָה בְּמַמְלָכָה.

2 And I will spur Egypt against Egypt; and they shall fight every one against his brother, and everyone against his neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom.

Why not cite the end of the pasuk, city against city and kingdom against kingdom? Easy. Because at the present moment, there is no fulfillment of that part of it. It is not the case that protesters seized one city, and are waging war against another city in Egypt.

If Egypt is a single country, how can it be city against city and kingdom against kingdom? Well, Radak explains:

ונלחמו איש באחיו ממלכה בממלכה אף על פי שמצרים כולו מלכות אחת והיו בהם שרים תחת המלך הגדול, זה מולך במדינה אחת וזה מולך במדינה אחרת, כמו מלכי כנען.

"Even though Egypt is one kingdom, there are many nobles under the one king; this one rules in one province and this one rules in another province, just like the kings of Canaan."

That is one straightfoward interpretation of the pasuk. If I understand Malbim correctly:

ונלחמו איש באחיו -הנה דרך הנהוג בעת ילחמו ממלכה בממלכה, ישלימו כל הערים העומדות תחת פקודת הממלכה ביניהם, ויהיו לאגודה אחת ללחום נגד מתקוממיהם בלב אחד, וכן עת תלחם עיר בעיר, ישלימו בני העיר להיות כאיש אחד נגד העיר העושה עמה מלחמה, וכשילחמו משפחה עם משפחה אחרת, איש ברעו, אז יצטרפו כל האחים והקרובים אשר במשפחה ההיא להיות בקשר אחד. אבל פה תחלה ילחמו איש באחיו, עד שתהיה פירוד בין האחים בני המשפחה, ואח"כ איש ברעהו, אשר אינו ממשפחה אחת, ילחמו משפחה במשפחה, ואח"כ ילחמו עיר בעיר אחרת ואח"כ ממלכה בממלכה אחרת, ובאופן זה תהיה המלחמה עליהם מבית ומחוץ, מלחמה פנימית של האחים והמשפחות והערים, ומלחמה חיצונית של הממלכות.

He takes it as war within and war without, that another country will wage war on Egypt. But first, internal civil war including one city against another city.

Metzudat David just says that there were many countries in the land of Egypt. See also how Shadal interprets it, as one district on another district.

I could imagine things shaping up in this manner in the future, e.g. with supporters of Mubaruch vs. Islamic Brotherhood gaining certain areas, and waging war on one another. But this hasn't happened yet.

Now, is this the only civil war in history? No. Isaiah prophesied from around 740 BCE to about 698 BCE. One prominent civil war after that was one in which Pharaoh-Hophra, also known as Apries, had a general named Amasis who declared himself Pharoah. This could well be mamlacha against mamlacha. Some scholars indeed suggest this (and see here):

Necho II had taken the Egyptian empire to beyond the Euphrates, but as the Babylonia Empire grew they were pushed back, Apries tried to protect Jerusalem from the Babylonians but this effort ended in complete failure. When his troops returned to Egypt from Jerusalem they began to revolt. Just as he was putting this insurrection down he suffered another loss on his eastern border where he had attempted to put down an incursion by Greek forces in Libya. His defeated the army on returning from this second failure started a full out civil war. During this civil war Apries’ general Amasis declared himself pharaoh in 570 BC, forcing Apries to flee. With the assistance of the Babylonian army, Apries marched back to Egypt in 567 BC to reclaim his throne. It is believed that he was killed in battle with Amasis’ forces. Amasis managed to push back and hold off the Babylonians, and was fortunate to have died in 526 BC shortly before the Persians attacked. In 525 BC six months after Amasis’ son Psamtik III came to the throne the Persian (the fierce king of vs 4) began their final assault. Egypt became a vassal of the Persian Empire.

If I wanted to point to another civil war, supporting one Pharaoh against another, I could point to 48 BCE, in which Cleopatra had her supporters against those who supported her brother/husband Ptolemy XIII. Why assume that present day events are the ones Yeshaya is talking about. Especially as we are not yet at full scale civil war, and other parts of the very same pasuk have not been fulfilled, such that the end of the pasuk needs to be replaced by "..." !

Then, there is the rest of the prophecy. You don't get to take half a sentence out of context from a full chapter. There are many other pesukim in that perek. To be credible, explain to be the relevance and fulfillment of most or all of the other pesukim in that perek. For example,

ג וְנָבְקָה רוּחַ-מִצְרַיִם בְּקִרְבּוֹ, וַעֲצָתוֹ אֲבַלֵּעַ; וְדָרְשׁוּ אֶל-הָאֱלִילִים וְאֶל-הָאִטִּים, וְאֶל-הָאֹבוֹת וְאֶל-הַיִּדְּעֹנִים.

3 And the spirit of Egypt shall be made empty within it; and I will make void the counsel thereof; and they shall seek unto the idols, and to the whisperers, and to the ghosts, and to the familiar spirits.

Perhaps back in Yeshaya's time, or those of Pharaoh-Hophra, they worshiped idols, and consulted whisperers, ghosts, and familiar spirits. Are they doing this nowadays in Egypt? Or is this to be metaphorical? One must account for this very next pasuk.

ד וְסִכַּרְתִּי, אֶת-מִצְרַיִם, בְּיַד, אֲדֹנִים קָשֶׁה; וּמֶלֶךְ עַז יִמְשָׁל-בָּם, נְאֻם הָאָדוֹן יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת.

4 And I will give over the Egyptians into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts.

Well, we will see what happens next in Egypt, whether a dictator arises.

ה וְנִשְּׁתוּ-מַיִם, מֵהַיָּם; וְנָהָר, יֶחֱרַב וְיָבֵשׁ.

5 And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be drained dry,

In terms of

ה וְנִשְּׁתוּ-מַיִם, מֵהַיָּם; וְנָהָר, יֶחֱרַב וְיָבֵשׁ.

5 And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be drained dry,

Radak says that this is metaphor. See inside. But explain to me the whole perek, or else I will just think that this is cherry-picking a quote to match. That would be the Sharpshooter's fallacy. There are enough apocalyptic sources in Tanach, Talmud, Kabbalah, Chassidus, and so on that I could cherry-pick a quote to match almost any situation.

Monday, July 26, 2010

Ibn Ezra as a Round-Earther

Summary: While there is a seeming Rashi / midrash, and an explicit Mizrachi, in Va'etchanan that the earth is flat, Ibn Ezra on that parasha's haftorah indicates that the earth is round.

Post: In this week's haftorah, we encounter the following pasuk:

הַיֹּשֵׁב עַל-חוּג הָאָרֶץ, וְיֹשְׁבֶיהָ כַּחֲגָבִים; הַנּוֹטֶה כַדֹּק שָׁמַיִם, וַיִּמְתָּחֵם כָּאֹהֶל לָשָׁבֶת

22. It is He Who sits above the circle of the earth, and whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heaven like a curtain, and He spread them out like a tent to dwell.

the circle: Heb. חוּג, an expression similar to (infra 44:13) “And with a compass (וּבַמְּחוּגָה),” a circle (compas in O.F.).

and whose inhabitants: are to Him [lit. before Him] like grasshoppers.

like a curtain: Heb. כַדֹּק, a curtain, toile in French.

What is the chug ha'aretz? Ibn Ezra explains that it means the curvature of the earth. Thus:

He points us to Yeshaya 44, just as did Rashi.

ישעיהו פרק מד

פסוק י"ג: חָרַשׁ עֵצִים, נָטָה קָו, יְתָאֲרֵהוּ בַשֶּׂרֶד, יַעֲשֵׂהוּ בַּמַּקְצֻעוֹת וּבַמְּחוּגָה יְתָאֳרֵהוּ; וַיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ כְּתַבְנִית אִישׁ, כְּתִפְאֶרֶת אָדָם לָשֶׁבֶת בָּיִת.

Then he says that this pasuk is ecidence that the earth is round and not square (/flat), despite there not being a requirement for the pasuk to prove this, for the matter is known with complete proofs.

This strikes me as somewhat out of the ordinary. While Chazal certainly take pains to make derashot or bring pesukim to show known things, such as the direction of Bavel or that the sun rises in the East, they had their own reasons for this. But I don't expect Ibn Ezra to be doing such.

Indeed, given that he mentions the competing theory (of רבועה), I would guess that he is trying to convince contemporaries. There are two methods of proof. There is scientific proof, and there is textual proof from Tanach. And different groups would respond differently to these different types of proof. (Rationalists vs. non-rationalists?) And so he brings the pasuk as evidence, while noting the extreme obviousness of this even without the pasuk.

(See the midrash cited by Rashi, and Mizrachi on that Rashi, for the view that the earth is not round but rather flat.)

While I am convinced by the scientific proofs, I am not convinced by the textual proof from this pasuk in Yeshaya. Radak on the pasuk writes:

היושב - כאלו אמר על השמים כי הם חוג הארץ כמו שיעשה אדם במחוגה העגולה, כי למחוגה יש שתי אצבעות האחת יעמוד ובשנית יקיף העגולה והנה הנקודה בתוך העגולה והארץ כמו הנקודה, כי היא התחתון שבעגולה והשמים סביב הארץ כמו העגולה.

ואמר: היושב –
דרך משל, כי אין לו מקום יתעלה מכל דמיון אלא כאדם היושב על מקום גבוה מאד ומביט במקום השפל ידמה לו הדבר הגדול קטן, לפיכך אמר ויושביה כחגבים, כמו שאמר: ונהי בעינינו כחגבים וכן היינו בעיניהם.

The circle of the earth refers to the heavens. And because of this distance, the inhabitants are like grasshoppers. And even according to flat-earthers such as Mizrachi, the rakia is curved, over the earth.

I don't know about the flat-earth / round-earth beliefs of Radak, but regardless, there is much to recommend this interpretation of the pasuk as it referring to the rakia, on its own merits provided by context.

Update: To counter claims that he was talking of a flat disk, besides what I wrote in the comment about this not being contemporary Muslim astronomy, see also this, from Ibn Ezra's Sefer haTeamim:

He discusses Ptolemy, who works with a spherical Earth, and refers to the earth as a galgal. He clearly knows the Earth is a sphere.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Vayikra sources

by aliyah
rishon (1:1)
sheni (1:14), missing
shelishi (2:7)
revii (3:1)
chamishi (4:1)
shishi (4:27)
shevii (5:11)
maftir (5:24)
haftara (Yeshaya 43:21), with Malbim, Ibn Ezra

by perek
perek 1 ; perek 2 ; perek 3 ; perek 4 ; perek 5

meforshim
Judaica Press Rashi in English
Shadal (and here)
Mishtadel
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Lekach Tov, Yalkut Shimoni, Gilyonot.
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew)
Tiferes Yehonasan from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz
Chasdei Yehonasan -- not until Shemini
Toldos Yitzchak Acharon, repeated from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz -- not until Shemini
Even Shleimah -- from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich
R' Saadia Gaon's Tafsir, Arabic translation of Torah (here and here)
Collected commentary of Saadia Gaon on Torah
Rashbam (and here)
Abarbanel
Torah Temimah
Kli Yakar
Zohar, with English translation
Baal Haturim
Baal Haturim (HaAruch)
Torat Hatur
Ibn Janach
Rabbenu Ephraim
Ibn Caspi
Ralbag
Dubno Maggid
Imrei Shafer, Rav Shlomo Kluger
Ateret Zekeinim
Mei Noach
Arugat HaBosem
Yalkut Perushim LaTorah
R' Yosef Bechor Shor
Meiri
Ibn Gabirol -- not until Kedoshim
Rabbenu Yonah
Seforno
Aderet Eliyahu (Gra)
Kol Eliyahu (Gra) -- not until Shemini
Sefer Zikaron of Ritva
Malbim
Chiddushei HaGriz -- not until Bemidbar
Noam Elimelech
Michlal Yofi
Nesivot Hashalom

The following meforshim at JNUL. I've discovered that if you click on the icon to rotate sideways, change to only black and white, select only the portion which is text, it is eminently readable on paper.
Ralbag (pg 188)
Baal HaTurim (35)
Rabbenu Bachya (150)
Chizkuni (87)
Abarbanel (227)
Shach (148)
Paneach Raza (49)
Yalkut Reuveni (pg 112)
Sefer Hachinuch (pg 37)
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (138)

rashi
Daat, Rashi In Hebrew (perek 1)
Judaica Press Rashi in English and Hebrew
Mizrachi, Mizrachi (on Rashi, 149)
Gur Aryeh (Maharal of Prague)
Maharsha
Siftei Chachamim
Berliner's Beur on Rashi
Commentary on Rashi by Yosef of Krasnitz
R' Yisrael Isserlin (on Rashi, 11)
Two supercommentaries on Rashi, by Chasdai Almosnino and Yaakov Kneizel
Rav Natan ben Shishon Shapira Ashkenazi (16th century), (JNUL, pg 92)
Taz
Levush HaOrah
Mohar`al
Yeriot Shlomo (Maharshal)
Moda L'Bina (Wolf Heidenheim)
Dikdukei Rashi
Mekorei Rashi (in Mechokekei Yehuda)
Bartenura
Yosef Daas
Nachalas Yaakov
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Rashi with Sifsei Chachamim

ramban
Daat, Ramban in Hebrew (perek 1)
R' Yitzchak Abohav's on Ramban (standalone and in a Tanach opposite Ramban)
Kesef Mezukak
Kanfei Nesharim
Rabbi Meir Abusaula (student of Rashba)

ibn ezra
Daat, Ibn Ezra in Hebrew (perek 1)
Mechokekei Yehudah (Daat)
Mechokekei Yehudah (HebrewBooks)
Mavaser Ezra
R' Shmuel Motot (on Ibn Ezra, pg 35)
Ibn Kaspi's supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, different from his commentary (here and here)
Mekor Chaim, Ohel Yosef, Motot
Avi Ezer
Tzofnas Paneach
Ezra Lehavin
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Ibn Ezra with Avi Ezer

targum
Targum Onkelos opposite Torah text
Targum Onkelos and Targum Pseudo-Yonatan in English

Shadal's Ohev Ger

Berliner
Chalifot Semalot
Avnei Tzion -- two commentaries on Onkelos
Bei`urei Onkelos
Or Hatargum on Onkelos
Targum Yonatan
Commentary on Targum Yonatan and Targum Yerushalmi
Septuagint
Origen's Hexapla (JNUL)

masorah
Tanach with masoretic notes on the side
Commentary on the Masorah -- not until Tzav
Minchas Shai
Or Torah
Taamei Masoret
Masoret HaKeriah
Shiluv Hamasorot
Masoret HaBrit HaGadol
Rama (but based on alphabet, not parsha)
Vetus Testamentum

midrash
Midrash Rabba at Daat (1)
Midrash Tanchuma at Daat (38)
Vayikra Rabba, with commentaries
Midrash Tanchuma with commentary of Etz Yosef and Anaf Yosef
Commentary on Midrash Rabba by R' Naftali Hirtz b'R' Menachem
Matat-Kah on Midrash Rabba
Nefesh Yehonasan by Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz

haftarah (Yeshaya 43:21)

Gutnick Edition Haftara
In a separate Mikraos Gedolos -- with Targum, Rashi, Mahari Kara, Radak, Minchat Shai, Metzudat David.
In a Tanach with Radak (JNUL, pg 58, left, last pasuk on page)
Rashis in English, from Judaica Press
Daat, with Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitch on the haftarah
Ibn Ezra on Yeshaya
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (53)

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Sarah Palin and Hashem, keeping notes on their hands?

Hat tip to DovBear, who notes this derasha which Sarah Palin made:

At an Ohio Right to Life fundraiser Friday, the former Alaska governor assailed the media for criticizing her for writing speaking pointers on her hand at the tea party convention last month. Some critics charged Palin with double standards after she took a jab at President Obama’s use of the teleprompter.

“I didn’t have a good answer to that criticism because I thought it was so ridiculous,” Palin said. “But then someone sent me the other day Isaiah 49:16.”

The verse reads, “See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me.”

For Palin, that was encouragement enough.

“Hey, if it was good enough for God, scribbling on the palm of his hand, it’s good enough for me, for us. In that passage, he says, ‘I wrote your name on the palm of my hand to remember you.’ And I’m like ok, I’m in good company,” she told cheering supporters.

Oy. In terms of whether the pasuk actually means this... Well, perhaps, sort of. The pasuk in question is Yeshaya 49:16:

טז הֵן עַל-כַּפַּיִם, חַקֹּתִיךְ; חוֹמֹתַיִךְ נֶגְדִּי, תָּמִיד.

16 Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of My hands; thy walls are continually before Me.

But Saadia Gaon points out that kapayim in other contexts means clouds, and that this is what is means here as well. Radak argues, writing:

[מט, טז]
הן על כפים -פירש רב סעדיה ז"ל:

כמו עננים, וכן: נשא לבבינו אל כפים.
והנכון כמשמעו. וכן תרגם יונתן.
כלאו את חקוקה, לפני שאזכרך תמיד.

Looking at a Mikraos Gedolos on Yeshaya, we find Rashi gives both explanations. Mahari Kara is not explicit, but it seems he favors engraved on hands. Ibn Ezra cites both but favors the hand interpretation, for reasons he gives there. Targum Yonatan: Behold, you are like engraved upon hands before Me.

We might also consider Yeshaya 44:5:

ה זֶה יֹאמַר לַיהוָה אָנִי, וְזֶה יִקְרָא בְשֵׁם-יַעֲקֹב; וְזֶה, יִכְתֹּב יָדוֹ לַיהוָה, וּבְשֵׁם יִשְׂרָאֵל, יְכַנֶּה. {פ}

5 One shall say: 'I am the LORD'S'; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel. {P}

and consider the ancient practice of writing on the hand to show that one belongs to one another. Thus, in an Aramaic papyrus from Elephantine, 427 BCE:

Meshullam son of Zakkur, a Jew of the fortress Elephantine, of the detachment of Arpakhu said to the woman Tapmut (as she is called), (3) his slave, who has on her right hand the marking "Of Meshullam," as follows...

Note that even if it means hand, this is metaphor. Hashem does not have a hand! (Just dibra Torah ke-leshon bnei adam.) And he would not need to engrave something upon his hand as a memory aid! And this is likely like a mark, showing attachment and a maintained connection. It is not crib notes!

Despite all this, I think that it is misguided to mock Sarah Palin for having notes inscribed on her hand.

I know. I often teach; sometimes secular subjects, and sometimes shiurim. And there are three things I can do, going into a lecture or shiur:

(1) I could use full written notes. I find that, particularly for shiurim, it is useful to write out the derasha in full, just to make sure all the ideas are developed, and to make sure that there are smooth transitions from one idea to the next. This even if I don't actually read the notes. (So, on the advice of Rabbi Lookstein, in his class on homiletics.) But on the occasions that I actually read the notes out loud during a speech, the result is a wooden delivery. It is like using a teleprompter.

(2) Another option is to go in without notes at all. I've done this on more than one occasion. The drawback is that I might forget a connection, and flounder about for a minute while trying to reestablish it. And sometimes I forget to address one of the important ideas I had planned on discussing.

(3) I could give myself a terse outline. The three or four major ideas I plan on addressing, with maybe a transition or two; or a turn of a phrase. The result is a more engaged and natural delivery, but hopefully covering all topics I want to cover, in the order I want to cover it.

That I would opt for (1), while referring occasionally to notes; or especially that I would opt for (3), does not indicate that I am a moron, who cannot remember the three or four points. It means that I can get nervous, or caught up in a discussion, and forget to mention some point I did wish to deliver.

That Sarah Palin wrote on her hand a reminded that she wants to lower taxes does not mean that without that note she would have thought that she wants to raise taxes -- to cite DovBear --

Now, you may have thought Sarah resorted to crib notes because she needed to remind herself that she wants to lower taxes (no joke, this was one of the actual reminders she put on her hand)

Rather, this was one point she wanted to talk about, organically, out of, say, 50 points that she might have discussed. Look at the picture of her hand, above. She wrote "budget cuts", but crossed out "budget" and wrote in "tax cuts". I suppose because tax cuts speak to voters, who want this practical result of more money in their pockets, while budget cuts means limiting government, a means to the end of tax cuts, but also suggesting, in some instances, a reduction of services. She was giving a speech, and was using this as an outline.

And she couldn't very well bring a piece of paper to the interview, while looking so natural; especially after having criticized President Obama for his over-reliance on a teleprompter. Even though this is very different, in terms of audience perception, it is a fine point of distinction that many might not grasp.

Anyway, check out this SNL clip, a trailer for the movie 2012:

Thursday, May 07, 2009

Why would someone recommend rubber soles as a tznius stringency?

In a recent ad calling on women to accept tznius stringencies to help the bachurim in Japan who unwittingly smuggled ecstasy, there was a call to make sure that the soles on a woman's shoes were of rubber: "Shoes/heels with a rubber sole"

The obvious intent of this is that the sound of a woman's footsteps are non-tznius. I am no expert in tznius, so I don't know if there is any halachic discussion of this anywhere, though I would doubt it.

I see that HaEmtza is bothered by this particulat tznius suggestion as well.

In all likelihood, especially since she also promoted Rabbi Falk's book Oz veHadar Levushah, she got it from there. Indeed, he discusses it on a page not in the online preview of the book, on page 347: "Not to walk with loud or sophisticated footsteps"

I have not seen his derivation, so I am going to guess at this. I think I've developed some sense at how he goes about, going against Chazal by innovating new halachos, by darshening pesukim in Navi by himself. If you have seen the text in the book, please help me by telling me if I am right, or if I am wrong, telling me what he actually says.

There is a strong likelihood that he gets it from a pasuk in Yeshaya, since this is a text he commonly uses when inventing his tznius chumras. In Yeshaya 3:

טז וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, יַעַן כִּי גָבְהוּ בְּנוֹת צִיּוֹן, וַתֵּלַכְנָה נטוות (נְטוּיוֹת) גָּרוֹן, וּמְשַׂקְּרוֹת עֵינָיִם; הָלוֹךְ וְטָפֹף תֵּלַכְנָה, וּבְרַגְלֵיהֶם תְּעַכַּסְנָה.

16 Moreover the LORD said: Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched-forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet;

Anything a woman is mentioned using in this perek, Rabbi Falk forbids, sometimes against explicit gemaras, as I have discussed in previous posts.

One can focus on וּבְרַגְלֵיהֶם תְּעַכַּסְנָה. That phrase can mean different things. For example, Rashi, following the gemara, understands this as spraying venom:

The pasuk is thus: And the Lord said: Because the daughters of Zion are so haughty; and they walk with neck stretched forth, and winking eyes; walking and raising themselves they walk; and with their feet they spout "venom."

and with their feet they spout venom: When they would pass in the street near Jewish youths, they would stamp their feet and hint to them of the affection of the adulteresses, in order to arouse their temptation, like the venom of a serpent. עֶכֶס is the venom of a serpent.

This "spouting venom" involves stamping. With rubber soles you cannot stamp loudly. But these were the actions of women going out of there way to seduce, and be adulteresses. This does not mean that other, stamping is problematic; of that in a culture where men do not understand the "hint" of stamping. And if they intend nothing by the stamping and the men don't intuit anything from it, who says it is a problem? And if it is just regular walking, rather than emphatic stamping, who says it is problematic. Show me a gemara assuring stamping, or of walking with non-rubber soles.

Chazal, in Shabbat 62b, interpreted the pasuk slightly differently:

And making a tinkling [te'akasnah] with their feet: R. Isaac of the School of R. Ammi said: This teaches that they placed myrrh and balsam in their shoes and walked through the market-places of Jerusalem, and on coming near to the young men of Israel, they kicked their feet and spurted it on them, thus instilling them with passionate desire like with serpent's poison.

Thus, they interpret it as kicking their feet specifically to distribute the perfume which they previously placed in their shoes. This is not the case of the conduct of women walking today without rubber soles on their shoes. (Rashi probably deviated slightly from the gemara in the interests of peshat, since spraying poison/perfume does not seem to be the most peshat-oriented explanation.)

We do have Ibn Ezra and Radak who speak of what is by their feet making noise. But we don't establish halacha based on a peshat given by a medieval commentator, just as we don't change halachic times and say night follows day, despite Rashbam's interpretation of Bereishit like that, or stop wearing tefillin if Rashbam says that on a peshat level it is allegorical.

What do Radak and Ibn Ezra say? Well, Ibn Ezra on תְּעַכַּסְנָה writes that they put achasim, perhaps anklets, or perhaps spurs, on their feet, like men who ride. (That it mentions men who ride makes me think spurs, and in medieval times they had spurs.) Then he mentions that some people say that the anklets/spurs (achasim) made noise.

But these were specific decorations, perhaps for the particular intent of making noise, and specifically with the intent to entice the men. This is not the same as a normal women walking with normal shoes, that happen to make normal noise when one walks. Ibn Ezra does not say that these are shoes without rubber soles.

Radak also understands these to make noise, but a tinkling noise. He says that they would knock their feet with the achasim which were on them, which were bells, and produce a sound.

Surely this deliberate action, with bells, is not the same as non-deliberate action, with normal shoes which normal men and women wear.