Matos - Masei #2: Tevilat Kelim

This parsha is the basis for, or perhaps merely contains a hinting support (asmachta), to tevilat kelim, the immersion of newly purchased/acquired metal (and glass) vessels when not acquired from another Jewish person.
In Chazal's reading of the verse, tevilat kelim seems to be the tail-end of kashering a vessel. That is, a vessel from a non-Jew was likely used with non-kosher food. Therefore, such a vessel must be kashered before use, in order to remove particles of non-kosher food on the surface of the vessel and particles of non-kosher food absorbed in the walls of the vessel.
At the tail-end of this kashering is tevilat kelim which involves putting the vessel in a mikveh.

Bemidbar 31:21-24:

וַיֹּאמֶר אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן אֶל-אַנְשֵׁי הַצָּבָא, הַבָּאִים לַמִּלְחָמָה: זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה, אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה ה אֶת-מֹשֶׁה.
אַךְ אֶת-הַזָּהָב, וְאֶת-הַכָּסֶף; אֶת-הַנְּחֹשֶׁת, אֶת-הַבַּרְזֶל, אֶת-הַבְּדִיל, וְאֶת-הָעֹפָרֶת.
כָּל-דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר-יָבֹא בָאֵשׁ, תַּעֲבִירוּ בָאֵשׁ וְטָהֵר--אַךְ, בְּמֵי נִדָּה יִתְחַטָּא; וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָבֹא בָּאֵשׁ, תַּעֲבִירוּ בַמָּיִם.
וְכִבַּסְתֶּם בִּגְדֵיכֶם בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, וּטְהַרְתֶּם; וְאַחַר, תָּבֹאוּ אֶל-הַמַּחֲנֶה.
"And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war that went to the battle: 'This is the statute of the law which the LORD hath commanded Moses:
Howbeit the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,
every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make to go through the fire, and it shall be clean; nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of sprinkling; and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make to go through the water.
And ye shall wash your clothes on the seventh day, and ye shall be clean, and afterward ye may come into the camp.'"

These verses follow the fight with Midian. The simplest reading of the verses would be that this is some treatment of the vessels to remove ritual impurity from contact with the bodies of the slain. However, fire, mentioned earlier in the verse, is not the method used elsewhere to purify vessels from impurity, so it is taken to be removal of non-kosher materials from the vessels (see Ramban, below).

From there, it was extended to the case of new vessels, unused by a non-Jew and therefore not containing on the surface or in its walls any non-kosher food. In such a case, the removal of the non-kosher food need not be done and all that is done is the dippping it in a mikveh. We can say it was extended, or we can say that it was recognized that the dipping in the mikveh is an entirely separate element that the removal of the non-kosher food, and is just associated with the transfer of possession to a Jew, as well as some form of ritual impurity.

It is interesting that Rav Sheshet does not think that tevilat kelim should be extended to purchased new vessels - those which do not have non-kosher food in/on them. (We do not rule like him.) Nowadays, I would say that close to 100% of instances of tevilat kelim is done on such new vessels.

A quick overview of how they seem to be parsing the psukim (based loosely on the Ramban, rather than Rashi):
"Howbeit the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,"
Thus, metal utensils:

"every thing that may abide the fire,"
actually, everything which was used in fire - that is, to cook non-kosher food.
This is a subcategory of metal utensils, mentioned above. Thus, pots which are used to cook things, and skewers.

"ye shall make to go through the fire, and it shall be clean;"

this is a form of removing unkosher material from the cookware. Either placing in boiling water if it was used to cook non-kosher food if we are talking about a pot, or for more extreme types of cooking, (for skewers) via libun, that is put through fire.
It will be made clean from non-kosher materials.

"nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of sprinkling;"
in Hebrew, Mei Niddah. They take it to mean that it should be put in the same type of water a Nidda, a menstruating woman, must go into to become pure. That is a mikvah containing 40 seah of mikvah water. Thus, a final step, even after this hagala (being placed in boiling water) or libun (fire), it needs to be put into mikvah water to be "purified." There seems thus to be some impurity involved.

"and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make to go through the water."
Still talking about metal items (!!), which COULD in theory pass through the fire. But it was not used on the fire. It was only used for cold.
An example would be a metal cup. (Though also a pot which was used irregularly, just with cold materials should have the same rule.)
For those, it should be made to go through the water, that is, cleaned thoroughly, to remove the non-kosher material from the surface. We do not need to worry about absorbed matter since it will not absorb into the walls of the vessel without heat.. Though not mentioned explicitly, the same after-procedure mentioned above, of putting it in a mikvah, applies.
Note: here is where Rashi differs, and maintains that no mention of scrubbing with water is mentioned (though of course one should still scrub them so as not to consume non-kosher food!) "ye shall make to go through the water" means dipping in the mikvah.

New Vessels
As mentioned before, Rav Sheshet does not think that dipping in the mikvah should apply to new vessels purchased from a non-Jew (basically all that we dip in the mikvah nowadays). I can see how this is connected to the verses.

The verses only spoke of vessels which had been used with fire (cooking or roasting) and which had not been used with fire (thus with cold materials) and had given a method of removing the non-kosher material, noting that even so, (ACH = however) they should still be dipped in a mikvah to finally be considered ritually pure.

Nowhere did the verses mention something that had not been used with non-kosher hot or cold food. For such a new vessel, there would be no procedure to remove non-kosher material. Thus, it was not spoken of at all by the verses. Further, perhaps this ritual uncleanliness comes from the presence of the non-kosher food, and if there was never any on it, there should be no cause to purify it.

However, Rav Nachman (citing Rabba bar Avuah) says new vessels purchased from a non-Jew must be dipped in the mikvah. If I were trying to find a source, I might look at the end of the verse - those items which did not go through fire - and point out that unused vessels also did not go through fire. Rav Nachman looks to the beginning of the verse, to those items which went through the fire. Such items, such as a skewer, were used with fire, to to remove the non-kosher food they must be placed in the fire again. (This will either cause the food to exit, because the method causing absorbsion will also cause the expulsion of the same material, or because putting it through the fire will cause the material to be consumed and thus the material will no longer exist.) When doing this libun, making it white-hot through fire, the vessel is essentially remade. If so, it is the same as a new vessel. And even though it is a new vessel, it still needs to be dipped in a mikvah. So too, a new vessel which never had non-kosher food in it will also need to be dipped in a mikvah.

Rav Sheshet objects that if this were so, then even metal items not used for food, such as shearing scissors, would require dipping. After all, you are now speaking of metal utensils which were never used with non-kosher food. And, we know that no one would suggest that such a utensil would need to be dipped.

Rav Nachman replies that the subject of the passage is vessels that are used with food. That is, the only vessels discussed in the verse are the type that are used with food. This is true, as the verse first speaks about those used in the fire to prepare food, and those used to contain cold food.

We are not told if Rav Sheshet agrees. I can see room to disagree with Rav Nachman, but in terms of current practice, we rule like Rav Nachman.

We see in this interchange that a lot relies on how the verses are interpreted. It is therefore somewhat difficult to say, as the Ramban seems to say (at the end, reversing his initial position), that dipping in the mikvah is Rabbinic in nature and the verses just serve as an asmachta=support, that is that Chazal do not actually think the verses mean what they say it means, but are using this as a mnemonic or as a device to connect the Rabbinic laws to some Scripture.

Glass vessels
Glass is not mentioned in the verse; it only mentions types of metal. However, Rav Ashi says that since they can be repaired when they break, they are like metal utensils and should require dipping in the mikvah. This is generally taken to be a Rabbinic extension to the Biblical command (or to the Ramban, an extension of the Rabbinic rule).

However, I would ask why they decided to make this Rabbinic extension. Confusion of glass with metal, since both can be fixed? This seems unlikely. Further, if this is a Rabbinic extension, why is Rav Ashi the only one to know about it? If it is Rav Ashi's own extension, why should he make such a takana?

I think Rav Ashi might be saying that glass has a Biblical requirement to be dipped. The verse spoke of metal utensils, used with hot and used with cold, but all could theoretically be put into the fire. Some need to be, and some don't, but in theory they all are capable of withstanding fire. Just as Rav Nachman said that libun remakes a metal vessel, so too, Rav Ashi might be saying, a glass vessel which is broken can be remade by putting it on the fire. It is of the same class.

Another way of looking at it: The verses state:

אַךְ אֶת-הַזָּהָב, וְאֶת-הַכָּסֶף; אֶת-הַנְּחֹשֶׁת, אֶת-הַבַּרְזֶל, אֶת-הַבְּדִיל, וְאֶת-הָעֹפָרֶת.
כָּל-דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר-יָבֹא בָאֵשׁ
"Howbeit the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,"
"every thing that may abide the fire,"

Thus, after mentioning the various metals, it continues with the words "every thing that may abide the fire." This might be regarded as a type of ribui, extension of the rule. These rules of koshering and dipping apply to all metals, and all things like metals that "may abide the fire."

My unique reading of Rav Ashi would have repercussions in terms of how to treat vessels made of Pyrex. Pyrex is a glass able to withstand the fire in that you can cook with it. It is glass with boron = borosilicate. If glass is a rabbinic rule, they did not necessarily make this rule extend to other materials which did not exist at the time of the ruling. They might have, though, stating that anything which can be fixed is like metal. (Rabbi Tendler thinks Pyrex definitely requires dipping since the sand in Eretz Yisrael contains boron, so Chazal's glass was borosilicate.)

The same issue comes up with regards to other types of metals - newly discovered metals, such as aluminum, which are not mentioned in the verse. There are questions whether one needs to dip them in a mikvah at all, or whether they need be dipped as a Rabbinic rule, or perhaps as a Biblical rule

According to my reading of Rav Ashi, that he is deducing a Biblical rule, then glass is included in the Biblical requirement. New forms of glass should also be included, as should other types of metal, since the verse gives a rule, instead of just examples from which someone might deduce some sort of rule.

Note that other materials, like clay, would not require dipping in the mikvah.

Let us examine some of the sources. The derivation of tevilat kelim from the verses is not as straightforward as that presented above.

The gemara, in Bavli, Avodah Zara 75:
The Mishnah mentions tevilat kelim, among other types of perparing vessels.
Mishna:

הלוקח כלי תשמיש מן {הגוי} את שדרכו להטביל יטביל להגעיל יגעיל ללבן באור ילבן באור השפוד והאסכלא מלבנן באור הסכין שפה והיא טהורה:

The style of the Mishnah is generally not to give Scriptural sources, or reasons, for its rulings. That is left to other Tanaaitic sources, which are often cited in the gemara. However, we might be able to determine what it going through the mind of the Mishna from the way of phrasing things.

Here, it seems that the Mishna does not require tevilat kelim, dipping in a mikvah, for items which are kashered via scalding with boiling water or whitened with fire.

The Mishna might be divided stylistically into the first part, which gives a general rule, and the second part, which treats individual items.

הלוקח כלי תשמיש מן {הגוי} את שדרכו להטביל יטביל להגעיל יגעיל ללבן באור ילבן באור
"One who acquires vessels of use {J: for food} from a non-Jew: those which their way is to dip you should dip; to place in boiling water you should place in boiling water; to whiten with fire you shall whiten with fire."

The Mishna does not say what would cause each category to have its derech, method, to be that which it is. It is possible but slightly forced to say that שדרכו, its way, means its method of regular use, which would then accord with the parsing of the verse given above according to the Ramban, that כָּל-דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר-יָבֹא בָאֵשׁ means every item which was in the past used with fire, and וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָבֹא בָּאֵשׁ means that which was not used with hot foods. Then שדרכו להטביל would mean that its method of use did not involve hot foods.

Alternatively, and more likely, the Mishna is saying that there are different methods of preparing vessels purchased from a non-Jew, and each should be prepared according to its specific rules, which are partially described in the Mishna and partially described elsewhere. The derivation of these rules is left to other Tanaaitic sources, as is the general style of the Mishna.

The Mishna seems to suggest that tevila, dipping, is something done to one class of vessels (those whose way is to be dipped). Other vessels are prepared via scalding or whitening in fire. However, the Mishna writes all this in a shorthand, without elaboration, and so it is equally acceptable to read the Mishna that those vessels which are only prepared via dipping shall be only dipped. Those which require more extreme methods of preparation will have those other methods done to it. But that preparation may very well also include dipping in the mikvah at the end. The Mishna is written in shorthand, with the details expected to be filled in by knowledge of other Oral and Written sources.

(One other possibility I thought I would mention is that perhaps tevila here in the Mishna does not mean dipping in a mikvah, but rather washing well with water.)

The Mishna finishes by giving specific examples:

השפוד והאסכלא מלבנן באור הסכין שפה והיא טהורה
The skewer and the grill you whiten in fire. The knife may be polished and it is pure (=cleansed of non-kosher material)

The gemara begins by citing another Tanaaitic source which talks about tevilat kelim, to say that all the classes of items, even those cleansed of non-kosher food via scalding or fire, still require dipping in the mikvah.

תנא וכולן צריכין טבילה בארבעים סאה
מנהני מילי?
אמר רבא דאמר קרא (במדבר לא) כל דבר אשר יבא באש תעבירו באש וטהר. הוסיף לך הכתוב טהרה אחרת תני בר קפרא מתוך שנאמר (במדבר לא) במי נדה שומע אני שצריך הזאה שלישי ושביעי ת"ל אך חלק א"כ מה ת"ל במי נדה מים שנדה טובלת בהן הוי אומר ארבעים סאה
"We learned (in a Tanaaitic source a continuation of the Mishna): And they all need immersion in 40 seah.
From where do we know these words?
Rava said, that it states in the verse, "every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make to go through the fire, and it shall be clean" {veTaher}. {Thus besides the explicit cleansing through fire/scalding,} the Scriptures adds for you another methodology of cleansing/purification {which must be done.}
Bar Kappara taught {a Tanaaitic source}: From the words of the verse BeMei Niddah {literally "with the water of sprinkling} I would understand that it requires sprinkling {with the water of the Red Heifer = Para Aduma} on the 3rd and 7th day. Therefore the verse states {and intoduces the statement with the word} אך, "except," to make it distinct {from the other places where it does mean the water of the Para Aduma}.
If so, what does BeMei Niddah mean {if not the sprinkling of the Para Aduma water}? Water that a Niddah/menstruous woman immerses in them. That is to say, in 40 seah."

Bar Kappara was a late Tanna - he was the student of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who ordered the Mishna, and the teacher of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, an early Amora. Rava is a 4th generation Babylonian Amora. Both give derivations for the requirement to immerse vessels in a mikvah.

Were each of these sources unaware of the other? This is, was Rava unaware of the brayta of Bar Kappara? It is possible - Amoraim can generally only be sure to know Mishnayot, while a specific brayta may elude them. Was Bar Kappara unaware of Rava's derivation? Well, Rava seems to innovate this derivation, in that he does not cite a brayta for it, or attribute it to an earlier generation. While Rava was surely finding the source for the earlier halacha recorded in the Mishna and brayta, it is possible that Bar Kappara was unaware of this derivation.

The next segment of gemara is an unattributed statement in Aramaic - what is known as the stama degemara. This may very well be post-Amoraic. It harmonizes Bar Kappara's derivation and Rava's derivation, showing why each is needed.

However, the simple reading of the statements of Rava and Bar Kappara would have them arguing.

Bar Kappara's derivation requires a radical reinterpretation of the words Mei Niddah, from waters of Para Aduma to a mikvah that a Niddah immerses in. On the plus side, the immersion is read directly into the verse, as an addition purification after scalding/whitening with fire. That is, there is a straightforward reading, on a quasi-pshat level. On the minus side, it is a radical reinterpretation of those words, and so we can see how Rava would like to give a different derivation.

Rava's derivation, from the extra word "veTaher," is that rather than meaning that at the completion of the aforementioned process it will be purified, the word means that afterwards one must take an additional step to purify it. On the plus side, the words "BeMei Niddah Yitchata" are not radically reinterpreted. This is an important point. They actually mean that the waters of the Para Aduma should be sprinkled on the vessel on the 3rd and the 7th day, because of impurity from contact with dead bodies. The same purification which was added parenthetically here for things going through the fire would apply equally to those not going through the fire. Just the word veTaher implies that some other purification must be done. On the minus side, there is no specification what this additional purification should be, so it is left to Oral tradition that this refers to immersion in a mikvah of 40 seah.

So, we can see why Bar Kappara and Rava each prefer his own derivation, and each can know of the possibility of the other's derivation.

The explanation of the verse I initially gave thus follows Bar Kappara and ignores Rava.

The stama though likes to harmonize, and he shows why each of these drashot are required.

איצטריך למיכתב וטהר ואיצטריך למיכתב במי נדה
אי כתב וטהר ה"א וטהר כל דהו כתב רחמנא במי נדה
ואי כתב רחמנא במי נדה הוה אמינא הערב שמש כנדה כתב רחמנא וטהר לאלתר
"It was required to write veTaher {Rava's source} and it was required to write BeMei Niddah {bar Kappara's source.}
If it had only written veTaher, I would have beleived any amount {of water would suffice. After all, the method of purification is not mentioned. Therefore} the Merciful One wrote BeMei Niddah {so that I know 40 seah are required.}
And had the Merciful One only written BeMei Niddah I would have beleived that sunset {would be required for it to become pure} just as is the case by a Niddah. Therefore the Merciful one wrote veTaher, {to show that the purification happens} immediately.

However, what did Bar Kappara do until Rava came along with his drasha? Rather, I think it is as i suggested and there is actually a dispute.

Next, the interchange between Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet, two Amoraim, about new vessels.

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אפי' כלים חדשים במשמע דהא ישנים וליבנן כחדשים דמו ואפילו הכי בעי טבילה
מתקיף לה רב ששת אי הכי אפי' זוזא דסרבלא נמי
א"ל כלי סעודה אמורין בפרשה
"Rav Nachman cited Rabba bar Avuah: even new vessels are implied {in the verse}. For behold, old vessels which are whitened through fire are like new, and even so need immersion in a mikvah.
Rav Sheshet asked, if so, even shearing scissors {which are not used with non-kosher food, or for that matter, food} would also! {And since this is clearly not so, new vessels are not implied.}
He said to him, {shearing scissors are not also implied, since only} vessels for a meal are stated in the passage."

See my explanation of this, above, under the heading "New Vessels."

What about non-metallic items? Earthen vessels and glass:

רב יצחק בר יוסף זבן מנא דמרדא {מגוי} סבר להטבילה
א"ל ההוא מרבנן ורבי יעקב שמיה לדידי מפרשא לי מיניה דרבי יוחנן כלי מתכות אמורין בפרשה
אמר רב אשי הני כלי זכוכית הואיל וכי נשתברו יש להן תקנה ככלי מתכות דמו
"Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef bought a vessel from a gentile made from a mixture of earth and animal dung, and thought to immerse it.
A certain one of the rabbis, and Rabbi Yaakov was his name, said, To me it was explained from Rabbi Yochanan that {only} metal vessels are spoken of in the passage {note the similarily of this last phrase to "only vessels of the meal are spoken of in the passage.}
Rav Ashi said, these glass vessels, since when they break they have a way of fixing them, they are akin to metal vessels."

I have explained above how I want to understand Rav Ashi's statement, as part of the items mentioned in the verse.

Finally, a brayta:

ת"ר הלוקח כלי תשמיש מן הגוים
דברים שלא נשתמש בהן מטבילן והן טהורין
דברים שנשתמש בהן ע"י צונן כגון כוסות וקתוניות וצלוחיות מדיחן ומטבילן והם טהורין
דברים שנשתמש בהן ע"י חמין כגון היורות הקומקמוסון ומחמי חמין מגעילן ומטבילן והן טהורין
דברים שנשתמש בהן ע"י האור כגון השפודין והאסכלאות מלבנן ומטבילן והן טהורין
וכולן שנשתמש בהן עד שלא יטביל ושלא יגעיל ושלא ילבן תני חדא אסור ותניא אידך מותר
"We learned in a brayta, One who acquires vessels of {meal} use from non-Jews:
Things which were not used {= new vessels} immerse them and they are pure.
Things which were used with cold, for example cups, jugs, and flasks, rinse them and then immerse them and they are pure.
Things which are used with hot, for example boilers, kettles and heating vessels, scald them and then immerse them and they are pure.
Things which are used with fire, for example skewers and grills, whiten them with fire and then immerse them and they are pure.
And all of them {the above} which you do not immerse and which you do not scald and which you do not whiten in fire - one Tanaaitic source says it is forbidden and the other says it is permitted.

This brayta is structured after the Mishna, and explains what each of the cryptic phrases,

את שדרכו להטביל יטביל להגעיל יגעיל ללבן באור ילבן באור השפוד והאסכלא מלבנן באור הסכין שפה והיא טהורה
"One who acquires vessels of use {J: for food} from a non-Jew: those which their way is to dip you should dip; to place in boiling water you should place in boiling water; to whiten with fire you shall whiten with fire."

that is, those whose way is to dip, etc., is explained to refer to a certain class of vessel, which is used not at all, or with cold, or with hot, or with fire, with examples of each. The last one, those used with fire, even has its examples mentioned in the Mishna as well.

Something however seems a bit off. To channel Sesame Street, One of these things is not like the others, and three of these things are kind of the same. Can you guess which one is not like the others?

Three of these things - vessels used with cold, with hot, and with fire, have examples of the class of items belonging to it. Only one - new, unused vessels, does not have examples. Of course, it cannot really have examples, since it is a class which spans all of the other classes, since any of them can possibly have not been used.

New, unused vessels stand out in another way as well. Rav Sheshet seems to think that new, unused vessels should not require immersion. How can he argue with a Tanaaitic source like this brayta. And why does Rav Nachman only cite Rabba bar Avuah, and not refer to this brayta as an authoritative backup even when challenged by Rav Sheshet?

Vessels used with cold items also stand out, but in a different way. To cite the end of the brayta, in its two forms: "And all of them {the above} which you do not immerse and which you do not scald and which you do not whiten in fire - one Tanaaitic source says it is forbidden and the other says it is permitted."

Thus, if you miss out on a method of cleansing, depending on which version of the brayta, it is either forbidden or permitted. But what are these methods of cleansing? Immersing, scalding, and whitening in fire. One method of cleansing is missing from this list! That is, rinsing. Remember, those items used with cold should be rinsed and then immersed. Thus, items used with cold are not like the others.

It gets trickier. Why should they be permitted, or forbidden, if you neglected to clean them? The gemara explains the reason. There is a dispute whether non-kosher foods which impart an unpleasant taste to the food cause the food to be forbidden or not. Since this is old food in the container, it imparts an unpleasant taste to the food.

This explanation is difficult in the first place, because it only works for things which need be cleansed via scalding or whitening on the fire. But what about immersing? Forgetting to immerse the item has no effect on the food cooked or prepared in it! Immersing is just for ritual purity, not cleansing from non-kosher food.

Furthermore, we saw that each class - cold, hot, and fire - had some cleansing method plus immersion in a mikvah. For cold it is rinsing; for hot, scalding; for fire, whitening in fire. Yet the Mishna gives these three classes and says those which the way is to immerse you immerse; those which you scald you scald; those which you whiten in fire you whiten. What happened to rinsing in the Mishna!?

I posit the following. There is a difference in terminology, and some late-editing of some Tanaaitic sources in an attempt to clarify matters.

Specifically, I posit that tevila as used initially in the Mishna and in this most recent brayta means rinsing, not immersion in a mikvah. Thus, the Mishna: Those which are cleansed via tevila = rinsing should be rinsed. Those via scalding should be scalded. Those via whitening on the fire should be whitened on the fire. No mention whatsoever is made in the Mishna of immersion in a mikvah.

Therefore, the first thing the gemara did was bring a brayta that said that all of them additionally needed to be immersed in a mikvah of 40 seah. Originally we thought this was only extending immersion to the latter two classes in the Mishnah, but now we see that it was adding this ritual immersion to all three classes. It specifies in 40 seah in part to distinguish it from the tevila mentioned in the Mishna.

In this brayta we just discussed, they wanted to say that for each class, you would take action X, plus immersion, and then it is pure. Ideally you would use the same terminology for rinsing used in the Mishna, מטבילן, to describe this cleansing. However, this would cause confusion between the two types of tevila, and so they changed it to מדיחן.

However, in the summary of the brayta, where it says that if you neglected a type of cleansing it is either permitted or forbidden, it used and kept the Tanaaitic language of the Mishna, where tevila is actually rinsing. Thus, the method of actually removing non-kosher food from the item is described. Thus, if you neglected to remove the food in one of these ways, one can say on all of them tha they are either forbidden or permitted. But removing ritual uncleanliness via immersion in a mikva is out of place in the list. One might accurately discribe the dispute, in its totality, in terms of whether imparting unpleasant non-kosher taste to a food will forbid another food. With tevila here meaning rinsing, the list of actions once again matches the list of actions mentioned in the Mishna.

But why would the terminology change within the same brayta? Would the author not realize it would be confusing? After all, if tevila means immersion in the resha and rinsing in the sefa, the terminology is inconsistent!

I would suggest that the change in terminology, and the use of מדיחן in the resha, is not original.

This brayta is patterned after, and is an explanation of, the Mishna. The Mishna does not mention immersion in a mikva at all. The brayta wished to explain what each of these three classes are. Therefore, the brayta would not have mentioned unused vessels, which only require immersion in the mikva. The brayta would speak only of the three classes of items, of cold, hot, and fire, and give examples of each, together with how to cleanse them of the non-kosher food items.

For cold, it would give examples of cups, jugs, and jugs, and say that they must be rinsed. The word used to describe rinsing would be tevila. For hot, it would give examples of boilers, kettles and heating vessels, and say that they require scalding. For fire, it would give examples of skewers and grills, and say that they require whitening on the fire. No mention of tevila, that is immersion in the mikva, existed.

Then, it was edited. The first brayta brought in the gemara mentioned that all of the above required tevila in a mikva of 40 seah. So, some hand edited the brayta for each of the three classes, and added tevila in a mikva, that is the words מטבילן והן טהורין, immerse them and they are ritually pure, in order to bring the brayta in line with actual practice, and in harmony with the other brayta. However, this caused a problem, in that tevila was already used to describe rinsing. Thus, the hand that added מטבילן והן טהורין changed the pre-existing tevila in the brayta to be explicitly rinsing - מדיחן. He neglected to change the pre-existing tevila in the sefa, since it was not in direct conflict with his addition. This is what caused the confusion, both in this brayta and by extension to our Mishna.

Once we have immersion in a mikva, we can describe things which do not need any prior cleansing as well. Thus, a later hand, which saw Rav Nachman's statement about unused, new vessels purchased from a gentile, could describe their method of preparation and removal of ritual impurity, as mere immersion in a mikva. This is a change which violently moves the brayta from being just an interpretation/elaboration of the Mishna, since there is a new case undiscussed by the Mishan. Or, to my mind more likely, this was not a later hand than the first editor, but was actually was the same hand as above. The addition of new vessels was the impetus for changing the brayta, and since this established the baseline of immersion in the mikva, all the other cases in the brayta had to have that procedure added to them as well.

Since this case of new vessels was not original to the brayta, Rav Sheshet and Rav Nachman would not have known about it. In fact, I mentioned this addition was in all likelihood the result of Rav Nachman's statement.

A possible halachic repercussion from all of this. May food prepared in non-immersed vessels be used, or are they forbidden? Current understanding of this question is correct in that this is not an issue of imparting unpleasant taste, but that perhaps the ritual impurity of the vessel, and the fact that you neglected to do what the Torah/Chazal commanded you causes the food prepared in it to be forbidden.

However, the source for saying the food would be forbidden was the brayta, which depending on which version says either permitted or forbidden. And, we see that when the brayta speaks of tevila it means rinsing. This means that there is no source to say that food in a new vessel, which does not require rinsing, but which did not have immersion in a mikva, should be forbidden. Thus I would say it would absolutely be permitted.

There is a lot more in the gemara, but I will leave it at this. It is a very interesting sugya all around.

Finally, the Ramban:

תַּעֲבִירוּ בָאֵשׁ וְטָהֵר. אין הכלי שנגע במת או בנבלה נטהר באש, שאין טבילת התורה אלא במים, ולפיכך הוצרכו רבותינו (ע"ז עה:) לפרש שזו הטהרה להגעילם מאיסורי המאכלות שבלעו ביד הגוים, וזה אמת בלי ספק:
"ye shall make to go through the fire, and it shall be clean/pure" A vessel which comes in contact with a dead person or animal is not made ritually pure with fire, for the immersion of the Torah is only with water. And therefore Our Rabbis (in Avoda Zara 75b) were compelled to explain that this purification is the cleansing of them from the forbidden foods that they absorbed in the hands of the gentiles, and this is truth without a doubt.

Thus, initially the Ramban treats this as absolute pshat, the simple reading of the verse. Then, he relies on the gemara, and the braytot mentioned earlier (that of Bar Kapara and the second, edited one), to explain the verses. First, he cites Rashi.

וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָבֹא בָּאֵשׁ. כל דבר שאין תשמישו ע"י האור כגון כוסות וצלוחיות וקיתונות שתשמישן בצונן ולא בלעו איסור, תעבירו במים, מטבילן ודיו, לשון רש"י.
"and all that abideth not the fire" - that is, everything whose method of use is not on the fire - for example cups and jugs and flasks, that their use is with cold, and they did not absorb forbidden foods: "ye shall make to go through the water" - that is, you immerse them in a mikva and that is sufficient. This was the language of Rashi.

Indeed, this is the language of Rashi on the gemara as well. The statement that immersion is enough somewhat accords with what I claim is the wrong reading of the Mishna, but it is strange in that he says immersion is enough, when according to the second brayta, hadacha, rinsing, has to be done first. Luckily, Ramban disagrees with Rashi, and will read the verse to require this rinsing:

ואינו נכון בעיני, שאין לשון "תעבירו" טבילה, כי היה אומר "תביאו במים" שהוא לשון הטבילה, כמו בַּמַּיִם יוּבָא וְטָמֵא עַד-הָעֶרֶב, וְטָהֵר (ויקרא יא לב). ועוד שאף הכלים שתשמישן בצונן צריכין הכשר מן האיסור שבהן מלבד הטבילה הזו, ואיך לא יזכיר הכשרן כאשר עשה בבאים באש. וכשלמדו חכמים טבילה זו לא הזכירו בה המקרא הזה, אלא דרשו (ע"ז שם) אך במי נדה יתחטא, מים שהנדה טובלת בהם. אבל פירוש "תעבירו במים", לכבסם ולשפשף אותם במים יפה עד שתסור חלודה שנדבקה מהם מן האיסור שנשתמש בהם, שזהו הכשרן מן האיסור:
And it {Rashi's explanation} is not correct in my eyes, for the terminology "תעבירו" - "ye shall make to go through the water" does not accord with the language of immersion {in a mikva}, for it should say "you shall bring it in water" which is a language of immersion, as the verse in Vayikra states, "in the water it must be placed it will be impure until evening, and it will be pure."
And firther, the vessels used with cold need a kashering from the prohibited foods in them aside from this immersion in a mikva, and how does the verse not mention their method of kashering as it does by the passing through fire?
And when the Chachamim deduced this immersion in the mikva they did not mention this part of the verse, but rather they deduce from אך במי נדה יתחטא, "nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of sprinkling = Mei Niddah" - waters that a Niddah immerses therein. {Note: this is of course only Bar Kappara, not Rava, but recall that the stama harmonized the two.}
But rather the explanation of "ye shall make to go through the water" is to wash them and rinse them with water, very well, until you remove that which is stuck in (rust??), which is attached to it from the forbidden foods which it was used with, for this is their kashering from the prohibited food.

יאמר הכתוב, דבר שתשמישו באש תביאו באש כדרך שהיה התשמיש בו באיסורו, אם תשמישו באור ממש כגון הברזל והנחשת וגם הכסף והזהב מלבנו באור, ואם ע"י חמין כגון הבדיל והעופרת מגעילו בחמין, ודבר שלא נשתמשו בו באש אלא בצונן תדיחו אותו במים עד שיתמרק ויטהר. וכך אמרו חכמים (שם), מדיחן ומטבילן והן טהורים:
The Scriptures say, an item whose use is with fire you shall put into fire, in the manner in which it was used with the prohibited item. If it was used with actual fire, like the iron and copper, and also the silver and the gold, whiten it with fire. And if via hot water, as with tin and lead, you scald it with hot water. And an item which was not used with fire, but rather with cold foods, you should rinse it with water until it is removed, and then purify it. And so say the Chachamim {there in Avodah Zarah, the brayta}, you rinse them and immerse them and they are pure.

ולשון ספרי (מטות נ), תעבירו באש, כגון הסכינין מפני כוית הגוים, וכל אשר לא יבא באש, כגון הכוסות, תעבירו במים מפני גיעול הגוים. ולא הוצרך הכתוב לחזור ולהזכיר הטבילה, שכבר הזכיר אותה אך במי נדה יתחטא, ואחרי פליטת האיסור כולם שוים בדין הטבילה:
And the language of the Sifre: "You shall pass them through fire" - such as knives, because of the mark of fire (absorption on the fire) of the gentiles. "and all that does not go in the fire" - such as the cups, "you shall pass through water" because of the the dirt (non-kosher food on the surface of the vessels) from the gentiles.

And the verse need not go back and mention the immersion, for it already mentioned it when it said אך במי נדה יתחטא, "nevertheless it should be immersed in water for a Niddah," and after the expulsion of the prohibited matter all of them are equal in the law of immersion.

In the next two paragraphs, Ramban reverses himself, and thinks everything is an asmachta, a mere hint to Rabbinic law. This is in part due to Onkelos, but also perhaps in part due to the fact that the stama degemara harmonized Rava and Bar Kappara's take on these psukim.

ולבי מהרהר עוד, לומר שהטבילה הזו מדבריהם והמקרא אסמכתא עשו אותו, וכן אונקלוס מתרגם אותו בחטוי הזאה של אפר פרה, והצריכו אותה חכמים בכלי המתכות בלבד מפני שיש בהם כלים שתשמישן באור ובכלי ראשון ובכלי שני ובצונן, וזה צריך תלמוד:
And my heart thinks further, to say that this immersion is Rabbinic and the Scriptural text they made an asmachta - support. And so too Onkelos translates it as sprinkling with the asher of the {Red} Heifer. And the Chachamim required it for metal vessels only because there is in them vessels which are used with fire and kli rishon and kli sheni and with cold, and this needs {further} study.

I have trouble seeing all this as asmachta, because I see a lot of the drashot in the gemara are based on the specific language of the verses, and there is argument based on the specific implication of the verse. I'm thinking here about glass, and about new vessels. The fact that Onkelos gives an alternative reading of the pasuk does not mean that Chazal don't consider this Biblical. First, you can say that Onkelos is pshat and Chazal are saying drash, but perhaps Ramban's attitude towards pshat and drash precludes this.

Alternatively, you can say that Onkelos reflects Rava's derivation of tevilat kelim. Recall that his derivation did less damage to the pshat of the psukim, and as I wrote above, you can still claim that Ach BeMei Niddah Yitchata means the ashes of the Red Heifer, since the drasha is from veTaher. However, once the stama degemara harmonizes Rava with Bar Kappara and says that both are required, Ramban can no longer say that Onkelos paskens like Rava, that is, like one side of the machloket.

Finally Ramban discusses why this was relevant suddenly here, by the fight with Midyan, and not earlier by the fight with Sichon and Og.

והזהיר אותם עתה בהגעלת כלי מדין מאיסורי הגוים, ולא אמר להם זה מתחלה בכלי סיחון ועוג שלקחו גם שללם, כמו שאמר (דברים ב לה) רק הבהמה בזזנו לנו ושלל הערים אשר לכדנו. והטעם, כי סיחון ועוג מלכי האמורי הם וארצם מנחלת ישראל היא, והותר להם כל שללם אפילו האיסורים דכתיב (שם ו יא) ובתים מלאים כל טוב אשר לא מלאת, ואמרו רבותינו (חולין יז.) קדלי דחזירי אשתרי להו, אבל מדין לא היה משלהם ולא לקחו את ארצם, רק לנקום נקמתם הרגו אותם ולקחו שללם ולכך נהג האיסור בכליהם. וכן בדין הטומאה שהזהירם עתה (בפסוק יט) ואתם חנו מחוץ למחנה שבעת ימים וגו', כי מלחמת סיחון ועוג בה היו כל ישראל וטומאה הותרה בצבור. ועל דרך הפשט, הזהירם ואתם חנו מחוץ למחנה שבעת ימים ותתחטאו כדי שלא יטמאו את העם, אבל שם כולם היו שוים בדבר:
And He warned them now in the scalding (koshering via hag'ala) of the vessels of Midyan from forbidden foods of gentiles, and did not tell them originally, by the vessels of Shichon and Og when they too captured their spoils, as it states, "Only the animals we have despoiled and the spoil of the cities which we have captured." And the reason is that Sichon and Og were Kings of the Emorites, and their land is from the inheritance of the Israelites, and all their spoils were permitted to them, even the prohibited items, as it says, "and houses full of all good, which you did not fill" {but were filled by their previous inhabitants}. And our Rabbis said (Chullin 17a), "lard was permitted to them." However, as regards Midyan, it was not of theirs (inheritance-wise) and they did not take their land, but only to take vengeance they killed them and took their spoils. And therefore they concerned themselves with the prohibited foods in their vessed. And so to in the law of ritual impurity, that they are warned now, "and you, encamp outside of the camp for seven days, etc.," for regarding the battle of Sichon and Og, all of the Israelites were in it, and ritual impurity is permitted when the entire community is ritually impure.
And by way of pshat, he warned them, "and you, encamp outside the camp for seven days and be sprinkled," in order that they should not render impure the (rest of) the nation, but there {in the battle of Sichon and Og} they were all equal in the matter . {That is, they were already impure.}

Matos - Maase

I have a short dvar from last year on this week's parsha, over here, the very second post.

This means that I've been parshablogging for a year!

Awesome

Tehillim 104:24-25:

מָה-רַבּוּ מַעֲשֶׂיךָ השם!
כֻּלָּם, בְּחָכְמָה עָשִׂיתָ
מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ, קִנְיָנֶךָ.
זֶה, הַיָּם גָּדוֹל-- וּרְחַב יָדָיִם:
שָׁם-רֶמֶשׂ, וְאֵין מִסְפָּר; חַיּוֹת קְטַנּוֹת, עִם-גְּדֹלוֹת.
"How manifold are Thy works, O LORD! In wisdom hast Thou made them all;
the earth is full of Thy creatures.
Yonder sea, great and wide,
therein are creeping things innumerable, living creatures, both small and great."

I just read on Wired about a new discovery. Phyloplankton, tiny creatures (between 1 and 100 micrometers) that live in water can protect themselves from UV radiation by causing a cloud to form over them:

Phytoplankton may be small, but that doesn't mean they can't do big things -- like change the weather to suit their needs.

A recent study funded by NASA's Earth Science Department shows that the tiny sea plants release high quantities of cloud-forming compounds on days when the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays are especially strong. The compounds evaporate into the air through a series of chemical processes that result in especially reflective clouds. This, in turn, blocks the radiation from bothering the phytoplankton.

size of phytoplankton 


This reminded me of a gemara in yershalmi succah.
סוכה דף ה,ב פרק א הלכה ה גמרא ר' יוחנן דו אמר עננים מלמעלה היו דו יליף לה מאספך. רשב"ל אמר עננים מלמטן היו דו יליף לה מעננים. א"ר אבין דין כדעתיה ודין כדעתיה ר' יוחן דו מדמי לה כמשלח לחבירו חבית וקנקנה. רשב"ל דו מדמי לה כהן דאמר לחבריה שלח קופתך וסב לך חיטין

Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish have a dispute whether to derive the rules for kosher Schach for a Succah from the Clouds of Glory that covered the Jews when in the Desert. A perspective on the dispute is that the kosher Succah covering must "grow" from the ground. One holds clouds "grow" from the ground and the other holds they do not. (Growing means that there is some source from below for them.) There is a verse in the beginning of Berishit about a cloud/mist arising from the ground to water the Garden of Eden. In the above cited gemara, R Avin says: R Yochanan who thinks a cloud is entirely from above compares it to one who sends a barrel of wine together with its container. Resh Lakish who thinks there is some input from below compares it to one who says to his friend send me your basket and take for yourself in it wheat.

The specific meaning of these opinions in the gemara aside, it is interesting that there is here some input from below, with the plankton able to create a cloud for protection above themselves on demand.

+2 prakim = chagiga. +1 perek of moed katan.

הדרן עלך אין דורשין!
הדרן עלך חומר בקדש!
(2nd, 3rd perek yerushalmi chagiga)
וסליקא לה מסכת חגיגה!

הדרן עלך משקין בית השלחין!
(1st perek yerushlami moed katan)

ערוך השלחן, יורה דעה א, סימן פ"ד

The following is in Aruch Hashulchan, Yoreh Deah Aleph, Siman 84.
Written by Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein, born 1829, passed away 1888.

לו: יש מי שכתב בשם חכמי הטבע דהמסתכל בזכוכית המגדלת שקורין ספאקטיוו"א יראה בחומץ מלא תולעים והנה בחומץ אין חשש כמו שנתבאר דהתולעים המתהוים בתלוש התירה התורה. אמנם שמעתי שבכל מיני מים וביחוד במי גשמים מלא ברואים דקים שאין העין יכולה לראותם. ובילדותי שמעתי מפי אחד שהיה במרחקים וראה דרך זכוכית המגדלת עד מאד כרבבות פעמים במים כל המיני ברואים, ולפי זה איך אנו שותים מים, שהרי אלו הברואים נתהוו במקורם, אמנם האמת הוא דלא אסרה תורה במה שאין העין שולטת בו, דלא ניתנה תורה למלאכים, דאם לא כן, הרי כמה מהחוקרים כתבו שגם כל האויר הוא מלא ברואים דקים מן הדקים, וכשהאדם פותח פיו בולע כמה מהם, אלא וודאי דהבל יפצה פיהם, ואף אם כן הוא כיון שאין העין שולט בהם, לאו כלום הוא. אמנם, במה שהעין יכול לראות, אפילו נגד השמש, ואפילו דק מן הדק, הוא שרץ גמור

לז: ולכן, יש ליזהר מאד בקיץ באותם ששותים מן הנהרות ומן האגמים ומעינות שאינם עמוקים דעל ידי החמימות נתהוו שם כמו זבובים קטנים ותולעים קטנים, ויש ליזהר לסנן המים במסננת דקה מן הדקה, או על ידי בגד, בדרך שאנו מסננים המים בפסח מפני חשש תערובת חמץ, אבל בבארות ומעיינות עמוקים אין הרחש מצוי בהם

36: There is one who writes, citing naturalists, that if one looks with a magnifying glass that they call spectiva he will see in the vinegar, full of of worms. And behold, in vinegar there is no concern, as was explained, that worm which come into being detached {J: presumably not attached to the ground} the Torah permits. However, I have heard that in all types of water, and specifically in rainwater, is filled with tiny creatures that the eye is not able to see them. {J: That is, they are not visible to the naked eye.} And in my youth I heard from one who was abroad and saw via a magnifying glass, many, like a myriad/10,000 instances, in water, all types of creatures. And, according to this, how can we drink water? For these creatures come into existence in their source!? However, the truth is that the Torah did not prohibit that which the eye does not rule over {J: that which is not visible to the naked eye}, for the Torah was not given to angels. For if not so, behold many of the investigators have written that also all of the air is full of finer than fine creatures, and when a man opens his mouth he swallows many of them. Rather, certainly they speak nonsense. And even if it is so, since the eye does not rule over them, they considers as if nothing. However, in that which the eye does rule over {J: what is visible to the naked eye}, even if only with direct sunlight, even finer than fine, is considered absolutely a Sheretz.

37: And therefore, there is to be very careful in the summer, for those who drink from rivers and from swamps and springs that are not deep, since via the heat there will cause to be there like small flies and small worms. And there is to be careful to filter the water with a filter, finer than fine, in the manner that we filter the water on Pesach because of the concern of a mixture of Chametz. But in the deep wells and springs the creeping creatures are not found in them.

To be continued...

+3 prakim = masechet megilla; +2 bava kamma; +1 chagiga

הדרן עלך הקורא!
הדרן עלך בני העיר!
הדרן עלך הקורא!
(2nd, 3rd, 4th perek yerushalmi megilla)
וסליקא לה מסכת מגילה!

הדרן עלך כיצד!
הדרן עלך המניח!
(2nd, 3rd perek yerushalmi bava kama)

הדרן עלך הכל חייבין!
(1st perek yerushalmi chagiga)

preparation for midrash class - subject: shidduchim

work in progress... nothing to do with parshat Pinchas, but everything to do with the midrash class I'm giving...

1) Ezer Kinegdo
Bereishit 2:18-24

וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֱלֹקִים, לֹא-טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ; אֶעֱשֶׂה-לּוֹ עֵזֶר, כְּנֶגְדּוֹ.
וַיִּצֶר ה אֱלֹקִים מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, כָּל-חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֵת כָּל-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַיָּבֵא אֶל-הָאָדָם, לִרְאוֹת מַה-יִּקְרָא-לוֹ; וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָא-לוֹ הָאָדָם נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, הוּא שְׁמוֹ.
וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁמוֹת, לְכָל-הַבְּהֵמָה וּלְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּלְכֹל, חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה; וּלְאָדָם, לֹא-מָצָא עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ.
וַיַּפֵּל ה אֱלֹקִים תַּרְדֵּמָה עַל-הָאָדָם, וַיִּישָׁן; וַיִּקַּח, אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו, וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר, תַּחְתֶּנָּה.
וַיִּבֶן ה אֱלֹקִים אֶת-הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר-לָקַח מִן-הָאָדָם, לְאִשָּׁה; וַיְבִאֶהָ, אֶל-הָאָדָם.
וַיֹּאמֶר, הָאָדָם, זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי, וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי; לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה, כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקְחָה-זֹּאת.
עַל-כֵּן, יַעֲזָב-אִישׁ, אֶת-אָבִיו, וְאֶת-אִמּוֹ; וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד.
"And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.'
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them; and whatsoever the man would call every living creature, that was to be the name thereof.
And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him.
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof.
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And the man said: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.'
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.

2) Creation ex nihilo (yesh meAyin)
Bereishit 1:1

בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹקִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.
וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ, וְחֹשֶׁךְ, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם; וְרוּחַ אֱלֹקִים, מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם.
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקִים, יְהִי אוֹר; וַיְהִי-אוֹר.
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.
And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light."

3) Yitzchak's riches
Bereishit 24:10

וַיִּקַּח הָעֶבֶד עֲשָׂרָה גְמַלִּים מִגְּמַלֵּי אֲדֹנָיו, וַיֵּלֶךְ, וְכָל-טוּב אֲדֹנָיו, בְּיָדוֹ; וַיָּקָם, וַיֵּלֶךְ אֶל-אֲרַם נַהֲרַיִם--אֶל-עִיר נָחוֹר.
"And the servant took ten camels, of the camels of his master, and departed; having all goodly things of his master's in his hand; and he arose, and went to Aram-naharaim, unto the city of Nahor."

and pasuk 22

וַיְהִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר כִּלּוּ הַגְּמַלִּים לִשְׁתּוֹת, וַיִּקַּח הָאִישׁ נֶזֶם זָהָב, בֶּקַע מִשְׁקָלוֹ--וּשְׁנֵי צְמִידִים עַל-יָדֶיהָ, עֲשָׂרָה זָהָב מִשְׁקָלָם.
"And it came to pass, as the camels had done drinking, that the man took a golden ring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold;"

and when speaking to her family, verse 34-35:

וַיֹּאמַר: עֶבֶד אַבְרָהָם, אָנֹכִי.
וַה בֵּרַךְ אֶת-אֲדֹנִי, מְאֹד--וַיִּגְדָּל; וַיִּתֶּן-לוֹ צֹאן וּבָקָר, וְכֶסֶף וְזָהָב, וַעֲבָדִם וּשְׁפָחֹת, וּגְמַלִּים וַחֲמֹרִים.
"And he said: 'I am Abraham's servant.
And the LORD hath blessed my master greatly; and he is become great; and He hath given him flocks and herds, and silver and gold, and men-servants and maid-servants, and camels and asses."

and then, when the family agrees, verse 53:

וַיּוֹצֵא הָעֶבֶד כְּלֵי-כֶסֶף וּכְלֵי זָהָב, וּבְגָדִים, וַיִּתֵּן, לְרִבְקָה; וּמִגְדָּנֹת--נָתַן לְאָחִיהָ, וּלְאִמָּהּ.
"And the servant brought forth jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment, and gave them to Rebekah; he gave also to her brother and to her mother precious things."

4) Yaakov's poverty on the way to Charan:
Praying to Hashem, upon his return home from Charan, in Bereishit 32:11

"קָטֹנְתִּי מִכֹּל הַחֲסָדִים, וּמִכָּל-הָאֱמֶת, אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ, אֶת-עַבְדֶּךָ: כִּי בְמַקְלִי, עָבַרְתִּי אֶת-הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה, וְעַתָּה הָיִיתִי, לִשְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת.
I am not worthy of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which Thou hast shown unto Thy servant; for with my staff I passed over this Jordan; and now I am become two camps."

Explanations: From Midrash Says, Bereishit, pg 273:

"According to Midrash Tanchuma, it was Esav himself who pursued Yaakov. He would have assasinated Yaakov if not for Hashem's performing obvious miracles for Yaakov. Esav rode ahead of Yaakov and lay in wait for him, but Yaakov took a different route from the one Esav expected. He crossed the Jordan, striking the river with his rod and splitting it so that he was able to cross on dry land. When Yaakov did not come Esav's way, Esav pursued him further, and finally spotted Yaakov near a cave that contained warm water springs. Yaakov thought, "Yitzchak did not give me any food along when I left; at least let me go and warm myself in the spring water!" He entered the cave to bathe while Esav and his men encircled the cave to trap him. Hashem, however, protected Yaakov, and he escaped unharmed.

Bereishit 27:41

וַיִּשְׂטֹם עֵשָׂו, אֶת-יַעֲקֹב, עַל-הַבְּרָכָה, אֲשֶׁר בֵּרְכוֹ אָבִיו; וַיֹּאמֶר עֵשָׂו בְּלִבּוֹ, יִקְרְבוּ יְמֵי אֵבֶל אָבִי, וְאַהַרְגָה, אֶת-יַעֲקֹב אָחִי.
"And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him. And Esau said in his heart: 'Let the days of mourning for my father be at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob.'"

also:

"Yaakov secretly left Beer Sheva to flee from his brother Esav, but Esav heard news of Yaakov's departure. He commanded his son Elifaz to pursue Yaakov and kill him for having stolen his blessing. (Midrash Agada 28:20).

Esav persuaded Elifaz, "My son, if you kill Yaakov, you will regain the first-bron right." Elifaz, however, was reluctant and asked his mother Adah for her opinion. "My son," she advised him, "do not attempt to kill Yaakov. He is stronger than you, and he will slay you. If your wicked father were not afraid that Yaakov would kill him, he himself would pursue him rather than delegate the errand to you." (Tosafot HaRosh parashat Vayishlach)

Yet Elifaz did not dare ignore his father's command altogether. He pursued Yaakov and overtook him, but he did not kill him, since Elifaz had grown up under his grandfather's tutelage and would therefore not lay hands upon Yaakov (Midrash Tanchuma 2, Vayera 28). Instead, he robbed him of whatever he possessed because a pauper is likened to a dead man. He even stripped Yaakov of his clothes, leaving him destitute and naked. (Sefer HaYashar)

Tehillim 121:1-8

שִׁיר, לַמַּעֲלוֹת: אֶשָּׂא עֵינַי, אֶל-הֶהָרִים-- מֵאַיִן יָבֹא עֶזְרִי
עֶזְרִי, מֵעִם ה-- עֹשֵׂה, שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ.
אַל-יִתֵּן לַמּוֹט רַגְלֶךָ; אַל-יָנוּם, שֹׁמְרֶךָ.
הִנֵּה לֹא-יָנוּם, וְלֹא יִישָׁן-- שׁוֹמֵר, יִשְׂרָאֵל.
ה שֹׁמְרֶךָ; ה צִלְּךָ, עַל-יַד יְמִינֶךָ.
יוֹמָם, הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ לֹא-יַכֶּכָּה; וְיָרֵחַ בַּלָּיְלָה.
ה, יִשְׁמָרְךָ מִכָּל-רָע: יִשְׁמֹר, אֶת-נַפְשֶׁךָ
ה, יִשְׁמָר-צֵאתְךָ וּבוֹאֶךָ-- מֵעַתָּה, וְעַד-עוֹלָם.
"A Song of Ascents.
I will lift up mine eyes unto the mountains: from whence shall my help come?
My help cometh from the LORD, who made heaven and earth.
He will not suffer thy foot to be moved; He that keepeth thee will not slumber.
Behold, He that keepeth Israel doth neither slumber nor sleep.
The LORD is thy keeper; the LORD is thy shade upon thy right hand.
The sun shall not smite thee by day, nor the moon by night.
The LORD shall keep thee from all evil; He shall keep thy soul.
The LORD shall guard thy going out and thy coming in, from this time forth and for ever.

Yalkut Shimoni, Tehillim Siman 874 (Parallel in Yalkut Shimoni on Bereishit 28, Siman 117):

שִׁיר, לַמַּעֲלוֹת: אֶשָּׂא עֵינַי, אֶל-הֶהָרִים-- מֵאַיִן, יָבֹא עֶזְרִי
A Song of Ascents.
I will lift up mine eyes unto the mountains: from whence shall my help come?
Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni said, אֶל-הֶהורִים = אֶל-הֶהָרִים, the teachers- to those who have taught and made me. מֵאַיִן יָבֹא עֶזְרִי? {From Nothing (Ayin), shall my Ezer Kinegdo = helpmeet come?}
The verse speaks of Yaakov. He said, at the time that Eliezer went to bring Rivka, what does it say by him? "And the servant took ten camels, of the camels of his master..." And I have not a single ring, nor a single bracelet. {see above verse 22}

R Chanina said, שלח אותו גדוד. R Yehoshua ben Levi said, he sent with him {wealth} but Esav stood against him and took it from him.

He {Yaakov} reversed himself and said, Why do I take my thoughts away from my Creator? Rather, עֶזְרִי, מֵעִם ה-- עֹשֵׂה, שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ, My help{meet} will come from Hashem, creator of Heaven and Earth.
...
ה, יִשְׁמָרְךָ מִכָּל-רָע: יִשְׁמֹר, אֶת-נַפְשֶׁךָ
Hashem will protect you from Esav and from Lavan, and will protect your life from the Angel of Death.
ה, יִשְׁמָר-צֵאתְךָ וּבוֹאֶךָ
Hashem will guard your going and your coming..."And Yaakov left from Beer Sheva."

Nedarim 66a:
Mishna:
[If one vows,] 'konam if i marry that ugly woman, whereas she is beautiful; that dark[-skinned] woman, whereas she is fair; 'that short woman, who in fact is tall, he is permitted to marry her, not because she was ugly, and became beautiful, or dark and turned fair, short and grew tall, but because the vow was made in error. And thus it happened with one who vowed not to benefit from his sister's daughter, and she was taken into r. Ishmael's house and made beautiful. My son, exclaimed r. Ishmael to him, 'did you vow not to benefit from this one!' 'no,' he replied, where upon r. Ishmael permitted her [to him]. In that hour r. Ishmael wept and said, 'the daughters of israel are beautiful, but poverty disfigures them.' and when r. Ishmael died, the daughters of israel raised a lament, saying, ye daughters of israel weep for r. Ishmael. And thus it is said too of saul, ye daughters of israel, weep over Saul (2 Sam 1:24)

A Tanna taught: She had a false tooth, and R. Ishmael made her a gold tooth at his own cost. 'When R. Ishmael died, a professional mourner commenced [the funeral eulogy] thus: Ye daughters of Israel, weep over R. Ishmael, who clothed you etc.

Nedarim 66b:

A man once said to his wife, 'Konam that you benefit not from me, until you make R. Judah and R. Simeon taste of your cooking.' R. Judah tasted thereof, observing, 'It is but logical: If, in order to make peace between husband and wife, the Torah commanded, Let My Name, written to sanctity, be dissolved in "the cursed waters", though 'tis but doubtful, how much more so I!' R. Simeon did not taste thereof, exclaiming, 'Let all the widows' children perish, rather than that Simeon be moved from his standpoint, lest they fall into the habit of vowing.'

...

A man once said to his wife, 'Konam that you benefit not from me, until you shew aught beautiful in yourself to R. Ishmael son of R. Jose.'
Said he (R Yishmael) to them: 'Perhaps her head is beautiful?'
'It is round,' they replied.
'Perhaps her hair is beautiful?'
'It is like stalks of flax.'
'Perhaps her eyes are beautiful?'
'They are bleared.'
'Perhaps her nose is beautiful?'
'It is swollen.'
'Perhaps her lips are beautiful?'
'They are thick.'
'Perhaps her neck is beautiful?'
'It is squat.'
'Perhaps her abdomen is beautiful?'
'It protrudes.'
'Perhaps her feet are beautiful?'
'They are as broad as those of a duck.'
'Perhaps her name is beautiful?'
'It is lichluchith.'
Said he to them, 'She is fittingly called lichluchith, since she is repulsive through her defects'; and so he permitted her [to her husband].

Tosefta Moed Katan:
א,ו אין מקדשין נשים במועד רבי יהודה מתיר שמא יקדמנו אחר ברחמים ממאנין ומגרשין וחולצין ומייבמין במועד.

One should not betroth women during Chol HaMoed. Rabbi Yehusa permits, lest one precede him via Mercy...

Yerushalmi Betza 20b, 5:2
ולא מקדשין: רבי בא בר כהן אמר קומי ר' יוסה ר' אחא בשם ר' יעקב בר אידי אסור לארס אשה בע"ש הדא דאת אמר שלא לעשות סעודת אירוסין הא לארס יארס שמואל אמר אפילו בתשעה באב יארס שלא יקדמנו אחר מחלפא שיטתיה דשמואל תמן הוא אמר (תהילים סח) מושיב יחידים ביתה (תהילים סב) במאזנים לעלות המה מהבל יחד והכא הוא אמר הכין שלא יקדמנו אחר בתפילה אפילו כן לא
קיימה

And they do not betroth: Rabbi Ba bar Koehn said before R Yosa; R Acha cited R Yaakov bar Idi: It is forbidden to betroth a woman on Friday. This that you say, is not so make a feast of Betrothal. But, to betroth, he should betroth. Shmuel said, even during Tisha BeAv he should betroth, so that another should not precede him.

Shmuel's positions are inconsistent! There he said (Tehillim 68) "אֱלֹקִים, מוֹשִׁיב יְחִידִים בַּיְתָה-- מוֹצִיא אֲסִירִים, בַּכּוֹשָׁרוֹת;" - "God maketh the solitary to dwell in a house; He bringeth out the prisoners into prosperity"
and (Tehillim 62) "if they be laid in the balances, they are together lighter than vanity." And here he says this!! The answer: that one should not precede him with Prayer. Even so, it will not last.

Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer chapter 16
ר' אבהו אמ' רצה הב"ה לגמול חסד ליצחק ושלח מלאך לפני אליעזר ונקפצה הדרך עליו ובג' שעות בא העבד לחרן והכל לפני הב"ה ובת מלכים שלא יצאה לשאוב מימים ימימה יצאה לשאוב מים באותה שעה והנערה שלא היתה יודעת מי הוא האיש קבלה עליה להזדוג ליצחק למה שהיתה ראויה ממעי אמה שנ' במאזנים לעלות המה מהבל יחד וענו לבן ובתואל הואיל והדבר יצא מפי הגבורה אין אנו יכולין לעכב שנ' ויען לבן ובתואל ויאמרו וכו' הנה רבקה לפניך קח ולך

R Abahu said: God desired to do loving-kindness to Yitzchak, and sent an angel before Eliezer, and the way was made short for him, and in 3 hours the servant came to Charan, (לְעֵת עֶרֶב) and all was before Hashem, and a princess who would not ordinarily go out to draw water went out to draw water. At that hour, the young girl who did not know who the man (Yitzchak) was accepted upon herself to be matched with Yitzchak. Why? Since she was fit from her mother's womb, as the verse states, במאזנים לעלות המה מהבל יחד. And Lavan and Bethuel answered, and said, Here is Rivka before you. Take her with you and go...

Tehillim 62:10
אַךְ, הֶבֶל בְּנֵי-אָדָם-- כָּזָב בְּנֵי-אִישׁ:
בְּמֹאזְנַיִם לַעֲלוֹת; הֵמָּה, מֵהֶבֶל יָחַד.
Men of low degree are vanity, and men of high degree are a lie; {N}
if they be laid in the balances, they are together lighter than vanity.

---

Moed Katan 18b
MISHNA: The following documents may be written on the middle days: contracts of betrothing, bills of divorce, and receipts in discharge of debts; also wills or codicils; deeds of gift; premonitions; and deeds of maintenance, certificates of Halitza, and certificates of refusal; arbitration bonds; decrees of the Beth Din; and powers of attorney.

אמר שמואל מותר לארס אשה בחולו של מועד שמא יקדמנו אחר לימא מסייע ליה ואלו כותבין במועד קדושי נשים מאי לאו שטרי קדושין ממש לא שטרי פסיקתא וכדרב גידל אמר רב דאמר רב גידל אמר רב כמה אתה נותן לבנך כך וכך כמה אתה נותן לבתך כך וכך עמדו וקדשו קנו הן הן הדברים הנקנין באמירה לימא מסייע ליה אין נושאין נשים במועד לא בתולות ולא אלמנות ולא מיבמין מפני ששמחה היא לו הא לארס שרי לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא לארס דלא קעביד מצוה אלא אפילו לישא נמי דקא עביד מצוה אסור תא שמע דתנא דבי שמואל מארסין אבל לא כונסין ואין עושין סעודת אירוסין ולא מיבמין מפני ששמחה היא לו ש"מ ומי אמר שמואל שמא יקדמנו אחר והאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בכל יום ויום בת קול יוצאת ואומרת בת פלוני לפלוני שדה פלוני לפלוני אלא שמא יקדמנו אחר ברחמים כי הא דרבא שמעיה לההוא גברא דבעי רחמי ואמר תזדמן לי פלניתא א"ל לא תיבעי רחמי הכי אי חזיא לך לא אזלא מינך ואי לא כפרת בה' בתר הכי שמעיה דקאמר או איהו לימות מקמה או איהי תמות מקמיה א"ל לאו אמינא לך לא תיבעי עלה דמילתא הכי

GEMARA: Samuel said: "One is permitted to become betrothed to a woman on the middle days, for fear that he may be preceded by another one."


...

And does Shmuel indeed say "Let one precede him? But Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel, on every single day, a bat kol goes out and says, 'the daughter of Ploni to Ploni. The field of Ploni to Ploni?!

Rather, lest someone precede him with Mercy. Like this instance, in which Rava heard a certain main pleading for Mercy and said "Plonita should marry me." Rava said to him, do not request Mercy in such a manner. If it is fitting to you, she will not leave you. And if not, you will have denied God. (Rashi: your faith will be weakened because your request will not be granted.) Afterwards he heard it said, either he will die before her, or she will die before him.
...
Rab said in the name of R. Reuben b. Atztrubli: It appears from the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings that the union of a woman to her husband comes from God himself. The Law [Gen. xxiv. 50]: "Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said: The thing hath proceeded from the Lord," etc.; the Prophets [Judges, xiv. 4]: "But his father and his mother knew not that it was from the Lord"; the Hagiographa [Prov. xix. 14]: בַּיִת וָהוֹן, נַחֲלַת אָבוֹת; וּמֵה' אִשָּׁה מַשְׂכָּלֶת - "Houses and wealth are an inheritance from fathers; but from the Lord cometh an intelligent wife."

Shimshon: Judges 14:1-4: And Samson went down to Timnah, and saw a woman in Timnah of the daughters of the Philistines. And he came up, and told his father and his mother, and said: 'I have seen a woman in Timnah of the daughters of the Philistines; now therefore get her for me to wife.' Then his father and his mother said unto him: 'Is there never a woman among the daughters of thy brethren, or among all my people, that thou goest to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines?' And Samson said unto his father: 'Get her for me; for she pleaseth me well.' But his father and his mother knew not that it was of the LORD; for he sought an occasion against the Philistines. Now at that time the Philistines had rule over Israel.

Tos: wondered why did not say - here with the second match, here with the first match, as we learned in the 2nd perek of Sanhedrin (22a) and in the first perek of Sota (2a).

Sanhedrin 22a:
א"ר שמואל בר רב יצחק כי הוה פתח ריש לקיש בסוטה אמר הכי אין מזווגין לו לאדם אשה אלא לפי מעשיו שנא' כי לא ינוח שבט הרשע על גורל הצדיקים אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן וקשין לזווגן כקריעת ים סוף שנאמר אלהים מושיב יחידים ביתה מוציא אסירים בכושרות איני והא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב ארבעים יום קודם יצירת הולד בת קול יוצאת ואומרת בת פלוני לפלוני בית פלוני לפלוני שדה פלוני לפלוני לא קשיא הא בזוג ראשון הא בזוג שני:

R Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak said: when Resh Lakish began with Sota, he said as follows: A man is not matched with a wife except according to his deeds. As it states, "For the rod of wickedness shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous;" (Tehillim 125:3)

Rabba bar bar Chana said in the name of R Yochanan. And it is difficult to match them as the splitting of the Red Sea, as the verse states, מושיב יחידים ביתה מוציא אסירים בכושרות, "God maketh the solitary to dwell in a house; He bringeth out the prisoners into prosperity."

Is this truly so? But did not Rav Yehuda say citing Rav, 40 days before the formation of the child a Bat Kol goes out and says, 'The daughter of Ploni to Ploni. Such and such a house to Ploni. Such and such a field to Ploni. This is no question. Here for the first match, and here for the second match.
(Rashi: Zug rishon: based on his mazal. Zug sheni: based on his deeds. And it is difficult to match them because she is not his match (bat zugo).)

Yalkut Shimoni on Tehillim 68:
After above material from Sota: A matron asked R Yosi, In how many days did Hashem create the world? He replied, in six. And from that hour, with what does He involve Himself? He said to her, He sits and makes matches, a man to a woman and a woman to a man. She said, if this matter is difficult, I am able to match up 100 male slaves and 100 female slaves in one night.

She did so. They stood and hit one another, and injured one another. This one (male) said I take this one, and this one (female) said I take this one. On the morrow, she sent for him (R Yosi) and called him and told him all these matters. He said, if the matter is simple in your eyes it is difficult before God like the splitting of the Red Sea, as the verse states מושיב יחידים ביתה מוציא אסירים בכושרות.

(Another version is that Hashem spends time making ladders, to lift one up and take the other down. Wheel of Fortune. and cite verse.) {J: and note macro and micro scale of things. Scheduling problem in computer science.}

{Update Nov 15, 2004: I originally thought this might be like a scheduling problem, with numerous constraints, and that was why they hit each other - each wanted someone else. This is in fact possible from the phrasing ... But I saw a version of the story in midrash rabba on parashat vayeitzei today, where she specifically lined them up and said who would go with whom, and they came back the next day bruised. And it is followed with the statement מושיב יחידים ביתה מוציא אסירים בכושרות, that Hashem can do it for their good or bad, against their will - thus בכושרות as בכי = crying + שירות= songs.}

Rabbi Yudan said, even one Mamzer on one side of the world and one Mamzeret on the other side, Hashem brings them and matches one to the other. What's the reason: מושיב יחידים ביתה.

A History of Copepods

What's the deal with copepods? Did Chazal know about them? Did they drink their water not knowing of copepods, or did they know of them and drink their water anyway?
Or, did they not have copepods? Or, did they have copepods and therefore did not drink the water unless it was filtered?]

This post will be a work in progress for a while, since there is much to write.

Aristotle and copepods
The first to discuss copepods in scientific literature was Aristotle. In his book History of Animals, chapter 19 (about sea fish), Aristotle writes:

The tunny {J: = tuna} and the sword-fish are infested with a parasite about the rising of the Dog-star; that is to say, about this time both these fishes have a grub beside their fins that is nicknamed the 'gadfly'. It resembles the scorpion in shape, and is about the size of the spider. So acute is the pain it inflicts that the sword-fish will often leap as high out of the water as a dolphin; in fact, it sometimes leaps over the bulwarks of a vessel and falls back on the deck. The tunny delights more than any other fish in the heat of the sun. It will burrow for warmth in the sand in shallow waters near to shore, or will, because it is warm, disport itself on the surface of the sea.

A picture of a little tunny 


A picture of a swordfish 




Image of cyclops copepod
From the website:

Cyclops are crustaceans and related to lobsters, crabs and shrimp. They are invertebrates with a hard outer shell. They swim freely about.
The cyclops has 5 pair of legs and a divided tail-like appendage called a furca. The Cyclops is very small about 2-3mm long with one black or red eye in the middle of its head. The cyclops is named after the one-eyed monster of Greek legend. It is greenish, straw yellow, or grayish in color. It goes jerking through the water usually in very large numbers. The females carry the eggs (shown in picture) in little side sacs and they multiply rapidly. The cyclops is often seen near water fleas or Daphnia. Many water animals feed upon the cyclops. It has a very important role in the food chain.
 

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:9qLyrKtNwtoJ:www.epress.com/w3jbio/vol8/pahari/
pahari.doc+seasonal+copepod+water++new+york&hl=en



notes:

fairly large copepod parasites infesting frshwater and saltwater fish. most likely noticed by fisherman fairly early.

parasitic and non-parasitic (free-living) copepods.

freshwater Cyclops is non-parasitic.
Panella (parasitic copepod)
nearly every aqautic animal has copepod parasites.
Aristotle (384-322 BCE)
presumably fishermen brought them to his attention.

"It is a fact that this parasite copepod is found with a certain frequency on tuna and always near the fins, thus it would seem strange and could easily have excited the imagination of the first observers. It was only natural that Aristotle credited this animal with the form of a scorpion, maintaining the notion of discomfort to the host. Because of the parasite's varied extremities, caudal appendages, and egg sacs resembling feet, these could be thought of as sucking organs. It is admirable that Aristotle compared its size to that of a spider, and did not compare it to "insects" other than scorpions based on its external aspect. On the other hand, it had some characteristics of a worm, since Aristotle used the term "vermiculum." There were arguments much later that perhaps this parasite was an isopod, rather than a copepod, but the notation "worm," together with the other descriptive points, place it with the copepods. This uncertainly by Aristotle is hardly surprising, considering that even into the 1800s, zoologists were undecided about placing these organisms with insects, crustaceans, worms, or mollusks, or even into a separate group." (The Copepodologist's Cabinet)

Pliny the Elder (23-79 CE)
basically restates what Aristotle wrote.
"The animal is small, looks like a scorpion, has the size of a spider. When the tuna and the swordfish are crowded together even more than dolphins, this is fastened at a points under the fins and inflicts so much dicomfort, that the often jump into the boats. They run as one fearing the whip, so fast that they jump shaking across the boat."



Image of Sirius, the dog star 


Image of a scorpion 

Update: Johan Christian Lange, in 1756, published a book, in which he "surveyed Copenhagen's drinking water. He published drawings of three "water-fleas" (a Cyclops species), one of which was carrying egg-sacs... As advice to his readers, Lange suggested that they use a bag of hat felt to filter the "fish" (all the small creatures) and plants from the water before drinking, or, if desired, they could "enjoy a soup of them if the water was boiled." (The Copepodologist's Cabinet, pg 35-36)


i need to arrange much of the above material.
there is a difference between parasitic and free-moving copepods, with the former being larger and thus discussed first (by Aristotle, Pliny, etc.)

to be continued in this post...

Slika La Maseches Betza; Taanis; Rosh Hashona; Shabbos; Makos; + 1 perek in bava kama + 1 in megilla

;
הדרן עלך ביצה!
הדרן עלך יום טוב!
הדרן עלך אין צדין!
הדרן עלך המביא!
הדרן עלך משילין!
וסליקא לה מסכת ביצה!
(prakim 1-5 yerushalmi betza)

הדרן עלך מאימתי!
הדרן עלך סדר תעניות!
הדרן עלך סדר תעניות!
הדרן עלך בשלשה פרקים!
וסליקא לה מסכת תענית!
(prakim 1-4 yerushalmi taanis)

הדרן עלך ארבעה ראשי שנים!
הדרן עלך אם אינן מכירין!
הדרן עלך ראוהו בית דין!
הדרן עלך יום טוב!
וסליקא לה מסכת ראש השנה!
(prakim 1-4 yerushalmi rosh hashana)

הדרן עלך כיצד העדים!
הדרן עלך אילו הן הגולין!
הדרן עלך אילו הן הלוקין!
וסליקא לה מסכת מכות!
(prakim 1-3 yerushalmi makkos)

הדרן עלך מגילה נקראת!
(1st perek yerushalmi megilla)

הדרן עלך ארבעה אבות נזיקין!
(1st perek yerushalmi bava kama)

and I finally finished the 7th perek of shabbos, thus rounding out the masechta!
הדרן עלך כלל גדול!
וסליקא לה מסכת שבת!

Parshat Balak: the land of the children of his people

A map of Israel from the time of King David

The above map, taken from this web site, should be useful in this dvar torah.

Sometimes things seem obvious to me but I haven't seen mentioned by anyone.

In the beginning of parshat Balak, we are told that Balak sends messengers to Bilam:
Bamidbar 22:5

וַיִּשְׁלַח מַלְאָכִים אֶל-בִּלְעָם בֶּן-בְּעֹר, פְּתוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר עַל-הַנָּהָר אֶרֶץ בְּנֵי-עַמּוֹ--לִקְרֹא-לוֹ: לֵאמֹר, הִנֵּה עַם יָצָא מִמִּצְרַיִם הִנֵּה כִסָּה אֶת-עֵין הָאָרֶץ, וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב, מִמֻּלִי.
"And he sent messengers unto Balaam the son of Beor, to Pethor, which is by the River, [to] the land of the children of his people, to call him, saying: 'Behold, there is a people come out from Egypt; behold, they cover the face of the earth, and they abide over against me."

What does this mean, "[to] the land of the children of his people." Some suggest that Balak was originally from that land (Aram?) and thus is sending home for help.

[to] is in brackets because is is added in the translation, and can be misleading.

I would suggest that there is a nun sofit missing or which is not needed. We are talking of things which are happening in Moab. Next to it is the land of Ammon. Look at the map above and see the various rivers in the vicinity. The Arnon river lies between the words (not necessarily the lands of?) Ammon and Moab. Yabbok river is by Rabat Benei Ammon, higher up. Even higher up is the Yarmuk river. And the Jordan river connects the sea of Kineret to the Dead Sea.

{Update July 2005: It would seem that the Arnon river formed the northern border of Moav, and the Yabbok river the southern border of Ammon, and between was the territory the Emorites had/had captured for themselves, now conquered by the Israelites.}


So the pasuk might be saying that this is Petor by the River in the land of Ammon. So Moav sent to their close neighbors for advice.

Why call is Eretz Benei Ammo?

If we look at the origin of these two nations, the two daughters of Lot bore to their father children. One boy was named Moav since he came "from father" and the other was called Ben-Ami, "son of my nation."

These gave rise to two nations, Moav, and Benei Ammon. (The Benei Ammon not to mean children of Ammon, but rather the plural of Ben Ami.)


{Update, July 2005: Meanwhile, consider Devarim 23:4-5:

ד לֹא-יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי, בִּקְהַל ה: גַּם דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי, לֹא-יָבֹא לָהֶם בִּקְהַל ה עַד-עוֹלָם.	4 An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the assembly of the LORD for ever;
ה עַל-דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר לֹא-קִדְּמוּ אֶתְכֶם, בַּלֶּחֶם וּבַמַּיִם, בַּדֶּרֶךְ, בְּצֵאתְכֶם מִמִּצְרָיִם; וַאֲשֶׁר שָׂכַר עָלֶיךָ אֶת-בִּלְעָם בֶּן-בְּעוֹר, מִפְּתוֹר אֲרַם נַהֲרַיִם--לְקַלְלֶךָּ.	5 because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Aram-naharaim, to curse thee.

Aram Naharim = Mesopotamia
perhaps to be continued.
}

A late dvar for parshat Chukas: For what sin was Moshe punished?

The most common assumption is that Moshe was punished for striking the rock, instead of speaking to it.

However, I do not think this is so clear from the psukim. After all, in the original command, Moshe was told to take his staff.
Bamidbar 20:8

קַח אֶת-הַמַּטֶּה, וְהַקְהֵל אֶת-הָעֵדָה אַתָּה וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ, וְדִבַּרְתֶּם אֶל-הַסֶּלַע לְעֵינֵיהֶם, וְנָתַן מֵימָיו; וְהוֹצֵאתָ לָהֶם מַיִם מִן-הַסֶּלַע, וְהִשְׁקִיתָ אֶת-הָעֵדָה וְאֶת-בְּעִירָם.
'Take the rod, and assemble the congregation, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes, that it give forth its water; and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock; so thou shalt give the congregation and their cattle drink.'

Moshe takes the staff, speaks to the *people*, and hits the rock, twice.

וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הַמַּטֶּה, מִלִּפְנֵי יְהוָה, כַּאֲשֶׁר, צִוָּהוּ.
And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as He commanded him.

וַיַּקְהִלוּ מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן, אֶת-הַקָּהָל--אֶל-פְּנֵי הַסָּלַע; וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם, שִׁמְעוּ-נָא הַמֹּרִים--הֲמִן-הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה, נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם.
And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said unto them: 'Hear now, ye rebels; are we to bring you forth water out of this rock?'

וַיָּרֶם מֹשֶׁה אֶת-יָדוֹ, וַיַּךְ אֶת-הַסֶּלַע בְּמַטֵּהוּ--פַּעֲמָיִם; וַיֵּצְאוּ מַיִם רַבִּים, וַתֵּשְׁתְּ הָעֵדָה וּבְעִירָם.
And Moses lifted up his hand, and smote the rock with his rod twice; and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their cattle.

Perhaps the way one "speaks" to a rock is by hitting it. And perhaps he was told to take the staff for the purpose of hitting the rock.

In the past, miracles were done with the staff, either by striking things or waving it over them.

Consider Shemot 7 for example.

17:
כֹּה, אָמַר ה, בְּזֹאת תֵּדַע, כִּי אֲנִי ה: הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי מַכֶּה בַּמַּטֶּה אֲשֶׁר-בְּיָדִי, עַל-הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר בַּיְאֹר--וְנֶהֶפְכוּ לְדָם.
thus saith the LORD: In this thou shalt know that I am the LORD--behold, I will smite with the rod that is in my hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood.

and in 20:
וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-כֵן מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה, וַיָּרֶם בַּמַּטֶּה וַיַּךְ אֶת-הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר בַּיְאֹר, לְעֵינֵי פַרְעֹה, וּלְעֵינֵי עֲבָדָיו; וַיֵּהָפְכוּ כָּל-הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר-בַּיְאֹר, לְדָם.
"And Moses and Aaron did so, as the LORD commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood."

with the plague of frogs it seems he just let it hover over the water:

Shemot 8:

וַיֹּאמֶר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, אֱמֹר אֶל-אַהֲרֹן נְטֵה אֶת-יָדְךָ בְּמַטֶּךָ, עַל-הַנְּהָרֹת עַל-הַיְאֹרִים וְעַל-הָאֲגַמִּים; וְהַעַל אֶת-הַצְפַרְדְּעִים, עַל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.
"And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Say unto Aaron: Stretch forth thy hand with thy rod over the rivers, over the canals, and over the pools, and cause frogs to come up upon the land of Egypt.' "

but this stretching out might also convey hitting. For the next plague, lice, we see:

וַיֹּאמֶר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, אֱמֹר אֶל-אַהֲרֹן, נְטֵה אֶת-מַטְּךָ וְהַךְ אֶת-עֲפַר הָאָרֶץ; וְהָיָה לְכִנִּם, בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.
"And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Say unto Aaron: Stretch out thy rod, and smite the dust of the earth, that it may become gnats throughout all the land of Egypt.'"

Thus, hitting things with the staff to accomplish miracles is not farfetched, nor is it, of necessity, to be considered a lack of faith.

Yet, Moshe and Aharon (both of whom were told to gather and speak to the rock) are punished for a lack of faith of sorts:

Bamidbar 20:12-13

וַיֹּאמֶר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל-אַהֲרֹן, יַעַן לֹא-הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם בִּי, לְהַקְדִּישֵׁנִי לְעֵינֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--לָכֵן, לֹא תָבִיאוּ אֶת-הַקָּהָל הַזֶּה, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר-נָתַתִּי לָהֶם.
הֵמָּה מֵי מְרִיבָה, אֲשֶׁר-רָבוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת-ה; וַיִּקָּדֵשׁ, בָּם.
And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron: 'Because ye believed not in Me, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.'
These are the waters of Meribah, where the children of Israel strove with the LORD, and He was sanctified in them.

Meanwhile, elsewhere, Hashem seems to more explicitly tell Moshe to hit the rock.
Shemot 17:1-7

וַיִּסְעוּ כָּל-עֲדַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּדְבַּר-סִין, לְמַסְעֵיהֶם--עַל-פִּי ה; וַיַּחֲנוּ, בִּרְפִידִים, וְאֵין מַיִם, לִשְׁתֹּת הָעָם.
וַיָּרֶב הָעָם, עִם-מֹשֶׁה, וַיֹּאמְרוּ, תְּנוּ-לָנוּ מַיִם וְנִשְׁתֶּה; וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם, מֹשֶׁה, מַה-תְּרִיבוּן עִמָּדִי, מַה-תְּנַסּוּן אֶת-ה.
וַיִּצְמָא שָׁם הָעָם לַמַּיִם, וַיָּלֶן הָעָם עַל-מֹשֶׁה; וַיֹּאמֶר, לָמָּה זֶּה הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם, לְהָמִית אֹתִי וְאֶת-בָּנַי וְאֶת-מִקְנַי, בַּצָּמָא.
וַיִּצְעַק מֹשֶׁה אֶל-ה לֵאמֹר, מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לָעָם הַזֶּה; עוֹד מְעַט, וּסְקָלֻנִי.
וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, עֲבֹר לִפְנֵי הָעָם, וְקַח אִתְּךָ, מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וּמַטְּךָ, אֲשֶׁר הִכִּיתָ בּוֹ אֶת-הַיְאֹר--קַח בְּיָדְךָ, וְהָלָכְתָּ.
הִנְנִי עֹמֵד לְפָנֶיךָ שָּׁם עַל-הַצּוּר, בְּחֹרֵב, וְהִכִּיתָ בַצּוּר וְיָצְאוּ מִמֶּנּוּ מַיִם, וְשָׁתָה הָעָם; וַיַּעַשׂ כֵּן מֹשֶׁה, לְעֵינֵי זִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
וַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם, מַסָּה וּמְרִיבָה: עַל-רִיב בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְעַל נַסֹּתָם אֶת-ה לֵאמֹר, הֲיֵשׁ ה בְּקִרְבֵּנוּ, אִם-אָיִן
And all the congregation of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin, by their stages, according to the commandment of the LORD, and encamped in Rephidim; and there was no water for the people to drink.
Wherefore the people strove with Moses, and said: 'Give us water that we may drink.' And Moses said unto them: 'Why strive ye with me? wherefore do ye try the LORD?'
And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moses, and said: 'Wherefore hast thou brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?'
And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying: 'What shall I do unto this people? they are almost ready to stone me.'
And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Pass on before the people, and take with thee of the elders of Israel; and thy rod, wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thy hand, and go.
Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink.' And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.
And the name of the place was called Massah, and Meribah, because of the striving of the children of Israel, and because they tried the LORD, saying: 'Is the LORD among us, or not?'

So, in another, parallel instance, he was told to hit the rock. Thus, while it is possible that hitting the rock was the sin (which demonstrated some lack of faith), it does not seem absolute.

Further, are we sure that the aforementioned instance is not the same as the one we just read. In both instances they need water for them and their cattle, Moshe does not know what to do, Hashem tells him what to do, he hits the rock, and water comes out. In BaMidbar these are called the waters of Meriva, and in Shemot the place is called Masa (testing) and Meriva.

I would suggest it is the same event.

But, Bamidbar has Moshe going to the Ohel Moed, which would be contructed after Matan Torah, since the Mishkan was contructed after Matan Torah. Meanwhile, in the Shemot story no reference to Ohel Moed is mentioned. Further, it is after the Song at the Sea and the beginning of the Manna. However, we could note that Ain Mukdam Umeuchar BaTorah, that the events described in the Torah are not necessarily organized in chronological order. After all, immediately following is Yisro, and some say that he came after hearing of the giving of the Torah, because Ain Mukdam Umeuchar BaTorah.

What then would be the sin for which Moshe and Aharon are punished. Perhaps for their words. They had opportunity to bring the Jews closer to Hashem - to say Hashem loves them, and will provide for them. Instead, they chastise them. (HeEmantem = cause others to believe).

Also, in their words they may be casting doubt that Hashem, or them will provide.

וַיַּקְהִלוּ מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן, אֶת-הַקָּהָל--אֶל-פְּנֵי הַסָּלַע; וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם, שִׁמְעוּ-נָא הַמֹּרִים--הֲמִן-הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה, נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם.
"And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said unto them: 'Hear now, ye rebels; are we to bring you forth water out of this rock?'"

That is, what do you expect of us? To get water out of this rock? Instead of saying "Hashem said He will bring water from this rock."

Also, perhaps it is a failure in Moshe and Aharon's personal faith, not in hitting the rock or speaking to the people, but in the initial reaction to the people's complaint.

In Bamidbar 20:

וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן מִפְּנֵי הַקָּהָל, אֶל-פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, וַיִּפְּלוּ, עַל-פְּנֵיהֶם; וַיֵּרָא כְבוֹד-ה, אֲלֵיהֶם
"And Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly unto the door of the tent of meeting, and fell upon their faces; and the glory of the LORD appeared unto them."

As the Midrash notes, they went from before the congregation, that is, they ran from before them. Then they fall on their faces. Perhaps they displayed their own lack of confidence that Hashem could provide this.

Just to note, in parshat Behaalotecha, by the quail, Moshe displays some lack of confidence that Hashem could provide all this:

Hashem says he will provide meat for the people...
Bamidbar 11:19-20

לֹא יוֹם אֶחָד תֹּאכְלוּן, וְלֹא יוֹמָיִם; וְלֹא חֲמִשָּׁה יָמִים, וְלֹא עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים, וְלֹא, עֶשְׂרִים יוֹם.
עַד חֹדֶשׁ יָמִים, עַד אֲשֶׁר-יֵצֵא מֵאַפְּכֶם, וְהָיָה לָכֶם, לְזָרָא: יַעַן, כִּי-מְאַסְתֶּם אֶת-יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבְּכֶם, וַתִּבְכּוּ לְפָנָיו לֵאמֹר, לָמָּה זֶּה יָצָאנוּ מִמִּצְרָיִם.
"Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days;
but a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you; because that ye have rejected the LORD who is among you, and have troubled Him with weeping, saying: Why, now, came we forth out of Egypt?'"

Moshe then expresses doubts:

וַיֹּאמֶר, מֹשֶׁה, שֵׁשׁ-מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף רַגְלִי, הָעָם אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי בְּקִרְבּוֹ; וְאַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ, בָּשָׂר אֶתֵּן לָהֶם, וְאָכְלוּ, חֹדֶשׁ יָמִים.
הֲצֹאן וּבָקָר יִשָּׁחֵט לָהֶם, וּמָצָא לָהֶם; אִם אֶת-כָּל-דְּגֵי הַיָּם יֵאָסֵף לָהֶם, וּמָצָא לָהֶם.
"And Moses said: 'The people, among whom I am, are six hundred thousand men on foot; and yet Thou hast said: I will give them flesh, that they may eat a whole month!
If flocks and herds be slain for them, will they suffice them? or if all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, will they suffice them?'"

To which Hashem replies:

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, הֲיַד יְהוָה תִּקְצָר; עַתָּה תִרְאֶה הֲיִקְרְךָ דְבָרִי, אִם-לֹא.
"And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Is the LORD'S hand waxed short? now shalt thou see whether My word shall come to pass unto thee or not.'"

Thus we see elsewhere Moshe expressed doubts. Perhaps here as well Moshe was not confident that Hashem could provide sufficient water for all the people.

Update: Jon from Yeshiva blog suggests that the fault was that Moshe and Aharon took credit for the miracle, saying that *we* (rather than Hashem) will bring forth water from the rock.

There is actually a parallel to that in midrash, as regards the destruction of Sodom, where the angels were faulted for taking credit for destroying Sodom when it was really Hashem who would be doing the destroying.

Bereishit 19:13:

כִּי-מַשְׁחִתִים אֲנַחְנוּ, אֶת-הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה: כִּי-גָדְלָה צַעֲקָתָם אֶת-פְּנֵי ה, וַיְשַׁלְּחֵנוּ ה לְשַׁחֲתָהּ.
for we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxed great before the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.'

where we see later, in verses 24 and 25 that Hashem and not the angels destroyed it:

וַה, הִמְטִיר עַל-סְדֹם וְעַל-עֲמֹרָה--גָּפְרִית וָאֵשׁ: מֵאֵת ה, מִן-הַשָּׁמָיִם.
וַיַּהֲפֹךְ אֶת-הֶעָרִים הָאֵל, וְאֵת כָּל-הַכִּכָּר, וְאֵת כָּל-יֹשְׁבֵי הֶעָרִים, וְצֶמַח הָאֲדָמָה.
"Then the LORD caused to rain upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
and He overthrow those cities, and all the Plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground."

Still, you would need to account for the "have not beleived in me" (לֹא-הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם) part of the verse; perhaps the answer would be as I suggested above, that it is the causative - did not cause others to beleive in Me.