Friday, January 28, 2011

Posts so far for parshat Mishpatim

2011

  1. Mishpatim sources -- further improved. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
    .
  2. As easy as falling off a ladder, pt i -- I champion Rashi's girsa of oleh rather than yored, despite halachic challenges to details of his case.
    .
  3. As easy as falling off a ladder, part ii of ii -- Further analyses of the midrash of Divine justice presented by Rashi. If the meidiz was chayiv hereg, why should someone falling on him help, when it is more akin to sekilah?
    .
  4.  Asher lo ye'adah -- Some readings of the lo/lo by amah ivriyah.
    .
  5. Ibn Ezra's girsa of velo yishama al picha -- Ibn Ezra has a variant girsa of a pasuk in parshat Mishpatim, which lines up with a variant mentioned by the Aruch. It turns out it also matches the Samaritan Pentateuch. Yet I would still side with our Masoretic text.
    .
  6. Shema shav as false report and useless report --  according to Rashi. Does he get both interpretations from Onkelos?
    .
  7. Does Naaseh veNishma imply the former before the latterPresenting Ibn Caspi's take on this.
    .
  8. Five times penalty for the golden calf --  An interesting explanation of a midrash, and of a pasuk in Ki Tisa, according to the Gra. Are there other ways of explaining this midrash pliah? Related is this parshablog post.

2010

  1. Mishpatim sources -- revamped, with over 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftarah.
    .
  2. Mishpatim: The implications of refraining from commenting -- Several pashtanim pointedly refrain from offering commentary on the Torah's legal codes, despite their innovation elsewhere. Rather, they endorse the traditional halachic conclusions. Examples: Ibn Ezra, Ibn Caspi. What does this mean, hashkafically speaking? And what could this tell us about their divergence in the case of midrash aggadah?
    .
  3. Charoses and the authenticity of the Zohar -- If named Tannaim or Amoraim mentioned in the Zohar think the tapuach is the apple, but according to true Chazal the tapuach is the citron, then how could the Zohar be anything other than a forgery?
    .
  4. A boring dvar Torah about doors and doorposts --  Unlike some of pashtanim discussed in this previous post on Mishpatim, the Vilna Gaon is extremely willing to interpret a pasuk against the established halachah. Just how he does that. And what the Karaites think. Plus, the example under consideration, about the door and the doorframe, leads us to a girsological variation in Onkelos, which we may attempt to resolve.
    .
  5. Is Moshe's forty day (and night) fast super-miraculousSo says Ibn Ezra. And Ibn Caspi takes him to task. And besides speculating on Ibn Ezra's methodological motivation, I wonder if it is even so certain that the Torah describes a miraculous event.
    .
  6. What makes a gadol?
    .
  7. What was bothering Ibn CaspiContinuing the conversation on a post in Mishpatim. How Rashbam differing from Chazal is not the same as Rashi differing from Chazal. And considering how Ibn Caspi onegrof would potentially argue with the conclusions of Chazal.
    .
  8. What is tzirahHornet or sickness? Rashi, along with midrash, and Ibn Ezra.
    .
  9. Yet more on tzirah -- How the Maharsha explains the brayta's statement that the hornets did not pass over, in terms of tying it in with the pesukim; whether his problem is the same as ours; and thus, whether his solution works.

2009
  1. Mishpatim sources, with links to an online Mikraos Gedolos, and many meforshim on the parsha and haftarah. Great for preparing the parsha.
    .
  2. Now these are the laws ... Is there room and legitimacy for a peshat commentary? This as a preface to Mishpatim, and so is part of the running commentary.
    .
  3. When you purchase a Hebrew slave... Does leOlam mean until Yovel? Who is being spoken of here? How the theme is the balancing of the financial interests of the master and the human, personal interests of the servant. Also part of the running commentary.
    .
  4. Permission for a doctor to heal, based on Rabbenu Bachya -- is the permission only for external wounds? is psychological treatment being excluded here? Plus, some troubling approaches to the legitimacy of psychology.
    .
  5. The Satan dancing between the ox's horns, also based on a Rabbenu Bachya. What is the meaning of the statement in the gemara? And is that the same as Rabbenu Bachya's interpretation?
2008
  1. Was the "Malach" Metatron or Moshe? A machlokes. And who exactly is this "Metatron?"
    .
  2. Do not oppress the widow and the orphan -- the message in the threat being one of empathy.
    .
  3. Marriage as penalty -- for a man who seduces a virgin. And how Shadal explains it as a matter of social standing.
    .
  4. In Shadal's vikuach, a pasuk at the end of mishpatim with ambiguous parsing is used as a basis for showing that they did not have trup.
2007
2005
  1. Twice Betrayed: A Case Study in Multivalence - part 1
    • by her husband, by her father. how Rashi presents them as simultaneously correct.
  2. Implementing Biblical Law in Florida
    • an attempt at implementing ba bamachteret, such that homeowners can use lethal force on home intruders.
2004
  1. HaAm = Ziknei HaAm as synecdoche
    • in which the whole refers to the part. In Mishpatim, Moshe ascends with Aharon, Nadav and Avihu and the elders, and it subsequently refers to them as the Am. So too in Yitro, Moshe asks the elders a question and the Am responds.
  2. Ayin Tachat Ayin as metaphor
    • In which I argue that saying that it means monetary payment is actually peshat, because it actually is a metaphor in which the punishment fits the degree of the crime.
  3. From parshat Behar-Bechukotai, a discussion of serving LeOlam/until Yovel for the perpetual servant mentioned in the beginning of Mishpatim.
    • and how two apparently opposing verses actually show different facets of the same law.
  4. from parshat Ki Teitzei, Eshet Yefat To`ar As Progressive Feminist Legislation, where in the course of discussion, I compare it to Amah Ivriya, the Hebrew maidservant, mentioned in the beginning of Mishpatim.
    • how it represents a reform of existing practice, and implements protections for the captive woman. 

to be continued...

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Ibn Ezra's girsa of velo yishama al picha

Summary: Ibn Ezra has a variant girsa of a pasuk in parshat Mishpatim, which lines up with a variant mentioned by the Aruch. It turns out it also matches the Samaritan Pentateuch. Yet I would still side with our Masoretic text.

Post: In parashat Mishpatim, we read {Shemot 23:13}:

13. Concerning all that I have said to you you shall beware, and the name of the gods of others you shall not mention; it shall not be heard through your mouth.יג. וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר אָמַרְתִּי אֲלֵיכֶם תִּשָּׁמֵרוּ וְשֵׁם אֱ־לֹהִים אֲחֵרִים לֹא תַזְכִּירוּ לֹא יִשָּׁמַע עַל פִּיךָ:

This is slightly strange, in that we have the beginning of a new statement in the middle of the pasuk: לֹא יִשָּׁמַע עַל פִּיךָ. And the break is not even at an etnachta, but at a zakef katon. It echoes "לֹא תַזְכִּירוּ" in a poetic manner. Is is clearly wrong? I wouldn't say so, and indeed think it works out rather nicely due to the poetic parallelism.

Still, it might strike the casual reader as somewhat awkward.

This present no problem for Ibn Ezra, who seems to have a variant text of the pasuk:
[כג, יג]
ובכל אשר -
עתה הזכיר עבודת כוכבים, והטעם כל מה שאמרתי הם מצותי ומשפטי. ולא כן. משפטי אלוהים אחרים. 
ואמר: לא תזכירו - שלא תזכירו שמותם להישבע בהם גם שלא ישביעו בהם עובדיה. וזה ולא ישמע על פיך שתשביע בו אחרים. שלא תאמר לעובד כוכבים השבע לי באלהיך.

Note that he cites the pasuk with a leading vav. This makes a great halachic difference in our sifrei Torah. We say anan lo bekein bimleiot vachaseirot, that we are not expert in the plene and deficient spelling of words, and such would not invalidate a sefer Torah. Yet to add an extra vav, or in our case, to omit a vav, which is not a vowel letter but a conjunction "and" would have much more halachic significance.

Minchat Shai takes note of this Ibn Ezra:


"In the commentary of Ibn Ezra is written, 'and this is ולא ישמע על פיך, etc.' And the Aruch, entry מטר {? I didn't see it there, so maybe it is a different entry I cannot read}, that until recent generations to now, they would mess up and read ולא ישמע על פיך, and the soferim taught not to read with a vav, end quote. Furthermore, in the masoret, three one would expect ולא and they are לא, and the mnemonic of לא תשימון עליו נשך, and לא ישמע על פיך, and לא תכיר פנים."

I am unsure whether by "read" they meant that Torah texts had it. At any rate, this is what the Samaritans have in their Pentateuch:

They don't only change לא to ולא, but also change the plurality of ישמע to ישמעו and, strangely, תזכירו to the singular תזכר. If I had to guess, these were separate changes trying to make each match the plurality of the other, which crossed over.

(At the bottom of the same page of the above-linked Vetus Testamentum, see a list of Jewish texts which have ולא.)

At any rate, I would not pay any heed to ולא in the Samaritan Pentateuch and how it matches Ibn Ezra. It does not need to reflect the same girsa. Rather, as was spelled out in the masoretic note, one would expect ולא here, and so the Samaritan scribes "fixed" the problem to make the text more fluid. The same awkwardness would inspire the error mentioned in the Aruch and manifest in Ibn Ezra. This is lectio difficilior at play.

In passing, I'll note that Onkelos is like the masoretic text we have before us:

כג,יג וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר-אָמַרְתִּי אֲלֵיכֶם, תִּשָּׁמֵרוּ; וְשֵׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים לֹא תַזְכִּירוּ, לֹא יִשָּׁמַע עַל-פִּיךָ.וּבְכֹל דַּאֲמַרִית לְכוֹן, תִּסְתַּמְרוּן; וְשׁוֹם טָעֲוָת עַמְמַיָּא לָא תִּדְכְרוּן, לָא יִשְׁתְּמַע עַל פֻּמְּכוֹן.


and that so is the Peshitta:

Asher lo ye'adah

Summary: Some readings of the lo/lo by amah ivriyah.

Post: In parashat Mishpatim, we encounter this pasuk:

8. If she is displeasing to her master, who did not designate her [for himself], then he shall enable her to be redeemed; he shall not rule over her to sell her to another person, when he betrays her.ח. אִם רָעָה בְּעֵינֵי אֲדֹנֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר [לא] לוֹ יְעָדָהּ וְהֶפְדָּהּ לְעַם נָכְרִי לֹא יִמְשֹׁל לְמָכְרָהּ בְּבִגְדוֹ בָהּ:

The ketiv is לא but the krei is לוֹ. Rashi explains it, seemingly based on both:


אשר לא יעדה: שהיה לו ליעדה ולהכניסה לו לאשה, וכסף קנייתה הוא כסף קידושיה. כאן רמז לך הכתוב שמצוה ביעוד ורמז לך שאינה צריכה קדושין אחרים:


He should have performed yiud, which is the cause for the krei, but in fact did not perform it. I would take it that this derasha is reading the pasuk in a multi-valent manner, such that it is lo with both an aleph and a vav.

The Samaritans simply keep the ketiv of לא and explain it in that way in their targum. But something interesting in the Septuagint:

8 ἐὰν μὴ εὐαρεστήσῃ τῷ κυρίῳ αὐτῆς ἣν αὐτῷ καθωμολογήσατο, ἀπολυτρώσει αὐτήν· ἔθνει δὲ ἀλλοτρίῳ οὐ κύριός ἐστι πωλεῖν αὐτήν, ὅτι ἠθέτησεν ἐν αὐτῇ.
8 If she be not pleasing to her master, after she has betrothed herself to him, he shall let her go free; but he is not at liberty to sell her to a foreign nation, because he has trifled with her.

They take it as לוֹ, in accordance with the krei. This then means that he actually has performed yiud, however they define it.

The Peshitta (the Syriac Christian translation) takes it the same way, translating the krei:

So too Onkelos's translation. So too the Vulgate:


218If she displease the eyes of her master to whom she was delivered, he shall let her go: but he shall have no power to sell her to a foreign nation, if he despise her.si displicuerit oculis domini sui cui tradita fuerit dimittet eam populo autem alieno vendendi non habet potestatem si spreverit eam


This often has very different meanings, depending on what yiud is. What did he do already? Is it mere delivery? Is it some sort of quasi-betrothal, or full betrothal.

Regardless, I would not take these interpretations as necessarily indicative of what was written, other than of course the Samaritan being a good attestation to the ketiv.

Minchas Shai discusses this lo / lo krei and ketiv as some length:

"It is read לוֹ, and this is one of three instances in the Torah where an aleph is written and we read it with a vav. And the tradition (masorah) for it is given in parashat Shemini upon the pasuk אשר לא כרעים, Vayikra 11:21. And all of them come {=are spelled that way} for the sake of a derasha as I will write upon each one of them in its place, beEzrat Hashem. And upon this one, they darshened {as we saw in Rashi} that he should have performed yiud with her and to maintain her, and just as Onkelos translates, dekayma leih, for the mitzvah of yiud precedes the mitzvah of redemption. And even though it is written with an aleph, we darshen it as if it were written with a vav. That is to say that he should have married her {via yiud}, and he does not want, he lets her be redeemed. And this is the reason, for why should it have written asher lo {with an aleph} yeadah? This is obvious that the Scriptures is talking about where he did not perform yiud, for if he had, she would need a get, and furthermore would not require redemption by her father. For at the time of the yiud, the servitude disappears from her. And from the repetition of the Scriptures we may derive that it is for the purpose of derasha. And this is as they darshen as well in Sotah, at the end of perek kesheim, upon the verse {Iyov 13:15}   הֵן יִקְטְלֵנִי, לא (לוֹ) אֲיַחֵל;    אַךְ-דְּרָכַי, אֶל-פָּנָיו אוֹכִיחַ. And see what Ibn Ezra writes here, and in the sefer haZohar, and what I will write in parashat Behar Sinai upon the pasuk {Vayikra 25:30} asher lo chomah, and in Yeshaya 49:5 on the verse veYisrael lo ye'asef, and in Yeshaya 63:9 on bechol tzaratam lo tzar, and in Tehillim 100, velo anachnu.


End Minchas Shai.

I think that in general, we are intended to take the krei as the meaning, for the purpose of the krei especially in this instance is to indicate meaning. For it is pronounced the same, since the aleph is silent. (Though I've pointed out in the past that there is indeed a slight difference in pronunciation, with a cholam malei rather than a cholam chaser. More than that, the prosody, which follows meaning, would be slightly different.) Meanwhile, the selection of the specific em kriah (mater lectionis) was initially irregular, as we see occasionally in Tanach, with a heh ending sometimes representing cholam.

As easy as falling off a ladder, part ii of ii

Summary: Further analyses of the midrash of Divine justice presented by Rashi. If the meidiz was chayiv hereg, why should someone falling on him help, when it is more akin to sekilah?

Post:  As I mentioned in my previous post on this subject, a pasuk in Mishpatim states:
13. But one who did not stalk [him], but God brought [it] about into his hand, I will make a place for you to which he shall flee.
יג. וַאֲשֶׁר לֹא צָדָה וְהָאֱ־לֹהִים אִנָּה לְיָדוֹ וְשַׂמְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יָנוּס שָׁמָּה:
and Rashi writes:

והא-להים אנה לידו: זימן לידו, לשון לא תאונה אליך רעה (תהלים צא י), לא יאונה לצדיק כל און (משלי יב כא), מתאנה הוא לי (מלכים ב' ה ז), מזדמן למצוא לי עילה:
 "but God brought it to his hand" -- and why did this come before him? This is what David said (I Shmuel 24:13) "As saith the proverb of the ancients: Out of the wicked cometh forth wickedness." And the proverb of the ancients is the Torah, which is the proverb of Hashem, who preceded the world. And where did the Torah state "Out of the wicked cometh forth wickedness"? "But God brought it to his hand." In what does the verse speak? Of two people, one who killed by accident and one who killed on purpose, and there were no witnesses to the matter who could testify. This one is then not killed and this one is not exiled. And Hashem appoints them to the same inn. This one who had killed deliberately sits under the ladder, while this one who killed accidentally climbs the ladder, and falls on the one who had killed deliberately and kills him. And witnesses testify on him and render him obligated in exile. Thus, it emerges that the one who killed by accident is exiles and the one who killed deliberately is killed.




והא-להים אנה לידו: ולמה תצא זאת מלפניו, הוא שאמר דוד (שמואל א' כד יג) כאשר יאמר משל הקדמוני מרשעים יצא רשע, ומשל הקדמוני היא התורה, שהיא משל הקב"ה שהוא קדמונו של עולם. והיכן אמרה תורה מרשעים יצא רשע, והא-להים אנה לידו. במה הכתוב מדבר, בשני בני אדם, אחד הרג שוגג ואחד הרג מזיד, ולא היו עדים בדבר שיעידו, זה לא נהרג וזה לא גלה, והקב"ה מזמנן לפונדק אחד, זה שהרג במזיד יושב תחת הסולם, וזה שהרג שוגג עולה בסולם ונופל על זה שהרג במזיד והורגו, ועדים מעידים עליו ומחייבים אותו לגלות, נמצא זה שהרג בשוגג גולה, וזה שהרג במזיד נהרג:

I covered the first of two objections in that post, that Rashi says oleh where halacha and our gemara would seem to insist on yored. See there. But here is a second objection to the details of this Rashi.

This, brought to you courtesy of the Chizkuni.

"Here, Rashi explains that this one who had killed accidentally, etc, -- one needs to say that this one who fell upon his friend was holding a knife and killed him. For if you do not say this, that the death by sword is not fulfilled in him {the meizid}, which he is liable to. And this is specifically when he was descending, for if it was while ascending, he {the shogeg} would not be liable {galus}, which we derive from וַיַּפֵּל עָלָיו. And one would not say that he is {now} liable to two galus-es, for behold, he killed someone who was already {reckoned} dead."

Here is the Taz discussing this idea:

 "and this one who killed deliberately is killed" -- there is a difficulty from that which is stated in Sanhedrin 37b:
תניא א"ר שמעון בן שטח אראה בנחמה אם לא ראיתי אחד שרץ אחר חבירו לחורבה ורצתי אחריו וראיתי סייף בידו ודמו מטפטף והרוג מפרפר ואמרתי לו רשע מי הרגו לזה או אני או אתה אבל מה אעשה שאין דמך מסור בידי שהרי אמרה תורה (דברים יז, ו) על פי שנים עדים יומת המת היודע מחשבות יפרע מאותו האיש שהרג את חבירו אמרו לא זזו משם עד שבא נחש והכישו ומת והאי בר נחש הוא והאמר רב יוסף וכן תני דבי חזקיה מיום שחרב בית המקדש אף על פי שבטלה סנהדרי ארבע מיתות לא בטלו לא בטלו והא בטלו אלא דין ארבע מיתות לא בטלו מי שנתחייב סקילה או נופל מן הגג או חיה דורסתו מי שנתחייב שריפה או נופל בדליקה או נחש מכישו מי שנתחייב הריגה או נמסר למלכות או ליסטין באין עליו מי שנתחייב חנק או טובע בנהר או מת בסרונכי אמרי ההוא חטא אחריתי הוה ביה דאמר מר מי שנתחייב שתי מיתות ב"ד נידון בחמורה:
Or, in English:
It has been taught: R. Simeon b. Shatah said: May I never see comfort6  if I did not see a man pursuing his fellow into a ruin, and when I ran after him and saw him, sword in hand with blood dripping from it, and the murdered man writhing, I exclaimed to him: Wicked man, who slew this man? It is either you or I!7  But what can I do, since thy blood [i.e., life] does not rest in my hands, for it is written in the Torah, At the mouth of two witnesses etc., shall he that is to die be put to death?8  May he who knows one's thoughts exact vengeance from him who slew his fellow! It is related that before they moved from the place a serpent came and bit him [the murderer] so that he died.
But should this man [have died] through a serpent? Did not R. Joseph say, and so too it was taught in the school of Hezekiah: From the day the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin was abolished, the four modes of execution were not abolished? They were not abolished, [you say,] but surely they were! — But the law of the four modes of execution was not abolished:9  He who is worthy of stoning either falls from the roof,10  or is trampled to death by a wild beast; he who merits burning either falls into the fire or is bitten by a serpent;11  he who is worthy of decapitation is either delivered to the [gentile] Government12  or brigands attack him; he who is worthy of strangulation is either drowned in a river or dies of suffocation?13  — I will tell you: that man was guilty of another crime,14  for a Master said: One who incurs two death penalties imposed by Beth din is executed by the severer.15
If so, this one who killed deliberately, his judgement should be via the sword, so why was he judged with this one falling upon him, which is equivalent of stoning? For this is like casting stones upon him, which is stoning, even without pushing him from a height of two heights, as I mentioned in parashat Yitro on the verse {Shemot 19:13}:

יג  לֹא-תִגַּע בּוֹ יָד, כִּי-סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל אוֹ-יָרֹה יִיָּרֶה--אִם-בְּהֵמָה אִם-אִישׁ, לֹא יִחְיֶה; בִּמְשֹׁךְ, הַיֹּבֵל, הֵמָּה, יַעֲלוּ בָהָר.13 no hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live; when the ram's horn soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.'


And Chizkuni wrote that in truth it is dealing here in the case that the one who fell on him was holding a knife in his hand and pierced him. Thus, this was like his correct judgement, with a sword. And this has no basis and hint!


And it appears to me to analyze further, why did the "proverb of the ancients" deal with two murderers where their judgement was carried out by way of falling from the ladder? Rather, it is apparent that this, as well, is like the gemara that I mentioned. That just like in that case, that it was not known that this murderer had to him another sin, but we say that so it was, since we see that his death was more stringent that was appropriate to him, which is burning, so too here absolutely in this "proverb of the ancients", that from the actions of these wicked -- that this one fell on this one and the punishment of the one below is greater than what was appropriate to him -- namely, stoning -- perforce 'evil comes out' -- to explain, it becomes clear that there was another wickedness, which is the other sin which is even more stringent. (And now, all is settle, with the aid of heaven.)



Frankly, both the Chizkuni and the Taz are rather far-fetched. Chizkuni, because of the objection that the Taz raised, that there is no hint at all that the fellow was holding a knife, and so the clear and simple implication of the gemara is that the fellow was slain because of the impact of the man falling upon him. The Taz is far-fetched because of the way he is kvetching the gemara. Just as the point of the shogeg falling when there are witnesses was so that the shogeg is punished for the previous sin which was mentioned, so too the point of the meizid being fallen upon and thus slain was as punishment for the sin which the gemara explicitly mentions. Yes, there is a hidden sin, but this hidden sin is one which is revealed to the reader of the parable, so that he should understand it. To posit a second unmentioned sin, which the typical reader would not intuit, except by application of the principle, unmentioned in this gemara, of Rav Yosef and the academy of Chizkiyah, is extremely דוחק, in my estimation.

I will bring up two further points. While it is true that the gemara in Sanhedrin does teich up Shimon ben Shetach's statement in this manner, the parallel Yerushalmi leaves his statement unadorned and unmodified. They leave it, and understand it, kifshuto.

The Yerushami Sanhedrin 23b:
דף כג, ב פרק ד הלכה ט גמרא  כיצד מאומד.  לא תאמרו ראינוהו רודף אחריו וסייף בידו.  נכנס לחורבה אחריו נכנסנו אחריו ומצאנוהו הרוג ראינוהו יוצא והסייף מטפטפת דם.  אמר ר' שמעון בן שטח אראה בנחמה אם לא ראיתי רודף אחר אחד נכנס לחורבה נכנסתי אחריו ומצאתיו הרוג וזה יוצא וסייף מנטף דם אמרתי לו אראה בנחמה שזה הרגו אבל מה אעשה שאין דמך מסור בידי אלא היודע מחשבות יפרע מאותו האיש.  לא הספיק לצאת משם עד שהכישו נחש ומת.  

I would also add the famous Mishna in Avos, about Hillel Hazaken:
אף הוא ראה גלגולת אחת שצפה על פני המים אמר לה על דאטפת אטפוך ומטיפיך יטופון 

Additionally, he (Hillel) saw a skull floating on the surface of the water. He said to it: Because you drowned [another] you were drowned. And the those who drowned you will, in the end, be drowned themselves.
Now, I am not going to take this allegorically, but rather according to its straightforward sense, literally. Someone who drowned another is not liable to drowning. Rather, he would be liable to death by sword. This is the case of meizid, as above. Yet, middah keneged middah kicks in, which is why this happened to him. And so too to those who drowned this fellow. One could give the same forced teretz as the Taz, that there was some undisclosed other sin for which he merited drowning (which corresponds to chenek, strangulation). But this would be at odds with Hillel Hazaken's explicit statement that על דאטפת אטפוך, because you drowned someone, you were drowned.

We now have three Tannaitic statements which don't accord with this statement of Rav Yosef and the academy of Chizkiyah. That we have questions is OK. We are allowed to wonder at how these can be in accord. But that does not mean that one should harmonize them, or that such harmonizations take us closer or more distant to the true intent of the statements.

I would posit one of the following two answers.

(1) There are differing opinions within Chazal, and one shouldn't harmonize them. That is Hillel HaZaken, Shimon ben Shetach, and the author of the present midrash about the allegory maintain that there is Divine justice, but not that it accords with the punishment which would have been meted out by Bet Din. Hillel Hazaken's focus was on punishment via middah keneged middah. In the incident with Shimon ben Shetach, the point was that a murderer doesn't go unpunished, and Hashem has many agents, including this snake. In the incident in the allegory, the point is that the deliberate murderer gets death and the accidental one gets exile, but not specifically that death must accord with what the beis din would mete out.

Rav Yosef's statement is along the same line, that even though there is no beis din around today that can mete out the punishment, don't think that there is no justice nowadays. Hashem steps into this breach. The specific methods illustrate how there still is Someone carrying out the judgment the Sanhedrin would have given, and thus gives examples of deaths roughly according to the four executions of beis din. There is similar motivation, but that does not mean that they would agree. In saying this, I am arguing with the setama di-gemara, which often tries to harmonize statements of Chazal, even where it shouldn't.

(2) If one were to harmonize, one could harmonize in the following manner, again against the setama di-gemara of the Bavli: Rav Yosef was speaking about Hashem stepping into the breach to impose the four methods of execution, where the breach was caused by the abolishment of the Sanhedrin. He was not speaking of general punishment for murderers, etc., where the Sanhedrin would not have convicted the fellow anyway. For example, someone violates Shabbos in private. There is no hasraah, there are no witnesses. Would the Sanhedrin convict and execute him? Obviously not. But Rav Yosef's statement never covered such a case, just the case where were the Sanhedrin around, with power to execute, they would have done so.

The case of Shimon ben Shetach, where there was only circumstantial evidence, this was when the Sanhedrin was still around. They would not have been able to carry out the sentence because of the lack of two witnesses, as Shimon ben Shetach explicitly says. Yet he prayed, and cursed this fellow. Perhaps as a direct result, Hashem sent his agent, a snake, and slew the murderer. But this was for the sin Shimon ben Shetach observed, not for a different, unobserved and unspoken (in the Tosefta, and in the Yerushalmi) sin. This was not taking over for the Sanhedrin, because even the Sanhedrin, which was present, could not have convicted.

So too the case of Hillel Hazakein. This is middah keneged middah, but there is no evidence that any of these drownings were observed by witnesses. So too in the allegory under discussion. There were no witnesses. Yes, the accidental murderer got what was coming to him, but that might be due a cosmic guilt and debt. That does not mean that all has to happen as the Sanhedrin would carry it out, since the Sanhedrin is present but would be unable to convict anyway.

I would prefer the first answer to the second.

To my mind, this has a lot in common with part i of "Falling off a ladder". In both instances, the attempt was to make the midrash accord to certain preconceived notions, and to the details of halacha. And then, a terutz was offered which in fact takes us further from the original intent. It is better to appreciate the midrash on its own, and absorb the underlying message, rather than get caught up in irrelevant details.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Shulchan Aruch 1:1 part iii -- Bet Yosef and Darkei Moshe

See part one, which was an analysis of az kanamer in Yehuda ben Teima's statement, and part two, which was a presentation of the Tur. Now, the analysis of this Tur by Bet Yosef and Darkei Moshe, as preceding Shulchan Aruch and Rema, respectively.

בית יוסף


יהודה בן תימא אומר הוי עז כנמר וכו', פרט ארבעה דברים בעבודת הבורא יתברך – משום דלכאורה נראה שאלו הדברים – ארבעה שהם שניים, דקל כנשר היינו רץ כצבי, ועז כנמר היינו גבור כארי. ואם כן, יקשה על יהודה בן תימא, למה כפל העניין במלות שונות זה פעמיים? לכך כתב דארבעה דברים הם, כדמפרש ואזיל.

"Yehuda ben Teima said, be brazen like a leopard, etc., he specifies four things in the service of the Creator" -- because apparently it seems that these things are four which are two, for kal like a nesher is the same as ratz like a tzvi, and az like a namer is the same as gibor like an ari. And if so, it is difficult regarding Yehuda ben Teima, why he doubled the matter in different words, twice. Therefore he {=Tur} wrote that they are three things, as I will continue to explain.

ומה שכתב: בעבודת הבורא יתברך – משום דקצת דברים אלו נראה שהם הפך עבודתו יתברך. שהעזות נאמר עליו: "עז פנים לגיהנם", ועל הקלות ראש אמרו שמרגיל לערווה; והמרוצה והגבורה, נראה שהם טובים לענייני העולם הזה, ואין לעבודתו יתברך עסק בהם. ולכך אמר שכולם לעבודת השם יתברך, וכמו שמבאר.

And that which he wrote "in the service of the Creator" -- because some of these things appear to be the opposite of His service. For upon azus {brazenness} is said "the brazen to Gehinnom" {J: indeed, in that same Mishna in Avos from Yehuda ben Teima}. And upon lightness of head {=levity} they said that it makes him accustomed to illicit relations. And the swiftness and strength, it seems that they are good to matters in this world, and there is not to His service business with them. And therefore he said that all of them are to the service of Hasher, and as explained.

ומה שכתב: והתחיל ב"עז כנמר" לפי שהוא כלל גדול בעבודת הבורא יתברך – משום דקשה, דלפי מה שמפרש "קל כנשר ורץ כצבי וגבור כארי" על האיברים, אלו היה לו להקדים, ואחר כך היה לו לומר "עז כנמר", שאינו רומז לאבר מיוחד. ועוד, שלא היה ראוי להתחיל במידת "עז", אף על פי שהוא בעבודת הבורא יתברך. לכך כתב שהטעם שהקדימו, לפי שהוא כלל גדול בעבודת הבורא יתברך. לפי שפעמים אדם חפץ לעשות מצווה, ונמנע מלעשותה מפני בני אדם שמלעיגין עליו וכו'.

And that which he wrote, "And he begins with az kanamer because it is a great rule in the service of the Creator", it is because there is a difficulty, for according to what he explained that "kal kanesher, ratz katzi vegibor kaari" refer to the various limbs, he should have placed these first, and afterwards should have said "az kanamer", which does not refer to a specific limb. And further, he should not have begun with the trait of brazenness, even though it is in the service of the Creator. Therefore he write the reason that he listed it first, that it is a great rule in the service of the Creator, for there are times that a person wishes to perform a mitzvah, and refrains from performing it because people mock him, etc.

ומשום דקשה, היאך אפשר שיתבייש האדם מבני אדם, ולא יתבייש מהשם יתברך, שאתה אומר שיימנע אדם לפעמים מלעשות מצווה מפני שלא ילעיגו עליו? לכך אמר: אל תתמה, שהרי רבי יוחנן בן זכאי אמר לתלמידיו: יהי רצון שתהא מורא שמים עליכם וכו', כדאיתא בפרק תפילת השחר. וכיוון שמצינו שלפעמים אדם ירא מעשות עבירה מפני בשר ודם יותר ממה שהוא ירא מפני השם יתברך, משם נלמוד לעניין עשיית מצווה, שלפעמים אדם מניח מלעשותה, מפני שהוא מתבייש מבני אדם יותר ממה שמתבייש מהשם יתברך, שמניח מלעשות מצוותו. וזהו שכתב: "וכן הוא לעניין הבושה" וכו'.

And since it is difficult, how is it possible that a person would be embarrassed from people and not be embarrassed from Hashem, that you say that a person would refrain at times from performing a mitzvah so that they don't mock him? Therefore he said, be not astounded, for behold Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai said to his students, may it be {His} will that the fear of Heaven should be upon you, etc. {like the fear of people}, as appears in perek Tefillat HaShachar {Berachot 28b}. And since we find that at times a person fears from committing a sin because of people more than he fears from Hashem, from there we learn to the matter of performing a mitzvah, that there are times a person will set aside doing it because he is embarrassed from people more than he is embarrassed from Hashem, that he puts aside performing His command. And this is what he wrote, "and so it is in the matter of embarrassment."

ומה שכתב: על כן הזהיר שתעיז מצחך כנגד המלעיגים ולא תבוש – מפני שמידת העזות מגונה מאד, כמו שנזכר. ואין ראוי להשתמש ממנה כלל, אפילו בעבודת השם יתברך, לדבר עזות כנגד המלעיגים, כי יקנה קניין בנפשו להיות עַז אפילו שלא במקום עבודתו יתברך. לכך כתב: "ולא תבוש", כלומר: אני אומר לך שתעיז מצחך כנגד המלעיגים ולא תבוש מהם, אף על פי שילעיגו עליך.

And that which he wrote, "Therefore he adjured that you should make your forehead tough {stubborn} opposite the mockers and not be ashamed" -- because the trait of azut is very disgraceful, as mentioned. And it is not fitting to make use of it at all, even in the service of Hashem, to speak brazenly against the mockers, for he will acquire an acquisition wit his soul to be brazen even not in the instance of His service. Therefore he wrote "and not be ashamed". That is to say, "I say to you to make your forehead tough {=stubborn} against the mockers and not be ashamed from them, even though they mock you.

ומפני שעדיין יקשה, שאין ראיה מרבן יוחנן בן זכאי. שלעניין מורא מלעשות העבירה, אפשר שיירא האדם מבשר ודם, פן ייוודע הדבר למלכות ויגרסו בחצץ שיניו תיכף ומייד; מה שאין כן בהשם יתברך, שהוא ארך אפיים. אמנם אין לך אדם שיניח מלעשות מצוות השם יתברך מפני בושת בשר ודם, לשיצטרך יהודה בן תימא להזהיר עליו. לכך הביא ראיה מדוד המלך עליו השלום שאמר: "ואדברה בעדותיך נגד מלכים ולא אבוש", הרי שהיה מתפאר שלא היה מתבייש מבני אדם בעשיית המצוות.

And since it is still difficult, for there is no proof from Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, for in the matter of fear from performing a sin, it is possible that a person is afraid from people, lest the matter become known to the government, and the crush with gravel his teeth immediately, which is not the case with Hashem, who is patient for a long time. However, you will not have a person who will set aside performing a commandment of Hashem because of embarrassment of people, such that Yehuda ben Teima would need to adjure regarding this. Therefore he brings a proof from King David, peace be upon him, who said, "I will also speak of Thy testimonies before kings, and will not be ashamed." Behold that he took glory in that he was not embarrassed from before people in performing the commandments.

ולפי שקשה, שאי אפשר לפרש כן, שהרי דוד המלך עליו השלום מלך היה, ולא היה לו להתבייש מבני אדם, כי מי הוא ואי זה הוא אשר ימלאנו ליבו להלעיג עליו. ואם כן, על כרחך פירוש הפסוק כך: "ואדברה בעדותיך נגד מלכים", מאן מלכי? רבנן, "ולא אבוש"; כי אם לא הייתי מדבר בעדותיך נגדם, הייתי בוש מהם. לכך כתב: אף כי היה נרדף ובורח בין העובדי גלולים, היה מחזיק בתורתו וכו'. כלומר: פסוק זה אמר כשהיה בורח בין העובדי גלולים, ואז היו מלעיגים עליו, ועם כל זה לא היה מתבייש מהם.

And since it is difficult, for it is not possible to explain this, for behold King David, peace be upon him, was a king, and there was no cause for him to be ashamed before people, for who would be the one who would fill his heart to mock him? And therefore, perforce the explanation of the verse is as follows: "I will also speak of Thy testimonies before kings" -- Who are the kings? The Sages. {J: See Gittin 62a.} "and will not be ashamed" -- for if I were not to speak of your testimonies before them, I would be embarrassed from them. Therefore he wrote, "Even as he {=David} was pursued and fled from the idol worshipers, he strengthened his Torah and learned, etc." That is to say, this pasuk said that when he was fleeing amidst the idolaters, and then they were mocking him, and with all this he was not embarrassed from them.

ואם תאמר: אפילו כשהיה בורח בין העובדי גלולים, היה מכובד ביניהם ולא היו מלעיגים עליו. לכך כתב: אף כי היה נרדף, כלומר: אף על פי שהיה מכובד ביניהם, מכל מקום להיותו נרדף היה מקום להלעיג עליו כשרואה אותו מחזיק בתורתו, באמרם אליו יום יום: "הלא יראתך כסלתך" וגו'.

And if you say: Even when he was fleeing amidst the idolaters, he was honored among them and they did not mock him, therefore he wrote even when he was pursued, that is to say, even though he was honored amongst them, still for him to be pursued, there was a place for them to mock him when they saw him strengthened in his Torah, as they said to him day after day, {Iyov 4:6}:

ו  הֲלֹא יִרְאָתְךָ, כִּסְלָתֶךָ;    תִּקְוָתְךָ, וְתֹם דְּרָכֶיךָ.
6 Is not thy fear of God thy confidence, and thy hope the integrity of thy ways?


ומה שכתב: היה מחזיק בתורתו – אפשר שטעמו, מפני שמהפסוק אין נראה אלא שהיה לומד, ולא שהיה עושה מצוות. לכך כתב: היה מחזיק בתורתו ולומד, כלומר: כיוון שהיה לומד ולא היה חושש מהמלעיגים, הוא הדין שהיה מחזיק בתורתו ועושה המצוות ולא היה חושש מהמלעיגים.
And that which he wrote, "he strengthened himself  in his Torah" -- it is possible that its meaning is that since the pasuk appears to imply that he only learned but not that he performed mitzvos, therefore he wrote "he strengthened himself in his Torah and learned", that is to say that since he learned and did not worry about the mockers, the same was true that he strengthened himself in his Torah and performed mitzvos and did not worry himself from the mockers.

ומה שכתב: קל כנשר כנגד ראות העין וכו' לומר שתעצים עיניך מראות ברעה – מפני שאם אנו מפרשים "קל כנשר" כנגד ראות העין, נראה שמזהיר שיהיה קל בעיניו להביט ולראות מהרה קל חיש בכל מקום, וזה עוון פלילי. לכך כתב כי הכוונה בהיפך, כי אם יפגע בדבר ערווה, מהרה קל חיש יעצים עיניו מראות ברע.

And that which he wrote "kal kenesher refers to the sight of the eyes... to say that you should shut your eyes from seeing evil" -- this is because if we explain kal kenesher as referring to the sight of the eyes, it would appear that he is adjuring that he should be light with his eyes to gaze and to see quickly, for kal is swift in every place, and this would be a terrible sin. Therefore he wrote that the intent was the opposite, that is he encountered an illicit matter, he should swiftly shut his eyes from seeing evil.

ומה שכתב: כי היא תחילת העבירה – בא לתת טעם, למה שינה יהודה בן תימא מסדר דוד המלך עליו השלום, שדוד סיים בעיניו ויהודה בן תימא התחיל בהם. לכך נתן טעם ליהודה בן תימא, מפני שהיא תחילת העבירה וכו'.

And that which he wrote, "for the beginning of sin" -- comes to give a reason, why Yehuda ben Teima changed from the order which King David, peace be upon him, set, for David ended with the eyes while Yehuda ben Teima began with them. Therefore he gave a reason for Yehuda ben Teima, because they are the beginning of sin, etc.

ומה שכתב: ואמר "גיבור כארי" כנגד הלב... ואמר "רץ כצבי" כנגד הרגליים וכו' – שזהו הסדר במה שאמרו: "העין רואה והלב חומד וכלי המעשה גומרים".מ
ומה שהקדים יהודה בן תימא "רץ כצבי" ל"גיבור כארי", אפשר שטעמו לומר: הוי קל לעצום עיניך מראות ברע, כדי שתוכל להיות רץ כצבי לעבודתו; שאם לא תעצים עיניך מראות ברע, אולי לא תהיה רץ כצבי לעבודת בוראך, אלא למרות עיני כבודו, וזה על ידי הלב שהוא חומד; ועל כרחך צריך לומר, שאם לא יכולת להיזהר מראות ברע, שתהיה גיבור כארי לכוף לעבודתו יתברך.
ועוד יש לומר, שלפי ש"קל כנשר", הרצון בו – קלות לעצום עיניו מראות ברע, ו"רץ כצבי" – הוא לרוץ לעבודתו יתברך, סמכן זה לזה, כי גם זאת זה לעומת זה עשה האלהים: זה – קלותו לעצום עיניו, וזה – להיות קל ברגליו כאחד הצביים אשר בשדה לרוץ לעבודת בוראו.
And that which he wrote "and he said 'be strong like a lion' refers to the heart... and he said "run like the gazelle' referring to the feet, etc." -- for this is the order in that which they said "the eye sees, the heart covets, and the vessels of action finish". 

And that which Yehuda ben  Teima preceded ratz katzvi to gibor kaari, it is possible that his reason was to say "be swift to shut your eyes from seeing evil, so that you will be able to run like the gazelle to His service." For if you do not shut your eyes from seeing evil, perhaps you will not run like the gazelle to the service of your Creator, but rather towards quenching his eyes {?} and this is via the heart which covets. And perforce one needs to say that if there is no ability to watch from seeing evil, that he be strong like a lion to compel himself towards His service.

And there is to say further that since by kal kanesher, the intent is swiftness to shut his eyes from seeing evil, while ratz katzvi is to run towards His service, he juxtaposed one to the other, for both this with that God made; this -- swiftness to shut his eyes, and this -- to be swift with his legs like one of the gazelles which are in the field, to run to the service of his Creator.

ומה שכתב: כי הגבורה בעבודת השי"ת היא בלב – נתן טעם: מה עניין "גיבור כארי" לעניין "הלב חומד"? ולפי ש"הלב חומד" הוא בעניין העבירות, ו"גיבור כארי" הוא בעניין המצוות, לכך כתב: שתחזק ליבך לעבודתו, שבכלל זה – עזיבת העבירות ועשיית המצוות.

ומה שכתב: ואמר רץ כצבי כנגד הרגליים, שרגליך לטוב ירוצו – כלומר: זה ודאי לא נאמר אלא על עשיית המצוות. ואף על פי שמה שאמרו: "כלי המעשה גומרים" – נאמר על עשיית העבירות בכלל, "רגליך לטוב ירוצו" הוא עזיבת העבירות; שאם הוא הולך לעשות עבירות, אין רגליו רצים לטוב.

And that which he wrote, "for strength in service of Hashem is in the heart" -- he gives a reason, what relevance "be strong like a lion" has to "the heart covets"? And since "the heart coverts" is in the matter of sins, while "be strong like a lion" is in the matter of commandments, therefore he wrote "that you should strengthen your heart in His service", for encompassed in this is abandoning sins and performing commandments.

And that which he wrote, "and he said 'ratz katzvi' corresponding to the legs, for your legs should run towards good" -- that is to say, this certainly was only said upon performing mitzvos. And even though that which they said "the vessels of action complete" is said of performance of sins, {J: I think the comma above was misplaced} encompassed with "your legs should run towards good" is abandonment of sins, for if he travels to perform since, his legs are not running towards good.

ומה שכתב: וכן דוד המלך עליו השלום היה מתפלל על שלשתן, אלא ששינה הסדר – כלומר: שינה מסדר שאמרו חכמים ז"ל: "עין רואה והלב חומד וכלי המעשה גומרים", והוא התחיל בכלי המעשה שהם הרגליים, ואחר כך הלב, ואחר כך העיניים. והטעם, כי החכמים ז"ל התחילו מן הקודם אל המאוחר; ודוד המלך התחיל להתפלל על המאוחר, שהם כלי המעשה, ואחר כך חזק להתפלל על סיבותיו, שהם הלב והעיניים.

ועוד יש לומר, שיהודה בן תימא, שבא להזהיר את האדם, הזהירו תחילה על העיניים, שהם הגורמים הראשונים לעבירות, ואחר כך הזהיר על הרגליים, שהם סוף המעשה, כלומר: העיניים גורמים לרגליים, ועל ידי מי? על ידי הלב, שאליו כיוון ב"גיבור כארי". לכן צריך שתזדרז לעצום העיניים, כדי שלא תבוא לידי כך. ודוד המלך עליו השלום, שהיה מתפלל לפני הקב"ה, אילו היה מתפלל תחילה: "העבר עיניי מראות שוא", שוב לא היה צריך להתפלל על הלב; ואילו היה מתפלל על הלב, לא היה צריך להתפלל שוב על הרגליים, שאם הלב נוטה לטוב, שוב לא יחטאו כלי המעשה. על כן התפלל תחילה על כלי המעשה, כלומר: שאם גרם העוון שראו העיניים וחמד הלב, ידריך רגליו לעבודתו. ואחר כך התפלל שיטה ליבו לעבודתו, לבל יחמוד דבר איסור, אף אם ראו העיניים. ואחר כך התפלל שיעביר עיניו מראות שווא.

And that which he wrote, "And so did King David, peace be upon him, pray upon the three of them, except that he changed the order" -- that is to say he changed the order from that which Chazal said, "the eye sees, the hear covets, and the vessels of action complete", while he {=David} began with the vessels of action, which are the legs, and afterwards the heart, and afterwards the eyes. And the reason is that Chazal began from the earliest to the latest, while King David prayed on the latest, which are the vessels of action, and afterwards strengthened to pray regarding its causes, which are the heart and the eyes.

And there is to say further, that Yehuda ben Teima, who came to warn man, warned first upon the eyes, for they are the first cause of sin, and afterwards wards regarding the legs, which are the end of the action. That is to say: the eyes cause the feet, and via what? Via the heart, to which he {=Yehuda ben Teima} intended with "be strong like a lion". Therefore you need to act swiftly to the the eyes, so that they don't bring you to this. And King David, peace be upon him, who prayed before Hashem, if he would have prayed first "lift my eyes from seeing vanity", he would not have needed to pray further for the heart. And had he prayed upon the heart, he would not have had to pray further upon the legs, for if the heart turns towards good, the vessels of action will no more sin. Therefore, he prayed first upon the vessels of action, that is to say, that if iniquity is caused, that they eyes saw and the heart coveted, He should direct my legs to His service. And afterwards he prayed that He should direct his heart to His service, such that he would not covet something forbidden, even if his eyes saw it. And afterwards he prayed that he lift his eyes from seeing vanity.

ומה שכתב: לכן צריך האדם להתגבר כארי לעמוד בבוקר לעבודת בוראו וכו' – דברים פשוטים הם, נמשכים מהקודם.

And that which he wrote, "therefore a person needs to strengthen himself like a lion to get up in the morning to the service of his Creator" -- they are obvious words, which logically come out from the preceding.

דרכי משה

כ(א) [טור - לעמוד בבוקר לעבודת בוראו] – כתב הרמב"ם בספרו מורה נבוכים חלק ג' פרק (ל"ב) [נ"ב], שמיד שאדם ניעור משנתו בבוקר, מיד יחשוב בליבו לפני מי הוא שוכב, וידע שמלך מלכי המלכים יתעלה חופף עליו, שנאמר: "מלא כל הארץ כבודו". ואילו היה שוכב לפני מלך בשר ודם העומד עליו, היה מתחייב בנפשו, קל וחומר לפני מלך מלכי המלכים הקב"ה. לכן יקום בזריזות מיד.
וכן יחשוב בכל עסקיו, כי אין עסקיו בביתו כשהוא לבדו כמו שהוא בעסקיו לפני המלך. ונראה שלזה כיוון דוד המלך עליו השלום באומרו: "שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד":

Darkei Moshe: "to get up in the morning to the service of his Creator" -- the Rambam writes in his sefer, Moreh Nevuchim volume 3 chapter 52, that immediately when a person awakes from his slumber in the morning, immediately he should think in his heart before whom he is lying down, and know that the king, King of Kings, is above him, as is written "He fills the entire earth with His Glory". And if he would lie down before a flesh-and-blood king, he would be liable to death, all the more so before the king, King of Kings, Hashem. Therefore he should get up with alacrity, immediately.

And so too he should contemplate, in all his activities, for his activities in his house when he is alone are not like one whose activities are before the king.  And it is appears that to this King David, peace be upon him, intended, when he said {Tehillim 16:8}
ח  שִׁוִּיתִי ה לְנֶגְדִּי תָמִיד:    כִּי מִימִינִי, בַּל-אֶמּוֹט.
8 I have set the LORD always before me; surely He is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.

-------------------------------

Next up, Shulchan Aruch and Rema

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin