Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 016

Tuesday, November 1 2005

• RE: only one opinion.
• only one opinion
• Re: Ikkare Hashkafa
• Walking 4 amos in Eretz Yisrael
• Pesichas Aron hakodesh - pregnant wife
• Re: techeles
• RSRH and the symbolism of color
• RE: isolation - is it right or wrong?
• chazal and history
• Re: only one opinion.
• Re: rabbinic misconduct
• RE: rabbinic misconduct

On October 30, 2005 Eli Turkel wrote:
<First of all Rashi on the pasuk in Samuel 2:22 starts
"ke-mashmao". Hence, Rashi takes the pasuk literally. He then brings
down the medrash. It seems he does not consider the medrash as "pshat".>

Look at the pasuk. It starts off saying that Eli *heard* what his sons
were doing so whatever the pasuk says subsequently is a modification
of the *rumour* circulating and does not have to necessarily refer to
the actual events. Once you keep this in mind, Rashi can easily be
understood the way I described. Please note: he doesn't say medrash
aggada or rabboseinu darshu; he says "v'Rabboseinu amru" with a vav
hachibur which indicates that he is modifying the word k'mashmao. Thus,
what Rashi means to say is that Eli heard a rumour of "k'mashmao" but I,
Rashi, am telling you what Chazal say is the real truth. Look in Rashi
again and I'm convinced that you will at least see my point.

<As to the principle many meforshim uncluding Ibn Ezra, Radak and others
explain pesukim in ways against aggadot.>

I must confess that this issue has troubled me for many years without a
resolution until I came upon a letter from Rav Dessler that was mazbir
this phenomenon. I am however loathe to discuss Rav Desslers' conclusions
on Avodah for fear of them being dismissed out of hand (mareh makom
available upon request). Besides, I would like to tackle this issue myself
so what I am requesting is not an example of miforshim that interpret a
pasuk differently than Chazal. I am looking for an example of miforshim
who claim that a statement made by Chazal is incorrect such as Chofni
and Pinchas did literally engage in inappropriate behaviour with the
nashim hatzovos in direct contradiction to Chazal as opposed to just
offering an alternate pshat. BTY I am aware that the Radak brings down
two shittos but perhaps he understood that there was a machlokes Chazal
in this issue. I want something entirely unambiguous.

<One simple example is various genarot that identify people in Tanach
in ways that does seem to be pshat frequently equating people who don't
seem to be the same person. Even when no other opinions are cited in
the gemara nevertheless most commentaries do not accept these medrashim.>

I'm sorry but I didn't "chap" what you said above. What's a "genarot"? And
also, could you please rephrase the above? Thank you.

[Email #2. -mi]

I figured it out. You meant gemarot (I'm a genius!). But I still don't
understand what you are saying. Please rephrase and illustrate with
examples.

[Back to email #1. -mi]

<Another trivial examples are the Ibn Ezra on "Arami Oved Avi".>

Although the Ibn Ezra takka does tietch "Arami" differently than Chazal,
there is no machlokes between him and Chazal about the historicity
of lavan vis-a-vis his relationship with Yaakov or anything else like
that. It is merely a machlokes as to what the mayvee (bikkurim) means
to reply to the kohen. Both peshatim are possible. I'm looking for
something more substantial, a pirush that would indicate that Chazal
were categorically wrong about a fact like something historical. I still
maintain it can't be found.

<Tosefot Yom Tov on Nazir 5:5 states that when halacha is not affected
that we need not accept the commentary of chazal.>

Well, not exactly. He says something very similar to what I was saying
before; one has rishus to be mifaresh the pesukim as he understands them
as long as his pirush does not ultimately contradict Chazal lidina. I
am adding that one cannot say that Chazal (when they were unanimous)
were wrong about a historic fact too.

<Similarly comments appear in other commentaries.>

Without specifics I can't respond.

Simcha Coffer

> Many of them state
> explicitly that one is not required to follow an aggadah pf chazal
> contrary to the simple pshat of the pasuk as long as it doesn't change
> halacha.

The Ramban says this and it was the topic of a seminar given at the
last Torah Umesorah convention. It was put forth, (thankfully), based
upon this Ramban (and the other Rishonim that hold like this) that there
is no requirement to believe that Bas Paro's arm really stretched, Paro
was an amah and a half tall, Moshe was 10 amos tall... According to this
opinion one is only required to accept Medrashei Halacha and not Aggadata.

It is made clear by the Ramchal and others that Medrash Aggadata are
allegories to teach deeper ideas and not historical facts. I personally
don't get why people have the need to choose to take these literally. Can
someone from that school of thought explain why they believe that way?

bk

> MN is his later work, and is meant for the more philosphically
> sophisticated - unlike the Perush Hamishnayot

That may have been the case, but how many people today view either
Rambam's medical contributions or response to Aristotelian philosophy
as having much relevance, as opposed to the last third of the Moreh,
the Perush HaMishnayot , the Yad , Teshuvos or Igros HaRambam?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

The gemara in Kesubos 111a states: "[Isaiah 42 states] 'and spirit to
those who walk in it'--R. Yirmiya said in the name of R. Yochanan: anyone
who walks ("mehalech") four amos in EY is promised that he will merit the
world to come." Batei Medrashos, part 2, Likutei Midrashim [anyone know
about this source?] quotes the same halacha in the name of R. Eliezer,
using this as a midrash on the words "Va'yavor Avram Ba'aretz." However,
the gemara in BB 100a cites a machlokes between R. Eliezer and Chachamim:
according to RE walking the length and width of a parcel of land is a way
of acquiring it, and he cites "kum his'halech ba'aretz" as a prooftext;
while according to Chachmim, this is not the case, and Avraham was told
"kum his'halech" just because of his "chavivus"--in order that the land
be more easily conquered by his descendants.

The Rashbam explains that the land would be more easily conquered because
the descendants would be like inheritors, not like conquerors. Presumably,
his point is that even though Avraham did not technically acquire the
land, either (1) the goyim would think that he did or (2) he created an
emotional connection to the land, so that his descendants had a moral
claim to the land even if they had no legal claim to it. Has anyone heard
any further explication of this Rashbam? (Another explanation of the
gemara, hinted to by Rashbam and more explicit in Ritva, is that because
Avraham walked through the land, he was muchzak enough in the land so that
subsequent sins of his descendants would not cause them to lose the land.)

Presumably, under explanation #2, Avraham's command of "kum his'halech"
can be used to explain the idea of walking 4 amos: by doing so, we
further cement our emotional attachment to EY. Has anyone heard other
explanations of the underlying reason for walking 4 amos in EY?

This relates also to the question of whether walking more than 4 amos
is even more meritorious than walking just 4 amos: the more we walk in
EY, the greater our emotional attachment. Also, there would be a great
inyan in hiking (perhaps bicycling?) in EY than commuting to work,
as only the former causes us to look around and thereby creates an
emotional attachment.

I would appreciate any additional sources (including websites).

Thanks.
Moshe

Many husbands here try to have the kibud of Pesicha of the Aron
Hakodesh when their wife is pregnant. [Is this minhag widespread in
other communities?}

I thought I once saw it mentioned in one of the earlier siddurim, but
have not been able to again locate it.

The sefer Minhag Yisroel Torah [Vol 1, P. 242] brings this from the Chida
[Moreh Be'Etzba] as a "minhag yafah al pi sod" - to be followed during
the 9th month.

However in the addendum to MYT's 3rd volume [p. 268] he quotes Kuntres
Birchas Efrayim in his tzavo'eh warning his children not to forget
"Hakabala me'Adoneinu haRashba...sheyargil ha'adam be'eis she'ishtoy
me'uberes likach Pesichas Aron Hakodesh mechodesh Hash'veeyee vo'eilech
B'SHIR ANIM ZEMIROS, ulehagid Tefilah asher yosim Hashem befiv -
veyihyu lerotzon..."

U'be'osoy Inyan: 
The Siddur Avodas Yisroel [P. 162] includes a Tefila that a husband
should say for his pregnant wife from the 7th month onwards.

I suppose these things are the minimum we can do for our wives...

SBA

At 05:55 PM 10/30/2005 -0600, RBKyou wrote:
>Here is a quote from R. Leibel Reznick in an article about the dyes at:
>http://www.begedivri.com/techelet/HiddenBlue.htm) :
>"...since Argamon and Techelet were both made from the extract of a
>snail,

What is the source for saying that argaman came from a snail? I didn't 
think this was so pashut.
I know people claim this, and many people seem to think that murex snails 
were the source of argaman (including people on both sides of the murex 
trunculus techeiles debate), but I thought there were other opinions.

So, what is known about the source of argaman?

mendel

RSRH's most comprehensive treatment of the symbolism of the mitzvot was
a series of articles he wrote in his journal, Yeshurun, between 1856 and
1858. These articles have been translated into English, in "Timeless
Torah - an anthology of the writings of RSR Hirsch", and into Hebrew
as an individual volume, "HaMitzvot K'smalim". RSRH repeatedly refers
to these Yeshurun articles in his commentary on the Torah.

His work on symbolism first deals with the subject on a theoretical basis,
analysing the nature and significance of symbols in both world culture
and Judaism, and then proceeds to analyse in great detail the symbolic
meaning of 1) milah 2) tzitzit 3)tefillin 4) the mishkan. The
brilliant connection between tchelet and the spectrum of colors cited
by RMB appears, of course, in the second of these sections.

In the fourth section of this work, the one on the mishkan, RSRH expands
on the theme of the symbolism of colors.

The curtains of the mishkan, and the bigdei k'huna, were made of
white linen, and woolen threads of three colors: shani, argaman, and
t'chelet. RSRH takes shani and argaman to be two shades of red.

Linen is of vegetable origin, and represents the vegetative element of
the human being. Its white color represents purity: kedusha is associated
with control of the vegetative functions of digestion and reproduction.

Wool is of animal origin, and thus represents the animal elements of the
human being: locomotion, sensation, volition. The colors shani, argaman,
and tchelet are in ascending order of nobility. Shani represents the
lower, most nearly animal aspect of life; argaman represents the human
element; t'chelet the godly (consistent with its meaning in tzitzit - RSRH
explicitly makes this connection). "All these colors appear (symbolicly)
within man's essence, and his relation to HKBH, and so they appear here
(in the mishkan) reflecting all elements of which a human being is
composed (vegetative, animal, human, godly)" (my translation of the
Hebrew translation from the original German). In his commentary on
the chumash at the beginning of parshat Truma, RSRH cites his Yeshurun
articles, and summarizes the conclusions that he reaches in them.

Dayan Dr. I. Grunfeld, in his lengthy introduction to his translation
of Horev, RSRH's much earlier work on the mitzvot, (circa 1838) devotes
a section to an elucidation of RSRH's theory of Jewish symbolism (pp
cvii ff).

I found it interesting that already in Horev, RSRH had conceived of
t'chelet being the upper limit of the visible, approaching that which
is beyond our ken, thus representing the godly (see Horev, section II,
chapter 39, paragraph 281). He there makes an interesting linguistic
comment: "t'chelet" is linguisticly connected to "tachlit", the end
or limit.

Saul Mashbaum

> But then, after a heated discussion (you should have been there!) I
> remembered that the Rambam at the beginning of Perek 6 (or is it 7?) of
> hilchos dayos writes that if one lives in a place where the society is
> bad, he should leave. And if there are no alternatives of where to move
> to (and he adds such as in his time) then one must move to the caves
> or desert...

Hmmmm - did the Rambam leave? I think we need to read the entire
statement of the Rambam - it's 6:1 - he talks about cave dwellers
(oops sounds like a positive thing) only if the society forces you to
emulate their evil ways. Life is grey and full of trade-offs.

KT
Joel Rich

Some examples of Chazal and history and rishonim:

1. First with our discussion of Eli's son - note the language of Radak
"ke-mashmao - ve-yesh me-rabbontenu ..." . He seems to assume that only
some of chazal did not take the pasuk literally.

2. In I divrei Hayamim 2:16-18 the pasuk talks about Caleb ben Chetzron.
Radak quotes the gemara "yesh me-razal" (does he always add the word
"yesh") that identifies him with Caleb ben Yefunei. Radak hovewever then
says "ve-lo yireh ken ki lefi pishtei ha-ketuvin ..." and continues to
show why this identification is unlikely. Gra in the same parsha (pasuk
9) agrees with Radak and brings further proofs that the two cant be the
same person.

3. Megilla 15a: Rav Nachman MalachiR. Yehoshua ben Korcha Malachiê
Rav Nachman it seems like those that say Malachiê.

Based on this decision of R. Nachman tosafot concur that Malachiê.
However, Rambam in his introduction clearly counts Malachi and Ezra as
two people against the conclusion of the gemara.

I invite others in the group to give other examples where rishonim state
that we dont need to explain pesukim according to medrshei chazal

Eli Turkel

On 10/30/05, S & R Coffer <rivkyc@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> However, there are many medershe chazal on pesukim where the rishonim
>> and achronim give a different perush on the pasuk. Many of them state
>> explicitly that one is not required to follow an aggadah pf chazal
>> contrary to the simple pshat of the pasuk as long as it doesn't change
>> halacha.

> Your statement is too general. If the pasuk is sovel various pshatim, fine.
> But an explicit maamar Chazal which relates to a matter of historical fact
> is, IMO, incontrovertible (if there is unanimous agreement amongst Chazal)
> and I am not aware of any Rishonim that state differently. The oft-quoted
> Rambam on the mishna in chelek is no support to your contention as I have
> illustrated here before.

I missed this the first time around, but next week's parsha would
seem to disprove your point. Look at many rishonim on what the sin by
migdal bavel was. most don't say the famous medrash we all know about
"attacking shamayim".

I'll give a quick recap of the first shiur we had w/ Rav Angel in YU's
bible class (it was really an esther/kohelet class, but first shiur is
to break us out of our mold of inability to learn pshat, also going from
memory so could have played telephone w/ it in my head a few times as
it was nearly 7 years ago).

so he asked us

"what was the sin by migdal bavel?"

everyone said the medrash.

"where does it say that in the psukim?"

we looked, and could not find.

"let look at what the rishonim say".

many different things (don't have notes handy, but I believe one focused
on the fact that it says "Ot" and the "sin" was that they were trying
to build a monument that would keep people close to it (as seen from a
large distance so people wouldn't stray too far from it) and therefore
wouldn't be fulfilling the chiyuv of "piru u'revu U'MILU et ha'aretz".

spent a bit of time going through these meforshim now we fast forward to
the malbim. the malbim was interested in archeology, in his time they
were doing work in Babylonia (which also happened to be where Chazal
lived, and hence knew there mindset). Well, what would you know, the
archaeologists found out that the ancient Babylonians literally viewed
their ziggerauts as "Stairways to Heaven" (to quote Zepplin). So while,
the ancients Babylonians might not have literally been able to attack
Shamayim, it didn't mean they didn't think they were capable of it.
So it's very possible that while many Rishonim felt that Chazal was
giving a derash explanation, they were actually giving pshat.

Now what was the point of this shiur. I believe

1) to make us ignore for the moment what we've learned before. Rav Angel
was fond of saying "kids think a dolphin's a fish, now that you're older
your first instinct is that its still a fish even though you know it's
a mammel, and you have to think for a second, it's the same way with
these medrashim, we learn them as young kids and they become p'shat to us"

2) when we read psukim, we should read them with a critical eye and try
to understand what the actual words mean.

3) we should be able to look at rishonim and understand what they say.

Many rishonim didn't view arguing w/ Chazal on p'shat as something to
worry about as p'shat is the primary meaning of the author (not literal,
hence why one can argue that Shir Ha'shirim's pshat is not the erotic
literalness it seems to be). Since, on torah the writer is Hashem,
one can possibly understand p'shat better as time goes on as can build
upon earlier understandings and since Hashem is infinite, there can be
infinite depth to the pshat (ignoring the amount of "true" drashot one
can learn out of it).

4) we should be very respectful to divrei chazal, as just because even if
many rishonim didn't treat it as p'shat, doesn't mean it isn't. The ones
that came before us were greater than us in many ways including their
understanding of the torah, and hence need to treat their explanation
with the utmost respect and not just throw it away if we don't understand
how it can be pshat.

the remainder of the course was learning Esther and Kohelet. The final
was applying the skills learned to a totally different part of Tanach. :)
It was the best course I took in YU, as it was the most mind opening
(and last time I said this in a public forum, someone forwarded the
compliment to Rav Angel, so don't feel the need to do it again).

In message 
<20051030155658.JZGA21470.tomts22-srv.bellnexxia.net@ronniepc1>, S & R 
Coffer <rivkyc@sympatico.ca> writes
>The above is not addressed to me however I feel compelled to comment. If
>Chazal say that Chofni and Pinchas did not commit any improprieties relating
>to arayos, there can only be one opinion. I mentioned in my previous e-mail
>that Rashi can easily be understood to be referring to the shemuos that Eli
>*heard* and than follows up with the truth of the matter which is the maamar
>Chazal in Shabbos about delaying the women.

Um, the slight problem with what is rather a cute drash is that the
"k'mashma'o" followed by a Rabbinic drash is something of a standard
Rashi formulation. With the wonders of the Bar Ilan CD, I pulled up
87 references in Rashi in Tanach where he uses the term k'mashma'o.
Most of them are then followed by some formulation of "umidrasho".
If Rashi had intended the kind of interpretation you bring, he would not
have used one of his standard forms of language to bring two opinions, the
one straightforward pshat and the other from the midrash or the gemora.

So I am afraid that your statement "if Chazal say .. there can only be
one opinion" would seem to be directed at Rashi

> In fact, a plain reading of the
>pesukim yields this interpretation. "And Eli was exceedingly old (in his
>nineties) and *heard* what his sons were doing...And he spoke to them saying
>why do you do *like* these things...No my sons, for the *rumour* (shemua) I
>have *heard* is not good...etc."  (Samuel 1 - 2 22:24)

Note that the other use of hashemua in this story is in Shmuel aleph 4:19:
"and when she hear the news (hashemua) that her husband that the aron was
captured and her father in law and husband dead ... " Is this too to be
explained as a reference to a rumour? Is there another case in Tanach
where there is a reference to hashemua to mean rumour? The use of the
root shema would more logically suggest to me a true hearing rather than
a false one.

[Email #2. -mi]

In message , Moshe & Ilana Sober <sober@pathcom.com> writes
>If not-yet-married, the Biblical term is "na'arot" not "nashim."

Was thinking more about why this did not ring true to me. Leaving aside
what can be argued to be a rabbinic interpretation that where in the
Torah there is a reference to a na'arah that means to a girl between
12 and a day and 12 and a half specifically, my gut reaction is that in
Navi and Ketubim the term Nashim is used as a more general term, which
includes na'aros, but does not exclude them. Take a couple of examples
I thought of (if I have time over shabbas I will do a hunt and see if
I can come across more).

In Rus, Rus and Orpa are desribed as being Nashim Mavios, not na'aros
moavios (1:4). Does that mean that Rus was indeed previously married
prior to becoming Naomi's daughter in law?

And even in Esther, where it says that Achashveros loved Esther "mikol
hanashim", (2:17) and Rashi comments that this means hab'ulos, ie that
Achashveros even gathered married women, I don't think he is coming to
say either that Achashveros loved Esther above all the married women,
but not above all the single women, or that in fact no single women were
gathered (despite the specific instructions being to gather na'aros
betulos see 1:2) - but rather that Achashveros loved Esther above all
the women gathered, whether betulos or beulos.

It seems rather to me that if you have a group of women composed of
na'aros, almanos and grushos the correct term would indeed be nashim. Or
for that matter if you had a group composed predominately of these,
but also with some married women, nashim would also be the correct term.
Hence if there was a group of nashim gathered on a regular basis at the
ohel moed, even if one accepts that the Bnei Eli had relations with them,
to assume that the bnei Eli had relations with the married ones is not
being dan lchaf zchus (especially as it does not fit in with the level
of condemnation of Eli, or with the focus of the punishment from Hashem).

Regards
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz

On October 31, 2005, Chana Luntz wrote;
> In message... S & R Coffer ...writes
>>The above is not addressed to me however I feel compelled to comment. If
>>Chazal say that Chofni and Pinchas did not commit any improprieties relating
>>to arayos, there can only be one opinion. I mentioned in my previous e-mail
>>that Rashi can easily be understood to be referring to the shemuos that Eli
>>*heard* and than follows up with the truth of the matter which is the maamar
>>Chazal in Shabbos about delaying the women.

> Um, the slight problem with what is rather a cute drash is that the
> "k'mashma'o" followed by a Rabbinic drash is something of a standard
> Rashi formulation.  With the wonders of the Bar Ilan CD, I pulled up 87
> references in Rashi in Tanach where he uses the term k'mashma'o.  Most
> of them are then followed by some formulation of "umidrasho".  If Rashi
> had intended the kind of interpretation you bring, he would not have
> used one of his standard forms of language to bring two opinions, the
> one straightforward pshat and the other from the midrash or the gemora.

Oh contraire. Your 87 "k'mashmao's' are all followed by terminology
that denotes *Medrash* as opposed to the apparently pashut pshat in
the pasuk. In our case, no such terminology is employed. Rashi states
"kmashmao v'Rabboseinu amru" which indicates that Rashi is saying that
Chazal said (amru), regarding this mashmaus, that it is to be understood
in a modified fashion. Run your Bar Ilan search again and I'll bet you'll
find only 3 places in Rashi where the word "k'mashmao" is followed by
the words "v'Rabboseinu amru" and in all three cases the latter is a
form of modifying the former. My drash may be "cute" but as it happens,
it's true too. Thus, I see no problem with it, slight or otherwise.

> So I am afraid that your statement "if Chazal say .. there can only be
> one opinion" would seem to be directed at Rashi

Well, I guess you can figure out my opinion regarding that comment.

>> In fact, a plain reading of the
>>pesukim yields this interpretation. "And Eli was exceedingly old (in his
>>nineties) and *heard* what his sons were doing...And he spoke to them saying
>>why do you do *like* these things...No my sons, for the *rumour* (shemua) I
>>have *heard* is not good...etc."  (Samuel 1 - 2 22:24)

> Note that the other use of hashemua in this story is in Shmuel aleph
> 4:19: "and when she hear the news (hashemua) that her husband that the
> aron was captured and her father in law and husband dead ... "  Is this
> too to be explained as a reference to a rumour?  Is there another case
> in Tanach where there is a reference to hashemua to mean rumour?  The
> use of the root shema would more logically suggest to me a true hearing
> rather than a false one.

Rebetzin Webster's online definition for rumour is: "a statement or
report current without known authority for its truth". In the case of
Eli, he surely doubted the exaggerated reports that he heard about his
two righteous sons whereas Pinchas's wife had no reason to doubt the
news she heard and thus reacted the way she did.

Meyinyan l'inyan b'oso inyan, since you brought up the wife of Pinchas, I
would like to take a moment to discuss her incomprehensible greatness. The
following is a quote from Rav Avigdor Miller:

Quote
    When the pregnant wife of Pinchas heard of the defeat of Israel by
    the Philistines, when "the ark of G-d was taken, and her husband
    and father-in-law (Eli) died, she kneeled and gave birth, for her
    pains came upon her...And she said: Glory has departed from Israel,
    for the Ark of G-d has been taken" Her grief at the loss of the Ark
    of G-d overshadowed the facts of her son's birth, of the death of
    her husband, and even of her own death throes (for she knew that
    she was dying in her labor).
End Quote.

Now, anyone married to a woman like that can be nothing but a tzaddik
gamur. To imply otherwise is to reject the patent imperatives of
common sense.

Simcha Coffer

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]