Avos and Mitzvos: Fisking the Hirhurim post*

There's a very long post up at Hirhurim which manages to misrepresent the Krum video and the response to it. It's really quite a bad job.

My fisking after the jump

 * I don't name the author because I don't want this post to come up when people Google his name

Rashi and anachronisms

I see via GH (who after two years has finally conceded the truth of my central religious argument) that Divrei Chaim has made a convoluted attempt to explain Rashi on Gen 19:3 [1 and 2] and other anachronisms in the commentary.

Here's the Rashi comment in question [1]:

ויפצר בם מאד ויסרו אליו ויבאו אל ביתו ויעש להם משתה ומצות אפה ויאכלו׃
But he insisted so strongly that they came with him and went into his home. He prepared a feast for them, and baked some flatbreads, and they ate.
Rashi: And baked some flatbreads: It was Passover

Asks Divrei Chaim:

What do we make of Rashi? Rashi seems to be addressing a simple textual question... If you dismiss Rashi as “derash” and not pshat, what does that mean? – did Rashi waste his time composing “fictional” answers to explain troublesome details in the text? Or to put it another way, if Rashi knew it was irrational or improbable for Lot to have really kept Pesach and eaten matzah, then hasn’t Rashi failed to answer the textual question he posed?"

The problem, I think, is that DC has a post-enlightenment way of looking at history, and can't quite wrap his head around the fact that Rashi -for all his brilliance- did not. We're modern. Anachronisms bother us. Rashi was from a different time and place, a foreign country in LP Barthartley's famous phrase. Anachronisms didn't bother him (His commentary, and the Midrash upon which most of it is based, are chock full of them.) Nor did they bother the non-Jewish geniuses of his time (See Anselm of Canterbury who imagined God as the fuedal lord of the word, and interpreted the Jesus story from that perspective.) We worry about the little details of history. We want to know exactly what Lot served the visiting angels. Rashi was different. As a man of the 13th century, he just didn't care. He was a critic, concerned about the words on the page [2], and a halachist, concerned about Jewish law. He was not a historian in any sense, but certainly not a historian in the modern sense.

NB
1 - I could argue that Rashi's view of 19:3 isn't necessarily anachronistic. Suppose we were to corner Rashi and ask him what happened in Sodom on the night before the destruction. We could ask him three different questions: (1) Were matzot really served?; (2) Was it really Pesach?; and (3) Did Lot bake matzot because he somehow knew that in the far off future his uncle's descendants would be commanded to eat them in memory of an event that was yet to occur? I'm certain Rashi would say "yes" to the first two questions, but if he were to answer "no" to the third, his comment isn't an anachronism.

2- In particular, Rashi wants to know why the word "feast" is used to describe a meal that consisted of the poor man's bread. His answer, despite what you may have heard about Rashi, didn't arrive via ruach haKodesh. Its right from Berashis Rabba. (Not having seen this particular midrash in many years, I can't tell you what its author was attempting to address, but I'd bet serious money that it was not written to tell us the facts of history[3]. Midrashim rarely attempt to tell us what happened. They almost always serve to give us some lesson or explanation. Because Rashi often re purposes midrashim, the fact that Rashi uses this one to explain why the feast Lot prepared was so pathetic is not proof that the midrash was written for that reason, too.)

3 - This, incidentally, is the other problem with the DC approach. Along with construing Rashi as a historian, he construes midrash as history. True, the midrash says that the angles visited Lot on Passover. However, it doesn't follow from this that it actually was Passover or even that the author of the Midrash believed it himself. The Ramchal says that moral and metaphysical lessons are hidden in midrashim. Perhaps the author of this particular midrash said that the visit occured on Passover for the sake of some moral lesson he wished to convey[4].

4 - Or perhaps he really thought it was Passover. We have no way of knowing.

[*] Its also possible that the words ומצות אפה were added by a later scribe/editor/redactor who wanted to make an editorial point about the salvation of Lot and connect it to the later salvation of the Jewish people. This is the sort of thing Midrash does all the time, so it doesn't seem far fetched that an scribe/editor/redactor might try it, too. But that's another post

Let's Get Textual (1)

I promised Chaim some examples of Rashi playing a little fast and loose with midrashim. Here's the first of many.

Rashi Chooses Among Midrashim

Gen 27:1
ויהי כי זקן יצחק ותכהין עיניו מראת ויקרא את עשו בנו הגדל ויאמר אליו בני ויאמר אליו הנני
And it came to pass, when Yitzchak was old, and his eyes grew too bleary to see he, and he called Esau his eldest son, and said to him, My son: and he said: Here am I
The verse introduces Yitzchaks blindness. The midrash gives five reasons for it, at least two of which are mutually exclusive:
(a) angles cried in his eyes, when he was bound on the alter
(b) To spare him from having to look at evil Esav (megilla 28a)
(c) Avimelech cursed Sarah (Gen 20:16) and his curse was fulfilled through Yitzchak
(d) His eyes were irritated by the smoke from sacrifices prepared by Esau's wives
(e) To give Yaakov the opportunity to take the blessings

On the verse, Rashi chooses two (d) and (e). [*] Does this mean that (d) and (e) are true and the others are not? For what reason did Rashi accept two and reject three pieces of Rabininc wisdom?

The answer to both questions can be found in the comment considered Rashi's mission statement (Gen 3:8): There are many Aggadaic expositions which our Sages have already organized in their proper order in Bereishis Rabbah and in other Midrashim. I have come only to give (1) the plain meaning of Scripture, and (2) the Aggadah which serves to restore the words of Scripture to their proper context and correct meaning.

In other words, Rashi's goal is to tell us the plain meaning [pshat] of the text, but when the plain meaning isn't plain, he'll use Aggadah (ie: Midrash) to clarify the text. Are Rashi comments based on Midrash also considered pshat? No. When Rashi cites a midrash his purpose isn't to tell us the pshat but to address irregularities or anomalies in the text, and to restore the verses original meaning, or intention. Therefore, the mere fact that Rashi choses or rejects a midrash tells us nothing about Rashi's view of its historical truth or validity. He simply is trying to solve textual questions, and he is willing to mine the aggadah for midrashim that can be used for that purpose.

The question Rashi is attempting to answer is Genesis 27:1 is not "Why did Yitzchak go blind?" That question, as noted above, has at least five answers. Rather, he is attempting to explain why the blindness is mentioned here in 27:1 and not earlier or later. The answer is textual, and the midrashim he selects points the way.

In the immediate previous verse we learn about Esau's two skanky wives: When Esau was forty years old he married Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and they brought grief to Isaac and Rebekah (Gen 26:34-35) This leads Rashi to Midrash (d) above.

The section introduced by our verse describes how Yitzchak's blindness allowed Yaakov to steal the blessing. This points Rashi to Midrash (e) above.

The other three midrashim are rejected by Rashi not because they are ivalid, but because they don't serve the purpose of his commentary. They can't be used to address a textual issue, or to clarify the words of the Torah.

If you don't agree, try answering this question: Rashi made a conscious and deliberate decision about which midrashim to include in his commentary. What does this tell us about Rashi's relationship to midrashim and text?

Source

[*] Note: Most printed chumashim include midrash (a) Avigdor Bonchek says this is a mistake. The Reggio di Calabria edition, the frist printed edition of Rashi, does not have it.

[More to come]

Disrespecting Rashi

In Parshas Bo, there is a famous Rashi that, like most famous Rashis, is only partially remembered and rarely taught in full. The verse on which the comment appears is Exodus 11:4

 ⁴ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֔ה כֹּ֖ה אָמַ֣ר יְהוָ֑ה כַּחֲצֹ֣ת הַלַּ֔יְלָה אֲנִ֥י יֹוצֵ֖א בְּתֹ֥וךְ מִצְרָֽיִם׃

The bold words are strange. At first glance, they seem to mean "around midnight", but would God speak so inexactly?

Rashi's Conception of Hashem

A guest post by JS:

As DB is fond of pointing out, "Rashi is not an anthology of midrashim." Rashi carefully selects each midrash, gemara, and rabbinical statement in order to clarify a scriptural difficulty in a manner he deems satisfactory. If Rashi cites a midrash to resolve a grammatical error, the midrash not only irons out the difficult language to Rashi's liking, it also brings forth a concept that Rashi liked or at least didn't find untenable.

For example, in Shmot 2:5, Rashi is bothered by the phrase "וַתִּשְׁלַח אֶת אֲמָתָהּ וַתִּקָּחֶהָ" (and she [Pharoah's daughter] sent forth אֲמָתָהּ and took it [the basket containing Moshe]). Rashi first explains that the word אֲמָתָהּ means "her maidservant." However, he goes on to explain (and of course this is the only explanation anyone remembers) that the word אֲמָתָהּ means "arm" and is vowelized the way it is to indicate that her arm grew long enough to reach the basket. Therefore, in my opinion, Rashi cites the gemara to deal not only with the difficult language in the verse (why is אֲמָתָהּ vowelized the way it is) but also because he either liked the concept of a miraculously growing arm to reach the miracle-producing Moshe, or he didn't have a problem with that idea.

In this parsha, there are a couple of interesting Rashis from which emerge a picture of how Rashi conceived of Hashem (or at least how he didn't think it was sacrilegious to view Hashem). Please note what I just wrote in parentheses as, for the sake of clarity, I won't be repeating this again.

In BaMidbar 20:1 on the words "And Miriam died there," Rashi states that Miriam died just like her two siblings by a kiss from God's mouth. However, the verse doesn't say so because it is not respectful to speak of God in this way (as One who kisses women). Thus, Rashi believes that God, who wrote the Torah, didn't say the manner in which Miriam died because God was concerned His honor would be diminished if He said He kissed Miriam with His mouth.

In 20:12 on the words "Therefore, you shall not bring," Rashi states that "therefore" is a form of an oath and that God hastened to swear an oath that Moshe and Aharon would not take the nation into Israel because if He hadn't, Moshe and Aharon could have "beaten Him to the punch" and interceded with prayer, which He would have had to answer. Thus, Rashi believes that God can be forced into action by human beings and has to act quicker than they to avoid being coerced.

In 21:1 on the words "Who lived in the South," Rashi states that it wasn't actually the Canaanites who attacked Israel, rather it was the Amalekites disguised as Canaanites (as it is the Amalekites who lived in the South, not the Canaanites). Why did the Amalekites do this? Because if the Jews prayed "Save us from the Canaanites" their prayers would be worthless. But, the Jews were clever and only prayed generally saying "Save us" and therefore their prayers worked. Thus, Rashi believes that God is so demanding and specific in his answering of prayers that He would actually refuse to answer specific (but incorrect) prayers and thus, in order to have God respond to our prayers it's best to be general and non-specific.

Search for more information about Rashi at 4torah.com.

Keturah

Rashi was one of the best at spotting and solving textual anomalies, often using midrashim, or even modified midrashim, to explain away the problem. Once in a while, though, Rashi adresses an anomaly, that may have been nothing of the sort, and his solution enters the popular imagination, becoming one of those things that "everybody knows".

An example from this week's sedra:

The verse [Gen 25:1] says: And again, Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah, but every school child is taught to ignore the plain meaning of the words on the page [1], and to instead accept that Keturah was Hagar. Why? Because Rashi said it. And why did Rashi say it? For one reason, and one reason only [2]: In verse 6 the word pilagshim is choser, ie: with no vav yud. Says Rashi on the spot: "It is written lacking [to denote] that there was only one concubine, [ie Hagar]"

Only, hold on: In the MT the word is malay (spelled with a vav yud.)

Rashi's comment here, like many of his comments, is based on a midrash, in this case one found in Berashis Rabba. This suggests that the Midrash's author also had a text with a vav-less yud-less pilaghshim (which in turn suggests that our Torah's text is defective)

Alternatively, its possible that the midrash in Berashis Rabba isn't addressing the text at all. The midrash continues (and Rashi cites this elsewhere, though in the midrash the two thoughts are not seperated) that Hagar is called Keturah because her deeds were beautiful like incense (Keturah puns on incense) [3]. Perhaps Hagar is construed by the midrash as a meritorious woman for the glory of her husband Abraham, and not because of an anamoly in the text. It would not be unlike Rashi to use a midrash written for one purpose to address another.

Given the Rashi does not cite every single Midrash [2], I thinks its reasonable to conclude that we are only aware that the midresh said Ketruah and Hagar were the same person because of an accident, the accident of Rashi's choser text.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Alas, no school child is taught that the Rashbam disagrees with both Rashi and the misdrash and insists that Keturah was a third wife, and not Hagar redux. You're invited to complain about this to your local school authorities.

[2] I expect those of you who don't know how to learn Rashi are already yelling: "One reason only? What do you mean? It's in the midrash!" You are reminded that Rashi does not cite every single midrash. He picks and chooses among them for two purposes. As he says himself on Gen 3:8: There are many aggadic midrashim, and our Rabbis have already arranged them in their proper setting, in Breishis Rabbah and in other collections of midrashim. I have only come (1) to give the simple meaning (pshat) of Scripture, and (2) for aggadah that resolves the words of Scripture...

[3] Rashi also suggests that she was called keturah because "she "tied her womb" and did not mate with any man from the time she separated from Avraham" ["Tied" also puns on keturah.] This explanation is not found in BR, but is from Pirkei de R. Eliezer

In Rashi's Bes Medrash

"During those many days, the king of Egypt died, and the Jewish people moaned because of the bondage, and they cried. And their cry for help from the slavery rose up to God." (Exodus 2:23)

"Pharaoh had leprosy," said my teacher, citing Rashi on this verse, and when the young DovBear wanted to know why Rashi disagreed with the verse itself, he received the stock reply:"Rashi had ruach hakodesh [a kind of low grade prophecy.]"

All together now: ARGH!

Fun fact to know and tell: The top several sites returned by a Google search for ruach hakodesh are Christian sites which translate it as "Holy Spirit."

All together now: ARGH!

In his mission statement, (Genesis 3:8) Rashi says he "I have come only to teach the plain meaning of the passage and such Aggadah which explains the words of the Bible,” yet everywhere in his commentary we find instances where Rashi does the opposite.

Our verse, for example, says the king died, but rather than leave well enough alone, Rashi digs up Shemot Rabbah 1:34 where the bit about the leprosy is found. But why is this needed? Rashi is not an anthology of midrashim, and in this case the midrash doesn't appear to give the plain meaning of the text but to obfusicate it. Dead people aren't leperous. How is this the "literal meaning of scripture?"

lit·er·al adj.
Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words.

Years later I studied under a wise man who introduced a twist to the stock answer so many teachers before him had given me: "Rashi had ruach hakodesh, " he would say, "but we can have ruach hakodesh, too. Let's see if we can see what Rashi saw."

"The king of Egypt died... and they cried."

Cry? Odd isn't it, that the slave people might shed tears over the death of Pharoh. Look, for example, at the Palestenians who rejoiced at the news of Sharon's stroke, or the Jews who scheduled celebratory kidushim when Yassar Arafat finally went to his punishment. But when Pharoh died, the Jews of Egypt cried. Seem weird to you? It appears to have bothered Rashi. [Siftei Chachamim]

"During those many days..."

During? Death comes in an instant, yes here we're told the king died over a great many days. Not "after", but during [Malbim]

"...the king of Egypt died..."

King? Everywhere in the bible, Kings lose their title when their death is reported. King David, becomes "David" on the day of his death, and the same is true for them all. So how can this king, this Egyptian, retain his dominion in death? [Vilna Gaon.]

"...we can have ruach hakodesh, too. Let's see if we can see what Rashi saw."

If you're Rashi, you have the gift of second sight. You're a close reader of complicated texts who can see things that most others miss. As you look as this verse, with these three anamolies you know you aren't seeing the simplest meaning of the text, because if we're meant to know that the King left this mortal coil, the grammar and diction just don't add up.

How does leprosy solve the problems? Well, to begin with "a leper is considered as dead” (Avodah Zarah 5a)." But that's not enough to change the meaning of our verse (no other dead person is said to be a leper instead.) However, when you take into account the drawn out "death" [Malbim] the unexpected use of the word "King" [Vilna Gaon] and the fact that the slaves didn't rejoice at the death of their oppresor [Vilna Gaon] the Midrash's teaching seems to fit.

To Rashi, this is the simplest meaning of the text because it addresses the text's inconsistancies.

The Brilliance of Rashi on Numbers 20:15

---

וַיֵּרְדוּ אֲבֹתֵינוּ מִצְרַיְמָה וַנֵּשֶׁב בְּמִצְרַיִם יָמִים רַבִּים וַיָּרֵעוּ
לָנוּ מִצְרַיִם וְלַאֲבֹתֵינוּ

Anyone who doubts Rashi's colossal skill as a reader and translator, would be well-advised to review his comment on the verse above, Numbers 20:15. But before we get to Rashi's take, let's first review how some of the other great translators read this verse :

How our fathers went down into Egypt, and we have dwelt in Egypt a long time; and the Egyptians vexed us, and our fathers - KJV 

In what manner our fathers went down into Egypt, and there we dwelt a long time, and the Egyptians afflicted us and our fathers. - Douay-Rheims Bible 

Our fathers went down to Egypt and we dwelled in Egypt many years, and the Egyptians did evil to us and to our fathers - Robert Alter

All very straightforward, and clear, right? Now, look at Rashi:

Our fathers went down to Egypt and we dwelled in Egypt many years, and the Egyptians did evil to us and to our Forefathers (ie Abraham, Issac and Jacob) - 

Rashi, of course, doesn't translate entire verses in the way Alter or the King James version do, but we can often tell from Rashi's commentary how he's chosen to read a particular verse.

The passage I've bolded above shows how I presume Rashi understood the verse based on his comment on Numbers 20:15 which I have reproduced below:

and our forefathers: From here [we learn] that when Israel is afflicted with punishment, the Patriarchs grieve in the grave. - [Midrash Tanchuma Chukath 12, Num. Rabbah 19:15]

ולאבותינו: מכאן שהאבות מצטערים בקבר, כשפורענות באה על ישראל:

The temptation is to write this off as a fanciful interpretation. However, I believe this strange reading is actually as straightforward as the translations I cited first, and perhaps does a better job of capturing the literal intent of the verse. 

Avigdor Bonchek shows that Rashi has caught two things:

1. The word order is wrong. "The Egyptians did evil to us and to our fathers." Chronologically, the Egyptians would have done evil to our fathers prior to hurting us. The suggestion that the Patriarchs grieve only after we have been harmed solves this problem.
2. The vocalization of the word "v'la'avoseinu" suggests that the fathers this verse has in mind are specific and particular fathers. The patach under the lamed indicates a define article, so the last part of the verse should be read "to THE fathers." This tells us that the fathers spoken about here are not ordinary and generic ancestors, but specific fathers, namely the Patriarchs.

The only place Bonchek errs (and you can read his piece here)  is in his suggestion that Rashi intends this as a drash. I disagree for two reasons. 

First, as Bonchek tells us himself Rashi is responding to a specific grammatical cue. The vocalization of the verse tells him that words mean "To THE fathers" Though there may be some element of drash (by which I mean interpretation) in his decision that THE fathers are the patriarchs, and not some other well known set of ancestors --like the Shevatim, for instance-- the pshat  is what told him that specific fathers were intended. 

Second, Rashi did not consider himself a darshan. Though he will at times cite a drash he almost always introduces it with a formula like "And our Rabbis darshaned as follows." Even when he does this, he almost always provides the pshat first and only introduces a drash when there is some shortcoming in the pshat.  

On Numbers 20:15 Rashi offers only one reading. Typically, when Rashi offers just one reading, that reading is what he understands to be the pshat.

   Search for more information about AVIGDOR BONCHEK at4torah.com

Tikun Sofrim: Did Rashi think Scribes changed the Torah?

Genesis 18:22, with Rashi

And the men turned from there and went to Sodom, and Abraham was still standing before the Lord.		כב. וַיִּפְנוּ מִשָּׁם הָאֲנָשִׁים וַיֵּלְכוּ סְדֹמָה וְאַבְרָהָם עוֹדֶנּוּ עֹמֵד לִפְנֵי יְ־הֹוָ־ה:
And [the men] turned from there: from the place to which Abraham had escorted them.		ויפנו משם: ממקום שאברהם ליוום שם:
and Abraham was still standing, etc.: But is it not so that he did not go to stand before Him, but the Holy One, blessed be He, came to him and said to him (above verse 20): “Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great, etc.,” and it should have been written here: “and the Lord was still standing beside Abraham?” But this is a scribal emendation (Gen. Rabbah 49:7).		ואברהם עודנו עומד לפני ה': והלא לא הלך לעמוד לפניו אלא הקב"ה בא אצלו ואמר לו (פסוק כ) זעקת סדום ועמורה כי רבה, והיה לו לכתוב וה' עודנו עומד לפני אברהם, אלא תיקון סופרים הוא זה (אשר הפכוהו ז"ל לכתוב כן):

See the discussion after the jump.

Parsha Notes Mishpatim 5771

Boring, boring, boring. That's both a review of this snoozer of a parsha and a warning about the notes you're about to read. Caveat lector.


What every Jew should know:
According to Rashi, all Moshe wrote down in Exodus 24:1 was: Genesis until the Revelation, and the following laws: Shabas, honoring parents, the red cow, the civil laws, and the Seven Noachide laws [DB: What about gid hanasheh] This is despite the Torah claiming (ibid) that what he wrote down was "all the words of God" [=kol divrei]

Crux Alert
When a slave wishes to remain with his master after his term is up, the verses call for him to be taken to "the elohim. and make him approach the door or the doorpost..." Though the Rabbis read elohim as judges, the word most often means "gods"; indeed ANE scholars have discovered that it was once common for household idols to be kept at the doorpost; moreover, oaths or other declerations relating to the household would take place in front of them. For my money this is the most troubling crux in the whole Torah. Read more See also 22:4

External Parallels
In 21:10 we're told that a man who takes a second wife can't reduce the first wife's food, clothing or conjugal rights. Very nice, but not so ahead of its time as you might think: There are ANE documents which forbid a husband from diminishing a first wife's food, clothing and oils. (I haven't seen anyone who can convincingly construe the MT's 'onah as "oils")

Much of Mishpatim is frighteningly similar to older ANE law codes, including, but not limited to, the Laws of Hammurabi. At the very least, this strongly suggests that Mishpatim did not develop absent outside influences.

The not-yet created Temple [21:13] is declared a place of sanctuary where accused people may flee. Other ANE cultures also respected this protocol. 

Internal parallels

In Exodus 22, the Torah describes the theoretical complaint of an oppressed widow or orphan in language that echos the terms used to describe the oppression of Israel. These include: Abuse, cry out, and hear their outcry. (Robert Alter) 

At the end of the Exodus, the Israelites go "b'toch" the Sea; when Moshe enters the cloud to receive the law, he is said to go "b'toch" the cloud. (Rashi)

God is said to rest his feet on a "brick" Various commentators link this to the brick-building performed in Egypt.

Postdiction

There are various instances of postdiction or, if you want to be pretentious, vaticinium ex eventu. Exodus 23:28 predicts (according to one reading) that Egypt will soften up the Canaanite kings, and the next verse promises the conquests will take some time "lest the land become desolate [of people] and the animals multiply against you, [so] slowly I will drive them out until you are fruitful." With all due respect to the Hebrew scripture this sounds like a justification for something that has already happened. The author of this particular sentence seems to know that the conquest took two centuries, and is trying to provide a reason for the delay in fulfilling the Divine Promise (in Judges three other reasons are given) and to be blunt this reason isn't very convincing: Are we to believe that an ancient Israelite nation of 3 million (enormous by ancient standards) would have difficulty subduing some wild animals, or that time was needed to become "fruitful?"

Deus ex Machina
The verse tells us (Ex 24:6) that Moshe took "half the blood" without telling us who divided it. Rashi's answer: An angel did it.

Motifs

Dogs are once again presented as the lowest of the low in Exodus 22:30 where we're told to feed carrion to them. Aside: Later rabbinic interpretation holds this practice was instituted as a reward -- the dogs didn't bark during the Exodus, and this is their thank you. Alter says that carrion was fed to the dogs because only something as low as a dog is an appropriate receptacle for such disgusting waste.  

Puzzlements

The narrative at the end is, as Rashi has already noted, out of place. It sounds like a description of the events that occurred before the Torah was given several chapters earlier.  Only, Ramban disagrees. So when did these things actually happen, and why isn't the chronology straightforward?

What exactly is God's hornet?

Who is the angel God promises to send in Ex 23:20? Rashi says its the dark angel Metarton, but this is problematic on philosophical grounds. Others say it was Moshe.


Anomaly

In 21:22 the MT has וכי־ינצו אנשים ונגפו אשה הרה ויצאו ילדיה If men strive, and hurt a pregnant woman with child, so that her child departs from her. Other ancient versions, including the LXX, have "fetus." This is a difference of just few spots of ink.

Political aside (1): This is one of several verses which suggest an authentically authentic Jewish view of abortion is more lenient than the evangelical Christan teachings too many Jews embrace and promote as "Torah-true." Read more about some of the ancient Torah and non-Torah true views of abortion here.

Some speculation resulting from an odd Onkelos translation of Exodus 23:5. The word a'zov, in this verse,  clearly means "assist", but Onkelos seems to think it must mean "leave", and as a result delivers a convoluted translation. Additional speculation there. 

Closed Canon alert

We meet Chur for the second time, and Rashi repeats an embellishes the comment he made on Chur's first appearance as follows: "He was the son of Miriam, and his father was Kalev ibn Jafne, as it says [in Divrei Hayamim] " And Kalev took Efrat, and Efrat bore him Chur" and Efrat is Miriam, as is said in [BT[ Sotah." I don't know why Rashi repeats himself here. I don't know why he makes the longer comment here, and not on Chur's first appearance. And I don't know what compels us to say Efrat was Miriam. On what scriptural peg does this identification hang?

Changed Premises

The Israelite "slave girls" described in this sedra are quite obviously concubines. I'm not sure which is worse.

The vigorous beating of slaves was an acceptable practice. In 21:21 we're told that a master isn't responsible if his slave survives a day or two afterwards, and then dies. Try that today.

In 23:12 a rationale behind Shabbos is provided, which is quote different from rationale given in the Ten Commandments. Here we're told to keep shabbos on humanitarian grounds; there the imperative is theological.

In 23:15 these words appear: וְלֹא־ יֵרָא֥וּ פָנַ֖י רֵיקָֽם׃. As Robert Alter points out, the original form of the word is Yiru but it has been vocalized Yay-rah'oo. It seems as if "you shall not see my face/presence" has been modified to "you shall not appear before my face/presence" -- perhaps, as Alter speculates, to "avoid what looked like excessive anthropomorphism."

In 23:31 the borders of Israel are announced. The country is to stretch from the Red Sea to the Euphrates. This does not correspond to any historical reality.

On 24:10 Rashi says "[The elders] looked and cast a glance [at God]" [= nistaclu v'heytsitsu] His supercommentators say that here "looked" means contemplated, but this seems to me like an attempt to revise Rashi so he is in keeping with later theological doctrines. Had he meant to say "contemplate" wouldn't he have used that word?

The parsha ends with a description of a feast enjoyed by the elders at Gods feet. This is one of a few instances of God being depicted corporeally, and in a way later frowned upon by Jewish philosophers. Here's how the Torah tells it: "Anf [the elders] saw the God of Israel, and beneath his feet was [unclear] sapphire brick, like the heavens.... and they beheld God and ate and drank" If you doubt this statement is scandalous in the light of future Jewish theology, consider how Onkelos evasively rewrites it: "And they saw their sacrifices had been accepted as if they had been eaten and drunk."

Political aside (2): I doubt the Ohr CHayim was a pluralist, but his teaching on "You shall incline after a majority" (Exodus 23:2) is one this pluralist can applaud. Longer treatment here.

Previously
- In defence of pluralism
- Yakkov Menken doesn't know what the word means!
- Hashkofa hating

READER SUBMISSIONS
Mussar
In a dispute between Chovos Halevovos and Ramban regarding necessary levels of hishdadlus, Ramban claims that drosha for (Shemos, 21, 19) V'repe Y'rapei, that God gave permission to man to heal is not meant for "a complete servant," and same goes for money:  for them complete faith is enough. R' Yisroel S'lanter says that this opinion is meant solely for those who have made being a servant their profession (chovshei beis medrash) but not for laymen; the laymen must rely on the opinion of Chovos Halevovos that hishtadlus is required. [from Bob]



Parshanut
What was the Sefer Habrit?
Rashi - Sefer Habrit is Breishit through the Ten Commandments - fits nicely with the accepted drash (na'aseh... venishma) and midrash that Bnei Israel accepted the mitzvot sight unseen. Naarative is out of order - Mosheh only goes up the mountain once.

Ramban - Rashi's explanation is unacceptable because you cannot ratify a brit siigh unseen. Narrative is in order, Moshe goes up the mountain twice and Sefer Habrit is the body of Mishpatim which is a pretty good summary of what they are getting themselves into.

Chizkuni - Sefer habrit is Vaikra  (Behar-Bechukotai). Bnei Israel understand the consequences of the Brit before accepting. Fits best with the Midrash of Hashem holding the mountain over them. [by Yannai Segal]


Reconstructed Rashi
Rashi seems to have been tampered with or lost and reconstructed. Ramban (24:1) brings a glaring problem with Rashi's interpretation of verse 3.  There is also a problem in verse 4. Rashi, following the Mechilta, says that "And moshe wrote down all the words of God" refers to "From Genesis until Matan Torah and...the Mizvos commanded at Marah." Rashi is swallowing all this hook, line and sinker without question. Why? Isn't it more likely that this pasuk is referring to the Bris (treaty) made in the beginning of Chapter 19? After all, isn't the similarity between the verses in 19:7-8 and 24:3 what links the two sections? And these writings are even called the "Book of the Bris" in verse 7!

Also strange is the fact that the Rashi on verse 7 repeats word for word what he said 3 verses before. And that the 1st Rashi on verse 16 cuts off mid-sentence.

But the most glaring problem is the second Rashi on v. 16. On verse 12, on the words "And God said to Moshe, ascend the mountain.. and I shall give you the Tablets", Rashi comments 'This is after the giving of the Torah', ie the 10 commandments. But on v. 16, when the verse says "And the cloud covered it for 6 days, and He called to Moses on the 7th day", Rashi says "To say the 10 commandments."  [By Avromie]

---

Search for more information about Torah at 4torah.com.

Why do Gutnick and ArtScroll suggest Rashi had a different Torah text?

Genesis 14:14, with Rashi

And Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, and he armed his trained men, those born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and he pursued [them] until Dan.

יד. וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם כִּי נִשְׁבָּה אָחִיו וַיָּרֶק אֶת חֲנִיכָיו יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וַיִּרְדֹּף עַד דָּן:

His trained men:  Heb. חִנִיכָיו It is written חִנִיכוֹ [in the singular], his trained man. This is Eliezer, whom he had trained to [perform the] commandments, and it [חִנִיכָיו] is an expression of the initiation (lit. the beginning of the entrance) of a person or a utensil to the craft with which he [or it] is destined to remain, and similarly (Prov. 22: 6):“Train (חִנ‏ֹ) a child ;” (Num. 7:10):“the dedication of (חֲנֻכַּת) the altar ;” (Ps. 30:1):“the dedication of of (חֲנֻכַּת) the Temple,” and in Old French it is called enseigner [to instruct, train].

חניכיו: חנכו כתיב זה אליעזר שחנכו למצות והוא לשון התחלת כניסת האדם או כלי לאומנות שהוא עתיד לעמוד בה, וכן (משלי כב ו) חנוך לנער, (במדבר ז יא) חנכת המזבח, (תהלים ל א) חנכת הבית ובלע"ז קורין לו אנציניי"ר [לחנוך]:

The problem:

The verse says חֲנִיכָיו, which means "trained men". In his comment, Rashi says חנכו כתיב or "it is written his "trained man." Did Rashi have a different text? Why does he say the word is written "trained man" when its clearly "trained men?"

The answer:

There are four early editions of Rashi. The problematic text, reproduced above, appears in just two of them: Rome and Venice. The other two, including Reggio de Calbria the first printed Rashi edition, make no mention here of Eliezer, or of a variant Torah text. Instead, they give:

His trained men:  Those that he trained in the commandments....

Which variation corresponds to the original Rashi? Impossible to know. In the 200 or so years between Rashi and the Reggio de Calbria edition, words and even sentences could have been added and removed from manuscripts a dozen times over.

The question, then, is on contemporary publishers.

On Genesis 14:14  we have two different versions of Rashi's comment, one of which suggests quite strongly that Rashi used a Torah text that was different from the one we have today. For some reason, this is the version that appears in my Mikraot Gedolot, and its also used in ArtScroll's Stone edition, the Gutnick edition [which you can review here] and many others. How was this decision made? Why did so many different editorial committees choose to include a Rashi variation which so strongly suggests that the father of all commentators based himself on a different, perhaps flawed, text of the Torah?

---

Search for more information about Rashi mysteries at 4torah.com.

Defending DovBear on the Parsha

A very serious charge has been levied against my book, DovBear on the Parsha. An unknown, anonymous commenter on another blog, says the book consists of "overt and intentional kfira." I find this charge impossible to sustain, and will respond to it the only way I can: with a blog post.

DovBear on the Parsha is a collection of blog posts - 69 in all - which appeared here between October, 2004 and July, 2008. All of them were edited for spelling, grammar, space, clarity, accuracy and civility. (though as some have noted, sometimes viciously, our very best efforts to scour the book clean of any spelling mistakes came up rather short.)

The majority of the posts were written before I started thinking seriously about textual issues, before I had read any Kugel (he's not referenced anywhere in the book) or very much of any other critic aside from Alter, who is mentioned in several places. Alter, however, takes the view that the Torah (for the most part) is a literary whole, that is whoever it was that compiled the book (in Alter's view an editor, or school of editors) made careful and conscious decisions, and chose to tell the stories in certain ways, and for certain reasons. Though I do make use of this idea (and Alter's observations) in about a dozen posts, I use it for Torah and not heretical reasons. As I say in the book (page 149) I think even skeptics must concede that observations such as this suggest (rather strongly in my opinion) that the Torah was (for the most part) finalized by one hand, a hand that made deliberate and purposeful authorial choices, a hand that could have certainly belonged to God.

In the list that follows, I revisit every post that appears in the book, and rate them using the following scale. 1 is for posts that contain no kefira at all (no color code) or introduce a kfiradik notion for the purpose of debunking it (marked in blue), or for the purpose of showing why it might not be kfira at all. (marked in green) 2 is for posts that mention a kfriadik idea without expressly agreeing or disagreeing with it (marked in red). 3 is for posts that contain overt kfira, or arguments in its defense.

Pasha Notes: Toldos 2009

What everyone should know
Our midrashim lament Jacob's theft of the brochot, and attribute later Jewish suffering to his crime, as follows: "Three tears did Eisav shed. One dropped from his right eye, one from his left and the third he kept back and that tear has salted our bread of exile with tears and made us taste tears in full threefold measure." (Tahnchuma); and "Anyone who says God is not particular with his pious ones deserves to have his inwards torn out. The forbearance of God grants long credit, but the debt needs to be paid in the end. One cry Jacob caused Eisav to make and that was repaid in Shushan when Eisav's descendant caused Jacob's descendant to cry with a 'loud bitter cry.'(Midrash Raba)

I've always considered these exquisite moral teachings.

Famous Argument
(1) Which mitzvos did the Patriarchs keep? This is a six-way disagreement, with Chizkuni, Rashbam, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, the Ramban and the Seforno all weighing in. Rashi alone says the Patriarchs lived like Rabbinic Jews; the others take a far more limited view. [Summary]

(2) Who did Rivka consult when she went to "inquire of God"? Rashi, of course says it was Shem, but Radak, Rashbam and the midrash have other thoughts. Of note, is the view of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yochanan (quoted in Berayshis Raba) that God certainly would not have spoken to a woman, so of course some intermediary was needed.

(3) Was Issac poor? Ibn Ezra says he was; Ramban objects furiously with the immortal: "Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has erred here exceedingly... I'd like to know who blinded the Ibn Ezra, and made it possible for him to write such a thing."

Famous Rabennu Bechaya
Were the twins fraternal or identical? R' Bechaya says the word וַיִּתְרֹצְצוּ comes from the verb root rtsts "struggle"; thus they must have shared a placenta and/or amniotic sac and would have been identical. Rashi seems to say וַיִּתְרֹצְצוּ comes from rts "run" and explains (based on BR 63:6) "When she would pass the doorways of Torah study of Sheim and Eiver(*), Yaakov would agitate and rush to come out. When she would pass doorways of idol-worshipers, Eisov would agitate to come out." Elsewhere (on 25:26) Rashi (**) says the brothers were created with two different drops of sperm; thus they were fraternal. (***)

* Some versions mention Sheim alone, leading to mounds of Rabbinic speculation on Rashi's reasons for omitting to mention Eiver. However, both names appear in other, old Rashi manuscripts.
** The comment to 25:26 begins "I heard an Aggadaic exposition that..." but in some Rashi manuscripts it says instead "I, the scribe, heard an Aggadaic exposition that..."
*** It is not clear that either RB or Rashi were aware of the underlying biology. They lived in an age when children often suffered from diseases and poor nutrition. Its easy to imagine that, in their day, nurture often won out over nature and that even genetically identical twins had different phenotypes. It is also not clear RB understood the consequences of his claim, ie. that one placenta/amniotic sac always results in identical twins.

Famous Rashi
(1) "Eisov is compared to a pig as it is said... When the pig lies down it stretches out its hooves as if to say, "See, I am a clean animal." So, too, those who rob and extort yet make pretensions of being honorable." Rashi doesn't spell it out, but it seems obvious to me that he's speaking of Christians. This short comment, therefore, tells us something about how Christians behaved in Rashi's time, and also what Rashi thought of them.

(2) Why was Isaac blind? There are at least five answers, and how Rashi selected just three of them tells us much about his method.

(3) Why did Rivka tell her son to fetch two goats? How much meat did she plan to feed Isaac? Rashi says it was pesach, and one was needed for the korbon, but problems with this suggestion abound. Another drash is that these two kids allude to the two kids that will be later used for deception. The brothers will use the blood of a kid to deceive Jacob, and Judah will send a kid in payment to Tamar after he is deceived by her. I have no better pshat explanation.

Musar
The Sforno defines "Calling out in Gods name" as serving as God's agent on earth through acts of public kindness and generosity. Abraham "Called out in God's name" at the beginning of his Canaanite adventure, and blessings followed almost at once. Yitzchak, on the other hand, did not recognize this, and for a time he was living on Avraham's account; thus he was told (Gen 26:24) "I will bless you for Avraham's sake."As Sforno continues, prior to this dialogue with God, Yitzchak's life was full of strife and arguments with the Philistines. In the very next verse Yitzchak is said to "Call out in God's name." Instantly, his troubles with Abimelech and the herdsmen disappear. The very next time they appear (two verses later) their hats are in their hands, and they are suing for peace.

Motifs
The annunciation and the sister wife return this week. This week's annunciation differs in that the mother is already pregnant when God's oracle addresses her with a promise about her child; the sister wife story is also different: for the first time there are no plagues and no dreams.

Word Play
As Richard Elliot Freedman notes the prophesy וְרַב יַעֲבֹד צָעִיר is ambiguous. It can mean "and the elder shall serve the younger", but it might also mean "the elder, the younger will serve."

וַיָּרַח אֶת-רֵיחַ בְּגָדָיו, וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ/ and he smelled the scent of his clothing and blessed him
Though the verse says "bigadav" clothing, some sages of the Midrash read is as "bogdov" his traitors. In their imagination Jacob merited blessing because even those descendants of his that became Jewish traitors are valuable before God. [Note: I don't have the date for this midrash so what follows is is a wild irresponsible guess, but I suppose the traitors they had in mind could have been Roman collaborators and/or Judeo Christians.]

Internal Parallels
- Jacob attempts to win his father's heart by cooking a meal (Orach Chayim explaining why Jacob prepared a stew); later in the story Esav attempts to please his mother by taking a non-Canaanite wife

- Esav's וְלָמָּה-זֶּה לִי בְּכֹרָה is similar to Rivka's לָמָּה זֶּה אָנֹכִי

- Goats and garments are used to facilitate a deception here. Another goat will be used for the same purpose in the story of Tamar, and both goat and garment are used by Joseph's brothers to fool his father. The verb meaning recognition (hkr) also appears in all three stories.

- Esav sold his birthright to his younger brother for lentils, later Rachel sells a night with Jacob to her older sister for the mandrake, also a plant.

- Esav's first recorded words in the Torah are impetuous and child-like (Quick give me some of the red, red stew, or I'll die) Rachel's first recorded words have the same quality: "("Give me sons or I am a dead woman!")

Alternative Reading
The MT has יָקֻם אָבִי which is a flat command that can be construed as disrespectful. The same consonants however can be vowalized as yakome, which is jussive, respectful, and fully in keeping with our idea of Esav as the epitome of parental respect.

Number Games
The story of the theft of the blessing contains seven scenes of dialogue, and the word blessing appears seven times. This can't be accidental.

Irony
Jacob is called אִישׁ תָּם a phrase suggesting innocence or integrity. In action, though, he is a man of guile and one of few scruples. This week alone he twice deceives his brother, and as Robert Alter has noted, when his mother suggests the plot to steal the blessings Jacob displays no moral compunctions. His only worry is that he might be caught.

Anachronism
Earlier, there is a references only to the land of the Philistines providing room for apologists to defend the text. In Gen 26:2 the anachronism is insisted upon: Abimelech is called King of the Phillistines - though Philistines would not settle on the coast until many years after the Patriarchal period.

The rest of the story
The midrash, as cited by Rashi, says Esav deceived his father with a strange question about straw and salt. There's much more to it I think. 1 and 2.

Salt and Straw

PART I

The rabbis teach that [Esav] did perform the mitzvah of honoring his father, and he even asked his father about the need to take tithes from salt and straw - which of course is completely unnecessary, and represented Eisav's ability to appear religious when it suited his purpose.

If you've studied Rashi as an adult, you know his commentary isn't an anthology of midrashim. Frequently, Rashi cites a midrash out of place or out of context. He'll change the meaning of a midrash, or choose one or two midrashim from among several on the same subject. Rashi does all of this, I believe, because in his commentary, midrashim are used for a specific purpose, namely, they serve to smooth out rough spots in the text, and to resolve difficulties in the language of the Torah.

Rashi's object, you see, isn't to share or to popularize midrashim, but to " give... Aggadah which serve to clarify the words of Scripture in a way which fits its words" (Gen 3:8)

The midrash cited at the begining of this post is, I believe, an example of Rashi doing violence to the plain meaning of the midrash for the sake of rescuing the text from a perceived anamoly. Gen 25:28 reads: "And Issac loved Esav because of the game in his mouth." (tzayid b'fiv) This is a hebrew idiom, which suggests Esav as either a kind of lion bringing home food in his mouth, or as a mother bird dropping worms into her chick's gapping beak. In either case, it's a material and, therefore, difficult explanation for Issac's favoritism. The plain language of the text make Issac look shallow, and weak, and more than a little absurd. For Rashi, this is unacceptable. Therefore he tells us "But, its [ie tzayid b'fiv's ] Midrashic interpretation is: "With the mouth of Eisv" [meaning] he would trap him and trick him with his words

Trap him and trick him how? The answer Rashi gives appears on the previous verse, Gen 25:27, where we're told that "Esav was skilled in trapping, a man of the field, and Jacob was a simple man, a dweller in tents." The perceived anamoly here is that the second part of the descriptions ("man of the field" and "dweller in tents") are roughly atithetical; the first parts ("skilled in trapping" and "simple man") are not.

The Hebrew adjective tam suggests integrity, or even innocence. To create a diametric opposition between the first and second parts of the description, "skilled in trapping" needs to be construed as the opposite of tam. Three examples of Esav's duplicity are provided in the midrash, and Rashi chooses one, and only one, to illustrate the point, writing " ..he would ask him: "Father, how are salt and hay tithed?" [Though, he actually knew that there is no requirement that these items be tithed.] His father would thereby think that he meticulously observed the mitzvos."

I don't know why Rashi selected the bit about the straw and hay over the two other examples of Esav's dishonesty provided by the Midrash, but I will argue in Part II that the story itself has been misunderstood by readers of Rashi.

PART II

..he would ask him: "Father, how are salt and hay tithed?" [Though, he actually knew that there is no requirement that these items be tithed.] His father would thereby think that he meticulously observed the mitzvos."

Many readers of Rashi use the story of the salt and straw to suggest that Esav was a pious fraud. Like the men who wear large shtreimals, but cheat on their taxes and skip davening, Esav, in their conception, was a master of deception, who used sincere-sounding questions to deceive his father. Indeed, Rash picks us on this idea by comparing Esav to a pig, a non-kosher animal that extends its forelegs as if to show off how kosher it is, fooling all who allow themselves to be deceived.

Midrash is not a monolith, and the midrash's view of Esav, especially, is complicated, and full of competing and mutually exclusive ideas. Though it is true that some of our Rabbis did think of Esav as a pious fraud, I will argue that the author of the salt and straw story decidedly did not.

First, let us recognize that midrash isn't history. It isn't telling us that such a conversation actually took place. If you went back in time, you would not find Esav and Yizchack discussing tithes. Rather, this story was created by the author of the midrash for the purpose of conveying an idea.

To understand the author's purpose we must begin with the blessings Yaakov received when he was dressed as Esav. They relate entirely and exclusively to the physical world: tal hashamayim ushmanei haaretz; the dew from the sky and the fat of the earth. Later, at the end of the story, when Yaakov leaves for Aram and is no longer disguised, his father blesses him again, this time saying: ve’yiten lecha es birkas Avraham; he passes Avraham’s spiritual legacy on to Yaakov.

It would seem from this that Yitzchak's intention was to let Yaakov stay in his tent and live a life of contemplation and study; while, Esav, the man of the field, contended with the world and provided for his religious brother. If, as most of our Rabbis say, Yitzchak was planning for the future of the Jewish nation when he blessed his sons, perhaps he was also setting up a sort of Holy Roman Empire (forgive the ahistorical reference) with Yaakov, as Pope, in charge of the nation's spiritual life, and Esav, as Emperor, responsible for feeding and protecting and otherwise sustaining the religious center.

Esav, having grown up in his father's tent, and eaten at his father's table, was aware of this plan, we can assume. The salt and straw midrash tells us that its author thought Esav was unhappy with this plan.

In the ancient world, salt and straw were important preservatives. Salt protected meat from spoiling, and straw was used as a packing material, or as insulation. Yitzchak planned for Esav to be Yaakov's protector, to serve as his straw and salt. The Midrash says Esav asked "How are straw and salt tithed (or "fixed" in the language of the original midrash) Conceptually, this is like asking "How are straw and salt brought into the relam of holiness?" By putting such a question in Esav's mouth, the author of the midrash is letting us know that, in his view, Esav wants something more. He doesn't want to spend his life merely sustaining Yaakov; instead, he wants a holy purpose, too.

I'll leave it to others to explain why, in the fullness of time, this more-positive image of Esav was lost. My guess it has to do with the fact that Esav was, at the turn of the millenium, linked with Rome. Before that association was made, I suppose, more positive opinions of Esav could be entertained. Not so once the Rabbis had paid themselves the compliment of associating the super-power of the day with their own great ancestor's twin brother. From then on Esav was evil, unmitigated, and unredeemable. The salt and straw midrash gives us a glimmer of another point of view.

Provoking the Nations

A Guest Post by Rafi G

One of the reasons, perhaps the main reason, given for opposing many "settlement" or "settler" activities, such as creating outposts, expanding settlements, and the like, or even activities that are being branded as "settler" or "nationalist, like going up to Har HaBayit, is that we are not supposed to provoke the nations of the world. we are not supposed to be agressors. We are supposed to be meek and timid, and only do what they allow us to do and not take steps that will upset the non-Jewish nations.

"Assur L'hitgarot ba'umot ha'olam" - it is prohibited to provoke the nations of the world. While this might be good advice, or maybe bad advice, depending on your perspective, I am not aware of an actual source for this issur. It probably comes from the periods in history in which Jews were subservient to our non-Jewish, and often hostile, overlords, and it became reasonable to say not to do anything to provoke the goyim.

I was thinking about this because of our reading of Breishis this week. The first Rashi in the parsha, in all of the Torah, is perhaps one of, if not THE, most famous Rashi commentaries in all of the Torah.

Rashi begins by asking why the Torah begins from creation and all th stories, and not just skip right to the first mitzva which comes much later. After all, the Torah is not a history book.

Rashi answers by quoting Rebbi Yitzchak who says that the reason is that if the goyim should claim that we stole the land of Israel from them and they would demand it back, we should know and say that we are not robbers or thieves, but God gave us the land. And even though it was given to others first, because God created, and therefore owns, everything, He can give what He wants to whom He wants, and He can take it away and give it to others. So as long as we have the land, the stories in the Torah from Breishis until the first mitzva give us the justification to settle the land and live in it despite the protestations of the non-Jews.

The recent riots by Arabs on Har HaBayit and in East Jerusalem have prompted the reiteration of such statements like "It is prohibited to provoke the non-Jewish nations" to justify opposing ascending Har Habayit.

I never liked the issur of "not provoking". In my mind, our mere existence is a provocation. Beyond that, any specific incident or issue is simply an excuse for the non-Jews to be upset at our existence. Is it a provocation for us to go up to Har HaBayit? I say no - it is an opportunity for them to riot, though they really could care less about Har HaBayit and are upset about our being anywhere in Israel, and even that we exist at all.

So, as I was reading the Rashi, the first Rashi in the Torah that I quoted above, I realized that, to me at least, it looks like Rashi takes a similar approach to the [non-existent?] issur of "not provoking.

Rashi, quoting Rebbi Yitzchak, says we have a right to settle the land because God gave it to us. We have to know that, and we have to state it unequivocally to the goyim in response to their claims. Rashi does not add that if they make claims against us, despite it being ours, we should be meek and give in to their demands in order to not provoke them.

Just the opposite! Rashi says clearly that this land is our land and God gave it to us and we must settle it and defend our rights to do so in the face of the protests of the goyim. According to Rashi there is no such issur of "not provoking the goyim".

So if your only reason to not go up to Har Habayit, or to not live in the "occupied territories" or to not support the army killing the enemy when necessary, is because we are not supposed to provoke the goyim, that is not true. We are supposed to live in the land God gave to us, and we are meant to do so fully and defend our right to do so!

To be clear, I am not suggesting that we need to find ways to unnecessarily provoke the various governments of the world. We need to create working relationships with them, and provocations can sometimes harm that. I am saying that there are times where we need to stand up for our positions - declaring the land is ours or whatever, and we must do so even if some say it is a provocation.

Search for more information about provoking the nations at 4torah.com.

Follow me on Twitter

Parsha Notes (Toledos)

Sorry I was late this week True Believers, but I believe this edition of Parsha Notes is the best one yet. I'll be back in a day or two with Vayetze. [Other editions] Meantime, please feel free to distribute these notes as widely as you can. Twenty DB Stars of Achievment to the man or woman who deposits a bundle at Bray's shul.

What everyone should know

Our midrashim lament Jacob's theft of the brochot, and attribute later Jewish suffering to his crime, as follows: "Three tears did Eisav shed. One dropped from his right eye, one from his left and the third he kept back and that tear has salted our bread of exile with tears and made us taste tears in full threefold measure." (Tahnchuma); and "Anyone who says God is not particular with his pious ones deserves to have his inwards torn out. The forbearance of God grants long credit, but the debt needs to be paid in the end. One cry Jacob caused Eisav to make and that was repaid in Shushan when Eisav's descendant caused Jacob's descendant to cry with a 'loud bitter cry.' (Midrash Raba)

I've always considered these exquisite moral teachings.

Famous Argument

Which mitzvos did the Patriarchs keep? This is a six-way disagreement, with Chizkuni, Rashbam, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, the Ramban and the Seforno all weighing in. Rashi alone says the Patriarchs lived like Rabbinic Jews; the others take a far more limited view. [Summary]

Famous Rabennu Bechaya

Were the twins fraternal or identical? R' Bechaya says the word וַיִּתְרֹצְצוּ comes from the verb root rtsts "struggle"; thus they must have shared a placenta and/or amniotic sac and would have been identical. Rashi seems to say וַיִּתְרֹצְצוּ comes from rts "run" and explains (based on BR 63:6) "When she would pass the doorways of Torah study of Sheim and Eiver(*), Yaakov would agitate and rush to come out. When she would pass doorways of idol-worshipers, Eisov would agitate to come out." Elsewhere (on 25:26) Rashi (**) says the brothers were created with two different drops of sperm; thus they were fraternal. (***)

* Some versions mention Sheim alone, leading to mounds of Rabbinic speculation on Rashi's reasons for omitting to mention Eiver. However, both names appear in other, old Rashi manuscripts.
** The comment to 25:26 begins "I heard an Aggadaic exposition that..." but in some Rashi manuscripts it says instead "I, the scribe, heard an Aggadaic exposition that..."
*** It is not clear that either RB or Rashi were aware of the underlying biology. They lived in an age when children often suffered from diseases and poor nutrition. Its easy to imagine that, in their day, nurture often won out over nature and that even genetically identical twins had different phenotypes. It is also not clear RB understood the consequences of his claim, ie. that one placenta/amniotic sac always results in identical twins.

Famous Rashi

(1) "Eisov is compared to a pig as it is said... When the pig lies down it stretches out its hooves as if to say, "See, I am a clean animal." So, too, those who rob and extort yet make pretensions of being honorable." Rashi doesn't spell it out, but it seems obvious to me that he's speaking of Christians. This short comment, therefore, tells us something about how Christians behaved in Rashi's time, and also what Rashi thought of them.

(2) Why was Isaac blind? There are at least five answers, and how Rashi selected just three of them tells us much about his method.

Musar

The Sforno defines "Calling out in Gods name" as serving as God's agent on earth through acts of public kindness and generosity. Abraham "Called out in God's name" at the beginning of his Canaanite adventure, and blessings followed almost at once. Yitzchak, on the other hand, did not recognize this, and for a time he was living on Avraham's account; thus he was told (Gen 26:24) "I will bless you for Avraham's sake." As Sforno continues, prior to this dialogue with God, Yitzchak's life was full of strife and arguments with the Philistines. In the very next verse Yitzchak is said to "Call out in God's name." Instantly, his troubles with Abimelech and the herdsmen disappear. The very next time they appear (two verses later) their hats are in their hands, and they are suing for peace.

Motifs

The annunciation and the sister wife return this week. This week's annunciation differs in that the mother is already pregnant when God's oracle addresses her with a promise about her child; the sister wife story is also different: for the first time there are no plagues and no dreams.

Word Play

As Richard Elliot Freedman notes the prophesy וְרַב יַעֲבֹד צָעִיר is ambiguous. It can mean "and the elder shall serve the younger", but it might also mean "the elder, the younger will serve."

וַיָּרַח אֶת-רֵיחַ בְּגָדָיו, וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ/ and he smelled the scent of his clothing and blessed him
Though the verse says "bigadav" clothing, some sages of the Midrash read is as "bogdov" his traitors. In their imagination Jacob merited blessing because even those descendants of his that became Jewish traitors are valuable before God. [Note: I don't have the date for this midrash so what follows is is a wild irresponsible guess, but I suppose the traitors they had in mind could have been Roman collaborators and/or Judeo Christians.]

Internal Parallels

- Jacob attempts to win his father's heart by cooking a meal (Orach Chayim explaining why Jacob prepared a stew); later in the story Esav attempts to please his mother by taking a non-Canaanite wife

- Esav's וְלָמָּה-זֶּה לִי בְּכֹרָה is similar to Rivka's לָמָּה זֶּה אָנֹכִי

- Goats and garments are used to facilitate a deception here. Another goat will be used for the same purpose in the story of Tamar, and both goat and garment are used by Joseph's brothers to fool his father. The verb meaning recognition (hkr) also appears in all three stories.

- Esav sold his birthright to his younger brother for lentils, later Rachel sells a night with Jacob to her older sister for the mandrake, also a plant.

- Esav's first recorded words in the Torah are impetuous and child-like (Quick give me some of the red, red stew, or I'll die) Rachel's first recorded words have the same quality: "("Give me sons or I am a dead woman!")

Alternative Reading

The MT has יָקֻם אָבִי which is a flat command that can be construed as disrespectful. The same consonants however can be vowalized as yakome, which is jussive, respectful, and fully in keeping with our idea of Esav as the epitome of parental respect.

Number Games

The story of the theft of the blessing contains seven scenes of dialogue, and the word blessing appears seven times. This can't be accidental.

Irony

Jacob is called אִישׁ תָּם a phrase suggesting innocence or integrity. In action, though, he is a man of guile and one of few scruples. This week alone he twice deceives his brother, and as Robert Alter has noted, when his mother suggests the plot to steal the blessings Jacob displays no moral compunctions. His only worry is that he might be caught.

Anachronism

Earlier, there is a references only to the land of the Philistines providing room for apologists to defend the text. In Gen 26:2 the anachronism is insisted upon: Abimelech is called King of the Phillistines - though Philistines would not settle on the coast until many years after the Patriarchal period.

The rest of the story

The midrash, as cited by Rashi, says Esav deceived his father with a strange question about straw and salt. There's much more to it I think. 1 and 2.

---------
Buy my book. (please)

Falliable Rashi (Or a long and perhaps boring Torah argument with some kefira-lite tacked on at the end)

The story of Arad's attack on Klal Yisroel is told twice in the Torah*. The first time (Num 21:1) the Hebrew looks like this:

וַיִּשְׁמַ֞ע הַכְּנַעֲנִ֤י מֶֽלֶךְ־עֲרָד֙ יֹשֵׁ֣ב הַנֶּ֔גֶב כִּ֚י בָּ֣א יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל דֶּ֖רֶךְ הָאֲתָרִ֑ים וַיִּלָּ֙חֶם֙ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וַיִּ֥שְׁבְּ ׀ מִמֶּ֖נּוּ שֶֽׁבִי׃
(My (literal) translation: The Canaanite king (of) Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that Israel was coming on the Atarim road (and) he went to war with the Israelites and took some captives.)

The second time (Num 33:40) it looks like this:
וַיִּשְׁמַ֗ע הַֽכְּנַעֲנִי֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ עֲרָ֔ד וְהֽוּא־יֹשֵׁ֥ב בַּנֶּ֖גֶב בְּאֶ֣רֶץ כְּנָ֑עַן בְּבֹ֖א בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
(My (literal) translation: The Canaanite king of Arad, who lived in the Negev of Canaan, heard about the coming Israelites.)

At the first mention, Rashi repeats the famous drash from BT Rosh Hashana: What report did [the king] hear? He heard that Araron had died and the Clouds of Glory had departed, and he reasoned that permission has been granted to attack Israel. And the proof text: (the preceding verse Num 20:29) The entire assembly saw that Aaron had died.

As R. Abahu explains (there), the drash is based on a pun. The word for "they saw" (Va'yir'u) can be vowelized as "they appeared" (Va'yay'ro'u) and the word for "that" (kee) also means "because", thus: The entire assembly appeared because Aaron had died.... and the king heard, etc.

The question that should be on everyone's lips, is this: Why is Rashi citing the drash? According to his own mission statement, Rashi doesn't cite random or amusing midrashim. He's not grandpa at the head of the table sharing interesting vortlach. His purpose is to smooth out the Torah text, and he only mentions midrashim that can be used (and sometimes only after being altered) to solve textual anomalies. Here, our text is flawless. We know what the King heard. He heard that Israel was on the Atarim road.

Tosphos asks this question (BT Rosh Hashana 3a) and concludes that the drash actually belongs to the second mention where the reader is not told precisely what the king heard. (i.e. Num 33:40) Rashi, says Tosphos, was sloppy. (v'rashi lo dak b'peirush chumash)

The Gur Aryeh, of course, offers a spirited defense of Rashi. He says that the fact that Israel was on the Atarim road was not enough to provoke an attack; therefore it had to have been something else. Not that I want to go to hell for arguing with the Gur Aryeh but, with all due respect, if the Torah says specifically and in plain Hebew that he attacked because he heard that Israel was on the Atarim Road, who are we to say, "no, no, that couldn't be why he attacked... Had to have been something else."

I understand that Gur Aryeh believes the word Vayishma "and he heard" always, always indicates that something new and exciting was heard, but this is an interpretation that doesn't seem supported by the plain meaning. We're told what the king heard, and if this seems insufficiently new and exciting, well, perhaps the interpretation of Vayishma is what's incorrect. Anyway, Tosphos didn't seem to understand Vayishma the Gur Aryeh's way.

As for me, I wonder if the true solution isn't something simpler. The first mention says "kee bo yisroael"; the parallel says "b'voh yisroel". The difference between the two phrases is one tiny letter (a yud) and the small drop of ink that would convert a beys into a kaf. Perhaps some copyist's hand slipped during the 2000 years between when this was written and the Talmud? If so, there originally was no ambiguity at all about what the King heard.

(And if you doubt such a thing could happen, well, look at Rashi's comment on Num 20:29 where he says flat out that mistakes were made in the transmission of Targum Onkelos. Only about 1200 years elapsed from Onkelos to Rashi. Is it really our position that copyist errors could sneak into every book (including Rashi's very own commentary) ever written aside from the 24 books that make up the Bible? How realistic is that? I know that theologicaly we say that such mistakes were never made, but there is much evidence to the contrary.)