What is Halacha and what isn't, even if its proponent is an Orthodox Rabbi.

This is important.

Yosef and the Mask

42:8- וַיַּכֵּר יוֹסֵף, אֶת-אֶחָיו; וְהֵם, לֹא הִכִּרֻהוּ

The big difficulty here is the fact that none of the brothers recognized Joseph. Rashi, quoting our sages, comments that he had left them without a beard, but many of the commentators find this insufficient. While many suggestions have been offered, all seem to fall a little bit short, because there were ten of them, and could not even one of them discerned the truth?

Perhaps Joseph was wearing a mask, something the Egyptian Pharaohs were known to have worn. While Joseph was only the Prime Minister to the monarch, he may have worn one also. A bit fanciful, perhaps, but nevertheless a possibility.


The Ramban's words are: "...U'k'she'ba Yosef B'Mirkeves Hamishneh, V'Al Panav Hamitznefes K'Derech Malchei Mitzrayim, lo haya nikar l'echav v'gam echav lo hikiruhu..."

I thought mitznefes meant Hat. But I can see how it would mean mask in this context.

Another proof for this suggestion is that immediately after the revelation, the verse says “ the brothers could not speak, because they wers astonished at his face”. ( nivhalo miponov). It suggest that only now they saw his face.

Hat Tip to David Farkas

Yosef's Job Opening

Yosef, while interpreting Pharaoh's dream, he says
"So now, let Pharaoh seek out an understanding and wise man and appoint him over the land of Egypt."

So where did this come from? At first glance, it looks like Yosef is taking advantage of Pharaoh's dream by demonstrating that he has a solution to the problem the dream is presenting.

I think there is another take. I think Yosef sees the solution presented in the dreams themselves.In Dream Interpretation 101, according to Yosef, Two Dreams means that fulfillment is immediate. Yet the two dreams here are different. Different things are happening with the cows and the ears of grain.

The Cow Dream has seven distinct life-forms, swallowed by seven other distinct life-forms, and the swallowing cows don't look like they've eaten anything. as Rashi points out, this symbolizes the fact that there would be no remembrance of the good years once the famine hit.

The Grain Dream has one single stalk, with seven ears of grain growing, followed by seven other ears of grain. No mention of "You couldn't tell that they had swallowed them." The Stalk dream is saying that if the country has a united front, not seven cows, but One stalk, then the seven good years will be able to feed the seven years of famine. But national unity is necessary, in the person of a single leader. He saw that advising people to save up would not work. Taxing would be required. (I wonder how Orthodox Fiscal Conservatives deal with this obviously Keynesian solution right there in Chumash!) Yosef understood somehow (in a way I have not yet figured out) that this individual could not be Pharaoh himself, but someone Pharoah would appoint. So he wasn't fishing for employment. He was interpreting the dream.

The Deathly Hallows and Torah

My previous post caused offence to all those who don't care for Reb Tzodok.
I haven't yet developed the zitzfleish to sit and type out all my thoughts on this matter, but I think that a plot point in the Deathly Hallows explains the two schools of thought and Reb Tzodok's third school in a beautiful way.

In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, we are introduced to a story that appears in a collection of children's tales. It is called the "Deathly Hallows". The story is written in classical fairy tale format. The first two responses to the story are rationalistic dismissal (Hermione Granger) and gullible acceptance (Xenophilius Lovegood). The truth is revealed to be that neither has the correct approach. The story was true, had historically accurate elements, but was conveyed in simple story-telling language. Outright Dismissal and Outright Acceptance were both wrong.

The analogue to the current "Avos keeping the Mitzvos" mini-scandal and Reb Tzodok's approach to Aggadeta is obvious to me. I think Rabbi Yair Hoffman is incorrect in stating that most rishonim think the Avos literally kept the Torah. I think it is more accurate to say that Rashi, and most rishonim of that school who interpret that gemara "literally", are merely taking the Gemara on its own terms. They are not dealing with "literalness" at all. They're just reading the words and explaining what they mean in context.

Reb Tzadok is the one who understands what's going on. It's not about literalness. It's about the POINT! He takes it out of the silly boxing match, the "Faith" vs. "Reason" shtick we got stuck with from the Catholic fight with Galileo, and brings it into the world of ideas, concepts.

Pri Tzaddik on Chanukah

Reb Tzodok Hacohen is GEVALDIG! His first piece in Pri Tzaddik on Chanuka is amazing!

A taste: Cohanim- Aharon- Torah SheBaal Peh- The famous Ramban on Parshas Vayechi- Mechokeik Mibein Raglav- Yehuda/Malchus-Cohanim from Yehuda via Elisheva Bas Aminadav- Chashmonaim- Shimon Hatzaddik - Alexander the Great - Aristotle - Yannai and the Sadducees - Hillel and his family the last century of the Beis Hamikdash.

Anyone nowadays who insists on maintaining a pre-Reb Tzodok view of Yahadus is simply a fool, a tipish. Harsh, but true.

The Avos and the Mitzvos

Dear Rabbi Hoffman,

Thank you for your exposition of the matter of the Avos keeping the Torah, a maamor Chazal built upon the last possuk in the first aliyah of Parshas Toldos.  I have been sharing this multi-faceted point of view to others as long as I remember, and especially since the video was released.  I have one serious qualm with the brilliant essay, and that is the last paragraph's in-bold sentence:

The overwhelming majority of Torah authorities, however, clearly and completely hold of the maximalist position, and this is the general position that should be taught in our Torah institutions.

???
I am confused about how you can say this first part, especially after you just went through a litany of "mainstream" meforshei Chumash, mekubalim, gedolei hachassidus and even poskim (The Baal Hatanya as well) who understand it in a "minimalist" way.  Not to discredit the maximalists throughout our history, but I think it is inaccurate to call them the "overwhelming majority".  It would have been sufficient to say that an impressive number of authorities espouse that viewpoint, without overstating the level of support.  

I do tend to agree that for the sake of chinuch, it is healthy for children at our frum  day schools to be taught the maximalist view, but to be taught layers of meaning only later in their learning.  This is not because I think the maximalist view is "better" or frummer, but because I adhere to the guidance of gedolei hachinuch that young children are not yet well-suited to nuance and gray areas. It is only with the chochma of maturity that they can properly absorb a spectrum of "Eilu V'Eilu", and children would not be able to properly absorb the idea that the Avos didn't keep Shabbos, or Kashrus etc.  That's why I have no problem with my children imagining that the Avos kept the Mitzvos in full form, like the Maximalist school.  

Tizku L'Mitzvos

Raphael Davidovich

Cleveland OH

Haneiros Halolu

I need to share this.
Sadly, there are so few people who share this love with me. I feel so alone with it. Hopefully some of the 4 people reading this will come to love it as well.

Right click and open this in a new tab.

Contradictory Interpretations

There are many verses in the Torah that have many complementary interpretations. This week's parsha contains some of those, but also contains verses with mutually exclusive, opposing takes.

For example: Why didn't Yehudah recognize Tamar?
Was Tamar veiled in her father-in-law's house? Or was she veiled out in the street?

Did Yehudah continue to live with Tamar as husband and wife? Or did he never know her again?

Who sold Joseph?

One of Rabbi Menachem Leibtag's most brilliant shiurim ever is on this week's parsha. Here is the link. 

Unlike Rashi, who clearly thinks that the brothers sold him, Rabbi Leibtag convincingly puts forth his view that according to a straight literal reading of the Parsha, Midianite merchants took Yosef out of the pit and sold him to the Yishmaelim before Reuven, the brothers' delegate, arrived at the pit himself to sell him.  The brothers intended to sell him, but actually were beaten to it!  Read the whole shiur for the details. Or if you wish, open up a Chumash and see how the case makes itself. 

"Ben Zekunim"

Q: Why is "Son of Old Age" not the only take on "Ben Zekunim"?  

My A: Because there was a younger son, born when Yaakov was much older.

Has Rashi ever heard of sarcasm?

20. So now, let us kill him, and we will cast him into one of the pits, and we will say, 'A wild beast devoured him,' and we will see what will become of his dreams."		כ. וְעַתָּה לְכוּ וְנַהַרְגֵהוּ וְנַשְׁלִכֵהוּ בְּאַחַד הַבֹּרוֹת וְאָמַרְנוּ חַיָּה רָעָה אֲכָלָתְהוּ וְנִרְאֶה מַה יִּהְיוּ חֲלֹמֹתָיו:
and we will see what will become of his dreams: Rabbi Isaac said, This verse says: "Expound on me." [I.e., this verse demands a midrashic interpretation.] The Holy Spirit says thus: They (the brothers) say, "Let us kill him," but the verse concludes: "and we will see what will become of his dreams." Let us see whose word will stand up, yours or Mine. It is impossible that they (the brothers) are saying,"and we will see what will become of his dreams," because, since they will kill him, his dreams will come to nought. [From Tan. Buber, Vayeshev 13]		ונראה מה יהיו חלומותיו: אמר ר' יצחק מקרא זה אומר דרשני, רוח הקודש אומרת כן. הם אומרים נהרגהו, והכתוב מסיים ונראה מה יהיו חלומותיו, נראה דבר מי יקום או שלכם או שלי. ואי אפשר שיאמרו הם ונראה מה יהיו חלומותיו מכיון שיהרגוהו בטלו חלומותיו:

I ask:  Has Rashi (quoting the Medrash of course) never heard of sarcasm?  

Or is he saying that it's wrong to impute sarcastic intent to the brothers' speech patterns? 

Or perhaps he is saying that even though they intended their words to be sarcastic on a literal level, the inclusion of the words in the Torah means that they have greater significance that must transcend bitter humor.  I like this take best, but it stills carries the slight problem that Rashi says "It is impossible that [the brothers] are saying..."

Vayishlach - Shvi'i (politics)

Edom is a nation that is the result of a merger of the clans of Eisav and Seir.
Edom had leaders called "Aluf".
Then there were eight kings. It was not a hereditary monarchy.  The Kings came from other countries, and did not rule by right of birth.

Mergers and Parshas Vayishlach

Mergers, they're everywhere.  When I came to Ner Israel, the pay phones (What are those? Ask your mother.) said they belonged to an organization called C & P Telephone.  It wasn't long before Bell Atlantic was the name of the payphone owning company.  Bell Atlantic owned them for a while at least, until GTE merged with them, and the merged entity took the much cooler superhero-like name of Verizon. 

Do you remember Maryland National Bank?  I don't.  Their business cards make excellent bookmarks.  The Bank was bought out by NationsBank, which was bought out by Etcetera Bank which was bought out by the Bank of America.  Or was it NationsBank that bought Bank of America?  I can't remember and don't care.

Cities are merging in a lot of places as well. A few years back the Government of Ontario decided to merge Toronto and its suburbs into a "Mega-City. The same thing occurred in Montreal, with a backlash that led some suburbs to reclaim their "independence".

Mergers happen because it makes sense to merge.  Merging saves a ton of money in overhead costs and needless duplication of all sorts of jobs.  Two companies that merge into one have the same amount of assets but need fewer vice-presidents. , and don't need to spend as much to outsell the competition.  This brings more profits and happier shareholders. This hurts smaller stores. The mom-and-pop drug store is undercut by Walmart-like giants.  The unemployment lines are longer and some families suffer in the short term, but that's neither here nor there...

Ethnic groups and countries find it convenient to merge for similar reasons.  The United Kingdom is a merger of Great Britain, itself comprised of England, Wales and Scotland; and Northern Ireland.  England is an amalgamation of the Angles, the Saxons, Normans and other forgotten tribes.  When they all got together, they did so for obvious advantages of not having to constantly kill one another and maintaining enough peace and harmony to live normal lives.  Tribes are formed of clans, or large families, that band together with other clans for mutual benefit at the expense of some autonomy.  They are trying to pull this off in Europe now, where the powers that be have selected a President of Europe, a former Prime Minister of Belgium which is itself is the story of a merger in which two or three ethnic groups got together to form a buffer zone between France and Germany. 

Merging is a macrocosm of, and as natural, as building a family.  All of us make decisions in the course of our lives about who to merge with and how much to merge.

This of course is the theme of Parshas Vayishlach. Allow me to summarize: Yaakov sends a delegation to Esav in Seir.  The purpose of the delegation seems to be good will.  Yaakov sends a major gift to his estranged brother.  Yaakov then spends the night alone, wrestles with an "Ish" all night and starts his morning with a limp.  He and Esav embrace and engage in some small talk.  Esav attempts to refuse the earlier gift. Yaakov won't hear of it. He insists that his brother accept this gift of good will.  Esav follows up with "Brother, do you want to travel together?" Yaakov responds, "No, I'm waaay too busy. The kids still walk slowly and those sheep are awful on mileage."  Esav, who can only wonder at the sudden change in tone, follows that with "I can have some of my men assist you in your travels."  Yaakov responds by saying "Why bother?  Don't call me. I'll call you."

How rude!  And how strange.  Imagine a man giving a well-to-do classmate a new tie.  The classmate accepts the gift and then asks his generous gift giver if he wants to be his friend, only to be rebuffed and treated like a stranger. 

This is how I see it: After twenty years, Yaakov is returning to the land of his birth to start the next stage of nation building.  His father Yitzchak envisioned Klal Yisroel being founded by both his sons. How should Yaakov proceed?  Should he incorporate with Esav and his growing family?   Yaakov must struggle with this issue - He must WRESTLE with this idea on the eve of his encounter with the most obvious first choice in clan building.  He starts a new day, resolved to go it alone. Klal Yisroel is physically damaged by the choice - but only for a short while.  Yaakov tells Esav to "march on ahead" (read: Take a hike), and lives alone. Esav moves on.  WE can now understand the very end of the Parsha, in which Esav's family is described as having merged with the Clan of Seir HaChori.

I believe this gives the additional context we need to understand the next story in the Parsha, the story of the City and man both named Shechem. Yaakov comes to the city of Shechem in a state the Torah describes as Shalem- Whole - and sets up shop, gracing the city with his economic presence.  His daughter Dina sets out to make some friends.  The tragedy of the story is that it is the first attempt by an outside group to attempt a hostile takeover of Yaakov's family.  It should be pointed out that Shechem's attempt at a merger is nothing new or unusual in history.  The legendary history of ancient Rome contains a story very similar to that of Shechem and Dina, with one big difference. In the Roman story, the two sides make up and merge.  Look up "Sabine Women" in an encyclopedia to see a story that is eerily similar  to that of Dina, with an alternate ending.  Shechem and his father Chamor could not fathom that the sons of Yaakov would object to such a fair arrangement.  Shimon and Levi let the whole world know:"Thanks but no thanks". We're not interested. If there will be a hostile takeover, we will be doing the taking over. They set the terms of any future mergers.

We have struggled with this issue for centuries. We often fare poorly.  Our prices are often not competitive and our selection is relatively meager. There were four million Jews in the USA in 1920. Ninety years later, the USA has about six million Jews. That's pathetic.  We limp along, knowing that like the corner store with higher prices than Target, we can't offer quantity or security- so we will have to content ourselves with the quality and Eternal Lifetime warranty of our product - the Torah.  Our intransigence will prove worth it when "The Saviors will ascend Mount Tzion and judge Esav's Mountain, and the Kingdom will belong to Hashem."

Vayishlach - Chamishi Shishi

1- When did the Dina story take place?  Rashi is of the opinion it took place in the order described.  Rabbi Leibtag over at tanach.org presents a convincing case that according to a literal reading, along with the principle that the Torah's narratives are not in chronological order (an idea Rashi espouses in many other places, including elsewhere in this week's parsha), the Dina story took place years later, after the return to Beth-El and the return to Yitzchak in Chevron.  This view is certainly more comfortable to our age experiences, as it would make Dina a teenager and Shimon and Levi around 20 years old, ages that make more sense to us than 6 and 13 respectively.

2- What did Reuven do to Bilhah?

Literal reading: Slept with her.
Rashi, based on the Gemara: Moved Yaakov's bed from her room.
The work "Hakesav V'Hakabbala" has an ingenious way of resolving the divergence. Not literally, but rather he explains the concept behind the midrashic account as fully fitting in the literal reading.

3- How does a Kehal Goyim come from Yaakov?   Might this literally be a historic endorsement of eventual assimilation?

Vayishlach - Shlishi Revi'i Chamishi

1- Yaakov to Eisav: Don't call me. We'll call you. 


שלם 2: 


שלם בגופו, שנתרפא מצליעתו. שלם בממונו, שלא חסר כלום מכל אותו דורון. שלם בתורתו, שלא שכח תלמודו בבית לבן:
What a beautiful line: שלם בגופו, שלם בממונו,  שלם בתורתו   Isn't that what we all want!

3- It's clear from the narrative that Shechem saw nothing wrong with his conduct.  No apologies.  This is how it's done. I take your daughter and then make arrangements to merge tribes.  A hostile takeover-turned-into-unhostile merger.  This was par for the course in the era that tribes were endeavoring to turn into nations.  Cf. the "Rape of the Sabine Women" by the Romans in Plutarch's Lives.  This was the story of the founding of Rome. Shechem thought he was doing something similar, and was not expecting any vengeful thoughts on the part of Yaakov's family.  Had he suspected resentment, he would not have agreed to surgery for the entire tribe!

Vayishlach - Sheini

1) The Torah says that Yaakov split his people into two groups, so that one camp should have the opportunity to escape in case of attack. Yet when Yaakov and Eisav do meet, Yaakov presents all his wives and children. How then were they split up?  I would love it if someone could draw one of those Football field diagrams, with X's and O's, to explain the set-up.

2) Yaakov feared the unknown. He heard Eisav was bringing 400 men. So what should he expect?  He prepared for all eventualities, by sending the gift, preparing for war, and praying.  This got me thinking, if someone sent the camera to Eisav's side, what was Eisav thinking?  Why did he decide to meet up with so many men, a militia?  Perhaps he didn't know what to expect either.  After all, he thinks Yaakov is a deceiver, so perhaps he decided to prepare for the encounter by not taking any chances.  Perhaps Yaakov is telling the truth but perhaps he is lying, again.  So if we fight, I'm prepared, and if it's just a reunion, he will know that I cannot be taken advantage of.  

It's awkward for me to impute honest motives to Eisav, after having been conditioned for thousands of years with a negative view of him. But I think it's a fair question.   Think about it: If Yaakov's gift and seven prostrations softened Eisav's heart, what was Eisav's intent when he and his 400 men set out to meet Yaakov?  It was less generous. But in what way?  War, or peaceful domination. I think back to Teddy Roosevelt's peaceful display of his American Warships. He wasn't waging war, but he was sending the message, "Howdy, friends. We can smash you, so don't mess with us."  Even if Eisav thought he would speak softly, he wanted to carry a Big Stick, actually 400 Big Sticks, when he encountered Yaakov. 

Yaakov's message to Eisav, "I don't want to fight. I acknowledge you as the stronger one."

3) I think the definitive analysis of this encounter, its prelude and aftermath, is to be found in the Beis Halevi. Although there are strong temporal connections to the Beis Halevi's times, end of 19th century Europe, every line of the Beis Halevi here also fits the Basic Meaning of the story on every level.  If I have time, I'll summarize it later.

Vayishlach - Rishon (Metaphors)

When does a metaphor become a metaphor?  All must agree that a moshol can have no meaning until it has entered the common experience.  That's why I find a couple of Rashis in this aliyah so perplexing.  According to Rashi, "Eisav" is already now a standing metaphor for "Rasha".  See these two Rashis from the first aliya:

באנו אל אחיך אל עשו: שהיית אומר אחי הוא, אבל הוא נוהג עמך כעשו הרשע, עודנו בשנאתו:
We came to your brother, to Esau: Concerning whom you said,“He is my brother,” but he still behaves toward you like the wicked Esau. He still has hatred.

מיד אחי מיד עשו: מיד אחי שאין נוהג עמי כאח אלא כעשו הרשע:
from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau: From the hand of my brother, who does not behave toward me like a brother, but like the wicked Esau.
 

Rashi did the same thing in Parshas Vayeira, where he attaches to the phrase "Anshei Sedom" the active metaphorical meaning
"Evil Men". 

See here, from the third aliya in Vayeira:

טרם ישכבו ואנשי העיר אנשי סדום: כך נדרש בבראשית רבה (נ ה) טרם ישכבו ואנשי העיר היו בפיהם של מלאכים, שהיו שואלים ללוט מה טיבם ומעשיהם, והוא אומר להם רובם רשעים. עודם מדברים בהם ואנשי סדום וגו'. ופשוטו של מקרא ואנשי העיר, אנשי רשע, נסבו על הבית. על שהיו רשעים נקראים אנשי סדום, כמו שאמר הכתוב (יג יג) ואנשי סדום רעים וחטאים:

When they had not yet retired, the people of the city, the people of Sodom: It is interpreted in Gen. Rabbah (50:5) as follows: When they had not yet retired, the people of the city were the topic of conversation of the angels, for they were asking Lot about their character and their deeds, and he told them that most of them were wicked. While they were still speaking about them, “And the people of the city,” etc. The simple meaning of the verse, however, is: “and the people of the city, people of wickedness, surrounded the house.” Because they were wicked, they are called people of Sodom, as Scripture states (above 13:13): “And the people of Sodom were very evil and sinful…”

I must of course grant that Eisav is known to us from Parshas Toldos just as the city of Sedom was known to us from Parshas Lech-Lecha, as Rashi himself points out.  Yet were the terms fully identified? Evidently!

Yaakov's Integrity

What sort of conclusions are we supposed to make about Yaakov's integrity.

On the one hand, the Rambam calls Yaakov a Tzaddik because of his actions in Parshas Vayeitzei: It's not just that he was a good worker. We are supposed to see the story of Yaakov's shepherding as the paradigmatic case of perfect, honest, and responsible human being.

הלכות שכירות פרק יג

יא  וכן חייב לעבוד בכל כוחו, שהרי יעקוב הצדיק אמר "כי, בכל כוחי, עבדתי, את אביכן" (בראשית לא,ו).  לפיכך נטל שכר זאת אף בעולם הזה, שנאמר "ויפרוץ האיש, מאוד מאוד" (בראשית ל,מג). 


On the other hand, there is the matter of the spotted sheep.  Working with Rashi, the only thing that can be called disturbing about Yaakov's techniques is certainly not forbidden.  Here's the question: Does a worker who also has his own business within the same operating space as his employment obligated or ethically encouraged to share a money-making technique with his boss?  Lavan was perfectly willing to take his chances, obviously thinking he would come out ahead, and agreed to the deal.  So there must be a way of seeing this story not as one that needs to be explained and justified and apologized for, but as a perfect example of mentchlichkeit!  Why can't it be simpler?  


צריך עיון

Vayeitzei - Shishi and Shvi'i

Geneiva- The word is usually translated as "theft".  Yet this week's parsha demonstrates that the word actually means deception.   Even when it means theft, it is the deceptive aspect of theft.  This is related to the Gemara that explains the distinction between Geneiva and Gezeila, the former defined as stealing at night.  The distinction always seemed like an arbitrary one: Who cares when a theft takes place?! Theft is theft!  Yet Halacha makes a very big deal of it.  There are two distinct verses, two distinct penalties, geneiva seen as worse evidenced by the requirement to pay double.  The Rambam has "Hilchos Gezeila V'Aveida" and also "Hilchos Geneiva". So he clearly sees them as two different concepts.

I have given this matter a lot of thought.  Here is a summary of my conclusions:

Man relates to this world by possessing things.  The first possession that takes place is from a state of legal ownerlessness. AKA Hefker.  Once possession is taken by one person, the relationship between that person and that thing can only be sundered by that person's will. So the act of possession is an act of will.  Taking possession of something from another with that person's will is a gift, or trade.  Taking possession without that person's will is impossible to tolerate in society.  

That act manifests itself in two distinct forms or crime:
1) The physical taking of possession with no will, or
2) A falsely caused act of will.

The first, gezeila, is the more primitive form of taking, which animals possess as well.
The second is more refined, and can only by done by human beings.  It uses the accepted forms of society living to take that which is not yours.  It is therefore a greater sign of corruption of the human spirit.

More later...

Vayeitzei - Chamishi

Genetically engineering sheep?! Why is this a thing?

I know there are Divrei Torah about the details of the paid-on-commission arrangement Yaakov made with Lavan.  Yaakov asked to take only the spotted sheep. He then devised a method to encourage more spotted births.  With all the vertlach, the mystery and meaning of the story on a macro level is just beyond my current ability to appreciate.

There. I said it.

some stray thoughts on Rabbi Steinzaltz: first draft

If I may be permitted a middle-of-the-road view on a subject of some controversy:
Rabbi Adin Even-Yisrael (Steinzaltz) recently completed his Hebrew commentary of Talmud Bavli.

The tone of the chatter is either the kind that signs on to the condemning, excommunicating flavor of R Schach's attacks in the 80's, or the adulation of his followers, only strengthened by the resolve to fight off the attacks.

I think he did not deserve those attacks.  Yes, there! I said it.

On the other hand, I think that he made errors in judgment in how he went about his work.  Some of those errors were avoided by  the Artscroll Shas people, who were there to pick up the pieces of the effort after the Bnei Brak crowd tried to crush him.  And NO, I don't think there was a conspiracy. I just think Artscroll took advantage of a window of opportunity by working on a Shas commentary, in English and Hebrew, that avoided the weak points of R Steinzaltz's efforts.

1. First of all, but last chronologically, I think the Random House English version of his commentary is a huge waste of time.  I don't know who convinced him that would be a good idea. But even before Artscroll came out with its version, The English Steinzaltz Talmud is just a big fluffy waste.

2. Who knew that changing pagination would create such a stir? But it did.  The Orthodox Talmud learning community attributed tremendous value to a two century old pagination, as if it was handed down at Sinai.  He did learn that lesson, and later editions provided Vilna Shas pagination. All later Hebrew elaborators, (Artscroll, Mesivta, Oz V'Hadar etc) learned that lesson too, albeit the easy way.  I can't blame the traditional community for thinking there was some hubris on R Steinzaltz's part by displacing Tosfos.   I don't think he was thinking anything sinister. But when as Arthur Kurzweil has written, you want to "revolutionize" the study of Talmud, you are implicitly criticizing the way it has been studied.  That will earn you the ire of the establishment.  Over-reaching might be the right word.  Over-reaching is often good, but sometimes you get burned.

3. Someone who wants to write a work that changes the face of Torah learning usually gets haskamos. R Steinzaltz does have a letter from R Moshe Feinstein.  But those in the know know that those letters were (too?) easy to procure.  Being a Lubavitcher hurt him in this regard. He would never have gotten the kind of institutional support that the Artscroll group did.

4. His work on the men of the Bible contains no kefira.  Yes! I say so. But it does contain a tone that is unnecessarily flippant in a few places. Perhaps he thought we needed to move away from the yeshivish "nobody in Tanach ever did anything wrong in the slightest" school of commentary and pushed the other way.  But that's gonna get you burned.

5. Traditional Jewry wants its revolutionaries to have a mesora.  Unless you claim and are believed to possess an angelic mesora, like the Arizal or the Ramchal or the Baal Shem Tov, we want to see a human chain of which you are the latest and extraordinarily most brilliant link in a while.  R Steinzaltz is a Chabad Chossid, but he is an independent thinker, so what is his mesora in Limud Hatorah?  Maybe he is such a genius that he doesn't need one. Did Einstein need a mesora?  Well Torah is not like Physics.  We like to see or imagine a chain.  Not having one will hurt you.

Sanhedrin 30a

What is the legal distinction between "Eidim" and "Beis Din"?  They are two distinct legal categories.  I have said many times that Halacha sees Eidim as being more than just "witnesses". Eidim are in a way "Officers of the Court", acting together as  "Notaries Public" who validate proceedings with their testimony.  The Torah uses the expression "Two or three eidim", so there is such a thing as a triad of eidim.

But a Beis-Din, the Court itself, has a power above and beyond that of the Legal Force of the Eidim.  What is the nature of this difference?

Why is a statement made in front of people acting as witnesses more impeachable than a statement made in front of a Beis Din.

Why does the number three mean so much more than the number two? To strengthen the point, I will point out that the Gemara itself presents a view that a Beis Din of two has standing according to Shmuel.  Yet there is seemingly still an advantage in a Beis Din of two members (Beis Din Chatzuf) over an eidim team of three!  Why?

Vayeitzei - Revi'i

• Rashi has been working with the theory that the Matriarchs knew there would be twelve children.  At first glance it seems "midrashic", but there are many indications that even according to the literal reading, the Torah is saying that Leah and Rachel knew there would be twelve sons.  That's why Leah says something about the number of children after hitting each factor of twelve.  

• Yaakov's body being rented for the night seems so disturbing.  I feel such a pathos for Leah, who with each child hoped Yaakov would favor her, spend time with her, make his home with her. And yet it never happened, at least not during her own lifetime b'alma dein.

Vayeitzei - Shlishi

A lot of kids born in this morning's aliyah. A few points that stick out:

1. The Torah tells us why Reuven's name is Reuven. Yet Rashi gives us another take, according to the Midrash, saying that the name is meant to extol REuven, comparing him favorable to Eisav, Yitzchak's firstborn. Why the need for another explanation?

2. Shimon gets no additional meaning from Rashi.

3. Levi gets tons of Rashi time.  It makes sense that we would want to look for as much meaning as we could from Levi. After all, he would end up playing a major role in Klal Yisrael, so it stands to reason that there would be clues early on.  But why is it necessary to have Gavriel take Levi to have him named? Why not just say that God named him Himself?

Also, we are informed that the presence of the Aron diminished Levi's numbers. Why? Superficially, the idea that God's presence brings more Middas Hadin with it seems the simplest explanation. But I thought that perhaps Rashi is alluding to the idea that more education usually translates to less children.  I know that doesn't sound like a very religious thought.  And it sounds insulting to families that have many children. But there is no doubting the tendency among lifeforms that the more brainpower, the less progeny.  צריך עיון.

4. What is the purpose of bringing in a handmaid to have a child?  The usual thinking is that she is a surrogate mother, delivering a baby to be raised by the barren woman. Rashi (from the Medrash) has another idea, that the jealousy created by the new woman creates a merit of sorts that leads to the barren woman having her own child!  Why would this "work"?

5. According to Rashi, Yaakov tells Rachel that he can't pray for her the same way his father prayed for his mother since his father had no other children, but Yaakov does!  At first glance, this seems callous. And truthfully, this heated exchange between Yaakov and Rachel is painful to read.  But I don't think Rashi would be highlighting a cruelty.  He is pointing out that he cannot muster the same depths of soul to pray for Rachel to have children since he already has his own.  So unlike Yitzchak, whose prayers were altruistic and selfish (in a good way), Yaakov's prayers for Rachel could only be altruistic.  It still seems harsh!

6. Rashi has no idea what the word "Naftali" means. He offers three explanations. "Intertwine", "Fight", "Pray". Might there be a common point behind all three meanings?  I think so...

Rambam - Hilchos Melachim Chapter Six

We just finished learning Chapter Six of the Rambam's Hilchos Melachim. The chapter is about the Rules of Engagement in War time. Two mitzvos that are mentioned at the end of the chapter are the Sin of Bal Tashchis, which starts off as the injunction against destroying fruit trees. the Rambam expands it so that it includes a prohibition to destroy anything for the sake of destruction. The second Mitzvah is the requirement to leave the confines of the military camp to go to the bathroom and to then cover up the waste with a Yated.

Bal Tashchis is ultimately unrelated to a wartime setting,
and maintaining a clean environment is also required for most mitzvos. So why does the Torah connect these mitzvos to war? Or perhaps more academically stated, why do the Rabbis apply these wartime mitzvos to all situations?

Here's what I'm thinking:
War is an ugly dehumanizing experience. People who are expected to be ethical and kind go out to war, and they kill and rape and pillage and destroy. I can't imagine anything uglier than civilized men becoming worse than animals. Yet the Torah expects that war will happen, and be justified. Even offensive wars for the purpose of imperial expansion are countenanced by halacha. Yet the fear of turning into animals is still real.

So the Torah tells us that even in wartime, when killing and destroying are expected, wanton destruction for the sake of destruction are off limits. You might have to kill the people, the soldiers who are fighting you, but don't destroy life, withhold the drive to rampage.

Regarding hygiene, the Torah's point is that even the Machaneh, camp of war, must maintain the minimum standard of human civilization which is aversion to excrement. A writer whose name escapes me once wrote that the extent of a society's development can be measured by the extent of its aversion to filth. Even at our worst and most animalistic, when we resole our territorial disputes through violence, like animals, the Torah tells us to remain human in any way we can.

Vayeitzei - Sheini

There are a few Rashis today where two views of a verse are offered, the literal view and the midrashic view. One of them has always resonated with me, so I will speak about it briefly. The Rashi is here, at verse 11. Why did Yaakov cry when he met Rachel? Rashi offers two approaches:

1) He saw through Ruach Hakodesh that he wouldn't be buried with her.
2) More literally, He was sad he did not have the wealth and bling funds to whisk her away the way Eliezer whisked Rivka away with the jewelry.

I see the two explanations as connected. This is generally my approach, learned from my rebbeim, to see a conceptual connection between the literal read of a passage and its midrashic read.

What Yaakov saw when he met with Rachel is that his relationship with her would be rocky, would lack the ease of courting and living that his father had had. Eliezer found a girl, judged her worthy, brought her to her intended. She was perfect, Yitzchak loved her. the end.

Yaakov, due to the circumstances of his escape, had none of the ease Eliezer did. He knew that given his mess of a life at that point, his relationship status with Rachel would be in the "It's Complicated" category. The Shakespearean phrase "Star-Crossed Lovers" comes to mind. He understood, or intuited, how difficult it would be to gain Rachel's hand in marriage given his poverty and Lavan's already-known character and love of wealth. He felt that despite the love he felt for her immediately, it wouldn't be an easy marriage.

Thus Rashi's two peirushim are connected at the hip: His immediate source of sadness was his grasp that they would not be married with the ease his parents were married. His deeper source of sadness was the understanding that the difficulties would never really go away, up until the last and lasting union, i.e. of burial.

Terumos Chapter One

In the evenings after Maariv, we try to learn one perek of Mishnayos. Yesterday we began Masechta Terumos.

Some immediate stray thoughts I had:
The first chapter is telling us that the actual act of hafrasha, separating the terumah from the rest of the produce, is a mitzvah all on its own. I might have thought that giving the food to the Cohen was the meaningful act and that separating the food was merely something that obviously needs to be done before giving the gift. But that is not the case. Terumah means "lifting", hence the awkward archaic English rendering of the word as "Heave Offering". Heave nowadays is a colloquialism for vomiting, but it means to lift upward. Terumah is the act of making something "Ram", elevated.

If Terumah is the act of lifting, then the verb should be "Leharim". Yet it seems that the verb in Mishnaic Hebrew is "Litrom", an invented word. This is one of my sources for the concept that Loshon Kodesh evolved from Biblical times to Talmudic times.

Vayeitzei - Rishon

What an unusual Rashi in the first aliyah! Yaakov has a dream and declares that the place where he had the dream is the Shaar Hashomayim, the Gate of Heaven. This place is identified as Beis-El, formerly known as Luz. Rashi is not pleased with this location and does everything he can to convince the reader that somehow, the place was not Luz, but rather, Yerushalayim! Considering that the city of Luz/Beis-El is rather well-known, what could Rashi possibly say to convince us otherwise?

Take a look at the unusually lengthy comment Rashi makes: It's here, at verse 17. When I learned it, I thought of the metaphor of throwing spaghetti against a wall, hoping something will stick.

Rashi's goal is to transform the Biblical Beis-El into the Midrashic Jerusalem.

More later.