Thursday, November 30, 2006

CT Scans Confirm Midrashic Account of Pharaoh's Death

That he died in a horse accident. Well, maybe. From HorseTalk, following more standard news sources.
A CT Scan survey of King Tut has confirmed he was not murdered, and instead may have died following a fall from a horse or chariot, linking his untimely demise with a curious story preserved in the Jewish Talmud.

Tutankhamun was not murdered - that's the official line from Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities following a recent CT scan survey of his remains.

...

In addition to this, no trace of the aberration, or 'dark area', first noted at the back of the skull following an x-ray examination of the remains by Professor Ronald Harrison of Liverpool University back in 1968, was seen, further confirming that Tutankhamun did not suffer a blow to the head, or suffer any kind of brain haemorrhage as a result of it.

...

Another rumour dismissed by the recent CT scan survey is that the boy king suffered from a crippling medical condition.

...

Yet with speculations concerning Tutankhamun's murder fast fading, another mystery raises its head. The pathologists who examined the CT scan results determined that the king's thigh bone and ribcage were both broken. Since embalming material had seeped inside the thigh wound, and there is no obvious evidence that the bones had started to heal, the Egyptian team admit it is possible that these fractures occurred shortly before death.

On learning this news, Robert Connolly, Senior Lecturer in Physical Anthropology at Liverpool University's Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, re-examined the original x-rays from 1968, and admitted that if the breakages did not occur when the body was autopsied in 1925, then it is clear evidence that the young pharaoh might have suffered an accident before death.

In his opinion: "It's possible Tutankhamun's thigh injury could have been sustained in an accident. There are remarkable similarities between his ribcage injuries and those of a British mummy - St Bees Man in Cumbria - who sustained fatal damage to his chest in a jousting accident. It is therefore highly possible that the king could have died as a result of a chariot or sporting accident, or even at war."

...

It is a theory explored by Andrew Collins and Chris Ogilvie-Herald in their book Tutankhamun: The Exodus Conspiracy (Virgin, 2002). They found support for the idea that the young king fell from a horse or chariot, leading eventually to his death, in a most unlikely source - the Jewish Talmud, the collected folklore of the Jews. Here an unnamed Egyptian pharaoh, equated with the biblical Exodus and identified by the authors as Tutankhamun, is said to have sustained injuries after a fall, and died shortly afterwards.

According to the account, as the king's steed passed into a narrow place on the borders of Egypt, other horses, running rapidly through the pass, "pressed upon each other until the king's horse fell while he sate upon it, and when it fell, the chariot turned over on his face, and also the horse lay upon him. The king's flesh was torn from him ... [and his] servants carried him upon their shoulders ... and placed him on his bed. He knew that his end was come to die, and the queen Alfar'anit and his nobles gathered about his bed, and they wept a great weeping with him."

Collins and Ogilvie-Herald believe that this account from the Talmud is consistent with the injuries sustained by Tutankhamun shortly before his death. What is more, if correct, it places the ancestors of the Jewish people in Egypt at the time of Tutankhamun's reign, and indicates that they might have preserved a tradition concerning his untimely death for over 3300 years. Should this theory prove correct, then it reignites the debate over the identity of the Pharaoh of the Exodus, an event which Collins and Ogilvie Herald firmly believe took place around the time of Tutankhamun's reign.

Read it here.


From Forbes (Healthday News):
"I think the femur fracture probably is significant," Tashjian said. "Number one, it's not healed. Number two, femur fractures -- any long-bone fracture -- can have a number of complications, any of which can lead to death, either from infection or an embolism. It's an unusual way to die, from a fracture, but it does happen, even now."
The citation appears to have been taken from Ginzberg's The Legends of the Jews, chapter 16 I don't have a copy of it here to check his footnotes where he took it from. Help?

Here is the citation:
The latter years of Israel's bondage in Egypt were the worst. To punish Pharaoh for his cruelty toward the children of Israel, God afflicted him with a plague of leprosy, which covered his whole body, from the crown of his bead to the soles of his feet. Instead of being chastened by his disease, Pharaoh remained stiffnecked, and he tried to restore his health by murdering Israelitish children. He took counsel with his three advisers, Balaam, Jethro, and Job, how he might be healed of the awful malady that had seized upon him. Balaam spoke, saying, "Thou canst regain thy health only if thou wilt slaughter Israelitish children and bathe in their blood." Jethro, averse from having a share in such an atrocity, left the king and fled to Midian. Job, on the other hand, though he also disapproved of Balaam's counsel, kept silence, and in no wise protested against it,[101] wherefor God punished him with a year's suffering.[102] But afterward He loaded him down with all the felicities of this life, and granted him many years, so that this pious Gentile might be rewarded in this world for his good deeds and not have the right to urge a claim upon the beatitude of the future life.[103]

In pursuance of the sanguinary advice given by Balaam, Pharaoh had his bailiffs snatch Israelitish babes from their mothers' breasts, and slaughter them, and in the blood of these innocents he bathed. His disease afflicted him for ten years, and every day an Israelitish child was killed for him. It was all in vain; indeed, at the end of the time his leprosy changed into boils, and he suffered more than before.

While he was in this agony, the report was brought to him that the children of Israel in Goshen were careless and idle in their forced labor. The news aggravated his suffering, and he said: "Now that I am ill, they turn and scoff at me. Harness my chariot, and I will betake myself to Goshen, and see the derision wherewith the children of Israel deride me." And they took and put him upon a horse, for he was not able to mount it himself. When he and his men had come to the border between Egypt and Goshen, the king's steed passed into a narrow place. The other horses, running rapidly through the pass, pressed upon each other until the king's horse fell while he sate upon it, and when it fell, the chariot turned over on his face, and also the horse lay upon him. The king's flesh was torn from him, for this thing was from the Lord, He had heard the cries of His people and their affliction. The king's servants carried him upon their shoulders, brought him back to Egypt, and placed him on his bed.

He knew that his end was come to die, and the queen Alfar'anit and his nobles gathered about his bed, and they wept a great weeping with him.
Perhaps. Certainly it is interesting. I wonder if one could connect it with a non-midrashic, but rather Biblical account, of Pharaoh in pursuit of Israel as they fled Egypt. This would make him slightly later Pharaoh.

Update: Another distinct possibility. There were Egyptian historical accounts that have been lost. It is possible that the midrashist had access to these accounts, and blended Egyptian historical documents with midrash and Bible to create a new account. This would then not necessarily shed light on the identity of the historical Pharaoh of Exodus.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Plug: Rif Yomi Beitza Videos

I mentioned it briefly when I started this, but just want to remind folks and perhaps drum up an audience. Whereas my initial estimate was that it would be 5 to 10 minutes per video, it ended up more along the lines of 10 to 15 minutes, sometimes even 20.

I present the Rif on the day's daf, often with additional commentary not found in the pure-text version.
Here is today's Rif Yomi: All of the ones for Beitza are now posted up on YouTube, and I'll post one for each day until the end of the masechet.

Rif Yomi Video Edition -- Beitza Daf 32 (runtime 12 min)



Runtime: 12 minutes


17b
{Beitza 32a}
Mishna:
אין פוחתין את הנר מפני שהוא עושה כלי
ואין עושין פחמין ואין חותכין את הפתילה לשנים
ר' יהודה אומר חותכה באור לשתי נרות
We may not hollow out a lamp {press into clay to make a hole for the lamp} because he is making a vessel.
And we may not make charcoal, nor may we cut the wick into two. {our Mishna lacks "into two"}
Rabbi Yehuda says: He may cut it with flame into two lamps {our Mishna lacks "into two lamps}.

{Beitza 32b}
Gemara:
מאי שנא בסכין דלא דקא מתקן מנא באור נמי קא מתקן מנא
תני ר' חייא חותכה באור בפי שתי נרות

Why is {with} a knife different that no {one may not cut}? Because he is fixing a vessel. With a flame as well, he is fixing a vessel!
Rabbi Chiyya taught {a brayta}: He may cut it with a flame {when} its ends are in two lamps.

אמר רב נתן בר אבא אמר רב מוחטין את הפתילה ביום טוב
מאי מוחטין
Rav Natan bar Abba cited Rav: We may trim a wick on Yom Tov?
From what may we trim it?

18a

{Beitza 32b continues}
אמר רב חנינא בר שלמיה משמיה דרב לעדויי חשוכא
Rav Chinena bar Shelemia cited Rav: to remove the darkness {=the charcoal residue on top that darkens the light}.


תאני בר קפרא ו' דברים נאמרו בפתילה שלשה להחמיר ושלשה להקל אין גודלין אותה לכתחלה ביו"ט ואין מהבהבי' אותה באור ואין חותכין אותה לשנים. ג' להקל ממעכה ביד ושורה אותה בשמן וחותכה באור בפי שתי נרות
Bar Kappara taught {a brayta}: There are six things said regarding a wick -- three stringent and three lenient. We may not twist it initially on Yom Tov, and we may not singe it with flame, and we may not cut in into two. The three lenient: he may press it together by hand, and he may soak it in out, and he may cut it with a flame {when its ends are} in two lamps.

Mishna:
אין שוברין את החרס ואין חותכין את הנייר לצלות בו מליח
ואין גורפין תנור וכירים אבל מכבשין
ואין מקיפין שתי חביות לשפות עליהן את הקדירה
ואין סומכין את הקדירה בבקעת וכן בדלת
ואין מנהיגין את הבהמה במקל ביו"ט
We may not break a shard {of pottery}, nor may we cut paper to roast salted fish in it.
And we may not shovel out an oven or a stove, but we may press down {the ashes to level it}.
And we may not position two barrels together in order to set a pot upon them.
And we may not support a pot with a piece of wood, and also a door .
And we may not direct an animal with a staff on Yom Tov.

Gemara:
ואין גורפין תנור וכירים וכו':
תני רבי חייא בריה דרב יוסף קמיה דר' יוחנן ואם אי אפשר לו לאפות אלא א"כ גורפו מותר

"And we may not shovel out an oven or a stove...":
Rabbi Chiyya son of Rav Yosef taught before Rabbi Yochanan: And if it is impossible to bake unless he shovels it out it is permitted.

דביתהו דרבי חייא נפל לה אריח' בתנורא ביומא טבא
א"ל רבי חייא חזי דאנא רפתא מעלי' בעינא מינך
The wife of Rabbi Chiyya had a {half-}brick fall into the oven on Yom Tov.
Rabbi Chiyya said to her: See that I desire a good loaf from you. {thus, you may shovel it out}

א"ל רבא לשמעיה טוי לי בר אווזא ואזדהר מחרוכא
א"ל רבינא לרב אשי אמר לן רב אחא מהוצל דמר שרקין ליה תנורא ביומא טבא
א"ל אנן ארקתא דפרת סמכינן
כלומר אין אנו גובלין טיט ביו"ט אלא ארקתא דפרת סמכינן והוא הטיט והרפש שסביבות הנהר
אמר רבא והוא דציירי' מאתמול
אמר רבינא וקיטמא שרי שהאפר אינו בר גיבול לפיכך מותר לגבלו ביו"ט לטוח בו פי התנור על הלחם או על הצלי
Rava said to his attendant: Roast a goose for me and be careful not to singe it. {thus, shovel out the oven}
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Rav Acha of Hutzal said to us that Master {=Rav Ashi} had mud spread over his oven on Yom Tov {to assist it; and this should be forbidden, because of the labor involved}.
He {=Rav Ashi said to him: We rely on the banks of the Euphrates.
That is to say: we do not knead clay on Yom Tov, but rather we rely on the banks of the Euphrates, and this is the clay and mud on the sides of the river.
Rava said: And this was where they marked it off from yesterday.
Ravina said: And ashes is permitted. {Rif:} because the ashes are not subject to kneading {well}, therefore it is permitted to knead it on Yom Tov to spread upon the oven for bread of for roasting.

אמר רב נחמן אבנים של בית הכסא מותר לצדדן ביו"ט
דבנין קבע אסרה תורה ובנין עראי לא אסרה תורה וגזרו רבנן על בנין עראי אטו בנין קבע והכא משום כבודו לא גזרו רבנן
Rav Nachman said: Stones of a privy it is permitted to align {to sit upon} on Yom Tov.
For the Torah prohibited permanent construction, and a temporary construction the Torah did not prohibit, and the Sages decreed upon a temporary construction because of a permanent construction, and here, because of his honor, the Sages did not decree.

א"ר יהודה האי מדורתא מלמעלה למטה שרי מלמטה למעלה אסור
Rav Yehuda said: A bonfire, from top down it is permitted, but bottom up is forbidden.

{Beitza 33a}
וכן קדירה וכן ביעתא וכן פוריא וכן חביתא.
פירוש כשהוא עושה מדורה של אש לא יהא מניח עצים מלמטה ומניח אחרים עליהם מלמעלה שנמצא כדרך בנין אלא אוחז את העץ מלמעלה ומניח אחר תחתיו שאין זה דרך בנין
וכן קדירה כששופת אותה לא יניח אבנים בתחלה ויתן עליהם את הקדרה שנמצא כמאהיל אהל
אלא אוחז את הקדירה בידו ומכניס אבנים תחתיה
וכן ביצים כשרוצה לצלות אותן אוחז את העליונה ונותן אחרת תחתיה
וכן פוריא שאוחז הקרשים בתחלה ומכניס את הרגלים תחתיהם
וכן חביתא כשרוצה להטותה ע"ג אבנים מטה אותה ואח"כ מכניס אבנים תחתיה

And so too a pot, and so too eggs, and so too a bed, and so too barrels.
To explain: When he makes a bonfire, he should not place the wood underneath and place others upon them above, because then it comes out the way of construction, but rather he should grab onto the wood above and place another one under it, for this is not the way of construction.
And so too a pot, when he places it, he should not place the stones first and then put the pot on top of them, because it comes out like making a tent, but rather he should grab the pot in his hand and place stones underneath it.
And so too eggs, when he wishes to roast them, he should grab the top one and place another one under it.
And so too a bed, he should grab the boards at first and place the feet under them.
And so too a barrel, when he wishes to incline it on stones, he should incline it and afterwards enter stones underneath it.


אין סומכין את הקדירה בבקעת וכן בדלת: בדלת סלקא דעתך אלא אימא וכן הדלת
"We do not support the pot with a piece of wood, and so too with a door":
{We do not support} with a door, do you thing?
Rather, say: And so too a door {we do not support}.

{Thus, ב means "by" rather than "with."}

parshat Vayeitzei: Was Lavan Right To Move The Sheep?

Speculation:
What was Lavan and Yaakov's arrangement in parshat Vayeitzei? We read {Bereishit 30:31-35}:

לא וַיֹּאמֶר, מָה אֶתֶּן-לָךְ; וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב, לֹא-תִתֶּן-לִי מְאוּמָה--אִם-תַּעֲשֶׂה-לִּי הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, אָשׁוּבָה אֶרְעֶה צֹאנְךָ אֶשְׁמֹר. 31 And he said: 'What shall I give thee?' And Jacob said: 'Thou shalt not give me aught; if thou wilt do this thing for me, I will again feed thy flock and keep it.
לב אֶעֱבֹר בְּכָל-צֹאנְךָ הַיּוֹם, הָסֵר מִשָּׁם כָּל-שֶׂה נָקֹד וְטָלוּא וְכָל-שֶׂה-חוּם בַּכְּשָׂבִים, וְטָלוּא וְנָקֹד, בָּעִזִּים; וְהָיָה, שְׂכָרִי. 32 I will pass through all thy flock to-day, removing from thence every speckled and spotted one, and every dark one among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats; and of such shall be my hire.
לג וְעָנְתָה-בִּי צִדְקָתִי בְּיוֹם מָחָר, כִּי-תָבוֹא עַל-שְׂכָרִי לְפָנֶיךָ: כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-אֵינֶנּוּ נָקֹד וְטָלוּא בָּעִזִּים, וְחוּם בַּכְּשָׂבִים--גָּנוּב הוּא, אִתִּי. 33 So shall my righteousness witness against me hereafter, when thou shalt come to look over my hire that is before thee: every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and dark among the sheep, that if found with me shall be counted stolen.'
לד וַיֹּאמֶר לָבָן, הֵן: לוּ, יְהִי כִדְבָרֶךָ. 34 And Laban said: 'Behold, would it might be according to thy word.'
לה וַיָּסַר בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא אֶת-הַתְּיָשִׁים הָעֲקֻדִּים וְהַטְּלֻאִים, וְאֵת כָּל-הָעִזִּים הַנְּקֻדּוֹת וְהַטְּלֻאֹת, כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-לָבָן בּוֹ, וְכָל-חוּם בַּכְּשָׂבִים; וַיִּתֵּן, בְּיַד-בָּנָיו. 35 And he removed that day the he-goats that were streaked and spotted, and all the she-goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had white in it, and all the dark ones among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons.
Was the arrangement that any spotted or speckled sheep or goat that was born would be Yaakov's? This seems to be the common understanding. Thus Speiser explains that Lavan has played a trick on Yaakov, in verses 35-36:
לה וַיָּסַר בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא אֶת-הַתְּיָשִׁים הָעֲקֻדִּים וְהַטְּלֻאִים, וְאֵת כָּל-הָעִזִּים הַנְּקֻדּוֹת וְהַטְּלֻאֹת, כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-לָבָן בּוֹ, וְכָל-חוּם בַּכְּשָׂבִים; וַיִּתֵּן, בְּיַד-בָּנָיו. 35 And he [=Lavan] removed that day the he-goats that were streaked and spotted, and all the she-goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had white in it, and all the dark ones among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons.
לו וַיָּשֶׂם, דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים, בֵּינוֹ, וּבֵין יַעֲקֹב; וְיַעֲקֹב, רֹעֶה אֶת-צֹאן לָבָן--הַנּוֹתָרֹת. 36 And he set three days' journey betwixt himself and Jacob. And Jacob fed the rest of Laban's flocks.
for without sheep and goats which are currently spotted and speckled, it is unlikely that any offspring from the remaining sheep will have spotted or speckled sheep. Thus, Lavan plays a trick by removing all such sheep and giving them over to his sons to watch, at a distance of three day's journey. Yaakov will get zero sheep and goats for his effort. This is in keeping with Lavan as trickster, as he switched Leah for Rachel in their first arrangement.

Yaakov then tricks Lavan in return, and receives his just reward, by using striped rods of poplar when the sheep and goats mate.

I would offer an alternative. Perhaps Lavan did nothing wrong when he removed the sheep to three days journey away. Perhaps the arrangement was not that Yaakov should have the offspring. Now, certainly this seems to be the arrangement, from Yaakov's description in the next perek:
ז וַאֲבִיכֶן הֵתֶל בִּי, וְהֶחֱלִף אֶת-מַשְׂכֻּרְתִּי עֲשֶׂרֶת מֹנִים; וְלֹא-נְתָנוֹ אֱלֹקִים, לְהָרַע עִמָּדִי. 7 And your father hath mocked me, and changed my wages ten times; but God suffered him not to hurt me.
ח אִם-כֹּה יֹאמַר, נְקֻדִּים יִהְיֶה שְׂכָרֶךָ--וְיָלְדוּ כָל-הַצֹּאן, נְקֻדִּים; וְאִם-כֹּה יֹאמַר, עֲקֻדִּים יִהְיֶה שְׂכָרֶךָ--וְיָלְדוּ כָל-הַצֹּאן, עֲקֻדִּים. 8 If he said thus: The speckled shall be thy wages; then all the flock bore speckled; and if he said thus: The streaked shall be thy wages; then bore all the flock streaked.
But what if that were not in fact their arrangement?

What if the arrangement was actually to divide the flocks as they stood right then at that day, such that there were now Lavan's flocks and Yaakov's flocks. Such a division would be difficult to maintain, for who knows which sheep or goat belongs to which flock? The solution to this difficulty would be to choose some salient property of sheep, such that they could be distinguished from the others, and then one would know which sheep is Yaakov's and which sheep is Lavan's. Similarly, for offspring. Since Yaakov's sheep are all spotted and speckled, their offspring will likely be entirely spotted and speckled. And Lavan's sheep and goats, none of which are spotted and speckled, will likely produce offspring which are not spotted and speckled.

Let us see this in the pesukim:

לא וַיֹּאמֶר, מָה אֶתֶּן-לָךְ; וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב, לֹא-תִתֶּן-לִי מְאוּמָה--אִם-תַּעֲשֶׂה-לִּי הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, אָשׁוּבָה אֶרְעֶה צֹאנְךָ אֶשְׁמֹר. 31 And he said: 'What shall I give thee?' And Jacob said: 'Thou shalt not give me aught; if thou wilt do this thing for me, I will again feed thy flock and keep it.
Thus Yaakov proposes that he continue to watch Lavan's flock. Only Lavan's flock, not his own.
לב אֶעֱבֹר בְּכָל-צֹאנְךָ הַיּוֹם, הָסֵר מִשָּׁם כָּל-שֶׂה נָקֹד וְטָלוּא וְכָל-שֶׂה-חוּם בַּכְּשָׂבִים, וְטָלוּא וְנָקֹד, בָּעִזִּים; וְהָיָה, שְׂכָרִי. 32 I will pass through all thy flock to-day, removing from thence every speckled and spotted one, and every dark one among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats; and of such shall be my hire.
Yaakov those proposes they divide the flocks on that day. In fact, that is what Lavan (or perhaps Yaakov) later does. These current ones are Yaakov's hire.
לג וְעָנְתָה-בִּי צִדְקָתִי בְּיוֹם מָחָר, כִּי-תָבוֹא עַל-שְׂכָרִי לְפָנֶיךָ: כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-אֵינֶנּוּ נָקֹד וְטָלוּא בָּעִזִּים, וְחוּם בַּכְּשָׂבִים--גָּנוּב הוּא, אִתִּי. 33 So shall my righteousness witness against me hereafter, when thou shalt come to look over my hire that is before thee: every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and dark among the sheep, that if found with me shall be counted stolen.'

For every day thereafter {=בְּיוֹם מָחָר}, Lavan will have to trust Yaakov - and Yaakov promises on his righteousness, that any that is not speckled or spotted among the sheep shall be considered stolen. Why stolen? Not just because that is not what he is entitled to among the joint offspring. Rather, if a non-spotted or speckled sheep is among Yaakov's flock, it is probably the offspring of Lavan's flock. Thus Yaakov must have stolen it!

לד וַיֹּאמֶר לָבָן, הֵן: לוּ, יְהִי כִדְבָרֶךָ. 34 And Laban said: 'Behold, would it might be according to thy word.'
לה וַיָּסַר בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא אֶת-הַתְּיָשִׁים הָעֲקֻדִּים וְהַטְּלֻאִים, וְאֵת כָּל-הָעִזִּים הַנְּקֻדּוֹת וְהַטְּלֻאֹת, כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-לָבָן בּוֹ, וְכָל-חוּם בַּכְּשָׂבִים; וַיִּתֵּן, בְּיַד-בָּנָיו. 35 And he removed that day the he-goats that were streaked and spotted, and all the she-goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had white in it, and all the dark ones among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons.

It is not clear who is doing the removing. It seems Lavan, but Yaakov is also a possibility. Either way, he is doing exactly what Yaakov proposed in verse 32, removing on that day the sheep. Why remove them? Because there are to be two separate flocks.

The flocks are not to interbreed or it would defeat the purpose. Thus:
לה וַיָּסַר בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא אֶת-הַתְּיָשִׁים הָעֲקֻדִּים וְהַטְּלֻאִים, וְאֵת כָּל-הָעִזִּים הַנְּקֻדּוֹת וְהַטְּלֻאֹת, כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-לָבָן בּוֹ, וְכָל-חוּם בַּכְּשָׂבִים; וַיִּתֵּן, בְּיַד-בָּנָיו. 35 And he removed that day the he-goats that were streaked and spotted, and all the she-goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had white in it, and all the dark ones among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons.
לו וַיָּשֶׂם, דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים, בֵּינוֹ, וּבֵין יַעֲקֹב; וְיַעֲקֹב, רֹעֶה אֶת-צֹאן לָבָן--הַנּוֹתָרֹת. 36 And he set three days' journey betwixt himself and Jacob. And Jacob fed the rest of Laban's flocks.
The idea being that they would not interbreed, and so Yaakov would have his own flock, and Lavan would have his own flock. Should some speckled or spotted sheep come about, perhaps they somehow were fathered by Yaakov's sheep and belonged to Yaakov - or Yaakov he had come and taken his flocks.

If so, Yaakov's trick to increase the number of speckled and spotted sheep amongst Lavan's flock is even trickier than before - he would not be merely acting cleverly within the rules, but actually breaking the rules by appropriating sheep that weren't his. Alternatively, the rules were indeed that any speckled or spotted sheep and goat would be Yaakov's, but this was the result of assumptions of what would be naturally be produced, and any exceptions were to just be assigned to Yaakov, so that reckoning would be easier.

What then to make of Yaakov's complaint?
ז וַאֲבִיכֶן הֵתֶל בִּי, וְהֶחֱלִף אֶת-מַשְׂכֻּרְתִּי עֲשֶׂרֶת מֹנִים; וְלֹא-נְתָנוֹ אֱלֹקִים, לְהָרַע עִמָּדִי. 7 And your father hath mocked me, and changed my wages ten times; but God suffered him not to hurt me.
ח אִם-כֹּה יֹאמַר, נְקֻדִּים יִהְיֶה שְׂכָרֶךָ--וְיָלְדוּ כָל-הַצֹּאן, נְקֻדִּים; וְאִם-כֹּה יֹאמַר, עֲקֻדִּים יִהְיֶה שְׂכָרֶךָ--וְיָלְדוּ כָל-הַצֹּאן, עֲקֻדִּים. 8 If he said thus: The speckled shall be thy wages; then all the flock bore speckled; and if he said thus: The streaked shall be thy wages; then bore all the flock streaked.
Perhaps we could say that Lavan changed the rules as to what flock in its entirety (including offspring) was to be Yaakov's. These verses are admittedly somewhat problematic to this speculative theory.

Another alternative, which sits better:
What was the purpose of moving away the speckled sheep and goats? Perhaps Yaakov was only arranging for the hire to be the speckled and spotted offspring, and not any of the existing sheep. If so, we would not want to confuse the existing sheep with the speckled and spotted offspring of the flock. To avoid such confusion, Yaakov suggests that Lavan go through the flock that day and remove any speckled and spotted sheep and goats. Lavan rightly moves these sheep and goats three day's journey away.
Now, non-spotted and speckled sheep are expected to yield a certain percentage of spotted and speckled sheep, and Yaakov increased that percentage. But Lavan, in moving the sheep, did exactly what Yaakov asked him.
This also explains why Lavan entrusted the current spotted and speckled sheep to his sons.

Translator's Notebook: Translating Ambiguous Present-Tense Plural

I have been translating Rif for a while now, and have developed a sense of some of the difficulties of translation. Should one translate literally at the expense of stilted language? Or translate to generate the general sense, in more flowing language? What if the language is ambiguous? In most works of translation (and, e.g. in machine translation), you need to give a single translation, as opposed to an n-best-list of the top n best possible translations.

One thing I've found myself struggling with is the plural present tense. In past and future tenses, Hebrew is fine. It is a pro-drop language, which means there is no explicit pronoun there, because it has rich morphology, with the pronoun modifying the verb instead (e.g. amarti, amarta, yichtov, etc.). In present, neutral tense, though, Hebrew is not pro-drop. Thus, omer is not enough to tell me who is speaking. Is it ani omer, ata omer, hu omer? The pronoun is really required, and is often present. Thus, holech adam el chenvani, a person may go to a shopkeeper -- we specify adam, which shows that this is the third person (hu).

Indeed, it seems fairly consistent in Mishnayot/baryata that for the singular case, it is either past tense third person or present tense first person.

However, it feels more difficult when we encounter the plural present tense case. The word omrim might occur in a Mishna or brayta, and we do not know who is talking. Is it atem omrim, anachnu omrim, or hem omrim? It is somehow the style to leave it out, which leaves this ambiguous. It does not really matter since what is at play is the command of what one may or may not do, and this is conveyed regardless of the pronoun attached. Yet a translator -- at least into English -- must resolve this ambiguity.

The most logical assumption would be that it would be third person plural (hem), just as the standard third person singular (hu). The approach I've seen most commonly in other translations is to render it as the third person singular ("one, he"), or as the first person plural ("we").

Why render it "we?" Especially where a third person singular already exists (e.g. machzirin oto), the inclination may be to say, "well, we already have the third person here, so the Mishna is telling us how to deal with him." But also, if no other pronoun is specified, and it is instructions about what to do or not to do, somehow "we" do something or should not do something feels more natural.

I recently came across a case that makes clear, at least in one case, how Shmuel the Amora understood a neutral tense plural verb. Citing from my own translation at Alfasi:
Mishna:
אין מבקעין עצים מן הקורות ולא מן הקורה שנשברה ביו"ט ואין מבקעין לא בקרדום ולא במגל ולא במגרה אלא בקופיץ.
בית שהוא מלא פירות סתום ונפחת נוטל ממקום הפחת ר"מ אומר אף פוחת לכתחלה ונוטל
They do not chop wood from beams or from a beam which broke on Yom Yov, nor may they chop with an axe, a saw or a sickle, but {only} with a cleaver {of a butcher}.

{Beitza 31b}
A closed {our Mishna lacks the word סתום} house which is full of fruits which became breached, he may take from the place of the breach.
Rabbi Meir said: He may even breach it initially and take.

Gemara:
והא אמרת רישא אין מבקעין כלל
א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני אין מבקעין עצים לא מן הקורות ולא מן הקורה שנשברה ביו"ט אבל מן הקורה שנשברה מעיו"ט מבקעין
וכשהן מבקעין אין מבקעין לא בקרדום ולא במגל ולא במגרה אלא בקופיץ
תנ"ה אין מבקעין עצים לא מן הסואר של קורות ולא מן הקורה שנשברה ביו"ט לפי שאינו מן המוכן
But the reisha {beginning of the Mishna} said that one should not chop at all!
Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: The text is deficient and this is what it means to say: "They may not chop from beams, nor from a beam which broke on Yom Tov, but from a beam which broke from erev Yom Tov they may chop. And when they chop, they may not chop they with an axe, a saw or a sickle, but {only} with a cleaver.
A brayta also says so: They may not chop from the stack of beams nor from a beam which broke on Yom Tov because it is not "prepared."
How should we go about translating אין מבקעין. I will tell you what Artscroll does. It remains consistent with it usual style and translates "we may not chop." There is a problem with this, though. Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel that the Mishna was as if deficient in its language:
א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני אין מבקעין עצים לא מן הקורות ולא מן הקורה שנשברה ביו"ט אבל מן הקורה שנשברה מעיו"ט מבקעין
וכשהן מבקעין אין מבקעין לא בקרדום ולא במגל ולא במגרה אלא בקופיץ
The key phrase here is וכשהן מבקעין, "and when they do chop." The word hen is there, and so it must be third person plural. So what does Artscroll do? Throughout this entire statement of Shmuel, they make every אין מבקעין into "they may not chop." But, they do not then go back and change their translation of the Mishna, just a bit earlier -- they leave it as "we."

I went back and changed it. I would guess that I really should be consistent and change all the hundreds of other instances of ambiguous neutral tense plural as well, but at least I was consistent in this instance. Until I see evidence otherwise, I am going to try in general to render it as "they," even though it feels a bit more stilted.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Buffy The Vampure Slayer on Thanksgiving

Buffy: "With Mom at Aunt Darlene's this year, I'm not getting a Thanksgiving. Guess maybe it's just as well."
Anya: "Well, I think that's a shame. I love a ritual sacrifice."
Buffy: "Not really a one of those."
Anya: "To commemorate a past event, you kill and eat an animal. It's a ritual sacrifice. With pie."

Heh. Interesting perspective... besides the halachic discussion on the issue.

Happy Turkey Day!

Friday, November 17, 2006

Was Mordechai Esther's Uncle? Or First Cousin?

The popular conception is that he is her uncle. Yet this appears at first glance to be contradicted explicitly by two pesukim. In Esther 2:7:

ז וַיְהִי אֹמֵן אֶת-הֲדַסָּה, הִיא אֶסְתֵּר בַּת-דֹּדוֹ--כִּי אֵין לָהּ, אָב וָאֵם; וְהַנַּעֲרָה יְפַת-תֹּאַר, וְטוֹבַת מַרְאֶה, וּבְמוֹת אָבִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ, לְקָחָהּ מָרְדֳּכַי לוֹ לְבַת. 7 And he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle's daughter; for she had neither father nor mother, and the maiden was of beautiful form and fair to look on; and when her father and mother were dead, Mordecai took her for his own daughter.
and a bit later in Esther 2:15:
טו וּבְהַגִּיעַ תֹּר-אֶסְתֵּר בַּת-אֲבִיחַיִל דֹּד מָרְדֳּכַי אֲשֶׁר לָקַח-לוֹ לְבַת לָבוֹא אֶל-הַמֶּלֶךְ, לֹא בִקְשָׁה דָּבָר--כִּי אִם אֶת-אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר הֵגַי סְרִיס-הַמֶּלֶךְ, שֹׁמֵר הַנָּשִׁים; וַתְּהִי אֶסְתֵּר נֹשֵׂאת חֵן, בְּעֵינֵי כָּל-רֹאֶיהָ. 15 Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had taken her for his daughter, was come to go in unto the king, she required nothing but what Hegai the king's chamberlain, the keeper of the women, appointed. And Esther obtained favour in the sight of all them that looked upon her.
As Dr. Ari Zivotofsky explains quite nicely in this essay, the sources that claim she was was his niece are:
a) Josephus who states this explicitly as their sole relation
b) Targum Rishon to Esther 7:6 where she speaks of Mordechai my father's brother (though by these two aforementioned pesukim Targum Rishon gives the relationship of first cousins)
c) "the 3rd-5th century Latin translation (Vetus Latina) and the Vulgate (dating to 390-405 C.E.). The Vulgate, chapter 2, verse 7, says that Mordecai raised the daughter of his brother (fratis), and in the same chapter, verse 15, Esther is identified as the daughter of Abihail, Mordecai’s brother."

In his essay, he considers the Vulgate to be based on an error, perhaps from the Septuagint.

However, we must also consider the possibility that this was no accident but deliberate. Joesphus often makes use of midrashic material, and perhaps he was basing himself on a midrash unknown to us, which the Targum Rishon was also citing.

Which brings us to the following question: Do the pesukim actually contradict the suggestion that Mordechai was Esther's uncle? I would say: Not at all.

A general rule: If you see a midrash (though this is not necessarily a midrash) which is contradicted by a pasuk, this does not mean that whoever framed the midrash was unaware of the pasuk. It is quite possible that the midrashist read that very pasuk and had his own midrashic interpretation of it, and that is the very basis for his midrash. This is the point I made a while back to a question R' Gil Student had.

Does the pasuk state that Esther was the daughter of Mordechai's uncle? No. It states that Esther was the daughter of Mordechai's dod.

What is a dod? Vulgate and the Latin translation, and apparently Josephus or Josephus' basis, translate it as brother. Meanwhile, King James Version of the Bible translates it uncle. Can we really ask based on translations into English?

But in general, we know that dod means uncle! Yes, but how do we know this? It is true that at the beginning of sefer Bereishit, there is a list of words and their definitions in English?! Of course not! Rather, we try using etymology and try to get a sense by how it is used in various contexts in Tanach.

Dod means friend, or beloved, and was applied to close relatives, namely aunt (doda) and uncle (dod). But we know this from verses which use these words to have this meaning.

But what if I could show you a pasuk where dod means brother rather than uncle? Let us contrast 2 Kings 24:17 with 2 Chronicles 36:10.

In 2 Kings 24:17:

יז וַיַּמְלֵךְ מֶלֶךְ-בָּבֶל אֶת-מַתַּנְיָה דֹדוֹ, תַּחְתָּיו; וַיַּסֵּב אֶת-שְׁמוֹ, צִדְקִיָּהוּ. {פ} 17 And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his father's brother king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah. {P}
In context, it would seem that Zedekiah was Jehoiachin's uncle.

Meanwhile, in 2 Chronicles 36:10:
י וְלִתְשׁוּבַת הַשָּׁנָה, שָׁלַח הַמֶּלֶךְ נְבוּכַדְנֶאצַּר, וַיְבִאֵהוּ בָבֶלָה, עִם-כְּלֵי חֶמְדַּת בֵּית-יְהוָה; וַיַּמְלֵךְ אֶת-צִדְקִיָּהוּ אָחִיו, עַל-יְהוּדָה וִירוּשָׁלִָם. {פ} 10 And at the return of the year king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem. {P}
In this verse, Zedekiah is Jehoiachin's brother.

Now, there are various ways of resolving this. For example, perhaps two were appointed, a brother and an uncle. Thus, in 1 Chronicles 3:15-16:
טו וּבְנֵי, יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ--הַבְּכוֹר יוֹחָנָן, הַשֵּׁנִי יְהוֹיָקִים; הַשְּׁלִשִׁי, צִדְקִיָּהוּ, הָרְבִיעִי, שַׁלּוּם. 15 And the sons of Josiah: the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum.
טז וּבְנֵי, יְהוֹיָקִים--יְכָנְיָה בְנוֹ, צִדְקִיָּה בְנוֹ. 16 And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son.
Though there are many ways of parsing this, and I don't want to get into it here. Alternatively, אָחִיו means uncle, just as Lot is both described both as achiv and ben achiv to Avraham.

One final possibility is that dodo in וַיַּמְלֵךְ מֶלֶךְ-בָּבֶל אֶת-מַתַּנְיָה דֹדוֹ, תַּחְתָּיו means his brother, not his uncle. The way we know meanings of words is by context, and here we see dodo in one place paralleling achiv in another place.

Especially given that {Update: brain-slip! I meant to say: Now, we only} know of Zedekiah son of Josiah (not son of Johoaikim) as king from, e.g. Jeremiah 37:1. This would mean that Zedekiah must be the uncle, and dodo means uncle. Unless, we say benei banim harei hem kevanim, so a grandson can be called a son.

However, as said above, we can just say that dod in this case means brother.

And this meaning of dodo may well be the basis of the translation in the Vulgate and in the Latin translation, and the basis of the midrash which may have serves as a basis for Josephus and the Targum Rishon.

And so, we need not say that this is a mistake, so much as a dispute. We may choose to disagree with this translation, of course, and many sources in fact do.

Update: Besides the update above fixing my slip regarding Zedekiah as son of Josiah, I also intend, bli neder, to check what the Vulgate has for other instances of dod.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

parshat Chayyei Sarah: Use of Time-of-Day to Convey Drama and Mood

We see this at the end of parshat Chayei Sarah:
סג וַיֵּצֵא יִצְחָק לָשׂוּחַ בַּשָּׂדֶה, לִפְנוֹת עָרֶב; וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא, וְהִנֵּה גְמַלִּים בָּאִים. 63 And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at the eventide; and he lifted up his eyes, and saw, and, behold, there were camels coming.
סד וַתִּשָּׂא רִבְקָה אֶת-עֵינֶיהָ, וַתֵּרֶא אֶת-יִצְחָק; וַתִּפֹּל, מֵעַל הַגָּמָל. 64 And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she alighted from the camel.
סה וַתֹּאמֶר אֶל-הָעֶבֶד, מִי-הָאִישׁ הַלָּזֶה הַהֹלֵךְ בַּשָּׂדֶה לִקְרָאתֵנוּ, וַיֹּאמֶר הָעֶבֶד, הוּא אֲדֹנִי; וַתִּקַּח הַצָּעִיף, וַתִּתְכָּס. 65 And she said unto the servant: 'What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us?' And the servant said: 'It is my master.' And she took her veil, and covered herself.
סו וַיְסַפֵּר הָעֶבֶד, לְיִצְחָק, אֵת כָּל-הַדְּבָרִים, אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה. 66 And the servant told Isaac all the things that he had done.
Why bother to mention the time of day? I think this adds to the drama of their romantic meeting, where otherwise we would have a rather dry picture (until this point) of an arranged marriage. The fact that this happened at sunset is important for setting the mood.

Similar effect, in my opinion, in Rut. And in certain mentions of time when Rut went down to and up from the threshing floor. And in time-of-day in Shir haShirim - e.g. עַד שֶׁיָּפוּחַ הַיּוֹם, וְנָסוּ הַצְּלָלִים.

In sefer Bereishit, what comes to mind is Avraham's seeing the destruction of Sodom that he had prayed to prevent, and the possibility that Lot had been killed. In Bereishit 19:
וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אַבְרָהָם, בַּבֹּקֶר: אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם--אֲשֶׁר-עָמַד שָׁם, אֶת-פְּנֵי יְהוָה. 27 And Abraham got up early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the LORD.
כח וַיַּשְׁקֵף, עַל-פְּנֵי סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה, וְעַל-כָּל-פְּנֵי, אֶרֶץ הַכִּכָּר; וַיַּרְא, וְהִנֵּה עָלָה קִיטֹר הָאָרֶץ, כְּקִיטֹר, הַכִּבְשָׁן. 28 And he looked out toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the Plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the land went up as the smoke of a furnace.
And perhaps also in the beginning of Vayera, to give a surreal, dreamlike quality to it:
א וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה, בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא; וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב פֶּתַח-הָאֹהֶל, כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם. 1 And the LORD appeared unto him by the terebinths of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
ב וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו, וַיַּרְא, וְהִנֵּה שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים, נִצָּבִים עָלָיו; וַיַּרְא, וַיָּרָץ לִקְרָאתָם מִפֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל, וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ, אָרְצָה. 2 and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood over against him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed down to the earth,
Note how in each case the time of day mention precedes a looking out and seeing something. This might be a standard mechanism for increasing the drama/setting the effect.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

parshat Chayyei Sarah: A Three Year Old Rivkah -- Plausible? Obscene?

Rashi understands that Rivkah was three years old when she married Yitzchak, that ten years later, at the age of 13, they tried having children, and ten years after that, at the age of 23, they prayed to Hashem, afraid she was barren, and then she had Esav and Yaakov.

There are various textual inputs into this chronology, yet other accountings are possible, depending on how one understands the pesukim, and these other accountings are offered by other commentators.

In short, for Rashi's accounting:
There are four verses mentioning age. Sarah has Yitzchak when she was 90. Sarah died at 127. Yitzchak married Rivkah at 40. Yitzchak had Yaakov and Esav when he was 60.

Since the Binding of Yitzchak adjoins word coming to Avraham of Rivkah's birth, an assumption is made that her birth occurred immediately after. Similarly, since Sarah's death adjoins the Binding of Yitzchak, an assumption is made that her birth occurred immediately after, according to one midrash as a result of hearing that Yitzchak was to be slaughtered.

Since arranging a marriage for Yitzchak adjoins the death of Sarah, and since Rivkah's presence comforts Yitzhak for the loss of his mother, we may assume that this happened some time after.

Now, the calculations. Since Sarah had Yitzchak at 90 and died as a result of the Binding of Yitzchak, Yitzchak must be 37 at the Binding. Since word of Rivkah's birth is assumed to occur at that point, when Yitzchak is 37, Rivkah is just born.

Assuming Yitzchak marries Rivkah when she arrives, and another verse says he was 40 when he married her, she must be 3 years old at this point, and halachically, kiddushin/nisuin is tofes
at that age.

Halachically, one must worry about barrenness after ten years of trying without results. We see from pesukim that they prayed when Yitzchak was 60. Thus, they were trying for 10 years. Earlier than that, she could not have become pregnant. Thus ends the calculations.

Note that one could challenge this based on questions of whether juxtaposition really proves that Yitzchak was 37 by the Binding, even if word of Rivkah's birth does in fact equal her being born just then. Or, one could question whether the juxtaposition of a genealogical section that Rivkah was born implies that she was actually born at that time. So we need not say that Rivkah was 3. And so on. Certain assumptions and constraints lead to certain conclusions, and other ones may lead to other conclusions.

Certain nuances of certain pesukim can also be taken to imply an older Rivkah.

However. There is a big difference between saying that there are various options, and one is more plausible than another, and stating that a specific option is entirely implausible and obscene to boot. I wish to address both charges in turn.

First, the implausibility. What exactly is implausible? I can point out several potential aspects of the story that seem implausible, at least assuming absence of miracles (which, by the way, a serious midrashist like Rashi would not discount.)

1) Could a three year old carry a pitcher, either empty or full of water?

I have a two year old son, and even before he turned two, he was able to carry, with some difficulty, a 1 gallon Poland Spring bottle across the kitchen floor. He liked doing this. And a three year old can be 3 years and 6 months.

Now, you might not have a baby, to be able to make such assessments. Or perhaps your baby is not doing it, and mine is atypical. But that does not mean it is impossible. And normal is different for different societies. Here is a composite of various children getting water. In particular, the one in the top left corner strikes me as being three or four years old.



Would anyone seriously send a child to fetch water from the well? Could a child hold his/her own?

Now, in New York City, one would be foolish to send a three year old to do this. But this reflects urban Western values of the 20th-21st centuries. In other countries, in rural areas, in more "primitive" societies, this might be perfectly natural.

When in Israel many years ago, I would see a 5 year old boarding the Egged bus taking her younger three year old sibling to school. In a trusting society (such that they are not afraid of kidnapping) where they have certain expectations of responsibility in children, the children might just live up to it.

There was a study a while ago, I think of Malaysian children, in which they found that these children did not go through a crawling stage. It was expected that these children would walk, much sooner than we expect children to walk in the West, and indeed they walked much earlier.

2) Is it logical to expect a three year old to carry on such conversation with Eliezer?

Well, my son is able to carry on conversation, perfectly grammatical (except consistently replacing "I" and "me" with "you"), in well structured paragraphs. And he is two. I'm sure some three year olds can do so as well.

Even if not, this may well be a paraphrase of the conversation. Do you think Pharaoh spoke Hebrew and said exactly the stilted speech attributed to him. It's a summary.

3) Would a three year old display such chessed? Doesn't that take some maturity?
Possibly. Yesterday I put my son in front of Sesame Street, and perhaps the volume was a tad too high. My wife was sleeping in the same room. When I came back, the TV was off. I asked him what had happened, and he told me he had turned it off "so that Mommy could sleep in the morning."

4) Would they really trust a three-year old to decide whether to marry Yitzchak?!
As Shadal points out, the question of whether or not to marry Yitzchak was not put to Rivkah. They already had said that the matter had come from God and that they thus could not divert to the right or left. This was most certainly an arranged marriage. The question they put to her was whether she wished to go with Eliezer immediately, or leave in a year or ten months (as classic Jewish translations go).

I would also point out that she brings her nursemaid, quite appropriate for a three year old. On the other hand, one can simply say (IIRC Shadal does) that the practice was that the nursemaid would act as a governess for years to come.

Isn't this obscene? That is the second consideration. And if it is obscene, then it is also implausible, for Yitzchak is not meant to be portrayed as obscene. Nor would Rivkah's family members agree to such an obscene arrangement.

To which I could answer: No, not really.

First, point out that it would seem that according to Rashi, they did not consummate at 3, but ten years later. Still, she is quite young! And he is 50!

Obscenity is relative to the culture in which you live. Nowadays we would not commend a man who married his niece, but this is a commendable practice in Talmudic times. And we would not say that this practice (of marrying a niece) is implausible as a result, such that one must reinterpret the gemara. Nor necessarily would we call it obscene, given the social mores at the time and place.

We must take be wary about judging obscenity and plausibility based on Western 21st century attitudes. The same folk who scoff at Chazal when they say the Avot kept the Torah, even the Rabbinic commandments, and consider this anachronism, do not think twice at raising objections to actions of the Avot from mores and practices of 21st century New York!

Differences in age did not necessarily matter so much back then, particularly in arranged marriages. And 12/13 was viewed as a perfectly fine time for consummation with one's spouse. Nowadays, we have different views, based on an understanding of emotional maturity and aility to have informed consent. (Maturity might differ or matter based on the society.) And we would consider this pedophilia.

On a related note, where do we see someone enter someone's household but the consummation happen years later? Well, we have Mohammed, who married one of his wives at the age of 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9. And this is not related as a bad thing. It was accepted practice in his society at that time.

Look to the Torah. Our Sages' understanding of Amah Ivriyah (not practiced nowadays, I should note) is that she is taken as a maidservant into her master's house, and gets out either by developing signs of maturity, or her master or master's son marrying her. And there is some expectation that one of the latter two will take place, and a sense of betrayal if it does not. One could draw parallels to a Rivkah situation, with consummation when she reaches a certain stage of physical maturity.

Or look to kohen gadol and certain interpretations of the requirement of betulah, which I won't elaborate upon here.

In sum, I am a pashtan and favor the alternate explanations. But I do not think that Rashi's explanation is totally implausible/obscene.

Update: In the comments, Chaim B. of Divrei Chaim points out that Tosafot writes about how kiddushei ketana was common practice in the Middle ages. From Kiddushin 41a:

parshat Vayera: Hashem sent wayfarers

In the beginning of Vayera, Rashi cites the following midrash:
when the day was hot (B.M. 86b) The Holy One, blessed be He, took the sun out of its sheath so as not to trouble him with wayfarers, but since He saw that he was troubled that no wayfarers were coming, He brought the angels to him in the likeness of men. — [from Gen. Rabbah 48:9, Exod. Rabbah 25:2]
Rashi has to put each of these midrashim as commentary on a specific part of a verse, and indeed, in Rashi's view, this is likely primarily brought just to elucidate that specific phrase. In this case, it is commentary on keChom haYom, and explaining why the day was hot. As I mentioned in the previous post, though, many separate judgments and close readings about several different verses often feature into the entirety of the midrash. That is, we may somehow derive that Hashem took the Sun out of its sheath, but how do we know:

1) that this was done so as not to trouble him with wayfarers
2) that Avraham was troubled that no wayfarers were coming
3) that as a result, He brought angels to him in the likeness of men

Some view midrash as a free for all, either because a) it is absolute truth, so all these details they simply knew via tradition, or b) it is allegorical, with the verse as pretext rather than source/prooftext, and so whatever fits the point trying to be made is fine, or c) midrash in general are just a creative outlet, so anything they want to say they feel free to say it.

As I have presented time and again on parshablog, a strong argument can be made that midrah is not a free-for-all, and any detail in a midrash must find at least a foothold in the text. The parsha begins:

א וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה, בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא; וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב פֶּתַח-הָאֹהֶל, כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם. 1 And the LORD appeared unto him by the terebinths of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
ב וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו, וַיַּרְא, וְהִנֵּה שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים, נִצָּבִים עָלָיו; וַיַּרְא, וַיָּרָץ לִקְרָאתָם מִפֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל, וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ, אָרְצָה. 2 and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood over against him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed down to the earth,
As I discussed in a previous post, keChom haYom is taken to refer to the most painful, extreme day of milah, which the text just says he underwent -- the third day, as we see from the incident with Dinah.

We see Hashem appear to him -- וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה, בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא -- and we see that he is sitting by the entrance to the tent, rather than dealing with guests -- וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב פֶּתַח-הָאֹהֶל -- because of the heat of the day -- כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם.

How do we know that Avraham was troubled with not having guests? He was sitting at the opening of the tent, as a type of lookout -- וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב פֶּתַח-הָאֹהֶל. And it is not the case that he just happened to see three men approach. He was looking for them -- וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא. Midrashically, we may understand this as him actively lifting up his eyes looking for guests, scanning the horizon. Thus, we know Avraham was troubled, and unhappy with this situation.

How do we know that as a result of this Hashem brought angels in the guise of men? Because the pasuk states וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו, וַיַּרְא, וְהִנֵּה שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים, נִצָּבִים עָלָיו. Behold, all of a sudden, because of the active lifting of his eyes and scanning the horizon for guests, there were now guests available.

Throughout, it is a reading of the pesukim in which there is not just one event following the other, but rather one causing the other.

Young Watercarriers



Blogpost to follow. It should be readily apparent why this is relevant to this week's parsha, Chayyei Sarah.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Life Is A Video Game

The Cheat Code: Up, Up, Down, Down, Right, Left, and All Around, A, B, B, A

Monday, November 13, 2006

parshat Vayera: Sending Eliezer to Look for Guests -- Min `an Hanei Milei?

On Bava Metzia 86b we get the following midrash:

מאי כחום היום אמר רבי חמא בר' חנינא אותו היום יום שלישי של מילה של אברהם היה ובא הקב"ה לשאול באברהם הוציא הקב"ה חמה מנרתיקה כדי שלא יטריח אותו צדיק באורחים שדריה לאליעזר למיפק לברא נפק ולא אשכח אמר לא מהימנא לך היינו דאמרי תמן לית הימנותא בעבדי נפק איהו חזייה להקדוש ברוך הוא דקאי אבבא היינו דכתיב (בראשית יח) אל נא תעבור מעל עבדך

"What is meant "in the heat of the day?" Rabbi Chama beRabbi Chanina said: That day was the third since the circumcision of Avraham, and Hashem came to visit Avraham {as in visiting the sick}. Hashem brought the Sun from its container so that the tzaddik should not be bothered by {human} guests. He {=Avraham} sent Eliezer outside {to check for guests}. He went out but did not find. He {=Avraham} said "I do not believe you." This is what is said there, "there is no trustworthiness in servants." He {=Avraham} went out, and saw that Hashem was present by the entrance. This is what is written {Bereishit 18:3}:
ג וַיֹּאמַר: אֲדֹנָי, אִם-נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ--אַל-נָא תַעֲבֹר, מֵעַל עַבְדֶּךָ. 3 and said: 'My lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant.
One might think the source for this midrash is only the single pasuk cited, but indeed, many many details of the midrash can be found to have been drawn from the pesukim, if one looks closely enough.

1) How do we know it was the third day since the circumcision? I spoke about this in greater depth in an earlier post, but the short of it is:
a) Immediately above, Avraham had just commanded to perform circumcision on the members of his household and he did so on that selfsame day.
b) The continuation is vayera elav Hashem, rather than el Avraham, which strongly suggests this is a continuation. So he would have just had his brit.
c) We see from the incident with Dinah that the third day since circumcision is most painful.
d) Hashem promises that Yitzchak will be born lamoed, kaet chaya, which is interpreted by pashtanim such as Rashi and Ibn Ezra as meaning in exactly a year's time (and they give grammatical arguments), yet in perek 17, before the command for brit, Hashem promised Yitzchak would be born next year at the same time. So they must have happened pretty closely together.
e) Note that in the above linked post, I argue that it actually happened three months later, but this is irrelevant in terms of evidence entering into the midrash.

Finally, and this people might not realize, and I did not mention it in that earlier post -- this seems to be a derasha on the words כחום היום. After all, the entire midrash begins מאי כחום היום.

Again, in the incident with Dinah (Bereishit 34:25):
כה וַיְהִי בַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי בִּהְיוֹתָם כֹּאֲבִים, וַיִּקְחוּ שְׁנֵי-בְנֵי-יַעֲקֹב שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי אֲחֵי דִינָה אִישׁ חַרְבּוֹ, וַיָּבֹאוּ עַל-הָעִיר, בֶּטַח; וַיַּהַרְגוּ, כָּל-זָכָר. 25 And it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city unawares, and slew all the males.
The implication was that the third day is especially painful and thus a prime time to attack.

כחום would then not mean "in the heat" but rather "in the intensity of the day." Thus, this first detail did not arise yesh meAyin.

2) Similarly, Hashem bringing the Sun out of its container is also derived from keChom haYom.

3) How do we know that Avraham was hoping for guests? The pasuk states וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו, וַיַּרְא, וְהִנֵּה שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים. Lifting up his eyes can convey effort, that he was specifically looking out to see if there were guests. And we have the general theme here (and by Lot) of wanting to have guests.

4) How do we know that Eliezer went out first to look? Well Eliezer as the servant of Avraham would be the one sent, so we need not find a specific reference to Eliezer. But how do we know that anyone was sent out to look? The answer, to my mind, is once again that the pasuk states וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה, בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא. Why state elav rather than el Avraham, if this is a new section, with a petucha separating it from the previous section, and in any case is a new incident that occurred on a different day? The answer, midrashically, is that it was elav, using the pronoun, to him, rather than to someone else? Who else would it be? It would have to be Eliezer.

5) How do we know that Avraham did not trust Eliezer? Well, Avraham did come out himself. Plus, in parshat Chayyei Sarah, he makes Eliezer swear.

6) How do we know that when Avraham, who had been inside the tent, came out to check for guests, it was there that he chanced upon Hashem, who had been waiting at the entrance? Again, the pasuk was וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה, בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא; וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב פֶּתַח-הָאֹהֶל, כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם. The phrase וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב פֶּתַח-הָאֹהֶל is taken to refer to Hashem rather to Avraham! Wow!

Also, there is the repetition of vayar: וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו, וַיַּרְא, וְהִנֵּה שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים, נִצָּבִים עָלָיו; וַיַּרְא, וַיָּרָץ לִקְרָאתָם מִפֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל, וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ, אָרְצָה. The first might be taken to refer to Avraham seeing Hashem, and the second, to him seeing the guests.

7) Finally, what about the prooftext? וַיֹּאמַר: אֲדֹנָי, אִם-נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ--אַל-נָא תַעֲבֹר, מֵעַל עַבְדֶּךָ. One way of interpreting this is that Avraham said this to the "three men." We interpret here instead that Avraham said this to Hashem, that Hashem should not leave even though Avraham is running after these guests.

But also -- and this part of the pasuk was not cited -- there is a kametz in adonay, rather than a pathach. Thus, it can readily (and appears to more readily) refer to Hashem rather than one of the men.

This is a good example, in my opinion, of a detailed midrash in which almost all details stem from the Biblical text, though it is quite often overlooked.

Sunday, November 12, 2006

parshat Vayera: How Long After Avraham's Bris Did Hashem Appear? How soon after Sarah laughed did she give birth to Yitzchak?

The standard answer is 3 days. I would suggest it was 0 days. Then, I suggest it was 90 days. Let us examine some of the assumptions that go into the standard answer.

The end of the previous parsha had Hashem's command to Avraham to circumcise all male members of his household. And, in response to that command:

כו בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, נִמּוֹל אַבְרָהָם, וְיִשְׁמָעֵאל, בְּנוֹ. 26 In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son.
כז וְכָל-אַנְשֵׁי בֵיתוֹ יְלִיד בָּיִת, וּמִקְנַת-כֶּסֶף מֵאֵת בֶּן-נֵכָר--נִמֹּלוּ, אִתּוֹ. {פ} 27 And all the men of his house, those born in the house, and those bought with money of a foreigner, were circumcised with him.
Immediately thereafter, our parsha, parshat Vayera, begins: Bereishit 18:1:

א וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו יְהוָה, בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא; וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב פֶּתַח-הָאֹהֶל, כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם. 1 And the LORD appeared unto him by the terebinths of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
Note that it does not say vayera el Avraham, but rather elav. The person of whom we are speaking is obvious, and thus this is not a new, separate section, but rather a continuation of the previous.

Along with this goes several midrashic interpretations. Thus, why was Avraham sitting keChom haYom? Because Hashem took the sun out of its usual container so that it could shine in full force and heal Avraham, because this was three days after Avraham's bris, when it is the most painful. (And we know that the third day is the most painful because of Bereishit 34:25, from the incident with Dinah.
כה וַיְהִי בַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי בִּהְיוֹתָם כֹּאֲבִים, וַיִּקְחוּ שְׁנֵי-בְנֵי-יַעֲקֹב שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי אֲחֵי דִינָה אִישׁ חַרְבּוֹ, וַיָּבֹאוּ עַל-הָעִיר, בֶּטַח; וַיַּהַרְגוּ, כָּל-זָכָר. 25 And it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city unawares, and slew all the males.
)

Avraham's running to greet them is read into this fact.

Another data point that enters into this is that Hashem appears to Avraham in elonei mamreh. From where do we know this Mamre? From the fight to save Lot, who had been captured. From Bereishit 14:13:

יג וַיָּבֹא, הַפָּלִיט, וַיַּגֵּד, לְאַבְרָם הָעִבְרִי; וְהוּא שֹׁכֵן בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא הָאֱמֹרִי, אֲחִי אֶשְׁכֹּל וַאֲחִי עָנֵר, וְהֵם, בַּעֲלֵי בְרִית-אַבְרָם. 13 And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew--now he dwelt by the terebinths of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner; and these were confederate with Abram.
Note the dash connecting berit to Avram rather than baalei. This is read midrashically as they were the owners/masters of the berit of Avraham. Thus, he consulted with them about his brit, and circumcised himself upon their advice. Thus, mention of Mamre here also connects this incident to the berit.

There are other midrashic features, which we need not get into. See, for example, the Chatam Sofer.

What really makes one say that this happened three days afterwards? The answer to this may be found by considering another question: How soon after Sarah laughed did she give birth to Yitzchak? It is an explicit pasuk in parshat Vayera. Bereishit 18:10:
י וַיֹּאמֶר, שׁוֹב אָשׁוּב אֵלֶיךָ כָּעֵת חַיָּה, וְהִנֵּה-בֵן, לְשָׂרָה אִשְׁתֶּךָ; וְשָׂרָה שֹׁמַעַת פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל, וְהוּא אַחֲרָיו. 10 And He said: 'I will certainly return unto thee when the season cometh round; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son.' And Sarah heard in the tent door, which was behind him.--
and then a bit later:
יד הֲיִפָּלֵא מֵיְהוָה, דָּבָר; לַמּוֹעֵד אָשׁוּב אֵלֶיךָ, כָּעֵת חַיָּה--וּלְשָׂרָה בֵן. 14 Is any thing too hard for the LORD. At the set time I will return unto thee, when the season cometh round, and Sarah shall have a son.'
What is the meaning of כָּעֵת חַיָּה? JPS, above, translated "when the season comes around." This might be a deliberate attempt at ambiguity, but it matches, more or less, that explanation of Rashi and Ibn Ezra that it means "the same time next year."

There is a grammatical to be made in favor of this. Rashi notes the kametz under the kaf in כָּעֵת, which reflects the definite article. Thus, this is not a single phrase kaEt Chaya -- I would explain that this is because if this is a single phrase with Chaya, and it was construct (semichut), then the definite article would have to appear on Chaya as well. Rather it is: kaEt -- as this time, meaning at this time next year; chaya - she will give birth. And then Sarah will have a son. Others point out that the definite article suggests a known time entity, and thus would be the time that it was right then, just one year from then.

The Targumim, Tg. Onkelos and Tg. Yonatan, also sign on to the interpretation that this will occur next year. Thus, Onkelos writes:
יח,י וַיֹּאמֶר, שׁוֹב אָשׁוּב אֵלֶיךָ כָּעֵת חַיָּה, וְהִנֵּה-בֵן, לְשָׂרָה אִשְׁתֶּךָ; וְשָׂרָה שֹׁמַעַת פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל, וְהוּא אַחֲרָיו. וַאֲמַר, מְתָב אֲתוּב לְוָתָךְ כְּעִדָּן דְּאַתּוּן קַיָּמִין, וְהָא בְּרָא, לְשָׂרָה אִתְּתָךְ; וְשָׂרָה שְׁמַעַת בִּתְרַע מַשְׁכְּנָא, וְהוּא אֲחוֹרוֹהִי.
כְּעִדָּן דְּאַתּוּן קַיָּמִין is what he writes, which might be translated as "like the time that you are existing (right now)." Thus, in one year exactly.

Furthermore, when Hashem promises kaEt Chaya, he prefaces it with laMoed. This is possibly meaningful.

Let us look back to parshat Lech Lecha, to Hashem's first promise that Sarah would have a son. In Bereishit 17:21, associated with the command of circumcision (which Avraham did beEtzem haYom hazeh, on that selfsame day), Hashem tells him:

כא וְאֶת-בְּרִיתִי, אָקִים אֶת-יִצְחָק, אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד לְךָ שָׂרָה לַמּוֹעֵד הַזֶּה, בַּשָּׁנָה הָאַחֶרֶת. 21 But My covenant will I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.'
Thus, we already know Sarah will give birth to Yitzchak. This time is specified as lammoed, just as Hashem specifies in parshat Vayera, as I mentioned above. Furthermore, this time is לַמּוֹעֵד הַזֶּה, בַּשָּׁנָה הָאַחֶרֶת, at this set time next year. Thus, one instance of promise informs on the other, and clarifies that in Vayera, what was meant was also this set time in the next year.

But how could this be? If much time existed between the two promises, then they could not both be true as the set time next year. Thus, a matter of days, at the most, must have separated the two instances.

One might say it was a matter of no days at all. That is, we could read the first pasuk of Vayera as a close to the previous section, which began in Bereishit 17:1:

א וַיְהִי אַבְרָם, בֶּן-תִּשְׁעִים שָׁנָה וְתֵשַׁע שָׁנִים; וַיֵּרָא יְהוָה אֶל-אַבְרָם, וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֲנִי-אֵל שַׁדַּי--הִתְהַלֵּךְ לְפָנַי, וֶהְיֵה תָמִים. 1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him: 'I am God Almighty; walk before Me, and be thou wholehearted.
as well as a beginning to the next section. Of course, we would need to have some time for the circumcision, etc., but that might have happened after Hashem left.

A better assumption is that it happened the next day, or in the next few days. And then, the fact of circumcision being the most painful in its aftermath on the third day factors in in various ways.

However, I would suggest that in fact three months separated the first incident and the next. Firstly, as Rashbam points out, chaya does not just mean live, but refers to a yoledet. This is true in Targumic and halachic literature. One can find parallels.

One famous connection of birth the chaya is on the pasuk ki chayot heina, what the Egyptian midwives say about the Israelite women giving birth. Shemot 1:19:

יט וַתֹּאמַרְןָ הַמְיַלְּדֹת אֶל-פַּרְעֹה, כִּי לֹא כַנָּשִׁים הַמִּצְרִיֹּת הָעִבְרִיֹּת: כִּי-חָיוֹת הֵנָּה, בְּטֶרֶם תָּבוֹא אֲלֵהֶן הַמְיַלֶּדֶת וְיָלָדוּ. 19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh: 'Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwife come unto them.'
One could translate, as JPS does above, as "they are lively." Or one could say they are like animals in that they need no midwife. Or, one could translate it as chakiman, as the Targumim do and as many then misunderstand as wise, but which really means that they are midwives, and so do not really need our services as midwives. This demonstrates a connection between chayot and birth, in this case midwives.

Finally, what I would label as peshat. Ki does not mean because here but rather when. When they are in labor = ki chayot heina, then they give birth before the midwife arrives. Thus, this is prime evidence that in Biblical Hebrew chayot means "give birth."

So too here. kaEt Chaya means "like the time it takes for a woman to give birth." That is, in 9 months. Grammatically, perhaps the heh hayedi'a is awkward. But one can have occasional exceptions to the "rule." And if keEt Chaya is an expression, then perhaps one can understand applying the definite article to the beginning of it and making no edit operations within the expression itself. (We see this in English in terms of some expressions, such as a tendency to treat mother-in-law as a single word and thus pluralize as mother-in-laws rather than mothers-in-law.)

Thus, first the "man" states that in 9 months time, the time it typically takes for a woman to bear a child, if he happened to be around, he would see that Sarah had a son. Sarah laughs. Hashem confirms to Avraham saying לַמּוֹעֵד אָשׁוּב אֵלֶיךָ, כָּעֵת חַיָּה--וּלְשָׂרָה בֵן. The phrase כָּעֵת חַיָּה is a repetition of the earlier statement that Sarah overheard. Perhaps לַמּוֹעֵד refers to the same, but I would argue it hearkens back to the moed that Hashem promised Avraham in parshat Lech Lecha. The set time at the next year.

So, we have two promises. In Lech Lecha, it was the same time next year. In Vayera, it was the time it takes a woman to give birth. 12 - 9 = 3, so there must have been three intervening months.

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin