Eglah Arufah

From RRW
Guest Blogger: Mitchell First

                                  “Eglah Arufah” (Breaking the Neck of the Heifer)

     Parshat Shoftim ends with an unusual mitzvah. If a slain man is found in an open area in Israel, and the murderer is unknown, the elders of the nearest town conduct a ceremony with a heifer that has never been worked. They bring it to a “nachal eitan” (meaning in dispute) and break its neck there. They then wash their hands over it and recite the phrase: “Our hands have not shed this blood nor have our eyes seen it.” Another verse, 21:8, is then recited, this time perhaps by the kohanim: “Atone for your nation...and do not let innocent blood remain in the midst of your nation Israel.” Verse 21:8 ends with a comment: “ve-nikaper lahem ha-dam“=[this procedure] will have atoned for them the [victim’s] blood. The last verse reads: “You shall remove the innocent blood from your midst….” The implication is that this ritual does that.

      What is the reason for this mitzvah? Rambam includes it as a חק at Me’ilah 8:8. There he defines “chukim” as commandments whose reason is not known.   (It is not listed in the standard text of Yoma 67b where the Sages list a few chukim, but is included in the version of R. Chananel. It is also included in the list at Tanchuma Mishpatim 7.)

      In his later work Moreh Nevuchim (III, 40), Rambam suggests a reason. “The beneficial character of the law… is evident. For it is the city that is nearest to the slain person that brings the heifer, and in most cases the murderer comes from that place…The investigation, the procession of the elders, the measuring, and the taking of the heifer, make people talk about it, and by making the event public, the murderer may be found out …”

        But Rambam’s explanation of the law does not fit the plain sense of the verses where the ritual itself seems to be the goal.

        In order to understand this law, we must first understand the meaning of “nachal eitan.” The simplest understanding of “nachal” is a valley that has a continuous water flow, and “eitan” means “strong.” (See, e.g., Rambam, Rotzeach 9:2.)   Accordingly, R. Hertz explains that the ceremony is taking place in an area with a perennial brook and “its running water would carry away the blood of the heifer, and thus symbolize the removal of the defilement from the land.” Many agree with R. Hertz here that this is the explanation of the ritual. 

       The problem with this approach is that there is nothing explicit in the verses about the blood of the heifer. The verses only refer to the breaking of the neck of the heifer. There is no sacrifice of the heifer being performed.

       Others understand “nachal eitan” the same way, but view its symbolism differently, not involving any carrying away of blood. Because there was a continuous flow of water, the area remained uncultivated. The symbolism of the ritual is that just like the heifer used in the ritual is one that was never used, so too the procedure takes place in an area that could never be cultivated.

      In an alternative translation of “nachal eitan,” Rashi  understands it as a valley that is a hard one that has never been worked. In this approach too, there is nothing in the ritual about water carrying the blood of the heifer away. Rashi bases his interpretation on the Talmud. (Its citation at Sotah 46b to Numbers 24:21 supports Rashi’s interpretation. But Rambam’s interpretation is perhaps a simpler understanding of the term at Deut. 21:4.)

                                                                          ------                      

       If the ritual does not involve the heifer’s blood being carried away and removing the defilement in this manner, how do we understand it? And does the heifer symbolize the murderer, the victim, or perhaps neither?

        The Talmud at Sotah 46a offers an explanation for the ritual: The heifer symbolizes the victim. An  animal that has not become fruitful is killed on a place that is not fruitful and shall atone for one who has been robbed of the possibility to become fruitful, i.e., to do mitzvot.

        But R. Hirsch suggests that Sanhedrin 52b seems to view the killing of the heifer as symbolizing the killing of the murderer. The Talmud is willing to learn general rules about killing murderers from how this heifer is killed: e.g., at the neck. It also seems to me that the simplest understanding of the ritual is that the heifer represents the murderer.

        S. D. Luzzatto sees several educational purposes in the ritual. The heifer is killed as a substitute for the murderer being killed and this reinforces the lesson that the Jewish people are responsible for one another, and that the land will not atone for a death without the death of the murderer.  Second, because of their new understanding of how serious an offense a murder is to the land, they will make sure not to kill the one suspected of this unsolved murder without clear proof.

        Luzzatto agrees with Rashi that the “nachal eitan” is a dry, hard place. This is so the blood of the heifer that ends up on the ground will remain and leave an impression. This blood will also placate the blood of the victim that calls out from the ground (see Gen. 4:10.)

          Nechama Leibowitz views the rite as designed to shock all the residents with the news that a murdered man had been found in the vicinity. There is a general tendency for individuals to be indifferent upon hearing tragedies. They shake theirs head initially but then go on their way. God set up this elaborate ritual with the participation of the elders and the priests. In this way, the people would take seriously the loss of even one individual. It would shock their complacency and summon them to severe self-scrutiny, and hopefully reduce the number of murders.

             Among modern scholars, a very creative explanation is found in the Encyclopaedia Judaica entry, “Eglah Arufah.” There is an idea in Tanach that the land, when polluted with the blood of murder victims, punishes the people with famine. By killing the heifer, the murder is reenacted and the pollution is transferred from the area of the corpse to a different area: the area of the killed heifer, which is either a rough area that can never be ploughed, or an area whose constant stream prevents the area from being ploughed.  By this transfer of the location of the pollution, the area where the murder occurred can become fertile again.  My response to this explanation is that this idea of a transfer of the location of the pollution from one location to another is farfetched and not expressed in these verses.  For a similar approach, see the article by R. Patai, at JQR 30, pp. 59-69.                                                                

          Other instances of neck breaking in Tanach are at Ex. 13:13 and 34:20 (both regarding חמור פטר) and Isa. 66:3 (neck of a dog). The last is a practice that God seems to view as an abomination. It has been suggested that it was associated with idolatry. 

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

Mitchell First can be reached at MFirstAtty@aol.com. As a personal injury lawyer, he knows to be slow and careful when walking so he does not fall and break his neck.  For more of his articles, please visit his website at rootsandrituals.org.

Nishma Website Updated

Been having problems with the Nishma website but some have now been worked out. 

As such https://www.nishma.org/ was just updated.We invite you check out our website on a regular basis.

Nishma-Parshah: Shoftim

Take a look at what's on

NISHMA-PARSHAH

for Parshat Shofitm

Parsha: Shoftim, "To King or Not to King"
http://nishma-parshah.blogspot.ca/2016/09/parsha-shoftim-to-king-or-not-to-king.html

Shoftim: The False Prophet
http://nishma-parshah.blogspot.ca/2016/09/shoftim-false-prophet.html

Re'eh: To'eva
http://nishma-parshah.blogspot.ca/2016/08/reeh-toeva.html

Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof
http://nishma-parshah.blogspot.ca/2017/08/tzedek-tzedek-tirdof.html

 

 

 

 

Thoughts on Yeshiva Tuition

 From RRW 

https://jewishlink.news/features/39096-thoughts-on-yeshiva-tuition

The Root G-D-D and the Prohibition of "Lo Titgodidu"

From RRW
Guest Blogger: Mitchell First

The Root G-D-D and the Prohibition of “Lo Titgodidu”

There is a root in Biblical Hebrew גדד. It often appears in the “hitpael” form and means “cut,” i.e., “cut oneself” (=self-mutilation). The “hitpael” form appears one time in the Torah (Devarim 14:1) and a few more times in the Nach. (The verb גדד also appears two times in the Aramaic part of the Tanach, in the book of Daniel. There it is not in the “hitpael,” and it refers to cutting a tree.)

In contrast to the above, Biblical Hebrew also has a root אגד that has a “join/group” meaning. This root appears four times in Tanach, e.g., 2 Sam. 2:25: “agudah echat.”

In English, we have a word “ahistorical.” Here that initial “a” negates what comes after. (This is patterned on what happened in Greek.) Is it possible that the initial “aleph” of AGD does that to GDD? I.e., it is not cut, but joined? This is very unlikely. Almost certainly, there is no relationship between these two opposite roots AGD and GDD.

Thirty-three times in Tanach we have a noun “gedud” that refers to a military unit. Where does this noun come from? There are two ways to relate it to GDD=cut. In one view, it represents military men who invade the land of others, cut it into sections, make inroads, etc. In another view, it represents military men who were sectioned off from the rest of the Israelites. For advocates of the first view, see R. Hirsch to Gen. 49:19, and M. Clark, Etymological Dictionary, p. 35: “penetrating armed force.” See also Brown-Driver-Briggs, p. 151.

From the noun “gedud,” it is widely agreed that there developed a verb “yagodu,” to “gather against” and that is its meaning at Psalms 94:21. See, e.g., Daat Mikra to this verse.

-------

Most interesting is the discussion at Yevamot 13b regarding Devarim 14:1. The verse reads: “You are the children of the Lord your God; lo titgodidu and you shall not make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.” (“Between your eyes” is an idiom that means something like: “on your head.”)

The plain sense of “lo titgodidu“ is a prohibition on self-mutilation. The Talmud understands it as referring to a grieving practice, but it is possible that it is a more general prohibition (see below). In any event, aside from this prohibition, the Talmud derives an additional prohibition from Devarim 14:1: the Israelites are prohibited from dividing themselves into factions. Without getting into the details, the conclusion of the passage at Yevamot 13b is that both prohibitions derive equally from Devarim 14:1 (and are derived from those two tavs in the word). This is a very odd claim, as the “factions” interpretation does not fit the context of the verse at all. Put another way, the Talmud is giving two interpretations of a verse which interpretations supposedly coexist, but the interpretations do not have anything to do with one another. The Maharal, in his Gur Aryeh commentary on this verse, asks how this is possible. (He suggests an answer but his answer is too homiletical for my taste.)

What does Rambam do with this sugya? In his Sefer Ha-Mitzvot, negative prohibition #45, he enumerates both prohibitions under this negative commandment but remarks that the second is “kemo derash.” (This is a Hebrew translation of what he wrote in Arabic.) But later, in his Mishneh Torah, he does make it seem that both derive equally from the verse. See Avodah Zarah 12:13-14. Interestingly, Rashi on Devarim 14:1 only discusses the self-mutilation interpretation.

Going back to the plain sense of verse 14:1, the word למת (=for the dead) does not necessarily relate to the “lo titgodidu” prohibition. Therefore, the prohibition on self-mutilation can be a general one, not related to grieving. Also, it is evident from the story at I Kings 18:28 that self-mutilation was practiced even outside of grieving contexts. As set forth in the Soncino commentary there: [Cutting oneself is] “a form of worship common to several cults with the purpose of exciting the pity of the gods, or to serve as a blood-bond between the devotee and his god.” See also the Daat Mikra commentary on 14:1.

----

There is one more interesting thing about the passage at Yevamot 13b. When the Talmud discusses the “factions” interpretation, it uses the following phrase, in the name of Reish Lakish: “lo taasu agudot agudot.” We mentioned above that גדד is a root that means “divide,” while אגד is a root that means “join/group.” When deriving a prohibition from “lo titgodidu,” we would have expected Reish Lakish to use a word from the root גדד! Why the choice of “agudot”? Perhaps Reish Lakish believed that “agudot” was derived from the root גדד, and was just an Aramaic form of this word. (It is also significant that Sifrei 96 on “lo titgodidu” cites to Amos 9:6 which uses the word “va-agudato.”) There may not even have been a Hebrew or Aramaic word that meant “factions” that was clearly derived from the root גדד in the time of Reish Lakish.

There is a ramification here: how should one translate “lo taasu agudot agudot”? Is the proper translation: “Do not form groups [and] groups”? Or “Do not form factions [and] factions”? Most translations prefer the “factions” word, implicitly connecting “agudot” to the root G-D-D. See, e.g., Jastrow, p. 11, and the ArtScroll Yevamot 13b.

With regard to the reason for the “lo titgodidu”-factions interpretation, Rashi writes that the purpose is to avoid giving the impression that there is more than one Torah, while Rambam writes that the purpose is to prevent conflict.

-----

Now that you are all prepared on the root גדד, I will assign some homework. Look at the blessing for Gad at Gen. 49:19: “Gad gedud yegudenu, ve-hu yagud akev.” How would you translate it? Just to start you off, R. Kaplan in The Living Torah translates: “Raiders shall raid Gad, but he will raid at their heel.” R. Kaplan is translating all three of those words with a “raid” meaning, and has Gad as the object in the first phrase. But there are many other ways to translate this sentence. For example: 1) Raiders shall raid Gad but he will cut off their heel; 2) Gad shall go forward and attack, and he shall attack the [enemy’s] heel, and 3) Good fortune will pursue Gad, and he will have good fortune in the end. (This last interpretation is based on the “fortune” meaning of the letters G-D. “Gad” seems to have been the name of an ancient deity in charge of a man’s fortune. See Isa. 65:11 and Daat Mikra there, Encyclopaedia Judaica 7:249, and Shab. 67b. For many other possible translations of the blessing to Gad, see the notes in The Living Torah.

I would like to thank Rabbi Ezra Frazer for suggesting this topic to me and for some of the references.

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

Mitchell First can be reached at MFirstAtty@aol.com. Please visit his website rootsandrituals.org for more of his articles. As an attorney, he is a divisive force. But as a scholar, he tries to unite his readers around correct interpretations.

Nishma-Parshah: Re'eh

Take a look at what's on

NISHMA-PARSHAH

for Parshat Re'eh

Re'eh: To'eva
http://nishma-parshah.blogspot.ca/2016/08/reeh-toeva.html

Parsha: Emor, "Is Sefirat ha'Omer One Mitzva or Two?"
http://nishma-parshah.blogspot.ca/2016/08/parsha-emor-is-sefirat-haomer-one.html

 

On July 3 1861 the Pasha Gave the Keys to Jerusalem to the Chief Rabbi

From RRW
Guest Blogger: Mitchell First
 

On July 3, 1861, the Pasha Gave the Keys of Jerusalem to the Chief Rabbi

In this column, I am going to summarize an article from Hakirah, vol. 25 (2018) by Meir Loewenberg. (The article is online at hakirah. org).

-----

On June 25, 1861 the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire died and there was a new Sultan.

Eight days later, on July 3, the chief rabbi of Jerusalem was presented with the keys to Jerusalem and held them in his home for one hour. This is what occurred, according to one account:

“The Jews waited with all formalities on the governor Surraya pasha and requested him to restore to them the keys of Jerusalem, according to a right which they claimed on the death of one sultan and the accession of another….They brought forward such proofs of the justice of their demand that the pasha did not refuse it, but referred it to his [council]…. Their decision was in favor of the Israelites, the whole council being aware that they were the ancient owners of the country.

“The ceremony was accordingly performed in the following manner. Said pasha, the general of the forces, accompanied by the officers of his staff, and some members of the council… went to the Jews’ quarter, where he was met by a deputation of that nation and conducted to the house of the chief rabbi, who received the pasha at the door, and there was publicly presented with the keys. The pasha was then entertained with the utmost respect…; refreshments, coffee and tobacco were served, and then the rabbi (not having a garrison to defend the keys) restored them with many thanks to the general, who was escorted back by the chief men of the Jews to the governor of the city… to give an account of his mission, and shew him that none of the keys were missing. So, in 1861, the Jewish nation possessed for one hour the keys of Jerusalem, which were delivered over to them by the Arabs in consequence of the unvarying tradition which they had preserved.”

Why in the world would the Turkish authorities present the keys of the city to the chief rabbi of Jerusalem for even a short period?

The account above was written by the Italian engineer Ermete Pierotti in his Customs and Traditions of Palestine (English tr., 1864). He had been working in Jerusalem, hired by the Ottoman authorities as a consultant. He had no background on Jewish laws and customs. He wrote above that the “decision was in favor of the Israelites, the whole council being aware that they were the ancient owners of the country.” This is how he understood the ceremony. It reflected a publicly expressed conviction by the Muslim leaders of Jerusalem that the Israelites were the ancient owners of the country.

After the 1967 war, Pierotti’s account became frequently cited about what happened that day. For example, Israel’s ambassador to the U.N. cited this account at a Security Council meeting in 1968 and in 1969 Abraham Heschel quoted it to support Israel’s claims to the new territories.

But Pierotti’s explanation for the ceremony was just his mistaken impression and had no basis.

Another explanation for the ceremony was presented by James Finn, the British consul in Jerusalem from 1845-1863. In his book he mentioned the ceremonies of 1839 and 1861. He explained: “For the exercise of this traditional custom they make heavy presents to the local governors, who allow of a harmless practice…It is a matter of bakhsheesh to them…the Jewish feelings are gratified for their expectation of the future is refreshed, and the Jerusalem Rabbis are enabled to boast all over among their people that they [allow] the Sultan of Turkey to keep possession of the Holy City.”

Another explanation was offered by a monk who lived in Jerusalem in the 1860’s. He wrote that the ceremony symbolized that the Jews were given permission by the new Sultan to live in Jerusalem and travel all over Palestine.

---------

What is the true explanation for the ceremony? It was stated by Elizabeth Finn, wife of James Finn. (Women always know best!) This is what she wrote in 1869: “ Some of [the Jews] termed [the custom] “hiring the city,” and said that it was done in connection with the laws of Eruv, for Sabbath observances; for that when a city is thus hired as a whole- all within its walls is considered by their law to have become one house- within which they are then free to pass on the Sabbath from dwelling to dwelling, even though bearing slight burdens, without infringing any of the laws…”.

This eruv explanation was corroborated by Rabbi Eliyahu Bechor Chazan who wrote in 1875 that what happened in 1861 was part of the eruv procedure. He was the grandson of the rabbi who received the keys in 1861.

--------

Loewenberg then gives further background to the Jerusalem eruv. The need for an eruv in Jerusalem began in the 17^th century. That is when the Jews began to spread to different areas within the city walls. Prior to that, usually each courtyard had a majority of Jews. This made a citywide eruv unnecessary.

A necessary step for the eruv to work was a lease of the city from the Sultan or his representative. It became the custom to enter a lease for a long period like 50 years. But what happened when the lessor dies in the interim? In the middle of the 18^th century, some began to question whether the lease would still be effective and recommended a new lease on each succession.

None of the 18^th century rabbinical authorities in Jerusalem mentioned taking possession of the city keys for any period as part of the eruv lease signing. But the Jerusalem rabbinate adopted this chumra in connection with the successions and signings of 1839 and 1861. Prior to this, this chumra had been followed in some Mediterranean cities at the end of the 18^th century. (This is reported by R. Chaim David Azulai.)

A problem arose in 1876 when Sultan Murad V was deposed after 3 months (on a 50 year lease). The Jewish community of Jerusalem did not have the funds for a second round of bakhsheesh. The Ashkenazic rabbinate ruled that no new lease was necessary. The Sephardic rabbinate arranged a lease with a minor official who was willing to do so for a smaller amount of money.

At the end of the 19^th century, the halachik status of Jerusalem changed. It was no longer a “walled city.” This change occurred because Jaffa gate and the other gates were kept open 24 hours in order to facilitate the interaction with the new Jewish neighborhoods outside the wall. Later, in 1898 a permanent breach was made in the wall near the Jaffa gate to permit Kaiser Wilhelm to enter without dismounting from his horse. By the time of the next Sultan in 1909, obtaining the city keys was no longer relevant. Other means were used for the Jerusalem eruv.

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

Mitchell First can be reached at MFirstAtty@aol.com. As an attorney, he is a believer in giving bakhsheesh to the Judge (but it is important to give more than the opposing attorney gives!)

Use It or Lose It

 From RRW

Rabbi Eliyahu Safran 

        Use It or Lose It - Parsha from OU - OU Torah

Mussar: The Wisdom of "K'shot Atzm'cha"

originally posted July 20, 2013

The Talmud Teaches:

K'shot Atz'mcha
v'Achar Kach
K'shot Acheirim

Here is a L'Havdil a Taoist parallel

"If you want to awaken all of humanity, then awaken all of yourself, if you want to eliminate the suffering in the world, then eliminate all that is dark and negative in yourself. Truly, the greatest gift you have to give is that of your own self-transformation

-- Lao Tzu


Lesson #1:

If you want to fix the world, fix yourself first.

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


Furthermore, The Talmud's version has an additional implication, Namely-
Without fixing oneself first, there is little or no credibility to impose one's Mussar upon others.
Thus, a preacher needs to walk the walk as well as to talk the talk.
Both Senses are captured in the K'shot Atzm'cha phrase.

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


A third Talmudic aspect may be understood as follows:

"Change Your Thoughts
And You Change Your World"

~ Norman Vincent Peale

Meaning: after fixing one's self - or more precisely one's own thinking - the natural by-product would be a brand new view / Hashkafah on the Outside World. IOW once one's outlook is fixed, the World is then Seen as OK - as in - I'm OK You're OK.

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


This is powerful stuff and can create total harmony with "What Is".

Sources from Talmud
------------------------------------------

מסכת בבא מציעא פרק ט
דף קז,ב גמרא
אנא היכי עביד הכי
והכתיב (צפניה ב) התקוששו וקשו ואמר ריש לקיש
קשוט עצמך ואחר כך קשוט אחרים


מסכת בבא בתרא פרק ג
דף ס,ב גמרא 
ולימא ליה זיל קוץ דידך והדר אקוץ דידי משום דריש לקיש דאמר (צפניה ב) התקוששו וקושו
קשוט עצמך ואח"כ קשוט אחרים: 



Best Regards,
RRW

Barach Dayan HaEme

 From RRW 

 

View this email in your browser

ברוך דיין האמת It is with great sadness that we must inform you of the passing of Rav Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz zt"l. The impact that Rabbi Steinsaltz had in spreading limmud Torah, enhancing the understanding of our texts and religion, bringing Jews closer to their God and to their faith, cannot be overstated. Rabbi Steinsaltz's translations and commentaries of Tanakh, Mishna, Gemara, Rambam, and Tanya placed as perhaps the most prolific commentator of Jewish texts in history, drawing comparison to Rashi.  His countless other works on Jewish thought, Hassidut, philosophy, parshanut, and more have touched the souls of thousands and have already taken their place among the core texts of modern Jewish thought. We are proud to have been partners with and inspired by, this most humble of talmidei hahamim and hope to continue sharing his vast wisdom with the world. May the Almighty comfort his family among the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem

 

Nishma-Parshah: Ekev

Take a look at what's on

NISHMA-PARSHAH

for Parshat Ekev

Parsha: Equev, "Defining 'Eqev' via the 'Concordance Technique' "
http://nishma-parshah.blogspot.ca/2016/08/parsha-equev-defining-eqev-via.html

Parsha: Eqev, "Who Wrote the Second Luchot?"
http://nishma-parshah.blogspot.ca/2016/08/parsha-eqev-who-wrote-second-luchot.html

Eqev, Mishnah, Sukkah - Perfect Misunderstanding
http://nishma-parshah.blogspot.ca/2016/08/eqev-mishnah-sukkah-perfect.html

Eqev: Who Inscribed the Second Luchos?
http://nishma-parshah.blogspot.ca/2016/08/eqev-who-inscribed-second-luchos.html

The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn? Post 7

Please see
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn?  Post 1
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn?  Post 2
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn?  Post 3
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn?  Post 4
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn?  Post 5
The Corona Virus: What are We to Learn?  Post 6

It has been some time since I last wrote a post within this series and there are two reasons for this. One is that I basically said what I needed to say in regard to this issue. The second is that I became more concerned with another issue within society -- especially American society -- and that was the hostility within their political system. In certain ways, what I presented in regard to weaknesses within the responses to Covid were even further highlighted within the present realm of American politics. There is no thoughtful discussion. It is one group yelling 'I'm right and you're wrong' and the other yelling the same thing. At a time when thought should dominate, reason is so absent in many places within our present world. This was a major theme in regard to my Corona posts. It has now become, for too many, the normative response to almost everything in our world.

This has actually now taken me back to Covid. Our response to this pandemic should be the issue and the objective should be how best to deal with this difficult issue on its many different levels. As we have stated -- the issue is most complex and touches upon various medical, psychological and financial concerns. The further problem is that Corona seems to be -- again, for too many -- just part of another agenda. The American Presidential Election seems to have taken centre stage. The reporting on Corona and the directives concerning Corona seems -- to a, sadly, large extent -- to have more to do with what will best serve to ensure the desired election result than what is the best response to Corona.

This is not to say that the actual experts involved in dealing with Corona are so obviously biased in their responses. With such a complex issue as Corona, we should expect to find divergence in learned opinion. The problem I am addressing actually occurs on the next level -- how people respond to such legitimate divergence in thought. Do you see people honestly presenting both views on a matter? Do you see people being honest about how their choice of the opinion to follow actually reflects agendas in other regards? Of course not, for actually showing the complexity of the matter would only impact negatively on the desired agenda. This agenda is served by presenting the solution simply and without issue.

The result is then conflict. We are not talking about debate, even heated debate. In the honest voicing of disagreement, divergent views are at least presented and, as such, all positions become subject to analysis, critique and evaluation. What we are experiencing today, though, is the dominance of presentations of one viewpoint as the only legitimate position; an advocate of a different perspective is only mocked. There is little if any desire, let alone opportunity, for dialogue and discussion. The result is, therefore, a development of conflict, even hostility. This may not be because those, on this level, maintaining these positions necessarily have the associated agendas. It is because the ones with these agendas are able to voice these underlying views as if they are the only legitimate opinions -- and this is what is passed on. This conflict actually serves their desired goals better. The response to Covid is complex but an agenda is simple -- and it just has to be sold. The one hearing only one side of an issue is an easy person to bring on board. A hostility toward the divergent view actually serves the agenda because it will hinder dialogue and the chance to think which could lead someone to reject the agenda.

The events within the book of  Bamidbar actually reflect this teaching about how the avoidance of dialogue can be used to further negative agendas and how such dialogue, alternatively, can be applied to reach the greater good. The spies and Korach's people not only voiced their agenda but they wanted to prevent any further dialogue and consideration of the issues. This is because their goal was solely their agenda with no consideration of the further issues. In distinction, the cases of the B'not Tzelaphchad and the tribes of Reuvain and Gad actually initiated discussion. This is because, while there were certain positions which were being advocated, a consideration of the broader issues and the greater good was also present. The outcome yielding the achieved conclusion was thus the result of discussion. Thought triumphed agenda. More so, agenda positively transformed into the greater good reflecting the true Will of God through this discussion and thought. (In the case of Reuvain and Gad, this would seem to be clear within the text itself. In the case of the B'not Tzelaphchad, this is, perhaps, more obvious within the midrashic literature on the matter.) Agendas can yield conflict because such distancing from honest dialogue serves agendas. Thought, however, demands true dialogue yielding a real consideration of what is best. This must be our goal.

This would now seem to be a further problem in our world today in regard to Covid. It is being used to serve other agendas and, thus, the issue is not being addressed with a true consideration of its depth but in the light of these other agendas. Conflicts, as such, which may arise in our lives due to Covid may have some legitimacy but they would then be recongnized as really demanding of us, for the betterment of all, to recognize the need for further dialogue and investigation of the issue. We are now, though, encountering conflicts whose sole purpose is to foster conflct and avoid such discussion, We must be truly careful of an outside agenda furthering its goal of hostility to serve its objective.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

Meaning of Yad in "Yad Va-Shem"

From RRW
Guest Blogger: Mitchell First

 

The Meaning of יד in “Yad Va-Shem”

The name of this Holocaust Remembrance Center in Jerusalem comes from Isaiah 56:7. Here is the first part of this verse: “Ve-natati lahem be-veiti u-ve-chomotai yad va-shem…” A standard translation for “yad va-shem” here is: “a monument and a memorial.” Why is יד being translated this way?

The explanation is that יד seems to have the meaning of “monument” in two other places in Tanach: at 1 Sam. 15:12 and 2 Sam. 18:18.

The context at 1 Sam. 15:12 is that Saul had just defeated Amalek. Verse 12 reads: “Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning; and it was told to Samuel, saying: Saul came to Carmel, and, behold, he is setting up for himself a monument…” The monument was surely to commemorate his recent victory over Amalek. The Hebrew for the last phrase is: “ve-hineh metziv lo yad.”

(What follows shortly thereafter in verse 14 is Samuel’s famous rebuke of Saul: “u-meh kol ha-tzon ha-zeh….” Many have observed that the “meh”of “u-meh” was likely meant to sound like the sound of sheep!)

The context at 2 Sam. 18:18 is the killing of Absalom and that a heap of stones was built over his dead body. (Soncino comments: “as a monument of shame over the rebel’s grave.”) We are then told, in a contrast, that Absalom had in his lifetime set up a מצבת (=monument), because he had no sons. The verse continues “va-yikra la-matzevet al shemo, va-yikarei lah yad Avshalom ad ha-yom ha-zeh” (=it is called Avshalom’s monument until this day”).

As to why the word יד expanded to mean “monument,” this is difficult. It has been suggested that monuments in ancient Israel originally had the shape of a raised hand (i.e., the upper part of the monument is rounded), with evidence attempted to be brought for this from the cities of Hazor and Gezer. Alternatively, the term might have originated with monuments depicting hands, such as one found in Hazor. For further details, see the article by M. Delcor, in Journal of Semitic Studies 12 (1967), pp. 230-34. See also the Soncino comm. to Isa. 56:5. I also have one more suggestion which I will make a few paragraphs below. (Note also that the cognates to יד in the other Semitic languages do not have the “monument” meaning.)

Going back to Isaiah 56:5, the context here is also of interest. The “yad va-shem” that God is giving is addressed to the “sarisim” (=eunuchs) who kept the commandments and presumably did a lot of good deeds, but had no children. God promises to establish them a “yad va-shem” which is “better than sons and daughters.” As the Daat Mikra commentary points out, probably it was a big זכות for them that the memorial would be in God’s Temple and walls.

(Perhaps the “yad va-shem” term from verse 56:5 was also thought to be appropriate for the Holocaust Remembrance Center because many of the people murdered in the Holocaust had no children.)

(I translated “yad va-shem” above as “a monument and a memorial.” This is how the phrase at Isa. 56:5 is translated in the 1917 Jewish Publication Society of America translation. The implication of this translation is that the two nouns have similar meanings. Others suggest that “yad” refers to a physical structure and “shem” refers to oral praise. Another suggestion is that “yad va-shem” means a “yad” that serves as a “shem.” For the various views, see, e.g., the Daat Mikra comm. on the verse.)

----

There is another interesting use of the word יד at Deut. 23:13. The context here is the holiness of the military camp. At verse 14, we are told to have a יתד to use to dig and cover up our excrement. Verse 13 tells us what to do when we have to urinate in the military camp: “ve-yad tihiyeh lecha mi-chutz la-machaneh, ve-yatzahta shamah chutz.” (This is the view of Daat Mikra. But it may be a reference to both bodily functions.)

“Ve-yatzahta shamah chutz” is such innocuous language, I never realized it was alluding to relieving oneself! (R. Hirsch translated: “thither shalt thou go out.” The ArtScroll Stone has “to there you shall go out, outside.” At least The Living Torah of R. Aryeh Kaplan uses the word “lavatory” in its translation.)

But what is the meaning of “yad” in the first phrase: “you shall have a “yad” for yourself”? The meaning from the context is “place.” But how did it get his meaning? One view is that “yad” here means “sign,” the implication being a sign pointing to a place, and the further implication perhaps being a “designated place.” (See, e.g., Targum Onkelos.) But the view I prefer is that “yad” here is shorthand for “makom al yad”= a place on the side. See, e.g., Brown-Driver-Briggs, p. 390, and Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 5, p. 402. In many places in Tanach, “yad,” “al yad,” and “el yad” are used to mean “side.” See, e.g., Ex. 2:5, Psalms 140:6, Prov. 8:3, and 1 Sam. 4:13 and 4:18.

Now that we are reminded that “yad” sometimes means “side,” I will offer the suggestion that in the case of monuments, perhaps they were originally placed on the “side” of the objects they were commemorating. Hence, “yad” came to be a term for a monument.

---

There is a famous kibbutz in Israel near Gaza called “Yad Mordechai.” (I wrote about it previously.) It fought valiantly during the War of Independence and its tenacious defensive fighting for six days was able to significantly delay the Egyptian invasion. If not for that delay, the Egyptian army could have quickly reached Tel Aviv. The “Yad Mordechai” kibbutz was founded by two groups from Poland and named for Mordechai Anielewicz, the leader of the Warsaw ghetto uprising. He fell in a battle in May 1943. The meaning of the name of the kibbutz is “A Memorial to Mordechai.” (The kibbutz first started near Netanyah, with a different name.)

Margaret Larkin wrote a book in English about the kibbutz and its role in the War of Independence. The book is titled: “The Six Days of Yad-Mordechai.” As seen from page 50 of the book, she understood the meaning of the name, “Monument to Mordechai.” But if you look online, sometimes the book is erroneously called “Hand of Mordechai”!

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

Mitchell First can be reached at MFirstAtty@aol.com. For more of his articles, please visit his website at rootsandrituals.org. He hopes there will be an interesting monument at his grave. Perhaps it can be called “Yad Rishon.”

How can the Rambam's Eighth Principle of Jewish Faith be believed in light of Hazal? - Mi Yodeya

From RRW

R' Yaakov Weinberg, in an audio recording, addressed this issue (as an issue with the ani maamin, which R' Weinberg, like you, rejected), and he explained that the point of the Rambam is not to say that the specific texts which we have now are identical to the one transmitted to Moshe. Rather, the point of the Rambam is to say that Moshe was a faithful transmitter of the Torah, and did not err nor alter the Torah as it was told to him. Thus the Rambam writes:

כלומר שהגיע אליו כולה מאת ה' הגעה שקורין אותה על דרך השאלה דבור

Which means to say that the entire Torah reached Moshe from Hashem on a level which we call "speech"

and the Rambam's proof text for this Yesod is

בזאת תדעון כי ה' שלחני וכו ולא מלבי

With this (the earth swallowing Adas Korach) you shall know that Hashem has sent me ... and I did not make it up

In other words, the source text is a verse stating that Moshe did not make up the Torah. The point of this Yesod is the accuracy of Moshe's transmission

https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/44618/how-can-the-rambams-eighth-principle-of-jewish-faith-be-believed-in-light-of-ha/44623#44623

IIRC Professor MS Feldblum A"H said something similar...