NishmaBlog

                The word “brit” is a fundamental word in Tanach. But where does this word come from? Nouns do not just appear out of nowhere in Hebrew. Rather, they are normally derived from a three letter verb. Of course, there is no verb B-R-T in Hebrew. But perhaps we can look at roots like B-R-H or B-R-R and find the origin of the word there.

                    There is a verb B-R-H in Hebrew that means “to eat.” (See, e.g., 2 Sam. 12:17.) Based on this, it has been suggested that the word “brit” has its origin in the festive meal that may have accompanied covenantal ceremonies. However, B-R-H is not the normal verb for eating in Tanach. Rather, it is typically used for someone who is not well and who is being brought food for recuperation. Therefore, it would not seem to be the appropriate word for a festive covenantal meal. (Moreover, we have no evidence that covenantal agreements were originally accompanied by the eating of food. Even in the paradigmatic brit ceremony of Gen. 15, animals are sacrificed but there is no mention of eating them.)

                   An alternative suggestion is based on the Biblical root B-R-R. This root sometimes means “purify,” and other times means “choose.” (These two meanings are related.). We all know the meaning “choose” from the Mishnah in the third chapter of Sanhedrin chapter “zeh borer.” A “brit” is an agreement with someone you choose. But more fundamentally, a “brit” is a pledge to someone else. The idea of “choosing” is not so related to the fundamental nature of a “brit.” (One commentary who suggests this “choosing” meaning as a possible origin for the word “brit” is Ibn Ezra. See his comm. to Gen. 6:18.)

                 Another approach looks at the “brit bein ha-betarim” as a model for the meaning of “brit.” There, animals were cut in half and God (in some form) walked between them. Based on this, the suggestion can be made that perhaps “brit” means separation. Ibn Ezra (comm. to Gen. 6:18) mentions this as a possibility. Rav S. R. Hirsch (comm. to Gen. 6:18) adopts this approach, suggesting a relation between B-R-T and P-R-D (separate). S. D. Luzzatto (comm. to Gen. 15:10) adopts this approach, suggesting that B-R-T is merely a metathesis of B-T-R (separate, divide). The root B-T-R is used three times in Gen. 15. The idea of “separation” can also be implied in the root B-R-R, since things that are chosen are separated.

                 But a “brit” seems more likely to be a word of unity than a word of separation. So intuitively it is hard to accept “separation” as its original meaning. The commentators who adopt this approach are probably overly influenced by the brit bein ha-betarim story (and by something similar at Jer. 34:18-19). They are also likely influenced by the expression “koret brit.”

                 (R. Hirsch does make an interesting attempt to justify the “separation” idea. He writes: “Brit” is an arrangement which is to be carried out, quite independently of all external circumstances, even in opposition to them. It literally corresponds to the conception of the “absolute,” something separated, cut off…something absolutely unconditional.”)

                 So far I have suggested explanations based on the concepts of “eating,” “choosing,” and “separating.” But none have the “ring of truth” (pun intended, as you will see). Therefore many scholars adopt a very different approach. There is a word found in the Mishnah in Shabbat (chapter 6) and in the Tosefta to Kelim (chapter 5 of its middle section): “beirit” or “burit.” Jastrow defines it as a “ring,” “hoop,” “thing cut in circular form.” It turns out that this is a later version of a word found in Akkadian in the Biblical period. The Akkadian word is “biritu” and it means “clasp, fetter.” I.e., it is something that binds things together. (Akkadian is the language of ancient Assyria and Babylonia. It is a Semitic language that is related to Hebrew.)

              Since a “brit” is in its essence something that binds people together, this would be a very sensible approach to understanding the origin of the word. This approach is argued for in the “brit” essay in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (one of my favorite works; it has essays on the words, not just conclusory entries). It is also the approach taken long ago in the classic work Brown-Driver-Briggs. After finding this approach in these two sources, I found that it was already adopted by our own Marcus Jastrow! In his “brit” (covenant) entry, p. 194, Jastrow gives the fundamental meaning of the word “brit” as “circle, ring, chain,” and he refers you to his earlier “beirit” entry on p. 166. There he refers to the Akkadian word.

                 The most common expression for entering into a “brit” in Tanach” is “koret brit.” Can the term “koret brit” help us understand the original meaning of the word “brit”?

                 The “separation” understanding of the word “brit” fits with “koret brit,” even though it is a bit tautological (”cutting a separation”). But what about the “ring” interpretation? Jastrow’s entry for “brit” includes the following conjectural statement: “ ‘koret brit,’ to cut a ring out; to make a covenant.” I believe that Jastrow is suggesting that the way a “ring” was created involved cutting. That is how the term “koret brit” could have arisen with “brit” meaning “ring.”

                   By the way, how does one annul a “brit”? The word typically used is “hefer” which comes from the root P-R-R which means “break.” So the common words used with “brit,” namely “koret” and “hefer,” both go well with understanding “brit” as a “ring” that unites two parties.

                   Finally, The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament points out that the Akkadian and Hittite terms for “treaty” (terms not related to “brit”) both have the meaning “bond.”

                    For all of the above reasons, I believe that the “ring” meaning of “brit” was the original meaning.

                    (I am not ruling out other possible interpretations of “koret brit.” One possible interpretation is that “koret brit” refers to the ceremony of cutting of the animals that may have often accompanied the “brit.” But this does not mean that the word “brit” itself had a meaning of “cutting.” Another interpretation is that “koret/cut” is figurative for “decide, decree.” For example, in English, we “cut” deals. In Hebrew, there are expressions like “gezar din” and “chitukh din.” There is much support for this interpretation.)

                     Regarding the ceremony of the cutting of the animals that may have often accompanied a “brit” (see Gen. 15 and Jer. 34: 18-20), most likely the ceremony symbolized the uniting of the parties through common blood. This is suggested in the Hertz Chumash, comm. to Gen. 15:10. Or perhaps this cutting ceremony makes palpable the punishment befalling the one who violates the pact. This is what Rashi suggests at Jer. 34:18. No one really knows.

                                                                                    ----

               As long as we are on the subject of “brit,” let us briefly discuss the term for the U.S. in modern Hebrew: artzot ha-brit. When and why was this term adopted? Artzot (or medinot) me’uchadot would have been more appropriate. The editor of the site balashon.com did some preliminary research in a post of April 23 2010. Although he could not determine precisely when the term artzot ha-brit was first used in Hebrew to refer to the U.S., he found that this term was already used to refer to the U.S. in 1857. But more interestingly, he found that in 1859, the term was used to refer to Germany (=the German confederation). It is possible that it was used to refer to Germany before it was used to refer to the U.S.!

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

Mitchell First is a personal injury attorney and Jewish history scholar. His most recent book is Esther Unmasked: Solving Eleven Mysteries of the Jewish Holidays and Liturgy. He can be reached at MFirstAtty@aol.com.

Monday, 8 January 2018

My sisters, I hear you - Neshama Carlebach

From RRW

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/my-sisters-i-hear-you/

Sunday, 7 January 2018

Rubashkin: a seven-year-old post from the files

From RRW

Guest Blogger: Rav Dov Fischer

Rubashkin: a seven-year-old post from the files

From: Dov Fischer [ravesq@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:25 PM
To:
Subject: Rubashkin

. . . .

My personal P.S. on Rubashkin – I had a person in my shul who needed a kidney transplant and was on dialysis. He approached me and told me he needed to eat meat, but he could not eat kosher meat because it has too much salt from the m’lichah process. I never heard such a thing before; I assumed that the hadachah does the job of adequate de-salination. So it sounded to me like a bubbe maisa. Nevertheless, I asked and phoned around, and – although I still was not satisfied with the notion that non-kosher meat was OK for him but kosher meat was not – I decided to believe the problem and analysis was legitimate. The guy explained to me that, for the first time in his life, he was eating mamash treifus. So I told him that we have an alternative: let’s get some unsalted kosher-slaughtered meat, and we can kosher it by broiling it. No salt. And then we found that, unlike my bubbe’s days, it is not so easy anymore to find kosher meat that is unsalted. Like, impossible. So he was back at treifus.

I mentioned the situation to a highly placed contact I have among entrepreneurs in the kosher food industry, and he put me in direct contact with Rubashkin. Rubashkin explained to me that he was flying out of Iowa to New York or California – I don’t remember – because one of his kids was getting married, like the next day or so. And he told me that he would bring unkashered, unsalted meat with him to my courier who would pick it up from him at LAX. And if the situation worked well, he said – on the virtual eve of his kid’s wedding – Rubashkin and I would explore further what we could do for this guy. I asked Rubashkin the price, and he responded: “There is no charge to help this man stop eating treifus and to return to eating kosher meat.” He made me promise not to tell others about this because he did not want to be inundated with such requests for unsalted meat. So I never told anyone, until this email. He is no longer in the meat business, and the last thing anyone will be asking him now is for some kosher-slaughtered unsalted meat. In time, the fellow in question got his kidney transplant.

That, too, is the Rubashkin whom the Government would put away for a life term or for 25 years (which, basically, is the same thing at his age in his 50s). We all should sign the petitions. We all should write brief, one-paragraph notes to the judge. I was the very, very first person on this RCA Forum, in the Forum’s nascent days, to demand that we condemn the news of the ethical lapses and the employment of illegal immigrants, etc. But this life-sentence business is outrageous. In California, where the prisons are overcrowded, they are busy releasing rapists and other convicts after a couple of years of good behavior. (And, yes, the first group of recidivists already have re-raped and are en route back to their m’komot k’vu’ot in San Quentin or wherever.) So this thing is Kafkaesque.

To answer another question some have asked -- Most normal judges will not be offended or threatened by such notes but, instead, will be moved or even deeply moved by such notes. There are no guarantees, and it could be that Rubashkin is before the rare judge who hates such notes. But, having served as a federal appeals court clerk for a year, during which time I worked on several appeals stemming from applications of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and actually got to read confidential case files that included letter-writing campaigns on behalf of certain white-collar federal convicts, and the sentencing opinions by the deeply moved district judges, it is my first-hand observation that such letter-writing campaigns literally can peel years off the sentence pronounced by the sentencing judge. The trick is to keep the letter to one paragraph or so – short and sweet – and to let the judge know that this Rubashkin is not a cookie-cutter person. And it is worthwhile writing the letter on your rabbinical stationery.

Friday, 5 January 2018

Parshas Shemos - For as His Name Is, So Is He

From RRW

Rabbi Eliyahu Safran on the parsha -- hope you enjoy

For as His Name Is, So Is He - OU Torah

Thursday, 4 January 2018

Over 1000 Nishma video shiurim on Koshertube on YouTube

Koshertube is now much further along in its transfer to Youtube with many of its library of videos now available on its new YouTube site. This includes over 1000 video shiurim from Nishma featuring Rabbi Selevan, Rabbi Hecht and others.

The link to the Koshertube on YouTube site is https://www.youtube.com/user/koshertube
From there, if you click on Playlists, you will find the playlists for the Nishma video shiurim.

FYI, the two largest Nishma playlists are:

Aaron Selevan - For Nishma at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2DN7T35t8Tn4LSc6PHzEmHCikI1AxnMj
with over 1000 shiurim in its own right

Rabbi Benjamin Hecht - Nishma at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2DN7T35t8Tnv9IshWOqyiP1rCOppyMlk
with over 300 shiurim

There are also other Nishma playlists if you check out the general page of playlists.

We invite to check out these Nishma video shiurim. As time progresses, there, of course, iy"H, will be new additions.

Tuesday, 2 January 2018

Watch ""THE DAYS OF ISRAEL BASHING ARE OVER!" NIKKI HALEY AIPAC 2017 SPEECH" on YouTube

From RRW

https://youtu.be/DmhEuFe8mSA

Monday, 1 January 2018

Kings of Israel and Judah Confirmed in Archaeological Sources

From RRW
Guest Blogger: Mitchell First

Ancient Kings of Israel and Judah in Archaeological Sources

            One of the last kings of Judah was Yehoyachin. We know from the books of Jeremiah and Kings that he was exiled by Nebuchadnezzar eleven years before the destruction of the Temple. The exile of Yehoyachin is also mentioned in the book of Esther. (There, the king’s name is given in an alternate form: Yechaniah.) According to 2 Kings, chapter 24 (and the parallel in the book of Jeremiah), Yehoyachin and his servants, princes and officers (and his mother!) surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar and Nebuchadnezzar also exiled all the important people from Jerusalem at this time.

          But what happened to Yehoyachin after that? We are provided with some additional information from Tanach, thirty-seven years later. II Kings ends on the following positive note: “In the 37^th year of the exile of Yehoyachin…Evil-Merodach king of Bavel, in the year that he began his reign, lifted up the head of Yehoyachin king of Judah out of prison. He spoke kindly to him and set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Bavel. He changed his prison garments and he ate bread before him continually…[T]here was a continual allowance given him of the king, every day a portion, all the days of his life.” So for some reason Evil-Merodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar, changed the Babylonian policy towards Yehoyachin and took him out of prison (which may have meant mere house arrest) and allowed him to eat at Evil-Merodach’s table for the rest of Yehoyachin’s life.

           From Tanach, we did not know anything about Yehoyachin during his thirty-six years of captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. And the skeptical among us could ask: How do we even know that there was such a king as Yehoyachin?

         Fortunately, archaeology came to the rescue. In the years 1899-1917, excavations were carried out in the ancient city of Babylon. In a room connected to the palace, records were found from the time of Nebuchadnezzar (604-562 BCE) dealing with deliveries of oil and barley to prisoners and other foreigners. Among the records found was the following text: “To Ya’u-kinu, king of the land of Yaudu: ½ PI for Ya’u kinu, king of the land of Yahu-du, 2½ sila for the five sons of the king of the land of Yahudu… (The “sila” was a little under 1½ pints, and the “PI” was about 6½ gallons. The reference is probably to the monthly rations of oil.) These texts all range from the tenth to the thirty-fifth year of Nebuchadnezzar. Yehoyachin is mentioned in this text and in three other texts.

           So we now have mention of Yehoyachin in a secular source, and even some data on how he was fed while in captivity by Nebuchadnezzar!

            This leads to the general question of which of the ancient kings of Israel, whether of Northern Israel or of Judah, are mentioned in archaeological sources. Fortunately, archaeology has much to contribute here. The following are the kings of Northern Israel that are mentioned in archaeological sources: Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Joash/Jehoash, Jeroboam II, Menachem, Pekach, and Hoshea. The following are the kings of Judah that are mentioned in archaeological sources. Uzziah/Azariah, Ahaz/Yehoachaz, Hezekiah, Menasheh, and Yehoyachin. There are also references in two different inscriptions to “Beit David,” implicitly referring to King David.

               What about Israelite/Jewish figures mentioned in the Bible who were not kings? Which of these are mentioned in archaeological sources? We do have mention of some such figures. Examples are Hilkiah and Azariah, both of whom were high priests during the reign of Josiah.

               What about foreign kings or other important foreign figures mentioned in the Bible? There is confirmation in archaeology of many of the Egyptian, Moabite, Aramean, Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian kings. This deserves an article of its own. I will merely state here that the earliest foreign Biblical king confirmed in archaeology is Shishak (1 Kings 11 and 14), who reigned in Egypt from 945-924 B.C.E. In Egyptian sources his name is “Sheshonq” or “Shoshenq.”

                The scholar Lawrence Mykytiuk at Purdue University has dedicated many years to identifying all Biblical figures mentioned in archaeology. In March-April 2014, he published an article in Biblical Archaeology Review: “Archaeology Confirms 50 Real People in the Bible.” You can access his list and evidence at www.biblicalarchaeology.org/50. His list is continually updated. If you go to the site now, you will see that 53 Biblical figures are listed! (For those curious, the latest additions were: Nergal-sharezer and Nebuzaradan, who were both officers of Nebuchadnezzar, and Tattenai, a Persian governor mentioned in the book of Ezra.).

                   Providing a list of Biblical figures mentioned in archaeology is not an exact science. Some archaeological inscriptions may be forgeries. Other times, the archaeological source refers to someone with the same name as a Biblical figure but the match may merely be a coincidence. Mykytiuk tried to be conservative with his list. He excluded inscriptions that were probably forgeries and included only identifications that he believed to be firm. He made a separate list of seven other identifications that are possible and reasonable, but not firm yet. For example, there is a seal from ancient Lachish that reads “Belonging to Gedalyahu, the overseer of the palace.” This may belong to the famous Gedalyah ben Achikam who was appointed governor by the Babylonians and later assassinated. “Overseer of the palace” may have been his prior position. But since scholars are not certain of the identification with Gedalyah ben Achikam, Mykytiuk omitted Gedalyah ben Achikam from his main list and included him only in his separate list.

                    The most interesting material on his short list is an inscription that refers several times to a figure named “Bilam” son of “Beor.” This inscription was found at Deir Alla in Jordan, a site slightly east of the Jordan River, in the general area where the Biblical Bilam would have lived. It dates to around 700 B.C.E. But since the Biblical Bilam ben Beor would have lived several hundred years earlier than this, it is only conjectural to identify the reference with the Biblical figure.

                   Mykytiuk did not include any very conjectural identifications. A famous one not that he did not include is the possible identification of “Amrafel,” king of Shinar (Genesis chap. 14, time of Abraham) with “Hamurabbi.” These names are very close (M-R-F vs. M-R-B). Hamurabbi lived in the 18th century B.C.E. The precise century of Abraham is not certain. (We have to work backwards from the Exodus, which may have taken place in the 13^th century B.C.E. or perhaps the 14^th or 15^th centuries B.C.E. It is too hard to go into this topic here. Please read Ira Friedman’s columns on this topic!)

                     None of the names on Mykytiuk’s firm list of fifty-three are earlier than the 10^th century B.C.E (and none are women). I am hoping that one day we can dig up some earlier figures. For example, I am hoping we can dig up a reference to Kushan-Rishatayim, king of Aram Naharayim (Judges, chapter 3). Scholars have suggested that the Tanach did not record his name properly but adjusted it so it would have the meaning “doubly wicked.”   I am waiting for his real name to be discovered to see if this suggestion is true!

                    Finally, Mykytiuk limited himself to confirmations based on archaeology. He did not include confirmations based on literary sources. The earliest and primary example of a literary source that can confirm Biblical figures is the Histories of Herotodus, 5^th century B.C.E. Herodotus writes much about the Biblical kings Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes (=Achashverosh). He also mentions the next king, Artaxerxes (=Artachshasta.) Moreover, in several passages, Herodotus refers to Amestris, the wife of Xerxes. The “is” at the end of this name is almost certainly a Greek addition. Therefore, we can deduce that her Persian name would have been based around the consonants M,S,T and R. As I have argued in one of the articles in my 2015 book (see below), this is very likely a reference to Esther. A later Greek historian, Ctesias, also perhaps refers to Mordechai. I have discussed all of this before and will do so in future columns.

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

Mitchell First is a personal injury attorney and Jewish history scholar. His most recent book is Esther Unmasked: Solving Eleven Mysteries of the Jewish Holidays and Liturgy (2015) He can be reached at MFirstAtty@aol.com. He looks forward to publishing a revised version of this article next year and expects that at that time the number of confirmed Biblical figures will be higher than 53.


For a CDN tax reciept click below		For a US tax reciept click below