Sunday, September 30, 2012

Berachot 61: Counsel of the Kidneys; Common Descent

Regarding the counsel of the kidneys, see this parshablog post and this post at Rationalist Judaism. I think it was intended literally.

There is a gemara on daf 61 which suggests the idea of common descent:
Our Rabbis taught: Once the wicked Government14  issued a decree forbidding the Jews to study and practise the Torah. Pappus b. Judah came and found R. Akiba publicly bringing gatherings together and occupying himself with the Torah. He said to him: Akiba, are you not afraid of the Government? He replied: I will explain to you with a parable. A fox was once walking alongside of a river, and he saw fishes going in swarms from one place to another. He said to them: From what are you fleeing? They replied: From the nets cast for us by men. He said to them: Would you like to come up on to the dry land so that you and I can live together in the way that my ancestors lived with your ancestors? They replied...
and so on and so forth. Note the bolded portion. The fox says to the fish that his ancestors used to live with their ancestors. We could even say that they used to live together in the water, before the ancestors of the fox emerged from the ocean.

Or not. How would you interpret this?

Berachot 54: Miracles personal and non-existent

I forgot to publish this one in its proper time, so I'll put it up now. In terms of material for daf 60, I have tow parshablog posts. Regarding vain prayers, see what I wrote here. Regarding the prayer for bloodletting, see what I wrote here.

The Mishna (54a) stated:
הרואה מקום שנעשו בו נסים לישראל אומר ברוך שעשה נסים לאבותינו במקום הזה.
There appears to be a dispute between Bavli and Yerushalmi here as to whether an individual needs to bless for a miracle that happened to him in particular. Thus, in Bavli (54b):
GEMARA. Whence is this rule17  derived? — R. Johanan said: Because Scripture says, And Jethro said, Blessed be the Lord who hath delivered you, etc.18  And is a blessing said only for a miracle wrought for a large body, but not for one wrought for an individual? What of the case of the man Who was once travelling through Eber Yemina19  when a lion attacked him, but he was miraculously saved, and when he came before Raba he said to him, Whenever you pass that place say, Blessed be He who wrought for me a miracle in this place? There was the case, too, of Mar the son of Rabina who was once going through the valley of 'Araboth20  and was suffering from thirst and a well of water was miraculously created for him and he drank, and another time he was going through the manor of Mahoza21  when a wild camel attacked him and at that moment the wall of a house just by fell in and he escaped inside; and whenever thereafter he came to 'Araboth he used to say, Blessed be He who wrought for me miracles in 'Araboth and with the camel, and when he passed through the manor of Mahoza he used to say, Blessed be He who wrought for me miracles with the camel and in 'Araboth? — The answer [is that] for a miracle done to a large body it is the duty of everyone to say a blessing, for a miracle done to an individual he alone22  is required to say a blessing.
But in Yerushalmi (62a) we see that indeed, even an individual does not bless upon a miracle which happened to him personally:
מתני' בנסי ישראל אבל בנסי יחידי שנעשו לו אינו צריך לברך.
The brayta mentions the miracle of Og Melech HaBashan:
תנו רבנן הרואה מעברות הים ומעברות הירדן מעברות נחלי ארנון אבני אלגביש במורד בית חורון ואבן שבקש לזרוק עוג מלך הבשן על ישראל ואבן שישב עליה משה בשעה שעשה יהושע מלחמה בעמלק ואשתו של לוט וחומת יריחו שנבלעה במקומה על כולן צריך שיתן הודאה ושבח לפני המקום
Or, in English:
Our Rabbis taught: If one sees the place of the crossing of the Red Sea, or the fords of the Jordan, or the fords of the streams of Arnon, or hail stones [abne elgabish] in the descent of Beth Horon, or the stone which Og king of Bashan wanted to throw at Israel, or the stone on which Moses sat when Joshua fought with Amalek, or [the pillar of salt of] Lot's wife,23  or the wall of Jericho which sank into the ground,24  for all of these he should give thanksgiving and praise to the Almighty. 
And then, an elaboration of the nes involving Og:
'The stone which Og, king of Bashan wanted to throw at Israel'. This has been handed down by tradition. He said: How large is the camp of Israel? Three parasangs. I will go and uproot a mountain of the size of three parasangs and cast it upon them and kill them. He went and uprooted a mountain of the size of three parasangs and carried it on his head. But the Holy One, blessed be He, sent ants which bored a hole in it, so that it sank around his neck. He tried to pull it off, but his teeth projected on each side, and he could not pull it off. This is referred to in the text, Thou hast broken the teeth of the wicked,9  as explained by R Simeon b. Lakish. For R. Simeon b. Lakish said: What is the meaning of the text, Thou hast broken the teeth of the wicked? Do not read, shibbarta [Thou hast broken], but shirbabta [Thou hast lengthened]. The height of Moses was ten cubits.10  He took an axe ten cubits long, leapt ten cubits into the air, and struck him on his ankle and killed him.
Some Rishonim interpret this allegorically. But if all is allegorical, then why would the brayta establish a blessing upon seeing that stone?

What about Lot's wife?
'Lot's wife'. As it says, But his wife looked back from behind him and she became a pillar of salt.12
Some meforshim (such as Ralbag) understand that the pasuk,
וַתַּבֵּט אִשְׁתּוֹ, מֵאַחֲרָיו; וַתְּהִי, נְצִיב מֶלַח.
refers to seeing the city, rather than the wife, become a pillar of salt. What do they do with the Mishna? The answer is that they respectfully disagree with Chazal about the metzius, and so would say that that bracha would never come to be.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Berachot 59a: Causes of earthquakes

Reposted from parshablog:

Did Homosexuality, Or Homosexual-Friendly Legislation, Cause the Recent Earthquakes?
I don't think so.

But a certain Shas MK is certain they did, if news reports are to be believed:

Benizri said the government should not make do with reinforcing buildings, but should instead pass less legislation that encourages homosexuality and other "perversions like adoptions by lesbian couples."

The ultra-Orthodox party MK invoked passages from the Talmud and the Gemarrah to support his claims. 
"Why do earthquakes happen?" said Benizri. "One of the reasons is the things to which the Knesset gives legitimacy, to sodomy."
This reflects a particular brand of Judaism, prevalent I think more among Sefardim, about schar veOnesh and claims to knowledge about what causes what.

It it funny that the article in HaAretz calls it passages from the Talmud and the Gemarrah. Firstly because Gemarrah is an atypical spelling, and calls to mind Sodom and Gomorrah. Secondly, it would appear that whoever wrote this was an ignoramus, who did not realize that "the Talmud" and "the Gemmarah" are one and the same. And this is who you have doing your religion reporting? (Perhaps it is a bad translation to English of a Hebrew article, where for some reason it made sense?)

I do not know whether this is an accurate portrayal of the remarks, but assuming it is, here is my reaction.

Firstly, if you want a prooftext that "
legislation that encourages homosexuality and other 'perversions like adoptions by lesbian couples.' " causes earthquakes, look lower down in the gemara. Look in Yerushalmi Berachot 9:2, where the gemara states:
ורבנן אמרו מפני המחלוקת. (זכריה יד) ונסתם גיא הרי כי יגיע גיא הרים אל אצל.
Thus, the Rabbanan rely on the prooftext from Zechariah which states:
ה וְנַסְתֶּם גֵּיא-הָרַי, כִּי-יַגִּיעַ גֵּי-הָרִים אֶל-אָצַל, וְנַסְתֶּם כַּאֲשֶׁר נַסְתֶּם מִפְּנֵי הָרַעַשׁ, בִּימֵי עֻזִּיָּה מֶלֶךְ-יְהוּדָה; וּבָא ה אֱלֹהַי, כָּל-קְדֹשִׁים עִמָּךְ.5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azel; yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah; and the LORD my God shall come, and all the holy ones with Thee.
If you want to say that gays being parents of adopted children causes earthquakes, say the following derasha: Al Tikrei "Gay Haray" ela "Gay Horay."

Enough joking.

Note that the quotation of the remarks in the article was that "One of the reasons is the things to which the Knesset gives legitimacy, to sodomy." Note that it starts "one of the reasons." That means that there are multiple reasons given. Even if we could apply this gemara to persent-day situations, does this MK have ruach hakodesh to know that this is the reason?

Let us examine the many reasons the gemara gives for earthquakes. First, in Bavli Berachot 59a. In English:

AND OVER EARTHQUAKES [ZEWA'OTH]. What are ZEWA'OTH? R. Kattina said: A rumbling of the earth. R. Kattina was once going along the road, and when he came to the door of the house of a certain necromancer, there was a rumbling of the earth. He said: Does the necromancer know what this rumbling is? He called after him, Kattina, Kattina, why should I not know? When the Holy One, blessed be He, calls to mind His children, who are plunged in suffering among the nations of the world, He lets fall two tears into the ocean, and the sound is heard from one end of the world to the other, and that is the rumbling. Said R. Kattina: The necromancer is a liar and his words are false. If it was as he says, there should be one rumbling after another! He did not really mean this, however. There really was one rumbling after another, and the reason why he did not admit it was so that people should not go astray after him. R. Kattina, for his own part, said: [God] clasps His hands, as it says: I will also smite my hands together, and I will satisfy my fury. {Ezek. XXI, 22.} R. Nathan said: [God] emits a sigh, as it is said: I will satisfy my fury upon them and I will be eased. {Ibid. V, 13} And the Rabbis said: He treads upon the firmament, as it says: He giveth a noise as they that tread grapes against all the inhabitants of the earth {Jer. XXV, 30}. R. Aha b. Jacob says: He presses his feet together beneath the throne of glory, as it says: Thus saith the Lord, the heaven is my throne and the earth is my foot-stool Isa. LXVI, 1}.
Thus, there are multiple reasons.

1) The reason of the necromancer, which may or may not be accurate for that particularearthquake. (My reading of the gemara was that the necromancer was correct as to the physical phenomenon, such that there was one rumbling after another, but entirely incorrect as to the cause.) Which is that Hashem is sad at the suffering of His children. Nothing to do with sodomy.
2) R' Katina: Something to do with God's anger over wrongdoing.
3) R' Natan: Similar.
4) The Rabbis: Not necessarily negative, but something to do with God's honor, perhaps.
5) Rav Acha bar Yaakov: Similar.

Nothing yet to do with homosexuality, so how is this MK so sure that it was not one of the aforementioned reasons?

Next up, we have the Yerushalmi Berachot 9:2:

אליהו ז"ל שאל לר' נהוריי מפני מה באין זועות לעולם אמר ליה בעון תרומה ומעשרות. כתוב אחד אומר (דברים יא) תמיד עיני ה' אלהיך בה וכתוב אחד (תהילים קד) המביט לארץ ותרעד יגע בהרים ויעשנו. הא כיצד יתקיימו שני כתובין הללו בשעה שישראל עושין רצונו של מקום ומוציאין מעשרותיהן כתיקונן תמיד עיני ה' אלהיך בה מראשית השנה ועד אחרית השנה ואינה ניזוקת כלום. בשעה שאין ישראל עושין רצונו של מקום ואינן מוציאין מעשרותיהן כתיקונן המביט לארץ ותרעד. אמר ליה בני חייך כך היא סברא דמילתא. אבל כך עיקרו של דבר אלא בשעה שהקב"ה מביט בבתי תיטריות ובבתי קרקסיות יושבות בטח ושאנן ושלוה ובית מקדשו חרב הוא אפילון לעולמו להחריבו. הה"ד (ירמיהו כה) שאוג ישאג על נוהו. בשביל נויהו. אמר ר' אחא בעון משכב זכר. אמר הקב"ה אתה זיעזעתה איברך על דבר שאינו שלך. חייך שאני מזעזע עולמי על אותו האיש. ורבנן אמרו מפני המחלוקת. (זכריה יד) ונסתם גיא הרי כי יגיע גיא הרים אל אצל. אמר רבי שמואל אין רעש אלא הפסק מלכות. כמה דאת אמר (ישעיהו יג) ותרעש הארץ ותחל. מפני מה (ישעיהו יג) כי קמה על בבל מחשבות ה.

The Yedid Nefesh translation / elaboration is to the right. Once again, we have multiple reasons:

1) Neglecting terumah and maaser.
2) Ignoring the churban habayit and attending theaters and circuses instead. (But theaters and circuses had different meaning back then, and the attention payed present-day churban habayis perhaps may not prompt this, given changed political and physical realities.
3) Sodomy.
4) Divisiveness!
5) The ending of a kingdom.

(Note, by the way, that despite Eliyahu haNavi offering an opinion and revealing the reality, this does not stop others from offering their own opinions as to the significance of earthquakes.)

So sodomy is featured there, but one opinion among many. How do we know to identify specifically this one, as opposed to any of the others? Or none of the above? Or natural causes?

Indeed, by making such a statement, in such a manner, he increases machloket, so perhaps heis the cause of the earthquakes!

Furthermore, all the Yerushalmi speaks of is the act of sodomy. But does gay-friendly legislation really encourage sodomy? Not directly -- people do not suddenly become gay because of friendly legislation. I could see the argument that it provides social support for long-term relationships, in which case people might engage in more homosexual acts. So there is some logic to the argument, based on the prooftext of the gemara.

But, once again, why rely specifically on this one opinion in the gemara and claim knowledge of the cause?

And more importantly, such statements are unproductive at best. It is, or comes across, as hatred. It increases machloket. And do you think they are going to listen to you, or will they dismiss you as a lunatic and religious freak?

On the other hand, we do see this well established practice of trying to find causes for natural phenomena such as this, in the time of Chazal, by examining the world about them as well asdarshening various pesukim.

Update: Meanwhile, people have lines that they think are good, but only because they haven't seen the sources inside. I refer to this:
Mike Hammel, chairman of the Israeli Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Association isn't having any of it. Hammel responded by saying:
"It is sad that a religious MK in Israel doesn't think earthquakes are God-made. On the other hand, I suppose we should be flattered he attributes us with such magical powers.
The Yerushalmi cited above explicitly says that it is God-made:
אמר ר' אחא בעון משכב זכר. אמר הקב"ה אתה זיעזעתה איברך על דבר שאינו שלך. חייך שאני מזעזע עולמי על אותו האיש.
as a Divine response to such activities.

But what can you do?

Friday, September 28, 2012

Berachot 58a: Censored texts

From today's daf:
R. Shesheth was blind. Once all the people went out to see the king, and R. Shesheth arose and went with them. A certain Sadducean11  came across him and said to him: The whole pitchers go to the river, but where do the broken ones go to?
and a bit later,
R. Shila administered lashes to a man who had intercourse with an Egyptian14  woman.
One or both of these might be censored by the Christians. According to this manuscript:


Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale , II.1.7
ברכות נח ע"א - ברכות נח ע"ב


It is rather mina and goya, respectively. (See first line and last line.)


Sunday, September 23, 2012

Berachot 51a: Asparagus in the gemara and in Pliny the Elder

In the gemara, Berachot 51a:
תנו רבנן אספרגוס יפה ללב וטוב לעינים וכ"ש לבני מעים והרגיל בו יפה לכל גופו והמשתכר הימנו קשה לכל גופו מדקתני יפה ללב מכלל דבחמרא עסקינן וקתני וכל שכן לבני מעים והתניא ללע"ט יפה לרמ"ת קשה כי תניא ההיא במיושן כדתנן קונם יין שאני טועם שהיין קשה לבני מעים אמרו לו והלא מיושן יפה הוא לבני מעים ושתק אסור בחדש ומותר במיושן שמע מינה:
Or, in English:
Our Rabbis taught: Asparagus brew6  is good for the heart and good for the eyes, and, needless to say, for the bowels. If one uses it regularly it is good for the whole body, but if one gets drunk on it it is bad for the whole body. Since it is stated that it is good for the heart, we infer that we are dealing with a brew of wine. Yet it states that it is, needless to say, good for the bowels; but surely it has been taught: For La'AT7  it is good. for Ramat8  it is bad? — Our statement9  was made with reference to a brew of old wine,10  as we have learnt: If one takes a vow to abstain from wine because it is bad for the bowels and they say to him, Is not the old wine good for the bowels, and he says nothing, he is forbidden to drink new wine but permitted to drink old wine.11  This proves [that we are dealing with old wine].
To expand the roshei teivos:
  1.  L = leb (heart); 'A = 'ayin (eyes); T = tehol (milt).
  2.  R = rosh (head); M = me'ayim (bowels); T = tahtonioth (piles).
Asparagus is the name of a genus; it need not mean the specific asparagus we commonly eat. See the Koren Talmud for an image and description.

Can we support the gemara's deduction that wine is mixed in it, and that mixed with different ingredients, it has different effects? Let us look to Pliny the Elder's Natural History, volume 4.


Looking at Pliny, perhaps the divergent braytot are referring to different parts of the aspargus; the seed, the root, etc.

Friday, September 21, 2012

Berachot 51-52: Why say the Halacha is like Bet Hillel?

On Berachot 51b-52a:
Our Rabbis taught: The points of difference between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel in relation to a meal are as follows: Beth Shammai say that the blessing is first said over the [sanctity of] the day and then over the wine, because it is on account of the day that the wine is used, and [moreover] the day has already become holy21  before the wine has been brought. Beth Hillel say that a blessing is said over the wine first and then over the day, because the wine provides the occasion for saying a benediction.22  Another explanation is that the blessing over wine is said regularly23  while the blessing of the day is said only at infrequent intervals, and that which comes regularly always has precedence over that which comes infrequently. The halachah is as laid down by Beth Hillel. 
That ends the brayata. Then, the gemara analyzes this brayta.
'And the halachah is as stated by Beth Hillel'. This is self-evident, for the Bath Kol24  went forth [and proclaimed so]!25  If you like I can reply that this statement was made before the Bath Kol [had issued forth], and if you like I can say that it was made after the Bath Kol and that it represents the view of R. Joshua, who said that we pay no attention to a Bath Kol.1
When the parallel Yerushalmi cites the brayta, the last statement that the halacha is like Bet Hillel is absent. But look to the Tosefta, and you will find it there. In Berachot 5:25:

ארבעה דברים שבין בית שמאי ובית הלל בסעודה בית שמאי אומרים מברך על היום ואחר כך מברך על היין שהיום גורם ליין שיבא וכבר קדש היום ועדיין לא בא ובית הלל אומרים מברך על היין ואח"כ מברך על היום שהיין גורם לקדושה שתאמר דבר אחר ברכת היין תדיר וברכת היום אינו תדיר תדיר ושאינו תדיר תדיר קודם והלכה כב"ה.
A major difference here is that the Tosefta leads with the statement that there are four points of difference between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel. The statement, at the end of the lengthy discussion of point #1, is meant to apply comprehensively to all four. Because we might have an alternative tradition that we pasken like Bet Shammai in one of them.

Indeed, consider point #4, and what the gemara later on Berachot 52a states, regarding the dispute between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel, where Bet Hillel say one washes first and Bet Shammai say one sweeps first:
R. Jose b. Hanina said in the name of R. Huna: In all this chapter the halachah is as stated by Beth Hillel, save in this point where it is as stated by Beth Shammai. R. Oshaia, however, reverses the teaching9  and in this point also the halachah follows Beth Hillel.
We typically assume "reverses the teaching" means that the positions of Bet Hillel and Bet Shamai are transposed. An alternative (albeit perhaps awkward) understanding is that he reverses the statement that the halacha is like Bet Shammai here. Rabbi Oshaya and Rabbi Chiya authored braytot, and the Tosefta.

The Tosefta, meanwhile, does not reverse the positions in this last case.

____________________

Two more points, in passing.

First, the character of the Tosefta here seems to be one of a proto-gemara. Recall that Rav is cited in Tosefta, and Rabbi Chiyya and Rabbi Oshaya, the compilers of Tosefta, bridged the Tanna and Amora period as well. So we see a statement that the halacha is like Bet Hillel; and other such statements of who the halacha is like. And we see alternate suggestions of Bet Hillel and Bet Shamai's reasoning.

The gemara, naturally, treats this proto-gemara like any other brayta. And therefore it analyzes why Bet Hillel would say a davar achar, to give an alternate explanation. Meanwhile, it was not necessarily Bet Hillel who says davar achar but the proto-gemara. And similarly, the gemara analyzes why the brayta would say halacha ke-X.

See also this, from Wikipedia on Tosefta:
The traditional view is that the Tosefta should be dated to a period concurrent with or shortly after the redaction of the Mishnah. This view pre-supposes that the Tosefta was produced in order to record variant material not included in the Mishnah.
Modern scholarship can be roughly divided into two camps. Some, such as Jacob N. Epsteintheorize that the Tosefta as we have it developed from a proto-Tosefta recension which formed much of the basis for later Amoraic debate. Others, such as Hanokh Albeck, theorize that the Tosefta is a later compendium of several baraitot collections which were in use during the Amoraic period.
More recent scholarship, such as that of Yaakov Elman, concludes that since the Tosefta, as we know it, must be dated linguistically as an example of Middle Hebrew 1, it was most likely compiled in early Amoraic times from oral transmission of baraitot.,[2] Professor Shamma Friedman, has found that the Tosefta draws on relatively early Tannaitic source material and that parts of the Tosefta predate the Mishnah.[3]
Second, in terms of the gemara on 52b that says:
Another explanation is, so that the meal should follow immediately the washing of the hands.
This does not have to feed into the three teikef sugyas. Tosefta doesn't utilize the term teikef:
[דבר אחר אין נטילת ידים אלא סמוך לסעודה]
(and indeed it seems that some sources don't have the statement). Yerushalmi (58a) as well does not utilize the term teikef:
מה טעמהון דב"ה לעולם אחורי הכוס טמאין דבר אחר אין נטילת ידים אלא סמוך לברכה. 

Berachot 51b: Sitting for betching

Reposted from this parshablog post.



So it says in the gemara, Berachot 51a, at the very end of the 7th perek of Berachot. And this is cited by the Rishonic poskim. See e.g. Rif, Rosh.

Yet it is not so clear to me, or else I would not be posting with my take on it.

(Note: Need it be said? Sigh. OK. Not halacha lemaaseh.)

The aforementioned gemara states:
א"ר אבהו ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא האוכל ומהלך מברך מעומד וכשהוא אוכל מעומד מברך מיושב וכשהוא מיסב ואוכל יושב ומברך והלכתא בכולהו יושב ומברך
Rabbi Abahu said, and some say it was taught in a brayta: If one eats while walking, he bentches while standing (still). And when he eats while standing, he bentches while sitting. And when he eats while reclining, he bentches while sitting.
And the halacha is that in all of them, he sits and bentches.
Tosafot on the daf says that this is a chumra, a stringency, they imposed by bentching because it is diOrayta, Biblical.

What are the parameters of this, though. If I am traveling somewhere, eating a sandwich, do I really have to stop in the middle of Manhattan, sit down, and bentch? What if I am hiking somewhere, or doing some lengthy traveling? Depends who you ask. If you look through some of the halachic literature, some say that the walking refers to walking about within your own home, such that for bentching you should sit down, but while traveling on the road, they won't impose this difficulty upon you, more than they do by keriat Shema, because he won't be able to focus because his journey is being delayed (see the Rosh). Others say that sitting on your own donkey while traveling is considered sitting, so those who say this obviously hold that this includes real travel.

What about reclining? Well, the most common case of reclining is during the seder night. How do we read the gemara here, in saying that the halacha in all these cases is to sit while bentching, and furthermore where it says that if one eats while reclining, one should sit and bentch. Is sitting more formal in terms of bentching, such that it is a better level than reclining, such that the gemara is requiring sitting? Or is sitting less formal than reclining in terms of bentching, such that the gemara is teaching a leniency that one merely needs to sit and does not need to recline? What should we do by the Pesach seder, when we eat while reclining? Is bentching like this problematic (assuming no exemption for the seder because of cherut supersedes)?

Rashi defines מיסב as on a bed. Divrei Chamudos on the Rosh cites the Tur that one should not recline either during bentching, because it is a derech gaavah. Thus, it would seem to be a problem according to this approach.

I would venture that it is no problem by our reclining during the seder, because we don't really recline. It is one think to really recline on a bed, with your legs up, on your left side. On ahessebet, or even on a recliner (a big, padded, reclining chair). That is really heseiba, and is the way of kings. Frankly, I wonder if the way that we currently recline for the seder, on a narrow chair, crowded at the table, almost entirely sitting up, with perhaps a pillow, and feeling less comfortable than if we were merely sitting straight up, should really be considered heseiba. (I prefer not using a pillow but rather turning my chair sideways and leaning on the back of the chair, but even that is not so comfortable.) I also wonder if by the seder, regular sitting would be more derech cherut than our pretend heseiba. At any rate, this was not what Rashi meant by reclining, and not what the Tur meant by reclining when he said that it was derech gaavah, so it should not be a problem even if one does take that approach in the gemara.

It might well be a problem if one settles in on an easy chair (a recliner) and then wishes tobentch.

And it certainly seems to be a problem if someone was walking about, and now wishes to bentch while just standing. (Though it seems that bedieved, of course it would be OK.)

All the aforementioned is typical stuff. Now it gets more interesting. Let us see that gemara again:
א"ר אבהו ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא האוכל ומהלך מברך מעומד וכשהוא אוכל מעומד מברך מיושב וכשהוא מיסב ואוכל יושב ומברך והלכתא בכולהו יושב ומברך
Rabbi Abahu said, and some say it was taught in a brayta: If one eats while walking, he bentches while standing (still). And when he eats while standing, he bentches while sitting. And when he eats while reclining, he bentches while sitting.
And the halacha is that in all of them, he sits and bentches.
Several questions and points:

1) What is the nature of this vehilcheta? Who says this anonymous conclusion? It is not Rabbi Abahu or the brayta. Rather, it is anonymous. And it seems to contradict the explicit source given above, adding extra restrictions. And it does not give a basis.

It might well be the redactor, Ravina or Rav Ashi. However, I wonder in general at anonymous statements in the gemara. There are, after all, setama digmaras, which are post-Ravina and Rav Ashi, while Ravina and Rav Ashi were sof horaah.

I wonder especially at these vehilchetas, with the gemara's conclusions. If I recall correctly, one the gemara contrasts and resolves on vehilcheta on another vehilcheta, and more foggily a case where we don't hold like a vehilcheta (though that might have been an Amora's statement of what the halacha was). But further, working through translating the Rif for the past good while, I start to get a feel for the style. And the Rif often, after citing the relevant gemara, statesvehilcheta, and gives his own conclusion. Which leads me to the theory that our gemara, pre-Rif, had some Savora doing a Rif-like job on it, in certain sugyot adding what he felt thehalachic conclusion should be. And if so, perhaps we might take issue with the specific conclusion.

2) We seem to be skipping a step here. Rabbi Abahu stated:
If one eats while walking, he bentches while standing (still).
And when he eats while standing, he bentches while sitting.
And when he eats while reclining, he bentches while sitting.
What about eating while sitting? Shouldn't it state:
And when he eats while sitting, he bentches while sitting.
or something like that? Why leap directly to reclining?

3) More to the point, this feels almost like a scribal error. Rabbi Abahu was an Amora from Eretz Yisrael, and we have the following gemara, in the same place in Yerushalmi, at the end of the seventh perek of Berachot, on Berachot 56b:
רבי בא בריה דר' חייא בר אבא אכל מהלך עומד ומברך. אכל עומד יושב ומברך. אכל יושב מיסב ומברך. אכל מיסב מתעטף ומברך. אם עשה כן הרי הוא כמלאכי השרת
מה טעמא (ישעיהו ו) בשתים יכסה פניו ובשתים יכסה רגליו
Even though Rabbi Ba is short for Rabbi Abba, he presumably is not the Rabbi Abahu of our gemara (for there is a famous Rabbi Abahu). Yet the statement, in the same location, is roughly parallel but with important differences:
If one eats while walking, he bentches while standing (still).
And when he eats while standing, he bentches while sitting.
And when he eats while sitting, he bentches while reclining.
And when he eats while reclining, he bentches while wrapped in a tallit.
It seems that each form of eating requires the next level of permanence. Comparing with our gemara, it seems that there are at least two differences:
a) The statement about eating while sitting is entirely missing.
b) Instead of eating while reclining requiring the extreme of being wrapped in a tallit suringbentching, all that is required is sitting while bentching.

It almost looks as if a scribal error is in play. That scribal error would be taking וכשהוא יושב ואוכל מיסב ומברך and swapping the reclining and the sitting, to arrive at וכשהוא מיסב ואוכל יושב ומברך.

A further point. Look at the forms:
When eating while walking -- מברך מעומד. (This should be pronounced mei-omed, BTW, notmeumad like you might expect.)
When eating while standing -- מברך מיושב. (mei-yosheiv)
When eating while reclining -- יושב ומברך.

But, if this is the same as the previous law, say מברך מיושב. Why say יושב ומברך?? Something seems off here. Perhaps because there is no easy form for eating while in heseiba. I would note, though, that this is precisely the formulation found in the Yerushalmi -- יושב ומברך. And the same formulation found in the vehilcheta.

4) Regardless, it really looks like we can dismiss the Tur's position that reclining is derech gaavahand as such sitting is optimal. Indeed, looking at the Yerushalmi, it is clear that reclining is a deeper form of permanence along the continuum, and of course would be good. As such, the statement in the gemara about sitting if you ate while reclining is that you merely need to sit (rather than reclining or, as the Yerushalmi says, wrap yourself in a tallit), and not that you arerequired to sit rather than recline.

This is an important kulla.

5) Indeed, I've wanted to do this wrapping in a tallit during the seder for several years now, since this is an instance of sitting while reclining (if only we were really reclining), and so we have opportunity to fulfill this Yerushalmi.

6) Perhaps we could suggest the following emendation to the gemara, or rather vector of development. This would be exceptionally "fanciful," with little concrete to back it up, but it would explain some of the irregularities:

The gemara's statement by Rabbi Abahu originally followed the style of the Yerushalmi in content. Thus, there was a statement of what one did when sitting while eating -- the result was than one reclined while bentching. And there was a statement of what one did when reclining when eating -- the result is that one wrapped in a tallit when bentching. Something like this:

א"ר אבהו ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא האוכל ומהלך מברך מעומד
וכשהוא אוכל מעומד מברך מיושב
וכשהוא אוכל מיושב מברך בהסיבה
וכשהוא אוכל בהסיבה מברך מעוטף
or something like that, perhaps even with the gemara's reversal of מיסב ומברך and עוטף ומברך.

However, the halacha for whatever reason is that one need not go to such extremes. (In the next point, I will discuss a plausible reason for this.) Sure, one who wraps himself is like one of the malachei haSharet, but it is not a requirement. Rather, while it is true that one should go one step deeper in permanence, that is only up to the level of sitting, but no more permanence/focus is needed.
Thus, והלכתא בכולהו יושב ומברך -- in the last three clauses, all we need is יושב ומברך.
Besides making that vehilcheta, someone fixed up the statement of Rabbi Abahu to match thehalacha, much as people "fixed up" the Rambam to accord with their local halacha, and how the Rif often "fixes up" statements by Amoraim to accord with the setama digemara's conclusion of what they meant.

How do we "fix" this up? Well, we can leave כשהוא אוכל מעומד מברך מיושב alone, because it is already correct. For reclining, copy the conclusion made in the vehilcheta, so it becomes יושב ומברך, instead of the original language we see of מברך מיושב. And sitting while eating can be eliminated entirely, since it is obvious and we are giving the span.

If so, the entire point of the vehilcheta is to give a kulla, not a chumra.

And if so, the vehilcheta is only going on the last three when it says בכולהו.

And if so, if you ate while walking, all you would need do is stand in place.

As I said, this is extremely fanciful, and I admit this. I have much less to back me up in this than in many other flights of fancy. Yet I think this potential should be spoken out.

7) Why does the vehilcheta say that we do not do what was mentioned by Rabbi Abahu, but rather one sits? Here, I am taking this as going on the last three cases - standing, sitting (left unmentioned) and reclining.

I would suggest that it is because bentching while wrapped in a tallit is excluded as a requirement, from two sources.

Firstly, we said earlier in the gemara:
Rabbi Zera cited Rabbi Abahu, and some say it was taught in a brayta: 10 things were said regarding a cup of blessing {of Birchat HaMazon}: It requires to be rinsed and washed, it must be undiluted and full, it requires crowning and wrapping, it must be taken up with both hands and placed in the right hand, it must be raised a handbreadth from the ground, he must fix his eyes on it, and he must send it round to the members of his household.
Note that this is the same Rabbi Abahu as we have in the end of the gemara, with the same alternation that perhaps it was a brayta. Thus, we would expect Rabbi Abahu to be consistent and require "wrapping" in a tallit. Indeed, it seems a contradiction that there he says that "it requires crowning and wrapping" while later all he requires is sitting by bentching.

However, Rabbi Yochanan says that we do not have all these ten obligations. Rather, we have four:
Rabbi Yochanan said: We only have four: rinsing, washing, undiluted and full.
Rinsing - is done on the outside.
Washing - is done on the inside.
Undiluted - until the blessing on the land {HaAretz}, and in the blessing on the land he puts into it water.
...
Full - For Rabbi Yochanan said: Anyone who blesses on a full cup of blessing {over grace after meals} is given inheritance without bounds.
And rishonim seem to agree that these four is to the exclusion of "crowning" and "wrapping."

The gemara continues by defining wrapping:
Wrapping - Rav Papa wrapped {himself in his robe} and sat and blessed.
Rav Ashi spread a kerchief over his head, and took it with both of his hands, for Rav Chanina bar Papa said: The verse states (in Tehillim 134:2):
Thus, wrapping is wrapping in a tallit. Taking away the wrapping component, all we have is sitting and blessing, which is what the vehilcheta says.

Further, Rav Ashi does not seem to have wrapped, but just spread the sudar, and he is batrai, so we would rule like him.

Therefore it is fair for the vehilcheta to conclude that we do not rule to require "wrapping," and so states this leniency in the vehilcheta. And just perhaps, Rabbi Abahu's statement was then emended as described in the previous point, in order to match this practice.

8) One interesting variant one sees in various sources citing the gemara is
והלכתא בכולהו יושב ומברך
becoming
והלכתא בכולהו יושב במקומו ומברך

For the reasons in (6), and also because it is shorter, I would expect that במקומו is not original. It also accords nicely with the diyuk of the Rosh. He has במקומו in the vehilcheta (but not earlier) and also says this means within his own house. Perhaps we can read this as his place at the table, rather than "where he is."




Thursday, September 20, 2012

Berachot 50a: נברך שאכלנו משלו and the meaning of ש

On Berachot 50a:
אמר רבי יוחנן נברך שאכלנו משלו הרי זה ת"ח למי שאכלנו משלו הרי זה בור
Or, in English:
R' Johanan says: If one says 'let us bless Him of whose bounty we have partaken' he shows himself a scholar; if he says 'Let us bless the one of whose bounty we have partaken', he shows himself an ignoramus.11
What is the distinction between sheachalnu and lemi sheachalnu? Is it simply nuance in Mishnaic Hebrew, that the lemi when implied only connotes Hashem?

Rashi writes:
נברך שאכלנו משלו - משמע שהוא יחידי שהכל אוכלים משלו:
למי שאכלנו משלו - משמע מרובים הן זה זן את זה וזה זן את זה ולפי דבריו מברך את בעל הבית:
That is, lemi means that there are actually many who are zan, in which case the implication is to the host.

I would suggest that the prefix ש, which is short for אשר, has two functions, "whose" and "because." When we say נברך שאכלנו משלו, we are not saying 'let us bless Him of whose bounty we have partaken'. Rather, we are saying 'let us bless, because we have eaten of His." If so, the reference is to God, who we bless. However, if we say נברך למי שאכלנו משלו, then we are selecting the meaning of "whose". It is 'let us bless to He/he whose bounty we have partaken'. The word lemi forces ש to mean whose. And this is not the meaning of the statement. Or with this selected meaning, the referent is then ambiguous, as it can refer to the host.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Berachot 50a: Who is Raba Tosfa'ah?

Sorry for the gap. I'm so tired and busy.

From Berachot 50a:
Raba Tosfa'ah said: If three persons had a meal together and one said grace for himself before the others, his zimmun is effective for them but theirs is not effective for him,19  since zimmun cannot be said out of its place.20
This Rava Tosfaah is someone to call attention to. His students are the first of the Savoraim, so he is a bridge figure.

To cite Jewish Encyclopedia:
Babylonian amora of the seventh generation. He was a pupil of Rabina I. (Suk. 32a; comp. Halevy, "Dorot ha-Rishonim," iii. 96) and a contemporary of Rabina II., with whom, sometimes, he is mentioned in the Talmud (Shab. 95a; M. Ḳ. 4a). A few independent decisions of Rabbah have been preserved (Ber. 50a; Yeb. 80b). One of them (Yeb. 80b) assumes that the pregnancy of a woman may extend from nine to twelve months. The chief work of Rabbah was to complete, by additions and amplifications, the compilation of the Talmud begun by R. Ashi. These additions consisted for the most part of short, explanatory remarks, indispensable for an understanding of Talmudic themes or for deciding between the conflicting opinions of older authorities (Halevy, l.c. p. 20). From these additions and amplifications (tosafot) to the Talmud he is said to have derived his name of Tosefa'ah (= "the completer"; Halevy, l.c. iii. 19; Brüll's "Jahrb." ii. 19). It is more probable, however, that he was so named after his birthplace—Tusfah = Thospia (Brüll, l.c.). Rabbah Tosefa'ah is seldom mentioned by name in the Talmud—only in nine places. However, all sayings in the Babylonian Talmud introduced by "Yesh omerim" (some say) are ascribed to him (Heilprin, "Seder ha-Dorot," iii. 337; Brüll, l.c. ii. 13). Rabbah Tosefa'ah succeeded Mar b. R. Ashi (Tabyomi) as head of the Academy of Sura, which position he held for six years. He died in 494 (Sherira, in Neubauer, "M. J. C." i. 34; Abraham ibn Daud, "Sefer ha-Ḳabbalah," ib. i. 59).
Wikipedia lists him as eighth generation, and there is a list of each generation.
Rabbah Tosafa'ah (Hebrewרבה תוספאה‎) was a jewish Amora sage of Babylon of the eighth generation of the Amora era, during the latter part of that era. According to the Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, he headed the academy of Sura, following Mar b. Rav Ashi, for six years, between 467-474 (ד'רכ"ח-ד'רל"ד Hebrew calendar). He was one of the Talmud's arrangers. According to the Historian Yitzhak Isaac Halevy Rabinowitz, who wrote in his work "Dorot Harishonim", that since the Talmud was in the process of its completion during his times, and Rabbah Tosafa'ah, who was one of the arrangers, had added-on it, this is how he earned the name Tosafa'ah (תוספאה), which literally means an Add-on or a supplement. Other argue that he was an erudite in the Baraitas and Tosefta, which the latter also literally means an 'add on' or a 'supplement', and both are an 'add on' works to the classic texts, and in their view, this is the way he earned his known name.
Hebrew Wikipedia has a lot more.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Berachot 42b: Why didn't Abaye get a shkoyach?

In Berachot 42b:
גמ' אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן לא שנו אלא בשבתות וימים טובים הואיל ואדם קובע סעודתו על היין אבל בשאר ימות השנה מברך על כל כוס וכוס אתמר נמי אמר רבה בר מרי א"ר יהושע בן לוי לא שנו אלא בשבתות וימים טובים ובשעה שאדם יוצא מבית המרחץ ובשעת הקזת דם הואיל ואדם קובע סעודתו על היין אבל בשאר ימות השנה מברך על כל כוס וכוס
Or, in English:
Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: This3  was meant to apply only to Sabbaths and festivals, because then a man makes wine an essential part of his meal.4  On others days of the year, however, a blessing is said over each cup,5  it has also been reported: Rabbah b. Mari said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: This was meant to apply only to Sabbaths and festivals, and to meals taken when a man leaves the bath or after bloodletting, because on such occasions a man makes wine an essential part of the meal. On other days of the year, however, a blessing is said over each cup. 

To illustrate this, two parallel stories, one of which took place during a weekday and the other during Yontiff.
בה בר מרי איקלע לבי רבא בחול חזייה דבריך לפני המזון והדר בריך לאחר המזון א"ל יישר וכן אמר ריב"ל רב יצחק בר יוסף איקלע לבי אביי בי"ט חזייה דבריך אכל כסא וכסא א"ל לא סבר לה מר להא דריב"ל א"ל נמלך אנא
Rabbah b. Mari was once at the house of Raba on a weekday. He saw him say a blessing [over the wine taken] before the meal and again after the meal. He said to him: 'Well done; and so said R. Joshua b. Levi!'
R. Isaac b. Joseph visited Abaye on a festival, and saw him say a blessing over each cup. He said to him: Does your honour not hold with the rule laid down by R. Joshua b. Levi? — He replied: I have just changed my mind.6
So, for the same action, but taken on Yom Tov, instead of getting an ayasher, which is equal to yeyasher kochacha, or shkoyach, Abaye gets a criticism!

I think the reason for this goes beyond the position of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Rather, both Shabbat and Yom Tov are referred to as Shabbaton. Thus, for example, Vayikra 23:39:
אַךְ בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי, בְּאָסְפְּכֶם אֶת-תְּבוּאַת הָאָרֶץ, תָּחֹגּוּ אֶת-חַג-יְהוָה, שִׁבְעַת יָמִים; בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן שַׁבָּתוֹן, וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי שַׁבָּתוֹן.
And we know from the zemer of Yona Matza that it is forbidden to say shkoyach on such a day:
יוֹם שַׁבָּתוֹן אֵין לִשְׁכּֽוֹחַ, זִכְרוֹ כְּרֵֽיחַ הַנִּיחֹֽחַ, 
יוֹנָה מָצְאָה בוֹ מָנֽוֹחַ, וְשָׁם יָנֽוּחוּ יְגִֽיעֵי כֹֽחַ. 

היוֹם נִכְבָּד לִבְנֵי אֱמוּנִים, זְהִירִים לְשָׁמְרוֹ אָבוֹת וּבָנִים, 
חָקוּק בִּשְׁנֵי לֻחוֹת אֲבָנִים, מֵרֹב אוֹנִים וְאַמִּיץ כֹּֽחַ. 
יוֹנָה מָצְאָה בוֹ מָנֽוֹחַ, וְשָׁם יָנֽוּחוּ יְגִֽיעֵי כֹֽחַ. 

וּבָֽאוּ כֻלָּם בִּבְרִית יַֽחַד, נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע אָמְרוּ כְּאֶחָד, 
וּפָתְחוּ וְעָנוּ יְיָ אֶחָד, בָּרוּךְ הַנּוֹתֵן לַיָּעֵף כֹּֽח. 
יוֹנָה מָצְאָה בוֹ מָנֽוֹחַ, וְשָׁם יָנֽוּחוּ יְגִֽיעֵי כֹֽחַ. 

דִּבֶּר בְּקָדְשׁוֹ בְּהַר הַמּוֹר, יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי זָכוֹר וְשָׁמוֹר, 
וְכָל פִּקּוּדָיו יַֽחַד לִגְמוֹר, חַזֵּק מָתְנַֽיִם וְאַמֵּץ כֹּֽח. 
יוֹנָה מָצְאָה בוֹ מָנֽוֹחַ, וְשָׁם יָנֽוּחוּ יְגִֽיעֵי כֹֽחַ. 

הָעָם אֲשֶׁר נָע כַּצֹּאן תָּעָה, יִזְכּוֹר לְפָקְדוֹ בְּרִית וּשְׁבוּעָה, 
לְבַל יַעֲבָר בָּם מִקְרֵה רָעָה, כַּאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּֽעְתָּ עַל מֵי נֹֽחַ. 
יוֹנָה מָצְאָה בוֹ מָנֽוֹחַ, וְשָׁם יָנֽוּחוּ יְגִֽיעֵי כֹֽחַ.

Monday, September 10, 2012

Berachot 38-39: When is it proper to fulfill all positions?

Consider these two seemingly contrasting ideas in the gemara. In Berachot 38a-b:
The Rabbis used to speak highly to R. Zera of the son of R. Zebid25  the brother of R. Simeon son of R. Zebid as being a great man and well versed in the benedictions. He said to them: When you get hold of him bring him to me. Once he came to his house and they brought him a loaf, over which he pronounced the blessing mozi. Said R. Zebid: Is this the man of whom they say that he is a great man and well versed in benedictions? Had he said ha-mozi, he would have taught us the meaning of a text and he would have taught us that the halachah is as stated by the Rabbis. But when he says mozi, what does he teach us?1  In fact he acted thus so as to keep clear of controversy. And the law is that we say, ha-mozi bread from the earth', since we hold with the Rabbis who say that it means 'who has brought forth'.
Thus, someone who sought to fulfill according to all positions, and thus keep clear of controversy, was roundly criticized as a know-nothing, since in doing so, his actions do not teach that we hold like the Rabbis (Hamotzi) over Rabbi Nechemia (Motzi). Because if one said Motzi, everyone would agree you fulfilled, yet he was criticized for it.

And so is the halacha. And so every day, when we make a beracha on bread, of specifically HaMotzi, we put this idea into action, and perhaps internalize the idea that sometimes, we pasken like X over Y.

However, on 39b, we read the following:
It has been stated: If pieces and whole loaves are set before one, R. Huna says that the benediction can be said over the pieces,2  and this serves also for the whole loaves, whereas R. Johanan says that the religious duty is better performed if the blessing is said over the whole one. If, however, a broken piece of wheat bread and a whole loaf of barley bread are set before one, all agree that the benediction is said over the piece of wheaten bread, and this serves also for the whole loaf of barley bread. R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: There is the same difference of opinion between Tannaim:3  Terumah is given from a small whole onion, but not from the half of a large onion. R. Judah says: Not so, but also from the half of a large onion.4  Are we to say that the point in which they differ is this: one authority holds that the fact of being worth more is more important, while the other holds that the fact of being whole is more important? — Where a priest is on the spot,5  all agree that the fact of being worth more is more important. Where they differ is when there is no priest on the spot, since we have learnt: Wherever a priest is on the spot,terumah is given from the best of the produce; where the priest is not on the spot,6  terumah is set aside from that which will keep best. R. Judah said: Terumah is in all cases given from the best.7  R. Nahman b. Isaac said: A Godfearing man will seek to satisfy both.8  Who is such a one? Mar the son of Rabina. For Mar the son of Rabina used to put the broken piece under9  the whole loaf and then break the bread.10  A Tanna recited in the presence of R. Nahman b. Isaac: One should place the broken piece under the whole loaf and then break and say the benediction. He said to him: What is your name? Shalman, he replied. He said to him: Thou art peace [shalom] and thy Mishnah is faultless [shelemah], for thou hast made peace between the scholars.
It is unclear whether Rav Huna was saying that the bracha can be said over the pieces or that it was optimal to say it over the pieces. (Rashi adds that the pieces were bigger, thus giving a reason for precedence for the pieces.) Yet here, Mar bar Ravina would satisfy both positions, and was called a God-fearing man for it. And Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak advocated such an approach. And indeed, a reciter of Tannaitic statements recited before the same Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, advocating such an approach, and was praised for it.

What distinguishes these cases? Perhaps there was no clear decision? Perhaps it is a difference in the approach of different Amoraim? I would guess that the reason to try to fulfill both specifically here is that there are different, conflicting versions of the optimum, and by doing this, one gives "precedence" to both.

To see this, we should look to the other case of Mar b'reih d'Ravina, and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, in Shabbat 61a:
For R. Johanan said: Like tefillin, so are shoes: just as tefillin [are donned] on the left [hand], so are shoes [put on] the left [foot first]. An objection is raised: When one puts on his shoes, he must put on the right first and then the left? — Said R. Joseph: Now that it was taught thus, while R. Johanan said the reverse, he who acts in either way acts [well].4  Said Abaye to him: But perhaps R. Johanan did not hear this Baraitha, but if he had heard it, he would have retracted? Or perhaps he heard it and held that the halachah is not as that Mishnah?5  R. Nahman b. Isaac said: A God-fearing person satisfies both views. And who is that? Mar, the son of Rabina. What did he do? He put on the right foot [sandal] but did not tie it. Then he put on the left, tied it, and then tied the right [sandal]. R. Ashi said: I saw that R. Kahana was not particular.
Perhaps it is something particular to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, who explicitly sought out the trait of being a yerei Shamayim, one who had fear of Heaven? Consider Shabbat 156b:
From R. Nahman b. Isaac too [we learn that] Israel is free from planetary influence. For R. Nahman b. Isaac's mother was told by astrologers, Your son will be a thief. [So] she did not let him [be] bareheaded, saying to him, 'Cover your head so that the fear of heaven may be upon you, and pray [for mercy]'. Now, he did not know why she spoke that to him. One day he was sitting and studying under a palm tree; temptation13  overcame him, he climbed up and bit off a cluster [of dates] with his teeth.14 
Meanwhile, this same Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak was the one who advised avoiding following the position of Bet Shammai. In Berachot 11a:
R. Nahman b. Isaac said: One who follows the rule of Beth Shammai makes his life forfeit, as we have learnt: R. TARFON SAID: I WAS ONCE WALKING BY THE WAY AND I RECLINED TO RECITE THE SHEMA' IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY BETH SHAMMAI, AND I INCURRED DANGER FROM ROBBERS. THEY SAID TO HIM: YOU DESERVED TO COME TO HARM, BECAUSE YOU ACTED AGAINST THE OPINION OF BETH HILLEL.
Ignoring my diyuk elsewhere that he was actually losing fulfillment of uvelechtecha vadarech according to Bet Hillel, we see here that Rabbi Tarfon was actually fulfilling according to both Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel.

But, there was no specific kiyum according to Bet Hillel, and his act was a demonstrative act against the lenient position of Bet Hillel. So maybe this is not "fulfilling both of them".

What about in general? IIRC, the general pattern of the Mishna Berura (unlike certain other Acharonim) is to satisfy multiple shitot simultaneously. Not everyone holds like the Mishna Berura in this.

What about, e.g., in tznius. We hold that sheitels are OK, and that shok is the thigh. Vocal people who hold otherwise try to persuade us by saying, if great rabbi X, Y, and Z said it was assur, wouldn't you avoid possibly violating, based on his say-so? And are you not a callous sinner if you disregard his words? The answer is no, there is a pesak and we hold like our pesak.

Friday, September 7, 2012

Berachot 38a: A land of oil producing olives and honey


Reposted from parshablog, on parashat Ekev. This relates to our gemara on 38a:

ואמר מר בר רב אשי האי דובשא דתמרי מברכין עלויה שהכל נהיה בדברו מ"ט זיעה בעלמא הוא כמאן כי האי תנא דתנן דבש תמרים ויין תפוחים וחומץ ספוניות ושאר מי פירות של תרומה רבי אליעזר מחייב קרן וחומש ורבי יהושע פוטר

In parshat Ekev, we hear of Israel as a land of milk and honey:
8. a land of wheat and barley, vines and figs and pomegranates, a land of oil producing olives and honey,ח. אֶרֶץ חִטָּה וּשְׂעֹרָה וְגֶפֶן וּתְאֵנָה וְרִמּוֹן אֶרֶץ זֵית שֶׁמֶן וּדְבָשׁ:
So too in Vayelech, it is describes as a land flowing with milk and honey:


20. When I bring them to the land which I have sworn to their forefathers [to give them], a land flowing with milk and honey, they will eat and be satisfied, and live on the fat [of the land]. Then, they will turn to other deities and serve them, provoking Me and violating My covenant.כ. כִּי אֲבִיאֶנּוּ אֶל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי לַאֲבֹתָיו זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ וְאָכַל וְשָׂבַע וְדָשֵׁן וּפָנָה אֶל אֱ־לֹהִים אֲחֵרִים וַעֲבָדוּם וְנִאֲצוּנִי וְהֵפֵר אֶת בְּרִיתִי:

In Onkelos, it is explained that eretz zeit shemen udvash means producing shemen and devash:

ח,ח אֶרֶץ חִטָּה וּשְׂעֹרָה, וְגֶפֶן וּתְאֵנָה וְרִמּוֹן; אֶרֶץ-זֵית שֶׁמֶן, וּדְבָשׁ.אֲרַע חִטִּין וּסְעָרִין, וְגֻפְנִין וְתֵינִין וְרִמּוֹנִין; אַרְעָא דְּזֵיתַהָא עָבְדִין מִשְׁחָא, וְהִיא עָבְדָא דְּבַשׁ.

though without specification that it is specifically the date fruits which are producing the devash, even as it states that the olives produce the shemen. In Targum Yerushalmi and Targum Pseudo-Yonatan, however, that it is the dates which are producing the devash is made explicit.

Ibn Ezra asserts he has already explained what devash is:
ודבש -פירשתיו.

and this is a reference to his commentary on Vayikra 2:11, where he defined it as date honey; possibly. In particular, he writes there on parashat Vayikra:

[ב, יא]
שאור -
הוא המחמיץ גם כן הדבש. 

ורבים אמרו: 
שפירושו דבש תמרים, וכן כל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש ויש להם כדמות ראיה בספר עזרא.

"that Seor (sour-dough is something that causes other things to become chametz; and so too the devash; And many say that its intent is the devash of dates, and so too our pasuk here, a land of milk and honey, and they have something approximating a proof in sefer Ezra."

I'm not going to investigate this at this point.

Some members of Chazal interpret the devash to mean dates, rather than date honey. Thus, e.g., we see in Yerushalmi Bikkurim 2b, discussing this very pasuk in Ekev:
ודבש אלו התמרים יכול דבש ממש רבי תנחומא בשם רבי יצחק ב"ר לעזר כתיב (דברי הימים ב לא) וכפרוץ הדבר הרבו בני ישראל ראשית דגן תירוש ויצהר ודבש.  ודבש חייב במעשרות.  אלא אלו התמרים שהן חייבין במעשרות.

Since a pasuk in Divrei Hayamim speaks of devash as one of the things one brings bikkurim of, and one does not bring bikkurim of honey, it must be that devash refers to the dates themselves, not of the honey that exudes from it.

Rather than saying that devash is now a synonym for temarim, this is likely to be understood as a synecdoche, such as where a part stands for the whole. Here, what exudes from the fruit is used to refer to the fruit itself.

Rav Chaim Kanievsky
Rav Chaim Kanievsky explains this pasuk in a rather surprising way:

אֶרֶץ זֵית שֶׁמֶן וּדְבָשׁ, יל״ע למה קראה התורה התמרים בשם דבש הא קי״ל דדבש
תמרים זיעה בעלמא הוא ואין עליו שם פרי כלל כמ״ש בברכות ל״ח א׳ ועי׳ רא״ש ברכות פ״ו סי׳ י״ב, ונראה דדבש דהכא אין זה על שם היוצא מהן אלא כל פרי מתוק נקרא דבש כדפי׳ רש״י בסוכה ו׳ א׳ ד״ה דבש ע״ש, והוא מבואר בהדיא בשבועות י״ב ב׳ כבנות שוח למזבח והכתיב כי כל שאור וכל דבש וכו' ופירש״י כל פירות האילן בכלל, ולפי שתמרים מתוקין יותר מכל הפירות קרי לי׳ דבש לשבחו שהוא מלא מתיקות ודבש, ועי׳ בד״ה גבי חזקי׳ וכפרוץ הדבר הרבו בנ״י ראשית דגן תירוש ויצהר ודבש וגם שם צריך לפרש כנ״ל כי דבש לבד זיעה בעלמא הוא

That is, he takes it as a given that the Torah is not referring to honey, but is calling the dates by the name "honey". But this is surprising, because of the insignificance of the honey. To cite Berachot 38a:
Mar son of R. Ashi also said: Over honey of the date-palm we say, 'by whose word all things exist'.2  What is the reason? — Because it is merely moisture [of the tree]. With whose teaching does this accord? — With that of the following Tanna, as we have learnt: With regard to the honey of the date-palm and cider and vinegar from stunted grapes3  and other fruit juices of terumah. R. Eliezer requires [in case of sacrilege] payment of the value and an additional fifth,4  but R. Joshua exempts [from the additional fifth].5
It seems that we say shehakol rather than haetz on honey because of its insignificance. And Rashi there says:
זיעה בעלמא הוא - ואינו פרי לברך עליו בורא פרי העץ:
And, perhaps, he is saying, if they are only zei'ah, why would the fruit be called by them? He refers to various gemaras and Rashis where devash refers to all sweet fruits. And since dates are sweetest of all fruits, they are called 'devash' as a way of praising them. And he refers as well to that pasuk above in Divrei Hayamim.

Honestly, I don't see the problem as so severe. I understand that halachically, it is not considered significant enough, and that seems contrary to the synecdoche of calling dates by the name honey. I would still be willing to let that awkwardness remain and see devash as synechdoche. Saying that the honey which exudes is simply zeiah does not mean that people don't know that honey comes from dates.

I think that devash, on a peshat level, indeed means honey, parallel to a land flowing with milk and honey, and parallel to the liquid shemen which immediately precedes. These are things which flow. However, I will close with two other interpretations of the pasuk, and in particular the phrase אֶרֶץ זֵית שֶׁמֶן וּדְבָשׁ.

1) What does זֵית mean? Usually olives. But looking at Jastrow, he gives a first meaning of 'outflow, run':

If so, we can distribute the word זֵית across שֶׁמֶן and וּדְבָשׁ, and render it 'a land of flowing of oil and honey'. This would then be parallel to זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ, a land flowing with milk and honey.

2) If זֵית indeed carries this meaning of flowing, and zayit refers to a particular fruit which has this outflow, the olive, then perhaps it can be used in the more general sense of fruit which exudes. If so, then once again we can distribute the word זֵית across שֶׁמֶן and וּדְבָשׁ, but this time render it as "a land of 'olives' of oil and 'olives' of honey'. In other words, a land of olives and dates. And in this way, we arrive at the same conclusion we saw above, without really redefining devash as dates. (Divrei Hayamim would still need to be dealt with, if we agree that they held by the halacha of not bringing date honey but just dates.)