Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 044

Friday, November 9 2001

• Re: Pliny and blue shellfish dyeing; Re: Micha's post on techeiles
• Re: Birkat haBanot - 2
• Re: Talmud and science 8th Month v
• Re: Achosi Hi
• Re: Matbe'ah shel Avrohom Ovinu
• Re: Matbe'ah shel Avrohom Ovinu
• HIZHARU BEMINHAG AVOYSEYCHEM..
• Bnei EY in Chul on 7 Chehvan
• Re: Shape of the Earth
• Re: Tekheles
• Re: Achosi Hi
• Re: Chasidim harishonim
• Re: Micha's post on techeiles
• Re: Bnei EY in Chul on 7 Chehvan
• Re: Micha's post on techeiles
• Re: HIZHARU BEMINHAG AVOYSEYCHEM..
• NYT Photos - An Hashkafa Perspective
• Fwd: Mikra - Parashat Hayyei Sarah

In a message dated 11/7/2001 8:21:59am EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> I was trying to say that if a reluctance to wear maybe-techeiles was
> because of issues of agudos agudos, that reluctance should no longer be
> an issue....
> First, we live in a generation where people still hold by the minhagim
> of the old country, and not by current community...
> Second, we live in a culture that values personal autonomy and letting
> each person do their own thing...

I recall seeing an artcile on Tefilin on Chol Hamo'ed which comes to a simlar 
conclusion.  I.e. Bizman hazeh people are not makpid on diffrent minhaggim in 
the same community.  I believe it was in Dr. Yaalov Katz's book Halachah 
v'kabbalah/

FWIW, Breuer's is one exceptoin in that it attempts to maintain an 
"old-world" style uniformity.

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

In a message dated 11/1/2001 9:15:51pm EST, sba@blaze.net.au writes:
> Further to the above, I have now found that the Maharam Schick al Hatorah
> has some nice drush on why YO used E''uM and not the 'Patriarchs'.

I heard a drasha as follows:
Q: How come the 4 IMahos are used to contrast E"uM? 
A: Just like E"uM were Tzadikkim despite being raised in Galus,
so too were the Imahos Tzdkaniyos despite begin raised in the homes of 
Resha'im...

I don't know the source and therefore it might be the same as SBA's...
 
Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

In a message dated 11/7/2001 8:23:28am EST, cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:
> I don't think it's a presumed status. I think it's a chazaka based on
> a rov and once you are oiker the chazaka one month out, there is no
> difference between a baby that was born in the 8th month and one that
> was born in the 9th month.

I'm puzzled in that lich'ora midina degmamraa Rov is invoked to over-ride 
pikuach nefesh. I would think piukuah nefesh where are choshesh for mei'utah

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

In a message dated 11/6/2001 1:32:14pm EST, yolkut@ymail.yu.edu writes:
> does anyone know of good mekoros discussing the three wife/sister stories
> in bresihis, particularly in light of each other?

Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat
it? <smile>

Notice there is a light pattern that each successive monarch did less and less

Par'oh had Sara in bed and got negai'im.
Avimelech had Sara in the house but was warned BEFORE he touchedher and
therefore never touched.
Avimelech NEVER took Rivka at all, all he did was complain that he MIGHT
have come to this. Sounds like he had a "crush" on her but not more .

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard

See http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Eparasha/chaye/spe.html

David Hojda

From: "Eli Turkel" <Eli.Turkel@colorado.edu>
>> The Midrash talks of 4 people who issued coins, AO, Yehoshua,
>> Dovid Hamelech and Mordechai.

> This makes the question worse. I assume Mordechai would be killed if
> Achashverosh knew he was putting out coins as that is clearly a sign
> of rebellion.

The 'melech tipesh' was busy shikkering while Mordechai was fully in
charge of the economy...
(Wasn't it like this throughout our history, with the Poretz living it
up whilst his Jewish Moshke ran the estate?)

SBA

From: "Rabbi Y.H.Henkin" <henkin@012.net.il>
>>(I assume that RH's illustrious grandfather also used the
>>nusach of klall yisroel.)

> I am responding, however, only because of the improper reference made
> to my sainted grandfather z"l.

Improper!?? Why improper?

> I, too, presume he used the current version. So did I, before I thought
> of a better one...

IMHO even if a person is on par in Lomdus or Tzidkus with his ancestor,
he shouldn't meshaneh minhogei avosov. Al achas kamoh vekamoh when one
has an ancestor who was recognised as one of the gedolei yisroel. If I
would have been zocheh to know my grandparents and see their minhogim,
I strongly doubt that I would have tried to 'improve' upon them.
(And even more so if this ancestor was a Gaon veTzadik. I would
treasure every minhag of his and ensure that I pass it on to my children
and grandchildren.)

> ...No one who knew anything about him, however, would suggest that he
> would automatically reject an alternative. Read his Eidut LeYisrael and
> see that he criticized widespread practices, and had no hesitation in
> suggesting changes when he thought this was warranted.

Of course the Gedolei Yisroel have every right to make changes as 
they see fit. But that shouldn't be an seen as a hetter or excuse for
 all of us to be 'mesaken' tefilos and minhogim. KNLAD.

SBA

I believe that Yom Tov Sheni Kehilchaso deals with this question. IIRC,
there are chukei deot regarding a ben EY who is in Chul on 7 cheshvan,
but certainly if he arrives in Chu"l after 7 Cheshvan he should continue
to say V'Ten Tal Umatar.

Daniel Schiffman

I'll have to find the exact source, but once while I was discussing the
subject the Rav Tzvi Weber, he said there is a Tosafos that says they
knew the world was round. What they didn't know (or , more appropriately,
have) was Talmud Yerushalmi which apparently thay might of had only second
hand (through other mefarshim). there is a Yerushalmi (again I'd have
to check exactly where) that supposedly says clearly not like Rabbeinu
Tam (as per shkia). It would seem the nekuda they were missing in their
"world view" was that the earth is tilted, and that probably in view of
the Ptolemy view that the sun circles the earth.

Shlomoh

R' Micha wrote:
>The Radziner argues that any underwater invertebrate which makes a dye
that fits the description of techeiles is kosher.
This is also the grounds for suggesting that if we apply the Radziner
Rebbe's shitos to what we know today about the cuttlefish dye and the
murex dye, the latter fits his criteria for kashrus but not the former.
Of course, that is our application of what he said, not what the Baal
Techeiles said or even would have said. It is only what I would say,
given his positions.<

I don't know if you have to qualify your statement like that. The fact is
the Radzyner clearly stated (as you quoted him and I believe elsewhere in
his sefarim) that any chilazon that can produce tekheles is kosher. I'll
even grant that he didn't actually believe that that there would be
any other; but an important part of his argument to actually wear
his tekheles was based on this. Therefore I believe I can say without
being presumptuous that AT LEAST according to the Radzyner, murex can
be used to produce t'kheles. What he would hold about his own tekheles
nowadays is a different question, and that i won't be as presumptuous to
state. But this I do know: the direction of his arguments were heading
toward murex—or more exactly, whatever it was that the royalty of ancient
days used for dyeing. From the Sefunei T'munei Khol:

"And in the Eastern countries it became forbidden for anyone except
Royal Nobility as it is written (Esther 8) "And Mordecai went forth
from the presence of the King in Royal apparel, Techelet and white,
etc." And perhaps Techelet was also forbidden to be placed in Tzitzith,
as the lower officials were apt to make additions and be vigilant in
all things. Later on I found corroboration to this in Nachmonides'
commentary on the Torah (Exodus 28:3) and yet it seems that although
after the destruction of the Temple, Techelet was available to only the
treasured individuals of the generations during the time of the Tanaim
and Amoraim, and also in the time of the Geonim, as was indicated, and
the author of the Holy Sefer Hakaneh Hakadosh seems to have also been
acquainted with the Hillazon and had acquired it, being that he gave
distinguishing features as will be explained with the help of G-d, when
we explicate on the distinguishing features of the Hillazon. However it
seems that at the end of the days of the Geonim that it had completely
ceased and was not to be found even among the singled out individuals
of the generation as appears from Maimonides of blessed memory, from
his commentary on the Mishna, and from his Responsum (number 43) that
he did not have Techelet because prior to this, since the time of the
Destruction, even if the Israelites would become greatly impoverished, and
the multitude of Israel was not able to afford to fulfill the Mitzvah of
Techelet, nevertheless, the distinguished individuals of the generation
were able to obtain the blood of the Hillazon for the Techelet. Since
the blood of the Hillazon was also used by the nations of the world, for
the Techelet dye of their Royal apparel, for Royalty and Ministers, thus
the netting of the Hillazon did occasionally occur. And although it was
expensive, nonetheless, it was possible for the distinguished ones of the
generation to acquire the Techelet for the sake of the Mitzvah. Because
at that time there were Israelites to be found in the Land of Israel,
and on the beaches of the Mediterranean where the Hillazon was caught,
as will be explained. And afterwards, at the end of the period of the
Geonim when the yoke of the exile of the Ishmaelites became heavier
upon the Jews, and they were driven from exile to exile, also from the
vicinity of the Mediterranean Sea and the Land of Israel as is explained
in Nachmonides' epistle, where he of blessed memory, writes that he found
the Land of Israel in desolation, with very few Jews living there. And
also those left there who were living on the shores of the sea were not
expert. And Techelet is only accepted from an expert. And there were
many decrees and forced conversions at that time. Add to this also the
fact that the nations no longer needed to track the Hillazon for the
Techelet dye, because they had begun to use other species to extract
the Techelet colored dye. And since that period the Mitzvah of Techelet
ceased to be fulfilled. And even among the distinguished ones they were
not able to acquire the blood of the Hillazon for the Techelet. "

He goes into more detail in his P'thil T'kheles, saying how t'kheles
was mentioned in the ancient classics and was found in Egypt on the
mummies etc. (but only this work is available on the web in English
transltion). But even from this example it *seems* that what he was
after was we know to be murex.

More later
Shlomoh

Micha wrote:
>Koferim take the mention of camels in Canaan in Bereishis to be an 
>anachronism.

I believe that since the 1940s archaeologists have agreed that camels
were domesticated as early as the 18th century BCE (cf. Joseph Free,
"Abraham's Camels," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, v. 3 (1944),
pp. 187-193). The only argument, and one that seems weak to me, is that
there is no evidence that camels were used in caravans.

Gil Student

Josh Backon wrote:
>Someone informed me of a Rabbenu Yona on a RIF in Brachot 4a: "teida 
>she'hatfila atzmo hayu mevatlin gedolei hachachamim mipnei ha'limud, kemo 
>shematzinu she'reb shimon ben yochai lo haya mitpalel ela m'shana l'shana, 
>v'reb yehuda hanassi mi'chodesh l'chodesh, k'dei shelo yitbatlu 
>mi'toratam.......".

Yes, but they lived centuries after the Chasidim Harishonim.  The CH lived 
during the time of the zugos and it is likely that the Chashmonaim were from 
among them.

Gil Student

Reb Micha wrote:
> From Sefunei Temunei Chol [the Radziner addresses what he calls the 2nd
> taanah] (translation from
>  ....long quotation here........
>     Therefore the second objection is rejected and with G-d's help will be
>     further clarified with the rejection of the third objection.

>  The Radziner argues that any underwater invertebrate which makes a dye
>  that fits the description of techeiles is kosher.

Actually, this is not the Radzyner's position. This is what Baruch
Sterman wrote in his response to my article, and from this one section
alone it appears to be the correct understanding of the Radzyner's
position.

BUT...he says that he will clarify this position in a specific section
ahead. There he says that the statements of Chazal must be satisifed,
but if they are all satisfied and the dye meets the requirements then it
is definitely kosher. He holds to his position that Chazal's descriptions
must be accurate and clearly met by a candidate species.

Reb Micha also wrote:
>This also addresses RMS's closing question:
>: Why would someone choose to use murex trunculus derived indigo blue as
>: a fake techeiles instead of plant indigo blue?

I don't see how any of what follows explains this. Please explain,
I must be missing something. I was talking about counterfeitors who are
pushing posul techeiles. The issue was the argument that if Murex indigo
was not kosher, then why didn't the Gemara warn us? This is used as a
"proof" that murex must be kosher. The rebuttal is that since there
was no incentive for people to counterfeit with murex, it wasn't used
a fake techeiles and therefore the Gemara didn't need to warn us. You
can argue that murex indigo is automatically kosher and that's why the
gemara doesn't warn us, but it is not necessary to assume this. One can
assume it is not kosher, and still answer why the Gemara didn't warn us.

>The Radziner argues that any underwater invertebrate which makes a dye
>that fits the description of techeiles is kosher.
...

We need to differentiate between criteria for the species and criteria
for the dye. Murex followers emphasize the dye, but the Radzyner seemed to
emphasize the species. This may be because we have descriptive statements
about the species, but less about the dye. It is not clear exactly
what color it should be, nor is the process for making the dye clear.
Using criteria for the species, I would say that the cuttlefish meets
the criteria fairly well, much better than murex. This is why I would
say the Radzyner would never accept murex. On the other hand, when it
comes to the dye, that is the strongest objection against the Radzyner.

As for the dye, I will elaborate, G-d willing in the future, but the
statement that techeiles is the color of indigo is incorrect. Yes, indigo
could imitate techeiles. However, depending on the dipping technique,
indigo can make a vast array of blues (I once saw in a book a matrix
of blues from indigo dyeing). Thus, indigo could be made to look like
techeiles, but this doesn't mean the shade of blue usually associated
with indigo is the color of techeiles. Tosafos on Chulin 47b says that
indigo only slightly resembles techeiles. Certianly Tosafos was aware
that indigo was indistinguishable form techeiles. The answer is that the
usual shade of indigo is only slightly like techeiles, but depending on
the dipping technique, it can be made to mimic techeiles remarkably well.
This doesn't invalidate murex. It just suggests that the true color of
techeiles may be copied with murex indigo but would require special
process to produce the correct shade. It also makes clear that we
cannot be so quick to rule out the Radzyner's idea of shade of blue.
Interestingly, prussian blue can be a royal blue OR a sky blue with
a slight change in the mix of ingredients. It seems that he *chose*
to make it royal blue and not sky blue. Thus, if someone felt that
cuttlefish met the species criteria but felt the color should be sky
blue, then one could make this very easily with a very slight change in
the process of making the dye.

mendel

On 8 Nov 2001, at 14:55, Daniel Schiffman wrote:
> I believe that Yom Tov Sheni Kehilchaso deals with this question. IIRC,
> there are chukei deot regarding a ben EY who is in Chul on 7 cheshvan,
> but certainly if he arrives in Chu"l after 7 Cheshvan he should continue
> to say V'Ten Tal Umatar.

Correct. I asked a shaila to resolve the chilukei deos l'maaseh. 

-- Carl

On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 02:54:55PM -0500, Mendel Singer wrote:
:> From Sefunei Temunei Chol [the Radziner addresses what he calls the 2nd
:> taanah] (translation from
:>  ....long quotation here........
:>     Therefore the second objection is rejected and with G-d's help will be
:>     further clarified with the rejection of the third objection.

:>  The Radziner argues that any underwater invertebrate which makes a dye
:>  that fits the description of techeiles is kosher.

: Actually, this is not the Radzyner's position..... from this one section
: alone it appears to be the correct understanding of the Radzyner's
: position.

: BUT...he says that he will clarify this position in a specific section
: ahead. There he says that the statements of Chazal must be satisifed,
: but if they are all satisfied and the dye meets the requirements then it
: is definitely kosher. He holds to his position that Chazal's descriptions
: must be accurate and clearly met by a candidate species.

I do not understand, as I can find even close to that in the Baal
Techeilet's response to the 3rd objection. Quoting from the same
translation, here is the section in question en toto (sorry, I can not
argue an absence with a partial quote):

    The third objection. For even if we could attain any Hillazon that
    would enable us to dye with its blood the color of Techelet and as we
    have explained that since we are able to dye the color Techelet that
    retains its original beauty and does not fade away then certainly
    this is kosher for Techelet as we mentioned above. But how is it
    possible to know that this dye is a color that remain unchanged
    in its beauty and color. If this being the only proof that it is
    actually Techelet we must know for sure that this Hillazon is the
    one that the Sages of blessed memory spoke of that is that retain
    its original beauty and color.

    There are two reasons we can reject this objection.

    One: For it is possible to know this from the test which is explained
    in Tractate Menacot 42 B. R. Isaac the son of R. Judah used to test
    it thus: He used to mix together liquid alum, juice of fenugreek,
    and urine of forty day old child (or that had been kept for forty
    days) and soaked (the Techelet) in it overnight until the morning;
    if the color faded it is invalid but if not it is valid. Moreover,
    R. Adda stated the following test before Raba in the name of R. Avira.
    One should take a piece of hard leavened dough of barleymeal and
    bake it with the thread of Techelet inside. If the color improved
    it is valid but if it deteriorated it is invalid. We must therefore
    say that one test supplement the other thus: if the test of R. Essau
    the son of R. Judah had been applied and the color had not faded it
    is certainly valid, but if the color had faded, we should test it
    by R. Addis' test by baking it in a hard piece of leavened dough;
    if its color improved it is valid but if it deteriorated it is
    invalid. A message was sent from Palestine/Israel saying. The test
    supplement each other and such the Halacha law is accepted according
    the Maimonides Rambam law of Tzizith (Halachos).

    It is true that the Rav, the author of Tiferet Israel rejects
    this test mentioned in the Talmud and wrote that we are not expert
    enough regarding these ingredients that the Talmud mentions to test
    the unchangeability of the color. For the ingredients liquid alum,
    and juice of fenugreek which the Talmud mentions is the subject of
    debate by Rashi v. Rambam. Nonetheless while asking forgiveness from
    the honorable Tiferet Israel and his high level of Torah knowledge
    he reached it is wondrous that he says no one is expert in regard to
    these ingredients especially since none of the earlier sages ever said
    such a thing. Just because he was not expert in these ingredients is
    it fair to decree that no one else is. I in my humility have become
    expert in the names and their nature be it according to Rashi or
    be it according to Rambam. And that which he wrote the Rashi and
    Rambam differ in regards to what liquid alum and juice of fenugreek
    is he forgot that they also have different opinions in regards to the
    second test mentioned in the Talmud. That is Rashi says it is hard
    leavening whereas Rambam says it is dough. But that still presents no
    problem for it is possible to do the test according to both opinion
    ie. Rashi and Rambam. And it can be said that these ingredients
    that I have found to be the true ingredient can be clarified form
    the abundant wisdom of our sages in other places. Therefore it
    is possible to verify regarding the Hillazon we have found it in
    the process of dyeing, the color retain its original beauty and
    does not fade and pass the test of mentioned in the Talmud. It too
    is a rejection to the second objection for even if the necessity
    for a particular Hillazon as explicitly mentioned in the Torah so
    certainly through the test if it proves positive then this must be
    the Hillazon regarding which the Torah enjoined us. For if it was
    not the test would not prove positive. That is the reason the test
    is mentioned in the Talmud, to clarify if the Techelet is from the
    blood of the Hillazon and therefore fit for use or from some other
    species and therefore unfit. And this is clear. It is all one reason.

    Secondly even without testing at all it appears in my limited
    knowledge clear that if we were able to attain the Hillazon to dye
    with its blood the Techelet and there would be found in this Techelet
    all the signs and treasures that the Sages of blessed memory have
    given us regarding that Hillazon that they spoke of, then again, we
    not be at all doubtful that certainly this is the very same Hillazon
    the sages of blessed memory had intended. And the sage of blessed
    memory gave us signs regarding this Hillazon in Tractate Menachot
    44. Our Rabbis taught: The Hillazon resembles the sea in its color
    (its essence ie. its blood) and in shape resembles a fish etc. And
    it seems clear that our sages gave us clear signs regarding the
    Hillazon for in their wisdom they saw that because of our exiles
    and the great expense in attaining it that it was almost certain
    that we would forget which is the correct Hillazon. Therefore they
    drew a clear picture for us and gave us all the sure signs of its
    identification so we would know how to search for it with G-d's
    help. You should know that Rambam (may his memory be a blessing)
    in Mishnah Torah copied this Braitha - And it is a known thing that
    Rambam does not bring in Aggadic material unless it has relevance
    to the law. So we must certainly say that it is a law that we can
    depend on the reliability of these signs that this is the Hillazon
    whose blood is kosher fit for dyeing the Techelet. (And in our
    lowly state) we have found many more signs and treasures regarding
    the Hillazon which are scattered throughout the words of our Sages
    of blessed memory. And the Rambam of blessed memory expounded and
    found other signs that were not mentioned in the Talmud. From this I
    can assume and judge that Rambam recognized and saw the Hillazon as
    is mentioned above. From this it appears quite clearly that when we
    are able to attain the kind of Hillazon which has all the signs that
    with G-d's help we shall clarify that beyond a shadow of a doubt that
    even without doing the test mentioned in the Talmud, it is kosher.

    The reason for the test is if we have a doubt whether this is really
    the blood of the Hillazon, but when it is clear to us that this is the
    correct type of blood there is not necessity for the test. This is
    also a rejection of the end objection for even if it was explicitly
    stated in the Torah the necessity for the Hillazon in Techelet and
    there was a stringency regarding a particular kind of Hillazon that
    specifically is known, so too if the Hillazon we find matches the
    correct sign this must be the very same Hillazon. And in truth from
    the Braitha what gives us the signs of the Hillazon it appears that
    actually any Hillazon which does not have these signs even if its
    possible to dye with the blood the color Techelet it is not kosher
    ( fit for use). And we must say that Hillazon that does not have
    these signs, the blood used for that we can learn dyeing does not
    retain its original beauty and it fades away.

The third section is entirely about the value of the gemara's test, and
how to relate to that test now that we lost its details. Which, as the
Radziner writes, flows directly from his discussion of objection #2. If
any marine invertebrate that produces the right dye is the chilazon,
the next question is if we can determine what is the right day.

: Reb Micha also wrote:
: >This also addresses RMS's closing question:
: >: Why would someone choose to use murex trunculus derived indigo blue as
: >: a fake techeiles instead of plant indigo blue?
: 
: I don't see how any of what follows explains this....

Simply, I misunderstood you.

:                              I was talking about counterfeitors who are
: pushing posul techeiles. The issue was the argument that if Murex indigo
: was not kosher, then why didn't the Gemara warn us? This is used as a
: "proof" that murex must be kosher. The rebuttal is that since there
: was no incentive for people to counterfeit with murex, it wasn't used
: a fake techeiles...

But it was used in significant quantities for /something/. My response
to your actual objection (when put forth by RSMandel) was to retreat
from my original argument. Instead I would suggest that there must have
been significant motive for people to produce a dye even though it was
both illegal and difficult.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

In a message dated 11/8/2001 2:08:59pm EST, sba@iprimus.com.au writes:
> Of course the Gedolei Yisroel have every right to make changes as 
> they see fit. But that shouldn't be an seen as a hetter or excuse for
> all of us to be 'mesaken' tefilos and minhogim. KNLAD.

So does it come about that people leave their family minhaggim and take on 
minhaggim of Gdolim, Poskim, or Rabbanim?

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

[From the Areivim discussion of people doing chessed while dressed
questionably from a tzenius perspective. -mi]

One of R' Tzadok's fundamental yesodos, one I am ma'arich on in the
Bigdei Shesh, and one that R' Aharon Soloveitchik did not completely
accept when I discussed the matter with him, is the concept of the
complexity of a deed. R' Tzadok holds, for example, that in an Aveirah
Lishma, the positive elements are commendable, of course, and rewarded,
but the negative elements require the cleansing of atonement. R' Aharon
disagreed, and held that the deed was to be regarded in its totality, as
either good or bad, and not broken down to finer elements (this is from
memory of a conversation some twelve years ago, and may not then have
been, and may no longer be, correct). I side with R' Tzadok on this one,
and find the other position difficult.

Thus, sophisticated understanding necessitates a capacity to discern both
positive and negative components and ramifications. That balancing the
components may yield the result that the deed or matter is overwhelmingly
positive or negative does not preclude the existence of a contrary
component. Such preclusion, whether it is intellectually or emotionally
generated, is shortsightedness and superficiality. This is the makkas
medina of our generation, perhaps of many generations since the death of
the mussar movement, and afflicts both the Right and the Left in equal
and devastating measure.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Here is an excerpt from R Yitz Etshalom's <rebyitz@torah.org> devar Torah
for the week. (His topic tends to be structurally oriented, looking at
large stretches of the chumash as a unit.) The full DT will soon reach
the archive at <http://torah.org/advanced/mikra/>.

As the topic is one of science and chazal, I thought this section would
be of interest.

-mi

P'shuto Shel Mikra <mikra@torah.org>
R Yitz Etshalom <rebyitz@torah.org>

Avraham and Ephron: A Curious Negotiation

I THE PROBLEM
...

II "THE BEAUTY OF YEPHET SHALL DWELL IN THE TENTS OF SHEM"

In order to properly address the questions listed above, we will need
to devote a significant portion of our discussion to a methodological
question with far-reaching implications for the study of Torah and our
understanding of classical texts.

Ever since the culture of the West, basking in the very real, if
exaggerated glow of the Enlightenment, developed secular theories
about the history, literature, mores and evolution of religion, there
has been an atmosphere of kulturkampf raging between the worlds of
academia and religion. Although this state of affairs has occupied much
of the attention of the Protestant world (and, to a far lesser degree,
the Catholic Church), nowhere has the battleground of this conflict
been fiercer -- or claimed more casualties -- than in our own world of
Torah. The alarming rate of disaffection, attrition and assimilation
throughout the world of Ashkenazik Jewry over the past 200 years is
unprecedented -- and the relatively rapid replacement of Torah culture,
values and ethos with those of "the West" has played no small part in
this cultural and religious tragedy.

This is not to claim that the spirit of inquiry, rigorous methodological
analysis and embrace of intellectual pursuits as having inherent
value are inimical to the Torah viewpoint -- the very opposite is
true. It is, however, both an understatement and grossly misleading
to limit a description of the modern academic mien to these noble
accomplishments. For the past two hundred years, with increasing cynicism
and dismissiveness, the world of religious faith and commitment have
been relegated to the shelves occupied by other curious ancient relics
of a bygone world.

Sadly, the casualties have not been limited to those who preferred
Cambridge to Volozhin; the world of Torah scholarship has also been
affected by the demographic and sociological changes wrought by the last
two centuries of secular culture. A subtle yet significant development
has been the understandably (yet regrettably) negative attitude towards
secular disciplines which permeates many Torah-observant circles and
communities.

This is, of course, not how the world of Torah study always viewed
the pursuit of secular knowledge. The Rishonim, by and large, were not
only doctors -- they were also poets, philologists, philosophers and
mathematicians. Across the spectrum (although this is not as ubiquitous
in the world of Ashkenaz as in the Iberian and Provencal worlds of
medieval Torah scholarship), the great scholars of the High Middle Ages
(Maimonides, Nachmanides, haLevi, ibn Ezra, S'forno, Avrabanel, Me'iri,
etc.) utilized these disciplines to enhance their understanding of Torah
and to help develop and actualize their own Torah-weltanschauung. This
attitude towards "worldly" knowledge, already evidenced throughout both
Talmuds and the Midrashim (e.g. BT Pesahim 94), was a fulfillment of a
Rabbinic interpretation of the blessing of Yephet:

G-d shall enlarge Yephet, and he shall live in the tents of Shem;
(B'resheet 9:27).

The Rabbis explain the relationship between Yephet (Greece) and Shem
(Yisra'el) as follows: "[this means] that the words of Yephet shall be in
the tents of Shem." (BT Megillah 9b). Although in its original context,
this comment was brought to explain the special consideration accorded
the Greek language holds in Halakhah (as regards the writing of Kitvei
haKodesh), many Rishonim understood it (and other statements of Hazal
-- e.g. BT Shabbat 75a) as a charge to harness the great intellectual
accomplishments of Man -- be they Jewish, Greek or Arabic in origin. The
goal of this mastery was always understood not as an end in and of itself,
rather as a vehicle for enhancing one's grasp and appreciation of G-d's
world (see, inter alia, MT Yesodei haTorah Chs. 1-4) and as a valuable
tool towards enhancing one's mastery of Torah and Yir'at Shamayim.

The tenor of Torah scholarship since the Enlightenment has been, for the
most part, very different than that embraced by these Rishonim. As the
"academic" world has bared its anti-religious fangs, the world of religion
has, understandably, backed away. The prevailing attitude (for the past
several hundred years) within most circles of Torah scholarship is one
of reticence regarding the embrace of secular disciplines, especially
in the world of the social sciences and humanities. As mentioned, this
is an understandable reaction to the terrible losses inflicted upon the
Torah world by the popularity of secular culture and academics.

[Parenthetically, it is prudent to note that our greatest Torah leaders
have all made great use of the fruits of modern research to increase
their ability to issue proper Halakhic rulings. This is not the issue
at stake here; no one challenges the value of utilizing research for
practical knowledge. We are addressing the utilization of "secular"
knowledge to enhance our Torah knowledge beyond the practical realm.]

Nonetheless, there is much to recommend an ideal of utilizing the positive
contributions of the past several hundred years of academic growth in
"the West" to enhance and cultivate a greater appreciation for -- and
mastery of -- our holy Torah. Although many students of Torah understand
the benefit of harnessing the technological advances made available to us
through arduous research (note how many yeshivot have state-of-the-art
web pages), this is not "the beauty of Yephet dwelling in the tents
of Shem"; this is simply Shem riding on Yephet's horses (or sitting in
the back of Yephet's limousine). For the richness of Greece (i.e. the
"academic world") to adorn the Torah, we need to wisely and carefully
identify those disciplines, sources and schools which can, indeed, bring
more glory and understanding into the Beit Midrash. Too much of secular
"wisdom" is driven by anti-religious sentiment and bias; it is hard to
find a university today that does not teach purely heretical notions as
anything but the new gospel.

III SCIENCE AND TORAH: DIFFERENT LANGUAGES?

Beginning in the last century, a significant number of great Torah
scholars addressed the "new findings" of the scientific world against the
backdrop of the Toraic narrative. Clearly, the most troubling challenge
to the Torah's account of history was the publication of Darwin's
"Origin of the Species" and the theory of evolution introduced with that
work. Although some great scholars (then and now) rejected the theories
of evolution, the age of the world etc. out of hand, many have taken
a more accommodating approach.

For example, R. Shmuel David Luzzato (Italy, d. 1865), in his introduction
to his commentary on Humash, states:

The enlightened should understand that the intent of the Torah is not
to teach about natural wisdom and science, rather the Torah was given
to straighten men to the path of righteousness and justice ( tz'dakah
umishpat), and to fix in their minds the belief in [G-d's] unity and
providence, for the Torah was not given to the wise alone, but to the
whole nation. Just as the ideas of [Divine] providence and recompense
were not explained in philosophical terms (nor should they have been),
rather the Torah spoke in the language of men, likewise the creation is
not recounted by the Torah in a philosophical way, like our sages have
said: "It is impossible to recount the power of the creation to human
beings." (Midrash Hagadol, B'resheet 1,1).

Rav Avraham Yitzhak haKohen Kook zt"l, first Ashkenazi chief rabbi of
Eretz Yisra'el, wrote the following:

"...Regarding the claims coming out of the new research, which, for the
most part, contradict the literal words of the Torah: My opinion regarding
this is that...even though none of these new ideas is indisputably true,
nevertheless, we are in no way obligated to reject and challenge them; for
it is not a basic principle of the Torah to relate simple facts and events
which occurred. The main thing is the content; i.e. the inner explanation
of things...these things were already stated by the Rishonim, especially
in the Moreh N'vukhim (I:71, II:15-16) and we are, today, prepared to
expand this idea further." (Ig'rot R'ayah #134, dated 5 Iyyar 5668)

There are many other Rabbinic giants who have expressed similar
sentiments -- and serious students of Torah have, by and large, adopted
this approach to resolving apparent conflicts between the literal sense
of Torah narrative and contemporary revelations emanating from the world
of the ivory tower. Some of our earlier discussions (e.g. the shiurim on
B'resheet and No'ach sent out last year) have utilized this perspective
as well.

As much as those contemporary writers who long to synthesize the two
worlds (generally by using the Ramban's commentary on B'resheet as a
springboard) wish it were different, we will likely never reach the
point where the university world adopts Sefer B'resheet as an accurate
telling of the most ancient history.

Nevertheless, there are some areas where contemporary research,
done by earnest (yet secular) scholars in realms closely related to
Torah narratives, have ultimately substantiated the Torah's account
of history. In other words, even though we would be satisfied adopting
Rav Kook's approach -- that we need not reject findings of the academic
world which seem to contradict Torah teachings, since the main emphasis
in studying Torah is the "message" -- if we can enhanc our understanding
of P'shat through these methods, we certainly will.

IV CAN THESE BONES LIVE?

One of the fascinating areas of research which has opened up many new
doors of Torah understanding and insight is that of archeology. This
field, relatively new and, in its finest hours, painstaking and rigorous
of method, has found the Near East to be the most bountiful of areas
for its own research. The many digs in Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria
and throughout the Middle East have uncovered virtual treasure troves
of evidence linking our present to our past. The most notable example,
one which deserves far more than the passing mention it will get here,
is the momentous find of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 in the series
of caves known as Qumran. Our understanding of the religious schisms
affecting the Judean community in the last two centuries before the
common era has been enhanced hundreds fold as a result of the Scrolls
-- and countless puzzling passages throughout Rabbinic literature have
become clarified as well.

Archeology has been able to take us even further back -- and there
are even instances where words in T'nakh which were indecipherable
to the Rishonim have, as a result of archeological evidence, become
clarified. For example, the word Pim in Sh'mu'el I 13:21 was rendered
by the classical commentators as any one of various types of farm
implements. This translation does not fit the verse smoothly -- but,
since the word is a hapax legomenon (occurs only once in the T'nakh),
there was no contextual reference against which to clarify it.

Recent digs in central Israel have brought the Pim to light --
it is an ancient coin (weighing roughly 8 grams of silver); this
finding has allowed us to go back to our verse and understand that
the T'nakh is teaching us how much the B'nei Yisra'el had to pay the
P'lish'tim to sharpen their tools, rather than another item in a list
of implements. (See the verse in context, the traditional commentaries
and Da'at Mikra ad loc. I am indebted to Professor Shnayer Leiman for
this reference.)

V "I AM A STRANGER AND SOJOURNER"

Recent discoveries of Hittite law and other Near Eastern texts have
uncovered a basic piece of information which sheds light on our entire
Parashah:

In many near eastern societies, foreigners (anyone outside of the tribal
family) were not allowed to purchase land. (See, e.g., Lehmann's article
in BASOR 129, Skinner in ICC Genesis p. 336 and Pritchard in ANET p. 219
n. 47)

[The interested reader is directed to B'resheet 34:21 -- the impact of
that arrangement becomes clearer in light of the evidence offered here.]

In last week's essay, I suggested that the reason Avraham delayed
acquiring land in Eretz K'na'an for over 60 years from the time of his
arrival until the purchase of Makhpelah was due to his not yet having
reached "the land that I will show you." There is, however, a more
prosaic reason which becomes clear when we view the evidence of local
law in K'na'an at the time of the Avot. As a ger, Avraham did not have
the right to buy land in K'na'an -- nor did the local peoples have the
right to sell it to him without special dispensation.

...

VI EAST MEETS WEST

In 1927, E. Chiera published the findings of a "Joint Expedition with
the Iraq Museum at Nuzi". Nuzi is an ancient town in Mesopotamia --
a district familiar to Avraham if not to Ephron.

Among the Nuzian legal documents published, we find several examples of
a curious form of adoption, known as "sale-adoption". The gist of this
relationship was that an outsider (non-family member) could pay to be
adopted by a family member, thus circumventing the ban on selling land to
outsiders. In other words, the outsider (in our case -- Avraham) would
pay a sum to the clan member (Ephron) to allow him in to the family --
thus allowing him to become a landowner among the clan members.

This legal loophole was likely not known -- or utilized -- by the
Hittites. Avraham, however, being a Mesopotamian by birth, would have been
familiar with it; indeed, it may be that his years of "sojourning" were
also an attempt to find the most suitable peoples among whom to settle --
and with whom to begin his acquisition of the land via this method.

In any case, it is entirely possible that this is what Avraham proposed
to Ephron -- and that is reflected by Ephron's response: "what is land of
four hundred shekel between you and me?" -- meaning, instead of the N'si
Elokim distance implied in the original salutation, our relationship is
now one of beini uveinkha -- "between you and me", as kin. (This would
also explain the exorbitant price paid by Avraham)

VII EPILOGUE

The proposal suggested above is not intended, in any sense, to supplant
the insightful and impactful messages gleaned by Hazal and the Rishonim
from this significant text. As Rav Kook so eloquently stated -- and
as is borne out by centuries of commentary by Hakhmei haM'sorah --
the essential of Torah is the message; how much our own lives are
more firmly guided by the Divine teachings of Torah is immeasurably
more significant than our ability to utilize various academic tools to
verify historicity or other "p'shat modes". What we have seen is that,
in contradistinction to common assumptions, the world of modern research
has much to offer us in our own understanding of Torah. Was a Nuzian-type
"sale-adoption" the mechanism used by Avraham to "get his foot in the
door" of land-purchase in Eretz K'na'an? We can't know for sure --
but it is certainly an intriguing possibility.

"If someone tells you that there is Torah among the nations, do not
believe him; but if he tells you that there is wisdom among the nations,
believe him." (Eikhah Rabbah 2:13)

The glory of Yephet -- the achievements of the academic world commonly
associated with the western world -- indeed have their place in the
Beit Midrash.

-- 
Mikra, Copyright © 2001 by Rabbi Yitzchak Etshalom and Torah.org.
The author is the Educational Coordinator of the Jewish Studies Institute
of the Yeshiva of Los Angeles and is also the author of the Rambam class.

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]