Parshat Tetzaveh. Greek letter Chi and Tav in Paleo-Hebrew

Parshat
Tetzaveh. Greek letter Chi and Tav in Paleo-Hebrew

By Chaim
Sunitsky

Rashi[1] on Parshat
Tetzave writes that the priests were anointed with oil, poured in the shape
of the Greek letter כי.[2] One would assume this is referring to
letter Χ[3] – 22nd
letter of the Greek alphabet which sounds somewhere between English K and H[4]. This
letter spelled χῖ in Greek, is usually spelled “Chi” in English and indeed if one wanted to write it
in Hebrew, he would probably transcribe it as כי
(where Chaf is intended without dagesh). Moreover[5], when
Hebrew names are transliterated into Greek, Chi is used for Hebrew Chaf. In
addition, if the Talmud meant this letter it becomes clear why it didn’t use an
example of any Hebrew letter, as this shape is not found in Ashuri script of
Hebrew.

Despite all this
evidence we find various other shapes offered by the Rishonim[6]. In
fact in our printed editions of the Gemora only in Rashi on Kritot (5b) the printed
illustration looks like an “X.” Some of Rambam’s editions (Kelei Hamikdash 1:9)
also printed this shape, but the Frankel edition of Rambam[7]
claims that neither Rashi nor Rambam had this shape in mind and it was changed
later by some publishers[8]. Still,
one is inclined to think that the correct explanation is that it is the letter
X, and most Rishonim simply didn’t know Greek or have access to find out, and the correct tradition regarding
the shape of “Greek Chi” was forgotten, despite the fact that it pertains to
many halachot[9].

Before we go on, I’d
like to make another interesting point: Greek X has the same shape as the last
letter Tav in Paleo-Hebrew. Let us first examine the relationship of Greek
letters to Phoenician[10] and Paleo-Hebrew[11]. R.
Shaul Lieberman[12]
brings a very interesting idea with regards to the letter Tav in Paleo-Hebrew. We
find in Yehezkel (9:4) that Tav was marked on the foreheads of people to
distinguish the righteous from the wicked who were sentenced to death. According
to Hazal (Shabbat 55a) the mark was the actual letter Tav. As we mentioned this
letter in Paleo-Hebrew looked like the Greek Chi (X)[13] and
indeed became symbolic for a number of reasons[14]. R.
Lieberman brings that the X shape was used for crossing out a debt and was
therefore represented an annulment of a bad decree. On the other hand, Tav was pronounced
similarly to Greek Theta, whose shape was also associated with a death sentence[15]. We
thus have a double association of Tav (X) with Theta and with Chi. (Note in
general that while most letters in Greek alphabet clearly come from respective[16] letters in Phoenician[17],
there are a few Greek letters, where it’s not certain which Phoenician letter
they correspond to and the Greek X is one of them[18].)

R. Lieberman further proposes
that originally the symbol of X written in blood was taken to mean forgiveness (crossing
out the decree) while X in ink was symbolic of death sentence (verdict written
in ink). However, since X has a shape similar to a cross, the early Christians started
to utilize cross in blood as symbolic of atonement, and therefore our sages
reversed that symbolism[19].

Coming back to the
shape of “Greek Chi,” it seems logical that the Hazal’s tradition is based on
an earlier tradition that the shape was that of letter Tav in Paleo-Hebrew[20] –
the last letter of the alphabet. It’s also possible that there was some
connection between the “sign” on the forehead in Yehezkel and the anointing of
a High Priest. Though the correct shape of this letter became subject to
multiple disputes over time, we may now be able to restore its ancient
symbolism[21].

[1] On verse 29:7
based on the Talmud (Kritot 5b, Horayot 12a). He also brings the same shape in
verse 29:2 in regards to the way oil was poured on the meal offerings.

[2] In some places
instead of Chi Yevanit there are versions that say Chaf Yevanit, but the
preferred girsa is Chi. While it is possible if the original version had Chi,
some copyists changed it to familiar Chaf, but if the original was Chaf, why would
someone change it to Chi? It is also possible that the Hazal themselves
sometimes used an expression Chaf Yevanit and sometimes Chi Yevanit.

[3] See additions
to Aruch by R. Benjamin Mussafia (Erech כי יונית) and Tiferet Yisrael on Menachot 6:3 and
after the last Mishna in the 10th perek of Zevachim.

[4] The Russian
letter Х (kha) also comes from it, and it is usually transliterated as kh into
English (e.g. Mikhail Gorbachev).

[5] We will discuss
this in the 17th footnote below. Similarly for those Greek words that
made it into rabbinical Hebrew, כ is generally used for χ (e.g. אוכלוסא –
populace – όχλος). However there are some exclusions, as קנקנתוס (or קנקנתום) has the first letter χ in Greek but for
some reason is not spelled with כ but with ק.

[6] See Rabeinu
Gershom on Kritot 5b and Menachot 74b, Rashi (ktav yad) on Menachot 74b and Kritot
5b, Tosafot Menachot 75a, Rashi on Shemot 29:2, Rambam, Perush Hamishna
Menachot 6:3, Rash and Rosh on Mishna Kelim 20:7, Meiri, Horayot 12a.

[7] In the end of
Frankel’s edition they have a section where variant girsaot are brought.

[8] At least one of
the “corrections” is based on “Mesoret Hashas” in Horayot 12a, but Frankel’s
Rambam points out that Rashi’s explanation on the Gemora actually contradicts
this shape. Indeed Rashi writes different explanations in various places and the
shapes in our editions include that of Hebrew Chet (Horayot) and Tet (Menachot)
and Nun (Torah commentary to Shemot, but Tosafot quote him as mentioning the
shape of a Gimel there, see also the super-commentaries on Rashi, Shemot 29:2
and the English Artscroll where all the variant shapes of Rashi are explained).
Tosafot (ibid) also mentions Kaf and that is the shape in some editions of
Rambam. They also seem to understand Aruch to mean a shape like ^ (similar to a
Greek Lambda). These shapes are reasonably similar, they all contain a type of
semicircle (כ,ט,נ) with
possibly a sharp angle (^) or two angles (ח), see Tzeda Laderech super commentary on
Rashi ibid. None of these shapes look even remotely similar to X. (Note also
that Lekach Tov on Shemot 29 apparently has a shape of Kappa, but I didn’t find
anyone who agrees with this).

[9] See for
instance Menachot 74b-75a regarding pouring oil on certain types
meal-offerings; also this crisscross shape seems to be mentioned in Kelim 20:7,
see TIferet Yisrael there. We find another shape based on the Greek Gamma used in
various halachot (e.g. Kelim 28:7, Pesachim 8b, Baba Batra 62a, Zevachim 53b
and many other places) which was preserved quite well (see commentators to
these sugias).

[10] This is ancient
Canaanite script very close to Paleo-Hebrew. Note that Ramban (Bereshit 45:12)
and Ibn Ezra (Yeshayahu 19:18, see also his perush hakatzar to Shemot
21:2) knew that Canaanites spoke the Hebrew language, (though Hazal also thought
that Hebrew was a somehow unique Holy Tongue used only by Avraham and his
descendants, see for instance Sotah 36b).

[11] This ancient
Canaanite Hebrew script is called Ktav Ivri, see Sanhedrin 21b. In times
of Rishonim the shape of Ktav Ivri letters was not too well known
(see Haara Nosefet printed in the end of Ramban’s Torah commentary, how when he was shown an ancient coin with Ktav Ivri he had to ask a Samaritan to read it for
him). Still these letters apparently did retain some influence in certain
communities. Some Yemenite Jews actually make Shin-Dalet-Yod with Tefillin
straps on their hands in Ktav Ivri, not like the prevalent custom to make a
Shin and Dalet in Ashuri script. R. Reuven Margolios proposed that our
“four-headed” Shin on the left side of Tefillin Shel Rosh is actually based on
the Shin in Ktav Ivri (which looks similar to English “W”).

[12] “Greek in
Jewish Palestine”, pages 185-191.

[13] And
interestingly both are the 22nd letters of their respective
alphabets.

[14] Besides being
the last letter of the alphabet this letter is taken by Hazal to stand for life
or death (Shabbat 55a), but the primary reason for its symbolism according to
R. Lieberman is its shape.

[15] This tradition
was also preserved in R. Bahye to Yitro (20:14) who discusses why there is no
letter Tet in the 10 commandments and associates Tet and Theta with death: כי לשון טיט”א סימן הריגה, see also comments of R. Chavel ad loc. in the name of Emuna
Vibitachon.

[16] On an unrelated
topic I’d like to mention that R. Reuven Margolios (HaMikra Vehamesora, 22)
wanted to prove, based on the shape of Paleo-Hebrew letters, that the so called
Arabic numbers (that are assumed to have come from India) were actually
invented by Jews. I find this theory far-fetched. If one looks at the
Paleo-Hebrew alphabet only Bet, Dalet and Het seem to look like 2, 4 and 8 and
moreover the shape of the “Arabic numerals” changed drastically over time and
in the times “the Jews” could have possibly invented them, they didn’t look
similar to the way we write them today. As for his other proofs that sometimes
we find gematrias of numbers used together with the position of the
digits as for example in Midrash (see Theodor Albeck edition of Bereshit
Rabbah, 96) about the number of animals Yakov had: קבזר : מאה ותרתין רבוון ושבעה אלפין ומאתיין (1027200) that uses קב
(102) then ז (7) and thenר (200), at most this shows
that for very large numbers they already started using some letters to indicate
thousands and ten-thousands (רבבות) separately. Similarly we write for year 5776: תשעו ’ה, but this is a far
stretch from system developed in India where the value of each digit depends on
its position. Indeed the Rishonim that R. Margolius himself mentions all
attribute this to Indian system. (As a side point, just to illustrate the advantage
of current mathematics symbols, look at the Rif on Pesachim, 23b, where he
calculates the reviit in terms of cubic fingers. In current notation, his
calculations taking half a page, would take one line: 3*243/(40*6*4*4)=10.8=2*2*2.7.)

[17] Many of them
look like Phoenician letters, except they are inverted vertically, since in
Greek the writing is from left to right.

[18] Certainly this
letter can’t come from Tav since it is pronounced completely differently. Note
that the issue of correspondence between Greek and Phoenician letters is not
related to the issue of how various Hebrew letters were transliterated in the
Septuagint and other Greek translations of Hebrew writings. By the time these
translations were made, the pronunciation of many letters changed both in
Hebrew and in Greek. For example, Theta is usually used to transliterate Tav,
and Tau to transliterate Tet, while their origins are the opposite: Tau came
from Tav, and Theta from Tet, as their names and shapes indicate. Perhaps by
the time of Septuagint the Tav without dagesh was pronounced in some areas closer
to English “th” and so was Theta, and that’s why the translators chose to use
Theta for Tav. Similarly, Mitchell First in an article “The Meaning of the Name
‘Maccabee,’ ” (available on this blog here), writes that Kuf is usually
transliterated as Kappa and Kaf-Chaf as Chi, even though originally the Greek
letter Kappa came from Kaf-Chaf. The reason for this might be similar, at the
time of these translations, the pronunciation of Chaf and Chi was similar,
while Kuf sounded like Kappa. (Other examples of this include Samech that is transliterated
as Sigma, not as Xi which originally came from it, but sounded at the times of
Septuagint like English X=KS, not S; similarly in Greek words used by Hazal,
Sigma is transliterated not as Sin from which it came but as a Samech, possibly
because at that time Sin and Samech were pronounced the same but since Sin is
written as Shin, Samech was chosen to make it clear the sound is S, not Sh.)

[19] See the
above-mentioned sugia in Shabbat 55a. We find occasionally that the sages had to
change the explanation “keneged haminim,” see for example Sanhedrin 31b, see
also Berachot 59a, 12a.

[20] It’s not
surprising that they used a Greek letter rather than not well known Paleo-Hebrew.
Moreover they sometimes used Greek letters instead of Ashuri, see Shekalim 3:2.

[21] It might be
possible to suggest that in medieval times this shape was purposefully
misrepresented, especially when dealing with the way anointing is performed.
The associations regarding Messiah, “the anointed one,” with anointing an X on
the High Priest’s head would certainly make many Jews living in Christian lands
recoil. Later on, this may have influenced the Jews living in Muslim lands.
Interestingly the Frankel edition of Rambam and R. Kapach (in his edition of Rambam’s
Mishna commentary) bring that in the manuscript attributed to Rambam’s own
writing (Kritot), the picture of Chi was blotted out.

Regarding Haftarah on Simchat Torah and the daily obligation to recite 100 blessings

Regarding Haftarah on Simchat Torah and the daily obligation to recite 100 blessings

Chaim
Sunitsky

It is well known that
Simchat Torah is not mentioned anywhere in the two Talmuds or Midrashim[1]. In
fact we have no proof that in the times of Talmud they used to finish the Torah
cycle reading on Simchat Torah. The prevalent minhag in the land of Israel was
to read the Torah not in one year but approximately in three[2]. In
fact it seems that every synagogue read at its own speed[3]
without any established cycle, so speaking of the specific “day” when they
would finish the reading is meaningless[4].

However in Babylon
where they read Torah in one year, it is important to establish when did they
finish? One would assume that reading in one year meant finishing on Shabbat
before Rosh Hashanah[5] or
Shabbat before Yom Kippur (since the 10 days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom
Kippur while technically being already in the next year are also related to the
previous year[6].)
Indeed R. Rueben Margolis[7]
claims that the original custom was to finish reading the Torah cycle on
Shabbat before Yom Kippur[8]. One
of his proofs is the statement in the Talmud[9] that
R. Bibi bar Abaye wanted to finish reading all parshiyot on the eve of
Yom Kippur, and when he was told this day should be reserved for eating, he
decided to read earlier. Had they finished the cycle after Yom Kippur, why
didn’t R. Bibi bar Abaye instead postpone it for later[10]?
This idea also explains the tradition that there are altogether 53 parshiyot
in the Torah[11],
and therefore Nitzavim and Veyelech[12]
should be counted as one. According to this all 53 parshiyot were always
read on Shabbat and there never was a special parsha that is read only
on Yom Tov[13].

Even though the Talmud
(Megilah 31a) mentions that on Simchat Torah, “Vezot Habracha” is read,
there is absolutely no proof that they read the entire parsha till the
end of Torah. What is more likely is that this parsha was chosen for
this particular day of Yom Tov, just as all other parshiyot chosen for
various holidays in the same sugia. Maybe the reason is that they wanted
to finish Sukkot with the general blessing of all the Jewish tribes[14].

This also explains the
Haftorah for this day. According to the Talmud (ibid) it is from the prayer of
Shlomo (Melachim 1:8:22) right before the Haftorah of the previous day
(1:8:54). The prayers and blessings of Shlomo fit perfectly with the prayers
and blessings of Moshe[15].
However our custom is to say the Haftorah from the beginning of Yehoshua.
Indeed the Tosafot (Megilah 31a) ask why our custom this contradicts the Talmud[16]?
However according to the assumption that only during Gaonic times did we start
reading the entire last parsha of the Torah on the second day of Shmini
Atzeret[17], it
makes sense that this caused the change in Haftorah, as the beginning of Sefer
Yehoshua is a natural continuation of the Torah and it starts with the death of
Moshe.

The second topic of
this post is regarding the obligation[18] to
make 100 blessings every day. This is codified as halacha in the
Shulchan Aruch[19].
However the common practice seems to be not to count[20] the
number of blessings and make sure to say 100 every day. Indeed on the holiest
day of our year – Yom Kippur[21] it’s
virtually impossible to make so many blessings. Indeed the Brisker Rav – R.
Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik is quoted as counting the blessings he made every day
except on Yom Kippur since making 100 blessings on Yom Kippur is impossible
anyway, he did not even try to make as many as he could[22].

Another problem is that
most women who don’t pray 3 times a day almost never pronounce 100 blessings per
day. This led some poskim to write that women are not obligated in this
mitzvah[23].

All of this led some Rishonim
to look for alternative ways one can be considered to have made 100 blessings.
One of approaches it to count some of the blessings one hears as if he made
them[24].
Another approach is to count the prayer “Ein Kelokenu” as a number of
blessings[25].
This approach obviously seems somewhat farfetched[26].

In this short article
we will try to see if the is a different reason why the practice of 100
blessings was not originally followed by the majority of Jews. It is known that
not all halachik obligations are treated equally[27].
There are various reasons for this[28] but
at least one has to do with traditionally following what our ancestors did. If
the Jews originally resided in areas where the majority of grain was “yashan[29]” and
later moved to northern countries where the crop is planted after Passover and
all the grain of that crop is “chadash”, they continued ignoring the
prohibition against it[30].
Similarly the Brisker Rav said the reason very few people ever ask a rabbi
questions regarding trumot and maaserot is because they never saw
their parents who lived outside the Land of Israel do so[31].

At times however it
seems that the Jewish people originally followed an alternative opinion in halacha
and later when the Shulchan Aruch paskened according to a different
opinion the old custom did not change[32]. In
my humble opinion it seems the custom of making 100 blessings a day was also
originally not obligatory[33], and
even when the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch effectively made it so, the people
continued not to “count their blessings”.

The wording of the
Talmud (Menachot 43b) is as follows:

תניא
היה רבי מאיר אומר חייב אדם לברך מאה ברכות בכל יום שנאמר ועתה ישראל מה ה’ אלקיך שואל
מעמך רב חייא בריה דרב אויא בשבתא וביומי טבי טרח וממלי להו באיספרמקי ומגדי

It was taught[34]: R.
Meir used to say, a man is bound to say one hundred blessings daily, as it is
written, “And now, Israel, what doth the L-rd thy G-d require of thee[35]”? On
Sabbaths and on Festivals R. Hiyya the son of R. Awia endeavored to make up
this number by the use of spices and delicacies.

The obvious question is
why does the Talmud mention only R. Hiyya ben Awia as making a special endeavor
to compensate the missing blessings[36]?
What did everyone else do? It would seem logical that if there was a legal obligation
for everyone to make 100 blessings, the Talmud should have asked: and how do we
make up for missing blessings on Shabbat and Yom Tov[37]? It
would seem that R. Meir does not actually require to count the blessings one
makes during the day and make sure there are 100, and only one sage went out of
his way to always make 100 blessings. We similarly find other laws of the
Talmud that are stated as actual prohibitions but are possibly only
stringencies. These examples may include the prohibition of entering a business
partnership with an idolater or the prohibition of lending money without
witnesses[38].
Similarly the Rashba[39]
considers the prohibition against drinking bear with idolaters to be just “the
custom of holy ones (minhag kedoshim)”.

Even more compelling is
the version of the statement of R. Meir in Tosefta and Yerushalmi (end of Berachot)
implies that one would just normally end up[40]
making 100 blessings on regular weekdays:

תני
בשם רבי מאיר אין לך אחד מישראל שאינו עושה מאה מצות בכל יום. קורא את שמע ומברך לפניה
ולאחריה ואוכל את פתו ומברך לפניה ולאחריה ומתפלל שלשה פעמים של שמונה עשרה וחוזר ועושה
שאר מצות ומברך עליהן

We learned in the name
of R. Meir that every Jew does [at least] 100 mitzvot [by making 100 blessings]
every [week]day. He reads Shma with blessings before and after[41],
eats bread with blessings before and after[42], and
prays 3 times 18 blessings[43] and
does other mitzvot[44] and
makes blessings on them.

I found the same proofs
in the Metivta edition of the Talmud in the name of R. Yerucham Fishel Perlow[45]. He
also brings that R. Meir’s statement in our Talmud Bavli is according to some versions:
מאה ברכות חייב
אדם לברך בכל יום[46] and he suggests it can be translated as “100 obligatory
blessings does one make per [week]day” rather than “100 blessings is one
obligated to make per day”. He also brings some Gaonim and Rishonim
who understood that the mitzvah of making 100 blessings a day is not a full
obligation[47].

In conclusion I’d like
to mentions that obvious: this article was only meant to explain why many are
not as careful about the law of making 100 blessings per day as they are
regarding other laws contained in the Shulchan Aruch right next to this law
(i.e. the laws of morning blessings). This short essay is definitely not meant
as a halachic guide. We certainly should try to fulfil the letter of the law by
either listening carefully on Shabbat and Yom Tov to the blessings on the Torah
and Haftorah as well as the repetition of Shmone Esre[48], or
eat a few snacks which contain foods that require different blessings[49].

[1] It is however
mentioned in the Zohar 3:256b.

[2] Megilah 29. It
was already linked to their general dividing many of the sentences into much
smaller verses (Kidushin 30a).We may actually have this preserved in Devarim
Rabbah where each new chapter starts with: Halacha, Adam MeYisrael and we have
21 such beginnings instead of 10 or 11 for parshiyot of Sefer Devarim.

[3] See Hiluke
Minhagim between Eretz Yisrael and Babel.

[4] Although they
would presumably make the “siyum” and celebrate when they did indeed finish the
Torah (see Kohelet Rabbah 1:1).

[5] See Levush, 669
who gives a somewhat strange explanation that the reason we don’t finish the
cycle of Torah reading by Rosh Hashanah is to “deceive the Satan”.

[6] GR”A to Sifra
Detzniuta, see also a similar idea in TB Rosh Hashanah 8b.

[7] Shaare Zohar,
Megilah 30b, Nitzutze Zohar 1:104b, 3rd note.

[8] He seems to
claim this for Eretz Yisrael but it seems more reasonable to say this is true
regarding Babel.

[9] Berachot 8b.

[10] Indeed for us
the halacha is that someone who didn’t read the parsha on time, should finish it
before Simchat Torah.

[11] See for example
Tikune Zohar, 13th Tikun, GR”A there.

[12] Indeed at the
end of these two parshiyot we have one Masoretic note that counts all their
verses together – 70, rather than 30 verses for Nitzavim and 40 for Vayelech as
is usual for other parshiyot that are sometimes joined. Regarding their
splitting see also Tosafot, Megilah, 31b and Magen Avraham, 228.

[13] According to
this on certain years, when there was no Shabbat between Yom Kippur and Sukkot,
two other parshas were joined.

[14] See Sefer
Hamanhig, Sukka.

[15] See also Rashi,
Megilah 31a that Shlomo sent away the people on the eight day and this is why
the Haftorah for Shmini Atzeret was taken from this chapter.

[16] See also Rosh
and Tur that claim our custom is based on Yerushlami, but this is found not in
our Yerushalmi.

[17] Note that one
can’t bring any proof for this from the fact that the Talmud (Megilah 30a) does
not mention that on Simchat Torah 3 Sifrey Torah are taken out as it mentions
regarding Hanukkah that falls on Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh, and regarding Rosh
Chodesh Adar that falls on Shabbat. Aside from being an argument from silence,
the custom to read a passage regarding the mussaf sacrifice from Parshat
Pinchas is not of Talmudic, but of Gaonic origin (see Bet Yosef, 488). So we
would at most expect there to be two Torah Scrolls on the second day of Shmini
Atzeret, but if our argument is correct, they read only from one scroll.

[18] Talmud,
Menachot 43b. There are some sources that seem to attribute this law to King
David (Bemidbar Rabbah 18:21).

[19] Orach Chaim
46:4.

[20] On a typical
weekday one pronounces 100 brachot anyway due to large number of blessings in 3
Shmone Esre prayers (3*19=-57). However on Shabbat and Yom Tov the 4 Amidahs
with 7 blessings each make only 28 blessings, and the only way to make 100
blessings is by eating fruits and snacks and smelling fragrances throughout the
day.

[21] Even though we
pray five Amidahs on Yom Kipur, each has only 7 blessings and since there are
no meals throughout the day we can only compensate the missing brachot by
smelling various fragrances and making blessings on them.

[22] See Tshuvot
Vehanhagot 4:153. Others say one should
still try to maximize the number of blessings even if you can’t reach 100 (R.
Haim Kanevsky quoted in Dirshu edition on Mishna Berura, 46).

[23] Shevet Halevi
5:23, Tshuvot Vehanhagot 2:129. However R. Ovadia Yosef (Halichot Olam,
Vayeshev) obligates women in making 100 blessings.

[24] See Orach Chaim
284:3.

[25] See Machzor
Vitri,1; Sidur Rashi,1; Rokach; Kol Bo, 37.

[26] See Sefer
Hamanhig, Dinei Tefillah (page 31) ולפי דעתי אין שורש וענף
לזה המנהג.

[27] The GR”A explains
that the statement in the Talmud (Shabbat 155b): “there is no one poorer than a
dog or richer than a pig” hints to two prohibitions: eating pork and speaking
lashon hara (evil speech). While every Jew is careful about the former (this
mitzvah is “rich”), very few people fully keep the latter (and this mitzvah is “poor”).

[28] Some mitzvot
are just very difficult to keep, like the obligation for every man to write his
own Sefer Torah.

[29] The five main
grains that took root after Passover are forbidden to be eaten until the day
after next Pesach and are called “chadash” – new [crop]. The grain from the
old, permitted crop is called “yashan” – old. Some poskim hold that the
prohibition does not apply outside the land of Israel, but the GR”A thought
these laws are applicable everywhere.

[30] See the GR”A
Yore Deah 293:2 אלא שנמשך ההיתר שהיו זורעין קורם הפסח.

[31] Similarly the
Chofetz Chaim says the reason most people ignore the prohibition against evil
speech is also because their parents did not stop them from speaking Lashon
Hara from childhood (Haga in the end of his 9th chapter of Chofetz
Chaim).

[32] I brought an
example of this in an article about mezuza, where it seems there used to be an
opinion followed that a house with more than one entrance only requires one mezuza.

[33] It is
interesting that according to the Manhig (quoted above) ונראין
הדברי’ שאחר שיסדן משה רבינו ע”ה שכחום וחזר דוד ויסדם לפי שהיו מתי’ ק’ בכל יום Moshe first instituted this law and it was
later “forgotten” and reinstituted by David. I am not sure how it’s possible
that this law would ever be “forgotten”.

[34] I am quoting
Soncino’s translation.

[35] There are a few
different interpretations regarding how this verse hints to 100 blessings, see
Rashi and Tosafot.

[36] See Hida,
Machazik Beracha to Orach Chaim 290.

[37] See similar
logic in Tosafot Baba Metzia 23b that we don’t pasken like Rav that meat that
was not watched becomes forbidden since the Gemora asks: “how does Rav ever eat
meat” and does not ask: “how do we eat meat”. See also Rosh, Pesachim 2:26 that
only one sage was careful to start the “Shmira” of matza so early, and
therefore the halacha for us does not follow him (Yabia Omer 8:22:24).

[38] See for example
Ritva, Megillah 28a, see also Ran on the Rif, end of first perek of Avoda Zara.

[39] See Bet Yosef,
Yore Deah 114 in the name of Torat Habayit.

[40] It’s also
possible R. Meir’s statement is in realm of agada rather than halacha.

[41] That’s 7
blessings.

[42] If he eats 2
meals a day and makes Birkat Hamazon with a cup of wine, he will make 2+4+2
blessings during each meal, i.e. 16 blessings a day.

[43] 57 blessings.

[44] The blessings
on tefillin and tzitzit make 2 or 3 blessings, blessing on the washing hands
and two or three blessing on the Torah add another 5-7 blessings. Altogether we
get 7+16+57+5/7=85/87 blessings. If we add all the morning blessings we will
get more than 100.

[45] Commentary to
R. Saadia’s Sefer Hamitzvot (Aseh 2).

[46] This is the
Girsa of Tur and some other Rishonim.

[47] See R. Perlow
on Sefer Hamitzvot quoted above.

[48] At any rate one
should listen carefully and if there is a small minyan, when people don’t pay
attention to the blessings on the Torah or to the repetition of Shmone Esre,
they cause a “bracha levatala”.

[49] For example an
apple, some watermelon, a piece of chocolate and some cake will add 4 blessings
before and 2 after.

Traditional Jewish source for the “Seven Deadly Sins”

Traditional
Jewish source for the “Seven Deadly Sins”

By Chaim Sunitsky

In Christianity as well
as in western culture there is a well-known concept of “Seven Deadly Sins”
usually enumerated as: pride, covetousness, lust (understood as illicit sexual desire),
envy, gluttony, anger and sloth. In particular this theme is well known through
the art of Hieronymus Bosch.

Even though there is no
clear biblical source for this particular list of sins, in general the number
seven plays a major role in the Bible and in particular the concept of some
“seven sins” is thought to come from Mishle (6:16): שֶׁשׁ
הֵנָּה שָׂנֵא ה וְשֶׁבַע תּוֹעֲבַות נַפְשׁוֹ (there are six things
Hashem hates and [altogether] seven that are abomination to Him).

In traditional Jewish
literature the number seven[1] certainly
plays a very important role. The Talmud (Sukkah 52a) mentions seven “names” (or
types) of Yetzer Hara and in a different place (Eruvin 19a) seven names of
Gehinom. The Zohar (Hechalot in Parshat Pekude) associates the two with each
level in Hell ruled by a different aspect of the Satan. One would therefore expect
some list of “seven deadly sins” in our literature as well. However it would come
as a surprise to find the list that is almost identical.

Still such a source
does exist. The GR”A[2]
comments on the Agada in Berachot (4b) that the Angel of Death flies in eight
steps (מלאך המות בשמונה):

ששמונה
סבות המיתה על האדם הם , אחת מחמת חטא אדה״ר וז׳ מחמת ז׳ ראשי עבירות שהם גרם כל העבירות
והם התאוה והקנאה והגאוה שהוא הככוד והכילוה שהוא עין הרע והזנות שהוא היצה״ר ושנאת
הבריות והבטלה והיא שביעית נוק׳ לשבת בית ובה כלולין ד׳ כידוע והוא מ”ש שיחת הילדים
כו׳ וישיבת כו׳. וז׳ שמות יש ליצה”ר הידועים וז׳ מדורות ז׳ ראשי תנינים וז׳ גשרים
לס”א וז׳ של להט החרב המחהפכת צבוע כו׳ וז׳ עונשים של התורה ד׳ מיתות ב״ד ומיתה
ביד״ש וכרת ומלקות

Because there are eight
causes of death, one due to the sin of Adam and seven due to the seven main
transgressions that cause all other sins and they are the תאוה (desire for gratification which can in our case mean gluttony[3]) קנאה (envy), גאוה
(pride) that is also ככוד (honor), כילות (stinginess) that is bad eye, זנות (illicit sexual desire) that is Yetzer
Hara, שנאת הבריות (hatred of others) and בטלה (sloth). And this [sloth] is the seventh – feminine[4] “to
sit at home[5]”
and it includes 4 as it is known, like it says “childish conversation etc and
sitting [with ignoramuses[6]].” And
there are seven known names of Yetzer Hara, and seven “heads” of the snake and
seven bridges of the “Sitra Achra” and seven of the rotating sward that turns
from hyena etc and seven types of punishments: four types of execution by Bet
Din, death at the hands of Heaven, Karet and flogging.

Regarding his words “seven
of the rotating sward that turns from hyena” he is referring to an Agada in
Baba Kama (16a) about six species turning into one another every seven years
and the person not bowing down at Modim turning into a snake:

צבוע
זכר לאחר שבע שנים נעשה עטלף עטלף לאחר שבע שנים נעשה ערפד ערפד לאחר ז’ שנים נעשה
קימוש קימוש לאחר שבע שנים נעשה חוח חוח לאחר שבע שנים נעשה שד שדרו של אדם לאחר שבע
שנים נעשה נחש והני מילי דלא כרע במודים

The male hyena after
seven years turns into a bat, the bat after seven years turns into an arpad (possibly
a species of bat), the arpad after seven years turns into kimmosh[7], the
kimmosh after seven years turns into a choach, the choach after seven years
turns into a demon. The spine of a man after seven years turns into a snake if
he doesn’t bow when reciting Modim[8].

The GR”A’s comments on
this Agada in Baba Kama are similar to his comments in Berachot: the six
animals are hinting to 6 active (masculine) sins and the seventh – to the
passive (feminine) sin of laziness:

תניא
צבוע זכר כו׳. הן ז׳ קשרים דתנינא דלהט כו׳ לכן הן מתהפכין והשביעית דנוק׳ שלכן נעשה
נחש והראשונה בדכורא לכן נעשה שד

“They are seven knots
of the snake of the “rotating [sward]” etc and therefore they turn into each
other and the seventh one is the feminine and therefore he [who doesn’t bow at
Modim] becomes a snake (fem) while the first [six] are masculine and therefore
he turns to a demon (masc)”.

R. Avraham, the Vilna
Gaon’s son explains the words of his father as follows:

הן
ז׳ קשרים דתנינא דלהט פי׳ דלהט חרב המתהפכת שמתהפכת לשבעה גוונים הם ז׳ ראשי עבירות
שהם גרם כל העבירות , והם התאוה והקנאה והגאוה שהוא הככוד, והכילות שהוא עין הרע ,
והזנות שהוא יצה”ר, ושנאת הבריות, והבטלה והיא שביעית נוק׳ לשבת בית

The seven knots of the
snake of the “rotating sward” meaning the “rotating sward” turns into seven
types of seven major sins that are a cause of all other sins and they are the תאוה, קנאה,
גאוה that is ככוד,
כילות that is bad eye, זנות that is Yetzer Hara, שנאה and בטלה. בטלה is the seventh [passive] feminine
“to sit at home”.

The correspondence of the
GR”A’s list of seven deadly sins and the non-Jewish list is almost exact with the
exception of שנאה (hatred) being used instead
of anger (כעס), and even these two are closely related.
The main question becomes: what is the GR”A’s source for this specific
collection of transgressions?

It seems that the
GR”A’s source is Mishnayot in Avot. The first three sins are mentioned in 4:21הקנאה והתאוה והכבוד that
cause מוציאין את האדם מן העולם to take the person
out of this world. The next three sins are in 2:11: עין הרע, ויצר הרע, ושנאת הבריות and they also “take the person out of this world[9]”. The
last of the seven sins includes the four types of time wasting mentioned in
Avot 3:10. These four also said to “take the person out of this world[10]”.

In conclusion I propose
that the collection of the “Seven Deadly Sins” that are a source[11] of all
other transgressions[12] is
found in Judaism.[13]

[1] Of course in
Kabala this number is very important as it relates to seven lower Sefirot.

[2] The GR”A didn’t
write a commentary to all agadot like Maharsha or Maharal, we only have his
words on Berachot and some of Shabbat, Megillah, Baba Kama, Baba Batra and
Bechorot; much of his commentary is hard to understand but his son R. Avraham
helps us in his super-commentary.

[3] As the other
main “desire” for sexual gratification is mentioned separately later.

[4] In Kabala
action is associated with male and passivity with female. The first six sins
are related to six “masculine” Sefirot of Sitra Achra and the Seventh – to
Malchut or Nukva – the passive “feminine” Sefira.

[5] See Yeshayahu
44:12. Kabalistic literature uses this verse to refer to the feminine aspect –
Nukva.

[6] See Avot 3:10 שנה של שחרית, ויין של צהרים, ושיחת הילדים, וישיבת בתי כנסיות של
עמי הארץ, מוציאין את האדם מן העולם.
The GR”A is hinting that sloth includes 4 different types of empty wasting time
just as Malchut is known to include 4 separate aspects.

[7] According to
the English Artscroll and Soncino, kimosh and choach are types of thorns, but
it seems that this agada is talking about various animals. Indeed Rashi (Hoshea
9:6) brings that according to Targum Yonatan on this verse kimosh and choach
are some kinds of animals. (Hebrew Artscroll also brings the possibility that choach
and kimosh are animals.)

[8] Regarding how
Modim is related to this the GR”A gives a mystical explanation that is beyond
the scope of the present article.

[9] See also GR”A
on Mishle 21:4 that there is a correspondence between the sins mentioned in these
two mishnayot. I presume it is similar to the correspondence between the
Sefirot Hesed-Gevurah-Tiferet and the lower level Netzach-Hod-Yesod. The GR”A
also writes there that these sins correspond to the qualities of students of
Balaam (see Avot 5:19).

[10] Indeed these
are the only 3 Mishnayot in Pirke Avot that use the expression: מוציאין את האדם מן העולם

[11] Note how the
qualities of a person are in a sense more fundamental than the actions, see the
beginning of R. Hayim Vital’s “Shaare Kedusha” and “Even Shlema” written by the
students of the GR”A according to the teachings of their Rebbe.

[12] Interestingly
even the Hebrew article in Wikipedia on the “Seven Deadly Sins” assumes it’s a
Christian concept and does not mention that this concept has a source in
Judaism as well.

[13] It might even
be that this idea came from Judaism into early Christianity.

Parshat Ki Tisa. The Anointing Oil Revisited.

Parshat
Ki Tisa. The Anointing Oil Revisited.

By Chaim Sunitsky

In this parsha we have
the instructions of how to make anointing oil:

וְאַתָּה
קַח לְךָ בְּשָׂמִים רֹאשׁ מָר דְּרוֹר חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת וְקִנְּמָן בֶּשֶׂם מַחֲצִיתוֹ
חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם וּקְנֵה בֹשֶׂם חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם וְקִדָּה חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת
בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְשֶׁמֶן זַיִת הִין

All the proportions of
the ingredients are clearly explained except the second. Moshe had to take 500
(shekalim[1]) of
Mar Dror. Kinamon (probably cinnamon) “its half, 250”, K’ne – 250 and Kida –
500. The peculiar expression “its half, 250” is explained in the Talmud (Kritot
5a) to mean that 250 shekalim is taken twice. According to this the expression
“its half” is explaining the half of the weight of Kinamon and that it is
“gezeriat hakatuv” that this spice is not taken at once but rather as two
halves, 250 shekalim each. The total weight of the spices is then
500+250*2+250+500=1750.

Needless to say this
explanation does not seem to be the straightforward meaning of the verse. It is
a lot simpler to consider that mahatzito (its half) is explaining the previous
weight: while Mar Dror is 500, Kinamon is only half of that – 250. Still
practically all the commentators follow the view of our Talmud and even Rashbam
who usually explains according to what he believes to be the pshat. The words
of Rabeinu Bahya (30:23) are that this explanation is the kabala of Hazal
(presumably from Sinai) and that we already knew that half of 500 is 250, so if
we explain the Torah according to the simple meaning, these words are
redundant. However it was noticed already in Biur of Mendelssohn[2] that
our taamim don’t support this explanation, as they should have used a mesharet
to connect “mahatzito” to the next words[3]. He
leaves this as a question of why Baal Hataamim didn’t follow Hazal[4].

However Shadal in his
Chumash commentary brings from Yerushalmi Shekalim[5] (6:1)
that the total weight of the 4 spices was 1500. This implies that the weight of
Kinamon was only 250 as is the straightforward meaning of the verse[6]. We
thus find support for our Mesorah that followed a different tradition and there
was no clear “Mesorah from Sinai” that this verse should be read as the Bavli
suggests[7] but
rather this was one of possible interpretations in out Gemora.

[1] All the weights
are in shekalim although in some sources (Yerushlami Shekalim 6:1) the weights
seem to be in “mane” and not shekalim, it is probably based on a scribal error

[2] See also “Vikuach”
of Shadal (page 96) where he tries to prove from here that the tradition of
taamim is not from Ezra otherwise our Mesorah would not contradict this.

[3] Instead we have
a “tipcha” that connects this word to the previous phrase.

[4] In general the
Tosafot on Shabbat 55b already noticed that our Mesorah sometimes doesn’t
follow the Talmud. We usually follow the Mesorah in regards to the laws of
writing of the Torah. Moreover, the opinion of Masoretic scholars may have
influence on other laws like writing a “get” (see Bet Shmuel at the end of the
laws of writing names of men and women printed after siman 129 of Even Haezer;
see also GR”A, Even Haezer 129:51).

[5] Another
interesting contradiction between Bavli and this perek of Shekalim is the
number of tables in the Second Temple. The Mishna in Shekalim seems to imply
that there was only one table in the Heichal (and therefore presumably one
Menorah), but Talmud Bavli (Yoma 51b) implies that the Second Temple had 11
tables and 11 Menorot just like the First Temple (see Tosafot Rid ad loc who
notices this contradiction). Maybe at the time after the victory of Hanukkah
when the Jewish people were poor, there was only one Menorah and one table, and
at some later time more were made.

[6]Most
commentaries to Yerushalmi say this except for R. Shlomo Sirilio who changes
the girsa in Yerushalmi so as not to contradict the Bavli.

[7] While we are at
it, I’d like to add that regarding Ketoret, where the Torah mentions only 4
species, and Hazal add 7 more, that maybe the remaining 7 spices are not a Sinaic
tradition, see Shir Hashirim Rabbah 3:7 and Ramban (30:34). This would explain
why R. Natan could add Kipat Hayarden and not break the prohibition of “Bal
Tosif”. Maybe the Torah allows taking small quantities of various other spices
as long as the main ingredients were the 4 enumerated in the Torah in equal
proportion.

Evening Prayer Revisited

Evening
Prayer Revisited

Chaim
Sunitsky

There is a dispute in
Tamud Bavli (Brachot 4b) as to whether one should say Shma with Brachot
before or after Shmone Esre during the evening prayer. The opinion of R.
Yohanan is that Shma is said first while the opinion of R. Yehoshua ben Levi is
that Shmone Esre is said before the Shma. Moreover, while R. Yohanan holds that
Shma is followed by Shmone Esre immediately, according to R. Yehoshua ben Levi
Shmone Esre can be recited separately and Shma with its blessings does not have
to follow immediately after. The practice of all Jews today is to follow R.
Yochanan.

Most Rishonim[1] and
the Shulchan Aruch rule like R. Yohanan and indeed this seems to be the opinion
of the Babylonian Talmud. This is called being “Somech Geula leTefila”, meaning
the blessing of Gaal Yisrael (Who Redeemed Israel) is recited immediately
before the Shmone Esre. At first sight
it seems that the last blessing after evening Shma (Hashkivenu – let us go to
sleep) only makes sense according to R. Yehoshua ben Levi. Indeed, Talmud Bavli
(ibid) asks how the blessing of Hashkivenu would not be considered an
interruption between Geula and Tefila according to R. Yochanan? It answers that
it is considered “long Geula” (or continuation of the Geula). Our thesis is
that in Palestine in Talmudic times, the opinion of R. Yehoshua ben Levi was
the more accepted shita and moreover that they used to say Hashkivenu as the
last blessing before going to sleep (as we say Hamapil[2]).

Rashi (Brachot
2a) brings in the name of Talmud Yerushlami: Why do we say Shma in the
synagogue in the evening, even though this is done before[3] the
earliest time to fulfil the obligation? It answers that we do this כדי לעמוד בתפלה
מתוך דברי תורה

While it seems from
Rashi that they said Shma with the blessings before Shmone Esre[4], the Tosafot
(ibid) in the name of R. Tam[5] says that
they used to simply recite Shma without blessings before Maariv, just like we
say Ashre before Mincha. Later on they would say Shma with the blessings
following R. Yehoshua ben Levi. Indeed
the sugia further in the same Yerushalmi (1:1) supports this interpretation entirely[6]:

מילתיה אמרה שאין אמר דברים
אחר אמת ויציב מילתיה דרבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר כן רבי שמואל בר נחמני כד הוה נחית
לעיבורה הוה מקבל רבי יעקב גרוסה והוה רבי זעירא מטמר ביני קופייא משמענא היך הוה
קרי שמע והוה קרי וחזר וקרי עד דהו’ שקע מיניה גו שינתיה ומאי טעמא רבי אחא ור’
תחליפא חמוי בשם רבי שמואל בר נחמן רגזו ואל תחטאו אמרו בלבבכם על משכבכם ודומו
סלה מילתיה דר’ יהושע בן לוי פליגא דרבי יהושע בן לוי קרי מזמורים בתרה …

It discusses if it’s
permitted to speak after one already said the blessings after evening Shma[7]. It
mentions R. Yakov Grosa used to not speak after he said Shma with blessings,
and then mentions R. Yehoshua ben Levi[8] who
used to still say various psalms afterwards[9].

From the Yerushalmi it
seems that most people used to say Shmone Esre during the daytime, and later
ate their meal[10]
and laid down to sleep[11] saying
the evening Shma with blessings.[12]

We can also explain from
here how the shita of Bet Shamai regarding saying evening Shma while laying
down could have developed. It is unlikely that Shma in the evening was
pronounced in normal position and then in some generation Bet Shamai suddenly
ruled that one has to literally lie down to say it. A more likely scenario is
that it was the norm to recite the evening Shma while lying down and the
dispute of Bet Hillel and Bet Shamai arose as to whether this is the
requirement or is merely done for convenience so as to not interrupt and fall
asleep immediately.

Another obscure shita
we can now explain is in Zohar Hadash (Bereshit 17d in Mosad HaRav Kook
edition). It mentions that the idea of praying with “redness of the sun”
applies to Maariv, not Mincha[13] like
our Talmud (Brachot 29b). In light of the shita of R. Yeshoshua ben Levi
we can understand this. It seems the ideal time for Maariv according to this
was around sundown. However one cannot fulfill the mitzvah of Shma at this
time. It is also interesting that in Tosefta (Brachot, 3:2) the opinion
of R. Yossi is mentioned that Maariv should be recited at the time of “Neilat
Shearim”.

In conclusion, it seems
that there were some communities where the norm was to recite Shmone Esre of the
evening prayer before Shma with blessings, and these communities apparently
recited the last blessing of Shma (Hashkivenu) in place of our Hamapil.

[1] I am currently unaware of any Rishon that paskened not like R. Yohanan, however
the Meiri writes that “majority” pasken like R. Yohanan, so there must have
been some who did not.

[2] Indeed Yerushlami does not mention the blessing of Hamapil, but it seems they
used to say Hashkiveinu as the last Bracha and fall asleep afterwards. It’s
interesting that our siddurim added Hashkivenu without Hatima at the Seder of
going to sleep even though in reality for us this brocha is not necessary since
we have Hamapil.

[3] It was normal to say the evening Shmone Esre in Eretz Yisrael during day time,
before stars come out (possibly because of the danger to go outside at night as
their synagogues were outside of the city).

[4] As many do today when praying early Maariv.

[5] See also Rosh (Brachot 1:1) and Korban Netaniel (10).

[6] See the commentaries from Baal Sefer Haredim and R. Chaim Kanievky.
It’s possible that Rashi did not see this whole sugia in Yerushlami but only
saw a quote of it in a Gaonic source. In general regarding use of Yerushalmi in
Rashi, see Saul Lieberman’s letter to Solomon Zeitlin published at the end of Saul
Lieberman and the Orthodox by R. Marc Shapiro, see also the discussion from
Homat Yerushalaim printed in the beginning of standard Yerushalmi
editions.

[7] The Yerushalmi calls the blessing after “Emet Veyatziv” as this was their
Nusach, but our Nusach in the evening is “Emet Veemuna”.

[8] Of course R. Yehoshua ben Levi followed his own shita and said Shma with
Brachot after Shmone Esre. Note that the same sugia before in Yerushalmi also
discusses whether it’s permitted to speak after “Emet Veyatziv”. It continues
with והא תני אין אומר דברים אחד אמת ויציב פתר לה באמת ויציב של שחרית.

[9] This is mentioned in our Talmud (Shevuot 16b) as well.

[10] And the prohibition of eating before Shma did not apply since they read Shma
already even though they did not fulfill their obligation or because they were
eating before the time of Shma arrived.

[11] For
those who did not immediately go to sleep, the Yerushalmi (ibid) indeed
mentions that they should recite Shma (with blessings) before midnight.

[12] Interestingly even at later times when many communities had a custom to say the
evening prayer early, some people recited Shma without Brachot. R. Hai Gaon (Tshuvot
Hagaonim Hahadashot – Emanuel, 93; this tshuva is brought in Rosh
1:1 and Bet Yosef 235) suggests that the one who is found in such a
congregation should only say Shma without blessings and pray Shmone Esre
together with them, but later one say Shma with Brachot.

[13] Indeed the Talmud there states that in Palestine they cursed the one who prays
Mincha so close to sundown as it may lead to missing the time. Obviously this
does not apply to Maariv for which there is plenty of time afterwards.

Mezuzah Revisited. Parshat Vaetchanan.

Mezuzah
Revisited. Parshat Vaetchanan.

By
Chaim Sunitsky.

Rashi on
this Parsha (Devarim 6:9) says that since the word Mezuzot is
written without the Vav[1], only
one Mezuzah is necessary. It’s generally assumed that Rashi can’t argue with a
clear Talmudic statement that every door of the house needs a Mezuzah[2] and
therefore he can’t be understood at face value. However the custom in many
places in Medieval Europe had always been to only affix one Mezuzah per house[3]. We
will now try to examine if indeed there ever was a tradition that supported
this minhag.

The Rema makes a
unique statement in Yoreh Deah (287:2): “The commonly spread minhag in
these countries is to attach only one Mezuzah per house and they have nothing
to rely on”. This statement is very unusual. Rema is known for
supporting Jewish minhagim and it’s very common for him to use the
expression “common minhag” often followed by a statement that this minhag
should not be changed, or at least that this minhag can be relied on.
Here however the Rema is saying just the opposite: the minhag has
nothing to rely on and a “yere Shamaim” person should affix the Mezuzot
on every entrance.

It’s hard to understand
how this incorrect “minhag” could have possibly become wide spread. R. Yissachar
Dov Eilenburg[4]
(the author of Beer Sheva on the Talmud) suggested that this mistake became
widespread due to incorrect understanding of our Rashi. However I find
it strange if the previous minhag was to affix a Mezuzah on every
doorpost, how would it change in many countries simply because they misunderstood
the Rashi’s Torah commentary[5]. As
for the correct understanding of Rashi, two possibilities were offered:
either Rashi is saying that we don’t have to affix two Mezuzot on each
doorframe[6], or
that Rashi is following the opinion of R. Meir that if an entrance has
only one doorpost on the right, there is a need to affix Mezuzah (despite the
lack of second doorpost[7]). As
for Rashi’s actual drasha[8]
we don’t see it in any known source in Hazal[9].

In general there was[10] some
attempt to explain the custom of affixing only one Mezuzah based on the fact
that many of the inside rooms in their houses were not clean enough, but this
does not explain what people relied on when the house itself had more than one
entrance[11].
However Rashi[12]
on our Gemorah brings an interpretation according to which if a house
has exactly two entrances, it needs only one Mezuzah on the more commonly used
entrance, since the other entrance is batela (is unimportant) compared
to the first one. Only if the house has more than two entrances then we don’t
say that two entrances are batelim to the one commonly used entrance.
Maybe then Rashi on the Chumash is following his shita and
saying that a house (or room) with two entrances requires only one Mezuzah. Interestingly,
in Yerushalmi[13]
there is even a stronger statement that seems to imply that only one entrance per
house requires a Mezuzah:

בית
שיש לו שני פתחים נותן ברגיל היו שניהן רגילין נותן בחזית היו שניהן חזית נותן על איזה
מהן שירצה

The simple meaning of Yerushlami
seems to contradict the Talmud Bavli and imply that only the entrance that’s
used more often needs the Mezuzah. If he uses both entrances equally, then the
Mezuzah is affixed to the “stronger” entrance and is they are equally strong,
one can affix the Mezuzah on either entrance.

To conclude we seem to
have found a possible explanation of Rashi according to the simple
meaning of his words[14] and
a possible justification for the old minhag in Europe[15]. Needless
to say our words are only theoretical and Baruch Hashem that minhag has
disappeared a long time ago and every Orthodox Jew today affixes a Mezuzah on
every entrance.

[1] Apparently Rashi
implies that Mezuzot is written without the second Vav and can be read as Mezuzat.
Our scrolls written according the Mesorah, Rambam (Sefer Torah
2:6), Semag (Asin 22) and Minhat Shai have the first Vav
between two Zain’s missing, but Leningrad scroll (used on Bar Ilan disk)
in fact has the second Vav missing. It’s also possible that Rashi meant
that as long as some Vav is missing we can “transfer” the missing Vav to the
last position and thus read the word as Mezuzat. See also Minhat Shai,
Shemot 12:7. Interestingly the famous statement of the GR”A that
there are 64 different Tefilins one would need to put on to fulfil all opinions
does not consider the various opinions about how to write various words like “mezuzot”,
“totafot”, which would bring the numbers of different Tefillins to hundreds.

[2] See for
instance Menachot 34a.

[3] In this article
we only discuss if there is any justification for the custom of affixing one
Mezuzah on one’s home. See however Semag (Asin 3) that there were
some people in Spain who did not affix Mezuzot at all, and see there in Asin
23 some weird “justification” they used for their “minhag”.

[4] In his super-commentary
on Rashi called Tzeda Lederch and his “Beer Maim Chaim” usually
printed in the end of Beer Sheva.

[5] To say nothing about the fact that Halacha is
rarely learned from a Torah commentary as Rashi does not “pasken”
there.

[6] In Yalkut
Shimoni on Mishley (remez 943) indeed there is an opinion
that each of the doorposts requires two Mezuzot, but our Gemorah (Menachot
34a) does not hold like this opinion and does not even mention it (see also Shu”t
Minchat Yitzchak 1:9).

[7] Obviously the
Biblical word Mezuzah means not the parchment but the pole itself, so one Mezuzah
in Rashi means one doorframe.

[8] Which Rabeinu
Bahya quotes as words of Razal.

[9] See however Mordachai
(962) who brings in the name of Rif that R. Meir and Rabonan who
argue about the above law apparently learn from the spelling of Mezuzot. It may
be according to this girsa, not found in our Rif, R. Meir had no
Vav and Rabonan had a Vav in the word “Mezuzot” in Devarim 6:9. The
Talmud mentions that R. Meir was a scribe and it’s possible he had some
especially accurate scrolls that were different from the more commonly used
ones (his “Torah scroll” is mentioned in Midrashim, see for instance Bereshit
Rabbah 94:9). Our Gemora however only mentions the learning from “Mezuzot”
with the Vav to support the shita of Rabonan (see also the first Tosafot
on 34a).

[10]
See Maharil, Minhagim, Laws of Mezuzah, 1 and Tshuvot 94 . In practice the
Maharil and Rema did not accept these explanations.

[11] See also Shu”t
Divrey Yatziv Yore Deah 191 who proposes that maybe only the Mezuzah on the
outside doorpost is a Biblical command, but the question of a house with two
entrances still remains.

[12] Menachot 33a
starting with words Holech Achar Haragil and 34a starting with words
Af Al Gav Deragil Beechad.

[13] The end of Megila,
34a (see however second perek of Tractate Mezuzah, in Vilna Shas
it’s printed at the end of the volume with Avoda Zara). Even if our
interpretation off the Yerushalmi is correct, if the house has many
rooms, it would seem to need a Mezuzah for each one even according to Yerushalmi.

[14] In Sefer
Zechor Leavraham on Rashi in Likutim in the back the author
also interprets Rashi to mean only one Mezuza is needed. He proposes
that Rashi quotes a lost Midrash similar to the one preserved in Yalkut
Shimoni I quoted above. According to the author the dispute there is not whether
the Mezuzah is placed on both sides of one entrance but whether there is a need
for a Mezuzah on every entrance of the house.

[15] It’s known that
many European communities started in Italy, where Yerushalmi was often
followed to a greater extent than Bavli and therefore it’s possible that
the earliest settlers in France and Germany were told only to affix one Mezuzah
on the main entrance leading to the street. Regarding inside rooms, maybe they
did not have any since simple houses had only one room in those times or maybe
they relied on some of the weak reasons mentioned in Maharil (who
rejects them) but regarding the outside doors if there are only two they may
have followed Rashi and if some of their houses had more than two entrances
they may have followed Yerushalmi or some other lost opinion (partially
preserved in the Yalkut Shimoni).

Megilat Rut: The night of Boaz and Rut Revisited

Megilat Rut[1]:
The night of Boaz and Rut Revisited

By Chaim Sunitsky

In a well known story of Megilat
Rut, Naomi tells Ruth to bathe herself, put on her [best] clothes and go down
at night to where Boaz is sleeping. Boaz then will “tell her” what to do. The
simple implication of this story is that Ruth would be sent to make a marriage
proposal to Boaz who could simply consummate the marriage immediately.[2]

It has been already noted[3]
that the story of Boaz and Ruth contains many elements of “yibum” procedure and
therefore it was concluded that at that time “yibum” was practiced by other
close relatives, not just the brother of the deceased.[4]
In theory Boaz could have relations with Ruth and thus do yibum immediately
that night, but since there was a closer kin[5]
he did not touch Ruth but waited until the morning. When in the presence of the
elders Boaz offered the closer relative to redeem the fields left for Ruth, he
was willing to do this, but when Boaz stipulated that he would have to marry
Ruth as well he refused saying: פֶּן אַשְׁחִית אֶת נַחֲלָתִי (lest I destroy
my “inheritance”). Hazal[6]
understand him to argue with Boaz’s opinion that a female from Moav is
permitted to “enter the congregation of Israel” i.e. marry a regular Jew. The
word “inheritance” is thus taken to mean descendants who will not be kosher
Jews and won’t be able to marry others in the Jewish nation[7].

Before we go on it’s important to
understand a related issue: in the laws of yibum, what is the meaning of
(Devarim 25:6): “The first child born shall stand up in memory of the deceased
brother.” Hazal understand this not to mean the actual name of the person but
rather to be talking about inheritance belonging to the deceased brother.
However they explain[8]
that this inheritance is transferred to the brother that did the yibum.
According to Shadal[9] this
explanation was needed in order to encourage[10]
the brother to want to do yibum, but the original meaning of the Torah was
actually that yibum caused financial loss to the brother doing it as he would
not partake of the inheritance[11]
as it would all belong to the son born[12].

Another important point we need
to discuss before we continue is the issue of “kri” and “ketiv”: “written” and
“read” forms of words. It is well known that certain words in Tanach are not
read the same way as they are written. The Talmud[13]
assumes that this is part of “halacha leMoshe miSinai[14]”
– part of oral traditions stemming from Moshe who received them at Mt. Sinai.
The difficulty with this is that many of these “kri” and “ketiv” forms are in
Neviim and Ketuvim – prophetic works written long after Moshe. R. Reuven
Margolies therefore concludes[15] that the expression “halacha leMoshe
miSinai” can mean a decision in some generation by the Great Sanhedrin[16].
Another explanation of “kri” and “ketiv” is offered by Radak[17]
and others: the two are preserved in some of the cases when different
manuscripts[18] had
different version of the word(s). Another possibility[19]
is that “kri” can be a kind of correction to the “ketiv” that the “Men of Great
Assembly” made for various reasons. Many of the “kri” and “ketiv” cases in fact
support this last opinion[20].
Some of the “kri” and “ketiv” differ only in that one of them reads as two
words what the other reads as one word. For example, the “ketiv” in “Devarim
39:2 is “Eshadot” but the “kri” is “Esh” “Dat” – fire of religion. Shadal[21]
writes that Dat is a Persian word and therefore the original meaning must have
been according to the “ketiv[22]”.

Coming back to the story of Ruth,
the key verse (4:5) has a “written” and “read” form:

וַיֹּאמֶר בֹּעַז בְּיוֹם קְנוֹתְךָ הַשָּׂדֶה מִיַּד נָעֳמִי
וּמֵאֵת רוּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת קָנִיתָה לְהָקִים שֵׁם הַמֵּת
עַל נַחֲלָתוֹ

The key word is written קניתי but is read as קָנִיתָה. It has been noted by modern scholarship[23]
that according to the ketiv (the written form) an opposite[24]
from traditional understanding immerges. According to “ketiv” Boaz did
consummate the marriage and when talking to the kinsman he says that Ruth is
already his wife. If he will later have a child from Ruth, the child will
inherit her husband’s property and the money the other relative paid to redeem
the field will go to waste.[25]
This then is the meaning of the other relative’s rejection of the offer (4:6):

לֹא אוּכַל
<לגאול> לִגְאָל לִי פֶּן אַשְׁחִית אֶת נַחֲלָתִי גְּאַל לְךָ אַתָּה אֶת
גְּאֻלָּתִי כִּי לֹא אוּכַל לִגְאֹל:

“I will not redeem lest I harm my inheritance”, literally
meaning he would lose the field he would purchase.

[1] Many reasons are offered as to why we read Megilat
Ruth on Shavuot, the simplest being that the main action takes place when
gathering barley and wheat crop, around the time of Shavuot.

[2] While most commentators try to avoid this obvious
interpretation, this is implied by Rut Rabbah 7:4. See also Taz, Yore Deah
192:1 who assumes this and discusses why the gezeira of seven days due to “dam
chimud” did not apply.

[3] See for instance Malbim (Ruth 3:4), see also Ramban,
Devarim 25:6.

[4] Boaz was a cousin of Ruth’s husband Machlon (Baba
Batra 91a).

[5] Referred to as “ploni almoni”, he was Machlon’s
uncle.

[6] Ruth Rabbah 7:7.

[7] The simple meaning may be that he did not want to
marry Ruth since he already had another wife (see Targum ad loc) or so that his
older children won’t have to split the inheritance with his children from her
(see similarly Rema, Even Haezer 1:8).

[8] Rashi in the name of Yevamot 40a.

[9] Ad loc.

[10] Similarly later when Ashkenazi Jews encouraged
halitzah, a financial incentive was used for this too, see Rema, Even Haezer
163:2.

[11] Maybe this is the reason Yehudah’s son Onan did not
want Tamar to have children.

[12] The Ramban hints that this son will have the soul of
the deceased thus the inheritance coming back to the original owner.

[13] Nedarim 37b although it might be this is not the only
opinion in this sugia, see also Orach Chaim 141:8.

[14] Presumably this implies that both kri and ketiv have
meaning. Various propositions have been offered regarding the relationship
between the two.

[15] Yesod Hamishna Vearichata, chapter 2 in
berurim (page 36).

[16] The Rishonim already noticed that at least some of
“halacha leMoshe miSinai” statements should not be taken literally see for
instance Rosh in the beginning of Mikvaot, see also Pesachim 110b.

[17] See his introduction to the prophets; see also R.
Marc Shapiro, Limits of Orthodox Theology, page 101 who brings other
Rishonim that follow the same opinion. In one place in his commentary Radak
goes a step further and notices that Targum Yonatan seems to have a reading
where a letter is moved from the beginning of the word to the end of previous
word (Melachim 1:20:33, see also our next note).

[18] We know that there were variant manuscripts of Tanach
in the times of Second Temple and probably before that as well. There are many
examples of this, see for instance Tosafot s.v. Maavirim and R. Akiva
Eiger, Shabbat 55b. One of the famous examples seems to be the well known
drasha in the Agada that criticizes the “wicked” son for excluding himself from
other participants: “lachem velo lo”. The obvious difficulty is that the wise son
also says: “etchem” (to you). Now we know that in some manuscripts the verse in
Devarim 6:20 indeed uses the expression “otanu” (us), see also Yerushalmi
Pesachim 10:4 (70b), Mechilta, end of Bo (chapter 18 in some editions,
paragraph 125 in others). Note also that many of the variants can be learned by
studying the old Torah translations, for instance Septuagint. It seems that
some of “deliberate changes” mentioned in Megila 9a-b were actually based on
variant manuscripts. In case of “naarei bnei yisrael”, we actually learn from
Masechet Sofrim 6:4 and parallel sources that there were variant manuscripts.
Additional examples can include “hamor” – “hemed” and “bekirba” – “bekroveah”,
where the words are very similar. R. Reuven Margolies in his “Hamikra Vahamesora”,
chapter 17 brings some interesting examples of translations that were based on
variant manuscripts. Without knowing this we can’t understand some words of
Hazal correctly. Just to bring two examples here, the question of how to read
“dodecha” in Shir Hashirim 1:2 (see Avoda Zara 29b) can be understood in light
of Septuagint translation as “breasts” (from the word “dad”; this also explains
why this particular question was asked when discussing the prohibition of
non-Jewish cheese; the verses describe that the Jewish nation’s wine, oil, and
breasts, i.e. milk are the best, and we should not use any of these products
made by non-Jews). In this example the difference with Masoretic text is only
in the vowels that are not written in the scrolls (see another example in
Mishley 12:28 that has in our Masoretic text “al mavet” – “not death” but
according to the Aramaic Targum the verse seems to read “el mavet” – “towards
death”). Another example with a real textual difference in consonants is in the
verse of Bereshit 26:32. The Bereshit Rabbah (end of 64) seems to at first not
be sure whether they found water or not. R. Reuven Margolies claims that the
uncertainty was whether the correct reading is “we did NOT find water” (based
on Septuagint translation) or “we found water” (as it is in our Masoretic
text). The difference is whether the word “Lo” should be with “Vav” (they said
to him) or with Aleph (they said: “we didn’t”, see however Rashash ad loc who
thinks that even according to the Masoretic text there is a possibility to
understand Lo with Vav as “not”).

[19] A similar idea is brought in Abarbanel’s introduction
to Yirmiyahu. This may be related to a similar question of what is “tikun
sofrim”, see R. Marc Shapiro, Limits of Orthodox Theology, starting
with page 98 and R. Saul Lieberman “Hellenism in Jewish Palestine”
starting with page 28. Indeed in
Midrash Tanchuma (Beshalach 16) the tradition is brought that tikun
sofrim is an actual change made by Anshey Kneset Hagedola.

[20] This might be especially true when the “kri” is a
synonym of “ketiv” but the expression used is a softer form, when the “ketiv”
is too crude, see Devarim 28:27 and 28:30, see also Talmud Bavli Megilah 25b.

[21] Ad loc.

[22] In general some of the commentators sometimes follow
the “ketiv” but most explain the meaning of verses according to the “kri”.

[23] Professor Cyrus Gordon “Forgotten Scripts”
1982, page 171. He additionally writes based on discoveries in Ebla that ומאת is to be
understood not as “and from” but rather “but”. For Hazal’s understanding of
this “kri” and “ketiv” see Ruth Rabbah 7:10.

[24] It’s actually quite unusual that kri and ketiv would
offer the exact opposite understanding.

[25] Apparently this is the field that Ruth was selling.
It seems that according to the practice of the time a widow of a person was
able to enjoy some of the rights to his property or possibly make decision as
to which of the relatives takes possession of it.

Mikva Revisited – Understanding Shabbat 13a-b in light of Parshat Metzora

Mikva Revisited –

Understanding
Shabbat 13a-b in light of Parshat Metzora

by Chaim Sunitsky
(with some additional comments by Marc B. Shapiro)

It is well known that when
describing the purification of niddah and zava the Torah does not explicitly
mention that immersion is required.[1]
The present article will briefly examine the proofs given for such an immersion
and show a novel understanding of a story brought in the Talmud (Shabbat
13a-b).

There are 5 most commonly brought
proofs for mikva immersion. Three are brought in Tosafot (Hagiga 11a
s.v. lo nitzrecha, Yevamot 47b s.v. bimakom and Yoma
78a mikan), one in Rambam (Isurey Biah 4:3), one in Ramban (Shabbat
13b s.v. bimey and in his Chumash commentary Vayikra 15:11). One of
Tosafot’s proofs is in the Gemara itself (Shabbat 64b): “and she shall
remain in her niddah status”. The earlier sages used to understand this to mean
that a woman during her menstruation should not use makeup or wear nice clothes[2]
until R. Akiva came and said that this way he will divorce her[3]
and explained rather that she shall be niddah until she immerses. Needless to
say, there is no direct proof of immersion in this statement.[4]

Tosafot (ibid) bring an
additional proof from newly obtained vessels after the war with Midian, where
according to Hazal’s understanding they required immersion as the Torah states
(Bamidbar 31:23): “the waters of niddah”, seemingly implying that niddah needs
an immersion too.[5] The simple
meaning of the Torah in this verse is that water with ashes of “red cow” had to
be sprinkled on these vessels.[6]
Indeed there is an understanding based on Rambam[7]
that immersing new vessels is not Deoraita at all.

The third proof of the Tosafot in
the name of a Gaon[8] is from the
fact that even those that touched a bed of niddah need to immerse to become
pure, how much more so niddah herself. However, this would only at best prove
that a niddah needs to immerse in order not to cause ritual impurity to spread
on the objects[9].

Ramban’s proof that immersion is
required is based on the case of a male zav.[10]
The problem with this is that zav requires immersion in “mayim chaim” (a
natural source of water) whereas a niddah can immerse even in regular mikva
made from snow or rain water.[11]
Rambam’s proof is that all purifications require immersion so it must be that
niddah does too,[12] though the
verse he uses as a proof is also talking about ritual purity and not
necessarily implying any marital prohibition.[13]

After we see that there is no
conclusive proof that the immersion of niddah is a Biblical law, we may gain a
better understanding of a story in the Talmud (Shabbat 13a-b, Avot
Derabbi Natan, 2). It tells us that a certain rabbinical student used to
sleep in one bed[14] with his
wife after her seven days of niddah were over until she counted the “seven
clean days” and went to the mikva. The implication seems to be that after the
Biblical period of seven days the prohibition is only Rabbinical.[15]
The Rishonim are quite surprised at this as there is absolutely no relaxation[16]
of the prohibition for a woman who is niddah after the seven days are over as
she remains biblically prohibited to her husband until she immerses in the
mikva. Some Rishonim therefore suppose that the minhag at that time was for a
woman to go to the mikva twice, once in the end of the seven days of niddah and
one at the end of “seven clean days”. However according to what we wrote it is
possible that this student thought that the entire immersion in the mikva is
also rabbinical in nature and therefore was more lenient once the Biblical
seven days were over.[17]

* * *

I sent this post to Marc Shapiro
and here are his comments:

See Shem Tov’s
commentary on Maimonides, Guide 3:47, where he has a radical view that
according to Maimonides immersion of a niddah is only rabbinic. R. Kafih, in
his commentary on the Guide, ibid., is outraged by Shem Tov’s comment:

ראה
שם טוב ששאל “ומה יאמר הרב בטבילת זבה ונדה במים קרים בסתיו”, והמשיך
בדברי הבל שאסור לשמען שכאלו דעת רבנו שטבילת נדה וזבה מדרבנן. וחלילה חלילה.

R. Kafih continues by explaining why Shem Tov is
mistaken and concludes:

והארכתי מפני שכבר הטעה את קלי
הדעת

In his commentary on the Mishneh Torah, Sefer
Kedushah, vol. 1, p. 184, R. Kafih returns to this matter:

והבל
יפצה פיהו של בעל שם טוב מפרש המורה, בח”ג פרק מז שכאלו סובר רבנו שטבילת נדה
דרבנן, וענה גם כאן שקר ברבנו ותלה בו מה שלא אמר ולא עלתה על לבו חלילה

The matter you discuss in your post also concerned
R. Solomon Zvi Schueck. In his Torah Shelemah, vol. 2, p. 129b, he
prefaces his discussion as follows:

ורבים
מגדולי הראשונים והאחרונים (עיי’ תורה תמימה במקומו) עמדו להקשות וכי עיקר גדול
כטבילת נדה שקדושת ישראל תלוי בה לא תמצא בתורה רק ברמז דק וקל. ועוד מקשים, כפי
משמעות הגמרא בשבת הנ”ל דרשו זקנים הראשונים מן והדוה בנדתה רק שלא תכחול ולא
תתקשט הנדה בימי נדותה, אכן לא שנלמוד טבילת נדה במי מקוה, עד שבא רע”ק ולימד
בנדתה תהא עד שתבא במים, וכי עד רבי עקיבה לא טבלו?

See R. Schueck’s extended discussion as it is
quite interesting, even though it is complete speculation.

You cite Halakhot Gedolot, Hilkhot Niddah,
no. 41 (p. 439 in the Machon Yerushalayim edition), that the law of immersion
for a niddah is rabbinic:

זב וזבה טבילתן מדאוריתא, נדה
מדרבנן היא

This is a well-known passage that has been
discussed. Let me just make three comments.

1. See Teshuvot u-Fesakim me’et Hakhmei
Ashkenaz ve-Tzarfat, ed. Kupfer (Jerusalem, 1973), no. 158, p. 246 which
states:

ובהלכות גדולות פוסק טבילת
נידה דרבנן ושרא להו מרייהו

2. R. David Zvi Rotstein points out that the
Karaites were very stringent regarding niddah, and therefore it is possible
that the Behag’s comment, that the law of immersion for a niddah is only
rabbinic, does not reflect is true viewpoint but was only directed against the
Karaites. See Ohel Sarah Leah (Jerusalem, 1999), p. 638 in the note. As
far as I am concerned, this makes absolutely no sense. If something is a
rabbinic prohibition, and the Karaites were arguing that it is unnecessary,
then I can understand a rabbinic figure (falsely) stating that the matter in
question is a Torah law, in order to shore up observance. (I discuss this in my
new book.) But what sense does it make to do this in the reverse, i.e.,
declaring that something is only rabbinic because the Karaites took it as a
Torah law?

3. This view of Halakhot Gedolot is
mentioned in Besamim Rosh, no. 175. Here it is attributed to R. Yehudai
Gaon. As Saul Berlin explains in Kasa de-Harsana, some rishonim assumed
that R. Yehudai authored Halakhot Gedolot.

The case in Besamim Rosh deals with a man who
would publicly hug and kiss his wife even though she was a niddah. The rabbi
who wrote to “R. Asher” did not place the man in herem, and one of his reasons
was that the law of immersion of a niddah is only rabbinic, and therefore since
the man was not violating a Torah prohibition “better an unwitting sinner than
a willful sinner.” “R. Asher” rejects this position and thus on the surface
this responsum might appear quite pious. But as with a number of other responsa
in Besamim Rosh, what the forger Saul Berlin has done is put the radical
view in the public eye, even if in the end “R. Asher” rejects it. From this
responsum people will see that there is an argument to be made for not being
strict with the laws of niddah, since after all, they are only rabbinic. In his
reply “R. Asher” also mentions that many am ha’aratzim are more stringent when
it comes to the laws of niddah than the scholars. I see this too as an attempt
by Berlin to subvert traditional Judaism by making it seem as if the common
practices regarding the laws of niddah are based on ignorance.

[1]
Usually what is taken by Hazal as immersion in the mikva is a statement: “and
he/she shall wash his/her flesh in water”. No such statement is given in
regards to niddah or zava’s purification.

[2]
Based on the word “niddah” implying excommunication of sorts.

[3]
It has been noted by Yerushalmi (end of Gitin) that R. Akiva may be
following his general shita that a man can very easily divorce his wife if he
finds someone “better”.

[4]
In addition, there is a question as to whether this proof was even used before
R. Akiva came.

[5]
A similar proof is also brought in Yoma 78a based on a posuk in Nach
(Zecharia 13:1) and similar arguments against this proof can be used.

[6]
See for instance Targum Onkelos and Rashbam on this verse, see also Or Zarua
359.

[7]
Ma’akhalot Assurot, 17:5, see Magid Mishna, Hilchot Yom Tov 4:18,
see also Ramban, Avoda Zara 75b s.v. Gemora.

[8]
In some versions they are quoting Bahag (Hilchot Gedolot) but in our
versions this does not appear. Others quote this argument in the name of R. Hai
Gaon (see Semag, negative commandment 111).

[9]
See Tosafot, Hagigah 11a s.v. lo nitzrecha. We do find many other
laws of niddah that apply only for purity purposes but not applicable regarding
permitting her to her husband (see Tosafot ibid, see also GR”A, Yoreh Deah
196:31). In addition, sometimes the impurity of a person can go away
automatically without immersion. For example a woman who gave birth within her
“yemey tahara days” spreads some level of impurity on what she touches
but later she automatically becomes pure without additional immersions (Niddah
71b).

[10]
There are many differences between male zav and female zava but Ramban seems to
understand that since the passage of zava follows that of zav, the laws must be
similar.

[11]
According to many opinions even regular water drawn by people on Biblical level
can be used for niddah (see Tosafot, Bava Batra 66b s.v. yehe).

[12]
Rambam uses the verse (Vayikra 15:18) that after relations both the man and the
woman need to “wash themselves” (meaning immerse) and be unclean until the
evening. This particular Binyan Av is not found in our sources in Hazal but the
Magid Mishna (ibid) implies it was in some version of Sifra.

[13]
The very fact that each opinion rejects that of others seems to imply that
there was no clear proof that immersion of niddah is a Biblical command. In
fact Bahag (siman 41, p. 439 in the Machon Yerushalayim edition) seems to
consider niddah immersion as Rabbinical in origin but immersion of zava as Biblical. However, Or Zarua 359 says there is a
mistake in that version of Bahag.

[14]
There are other versions of the same story where he even slept naked next to
his wife after the seven days of niddah were over.

[15]
Ramban (ibid) however also brings a different interpretation.

[16]
However see Rama, Yoreh Deah 195:14.

[17]
Ramban and Rashba (ibid) specifically write that it’s impossible that this
student did not know that a niddah had to immerse. However, according to what
we wrote it is possible that the student thought that this immersion is a
Rabbinical command and that the drasha of R. Akiva is an asmachta (similarly to
the shita that holds that the immersion of vessels is only Rabbinical in
origin).

How many children did Michal have? Explanation of a Talmudic passage in light of the writings of Josephus Flavius

How many children did Michal have? Explanation of a Talmudic passage in light of the writings of Josephus Flavius[1]

By Chaim Sunitsky

The following Talmudic passage appears in Sanhedrin 19b (we are using mostly Soncino translation):

R. Yossi was asked by his disciples: How could David marry two sisters while they were both living? He answered: He married Michal after the death of Meirav. R. Yehoshua ben Korha said: His marriage to Meirav was contracted in error, as it is said, Deliver me my wife Michal whom I betrothed unto me for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines. How does this prove it? — R. Papa answered: Because he said, My wife Michal but not ‘my wife Meirav’. Now, what was the error in his marriage [with Meirav]? [It was this:] It is written, And it shall be that the man who kills [Goliath], the king will enrich him with great riches and will give him his daughter. Now he [David] went and slew him, whereupon Shaul said to him: I owe you a debt, and if one betroths a woman by a debt, she is not betrothed. Accordingly he gave her to Adriel, as it is written, But it came to pass at the time when Meirav, Shaul’s daughter should have been given to David, that she was given to Adriel the Meholatite to wife. Then Shaul said to David, ‘If you still wish me to give you Michal to wife, go and bring me hundred foreskins of the Philistines.’ He went and brought them to him. Then he said: ‘You now have two claims on me, [the repayment of] a loan and a perutah’. Now, Shaul held
that when a loan and a perutah are offered [as kidushin], he [the would-be husband] thinks mainly of the loan; but in David’s view, when there is a loan and a perutah, the mind is set on the perutah. Or if you like, I will say, all agree that where a loan and a perutah [are offered], the mind is set on the perutah. Shaul, however, thought that [the hundred foreskins] had no value, while David held that they had value at least as food for dogs and cats. How does R. Yossi interpret the verse, Deliver me my wife Michal? He explains it by
another view of his. For it has been taught: R. Yossi used to interpret the following confused passage thus: It is written, But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Ayah whom she bore to Shaul, Armoni and Mephiboshet, and the five sons of Michal, the daughter of Shaul, whom she bore to Adriel the son of Barzillai, the Meholatite etc. But was Michal really given to Adriel; was she not given to Palti the son of Layish, as it is written, Now Shaul had given Michal, David’s wife, to Palti the son of Layish . . .? But Scripture compares the marriage of Meirav to Adriel to that of Michal to Palti, to teach that just as the marriage of Michal to Palti was unlawful, so was that of Meirav to Adriel. Now as to R. Yehoshua ben Korha, surely it is written, And the five sons of Michal the daughter of Shaul whom she bore to Adriel. R. Yehoshua [b. Korha] answers thee: Was it then Michal who bore them? Surely it was rather Meirav who bore them! But Meirav bore and Michal brought them up, therefore they were called by her name. This teaches you that whoever brings up an orphan in his home, Scripture ascribes it to him as though he had begotten him.

The accepted understanding of this passage is that according to Rabbi Yossi David married Michal only after her sister had five children from Adriel and died. Michal later brought up the five children as her own. The commentators[2] ask how Meirav could possibly have five children within just two and a half years of Shaul’s reign and answer that she was pregnant with twins twice, and once with the fifth child. However, according to the calculation of all the events that had to occur before David married Michal and after he ran away from Shaul, there is not enough time left for three pregnancies of Meirav[3]. We need to look for a simpler understanding of the Talmud.

The difficulty of the Gemara is with the following verse from the end of David’s life (Shmuel 2:21:8): “And the king [David] took two sons of Rizpah daughter of Ayah whom she bore to Shaul, Armoni and Mephiboshet, and the five sons of Michal, the daughter of Shaul, whom she bore to Adriel the son of Barzillai, the Meholatite …” Five children of Michal and Adriel are mentioned in this verse. All the commentators follow the explanation of our Gemara that the children were born to Meirav and Michal only raised them. But a careful reading seems to reveal that R. Yossi is not the one who holds that the five children were Meirav’s. This explanation is provided by the Gemara later according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha. If so, R. Yossi must hold that indeed Michal was the one to have the five children. Since David only took her back seven years after he became king, there was plenty of time for her to give birth to five children. But Michal was never married to Adriel, she was “married” to Palti. It’s important to understand what Rabbi Yossi is implying by his words “confused passage” (מקראות מעורבין literally mixed up verses). Apparently he means that while Michal married Palti, the verse is using the expression “married to Adriel” to teach us that the marriage of Michal to Palti was just as sinful as the marriage of Meirav to Adriel. Both marriages were based on an incorrect decision of Shaul and his Bet Din. David’s Kidushin with Meirav was declared invalid and his later Kidushin with Michal was declared invalid again[4]. Indeed Josephus Flavius (Antiquities 7:4:3) says that Michal had five children from Palti.

Now we can offer a simple understanding of the entire Talmudic passage. The students asked R. Yossi, how could David marry two sisters? They are obviously assuming that some form of Kidushin was involved when Shaul offered his (presumably older[5]) daughter to the one who kills Goliath[6]. If David was technically married to Meirav he could not marry Michal even if Meirav was incorrectly given to a different man. R. Yossi answered that Meirav died before David married Michal. R. Yehoshua ben Karcha however holds that there was no kosher Kidushin between David and Meirav. He learns it from the words in a verse: “my wife Michal”, meaning only Michal is my wife, Meirav is not. The Gemara goes into the technical explanation of why Michal’s Kidushin was valid and not Meirav’s according to R. Yehoshua ben Karcha. R. Yossi however only learns from this verse that Michal was David’s wife meaning her Kidushin was valid just as Meirav’s, and giving her to Palti was incorrect. He learns that the verse (Shmuel 2:21:8) describing David’s giving five children of Michal and Adriel to Givonim[7] were really Michal’s children from Palti and is using the expression “mixed up verses” to teach us that Michal’s Kidushin with David was valid just like Meirav’s was.[8] R. Yehoshua ben Karcha however says the verse in Shmuel 2:21:8 is not talking about Michal’s children but about Meirav’s children whom Michal raised. The Gemara goes on to give other examples where children raised by someone are considered like one’s own children.

[1] Note that this article does not claim to research the words of Tanach but only the Chazal’s explanation of it. In particular we are trying to offer a novel explanation of R. Yossi’s shita in the Gemara. We will use a novel idea supported by Yosef ben Matityahu. While he was a controversial person at best, he had excellent Jewish education and his traditions are largely reliable and generally represent the opinions of Tanaim of his time. He is quoted numerous times in Daat Sofrim and other traditional commentaries.

[2] Yad Ramah, Tosafot Harosh.

[3] See Margoilyot Hayam. He therefore concludes that we must accept the shitah of Rabeinu Yeshaya on Shmuel (1:13:1) that the two and a half years that Shaul had ruled are only considered until the time David was anointed. However this shitah is in contradiction with Seder Olam which is a product of Rabbi Yossi himself. In the commentary of Gaonim on Sanhedrin another possibility is offered that Shaul himself did not realize that Meirav had been married to Adriel when he offeredher to David. Incidentally modern scholarship supposes that Shaul ruled over Israel for more than two years and possibly the word “thirty” is missing in Masoretic text before the word “two” in Shmuel 1:13:1: “[thirty] two years he ruled in over Israel.” Abarbanel has a different explanation of our text according to which Shaul also ruled longer.

[4] It is also possible (though this is not R. Yossi’s shita) that Palti was the same person as Adriel and Shaul first gave Meirav to Adriel and later when she died soon after this marriage and David was running away from Shaul and was considered a rebel, Meirav’s sister Michal was given to Adriel who was now called Palti.

[5] See Tosafot Kidushin 52b.

[6] As to the nature of this Kidushin, we do find some cases where “work” performed is counted as Kidushin as well as saving from danger (see Kidushin 8b, in particular “saving from a dog” in 30:11). Apparently both R. Yossi and his students don’t question that some kind of Kidushin happened here, and if Meirav was no longer minor it must be that she either agreed on Shaul’s proposal or made Shaul her shliach to accept such a Kidushin as saving from a “dog” (incidentally Goliath is in fact compared to a dog, see Sota 42b).

[7] Note that according to David these children were mamzerim.

[8] As mentioned previously neither R. Yossi nor his students had any doubt that Meirav’s Kidushin was valid. Therefore the verse used that Kidushin to compare to Kidushin of Michal and emphasize that giving Michal to Palti was just as sinful as giving Meirav to Adriel. The verse therefore means: “And the king took two sons of Rizpah daughter of Ayah whom she bore to Shaul, Armoni and Mephiboshet, and the five sons of Michal, the daughter of Shaul, whom she bore to [Palti to whom she was given incorrectly just like Meirav was given to] Adriel the son of Barzillai, the Meholatite”. This may be similar to Chazal’s explanation of Zecharia 12:11: “On that day the mourning will be as great in Yerushalaim as the mourning of Hadadrimon in the valley of Megiddo”. There is no known tragic incident in our history that is related to Hadadrimon and the valley of Megiddo. The Talmud (Megilah 3a) quotes the Targum adding a number of words and relating this verse to two different events: “On that day the mourning will be as great in Yerushalaim as the mourning of [Ahab who was killed by] Hadadrimon [and the mourning of Yeshayahu who was killed] in the valley of Megiddo.