Please note: I am not writing this about any particular leining or baal keriah I have ever heard. That's not an empty disclaimer; it's serious.
People who listen to kriat haTorah [the public reading of the Torah in the synagogue] value different elements:
Some listen for ivra, the proper pronunciation and accenting of letters and words.
Others listen for accurate and pleasant musical renditions of the notes.
Some look for a pace and an enunciation that will allow them to hear each word clearly.
And still others listen for a pattern of emphasis that indicates an understanding of the words being read.
For me, the most important aesthetic [as opposed to halachic] element of leining is Passion.
I am disappointed when I hear "Cardboard Leining", when the words are pronounced and sung properly, according to halachah, but without heart. Torah should be exciting, emotional!
I want to hear a baal keriah who reads the words in a way that shows the emotion behind them – the anger, the joy, the fear, the humour of a particular passage.
This is not confined to the "story" parts of the chumash, either; many of the Torah's laws can also be read with emotion. Think, for example, of Shemot 28:29, "And Aharon will carry the names of the children of Israel upon his choshen hamishpat breastplate when he enters the sanctuary, as a memorial before Gd." Or Shemot 29:45-46, "And I will dwell among the Children of Israel, and I will be their Gd. And they will know that I am HaShem their Gd, who took them out of Egypt to dwell in midst; I am HaShem their Gd."
Perhaps if we had a more emotive leining, the Torah reading would be less of an opportunity for people to read articles or step outside.
Showing posts with label Mitzvot: Kriat haTorah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitzvot: Kriat haTorah. Show all posts
Monday, June 17, 2013
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Finding our way to song on Shabbat Shirah
[This is my article from this week's Toronto Torah]
On Shabbat Shirah, when we read Parshat Beshalach’s account of our ancestors’ miraculous passage through the split Sea and their song of thanks, Jews traditionally throw wheat kernels to the birds. The practice seems to be problematic, in that one may not feed undomesticated animals on Shabbat; indeed, the Magen Avraham (324:7), writing in the 17th century, prohibited it. However, numerous authorities (Tosefet Shabbat 324:17, Aruch haShulchan Orach Chaim 324:3, and see Tzitz Eliezer 14:28) have justified the practice, because we are not doing this for the sake of feeding wildlife. Rather, we do this in order to recall the joy of crossing through the Sea, a moment when even the birds recognized the miracle and were moved to sing praises before HaShem. The rabbinic decrees against feeding animals do not apply to such a practice.
The combination of the joyous song of the birds and the joyous song of our ancestors invests this entire day with the identity of “Shabbat Shirah”, a Shabbat of celebratory song. What is a Jew to do, though, when he doesn’t feel the joy, whether due to external circumstance or internal turmoil? How can we sing, if we are depressed? What does a sad Jew do, in order to participate in Shabbat Shirah?
Rabbi Yisroel of Rizhin (as cited in Netivot Shalom, Shemot pg. 121) suggested that although certain days have identities which dictate their Torah readings, Shabbat Shirah is created by its Torah reading. Shabbat Shirah becomes Shabbat Shirah only when we read about the departure from Egypt, and the splitting of the Sea; this experience stimulates joy in depressed hearts, and catalyzes songs of praise for Gd.
When the Creator of the Universe sends the message to Pharaoh, “בני בכורי ישראל,” “My child, my firstborn, is Israel,” our chests swell. When the Source of All declares, “כה אמר ד',” “Thus speaks G-d,” and when the King of Kings commands, “שלח עמי ויעבדני,” “Send out My nation, and they will serve Me,” we come face to face with the first, greatest and most enduring source of Jewish pride: Our membership in a covenant with HaShem.
The spirit builds slowly through Pharaoh’s repeated stalling tactics and afflictions, until, ultimately, G-d descends to Egypt to personally dispatch our tormentor, highlighting the unique status of the Jewish nation. We are taught that G-d did not employ natural means, and G-d did not send an emissary; He altered Creation, Himself, for our sake.
Finally, this is followed by the account of the Jews trembling in terror before the sea, marching through the night and finally emerging on the shore to recognize their torturers vanquished and their chains irreversibly smashed. This ultimate validation of the tradition passed down from our founding fathers and mothers placed the stamp of truth upon our national aspirations.
This story can, if taken personally and seriously, redound positively and powerfully within the listener and move the sensitive soul to a crescendo of joy, and therefore song, as a nation, our nation, is freed from centuries of slavery, spared from imminent destruction, and launched upon a trajectory to greatness, in a single night that dawns upon a new day of freedom. This is the engine of Shabbat Shirah.
Shabbat Shirah is not a day to sing; it is a day on which to draw inspiration, and to be moved to sing.
When we listen to kriat haTorah this Shabbat not with an ear toward our neighbors but with an ear toward the joy-inducing events recorded therein, that will bring us to song. May we then merit the fulfillment of the prediction of Sanhedrin 91b, that the day will come when we will sing the song of Moshe, Miriam and the Jews together again.
-
Note: There is another element of שירה (song) in the idea of שיר as a circular ornament, and the circular lyrical structure of biblical poetry, and the idea of שירה as acceptance of the complete circle that is "human action-Divine reaction", but that's beyond the scope of this article.
On Shabbat Shirah, when we read Parshat Beshalach’s account of our ancestors’ miraculous passage through the split Sea and their song of thanks, Jews traditionally throw wheat kernels to the birds. The practice seems to be problematic, in that one may not feed undomesticated animals on Shabbat; indeed, the Magen Avraham (324:7), writing in the 17th century, prohibited it. However, numerous authorities (Tosefet Shabbat 324:17, Aruch haShulchan Orach Chaim 324:3, and see Tzitz Eliezer 14:28) have justified the practice, because we are not doing this for the sake of feeding wildlife. Rather, we do this in order to recall the joy of crossing through the Sea, a moment when even the birds recognized the miracle and were moved to sing praises before HaShem. The rabbinic decrees against feeding animals do not apply to such a practice.
The combination of the joyous song of the birds and the joyous song of our ancestors invests this entire day with the identity of “Shabbat Shirah”, a Shabbat of celebratory song. What is a Jew to do, though, when he doesn’t feel the joy, whether due to external circumstance or internal turmoil? How can we sing, if we are depressed? What does a sad Jew do, in order to participate in Shabbat Shirah?
Rabbi Yisroel of Rizhin (as cited in Netivot Shalom, Shemot pg. 121) suggested that although certain days have identities which dictate their Torah readings, Shabbat Shirah is created by its Torah reading. Shabbat Shirah becomes Shabbat Shirah only when we read about the departure from Egypt, and the splitting of the Sea; this experience stimulates joy in depressed hearts, and catalyzes songs of praise for Gd.
When the Creator of the Universe sends the message to Pharaoh, “בני בכורי ישראל,” “My child, my firstborn, is Israel,” our chests swell. When the Source of All declares, “כה אמר ד',” “Thus speaks G-d,” and when the King of Kings commands, “שלח עמי ויעבדני,” “Send out My nation, and they will serve Me,” we come face to face with the first, greatest and most enduring source of Jewish pride: Our membership in a covenant with HaShem.
The spirit builds slowly through Pharaoh’s repeated stalling tactics and afflictions, until, ultimately, G-d descends to Egypt to personally dispatch our tormentor, highlighting the unique status of the Jewish nation. We are taught that G-d did not employ natural means, and G-d did not send an emissary; He altered Creation, Himself, for our sake.
Finally, this is followed by the account of the Jews trembling in terror before the sea, marching through the night and finally emerging on the shore to recognize their torturers vanquished and their chains irreversibly smashed. This ultimate validation of the tradition passed down from our founding fathers and mothers placed the stamp of truth upon our national aspirations.
This story can, if taken personally and seriously, redound positively and powerfully within the listener and move the sensitive soul to a crescendo of joy, and therefore song, as a nation, our nation, is freed from centuries of slavery, spared from imminent destruction, and launched upon a trajectory to greatness, in a single night that dawns upon a new day of freedom. This is the engine of Shabbat Shirah.
Shabbat Shirah is not a day to sing; it is a day on which to draw inspiration, and to be moved to sing.
When we listen to kriat haTorah this Shabbat not with an ear toward our neighbors but with an ear toward the joy-inducing events recorded therein, that will bring us to song. May we then merit the fulfillment of the prediction of Sanhedrin 91b, that the day will come when we will sing the song of Moshe, Miriam and the Jews together again.
-
Note: There is another element of שירה (song) in the idea of שיר as a circular ornament, and the circular lyrical structure of biblical poetry, and the idea of שירה as acceptance of the complete circle that is "human action-Divine reaction", but that's beyond the scope of this article.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Daf: Sotah 38-41 - Torah Reading, Hakhel, Flattery and more
Lots of very interesting material in these pages of gemara; as always, please read with a gemara in front of you.
38b (in addition to the notes on 38b from the last Daf segment here)
The gemara mentions that financial need is considered an אונס situation, a condition which forces one into conduct that is not halachically ideal, but is acceptable due to duress.
For similar ideas, see the mishnah on Beitzah 35b, as well as Shitah Mekubetzet there on the difference between that case and the one on Shabbat 126b of clearing a storage area on Shabbat to make room for learning Torah. See also Berachot 30a on davening earlier than appropriate before a business trip, and Moed Katan 14a on searching for your own lost property rather than preparing for Yom Tov.
The gemara says that we aren’t concerned about tall people constituting a physical interruption when standing between shorter people and the kohanim. Rashi (end of the page) explains that this is because it would be impractical to worry about this (אין לדבר סוף). It is odd to see impracticality as a halachic consideration; we do invoke אין לדבר סוף in the beginning of Yoma, but as a practical consideration, not a halachic consideration!
39a
See the Maharitz Chayes on how the gemara knows that the kohanim have a mitzvah to bless the nation with love, specifically.
The verb אדבריה is usually associated with setting up a student as a speaker before a sage. See Maharitz Chayes on this.
39b
The classic long “Amen” sung by the baal keriah before beginning an aliyah has a liturgical purpose: It warns everyone to stop talking before the reading begins, per our gemara here. See Mishneh Berurah 141:17.
The gemara here does not explain why the person who reads the Haftorah must also read from the Torah. Ulla, in Megilah 23a, explains that it’s for the sake of the honor of the Torah.
The gemara talks about waiting to start the Haftorah until the Torah is all wrapped up. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 147:7) explains that this is in order to allow the גולל (wrapper of the Torah) to complete his task and listen to the Haftorah. However, the Mishneh Berurah (147:22) notes that no such concern applies regarding the יהי רצון recited on Mondays and Thursdays.
40a
Tosafot כל seems to believe that dreams have real power, such that one is in real danger if he has a bad dream. This seems to run counter to Berachot 55-57, where the great majority of sages weigh in saying that dreams are largely a function of psychology! Perhaps Tosafot is referring to psychological danger - but note that Ibn Ezra to Bereishit 40:8 says we rule, as a matter of law, with the view that dreams are considered potent.
The Maharsha explains that R’ Abba’s humility is greater than that of R’ Avahu because R’ Avahu endures public embarrassment rather than private.
On people’s preference for aggada: Shabbat 115a and 116b says one should not read Tanach on Shabbat, because it draws the heart away from the Beit Medrash. The same draw is noted for non-law-oriented aggada passages of learning in our gemara, and in Rashi Shmot 13:5.
Rav Pappa here merges existent versions of liturgy to create one text for all to read; he does similar things with the berachah for seeing a rainbow (Berachot 59a) and the berachah at the end of megilah reading on Purim (Megilah 21b). (R’ Akiva Eiger notes some further places on the page, but I didn’t look them up to see whether those are Rav Pappa or not, and I don’t remember off-hand.)
40b
See Tosafot וכל כך and ומנין.
Rashi קומו וברכו’s explanation of the inclusion of מן העולם ועד העולם in berachot is odd; see Rashi on Berachot 54a and Rashash there on which berachot contained that text.
41a
Rashi here justifies bringing Sifrei Torah to the Beis haMikdash on Yom Kippur by (1) taking the view that one may transport items on Yom Kippur, or that (2) Yerushalayim was considered encloseable by an Eruv. The latter view is problematic, in light of the gemara (Pesachim 66a) about the debate on how the Jws could get Korban Pesach knives to the Beis haMikdash when erev Pesach was Shabbat. (unless they were coming from outside Yerushalayim?)
Note that although we always say the King leads Hakhel, and our mishnah says it here, this isn’t necessarily so. The Torah does not specify a King, and they didn’t have an halachic king until Shaul.
Regarding the “You are our brother” line addressed to King Agrippas, see Rashi here, Rashi on 41b and Tosafot on 41b אותו היום.
Rashi on the mishnah ושמע seems to have an order of the Hakhel reading that varies from that of our mishnah?
The tithes were considered important enough to be included in the reading for Hakhel. Similarly, see Yevamot 47a that this is one of the issues of which we must inform a potential convert, apparently because the consequences of failure to tithe properly are dire for the nation as a whole.
41b
The gemara here goes on at length regarding the evils of flattery. There are two kinds of flattery: False praise, and Praise of wicked behavior. Here we are talking about the latter variety, which is particularly pernicious as it undermines society. See mishnah Shviit 4:3 and Gittin 62a, and Magen Avraham 347:4, among other sources on praising and flattering people who are acting improperly. As Tosafot says here: Better to keep your mouth closed.
On the other hand, the former is an issue of lying in general; see Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel’s famous debate about how to praise a bride, in Ketuvot 16b-17a.
Rashi here מאתחלתא דמועד has one view on why Hakhel could not be on the first day of Yom Tov; see, though, the opposition of Tosafot כתב, printed on 41a.
38b (in addition to the notes on 38b from the last Daf segment here)
The gemara mentions that financial need is considered an אונס situation, a condition which forces one into conduct that is not halachically ideal, but is acceptable due to duress.
For similar ideas, see the mishnah on Beitzah 35b, as well as Shitah Mekubetzet there on the difference between that case and the one on Shabbat 126b of clearing a storage area on Shabbat to make room for learning Torah. See also Berachot 30a on davening earlier than appropriate before a business trip, and Moed Katan 14a on searching for your own lost property rather than preparing for Yom Tov.
The gemara says that we aren’t concerned about tall people constituting a physical interruption when standing between shorter people and the kohanim. Rashi (end of the page) explains that this is because it would be impractical to worry about this (אין לדבר סוף). It is odd to see impracticality as a halachic consideration; we do invoke אין לדבר סוף in the beginning of Yoma, but as a practical consideration, not a halachic consideration!
39a
See the Maharitz Chayes on how the gemara knows that the kohanim have a mitzvah to bless the nation with love, specifically.
The verb אדבריה is usually associated with setting up a student as a speaker before a sage. See Maharitz Chayes on this.
39b
The classic long “Amen” sung by the baal keriah before beginning an aliyah has a liturgical purpose: It warns everyone to stop talking before the reading begins, per our gemara here. See Mishneh Berurah 141:17.
The gemara here does not explain why the person who reads the Haftorah must also read from the Torah. Ulla, in Megilah 23a, explains that it’s for the sake of the honor of the Torah.
The gemara talks about waiting to start the Haftorah until the Torah is all wrapped up. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 147:7) explains that this is in order to allow the גולל (wrapper of the Torah) to complete his task and listen to the Haftorah. However, the Mishneh Berurah (147:22) notes that no such concern applies regarding the יהי רצון recited on Mondays and Thursdays.
40a
Tosafot כל seems to believe that dreams have real power, such that one is in real danger if he has a bad dream. This seems to run counter to Berachot 55-57, where the great majority of sages weigh in saying that dreams are largely a function of psychology! Perhaps Tosafot is referring to psychological danger - but note that Ibn Ezra to Bereishit 40:8 says we rule, as a matter of law, with the view that dreams are considered potent.
The Maharsha explains that R’ Abba’s humility is greater than that of R’ Avahu because R’ Avahu endures public embarrassment rather than private.
On people’s preference for aggada: Shabbat 115a and 116b says one should not read Tanach on Shabbat, because it draws the heart away from the Beit Medrash. The same draw is noted for non-law-oriented aggada passages of learning in our gemara, and in Rashi Shmot 13:5.
Rav Pappa here merges existent versions of liturgy to create one text for all to read; he does similar things with the berachah for seeing a rainbow (Berachot 59a) and the berachah at the end of megilah reading on Purim (Megilah 21b). (R’ Akiva Eiger notes some further places on the page, but I didn’t look them up to see whether those are Rav Pappa or not, and I don’t remember off-hand.)
40b
See Tosafot וכל כך and ומנין.
Rashi קומו וברכו’s explanation of the inclusion of מן העולם ועד העולם in berachot is odd; see Rashi on Berachot 54a and Rashash there on which berachot contained that text.
41a
Rashi here justifies bringing Sifrei Torah to the Beis haMikdash on Yom Kippur by (1) taking the view that one may transport items on Yom Kippur, or that (2) Yerushalayim was considered encloseable by an Eruv. The latter view is problematic, in light of the gemara (Pesachim 66a) about the debate on how the Jws could get Korban Pesach knives to the Beis haMikdash when erev Pesach was Shabbat. (unless they were coming from outside Yerushalayim?)
Note that although we always say the King leads Hakhel, and our mishnah says it here, this isn’t necessarily so. The Torah does not specify a King, and they didn’t have an halachic king until Shaul.
Regarding the “You are our brother” line addressed to King Agrippas, see Rashi here, Rashi on 41b and Tosafot on 41b אותו היום.
Rashi on the mishnah ושמע seems to have an order of the Hakhel reading that varies from that of our mishnah?
The tithes were considered important enough to be included in the reading for Hakhel. Similarly, see Yevamot 47a that this is one of the issues of which we must inform a potential convert, apparently because the consequences of failure to tithe properly are dire for the nation as a whole.
41b
The gemara here goes on at length regarding the evils of flattery. There are two kinds of flattery: False praise, and Praise of wicked behavior. Here we are talking about the latter variety, which is particularly pernicious as it undermines society. See mishnah Shviit 4:3 and Gittin 62a, and Magen Avraham 347:4, among other sources on praising and flattering people who are acting improperly. As Tosafot says here: Better to keep your mouth closed.
On the other hand, the former is an issue of lying in general; see Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel’s famous debate about how to praise a bride, in Ketuvot 16b-17a.
Rashi here מאתחלתא דמועד has one view on why Hakhel could not be on the first day of Yom Tov; see, though, the opposition of Tosafot כתב, printed on 41a.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Daf: Sotah 33-35 - lots happening here
There's a lot going on in these pages; I've just added some notes on a few of the many issues. As always, read with a gemara in front of you, but I have taken a few extra minutes to try to make some of these items comprehensible for those without a gemara.
33a
The gemara says that the entire Torah is supposed to be read in the original Hebrew. Rashi and Tosafot Shantz disagree on the application of that statement, as far as whether it refers to the weekly Torah reading or only to the biblically required Torah readings. Of particular note is the marginal comment on the Tosafot Shantz, suggesting that Parshat Parah is biblical.
Do the angels only speak Hebrew, or do they speak all non-Aramaic languages? See the Maharsha. (And boy is that topic odd – especially as it has halachic ramifications!)
33b
Tosafot and the Maharsha seem to have different explanations of the question of והלא לא ראו את הגלגל – Tosafot מול understands it to be asking that one cannot see Gilgal from Mount Gerizim and Mount Eval, but the Maharsha seems to think it is asking that the Jews cannot see Gilgal from their desert location.
The gemara lists times when Kohanim carried the Aron. See the Gilyon haShas on other times the Aron was carried by Kohanim. The Radak he cites asks and answers as Tosafot וכשהחזירוהו does here.
34a
I would have assumed the “300 mil” number was just an exaggeration, as is the gemara’s evaluation of the distance from earth to the clouds (in other discussions), but Tosafot יותר does not think so.
34b
See Tosafot כחנייתן on the matter of how the Jews crossed the Yarden.
The idea that a person could walk faster than water travels downstream is odd, to say the least. Rashi רבה and Tosafot מר both wrestle with this issue, and develop different solutions.
Regarding the issue of naming someone for an event that has not yet happened (as in the case of נחבי בן ופסי and סתור), see the Maharsha in Berachot on naming Ruth רות for the deeds of her descendant Dovid haMelech. Naming has elements of prophecy associated with it. See also our earlier discussion on Leah naming Yehudah for what he would do in the future.
The gemara here famously describes Moshe re-naming Yehoshua before his espionage mission; the Maharsha says that Yehoshua’s earlier labelling of “Yehoshua” in the Torah is only because his name would be changed later.
See Tosafot אבותי on the question of whether the deceased actually know what is happening in this world – and follow up in that gemara in Berachot 18-19 on this issue, particularly given the comment in the margin here. Based on our liturgy, such as some of the Tisha b’Av kinot, we certainly believe that the deceased do find out what is happening in this world.
See the Aruch on ענק; he renders it as neck.
35a
The Torah Temimah, commenting on the story of the spies, explains why the spies should have suffered particularly from wounds to their tongue and belly, and from the dreaded askerah death. The tongue was for lashon hara. The belly was for slandering Israel, which is seen in the gemara as the navel of the world. Askera is considered an appropriate punishment for lashon hara [but see also Pesachim 105a, where it is also a punishment for eating before havdalah…]
The idea of Dovid being blamed for Uzza’s death, when Uzza acted independently, is reminiscent of an issue discussed in many halachic authorities, of one’s liability for the death of a person who is doing a job for you. The Mahari Weil ruled that one is spiritually liable for the death of a person who is doing a job in his employ, and the issue has been greatly debated since. See Sanhedrin 95, Mahari Weil 125, Maharshal 96, Maharam Lublin 44, Beis Yosef at the end of Choshen Mishpat 188 (on financial liability), Tzemach Tzedek (the earlier) 6, Chasam Sofer 177, Avnei Nezer Yoreh Deah 478.
35b
Rashi’s explanation of בעבר הירדן is interesting; see also Rashbam to Devarim 1:1. There are others who are more troubled by this phrase.
If the Jews are not supposed to accept peace with the Canaanites they encounter, how do we understand Rachav’s survival? Tosafot לרבות gives one answer here, and this approach is seen in Malbim to Yehoshua 2:12 as well. Radak to Yehoshua 6:25 gives a similar answer, saying she converted. On the other hand, Ibn Ezra to Shemot 20:7 says that the oath bound the Jews, despite their mitzvah regarding her.
33a
The gemara says that the entire Torah is supposed to be read in the original Hebrew. Rashi and Tosafot Shantz disagree on the application of that statement, as far as whether it refers to the weekly Torah reading or only to the biblically required Torah readings. Of particular note is the marginal comment on the Tosafot Shantz, suggesting that Parshat Parah is biblical.
Do the angels only speak Hebrew, or do they speak all non-Aramaic languages? See the Maharsha. (And boy is that topic odd – especially as it has halachic ramifications!)
33b
Tosafot and the Maharsha seem to have different explanations of the question of והלא לא ראו את הגלגל – Tosafot מול understands it to be asking that one cannot see Gilgal from Mount Gerizim and Mount Eval, but the Maharsha seems to think it is asking that the Jews cannot see Gilgal from their desert location.
The gemara lists times when Kohanim carried the Aron. See the Gilyon haShas on other times the Aron was carried by Kohanim. The Radak he cites asks and answers as Tosafot וכשהחזירוהו does here.
34a
I would have assumed the “300 mil” number was just an exaggeration, as is the gemara’s evaluation of the distance from earth to the clouds (in other discussions), but Tosafot יותר does not think so.
34b
See Tosafot כחנייתן on the matter of how the Jews crossed the Yarden.
The idea that a person could walk faster than water travels downstream is odd, to say the least. Rashi רבה and Tosafot מר both wrestle with this issue, and develop different solutions.
Regarding the issue of naming someone for an event that has not yet happened (as in the case of נחבי בן ופסי and סתור), see the Maharsha in Berachot on naming Ruth רות for the deeds of her descendant Dovid haMelech. Naming has elements of prophecy associated with it. See also our earlier discussion on Leah naming Yehudah for what he would do in the future.
The gemara here famously describes Moshe re-naming Yehoshua before his espionage mission; the Maharsha says that Yehoshua’s earlier labelling of “Yehoshua” in the Torah is only because his name would be changed later.
See Tosafot אבותי on the question of whether the deceased actually know what is happening in this world – and follow up in that gemara in Berachot 18-19 on this issue, particularly given the comment in the margin here. Based on our liturgy, such as some of the Tisha b’Av kinot, we certainly believe that the deceased do find out what is happening in this world.
See the Aruch on ענק; he renders it as neck.
35a
The Torah Temimah, commenting on the story of the spies, explains why the spies should have suffered particularly from wounds to their tongue and belly, and from the dreaded askerah death. The tongue was for lashon hara. The belly was for slandering Israel, which is seen in the gemara as the navel of the world. Askera is considered an appropriate punishment for lashon hara [but see also Pesachim 105a, where it is also a punishment for eating before havdalah…]
The idea of Dovid being blamed for Uzza’s death, when Uzza acted independently, is reminiscent of an issue discussed in many halachic authorities, of one’s liability for the death of a person who is doing a job for you. The Mahari Weil ruled that one is spiritually liable for the death of a person who is doing a job in his employ, and the issue has been greatly debated since. See Sanhedrin 95, Mahari Weil 125, Maharshal 96, Maharam Lublin 44, Beis Yosef at the end of Choshen Mishpat 188 (on financial liability), Tzemach Tzedek (the earlier) 6, Chasam Sofer 177, Avnei Nezer Yoreh Deah 478.
35b
Rashi’s explanation of בעבר הירדן is interesting; see also Rashbam to Devarim 1:1. There are others who are more troubled by this phrase.
If the Jews are not supposed to accept peace with the Canaanites they encounter, how do we understand Rachav’s survival? Tosafot לרבות gives one answer here, and this approach is seen in Malbim to Yehoshua 2:12 as well. Radak to Yehoshua 6:25 gives a similar answer, saying she converted. On the other hand, Ibn Ezra to Shemot 20:7 says that the oath bound the Jews, despite their mitzvah regarding her.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Daf Notes on Nedarim - II
33a
Worth noting: The Rosh on "tipol hanaah l'hekdesh" on the Mishnah on 33a. His approach (as opposed to that of the Ran) is remarkable.
35b mentions the issue of using a moch as a means of contraception, and seems to permit it in certain cases in order to prevent danger to the life of an infant (in the case of a nursing woman), a fetus (in the case of a pregnant woman), or a very young woman. It's worth noting that where the Rosh and the Ran here, as well as Tosfos in Yevamos, take the logical position that use of this moch is mandatory, Rashi in Yevamos disagrees and contends it is optional. This view is difficult to understand, if we are talking about protecting a life!
On 36a we mention a concept which also came up toward the end of Kesuvos, of disavowing a shaliach if the shaliach's actions work against the meshaleiach's perceived best interests. From a theoretical standpoint (and juts my own thought), there are a couple of ways to understand this disavowal: (1) The mission did not include this action (ie making the item pigul), or (2) Shlichut is inherently invalid if it harms the sender, because one cannot acquire liability for a person without his explicit consent.
Practical ramification: What if I did license that specific action, but I didn't realize it would lead to a liability? As in: I told the Kohen he could plan to eat the korban tomorrow, not realizing it had to be eaten today.
No. On second thought, I don't think that idea works - if it were correct, then according to the view that Kohanim are our shlichim, a kohen could never create pigul!In any case, Shlichut is stronger than "zachin," and doesn't depend on producing merit/gain for the sender. When I empower someone to be my shaliach, he can create liability as well as zchut for me.
The gemara on 36a also talks about challenging one's children to race to Yerushalayim, and figures into two interesting discussions - the legitimacy of Bereirah, hinted at in the Ran here and discussed more fully in Gittin 25a, and in the issue of gambling as well. I cannot recall the reference for the gemara on gambling at the moment, but I think it's a gemara in Shabbos.
37 is a hugely fun daf, with a lot to see.
Keep a close eye on the Rosh throughout, particulary his note on "Aggadot" which might prove contentious in some circles, depending on what you do with it.
On "schar shimur" go with the Rosh's graphic explanation - but note that Tosafos believes children from the age of 10 already don't need babysitting. This certainly worked for their children, who were apprenticed at vocations at a very young age, but today it is hardly the same.
Shemuel gives a piece of medical advice on this page, which is consistent with his general role as the Gemara's doctor-on-call. See my page here for some.
Re: Ran on "itur sofrim" - See Rashi Bava Metzia 60a and Tosafos Sanhedrin 60a on the Torah using certain language to sound nicer (na'eh yoteir).
Put yourself through the effort of reading the GRA's fine print on the pesukim at the bottom of 37b, top of 38a.
And, of course, the big point - women should be taught to lein, it appears. Presumably this is because it will help them learn the pesukim properly, although it has added advantages; when I leined as a teenager, my mother was the one who listened to me to correct my mistakes.
Worth noting: The Rosh on "tipol hanaah l'hekdesh" on the Mishnah on 33a. His approach (as opposed to that of the Ran) is remarkable.
35b mentions the issue of using a moch as a means of contraception, and seems to permit it in certain cases in order to prevent danger to the life of an infant (in the case of a nursing woman), a fetus (in the case of a pregnant woman), or a very young woman. It's worth noting that where the Rosh and the Ran here, as well as Tosfos in Yevamos, take the logical position that use of this moch is mandatory, Rashi in Yevamos disagrees and contends it is optional. This view is difficult to understand, if we are talking about protecting a life!
On 36a we mention a concept which also came up toward the end of Kesuvos, of disavowing a shaliach if the shaliach's actions work against the meshaleiach's perceived best interests. From a theoretical standpoint (and juts my own thought), there are a couple of ways to understand this disavowal: (1) The mission did not include this action (ie making the item pigul), or (2) Shlichut is inherently invalid if it harms the sender, because one cannot acquire liability for a person without his explicit consent.
Practical ramification: What if I did license that specific action, but I didn't realize it would lead to a liability? As in: I told the Kohen he could plan to eat the korban tomorrow, not realizing it had to be eaten today.
No. On second thought, I don't think that idea works - if it were correct, then according to the view that Kohanim are our shlichim, a kohen could never create pigul!In any case, Shlichut is stronger than "zachin," and doesn't depend on producing merit/gain for the sender. When I empower someone to be my shaliach, he can create liability as well as zchut for me.
The gemara on 36a also talks about challenging one's children to race to Yerushalayim, and figures into two interesting discussions - the legitimacy of Bereirah, hinted at in the Ran here and discussed more fully in Gittin 25a, and in the issue of gambling as well. I cannot recall the reference for the gemara on gambling at the moment, but I think it's a gemara in Shabbos.
37 is a hugely fun daf, with a lot to see.
Keep a close eye on the Rosh throughout, particulary his note on "Aggadot" which might prove contentious in some circles, depending on what you do with it.
On "schar shimur" go with the Rosh's graphic explanation - but note that Tosafos believes children from the age of 10 already don't need babysitting. This certainly worked for their children, who were apprenticed at vocations at a very young age, but today it is hardly the same.
Shemuel gives a piece of medical advice on this page, which is consistent with his general role as the Gemara's doctor-on-call. See my page here for some.
Re: Ran on "itur sofrim" - See Rashi Bava Metzia 60a and Tosafos Sanhedrin 60a on the Torah using certain language to sound nicer (na'eh yoteir).
Put yourself through the effort of reading the GRA's fine print on the pesukim at the bottom of 37b, top of 38a.
And, of course, the big point - women should be taught to lein, it appears. Presumably this is because it will help them learn the pesukim properly, although it has added advantages; when I leined as a teenager, my mother was the one who listened to me to correct my mistakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
