There is so much to see and say here, and no time to write it all down in a clear form. Here is some of it, anyway:
10b
On the line, “Better to throw one’s self into an oven than to embarrass another person publicly,” Rashi takes our gemara simply: We see that one should let himself be put in an oven rather than embarrass someone else, since Tamar was willing to suffer this fate. Tosafos in Bava Metzia 59a points out that this is seen in the Torah’s pasuk itself, in which the word מוצאת does not have any vowels on the א, so that the word is actually מוצת, to be kindled (a la ויצת אש בציון – Eichah 4).
The gemara notes the recurrence of הכר נא in the book of Bereishit linking the sale of Yosef with Yehudah/Tamar, but there are many more borrowed phrases and images unifying Bereishit (as well as the Torah itself), and giving the lie to the Documentary Hypothesis. A few quick examples: The young goats (Yaakov’s meal for Yitzchak, the goat’s blood for Yosef’s tunic, Tamar’s fee), the link of עלי קללתך and עלי היו כלנה, the numerous references to walking in the דרך ה', and the cross-biblical theme of צדקה ומשפט which carries us from Bereishit 18:19 all the way through Devarim 33:21 and then into the neviim.
The gemara talks about Yehudah being named for his future admission/הודאה, but the Torah gives a reason for his name – it’s הפעם אודה את ה', Leah’s thanks to Gd! Maharsha says she would have named him אודה under her original reason; HaShem inspired her to call him יהודה.
I am puzzled by the gemara’s declaration that Yehudah sanctified the Name of HaShem by publicly admitting his wrong; we are taught אשרי נשוי פשע כסוי חטאה (and see the Rambam in the beginning of Hilchot Teshuvah on this point) that one should not divulge private sin to the masses, lest it actually cause a desecration and desensitization!
11a
See the Maharsha on the gemara's analysis of the pasuk describing Miriam's wait for Moshe.
Why do we bring a pasuk from Yeshayah מי נח זאת לי as proof that won’t destroy the world with water, instead of bringing the post-Flood biblical pledge, לא אוסיף להכות את כל חי?! Perhaps because that earlier pasuk isn't water-specific?
The gemara here regarding Yisro's reward for refusing to participate in Paroh’s persecution indicates that Yisro's descendants, or at least some of them, did become Jewish. (See our discussion on Yael.) But then why did they live next to Amalek, per Shemuel I on Shaul’s war with Amalek?
Some have the minhag of blowing a Teruah Gedolah at the end of Yom Kippur. This mirrors Rashi here, that the Jews heard a Teruah at Har Sinai, since the shofar blast at the end of the Revelation at Har Sinai (במשוך היובל המה יעלו בהר) is one of the sources for the shofar blast at the end of Yom Kippur.
Rashi's two approaches to translating the gemara on ערי מסכנות take the Gemara’s line in opposite directions – one is that it's about the building in Egypt, the other is that it's about construction in general.
On “resembling thorns in their eyes,” the Maharsha's approach (the Egyptians resembled thorns in their own eyes) seems to fit the wording more accurately than Rashi (the Egyptians felt punctured by thorns).
11b
The pasuk brought here, תחת התפוח עוררתיך שמה חבלתך אמך שמה חבלה יולדתך, is one source for the myth that the fruit in the garden was the apple, from a mis-reading of the Hebrew root ח-ב-ל as corruption – “Under the apple tree, your mother corrupted you.” It should be read like חבלי לידה, “your mother birthed you.” (There is also a second source, the Latin “mal” which is associated with the apple/malus.)
The Maharsha explains why I might be more or less likely to identify Miriam or Elisheva as the second of the meyaldot.
The Gemara’s derash readings of חיות depend on reading it with a patach under the ח, instead of the actual kamatz.
The gemara that says Miriam gave birth to Chur after her illness must not be referring to her illness with tzaraat, but rather to a childhood illness, for Chur was dead (per midrash) by the time she experienced her tzaraat. This also fits 12a; see Rashi on 12a עזובה.
Showing posts with label Tanach: Gan Eden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tanach: Gan Eden. Show all posts
Friday, June 6, 2008
Monday, June 2, 2008
Daf: Sotah 7b-9 - Yehudah and Tamar, Laws and Logic, Bundles of Mitzvos and the Innocent Sotah
[Note: This week's Haveil Havalim is here.]
As always: Easier to understand this with the gemara in front of you. And see Rashi. And Tosafot. And the Maharsha.
7b
The gemara suggests that Yehudah's admission of his involvement with Tamar led to Reuven's admission of his error with Bilhah.
The Bach (note א) points out the problem put forth by Tosafot Bava Kama 92: The midrash says Reuven returned to Yosef's pit (and found Yosef had been sold) after his penance for what happened with Bilhah – but the Torah's account of Yehudah/Tamar is presented only after the sale of Yosef!
We might answer this based on the contention of Ibn Ezra (Bereishit 38:1) that the incident with Tamar happened long before the sale of Yosef. Rashi on the chumash seems to say the same.
However, this approach does run counter to the gemara's view that the whole Yehudah/Tamar story occurred during the 20 years from the sale of Yosef through the time when the brothers descended to Egypt for food.
On the bottom of the page, Abbaye seeks to solve a problem by emending a text, or having us read it non-literally – and Rava opposes his approach on the grounds of the existing text. The same will happen again on 8b and on 11a.
8a
R' Shimon's controversial position of dorshin taama d'kra, that we may analyze laws for their underlying logic and reasons, and then use that logical analysis to alter the way we apply the mitzvah, is invoked here. For more on this see the main discussion in Bava Metzia 115a on taking collateral from a wealthy widow. See also Tosafot ahead on 14a “kedei.”
The issue of ein osin mitzvot chavilot chavilot is problematic; it seems to militate against using a single object for multiple mitzvot, but we certainly do that, as in the case of using one cup of wine for kiddush and havdalah when Shabbos leads into Yom Tov.
It appears, as noted by Rashi here, that the main issue is preventing the impression that the mitzvah is burdensome.
Further on the same topic, Tosafot והא objects that our gemara is discussing biblical verses and principles, and the idea of chavilot chavilot is d'rabbanan and should not be invoked. Perhaps we could answer that the gemara's question was actually not from that braita about chavilot/chavilot, but rather was against that braita, from the אותה source in the biblical sentence? Admittedly, though, this would be tough to fit into the words of our gemara.
Rabbah says we worry that if the sotah appears less-than-garbed in court and emerges innocent, then those who saw her in her less-than-garbed state will be drawn after her. But if she is innocent, then why don't we worry about embarrassing her?! I think this goes back to the point we made at the start of Sotah - that she is not innocent, for we know that she was alone with another man. The only question is whether that resulted in actual adultery.
Rava comments that men are visually stimulated, and less likely to be drawn by that which they have imagined but not seen. Aside from the generally interesting character of this comment, it has interesting ramifications for the issue of kol isha with a radio or taped voice.
The gemara says that women are “obligated” to come see the Sotah, but note the Rambam's formulation as to who must come see.
It's interesting that our mishnah and Rava use the same pasuk, but our mishnah concludes “permitted” and Rava concludes “obligated.”
9a
See Tosafot Manimin on the status of national identity (Amon, Moav, Egypt) today.
9b
The measure-for-measure with the serpent of Eden is less precise than with others in this gemara – it's that he tried to take more than he had, and so he lost even what he had.
Note: The snake thought he could get Chavah for himself because he thought the command about the fruit was just for Adam, so that she would eat and survive, and Adam would eat and die.
As always: Easier to understand this with the gemara in front of you. And see Rashi. And Tosafot. And the Maharsha.
7b
The gemara suggests that Yehudah's admission of his involvement with Tamar led to Reuven's admission of his error with Bilhah.
The Bach (note א) points out the problem put forth by Tosafot Bava Kama 92: The midrash says Reuven returned to Yosef's pit (and found Yosef had been sold) after his penance for what happened with Bilhah – but the Torah's account of Yehudah/Tamar is presented only after the sale of Yosef!
We might answer this based on the contention of Ibn Ezra (Bereishit 38:1) that the incident with Tamar happened long before the sale of Yosef. Rashi on the chumash seems to say the same.
However, this approach does run counter to the gemara's view that the whole Yehudah/Tamar story occurred during the 20 years from the sale of Yosef through the time when the brothers descended to Egypt for food.
On the bottom of the page, Abbaye seeks to solve a problem by emending a text, or having us read it non-literally – and Rava opposes his approach on the grounds of the existing text. The same will happen again on 8b and on 11a.
8a
R' Shimon's controversial position of dorshin taama d'kra, that we may analyze laws for their underlying logic and reasons, and then use that logical analysis to alter the way we apply the mitzvah, is invoked here. For more on this see the main discussion in Bava Metzia 115a on taking collateral from a wealthy widow. See also Tosafot ahead on 14a “kedei.”
The issue of ein osin mitzvot chavilot chavilot is problematic; it seems to militate against using a single object for multiple mitzvot, but we certainly do that, as in the case of using one cup of wine for kiddush and havdalah when Shabbos leads into Yom Tov.
It appears, as noted by Rashi here, that the main issue is preventing the impression that the mitzvah is burdensome.
Further on the same topic, Tosafot והא objects that our gemara is discussing biblical verses and principles, and the idea of chavilot chavilot is d'rabbanan and should not be invoked. Perhaps we could answer that the gemara's question was actually not from that braita about chavilot/chavilot, but rather was against that braita, from the אותה source in the biblical sentence? Admittedly, though, this would be tough to fit into the words of our gemara.
Rabbah says we worry that if the sotah appears less-than-garbed in court and emerges innocent, then those who saw her in her less-than-garbed state will be drawn after her. But if she is innocent, then why don't we worry about embarrassing her?! I think this goes back to the point we made at the start of Sotah - that she is not innocent, for we know that she was alone with another man. The only question is whether that resulted in actual adultery.
Rava comments that men are visually stimulated, and less likely to be drawn by that which they have imagined but not seen. Aside from the generally interesting character of this comment, it has interesting ramifications for the issue of kol isha with a radio or taped voice.
The gemara says that women are “obligated” to come see the Sotah, but note the Rambam's formulation as to who must come see.
It's interesting that our mishnah and Rava use the same pasuk, but our mishnah concludes “permitted” and Rava concludes “obligated.”
9a
See Tosafot Manimin on the status of national identity (Amon, Moav, Egypt) today.
9b
The measure-for-measure with the serpent of Eden is less precise than with others in this gemara – it's that he tried to take more than he had, and so he lost even what he had.
Note: The snake thought he could get Chavah for himself because he thought the command about the fruit was just for Adam, so that she would eat and survive, and Adam would eat and die.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Derashah: Tetzaveh: In the desert, a return to Eden
Derashah - Tetzaveh 5768
A few weeks ago I was watching my favorite news outlet, YouTube, and I saw Senator Obama's now-famous “Yes we can” speech. The Senator delivered an inspiring observation about America’s history, in the process reminding me very much of the history of the Jewish people, and of our parshah in particular. He said, “In the unlikely story that is America, there’s never been anything false about hope.”
I’m not really sure what is unlikely about America’s story, but I know what is unlikely about our Jewish national story - surviving, and not just surviving but thriving, maintaining a culture, and not only maintaining a culture but building a vital society with its own intellectuals and institutions and integration of ethnicities from all over the world, both in Israel and in global Jewry. And in that story, there has never been anything false about hatikvah, about hope.
Which brings me to the parshah of this week and last, and the most unlikely, the most unrealistic, the most arrogant hope in the history of a chutzpah-filled nation: To re-create Gan Eden.
ויטע ה' אלקים גן בעדן מקדם, וישם שם את האדם אשר יצר - HaShem planted a garden in Eden in the east, and He placed there the man He had created. Human beings were meant to live with HaShem there in the Garden, to live lives of spirituality and meaning and a synthesis of physical bodies and heavenly souls.
Human beings were given an עבודה there, a set of tasks. We were told לשמרה, to guard the Garden against corruption. And human beings, according to the midrash, brought korbanos to Gd there in the Garden.
But Adam and Chavah ate from the fruit of the עץ הדעת, the Tree of Knowledge, and then they cowered and listened as HaShem left the garden, and then they were forced to leave the Garden as well. The bond of human and Gd came to an abrupt halt.
Still, through the ensuing generations, that dream of Gan Eden never perished. Chanoch walked with Gd. Noach found favor in the eyes of Gd. Avraham arrived in Canaan and built a mizbeiach, Sarah offered up her position as matriarch, and their son Yitzchak offered himself as a korban. Rivkah, Rachel and Leah abandoned their families to come live in a tent dedicated to Gd. Yaakov slept in Beit El and dreamed of a place where angels would descend to this plane and ascend from this plane.
But they were not ready - for they were past the time when individuals could truly walk with Gd, and they were waiting for the time which HaShem had foretold in Parshat Lech Lecha, a time when the descendants of Avraham and Sarah would return to Eden as a nation, ושמרו דרך ה', when they would walk the path of HaShem and return to the Gan.
To return to the Gan means to live a life of שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד, of placing HaShem before our eyes, visible in our minds and evident in our actions.
To return to the Gan means to live a life of avodah and shemirah, focusing not on the purchase that will bring self-satisfaction and the overtime that will bring economic growth, but on the gift that will strengthen society and the Torah that will bring Jewish growth.
To return to the Gan means to live as though we were already there, with an intense religiosity that leaves little room for hesitation, that demands total fealty and bestows total blessing.
A most unlikely hope.
But, finally, after twenty-six generations from Adam and Chavah, we were blessed with the opportunity to return to the Gan. Again, we had a place with an avodah, a way to serve Gd. A place to protect from corruption, לשמרה, as we read this morning in the responsibility of the Kohanim to protect the mishkan. Again, we had a place with korbanos. The new Eden was the Mishkan.
Many of the Mishkan’s icons echo the themes of our original exile from the garden, highlighting the fact that we weren’t really yet back in Eden:
· When we left Eden, Gd gave us special garments - and now Gd gave the Kohanim special garments.
· When we left Eden, the Eitz haChaim and Eitz haDaas, the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge, were marked off-limits - and now, the Kodesh Kodashim, the Holy of Holies, containing the life and knowledge of the Luchos, was marked off-limits.
· And when we left Eden HaShem placed Kruvim at the entrance, to guard the path - and HaShem told Moshe to place Kruvim upon the Aron in the Kodesh Kodashim, the place from which HaShem’s voice emanated to communicate to the nation.
We were not entirely back in the garden, no - but we were on our way.
This was a most unlikely hope, a most daring mission, to recreate Eden among ourselves. Surely those Jews who heard Moshe’s instructions wondered: Is he serious? Can we really return? Can we again live together with HaShem?
To which HaShem replied forcefully, last week and again this week:
· ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם, Make a Mikdash for Me, and I will live among them.
· ושכנתי בתוך בני ישראל, I will dwell among the Jewish people.
· וידעו כי אני ה' אלקיכם, They will know that I am HaShem, your Gd.
Rav Soloveitchik taught that the Kruvim with their shining swords who stood at the entrance to Gan Eden were not there to keep people out; rather, they were there, as the Targum Yerushalmi says, לשמור את דרך עץ החיים, to guard the path to the Tree of Life, to keep that path open for our return. HaShem waits for our return - and in the mishkan, we returned.
Fast-forward a few millenia, and here we are, without Mishkan and without Beis haMikdash. And yet, the Torah’s answer is still, “Yes, we can.” Not in that national forum, not yet, but on a personal level, in our מקדש מעט, in our shuls and in our batei medrash and our homes.
We can still live that life with Gd which emphasizes spiritual in tandem with material, which is filled with עבודה and שמירה and offerings to Gd:
· By assuring our children a powerful Jewish education which will bring them to avodah and shemirah.
· By emphasizing our walk with Gd in our marriages and our family bonds, through the halachos of taharas hamishpachah/family purity and through the shared activity of Shabbos and Kashrus and Talmud Torah.
· By giving of ourselves, bringing our own version of korbanos, through chesed and tzedakah.
This is the dream with which we inaugurate every Jewish home, under the chuppah, when we recite berachot recalling Gan Eden and the joy of that experience. Every new Jewish home is a chance to return to Eden, to rebuild that Divine connection, to live with HaShem.
We remember the Jewish version of Senator Obama’s message: In the unlikely story that is Jewish history, there has never been anything false about hope - and particularly the hope of ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם, They will make for Me a mikdash, and I will live among them.
A few weeks ago I was watching my favorite news outlet, YouTube, and I saw Senator Obama's now-famous “Yes we can” speech. The Senator delivered an inspiring observation about America’s history, in the process reminding me very much of the history of the Jewish people, and of our parshah in particular. He said, “In the unlikely story that is America, there’s never been anything false about hope.”
I’m not really sure what is unlikely about America’s story, but I know what is unlikely about our Jewish national story - surviving, and not just surviving but thriving, maintaining a culture, and not only maintaining a culture but building a vital society with its own intellectuals and institutions and integration of ethnicities from all over the world, both in Israel and in global Jewry. And in that story, there has never been anything false about hatikvah, about hope.
Which brings me to the parshah of this week and last, and the most unlikely, the most unrealistic, the most arrogant hope in the history of a chutzpah-filled nation: To re-create Gan Eden.
ויטע ה' אלקים גן בעדן מקדם, וישם שם את האדם אשר יצר - HaShem planted a garden in Eden in the east, and He placed there the man He had created. Human beings were meant to live with HaShem there in the Garden, to live lives of spirituality and meaning and a synthesis of physical bodies and heavenly souls.
Human beings were given an עבודה there, a set of tasks. We were told לשמרה, to guard the Garden against corruption. And human beings, according to the midrash, brought korbanos to Gd there in the Garden.
But Adam and Chavah ate from the fruit of the עץ הדעת, the Tree of Knowledge, and then they cowered and listened as HaShem left the garden, and then they were forced to leave the Garden as well. The bond of human and Gd came to an abrupt halt.
Still, through the ensuing generations, that dream of Gan Eden never perished. Chanoch walked with Gd. Noach found favor in the eyes of Gd. Avraham arrived in Canaan and built a mizbeiach, Sarah offered up her position as matriarch, and their son Yitzchak offered himself as a korban. Rivkah, Rachel and Leah abandoned their families to come live in a tent dedicated to Gd. Yaakov slept in Beit El and dreamed of a place where angels would descend to this plane and ascend from this plane.
But they were not ready - for they were past the time when individuals could truly walk with Gd, and they were waiting for the time which HaShem had foretold in Parshat Lech Lecha, a time when the descendants of Avraham and Sarah would return to Eden as a nation, ושמרו דרך ה', when they would walk the path of HaShem and return to the Gan.
To return to the Gan means to live a life of שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד, of placing HaShem before our eyes, visible in our minds and evident in our actions.
To return to the Gan means to live a life of avodah and shemirah, focusing not on the purchase that will bring self-satisfaction and the overtime that will bring economic growth, but on the gift that will strengthen society and the Torah that will bring Jewish growth.
To return to the Gan means to live as though we were already there, with an intense religiosity that leaves little room for hesitation, that demands total fealty and bestows total blessing.
A most unlikely hope.
But, finally, after twenty-six generations from Adam and Chavah, we were blessed with the opportunity to return to the Gan. Again, we had a place with an avodah, a way to serve Gd. A place to protect from corruption, לשמרה, as we read this morning in the responsibility of the Kohanim to protect the mishkan. Again, we had a place with korbanos. The new Eden was the Mishkan.
Many of the Mishkan’s icons echo the themes of our original exile from the garden, highlighting the fact that we weren’t really yet back in Eden:
· When we left Eden, Gd gave us special garments - and now Gd gave the Kohanim special garments.
· When we left Eden, the Eitz haChaim and Eitz haDaas, the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge, were marked off-limits - and now, the Kodesh Kodashim, the Holy of Holies, containing the life and knowledge of the Luchos, was marked off-limits.
· And when we left Eden HaShem placed Kruvim at the entrance, to guard the path - and HaShem told Moshe to place Kruvim upon the Aron in the Kodesh Kodashim, the place from which HaShem’s voice emanated to communicate to the nation.
We were not entirely back in the garden, no - but we were on our way.
This was a most unlikely hope, a most daring mission, to recreate Eden among ourselves. Surely those Jews who heard Moshe’s instructions wondered: Is he serious? Can we really return? Can we again live together with HaShem?
To which HaShem replied forcefully, last week and again this week:
· ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם, Make a Mikdash for Me, and I will live among them.
· ושכנתי בתוך בני ישראל, I will dwell among the Jewish people.
· וידעו כי אני ה' אלקיכם, They will know that I am HaShem, your Gd.
Rav Soloveitchik taught that the Kruvim with their shining swords who stood at the entrance to Gan Eden were not there to keep people out; rather, they were there, as the Targum Yerushalmi says, לשמור את דרך עץ החיים, to guard the path to the Tree of Life, to keep that path open for our return. HaShem waits for our return - and in the mishkan, we returned.
Fast-forward a few millenia, and here we are, without Mishkan and without Beis haMikdash. And yet, the Torah’s answer is still, “Yes, we can.” Not in that national forum, not yet, but on a personal level, in our מקדש מעט, in our shuls and in our batei medrash and our homes.
We can still live that life with Gd which emphasizes spiritual in tandem with material, which is filled with עבודה and שמירה and offerings to Gd:
· By assuring our children a powerful Jewish education which will bring them to avodah and shemirah.
· By emphasizing our walk with Gd in our marriages and our family bonds, through the halachos of taharas hamishpachah/family purity and through the shared activity of Shabbos and Kashrus and Talmud Torah.
· By giving of ourselves, bringing our own version of korbanos, through chesed and tzedakah.
This is the dream with which we inaugurate every Jewish home, under the chuppah, when we recite berachot recalling Gan Eden and the joy of that experience. Every new Jewish home is a chance to return to Eden, to rebuild that Divine connection, to live with HaShem.
We remember the Jewish version of Senator Obama’s message: In the unlikely story that is Jewish history, there has never been anything false about hope - and particularly the hope of ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם, They will make for Me a mikdash, and I will live among them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
