DOVBEAR

What might be one of the earliest recorded midrashim (by which I mean an interpretation of biblical text) appears in the book of Nehemiah. The Levites (or perhaps Ezra) are addressing the people, with something that seems to be both blessing and history lesson, when they say:

You are the LORD God, who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and named him Abraham. You found his heart faithful to you...

As the ancient interpreters read it, this sentence suggests Abraham was tested. How else, they reasoned, would God have discovered that his heart was faithful? This idea of a tested Abraham appears (according to James Kugel) in apocrypha including Ben Sira, Maccabees and Jubilees, before it was recorded for posterity in Bereishis Rabba (The other books are older, lost, and exist today only in translation.)

Now the puzzle: Does the verse in Nehemia refer to the tradition of Avraham's trials, or was that tradition later devised based on this verse? What I mean is: Did the speakers in Nehemiah 9 know about this tradition of trials, and have it in mind when they spoke the words, or did they intend something else entirely that was, nonetheless, understood by later interpreters to be a reference to Abraham's ordeals? Did they create the tradition, or did they know it?

I favor the idea that the tradition of Abraham's trials is older then Nehemiah, but I don't know how to go about proving it.

Additional fun fact to know and tell: There's an old tradition that Abraham was tossed into a furnace by a king who objected to Abraham's monotheistic beliefs. The story of the furnace seems to have been devised as a solution to an ambiguity in Issiah 29:22 where it says God redeemed Abraham using the word pada which can also mean "rescued." But from what was Abraham rescued? Answer: the furnace in Ur Casdim. [Update: Josh Waxman points out that the heh of the definite article in Gen 19:28 (haKivshan) is additional evidence of a significant furnace in Abraham's past.] Moreover, our verse in Nehmiah seems to support all of this. "Ur" is not just the name of Abraham's city. It is also a word for flame, or fire, thus Nehemiah 9:7 becomes: You are the LORD God, who chose Abram and brought him out of the fire of the Chaldeans.

This, I expect you will be tickled to learn, is exactly how the Vulgate translates Nehemiah 9:7 into Latin, suggesting Jerome took the story of Abraham escaping the furnace as pshat in the verse!

Still another fun fact to know and tell: We all take it for granted that Abraham was the very first monotheist, but this is nowhere directly represented in the text. Like the idea that Noah preached repentance for 120 years, Abraham's monotheism is an interpretation -- not necessarily an incorrect interpretation, but an interpretation, nonetheless.

Follow me on Twitter

This week we've been discussing a signal event in the history of the Jewish people: The religious revival led by Ezra as described in the eighth chapter of Nehemiah.

After Ezra publicly read from the "book of the law of Moses" we're told that the people "found written in the law... that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month."

What happened next? We join the story already in progress:

16 So the people went forth, and brought [olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees] and made themselves booths, every one upon the roof of his house, and in their courts, and in the courts of the house of God, and in the street of the water gate, and in the street of the gate of Ephraim.

17 And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths: for since the days of Jeshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness

How should the concientious and believing Jew understand these verses? There are at least three approaches:

1 - The verse means what it says
This is not troubling as it may seem. We have no religious obligation to believe that sukkot was observed in all its details during the First Temple Period. It isn't one of the ikkarim, and it isn't attached to any halachic observance. One might, to paraphrase the Ramban's view on aggadot in general choose to believe that sukkot was forgotten "without suffering any spiritual harm."

Indeed, the evidence from the Book of Kings seems overwhelming that the majority of the people were idol worshippers, who likely had as much use for Sukkot as they did for the God who decreed it. Even the religiously outstanding people were mostly members of prophetic circles, who, we might deduce, were not quite as fanatical about the written word as we are. Why would they pay attention to text, with all its flaws and difficulties, when they had immediate access to an endless fountain of revelation? Its possible, therefore, even the majority of this elite lost or neglected some, or even all, of the requirements of the holiday.

The view that significant halachic material was forgotten has support, incidentally, from the tradition. The Talmud records the view that First Temple Jews forgot the hoshana ritual, until it was revived via prophesy. We're also told that at least one tanna believed that because of "Israel's sins" even the original script used to write the first Torah was lost.

What else did sinful Israel forget? The passage in Nehemiah seems to be telling us.

2 - The verse means what it says but is speaking idiomatically or employing hyperbole or it reflects the author's own misapprehension
Elsewhere Chardal argues that "from the days of X" is an idiom, and not intended literally. According to this reading, th verse means only that people really had, like, a fabulous time celebrating sukkot with Ezra, and nothing about earlier generations is intended on implied. Alternatively, the passage might reflect a mistake on the part of the author. Perhaps he sincerely thought that the Jews had forgotten sukkot during First Temple times (and given what it says in Kings, can you really blame him?) In any event, this reading (ie mistake, idiom or exaggeration) preserves the possibility that sukkot was observed correctly by the majority of the people during First Temple times.

3 - The verse does not mean what it says
By my lights, this is the most difficult approach, because those who take it have created a new problem for themselves. If, as the Talmud explains, the verse really means that the Jews abandoned idol worship and this spiritual step forward "protected them like a sukka" we must ask: Why didn't Nehemiah say so? Why is this national accomplishment being concealed? Why aren't we told about the divine blessing? In short: Why doesn't the verse just say what it means?

I anticipate Ed, and others will be quick to point out that this is often the case, with ayin tachat ayin being the most famous example. And he's right. It is true that midrash halacha often departs from the plain meaning of a verse, and provides alternative interpretations that are reflected in practice. However, unlike ayin tachat ayin the passage in Nehemia isn't halachic and the explanation given by the Talmud isn't an example of midrash halacha. (A discussion of midrash halacha and why the legal tradition and the text often seem to disagree will have to wait for another day.) This is a different category of interpretation, and the verse under a discussion is found not in the Pentateuch, but in Ketuvim; therefore it also belongs to a different category.

Note: Many smart people, after all, learn midrash in the way I am about to denounce, and I suppose there isn't anything wrong with it per se. It's just that this approach is a pet peeve of mine, and I had the misfortune of being trapped in conversation, recently, by one of its practitioners.

Learned lay person: It's a fascinating thing...

DB: Uh oh

LLP: We know Moshe had a deal with his father in law, that one of his sons would be allowed to practice idol worship...

DB: We know?

LLP: Yes, refer to the mechilta. So the question is, how could Moshe make such a deal....

DB: Actually, um, the question is why are you so certain that this happened.

LLP: I told you. Refer to the mechilta...

Something similar happened a few months ago, where me and the LLP were discussing the appearance of the three angels to Abraham, our forefather, at the start of Parshas Vayerah.

The verse tells us that Abraham instructed Sarah to "Hurry! Three se'ahs of meal, fine flour! Knead and make cakes" but, according to someone who's name I forget, Sarah had begun menstruating that morning and therefore was forbidden to touch dough. So how could Abrham have asked Sarah to prepare bread? (I should note that I am relying on my RW Yeshivish friend for these details. I don't recall ever being taught that a niddah must not touch dough, or that Sarah's menses returned before the angels arrived at Abrham's tent.)

When I tried to address my friend's question in the obvious way, my answer was waved off. The idea that the laws of Niddah were not known to Abraham could not be accepted by my friend even as a possibility and he clenched his teeth angrily when I accused him of thinking ahistorically. In return, he accused me of dismissing the question, by which he meant only that I was refusing to indulge in speculative weavings about what may have happened 4000 years years ago in Abraham's tent, when it seemed perfectly obvious to me that whatever it was that happened, Abraham certainly would not have reacted to it like a post-Talmudic Jew.

Suffice it to say, the whole conversation was a dead end.

RenReb amazes me, and not just because she has her very own store. No, I read RenReb's blog, and find myself in despair because she is able to say things like this without getting crucified:

A medium-length lecture followed, in which I learned several important facts about groups of Jewish women who take it upon themselves to bake challah for a certain number of weeks, or something like that, and then all sorts of miraculous things happen as a result, such as people suddenly finding marriage partners; people suddenly finding themselves able to have children; unemployed and destitute people suddenly finding jobs; sick people suddenly becoming better; dead people suddenly coming back to life; entire nations suddenly laying down arms; doctors suddenly finding cures for cancer; global warming suddenly reversing itself; peace suddenly appearing in the Middle East; etc. All because of Jewish Women Who Are Much More Righteous Than I.

I've carefully monitored her comments, waiting for Ed or Chayim G. or Yonah Lazar, or someone, to arrive and announce that RenReb is a horrible human being and/or the worst Jew since Mendelsohn for daring to speak so despicably about a dear and beloved communal activity that not one of us knew about until like, last week. But, no takers so far.

Meanwhile my good friend, S, who I am annoyed at for reasons other than what I am about to discuss here, supplies evidence that the 'lo shanu et shimom/they didn't change their names' is just so much Haredi bushwa. His evidence is the list of Jewish Rabbis[*] who translated the Septuagint. Many of them have names like those you would find in any Yeshiva kindergarten. The rest have names like Chabrias. Again Chayim G, et al, are silent about this full-frontal attack on a beloved midrash.

And finally, we have this. To the uneducated, the person pictured here is attempting to pass a stool the size of a giant sequoia. In fact, she is participating at an Amen Party. How does it work? First, find some friends. Then gather together, preferably in a soundproof booth, and make brochot on various foods, taking care to scream AMEN in your loudest, most prayerful voice. From what I can tell, it works just like the Segulah Challahs (ie: it doesn't.) [Krum supplies some history]

It's a puzzlement, really. God goes to all that bother, dictating 5 big books to His servant Moshe, and nowhere does he mention Segulah Challies or Amen Parties. (I've checked) Still, great teeming masses of Jews insist that this stuff works. Also, they insist that Jews named Mark or Andrew are less likely to be redeemed, even though the prophets often said that redemption and salavation are promised to all of Israel -- not just Jews with names like Faivel.

[*]As S himself notes the mere existance of this list in not proof that the Legend of the Septuagint is true

Hat-tip: He who doesn't like me to name him for the Amen Party.

Everyone and his uncle knows Rashi's explanation for the six-fold language used here:

וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, פָּרוּ וַיִּשְׁרְצוּ וַיִּרְבּוּ וַיַּעַצְמוּ--בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד; וַתִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ, אֹתָם
And the sons of Israel were fruitful, and swarmed and multiplied, and grew very vast; and the land was filled with them.

He says, briefly, that this means to tell us Jewish children were born six at a time. Nice, and based on the midrash, but here's something else, something I like a little better:

The language the divine author [*] uses here appears to be a concious echo of the language used to describe the first 6 days of creation. On day 5, the waters "swarm with swarms of living creatures." Later that day, God says to the animals: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth." On day 6, His blessing to the first couple is "'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth"

Fruitful. Multiply. Swarm. Fill the earth. The only term missing from the Genesis story is "grow very vast" and that is echoed in the promise God gave to Abraham (Gen 18:18) : "Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation" The word here for "great" is the word used in Shemos for vast: עָצוּם

Why is this the language used? Perhaps because the divine author wishes to tell us that the promise of creation is being fulfilled through these Isralites. Perhaps it's away of linking the stories, of showing us that the intention of creation, and the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham is soon to be realized through this nation.

[*] By "divine author, I mean God, but I wish to make it clear that he functioned like a human author purposelly choosing to tell his story in a certain way, and using certain words.

[This appeared in an old post of mine. I am too lazy to find it right now]

If you've not heard of Serach Bat Asher, let me introduce you to the Deathless Jewish Woman.

She was Jacob's granddaughter, the daughter of Asher. She makes her first appearance in Genesis 46:17 (The sons of Asher were Jimnah, Ishuah, Isui, Beriah, and Serach, their sister) and doesn't show up again until Numbers 26:46, in the genealogical list presented at the Second Census.

We call Serach the Deathless Jewish Woman (and believe me, we're doing our best not to think about that old lady from Titanic) because a Midrash, cited by Rashi, seeks to explain the reason for Serah's appearance at the census, by telling us that Jacob accidentally gave to Serach the (cue the creepy music) gift of eternal life in parshas Vayigash..

The story goes something like this:

When Jacob's sons returned to Canaan with the news about Joseph being alive and also rich, they experienced a moment of cowardice. Not one of them had the guts to tell Jacob his favorite son was alive. So they went to Serach, an experienced breaker of good news, and asked her to gently tell her grandfather that his eleventh son was alive and well. She composed a song, with the chorus 'Joseph lives, Joseph lives' and went into her grandfather's tent to perform. When she got to the good part, the old man was so surprised he said, 'Ha! You should live so long.' (Though it sounds like Jacob was speaking Yiddish, I assure you he was not.)

Anyway, as it turned out, Serach did live for a long time, thanks to Jacob's skeptical blessing. Or at least, that's how Rashi and the midrash explain her presence at the census in Numbers 26:46.

The Ramban has another explanation. And those of us who like our Torah with as little magic as possible, are very glad to have it.

The Ramban explains that Serach is mentioned only because she has an inheritance in Israel, ie: her descendants were entitled to land in the promised land. That's why she's mentioned at the census, along with everyone else with descendants who stood to get a family plot. Many of the people on the list were dead at the time and some of them are even woman (the daughters of Zelophehad (Num 46:33) so there's really no reason to presume, pace the midrash, that Serach had to have been living in order to make it on to the list in Numbers 46.

So who's right Rashi or Ramban? I don't know, and really isn't that besides the point?

"Now the whole world had one language and a common speech."
Genesis 11:1

"This was Hebrew" said my first grade rebbe (her name, actually, was Morah Rosenberg) "It was with this language that God created the world, and until the Tower of Babel everyone spoke this language. Afterwards, it belonged only to the children of Shem."

Far be it from me to disagree with a professional teacher of small children (their blogosphere lobby is viscious and known for sneaky tricks) but the facts of history, as uncovered by people who know where to look, disagree with her.

For instance, biblical Hebrew is full of Akkadian loan words. Yam (sea god), Mot (death god), Nahhar (river god) and El (chief god) were all names for Ugaritic dieties. Also, as reported last year "archeologists have found a tablet inscribed with two lines of an alphabet dating to the 10th century BCE. The string of aleph-beth-gimels appear to be an early rendering of the emerging Hebrew alphabet but it's unclear if the language is Phoenician, Hebrew or a blend of both. The best guess, scholars say, is that the find represents the Hebrew language still in transition from its Phoenician roots."

The Torah true Jews in the audience have likely already begin writing their angry and insulting comments. You're furiously reminding me that the Sages of the Midrash, no slouchs them, were certain that Hebrew was once spoken by every human being. Muvan. But wait. Put down your poisenous pens. I have a surprise for you. The idea that Hebrew is, in fact, a contingent language that developed over time has an excellent pedigree. It's found in the Ramban, in this week's parasha. Here's the citation: (Gen. 45:12). "For Abraham did not bring it from Ur of the Chaldees [in Mesopotamia] and from Haran, for there they spoke Aramaic... And it was not a private language spoken by a single person but a language of Canaan..."

From the information that we possess today we must think the Ramban correct-- un-Jewish as the view may seem, to our late sensibilities. Archeology and the study linguistics support his contention, but so does common sense: As children, did we really think that Hebrew was the private language of Abraham's family, spoken, for a time, by as few as 7 or 8 people?

The simple translation of Gen 32:22 is 'And he rose up that night, and took his two wives, and his two maidservants, and his eleven sons, and passed over the ford of the Jabbok.' That's how the King James edition has it. Darby and the NIV, too.

The Midrash, however, takes the word yeladav not as sons, but as children. This creates a question. By now, Jacob had 12 children (eleven sons, and one daughter) If only 11 crossed the Jabbok, someone is missing. Who, and why?

'Dina,' answers the Midrash, 'Yaakov locked her in a box to prevent Esav from setting his eyes upon his daughter and seeking her hand in marriage.'

A reasonable decision,the ordinary twenty-first-century parent might say. The family was entering a dangerous situation. Eisav, no kitten in his own right, was with 400 soldiers. A young virgin like Dina was especially vulnerable. In the box she was safe. Orthodox Jewish parents, too, are likely to agree with Jacob's decision. Eisav was not only a dangerous man, but an evil man, capable of corrupting the purest soul. In the box Dina was safe from his influence. Entire Jewish communities -from Lakewood to Betar - are built on similar principles.

The Midrash, however, does not approve of Jacob's caution, and chastises him severely. According to the Midrash, Dina's later rape and abduction was Jacob's punishment for not realizing that Dina might have had a positive sway on his brother. For denying his brother even a possible avenue to repentance, Jacob was punished, as the Midrash records: 'You did not want her to be taken by a circumcised man; she will be taken by an uncircumcised man. You did not want her to be taken in a permissible manner; she will be taken in a forbidden manner.'

Remember that the next time you fret about letting your children play with kids from less observant families. Or the next time, you think that your current shul might not be holy enough for the likes of you and yours.

Potential ultra-Orthodox boycott threatens to cripple El Al airlines

The story of the miracle flight that didn't crash, but spit smoke from its engines soon after takeoff and had to return to the airport is in the newspaper this morning.

So let me ask again: Why was the plane full of religious people in the first place if R' Shteinman told them not to fly El Al? And I ask again, how did they summon the nerve to call R' Shteinman himself from a crippled El-Al plane to ask him for help?

And finally, as I learned from Jameel, this whole case is further evidence of the ritualization of Judaism. Laws that touch on rituals matter - alot. Laws that relate to social justice? Not so much. Here's the back story:

El Al had to fly on shabbos because the airports were recently crippled by a strike. Why were they on strike? Because the Israeli government, in violation of the law, had refused to pay municipal workers for FIVE MONTHS. This (halanat schar) is a straight de'oyraysa. Did the Rabbis complain about this violation of Jewish law? Did they organize marches? Did they petition the government? Did they utter even one public word as the bills piled up, and the children went unfed? No, no, and no again. Only after El Al landed a plane on shabbos -an act that caused no obvious harm to anyone - did they arise from their slumber.

Maybe if the Gedolim had concerned themselves with the needs of the people who were forced to go without their salaries for five months, the strike could have been averted, and with it the shabos desercration that followed.

What difference does it make to God whether one slaughters from the front of the neck or the back of the neck? Rather the mitzvot were given in order to refine the creatures (letzaref bahem et habriyot) -- Midrash

"Bring no more vain offerings. Incense is an abomination to me; new moons, Sabbaths, and convocations: I can't bear with evil assemblies.14 My soul hates your New Moons and your appointed feasts. They are a burden to me. I am weary of bearing them.15 When you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you. Yes, when you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood.16 Wash yourselves, make yourself clean. Put away the evil of your doings from before my eyes. Cease to do evil.17 Learn to do well. Seek justice. Relieve the oppressed. Judge the fatherless. Plead for the widow." -- Isaiah 1

On Friday, one of the dear readers of this blog, shared an urban legend about the Vilna Gaon. In summary, the story (which I believe is false) claimed the the Gaon had a guy publicly whipped for disagreeing with the philology of Rashi and the Midrash, In the story, the guy showed no disrespect. He wasn't rude. He didn't disparage. He simply disagreed, in the way that the Ramban, Rashbam, Simshon Rephael Hirsch and others often disagree with Rashi or the Midrash. And for that, the Gaon (allegedly) had him whipped. A subsequent commenter thought this behavior reflected poorly on the Gaon, and called him a very bad name. I let the whole conversation remain on my comment threads, unedited.

Was this the right thing to do? My friend Ed (and a few anonos) think I erred greatly. They want me to delete the comment. I say, in response, that the Gaon needs no protection from me. Though I agree that the commenter (also an anon) made a rude remak, I think this rude remark reflects badly, not on the Gaon, but on him. I feel no obligation to protect the commenter from the cosequences of his own ill-considered statement.

Furthermore, I argue, why pretend that rude people don't exsist? We read blogs to get a sense of what other people are thinking. So long as the comment isn't disruptive, why should I paper over the fact that there are rude people in the world? What purpose is served by concealing the fact that one person thinks that the Gaon behaved badly in a story I am, anyway, convinced is false? Besides, no one here is made from sugar. We're all adults. If a comment offends you (and I agree this comment was offensive) you're free to ignore it or to offer a counterargument.

Your thoughts, please?

The posuk says: "He smelled the smell of his clothing (bigadav), and blessed him, and said, "Behold, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which God has blessed"

Writing well after the introduction of hellenistic ideas, and hellenistic factions, into Judaism [*], the sages of the midrash wrote: Don't read "bigadav"; rather read "bogdov" - his traitors. After centuries of fighting between the various factions, centuries that had given the Jewish people their share of rebels and traitors, the Sages still imagined Issac giving Jacob the desperatelty coveted blessing because of the sweetness of his traitors.

And note, this isn't the view of a self-serving liberal Rabbi from the far left corners of Judaism. This is the midrash. The midrash.

[I suppose this reading comes as a shock to the good Jews of Cross Currents, and Williamsburg where I believe they read it begadav and darshan "see! Yizhak Aveenee saw mit de ruach hakodesh our shteimrals and kapatas!]

[*] This sentance first read "Writing well after the hellenization of Judaism" An alert reader corrected the obvious mistake. DovBear regrets the error.

..he would ask him: "Father, how are salt and hay tithed?" [Though, he actually knew that there is no requirement that these items be tithed.] His father would thereby think that he meticulously observed the mitzvos."

Many readers of Rashi use the story of the salt and straw to suggest that Esav was a pious fraud. Like the men who wear large shtreimals, but cheat on their taxes and skip davening, Esav, in their conception, was a master of deception, who used sincere-sounding questions to deceive his father. Indeed, Rash picks us on this idea by comparing Esav to a pig, a non-kosher animal that extends its forelegs as if to show off how kosher it is, fooling all who allow themselves to be deceived.

Midrash is not a monolith, and the midrash's view of Esav, especially, is complicated, and full of competing and mutually exclusive ideas. Though it is true that some of our Rabbis did think of Esav as a pious fraud, I will argue that the author of the salt and straw story decidedly did not.

First, let us recognize that midrash isn't history. It isn't telling us that such a conversation actually took place. If you went back in time, you would not find Esav and Yizchack discussing tithes. Rather, this story was created by the author of the midrash for the purpose of conveying an idea.

To understand the author's purpose we must begin with the blessings Yaakov received when he was dressed as Esav. They relate entirely and exclusively to the physical world: tal hashamayim ushmanei haaretz; the dew from the sky and the fat of the earth. Later, at the end of the story, when Yaakov leaves for Aram and is no longer disguised, his father blesses him again, this time saying: ve’yiten lecha es birkas Avraham; he passes Avraham’s spiritual legacy on to Yaakov.

It would seem from this that Yitzchak's intention was to let Yaakov stay in his tent and live a life of contemplation and study; while, Esav, the man of the field, contended with the world and provided for his religious brother. If, as most of our Rabbis say, Yitzchak was planning for the future of the Jewish nation when he blessed his sons, perhaps he was also setting up a sort of Holy Roman Empire (forgive the ahistorical reference) with Yaakov, as Pope, in charge of the nation's spiritual life, and Esav, as Emperor, responsible for feeding and protecting and otherwise sustaining the religious center.

Esav, having grown up in his father's tent, and eaten at his father's table, was aware of this plan, we can assume. The salt and straw midrash tells us that its author thought Esav was unhappy with this plan.

In the ancient world, salt and straw were important preservatives. Salt protected meat from spoiling, and straw was used as a packing material, or as insulation. Yitzchak planned for Esav to be Yaakov's protector, to serve as his straw and salt. The Midrash says Esav asked "How are straw and salt tithed (or "fixed" in the language of the original midrash) Conceptually, this is like asking "How are straw and salt brought into the relam of holiness?" By putting such a question in Esav's mouth, the author of the midrash is letting us know that, in his view, Esav wants something more. He doesn't want to spend his life merely sustaining Yaakov; instead, he wants a holy purpose, too.

I'll leave it to others to explain why, in the fullness of time, this more-positive image of Esav was lost. My guess it has to do with the fact that Esav was, at the turn of the millenium, linked with Rome. Before that association was made, I suppose, more positive opinions of Esav could be entertained. Not so once the Rabbis had paid themselves the compliment of associating the super-power of the day with their own great ancestor's twin brother. From then on Esav was evil, unmitigated, and unredeemable. The salt and straw midrash gives us a glimmer of another point of view.

When I used my blog to ask for help explaining why my friend the EE was misusing science, I expected to hear from the usual crop of well-read laymen, and over educated computer scientists. I did, and for the most part, their comments were clear and helpful, and greatly appreciated. What I did not expect, however, was a guest post from one of the preeminent mathematical physicists in the country. It arrived yesterday out of the clear blue sky and is published below: (Note: My discussion of the straw and salt midrash will continue later today)

Collected on the Internet: The rabbis teach that [Esav] did perform the mitzvah of honoring his father, and he even asked his father about the need to take tithes from salt and straw - which of course is completely unnecessary, and represented Eisav's ability to appear religious when it suited his purpose.

If you've studied Rashi as an adult, you know his commentary isn't an anthology of midrashim. Frequently, Rashi cites a midrash out of place or out of context. He'll change the meaning of a midrash, or choose one or two midrashim from among several on the same subject. Rashi does all of this, I believe, because in his commentary, midrashim are used for a specific purpose, namely, they serve to smooth out rough spots in the text, and to resolve difficulties in the language of the Torah.

Rashi's object, you see, isn't to share or to popularize midrashim, but to " give... Aggadah which serve to clarify the words of Scripture in a way which fits its words" (Gen 3:8)

The midrash cited at the begining of this post is, I believe, an example of Rashi doing violence to the plain meaning of the midrash for the sake of rescuing the text from a perceived anamoly. Gen 25:28 reads: "And Issac loved Esav because of the game in his mouth." (tzayid b'fiv) This is a hebrew idiom, which suggests Esav as either a kind of lion bringing home food in his mouth, or as a mother bird dropping worms into her chick's gapping beak. In either case, it's a material and, therefore, difficult explanation for Issac's favoritism. The plain language of the text make Issac look shallow, and weak, and more than a little absurd. For Rashi, this is unacceptable. Therefore he tells us "But, its [ie tzayid b'fiv's ] Midrashic interpretation is: "With the mouth of Eisv" [meaning] he would trap him and trick him with his words

Trap him and trick him how? The answer Rashi gives appears on the previous verse, Gen 25:27, where we're told that "Esav was skilled in trapping, a man of the field, and Jacob was a simple man, a dweller in tents." The perceived anamoly here is that the second part of the descriptions ("man of the field" and "dweller in tents") are roughly atithetical; the first parts ("skilled in trapping" and "simple man") are not.

The Hebrew adjective tam suggests integrity, or even innocence. To create a diametric opposition between the first and second parts of the description, "skilled in trapping" needs to be construed as the opposite of tam. Three examples of Esav's duplicity are provided in the midrash, and Rashi chooses one, and only one, to illustrate the point, writing " ..he would ask him: "Father, how are salt and hay tithed?" [Though, he actually knew that there is no requirement that these items be tithed.] His father would thereby think that he meticulously observed the mitzvos."

I don't know why Rashi selected the bit about the straw and hay over the two other examples of Esav's dishonesty provided by the Midrash, but I will argue in the next post that the story itself has been misunderstood by readers of Rashi.

And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land. Gen 12:6

Among the many delightful things I learned from Marc Shapiro's wonderful book was that before Moses ben Maimon emerged from his study* with his list of ikkarim (principles) Jews were very much deivided about what constituted heresy. Some Jews thought God might have corpreal qualities. Others were of the opinion that our Torah might not a letter-for-letter match with the Torah Moshe received at Sinai

One of these men was the Ibn Ezra**, an authentic and legitimate sage with a commentary that appears in the Mikraot Gedolot (The big book of authentic and legitimate bible commentaries.) On Gen 12:6 he says: “it is possible that the Canaanites seized the land of Canaan from some other tribe at that time (i.e. then, but not prior to this). Should this interpretation be incorrect, then this text contains a great secret and the wise man will remain silent.”

What is the Ibn Ezra's secret? To find it, we must unpack his comment:

...it is possible that the Canaanites seized the land of Canaan from some other tribe at that time.
The land the Torah calls Canaan was given, by Noah, to Shem. Canaan is a decendant of Ham, not Shem. Rashi tells us that Canaan conquered the land from Shem before Abraham arrived, and this is why the verse tells us "And the Canaanite was then in the land." The Ibn Ezra concedes this view might be right, and continues:

Should this interpretation be incorrect, then this text contains a great secret and the wise man will remain silent
What's the secret? Well, if the Cannaite had not yet conquered the land from Shem (as suggested by the appearence of MalkiTzedek later in the story) the Torah's statement is very strange indeed. Because, when the Torah was giventhe Canaanites were still in the land. The word "then", however, implies they are no longer in the land, suggesting that the last part of Gen 12:6 was added after Moshe.

======
* I'm being a bit facitious here. Initially, the Rambam's books were burned. His views didn't win the day until August 8, 1321 @ 9:29 am.

** Others who disagreed with the idea that the Torah we have is a letter-for-letter match with the Torah Moshe received include:

Talmudic and midrashic sources They list between 7 and 18 tikunei sofrim (scribal corrections) and 5 ittur sofrim (scribal omissions) Also, the Talmud quotes psukim that do not appear in that form in our Torah. The most famous example is in Sanhedrin 4b where Rabbi Yshmael derives a law from the spelling of the word totafos. However, in all known copies of the Bible the word is not spelled the way Rabbi Yishmael has it. There are about 20 example of this, and regarding this phenomenon Tosfot says Hashas shelonu cholek in haseforim shelonu (our gemrah disagrees with our books) Additionally, the Talmud tells us that three scrolls containing varient readings were once found in the Temple courtyard. The differences were resolved, in each instance, after the majority. It's unlikely that the result, in every instance, matched the original revelation.

Rav Yosef in Kiddushin 30a says: "They are expert in matters of defective and plene spelling; we are not expert." This refers to a system of using consonants to indicate certain vowels. Rav Yosef is saying we've forgotten the system.

Avot d'rabi Nathan and the Midrash Raba who both suggest Ezra, not Moshe, wrote the dotted words.

Some old Rashi manuscripts say outright that he believed that the Sages revered the writing of the Torah in some places

We also have a system in which marginal notes indicate that certain words are to be read differently than they are spelled in the text, called "kere and ketiv." Regarding this the Radak wrote: "It appears that these words are here because during the first Exile, books were misplaced and lost and scholars died; when the Great Assembly restored the Torah they found conflicting information in manuscripts and went according to the majority. "

In his introduction to Masoret Seyag LaTorah, the Ramah wrote: "If we seek to rely on the proofread scrolls in our possession, they are also in great disaccord. Were it not for the Masorah which serves as a fence around the Torah, almost no one would find his way in the controversies between the scrolls. Even the Masorah is not free from dispute, and there are several instances disputed [among the Masorah manuscripts], but not as many as among the scrolls. If a man wishes to write a halakhically "kosher" scroll, he will stumble on the plene and defective spellings and grope like a blind man through a fog of controversy; he will not succeed. Even if he seeks the aid of someone knowledgeable, he will not find such a one. "

R. Yom Tov Lipman Milhausen, in Tikkun Sefer Torah wrote: "Because of our many sins, the Torah has been forgotten and we can not find a kosher Torah scroll; the scribes are ignoramuses and the scholars pay no attention in this matter. Therefore I have toiled to find a Torah scroll with the proper letters, open and closed passages, but I have found none, not to mention a scroll which is accurate as to the plene and defective spellings, a subject completely lost to our entire generation."

If I had to choose, my least favorite verses in all of Torah would have to be the ones in this week's sedra about Canaan being cursed - not because of what they actually say, but because of how they are gleefully misrepresented and misapplied.

Noah, first of all, did not curse his son, in the sense of causing misfortune to befall his own offspring. Rather, writes Samson Rephael Hirsh, Noah simply announced that Canaam was doomed. With the words Arur Canaan Noah told us what he saw. He didn't cast a spell, or offer a prayer, or work any sort of charm. His utterance was merely the biblical equivlant of telling your child "Son, you'll never amount to anything."

Next, is the horrible institution this mistake has been used to serve. In the verse, Noah decrees that Canaan will be slave to Shem and Yefes, and this decree has been used for thousands of years by Jews, Christians and Muslims to justify black slavery. Odd, when you realize that Noah and his family are not described in racial terms. Support for the idea that Canaan turned black is found in the midrash (Breishis Rabba on 9:25) and in the Me'am Lo'ez, where insult is added to injury with the teaching that the black man is not just dark-skinned, thick-lipped, and kinky-haired, but also red eyed and unalterably immoral --all because of the curse.

Happily, there's help. Almost 1000 years ago(!) the Ibn Ezra warned against those who imagine that slavey and blackness are biblicaly linked. In his commentary to Genesis 9:24, he writes: "There are those who think that the black people (Cushim) are slaves because of Noah's curse. But they have forgotten that the very first king in the Torah after the Flood was from Cush," ie: black. (This was Nimrod)

The Ibn Ezra's point seems clear: Black slavery (and one might presume black skin, too) has nothing to do with Noah's curse. The very first king after the curse was from Cush; if the curse had any weight this would have been impossible. The Cushites would not have produced an globally-respected king.

The IE could have made the same argument by pointing out that Canaan --the one specifically cursed in the text-- is the only one of Ham's four children who is not the forefather of dark-skinned people, nor is he thought to be the forefather of Africans. Kush is west central Africa, Mizraim is Egypt and Put is Libya. Canaan, however, is not in Africa, but between the Jordan River and the Mediterranian Sea where people are more olive-colored than black. So the idea that Noah's curse made Canaan's skin turn black -and black Africans into slaves - appears to be defeated by the text itself.

Finally, we'd do well to remember that the only Biblical curse that specifically mentions a change in skin color is in 2 Kings 5:20-27 where Elisha punishes Gehazi - by giving him white skin.

By KRUM

Unfortunately, the previous installment of this post degenerated into an endless debate between GH, Daganev, lakewood yid, Chardal, retreading ground well covered in GH's blog. All of which having little to do with the post itself. Yet, I will soldier on.

The last of R' Keller's of the articles, called "The Attempted Synthesis of Torah and Evolution," is one the of the most mean-spirited pieces of writing from a Charedi that I've seen since, um, that nasty Yated piece a couple of weeks ago about YCT. And it follows along with the whole pattern of Charedi behavior with respect to the Slifkin ban -- ad hominem attacks, misrepresentations and playing fast and loose with language (e.g., calling an opinion "R' Avraham's ben HaRambam's position" when it was also held by the Geonim and the Rambam himself).

The key question facing those attempting to reconcile Torah and science is the propriety of a non-literal reading of Genesis. Many rishonim, most famously the Rambam and R' Saadiah Gaon, held that, within certain parameters, a non-literal interpretation of Torah is ok when a literal reading conflicts with reason. However, R' Keller's previous article assumed that the literal text of the Torah was itself a prove against evolution, making the Charedi position entirely circular: evolution is wrong because the Torah says so. But how do we know that the Torah says so? The second article doesn't do anything to shed light on this question. Instead it engages in name calling, ad hominem attacks and mischaracterization. In fact, the linchpin of the essay -- the RCA's recent statement on the permissibility of harmonizing evolution with Torah -- is truncated by R' Keller mid-sentence thereby omitting a reference to the just-described opinion of the Rambam on harmonizing Torah and reason. Also omitted from R' Keller's quotation of the RCA's statement is the citations to the views of R' Hirsch and R' Kook, allowing him to focus on the easier target cited in the statement -- R' Joseph Hertz, whose is treated with nothing more than sarcasm and disrespect. The article pokes fun at his rationalistic intepretation of miracles while ignoring the fact that such an approach is supported by such greats as the Rambam. Particularly amusing is his crticism of R' Hertz allegorization of "dust of the ground" from which God created Man. R' Keller claims that this is contrary to the Midrash that the dust was taken from "every part of the habitable earth." Of course the Midrash does not say that --it says that the dust was taken from the "four corners of the Earth" -- a phrase which is, of course, taken figuratively -- precisely what R' Hertz is criticized for doing with the pasuk itself. Another easy target, Shadal, is inexplicably dismissed as a Maskil, despite the fact that he lived in Italy, far from the Haskalah movement, and despite the fact that his views varied greatly from the views of the Maskilim.

There is also a veiled reference to Slifkin, referred to as "one of this school" who "has 'allegorized' Maasei Bereishis and written Ein Mukdam uneuchar baTorah - that the account of Creation in the the Torah is not in chronological order." No attempt is made at addressing Slifkin's arguments (supported by the Ralbag, the Rambam and R' Dessler), just a sarcastic dismissal: "This is absurd...It was only in God's mind!"

R' Keller also asserts that the RCA reference to the Rambam's statement that "what the Torah writes about the Account of Creation is not all to be taken literally, as believed by the masses" as supporting a non-literal reading of the biblical account of creation as "completely out of context." While R' Keller doesn't explain what the Rambam means by that statement, he ignores even clearer statements of the Rambam to the same effect:

Therefore the Almighty commenced Holy Writ with the description of the Creation, that is, with Physical Science; the subject being on the one hand most weighty and important, and on the other hand our means of fully comprehending those great problems being limited. He described those profound truths, which His Divine Wisdom found it necessary to communicate to us, in allegorical, figurative, and metaphorical language. Our Sages have said (Yemen Midrash on Gen. i. 1), "It is impossible to give a full account of the Creation to man. Therefore Scripture simply tells us, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. i. 1). ... It has been treated in metaphors in order that the uneducated may comprehend it according to the measure of their faculties and the feebleness of their apprehension, while educated persons may take it in a different sense.

While scholars up until today debate the Rambam's precise view on the interpretation of the first chapters of Bereishis, to say that he was a literalist is completley false. In fact, R' Keller's seems to acknowledge as much, stating that according to the Rambam the Creation account "was in logical order," not chronological (a position consistent with R' Slifkin's in The Challenge of Creation).

The most odious element of the article is its distortion of the intentions of those who seek a synthesis between Torah and evolution. For example, the RCA statement is characterized as "giving the...impression that the official Orthodox position is against intelligent design, and for the teaching of designerless evolution...". The statement does no such thing -- all it does is say that "evolutionary theory, properly understood," as well as a literal reading of Genesis, is a view supported in Jewish sources. Unfortunately, the Charedi world simply can't fathom the pluralism being expressed by the RCA and mistakes openness to evolution as advocacy of it.

Another example of this is R' Keller take on the RCA's reference to the traditional approach to Genesis as the "literalist position." R' Keller claims "many" use this phrase "most probably because they wish to distance themselved from the Conservative Christian Right who have been actively prmoting Intelligent Design. They are obviously more afraid of Biblical Literalism than they are of indirectly supporting the teaching of G-dless evolutionary theory. What they call literalism, we prefer to refer as peshuto shel mikra -the simple, undistorted understanding of Torah according to our mesora."

This statement is so confused that I don't know where to begin. The "literalist position" supports Intelligent Design? ID proponents do not read Geneisis literally. They accept the evidence of an old earth and the descent of species, they just hold that God was actively involved in the process. How is this consistent with a literalist position? And who is this unnamed "they" that are "more afraid of Biblical Literalism than they are of indirectly supporting the teraching og G-dless evolutionalry theory"? The RCA?

The worst example is the comparison of those who accept the evidence of an old univers to Holocaust deniers. I kid you not:

Unfortunately, we now have Jews questioining the age of the earth. But that does not change the fact that until the recent past, this was a universally accepted fact and this is out mesora. Tha universally accepted historical facts can be doubnted, we see illustrated in our time, when there are those who deny the Holocausett while people are still walking around with serial numbers on their arms.

There are no words.

It is not surprising that he would resort to such rhetoric when it comes to the age of the universe because, unlike evolution, the evidence for a very, very old world is overwhelming. When logic, fails, go for the gut, I guess. Lots of Jewish guilt, question marks and exclamtion points!:

Have the would-be synthesizers of Torah and science created a new "Tradition" that leaves the Chofetz Chaim, the Vilna Gaon, the Rishonim, the Gaonim and the Tanaaim and Amoraim outside the true tradition? Did they all not understand the Torah? Chas veshalom! And for what reason? Because scientists have come up with an unproven theory with many holes in it, based on chance, and their rejection of a Creator, are we now obligated to explain that theory without own theistic twist? Ands how will this help us? We still won't be accepted by the evolutionists, who refuse to listen to anything of the sort. If we believe in Hashem the Creator, why can't we believe that He created the world as the Torah and Chazal tell us: with Asara Maamaros --Ten expressions of His will? Did He have to take billions of years and have the intended final purpose of Creation -- Man -- emerge from an ape? What was wrong with what we have believed in for thousands of years: that Adam was yetzir kapov shel Hakadosh Baruch Hu -- the Handwork of the Holy One Blessed be He?"

There is really nothing to argue about, I guess. The mentality expressed in this passage is so committed to the nostalgia of ancient beliefs that arguments from science are simply irrelevant. There is such an investment in the abosulte pristine superhuman greatness of the "Choifetz Chaim, the Vilna Gaon, the Rishonim, the Gaonim and the Tanaaim and Amoraim" that any suggestion that they were wrong on scientific matters cannot be entertained.

This is why there can be no reasonable dialogue between this mindset and the approach represented by Slifkin and the RCA statement. It's really an old debate. Those that adopt the rationalist view of the Rambam and Saadiah hold that, with notable exceptions, Torah has to be made consistent with reason. To them, all of the citations to the "Chofetz Chaim, the Vilan Gaon, the Rishonim, the Gaonim and the Tanaaim and Amoraim" are irrelevant. Of course they thought the world was created in 5766 years. They simply didn't know what we know. Now that the evidence for an old world, or for evolution of species is clear, we must reinterpret accordingly. Such an approach to reason simply cannot be tolerated in the Charedi mindset embodied by the article and has a long pedigree of its own. The opinions handed down as part of the "mesora" trump reason. This is why one of Slifkin's greatest heresies was his position on Chazal's fallibility on scientific matters because it represents to elevation of reason over the mesora.

This is the crux of the debate. And it is ironic that in the pages and pages the JO devoted to the issue, this goes unmentioned.

Israel expands Lebanon ground war

The Midrash Raba says: Anyone who says God is not particular with his pious ones deserves to have his inwards torn out. The forbearance of God grants long credit, but the debt needs to be paid in the end. Jacob caused Esav to shed one tear, and that was repaid in Shushan when Esav's decendant caused Jacob's decendant to cry with a 'loud bitter cry."

I agree that Hezbollah needs to be destroyed. I support Israel's right to defend itself.This war is entirely Hezbollah's fault. Israel must not tolerate attacks on it's towns and cities. And so on. But God help us all if the brothers and the sisters of the non-militants who are being killed come together one day to create something even worse than Hezbollah.

I don't know the answer. I don't know how to wage a war without creating collateral damage. But I do know what the midrash says, and I know the history of the region. Again, and again, I must return to last week's rashi: Do not provoke them.