Reb Chaim HaQoton- ר' חיים הקטן

Why Chareidim are So Freaked Out About the Army

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:56:00 +0000

The following is a guest post written by the lovely Rebbetzin HaQoton. I feel that for many it is worthwhile to read:

Why Chareidim are So Freaked Out About the Army

Disclaimer: The following is nothing more than my own personal views. I speak only for myself. My intention is not to try to change anybody’s opinion on the matter; merely to explain what our own internal logic is.

Chareidi Ideology 101

Explaining why Chareidim react so strongly to serving in the army necessitates a background explanation of Chareidi ideology.

I view the State of Israel as a secular entity that’s separate from the religious entity of Eretz Yisrael. I believe that Eretz Yisrael is holy, a special place, designated for Jews, our homeland, and that there’s a religious preference to live there. However, I don’t see Eretz Yisrael as being interchangeable with the political/legal entity called the State of Israel/Medinat Yisrael. To me, the State sits on top of the physical land of Eretz Yisrael like a hat sits on a head. Therefore, I don’t view the State (and by extension, the army) as having religious significance. I view the State of Israel like I view the USA: it’s a country, I’m its citizen, I live there, it provides me with services, and in general I follow its laws.

While I don’t feel that the legal entity of the State of Israel is holy or religiously significant, I certainly believe that the Jews who live in it are! I make a distinction between the country and its inhabitants. Jews of every stripe and color are special, regardless of whether they are secular or religious. All Jews possess special souls, the attributes of mercy and kindness, an innate connection to G-d, and a desire to do what’s right. It’s undeniable that living in a place where much of the population is Jewish is an entirely different experience than living in a place populated mostly by non-Jews.

My first allegiance is to G-d and His rules as I perceive them. One of G-d’s rules is “dina dimalchusa dina” – that one is obligated to follow the secular law of the land. Therefore, I follow secular laws meticulously. However, I view G-d as the general, and the secular government as a lower ranking officer. If a lower ranking officer orders me to disobey the general, I will follow the general’s orders over those of the lower ranking officer.

Yes, there are scandals when Chareidim break secular laws. I view these crimes as an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a moral wrong, because one must follow secular rules unless there’s a religious conflict. Just because someone looks like a Chareidi, that doesn’t mean that they act as a Chareidi should. Chareidim are people, and like all people, some of us are nice, and some of us are jerks. Some do what they should, and some don’t. Nobody is perfect, Chareidim included. We are a group of individuals, not a nameless faceless uniform bloc. I am confident that most Chareidim are good and nice people, and that the occasional much publicized jerk or charlatan is the exception rather than the rule.

I view the lifestyle of men learning Torah as much as practical to be a moral imperative. One who studies math gains mathematical knowledge, and one who learns science gains scientific knowledge. But learning Torah results in much more than the mere acquisition of knowledge. I believe that Torah as a collective whole is a spiritual force; and that when one learns Torah he connects to this force. The entire universe, in all of its incredible complexity, is a reflection of the Torah. Torah is intertwined with the fabric of the universe, and with G-d Himself. Learning Torah affects the physical and the spiritual realms. By learning Torah one generates the spiritual force that keeps the universe in existence; and brings blessing and protection to oneself, one’s family, one’s city, and the Jewish people. Learning Torah is G-d’s will, and by doing His will, He, who controls everything will shower us with everything good.

Yes, this raises the age old question of why bad things happen to good people. It’s a very good question. Moshe himself asked it. One answer, in a nutshell, is that we don’t have the broad understanding of the past, present, future, physical world, and spiritual realms that G-d does. Just because something looks bad to us, that doesn’t mean that it actually is bad.

What About the Army?

First, let me state that I have a lot of gratitude to the State of Israel, the Israeli Army, and the chayalim for all that they do for me. They provide me with many services that enable me to live here, something which I view as very significant. For example, I am very glad to have subsidized health care, and I make good use of it. As for the chayalim, they serve with self-sacrifice. At best they sacrifice years of their life for the common good. Unfortunately, sometimes they also sacrifice life and limb. I am well aware that chayalim have families who worry about them, and live without their fathers/sons/husbands/brothers when they serve, both in regular army service and in milu'im.

However, just because an army is needed, it doesn’t follow that everyone needs to be in the army. It seems clear to me that army serves a twofold purpose: Firstly, it provides defense services. Secondly, it is culturally unifying. Army service is a rite of passage which bonds people together, makes them identify as Israeli, and gives them a propensity to refer to others as “Achi.” I believe that the army doesn’t actually need more manpower; and that therefore Chareidim are being drafted due to popular sentiment that we “share the burden,” and in order to integrate us into mainstream Israeli society.

However, we do not want to be integrated. We deliberately choose a life centered around the study of Torah and incorporation of every facet of our existence into our service of G-d. At least, that’s the goal. One of the main struggles in life is retaining sight of that goal. We view much of secular society as detrimental to our endeavor to live a life of holiness and divine service. Consequently, we voluntarily distance ourselves from secular culture and generally prefer to live, learn, and work amongst ourselves.

Therefore, the attempt to draft Chareidim en masse is seen as an attempt to forcibly change our entire culture and lifestyle, and integrate us into a society that we have ideological opposition to being a part of. It is viewed as an attempt to wrench thousands of men out of yeshiva, an act which is devastating to the spiritual wellbeing of both the individuals and the yeshiva network as a whole, which we view as our lifeblood. Not only do we place primary importance on men learning in yeshiva, but we view the army as an environment fraught with spiritual dangers. We are fighting for everything that we hold sacred and dear.

Why Chareidim are not Parasitic Leaches

The widespread Chareidi aversion to army service, coupled with our preference to learn rather than work, raises the obvious question of how Chareidim contribute to Israeli society. It certainly seems like we are parasitic: supported by taxes of hardworking Israelis and sacrifices of soldiers without giving anything in return.

However, I believe that Chareidim contribute a lot to Israeli society. The following are a few examples: First and foremost, the country and people of Israel need all of the help that they can get. I believe that G-d controls everything. Therefore, if we want things to be good, we should stay on His good side. What G-d wants is Torah learning, prayer, and adherence to His laws. We Chareidim are busy working on that.

Secondly, it is a fallacy that Chareidim don’t pay taxes. Israel has a 17% sales tax. We pay that tax on every item that we buy to feed and care for our (typically) large families. Other taxes, such as a tax on gas, get passed on to us, the consumers, in the form of higher prices on things such as bus fare. Furthermore, many Chareidim do work and pay taxes. Especially if the husband is learning, the wife is often working. Taxes are automatically deducted from paychecks.

Thirdly, Israel is a socialist county. As such, the government provides funding to myriad causes, and subsidizes many different services and amenities. I believe that the Chareidi sector is not receiving more money than any other sector, and is likely allocated less. I assure you that we are not living the good life on government money. Even with aliya benefits, the sum total of all the money that we personally receive from the government doesn’t even come near covering the cost of our groceries, not to mention rent and other expenses.

Fourthly, Chareidim play a large role in the war of demographics: I believe that we are the only group keeping up with the Arab birthrate. By extension, our need for housing creates “facts on the ground.” For example, I live in Beitar Illit, an exclusively Chareidi city in the West Bank (near the Gush) with a rapidly growing population currently numbering roughly 50,000 people. People from nearby settlements come to Beitar for things such as grocery shopping and medical care. Kiryat Sefer, also known as Modi'in Illit, is another exclusively Chareidi city in the West Bank whose population is similar to Beitar’s in size and growth.

The Legacy of Rabbi Yosef Sholom Elyashiv

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:29:00 +0000

The recent passing of Rabbi Yosef Sholom Elyashiv has brought mourning to World Jewry, especially to the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community. Many articles about Rav Elyashiv have appeared recently in the media and some of them require clarification on many points. Although I have only merited to meet Rav Elyashiv several times in my life (the last time occurring only a few weeks before he was hospitalized for his last time), many of my teacher and acquaintances are students and/or had much interaction with Rav Elyashiv. Many of the recent articles recently written about Rav Elyashiv contain facts which are simply mistaken or unclear in what they are attempting to preach. In order to better understand Rav Elyashiv's legacy, I suggest that one read the Hebrew Wikipedia article about him, it's a good place to begin (the English Wikipedia article is dearth in terms of its content). I would also like to try and clarify some of these points of contention. This is also a good start.

In an article for the Times of Israel, Matti Friedman writes (he also writes verbatim the same thing in this article):

Inside the Lithuanian ultra-Orthodox world, Elyashiv represented a hardline faction opposed to almost any encroaching of modernity into the insular community. This faction is identified with the city of Jerusalem, while its rivals, relative pragmatists, are largely grouped in Israel’s second ultra-Orthodox center in the city of Bnei Brak.

This rather simplistic analysis not only reflects an outdated stereotype but is simply factually wrong. The faction represented by Jerusalem in Friedman's generalization is most likely the Eidah Chareidis of Jerusalem, an anti-Zionist union of Jerusalemite communities famous for its prestigious Badatz Eida Chareidis Kosher certification and for staging protests against the State of Israel and others for perceived affronts to Shabbos, Tznius, and other basic tenets of Judaism (some of these protests have become quite violent which is for another discussion). This union is known for taking a fierce opposition to anything which brings even an iota of secular Israeli culture into the Jewish home. Rav Elyashiv was not a member of this union who did not accept Rav Elyashiv's rabbinic authority and largely seemed to detest his popularity within the mainstream Hareidi community (especially given that Rav Elyashiv lived in Meah Shearim, the bastion and center of the Eidah Chareidis' sphere of influence). Thus, Rav Elyashiv was hardly the typical "Yerushalmi extremist", his position was probably more like that of the mainstream Bnei Brak community than the mainstream Jerusalemite community (perhaps he was even more lenient and open-minded than they because he rejected many stringencies imposed by the Chazon Ish which are accepted by the Bnei Baraq community). Furthermore, Friedman's uninformed generalization ignores the large Hareidi communities of Kiryat Sefer (Modiin Illit), Beitar Illit, and Elad. Where do they fit into this imagined rivalry?

Friedman tries to have the read believe that Rav Elyashiv was ungrateful and disloyal to the State of Israel by implying that Rav Elyashiv was originally raised as a Religious Zionist and eventually turned his back on his upbringing to adopt a more insular view of Judaism. For exmaple, he writes:

Although he later helped steer Israel’s ultra-Orthodox toward a rejection of the State of Israel, Elyashiv began his rabbinic career in Israel as a protégé of religious Zionist rabbis and as an employee of the government’s religious court system. His marriage was conducted by Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Ha-Cohen Kook, the spiritual father of religious Zionism, and he was an early protégé of Israel’s first Ashkenazi chief rabbi, Isaac Herzog.
After Israel’s creation in 1948, Elyashiv was given a prominent post as a judge in the state-established High Rabbinic Court, part of an official religious system that existed parallel to the secular courts. Elyashiv’s first legal rulings came as a judge in the pay of the state he would later reject, and some were seen as notable for their leniency.

Friedman twice stresses in the above paragraphs that Rav Elyashiv was an "employee of the government" and that he originally served "in the pay of the state" before opting to reject the very source of his early employment (i.e. the Chief Rabbinate). Firstly, Rav Elyashiv had good reason to leave the service of the rabbinate system due to the politicization of that body as evident in the infamous case of the "Langer siblings" in which a certain candidate for Chief Rabbi (who shall remain nameless) essentially permitted a marriage which was clearly forbidden according to Torah Law. This case illustrated the detachment of the rabbinate from Jewish Law and its capitulation and allegiance to the Israeli government. Rav Elyashiv was not interested in politics, he was interested in Torah. Therefore, he duly resigned from his post in the rabbinic court. Interestingly, this article seems to lightly criticize Rav Elyashiv for not taking a more active role in govenment affairs (if I understood his intent correctly), but for one who understood Rav Elyashiv's goal and commitments, this criticism is quite laughable. Secondly, even after leaving the rabbinate, Rav Elyashiv exerted much influence of that institution; and in fact, Rabbi Yonah Metzger, who ascended to the Chief Ashkenazi Rabbinate of Israel due to the influence of Rav Elyashiv, recently spoke of Rav Elyashiv's reverence and respect for the office of Chief Rabbi (see here). Interestingly, it was due to Rav Elyashiv's influence that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef accepted the candidacy for Chief Rabbi of Israel.

A letter Rav Elyashiv wrote to Rabbi Ovadia Yosef telling the latter that it is a Mitzvah for him to run for Chief Rabbi. (Source: here) This letter was written in the midst of the Langer scandal.

Friedman stressed that Rav Elyashiv was particularly close with Rabbis Kook and Herzog who are recognized as early leaders of religious Zionism. My personal opinion is that it should be noted that should Rabbis Kook and Herzog have been judged by today's standards' they would very likely be considered "Hareidi" as opposed to "religious Zionist" despite their lasting influence on Religious Zionism, they were very much more Religious and less Zionist than the contemporary Religious Zionist camp. On the other hand, Rav Elyashiv was very much a part of the Jerusalemite community, in which he was raised and his father-in-law Rabbi Aryeh Levin was active, which opposed Zionism in many ways. In fact, Rabbi Elyashiv received his rabbinic ordination from Rabbi Reuven Zelig Bengis, who was the head of the anti-Zionist Eidah Chareidis. Two of Rav Elyashiv's daughters married the sons of prominent Hareidi Rabbis who were not at all associated with the the religious Zionist camp or the Israeli rabbinate (one daughter married Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, son of Rabbi Yaakov Yisroel Kanievsky who was recognized as the spiritual leader of mainstream Hareidim in Bne Baraq and another daughter married Rabbi Ezriel Auerbach, son of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, who was recognized as the posek of the mainstream Hareidim in Jerusalem). The marriage of his children obviously occured before his chasm from the rabbinate, thus even prominent Hareidi leaders had already deemed him worthy of marrying into their respective families.

Freidman continues:

His first ruling dealt with the case of a Yemeni girl who arrived in Israel after having been betrothed by her mother in Yemen to a man who subsequently converted to Islam. In Israel, her status was officially that of an aguna, a wife trapped in marriage, meaning that she could not marry again. Elyashiv found a way out, ruling that because the girl’s father had not been present and she was too young to agree herself to the marriage – she was perhaps 11, though no one knew her precise age – the marriage was annulled.

Although I'm sure that many details of this case have been left out, one who has studied the Talmudic tractates of Kiddushin or Yevamos would see that there is nothing really noteworthy in this ruling and Rav Elyashiv's early rulings cannot be identified with that of an "activist judge".

He continues and writes:

But the rabbi’s life took him and the ultra-Orthodox community in a different direction. Elyashiv left the state court system in the early 1970s, and as time went on his rulings became less inclined to solve problems than to maintain an approach toward Jewish law that was undiluted by practical considerations.

Friedman mentions nothing about the events leading up to Rav Elyashiv's break with the state court system. It is unclear what Friedman means when he wrote "and as time went on his rulings became less inclined to solve problems than to maintain an approach toward Jewish law that was undiluted by practical considerations". Perhaps his intent is that the alleged stringent bend of Rav Elyashiv's later rulings were less practical and created problems rather than solved them. However, the accusation that Rav Elyashiv adopted a stringent interpretation of Jewish Law is simply ludicrous because, as any serious scholar of Jewish Law knows, there are certain rulings of Rav Elyashiv which are considered quite lenient. Notably, Rav Elyashiv ruled that hot water running from a faucet is considered a Kli Sheni (כלי שני), while most other deciders of Halacha have ruled that such water is considered a Kli Rishon (כלי ראשון). Another is example is found in the law of the separation of meat and milk: According to Halacha, after eating meat one must wait six hours before eating milk products. Most poskim (see Dagul M'Rvava and Aruch HaShulchan to Yoreh Deah §89) understand that this means that one cannot begin a meal in which he will eat milk until six hours after he finished the meal in which he ate the meat. There is a leniency on which to rely whereby one can begin a meal in which he will eat milk six hours after he finished eating the meat. Rav Elyashiv ruled

Rav Elyashiv meeting with Israeli President Shimon Peres in 2009. (Source: here)

Another common misconception found in the media of late concerning Rav Elyashiv's death is really a general misunderstanding as to the nature of Hareidi culture. The media imagines as if there is a fight between various rabbis (notably between Rabbi Aharon Leib Steinmen and Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach, an older brother to Rav Elyashiv's son-in-law as manifested in their run to control the Hareidi newspaper industry, see here). However, the reality is that Hareidi Jewry is not monolithic and each community, each synagogue, and each yeshiva has its own rabbinic leaders whose opinions are respected and usually binding by their constituents. These rabbinic leaders tend to refer more complicated or general matters to higher rabbinic authorities (as opposed to the more basic and/or personal issues which they themselves usually rule on), it is quite understandable that not every rabbinic leader will be of the same opinions as his colleagues and certainly not every rabbinic leader will refer his questions to the same higher rabbinic authority. Therefore, there is not really a conflict over who will prevail as the successor to Rav Elyashiv, rather there are multiple higher authorities who will probably replace him as opposed to during the latter years of Rav Elyashiv's lifetime in which Rav Elyashiv himself came very close to being the undisputed higher rabbinic authority (simply because most rabbis deferred to him).

With this background, one can debunk the story told by Friedman:

Though ultra-Orthodox rabbis are often mistakenly seen by outsiders as absolute rulers of obedient flocks, Elyashiv’s conservative efforts in the years leading up to his death were frequently unsuccessful, according to the Bar-Ilan University scholar Kimmy Caplan.
An attempt he led to ban secular studies in girls’ high schools failed, for example, as did campaigns against cellphone and Internet use. Modernity and economic realities proved stronger than rabbinic strictures.

The truth is that even in Rav Elyashiv's lifetime, rabbinic leaders argued with his views and did not necessarily accept everything he said even if they respected him as a leader of World Jewry. Rather, rabbinic leaders usually ruled based on their own higher rabbinic authorities and based on the interests of their specific community or synagogue or yeshiva. Furthermore, rumors of foul play amongst the handlers of Rav Elyashiv and accusations that he was misfed information have led many people to outright reject most of what has been transmitted in Rav Elyashiv's name in his latter years simply because the veracity of the rulings said in his name have been called into question. It is well-known that many peoples with varying agendas have forged Rav Elyashiv's signature on public letters and on halachik responsa.

Another recent "obituary" about Rav Elyashiv attempts to paint the Hareidi population as mindless ignorant drones who do not even know the stances of their own leaders. The articles states:

But among the quarter million people who attended his funeral on Wednesday, how many knew what his halakhic rulings actually said? Not many, to judge by a group of young Haredi ‏(ultra-Orthodox‏) men we questioned during the procession. Not a single one could answer.

Firstly, I find it hard to believe that not many young Hareidi Jews are unfamiliar with the halachik rulings of Rav Elyashiv. I have been studying in Yeshiva since my early teenage years and the ruling of Rav Elyashiv were always prominently presented when analyzing halachik issues, even in instances when the prevailing halachik practice in not in accordance with Rav Elyashiv's view. Secondly, Rav Elyashiv was of the opinion that one's halachik decisions should be based on his own personal understanding of the issues involved (not including details which are dependent on facts, but rather in regard to details which are dependent on understanding of texts). Accordingly, on many issues Rav Elyashiv regularly retracted and amended his own halachik stance in order to fit with his understanding of the texts. Each time he learned something anew, he was ready to change his ruling on the topic if he felt that his newer understanding was more accurate. This is actually to Rav Elyashiv's merit that he had the humility to admit when he was wrong and change his rulings. Because of this "flip-flopping", it is sometimes unclear what exactly was Rav Elyashiv's final ruling on a given subject, different Rabbis might present Rav Elyashiv's stance in different way depending on when they heard a said ruling from Rav Elyashiv.

The article continues and cites an example of Rav Elyashiv's decisions:

For instance, he told several couples that instrumental music was forbidden at weddings in Jerusalem, as a sign of mourning for the destruction of the Temple. Once, he backed out of officiating at a wedding scheduled to take place the very next day after learning that the couple did intend to have a band. “They can find another rabbi,” he said.

The article implies that it was Rav Elyashiv's innovation to forbid musical instruments at weddings in Jerusalem. However, such a prohibition has been in effect already since at least the time of Rabbi Yehoshua Leib Diskin and is the accepted custom in Jerusalem.

In a "timeline" of Rav Elyashiv's life, one Haaretz article writes some interesting points which are not solid events like the rest of their "timeline" but are subjective descriptions of history intended to implicitly discredit Rav Elyashiv:

1994-1995 – Begins to slowly take over the leadership of the Lithuanian public
2001 – Elyashiv becomes "posek ha-dor," the leading authority on halakha
2003 – Set a precedent when he appointed the first ultra-Orthodox representative and relative Uri Lupolianski to replace Ehud Olmert as mayor of Jerusalem.

Some of these points need further clarification. How did the author of the article decide that it was during the years 1994 and 1995 that Rav Elyashiv "[b]egins to slowly take over the leadership of the Lithuanian public"? Is the leadership of the Lithuanian Jewry like a mob boss where one can "slowly take over" by, for example, "eliminating" competition? What steps did he supposedly take to achieve that goal and specifically during those years? Furthermore, the timeline states that Rav Elyashiv became the "posek ha-dor" in 2001. Who crowned him with such a title and why was it only decided that he should be the leading posek in 2001? Perhaps the author of the timeline intended to explain that Rav Elyashiv assumed greater responsibility in terms of halachik decisions upon the death of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (whose son is Rav Elyashiv's son-in-law) in 1994, by accepting the greater responsibility he began to "slowly take over..." Similarly, in 2001 World Jewry suffered the death of its preeminent Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Shach. Although he had been largely incapacitated since around 1995, his leadership was still strongly felt until his passing. Even though he primarily served as a Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Shach was also a political leader of the Hareidi world. Upon his passing, the mantle was passed to Rav Elyashiv and Rabbi Aharon Leib Steinmen. Perhaps this is the intent when the timeline mentions that Rav Elyashiv became the "posek ha-dor" in 2001, although one can argue that 2001 did not really bring about much change vis a vis his role as a posek in halacha.

The timelines states that Rav Elyashiv "set a precedent when he appointed the first ultra-Orthodox representative and relative Uri Lupolianski to replace Ehud Olmert as mayor of Jerusalem." How exactly did Rav Elyashiv "appoint" Rabbi Lupolianski as the mayor to replace Olmert? This point of the timeline suggests that Rav Elyashiv had some sort of mystical power to appoint people to elected positions. Lupolianski became mayor of Jerusalem because he was the deputy mayor and the mayor had to forfeit his position because he attained higher office. Then, there were regular elections which confirmed Lupolianski's in his position as mayor. He won an election fair and square. What was Rav Elyashiv's role in this? Perhaps he influenced the UTJ party to back Lupolianski as their candidate, but he most certainly did not "appoint" Lupolianski as the mayor. Accordingly, what did the article mean when it said that Rav Elyashiv "set a precedent" in doing so?

There is a lot more to write about, but I don't have more time. If someone notes something specific in the comments, I will try to my best to address their comments and questions...

After writing this article I found another article entitled, "Putting Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv in Context" which expressed much of the same ideas I wrote about here.

Qoton Qlassic: Holiday of Trees

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:22:00 +0000

Qoton Qlassic: Holiday of Trees

In honor of the holiday of Tu B'Shvat, I recently updated an old essay about Tu B'Shvat. Besides being published here on Reb Chaim HaQoton, this essay was also featured in the “Young Israel Tu B’Shvat Virtual Sourcebook” for 2008 and 2009 (see http://www.youngisraelrabbis.org.il/downloads/TBS/). It was also printed as part of my anthology, Prophecies of the Oracle and other Torah Essays (Lakewood/Los Angeles, 2011).

For a more extensive discussion of Tu B’Shvat and its meaning and customs, see Rabbi Avrohom Dovid Mandelbaum's Birkas Dovid (Bnei Baraq, 2002).

Was Avraham a Lamdan?

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:14:00 +0000

This blog post on the Seforim blog discusses the historical attitudes towards Drash in reconciling the Written Torah with the Oral Torah. I would like to note that we have quite a few examples here on Reb Chaim HaQoton of the type of pilpul which he describes (most of these were even written before the seforim he mentions were published!).
See
Relations of Humankind
Resting on the Seventh Day
Pre-Sinaitic Jewry
The Daughter of Abraham
Eating the Nerve
Marriage and Divorce in Egypt
Satmar and Slavery
Pre-Sinaitic Halacha
Tithes and Charity
Converting in Egypt
On the Road to Egypt

Salamandra and the Flames of Hell

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:49:00 +0000

Salamandra and the Flames of Hell

The Midrash Tanchuma records[1] that there are some creatures which are native to air and some creatures which are native to fire. Those creatures which are native to fire die when exposed to the air. An example of such a creature is the Salamandra:[2] when a glassblower ignites his furnace for seven consecutive days and nights this mouse-like creature[3] emerges from the fire[4]. When smeared with the blood of a Salamandra or concealed by its limbs, one becomes resistant to fire. Based on this, the Talmud[5] presents an a fortiori logical argument[6] to prove that the fires of Gehinnom (Hell) cannot affect a Torah Scholar. The Talmud reasons that just as one who anoints oneself with the blood of a Salamandra, who is born from fire, is rendered immune to the effects of fire, so too a Torah Scholar, who is entirely comprised of fire—for the Torah itself is considered to be fire[7]—is certainly immune to fire’s burn[8].

Rashi in Tractate Chagigah[9] explains that a Salamandra is a creature born from a fire which has burnt continuously in one place for seven years[10]. Rashi also writes in Sanhedrin[11] that it is a small creature which emerges from an oven whose fire has been burning for seven consecutive years, and with whose blood can one become immune to the burn of fire. However, in Tractate Chullin[12] Rashi explains that a Salamandra is formed from burning myrtle wood using witchcraft[13]. Some Rabbis note[14] that Rashi seems to contradict himself, for in two instances he writes that a Salamandra is formed from a seven-year old fire, while in another he writes that it is created by burning myrtle wood and witchcraft[15]. Rabbi Moshe Sofer (1762-1839) reconciles[16] Rashi’s stance. He explains that really the Salamandra is created from fire at “the well-known mountains of fire”, but since the Salamandra cannot survive outside of their natural habitat, witchcraft is required to summon them from “the mountains of fire.” Furthermore, in order to insure the summoned Salamandra’s survival outside of their native habitat, those involved in witchcraft provide the summoned Salamandra with the suitably fiery environment of myrtle wood that has burnt for seven years. Myrtle wood that has burned for so long reaches the epitome of fire and mimics the Salamandra’s fiery native habitat. Thus, Rabbi Sofer concludes that both passages of Rashi do not contradict each other, rather they complement each other.

The “well-known mountains of fire” to which Rabbi Sofer refers are mentioned in the writings of Rabbeinu Gershon ben Shlomo Catalan (son-in-law of Nachmanides, father of Gersonides) who writes[17] that the Salamandra is found in a mountain made up entirely of burning sulfur, known as Balkin[18]. The mountain burns day and night, and from it the Salamandra is formed. Rabbeinu Gershon also mentions that Salamandra is a known poison[19], but that its skin has some healing properties. He further writes that clothing made from its skin cannot be burnt, so when it is dirtied, it can be cleaned in fire. Similarly, the Zohar[20] asserts that clothing made from the skin of Salamandra can only[21] be cleaned in fire, for the fire will burn all the grime which clings to it, but the actual garment will remain unscathed[22],[23].

The Talmud relates[24] that King Ahaz wanted to offer his son Hezekiah as a burnt sacrifice to Molech[25], but Hezekiah’s mother smeared him with Salamandra blood and he survived the fire. Elsewhere, the Talmud relates[26] that later, as king, Hezekiah saw through divine prophecy that he was destined to sire an evil son. One can ask how Hezekiah could receive prophecy, if he was smeared with the blood of Salamandra, an impure insect, which rendered him impure and purity is required to receive prophecy[27]. Rabbi Chanoch Zundel of Bialystock (d. 1867) answers[28], in the name of the author of Ramat Shmuel, that since a Salamandra is engendered by fire, then just as fire cannot become ritually impure[29], so too a Salamandra, which issues from it, is not ritually impure. However, this idea stands in contrast to the words of the Talmud in Chullin (cited above) that a Salamandra is one of the eight ritually impure insects. Based on this question and on the abovementioned contradiction between the passages of Rashi, Rabbi Eliezer Yehuda Walldenberg (1915-2006) concludes[30] that there are two types of Salamandra[31]. The first type of Salamandra is created naturally from a fire which burns for seven years. This type of Salamandra does not exude ritual impurity upon its death because it is created from fire, and fire is considered pure. The second type of Salamandra is created from burning Myrtle wood through witchcraft. This type of Salamandra is indeed ritually impure. Therefore, explains, Rabbi Walldenberg, one can answer that Hezekiah was coated in the blood of the first type of Salamandra because it is not ritually impure.

According to this Rabbi Walldenberg resolves the seeming contradiction in the passages of Rashi (mentioned above) concerning the origins of the Salamandra. In Tractate Chullin, when the Talmud mentioned that Salamandra is an impure insect, Rashi explained that a Salamandra is created through witchery. This is because only the type of Salamandra which is created through witchcraft is indeed ritually impure. However, in Tractate Sanhedrin when explaining the Salamandra whose blood was smeared upon Hezekiah, Rashi explains that a Salamandra is created from a fire that burns for seven years. This is because only such a Salamandra is not ritually impure[32]. In explaining so, Rashi is attempting to answer the Ramat Shmuel’s question. Also, in Tractate Chagigah, Rashi explained that the Salamandra emerges from a fire which burns for seven years. This is because there the Talmud is using the Salamandra as a source for teaching that a Torah Scholar is immune to the fires of hell. Since it is not befitting to compare a Torah Scholar to something created through witchcraft, Rashi specifically explained there that a Salamandra is created from a seven-year old fire.

The Talmud[33] presents another a fortiori argument, in the name of Raish Lakish, to prove that the flames of Hell cannot even affect Jewish sinners. He reasons that this is derived from the Altar in the Holy Temple, for the Altar was mainly of wood and had only a thin coating of gold, yet the altar did not char due to the fire burning upon it. So too, a Jewish who is mainly a sinner, but is nonetheless filled with numerous good deeds as a pomegranate is filled with seeds, cannot be affected by the flames of Hell[34]. However, one can question the logic of this argument because perhaps one can claim that the altar was not protected from fire by its thin gold coating; rather, it was coated in the blood of a Salamandra which rendered it resistant to fire[35]. One can possibly answer this question based on the words of Rabbi Binyamin Mussafia (1606-1675) who wrote[36] that indeed the Salamandra, due to its dampness and cold-blooded reptilian nature, is resistant to fire, but is not completely immune to it. Therefore, he writes that a Salamandra would not burn unless it is inside a fire for a long time. Accordingly, one can answer that coating the altar with Salamandra’s blood would not have helped protect it from the constant fires which burned upon it, long-term. Therefore it would have been impossible to claim that the altar was protected by a coating of Salamandra blood instead of its thin golden coating.

The story of Abraham surviving the fiery furnace was only recorded in Midrashic sources, but was omitted from the Written Torah[37]. Rabbi Shlomo Tzvi Shick explains[38] this is because had the story been included in the Written Torah, one could have argued that Abraham did not really give up his life by jumping into the fiery furnace only to be miraculously saved; rather, he covered himself with Salamandra blood and jumped into the furnace and survived. By arguing that the blood of the Salamandra insured Abraham’s survival, one can easily dismiss HaShem’s role in this great miracle[39]. To avoid such denial of divine intervention, the story was excluded from the Written Torah. The Midrash relates[40] that Abraham was jailed in the fiery furnace for three days and nights. One can ask why he was specifically locked up for three days and nights, if should the fire not affect him in the first moment of his entrance into the furnace, forcing him to stay longer would surely accomplish nothing more. However, according to Rabbi Shick’s explanation coupled with the words of Rabbi Binyamin Mussafia, one can explain that Nimrod’s court thought that perhaps Abraham would coat himself with the blood of Salamandra in order to survive the ordeal. However, if immersed in a powerful fire for three days, he would still get burnt because the Salamandra blood can only resist fire, but immunize against it. Thus, to circumvent this possibility of survival, Abraham was sentenced to be thrown in the furnace for three days, to insure his death. However, due to divine intervention, he was saved from the flames and continued to spread monotheism to the civilized world.

Another answer is offered by Rabbi Yosef Chaim of Baghdad (1832-1909), who defends[41] the Talmud’s argument by explaining that the altar could not have possibly been protected from fire through Salamandra’s blood because the blood of Salamandra can only protect living beings from being burnt. Therefore, since the altar was an inanimate object, the Salamandra’s fire-resistant powers could not shield it from its own fires. Rabbi Yosef Chaim proves his assertion that non-living items cannot be protected from fire through the Salamandra’s blood from the fact that the Sages knew before the destruction of the Second Holy Temple that its conflagration was imminent[42] , yet they did not seek to protect the Temple’s building by daubing it with Salamandra’s blood. This was because the Salamandra’s blood only helps to protect living creatures from fire, but not non-living entities. Therefore, one must explain that altar was not singed by the flames which burned atop it because of its thin gold coating. From here, the Talmud derives the abovementioned lesson about Jewish sinners[43].
However, Rabbi Walldenberg casts doubt upon the idea presented by Rabbi Yosef Chaim of Baghdad based on a story related by Rabbi Yehuda HaChossid[44]. He recounts[45] a tale in which a certain Christian claimed to have found the cloak of their false god Jesus. He proved the cloak’s godliness by showing that the cloak was not burnt when thrown into a fire. The priests of the town then forced all the Jews to acknowledge the holiness of their “savior’s” cloak. One Jewish scholar asked of them to hand him the cloak and he will show them what will be of it. When they handed him the cloak, he took strong vinegar and soap and cleaned the cloak while they watched. When he finished, he threw the cloak into the fire and it was completely burnt. They asked him why he thought to thoroughly clean the garment. He responded that he realized that it was coated in Salamandra’s blood which rendered it resistant to fire. However, he explained, that once the blood was vigorously scrubbed off, the cloak would be vulnerable to the flames like any other article of clothing. With this, the Jewish scholar disproved the divinity of the cloak. From this story, Rabbi Walldenberg notes, it is evident that the Salamandra’s blood can indeed protect even non-living items, such as clothing, from the effects of a fire[46].

Although Rabbi Walldenberg does not cite this source, there is, ostensibly another source from which it is evident that Salamandra’s blood can protect even inanimate items. Moses saw a bush which was burning, but remained unaffected by the fire, for the fire did not consume the bush. After seeing this awesome sight, he decided to move closer to see whether indeed such an occurrence can happen. Rabbi Yitzchok Karo (1458-1535) asks[47] if even from afar Moses had already seen that indeed the bush was ablaze yet the fire did not burn it, for what purpose did Moses approach the burning bush. Rabbi Karo explains that Moses wondered whether this occurrence was supernatural, a result of a special miraculous phenomenon, or was the bush not being burnt simply because it had been covered in the blood of the Salamandra, which rendered it immune to the effects of the fire. For this reason, Moses approached the burning bush so that he may satisfy his curiosity and discern whether or not the bush was coated with Salamandra blood. From here one sees that even an inanimate object, such as a bush, can be protected through the blood of Salamandra. However, one can nonetheless argue that flora, although inanimate, can hardly be considered non-living because plants grow and do contain life in them. However, clothing—which even if made from animal fur/skin or even flax/cotton—has been completely detached from any life form and cannot be considered living, just as the wood and stone from which the Holy Temple and altar were built cannot be considered living.

Verifying the Salamandra Story

In addition to the many sources in Jewish writings who discuss the Salamandra, many non-Jewish sources also attest to the creatures’ existence. Aristotle (384 BC- 322 BC), a famous Greek philosopher, writes[48]:

"In Cyprus, in places where copper-ore is smelted, with heaps of the ore piled on day after day, an animal is engendered in the fire, somewhat larger than a blue bottle fly, furnished with wings, which can hop or crawl through the fire. And the grubs and these latter animals perish when you keep the one away from the fire... Now the Salamandra is a clear case in point, to show us that animals do actually exist that fire cannot destroy; for this creature, so the story goes, not only walks through the fire but puts it out in doing so."

Pliny the Elder (23-79), a later Greek philosopher and scientist, writes[49]:

"As for example: the Salamandra made in fashion of a Lizard, marked with spots like to stars, never comes abroad and sheweth it selfe but in great showers; for in faire weather he is not seene. He is of so cold a complexion, that if hee do but touch the fire, hee wil quench it as presently, as if yce were put into it. The Salamandra casteth up at the mouth a certaine venomous matter like unto milke, let it but once touch any bare part of a man or womans bodie, all the haire will fall off: and the part so touched will change the colour of the skin to the white morphew."

Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519), the famous Italian scientist from the Renaissance Period, also mentions the Salamandra in his writings. He wrote[50]:"THE SALAMANDER. This has no digestive organs, and gets no food but from the fire, in which it constantly renews its scaly skin. The Salamandraander, which renews its scaly skin in the fire,--for virtue." However, an earlier source, Marco Polo (1254-1324), the famous European explorer who traveled to the Near East and Far East rejected accounts of the existence of such a creature. He wrote in his diary[51]:

"And you must know that in the same mountain there is a vein of the substance from which Salamandraander is made. For the real truth is that the Salamandraander is no beast, as they allege in our part of the world, but is a substance found in the earth; and I will tell you about it. Everybody must be aware that it can be no animal's nature to live in fire, seeing that every animal is composed of all the four elements. Now I, Marco Polo, had a Turkish acquaintance of the name of Zurficar, and he was a very clever fellow. And this Turk related to Messer Marco Polo how he had lived three years in that region on behalf of the Great Kaan, in order to procure those Salamandraanders for him. He said that the way they got them was by digging in that mountain till they found a certain vein. The substance of this vein was then taken and crushed, and when so treated it divides as it were into fibres of wool, which they set forth to dry. When dry, these fibres were pounded in a great copper mortar, and then washed, so as to remove all the earth and to leave only the fibres like fibres of wool. These were then spun, and made into napkins. When first made these napkins are not very white, but by putting them into the fire for a while they come out as white as snow. And so again whenever they become dirty they are bleached by being put in the fire. Now this, and nought else, is the truth about the Salamandraander, and the people of the country all say the same. Any other account of the matter is fabulous nonsense. And I may add that they have at Rome a napkin of this stuff, which the Grand Kaan sent to the Pope to make a wrapper for the Holy Sudarium of Jesus Christ. We will now quit this subject, and I will proceed with my account of the countries lying in the direction between north-east and east."

Contemporary science, for the most part, tends to assume like Marco Polo’s assertion that the
Salamandra is simply a myth. For a more extensive treatment of this topic in light of contemporary research and analysis, see Sacred Monsters (Chapter 13, “The Secret of the Salamandraander”) by Natan Slifkin (2007). Slifkin maintains that the intent of Rabbi Binyamin Mussafia (mentioned above) was to say that the rabbinic tradition regarding Salamandra is in error, for the Salamandra is not really immune to the effects of fire, it simply can withstand its effects for a while.

Rabbeinu Bachaya ben Asher (1260-1340) writes[52] that a Salamandra is a type of tzav (turtle) and is referred to when the Torah writes[53] “the turtle, according to their species”. His source is the Talmud[54] and Toras Kohanim[55] which expound “according to their species” (mentioned in regard to the tzav) to include the Salamandra as a type of impure insect. Indeed, the Midrash[56] tells that when HaShem showed Moses all the impure insects, He even showed him a Salamandra which emerged from fire. However, Tosafos[57] mention that the Sefer HaAruch, written by Rabbeinu Nosson ben Yechiel of Rome (1035-1106), writes[58] that Targum Yonason to Leviticus 11:29 translates “achbar” (mouse) as Salamandra[59]. This position is supported by the Midrash Tanchuma (cited in the beginning) that the Salamandra is a mouse-like creature. Rabbi Aryeh Leib Ginzburg of Metz (1695-1785) already mentioned[60] this inconsistency between the Talmud and the Midrash whether a Salamandra is a type of tzav or a type of akhbar. It has been suggested that this inconsistency reflects the two types of Salamandra as mentioned earlier. Whilst one can argue that the Midrash about Moses is referring to the impure type of Salamandra while the Midrash Tanchuma refers to the ritually pure type of Salamdanra, the commentaries obviously take a different approach. That is, both Rabbeinu Bachaya who classifies a Salamandra as a type of turtle and Rabbeinu Nosson who characterizes a Salamandra as a type of mouse are both referring to the type of Salamandra which is ritually impure[61]. Interestingly, Rabbi Shalom Moskowitz of Shatz (1878-1958) testifies[62] to having seen a Salamandra in a British Aquarium and was surprised to see that it is a fish/crustacean.

[1] Midrash Tanchuma, VaYeishev §3
[2] See Rabbeinu Bachaya (Leviticus 11:2) who compares this to a fish in the sea, who upon exiting the water dies upon exposure to air.
[3] Some editions of Midrash Tanchuma read “spider-like creature”.
[4] Rabbi Eliezer of Worms (Pirush Rokeach to Haggadah Shel Pesach, Kiddush) writes that HaShem made creations which in turn can create other elements. As an example, he writes that HaShem created fire from which Salamandra is made. Many other medieval authorities also mention that the Salamandra is created from elemental fire including the Siddur ascribed to the Raavan (Genuzos, vol. 3, pg. 54, Rabbi Moshe Hirschler, Jerusalem, 1991) and Rabbi Yehoshua ibn Shoeb (Drashos Ibn Shoeb, Parshas Behar-Bechukosai). However, see Sefer HaBris by Rabbi Eliyahu Pinchas of Vilna (a contemporary of the Vilna Gaon) who writes (Vol. 1, Maamar 14, Chapter. 8) that the existence of the Salamandra proves the concept of spontaneous generation, i.e. ex nihilo, from nothing as opposed to from the fire.
[5] Chagigah 27a
[6] This is one of the thirteen hermeneutical methods of expounding on the Torah. It is known in Hebrew as a Kal V’Chomer.
[7] See Jeremiah 23:29, Deuteronomy 33:2; 4:24 and Obadiah 1:18 which refer to the Words of Hashem and the Torah as fire.
[8] See Maharsha (to Chagigah 27a) who explains that this refers even to a Torah Scholar who became a sinner. However, Rabbi Yosef of Trani (response Maharit, vol. 1, §100) elaborates on the Talmud’s comparison between the Salamandra’s resistance to fire and a Torah Scholar’s resistance to the flames of hell. There he writes that just as one can only extract a Salamandra’s blood for use of fire-proofing while the Salamandra is immersed in a fire, so too a Torah Scholar’s immunity from the fires of hell are only when the Torah Scholar is immersed completely in the “tent” of his studies.
[9] Chagigah 27a
[10] Although Rashi writes seven years, the Midrash Tanchuma cited in the beginning maintains that a Salamandra only takes seven days to develop. Interestingly, in one print, Rabbeinu Bachaya in Kad HaQemach, s.v. Pesach (1) (Lemberg, 1892) writes that it takes seven days to create a Salamandra; but in other editions, Rabbeinu Bachaya reads seven years (see Kad HaQemach ibid. included in Mossad HaRav Kook’s Writings of Rabbeinu Bachaya by Rabbi Chaim Dov Chavel, pg. 310). In his commentary to the Pentateuch (to Leviticus 11:2), Rabbeinu Bachaya writes seven years.
[11] Sanhedrin 63b
[12] Chullin 127a
[13] Rabbi Shmuel Yitzchok Hillman (1868-1953), Dayan of London, asks (Ohr HaYashar to Chullin 127a) why the appearances of Salamandras are not heard of nowadays if the fires in metalsmiths surely burn for seven years. Based on this passage of Rashi, Rabbi Hillman answers that these fires are not sustained by Myrtle wood and witchcraft is not used. This matter requires further examination in light of the other passages of Rashi which seem to contradict this passage of Rashi. On the surface it seems as if Rabbi Hillman’s question is based on a syllogistic fallacy because he assumes that since Rashi writes that a Salamandra arises from a seven-year old fire, then every seven-year old fire should be producing fires. However, in reality, Rashi only meant to explain that a seven-year old fire is the source of the Salamandra, but in no way does Rashi ever seem to imply that every seven-year old fire should produce a Salamandra.
[14] See Gilyon HaShas (Chagigah 27a) by Rabbi Akiva Eiger (1761-1838) and Hagahos Mahartz Chayos (Chullin 127a) by Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Chajes (1805-1855) who mention this discrepancy.
[15] Rabbi Yosef Rozin (1858-1936) answers (response Tzfnas Paneach, §234, Warsaw ed.) that anything which is to be considered of farfetched origin can be referred to as having been created through witchcraft, even though it was actually created through natural means.
[16] Chasam Sofer to Chullin 127a
[17] Sha’ar HaShomayim, Maamar 4, pg. 31 (Warsaw, 1875)
[18] This is seemingly a reference to the Balkan Mountains range in Southeastern Europe. Alternatively, one can conjecture that the word “Balkin” can be read “Vulcan” which refers to the Roman God of Fire. The word “Volcano” likely evolved from his name and a volcano can reasonably be referred to as a mountain of fire. In fact, many volcanoes exist in Italy and its surrounding areas, including Sicily. Augustine of Hippo (354-430), an early Christian theologian, actually mentions the Salamandra in conjunction with firey mountains in Sicily. He writes (The City of God, Book 11, Chapter 4, translated by Marcus Duds):
"If, therefore, the Salamander lives in fire, as naturalists have recorded, and if certain famous mountains of Sicily have been continually on fire from the remotest antiquity until now, and yet remain entire, these are sufficiently convincing examples that everything which burns is not consumed. As the soul too, is a proof that not everything which can suffer pain can also die, why then do they yet demand that we produce real examples to prove that it is not incredible that the bodies of men condemned to everlasting punishment may retain their soul in the fire, may burn without being consumed, and may suffer without perishing?"
Ostensibly, these fiery mountains refer to the volcanoes of Italy. One the other hand, Rabbi Avrohom Kramer (1749-1808), son of the Vilna Gaon, quotes the words of Rabbeinu Gershon, but mentions the mountain’s name as “Bilka” not “Balkin” (see Kovetz Yeshurun, Vol. 5, pg. 101, Jerusalem, 1999).
[19] Pliny the Elder (23-79), a famous Greek philosopher, also mentions (Natural History, Book 11, Chapter 53) the poisonous properties of the Salamandra.
[20] Exodus 210b
[21] It is unclear why this is a reason that the garment can only be cleaned in a fire, it only explains why the garment can be cleaned in a fire.
[22] Rabbi Chanoch Zundel also writes (Anaf Yosef to Chagigah 27a) in the name of Rabbi Moshe de-Leon (1250-1305), revealer of the Zohar, in HaNefesh HaChochma that clothing made from the wool of Salamandra can only be cleaned while inside a fire. His words are quoted in full in a footnote to Toras HaMincha, vol. 2, pg. 423 (written by Rabbeinu Yaakov ben Chananel Silki, a student of the Rashba; published in Safed, 1991).
[23] Rabbeinu Gershon also writes that ibn Sinai also mentions the Salamandra. ibn Sinai (or ibn Sina) is known in the Western World as Avicenna. In his work “Treatise of the Birds” he writes, “Like a Salamandraander, be in the middle of fire so no harm can upon tomorrow.” This is a clear reference to the Salamandra and is probably that of which Rabbeinu Gershon is speaking.
[24] Sanhedrin 63b
[25] See Leviticus 20:2 and Deuteronomy 18:10 which proscribe the Molech idolatry whereby one passes one’s son through a fire. It is documented (Kings 2 16:3) that King Ahaz had sinned with the idol of Molech by offering his son. Since nowhere else is another child of Ahaz mentioned, this must refer to Hezekiah. Rashi (to Sanhedrin 63b) explains that this is the Talmud’s source in explaining that Hezekiah was offered to Molech. However see Margolios Yam (Sanhedrin 63b, §19) by Rabbi Reuven Margolis (Mossad HaRav Kook, Jerusalem, 1977) who questions Rashi’s assumption that Hezekiah was Ahaz’s only son. Rabbi Eliezer Yehuda Walldenberg (cited below) also discusses this point. Interestingly, Rabbi Yoseph Karo (Kesef Mishnah, Avoda Zara 6:3), Rabbi Menachem Meiri (Bais HaBechira to Sanhedrin 64a) and Chiddushei HaRan (Sanhedrin 64b) write that Hezekiah was not offered to Molech, but rather to another sort of idolatry, who was worshipped similarly.
[26] Brachos 10a
[27] He assumes that purity is required in order to receive prophecy. One can question the assumption that purity is required in order to receive divine prophecy because Rashi (to Numbers 12:4) explains that HaShem appeared suddenly to Aaron and Miriam while they were still impure from having engaged in marital relations with their spouses and they were screaming “water, water”. This implies that prophecy is possible even when in a state of ritual impurity.
[28] Anaf Yosef to Chullin 127a. Rabbi Yaakov Culi (d. 1732) in Yalkut Meam Loez (Kings 2 16:3) also brings this question and answer. See also Rabbi Gershon Stern’s Yalkut HaGershoni, Aggados HaShas to Chagigah 27a (Sighet, 1922), Kisvei Kehillos Yaakov HaChadash (Siyum to Chagigah) by the Steipler Gaon, Rabbi Yaakov Yisroel Kanievsky (1899–1985), and Pardes Yosef (Leviticus 11:29) who discuss whether one is allowed to eat a Salamandra.
[29] See Sanhedrin 39a where fire is used to purify from ritual impurity just as the waters of a Mikvah are used to purify from ritual impurity.
[30] Responsa Tzitz Eliezer Vol. 17, §34
[31] Rabbi Yitzchok Goyta in Sdeh Yitzchok, Vol. 3, Chagigah 27a (Vienna, 1851) arrives to the same conclusion, but does not elaborate as much on it.
In keeping with the Talmudic analogy, Rabbi Avraham Yitzchok HaKohen Kook (1865-1935), Chief Rabbi of Palestine, writes that just as there are two types of Salamandra, there are also two types of Torah Scholars: One type of Salamandra is created through seven years of burning fire. This is analgous to a Torah Scholar who "burned" for many years through hard work and toil to become a Torah Scholar. The other type of Salamandra is created through witchcraft and trickery. This represents one who passes himself off as a Torah Scholar through deceit and sleight of hand. [SOURCE: http://books.google.co.il/books?id=D6LXAAAAMAAJ&q=%D7%A1%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%90&dq=%D7%A1%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%90&hl=en&ei=JHacTcqVN8jg4waupbCVBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCA ]
[32] Nachmanides (Ramban to Leviticus 18:21) writes that the Salamandra whose blood was smeared on Hezekiah was created miraculously by HaShem for this specific purpose.
[33] Chagigah 27a
[34] Chasam Sofer (Chullin 127a) highlights out a tidbit of Mussar in comparing these two passages in the Talmud: The Torah Scholar’s immunity to the flames of hell is derived from the Salamandra’s ability to withstand fire. This is a natural resistance. However, the Jewish sinner’s resistance to the inferno of hell is derived from the altar’s ability to endure the fires burning upon it. The altar’s ability to do so is not natural, rather it is miraculous. This illustrates the difference between a Torah Scholar’s immunity to Hell and the Jewish sinner’s immunity; the Torah Scholar’s immunity is natural, whilst the Jewish sinner’s immunity requires special divine intervention to create a miracle contrary to the rules of nature.
[35] Rabbi Yosef Shaul Nathanson (1808-1875) in Divrei Shaul (to Chagigah 27a) relates that a young man once asked him this question and answered that since a Salamandra is an impure animal, then its blood is ritually impure and therefore was not smeared on the altar, for it would defile the altar. To explain the Talmud’s reference to Salamandra, Tosafos (Chagigah 27a) quoted the words of the Aruch. As mentioned below, the Aruch understood that Salamandra is a type of mouse and is one of the eight insects specified by the Torah as being ritually impure. The young man explained that by alluding to the Salamandra’s ritual impurity, Tosafos was actually hinting to his question and answer. However, Rabbi Nathanson rejects the young man’s answer because, as he proves, the altar cannot become ritually impure, therefore the blood of the Salamandra would not defile it. Consequently, it is still likely to say that the altar was coated in the blood of Salamandra, and the question returns. Rabbi Menachem Yehuda Guznik in Nachomas Jehuda, Hadarn to Tractate Chagigah (New York City, 1935) rejects the young man’s answer based on the words of the Ramat Shmuel mentioned above that a Salamandra is not ritually impure. However, according to Rabbi Walldenberg’s interpration, the words of the Ramat Shmuel are not grounds to reject the young man’s answer.
[36] Mussaf HaAruch to Sefer HaAruch, s.v. Salamandra
[37] The Mishnah (Avos 5:3) tells that Abraham passed ten tests which proved his loyalty to HaShem. Many commentaries (including Rashi there, Bartenura there, and Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer Chp. 26) explain that amongst the ten tests was the fact that Abraham was thrown by Nimrod into a fiery furnace. However, Maimonides, in his commentary to the Mishnah (Avos 5:3) omits this story as one of Abraham’s ten tests. To defend Maimonides’ stance, Rabbi Menachem Meiri (1249-1310) writes (Beis HaBechira to Avos 5:3) that since this story is not mentioned explicitly in the Written Torah, rather it is only alluded to in the Written Torah and elaborated upon in the Oral Torah, Maimonides felt that this story cannot be included in the enumeration of Abraham’s ten tests.
[38] Hagahos Toldos Esther to Rabbeinu Yitzchok Izak Tyrnau’s Sefer HaMinhagim, Laws of Rosh HaShannah, §60 (Munkatch, 1880), see there for a discussion on the etymology of the Hebrew/Greek word Salamandra.
[39] Similarly, the miracles performed by HaShem during King Ahasuerus’ own lifetime whereby Hannania, Michael, and Azariah were saved from a fiery furnace, did not deter the king from antagonizing the Jews. Rabbi Chanoch Zundel explains (Anaf Yosef to Esther Rabbah §7:13) this was because Ahasuerus assumed that they saved themselves through the use of a Salamandra’s blood, not that they were saved through divine intervention.
[40] Sefer HaYashar (quoted in Seder HaDoros, Year 1998)
[41] Ben Yehoyada to Chagigah 27a
[42] See Yoma 39b, Gittin 56b
[43] Rabbi Yosef Chaim also answers that there is a difference between a physical fire and a spiritual fire. When the Talmud wrote that a Torah Scholar is immune to the effects of the fires of Hell, the Talmud only meant to say that a Torah Scholar is protected from a spiritual fire, but not from a physical fire. This explains why if a Torah Scholar would insert a body part into a physical fire, he would indeed get burnt. The converse, explains Rabbi Yosef Chaim, is also true. That is, the blood of a Salamandra only has the ability to protect from physical fires, but not from spiritual fires. Therefore, since the fire upon the altar which consumed the ritual sacrifices was not only a physical fire, but contained elements of a spiritual fire as well, the blood of the Salamandra could not protect the altar from being burnt. Therefore, it must have been the thin gold coating which protected the altar, and if such a coating can protect the mainly wooden alter, then for sure the good deeds of the sinners can protect them from the fires of hell. See Ohr HaChamah (Chagigah 27a) by Rabbi Zundel Kroizer who asks how one can equate a spiritual fire with a physical one. He also asks how it is possible that a Salamandra, which is the “offspring” of fire, can be stronger than its parent element, the fire itself.
[44] Rabbi Nissim Dayan (U’L’Dan Amar, Chagigah §13) also asks this same question according to Rabbi Yosef Chaim.
[45] Sefer Chassidim §1014
[46] Instead, Rabbi Eliezer Yehuda Walldenberg explains that the altar could not have been coated in the blood of a Salamandra because such a coating would have been a halachik barrier between the altar and the offerings burnt upon it. This barrier would have invalidated all the sacrificial offerings.
[47] Toldos Yitzchok to Exodus 3:3 (he was an uncle of Rabbi Yosef Karo author of the Shulchan Aruch). See also Pardes Yosef (Exodus 3:3) who mentions this source.
[48] The History of Animals, Book 5, Part 19, Translated by D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson
[49] Natural History, Book 10, Chapter 67
[50] The Notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci, Complete, § 1236, translated by Jean Paul Richter
[51] The Travels of Marco Polo, Book 1, Chapter 42, translated by Henry Yule
[52] To Leviticus 11:2
[53] Leviticus 11:29
[54] Chullin 127a
[55] To Leviticus 11:29
[56] Shemos Rabbah §15:27
[57] Chagigah 27a
[58] s.v. Salamandra
[59] See Maharsha (Chagigah 27a) who asks that Targum Yonasaon (Leviticus 11:30) translates “tinshames” as Salamandra (see also Otzar Blum on Maharsha ad loc.), but not “achbar” as Salamandra. Indeed, contemporary editions of Targum Yonsason do not translate “achbar” as Salamandra, but do translate “tinshames” (mole) as Salamandra. See Rabbi Yosef Chaim Dovid Azuli (1724-1807) in Shem HaGedolim (s.v. Targum) and Rabbi Menachem Mendel Kasher (1895-1983) in Torah Shleima (Leviticus 11:29 §105) who discuss based on this how in many instances earlier sources refer to Targum Yerushalmi as Targum Yonason. According to them, when the Aruch referred to Targum Yonasaon, he meant what is now called Targum Yerushalmi.
[60] Turei Even to Chagigah 27a
[61] Targum Yonason (above) who classified Salamandra as a type of mole was also doing so in discussing the impure type of Salamandra.
[62] Ohr Ganuz, Vol 2, pg. 140, London, 1996; She’aris Yaakov §35, London, 1957; Da’as Shalom to Chagigah 27a, Monsey, 1994. Rabbi Moskowitz was a grandfather of the late Rabbi Moshe Halberstam (1932-2006), a dayan of the Eidah Chareidis in Jerusalem.

Qoton Qlassic: Happy Birthday!

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:07:00 +0000

I finally got around to doing some clean up on the blog. I rewrote the essay "Happy Birthday!" from 2007. Here is a short excerpt from the new essay:

The Munkatcher Rebbe, Rabbi Chaim Elazar Shapiro (1871-1937), notes that celebration of one’s birthday is unheard of in rabbinic literature. He writes that such a celebration is antithetical to the Jewish trait of humilty. He also writes this opposition is seemingly supported by the Talmud which determined that it is better that man not have been born than man have been born. Rabbi Shmuel Edels (1555–1631) explained that the sages of the Talmud counted the positive commandments (248) and the negative commandments (365) and concluded that since the negatives commandments greatly outnumber the positive ones, one who is born is more likely to become a sinner than to be righteous. This explains the Talmud’s conclusion that one is better not having been born than having been born. Accordingly, celebrating one’s birth is simply premature because the child will more likely grow up to become a sinner. Indeed, King Solomon remarked, "A good name is better than good oil, and the day of death [is better] than the day of birth”, for by the day of death, it is already clear whether one will be righteous or sinful. Therefore the anniversary of one’s birth is not necessarily cause for rejoicing. However, concedes the Munkatcher Rebbe, a gentile who is not bound by 613 commandments is more likely not to become a sinner; thus, for a gentile, a birthday can indeed be a time of happiness.

Continue Reading Happy Birthday!...

מערכת לדופקי בתשובה-"Organization for those Requiring Answers"

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 20:27:00 +0000

גמ"ח פתרונות ליושבי בית המדרש

נשארתם בקושיא? חסר חכם מראה מקום? נעלם מעיניכם פתרון הענין במקומות עלומים ונידחים במרחבי ים החכמה? מערכת לדופקי בתשובה תשמח לסייע ללומדי התורה בעזרת צוות ת"ח ותוכנות מחשב וכדומה. וכן אם יש לכם שאלה בפשט בהבנה קושיא בש"ס בתנ"ך בדקדוק בקבלה בקידוש החודש וכו'. או שאלה הלכה למעשה צורך במ"מ בכל מקצועות התורה

את השאלות אפשר לשלוח:

משפחת מרגלית

רחוב תורה מציון 9

ירושלים, ישראל

פקס:

(02) 541-0943

מייל:

052769@gmail.com

מערכת לדופקי בתשובה

--מקבלים שאלות רק בשפה עברית

GEMACH SOLUTIONS FOR STUDENTS OF THE BAIS MIDRASH

Have you been left with a question? Are you lacking a source? Has an interpretation been concealed from your eyes in forgetten places and pushed away into the depths the sea of knowledge? The "Organization for those requiring answers" will be happy to help those who are learning Tora through a consortium of Torah Scholars, computer programs, and other proxies. Also, if you have a question in simple or deeper understanding or a contradiction in Shas (Talmud), Tanach (Bible), Dikduk (Hebrew Grammar), Kabbalah, Jewish Calendar, etc... or a question involving practical Halacha (Jewish Law), or any need for sources in any facet of Torah study. You must send us your questions.

Questions can be sent to:

Margolis Family

9 Torah Mi-Tzion St.

Jerusalem, Israel

Email: 052769@gmail.com

Fax number: (02) 541-10943

Only questions sent in Hebrew can be processed

--"Organization for those Requiring Answers"

מצות תכלת בזמנינו

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:42:00 +0000

בעזרת השם יתברך

"לעולם יהא אדם זהיר במצות ציצית, שהרי הכתוב שקלה ותלה בה כל המצוות כולן שנאמר וראיתם אותו וזכרתם את כל מצוות ה' ועשיתם אותם" (רמב"ם פ"ג מהלכות ציצית הל' יב).

"הזכרון הוא בחוט התכלת" (רוקח ורמב"ן במדבר טו, לח).

מצות תכלת בזמנינו

המתברר מדברי חז"ל אודות התכלת של חלזון הפורפורא

חובת תכלת בציצית[1]

כתב הרמב"ם (פ"א מהל' ציצית ה"ג) "במצוה זו שני צוויות, שיעשה על הכנף ענף יוצא ממנה, ושיכרוך על הענף חוט תכלת."

איתא בגמרא "גדול עונשו של לבן יותר מעונשו של תכלת"[2] (מנחות מג:) [מכלל דיש עונש למי שיש לו תכלת ואינו מטילו, ואינו בגדר רשות בלבד].

בתוספות בבבא מציעא (סא: ד"ה שתולה) מבואר שמי שאינו מטיל תכלת בטליתו "עובר על מצות ציצית."

וכן איתא בס' ערוגת הבשם (מתלמידי בעלי התוספות, ח"ג ע' 210) "אם יש לו שני מינין [לבן ותכלת] ואינו רוצה כי אם במין אחד מכין אותו עד שתצא נפשו, כדין כל מצות עשה."

כתב הלבוש (בהקדמתו ללבוש או"ח) "קראתיו לבוש התכלת כי כמו שחייב האדם ללבוש תכלת בציצית בכל יום אם ימצא, כן הוא חייב להלביש עצמו באלו הדינים."[3]

וע"ע בשו"ת בית הלוי שכתב שמי שיש לו תכלת ומטיל לבן בלא תכלת, עובר בבל תגרע (ח"א סי' מב, ונראה שכן הוא דעת המ"ב בבה"ל סי' לד, ד"ה יניח, וכ"כ בעין התכלת א, מא).

מצות תכלת בזמן הזה[4]

כתב המהרי"ל (שו"ת החדשות סי' ה):[5] "...וסברא הוא שמא יחזור דבר לקלקולו שיהא התכלת מצוי, כש"כ למאי דכתב סמ"ג דאותו דג חלזון הוא בים המלח וכתב סימנין בקל היה לעשות תכלת וכו'."

וכן כתב החמדת שלמה (אה"ע סי' ט כג) "אין הדבר מוכרח שלא ימצא תכלת אף בזה"ז אם נעמוד על כל הבדיקות כמו שהעתיקם הרמב"ם ז"ל בהל' ציצית."

והארצות החיים (להג' מלבי"ם, סי' ט מא) כתב "ועי' בשו"ת הרדב"ז (סי' תרפה, שכתב-)… ואפשר שעד היום הוא מצוי אלא שאין יודעין לצודו עכ"ד ולפי"ז י"ל דגם בסדין בציצית יש חשש דשמא ילמדו [לעשות תכלת בזה"ז]."[6]

גם בראשונים מצינו אסמכתות לזה:

בספר החינוך (מצוה שפו) איתא, "וזה ימים רבים לישראל לא שמענו מי שזכה לתכלת בטליתו" [מכלל דהמצוה נוהג בזה"ז (וכן דייק האדמו"ר מראדזין בספרו עין התכלת)] .

והרמב"ן כתב (מלחמות, שבת יב: מדפי הרי"ף), "עכשיו במקומות הללו שאין תכלת כו'" [משמע שבשאר מקומות ייתכן שהתכלת מצוי אף בזה"ז (וכן דייק הגרי"פ פערלא, נועם חלק כה ע' קמא)].

בירור מהות החלזון

החלזון הוא תולעת (רש"י סנהדרין צא. ד"ה חלזון, וע"ע בירושלמי שבת פ"א ה"ג ובמפרשים שם, ובחי' המיוחסים להר"ן שבת קז. "שאני חלזון שהוא גוף אטום כחלזונות הללו שבאשפות ואינו בעל איברים", וכן הוא בריטב"א שם עה.);

ויש לו נרתיק (דברים רבה ז יא, שה"ש רבה ד יא, פסיקתא דרב כהנא פ' בשלח, מדרש תהלים פ' כג "צא ולמד מן החלזון שכל זמן שהוא גדל נרתיקו גדל עמו", וכ"כ הערוך (ערך חלזון ב', ומוסיף הערוך ערך חלזון ג') שהוא מוקף, וכן מפורש בפיהמ"ש להרמב"ם כלים פ' יב א, "או שקשר חלזון בראשו: הוא הצדף של בעל חי הימי הנקרא חלזון");

הרי, שהחלזון הוא חומט ["snail" באנגלית, "חילזון" בעברית מודרנית].

ראשי פרקים בתולדות התכלת

קרוב לסוף תקופת רבנן סבוראי נשתקעה צביעת התכלת מחמת גזירות עליה ממלכי רומי, ונפסק קיום מצות תכלת.

לפני יותר ממאה שנה, אחרי שבירר האדמו"ר מראדזין זצוק"ל בספרו שפוני טמוני חול שראוי לחפש את התכלת בזה"ז, ניסה להחזיר התכלת.

האדמו"ר נסע לנאפולי באיטליא לבקר באקוואריום שהיה שם, וקבע שהדיונון שמצוי שם הוא החלזון. אחרי זמן מה הצליח לעשות ממנו תכלת, ורבים התחילו ללכת עם

גם מוכח כן מרש"י (דברים ח ד) [שמעתיק המדרש דברים רבה הנ"ל ובמקום "חלזון" כותב "חומט",[7] וז"ל: "ואף קטניהם כמו שהיו גדלים היה גדל לבושן עמהם כלבוש הזה של חומט שגדל עמו", ורש"י (ויקרא יא ל, וחגיגה יא.) תירגם חומט ללימצ"ה ותירגם גם שבלול[8] כן (שבת עז:, ומו"ק ו:)];

וכן פי' רש"י בהדיא (ע"ז כח:) "משקדי חלזוני: לימ"ץ בלע"ז"[9], וכן כתב רגמ"ה (בכורות לח:) "חלזון קורין בלעז לימץ". לימצ"א-"limace" בצרפתית הוא מה שקוראים "חילזון" בעברית, ו"snail" באנגלית;

וכן מוכח מהרא"ש (עה"ת, דברים כ"ח ד, שהעתיק המדרש הנ"ל ובמקום "חלזון" כתב "שבלול").

וכן הוא משמעות חלזון בערבית[10] (ספר השרשים לר"י אבן ג'אנח, ערך ש-ב-ל^{^[11]} וספר המדריך המספיק לר' תנחום הירושלמי ערך חלזון "חלזון... הוא אלחלזון בערבי גם כן").

וכן כתבו להדיא, שהחלזון הוא חומט: היעב"ץ (בפי' סידורו פ' ציצית בקר"ש), המהר"י כהן (חתן המהר"ל, בפי' על מדרש תהלים הנ"ל), התפארת ישראל (בהקדמה לסדר מועד), התבואות הארץ (ח"ב פ"א), והמתנות כהונה והעץ יוסף (בדברים רבה הנ"ל).

זהות החלזון – הפורפורא

[מורקס בלטינית, ארגמון בעברית]

בחז"ל מבואר, שהחלזון של התכלת היה נצוד בחלקו של זבולון על חוף ים הגדול בין סולמא דצור וחיפה (שבת כו., מגילה ו., ספרי פ' וזאת הברכה לג יט, ותרגום יונתן שם).

וידוע לנו מתנ"ך ומחז"ל, שאומות העולם השתמשו בצבע התכלת בימי קדם (ירמיה י ט, יחזקאל כג ו, שם כז ז, ושם שם כד, דה"י ב, ב ו, אסתר א ו, שם ח טו,^{^[12]} וע"ע בראשית רבה מקץ פר' צא, שבת כו., עירובין צו:).

והנה הוזכר בספרי אומות העולם[13] צביעת צבע כחול[14] וסגול ממין חלזון הנקרא פורפורא, שהיה נעשה בארץ ישראל באזור צור וצידון.[15]

וכתב היעב"ץ "ובענין צידת חלזון אמרו בפרק במה מדליקין… מסולמא דצור ועד חיפה, וכדבר הזה ממש כתבו גם סופרי אומות העולם, כותבי ישובי המדינות והנמצא בה לצורך העולם, וזכרו שלא נמצא במקום אחר הדג שצובעין בדמו תכלת כי אם בין שני מקומות הללו, וידוע שצור וחיפה הן שתי עיירות היושבות על חוף הים הגדול של תורה, ויושבי צור וצידון היו צדין אותו ועושים בו סחורה."[16] (מטפחת ספרים פ'"ד)

וכתב השלטי הגיבורים (לר"א הרופא, תלמיד מהר"ם קזיס, פ' עט), "...רמש הים שנקרא פורפורא והוא חלזון שצובעין בו התכלת".

וכ"כ החוות יאיר (בספרו מקור חיים סי' יח ס"ק ב), "בחידושים כתבתי דדם חלזון שבו צובעין תכלת אינו בלו"א [כחול], רק צבע פורפר[17] [סגול] שנעשה מדם דג שנקרא הדג פורפר".

וכן משמע בראבי"ה (ברכות סי' כה), "וגרסינן בירושלמי[18] בין תכלת לכרתי: בין פורפורין ובין פריפינין" [שמתרגם תכלת "פורפורין"-דבר צבוע מהפורפורא]; גם משמע כן בפרקי דרבי אליעזר (פרק נ) ובאסתר רבה (פ"י, שמפרשים הפסוק "ומרדכי יצא בלבוש מלכות תכלת וחור וכו'" שמרדכי לבש "פורפרין").

וכן כתבו המוסף הערוך (ערך פרפירא) "פרפורא: …פירוש בלשון יוני ורומי בגד תכלת",[19] והתועפות ראם על ספר היראים (מצוה ת"א) "והך חלזון שצובעין מדמו תכלת הוא נקרא חלזון אדומי-פורפור שנעקע."

הפורפורא נמצא עד היום בחוף ים הגדול בחלקו של זבולון [בין צור וחיפה], ונודע בשם זה[20] עד היום הזה ביון,[21] אבל כיום משתמשים בעיקר בשמו הלטינית מורקס טרונקולוס [ארגמון קהה-קוצים]. גם מבואר בכתבי חכמי היוונים, שכתבו על הפורפורא בפרוטרוט, שהמורקס הוא הפורפורא.[22]

גם נמצאו הרבה בתי צביעה עתיקים מתקופת חז"ל בין צור וחיפה[23] עם שאריות צבע וגלי קונכיות [נרתיקים] של המורקס.[24]

בגמרא (מנחות מב., ב"מ סא:) מבואר שהיו משתמשים בקלא אילן [צבע המופק מצמח שקוראים אינדיגו בלע"ז, וניל בערבית (ערוך ערך קלא אילן, והנמ"י בב"מ לד. מדפי הרי"ף ד"ה אילן, וכן בשו"ת הגאונים (גינצבורג, כרך ב' עמוד 333) וכ"פ הר"ח (מובא באוצה"ג) בב"ק צג:)] לזייף תכלת. צבע הכחול של המורקס דומה ממש לקלא אילן עד שאף המולקולות [molecules] שלהם זהים ממש!

ברמב"ם (פ"ב מהל' ציצית ה"א) מבואר שהתכלת היא צבע העומד ביפיו, ושאר צבעונים אינם עומדים כמו תכלת (שם ה"ד) [בכסף משנה מבואר שמדובר בקלא אילן שהיה נחשב בזמן חז"ל לצבע חזק בעצמו, עי' ב"ק צג: וביש"ש שם]. הפורפורא הוא הצבע [הכחול] היחיד שנודע עליו מימי חז"ל שחזק יותר מקלא אילן.

עוד דברים שמצינו בחלזון של חז"ל והפורפורא

• שניהם ניצודו ברשתות, כמבואר בשבת (עד:) "שכן צדי חלזון היו קושרין ומתירין ברשתות" [מה שהוא באמת דבר רחוק מאד לצוד זוחל ברשת, ובחלזון הפורפורא ביארו חכמי יון בארוכה דרך צידתו, איך הוא נתפס ברשתות ע"י דרך אכילתו המיוחד].

• דמו שצובעין ממנו מיפקד פקיד[25] (תוס' שבת עה. ד"ה כי היכי, כתובות ה: ד"ה מיפקד פקיד).

התכלת שלו. אמנם, רוב גדולי דורו לא קבלו הצעתו._{[המשך בעמוד הבא]}

[המשך ראשי פרקים בתולדות התכלת]

אחר פטירתו, הוכרח שהדיונון שהצביע עליו אינו החלזון של חז"ל, שנתברר שהצבע שהמציא אפשר ליצור באותו תהליך הצביעה מדמם של כמעט כל בעל חי [וגם לא צריך דוקא קלא אילן לזייף התכלת].

לפני כעשרים וחמש שנה התעורר הרה"ג ר' אליהו טבגר שליט"א מקרית ספר, מחבר ס' כליל תכלת על הל' ציצית, שהחלזון הוא הפורפורא, ושאפשר לצבוע ממנה צבע כחול, ובשנת תשנ"ה הקים בית צביעה שקיים עד היום, לזכות את הרבים.

• צריך להוציא הדם מיד אחר פציעתו "כי היכי דליציל[26] ציבעיה" (שבת שם) [צבע הפורפורא מתחיל להתקלקל מיד במיתתו].

• התכלת נקרא טריון (ערוך ערך טריון) [צבע הפורפורא היה נקרא טריון, על שם צביעתו בצור, שנקרא בלשון העמים טיירTyre-; וכמו כן נקראו שניהם יקינטינון, "חור כרפס ותכלת, תרגום עקילס איירינון קרפסינון ויקינטינון" (מדרש אסתר וערוך ערך איירינון, ע' טיינון, וע' יקנטין), אך באמת "יקינטינון" הוא שם כללי לגוון התכלת (כמפורש בערוך שם)[27]].

• התכלת היה יקר מאד (מנחות מג: "דומה לחותם של זהב," מד. "לפיכך דמיו יקרים," וכ"כ רש"י מגילה ו.) [וכן כתבו חכמי יון הנ"ל¹² שצמר צבוע בהפורפורא היה יקר מזהב];

• ואף השתמש הרבה לבגדי מלכים (אסתר ח טו "בלבוש מלכות תכלת", שבת כו. ורש"י שם, רמב"ן שמות כח ב) [וכן כתבו חכמי יון לגבי צבע הפורפורא שהיה מיוחד למלכים ושרים, ועל ידו היו ניכרים מפשוטי עם; וכן איתא באסתר רבה (י יב) "מה מלך לובש פורפרין אף מרדכי לבש פורפרין" ובמדרש הגדול (במדבר ד ה) "שכן דרכן של מלכים, פורפירא שלהן תכלת"].

• התכלת נעלם בסוף תקופת רבנן סבוראי או בתחילת תקופת הגאונים (עיין מנחות מג: "מר ממשכי אייתי תכילתא בשני רב אחאי [בזמן רבנן סבוראי] "ובשו"ת ר' שר שלום גאון סי' ב ד, כתב: "כשהיה תכלת ביד ישראל," וגם בשאילתות כבר לא הביא הלכות תכלת למעשה), והצבע של הפורפורא נעלם ג"כ בסוף תקופת רבנן סבוראי, מפני גזירת מלכות רומי שייחד צבע זו למלכיה (מתוך Codex Justinianus–אוסף גזירות של קיסרי רומי; וע"ע רמב"ן שמות כח ב "והתכלת גם היום לא ירים איש את ידו ללבוש חוץ ממלך גוים" ורמב"ן בראשית יד א "ומלך גוים... רמז למלך רומי").

• "צבע התכלת לא היה [עולה] יפה בפשתן לעולם אלא בצמר" (חינוך שפו) [גם צבע הפורפורא אינו עולה יפה כי אם בצמר].

יוצא לנו מכל הנ"ל:

שבכדי להגיד שהמורקס אינו חלזון התכלת נצטרך להניח: שבזמן חז"ל היו שני מיני חלזונות מצויים בין סולמא דצור וחיפה ששימשו לצביעת צבע בגוון התכלת, שהיה גם צבע יקר, וחזק, ודומה ממש לקלא אילן, ואף שניהם נקראו פורפורא, וגם שניהם היו מפורסמים (ב"ר פ' צא), ומכל מקום אין זכר להחלזון הפסול בדברי חז"ל [וגם קשה איך אמרו חז"ל בסתמא "תכלת אין כשרה אלא מן החלזון, שלא מן חלזון פסולה" (תוספתא מנחות פ"ט ה"ו) שמשמע שאינו פסול אלא כשלא בא מחלזון] וגם לא הזהירו מלהשתמש בו לתכלת [כמו שהזכירו קלא אילן], על אף שהיו דומים כל כך; וגם נעלם תכלת המוזכר בחז"ל מחכמי או"ה, אעפ"י שהיה בשימוש נפוץ לצביעת בגדים (כדמוכח בעירובין צו: "המוצא תכלת בשוק [פסול, שמא נצבעו לצורך בגד]… אדעתא דגלימא צבעינהו").

שאלות נפוצות על הפורפורא, ועל החזרת התכלת בכלל

w במדרש איתא (רבה ותנחומא סוף פ' שלח) "ועכשיו אין לנו אלא לבן שהתכלת נגנז."

תי': עיין לעיל שנתברר שאפשר להחזיר התכלת בזה"ז, וצריך לפרש המדרש ע"פ פירש"י (פסחים סב:) "נגנז: נשתכח", [וכ"פ העץ יוסף על המדרש רבה; והיינו שאין הכרח שנגנז ע"פ נס וכדו' באופן שא"א להחזירה; וכן מוכח משו"ת הרדב"ז (סי' תרפה) שייתכן שנעלם באופן טבעי], ואפשר שיחזור.

w איתא בספרי (וזאת הברכה שנד) "אמר ר' יוסי פעם אחת הייתי מהלך מכזיב לצור ומצאתי זקן אחד ושאלתיו בשלום. אמרתי לו פרנסתך במה היא הוא אמר לי מחלזון. אמרתי לו ומי מצוי? אמר לי השמים! מקום יש בים שמוטל בין הרים וסממיות מכישות אותו ומת ונימוק במקומו. אמרתי השמים! נזכר[28] הוא שגנוז לצדיקים לעולם הבא." משמע שנגנז התכלת בדוקא [אף בזמן התנאים].

תי': פירש שם הר"ד פארדו (בספרי דבי רב) שבודאי היה מצוי בימיהם, שהרי צבעו ולבשו תכלת לעוד מאות שנים אח"כ (כדמוכח בכמה מקומות במנחות ר"פ התכלת), רק שתמה "היכי היה מתפרנס מחלזון, דמשמע דהוה שכיח ליה לצודו כמה זימני" [אף שלא היה מצוי כל כך]. ופי' עוד, ששם מדובר בחלזונות מובחרים שעושים צבע הדומה ממש לכסא הכבוד, שרק הם "גנוזים שם לצדיקים לעתיד לבא",[29] וכ"מ מדלא אמר שנגנז רק אחרי שהזכיר המקום המיוחד.

w מפורסם שהבית הלוי טען על התכלת של האדמו"ר מראדזין זצוק"ל שלכל "מציאות" צריכים מסורת.

תי': כבר הבאנו לעיל את דברי המהרי"ל והחמדת שלמה ועוד שכ' שאפשר להחזיר התכלת בזה"ז ע"פ הוכחות או סימנים לחוד, וצ"ל שהבית הלוי לא טען כן אלא לגבי התכלת של האדמו"ר מראדזין זצוק"ל, שלא היו דבריו אלא בבחינת השערה בלבד (עי' שו"ת ישועות מלכו סי' ב), שלא הכריח בכלל שמצא את החלזון, רק שמצא בריה שמתאים לתוארי החלזון,[30] אבל לגבי דידן דיש עליו ראיות, וכבר ביררו החוות יאיר והיעב"ץ וכתבו בפירוש שהפורפורא הוא החלזון, לא שייך לומר כן.

w בשו"ת קובץ תשובות (למרן הגרי"ש אלישיב שליט"א, ח"א ב) הביא דברי הבית הלוי באופן אחר:[31] "שאם הדג היה במציאות וגם הוצאת צבעו היה ידוע בכל זמן מהזמנים מעת שנפסקה התכלת מישראל ועם כל זה לא לבשוהו אבותינו, הרי הוא כאילו יש לנו בקבלה ומסורת מאבותינו כי זה הדג וצבעו איננו החלזון והתכלת, אף שיש בו כל הסימנים שסימנו בו חז"ל" [וסיים שם מרן הגרי"ש שליט"א "ואנא לא ידענא מה עם ההמצאה אשר המציאו חוקרי זמנינו אם גם עליה חל הטענה הנ"ל"-ולכאורה מסתפק במציאות הדברים].

תי': לא שייך טענה זה על התכלת של המורקס, שהרי במשך מאות שנים גזרו עליה מלכות רומי, שייחדוה לבגדי מלכות, ועי"ז נשתכחה מלאכת הצביעה[32] ומציאות החלזון.[33]

w כתב האור החיים (במדבר טו, לח, וכ"כ האלשיך שם; ויש שיחסו דרש זה להגר"א ז"ל) שלא נאמר לדורותם על התכלת "לאמר שהלבן לדורותם אבל תכלת בשאינו בנמצא אין חיוב בו," וא"כ מוכח שיתעלם התכלת.

תי': אמנם מפורש דכשהוא בנמצא יש חיוב בתכלת, רק שמוכח שבאיזה זמן יתעלם, וכבר עברו דורות שלא היה התכלת בנמצא.

w בכתבי האריז"ל (שער הכוונות ענין ציצית דרוש ד, ו ע"א, פע"ח שער הציצית פ"ה) מבואר שתכלת היה רק בזמן שבית המקדש קיים.

שו"ת רדב"ז ח"א סי' תרפה

שאלת עלה דגרסינן בשבת שכן צדי חלזון היו קושרין ומתירין הרשתות לצוד אותו, ושאלת מהיכן היה להם חלזון שיוכלו לצודו והלא לא היה נמצא אלא בחלקו של זבולון וכי אפשר היה לבוא לארץ ישראל לצודו.

תשובה: אין זו צריכה לפנים שהרי החלזון מצוי הוא בים ובחלקו של זבולון היה עולה מאליו מן הים אל היבשה והיו מלקטין אותו, ואחר שגלו ישראל לא היה עולה והשאיר נבוזראדן בארץ מדלת העם לכורמים ולענבים וארז"ל אלו צדי חלזון משמע שהיו צריכין לצודו. וכן במעשה המשכן היו סמוכים לים הקדמוני ים סוף שהרי אין בין ים סוף להר סיני אלא דבר מועט והיו הולכים לים סוף וצדין אותו שהיה נמצא שם והיינו שלא הוצרכו לומר בחלזון כאשר אמרו בתחש לפי שהיה מצוי, ואפשר שעד היום הוא מצוי אלא שאין מכירין אותו או שאין יודעין לצודו, גם כי אינם צריכים לו שצבע הדומה לתכלת מצוי הרבה דהיינו איסטס הנקרא בערבי ניל וצובעין אותו באופן אומנות שאינו עובר אפילו על ידי גיהוץ.

תי': עיין מנחות ריש פרק התכלת שהאמוראים לבשו וצבעו תכלת כחמש מאות שנה אחר החורבן, ובהכרח שהחיוב קיים גם בזמן שאין בית המקדש [אם תכלת בנמצא], והאריז"ל לא בא לבטל מצוה ח"ו [רק מבאר טעם העדרו כמבואר בשו"ת וישב הים להגר"י הלל שליט"א (סי' כ) שכן הוא דרך האריז"ל לבאר נהוג שבעולם ע"פ הסוד "ורק אם אומר להדיא בדרך הוראה שכן צריך לנהוג אז ודאי נכון וטוב לחוש וליזהר לקיים דבריו" עיי"ש; ועי' בדברי הגה"ק האדמו"ר מסאטמאר זיע"א בשו"ת דברי יואל סי' מד ג, שביאר שתכלת יכול לחזור לפני הגאולה, וע"ע בקובץ "והיה לכם לציצית" שנת תשס"ז, בדברי הרה"ג ר' עמרם אופמאן שליט"א שמבאר שתכלת הוא מקישוטין דכלה שכלל ישראל מכינים בעקבתא דמשיחא; וע"ע בזוה"ק סוף פ' שלח דף קעה ע"א, ובכונות האר"י לברכת בונה ירושלים בשמו"ע].

w בגמרא בבא מציעא (סא:) איתא "אני הוא שעתיד ליפרע… ממי שתולה קלא אילן בבגדו ואומר תכלת הוא", וא"כ נראה שיש איסור בהטלת תכלת פסולה.

תי': מבואר בתוס' שם שעיקר האיסור הוא משום שמבטל מצות תכלת,[34] משא"כ בנידון דידן שממ"נ אין כאן ביטול מצות תכלת (וכ"כ הריא"ז בקונטרס הראיות בב"מ שם, שבזמן שאין תכלת מותר להטיל קלא אילן); והרא"ש שם כתב שמדובר באונאת לוקח, אם מכר תכלת פסולה בתורת תכלת; ורבינו יהונתן (שם) פירש שהאיסור הוא רק במי שרוצה להראות עצמו צדיק במה שאין בו (וכ"כ בדרש משה סו"פ שלח).

w איתא בשו"ע (סי' ט) "יש אומרים שצריך לעשות "הציצית מצבע הטלית והמדקדקים נוהגים כן," ואם אין זה התכלת יש בזה גרעון במה שאינו לבן כמו הטלית.

תי': כתבו הפוסקים שדין זה אינו שייך לחוטי לבן שהם במקום התכלת (ערוגת הבושם הקדמון ח"ג ע' 217, ים של שלמה יבמות פ"א סי' ג, ארצות החיים ומגן גבורים על שו"ע שם, וחזו"א סי' ג אות כה, כתבו שאין דין מין כנף על חוטים שהם במקום תכלת) מלבד מה שמבואר ברמ"א שלא נהגו כן. [וכן הקשו על האדמו"ר מראדזין זצ"ל ותירץ ג"כ כנ"ל (עין התכלת א מא), וע"ע שו"ת ישועות מלכו סי' א שכ' שלא שייך בהטלת ספק תכלת שום איסור.]

w במנחות (מד.) איתא דחלזון "עולה אחת לשבעים שנה", ולא ראינו[35] דבר זה במורקס.

תי': כתב הרדב"ז (שו"ת סי' תרפה) "בחלקו של זבולון היה עולה מאליו[36] מן הים אל היבשה והיו מלקטין אותו, ואחר שגלו ישראל לא היה עולה."

w בגמ' (שם) איתא שהחלזון "ברייתו ["תבנית דיוקנו" (רש"י), או "צורתו" (רגמ"ה)] דומה[37] לדג," ואיך ייתכן זה על המורקס, שהוא חומט?

תי': עי' לעיל שנתברר שפירוש "חלזון" הוא חומט, ובע"כ כוונת הגמ' הוא דחלזון התכלת דומה לדג יותר מחלזון אחר, וזה באחד משני אופנים, שצורת נרתיקו דומה לדג יותר משאר חלזונות[38], או במה שהוא חי במים כמו דג; והראב"ע כבר פירש בתהלים (פ' נח) ששבלול דומה לדג.

w בגמ' (שם) איתא על החלזון "גופו דומה³⁷ לים."

תי': אכן, עפ"י רוב נמצא בגוון ירוק כחלחל; ונמצא במקומות בלתי מזוהמים אפילו בצבע תכלת ממש.

w הרמב"ם (הל' ציצית פ"ב ה"ב) כתב שהחלזון הוא דג, ואיך זה מתאים למורקס?

תי': איתא בפירוש הגר"א למשניות (כלים פ' יא א) "שכל שבים מין דג הוא, כל דמות שיהיה לו"[39] וכן מבואר בראב"ע (שמות ז כז, שכ' ש"אל-תמסח" [תנין- crocodile] הוא מין דג), וגם החוות יאיר כותב עליו "דג שנקרא הדג פורפר."

w ברמב"ם (שם) איתא שדם החלזון שחור כדיו, ודם הפורפורא הוא צלול הנוטה לאדמימות?

תי': היינו בדם של חלזון בודד אבל כשיש כמות של דם ביחד אכן הוא שחור, וגם אחרי התייבשותו הוא שחור ממש כדיו[40].

w ברמב"ם (שם) איתא שהחלזון מצוי בים המלח.

תי': דרך הרמב"ם בכל מקום (עי' פ"י מהל' כלאים ה"א ובמקו"צ שם) לכנות לים הגדול "ים המלח", כי כן נקרא בערבית "אלבחאר אלמאלח" (ספר קרית מלך להגרח"ק שליט"א וכ"כ הרד"ל בביאורו לפרדר"א פי"ח, והגרי"ח סופר שליט"א האריך בזה בקובץ בית אהרן וישראל גליון צז). [41]

w ברש"י (עה"ת במדבר טו, לח; ובגמ' ברכות ט: ד"ה תכלת) איתא שהתכלת הוא ירוק.

תי': עי' בתוס' סוכה לא: ד"ה הירוק ככרתי, שכ' שירוק כולל גם צבע כחול, וכ"כ הרמ"א (יו"ד קפח ו), וכן תי' המשכיל לדוד (על פירש"י עה"ת, לר"ד פארדו; ועי' פרי מגדים סי' ט אות ו שלאבי זקינו של האליה רבה "היה טלית ירוק הנקרא בלא בלשון אשכנז [כחול] זכר לתכלת"), ובע"כ צ"ל כן, שהרי רש"י בעצמו כתב (שם סו"פ מא) "צבע התכלת דומה לרקיע המשחיר לעת ערב."[42]

w אם צבע הפורפורא הוא שוה במבנהו הכימי לקלא אילן, איך תבחין ביניהם בדיקת הגמ' במנחות (מב:), שלכאורה גם תכונותיהם ישתוו?

תי': הגם שהגוון עצמו נעשה ע"י חומר שוה, מ"מ קלא אילן בעצמו אינו נקלט כמו הפורפורא, כיוון שיש חומר בגוף המורקס שפועל בצבעו שייקלט באופן חזק.[43]

w איך יודעים את הגוון ואת החוזק המדויקים של הצבע?[44]

תי': כיון שידוע לנו שקלא אילן הוא אינדיגו אפשר לדעת הגוון (עי' ס' עיה"ק והמקדש ח"ה עמ' נט), ולגבי החוזק כתב הרדב"ז (אלף תכא, עיי"ש שמכריח כן מהרמב"ם) "שיש גוון תכלת שהוא שחור [כהה] הרבה, ויש שאינו שחור כל כך" [ומוכח מדבריו שאין בהירות מסוימת שמעכבת בתכלת, וכ"כ בספר מעשי למלך על הרמב"ם (פ"ח מהל' כלי המקדש הי"ג)].

w מדברי הרמב"ם בפירוש המשניות (מנחות פ"ד מ"א) משמע שרק גוון מסוים כשר לתכלת, שכתב על התכלת "ואינו נמצא בידינו היום לפי שאין אנו יודעים לצובעו, שאין כל מין תכלת בצמר נקרא תכלת אלא תכלת ידועה שאי אפשר לעשותה היום."

גדולי הדורות על החזרת התכלת

כתב המהרש"ם זצ"ל בצוואתו "…יקחו את הטלית טירקישען, בלא העטרה, וקשורין בו ציצית עם תכלת…" (נדפס בראש ספרו תכלת מרדכי עה"ת).

"ויש לי עדות שהג"ר איציל מפוניוויעז לבש תכלת בטליתו בהצנע, כמו שהעידו תלמידיו שלמדו אצלו" (מהקדמת ר' ירוחם ליינר למאמר שפוני טמוני חול, וכן העיד מרן בעל הקה"י זצ"ל).

אמר מרן בעל החזון איש זצ"ל על התכלת של האדמו"ר מראדזין "הלא אין שום היזק בדבר-להטיל ספק תכלת-ואילו היה צל צילו של ספק הלא היו הגדולים אזי מקבלים אותו" (מעשה איש ח"א ע' קלב).

סיפר הג"ר דוד צבי הילמן שליט"א (עורך הרמב"ם מהדורת שבתי פרנקל) שפעם ביקש ממנו בנו של הגרא"ז מלצר זצ"ל שיקנה לו פתילים מבית צביעה של ראדזין. כששאל אותו אם שאל דעת תורה בענין, ענה ששאל את גיסו הג"ר אהרן קוטלר זצ"ל, והשיב לו שאין שום חשש איסור בדבר, "ניט דא קיין חשש" (ע"ע באורחות רבינו ח"א ע' רמו ע"ז).

לאחרונה נשאל מרן הגרי"ש אלישיב שליט"א אם אפשר להטיל תכלת בצנעה, והשיב בחיוב (העדת הגרממ"ק שליט"א).

תי': המעיין בתרגום החדש (של הר' עזרא קורח שליט"א) יראה שכוונתו ז"ל אינו שדוקא גוון מסוים כשר, רק בא לומר שאין כל דבר כחול [אזר"ק בלשונו שם] כשר לתכלת רק צבע תכלת שנעשה מחלזון דוקא, ומה שכתב "שאין אנו יודעים לצובעו" ר"ל משום שאין אנו יודעים מה החלזון, וממילא א"א לעשותה היום [וכסיום דבריו "שא"א לעשותה היום"; ומוכח לפרש כן מדברי הרדב"ז הנ"ל שמדייק בהרמב"ם עצמו שאין גוון מדויק מעכב].

w הפורפורא אינו מן המותר בפיך, ואיך יתכן שהשתמשו בו לתכלת לציצית ולבגדי כהונה?

תי': עיין בשו"ת נו"ב (מהדו"ת או"ח סי' ג), ובשו"ת חת"ס (יו"ד רעו) ובאבן האזל (פ"א מהל' כלי המקדש ה"ג) שיישבו קושיא זו, וכן בירר האדמו"ר מראדזין בספרו פתיל תכלת; והמבי"ט (בהקדמה לפי' על פרק שירה) והרדב"ז (מצודות דוד טו ע"ב) כתבו בפירוש שהחלזון הוא בריה טמאה, וכן נקט מרן הגרי"ש שליט"א בפשיטות שהוא מין טמא (קובץ תשובות ח"א סי' ט).

w מבואר בתוס' (מנחות מב:) שלשיטת רש"י הוספת סממנים ביורה פוסל, מפני שהוא תכלת ודבר אחר, ולצביעת המורקס משתמשים בסממנים.

תי': הסממנים ששמים ביורה מאפשרים את קליטת הצבע, אבל הסממנים עצמם אינם נקלטים כלל בצמר [ולכן כשר לכו"ע, שמתקיים דברי הרמב"ם שהשתמשו בסממנים וגם שיטת רש"י כנ"ל].

w איך ייתכן חיוב צידה על חלזון, והלא הוא זז לאט ותהיה כניצוד ועומד?

תי': ברבינו ירוחם (נתיב יב חלק י, פ:) מפורש שיש חיוב צידה על תולעים, וז"ל "ושאר שרצים כגון תולעת וחלזונות ועקרבים, הצדן לצורך חייב", וכן מוכח מרש"י (חגיגה יא., ויקרא יא ל, שפי' שחומט, שהוא משמונה שרצים שמפורש במשנה שיש בהם צידה, הוא לימצ"א-שבלול), וכן פסק מרן הגרי"ש שליט"א (אורחות שבת פי"ד הע' כא ושלמי ניסן קונטרס הצד ב ג), וכן היה דעת מרן הגרש"ז זצ"ל לחשוש לצד בזה (שולחן שלמה סי' שטז ד בהע' ב); דאם צריך תחבולות לצודו הוי בכלל "הבא מצודה ונצודנה" ואינו כניצוד ועומד.

אם יש לך הערות על הנכתב כאן, או כל הערה בנושא התכלת נא לשלוח ל: חברת מעל"ה, רח' יוסף בן מתתי' 29, י"ם 94728; טלפקס ה02-580-4729, ונשיב בל"נ; ואי"ה נדפיס חלק מהשאלות בעלון הבא.

הרוצה לעיין עוד בסוגיא זו ימצא מבוקשו בספרים אלו:

קובץ ספרי התכלת ראדזין ספר התכלת (ר"מ בורשטין)

קונטרס תכלת וארגמן (ר"מ אדלר) ספר לולאות תכלת (ר"ש טייטלבוים)

מאמר התכלת (נספח לספר כליל תכלת לר"א טבגר)

"ובאמת המלאכה מרובה, וכבר ניתן בסיני לכל חכמי דור דור דורשיו, חלקם בעץ החיים, מה שהניחו להם להתגדר בו לחדש את הישן, ולחזור ולייסד הנשכח, ולגלות הסתום, לפתור החתום, לבאר הנעלם, להרחיב הקצר, להרויח הצר, לפשט הקמטים, להתיר הקשרים, לחקור העמקים, ולנתח חלקים, להאיר האופל..." (סידור היעב"ץ הנהגת תלמוד תורה אות טז ע' שפט).

מתוך הסכמת הג"ר עמרם אופמן שליט"א, חבר בד"ץ העדה החרדית, לס' לולאות תכלת:

"…נראה שכל ת"ח וצורב שיעבור על הספרים שנתחברו בזמן האחרון על ענין זה יגיע למסקנה שיש מקום גדול לקיים המצוה כדינו ובשלימות. ועברתי גם על הספרים שיצאו לסתור והביאו גם דעת פוסקים מדורינו שאין חיוב לקיים מצוה זה–אך המעיין יראה שבמין זה של חלזון מיושב כל הקושיות ורגלים לדבר שהוא התכלת הנכון. וכן כמה וכמה מגדולי הדור יראים ושלימים שהתחילו לקיים מצות תכלת בצנעה, והכל הולך קמעא קמעא, ונזכה בקרוב שכלל ישראל יקיימוהו ברוב עם – ונקווה שיהיה על ידי משיח צדקנו."

[1]לברר שאע"פ שקיי"ל שתכלת ולבן מצוה אחת הם (רמב"ם סה"מ שורש יא), יש חיוב גמור בשניהם, ולא הוי תכלת רק כמו מצוה מן המובחר.

[2]כתבו הנצי"ב (העמק שאילה, שאילתא קכז ב), והארצות החיים (יג ב), שזה אליבא דמ"ד תכלת אינו מעכב את הלבן, וכן מוכח בדברי הרי"ף והרא"ש (על הגמ' שם), והרמב"ם (פ"ב הי"ב).

[3] וכן מופיע לשון של "חיוב" לגבי התכלת בעוד ראשונים, בסוגיית "סדין בציצית" (שבת כה:) והם: התוספות, הרמב"ן (במלחמות), הרשב"א, המאירי, תוס' הרא"ש, והר"ן (על הרי"ף). וכ' רבינו בחיי (ט"ו ל"ח) " הציצית והתכלת מעכבין זה את זה בזמן שהיה התכלת מצוי."

[4]לשלול הטעות שאין מצוה זו נוהגת בזה"ז, ולהוכיח שאפשר להחזירה בלא מסורת.

[5]בא להסביר שיטתם של ר"ת והגאונים שאף בזמן שאין תכלת בגד פשתן פטור אף מלבן משום גזירה דשמא יטיל בו קלא אילן, כי ייתכן שיחזור התכלת.

[6] ולכן יש לאסור ציצית בבגד פשתן גם בלא תכלת, כנ"ל.

^{^[7]}המעיין במקור ובדברי רש"י ז"ל שם יראה שכל דבריו הם העתק מילה במילה מהמדרש, רק שתרגם כל המילות הארמיות ללה"ק.

^{^[8]}ועי' בבראשית רבה (פר' נא א) שתירגם המדרש שבלול ללימצא.

[9]ע"פ ספר המתרגם שם (בעמוד א'), וכ"ה בספר תרגום הלעז (ערך נימין) ע"פ כ"י פרמא; וכנראה שבכ"י היה כתוב "לימץ", ונשתבש ל"לימין" בדפוס ווינציא, ומשם ל"נימין" בדפוס ווילנא.

[10]ועיין ראב"ע (ויקרא יא יג), שיש כדמות ראיה מלשון ערבית ללשה"ק בעבור היות שתי הלשונות קרובות (ע"ע מגילה יח.); ומה יותר לארמית (עי' רמב"ן שמות ל כג, והקדמת ספר המעריך). וע"ע בשו"ת יד חנוך (להג"ר חנוך העניך אבד"ק סאסוב, חתן הקדושת יו"ט זיע"א) סי' כב שהסתמך על זה הלכה למעשה.

[11]וכן הוא במילון ערבית ופרסי עד היום.

[12]עיי"ש בראב"ע שמדובר בתכלת מהחלזון.

[13]אריסטו [חי בריש תקופת בית שני] (בספרו היסטוריה אנימליום), סטראבו (גיאוגרפיה), ויטרוביוס (די ארכיטקטורא) [שניהם חיו בסופו], פליניוס (היסטוריה הטבע) [חי בזמן החורבן], ועוד.

[14]בלשונם "יקינטינון", "ליווידום", או "קונכיליא", והצבע הזה נעשה רק מזן אחד מסוגי הפורפורא, והוא הארגמון קהה-קוצים.

[15]ויש להעיר שחיפה היתה נקראת אצל או"ה "פורפיריום", ואולי נקרא כן על שם צביעת הפורפורא שם [כמו בכל מילה יוונית שמסיימת ב"יום" שמשמעותה "מקום של"].

[16]וכ"כ האדמו"ר מראדזין בעצמו "וכן בימי היוונים והרומים בימים הקדמונים, היה נחשב צמר הצבוע תכלת ליקרות גדול והיו לאות רוממות השררות... ומלאכת הצביעה היה ידוע אז במדינת טוראס [Tyre] ומעת נהרסה המדינה הזאת וכל סביבותיה בחופי ים התיכון ע"י הישמעאלים נשכח מלאכת הצביעה…" (מהקדמתו למאמר פתיל תכלת). ואין כל ספק שמדובר על הפורפורא של היוונים, והרבה מדבריו שם מועתקים ממש מדברי היוונים על הפורפורא! וצ"ע איך נעלם מהגאון הנ"ל מציאות הפורפורא, ואולי עדיין לא היה השעה כשרה לכך. מ"מ מוכח שסבר שהתכלת של או"ה הוא התכלת של ישראל. [ובאמת כן מוכח מדברי הרדב"ז (שו"ת סי' תרפה) והפני יהושע (שבת עה.).]

^{^[17]}לכאו' צ"ל שכוונתו רק על הדם של הפורפורא, שהרי כתב שם (ט ה) "ויש מדקדקים עושים ארבע כנפות צבע בלו"א דומה לרקיע מטעם תכלת." והגם שצבע הפורפורא הוא כחול, דמו אכן הוא סגול, מפני שיש בו צבע כחול ואדום ביחד, ורק אחרי ששמים אותו בשמש [כדרך הצביעה בימיהם שהיה בחוץ] נפרד האודם ונעשה כחול. ונראה שתופעה זו נרמזת בזוה"ק פרשת תרומה, (שמות קמט:) שכלול בתכלת גוון אדום רק שאינו נקלט עם הצבע, וזה לשון הזוה"ק "תכלתא נפיק מגו ההוא גוון סומק, וכד נחית לתתא איתרחק גוון סומק ואעל גו ההוא אתר דאיהו ימא ואצטבע תיכלא." ואפשר לומר גם, שמזה שהוכרח לו כ"כ שהפורפורא הוא החלזון הכריח גם שצבעו סגול-פורפור, שלא נודע לו שאפשר לצבוע ממנו גם כחול.

[18]כידוע נאבדו מאתנו הרבה מאמרים מהירושלמי, ואם אמנם ייתכן שאינו מתכוון לתלמוד ירושלמי, רק לספר קדום שהיה מכונה "ירושלמי" (עי' מבוא הראבי"ה לרא"א), אם ציטטו בודאי שהוא ספר מוסמך; ועי' ברד"ל בספרו קדמות הזהר שכתב שכונת הקדמונים ב"ספר ירושלמי" הוא לזוה"ק או לחלקי זוה"ק שנעלמו מאתנו. מ"מ קטע זו הובא בחסרונות הירושלמי, וכן משמע מדקאמר הראבי"ה "גרסינן בירושלמי."

[19] בס' למדי אצילות (ל:) ביאר האריז"ל "בפורפירא דמלכא הנקרא בגד תכלת".

[20]וא"א לומר שנתחלף שם הפורפורא במקרה לבריה אחרת שאפשר לצבוע ממנו אותו צבע [בזמן שלא צבעו ממנו בכלל], מלבד שאר הפרטים שמתאים בו להכתוב על הפורפורא.

[21]אוכלים אותו שם.

[22]ע' ספר לולאות תכלת ע' 263. אמנם לא התפרסם זהות הפורפורא עד לאחר זמן הגדולים הנ"ל.

[23]והם מצויים שם עד היום.

[24]עיין ספר התכלת לר"מ בורשטין באריכות (פ"י ב), וגם על שקלי צור יש תמונת הפורפורא; וכיום מצאו גם אריג צבוע כחול מהמורקס טרונקולוס, וגם נמצא עמוד בצפון אפריקה שחרות עליה תמונת שני חלזונות מסוג המורקס וגם המילה "פורפורורום" שמשמעותה "מקום [עשיית] הפורפורא."

[25]"כנוס ועומד" (רש"י כתובות ה:).

[26]י"ג דליצלח.

[27]ומזה נסתר הסמך היחיד למעודדי ה"ינתינה", שחושבים להביא ראיה מזה שנקרא תכלת "יקינטינון" שהיה נעשה מהינתינה, שהרי אין "יקינטינון" שם התכלת עצמו בכלל, רק תואר כללי להגוון; וגם לא נקרא הינתינה כן אלא כלפני מאתיים שנה משום צבע נרתיקו, ואין שום הוכחה שהשתמש לצביעה.

^{^[28]} י"ג ניכר.

[29] ומ"מ בודאי מוכח שלא היה גנוז לגמרי כנ"ל.

[30]שלא הביא שום הוכחה שהדיונון הוא החלזון, רק אסף מאמרי חז"ל בענין החלזון ומצא בריה מתאים, אבל אין שום הכרח מכח זה שאין עוד בריות רבות שבמקרה מתאימות עם מאמרי חז"ל, ואחד מהם הוא החלזון; ואפ"ל שאין זה נכנס אפילו בגדר ספק.

[31]כנ' מקורו מהקדמת האדמו"ר מראדזין לספרו עין התכלת שהעתיק מאגרת מאחד שכתב לו כן בפקודת הבית הלוי. וז"ל שם (ד"ה ומהם) "ומהם הגאבד"ק בריסק דליטא שי' מסר כל טענו ונימוקו בדבר מיאונו במצות התכלת לאחד ממיודעינו שיכתוב ויאמר לנו משמו בזה"ל, כמע"ל לא ביאר בדבריו מה זאת מצא אחר שנשכח, אם ממציאת הדג או הוצאת צבעו, ורק אחרי אשר כמע"ל יברר זאת היינו היה בזה דבר נשכח והוא מצאה, אז נהיה מחוייבים לשמוע אליו וללבשו, אכן אם נאמר כי הדג היה במציאות וגם הוצאת צבעו היה ידוע בכל זמן מהזמנים שעברו עלינו מעת שפסקה התכלת מישראל, ועכ"ז לא לבשוהו אבותינו ואבות אבותינו, הרי הוא כאילו יש לנו בקבלה ומסורה מאבותינו כי זה הדג וצבעו איננו החלזון והתכלת אף שהוא בכל הסימנים שסמנו בו חז"ל, כי אפילו נרבה כחול ראיות לא יועילו נגד הקבלה והמסורה, ורק אחרי אשר יברר לנו כי דג זה או מלאכת צבעו נפסק ונשכח מציאתו או ידיעתו בשום זמן מהזמנים ונפסקה בזה הקבלה אז יהיה לנו דברי ההלכה לראיה, עכ"ד שיחיה" עכ"ל האדמו"ר מראדזין זצוק"ל שם. וע"ע בסוף ספר משכנות לאביר יעקב שהעתיקו כן מהמהרי"ל דיסקין זצ"ל.

[32]באמת גם אחרי שנודע אצל המדענים שהחלזון הוא הפורפורא, לא נתברר אצלם איך לצבוע תכלת ממנה במשך זמן רב, עד שנתגלה במקרה שצריך להניח הצבע בשמש, כדרך הצבעים בימי חז"ל, שצבעו בעיקר בחוץ.

^{^[33]}אמנם על האדמו"ר מראדזין זצוק"ל קשיא טובא, שהדיונון היה מפורסם בכל הדורות, שמימות התלמוד ועד ימיו השתמש בלי הפסק לצורך דיו לכתיבה [ומזה שמו- "דיונון"], ומ"מ לא אמרו שהדיונון הוא החלזון.

[34]עי' מהר"ם, מהרש"א, מהר"ם שי"ף, חת"ס, ושאר מפ' שם שביארו כן.

[35]באמת אין כאן קושיא כלל, שהרי לא ראינו אינו ראיה, ולא נדע שלא עלה רק ע"פ מדענים, ולדבריהם אין שום חלזון שעולה אחת לשבעים שנה, וע"כ צ"ל כדברי הרדב"ז.

[36] כונת הרדב"ז ב"מאליו" שהוא מה שעולה א' לע' שנה (ע"פ החיד"א בפתח עינים על הגמ' הזה, וכ"פ בספר זכר דוד כרך ב עמ' תמח).

[37]עי' בשו"ת חכם צבי (סי נו) שכתב "לומר על דבר שאינו דומה "דומה" דרך הוא אף דלא דמי כל כך."

[38] ועי' בפי' דונש בן תמים לספר יצירה (פ"ו מ"ב) שכ' [על צורת "תלי" שהוא כשני קשתות מחוברות, כזה- ()] "ומה שביניהם יקרא תנין והוא דומה אל דג, דק הראש, והזנב דק, וגדול הבטן." וע"ע ערוך ערך רצם "דומה לדג של ים שהוא רחב ודק וחד כלפי ראשו." ובאמת, המעיין יראה שלנרתיק המורקס יש דמיון חזק לצורת דג.

[39]ולא פשוט כלל שדוקא מה שמוגדר דג בימינו הוא דג, שהגדרה זו באה ע"י המדענים לפני מאתיים שנה, ועד אז גם חלזונות הים היו נקראים דגים. ולפי"ז נתיישב איך כתב הרמב"ם שהוא דג והגמ' קאמר רק שדומה לדג, דכל דבר לענינו, שהוא חי במים, וגם נרתיקו דומה לסתם דג הצולל במים.

[40]ולפני זה הוא סגול, וכן כתב החוות יאיר בפירוש "דם חלזון שבו צובעין תכלת אינו בלוא (כחול), רק צבע פורפר (סגול)."

[41]ועי' בפי' ר"ח פסחים כ"ח. שפי' ש"ים המלח" בגמ' הוא ים הגדול.

[42]גם יש מסורת ביד כל כלל ישראל שהתכלת הוא כחול, וכן העידו יוסיפון ופילון שראו תכלת בעצמם, וכן הוא בתרגום עקילס הגר (מובא במדרש אסתר) ובתרגום השבעים; וכן כתבו: רס"ג (בתפסיר), ר' נחשון גאון (מובא בעיטור הל' ציצית), הרמב"ם (פיהמ"ש ברכות א ב, ומנחות ד א, שכ' שתכלת הוא "אזרק" - כחול), רבינו בחיי (שמות כח ו), החזקוני (שם כד י), הרד"ק (שורש ת-כ-ל), המהר"ם מרוטנבורג (ח"ד סי' תרלא), ועוד הרבה.

[43]וכבר נעשו ההבחנות של הגמ' ע"י כמה ת"ח, והצליחו להוריד קלא אילן ולא הורידו צבע המורקס, ומה שיש שלא הצליחו עד עתה להוריד קלא אילן הוא מפני שהיום עושים אינדיגו בשיטה מלאכותית, וכמש"כ הרדב"ז (סי' תרפה) שבימיו כבר התחילו לצבעו "באופן אומנות שאינו עובר אפילו על ידי גיהוץ."

[44]באמת לא נראה לומר שהגוון המדויק מעכב, שבכ"מ שמצינו שיש הקפדה על גוון מדויק, הגדירו אותו חז"ל בדקדוק רב, כמו במראות נדה, במראות נגעים, ובמראות ריאות; ובתכלת לא נמצא שום הגדרה מדויקת.

Qoton Qlassic: The Happiness of Yom Kippur and Succos

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:29:00 +0000

I have updated one of my favorite Qoton Qlassic's about the happiness of Yom Kippur and Succos and the correlation and differences between the two holidays. There are changes throughout the essay, but the main new addition is the following paragraph:

Perhaps one can explain the happiness on Succos is a result of the sealing of one’s fate on Yom Kippur. A popular Hebrew dictum states, “There is no happiness like the answering of a doubt”. Indeed, the feeling of doubt is potentially the most negative and destructive emotion. Uncertainty can cause one to resort to drastic measures as a means of achieving closure. In fact, a famous Hassidic lesson related in the name of the Ba’al Shem Tov, Rabbi Yisroel ben Eliezer (1698-1760), explains that the numerical value of the Hebrew word for doubt (safek/safeq) is equivalent to that of the word “Amalek” because just as Amalek, the grandson of Esau can attack a person and adversely affect one’s sanity through his venom, so does a doubt hit at the core of a person’s functionality to destroy him from the inside. Accordingly, it serves to reason that there can be no greater feeling than the feeling of relief in answering a doubt. The Talmud states that on Rosh HaShannah those who are completely righteous are written and sealed with a favorable judgment, and the those who are completely wicked, the opposite, but everyone in between is in a state of limbo until Yom Kippur at which time they are judged and, according to their actions, are written and sealed. This state of limbo stands as an indecision of one’s fate is surely the worst situation in which one can be, therefore one can understand that on Yom Kippur when sins are forgiven, one can revel at the happiness of knowing that his destiny has been finalized. This serves as the underlying reason for the happiness of Yom Kippur and the subsequent days including Succos. To answer the question of the Ritva, one can explain that the happiness of Succos and Yom Kippur are indeed one and the same, and indeed they are the same as Tu B’Av. The joy of Tu B’Av originated in the fortieth year of the Jews’ travels in the Sinai Desert when until then every year on Tisha B’Av, all the Jews slept in a grave and a segment of those who sinned by accepting the Ten Spies’ false slanderous testimony about the Land of Israel died. However, in the fortieth year, every person woke up on Tisha B’Av, no one died that year. The Jews assumed that they must have miscalculated the date, and performed the same rite the next day. Yet, even the next night, no one died. They again assumed that they erred in calculating the date, and this continued until they saw the full moon on the fifteenth of the month at which point they know with certainty that Tisha B’Av had passed a no one died. This was the cause for celebration on Tu B’Av, the fifteen of Av. Indeed this explanation also conveys the idea of being happy at resolving an uncertainty for each night until Tu B’Av every man who slept in a grave was uncertain whether the next day he would wake up, but from Tu B’Av and onwards, he knew that he would. Therefore, the root of the happiness on Yom Kippur and Succos is the same as the basis for the happiness of Tu B’Av.

Other posts that are relevant to issues discussed in this essay include this one, this one, this one, and this one.

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING THIS QOTON QLASSIC...

Qoton Qlassic: Ruste Taurus

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 07:51:00 +0000

Although this essay was once previously a Qoton Qlassic, I chose to feature it again in honor of this week's Parsha, Parsha Chukas. This Qoton Qlassic discusses the Red Heifer, known in Hebrew as the "Parah Adumah". Enjoy!

Click here to read Ruste Taurus...

Qoton Qlassic: Moses' Black Wife

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Thu, 20 May 2010 07:43:00 +0000

This post was actually once a Qoton Qlassic before, but due to its popularity, it has been chosen to be the Qoton Qlassic for this week, Parshas Beha'aloscha! This post explores whether the characters described in the Bible were "Black" or not despite their apparent African heritage. Included in this discussion is an intricate layout of the opinions concerning the origins of Moses' wife, Zipporah.

Click here to read "Moses' Black Wife"...

Enjoy!

Linking to Reb Chaim HaQoton

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Sun, 02 May 2010 08:07:00 +0000

Now you link to Reb Chaim HaQoton by adding this image to your blog and linking it to http://rchaimqoton.blogspot.com

...or you can add the following HTML code in order to link to Reb Chaim HaQoton:

So if you appreciate the informative and entertaining posts written here at Reb Chaim HaQoton, you can expose us to your readers and friends by linking to us with the new advertisement image.

If you want to link to our blog feed, then copy this code:

to produce this:

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Qoton Qlassic: Abominable Relations

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:35:00 +0000

This Qoton Qlassic is a post which discusses the prohibition of homosexuality in the Torah and debunks some of the often repeated rationale for those who try to justify the performance of this sin

Click here to read Abominable Relations

Enjoy!

Double Qoton Qlassic: Destroying Seeds and Tzara'as

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 07:29:00 +0000

This week's Qoton Qlassic are two posts related to the two parshiyos, Tazriah and Metzorah.

The first one, deals with the abhorrent sin of destroying one's seed

...and the second post describes the spiritual ailment known as "Tzara'as", which is commonly mis-translated as "leprosy".

Enjoy!

The Splitting of the Red Sea

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 19:07:00 +0000

The Splitting of the Red Sea

In describing the Egyptian pursuit of the fleeing Jewish Nation, immediately preceding the Splitting of the Red Sea and following the Israelites’ Exodus from Egypt, the Bible states, “These did not approach near those the entire night.”[1] The Talmud[2] exegetically interprets this verse as referring to the ministering angels in Heaven who wanted to sing of G-d’s praises on the night of Kriyas Yam Suf (Splitting of the Reed Sea), but G-d countered rhetorically “The works of My hand are drowning in the sea and you request to speak of songs?” Essentially, the Talmud is explaining that because the Egyptians were drowning in the sea, the ministering angels were forbidden by G-d from singing of His praise. Based on this Talmudic passage, Rabbi Yosef Kairo (1488-1575) explains[3] that on the latter days of Pesach one does not recite the Hallel in its entirety, rather one merely recites “Half-Hallel” because the Splitting of the Sea occurred on the Seventh Day of Passover[4] and therefore the full Hallel should not be sung for the same that the ministering angels were forbidden from singing of G-d’s praises at the Kriyas Yam Suf. That is, as G-d said, because ““The works of My hand are drowning in the sea and you request to speak of songs?” However, the question arises, according to Rabbi Kairo, why the Jews sing Hallel in its entirety on the First Night of Passover, if historically on that night the ancient Egyptians were massacred by the Plague of the Firstborn, thus, just like one refrains from saying the complete Hallel on the Seventh Night of Passover because that Egyptians drowned in the Red Sea, one should also do so on the First Night of Passover because many Egyptians died in the Plague of the Firstborn.

Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (1820-1892) writes[5] that the Ten Plagues in Egypt which afflicted the Egyptians were mainly to punish the Egyptians for their unfair enslavement of the Jewish Nation. He reasons that one cannot say that the main purpose of the plagues was to facilitate the Jewish redemption from Egypt because Rashi writes that G-d commanded the Jews to offer the Korban Pesach (Pascal Offering) and perform the Bris Milah (Ritual Circumcision) so that they could merit being deemed worth of redemption. This implies that prior to their fulfillment of those two commandments, the Jews were “bare of commandments” (as Rashi says) and had no value in Heaven by which to merit being saved. Accordingly, reasons Rabbi Soloveitchik, one must conclude that the Ten Plagues which occurred prior to the fulfillment of these commandments (or concurrently with them in the case of the final plague) were primarily brought by G-d in order to punish the Egyptians—not to save the Jews, for at that point, the Jews were not yet worthy of being saved. In contrast, Rabbi Soloveitchik writes that the Kriyas Yam Suf happened primarily as a means of allowing the Jews to traverse the Sea on dry-land and escape their Egyptian pursuers to continue en route to Israel. Thus, the primary purpose of the splitting of the sea was to save the Jews, while the secondary purpose was to punish the Egyptians who met their watery graves there. In summation, Rabbi Soloveitchik feels that the plagues in Egypt were primarily to punish the Egyptians, while the act of the splitting the sea was primarily to save the Jews.

However, if one understood contrary to the explanation of Rabbi Soloveitchik then the aforementioned question on the explanation of Rabbi Yosef Kairo can easily be resolved. If the raison d'être of splitting the sea was to drown the Egyptians as a means of punishing them for their cruelty, one can clearly discern the difference between the First Night of Passover and the Seventh Night of Passover. The Ten Plagues represented by the First Night of Passover were primarily aimed at delegitimizing the Egyptian deities in the eyes of the Egyptians[6], and only tangentially did the plagues kill Egyptians; therefore, when the Jews sing the praises of G-d on the First Night of Passover, they recite the Hallel in its entirety. However, on the Seventh Night of Pesach, G-d split the Red Sea allowing the Jews to cross the sea as a means of luring their pursuers into the sea to kill them, the motive behind the miracle was to punish the Egyptians, not to save the Jews. Therefore, on the Seventh Night of Passover, when the Jews commemorate the splitting of the Red Sea, they do not recite the entire Hallel because the purpose of the miracle was to kill the Egyptians, and as mentioned above, G-d rhetorically asks, ”The works of My hand are drowning in the sea and you request to speak of songs?” Therefore, only the “half”, abridged, version of Hallel is recited.

Although this idea that the principle reason for splitting the sea was to punish the Egyptians stands contrary to the words of Rabbi Soloveitchik, it is actually implicit in the writings of Maimonides. Maimonides writes[7] that Moses did not perform miracles to form a basis for the Jewish belief system in G-d, because a faith which is based solely upon miracles is flawed because one can always attribute the performance of a miracle to magic or sleight of hand. Rather, explains Maimonides, Moses performed each miracle because certain circumstances necessitated the performance of each miracle. For example, the Jews had nothing which to eat, therefore Moses performed the miracle of raining Manna from the Heavens. The Jews had nothing which to drink, therefore Moses performed the miracle of “bursting open” a rock in order to bring forth water, et cetera. Included in his list of examples, Maimonides writes that G-d needed to drown the Egyptians, so He split open the Sea and sunk the Egyptians. From these words, one can infer that Maimonides understood that the purpose of splitting the sea was to drown the Egyptians, and the fact that the Jews crossed the geographical location of the sea on dry-land was only a secondary facet of the miracle, but not its key objective. Furthermore, Rabbi Eli Baruch Finkel of Yeshivas Mir in Jerusalem (d. 2008) points out[8] that the entire content of Oz Yoshir—spontaneously sung by the Jews upon the splitting of the sea to celebrate the miraculous event—records only the Egyptians drowning in the sea and the world reaction to the event, but does not even mention the Jews’ crossing the sea on dry land. This important omission seems to imply that the reason behind splitting the sea was to insure the deaths of the Egyptians, not to save the Jews.

Immediately juxtaposed to the song Oz Yoshir is a verse in the Torah which states[9], “When the horses of Pharaoh, his chariots, and horsemen came into the sea, G-d turned the waters of the sea upon them, the Children of Israel walked on dry land amid the sea.” Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra (1089-1167)[10] asks why the Torah first mentioned the Egyptians drowning in the sea and only afterwards mentioned the Jews’ crossing of the sea, if chronologically, first the Jews crossed the sea, which lured the Egyptians to follow in pursuit, and only afterwards did the Egyptians drown in the sea. Ibn Ezra answers that one is forced to explain that some stragglers from amongst the Jews delayed in crossing the sea until they ended up crossing the sea at the same time as the Egyptians were drowning in their attempt to mimic the feat performed by the Jews in crossing the sea. Therefore, the Bible mentions the Egyptians drowning in the sea before the Jews crossing the sea even though the Jews began crossing the sea before the Egyptians began to drown in order to allude to the magnitude of the miracle performed that that some Jews were still crossing the sea concurrently with the Egyptians drowning in the self-same sea. Rabbi Simcha Maimon of the Brisker Kollel[11] writes that one is not necessarily forced into accepting this novel interpretation of the Ibn Ezra; rather, he reasons that according to the above-cited idea implied by Maimonides that the Splitting of t he Sea was chiefly to punish the Egyptians and only tangentially were the Jews saved, the Bible legitimately mentioned the Egyptians drowning before the Jews crossing because the Bible was not recording the chronology of the event, rather it was explicating the reasons behind the event. Therefore, the Bible first mentioned the main reason, that is, to punish the Egyptians by drowning them in the sea, then afterwards, the Torah mentioned the secondary reason of allowing the Jews to cross the sea on dry land[12].

[1] Exodus 14:20

[2] Megillah 10b

[3] Beis Yosef to Tur Orach Chaim §490

[4] The question arises as to why this event which occurred on the Seventh Day of Passover affects the type of Hallel said on every day of Passover after the first two days. This question requires further analysis.

[5] Beis HaLevi to Parshas Beshallach

[6] The Bible repeatedly records that G-d said that the plagues were “so that they [the Egyptians] should know that I am HaShem”, (e.g., see Exodus 7:17; 8:6, 8:18, 9:14, 9:29, 10:2, et al.)

[7] Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 8:1

[8] Birkas HaPesach, pg. 145

[9] Exodus 15:19

[10] In his commentary ad loc.

[11] Simchas Yehoshua to Parshas Beshalach

[12] Alternate routes through the Sinai Desert could have brought the Jews to Israel without necessitating the splitting of any waters. The Suez Canal was obviously not built at that point in history. Furthermore, Rabbi Simcha Maimon points out (Shiurei Chumash to Exodus 15:22) that the Chizkuni writes (Exdous 15:22) that the Jews exited from the sea to the same side from which they entered the sea, they merely traveled a semi-circle within the boundaries of the sea, but did not actually transverse the sea. This proves that splitting the sea was not necessary for the Jews’ to escape from Egypt.

Pesach and Zugos: Double Trouble

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:11:00 +0000

The Talmud[1] questions how the Rabbis could have instituted the rabbinic commandment requiring one to drink four cups of wine on the Night of Passover, if doing so is dangerous because four, as a multiple of two, alludes to pairs and thus renders one susceptible to attacks from dangerous spirits, known as Mazikin. Concerning the Night of Passover, at the apex of the Jews’ Exodus from Egypt, the Torah says[2], “It is a night of guarding for HaShem, to take them from the Land of Egypt. This night is to HaShem as a protection for all the Israelites for their generations. The Rabbis hermeneutically expounded[3] this verse to refer to the fact that the night of Passover is to serve as “protection” from dangerous spirits, known as Mazikin. Therefore, to answer the above-mentioned question, the Talmud quotes this interpretation. However, the Talmud does not explain why “pairs” (known in Hebrew and Greek as Zugos) makes one vulnerable to attacks from these damaging apparitions. Furthermore, the Talmud neglects to explicate the protective powers allotted to the night of Passover in negating the effects of these spirits.

Rabbeinu Bachaya (a thirteenth-century commentator) asks[4] why the Torah writes concerning each day of creation that HaShem saw that that which was created on that day was “good”[5], yet on the second day, the Torah does not record that HaShem saw that what was created was “good”. To answer this, Rabbi Bachaya writes that on the second day of creation, G-d created the Heavens and all spiritual Heavenly bodies including angels and the like; collectively all of this is known as the Olam Elyon, or “Higher World”. By omitting the fact that HaShem saw that this Higher World was “good” the Bible is teaching us that the Higher World on its own does not stand to exist, for the raison d'être of existence is humanity, whose physical creation is alluded to in the creation of the corporeal Earth on the third day of creation (even though Man himself—Adam—was created on the sixth day of creation). Therefore, since Man and the physical world created to serve him are the foci of existence, the Torah leaves out the “good” which HaShem saw in the Higher World, and rather mentioned twice[6] the “good” which He saw in creation of the tangible, “Lower World” on the third day. Since the material land is the pinnacle and core focal point of creation, and not the immaterial spiritual world, the Torah did not mention HaShem looking at the “good” of the spiritual world. Rabbeinu Bachaya continues to cite another reason as to why on the second day of creation, the Torah omitted HaShem seeing the “good” of His creation[7]. He explains that the Midrash[8] says that “Ki-Tov” was not written concerning the second day of creation because on that day “dispute” was introduced to the world by HaShem separating between the waters[9]. He reasons that the number two is the source for all discrepancies and differences. That is, since without something with which to compare it, one does not reveal the differences of something (for a difference can only be measured between two givens), the duality of a pair creates the divergences between the two. This is the source of all arguments[10]. From the second day of creation and onward, the elements “argued” with HaShem in His master plan of creation[11]. Because the number “two” is the source of all arguments and is the catalyst for rebelling against the singular united divine plan of HaShem, this number is a represent the dangers of duality—especially in the form of dualism and bitheism (or ditheism). Therefore, the demons were given power to assail humans who associate themselves with the number two.

In a similar vein, Rabbi Judah Loew, The Maharal of Prague (1525-1609), explains[12] that there are two types of creations, namely, that which is created for itself and that which is created for others. Even within the physical world, which was created for the sake of itself, exist elements which were not created for the sake of themselves, rather for the sake of creation in general. The Maharal cites worms as an example to such a concept, for worms were not created for the sake of themselves, yet are included in the physical world for the good of the world in general; similarly, within the realm of the meta-physical and supernatural, exist creatures which were not created for the sake of themselves, but rather to serve the physical world which stands at the center of creation. Included in these creatures are demons and other spirits, who lack a physical form, yet possess powers that can affect the physical world. These types of spirits are not the prime factors of existence; rather, they are secondary to the existence of the common Lower World as a whole. As secondary beings, their dominion only spans that which is associated with duality and the number “two”. With this fundamental understanding, the Maharal explains the phenomenon of these dangerous spirits harassing those linked to pairs.

The first day of Passover is referred to in the Torah as “the First Day[13]”. This Biblical appellation is especially noteworthy because Passover also falls out during the first month (the month of Nissan), which serves to intensify the association of Passover with being the “first”[14]. Therefore, the first day of Passover in particular is associated with the number one, to the exclusion of every other day on the calendar. Because of this, reasons the Maharal[15], the Mazikin lack power and dominance on the night of the first day of Passover. Accordingly, because of the protection afforded by the night of Passover itself, the Rabbis were able to institute the drinking of four cups on the night of Passover, even though four, being an even number, usually leaves one vulnerable to attacks from Mazikin.

The Talmud says[16] that one who recites Krias Shema at his bedside is as if he holds a double-edged sword in his mouth, for the Psalmist says[17], “The high praises of HaShem are in their throats, and an edged (plural) sword is in their hands”. Rashi explains that the advantage of a double-edged sword is that it can kill Mazikin. The Maharal explains that since these damaging demons only hold dominion over that which is linked to the plurality of the number “two”, when one recites Kris Shema, which includes the declaration of the uniqueness of HaShem, one counteracts the effects of these Mazikin which renders them powerless against him. In explaining the Talmudic analogy to a double-edged sword, the Maharal writes that a double-edged sword is completely sharp, unlike a traditional sword which is only sharp on one side. This double-edged sword rightfully represents the oneness of HaShem because while there exist other “ones” in the world (e.g. a king may be the sole sovereign of his country and may possess all executive powers there), those “ones” are only unique in certain aspects (in the above example, even this king is the only ruler in his country and in that facet he is unique, he is still not less common than any other human being because of his humanity), but HaShem is wholly unique under all terms. According to the above, reciting Krias Shema as protection against Mazikin should be redundant on the Night of Passover because on that night the Mazikin are powerless against Jews, for the holiday of the Passover itself shields and defends one from the damaging demons. Indeed, Rabbi Moshe Isserles (1520-1572) writes[18] that the prevailing custom is not to recite Krias Shema at one’s bedside on the night of Passover because one is already safeguarded from Demonic attacks through the supernatural protective powers of the night of Passover[19].

[1] Pesachim 109b
[2] Exodus 12:42
[3] Rosh HaShannah 10b
[4] Rabbeinu Bechaya to Genesis 1:4
[5] See Genesis 1:4,10,12,18,21, 25,31
[6] Genesis 1:10 and 1:12
[7] He also cites Pesachim 54a which says that the flames of Hell (Gehennam) were created on the Second Day of Creation. See also Maharsha to Pesachim 110a who discusses this at length.
[8] Bereishis Rabbah 4:8
[9] Genesis 1:6
[10] Perhaps this meant by the popular contemporary idiom, “It takes two to tango”.
[11] See Rashi to Genesis 1:11 that Hashem intended for the trees to taste equal to their fruits, but the trees defied this detail in their creation on the third day. See Rashi to Genesis 1:16 that the Sun and Moon were originally created equal in size, yet the Moon complained to HaShem that it wanted to serve as king of the heaven and was shrunk on the fourth day. And on the fifth day, G-d had to kill the female Leviathan and castrate the male Leviathan because they threatened to destroy the world (Bava Basra 74b). On the sixth day, Adam and Eve famously sinned by eating from the forbidden fruit.
[12] Be’er HaGolah, Beer 2 (page 28 in the Jerusalem print)
[13] Numbers 28:18, Exodus 12:16
[14] Additionally, when all three festivals are mentioned, Passover is always listed first (e.g. Exodus 23:15, Deuteronomy 16, especially 16:16).
[15] Gevuras HaShem, chapter 38
[16] Berachos 5a
[17] Psalms 149:6
[18] Ramah to Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim §481:1
[19] See also Pri Megadim and Aruch HaShulchan who write that this custom applies even to the second night of Passover in the Diaspora.

Vayikra—Positively Burnt

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:37:00 +0000

The original post on this topic was posted under the title Positively Burnt three years ago.

In explicating the process of offering a wholly burnt-offering (Korban Olah), the Torah says[1] of the owner of said offering “and he shall lean his hands on the head of the burnt-offering and it shall become acceptable for him, to atone for him”. This implies that the Olah offers forgiveness for some sort of sin. Rashi[2], citing the Midrash[3], explains that the methods of repentance for inadvertent sins which, if done purposely would be punished by execution in Beis Din, spiritual excision (Kerisos), Heavenly death, or lashes in Beis Din, are taught elsewhere, so the Olah does not atone for those sins in their inadvertent forms. The general rule in the Talmud[4] is that a Sin Offering (Korban Chatas) is brought if one inadvertently committed those sins for which one is executed in the Earthly court or is punished with divine ex-communication when committed with criminal intention. Nachmanides explains[5] that the inadvertent performance of an act for which one would be punished with lashes or death from the Heavenly court, had it been done on purpose, does not require an atonement at all, and therefore the Torah prescribes no offering. Therefore, the Olah must have been an "appeasement" for some other type of sin.

Rabbi Shimshon ben Avraham of Sanz (1150-1230) asked[6] why the Midrash did not entertain the possibility that the Olah sacrifice atones for a sin committed intentionally for which one is usually punished with death, but was exempt from punishment for whatever legal technicalities[7]. Rabbi Moshe Yosef Moldaver answered[8] that an action for which one is obligated for a specific punishment, but is not punished because of a technical reason, is not halachikly considered a new type of action, which would necessitate a new punishment or sacrificial obligation for the transgressor. Rather, this action is totally considered a sin punishable with the first punishment. Halachikly[9], one not only cannot be punished a second time for the same action (whether an act of ritual prohibition or civil) that one was already punished for. The Talmud derives[10] from Exodus 21:22 that even if one's punishment cannot practically be carried out, the exemption from a second punishment still apply. This is analogous to the contemporary legalistic procedure known as "double jeopardy", which exempts one from a second punishment for the same sin even if he was practically not punished with the first punishment.

Rashi, quoting the Midrash[11], explains that an Olah sacrifice is an atonement for one who violates a positive commandment or for one who violates a negative commandment and fails to perform the positive commandment that is supposed to rectify the negative commandment[12]. Rashi explains[13], in a point further explained by Nachmanides[14] and Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger (1798-1871)[15], that one is never obligated to bring a Olah as an atonement, rather, if one does, he attains his atonement.

Tosafos write[16] that after bringing an Olah one’s atonement is “floating. Rabbi Meir Lublin (1558-1616)[17] explains that the Tosafists mean that an Olah offering only atones for lenient sins, not for the more strict and severe sins. Rabbi Shlomo Luria (1510-1574) explains[18] that the atonement is “floating” inasmuch as the atonement does not occur automatically when one offers an Olah sacrifice, rather one must first perform Teshuva (repentance) and return to G-d before the offering of the sacrifice will complete its powers of atonement. His words echo that of Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher (1269-1343) who explains[19] that the Olah only serves as atonement for failing to perform a positive commandment or violating a negative commandment which is to be repaired by a positive commandment, if one repents from one’s sin. Other Tosafists write[20] that the Olah offers an atonement for one who sinned and never knew of his sin. According to this explanation, obviously one cannot be obligate to being an Olah for such a sin, because if he never knew about his sin, how can he be obliged to offer a sacrifice to atone for it? Rather, if one brought an Olah offering, then it atones for sins unbeknown to him, but if he did not bring one, he is not required to do so. Another Midrash says[21] that an Olah is an atonement for one who thinks about sinning and thus has sinned with his intellect, not for one who violates a positive commandment.

The Bible relates that upon King Hezekiah’s ascension to the throne of Judea, he repealed the idolatrous practices of his father and predecessor, King Ahaz. He reinstituted the sacrificial offerings in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, and the Scriptures tell, “They slaughtered the Pesach offering on the fourteenth of the second month, and the Kohanim and Levites felt humiliated and sanctified themselves and brought burnt-offerings to the Temple of HaShem”[22]. Rashi explains[23] that the Kohanim felt humiliated because of their lack of enthusiasm and zeal in re-establishing the services in the Holy Temple, as evidenced from the fact that they only offered the Pascal offering on the fourteenth day of the second month (Iyyar), instead of in the first month (Nissan) as is Biblically ordained[24]. Therefore, Rashi explains that the Kohanim and Levites felt embarrassed because of their indolent behavior. The Bible records that in response to this sense of remorse, they offered burnt-offerings in the Holy Temple. Why was the offering of burnt-offerings the reaction to their admission of guilt? Rabbi Simcha Maimon (of the Brisker Kollel in Jerusalem)[25] explains based on the above-mentioned concepts that the Kohanim and Levites wished to achieve atonement for their sin of delaying the offering of the Pascal Lamb in its optimum time (which is a positive commandment), therefore, after showing regret for their failure to carry out the positive commandment, which is a show of penitence for that sin, they brought Olah offerings in order to complete their atonement. This is because, as explained above, an Olah offering, coupled with repentance, offers atonement for one who fails to perform a positive commandment[26].

[1] Leviticus 1:4

[2] To Leviticus 1:4

[3] Toras Kohanim 4:8

[4] Kerisos 2a, Horayos 8a, Yevamos 8b, etc...

[5] Ramban to Leviticus 1:4

[6] Rash MiShantz to Toras Kohanim 4:8, however see Tosafos HaChadash there

[7] Such as a lack of witnesses, warning, a unanimous verdict (which disqualifies the verdict), etc…

[8] Shabbos, Parshas Vayikra 5767

[9] Bava Kamma 35a

[10] Kesuvos 35a

[11] See also Yoma 36a and Zevachim 6a

[12] For example, Leviticus 19:11 outlaws stealing with a negative commandment, while Leviticus 5:23 says that if one sinned by committing the prohibition of stealing, one can rectify his sin by performing the positive commandment of returning a stolen object. Accordingly, Rashi is saying that one who stole and did not return the object can achieve his atonement for his sin by offering an Olah sacrifice. (Although this merely exonerates one in the eyes of HaShem, nonetheless, in this situation, the thief must still offer monetary compensation to his victim, see below.)

[13] Erachin 21a

[14] To Leviticus 1:4

[15] See Aruch L'Ner to Makkos 17b

[16] Bava Basra 48a

[17] Maharam to Bava Basra 48a

[18] Maharshal, Chochmas Shlomo to Bava Basra 48a

[19] Pirush HaTur to Leviticus 1:4

[20] Da’as Zekanim to Leviticus 1:4

[21] Leviticus Rabbah 7:3 quoted in Ramban to Leviticus 1:4

[22] II Chronicles 30:15

[23] Ad loc.

[24] See Exodus 12:6

[25] Simchas Yehoshua to Parshas Vayirka

[26] However, Gersonides (II Chronicles 30:15) explains that the burnt-offerings were brought as part of the daily Tamid sacrifices as described in Exodus, end of Chapter 29.

Qoton Qlassic: Worshipping Idols

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 22:16:00 +0000

Here is the revised edition of a Qoton Qlassic entitled Worshipping Idols:

The laws by which Noahides are bound are quite distinct in nature from the laws of the Torah, and even when the same law exists in both codes, the applications of the laws are different. These not-so-slight variations are readily discernable in practical situations—especially concerning the forbidden relations and degrees of murder as they relate to a Jew and non-Jew. However, due to the secular nature of contemporary society, many are not aware of (or, under the guise of atheism, chose to ignore) the existence of G-d and the implications of His presence in respect to the daily lifestyle of humanity. The most fundamental of the positive Sinaitic commandments is the obligation to believe in the existence of G-d, as it is written[1], “I am HaShem, your G-d.” Rabbi Yosef Babad (1801-1874)[2] does not explain the basis of this commandment as he does by all other commandments, rather he merely asserts[3], “the root of this commandment does not require an elucidation. It is widely known to all [people] that this belief [in G-d] is the foundation for religion and those who do not believe in this are rejecting the principle creed and have no portion or merit within Israel.” Maimonides writes[4] that belief in G-d is so fundamentally important in life because all things are dependent on and are directly influenced by one’s theistic belief (or lack thereof). The converse is also true; the most severe negative commandments is the prohibition against believing in any other foreign gods besides the One and Only G-d as the Bible unequivocally warns[5], “You shall not have other gods in addition to Me.” Nachmanides explains[6] that this divine edict prohibits one from merely believing in false gods in his heart without even actually committing a physical act of idolatry.

In explaining the historical precedent for idol worship, Maimonides describes[7] that in the times of Enosh, humankind made a grave mistake in that they decided that they required the use of intermediaries to express their praise and thanks to G-d; they therefore created physical idols to represent the His honor and conveyed their appreciation to them. Eventually, however, they began to think of these physical icons as the Creator Himself and forgot about the actual existence of a Higher Authority. Rabbi Elazar Segal-Landau of Prague[8] explains[9] that this is alluded to in the Holy Scripture which, about the times of Enosh, states[10], “Then, calling in the name of HaShem became profane” because the contemporaries of Enosh profaned the name of HaShem by attaching it to physical statues. Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Chajes (1805-1855), in his glosses to Maimonides’ magnum opus[11], points out that this is referenced in the Talmudic hyperbole of “committing idolatry like Enos”[12]. While Maimonides explains the historical background behind the birth of idolatry, he seemingly neglects to explain the wickedness and wrongness of its beginnings and why its performance warrants a death sentence. In lieu of an explanation directly from Maimonides, Rabbi Yosef Rosen (1858-1936) explains[13] this omission that since the people in the generation of Enosh showed equal honor to a power in addition to G-d, while in the presence of G-d—for everything is within His realm— they were considered rebelling against the King of the World and were thus liable for punishment like any constituent who commits treason against his royal sovereign. Rabbi Rosen, The Rogatchover Gaon, proves this assumption that showing honor to someone else besides the King while in the King’s presence is considered revolting against the kingdom from a Talmudic passage[14] which asserts that Uriah the Hittite was liable for a punishment of death because he referred to Joab as his “master” [15] in the presence of King David[16]. Idolatry, since its very inception, has always been considered especially heinous is because by committing idolatry one denies the Creator and His powers. The heretical instigators of Enosh’s day felt that G-d was too high, too distant, and too great for them to relate to, so they needed a liaison. Eventually, this situation begat false prophets, who professed to relate the will of G-d by establishing new forms of worship and various sanctuaries and temples. In declaring G-d as too inaccessible to them, the troublemakers “set limits” on G-d’s abilities, thereby denying His eternal infiniteness.

To both Jews and non-Jews alike, committing idolatry is forbidden. Since Maimonistic Law axiomatically maintains[17] that G-d is one and only one, He, therefore, cannot be considered a unification of various forces and/or personalities, as that constitutes idolatry[18]. A Jew’s prohibition of idolatry applies to an even greater degree than a non-Jew’s, because a Jew is even forbidden to believe in “partnerships” between the Supreme G-d and other entities, while for a non-Jew, such a belief—although certainly heretical—does not constitute idol worship. According this, Catholicism, which is essentially Tritheistic, and other such branches of Christianity, who believe in a combination of deities (represented variously by a “Father”, “Son”, and “Holy Ghost”) may not necessarily be considered idolatry for a gentile; while for a Jew, according to Maimonides, they are[19].

Rabbi Menachem Azaria de Fano (1548-1620) enumerates[20], the thirty laws that a Noachide must uphold (based on the opinion of Ulla[21]), each of which is included in one of seven main categories. Because of this, the title “Ben Noah”[22] can only be conferred upon one who upholds all seven categories of Noahide Laws. A small sect practices what is deemed “Judeo-Paganism”, which is a mixture of Jewish and polytheistic/pagan practices and theology. Some of those practices involve honoring (or remembering) divinities that were among those previously rejected by the prophets of the Tanach (e.g., Molech, Ba'al, Asherah, Ra’, Daggah, Tammuz, etc…). Such superstitious adherences and rituals are actually quite contrary to the Torah and Noachide laws. In fact, avodat elilim (vain worship) encompasses more than one prohibition in both the Torah and Noahide laws. Those prohibitions[23] preclude passing a child through a fire to worship Molech, stick divination, divining of auspicious times, interpreting of omens superstitiously, witchcraft and sorcery, charming with incantations, consulting with mediums and oracles, and necromancy.[24]

Additionally, Maimonides rules[25] that one who conducts himself according to these Noahide principles merely because they appeal to his intellect, logic, or sense of justice, is not fulfilling them properly, and is thus not considered a “ben Noach.” Rather, Maimonides writes, a non-Jew must believe that he is following the Noahide laws because G-d has commanded him to do so, just as G-d commanded the Jews to follow their own code of laws at the Sinaitic Revelation (and a Jew must have these proper motives, as well). Rabbi Meir Simcha HaKohen of Dvinsk (1843-1926) explains[26] that the Rambam maintains the opinion that all commandments are followed because of their origin at Mount Sinai, and not because of any pre-Sinaitic prophecies, institutions, or practices. Indeed, Maimonides wrote exactly this in his commentary to the Mishnah[27] concerning the prohibition for a Jew to consume the sciatic nerve (gid hanasheh) that although the prohibition dates back to the days of the forefather Jacob[28], it is presently extant only because it was repeated at Mount Sinai. However, the above opinion of Maimonides is not universally accepted, for it can be implied from the Rabbi Yom Tov ben Avrohom Asevilli, a thirteenth century Talmudist, that any gentile who merely fulfills his or her obligation as a moral monotheist can be called a “son of Noah” despite whatever intentions the gentile has[29]. This implies that one needs only to submit to his or her natural moral inclination, without believing in the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, in order to be called a righteous gentile. Furthermore, the Maimonides himself seemingly contradicts his own ruling because he stated elsewhere[30] that the Jews kept every commandment as it was given in its own historical context, for he explains that circumcision was instituted from Abraham’s time, tithing from Isaac, refraining from eating an animal’s sciatica from Jacob… and the rest of the Torah from the time of Moses. This implies that a gentile is not necessarily required to keep his laws because of the Sinai Revelation, rather it suffices to follow the letter of the law merely because of its acceptance into moral society eons ago in history.

Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger of Germany (1798-1871) understood[31] that the Noahides of present days are exempt from observing the Seven Noahide Laws. He understands this based on Rav Yosef[32] who expounds, based on Habakkuk 3:6, that because the gentiles did not conform to the rules that HaShem imposed upon them, He exempted them from keeping those laws. However, this understanding of the passage in the Talmud is not quite justified, because the Talmud in the very same passage continues to explain that He only made it so that they receive reward for fulfilling the commandments as if they were not commanded to do so but they were still commanded to follow the laws. This is considered a punishment because the reward one receives for carrying out a good act that he was commanded to do is far greater than the reward for a good act that one was not commanded to do[33]. In any case, the moral repercussions of a society that flatly disallows for belief in G-d are serious. In addition to implicating such a society for eventual punishments from G-d Himself, such a society will degrade into a unilaterally immoral state. In rejecting G-d and His Torah, one thereby removes the cause of morality from the world and thus people would be free to do as they please (and do what pleases them). This will eventually bring further punishment as such a society will adopt prohibited practices as the norm –or at least as tolerable. The lack of such a fundamental belief in a society will produce harmful results to its constituents, which will further criminalize them for not following the innate human tendency for morality (i.e. the Seven Noahite Laws) and will cause more evil sin to run amuck in the world. The Noahide Laws offer a solution: Everyone is required to contribute to the establishment of morally upstanding courts, which properly monitor and care for the moral standing of the local populace.

[1] Exodus 20:2

[2] Sefer Minchas Chinuch #25

[3] §25

[4] Maimonides, Laws of Foundations of the Torah 1:6

[5] Exodus 20:3

[6] Ad loc.

[7] Maimonides, Laws of Idolatry 1:1

[8] Grandson of the Noda B’Yehuda, Rabbi Yechezkel Landau (1713-1793), Chief Rabbi of Prague

[9] Yad HaMelech to Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah

[10] Genesis 4:26

[11] Hagahos Maharitz Chayos Ad loc., (Frankel ed.)

[12] E.g., see Shabbos 118b

[13] Tzafnas Paneach to Maimonides ad loc.

[14] Kiddushin 43a

[15] Samuel II 11:11

[16] However, the Gaon points out that there are those who argue with this assertion (see Tosafos in Yoma 66b) and in this argument, which has halachik ramifications regarding showing honor to a student in the presecence of his teacher, Maimonides remains consistent with the above-cited assertion.

[17] Maimonides, Laws of Foundations of Torah, Chapter 1

[18] Much has been written to reconcile this idea with the Kabalistic concepts of the Ten Sefiroth and of the Thirteen Attributes of G-d’s Mercy. Those writings are beyond the scope of this essay.

[19] The ruling that gentiles are permitted to believe in “partners in creation” only reflects the simple understanding of Tosafos (Brachos 2b) and the Rema (Orach Chaim §156:1), however, responsa Me’il Tzedakah §22and Pri Megadim (Orach Chaim ibid. Eshel Avrohom §2 and Yoreh De’iah §65, Sifsei Da’as §11) write that even according to Tosafos such a belief is forbidden to any person.

[20] Asarah Ma'amaros, Ma'amar Chikur Din 3:21

[21] Chullin 92a

[22] “Son of Noah”, who was deemed righteous by G-d, See Genesis 6:9

[23] Many of which can be found in Leviticus 19 and 20 and are repeated numerous times through the Torah

[24] Even the 30 laws as enumerated by Rabbi Shmuel ben Chofni, Gaon of Sura/Baghdad, as discovered in the Cairo Genizah, include most of those pagan prohibitions (see A. Greenbaum, “Thirty Commandments According to Rabbi Shmuel ben Chofni” Published in Hebrew, Sinai, 1973).

[25] Maimonides, Laws of Kings 8:14

[26] Ohr Somayach to Maimonides, Laws of Sexual Prohibitions 14:7

[27]Pirush HaMishnayos (end of Chullin, chapter 7)

[28] Genesis 32:33

[29] See Chiddushei HaRitva to Makkos 9a

[30] Maimonides, Laws of Kings, 9:1

[31] Aruch L’ner to Makkos 9a

[32] Bava Kamma 38a, Avodah Zarah 2b

[33] The difference is because reward for fulfilling a commandment is based on the effort which one exerted in performing the commandment, and only when one is commanded to fulfill a certain commandment does its fulfillment require special exertion in order to battle the Evil Inclination who only tempts one to sin and/or refrain from fulfilling commandments when one is bound by that law.

Ha-Makom

noreply@blogger.com (Ron Coleman) — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:53:00 +0000

Rabbi Meir used to say: How is Techeles [blue color used in Tzitzis] different from all other colors? The Techeles looks like the sea, and the sea looks like the sky and the sky looks like a sapphire stone and the sapphire stone looks like the Throne of Honor (of the Almighty).

Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Chullin 89a. One of the leading orthodox lecturers on Jewish thought, Rabbi Yissocher Frand, explains why we are given this relatively long chain of association: Because we all must take one step at a time. Brilliant color and light can stimulate us, inspire us, and like all things that compel the soul make us want to absorb them and transcend. We are swept up by beauty and want to meld with it. This is after all a kind of love. (Read more.)

Likelihood of Hatzlocha

noreply@blogger.com (Ron Coleman) — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:19:00 +0000

What with R' Chaim in EY holding up the whole world, I would hate for this blog to be written into the wrong book, chas v'shalom, in the coming year.

I'm R' Chaim's frum grown-up lawyer friend from Passaic, and he has asked me to help out here from time to time. Now that he is focusing entirely on reality instead of this world of falsehood we inhabit, you are left, in part, with me.

Well, it happens that my own blog, Likelihood of Success, has taken a decidedly Jewish turn in the last week or so -- could it be Elul? You may want to stop over and take a look. I have recently commented on or linked to:

The Neo-Nazi "Israelis" that are emblematic of the failure of Zionism as a political philosophy
The strange -- or maybe not so strange -- IDF air incursion into Syria
Aish HaTorah's astonishing video that is an inspiration and challenge for anyone
The "brave" Reform rabbi who ran, hat in hand, to speak to an American Muslim group and show them what a good dhimmi a well-heeled Ghetto Yid can be
A recent article on the Nazi origins of Islamist violence, and the campaign of silence in the U.S. media about it
And everything else, from Alef to Beis.

I'm big on hachnasas orchim, too, so feel free to stop in, leave a comment, start up with me, put your feet on the furniture -- just remember, we're already holding by slichos around here.

Let's Get Some Answeres.

noreply@blogger.com (Ilan The Portlander Rebbe) — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 02:07:00 +0000

As our dear friend Reb Chaim is doing us all proud in the Mir, I thought I’d take up the questions he was recently asked regarding blood transfusions and the like. Let’s go over some of the points now. Come along, won’t you?

“Live by the law not die by it," correct? But Shagra Simmons said the opposite. What Rabbi Simmons said is more to what the truth is, because it’s the written Torah, Gods spoken word, and that supersedes oral Torah, any day.”

There are two very important points here that I think must need to be addressed. Both Rabbi Simmons and Reb Chaim are correct. To save his life, a Jew may disregard any of the 613 commandments, including eating blood. There are however, three exceptions to the rule. 1) Murder 2) Idolatry 3) Certain types of sexual relationships (i.e. incest homosexuality, bestiality adultery, ect) For example, If a gentile were to hold a gun to my head and command me to eat pork, I would be required by Jewish law to eat it. However, if he told me to shot my friend, I must die rather than listen. If you e-mail Rabbi Simmons, He can explain this in more detail.

The second point is important, in that it addresses the core of Judaism, namely the oral law. You said, “It’s the written Torah, Gods spoken word, and that supersedes oral Torah, any day.” This is making a massive mistake in understanding both G-d and his relationship to mankind.

At Mt. Sinai, Hashem gave the Jewish people the Torah, however, contrary to your belief, it was given in two forms, oral and written. The written Torah is the bare bones facts and is impossible to understand without the oral Torah. For example, we are commanded to slaughter an animal as G-d command, but nowhere in the written Torah is the procedure described. We are ordered to keep Shabbos under penalty of death, but are never told what it entails. Moreover, the Written Torah is filled with contradictions and logical errors.

The oral law, just was much as the written law came from G-d and was given as a special gift to his people, Beni Yisrael. A none Jew is forbidden to study it, and may only learn the written law. A Jew is commanded to keep the Torah as best he can, including its oral laws. Most of the Torah in fact is oral and both the laws that a Jew my break a commandment and the exceptions to that rule were given by the mouth of Hashem to Moshe at Sinai.

For more info, check out
http://www.beingjewish.com/mesorah/howtoask.html
http://www.beingjewish.com/mesorah/oral-imperative.html
http://www.beingjewish.com/mesorah/whynotwritten.html
http://www.beingjewish.com/mesorah/notchaotic.html
http://www.beingjewish.com/mesorah/1_moses_to_joshua.html

“Just imagine how we, here can get some sort of sickness from these people, just like the bird flu?”

The sad fact is, in every surgery there are risks and things that can go wrong. In fact a good number of hospital deaths occur every year due to infections that were caught at the hospital. However, by that logic, we could never see a doctor for anything.

“Take a look at the symbol of the blood donor? It’s a red cross isn't it? A Idolatry symbol...Hmmmm, see something wrong with this picture yet?”

In Israel, the simple is a red magan dovid. In addition, the symbol is the symbol of an organization, not of blood donation itself.

“God made us with this built in feature to repair itself by our own immune system, our blood and tissues working day and night, trying to make a mends and repair what is damaged.”

G-d also commanded us to see a doctor. We learn this from the fact in the written Torah that if a man injures his fellow, among the restitutions he must make is the medical bill. If there is a medical bill, obviously the sick person went to a doctor.

“This is my favourite scripture....”

It’s dangerous to learn Torah without a Competent Orthodox Rabbi. It’s impossible to understand beyond a very surface level, and must the time people make mistakes. They mean well. However, without an understanding of the Torah and its principles, and without the high level of devotion and good character must rabbis have, it’s all but impossible not to interpret it according to our own views, instead of G-d’s.

“The question is. Do you care? Do you care about Gods and his creation? Do you care about life and people, and everything he made for you and has given to you?”

Sadly the answerer in many cases is no. I don’t mean me personally, I am referring to the fact that although Torah learning is growing, over 80% of American Jews are ignorant of their Judaism and are totally assimilated. The average Jew in the reform and conservative movement has no understanding of even basic Torah laws. Trust me, I grew up conservative, and thy go out of their way to exclude G-d was the equation. Although there is massive outreach, we still loss many to intermarriage and other religions.

I hope this helps. Feel free to e-mail me with any other questions at imnotlikeyou@hotmail.com

Reb Chaim Haqoton has moved.

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:13:00 +0000

I have recently re-located from the United States of America to Jerusalem, Israel. Interestingly, I sat next to Avshalom Katz on my plane trip from New York City to Tel Aviv. I want my readers to post in the comments section of this post some ideas for future articles on Reb Chaim HaQoton.

Blood Transfusions in Halacha (an email discussion)

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:05:00 +0000

On 7/29/07, dt catherine taylor manna < timetobelievefoundation@yahoo.ca> wrote:

So nice to have found your post.

I had made a comment on the birthdays from your blog.

I am a student of the Torah, and observer and would very much like to covert formally, although i have done so in my heart.

also, i am learning so much and it is a blessing.

I would like to ask you if there is a blog on blood transfusions. this is something i am opposed to, I beleive it is an offense to God, to do this from my understanding of the tanak and the torah, are there any rabbi who are against this invented proceedure to try to temporarily save a humans life? and is there any debates on this subject like the birthdays. are there any jews that believe like i do? or rabbis:? If saving one life is performing a mitzvot, would it really be saving if you had to break a mitzvot that God has felt so strongly about?

for example God says, in lev chapter 17 you must not eat "or take into our body" blood of any living creature, if you do you must be cut off. because the life of every living creature is in its blood, you must pour it onto the ground you must not eat it if you do i will turn my face from you. on the ground it must be poured, it is used to make attonement for you, that all, thats it.

just in this last hundread years, of the almost 6 thousand since the creation of mankind, has this been invented, the blood transfusions to save ones life.

this is not wright. how can this be an acception to Gods rules or laws after he clearly states how he feels about blood.? about life? since God is all knowing and powerfull, he knew we would be capable of the intellegence on inventing all kinds of ways to preserve our temporary life here on earth, he knew what we are capable of, but the question still is, are Gods people supposed to sucome to the ways of the world? its practices? absolutly not. Gods people are a clean people, who are supposed to stay free and clear of Idolotry. and if one thinks that they can give there own blood to save someone who is loosing there own blood and is near death and if someone thinks that all they have to do is give there blood to save you, that is a form of Idolotry. saying, i will save you with my blood, over steping Gods authority on this one thinking its ok, im performing a mitzvot, playing God, its not like someone is drowning and you perform mouth to mouth resesitation, thats different or, you dodged a bullet to save your brother or friend, or you took the blow to the head to defend someones life, or you spoke out abouts GOds words stood firm and followed his ways, till your death reciting the shema, as many of Gods true faithfull followers did during the inquisitions and holocost, this is different. do you know what i mean rabbi?

anyways, i share my thought with you. I love our creator, and study his word daily. thank you for listning...

here is a free music site me and my husband have wrote songs for hashem and share them with his people...

http://music.download.com/houseofisrael

shalom catherine manna

I responded:

Life is the most important concept and thus life supersedes any commandment in the Torah. Maimonides writes (Laws of Foundations of Torah, Ch. 5) that the Torah is something by which one is supposed to live, not die. Therefore, in order to save a life, even for a short amount of time, all prohibitions and commandments are suspended. Therefore, even if the prohibition of consuming blood included a blood transfusion, violating this prohibition would be REQUIRED in order to save an individual's life. Furthermore, the prohibition not to consume blood, only means not to eat/drink blood anyways, it does not include other forms of consumption. Remember, the prohibition includes even your own blood (so if, for example, you finger is bleeding, you are not allowed to suck on it).

Please forgive me for not expanding thoroughly on the topic like I usually attempt to do because my grandfather's sister died earlier today (interestingly, her name was Katherine, like yours) and I delivered a eulogy, and then I went to visit my cousinwho is terminally ill in the hospital.

Good Luck on your quest towards Truth...

==

Reb Chaim HaQoton

http://rchaimqoton.blogspot.com

On 7/31/07, dt catherine taylor manna < timetobelievefoundation@yahoo.ca> wrote:

Im sorry to hear that your sister has passed away. thank you for writing to me. I understand, but is it allright if i choose to disagree with Maimonides on this one, and still become a convert? I agree with everything else, just not this one.

respectfully yours

Catherine

I responded:

She was my grandfather's sister, not mine. She was 93 years old, I visited her hours before her soul returned to its Creator...

I cannot possibly understand your position. How can you be so inhumane? Saving people's lives is one of the basic tenents of Judaism, the Torah itself says you MUST save someone's life even it means you wil be committing a sin in doing so, because such a sin is not considered a sin, rather it's a Mitzvah of saving someone's life. In order to be a Jew, one must possess the attribute of mercy, what type of mercy is it to not save someone because you think that a certain prohibition about consuming blood applies to a blood transfusion? The prohibition only applies to eating/drinking blood, and that's it. Surely, for the above two reasons there is nothing wrong with a blood transfusion according to Torah Law. Perhaps before converting to Judaism, you should do a lot more research on how Torah Law, called Halacha, works, because one does not simply "choose to disagree with Maimonides" on a certain law. Maimonides' rulings are based on the Talmud, which is the essential book of the Oral Torah which was given at Mount Sinai. I have the contact information for a Rabbi in Los Angeles who specializes in conversions, if you would like, I can give you his synagouge's phone number and address.

On 7/31/07, dt catherine taylor manna <timetobelievefoundation@yahoo.ca> wrote:

THank you sure i would love the contact information of the rabbi speciallizing in converstion. can you also tell me where it says in the tanak that you can break the torah laws if it is to save someones life? Its not that i am being inhumane, its just that i see in the passages of Lev 17-10 how God feels so strongly about the consumption of blood and of course they didnt have the technology such as blood transfusions back then, so I personally feel that i dont want to violate Gods ways and i dont quite understand living by the law and not dying for it.

I thought Moses said, directed by God, Today I put befor you the blessings and maledictions, if you are carefull to follow all my ways, i will bless you, I will be your God you will be my people, and i will defeat your enemies, and not put the diseases that are put upon the rest of the people {who dont follow his ways, and laws?} After doing my own research on the subject of blood transfusions, theres a major risk involoved in this proceedure too, its not guaranteed save either. and it makes sence, the blood of all of us has everytihing in it. so when we take this that belongs to someone else, we become like someone else, so is it really saving your life? or is it actually killing you? How does God feel about this? is this really a clean thing for his people to do? everyone does it, but i dont care about everyone I care about his people and i feel i am one of them.

I think it is an offence to God, to play with lives like this. the blood of every living creature, belongs not to us but to God, he gives specific instuctions on what to do with blood, to pour it on the ground, you must not partake of it, in any way consume it...what if your wrong, will God forgive this? Or does he expect us to repent and turn back to him. and to trust him, in everything including this one. I personally think that Gods people should be discusted in this practise and i personally view this as Pagan. If I was God and im not, i would be very hurt over my people doing what the rest of the nations do. WHen are Gods people going to listen to his word and actually have respect for it. Life is a gift, and we have lost something in the process of it. but i believe its never too late. I beleive he loves his people Israel, and i do too. Im not here to condem or argue with you Rabbi,. in fact I dont even know at times why Im where I am at. but i say what i feel, and its from my heart.

Shalom.

sincerly, Catherine.

I responded:

According to your reasoning the following should be true: Since it is forbidden for one to drive through a red light or a stop sign without stopping, even if one is driving an ambulance with a critically ill patient, one should not be allowed to drive through without stopping because the law says not to do it and anyways, it's not a guaranteed fact that you can save the critical patient. Is such a conclusion true? Obviously not. The laws were given to apply under normal circumstances, when circumstances are extrenous, then the laws do not apply and certain things which could normally be forbidden could become permitted and even obligatory in order to save the life of a fellow human being.

And anyways, the prohibition of consuming blood applies specifically to eating/drinking blood, other forms of consumptions (including, for example, annointing with blood or even transfusing blood) are not included in the prohibition of consuminh blood.

When the Torah tells of a law, it is not our job to figure out the reasoning behind the law, rather it is our duty to merely carry out what the Torah tells us to do, without analyzing WHY we are supposed to do it. Accordingly, your explanation of the prohibition of the consumption of blood (that one cannot take something from someone else and if he does he becomes like that someone else) might be a nice explanation, but through your explanation you are changing around the actual law by applying it to cases where it doesn't apply, and not applying it in cases where it does apply.Why then do we fulfill G-d's commandments? G-d is the Master of the Universe and the King of the World, so just as when a king would command you to do or not to do something, you would never dare question the reasoning behind his commandment (WHY the king commanded you to do so), so too when G-d commands certain laws, one is not supposed to ask WHY one should fulfill them, rather one should simply fulfill them as he would fulfill any edict commanded by a king. Ignore the WHY, the WHY is irrelevant.

With your permission, I would like to post this to my website to ask other peoples for their opinion on this matter. By the way, I am not a Rabbi, so please do nto refer to me as such.

She then wrote back:

Thank you for your time and reply.

I would be honoured if you would post my letter for discussion.

I would like to know if there is anyone else that thinks the way i do?

I think its good to talk about spiritual things, Gods laws and ways, we could help each other and in the end become closer to the almighty.

I read everyday on aish.com I love there writings and participate very much there.

Like I said i am a Torah observer and student and I am loving it!

Iv never felt closer to God ever, and I thank his people that have guided me in the wright direction. I feel there is so much that i didn't know about our creator. but now i have the opportunity to learn from the best, his people!

I love the Torah, I love his people and I love Him. I know that no one is perfect, and even Gods people can make mistakes, but the difference is, he chose one people for his name, and no matter what...he will always keep his promise and they will always be his people, even if they make mistakes , he always has and always will correct his people when there wrong because he loves them, just like a father loves his children, and like a child loves his father, we will eventually see his way.

That's the way history was, and is today.

God has a theme, a message he sends to his people, Faithfull "Israel", 1/ repents 2/ changes or turns back to him, then 3/ he forgives them...but what must Israel need to repent of?

What is His people guilty of, if anything?

Do we need to take a look at ourselves and question what we are doing , how we are living and is it according to Gods ways or someone elses?

Is that not a part of Judaism? To question everything? To make sure we are not being like the nations that are all around us.? That practise Idolatry, and pagan customs?

Gods people. Are a clean people, that stand out in this world, they always have, and yes they have been persecuted for it many times over, atrocities, inhumane crimes, all because they stood up for Gods name, they didn't bow down to anyone, they didn't forsake there God.

Don't you think these ones well be remembered by God and that he will bless them for it ?

How many stories have we heard of faithful Jews, who died, because they wouldn't kiss the cross. or accept Jesus as there God or convert to pagan religions? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

They really loved God with there whole heart,they didn't care what was being done to them, even till there agonizing painfull death, they would rather die in this temporary life, knowing that they loved there God, whole heardedly, the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, Moses and Joshua, Ezekiel, and Isaiah, they would rather die, than disappoint there creator, who is all knowing all power full and almighty.

There is nothing more pleasurable than having a close relationship with God. I believe that.
Shalom! See you at the wall someday! where Gods presents Shekina, is and awaits us all there.

Tu B'Av: A Qoton Qlassic

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:52:00 +0000

Happy New Years!

Here is a short selection from my Qoton Qlassic essay about Tu B'Av regarding the relationship between Tu B'Av and Rosh HaShannah:

Rabbi Zvi Elimelech Shapiro of Dinov (1783-1841) explains the Kabbalistic
significance of the holiday of Tu B'Av. The Talmud writes that forty days before one's embryo is formed, Heaven declares who his future spouse will be. In Tractate Rosh HaShana, a dispute is discussed at great length between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that Adam was created on the first of Tishrei. Adam was created on the sixth day of creation; therefore, the world was created on the twenty-fifth day of the month of Elul. Forty days before the creation of the world, the day on which all spouses must have been divinely declared was the
fifteenth of Av. This is the cause of the celebration of Tu b'Av and its links
to marriage and matchmaking. It is from the day of Tu B'Av, that it is customary
to begin using the New Years greetings to fellow Jews in anticipation of Rosh
HaShannah, the first of Tishrei.

Continue Reading This Qoton Qlassic...

The Scroll of Lamentations

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 22:54:00 +0000

In listing the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud refers[1] a book called Kinos "Lamentations" or Megillas Kinos "The Scroll of Lamentations"[2], written by the prophet Jeremiah. Scripture tells that when Jeremiah prophesied the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the Holy Temple therein, he was scorned by the people around him. HaShem commanded the prophet Jeremiah to record all of his visions about a desolate Jerusalem in a scroll. After transcribing the prophecies concerning the future of Jerusalem through his student Baruch, Jeremiah's scroll was delivered to the King of Judah, Jehoiakim. Jehoiakim's reaction was to burn the scroll, which foretold the annihilation of Jerusalem[3]. The opening verse of this book rhetorically asks about the destroyed city of Jerusalem, "How does she sit alone?[4]"

The popular name for the Scroll of Lamentations is Eicha, "How", named for the first word of the scroll. Why, in the popular vernacular, is the book referred to as Eicha, if the Talmud refer to the book of Lamentations as Kinos? The Midrash says[5] that the book of Lamentations opens with the word Eicha because the numerical value of that word is thirty-six; the Mishnah teaches[6] that there are thirty-six transgressions, which are punishable with Kares, spiritual excision. Furthermore, the Midrash says that the letters in the word Eicha allude to the uniqueness of HaShem, the Ten Commandments, the twenty generations from Adam until Abraham when the commandment of circumcision was first commanded, and the Five Books of Moses, which the masses denied, resulting in HaShem destroying the Holy Temple and Jerusalem[7]. Similarly, the Talmud teaches[8] that the book of Lamentations starts with the word Eicha and continues in an acrostic-style poem with each stanza beginning with a sequential letter in the Hebrew alphabet because the Jews transgressed every sin from Aleph through Tav. According to these understandings, one can explain that the purpose of retaining the book of Lamentations for generations is to serve as a reminder as to what destructive powers lie in the severity of a sin. The book serves as a means to arouse feelings of repentance for future generations. In order to achieve this effect, one must stress the word Eicha at the beginning of the book. Therefore, the colloquial speech of the masses styles the book Eicha not Megillas Kinos, in order to stress the effects of the word Eicha.

Rabbi Levi Yitzchack of Berditchev (1740-1809) said[9] that after the arrival of the Messiah, the book of Eicha will still be read. Why should the book that laments the destruction of the Holy Temple and Jerusalem be read even during the Messianic Era, when the Temple and city will have already been rebuilt? The Berditchever explains that it will be read with the opposite tone as it is read during the exile. He explains that when asking about Jerusalem "How does she sit alone?", one will not mean to ask in mourning "what sins caused the city of Jerusalem to lie barren", rather one will intend to ask the opposite, "what sins could have possibly caused the city of Jerusalem to lie deserted if it is now so vibrant and jovial." Thus, the Book of Lamentations contains a dual meaning, it not only serves as a book lamenting the unfortunate annihilation of Jerusalem, but it also serves as a source of hope for a time when the destruction of Jerusalem will seem so unfeasible. The former purpose of the book is represented in its name Megillas Kinos, while the latter purpose of the book is reflected in the popular name, Eicha. By calling the book Eicha, not Megillas Kinos, the masses are optimistically waiting for arrival of the Messiah who shall herald the building of the Holy Temple, speedily and in our days: Amen.
[1] Bava Basra 14b
[2] See Jerusalemic Shabbos 16:1
[3] See Jeremiah Chapter 36
[4] Lamentations 1:1
[5] Lamentations Rabbah §1:1
[6] Kerisos 2a
[7] The letters of Eicha are: Aleph, Yud, Chaf, Hey. Aleph equals one and thus alludes to the oneness of HaShem; Yud equals ten, the Decalogue; Chaf equals twenty, the twenty generations; and Hey equals five, the Pentateuch.
[8] Sanhedrin 104b
[9] [I've heard this in his name, but I cannot find the source]