Va'eschanan. Two kinds of Retzicha

I saw this brought down from the Brisker Rov in the name of the Gaon. I apologize if it's in the style of what you'd see in Hamodia. I liked it, and here it is. 

In the taam elyon, it is pronounced Lo Tirtzoch, while in the taam tachton it is Lo Tirtzach. He brings from Avoda Zara 19b

אמר רבי אבא אמר רב הונא אמר רב מאי דכתיב (משלי ז, כו) כי רבים חללים הפילה זה תלמיד שלא הגיע להוראה ומורה ועצומים כל הרוגיה זה תלמיד שהגיע להוראה ואינו מורה

He says that the two retzichos are retzicha through speech where one should be silent, and retzicha through silence when one should speak. That is the explanation for the patach and the kametz- retzicha through a patach- open, and retzicha with a kametz- shut.

This relates to what I brought regarding the difference between Ketores and Wine, here. The examples are numerous, including the punishment of Iyov for his silence when he should have protested.

Brachos on Mashiach. You'll be Too Busy to Think About It Later

On the way to shul this morning, my grandson, Moishie Eisenberg, asked me what brachos one should make when he sees Mashiach.

I told him that Reb Shlomo Zalman (Minchas Shlomo I, 91:27) was sent a letter from Rav Shmuel Hominer, in which the writer posits four brachos: 

• חכם הרזים Chacham Harazim, the bracha you make when seeing 600,000 Jews, because certainly there will be at least that many that accompany the Melech HaMashiach.
• שחלק מחכמתו ליראיו  Shechalak meichachmaso, the bracha upon seeing a wise man.
• שחלק מכבודו ליראיו Shechalak michvodo, the bracha upon seeing a king.
• שהחיינו Shehechiyanu.

The question Rav Hominer presented was whether one may combine the two "Shechalak"s, brachos numbers two and three -  into שחלק מחכמתו ומכבודו ליראיו.  Rav Shlomo Zalman says that the general rule is that we don't do portmanteau brachos- we may not combine them. One may combine two brachos only when the primary purpose of the mitzvos or the intent of brachos is identical, which is not the case here.

השי״ת יזכנו מהרה לקבל פני משיח ונברך אי״ה ארבע ברכות: 
א. ברוך... חכם הרזים, שבודאי יהיה  שם ששים רבוא ישראל וכהנה וכהנה עד אין מספד. 
ב. ברוך... שחלק מחכמתו ליראיו. 
ג. ברוך... שחלק מכבודו  ליראיו. 
ד. ברוך... שהחיינו.

 ויש להסתפק אם ברכה ב׳ ג׳ אולי אפשר לכלול ביחד  שחלק מחכמתו ומכבודו ליראיו, או אולי הוי משנה  ממטבע שטבעו חכמים בברכות. 

קבלתי בערב שב״ק מכתבו ולענ״ד הדברים פשוטים,  כללא הוא שאין חותמין בשתים פרט לאותם

 הדברים אשר חכמים ראו אותם כחדא וכמו״ש בברכות  (מ׳׳ט ע״א), וכן מבואר בירושלמי (דמאי פ״ה ה״ב) לענין  תרומות ומעשרות דאע״ג שמברכין על כל אתת בפני  עצמה מ״מ ביחד כוללן ומברך ברכה אתת, וחושבני  דהוא מפני שעיקר הברכה הוא בגלל התיקון כמו  שמברכים על שחיטה ועירובי תצרות ותבשילין, וכיון  שהתיקון הוא ע״י כולם לכן כוללן (אע״ג שתרומת  מעשר היא רק לתיקון המעשר ולא לתיקון כל השיריים).

I believe that he assumed שהחיינו- as opposed to הטוב והמטיב- because it is like seeing a dear friend or child that one has never seen. On the other hand, the Melech Hamashiach will be one of us, as the Chasam Sofer says. In every generation there is an individual that is worthy of being the Mashiach, and his potential will be realized if and when that generation is zocheh. So it could be your neighbor, and a shehechiyanu for meeting a new person would not be appropriate. But it's definitely not less of a simcha than buying a new suit or eating a cherry in June. But in that case, as I said, hatov vehameitiv might be the better choice.

I saw that Lubavitchers discuss whether one should also say גאל ישראל - Ga'al Yisrael, which makes sense, but there seems to be a difference of opinion in disparate publications, some (מה"מ על אגה"ת פי"א נדפס בשיעורים בספה"ת ח"ג עמ' 1277) saying that one would not make that bracha because we already said it in birkos Keri'as Shema. Although that bracha is on the process and this is on the culmination, it's the same idea and the same bracha.  Others (שו"ת לב חיים חלק ב' סימן מ"ב) advocate the bracha.  In any case, (except according to the Rambam,) the same question would apply to saying מחיה המתים.

My son, Harav Mordechai, said that one should also say עושה מעשה בראשית - oseh ma'aseh b'reishis, because Mashiach will be accompanied by the blowing of the horn of the ram that was sacrificed at Har HaMoriah, and that ram was created at dusk of the first Shabbos of the creation, as it says in Pirkei Avos. Anyway, you say that bracha whenever you see a natural wonder, and that would certainly qualify.

Additionally, on the basis of the Pirkei d"Rebbi Eliezer, that the donkey he will be riding on is the son of the Ason that was created on that bein hashmashos, his donkey will be around 5,700 years old, and deserves a bracha too.

פרקי דרבי אליעזר פרק לא

השכים אברהם בבקר ולקח את ישמעאל ואת אליעזר ואת יצחק בנו עמו וחבש את החמור הוא שרכב עליו אברהם הוא החמור בן האתון שנבראת בין השמשות שנ' וישכם אברהם בבקר הוא החמור שרכב עליו משה בבאו למצרים שנ' ויקח משה את אשתו ואת בניו וירכיבם על החמור הוא החמור שעתיד בן דוד לרכוב עליו שנ' עני ורוכב על החמור 

Of course, the easy way out is to say תיקו, because Eliahu HaNavi is supposed to herald the coming of Mashiach, and he will instruct us, לפני בוא יום ה' הגדול והנורא, as to what brachos we need to make.

Bava Kamma in the News

In a tragic incident in Morocco, a girl visiting a zoo was struck and killed by a stone thrown by an elephant.  I am not second guessing the expert quoted in the above article, but here's a video that might be seen as indicating intent on the part of the elephant. Among primates, certainly, throwing things is a way to express dominance or aggression -  see, e.g., this article.

In some law schools, first year torts finals involve "Issue spotting," where the student is required to identify the legal issues raised by a hypothetical  This case is a perfect example.

(A comment on Facebook disapproved of the exploitation of a human tragedy to illustrate Talmudic principles. I responded that doctors and lawyers and insurance people all use real life to illustrate and clarify the rules and principles that they need for their field.  If understanding hilchos nezikin matters, then this is a perfect case, a case that involves many Gemaros in the first three perakim. I said this to my shiur yesterday, and every single person there felt that it was very helpful.)

Here are some of the questions one must address:
Is this shein, or regel, or keren?  If it is keren, is it tam or mu'ad? If it is regel or shein, is this chatzer hanizik? Is someone obligated to pay kofer? If not kofer, what about regular nezikin?  If someone is liable, who is it that is liable? Does it matter if the victim is a child?


If there is a chiyuv, both the Zoo owners and the attendant would be liable. The Zoo owns the animals and is obligated to watch them, and the attendant is equally obligated to do so.  According to many rishonim, an owner is not absolved from chiyuv nezikin by hiring a guard- both of them are now liable.

The answer for Kofer is forthright, based on Rashi on 41b DH Veakati- there is no din of kofer by tzroros, and this is obviously tzroros.

The answer for whether it's called chatzeir hanizik is clear as well, as stated on 14a.  Where both are entitled to be there, Shein and Regel are pattur and keren is chayav, like a reshus harabbim.  What remains to be seen is whether it is regel or keren- this clearly is meshuneh, so it's probably not shein or regel.

Whatever motivated the elephant, it was not a desire to kill someone, so it would be like the Mishna of rubbing against a wall to relieve an itch, causing the wall to fall and kill a man.  The mishna there says the animal is not executed because it did not intend to kill.

But there really isn't any nafka minah. Although we pasken like Shmuel et al, that Regel does pay Kofer, everyone agrees that oneis patters kofer.  You can't have more of an oneis than an elephant throwing a stone that kills a person that's watching at a safe distance. So even if we would say that where there is no kofer there remains a chiyuv under the rules of nezikin, no such chiyuv would exist here.

So here's the new Mishna:

פיל בגן החיות שזרק את האבן, ופגע האבן בקטנה ומתה,....

Ki Seitzei: Irony

Chazal tell us that an object that kills a man must be buried. It should be buried near its victim, but the essential point is that the item must be buried. 

For example, Sanhedrin 45b

אחת אבן שנסקל בה ואחת עץ שנתלה עליו ואחד סייף שנהרג בו ואחד סודר שנחנק בו כולן נקברין עמו 

(Regarding individuals executed by the Sanhedrin.) "All - the boulder with which he was stoned, the gallows on which he was hanged, the sword with which he was killed, the strip of cloth with which he was choked - all of them are to be buried with him."
Rashi

כולם נקברים עמו - מקבור תקברנו יתירא נפקא לן לקמן בפירקא (דף מו:):

(It's not as clear on 46b, so I brought it from 45b.


Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein, in the Teshuvos in back of his sefer on Bamidbar, talks about a person who purchased a gun that had been used to kill a Jew, and the question was whether it must be buried.  He says that the halacha we are discussing here would apply only to the bullet, but not to the gun, and therefore the gun does not have to be buried.

(I haven't gone through the sugya recently, but I don't understand why, if this is true, the Gemara would say that the gallows require kevura, since it was not the instrument of his death.  The court never executes anyone on the gallows.  Only after the person was executed by other means was his body hanged for a moment.  Evidently, it's enough that the gallows was part of his death sentence, even if not used to cause his death; if the gallows has to be buried, how much more so should a gun be buried!)

But that is not the focus of this post.  What I found interesting was the contrast between Rav Zilberstein's psak and something I saw on Quora.  Quora is a website where people pose questions, others propose answers, and the answers are ranked by popular vote- what they call up-votes.

The question posed was

Which individual gun been used to claim the most human lives? What is its story?

The most "up-voted" answer, with seventy two thousand views, was offered by one Samuel Lim.

Oh boy, Ive been waiting for this one. I have a weapon with a not so illustrious history of service. The one-and-only...

Number 19074 Model 10 Browning FN

Images courtesy of: Browning FN Model 1910: The first shots of WWI

I can't even begin to do you justice by describing the kill count of this little peashooter, but suffice it to say that it is responsible for EVERY MILITARY CASUALTY OF THE 20th CENTURY PAST 1914.
Yup. A bit sensationalist of me? No, this was the firearm that Gavrilo Princip used to gun down the Austrian Archduke, starting the chain of events that culminated not only in the Great War, but also the Second World War. Who knows how the 20th century would have played out if this gun had jammed? We will never know.

So on the one hand you have Harav Zilberstein, saying that the din that the instrument of a man's death must be buried is limited to the bullet, and does not apply to the gun. On the other hand, you have Mr. Lim's observation that the weapon responsible for more deaths than any other weapon was this pistol. It's sort of ironic, in that the lamdan focuses on the naked physical fact, while Mr. Lim sees a deeper truth. How do you like that illustration of the difference between people-logic and Halacha-logic.


I am not, chalila, criticizing R Zilberstein's psak. We define "cause" contextually. In Bava Kamma, this point is hammered in countless times in the sugyos of Gramma and Garmin and the difference between liability in a court here on Earth and liability in a Heavenly court. Another example- when the daughters of Yisro told their father that Ish Mitzri, an Egyptian man, saved us from the other shepherds, it has been said that this was true. Moshe was not an Egyptian, but he was on the run from the Egyptian police for having killed the Egyptian man who attacked a Jew, so ultimately, it was the Egyptian that set in motion the chain of events that brought Moshe to Yisro.  But perhaps Mr. Lim's response should help us to realize that even if the din of  קבור תקברנו technically does not apply to a gun, the horrors it set in motion make it so repugnant as to be unworthy of continued existence.

If this were to be on a Parsha, it belongs in Ki Seitzei, Devarim 21:23, on  כי קבר תקברנו.

Here's the relevant part of Rav Zilberstein's teshuva.

תשובה קנ"ז

נאמר בקול מבשר ח"א סי' ﬠ"ח שחבל תליה שהנאצים ימש"ו תלו עליו יהודים קדושים הי"ד, אסור בהנאה וחייב קבורה ןזאת ﬠפ"י השאילת יﬠב"ץ ח"ב סימן קנ"ח שכתב לענין השאלה שהביא בלה"פ ליו"ד סי" ח' שאיש אחד קנה סייף מאת התליין הממונה להרוג מחויבי מיתה וﬠשה ממנו סכין של שחיטה. וכתב היּﬠב"ץ שיש לחוש בזה משום איסורי הנאה שכך בהרוגי בי"ד שנו חכמים סייף שנהרג בו נקבר ﬠמן ביחוד אם דן בו ישראל ואﬠ"ג דשלא כדין הרגו פשיטא דיש לחוש. ﬠ"כ.

.....

ובע"ז ס"ב: כתב רשי'י בד"'ה כולם נקברין ﬠמו דהע והאבן והסייף והסודר אסורים בהנאה וזאת כוונת היﬠב"ץ. ואף שהלכה זו נאמרה בהרוגי בי"ד מ"מ כיון שמפורש בסנהדרין מ"ו: ולא זו בלבד אמרו אלא כל המלין מתו ﬠובר בלא תעשה ובגמ' שם דריש ליה מרבוי דלאו דוקא בהרוגי בי"ד אלא גם כל שאר מתים יש בהם מ"ע ול"ת דלא תלין יﬠוי"ש

........

ובנוגע לאקדח, לא הוא הורג כי אם הכדור שיש בו אבק שריפה והברזל הוא ההורג והאקדח רק מצית את האבק, ודופק עליו, ומפﬠילו, אבל הוא ﬠצמו אינו משמש כלי מות, ולכן אין חיוב לקוברו

There's also a line attributed to Reb Yehuda HaChasid to this effect-

סכין או חרב שנהרג בו יהודי אסור ליהנות ממנו כי סכנה גדולה הוא לכל בני ביתו ולכל אשר יהנו ממנו, אך יקברוהו עם הנהרג.

And finally, it is important to know that although Rashi says this is a drasha, the Rambam (15 Sanhedrin 9) says that this halacha of burying the gallows is only to prevent his memory from being shamed.  It is a chesed for the man that was killed, not a drasha from a passuk.  If so, the rule only applies where keeping the object might result in disgrace for the person who was killed with it. Obviously, the Yaavetz held like Rashi.

Pinchas. Relying on Miracles when Miracles Occur Reliably

Parshas Pinchas is a parsha of miracles. The Gemara in Brachos 56b says that one who sees Pinchas in a dream, wonders will be wrought for him.

הרואה פינחס בחלום פלא נעשה לו

Rashi- because numerous miracles occurred when Pinchas attacked Zimri.

פלא נעשה לו. כמו שנעשה לפינחס כדאמרינן בסנהדרין (דף פב.)

The miracles are enumerated there in Sanhedrin. 


The Gemara in Brachos goes on to say that if one sees the written name Huna, or Yochanan, in a dream, miracles will happen to him, and Rashi says it is because of the presence of the letter nun.

הרואה הונא בחלום נס נעשה לו חנינא חנניא יוחנן נסי נסים נעשו לו

Rashi-

נס נעשה לו. נו"ן כנגד נו"ן וכגון שראה השם כתוב: חנינא. נוני"ן הרבה נסים רבים

We have a rule called of Ein Somchin, which means one cannot rely on miracles- אין סומכין על הנס. As the Gemara in Shabbos 32a explains, Even with the best intentions, one cannot assume a miracle will happen. Also, if it does, it is not necessarily a good thing, because experiencing a miracle often means it was paid for by a withdrawal from mitzva reward account.  

ר' ינאי לטעמיה דאמר לעולם אל יעמוד אדם במקום סכנה לומר שעושין לו נס שמא אין עושין לו נס ואם עושין לו נס מנכין לו מזכיותיו

So here is the question. What if a miracle occurs regularly in a particular place. Can one rely on it? For example: we have a rule that one may not interrupt Shemoneh Esrei even if a snake wraps itself around one's leg, but if a scorpion approaches, one may run away.  A snake is unlikely to bother you if it is not threatened, and the seriousness of standing in prayer before Hashem outweighs the risk of a painful injury, but a.scorpion is a nasty and aggressive creature that is very likely to sting. 

But what if you were in Yerushalayim at a time that, as the Mishna in Avos 5:5 says, neither snake nor scorpion ever injured anyone. What if a scorpion crawls onto your foot during Shemone Esrei.  Can you run away from it, because we don't rely on miracles, אין סומכין על הנס, or do we say that  in Yerushalayim, where scorpions were miraculously rendered harmless, you just continue to daven?

עשרה נסים נעשו לאבותינו בבית המקדש:

לא הפילה אשה מריח בשר הקדש,

ולא הסריח בשר הקדשיז מעולם,

ולא נראה זבוב בבית המטבחים,

ולא ארע קרי לכהן גדול ביום הכפורים,

ולא כבו גשמים אש של עצי המערכה,

ולא נצחה הרוח את עמוד העשן,

ולא נמצא פסול בעמר ובשתי הלחם ובלחם הפנים,

עומדים צפופים ומשתחוים רוחים,

ולא הזיק נחש ועקרב בירושלים מעולם,

ולא אמר אדם לחברו צר לי המקום שאלין בירושלים.

I suppose the initial response to this question would be that a reliable and predictable miracle is not a miracle at all. I do not believe that is correct. My definition of a miracle is something that is not caused by the laws of nature. True, we don't know all the laws of nature, but if something only occurs in one place, or only to one person, or only when people behave in a certain way, then it's not generated by teva, by the laws of nature. If it's above teva, then it's a miracle. It will soon become clear that this is this definition is the one accepted in Chazal, so let us put aside our initial response.

It turns out that this is a machlokes Abaya and Rava, possibly the Bavli and Yerushalmi.

In Pesachim 64b, the Gemara says that we want the sacrificial service of the Korban Pesach done in three separate shifts. Do you lock the doors between groups to ensure it's not finished in two shifts, or do you rely on the fact that the doors always locked themselves?  Abaya says, you rely on the doors to handle the problem miraculously. Rava says, you can't rely on miracles.

 נכנסה כת ראשונה וכו': איתמר אביי אמר ננעלו תנן רבא אמר נועלין תנן מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו למסמך אניסא אביי אמר ננעלו תנן כמה דעיילו מעלו וסמכינן אניסא רבא אמר נועלין תנן ולא סמכינן אניסא 

Additionally, we find the Gemara in Shekalim 17b says that there were marble tables in the Mikdash upon which limbs of the koranos were placed temporarily, or the Lechem for the Shulchan in the Beis HaMikdash was placed until it was brought in to the golden table. Why marble? Because placing it on silver might cause it to spoil- even though neither the limbs (see MIshna Avos above) nor the bread ever spoiled. The Gemara asks, not only did the bread never spoil, but it miraculously remained steaming hot and fresh for eight days! The Gemara answers - we don't rely on miracles.

Also, the Yerushalmi in Yoma 1:4 asks, why did they keep the Kohen Gadol a little hungry before Yom Kippur and awake all night if it never ever happened that a Kohen Gadol was unexpectedly disqualified (as mentioned in the Mishna in Avos above?)  Why worry about something that never happened! The Yerushalmi answers that the invariable purity was a miracle, and, as the Korban HaEidah explains, you can't rely on miracles.

The point is that Rava in the Bavli, the Yerushalmi in Shekalm and Yoma, all say that even if a miracle is as constant as the rising of the sun, we are not allowed to rely on it.  Even where it is a constant and unvarying reality that a certain miracle will take place- and, it seems, neither svara of שמא אין עושין לו נס ואם עושין לו נס מנכין לו מזכיותיו would apply- still they hold that אין סומכין על הנס.  We, humans, are obligated to behave in a manner that assumes that the laws of nature will pertain, even though we know that they will not. Abaya holds that you can rely on the miracle in such cases.


UPDATE:
When I first posted this, the connection to the Parsha was trivial, but I put it here because I couldn't find anywhere else to put it, and it's interesting, especially in that it opens a window into the lomdus of ein somchin.  But then.....
Wow, it's good to have talmidei chachamim reading this. Harav Yehuda Oppenheimer (Mazel tov on the upcoming bar mitzvah!) reminded us of the Gemara (BB119a) about the Bnos Tzelafchad- in this week's parsha- who miraculously bore children even though they delayed marriage until they were past forty years old.  The Rashbam says that they relied on a miracle happening for them because they knew they were tzidkaniyos (as we find by Reb Chanina ben Dosa.)

צדקניות הן - שלא נישאו אלא להגון להן. תני: רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אפילו קטנה שבהן לא נשאת פחותה מארבעים שנה. איני? והא אמר רב חסדא: ניסת פחותה מבת עשרים יולדת עד ששים, בת עשרים יולדת עד ארבעים, בת ארבעים שוב אינה יולדת. אלא מתוך שצדקניות הן נעשה להן נס כיוכבד דכתיב (שמות ב, א) "וילך איש מבית לוי ויקח את בת לוי"

Rashbam-

לא נישאת פחותה מארבעים - שהיו מצפות להגון להן:

שוב אינה יולדת - ואם נתעכבו עד ארבעים שנה לא היה אדם נושא אותן והן נמי לא היה להן להתעכב עד ארבעים שנה מאחר שלא ילדו עוד:

ומשני מתוך שצדקניות היו - בטוחות בצדקתן שיעשה להם נס כיוכבד ולכך נתעכבו עד ארבעים שנה בשביל להנשא להגון כיוכבד שילדה אחר ארבעים ומיהו נישואיה איכא למימר דהיו קודם ארבעים:

So, as Rav Oppenheimer points out, we see that if there is good reason to expect a miracle, there's nothing wrong with relying on it.  As I said, this opens up a whole sugya of what the lomdus is of אין סומכין על הנס.

His words:

I have the following chakira. You've proven that according to the Yerushlami(s) and Rava in the Bavli (like whom the Rambam paskens), one may not rely on a nes even though it's been happening consistently for a long time. So: Is that because of A) the metzius. (You don't know for sure that it will occur again this time since sof kol sof it's a nes) or B) a din. (Even if it will happen again you are still over on the Issur of relying on a nes "lo senasu es Hashem"). The nafka minah would be how to understand the Rishonim who say that big Tzaddikm who are certain in their Zechuyos may rely on a nes such as Rabi Chanina ben Dosa, Bnos Tzlafchad, Avrohom Avinu, etc. If it's a metziyus then you can say that tzaddikim have a bigger guarantee than merely the fact that this nes has been happenning for so long. But if it's a din then it's tzarich iyun. 

 On the topic of people who did rely on nissim, see Taanis 21a on Nachum Ish Gamzu, who told his talmidim to keep his bed in the house because his presence would miraculously prevent it from collapsing- כל זמן שאני בבית אין הבית נופל. The Maharsha asks from ein somchin and answers that the problem of ein somchin is the possibility of a small hidden sin, and Nachum Ish Gamzu knew that he was a tzadik gamur- אבל נחום היה מחשיב עצמו לצדיק גמור.  The Gevuras Ari and Yad Dovid say that even a tzadik gamur can only rely on nissim in cases of Sheiv al Taaseh, which explains the Bnos Tzelafchad but not Reb Chanina ben Dosa.

And since we've gotten this far, here's the Sdei Chemed in Cheilek 7 under the Klal of Ein Somchin (page 464a)

כדי להציל רבים שלא יהיו ניזוקין מותר להכניס עצמו לסמוך על הנס וכעובדא דר' חנינא בן דוסא בברכות דף ל"ג ע"א דסומך על הנס והלך לחורו של ערוד 
וכן בשב ואל תעשה מותר לסמוך על הנס והיינו דבנות צלפחד סמכו על הנס ולא נשאו עד שהיו בנות ארבעים דשוב אינן יולדות כדאמרינן בבבא בתרא סוף ד' קי"ט מה שאין כן לעשות מעשה לילך במקום הנס אסור 
וכתב שבספר יוסף אברהם פרשת פינחס ד' ק אין אצלי חלק זה האריך בזה 
ולכאורה יש להוכיח דלעמוד בשב ואל תעשה שפיר דמי מעובדא דנחום איש גם זו בתענית דף כ"א ע"א פעם אחת היתה מטתו מונחת בבית רעוע בקשו תלמידיו לפנות מטתו ואחר כך לפנות את הכלים אמר להם בני פינו את הכלים ואחר כך מטתי שמובטח לכם כל זמן שאני בבית אין הבית נופל פינו את הכלים ואחר כך מטתו ונפל הבית והיינו בשב ואל תעשה 
ויש לדחות דשאני התם שהיה סמוך וכעין זה אמרו בזהר הקדוש ריש פרשת וישלח דף קס"ו סוף ע"ת על פסוק וישלח יעקב מלאכים ובההיא דנקדימון בן גוריון בתענית ד' י"ט ע"ב שהבטיח להאדון על הגשמים לפי שהיה בטוח בזכות השנים עשר שבטים וכמו שכתב הגאון מוהרש"א שם שוב ראית שהרב יד דוד שם כתב בההיא דנחום משום שכבר היה שם ועמד בשב ואל תעשה  

Bilaam and Aesthetics

It's an admittedly subjective evaluation.  Ironically, of all the poetry in the Torah - Parshas Vayechi, Beshalach, Haazinu, Vezos HaBracha - the one that strikes me with the most power, the most beauty, is the poetry of Bilaam. Reading, hearing the words, evokes an unmatched pleasure. I don't know whether it is the sound, the meter, or the meaning, but it is extraordinary.

Many people have responded that Bilaam was not the author of these lines, he was nothing more than a conduit for the words of Hashem.  Unlike other nevi'im, the words he enunciated were stripped of all personal influence. When other neviim said Shira, it stemmed from their holy enthusiasm and passion, but Bilaam's shira was not a refinement of his words, it was totally extrinsic. One might say that the shira of other neviim, even that of Moshe Rabbeinu, was yeish mi'yeish, but the "shira of Bilaam" was yeish mei'ayin.

I respond to them that this is clearly not the case, as shown in Rashi.  Rashi brings Reb Yochanan from Sanhedrin 105b, that מברכתו של אותו רשע אתה למד מה היה בלבו - from Bilaam's words, we can see what curses he was trying to enunciate, but his words were forced to come out as brachos. Clearly, the words we see were influenced by and filtered through the instrument called Bilaam.

For a long time, I worried that perhaps my feeling arose from some kind of spiritual kinship, a harmony between Bilaam and me.  Hoping that this is not the case, I have, for years, wondered why Bilaam words are uniquely beautiful.

This year, Dr. Meir Zahtz pointed out to me that there is another case that is remarkably similar. I was relieved beyond words- it's not just me and Bilaam, Chazal say the same thing about Nevuchadnetzar.  Sanhedrin 92b:

 תנו רבנן בשעה שהפיל נבוכדנצר הרשע את חנניה מישאל ועזריה לכבשן האש אמר לו הקב"ה ליחזקאל לך והחייה מתים בבקעת דורא כיון שהחייה אותן באו עצמות וטפחו לו לאותו רשע על פניו אמר מה טיבן של אלו אמרו לו חבריהן של אלו מחיה מתים בבקעת דורא פתח ואמר (דניאל ג, לג) אתוהי כמה רברבין ותמהוהי כמה תקיפין מלכותיה מלכות עלם ושלטניה עם דר ודר וגו' א"ר יצחק יוצק זהב רותח לתוך פיו של אותו רשע שאילמלא (לא) בא מלאך וסטרו על פיו ביקש לגנות כל שירות ותושבחות שאמר דוד בספר תהלים

Rashi-

פתח ואמר - להקב"ה אתוהי כמה רברבין פסוק הוא (דניאל נ):

יוצק זהב רותח - משום דקא מיירי בשבחו דנבוכדנצר נקיט נמי לישנא מעליא ולשון קללה:

סטרו - הכהו מאחורי ידו:

לגנות - שהיה מסדר שבחות נאות יותר מדוד ואילו אמרן הקב"ה היה נוטה אחריהן יותר מאחרי השירות שעשה דוד:

When Nevuchadnetzar saw Shadrach, Mishak, and Abednego saved from the furnace, and he saw Yechezkel's resurrection of the dry bones in the Valley of Dura, he was moved to sing praise to Hashem.  An angel immediately silenced him with a backhanded slap across the face.  Had he not been silenced, his songs of praise would have shamed all the songs of David in Tehillim.

These were murderous and wicked men.  They were directly responsible for horrible suffering and innumerable deaths, and they were unspeakably depraved. Why were their songs so beautiful?

I think that Freud (Jenseits des Lustprinzips, 1920,) might have intuited a truth when he asserted that the artistic creation of beauty is an expression of the Id, it is at best a sublimation of a visceral drive for the satisfaction of animalistic desire. Beyond that, he adds, it can be a mechanism of self-consolation for the occasional frustration of those desires, for the times one could not satisfy his lust.

Of course, beauty can be created by Tzadikim, but I think that the discipline and re-direction of those impulses takes off the edge. Shlomo HaMelech and the Kalir and ibn Gabirol and Reb Yehuda HaLevi were truly lovesick for the Ribono shel Olam, and that love flows through their words, but it's not the same.  Bilaam and Nebuchadnezzar, their visceral, carnal,  even bestial lust was never denied, it was ferociously inflamed in every possible way. When they said Shira, it was the paragon of Shira.  There's a reason that Wagner's so good. There's a reason why Schubert's trill is so mesmerizing. And there's a reason why they played the merry Rosamunde (the polka, not Schubert,) and the sentimental Blue Danube at Majdanek and Auschwitz during death marches and slaughter.


Please note: I didn't say this teretz because I saw Freud's "Beyond the Pleasure Principle." I said it myself, and then realized that Freud says something very similar. Why, then, do I mention (as my wife describes him,) that discredited sheigitz? Only because both my question and certainly my answer are easy to dismiss, and I wanted to demonstrate that I'm not just talking out of my hat.

Also: A certain individual, by nature somewhat disposed to negation, suggested that I shouldn't be bringing proof that Balaam was an incomparable lyricist from, and I quote, "A PARSHA WHERE A !#%$% DONKEY TALKS, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!!!" My response is, "Thank you for your elegantly stated and well tempered criticism, but please note that the Gemara in Sanhedrin cited by Dr. Zahtz supports my position."

Also: Rabbi Dr. NJS of Maaleh Adumim tells me the following:

10 days ago in my shiur [ we're a week ahead] i suggested that perhaps the meaning of משה כתב את ספרו וכו is what bekhor shor and rashbam meant when they say that moshe CHOSE THE WORDING of the torah not that it was literally dictated letter by letter

After picking myself up off of the floor, I was reminded of how the Malbim, in his introduction to Yirmiahu, castigates the Abarbanel for saying that the beginning of Yirmiahu was written in a different style and with less clarity than the end because it was written when the Navi was young and inexperienced. Man, what would the Malbim say about the Bechor Shor and the Rashbam!  Probably that they are forgeries.

But אחרי ככלות הכל, the fact remains that we have several places in Chazal that indicate that Bilaam's personality and intent do come out in his words, and it is on that I base this post.


UPDATE, JULY 2017.

When I said this over Friday night, one of our guests said an excellent pshat in the unparalleled shira of Nebuchadnezzar and of Bilaam. 

The pshat is that it was davka because these people were such horrible resha'im, and they suddenly recognized the Gadlus and Tzidkus and Hashgacha Pratis of the Ribono shel Olam that their Shira was so extraordinary, something along the lines of (Brachos 34b) דא"ר אבהו מקום שבעלי תשובה עומדין צדיקים גמורים אינם עומדין, like the difference between someone that has been working outside all day and a person suddenly waking up to bright sunshine.

This is from Reb Howie Borenstein's Rebbitzen, Mrs. Shari Borenstein. I don't know if there's a din of besheim omro here, and some people won't take it seriously because the person who said it doesn't have a long beard, but as long as you saw the vort before you found out who said it, it can't hurt to tell you whose it is. 



UPDATE, JUNE 2018

Speaking of Shari Borenstein: My wife and I finally cleared up something we've "discussed" for forty years. My wife says that the pronunciation of Shari and Sherry, of berry, Barry, and bury, of merry and Marry and Mary, are totally different. When she pronounces the difference, I simply can not even hear any difference. We found out, thanks to linguistic sites on the web, that in England the difference is pronounced, as it is in the Northeast of the US, but as  you go south and west, they words merge. More interesting, the common denominator is that the vowels at issue precede the letter R, and apparently, differences in pronunciation of the R lie at the root of the distinct dialects. I spoke to Shari, who is from Baltimore, and she said that there's some difference between them, but it's mild, unlike Malkie, who said they're completely different, and me, who finally can hear the difference but pronounces them all the same. And now you know. 

Anniversary of the Maaseh Merkava

ויהי בשלשים שנה, ברביעי בחמשה לחדש, ואני בתוך-הגולה, על-נהר-כבר; נפתחו, השמים, ואראה, מראות אלהים. בחמשה לחדש

Today is the anniversary of Yechezkel's vision, and it is a good time to repeat something Reb Moshe said about the meaning of what he saw.

One of the things Yechezkel saw was the Ofanim.

וּמַעֲשֵׂיהֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה הָאוֹפַן בְּתוֹךְ הָאוֹפָן.

Reb Moshe said that although we do not understand the Maaseh Merkava, the image of אופן בתוך האופן is one of a gear. When we look at the things that take place in this world, we are perplexed by the apparent movement against what we are taught is Hashem's will, against justice and yashrus. But that is the nature of a gear- the direct result of an action is movement in the opposite direction; counterclockwise rotation is converted to clockwise rotation. Sometimes, what appears to be a very small movement is multiplied and generates tremendous change, far greater than was initially apparent. And what appears to be endless and pointless rotation produces forward movement.

(A coincidence involving Hashkafa and gears that change the direction of force- Reb Yisrael Salanter had a son, Lipmann Lipkin, b. 1846, d. of smallpox in 1876. Too bad they didn't have effective inoculations then. He received his Ph.D in Mathematics from Jena University, his dissertation titled "Ueber die Räumlichen Strophoiden." He first became known in the mathematical world through his mechanical device for the change of rotational into linear motion, this mechanism having been invented by him while he was still a pupil at the technical high school. He described his invention in the journal of the Russian Academy ("Mélanges Mathématiques de l'Académie Impériale à St. Petersbourg," 1870), under the title "Ueber eine Gelenkgeradeführung von L. Lipkin." The Russian mathematician Chebyshev had tried to show that an exact solution was impossible; and his views were accepted until Lipkin's discovery proved the contrary. This invention has been described in numerous text-books, such as Collignon's "Traité de Mécanique, Cinématique" (Paris, 1873), where it is called "Lipkin's Parallelogram."

A model of Lipkin's invention was exhibited at the exposition at Vienna in 1873, and was later secured from the inventor by the Museum of the Institute of Engineers of Ways of Communication, St. Petersburg.

And here it is.