Chicago Chesed Fund

https://www.chicagochesedfund.org/

Tuesday, November 23, 2021

Vayeishev, Breishis 37:3, Ben Zekunim, Chanuka, (and Keats.)

The Baal Haturim here says that זקונים is an abbreviation for the five orders of Mishnayos that Yaakov had learned with Yosef.

זקנים. נוטריקון זרעים קדשים נשים ישועות מועד:

Everyone wants to know why he didn't learn Taharos with him. There are so many 'meileh' (in modern English, "meh,") teirutzim out there: "He was a bachur, so he didn't learn ALL of Taharos with him, because a bachur does not learn Niddah," or "Yaakov saw that Yosef was 100% pure in the middah of Yesod, so there was no need to learn Taharos," or "Taharos requires your own ameilus, not just hearing it from a Rebbi," or "to learn Taharos, you need מי יתן טהור מטמא, and that required that Yosef experience the tumah of Mitzrayim," or "he began learning Mishnayos at ten, and at one a year, he only got to five of the six.

I appreciated how Rav Steinman put it in the Ayeles Hashachar. Instead of flailing around with unconvincing answers, he puts a better focus on the question:

הבעל הטורים כתב זקנים נוטריקון זרעים קדשים נשים ישועות מועד ויל"ע אם הי' סיבה שלא למדו גם סדר טהרות או דעדיין לא הספיקו 

But still, it seems לעניות דעתי, that focusing the question on "Why" is off target, and mimeila, the answers are useless. Even if one of those answers would be acceptable, it wouldn't explain the Baal HaTurim. The Baal Haturim could have read Taharos into the word זקונים by writing it מלא and using the vav for "ודעת." Even more, if there was no reason for the Baal Haturim to find this remez davka to five and not six, he should have just skipped it. Who says there has to be a remez to Sidrei Mishnayos, especially if it just doesn't work?  

The question ought to be, "What was the Baal HaTurim's reason for deciding that this should be a reference to five of the six sidrei Mishhah." 

Then I saw what Rav Bergman says in his Shaarei Orah/Maamarim, and I was reminded that טבא חדא פלפלתא חריפתא ממלי צנא דקרי

Rav Bergman doesn't ask why he didn't learn Taharos, he just points out that had Yosef learned Seder Taharos, he would have learned Negaim. Had Yosef learned Nega'im, he would have known the Rambam (Perek 16) in the end of Tzaraas:

הצרעת הוא שם האמור בשותפות כולל עניינים הרבה שאין דומין זה לזה. שהרי לובן עור האדם קרוי צרעת. ונפילת קצת שיער הראש או הזקן קרוי צרעת. ושינוי עין הבגדים או הבתים קרוי צרעת. וזה השינוי האמור בבגדים ובבתים שקראתו תורה צרעת בשותפות השם אינו ממנהגו של עולם אלא אות ופלא היה בישראל כדי להזהירן מלשון הרע. שהמספר בלשון הרע משתנות קירות ביתו. אם חזר בו יטהר הבית. אם עמד ברשעו עד שהותץ הבית משתנין כלי העור שבביתו שהוא יושב ושוכב עליהן. אם חזר בו יטהרו. ואם עמד ברשעו עד שישרפו משתנין הבגדים שעליו. אם חזר בו יטהרו ואם עמד ברשעו עד שישרפו משתנה עורו ויצטרע ויהיה מובדל ומפורסם לבדו עד שלא יתעסק בשיחת הרשעים שהוא הליצנות ולשון הרע. ועל עניין זה מזהיר בתורה ואומר השמר בנגע הצרעת זכור את אשר עשה י"י אלהיך למרים בדרך. הרי הוא אומר התבוננו מה אירע למרים הנביאה שדיברה באחיה שהיתה גדולה ממנו בשנים וגידלתו על ברכיה וסכנה בעצמה להצילו מן הים והיא לא דברה בגנותו אלא טעתה שהשותו לשאר נביאים והוא לא הקפיד על כל הדברים האלו שנאמר והאיש משה ענו מאד ואע"פ כן מיד נענשה בצרעת קל וחומר לבני אדם הרשעים הטפשים שמרבים לדבר גדולות ונפלאות. לפיכך ראוי למי שרוצה לכוין אורחותיו להתרחק מישיבתן ומלדבר עמהן כדי שלא יתפס אדם ברשת רשעים וסכלותם. וזה דרך ישיבת הלצים הרשעים בתחילה מרבין בדברי הבאי כענין שנאמר וקול כסיל ברוב דברים. ומתוך כך באין לספר בגנות הצדיקים כענין שנאמר תאלמנה שפתי שקר הדוברות על צדיק עתק. ומתוך כך יהיה להן הרגל לדבר בנביאים ולתת דופי בדבריהם כענין שנאמר ויהיו מלעיבים במלאכי האלהים ובוזים דברים ומתעתעים בנביאיו. ומתוך כך באין לדבר באלהים וכופרין בעיקר כענין שנאמר ויחפאו בני ישראל דברים אשר לא כן על י"י אלהיהם. והרי הוא אומר שתו בשמים פיהם ולשונם תהלך בארץ מי גרם להם לשית בשמים פיהם לשונם שהלכה תחילה בארץ. זו היא שיחת הרשעים שגורמת להן ישיבת קרנות וישיבת כנסיות של עמי הארץ וישיבת בתי משתאות עם שותי שכר. אבל שיחת כשרי ישראל אינה אלא בדברי תורה וחכמה. לפיכך הקדוש ברוך הוא עוזר על ידן ומזכה אותן בה. שנאמר אז נדברו יראי י"י איש אל רעהו ויקשב י"י וישמע ויכתב ספר זכרון לפניו ליראי י"י ולחושבי שמו:

Mimeila, you can say that all the Baal HaTurim means is that Yosef was a Ben Zekunim - that he knew everything, but he did not know Taharos as well as he should have. Had he fully understood and embodied the knowledge of Taharos, he would have been more careful about how he spoke about his brothers.

The pshat is one of those classical cases where as soon as you hear the teretz, you say, well of course, I knew that. PSA; You didn't.

Reb Chaim Brown added a thoughtful insight. Instead of using the Rambam, you could simply say that since Taharos is called Da'as in that passuk-

 (שבת ל'א:, אמר ריש לקיש: מאי דכתיב ״והיה אמונת עתיך חוסן ישועות חכמת ודעת וגו׳״. ״אמונת״ — זה סדר זרעים. ״עתיך״ — זה סדר מועד. ״חוסן״ — זה סדר נשים. ״ישועות״ — זה סדר נזיקין. ״חכמת״ — זה סדר קדשים. ״ודעת״ — זה סדר טהרות. ואפילו הכי, ״יראת ה׳ היא אוצרו״.)

there must be a fundamental connection between that subject and pshuto kimashma'o, Da'as.  Gufa Yosef's behavior was a rayah that there was a chisaron in Da'as on his part, and this shows that he was lacking in the yesod of Seder Taharos. (One thing needs to be expanded- what kind of da'as that relates to Taharos would have helped Yosef to avoid antagonizing his brothers.)

Reb Chaim once used this to explain the story of Chanuka. Since the main pegam of what we call "Yavan" is their anthropocentric and materialistic view of Da'as, it was the purity of the Pach Hashemen that signalled the success of the Chashmona'im. Tahara, and the Da'as of Torah, is the antithesis of Chochma Yevanis, a da'as that does not stem from Kedusha and Tahara.  

EVEN more - you realize that it is the shemen for the menora we are talking about, the menora that represents Man's understanding of Godly knowledge. So it is perfect - the symbol of the victory over the Greek Da'as of Tumah, is the Shemen that burned in the Menora that symbolizes the Da'as of Tahara. Of course it had to be absolutely tahor!! Da'as Torah is Taharah, and Tahara is Da'as Torah.

That the Menora symbolizes Da'as of Torah is Aleph Beis. But just to be sure, here are mekoros.

ב"ב כ"ה עמוד ב

אמר רבי יצחק הרוצה שיחכים ידרים ושיעשיר יצפין וסימניך שלחן בצפון ומנורה בדרום ורבי יהושע בן לוי אמר לעולם ידרים שמתוך שמתחכם מתעשר

ברכות נ"ז עמוד א

הרואה שמן זית בחלום — יצפה למאור תורה, שנאמר: ״ויקחו אליך שמן זית זך״.

פרי צדיק בהעלותך ט:ב

ענין הדלקת המנורה הוא שיהיה בא והאיר לי שהוא בחינת אור תורה שבעל פה מצד האדם.

נציב העמק דבר שמות כז:כ בדיוק כמו ר' צדוק

-באריכות בענין כפתור ופרח ושבעת הקנים


In light of the above, it is ironic that Keats' "Ode on a Grecian Urn," ends with the words    

   "Beauty is truth, truth beauty,"—that is all

        Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. 

Perhaps we would say it differently. Keeping in mind the Pach HaShemen, we would title it "Ode on a Yerushalmi Urn,"  and we would say

   "Taharah is truth, truth Taharah,"—that is all

        Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. 

__________________________________________________________


From Reb Chaim Kanievsky: 

Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein tells us that Rabbi Chaim Tzvi Lehrfeld asked this question to Reb Chaim Kanievsky, and Reb Chaim answered that in early times, Taharos was included in Kodshim.  I've seen this elsewhere, but I don't remember the makor that this was the case. 

Coincidentally, I came across the scintillatingly luminous new sefer from Artscroll “Rav Chaim Kanievsky on Chumash”. This vort is included, and the singularly gifted translator, who was tasked with elucidating and sourcing the often cryptic words of Rav Chaim, asked his contacts in Beis HaRav whether a source for this assertion could be found. He was told that Rav Chaim said this misevara, and this is how he presented the vort:  

Rav Chaim explained that it seems that originally Kodshim and Taharos were a single Seder; they deal with the same basic set of laws — a requirement to approach that which is sanctified with the utmost purity, whether entering the Mikdash or eating kodesh. Taharos are required for Kodshim, and there is no way to fulfill Kodshim without Taharos. Once the discussions of the Tannaim became numerous, it was decided to split them onto separate Orders. At this juncture, though, they were still united, and therefore Taharos is not mentioned separately.

It goes without saying that when Reb Chaim Kanievsky says a pshat in the Baal HaTurim, it is as reliable as it would be if the Baal HaTurim said it himself.

Af al pi kein, I think the Baal HaTurim would like Rav Bergman's pshat.


13 comments:

  1. MY friend Rabbi Chaim Tzvi Leherfeld asked this question to Rav Chaim Kanievsky who answered that in earlier times, Taharos was included in Kodshim. I assume that means because most of Taharos are really rabbinic enactments as a גדר to protect one from violating the Torah's laws of טומאה וטהרה which usually only have practical ramifications for Kodashim. See his work דרך המקראות פרשת וישב אות פג.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's great. Now I understand why, in Telz, the mussar shmuesen are called שיעורי דעת!
      Because when Reish Lakish saw a remez to the shisha sdarim in והיה אמונת עתיך חסן ישועות חכמת ודעת, lechora it's tzarich iyun, because Taharos was part of Kodshim. It must be that pshat is that דעת was mussar- which is why the passuk then tells you that ״יראת ה׳ היא אוצרו״.

      Delete
    2. I apologize for my not sufficiently respectful response. Reb Chaim is the Torah, and his pshat in the Tur is exactly as reliable as if the Tur himself wrote it. I was just being light hearted. Still, Rav Bergman's pshat is gold, and I suspect that Reb Chaim might like it too.

      Delete
  2. >>>using the vav for "ודעת."

    You can say the same thing w/o the Rambam -- saying over the dreams and causing the animosity with the brothers was a chisaron in daas. The Rambam is icing on the cake.

    This is how I understood the point of one of the "meh" answers you quote
    >>>"Taharos requires your own ameilus, not just hearing it from a Rebbi,"
    A rebbi can give you facts and knowledge, but to put things together and know how to use your brain =daas, that has to come from inside yourself.
    I once connected this to Chanukah = tim'u kol ha'shemanim, chochma yivanis = a pgam in taharah = daas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. Added. I also added a link to your post on Chanuka. That makes it timely and useful. I can even add it to my list of teirutzim on why they didn't rely on hutra betzibbur.

      Delete
  3. Anything to say in regards to the inconsistency of Nezikin's remez in zekunim being based on the drasha of Resh Lakish- a yud for yeshu'os and not a nun for its regular name, like the rest?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And "Because zeknanam is not a word" is NOT the answer I'm looking for!

      Delete
    2. To be perfectly honest, I assumed that it was because given that the Torah wanted to be meramez five sidrei mishna in a word that kipshuto refers to his wisdom, this is the only Hebrew word that exists that will do that, and even this one needs a drei on Nezikin. I think that is perfectly reasonable. It's a remez, and there's more lattitude in remez.

      Delete
    3. You do not need to resort to such a (in my opinion) detractive teretz. See the Chasam Sofer's drasha in the beginning of Bava Kamma where he is maarich about the klipos of the 4 avos nezikin, and how the name yeshuos represents the defeat of those klipos, which are Eisav. And besides the fact that that already suffices as we know beis Yosef lehava, he even mentions befeirush that the bracha of Yosef (bnos tzaada alei shur) is the kedusha aspect of "shor" in which the nezikin are all nishrash. Ayin sham, but I think that works well for this no?

      Delete
    4. First of all, I don't see it as detractive, because the Hebrew language is limited, and if you're being meramez, you have to use the pallette you're given. But Rabbi Avrohom Wagner, the translator/elucidator of the recent release "Rav Chaim Kanievsky on Chumash," wrote the following:
      In response to Menachem’s question, Nezikin is the only Seder whose common name has a negative connotation.
      Reb Avrohom's answer works hand in hand with yours. Very nice.

      Delete
    5. Oh, good. I was trying to pick a fight with my snide comment; I hope you are mochel. I like to see all levels of pardes including remez as a perfectly woven tapestry without any "imperfections"; otherwise it seems to be more of a man-made mnemonic device without a basis in reality. (I'm not completely confident that I'm right, but I would be somewhat disappointed in an alternative mehalech). So that's why I was so happy to shtel tzu the Chas"s. And Reb Avrohom sent me that response as well, and I agree that it works hand in hand.

      Delete
  4. In Ch 2 Prof Sussman discusses the 6 Sedarim but doesn't seem to mention any other breakdowns (though that is not his topic) (/Tl,dr whole thing)

    https://www.academia.edu/39891034/Yaacov_Sussmann_Babylonian_Sugiyot_to_the_Orders_Zera_im_and_Tohorot_PhD_dissertation_Hebrew_University_of_Jerusalem_1969_Hebrew_

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is such a useful snipe - tl/dr.
      I checked, and his thoughts focus mostly on what was learned by the Tanaim and Amoraim and Gaonim. Also, even according to Reb Chaim, it doesn't mean there were fewer masechtos, it just means that were all part of the same seider, just like the three Bavos were once all one book, and the two halves of Pesachim were two.

      Delete