Achrei Mos, Vayikra 17:3. The Hunter's Diet אשר יצוד ציד חיה

The Gemara (Chulin 84a) says that this passuk teaches that one should eat meat as a hunter would.

תנו רבנן, אשר יצוד, אין לי אלא אשר יצוד, נצודין ועומדין מאליהן מנין, כגון אווזין ותרנגולים, ת"ל ציד מ"מ, אם כן מה ת"ל אשר יצוד, למדה תורה דרך ארץ, שלא יאכל אדם בשר אלא בהזמנה הזאת 

Translation: Asher Yatzud: perhaps we can eat only after trapping.  What if they're readily available and at hand?  The Torah says Tzeid, meaning it doesn't matter how you get them.  Why then use the expression "ya'Tzud (indicating hunting or trapping)?  The Torah is teaching the correct way to behave- that one should eat meat only בהזמנה הזאת- in this manner of preparation.

The expression  בהזמנה הזאת is unusual and idiomatic and, for us, unclear.  

Rashi, with many sources, (for example, the Sh'iltos,) says that the Gemara's advice is that one should not get used to eating meat often, because doing so creates an appetite that will demand satisfaction, and meat is expensive.  אלא בהזמנה הזאת - כאילו הוא צד שאינה מזומנת לו כלומר לא יאכל בשר תדיר שלא יעני:

There are, however, two other interpretations that I find interesting, the Kli Chemda and the Rambam.

The Kli Chemda (Breishis 27:3) says the following:

טעמו של דבר, שלא יהא האדם מורגל באכילת בשר כמ"ש (דברים יב כ-כב) בכל אות נפשך תאכל בשר, אך כאשר יאכל את הצבי ואת האיל כן תאכלנו, ורצה בזה, שתאכל סתם בשר באקראי, לא אכילת קבע כמו הצבי והאיל שאין נמצאים בבית כי חיות הנה, ועיקר מדורם אינם עם האדם כי אם במדברות ויערות, על כן אין אוכלים מהם כ"א מעט, כי לאו בכל יומא מתרחיש ניסא להנצל מגדודי חיות בשעת הצידה, על כן מסתמא אין האדם אוכל מהם כי אם לפרקים, כך לא תרגיל את עצמך לאכול סתם בשר, לפי שהוא מוליד אכזריות ותכונות רעות בגוף האדם כי כל העופות הדורסים אוכלים בשר, וכן האריה דורס ואוכל, לכך נאמר לעתיד (ישעיה יא ז) ואריה כבקר יאכל תבן. כי יהיה שלום בעולם בין כל הבעלי חיים. ע"כ אמר יצחק וצודה לי צידה, כי לא רצה לאכול בשר כי אם בהזמנה זו. 

Approximate translation: ... a person should not have the habit of eating meat, as the passuk says, "When you desire it, eat meat, but as one eats a deer or antelope, so you should eat it."  Meaning, eat meat only occasionally, not as a regular habit.  Deer and antelope represent meats that are not readily available, they are wild, they inhabit deserts and forests far from human dwellings.  Not everyone is able to survive the privations and dangers of a hunting trip, so most of us only eat them occasionally.  So, too, do not eat meat habitually, because doing so breeds cruelty and bad traits in people; vicious birds of prey eat meat, and lions rip apart their prey and eat.  Therefore it says about the future "the lion, like cattle, will eat straw,"  because in the time to come there will be peace in the world among all living things.  This is why Yitzchak said "hunt me some game," because he only wanted to eat meat בהזמנה זו (note that the Kli Yakar chose this phrase to echoe the Gemara in Chulin), on exceptional occasions. 

So the Kli Yakar uses our Gemara to present a theoretical basis for a sort of almost-vegetarianism, or at least to suggest that eating meat, while certainly not prohibited, is a a symptom of the degenerated spiritual condition of our world, and one should avoid eating meat too often because doing so stimulates cruelty and coarseness.  This idea is also found in Rav Kook's writings, for example, where he says that (based on Sanhedrin 59) it was only after the mabul that No'ach was permitted to slaughter and eat animals, and even that was only as a concession to the base character and desires of mankind.  Had man not fallen so low, Hashem would have maintained the pre-existing prohibition.  Eating meat is an unfortunate but necessary outlet for animalistic urges that need some sort of outlet.  (Please don't mail me any more simple-minded questions about this: Yes, Hashem knew we have these urges; but had mankind as a whole been more disciplined and deliberate, we would have developed a culture that controlled and sublimated these drives.  We, as a whole, did not.  Under the circumstances, to continue the prohibition would create a tension that would yield more negative than positive results.)

I believe the Rambam uses our Gemara differently than Rashi or the Kli Yakar.  The Rambam says that one should engage in challenging physical activities and get sweaty before eating, and only then is it healthy to eat.  Even some foods that would otherwise be mildly unhealthy are good for you if, and only if, you exercised before eating.  We don't know exactly where the Rambam got this idea.  It doesn't have to be a Gemara, of course.  It wouldn't be the only time the Rambam was applying worldly wisdom from sources other than Chazal.  He might have gotten it from Gittin 67b, where it says that after someone gave Rav Amram Chasida bad food, Yalta had him work out and sweat, and this cured him:

שמעה ילתא ומעיילה ליה לבי מסותא ומוקמי ליה במיא דבי מסותא עד דמהפכי מיא דבי מסותא והוו דמא וקאי בישריה פשיטי פשיט רב יוסף איעסק בריחיא רב ששת איעסק בכשורי אמר גדולה מלאכה שמחממת את בעליה

But is is possible that he is using our Gemara in Chulin as a source- one should eat meat as a hunter would, in other words, after vigorous effort in the catching and preparing the food, and only when  you're hungry; Don't just buy it packaged in the market and plunk it into the pot and roll over to the table.  Work up a sweat, come to the table with vigor and appetite, and then you may eat meat.  I remember hearing about an old recipe book that begins "After you catch a chicken and behead it, let it hang to bleed out.  When preparing bear, double check to make sure it is dead before you begin to skin it."

Rambam 4 Deios 1:

הואיל והיות הגוף בריא ושלם מדרכי השם הוא. שהרי אי אפשר שיבין או ידע דבר מידיעת הבורא והוא חולה. לפיכך צריך להרחיק אדם עצמו מדברים המאבדין את הגוף. ולהנהיג עצמו בדברים המברין והמחלימים. ואלו הן. לעולם לא יאכל אדם אלא כשהוא רעב. ולא ישתה אלא כשהוא צמא. ואל ישהא נקביו אפילו רגע אחד. אלא כל זמן שצריך להשתין או להסך את רגליו יעמוד מיד:

Rambam 4 Deios 2:

לא יאכל אדם עד שתתמלא כריסו אלא יפחות כמו רביע משבעתו. ולא ישתה מים בתוך המזון אלא מעט ומזוג ביין. וכשיתחיל המזון להתעכל במעיו שותה מה שהוא צריך לשתות. ולא ירבה לשתות מים ואפילו כשיתעכל המזון. ולא יאכל עד שיבדוק עצמו יפה יפה שמא יהיה צריך לנקביו. לא יאכל אדם עד שילך קודם אכילה עד שיתחיל גופו לחום. או יעשה מלאכה או יתיגע ביגע אחר. כללו של דבר יענה גופו וייגע כל יום בבקר עד שיתחיל גופו לחום וישקוט מעט עד שתתישב נפשו ואוכל. ואם רחץ בחמין אחר שיגע הרי זה טוב ואחר כך שוהה מעט ואוכל:

Rambam 4 Deios 14:

ועוד כלל אחר אמרו בבריאות הגוף. כל זמן שאדם מתעמל ויגע הרבה ואינו שבע ומעיו רפין אין חולי בא עליו וכחו מתחזק. ואפילו אוכל מאכלות הרעים:

I saw that Rav Meir Bergman in Vol II also suggests that the Gemara in Chulin might be the Rambam's source.  I was glad to see it, because when I said this, I couldn't quite convince myself it was true, since the Gemara refers specifically to meat and the Rambam is advising this as a general matter for all foods.  But if Rav Bergman says it too, it's good enough to post.

A choshuveh correspondent directs me to the Eretz Chemda (see the following page as well) (from the Malbim), who discusses and brings mekoros for the Rambam.  Thank  you.

Kedoshim, Vayikra 19:17. The Mitzva of Rebuke- הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך

Chazal (Arachin 16b, Berachos 31a) teach us that the passuk (19:17) הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך ולא תישא עליו חטא obligates each and every one of us to rebuke one who sinned or did wrong (see Rambam 6 Dei'os 6-7: כשיחטא איש לאיש לא ישטמנו וישתוק כמו שנאמר ברשעים ולא דבר אבשלום את אמנון מאומה למרע ועד טוב כי שנא אבשלום את אמנון. אלא מצוה עליו להודיעו ולומר לו למה עשית לי כך וכך ולמה חטאת לי בדבר פלוני. שנאמר הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך. ואם חזר ובקש ממנו למחול לו צריך למחול. ולא יהא המוחל אכזרי שנאמר ויתפלל אברהם אל האלהים: הרואה חבירו שחטא או שהלך בדרך לא טובה מצוה להחזירו למוטב ולהודיעו שהוא חוטא על עצמו במעשיו הרעים שנאמר הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך.)  This obligation is not limited to teachers, or spiritual leaders, or parents- it is incumbent upon every single person, man or woman.  Of course, there are limits- just as it is a mitzva to admonish a person who might take your words to heart, so, too, it is a mitzva to be silent when you know for a fact that the other will disregard what you are saying (Yevamos 65b- ואמר רבי אילעא משום ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון כשם שמצוה על אדם לומר דבר הנשמע כך מצוה על אדם שלא לומר דבר שאינו נשמע רבי אבא אומר חובה שנאמר (משלי ט) אל תוכח לץ פן ישנאך הוכח לחכם ויאהבך) , and one may not publicly shame the other person (Eirchin 16b, תוכיח מכל מקום יכול אפי' משתנים פניו ת"ל לא תשא עליו חטא).

I saw that the Tallelei Oros brings from Reb Yerucham in the דעת חכמה ומוסר that the mitzva of Hochacha is primarily one of explaining, demonstrating, showing the other that what he did was wrong.  It is not limited to preventing him from doing wrong in the future.  He proves this from the story of Yonasan's reproof of his father Shaul for his hatred of David.  I wasn't so nispa'eil from that proof, but not having seen it in the דעת חכמה ומוסר I don't know what else he says there.

But later I realized that he has to be right.  We already know that there is a din of Arvus/Areivus, that makes us liable for the sins of others that we might have prevented- the failure to prevent or to protest creates a dinei shamayim liability similar to aiding and abetting in dinei adam.  We learn this from the passuk in Devarim 29:28 that says הנסתרות לה' אלוקינו והנגלות לנו ולבנינו עד עולם.  What does our passuk of Tochacha add to the general din of Arvus?  It must be that Arvus only requires our intervention to prevent future aveiros, while the din of Tochacha adds an obligation to help our friends see that what they did in the past was wrong, even when there is no reason to think they will repeat that action.


Our Parsha also contains the passuk (19:32)  מפני שיבה תקום והדרת פני זקן ויראת מאלהיך אני יה, which is the source of our mitzva to show honor to Talmidei Chachamim.  A few days ago, two members of our community came over to me and expressed surprise about a story in the Gemara (Bava Metzia 84b) regarding Rebbi Elazar B'Rebbi Shimon:

 כי הוה קא ניחא נפשיה אמר לה לדביתהו ידענא בדרבנן דרתיחי עלי ולא מיעסקי בי שפיר אוגנין בעיליתאי ולא תידחלין מינאי א"ר שמואל בר נחמני אישתעיא לי אימיה דרבי יונתן דאישתעיא לה דביתהו דרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון לא פחות מתמני סרי ולא טפי מעשרין ותרין שנין אוגניתיה בעיליתא כי הוה סליקנא מעיננא ליה במזייה כי הוה משתמטא ביניתא מיניה הוה אתי דמא יומא חד חזאי ריחשא דקא נפיק מאוניה חלש דעתאי איתחזי לי בחלמא אמר לי לא מידי הוא יומא חד שמעי בזילותא דצורבא מרבנן ולא מחאי כדבעי לי 

(...."Rebbi Elazar, anticipating his death, left instructions that he not be buried but rather that his body be placed in the attic of his house..  his body lay there for twenty two years... someone saw a worm leaving his ear and he became very upset, because the bodies of tzadikim are not subject to decay.  Reb Elazar appeared to him in a dream and explained that this was a specific punishment for having overheard someone denigrating a talmid chacham and not protesting as vociferously as he should have.")
The story in Bava Metzia is echoed in Rashi in Sanhedrin 44b, who says the following:

מעשה במוכס אחד ישראל רשע אחד שמת ובו ביום מת אדם גדול בעיר ובאו כל בני העיר ונתעסקו במטתו וקרובי אותו מוכס הוציאו גם את מטת המוכס אחריו וקפצו עליהם אויבים והניחו המטות וברחו והיה שם תלמיד אחד שישב לו עם מטת רבו לאחר זמן חזרו גדולי העיר לקבור את החכם ונתחלפ' להם מטתו בשל מוכס והיה אותו תלמיד צועק ולא הועיל וקרובי המוכס קברו את החכם ונצטער בה אותו תלמיד מאד מה חטא גרם ליקבר זה בבזיון ומה זכה אותו רשע ליקבר בכבוד גדול כזה. נראה לו רבו בחלום ואמר לו אל תצטער בא ואראך בכבודי בגן עדן בכבוד גדול ובא ואראך אותו האיש בגיהנם וציר של פתח גיהנם סובב באזניו אבל פעם אחת שמעתי בגנות תלמידי חכמים ולא מחיתי ולכך נענשתי וזה פעם אחת הכין סעודה לשר העיר ולא בא שר העיר וחילקה לעניים וזה היה שכרו

(A wicked man died on the same day as a righteous man.  All the townspeople involved themselves in the funeral of the righteous man, and the wicked man's relatives made a funeral for him as well.  As the two funerals proceeded, they were accosted by thieves and ran away, and by the time they returned, they confused the two coffins.  Only a student of the righteous man realized what had happened, but his cries and pleading were ignored, and the crook received great honor, while the tzadik was thrown into a hole.  His rebbi appeared to him in a dream and explained that this was his punishment for not protesting when someone derided a talmid chacham, while the rasha once gave a meal that would otherwise have gone to waste to the poor.)
They were wondering why a bystander would be obligated to mix in to someone else's conversation.  

I think it is clear that there are three dinim that obligate us to mix into other people's business and protest their disparagement of a Talmid Chacham:  

• We are obligated to honor Talmidei Chachamim.  The Gemara tells us that the honor of a Talmid Chacham is comparable to Kvod Shamayim, and the Gemara in Nedarim 7b says  אמר רב חנין אמר רב השומע הזכרת השם מפי חבירו צריך לנדותו ואם לא נידהו הוא עצמו יהא בנידוי- one who hears another say Hashem's name in vain is obligated to excommunicate the malefactor, and if he does not, he himself ought to be in Cherem; the positive requirement to honor Hashem demands that you stand up for Kvod Shamayinm.  Silence, indifference itself, is inherently disrespectful and transgresses the mitzva.  I assume the same applies to Kibbud Av V'Eim and to Mora Mikdash; 
• the din of Arvus, which creates a parallel between a failure to prevent or protest and participation, 
• and our parsha's din that we may not stand silent when we hear about or see the transgression of any issur.

Metzora. The Living Dead and the Asymptomatic Metzora.

The Tuma of a Metzora shares many dinim with the Tuma of a dead body.  Most famously, Tzara'as and Meis are the only Tum'os which cause Tuma to everything else that is under the same roof, Tumas Ohel.   Why is this so?  Is it because of his necrotic limbs?  Is it because he is separated from the community as if he had passed away?  When it comes to the arcane philosophy of Tuma, speculation is particularly unreliable.  But we may speculate if we keep in mind that it is, ultimately, only conjecture.  But here's a fascinating thing.  The Gemara (Eirchin 15) says that the sin that leads to Tzara'as is extreme egosism and antipathy.  It is possible that this has some connection with his macabre halachic status.  I saw a remarkable thing on this topic by Rabbi Joshua Hoffman, and I quote the relevant paragraph:

Readers familiar with the playwright Eugene O'Neill's semi-autobiographical masterwork, Long Day's Journey Into Night, may recall the final scene of the play, in which Jamie, the older son in the family, who is an alcoholic and a failed writer and actor, reveals the innermost depths of his heart to his younger brother, Edmund. Jamie tells Edmund, in the midst of a drunken stupor, that, although he loves him and is devoted to him, part of his inner-self wants him to fail. In part, Jamie says, he wants his brother to fall into dissolution, as he had, so that he would not make him look worse in light of his success as a writer. Jamie, in explaining this to his brother, tells him that it is the dead part of himself that seeks to do this. This is exactly what a person who is addicted to leshon hora does,and to the extent that he is obsessed with his evil talk, he is, in effect, dead, and bringing death to those around him, as well. In this way, he is effectively killing the 'adam' aspect of his own personality as well as those of others. When this happens among Jews, the entire nation suffers, because it loses the unique contributions that only these people can make. For this reason, the metzora must be isolated from society until he is able to once again become a productive member of it by actualizing his own potential, and allowing others to actualize theirs.

The dialogue in the play:

Jamie:....I’ve been rotten bad influence.  And worst of it is, I did it on purpose.

Edmund: Shut up!  I don’t want to hear–

Jamie: Nix, Kid!  You listen!  Did it on purpose to make a bum of you.  Or part of me did .  A big part.  That part that’s been dead so long.  That hates life.  My putting you wise so you’d learn from my mistakes.  Believed that myself at times, but it’s a fake.  Made my mistakes look good.  Make getting drunk romantic.  Made whores fascinating vampires instead of poor, stupid, diseased slobs they really are.  Made fun of work as sucker’s game.  Never wanted you succeed and make me look even worse by comparison.  Wanted you to fail.  Always jealous of you.                                        

A page later–

Jamie: .... Oscar Wildes’ “Reading Gaol” has the dope twisted.  The man was dead and so he had to kill the think he loved.  That’s what it ought to be.  The dead part of me hopes you won’t get well. ....  He wants company, he doesn’t want to be the only corpse around the house!  

Rabbi Hoffman's complete dvar Torah is reproduced at the end of the post.)

Reb Yeruchem also says something that relates to this question.  In 13:2 it says אדם, כי-יהיה בעור-בשרו שאת או-ספחת או בהרת, והיה בעור-בשרו, לנגע צרעת--והובא אל-אהרן הכהן, in 13:9 it says נגע צרעת, כי תהיה באדם; והובא, אל-הכהן, and in 14:2 it says זאת תהיה תורת המצרע, ביום טהרתו:  והובא, אל-הכהן, on the day of his cleansing he shall be brought to the Kohen.  The Sforno in Bamidbar 6:13 points out that this expression of being brought somewhere is found in four places: Metzorah, Sottah, Eved Ivri that will be nirtza, and Nazir in Bamidbar there.  But Chazal say that “yavi osso” by Nazir really means “yavi es atzmo.”  So the Sforno, as interpreted by R’ Yeruchem, explains that the difference is whether a person floats downstream or struggles upstream.  The metzorah, sottah, and eved all take the path of least resistance, and give in to their yetzer hara, or the bad influence of society or their friends.  They are what an acquaintance of mine calls “floaters,” and they are taken places.  The nazir, on the other hand, is what he calls a “doer,” he takes his life in his own hands and with courage and discipline determines his own path. (Others call them leaners and pushers.  Same idea.)  This person is taking himself where he needs to go.  I saw this brought in a sefer called “Maayan Hashavua,” on last week’s parshah, and he shtells tzu the Gemara in Chullin that only a kosher fish can survive in fast flowing waters.  A kosher fish will fight the current and survive, while a non-kosher species will be pushed and pulled to death.

Truth is, the Sforno’s he’ara is mostly homiletic, not interpretive.  The expression ‘v’huvah’ by the three really don’t need explanation. By a sottah, although she needs to prove her innocence, she won’t want to go because the whole thing is a terrible disgrace.  By eved ivri the din of v’huvah makes sense, because he is formalizing his cession of mastery over himself to the other person, so it is necessary that his master bring him.  We find a similar din by eved knaani, where his tvila l’sheim geirus/avdus has to be through the act of his master who puts him into the water.  And by metzorah, chances are the person will not go willingly to be declared a metzora, especially since it is only the kohen’s declaration of diagnosis that creates the tumah status.  So the he’arah is not strong in last week’s parshah, where it is talking about going to the kohen to be declared a metzora.  BUT in this week’s parshah, which is talking about his becoming tahor, and it still says v’huvah el hakohen, you could say that ‘v’huvah’ teaches that he needs to be shown that he should learn to be master of his fate, and not be so easily swayed by his flawed character traits.  He should learn to be a mentsch, not a shmatteh.  So you can use THIS ‘v’huvah’ to show that all three are meant to teach the same lesson.

In any case, this is another example of a metzora sharing the characteristic of a person who is dead.  He is a floater.

And finally, there is the famous Medrash in Vayikra 16:2, that says:

 ד"א "זֹאת תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת הַמְּצֹרָע" הה"ד (תהלים לד, יג): "מִי הָאִישׁ הֶחָפֵץ חַיִּים" מעשה ברוכל אחד שהיה מחזיר בעיירות שהיו סמוכות לציפורי והיה מכריז ואומר מאן בעי למזבן סם חיים אודקין עליה ר' ינאי הוה יתיב ופשט בתורקליניה שמעיה דמכריז מאן בעי סם חיים א"ל תא סק להכא זבון לי א"ל לאו אנת צריך ליה ולא דכוותך אטרח עליה סליק לגביה הוציא לו ספר תהלים הראה לו פסוק "מִי הָאִישׁ הֶחָפֵץ חַיִּים" מה כתיב בתריה (יד): "נצור לשונך מרע סור מרע ועשה טוב" א"ר ינאי אף שלמה מכריז ואומר(משלי כא, כג): "שֹׁמֵר פיו ולשונו שומר מצרות נפשו" א"ר ינאי כל ימי הייתי קורא הפסוק הזה ולא הייתי יודע היכן הוא פשוט עד שבא רוכל זה והודיעו "מִי הָאִישׁ הֶחָפֵץ חַיִּים" לפיכך משה מזהיר את ישראל ואומר להם "זאת תהיה תורת הַמְּצֹרָע" תורת המוציא שם רע

What is the elixir of life?  Avoiding Lashon Haran. And it's not enough to merely avoid lashon hara.  The passuk continues- (14-15) נצור לשונך מרע;    ושפתיך, מדבר מרמה. טו  סור מרע, ועשה-טוב;    בקש שלום ורודפהו  It's not good enough to avoid lashon hara by isolating yourself from society.  Involve yourself, seek peace, pursue a just society.   If avoiding lashon hara is life, if involvement in the community and the pursuit of peace and justice is life, then, of course, מכלל הן אתה שומע לאו, the person who constantly spreads lashon hara, the miser, the misanthrope, is, in a sense, dead. 


The physical manifestation of Tzara'as no longer occurs.  It is a metaphysical disease that exposes in a person's body the degeneration of his soul, as the Ramban says, and the physical manifestation of Tzara'as can only occur under certain conditions which no longer pertain.  But don't make the mistake of thinking that the parsha of Metzora is no longer relevant.    Just because the physical expression of this ailment no longer occurs does not mean that the underlying spiritual disease no longer occurs.  On the contrary, as spirituality declines, the disease of the neshama occurs more and more often.  We just have no way of knowing who among us suffers from the disease.  But one thing is for sure:  A person that deserves to have Tzara'as, the rumor monger, the one who hates to see others happy and successful, the miser who turns away from the needy, the person who is constantly bickering and smirking and sneering, that person is an asymptomatic metzora, and he causes Tuma to everyone and everything around him.  Even being in the same room with him contaminates you.

Rabbi Hoffman's complete dvar Torah, entitled "Dead Man Walking."

This week's Torah reading deals in large part with the laws of tzara'as, which is usually translated as leprosy. These laws begins with the statement, "If a man will have on the flesh of his skin a s'eis, or a sapachas, or a baheres, and it will become a tzara'as affliction on the skin of his flesh, he shall be brought to Aharon the kohein or to one of his sons the kohanim (Vayikra 13 . 1). It is interesting to note that while in the Hebrew language there are four words for man - ish, gever, enosh and adam, the word used here is 'adam,' which, according to the Zohar, connotes the highest level of man. Why would the Torah use this expression when dealing with a person who has contracted the highest level of impurity? Wouldn't he seem to be on a lower level?As we have noted in the past, the Talmud ( Bava Kama,38a) tells us that the word 'adam' applies only to a Jew. Rabbi Ephraim of Lunshitz,in his Olelos Ephraim, explains that this term is different from the other three Hebrew terms for man in that the other three words take on a different form in the plural that in the singular.  The plural of ish is ishim of gever is gevarim, and of enosh is anashim. However, the plural of adam is adam.By saying that only a Jew is called adam, what Chazal are telling us is that the individual Jew is inextricably bonded with the collective of the Jewish people. This is not true of any other nation.  As my teacher, Rav Aharon Soloveichik, explained, if someone from England moves to America, after a generation or two his family will no longer be identified as English,but as American. A Jew, however, no matter where he comes from and no matter where he goes,is always identified as a Jew. Based on this explanation, we can understand the qualification made by Rabbeinu Tam,that a non- Jew is sometimes referred to, in Scripture, as 'ha-adam,'but not as 'adam.' Ha-adam - the man- refers to a specific person, and, so, can be used in reference to a non-Jew,as well.However,'adam'-man-can only refer to a Jew, because it implies that the individual is inextricably bound to the collective. If we now take another look at the term adam, and connect it to the term for primeval man-adam harishon-we can understand it to be an allusion to the uniqueness of the individual, and the special mission he is given to accomplish in the world.  The mishnah in Sanhedrin (37a) tells us that man was created as a single individual in order to impress this quality of his uniqueness upon him.  Man, says the mishnah, is obligated to say, each day, that the world was created for him, meaning that he has a unique role to play in the world that no one else can fulfill.  When we see this notion in the context of the connection of each individual Jew to the Jewish collective, the message conveyed is that the unique mission that each individual Jew is charged with is inextricably connected with the goals of the Jewish nation as a collective. With this observation in mind, we can return to the use of the term adam in connection with the affliction of tzara'as.

Although the rabbis view tzara'as as a punishment for any of seven different sins, the primary sin that it is associated with is leshon hora, or evil talk.  One of the nefarious effects of such talk is to impair the self-image of the person who is spoken about.  Actually, the rabbis tell us that leshon hora kills three people-the one who speaks it, the one of whom it is spoken, and the one to whom it is spoken. We can explain this to mean that in all three cases, the activity of leshon hora impedes the person involved from actualizing his true self and accomplishing his mission in life, because his attention is focused on the evil talk and what it communicates about that person, rather than each person focusing on what he really has to contribute. When this happens, not only is the individual involved effected, but society as a whole loses, because the unique roles that these people were charged with accomplishing will now not be fulfilled, and, so, in a sense, these people can be considered as dead in terms of their contribution to the nation. Perhaps this is why the rabbis tell us that a metzorah is considered as being dead.                                      
Readers familiar with the playwright Eugene O'Neill's semi-autobiographical masterwork, Long Day's Journey Into Night, may recall the final scene of the play, in which Jamie, the older son in the family, who is an alcoholic and a failed writer and actor, reveals the innermost depths of his heart to his younger brother, Edmund. Jamie tells Edmund, in the midst of a drunken stupor, that, although he loves him and is devoted to him, part of his inner-self wants him to fail. In part, Jamie says, he wants his brother to fall into dissolution, as he had, so that he would not make him look worse in light of his success as a writer. Jamie, in explaining this to his brother, tells him that it is the dead part of himself that seeks to do this. This is exactly what a person who is addicted to leshon hora does,and to the extent that he is obsessed with his evil talk, he is, in effect, dead, and bringing death to those around him, as well. In this way, he is effectively killing the 'adam' aspect of his own personality as well as those of others. When this happens among Jews, the entire nation suffers, because it loses the unique contributions that only these people can make. For this reason, the metzora must be isolated from society until he is able to once again become a productive member of it by actualizing his own potential, and allowing others to actualize theirs.

On a completely different topic:  I was checking the precise definition of the word "macabre," because I used it in the first paragraph to mean "death like," or "gruesome."  I found the history of that word very surprising- as was the explanation of Mel Gibson's incongruous project- as follows:

From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

macabre (adj.) 

early 15c., from O.Fr. (danse) Macabré "(dance) of Death" (1376), probably a translation of M.L. (Chorea) Machabæorum, lit. "dance of the Maccabees" (leaders of the Jewish revolt against Syro-Hellenes; see Maccabees). The association with the dance of death seems to be via vivid descriptions of the martyrdom of the Maccabees in the Apocryphal books. The abstracted sense of "gruesome" is first attested 1842 in French, 1889 in English.

The typical form which the allegory takes is that of a series of pictures, sculptured or painted, in which Death appears, either as a dancing skeleton or as a shrunken corpse wrapped in grave-clothes to persons representing every age and condition of life, and leads them all in a dance to the grave. ["Encyclopaedia Britannica," 11th ed., 1911] 

From The Free Dictionary:

ma·cabre·ly adv.

Word History: The word macabre is an excellent example of a word formed with reference to a specific context that has long since disappeared for everyone but scholars. Macabre is first recorded in the phrase Macabrees daunce in a work written around 1430 by John Lydgate. Macabree was thought by Lydgate to be the name of a French author, but in fact he misunderstood the Old French phrase Danse Macabre, "the Dance of Death," a subject of art and literature. In this dance, Death leads people of all classes and walks of life to the same final end. The macabre element may be an alteration of Macabe, "a Maccabee." The Maccabees were Jewish martyrs who were honored by a feast throughout the Western Church, and reverence for them was linked to reverence for the dead. Today macabre has no connection with the Maccabees and little connection with the Dance of Death, but it still has to do with death.

And from The Oxford Dictionary:

Origin:

late 19th century: from French macabre, from Danse Macabre 'dance of death', from Old French, perhaps from Macabé 'a Maccabee', with reference to a miracle play depicting the slaughter of the Maccabees

When I showed this to a good friend, a scholar of the classics and alumnus of Oxford and the University of Chicago, this was his reaction:

I first came across that etymology a few years ago while I was researching the concept of yiras hashem in the Middle Ages. I'm sure it's true. The role played by the  Maccabees in the history of Christian thought and culture (including etymology!), and their significance for Christian theology in particular is far, far greater than in Judaism.  Unlike the Jews, the Catholics include The Books of Maccabees  in their text of the O.T. Bible (Vulgate) and it's heroic figures are (mis)interpreted as the archetypes for all future Christian martyrs, to whom the Church owes its' very existence. ( Hence Mel Gibson's work over the last several years to produce a film about the Maccabees  is misunderstood by Jews as only a cheap, fraudulent means to curry favor with the Jewish community. In fact, a deeply committed Catholic such as Gibson would have long felt a very profound attachment to the Maccabees and, as an actor and producer, would wish to see their deeds glorified on stage).

Tazria. Bris Mila on the Eighth Day. An Excellent Collaboration and דבר תורה לברית מילה

THIS WAS UPDATED ON JULY 25 2021

AFTER A RECAP OF HOW THIS IDEA DEVELOPED AMONG SEVERAL CONTRIBUTORS, YOU WILL FIND A CLEAR AND STRAIGHTFORWARD DESCRIPTION OF THIS DVAR TORAH AS IT SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO AN AUDIENCE. IT IS VERY, VERY, VERY, GOOD.

In last year's post on this parsha, I brought a Medrash (cited by the Taz) that says that the reason Mila is on the eighth day, and the reason an animal cannot be brought as a korban till the eighth day after its birth, is that they must experience the passage of Shabbos.  Only then, only having been elevated by the Kedusha of Shabbos, can they be used in the service of the Ribono shel Olam.

In as perfect an example of stimulating collaboration as one could hope for, the comments that came in developed an outstanding vort.  I had a Medrash, Eli brought up a question on the Medrash, I brought a Chasam Sofer that answers the question but I didn't understand the svara of the Chasam Sofer, then I suggested a possible approach, and great unknown provided a conceptual framework that sheds light upon the entire discussion.  This is how it unfolded, followed by a recap.

Eli wrote...A bit off topic, but this Medrash had me long wondering - why the 8th day. Had Bris been the 7th day, Shabbos would also be always included. If you think that the answer is we need a full 24h Shabbos, think again. What if a baby is born Shabbos afternoon and the Bris is in the morning?
March 31, 2011 11:18 AM

I responded...(.....)The Chasam Sofer in his Teshuvos OC 102, dealing with the opinion (of the Italian Mekubalim) that kiddush levana should be at least seven days after the molad, brings in our Medrash. He addresses your point, and says that evidently, the bris, or the idea of Pnei Matronisa, requires two things: Experiencing the beginning of a Shabbos, and experiencing the end of a Shabbos: כניסת מטרוניתא ויציאת מטרוניתא.
From the formal logic perspective, his answer is fine. From the "why on earth would that make sense" perspective, nu nu.
March 31, 2011 11:52 AM

I added...I was thinking about what I said, that it's hard to see a svara in what the Chasam Sofer said, and here's what occurred to me.
The din of זכרהו בכניסתו וביציאתו, to make some sort of kiddush when Shabbos begins and when it ends, pashtus, is a simple din of kavod- like saluting an honored guest when he arrives and when he leaves. But it is possible that there is one particular kedusha that happens at the onset and another at the conclusion of Shabbos. It's not just Hello and Goodbye.
Even the shittos that hold not like the Rambam, who hold that havdala is entirely miderabanan, don't necessarily disagree with the concept, they just hold that there's no din kiddush on yetzias Shabbos.
March 31, 2011 12:48 PM

 great unknown said...Kenisas HaShabbos signals the categorical distinction of the Jew from the mundane non-Jewish residents of creation. Yetzias HaShabbos signals a lower level of kedusha which involves Jews being involved in the everyday "la'sheves" of the world - while nevertheless being quantitatively superior to the non-Jew in kedusha - ner la'amim if you will.

Both are necessary elements of the Jewish interaction with and purpose in creation.
I am basing this on a brilliant drosho I heard last Succos in KJBS/Chicago, which covered many more details of this dual havdalah.
March 31, 2011 5:36 PM

 Eli said...In the Shalom Zachar of my second, I (unaware of the Chasam Sofer) suggested that the requirement is to experience Shabbos-night davka. This fits nicely with the fact we observe Shalom Zachar Friday night, a time when people are usually not going out (and that specific night was bitterly cold, btw).
I'm sure gu can explain much better than myself why the מטרוניתא aspect of Shabbos is related to the night part and not the day. One pointer is Ramban Shmos 20:7 which I quote verbatim for lack of unerstanding: "ובמדרשו של רבי נחוניא בן הקנה (ספר הבהיר אות קפב): הזכירו עוד סוד גדול בזכור ושמור, ועל הכלל תהיה הזכירה ביום והשמירה בלילה, וזהו מאמר החכמים (ב"ק לב ב): שאומרים בערב שבת באי כלה באי כלה, באו ונצא לקראת שבת מלכה כלה, ויקראו לברכת היום קדושא רבא (פסחים קו א): שהוא הקדוש הגדול, ותבין זה. "
So whatever that means, the feminine aspect of שבת which is called מלכה, i.e. מטרוניתא, relates to the night, not the day.

To complete the Drush I said that we see the feminine aspect of שבת  is related to שמור  and not זכור, i.e. the passive acceptance of Kedusha, as opposed to our active efforts represented by the Zachor part. As we prepare for giving our newborn the message of R. Akiva (Tanchuma Tazria), that his deeds could achieve greater results than those of Hashem, so to speak, we first need to go through the Shamor part, to recall it's all based on the Kedusha we get from above, passively.

April 01, 2011 3:18 AM

UPDATE MAY 5, 2014:
I got an email today from Lakewood Guy, who just made a bris, and he used this Chasam Sofer and added two excellent things:

The meforshim ask why the mitzvah of shmittah is prefaced by shesh shanim tizra...
It is relatively easy to have an awareness of being involved in avodas Hashem during the shana hasheviis. The trick is, maintaining that awareness during the shesh shanim of zeriia.
Here I used your pshat in the medrash/ chasam sofer - the child must experience a motzai shabbos to realize that avodas Hashem is not limited to shabbos but must permeate the sheshes yimai hama'aseh as well.
Bach in hilchos teffilah (O"C 133) Aleinu is said after teffilah to prepare ourselves for dealing with the outside world. Minhag is to say Aleinu after a bris (seemingly even when the bris is not at the end of a teffilah). Same idea, preparing the child for life outside, with an awareness that even the mundane aspects of life need to be a part of ones avodas Hashem.

Organized into one coherent piece:

The Medrash says that a child has to undergo a Shabbos before his bris.  (This is common to many applications in Kodashim: All the original kohanim before their investiture; the Kohen Gadol before Yom Kippur; the kohen that does the Parah Adumah; and, of course, every animal korban.  The Abudraham says that the Bris Milah is really a form of hakravas Korban, so it is just another application of this rule of Kodashim.) 

The Chasam Sofer (Tshuvos OC 102) asks, why do you need to wait for the eighth day?  Even waiting for the seventh day will mean that he saw a Shabbos!  So he explains as follows, modified by me for purposes of speaking to a rabbim: 

 If the purpose of the eight days is to ensure that the baby experience Shabbos, seven days should be good enough. 

·        If  he was born on Shabbos, and the bris is on Friday, he saw Shabbos - he saw the second half, the end, of Shabbos.  

·        If he was born Sunday, and you make the bris on Shabbos morning, he saw Shabbos - he saw the whole beginning of Shabbos, Friday night and the morning before the bris.

·        Do not say that the requirement to wait for the eighth day is because he has to have 24 hours of Shabbos, because if he's born Shabbos afternoon, and the bris is Shabbos morning, he only will have had fourteen hours out of twenty four of Shabbos!  

·        So the Chasam Sofer answers that what the child needs is not 24 hours of Shabbos.  What he needs is to experience the beginning of a Shabbos and the departure of a Shabbos.

 

This answer is difficult to understand.  It answers the question perfectly, but it leaves us with more questions that we began with - explaining something perplexing with an answer that is more perplexing. Why would it matter if the child experiences both the beginning and the end of a Shabbos?  Is there something special about the end of Shabbos? Isn't the beginning enough?

Another question:

Many people say that Tuma comes when Kedusha leaves.  The Shem Mishmuel asks, if so, why is there no tuma when Shabbos ends? 

 

Perhaps the idea of the departure of Shabbos is reflected in the halacha of Havdala.  We are not merely saying goodbye to Shabbos, but instead we are being mekadeish a different type of kedusha, the kedusha of after-Shabbos.  great unknown polished this by saying that the kedusha of Shabbos, which we celebrate in Friday night kiddush, is the kedusha of olam haba, of being above Teva.  The kedusha of Saturday night, the kedusha of Havdala, is the kedusha of living in a world of teva, of working, of interacting with the gentile world, and all through it making the world a holier place.

 

This is why the departure of Shabbos does not result in an influx of Tumah.  Tumah only follows the departure of kedusha when nothing is left behind.  The point of Havdala is that when Shabbos ends, and the kedusha leaves, it leaves some of itself behind to be mekadesh the forthcoming week.  Havdala is a type of kiddush.  

 

 It is those two kedushos that are implicit in the Medrash that are essential to being a Jew.  (See Ksav Sofer at end.)  

 

Perhaps you could say that the beginning of Shabbos is the gift of kedusha, the feminine aspect of Klal Yisrael vis a vis Shabbos, when we receive the gift of Kedusha. On Friday night, we receive kedusha, a kedusha that is the source of all kedusha in this gashmiyuskikkeh world. When Shabbos ends, we experience Shabbos in the masculine aspect; we are told to take what we experienced and apply it in the world of Gashmiyus, we are told to disseminate kedusha.

This reminded me of something that happened in my own extended family.  X was going through a very challenging teen age period, and Y was considering hanging out with him motzei Shabbos, not for kiruv, just to chill out.  One of my sons told Y "The same way you wouldn't be mechallel Shabbos, make sure that you're not mechallel motzei Shabbos."

This idea is perfectly suited for presenting at the Seuda of a Bris.  Targum Yonasan by "Be'cha yevareich Yisrael" says that specifically at the Seudas HaBris Klal Yisrael will bentch their children by saying ישימך אלוקים כאפרים וכמנשה.  It powerfully expresses the two important aspects of what the Bris Millah is supposed to symbolize and to strengthen, of what it means to be an eved Hashem: the kedusha of l'maalah min hateva, and the kedusha of teva.    The Jew of Sheishes yamim ta'aseh me'lachtecha, and the Jew of Shabbos la'Shem Elokecha.   Be a Malach; and Be a Mentsch.

A great talmid chacham to whom I told this said it over in his yeshiva, but he said a different pshat in the Chasam Sofer/Medrash.  He said that the lesson of יציאת מטרוניתא is that a Jew has to be ready for change.  It's relatively easy to maintain a high madreiga during the zman, no matter how long the zman is.  But when Bein Hazmanim comes, not everyone can deal with the change.   A child has to learn that a Jew has to be able to tolerate change, to adjust to what is dealt to him.

 

  The Ksav Sofer in Teshuvos OC 45, here, beginning at the end of the fifteenth line, in his explanation of the Gemara in Pesachim 113a המבדיל על היין במוצ״ש מאי היא דמשייר מקידושא לאבדלתא, says something very similar to our pshat in Havdala, which works so well to explain his father's mehalach.  

 

As far as משייר מקידושא לאבדלתא, the Tur (OC 296) brings this Gemara too. that a person should leave wine over from kiddush and use it for Havdala.  We don't have this minhag, because Tosfos learns the Gemara differently, but the Shulchan Aruch Harav brings it down in OC 271:22.)  In any case, the Tur there is very emphatic about the importance of Havdala and brings strong words to that effect from Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer.  

 

AND ADDING LAKEWOOD GUY'S IDEA- 

In parshas Behar, the meforshim ask why the mitzvah of shmittah is prefaced by shesh shanim tizra.

It is relatively easy to have an awareness of being involved in avodas Hashem during the shana hasheviis. The trick is, maintaining that awareness during the shesh shanim of zeriia.

The answer is that we learn from our Chasam Sofer that the lesson of waiting eight days before a Bris Millah is that the child must experience a Motzai Shabbos to realize that avodas Hashem is not limited to Shabbos but must permeate the sheshes yimai hama'aseh as well.

The Bach in hilchos teffilah (O"C 133) says that we say Aleinu after teffilah to prepare ourselves for dealing with the outside world. We also have a minhag to say Aleinu after a bris (seemingly even when the bris is not at the end of a tefilah, and even though we just said Aleinu five minutes ago!). This is the same idea; we are preparing the child to receive kedusha, and we are preparing the child to disseminate the kedusha he received.  We give him a physical mark that imparts the awareness that even the mundane aspects of life need to be a part of ones avodas Hashem.

The Kingdom of David, or the Kingdom of Yishai?

In the haftora of the last days of Pesach, we read the Navi Yeshaya, and I was wondering about something he says.  In talking about the Mashiach, the Navi says "a shoot shall spring forth from the cut off trunk of Yishai, and a twig shall sprout from his roots."  We all know that Mashiach is a descendant of David.  Why does Yeshaya refer to him, twice, as a descendant of Yishai?


Yeshaya 11:1   ויצא חוטר מגזע ישי
Yeshaya 11:10  שורש ישי אשר עומד לנס עמים

When I brought this up, Rav ES pointed out an interesting thing.  Moshe Rabbeinu was the first king of Klal Yisrael (for example, Zevachim 102a, חמש שמחות היתה אלישבע יתירה על בנות ישראל יבמה מלך אישה כהן גדול בנה סגן בן בנה משוח מלחמה ואחיה נשיא שבטת, and Rambam 6 Beis Habechira 11- אין מוסיפין על העיר או על העזרות אלא על פי המלך וע"פ נביא ובאורים ותומים ועל פי סנהדרין של שבעים ואחד זקנים שנאמר ככל אשר אני מראה אותך וכן תעשו לדורות. ומשה רבינו מלך היה), and Moshe Rabbeinu's father shared an extremely rare trait with Yishai- they were two of the four who died only because of the Gezeira that man be mortal, but were free of sin (Bava Basra 17a, תנו רבנן ארבעה מתו בעטיו של נחש ואלו הן בנימין בן יעקב ועמרם אבי משה וישי אבי דוד וכלאב בן דוד וכולהו גמרא לבר מישי אבי דוד דמפרש ביה [קרא] דכתיב (שמואל ב יז) ואת עמשא שם אבשלום תחת יואב על הצבא ועמשא בן איש ושמו יתרא הישראלי אשר בא אל אביגיל בת נחש אחות צרויה אם יואב וכי בת נחש היא והלא בת ישי היא דכתיב (דברי הימים א ב) ואחיותיהם צרויה ואביגיל אלא בת מי שמת בעטיו של נחש:) Does this coincidence indicate that the true root of the Malchus of Dovid, and of Moshe, was their fathers' awesome tzidkus?

My son in law, Rav AL, argued that this is illogical, because on the contrary, Malchus requires some sort of shameful family history (Yoma 22b, אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מפני מה לא נמשכה מלכות בית שאול מפני שלא היה בו שום דופי דאמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יהוצדק אין מעמידין פרנס על הציבור אלא אם כן קופה של שרצים תלויה לו מאחוריו שאם תזוח דעתו עליו אומרין לו חזור לאחוריך).  I'm not impressed by the argument, because even though we require some kind of embarrassment in the background, that is only as a counterweight so that the greatness of the family does not lead to overweening conceit.

Another indication that David's royalty was a manifestation of Yishai's gadlus is that when Hashem told Shmuel to annoint the king who would supplant Shaul, it appears that the king had not yet been chosen, and the decision would be made only on the basis of how the various sons of Yishai would behave.  As the Gemara (Pesachim 66b) says, at that point, all that was known was that one of Yishai's children would be king, but which child that would be had not not yet been determined.  Shmuel I 16:  

א ויאמר ה' אל-שמואל, עד-מתיי אתה מתאבל אל-שאול, ואני מאסתיו, ממלוך על-ישראל; מלא קרנך שמן, ולך אשלחך אל-ישי בית-הלחמי--כי-ראיתי בבניו לי, מלך.  ב ויאמר שמואל איך אלך, ושמע שאול והרגני; ויאמר ה' עגלת בקר תיקח בידך, ואמרת, לזבוח לה' באתי.  ג וקראת לישי, בזבח; ואנוכי, אודיעך את אשר-תעשה, ומשחת לי, את אשר-אומר אליך.  ד ויעש שמואל, את אשר דיבר ה' ויבוא, בית לחם; ויחרדו זקני העיר, לקראתו, ויאמר, שלום בואך.  ה ויאמר שלום, לזבוח  לה' באתי, התקדשו, ובאתם איתי בזבח; ויקדש את-ישי ואת-בניו, ויקרא להם לזבח.  ו ויהי בבואם, וירא את-אליאב; ויאמר, אך נגד ה' משיחו.  

ז ויאמר ה' אל-שמואל, אל-תבט אל-מראהו ואל-גבוה קומתו--כי מאסתיהו:  כי לא, אשר יראה האדם--כי האדם יראה לעיניים, וה' יראה ללבב.  ח ויקרא ישי אל-אבינדב, ויעבירהו לפני שמואל; ויאמר, גם-בזה לא-בחר ה'.  ט ויעבר ישי, שמה; ויאמר, גם-בזה לא-בחר ה'.  י ויעבר ישי שבעת בניו, לפני שמואל; ויאמר שמואל אל-ישי, לא-בחר ה' באלה.  יא ויאמר שמואל אל-ישי, התמו הנערים, ויאמר עוד שאר הקטן, והנה רועה בצאן; ויאמר שמואל אל-ישי שלחה וקחנו, כי לא-נסוב עד-בואו פה.  יב וישלח ויביאהו והוא אדמוני, עם-יפה עיניים וטוב רואי; 

ויאמר ה' קום משחהו, כי-זה הוא

Pesachim 66b:

אמר רבי מני בר פטיש כל שכועס אפילו פוסקין עליו גדולה מן השמים מורידין אותו מנלן מאליאב שנאמר (שמואל א יז) ויחר אף אליאב בדוד ויאמר למה [זה] ירדת ועל מי נטשת מעט הצאן ההנה במדבר אני ידעתי את זדנך ואת רוע לבבך כי למען ראות המלחמה ירדת וכי אזל שמואל לממשחינהו בכלהו כתיב (שמואל א טז) לא בזה בחר ה' ובאליאב כתיב (שמואל א טז) ויאמר ה' אל שמואל אל תביט אל מראהו ואל גבה קומתו כי מאסתיהו מכלל דהוה רחים ליה עד האידנא

So there are three things that hint that the Malchus Beis David really is Malchus Beis Yishai: the passuk in Yeshaya, the coincidence of Etyo shel Nachash, and the Gemara in Pesachim 66.  This makes you wonder.... when Shaul said to Yonasan "As long as the son of Yishai lives, you will never rule...."  did Shaul call him Ben Yishai to denigrate him, or did he choose words with the subtext that David was a threat specifically because he was the son of Yishai?  Shmuel I 20:31-32:

ויחר אף שאול ביהונתן ויאמר לו בן נעות המרדות הלוא ידעתי כי בחר אתה לבן ישי, לבשתך ולבשת ערות אמך:  כי כל הימים אשר בן ישי חי על האדמה לא תכון אתה ומלכותך

What this means in a deeper sense I don't know.  But if it's true, it won't be the only time that a person is zocheh to a certain gadlus and this gadlus, the result of the merit, manifests itself not in him but rather in his son:  The same thing happened with the Hashra'as Hashechina in the Beis Hamikdash.  Shabbos 30a:

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מאי דכתיב (תהלים פו, יז) עשה עמי אות לטובה ויראו שונאי ויבושו אמר דוד לפני הקב"ה רבונו של עולם מחול לי על אותו עון אמר לו מחול לך אמר לו עשה עמי אות בחיי אמר לו בחייך איני מודיע בחיי שלמה בנך אני מודיע כשבנה שלמה את בית המקדש ביקש להכניס ארון לבית קדשי הקדשים דבקו שערים זה בזה אמר שלמה עשרים וארבעה רננות ולא נענה פתח ואמר (תהלים כד, ז) שאו שערים ראשיכם והנשאו פתחי עולם ויבא מלך הכבוד רהטו בתריה למיבלעיה אמרו מי הוא זה מלך הכבוד אמר להו ה' עזוז וגבור חזר ואמר (תהלים כד, ט) שאו שערים ראשיכם ושאו פתחי עולם ויבא מלך הכבוד מי הוא זה מלך הכבוד ה' צבאות הוא מלך הכבוד סלה ולא נענה כיון שאמר (דברי הימים ב ו, מב) ה' אלהים אל תשב פני משיחך זכרה לחסדי דוד עבדך מיד נענה באותה שעה נהפכו פני כל שונאי דוד כשולי קדירה וידעו כל העם וכל ישראל שמחל לו הקב"ה על אותו עון ולא יפה אמר שלמה ושבח אני את המתים שכבר מתו 

Dovid Hamelech could not build the Beis Hamikdash.  His son, Shlomo, built it.  But whose Zechus was it that brought the Shechina to the Bayis?  The Zechus of David.  The Beis Hamikdash could only be built in the merit of David, and it could only have the Shechina in the merit of David, but David himself never saw it happen.  It only came to fruition through his son.  It would be interesting to think that both David's Malchus and Shlomo's Beis Hamikdash came about through their fathers.

My son in law, Rav MJ, said that it is possible that the question assumes a false premise.  I assumed that if a person earned something, it ought to come about through him.  But it could be that the greater reward is to see one's work come to fruition davka through his child, that the child takes the reins from the father's hand- because what had hitherto been an ephemeral personal achievement becomes eternal.  As Avraham Avinu said, ה' אלוקים מה תתן לי ואנכי הולך ערירי.  If one sees that what one has achieved expresses itself through his child, that the child embodies what the father fought for and earned through his hard effort, when you see your life's work resonating through your children and amplified through the ages, it becomes far more precious.

This idea may appear inconsistent with the Rambam in 1 TT 4, היה הוא רוצה ללמוד תורה ויש לו בן ללמוד תורה הוא קודם לבנו , but only superficially.


Back to Ben Yishai:
This usage is not unique.  For example, the passuk in Tehillim 132:17, says שם אצמיח קרן לדוד ערכתי נר למשיחי, and then the passuk reappears with a slight difference in Berachos 29a: 
מאי מעין שמנה עשרה רב אמר מעין כל ברכה וברכה ושמואל אמר הביננו ה' אלהינו לדעת דרכיך ומול את לבבנו ליראתך ותסלח לנו להיות גאולים ורחקנו ממכאובינו ודשננו בנאות ארצך ונפוצותינו מארבע תקבץ והתועים על דעתך ישפטו ועל הרשעים תניף ידיך וישמחו צדיקים בבנין עירך ובתקון היכלך ובצמיחת קרן לדוד עבדך ובעריכת נר לבן ישי משיחך טרם נקרא אתה תענה ברוך אתה ה' שומע תפלה 

Note that when the Gemara uses the passuk in the abbreviated Shmoneh Esrei, it changes Ner Meshichi to Ner L'Ven Yishai.  This is quoted verbatim in the Rambam in Hilchos Tefilla.

This nusach also appears in the bracha of kedusha of Shmone Esrei of Yamim Nora'im, as follows,

תן כבוד לעמך תהלה ליריאך ותקוה טובה לדורשיך שמחה לארצך  וששון לעירך וצמיחת קרן לדוד עבדך ועריכת נר לבן ישי משיחך״

So, we don't know any more than we did before, but at least we have learned that there are more things than we knew that we don't know.  We have broadened our ignorance horizon.

The Fifth Child

I thought there were only four sons, the four sons of the Mah Nishtana. The first three, The Wise Son, the Wicked Son, and the Simple Son, all ask questions. Only the last, the Son Who Doesn't Know Enough to Ask, is silent.
I recently learned that there is another son that doesn't ask any questions. This is the Willfully Blind Son, who doesn't ask questions because of unwillingness to reconsider a prejudice.
The writer of the following article, which appeared in the New York Times Friday Erev Pesach, is surprised by a sign at a pet store, and she assumes that she has chanced upon some sort of absurdity. It must be either a joke or muddleheaded religious tomfoolery.
This is an intelligent woman, a person with a good liberal education.  One would expect an erstwhile philosophy major to be curious about something foreign to her experience.  But instead of seeking out an explanation, instead of simply asking a question- a question that any fifth grader at an Orthodox Jewish school could have answered- she prefers to hold fast to her prejudice.

Had she asked, the hypothetical child would have told her that there is are several verses in in the Bible, e.g., Exodus 12:19 and 13:7, that prohibit even possession of Chametz on Passover.  A more advanced child would have said that we are not allowed to benefit from Chametz on Pesach, and feeding our pets is a benefit. The latter rule, though, is not explicit in the Torah, so it probably would be meaningless to her.

But instead of asking, she prefers that it remain a joke, because a joke doesn't threaten her comfortable presumptions.
Willful blindness.

April 6, 2012, 11:20 AM
Keeping Your Pets Kosher for Passover

By JODI LISS

Petland Discounts on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

Dear Diary,

METROPOLITAN DIARY

Reader Tales From the City

Two signs seen at an Upper West Side pet store:

“Passover Holiday Feeding Suggestions”

Tropical Fish
Dried bloodworms
Dried worms
Dried krill
Frozen shrimp

Birds
Millet sprays
Oyster shells
Striped sunflower seeds

Small Animals
Millet spray
Alfalfa hay
Alfalfa cubes

Next sign: “Approved by the Chicago Rabbinical Council for Passover”

                  Dogs – Science Diet
                  Cats – Science Diet
                  Dog Treats – Science Diet

My questions:

How do you know your fish is Jewish? What are the signs?
Was your fish or bird born Jewish, or did they convert for your sake?
Does your dog know he’s Jewish? Does the cat?
Do your pets participate in the Seder?
Aren’t shrimp and oysters traif anyhow?
Is this for real, or did someone forget to take down the April Fool’s joke?
How did Chicago get so far ahead of New York on this?

Happy Passover!

In any case, no, it's not a joke. On Passover, we're not allowed to possess leavened products.  We're certainly not allowed to feed them to our animals,  and we're not even allowed to give them away as gifts to non-Jews.
There are still people who take the Torah very seriously, who make an effort to study and understand it in order to faithfully comply with both the letter and the spirit of the law.  We've always been around, and we always will be.

~~~~~