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.

A Puzzling Thought from Reb Akiva Eiger on Mashiv HaRuach

 OC 114:5

בימות הגשמים אם לא אמר מוריד הגשם מחזירין אותו.

Reb Akiva Eiger there, 114 sk 5

מחזירים אותו. נלע"ד בליל שבת אם שכח לומר משיב הרוח דאין מחזירי' דהא אם התפלל רק מעין שבע יצא כדאית' בסי' רס"ח במג"א סקט"ו אף בברכות מעין שבע אינו מזכיר גשם א"כ במה שהתפלל סדר התפלה כראוי רק שלא הזכיר גשם הא לא גרע ממעין שבע וצל"ע לדינא:

So, he says it may be that if you forget Mashiv HaRuach Friday night, you don't repeat Shmoneh Esrei. Proof - since you can be yotzei Shmoneh Esrei Friday night by listening to the Mei'ein Sheva, and the Mei'ein Sheva does not mention Mashiv HaRuach, you see that Mashiv Haruach is not essential for the nusach of Shmoneh Esrei Friday night.  (I've seen this brought lehalacha, because Reb Akiva Eiger's צריך לי עיון is plenty to create a safek brachos.)

My question: Why would this be true? Why would missing Mashiv HaRuach for six months mean that you weren't yotzei Shmoneh Esrei, and punkt Friday night it doesn't matter.

The truth is, it's not really a kashe on Reb Akiva Eiger. Once Reb Akiva Eiger pointed out that Mei'ein Sheva does not include Mashiv, and that you're yotzei with Mei'ein Sheva itself, then the question is, if Mei'ein Sheva is really a tefilla gemura, why doesn't it contain Mashiv Haruach? It should!

(Please do not tell me "But what about הביננו?" Havineinu is said after the full nusach of the first three, including Mashiv, and followed by the full nusach of the last three.)

Maybe there's something different about Friday night, but I doubt it, because aderaba, rainfall davka Friday (and Wednesday) night is most propitious. Taanis 23 - 

גשמיכם בעתם בלילי רביעיות ובלילי שבתות, שכן מצינו בימי שמעון בן שטח שירדו להם גשמים בלילי רביעיות ובלילי שבתות עד שנעשו חטים ככליות ושעורים כגרעיני זיתים ועדשים כדינרי זהב 

Maybe there's something about ויכולו that alludes to Geshem. If there is, I haven't found it. Yes, the following pesukim mention that no rain had fallen before Adam davenned, but that is not in Vayechulu.

So I'm stuck. I'd appreciate your thoughts.

UPDATE:

The Reb Akiva Eiger is really not well known, so it was a real surprise when Rav Bukspan came up with a tshuva from Rav Wosner exactly on this topic. 

Here is the question.

Someone mistakenly said Ha'el hakadosh in his quiet Shmoneh Esrei, and it was suggested that he doesn't have to repeat because of Reb Akiva Eiger. 

As far as Hamelech, as Rav Wosner says, Reb Akiva Eiger's raya for Geshem is not fully applicable to the question of Hamelech. It is true that Reb Akiva Eiger's opinion in 583:3 is that if you say Ha'eil instead of Hamelech in מעין שבע you do not have to repeat it, but mei'ikar hadin you are supposed to say Hamelech, unlike Geshem, which does not appear there at all. So even if you wouldn't have to repeat מעין שבע if you say Ha'Eil hakadosh, it could be this is because there is a kullah in מעין שבע to the extent of not requiring repetition bedieved, but that does not apply to the personal Shmoneh Esrei.  Whereas the fact that Geshem is not there at all indicates that mentioning Geshem is not important on Friday night, not even in the personal Tefilla.

Rav Wosner also addresses the question of Geshem. He says that first, Reb Akiva Eiger's idea is very hard to accept - it is a puzzlement.  He is docheh the raya;  and I have to say that his dichui of Reb Akiva Eiger's raya is not very convincing. Who cares that this is the nusach? הא גופא קשה, why is the nusach like that?? Then he says that it seems from the Biur Halacha at the end of רס"ח that he holds not like Reb Akiva Eiger.  

He paskens that you can not rely on Reb Akiva Eiger, certainly not on Hamelech, but also not on Geshem, and you have to repeat Shmoneh Esrei.

Vayishlach, Breishis 32:8. Vayiroh Yaakov me’ohd vayeitzer lo. What did Yaakov Fear?

This was originally posted in 07, and I haven't gotten any smarter. I am adding something Larry (BlackLeibel) Schwartz ע'ה showed me from the Satmarer and several good updates.

The passuk says that when Yaakov prepared for his confrontation with Eisav, he was stricken with fear and with terrible trepidation. Why the double expression?

Rashi explains that his yirah was because he might be killed, and his tzarah/distress was because he might have to kill others. 

ויירא ויצר. וַיִּירָא שֶׁמָּא יֵהָרֵג, וַיֵּצֶר לוֹ אִם יַהֲרֹג הוּא אֶת אֲחֵרִים (בראשית רבה ותנחומא):

You would think that the second half is testament to Jewish rachamim, the recognition that killing a human- no matter how much he deserves it or how immediate his threat is- brutalizes the killer and leaves indelible spiritual trauma. 

Or you might think that it is along the lines of the Gemara (Ber 32b) כהן שהרג את הנפש לא ישא את כפיו, שנאמר (ישעיהו א, טו): “וּבְפָרִשְׂכֶם כַּפֵּיכֶם אַעְלִים עֵינַי מִכֶּם וכו’ יְדֵיכֶם דָּמִים מָלֵאוּ”, or Dovid Hamelech’s preclusion from building his Beis Hamikdash because “דם לרב שפכת ומלחמות גדלות עשית לא תבנה בית לשמי כי דמים רבים שפכת ארצה לפני” 

But you would be wrong. I have not found one mefareish of Rashi– or the Medrash Rashi is based on– that learns pshat like that. The only one that says that derech was Golda Meir. Golda Meir may deserve our love and gratitude for her loving and courageous heart and for what she did for Klal Yisrael, but a mefareish of Chumash she was not. 

The pshatim I saw range from his fear of Yitzchok’s reaction to his fear of killing non-combatants, to a fear that the death of one brother would precipitate the death of the other, as per the concern/nevu'ah Rivkah had expressed. Nobody that I saw says that Yaakov was having nightmares about possibly killing someone who needed killing. I may have missed something, and I would appreciate a mareh makom if you have one.

Leibel Schwartz ע'ה showed me what the Satmarer brings in his Divrei Yoel from the Ateres Tzvi:

He asks, as we did, what would Yaakov be afraid of? הבא להרגך! and באבוד רשעים רנה!  Pshat is that in Eisav were many neshamos of tzadikim, such as Rav Akiva, none of whom would be born if Yaakov killed him, and Yaakov was distressed about preventing these holy neshamos from coming to this world. Or more precisely, ח'ו אם יעקב יהרגם שלא יתענש על ידם. 

I guess it's similar to Moshe Rabbeinu's ויפן כה וכה, that when you are using nissim and ruchniyus to eliminate a threat, you have to be sure that you are not interfereing with a potential tzadik in the future. By Moshe, he saw there were none. Here, Yaakov saw there were, so he was in a predicament.

In any case, you see that he assumes, as we did, that protecting yourself and your family from a violent savage by killing him is nothing to be afraid of.

UPDATE:

Rav Moish Pollack called in a he'ara on the Ateres Tzvi. At this point, Eisav's children were already born, so what does it mean that he was afraid to destroy Eisav's descendants? 

Rabbi Pollack is a talmid chacham, and I am assuming that the basis of his question is correct - that no children were born to Eisav later. If so, I would answer that Yaakov really did not have the option of killing only Eisav. A battle would have involved all of Eisav's children, and Yaakov would have had to kill them all to save himself.

Rav Avraham Bukspan directed our attention to a similar drasha on the passuk in Tehillim 142:2, 

קולי אל ה' אזעק קולי אל ה' אתחנן

The Medrash there says

קולי אל ה' אזעק קולי אל ה' אתחנן. למה ב' פעמים קולי. וכן אמר הכתוב (שם נז ב) חנני ה' חנני. ב' פעמים. אלא כך אמר דוד חנני שלא אפול בידו וחנני שלא יפול בידי. וכן קולי אל ה' אזעק שלא אפול בידו קולי אל ה' אתחנן שלא יפול בידי:

The two drashos are certainly mirror images. But if Rav Bukspan meant it as evidence of how Chazal read Yaakov's words here, I disagree. I do not think it is reasonable to compare David HaMelech's fear of harming the Meshiach Hashem, about whom the Ribono shel Olam said 

וידבר דוד לה' את דברי השירה הזאת ביום הציל ה' אותו מכף כל אויביו ומכף שאול אמר לו הקב"ה לדוד דוד שירה אתה אומר על מפלתו של שאול אלמלי אתה שאול והוא דוד איבדתי כמה דוד מפניו היינו דכתיב (תהלים ז, א) שגיון לדוד אשר שר לה' על דברי כוש בן ימיני וכי כוש שמו והלא שאול שמו אלא מה כושי משונה בעורו אף שאול משונה במעשיו 

with Yaakov's confrontation with Eisav. 

REB CHAIM BROWN to the rescue. 

Reb Chaim showed me something I would never have found, in that the author is not part of the ASU, the Artscroll Universe. I never heard of him, but he seems to have been a man that was not afraid of controversy.  See here and here. 

From Harav Chaim Hirschensohn, his sefer נמוקי רש"י - חידושי הרח"ה, page 53b, in the HebrewBooks site page 124:

... השתדלות המפרשים לבאר מדוע צר לו אם יהרג אחרים, הלא המה רודפים, והבא להרגך השכם והורגו, לא נחוץ כלל, כי גם ההורג בהתר את חבירו צר לו לאדם נכבד שבא לידי מדה זו.

So I guess it boils down to the old machlokes about whether certain mitzvos, even though required and important, can leave a stain on a person's middos. We've discussed this many times, and in this post I have a link to other places plus something from Reb Chaim on the subject.  (There's a whole world out there - the Or HaChaim, the Shiurei Da'as, Reb Aharon, lhbchlch Rav Sternbuch, and others.) Rav Hirschensohn's use of the idea to explain the words of Chazal here is novel, but it is no longer only Golda Meir.

Reb Chaim also showed me the Ksav Sofer that says pshat in the passuk is that Yaakov was bichlal not afraid of getting killed. He had a havtacha. He was afraid that he would have to kill Eisav, and as a result, it would distance him from the Ribono shel Olam and he would end up dying as a result of that richuk. This is all based on the Gemara in Shabbos 149b, 

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בְּרֵיהּ דְּבַת יַעֲקֹב: כָּל שֶׁחֲבֵירוֹ נֶעֱנָשׁ עַל יָדוֹ — אֵין מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתוֹ בִּמְחִיצָתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. מְנָלַן? ...

מֵהָכָא: ״גַּם עֲנוֹשׁ לַצַּדִּיק לֹא טוֹב״, אֵין ״לֹא טוֹב״ אֶלָּא רָע, וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי לֹא אֵל חָפֵץ רֶשַׁע אָתָּה לֹא יְגוּרְךָ רָע״ — צַדִּיק אַתָּה ה׳ וְלֹא יָגוּר בִּמְגוּרְךָ רָע. 

So the idea is that it didn't bother him a ki hu zeh that he might have to kill Eisav. What bothered him was being the instrument of middas hadin that brings death to others. (This did not bother Moshe Rabbeinu when he brought the makkos, and it did not bother Moshe or Dovid or Avraham Avinu when they engaged in several wars. Perhaps the difference is whether you're in the War Room or on the battlefield.)  (That Ksav Sofer is also fascinating because in the second half of the paragraph he quotes Reb Yonasan Eibschutz's Luchos Ha'Eidus, where he bitterly complains about the horrible injustice of being a nirdaf from the Chacham Tzvi for the vile and unfounded accusation of following Shabtai Tzvi. It begins on page 148 of the לוחות העדות. I have it in the Otzar, but otherwise it's not available online.)

UPDATE:

Rav Bukspan sent me this geshmakkeh insight into what Chazal meant when they said וַיֵּצֶר לוֹ אִם יַהֲרֹג הוּא אֶת אֲחֵרִים . and relating to the Ateres Tzvi.

AGADAH: CONCERN FOR "ACHERIM" 

QUESTION: The Gemara explains that the Mishnah often refers to Rebbi Meir as "Acherim," because Rebbi, the redactor of the Mishnah, did not want to refer to Rebbi Meir by his name. Rebbi Meir had attempted to unseat Rebbi's father, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, from his position as Nasi, and therefore Rebbi, in deference to his family's honor, referred to Rebbi Meir as "Acherim."

Rav Naftali Maryles (1828-1890), the Rov of Litovisk and the son of the Yoruslaver Rebbe, Rav Shimon Maryles zt'l, points out that this Gemara reveals a deeper meaning behind the words of Rashi in Parshas Vayishlach. The Torah (Bereishis 32:8) says that when Yakov heard of Esav's impending approach, "he became very afraid, and he was distressed." Rashi explains that he became "afraid" lest he be killed, and he was "distressed" lest he kill others ("Im Yaharog Hu Es Acherim"). Why, though, was Yakov worried that he would have to kill someone else? Yakov was being pursued by Esav, who wanted to kill him, and the Torah teaches that if one person is being mortally pursued by another, then he is bidden to kill the pursuer in order to protect his own life! Why, then, was Yakov concerned?

Also, why does Rashi say that Yakov was afraid that "he would have to kill others (Acherim)"? He should have said that Yakov was afraid that "he would have to kill Esav"! Maharal)

ANSWER: The Gemara in Gitin (56a) relates that one of the Roman leaders, Niron (the Caesar Nero), converted and became Jewish, and one of his descendants was Rebbi Meir. The Romans descended from Esav, as Rashi points out at the end of Vayishlach. Rashi, therefore, is saying that Yakov was distressed that he might be forced to kill Esav and thereby prevent the birth of Rebbi Meir, who was called "Acherim"!

Rav Naftali of Litovisk points out that a similar theme is found in Rashi in Parshas Shemos (2:12). The Torah there teaches that before Moshe Rabeinu killed the Egyptian slave-master, he looked to all sides to make sure "that there was no one." Rashi explains that this means that he looked into the future to make sure that none of the future descendants of this Egyptian would ever convert and become Jewish, and only then did he kill him. (Sefer Ayalah Sheluchah, Parshas Shemos, republished in 2001 by his descendant, Rabbi Ari Maryles. See also Peninim Yekarim, Parshas Vayishlach, and Kanah Avraham.)

Vayeira, Worshipping the Dust on Their Feet

Rashi 18:4

ורחצו רגליכם. כַּסָּבוּר שֶׁהֵם עַרְבִיִּים שֶׁמִּשְׁתַּחֲוִים לַאֲבַק רַגְלֵיהֶם וִהִקְפִּיד שֶׁלֹא לְהַכְנִיס עֲ"זָ לְבֵיתוֹ;

This morning, someone asked me what that means. Simple enough; why would anyone worship the dust on their feet? Not stam the Earth, davka the dust on their feet.

I'm told that some say they didn't worship just dust, but it was dust from their Beis Avodah Zarah. That's fine, but that is not what Rashi says, and it is not what the Gemara in BM says, or Rashi in Kiddushin that brings it as well. Instead of saying it's not shver according to X or Y, let's focus on explaining what it means according to the Gemara and Rashi.

I suggested that it was a form of ancestor worship. 

The concept is not uncommon. The Brittanica says that "Ancestor worship, prevalent in preliterate societies, is obeisance to the spirits of the dead."  I believe that it persists even today in spiritually primitive countries, such as China, and certainly in obdurately uncivilized countries such as Haiti and Togo.  

As applies to dust, of course we have Breishis 3:19,  עפר אתה ואל עפר תשוב. 

See also Shabbos 113b, that eating the dirt of Bavel is like eating one's ancestors. 

אמר ר' אמי כל האוכל מעפרה של בבל כאילו אוכל מבשר אבותיו 

Rashi

מבשר אבותיו. שמתו שם בגולה

And Hamlet act five:

“Imperious Caesar, dead and turned to clay,

Might stop a hole to keep the wind away.

Oh, that that earth, which kept the world in awe,

Should patch a wall t'expel the winter’s flaw!”

Perhaps the people of Avraham Avinu's time time worshipped their ancestors, and saw the dust that clung to their feet as the dust of their ancestors magically adhering to them.

If I were to attempt relevance, I would suggest that when we go to kivrei tzadikim, we should not ask the niftarim to give us what we need.  This is both Avoda Zara and doreish el hameisim, and, as such, is best avoided.  At most, (see Minchas Elazar 1:68, but see Igros OC 5:143:6) we might ask them to intercede with tefilla to the Ribono shel Olam on our behalf. So pay your respects, and remember that all the tefillos at that makom kadosh are to the Ribono shel Olam, instead of being משתחוה לאבק רגליך.

Vayeira, Breishis 19:19. Are We Graded on a Curve?

 Lot sought refuge as he fled from the destruction of S'dom.  The angels suggested that he find refuge in the mountain, but he did not accept their advice.   Something about "the mountain" frightened him.  The Medrash (50:11)explains that it was no mountain he was afraid of; "mountain" means Avraham.  The angels were suggesting that he go back to his uncle, that he rejoin Avraham.  But Lot was afraid to do so, and the rationale for his fear was echoed by the Tzarfis woman in the time of Eliahu.  When her son died, the Tzarfis woman came to Eliahu, and she said "Eliahu, until you began visiting me, God saw my actions and those of my neighbors and by comparison I was a holy woman.  Now that you visit me, God sees my failings, and this caused my son to die."  Here, Lot said, "While I was in Sdom, I was, compared to them, a holy man.  If I were to rejoin Avraham, I would not survive."

Rashi here brings the Medrash, 50:11.

פן תדבקני הרעה. כְּשֶׁהָיִיתִי אֵצֶל אַנְשֵׁי סְדוֹם הָיָה הַקָּבָּ"ה רוֹאֶה מַעֲשַׂי וּמַעֲשֵׂה בְנֵי הָעִיר, וְהָיִיתִי נִרְאֶה צַדִּיק וּכְדַאי לְהִנָּצֵל, וּכְשֶׁאָבֹא אֵצֶל צַדִּיק אֲנִי כְרָשָׁע, וְכֵן אָמְרָה הַצָּרְפִית לְאֵלִיָּהוּ בָּאתָ אֵלַי לְהַזְכִּיר אֶת עֲוֹנִי (מלכים א י"ז), עַד שֶׁלֹא בָאתָ אֶצְלִי הָיָה הַקָּבָּ"ה רוֹאֶה מַעֲשַׂי וּמַעֲשֵׂה עַמִּי, וַאֲנִי צַדֶּקֶת בֵּינֵיהֶם, וּמִשֶּׁבָּאתָ אֶצְלִי, לְפִי מַעֲשֶׂיךָ אֲנִי רְשָׁעָה:

The Shem MiShmuel uses this to explain a parsha in Eikev, Devarim 9:4:

אל תאמר בלבבך בהדף ה' אלקיך אתם מלפניך לאמר בצדקתי הביאני ה' לרשת את הארץ הזאת וברשעת הגוים האלה ה' מורישם מפניך. 

לא בצדקתך ובישר לבבך אתה בא לרשת את ארצם כי ברשעת הגוים האלה ה' אלקיך מורישם מפניך 

ולמען הקים את הדבר אשר נשבע ה' לאבתיך לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב

Do not think, when Hashem drives away the Canaanites from before you, "Because I am righteous Hashem brought me here to inherit this land and because the original residents were wicked Hashem disinherits them."  No, it is not that you are righteous, it is because they are wicked, and because Hashem promised the land to your forefathers.

He brings this Medrash to explain what error they were being warned about, what the אל תאמר בלבבך was. Hashem told us "Don't think that the Canaanites are going to die because when you arrive the contrast between your spiritual greatness and their relative failings will tip the scale against them.  You're not so special.  They were just fundamentally wicked people who deserved to be eliminated irrespective of your presence."

The idea that the צרפית was afraid of being judged negatively because of the contrast between her and Eliahu is also stated in Tosfos in Kiddushin 71a in the name of Avrahan Ger (discussing קשים גרים לישראל כספחת on the previous daf. Interestingly, Tosfos hedges the concept by saying 

שמתוך שהוא צדיק גמור היה נראה לה שמזכיר השם עונה

Reb Chaim Brown showed me this idea in the Ohr HaChaim by Kayin and Hevel:

אכן הכוונה היא להיות כי קין נתקנא בהבל בחושבו כי הוא סיבה להשפלתו כי באמצעותו הוכר אופלו, וחשב כי כשלא יהיה הבל במציאות יתרצה ה׳ בקין כי אין עוד אחר לבחור בו, וחשב להורגו,

Let's think about this, a concept that the Tzarfis woman and Lot assumed to be true, and that Hashem had to tell us was not the reason for the elimination of the Canaanites.  It appears to mean that people are judged by comparison to the others in their community.  That means that the standard of justice is relative to the other people that are being judged.  That means that Hashem grades us on a curve.

I choose that expression intentionally.  One might read the Medrash and nod his head and agree.  But when you realize that this is exactly what grading on a curve is all about, it becomes untenable.  

As I understand it, the rationale of grading on a curve is as follows: Prospective employers have an idea of the general quality of the students and the education at any given institution.  But they want, and are entitled, to know where an individual student stands within that segment.  The only way to rank students is through a curve- these are the best, these are average, and these are on the lower side.  This makes perfect sense in a market.  It makes absolutely no sense when it comes to Schar ve'Onesh.  Another reason to grade on a curve is when the instructor is inexperienced, or emotionally unfit, and might not be educating the students effectively, or the teacher is excessively strict or lenient.  If very few students do well on the examination, the problem lies with the teacher, and the students should not be penalized.  This is even less applicable to heavenly judgment.

Let me make this more clear with an analogy to the Special Olympics. If you put the winner of the Special Olympics on the medal stand with the winner of the regular Olympics, would anyone denigrate or deride the former? I hope not. You judge the athlete's achievement by his effort and skill in overcoming, in using what he has, not in comparison to the uniquely gifted and physically perfect athlete. It is an entirely different metric. When we say "מתי יגיעו מעשי למעשי אבותי"  you don't mean that you should speak to the Ribono shel Olam באספקלריא המאירה or do an akeida on your son. You mean that are the best possible Zeesheh.

Reb Moshe, in the Fishelis'es wonderful new Kol Rom, says (Shemos 6:26)

דאע"ג שמשה רבנו היה יותר גדול מאהרן, מ"מ היו שקולים במה שכל אחד עבד את ה' בכל כשרונותיו וכוחותיו שהיו לו.

והנה כל אדם נולד עם כשרונות וכוחות ואין בזה כל מעלה, כי זו מתנת שמים, אבל כל אחד צריך לעבוד ולשפר את עצמו, ולראות שיקיים את מצורה והמצות בכל כוחותיו, וזה כל תפקידו בעולם.

And Reb Chaim Brown said "pshat in the Yalkut on Shir haShirim 7:6 הדלים שברשים הם חביבים לפני כדניאל is because there is relative judgment -- in context of his challenges, the 'dal' may deserve as much credit for whatever he does as Daniel, even though on an absolute scale there is no comparison."

It might be that Chazal are telling us that the idea is totally false, that what the Isha Hatzarfis and Lot thought, and what Bnei Yisrael might have thought, was simply wrong.  But I do not believe this is true.  We can make mistakes on our own, and if Chazal tell us what some biblical figures were thinking, unless they tell us clearly that they are talking about something which is false, it should be taken seriously.

The initial response I get from people is that Chazal are talking about people who consciously refuse to be influenced by the righteous people to whom they are exposed.   They could and should be inspired by them, and emulate them, and their refusal to allow righteousness and spirituality to affect them is a terrible sin, it is an affront to Hashem.  You have before you an example of what you ought to be, you have a teacher, and you affect deliberate blindness?  That is a terrible sin.

This is certainly true.  We are told טוב לצדיק טוב לשכנו, and אוי לרשע ואוי לשכנו (see Rashi Bamidbar 23:29 and 38,) and that means that it is good and wise to associate with a Tzadik because he will influence you to be better, and it is dangerous to associate with a Rasha, because he will influence you to become a rasha like him.  It stands to reason that if, despite  אוי לרשע ואוי לשכנו, one overcomes the influence of his neighbor the Rasha, and remains a tzadik, as Noach did (see Rashi Breishis 6:9 and Sanhedrin 108a,) it is a tremendous merit; if, despite טוב לצדיק טוב לשכנו, a person rejects the influence of a Tzadik and remains a rasha, it is a terrible sin.

But I don't believe that this explains our Medrash.  Lot is one thing: the Isha Hatzarfis is something else entirely. Everything we know about her tells us that she was a holy and righteous person.  Hashem sent Eliahu to find shelter in her home, and she merited an awe-inspiring miracle. We have absolutely no right to say that she did not allow Eliahu's presence to inspire her or elevate her spirituality.  On the contrary.  The operative principal ought to be טוב לצדיק טוב לשכנו.

So what is the pshat in the Medrash?

Here are some interpretations that we found reasonable.

1.  In the censuses in the Midbar, Shevet Levi was the smallest of the tribes.  One of the reasons is that their work in the Midbar involved a constant presence in the Mishkan and the carrying of the holy utensils (see, e.g., Rashi in Vayeitzei, Breishis 29:35.)  If a Levi was carrying the Aron Kodesh, and his mind wandered, and for a moment he thought about something trivial or foolish, he would die on the spot.  Similarly, a Kohen Gadol, while in the Kodesh Kadashim, had absolutely no leeway.  Any infinitesimal failure or distraction would be immediately fatal.  Being in the area of such holiness creates a condition of Middas Hadin.  The same may be true of the environment of a Tzadik, who embodies the kedusha of the Beis Hamikdash.

2.  Similarly, we have a passuk in our parsha that says that the degree of Hashgacha on Eretz Yisrael is qualitatively different than that of the Hashgacha on the rest of the world.  Devarim 11:11-12  והארץ אשר אתם עברים שמה לרשתה ארץ הרים ובקעת למטר השמים תשתה מים.  ארץ אשר ה' אלהיך דרש אתה תמיד עיני ה' אלקיך בה מרשית השנה ועד אחרית שנה.  If so, we might say that the degree of Hashgach in the proximity of a tzadik is far greater.  Greater Hashgacha means close scrutiny, the kind of examination that every person eventually undergoes, but usually only at the judgment of Beis Din shel Maalah in the Olam Ha'emes after death.  Behavior that would otherwise pass might not survive this kind of close scrutiny.

I personally don't like this pshat.  To say that being near a tzadik is like walking under a קיר נטוי to the extent that it operates to turn upside down the whole concept of טוב לצדיק טוב לשכנו, and that there is some chiluk between them, doesn't appeal to me.  If you like it, זאלסטו זיין געזונט

3.  The Chazon Ish says that in our time, people can be defended on the basis of תינוק שנשבה. Life is so confusing, there was an absolute hester panim during the Holocaust, tefilla is totally ignored during the pandemic, and whenever an adam gadol offers guidance others say the opposite. But when you have Eliahu Hanavi in your house, you no longer have a din of תינוק שנשבה. 

4.  When a tzadik lives near you, you realize that you could be greater, that you should grow.  Unfortunately, inertia makes growth difficult.  Even if we know we ought to change, it is difficult to act upon what we know.  Sometimes, people only change in reaction to a traumatic event that forces them to reexamine their lives.  In cases like that, Hashem might help that person take that difficult step by shaking them up, by bringing difficult challenges to them.

UPDATE November 2024. 

I just saw a book by Artscroll on Rashi, and they address this question and bring to sources I was not aware of.

Kochvei Or #12; that the Isha HaTzarfis believed that she had initially not appreciated the gadlus of Eliyahu and therefore had not taken advantage of the opportunity to learn from him, and was punished for that failure. See also Tiferes Tzion to Breishis Rabbah there.

Rav Shlomo Wolbe, Shiurei Chumah; a person who lives among resha'im and maintains his level of yiras shamayim, this itself is a great zechus and he is viewed as righteous. But if a person is near a tzadik, he doesn't have to fight to overcome any challenge, and is therefore judged according to what he is.

Lech Lecha, Breishis 14:19, Konei Shamayim Va'aretz

 There are several words in davening that we assume are being used in their usual sense, but actually they mean something else in davening.   For example, in Birkos Krias shma, פינות צבאיו קדושים. What are these Pinos? Corners? In Musaf on Shabbos, ציויתה פירושיה עם סידורי נסכיה. What are these Nesachim that are specific to Shabbos? The nesachim that come with Korbanos are not associated with Shabbos in particular.  What is the "סוד" of סוד שיח/שיח סוד in kedusha in musaf? I was reminded of this when, in this week's parsha, Malkitzedek met Avraham Avinu.

וַֽיְבָרְכֵ֖הוּ וַיֹּאמַ֑ר בָּר֤וּךְ אַבְרָם֙ לְאֵ֣ל עֶלְי֔וֹן קֹנֵ֖ה שָׁמַ֥יִם וָאָֽרֶץ׃

Avraham repeated these words in passuk 22, and this is the nusach we use in Shmoneh Esrei, וקונה הכל. What is this kinyan?

Pashut pshat, Rashi says that קונה is a synonym for "creator," "Who created." So in Shmoneh Esrei, וקונה הכל means "Who created all."  Some Rishonim explain it means "Who possesses."  

(It is important to realize that discussion among the Rishonim certainly was a discussion among the Tanaim and Amoraim:  For example, remember the Gemara in Rosh Hashanna 31a:

תניא רבי יהודה אומר משום ר"ע בראשון מה היו אומרים לה' הארץ ומלואה על שם שקנה והקנה ושליט בעולמו)

This association of creating and owning is reminiscent of what the achronim say on the sugya of אומן קונה בשבח כלי - that there is no greater kinyan than having created something. This is not like the Ketzos in 306, who holds that אומן קונה בשבח כלי is just a shibud, but other achronim learn that it is a kinyan gamur. So much so it leads to the Pnei Yehoshua's question that how can a קטן write a גט or make מצה, even if גדול עומד על גבו? If אומן קונה בשבח כלי  he will automatically become the baalim of the get or the matza, and he can't be makneh, so the גט or the מצה will be passul mideoraysa. Obviously, the Pnei Yehoshua holds that it is a kinyan gamur and not just a zeitigeh shibud.

And even if you say like the Ketzos, I think that might be true where you are improving existing objects. But when you create something entirely new, something with a totally new איכות,  maybe the Ketzos would agree that the biggest possible kinyan is יצירה. 

The Brisker Rov uses this to explain why, in Shemos 31:2, on the passuk ראה קראתי בשם בצלאל בן אורי בן חור למטה יהודה  the Gemara in San 69b tells us that he was 13. We would say that the point is that he couldn't possibly have acquired such skills on his own and that his skills were clearly a divine gift. But the Brisker Rov explains (see, for example, Shai LaTorah I 166)

 דכיון דבכלל הוא ש"אומן קונה בשבח כלי" ועל כן היה צריך בצלאל למוסרו אח"כ לציבור, ואם היה בצלאל קטן לא היה יכול למוסרו לציבור.

Having said all this, I think that the best evidence of the meaning of the word קונה in this context, is what Chava said when she gave birth to Kayin.  Breishis 4:4

וְהָ֣אָדָ֔ם יָדַ֖ע אֶת חַוָּ֣ה אִשְׁתּ֑וֹ וַתַּ֙הַר֙ וַתֵּ֣לֶד אֶת קַ֔יִן וַתֹּ֕אמֶר קָנִ֥יתִי אִ֖ישׁ אֶת ה'.

What does Kanisi mean? Does it mean she owned him? No. It can not mean anything other than "I have created a man, together with the Ribono shel Olam."  Why the meforshei haTorah by Avimelech brings rayos from all over Tanach and Mishnayos, but do not bring this raya from the first time the word Kinyan appears, back in the beginning of Parshas Breishis, I do not know, and I suspect that someone is going to explain to me why I am completely off the track, because the if it were a raya, it would be the first thing the Rishonim bring. Fool's paradise it may be, but for the moment I think it is an excellent and clear proof. 

If I were working on Sheva Brachos Torah, I would point out that someone, whoever wrote בורא עולם בקנין השלם זה הבנין, (first mentioned by Rabbeinu Nissim Gaon,) was thinking about the interplay of קנין and בריאה,  but I'll leave that to others.

Note regarding the words in the first paragraph:

פינות צבאיו  means "the great ones of His hosts." Based on שמואל א', י"ד ל"ח, according to the Rokeach.

סידורי נסכיה refers (אבודרהם) to the Lechem Hapanim, and פירושיה, most people say it means the numerous הלכות למשה מסיני -not a very good pshat- but here's the Aruch Hashulchan in 286:2 who says an interesting pshat, whether you accept it or not.

'צוית פירושיה עם סידורי נסכיה' - והוא על פרשה 'צו את בני ישראל', ששם מפורש קרבן שבת, 'צוית קרבנותיה' - המפורשים בה, 'עם סידורי נסכיה' - הם שש מערכות של לחם הפנים, ותרגומו שית סידרין, ונסכיה מלשון 'קשות הנסך' (ב"י). ויותר היה נראה לומר 'פירושיה' בשין שמאלית, לשון 'ויפרוש את האהל על המשכן', וכן כאן פרישת לחם הפנים על השלחן, עם סידורי נסכיה - הם הבזיכין, שהם קשות הנסך.

סוד in סוד שיח is not a secret, it just means "council." Please pay attention - council, not counsel.  See Tehillim 55:15 אשר יחדיו נמתיק סוד, Yirmiahu 15:17 לא ישבתי בסוד משחקים, and Breishis 49:6, בסודם על תבוא נפשי. I would guess that Nusach Ashkenaz made it סוד שיח instead of שיח סוד שרפי קודש in order to imply a secondary connotation of enigmatic or inscrutable, but the pashut pshat is council.

...but if I were, I'd be frummer than you.

  This is an oft-repeated classic. An irreligious person says, "You frummies are hypocrites. You avoid biur by selling your Chametz, you sell your businesses to goyim before Shabbos, you circumvent the issur sirus by giving your animals to goyim, by מודר הנאה in Nedarim 43, so many places. You are just playing games. I am not Frum. But if I were frum, I would be frummer than you."

What surprised me was that Mohammed said it and it is apparently recorded in the Quran. 

Here's the story and the resulting brouhaha.

https://www.memri.org/reports/saudi-childrens-cartoon-depicts-quranic-story-which-allah-transforms-jews-apes

The gist of the story being that Allah commanded a village of Jews to refrain from fishing on Shabbos, and tested them by sending fish only on Saturday. Some withstood the test, but others, those tricksy Jews... put nets in the water on Friday and retrieved them on Sunday! Some Jews condemned this behavior. Others said it was nobody's business - live and let live. So Allah came down, and turned the sinners into apes, and then they died. 

This story was presented in cartoon form on a Saudi website, and people complained about it. My own dear wife was offended.

I was not offended at all. It doesn't bother me for others to say that the Ribono shel Olam gave the Jews Taryag mitzvos, and when they don't keep them, they are punished. What are they saying that we don't say?  He did not say that Jews are Apes, he said that Allah punished mechallelei Shabbos by turning them into Apes. That's ok for me. But several things did surprise me.

1. Apparently, Mohammed recognized that the Ribono shel Olam is makpid that Jews should keep Shabbos on Saturday and not do melacha, although he did not make it part of Islam. He probably was concerned about עכו"ם ששבת. 

I believe that this attitude persists in Islam today. First you have this article in Al Jazeera making light of the hetter of mechiras chametz. Then there is the story involving Marwan Barghouti. As I heard it, a guard was eating a sandwich on Pesach. He asked, but it's Pesach, I thought Jews do not eat bread on Pesach. The guard answered that that's only the Chareidim in Bnei Brak, but he doesn't believe any of that.  Barghouti said that until then, he was always worried that the Jews had a God given right to Israel, it was their covenant with God. But now that he saw that the Jews weren't keeping any covenants,  they were not following such basic things as not eating bread on Pesach, and he decided that eventually, if the Arabs make it hard enough, the Jews will just go away.

2. I see an implication here that although he imitated Yahadus in many ways, or had a mesora from Avrohom Avinu, perhaps one of the reasons he did not simply embrace Yiddishkeit was his perception that the practice of Judaism in his day was not sincere or pure.  He found the practice of haaramos offensive, similar to the early Christian criticism of the Pharisees.

3.  He held that this practice was a trick. This implies, to me, that it's not the pshat that he interpreted the Torah like lehavdil Beis Shammai's (17a) shvisas keilim. Beis Shammai's shvisas keilim is not a chiyuv missah, it is a separate din that besides issur melacha, your keilim have to shoveis as well. And even Beis Shammai agrees that if you're mafkir, you're ok. That's not what bothered Mohammed. He did not think about the din of shvisas keilim, he assumed that the issur is only on the gavra. What seems to have bothered him was the "spirit" of the law. If Allah said not to fish on Shabbos, then you should not arrange that your fishing is getting done on Shabbos.

As I said, it was the classic "...I would be frummer than you fakers, my Shabbos would be special."

I'm looking forward to seeing what the Muslims do about Imitation Pork, which the OU just decined giving a hechsher. (I once thought about creating a hechsher or a restaurant that specialized in just such products. I was going to call it FLAG Kosher. Flag stands for "Fress Like a Goy.")

I did see this in Tablet Magazine:

Recently, Slate staff writer Aymann Ismail wrote an article about how Impossible Pork and similar products are “testing his faith” as a Muslim by offering a tempting loophole against Islam’s prohibition against pork, but not exactly fulfilling the spirit of the law. “Our community is bound by rules meant to keep us from what hurts us,” he wrote. “But doesn’t Impossible Pork ragu sound damn delicious? Besides, God is merciful.”