Chicago Chesed Fund

https://www.chicagochesedfund.org/

Sunday, May 16, 2021

Was the Mishkan Weighted or Staked? Installment Two

 We brought Rashi's alternative explanations of what kept the Mishkan covers from being blown about by the wind and from sagging into the Mishkan. Either there were weights on the hanging edges, or ropes that attached them to stakes driven into the ground.

The Gemara in Shabbos 27b-28a

וכל היוצא מן העץ אינו מטמא טומאת אהלים, אלא פשתן

Rashi

אינו מטמא טומאת אוהלים - אם עשה מהן אהל והמת תחתיו הוי כשאר בית וא"צ להטביל האהל עצמו דלא קבל טומאה אלא כלים שתחתיו:

אלא פשתן - שאף אהל טמא כדכתיב והזה על האהל ובגמ' יליף דבפשתן משתעי קרא:

(It is not only Pishtan, it is anything that is called "ohel" by the Mishkan, including wool and leather.)

Tosfos holds that this susceptibility to tuma is even if the Ohel is actually attached to the ground.  Proof that Tosfos holds like that is because he asks, how can it be that the Ohel is tamei, but we have a rule that something that is mekabel tuma is not a barrier to Tuma, and the Mishna in Ohelos says that an ohel made of "sadinim" are a barrier to Tuma! They shouldn't be, if they are tamei themselves. Tosfos answers that the Mishna is talking about silk, not linen, sadinim that are attached to the ground.

וקשה לר"י דתנן באהלות (פ"ח מ"א) אלו מביאין וחוצצין השידה והתיבה כו' והסדינים שהם עשוים אהלים ואיך חוצצין סדינין של פשתן בפני הטומאה והא כל דבר המקבל טומאה אינו חוצץ בפני הטומאה וי"ל דמיירי בסדינין של משי וקבועין שאינן מטמאים ורשב"א פירש במשניות בע"א:

Obviously, Tosfos holds that everything, even non-linen, is mekabel Tuma if it is merely draped over a frame to function as a shelter, because it would not lose its din keli. What distinguishes linen is that it is mekabel Tuma even if is fully attached to the earth, and it loses its din keli, but it is mekabel tuma as an ohel of pishtan. This opinion is shared by the Ramban, Tos Rid, and the Raavad Tu'M 5:12.

Other Rishonim hold that the din tuma of ohel pishtan is only if it is draped over a frame, but NOT if it is attached to the earth. This is the Tosfos HaRosh, and the Rosh in Keilim 27:1 and the Smag.  (and possibly the Rambam in Tu'M 5:12.) The Rashba goes even farther. The Rosh holds that the exclusion of tents from Tumah is only if they were originally manufactured to serve only as tents. The Rashba holds that even pishtan, if it was originally a regular garment or keli, draping it over a frame to serve as a tent would remove its susceptibility to Tumah - even תלוש ואחר כך חיברו. In any case, this group of Rishonim holds that if it is literally attached to the ground, it is never tamei, not even pishtan.

(The Rashba that Tosfos brings just says that the rule of כל המקבל טומאה אינו חוצץ בפני הטומאה does not apply to an ohel.)

It seems clear that this whole machlokes depends on whether the Mishkan itself was weighted or staked. Tosfos ודעמיה hold that the Mishkan was staked, mechubar mamash, and and the gzeira shava that teaches tuma by all such ohalim is that even mechubar mamash of pishtan is mekabel tumah.  The Rosh ודעמיה hold that the Mishkan was just weighted. The limud teaches that tents that were made of other materials, even if not attached to the ground, are not mekabeil tumah - they lose their din keli. But pishtan is still mekabel tumah even if it serves as a tent. This does not teach anything about mechubar mamash, and  mechubar mamash is never mekabel tumah.


I should have realized this would happen, but I found that the Cousin Rav Yechiel Michel Feinstein says this nekuda also.  I guess that even if I'm not the first to realize this, it's nice that the first was the Torah giant Reb Yechiel Michel.

In his Sefer on Chumash, end of Teruma:

 ובפירש"י ואיני יודע אם תחובין בארץ או קשורין וכובדן מכביד שיפולי היריעות שלא ינועו ברוח וכו' ונראה דבזה תליא פלוגתת הראשונים בדין טומאת אהלים דמבואר במשנה שבת דף כ"ז ב' דכל היוצא מן העץ אינו מטמא טומאת אהלים אלא פשתן ובגמ' שם דף כ"ח א' ילפינן לה ממשכן דקרוי אהל ונחלקו הראשונים אי מטמאין גם כשהן מחוברין וכן הוא דעת התום שם והראב"ד פ"ה מהלכ' טומאת מת הי"ב אכן דעת הרמב"ם שם נראה דס"ל דאין מטמאין מחוברין אלא דווקא כשעשויין אהלים עי"ש וי"ל דהרמב"ם ס"ל דבמשכן היו היתידות תלושין ולא מחוברין בארץ ומש"ה דווקא אהל שאינו מחובר מיטמא כמו משכן אבל הראב"ד והתוס' ס"ל דהיתידות היו תחובין בארץ ומש"ה איכא טומאת אהלים גם במחובר והארכתי בזה במקום אחר. 

Saturday, May 15, 2021

Was the Mishkan Weighted or Staked? Installment One.

 What kept the roof of the Mishkan, the יריעות, from sagging in middle, or flapping in the desert wind? Fabric or leather of that great an unsupported span would not remain horizontal.  True, the material of the Yerios was quite heavy, but it was as heavy in middle as it was on the sides. Specifically, the middle was ten amos wide, and over the Kerashim and hanging down the sides were a total of eight or nine.  If you've ever had a sukkah cover that doesn't rest on the schach, you know that it's going to sag in middle, even without rain. The answer is, the Yerios had copper bars, or pegs, or stakes - יתדות - to keep them in place.


We are not talking about the קלעי החצר. Everyone knows that the curtains around the Chatzer had מיסרים ויסדות, ropes and stakes. We are talking about the יריעות המשכן.
 
Teruma, Shemos 27:19
לכל כלי המשכן בכל עבודתו וכל יתדותיו וכל יתדות החצר נחושת

Rashi in Teruma says he is not certain whether the copper pegs, or stakes, were attached directly to the ends of the material to weigh the Yerios down, or  were attached with rope to the יריעות and hammered into the ground, but he leans towards the latter.
. כְּמִין נִגְרֵי נְחֹשֶׁת עֲשׂוּיִין לִירִיעוֹת הָאֹהֶל וּלְקַלְעֵי הֶחָצֵר, קְשׁוּרִים בְּמֵיתָרִים סָבִיב סָבִיב בְּשִׁפּוּלֵיהֶן, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא הָרוּחַ מַגְבִּיהָתָן, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם תְּחוּבִין בָּאָרֶץ אוֹ קְשׁוּרִין וּתְלוּיִין וְכָבְדָּן מַכְבִּיד שִׁפּוּלֵי הַיְרִיעוֹת שֶׁלֹּא יָנוּעוּ בָרוּחַ, וְאוֹמֵר אֲנִי שֶׁשְּׁמָן מוֹכִיחַ עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁהֵם תְּקוּעִים בָּאָרֶץ, לְכָךְ נִקְרְאוּ יְתֵדוֹת, וּמִקְרָא זֶה מְסַיְּעֵנִי אֹהֶל בַּל יִצְעָן בַּל יִסַּע יְתֵדֹתָיו לָנֶצַח (ישעיהו ל"ג):
Indeed, in Vayakhel Rashi says only that pshat.
Vayakhel, Shemos 35:18
את יתדת המשכן ואת יתדת החצר ואת מיתריהם
Rashi there
יתדת. לִתְקֹעַ וְלִקְשׁוֹר בָּהֶם סוֹפֵי הַיְרִיעוֹת בָּאָרֶץ, שֶׁלֹּא יָנוּעוּ בָּרוּחַ:

(Rashi in Naso, Bamidbar 4:32 possibly could be read either way, but he equates the Yerios and the Kla'im, which again implies that he assumes the latter pshat.
וִיתֵדוֹת וּמֵיתָרִים הָיוּ לַיְרִיעוֹת וְלַקְּלָעִים מִלְּמַטָּה, שֶׁלֹּא תַגְבִּיהֵם הָרוּחַ)

I do not know know if these putative ropes and stakes pulled the Yerios directly downward and held the sides vertical, or tented outward, and I don't think it matters much. It seems to me that the Gemara in Shabbos 98b implies they were vertical  (לרבי יהודה מיגליא אמה דאדנים, לרבי נחמיה מיגליא אמה דקרשים.), while the Chizkuni implies they were pulled to form an angle (ומושכין בכח המיתרים ונועצין היתדות בארץ והיריעות נמתחות יפה כדי שלא תהיינה שחות ונופלות בתוך המשכן מתוך כבדן וממעטת חללו).

What I do know is that that the character of these stakes explains a whole bunch of interesting machloksim of  Rishonim on several different topics, and I seem to be the first to point this out.  (לעניות דעתי)  (not really.)

When Nadav and Avihu died, why didn't their bodies cause the entire Mishkan and its contents to become Tamei? The Gemara in Shabbos learns from והזה על האהל in Chukas that a meis causes tumah to the ohel itself, if it is made of the materials used in the Mishkan. But we do not find anywhere that they had to take the whole Mishkan apart, and do טבילה והזאת מי חטאת on it.

This question was asked by the Rishonim, who, for some reason, primarily focus on the ohel itself and not on the keilim in the Mishkan. 

Rebbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva in Toras Kohanim argue whether they died outside the Mishkan, or in the Heichal mamash.

The Daas Zkeinim Shemini 10:2 asks, 
וימותו לפני ה'. פלוגתא איכא בתורת כהני' רא"א שמתו בחוץ במקום שהלוים מותרים ליכנס שנא' ויקרבו וישאום בכתנות' וא"כ מאי לפני ה' שנגפן המלאך והוציאן לחוץ רע"א לא מתו אלא בפנים שנא' לפני ה' ומאי ויקרבו וישאום בכתנות' מלמד שנתנו חכה של ברזל לתוך פיהם וגררום והוציאום לחוץ. ותימה לדברי ר' עקיבא א"כ נטמא המשכן דאיקרי אוהל מטומאת מת וצריך הזאה שלישי ושביעי ולא מצינו שפסקו מעבודתם כלל וכן כתוב בפירוש ומפתח אהל מועד לא תצאו דבשלמא לר"א א"ל שדחפן המלאך לחוץ קודם יציאת נשמה אלא לר' עקיבא קשיא וצ"ע:

The Baal HaTurim 10:4 there answers
קרבו. בתורת כהנים פליגי איכא מאן דאמר בחוץ מתו כיון שהלוים נכנסו לשם ומה דכתיב וימותו לפני ד' נגפם המלאך והוציאן לחוץ ואיכא מאן דאמר בפנים מדכתיב לפני ד' ומה דכתיב ויקרבו וישאום שהטילו בהם חנית וגררום והוציאם לחוץ ואע"פ שאין חלוק בין כהן ללוי בשלא צורך עבודה אפי' כהנים אינם נכנסים ולצורך כגון לפנות טומאה אפי' לוים נכנסים אם אין כהן והכא לא הי' כהן שלא היו רשאים לטמאות מ"מ כיון דאפשר לגוררם בחנית לא חשיב לצורך ואסור ליכנס. והשתא למ"ד בפנים מתו א"כ נטמא המשכן טומאת מת והיה צריך טבילה והזאת שלישי ושביעי שהרי אהל של פשתן מקבל טומאה ולא מצינו שנתפרק המשכן אחר כך שהרי לא פסקו מעבודתן. וי"ל כיון דכתיב בי' על פי ה' יחנו ועל פיו יסעו חשיב קבוע ולא מקבל טומאה:

The Minchas Chinuch in Kometz HaMincha 264 asks, what do you mean it was not mekabel tuma because it was mechubar? But the Gemara in Shabbos learns from the Mishkan that an ohel itself is mekabel Tumah even if it is mechubar!

מצוה רס"ד מבואר שם דלדברי המדרש מתו נדב ואביהו בהיכל. וראיתי בטור על התורה פ' שמיני הק' שהרי המשכן היה של פשתן ונטמא בטומאת מת וצריך הזאה וטבילה ולא מצינו שנתפרק המשכן. ותירץ כיון דכתיב על פי ה' יחנו וגו' חשוב קבוע ולא מקבל טומאה. וצ"ע היטב במס' שבת דף כ"ח ובתוס' ובהר"מ בפ"ה מה' טומאת מת במנ"ל שם ובהראב"ד דעיקר הלמוד שפשתן מטמא באוהל הוא רק בקבוע וצריך עיון גדול. ולא ראיתי לדעתי מקום לקושיא של הטור ולא תי' כלום וצ"ע רחב בדינים אלו:


It is my opinion that if the stakes were actually hammered into the ground, then it was mechubar mamash. If it was mechubar mamash, then the Gemara in Shabbos is saying that Mechubar Mamash is mekabel Tumah, and it doesn't make sense to say that כיון דכתיב בי' על פי ה' יחנו ועל פיו יסעו חשיב קבוע. Sure, al pi Hashem makes it super mechubar. But it's not more mechubar that mechubar mamash.

The Baal HaTurim must hold that the Yerios were not really mechubar. That's why they would be susceptible to Tumah if not for the unique status of מחובר מחמת דין "על פי השם"  The Gemara in Shabbos is assuming they were just weighted at the edges, and such an ohel is mekabel Tumah. It so happens, according to the Baal HaTurim, that this particular ohel was not mekabel tumah, but any such type of ohel would be mekabel tumah, so the drasha in Shabbos is valid. If the Baal HaTurim held that the Yerios were hammered into the ground, his teretz would not make sense.  Mechubar is mechubar.

The Minchas Chinuch assumed that they were hammered into the ground, and if the Gemara in Shabbos says that an ohel like the Mishkan is mekabel Tumah, then the Mishkan itself must have been mekabel Tumah despite being mechubar.  Apparently, the idea that they became Tamei does not bother the Minchas Chinuch.


As I said, this seemingly trivial issue actually is pivotal in several other machloksim among the Rishonim. I'm planning on at least three more installments, but each should be independently understandable.


Monday, April 19, 2021

The Importance of Mesibas Preida, Tzeischem L'Shalom, Goodbye Party.

 Three parts.

Part One: Sources in Chazal for the idea of marking a person's departure from his home city with a סעודת או מסיבת פרידה, וצאתכם לשלום

Part Two: The story of the Beilis Trial, and how it relates to the idea of a Seudas Preida.

Part Three: An insight into the interconnectedness of all men, and even more so the people in the Jewish community, and the beauty that is hidden in so many people כפלח הרימון, and how important it is to try to understand, and appreciate, and admire our fellow Jews. 


 Part I

To some extent, you don't need a makor in Chazal for things that are obviously good and true. On the other hand, we do like to cite sources for everything, such as in Gittin 6a, 

והא בבל לצפונה דא"י קיימא דכתיב (ירמיהו א, יד) ויאמר ה' אלי מצפון תפתח הרעה

So, is there a source for gathering to wish a friend off when he leaves the community?  I have three. 

Two are from the stories of Eliahu and Elisha.

The first is in Malachim I 19:19-21.

Sunday, April 18, 2021

Pesach Pizza Pan Parchment Paper Petur.

 This past Pesach, we had a bright new star in the kitchen - 

The Betty Crocker Pizza Maker.

It is the perfect size for hand shmura or machine matza, you dip the matza into water, put it on the hot pan, cover with tomato sauce and cheese and vegetables, close it for a few minutes, and voila!  It really produces very good pizza, even without factoring in a Pesach handicap.  We made dozens of them, and not a bit was left. 

The problem is, how to be tovel this thing.  As with all electronics, there are those that are mattir without tevilla for various reasons. There are those that avoid the issue either by being mafkir or by being makneh to a Gentile.

But if you are worried about the issue of tevilas keilim, and you don't want to rely on the mattirim, nor do you want to be mevatel a mitzva deoraysa with a ha'arama, and you're afraid that immersion will cause risk of danger, can you use it with parchment paper interposed between the metal and the food, top and bottom? None of the food will touch the kli.  I am told that it works perfectly with parchment paper.

No. Sorry.  First of all, I have a mesora from Reb Moshe that what matters is the sheim kli, and using it with paper doesn't change the reality that it is a kli matteches.  Besides my mesora, there is the teshuva from Reb Shlomo Zalman.

Minchas Shlomo II Yoreh Deiah 66.

נראה דבלי שדרך תשמישו הוא ע"י שקית שיש בו כמו כד שמחזיקים בו חלב בשקית של ניילון, או אפי' שקיות של נייר אם רגילים להוציא ולהכניס ע"י השקית, נראה דחשיב הפסק אם כך הוא עיקר תשמישו, אבל אם הדרך להשתמש רק ע"י פריסת   מפה וכ"ש נייר וניילון, אף שיש דוגמא לספק זה במגילה כ"ו ע"ב דכורסיא תשיב תשמיש דתשמיש בגלל המפה שפרוסה עליה, ולענין מוקצה של בסיס לדבר האסור בנר דולק על השלחן חשיבי תרווייהו כבסיס כמבואר בסי' ש"ט, אפי"ה נראה דנד"ד שאני דחציצת הנייר לאו כלום הוא. ונלענ"ד דטעון טבילה עם ברכה ותמיתני בעניי על הבן איש חי (ש"ב פר' מטות) שכת"ר כתב שמסתפק בכך.


(I personally was tovel them in snow, not because I was chalila going against rov haposkim, but relying in part on the meikilim by such appliances in general, and doing it where the snow originally fell and in a fashion that the chshashos of tevilla in snow did not pertain.  Although Rabbi Abadi of Lakewood also holds like this, please do not rely on me. See https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=54963&st=&pgnum=204

A Tevilla alternative, without the guilt of haarama or snow kulos, is to take the appliance apart and put it back together such that you have a פנים חדשות, a keli that was made by a Jew. Rabbi Moish Pollack told me that such a service is available in Lakewood.  I am not an expert in hilchos tumas keilim to know what comprises broken and re-created, so I have never taken that option. Obviously, it would called useless, but I don't know if the ease of fixing the cut wire means it's still the old keli, and whether an external problem makes it "broken." It could still hold food, it's just not useful for its original purpose.  But just this morning, Rabbi Dr. Nachum Stone, of Maaleh Adumim, told me that Harav Nachum Rabinowitz said that cutting off the plug and putting it back together definitely is called panim chadashos and there would be no chiyuv tevilla!  Wonderful.  Bli neder, I'm taking out my wire cutter.)


I find Reb Shlomo Zalman's teshuva a little difficult to understand, but I think that he would say that a candy dish in which you put wrapped candy is not chayav tevilla; it is more like a pitcher for bags of milk than paper on top of a dish.

The Ancient and Tragic History of Racial Profiling

 Breishis 39:1

ויוסף הורד מצרימה ויקנהו פוטיפר סריס פרעה שר הטבחים איש מצרי מיד הישמעאלים אשר הורדהו שמה

Medrash Rabba Vayeishev Breishis 86:3

וַיִּקְנֵהוּ פּוֹטִיפַר אִישׁ מִצְרִי, גְּבַר עָרוּם, וּמָה הֲוַת עֲרִימוּתֵיהּ, אֲמַר בְּכָל מָקוֹם גֶּרְמָנִי מוֹכֵר כּוּשִׁי, וְכָאן כּוּשִׁי מוֹכֵר גֶּרְמָנִי, אֵין זֶה עָבֶד

Clever man, that Potiphar. He knew that something was amiss.  

I found this somewhat puzzling, because even given the norms of this peculiar institution, it seems to me that you could kidnap or vanquish anyone and sell him in another country, no matter what color he might be. Evidently, people were categorized by color and commodified, and a person that did not fit into that schema was not thought of as a natural slave.

But let us assume that Potiphar, and the Medrash, were describing the reality of the slave trade. What do the words גרמני and כושי mean?

Vayikra 13:4

ואם בהרת לבנה היא בעור בשרו

Mishna Negaim 1:1

מראות נגעים שנים שהן ארבעה.

בהרת עזה כשלג ...

How do we know that Baheres is bright white?

Abayei in Shavuos 6b

ומנלן דבהרת עזה היא אמר אביי אמר קרא (ויקרא יג, ד) ואם בהרת לבנה היא היא לבנה ואין אחרת לבנה

So in Negaim 2:1, the Mishna says 

בהרת עזה נראית בגרמוני כהה, והכהה בכושי עזה.

and the Rambam there explains that Garmani is related to the Aramaic for "bone."  They are as white as bone.

גרמני שם הלבן ביותר מיוחס אל העצם אשר שמו גרמא

Rabbi Yishmael in the Mishna points out that we Jews are of an intermediate, woody color.

רבי ישמעאל אומר, בני ישראל, אני כפרתן, הרי הן כאשכרוע, לא שחורים ולא לבנים, אלא בינוניים.

From the Medrash, though, it is clear that the Jew's hues are much closer to that of the Germanim than that of the Kushim.  Apparently the Yishmeailim that were selling Yosef were of a swarthier hue than Yosef, even before we were supplanted by the Khazars.


The Gaon in Eliahu Rabba (and Reb Elyah Bachur in his Tishbi) says that the word Garmani refers to the descendents of Gomer, who lived up North, while the Kushim lived in the South.

בגרמוני – זה איש מבני גומר כדאמרינן ביומא גומר זה גרממיא, וגרסינן גרמניא וכ"ה בילקוט. והוא שבני נח דרים בג' רוחות העולם, שם במזרח, יפת בצפון, חם בדרום, ומפני שהחמה בדרום נמוך הוא מאוד בני אדם הדרים שם שחורים וכוש הוא מבני חם ודר בסוף דרום, הלכך הם שחורים ביותר מחמת השמש, ובני יפת הם דרים בצפון ורחוקים הם מהשמש, הלכך הם לבנים. וגומר דר בסוף צפון הלכך הם לבנים ביותר וכו'.

The Tiferes Yisrael brings the Gaon but he says that their color has nothing to do with their environment. They just are like that naturally. Germani and Kushi are just place names.

ולם לפע"ד הרי לפי"ז לא תלי כלל באיזה אקלימא הוא דר, שיש שנולד כך משונה בעורו, ונקרא בל"א אלבינוס, והוא מום באדם ונקרא בלשון המשנה לבקן [בכורות פ"ז מ"ו], ולמה לא קראו תנא גם הכא כן, ותו מסתבר דכמו כושי שהזכיר תנא, נקרא על שם ארצו, כך גרמני על שם ארצו נקרא].

The Tosfos Anshei Sheim there adds the sefer Beis Dovid who says that the Germans are not the whitest. They are not nearly as white as Hollanders.

מכאן תשובה למ"ש הרמ"ז, וז"ל, בגרמוני אנשי גרמניא הם לבנים ביותר, וכ"מ במוסף ערוך (ערך גרמן ב), ע"כ, וליתא דגרמוני אין פירושו איש מגרמניא דתנא בא"י קאי, ואילו היה המוסף הערוך בגרמניא היה רואה בעיניו שאינם לבנים כ"כ כמו אנשי הולנדיא שהיא ארץ מולדתו.

His complaint is not really valid, though, because in Megilla 6b it says 

גרממיא של אדום שאלמלי הן יוצאין מחריבין כל העולם כולו.

which says that Germamia is from Edom, the son of Shem, while in Yoma 10a it says they are from Yefes - 4

בני יפת גומר ומגוג ומדי, גומר זה גרמניא

and the Gaon says that the correct girsa in both places is Germanya, not Germamya. So are they from Sheim or Yefes? Evidently, they are both white, but there was some movement of populations such that the original Germamians ended up in Holland, while the current residents, who are slightly less white, are really of Italian origin.

Ayy, you're going to say that Sancherev mixed up all the nations?

בשנת תרנ"ח כשביקר וילהלם קיסר גרמניה בירושלים וכל בני העיר בראשות גדולי התורה יצאו לבקר את פניו, השתמט רבינו באומרו כי מה שאמרו חז"ל (ברכות ט ב) א"ר יוחנן לעולם ישתדל אדם לרוץ לקראת מלכי ישראל ולא לקראת מלכי ישראל בלבד אלא אפי' לקראת מלכי עובדי כוכבים שאם יזכה יבחין בין מלכי ישראל למלכי עובדי כוכבים, לא נאמר לגבי מלך מזרעו של עמלק.

עי' בס' אורחות רבינו מהגרי"י קנייבסקי זצ"ל שקיבל את דברי רבינו, ולא היה תמוה בעיניו על שהורה שלא לברך אף שהיה בידו סמכות של מלך, אלא דהקשה שהרי במסכת ידים (פ"ד מ"ד) מובא שכבר עלה סנחריב מלך אשור ובלבל את כל האומות א"כ מנין לנו שהגרמנים המה מזרע עמלק. ואמר הגריי"ק זצ"ל דאפשר שדעת הגרי"ח מקורה במגילה, דאמר יעקב לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא רבש"ע אל תתן לעשיו הרשע תאות לבו, זממו אל תפק זו גרממיא של אדום, שאלמלי הן יוצאין מחריבין כל העולם כולו. וכתב הגאון ר' יעקב עמדין בהגהותיו על מסכת מגילה שכוונת הגמ' על ארץ גרמניה, וכ"ה גירסת הגר"א, ולפי"ז מבוארת דעת הגמ' כאן דאומה זו לא בלבל סנחריב, וחולקת על המשנה דמס' ידים.

So the Germanic people, or at least the Nordic people, are not included in the bilbul of Sancherev.

As for Kush/כוש, that name appears in Breishis 2:13, וְשֵׁם הַנָּהָר הַשֵּׁנִי גִּיחוֹן הוּא הַסּוֹבֵב אֵת כָּל אֶרֶץ כּוּשׁ. Later, Cham named his son Kush. Perhaps the names used in Breishis are al shem ha'asid. I think it is self evident that the Kush in Megillas Esther has nothing to do with the African Kush associated with the usual Kushim and the son of Cham. That Kush refers to the mountain range that runs from Afghanistan through Pakistan, north of today's India.

(Much of the above is derived from here.)

Achrei Mos. The Se'ir Azazel

The term "Scapegoat" expresses an error on the part of non-Jewish readers of the Torah. They believed that the Azazel goat was allowed to escape. Our tradition teaches that it was not allowed to escape, it was thrown off a cliff to its death.

Here is the etymology of Scapegoat.
scapegoat (n.)
1530, "goat sent into the wilderness on the Day of Atonement as a symbolic bearer of the sins of the people," coined by Tyndale from scape, a shortening of escape (see scape (v.)) + goat; the whole word translating Latin caper emissarius, itself a translation in Vulgate of Hebrew 'azazel (Leviticus xvi.8, 10, 26), which was read as 'ez ozel "goat that departs," but which others hold to be the proper name of a devil or demon in Jewish mythology

 Indeed, the words of the Torah do not state explicitly that the goat is killed.  But in all honesty, the idea that all the sacrifices are slaughtered, including the Parah Adumah and the Egla Arufa, and davka the goat that symbolically carries the nation's sins would just be set free to wander in the desert, is untenable, even without Torah she'baal peh.  One suspects that they chose to disregard the most likely explanation only because doing so would lend credence to our mesorah. 

Rabbi Dr. Scheiber argues that from taharas metzora (Vayikra 14 4-7) you see that sometimes, an animal used for kapara/exoneration is set free.  Additionally, he points out that just a few perakim separate the paired animals in last week's Parshas Metzora and the paired animals in this week's Parshas Achrei Mos. In the case of Metzora, it is clear that the un-slaughtered bird is set free. On what basis can we be so confident that by Yom Kippur the unslaughtered goat is killed? At least it remains ambiguous, and it would be reasonable to resolve the ambiguity of the shiluach of the sa'ir from the explicit din of the shiluach of the tzipor.
I responded that one must note the differing terminology of the two parshiyos:

וצוה הכהן ולקח למטהר שתי־צפרים חיות טהרות ועץ ארז ושני תולעת ואזב
וצוה הכהן ושחט את־הצפור האחת אל־כלי־חרש על־מים חיים
את־הצפר החיה יקח אתה ואת־עץ הארז ואת־שני התולעת ואת־האזב וטבל אותם ואת הצפר החיה בדם הצפר השחטה על המים החיים
והזה על המטהר מן־הצרעת שבע פעמים וטהרו ושלח את־הצפר החיה על־פני השדה

Five times in four pesukim is the term chaya used. In the last passuk, it says that  ושלח את הצפר החיה על־פני השדה, once again calling it Chaya when he sets it free. But by the seir Azazel, in the last reference, it does not call it the Chay. It says  ושלח את השעיר במדבר.
So yes, we do find a case of shiluach to freedom of the second of paired animals where the first was killed. But both from the sair's job of "carrying sin," and from the fact that Chaya is dropped in the last passuk, I think it is clear that it is not meant to remain alive. This change in the description of the tzipor removes the ambiguity from the Sa'ir.
Rabbi Schreiber responded
All you have proven is that the bird is alive.
The question at hand is :
Is the Torah contrasting the treatment of the bird to that of the goat or is it a saying the goat is to be treated LIKE the other paired animal

However 
I could make this distinction:
The birds are brought after the tzaraas has resolved -presumably the person has done teshuva and learned their lesson.
In contrast the saier works לשבין בין לשאינם שבין.

So the Torah is saying the metzora has redeemed themselves while Klal Yisroel has not yet demonstrated their worthiness for כפרה.

Rashi mentions this as well. 

On passuk 16:10,

והשעיר אשר עלה עליו הגורל לעזאזל יעמד חי לפני יהוה לכפר עליו לשלח אתו לעזאזל המדברה:

Oneklos says

וּצְפִירָא דִּי סְלִיק עֲלוֹהִי עַדְבָא לַעֲזָאזֵל יִתָּקַם כַּד חַי קֳדָם יְיָ לְכַפָּרָא עֲלוֹהִי לְשַׁלַּח יָתֵיהּ לַעֲזָאזֵל לְמַדְבְּרָא:

Rashi explains,

יעמד חי. כְּמוֹ יֻעֲמַד חַי — עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים, וְתַרְגּוּמוֹ יִתָּקַם כַּד חַי; מַה תַּ"ל? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְשַׁלֵּחַ אֹתוֹ לַעֲזָאזֵל וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שִׁלּוּחוֹ אִם לְמִיתָה אִם לְחַיִּים, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר יָעֳמַד חַי, עֲמִידָתוֹ חַי עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, מִכָּאן שֶׁשִּׁלּוּחוֹ לְמִיתָה (ספרא):

Why does he translate יעמד חי  as  יִתָּקַם כַּד חַי?   The words כַּד חַי mean "while it is alive," and the "while it is" is not in the words of the passuk. Elsewhere, Onkelos translates חי simply as חי. He explains that this is because the verses below do not state explicitly that the goat is sent to its death, but only that it is "sent off in the wilderness."   Psukim 21-22 - 

וסמך אהרן את־שתי ידו [ידיו] על ראש השעיר החי והתודה עליו את כל עונת בני ישראל ואת כל פשעיהם לכל חטאתם ונתן אתם על־ראש השעיר ושלח ביד איש עתי המדברה

ונשא השעיר עליו את כל עונתם אל־ארץ גזרה ושלח את השעיר במדבר

This is why the Targum needs to explain that חי only means that while the other goat of the pair was just slaughtered as a chatas, this one remains alive for the moment. But it, too, will later be killed.  Psukim 9-10 - 

והקריב אהרן את־השעיר אשר עלה עליו הגורל ליהוה ועשהו חטאת

והשעיר אשר עלה עליו הגורל לעזאזל יעמד חי לפני יהוה לכפר עליו לשלח אתו לעזאזל המדברה

Thursday, March 18, 2021

Bananas for Karpas

 This is just a bagatelle, but interesting nonetheless.

 A friend told me that his father always used celery for Karpas, and he strongly dislikes celery. There are two reasons for this strong dislike. One, because celery is not a barbecued rib. Two, it is celery.  He is already dreading the Seder because of the inexorable approach of the celery. So he asked, can he use a different vegetable?

I answered him that yes, he can use anything upon which you make a borei peri ha'adama. If he likes to dip Terra Chips into saltwater, he can use Terra Chips. He can use a banana, he can use pineapple. (Some poskim say that you make ha'adama on Papaya too because the stem is relatively soft and hollow. I strongly disagree. It can grow twenty feet tall and lives for years, and there are no early sources that consider the quality of the stem/trunk to be a factor. But if you follow Harav Ovadiah and not me, you can use a papaya, too. For an excellent discussion of the bracha on Papaya and the issue of Orla, this article from the OU.)

But his question reminded me of a story with the Chasam Sofer. 

After stealing the Afikoman, the Chasam Sofer's son, later known as the Ksav Sofer, asked his father, why do we do this? Why do we steal the Afikoman? His father said nothing. He asked again; again no response. He realized that his father was not going to answer the question, and he did not ask again.

The following night, the Chasam Sofer told him, now I will answer your question.

The reason we steal the Afikoman is because it says by yetzias Mitzrayim "ולכל בני ישראל לא יחרץ כלב לשונו "  Not a dog will bark at any of the Israelites, at man or beast ....

The Gemara (Psachim 113a) says 

 לא תדור במתא דלא צניף בה סוסיא ולא נבח בה כלבא 

Do not dwell in a city where no horses neigh nor dogs bark.

and Rashi explains

סוסיא - משום דהוא נטירותא בקרתא מאויבים ומגנבים:

Horses: because (by reacting audibly to strangers)  they provide safety from enemies and thieves.

So we see that dogs are a shmira from ganovim. That means that when the dogs are not barking, ganovim can do whatever they want. That being the case, by Yetzias Mitzrayim, ולכל בני ישראל לא יחרץ כלב לשונו, nothing would be safe from Jewish Ganovim. To commemorate that miracle, we steal the afikoman.

Why didn't I tell you this answer yesterday? Because you need to know that the first rule is to respect minhagim, even if you have no idea why the minhag makes sense. You do it with full faith. After you learn to defer to and properly respect minhagim, then I can tell you the reason for the minhag.

(I suspect that the question had been asked dismissively, implying that it was a foolish minhag, and the Chasam Sofer needed to correct this attitude.)

Back to Karpas. If you really dislike celery, you're welcome to use whatever you want. There is some benefit to doing precisely what your father did at the Seder.  But the truth is, there are minhagim and there are minhagim. I think the choice of vegetable for Karpas is really not important, and you can choose whatever you enjoy. And if you choose to dip a banana into saltwater, instead of the mundane celery or potato, you can be sure that you are going to get questions from the younger members of the family - and that is exactly what you are trying to do!


UPDATE:

I mentioned 'bananas' because I thought the image of using bananas for karpas was comical. It was that or strawberries in pink Himalayan saltwater. If you do want to go with bananas, I recommend banana chips. 

But, in a cosmic coincidence, Reb Sass tells me that he heard that Harav Pinchas Teitz of Elizabeth davka used bananas for Karpas.  He did so to publicize the fact that the proper bracha on bananas is indeed ha'adama, and by using them for Karpas, the word would get out. How do you like that?

I just got an email from eidim ne'emanim that Rav Teitz did indeed use a banana. It was not his innovation, though. It was the idea of his father in law, Rav Elazar Mayer Preil z’l, and Harav Teitz decided it was a good idea, and adopted it. I even got advice on how to do it like the Teitzes: Bring the banana to the table whole, and peel and slice it right before dipping, so it does not oxidize.


UPDATE II

Reb Tzvi was kind enough to direct our attention to the shitta of my uncle, Reb Dovid Feinstein zatzal.  I saw it in the Artscroll "Laws of the Seder" that he authored.  Notable points there on page 35:

1. That the optimal mitzva is to use a vegetable that grows above ground, in that a root is not called a yerek. This excludes potatoes and carrots.

2. A fruit, even if you make ha'adama on it, would not be called a yerek, and, as such, is not lechatchila for Karpas.  This excludes cucumbers and tomatoes.

3. That Karpas should be raw, not cooked, because according to some the Karpas should stimulate the appetite, and according to the first teretz in Tos Eiruvin 55b, only raw vegetables do that, while cooked vegetables satiate. This would exclude cooked potatoes. 

4. That since onions are rarely eaten raw in the US, the bracha on onions is here and now shehakol. 

HOWEVER, my father in law, as did his father, uses cooked potatoes and Reb Aharon used raw onions. Since I grew up using potatoes, and I married into the Reb Reuven side of the family, I feel comfortable recommending banana chips and strawberries.

NOTE: My wife reminded me that my father in law, out of respect for his brother, has been using both celery and potatoes ever since Reb Dovid publicized his opinion. Guess what we're having alongside potatoes this year.

IF you want to be really serious about your karpas - more serious than, for example, the Chofetz Chaim, then maybe you should do what many yekkes do, and use Parsley. As Reb Dovid points out, the Gemara never uses the word Karpas in the context of the seder, only Yerek. But since we call it karpas, the fact is that the Rishonim in other places generally say that Karpas is parsley. See Rav and Yachin on Mishna Sheviis 9:1, Rashi Sukka 39b.  Some say that it is cress or celery.  Parsley, if you can get it without insects, is perfect almost lechol hadei'os. I personally do not understand why you make a haadama on it - for men, it's a garnish, not a food, but I am alone in that opinion.