IOY

I didnt mispell joy, if thats what you are thinking:P

What I meant to write was IOU, as in I-owe-u, which is simply a note that signfinies an informal agreement acknowledging debt. But since in this case the U is God, I thought it would be more proper to turn the U of the acronym into a Y.

This thought sprang up when reading last weeks portion, where Rashi related an inspiring part from the Midrash Tanchuma. Im kind of short on time so wont bother in putting my own translation up, but simply quote the abbreviated form found in Rashi’s commentary.

His comments relate to the verse in Exodus 22:25 that deals with lending a person money: 

If you will take your fellow’s garment as security, until the sun sets you shall have returned it to him.

Which, for those not familiar with this, simply means, that in order to assure yourself that the person you lent money to will pay you back, you take something valuable that belongs to him, like his watch or in this case, his jacket, until he pays back. The problem of course with taking someone’s jacket is that he needs it, and especially at night when its cold, so the Torah says that in such a case the jacket must be given back at night.

On this Rashi relates:

[The Torah] makes you repeat the act of taking security even if you must do it many times, a lesson that may be learned from the way God treats us. It is as if The Holy One, Blessed is He said: “Consider how much you owe me! Behold, your soul ascends to Me each and every night and gives an accounting of itself and is found to be in debt to Me, yet I return it to you each morning, and I do this over and over every day of your life. You, too, take the collateral and return it, take it and return it, even if you must do it several times.

I thought this was inspiring and really made me think of how much we owe God. We owe Him our very existence and each and every day, sometimes worse than other times, we are in debt to Him because of the sins we comitted, whether they were intentional or unintentional. Still in His mercy He returns our souls to us in the morning.

Similarly when we owe a person money and take something valuable as a security for making him or her pay us back, we should be compassionate and realize that even as The Eternal returns our souls to Him every day we should be returning the security to them when they need it, even though they are still in debt.

Thus its fitting in the morning when waking up to thank God for restoring our soul to us and giving us another day, I personally do this with a short prayer from the prayer book, but needless to say any words of thankfulness are good:

I gratefully thank You, O living and eternal King, for you have returned my soul within me with compassion – abundant is Your faithfulness!

Bo: Mezuzot?

While reading this weeks portion I came across a Rashi that made me wonder about the halacha for affixing mezuzot.

The verse that Rashi commented on was Ex 12:7

They shall take some of its blood and place it on two doorposts and on the lintel upon the houses in which they will eat it

Rashi comments:

UPON THE HOUSES IN WHICH THEY WILL EAT IT – But not upon the lintel and doorposts of a house [used for storing] straw, or a stable in which people do not live.

Though the commandment of affixing mezuzot is not related in this part, when reading the portion in Hebrew for the first time, I associated doorposts with mezuzah, that is: the case with parchment as its simply the same word.

And perhaps there is more than a linguistic connection between these?

At any rate what I was wondering is whether a mezuzah should also be affixed to doorposts of areas that are not inhabited as in basements and storage houses.

From what Ive read there is a debate about it and one side argues that it is not required as those places are not designed for living in (dwelling), while the other side holds that these require mezuzot as well (see Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 11:16). This effectively means that if one does decide to do so, the blessing should not be recited.

I personally have a kosher mezuzah on my doorpost and did recite a blessing over it while affixing it. The blessing goes like this:

Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the universe Who has sanctified us with his commandments and commanded us to affix a mezuzah

I enjoyed doing it and everyday when coming home and seeing the mezuzah I thank God for bringing me home and protecting me.

But there is a problem… the problem is that in this blessing it says, “Who commanded us”, where us refers to the Jewish people and hence not to me.

Halachically its simply problematic that I have a mezuzah on my doorpost and perhaps even more that its a kosher one. But I simply refuse to take it off I just like it and it serves as a great reminder to God and His commandments.

There is another sign commandment, the mitzvah of Tefillin. During the time that I was convinced the Torah’s commandments were equally mandatory for me as for the Jewish people, I was waking up every morning putting on tefillin (to the horror of my parents!) but I gave this up after some time when I decided that the mitzvah was not for me but for the Jewish people (and admittedly it was hard every morning waking up like that!).

Still I miss it, I mean it did have something beautiful, praying with a Tallit, Tefillin, and probably to be fully consistent I should take off the mezuzah as well and pray “God of the Fathers” instead of “God of our Fathers”, but I dont really feel like doing this, as at the end of the day while it may be intellectually more consistent, the desire within my heart to bond and commune with God in the way that I feel comfortable with I think is also very – if not more – important.

Are these difficulties recognizable to you? And if so, how do you deal with them?

Rabbi Yose and Arius

While studying Rashi I came across an interesting comment of his on Deut 1:13

Provide yourselves men who are wise and understanding and well known to your tribes, and I shall appoint them as your heads.

(WISE) AND UNDERSTANDING – They can logically derive one thing from another. This is what Arius asked the Tanna R’ Yose about, when he asked, “What is the difference between ‘those who are wise’ and ‘those who are understanding’?” R’ Yose answered, ” ‘One who is wise’ is like a moneychanger. When they bring him dinars to examine, he examines. And when they do not bring him money to examine, he sits and wonders, i.e., he bides his time. ‘One who is understanding’ is like an enterprising moneychanger. When they bring him money to examine, he examines. And when they do not bring him money to examine, he goes about and brings in business on his own. Rashi ad loc.

This is quite remarkable, the footnote relates that this is the Arius, one of the great heretics in church history who taught, among other things, that the Son was not of the same substance as the Father and that he was not eternally begotten.

Whether this encounter historically took place can be questioned but lets assume for a moment that an encounter ocurred between Arius and a prominent Rabbi.

What made Arius inquire of the Rabbi? Furthermore why this question? Did encounters like this often take place? And if not, why did he pose a simple question like that and not something more difficult or perhaps something that he could not find an answer to among his Christian colleagues? Did he perhaps have more frequent encounters? If so, could these have influenced his ideas concerning the nature of God and the messiah?

To my knowledge this is the only theologian that is recalled by name in Rashi’s commentary on the Chumash, and not refuted. Could this imply some sort of sympathy for Arius?

While browsing the net I found that the Lubavitcher Rebbe also made some comments on this:

What was special about Rabbi Yose? The Gemara (Gittin 67a) tells us that Rabbi Yose always pursued the logical explanations for his opinions. Throughout Torah his system of study emphasized the need for clear logic and reason. Other Tannaim also pursued the logic of their teachings, but often when the ultimate intellectual explanation of a particular halachic ruling eluded them, they would rely on the principle that “if it is the halachah we accept it” (without understanding).

Rabbi Yose was not satisfied with that approach, and always demanded complete intellectual understanding, therefore, when it is Rabbi Yose who tells us that Moshe had to seek out truly understanding judges, we can understand his particular emphasis on this quality. [And since Rashi quotes the Sifri, it is clear that Rashi is in fact referring to Rabbi Yose the Tanna.]

So, when the sharp student asks why it is necessary to put so much effort into finding truly understanding judges, Rashi responds: First of all take note that this question was raised by a gentile, “Arius asked Rabbi Yose,” for after all, when the Torah says you must find men of understanding how can a Jew possibly think, “Why bother”?! The Jew must seek intellectual justification and rationalization but not harbor the opposite assumption?! This can only stem from “the goy that is within you.”

Nevertheless, since the Sifri considers the question and responds — it legitimatizes even this question. By mentioning the name of the questioner, Arius, Rashi stresses this point. The name Arius includes the letters of the word Or — light — symbolizing wisdom. For wisdom allows an honest question in understanding and being that Rabbi Yose responded and explained the need for understanding men, we realize that his answer is very specific and significant, for Rabbi Yose always sought understanding. Sichos In English, Volume 32, Shabbos Parshas Devorim, 4th Day Of Menachem Av, 5746

Furthermore the Lubavitcher Rebbe thought that this question concerned the Trinity saying that:

The difference between unity and trinity in Arius’s philosophy may be analogous to the difference between secular wisdom and understanding. Unity symbolizes the unitary spark of wisdom, while trinity alludes to the three stages of understanding.Therefore, Arius who represented unity (wisdom) questioned and challenged the “understanding” of trinity. Ibid.

Can you imagine, the Lubavitcher Rebbe during one of the farbrengens expounding on Arius:P

Whatever sparked Arius and Rabbi Yose’s exchange it would have been very interesting to be present during their conversation.

Rashi and the plain meaning

Many people think Rashi is the great commentator of the plain meaning and while its certainly true that Rashi is one of the greatest commentators, it is not necessarily true wrt the plain meaning.

Though he often mentions that he has come to explain the plain meaning, his commentary when compared with especially midrashim, is full of these explanations. This has led to his grandson, the Rashbam, taking up the work of delivering strictly the plain meaning, to the extent that he even explains the passage concerning Tefilin as symbolical and not literal (note that the Rashbam did wear Tefilin himself).

Heres a couple of examples from the Torah-reading Beha’alotcha.

Rashi comments on 12:1 “Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses…”

SPOKE – Forms of the word דבור in all places in Scripture are (mean) nothing but harsh language…. And forms of the word אמירה in all places in Scripture are (mean) nothing but supplicative language… Every word נא, a supplicative expression, in these examples denotes request.

Compare this to Midrash Tanchuma Tzav Ch. 13:

אין נא אלא לשון בקשה – [the word] נא is nothing but supplicative language/expression

Continuing the Midrash says:
ואין דבור בכל מקום אלא לשון קשה – and [the word] דבור in all places is nothing but hard language

And lastly:
ואין אמירה אלא תחנונים – and [the word] אמירה is nothing but supplications.

Now these are fairly plain you would say and I would agree, but here is another example:

MIRIAM, AS WELL AS AARON, SPOKE – She initiated the speaking. This is why Scripture puts her first, ahead of Aaron. And from where did Miriam know that Moses separated himself from the woman, i.e. his wife? The Tanna R’ Nassan says: Miriam was at Zipporah’s side at the time when it was said to Moses “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.” When Zipporah heard this, she said “Woe to the wives of these, Eldad and Medad, if they will be charged with prophecy, in the manner that my husband, Moses, separated from me.” From there Miriam knew that Moses had separated from his wife, and she told Aaron. Now if Miriam, who did no intend to speak of his disparagement, was thus punished, how much more so one who speaks of the disparagement of his fellow.

The Midrash says:

ולמה אמר תחלה מרים ואחר כך אהרן. אלא שהיא פתחה בדבר תחלה, ולפיכך הקדימה הכתוב. ומה אמרו, הרק אך במשה דבר ה’ (במד’ יב ב), כלומר, במשה דבר ה’ לבדו, שפירש מאשתו. הלא גם בנו דבר (שם), כמו כן דבר עמנו ולא פירשנו מדרך ארץ.

ומנין היתה יודעת מרים שפירש משה מן האשה. רבי נתן אומר, מרים היתה בצד צפורה כשאמרו למשה אלדד ומידד מתנבאים במחנה (שם יא כז). וכיון ששמעה צפורה, אמרה, אוי להם לנשותיהם של אלו.

ומאיזה זמן פירש משה מדרך ארץ, אלא בשעה שאמר הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה בסיני קודם מתן תורה שיקדש את העם ואמר להם, לשלשת ימים אל תגשו אל אשה (שמות יט טו), פירשו הם מנשותיהם ופירש משה מאשתו. ואחר מתן תורה אמר ליה הקדוש ברוך הוא, לך אמור להם, שובו לכם לאהליכם, ואתה פה עמוד עמדי (דב’ ה ל-לא), ואל תשוב לדרך ארץ.

וכשאמרה צפורה אוי לנשותיהן של אלו, הן נזקקין לנבואה שיהו פורשין מנשותיהם כמו שפירש בעלי הימני. ומשם ידעה מרים והגידה לאהרן.

ומה מרים שלא נתכוונה לגנותו של משה, נענשה. קל וחמר למספר בגנותו של חבירו ובלשון הרע, ילקה האדם בצרעת.

And why does Miriam speak first and afterwards Aaron? Only because that she opened/initiated the speaking first, and therefore Scripture puts her first. And why did they say: “is it only to Moses that Hashem spoke?” (Num 12:2), that is to say, to Moses spoke Hashem alone [so(?)] that he separated from his wife. “Did He not speak with us as well”, as he spoke with us and we did not separate from the way of the world.

And from where did Miriam know that Moses separated from the wife? Rabbi Nathan says, Miriam was at the side of Zipporah when they said to Moses Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp (Num 11:27). And when Zipporah heard this, she said, “woe to them, to the wives of these”.

Whatever time Moses would separate from the way of the world, would only be in the hour that the Holy One Blessed Be He spoke to Moses at Sinai before the giving of the Torah, sanctify the people and said to them, “for three days do not approach a woman” (Ex. 19:15) The people separated from their women and Moses separated from his wife. And after the giving of the Torah said Hashem to him, go say to them, go back to your tents, and you stand here with me (Deut. 5:30-31), and (they?) return to the way of the world.

And Zipporah said “woe to the wives of these, [if] they will be charged with prophecy, for they will separate from their wives like my husband separated from me”. And from here Miriam knew and told Aaron.

And if Miriam, who did not intend to speak of his disparagement, was punished in that way, how much more so one who speaks of the disparagement of his friend/neighbour and the evil tongue, a man [who does so] will be stricken with leprosy.

As you can see there are many parallels and pieces that are literally copied, and Im not convinced that this part represents the plain meaning. Granted, it is possible that its the plain meaning but more likely Miriam just spoke up because, to put it bluntly, she felt she was left out. To use Rashi’s words, she did speak of his disparagement and thats exactly the reason why she was stricken with leprosy. 

It is one thing for the Midrash that does not claim to deliver the plain meaning, to fill in gaps or work with anomalies in the text and for a pshat commentary to deliver it as if it happened like that. But then again, one could raise the question whether its possible to draw such sharp distinctions between midrash and Scripture.

None of this though diminishes the greatness of Rashi, he is a great educator and I think he is more concerned with directing his audience to a love for Hashem, the Torah and the Jewish people  than sticking to the plain meaning.

The value of life?

While studying Rashi on Mishpatim, I came across the following verse:

When men will fight and they will jostle a pregnant woman and she will misscarry, but there will be no fatatlity, he shall surely be penalized when the husband of the woman shall impose  upon him, and he shall give it through judges’ orders. (Ex 21:22)

Rashi explains that this fine would be determined based on what she was worth on the marketplace before she was pregnant and by how much her value had increased as a result of her pregnancy.

Though the miscarriage would have been caused unintentionally it struck me that the family could be compensated monetarily. And this makes me wonder about the Torah’s view on the loss of a fetus…

As I have a background in Evangelical/Pentecostal Christianity I have always been taught that the loss of a fetus from the moment of conception equalled the loss of a full-fledged human life but the above verse makes me have doubts about that…

Rashi on Ex 13:21

In this weeks parsha, Rashi on Ex 13:21 brings out a lesson that I thinks serves well in understanding how Jesus can be called saviour without implying that he is G’d per Isa 43:11.

Exodus 13:21 reads: And the L’rd went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night.

On which Rashi comments that the lamed (לַנְחֹתָם) from “to lead them along” is vowelized with a patach, indicating that this is a causative hifil. In other words, Hashem ’caused’ the pillar of cloud  to go before the Israelites, and as such Rashi compares the pillar of cloud to an emissary.

The Siftei Chachamim commenting on Rashi’s comment says:

אלא שפת”ח הלמ”ד הוא במקום ה”א, אף כאן פת”ח הלמ”ד הוא במקום ה”א כאילו אמר להנחותם, ותועלת הפת”ח הוא להורות שהוא על ידי שליח, כי בזולת הפת”ח יהיה מן הקל שהוא יוצא לשני, ועם הפת”ח יהיה מבנין הפעיל שהוא יוצא לשלישי 

[...]but the patach [under] the lamed is in place of a hey, here too (referring to an earlier example) the patach under the lamed is in place of the hey, as if to say “their leadings”, and the usage of this patach it is to teach that it is by means of an emissary, for except the patach is from the Qal (form) that is went out in the 2nd person, and if the patach is understood as the Piel that is went out, third person.

The footnote to Rashi says: ”Therefore, the verse can say that it was G’d, rather than His emissary, Who went before them by day in the pillar of cloud”. [1]

In sum, G’d is the source, the cause for the emissary, the pillar of cloud, to go in front of the Israelites, and this enables the verse to say that G’d went before them (even though it was G’ds emissary; the pillar of cloud). Similarly G’d was the cause, the initiator behind his messiah Cyrus in Isaiah Ch. 45, to end the exile. And similarly G’d was the one Who moved behind Jesus’ saving work, he (Jesus) being the emissary of G’d such that we “can say that it was G’d, rather than His emissary” that saved us. And thus theres no contradiction in the claim of Isaiah 43 that G’d is the only saviour and the NT saying that Jesus is the saviour.

———————————————————————–

[1] R. Herczeg, Rashi (New York: Mesorah Publications ltd., 2007) p.147 n.3

Quote on Agency

Rashi in commenting upon Ex 12:6 derives the source for the law:

[...] the agent of a person is like the person himself. [1]

———————————————————————————————-

[1] R. Herczeg, Rashi (New York: Mesorah Publications ltd., 2007) p.110

Rashi on Gen 37:28

Gen 37:28 “Then Midianite traders passed by. And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. They took Joseph to Egypt.”

Rashi comments on “they lifted”:

The sons of Jacob pulled “Joseph from the pit” and sold him to the Ishmaelites, and the Ishmaelites to the Midianites, and the Midianites {sold him} to Egypt.[1]

In search of an explanation for this comment I looked at Iqar Siftei Chachamim which is featured in the new Chumash I bought, as it is without vowels, my translation will not be very good, any corrections are welcome:

 ובשם ספר הישר מובא אשר המדינים משכו את יוסף מן הבור, כפשט הכתוב. ואחרי שראו האחים את יוסף בידם חפצו לקחתו בחזקה מידם, התרצו לקנותו בעשרים כסף מידם. אך אחרי כן בהיותם בדרך התנחמו על מקחם ומכרו אותו לישמעאלים בעשרים הכסף. וזה שנאמר וימכרו (המדינים) כו’ בעשרים כסף והישמעאלים מכרוהו אחר כך סמוך למצרים להמדינים. והמדינים מכרוהו לפוטיפר. אף לפוטיפר לא רצה לקחתו מידם. באמרו אולי גנוב הוא אתם הביאו לו את הישמעאלים אשר מכרוהו לו וזה שנאמר אצל פוטיפר (מיד הישמעאלים) כו’. הארכתי בזה למען התר הספקות מהפסוקים שנראין כסותרין זה את זה

And in the name of the Sefer Yashar it is imported(?) that the Midianites pulled  Joseph from the pit, in accordance with the simple meaning of scripture. And after the brothers saw Joseph in their hands, they strongly wanted to take him from their hands, [and the Midianites would] be reconciled by [Joseph's brothers] paying  20 shekels from their hands. But after this, when they were on the way they were comforted on the purchase of them and sold him to the Ishmaelites for 20 shekels. And this is that which is said “and they (the Midianites) sold etc. for 20 shekels” and the Ishmaelites sold him after that close to Egypt to the Midianites. And the Midianites sold him to Potiphar. Even though Potiphar didnt want to take him from their hands. Saying maybe you stole him, bring to me the Ishmaelites that sold him to you and this is that which is said ”next to Potiphar (from the hand of the Midianites) etc.” I was extending this for solving the uncertainty between the verses that seem to be opposite. [2]

At first I didnt really realize why the comment was issued in the first place and why this extended commentary from the Siftei Chachamim but now its more clear. The text says that the Midianites pulled him from the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites but Rashi says that the sons of Jacob did and sold him to the Ishmaelites, and so the Siftei Chachamim comes to the rescue by explaining that indeed the Midianites pulled him from the pit but that the brothers didnt want Joseph to be in their hands and bought him back. On the way they met the Ishmaelites and they sold him for 20 shekels to them, which makes me wonder why they bought him from the Midianites in the first place if they were going to sell him anyways? In any case the Ishmaelites then sold him to Midianites close to the Egyptian border and they in turn to Potiphar. And this is in line with an earlier comment of Rashi that Joseph was sold many times.

———————————————————————————————————

[1]R. Herczeg, Rashi (New York: Mesorah Publications ltd., 2007)p.422

[2] Cant claim full credit for the translation as some friends helped me:)

Rashi on Gen 12:5

Genesis 12:5 reads as following:

“Abram took his wife Sarai and Lot, his brother’s son, and all their possessions that they had amassed, and the souls that they had made in Haran; and they left to go to the land of Canaan, and they came to the land of Canaan.”

Rashi says:

THAT THEY MADE IN HARAN – They are said to have ”made” the souls for they took them in under the wings of the Divine Presence. Abraham would convert the men, and Sarah would convert the women. Scripture considers them as if they made them. And the simple meaning of the verse is that this phrase refers to slaves and slavewomen which they acquired for themselves. The word עשו is used here in the same sense as the word עשה in, “He amassed all this wealth,” and עושה in, “And Israel will attain success.” It means acquiring and amassing.[1]

After Abraham has only a few verses before been introduced Rashi shows a picture of him and his wife reaching out to their fellow men with the message of the One G’d. I never had problems with the sudden appearance of Abraham in the Genesis narrative, and I still dont have , but once in a shiur I was listening to it was pointed out that his appearance was kind of sudden and unannounced. True he is being introduced in the previous chapter but this is all very marginal when looking at how Ch. 12 starts with the Divine call to ”leave the country”. And this I think explains the amount of midrashim that seek to explain more fully who Abraham was before the call.

Speaking about midrashim, I recall a midrash that is somewhat related to Rashi’s comment on the outreach efforts of Abraham and Sarah, I think it went something like this. He would invite people to have dinner at his place and Sarah would prepare a very nice meal. After dinner the guests would say thank you to which he replied, dont thank me but thank the Creator, and then he wouldnt let them leave until they blessed the Creator

 

When reading this I wonder what happened to this outreach zeal within Judaism. Among Jews, yes, there is a lot of outreach going on but to the outside non-Jewish world it seems not really to reflect the efforts of Abraham. True, there are some groups that try to bring universal ethics about by initiatives as Noahidism but apart from this not much. 

But then is this necessary? I personally do feel its necessary to relate to fellowmen ‘the right path’, Im not saying by whatever means, its a very sensitive issue and needs to be approached with the utmost care, but to simply adopt a laissez-faire approach doesnt suit with the attitude of for example Abraham and Sarah.

I remember last week sitting in a bus with some guys from my university, quite a few beers had been drunk and so everybody was very much informed on any issue Anyways one of them was sitting next to me and said to me “Daniel you are quite religious arent you?” So I responded a bit suprised by “yes how did you know?” So he told me he saw me praying before I ate my dinner. We chatted a bit and he told me how he believed in G’d but didnt believe all of the things that were written in the Bible and was also not really living as a saint. He told me he had a roommate who was also very religious and he really was a nice guy (crazy combination ), but the only thing he didnt like/understand was the fact that he went to Taiwan to spread the Gospel there. He said, I dont think its fair, those people over there have their own way and religion why cant you respect that and leave them alone. He told me his roommates response: lets say you climb a mountain and you see that someone below is taking the wrong turn that leads to a dead-end, wouldnt you want to warn him and show him the proper path. To which another guy in the bus replied, “thats a platonic argument” and several others expressed their discontent. And I can understand how they feel its not fair, especially as they dont hold that their is one absolute truth out there but more in the sense of what works for you is fine with me, you believe in your thing, I believe in mine.

After we got out of the bus I chatted a bit more with the guy and while he was explaining how he saw things and how he tried to live life, I couldnt escape the line that the Kuzari King had heard in his dream:

Your intention is acceptable to the L’rd, however your behavior is not acceptable to Him

This line really summed up what I was feeling when I heard him speak. He didnt intend to live ‘wrong’, he wanted to be an honest guy and be a good person in general, he believed in G’d, but by absolute standards he was simply missing the mark. Nevertheless the fact that he initiated a conversation about it was positive, in my opinion its a step in the right direction, and gives me personally a confirmation that albeit on small scale Im spreading the light.

———————————————–

[1] R. Herczeg, Rashi (New York: Mesorah Publications ltd., 2007)p.118

Rashi on Gen 9:20-25

While studying Chumash & Rashi, I came across the comments of Rashi on Noah’s experience when planting his vineyard. Several things stood out:

 

Rashi translates ויחל as “debased”, instead of “and he began”, Rashi’s comment on the verse that reads instead of:

And Noah, the man of the earth, began and planted a vineyard.

As:

And Noah, the man of the earth, debased himself and planted a vineyard.

He made himself profane for he should have first engaged in a different sort of planting[1]

When I read it, I had always thought that Noah did it out of ignorance, not knowing that this fruit would get him drunk In fact I taught a friend during Bible-study that Noah was the first drunkard in this world But maybe there were people before him and he knew, well thats at least what Rashi seems to imply.

Another interesting thing is the fact that Rashi, apart from the above comment, does not comment on the fact that Noah was drunk. This is my own theory, not really based on any supercommentary on Rashi but I think he does so with a reason, and the reason for this is that he holds Noah to an extent that he doesnt want to dwell too long on his shortcomings. This can be seen in other works as well, where the Avot are generally shown as lacking any shortcomings, this btw is also prevalent among the biographies of Gedolim, especially of the Artscroll-type where people get the idea that these Gedolim were born as saints. But Im sidetracking.

When coming to verse 22, Rashi provides yet another insight, I hadnt thought of; the verse reads:

And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside.

On which Rashi comments:

There are those among our Rabbis who say that Canaan saw, and told his father, and this is why [Canaan] was mentioned with regard to the matter and cursed.[2]

Although the verse says told his two brothers, which can only be used in reference to Ham, it is worth the thought when considering the curse uttered by Noah:

Cursed is Canaan: a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers

Maybe this (i.e. the seeming explicit reference to Ham) explains the hesistance in Rashi’s comment which seems to be present when saying יש מרבותינו אומרים instead of just giving the explanation.

The comment on the last part of verse 22: “saw his father’s nakedness…” basically sickens me:

There are those who say he emasculated him, and there are those who say he had relations with him.[3]

This sounds so messed up, especially the second idea. Im aware that for Noah to curse Ham and his offspring, something very bad must have taken place and as such understand that the Sages z”l look for an explanation but why in the world would he wanted to have relations with him? If I had to choose, I’d say the first explanation, emasculation, sounds more credible, and it seems as if Rashi thinks so too as he goes on to explain:

What did Ham see that he emasculated him, i.e., why did Ham emasculate him? He said to his brothers, “Adam, the first man, had only two sons, yet one killed the other because of the inheritance of the world, and our father has three sons, yet he seeks still a fourth son!”[4]

Another comment in support of the idea that Ham emasculated him:

Noah said to Ham, “You caused me that I should not father a fourth son, another one, to serve me. May your fourth son be cursed…”[5]

Obviously it cannot be said with certainty that this took place but it is at least a possiblity that would be grounded in the text (as with most midrashim).

All in all as someone whose fairly new to Chumash & Rashi, I must say that his comments make the text come alive and make it more readable, also he gives thoughts to ponder and scenarios to consider, which usually have a moral undertone as he seeks to draw his reader closer to G’d and His Torah.

————————————————————————-

[1]R. Herczeg, Rashi (New York: Mesorah Publications ltd., 2007)p.95

[2]Ibid. p.96

[3]Ibid.

[4]Ibid. p.98

[5]Ibid.

כפי דרך הארץ

While learning Chumash & Rashi, I came across a comment of Rashi on the following verse:

The L’rd will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the L’rd and his jealousy will smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book will settle upon him, and the L’rd will blot out his name from under heaven.

Rashi says:

HASHEM’S ANGER (literally, “nose”) WILL SMOKE – Through anger the body heats up, and smoke emerges from the nose, figuratively speaking. Similarly, “Smoke went up in His nose.” Although this is not so before the Omnipresent, i.e., although these physical phenomena are not applicable to the Omnipresent, Scripture lets the ear hear in the manner in which it is accustomed and able to hear according to the normal way of the world.[1]

This principle, of the Torah speaking according to the normal way of the world, is also explained by the Rambam in the Guide.

“The Torah speaks according to the language of man,” that is to say, expressions, which can easily be comprehended and understood by all, are applied to the Creator. Hence the description of G’d by attributes implying corporeality, in order to express His existence; because the multitude of people do not easily conceive existence unless in connection with a body, and that which is not a body nor connected with a body has for them no existence.
Whatever we regard as a state of perfection, is likewise attributed to G’d, as expressing that He is perfect in every respect, and that no imperfection or deficiency whatever is found in Him. But there is not attributed to G’d anything which the multitude consider a defect or want; thus He is never represented as eating, drinking, sleeping, being ill, using violence, and the like. [2] 

In my opinion this captures very well the idea behind the Torah’s language.

 

[1] R. Herczeg, Rashi (New York: Mesorah Publications ltd., 2007), p.310

[2] Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed (New York: Dover Publications inc., 2000), p.35

Our forefathers?

As I was learning Chumash & Rashi last week I came across the following comment of Rashi:

Its on Deut 26:11

And you shall rejoice in all the good that the Lord your God has given to you and to your house, you, and the Levite, and the sojourner who is among you.

Rashi says:

And the convert who is in your midst – He brings but does not recite for he is unable to say “to our forefathers”. [1]

I remember once someone told me at the Kotel that I was allowed to pray the whole Amidah, save for the phrase ואלקי אבותינו, אלקי אברהם, אלקי יצחק, ואלקי יעקב

and G’d of our forefathers, G’d of Abraham, G’d of Isaac and G’d of Jacob

This seems like a reasonable charge as Im not Jewish.

But some would argue that this is possible as a believer in Jesus and reference especially Paul for this.

For example while addressing a largely non-Jewish congregation Paul says: 

For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink

And thus they induce from this that non-Jewish believers in Jesus can also call the Patriarchs their fathers. 

Im not sure if this is rightfully so, at least not on the basis of this phrase, as even though he says our fathers, this does not necessarily mean he includes his audience in ‘our’, he could simply be using this phrase as he is teaching from within the Jewish camp. And this is not a stretch, think of a business presentation, it would be unlikely to hear a representative talk in the singular. Similarly the position he takes in his letter could be reflecting the Jewish believers in Jesus teaching a largely non-Jewish congregation, who they see as brothers albeit in a different way than their ethnic brothers.

When it comes to considering the possibility to call Abraham as their father, in a spiritual sense, I would have to concur on the basis of Paul’s writings, for he says:

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all

But as for Isaac and Jacob, Im not sure…

 

Feel free to drop in your comments.

[1] R. Herczeg, Rashi (New York: Mesorah Publications ltd., 2007), p.272