Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Tehilim 115 and 116
When you can't find your keys, often it is not because they are in an obscure place you can't think of, but because they are in such an obvious place that you think it unnecessary to look there. Something similar applies to certain parts of Tanach. We see so often in one specific context that we effectively train ourselves not to look at them from any perspective other than the usual one.
Tehillim 115 and 116 are good examples. We recite them regularly in Hallel. But in Hallel each chapter is split into two paragraphs which are said separately (and often, one half is not even said). This makes it hard for us to notice connections between the halves which would be obvious if the chapter were said all at once. In this post I would like to examine several such connections.
O Israel, trust Hashem! He is their help and their shield.
O house of Aharon, trust Hashem! He is their help and their shield.
You that fear Hashem, trust Hashem! He is their help and their shield. (115:9-11)
Hashem has remembered us, He will bless:
He will bless the house of Israel; He will bless the house of Aharon.
He will bless them that fear Hashem, both small and great. (115:12-13)
Here we have a list of divisions of the Jewish people: "Israel", "the house of Aharon", and "those that fear Hashem". This list first appears in verses 9-11, where each division is asked to trust God. In the very next two verses (but in a totally separate paragraph in Hallel), the list of divisions appears again, as a list of those who God will bless.
In Hallel, we see these lists of divisions as totally separate. But reading the chapter as a whole, we see they come one after another, and the connection between them is clear. When and because we trust God, God will notice it ("Hashem has remembered us"), and bless us. Not only does the chapter discuss human behavior and Divine favor, but it connects them, thereby introducing another very important concept: that of reward and punishment.
They have hands, but they handle not; feet have they, but they walk not; nor do they speak with their throat.
They that make them will become like them; as will all who trust in them. (115:7-8)
The dead do not praise Hashem, nor do any that go down into silence;
But we will bless Hashem from now and forever. (115:17-18)
There is a certain tension in last two lines. How can you contrast righteous people with dead people, when righteous people eventually die too?
An answer may perhaps be found in the first two lines, which further explain the "death" and "silence" of verse 17. Idols are dead and silent, and idol worshippers eventually become dead and silent too. So it is not all people, but only idol worshippers who are considered "dead". In contrast, God worshippers are considered "alive" forever.
Perhaps these verses are a reference to olam haba, which for those who get it is a form of perpetual life, while other people do not get it and "die". Alternatively, the verses refer to our physical lives. Every individual must die, but the Jewish people as a whole lives and worships God forever. While idol worship may similarly persist for many generations, idolatrous life is empty of meaning, so idolaters can well be considered "dead" like their idols even while physically alive.
I said in my haste: All men are deceitful. (116:11)
My vows to Hashem I will keep, opposite His entire people. (116:14)
My vows to Hashem I will keep, opposite His entire people. (116:18)
These lines contradict each other. The speaker here has just said that all men are deceitful. By implication this includes himself. But if so, what meaning can his commitment to keep his vows have?
It seems that the resolution goes as follows. Humans by their nature are dishonest. The speaker makes an effort to leave normal human behavior by being honest.
In effect, he chooses to part company with humans and their typical ways, and associate with God and His ways instead. (This does not make the speaker a sociopath; the "entire people" makes the same choice along with him.) On the spectrum between human corruption and Divine virtue, the speaker has chosen to shift in one particular direction. We see the distancing from human weakness in one verse, and the approaching of God in another. Only by looking at both verses together can we see that these are two different ways of describing the exact same movement.
Tehillim 115 and 116 are good examples. We recite them regularly in Hallel. But in Hallel each chapter is split into two paragraphs which are said separately (and often, one half is not even said). This makes it hard for us to notice connections between the halves which would be obvious if the chapter were said all at once. In this post I would like to examine several such connections.
O Israel, trust Hashem! He is their help and their shield.
O house of Aharon, trust Hashem! He is their help and their shield.
You that fear Hashem, trust Hashem! He is their help and their shield. (115:9-11)
Hashem has remembered us, He will bless:
He will bless the house of Israel; He will bless the house of Aharon.
He will bless them that fear Hashem, both small and great. (115:12-13)
Here we have a list of divisions of the Jewish people: "Israel", "the house of Aharon", and "those that fear Hashem". This list first appears in verses 9-11, where each division is asked to trust God. In the very next two verses (but in a totally separate paragraph in Hallel), the list of divisions appears again, as a list of those who God will bless.
In Hallel, we see these lists of divisions as totally separate. But reading the chapter as a whole, we see they come one after another, and the connection between them is clear. When and because we trust God, God will notice it ("Hashem has remembered us"), and bless us. Not only does the chapter discuss human behavior and Divine favor, but it connects them, thereby introducing another very important concept: that of reward and punishment.
They have hands, but they handle not; feet have they, but they walk not; nor do they speak with their throat.
They that make them will become like them; as will all who trust in them. (115:7-8)
The dead do not praise Hashem, nor do any that go down into silence;
But we will bless Hashem from now and forever. (115:17-18)
There is a certain tension in last two lines. How can you contrast righteous people with dead people, when righteous people eventually die too?
An answer may perhaps be found in the first two lines, which further explain the "death" and "silence" of verse 17. Idols are dead and silent, and idol worshippers eventually become dead and silent too. So it is not all people, but only idol worshippers who are considered "dead". In contrast, God worshippers are considered "alive" forever.
Perhaps these verses are a reference to olam haba, which for those who get it is a form of perpetual life, while other people do not get it and "die". Alternatively, the verses refer to our physical lives. Every individual must die, but the Jewish people as a whole lives and worships God forever. While idol worship may similarly persist for many generations, idolatrous life is empty of meaning, so idolaters can well be considered "dead" like their idols even while physically alive.
I said in my haste: All men are deceitful. (116:11)
My vows to Hashem I will keep, opposite His entire people. (116:14)
My vows to Hashem I will keep, opposite His entire people. (116:18)
These lines contradict each other. The speaker here has just said that all men are deceitful. By implication this includes himself. But if so, what meaning can his commitment to keep his vows have?
It seems that the resolution goes as follows. Humans by their nature are dishonest. The speaker makes an effort to leave normal human behavior by being honest.
In effect, he chooses to part company with humans and their typical ways, and associate with God and His ways instead. (This does not make the speaker a sociopath; the "entire people" makes the same choice along with him.) On the spectrum between human corruption and Divine virtue, the speaker has chosen to shift in one particular direction. We see the distancing from human weakness in one verse, and the approaching of God in another. Only by looking at both verses together can we see that these are two different ways of describing the exact same movement.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Rest and Torah study
On one hand, Shabbat is a time for rest and enjoyment - "menucha vesimcha or layehudim". On the other hand, according to the Yerushalmi "Shabbat and holidays were only given to Israel in order to do Torah study." So what is the purpose of Shabbat - to enjoy and refresh ourselves, or to learn Torah?
This article tries to reconcile the sources by saying that Torah study itself should constitute enjoyment. While true, this answer solves only half the problem at most. For while Torah study may be enjoyable, it is not restful. One who learns Torah all week long cannot "rest" by pursuing the same routine on Shabbat. And deep Torah study is considered strenuous rather than restful: " 'This is the Torah: when a person dies in a tent' - words of Torah are preserved only by one who kills himself over them." (Brachot 43b). How can Shabbat be a time for both rest and this kind of extreme effort?
Before solving the difficulty, let's extend it with the help of a cute gemara in Eruvin 56a. "R' Yehudah said: Night was created only for sleep. R' Shimon ben Lakish said: The moon was created only for study."* Each rabbi points to an aspect of nature (darkness and the moon) which makes possible their preferred nighttime activity (sleep and Torah study). Apparently nighttime, like Shabbat, is a time when we should be both resting and learning Torah. Yet R' Yehudah and Reish Lakish disagree, because is impossible for a person to do both simultaneously.
Perhaps this tension between rest and Torah study is not unique to night, or to Shabbat, but occurs whenever one has the opportunity to rest. If so, then the gemara in Brachot 64b suggests itself as a resolution to our question. "R' Chiya bar Ashi says in the name of Rav: Torah scholars have no rest, neither in this world nor in the world to come, as it says: 'They will go from strength to strength, they will appear before God in Zion'."
Here we find the answer to our question: what is required of Torah scholars may not be suitable for normal people. It seems that "rest", including that of nighttime and Shabbat, is an accepted part of life that most people can and should partake in. But Torah scholars are not "most people". One who aspires to be not only a good person but a leader must sacrifice some legitimate elements of his personal life. The responsibility a Torah scholar takes upon himself, in transmitting Jewish tradition from one generation to the next and supplying spiritual guidance for the rest of his generation, means that one will not be able to rest at every time he finds it desirable.
Of course, even the most righteous human being remains human. It is not possible to refrain entirely from sleeping at night, and even one who constantly learns Torah must differentiate in some way between Shabbat and weekdays. There are physical and psychological limits on what any person can accomplish. But up to these limits, comforts that are legitimate and even Torah-encouraged in one's personal life must sometimes be sacrificed for the common good.
--------
*Based on this, the Rambam (Hilchot talmud torah 3:13) says that a person learns most of his Torah wisdom at night. The Rambam goes further then the gemara in saying that night is not just a time for Torah, but MORE of a time than the day is. Presumably, this reflects the Rambam's expectation that a person work during the day.
This article tries to reconcile the sources by saying that Torah study itself should constitute enjoyment. While true, this answer solves only half the problem at most. For while Torah study may be enjoyable, it is not restful. One who learns Torah all week long cannot "rest" by pursuing the same routine on Shabbat. And deep Torah study is considered strenuous rather than restful: " 'This is the Torah: when a person dies in a tent' - words of Torah are preserved only by one who kills himself over them." (Brachot 43b). How can Shabbat be a time for both rest and this kind of extreme effort?
Before solving the difficulty, let's extend it with the help of a cute gemara in Eruvin 56a. "R' Yehudah said: Night was created only for sleep. R' Shimon ben Lakish said: The moon was created only for study."* Each rabbi points to an aspect of nature (darkness and the moon) which makes possible their preferred nighttime activity (sleep and Torah study). Apparently nighttime, like Shabbat, is a time when we should be both resting and learning Torah. Yet R' Yehudah and Reish Lakish disagree, because is impossible for a person to do both simultaneously.
Perhaps this tension between rest and Torah study is not unique to night, or to Shabbat, but occurs whenever one has the opportunity to rest. If so, then the gemara in Brachot 64b suggests itself as a resolution to our question. "R' Chiya bar Ashi says in the name of Rav: Torah scholars have no rest, neither in this world nor in the world to come, as it says: 'They will go from strength to strength, they will appear before God in Zion'."
Here we find the answer to our question: what is required of Torah scholars may not be suitable for normal people. It seems that "rest", including that of nighttime and Shabbat, is an accepted part of life that most people can and should partake in. But Torah scholars are not "most people". One who aspires to be not only a good person but a leader must sacrifice some legitimate elements of his personal life. The responsibility a Torah scholar takes upon himself, in transmitting Jewish tradition from one generation to the next and supplying spiritual guidance for the rest of his generation, means that one will not be able to rest at every time he finds it desirable.
Of course, even the most righteous human being remains human. It is not possible to refrain entirely from sleeping at night, and even one who constantly learns Torah must differentiate in some way between Shabbat and weekdays. There are physical and psychological limits on what any person can accomplish. But up to these limits, comforts that are legitimate and even Torah-encouraged in one's personal life must sometimes be sacrificed for the common good.
--------
*Based on this, the Rambam (Hilchot talmud torah 3:13) says that a person learns most of his Torah wisdom at night. The Rambam goes further then the gemara in saying that night is not just a time for Torah, but MORE of a time than the day is. Presumably, this reflects the Rambam's expectation that a person work during the day.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Who are these frummies?
Guesses welcome in the comment section. I'll probably post the answer in a week or two (does anyone come here more often than that?)
Monday, June 22, 2009
Thoughts on Shelach
One of the distinguishing characteristics of Sefer Bamidbar (and perhaps Vayikra too) is that it alternates between stories and laws, several chapters of each at a time. While often no historical or chronological connection between adjacent stories and laws is apparent, it is accepted that there is a usually a clear thematic connection.
The most commonly cited case is in our parsha, which describes the spies who "tour" Israel, and the people's punishment for wanting to return to Egypt based on their report. These stories are followed by the mitzvah of tzitzit, which warns us not to "tour" with our evil inclinations, and reminds us that God "took us out of the land of Egypt to be our God" - implying that returning to Egypt means rejecting God.
Before the mitzvah of tzitzit are several other mitzvot - the "mincha" and libation offerings which much accompany animal sacrifices, and the separation of "hallah" - whose connection to the spies story is less clear. Admittedly, each of these laws is prefaced by "When you come to the land [of Israel]", and as Ibn Ezra and Ramban explain, this is an implied comforting promise that the next generation at least will reach the land. But is this preface really sufficient reason for all the laws to appear next to the spies story? To ask the question differently, what is the connection between the preface and the laws being prefaced?
Based on the preface, Chazal conclude that mincha and libations were not offered in the desert (at least by individuals). I would like to argue that beyond this textual reason, there is a clear practical reason why the laws could not have applied.
In the desert the Israelites had relatively many domestic animals. The tribes of Reuven and Gad had "many cattle" and chose their inheritance based on its pasture land (Bamidbar 32). Other tribes had fewer, but presumably not zero animals. Perhaps these animals were not enough to supply a sustainable diet of meat, hence the complaints in Behaalotecha. But they sufficed for slaughter and consumption on special occasions, or for a few sacrifices in the Mishkan.
While the people possessed some amount of meat, they apparently had no access to grain or wine. There is no indication that they performed any farming in the desert. Their main sustenance came from manna. Little rain falls where they were, watering crops with well or spring water would have been difficult, and planted crops might have to be abandoned at any time for an unannounced journey. If the Israelites had any wheat or wine, it likely came from trading with neighboring peoples. But the quantities that could reasonably be traded for were small.
In these circumstances, it makes sense that no mincha or libation offerings were required with sacrifices. It would be reasonable to ask Israelites to bring animal offerings. But they would find it almost impossible to bring wheat or grape products at the same time. Thus the mincha and libation laws did not apply in the desert. Hallah, too, depends on grain and could not have been separated in the desert.
Only upon reaching the land of Israel, where wheat and grapes were staple foods, would the laws take effect. As punishment for the spies episode, the people could not enter the land of Israel. But by studying and teaching these laws, they could prepare for the entry in the next generation. People who fail at a task often obtain some consolation when their children succeed at the same task. This is the comfort offered to the people by these laws, and the reason for their placement immediately after the story of the spies.
The most commonly cited case is in our parsha, which describes the spies who "tour" Israel, and the people's punishment for wanting to return to Egypt based on their report. These stories are followed by the mitzvah of tzitzit, which warns us not to "tour" with our evil inclinations, and reminds us that God "took us out of the land of Egypt to be our God" - implying that returning to Egypt means rejecting God.
Before the mitzvah of tzitzit are several other mitzvot - the "mincha" and libation offerings which much accompany animal sacrifices, and the separation of "hallah" - whose connection to the spies story is less clear. Admittedly, each of these laws is prefaced by "When you come to the land [of Israel]", and as Ibn Ezra and Ramban explain, this is an implied comforting promise that the next generation at least will reach the land. But is this preface really sufficient reason for all the laws to appear next to the spies story? To ask the question differently, what is the connection between the preface and the laws being prefaced?
Based on the preface, Chazal conclude that mincha and libations were not offered in the desert (at least by individuals). I would like to argue that beyond this textual reason, there is a clear practical reason why the laws could not have applied.
In the desert the Israelites had relatively many domestic animals. The tribes of Reuven and Gad had "many cattle" and chose their inheritance based on its pasture land (Bamidbar 32). Other tribes had fewer, but presumably not zero animals. Perhaps these animals were not enough to supply a sustainable diet of meat, hence the complaints in Behaalotecha. But they sufficed for slaughter and consumption on special occasions, or for a few sacrifices in the Mishkan.
While the people possessed some amount of meat, they apparently had no access to grain or wine. There is no indication that they performed any farming in the desert. Their main sustenance came from manna. Little rain falls where they were, watering crops with well or spring water would have been difficult, and planted crops might have to be abandoned at any time for an unannounced journey. If the Israelites had any wheat or wine, it likely came from trading with neighboring peoples. But the quantities that could reasonably be traded for were small.
In these circumstances, it makes sense that no mincha or libation offerings were required with sacrifices. It would be reasonable to ask Israelites to bring animal offerings. But they would find it almost impossible to bring wheat or grape products at the same time. Thus the mincha and libation laws did not apply in the desert. Hallah, too, depends on grain and could not have been separated in the desert.
Only upon reaching the land of Israel, where wheat and grapes were staple foods, would the laws take effect. As punishment for the spies episode, the people could not enter the land of Israel. But by studying and teaching these laws, they could prepare for the entry in the next generation. People who fail at a task often obtain some consolation when their children succeed at the same task. This is the comfort offered to the people by these laws, and the reason for their placement immediately after the story of the spies.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Uncovering nakedness
The Torah frequently used the expression "gilui ervah", "uncovering nakedness", to describe sexual encounters. Literally, this refers only to the removal of clothing, and physical contact is implied rather than stated. One assumes that this is a euphemism, used to ensure modesty when discussing immodest matters.
But there are problems with this understanding. In other places, such as Devarim 28:30, the Torah uses more explicit language. Why could the same language not have been used in the sexual laws, particularly when there is the danger of misunderstand the laws to prohibit stripping as well as actual intercourse?
An alternative suggested itself to me on Shavuot morning while hearing Ruth 4:4. There appears the phrase "gilui ozen", "uncovering an ear". From a concordance I learned that the phrase means to inform or command someone. This usage too departs from the literal meaning of "uncovering". You might assume that "uncovering" an ear means to get someone's attention, to make them receptive to speech which might come in the future. But here it means not only that the ear is exposed, but that words enter it and implant some idea in the listener's mind, causing the listener to act differently in the future.
Perhaps "uncovering" has the same additional connotations - penetration and implantation - when used to describe "nakedness". If so, then "uncovering nakedness" is not a euphemism, but a quite exact reference to sexual intercourse. It becomes clear that only the full sexual act is forbidden. Simply disrobing, while inappropriate, does not incur the death penalty.
This understanding of "uncovering" is perhaps supported by Vayikra 18:10: "Do not uncover the nakedness of your [granddaughters], for they are your nakedness." From this verse it appears there is something wrong with uncovering your own nakedness. People see themselves naked whenever they bathe and the Torah permits bathing. So the phrase "your nakedness" only makes sense, even as a metaphor, if "uncovering" means more than exposure.
More support comes from the fact that the phrase "gilui ervah" is used only regarding women. ("Uncovering your father's nakedness" in Vayikra 18:8 means to uncover your father's wife's nakedness, on the principle that married people "become one flesh", Breishit 2:24.) The only verse to mention a man's nakedness - Vayikra 20:17 - says that his nakedness is seen rather than uncovered. Meanwhile, his incestuous female partner's nakedness is both "seen" and "uncovered". Since the man is not penetrated, it appears that "uncovering" cannot be applied to him.
What is the practical difference between "seeing" and "uncovering"? To uncover something means to necessarily see it, and also implies an action performed by the observer to the observed. It is this active role that the phrases "uncovering ears" and "uncovering nakedness" both allude to.
You will undoubtedly accuse me of having a dirty mind, for basing this post on a comparison between the ear and female genitalia. But it is not me doing the comparison, it is the Hebrew language which used the same metaphor for both. And it is not dirty, in the sense that when I needed a metaphor for ears, genitals came to mind. Rather, when metaphors for both ears and genitals were needed, the same third option came to mind. Having cleared myself of the accusation of crudeness, hopefully you will appreciate the interpretation that I have now uncovered.
But there are problems with this understanding. In other places, such as Devarim 28:30, the Torah uses more explicit language. Why could the same language not have been used in the sexual laws, particularly when there is the danger of misunderstand the laws to prohibit stripping as well as actual intercourse?
An alternative suggested itself to me on Shavuot morning while hearing Ruth 4:4. There appears the phrase "gilui ozen", "uncovering an ear". From a concordance I learned that the phrase means to inform or command someone. This usage too departs from the literal meaning of "uncovering". You might assume that "uncovering" an ear means to get someone's attention, to make them receptive to speech which might come in the future. But here it means not only that the ear is exposed, but that words enter it and implant some idea in the listener's mind, causing the listener to act differently in the future.
Perhaps "uncovering" has the same additional connotations - penetration and implantation - when used to describe "nakedness". If so, then "uncovering nakedness" is not a euphemism, but a quite exact reference to sexual intercourse. It becomes clear that only the full sexual act is forbidden. Simply disrobing, while inappropriate, does not incur the death penalty.
This understanding of "uncovering" is perhaps supported by Vayikra 18:10: "Do not uncover the nakedness of your [granddaughters], for they are your nakedness." From this verse it appears there is something wrong with uncovering your own nakedness. People see themselves naked whenever they bathe and the Torah permits bathing. So the phrase "your nakedness" only makes sense, even as a metaphor, if "uncovering" means more than exposure.
More support comes from the fact that the phrase "gilui ervah" is used only regarding women. ("Uncovering your father's nakedness" in Vayikra 18:8 means to uncover your father's wife's nakedness, on the principle that married people "become one flesh", Breishit 2:24.) The only verse to mention a man's nakedness - Vayikra 20:17 - says that his nakedness is seen rather than uncovered. Meanwhile, his incestuous female partner's nakedness is both "seen" and "uncovered". Since the man is not penetrated, it appears that "uncovering" cannot be applied to him.
What is the practical difference between "seeing" and "uncovering"? To uncover something means to necessarily see it, and also implies an action performed by the observer to the observed. It is this active role that the phrases "uncovering ears" and "uncovering nakedness" both allude to.
You will undoubtedly accuse me of having a dirty mind, for basing this post on a comparison between the ear and female genitalia. But it is not me doing the comparison, it is the Hebrew language which used the same metaphor for both. And it is not dirty, in the sense that when I needed a metaphor for ears, genitals came to mind. Rather, when metaphors for both ears and genitals were needed, the same third option came to mind. Having cleared myself of the accusation of crudeness, hopefully you will appreciate the interpretation that I have now uncovered.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
770 jerusalem
In the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood of northern Jerusalem, there is a duplicate copy of "770" - the central Chabad shrine in Crown Heights.
The building's location was very carefully chosen. It is on "Lubavitcher Rebbe St." and the house number is 36 - double chai. Surely neither street name nor number is a coincidence.
The building's location was very carefully chosen. It is on "Lubavitcher Rebbe St." and the house number is 36 - double chai. Surely neither street name nor number is a coincidence.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Gemara is kefira?
"There are three types who deny [kofer] the Torah: 1) One who says the Torah is not from God - even one verse, even one word, if he said that Moshe said it of his own volition [amro mipi atzmo], behold he denies the Torah..."
(Rambam, Hilchot Teshuva 3:8)
"These [the curses in Vayikra 26] are written in plural language and Moshe repeated God's words [mipi hagevurah amran]; while these [the curses in Devarim 28] are written in singular language and Moshe said them of his own volition [mipi atzmo amran]."
(Gemara, Megillah 31b)
Though it is more likely that the Rambam is choosing one gemara (Sanhedrin 79) over another, or else that "mipi atzmo" means different things in Rambam and gemara, the idea that the Rambam considered the gemara to be heresy is slightly amusing. At least to me.
(Rambam, Hilchot Teshuva 3:8)
"These [the curses in Vayikra 26] are written in plural language and Moshe repeated God's words [mipi hagevurah amran]; while these [the curses in Devarim 28] are written in singular language and Moshe said them of his own volition [mipi atzmo amran]."
(Gemara, Megillah 31b)
Though it is more likely that the Rambam is choosing one gemara (Sanhedrin 79) over another, or else that "mipi atzmo" means different things in Rambam and gemara, the idea that the Rambam considered the gemara to be heresy is slightly amusing. At least to me.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Cross pollination
"Do you search for what is highest and greatest? Every plant can teach it to you."
-Schiller (1759-1805)
"Know that each and every plant has its own song... How beautiful and pleasant it is when we hear their song. It is very good to pray between them and to happily serve God."
-R' Nachman of Breslov (1772-1810)
-Schiller (1759-1805)
"Know that each and every plant has its own song... How beautiful and pleasant it is when we hear their song. It is very good to pray between them and to happily serve God."
-R' Nachman of Breslov (1772-1810)
Thursday, May 14, 2009
John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt
When I was in preschool, in between my digging tunnels to China, they taught me the song "John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt". Only much later did I realize that this is basically a racist song making fun of German names and the German language in general.
To get a sense of how times have changed (or how the sensitivities of some ethnic groups matter more than those of others) let's change the name in the song to something more appropriate for a a 21st-century immigrant.
"Ching Chi Po Foo, that's my name too!
Whenever I go out, people always shout: Long live Ching Chi Po Foo! Dadadadadadada!"
Imagine the outcry if they started teaching that song to kids.
To get a sense of how times have changed (or how the sensitivities of some ethnic groups matter more than those of others) let's change the name in the song to something more appropriate for a a 21st-century immigrant.
"Ching Chi Po Foo, that's my name too!
Whenever I go out, people always shout: Long live Ching Chi Po Foo! Dadadadadadada!"
Imagine the outcry if they started teaching that song to kids.
Monday, May 11, 2009
A tunnel to China
Like every other little kid in the US, I once tried to dig a hole to China. Not having a globe and assuming at China was on the exact opposite side of the world, I tried to dig straight down through the center of the earth to China. Of course, recess always ended before I got more than a foot or two underground.
At a later age, I realized how incredibly useful such a hole would be if it could actually be built. Rather than flying or sailing around the world, you could just step into the hole and start falling. You would continuously accelerate until reaching the center of the earth, at which point you would decelerate until reaching a halt right at the surface of China. (Then you'd have to leave the hole quickly, lest you fall back down to America again.) Thus, there would be very quick transportation between the US and China, expending no energy whatsoever. Also, a hole like this would not have to go through the exact center of the earth. You could dig a hole from New York to Los Angeles and put train tracks in it. The train would accelerate "downhill" for 2000 miles, then decelerate "uphill" until stopping automatically at its destination. All extremely fast and totally free once the tunnel was built.
I wondered how long exactly it would take to make such a trip. But it took many years until I learned how to do this calculation. Since the acceleration of gravity varies with depth, the solution requires the use of calculus and differential equations. Not until my sophomore year of college did I learn how to solve the problem. And not until last night did I fully solve it, including the case when the tunnel does not go through the earth's center. I assumed of course that the earth is perfectly spherical, with uniform density, and that there's no friction.
It turns out that it takes 42 minutes to make the trip through such a tunnel. Amazingly, if my calculations are right, this time does not depend on the tunnel's path. Falling through the earth's center to China, or tunneling on a diagonal from NY to LA, or simply digging a perfectly horizontal and frictionless tunnel through the hill you live next to - no matter what tunnel you build, it will take 42 minutes for gravity to pull you from one end to the other.
Obviously you will fall faster when going to China. You will reach a speed of 18000 miles per hour at the center of the earth, while as for the hill next door, the 42 minutes spend sliding through that short frictionless tunnel would pass agonizingly slowly. If there was a slight breeze, it would overcome gravity and push you in the opposite direction.
Of course, the center of the earth is hot enough to melt rocks, not to mention metal, making a tunnel to China very short lasting even if it could somehow be built. And it's hard to imagine a vehicle surviving a trip at 18000mph. If you collided with someone at the center of the earth, both of you would instantly be vaporized. So really, this tunnel idea is totally impractical. But if it could somehow be built... well, the idea has given me something to think about now for roughly 20 years and counting.
[Technical note: 42min = pi*sqrt(g/R), 18000mph = sqrt(g*R). Equation of motion: X=R*cos(t*sqrt(g/R)). For tunnel not through the earth's center, replace the first R with half the tunnel length. R=earth's radius, g=acceleration at earth's surface. ]
At a later age, I realized how incredibly useful such a hole would be if it could actually be built. Rather than flying or sailing around the world, you could just step into the hole and start falling. You would continuously accelerate until reaching the center of the earth, at which point you would decelerate until reaching a halt right at the surface of China. (Then you'd have to leave the hole quickly, lest you fall back down to America again.) Thus, there would be very quick transportation between the US and China, expending no energy whatsoever. Also, a hole like this would not have to go through the exact center of the earth. You could dig a hole from New York to Los Angeles and put train tracks in it. The train would accelerate "downhill" for 2000 miles, then decelerate "uphill" until stopping automatically at its destination. All extremely fast and totally free once the tunnel was built.
I wondered how long exactly it would take to make such a trip. But it took many years until I learned how to do this calculation. Since the acceleration of gravity varies with depth, the solution requires the use of calculus and differential equations. Not until my sophomore year of college did I learn how to solve the problem. And not until last night did I fully solve it, including the case when the tunnel does not go through the earth's center. I assumed of course that the earth is perfectly spherical, with uniform density, and that there's no friction.
It turns out that it takes 42 minutes to make the trip through such a tunnel. Amazingly, if my calculations are right, this time does not depend on the tunnel's path. Falling through the earth's center to China, or tunneling on a diagonal from NY to LA, or simply digging a perfectly horizontal and frictionless tunnel through the hill you live next to - no matter what tunnel you build, it will take 42 minutes for gravity to pull you from one end to the other.
Obviously you will fall faster when going to China. You will reach a speed of 18000 miles per hour at the center of the earth, while as for the hill next door, the 42 minutes spend sliding through that short frictionless tunnel would pass agonizingly slowly. If there was a slight breeze, it would overcome gravity and push you in the opposite direction.
Of course, the center of the earth is hot enough to melt rocks, not to mention metal, making a tunnel to China very short lasting even if it could somehow be built. And it's hard to imagine a vehicle surviving a trip at 18000mph. If you collided with someone at the center of the earth, both of you would instantly be vaporized. So really, this tunnel idea is totally impractical. But if it could somehow be built... well, the idea has given me something to think about now for roughly 20 years and counting.
[Technical note: 42min = pi*sqrt(g/R), 18000mph = sqrt(g*R). Equation of motion: X=R*cos(t*sqrt(g/R)). For tunnel not through the earth's center, replace the first R with half the tunnel length. R=earth's radius, g=acceleration at earth's surface. ]
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Reactions to terrorism
Likud: How dare they kill our children!
Yisrael Beitenu: Let's [bleep bleep] them for killing our children.
Kadima: How dare they kill our children! But what can we do about it, since international opinion says there's nothing wrong with it?
Labor: The positive side of our children dying is that it demonstrates our commitment to a two-state-solution and goodwill towards the PA chairman.
Ichud Leumi: How dare they kill our children! Only we have the right to kill children!
Meretz: How dare we kill our children!
Yisrael Beitenu: Let's [bleep bleep] them for killing our children.
Kadima: How dare they kill our children! But what can we do about it, since international opinion says there's nothing wrong with it?
Labor: The positive side of our children dying is that it demonstrates our commitment to a two-state-solution and goodwill towards the PA chairman.
Ichud Leumi: How dare they kill our children! Only we have the right to kill children!
Meretz: How dare we kill our children!
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Dogs
Imagine you were walking peacefully down the street, when suddenly a man burst out of his house and ran up to the border of his property while waving a weapon and yelling nasty threats at you. What would you do?
After getting the hell out of there, you would likely call the police and have the man arrested for assault, or at least for disturbing the peace.
So why is it perfectly legal and OK when a dog behaves the same way towards you?
Recently I set out to try and do something about this situation. I purchased an ultrasound device that people cannot hear but which is supposedly unbearable to dogs. The idea is that whenever they bark at me I'll give them a quick dose of ultrasound and they'll quickly learn that it's in their interest to remain quiet. Results have been mixed. The first dog I tried it on, a large German shepherd, immediately froze and dropped to the floor as if electrocuted. Another couple incidents like that and I'm sure the neighbors would never hear it again. But today I tried the ultrasound on two small dogs and it barely made them flinch.
Therefore a different strategy is needed for next time. I now want to purchase some kind of tear gas which, while potentially causing problems at security checks, will be an effective dog deterrent whenever needed.
Go ahead and accuse me of cruelty to animals. But I like to think that not only dogs, but humans possess rights as well. And I intend to exercise mine.
P.S. I am not anti-dog. Some of my best friends are dogs. It is just the dogs that bark at me I don't like. Oh yeah, and the ones that use the sidewalk as their bathroom, but that is more a deficiency in the owner than in the animal.
After getting the hell out of there, you would likely call the police and have the man arrested for assault, or at least for disturbing the peace.
So why is it perfectly legal and OK when a dog behaves the same way towards you?
Recently I set out to try and do something about this situation. I purchased an ultrasound device that people cannot hear but which is supposedly unbearable to dogs. The idea is that whenever they bark at me I'll give them a quick dose of ultrasound and they'll quickly learn that it's in their interest to remain quiet. Results have been mixed. The first dog I tried it on, a large German shepherd, immediately froze and dropped to the floor as if electrocuted. Another couple incidents like that and I'm sure the neighbors would never hear it again. But today I tried the ultrasound on two small dogs and it barely made them flinch.
Therefore a different strategy is needed for next time. I now want to purchase some kind of tear gas which, while potentially causing problems at security checks, will be an effective dog deterrent whenever needed.
Go ahead and accuse me of cruelty to animals. But I like to think that not only dogs, but humans possess rights as well. And I intend to exercise mine.
P.S. I am not anti-dog. Some of my best friends are dogs. It is just the dogs that bark at me I don't like. Oh yeah, and the ones that use the sidewalk as their bathroom, but that is more a deficiency in the owner than in the animal.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Cows
In almost every nature reserve in northern Israel there are herds of cows walking around and grazing.
I used to think how nice it would be to be one of those cows, living all your life in such beautiful and interesting surroundings. (Bear with my anthropomorphism for the moment.)
But then I realized why it is better to be human. The cow spends its entire life in one beautiful location. I, as a person, can eventually see every such location.
I used to think how nice it would be to be one of those cows, living all your life in such beautiful and interesting surroundings. (Bear with my anthropomorphism for the moment.)
But then I realized why it is better to be human. The cow spends its entire life in one beautiful location. I, as a person, can eventually see every such location.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Thoughts on Kedoshim
You shall not do wrong in judgment - in length, weight, or volume. Fair balances, fair weights, a fair efah, and a fair hin you shall have; I am Hashem your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt. (19:35-36)
The first verse mentions three types of measurement in which we must not cheat people. The second verse gives examples, with the efah and hin being units of volume, or rather containers with volume equal those units.
The second verse follows the order of the first verse: weight measurement, then volume measurement. Length measurement, however, is conspicuously absent. Shouldn't a fair yardstick and tape measure have been mentioned before the fair balance, weights, efah, and hin?
Here are two possible explanations for why they are not mentioned.
1) Dishonest length measuring tools could be immediately detected by placing them next to fair tools, while with weight and volume measures the deception would be less obvious. Thus, perhaps, dishonesty was less common in length than in volume or weight measurements, so they did not need to be mentioned multiple times for emphasis.
2) Perhaps length was normally measured not with tools but with body parts. We are familiar with halachic measurements such as cubits and thumb-breadths, and secular measurements such as "feet" and paces, which derive from the human body. It is certainly possibly to cheat somebody in a length measurement, by bending a body part or changing your pace length. But this cheating was not normally done using a dishonest tool.
The first verse bans cheating. The second verse bans tools whose only possible use is unacceptable (like skeleton keys and "assault weapons" nowadays). Since body parts cannot be outlawed, they are omitted from the second verse.
The first verse mentions three types of measurement in which we must not cheat people. The second verse gives examples, with the efah and hin being units of volume, or rather containers with volume equal those units.
The second verse follows the order of the first verse: weight measurement, then volume measurement. Length measurement, however, is conspicuously absent. Shouldn't a fair yardstick and tape measure have been mentioned before the fair balance, weights, efah, and hin?
Here are two possible explanations for why they are not mentioned.
1) Dishonest length measuring tools could be immediately detected by placing them next to fair tools, while with weight and volume measures the deception would be less obvious. Thus, perhaps, dishonesty was less common in length than in volume or weight measurements, so they did not need to be mentioned multiple times for emphasis.
2) Perhaps length was normally measured not with tools but with body parts. We are familiar with halachic measurements such as cubits and thumb-breadths, and secular measurements such as "feet" and paces, which derive from the human body. It is certainly possibly to cheat somebody in a length measurement, by bending a body part or changing your pace length. But this cheating was not normally done using a dishonest tool.
The first verse bans cheating. The second verse bans tools whose only possible use is unacceptable (like skeleton keys and "assault weapons" nowadays). Since body parts cannot be outlawed, they are omitted from the second verse.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Thoughts on Metzora
Parshat Metzora ends with the laws of impurity of bodily emissions (15:1-32), which are presented in the following order:
1. Zav
2. Seminal emission
3. Menstruation
4. Zava
It can readily be seen that these four laws form a chiastic structure:
1. Unnatural male emission
2. Natural male emission
3. Natural female emission
4. Unnatural female emission
The underlying logic is clear. The laws are divided into those of males and females, while the male and female sections are each divided into natural and unnatural emissions. The order of laws in the female section is reversed, so that as we go from the male to the female section, the subtopic (natural emissions) remains the same.
Like all ancient texts, originally the Torah was most often recited and heard rather than read by individuals. One can skip from page to page while reading a book, but not while hearing an oral recitation. Thus smooth continuity, in addition to logical structure, is a compelling factor in the Torah's organization. A chiastic structure was inevitable in this chapter, because no other ordering is continuous between its sections as well as logically clear.
It is on the basis of unambiguous passages like this that people think that the Torah uses chiastic structures. The key question is to what extent such structures are present in cases when the structure is less apparent and its utility less clear. That is one debate between the "literary Tanach" enthusiasts, and between those who think literary methods are sometimes overused to discover patterns that do not really exist.
1. Zav
2. Seminal emission
3. Menstruation
4. Zava
It can readily be seen that these four laws form a chiastic structure:
1. Unnatural male emission
2. Natural male emission
3. Natural female emission
4. Unnatural female emission
The underlying logic is clear. The laws are divided into those of males and females, while the male and female sections are each divided into natural and unnatural emissions. The order of laws in the female section is reversed, so that as we go from the male to the female section, the subtopic (natural emissions) remains the same.
Like all ancient texts, originally the Torah was most often recited and heard rather than read by individuals. One can skip from page to page while reading a book, but not while hearing an oral recitation. Thus smooth continuity, in addition to logical structure, is a compelling factor in the Torah's organization. A chiastic structure was inevitable in this chapter, because no other ordering is continuous between its sections as well as logically clear.
It is on the basis of unambiguous passages like this that people think that the Torah uses chiastic structures. The key question is to what extent such structures are present in cases when the structure is less apparent and its utility less clear. That is one debate between the "literary Tanach" enthusiasts, and between those who think literary methods are sometimes overused to discover patterns that do not really exist.
Lashon hakodesh
One of the likable traits of some Israelis is that despite their not being at all religious, their conversations are sprinkled with idioms from Tanach and Jewish tradition.
I once went to a one-day class, taught by a secular-looking engineer, which did a good job of exemplifying this. At one point the teacher explained a complicated topic, and upon finishing, showed two other results that were trivial to derive from the initial conclusion. These additional results, he said, were "yotzim hinam ein kesef". Then, near the end of the class, he said "Now that kulanu hachamim, kulanu nivonim..." and began to describe a task we could do with our just-acquired knowledge. These phrases stick in my mind more than two years after I attended the class.
I recently found out that the use of these idioms is not "natural", but rather, was deliberately cultivated by Israeli education. An official Israeli school curriculum guide published in 1954 includes the following directive: "The teacher should nourish in the heart of the pupils a love for the Oral Torah... and should consciously endeavor in his instruction that the pupils absorb the specific idioms and ways of expression of the Mishnah and the Aggadah." (quoted in Tradition 2:2:249)
Those instructions were for the secular, not religious, schools.
In recent years, the secular education system seems to have abandoned this goal. From the experience with student and other young people I have met, it seems clear that they don't make secular Israelis like they used to.
I once went to a one-day class, taught by a secular-looking engineer, which did a good job of exemplifying this. At one point the teacher explained a complicated topic, and upon finishing, showed two other results that were trivial to derive from the initial conclusion. These additional results, he said, were "yotzim hinam ein kesef". Then, near the end of the class, he said "Now that kulanu hachamim, kulanu nivonim..." and began to describe a task we could do with our just-acquired knowledge. These phrases stick in my mind more than two years after I attended the class.
I recently found out that the use of these idioms is not "natural", but rather, was deliberately cultivated by Israeli education. An official Israeli school curriculum guide published in 1954 includes the following directive: "The teacher should nourish in the heart of the pupils a love for the Oral Torah... and should consciously endeavor in his instruction that the pupils absorb the specific idioms and ways of expression of the Mishnah and the Aggadah." (quoted in Tradition 2:2:249)
Those instructions were for the secular, not religious, schools.
In recent years, the secular education system seems to have abandoned this goal. From the experience with student and other young people I have met, it seems clear that they don't make secular Israelis like they used to.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Thoughts on Shmini
In parshat Shemini we read about the death of Nadav and Avihu. In parshat Acharei Mot we read the follow-up to this story:
Hashem spoke to Moshe, after the death of the two sons of Aharon, when they approached Hashem, and died. Hashem said to Moshe: "Speak to Aharon your brother, that he not approach the holy place at all times..." (16:1-2)
Not only is Acharei Mot introduced by a reference to Shemini, but the Yom Kippur sacrifices specified in Acharei Mot are the same as those offered on the 8th day of the Mishkan's inauguration.
It would seem natural for Acharei Mot to immediately follow the story in Shemini. But there are five chapters of apparently unrelated material in between. What is this material doing there?
Looking at this material, we see it consists of four sections:
1. Kashrut of food
2. Impurity of a woman who has given birth
3. Leprosy
4. Bodily emissions
The common element between them is the centrality of purity and impurity. Sections 2 and 4 deal exclusively with such laws. And purity is the central theme in sections 1 and 3: non-kosher animal species are called "impure" species and it is emphasized that one who touches their carcass becomes impure; while to be diagnosed with leprosy is to be declared "impure".
It seems that the purpose of these laws is to establish ritual boundaries in different aspects of life. Nadav and Avihu's sin involved ignoring necessary behavioural boundaries in the Mishkan. The laws of purity and impurity, which establish such boundaries throughout life, are training to sensitize ourselves to such boundaries. Only after learning, practicing, and internalizing these laws can we be ready to return to the Mishkan. Acharei Mot, which teaches us how to properly enter the Mishkan as far as the Holy of Holies, must wait until we have prepared ourselves and there is no chance that Nadav and Avihu's mistake will recur.
Now, there are many laws of purity in the Torah and not all of them appear in our passage. Why where these particular laws chosen and others not? To answer this, let us look at a clear pattern in the themes of the laws that were chosen:
1. Substances entering the body
2. Birth
3. Death*
4. Substances leaving the body
*A leper is regarded as somewhat dead; see for example the description of Miriam's leprosy: "Let her not be like a dead person" (Bamidbar 12:12).
Sections 2 and 3 represent a person, from the beginning to the end of life. Sections 1 and 4 represent the limits between that person and the outside world. These four sections serve to define human existence in the dimensions of space and time. These are not the only laws of purity in existence. But they are sufficient to symbolize a system of purity and impurity which encompasses every aspect of our lives.
Hashem spoke to Moshe, after the death of the two sons of Aharon, when they approached Hashem, and died. Hashem said to Moshe: "Speak to Aharon your brother, that he not approach the holy place at all times..." (16:1-2)
Not only is Acharei Mot introduced by a reference to Shemini, but the Yom Kippur sacrifices specified in Acharei Mot are the same as those offered on the 8th day of the Mishkan's inauguration.
It would seem natural for Acharei Mot to immediately follow the story in Shemini. But there are five chapters of apparently unrelated material in between. What is this material doing there?
Looking at this material, we see it consists of four sections:
1. Kashrut of food
2. Impurity of a woman who has given birth
3. Leprosy
4. Bodily emissions
The common element between them is the centrality of purity and impurity. Sections 2 and 4 deal exclusively with such laws. And purity is the central theme in sections 1 and 3: non-kosher animal species are called "impure" species and it is emphasized that one who touches their carcass becomes impure; while to be diagnosed with leprosy is to be declared "impure".
It seems that the purpose of these laws is to establish ritual boundaries in different aspects of life. Nadav and Avihu's sin involved ignoring necessary behavioural boundaries in the Mishkan. The laws of purity and impurity, which establish such boundaries throughout life, are training to sensitize ourselves to such boundaries. Only after learning, practicing, and internalizing these laws can we be ready to return to the Mishkan. Acharei Mot, which teaches us how to properly enter the Mishkan as far as the Holy of Holies, must wait until we have prepared ourselves and there is no chance that Nadav and Avihu's mistake will recur.
Now, there are many laws of purity in the Torah and not all of them appear in our passage. Why where these particular laws chosen and others not? To answer this, let us look at a clear pattern in the themes of the laws that were chosen:
1. Substances entering the body
2. Birth
3. Death*
4. Substances leaving the body
*A leper is regarded as somewhat dead; see for example the description of Miriam's leprosy: "Let her not be like a dead person" (Bamidbar 12:12).
Sections 2 and 3 represent a person, from the beginning to the end of life. Sections 1 and 4 represent the limits between that person and the outside world. These four sections serve to define human existence in the dimensions of space and time. These are not the only laws of purity in existence. But they are sufficient to symbolize a system of purity and impurity which encompasses every aspect of our lives.
Journalism
Ever notice how, whenever you read a newspaper article on a subject you know something about, it always seems that half the facts are wrong?
Recently I was introduced to a "writer", as she was described to me. I asked her if she did any creative writing. She answered that "As a journalist I am often accused of writing creatively, but I can assure you that I never do."
Why does her writing elicit such a response, if in fact she always writes nonfiction? Surely part of the reason is that she takes the "wrong" position on, say, political questions about which there is no universally agreed answer. But if she is like many other members of her profession, that is not the sole reason. I and other people routinely notice mistakes even in non-controversial articles. Why is this?
Once upon a time Western civilization spoke of "Renaissance men" who were knowledgeable in every subject. Such an ideal could only have existed for a short time after the invention of the printing press. Later than that, the growing body of human knowledge quickly became too much for any individual to master. Since the amount of knowledge a person can acquire is limited, and new discoveries keep raising the threshold for intellectual accomplishment, the breadth of an expert's knowledge necessarily decreases. As time progresses, we move steadily towards the limit in which people know everything about nothing.
One profession is immune to this trend: journalism. The journalist's very job is to gather information on subjects that people know nothing about. Often the information is simple to understand, and the challenge lies in exposing as many people as possible to it. The journalist's essential goal is breadth rather than depth. So while most intellectuals tend toward the extreme of knowing everything about nothing, the journalist comes closer to knowing nothing about everything.
Nowadays a person can be an expert on fewer and fewer subjects than in the past. But, in those few subjects, the gap between his knowledge and the journalist's knowledge necessarily grows greater and greater. No wonder the journalist's writing so often comes off as uninformed. Intelligence and education count for relatively little when your lifetime of experience in a narrow specialty confronts the journalist's mere day or week's worth of investigation.
Recently I was introduced to a "writer", as she was described to me. I asked her if she did any creative writing. She answered that "As a journalist I am often accused of writing creatively, but I can assure you that I never do."
Why does her writing elicit such a response, if in fact she always writes nonfiction? Surely part of the reason is that she takes the "wrong" position on, say, political questions about which there is no universally agreed answer. But if she is like many other members of her profession, that is not the sole reason. I and other people routinely notice mistakes even in non-controversial articles. Why is this?
Once upon a time Western civilization spoke of "Renaissance men" who were knowledgeable in every subject. Such an ideal could only have existed for a short time after the invention of the printing press. Later than that, the growing body of human knowledge quickly became too much for any individual to master. Since the amount of knowledge a person can acquire is limited, and new discoveries keep raising the threshold for intellectual accomplishment, the breadth of an expert's knowledge necessarily decreases. As time progresses, we move steadily towards the limit in which people know everything about nothing.
One profession is immune to this trend: journalism. The journalist's very job is to gather information on subjects that people know nothing about. Often the information is simple to understand, and the challenge lies in exposing as many people as possible to it. The journalist's essential goal is breadth rather than depth. So while most intellectuals tend toward the extreme of knowing everything about nothing, the journalist comes closer to knowing nothing about everything.
Nowadays a person can be an expert on fewer and fewer subjects than in the past. But, in those few subjects, the gap between his knowledge and the journalist's knowledge necessarily grows greater and greater. No wonder the journalist's writing so often comes off as uninformed. Intelligence and education count for relatively little when your lifetime of experience in a narrow specialty confronts the journalist's mere day or week's worth of investigation.
Pesach and thanksgiving offerings
You shall not slaughter the blood of my offering on chametz; and you shall not leave until morning the slaughtered Pesach offering. (Shemot 34:25)
On matzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it. (Bamidbar 9:11)
Both of these verses discuss the Pesach sacrifice, and both mention bread. The second verse requires us to eat the Pesach with matzah. The first verse requires separation between the Pesach and chametz. Why is the connection between bread and the Pesach so important that two separate mitzvot are needed to define it? To answer this, let us look at another sacrifice - the "todah" or thanksgiving offering - which also has a strong connection to bread.
There are extensive parallels between the thanksgiving and Pesach offerings. Both are:
Beyond the practical parallels, there are thematic parallels between the sacrifices. You sacrifice the thanksgiving offering to thank God for saving you from one of four dangerous events (Tehilim 107, SA OH 219): being imprisoned, lost in the desert, dangerously sick, or traveling at sea ("yordei hayam").Some or all of these events apply equally to our experience leaving Egypt. Egyptian slavery was certainly a form of imprisonment; upon leaving we endured a long and difficult desert journey; the 10 plagues are called a "disease" (Shemot 15:26); and traveling through the split Sea would likely qualify as "yeridah layam". Thus, the background to offering the Pesach and thanksgiving sacrifices is very similar.
Why all these parallels?
It seems that the Pesach offering is simply a thanksgiving offering corresponding to a national/historical rather than a personal salvation. As Sforno explains (Vayikra 7:13), the purpose of the many loaves of bread you eat with the thanksgiving offering is to require you to have a communal meal to publicize what God has done for you, since no person can eat 36 loaves in an evening singlehandedly. The Pesach must similarly be eaten at a meal commemorating what God has done for us - the Seder.
In summary: Pesach and thanksgiving offerings are linked by their relation to bread, their sacrificial procedure, the events triggering them, and the manner in which they are eaten. It seems they are the exact same offering, only offered in response to different events - personal, or else communal.
UPDATE: A friend of mine (D.Z.), who I assume does not read this blog, sent me a dvar torah in which he too made the connection between yetziat mitzraim and the 4 reasons for korban todah. I asked him where he'd got the idea. He said he'd thought of it himself, but afterwards found the same idea in the Maharsha, Brachot 54a.
On matzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it. (Bamidbar 9:11)
Both of these verses discuss the Pesach sacrifice, and both mention bread. The second verse requires us to eat the Pesach with matzah. The first verse requires separation between the Pesach and chametz. Why is the connection between bread and the Pesach so important that two separate mitzvot are needed to define it? To answer this, let us look at another sacrifice - the "todah" or thanksgiving offering - which also has a strong connection to bread.
There are extensive parallels between the thanksgiving and Pesach offerings. Both are:
- "shelamim" - sacrifices which are eaten by their owners anywhere within the walls of Jerusalem.
- distinct from normal "shelamim" in that you must finish eating them by midnight after the day you have sacrificed them (for normal "shelamim" you are allowed an additional 18 hours).
- closely involved with bread: Pesach as we mentioned, and the thanksgiving offering in that it must be sacrificed along with 36 loaves of bread which then are eaten along with the sacrificed animal.
Beyond the practical parallels, there are thematic parallels between the sacrifices. You sacrifice the thanksgiving offering to thank God for saving you from one of four dangerous events (Tehilim 107, SA OH 219): being imprisoned, lost in the desert, dangerously sick, or traveling at sea ("yordei hayam").Some or all of these events apply equally to our experience leaving Egypt. Egyptian slavery was certainly a form of imprisonment; upon leaving we endured a long and difficult desert journey; the 10 plagues are called a "disease" (Shemot 15:26); and traveling through the split Sea would likely qualify as "yeridah layam". Thus, the background to offering the Pesach and thanksgiving sacrifices is very similar.
Why all these parallels?
It seems that the Pesach offering is simply a thanksgiving offering corresponding to a national/historical rather than a personal salvation. As Sforno explains (Vayikra 7:13), the purpose of the many loaves of bread you eat with the thanksgiving offering is to require you to have a communal meal to publicize what God has done for you, since no person can eat 36 loaves in an evening singlehandedly. The Pesach must similarly be eaten at a meal commemorating what God has done for us - the Seder.
In summary: Pesach and thanksgiving offerings are linked by their relation to bread, their sacrificial procedure, the events triggering them, and the manner in which they are eaten. It seems they are the exact same offering, only offered in response to different events - personal, or else communal.
UPDATE: A friend of mine (D.Z.), who I assume does not read this blog, sent me a dvar torah in which he too made the connection between yetziat mitzraim and the 4 reasons for korban todah. I asked him where he'd got the idea. He said he'd thought of it himself, but afterwards found the same idea in the Maharsha, Brachot 54a.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)