Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Can Rashi on Chumash interpret a pasuk against halacha?

The following question on Mi Yodeya, about parashat Yitro:
On the Posuk "Zochor Es Yom HaShabos L'Kadsho", Rashi says
תנו לב לזכור תמיד את יום השבת שאם נזדמן לו חלק יפה יהא מזמינו לשבת (Take heart to remember the Shabbos - if you find something nice place it aside for Shabbos).
Rashi's source seems to be Beitzah 16. However the Gemora there records an argument between Bais Hillel and Bais Shamai how to prepare for Shabbos. Given that we rule according to Bais Hillel, why is Rashi here quoting according to Bais Shamai?
There are some good answers there, especially this one:
I've heard from Rabbi Shalom Carmy that the reference to Beitzah is actually a printer's error and Rashi got this from this Mechilta D'Rabbi Yishmael, where it remains undisputed.
Rashi didn't give a source, and it was the printer's perogative to give any and all sources he felt like. But say it is Mechilta. As a commenter at Mi Yodeya asks, how does that help? Isn't it still against Halacha, meaning like Bet Shammai instead of like Bet Hillel?

I think that one can put forth the following points.

Look at the context. By this, I mean look at the other Rashis in the perek, and see how many of them are from the Mechilta. See this in Mekorei Rashi, or alternatively, from Chabad's Tanach. A taste:

1. God spoke all these words, to respond:א. וַיְדַבֵּר אֱלֹהִים אֵת כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה לֵאמֹר:
God spoke: Heb. אֱלֹהִים. [The word] אֱֱלֹהִים always means “a judge.” [This Divine Name is used here] because there are some sections in the Torah [that contain commandments] that if a person performs them, he receives a reward, but if not, he does not receive any punishment for them. I might think that so it is with the Ten Commandments. Therefore, Scripture says: “God (אֱלֹהִים) spoke,” [signifying God’s role as] a Judge, [Whose function is] to mete out punishment [when the Ten Commandments are not obeyed]. [from Mechilta]וידבר א-להים: אין א-להים אלא דיין. לפי שיש פרשיות בתורה שאם עשאן אדם מקבל שכר, ואם לאו אינו מקבל עליהם פורענות, יכול אף עשרת הדברות כן, תלמוד לומר וידבר א-להים, דיין ליפרע:
all these words: [This] teaches [us] that the Holy One, blessed be He, said the Ten Commandments in one utterance, something that is impossible for a human being to say [in a similar way]. If so, why does the Torah say again, “I am [the Lord, your God (verse 2)]” and “You shall have no…” (verse 3)? Because He later explained each statement [of the Ten Commandments] individually. — [from Mechilta]את כל הדברים האלה: מלמד שאמר הקב"ה עשרת הדברות בדבור אחד, מה שאי אפשר לאדם לומר כן. אם כן מה תלמוד לומר עוד אנכי ולא יהיה לך, שחזר ופירש על כל דבור ודבור בפני עצמו:
to respond: Heb. לֵאמֹר, lit., to say. [This] teaches [us] that they responded to the positive [commandments], “Yes,” and to the negative [commandments], “No.” -[from Mechilta]לאמר: מלמד שהיו עונין על הן הן ועל לאו לאו:

What Rashi is doing in this perek is a running commentary, primarily adapted from the Mechilta. He is channeling the Mechilta for us. As such, if Mechilta has a comment of the sort Rashi would bring (uleaggada hameyashevet divrei hamikra), we would expect him to bring it, even if elsewhere, in a gemara somewhere, there is a dispute, and we rule against the position.

Further, this is not the only place Rashi brings a midrash halacha which is against the paskened halacha. Some modern meforshei Rashi take note of this, and explain that Rashi will bring forth such a midrash if he feels that it is more along the lines of peshat, since his goal is a peshat-oriented commentary, as adopted / adapted from midrash. So indeed, Rashi can and will cite midrash which will be against decided halacha, on occasion.

YUTorah on parashat Yitro

Audio Shiurim on Yitro

Articles on Yitro
Parsha Sheets on Yitro
Rabbi Jeremy WiederLaining for Parshat Yitro
See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Yitro
New This Week

Friday, January 25, 2013

Torah protects...

Via Rationalist Judaism,
In this week's Mishpachah magazine, editor Rabbi Moshe Grylak writes about why charedim in Israel don't serve in the army (online here). I drew upon various blog posts that I have written and put together a response that you can download at this link. It's a PDF file, so you can print it out and share it on Shabbos with people who read Mishpachah.
A possibly relevant source is this Yerushalmi in Masechet Terumot, 8:4:
רבי אימי איתצד בסיפסיפה אמר ר' יונתן יכרך המת בסדינו אמר ר' שמעון בן לקיש עד דאנא קטיל אנא מתקטיל אנא איזיל ומשיזיב ליה בחיילא אזל ופייסון ויהבוניה ליה אמר לון ואתון גבי סבון והוא מצלי עליכון אתון גבי ר' יוחנן אמר לון מה דהוה בלבכון איעבד ליה יתעבוד לון ימטא לההוא עמא לא מטון אפיפסירוס עד דאזלון כולהון
My translation:
Rabbi Ami was captured by bandits. Rabbi Yonatan said, the dead one will be wrapped in his sheets. {that is, there is no way to save him.} 

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, 'I will kill or be killed' (lit: Until I kill (or) I will be killed. i.e. I will try to save him, by killing all his captors, or will die in the process. We know from elsewhere that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was a bandit, skilled in weapons, before he repented and became a scholar.) I will go and save him by force. 

He went and persuaded them (convinced them to turn R Ami over, perhaps with threats) and they gave him over to him. 

He (Resh Lakish) said to them (the bandits) go to the Old One (Rabbi Yochanan) and he will pray for you. They went to Rabbi Yochanan (note, this is *not* Rabbi Yonatan of before, unless it is a typo.) 

He (R Yochanan) said to them, 'that which was in your hearts to do to him should come to pass on you.' They did not reach Apipsiros before they all went (died). 
Note that neither Rabbi Yonatan nor Resh Lakish simply sat down and studied. They didn't have as much bitachon as modern-day chareidim.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

YUTorah on parashat Beshalach

Audio Shiurim on Beshalach
Articles on Beshalach
Parsha Sheets on Beshalach
Rabbi Jeremy WiederLaining for Parshat Beshalach
See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Beshalach
New This Week

Monday, January 21, 2013

Hebrew etymologies for English words?

This is a popular exercise in kiruv circles, to show a bunch of English or foreign language words and "show" that they came from Hebrew, thus demonstrating the historicity of the Tower of Bavel incident in sefer Bereishit. However, while some words do ultimately derive from Hebrew, in other cases, Hebrew (both Biblical and Mishnaic) borrowed words from other languages. In other instances, such etymological proofs rely on the present surface form of the word, and its similarity to a Hebrew form, ignoring that the surface form of the word was different in the past. These are what are called "false cognates". They have the same form and the same meaning, more or less, but they derive from different sources.

Here I'll analyze a post that gives some awful etymologies, to "prove" a connection between Hebrew and English words.
English dictionaries trace words back to Latin. But they go no further.
It only makes sense most languages, including Latin derivatives, derive from the first universal language ever spoken, Biblical Hebrew. The Torah explicitly tells us that until the Tower of Babylon story, the world's populace spoke - only Hebrew (Braishis 11:1). 
Here are some English words that most probably have their source in Hebrew: 
More examples:
"שרף" means "Serpent"(Devarim 8, 15).
Speaking of snakes,
"פתן" is "Python"  (Tehilim 91:13).

"מסתר"(as in Rashi: Shir Hashirim 1:2) means "Mystery"
a noun from the root verb "to conceal".

Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh (lecture in 2005) says the word MURDER comes from 2 Hebrew words:
"Mered Or" (מרד אור), meaning - Rebellion Against Light [as in Iyov 24, 13]. Light connotes G-d, and murder is rebelling against Him Who created all people to live.

Probably Hashem mixed up the universal language of Hebrew into 70 different languages at the Tower of Babel; The "mix-up" probably kept the original language as a sort of "parent" to the derived words; But that is my guess.
Let us consider the non-Biblical Hebrew word "Parnas", which matches "Furnish". We are meant to think that P=F, R=R, and S=Sh. However, let us now trace the form and meaning of "Furnish" back in time...

The etymology of Furnish is:

furnish (v.) Look up furnish at
mid-15c., from Middle French furniss-, prp. stem of furnir "furnish, accomplish," from Old French fornir (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *fornire, alteration of *fromire, from West Germanic *frumjan "forward movement, advancement" (cf. Old High German frumjan "to do, execute, provide"), from P.Gmc. *fram- "forwards" (see from). Meaning "to provide" (something) is from 1520s.
That is, go back far enough, to when it supposedly branched off from Hebrew, and we will see that the "sh" ending disappears. So we can no longer match the -sh ending of Furnish to the -s ending of Parnas. Furthermore, the n was not originally an n, but rather an m. Maybe that m is from an initial n, but the surface similarity is no longer compelling. Furthermore, we see that "furnish" initially comes for the P.Gmc word "fram", meaning "forwards". Further, the purported Hebrew etymology did not even consider that the -ish ending was morphology, rather than root. Compare to the words polish and brandish.

Finally, the word "furnish" did not always mean "to provide". It only had that meaning from the 1520s, which was much later than the tower of Bavel. So Parnas / Furnish does not historically match in form nor meaning.

Most targets of this kiruv argument are not sophisticated enough to spot the obvious error. Indeed, most proponents of this kiruv argument are not sophisticated enough to spot that they are making an error.

Consider "Suit" vs. "Suto". S=S and T=T. However, here is the etymology:

suit (n.) Look up suit at
c.1300, "attendance at court, the company attending," also their livery or uniform, via Anglo-French siwte, from Old French suitte "attendance, act of following," from Gallo-Romance *sequita, fem. of *sequitus, from Latin secutus, pp. of sequi "to attend, follow" (see sequel). Meaning "application to a court for justice, lawsuit" is first recorded early 15c. Meaning "set of clothes to be worn together" is attested from early 15c., from notion of the livery or uniform of court attendants (a sense recorded from late 13c.).
Trace it as far back as Latin, and you have an extra letter c or q in the middle. And possibly that t disappears as well. The surface forms no longer match.

Furthermore, the meaning of "a set of clothes to be worn together" traces back to the 15th century, or maybe to the 13th century. Earlier than that, it does not mean clothes. It means "to attend, follow". So the meanings no longer match.

Let us try Murder=Mered Or. Nice kabbalistic / mystical etymology. It also is incredibly unlikely.  MER or MORT as death exists separately. The true etymology is:

murder (n.) Look up murder at
c.1300, murdre, from Old English morðor (plural morþras) "secret killing of a person, unlawful killing," also "mortal sin, crime; punishment, torment, misery," from P.Gmc. *murthra- (cf. Goth maurþr, and, from a variant form of the same root, Old Saxon morth, Old Frisian morth, Old Norse morð, Middle Dutch moort, Dutch moord, German Mord "murder"), from PIE *mrtro-, from root *mer- "to die" (see mortal (adj.)). The spelling with -d- probably reflects influence of Anglo-French murdre, from Old French mordre, from Medieval Latin murdrum, from the Germanic root.

Viking custom, typical of Germanic, distinguished morð (Old Norse) "secret slaughter," from vig (Old Norse) "slaying." The former involved concealment, or slaying a man by night or when asleep, and was a heinous crime. The latter was not a disgrace, if the killer acknowledged his deed, but he was subject to vengeance or demand for compensation.
Mordre wol out that se we day by day. [Chaucer, "Nun's Priest's Tale," c.1386]
Weakened sense of "very unpleasant situation" is from 1878.
murder (v.) Look up murder at
Old English myrðrian, from P.Gmc. *murthjan (cf. Old High German murdran, German mördren, Gothic maurþjan; see murder (n.)). Related: Murderedmurdering.
This Hebrew derivation is just someone making an etymology up, and people are too polite or ignorant to point out that this is just making things up.

How about the non-Biblical Hebrew Payeis, with English Appease? P=P, S=S. However, here is the etymology:

appease (v.) Look up appease at
That is, it has the meaning to reconcile as far back as the 12th century, based on the Old French. But that is from a phrase a paisier, "to bring peace". The French word pais does not mean reconcile but peace, and comes from Latin pacem. So, back in Latin, it does not have the same meaning of reconciling or placating.

Words take many forms and meanings over the years. And it is an error to assume that the surface form and meaning of a modern English word was the same as it was way back when the purported borrowing occurred. Rather, due to the shifts in meaning and form, by mere accident, two words in parallel languages might readily form a false cognate.


Blog Widget by LinkWithin