Mattos-Masei - The Soldiers' Offering

In Parshas Mattos we read of the war that God commanded the Jewish people to wage against the Midianites in vengeance against their efforts to lead the Jewish people into sin (as described previously in Numbers 25).

At the conclusion of the war, when the Jewish soldiers returned to the camp with their captives and spoils, Moses was angry with the commanders of the army because they had - in keeping with the normal standards of Jewish warfare - kept alive the women. Moses points out that in this case it was the women in particular who had seduced the Jewish people into sin, and therefore they too had to be killed.

At this point the Torah goes into some detail about various laws of purity, the kashering of the utensils, and the division of the spoils. After all these issues are discussed and dealt with, the Torah tells us that the officers of the army approached Moses with a special request (Numbers 31:48-50):

ויקרבו אל משה הפקדים אשר לאלפי הצבא שרי האלפים ושרי המאות: ויאמרו אל משה עבדיך נשאו את ראש אנשי המלחמה אשר בידנו ולא נפקד ממנו איש: ונקרב את קרבן ה' איש אשר מצא כלי זהב אצעדה וצמיד טבעת עגיל וכומז לכפר על נפשתינו לפני ה':

And the officers that were over the thousands of the army, the captains of thousands, and the captains of hundreds, approached Moses. And they said to Moses, 'Your servants have made a count of the men of war that are under our command, and not one man has been lost. And we have brought an offering to God, what every man has found articles of gold, anklet and bracelet, ring, ear-ring, and kumaz, to atone for our souls before God.'

The Talmud (Shabbos 64a-b) discusses this offering, and provides us with some background as to what was happening here and what it teaches us:

ויקצוף משה על פקודי החיל אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר להן משה לישראל שמא חזרתם לקלקולכם הראשון אמרו לו לא נפקד ממנו איש אמר להן אם כן כפרה למה אמרו לו אם מידי עבירה יצאנו מידי הרהור לא יצאנו מיד ונקרב את קרבן ה'

תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל מפני מה הוצרכו ישראל שבאותו הדור כפרה מפני שזנו עיניהם מן הערוה אמר רב ששת מפני מה מנה הכתוב תכשיטין שבחוץ עם תכשיטין שבפנים לומר לך כל המסתכל באצבע קטנה של אשה כאילו מסתכל במקום התורפה:

"And Moses was angry with the officers of the army." (Numbers 31:14) R. Nachman said, "Rabbah bar Avuha said, 'Moses said to Israel: 'Perhaps you have returned to your first sin (i.e. of fornicating with the Midianite women)?' [The officers] said [in reply], 'Not one man has been lost (i.e. not one man has fallen to sin).' [Moses] said to them, 'If so, why [do you need] an atonement?' They said, 'Though we escaped from sin, we did not escape from [sinful] thoughts.'  Thus, 'And we have brought an offering to God.'"

The School of R. Yishmael taught: Why did Israel of that generation need atonement? Because they indulged their eyes with lewdness. R. Sheshes said: Why does Scripture enumerate the outward ornaments (i.e. anklets, bracelets, and rings) with the inner ornaments (i.e. the kumaz, which the Talmud previously explained to refer to an ornament that a woman wore upon her gentalia)? To tell you that one who gazes upon a woman's little finger is as though he gazed upon the genitalia.

The Talmud tells us that the offering of gold by the soldiers was intended to atone for improper thoughts that they had experienced when they looked upon the Midianite women. Although they had not actually sinned with the women, they still recognized that atonement was necessary even for such inappropriate thoughts, given that they resulted from inappropriate gazing. Indeed, the Talmud concludes that not only is it forbidden to look upon a women's actual nakedness, it is even forbidden for a man to gaze upon a forbidden woman who is fully clothed, if he has intent to have pleasure from her beauty. (This is cited by the Rambam (Hil. Issurei Biah 21:2) and Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer 21:1) as practical halacha.)

However, as important as it is for us to avoid sinful thoughts, there remains a huge difference between sinful thoughts and sinful deeds. The Midrash Lekach Tov (a Biblical commentary written by  R' Toviah ben Eliezer in the 11th century) cites the Talmudic passage "מידי עבירה יצאנו מידי הרהור לא יצאנו" - "Though we escaped from sin, we did not escape from [sinful] thoughts" - and then states, "מלמד שהיו כולם צדיקים" - "This teaches us that they were all tzadikim (righteous men)." Despite the fact that they had gazed upon that which was inappropriate - "שזנו עיניהם מן הערוה" - which caused them to have sinful thoughts, the Medrash Lekach Tov still states that they were all tzadikim. It is all too common for those who struggle with sinful thoughts to see themselves as sinful and wicked, perhaps even irredeemably so. From the Medrash Lekach Tov we see that, as serious as this issue is, one who struggles with this problem can still be considered a tzaddik.

I believe there is another important lesson implicit in this Talmudic teaching. Many of the commentaries (Maharsha, HaRif on Ein Yakov) point out that the dialogue between Moses and the officers was actually spread over a fair amount of time. Moses became angry with the officers in verse 14, when they returned with the Midianite women as captives, yet their response does not take place until much later, in verse 48, after they had killed the women, purified themselves, kashered the vessels, and divided the spoils - all of this according to Moses' instructions. All of this took time, at least several days. It was only then that the officers approached Moses with the offering of gold from the soldiers, and informed him that none of the soldiers had actually sinned with the Midianite women.

I believe that this provides us with a model for how one should respond to criticism from one's rebbi (Torah teacher). If your teacher or rabbi accuses you of doing something improper, one's initial response should not be to immediately deny the accusation. Rather, the first thing one should do is to listen to what your teacher says and to follow his instructions. Only later, after one has fully complied with his teacher's instructions, is it time to approach him and to clear your name. (As should be obvious, of course, there may be cases where such an approach is not feasible.)

---

Behaaloscha - Humility and Torah

At the end of Parshas Behaaloscha (Numbers 12) we read of the incident where Miriam and Aaron, the elder siblings of Moses, speak critically of Moses. As prophets themselves, they believed that they understood the demands that Moses' position placed upon him, and they believed that this did not justify his actions. (The exact nature of their criticism of Moses is left extremely vague in the text, and is discussed in the commentaries.) God Himself intervenes, and speaks to Miriam and Aaron (12:6-8):

And He said: "Hear now My words: when one of you is a prophet, I Hashem, I make Myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream. This is not so with My servant Moses; he is trusted in all My house. I speak to him mouth to mouth, in a vision without riddles; and he sees the image of Hashem. Why then are you not afraid to speak against My servant Moses?"

These verses teach us one of the most basic and central principles of Judaism, the supremacy of the prophecy of Moses. Maimonides included this principle as the seventh of his thirteen foundations of Judaism. Maimonides opens his discussion of this principle with this basic summary:

The Seventh Foundation is the prophecy of Moses our Teacher. This means to believe that he is the father of all the prophets, both those that preceded him and those who arose after him; all of them were below his level. He was chosen from all of Mankind, he attained a greater knowledge of God than any other man ever attained or ever will attain, and he rose from the level of man until he attained the level of the angels and, being on the level of an angel, there remained no screen that he did not penetrate and nothing physical hindered him. He was devoid of any flaw, big or small. His powers of imagination,  and the sensual perceptions were nullified by his understanding and the power of his desires was silenced, leaving him with pure intellect.

Maimonides goes on to detail how the prophecy of Moses differed in several basic ways from that of all other prophets.Much of his discussion is based upon the verses that we just quoted above.

But how did Moses achieve this exalted level? What was it about Moses that set him apart, not only from the rest of his generation, but from all mankind for all time? How was he alone able to reach such a great height of understanding and knowledge of God? 

The answer to this question can be found just a few verses earlier (12:3):

And the man Moses was very humble, more than any human on the face of the earth.

While Moses had many virtuous traits, his central virtue was humility. It was this that set him apart from all others, and it was this virtue that enabled him to become the greatest prophet of all time, and the one who would receive the Torah from God.

In the first mishna of Pirkei Avos, the mishna opens by saying:

משה קבל תורה מסיני

Moses received the Torah from Sinai.

Now, of course, Moses did not receive the Torah from Sinai. Moses received to Torah from God. Sinai was simply the location where this happened. Why then does it say that he received the Torah from Sinai? This question is addressed by a number of commentaries on Pirkei Avos, including the Tiferes Yisrael (R' Yisrael Lifshitz d.1860), who writes:

ר"ל משה שהיה עניו מאד, עי"ז קבל התורה שנמשלה למים שמניחין מקום גבוה ומתאספים בנמוך (כתענית ד"ז א'). ולכן קבל התורה מסיני הנמוך בהרים (כמגילה כ"ט א'). להורות דרק ע"י ענוה מקור לכל המדות ישרות יזכה אדם לתורה

The mishna wishes to tell us that it was because of Moses' great humility that he received the Torah, for the Torah is compared to water that flows away from the high spots and gathers in low areas (as it says it the Talmud, Taanis 7a). This is why Moses received the Torah at Sinai, the lowest of the mountains (as it says in the Talmud, Megilla 29a). This is to teach us that it is only through humility, which is the source of all upright character traits, that a person can merit to Torah.

We see that this idea is not only relevant to the initial reception of the Torah by Moses at Mt. Sinai, but is relevant for all of us. Proper Torah study is a reenactment of the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai, and no success in Torah study is possible without humility. This principle is a basic theme in Jewish thought, found repeated in innumerable ways in innumerable sources. Torah can only come through humility.

Why is humility so important for Torah study? There are many layers to the answer to this question. 

On one level, of course, we know that excessive pride and arrogance can be barriers to understanding in secular studies as well as Torah. A degree of humility is necessary for success in all forms of scholarship and this is also true for Torah. R' Eliyahu HaKohen of Smyrna (d.1729) addresses this aspect in his classic mussar work, Sheivet Mussar (ch. 52):

Know and perceive how the Torah remains with one who is lowly (מי שדעתו שפלה עליו), and not by one who is prideful. One who is lowly will not be ashamed to say, "I do not understand," and his teacher will then review with him until he understands it. Also, if he sees that someone who is his social inferior knows more than him, then he will go to learn from him. Similarly, because his humility enables him to recognize his own ignorance, he continually reviews his studies, and this causes his Torah to stay with him.

The opposite is true of the prideful person. His pride causes him to hide his own ignorance, and all the more so does it prevent himself from going to study by someone who is his social inferior, even if he recognizes that the other person has the wisdom of Solomon! Similarly, the prideful person is not motivated to study, because his pride makes him incapable of recognizing his ignorance.

This brings us to a somewhat deeper understanding of the connection between humility and Torah. For not only does pride prevent one from properly studying the Torah on a practical level, it also can cause one to come to false conclusions in his studies. We all recognize the role that our personal biases can play in our understanding and interpretation of what we see and know, in all aspects of life. Pride is the ultimate bias, and Torah knowledge is particularly susceptible to being corrupted in this way. The study of Torah must be done in a state of kabbala - literally, reception - in which the student opens his mind to receive the Torah without imposing his own ideas upon it. The goal of Torah study is only to truly understand what God is teaching us. To study for the sake of true understanding is, as R' Chaim Volozhiner (d.1821) explains (Ruach Chaim 6:1), the essence of studying Torah lishma - "for its own sake." The prideful person, however, will inevitably impose his own thoughts upon the Torah, consciously or unconsciously, thereby creating a corrupted version of the Torah. 

The Talmud (Taanis 7a) states, "One who studies Torah for its own sake, his Torah becomes an elixir of life for him... and one who studies the Torah not for its own sake, it becomes for him an elixir of death." One who studies the Torah for its own sake, allowing the Torah to impose its form upon his mind, experiences the true Torah, which is an elixir of life. The one, however, who studies the Torah without truly striving to understand, creates something else, which is not truly Torah at all, and which is therefore an elixir of death.

This brings us to the deepest, and most basic, level of understanding the necessity of humility for Torah. For ultimately, the Torah is not of this world. The Torah is gift, it is given to us by God, not just once at Mt. Sinai, but continually, every time we study it. To truly succeed in Torah, each of us must emulate Moses himself, in his most basic character trait, humility. For God gives His gift of Torah only to those who truly open themselves to Him, who have eliminated all the various internal barriers of the ego that separate us from Him. (See Ruach Chaim 1:1.) This is what Maimonides is saying in the passage we quoted earlier, that Moses had reached a level in which "there remained no screen that he did not penetrate and nothing physical hindered him."

---

Lag BaOmer - What exactly are we celebrating?

The Talmud (Yevamos 62b) tells us that Rabbi Akiva had 12,000 pairs of disciples, all of whom passed away during the period from Pesach to Atzeres (i.e.Shavuos):

ר"ע אומר: למד תורה בילדותו, ילמוד תורה בזקנותו. היו לו תלמידים בילדותו, יהיו לו תלמידים בזקנותו. שנא', "בבקר זרע את זרעך וגו'."

אמרו: שנים עשר אלף זוגים תלמידים היו לו לרבי עקיבא, מגבת עד אנטיפרס, וכולן מתו בפרק אחד מפני שלא נהגו כבוד זה לזה, והיה העולם שמם, עד שבא ר"ע אצל רבותינו שבדרום, ושנאה להם ר"מ ור' יהודה ור' יוסי ורבי שמעון ורבי אלעזר בן שמוע, והם הם העמידו תורה אותה שעה.

תנא: כולם מתו מפסח ועד עצרת. אמר רב חמא בר אבא, ואיתימא ר' חייא בר אבין: כולם מתו מיתה רעה. מאי היא? א"ר נחמן: אסכרה.

Rabbi Akiva said: If a man studied Torah in his youth, he should also study it in his old age. If he had disciples in his youth, he should also have disciples in his old age. As it says (Ecclesiastes 11:6), "In the morning plant your seed [and and in the evening do not rest your hand; for you do not know which shall prosper, whether this or that, or whether they shall both be alike good.]"

It was said: Rabbi Akiva had twelve thousand pairs of disciples, from Gabbath to Antipatris, and they all died at the same time because they did not show proper respect towards each other, and the world was desolate until R. Akiba came to our Rabbis in the south and taught the Torah to them: Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua; and it was they who upheld the Torah at that time.

It was taught: All of them died from Pesach and until Atzeres. Rav Chama bar Abba, or, it might be said, Rav Chiya bar Abin said: All of them died a bad death. What was it? — Rav Nachman said: Askera (a choking disease).

It is in memory of this loss that we engage in a period of mourning during this time. According to tradition, the deaths actually ended on Lag BaOmer (the 33rd day of the Omer), fifteen days before Shavuos, and for this reason the mourning ends at this time. (ספר המנהיג, הל' פסח סי' ק"ו; מאירי יבמות ס"ב)

However, while this would explain why the mourning ends on Lag BaOmer (the 33rd day of the Omer), it does not explain how the 33rd day of the Omer has come to be a minor holiday on which, as the Rema states (O"C 493:2), “מרבים בו קצת שמחה” – “we engage in a small amount of rejoicing.” Why are we rejoicing? That the students of Rabbi Akiva stopped dying? The students of Rabbi Akiva did not experience a miraculous salvation on this day. The students of Rabbi Akiva stopped dying because there weren't any left! They were all dead. How does this become a celebration?

Perhaps the most basic explanation for what we are celebrating on Lag BaOmer is found in the Pri Chadash, a major commentary written on the Shulchan Aruch by Rabbi Chizkia di Silva (d.1698), who begins by asking the very same question we have just raised:

......יש לדקדק בשמחה זו למה. ואי משום שפסקו מלמות, מה בכך? הרי לא נשאר אחד מהם, וכולם מתו! ומה סיבה של שמחה זו? ואפשר שהשמחה היא על אותם תלמידים שהוסיף אח"כ ר"ע, שלא מתו כאלו.

We need to clarify the purpose of this rejoicing [on Lag BaOmer]. If it is because they stopped dying, what [reason for rejoicing] is there in that? Not one of them remained, they had all died! So what is the reason for this rejoicing? Possibly, the answer is that the rejoicing is over those disciples that Rabbi Akiva added on afterwards, who did not die as these did.

The Pri Chadash tells us that the reason for our celebration is because Rabbi Akiva went on to teach new students, who did not fall prey to the errors of their predecessors, thereby rebuilding the Torah world.

Based upon this Pri Chadash, we can see that there are, fundamentally, three basic themes that underlie the celebration of Lag BaOmer:

1. We celebrate the greatness of Rabbi Akiva that, even after suffering such an incredible blow, he never gave up hope. This is the main lesson taught in the Talmudic passage quoted above. Even after he lost all of his students, Rabbi Akiva did not give up but went on to teach new students.
   Rav Gedalia Schorr expands upon this theme ('אור גדליהו – מועדים, ל"ג בעומר ו):

   בל"ג בעומר הוא זמן להתחזק בתורה, שאף אם לא למד והיה לו זמנים של נפילה, בל"ג בעומר הוא זמן לחזק את עצמו. ויש לו ליקח לימוד מרע"ק, שמתו לו כ"ד אלף תלמידים, ואח"כ העמיד חמשה תלמידים, וביניהם רשב"י, שעל ידיהם היה התפשטות התורה בישראל, ולא נתייאש מזה שמתו לו כ"ד אלף תלמידים. כן כל אדם, אף שעברו לו הסתירות שונים ונפילות, יחזק עצמו בלימוד התורה.

   
   

   Lag BaOmer is a time for us to strengthen ourselves in Torah study. Even if one has not learned, and has had periods of downfall, Lag BaOmer is a time to strengthen oneself. One should learn from the example of Rabbi Akiva, whose twenty-four thousand disciples died, and afterwards he raised up five students (one of whom was Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai) through whom the Torah was spread through Israel. The death of his 24,000 students did not cause him to give up. Similarly for every person, even if one endures various obstacles and downfalls, one should strengthen himself in Torah study.

2. We celebrate that the later students of Rabbi Akiva recognized the lesson in what had happened to their predecessors and took that lesson to heart. It is certain that, however we are to understand the sin of Rabbi Akiva’s 24,000 students – that “they did not show proper respect towards each other” – their sin was not an obvious one. The students of Rabbi Akiva were great men, and their death left the world “desolate” of Torah. Nevertheless, the later students of Rabbi Akiva recognized that such a major catastrophe could only come about through some significant underlying moral error, and through this recognition they were able to avoid repeating that error.
   
   
3. Finally, our mourning for the students of Rabbi Akiva, and our celebration of Rabbi Akiva’s new students, points to our recognition of the absolute centrality of a living mesorah – Torah tradition – in Judaism. While the Jewish people are often called the “People of the Book” (a phrase coined by Mohammed), the title is misleading in that the word “book” refers to a physical object. We are not the people of the “Book of the Torah”, we are the people of the Torah, in both its written and oral form. Even today, when much of the “Oral” Torah has been written down in works such as the Talmud, the core of the Torah is still oral and is transmitted from teachers to students. The existence of a living mesorah – of actual flesh and blood rabbis and disciples – is essential for the survival of the Torah and the Jewish people.

---

Yiush Shelo M'Daat - The Movie

A few years ago, while I was teaching in Politz Day School, we were studying Eilu Metzios, one of the chapters of the Talmudic tractate, Bava Metzia, which deals with the laws of lost objects. One of the main issues discussed in this chapter is the concept of yi'ush shelo m'daas - "giving up hope (for regaining a lost object) without conscious intent." It's not a simple concept, especially for 12-13 year olds, and as it is a very long and complex discussion, it was important that the students properly understand the basic issues at the outset.

In a brainstorming session, the principal suggested that I make a little "movie" with the class, that would help them get all the details straight in their mind. I was very hesitant at first, as I had never done anything like this, but I agreed to try it out. So, after a little planning - mostly to figure out what I was capable of reasonably achieving without specialized software - this little video was the result. The initial video started right out from the story, but afterwards people wanted a version that could be used by the general public, so I added a two minute introduction.

It turned out that I had created a monster, as the video was a big hit within the school. The school arranged for me to show the video at the local JCC, and from there it went on to be shown at a local Jewish film festival. Not quite what I had expected when I made the silly thing.

The movie is a good example of what a person can do with a little creativity, even without specialized software. Unfortunately, as an educational technique, "movie making" is of limited utility. Not every topic lends itself well to the approach, and if you do it too often it loses much of its novelty (which is its main appeal).

(For those who are familiar with the Talmudic discussion, it should be noted that the conclusion is greatly oversimplified. In reality, the halacha would play out almost exactly the opposite from what happens in the film. According to the opinion that yi'ush shelo m'daas is yi'ush, the court would, in most cases, require the item to be returned to the original owner based on the principle of lifnim m'shuras hadin (which is often enforceable in hashovas aveida cases). According to the opinion that yi'ush shelo m'daas is not yi'ush, the court would generally not be able to return the lost objects to the original owner for the simple reason that he can not prove that he is, in fact, the owner. (If he could, then there would be no issue of yi'ush shelo m'daas in the first place.) Rather, the finder would have to hold the object as an agent of the original owner until such evidence is provided. The only way this could realistically happen would be if there had been witnesses to the original loss that the owner had been unaware of. In short, it's a complicated topic.)

---

The Legitimacy of the Oral Torah

One of the basic principles of Judaism is that when God gave the written text of the Torah to Moses at Sinai, He also gave over to Moses an Oral Torah. This Oral Torah is the authoritative interpretation of the written Torah, telling us how to perform the various commandments, and also providing us with a methodology for Scriptural interpretation (hermeneutic rules). Today, the teachings of the Oral Torah are embodied in the Talmudic literature (which includes much more than just the Talmud itself).

People often ask what justification is there for the belief in the Oral Torah. This question is sometimes rooted in a discomfort with the idea of giving human beings dispositive authority over the Torah. For these questioners, while they are willing to accept the authority of the written Torah as a Divinely revealed document, they are uncomfortable with giving authority to human beings to determine what the Torah really means.

More often, however, the question is motivated by a desire to give legitimacy to alternative interpretations. If, the argument effectively goes, there is no Divinely revealed Oral Torah, then my interpretation (or my sect/denomination/religion’s interpretation) has as much authority as any other. For some, such as the liberal Jewish movements, even the written Torah has little inherent authority, and the denial of the Oral Torah is just part of a larger argument against traditional authority. For others, such as for many Christian believers, the Divine origin of the written text of the Torah is fully acknowledged, but their understanding of the Scriptures differs dramatically from the traditional Jewish interpretations. They are therefore forced to challenge the claim that the traditional Jewish interpretation, i.e. the Oral Torah, is of Divine origin.

(In most cases, people who believe themselves to be in the first group are actually in the second. Their difficulty is that the preconceptions underlying their interpretation of Scripture are so taken for granted that they do not realize that they are engaged in interpretation in the first place.)

For the first group, the basic answer is that, while their concern is understandable, the fact remains that God wrote the written Torah in such a way that there is simply no way to avoid the need for human interpretation. Any attempt to use Scripture as a practical authority requires interpretation of the Scriptures and all such interpretation involves preconceptions that exist, at least in part, independently of the text. This is true even for those groups that entirely deny the existence of such a tradition. The Sadducees, the Karaites, the Christians, and even the modern “liberal” Jewish denominations (e.g. Reform) all have their own approaches to Scriptural interpretation that conform to and support their various beliefs and ideologies.

The point being that you can't avoid utilizing some kind of interpretive preconceptions in studying Scripture. A true "sola scriptura" approach has never really been possible. For someone who accepts the Divine origin of the Torah, there is no way of avoiding the fact that God clearly wrote the Torah to be interpreted by human authorities. This is actually explicitly stated in Deuteronomy 17:11, “According to the Torah which they shall teach you, and according to the judgment which they shall tell you, you shall do; do not not turn aside from what they shall tell you, to the right or to the left.”

The existence of an unwritten Divinely revealed interpretive tradition is implicit in many places in the Torah. The mere fact that numerous major obligations (e.g. tefillin, mezuzah, and the prohibition against “work” on the Sabbath) are imposed without any clarity as to their practical nature indicates that this is so. The prohibition against work on the Sabbath is particularly telling, as Scripture mandates the death penalty for its violation. Is it really plausible that God would instruct us to give the death penalty for a crime which is never clearly defined? I mean, what, exactly, counts as "work"? Is this really something that we are supposed to determine on an ad hoc basis?

There are also explicit Scriptural references to Divinely revealed teachings that are not to be found in the Written Torah (e.g. Deut. 12:21 re:the laws of kosher slaughter). 

These facts clearly indicate that the existence of an authoritative oral tradition is not only supported by Scripture, but is actually demanded by it.

Obviously, those who deny, to whatever degree, the Divine origin of the Torah, will similarly have no reason to accept the authority of the Oral Torah. But for those who accept the authority of the Torah as a Divinely revealed document, there is no way to avoid the necessity of accepting that there is also an authoritative interpretive tradition that was revealed by God together with the Torah.

The question that remains is to determine which interpretive tradition has the strongest claim to authenticity. The first thing to determine is, from a historical point of view, whether a given tradition can plausibly claim to have originated at Sinai together with the Written Torah. Obviously, interpretive traditions that first came into existence long after the Sinai Revelation simply don’t qualify. 

Once we have eliminated all such obvious latecomers, we then have to deal with the second question. This is whether the specific interpretive tradition can be said to be consistent with the basic themes of the Written Torah. While the premise of the Oral Torah gives the Oral Torah the authority to interpret the Written Torah, this does not mean that the Written Torah is simply an inert piece of clay that can be reshaped at will. The Torah may be vague on some points, and there is certainly plenty of room for non-literal interpretation of many verses, but there are certain themes that are so central to the Jewish Scriptures that there is simply no way to deny them. An interpretive tradition that clearly flies in the face of these central themes is not plausibly authentic.

Of the existing, living, interpretive traditions, there are really only two that can can plausibly claim to be of genuine antiquity, the Rabbinic/Talmudic tradition and the Christian tradition. (I am using the term “Christian” in the broadest possible sense, referring to the mainstream beliefs held in common by most of the innumerable sects, denominations, and religions that fall under that term.)

Christianity claims to be fully in consonance with the teachings of the Jewish Scriptures, which Christianity refers to as the “Old Testament.” Indeed, Christianity claims that the Old Testament clearly attests to the truth of Christianity, and that the Christian interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures to this effect is not an innovation, but reflects the true interpretation and that the denial of this interpretation by the overwhelming majority of Jews who lived in the time of Jesus was a falsification of the true, indeed, self-evident, testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures.

The problem with this claim is that it is simply not supported by the facts. On the contrary, many of the basic concepts of Christianity  - e.g. the identification of the human messiah with God (“the divinity of Christ”), the idea of the messiah coming (and then dying) without bringing about any significant political change, the abrogation of the laws of the Torah, and the supersession of the Jewish people by the Christian church - are fundamentally inconsistent with what one would get from a straight reading of the Hebrew Scriptures. These inconsistencies are not on minor details but on major Scriptural themes (e.g. idolatry, the eternal nature of the laws, the role and destiny of the Jewish people, the function of the messiah).

Accepting the basic premises of Christianity therefore has the effect not only of rendering the “Old Testament” a “dead letter”, but an extremely misleading and illogical “dead letter”. The most basic themes of the Hebrew Scripture are disposed of entirely, and are replaced with ideas that are completely unsupported by the text. It is simply not plausible that this was the authoritative interpretation given to the Jewish people at Sinai. (This is asides from the simple matter that, if it had been, then the Jewish people wouldn’t have rejected Jesus in the first place. It is this inconvenient fact that forced medieval Christians to conclude that the Jews were a consciously evil people, who knowingly denied the divinity of Jesus. From there it was only a short jump to the insane accusations of “Host desecration” and the blood libel that resulted in the death of untold thousands of innocent Jews.)

I am not going to attempt here to respond to the innumerable so-called “proof-texts” cited by Christians to support their claims (except to say that none of these “proofs” hold up under serious analysis). The question of how to deal with specific verses is not my topic here. There are all kinds of interesting verses in Scripture that can be interpreted in any number of ways, and misinterpreted in even more. The question is the underlying assumptions involved in that interpretation. If the underlying assumptions are wrong, then it is inevitable that the interpretation will be wrong as well.

The point in this post is not to critique Christianity. The point is to establish that the “Oral Torah”, as reflected in the Rabbinic tradition, is the only plausible candidate for an interpretive tradition of Divine origin, and that the need for such an interpretation is both self-evident and clearly attested to in Scripture. In practical terms, therefore, despite whatever questions one might have about the Rabbinic tradition itself, it remains the only viable candidate.

I would stress that, while here I am only making the case for the authority of the Rabbinic tradition by a “process of elimination”, in that there simply are no other plausible candidates, the case for the Oral Law is actually far stronger than that. There certainly are more direct arguments for the validity of the Rabbinic tradition. However, these arguments require studying many of the details of the Rabbinic tradition and would be too lengthy and technical for me to attempt in this post (and would also require a degree of competence in Talmudic study on the part of the reader).

---

The Incredible Adventures of Mr. Bowman

I made this several years ago for my students when we were studying Mesechta Megilla, 22b. It started off as a simple set of stick figure illustrations for the sugya about different forms of bowing and the related laws. (The ability to draw decent stick figures is incredibly useful for a rebbi.) 

But then I got a little carried away.

The Incredible Adventures of Mr. Bowman

Maybe a good sequel would be when Mr. Bowman meets his nemesis, the evil sorceror, Kuma Zakufa!

---

Twenty-Four Challenges & Twenty-Four Answers

Recently, while learning with my chavrusa (t/y Torah Mates), we looked up the famous story of the Talmudic sages Rav Yochanan and Reish Lakish (בבא מציעא פ"ד ע"א). The story is one of the most tragic and difficult stories found in the Talmud, and needs careful study to properly understand. In the course of reviewing the story, I was struck by a new insight. 

At one point, the story tells how, after the death of his close disciple, friend, and brother-in-law, Reish Lakish, Rav Yochanan suffered terribly. In an attempt to comfort Rav Yochanan, the sage, Rabbi Elazar ben Pedas, came to sit as a disciple before Rav Yochanan as a replacement for Reish Lakish. For every statement of Rav Yochanan, Rabbi Elazar ben Pedas would bring support from earlier sources. Rav Yochanan then said to him, "Are you like ben Lakish? On every thing I said, he would challenge me with twenty-four difficulties, and I would answer with twenty-four answers, and in this manner the teaching would be expanded. And you bring me proof? Do I not know that I am correct?"

What struck me for the first time in my recent review of this story was Rav Yochanan's statement that for Reish Lakish's twenty-four questions, he had to give twenty-four answers. Usually, when, in studying a Talmudic sugya (topic), we find ourselves with several difficulties, the likelihood is that most, if not all, of the difficulties are based upon one or two basic errors that we made in our study. While they may go unnoticed initially, as the sugya progresses, the difficulties caused by these errors begin to snowball, and at the end we find ourselves with a whole series of problems. A more experienced scholar will often be able resolve most of our difficulties by simply pointing out the basic error we made early on in the sugya. 

Moreover, while he may not be able to resolve the difficulty on his own, a highly competent student will usually be able to work his questions back to their underlying premises and recognize where the core difficulty lies. Such a student will ask fewer questions, but his questions will be much more focused and productive.

If R' Yochanan had only said that Reish Lakish would ask twenty-four questions, this could have meant nothing more than that Reish Lakish had difficulty following R' Yochanan's teachings and was therefore always left with numerous questions. However, when R' Yochanan says that each of the twenty-four questions required a separate answer, this indicates that every single question was fundamentally distinct. Reish Lakish had thoroughly analyzed the teaching, and had located twenty-four separate problem areas, each of which had to be dealt with on its own.

The more I think about this, the more it amazes me.

---

The Targum Shiviim - The Origin of the Septuagint

A major event occurred during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus.^[1] This was the translation of the Torah into Greek. This translation eventually evolved into the Greek translation of the Torah known as the Septuagint.^[2] There are several ancient sources that discuss this event, but, unfortunately (and unsurprisingly), these sources frequently disagree on important details. The main traditional Jewish sources that describe the incident are the Talmud (Megillah 9a), Mesechta Sofrim 1:8-9, and Megillas Taanis. The story is also discussed in other, non-traditionally authoritative, sources such as Josephus (Antiquities XII:2), Philo (Life of Moses V-VII), and the Letter of Aristeas.^[3] The Letter of Aristeas is, or purports to be, a letter written by a non-Jewish advisor of Ptolemy Philadelphus named Aristeas recounting the story of the translation of the Torah.^[4] The Letter of Aristeas is the primary source for the story as told by Josephus, and appears to have been a source for Philo, but there are some differences between all these sources.^[5]

The Talmud (Megillah 9a) gives the following account:

דתניא, מעשה בתלמי המלך שכינס שבעים ושנים זקנים והכניסן בשבעים ושנים בתים ולא גילה להם על מה כינסן ונכנס אצל כל אחד ואחד ואמר להם, "כתבו לי תורת משה רבכם." נתן הקב"ה בלב כל אחד ואחד עצה והסכימו כולן לדעת אחת וכתבו לו, "אלקים ברא בראשית" וכו' ע"ש

It is taught, an incident occurred with Ptolemy the king that he gathered seventy-two elders and put them into seventy-two houses and he did not reveal to them why he had gathered them. He went in to each one of them and told him, "Write for me the Torah of Moses your teacher." The Holy One, blessed be He, gave counsel to the heart of every one of them and they all came to the same opinion and they wrote for him, "God created in the beginning" etc.

The basic story is that Ptolemy gathered together seventy-two sages and made each Sage write a translation of the Torah into Greek. A miracle occurred and the Sages, all working independently, wrote exactly the same translation, including several changes from the literal meaning of the Torah that were necessary to prevent the Torah from being misinterpreted or misused by the Greeks.^[6]

In Mesechta Sofrim (1:7-8) we are told that there were actually two distinct incidents where the Torah had been translated at the command of one of the Ptolemies:

מעשה בה' זקנים שכתבו לתלמי המלך את התורה יונית והיה היום קשה לישראל כיום שנעשה העגל שלא היתה התורה יכולה להתרגם כל צרכה.

שוב מעשה בתלמי המלך שכנס ע"ב זקנים והושיבם בשבעים ושנים בתים ולא גלה להם על מה כנסם. נכנס לכל אחד ואחד מהם אמר להם, "כתבו לי תורת משה רבכם." נתן המקום עצה בלב כל אחד ואחד והסכימה דעתן לדעת אחת וכתבו לו [כל אחד ואחד] תורה בפני עצמו. וי"ג דבר שינו בה, ואלו הן: "אלקים ברא בראשית" וכו' ע"ש

An incident occurred with five elders who wrote the Torah in Greek for Ptolemy the king, and the day was as difficult for [the people of] Israel as the day that the [golden] calf was made^[7], for the Torah could not be translated sufficiently.^[8]

A further incident occurred with Ptolemy the king when he gathered seventy-two elders and placed them in seventy-two houses and did not reveal to them why he had gathered them. He went in to each one of them and said to them, “Write for me the Torah of Moshe your teacher.” God placed counsel into the heart of each one and their opinions all came to the same opinion and each one wrote for him his own Torah. They made thirteen changes in it, and these are: “God created in the beginning” etc.

The second incident appears to be the same incident as the one described in the Talmud. Rabbi Yakov Emden (1698-1776), in his notes on Mesechta Sofrim, comments on the first incident, "נ"ל שזהו בן לאגע" – “It appears to me that this is [Ptolemy] son of Lagos”, referring to Ptolemy Soter, the first of the Greek kings of Egypt, and on the second incident he writes, "זהו פילאדילפו" – “This is Philadelphus”, the son and successor of Ptolemy Soter.

However, in his notes on Megillah 9a, Rabbi Emden appears to directly contradict this. He comments:

אין זה בטלמיוס פילאדילפו שידוע שהיה אוהב ישראל ובקש ההעתקה הידועה מהכ"ג שבירושלם בהכנעה ובהתרפס לו ברצי כסף ודורונות גדולות שעשה לבהמ"ק ולכ"ג ולזקנים מעתיקי התורה שתנתן לו בקשתו זאת כמפורסם בספר אריסטיאה שחובר על זאת באותו פרק המעשה ע"י המשולח של המלך לירושלם, אלא תלמי אחר הוא זה.

This is not Ptolemy Philadelphus, for it is known that he was a lover of Israel and that he sought the famous translation from the High Priest in Jerusalem with humility, humbling himself before him with appeasements of silver and great gifts made for the Holy Temple, the High Priest, as well as the elders who translated the Torah, so that they should grant this request of his. This has been made well-known in the book of Aristeas that was written on this topic by the emissary of the king to Jerusalem.^[9] Rather, this is a different Ptolemy.^[10]

In this comment, Rabbi Yakov Emden relies upon the Letter of Aristeas. The Letter of Aristeas tells us a story of how Ptolemy Philadelphus, in his desire to complete his great library in Alexandria, sent a letter to Elazar the High Priest ^[11] requesting his aid in collecting six elders from each of the twelve tribes (thus, seventy-two elders) to translate the Torah. To demonstrate his sincerity, Philadelphus first ransomed over one hundred thousand Jewish captives who had been enslaved during the reign of his father, Ptolemy Lagos. He also sent rich gifts of precious metals and works of art to the High Priest and the Holy Temple. According to the Letter of Aristeas, the elders knew why they were traveling to Egypt and they worked together as a committee in the translation. The Letter states:

Three days later Demetrius^[12] took the men and, passing along the sea-wall, seven stadia long, to the island, crossed the bridge and made for the northern districts of Pharos. There he assembled them in a house, which had been built upon the sea-shore, of great beauty and in a secluded situation, and invited them to carry out the work of translation, since everything that they needed for the purpose was placed at their disposal. So they set to work comparing their several results and making them agree, and whatever they agreed upon was suitably copied out under the direction of Demetrius. ...They met together daily in the place which was delightful for its quiet and its brightness and applied themselves to their task. And it so chanced that the work of translation was completed in seventy-two days, just as if this had been arranged of set purpose.

The miraculous agreement of the different translations is entirely missing from the Letter of Aristeas. Interestingly, Philo, who appears to base his story primarily on the Letter of Aristeas and perhaps local Alexandrian tradition, does include the miracle. He writes (Life of Moses II, VII):

Therefore, being settled in a secret place ... they, like men inspired, prophesied, not one saying one thing and another another, but every one of them employed the self-same nouns and verbs, as if some unseen prompter had suggested all their language to them. And yet who is there who does not know that every language, and the Greek language above all others, is rich in a variety of words, and that it is possible to vary a sentence and to paraphrase the same idea, so as to set it forth in a great variety of manners, adapting many different forms of expression to it at different times. But this, they say, did not happen at all in the case of this translation of the law, but that, in every case, exactly corresponding Greek words were employed to translate literally the appropriate Chaldaic^[13] words, being adapted with exceeding propriety to the matters which were to be explained; for just as I suppose the things which are proved in geometry and logic do not admit any variety of explanation, but the proposition which was set forth from the beginning remains unaltered, in like manner I conceive did these men find words precisely and literally corresponding to the things, which words were alone, or in the greatest possible degree, destined to explain with clearness and force the matters which it was desired to reveal.^[14]...

On which account, even to this very day, there is every year a solemn assembly held and a festival celebrated in the island of Pharos, to which not only the Jews but a great number of persons of other nations sail across, reverencing the place in which the first light of interpretation shone forth, and thanking God for that ancient piece of beneficence which was always young and fresh. And after the prayers and the giving of thanks some of them pitched their tents on the shore, and some of them lay down without any tents in the open air on the sand of the shore, and feasted with their relations and friends, thinking the shore at that time a more beautiful abode than the furniture of the king's palace.

The story told by the Letter of Aristeas is quite different from the story told in the Talmudic sources, but Rav Yakov Emden nevertheless believes the Letter of Aristeas to be basically reliable. He therefore concludes that the translation story told in the Talmud and the story told by the Letter are two separate incidents. This is a difficult conclusion to accept, as it forces us to assume that there were two separate incidents in which a king named Ptolemy had a group of seventy-two sages translate the Torah.^[15] Most sources appear to disagree with this conclusion and maintain that the story in the Talmud took place with Ptolemy Philadelphus, and the Letter of Aristeas is simply inaccurate.^[16]

The Letter of Aristeas indicates that the Jewish community of Alexandria welcomed the translation as a great benefit, and this opinion is confirmed and repeated by Philo. The opinion of the Sages, however, appears to have been quite different. The events of the translation are not described as positive events. On the contrary, as we already saw, in Mesechta Sofrim, that an earlier translation was described as being "as difficult for [the people of] Israel as the day that the [golden] calf was made."^[17] Similarly, in Megillas Taanis (Maamar Acharon) it states:

בח' בטבת נכתבה התורה יונית בימי תלמי המלך והחשך בא לעולם שלשת ימים

On the eighth of Teves the Torah was written in Greek in the days of Ptolemy the king^[18] and darkness came to the world for three days.^[19]

In the long-term, the effects of the translation were clearly very harmful to the Jewish community of Alexandria, Egypt. Historian Michael Grant writes:^[20]

The Septuagint had the obvious effect of bringing Jewish and pagan thought much closer together, but this proved a curiously one-way traffic. The translation was supposedly devised to persuade the Greeks of the correctness of Judaism, but its influence in this direction was negligible or non-existent…. But for the Alexandrian Jews it fulfilled an enormous role. It became, in fact, their Bible, in place of the Hebrew Bible which most of them could not understand.^[21]

This event is therefore one of the tragedies which we mourn on the fast of Asara B’Teves, and it is mentioned in the Selichos of that day.

---

[1] Ptolemy II Philadelphus was the Greek king of Egypt from 283 BCE to 246 BCE. He was the successor of his father, Ptolemy Soter, the founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty, who had been one of Alexander the Great’s generals. During this period, the land of Israel was under the rule of the Egyptian Greeks. The Syrian Greek Seleucid empire took control of the land of Israel later.

[2] Literally, “seventy”, the Septuagint is sometimes referred to as the LXX, the Roman numerals for seventy. It should be noted that, despite the name, the Septuagint that we know of today is not the original translation made by the Sages. It is likely that the translation of the Sages was the earliest version of the Septuagint, which, over the centuries was repeatedly edited, modified, and expanded (from just the Pentateuch to the entire Jewish Scriptures and even some Apocryphal works).

[3] The significance of these works is that they were all written before the compilation of the Talmud. These sources are, therefore, not simply repeating the account told in the Talmudic sources. I would stress that this does not mean that the accounts in these works are therefore more reliable than the Talmudic sources.

[4] While ancient sources appear to have taken the Letter of Aristeas at face value, most modern scholars believe that the Letter of Aristeas was written at a somewhat later period by a Jew, probably from Alexandria. A middle position is taken by Victor Tcherikover, who, in his Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (p. 274) writes “the document is basically genuine, but has probably been worked over here and there and by a Jewish forger.”

[5] One important source that discusses this topic in detail is Me’or Enayim by Rabbi Azariah Min Ha’Adumim (dei Rossi) (1514-1578). Unfortunately, I am not yet familiar with his discussion of this topic.

[6] For example, when translating the first verse of the Torah, the translators put the name of God at the very beginning of the sentence, “God created in the beginning.” The concern was that a more literal translation, “In the beginning, created God,” could be misunderstood to mean that God had been created by a prior being called “In the Beginning.”

[7] Rabbi Eliyahu Kitov, in his Sefer HaTodaah (Book of Our Heritage), Teves, has an interesting explanation of this analogy. He explains that just as the golden calf was thought, by its worshippers, to be a genuine intermediary with God, but was actually meaningless, so too, the non-Jewish readers of the Greek translation of the Torah thought that it was a genuine representation of the Torah, but it was actually entirely empty of the essence of the Torah.

[8] The existence of earlier, flawed, translations of the Torah is also mentioned towards the end of the Letter of Aristeas, where it describes the king’s reaction after having the completed translation read to him:

The whole book was read over to him and he was greatly astonished at the spirit of the lawgiver. And he said to Demetrius, 'How is it that none of the historians or the poets have ever thought it worth their while to allude to such a wonderful achievement?' And he replied, 'Because the law is sacred and of divine origin. And some of those who formed the intention of dealing with it have been smitten by God and therefore desisted from their purpose.' He said that he had heard from Theopompus that he had been driven out of his mind for more than thirty days because he intended to insert in his history some of the incidents from the earlier and somewhat unreliable translations of the law. When he had recovered a little, he besought God to make it clear to him why the misfortune had befallen him. And it was revealed to him in a dream, that from idle curiosity he was wishing to communicate sacred truths to common men, and that if he desisted he would recover his health. I have heard, too, from the lips of Theodektes, one of the tragic poets, that when he was about to adapt some of the incidents recorded in the book for one of his plays, he was affected with cataract in both his eyes. And when he perceived the reason why the misfortune had befallen him, he prayed to God for many days and was afterwards restored.

[9] According to the Letter of Aristeas, Aristeas was one of the emissaries that Ptolemy sent to Jerusalem.

[10] Rabbi Emden repeats this conclusion in his commentary on Megillas Taanis, Maamar Acharon. In his comments there, Rabbi Emden adds that, while Philadelphus wanted a proper translation, the coercive Ptolemy in the Talmudic version demanded a literal word-for-word, translation. This is why a miraculous correspondence between the seventy isolated translators was necessary.

[11] Josephus (Antiquities XII:2:5) says that this was the brother of Shimon HaTzadik.

[12] Philadelphus’ librarian.

[13] Philo refers to the Hebrew language as Chaldaic (also called Aramaic) possibly related to the use of the term Ksav Ashuris­. (See the introduction of A. Kahana’s Hebrew edition of the Letter of Aristeas.)

[14] A similar insight is made by Rav Yerucham Levovitz in Daas Torah, Naso (7:12). He says that, although this was certainly a miracle, the incident also demonstrated the power of שכל ישר – straight (i.e. clear and undistorted) intelligence. Thus, all 72 sages understood the circumstances correctly and came to exactly the same conclusions.

[15] As noted previously, even Rabbi Yakov Emden’s own comments on Mesechta Sofrim disagree with this conclusion. It is possible that Rabbi Emden changed his mind on this matter at some point.

[16] Probably out of a desire to give a kinder portrayal of Ptolemy Philadelphus.

[17] However, an argument might be made that this statement was applied only to that early translation because of its imperfections, “for the Torah could not be translated sufficiently”, and does not apply to all translations.

[18] With the exception of Rabbi Yakov Emden, it seems that the dominant opinion is that this is referring to the translation under Ptolemy Philadelphus.

[19] The meaning of these three days of darkness is not clear. Shalsheles HaKabala (cited in the Tosfos Chadashim on Megilas Taanis) says that the Jewish people fasted for three days out of fear, as in the days of Haman, and “their faces blackened.” See the Chasam Sofer (Toras Moshe AH”T, Shemos) for a deeper explanation.

[20] The History of Ancient Israel (p. 203)

[21] Rabbi Aryeh Leib Gordon (19^th century) makes the same point in his Iyun Tefila commentary on the Selichos of Asara B’Teves (printed in Siddur Otzar Tefillos).

---

Why Study Jewish History? Part 1 - As an Aid to Torah Study

This is the first of a series of four posts on why the proper study of Jewish history is a very important part of the development of a true ben Torah (a Jew who is focused on Torah study). The focus in these posts will be on the importance of Jewish history for a Jew’s spiritual development. Each post will focus on one major aspect of this topic.

This material was originally written for a course in Jewish history given at a yeshiva high school. I have modified it somewhat for a broader audience.

---

History as an Aid to Torah Study

The study of history, especially of the period of Chazal (Chachmeinu Zichronom Livrocha – “Our Sages, may their memory be a blessing” – a term used to refer to the Sages of the Talmud), is very important as an aid for Torah study. In fact, most of the major history seforim were written for this purpose. Rav Yechiel Heilprin (1660-1746), in his great historical work, Seder HaDoros, explains in his introduction:

...דע לך כי תועלת ידיעת הדורות רב הוא... ואם תורתנו הקדושה, שאין בה יתור אות וקוצי, התחיל מבראשית, שלא היה צריך אלא בשביל רנון אומות שלא יאמרו לסטים אתם, כ"ש ידיעת הדורות ממש, כל גופי התורה והלכה פסוקה יתבררו עי"ז, שמן הצורך להיות רשום בלב כל נבון. ואם הראשונים, שלבם היה פתוח כפתחו של היכל ואולם..., עכ"ז ר' יוסי, שנימוקו עמו, עשה חבור על זה וקראו סדר עולם, אלא שקיצר מאד כי היה די לדורות ההם, אבל בדור העני בדעת... מרבוי הצרות... ונסתמו מעינות חכמה ובינה, לא די שנחתם ונסתם שבילי ים הש"ס, כי גם בתורה נביאים וכתובים אשר "למקרא בן חמש" אם הוא בן שבעים אין בו ממש וכעור באפלה ימשש... ע"כ ערכתי לפניך סדר הדורות

You should know that the knowledge of the generations is of great benefit…. If our holy Torah—which does not contain an extra letter or point—begins with Genesis, which is only necessary because of the accusations of the nations so that they shouldn’t say, “You are bandits!”,^[1] then certainly the [history of the] generations [through which] all the basics of Torah and halacha (Jewish law) are made clear, must be imprinted on the mind of any intelligent person.^[2] Furthermore, [even in the time of] the early generations, whose minds were open like the entry to the Temple, … Rav Yosi [ben Chalafta], "whose learning is with him"^[3] nevertheless saw fit to write a book on [history] which he called Seder Olam,^[4] although he wrote very concisely, for that was sufficient for those generations. However, in [this] generation which is poor in knowledge… because of the numerous troubles… and in which the springs of wisdom and understanding have been sealed, not only have the ways of the sea of the Talmud been sealed and shut off, but even with regard to Torah, Neviim, and Kesuvim (Tanach i.e. Scripture), [of] which [we are taught that] “a five year old begins the study of Scripture”^[5], [even] seventy year old men have no knowledge and are like blind men groping in the dark…. For this reason I have assembled before you [this work], Seder HaDoros….

Rav Heilprin continues with a detailed discussion of the importance of this study and he gives many examples of the kind of errors in learning and halacha which can be made when one is ignorant of the order of the generations of the chachamim.

Similarly, the Vilna Gaon is quoted as recommending the translation of the Greek writings of Josephus Flavius, a Jewish historian who lived at the time of the destruction of the second Temple, because his writings can help us understand chazal and their times.^[6]

A good basic knowledge of Jewish history is essential to any serious Torah scholar. Without it, a scholar will make many elementary errors in his understanding, and possibly even errors in psak halacha. As we shall see, in future posts on this topic, the study of Jewish history serves several other important functions for a Torah Jew as well.

---

[1] See Rashi on Genesis 1:1, that really the Torah could have begun with the mitzvos (commandments) and skipped the historical narrative of Creation and the Patriarchs, except to establish the legitimacy of the Jewish claim to the land of Israel so that the nations cannot accuse us of being robbers. For a full discussion of this issue, see Ramban and Nachalas Yakov on Genesis 1:1.

[2] Rav Heilprin’s reasoning is that if God is willing to insert historical information in the Torah just to respond to the accusations of the nations, then certainly we should be knowledgeable in that historical information that is necessary for our basic understanding of Torah and halacha.

[3] This was a special praise that was said of R’ Yosi ben Chalafta, see Gittin 67a and Avos d’Rabbi Noson 18.

[4] This refers to the classic rabbinic work, Seder Olam Raba.

[5] Avos 5:21

[6] The Encyclopedia L’Toldos Gedolei Yisroel (ערך ר' אליהו מוולנא) states:

ר' אברהם בן הגאון מספר שאביו הגאון אמר לו שהוא משתוקק לראות את ספרי יוספוס פלביוס מתורגמים עברית משום "שעל ידם נוכל לבוא אל כוונתם של רבותינו ז"ל בתלמוד ובמדרשים בדברם במקומות רבים בעניני ארץ קדשנו בימי קדם ההם."

Also see the Artscroll biography of the Vilna Gaon, p. 154

---

Poster of the Mesorah of the Oral Torah

If you are about my age, this diagram may be familiar to you. It used to be found in many Chabad publications, and I assume that it was originally produced and published by Merkos L'inyonei Chinuch, the Chabad educational organization, as a classroom poster.

It's a great educational tool, laying out the basic mesorah (tradition) of the Torah. Beginning with Sinai and the Written Torah, it works through the Mishna, Talmud, and major poskim (authorities in Jewish law). I remember, as a young boy, that this poster was my first introduction to the existence of such important works as the Rif and Tur. In my experience, as a teacher, most middle-school students, even in good yeshivos, are often not familiar with this basic information.

For some reason, the poster is now very difficult to find. If anyone has any info about it, please let me know.

---

Talmudic Indexes

An Index for the Talmud, After 1,500 Years - NYTimes.com

Just came across this. The hyperbole in the article - and also from the publisher - is overblown. This two-volume set is not the major "groundbreaking achievement" it is being made out to be.

Don't get me wrong. The book, HaMafteach by Daniel Retter, is a great idea, and I can easily see myself purchasing it at some point in the future. I hope it sells well. However, the reality is that there already are a number of popular and widely accessible works available that function as Talmudic indexes (and most cover other major sifrei Chazal as well).

For Biblical verses there is the Torah Temimah from R' Baruch Epstein (d. 1941), which cites all the major Talmudic discussions on any verse in the Pentateuch as well as many from other sifrei chazal. (And, of course, there is always the Toldos Aharon, printed in any Mikraos Gedolos. And the comprehensive Torah Shelema from Rav Kasher.)

For biographical and historical information, there is the classic Seder HaDoros by Rav Yechiel Heilprin (d. 1746), which has a detailed chronology of Jewish history from Creation through the 17th century as well as a comprehensive encyclopedia, in alphabetical order, of the Sages of the Mishna and Talmud. It is available in clear, modern prints and should be in every serious Torah library.

For halachic topics, the Rambam's Mishneh Torah (with the Kesef Mishnah) will quickly point you to the relevant talmudic sources (and, with the Shabsai Frankel editions, beyond). Similarly, the Sefer HaChinuch, especially the newer editions of the Minchas Chinuch, will quickly enable you to find the Talmudic references for any mitzva.

For aggada (non-legal material), the best index is the three volume Otzar Ha'agada published by Mossad HaRav Kook. This is a topical index of all aggados, including midrashim and Zohar.

These references are all far more comprehensive than HaMafteach can be; after all, it's just two volumes and the sample page shows that it is not tiny print. However these works are also more specialized than HaMafteach, and, generally speaking, less accessible to a novice student. Perhaps most importantly, few of these works are available in English.

In any event, the above is far from a complete list of the works that "broke the ground" long before the publishing of HaMafteach. HaMafteach is simply a new work, in a more modern and accesible style, in a long line of such works.

---

The Martyrdom of Chana and her Seven Sons

The story of the martyrdom of Chana and her seven sons is recorded in several sources. The primary sources are the Talmud (Gitin 57b), the Midrash Rabba (Eicha 1:50), the book of II Maccabees (chap. 7), and the medieval historical work, Yossipon (chap. 19). There are some significant variations in the different versions of the story. For example, only Yossipon identifies the mother as Chana; most of the sources do not give the mother a name but simply refer to her as a widow. (The Midrash Rabba gives her name as Miriam bas Nachtom or Tanchum.) It is possible that there were actually two (or more) similar stories that merged over time.

One difference in the versions that seems to get a disproportionate amount of attention is that in the Talmudic and Midrashic versions, the martyrs were killed for refusing to bow before an idol, whereas in the version found in II Maccabees and Yossipon they were killed for refusing to eat pig meat. However, in reality this is a very minor distinction, as the the latter sources are almost certainly referring to an idolatrous offering (as is explicit  in the story of the martyrdom of Eliezer that immediately precedes the story of the seven sons in both sources) and the critical issue, in both versions, is idolatry. (Although, given the circumstances, Jewish law would almost certainly demand martyrdom even if there was only a violation of the dietary laws.) 

In my opinion, the most dramatic distinction between the versions is that, in the versions of the Talmud and Midrash, each son justifies his refusal by simply quoting a Biblical verse (except the youngest son, who engages in a more extended dialogue with the king, especially in Midrash Rabba), whereas, in the versions of II Maccabees and Yossipon, each son gives a short but powerful speech, discussing many important principles of Judaism. While these speeches are quite edifying, in my opinion the Talmudic version is far more plausible. While it is not at all surprising that devout Jewish children of the period were proficient in the Bible (especially the famous verses that are quoted), the skilled rhetoric described in II Maccabees seems rather incongruous coming from the mouths of youngsters. It would seem that the author of II Maccabees (or his source material) modified the story for a Greek speaking audience.

The following recounting of the story is based primarily on the Talmudic version with some additional  details from the other sources, primarily the Midrash Rabba.

---

Chana and her seven sons were brought before the King. The eldest was brought forward and commanded to bow down to an idol. The son refused, stating, “It is written in the Torah 'I am HaShem your God' (Exodus 20:2).” They took him out and killed him.

(II Maccabees and Yossipon describe the manner of execution in detail. Yossipon writes that when the king heard the eldest son’s refusal, he became very angry. He commanded that an iron pan be brought and placed upon the fire. He then ordered that the son’s tongue should be cut out, his arms and legs should be cut off, and he should be scalped, and that all of these pieces should be placed in the hot frying pan. This was to be done in front of the family. He then ordered that the son, who was still alive, be placed in the pan himself. When the son was close to death, Antiochus ordered that the fire be removed so that the son would not die quickly. This was done to terrify the other members of the family.)

The second son was then brought before the king. He was ordered to bow down to the idol and he refused, stating, “The Torah says, 'You shall not have any other gods before me' (Exodus 20:3).” He was then taken out and killed.

The third son was then brought before the king. He was ordered to bow down to the idol and he refused, stating, “The Torah says, 'Do not bow down to another god' (Exodus 24:14).” He was then taken out and killed.

The fourth son was then brought before the king. He was ordered to bow down to the idol and he refused, stating, “The Torah says, 'He who sacrifices to any god other than HaShem shall be destroyed' (Exodus 22:19).” He was then taken out and killed.

The fifth son was then brought before the king. He was ordered to bow down to the idol and he refused, stating, “The Torah says 'Hear Israel, HaShem is our God, HaShem is one' (Deuteronomy 6:4).” He was then taken out and killed.

The sixth son was then brought before the king. He was ordered to bow down to the idol and he refused, stating, “The Torah says 'Know today and take to heart, that HaShem is God, in the sky above and the below, there is no other.' (Deuteronomy 4:39).” He was then taken out and killed.

The seventh, youngest son was then brought before the king. He was ordered to bow down to the idol and he refused, stating, “The Torah says 'You have, today, declared HaShem to be your God…and HaShem has, today, declared you to be His special people' (Deuteronomy 26:17-18). We have already promised HaShem not to exchange Him for another god, and He has promised us not to exchange us for another nation.”  The king said to the boy, “I will throw my seal (or ring) on the floor, bend down and pick it up so that the people will say that you have accepted the authority of the king.” The boy responded, “Woe on you, King! Woe on you, King! If your own honor is so important, how much more so the honor of the Holy One, blessed be He!” They took him out to be killed.

His mother said to them, “Give him to me so I may kiss him a little.” She said to him, “My son, go tell Abraham your father, you bound one son to the altar, I bound seven, yours was only a test, mine were for real.”

A few days later the mother went mad and fell off a roof to her death. A heavenly voice said, “a happy mother of sons” (Psalms 113:9).

---