Interesting Girsa Variants from Sotah 13b on Joseph and Potiphar

Viewer discretion is advised.

I recently answered a question by a friend on Facebook. He asked:

וַתִּקְרָ֞א לְאַנְשֵׁ֣י בֵיתָ֗הּ וַתֹּ֤אמֶר לָהֶם֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר “רְא֗וּ הֵ֥בִיא לָ֛נוּ אִ֥ישׁ עִבְרִ֖י לְצַ֣חֶק בָּ֑נוּ בָּ֤א אֵלַי֙ לִשְׁכַּ֣ב עִמִּ֔י וָאֶקְרָ֖א בְּק֥וֹל גָּדֽוֹל׃”

What exactly is she accusing her husband of? Why lay blame on him rather than Yosef? (She says the same to her husband directly a few lines later).

If she were saying, in essence, "he brought this Hebrew slave home and he tried to rape me" I think we'd expect עינוי. But the term לצחק is associated with consensual sexual contact in the story of Yitzhak and Rivka. So what, according to Eshet Potifar, was her husband's plan?

Someone else responded that she was blaming her husband for causing this issue in the house, and that the question of consent vs. rape isn't really relevant here.

I noted that the Netziv sees her saying that Joseph's response to her showed that he can't sleep with her because she's the master's wife, but he was willing to sleep and flirt with anyone else in the house. So he came to "be a player", in our parlance. His words are the following:

לצחק בנו – הבינה מדברי יוסף טענות מיוחדות שאי אפשר לו למלא רצון אשת האדון בפרטות, מה שאין בזה טעם בשאר בני בית, וגם ראתה אותו יפה תואר שהוא סיבה עלולה לזנות, כדאיתא ביומא (לה,ב) ׳נאה הייתי וטרוד ביצרי׳, על כן חשבה שבאמת הוא רועה זונות ומפתה נשי הבית, משום הכי מצאה לב לומר להם בפשיטות ״לצחק בנו״, עד ש״בא אלי לשכב עמי״ — לפתות אותי שאתרצה לו.

I then noted that I could put two things together. Rashi on Genesis 41:45 says that Potiphar had bought Joseph to be his sex slave:

פוטיפרע – הוא פוטיפר, ונקרא שמו פוטיפר על שם שנסתרס מאיליו לפי שלקח את יוסף למשכב זכור.

So I thought, this idea could actually make the verse read very smoothly. "See what my husband had bought to be our sex slave (letzachek banu), but then he tried to force himself on me."

There are several disadvantages to this, the least of which is that this background is not in the text proper. But also that Potiphar bought him, seemingly, for his own pleasure, not for both him and his wife. But on the other hand, why not?

I also noticed that there are several textual issues with the Rashi on 41:45, and so decided to find his sources. The most immediate source Rashi drew from is in Sotah 13b. Here is how it is put there:

ויקנהו פוטיפר סריס פרעה אמר רב שקנאו לעצמו (בא גבריאל וסירסו) בא גבריאל ופירעו מעיקרא כתיב פוטיפר ולבסוף פוטיפרע

The continuation of that verse states: “And Potiphar, an officer [seris] of Pharaoh’s, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him from the hand of the Ishmaelites, who had brought him down there” (Genesis 39:1). Rav says: He purchased the handsome Joseph for himself, for the intended purpose of homosexual intercourse, but was unable to fulfill his desires, as the angel Gabriel came and castrated Potiphar [seireso]. Then Gabrielcame again and further mutilated him [fero] in the same part of his body. This is alluded to in the verses that write Potiphar’s name differently: Initially, it is written “Potiphar” (Genesis 39:1) and in the end it is written “Poti-phera” (Genesis 41:45). The change in his name indicates that a part of himself was mutilated.

As you can see, Rav/the Talmud holds back from saying exactly what Potiphar's intentions were in buying Joseph, except that it was "for himself," but his punishment was certainly harsh, and hindered his sexual capabilities. This easily lead Rashi on the Talmud to state:

לעצמו - למשכב זכור מתוך יופיו

But is it possible something else happened here? It is possible.

First, as we can see from the above passage, there is an issue just how many times he was mutilated, and also by which angels. Above the text itself indicates that it was only Gabriel, doing it once, maybe twice. But the Munich 95 manuscript states that Michael did the first, Gabriel did the second:

' רב שקנאו לעצמו בא מיכאל וסרסו בא גבריאל ופרעו כתי' פוטיפר וכת' פוטיפרע 

 But the Vatican 110-111 manuscript is more interesting. There, this same differentiation between Michael and Gabriel happen, but instead of saying Potiphar bought him for himself, it is pretty different:

אמ' רב שקנאו אדון לעצמו בא מיכאל וסירסו בא גבריאל ופירעו מעיקרא כת' פוטיפר ולבסוף פוטיפרע

 According to this text, again we have Michael and Gabriel taking turns (although I saw that others see just Michael acting here, and the Gabriel part should actually be changed to just Michael). I'll also not that all of these textual variants have angels doing this work, yet Rashi says that he became impotent "on his own," indicating Rashi had neither?

But, anyway, there's something more in this last text. Instead of "he (i.e. Potiphar) acquired him (Joseph) for himself (Potiphar)," it is "he (Potiphar) acquired him, a master (Joseph), for himself (Potiphar)." What does this mean?

It recalls a phrase from the Talmud Kiddushin 22a:

ת"ר כי טוב לו עמך עמך במאכל עמך במשתה שלא תהא אתה אוכל פת נקיה והוא אוכל פת קיבר אתה שותה יין ישן והוא שותה יין חדש אתה ישן על גבי מוכין והוא ישן על גבי תבן מכאן אמרו כל הקונה עבד עברי כקונה אדון לעצמו

The Sages taught: The verse states concerning a Hebrew slave: “Because he fares well with you,” which teaches that the slave should be with you, i.e., treated as your equal, in food, meaning that his food must be of the same quality as yours, and with you in drink. This means that there shall not be a situation in which you eat fine bread and he eats inferior bread, bread from coarse flour mixed with bran, which is low quality. There shall not be a situation in which you drink aged wine and he drinks inferior new wine.There shall not be a situation in which you sleep comfortably on bedding made from soft sheets and he sleeps on straw. From here the Sages stated: Anyone who acquires a Hebrew slave is considered like one who acquires a master for himself, because he must be careful that the slave’s living conditions are equal to his own.

Notice the end - "Anyone who acquires a Hebrew slave is like one who acquires a master for himself." The rabbis were saying that acquiring a Hebrew slave is more than its worth.

So, maybe we could suggest this girsa has that one in mind (perhaps indeed it shied away from implications of male rape when it comes to Joseph), and that Potiphar thought he was acquiring a slave, but actually acquired a master for himself, the result of which caused him to go impotent. That was more than the slave was worth, that's for sure.

Indeed, without Rashi, we could say that the other girsas have this in mind as well. Potiphar bought him to be a slave for him, but that did not end up happening as planned.

If so, we need to explain why angels made him impotent, and not only that, but abused him further. What was the point? Rashi fits well, that he had deviant sexual intentions, so the angels put a stop to that. But it is possible that סרס and פרע are actually referring to different things than "castration/impotent" and "mutilate." Sares could actually mean to switch around, or to make upside-down. So, according to this, the first angel helped Joseph by subverting the normal structure of the relationship, such that Joseph was actually the master of the house, and Potiphar was not, which made Potiphar's wife want to be with him. Then, at the end of the story, there is further "disarrangement," the alternative meaning of פרע, with Joseph becoming the second in command over Egypt and marrying Potiphar's daughter (after having been in prison for supposedly raping her mother!). Perhaps, even, Potiphar had to pay Joseph back for acquiring him into slavery, and perhaps he had to pay Joseph dowry for marrying his daughter! This is another definition of the word פרע. This is truly topsy-turvy.

An Ein Ayah Style Derasha on Sukkot

Sukkah 2a states:

סוכה שהיא גבוהה למעלה מעשרים אמה - פסולה, ורבי יהודה מכשיר.

מנא הני מילי?

אמר רבה: דאמר קרא (ויקרא כג) למען ידעו דרתיכם כי בסכות הושבתי את בני ישראל, עד עשרים אמה - אדם יודע שהוא דר בסוכה, למעלה מעשרים אמה - אין אדם יודע שדר בסוכה, משום דלא שלטא בה עינא.

רבי זירא אמר: מהכא (ישעיהו ד) וסכה תהיה לצל יומם מחרב, עד עשרים אמה - אדם יושב בצל סוכה, למעלה מעשרים אמה - אין אדם יושב בצל סוכה, אלא בצל דפנות.

...

ורבא אמר: מהכא (ויקרא כג) בסכת תשבו שבעת ימים.

אמרה תורה: כל שבעת הימים צא מדירת קבע ושב בדירת עראי.

עד עשרים אמה - אדם עושה דירתו דירת עראי, למעלה מעשרים אמה - אין אדם עושה דירתו דירת עראי, אלא דירת קבע.

An Ein Aya Style commentary on this (I spoke in between hakafot on the day of Simchat Torah):

I wrote previously about Pesach, that Pesach contains three main ways for man to find God. The first is Philosophical/Theological, the second is Experiential, the third is Historical. And I matched them up with the Avot (I have seen this somewhat also in Rav Kanotopsky's Leil Shimurim on Va'era).''

When you're a hammer, everything's a nail, and this machloket acharonim in Sukkah may fit as well.

On many beginnings of tractates of gemara, the rishonim will ask why the tractate starts the way it does. In Shabbat, Tosafot and many other commentators ask why the tractate begins with the problem of carrying into a public domain on Shabbat, and give answers such as "it is a weak melacha," meaning we might not have included it in the list and therefore it starts so that we make sure to talk about it, or alternatively that its lack of normal attributes of a melacha clarify what a melacha is all about. Indeed, the gemara itself asks this, for example in Makkot it begins in a way that is phrased strangely, and the answer is to be a continuation of the previous tractate. The gemara in Berachot asks why the Mishna begins with saying Shema at night when it could have started with the day, and other commentators give answers for why starting with any Shema at all.

But I have not seen any major commentator questioning why the gemara Sukkah begins with "20 Amot". But perhaps the gemara was really asking this with "Where do we know this?" For the answers of the amoraim might be telling us what they thought the very purpose of the Sukkah was.

The first position is Rabba. He says the reason why 20 amot and above is too high is because the Torah says about Sukkah "so that you shall know...", and higher than 20 you don't know you're in a Sukkah. This is clearly the historical idea, of knowing your history and being aware of the long history of our people. Sitting in a sukkah connects us to our historical emphasis.

The second position is Rabbi Zeira, that the reason why 20 amot is too high is because you need to feel the shade from the Sukkah schach, and not from the walls. This is clearly the experiential idea, that sitting in the Sukkah and feeling God's shade and protection, this connects us to God in that way.

The third position is Rava, who said it is too keva at 20 amot, and not temporary enough. This matches with the philosophical idea, that the Sukkah represents the temporary, and we need to be able to distinguish between that which is keva and that which is arai, and this is the emphasis of the Sukkah.

If so, Simchat Torah is a combination of all of these. Dancing with the Torah is experiential, but it emphasizes our historical connection to Torah, as well as its philosophical/theological content.

A Derasha for Lech Lecha

My grandfather, Rabbi Herbert Bomzer, asked an interesting and compelling question on this week’s parsha, Lech Lecha.

It says in Genesis 12:5, “And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had made in Haran, and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan.”

Rashi explains the clause “and the souls that they had made (asu)” as meaning the people “they had brought under the wings of the Shechina. Abraham converted the men and Sarah converted the women.”

Rabbi Bomzer asked, What happened to the souls, the proselytes whom Abraham and Sarah persuaded to join them? We find no trace of them or their descendants in the generation of Isaac. We have no evidence of large followings of Abraham and Sarah, of monotheists in the world. Did they drop out on the way to Canaan? What happened?

My grandfather suggested one answer, and I think with it we can find some important lessons. He writes that people were attracted to Abraham because of his emphasis on justice and mercy. At almost every instance in Abraham’s story, we find his ultimate lovingkindness and interest in divine mercy. This attracts many people, for it is a universal value, an appreciation for the right and the good.

But Abraham, and especially Isaac, understood that justice and mercy are not the only aspect to being faithful and religious monotheists. Sometimes sacrifices must be made. Money and time are expended on our families, education must be given to our children, and indeed, our history found Jews being asked to make some of the most ultimate sacrifices for their religion - their lives. This turns people away.

It’s easy to sign up for a religion that asks us to be nice, because everyone believes being nice is a nice thing to be. But can we sign up for a religion that demands we be nice, that makes us give up what we would like for others? That asks us to be nice to God just as much as our fellow man? That’s tough stuff. It’s hard to do. So these converts didn’t travel to Canaan. They dropped out, and forgot their teachings of ethical monotheism.

My grandfather believed that the secret to Jewish survival is sacrifice, in compromise for a higher ideal. He quoted his teacher, Rabbi JB Soloveitchik, that the story of Isaac’s sacrifice at the akeida teaches that although God abhors human sacrifice, He demands spiritual self-sacrifice, meaning obedience and self-discipline in the eternal word of God.

I’d like to take this one step forward. The suggestion is that the people they converted in Haran stayed for a short time with them on their travels to Canaan, and then suddenly balked at the idea of demands placed on them, causing them to leave Abraham and his way of life. The question is, what was Abraham and Sarah’s reaction to the abandonment of their followers? What do we know of how their program changed in the face of a mass exodus from their movement?

As I pondered this question a few days ago, I realized that there was someone there, besides Abraham and Sarah, who later decided to leave them. And that was Lot. Lot stuck with them, continued to follow them, until the next chapter, 13. What happens with Lot? Does he stick to the program? Does he believe in sacrifice too? A most curious thing causes Lot to leave Abraham.

In chapter 13, disputes arose with sharing land, and resources, between Abraham and Lot. So Abraham sacrificed. He compromised land because his religious ideals demanded this of him. He told Lot he should take half the land of Canaan. It is my belief that the way he says it tells us exactly Abraham’s change in program and teachings after the loss of his followers.

What he says is, “Please let there be no quarrel between me and between you and between my herdsmen and between your herdsmen, for we are kinsmen. Is not all the land before you? Please part from me; if you go left, I will go right, and if you go right, I will go left.”

Meaning, let us split the land of Canaan so that we can live peacefully. But he specifies his right and his left. Why?

Onkelos does something funny here. Onkelos is the ancient translator of the Torah into Aramaic, and is in most chumashim today next to the Hebrew text. There is a mitzvah to read his translation with the Parsha every week, and this is mentioned by the Talmud, so its really a rabbinically-approved translation.

Usually, Onkelos translates the words of the Torah from Hebrew to Aramaic. But sometimes, he deviates from this strict translation, and many people have tried to figure out what Onkelos’s rules were for his translation, why he translated one way in this place and another in that.

So if you look at Onkelos here, he translates “right”, as in the right side of Abraham, as “south,” and “left” as “north.” Instead of Abraham saying, go to the right or left of the land, Onkelos changes it to "go to the south or north of the land." Why does he do that? Did Onkelos know which way Abraham was facing, such that he knew which way was to the right and to the left of Abraham? That would be kinda ridiculous.

Someone told me that ancient maps didn’t assume that north was up. Instead, they had east as up, and therefore the left side of the map was north, and the right side was south. This is supported by the fact the the Torah often uses left and right as other names for north and south. So if you look at Psalm 89:13, it says “North and right,” as a poetic way of saying “North and south.” And there are many other verses like that.

The problem is that Onkelos is not always consistent. There are other times in the Torah when right and left are used as directions, yet Onkelos translates them as just right and left, instead of north and south. For example, in Eliezer’s retelling to Laban of how he wants to marry off Abraham’s son to Rebecca, he says in Genesis 24 that if Laban is not interested, “Let me know, and I will turn to my right or to my left.” You might expect Onkelos to translate these to “south and north,” but keeps it the same. So why here does Onkelos understand Abraham as saying “go north and I’ll go south,” etc, if he could have stayed consistent and just written left and right.

Rabbi Dr. Rafael Posen, in his book Parshegen, suggests that when someone talks about the right and left, they usually mean right and left relative to themselves. This would lead a reader of the Torah to understand Abraham as saying east and west. But Onkelos saw something in Abraham’s words, says Rabbi Posen. Onkelos saw that Abraham was trying to hint to Lot not to go east or west, but to choose between north and south. The reason he didn’t want the choice to be between east and west is because Sodom is to the east, as we find soon enough. So Onkelos emphasizes to the reader that Abraham wanted Lot to choose land, but not an area that which would make him falter. Sodom was a wicked place, and Abraham wanted to encourage Lot to try to maintain Abraham’s program of ethical monotheism. So Abraham said, in Onkelos’ translation, only pick between north and south. But please not between east and west, for Sodom will be too much of a challenge.

But Lot couldn’t help it. The Torah says that he looked over at Sodom, and saw a paradise. He couldn’t sacrifice his opportunity to live in such a place. He probably promised Abraham, “Don’t worry! I can deal with it.” In fact, in a later story discussing the destruction of Sodom, he does let the angels coming to warn him into his home, having learned the hospitality and good morality from Abraham. It appears he indeed continued to be religious, but the milieu of Sodom inevitably took a toll and his offspring were more cruel than him.

So we find an answer to our question. Abraham learned that he had to make it easier for his followers. He was willing to give land to Lot, and a lot of it, to give him an easier time. But he also knew that one’s surroundings affect them greatly. The people from Haran went back to Haran. He didn’t want the same thing to happen to Lot. So he told Lot, in a gentle way, why don’t you pick between north and south? In that way, Lot would stay away from bad surroundings, and maintain his religious faith.

But it was not to be. Abraham saw another failure before him, another follower who left the fold. The pain this probably caused him was likely terrible. But he continued on, with lessons in hand, and granting us a few lessons as well.

Morality and goodness, justice and mercy, need to go together with willingness for sacrifice and self-discipline, in order to last. But we don’t need to make it so hard for ourselves. If we can, surround ourselves with good people, and those whom we look up to, and we can stay strong and help each other. Let us join together and see each other as partners in a bond for religious growth and happiness. Let us unite and gain the blessings of Abraham of good children, good wealth, and blessings for all. Amen.

Dan Klein's Footnote Mystery On Shadal's Comment To Genesis 17:6

Before God commands Abraham to perform circumcision on himself and the males of his household, He promises Abraham yet again that he will be great, and will have large nations comes from him.

Genesis 17:6 states (Dan Klein's English translation of Shadal's Italian translation of the Torah): "I will cause you to proliferate greatly; I will make you into nations, and kings will descend from you."

Shadal, Rabbi Samuel David Luzzatto, in his commentary to this verse, deals with an issue in Onkelos (Dan Klein's translation from the Hebrew):

ומלכים – אתנך לגוים, ולא גוים פחותים ומשועבדים לגוים אחרים, אלא גוים שיש להם מלך, ואנקלוס הגדיל הענין לתפארת האומה ואמר ומלכין דשלטין בעממיא, ואולי מפני שבימיו לא היה מלך בישראל, רצה שיהיה בתרגומו רמז לימים הראשונים שהיו בישראל מלכים ששלטו גם בשאר אומות, וגם רמז לימות המשיח. ואולי טעות סופרים הוא ואשגרת לישנא הוא, כי למטה פסוק ט״ז כתוב מלכי עמים ממנה יהיו, ושם יפה מתורגם מלכין דשלטין בעממיא, ומשם באה המליצה הזאת לכאן, וכיוצא בזה בשמות ח׳:כ״ד ובס׳ ויקרא כ״ו ל״א.

kings. I will make you into nations, and not inferior ones subject to others, but nations that have a king. Onkelos enlarged on this theme to glorify the Jewish people, and translated the phrase as u-malkhin de-shallitin be-amemayya ("kings who rule over nations"). Perhaps because in his time there was no king in Israel, he wanted his translation to allude to the early days when Israel had kings who rule over other peoples, and also to hint at the Messianic era.

But perhaps this is only a scribal error due to confusion with another phrase, for below at v. 16 it is written, "Kings of peoples will descend from you," and there it is well translated  malkhin de-shallitin be-amemayya. Perhaps from there the expression came here; cf. Ex. 8:24 and Lev. 26:31.

Klein has a footnote to the very end here, where he writes, "The reason these verses are cited here is unclear."

To recap, Onkelos on our verse adds a phrase not in the verse in his translation. Our verse had said, "kings will descend from you," but Onkelos adds "kings who rule over nations will descend..." Shadal first suggests that this is part of Onkelos' general program to increase the glory and pride of the Jewish people, as well as to get in references to the redemption.

But his second suggestion is that this is actually a mistake in our text, and in fact it should just say "u-malkhin." According to this, somebody copying Onkelos accidentally or on purpose transferred a similar phrase from ten verses later and copied it here.

He proceeds to cite two examples, but doesn't explain it at all, thus Dan Klein's head scratch in the footnotes.

I am happy to say that with a little digging of my own, I was able to discover what Shadal had in mind.

Exodus 8:24 states:

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר פַּרְעֹ֗ה אָנֹכִ֞י אֲשַׁלַּ֤ח אֶתְכֶם֙ וּזְבַחְתֶּ֞ם לַיהוָ֤ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶם֙ בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר רַ֛ק הַרְחֵ֥ק לֹא־תַרְחִ֖יקוּ לָלֶ֑כֶת הַעְתִּ֖ירוּ בַּעֲדִֽי׃ 

Pharaoh said, “I will let you go to sacrifice to the LORD your God in the wilderness; but do not go very far. Plead for me.”

The last clause of this verse says, "Plead for me." Yet if you look at Onkelos in most regular copies of Onkelos (there are other versions that don't have this issue), it states at the end:

וַאֲמַר פַּרְעֹה אֲנָא אֲשַׁלַח יָתְכוֹן וְתִדְבְּחוּן קֳדָם יְיָ אֱלָהָכוֹן בְּמַדְבְּרָא לְחוֹד אַרְחָקָא לָא תְרַחֲקוּן לְמֵיזַל צַלוֹ אַף עָלָי:

Onkelos adds in "af", as in, "Plead also for me." Where does Onkelos get this "af" from?

(My immediate answer when I saw this was to look at the letters to see if Onkelos saw a letter at the end of a word also applying to the beginning of the next word. In this case, it might be a stretch, but Onkelos might have saw the verse as saying, "Don't go too far. Pray. And for me." Meaning, the vav of ha-atiru might have gone on the next word. Very much a stretch, but I like the theory anyway and want to apply it as much as I can.)

The book Marpe Lashon on Onkelos suggests that "af" is a mistake in this Onkelos, and was mistakenly taken from a few chapters later, Exodus 12:32:

גַּם־צֹאנְכֶ֨ם גַּם־בְּקַרְכֶ֥ם קְח֛וּ כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר דִּבַּרְתֶּ֖ם וָלֵ֑כוּ וּבֵֽרַכְתֶּ֖ם גַּם־אֹתִֽי׃

Take also your flocks and your herds, as you said, and begone! And may you bring a blessing upon me also!”

Onkelos translates these words, "bring a blessing upon me also" (also being in the verse itself), as:

אַף עַנְכוֹן אַף תּוֹרְכוֹן דְבָרוּ כְּמָא דִי מַלֵלְתֻּן וֶאֱזִילוּ וְצַלוֹ אַף עָלָי:

So the exact phrase is moved mistakenly to an earlier verse and a word is added in.

Now onto the next example, Leviticus 26:31. The verse states:

וְנָתַתִּ֤י אֶת־עָֽרֵיכֶם֙ חׇרְבָּ֔ה וַהֲשִׁמּוֹתִ֖י אֶת־מִקְדְּשֵׁיכֶ֑ם וְלֹ֣א אָרִ֔יחַ בְּרֵ֖יחַ נִיחֹֽחֲכֶֽם׃ 

And I will make your cities a waste, and will bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, and I will not smell the savour of your sweet odours.

How does Onkelos translate this word, "harbah"? Once again, this is subject to girsa issues, with some have Onkelos translating "harbah" as "harba" (with an alef and not a het), both meaning "waste." But the regular edition has the translation as "צָדָא", which can also mean "waste," or "snare," "exposed to mockery," but most likely "desolation." The issue with this is that the next part of the verse also says "desolation," and uses a different word, yet according to this, Onkelos translates it the same with the word "וְאֶצְדֵי יָת מַקְדְשֵׁיכוֹן", which removes the poetry and is just bad translating.

The book Beurei Onkelos on Onkelos suggests a similar answer as we have seen. That is, if you look just two verses later at 26:33, it has many of the same phrases, and intersperses harba and tzada, which got transferred earlier and incorrectly. (This one is admittedly a little weak, since it's not an exact phrase accidentally copies, as it was in previous examples)

Rabbi Dr. Raphael Pozen quotes both of these in his masterful Parshegen. Thus, we have figured out what Shadal's purpose was here.

Refuting Rav Zuriel's Suggestion Regarding the Haketav Vehakabbalah on Christianity and Christians

Rav Zuriel suggests, as we shall see, that when Rav Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenberg, the Haketav Vehakabbalah, wrote favorably regarding modern Christians, he did so out of fear of government and for external apologetics. As we shall see, this is definitely incorrect. We shall demonstrate that he truly held like Tosafot's position that shituf is not avoda zara. Indeed, he goes out of his way to determine that Christianity and any trinitarian religion that believes in God alongside other divine figures are considered kosher for non-Jews.

For example, see the Haketav Vehakabbalah on Deuteronomy 4:19. Not only does he support the view that the trinity is not avodah zara, and that early sources about avodah zara don't apply to Christians today, he writes that we must go further:

 ואין מהצורך לבאר כי כל המדובר בזה הוא על האומות הקדמונים שהיו מינים מכחישים בבריאת העולם וכדומה, מה שאין כן האומות שבזמנינו שאנחנו חוסים בארצותיהם שחייבים אנחנו לדרוש בטובתם ולהתפלל בשלומם. 

An amazing statement! In translation:

...The nations among whom we find refuge today in their lands, we are obligated to seek to their benefit and to pray for their welfare. 

He again repeats his praise for the nations we live among, in Exodus 12:43. He writes regarding the word Nochri, or Ben Nechar. He thinks this term applies to anyone, Jew or non-Jew, who denies God completely. But Christians today, he writes, believe in God:

 ולפי"ז אין בברכת שלא עשני נכרי שום פחיתות לכל האומות שאנחנו דרים ביניהם, כולם יודו באמתת המציאות, והמכחיש בזה גם בעיניהם הוא מבוזה, ועל השיתוף הם אינם מוזהרים 

And according to this, the blessing of "Who has not made me a Nochri" has absolutely no denigration of any of the nations among whom we live, all of them admit to the truth of God's existence, and deniers of this are an insult in their eyes as well, and regarding shituf, they too are not commanded.

Many have noted that he uses very similar language, loaning words and phrases to or from his commentary on the siddur, Iyun Tefillah. There, on the blessing of "Who has not made me a Nochri" as noted above, he says, does not refer to Christians today:

אמנם על האומות אשר אנחנו יושבים תחת צלם המודים במציאות אלהים ובהשגחתו המאמינים בהשארת הנפש שונאי גזל וחמס ומשפט חרוץ ביניהם על הגניבות ורציחה הדורשים טוב לעמים היושבים ביניהם באין הבדל לישראלי או לאינו ישראלי על אומות כאלה אמרו רבותינו ע"ז ג א נכרי העוסק בתורה בשבע מצוות שלהם הוא ככהן גדול וברייתא זו היא בתורת כהנים פרשת אחרי פרשה י"ג ומסיימים שם וז"ל וכן הוא אומר פתחו שערים ויבאו כהנים לויים וישראלים' לא נאמר אלא ויבא גוי צדיק שומר אמונים ישעיה בו ס וכן הוא אומר זה השער להשם כהנים לויים וישראלים' לא נאמר אלא צדיקים יבאו בו"' תהלים קיח כ וכן הוא אומר רננו"' כהנים לויים וישראלים' לא נאמר כאן אלא רננו צדיקים להשם לישרים נאוה תהלה"' תהלים לג א הטיבה ה' לטובים ולישרים בלבותם"' תהלים קבה ר הא אפילו גוי ועושה את התורה שבע מצוות שלהם הרי הוא ככהן גדול עכ"ל תורת כתנים עיין שם בתוספות ע"ז ג א ובסנהדרין נט דאיירי בשבע מצוות דידהו מבואר שעל כאלה לא נאמר כאין וכאפס ותהו נחשבו"' ... ובזה נשתתקו פיות המלשינים עלינו אצל האומות בברכה זו נגד אותן האומות המכחישים במציאות אלהים וכיוצא 

But the nations among whom we dwell under their protection, who admit to God and His providence, who believe in the immortality of the soul, who hate robbery and violence and they have resolved laws regarding theft and murder, who seek the benefit of peoples dwelling among them without distinguishing between Jews and non-Jews - regarding nations like these, our sages said in Avodah Zara 3a, "A Nochri who learns Torah (with their 7 commandments) is regarded like a High Priest." And this is in [Midrash] Torat Kohanim, Acharei Mot, Parsha 13, and it ends there by stating: And so does it say "Open the gates" - it doesn't say "and let come the Kohanim, Leviim, and Yisraelim," but rather, "and let come the righteous non-Jew, who is loyally faithful." (Isaiah 26:2) And so does it say, "This is the gate of God," - it doesn't say Kohanim, Leviim, Yisraelim, but rather "let come the righteous" (Psalms 118:20). Similarly, it says, "Let rejoice," - it does not say Kohanim Leviim Yisraelim, but rather, "Let rejoice the righteous for God, for the upright it is fitting there be praise." (Psalm 33:1)... And see Tosafot Avodah Zara 3a and Sanhedrin 59 which deal with the 7 [Noahide] commandments, where it is clarified that it means those who think that there is nothing.... And this will silence the complaints of the slanderers upon us among the nations with regard to this blessing that is against those nations who deny the existence of God. 

Rav Moshe Zuriel, in his collection and indexing of the Malbim and Haketav veHakabbalah, picks up on this last sentence. To him, the only explanation for Rav Mecklenberg's favorable position of Christianity is that he was afraid of enmity between Jews and non-Jews, and this last sentence clinches it. He writes:

 ולי המלקט נראה שהמחבר כתב דברי התנצלות הללו מחמת פחד שנאת אוה"ע וידועות הצרות הרבות שהצרו לעמנו ועיין כגון זה מה שהמליץ זכות הרשב"ץ (מגן אבות על אבות פרק א זהירין ברשות) על דברי רבנו יונה וכבר כתב כן חתם סופר (קובץ שו"ת שנת תשל"ג סי צ ) בענין דברי המאירי אודות הגדורים בדרכי הדתות (עיין מאמרו של הרד"צ הילמן צפונות גליון א עמי ס"ה) ועיין בזה דברי בית יוסף (טור חו"מ תחילת סי רס"ו במהד מכון ירושלים כי יש מהד שם צנזרו) דבארץ אדום היה המינים מבאישים ריחם של ישראל וכו עיי"ש שכתב כנ"ל שאץ הבדל בץ ימינו לימים קדמונים ולכן כאשר המחבר הביא שוב פרשנות זו בפירושו לסידור עיון תפלה סיים ובזה נשתתקו פיות המלשינים עלינו אצל האומות בברכה זו עכ"ל 

I'm not sure what pushes Rav Moshe Zuriel to determine this about Rav Mecklenberg. The only thing I can speculate is some preconceived notions about non-Jews and Christianity, and that it would be impossible for someone to believe what Rav Mecklenberg professes to believe.

If it was only these sources, then perhaps Rav Zuriel could be on solid ground in this thesis. Especially if he only said it in crucial areas where non-Jews point to the Jews as hating goyim, such as places that refer to belief in God, or that refer to non-Jews by the term Nochri. But there are so many times when the Haketav Vehakabbalah uses hs position on his matter to interpret the Torah, it's clearly not an enmity factor, but something he really believes. Rav Zuriel would have to say that Rav Mecklenberg said this in so many places just for enmity purposes?

For example, in Exodus 32:1, he thinks that the people who wanted to create a Golden Calf at Mount Sinai were the Mixed Multitude, who were Bnei Noach, so Aaron was allowed to assist them in making the Golden Calf since they Bnei Noach allowed to do shituf (before Matan Torah with actual idols).

In Numbers 15:22 he posits that if one believes in shituf out of honor of God, thinking this is a glory to God and His celestial creations, one cannot rationally believe that would be within the realm of avodah zara. Therefore, the Jews had to be informed via direct divine command, or they would not have believed it. He writes:

 והא דקפד קרא להודיע שענין קבלת מלכותו ית' לבדו בא אלינו מצד דבורו לבד הצווי, נ"ל טעם הדבר, כי עבודת השיתוף, אם אין דעת העובד להוציא א"ע מרשות אדון האדונים ב"ה רק מדמה שזהו כבודו של אל עליון לשבח ולפאר את צבאי מרום שמשמשים לפניו ית' במרומים, אין במשפט השכל הכרעה לאוסרה, לולי שהוא ית' אסרה לישראל שהוציאם ממצרים ושעשה להם הנפלאות האלה, אליהם צוה שלא יעמדו תחת ממשלת צבאי מרום ושלא יעבדו לזולת מן האמצעיים אף בשיתוף אף שלא יעשהו כ"א לכבודו ית'. ומטעם זה, אמר הר"ן בדרוש התשיעי אמרו רבותינו אנכי ולא יהיה לך מפי הגבורה שמענום, שמפני שהשכל הוא שופט ההפך משתי אלו המצות הוצרכנו שנשמעם מפי הגבורה 

Therefore, I believe Rav Zuriel is in the wrong here. It is clear Rav Mecklenberg believes what he says.

Some preliminary suggestions regarding Rav Mecklenberg and Christianity.

Firstly, his affinity for the works of Shadal are present throughout his writings. It is Shadal who vehemently protests assigning the curses of the Torah to Christians. See Shadal on Genesis 27:40, and see Dan Klein's footnote wondering what causes Shadal to write at length and with such language. See also the

It's also possible to relate this to what Jay Harris writes in "How Do We Know This?:  Midrash and the Fragmentation of Modern Judaism." There, around page 215-216, he writes that Rav Mecklenberg sees the Bible as purposefully ambivalent and ambiguous. Many sentences can have completely different meanings based on what one sees in it. But Rav Mecklenberg thinks that is in order to provide a meaning to tradition, and the challenge to people to agree to maintain and act according to that tradition of one particular way.

If so, it could be this presents a theological basis to see gentiles, who can interpret the Torah outside of our tradition, as also being correct. How can they be blamed for interpreting the Torah in a fashion that differs from the tradition Jews have? The Torah is purposefully confusing or multi-layered.

The Rambam and Chatzi Shiur on Pesach

The Rambam writes in Hilchot Chametz Umatza 1:7:

האוכל מן החמץ עצמו בפסח כל שהוא הרי זה אסור מן התורה שנאמר לא יאכל. ואף על פי כן אינו חייב כרת או קרבן אלא על כשיעור שהוא כזית. והאוכל פחות מכזית במזיד מכין אותו מכת מרדות:

Eating even the slightest amount of chametz itself on Pesach is forbidden by the Torah as [Exodus 13:3] states: "Do not eat [leaven]." Nevertheless, [a person who eats chametz] is not liable for כרת, nor must he bring a sacrifice for anything less than the specified measure, which is the size of an olive.

A person who intentionally violates the prohibition and eats less than an olive size of chametz is given "stripes for being rebellious."

It sounds like the Rambam is saying that eating even a small amount of chametz on Pesach is forbidden, based on the verse, "Lo Yeachel".

The problem everyone deals with is that the issue of eating less than a proper measure (a kezayit) of forbidden food, for example half a kazayit of pork, is forbidden based on other verses, as we see in several places in the Talmud. So why specify this truth when it comes to chametz?

Yoma 74a states that according to R’ Yochanan, having less than a full shiur of forbidden food (called "chatzi shiur") is prohibited on a Torah level, based on a verse, "kol chelev." The context of that Gemara is the issue of eating less than a kezayit on Yom Kippur. There is also a sevara provided, that of "chazi le'etzrufei" - it's fit to combine. This ambiguous sevara is explained by Rabbi Daniel Z Feldman thus:

1. Potato chip sevara - you wont stop with one, a fence. This sounds like a d’rabbanan, but it can fit in the d’oriata if you believe Rav Engel that there are fences in the Torah
2. Marijuana sevara - there’s a certain amount prosecutable, but the President couldn’t come out and smoke less, we would find it inappropriate despite the fact he won’t be arrested. So the fact that its assur at some amount can mean that less than that, though no onesh, can be bad as well.

So we know this globally, yet Rambam makes a new source and specifies this for chametz especially, when its known for all forbidden foods. The way the Kesef Mishnah puts it as this, and he leaves it as a question:

• קשיא לי למה לי קרא בחמץ בפסח הא בכל איסורין שבתורה קי"ל חצי שיעור אסור מה"ת. ועוד קשה דאי מקרא איפכא ה"ל למילף מיניה דלא יאכל שיעור אכילה משמע וצ"ע.

First, why give us a new source for chatzi shiur as applied to chametz? Second, doesn't "don't eat" as a source imply exactly the opposite, that it has to be a kezayit shiur or more to violate, since that's the definition of eating? He leaves it as a mystery, "tzarich iyyun."

(Interestingly, the Ralbag in his Toalot on Exodus 13:3 states the same derasha that "lo yeachel" means that one cannot have less than a kezayit of chametz on Pesach. Does he get this from the Rambam, or do they get it from a common source?)

The following is a listing of the different answers to this question:

1. Mishneh Lamelech quotes the Maharlenach who says (in his teshuvah which I looked up he calls this an "umad", a guess) that Chametz is different than regular forbidden foods since Chametz is only forbidden during Pesach but not before or after.
   
   The big question on the Maharlenach is why this should matter for the Rambam - what about only being forbidden temporarily, makes it more necessary to have its own unique source that less than a kezayit is forbidden? Maybe one way to put this is whether there is an isser gavra or isser cheftza. When it comes to pork, that's an isser cheftza. The thing itself is assur, always. But chametz is assur only for seven days - it's an isser gravra, on people for seven days. Because this is a different type of isser, the Rambam needed a different verse.
   
   The way the Meharlenach puts it is that one might think we can be more lenient on chametz, since its temporary, than on other always-forbidden items. Why this should be so, he doesn't say. I guess the sevara might be that if we consider something permitted year-round, it can't be that bad.
   
   Everyone asks on the Meharlenach, that the gemara talks about chatzi shiur for Yom Kippur - and that's just one day! This would mean that the isser cheftza / isser gavra distinction also falls away there.
   -
2. Mishnah Lamelech quotes the Re'em that the Torah says "lo ye'achel", means that even less than a kazayit of chametz would get karet, and the halacha is upending this by saying it has to be a kazayit. This is only so for chametz. Chatzi shiur works the other way for other forbidden foods, where the Torah says a kazayit is bad and the derasha makes it that less than a kazayit is bad. When the gemara on Chatzi shiur provides the sevara of chazi le'etzrufei, it can be combined, that is to say that the gemara needs a sevara why we are making a derasha at all that is more machmir than the Torah itself about what is problematic.
   -
3. The Ohr Sameach (Meshech Chochma) has an interesting answer. The command of not eating chametz was while the people were still in Egypt, and applied only to them, for just the one day of eating the paschal offering. This was eventually transferred to the future of not having chametz the whole Pesach. However, the Rambam's opinion is well-known that Bnei Noach have no shiurim like kezayit or beitzah, it is any amount of ever min hachai, etc, that they sin by. If so, chametz is special in that we were commanded any amount to begin with, so there is no need for the derasha. He raises the question, then shouldn't one violate eating the Pesach incorrectly even with any amount? He says the paschal offering is different, since we have a derasha that it can't be slaughtered in the first place until it is assured that the person eating it will have a kazayit, so the measurement is built in.
   -
4. The Adnei Yad Hachazakah answers by providing a girsa he found in the Munich manuscript - "האוכל מן החמץ עצמו בפסח כל שהוא ה"ז אסור מה"ת, ואעפ"כ אינו חייב כרת או קרבן אלא על כשיעור שהוא כזית, שנאמר לא יאכל. לפי גירסא זו המעתיקים טעו והביאו את הפסוק לא יאכל במקומו הלא נכון. לפי"ז אין כל קושיא על רבנו.", which takes the "lo yeachel" and puts it onto the end about karet requiring a kezayit. Although I think this doesn't answer the question, what made the Rambam write it here when it is well-known for all forbidden foods?
   -
5. Ohr Hayashar answers that the Rambam is not talking about chatzi shiur, or isser achilah. He is talking about the isser hanaah on Pesach - even a little bit is getting some hanaah from the food. He says this works especially because the Rambam in Halacha 2 uses this exact pasuk to refer to hanaah. He says this is a great flow - Firstly, even a little is violating the isser of hanaa. Next step is that if you have more you are getting karet and korban. Next step after that is that the punishment of the isser of hanaa that you violate is makat mardut since there is no action with hanaah. (The Beer Eliezer almost comes onto this answer, but fumbles with this realization. He points out that the Rambam indeed paskens in Berachot 1:2 that one need to make a beracha even on the smallest amount, since you have gained hanaah in eating even a small amount.)
   
   The Derech Hamelech suggests similarly. The gemara Pesachim 21 states that Chizkiya learns out the prohibition of hanaah from "lo yeachel." Rashi comments that the pasuk means to say, in this interpretation, that one shouldn't do things that might lead to eating, including buying etc. If so, this can happen less than a kazayit, even though eating itself is only a kazayit and above.
   -
6. The Orah Vesimcha says (and I've seen this around elsewhere) that the derasha of "kol chelev" that chatzi shiur is asser from the Torah is a revelation that the Torah considers any amount of eating prohibited. The pasuk of "kol chelev" is therefore telling you that the concept of a kezayit is for punishment, but not for the actual isser itself. What this means is that "kol chelev" reveals to us that every prohibited "achilah" in the Torah is teaching us that it is forbidden even chatzi shiur. Thus, when the Rambam says that the Torah says "lo yeachel" to tell us chatzi shiur for chametz, this is in fact exactly what the gemara was saying, and all is good.
   -
7. The Binyan Yehoshua asks a great question. He asks, what is the point of the machloket of Bet Shamai and Bet Hillel in Beitza (first mishnah), which is explained on 7b to be a machloket whether you violate bal yeraeh with a kezayit or a date size. I.e., what is the amount to violate the lav. The question is, we know that you don't get whipped for bal yeraeh, since its a lav that is nitak le'aseh, (Pesachim 95a). And if we take chatzi shiur seriously from the Torah, as the Rambam apparently does based on the gemara, and we know that you already violate bal yeraeh with chatzi shiur, what is the nafka mina here? You violate with a lot or a little, with a kezayit or even more. Three answers present themselves to me. One is that chatzi shiur only applies to food and the eating of it. This answer enters into the machloket if there is chatzi shiur in issurim in general. The second answer is that though there is no nafka mina in this machloket, it is something we would like to know if you violate two issurim, both chatzi shiur, and then when you have the rest, bal yiraeh, or only one chatzi shiur. This is relevant to korbanot, etc. The last answer is that the Aruch Hashulchan, based on rishonim, argues vigorously that you do indeed get malkut for bal yeraeh in certain cases.
   -
8. The Shaar Hamelech asks how the Rambam could look to "lo yeachel" as a source, when the Yerushalmi Orla explores "lo yeachel" and offers different limmudim for it, but not one of them is chatzi shiur. One of them is the isser to feed it to someone else. This leads the Binyan Shlomo to find this as the source, by trying to fit the sevaras together. It is true that "achilah" is only with a kezayit. But "feeding someone" can be with even less than that. And so the Rambam wanted to relate that within the din of "maachil", there is an isser, which isn't so for other maachalos asuros.
   -
9. The Radvaz says that the Rambam needed another source for chatzi shir here, because the original source for chatzi shiur is only when it is the thing completely (ba'ein), but the Rambam wanted to include if its a taaruvot or somesuch.
   -
10. Yismach Yisrael suggests that perhaps the Rambam holds that when it comes to mitzvot, one cannot accomplish anything by doing chatzi shiur. So, for example, one accomplishes nothing by eating less than a kezayit of matza on the seder night. And since we know that the mitzvah of matzah and the isser of chametz are learned out from each other, one might think that since there is no chatzi shiur for the mitzvah, there is no chatzi shiur for the aveira, and so the Rambam provided a source to show this isn't so.
    -
11. Rav Feldman suggested (probably from a source, but don't remember) that maybe for the Rambam, chatzi shiur of pork isn't pork, but it is forbidden nonetheless. But when it comes to chametz chatzi shiur of chametz retains its identity of chametz, and the Rambam wanted to demonstrate that fact. Rav Feldman says there's a nafka mina. We know, the Mishna discusses, that if we have to allow someone to violate because of some necessity, we want them to do the least issur possible. So someone who has to eat something because they are sick should seek the less-assur thing. So Ramban says we allow people to do chatzi shiur if they are sick on Yom Kippur. Why then do we care what level isser it is? It should be as if it doesn’t exist! They’re called chatzi shiur, not a connection to pork or chelev or whatever. The Ramban has two answers. First, he says it could be the premise is wrong, and they retain their identities. The second answer is that his premise is correct, and the Mishna talks about someone who is so sick they can’t have those waiting periods of chatzi shiur, and therefore the full amount should have the lesser isser sought. So whether it retains the same assur identity matters
    -
12. Avnei Nezer suggests that "chatzi shiur" literally means “half” for some rishonim, such as the Rambam. Therefore the Rambam needed a special limmud to show its a fraction for chametz.
    -
13. My friend and colleague, Tuvy Miller, suggests roughly that Chametz is different than other issurei achilah, in that Chametz has additional aspects - don't own, don't gain hanaa, destroy it. It could be that the category Chametz is in should not fully be a "maachalot assurot" category, but something more akin to "avoda zara", which has these aspects as well. If so, there needs to be a different limud for something not really in the category of the gemara's limud.
    -
14. The Aruch Hashulchan, and other acharonim (Tzlach, Chatam Sofer), suggest that the sevara for general "chatzi shiur" is the concept of "chazi le'etzrufei" - it can combine to form the isser. So the Aruch Hashulchan says the Rambam is concerned that this sevara can't be used for Pesach because there is a moment in Pesach when "chazi le'etzrufei" won't work as a sevara. That is, the last second before Pesach is over. If you take a bite of less than a kazayit right before the end of Pesach, there is no chance for chazi le'etzrufei. Since there is a moment when chazi le'etzrufei is inapplicable, the Rambam had to come up with a different source for chametz and Pesach. This could be understood two ways. 1) Either the sevara itself is inapplicable for chametz, and has to be a different source, or 2) that one might think that the last second is permitted to eat less than a kazayit, and this derasha covers even that last second.
    
    The issue with this answer is that this should be so for Yom Kippur - the last second of Yom Kippur would also have this issue - yet the gemara says chazi le'etzrufei exactly in this context!
    
    So I have a hard time with this answer. Especially given that the Aruch Hashulchan criticizes the Meharlnach for exactly this issue - that he had suggested chametz is temporary while pork is always, and the Aruch Hashulchan had said that Yom Kippur is temporary too, yet chatzi shiur applies anyway in the gemara!
    
    The only answer I can come up with is that there is a concept of mosif Yom Kippur. So if you eat something the last second of Yom Kippur, you're in essence saying that you want to violate Yom Kippur, and therefore Yom Kippur is "mosif" to allow you to do so.
    
    The Node B'Yehuda actually asks a similar question. We know that chatzi shiur applies to Nazirut. So at the end of 30 days, he could also have wine the last moment of the 30 days and Chazi Le'etzrufei shouldn't apply as well? The Noda B'yehuda answers that since he could extend his nazirut immediately, by declaring it, the concept of chazi le'etzrufei still applies. So maybe we could apply this to being mosif Yom Kippur.
    
    Perhaps we'll say that the issur of chametz can't be extended past Pesach (even while the isser melacha could, possibly).
    -
15. Leshed Hashemen says that the Rambam likes giving pesukim that support his statement, even if they aren't the actual source.

Teaching about Bitzua

I learned with my group a gemara quoting the Tosefta about Bitzua (generally translated as compromise) in relation to the verse in Psalms 10:3:

כִּי הִלֵּל רָשָׁע עַל תַּאֲוַת נַפְשׁוֹ וּבֹצֵעַ בֵּרֵךְ נִאֵץ יְהוָה

For the wicked boasts of the desires of his soul, and the Botzea blessed and blasphemes God.

I left Botzea untranslated, for the Tosefta quotes several rabbinic interpretations of this, Sanhedrin 6b:

רבי אליעזר בנו של רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר: אסור לבצוע, וכל הבוצע - הרי זה חוטא, וכל המברך את הבוצע - הרי זה מנאץ, ועל זה נאמר (תהלים י') בצע ברך נאץ ה', אלא: יקוב הדין את ההר, שנאמר (דברים א') כי המשפט לאלהים הוא, וכן משה היה אומר יקוב הדין את ההר, אבל אהרן אוהב שלום ורודף שלום, ומשים שלום בין אדם לחבירו, שנאמר (מלאכי ב') תורת אמת היתה בפיהו ועולה לא נמצא בשפתיו בשלום ובמישור הלך אתי ורבים השיב מעון. 

רבי אליעזר אומר: הרי שגזל סאה של חטים וטחנה ואפאה והפריש ממנה חלה, כיצד מברך? אין זה מברך אלא מנאץ, ועל זה נאמר: ובוצע ברך נאץ ה'. 

רבי מאיר אומר: לא נאמר בוצע אלא כנגד יהודה, שנאמר (בראשית ל"ז) ויאמר יהודה אל אחיו מה בצע כי נהרג את אחינו, וכל המברך את יהודה - הרי זה מנאץ, ועל זה נאמר: ובצע ברך נאץ ה'.

Soncino translates:
R`Eliezer the son of R`Jose the Galilean says: It is forbidden to botzea, and he who is botzea blasphemes, and whoever blesses such a botzea blasphemes the Lord, for it is written, He that blesseth a botzea, blasphemes God. But let the law cut through the mountain, for it is written, For the judgment is God's. And so Moses's motto was: Let the law cut through the mountain. Aaron, however, loved peace and pursued peace and made peace between man and man, as it is written, The law of truth was in his mouth, unrighteousness was not found in his lips, he walked with Me in peace and uprightness and did turn many away from iniquity. 

R`Eliezer says: If one stole a se'ah [a measure] of wheat, ground and baked it and set apart the Hallah, what benediction can he pronounce? This man would not be blessing, but contemning, and of him it is written, The robber [bozea'] who blesseth, contemneth the Lord. 

R`Meir says: This text refers to none but Judah, for it is written, And Judah said to his brethren, What profit [beza'] is it if we slay our brother? And whosoever praises Judah, blasphemes, as it is written, He who praiseth the man who is greedy of gain [bozea'] contemneth the Lord.

So how can the gemara completely change what botzea is for the derasha?

Rashi takes the tack that botzea is actually used in Tanach in three different ways, one of compromise, one of thievery, and one of profit, and quotes verses to prove his case.

If we were to say it a different way, the precise translation of botzea is to split. So one translation is to compromise and split between two wills. Another is to split something away from the possession of another. And the last is to split profit, and then transferred to the profit itself.

But for posterity, my group at SAR found a different way to go about this puzzling gemara. The gemara here forbids compromise, yet later we find that peshara is encouraged. Not only that, but this gemara here seems to place bitzua as an Aaron activity, and is that saying that Aaron was wrong? There are several answers to this contradiction. My group thought of an original one. Peshara is encouraged. Compromise is good, when two parties agree to find a way to a resolution of their fight. But compromising values is bad. We will see how this is true for the second two interpretations, and then I'll add what my group couldn't answer, the first.

Rabbi Eliezer says that the thief who wants to be mafrish challah and makes a beracha over his stolen goods is a blasphemer. It would seem that this is not a direct translation of botzea, but applying a case to it. A person who compromises, and says, I will sin and violate ben adam lechaveros, but I will still bless God and do the ben adam lemakoms, is a blasphemer. He thinks he's praising God? He's doing the opposite. God does not want that. He compromises between his values, and lives a life of sinning, but still wants to do some religious good, is forbidden.

Rabbi Meir says that, again, not as a direct translation of botzea, but applying Yehudah to this standard. Yehudah thought he could effect compromise of values. We won't kill him, but we will sell him. That is inappropriate! One must stand up for what's right. Yehudah should have absolutely taken Yosef's side, but failed in his moral responsibility. Compromise in values ben adam lechavero is forbidden!

So too when it comes to the law. Moshe said the absolute law can cut through mountains. Values don't go by the wayside but are incorporated into the absolute law. But Aaron felt there was a difference between absolute law and meta-halachic issues when it effects people. He tried to create shalom, but very often he bent the law to meet the people's demands. He helped perform a golden calf when the people demanded. And so, compromise of moral values to meet the demand of people is forbidden!

So really, all three cases are ones of "compromise".

Let us set this up as a progression...

A Sourcesheet for Avimi's Discovery

For a theoretical shiur on the previous post:

Avimi’s Idea

An Examination of a Mysterious Passage

1. Kiddushin 31b

יומא חד אמר ליה אשקיין מיא אדאייתי ליה נמנם גחין קאי עליה עד דאיתער איסתייעא מילתיה ודרש אבימי מזמור לאסף

One day [Avimi's father] said to him, "Pour me water." While he was bringing it to him, he [his father] fell asleep. He bent, standing over him, until he would awake. He received support for the matter and Avimi expounded Mizmor L'Asaf.

2. Rashi ad. loc.

He received support for the matter - While he was bent before him, that he understood the study of one Mizmor in the book of Psalms that he had not understood beforehand to explain it. And some interpret that he only expounded one - (Psalm 79) Mizmor L'Asaf, "God, the nations invaded your inheritance," - It should have stated Kinah L'asaf, Lament for Asaf. He expounded such that Asaf says a song on the fact that God consumed His anger on wood and stone that was in His house, and because of this exonerated the survivors in Israel, for were it not for this, Israel [lit. the enemies of Israel] would not have left any survivors. And this is what it says, (Lamentations 4:11) “The Lord has spent His fury, He has poured out His fierce anger, and He has kindled a fire in Zion.”

איסתייעא מילתא. בעודו גחין לפניו שהבין במדרש מזמור אחד שבספר תהלים שלא היה מבין בו קודם לכן לדורשו וי"מ שמקרא זה לבדו דרש מזמור לאסף אלהים באו גוים בנחלתך וגו' קינה לאסף מיבעי ליה ודרש כך שאמר אסף שירה על שכילה הקב"ה חמתו בעצים ואבנים שבביתו ומתוך כך הותיר פליטה בישראל שאלמלא כך לא נשתייר משונאי ישראל שריד וכן הוא אומר כלה ה' את חמתו ויצת אש בציון (איכה ד)

3. Eichah Rabbah 4:14

והדין: כלה ה' את חמתו שפך חרון אפו ויצת אש בציון. כתיב: (תהלים ע"ט) מזמור לאסף אלהים באו גוים בנחלתך. לא הוה קרא צריך למימר, אלא בכי לאסף, נהי לאסף, קינה לאסף. ומה אומר מזמור לאסף? אלא משל למלך שעשה בית חופה לבנו וסיידה וכיידה וציירה, ויצא בנו לתרבות רעה. מיד עלה המלך לחופה וקרע את הוילאות ושיבר את הקנים. ונטל פדגוג שלו איבוב של קנים והיה מזמר. אמרו לו: המלך הפך חופתו של בנו ואת יושב ומזמר? אמר להם: מזמר אני שהפך חופתו של בנו ולא שפך חמתו על בנו. כך אמרו לאסף הקדוש ברוך הוא החריב היכל ומקדש ואתה יושב ומזמר? אמר להם: מזמר אני ששפך הקדוש ברוך הוא חמתו על העצים ועל האבנים, ולא שפך חמתו על ישראל. הדא הוא דכתיב: ויצת אש בציון ותאכל יסודותיה.

(Lamentations 4:11) “The Lord has spent His fury, He has poured out His fierce anger, and He has kindled a fire in Zion.” It is written, “A song of Asaf, God, the nations invaded Your inheritance.” It should have said “A cry of Asaf,” “A wail of Asaf”, “A lament of Asaf.” What does it mean, “A song of Asaf”? Rather, it is like a king who makes a wedding canopy for his son, and plasters and sets it and forms it, and his son then goes bad. Immediately the king goes to the canopy, and tears the curtains and breaks the reed staves. The son’s tutor takes the reeds and starts singing. They said to him, “The king turns over his son’s canopy and you sit here singing?” He said to them, “I sing that he turned over his son’s canopy and he did not pour out his anger on his son.” So did they say to Asaf, God destroys his sanctuary and Temple and you sit here singing? He said to them, I am singing that God poured out his anger on wood and stone, and did not pour his anger on Israel. This is what it is written, “ He has kindled a fire in Zion, which has consumed her foundations.”

4. Makkot 24a-b

And once Rabban Gamaliel, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, Rabbi Joshua, and Rabbi Akiva, were traveling together, when they heard the sound of the crowds of Rome from the plaza one hundred and twenty miles away. They started to cry, but Rebbi Akiva was laughing. They said to him, Why are you laughing? He said to them, And you, why do you weep? They told him, these gentiles that bow down to wood and burn frankincense to idolatry are living in peace and tranquility. While us, our house - the footstool of our God is burnt in fire, and we should not cry!? He responded to them, That is why I am laughing. If this is what happens to those who transgress His will, how much so to those who fulfill His will! Another time, they were ascending to Jerusalem. When they came to Har haTzofim, they tore their clothes. When they reached the Temple Mount, they saw a fox emerging from the place of the Holy of Holies. They started to cry, but Rabbi Akiva was laughing. The other sages said to him, Why are you laughing? He said to them, Why do you weep? They replied, The place about which was written (Numbers 1:51) "and the non-Kohen that draws near shall be put to death", is now a haunt of foxes and we should not weep!? He replied, That is why I laugh. It is written (Isaiah 8:2) "and I will take unto Me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Yeberechiahu." Now what was the connection between Uriah and Zechariah? Uriah was during the period of the First Temple, and Zechariah was during the period of the Second Temple. Rather, the verse was making the prophecy of Zechariah dependent on the prophecy of Uriah. Regarding Uriah, it is written, (Micah 3:12) Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed etc.". Regarding Zechariah it is written (Zechariah 8:4) "There shall yet old men and old women sit in the broad places of Jerusalem. Until the prophecy of Uriah was fulfilled, I was afraid that the prophecy of Zechariah would likewise be unfulfilled. Now that the prophecy of Uriah was fulfilled, I know that the prophecy of Zechariah will be fulfilled. In this way they answered him, Akiva, you have consoled us. Akiva, you have consoled us.

וכבר היה ר"ג ורבי אלעזר בן עזריה ורבי יהושע ורבי עקיבא מהלכין בדרך ושמעו קול המונה של רומי מפלטה [ברחוק] מאה ועשרים מיל והתחילו בוכין ורבי עקיבא משחק אמרו לו מפני מה אתה משחק אמר להם ואתם מפני מה אתם בוכים אמרו לו הללו כושיים שמשתחוים לעצבים ומקטרים לעבודת כוכבים יושבין בטח והשקט ואנו בית הדום רגלי אלהינו שרוף באש ולא נבכה אמר להן לכך אני מצחק ומה לעוברי רצונו כך לעושי רצונו על אתת כמה וכמה שוב פעם אחת היו עולין לירושלים כיון שהגיעו להר הצופים קרעו בגדיהם כיון שהגיעו להר הבית ראו שועל שיצא מבית קדשי הקדשים התחילו הן בוכין ור"ע מצחק אמרו לו מפני מה אתה מצחק אמר להם מפני מה אתם בוכים אמרו לו מקום שכתוב בו (במדבר א, נא) והזר הקרב יומת ועכשיו שועלים הלכו בו ולא נבכה אמר להן לכך אני מצחק דכתיב (ישעיהו ח, ב) ואעידה לי עדים נאמנים את אוריה הכהן ואת זכריה בן יברכיהו וכי מה ענין אוריה אצל זכריה אוריה במקדש ראשון וזכריה במקדש שני אלא תלה הכתוב נבואתו של זכריה בנבואתו של אוריה באוריה כתיב (מיכה ג, יב) לכן בגללכם ציון שדה תחרש [וגו'] בזכריה כתיב (זכריה ח, ד) עוד ישבו זקנים וזקנות ברחובות ירושלם עד שלא נתקיימה נבואתו של אוריה הייתי מתיירא שלא תתקיים נבואתו של זכריה עכשיו שנתקיימה נבואתו של אוריה בידוע שנבואתו של זכריה מתקיימת בלשון הזה אמרו לו עקיבא ניחמתנו עקיבא ניחמתנו:

Haggadah

It happened that Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarphon were reclining [at a seder] in B'nei Berak, and they were discussing the exodus from Egypt all that night

"מעשה ברבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע ורבי אלעזר בן עזריה ורבי עקיבה ורבי טרפון שהיו מסובין בבני ברק, והיו מספרין ביציאת מצרים כל אותו הלילה...

Tosefta Pesachim 10:8

A person is obligated to delve into the laws of the Pesach the whole night, even between himself and his son, even just himself, even himself and his student. A story happened with Rabban Gamliel and the elders who were reclining [at a seder] in Boetheus ben Zonin in Lud, and they were delving into the laws of the Pesach the whole night, until the rooster crowed.

חייב אדם [לעסוק בהלכות הפסח] כל הלילה אפילו בינו לבין בנו אפילו בינו לבין עצמו אפילו בינו לבין תלמידו. מעשה ברבן גמליאל וזקנים שהיו מסובין בבית ביתוס בן זונין בלוד והיו [עסוקין בהלכות הפסח] כל הלילה עד קרות הגבר

Sukkah 27b

Our Rabbis have taught: It once happened that R. Ila'i went to pay his respects to R. Eliezer his master in Lud on a Festival. He said to him, ‘Ila'i, you are not of those that rest on the Festival’, for R. Eliezer used to say, ‘I praise the lazy who do not leave their houses on the Festival since it is written, 'And thou shalt rejoice, thou and thy household'.

ת"ר מעשה בר' אלעאי שהלך להקביל פני ר' אליעזר רבו בלוד ברגל אמר לו אלעאי אינך משובתי הרגל שהיה ר' אליעזר אומר משבח אני את העצלנין שאין יוצאין מבתיהן ברגל דכתיב (דברים יד, כו) ושמחת אתה וביתך

Mishnah Maaser Sheni 5:9

(9) Someone whose fruits were far away from him, must designate them. It happened that Rabban Gamliel and the elders were traveling by ship. Rabban Gamliel said: The tenth that I will measure in the future is given to Joshua and its location is rented to him. Another tenth that I will measure in the future is given to Akiva ben Joseph that he should receive it on behalf of the poor and its location is rented to him. Rabbi Joshua said: The tenth that I will measure in the future is given to Elazar ben Azaria and its location is rented to him. And they each received payment from each other.

(ט) מי שהיו פרותיו רחוקים ממנו, צריך לקרות להם שם.מעשה ברבן גמליאל והזקנים שהיו באין בספינה, אמר רבן גמליאל, עשור שאני עתיד למוד, נתון ליהושע ומקומו משכר לו.עשור אחר שאני עתיד למוד, נתון לעקיבא בן יוסף שיזכה בו לעניים, ומקומו משכר לו.אמר רבי יהושע, עשור שאני עתיד למוד נתון לאלעזר בן עזריה, ומקומו משכר לו.ונתקבלו זה מזה שכר .

Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 41a

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel went to Rome...

רבי ליעזר ורבי יהושע ורבן גמליאל סלקון לרומי ...

Exodus Rabbah 30:9

It happened that Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, and Rabbi Akiva went to Rome...

מעשה ברבן גמליאל ור' יהושע ור"א בן עזריה ור' עקיבא שהלכו לרומי

Sukkah 23a

This is the general rule:  in any case in which if the tree was removed the [sukkah] could stand on its own, it is valid and one may go up into it on the festival.   GEMARA. According to whom is our Mishnah? According to R. Akiva,  as it has been taught,  He who builds his Sukkah on the deck of a ship, R. Gamaliel declares it invalid and R. Akiva valid. It happened with R. Gamaliel and R. Akiba when they were journeying on a ship that R. Akiva got up and built a sukkah on the deck of the ship. The next day the wind blew and tore it away.  R. Gamaliel said to him,  Akiva, where is your Sukkah?

זה הכלל כל שינטל האילן ויכולה לעמוד בפני עצמה כשרה ועולין לה ביום טוב: גמ' מני מתניתין רבי עקיבא היא דתניא העושה סוכתו בראש הספינה רבן גמליאל פוסל ור"ע מכשיר מעשה ברבן גמליאל ור"ע שהיו באין בספינה עמד ר"ע ועשה סוכה בראש הספינה למחר נשבה רוח ועקרתה אמר לו רבן גמליאל עקיבא היכן סוכתך

Sanhedrin 32b

The rabbis taught: "Justice, justice shall you pursue..." - Follow after the sages to the academy. After Rabbi Eliezer to Lud... After Rabbi Yehoshua to Peki'in. After Rabban Gamliel to Yavneh. After Rabbi Akiva to Bnei Brak.

ת"ר צדק צדק תרדף הלך אחר חכמים לישיבה אחר ר' אליעזר ללוד ... אחר רבי יהושע לפקיעין אחר רבן גמליאל ליבנא אחר רבי עקיבא לבני ברק.

Tosafot ad. loc.

But there is a Midrash that Asaf said song because the gates sank into the ground. It is compared to a maidservant who went to draw water from the well and whose pitcher fell into the well. She became distraught and began to cry - until the king’s maidservant came to draw water carrying a golden pitcher, and it too, fell into the well. At which point the first maidservant began to sing. ‘Till now’, she exclaimed, I didn’t think that anybody would retrieve my cheap earthenware pitcher from the well. But now, whoever retrieves the golden pitcher, will retrieve mine as well!’ In the same way, when the sons of Korach, who were swallowed up inside the earth, saw how the gates of the Temple sunk into the ground, proclaimed ‘Whoever rescues the gates will also rescue us!’ That explains why Asaf, who was from the family of Korach, said ‘Mizmor.’

אך יש במדרש שאסף אמר שירה על שטבעו בארץ שעריה משל לשפחה שהלכה לשאוב מים מן הבאר ונפל כדה לבאר והיתה מצטערת ובוכה עד שבאתה שפחת המלך לשאוב ובידה כלי של זהב ונפל אותו כלי שם התחילה הראשונה לשורר ואמרה עד עכשיו לא הייתי סבורה שיוציא שום אדם כדי שהוא של חרס מן הבאר שאינו נחשב ועכשיו מי שיוציא אותו של זהב יוציא כדי עמו כך בני קרח שהיו בלועים כשראו שטבעו בארץ שעריה אמרו שירה אמרו מי שיוציא השערים יוציא גם אותנו לכך אמר אסף מזמור שהוא ממשפחת קרח:

Meharsha ad. loc.

Tosafot's explanation is better; because Avimi fulfilled the commandment of Kibud  Av, he merited to this derasha, that he expounded that Asaf said Mizmor because of the honor of his father's household who were swallowed, that they would rise with the gates may it come speedily in our days.

לפי' התוס' ניחא משום דקיים אבימי מצות כבוד אב זכה להך דרשא שדרש שאמר אסף מזמור משום כבוד בית אבותיו הבלועים שיעלו עם השערים בב"י

Ritva ad. loc. (like Tosafot)

But in the Yerushalmi, he expounded another matter, that since Asaf, who was from the descendants of Korach, saw that the gates of the Temple sunk into the ground, he became happy, and he said, “The One who will eventually raise these gates will raise my grandfather.” It is compared to a poor man’s daughter who was drawing water from a well with a wooden bucket, and it falls into the well, and she cried. The king's daughter then came and drew with a golden bucket, and it fell into the well. When she saw that, the poor daughter became happy. She said, the one who will retrieve the bucket of the king’s daughter will bring mine up as well.

אבל בירושלמי דריש בענין אחר דכיון שראה אסף שהיה מבני קרח שטבעו לארץ שערי בית המקדש שמח ואמר מי שעתיד להעלות שערים אלו עתיד להעלות אבי אבא, משל לבת עניים שהיתה דולה מים מן הבור בדלי של עץ ונפל הדלי בבור והיתה בוכה באה בת המלך לדלות בדלי של זהב ונפל בבור כיון שראתה בת עניים שמחה אמרה מי שיעלה דלי של בת המלך יעלה שלי.

Pnei Yehoshua ad. loc.

See Rashi, and Tosafot, and the Chiddushei Aggadot of the Meharsha z”l. In my humble opinion, it seems to be that the simple explanation is that regarding Avimi fulfilling the commandment of Kibud very well, that after he had brought the water requested of him, he added to that by standing over him until he awoke, that was not necessary except to fulfill the commandment on an extra level. He perceived this, and merited to understand Mizmor L’asaf. This is not Mizmor 79 that Rashi and Tosafot say, but rather Mizmor 73, which is the beginning of the words of Asaf, who says (73:2-3) “But as for me, my feet had almost turned away, in an instant my steps would have been swept away. For I envied the perverse; I would see the tranquility of the wicked.” That whole Mizmor is about being very pained about the length of the exile, like it is also written, (73:17) “Until I came to the sanctuaries of God, and I understood their end.” Almost all Mizmor L’asaf chapters are about the length of the last exile by the hands of the descendants of Esau, and that Mizmor ends, “You lead me with Your counsel, and after honor You receive for me.” And there is a Midrash, “Said Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira, “You lead me with your counsel of the Torah, after (achar) honor You receive for me, the great honor that Esau did for his parents, that You will eventually grant us. Rav Huna said in the name of R. Nechunya, The honor of Jacob was delayed (icher) in this world, because of the great honor that Esau showed his parents,” see at length in the Yalkut. And what we find with Esau is exactly what is described in the story of Avimi, who got up for his father, and would always feed him and give him drink. And if so, with this did Avimi gain “support for the matter”, that he understood in the lines of Asaf in those Mizmors. That is, it states “Mizmor L’asaf” because all Esau had as good deeds was this honor, which gave him such prosperity in this world, and from  that you can learn the great merit of the righteous in this world and the next, which is how the Midrash ends, “After honor You receive for me,” that You will eventually grant to us. So it seems to me as correct, with God’s help, were it not for Rashi and Tosafot writing differently, that it refers to Psalm 79, and even according to what I wrote it makes sense to also refer to Mizmor 79, but it seems that the real main derash [of Avimi] is the beginning of the Mizmor L’asafs. And it’s possible that all of these are the same, and you should look and you will find, and perhaps the Omnipresent granted me from Heaven with this [idea].

עיין פרש"י ותוספות ובחידושי אגדות למהרש"א ז"ל. ולענ"ד נראה לפרש בפשיטות דבמה שהיה אבימי מקיים מאד מצות כיבוד דלאחר שהביא לו המים שביקש ממנו עוד הוסיף וקאי עליו עד דאיתער שהיה שלא לצורך אלא לקיים המצוה בלבד במדה יתירה בדבר זה ראה מעשה ונזכה להבין המזמור לאסף, ולאו היינו מזמור ע"ט שכתבו רש"י ותוספות אלא מזמור ע"ג שהן תחילת דבריו של אסף שאמר ואני כמעט נטיו רגלי כי קנאתי בהוללים וגומר הנה אלה רשעים וכל המזמור שהיה מצטער מאד על אריכות הגלות כדכתיב נמי עד אבא אל מקדשי אל אבינה לאחריתם וכמעט רוב מזמורי אסף בספר שני הכל על אריכות הגלות האחרון ביד בני עשו ומסיים שם באותו המזמור בעצתך תנחני ואחר כבוד תקחני ואיתא במדרש אמר ר' יהודה בן בתירה בעצת תורה תנחני ואחר כבוד תקחני כבוד גדול שכיבד עשו את הוריו שאתה עתיד לעלותינו, רב הונא בשם רבי נחוניא איחר כבודו של יעקב בעוה"ז בשביל כיבוד גדול שכיבד עשו את הוריו ע"ש בילקוט עוד באריכות והיינו ממש כעין עובדא דאבימי מצינן נמי בעשו שקם על אביו והיה מאכילו ומשקהו תמיד וא"כ בהאי מילתא מסתייע מילתא דאבימי שהבין במזמור פסוקי אסף והיינו נמי דכתיב מזמור לאסף דכיון שלא מצינו לעשו אלא מצוה זו מכבוד ניתן לו שלוה כ"כ בעוה"ז ומהן אתה למד מתן שכרן של צדיקים בעוה"ז ובעה"ב והיינו דסיים במדרש על ואחר כבוד תקחני שאתה עתיד לעלותינו, כן נראה לי נכון וברור בעזה"י לולי דרש"י ותוס' כתבו בענין אחר דקאי על מזמור ע"ט, ואף דלפי מה שכתבתי נתישב ג"כ על מזמור ע"ט אלא דנראה לי עיקר דעיקר הדרש אתחילת מזמורי אסף קאי ואפשר דה"ה לכולהו דאיירי בהאי ענינא דוק ותשכח ואולי מקום הניחו לי מן השמים בזה:

Meiri ad loc. (like Rashi)

And that which the [sages] say about this, "He received support for the matter and expounded Mizmor L'asaf with the 12 Faces," that he had questioned about "Mizmor L'asaf, God, the nations have come into Your inheritance... they have made Jerusalem into heaps." [He said] "Just the opposite, it should be Lament of Asaf." And one of them said that it is a song for [God] consumed His fury on wood and stones, and they didn't all get killed, as it says (Lamentations 4:11) "God consumed His fury and kindled a fire against Zion."

ומה שאמרו על זה איסתייעא מלתא ודרש מזמור לאסף בתריסר אפי הוא שתמהו בו מזמור לאסף אלהים באו גוים בנחלתך שמו את ירושלם לעיים אדרבה קינה לאסף מיבעי ליה ואחד מהם הוא שאמר שירה על שכלה חמתו בעצים ואבנים שבה ולא נהרגו כלם וכדכתוב כלה י"י את חמתו ויצת אש בציון

Nedarim 41a

When Rabbi had studied his Law in thirteen ways, he taught R`Hiyya only seven of them.

כי הוה גמיר ר' תלת עשרי אפי הילכתא, אגמריה לרבי חייא שבעה מנהון.

Taanit 24b

ואנן קא מתנינן בעוקצין תליסר מתיבתא

We today teach Uktzin in thirteen different learning houses..

Rashi ad. loc.

13 learning houses - 13 yeshivot were there in the city that were learning the topic of Uktzin

תליסר מתיבתא - שלש עשרה ישיבות איכא בהך מתא דגמרי מסכת עוקצין

Sanhedrin 106b

We today teach Uktzin in thirteen different learning houses..

ואנן קא מתנינן בעוקצין תלת סרי מתיבתא

Rashi ad. loc.

13 learning houses - 13 yeshivot that are all involved in the topic of Uktzin, and know it well.

תליסר מתיבתא - י"ג ישיבות שאנו עוסקין כולן במסכת עוקצין ויודעין אותה יפה

Berachot 20a

We today teach Uktzin in thirteen different learning houses..

ואנן קא מתנינן בעוקצין תליסר מתיבתא

Rashi ad. loc.

13 learning houses - We have 13 aspects. The Mishnah and Baraitot of the 6 orders of the Mishnah, and the topic of Uktzin is also part of the 13 aspects, like the Mishnayot of Rabbi and Rabbi Chiya, and the Mishnayot of Bar Kappara, and the Tanna D’bei Shmuel, and so we say in Mesechet Nedarim, “Rabbi taught the halacha in 13 aspects.

בתליסר מתיבתא - בי"ג פנים יש בינינו משנה וברייתא של ששה סדרים ומסכת עוקצין גם היא בי"ג פנים כגון משנת רבי ור' חייא ומשנת בר קפרא ולוי ותנא דבי שמואל והכי אמרינן במסכת נדרים (דף מא.) רבי מתני הלכתא בי"ג פנים:

Tosafot ad. loc.

Some explain that 13 yeshivot were where there were experts, and 13 is not precise language, rather it’s a common number in the Talmud, like “13 zuzim” (Chullin 44b), but Rashi explains differently.

תליסר מתיבתא. יש מפרשין תליסר ישיבות יש בנו שבקיאים ותליסר לאו דוקא אלא לשון הרגיל בגמ' כמו תליסר (חולין מד:) זוזי פשיטי ורש"י פי' בע"א

Meiri, Introduction to Pirkei Avot

And our holy Rabbi [Yehuda ha-Nasi] knew [them] all, as is written in Nedarim (41a) “Rabbi would learn the 12 faces,” and he collected them in his strength and his wisdom.

ורבינו הקדוש ידע הכל כמ"ש במסכת נדרים מ"א א' רבי הוה גמיר תריסר אפי הלכתא וקבצן בכחו ובחכמתו

Akeidat Yitzchak, Devarim, Shaar 150

"One day he said to him, Pour water for me. While he was coming, he fell asleep. [Avimi] stood bent over him until he would wake up. He received support for the matter and expounded Mizmor L'asaf with the 12 faces." Because from how strict the Torah is with honor of the father and reverence of him, he saw that he was obligated to be much more dear to him in these lofty ways than how he would act for others it would be proper for him to honor. And for this, he found himself obligated in the framework of piety to do so, and this is what they said, "Rabbi Abahu his father," when he said, "Like Avimi my son has fulfilled the command of honor" - to clarify that he did not do this only as an obligation to do a commandment, rather that the matter in commandments is like the matter of righteousness, for a righteous person does what is written in the Law with no additions or subtractions. But the pious person does what is proper in a time of need, like we wrote about in Gate 43. And it is possible regarding that which they said, "He received support for the matter," to inform that they produce something as a completion of the act, which is diligence in Torah, for even in that time [that he was waiting for his father] he did not distract his heart from it.

יומא חד אמר ליה אשקיין מיא אדאייתי ליה נמנם גחין קאי עליה עד דאיתער אסתייעא מילתא ודריש מזמור לאסף בתריסר אפי כי ממה שהחמירה תורה בכבודו של אב ומוראו ראה שחוייב לו לעשות לו יקר יותר באלו העליונים ממה שיעשה לזולתו הראוי לכבדו. ולזה מצא עצמו מחוייב מתורת החסידות לעשות כן והוא מה שאמרו רבי אבהו אביו כשאמר כגון אבימי ברי קיים מצו' כבוד לבאר שלא עשה בזה רק החיוב במצוה הזאת אלא שהענין במצות כמו הענין בצדק כי הצדיק הוא שעושה מה שכתוב בנמוס בלי תוספת וחסרון אמנם החסיד הוא העושה כראוי בעת הצורך כמו שכתבנו בשער מ"ג ואפשר כי לזה אמרו מה דאסתייעא מלתא להודיע מה שהביאו לשלימות המעשה והוא השקידה בתורה שאפילו בשעה ההיא לא פנה לבו ממנה.

Vatican Manuscript 111

One day he said to him, "Bring me water." While he was bringing it to him, he fell asleep. He bent over him until he would awake. He received support, and Avimi expounded Mizmor L'Asaf. Another tradition goes: [He expounded] "Happy are they that are upright in the way..." in the Eight Faces [of Psalms 119].

יומא (י)חד אמ' ל' אייתי לי מיא עד דאייתו ל'[יה] נימנם גחים ל'[יה] עד דאיתער איסתי[י]עא מילתא ודרש אבימי מזמור לאסף (בתמניא אפי(לו)) ליש' אח' אשרי תמימי דרך בתמנייא אפי

How do we explain the discrepancy? Is it that the Meiri, Akedat Yitzchak, and this girsa are related? If a scribe misunderstood the other text, which is which? It's possible that this girsa misinterpreted "תריסר אפי" for "תמניא אפי", and added in the start of Psalm 119 as well. Which is far-fetched, I think. More likely, the original text said one or the other, without the verse, and the numbers got mixed up somehow. Since תריסר אפי is the more obscure number, this was likely the text that it started with (as per Meiri, Akedat Yitzchak, etc.) and someone changed it to the less obscure number, which is תמניא אפי. On the other hand, תמניא אפי makes more sense to be a reference here, since he expounded something, and to refer to it as being expounded by תריסר אפי is very strange and perhaps wasn't in the original text. Now, the summer of 2017, I believe I have solved the mystery. Can it be an accident that there are exactly 12 chapters of Psalms which begin with some variation of “Mizmor L’asaf,” or “L’asaf Mizmor,” etc? These are Psalms 50, and Psalms 73-83. Perhaps we can turn to Psalm 50 as the first time it says, "Mizmor l'asaf.” For the Meiri, this girsa means nothing more than identifying the Mizmor l’asaf in the category of the 12 chapters of Psalms bearing his title. But, I could suggest what Avimi realized is that the point of Kibud Av is not to actually give his father the drink, since his father was sleeping and thus there was no point to stand over him waiting. Rather, it was to give thanks to him, and to show this, he waited to give him his drink. We see this in verse 13-14, when it comes to God's honor: יג הַאוֹכַל, בְּשַׂר אַבִּירִים; וְדַם עַתּוּדִים אֶשְׁתֶּה. יד זְבַח לֵאלֹהִים תּוֹדָה; וְשַׁלֵּם לְעֶלְיוֹן נְדָרֶיךָ. And the last verse, 23, brings this home: כג זֹבֵחַ תּוֹדָה יְכַבְּדָנְנִי וְשָׂם דֶּרֶךְ אַרְאֶנּוּ בְּיֵשַׁע אֱלֹהִים: A question that the meforshim implicitly discuss (Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Radak), is how can God say in one instance He cares not for sacrifices, and then say that one should offer sacrifices to God to be saved? And indeed, that in 23 it honors God? Rashi, for example, answers that Todah is the language of viduy, confession, and thus God cares not for one’s sacrifices. Sacrifices are for the people. So, says Rashi, do viduy and repentance, and then God will accept one’s promises for sacrifices. Rashi says this on 14 and again on 23. Avimi realized that Todah refers to its simple meaning, thanksgiving. God cares not for sacrifices for their own sake. But He does want man to acknowledge his gratitude, and to pay God what is worthy to be paid. At the end, the Psalmist says God considers this an “honor” of Him. So too with Kibud Av. It is hard to see how he would be obligated in that case to stay until his father woke up. But maybe, Avimi wanted to show gratitude.