The Holiday Celebrating the Miracle When the People Listened to the Rabbis

One time, the rabbis thought it a miracle that they managed to convince the people to stop following a certain practice.

Rosh Hashana 18b:

מותיב רב אחא בר הונא בתלתא בתשרי בטילת אדכרתא מן שטרייא שגזרה מלכות יון גזרה שלא להזכיר שם שמים על פיהם וכשגברה מלכות חשמונאי ונצחום התקינו שיהו מזכירין שם שמים אפילו בשטרות וכך היו כותבים בשנת כך וכך ליוחנן כהן גדול לאל עליון וכששמעו חכמים בדבר אמרו למחר זה פורע את חובו ונמצא שטר מוטל באשפה וביטלום ואותו היום עשאוהו יו"ט

R`Aha B`Huna raised an objection [from the following]: 'On the third of Tishri the mention [of God] in bonds was abolished: for the Grecian Government had forbidden the mention of God's name by the Israelites, and when the Government of the Hasmoneans became strong and defeated them, they ordained that they should mention the name of God even on bonds, and they used to write thus: 'In the year So-and-so of Johanan, High Priest to the Most High God', and when the Sages heard of it they said, 'Tomorrow this man will pay his debt and the bond will be thrown on a dunghill', and they stopped them, and they made that day a feast day.

Rashi writes:

בתלתא בתשרי כו'. כך כתוב במגילה לשון ארמי בטילת אדכרתא ביטלו אזכרת שם שמים מן השטרות ובקושי יכלו לבטל שכבר נהגו העם וכששמעו חכמי' ובטלום הוכשר הדבר בעיניהם ונחשב להם לנס ועשאוהו י"ט:

Such is written in the Megilla [Taanit], in Aramaic "They abolished of the mentioning [of the name]", they abolished the mentioning of God's name from documents, and with difficulty they succeeded to abolish that which was already practiced by the nation. And when the sages heard about [this practice], they abolished it, the matter was good in their eyes, and they considered it a miracle, and they made a festival.

Interestingly, the Rashash has a textual variant in Rashi that says that "when the Rabbis heard that it was abolished", which means it happened on its own and they made a holiday. Which is strange, because the Talmud says that the rabbis abolished it. He tries to reinterpret it. But in our girsa, there is no problem at all (except that "the matter was good in their eyes" is strange phrase if they were the drivers of the change, but be that as it may...). See Rashash:

וכששמעו חכמים שבטלום כו'. איני יודע מדוע שינה לשון הגמרא דמשמעו דחכמים עצמם הם הם שבטלום. ואולי ר"ל דשמעו חכמים שקבלו דבריהם ובטלום:

Rashi - When the sages heard that it was abolished - I don't know why he changed the language of the Talmud that the sages who had heard were the same ones who abolished it. Perhaps one may answer that the sages heard that they [the people] accepted their words, and they abolished it.

Meharsha provides an entirely different "miracle" - that when the rabbis attempted to fight against the rules of the Hasmonean kingdom, they weren't rounded up and killed, even though we know Hasmonean kings were not friendly to the rabbis, to say the least. See Meharsha:

כך וכך ליוחנן כהן גדול לאל עליון כו' בריש מכילתין אמרי' ראש השנה למלכים למאי הלכתא לשטרות כו' אלא דבבית שני לא היה להם מלך אלא מבית חשמונאי שהיו כהנים וזה יוחנן כהן גדול הוא ינאי המלך כמפורש בפרק האומר דינאי המלך היה ג"כ כהן גדול ובהכי ניחא דנחשב להם הדבר שבטלו מלכתוב כן לנס שעשאוהו י"ט לפי שזה ינאי הרג ת"ח על שא"ל הנח כתר כהונה כו' כמפורש שם והיו יראים גם עתה שיחשוב המלך שלכך בטלו החכמים דבר זה כהן גדול לאל עליון מן השטרות לפי שהוא פסול לכהונה לפי דעתן ונעשה להם נס שלא כעס עליהם בדבר זה וע"כ עשאוהו י"ט:

Some acharonim I saw try to use this story as a proof that "el elyon" or even just "el" is considered a name of God on a document. However, Rabbeinu Channanel has the girsa of "YKVK Elyon", according to my Oz Vehadar edition gemara.

Interestingly, some think that Chanukah incorporated this holiday, or at least mentions it as part of the miracle, when we say "You made a great and holy name for Yourself in Your world" in Al Hanisim. Daf Al Daf quotes:

  בקובץ כרם שלמה (כסלו תש"ס ע' נג) מביא מהגאון רבי מאיר הלוי שניפישקער מו"ץ בק' וילנא על הא דאומרים בחנוכה בועל הניסים "ולך עשית שם גדול וקדוש", יש לומר הכוונה עפ"י הגמ' במס' ר"ה (יח ב) בתלתא בתשרי בטילת אדרכתא מן שטריא, שגזרה מלכות יון שלא להזכיר שם שמים על פיהם, וכשגברה מלכות החשמונאים ונצחום התקינו שיהיו מזכירים שם שמים אפילו בשטרות כמקדם, ולזה התקינו לומר בחנוכה, ולך עשית שם גדול וקדוש בעולמך.

 Perhaps this can be yet another answer for why there are 8 days of Chanukah instead of 7 - one day for this miracle as well, when we listened to the rabbis!

Edit: 12/14/17

A very interesting suggestion by the Alei tamar on Megilla:


אע"ג דאת אמר בטלה מג"ת חנוכה ופורים לא בטלו, בר"ה י"ח, קאמר, שאני חנוכה דמפרסם ניסא, ופרש"י כבר הוא גלוי לכל ישראל ע"י שנהגו בו המצוותוהחזיקו בו כשל תורה ולא נכון לבטלו. ובדף י"ט מסיק והלכתא בטלו, והלכתא לא בטלו, קשיא הלכתא אהלכתא, לא קשיא, כאן בחנוכה ופורים כאן בשאר יומי. ומשמעדפורים נמי לא בטלה מטעמא דחנוכה דמפרסם ניסא. וקשה דבפורים תיפוק ליה דמקרא מפורש הוא במגילת אסתר, וימי הפורים האלה לא יעברו מתוך היהודים וזכרם לאיסוף מזרעם, וכתיב, לעשות אותם ימי משתה ושמחה ומשלוח מנות איש לרעהו ומתנות לאביונים. וצ"ל דהא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא, חנוכה משום דמפרסם ניסא, ופוריםמשום דמקרא מפורש הוא, וימי הפורים האלה לא יעברו מהיהודים וכו'. אולם יש להעיר כי במגילת אנטיוכוס הארמית, ובהעתקה עברית שנדפס באוצר המדרשים ערךחנוכה, ושם הנוסח העברי נמצא גם בסידורי תפלות הספרדים במחזור ישן דפוס שאלוניקי, ובסידור עבודת ישראל ע"כ, ויש להוסיף בתוס' רי"ד סוכה מ"ד ע"ב וז"ל, וכן נמימקום שנוהגין מגלת אנטיוכוס בחנוכה אין ראוי לברך עליה מפני שורש חובה כלל עכ"ל. ואני מצאתי בסידור תכלאל התימני כת"י, מגילה זו בנוסח המקורי בארמית וכתובבריש המגילה, מגילת בני חשמונאי. וע"ש באוצר המדרשים, שמבואר שם פסוק ע"ב, שמגילה זו נכתבה אחרי חורבן הבית. וכתוב שם בפסוק ע"ד, הכהנים הלוים וחכמיהםקיימו עליהם ועל בני בניהם עד עולם. הרי מפורש במגילת אנטיוכוס או מגילת בני חשמונאי, שבחנוכה מג"ת לא בטלה שקבלו עליהם ועל בני בניהם עד עולם. וי"ל דהבבליאינו רואה במגילה זו מקור מוסמך, אולם הירושלמי שאומר סתם, אע"ג דאת אמר בטלה מג"ת חנוכה ופורים לא בטלו, יתכן שזהו מפני שבפורים כתוב מפורש כן ובחנוכהג"כ היה להם הקבלה כן כמ"ש במגילת אנטיוכוס. ונראה דס"ד דר"י דאף בחנוכה בטלה מג"ת, דוקא בחנוכה מפני שאין מפורש כן במקור מוסמך אבל בפורים בוודאי דאףלס"ד דר"י פורים לא בטלה דהרי מפורש כן במג"א וכנ"ל. וי"ל בפשטות דמפני כן קאמר סתם חנוכה ופורים לא בטלו משום דחנוכה היתה צפויה העברה על הדת וביטולתורת משה חו"ש, ופורים היתה צפויה השמדת האומה חלילה, משא"כ בשאר יו"ט הכתובים במג"ת שהיה רק נס של צרה, ומפני כן פורים וחנוכה לא עברו מתוך היהודים אףבתקופת החורבן ולאחר החורבן שבכל אופן אף אז גאולת היהודים מתוך שמד או האומה אף בצרת החורבן היתה מורגשת מאד. 

 

במדרש לקח טוב בספרי דאגדתא הוצאת רש"ב, וזכרם לא יסוף מזרעם אפילו אבלי ציון וירושלים ששים ושמחים בהם ורוחצים ומתכסים לבנים עכ"ל, הנה שהביא סמך לזהמקרא, וזכרם לא יסוף מזרעם. וי"ל שהיינו טעמא גם בחנוכה שהרי הדלקת נ"ח בודאי לא בטלה ומשו"ה לא בטלה גם מג"ת. ובענין אבלי ציון וירושלים ראה במסעות בנימיןלר"ב טולידו ובב"ק נ"ט, זעירי הוה סיים מסאני אוכמי וכו' דקא מאבילנא אירושלים עיי"ש.

An Interesting Derash Connection

Even Women Were Part of the Miracle

1. שבת כ״ג א 
   

   אשה ודאי מדליקה דא"ר יהושע בן לוי נשים חייבות בנר חנוכה שאף הן היו באותו הנס:
   Shabbat 23a 
   

   A woman certainly lights, for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated regarding the Chanukkah light, for even they were part of that miracle.
2. רש"י על שבת כ״ג א 
   

   היו באותו הנס. שגזרו יוונים על כל בתולות הנשואות להיבעל לטפסר תחלה ועל יד אשה נעשה הנס:
   Rashi on Shabbat 23a 
   

   "Were part of the miracle" - That the Greeks decreed [prima nocta] on all the virgins to be wed that they must have relations with the high official first. And also a miracle happened through a woman [Yehudit].
3. פסחים ק״ח ב 
   

   אמר ר' יהושע בן לוי נשים חייבות בארבעה כוסות הללו שאף הן היו באותו הנס
   Pesachim 108b 
   

   Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated in the four cups [of wine at the Passover Seder] since even they were part of that miracle.
4. רש"י על פסחים ק״ח ב 
   

   שאף הן היו באותו הנס - כדאמרינן (סוטה דף יא:) בשכר נשים צדקניות שבאותו הדור נגאלו וכן גבי מקרא מגילה נמי אמרינן הכי דמשום דע"י אסתר נגאלו וכן גבי נר חנוכה במסכת שבת (ד' כג.):
   Rashi on Pesachim 108b 
   

   "Even they were part of the miracle" - As we say (Sotah 11b) that through the merit of righteous women in that generation were they redeemed, and similarly for Megillah we also say that because of Esther were they redeemed, and similarly regarding Chanukah candles in Tractate Shabbat.
5. מגילה ד׳ א 
   

   ואריב"ל נשים חייבות במקרא מגילה שאף הן היו באותו הנס
   Megillah 4a 
   

   Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated to read the Megillah, since even they were part of the same miracle.
6. רש"י על מגילה ד׳ א 
   

   שאף הן היו באותו הנס - שאף על הנשים גזר המן להשמיד להרוג ולאבד מנער ועד זקן טף ונשים וגו':
   Rashi on Megillah 4a 
   

   "Even they were part of the miracle" - That Haman decreed extinction on the women too, to kill and destroy from the young to the old, women and children (Esther 3:13)
7. תוספות על פסחים ק״ח ב 
   

   היו באותו הנס - פי' רשב"ם שעל ידם נגאלו וכן במגילה ע"י אסתר ובחנוכה ע"י יהודית וקשה דאף משמע שאינן עיקר ועוד דבירושלמי גריס שאף הן היו באותו ספק משמע באותה סכנה דלהשמיד להרוג ולאבד והא דאמרינן דפטורות מסוכה אע"ג דאף הן היו באותו הנס כי בסוכות הושבתי התם בעשה דאורייתא אבל בארבעה כוסות דרבנן תיקנו גם לנשים כיון שהיו באותו הנס:
   Tosafot on Pesachim 108b 
   

   "They were in that miracle" The Rashbam's interpretation is that through them were they redeemed. And similarly, in the Megilla, through Esther, and in Chanuka, through Judith. And this is difficult, since "even" implies that they weren't central [to the miracle]! And also, the version of the Yerushalmi is "even they were in that same uncertainty," implying in that danger of "to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish" (Esther 3:13). And this that we say that they [women] are exempt from [the commandment of] sukka, even though that even they were in that same miracle, is [based on] "that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths" (Leviticus 23:43), there, is regarding a positive Torah commandment. However, regarding the four cups, which is rabbinic, they established it also for women, since they were in that same miracle.
8. תוספות על מגילה ד׳ א 
   

   שאף הן היו באותו הנס. פירש רשב"ם שעיקר הנס היה על ידן בפורים על ידי אסתר בחנוכה על ידי יהודית בפסח שבזכות צדקניות שבאותו הדור נגאלו וקשה דלשון שאף הן משמע שהן טפלות ולפירושו היה לו לומר שהן לכך נראה לי שאף הן היו בספק דלהשמיד ולהרוג וכן בפסח שהיו משועבדות לפרעה במצרים וכן בחנוכה הגזירה היתה מאד עליהן. ...
   Tosafot on Megillah 4a 
   

   "Even they were in that miracle" The Rashbam's interpretation is that the central part of the miracle occured through them; on Purim, through Esther, and on Chanukah, through Judith, on Pesach, because of the merit of those righteous women in that generation they were redeemed. And this is difficult, since "even" implies that they were secondary! And according to his interpretation, it should have said that "They were indeed..." Therefore it seems to me that "even they were in that same uncertainty," implying in that danger of "to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish" (Esther 3:13), and similarly on Chanukah the decree was very much on them. 
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: Living in a Messiah Mode
9. סנהדרין צ״ח א 
   

   ר' יהושע בן לוי אשכח לאליהו דהוי קיימי אפיתחא דמערתא דרבי שמעון בן יוחאי אמר ליה אתינא לעלמא דאתי אמר ליה אם ירצה אדון הזה אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי שנים ראיתי וקול ג' שמעתי אמר ליה אימת אתי משיח אמר ליה זיל שייליה לדידיה והיכא יתיבאפיתחא דקרתא ומאי סימניה יתיב ביני עניי סובלי חלאים וכולן שרו ואסירי בחד זימנא איהו שרי חד ואסיר חד אמר דילמא מבעינא דלא איעכב אזל לגביה אמר ליה שלום עליך רבי ומורי אמר ליה שלום עליך בר ליואי א"ל לאימת אתי מר א"ל היום אתא לגבי אליהוא"ל מאי אמר לך א"ל שלום עליך בר ליואי א"ל אבטחך לך ולאבוך לעלמא דאתי א"לשקורי קא שקר בי דאמר לי היום אתינא ולא אתא א"ל הכי אמר לך (תהלים צה, ז) היום אם בקולו תשמעו 
   Sanhedrin 98a 
   

   R`Joshua B`Levi met Elijah standing by the entrance of R`Simeon B`Yohai's tomb. He asked him: 'Have I a portion in the world to come? ' He replied, 'if this Master desires it.' R`Joshua B`Levi said, 'I saw two, but heard the voice of a third.' He then asked him, 'When will the Messiah come? ' - 'Go and ask him himself,' was his reply.' Where is he sitting? ' - 'At the entrance.' And by what sign may I recognise him? ' - 'He is sitting among the poor lepers: all of them untie [them] all at once, and rebandage them together, whereas he unties and rebandages each separately, [before treating the next], thinking, should I be wanted, [it being time for my appearance as the Messiah] I must not be delayed [through having to bandage a number of sores].' So he went to him and greeted him, saying, 'peace upon thee, Master and Teacher.' 'peace upon thee, O son of Levi,' he replied.' When wilt thou come Master? ' asked he, 'To-day', was his answer. On his returning to Elijah, the latter enquired, 'What did he say to thee? ' - 'peace Upon thee, O son of Levi,' he answered. Thereupon he [Elijah] observed, 'He thereby assured thee and thy father of [a portion in] the world to come.' 'He spoke falsely to me,' he rejoined, 'stating that he would come to-day, but has not.' He [Elijah] answered him, 'This is what he said to thee, Today, if ye will hear his voice.'
10. ...אמנם על דבר האידיאל בודאי טבוע הוא עמוק בנשמתנו האידיאל של הנקיון מכל חטא, וכשיצא האידיאל הזה מן הכח אל הפועל, אז יטהר העולם וימצאו אז דרכים ישרים ובטוחים לפעולתה והשפעתה הטהורה, העדינה והקדושה, של האשה, האם בישראל, בחיים בכלל ובפרט, בשלמות ההשפעה וההתאמה אל ערכה הפנימי המיוחד, במלוי החזון, כל אשת חיל עטרת בעלה. אבל חזון עתיד זה איננו מושקף עדין כלל בחיי התרבות הזמניים שהם רקובים מבפנים, אף על פי שהם מגוהצים מבחוץ. וכל צעד של פזיזות שאנחנו עושים במהלך החיים הכלליים שלנו מבלי להתחשב עם השקפתנו על ערך האשה בהוה ובעתיד המוטבעת עמוק ברוחנו, איננו כי אם מעכב את המהלך האידיאלי הזה. ורק שיבת ישראל אל ארצו, אל מכונו וממלכתו, אל רוח קדשו, נבואתו ומקדשו, עתידה היא להביא לעולם את אותה הנהרה העליונה, שכל הנשמות האצילות של האנושיות כולה, עורגות אליה. וזה, בא יבא דוקא על ידי שמירת צביוננו האמיתי ככל חוקת התורה משפטיה שהיא מדריכה אותנו בדרכי החיים של רוממות קרן, של חפש עליון ושל גאולה.

    Rav Kook on Women's Voting

    Finally, as to the ideal: Deeply imprinted in our soul is the ideal of being unblemished by any sin. When this ideal is realized, the world will be purified, and proper and safe ways will be found for the delicate and holy participation of Woman, the mother in Israel, in public life, both generally and particularly, with wholesome influence and in accordance with her special inner worth, thus fulfilling the vision: “Every woman of worth is a crown unto her husband” (Prov. 12:4). But this future vision is as yet not even glimpsed in temporal cultural life, which, though outwardly well groomed, is rotten within. So any step we take in the course of our public life that carelessly disregards our outlook concerning Woman’s present and future worth—something that is deeply imprinted in our spirit— merely impedes this ideal course. Only Israel’s return to its land, to its setting and its kingdom, and to its holy spirit, its prophecy and its Temple, will eventually bring into the world that sublime light, for which all noble souls of all humanity yearn. And this will surely come about only through maintaining our true character, in accordance with all the laws and ordinances by which the Torah instructs us in the ways of life of exalted glory, of supreme freedom, and of redemption.

Interesting Textual Variants on Shabbat 21b

I have noticed two very interesting textual variants, both explanations for the preceding passage, that would have obviated the need for Rashi's comment on that line of the Talmud.

The Talmud states:

ת'ר מצות חנוכה נר איש וביתו 

Our rabbis taught (in a Baraita): The mitzvah of Chanukah is a candle for a man and his household.

Yet the manuscript Oxford Opp. Add. fol. 23 has this addition:

איש וביתו ס'ד אלא אימ' נר איש בביתו

 Do you really mean "a man and his household"? Rather, I'll say, "a man in his house."

This spurs many questions. What is wrong with "a man and his household"? How is it resolved by making it "a man in his house"? And what does it mean as the mitzvah?

The term "man and his household" comes up elsewhere in the Talmud. In Rosh Hashanah 30a the Talmud states:

 תקיעת ראש השנה ויובל דוחה את השבת בגבולין, איש וביתו. מאי איש וביתו? אילימא איש ואשתו - איתתא מי מיחייבא? והא מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא היא, וכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא - נשים פטורות אלא לאו: איש בביתו

The blowing of the shofar on New Year and Jubilee overrides Sabbath in the country [for] a man and his house. What is meant by 'a man and his house'? Shall I say it means a man and his wife? Has then a woman to perform this duty, seeing that it is a duty for which there is a specific time, and women are not liable to perform any duties for which there is a specific time? What it therefore must mean is, "a man in his house."

Thus, we see that the Talmud feels the need to reinterpret "a man and his household" because women would be implied, and they are not obligated in the mitzvah of Shofar. Yet that problem does not exist in regard to Chanukah, since women are indeed obligated in candle lighting, which we know from Shabbat 23a. So what was the issue, to this variant?

It could be that the writer of this variant attempted to stay consistent with the "man and his household" follow-up question we find in Rosh Hashanah. But that seems too "smart" to ascribe to a copyist who seems to be changing the text. The problem to me, seems to be that, like we see in Rosh Hashanah, "man and his household" refers to multiple people.

The phrase "נר איש וביתו" can be difficult to translate exactly. In its most literal sense, it means "A candle, man and his household." Filling in the blanks, how everyone translates it is "[One] candle [for] a man and his household." Indeed, Rashi tells us twice(!) in the same comment that this is so, to remove all ambiguity:

נר אחד בכל לילה ואיש וכל בני ביתו סגי להו בנר אחד:

 One candle for each night, a man and all the people of his household, it is enough for them with one candle.

So, Rashi obviously felt the ambiguity of the phrase. And I think this variant did as well. That is, do you really think it means that two candles have to be lit, one for a man and one for his household? No! It means a man in his house, meaning one candle for the owner of the house, and no more.

My only twinge of doubt is that in Rosh Hashanah, the answer of "man in his house" is meant to signify that he can perform the mitzvah at home, not in Bet Din itself. Does that transfer over to Chanukah candles? How? A mystery.

The second textual variant is not as interesting, but still interesting to me. This is the statement of the Talmud:

אמרוה רבנן קמיה דאביי משמ' דר' ירמיה ולא קיבלה כי אתא רבין אמרה קמיה דאביי משמ' דר' יוחנן וקיבלה אמ' אי זכאי גמרתה מעיקרא והא גמרה נפקא מינה לגירסא דינקותא 

 The rabbis recounted it before Abaye in the name of Rabbi Yirmiya, and he refused to accept it. When Rabin came before Abaye [and said it] in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, he accepted it. He said, "I wish I had merited to learn that originally." But he [eventually] learned it! The difference is the learning one has as a child.

Before I move forward, I'd like to present here my theory of why Abaye refused to accept the law when it was told in the name of Rabbi Yirmiya, but was willing to accept it in the name of Rabbi Yochanan. Skip the highlighted text to see the variant instead.

I wrote this in the context of commenting on Rabbi Zeira trying to forget the learning of Babylonia. 

It's clear that Rabbi Zeira had some disdain for those who lived in Babylonia. He called the Baylonians stupid for their diet ("bread with bread", Beitza 16a, Nedarim 49b), and he desperately wanted to make aliyah, even having to sneak around Rav Yehuda to do so in Shabbat 41a.

The Rabbis of Palestine also expressed disdain for the rabbis of Babylonia.

See Rav Yochanan's statement to a Babylonian, R' Chiyya bar Abba, in Bava Basra 107 and Bechorot 18a, "You were eating berries in Babylonia while I was learning." And see his statement to R' Chiyya again in Shabbat 105b, "You Babylonian," - who doesn't understand...

Rav Yirmiya says that Babylonian rabbis argue by insulting each other - Sanhedrin 24a. He says that Babylonians are fools because they dwell in a land of darkness, they engage in dark discussion - Pesachim 34b, and Zevachim 60b and Menahot 52a (where R' Yochanan is also quoted as part of the discussion, though not on this precisely)

Rav Yochanan is quoted that Palestinains hate Babylonians - Menachot 100a and Yoma 66b.

And see Rabbi Yochanan's student's derasha in Shabbat 145b about how terrible Babylonians are. Rabbah bar bar Chana, or someone else (as the discussion continues to be clarified), said to Resh Lakish that he hated him, which is explained to mean that the people living in Babylonia should have made aliyah but didn't come back in enough numbers. However, Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with his reasoning. - Yoma 9b

So it makes sense to me that Rabbi Zeira, wanting to fit into the Palestinian yeshivas, had to convince them he was no longer a Babylonian by doing this.

And a bit later on, Rava's complaints about their treatment at the hands of the Palestinian:

He clearly did not take very well to the insults against him and Babylonia in general. He complains in Menachot 52a that they in Palestine never hear the good derashot from Babylonia, only the weak ones. In Yoma 57a he complains again about the insults. And yes, in Ketubot 75a, he says that really the reason why Palestinian scholars insult Babylonians is because they became so smart in Babylonia first, and then made aliya. In my opinion, the real answer is that they had to fit in, and Rava misread the situation. Babylonians, Rava and Shmuel alike, felt Babylonia was better, and fought back against their supposed inferiority proposed by the Palestinian academies. 

Other Babylonian rabbis were quite afraid of the prospect of proving their stuff before the Palestinian rabbis. See Rabbi Abba, who

prayed to God in Beitza 38a that the Palestinian rabbis should accept his teachings in Palestine when he made aliyah. It was a frightening prospect, and he resorted to asking God for help. Their response was laughter. They mocked him. He was unsuccessful.

What we should notice above is that Rabbi Yirmiya and Rabbi Yochanan were some of the fiercest opponents of the Babylonian rabbinate. Yet, Rabbi Yochanan accords them respect and disagrees with the derashot of his students in regard to them which insult them. In my opinion, Abaye refused to accept the teaching when it came to Rabbi Yirmiya, who was the meanest of the bunch, but accepted it when it came to Rabbi Yochanan. He lamented that he wished he could have heard it from Rabbi Yochanan originally so he could have accepted the teaching earlier.

Ok. With that out of the way, let's talk about the variant. Why is there anything special about the learning of a child? We have the phrase "you can't teach an old dog new tricks", and Rashi helps us out by telling us, מתקיים יותר משל זקנה, it stays better than that of an old person. But this variant, from the manuscript University of Toronto, MS Friedberg 9-002, has the extra line: 

דאמ' מר גירסא דינקותא דומה לדיו נאה על גבי נייר לבן גירסא דסיבותא דמיא לדיו שאינו נאה על גבי נייר מחוק 

For the Master had said, "The learning of youth is compared to nice ink on blank paper. The learning of the elderly is compared to ink that is not so nice with repurposed [lit. erased] paper."

 Where is this line from? It is similar to that of the Mishnah Avot 4:20:

אלישע בן אבויה אומר, הלומד ילד למה הוא דומה, לדיו כתובה על ניר חדש.והלומד זקן למה הוא דומה, לדיו כתובה על ניר מחוק 

Elisha ben Abuya says: One who learns as a child is compared to what? To ink written on new parchment. And one who learns as an elder is compared to what? To ink written on scraped parchment. 

This, of course, renders Rashi's commentary unnecessary. The same ambiguity Rashi meant to explain is explained by this line. Why is this variant here, though? A mystery.

Bor Rek Ein Bo Mayim

The gemara asks, if its empty do I have to know that it has no water? The answer it gives is that although it has no water, it had snakes and scorpions. The questions are many. Doesn't that mean it is not rek, empty? And secondly, there is something very strange here if you think about it. The question of the gemara should be more basic than why it says rek and no water. It should be, why tell us what the status of the pit is at all? When the brothers throw Joseph into the pit, the detail of what was (or wasn't) in the pit is extraneous and does not help us understand the story at all. So the question should be why is this a detail of the story? Only once you accept the details as important you would ask why we have two descriptions, empty and no water, and then we would ask why it says no water if we know its empty.

Let's say we ask the question why its there in the first place. The answer must be that the Torah was telling us that the pit was not a dangerous place for Joseph - there was nothing in there like rocks or animals, and there was no water (which is usually why you have a pit somewhere) to drown in. So the entire point of these details are to say that the brothers did not place him somewhere that was inherently dangerous, but was dangerous if left there too long. Additionally, we could say they put him there to hold him until they figured out what to do with him. That seemed to be Reuven's motivation, so that he could save Joseph later.

This is the obvious reason in pshat, for me. That is, not only was the pit not dangerous, there wasn't even water in it, something you expect in every pit. Joseph was not dead by being dropped in the pit, nor was he in mortal danger.

So what did the rabbis of the Talmud do? If you think about it, they go the opposite direction, for the sake of drash! Not only was it dangerous, it contained the most possibly poisonous and potentially dangerous things one can find in a pit - scorpions and snakes. Joseph's life in fact was in mortal danger, most likely unbeknownst to the brothers. This interpretation protects the brothers, who had not necessarily intended on killing Joseph yet, and yet puts Joseph's life in danger. Why do this? It seems to me that the rabbis thought it important on a drash level to give Joseph's story an element of divine protection. We find the Ramban emphasizing this in other aspects of the story, and many midrashim support such a claim that the narrative is stated in such a way to give over this sense of guidance in the story. That is, except for this area, it would seem. Joseph is in a pit, empty. He ends up getting sold (or taken) by chance by passing merchants down to Egypt. It seems to be random. Yet even in the pit, Joseph was being miraculously protected. God was watching out for him, even with snakes and scorpions in his pit.

This may be yet another reason why it is in the context of the Chanukah story. Rav Daniel Z. Feldman told me in, I believe, the name of Rav Aharon Soloveitchik, that probably the rabbis were reading this week's parsha (Vayeshev) and were thinking of this midrash as they were discussing Chanukah halacha. This may be pashut pshat. But regardless, another significance is that even the events that happen to us, there is a hidden (drash as oppose to pshat) miracle which is God's protection. The Maharal discusses this on the gemara of Mai Chanukah. That is, the war was significant to us, and we find the Al Hanisim prayer focusing on the war. Yet the gemara focuses on the miracle of the lights. Why? Because the pshat miracle of the lights informs us of the drash miracle of the war - it turns out that the war was also a God-guided miraculous triumphant war for the Jewish people.

In pshat, the pit is empty. In drash, we are constantly protected from so many bad events, and the view of the miraculous lights up our dark days.

Jewish Women Are Not So Hefker!

I came across this Mordechai, Ketubot 63a, which I found fascinating. The Mordechai advises for a lenient position which forces the husband to give his wife a get, since "The daughters of Israel are not so hefker!" It's an interesting sevara to prove that divorce needs to be in a way that won't take away the very real rights of women. See it:

לא משהינן אלא כייפינן ליה מיד כיון דאמרה מאיס עלי שהרי אין בנות ישראל הפקר כל כך שיהו משועבדות ליבעל למי שמאיס להם

Ramban on Exodus 22:15 also has this language, in his discussion of how the Torah seems to force a woman to marry her rapist. He thinks it is pshat in the Torah that its her decision, not the rapists, and he provides this interesting reasoning:

ועל דעת רבותינו (כתובות לט ב): גם שם בין היא בין אביה יכולין לעכב כי איננו הגון שיקחנה על כרחם, ויעשה עמה שתי רעות, ופעמים שתהיה נכבדת ממנו ולא יתכן שתתבזה בחטאו, והמשפט הישר שיהיו הנישואין בידה ולא בידו, שהוא ישאנה על כורחו שלא יהיו בנות ישראל הפקר לבעלי הזרוע.

 This accords with our rabbis, "Either she or her father can refuse," for it is not proper for her to be married against her will, which would be two evils for her [both rape and forced marriage], and sometimes she is in a higher social class than him and his sin would not cause her social embarrassment [such that she would be bereft of other marriage options]. And the moral law is that marriage is her right, not his, that he would be married to her against his will. For the daughters of Israel are not hefker for brutish men.

Rambam also uses this phrase. In his context, if women are treated as hefker, it will lead to promiscuity. Its in Yesodei HaTorah 5:9:

מי שנתן עיניו באשה וחלה ונטה למות ואמרו הרופאים אין לו רפואה עד שתבעל לו ימות ואל תבעל לו אפילו היתה פנויה ואפילו לדבר עמה מאחורי הגדר אין מורין לו בכך וימות ולא יורו לדבר עמה מאחורי הגדר שלא יהו בנות ישראל הפקר ויבואו בדברים אלו לפרוץ בעריות.

[When] someone becomes attracted to a woman and is [love-]sick [to the extent that] he is in danger of dying, and the physicians say he has no remedy except engaging in sexual relations with her, he should die rather than engage in sexual relations with her, even if she is unmarried.

He is even not to be given instructions to speak to her [in private] behind a fence. Rather, he should die rather than be given instructions to speak to her behind a fence, so that Jewish women would not be hefker, and these matters would lead to promiscuity.

Of course, the Mordechai's language above sounds somewhat similar to the Rambam's formulation of the law when a women claims her husband is disgusting to her. In Rambam's language (Mishneh Torah, Ishut 14:8), she is not a "captive" that she should be forced to be with someone she finds repulsive:

אם אמרה מאסתיהו ואיני יכולה להבעל לו מדעתי כופין אותו לשעתו לגרשה לפי שאינה כשבויה שתבעל לשנוא לה

 If she says, "Because I am repulsed by him and I cannot voluntarily engage in relations with him," her husband should be compelled to divorce her immediately. For she is not like a captive, that she must engage in relations with one she loathes.

Let's note that the Rambam uses the opposite language to describe Jewish women. Whereas we have seen the phrase "hefker", meaning so loosely kept or wanton, Rambam in this context says she is not "captive", as in not free or able to move. I think that's interesting.

The Yad Ramah, Sanhedrin 21a, discusses why there is an institution of marriage with kiddushin and ketubah if concubinage works. He states its the rabbis making a decree because of this familiar aphorism:

אבל אם רצה לייחד אשה בלא כתובה ובלא קידושין מדאורייתא שפיר דמי ורבנן הוא דגזור כדי שלא יהיו בנות ישראל הפקר

If he wants to seclude himself with a woman without a ketubah and without kiddushin, on a Torah level it is fine, and it is the rabbis who decreed [these two things] so that the daughters of Israel would not be hefker.  

Let us look at a comment of Rashi on Genesis 34:31. Jacob is upset that Simeon and Levi have wiped out the entire city of Shechem. Their response is. "Shall he make our sister like a harlot?" Meaning, they had to fight for their sister because leaving her in such dire circumsatnces would be to say she is like a zonah, a harlot, that they are not concerned with her welfare, especially her sexual welfare. Rashi has a one-word comment on "zonah", which is not harlotry to him. He says it means, based on Genesis Rabbah 80:12, the word word we love so much, "הפקר". Meaning, in the midrash and Rashi's reading, they were saying, "Our sister is not so hefker!"

Lastly, I'll point out this phrase precedes the rishonim. The Mishna in Yevamot 13:1 states:

אמרו להן בית הלל לבית שמאי: ממאנת והיא קטנה, אפלו ארבעה וחמשה פעמים. אמרו להן בית שמאי: אין בנות ישראל הפקר, אלא ממאנת וממתנת עד שתגדיל, ותמאן ותנשא.

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: A girl may refuse [exercise refusal] as a minor even four or five times. Beit Shammai said to them: The daughters of Israel are not hefker, rather she may refuse and then wait to attain maturity, or refuse and be married. 

 Jewish women have rights, declare the Mishna and Rishonim! Some use it in a way that means that we are afraid women will be abused sexually, but others use it to mean they have rights to freedom and choice as human beings!

Better the Torah Be Burned?

I have written before about the line in the Yerushlami where Rav Eliezer declares that better the Torah be burned than given to women:

אמר ליה ישרפו דברי תורה ואל ימסרו לנשים

 Ever since I came across another curious line in the Talmud that references to "burning the Torah", I began to suspect there is something to this phrase. See Shabbat 115b, and Tosefta Shabbat 13:4 as well:

תנו רבנן: הברכות והקמיעין, אף על פי שיש בהן אותיות של שם, ומעניינות הרבה שבתורה - אין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה, אלא נשרפים במקומן הן ואזכרותיהן.  

מכאן אמרו: כותבי ברכות כשורפי תורה.

Our Rabbis taught: Benedictions and amulets, though they contain letters of the [Divine] Name and many passages of the Torah, must not be rescued from a fire but must be burnt where they lie, they together with their Names.

Hence it was said, They who write down Benedictions are as though they burnt a Torah.

Writing berachot is like burning Torah, because of the possible situation (not too uncommon in the ancient world) that it would end up being burnt, with God's name in it.

There is an interesting addition to this in Yalkut Shemoni Tzav 481:

ואי משכח גברא כתב אגרתא והאמר רבי אבא בריה דר' חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן כותבי ספרים כשורפי תורה והלומד מהם אין לו קבול שכר, דדרש ר' יהודה בר נחמן מתורגמניה דר"ש בן לקיש כתוב א' אומר כתב לך את הדברים האלה וכתוב אחד אומר כי על פי הדברים האלה לומר לך דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לאמרם בכתב ושבכתב אי אתה רשאי לאמרם על פה, אמרי מילתא חדתא שאני דהא ר' יוחנן וריש לקיש מעייני באגדתא בשבתא ודרשי הכי עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך מוטב תעקר אות א' מן התורה ואל תשתכח תורה מישראל

And if one forgets, he can write it on parchment. But doesn't R' Aba the son of R' Hiyya bar Aba say in in the name of R' Yochanan:  One who writes books is like he who burns the Torah, and one who learns from them gets no reward. For R' Yehudah bar Nachman, the translator of R' Shimon ben Lakish expounded one verse that says "Write for yourself these words, " and another verse says "These words should be by heart." This teaches you that words which are by heart are not allowed to be said in writing, and those which are in writing are not allowed to be said by heart. [So why can you write down the nesachim one forgets?] A sharp matter, is different. For R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish would delve into aggada on the Sabbath, and they expounded thusly: "A time to do for God, break your Torah" - it is better you uproot one letter of the Torah, rather than the Torah be forgotten in Israel."

We can see from this context that "one who burns Torah" is someone who doesn't follow the rules on how to learn it, eschewing the doctrine of not writing down the Oral Law, except in certain cases. Although in the context of Shabbat, it would seem (as per Rashi there) that writing blessings with God's name is like burning the Torah because if a fire happened, it couldn't be saved, this has nothing to do with that context!

It seems to me that "let the Torah be burned" is Rabbi Elazar saying that he is not following the proper rules of how to disseminate Torah! He really should be willing to teach Torah to women, yet he is making himself like someone who "burns the Torah". Why was that? It could be that its the same reason as not writing down the Oral law. The reason for not writing down the Oral law could have been manifold, but it seems that the focus was that the Oral law should be kept among the elite through extreme memorization - unable to be misunderstood, if kept carefully with select teachers. Unfortunately, by the time of the Mishna, this aspect was useless since so many "elite" people did not carefully keep it. Related to this, keeping it Oral kept a sacredness about it because it was closed off to the public.

If so, perhaps the reason why R' Eliezer was against teaching women Torah. One is that the woman was somehow asking a particularly disrespectful question - she was trying to bring down the sacredness. Even were this not so, women in the ancient world were not considered so smart or capable, and so if one taught women Torah, the Torah would lose its sacredness. Additionally, she could misunderstand what she learned because historically and sociologically, she was not trained in learning. Lastly, it would cause the Oral law to be spread out among the non-elite, especially women who were not able or considered capable of being part of that elite class.

However, we might say that this would not at all apply today. Now that the Torah is written down, and now that all have access if they want, both men and women, there is no reason to "burn the Torah".