Aliens and Judaism Sourcesheet

Aliens and Judaism

Sourcesheet by Aryeh Sklar

Star Wars

Judges 5:23

א֣וֹרוּ מֵר֗וֹז אָמַר֙ מַלְאַ֣ךְ ה' אֹ֥רוּ אָר֖וֹר יֹשְׁבֶ֑יהָ כִּ֚י לֹֽא־בָ֙אוּ֙ לְעֶזְרַ֣ת ה' לְעֶזְרַ֥ת ה' בַּגִּבּוֹרִֽים:

‘Curse you Meroz,' said the messenger of the Lord, 'curse you bitterly (you) inhabitants thereof,' because they came not to the aid of the Lord, to the aid of the Lord against the mighty.

Moed Katan 16a

Some say that [Meroz] was a great man. And others say that it was a star, as it is stated: “The stars fought from heaven; in their courses they fought against Sisera,” (Judges 5:20).

איכא דאמרי גברא רבה הוה ואיכא דאמרי כוכבא הוה שנאמר (שופטים ה, כ) מן שמים נלחמו הכוכבים

Shita LeTalmid R”I miParis on Moed Katan 16a

Others say that it was a star: Meroz was the name of a star, which did not come to fight against Sisera like the other stars did. “Its inhabitants” refers to the great aid of other stars who would have come for Meroz, and since Meroz didn’t come, they all didn’t come.

ואיכא דאמרי כוכבא הוה: אותו מרוז היה שם כוכב אחד שלא בא להלחם עם סיסרא כמו שעשו שאר הכוכבים דכת' הכוכבים ממסלותם וגו' ויושביה דקא' סיעה גדולה של כוכבים אחרים היתה לו לאותו מרוז ולפי שלא בא הוא לא באו גם כולם

Psalm 68:18

רכב אלקים רבתים אלפי שנאן

The chariots of God are myriads, even thousands upon thousands

Psalm 145:13

Thy kingdom is a kingdom for all ages, and Thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.

מלכותך מלכות כל עלמים וממשלתך בכל דור ודור

Genesis Rabbah 9:2

It is written (Ecclesiastes), ‘He made all in its proper time.’… R’ Avahu said: We see from here that God created worlds and destroyed them, created worlds and destroyed them, until he created these and said, ‘This is good for me, those were not good for me.’ R’ Pinchas said: R’ Avahu based himself on the verse, ‘And God saw all that He had created, and it was very good’ - This good for me, those were not good for me.

את הכל עשה יפה בעתו... א"ר אבהו מכאן שהקב"ה היה בורא עולמות  מחריבן בורא עולמות ומחריבן עד שברא את אלו אמר דין הניין לי יתהון לא הניין לי, אמר רבי פנחס טעמיה דרבי אבהו וירא אלקים את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאד, דין הניין לי, יתהון לא הניין לי.

Rashi on Genesis 1:1

Elokim created: It does not say “Hashem created” (like it does in Gen. 2, “Hashem Elokim”), because at first, it arose in His mind to create with His attribute of strict law (Elokim), but He saw that the world could not endure. So He preceded it with the attribute of mercy (Hashem), and joined it with the attribute of strict law (Elokim), and this is why it is written (Gen. 2:4), “On the day that Hashem Elokim made the sky and the land.”

ברא א-להים: ולא אמר ברא ה', שבתחלה עלה במחשבה לבראתו במדת הדין, ראה שאין העולם מתקיים, הקדים מדת רחמים ושתפה למדת הדין, היינו דכתיב (להלן ב ד) ביום עשות ה' א-להים ארץ ושמים:

Tikkunei Zohar Introduction, 14b

(Daniel 12:3) "Those who bring the multitudes to righteousness are like the stars forever and ever." The stars certainly cannot be counted, for every star is its own world, and this is what it means (Song of Songs 8:6) "alamot without number." Read it "worlds" (olamot), not "maidens" (alamot), since the righteous are like the stars and each one has a star of his own.

ומצדיקי הרבים בה יהון ככוכבים לעולם ועד, ככוכבים ודאי דלית לון חושבנא, דכל כוכבא וכוכבא אתקרי עלמא יחידא, ודא הוא ועלמות אין מספר. ואלין עלמות אל תקרי אלא עולמות ובגין דצדיקייא אינון כככבים וכל חד אית ליה ככב

Mishna Oktzin 3:12

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will bequeath to each and every righteous person three hundred and ten worlds, as the verse says, (Proverbs 8:21), "To bequeath substance [literally: 'yesh,' the numerical value of which is three-hundred and ten] to My loved ones, and I shall fill their treasuries."

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, עָתִיד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְהַנְחִיל לְכָל צַדִּיק וְצַדִּיק שְׁלשׁ מֵאוֹת וַעֲשָׂרָה עוֹלָמוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ח), לְהַנְחִיל אֹהֲבַי יֵשׁ וְאֹצְרֹתֵיהֶם אֲמַלֵּא.

Leviticus Rabbah 18:1, Exodus Rabbah 52:3, Ecclesiastes Rabbah 12:5

(Ecclesiastes 12:5) "When a man goes to his world." It says "his world", not "the eternal world (the next world", teaching you that every righteous person gets a world of his own.

(קהלת יב, ה): כִּי הֹלֵךְ הָאָדָם אֶל בֵּית עוֹלָמוֹ, בֵּית הָעוֹלָם לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא בֵּית עוֹלָמוֹ, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכָּל צַדִּיק וְצַדִּיק יֵשׁ לוֹ עוֹלָם בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ

Avodah Zarah 3b

The Gemara asks: And during the twelve hours of the night, what does God do? If you want, say similar to the day, i.e., God performs the same activities as in the day. And if you wish, say instead that He rides on his light cherub and flies in eighteen thousand worlds, as it is stated: “The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even [shinan] thousands” (Psalms 68:18). Do not read it as even [shinan], rather read it as: That which are not [she’einan].

ובליליא מאי עביד איבעית אימא מעין יממא ואיבעית אימא רוכב על כרוב קל שלו ושט בשמונה עשר אלף עולמות שנאמר רכב אלקים רבותים אלפי שנאן אל תקרי שנאן אלא שאינן ]כלו' חסרים]

Rav Chasdai Crescas, Ohr Adonai 4:2

Among them: However the world was created, whether by desire or requirement, why couldn't the desire or requirement include another world or worlds, beyond this one? Among them: According to our explanation that the world was created at [Divine] desire, to provide good and favour, it is clear that the desire to provide good has no stinginess, and adding worlds would add to the provision of goodness. It is possible, then, that there could be many worlds. Among them: Multiplicity exists only in entities which are vulnerable to deterioration, like animals and plants. This indicates that multiplicity is only to preserve species, which is why non-deteriorating entities do not have multiplicity. Since the world cannot deteriorate, this mandates that there be no multiplicity. Among them: The Creator of all existence is One, in the purest sense, and so it would be suitable for that which exists to be one. This is because of the accepted point that a pure One should only create a pure one. It is also because the great perfection of something which exists and is influenced is to resemble that which influences, to the extent possible. Since it is true that none of the reasons we presented, positive or negative, are sufficient grounds to determine the truth, and what they provide is only the possibility of multiplicity, it is appropriate that we not distance the lesson of some of our Sages, from Avodah Zarah 3b, "This teaches that He travels among 18,000 worlds," meaning that His supervision travels among those worlds.

מהם, שאיך שיהיה שהוית העולם, אם שהיתה רצונית או מחויבת, מה המונע שלא לחול הרצון או החיוב בעולם אחר או עולמות זולת זה? מהם, כי למה שהתבאר שהוית העולם רצונית, על צד ההטבה והחנינה, והוא מבואר, שאין שם כילות וצרות עין להיטיב, כל אשר יוסיף בעולמות יוסיף בהטבה, ולזה כבר יתכן, שיהיו בכאן עולמות רבים. ומהם, כי למה שלא נמצא רבוי אישים אלא באישים ההוים הנפסדים, כמו בבעלי חיים ובצמחים; הנה יראה, שהרבוי בהם לתכלית שמירת המין לבד; ולזה היו האישים הבלתי נפסדים, בלתי נמצא בהם רבוי. ויתחיב אם כן, שהעולם, אחר שהתבאר היותו בלתי נפסד, שלא יהיה בו רבוי. ומהם, כי למה שהפועל למציאות הוא אחד בתכלית הפשיטות, כבר יראה, שהנמצא ראוי להיות אחד. אם למה שהוסכם עליו, שמהאחד הפשוט לא יתחייב אלא אחד פשוט, ואם למה שכבר יראה, שהשלמות הגדול לנמצא הנאצל — שיתדמה בכל מה שאפשר למאציל ובאשר היה זה כן, והוא, שכבר התבאר שאין בכל הטענות שזכרנו, אם לצד החיוב ואם לצד השלילה, שיתן האמת בדרוש; ומה שהתבאר מהם היא אפשרות הרבוי לבד, הנה ראוי שלא נרחיק מה שבא בדרש לקצת רז״ל. אמרם בראשון מע״ז ג: ״מלמד ששט בי״ח אלף עולמות״. והכונה בו, שהשגחתו משוטטת בכל העולמות ההם

Sefer HaBris (R. Pinhas Eliyahu Horwitz, 1797)

Therefore, it is my opinion that there are inhabited worlds. But that which [the scientists] say, that their worlds are exactly like ours, with no change in physical nature, and the creatures have free will, and the animals and plants and the like live and die, that is just falsehood… One who believes in that is called “a gullible simpleton who believes everything.”

"לכן דעתי שיש בהם ישוב והן עולמות... ומה שאמרו שהם וכל אשר בהם כמו זה העולם ממש, בלי שנוי בטבעו, ובהם בעלי בחירה, ובהמה וצמח ודומם הווים ונפסדים, בזה דברו לשון שקר... והמאמין ככה נקרא פתי יאמין לכל דבר

R. David Neito, 1654-1728, England

[How could big rabbis learn science, which can be against the Torah?] Rabbi Meir [of the Talmud] ate the nut and threw away the shell [in reference to learning from Elisha ben Avuya]. So too should we deal with the knowledge of the nations, for anything against our holy and pure Torah, whether written or oral Torah, we will cast it away and consider it abominable, for it is forbidden. But that which is not against its words or interpretations, there is permission for any Jewish man to accept it or reject it according to his mind. Therefore, since there is no problem accepting that planets that revolve are worlds with living beings on them, a person would be right to accept it. Indeed, it might even fit with Chazal’s intent when they wrote at the end of Mishna Oktzin that in the future, God will bequeath to each righteous person three hundred and ten worlds.

ר' מאיר אגוז מצא תוכו אכל קליפתו זרק. וכן ראוי לנו לעשות בסברות חכמי האומות, שכל מה שהוא מנגד לתורתנו הקדושה והתמימה בין שבכתב בין שבעל פה שקץ תשקצנו ותעב תתעבנו כי חרם הוא, אבל מה שאינו נגד דבריה ולא נגד פירושה הרשות ביד כל איש ישראל להאמין או למאן בו לפי שכלו. ובכן כיון שאין שטן ואין פגע רע להאמין שכל הכוכבים בין המהלכים בין הקובעים בגלגל השמיני הם עולמות אשר בהם מכל בעלי חיים, בצדקתה החזקת ולא ארפה. ואפשר שלזה כיוונו רז"ל כשכתבו בסוף מסכת עוקצין עתיד הקב"ה הוא להנחיל לכל צדיק וצדיק שלש מאות ועשרה עולמו.

Rabbi Judah Barzilai (12th century), commentary on Sefer Yetzirah

Eighteen thousand worlds were created - It’s possible that this world is most beloved by God from all the other worlds, because perhaps He did not give them the Torah. And it’s also possible that the creatures on those planets have no sin like we do. And its possible that those creatures are angelic spirits, who were created for His honor. Or it is possible they are close to be angelic, and have no sin, since they have no evil inclination.

יח אלף עלמות שברא... שאפשר שזה העולם חביב לפניו יותר מכל שאר העלמות כי אולי באותן השאר עולמות לא נתן להם תורה... ואולי אפשר נמי לומר כי באותן היח עולמות אין בהם בריות בחטא ועון כמו באלה ואולי אותן הבריות מלאכים רוחות הן שברא המקום לכבודו או אולי קרובים להן והן בלא חטא שאין יצר הרע שולט בהן...

R. Aryeh Kaplan, “On Extraterrestial Life”

Once we know that the stars and their planets were created as an abode for the Tzaddikim, we might naturally wonder how they will be transported to them. However, the Talmud even provides an answer to this question. Discussing the passage (Isaiah 40:31), "They shall mount up with wings as eagles," the Talmud states (Sanhedrin 92b) that in the Future World, God will grant the Tzaddikim wings to escape the Earth. The Zohar goes a step further and states that "God will give them wings to fly through the entire universe." In a way, this teaching predicts the event of space travel. But more than that, it provides us with at least one of the reasons why space flight would be inevitable as part of the prelude to the Messianic age. This, of course, could bring us to a general discussion of the role of modern technology in Torah hashkafah (perspective), a lengthy subject in its own right.

Rav Kook, Lenevuchei Hador 5

It would certainly not become too crowded for everybody, because with the increase in gradual perfection of humanity, we would discover easily ways to settle on innumerable other planets and galaxies.

המקום ודאי לא יהיה צר לבני אדם. כי ברב ההשתלמות ההדרגית יתגלו עוד בנקל דרכים להתיישב בכוכבים רבים ועולמות אין מספר.

Rabbi Yonatan Eybeshutz, Tiferet Yehonatan on Noach

And Hashem smelled the sweet smell, and Hashem said to His heart, 'I will no longer curse the land because of man.'" This that is written 'to his heart' is because it was not the Will of Hashem to reveal that he would no longer destroy the world again, in order that the fear would be on mankind so that they would not do as the abominations of the generation of the Deluge, lest, forfend, a deluge come to the world. And this was the matter of the generation of the Dispersion, that they wished to construct a tower unto the heavens. For there is to understand -- were they such fools?! For if so, they would have needed a foundation, based on the science of architecture, to be wider than the globe of the earth! Rather, they judged, based on the science of nature, that all the rains descended from the steams and the mists which arose from the earth and the element of water. And from this came to be the clouds, and from their they poured forth their water. And the water did not come from the Heavens at all. And they already estimated, based on observation, that the measure of the clouds, which was from the thick mists which arise from the earth, was not higher than five mil at most. And if so, perforce the fine mists which distribute the water do not rise higher than that. For if they did rise higher than that, then even the clouds would be higher than that from the earth. And therefore, they thought to build a tower higher than the altitude of these clouds, and if so, it would be impossible for rain to fall upon them. And the language (in pasuk 4) of וְרֹאשׁוֹ בַשָּׁמַיִם is an exaggerated expression. However, it is known that in the sphere of the Moon there is also a place for settlement just as on the sphere of the Earth. And they already discovered the craft of flying, which is to make something like a mast {and sail) resting parallel to the width of the earth. And therefore, by virtue of the fact the the wind arises from the earth, and so too all the winds arising from the earth below. And therefore I have written that Noach did not travel in a ship to the sea in the middle of the ocean. For certainly the Deluge did not descend there. For what purpose would there be for a Deluge in the sea?  And if so, he should have gotten into a ship and not in an ark. And if they did not know how to construct a ship, Hashem should have instructed him the construction of a ship in place of the command of the ark. And even if we believe that the Ocean surrounds the world from edge to edge, like a pipe {tzinor}, such that on one side are the three parts of the world -- Asia, Africa, and Europe -- and on the other side is the New World which is called America. And if so, how could humans have come there before the Deluge to the New World without a ship? And if you say that there were no men there, then even the Deluge didn't descend there, for it would be to no purpose. And if so, what advantage does Eretz Yisrael have that it is called Pure because the water of the Deluge did not descend there? Behold even the New World is Pure, for the waters of the Deluge did not descend there! Rather, it is in accordance with what I wrote, that in the Deluge, all the power of the Earth was reduced such that the Wind did not go out at all from the earth. And if so, it was not possible for Noach to traverse the water in a ship in the sea of the Ocean, since in the place he was at the time of the Deluge, the Wind did not move, and it is not possible to move in the water without wind. And if so, that which I have written that the wind traveled from the earth below to above, it is fitting, that the vessel made in the craft of aviation, that the wind blows on the mast {sail} and the wind lifts up the vessel up and up, and it does not return further to the ground, but rather, it return to the ground is caused by the strong and thick wind close to the earth, which weighs down on the thing and compels {/drives} it to descend. And therefore, the engineer assays that via the explosive powder they call polvir {gunpowder} with great force of the explosive powder placed in a tube and shoots the ball which is placed within it such that it goes up and up until it reaches that place, and the ball {bullet?} does not descend all all down, for there is not found a ball at all on the ground, even though according to the natural way it would descend in a short amount of time. And from this they judge that the ball ascended first above the thick and murky air, via the force of the polvir. And when it is above it, it {=the thick air}prevents it afterwards from descending. And if so, if it is possible to bring all the flying vessels above this thick air, it is possible to travel in the wind up and up, until the sphere of the Moon, for the wind would continually lift it up to travel, and above, the wind moves mightily. And they have already written articles on how to make such a ship as this to travel to the Moon. But the main point is that this ship must first rise above this murky air. And this was the intent of the Generation of the Dispersion, as well. That they wished to establish their residence in the sphere of the Moon, for there they would be saved from a Deluge. And they figured out how to construct the aforementioned ship. However, how would they lift this ship above the murky air? And therefore they figured to build a tower, so tall that it was higher than that air. And from there, they would be able to utilize the aforementioned ship to travel in the air until the sphere of the Moon. And there was another group in the generation of the Dispersion who thought of another reason to build the tower. And this is that it is known that from the heavens to the earth, all of the airspace is filled with winds. For it is not possible that from the earth to the heavens is emptiness and a vacuum, and it is not within the realm of the understanding of a scholar to understand that they are so empty  to such an extent that there is no matter there. And if so, perforce there must be winds, and the winds which are close to the earth are thicker and coarser, while the winds which are closer to the heavens are lighter and purer and better. And the entire matter of the generation of the Deluge was before the Deluge, that they offered incense to these winds {/spirits} and they attached themselves to them, and via them they performed many {wondrous} things. And the winds {/spirits} lied to them, falsely assuring them that they would not drown in the waters of the Deluge. But in the generation of the Dispersion, they already saw that they had misled them, and also judged that these winds which were close to the ground did not have power and understanding. But they thought to build a higher than high tower, and there the winds are pure and clear, and if they offered incense to them, they would perform their will, for their force was strong. And in truth, there was in the generation of the Dispersal difference groups, one group thinking this and another group thinking that, as stated in the midrash. {Josh: probably the midrash discussing three different groups and purposes to building the tower, e.g. to wage war, etc.}And therefore it states וַיְהִי כָל הָאָרֶץ שָׂפָה אֶחָת, that is that all of them agreed with one accord to build the tower. Yet, וּדְבָרִים אֲחָדִים, {separate purposes}, that this one had this reason and that one had that reason. And at any rate, we know that they were afraid of the Deluge, and therefore they said that Bilaam went as a talebearer, revealing the secret of the hidden things of Hashem to the gentiles, and also this is reckoned as a curse for them. For the gentiles fenced themselves off in many ways for they were afraid of the Deluge, but Bilaam told them that Hashem already swore that he would not bring a Deluge to the world. And because of him, they returned to their evil ways. And therefore Hashem said it at first in His heart, so as not to cause a disgrace, such that they would have fear from a Deluge.

When Rashi Repeats Himself

Rashi's commentary is supposedly very concise. If Rashi repeats himself on the same words with the same concept in two places or more places, it becomes a mystery.

One such case is in this past week's parasha, Ki Tissa.

God speaks to Moses in Exodus 33:2 -

2I will send an angel before you, and I will drive out the Canaanites, the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivvites, and the Jebusites		בוְשָֽׁלַחְתִּ֥י לְפָנֶ֖יךָ מַלְאָ֑ךְ וְגֵֽרַשְׁתִּ֗י אֶת־הַכְּנַֽעֲנִי֙ הָֽאֱמֹרִ֔י וְהַֽחִתִּי֙ וְהַפְּרִזִּ֔י הַֽחִוִּ֖י וְהַיְבוּסִֽי:
and I will drive out the Canaanites: They are six nations [although seven nations were mentioned in Gen. 15], and the Girgashites got up and emigrated from before them of their own accord.		וגרשתי את הכנעני וגו': שש אומות הן, והגרגשי עמד ופנה מפניהם מאליו:

(This Rashi translation was changed slightly by me)

Rashi explains why only six nations are listed here, and says because one of the nations, the Girgashites, already left on their own.

But then look only one chapter later, also in Ki Tissa, 34:11 (I included the verses after as well for context) -

11Keep carefully what I am commanding you today: Lo! I will drive out from before you the Amorites and the Canaanites, the Hittites and the Perizzites, the Hivvites and the Jebusites.		יאשְׁמָ֨ר־לְךָ֔ אֵ֛ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָֽנֹכִ֖י מְצַוְּךָ֣ הַיּ֑וֹם הִֽנְנִ֧י גֹרֵ֣שׁ מִפָּנֶ֗יךָ אֶת־הָֽאֱמֹרִי֙ וְהַכְּנַֽעֲנִ֔י וְהַֽחִתִּי֙ וְהַפְּרִזִּ֔י וְהַֽחִוִּ֖י וְהַיְבוּסִֽי:
the Amorites…: Six nations are here , because the Girgashites [i.e., the seventh nation] got up and emigrated from before them.		את האמרי וגו': שש אומות יש כאן, כי הגרגשי עמד ופנה מפניהם:
12Beware lest you form a covenant with the inhabitant[s] of the land into which you are coming, lest it become a snare in your midst.		יבהִשָּׁ֣מֶר לְךָ֗ פֶּן־תִּכְרֹ֤ת בְּרִית֙ לְיוֹשֵׁ֣ב הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אַתָּ֖ה בָּ֣א עָלֶ֑יהָ פֶּן־יִֽהְיֶ֥ה לְמוֹקֵ֖שׁ בְּקִרְבֶּֽךָ:
13But you shall demolish their altars, shatter their monuments, and cut down their sacred trees.		יגכִּ֤י אֶת־מִזְבְּחֹתָם֙ תִּתֹּצ֔וּן וְאֶת־מַצֵּֽבֹתָ֖ם תְּשַׁבֵּר֑וּן וְאֶת־אֲשֵׁרָ֖יו תִּכְרֹתֽוּן:

So we see, once again, the same answer in Rashi for why the Torah only lists six nations - the seventh nation had picked up and left before they came. Why?

Another question to be asked is that there are many times before this in the Torah where less than seven nations are mentioned. For example, in Exodus 3:8 and 17, we find:

8I have descended to rescue them from the hand[s] of the Egyptians and to bring them up from that land, to a good and spacious land, to a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivvites, and the Jebusites.

חוָֽאֵרֵ֞ד לְהַצִּיל֣וֹ | מִיַּ֣ד מִצְרַ֗יִם וּלְהַֽעֲלֹתוֹ֘ מִן־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַהִוא֒ אֶל־אֶ֤רֶץ טוֹבָה֙ וּרְחָבָ֔ה אֶל־אֶ֛רֶץ זָבַ֥ת חָלָ֖ב וּדְבָ֑שׁ אֶל־מְק֤וֹם הַכְּנַֽעֲנִי֙ וְהַ֣חִתִּ֔י וְהָֽאֱמֹרִי֙ וְהַפְּרִזִּ֔י וְהַֽחִוִּ֖י וְהַיְבוּסִֽי:

17And I said, 'I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt, to the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivvites, and the Jebusites, to a land flowing with milk and honey.'

יזוָֽאֹמַ֗ר אַֽעֲלֶ֣ה אֶתְכֶם֘ מֵֽעֳנִ֣י מִצְרַ֒יִם֒ אֶל־אֶ֤רֶץ הַכְּנַֽעֲנִי֙ וְהַ֣חִתִּ֔י וְהָֽאֱמֹרִי֙ וְהַפְּרִזִּ֔י וְהַֽחִוִּ֖י וְהַיְבוּסִ֑י אֶל־אֶ֛רֶץ זָבַ֥ת חָלָ֖ב וּדְבָֽשׁ:

Rashi is silent in these places. And see, as well, Exodus 23:23 -

23For My angel will go before you, and bring you to the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivvites, and the Jebusites, and I will destroy them.

כגכִּֽי־יֵלֵ֣ךְ מַלְאָכִי֘ לְפָנֶ֒יךָ֒ וֶֽהֱבִֽיאֲךָ֗ אֶל־הָֽאֱמֹרִי֙ וְהַ֣חִתִּ֔י וְהַפְּרִזִּי֙ וְהַכְּנַֽעֲנִ֔י הַֽחִוִּ֖י וְהַיְבוּסִ֑י וְהִכְחַדְתִּֽיו:

So if we tried to answer for Rashi that he wanted to answer the question of why six instead of seven every time it comes up, he does not do so here.

And our third question is, there is a case where only five nations are mentioned, and Rashi gives a completely different answer. See Exodus 13:5 -

5And it will come to pass that the Lord will bring you into the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Hivvites, and the Jebusites, which He swore to your forefathers to give you a land flowing with milk and honey and you shall perform this service in this month.		הוְהָיָ֣ה כִֽי־יְבִֽיאֲךָ֣ יְהֹוָ֡ה אֶל־אֶ֣רֶץ הַ֠כְּנַֽעֲנִ֠י וְהַֽחִתִּ֨י וְהָֽאֱמֹרִ֜י וְהַֽחִוִּ֣י וְהַיְבוּסִ֗י אֲשֶׁ֨ר נִשְׁבַּ֤ע לַֽאֲבֹתֶ֨יךָ֙ לָ֣תֶת לָ֔ךְ אֶ֛רֶץ זָבַ֥ת חָלָ֖ב וּדְבָ֑שׁ וְעָֽבַדְתָּ֛ אֶת־הָֽעֲבֹדָ֥ה הַזֹּ֖את בַּחֹ֥דֶשׁ הַזֶּֽה:
into the land of the Canaanites, etc.: Although [Scripture] enumerated [here] only five nations, it means all seven [of the nations], for they are all included in the [term] Canaanites, [even though] there was one of the families of Canaan that had only the name Canaanite. — [from Mechilta; Tanchuma, Bo 12]		אל ארץ הכנעני וגו': אף על פי שלא מנה אלא חמשה עממין, כל שבעה גוים במשמע, שכולן בכלל כנעני הם, ואחת ממשפחת כנען היתה שלא נקרא לה שם אלא כנעני:

Rashi, here, says that since Canaani is really the all-encompassing term that the Torah uses for all the nations in Israel, two missing are just included in the name of Canaan. So why does Rashi give this answer here and not in the other places, and not only that, but a different answer in two places?

(By the way, the question on Rashi is obvious here, why didn't it just Canaani if all the other nations are really included. Many of the meforshim deal with this. My favorite answer is that if it had just said Canaani, you would think only the 1 out of the 7. Only once you leave out two, the question is why not those two, and the answer is that they are included in the Canaani name. Others answer that Prizi and Girgashi are the smallest, or most insignificant. The Ramban and others suggest that they are considered outside the land in a technical sense, and in fact Rabbi Yossi HaGlili thought you weren't chayav to bring Bikkurim from those lands.)

A fourth question, which is perhaps not really a question, is why Rashi's dibbur hamatchils are different between 33:2 and 34:11. I'm just raising it here because its interesting to note, but I haven't seen any answer exactly to it.

Let us get to some answers.

The simplest, most obvious answer, is that there is a scribal mistake here. The Re'em, Mizrachi gives this as an answer to a different repetition in Rashi. The Torah says in Gen. 6:18 and 7:7 that Noach, his sons, his wife, his sons wife, all went into the ark. In both places, Rashi says that the men and the women went in separately:

18And I will set up My covenant with you, and you shall come into the ark, you and your sons, and your wife and your sons' wives with you.		יחוַֽהֲקִֽמֹתִ֥י אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֖י אִתָּ֑ךְ וּבָאתָ֙ אֶל־הַתֵּ֔בָה אַתָּ֕ה וּבָנֶי֛ךָ וְאִשְׁתְּךָ֥ וּנְשֵֽׁי־בָנֶי֖ךָ אִתָּֽךְ:
you and your sons, and your wife: the men separately and the women separately. From here, we deduce that they were prohibited to engage in marital relations [in the ark]. — [Sanh. 108b]		אתה ובניך ואשתך: האנשים לבד והנשים לבד, מכאן שנאסרו בתשמיש המטה:

7And Noah went in and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him into the ark because of the flood waters.		זוַיָּבֹ֣א נֹ֔חַ וּ֠בָנָ֠יו וְאִשְׁתּ֧וֹ וּנְשֵֽׁי־בָנָ֛יו אִתּ֖וֹ אֶל־הַתֵּבָ֑ה מִפְּנֵ֖י מֵ֥י הַמַּבּֽוּל:
And Noah…and his sons: The men separately and the women separately, because they were prohibited from engaging in marital relations since the world was steeped in pain. — [Tan. 11]		נח ובניו: האנשים לבד והנשים לבד, לפי שנאסרו בתשמיש המטה, מפני שהעולם היה שרוי בצער:

Mizrachi writes on this:

נראה לי שבוש הוא שנפל בספרים, שמפני שראו גבי (ו, יח) "ובאת אל התיבה אתה ובניך ואשתך" וכו' שפירש "האנשים לבד והנשים לבד", חשבו שכמו כן ראוי לפרש זה אצל הפועל, דחד טעמא הוא. ואין הדבר כן

It seems to me there is an error that fell into the books, because the scribes saw that previously, Rashi gave the explanation of "men separately and women separately", and they thought that it should be explained as well where it is actually done, for it is the same reason. But that's not so...

Mizrachi goes on to explain that there is a difference between a command and what happens matter-of-fact.

Interestingly, that very idea that the Mizrachi fights against, that Rashi is just being consistent and saying the same place wherever it comes up, seems to be the Beer Besadeh's answer to the verses in our parasha. The Beer Besadeh seems to assume Rashi is usually consistent, because he puts his efforts in explaining why Rashi doesn't comment a third time, on Exodus 23:23. He answers that there is no "גרש" there.

But this answer of scribal error doesn't explain why Rashi doesn't say this before, or why he gives a different answer in 13:5.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe also asks these questions. He notes that in the two Rashis in Ki Tissa are slightly different in language:

א) בפעם הראשונה כותב רש"י ששה אומות הן ובפעם השני' כותב ששה אומות יש כאן. ב) בפעם הראשונה כותב "והגרגשי עמד" כו', ואילו בפעם השני' כותב "כי הגרגשי". ג) בפעם ה-א' מסיים רש"י "עמד ופנה מפניהם מאליו", משא"כ בפעם ה-ב', שמשמיט מילה זאת.

1) In the first instance, Rashi writes "they are six nations", and in the second, "here there are six nations." 2) In the first instance, he writes "And the Girgashites got up..." [to answer the question], while in the second, "because the Girgashites." 3) In the first instance, Rashi concludes with "got up and left from before them on their own accord," while in the second, he doesn't say "of their own accord."

He answers like this:

The earlier times in Exodus (specifically 3:8 and 17), God is saying that the Jews will be brought to the land of Israel, which is described there as "flowing with milk and honey." Thus, Rashi did not ask the question of why Girgashi was not mentioned, because there is an easy answer - perhaps Girgashi is not flowing with milk and honey like the other lands are. Thus, I'll add, Ramban on Exodus 3:8 suggests thus:

יזכיר בכאן ששה עממים ויניח השביעי, אולי לא הייתה ארצו זבת חלב ודבש כאלה. וכן בפסוק כי ילך מלאכי לפניך (להלן כג כג): הזכיר אלה הששה. ואולי הוא רמז שאלו כבשו תחלה, כי הם אשר נתקבצו על יהושע ויתנם ה' בידו. ורבותינו אמרו הגרגשי פינה (ירושלמי שביעית פ"ו ה"א), ולכך לא נזכר עם הנכרתים שנאמר בהן והכחדתיו (להלן שם). וכן בכאן ירמוז אל הנלחמים שכבשו.):

It only mentions here six nations and leaves out the seventh, and perhaps this is because the land [of the seventh] is not flowing with milk and honey like those. This may also explain verse 23:23, "I will send an angel before you..." which mentions only these six. But maybe its a hint that these were conquered first... And our sages say its because Girgashi left, and that is why it is not mentioned in 23:23...

 This answer is somewhat difficult, to extend to 23:23 as well, since there "a land flowing with milk and honey" is not mentioned, but in 13:5 it is.

To continue in the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answer of why Rashi seemingly repeats himself:

So those verses were in relation to the lushness of the land of Israel. But in 33:2, God is promising Moses He will send an angel to clear out Israel for them, and doesn't mention the Girgashi. So Rashi needs to explain why it seems as if God would not clear out the Girgashites. Rashi answers that they were no longer there. Thus, they left "of their own accord." Meanwhile, in 34:11, the question is completely different. God gives a command to the Jews to destroy the idols and altars of the nations. But God makes it seem as if there is no obligation to do so for the Girgashis. So he answers, that when you enter the land, "there are here", i.e. in the land as you enter, only six, "because" the Girgashites already left. The "because" is to give a reason why you need not, in this mitzvah, destroy the Girgashi altars etc. Meanwhile, in the first instance, "they are", in the land from a distance, six that I, God, will clear out, since the seventh is gone on its own accord.

There are a few difficulties with this answer. Firstly, the "because" seems to be necessary in both places, but that is glossed over in the answer. Secondly, it doesn't answer 23:23. Thirdly, this answer relies on the premise that Rashi is silent when there are only six nations when it applies to the lushness of the land flowing with milk and honey, but that is disrupted by the fact Rashi does indeed ask and answer differently on 13:5.

There is an answer by Rav Avraham Yitzchak Brazil, in his Iyyunei Rashi, who says this:

We can say simply that all those other verses [besides for the two with Rashi's answer of the Girgashis leaving] refers to entering the land, so its obvious why Girgashi is not mentioned, since God just didn't bring them to the Girgashi land. But here, it says "I will remove the Canaanites...", which has nothing to do with going into the land, but only who God will expel. So then the question is, why wouldn't the Girgashites be expelled.

Thus, his answer is that Rashi repeats himself, yes, but for the two and only times that God says He will expel other nations.

I asked Rav Yisrael Herczeg, a rebbe of mine and author of the Artscroll edition of Rashi on Chumash, what he thought of this issue. He points out that Rashi has a curious comment on Deuteronomy 20:17 -

17Rather, you shall utterly destroy them: The Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivvites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord, your God, has commanded you.		יזכִּי־הַֽחֲרֵ֣ם תַּֽחֲרִימֵ֗ם הַֽחִתִּ֤י וְהָֽאֱמֹרִי֙ הַכְּנַֽעֲנִ֣י וְהַפְּרִזִּ֔י הַֽחִוִּ֖י וְהַיְבוּסִ֑י כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוְּךָ֖ יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶֽיךָ:
as [the Lord your God] has commanded you: [This is] to include the Girgashites.		כאשר צוך: לרבות את הגרגשי:

Here, Rashi (based on the Sifrei) actually includes the Girgashites, and in a phrase ("as He has commanded you") that seemingly does not imply the Girgashites at all.

So Rav Herczeg says that Rashi was concerned in Ki Tisa for a specific issue. It states:

Keep carefully what I am commanding you today: Lo! I will drive out from before you the Amorites and the Canaanites...

Why did God want them to drive out the nations and keep the commandments? Surely, it was to keep the Jewish people a distinct people, with no influence. If the Torah keeps out the Girgashites from the list, it kind of sounds like it is fine for the Jews to assimilate with them, and fraternize with them. To this, Rashi was determined to teach that this is not so. "There are six nations here..." - as in, there are only six nations stated in this verse because of a technical reason that God can't drive out a people already driven out, but all are included in the concept of "don't assimilate with these nations."

Now we understand why Rashi thinks the Girgashites should be included in "as He has commanded you" - since the commandments are meant to keep us from all the other nations, including the Girgashites.

Myself, I'm interested in finding out if there is a universal answer to why Rashi repeats himself. To do this, I need to start listing all the times Rashi clearly didn't need to write the same answer a second time, if the first time would have been known to the reader. So the first two are what we've seen before, and the rest I am adding as I see them:

1. Exodus 33:2 and 34:11
2. Genesis 6:8 and 7:7
3. Genesis 42:4 and 44:29
4. Genesis 1:20 and 1:21 and 1:24 - as summarized here with his answers: Rashi repeats the same brief comment three different times on the words nefesh chaya when these words appear in different verses one after the other. In each case he does so for different reasons. In the first case, to help us avoid a misunderstanding of these words, in another case to reject a Midrash. In short, each comment must be seen in its own particular context.

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.