אברהם רבקש Avraham Rivkas

Avraham Rivkas

הא לחמא עניא… השתא הכא, לשנה הבאה בארעא דישראל. השתא עבדי, לשנה הבאה בני חורין.

We wondered in the past how to read this word in the Haggada: Is it Hashta (colloquial: now) or Hashata (this year)?

So, here’s the Rambam’s Nusach:

בבהילו יצאנו ממצרים. הא לחמא עניא דאכלו אבהתנא בארעא דמצרים: כל דכפין ייתי וייכול, כל דצריך לפסח ייתי ויפסח. שתא הכא, לשנה הבאה בארעא דישראל. שתא הדא עבדי, לשתא דאתיא בני חורי.

Problem solved then; HASHATA it is (unlike the Maharal).

And, as I wrote last time:

Plenty more can be said on the dating and authorship of the various segments of the Haggada, and on the mixing of Hebrew and Aramaic and seeming repetition of this specific paragraph. Refer to “Iyun Tefillah” as well.

Translating German into English

The endearing biography of Rabbi Yoselman of Rosheim by Rabbi Marcus (read: Meir) Lehmann, given the same name, was first published in 1974.

RYoR was most recently translated, adapted and republished in 2002 by Feldheim Publishers, see here for the cover art and here for excerpts.

The book contains a truncated “Prefatory Note” to the original edition by Selina Sassoon, Rabbi Lehmann’s granddaughter –

“The stories written by my late grandfather, Rabbi Dr. Marcus Lehmann זצ”ל, of Mainz, were for three generations the treasured possession of the German-reading Jewish family. The value of these historical narratives lies partly in the fact that they give the young an incomparable insight into various epochs of Jewish history, holding their interest by a colorful and lively style. But even more important is the inimitable way in which they are permeated with the atmosphere of true G-d-fearing Judaism, that inner climate of Jewish feeling, which is the secret of our people’s survival through the ages. The power to tell a gripping story and at the same time to communicate to the young reader a keen appreciation of the essentially Jewish moral issues with which, in so many different forms, the heroes of those stories grapple – this was the rare gift which endeared my grandfather as a writer to old and young alike and gave his work its unique quality.“

Based on the painfully long strings of clauses, undue commas, et al., I presume this passage, too, was originally translated from Selina Sassoon’s German…

What is wrong with dividing up the run-on sentences into shorter ones?! Isn’t our goal fitting the “Target language”? Worse, perhaps the sentences were broken up…?

Dear Dad: Was this acceptable English in antediluvian 1974?

There is nothing ‘artistic’ about having to read the same long sentences, again and again, to grasp their full import — especially considering these words were not written by either the author or the subject of his book.

Effete Salt

Note: This is not about how much salt you like…

I was recently asked to explain the feminine tense in the Talmudic phrase “Melach Sedomis” (Sodomite salt).

The Hebrew word for salt, “Melach” (or the Aramaic “Milcha”) is usually found in the male tense, whether in the Mishnah (Tevul Yom Chapter One, for instance) or Gemara. Should it not have said, “Melach Sedomi” instead?

Sometimes, ‘to ask the question is to answer it’, and this is just one of those times. Obviously, our sages use the word as both Zachar and Nekeiva (male and female). As the Gemara puts its own response to similar problems, “Ika hachi ve’ika hachi”.

There’s a great Hebrew website on Daf Yomi here. In one forum thread, I found a discussion on this very point.

Nor is ‘Melach sedomis’ the only effete (womanlike) salt around. Tosefta Korbanos 10:2 –

ומלח קודמת לעצים

One more example of the female tense in Gemara, Berachos 34a –

תנו רבנן העובר לפני התיבה צריך לסרב ואם אינו מסרב דומה לתבשיל שאין בו מלח ואם מסרב יותר מדאי דומה לתבשיל שהקדיחתו מלח כיצד הוא עושה פעם ראשונה יסרב שניה מהבהב שלישית פושט את רגליו ויורד.

Translation: DafNotes:

The Gemora cites a braisa: If one is asked to lead the congregation (in the prayer service), he ought to refuse (as if to say that he is unworthy of the honor), and if he does not refuse, he resembles a cooked food without salt; but if he persists too much in refusing, he resembles a cooked food which is over-salted. What should he do? The first time (he is asked), he should refuse; the second time, he should bestir himself (preparing himself to rise); the third time, he should stretch out his legs and go down. The Gemora cites a braisa: There are three things of which too much of them are bad, while a little of them is good; namely, yeast, salt, and refusal.

Have something to say? Write to Avraham Rivkas: CommentTorah@gmail.com

Becoming a Better Reader

Instead of a better listener; let’s compare & contrast the two means of assimilation. Note: Our definition of “reading” includes listening to a recorded lecture.

A: Same as with listening, one must concentrate on empathy (putting yourself in the author’s shoes), and have actual respect for the author (not some nebulous “withholding of judgment”).

B: Likewise, certain physical aspects of deferential body language (posture, “eye contact”, cessation of activity, eliminating distractions, etc.) are still important, though the source may not be present — this not for the author’s benefit but your own. These are strong signs of attention/detachment, so be vigilant.

On the other hand, unlike listening where you have but one ‘life’, and are generally “put on the spot”, reading is a kinder assignment. The author isn’t physically present to feel ignored when you ‘multitask’, interrupt or put him on Pause. You also have two stages for understanding as opposed to the one, often called First Reading and Second Reading.

C: First Reading is relatively easy. You sail through the words enjoyably, just “to get a picture” of the content. As you read, avoid formulating any rejoinder, whether disagreement or piggy-backing assent, regardless of your own feelings on the subject matter.

D: During First reading, take the text at surface value. Postpone deciphering “hidden” meanings, including psychological imputations of the author, making out his faction and orientation, influences and any Freudian extrapolations based on word choice, etc. I personally find this instruction unbearable (even for listening!), but I am aware of its importance.

E: Before approaching the Second Reading step, make sure you still have an open mind. If you acquired an overly negative view of the book or its author (whether previously or presently) you must “deprogram” yourself before continuing. This is mental effort well invested. If you are unable to reserve judgment, a true reading is henceforth impossible.

Unless you form a critical opinion of the author and decisively give up on any further attempt to dig his mind, you must forge on up until he has convinced you one way or the other. Which isn’t to say you can’t take a break (or several…)!

F: A worshipful, overly positive view is also harmful (a topic for another time).

G: Second Reading is more difficult, and involves more conscious action and critical thinking on your part.

Here, unlike with real interlocutors, you may “interrupt” the input to gain clarity or solidify. “Heichi dami” and similar interjections in Gemara readily come to mind. (In Shas we find this phenomenon even when the quoted sage was alive and present as well, interestingly.)

Just to clarify: There are no stiff rules here. Each of these stages may involve additional rereading, summaries, etc. If you want to mix things up, or are intellectually gifted you will find this division unreasonably limiting. That is, as long as you aren’t fooling yourself as to your true level of comprehension.

H: One more. When it comes to listening you have no choice but to follow the speaker’s pace. Let your mind wander, and you lose those words spoken in the interim. When reading, by contrast, take advantage of any paragraph or chapter (or other) breaks to ponder what you learn and to let it percolate.

As Chazal say (Bamidbar Rabbah 14:20):

א”ר שמעון… וכי מה הפסקות היו משמשות ליתן ריוח למשה להתבונן בין פרשה לפרשה ובין ענין לענין והרי דברים ק”ו ומה אם מי שהוא שומע מפי הקב”ה ומדבר ברוה”ק צריך להתבונן בין פרשה לפרשה ובין ענין לענין על אחת כמה וכמה הדיוט מהדיוט.

Stay hungry; stay foolish.

Try these tips out on your favorite Torah books, and tell me what you think!

On the other hand…

Neima –

Kesubos 15b –

היכי דמי אי נימא דנגחיה תורא דידן לתורא דידיה לימא ליה אייתי ראיה דישראל את ושקול לא צריכא דנגחיה תורא דידיה לתורא דידן פלגא משלם ואידך פלגא אמר להו אייתי ראיה דלאו ישראל אנא ואתן לכון

Here’s an interesting one, Eruvin 50a –

אמר רבה כל דבר שאינו בזה אחר זה אפילו בבת אחת אינו איתיביה אביי לרבה המרבה במעשרות פירותיו מתוקנין ומעשרותיו מקולקלין אמאי לימא כל שאינו בזה אחר זה אפילו בבת אחת אינו שאני מעשר דאיתיה לחצאין דאי אמר תקדוש פלגא פלגא דחיטתא קדשה

Rabbah stated: ‘What cannot be acquired in succession cannot be acquired simultaneously’. Abaye raised an objection against Rabbah: “If a man gives excessive tithes, his produce is well prepared but his tithes are spoilt.” Why? Should it not be said: ‘What cannot be acquired in succession cannot be acquired simultaneously’? The tithe is different since it is applicable to fractions; for if a man said: ‘Let half of every wheat grain be consecrated’ it becomes consecrated.

Rashi, probably seeing how this difficulty is accepted, deliberately emends the Gemara’s text from “Leima” to “Neima”–

 (נימא כל שאינו בזה אחר זה,) דאילו הוה מפריש מעשר כהלכתו והדר שקל תו וקרייה עליה שם מעשר, על חולין שניתקנו כבר לא חייל עליה שם מעשר והשתא נמי כי אפריש האי טופיינא עם מעשר לא ליחול שם מעשר אפילו על הראוי למעשר כי היכי דאמר גבי שביתה דלא קני ארבע מינייהו מגו תמני כי לא אמר ארבע בהדיא

For a live demonstration of some exceptions in action, see the following Gemara and Tosafos. The Gemara’s ‘Leima kasavar’ sticks around, as does Tosafos’ ‘Leima hani tana’ei’ (which incidentally links the two, supplying hope for some grand explanatory theory).

See Nazir 2b –

האומר אהא הרי זה נזיר דלמא אהא בתענית קאמר אמר שמואל כגון שהיה נזיר עובר לפניו לימא קסבר שמואל ידים שאינן מוכיחות לא הוויין ידים אמרי בזמן שנזיר עובר לפניו ליכא לספוקא במילתא אחרינא אבל ודאי אין הנזיר עובר לפניו אמרינן דלמא אהא בתענית קאמר ודלמא לפוטרו מן קרבנותיו קאמר דקאמר בלבו אי הכי מאי למימרא מהו דתימא בעינן פיו ולבו שוין קא משמע לן

And Tosafos –

ויש ספרים דגרסי אמרי לא בזמן שאין הנזיר עובר לפניו והכי פירושו לעולם שמואל לא בעי ידים מוכיחות ובזמן שנזיר עובר לפניו ליכא ספוקי דיד מיהא הוי אין נזיר עובר לפניו דלמא אהא בתענית קאמר פירוש ואפילו יד לא הוי ולגירסא זו מסיק הכא דשמואל לא בעי ידים מוכיחות והתם דקאמר הרי את מקודשת אע”ג דלא אמר לי הרי היא מקודשת לו ופריך למימרא דסבר שמואל ידים שאין מוכיחות הויין ידים והא תנן האומר אהא הרי זה נזיר ומוקי לה שמואל בשנזיר עובר לפניו הא אין נזיר עובר לפניו לא אלמא קסבר שמואל ידים שאין מוכיחות לא הויין ידים ומשני התם אלא באומר מקודשת לי אלמא מסיק התם לשמואל מהכא דידים שאינן מוכיחות לא הויין ידים להכי גרסינן אמרי אין

והשתא האי לימא אינו כשאר לימא שבגמרא שכן הוא עומד ודכוותה איכא לקמן (דף כט:) לימא הני תנאי כי הני תנאי ועומד כן וכדמפרש

N.B. This article is based solely on amateur research, and may contain mistakes or omissions.

Have something to say? Write to Avraham Rivkas: CommentTorah@gmail.com