אברהם רבקש Avraham Rivkas

Miyad Mamash

What does “Miyad” mean in postbiblical Hebrew? This not a trick question.

To ‘publish’ a novel theory before complete observation of all the available evidence (or at least a large enough pool of falsifiable data samples) is not “serious”.

Nevertheless, since:

1. There is no question of deciding any Halacha based on the notion.

2. Seeing as Jews must occupy the majority of their time with actual learning.

Let’s leave the painstaking lexical verification of combing through mountains of references to those whom this work rightly suits.

‘Yours truly’ believes he has seen adequate anecdotal passages to at least record an idea here. If anyone found/finds new data requiring reconsideration, please email me.

The grand theory is as follows:

Usually, Miyad means what you thought it means; “now”. Sometimes, however, it means: “and so”, or “and this caused….” [Let’s be fancy: “pursuant to the aforementioned occurrence”]. So, Miyad – “from the hand”, can mean “now”, or “therefore”. I will presently exhibit each translation with examples.

Translation A: Immediately.

Kiddushin 29a, end –

למולו מנלן דכתיב וימל אברהם את יצחק בנו והיכא דלא מהליה אבוה מיחייבי בי דינא למימהליה דכתיב המול לכם כל זכר והיכא דלא מהליה בי דינא מיחייב איהו למימהל נפשיה דכתיב וערל זכר אשר לא ימול את בשר ערלתו ונכרתה איהי מנלן דלא מיחייבא דכתיב כאשר צוה אותו אלהים אותו ולא אותה אשכחן מיד לדורות מנלן תנא דבי ר’ ישמעאל כל מקום שנאמר צו אינו אלא זירוז מיד ולדורות זירוז דכתיב וצו את יהושע וחזקהו ואמצהו מיד ולדורות דכתיב מן היום אשר צוה ה’ והלאה לדורותיכם

And Berachos 7b –

תנא משמיה דרבי מאיר בשעה שהחמה זורחת וכל מלכי מזרח ומערב מניחים כתריהם בראשיהם ומשתחוים לחמה מיד כועס הקדוש ברוך הוא

The Gemara is obviously referring to the precise moment, as is clear from the context regarding Balaam’s attempted curse.

Translation B: Therefore.

There are quite a few stories in Gemara where it says Miyad, and yet it’s evident that the next action only takes place days, months, even years later. For instance, see Toras Chaim’s question on Sanhedrin 89b –

“מיד והאלהים נסה את אברהם”. משמע דמעשה העקדה מיד אחר דבריו של שטן הוה וכן משמע ממה שנאמר ויהי אחר הדברים האלה דכ”מ שנאמר אחר סמוך ותימה דמדקאמר שטן מכל סעודה שעשה לא היה לו להקריב תור חד משמע דמיד אחר הסעודה הוה אמר הכי וסעודה ביום הגמל את יצחק הוה ובשעת העקדה כבר היה בן שלשים ושבע שנים

Here are two more illustrations of the theory.

See Yalkut (Genesis 6:44, beginning) –

כל אותה הלילה היה לוט מבקש רחמים על הסדומיים והיו מקבלין מידו כיון שאמרו איה האנשים הוציאם אלינו ונדעה אותם לתשמיש מיד אמרו לו עוד מי לך פה עד כאן היה לך רשות ללמד סניגוריא מכאן ואילך אין לך רשות

The traditional understanding doesn’t help us here. The Torah says explicitly that the incident with the townsmen occurred at bedtime, while the angels’ discussion with Lot took place only afterward. Our theory also explains the superfluous “Letashmish”: in other words, greed etc. is one thing, but once it’s about man rape, no justification can be accepted.

Also see Avos D’Rabbi Nosson 9:2 –

מה תלמוד לומר וילך מלמד שנסתלק [הצרעת] מאהרן ודבק במרים מפני שלא היה אהרן עסקן בדברים אבל מרים שהיתה עוסקת בדברים (מיד) נענשה יותר

Here are the verses themselves (Numbers 12:5 – 10) for reference:

וירד השם בעמוד ענן ויעמד פתח האהל ויקרא אהרן ומרים ויצאו שניהם

ויאמר…

ויחר אף השם בם וילך והענן סר מעל האהל והנה מרים מצרעת כשלג ויפן אהרן אל מרים והנה מצרעת

One of the commentaries on Avos D’Rabbi Nosson explains that “Vehineh” in the last verse indicates immediacy. This explanation is unsuccessful, because, as one can see in the quoted text, there is no good reason to make that very point at the very point it appears, by now in the midst of a different discussion. The Vilna Gaon, on the other hand, simply deletes the word “Miyad” from his reading… I humbly present my own interpretation resolving the text as is – but neatly.

In many other Chazalic sources, both interpretations of Miyad serve well (although the correct rendition is probably simply “now”).

There’s a simple test for this idea: if we can find a Gemara saying “Miyad”, consequently recorded in the Zohar as “Ve’ukmuha (the Gemara says)… uvegin kach… (I.e. therefore)”, that would be proof positive. Maybe later…

My rabbis, ArtScroll, and others have always translated Miyad as A, and tie themselves up in knots accordingly. Perhaps it’s time for a change. I recall years and years ago seeing Shut Shvus Yitzchak (1:33) delving into this very question, but I can’t find the book anywhere.

P. S. There are a whole bunch of places where Miyad is put in parentheses for unclear reasons. See Mishna Ta’anis 3:1 –

סדר תעניות אלו האמור, ברביעה ראשונה. אבל צמחים ששנו, מתריעין עליהם מיד. וכן שפסקו גשמים בין גשם לגשם ארבעים יום, מתריעין עליהם (מיד), מפני שהיא מכת בצרת

See the Vagshal edition (that’s “Wagschall” for you) on the variant readings. Here both mentions of “Miyad” seem to fit fine in context, both in terms of rendition A. See too Ritva, end of 18b.

Acronym Ending Letters

In Hebrew, we find regular letters –

אבג…כלמנ

And then there are Ending Letters, like these –

ךםן…ףץ

When writing Hebrew acronyms which employ last letters like Mem, Chaf, Nun, etc., which form should the final letter take?

Some acronyms simply use Middle Letters –

ה”מ, ש”מ, עאכו”כ, נפק”מ

Many others have Ending Letters, like these –

תנ”ך, רמב”ן, עכו”ם, רמב”ם

So, what is the rule? When is the last letter an “Ending Letter”, and when is it not?

Of course, one could just follow one’s “intuition” (as in: “When does one add the connective ‘Es’?”). This ‘folk scholarship’ seems to substitute for formal knowledge of many literary Torah fields, unfortunately.

As I see it, there are two options:

1. Nouns or concepts get finalized letters, phrases, however common, do not.
2. The more commonly used acronyms get finalized letters, while all others do not.

I do not own a huge list of acronyms to verify either theory.

I may have a way to gain better clarity. Perhaps one of our readers can check out Arabic or Greek. These languages, too, possess final forms for some letters in their alphabet. What is their standard operating procedure for initialisms/acronyms?

In our latest article, we mentioned this story about the Chasam Sofer’s dynasty:

A common saying goes as follows: Three continuous generations of the Sofer rabbinic dynasty; the Chasam Sofer (R’ Moshe), the Kesav Sofer (R’ Avraham Shmuel Binyamin) and the Shevet Sofer (R’ Simcha Bunim), all served as Rabbi of Pressburg for 33 years until their demise. I assume this entails following the Jewish calendar because the secular dates are: Chasam Sofer 1806 to passing 1839; Kesav Sofer 1839 to passing 1871; Shevet Sofer 1872 to passing 1906.

In this week’s “Ner Leshulchan Shabat” (Ki Tavo), he quotes the introduction of Shut “Shem Meshimon” as noting Rabbi Mose Bunem Krauss, rabbi of Baden in Switzerland, was the great-grandson of the Chasam Sofer (on his mother’s side). Known for his great diligence and asceticism, he served in the rabbanus for 33 years, as well…

Torah Bibliography Trivia

A “certain relative” was driving my ears off with an unending stream of odd arcana. ‘Water is known as “Di-hydrogen Monoxide” (i.e. H2O)’, ‘Many more face muscles are required to frown than to smile’, ‘Over 90 percent of the DNA in your body is not yours, but microbes’…

I’ll stop now. You know the type.

I came up with the idea of doing something similar, this time as relates to Torah Bibliography. I asked some confreres what they thought, and received support for the concept.

So here are ten statements of fact and opinion cobbled together; some are arcane, others possibly apocryphal. I hope you enjoy them. You may even find something meaningful and relevant to your current studies.

Ready or not, here I come:

1. A cute name used by many Achronim for parentheses (also referred to as “brackets, round brackets, curved brackets, oval brackets, or, colloquially, parens” – Wikipedia), is “Half Moons”. It appears in Rashash Berachos 9b and other places.
2. A common saying goes as follows: Three continuous generations of the Sofer rabbinic dynasty; the Chasam Sofer (R’ Moshe), the Kesav Sofer (R’ Avraham Shmuel Binyamin) and the Shevet Sofer (R’ Simcha Bunim), all served as Rabbi of Pressburg for 33 years until their demise. I assume this entails following the Jewish calendar because the secular dates are: Chasam Sofer 1806 to passing 1839; Kesav Sofer 1839 to passing 1871; Shevet Sofer 1872 to passing 1906.
3. As I see it, there are four kinds of punctuation common in Torah literature. One, unusual like responsa “Shevet Halevi” by Rabbi Shmuel Wosner, Two, readable like “Even Ha’ezel” and “Ohr Sameyach”, Three, lackadaisical (or partial) like most Achronim, Four, modern (or at least decent attempts) found in modern authors.
4. There is an ancient Jewish grimoire named “Charva Demoshe”. Literally translated as “Sword of Moses”, the title is actually part Hebrew, part Aramaic. Methinks it should either be rendered “Cherev Moshe” or “Charva Demohi”. “Mohi” is the accurate translation of Moses in Aramaic; see Rabbenu Nissim on Nedarim 10b. Am I missing something?
5. The English insult “Idiot” is derived from the Greek idiotes, meaning ‘layman’. The known Tannaic word “Hedyot” (as in “Kohen Gadol / Kohen Hedyot”) is one of many expressions Chazal borrowed from Greek. I read the above in a column by Asher V. Finn, Ami Magazine July 24, 2013.
6. There is quite a long list of books that are considered auspicious (a “Segula”) to keep in the home for mystical protection (e.g. Raziel Hamalach). On the other hand, Kabbalistic “Shoshan Sodos” here (http://www.hebrewbooks.org/19655) is supposed to be dangerous to keep in the home (Source: a tradition).
7. Rabbi Elyashiv zatzal, I am told, was chief copy critic of “Otzar Haposkim” on Even Ha’ezer, volume 4.
8. The popular work “Even Ha’ezel” on Mishneh Torah by Rabbi Meltzer was typed up and edited by Rabbi Meltzer’s wife. I assume he edited it all himself later. Um, did you know that one already?
9. “Nireh li” or “It appears to me” is a ubiquitous expression in Torah literature. The term is intended as an expression of humility. This is based on Sifra Parshas Metzora 5:10 –

נגע מה תלמוד לומר כנגע אפילו תלמיד חכם ויודע שהוא נגע ודאי לא יגזור ויאמר נגע נראה לי בבית אלא כנגע נראה לי בבית

10. Where is Maimonides mentioned in Tosafos on Shas? See here for the answer. http://www.bhol.co.il/forum/topic.asp?cat_id=38&topic_id=3019270&forum_id=19616

OK, that’s it. I was just leaving!

Clean Language

What does the word “Kevastan” mean? It is twice referred to in Shas and nowhere else (if we are to trust the computer).

A, Kiddushin 26b.

B, Sanhedrin 55a.

The “Aruch” by Rabbi Nosson of Rome (Entry קבס) explains –

פירושו מכעיס.

ר”ח ז”ל פירש גנבת דעתינו, כדאמרינן נמצא גנב או קוביוסטוס, והוא בלשון יון מטעה בני אדם בדברי מרמות כגון גנב בעצמו.

פירוש אחר בתשובות, קבסתן בלשון ישמעאל גיתתנו ברפה ולא בדגש, כאדם שמראה את חבירו דבר מטונף והוא אומר הפכת כל האוכלין במעי עד שהגעתני להקיא, ומשל זה אומרים למי שאומר ומדבר דברים רחוקים ודחוקים, כלומר היאך יוכל האדם להערה עצמו. ועיקר לשון זה האדם המרבה במאכל ואוכל אכילה גסה ומצטער ומגיע לו שלשול מלמטה וקיא מלמעלה, נקרא בלשון ארמי קיבסא.

The context and etymology make clear the speaker is accusing his interlocutor of doing evil to him. The only question is what that negative deed is.

The Aruch offers three possible translations of Kevastan:

1. ‘You anger me’
2. ‘You deceive me’
3. ‘You disgust me’

Two problems bother me at this point.

Firstly, if you read the original Aruch in Hebrew (and not just my summary), you will notice certain unmentionable descriptions in his account of #3; descriptions that, ironically, appear to achieve the same deplorable “disgust” being referenced. See Pesachim 3a on the great importance of using clean language in Chazal’s view. How could Rabbi Nosson – a Rishon, no less, express himself in this graphic fashion?

Secondly, assuming his third interpretation is truly correct, how could Chazal speak this way? Again, see Pesachim above. Even without their spelling things out, as the Aruch does, the phrase itself appears dreadful. How is “Kevastan” different than “You make me p***”? To make matters worse, Rashi, as well, (on both the aforementioned Sugyos) agrees with the Aruch’s third commentary.

Indeed sometimes, the words of Torah, themselves, are not “pretty”, see Yalkut Shimoni 5:990 –

ר’ שמואל בר יצחק פתר קריא בפרשיותיה של תורה אף על פי כן שנראות כאלו כעורות ושחורות לאמרם ברבים כגון הלכות זיבה ונגעים אמור הרי הם ערבות לפני, כו’

R’ Shmuel bar Yitzchak interpreted the verse [“Black as a raven (Song of Songs 5:11)”] metaphorically to refer to those portions of Torah which, although they seem too ugly and ‘black’ to be taught in public, such as the laws of discharges and skin diseases [Zivah, Nega’im], say: They are pleasing before G-d etc.

In truth though, there is no connection between Yalkut Shimoni and our discussion. This is not Torah itself, but avoidable expressions by sages in the course of a discussion concerning actual Torah. There is no reason to assume a compelling cause to express thoughts this way.

See also Megillah 25a regarding idol worshippers, an exception that proves the rule.

I am no expert on Aramaic, Greek or Arabic, but using a form of “outside” logic, it would seem either #1 or #2 is correct. I deem it probable Chazal would use a more refined form of speech; ergo that is what the unknown Kevastan means. Is that a logical fallacy…?

However, am I right in assuming this language is improper in the first place?

In his “Orchos Yosher”, Rabbi Chaim Kanievski (in the Chapter entitled “Hadras Panim”) quotes the Chazon Ish using the same terminology (after quoting the letter – Collected Letters of the Chazon Ish 1:198, saying he is “Soled”, or “recoils”, from shaving of the beard) –

ואמר מרן ז”ל שכשנכנס אליו אדם שמוריד זקנו או שמגדל בלורית נהי’ לו כ”כ לא טוב עד שעומד לו להקיא

Our teacher [the Chazon Ish] of blessed memory said that when he meets a man who removes his beard [entirely] or grows a front-lock [?] he feels so ill that he has the urge to vomit.

I wonder: was this first said in Yiddish? If so, what expression might have been used exactly? The above Hebrew quote is very unwieldy.

P. S. The Aramaic-to-Hebrew dictionary by E.T Melamed quotes both the first and third options in the Aruch –

הכעסתני, הגעלתני (גרמת לי להקיא, ערוך)

I assume he has good, scholarly reason for doing so.