Chana, Eli, and Shmuel part III; A reading of Brachot 31b

You can see the first two parts of this installment here and here. I really like the story that appears at the beginning of Sefer Shmuel (Chapters 1-3), and I am currently teaching it. Since the first part is the Haftarah for the first day of Rosh Hashana, it’s inyana de-yoma.

My basic approach to the story remains the same. Eli represents entrenched religious establishment. Chana represents those for whom the establishment does not work, and who actively or passively rebels. Shmuel represents the synthesis between the two.

When teaching this, I found the following question very useful in getting my students to really think in terms of the human drama of the story: Who did Elkanah marry first, Chana or Peninah? Depending on the answer, totally different pictures emerge.

Elkanah himself is a ‘typology’ as well – he’s the wealthy balabus. He’s got a big family, money, and yiches. There’s a midrash that lists Elkanah as one of four blameless people who ever lived (I believe the other three are Yishai, Binyamin, and Mephiboshet). That’s exactly who he was. A really good guy. No enemies. The good life. Thus, he’s totally down with the religious establishment, because it’s good for him. The real test of any social system, including a socio-religious system, is not how it deals with the average or above-average, but how it deals with those on the margins, like childless women.

So lets say, as the psukim seem to indicate, that Chana was Elkanah’s first wife. After however many childless years, Elkanah wanted to start a family so he married another woman, Peninah, who proceeds to bear him many children. How would Chana feel? Superfluous, replaced, alone, inadequate – these are some of the words you might use to describe her situation.

Now imagine the other scenario. Elkanah marries Peninah and raises a large family. After a while, the wealthy Elkanah marries a second woman, who never has any kids. How does Chana feel? It might depend on what everyone else thinks. Did people think she was sugar-daddy Elkanah’s trophy wife? Did people look at her like she was the Anna-Nicole Smith of Ancient Samaria? In such a scenario, she would have a completely different set of feelings to motivate her – shame, invalidation as anything more than eye-candy, objectification.

Just asking the question generated a fantastic discussion.

I also noticed another point about Eli. He and his sons run the show at Shilo. That much is clear. But there’s one image of Eli sitting at the doorpost of the Sanctuary which really sums it all up. He is acting as God’s gatekeeper. He (and his sons) is trying to control access to God. This comes out in several other ways as well (see the earlier posts) – including Rashi on the words ‘lo adoni’, where he has Chana saying that Eli is ‘not her master’ – and that she can approach God without him. And, finally, in the following Gemara in Brachot 31b:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת ברכות דף לא עמוד ב

אל הנער הזה התפללתי, - אמר רבי אלעזר: שמואל מורה הלכה לפני רבו היה, שנאמר: וישחטו את הפר ויביאו את הנער אל עלי, משום דוישחטו את הפר הביאו הנער אל עלי? אלא, אמר להן עלי: קראו כהן, ליתי ולשחוט. חזנהו שמואל דהוו מהדרי בתר כהן למישחט, אמר להו: למה לכו לאהדורי בתר כהן למישחט? שחיטה בזר כשרה! אייתוהו לקמיה דעלי, אמר ליה: מנא לך הא? אמר ליה: מי כתיב ושחט הכהן? והקריבו הכהנים כתיב! מקבלה ואילך מצות כהונה; מכאן לשחיטה שכשרה בזר. אמר ליה: מימר שפיר קא אמרת, מיהו, מורה הלכה בפני רבך את - וכל המורה הלכה בפני רבו חייב מיתה. אתיא חנה וקא צוחה קמיה: אני האשה הנצבת עמכה בזה וגו'. אמר לה: שבקי לי דאענשיה, ובעינא רחמי ויהיב לך רבא מיניה. אמרה ליה: אל הנער הזה התפללתי.

“I prayed for this child”: Rabbi Elazar said: Shmuel made a halakhic ruling before his master, as it says, “And they slaughtered the bull, and they brought the lad in front of Eli.” Did they bring the lad to Eli because they slaughtered a bull? Rather, Eli had said to them, ‘Let a Kohein come and slaughter the bull.’ Shmuel saw that they were scrambling around for a Kohein to do the slaughtering. He said to them, “Why are you looking for a Kohein to do the slaughtering? A non-Kohein is authorized to slaughter!” They brought him before Eli. He [Eli] said to him [Shmuel]: “How do you know this?” He replied: “Does it says ‘and the Kohein shall slaughter?’ It says, ‘and the Kohein will offer’. From the acceptance [of the blood] on, it is the mitzvah of the Kohanim. This teaches that a non-Kohein is authorized to slaughter.” He [Eli] said, “What you say is good. However, you have made a halakhic ruling before your master, and anyone who makes a halakhic ruling before his master is punishable by death.” Chana came and cried before him, “I am the woman who stood before you here…” He said to her, “Leave him, so that I may punish him, and I will pray, and He will give you a greater child than this one.” She said to him, “I prayed for this child.”

I thank Ace from Talpiot for calling my attention to this Gemara in a comment he left a few years ago (I wonder if he remembers).

The whole thing works right into the theme we’ve been developing. The Kohanim are monopolizing access to God. Even that which is permitted to non-Kohanim is being usurped – perhaps not even intentionally. The Kohein’s role as the middle-man between God and Israel does not mean that Israel cannot get to God but through them – that would be the Catholic Church. But perhaps Eli is indeed practicing a proto-Catholic type of Israelite religion, where the priesthood sees itself not as providing access to God, but as providing exclusive access. That is precisely the issue which Chaza”l have Shmuel calling him on. Just as his mother defied Eli by insisting on paving her own way to God, Shmuel defies him by limiting the cultic control of the Kohanim.

Eli’s response makes a number of assumptions. The halakha is that a student must distance himself from his master’s place in order to pasken without committing a capital crime. Eli’s accusation thus rests on two assumptions: a. Eli is Shmuel’s ‘master’ even though they had just met; b. the Mishkan at Shilo was Eli’s ‘place’. Neither assumption is obvious, yet by making both, Eli is telegraphing his attitude toward the Mishkan and his role within it. It should also be noted that Shmuel’s offense is not considered punishable by human courts. As we noted in an earlier post, Eli seems to have blurred the lines between himself and God.

The last line of the sugya, which is a quote from the verse itself, can be read in two ways. What is Chana’s contention when Eli (again, playing God) promises to give her another child? She says, “I prayed for this child.” I think that at first glace, the emphasized word should be ‘this’. “I prayed for THIS child, not another. You can’t take him away from me.” But perhaps is should be read thus: “I prayed for this child. It’s very nice that YOU can promise me another one, but I want the one that I prayed for myself. This is the child of my prayer – and nobody else’s (despite Eli’s ‘addition’ that Chana’s prayer would be heeded).” This reading is reinforced by the very name she gives her son – Shmuel, ‘because I asked God for him.’

Today is my Havztim Rab

Because I turn 31 today according to the Hebrew calendar.

And because I have to find something interesting about an otherwise completely unremarkable birthday. I mean, prime numbers are so boring.

Shemittah is from Mars; Yovel is from Venus

I gave my first class on Sheviit today. We went through the different places where the Chumash discusses, or might discuss, Shemittah. All in all, it went pretty well, I think.

I did notice one thing, however. As opposed to most other areas of Halacha where there’s some basic familiarity and application to life, this is an area which is completely and totally foreign to the average Chutznik. It was like we were discussing Buddhism.

In truth, I had similar sentiments while learning Masechet Sheviit. It’s hard to get into the head of a farmer, let alone one from late antiquity. Yet, this is a very real and contemporary issue. My goal is that these students experience shemittah and all of its socio-religious implications. After all, Shemittah was intended to accomplish something; in an agrarian society, the meaning of Shemittah would have been truly experienced. The vast majority of us really only experience Shemittah as consumers (yes, even those of us who ‘buy’ small plots of land in Israel in order to let them fallow for the year). I want to try to learn what it would be like to experience it as a producer.

Hakhel

In just about a month, we would have the opportunity for the mitzvah of hakhel, on Chol Ha-Mo’ed Sukkot of the Shemittah year. Well, according to Ibn Ezra, anyway. I was startled to discover that Ibn Ezra, against pretty much everyone else, says that Hakhel was performed during the Shemittah year itself, and not the year after Shemittah.

During my little bit of research, I came upon several different ideas regarding what Hakhel was intended to accomplish, and, consequently, why it was performed when it was. First, the verses themselves:

דברים פרק לא

(י) וַיְצַו מֹשֶׁה אוֹתָם לֵאמֹר מִקֵּץ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים בְּמֹעֵד שְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִטָּה בְּחַג הַסֻּכּוֹת:
(יא) בְּבוֹא כָל יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵרָאוֹת אֶת פְּנֵי יְדֹוָד אֱלֹהֶיךָ בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחָר תִּקְרָא אֶת הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת נֶגֶד כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם:
(יב) הַקְהֵל אֶת הָעָם הָאֲנָשִׁים וְהַנָּשִׁים וְהַטַּף וְגֵרְךָ אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ לְמַעַן יִשְׁמְעוּ וּלְמַעַן יִלְמְדוּ וְיָרְאוּ אֶת יְדֹוָד אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וְשָׁמְרוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת כָּל דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת:
(יג) וּבְנֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעוּ יִשְׁמְעוּ וְלָמְדוּ לְיִרְאָה אֶת יְדֹוָד אֱלֹהֵיכֶם כָּל הַיָּמִים אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם חַיִּים עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם עֹבְרִים אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ:

And Moshe commanded them: At the end of seven years, during the time of the Shemittah year, on the festival of Sukkot, when all of Israel comes to appear before God at the place that He will choose, you shall read this Torah before all of Israel, in their ears. Gather the nation – men, women, children, and immigrants who are in your midst in order that they hear and in order that they study, and they will fear the Lord, your God, and they will observe the performance of this whole Torah. And your sons who did not know will hear and learn to fear the Lord, your God, as long as you live on the land that you are crossing the Jordan in order to inherit. (Devarim 31:10-13)

• Ibn Ezra, ad loc, states that this was supposed to take place during the Shemittah year itself. He says that, like Shabbat, the purpose of Shemittah is to provide an opportunity to turn away from mundane pursuits and to engage in more spiritually edifying endeavors. Hakhel, which comes at the outset of Shemittah, is a sort of inaugural Shemittah kick-off event whose purpose is to get everybody – even children and non-Jewish immigrants – engaged in Torah. Incidentally, the phrase ‘mi-ketz sheva shanim’ can be interpreted either as during or after Shemittah – see Devarim 15:10
  

• The traditional interpretation (Gemara, Rashi, et al) is that Hakhel occurs during the eighth year. It is called Shemittah because it is still being observed de facto in that there’s really not much for a farmer to do then. Perhaps this is why that time was chosen – it’s convenient for everybody, and doesn’t interrupt any farm work. Thus, as indicated in several Rishonim (Rasa”g, Chinukh), the choice of the eighth year is simply coincidental. There should be a gathering of the entire nation every seven years in order to read the Torah publicly and transmit it to those who were not familiar with it, and in order that people hear it and continue to learn it. The choice of Sukkot, a pilgrimage festival, and the eighth year, when there was little, if any, ‘gathering’ taking place in the field, was for convenience.
• Rabbeinu Bachya provides a rationale which links Hakhel directly to the post-Shemittah year. He relates the seven-year Shemittah cycle, as well as the seven-day Shabbat cycle, to a grater, cosmic Creation cycle in which the world exists for seven ‘millenia’ (purposefully in parentheses), six of ‘creation’ and one of ‘destruction’. The beginning of the first year after Shemitta represents the beginning of a new creation cycle. Therefore, the Torah, which is the world’s blueprint, is read at the site of the Temple, from where the world was created. Thus, according to Rabbeinu Bachya, Hakhel is a mythic re-enactment of the world’s creation after its symbolic destruction during the Shemittah year.

So we have three explanations – the educational, the practical, and the mythic. I think that each one provides a valuable perspective on this mitzvah and, indeed, on the mitzvah of Shemittah as well.

Kashrut on El Al

I have a funny hakpadah. Whenever I fly El Al, I am makpid not to order 'special' kosher meals. I find it to be a slap in their face. Every meal that El Al serves is kosher, despite the fact that not everyone who flies with El Al keeps kosher or, for that matter, is Jewish. They do this because they are Israel’s national airline and they understand (indeed, it is mandated by law) that they are the airline of the Jewish people. Providing kosher food is much more expensive than providing regular airline food.

I feel that to insist on a ‘special’ kosher meal on El Al flights is to fail to acknowledge the real effort and expense that El Al incurs by providing kosher food to all of its passengers. If I ordered a special meal, I would feel guilty for broadcasting to the other El Al passengers that I don’t think their food is kosher ‘enough’ (let alone that I’d feel guilty about getting my meal before everybody else).

That said, I always order the chicken.

My experiences from last week introduced a new variable into my thinking about El Al. As I wrote, our flight was grounded until after Shabbat. El Al played by the rules – the flight didn’t leave until after Shabbat, and we were all provided with kosher food. However, I got the impression that El Al was not concerned about creating a Shabbat environment. We didn’t stick around for Shabbat because nobody (but me) was worrying about organizing minyanim, getting a Sefer Torah, grape juice, tea lights, or Challah. For all I know, we would have been served airline food all Shabbat, as we were served airline food for lunch on Friday.

Interestingly enough, that never would have happened on another airline. Another airline, knowing nothing about Judaism, would have made every effort to insure that its passengers were well taken care of, would have contacted the local Jewish community about accommodations, and would have taken every passenger request seriously. El Al, because it supposedly ‘knows’ the religious customer, did what it normally does without thinking that this case might be different, or that this case might involve a host of issues that it is not equipped to deal with.

UPDATE: Now that I think about it more (thanks to BZ's comment), maybe it's just about expectations. Maybe with another airline I would never even expect a kosher meal or Shabbat arrangements, and it's on;y disappointing because El Al takes Shabbat into account, but doesn't come all the way through.

30-3

That’s even a blowout in football. Most runs given up in the modern era. Most lopsided loss in the modern era. Ouch.

StairMaster

I’ve been learning Masechet Sheviit lately, well, for obvious reasons (I’ll also be teaching Hilchot Shemitta this upcoming school year). I was learning this past Shabbat afternoon when I cam across the following Mishna (Shevi’it 3:8):

אין בונין מדרגות על פי הגאיות ערב שביעית, משיפסקו הגשמים, מפני שהוא מתקינן לשביעית; אבל בונה הוא בשביעית משיפסקו הגשמים, מפני שהוא מתקינן למוצאי שביעית. לא יסמוך בעפר, אבל עושה הוא חיץ. כל אבן שהוא יכול לפשוט את ידו וליטלה, הרי זו תינטל

It reminded me of a Yerushalmi in Shabbat (7:2, 47b)that I had once learned:

החופר החורץ הנועץ המדייר המעדר המזבל המכבד המרבץ המפעפע גושים. המברה בחרשים. המצית את האור בחישת קנים ובאגד תמרים וכרבי זעירא אמת המים שהיא מכשרת צדדיה לזריעה. המסקל. הבונה מדריגות. הממלא את הנקעים שתחת הזיתים. והעושה עוגיות לגפנים. וכל דבר שהוא להניית קרקע חייב משום חורש

The connection should be obvious: there’s this activity, called ‘boneh madreigot’, which is both a derivative of plowing as far as Shabbat is concerned and a forbidden activity in preparation for Shemittah. The question is, what exactly is this activity?

A literal translation is ‘building steps’. In fact, this is how most commentaries understand the Mishna – it is forbidden to build a flight of stairs down to a pool of water, because you will end up using that water to water your fields on Shemittah. This explanation, as several acharonim point out, is very problematic. They note that it is not forbidden to water one’s field during Shemittah as long as the purpose is just to maintain, but not improve, one’s crops. The suggestion that it is forbidden to build steps because they provide access to water, when use of the water itself is permitted, is far-fetched to say the least. Furthermore, although none of the commentators point it out, this understanding of ‘boneh madreigot’ has nothing to do with ‘choreish’ and would not be considered a derivative of that category, which includes any action which improves the arability of the ground.

When I first learned that Yerushalmi, I was living in Israel. it was clear to me then, as it is clear to me now, that ‘boneh madreigot’ means terrace farming. Building something like this on Shabbat would clearly be a form of choreish; it is truly preparing land for planting. A short drive through the Judean Hills and one is immediately aware that this form of farming has been used in this area from time immemorial. /it just makes so much more sense than the other commentaries.

I’m trying to do more research into the issue. The word ‘madreigah’ comes up twice in Tanach – once in Yechezkel and once in Shir Hashirim – and in both cases it refers to some type of outdoor structure in the hills. I plan to look in the Targumim and in Dr. Feliks’ commentary to Shir Hashirim to see what they say. I’m pretty convinced that I’m right, though.

Flying the Friendly Skies

We were on this flight. We’re still in the States. It’s been a rough few days, though Shabbat was very nice. Just want to get home, though.

There was a rumor that the plane turned around because there was a chance it would land on Shabbat, and the Satmar Rebbe was threatening another boycott. I don't know how this rumor got started, but it's untrue. There were many religious people on the flight, and nobody refused to get on because it would land too close to Shabbat (and a number of us would have if it had gotten too late). I don't know the whole story, and it is quite possible that they realized that they wouldn't make it (i was watching the 'land speed' display, and the plane wasn't going nearly fast enough to have shortened the trip to 9 hours; to do that would have required an average speed of about 667mph, and we were going about 450) before shabbat, so they just turned around themselves rather than face boycotts, etc. they could have then blamed it on technical difficulties. i doubt, though, that any religious figure called that final shot. the decision was made from the air.

Mah Rabu on the Jewish Week Camp Kutz Article

Below are some excerpts of an excellent fisking. BZ really hits the nail on the head. If you haven't read his blog, you might want to consider it. I'm a big fan.

clipped from mahrabu.blogspot.com Just because Carlebach had a bigger beard than Klepper and sang with an Ashkenazi accent doesn’t mean that his music is any more “traditional” or less “modern”. Rabbi Rudin is falling into the Artscroll trap of identifying “more traditional” with “consonant with contemporary Orthodox practice, regardless of vintage”. Maybe they’d have more success if they weren’t trying to make it “meaningful to everybody”, and instead tried to pick one thing and do it well. “Led Zeppelin didn’t write songs that everyone liked. They left that to the Bee Gees.” Ok, so teenagers are looking for outward ways to display their Jewish identities. What’s the problem with that? This list might also include Tzahal T-shirts and chai necklaces. I think it’s harmless; it’s the adults who are turning this into an ideological movement, not the teenagers. The adults should stop projecting their own issues onto the campers and go read Erikson.