Techeilis 3 – How Much is Too Much?

In our past post we noted that some of the teachings of Chazal can be very confusing because it may not shtim with other words of Chazal. The situations that we discussed were conflicts in textual accounts (girsaot), conflicting opinions among members of Chazal (chilukei deos), and conflicting unrelated passages (contradictions). In this post, I want to discuss the things that really count. 

Numbers.

One of the most confusing aspects of Chazal is the tendency to exaggerate numbers and sizes. In some cases, the exaggerations are more than obvious and confirmed by the meforshim. In other cases, it may not be quite so obvious.

We will start with the gemara in Chullin 90b that tells us straight out that Chazal tend to exaggerate. It even says that there are exaggerations in the Torah and Neviim. The gemara there brings a few examples of Chazal and one each from the Torah and Neviim. From the tone of the gemara, it seems that these examples are the sole instances of this phenomenon. As I wrote in the earlier posts, it is amazing to what extent Chazal take their statements literally.

At least, in divrei Chazal, there are other examples of exaggerations. Let’s look at the Rashbam in Pesachim 119a. The gemara is trying to impress us with how wealthy Korach was. It states that Korach had 300 mules laden with the keys to his treasure house[s]. Rashbam states that the number “300” is not exact. He seems to mean that Korach had a large number of laden mules but not necessarily 300. And he adds “this applies to every place that it says 300 in Shas”. In other words, “300” is a universal code word for “a large amount”. This fits in perfectly with the previously mentioned gemara in Chullin because the cases they bring likewise are displaying the inexact number “300”.

A few questions occur to me: (1) Why is 300 chosen as this universal exaggerated number? (2) Does this mean that we cannot say this for any other number in Shas?

The gemara then goes on to tell us that these keys were made of leather and not metal to imply that these mules each carried a tremendous amount of keys (mules are pretty strong and can carry lots and lots of leather keys). The Rashbam stresses: And even so it was the amount of 300 mule loads. (Note – Rashi says the same thing in Sanhedrin 110a.)

Questions: (3) Didn’t Rashbam just say that the number 300 was not exact (implying that it is on the high side)? (4) Have you ever seen a leather key? (I haven’t) How do they work? Were the locks on the treasure houses full of valuable gems and gold and silver also made of leather?

Well, both Rashi in Sanhedrin and Rashbam in Pesachim give a second pirush that these were really metal keys and they were not for the storehouses but for the individual treasure sacks which were made of leather. This would greatly reduce the amount of keys and the amount of treasure that each key could access and make this Chazal a bit more realistic. This also makes sense if Korach actually had only one treasure house which is indicated by the girsah in all texts “beis genazav” and not “batei genazav”. Still, this is only presented as an alternative pirush. Besides, it really does not make much sense. What good is a lock and key on a leather treasure sack? Any thief could just take a knife and slice open the sack!

All told, this is an awful lot of treasure. And it’s only 1/3 of the treasure that Yosef stored in Egypt!

More questions: (5) Where exactly was this (or these) treasure house[s]? were they in Egypt? How did Korach plan on retrieving it despite his 300 large mule caravan of keys? (6) After the makkas dever and makkas barad that killed all the Egyptian animals, where did Korach get 300 white mules? Did he already have them before the makkos so they didn’t die? When exactly (and how) did he discover this vast treasure? I suppose since the Leviim were not slaves, they had plenty of spare time to go treasure hunting.

Well, perhaps he got the mules from Libya. After all, the gemara in Bechoros 5b tells us that every single person from the Israelites had 90 Libyan donkeys laden with the gold and silver of Egypt.

Let’s look at this. Does this mean 90 donkeys for every single man, woman, and child or only for every one of the 600,000 baalei-batim that went out? Please, let’s take the second option.

600,000 people with 90 donkeys each? 54,000,000 donkeys? Just in Egypt alone? After the makkos that killed all the animals? Are you kidding me? (My answer is – Yes.) Where in the desert did they keep 54,000,000 donkeys in a camp that was 12 KM by 12 KM (size of present day Jerusalem) that already had 3-5 million people in single level dwellings? (Note- This figure does not include the eirev rav.)

Per Google, today’s world population of people is 7.6 billion and the total world population of donkeys is about 44 million and you mean to tell me that when the world was 3300 years younger and barely populated there were 54 million donkeys in Egypt alone?

The Ben Yehoyada asks these exact questions (well, the main ones) and gives some very weak suggestions. One is that we are talking about donkey loads and not real donkeys. This answer will totally nullify the whole purpose of this Chazal which is to explain why donkeys were singled out for pidyon peter chamor. Another suggestion is that only the dignitaries of the nation had this caravan of donkeys. This would contradict the language of Chazal that each and every Israelite had them and raises the question – why only them?

Oh, and by the way, all this donkey treasure is on top of the three treasure troves that were stored by Yosef. What heavenly purpose is there to all this exorbitant wealth? Does anybody really need a 747 with solid gold toilet seats? Will this wealth help us fix the sin of Adam HaRishon?? And, if I had some, would it spoil some vast eternal plan?

Bottom line is that there is an awful lot of exaggeration and allegory in the words of Chazal. We are told this in numerous places. At the top of the list are the tall tales at sea in the fifth perek of Bava Basra. There are the allegorical riddles in the debates of Ravi Yehoshua and the wise men of Athens in Bechoros. And, of course, the sukka test in the beginning of Avoda Zara. In all these places, the masters of Aggada – Gr”A, Maharsha, Maharal, Rashbam, Ben Yehoyada and others – tell us straight out not to take these pieces at face value and decipher for us the hidden messages.

We have smaller pieces of this same kind of Aggadata scattered all over Shas. In fact, in the earlier part of this sugya in Pesachim (on 118b) the gemara tells us that there were 365 markets in the great city of Rome (could possibly mean all of Italy) and each one has 365 buildings (we are up to 133,225 buildings) and each building has 365 “steps” (maybe “stories”? anyway, we are at 48,627,125 steps) and each “step” contains enough food to feed the entire world.

I foresee a lot of wasted food.

In any case, Maharsha gives an enlightening explanation that the “city of Rome” is a codeword for a human who has 365 sinews (giddin). Each of those has 365 compartments each with 365 sub-compartments (cells?). Perhaps the idea of each one with "food for the entire world" is a cryptic reference to DNA such that the DNA in each cell can recreate the entire organism. If so, it is very cryptic.

Other cryptic gemaras are the stories of Dovid HaMelech in the last perek of Sanhedrin – his encounter with Yishbi of Nov (95a) and that he wanted to worship avoda zara as he ran from Avshalom (107a, see Maharsha); Iyov’s discussions with HKBH in the first perek of Bava Basra; and everything the gemara tells us about Og King of Bashan (Niddah 22b and Brachos 54b; these two accounts contradict each other; see Maharsha both places).

The problem with all this is that once we know for certain that pieces of Chazal are allegorical and cannot begin to be taken literally, what about other pieces of Chazal which are not as farfetched? For example, when the gemara tells us that 40 days before a baby is formed a heavenly voice announces his future spouse, is this one that we can take literally or not? We all do, but should we? Are all our marriages really pre-destined?

I wrote an elaborate post about this right HERE.

The well-known gemara in Shabbos 92a is waffling on whether all of the Leviim were 10 amos tall. Even if not, it seems to maintain that Moshe himself was 10 amos tall. Some say also Aharon. Well, how tall were Tziporrah and Elisheva? 9.5 amos?

The gemara sticks with the 10 amos in the Og story in Brachos 54b. If that story were to be taken literally, Og at 30 amos at the ankle would be around 540 amos tall (720-1080 feet). Now Rashi tells us in Breishis (14:13) that the reason Og tipped off Avrohom Avinu about Lot’s capture was in the hopes that Avrohom would die and he could marry Sarah.

How tall was Sarah?

Hey, I am personally not in the market for a woman (so says my wife) but, if I was, and I (at 5’ 10”) had Og’s standards, I would probably be interested in a 5’ 7” replica of a Barbie doll. But, trust me, the exact same girl at the real size of a Barbie doll, all of 10 inches, would not get a first date, I don’t care how stunning she is. The parts wouldn’t fit together. It just wouldn’t work. I can't even begin to imagine how she could cook me a decent supper and bring it to the table she can't reach or change the sheets on my massive 9 amos iron bed down in Amman.

Both the Ibn Ezra (Dvarim 3:11) and Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim say that Og was about twice as tall as an average person (six amos). I think even this would cause marital issues but it’s way more down to earth. Maharsha in Brachos says he was at the high end of the scale of reasonable human size. Personally, I don’t believe Moshe and Aharon were 10 amos tall, either. Why should they be taller than Og?

Did Zimri ben Saleu really enter Kozbi 424 times while Pinchas just stood and watched (Sanhedrin 82b)? Why did Pinchas take action precisely after round number 424? Why not another 50 or 100 rounds (how about 613)? And was Zimri really more than 250 years old at the time (see Maharsha about Shaul ben HaCannani)? What was he on?

Were the grains in the days of Shimon ben Shetach really as big as kidneys and olives and were the lentils like gold coins (Taanis 23a)? Did Choni HaMeagel really sleep for 70 years (Ibid.)? Incidentally, Wikipedia tells me that a carob tree sees fruit within eight years and it has peak production as of 20-25 years. Also know that the Yerushalmi has quite a different version of this story. Did Rabi Chanina ben Dosa really get a golden table leg?

So we have so far seen that 300 is not the only number that is an exaggeration. We also have 365 [markets], 90 [donkeys], 10 [amos], 70 [years], 424 [won’t say]. What else?

How about the number 400?  

The number 400 is all over Shas as a high amount of money such as the wager to make Hillel angry, the value of the glass broken by Rav Ashi at his son’s wedding, the value of the dress that Rav Ada ripped from the lady in red. Also, Rav Preida taught his student the lesson 400 times. Likewise, there are numerous appearances of this number in Tanach. We start with the 400 shekels that Avraham paid for the Mearat HaMachpelah. Then there are 400 men with Eisav and likewise 400 men with Dovid HaMelech. Eliyahu was challenged by 400 false prophets. And, back to the gemara, the 400  shuls in Beitar with 400 rebbes each with 400 students. The 400 boys and girls who jumped into the sea so as not to be violated. 

The general consensus is that all of the references in of 400 in Chazal are inexact, just like the ones for “300”. It’s because 400 is the biggest number that can be represented by a single Hebrew letter, since the last letter of aleph beis, the tav, is the one with the highest numerical value. Thus, early texts simply put a tav to represent a large number. I have seen other more mystical reasons, but the bottom line is that the number is usually not precise. As for those in the scriptures, with the likely exception of the 400 shekels for the Mearat HaMachpelah, it can well be that those numbers are approximations, as well.

So we would not really expect the number 400 to be taken literally in most cases.

But, alas, Rashi, or the Tanchuma that he is inaccurately quoting in Bamidbar 13:25 take it very seriously. The pasuk tells us that the spies returned after 40 days. Rashi is astounded:

But the size of Eretz Yisrael is 400 parsah by 400 parsah and an average person can only walk 10 parsah in a day? It’s a 40 day journey just from East to West, and they investigated the length and breadth?! We must say that since HKBH knew he would punish the Israelites a year for every day in E”Y, so he “shortened” their journey (to limit the punishment).

What is a parsah? It is defined as 4 mille. A mille is 2000 amos or roughly a kilometer. So a parsah is four Km. This makes a lot of sense because the average person today can do about 4 Km in an hour and during a twelve hour day, if he spends 10 of those hours on the move he will cover 40 Km or 10 parsahs. One thing we see is that the meraglim were anatomically and physically average people.

Okay now. So Eretz Yisrael is, according to Rashi, is 400 parsah square which is 1600 Km by 1600 Km. How big is Eretz Yisrael really?

Well, the distance between Eilat and Maalot today is 465 Km (11.5 day walk). And the distance between Rafah and Ein Bokek is 107 Km (2.5 day walk). Did they really need “kitzur derech”?

Clearly, the Eretz Yisroel that is outlined in Bamidbar 34 which is the part checked out by the meraglim is nowhere close to 400 parsah on 400 parsah. It just isn’t. So, why does Rashi think that E”Y is 1600 Km by 1600 Km?

He seems to be referring to several places in Shas (Megillah 3a and Bava Kamma 82b) where it is written that Eretz Yisroel shook 400 parsah by 400 parsah. Firstly, as I have been saying, it is very clear that virtually every time it says the number 400 in Shas, it is an exaggeration or at least an imprecise number, just like 300. So this should not be taken literally. But even without this. The Shas does not really say that Eretz Yisroel is 400 parsah by 400 parsah. It says that when these two calamities happened, the land of Eretz Yisroel quaked for a distance of 400 parsah by 400 parsah.

Earthquakes do not recognize borders. We can easily say that while the quake was centered in Eretz Yisroel, it affected the surrounding lands so that it could be felt as far as 400 square parsah. It does not need to mean that every inch of it or even the majority of it was Eretz Yisrael proper. We certainly cannot conclude from here that Eretz Yisrael is that big, and, in truth, it isn’t.

But this doesn’t stop Rashi. I don’t really blame Rashi because he is really [mis]quoting the Midrash Tanchuma (Shelach Lecha 8). Only two interesting tidbits. (1) The Tanchuma does not explicitly say E”Y is 400 parsah square. He says that “the journey from South to North itself was a 40 day journey”. This seems to indicate the same thing but he only mentions one direction. And I wonder what does Tanchuma himself base this on? (2) Strangely, Tanchuma says their journey “from South to North” was one of 40 days and Rashi says “from East to West…” If Tanchuma is Rashi's source, why does he change the orientation?

All I can say about Rashi, and I love him dearly, is that this isn’t the first time he does this.

While we are talking about numbers that don’t work, we have plenty of issues about the population of Jews before, during, and after the Exodus from Egypt.

The Torah tells us that the population leaving Egypt was about 600,000 adult males. It expressly says it is not including children and we assume not women either. As such, based on conservative estimates of normal family sizes, the total population would have to be at least 3,000,000 and even 5,000,000 is more realistic. As I said earlier, this does not include the eirev rav.

One logistical issue is that, since the families all lived in single level tents, it is very hard to fit all those people at ground level in a 12 km by 12 km area. Don’t forget the eirev rav and all those donkeys and other livestock.

I suppose we can shrug this off. But here come Chazal and tell us that this number was only 20% of the amount of Jews who lived in Egypt before makkas choshech. So this means that there were between 15 to 25 million Jews in Egypt a few months earlier. Oh, and only seven thousand Leviim between 30 and 50 of which only about 10 of them came from Kehas.

Now, I understand the Chazal about everyone having sextuplets, but since only about 130 of the 210 years were years of servitude it is still a stretch to come out with 15-25 million from 70 souls in such a short time (maybe the sextuplets were coming from day one.) Also, even though this plague happened when the Egyptians weren’t looking, it is hard to imagine that 12-20 million Jews are going to vanish in a week and the Egyptians don’t notice. Unless they figured they left early.

But let’s accept all of this and look at a gemara in Sanhedrin 111a:

Tanya, Rabbi Simai expounds: It states “and I will take you to me for a nation” and it states “and I will bring you to the land”. We learn a comparison between leaving Egypt to entering Eretz Yisrael. Just as only 2 out of 600,000 who left Egypt entered E”Y, so too only 2 out of every 600,000 in Egypt left Egypt.

You get this? Not one out of five, but two out of 600,000 (one out of 300,000)! Rashi confirms that all the rest died in the three days of darkness so that the Egyptians won’t notice the downfall of the Israelites.

Can you imagine this number?

Maharsha is silent, but the Ben Yehoyada tries to tone it down by suggesting, unlike Rashi, that it means those born and died over the course of the 210 year exile, not in 3 days. Even so, it’s just too much.

But here is the topper. The gemara in Sanhedrin doesn’t end there. There is a short trailer:

Says Rava:... and likewise in the days of Moshiach.

Rashi – That there will not remain from every 600,000 except 2.

According to Rashi, if we assume 18 million Halachic Jews currently in the world (I tend to doubt it), there will be a mere 30 spots for the grand winners. I signed up already. According to the earlier Ben Yehoyada, there is hope for a few more. Personally, as much as I love Rashi, I love the Ben Yehoyada more.

But we do know this. At the Exodus from Egypt, there were approximately 600,000 heads of household from the age of twenty on up. We know that after forty relatively peaceful years, there were…drumroll… approximately 600,000 heads of household from the age of twenty on up. Note that the original count in 1 Iyar 2449 was done after the maaseh eigel and first war with Amalek. There wasn’t another war for 38 years after Aharon died.

Now, for all the 600,000 heads of household between 20 and 60, there were probably an average of 1-3 sons per family below age twenty already in place. Add to this the gemara in Shabbos 89a-b. This gemara tells us that the Sinai desert had five names. One of which was Midbar Paran. Why Midbar Paran?

שפרו ורבו עליה ישראל That the Israelites multiplied in number there.

Rashi tells us that every one impregnated his wife with a male child upon the order of Shuvu lachem – go back to your tents. He adds that he has no idea how this is indicated from anywhere in the Torah.

If this is so, then precisely nine months after Matan Torah – about 7 Adar 2449 – another 600,000 boys hit the scene. Evidently, there weren’t enough mohelim to take care of them so they let it go and blamed it on the eastern wind. After all this, there were just about forty years of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in the desert. Anyone born in the first twenty years would be twenty at the time of entry to E"Y. Based on these Chazals and normal population growth without sextuplets, there would definitely be at least three times the 600K figure after the first twenty years that would be twenty by the end of the forty years. How can this initial figure remain unchanged? 

Perhaps we can knock out the lion’s share of those boys already born at the Exodus based on the Midrash that says that even boys less than 20 years old, if they agreed with the meraglim, they also died. So maybe most of them agreed with the meraglim. But this won’t account for those who were born after the meraglim (and the 600K newbies).    

I am not the only one to ask this, but nobody can come up with a suitable answer except to say plagues and more plagues.

This did indeed bring up a big issue with the number of judges that were in office and how many Jews they killed after the debacle of the Bnos Moav. I wrote about it in this post in 2008. (The solution is in this post.)

The final anomaly for this post has to do with the people that Ezra brought up from Bavel. In Sefer Ezra it states that Ezra took up a group of 42,360 folks. We would assume a normal population distribution; something like 40% between 20 and 60 and another 40% between 0 and 20 and 20% from 60 on up with the bulk below 80 and a few old codgers over 80. This is basically the distribution estimated in the population that left Egypt and it is pretty standard.

Now the gemara in Temura 15b needs to justify some Chattas offerings that were brought as soon as the second Bais HaMikdash was operable. Apparently, these offerings were meant to atone for the idolatry that was done by the tzibur in the times of the first Bais HaMikdash. These offering can only be brought if the tzibur, meaning the majority of the current population, requires it; which means they were alive 70 years earlier and committed the idolatry and are still here today. Not only still here today, but they must be the majority.

To prove that the majority of the population was alive 70 years earlier, the gemara expounds from the pasuk that says that when they opened the second Bais HaMikdash, some people were rejoicing but others were crying because they remembered how beautiful was the first Bais HaMikdash and this new Bais HaMikdash could not compare. Obviously, this crying was done by the old-timers. But the pasuk says that the sound of the crying overwhelmed the sound of the rejoicing. The gemara understands that more people were crying than rejoicing. Ergo, the majority of the population that came up with Ezra were those who required an atonement for their sins 70 years earlier.

But, in order to be sinful 70 years earlier so as to require atonement, one had to be at least 13 years old at the time. Hence, these folks who made the majority were not a day younger than 83 years old. And this was the majority!

And what kind of majority was it?

It doesn’t seem like a scant 50.5% vs. 49.5 % majority because this majority was strong enough to drown out the rejoicers (who were all younger and more vibrant, by the way). The minimum I could imagine is like 55% vs. 45%. Let’s go with this and apply it to the original number of 42,360 souls. We will arrive at about 23,300 people above 83 and 19,060 total population of all the olim from 0 to 83.

You mean to tell me that in the year of the churban bayis rishon there were not less than 23,300 able bodied people from 13 to, let’s say, 25 who were pious Jews and who survived and remained “frum” all 70 years and this group could not produce in 70 years from their children and children’s children and at least one more generation, more than 19,060 Jews willing to make Aliya?

Was the stock market in Bavel doing that well that nobody wanted to come?

Under normal circumstances, this kind of distribution is overwhelmingly lopsided. It just doesn’t shtim.

The only thing that I can think of to answer is that these old codger survivors were mostly men. Very few women survived the churban because they were even younger and more vulnerable and invading armies have a habit of culling out all the eligible women for special treatment. As such, there were very, very few eligible Bais Yaakov maidels for these fellows and they either went without wives or married non-Jewish ones. As such, for quite a while, reproduction was at a low and, even after 70 years, the old timers actually outnumbered all of 70 years worth of [re]production. Perhaps this is why, right after this incident with the crying and rejoicing, Ezra had to tell so many of them to lose the non-Jewish wives.

So, all told, perhaps there is a good explanation. Nevertheless, I am greatly perturbed that, to date, I haven’t seen anybody who even makes note of the problem.

The purpose of all of this is to point out that, all through Shas and other Talmudic bodies, “shtimming” with Chazal can be an immense challenge. You have seen that wherever possible, I have made an attempt to present a “teirutz”. HaRav Reisman, Shlita, stated that we cannot build Halacha on teirutzim.

It would be nice if this were so. Like it or not, all of our mesora depends on teirutzim.

More to come…

Techeiles 2 – Eilu V’Eilu and Two Watches

Author’s note – This post is Part 2 of a multi-part analysis of the integrity of the teachings of Chazal. It is a response to the assertion made by Rav Yisroel Reisman, shlita about whether or not to accept the Murex Trunculus snail as a candidate for the Talmudic Techeiles. Please see Part 1 HERE.

In our previous post, we noted that Chazal mean what they say and they do not distinguish between basic Halacha, details of Biblical or historical events, or scientific facts. We must rely on what they tell us. Such a task may not be so difficult if Chazal were totally consistent with themselves and when the facts they present are within reason and are supported by what we can observe. Yet, the truth is that the teachings of Chazal are full of inconsistencies. Some of these inconsistencies can be explained away or readily shrugged off. But some others leave us in no-man’s-land.

The inconsistencies that I want to discuss in this post come in three varieties:

·         Girsaos – textual discrepancies

·         Machlokes – disputes or differences of opinion among the sages

·         S’tiros – contradictions

All of these varieties enforce a witty remark that I once heard in my Yeshiva years and have never forgotten:

The man with one watch knows the time; the man with two watches is always in doubt!

Girsaos

Before we can try to understand what Chazal are telling us, we need to know precisely what they said. This can be a bigger challenge than we think.

The statements and stories of Chazal are often repeated several times throughout Jewish literature. In some cases there are several versions in Talmud Bavli. In some cases, there may be a similar passage in Bavli and another in Yerushalmi. Or sometimes a matching passage to Talmud Bavli is found in Misdrash Rabba or Tanchuma or Yalkut Shimoni. Of course there is the concise Pirkei Avos and the “expanded” Avos D’Rabi Nosson. Rarely are the statements totally identical. In many cases, an identical (or almost identical) passage is repeated in two places attributed to two different authors.

Before we go into Chazals that are doubled or tripled, even ones that have a single appearance in shas or Midrash can be fraught with discrepancies. Firstly, we know that Shas Bavli itself has gone through much repeat editing through the generations. There are words and phrases in older copies that do not appear in the current copies. The old copies of shas have corrections right there in the margins from the Bach, Gr”a, Reshash, Ein Mishpat, Maharav Ranshberg, and Shita Mekubetzes to name a few. More recent, updated copies of shas usually have sections in the back for “Dikdukei Sofrim” – editor’s corrections – or “Shinui Nushchaos” – text variations. 

To add to the confusion, all of the Aggadic material in Talmud Bavli was compiled into a “free standing” collection we call Ein Yaakov. In theory, it should just be a copy/paste from the Gemara.  Alas, there was no copy/paste before 1980, so this work was done manually. And so, we find hundreds if not thousands of nuance variations in the Ein Yaakov version of the very  Talmud Bavli that it came from!

Lastly, and most “annoying” in this category is that all through the writings of the Rishonim, they are quoting passages from the Talmud. Even where we know of no other text variation, we find Rishonim who quote the text slightly differently from our current version. And we wonder: Are they accurately quoting the girsa they had in their personal copy of Talmud or are they quoting verbatim and being a little sloppy?

I can fill volumes with examples but, for this post and in the girsaos category I will limit myself to two examples. The first example goes back to a discrepancy between what we think are three instances of the same Chazal in three places in Shas – Sanhedrin 22a, Sota 2a, and Moed Kattan 18b – where Chazal pronounce the immortal words: “Bas ploni l’ploni”. I wrote an entire post about this in the Shidduchim series titled Barshert is Barshert. No?

I noted that in Sota and Sanhedrin, the text is virtually identical. Actually, the only difference that I found was that in our Shas the term in Sota is “zug rishon” and “zug sheini” and in Sanhedrin it says “zivug rishon” and “zivug sheini”. In Ein Yaakov, you will find the term “zivug” in both places. But the version in Moed Kattan is very different. Firstly, it attributes the statement to Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel as opposed to Rav Yehuda amar Rav. More important, it does not say that this bas kol comes out after 40 days but on each and every day.

Are we dealing with two conflicting versions of the same statement for which we are not sure if this originated with Rav or with Shmuel, or are they two different statements, one stated by Rav and one stated by Shmuel? If the latter, is Rav arguing with Shmuel? What is their dispute and why don’t they agree?

I examined all of these possibilities in my post, you can check out my conclusions there.

And why is this so important?

Because the entire issue of whether there is such a thing as a “barshert” for a girl rides on this discrepancy!

The second example of text discrepancy relates to my last variation – where the Rishonim do not seem to quote the Talmud as we have it written. And who is the guilty party in this example?

Rabban Shel Yisrael ­­– Rashi!

At the end of Parshat Balak, Rashi gives us his commentary on the episode with Zimri ben Saleu. In Bamidbar 25:6 Rashi writes the details: 

The tribe of Shimon converged upon Zimri and said to him: We are being judged for death and you are just sitting…as is related in HaNisrafim (Sanhedrin 82).

Rashi in Chumash is specifically referring us to the account recorded in Sanhedrin 82 and everything is just dandy... as long as one does not actually look up Sanhedrin 82. But if he does, he may notice some very innocent looking differences. The first is very trivial. It does not say the tribesmen “converged” upon Zimri but that they simply “went” to Zimri. Not very important but it diminishes the drama just a drop. But the other discrepancy jumps out at us. It does not say “We are being judged for death…” but rather “They are judging capital judgments…”

This may look like two ways of saying the same thing, but there is much room to give different interpretations on the two different versions. Here, as well, once upon a time, I wrote a very lengthy essay on the Zimri incident (not available on my blog) and I pointed out this discrepancy and what the ramification may be. It is too involved for this post (if interested, you can contact me privately to learn more), but one thing is certain - Rashi is clearly misquoting the gemara, and we must wonder why.

Did Rashi do this on purpose? Is it possible that Rashi did not have a copy of Sanhedrin available and was writing the text from memory and simply made a mistake? Can someone as great as Rashi make a mistake? Is it possible that Rashi had  different girsa in the text of Sanhedrin? If so, why did he not mention it in the gemara itself? Is Rashi in Chumash purposely changing the girsa to his own version? Why???

Trust me, this is by no means a lone occurrence in Rashi. It’s a bit endemic. In Devarim 20:3 Rashi comments on the term Shma Yisrael that is declared by the Kohen before a military campaign: 

Even if you have no merit other than Kriat Shma you are worthy that HKBH will save you.

This is attributed to the gemara in Sota 42a only there it says: 

Even if you only fulfilled Kriat Shma morning and night, you will not be submitted into their hands.

Is the gemara insisting that one at least fulfills Kriat Shma twice a day each day and is Rashi lowering the requirement to just once in one’s lifetime? By what authority does Rashi make this change? Or, if Rashi means precisely the same as the gemara, why is his terminology different?

This can make a world of difference to a chiloni in the IDF!

The point of all of this is to assert that when there is more than one source for a statement, it is like having two watches. And even when there is just one source, there is always a chance that the passage of Chazal that you read is different than the original passage that they wrote!

Machlokes

The confusion we get with girsa problems is not intentional. They are due to inaccurate transmission from master to student (game of broken telephone), mistakes and human error. It’s like we own one watch and then we just find a second one.

We get just as confused when there is absolutely no issue with the text accuracy. It is when Chazal simply do not agree with each other. It’s like inviting all your uncles to your bar mitzvah and being handed a watch by each one of them. Worse, it’s like one uncle giving you two watches!

The concept of three Jews and 30 opinions is iconic to Torah observant Jews. It is deeply rooted in our tradition. Almost every Halachic nuance is couched in Machlokes. Machlokes Tanayim, Machlokes Amorayim, Machlokes Rishonim, Achronim, Poskim, etc.  It is in our blood. So much so, that a machlokes in “what happened?” is just as natural as a machlokes in “what is the Halacha?”

I may be the only one, but I find such types of machlokes (the "what happened?" ones) a little bit disturbing.

Halacha is one thing because Halacha is philosophy. It is quite normal and natural for different folks to think differently. כשם שפרצופיהם שונים כך דעותיהם שונות. Just as every individual looks unique, every individual thinks uniquely. And all the opinions can be equally valid. אלו ואלו דברי א-לקים חיים!

Of course, we cannot allow different Halachos unique for each individual in a cohesive social environment so we must establish guidelines to determine which Halachic opinions prevail for society at large, regardless of whether it sits well with the individual. So machlokes in Halacha doesn’t bother us. 

In fact, we appreciate the machlokes because it validates our uniqueness. Any individual can tell himself that even if the established Halacha does not fit my viewpoint, there are authorities who support my viewpoint which makes it valid. Actually, when it comes to monetary cases, we may actually hold that each side is Halachically valid. This is what created the monstrous Kim Li that drives all tov’im mad and was the subject of a recent post.

But the Aggadita that discusses historical events and natural sciences are quite another thing. This is not philosophy but purported fact. If there is no agreement among our sages as to what are the facts, then none of the facts can be relied on as being valid.

If two watches are not synchronized, we cannot rely that either one is accurate.

Here is an excerpt of a post that I wrote ten years ago regarding the list of Tzaddikim who never died an earthly death:

Although we live and breathe the words of Chazal, we cannot always consider their statements to be conclusive because they are often subject to conflicting Midrashim or a range of opinions among Chazal themselves. To point out a few examples, on the same page I note that there are at least 3 opinions as to which shevet produced Eliyahu HaNavi. The contention that he is a Cohen and that he is Pinchas is compromised thereby. Also, see footnote 25 on page 102 (in my book) where I bring conflicting sources as to which tzadikkim were born circumcised including a head-on collision concerning Bilaam. Another example is a controversy as to whether Zimri was actually Shlumiel ben Tzurishadai which contradicts a Midrash that all of the original nesiim died in the maaseh Korach (according to Rabbenu Bechaye). There are numerous other examples of this. 

One of the wildest "other examples" is the long sugya in Bava Basra 15a-b. Who was Iyov and when did he live?

Opinions range from Jewish to non-Jewish, from the days of Yaakov (he was husband of Dina), to the days of Moshe, the days of the Shoftim, Nevuchadnetzer, Achashverosh, that he was from the returnees of Ezra and had a Yeshiva in Teveria and, finally, that he never existed and is only a fable.

Each "contestant" presents his scriptural reference but, of course, each one’s reference is passed over by all the other opinions. Each individual opinion turns out to be an overwhelming minority. So, at the end of the daf/day, where do we stand on this? Who was Iyov? When did he live?

How many “watches” do we need?

And how are we supposed to respect all of the scriptural references when they are overlooked and “contradicted” by everyone else’s scriptural references?

The same goes for the identity of the fruit of the Eitz Hada'as. Talmud Bavli quotes a Braitha in two places (with several minor text discrepancies) which present three opinions:

• Rabi Meir - A vine, because wine and alcohol is the source of all of our woes.
• Rabi Nechemiah - A fig tree, because from the instrument of downfall comes the remedy.
• Rabi Yehuda - A wheat stalk, because ­– says Rabi Yehuda on his own with no supporting source – a child will not begin to speak until he has tasted from grain.

The gemara itself does not suggest an Esrog. This is only in Midrash Rabba. But a thorough look there will send us straight to the wine cabinet.

Firstly, in Midrash Rabba, Rabi Meir is the one who suggests wheat, not Rabi Yehuda. Then comes Rabi Yehuda and he suggests grapes. This is a total reversal of credits. He also backs it up with a pasuk (Devarim 32:32), not just a concept. After this comes Rabi Abba from Acco who suggests the Esrog, and running fourth, Rabi Yosi (not Rabi Nechemia) is credited with the fig opinion.

This is as much as most of us know. The Midrash continues a bit further with two more suggestions that we are not familiar with­ – a “brat sheva” and a “brat alita”. But then comes the part that most of us never heard, but we should:

Rabi Azaria…in the name of Rabi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Chas v’shalom! HKBH has not revealed the type of tree to Man and will not do so in the future! See what it says that if a woman sins with a beast, the beast is likewise executed. Why so? So that it (the beast) should not later pass through the public domain and people will say that this beast was the one that brought about the execution of so and so. And if HKBH is concerned to preserve the dignity of the offspring of Adam HaRishon, certainly it is concerned to preserve his dignity.

Now, this sounds very reasonable to me, but evidently, Rabi Meir, Rabi Yehuda, Rabi Nechemiah/Yosi, and Rabi Abba of Acco do not agree with this and they think that it is important to know what type of tree the Eitz Hadaas was. So, if somebody asks any of us right now, “What type of tree was the Eitz Hada'as?”, what will be our answer?

Incidentally, there is a shita from Rav Amram Gaon that it was a nut tree (egoz) and many understand the Ibn Ezra (Breishis 3:6) to hold that it was a unique one-of-a-kind aphrodisiac fruit tree (Viagra?) which cannot be found anywhere else on earth (though they haven’t stopped looking for it). The Ibn Ezra actually refers to some of the popular opinions and argues with their premise. Can a Rishon argue with a Tanna?

Well, as long as other Tannaim are arguing with this Tanna, then why can’t we?

Personally, if I had a vote, I would suggest a coffee tree because the pasuk says: And the eyes of both of them opened and they realized that they weren’t dressed…

All of this implies that learning the identity of the fruit of the Eitz Hada'as is merely an academic exercise but, nevertheless, something that we cannot hope to be conclusive about. And certainly nothing that we can build Halacha around. Yet, the gemara in Brachos 40a indicates otherwise.

The gemara wants to understand the intent of the Mishna that says if one inadvertently recites Borei pri ha’eitz on a vegetable that the Bracha is invalid. Isn’t this obvious? The only answer the gemara can present is that the intention of this Halachic Mishna is to reject the opinion of Rabi Yehuda that claims the Eitz Hada'as was wheat. This would indicate that if one wishes to eat raw wheat, he is allowed to recite Borei pri ha’eitz since, according to Rabi Yehuda, the Torah calls a wheat stalk “eitz”.

Yes, indeed, Chazal take their Aggadic literature very seriously.

S’tiros

So now, after dealing with textual discrepancies and cases where Chazal themselves present multiple opinions within a given passage, we need to discuss cases where one passage of Chazal flatly contradicts another and is not presented as a machlokes.

Of course, these things happen in Halacha all through Shas. The gemara usually settles it in one of two ways: Ha Mani (who is the author of this Halacha?) and Hacha B’mai Askinan (in what kind of case are we dealing here as opposed to the original case?).

Ha mani is essentially telling us that even though we did not know there is a machlokes on this issue, we have now learned that there is. Hacha b’mai askinan forces us to make a modification in one of the contradictory cases to make a distinction between the two, thus essentially solving the contradiction by saying that they are two different scenarios and the Halacha changes from one to the other.

Here again, the second approach will work with philosophy of Halacha but cannot work with facts or events. Sometimes we can resolve the contradiction by finding some middle ground between the two contradictory passages, which usually challenges some of our assumptions and mitigates the impact of the maamar Chazal. But other times, there is no way to reconcile and we must dig up who is the author of this Aggadita versus the other and declare that they differ (back to machlokes) or that these two pieces just do not get along.

It’s like solving the contradiction of two watches by saying that neither is right and the true time is somewhere in between or by saying that one of them is definitely right and the other wrong but you are not sure which one.

One of my favorite examples is staring us in the face in Taanis 23a. At the top of the page the gemara describes the meaning of “gishmeichem b’itam” – rains in their proper time – to mean that it will rain regularly only on Wednesday nights and Friday nights. The gemara backs up this description by a case example: 

And so we find in the days of Shimon ben Shetach that the rains fell on Wednesday nights and Friday nights and the crops grew until the wheat was like kidneys, barley like olives and lentils like gold coins…

The impression that I took form this gemara is that this was the standard rainfall all through the tenure of Shimon ben Shetach. Similar to the gemara (Kesubos 77b) that there were no rainbows in “the days” of Rabi Yehoshuah ben Levi (and Rabi Shimon Ben Yochai). His generation was especially righteous. They fulfilled Im bechukosai telechu with all the mitzvos and ameilus b’Torah, so they got “gishmeichem b’itam”.

But, further down on the very same daf, in a seemingly unrelated sugya, we see the famous story of Choni Hame’agel. There was a drought and the nation called upon Choni who was the Baba Sali of the generation. He drew a circle and declared that he will not step out of the circle unless it rains. Sure enough, his entreaties were answered. Although Choni was the kadosh or mekubal of the generation and a miracle worker, he was not the Nasi. And the Nasi called him out for his brazenness. And, who was the Nasi? Says the gemara:

Shimon ben Shetach sent to him: If it weren’t that you are the holy Choni, I would decree upon you a nidui…but, what can I do? You are like a bratty child who fools around in front of his father and yet his father pampers his child…

So there was a severe drought in the times of Shimon ben Shetach? So severe that they needed to call upon a baal mofes to get them out of it? But wasn’t it such a righteous generation of Im becukosia telechu and timely rains and enormous crops?

Well, of course we can easily dismiss this contradiction by saying that my initial assumption was incorrect. The timely rains did not occur constantly throughout his tenure as the Nasi, but rather it was a one-time occurrence that happened sometime during his term. But, yet, I am taken aback by two things: (1) I have yet to find a single commentator that even notices this ambiguity and (2) the polar extremities of these two episodes.  Perhaps we can explain the second point by saying that that generation was ruled by a midas hadin so their devout years were rewarded very handsomely and their sinful years were punished very severely.

The interesting thing is that this Aggadic lesson about the timely rains is likewise incorporated into a Halachic discussion in Chullin 119b about whether the peels or shells of produce are counted when determining their size for tumaas ochlin. Once again, Chazal take their Aggadic lessons very seriously.

The next contradiction is a more serious one and I covered it in this post about Who received Eretz Yisrael directly after the flood? Once again our culprit is Rashi who generally bases his commentary of chumash on the words of Chazal.Here is what I wrote there:

To summarize, the Talmud Bavli, Rashi in Breishis 1:1, and the Chumash in Breishis 10:9 all seem to indicate that Cham was the original legitimate sovereign of Eretz Israel. Yet, Rashi here (Breishis 12:6) insists that Shem initially inhabited it and Cham stole it from him!

Who was here first?

This makes quite a difference if you are trying to explain our claim to Eretz Yisroel on some liberal college campus.

I noted in that post the great commentator on Rashi, Rabbenu Eliyahu Mizrachi, a later Rishon, threw up his hands in despair. I wrote:

Numerous commentators make note of this contradiction and at the forefront is Rabbenu Eliyahu Mizrachi (RE"M) who makes a note of it in all three spots (Breishis 1:1 and 12:6 and Bamidbar 13:22). And he repeats the same mantra throughout: These are contradictory aggadoth and Rashi acknowledges both. In Breishis 1:1 he points out that Rashi is prone to doing this in multiple instances in Chumash.

So we learn here that the RE”M concedes that not every internal conflict in Chazal can be answered. We must come to terms with the fact that, despite our mantra of Eilu v’Eilu divrei elokim chaim, reality cannot support both versions. They cannot both be “what happened”.

Incidentally, I did find a way to reconcile the contradictory aggadot in that post, but I was only able to do so by taking the Rashi in Breishis 12:6 out of its simple meaning and to say that the sons of Cham did not conquer Eretz Yisroel by force but by license from the sons of Shem.

The next contradiction that I want to discuss brings us back to the story of Achitofel that we mentioned in our initial post as well as our multiple personality disorder about Iyov that I discussed earlier in this post.

We may be familiar with the gemara in Sanhedrin 106a that says: Three people were involved in that council (to enslave the Jews in Egypt) – Iyov, Yisro, and Bilaam. Iyov was silent, Yisro bolted, and Bilaam stayed and voted for enslavement.  This was about 140 years before the Exodus (after the passing of Yosef). Even if we place Bilaam at 13 years old then, he would be no less than 193 years old at the time of the war with Midian in which he died.

Now, let’s recall our previous post where we mentioned that the premise to say that Achitofel was only 33 years old at his death comes from a pasuk in Tehillim 55 which says that “murderous deceitful people will not live to half of a [normal] lifetime” (a normal lifetime is 70 years). We understand that these chapters in Tehillim were written by Dovid Hamelech about his arch enemies, Doeg and Achitofel (according to the Braitha, Doeg made it to 34).

But at the top of Sanhedrin 106b, where Rabi Chanina is responding to the inquiry of a heretic, he applies this pasuk to Bilaam, as well, and continues on to claim that Bilaam died in his early 30s. (Incidentally, Bilaam was not on Dovid’s wanted list and is not included in the Braitha about Achitofel.) The heretic supported Rabi Chanina's “drush” by saying that he himself saw a protocol that confirms Bilaam’s age at 33 at when he was killed by "Pinchas the marauder". Hence, Bilaam would be much too young to have been an adviser to Pharaoh 180 years earlier. He would even be too young to have lived during mattan Torah (39 years earlier) and this contradicts the gemara in Zevachim 116a that says he was there. 

Both of these claims – the 193 or so years of age and the 33 years of age – are in Sanhedrin 106 so it’s very difficult to overlook this contradiction. And, sure enough, Rashi on the spot takes it on.  Rashi seems to have no way out except to say that the first statement (193) was said by Rav Simai and the current statement (33) was said by Rabi Chanina and never the twain shall meet.

Once again, this leaves us 21^st century dwarfs in limbo. Should we take this story about Bilaam advising Pharaoh seriously or not? Rav Simai is a card-carrying member of Chazal and he says, Yes. But Rabi Chanina is likewise a card-carrying member of Chazal and he says, No. We revere and cherish them both.

Rashi finds no way to reconcile the two opinions, like to say that perhaps, Rabi Chanina agrees to Rav Simai but he was talking to the mindset of the heretic.  Or perhaps to say there was more than one Bilaam just as there was more than one Pharaoh (or more than one Nimrod) - Bilaam Sr. and Bilaam Jr.  Of course, both of these explanations are “stretches” (like Batya’s arm), but if we do not use them, we are left wearing two watches.

We would love to put our full trust in Chazal [believe all is binding] and believe that if Chazal tell us that Bilaam was 33 when he died, then he was 33 when he died. We would likewise love to trust Chazal and believe that if Chazal tell us that Bilaam was one of three advisors to Pharaoh 140 years prior to the Exodus, then Bilaam was one of three advisors to Pharaoh 140 years prior to the Exodus. But both cannot be true.

Rashi says so.

We can only conclude, as Rashi indicates, that members of Chazal did not always agree or support the other’s opinion and we are forced to discount at least some of the descriptions of Chazal as not binding. We are like children who watch their parents fight. We can convince ourselves that both are right but we cannot fully trust either one.

My final entry (for this post) is the contradiction about Ruth’s nationality. This was the topic of a blog post back in Sept of 2008 (wow, ten years!). Here are the facts of the contradiction as I wrote it then (nothing has changed):

·       Rashi in BaMidbar (22:4) quotes a Midrash Tanchuma that claims that Balak was actually Midyani.

·       Talmud Bavli (Sotah 47a and three other places) maintains that Balak was a direct ancestor of Ruth and two places indicate the ancestry to be directly patrilineal.

·       In Yevamos 78b and Rambam (Hilchos Issurei Biah 12:21) it is ruled that for non-Jews, nationhood is determined by patrilineal ancestry.

·       Therefore, Ruth actually has the Halachic status of a Midyani and not Moavi. This means that there would be no grounds for the controversy during the time of Boaz if Ruth is fit to convert and again when Doeg HaAdomi challenged Dovid's legitimacy (Yevamos 76b). This would also negate Ruth’s bloodline to Lot which is taken for granted by Chazal (Bava Kamma 38b; Midrash Rabba Breishis 41, 50).

The post concluded that there is no comfortable way to solve this contradiction. The easy way out is like the Rashi in Sanhedrin 106 and Rabbenu Mizrachi - the maamarei Chazal argue with each other. Only Talmud Bavli says that Ruth descended from Balak. Midrash Tanchuma does not say so. Only Tanchuma says that Balak was Midyani, Talmud Bavli does not say so. 

So we can easily say that Talmud Bavli does not agree with Midrash Tanchuma, but of course, this brings us back to not being able to trust either watch –or either “parent”. If you refer to the post, you will find a few other possible solutions, but all of them carry some sacrifice on our desire to view the words of Chazal as literal and immutable.

And so we conclude Part 2 of the Techeiles discussion. In Part 1, we learned how seriously Chazal respect the statements of their “members”. In Part 2, we have learned that not all of their members say the same thing and their tendency to accept all of these statements so literally and seriously is what makes the contradictions so difficult to solve.

We are not done yet. Stay tuned for more…