Musings on the Torah

The Megillas Esther that is used for the mitzvah of Megillah reading must conform with the laws governing Sifrei Torah used for Torah readings in many respects.  ( R"T enlarges the scope; Rambam does not ) E.g., - שירטוט    - אשורית, ספר ודיו - requires three stitches of sinew What is it about Esther that sets it apart in this regard? Megillas Esther and Purim are eternal, like the Torah: לְאוֹת עוֹלָם לֹא יִכָּרֵת אֵלּוּ יְמֵי פוּרִים רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אַף מְגִילַּת אֶסְתֵּר וַהֲלָכוֹת אֵינָן עֲתִידֵין לִיבָּטֵל. נְאֱמַר כָּאן: קוֹל גָּדוֹל וְלֹא יָסָף, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן: וְזִכְרָם לֹא יָסוּף מִזַּרְעָם. הֲלָכוֹת – הֲלִיכוֹת עוֹלָם לוֹ. It is also  ניתנה להידרש , like the Torah What gives? They are similar to the Torah in that they constitute the willing acceptance thereof and thus enable the Torah to finally be binding   {שמות י״ט:י״ז} וַיִּתְיַצְּבוּ בְּתַחְתִּית הָהָר אָמַר רַב אַבְדִּימִי בַּר חָמָא בַּר חַסָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכָּפָה הַ...

From the Tannaim onward, commentators have struggled to account for Mordechai's seemingly bewildering refusal to show Haman the basic courtesy of bowing to him, especially in light of the effect that it had of endangering the Jews.  Among the many suggestions put forth the Midrash & Talmud assert that Haman was venerated as a god or that he wore an idol on his body, with even as staunch a pashtan as ibn Ezra adopting such an approach, with A"Z subject to the rule of יהרג ועל יעבור.  The Targumim (Rishon & Sheini) posit either personal or national pride (respectively).  (There are other approaches as well.) The former suffer from there being no indication in the text of a foreign deity and the latter from Mordechai's apparent misplaced pride and otherwise.  I'd like to suggest the following: In Rabbinic tradition Haman is said to be descended from Amalek and Mordechai from Shaul, who spared Agag.  Esther is framed as another such epic showdown.  That...

Rambam writes (e.g.,  Sefer Hamitzvos , Mishneh Torah ) that the mitzvah of shofar lies in hearing it—not in sounding it.  That's to say that men don't have an obligation to blow the shofar individually (which would only be fulfilled via שומע כתוקע if one is listening to another sound it*) but rather simply to listen to the sound of the shofar (with the caveat that it is blown by someone similarly obligated as well as both the blower and hearer intentionally thinking about connecting with the other).  The bracha recited prior to mitzvas shofar is formulated in Mishneh Torah to reflect that conceptualization with the nusach לשמוע—not לתקוע.  Of course there's also Rambam's famous lesson on introspection that the Shofar alludes to which too is about what we hear (and internalize)—not what we project to others (also referenced  in the Guide to the Perplexed )**.  Halachic rationale aside perhaps this is (also) Rambam following his philosophical beliefs....

The Gemara (B Berachos 30b) raises the question of how long one must pause between back-to-back prayers in order to compose oneself.  It records a dispute: כַּמָּה יִשְׁהֶה בֵּין תְּפִלָּה לִתְפִלָּה? רַב הוּנָא וְרַב חִסְדָּא, חַד אָמַר כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּתְחוֹנֵן דַּעְתּוֹ עָלָיו, וְחַד אָמַר כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּתְחוֹלֵל דַּעְתּוֹ עָלָיו. How long should one wait between one prayer and another?” Rav Huna and Rav Chisda [disagree]: — One said: “Long enough for his mind to become softened (תתחונן) upon him.” — And one said: “Long enough for his mind to become stirred (תתחולל) upon him. The Gemara continues that each opinion is grounded in a verse describing prayer: מַאן דְּאָמַר כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּתְחוֹנֵן דַּעְתּוֹ עָלָיו, דִּכְתִיב: ״וָאֶתְחַנַּן אֶל ה׳ ״ (דברים ג׳:כ״ג), וּמַאן דְּאָמַר כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּתְחוֹלֵל דַּעְתּוֹ עָלָיו, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְחַל מֹשֶׁה״ (שמות ל״ב:י״א). The one who said: ‘[He must wait] until his mind becomes softened,’ it is as it is written: ‘And I pleaded with the Lord’ (Deuteron...

The uniquely Jewish year doesn't start in Tishrei but rather in Nissan which is the month of the Exodus—הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה לָכֶם רֹאשׁ חֳדָשִׁים רִאשׁוֹן הוּא לָכֶם לְחׇדְשֵׁי הַשָּׁנָה (Shemos 12:2).  Tishrei is the seventh month of the Jewish covenantal calendar year and yet we celebrate the New Year on its first day—not Nissan's.  What gives? Rosh Hashanah isn't linked to the Exodus—the seminal moment in the creation of the Jewish nation—anywhere in Tanach. The Mishnah (RH 1:2) pegs the first day of Tishrei as the day upon which all humans are judged for the year—בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה כָּל בָּאֵי הָעוֹלָם עוֹבְרִין לְפָנָיו כִּבְנֵי מָרוֹן. Human judgement and accountability aren't particular to the Jews, it is a species-wide event encompassing all of humanity.  Cue the Deluge and Sodom; Nineveh is exhibit A for the concept and power of Teshuvah.  The annual agricultural cycle commences and concludes in Tishrei.  The opinion adopted by the Rosh Hashanah liturgy is ...

Judaism. So many definitions. But boiled down to its (Rabbinic) core a very specific and gendered essence begins to emerge.  Consider the Eved Canaani. He is obligated in mitzvos like a Jewess. When he is freed he is stepped up to the full observance reserved for Jewish men.  What about a Shifcha Canaanis? Is there any difference between her obligation of mitzvos and that of a full fledged Jewish woman? Apparently not (see Avnei Neizer YD 350:2 ). She is under the same halachic system as a Jewish woman (personal status issues aside). What then distinguishes her from a Jewess? Her ability to birth Jews. She is just as obligated in mitzvos as a Jewish woman but being that her children aren't Jewish she too isn't.  Prior to Mattan Torah, Chazal are of the opinion that Avraham and his progeny were Jewish.  What was the implication of that designation? For males it was circumcision.  What about for females? Ramban writes that from when Avraham entered the Bris he w...