THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
Previous daf
Sotah, 10
SOTAH 10 (5 Teves) - has been dedicated to the memory of Max (Meir Menachem) Turkel
on his Yahrzeit by his children Eddie and Lawrence and their children, and by his
wife Jean Turkel/Rafalowicz.
|
1) SHIMSHON'S WALKING STICK AND THE LOSS OF HIS EYES
QUESTION: Just before Shimshon toppled the temple of the Plishtim, he called out, "My
G-d, Hashem, remember me and strengthen me just this once, O' G-d, and I will avenge
myself on the Plishtim the revenge for one of my two eyes" (Shoftim 16:28). Rav
explains that when Shimshon asked Hashem to let him have revenge against the Plishtim
for one of his two eyes that they blinded, Shimshon said, "Master of the Universe!
Remember for me the twenty-two years that I led the Jewish people, during which I
never asked any one of them to so much as bring me my walking stick."
What does the fact that he judged the Jewish people for so many years without ever
asking anyone to carry his staff for him have to do with asking Hashem for rewarding
him for the loss of his eye?
ANSWER: The MAHARSHA answers that Shimshon was explaining that the loss of his eyes
was undeserved; he did not do any misdeed which would warrant the punishment of
losing his eyes. Shimshon was a Shofet, a judge, of the Jewish people, and he was in
a position to be swayed by bribes and other influences. The Torah says that accepting
bribes causes one's eyes to become blind (XX). Nevertheless, Shimshon insisted that
he was always honest and upright throughout his entire career and he never accepted
any bribes, and he never accepted anything that even bordered on being a bribe. For
this reason, he never allowed anyone to do him a small favor, even to carry his
walking stick from one place to another, lest that person one day appear before him
in court and Shimshon feel some sense of obligation to the person in return for the
small favor. Therefore, Shimshon asserted, his blinding was not deserved and he
pleaded with Hashem to grant him revenge from the Plishtim for their injustice.
2) SHIMSHON'S "TWENTY-TWO" YEAR REIGN
QUESTION: Just before Shimshon toppled the temple of the Plishtim, he called out, "My
G-d, Hashem, remember me and strengthen me just this once, O' G-d, and I will avenge
myself on the Plishtim the revenge for one of my two eyes" (Shoftim 16:28). Rav
explains that Shimshon was saying, "Master of the Universe! Remember for me the
twenty-two years that I led the Jewish people, during which I never asked any one of
them to so much as bring me my walking stick."
Why does the Gemara contend that Shimshon's reign lasted *twenty-two* years? The
verse clearly states that Shimshon's reign lasted *twenty* years! The RASHBA
(Teshuvos 1:88, cited in the margin of our Shas) writes that the word "two" must be a
printer's error and should be deleted from the text of the Gemara. We find also that
even the Ge'onim grappled with this problem and did not offer any solutions (Teshuvos
Ha'Ge'onim, Liek 1864, end of #45).
ANSWER: To answer this question, let us first cite a Midrash concerning the span of
Shimshon's years of leadership. The Midrash (Bamidbar Rabah 14:9) infers from the
repetition of a verse that describes Shimshon's twenty-year tenure as leader that he
actually led the people for *forty* years. The Midrash quotes the verse (Bamidbar
7:66,71), "On the tenth day... the leader of the tribe of Dan brought his offering:
...two bulls," and comments, "These two bulls represent the two times (Shoftim 15:20
and 16:31) that it is said in connection with Shimshon [who was from the tribe of
Dan], 'He led Yisrael for twenty years.' The phrase was repeated in order to teach us
that the Plishtim feared Shimshon for twenty years after his death just as they
feared him for the twenty years of his life."
(The MAHARSHA here uses this Midrash to reconcile the Yerushalmi (Sotah 1:8) with our
texts of the Tanach and to answer a question posed by Tosfos in Shabbos 55b, DH
Ma'avirim. See also "Tzion Yerushalayim" to the Yerushalmi there, Rashash to Bemidbar
Rabah 14:9, "ha'Mikra ve'ha'Mesorah" (#2) by Rav Reuven Margolios, who all
independently reached the same conclusion as the Maharsha.)
Perhaps our Gemara is also bothered by the problem with which the Midrash deals --
why does the verse count *two* twenty-year periods during which Shimshon led Yisrael?
Our Gemara seems to reject the resolution suggested by the Midrash (and the
Yerushalmi), that Shimshon frightened away the Plishtim for an additional twenty
years posthumously. After all, why should the Plishtim continue to fear someone who
is dead? (Some commentators explain that according to the Yerushalmi the Plishtim
were not certain that Shimshon was really dead since his body was quickly removed
from the wreckage by his brethren.)
The Maharsha proposes that our Gemara might maintain instead that the two periods of
Shimshon's leadership were the twenty years during which Shimshon judged, and
*another* twenty years during which he was *imprisoned* by the Plishtim, until he
broke out of his shackles and brought down their temple by breaking its retaining
pillars. (The Tanach, in fact, does not record how long he was in prison before he
was brought out to perform for the crowds. It may well have been a very lengthy
period of time.) Accordingly, it would be entirely understandable that the Plishtim
feared Shimshon during the latter twenty-year period. They were afraid that Shimshon
would burst out of his shackles even though he was bound and blinded. Only after
twenty years did they gain the audacity to publicly taunt him.
Hence, the *end* of the forty-year rule of the Plishtim coincided with Shimshon's
martyrdom. Perhaps Shimshon brought about the downfall of the Plishtim by destroying
their temple and their leaders at the time of his death! (This might be the intention
of the Midrash as well when it says that he ruled for twenty years after "his death,"
meaning that he controlled the Plishtim for twenty years after he was captured and
blinded. The Midrash refers to this point in time as "after his death" because "a
blind person is considered like a Mes" (Nedarim 64b).
The original reading of the Gemara might have been "the *two twenty* (not *twenty
two*) years that I led Israel" ("Shenayim Esrim Shana"). Shimshon was asking Hashem
to remember for him the two twenty-year periods during which he led the Jewish
nation! Since the phrase "two twenty years" seems at first glance to be a meaningless
phrase, it was "corrected" improperly by the copyists to read "twenty-two years."
3) TAMAR, THE "GIYORES" AND THE "YESOMAH"
QUESTIONS: Tamar assurred Yehudah, who thought that she was a Nochris, that she was
permitted to him because she was a Giyores. When he questioned that perhaps her
father was Mekadesh her to Er and Onan thus making her Asur to him, she assurred him
that she was a Yesomah at the time of her Kidushin.
(a) What did Tamar mean when she said that she was a Giyores? The Torah had not yet
been given and there were no Jews and no Gerim!
(b) Also, if she was considered a Giyores, why did she have to say that she was a
Yesomah in order to answer Yehudah's other concern? We know that a "Ger sh'Nisgayer
k'Katan she'Nolad Dami" -- a Ger who converts is like
a newborn child (Yevamos 97b) -- and thus she has no connection to her Nochri father
and he could not have married her off!
(c) In addition, why should the Nochri father be able to be Mekadesh her to someone?
The Gemara in Sanhedrin (58b) says that a Nochri only has matrilineal relationship (a
Nochri is considered to be related only to his or her mother), and thus a Nochri
father is allowed to marry his daughter! Since there is no patrilineal relationship,
why is the father permitted to be Mekadesh her to someone?
ANSWERS:
(a) RASHI explains that when Tamar said that she was a Giyores, she meant that she
did not worship Avodah Zarah, and therefore she was fit to marry Yehudah. RAV YAKOV
EMDEN (in Hagahos Ya'avetz) adds that from the times of Avraham Avinu, Avraham and
his family were already considered like Bnei Yisrael (see Mishnah l'Melech in
beginning of Parshas Derachim). The RA'AVAD in Avodah Zarah (36b) explains that this
is the reason why the Beis Din of Shem enacted a prohibition against a Jew or Jewess
having relations with a Nochri woman or man (marrying a Nochri or Nochris is Asur
mid'Oraisa). The Gemara cites the verse (Bereishis 38) that describes how Yehudah
wanted to kill Tamar as a punishment for transgressing this decree. The Ra'avad
explains that even though there was no Torah or Jewish nation at the time of Yehudah,
nevertheless the family of Avraham Avinu separated themselves from the other nations
and made themselves a unique group dedicated to serving Hashem and rejecting Avodah
Zarah. Tamar, the descendant of Shem, was also part of this group.
The BRISKER RAV explains that this is why Yehudah acquitted Tamar of all charges as
soon as he realized that he was her suitor. He wanted to kill her as a punishment for
having relations with a Nochri, but once he discovered that she had relations with a
Jew (himself), he acquitted her because she was guilty of no transgression.
(b) Regarding why the father of a Nochris should still have the rights of Kidushin of
his daughter, the SHEVUS YAKOV (1:177), cited by He'oros b'Maseches Sotah, says that
the principle of "Ger sh'Nisgayer k'Katan she'Nolad Dami" does not affect all
Halachos, and the rights to marry off his daughter is not affected by this
principle.
Another explanation might be that Tamar's father had been Megayer earlier (before she
was born), and she meant that she was following the path of her father and serving
Hashem. Alternatively, she meant to say that she was Megayer *after* marrying Er and
Onan (and at the time that she married Er and Onan, she was still a Nochris and her
father (had he been alive) would have had the rights to be Mekadesh her to them).
(c) Regarding why a Nochri father should have the rights of Kidushin of his daughter
if he is not considered related to her, it seems that the rights to marry off a
daughter does not stem from familial relationship, but rather from the rights of
protectorate that a father has over his daughter. (See Kesuvos 46a, where the Gemara
cmopares the right to marry off one's daughter to the right to sell one's daughter as
a maidservant.) Even a Nochri retains such rights of ownership over his minor
offspring.
10b
4) DAVID HA'MELECH'S MITZVAH OF MILAH
QUESTION: The Gemara gives various interpretations of the phrase, "l'David *Michtam*"
(Tehilim 46:1). According to one explanation, "Michtam" means "Makaso Tamah" -- David
ha'Melech was born "Mahul," with his Orlah already removed.
How can this be resolved with the Gemara in Menachos (43b) which says that when David
ha'Melech entered the bathhouse wearing nothing and became distressed that he was
void of Mitzvos, he was consoled and he rejoiced when he realized that he had the
Mitzvah of Milah with him. If he was born Mahul, then the Milah that he had was *not*
a Mitzvah that he performed! (MAHARSHA)
ANSWER: The MAHARSHA answers that the Gemara in Shabbos (135a; see Insights there)
records a number of opinions whether a person who is born Mahul needs Hatafas Dam
Bris or not. According to the opinion that such a person needs Hatafah, David
ha'Melech rejoiced about the Mitzvah of Hatafah that was performed on him.
According to the opinion that such a person does not need Hatafah, the Maharsha
writes that David ha'Melech was happy simply because he was not an Arel (even though
he did not perform a Mitzvah of Milah through Kum v'Aseh).
The Acharonim find the Maharsha's answer difficult to accept. The Gemara in Menachos
clearly implies that David ha'Melech was happy that there was a *Mitzvah*
accompanying him and not merely that he was not an Arel. Indeed, the Gemara compares
the Mitzvah of Milah that David ha'Melech had to the Mitzvos of Tefilin and Tzitzis.
In addition, even according to the opinion that says that one born with a Milah needs
Hatafah, nevertheless the Milah that made the visible change on his body did *not*
reflect the Hatafah, which was the Mitzvah that was performed! How, then, could David
ha'Melech view it as the Mitzvah that accompanied him everywhere?
One possible approach could be based on the words of the TESHUVOS MAHARACH OR ZARU'A.
He explains that the reason why David ha'Melech rejoiced about having the Mitzvah of
Milah -- even though his Mitzvah of Milah occurred many years before -- was because
the Mitzvah of Milah is ongoing; as long as the Mitzvah is on one's flesh, one is
considered to be fulfilling the Mitzvah. It is possible, then, that if a person is
"Moshech Orlaso" and covers up his Milah, he no longer has the fulfillment of the
Mitzvah of Milah since the Milah is no longer evident.
According to the opinion that one who is born Mahul needs Hatafah, the Mitzvah that
he performs is not the Hatafas Dam Bris per se, but rather the Hatafah makes the
Milah into a Milah of Bris instead of a natural Milah, and as long as he retains the
Milah, he still retains the Bris, and having the Bris is the Mitzvah.
According to the opinion that oen who is born Mahul does not need Hatafah, when a
Jewish baby is born without an Orlah, that also represents the Bris that Hashem has
with the person, as long as the person does not tamper with it. Therefore, he will
still be fulfilling the Mitzvah of Milah every moment through having the Bris as long
as he does not cover it up.
Next daf
|