Kedoshim: Sacrifice Delayed, Sacrifice Denied ~ Yehoshua Steinberg

Sacrifice Delayed, Sacrifice Denied – The Wonders of the Holy Tongue for P’ Kedoshim

Leviticus 19:5-7: When you slaughter a peace offering… It may be eaten on the day you slaughter it and on the morrow… And if it would be eaten on the third day, it is פגול; it shall not be accepted.

There are two occurrences of the word פגולin the Pentateuch, and Onkelosrendersthe word in both instances asמרחק(distancing, repelling). Torah Shleimah notes that Onkelos utilizes the root רחקin the translation of no less than six additional Scriptural words, all of which he views as distinct: עֲרֵלִים– forbidden(Lev.19:23), נִדָּה– loathsome(ibid. 20:21), וָאָקֻץ– and I was disgusted (ibid. v. 23), גָּעֲלָה– repelled(ibid. 26:43), תוֹעֵבָה– abomination(Deut. 7:26), שָׂנֵא– hates(Deut. 16:22). However, it seems to me that there is a common theme among the seven words, namely, they all refer to something that is forbidden or distanced due to some defect1.

Following the view of Ribagand Radakthatפגלmeansa change in odor or appearance2,Torah Shleimah further suggests that the underlying root of פגולis actually the two letter string פג. For the נָמָרword in the verse (Jer.48:11), and its scent was not diminished (נָמָר),is translated by Targum Yonatanasפג, which Aruchdefines as a term denoting slackness/weakness3. He also suggests that the ruling in the Mishnah (Zevachim2:3, 5) that an offering loses its sanctity through invalid thoughts at the time of its ritual slaughter is also alluded to by the termפִּגּוּל. Thus, the common link in both of Torah Shleimah’ssuggestions is a change for the worse.

It is also interesting to note that the root ‘פלג’, a permutation of the word ‘פגל’, also seems to be connected to the root פג. For the word יָמִירin the verse (Micah2:4), God is exchanging (יָמִיר)the portion of my people,is translated by Targum Yonatanas מְפַלְגִין, thus demonstrating that he sees division (פלג) as signifying exchangeand change. Likewise, Targum Yerushalmitranslates וַיָּפָג לִבּוֹ(Gen.45:26) as וְאֵפְלַג לִבֵּיהּ, linking ‘פגל’and ‘פג’, with both of them indicating the division of a single unit into segments. Once again, the change here is for the worse: a transformation from a unified entity to divided fragments.

I wish to suggest that a similar connection exists between all the words sharing the letters פגin Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, namely: 1. פג; 2. פגל; 3. פגר; 4. פגע; 5. פגש; 6. פגם; 7. פגן; 8. ספג.Let us examine them one by one.

  1. Pagפג – In his first subsection of the entry ,’פג’ Menachem cites all of the following verses: וַיָּפָג לִבּוֹ (Gen. 45:26)4,נְפוּגוֹתִי וְנִדְכֵּיתִי (Psalms 38:9)5,אַל תִּתְּנִי פוּגַת לָךְ (Lam. 2:18)6,מֵאֵין הֲפֻגוֹת (ibid. 3:49)7,וְלֹא תָפוּג (Psalms 77:3)8,תָּפוּג תּוֹרָה (Chabakuk 1:4)9. The common thread in the various interpretations of the commentators appears to be an impedimentor hindrance; a defectof some kind. Even according to Rashi (in his comments to Gen. 45:26, Psalms 38:9, and Lam. 3:49), who interprets this root to meanexchange/passing on,it is used in the sense of weakening and ceasing of one’s strength and power, strongly resembling Radak’sinterpretation (in Psalms 38:9) thereof as flaccidity/weakness.

Under the second subsection of the entry ,’פג’ Menachem cites the word פַגֶּיהָ(Song of Songs 2:13), which Ibn Ezra interprets as, her pre-ripened figs. Given that premature fruits are by definition deficient, there thus appears to be a common thread across the two subsections of Menachem, with both of them involving defect, delay, detention, andcessation.

  1. Pagalפגל– The core meaning was explained above as somethingwithheld or distanced due to some defect.
  2. Pagarפגר– Rashi (Gen.15:11) links פגרandפגל, noting that Onkelos translates פְּגָרִים(animal carcasses) as פַּגְלַיָא10.Now, we have already demonstrated above that all the definitions of פגלinvolvedistancing from something because of a defect,and this also fits perfectly for a פגר, the corpse of a living being whose life and soul have departed. This would also seem to be the link to the two other Biblical usages ofפגר: 1) The word פִּגְּרוּ(I Sam. 30:10) is variously defined by the commentators to mean delay, inaction, prevention,and fatigue.2) In numerous instances (see Ex. 19:21, 24; Judges 6:5, 14:8; Micah 5:10), the root פגרappears as the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew term הרס(destruction), and the Hebrew words מַפֶּלֶתandגְוִיַּת, both of which mean death. [This usage of פגרasdestructionand deathleads us directly to פגע, our next example of a term containing the string פג.]
  3. Pegaפגע- This word often takes on the meaning of a fatal blow11. The second definition of the word פגעis a meeting12. This meaning also conveys delay, waiting, andtemporary stoppage, for the definition of a meeting is the devotion of time to engage with one’s fellow, although his other missions will consequently be delayed. This also would explain the other meaning of the root פגע, namely, a plea/prayer(see Rashi to Gen. 28:11; Metz. Tzion to Isaiah 53:12, and Targum to Jer. 15:11), for prayers and pleas require setting aside time in which the pleader is constrained from pursuing his ordinary occupations. I also believe that there is a common thread in all the meanings ofפגע, namely, a deficiencyandloss. Thedeficiencyin death is obvious. However, as we have demonstrated, there is also a loss entailed in the meanings of meetingand plea/prayer— a lossof time.
  4. Pagashפגש- As shown above, both meanings of this word— meetingand plea/prayer— involve a lossof time.
  5. Pagamפגם- In the Talmudic vernacular, פגםmeans something whose taste has become tainted13.Likewise, פִי חָרֶב, the sharp edge (orpoint)of the sword is translated as the פגםof the sword by Targum Yonatan (Jud. 1:8). Perhaps it is so called in Aramaic because it causes weakening, destructionand death. In any case, the common thread amongst of all the usages of פגםonce again seems to be defect.
  6. Paganפגן- In the verse, the betrothed girl cried out(Deut.22:27), Targum Yonatan translates the word cried outasפָּגְנַת.Perhaps this is also the reason that the Midrash(Vayikra Rabbah26:4) refers to the ordinary citizen as a פגן(possibly related to the English “pagan”), for like the assaulted “betrothed girl,” who is powerless to do anything but cry out, so too does he lack meaningful power. This is also the source of the Talmudic term הפגנה, meaning theforlorn person’s outcry for compassion. As Rashiexplains the word הפגינו(R.H. 19a): “They shouted in the markets and the thoroughfares, so that the ministers would hear them and have compassion on them.” We also find the word תְפִיגִיןas the Aramaic translation of הָסִירִי,remove.
  7. Safagספג- This Aramaic word, meaning to absorb,appears in the Talmud in the specific sense of one whoreceives/absorbsforty lashes for his intentional violation of a biblical transgression (see, for example, Nazir 16b). Since this word does not appear in the Talmud in any positive connection (i.e., we do not find it used in connection with absorbinga compliment or a kiss), it seems reasonable to suggest that this too is connected to the root פג, in the sense that the person being flogged is physically weakened and loses strength through the lashes.

Perhaps we can also offer an explanation for the more generally used Talmudic word סְפוֹג(see Shabbat 134b), which is interestingly similar in sound to its English cognate, sponge.The primary purpose of this object is to absorb liquids, that is, toremove and diminish their presencefrom their present location14.

In conclusion, all the words containing the letters פגin Biblical Hebrew and Talmudic Aramaic, are connected to defector weakeningin quality, time, or strength. May the Master of the Universe deliver fatal blows (יפגע) against our enemies, making them absorb(שיספגו) blow after blow, until all their strength shall peter out (יפוג), and there shall remain be nothing but repugnant (פגול)

blowseeir present location (kudos to Binyamin Kaufman for this insight)carcasses (פגרים) from them, while we become ever stronger and ascend always higher and higher.

1[This definition also fits with the other nuances used by the Biblical commentators in their own interpretations of the word פגול:Targum Yerush.to Lev.7:18 defines it as invalid/disqualified;Rashito ibid. 19:7, Isaiah65:4 and Kiddushin21b define it as abominable/repugnant;Ribagand Radak(entry פגל) define it as a change in odor or appearance (seemingly a negative change); and Hirsch and HaKetav VeHakabbalah (Lev.7:18) define it as separated/divided.].

2[כך לשון ריב”ג(ערך’פגל’)]:הוא הבשר שנשתנה ריחו ומראהו.[ורד”ק כתב דברים דומים].

3[ערוך השלם,ערך’פג’ (א’)שם,שפירש’פג’מעניןרפיון וחלישות].

4Ibn Ezra definesוַיָּפָגto mean that his heart stopped/became silent.

5Metz. Tzion definesנְפוּגוֹתִי,תָפוּג, and תָּפוּגas referring to flaccidity/weakness.

6Ramban (to Gen.45:26) definesפוּגַתascancellation/cessation.

7איכה ג:מט.

8תה’עז:ג;מצ”צ-תפוג-ענין רפיון וחלישות,כמו:תפוג תורה (חב’א).

9חב’א:ד;מצ”צ-תפוג-ענין רפיון וחלשות,כמו:נפוגותי ונדכיתי (תה’לח).

10[Similarly, the word פגר(I Samuel17:46), referring to a human carcass, is translated asפגולbyTargum Yonatan. See also HaKesav Vehakabbala(Lev.7:18) for various explanations of the root פגל].

11[seeEx.5:3;I Sam.22:18; I Kings2:25, 31, 32; Isaiah64:4].

12[SeeOnkelosand RashitoGen.28:11;Jos.16:7, 19:11; Targum Yonatan toI Sam.10:5; Job36:32].

13[Rashiexplains in Pesachim30a, 44b and A.Z.38b, that – הופגטעמו, its taste has deteriorated].

14[Kudos to Binyamin Kaufman for this insight].




Kedoshim: Born to Produce ~ Tzvi Abrahams

חוֹרֶף: winter

חֶרְפָּה: disgrace, shameful, detested

חַרִיף: sharp, strong, biting

נֶחֶרֶפֶת: designated, singled out

וְאִישׁ כִּי יִשְׁכַּב אֶת אִשָּׁה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע וְהִוא שִׁפְחָה נֶחֱרֶפֶת לְאִישׁ וְהָפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדָּתָה אוֹ חֻפְשָׁה לֹא נִתַּן לָהּ בִּקֹּרֶת תִּהְיֶה לֹא יוּמְתוּ כִּי לֹא חֻפָּשָׁה
And a man if he will lie with a woman intimately and she is a maidservant designated to a man, and she has been redeemed yet not redeemed (fully), or freedom has not been given to her, an investigation will be conducted, they will not be given the death penalty because she was not freed.1

חוֹרֶף: Winter

Not only is the winter biting, but it is also a time where everything is cold and desolate, barren of any life. It is not a productive time of year and is therefore not the preferred season. Much better is theaviv/spring, where everything starts to grow and bloom and where the temperatures are pleasant and temperate.

The Ramban explains that the word נֶחֱרֶפֶתcomes from חוֹרֶף/youth, because the winter is the beginning of the year, whereas the summer is compared to old age because it is the time of the ingathering of the harvest.2

חַרִיף: Sharp, Strong, Biting

I used to compare the winter to death and therefore the end of life, spring being the days of youth, summer the days of one’s prime, and autumn the days of old age. We see from the wisdom of lashon hakodesh, however, that really the חוֹרֶף/winter is the time of youth, where one is very חַרִיף/sharp, sharp-witted, but also one can be sharp to the point where one’s words can be biting.

In one’s youth, one has still not sprouted forth his own individuality; he is still living at home, being nurtured by his family. Only when he leaves home and gets married does he really start to grow and find out who he really is. Just like the winter is raw, one who is in his youth is uncultured, not temperate but rather tempered and wild, full of mood swings, symbolized by the winter storms with their thunder and lightning.

The summer comes after many years of growth, producing fruits after a long maturation period. At the end of the summer the fruits have ripened, and at a ripe old age we are ready to be picked off the tree and gathered in. No wonder the summer is called the קַיִץ, from lashonקֵץ/the end, and the time of אַסִיפָה/ingathering.

Rosh Hahanah, the beginning of the year, comes at the end of the summer. The autumn hails the beginning of the winter when everything withers and dies. But nevertheless the winter is still considered the start of a new year.

Winter also represents rebirth and תְּחִיַת הַמֵתִים/coming back to life, because even though everything seemingly has withered and died, we know that soon the seeds will once again sprout. And just like a seed just needs water, earth, and time to come alive, so too there should be no reason why one should not believe that in time we too will rise from the earth and come back to life, after being nurtured from the life-giving waters of Hashem’s Torah.

נֶחֶרֶפֶת: Designated, Singled Out

In this parshah, the case of the שִׁפְחָה חַרוּפָה is mentioned. A שִׁפְחָה חַרוּפָה is a maidservant who has been partially freed. For instance, she was jointly owned by two people and one of the owners freed her. A maidservant who is fully free automatically becomes Jewish. Being half-Jewish, the שִׁפְחָה חַרוּפָה can no longer have relations with a non-Jewish slave (to a Jew), and being half non-Jewish she cannot be with a full-fledged Jewish man either. Her half-owner, however, can designate his עֶבֶד עִבְרִי/Jewish slave to have relations with her, because the Torah permits a master to allow his עֶבֶד עִבְרִי to have relations with a שִׁפְחָה/non-Jewish maidservant in order to produce more servants.

There is a Mishnah that brings an argument between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding an עֶבֶד כְּנַעַנִי/a Canaanite servant who similarly has been partially freed.3Beis Hillel suggests that he should work one day and be free the next. Beis Shammai quotes the following saying: לֹא נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם אֶלָא לְפִּרִיָה וּרְבִיָה/the world was only created in order to go forth and multiply, arguing that since this man will therefore lay idle, not being allowed to be with a Jew because he is half non-Jew and also not allowed to be with a non-Jew because he is half-Jew, the only solution is to get the other owner to free him completely. Beis Shammai’s argument is so powerful that Beis Hillel is forced to retract and agree with Beis Shammai.

חֶרְפָּה: Disgrace, Shameful, Detested

When Rachel Imeinu finally gives birth to Yosef, she says: אָסַף אֱ-לֹהִים אֶת חֶרְפָּתִי/ Hashem has gathered in my shame.4In other words, for a woman not to be able to give birth is shameful and humiliating for her, because her whole being is designed to this end. Therefore, the Torah calls not being able to fulfill her intended mission a חֶרְפָּה.

Similarly, a שִׁפְחָה חַרוּפָה/ half-freed maidservant, can only give birth to partially Jewish slaves who, like the Mishnah brought above said, are unable to procreate. Since the world was only created for procreation, they are therefore unable to fulfill their mission, which too is a חֶרְפָּה, and hence she is known as a שִׁפְחָה חַרוּפָה.

And it doesn’t end here! לְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לוֹ עָרְלָה כִּי חֶרְפָּה הִוא לָנוּ/to the man who has an orlah, it is a disgrace.5The pasukdescribes how Yaakov’s sons relate to the townspeople of Shechem after the rape of their sister Dinah that they could not join together as one people because they are uncircumcised, i.e., they have an עָרְלָה, which is a חֶרְפָּה, a shame and a disgrace.

What is it about being uncircumcised that the Torah calls it a חֶרְפָּה?

People who are not circumcised are more predisposed to do immoral acts. There is no self-control; at best they are faithful to their spouse, but this faithfulness is no more than an animal’s loyalty to one partner to satisfy its desires. The world was created for פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ/to reproduce; Hashem created this desire in us so that we should come together, though not with the intention of satisfying our own selfish desires. It should be an act of giving, an act of sowing seeds, of producing holy fruits, of bringing down holy נְשָׁמוֹת/souls from above. No wonder Chazal call this act the “holy of holies.” Chazal also tell us that the thoughts that one has during the conception of our children impact the type of neshamosthat we bring into the world. By having children, we become more of aצֶלֶם אֶ-לֹהִים/creation in the image of G-d, for just like Hashem is אָבִינוּ שֶׁבַּשָׁמַיִם/our Father in Heaven who gives to his children unconditionally, we too as parents have the opportunity to emulate Him by giving unconditionally to our children.

What helps to engage in this holy act is to do בְּרִית מִילָה. This helps us to exercise self-control and not to behave like aבְּהֵמָה/animal out of instinct and raw desire, since there is a higher purpose to our procreation. No coincidence that the rape of Dinah was at the hands of an animal, שְׁכֶם בֶּן חַמוּר/Shechem the son of a donkey!

So getting back to our question of why the Torah labels the uncircumcised as a חֶרְפָּה, it is because people who have no control over their desires, who just have relations to satisfy themselves, are not interested in the higher purpose of having children; and as we have seen, not having children is considered a חֶרְפָּה.

Returning to our connection with the חוֹרֶף, the winter is the season where nothing takes seed, where nothing is produced and the land lays barren. So too, then, a woman who is barren considers herself to be a חֶרְפָּה, because her whole purpose for being born is to produce.

1Vayikra19:20.

2Ramban to Vayikra 19:20.

3Eduyos 1:13.

4Bereishis 30:23.

5Ibid., 34:14.




Kedoshim: Burke and Rebuke ~ Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein

Burke

Edmund Burke (1729-1797), the father of contemporary conservatism, purportedly said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” When good people stand idly by and allow evil people to do as they please, then evil will certainly triumph. The implication of Burke’s dictum is that it is incumbent upon good people to stop the treachery of evildoers. The Torah takes this Burkian approach to the responsibility of the righteous and implores us to reprimand the wicked for their sins (Lev. 19:17). The Hebrew language collates the notion of rebuking sinners in two different words: tochachah and mussar. In the following paragraphs we shall seek to delineate the differences between these two words and their implied approaches to rebuke.

The Vilna Gaon (1720-1797) explains that tochachah is rebuke that comes from the mouth, while mussar comes from other body parts. In other words, telling somebody off for his misdeeds constitutes tochachah, while physically driving home the same point is called mussar. Thus, when a parent disciplines his child by hitting him (obviously, in a non-abusive way) or when G-d teaches somebody a lesson by afflicting him, that is called mussar. In fact, the Vilna Gaon connects the word mussar with the word yissurin (“suffering”). When G-d warns the Jews of the calamities that shall befall them should they fail to properly heed the Torah’s laws, this is called tochachach. Indeed, there are two passages in the Torah which do exactly that, and each is traditionally known as “the tochachach”: Leviticus 26:14-43 (which is always read before Shavuot) and Deuteronomy 28:15-68 (which is always read before Rosh Hashana).

The Malbim (1809-1879) identifies three differences between the implication of the words tochachah and mussar. Those differences lie in the “who, what, and why” of the admonition in question. Firstly, mussar is rebuke given by a person of authority to a subordinate, while tochachah may even be rebuke exchanged amongst equals. Secondly, mussar may be carried out through corporal punishment or simply a verbal tongue-lashing, while tochachah exclusively refers admonishing another by logically proving that he has done wrong. Thirdly, mussar focuses on inculcating proper behavior for the future, while tochachah focuses on castigating a sinner for his past deeds. (This last distinction is also found in the writings of the Vilna Gaon.)

Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim of Breslau (1740-1814) connects the word tochachah to nochach, which means “opposite” — both in terms of ideology (e.g., “Communism is the opposite of Capitalism.”) and physical location (e.g., “The car stopped oppositethe red light.”). By offering his words of criticism, the rebuker opposes the rebukee, both in an ideological sense and possibly even in a physical sense, if the two meet face-to-face.

Nonetheless, Rabbi Pappenheim argues that the most effective way of rebuking another is not direct confrontation, but to “innocently” question his actions and spur a debate about their correctness. Hopefully, the ensuing discussion will allow the sinner to realize the folly of his ways in a more powerful way than if he was simply confronted with a litany of his misdoings. For this reason, the word tochachah is also related to the words hochachah (proof) and vikuach (debate). Indeed, the proper way of chastising is not simply sermonizing about fire and brimstone descending from the heavens à la Jonathan Edwards’ Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. That Puritan tract may indeed arouse emotive feelings of repentance through elaborate descriptions of the hellish fires of purgatory, but such emotions are merely fleeting bursts of contrition, unless they are backed with a logical and intellectual acceptance to do only good. Tochachah seeks to logically prove the vanity of sin and provide fodder for a rational acceptance to do only good.

On the other hand, Rabbi Pappenheim writes that the word mussar is related to the word le’hasir (“to remove” or “to separate”). This is either because mussar seeks to “displace” or “remove” an offender from the path of sin within which he had been entrenched or because it clearly “delineates” and “separates” between what is right and what is wrong. Alternatively, the word mussar is related to the word assur (which literally means “tied”, although it colloquially means “forbidden”) because the rebuker seeks to show the rebukee that he is “bound” to certain expectations of right and wrong. Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg (1785-1865) similarly explains that mussar is related to “tying” because it gives a person the ability to tie down his evil inclination and keep his illicit desires in check.