Smuggling, Swearing, and Kissing

A famous midrash:

וַיָּקָם בַּלַּיְלָה הוּא וַיִּקַּח אֶת שְׁתֵּי נָשָׁיו וְאֶת שְׁתֵּי שִׁפְחֹתָיו וְאֶת אַחַד עָשָׂר יְלָדָיו וַיַּעֲבֹר אֵת מַעֲבַר יַבֹּק. ודינה היכן היא? נתנה בתיבה ונעל בפניה. אמר: הרשע הזה עינו רמה היא, שלא יתלה עיניו ויראה אותה ויקח אותה ממני. ר’ הונא בשם ר’ אבא הכהן ברדלא אמר: אמר לו הקב”ה: לַמָּס מֵרֵעֵהוּ חָסֶד [וְיִרְאַת שַׁדַּ-י יַעֲזוֹב], מנעת מרעך חסד, מנעת חסדך מן אחוך, דאלו איתנסיבת לגברא לא זינתה. בתמיה. לא בקשת להשיאה למהול, הרי היא נשאת לערל. לא בקשת להשיאה דרך היתר, הרי נשאת דרך איסור, הה”ד: ותצא דינה בת לאה.1

At least as far back as the medieval period, commentators have been puzzled by this criticism of Jacob for withholding Dinah from Esau: do we really expect a man to give his young daughter to a villain in the hope of reforming him?!

ואם תאמר וכי מי שיש לו אח משומד וכי ישיא לו את בתו שהיא בת ו’ שנים כאשר היתה דינה, והלא משנולד יוסף עבד בצאן, ודינה נולדה עם יוסף בפרק אחד, כמו שעשה הפייט סילוף דינה ביוסף להנחות, ושמא יש לומר שקבל עליו תשובה על מנת שלא יזלזל כו’ כמו שנאמר (לקמן לג:יב) נסעה ונלכה ואלכה לנגדך בשוה ביהדות.2

Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro gives a stunning answer to this question: whatever the objectively correct course of action may have been, Jacob acted out of malice. He did not want his brother to reform, since that would have granted Esau mastery over him:

קשה אדרבא היה ראוי שתחשב לו לצדקה שמנעה מיד הרשע. יש לומר שיעקב לרעה נתכוון שלא היה רוצה שאחיו יהיה צדיק כדי שלא יתקיים בו ברכת הוה גביר לאחיך ולפיכך נענש:3

The sheer cold-bloodedness of this is reminiscent of the thought of another Italian writer, almost exactly contemporary to the Ra’av – Niccolò Machiavelli:

I say that many will perhaps consider it an evil example that the founder of a civil society, as Romulus was, should first have killed his brother, and then have consented to the death of Titus Tatius, who had been elected to share the royal authority with him; from which it might be concluded that the citizens, according to the example of their prince, might, from ambition and the desire to rule, destroy those who attempt to oppose their authority. This opinion would be correct, if we do not take into consideration the object which Romulus had in view in committing that homicide. But we must assume, as a general rule, that it never or rarely happens that a republic or monarchy is well constituted, or its old institutions entirely reformed, unless it is done by only one individual; it is even necessary that he whose mind has conceived such a constitution should be alone in carrying it into effect. A sagacious legislator of a republic, therefore, whose object is to promote the public good, and not his private interests, and who prefers his country to his own successors, should concentrate all authority in himself; and a wise mind will never censure any one for having employed any extraordinary means for the purpose of establishing a kingdom or constituting a republic. It is well that, when the act accuses him, the result should excuse him; and when the result is good, as in the case of Romulus, it will always absolve him from blame. For he is to be reprehended who commits violence for the purpose of destroying, and not he who employs it for beneficent purposes. The lawgiver should, however, be sufficiently wise and virtuous not to leave this authority which he has assumed either to his heirs or to any one else; for mankind, being more prone to evil than to good, his successor might employ for evil purposes the power which he had used only for good ends. Besides, although one man alone should organize a government, yet it will not endure long if the administration of it remains on the shoulders of a single individual; it is well, then, to confide this to the charge of many, for thus it will be sustained by the many. Therefore, as the organization of anything cannot be made by many, because the divergence of their opinions hinders them from agreeing as to what is best, yet, when once they do understand it, they will not readily agree to abandon it. That Romulus deserves to be excused for the death of his brother and that of his associate, and that what he had done was for the general good, and not for the gratification of his own ambition, is proved by the fact that he immediately instituted a Senate with which to consult, and according to the opinions of which he might form his resolutions. And on carefully considering the authority which Romulus reserved for himself, we see that all he kept was the command of the army in case of war, and the power of convoking the Senate. This was seen when Rome became free, after the expulsion of the Tarquins, when there was no other innovation made upon the existing order of things than the substitution of two Consuls, appointed annually, in place of an hereditary king; which proves clearly that all the original institutions of that city were more in conformity with the requirements of a free and civil society than with an absolute and tyrannical government.

The above views might be corroborated by any number of examples, such as those of Moses, Lycurgus, Solon, and other founders of monarchies and republics, who were enabled to establish laws suitable for the general good only by keeping for themselves an exclusive authority; but all these are so well known that I will not further refer to them.4

I discuss the above (Jewish) sources, as well as several cases in the halachic literature involving the smuggling of people and goods, in my lectures and halachah column for this past parashas Lech-Lecha. The lectures, along with accompanying handout, are available at the Internet Archive. Here’s the column:

In parashas Lech-Lecha, when Abram is about to enter Egypt, he requests of his wife Sarai that she say that she is his sister (12:13). According to the midrash, this was merely Abram’s fallback plan; he actually attempted to smuggle Sarai into Egypt by hiding her inside a box, but was forced by customs inspectors to open the box (Bereishis Rabbah 40:5).

A famous account of an attempt to smuggle women past border officials by dissembling about their relationships to the smugglers appears in the seventeenth century work Shut. Chavos Yair (#182). Two men were traveling from Frankfurt to Worms, and two women, one married with her husband in Worms, and the other her single daughter, wished to make the same journey. The women lacked the requisite travel documents, without which they would be subject to a fine at the checkpoint in Oppenheim, so they asked the men to declare them as their wife and daughter respectively, since the mens’ documents allowed them to travel freely with their wives and family members. At the checkpoint, the customs official refused to believe the mens’ declarations, and insisted that they swear to their veracity, or else prove their kinship by kissing the women. The men replied that they could not kiss the women, since they were currently niddah, a fact that the women confirmed. After some further negotiation, the men eventually settled with the customs agent for a minimal sum, but one of them subsequently reported the episode to the author of Chavos Yair, who penned an analysis of the relevant halachic issues.

He concludes that since the men had been attempting to deceive the official, who was appropriately carrying out his duty by investigating their claims, it was prohibited for them to kiss the women or even to swear that the women were niddah based upon their representations, even if they were afraid that by failing to do so they would suffer financial harm, and it was certainly prohibited for them to falsely swear to their kinship, even to avoid a great loss.

  1. בראשית רבה עו:ט []
  2. מושב זקנים בראשית לב:כג []
  3. עמר נקא שם []
  4. Niccolò Machiavelli, Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius, First Book, Chapter IX. []

Commentary On the Cooking Of Kids

The following verse is repeated, word for word, letter for letter, ניקוד for ניקוד, and טעם for טעם, in parashiyos Mishpatim and Ki Sisa:

רֵאשִׁ֗ית בִּכּוּרֵי֙ אַדְמָ֣תְךָ֔ תָּבִ֕יא בֵּ֖ית יְקוָ֣ק אֱלֹקיךָ לֹֽא־תְבַשֵּׁ֥ל גְּדִ֖י בַּחֲלֵ֥ב אִמּֽוֹ׃

Oddly, ArtScroll’s translation of the verse varies considerably, if not necessarily substantively, between the two instances:

The choicest first fruit of your land shall you bring to the House of Hashem, your G-d; you shall not cook a kid in the milk of its mother.1

The first of your land’s early produce you shall bring to the Temple of Hashem, your G-d. Do not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.2

[ArtScroll translates the final instance of the admonition of לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו, in parashas Re’eh, as:

you shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.3]

Ibn Ezra, of course, would maintain that these sorts of trivial discrepancies do not matter, and that disregard of them is actually the way of “all scholars [writing] in all languages” (although I don’t think that ArtScroll would accept this position of Ibn Ezra):

אמר אברהם המחבר: משפט אנשי לה”ק פעם יבארו דבורם באר היטב ופעם יאמרו הצורך במלות קצרות שיוכל השומע להבין טעמם. ודע כי המלות הם כגופות והטעמים הם כנשמות והגוף לנשמה כמו כלי. ע”כ משפט כל החכמים בכל לשון שישמרו הטעמים ואינם חוששים משנוי המלות אחר שהם שוות בטעמן. והנה אתן לך דמיונות:

אמר ה’ לקין: ארור אתה מן האדמה. כי תעבוד את האדמה לא תוסף תת כחה לך נע ונד תהיה בארץ. וקין אמר: הן גרשת אותי היום מעל פני האדמה. ומי הוא שאין לו לב שיחשוב כי הטעם אינו שוה בעבור שנוי המלות.

והנה אמר אליעזר: הגמיאיני נא. והוא אמר: ואומר אליה השקיני נא.

אמר משה: בכור השבי אשר בבית הבור. וכתוב: בכור השפחה אשר אחר הרחים.

ומשה הזכיר התפילה במשנה תורה שהתפלל על ישראל בעבור העגל, ואינו דומה לתפילה הנזכרת בפרשת כי תשא ,למי שאין לו לב להבין והכלל כל דבר שנוי כמו חלום פרעה ונבוכדנצר. ואחרים רבים תמצא מלות שונות. רק הטעם שוה. וכאשר אמרתי לך שפעם יאחזו דרך קצרה ופעם ארוכה. כך יעשו פעמים להוסיף אות משרת או לגרוע אותו. והדבר שוה.

אמר השם: ותכלת וארגמן. ומשה אמר: תכלת וארגמן.

אמר השם: אבני שהם. ומשה אמר: ואבני שהם.

וכאלה רבים ושניהם נכונים, כי הכתוב בלא וי”ו אחז דרך קצרה ולא יזיק. גם הכתוב בוי”ו לא יזיק בעבור שהוסיף לבאר. והנה הוי”ו שהיא נראית במבטא הפה אין אדם מבקש לו טעם למה נגרע ולמה נכתב ולמה נוסף. כי זה וזה נכון. והנה על הנראה שיבוטא בו לא יבקש עליו בכתב טעם. א”כ למה נבקש טעם בנח הנעלם שלא יבוטא בו. כמו מלת לעולם למה נכתב מלא או למה חסר. והנה בני הדור יבקשו טעם למלא גם לחסר. ואילו היו מבקשים טעם לאחד מהם. או שהמנהג היה לכתוב הכל על דרך א’ הייתי מחריש.

והנה אתן לך משל: אמר לי אדם אחד כתוב לרעי וזה כתוב: אני פלוני אוהבך לעולם. וכתבתי פלני בלא וי”ו. אהבך גם כן בלא וי”ו. לעלם חסר. ובא ראובן ושאלני למה כתבת חסרים?!
ואני אין לי צורך לכתוב רק מה שאמר לי. ואין לי חפץ להיותם מלאים או חסרים אולי יבא לוי ויודיעני איך אכתוב. ולא ארצה להאריך רק המשכיל יבין ועתה אפרש לך השאלות הנזכרות.4

I discovered this curiosity while preparing my weekly halachah column for this past parashas Ki Sisa:

Parashas Ki Sisa contains one of the Torah’s three reiterations of the prohibition: “Do not cook [lo sevasheil] a kid [gedi] in its mother’s milk.” (34:26) The prohibition of cooking meat and milk together is not limited to a kid, or to the milk of an animal’s own mother (see, e.g., Chullin 114a); why, then, does the Torah say “in its mother’s milk”?

Ibn Ezra and Bechor Shor (23:19) suggest that the prohibition does refer primarily to the cooking of a kid in its own mother’s milk, since this constitutes cruelty, and is analogous to the slaughtering of an animal and its offspring on the same day (Vayikra 22:28) and the taking of the mother bird with its young (Devarim 22:6). Ibn Ezra explains that the reason the Torah forbids cooking in all milk is that since milk is commonly obtained from commercial sources, and the purchaser may be unaware of the kid’s mother’s location and may not realize that the purchased milk contains the kid’s mother’s milk, the rule that “every doubt regarding a Biblical matter is prohibited” applies.

Bechor Shor also makes the startling assertion that the simple meaning (peshat) of the prohibition is something else entirely: the words lo sevasheil here do not mean “do not cook” but rather “do not ripen”, i.e., do not allow a kid [presumably a first born one, which must be offered as a sacrifice and given to a priest] to grow and be raised on its mother’s milk, but offer it immediately. The prohibition is thus analogous to the commandment in the beginning of the verse: “The choicest first [reishis] fruit of your land shall you bring to the House of Hashem, your G-d”. [Bechor Shor seems to understand reishis not as a description of the fruit to be brought, but rather as an imperative to bring the fruit immediately upon its formation.]

Some commentators take this idea even further, and explain that the word gedi here actually means fruit, and ‘mother’ refers to the tree on which it grows, so this portion of the verse itself is an exhortation to bring the first fruit immediately to the House of Hashem, and not to allow it to ripen on the tree (Hadar Zekeinim ibid., and cf. there for yet another reading of the verse).

  1. The Chumash, the Stone Edition (eleventh edition), p. 437. []
  2. Ibid. p. 513. []
  3. Ibid. p. 1013. []
  4. אבן עזרא שמות כ:א []

Eggs and Experimentation

Scientific American sets forth “an egg-cellent activity from Science Buddies”:

How do animals, such as chickens, which develop inside an egg outside of their mothers’ bodies and therefore do not have umbilical cords, take in oxygen and get rid of carbon dioxide? Bird and reptile eggs have a hard shell. Directly under the shell are two membranes. Between the membranes is a small air cell, also called an air sack, filled with oxygen. As the animal develops it uses the oxygen, which must be replenished, and it also has to release carbon dioxide. How does this happen? Well, if you examine a chicken egg carefully with a magnifying glass, you’ll see that there are tiny little holes, called pores, in the shell. In this activity, we’ll see how those work to let the developing chick breathe.

Materials
  • Large pot or bowl
  • Water
  • Blue food color
  • Liquid dishwasher detergent
  • Teaspoon measurers
  • Three eggs (for best results, do not use freshly laid eggs, rather, use older, commercial eggs)
  • Tongs or large spoon
  • Cup
  • Plate or paper towel
  • Optional: a sensitive scale, such as a digital kitchen scale or a triple-beam balance that can measure tenths of a gram
Preparation
  • Pour one and one half cups of water in a large pot or bowl.
  • Add one quarter teaspoon of liquid dish detergent and one quarter teaspoon of blue food color. Mix well.
Procedure
  • Carefully put the three eggs in the pot with the water, dish detergent and blue food color.
  • Make sure that the eggs are submerged in the liquid. If part of the egg is above the surface of the water, mix together liquid dish detergent and blue food color with more water in the same proportions as you did before. Add this to the pot until the eggs are submerged.
  • Set a timer for one hour or make a note of the time.
  • After the eggs have soaked in the liquid for at least one hour, carefully lift one of them out of the liquid using the tongs or large spoon. How does the egg look?
  • Crack the raw egg into a cup, being careful not to damage or crush the shell much.
  • Set the empty eggshell on a plate or paper towel.
  • Carefully inspect the inside of the shell. What do you see?
  • Crack open the other two eggs in the same way. Look all around the inside of their shells, too. What do you see? Do all of the insides of the shells look the same? Are there noticeable differences?
Observations and results

Did all of the eggs have at least a few small blue dots on the inside of their shells? Were the dots mostly clustered in one or a few areas on the inside of each shell?

Directly under the chicken egg’s shell are two membranes. When the eggs are laid by the mother they are warmer than the air, and as they cool the material inside the egg shrinks a little bit. This shrinkage is what pulls the two membranes apart, leaving behind the small air sack that is filled with oxygen. As the developing chick grows it uses the oxygen from the air sack and replaces it with carbon dioxide. The tiny pores in the shell allow the carbon dioxide to escape and fresh air to get in. The chicken egg has more than 7,000 pores in its shell to allow this to happen! These pores also allow water to go through the shell, which is why the dye appears as small dots on the inside of the shell, often clustered in certain areas, and why an egg after being hard-boiled would weigh slightly more than when it was raw. Also, freshly laid eggs do not allow water to penetrate as well as older, commercial eggs do, so fewer blue spots will probably be visible on the inside of fresher eggs compared with older ones.

This experiment was described (somewhat more tersely) some seven centuries ago by Rashba:

בצים שנתבשלו בקדרה עם בשר ואפילו עם קליפתן אסור לאוכלן בכותח, שקליפת הביצה בבירור מנוקבת היא וכשאדם מבשלה בתוך יורה של צבעים תמצא הביצה עצמה צבועה מאותו צבע, ועל כן אסרו בגמרא ביצת אפרוח …1

Taz disagrees with Rashba’s assertion of the porousness of eggs:

וצ”ע ממה שכתב רמ”א בסימן פ”ו סעיף ה’ דאם הביצה נקובה דינה כקלופה דהא כל קליפת הביצה נקובה היא ופולט שפיר ואפילו הכי מותר בביצה אסורה שאינה פולטת אלא (ציר) [זיעה] דמאי שנא נקובה בתולדה או שלא בתולדה …

ואי לאו פה קדוש דרשב”א [הייתי אומר] דאין נקב בביצה בתולדה אלא שבולע ופולט דרך הקליפה מדבר שהוא ממש בו וצ”ע:2

Taz does not explicitly counter Rashba’s argument from the passage of dye through the eggshell. Perhaps he understands that just as טעם is absorbed into the shell and then passes through to the egg’s contents, even in the absence of actual holes in the shell, so, too, is the dye absorbed into the shell itself and then passes through to the egg’s contents.

In any event, Pri Megadim defends Rashba from Taz’s question, explaining that the halachah distinguishes between the natural pores of an eggshell and artificial holes made therein, since the former “are very small” relative to the latter:

ויש חילוק בין נקב בתולדה דהוא קטן מאד … מה שאין כן נקב שנתהוה אחר כך …3

  1. שו”ת הרשב”א (מכון ירושלים) חלק א’ סימן תקט”ז, הובא בבית יוסף יו”ד סימן צ”ה סעיף ב’‏ []
  2. ט”ז שם סוף ס”ק ב’‏ []
  3. פרי מגדים משבצות זהב שם []