Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Naso: The meaning of "And She Was Not Seized"

What is meant by the phrase וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה?

In parshat Naso, about the Sotah, we read {Bemidbar 5:13}
יג וְשָׁכַב אִישׁ אֹתָהּ, שִׁכְבַת-זֶרַע, וְנֶעְלַם מֵעֵינֵי אִישָׁהּ, וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה; וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ, וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה. 13 and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, she being defiled secretly, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken in the act;
It can mean one of several things, and there are fine distinctions between them. My inclination is towards the JPS translation above, "neither she be taken in the act," which is akin to King James' "neither she be taken with the manner." The idea, to my mind, is that וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה means that she was not caught, perhaps by the husband, in flagrante delicto, in the course of the act. Thus he does not know for certain, and yet suspects and is jealous of his wife. This is then an alternative to וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ, as opposed to what the witnesses in the previous phrase witnessed.

As I understand Ibn Ezra, he also thinks וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה refers to being caught in the act, but he connects it to male or female witnesses. Thus:

וְנִסְתְּרָה -- שלא גילתה היא הדבר
ואפילו עֵד אחד אֵין בָּהּ
וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה -- בעדים אנשים או על ידי נשים עד שתהיה חשודה

Thus, these are three ways this could have come to light -- admission, a single witness, or multiple witnesses catching her in the act. But none of these are true, and so it is just a ruach kin`ah. He does not make entirely clear, IMHO, the difference between the latter two cases. But I think that his focus on ed echad means that there was a witness, but it would not stand up in court because of it being a single witness, while in the last case, there are multiple witnesses.

One could draw a distinction according to those who think that וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה means that the act was committed secretly, rather than וְנִסְתְּרָה meaning that she secluded herself with him. Indeed, following Ibn Ezra's understanding of וְנִסְתְּרָה as not meaning seclusion, one could (though he does not) say that the עד would witness some suspicious activity, such as seclusion, while the וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה would refer to her being actually caught in the act.

Rashi cites the Sifrei that it means she was not raped, citing a pasuk in Devarim which the root refers to rape.
and there is no witness against her to the defilement, but there were witnesses to the seclusion. — [Sotah 2b]
seized Heb. נִתְפָּשָׂה, raped, as in“seized her (וּתְפָשָׂהּ) and lay with her” (Deut. 22:28). - [Sifrei Naso 1:42]
This can indeed make sense as peshat, making it clear that even if she was "defiled," she is not a sotah if the act was against her will.

Shadal sides with Ibn Ezra that this means that she seen by someone while engaging in the act:

והיא לא נתפשה: לדעתי אין הכוונה שלא נאנסה, אלא שלא היה מי שימצאה ויראה אותה בעשותה הנבלה, וכן דעת הראב"ע.

I am not sure if he draws any distinction between this and וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ.

The Vulgate appears to take both phrases as working together:
dormierit cum altero viro et hoc maritus deprehendere non quiverit sed latet adulterium et testibus argui non potest quia non est inventa in stupro
Shall have slept with another man, and her husband cannot discover it, but the adultery is secret, and cannot be proved by witnesses, because she was not found in the adultery.
In which case any witnesses would be to the actual act of adultery.

Turning now to the Karaite scholar Aharon ben Yosef, I can say "baruch shekivanti." Heh. It appears I can think like a Karaite. :) He, too, distinguishes between veEd ein bah and behi lo nitpasa. The former he takes as "edut," testimony, and also admits to the meaning of "single witness." This witness or testimony would cause her to be suspected. But there is no such testimony, or witness. (As a Karaite, he does not hold that there is a witnessed act of seclusion involved.) And then he explains vehi lo nitpasa as referring to her being caught in the act by her husband, or by others (witnesses). Thus, he wishes to distinguish it from the previous phrase of veEd ain bah.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Parshas Naso
נָשֹׂא אֶת-רֹאשׁ בְּנֵי קְהָת מִתּוֹךְ בְּנֵי לֵוִי לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם.
There is an amazing fact about this weeks Parsha it is the longest coming in at 176 Posukim ,it does not end there the Perek in Tehillim with the most Pesukim has 176 of them, and Baba Basra the longest Masechta in Shas has 176 Daf. What is the significance of this number? Rav Isbee answers there are 22 letters of the aleph-beis. Therefore this number represents Torah. The natural world Teva is always in sevens: there are seven days of the week, there are also Shivas Minim, seven continents, seven notes on a musical scale, last but not least seven seas. That being established the world beyond Nature Mimaleh Min Teva is always represented by eight. Now we know the secret of the number 176. When you take the torah represented by 22 and multiply by 8 Mimaleh Min Teva it equals 176.The secret to our number is Hashem is showing us the torah is above other studies it is Mimaleh Min Teva.
דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אִישׁ אוֹ-אִשָּׁה כִּי יַפְלִא לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר לַיהוָה
The Nazir is a person who is described as one whom by not drinking wine and not cutting his hair. That is he separates himself in order to reach a higher level of Kedusha. The Gemara in Nedarim has a similar case of spiritual climbing, when addressing a person who accepts upon himself optional fasting. The Gemara there says כל היושב בתענית נקרא חוטא. The question is why is this separation from worldly pleasures viewed negatively? It would seem natural for a person climbing the spiritual ladder to want to take an active role in reaching his goal of spiritual growth. Why does the Gemara look at it as a negative thing? The Ostrovtze Rebbe gives a profound insight into the Gemara's question. A closer look at the words reveals the truth of the question. The Gemara does not view separating yourself from worldly matters negatively. The words are כל היושב that is one who sits, he tortures himself and does not let the message reach him, he is unmoved it is only then that the gemara says it is as if he is נקרא חוטא.
שְׁלֹשִׁים וּמֵאָה הַקְּעָרָה הָאַחַת כֶּסֶף וְשִׁבְעִים הַמִּזְרָק הָאֶחָד כֹּל כֶּסֶף הַכֵּלִים אַלְפַּיִם וְאַרְבַּע-מֵאוֹת בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶש כַּפּוֹת זָהָב שְׁתֵּים-עֶשְׂרֵה מְלֵאֹת קְטֹרֶת עֲשָׂרָה עֲשָׂרָה הַכַּף בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ כָּל-זְהַב הַכַּפּוֹת עֶשְׂרִים וּמֵאָה. ׁ
The Torah tells us what each Nasi brought to the Mizbach a set of gifts .Why in this Posuk does it only say the Keilim they where brought in and not the contents? The second question is why by the ladles of קְטֹרֶת it does mention what was in them? The answer requires a slight background in Kedoshim. The Griz answers all the Nesiim came together to offer their gifts. They thought it was possible Hashem would tell them each to offer separately. They knew the Din that if you make hekdesh your gift it must be offered on that very day if not you have LINA. That means a Korban left over night which is Pasul. Therefore when the brought in the Keilim only with the קְטֹרֶת full because it says in the gemara in Shevous on Yud aleph Amud aleph by קְטֹרֶת there is no LINA. The posuk does not mention the contents of the Keilim because they would have become Pasul because of LINA. The קְטֹרֶת was mentioned because for the קְטֹרֶת there was no such concern. Therefore we see not only where they leaders of Klal Yisroel they where also Bekiem in Kodeshim.

joshwaxman said...

Shkoyach!

I like asking questions, though, so I'll pose the following two:

"Baba Basra the longest Masechta in Shas has 176 Daf"
true, but it starts on daf 2, so aren't there only 175 blatt? :)

"A closer look at the words reveals the truth of the question. The Gemara does not view separating yourself from worldly matters negatively."
If we look in Taanis 11a, we see the following:
אמר שמואל כל היושב בתענית נקרא חוטא סבר כי האי תנא דתניא ר' אלעזר הקפר ברבי אומר מה תלמוד לומר (במדבר ו) וכפר עליו מאשר חטא על הנפש וכי באיזה נפש חטא זה אלא שציער עצמו מן היין והלא דברים קל וחומר ומה זה שלא ציער עצמו אלא מן היין נקרא חוטא המצער עצמו מכל דבר ודבר על אחת כמה וכמה ר' אלעזר אומר נקרא קדוש שנאמר (במדבר ו) קדוש יהיה גדל פרע שער ראשו ומה זה שלא ציער עצמו אלא מדבר אחד נקרא קדוש המצער עצמו מכל דבר על אחת כמה וכמה ולשמואל הא איקרי קדוש ההוא אגידול פרע קאי ולר' אלעזר הא נקרא חוטא ההוא דסאיב נפשיה
ומי אמר רבי אלעזר הכי והאמר ר' אלעזר לעולם ימוד אדם עצמו
כאילו קדוש שרוי בתוך מעיו שנאמר (הושע יא) בקרבך קדוש ולא אבוא בעיר לא קשיא הא דמצי לצעורי נפשיה הא דלא מצי לצעורי נפשיה
ר"ל אמר נקרא חסיד שנאמר (משלי יא) גומל נפשו איש [חסד] ועוכר שארו וגו'

Or in English, from Point by Point Summary:
http://www.dafyomi.co.il/taanis/points/tn-ps-011.htm

Thus, with this same language, "one who sits," Shmuel says he is a choteh, Rabbi Eliezer says he is kadosh, and Resh Lakish says he is a chassid. If the Ostrovtze Rebbe is correct, how come the gemara does not make this very distinction between the varying positions? Why not say that the pasuk which calls him a "choteh" is referring to one who sits, while the pasuk which calls him "holy" refers to one who climbs? Rather than saying that for Shmuel, "holy" refers to the hair being forbidden in benefit? And why, according to the Ostrovtze Rebbe, would Rabbi Eliezer and Resh Lakish consider this person who "sits" in Taanis to be doing a *good* thing?

Kol Tuv,
Josh

Anonymous said...

Just for a better look at the numbers I suggest you see here
http://haparasha.blogspot.com/
156 seems to be super signifigant

joshwaxman said...

Thanks. Very interesting.

By the way, I found a different version of the explanation of the Ostrovtze Rebbe's reading of the gemara, in "A Shabbos Vort: A Collection of Thoughts, Stories and Parables on the Parsha," which I think works out much better with the shakla veTargya of the gemara. I elaborate at the end of this other post on parshablog. I'd like to track down a concrete original source, if possible. Can you tell me where you saw this version?

The link you mentioned (permalink here) states:

" פרשת נשא היא הפרשה הגדולה ביותר בתורה. יש בה קעו פסוקים. גם בכל התנ"ך, הפרק הגדול ביותר הוא פרק קיט בתהלים שבו קעו פסוקים. גם בתורה שבעל פה, המסכת הגדולה ביותר בגמרא היא מסכת בבא בתרא שבה (בהשגחה פרטית) קעו דפים!

ג פעמים קעו = 528 = לב במשולש. והסימן: "מה גדלו מעשיך" = "למען ירבו ימיכם".

התבה הראשונה שבפרשת נשא היא "וידבר". התבה הראשונה בפרק קיט בתהלים היא "אשרי". התבה הראשונה במסכת בבא בתרא היא "השותפין". וידבר [= 6 פעמים 37] אשרי [= 7 פעמים 73] השותפין [= 23 פעמים 37] = 1584 = 9 פעמים 176 (קעו) = 3 פעמים 528!

המספר קעו הוא הנקודה האמצעית של נשא (המשולש של 26, שם הוי' ב"ה).

הסימנים שנתנו בעלי המסורה למספר הפסוקים בפרשת נשא הם: עמוס ועמינדב. שניהם מתחילים באותיות עם ("עם זו גאלת", "עם זו קנית" [שניהם בשירת הים; "עם זו גאלת... עם זו קנית" = כתר כתר = 5 פעמים במדבר, 248, חצי שמות חמשה חומשי תורה כנ"ל בפרשה הקודמת; יש כאן 16 = 4 בריבוע אותיות – הפנות: תקעו = 24 בריבוע, ממוצע כל אות = 12 בריבוע, הריבוע האמצעי: מזלא = 12 במשולש], "עם זו יצרתי לי תהלתי יספרו" [1240 הנ"ל ועוד "עם זו יצרתי לי" = 2113 = 33 ב"השראה", ודוק]) = 5 פעמים 22, כאשר שאר האותיות של כל אחד (וס = ינדב) = 66 = 3 פעמים 22. והוא סוד "הגמל" – ה-ג (חתך הזהב של ח) מל ("וביום השמיני ימול [יחתוך] בשר ערלתו").

שרש הכל בפרשת נשא (שבחמשה חומשי תורת משה – "לית מילתא דלא רמיזא באורייתא"), כמובן. והנה, יש בפרשת נשא ג נשיאות: "נשא את ראש וגו'", נשיאת כפים (ברכת כהנים, החותמת "ישא הוי' פניו אליך וישם לך שלום"), פרשת הנשיאים. ויש לומר שהן גופא כנגד ג התופעות של קעו הנ"ל. פרשת נשא נקרא על שם "נשא את ראש וגו'", כמובן. ברכת כהנים היא ברכה – המשכה מלמעלה למטה – הפועלת מכח התורה, כמבואר בחסידות (שעל כן היא ממשיכה מההעלם שאינו במציאות, ממקור ה"תורה חדשה מאתי תצא", וד"ל). וכן ספר תהלים בכלל ופרק קיט שבו בפרט היינו תפלה – העלאה מלמטה למעלה – הפועלת מכח התורה (תהלים הוא ספר בתורה שבכתב, ודוד המלך פעל שהאומר תהלים יחשב כעוסק בסוגיות החמורות של אהלות ונגעים שבתורה שבעל פה. מבין כל פרקי תהלים פרק קיט הוא הפרק ה"תורני" ביותר שבכל ספר תהלים, ושעל כן הוא מסוגל ביותר לסייע ללומדי תורה, כמבואר בסוף ספר תניא קדישא, והוא גם קשור לסוד השבת כמבואר שם, וכמו שעוד יתבאר לקמן). והרמז: ברכת כהנים תהלים = 1232 = 7 פעמים קעו! פרשת הנשיאים – השותפין בחנוכת המזבח – היא כנגד מסכת בבא בתרא, ודוק."

In person, I would likely just nod politely. But I will be straightforward here and say that I think this *type* of devar Torah is nonsense and a waste of time. All sorts of meaningless though apparently impressive stuff can be generated through this process of addition of gematriot and taking factors. Many a silly bar mitzvah speech has used gematrios of this sort to connect the parsha with the bar mitzvah boy and the relatives, and the hall it is held in, etc. If you have infinite material to work with, and can play around with mathematical operators without bound, you will be able to come up with a connection. Thus, my nitpick about there being only 175 (or others, like that this particular pagination only came to being in the 16th century, or that we are comparing parsha to perek to pages) is really just a nitpick, but in truth I have a problem with the entire enterprise of this. Where classic Chazal use gematria in midrash, it is infrequent, perhaps as a mnemonic, and is not see wild with mathematic operations as here. But I think that even Baal haTurim takes it over the edge, and certainly those who have taken it past there.

Kol Tuv,
Josh

Anonymous said...

Thats where I got it from.

Anonymous said...

Now we are being a rash You think yourself to be a Bar Plugtah on the Baal Haturim,If you choose to to believe in chance fine that is the three longest parts of the torah just happen to have a signinfigant number theme it is your right as a programer and a man of numbers I imagine you Intelegintly did the statistics of the probability of that being true and came to that opinion you say it is Just Mikreh(gematriah=Amalek)[(:] fine but I think most of dont belive so much in it all being a happenstance

Anonymous said...

Though I do know of the Simcha D'var torah you speak of and those are crimes against Humanity but then again try keeping the attention of a bunch of uninterested People It can be quite challenging with out them. And can you point out where I differentiate from the book thanks

joshwaxman said...

Thanks for the clarification.

In terms of the Baal HaTurim, I think that many of his *conclusions * are insightful ones, though the derivation from gematria might be well viewed as a good mnemonic. I will try to give a good example of this, bli neder, next week -- how he explained haMearerim by Sotah. An example of one who considers this approach to be invalid is Shadal. And it is unfortunately not only bar mitzvah speeches. It is very popular in the mystical blogging community. Check out the archives of the DreamingOfMoshiach blog for examples.

The difference between the way I understood your summary and the way I understood the summary in the book is as follows:
* You wrote "The words are כל היושב that is one who sits, he tortures himself and does not let the message reach him, he is unmoved it is only then that the gemara says it is as if he is נקרא חוטא"

The implication is that the fasting done by any person is equivalent physically speaking. It is a matter of internal *appreciation* of the task. Thus, if he is unmoved, he was "yoshev."

Meanwhile, the book says "an individual who weakens himself by fasting and therefore remains sitting in his place, unable to reach lofty levels in his service to Hashem -- this is the person whom Chazal have called a sinner." The implication here seems to be that the act of fasting physically weakens the person, such that he does not have energy to pursue real loftiness. This would then accord with R' Eleazar who says "That was referring to a person who finds fasting overly difficult." And it would accord with Resh Lakish who said "A Talmid Chacham may not fast, as it detracts from his studies." The idea is that by fasting, you are physically weakened, and cannot pursue other goals.

Have a great Shabbos,
Josh

Rentsy said...

Have you seen the Gemara in Sotah? Right on the bottom of 2a going on to 2b is a discussion of how to reconcile "there was no wittness" and the knowledge that "she was not forced."

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin