Weekly DAFootnotes Bava Kama 37-43 Issue #6 Week of 14-20 Elul 5761 / September 2-8, 2001 By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions ===================================== A NAME AND A CLAIM "Hashem came from Sinai and rose up for them from Se'ir; He shone for them from Mount Paran.." (Devarim 33:2) This passage cited in our gemara has an interesting historical significance. In blessing his people shortly before his passing, Moshe praises them for accepting the Torah, which the other nations rejected. Although all the nations of the world were offered the Torah and refused, Moshe singled out two nations which, like Israel, were descended from the same patriarch, Avraham. Se'ir is the base of Esav and Paran of Yishmael. The connection between Esav and Se'ir is clear from the passages (Bereishet 36:8-9) describing the departure of Esav and his family from the Land of Canaan to Mount Se'ir, where he established the Edomite nation. The connection between Yishmael and Paran, however, is a bit problematic. On the one hand, the Torah tells us (Bereishet 21:21) that Yishmael dwelled in the Paran Desert. (There seems to be a printing error in the Tosefot on this subject, stating that "she," Hagar, mother of Yishmael, dwelled there, and it should rather read "he" dwelled.") The gemara (Shabbat 89a), however, states that Paran is one of the five names of the Sinai Desert, which is so called because the word "Paran" is similar to the Hebrew word for being fruitful ("p'ru") and refers to the fact that every woman conceived a male child upon returning to family life following the receiving of the Torah at Sinai. Tosefot resolves this apparent conflict by explaining that the Sinai Desert is a huge expanse, and each of its five components bears another name. One terminal of it is specifically called Sinai, while the section at the other end is called Paran. One question still remains: Why are Se'ir and Paran singled out from amongst all the nations to be identified as the ones who refused to accept the Torah? Ramban suggests that their uniqueness is that they, like Israel, are descendants of Avraham. Eitz Yosef writes that these two were the most important nations. It is interesting to note that the cradles of two major faiths who claim to compete with Judaism as the standard bearers of monotheism are to be found in Se'ir and Paran. The Roman Empire, an offshoot of the Edomite nation of Esav, embraced the Christian religion and spread it throughout a major part of the world. Islam was born and nurtured in the Arab nation, which descended from Yishmael. There is a prophetic message, then, in this passage about the interaction between these faiths till the end of days. Bava Kama 38a ===================================== WHAT CAN YOU DO? "I want no part of the condolences expressed by the Babylonian sages, because they are blasphemous!" Thus spoke the Sage Ulla to his Babylonian colleagues when they invited him to join them in a condolence call to Rabbi Shmuel bar Yehuda who had lost a daughter. He went on to thus explain his charge of blasphemy: "They tell the mourner 'What can you do?' which implies that if he had the power to do something he would go against the will of Hashem who decreed death." Ulla's criticism is codified as halacha in Shulchan Aruch Yore Deah 376:2. There, Rema rules that one should refrain from thus speaking to a mourner because of the blasphemous implication that if he could do something to alter the situation he would do so rather than lovingly accept Hashem's decree. This ruling is challenged however by Rabbi Shlomo Luria (Maharsha) in his classic work "Yam Shel Shlomo," who points out that King David himself said the same thing upon the death of his son born from his controversial union with Bat Sheva. Immediately after the prophet Natan had informed David that the child would die because of the impropriety of his conduct regarding Bat Sheva, a mortal illness seized the child. David prayed and fasted for his recovery, refusing the entreaties of his household to eat food or sleep in a bed. When finally informed on the seventh day of the illness that the child had died, David arose from his self-imposed suffering and ate a normal meal. To his amazed servants who wondered aloud why he had fasted and wept while the child was alive and now behaved in opposite fashion, David replied (Shmuel II 12:22-23): "While the child was still alive I fasted and wept because I thought that perhaps Hashem would graciously forgive me and the child would live. Now that he has died, why should I continue fasting? Can I bring him back to life? I shall eventually go to him, but he will not return to me." If David could thus speak, concludes Maharshal, it is proof that Ulla's charge of blasphemy is unfounded. This argument, however, is refuted by the author of the Turei Zahav (Taz) commentary of Shulchan Aruch. What David said was that as long as there was hope for keeping his child alive, he wept, prayed and fasted. But after the child had died, there was no point in these continued efforts. He added that it would even be futile to pray that he should merit to see the child return to life with the eventual Resurrection of the Dead, because he knew that this would not take place in his lifetime. He would go to his son to meet him in the World of Souls, but his son would not return to him. This, concludes Taz, is radically different from one who says "What can you do?" which suggests that the mourner need not grieve so much since there is nothing he can do about the situation, a statement which blasphemously implies that there would be a cause for sorrow if there was a way to counteract the will of Hashem. Bava Kama 38a ===================================== If you like this e-mail please share it with a friend. ===================================== To subscribe to this list please e-mail DafYomi-subscribe@ohr.edu To unsubscribe e-mail DafYomi-unsubscribe@ohr.edu ===================================== (C) 2001 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.