B"H

Rashi (Rabbi Shelomoh Yitzhaq) is, no doubt, the greatest of our commentators on Jewish lore. We could not get very far without him.
Even so, in Yemen, the scholars of the Talmud often viewed the explanations given by Maimonides as being more authoritative in nature than those which were explained differently on occasion by Rashi. This fact was made known to me by the late Rabbi of the Rabbinic Court of Appeals, Rabbi Yosef Qafih, of blessed memory.

The Gemara (Sotah 2a) says in the name of Resh Lakish: "They do not wed a man with a woman, except [when the two are found to be compatible] in accordance with his deeds."
Rabbi Yochanan's words were added to this, saying that the actual process of bringing a man and woman together was difficult for G-d, as the parting of the Reed Sea, to which it was then retorted that it could not be difficult for G-d to wed a man with a woman, since we have learned from Rav Yehudah, who said this in the name of Rab: "Forty days before the creation of the fetus, the Divine Voice goes forth and says the daughter of so-and-so is to be married to so-and-so, [etc.]" Meaning, it was as simple as declaring over a thing to be done.
The Gemara then rectifies the two conflicting statements between Rabbi Yochanan and Rab by saying, "There is no difficulty! One refers to one's first marriage. The other refers to one's second marriage." Meaning, since Rabbi Yochanan spoke there about difficulty with G-d, while he uses a verse in the book of Psalms (Ps. 68) that denotes bringing "the single persons into homes" (Mosheev Yechidim Baythah) and turning their "crying into song" (Motzee Asirim Bekosheroth) - as it is explained also in Midrash Rabba, by a play on words, "Bechi" weeping, "shiroth" singing, - we assume that Rabbi Yochanan has spoken clearly about the difficulty, as it were, with G-d to arrange for a second marriage, while Rab spoke there about the ease of arranging a man's first marriage, which is decreed in heaven forty days before the fetus is formed! All this, mind you, depends on a man's deeds in this life; the better he is, the better the woman he shall find. And G-d, seeing all things in advance before they happen (and without interfering in a man's free-choice and will), saw by his infinite wisdom that they would be compatible, declared over their marriage forty days before they were formed in the womb! This is the way the Talmud is explained by one of our early expositors.

Yet, Rashi of blessed memory has taken a different approach. He, himself, became perplexed by questioning, "How can this be? If G-d arranges a marriage according to a man's deeds, and when as yet their limbs were not fashioned in the womb, He declares 'the daughter of so-and-so is to be married to so-and-so,' it would seem then that G-d determines, as it were, who shall be righteous and who shall be wicked, by matching them with one another! But this cannot be, since 'all is in the hands of heaven, except one's fear of heaven!' "
On account of which Rashi explains the aforesaid Gemara as implying that the "second marriage" is what was meant by Resh Lakish's statement: "They do not wed a man with a woman, except [when the two are found to be compatible] in accordance with his deeds." (As if G-d had only then seen a man's deeds, and found them to be compatible one with the other.) Rashi also says there that the first marriage is "mazal," i.e., dependent upon one's fortune.

To conclude, we have evinced that a man and woman cannot be joined together simply by virtue of that that man's ancestral heritage, but one's deeds also come to bear in such factors, according to one opinion, and one's "fortune" plays a role by Rashi's opinion.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

don't quite get it.
We have lots of different views on lots of sugiahs. When we say that the Temanim poskin like the Rambam, we mean that they go like the Rambam over the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Alfasi and the Rosh. Although we have a few pesak dins from Rashi, it doesn't make up a body of law. About the only pesak I can think of from Rashi is that allowing merchants to give other merchant goods on credit without worrying about rabit as related in the Bet Yosef.

Aryeh Shore

B"H
Aryeh, Shalom!
The question was not whether or not Rashi is a "posek," and how he passes rulings on Jewish law. The question was, "How should we understand the Torah, or Mishnah, or Talmud, etc. when the explanations given by one Rabbi come into direct conflict with the explanations given by another?" The Yemenites often leaned towards those opinions (explanations) given by Rambam (Maimonides) vis-a-vis those explained in the same text by Rashi.

Rabbi Saadia Gaon (RSG), also, often takes a different approach in explaining common words found in the Torah. For instance, where Rashi explains the Hebrew word "choled" in Vayikra 11:29 as "weasel," RSG explains it as "mole." Where Rashi explains the Hebrew word "tinshemeth" in Vayikra 11:30 as "mole," RSG explains it as "gecko lizard."

These are just a few examples of a great many. Granted that, in these matters, there is little bearing upon halacha. But what shall we say about the Mishnah when we encounter differences between mifarshim? Whose opinion do we follow? This is all that I am saying.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

<<David ben Abraham writes:
Rabbi Saadia Gaon (RSG), also, often takes a different approach in explaining common words found in the Torah. For instance, where Rashi explains the Hebrew word "choled" in Vayikra 11:29 as "weasel," RSG explains it as "mole." Where Rashi explains the Hebrew word "tinshemeth" in Vayikra 11:30 as "mole," RSG explains it as "gecko lizard."

These are just a few examples of a great many. Granted that, in these matters, there is little bearing upon halacha. But what shall we say about the Mishnah when we encounter differences between mifarshim? Whose opinion do we follow? This is all that I am saying.>>

Actually the identification of these species does affect halacha. Those pesukim refer to the 8 shratzim which make someone tamei when he touches their dead bodies. If one touches a dead choled we have to know what it is. I don't know which word Rashi uses to say weasel and if we're sure it is what we call a weasel today (I don't have Chumash near me today) but I do know that in Modern Hebrew chulda (which seems very related to choled) is the word for weasel. According to Israeli nautalists/linguists such as Yehuda Felix the chulda is a rat. This makes a lot of sense since the gemara discusses a chulda that drags chomets from house to house. Weasels are not common in houses as rats may be.

B"H
Dear Sam K,

I think most scholars would agree that rats fall under the general category of "achbar" (mice), although they be considerably larger in size. "Choled" (or "Huldah") would, of definition, be something else.
In modern Hebrew, it is true that we call a rat, "Huldah." But most would agree that modern Hebrew is often corrupt. For istance, we call fruit conserves, "Reebah," which is a corruption of what was asked in the Gemara about Joseph (when he gave to his father certain sweet things), "Mai Reebah?" מאי ריבה(Meaning, "What did he give more [to his father?") The answer was, "Minei Methikah." מיני מתיקה (Meaning, "sweet things.") So, here you can see how one word was taken out of its proper context. What shall we say then about the many other corrupted words in our modern Hebrew language? "Gleedah" (ice-cream), "hashmal" (electricity) - which latter word is no more than an angel mentioned in Yechezkel that changes hues (according to Rabbi Saadia Gaon), etc., etc. In like manner, we cannot always rely on modern Hebrew.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

B"H
Sam,

I inadvertently left out an answer to one of your questions. You asked about the word Rash uses for "Choled" in Veyikra 11:29. He writes there מושטילה, which is the old French for "mustela" = weasel. Modern Hebrew is also often based upon words defined by Rashi.

Sincerely,
David

David,

I don't live in Israel but I had the impression that they made up the word "Achberosh" for rat in order to distinguish between rat and mouse.

You are right that Modern Hebrew often misses the original meaning but usually it's not too bad. Even Eliezer ben Yehudah who was no true believer knew a lot of gemara. He used to ask Rav Kook when he was looking for a word. When the Academy for Hebrew (whatever it's called) needs a word they often use a Gemara word and it's often in Aramaic. That's much better than saying televeezya or the like.

Chulda has the root of choled in it which means burrows. That might work for a mole, a rat and maybe a weasel. Still I think the fact that the Gemara discusses a chulda that drags chometz from house to house makes me think we're talking about a rat as opposed to a weasel. The fact that Yehuda Felix identifies it as such seems significant. Are weasels found in the Middle East? I don't know. They seem to be Siberian or cold climate animals to me.

B"H
Sam K,

Oh, yes, I've heard the word "achbarosh" used for "rat" on many occasions, though it is definitely one of those new words. I have also heard some people call them "huldah," which for me is a mistake. Most people, when referring to this word, tend to follow Rashi's definition, "weasel." And, yes, I have seen them here, in Israel, either running through the orange orchards, or along the water courses (Yarmuk River). It would not surprise me if this is what the Gemara refers to when it speaks about a "huldah" taking up "chometz."

I must admit that I am no linguist, and have not given these words much consideration. I have only taken notes on this subject at random. What I do know is that "Choled" (Vayikra 11:29) and "Huldah" are used interchangeably. The former is biblical Hebrew, while the latter is Mishnaic Hebrew, as well as the word used in Onkelos' Aramaic translation. The Talmud sometimes calls the same creature by the name "Kurkishta," a liter of which were found by Rebbe's daughter. When she asked her father what she should do with them, he replied to her: "Leave them alone. His mercies are upon all His creations."

A form of Aramaic is still spoken today by the Jews of Kurdistan (originally from northern Iraq). I could ask them here, in our country, what they call a rat, and what they call a weasel and a mole. This, in my opinion, will dispell all doubts.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

I am not qualified to comment on Rashi's superiority, so I'll just give my opinion on the example given: Isn't it possible that G-d can decree, 40 days before a fetus is born, which match will be suitable based on deeds BECAUSE HE KNOWS THE FUTURE AND KNOWS WHICH DEEDS WILL BE DONE? (Not that he makes the deeds happen, and having nothing to do with a second marriage.) Just my opinion.

Actually Rashi has several unique definitions of flora and fauna which other commentators do not accept and Rashi ignores or doesn't know of the Arabic commentators, most outstandingly Saadiah Gaon's definition of zemer as giraffe and Rambam's identification of adonai hasedeh as chimpanzee.
Most puzzling is the definition of tinshemet as chave-souris on Dev. 14:15 without any definition of atalaif. However Rashi clearly and correctly indentifies atalaif as chave-souris in the gemora in Beitza. Maybe some sort of misprint but I haven't seen anybody discuss it.
These things change with the times but today we use chulda for rat, achbar for mouse and nimiya for weasel. Achbarosh is also acceptable but a little out of fashion. Choled is the mole rat which is today rather limited just to Israel. Chofafert is used for the mole non-Israelis are familiar with.

As for identification of animals in the bible, mishneh and talmud, you can usually find three or four definitions in the commentaries. The greek translation and subsequent english translation are almost incomprehensible (the paragod???) In general, we give more weight to the Arabic commentators since they actually lived in the area.

Ben Yehuda just started the Hebrew dictionary. The Academy maintains the work and comes up with new words every year. They solicit suggestions from the general public. What word actually makes it in, depends on whether the general population uses it. Like any living language, words change their meaning all of the time.

Aryeh Shore

quote:

This makes a lot of sense since the gemara discusses a chulda that drags chomets from house to house. Weasels are not common in houses as rats may be.

In the same Gemarah, it talks about the Chulda eating Achbarim. Is it regular for rats to eat mice?

quote:

Is it regular for rats to eat mice?

Unfortunately I have first hand experience to have learned that field mice will eat other field mice, such as if one is caught in a trap and dies. For some reason they seem to start with the brain, which might explain partly how one mouse will know how to run a maze that another mouse figured out?

So if a mouse will eat a mouse, and a rat will eat anything, I see no reason to expect professional courtesy or other reasons to think that a rat wouldn't eat a mouse.

But its not just kal v'chomer - that rat is bigger than canibal mouse...

Similar sounding words, or by Rav Hirsch's etymology room, c-at and r-at only differ in the first letter, and thus since cat eats mouse...

Quote "Unfortunately I have first hand experience to have learned that field mice will eat other field mice, such as if one is caught in a trap and dies. For some reason they seem to start with the brain, which might explain partly how one mouse will know how to run a maze that another mouse figured out?"

This is of course after the first one died, and the 2nd one doesn’t need to waste the meat and give the first one a proper funeral (with Kaddish J .) But they don’t hunt down and eat each other like the Gemarah in Pesachim says a Chulda does to an Achvar. So are rats and mice close enough of a species that one doesn’t hunt the other or not.

B"H
Rav Chaim & Sam K,

Both of your assessments seem to be correct. With regard to "huldah" being a rat, indeed, the elderly woman from Kurdistan whom I spoke with this morning said to me that in their native speech (Aramaic), they call a rat "Julda," and a mouse they call "Chubra." Perhaps "Julda" is a corruption of "Huldah."

On the other hand, while browsing through an old Yemenite lexicon of words taken from the Talmud and Rambam, it defines "Huldah" as "al-'irs." When I checked the meaning of this Arabic word, I found that it meant "weasel."
The definition for weasel was this: "A certain small animal, well-known, resembling the rat, smaller than the cat, having the lower lip cleft, and very short ears, as though they were amputated, and having a canine tooth."

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
B"H
Sam K,

Oh, yes, I've heard the word "achbarosh" used for "rat" on many occasions, though it is definitely one of those new words. I have also heard some people call them "huldah," which for me is a mistake. Most people, when referring to this word, tend to follow Rashi's definition, "weasel." And, yes, I have seen them here, in Israel, either running through the orange orchards, or along the water courses (Yarmuk River). It would not surprise me if this is what the Gemara refers to when it speaks about a "huldah" taking up "chometz."

I must admit that I am no linguist, and have not given these words much consideration. I have only taken notes on this subject at random. What I do know is that "Choled" (Vayikra 11:29) and "Huldah" are used interchangeably. The former is biblical Hebrew, while the latter is Mishnaic Hebrew, as well as the word used in Onkelos' Aramaic translation. The Talmud sometimes calls the same creature by the name "Kurkishta," a liter of which were found by Rebbe's daughter. When she asked her father what she should do with them, he replied to her: "Leave them alone. His mercies are upon all His creations."

A form of Aramaic is still spoken today by the Jews of Kurdistan (originally from northern Iraq). I could ask them here, in our country, what they call a rat, and what they call a weasel and a mole. This, in my opinion, will dispell all doubts.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

David,

I looked up Rav Aryeh Kaplan z"l's translation (The Living Torah)and he goes with weasel. He was something of a linguist besides for being a scholar and talmud chochom. Rav Shamshon Rafael Hirsch as translated by Gertrude Hirschler and edited by Rav Pesach Oratz (Terumat Zvi) also has weasel although I don't know what German word he uses. Rav Kaplan, however, goes on to say that some souces say a choled is a martin or ermine. (Arukh, s.v. glaksinin)Other sources he quotes say a choled or chulda is a rat (cf Targum, (Pesachim 1:2 Tosefoth Yom Tov ad loc.), khadar in Arabic (Ramban ad loc). Still others say it's a mole rat (Arukh), khelad in Arabic (Saadia, Ibn Janach)Targum Yonathan says kirkushta which means field mouse (Mossef leArukh)

By the time Rav Arye is finished with all 8 sheratzim the only one I'm confident of is the mouse - achbar. He brings machlokot on every other one of the other 7 sheratzim.

I would be interested in knowing what Aramaic speaking Kurdi Jews say about it. (Many Kurdistani Xtians also speak Aramaic as do a few Syrian villages) It wouldn't dispel all doubts to me because who knows how much Aramaic has changed from Onkelos and Targum Yonatan's time until today but it would be interesting to know. In addition there's Ancient, Middle, Western, Eastern and Syriac Aramaic. (Wikipedia has a long megila about it)

Also, The Gemarah in Chulin says that a Chulda strikes fowl by sticking their claws into them rendering them a Traifa. This doesn’t seem to fit the description of a rat. I look into Sichas Chulin on page 347 and he brings from Chasam Sofer that rats cannot Dores (strikes by sticking their claws into them rendering them a Traifa)

B"H
I'll have to agree with Rav Chaim, that by all probability the "choled" (huldah) is our common weasel.
Sincerely,
David

Although rats are vegetarians, they can and do learn to attack chickens.

As for doras, this is problem in itself. The shunrah does not have poison in their claws neither do any of the other animals mentioned. There was a case of a nemer whose claws were so infected that its scatch was deadly but infection developed first. Cat scatch disease also takes a long time to develop symptoms and the basic problem with cat scratch disease is that it usually takes a year or so to diagnose.

The shunrah, or cat, in the bible and talmud is a much fiercer and larger version than our cat. It can be seen that the Egyptian cat was quite large as there are life size statues.

R. Aryeh Kaplan's translations are the best for animals and the stones in the Choshen.
Anybody want to discuss shafan and arnevet?

Aryeh Shore

The Gemara does discuss (I forgot where)animals like cats killing through their claws and it seems to indicate that they inject poison. This does not fit with their biology as we know it today. They don't carry venom, their claws are not hollow and they don't have the injection system that snakes have. I thought that the gemara meant that the dirt in their claws will cause an infection when they scratch an animal.

The shafan is now acknowledged to be the coney or rock badger that is found in Ein Gedi. It's a small furry little creature that can climb rocks and trees. See Natan Slifkin and Yehuda Felix's works for pictures. The original translation of rabbit or hare was a misidentification. The arnevet, on the other hand, is a rabbit or hare and probably includes the whole genus including jack rabbits, domesticated rabbits and sub species (I think).

running behind on the parsha

Rashi translates kinim as pedicular. Modern french is Pou. Latin is pediculus. I gather that pedicular mean a swarm of lice but maybe someone knows better what the word means. I don't see anything in the Old French dictionary.
I see some English translations have gnats for kinim. Anyone have an idea where that one comes from.

The point with arnevet is that there were no rabbits in the area at the time of the Bible. Just hares.

Aryeh Shore