[null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, {"document_url": "http://parsha.blogspot.co.il/2009_09_01_archive.html", "unformatted_src": "http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xWFKiPJDO_I/TJNS6AkEuwI/AAAAAAAAEFA/iq2gLsVK2n0/s320/yk.jpg", "src": "http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xWFKiPJDO_I/TJNS6AkEuwI/AAAAAAAAEFA/iq2gLsVK2n0/s320/yk.jpg", "formatted_filename": "yk"}, null, null, null, {"document_url": "http://parsha.blogspot.co.il/2009_09_01_archive.html", "unformatted_src": "http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/157/946/1024/shlugging.jpg", "src": "http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/157/946/1024/shlugging.jpg", "formatted_filename": "shlugging"}, null, null, null, null, null, {"document_url": "http://parsha.blogspot.co.il/2009_09_01_archive.html", "unformatted_src": "http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xWFKiPJDO_I/TId4dQQsWTI/AAAAAAAAEDw/4nseToeRIWI/s200/he.jpg", "src": "http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xWFKiPJDO_I/TId4dQQsWTI/AAAAAAAAEDw/4nseToeRIWI/s200/he.jpg", "formatted_filename": "he", "rendered_width": 200, "rendered_height": 200}, null, null, null, null, null, {"document_url": "http://parsha.blogspot.co.il/2009_09_01_archive.html", "unformatted_src": "http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xWFKiPJDO_I/SrrmGuWUqGI/AAAAAAAACzE/mlTVQU-jojI/s320/grif.jpg", "src": "http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xWFKiPJDO_I/SrrmGuWUqGI/AAAAAAAACzE/mlTVQU-jojI/s320/grif.jpg", "formatted_filename": "grif"}, null, null, null, null, null, null, {"document_url": "http://parsha.blogspot.co.il/2009_09_01_archive.html", "unformatted_src": "http://www.linkwithin.com/pixel.png", "src": "http://www.linkwithin.com/pixel.png", "formatted_filename": "pixel", "alt_text": "Blog Widget by LinkWithin"}, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null]

Interesting Posts and Articles #217

Posted by joshwaxman at 12:40 PM 2 comments 

Farmer discovers Chazon Ish's Chicken

Posted by joshwaxman at 10:41 AM 0 comments 

What was Yonah's message?

Sefer Yonah begins: What was the message Yonah was to call upon it? The pasuk does not seem to describe it. And so says Rashi, that he should call upon it Hashem's keriah.
Metzudat David makes it even more clear, that He did not spell out just yet what to proclaim upon it. And a bit later, he works this fact into the narrative. Yonah fled outside of Eretz Yisrael, where prophecy does not reach. This way, he would avoid the possibility of receiving another message from Hashem, which would spell out the particular prophecy.
Radak also maintains that it is not written here just what the prophecy was to be. Though it seems that Radak does think that the prophecy was spelled out at this point to Yonah. We just have to deduce from the words that Yonah eventually says just what the prophecy was. And indeed, this certainly seems true later on in Yonah, where Hashem again tells him to prophesy and he does, but with words not spelled out earlier in the text. Thus, in perek 3:
Here, the pasuk just refers to "the proclamation that I bid thee". And we deduce just what the proclamation was that Hashem commanded by looking two pesukim later. And this the meforshim note. And indeed, by saying הקריאה, Rashi is certainly looking ahead to this ambiguous pasuk in perek 3 and stating that whether it says את הקריאה or not, it means the same thing, and both ambiguous pesukim should be resolved via Yonah 3:4.
I look at the second pasuk in Yonah and I see a pasuk ripe for ambiguous parsing. "Ki" can either mean "because" or "that". Rashi et al. adopt the former, such that he merely it to proclaim something upon it, and such that the second half of the pasuk is the reason for that unspecified proclamation.
However, if we read "Ki" as "that", then we could have the following translation instead:
Thus, the second half of the pasuk is the content. We see later that the proclamation is for the overturning of Ninveh, וְנִינְוֵה נֶהְפָּכֶת.
To me, this calls to mind parshat Vayera, and the overturning of Sodom. Just as in Ninveh, their wickedness came before Hashem, we see regarding Sodom that:
and in the next perek, regarding the destruction that results:
Thus, the message was Divine recognition of the wickedness of Ninveh, and associated with it, an overturning of the city. And so, while Yonah 3:2 gives us solid basis to interpreting it as an unspecified prophecy, I believe there is much merit to the alternative parse I proposed.
Posted by joshwaxman at 9:23 AM 1 comments Labels: vayera, yonah


Check out Sukkot to Go 5770

Yeshiva University's Center for the Jewish Future and Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary presents Posted by joshwaxman at 4:06 PM 0 comments 
Interesting Posts and Articles #216

Posted by joshwaxman at 11:48 AM 32 comments 

Melech Elyon variant

I meant to post this a while back, but didn't get a chance until now. My father has a "scholarly" machzor, which
has the original text of Melech Elyon. Basically, instead of what we have, which is a bunch of Melech Elyons with an ending of two Melech Evyons followed by one final Melech Elyon, the original had about twice as many stanzas, and a good many more Melech Evyons. The original alternated between these Melech Elyons and Melech Evyons throughout.
My guess is that they stopped this practice because the guy who got peticha began to develop carpal tunnel syndrome.
Posted by joshwaxman at 8:33 AM 6 comments 


When the fast of Yom Kippur begins, and ends, in Gardens Hills

Of course, check your own local times at the sites given. What is given here is for Zip code 11367, in New York.
The Etz Chaim bulletin doesn't give a start time (though gives 6:26 as candle-lighting time), but gives an end time of 7:25 PM.
According to Chabad it begins today at candle-lighting time, at:
and ends tomorrow at:
You can confirm yourself when candle-lighting is. There is an inyan of tesefet yom hakippurim at play here.
According to MyZmanim, about when the fast ends:
Posted by joshwaxman at 3:54 PM 2 comments 
posts so far for Yom Kippur Posted by joshwaxman at 10:50 AM 0 comments Labels: summary, yom kippur

The nusach for shlugging kapparos If you plan to shlug kapparot today, with either money or chickens, and you don't have a machzor, then this may be of help. Here is the text of "Bnei Adam" followed by "Zeh Chalifasi."

Bnei Adam is to the right, while Ze Chalifati is below. As I noted in the past, despite the instructions in Artscroll, if you are a woman using money rather than chickens, one should say "zeh", because it is not going on the person, but rather on either the chicken (tarnegol vs. tarnegoles) or the money (kesef). And kesef would always be described with zeh, not zos. Posted by joshwaxman at 9:30 AM 2 comments Labels: yom kippur


Mermaids and Yosef Coins

A while ago, after the tsunami in Indonesia, some pictures circulated purporting to show the body of a mermaid which had washed up. Of course, it was a hoax, and those images had been produced well before the tsunami. Yet apparently the mermaid did make a big splash. Indeed, as Rabbi Slifkin reports in his Sacred Monsters (page 95), posters were put up in Meah Shearim with the picture, gemara, Rashi's explanation of dolphinim as mermaids, and the caption that there is nothing new under the sun.
This need not be representative of all chareidim, nor does it necessarily mean that all chareidim are this credulous. But certainly some did believe this hoax. And perhaps it is because the "news" items spoke to their own beliefs, which were somewhat under attack from the modern world. If Rashi had ruach hakodesh, and the gemara itself spoke of mermaids, and everyone nowadays "knows" that mermaids are fictional, then this news which validates our traditional beliefs is to be adopted wholeheartedly. Indeed, the "nothing new under the sun" comment was triumphalism, and effectively saying "see, we knew about this a long time ago, and science is only now catching up." Of course, various other subgroups might prefer other approaches to "coping" with this "difficulty" -- such as that the gemara doesn't really say this, and that Rashi was merely working with the contemporary science of his time, but that approach is not preferred or might be deemed heretical by some "frummer" groups.
Indeed, when people at Bat Yam (or rather Kiryat Yam), in Chaifa, spotted a mermaid off-shore, kikar.net posted an article about it. And they wrote:

בדרך כלל, אנחנו מבטלים במחי יד את השמועות. נתקלנו אין סוף פעמים באגדות דייגים, שכנראה חלקם נוטים להזיות מסיבה שבוודאי תיחקר יום אחד.
אך לא, הדג הזה קיים בהחלט. כבר במקורות הקדמונים ביותר מצאנו שיש דג שחציו אדם וחציו דג, או חציו אשה וחציו דג, וכמה וכמה הלכות נאמרו לגביו.
מה שכתוב בתורה שכל נפש החיה שבמים שקץ הוא לכם, אמרו בתורת כהנים שמרבה את הסילונית. רש"י פירש שסילונית הוא אותה בריה שחציו דג וחציו אדם, והראב"ד אף הוסיף שסירונית (או סילונית) היא חיה שחציה אדם וחציה דג, ומנגנת כאדם. וכן חז"ל דרשו בטומאה: "אדם כי ימות באהל", ולא סילונית.
וכן מצאנו בגמרא בבכורות, שהזכירה דולפינים, ולפי אחד הפירושים בגמרא שם זה "בני ימא", או כמו שפירש רש"י, אותה חיה שחציה אדם וחציה דג. ולפי האמור שם בגמרא, החיות הללו יכולות להתרבות כבני אדם או כדגים.
מעניין מאד לציין, שבספר "ערוך השולחן" האריך לדון על אותו דג אם יש לו סנפיר וקשקשת. אם נזכה שמישהו יצלם, אולי נדע בבירור.
אם יש לכם מרץ, נסו לצלם את הדג, כך תזכו להבין את דברי הגמרא בבירור, ותזכו את הרבים, ואולי גם תרוויחו את הפרס הכספי. סכום לא רע שיכול לעזור לכם קצת ב'בין הזמנים'.

The comments there, on that story, are also fascinating. Of course, this story was pure bunk, probably created to increase tourism.
The same seems to me to be true regarding the latest story, reported by an Egyptian paper, about an Egyptian find of coins which bear Yosef's name, and so on. There is enough about this story to make it rather dubious. Of course, we will see how it plays out, and if authentic, it would be quite amazing. Namely, how it goes against prevailing beliefs of historians of when coinage began (these are really round gems), and the amazing nature of the find. And I don't think we can necessarily trust the science and archaeology of the people around, without knowing more about them and/or having this finding verified by others. It looks like they were trying to find evidence of coinage that early so that Koranic accounts would not be anachronistic.
But I got an email from an otherwise rather skeptical individual about this, titled "Wow!"
I think this is because it fits in to our own beliefs, or what we would want to believe and want to see discovered. Because after all, most archaeologists deny the historicity of the Torah's account.
This, once again, is not to say that this story is not true, or that it is. Rather, it is to say that this story speaks to our biases, and so we should keep that in mind as we evaluate it.
Posted by joshwaxman at 8:30 PM 3 comments Labels: belief, news, rationalism


posts so far for parshat Haazinu 2003, 2004

Posted by joshwaxman at 11:31 AM 0 comments 

Coins from the time of Yosef, bearing Yosef's name, found in Egypt

This also provides counter-evidence to archeologists' previous claim that they did not mint and use coins in Egypt in the era of Yosef, but instead relied on a barter system.
These coins have Yosef's name (both Yosef and Saba Sabani, perhaps a cognate of Tzofnas Paneach?) and image of a cow.
If true, it is amazing. But I am a bit skeptical of such findings which accord so well to details of the Biblical narrative. Or in this case, the motivation seems to be in justifying aspects of the Koranic narrative. While it is possible that such would have existed, such that it is findable, it also makes sense that some antiquities dealer might make a forgery and tie it in to the Biblical or Koranic account in order to better sell it.
From the Jerusalem Post:

Archeologists have discovered ancient Egyptian coins bearing the name and image of the biblical Joseph, Cairo's Al Ahram newspaper recently reported. Excerpts provided by MEMRI show that the coins were discovered among a multitude of unsorted artifacts stored at the Museum of Egypt.
According to the report, the significance of the find is that archeologists have found scientific evidence countering the claim held by some historians that coins were not used for trade in ancient Egypt, and that this was done through barter instead.
The period in which Joseph was regarded to have lived in Egypt matches the minting of the coins in the cache, researchers said.
"A thorough examination revealed that the coins bore the year in which they were minted and their value, or effigies of the pharaohs [who ruled] at the time of their minting. Some of the coins are from the time when Joseph lived in Egypt, and bear his name and portrait," said the report.
The discovery of the cache prompted research team head Dr. Sa'id Muhammad Thabet to seek Koranic verses that speak of coins used in ancient Egypt.
"Studies by Dr. Thabet's team have revealed that what most archeologists took for a kind of charm, and others took for an ornament or adornment, is actually a coin. Several [facts led them to this conclusion]: first, [the fact that] many such coins have been found at various [archeological sites], and also [the fact that] they are round or oval in shape, and have two faces: one with an inscription, called the inscribed face, and one with an image, called the engraved face - just like the coins we use today," the report added.

and from MEMRI, the following excerpt {they have a larger article than this}:

"The researcher identified coins from many different periods, including coins that bore special markings identifying them as being from the era of Joseph. Among these, there was one coin that had an inscription on it, and an image of a cow symbolizing Pharaoh's dream about the seven fat cows and seven lean cows, and the seven green stalks of grain and seven dry stalks of grain. It was found that the inscriptions of this early period were usually simple, since writing was still in its early stages, and consequently there was difficulty in deciphering the writing on these coins. But the research team [managed to] translate [the writing on the coin] by comparing it to the earliest known hieroglyphic texts…
"Joseph's name appears twice on this coin, written in hieroglyphs: once the original name, Joseph, and once his Egyptian name, Saba Sabani, which was given to him by Pharaoh when he became treasurer. There is also an image of Joseph, who was part of the Egyptian administration at the time.

See also PaleoJudaica who considers this junk archeology. Some of his criticisms seems a bit off, in that they appear rather circular. Thus:

Where does one start with this sort of thing? Coins weren't invented until something like the seventh-to-sixth century BCE in Asia Minor.

And how does he know that coins weren't invented before then? Because of existing archeological evidence! Which this would then contradict, as being earlier evidence! It reminds me of the claim that camels were not domesticated in ancient Mesopotamia in patriarchal times. Then, they discovered a figurine of a camel. But it couldn't be a camel, because camels had not been domesticated yet! So it was a horse with odd humps.
Similarly, he writes:

The Joseph story, if it has any historical basis at all, is perhaps a vague memory of events of the Hyksos era or perhaps even later.

This is called begging the question. This was the assumption, based on lack of other evidence. So dismiss the evidence because it contradicts the previous reconstruction? We can similarly dismiss any evidence of David's reign, because Biblical minimalists have determined that he did not exist, or if he did, he was a minor figure in some village somewhere.
Yes, it does not accord with existing notions, which makes it a rather important discovery. If true. Though he makes that point:

There is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Joseph as a real person and any such find would receive immediate, enthusiastic, international attention.

Of course, this might be the international attention. Of course, this might all be a hoax, or overblown. It seems somewhat likely to me. We'll have to see how it shapes up.
Posted by joshwaxman at 7:33 AM 9 comments Labels: archaeology, news


Interesting Posts and Articles #215

Posted by joshwaxman at 2:52 PM 8 comments 

Alexander's ascent, via Griffin or Griffin-Vulture

In Haazinu, we read of the eagle bearing its young on its pinions (wings):
and while it is meant allegorically, ain mikra yotzei miydei peshuto, and the mashal needs to make sense and be true before we get to the nimshal. Some connect it to the pasuk in parshat Yitro, in Shemot 19:4:
and again, this is meant to be allegorical, though there presumably should be some actual physical observable phenomenon of nesharim bearing things (such as young) on their wings, as a basis for this. And see Rashi and midrashim on this.
Could an eagle, or perhaps griffin-vulture, be big enough to lift a man, if we wanted to take the allegorical as absolutely literal? We wouldn't really expect birds so big.
Yet there is a giant, man-killing eagle, thought until just recently to be legendary, which survived until about 500 years ago, at which point it became extinct:

New research has confirmed that a giant man-eating bird long spoken of in legends actually existed.

And the Haast eagle was even bigger and more deadly than first thought, fulfilling the same role as the killer lions of Africa.

Each creature had a wingspan of three metres and weighed almost 20kg, making more than twice the size of the largest eagle that survives today.

"It was certainly capable of swooping down and taking a child," Paul Scofield, of Canterbury University in New Zealand, said.

This is not precisely the same as bearing a fully grown person on its wings, but it brings it more into the realm of imagined possibility. (Though there may well be scientific reasons that birds, including eagles and vultures, cannot get so large.)

I bring all this up because there is a Yerushalmi which seems to have a man riding on the back of a nesher, which is probably a griffin vulture.
Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah 18b reads:
א"ר יונה אלכסנדרוס מוקדון כד בעא מיסק לעיל והוה סלק וסלק סלק עד שראה את העולם ככדור ואת הים כקערה בגין כן ציירין לה בכדורא בידה. ויצורינה קערה בידה.
Thus, according to Rabbi Yonah, when Alexander the Macedonian {the Great} wanted, he ascended up, until he saw the world like a ball and the sea like a plate. Because of this they depict him with a sphere in his hand, and a plate {/discus} in his hand.
So why do I say that Alexander ascended upon a nesher? Where does it state that in the Yerushalmi?! All it said was אלכסנדרוס מוקדון כד בעא מיסק לעיל והוה סלק וסלק סלק, but it did not mention the method by which he ascended! To answer, I got this from Pnei Moshe on the daf, who said that Alexander went up by nesher. Pnei Moshe writes that he did something, and say on the nesher to raise himself above and to see the face of the earth, as it written in their Chronicles.
Thus, admittedly the Yerushalmi does not mention a nesher. But he recognizes that this maamar Chazal is likely citing Greek legend, and so he turns to Greek legend -- or perhaps if he believes it to be true and historical, Greek history -- and discovers that Alexander's ascent was by nesher. But if we look at Greek legend, it does not seem to be an eagle or griffin-vulture by which Alexander ascends. Rather, it appears to be by griffin:

One legend involving griffins is the Ascension of Alexander the great. According to this story, Alexander captured a pair of griffins and, having starved them for three days, hitched them to his throne and, teasing them with chunks of roast beef held above their heads on lances, flew heavenward for seven days. Alexander would've stolen a peek at God Himself if an angel had not asked him why he wanted to see the things of heaven when he did not yet understand the things of earth. Chastised for his presumptuousness, Alexander flew back to earth. Representations of Alexander's ascension were placed in French and Italian cathedrals during the 12th century.

This is a fairly popular tale, and an old one. This museum website puts the emergence of the legend to 200 BCE, well before this statement in the Yerushalmi was written:

200 BC
Emergence of the legend of Alexander, in which Alexander of Macedonia flew in the company of some half-starved griffins to the end of the world. This theme turns up frequently (on exhibit in the Museum). And here is an article (8+ MB PDF) tracing the history of this story as well as artwork about it. One interesting variant has a king using similar hunks of meat to make two griffins (or else eagles) carry his throne up high. (The picture to the right has Alexander using these hunks of meat.) Compare to the griffins on King Shlomo's throne, which brought him up.
If so, why does Pnei Moshe say nesher? Maybe he saw (or thought he saw) a variant of the popular legend, maybe he considers nesher an adequate translation of griffin, or perhaps he is rewriting it to be more plausible -- even though a human being lifted in this way by two eagles is not very plausible to me.
Aside from simply being an interesting Yerushalmi, or at least Pnei Moshe, if it refers to griffins or even to eagles lifting Alexander up, or even if it merely refers to a popular Greek legend, there might be some interesting things we can deduce about this Yerushalmi if we bring in eagles or griffin-vultures or griffins.
Specifically, this famous Yerushalmi shows a belief within Chazal in a round earth. There is, of course, another gemara in Bavli Chagiga, which strongly implies a flat earth. Did they intend this Yerushalmi literally, or is it an allegory? Even if literal, does it reflect Greek beliefs or Chazal's beliefs? Or both?
The whole point in the Yerushalmi of citing this legend is that those under Alexander's rule consider the world to be under Alexander's dominion -- though the continuation of the Yerushalmi challenges them on the accuracy of that statement. If the whole point is dominion, then the Yerushalmi does not necessarily have to actually maintain that Alexander ascended on high. Rather, they just need to believe that the Greeks believed that. And if the Greeks believed this, we can understand the statues with the ball or plate in hand to have a specific meaning. And if is only the Greeks who believe this, this is no absolute evidence that "Chazal" believed in a spherical earth -- especially as there are certain other gemaras which seem to contradict this. Of course, sources in Bavli and Yerushalmi can readily contradict one another, because Chazal are not monolithic.
But even before getting to that point, I have to wonder whether Chazal really believed the Greek legends about Alexander's ascent on high, literally. While it is nice that Chazal get some contemporary science right, it would be a shame if they believed it because they believed in some implausible nonsense about Alexander riding up to the heavens on eagles or griffins.
Given that he ascended upon a nesher, and a nesher is often a symbol of power (king of the birds, much like the lion as the king of the beasts), and given that a griffin is a combination of two kingly beasts (griffin-vulture/eagle + lion) all of this might be a further allegory for Alexander's dominion. Even if allegory, of course, details of what he saw might be based on scientific knowledge of the world. And so if he would see the world, they would describe the world as a sphere.
In sum, this is an interesting Yerushalmi not just for its references to a spherical earth. Pnei Moshe's suggestion is bold, in that he is willing to fill in details from Greek legends. His suggestion seems quite plausible, given the history of this story. And I wonder whether even as Greek legend, the griffin was intended allegorically.
Rabbi Slifkin discusses griffins in his Sacred Monsters. While he does not address this Yerushalmi in particular, he does discuss some of the royal aspects of the griffin in the context of certain midrashim.
Posted by joshwaxman at 9:01 AM 10 comments Labels: avodah zarah, belief, haazinu, rationalism, yerushalmi


In the same manner that I call out the name of Hashem, ascribe greatness to our God

At the start of Haazinu:
But as we will see, Chazal midrashically interpret this as: In the same manner that I call out the name of Hashem, so shall you ascribe greatness to our God.
Targum Pseudo-Yonatan appears to make reference to this when he says:

Woe to the wicked who make memorial of the Holy Name with blasphemies. Wherefore Mosheh, who was the Doctor of Israel, would not permit himself to pronounce the Holy Name until he had dedicated his mouth at the beginning of his hymn with eighty and five letters, making twenty and one words, and afterwards be spake: In the Name of the Lord I invoke you, O house of Israel, to ascribe glory and greatness before our God.

as does Targum Yerushalmi which states:

Mosheh the prophet said: Woe to the wicked who make memorial of the Holy Name with blasphemies. For it is not possible even to one of the highest angels to utter that Name rightly until that they have said, Holy, Holy, Holy thrice. And from them did Mosheh learn not to utter that Name openly until he should have dedicated his mouth with twenty‑one words which consist of eighty-five letters; and so explained he and said: Hear, ye heavens, and I will speak; for it is the Name of the Lord. Mosheh the prophet said: O people of Israel, I invoke you, in the Name of the Lord, to give glory, praise, and highest exaltation unto God.

This is based on a derasha found in the Sifrei. While Rashi cites a different lesson brought down in Sifrei, we also have:

כי שם ה׳ אקרא נמצינו למדים שלא הזכיר משה שמו של מקום אלא לאחר כ״א דבר.
ממי למד ממלאכי השרת שאין מלאכי השרת מזכירים את השם אלא לאחר ג׳ קדושות
שנאמר וקרא זה אל זה ואמר קדוש קדוש קרוש ה׳ צבאות אמר משה די שאהיה בפחות
משבעה כמלאכי השרת• והרי דברים ק"ו ומה משה שהוא חכם חכמים גדול שבגדולים
לא הזכיר שמו של מקום אלא לאחר כ״א דבר המזכיר, שמו של מקום בחנם עאכ״ו

Perhaps the way this is taken is as a condemnation of those who take Hashem's name in vain, bechinam. Unless bechinam means without anything as introduction, which is quite plausible.
At any rate, the idea is that the word YKVK only occurs after 21 words into Haazinu. And, I think, the derasha is as I described it above, that one should ascribe greatness to Hashem in the same manner that Moshe did it in Haazinu. Chizkuni details all of this, first citing the Targum Yerushalmi and then the Sifrei.
That Moshe said that "it is enough for me that I be after 7 {times} the angels." And then he appears to take pains to explain it, even though in our texts of the Sifrei, at the least, this explanation is more or less explicit.
But Chizkuni goes on to elaborate that therefore, the Sages instituted the whole lead-in to kedusha, such that we, too, arrive at the 21 word count before saying YKVK, or rather, Adonai. Thus, he gives the daily introduction as nekadesh shimcha baOlam... And if we count the words he brings down, it amounts to precisely 21. Of course, we have a slightly different version. We say nekadesh et shimecha baOlam. But then, while Chizkuni has vechen katuv, we have kakatuv, thus losing a word, such that the count stands at 21.
In the kedusha of the Yotzer, which is (she-bat) {or does he mean Shabbat?} one of 85 letters. And he gives the nusach of the kedusha, which also has 21 words. {The flow here makes his intent a bit unclear to me. I wasn't able to count 85 letters, but only 82. But I would that is because he consistently writes kadosh as chaser, where it is meant to be written malei. Which would bring us to 84, but I suppose I either missed one letter or another word should be malei. Also, did he mean to refer to the seder of kedusha in the beracha of yotzer or separately?} Though ours is more expansive. And so too during Musaf, we only mention it after 85 letters. And its order is keter yitnu lecha hamonei maalah im amecha yisrael kevutzei mata, yachad kedusha lecha yeshaleshu, kakatuv al yad neviecha vekara zeh el zeh veamar, kadosh kadosh kadosh.
But in this one, we reach a 21 count before the first kadosh! So word count is not the issue, but rather letter count, which indeed is 85, since kadosh is spelled malei. Luckily, Targum makes it about 85 letters as well, such that it works out. Sifrei doesn't explicitly mention this.
Also, a word about keter. In our version, we have the introduction of keter yitenu lecha Hashem Elokeinu. If the purpose is a 21 word buffer, or an 85 letter buffer, we have entirely undermined ourselves by front-loading the Shem Hashem.
Though he mentions Yotzer in passing, he gives what I think we call the kedusha of Shabbat. Maybe he is giving both there.

Ginsberg, in Geonica, volume 1, discusses the possibility that many of these kedushot are post-Talmudic in origin; except for that of Yotzer, which is early. I believe this means the kedusha in Yotzer Or after Barechu. This may or may not have application to the above.
I don't think that Chizkuni's insight in necessary. Even if we are basing ourselves on Moshe, based on this derasha, we do not necessarily have to match him in the precise number of letters or words. This is just what Moshe did. Despite the kal vachomer. And this is assuming they even were talking about kedusha in Sifrei.
Posted by joshwaxman at 5:09 PM 0 comments Labels: chizkuni, haazinu, midrash, targum Some feeds Who's Coming? Daf notes