In memory of Rabin's
assassination, Conservative Jews around the world have been learning Mishnah
with Rabbi Simchah Roth.
"The difference
between the messianic age and the current is that in the former we will be
under our own rule" Brakhot 34b
24th May 1998/28th Iyyar
5758 - Yom Yerushalayim
**************************************************************
TRACTATE SANHEDRIN,
CHAPTER TWO, MISHNAH TWO (recap):
The King may not sit in
judgment nor may he be tried; he may not
testify nor may he be the
subject of accusatory testimony; he may not
perform the ceremony of
'Chalitzah' nor his wife may be involved in
this same ceremony; he may
not contract a levirate marriage nor may
his childless widow may be
taken in Levirate marriage by her brother-
in-law. Rabbi Yehudah says that if he elects to
perform the ceremony
of 'Chalitzah' or to
contract a levirate marriage this is to his
credit. To this the [rest of the] sages responded
that we do not
listen to the king's views
in this matter. No one may marry the
late
king's widow. Rabbi Yehudah says that a king may marry
another king's
widow, for we find that
David married Saul's widow, as it says: "And I
gave into your bosom your
master's household and your master's wives".
EXPLANATIONS (continued):
6:
Our mishnah states that a
king "may not testify nor may he be the
subject of accusatory
testimony". We have already
explained (in
connection with the
previous mishnah) that "accusatory testimony" is
not the same as
"testifying" in a Western court today. According to
the rabbinic system a
person could only be brought to trial by two
witnesses who were present
at the moment the deed was done. (We
shall
expatiate on this later on
in the Tractate.) Thus, the witnesses
who
offer "accusatory
testimony" are in fact acting as the prosecution in
western parlance. Given the principle of reciprocity to which
we have
already referred in
connection with the High Priest, if a king is
excused the duty of
testifying he must also be free from the
possibility of
prosecution. The reason why it was felt
necessary to
excuse all kings "of Israel"
from the burden of testimony was because
of the incident which
involved Yannai Alexander, an incident that we
described in detail in our
last Shiur. Whether or not kings of the
Davidic line are so
excused is a point of discussion among the sages.
We shall return to this
later.
7:
However, lest the
impression be given that the sages made the decision
of not imposing the
rigours of the law upon heads of state and
government purely on the
basis of one incident, let me recall a
similar incident that occurred
some fifty years later. This incident
is not recorded by the
sages, but it is recorded by Yossef ben-
Matityahu (aka Flavius
Josephus) in his "Antiquities of the Jews"
[14:9:3-5].
One of Yannai's sons,
Yochanan Hyrkanos II (named for his grandfather,
apparently) was the
nominal head of state. He had taken as
a personal
advisor one
Antipater. (Antipater's father had been
forcibly
converted to Judaism by
Yochanan's grandfather as part of his general
coercion of the whole of
the Edomite population to Judaism.
Whether
or not the Edomites
recognized this conversion is moot; the sages did
not recognize it.) Antipater had used the power of nepotism to
get
his sons installed in key
positions and the youngest, Herod, had been
appointed Governor of the
Galil. Galilee at that time was rather
like
the American wild west of
the last century, but the ambitious Herod
lost no time in hunting
down and arresting the chief bandit, one
Hezekiah, whom, together
with his henchmen, he then summarily executed
without benefit of
trial. Yochanan Hyrkanos was getting
very fidgety
- as well he may - at the
brazen use of blatant power that the young
Herod was displaying. He rightly feared for himself and his
regime.
Having been persuaded that
Herod's act was illegal he summoned Herod
before the Sanhedrin in
Jerusalem to stand trial for the murder of
Hezekiah and his
colleagues. Herod, being of half a mind
to laugh it
off, was persuaded in his
turn to turn up for the trial. On the
appointed day the judges
entered the courtroom to find it packed by
Herod's soldiers with arms
drawn. Herod himself appeared dressed
in
imperial robes, and the
justices got the meaning of his not very
subtile message very
quickly. The court was about to absolve
Herod
when one of their number
stood up to address the court. The name
of
this sage was Shammai,
a righteous man who therefore knew no fear. He said [according to
Josephus], 'Your Majesty
and members of the Sanhedrin: I cannot
recall, nor do I think
that you can, that at any time in the past
a person who was summoned
to appear before us did so in such a
manner! It matters not who he might be: any person
appearing
before this Sanhedrin to
be judged would stand before us in
respect and would have the
demeanour of a person fearful for his
life who was begging for
mercy. He would be unshaven and wearing
black. But this young upstart, Herod, who is
charged with murder
and has been summoned to
appear before us on that charge, stands
here wearing a purple
robe, crowned with an olive-wreath, hair
barbered and surrounded by
armed men who are to kill us if we find
him guilty at law, and to
remove him safely from here if that
fails. But I have no complaint against Herod if he
prefers the
practical over the
legal! My complaint is against you, his
judges
and against you, Your
Majesty, for giving him such licence. I
want you to know, as God
is great, that this man whom you wish to
free this day will take
his revenge on you all and on the king...'
Shammai, of course, was
not wrong. Herod did usurp power in 40
BCE
and ruled, a cruel and
pitiless despot until 4 BCE. He killed
off all
surviving members of the
Hasmonean family, and also killed off many
members of his own family
whom he suspected of planning his own
assassination - including
Mariamne his beloved wife, a Hasmonean
princess. The carnage in this family was so great that
the Roman
Emperor Augustus was once
heard to remark at a dinner party that he
"would rather be a
pig in Herod's sty than a member of his family".
When asked to, he
explained that being (nominally) a Jew Herod would
not eat pork; therefore
the pigs in his sty could expect to live out
their natural life - which
could hardly be said for the members of his
family! According to Josephus there was only one
person that Herod
feared, and that was the
one person who stood up to him: Shammai.
(It
has given me no small
amount of pleasure to recount this story, since
I believe that it sets
Shammai in a more positive light than the one
we usually feed to our
children (based upon one story in the Talmud)
that Hillel was the nice
guy and Shammai was the one who was always
losing his temper.)
8:
It thus transpires that
the decision of the sages not to involve heads
of State and heads of
government in trials at law was actually "real
politik": they
decided not to enter a battle which they knew they
could not win.
To be continued:
May 26th 1998/Sivan 1st
5758 - Rosh Chodesh
Remy Landau asks:
Would it be possible for
you to indicate the Talmudic source which
records that The High
Priest and the King were barred from the sod-
haibbur because the king
might favour the longer leap years to offset
the costs of maintining
armies that were paid annuaries?
I respond:
The source Remy is looking
for is in the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate
Sanhedrin, folio 18a.
Both the king and the high priest were barred
from the council that
decided whether the present year needed to be
declared a leap-year or
not. (Before the introduction of the
fixed
calendar in 351 CE, this
decision was made by a committee of the
Sanhedrin in
Eretz-Israel.) This decision was to be
based upon
certain observed
phenomena, but obviously there was considerable room
for maneuver in the
interpretation of the observed phenomena.
Since
by declaring a year a
leap-year one whole month was added both the
above functionaries were
considered to have too much of a vested
interest in the decision
for their inclusion to be advisable.
The
king would approve of
adding a month to the year for the reason Remy
has indicated: he would
get thirteen months' service from his military
while only having to pay
one year's salary. The High Priest
would
disapprove of adding a
month to the year. On the following Yom
Kippur
he would have to strip and
bathe several times during the ceremonies:
from his point of view the
earlier in the year Yom Kippur would fall
the better for him (and
much less the likelihood that he would catch
cold).
On May 23rd I wrote:
>>We have already pointed out - in the
explanation of the
previous mishnah - that the principle of
reciprocity applies to
judgment. Only someone who is liable to
be
judged himself may sit in
judgment upon others. Since, according
to
our mishnah, a king of
Israel may not be put on trial it follows that
he may not sit in judgment
on others.<<
Art Kamlet asks:
Was King Solomon sitting
in judgment in the story of the two women
each claiming the same
child?
I respond:
Yes. But don't forget that we have already said
that the above
principle only applies to
"kings of Israel". On May
19th I wrote:
The Gemara [Sanhedrin 19a]
points out that our mishnah is in clear
contradiction of what is
implied in a Biblical verse [Jeremiah 21:12]:
"[kings of the] House
of David, thus says the Lord: sit in judgment
every morning and rescue
the theft of the oppressed man's rights..."
Therefore, the Gemara
makes a distinction between the rights and
duties of a king from the
legitimate line of David and the rights and
duties of a king of any
other lineage. The Gemara refers to
this
latter kind of king as a
"king of Israel".
It follows that kings of
the Davidic line could (and did) sit in
judgment and could be
arraigned in a court of justice.
Solomon was
David's son and heir.
PLEASE NOTE that until the
end of June I shall not always be in town,
so the shiurim may be
somewhat sporadic. I ask your
forgiveness, and
will do my best to post
shiurim as often as I can.
June 7th 1998/Sivan 13th
5758
**************************************************************
Today's shiur is dedicated
by Ze'ev Orzech to the memory of his
mother, Serla bat Hinde
ve-No'ah, z"l, whose Yahrzeit occurs tomorrow,
14 Sivan.
**************************************************************
TRACTATE SANHEDRIN,
CHAPTER TWO, MISHNAH FOUR, PART ONE:
[The king] may embark upon
a political war with the consent of the
Great Court of
Seventy-One. He may compulsorily
sequestrate private
property to provide access
and this may not be contested. The
Royal
Highway has no
limits. All the people may take spoil;
they present it
before the king who is the
first to take his allotment.
EXPLANATIONS:
1:
For the sake of clarity, I
have divided this mishnah into smaller
sections according to the
presentation in the Talmud. The subject
of
this mishnah is, of
course, connected with the rights of the head of
government.
2:
The government (to use a
more modern term than 'king') has the right
to declare what I have
rendered as "a political war".
You will recall
that previously [RMSG for
April 26th] we have explained that halakhah
recognizes two kinds of
war, called in Hebrew "Milchemet Mitzvah" and
"Milchemet
Reshut". The literal meaning of
these terms is "compulsory
war" and
"optional war" respectively.
Today. the 'compulsory war' is
a war embarked upon in
order to protect the lives of Jews which are
actively being threatened;
in earlier times there were two other
possibilities. It will be helpful if we quote directly from
Rambam
[Moses Maimonides, North
Africa, 12th century CE], Hilkhot Melakhim,
5:1-2
What is a Compulsory War? - This is a war against the seven
[Canaanite] nations [dispossessed by the Israelites upon their
entry into the Promised Land], a war against Amalek, and
assisting
Jews against any enemy attacking them... An Optional War is a war
being fought against all other peoples in order to enlarge
Israel's borders or to enhance his greatness and
reputation. To
wage a Compulsory War the king does not need to receive the
consent of the Court, but takes the initiative and compels the
people to be drafted.
However, to wage an Optional War he must
obtain the consent of the Court of Seventy-One.
3:
Our mishnah states that
the government "may compulsorily sequestrate
private property to
provide access". I have
deliberately rendered
this phrase so as to make
it possible to understand it according to two
separate viewpoints. Rashi [France, 11th century CE] understands
our
mishnah as giving the king
the right to sequestrate someone's private
property in order to give
him [the king] easy access to his [the
king's] property,
"his field or his vineyard".
Rabbi Ovadya di
Bertinoro [Italy, 15th
century CE] in his famous commentary on the
Mishnah follows
Rashi. However, this interpretation is
not required
by the context. Much more likely, it seems to me, is the
understanding of Rambam
[ibid, 5:3] that connects this phrase with the
later one which states
that "The Royal Highway has no limits":-
[The king] may sequestrate [private property] in order to build
a
road [for his troops] and this may not be contested [by the
property's owner]. The
royal highway has no limits, but [its
width and length] are determined by his needs and in order that
it
be straight, so that he may not have to detour [to avoid
private
property] on his way to war.
4:
There are two main
Biblical sources concerning the rights and
privileges of the king
[government] of Israel. The first is in
the
Torah [Deuteronomy
17:14-20}:-
When you reach the land ... possess it and settle it, should
you
say 'I shall appoint me a king like all the nations around me',
you must appoint a king over you that God chooses. He must be one
of your brethren and you may not appoint a non-Jew over you...
However, the exact meaning
of this paragraph is unclear. Some
commentators [Avraham
Ibn-Ezra, North Africa, 11th century CE,
Yitzchak Abrabanel, Spain,
15th century CE] understand the Hebrew
"should you
say..." as indicating that the appointment of a king is
made only if the people
demand it. Most commentators, however,
read
the phrase as "you
should say..." indicating that a king must be
appointed.
The second Biblical source
is in 1Samuel 8:11-17, where the prophet
Samuel is trying to
dissuade the people from demanding a king:-
This is the manner of the king that will reign over you: he
will
draft your sons to serve in his chariots and cavalry... He will
appoint overseers of thousands and fifties to do his plowing,
reap
his harvest and manufacture his armour and vehicles... He will
draft your daughters to be cooks and bakers... he will
confiscate
your fields, vineyards and good olives and present them to his
servants... He will tax your produce to pay his eunuchs and
servants... he will draft your own servants and maids, your
young
men and your donkeys for his own purposes... He will tax your
livestock and you will be his servants...
On this latter passage
also there are differing views in the Gemara
[Sanhedrin 20b]. Rabbi Yosse is of the opinion that
"everything
mentioned in the 'manner
of the king' is the king's legitimate
privilege"; whereas
Rabbi Yehudah [bar-Ilai] is of the opinion that
"Samuel only said all
of this in order to threaten them" and dissuade
them from continuing with
their demand for a king. However, from
the
strictly halakhic point of
view the matter is clear and follows the
opinion of Rabbi
Yosse. Furthermore, "Israel was
commanded three
mitzvot to be fulfilled
upon taking possession of the Land: to appoint
a king, to destroy Amalek
and to build the Bet Mikdash". And
the
Gemara adds: "in that
order".
5:
Probably the most famous
(or infamous) example of sequestration by the
government through
compulsory purchase is the sequestration of the
vineyard of Naboth by King
Ahab [1Kings 21].
Naboth [Navot] had a vineyard right next to the palace of King
Ahab [Achav] in Samaria [Shomron]. Achav asked to buy the
property from Navot in order to add it to his vegetable garden.
Navot refused the offer since the vineyard was ancestral
property
which he was not at liberty to dispose of. Achav sulked. His
wife, Jezebel [Izevel] got Navot executed on a trumped up
charge
of blasphemy, thus enabling Achav to take possession of the
vineyard.
The Tosafists [Sanhedrin
20a] raise an interesting question: if the
government is entitled to
sequestrate any and all property for its own
needs why is Achav roundly
condemned by the prophet Elijah in
connection with the
vineyard of Navot? The Tosafists
suggest that
there was a
misunderstanding: when Achav offered to buy the vineyard
Navot understood that this
was a normal transaction to which he could
either agree or
disagree. They also offer some other
suggestions. It
seems to me that all these
suggestions are extremely weak. In his
commentary on the passages
from Rambam that we have quoted earlier,
Rabbi Yossef Caro
[Eretz-Israel, 16th century CE] states that the
right of the king to
sequestrate private property is only for state
purposes, not in order to
answer his own private needs. It seems
clear from the context
that Achav knew full well that he had no right
to sequestrate the
property of Navot, and that is why he offered to
buy it. And surely, the righteous indignation of
Elijah against Achav
and Izevel is because of
the (judicial) murder of Navot.
My apologies for only
having posted one shiur last week. As I
have
been pointing out, until
the end of June I shall not always be in
town, so the shiurim may
be somewhat sporadic. I ask your
forgiveness, and will do
my best to post shiurim as often as I can.
June 14th 1998/Sivan 20th
5758
**************************************************************
Today's shiur is dedicated
by Sherry Fyman to the memory of her
father, Fred Fyman,
z"l, whose Yahrzeit occurs tomorrow, 21st Sivan.
**************************************************************
TRACTATE SANHEDRIN,
CHAPTER TWO, MISHNAH FOUR, PART TWO:
"He shall not have
too many women" - no more than eighteen.
Rabbi
Yehudah says that he most
certainly may have many, provided that they
do not estrange him [from
Judaism]. Rabbi Shimon says that even
one
who could estrange him is
too many and he should not take her. In
which case, why does the
Torah say "He shall not have too many women"?
- even one as [righteous
as] Abigail.
EXPLANATIONS:
1:
Our mishnah continues to
elaborate on the Torah text establishing the
ground rules for a
monarchy. The quotation which our
mishnah starts
is from Deuteronomy
17:17. I have translated
"women" rather than
"wives" since
the noun, in its Biblical usage in context, would
include all women taken
into the king's harem, be they "legitimate"
wives or what we might
call "concubines". (Though
there is one
opinion that the Biblical
term in this present context comes to
exclude
"concubines" whose number, presumably, is unlimited according
to this opinion. Since it runs counter to the tenor of the
rest of
our mishnah, I think we
can ignore it.)
2:
We must understand the
extraordinarily high number of women permitted
the king against its
historical background. In the ancient
Near-East
a large harem was
considered to be just as important to a king's
international prestige as
a large treasury and a large army.
Usually
the number of
"legitimate" (or "real") wives in the harem was only two
or three. The most prestigious of the women in the
harem was the
woman who was the mother
of the prince who was to succeed his father:
when he became king in his
own right his mother would assume the title
of "Gevirah" and
would have great power and influence.
This can not
be said of the king's
wives.
3:
There seem to be three
opinions quoted in our mishnah: that of Tanna
Kamma, that of Rabbi
Yehudah [ben-Ilai] and that of Rabbi Shimon [ben-
Yochai]. The opinion of Tanna Kamma seems to be
clear: the king may
only have up to eighteen
women in his harem. In what way the
other
two sages demur at the
view of Tanna Kamma is not clear. The
Gemara
[Sanhedrin 21a] justifies
the exact number eighteen on the basis of a
rather dubious exposition
of the number of women in King David's
harem. I rather think that the number was reached through
experience
teaching at approximately
what number the roster of women in the royal
harem would become
problematic - for whatever reason.
4:
In order to understand the
views of rabbis Yehudah and Shimon we must
re-examine the Biblical
text. The bald statement "He shall
not have
too many wives" is
explained with the phrase "that his heart not
become
estranged". This Deuteronomistic
law is obviously based on 'ex
post facto'
experience. Solomon, for instance, was
a righteous and
just king until he started
taking many women into his harem. These
women were part of peace
treaties with foreign kings. In order
to
secure the peace it was
customary to arrange marriages between the two
royal households. This means that many foreign women were
admitted
into the royal
establishment, and they, of course, would continue
their religious customs as
heretofore.
Now King Solomon loved many foreign women, including the
daughter
of the Pharaoh, Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian and
Hittite
women, women of those nations with which God had forbidden the
Israelites to intermarry "for they will definitely
estrange your
heart after their gods".
It was such women that Solomon lovingly
embraced. Seven hundred
princesses and three hundred concubines
were there in his harem, and his women did indeed estrange
him...
Solomon strayed after Astarte the goddess of the Sidonians and
after Milkom the abomination of the Ammonites... On a mountain
top facing Jerusalem Solomon built a place of worship for
Kemosh
the abomination of Moab and one for Molekh the abomination of
Ammon. He acted
similarly for all his foreign wives... [1Kings
11:1-8].
The Deuteronomistic
ambience of this passage is obvious and, as I have
indicated above, the
passage in Deuteronomy obviously reflects the
extreme disquiet that the
Solomonic experience generated in the hearts
of the sages. (Moab and Ammon were kingdoms situated in
what is now
the Hashemite Kingdom of
Jordan, and the name "Ammon" is reflected to
this day in the name of
Jordan's capital city, Amman. Sidon was
a
Canaanite city-state in
what is now the coast of Southern Lebanon.
Edom lay astride the
present border between Israel and Jordan south of
the Dead Sea and north of
the Gulf of Aqaba. The Hittite empire
was
based in what is now
Turkey.)
5:
The best way to understand
the 'machloket' [difference of opinion]
reflected in our mishnah
seems to be as follows:
Tanna Kamma is of the
opinion that up to eighteen in number the king
may take women into his
harem regardless of their religious ambience.
Rabbi Yehudah agrees with
Tanna Kamma that up to eighteen womenfolk is
the king's prerogative
regardless of their religion; but he is also of
the opinion that the king
may have even more than eighteen women in
his harem as long as there
is no danger that they will estrange him
from Judaism. Rabbi Shimon is of the opinion that the king
may not
take into his harem even
one woman whose opinions might estrange him
from Judaism and in any
event more that eighteen, "even one as
righteous as Abigail"
is prohibited. (Abigail was one of King
David's
wives.)
DISCUSSION:
Bayla Singer relates to
something we mentioned in our Shiur of June
7th:
I have heard that some
ultra-orthodox parties in today's Israel are
pressing for the
rebuilding of the Bet HaMikdash and even the
re-institution of animal
sacrifice. If the halachic order is
"appoint
a king; fight Amalek;
build the Bet HaMikdash" have I missed hearing
about a call for
appointing a king etc?
I respond:
I think I have mentioned a
couple of times already that the sages
understand the Biblical
term "king" to indicate "government", or the
"officer
administering the government". I
believe that Israel's
former Minister of
Religions, Dr Zerach Warhaftig, once said that each
member of the Knesset is
one one hundred and twentieth part of a
king.
My apologies for only
having posted one shiur last week. As I
have
been pointing out, until
the end of June I shall not always be in
town, so the shiurim may
be somewhat sporadic. I ask your
forgiveness, and will do
my best to post shiurim as often as I can.
June 17th 1998/Sivan 23rd
5758
**************************************************************
Today's shiur is dedicated
by Steve Koppel to the memory of his
father, Walter - Shimon
ben Ya'akov z"l - whose Yahrzeit was last
week.
**************************************************************
TRACTATE SANHEDRIN,
CHAPTER TWO, MISHNAH FOUR, PART THREE:
"He shall not have
too many horses" - no more than his chariots
require. "Nor shall he overly amass much silver
and gold" - just what
is sufficient for his
quartermaster's stores. He must also
write for
himself a copy of the
Torah which is to accompany him into war and
from war; it shall be with
him when he sits in judgment; when he dines
it shall be set before him
- to fulfill the verse "and it shall be
with him and he shall read
it throughout his life".
EXPLANATIONS:
1:
Our mishnah continues to
elaborate on the remaining verses of the
Torah text establishing
the ground rules for the monarchy, Deuteronomy
17:16-20 -
But he shall not have too many horses, not shall he send the
people back to Egypt for many horses, for God told you that you
would never take that road again... When he accedes to the throne
he shall write himself a copy of this Torah at the dictation of
the Levitical priests.
It shall be with him and he shall read
from it throughout his life, so that he may learn to be in awe
of
his God and to observe all the words of this Torah and to keep
all
its laws...
The obvious concern of the
Torah law against the amassing of horses is
the fear of Egypt. During the period of the first Bet Mikdash
Egypt
was the major centre for
procuring horses, especially war horses -
horses that could be
hitched up to a war chariot. The fact
that Egypt
was the leading supplier
of horses can be learned from several
Biblical references, the
clearest one probably being Ezekiel 17:15.
During most of the period
from about 1100 BCE to 700 BCE Egypt was a
backwater "has
been". It was only during the 7th
Century BCE that
Egypt enjoyed a temporary
revival and renewed her pretensions of being
a world power, challenging
Babylon for the hegemony of the Middle
East. The relationship between Judah and Egypt was
a bone of severe
contention between the
prophets and the kings. The prophets -
particularly Jeremiah -
were pro-Babylonian, probably because Jeremiah
understood that Egypt was
"Crocodile Do-nothing" [Isaiah 30:7}, that
Pharaoh was "just a
load of noise and has missed the boat" [Jeremiah
40:17], that Egypt was
"a broken reed which, if a person lean on it
for support will just
pierce his hand" [2Kings 18:21].
Almost all the
kings of the period were
anti-Babylonian and therefore looked to Egypt
for support in their
anti-Babylonian policies. It is not
surprising
then that the Torah
legislation would prohibit the kings from amassing
a large cavalry, which
would just make them even more dependent on
Egypt. Our mishnah, in interpreting the Torah's
prohibition, would
limit the government's
purchase of horses to the military needs of the
day, refusing to permit
the government to "stock pile".
To be continued:
DISCUSSION:
Christian Gunther finds a
problem with my rendering of Deuteronomy
17:14. I translated the words as: "When you
reach the land ... should
you say 'I shall appoint
me a king like all the nations around me',
you must appoint a king
over you that God chooses..."
Christian's first
question:
Does a monarchistic
movement exist among some orthodox Jews?
I respond:
Not to the best of my
knowledge. I have already indicated
that the
term 'king' is accepted
from Mishnaic times onwards as referring to
any kind of organized
government.
Christian's second point:
Why not translate the
verse "when you say"? Why use an imperative? I
think the point is the
following: If Israel says: 'I want to appoint
me a king like all the
nations around me' then Israel must leave the
choice to God.
I respond:
I have already related to
this issue. I wrote that "the
exact meaning
of this paragraph is
unclear. Some commentators [Avraham
Ibn-Ezra,
North Africa, 11th century
CE, Yitzchak Abrabanel, Spain, 15th century
CE] understand the Hebrew
"should you say..." as indicating that the
appointment of a king is
made only if the people demand it. Most
commentators, however,
read the phrase as "you should say..."
indicating that a king
must be appointed." The Hebrew
will support
either interpretation, and
many sages have decided against a
monarchical form of
government. Indeed, in his comment on
this very
verse, Yitzchak Abrabanel
[Spain, 15th Century CE] writes in glowing
colours of the glories of
a republican form of government.
(Perhaps
he knew Ferdinand and
Isabella only to well!)
Ken Kraft writes:
In your discussion you
mentioned that the passage in Deuteronomy about
the king not having too
many women reflects "the extreme disquiet that
the Solomonic experience
[referenced in 1Kings] generated in the
hearts of the
sages". I am having difficulty
understanding this
unless Devarim was written
by our Sages and not by Moshe (or at least
given to Moshe and
transcribed soon thereafter). I am
aware that
there are various theories
about when exactly Devarim (and other books
of the Torah were written)
and am I to take from your lesson that you
are of the view that
Devarim was written some time after the time of
Solomon?
I respond:
I apologize for having
penned a sentence that was too elliptic.
Of
course the sages of the
period of the Mishnah had nothing whatsoever
to do with the composition
of the book of Devarim, and no scholar has
ever dreamed of making
such a suggestion. What I meant to
write was
that the text of Devarim
reflects an extreme disquiet that the
Solomonic experience
generated, and that this disquiet finds an echo
in their interpretation of
the law.
Ken also raises the
question of the date of composition of Devarim. I
find the arguments put
forward concerning the date that Deuteronomy
was composed to be utterly
convincing and almost irrefutable (except
from the standpoint of a
theological stance). This attitude has
always been a legitimate
on within the parameters of Conservative
Judaism.
I am prepared to expatiate
on this issue if there are subscribers who
ask me to.
My apologies for not
posting shiurim as regularly as is my wont.
As I
have been pointing out,
until the end of June I shall not always be in
town, so the shiurim may
be somewhat sporadic. I ask your
forgiveness, and will do
my best to post shiurim as often as I can.
June 23rd 1998/Sivan 29th
5758
*******************************************************************
TRACTATE SANHEDRIN,
CHAPTER TWO, MISHNAH FOUR, PART THREE (recap):
"He shall not have
too many horses" - no more than his chariots
require. "Nor shall he overly amass much silver
and gold" - just what
is sufficient for his
quartermaster's stores. He must also
write for
himself a copy of the
Torah which is to accompany him into war and
from war; it shall be with
him when he sits in judgment; when he dines
it shall be set before him
- to fulfill the verse "and it shall be
with him and he shall read
it throughout his life".
EXPLANATIONS (continued):
2:
The last clause of this
part of our mishnah is concerned with the duty
of the king to possess a
personal Sefer Torah. The Torah
[Deuteronomy
31:19] commands all Jews
to "write out this song".
While the "peshat"
[obvious surface meaning]
of the word 'song' clearly refers to the
song known as
"Ha'azinu" [Deuteronomy 32:1-43], the sages amplified
the term, and took it to
refer to the whole Torah. There
certainly is
some justification for
their assumption that Moses wants the Torah to
be copied out and studied
by every individual. In Deuteronomy
31:24-
26 we find Moses making a
fair copy of the Torah before his imminent
death and depositing it
inside the Ark of the Covenant "as a witness"
- a copy against which all
other copies can be checked. The Gemara
[Eruvin 54b] gives a
colourful description of Moses teaching methods.
Aaron would study the
written text with Moses who would also give him
the unwritten explanation
that goes with it; Aaron's sons would then
be given the same lesson,
with their father "sitting in" on the
session; Aaron and his
sons would then listen as Moses gave the same
lesson to the members of
the Sanhedrin; and all of them would then
listen in as Moses gave
the same lesson to the general population.
"Thus Aaron heard
Moses teach the lesson four times, his sons three
times, the members of the
Sanhedrin twice and the whole of Israel
once. Moses would then vacate the classroom and
Aaron would teach the
same lesson to everybody
present; his sons would repeat the exercise
after their father had
left; the members of the Sanhedrin would then
teach it to the people.
Thus everybody learned the same lesson four
times" [Rambam,
Mishnah Commentary, Introduction to Seder Zera'im].
3:
It is a mitzvah for every
Jew to possess his own Sefer Torah - either
one that he has written
himself, or one that he has commissioned from
a scribe, or one that he
has inherited from his forebears.
While,
today, the cost of
commissioning a Torah is prohibitive, it is still a
great mitzvah to
participate - both financially and physically - in
the writing of a Sefer
Torah, even if the contribution is but one word
or even but one letter.
4:
The king, also, is
required to possess a personal Sefer Torah; but
unlike any other Jew he
may not make do with one that he has
inherited. He must commission his own Sefer Torah (if
he cannot write
one himself) and it must
accompany him at all times. Thus he
will
constantly be reminded
that the laws of God take precedence over any
law or regulation that he
might enact.
DISCUSSION:
On June 7th we had
occasion to mention the Passage in 1Samuel 8:11-17
in which the prophets
Samuel tries to dissuade the people from their
demand that he appoint
them a king. Albert Ringer asks:
Could it be that one
should read the text in Devarim as a paraphrase
to Shmuel 8, where the
people ask for a king and are warned against
that. In that case 'if'
should be the right translation.
I respond:
I don't see how the text
in Devarim can be a paraphrase of the text in
Samuel: they are not
saying the same thing. However we
understand the
first sentence of the
passage in Deuteronomy - command or concession -
it accepts the monarchy as
an institution that can obtain Divine
approval. This is certainly not the case in Samuel,
where the demand
for a king is depicted as ingratitude
at best and as a rejection of
God's sovereignty at
worst. The text in Samuel is trying to
prevent
the establishment of a
monarchy; the text in Deuteronomy recognizes it
as an acceptable
institution and only seeks to set the necessary
parameters around it. How can the text in the Torah be a
paraphrase
of the text in
Samuel? If Samuel would have written
the Torah he
would have framed a
completely different law: "You may not set up a
monarchy since God is your
King" - or something to that effect.
On June 17th I mentioned
Don Yitzchak Abrabanel ardently championing a
republican form of
government, and suggested that this may be because
of his too close
acquaintance of the Spanish monarchs who were his
contemporaries. Juan-Carlos Kiel writes:
I believe Abrabanel knew
Fernando and Isabel too well - he was a part
of the Court and a banker
- if my memory is still true.
I respond:
Your memory does not serve
you false! Abrabanel was Minister of
Finances to Ferdinand and
Isabella. That did not prevent his
expulsion from Spain with
the last shipload of his brethren: Sunday
August 2nd 1492. (By one of those strange twists of fate that
seem to
permeate Jewish history,
that day was Tish'a b'Av! However,
let's not
get too carried away:
Thursday July 4th 1776 was also a fast day: 17th
Tammuz!)
The response to my
"offer" to expatiate on Conservative Judaism and
Biblical Criticism has
been quite overwhelming. I shall
conclude this
chapter, and before we
continue with Chapter Three, I shall add an
excursus on the subject
that seems necessary to so many people.
As usual, my apologies for
not posting shiurim as regularly as is my
wont. As I have been pointing out, until the end
of June I shall not
always be in town, so the
shiurim may be somewhat sporadic. I ask
your forgiveness, and will
do my best to post shiurim as often as I
can. We are nearly at the end of June!
June 25th 1998/Tammuz 1st
5758
************************************************************************
Jay and Karen Slater
dedicate this shiur in honor of the Bat
Mitzvah celebration of
their daughter, Sara Rose Slater, which was
observed on June 20, 1998,
Parashat Shelach-Lecha, at Ohr Kodesh
Congregation in Chevy
Chase, Maryland.
************************************************************************
TRACTATE SANHEDRIN,
CHAPTER TWO, MISHNAH FIVE:
No one may ride on his
horse, or sit on his throne, or wield his
sceptre. He may not be looked at when having his hair
trimmed, when
undressed, or when at the
baths. When the Torah says "You
must set a
king over you" it
means that you must be in awe of him.
EXPLANATIONS:
1:
This last mishnah of
Chapter Two is very simple and straightforward.
We have had discussions on
the best contextual translation of the
Torah text instituting the
parameters of the monarchical system
[Deuteronomy
17:14-20]. We noted and discussed the
ambiguity of the
Torah's wording in the
last part of verse 14. Does the Torah
require
the establishment of the
monarchy or does it only permit the
establishment of a
monarchy? We noted that there were
medieval
commentators who took the
latter view. Here, for example, is the
comment of Or ha-Chayyim
on the phrase in question:
The phrase means that God is not commanding them to appoint a
king; but, if they so desire, they have permission to do so.
(Though he admits that the
following verse is problematic for this
interpretation.)
On the other hand, here is
part of the comment of Ramban [Moses
Nachmanides, Spain, 13th
century CE] on the verse in question:
According to the sages [Sanhedrin 20b - SR] this is as if it
read
'You must say "I shall set a king over me"': it is a
positive
commandment requiring us to say this...
However, Ramban also feels
uncomfortable with another aspect of the
text. He notes that the text of the Torah
strangely and inexplicably
adumbrates the text of
1Samuel 8:-
For why should the Torah say in connection with this mitzvah
"like
all the nations that surround us"?
which is almost quoting
verbatim the words of the people to Samuel:
"Appoint us a king to
rule over us like all the other nations [1Samuel
8:5] "But the people refused to listen to
Samuel and said, 'No! we
shall have a king over
us! We, too, shall be like all the
other
nations, and have a king
to rule us, to lead us forth to battle and to
fight our wars for
us!'" [1Samuel 8:19-20]
2:
Whichever way we choose to
understand the verses in context, Ramban is
certainly correct that the
sages understood the appointment of a king
to be a requirement
(though I have pointed out several times that the
term 'king' in this
context means 'an instrument of government').
Furthermore, our present
mishnah interprets Deuteronomy 17:15 as
requiring an attitude of
respect and awe towards the king - even
though this is certainly
not the Peshat [plain meaning] of the words
in context. Articles symbolizing royal power may not be
used by
anyone other than the king
himself - war-horse, throne, sceptre.
Also
certain situations are to
be avoided: the king may not be viewed when
he is in a situation that
could lower the onlooker's esteem for him:
when having his hair cut,
when naked, when bathing - though I cannot
imagine the king having to
cut his own hair; surely then he would
certainly look ridiculous
in a very short time!
3:
In summation, here is a
very abridged version of the relevant Halakhot
in Mishneh Torah [Rambam,
Moses Maimonides, North Africa, 12th century
CE]:-
Laws of Kings.
Chapter One.
1. Israel were commanded to do three things
upon entry into the Land:
to appoint a king..., to destroy the seed of Amalek..., and to
build the Bet Mikdash...
2. The appointment of a king must precede the
war against Amalek...
which in turn must precede the building of the Bet
Mikdash... If
the appointment of a king is required, why was God displeased
when
the people demanded one of Samuel? - Because they demanded a
king
contentiously and not in order to fulfill the commandment...
3. The king [first of a new dynasty] must be
appointed with the
concurrence of the Court of Seventy Elders and a prophet...
4. The king must be a Jew by birth [i.e. his
mother must be
Jewish]...
5. No woman may be appointed to the royal
power...
Chapter Two.
1. Great respect must be shown towards the
king, and fear and terror
of him must be instilled into the hearts of all people... No one
may ride his horse,
sit on his throne, use his sceptre, his crown
- or any other symbols of his office...
3. He may not be seen when nude, when having
his hair cut, when at
his ablutions, when toweling himself down. He may not give
"Chalitzah" ... even if he wishes to do so, for a
king is not
permitted to forego his honour. Since he may not give Chalitzah
he may not take a woman in levirate marriage...
4. When he suffers a bereavement he may not
leave his palace...
Should he enter the Inner Court of the Bet Mikdash he may sit
down
there only if he is of Davidic descent...
As usual, my apologies for
not posting shiurim as regularly as is my
wont. Until the end of June I shall not always be
in town, so the
shiurim may be somewhat
sporadic. I ask your forgiveness, and
will do my best to post
shiurim as often as I can.
July 6th 1998/Tammuz 12th
5758
****************************************************************************
******
TRACTATE SANHEDRIN,
CHAPTER TWO:
Having completed (to your
satisfaction, I hope) the promised excursus
on Biblical criticism,
prompted by our mentioning the probable date of
the composition of the
book of Deuteronomy, before continuing with
Chapter Three of our
Tractate we must relate to some of your messages
- some of which, I am
afraid, have been held pending for some time.
DISCUSSION:
Naomi Koltun-From (with
several others writing in a similar vein)
sends the following
message:
I noticed in your last
shiur, you quote the halakhot of the Mishneh
Torah [of Maimonides] on
appointing kings. Chapter 1:5 says "No woman
may be appointed to the
royal power..." Where does this come from?
I respond:
Dr Koltun-From knows what
other participants may not know, so I'll
explain first of all that
the Sifrei is a collection of Halakhic
Midrashim on the books of
Numbers and Deuteronomy. In all
probability
the collection was made in
Eretz-Israel some time before the end of
4th century CE - but the
precise date of its reduction to collated
form is immaterial to our
discussion. It reflects the traditions
of
the Tanna'im - sages whose
Halakhot are contained in the Mishnah and
its kindred works - in the
interpretation of the Torah. Sometimes
the
exposition of a verse is
long, detailed and convoluted. At other
times it is short and
terse. One such occasion is the Sifrei
on
Deuteronomy 17:15
[Parashat Shoftim, Item 14]. You will
recall that
the verses of the Torah
read:
When you reach the land ... possess it and settle it, should
you
say 'I shall appoint me a king like all the nations around me',
you must appoint a king over you that God chooses. He must be one
of your brethren and you may not appoint a non-Jew over you...
The Sifrei has one terse
comment on the phrase "You must appoint a
king over your" :
'king' and not 'queen'. (We shall
return to this
kind of exposition later
on.) This is the (sole, but sufficient)
source for Rambam's
codification of the halakhah. Most interesting
is
the continuation of
Rambam's halakhic statement:
Furthermore, all appointments to positions of authority in
Israel
can only be of men.
For this latter statement
I can not readily find a source. The
Hebrew
phrase that he uses is
obviously reminiscent of a phrase used in
connection with the
appointment of a king, to be found in the Gemara
[Yevamot 45b, Kiddushin
76b]:
"You must appoint a king over you" - all appointments
that you
make must be from among your brethren: if his mother is from
Israel he is to be considered 'from among your brethren'.
But this statement of the
Gemara is obviously dealing with the
appointment of a king
(based on the textual requirement of the Torah)
and sheds no light
whatsoever on Rambam's assumption that the
restriction of the Sifrei
applies to all positions of authority.
It would be very easy (and
very tempting) to assume that the Sifrei
and Rambam could just not
imagine a woman ruler. But that is
probably
not the case. The exclusion of women from 'positions of
authority'
was not complete, as
Rambam well knew! We can leave aside
such a
figure as Queen Salome
Alexandra, since Rambam would probably have
explained her situation as
being anomalous and that in any case the
real power lay in the
hands of her brother, Shimon ben-Shatach.
(Historically this is far
from being certain.) Nevertheless,
Rambam
knew that not having a
woman as ruler was "a custom more honoured in
the breach than in the
observance", as Shakespeare's Hamlet says.
Ramban [Moses Nachmanides,
Spain, 13th century CE], in commentary on
the Gemara [Shavu'ot 30a]
writes:
How are we to interpret the words [Judges 4:4] that "she
[Deborah]
judged Israel"? It
means that she was their leader: at her word
and on her advice they behaved themselves as if she were their
queen. Even though the
Sifrei says "'You must appoint a king over
you' - a king and not a queen", either they treated her as
if she
were a queen [i.e. knowing that she was not] or alternatively
they
accepted her [authority over them] of their own free will.
I would conclude this
mini-discussion with the somewhat wry comment
that Rambam's halakhic
statement did not prevent the ultra-orthodox
from being a part of the
government of Golda Meir z"l - and she,
surely, was the first real
"Queen of Israel" since Salome Alexandra,
holding as she did the
reins of ultimate power.
Before we leave this topic
I would redeem my indication above to
discuss the exegetical
validity of phrases such as "king, not queen".
This is a favourite ploy
of the sages, but sometimes it seems to be
rather false - as if they
were trying to use the text to prove a
conclusion already arrived
at rather than to elucidate what the text
actually intended to
say. "King and not queen" is
not the only
example of such
exegesis. When we studied Tractate
Kiddushin we noted
that a similar exegetical
method was used to exclude priestesses: "The
sons of Aaron, and not the
daughters of Aaron". When we
studied
Tractate Berakhot we noted
this same exegetical method used to exclude
women from Tefillin (and
by extension from many other mitzvot): "The
sons of Israel, and not
the daughters of Israel". The
great
subjectivity of such a
method became very clear to me when I was
pondering the issue raised
by Art Kamlet in the next item: Levirate
marriage is mandated by
the Torah in the case where a man dies
"without a son"
[Deuteronomy 25:5]. Here it would be
more than
justifiable to interpret
the Hebrew word "ben" in its narrow
connotation. And yet the sages, anxious already to reduce
the number
of instances where
Levirate marriage would be applicable, did not
hesitate to remove the
necessity of levirate marriage when the widow
has a daughter, if not a
son [Mishnah Yevamot 2:5].
Art Kamlet writes
concerning another statement of Rambam:
>>He may not
give "Chalitzah" ... even if he wishes to do so, for a
king is not permitted to
forego his honour. Since he may not
give
Chalitzah he may not take
a woman in levirate marriage... When he
suffers a bereavement he
may not leave his palace... Should he enter
the Inner Court of the Bet
Mikdash he may sit down there only if he is
of Davidic
descent...<< The Davidic
descent I assume was a
backhanded slap at the
Hasmonean kings. So why did the
mishnah,
or Rambam, stop here and
not extend the backhanded slap to
Alexander Yanni's levirate
marriage?
I respond:
I agree with Art
concerning the Hasmonean kings.
Yochanan Hyrkanos, the
nephew of Judah the Maccabee, died in the year
104 BCE. He was succeeded by his elder son, Yehudah
Aristobulos.
Yehudah was married to
Salome [Shelomzion] Alexandra, but when he died
barely a year later [103
BCE] she was presumably childless. Yehudah's
brother ascended the
throne. He was Alexander Yannai, and he
married
his childless
sister-in-law in levirate marriage. I
can recall no
instance of the sages
deploring this marriage, which was obviously not
in accord with the
prescriptions of the Mishnah. Perhaps
they
realized that Yannai would
"do his thing" regardless of their halakhic
opinion. Later in his reign this was his invariable
practice!
More of your messages next
time.
July 10th 1998/Tammuz 16th
5758
TRACTATE SANHEDRIN,
CHAPTER TWO (discussion):
Having completed the
promised excursus on Biblical criticism, before
continuing with Chapter
Three of our Tractate we must review a few
more of your messages -
some of which, I am afraid, have been held
pending for some time.
DISCUSSION (continued):
The Mishnah [TRACTATE
SANHEDRIN, CHAPTER TWO, MISHNAH FIVE] states
that "No one may ride
on his horse, or sit on his throne, or wield his
sceptre."
Concerning this respect
due to the king, Alan (or Judi) Wilenski
writes:
Reading this, I
immediately thought of Mordechai, being led through
the city on the king's
horse by Haman: "Thus shall it be done to the
one the king delighteth to
honor."
I respond:
As Alan assumes in the
continuation of his message, our mishnah is
concerned with the honour
and respect due to a king of Israel.
While
we are obviously required
to show great respect to a worthy non-Jewish
Head of State, the mitzvot
of the Torah are only concerned with a
Jewish king of Israel.
Alan continues:
Do you know of any
commentaries or references to the Book of Esther
that distinguish the two
cases?
I respond:
The only passing reference
that I have been able to find for you is
the following comment by
Avraham Ibn-Ezra [on Esther 6:8] -
Some say that Haman sensed that the king was angry at the
inclusion of the royal crown, because of the respect due to his
sovereignty. That is
why [when the king repeats Haman's orders]
he says "and give him the cloak and the horse", but
he does not
mention the crown. I, however, think that the word
"his" [and
upon his head is placed the royal crown] is qualifying the
horse.
For kings do have a particular horse upon whose head the royal
crown is set when the king rides upon it and none of the king's
servants are permitted to ride that horse. This is well known.
I don't know whether this
is what you had in mind.
Michael Simon writes:
I find this topic of
Mosaic authorship of the Torah fascinating...
Assuming this view of
Conservative Judaism is that of fluidity and the
Torah is a living
document, where do we as Conservative Jews draw the
line in interpretation or
are we free to go anywhere with our
interpretations, and if
so, how does that make us different from
Reform.<<
I respond:
I have written before, and
I shall doubtless write again, that while
each of us is entitled to
understand and interpret the Torah as his
heart prompts him, the
only understanding and interpretation of Torah
that binds us
collectively, from the practical point of view of
mitzvot, is that of the
sages and the licensed practitioners of
halakhic exegesis in every
generation. The Written Torah is not
"a
living document" if
that means that it is still developing.
It is the
Unwritten Torah that is constantly
making the Written Torah relevant
to the developing
situation of those who would observe it.
According
to Biblical Criticism it
was a living and developing document until
the time of Ezra and
Nehemiah. It no longer is. (Perhaps Michael was
using the term
"Torah" in its wider sense, including both Torot.)
Michael continues:
I know you're not getting
to this topic for a while but since you
started this Mishnah, can
you also elaborate on the concept of the
ressurection of the
dead...
I respond:
I would rather leave that
discussion until we reach Chapter Ten.
However, I have already
written somewhat on the subject during our
study of Tractate
Berakhot. When we were discussing the
Second
Berakhah of the Amidah, I
wrote on this subject at some considerable
length. Visit our website and download the shiurim
from February 3rd
to February 10th 1997.
Bill Wiesner writes:
I was reading what you
wrote about the writing of the Torah and I have
a few questions... When
and why dit the Torah stop being written in
ancient Hebrew script and
start being written in block letter Hebrew
script?
I respond:
Actually Bill asked a good
few more questions, and I shall try to find
the time [sigh] to answer
them privately, since they were not directly
concerned with our
Tractate However, Bill's question
reproduced
above, most certainly is
dealt with by our Tractate [Sanhedrin 21b],
as part of the discussion
on the Sefer Torah that every monarch was
expected to have written
for his own private use.
Mar Zutra (or possibly Mar Ukba) says that originally the Torah
was given to Israel in the Hebrew script and in the holy tongue
[Hebrew]. It was given
to them again in the days of Ezra in the
square script and in the Aramaic language. Israel chose the
square
script and the holy tongue, leaving to the lay people the
Hebrew
script and the Aramaic language. Who are the "lay people"? Rav
Chisda says that they are the Samaritans.
The "Hebrew
script" referred to here is the Canaanite Alphabet that
was adopted by the Hebrews
upon their entry into Canaan. This is
the
script in which all
documents surviving from the Biblical period were
written: the Gezer
Calendar, the Siloam Inscription, the Mesha Stele,
the Lakhish
Correspondence, and many others. (It
was this script that
the Canaanite - Phoenician
- merchant sailors taught to the Greeks.
The Greeks passed it on to
the Romans ... who passed it on to the
Western world.) The "Square script" is the Hebrew
[actually, Aramaic]
Alphabet that we now
use. Two things are worthy of note in
this
passage. Firstly, the adoption of the Aramaic
alphabet (what we now
inaccurately call the
Hebrew Alphabet) is to be dated to the time of
Ezra. Secondly, and more importantly from the
point of view of
Biblical criticism, we
have here a clear reference to "a giving of the
Torah" by Ezra. This is underpinned by the continuation of
the
passage:-
Rabbi Yosse says that Ezra was worthy enough for the Torah to
be
given to Israel through him, except that Moses came before him.
The Baraita then goes on
to elaborate on the points of coincidence
between Moses and Ezra,
culminating in these words: "even though the
Torah was not given by
him, it was changed by him".
There is still one message
outstanding that I shall have to hold over
until our next shiur, but
with our next shiur we shall begin our study
of Chapter Three.
Shabbat Shalom to
everybody.
Juan-Carlos continues:
How do we solve the
genocidal command "to destroy the seed of
Amalek..." and its
possible implications in our days?
I respond:
Amalek, as a racial,
ethnic or national entity no longer exists and
the law concerning the
physical annihilation of Amalek is defunct.
Halakhically speaking, one
would only be required to annihilate
someone whose ancestry
could be proven beyond any shadow of doubt to
be directly
Amalekite. That is impossible
today. (When people refer
to the Nazis or to
ruthless terrorists as being "Amalek", the
appellation is being used
metaphorically.)