tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081163247094703505.post3363619876638734427..comments2023-04-07T06:23:59.516-04:00Comments on Shades of Grey: Techeiles I Understand, But Mezuzah?Shades of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02733139852424935591noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081163247094703505.post-76940141727994031932010-06-14T19:57:54.720-04:002010-06-14T19:57:54.720-04:00Ariella - I seem to have offended you without mean...Ariella - I seem to have offended you without meaning to, and if so, I apologize. I'm not sure what you mean that I'm "taken by" my "melech." Rav Cohen is certainly a gadol baTorah and respected Rosh Yeshiva here at YU, but I don't really treat anyone as a "melech."<br /><br />I appreciate the expanded explanation and further research you conducted. I totally forgot that Rashi only quoted the first half of the midrash (shows I need to put more effort into Rashi during my weekly shnaim mikra v'echad targum). The overall product of your efforts do seem to fit well with my question - or perhaps it can be better said that I was partially mechaveyn (if even that) to Rashi's original discussion. The techeleis argument DOES work much better in context than the mezuzah one.<br /><br />And thank you for the expanded answer - I hope you agree that it more satisfyingly addresses the question than simply that the Torah wasn't written in order.Shades of Greyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02733139852424935591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081163247094703505.post-77625385952798080652010-06-14T19:22:54.085-04:002010-06-14T19:22:54.085-04:00OK, Shades of Grey, I know you are taken with your...OK, Shades of Grey, I know you are taken with your melech. But I see something else here. There is pshat and there is drash, and there is pshuto shel mikra. If Rashi only quotes the midrash about the techles, then he indicates that it fits into the pshuto shel mikra, which not all midrashim do. If you noticed, Rashi on the parsha's opening informs us that it nicely nidreshet but does not quote the midrashim he refers to. As the Mizrachi points out, that shows that Rashi considers the midrash there to be close to pshuto shel mikra as he defines his derech. The Levush Haroach goes on to say that the difficulty with the phrase, Vayikach Korach, cries out darsheni. <br />Anyway, I took another look at the supercommentators on Rashi and noticed that the Mizrachi refers to the mezuah argument as a parallel to the tcheles even though Rashi does not quote it. Both, of course, hint at trying to prove that a holy nation does not need designated leaders. But, I believe, that Rashi only quotes the tchelse argument because it fits the text: Korach gathered men to bolster his argument. The Midrash says he dressed them all in tcheles. Rashi quotes this because it strengthens the point about how the gathering of men was used by Korach -- to concretely demonstrate his argument. The argument about the room filled with sefarim needing a mezuzah is the same concept but does not fit in with the narrative of Korach bringing in the men he gathered. That is why Rashi does not refer tot he mezuahAriella's bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09409352047101582583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081163247094703505.post-46738710554149422882010-06-14T16:08:38.319-04:002010-06-14T16:08:38.319-04:00Shmuel - Both Rav Cohen and Rav Simon said similar...Shmuel - Both Rav Cohen and Rav Simon said similar things in their Divrei Torah (and Rav Cohen quoted the MaHaRal, I believe). While that works thematically, it also was part of the reason I had the question in the first place. It doesn't answer my textual issue, hence I like Rav Cohen's later answer better.<br /><br />Ariella - so that may be further reason to promote my question. Your answer, though, is the one I wanted to avoid because it side-steps the whole issue (no offense intended). I addressed that possibility in the post itself: <br /><br />"True, my question could easily be answered by saying that the entire Torah was given/taught at/from Sinai, but that just side steps the issue without giving it any real thought."Shades of Greyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02733139852424935591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081163247094703505.post-69607595848437456382010-06-14T13:15:32.421-04:002010-06-14T13:15:32.421-04:00Rashi only quotes the argument about techles. As ...Rashi only quotes the argument about techles. As the Torah is not recounted in order, it is possible that both mitzvahs were told to Yisrael before this incident.Ariella's bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09409352047101582583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7081163247094703505.post-14164847780454696702010-06-14T12:31:23.403-04:002010-06-14T12:31:23.403-04:00Very nice answer from Rav Cohen...
I'd also l...Very nice answer from Rav Cohen...<br /><br />I'd also like to suggest another answer:<br /><br />The MaHaRaL explains that these two cases (techelet and mezuza) were meant to bolster Korach's campaign. The thread of techelet represented Divine service while the mezuza represented Torah study, which are epitomized by Aharon HaKohen and Moshe Rabbeinu, respectively.<br /><br />Assuming that Moshe would answer his query in the negative (i.e. that a garment comprised of techelet does not need tzitzit, etc.), Korach would use this as damning evidence that a holy nation does not need religious leadership of any kind.<br />Naturally, Moshe answered the opposite, to show that even a holy people needs a separate leader.Shmuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08623549507370220071noreply@blogger.com