A Weighty and Awe-Inspiring Inquiry into the Law of a Tam Ox that Gored on a “Triple Purim” (Column 373)
We find in the holy work “Write It Upon the Horn of the Ox,” in the section “The Mu’ad Ox for Every Living Being,” with the mnemonic “BNoT Tza’adah ‘al YeshuR TaM,” that a novel question arose: the law of a tam (non-habitual) ox that gored three times over the three days of a Triple Purim. And the simpleton (the tam) rolled on the ground before his teachers, asking whether in such a case this counts as having become established (mu’ad) with respect to its owner or not. There he cited the foremost of the greats, the author of A Triple Ram with Equal Shanks (an “isosceles” triangle-pun; attributed to our master Parshandata the Agagite), who held that this is considered like three gorings in one day. But in A Right-Angled Triple Heifer (the Luvistha al Atzitz, nicknamed “our master, the Master of the Exile”), he disagreed and wrote that these are three separate gorings on three separate days. And as is well known, questions multiplied in every generation regarding this grave law, and there was no carpenter to take them apart—until I, the lowly one, girded myself like a man of valor and said to my soul: “Live, and we shall pass over, and I shall chart a course through the sea and a path through mighty waters,” until the verse was fulfilled in me, “A bird did not chirp,” and a vision we did not hear save for a voice; and likewise, “All the king’s servants who were in the king’s gate bowed down and prostrated themselves”—and rightly so. And this is my beginning, with God’s help.
At first glance, my expansive mind thought that this law surely depends on whether the three days of a Triple Purim are considered one long day or as three distinct days. For if they are all like one day, it seems obvious that the law follows our master, the author of A Triple Ram, that there is no hoda’ah (establishment as mu’ad) here and the owner pays half-damages. But if they are like three days, then it is proper as written by “Maran the Master of the Exile” that the ox has become mu’ad with its owner “from yesterday and the day before,” and he must pay full damages. All Israel saw the voices, and to the hearing of the ear our soul pined away; the entire world was astonished as one at the words issuing from the mouth of one like the High Priest emerging from the Holy of Holies. And after the astonishment ended, there came a precious light and a frost, and the Lord was not in the noise. Suddenly, fine words came out of my mouth on this sugya; under my feet it became like “a pavement of sapphire,” all my words like bright light, and beneath the wings of the Shekhinah I, the lowly “holy one,” shone and gave light. The wall was breached and the city roared—who is the one whose heart emboldened him to come after the great man, and to whom the scepter was not extended, whose single law would be to be put to death? And he shall not come before the king in sackcloth—unless he is one whose wisdom is in the spindle (that is, a woman).
At the outset, my humble and lofty opinion inclined to preface what our sages disputed regarding that triple phrase in the Covenant Between the Parts, where the Merciful One said: “And He said to him: Take for Me a heifer, meshuleshet (tripled), and a she-goat, meshuleshet, and a ram, meshulesh, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” All our rabbis were bewildered and struck with their staffs over this triple-ness upon triple-ness: what is the matter with this “triple” in triplicate? Rashi there explains: “A ‘tripled heifer’—three heifers, a hint to the three bulls: the bull of Yom Kippur, the bull for a communal error, and the heifer whose neck is broken.” And so too Onkelos the proselyte writes: “Bring before Me three heifers and three goats and three rams and a turtledove and a young pigeon.” We learn that according to these authorities, “a tripled heifer” means three heifers. But the Targum attributed to Yonatan there disagrees: “Bring before Me a heifer three-years-old, a goat three-years-old, and a ram three-years-old, and a turtledove and a young pigeon.” We see that, according to him, “a tripled heifer” is a single heifer, three years old. (Some have omitted here that the two heifers and the rams were consumed by the holy fire of Yonatan ben Uzziel, and therefore we rise to his single opinion.) Both interpretations are also brought by R. Avraham Ibn Ezra: “‘A tripled goat’—some say three goats; what seems correct to me is a goat three years old.”
Accordingly, it would appear that regarding Triple Purim these two interpretations also apply: per Rashi and the Proselyte (Onkelos), it seems that it denotes three separate days (for why should Triple Purim differ from a tripled heifer? And should you say that a heifer is female and, as is known, we minimize mention of females out of modesty—that is not so, for it also mentions a “tripled ram”). But per Targum Yonatan, it seems to be one Purim spanning three days (a “fat Purim,” as it were). Indeed, it seems like Pharaoh’s dream—one fat day swallowed up those three lean days.
True, one might challenge this proof from the rule (Avodah Zarah 58b; Chullin 137b) that “the language of the Torah is one thing and the language of the Sages another,” and one should not bring proof from the “tripled” of Scripture (ox, heifer) to the “Triple” of Purim in the language of the Sages. And even if prophecy was taken from the prophets, it was not taken from the sages, I still wondered: perhaps “triple” in rabbinic idiom means something else than “tripled” in Scripture. So I set my heart to tour in wisdom and to search and burrow in the words of the Sages and their riddles—“let us search out our ways and investigate.” And the Lord prospered my way, and the beki’ut (breadth) I received in the tradition from our master the Shakh (of blessed towering memory) helped me align with the truth of Torah. The wise at that time shall keep silent—and make himself as a footstool to my feet—lest he eat from the red, red stew; and “holy” shall be said of him—“Who is this that comes from Edom?”
Behold, in the sugya of Tashlumei Ta’anit (make-up fasts) in Ta’anit 12b we find: “R. Yehoshua son of R. Idi came to the house of Rav Assi; they prepared for him an ‘‘egla tilta’.” Likewise in Chullin 133a, Shabbat 11a, Sanhedrin 65b (and 67b), Eruvin 63a, and elsewhere. All those “‘egla tilta” are clearly the Sages’ idiom corresponding to Scripture’s “tripled heifer.” And happy is he whose eyes the Lord enlightens—I saw, and behold, a well of water. Rashi on Shabbat 11a explains: “Third of the womb—this is the best, for when the animal is young it is not yet strong, and the first and second offspring are not robust.” But on Eruvin 63a he explains: “It has grown a third (of its full growth), and then its meat has reached its prime flavor; as we learned (Bava Metzia 68a): ‘One may raise them until they are meshulashim (one-third grown),’ and we also say (there 69a): ‘The third’s increase—toward your wage,’ showing that its normal growth goes until a third; another explanation: third of the womb. But this is difficult given what is said elsewhere (Sanhedrin 65b): R. Ḥanina and R. Oshaia studied Sefer Yetzirah, and every eve of Shabbat they would create for themselves an ‘‘igla tilta.’ There, what ‘third of the womb’ is there?—it was never in a womb!”
It seems his conclusion is “grown a third,” not “third of the womb.” This apparently does not align with his earlier explanation for “tripled heifer,” but, as noted, the language of the Sages is one thing and the language of the Torah another—no need to lengthen. See also Rashi to Sanhedrin 65b s.v. ‘igla tilta. True, Tosafot in Gittin 56a wrote that it comes from the verse “and thirty over all of it,” meaning: robust and good.
Be that as it may, it appears all mean one thing: an “‘egla tilta” is a particularly fat and good calf. In several places it is pronounced ‘igla tilta rather than ‘egla, and perhaps there is some difference—still requires investigation.
We thus have in hand, with the help of Heaven, that “tripled” in the language of the Sages differs from the language of the Torah; from this we ascend and descend to conclude that “Triple Purim” is not one long day and not three days either, but rather a day that is fat and good. Yet we may reconcile the Sages’ idiom with Scripture’s idiom so they align with the Ineffable Name, and then “the Lord will be King and His name One.” For it is obvious that a “long day” is a fat and good day; thus Triple Purim is indeed like one long day—namely, a “fat” day (within which lie three days, and “three nations will issue from its bowels”)—and it is good.
Now, out of wine vapors—even though they have not yet come into the world—there rose in my mind an earth-shaking novelty in a weighty sugya in tractate Megillah: perhaps the incident that Rabbah arose and slaughtered R. Zeira at the Purim feast (Megillah 7b) occurred on a Triple Purim; and because of R. Zeira’s girth (for which he needed to fast a hundred fasts upon ascending to the Land, Bava Metzia 85a, otherwise his flesh would not withstand the travails of the road), Rabbah deemed him an ‘egla tilta, and therefore slaughtered him for the Purim feast. From here I also thought to find a hint that the Fast of Esther is from the Torah: she too needed to sit in fasting, to diet, so that the explicit verse would be fulfilled in her—“and Esther donned royalty” (i.e., it should fit).
Yet there is still room to deliberate: in a Triple Purim, the halakhah is that the feast is held only on the third day (which is Sunday), as it is said, “On the third day [after the diet] Esther donned royalty”; whereas the Megillah is read on the first day (Friday). Thus we see that Triple Purim becomes fat and good only on the third day (at the feast). How, then, can all the days of Triple Purim be called one fat and good day? We are forced to say that the three days of Triple Purim are like one long day; and its end proves its beginning—for if at its end it is fat and good, it proves that all of it is deemed fat and good. And as is fitting to say (Bava Metzia 17b): “Were it not that you lifted up the potsherd, you would not have found the pearl beneath it.”
As stated in my holy words above, a great practical difference lies under that pearl beneath the potsherd. For behold, we are fortunate to address the law of a tam ox that gored on the three days of a Triple Purim; we conclude that it remains a tam in all respects, and the owner pays half-damages—so that they will guard his ox (pun on lintri le-toré). Thus wrote the author of A Triple Ram above. Yet if so, the words of the author of A Tripled Heifer are puzzling, for he maintained the ox becomes mu’ad. But here we see that it is proven that these days are one long day, and this ox is like one that gored three times in a single day—how then would it become mu’ad?!
It is true that this law hangs on the Tannaitic dispute regarding three gorings in one day—R. Meir and R. Yehudah (Bava Kamma 23b–24a), and both are “the words of the living God.” Perhaps we could propose that the author of A Tripled Heifer follows R. Meir, who says there is establishing even within one day (“if spacing his gorings makes him liable, then if he closes the intervals between the gorings—how much more so”). But if you will challenge me, challenge thus: the halakhah is established by all the decisors like R. Yehudah, that with three gorings in one day, it does not become mu’ad—a difficulty. And do not answer me from the Tuv Ta’am VaDa’at (Orach Ḥayyim 114) in the name of Maharam of Rothenburg, who ruled like R. Meir; for Maran, the master of that holy place, already struck him on the head regarding this, and this is not the place to expand. Rather, prima facie we may say that our Tripled Heifer master holds that in our case even R. Yehudah would agree it becomes mu’ad; for although, legally, these three days have the law of one day, nonetheless in fact they were three separate days, and for the matter of establishing (hoda’ah) we follow the reality, not the legal fiction.
After reviewing the chapter a hundred and one times, I saw yet another reconciliation, based on what Maran R. Kook wrote in Pri Etz Hadar: among gentiles we follow the empirical reality, whereas among Jews we follow the halakhah (regarding a twitching carcass—whether it is considered alive or properly slaughtered). If so, we could say that we are locating the words of the Baal ha-Golah in a case where a Jew’s ox gored a gentile’s ox; therefore, with respect to its becoming mu’ad we follow reality, not the legal status. True, the halakhah is that we judge them by our laws whenever they would thereby lose, for “her ways are ways of pleasantness and all her paths are guile,” and here a mu’ad ox pays full damages—this would be a stringency for the son of the covenant and a leniency for the son of Noah; this still requires great analysis.
Yet all this must be weighed by reason: why does R. Yehudah hold that it does not become mu’ad in a single day? Because we can ascribe its gorings to a special natural cause—that perhaps its propensity to gore was only on that day; therefore, it does not become mu’ad for all days. If so, in Triple Purim, even though in fact there were three days, and even if we follow reality rather than legal status, we can still attribute all its gorings to the cause of Purim (perhaps that righteous ox gores only on a fat and good day). Like a woman who sees blood on the monthly veset date—we attribute it to the calendar set by the court. Consequently, the ox would not become mu’ad for all days. According to our approach, however, it would become mu’ad for the days of Purim each year (and some say: only for Triple Purim days). And once more we can revisit Rabbah’s slaughtering of R. Zeira—perhaps he saw him as an ‘egla tilta and slaughtered him, holding like R. Eliezer in Reish ha-Kones that there is no guarding except with a knife—and that is clear.
But we have already learned from our master the Shakh (the aforementioned “master of beki’ut”) Yoreh De’ah 189:13, that “the heart of kings and princes is in the hand of the Lord,” and nature is given to the sages to rule over—“the righteous decrees and the Holy One… is astonished and amazed.” For we hold that a girl of three years has her virginity restored; and in the Jerusalem Talmud (Ketubot) it says that if half a month passes, her virginity returns—“a girl of three is like a girl of zero with respect to sin.” As is known, they bring there the verse “I call to God Most High, to God Who accomplishes it for me.” And who will come before the King?—“Who are kings? The rabbis.” If so, from the moment the sages established Triple Purim to be one day, it becomes, in actual reality, one day; and consequently, even per R. Yehudah, the ox would not become mu’ad in our case. Yet one who understands the words of sages and their riddles will see that the words of the Tripled Heifer—all words of received tradition and prophecy—still require analysis.
In the margins of my words it seemed that if we are dealing with an ox that gored a gentile’s ox, we should bring our bread from afar and attach this to that law called in foreign tongue “incarnation” (a notarikon: ein keren etzel menatzim—“there is no horn among the deniers”). There we find that our rabbis, the twelve emissaries (of sainted memory), counted and concluded that among the gentiles there are three that are one (cf. “wisdom among the nations—believe”). (Although one must still discuss who is “the father,” who is “the son,” and who is “the holy spirit.” Perhaps the first day of Triple Purim is the “holy spirit,” crying out: “Woe to the children who have been exiled from their Father’s table!”) If so, Triple Purim is properly one day, and the ox does not become mu’ad, for its three gorings were on one day, and the owner is clean (pays half). In this way we also “beat the gentiles with their own law,” leaving for ourselves half their property—lest that righteous one say: “He fulfilled ‘they enslaved and afflicted them,’ but did not fulfill ‘afterwards they shall go out with great wealth’”—so we fulfilled at least “with half the wealth.” Thus all our ways are pleasantness and peace, and His great name is sanctified in the world by those who think upon and fear His name.
It is true that we find a dispute between Copenhagen and my lowly self (the “holy one”) in that creed: whether those three are truly one or not—akin to saying, “Let it be as a Tannaic dispute” like those authorities of A Triple Ram and A Tripled Heifer. At least according to the Baal DeBavi, who holds that all three truly have the law of one day (though he, according to his way, saw therein a heresy), it is obvious that so it is for us too—shall a priest’s daughter be as a tavern-keeper?! For we hold there is nothing that is forbidden to a son of Noah yet permitted to an Israelite (Sanhedrin 59a).
We have merited the ruling that Triple Purim is literally one day; the goring ox remains a tam; and even the words of the tam (simpleton) are not completed—from world to world. Behold, my words are like fire and like a hammer shattering rock; and my light shall ever shine forth. May this Purim be like the prophecy of a seer: “A voice of joy” shall be heard in this house, and a sound of tumult—from the Torah, whence? And it shall be like the voice of Shaddai, filled with the words of the living God. A day robust and fat—let us say, Amen. A day on which our sins will end and our travails cease; a day when health will dwell in all the work of our hands. And regarding the people of the Sharon region, he would say: “May their oxen become steaks upon their tables.” And may all their days be like one day, and may all come to serve Him, and the nations say, “There is none besides Him.” Hoshana—grass from their rock—and their memory shall not cease from their seed.
Contents of the article
With God’s help.
A Weighty and Awesome Inquiry into the Law of an Innocuous Ox that Gored on Triple Purim
We find in the sacred work Write for Yourselves upon the Horn of the Ox, in the section ‘An Ox Forewarned against Every Living Creature,’ with the mnemonic ‘the maidens tread upon the innocent ox,’ that a new matter was brought up for discussion, namely the law of an innocuous ox that gored three times on the three days of Triple Purim. There he debated, prostrate upon the ground before his teachers, whether in such a case the ox is considered established as dangerous to its owner or not. See there, where he cites the great master, author of The Isosceles Triple Ram (attributed to my teacher Parshandata the Agagite), who held that this is like three gorings on one day; but the commentary The Right-Angled Triple Heifer (Levizata on a Flowerpot, known as our master the Lord of the Wagon) disagrees and writes that these are three gorings on three days. And as is well known, perplexities over this severe matter have multiplied through the generations, and there is no craftsman nor son of a craftsman to untie them, until I, the humble holy one, girded my loins like a man and said to myself: arise, let us cross over, and make a path in the sea and a way through mighty waters—until there was fulfilled in me the verse, ‘No bird chirped,’ and though the appearance is not seen we hear only a voice; and there was also fulfilled, ‘All the king’s servants who are at the king’s gate kneel and bow,’ and justly so. This is my beginning, with God’s help.
At first glance, my expansive mind assumed that this law surely depends on whether these three days of Triple Purim are one extended day or count as three separate days. For if they are all one day, it seems obvious that the law follows our master the author of The Isosceles Triple Ram: there is no establishment as dangerous here, and he pays half damages. But if they are indeed three days, then the Lord of the Wagon was correct in writing that the ox was already established as dangerous to its owner ‘since yesterday and the day before,’ and he is liable for full damages. All Israel saw the thunderings, and at the hearing of the ear, did not our soul ache? The whole world stood astonished for a moment at what issued from my mouth, like the High Priest emerging from the Holy of Holies. And after the desolation ended, a precious light and stillness came; not in the earthquake was the Lord. Suddenly fine words on this subject came forth from my mouth, beneath my feet there was something like sapphire brickwork, all my words shone with clear light, and beneath the wings of the Divine Presence I, the holy one, gleamed and radiated. The wall was breached and the whole city was thrown into uproar: who is this, and where is he, whose heart filled him to come after the magnate, to whom the scepter was not extended and whose one law is to be altered? No one may again come before the king in sackcloth, unless it be one whose wisdom is in the distaff—that is, if she is a woman.
And at first it seemed to my humble yet exalted judgment that this could be approached by way of the dispute among our sages regarding that tripling in the covenant between the pieces, for the Merciful One said: ‘He said to him: Take for Me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old she-goat, and a three-year-old ram, and a turtledove and a young pigeon’ (Gen. 15:9). All our masters were bewildered by it and hacked away at it with their axes: what is the point of this repeated threefoldness? Rashi there explained: ‘A triple heifer—three heifers, an allusion to the three bulls: the bull of the Day of Atonement, the bull brought for an erroneous ruling of the community, and the heifer whose neck is broken.’ So too Onkelos the Convert rendered: ‘And He said to him: Bring before Me three calves, three goats, three rams, and a dove and a young pigeon.’ We learn that according to these great authorities, ‘a triple heifer’ means three heifers. But the Targum attributed to Yonatan disagrees and writes: ‘And He said to him: Take sacrificial offerings for Me and bring before Me a heifer three years old, a ram three years old, a goat three years old, and a dove and a young pigeon.’ Thus, according to him, ‘a triple heifer’ is one heifer three years old. Some have cast aspersions on him over the omission of the other two heifers and two rams, which, they say, were burned by the holy fire of Yonatan ben Uzziel; therefore we follow his view only on this one point. Both explanations are also cited there by R. Abraham Ibn Ezra: ‘A triple she-goat—some say three goats; but what seems right to me is: three years old.’
Accordingly, it would seem that with Triple Purim as well, these two interpretations may be said. According to Rashi and Onkelos, its meaning appears to be three separate days—for what difference is there between Triple Purim and a triple heifer? And if you say that a heifer is female, and as is known one must reduce the number on the female side for reasons of modesty, that is no argument, for the text also teaches ‘a triple ram.’ But according to Targum Yonatan, it would appear that it is one Purim three days long—a fat Purim. In truth, it resembles Pharaoh’s dream: one fat and well-fleshed day came and swallowed those three lean days.
To be sure, this proof may be questioned, for we maintain (see Avodah Zarah 58b and Hullin 137b) that the language of the Torah has its own usages and the language of the Sages has its own usages; thus one cannot infer from the triple ram and triple heifer of Scripture to the Triple Purim of rabbinic language. And though, if prophecy was taken from the prophets, it was not taken from the Sages, I still wondered whether ‘threefold’ in the language of the Sages might be understood differently from the ‘threefold’ of Scripture. So I set my heart to seek with wisdom, to search and probe the words of the Sages and their riddles, as it is said: ‘Let us search and examine our ways.’ And the Lord prospered my way, and the erudition that I received by tradition from our master the Shakh, of sainted memory, helped me direct my aim to the truest truth of Torah; and the intelligent at that time will be silent and make himself a footstool for my feet, lest he eat of the red, red stuff, and the holy one say of him, ‘Who is this coming from Edom?’
For in the discussion of making up a fast, in Ta’anit 12b, we find: ‘Rav Yehoshua the son of Rav Idi came to the house of Rav Asi; they prepared for him an igla tilta.’ And so too in Hullin 133a, Shabbat 11a, Sanhedrin 65b (and 67b), Eruvin 63a, and elsewhere. It is obvious that all these instances of igla tilta are the language of the Sages corresponding to the ‘triple heifer’ of Scripture. Happy is the one to whom the Lord gives light to the eyes, for I looked and behold, a well of water. For on Shabbat 11a Rashi explained: ‘Third from the womb, which is superior, because while the animal is still young it has not yet reached its strength, and the first and second offspring are not robust.’ But in Eruvin 63a he explained: ‘It had grown a third, and then its meat stands at its best flavor, as we learned (Bava Metzia 68a): “They raise them until they become threefold,” and we also say there (Bava Metzia 69a): “A third surplus shall be your wage”—from which it is clear that its ordinary condition is at one-third growth. Another explanation: third from the womb. But this is difficult for me from what is said elsewhere (Sanhedrin 65b): Rav Hanina and Rav Oshaya would engage in Sefer Yetzirah, and every Sabbath eve they created for themselves an igla tilta—for there, what could “third from the womb” mean, seeing that it had never been in a womb at all?’ It appears that his conclusion is that it means one that had grown a third, not third from the womb. At first glance, this does not follow his own view above regarding the triple heifer; but, as explained, the language of the Sages is a separate matter, and there is no need to prolong the discussion. See also Rashi to Sanhedrin 65b, s.v. ‘igla tilta.’ To be sure, Tosafot on Gittin 56a wrote that the term derives from the expression ‘and thirty over all of it,’ meaning healthy and fine.
But apart from that, it seems that all of them were aiming at one point: igla tilta means a fat and fine calf. Yet in several places it is called eigla tilta and not egla tilta; perhaps the two are not the same, and the matter still requires investigation.
We have thus established, with God’s help, that ‘threefold’ in the language of the Sages differs from its usage in the Torah. From this we ascend and descend to the conclusion that Triple Purim is neither one extended day nor three separate days, but rather a fat and good day. Even so, one can reconcile the language of the Sages with the language of Scripture so that they accord together with the Divine Name, and then the Lord shall be king and His name one. For it is obvious that an extended day is a fat and good day, and therefore Triple Purim can indeed be like one extended day: a fat day—for it contains three days within it, and three peoples shall be separated from its bowels—and a good one.
And now, from the vapors of the wine—even though they have not yet come into the world—a startling novelty occurred to me regarding the grave passage in tractate Megillah. Perhaps Rabbah, who rose and slaughtered Rabbi Zeira at the Purim feast, did so on Triple Purim; and because of Rabbi Zeira’s size—for that is why he had to undertake a hundred fasts when he went up to the Land (see Bava Metzia 85a), for otherwise his flesh would not have withstood the hardships of the journey—they took him for an igla tilta, and therefore slaughtered him for the Purim meal. It also occurred to me that from here there is a scriptural hint to the Fast of Esther, for she too needed to sit in fasting and go on a diet so that the explicit verse might be fulfilled in her: ‘And Esther clothed herself with royalty’ (Est. 5:1), and this is obvious.
Yet there is still more to discuss here. For regarding Triple Purim, we maintain that the festive meal is held only on the third day, which is Sunday, as it is said: ‘And on the third day, after the diet, Esther clothed herself with royalty’ (cf. Est. 5:1), even though the Megillah is read on the first day, which is Friday. We thus see that Triple Purim becomes fat and good only on the third day of Purim, at the time of the meal. How then can all the days of Triple Purim be called a fat and good day? Of necessity, the three days of Triple Purim are like one extended day, and its end proves its beginning: if at its end it is fat and good, that demonstrates that the whole of it is considered fat and good. Of this it is fitting to say (Bava Metzia 17b): ‘Had I not lifted the shard for you, you would not have found the pearl beneath it.’
As stated in my holy words above, there is a major practical implication to this pearl lying under the shard. For we have been privileged to discuss the case of an innocuous ox that gored on the three days of Triple Purim, and we conclude that it remains an innocuous ox in every respect, and its owner pays half damages so that people will guard their oxen, in accordance with the words of the author of The Isosceles Triple Ram mentioned above. According to this, however, the words of the author of The Right-Angled Triple Heifer are exceedingly difficult, for he holds that it is a habitual ox; yet we clearly see here that these days are one extended day, and this ox is like one that gored three times on a single day—so how could it become established as dangerous?!
True, this law depends on the dispute of the holy tannaitic sages, famed and renowned, regarding three gorings on one day. As is well known, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah disagree on this point (Bava Kamma 23b-24a), and both are the words of the living God. Perhaps, then, one may explain that the author of The Right-Angled Triple Heifer follows the view of Rabbi Meir, who holds that dangerous status can be established even in a single day: if one is liable where the gorings were spread out, all the more so where they were brought close together. But if there is a difficulty, this is the difficulty: as a matter of law, all the decisors have ruled decisively like Rabbi Judah, that three gorings on one day do not render the ox dangerous. And do not answer me from the words of the Tur, Orah Hayyim 114, in the name of Maharam of Rothenburg, who derived practical law from Rabbi Meir’s view, for the master of this holy site has already struck him on the crown of the head over this, and this is not the place to elaborate. At first glance, however, one may say that our master the author of The Right-Angled Triple Heifer holds that in our case even Rabbi Judah would agree that the ox becomes dangerous, because although legally these three days have the status of one day, in actual reality they are still three days. And with respect to establishing dangerous status, we follow reality rather than formal law.
After reviewing my lesson one hundred and one times, I saw that there is still a way to resolve the matter, following what our master Rav Kook wrote in Pri Etz Hadar: among gentiles we follow reality, but among Jews we follow the law, with regard to whether a convulsing animal is considered alive or slaughtered. If so, one may well say that the Lord of the Wagon was speaking of a Jewish ox that gored a gentile’s ox, and therefore, in determining whether it becomes dangerous, we indeed follow reality rather than law. True, as a matter of law we rule that they are judged by our law when they would otherwise lose from it, as it is said, ‘Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are deceit.’ But here a habitual ox pays full damages; this is a stringency for the member of the covenant and a leniency for the son of Noah, and the matter requires great investigation.
But there is much to discuss in all this, for go after the reason. Why does Rabbi Judah hold that an ox does not become dangerous in one day? Because one may attribute its gorings to the special circumstances of its nature—perhaps it happens to be inclined to gore on that particular day, and for that reason it is not established as dangerous for all days. If so, the same is true of Triple Purim: even though in actuality these are three days, and even though we follow reality rather than formal law, one may still attribute all its gorings to the cause of Purim itself—perhaps that righteous ox gores only on a fat and good day—just as in the case of a woman who sees blood on her monthly date, where we attribute it according to the calendar date fixed by the court. Hence here too the ox does not become dangerous for all days. According to our approach, however, in such a case it would become dangerous for the days of Purim each year—and some say, only for the days of Triple Purim. This again allows us to explain the passage about Rabbah slaughtering Rabbi Zeira: perhaps he appeared to him like an igla tilta, and Rabbah slaughtered him because he held like Rabbi Elazar in the chapter Ha-Kones, that for such a creature there is no guarding it except with a knife. This is obvious.
But now we have already learned from our master the Shakh, the master of the aforesaid erudition, in Yoreh De’ah 189:13, that the hearts of kings and nobles are in God’s hand, and nature itself was given to the sages to govern, in the aspect of ‘the righteous decrees and the Holy One, blessed be He, stands astonished and aghast.’ For it is established that in a girl of three years, virginity returns; and in the Jerusalem Talmud, Ketubbot, it is stated that if the court intercalated the month, then her virginity returns, so that a girl of three becomes like a girl of zero with respect to sin. As is known, the verse brought there is: ‘I call to God Most High, to God who completes for me’ (Ps. 57:3). And who is it that comes before the king? Who are kings? The sages. Accordingly, from the moment the sages fixed Triple Purim as a single day, it was transformed into one day in actual reality. Hence, according to Rabbi Judah as well, the ox does not become dangerous in our case either. But whoever can understand the words of the Sages and their riddles will see that the words of The Right-Angled Triple Heifer—whose every word is received tradition and prophetic speech—still remain exceedingly difficult.
At the margin of my words, it seemed to me that if we are dealing with an ox that gored a gentile’s ox, we may bring our bread from afar and make this law depend on that doctrine called in the vernacular incarnation, an acronym for: ‘there is no horn among the blasphemers.’ For there we find that our rabbis, the twelve apostles of sainted memory, took a vote and concluded that among the gentiles three are one, in keeping with the principle ‘If one tells you there is wisdom among the nations, believe it.’ Though one may still discuss who is the Father, who the Son, and who the Holy Spirit. Perhaps the first day of Triple Purim is itself the Holy Spirit, crying out and saying: ‘Woe to the children who have been exiled from their Father’s table.’ According to this, Triple Purim is indeed one single day, and therefore the ox does not become dangerous, since its three gorings took place on one day; and the owner of the ox is clear—meaning, he pays half damages. In this way we have also neatly beaten the gentiles by their own law and left half their money in our hands—so that that righteous man may not say: the words ‘and they enslaved them and afflicted them’ were fulfilled for them, but the words ‘and afterward they shall go out with great wealth’ were not fulfilled for them, only ‘with half the wealth.’ Thus all our ways are pleasantness and peace, and His great name is sanctified in the world through those who think upon and fear His name.
True, we find a dispute between Copenhagen and myself, the holy one, regarding the aforementioned doctrine of the sectarians: are those three really one or not? This is in the category of: let us say that it depends on the dispute of those great authorities, The Triple Ram and The Triple Heifer. At least according to the author of Devavei, who holds that for them all three are literally one day—although according to his own view he perceived a difficulty in it—it is perfectly obvious that for us as well it must be so. For shall a priestess be no better than an innkeeper?! For we maintain that there is nothing forbidden to a Noahide that is permitted to an Israelite (see Sanhedrin 59a).
We have thus merited the ruling that Triple Purim is one day in the plain sense, and the goring ox remains an innocuous ox. Here the words of Tam come to an end, though the matter is not complete, from world to world. Surely my words are like fire and like a hammer that shatters; and my light too shall sparkle forever. May this Purim be, as in the prophecy of a seer-prophet, a time when in this house there will be heard the sound of joy and the sound of a multitude—where is this derived from in the Torah?—like the voice of the Almighty filled with the words of the living God. A healthy and fat day; and let us say: Amen. A day on which our sins may end and our troubles cease, a day on which health may dwell in all the work of our hands. And concerning the people of Sharon one would say: may it be God’s will that their oxen become steaks upon their table. May all their days be as one day, and may all come to serve Him, and may the nations say: there is none beside Him. Save, O grass, from their crag, and may their memory not cease from their seed.
Discussion
With God’s help, 13 Adar 5781
I saw the distinguished inquiry, but I did not merit to understand how an “inquiry” is relevant to a tam ox. After all, if it is a tam, then it is far removed from “inquiries,” and it follows that an inquiry about a tam ox is an “oxymoron”: if it is an “ox,” then it does not issue halakhic rulings, and if it does issue rulings—then it is not an “ox.” This requires great study.
With blessings, Yehoshua Heshel Shor
I am greatly astonished at you, R. Yehoshua Heshel, for if we are going to this extent in raising difficulties against the homily, then he should have raised a much greater difficulty in the precise wording of the matter. For according to all the approaches, he explained expansively that Rabbah slaughtered Rabbi Zeira because he appeared to him like an egla tilta—that is, for the Purim meal; or because it was a forewarned ox and its guarding was with a knife. But according to the final interpretation, that “the righteous decrees and the Holy One, blessed be He, fulfills,” then tilta is as one, and the ox is a tam ox; so why did he slaughter him? Rabbi Zeira is as great as tilta, whereas an egla tilta is only as one—so how did he appear to him thus? This requires great study. And granted, if this is pilpul in the manner of derash, we do not raise objections. But according to you, R. Heshel, who do raise objections—why then does this enormous difficulty not trouble you, a difficulty standing before you like Tabor among the mountains? I am amazed. In my humble opinion it seems that according to this approach it fits even better: Rabbah, “the righteous decrees” Rabbi Zeira, and the Holy One, blessed be He, fulfills and restores him to life. This is clear to one who understands.
With God’s help, 13 Adar 81
The inquiry whether a “triangular calf” is one fat calf or three calves also has a theological implication: should one create a fat theology in one volume, or is a lean theology in three volumes preferable? 🙂
With blessings, Tzel Winger, fat and lean
Regarding Yeh”Sh’s difficulty about the contradiction between the tam ox and inquiry, it may be resolved by distinguishing between the ox as a subject possessing inquiring consciousness, and the ox as an object, in which case the quality of tam operates in it, as explained in the latest columns…
In the second-to-last line
…between the ox as an object, in which case the quality of tam operates in it, as explained in columns 365–367.
And one may object to what he wrote, that Purim is a fat day (“for three days are within it”), from what they said in the Jerusalem Talmud, that what is written is “and it shall not pass” without a vav, namely “and it shall not become pregnant,” meaning that Purim cannot be intercalated. And it seems that the reason it cannot be intercalated is what the author of the homily wrote, that Purim is grammatically masculine (to the exclusion of a heifer, which is feminine).
But perhaps he was not precise, and Purim is a fat male—only it appears pregnant, with triplets inside.
On the issue of the triangle and its ramifications—with due respect, if you read, you did not review, and if you reviewed, you did not divide into three.
You should have brought decisive proof from the fact that they instituted saying, “Our Father, our King, bless us with the threefold blessing.”
Necessarily, the three verses are one blessing, for otherwise they should have instituted the blessing “who sanctified us with the sanctity of Aaron” over each and every verse. For so Maimonides wrote, that counting weeks and days in the Omer is one commandment, from the fact that they did not institute a separate blessing for the days and a separate blessing for the weeks.
And as for the essence of the law, one must consider whether it is like one long day. What would be the law regarding a city-ox that went to a city on Triple Purim, and its walking was interrupted between one goring and another—do journeys create separation or not? And one must discuss whether this is comparable to “two names create separation” in the sugya in Keritot, but this is not the place to elaborate.
With God’s help, 13 Adar 5781
In my humble opinion, there is no way a tam ox would gore on Triple Purim, for the whole idea of “Triple Purim” is the obligation of guarding and caution, so that no mishap should come out of the joy of Purim.
We guard the Sabbath like the apple of our eye. We advance the reading of the Megillah to Friday, for fear that someone might forget and carry the Megillah in the public domain. Even the poor, whose “eyes are lifted toward the Megillah reading,” benefit from this, since the Megillah is read on a weekday, and thus they receive a gift fit to honor them, “one generous portion,” that will help them celebrate both the Sabbath and the Purim meal with joy.
And we postpone the Purim feast to Sunday so that the Purim feast and Sabbath delight should not overshadow one another, and in this way we take upon ourselves the burden and yoke of three “days of idleness,” during which our ability “to make money” is limited—all out of the caution that the Sabbath be whole and also that the joy of Purim be whole.
So a Jew whose Purim has been doubled and tripled in order to preserve both the sanctity of the Sabbath, the welfare of the poor, and the joy of Purim; a Jew who comes to feasting and joy only after two full days of spiritual preparation—a day of Megillah reading, a day of Torah reading and study and Sabbath prayers—and comes to the feast in the spirit of “be ready for the third day”—such a Jew, even his feast appears like the giving of the Torah “for three days.”
So a Jew whose feast comes only after “three days of separation” internalizes in his heart the obligation of meticulous attentiveness to his ways. Could one imagine that such a Jew would be negligent in guarding his animal?
Indeed, the meal of “Triple Purim” resembles the meal of Rabbi Zeira, the man of awe and gravity, which do not contradict his love even for his thuggish neighbors, for whom and for whose moral repair he pours out his heart. Rabbi Zeira approached the Purim meal with fear and love, out of a full year of spiritual preparation, and therefore it is no wonder that his soul departed at this meal out of longing of the soul yearning for its Creator, until a miracle was needed to restore him to this world.
The Triple Purim meal that comes after two days of spiritual preparation does indeed contain something of the rejoicing-with-trembling of Rabbi Zeira’s meal. This year, in “Purim of the unwalled towns” as well, may we merit that the joy of Purim truly be “rejoicing amid trembling,” a joy filled with meticulous caution, so that no mishap or damage comes from us to others or from others to us.
With blessings for a happy Purim and a healthy year, Yaron Fish”l Ordner
The fear of Heaven and caution of Rabbi Zeira are also expressed in his ruling (Bava Kamma 24) that the owner of an animal is responsible that his animal not cause damage even as a result of external provocation. Rabbi Zeira holds that even if the dog or ox attacked because another person incited them, since in his view the owner must be aware of the possibility that someone might act improperly and provoke his animal, he is responsible to be watchful and vigilant against that possibility as well, in order to prevent it.
And I am astonished at my rabbis here in the comments and at the master in the body of the article
For the Shulchan Arukh already ruled:
“Some say that if one person damages another by force of the joy of Purim, he is exempt from paying.”
Therefore it makes no practical difference whether it is a tam ox with respect to half-damages or a forewarned ox with respect to full damages, for in any case he is exempt.
I have seen a man subtle in his craft; his Torah speaks parched land; his pamphlets are quartets and trilogies; he brings up conjectures from his belly; certainly a consumer of human food (Rashi, Shabbat 11); he raised his voice and was not silent; he drew sword and spear, and greatly lengthened his discourse, expounding openly on Torah, and “according to the sharpness, so the error.” For it is an explicit Talmud (Shabbat 88a): “A certain Galilean expounded before Rav Chisda: Blessed is the Merciful One who gave a threefold Torah to a threefold people by means of a third-born on the third day in the third month.” Now although we find a second festival day, do we ever find a third festival day? Rather, perforce, the “third day” is one day, like this hat, which is one even though it is triangular, as it is written (there, or perhaps there, or maybe there): “My hat has three corners.” Examine this carefully; this is not the place to elaborate; and may my Master forgive me, and He is merciful, atoning for sin, etc.—ad d’lo yada…
Now all this is in the manner of pilpul, but the Torah has two faces, and in the plain sense it seems that egla tilta means a triangular circle. And what is written, “and it was turned around,” means that it contains two opposites in one subject. From this it follows that “turn it over and turn it over, for everything is in it,” as is known. Therefore we derive from it all the claims in the world, and in particular we properly learn that this interpretation is correct. And this is what was said: “the truth bears witness to itself.” Examine this carefully.