Being close to God

 Within Jewish thought(Maimonidean), the less one presumes to know of God's essence, the closer one draws to Him.

The Rambam quotes the following in MN 1:59 to prove this point-

Tehillim 65:2-

לְךָ דֻמִיָּה תְהִלָּה אֱלֹהִים בְּצִיּוֹן

"To thee silence is praise"

TB Berakhot 33B

הַהוּא דִּנְחֵית קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, אֲמַר ״הָאֵל הַגָּדוֹל הַגִּבּוֹר וְהַנּוֹרָא וְהָאַדִּיר וְהָעִזּוּז וְהַיָּראוּי, הֶחָזָק וְהָאַמִּיץ וְהַוַּדַּאי וְהַנִּכְבָּד״.

הִמְתִּין לוֹ עַד דְּסַיֵּים. כִּי סַיֵּים אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סַיֵּימְתִּינְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ שִׁבְחֵי דְמָרָךְ?! לְמָה לִי כּוּלֵּי הַאי? אֲנַן, הָנֵי תְּלָת דְּאָמְרִינַן אִי לָאו דְּאַמְרִינְהוּ מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וַאֲתוֹ אַנְשֵׁי כְּנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה וְתַקְּנִינְהוּ בִּתְפִלָּה — לָא הֲוֵינַן יְכוֹלִין לְמֵימַר לְהוּ, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ כּוּלֵּי הַאי וְאָזְלַתְּ! מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ אֶלֶף אֲלָפִים דִּינְרֵי זָהָב, וְהָיוּ מְקַלְּסִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשֶׁל כֶּסֶף. וַהֲלֹא גְּנַאי הוּא לוֹ!

A particular individual descended before the ark as prayer leader in the presence of Rabbi Ḥanina. He extended his prayer and said: God, the great, mighty, awesome, powerful, mighty, awe-inspiring, strong, fearless, steadfast and honored.

Rabbi Ḥanina waited for him until he completed his prayer. When he finished, Rabbi Ḥanina asked him: Have you concluded all of the praises of your Master? Why do I need all of this superfluous praise? Even these three praises that we recite: The great, mighty and awesome, had Moses our teacher not said them in the Torah and had the members of the Great Assembly not come and incorporated them into the Amida prayer, we would not be permitted to recite them. And you went on and recited all of these. It is comparable to a king who possessed many thousands of golden dinars, yet they were praising him for silver ones. Isn’t that deprecatory? All of the praises we could possibly lavish upon the Lord are nothing but a few silver dinars relative to many thousands of gold dinars. Reciting a litany of praise does not enhance 

God’s honor.

One more thought that just occurred to me: Is it possible that Chazal’s mashal of gold and silver was inspired by (or even based on) these pesukim in Isaiah 46?

לְמִי תְדַמְּיוּנִי וְתַשְׁווּ וְתַמְשִׁלוּנִי וְנִדְמֶה׃

To whom can you compare Me Or declare Me similar?To whom can you liken Me,So that we seem comparable?

הַזָּלִים זָהָב מִכִּיס וְכֶסֶף בַּקָּנֶה יִשְׁקֹלוּ יִשְׂכְּרוּ צוֹרֵף וְיַעֲשֵׂהוּ אֵל יִסְגְּדוּ אַף־יִשְׁתַּחֲווּ׃

Those who squander gold from the purse And weigh out silver on the balance, They hire a metal worker to make it into a god,To which they bow down and prostrate themselves.

Korach the son or grandson of esav-וישלח

 In this week’s parsha (Bereishit 36), I’ve always found the listing of Esav’s descendants a bit confusing—specifically the son named קֹרַח who appears to be both a direct son of Esav and a son of Eliphaz (making him also Esav’s grandson).

Here are the relevant pesukim:

עֵשָׂ֛ו לָקַ֥ח אֶת־נָשָׁ֖יו מִבְּנ֣וֹת כְּנָ֑עַן אֶת־עָדָ֗ה בַּת־אֵילוֹן֙ הַֽחִתִּ֔י וְאֶת־אׇהֳלִֽיבָמָה֙ בַּת־עֲנָ֔ה בַּת־צִבְע֖וֹן הַֽחִוִּֽי...  

וְאׇהֳלִֽיבָמָה֙ יָֽלְדָ֔ה אֶת־[יְע֥וּשׁ] (יְעִ֖ישׁ) וְאֶת־יַעְלָ֖ם וְאֶת־קֹ֑רַח אֵ֚לֶּה בְּנֵ֣י עֵשָׂ֔ו אֲשֶׁ֥ר יֻלְּדוּ־ל֖וֹ בְּאֶ֥רֶץ כְּנָֽעַן׃

So we see that one of Esav’s wives, אׇהֳלִיבָמָה, gave birth to קֹרַח.  

(On a side note—her name אׇהֳלִיבָמָה, meaning “my tent is exalted” or “my tent is a בָּמָה,” is also quite interesting.)

The Torah repeats this lineage again:

וְאֵ֣לֶּה הָי֗וּ בְּנֵ֨י אׇהֳלִיבָמָ֧ה בַת־עֲנָ֛ה בַּת־צִבְע֖וֹן אֵ֣שֶׁת עֵשָׂ֑ו וַתֵּ֣לֶד לְעֵשָׂ֔ו אֶת־[יְע֥וּשׁ] (יְעִ֖ישׁ) וְאֶת־יַעְלָ֖ם וְאֶת־קֹֽרַח׃

Then we are told that Eliphaz (Esav’s firstborn son from his wife עָדָה) also had a son named קֹרַח:

אֵ֖לֶּה אַלּוּפֵ֣י בְנֵֽי־עֵשָׂ֑ו בְּנֵ֤י אֱלִיפַז֙ בְּכ֣וֹר עֵשָׂ֔ו אַלּ֤וּף תֵּימָן֙ אַלּ֣וּף אוֹמָ֔ר אַלּ֥וּף צְפ֖וֹ אַלּ֥וּף קְנַֽז׃  

אַלּֽוּף־קֹ֛רַח אַלּ֥וּף גַּעְתָּ֖ם אַלּ֣וּף עֲמָלֵ֑ק אֵ֣לֶּה אַלּוּפֵ֤י אֱלִיפַז֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ אֱד֔וֹם אֵ֖לֶּה בְּנֵ֥י עָדָֽה׃

And once more the Torah lists קֹרַח among the chiefs descended from אׇהֳלִיבָמָה(esav's wife):

וְאֵ֗לֶּה בְּנֵ֤י אׇהֳלִֽיבָמָה֙ אֵ֣שֶׁת עֵשָׂ֔ו אַלּ֥וּף יְע֛וּשׁ אַלּ֥וּף יַעְלָ֖ם אַלּ֣וּף קֹ֑רַח אֵ֣לֶּה אַלּוּפֵ֞י אׇהֳלִֽיבָמָ֛ה בַּת־עֲנָ֖ה אֵ֥שֶׁת עֵשָֽׂו׃

The Rishonim noticed this apparent contradiction: How can קֹרַח be both a son of Esav and a grandson (son of Eliphaz)?

Both Rashi and בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר (a prominent student of Rabbeinu Tam) brings a remarkable explanation, citing the words of our Sages-(I'm quoting the bechor shor below):

ורבותינו אמרו: כי אליפז בא על אהליבמה והולידו, ולפיכך מנהו באלופי אליפז ובאלופי אהליבמה ובבניה.

Meaning: Eliphaz had relations with his father’s wife אׇהֳלִיבָמָה and fathered קֹרַח with her. That is why the Torah counts קֹרַח both among the chiefs of Eliphaz and among the chiefs/descendants of אׇהֳלִיבָמָה (and originally as a direct son of Esav).

It’s striking that both Yaakov and Esav had similar scandals with their children. Yet by Yaakov and Reuven, the torah spells it straight out and by Esav and Eliphaz, it's only hinted…

Even more fascinating: centuries later, at the time of יציאת מצרים, the name קֹרַח became a common Jewish name—most famously borne by the Korach who challenged Moshe Rabbeinu. The fact that Jews in Egypt freely used names of Esav’s descendants may hint that, in that earlier period, Esav’s family was not yet viewed as the eternal adversary it later became (especially from the Second Temple era onward). In fact the Rambam(MN 3:50) says that the reason the descendants of Esav are listed in such detail, is so that in our mitzvah of erasing Amalek, we don't accidently harm Esav’s other children

Hashgacha pratis/ladder

 A message to the chareidi leadership in Israel that follow voodoo judaism!

Hashgacha Pratis isn’t God reaching down – it’s man reaching up.

In this week’s parsha, Yaakov sees the angels going up the ladder first, and only then coming down. And at the top stands Hashem – “nitzav alav” (Bereishit 28:13).

The Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 1:15) explains that when the Torah says God is “nitzav” (standing), it’s not about a body. It means God is eternal, unchanging, constant – absolutely steady, never moving, never changing.

So if God doesn’t change, how does personal hashgacha happen? How does God “get involved” in our lives?

The Rambam answers this beautifully in the exact same chapter: the torah says that  the angels go up first, and only then come down. A person has to climb – through thought, learning, prophecy– and only after that ascent does he bring something down-action to this world, to fix it, to teach it, to lead it.

That descent, says the Rambam elsewhere (1:10), is what the torah calls “God coming down.” In truth, it’s man who went up (mentally/prophecy)and is now bringing God’s light back into the world through revelation and action.

Yaakov’s dream isn’t showing some magical divine intervention. It’s showing the real mechanism: the tzaddik, the prophet, the leader – anyone created b’tzelem Elokim – climbs the ladder in his mind and soul, grasps God’s will, and then comes back down to change reality via action.

That’s hashgacha pratis in action.  

Not God moving.  

Us moving – and becoming the hands of heaven right here on earth.

Did the Akeida really happen? Does God really need to test us?

 

The Rambam in MN 2:41 says that whenever it says regarding a prophet that an angel spoke to him, it is always through a dream or a vision.

  החכמים ז"ל דיברו על כך במפורש ואמרו: "'וַיֹּאמֶר ה' לָהּ [שְׁנֵי גֹיִים בְּבִטְנֵךְ...]' (שם כה,כג) – על ידי מלאך" (בראשית רבה סג,ז). ודע שכל מי שנאמר עליו בפסוקים שדיבר איתו מלאך או שהגיע אליו דיבור מאת ה', לא היה דבר זה בשום אופן אלא בחלום או במראה הנבואה.

In this week's parsha, Genesis chapter 22, God speaks to Avraham and tells him to offer Yitzchak as a sacrifice.

וַיְהִי, אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, וְהָאֱלֹהִים, נִסָּה אֶת־אַבְרָהָם; וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, אַבְרָהָם וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּנִי.  ב וַיֹּאמֶר קַח־נָא אֶת־בִּנְךָ אֶת־יְחִידְךָ אֲשֶׁר־אָהַבְתָּ, אֶת־יִצְחָק, וְלֶךְ־לְךָ, אֶל־אֶרֶץ הַמֹּרִיָּה; וְהַעֲלֵהוּ שָׁם, לְעֹלָה, עַל אַחַד הֶהָרִים, אֲשֶׁר אֹמַר אֵלֶיךָ

The next thing we read is that Avraham woke up in the morning and attempted to fulfill God's command until an angel tells him to stop.

וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אַבְרָהָם בַּבֹּקֶר, וַיַּחֲבֹשׁ אֶת־חֲמֹרוֹ, וַיִּקַּח אֶת־שְׁנֵי נְעָרָיו אִתּוֹ, וְאֵת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ; וַיְבַקַּע, עֲצֵי עֹלָה, וַיָּקָם וַיֵּלֶךְ, אֶל־הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר־אָמַר־לוֹ הָאֱלֹהִים...וַיִּקְרָא אֵלָיו מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה, מִן־הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַיֹּאמֶר, אַבְרָהָם אַבְרָהָם; וַיֹּאמֶר, הִנֵּנִי.  יב וַיֹּאמֶר, אַל־תִּשְׁלַח יָדְךָ אֶל־הַנַּעַר, וְאַל־תַּעַשׂ לוֹ, מְאוּמָה:  כִּי עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי, כִּי־יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה, וְלֹא חָשַׂכְתָּ אֶת־בִּנְךָ אֶת־יְחִידְךָ, מִמֶּנִּי.  

Now, did the vision ever end, or did all this happen—including his attempt to sacrifice Yitzchak—all as a vision? 

It would make sense that it was a vision, because at the end, when the angel speaks to Avraham, it would confirm that the entire event from beginning to end was all one vision. 

I know that there are many problems that arise with this theory, including: What kind of test was it if it was all a vision? And what reward does Avraham get for an Akeida that was just a vision? There are other problems with saying the Akeida really did happen. One of them is that, according to math and the Rabbis in Bereishit Rabbah, Yitzchak was 37 years old when the Akeida happened. In reality, he should receive more reward than Avraham. After all, he was the one allowing himself to be sacrificed despite not receiving the command or prophecy from God.

Now let's examine the word ניסיון, or test, according to the Rambam in MN 3:24:

"The sole object of all the trials mentioned in Scripture is to teach man what he ought to do or believe; so that the event which forms the actual trial is not the end desired: it is but an example for our instruction and guidance."

So if ניסיון is a lesson in how we—and future generations—should behave, then the fact that this was all a vision is not a problem. It would also explain why Yitzchak does not get credit for allowing himself to be offered as a Sacrifice. As regards why Avraham is rewarded for an act that he never performed, the Torah says twice—that an angel called out once when he was about to slaughter Yitzchak (if it was in a vision)—

וַיֹּאמֶר, אַל־תִּשְׁלַח יָדְךָ אֶל־הַנַּעַר, וְאַל־תַּעַשׂ לוֹ, מְאוּמָה:  כִּי עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי, כִּי־יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה, וְלֹא חָשַׂכְתָּ אֶת־בִּנְךָ אֶת־יְחִידְךָ, מִמֶּנִּי. 

And again from the angel after he slaughtered a ram instead—

וַיִּקְרָא מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה, אֶל־אַבְרָהָם, שֵׁנִית, מִן־הַשָּׁמַיִם.  טז וַיֹּאמֶר, בִּי נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי נְאֻם־יְהוָה:  כִּי, יַעַן אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ אֶת־הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, וְלֹא חָשַׂכְתָּ, אֶת־בִּנְךָ אֶת־יְחִידֶךָ.

I know this is far-fetched, but perhaps the sacrifice of his son is not what God is referring to when He says ולא חשכת את בנך את יחידך (notice that Yitzchak by name is never mentioned). Perhaps it is referring to sending his eldest, Ishmael, away so that Yitzchak can be the chosen one or the one to inherit the mission of Avraham. We saw in the previous chapter how much sending away his son Ishmael bothered and pained him. Yet he chose to do so because God told him. This may not have been an actual Akeida, but it definitely had similar emotional results...

It is to this sacrifice that God was referring in Avraham's vision.

We must differentiate between a test being the cause of the reward versus a lesson for future generations. The ten tests are lessons and not necessarily sources of reward.

What is divine intervention or Hashgacha Pratis?

 

In this week’s parsha, when Yitzchak asks Yaakov—whom he believes to be his brother Esav—how he managed to return so quickly with the prepared food, Yaakov answers as follows (Bereishit 27:20):

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יִצְחָק֙ אֶל־בְּנוֹ֔ מַה־זֶּ֛ה מִהַ֥רְתָּ לִמְצֹ֖א בְּנִ֑י וַיֹּ֕אמֶר כִּ֥י הִקְרָ֛ה יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ לְפָנָֽי׃  

“And Yitzchak said to his son, ‘How is it that you found it so quickly, my son?’ And he said, ‘Because the Lord your God made it happen (hikrah) for me.’”

Yaakov’s response essentially means: “God arranged it for me that the food came quickly.” The word הִקְרָה (from the root ק־ר־ה) normally implies mere happenstance or coincidence. But when it is used together with the name of God—“הִקְרָ֛ה יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ לְפָנָֽי”—Yaakov is saying that what might appear to others as chance was, in truth, the guiding hand of God.

The midrashim seize upon this answer and connect it beautifully to two earlier episodes: the Akeidah and Eliezer’s search for a wife for Yitzchak.

- At the Akeidah, after Avraham is stopped from offering Yitzchak, a ram suddenly appears caught in the thicket, ready to be sacrificed in his place.  

- When Eliezer prays at the well for a sign to find a wife for his master’s son, he explicitly uses the same root: הַקְרֵה־נָ֛א לְפָנַ֥י הַיּוֹם (“Cause it to happen [hakreh na] for me today…” – Bereishit 24:12).

The midrashim explain Yaakov’s reply to his father this way: “If God can ‘cause a ram to happen’ for the sake of His direct service (the Akeidah), and if He can ‘cause the right woman to happen’ at the well when one is seeking a spouse, then surely, when it comes to basic human sustenance—food—God will arrange for it to come quickly.”

These midrashim immediately remind me of the Rambam’s words in Moreh Nevukhim 3:51:

“When we have acquired true knowledge of God and rejoice in that knowledge in such a way that, even while speaking with others or attending to our bodily needs, our mind is wholly with God… when our heart is constantly near God even though our body is among people… when we are in the state the Song of Songs describes: ‘I sleep, but my heart is awake; it is the voice of my beloved knocking’ (Shir HaShirim 5:2)—then we have reached not only the level of most prophets, but the unique level of Moshe Rabbenu…”

In the very same chapter, the Rambam continues:

"I have just had a most amazing flash of light that will lose many a knot and lay bare many a divine mystery:In the chapters on providence, I explained that providence over any rational subject is in the measure of his reason. So providence is constant over an enlightened person whose focus on God is unbroken. But should that person's thoughts stray for a moment, he is cared for only while he concentrates on him.Providence recedes while he is distracted, although it does not leave him in the same state as someone who has never known such thoughts "

The Avot lived with an unbroken awareness of God, guiding every action by imitating His ways as revealed in creation. They viewed the world through lenses that revealed God’s will in everything—whether in direct worship through sacrifice or prayer, in finding a spouse, or even in the simple act of obtaining food. This is precisely the state the Rambam describes: constantly thinking of God, even amid daily life.

This is actually how the Rambam learns hashgacha pratis-man being aware of god and thereby choosing to imitate his ways. 

It is no wonder, then, that in next week’s parsha Yaakov dreams of the ladder with angels ascending and descending. The ladder symbolizes the prophet’s (and every Jew’s) task: first to raise the mind to God and His ways, and then to descend and bring that divine consciousness back down into everyday activities—transforming the mundane into the holy. This is the ultimate purpose of the mitzvot and of the rabbinic enactments such as blessings before eating, on seeing the new moon, on hearing thunder or lightning, etc.—to keep our hearts and minds focused on seeing and imitating God's ways in creation, at all times.

Shabbat shalom!

Is belief in God enough?

 Is Believing in God Enough?

I was reading פרשגן on this week's parsha, and he quotes an interesting insight from Nehama Leibowitz regarding Genesis 15:5-6:

"וַיּוֹצֵא אֹתוֹ הַחוּצָה, וַיֹּאמֶר הַבֶּט-נָא הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וּסְפֹר הַכּוֹכָבִים--אִם-תּוּכַל, לִסְפֹּר אֹתָם; וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ, כֹּה יִהְיֶה זַרְעֶךָ.  

וְהֶאֱמִן בַּיהוָה; וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לּוֹ, צְדָקָה."

"And He brought him forth abroad, and said: 'Look now toward heaven, and count the stars, if thou be able to count them'; and He said unto him: 'So shall thy seed be.  

And he believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness.'"

In the last sentence, where it says "He counted it to him for righteousness," there is a debate between Rashi and the Ramban regarding who "him" refers to.

 According to Rashi, it refers to God counting Avraham as righteous due to his belief in Him. 

The Ramban interprets it as Avraham counting God as righteous. 

Nehama Leibowitz offers a fascinating insight into why the Ramban took this view. The Ramban was frequently debating Christians who claimed that "belief" alone in Jesus grants righteousness or entry into the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, he did not want to understand this pasuk as God finding Avraham righteous solely based on his belief. In Judaism, belief without mitzvot or proper behavior is deemed worthless. Thus, the Ramban concluded that Avraham recognized the righteousness in God.

So, what exactly did Avraham find righteous about God in this vision of his children being compared to the stars?

 My interpretation is that, similar to the stars that  we see, which often appear millions or billions of light-years after the event, walking in the ways of God leads to positive consequences long after we're gone.

 This was Avraham's vision: he was told by God that the path and way of life he chose would result in his children continuing his mission and changing the world for thousands, perhaps millions, of years after he is gone. It is this capacity built into creation to have a positive impact on the world long after our time that Avraham attributed righteousness to God.

Shavua Tov!

R' Eliezer Hurkenos

 In today's Daf, we explore the concept of evolution and how Chazal (our sages) differ in their approach to the evolutionary process from a halachic perspective. The question arises: Does the changing nature of the world necessitate changes in halacha, or should we adhere to halacha based on historical scientific understandings? 

Beit Shammai argues that halacha should remain unchanged despite shifts in the natural world, while Beit Hillel contends that halacha can evolve over time and adapt based on the insights of each generation, following the proper processes (such as those established by a Sanhedrin).

This perspective likely explains why we predominantly follow Beit Hillel. Halacha is intended to be dynamic, much like nature itself, as both were created by God and entrusted to humanity, reflecting the principle of "Torah lo b'shamayim" (the Torah is not in heaven) and regarding nature-"V'kivshuha" (and we must conquer it).

An interesting point to note involves the renowned Rabbi Eliezer Hurcanus, who was previously mentioned in this tractate. He is described in the tractate Avot as a "בור סוד שאינו מאבד טיפה," meaning "a plastered cistern that doesn’t lose a drop." This metaphor illustrates his role as a student who absorbed knowledge from his teachers like an encyclopedia, adhering strictly to tradition and the teachings he received.

Despite being educated in the yeshivot of Beit Hillel, Rabbi Eliezer chose to follow the rulings of Beit Shammai. He was steadfast in his commitment to tradition and resisted innovation, a trait that ultimately led to his excommunication. The Torah cannot thrive without innovation. Ironically, it was Rabbi Eliezer’s famous student, Rabbi Akiva, who was celebrated for his creativity and innovation, as the Gemara describes how Rabbi Akiva would interpret the crowns of the letters in the Torah.

Below is the Gemara from today's Daf:

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר נַחְמָנִי: אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר זְעֵירִי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּבֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבִּיאָתוֹ בִּיאָה, פָּחוֹת מִבֶּן שְׁמֹנֶה שֶׁאֵין בִּיאָתוֹ בִּיאָה. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בְּבֶן שְׁמֹנֶה, דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: גָּמְרִינַן מִדּוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: לָא גָּמְרִינַן מִדּוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים.

"Rabbi Ḥiyya, son of Rabba bar Naḥmani, says that Rav Ḥisda says, and some say that Rav Ḥisda says that Ze’eiri says: All, i.e., both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, concede regarding a boy nine years and one day old that his intercourse is regarded as intercourse, disqualifying a woman from marrying into the priesthood and resulting in her liability for the death penalty, even though he himself is not liable to receive it. They also all agree that a boy less than eight years old is not regarded as having engaged in intercourse with respect to these halakhot. Their disagreement pertains only to a boy who is eight years old, as Beit Shammai maintains that we learn from earlier generations, when people could father children at that age, and we apply that reality to the present; while Beit Hillel contends that we do not learn from earlier generations."