1. "If you see a Black bull during the days of Nissan, run up to the attic and pull up the ladder after you." I dont understand the significance of 'black bull' Davka? Are they more violent? But its a tame animal anyway? Does this imply that white ones are ok? That doesn't seem to be the gist of the statement? So why black bulls?
2. "Gedolah De'ah she'Nitnah Bein Shtei OTIYOT" - Otiyot here means words - Is there any significance why they dont use the words 'teivot' or milim? Why otiyot which means letters?
3. What is an 'arod' really anyway? Does anyone actually know? What is a cross between a turtle and snake? Can there be one? Is this "Nishtanu ha'Teva"? Also, I am having great trouble understanding the explanation brought down by Rashi [of the Behag] that whoever reached water first lived and the other died. Is this meant to be a mystical answer? What does it mean? How can that be? R' Chanina brought it on his shoulder [a large
animal, from what I understand] to the Bet Midrash. Did he not realize that most people
were not on his level? Does this not seem to be Yuhura? I assuemd he understood that most folk could not be on that level? It seems Gayvadik a bit, no?
4. Finally, how could he put himself into Sakanah that way?
mendy, ny,usa
1. Apparently, only black bulls become aroused and aggressive in the manner described by the Gemara and Rashi. See the new book "Nature's Song" by Rabbi Natan Slifkin, and his upcoming "Torah Encyclopedia of the Natural World", for more detailed and comprehensive information. You might also want to write to him with your questions about animals and nature at zoorabbi@zootorah.com .
Tam and Muad are terms which describe the animal's history of goring other animals or people. Those terms are not necessarily indicative of the disposition or aggressiveness of the animal; that is, the animal can be very aggressive and violent and still be a Tam (it just has never been able to reach its intended victim, or it was always guarded well by its owner).
2. The Gemara cannot refer to Hash-m's name as a "word," because the point of a word is to distinguish the item from another item, implying a duality of existence. In addition, a word is made up of various other parts (letters) attached to each other in a certain pattern. Hash-m's existence, though, is not separate and apart from other items, but rather His existence is a singular unity in the world ("Hash-m Echad"), and His nature is absolutely singular and is not made up of other parts, and thus His name is referred to as an "Os" -- a single, unified letter. (Sifsei Chachamim, Maharsha)
You can find other, related answers in Sefer Beis Yosef (Rav Avraham Direnfeld, zt'l), and in the Ein Ya'akov.
3. (a) Regarding your question about the Arud (or, according to some commentators, the "Arvad") write to Rabbi Slifkin at zoorabbi@zootorah.com. He might refer you to his upcoming book about mysterious creatures in the Torah.
(b) Rebbi Chanina was the leader of the people and it was his responsibility to guide them and reproach them when necessary. It was not a matter of "levels," for every person has free choice and can choose to sin or to refrain from sinning. Rebbi Chanina understood that the most effective way to help the people improve their ways would be to bring the dead Arud to them, to teach them the importance of refraining from sin. If you have ever met any of the Gedolim, then you will understand that their intentions are pure and they have no iota of haughtiness when they fulfill their obligation of reproaching the people. When I saw Rav Shach give rebuke, he cried and cried, and the love he felt for every Jew was evident beyond any doubt. I can imagine Rebbi Chanina in a similar manner giving rebuke to the people.
Moreover, the Sifsei Chachamim cites some commentators who explain the words, "He took it upon his shoulders...," as not referring merely to the Arud, but to the damage that the people had suffered from the Arud due to their sins; he took their suffering "on his shoulders." He viewed himself as the one responsible for their suffering; he reasoned that he, as their leader, was at fault for not teaching them better and guiding them more effectively in the ways of Avodas Hash-m. (See Rashi to Devarim 1:13.)
I hope this has been helpful for you.
Y. Shaw