Daf Ditty Beitza 10: Black and White Doves

Still Life Of Cockerels, White Doves, A Jay, Grey And Red-Legged Partridge
by (after) Jacomo (or Victor, Jacobus) Victors

The dove descending breaks the air

With flame of incandescent terror
Of which the tongues declare
The one discharge from sin and error.
The only hope, or else despair
Lies in the choice of pyre of pyre-
To be redeemed from fire by fire.

Who then devised the torment? Love.

Love is the unfamiliar Name
Behind the hands that wove
The intolerable shirt of flame
Which human power cannot remove.
We only live, only suspire
Consumed by either fire or fire.

The Little Gidding, TS Eliot1

1
The Little Gidding is the last of T. S. Eliot's Four Quartets.

1
In the beginning, Rabbi Shimon started, “The flowers buds have appeared on the earth; the
time for pruning has arrived, and the voice of the turtledove is heard in our land.” “The
flower buds” are the act of creation. “Have appeared on the earth” on the third day, as it is
written, “And the earth shall spring forth grass.” “The time for pruning has arrived” is the
fourth day, in which there was the pruning of the tyrants. This is why it is written about it,
“Let there be lights” without a Vav [in Hebrew], which is a curse. “And the voice of the
turtledove” is the fifth day, of which it is written, “Let the waters swarm” to produce
offspring. “Is heard” is the sixth day, of which it is written, “Let us make man,” who is
destined to put doing before hearing. “In our land” is the Sabbath, which is like the land of
life, the next world.
Zohar Intro

2
MISHNA: If, on the eve of a Festival, one designated black fledglings to be slaughtered, and on
the following day found white ones in the dovecote, rather than the birds he had designated, or if
one designated white ones to be slaughtered and found black ones, or if one designated two
fledglings to be slaughtered and found three, they are prohibited, as these are not the same
fledglings he had designated earlier. If, however, one designated three to be slaughtered and
found only two, they are permitted, as it is presumed that one of the fledglings escaped.

3
If one designated them inside the nest and the next day he cannot find them there, and he found
fledglings before the nest, they are prohibited, as they might be fledglings other than the ones
he designated and left inside the nest. But if there are only those fledglings in the immediate
vicinity, they are permitted, as it can be assumed that these are the ones he designated inside the
nest.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But it is obvious that if one designated black ones to be slaughtered
and found white ones, they are not the same birds. Rabba said: With what are we dealing here?
The mishna is referring to a case where one designated both black and white ones to be
slaughtered, and he arose and found black ones in the place where the white ones had been,
and white ones in the place of the black ones. Lest you say: These are those same fledglings
and they simply exchanged places, the mishna teaches us that this claim is not accepted. Instead,
it is assumed that these ones that he designated have gone to the outside world, and these ones
that he found are others that have come from elsewhere.

4
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this mishna supports Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina
said: When resolving an uncertainty with regard to the identity of an item, if the majority indicates
one ruling but the item in question is proximate to a source that indicates otherwise, one follows
the majority. In this case, the majority of fledglings are prohibited, as they were not designated
for use on the Festival. Consequently, the found fledglings are prohibited, despite the fact that the
nearest fledglings are the designated ones.

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: Perhaps it is as Abaye said with regard to a different issue:
We are dealing with fledglings located on a ledge, a flat piece of wood protruding from the
dovecote, around which many doves congregate. Here too, the mishna is referring to a ledge.
Since other doves are regularly found there, the principle that one follows the majority rather than
the proximate source does not apply, as both the majority of doves and the proximate source of
doves are not the original ones, and therefore all the fledglings are prohibited.

5
The mishna taught that if one designated two and found three, they are prohibited. The Gemara
explains: Whichever way you look at this matter, the fledglings are prohibited. If these are
others, they are others that have not been designated. And if they are not others, i.e., two of the
fledglings that one designated are still there, nevertheless there is one that he certainly did not
designate and that is mingled with them, which renders the others prohibited as well.

§ The mishna taught that if one designated three and found two, they are permitted. The Gemara
asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara explains: These are the same ones, and one of
them has gone to the outside world, leaving two behind.

6
If he left them inside their nest and there are now birds outside the nest, the birds are forbidden,
as we cannot be sure that these are the original birds.

Summary

7
Introduction In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that in order to slaughter and eat doves on Yom
Tov one must designate them for use before Yom Tov begins. Otherwise they are muktzeh. Our
mishnah discusses what happens if he designated doves before Yom Tov but then is not sure that
the doves that he finds in the nest or dovecote are the same ones.

If he designated black [doves] but found [on Yom Tov] white ones, white [doves] but found
black ones, two but found three, they are [all] forbidden. If the doves which he finds are a
different color from those that he designated it is obvious that they are not the same doves that he
designated the previous day. If he designated two doves and there are now three there, one of the
doves is certainly muktzeh. The problem is that he doesn’t know which one because all three look
alike (I wonder if doves think all humans look alike). Hence they are all prohibited.

[If he designated] three but found two, they are permitted. If he designated three but finds only
two we can assume that one flew off and that the other two are the same ones he designated. Hence
they are permitted.

[If he designated doves] inside the nest and found them in front of the nest, they are
forbidden. But if none were there except these, they are permitted. If the doves are found
outside of the nest but he designated them in the nest, then they may not be the same doves. If
there is another nearby dovecote then he must be concerned about this possibility and he may not
use those doves. However, if there are no nearby dovecotes then he can assume that these doves
just found their way out and he may use them.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2

If one designated black doves before Yom Tov and on Yom Tov he only found white doves, or if
he designated white doves and found black doves on Yom Tov, or if he designated two doves and
on Yom Tov he found three doves, all the doves that he found are muktzeh.

2
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Beitzah_10.pdf

8
In the first two cases it is obvious that the doves that he designated are no longer here and those
that he found are muktzeh. In the third case, where he designated two doves and found three, we
do not know which of the three is muktzeh, so they are all deemed to be muktzeh. If he initially
designated three and then he found two, the two that are left are permitted, and we do not say that
since one left, then the other two also left and the two doves that are present are muktzeh because
they came from somewhere else.

If one designated the doves and they were inside the birdhouse and on Yom Tov he found them in
front of the birdhouse, they are prohibited, but if prior to Yom Tov there were no birds near the
birdhouse besides for these doves, then they are permitted.

Eggs of Joy

The Gemara offers various proofs to demonstrate the leniencies of Bais Shammai and the
stringencies of Bais Hillel regarding matters that pertain to being joyous on Yom Tov. Tosfos
wonders why the Gemara does not cite the first Mishnah where Bais Shammai maintains that an
egg that was laid on Yom Tov is forbidden and Bais Hillel permits one to eat the egg. Tosfos
answers that eating an egg does not really make one joyous on Yom Tov.

It would seem that the explanation for the answer of Tosfos is based on the Gemara in Pesachim
(109a) that states that one is required to provide his wife with nice clothing and a man is required
to eat meat and drink wine. This ruling is based on the verse that states vesamachta bechagecha,
and you shall be joyous on your festival.

Eggs, however, are not included in this teaching, because they do not make one joyous. Shearim
Mitzuyanim B’Halacha cites a different Gemara in Pesachim (118a) which states that Hashem
collects His debts from people according to their respective assets. A wealthy person will be
punished by incurring a loss in his oxen, a pauper will incur a loss in his sheep and an orphan will
incur a loss in his eggs. It is evident from this Gemara that an egg is not deemed to be an
extravagant item and does not make one joyous.

Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 378:9) rules that the meal that is provided for mourners should
consist of eggs. Rema (Orach Chaim 476:2) writes that one should eat eggs on Pesach night as
eggs are a sign of mourning. Thus, we see further proof that eggs do not make one joyous, and in
fact, eggs denote mourning and sadness.

True Simchas Yom Tov

The Gemara states that if one does not chose the doves prior to Yom Tov, there will be times that
he will come to take doves on Yom Tov and all the doves will be lean, and he will not take any of
the doves. This decision will result in one not being able to partake in the joy of the Yom Tov. It
is worth contemplating the fact that HaShem gave us the mitzvah of being joyous on Yom Tov,
yet He left it in our hands to determine what is deemed to be Simchas Yom Tov, joy of Yom Tov,
and what is not deemed to be Simchas Yom Tov. Even having to eat lean doves on Yom Tov can
be considered a lack in the mitzvah. Thus, not only do we have to praise HaShem for giving us the

9
Yom Tov, but we thank HaShem for allowing us to ascertain what is considered true Simchas Yom
Tov.

DESIGNATING BIRDS BEFORE YOM TOV

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:3

The Gemara discusses one who selects birds before Yom Tov in order to slaughter them on Yom
Tov. The Gemara cites the Mishnah later (on 10a) in which Beis Shamai says that one who selects
the birds must pick them up and shake them; it does not suffice merely to name them verbally.
Beis Hillel permits one to designate the birds for use on Yom Tov merely by naming them verbally.
RASHI explains that Beis Shamai does not permit one to designate the birds merely by naming
them, because perhaps he will pick up a bird on Yom Tov, inspect it, and then decide not to use it,
in which case he will have handled the bird for no reason on Yom Tov.

Rashi adds that by changing his mind about this bird, he retroactively annuls the declaration of
Hachanah with which he verbally prepared the bird for use before Yom Tov (and thus when he
handled the bird on Yom Tov, he transgressed the prohibition against handling Muktzah).

Rashi's words are difficult to understand for several reasons.

First, Rashi seems to contradict himself. On the one hand, he says that the problem, according to
Beis Shamai, is that the person will perform an unnecessary act of "Tircha" (exertion) by handling
the bird for no reason on Yom Tov. But then he writes that the problem is on of moving an object
which was retroactively Muktzah. The reason of "Muktzah" is not the same as the reason of
"Tircha!"

Second, why does the person's choice not to use the bird annul his Hachanah retroactively? Since
he said, "I intend to take this bird and that bird," those birds should remain designated for use even
if he does not take them on Yom Tov. His decision on Yom Tov not to use them should not make
them un-prepared and Muktzah. (This point is clear from the Gemara later which differentiates
between a case of "Zeh v'Zeh Ani Notel" and a situation of Bereirah, retroactive determination.)
Third, when Rashi explains the Mishnah later (DH Gazrinan), he says that according to Beis
Shamai the problem is "Tiltul she'Lo l'Tzorech" -- unnecessary exertion on Yom Tov. Rashi there
makes no mention of the problem of annulling one's preparation of the bird retroactively and
handling Muktzah as a result. (TAL TORAH, BIGDEI YOM TOV, CHIDUSHIM
U'VI'URIM)

It seems that the two statements in Rashi reflect two differing approaches to understanding Beis
Shamai's reasoning. That is, they are indeed two approaches, and not a single approach, and

3
https://dafyomi.co.il/beitzah/insites/bt-dt-010.htm

10
inferences to both of these approaches can be found in other comments of Rashi on this Daf. (See
our Introduction to Maseches Eruvin, I:b, where we noted and discussed this phenomenon.)
To understand why Rashi shifted between these two explanations, we must analyze a section of
Gemara later on this page.
The Gemara implies, later on the Daf, why Beis Shamai did not accept the reasoning of Beis Hillel.
The Gemara there explains why Beis Hillel did not allow a person to rely on retroactive choice
(Bereirah), stating before Yom Tov "whichever bird I choose to eat on Yom Tov shall hereby be
prepared for slaughter, and not Muktzah." The reason this cannot be done, the Gemara asserts, is
because we are afraid that on Yom Tov, the person will pick up a bird, find it unacceptable for
eating, and replace it, picking another bird instead. By doing so, he will be abusing Yom Tov since
he has "moved an object that is not fit for his Yom Tov use" (Midei d'Lo Chazi Lei).

The Gemara then asks, if that is so, then even if one pronounces "Zeh va'Zeh Ani Notel" - I will
eat this and this bird on Yom Tov - we should have the same concern. Perhaps the person will pick
up on Yom Tov the birds that he chose, find them unacceptable for eating, and replace them, thus
abusing Yom Tov and moving an object that is not fit for Yom Tov use.

Although the Gemara answers its question and explains Beis Hillel's reasoning for allowing a
statement of "Zeh va'Zeh Ani Notel," nonetheless it follows to reason that Beis Shamai did not
accept Beis Hillel's answer. They required that one actually handle the birds prior to Yom Tov, in
order that one should not come to abuse Yom Tov by moving an object that is not fit for Yom Tov
use.

If so, in order to understand

We asked (in our second question), why does Beis Shamai prohibit the bird prepared before Yom
Tov just because "he might change his mind (and not slaughter it)," as the Gemara says? Since the
bird was prepared for use before Yom Tov, one's decision not to eat it should not make it Muktzah
on Yom Tov. Why, then, may one not handle the bird?

Rashi (DH Gazrinan) seems to answer this question by asserting that by doing so, the person will
"unnecessarily exert himself" when he handles the bird on Yom Tov. However, this answer is not
completely satisfactory. What significant degree of exertion is involved when one picks up a bird
and places it back in its coop?

Other Rishonim suggest different reasons for why Beis Shamai prohibits the bird on Yom Tov.
1. The RE'AH explains that Beis Shamai maintains that the declaration, "I intend to take this bird
and that bird," does not constitute a Hachanah Gemurah, a full designation. The declaration does
not fully prepare the bird for use because it is common for a person to change his mind about what
bird to eat. One's verbal declaration is not a real Hachanah until he actually picks up and shakes
the bird before Yom Tov and thereby shows that he really intends to use it.
2. The RAMBAM (in Perush ha'Mishnayos) explains that Beis Shamai is concerned that a person
might change his mind before Yom Tov, designate other birds instead, and then change his mind
again on Yom Tov and decide to use the birds he designated originally. When he takes those birds
on Yom Tov, however, he will be handling Muktzah (because he revoked their designation before
Yom Tov).

11
3. RABEINU CHANANEL explains that Beis Shamai is concerned that on Yom Tov the person
will find the birds unfit for a Yom Tov meal. Since he prepared no other birds, he will have no
meal on Yom Tov and his Simchas Yom Tov will be diminished.

Perhaps Rashi learns like the Re'ah, that since it is common for a person to change his mind, his
verbal Hachanah of the birds is not a complete Hachanah. If, however, his statement explicitly
designated the birds for use on Yom Tov, why is it not a complete Hachanah? While he may be
uncertain in his heart, the principle of "Devarim sheb'Lev Einam Devarim" teaches that the words
that one speaks override the thoughts in his heart. Why are the birds not considered designated for
use on Yom Tov if he declared them as designated?

To answer this question, Rashi explains that when one says, "I intend to take this bird and that
bird," he includes a condition in his words. He is actually saying, "These birds are designated for
use because I am going to take them." If, on Yom Tov, he decides not to take one, then that bird
was never prepared in the first place because his condition (that he takes it on Yom Tov) was not
fulfilled.

This is what Rashi means when he says that the bird becomes Muktzah retroactively. It becomes
Muktzah as a result of the lack of fulfillment of his condition. This is also what Rashi means when
he says that he moves the bird "for nothing"; he moves the bird not in a permitted manner, as he
originally intended to do before Yom Tov, but rather he moves it wrongfully. Since he did not
fulfill the condition of using it on Yom Tov, its Hachanah was annulled retroactively.

Why, though, does Rashi later explain that Beis Shamai prohibits handling the bird because it is
"Tiltul she'Lo l'Tzorech," unnecessary exertion?

The Gemara at that point assumes that Beis Shamai maintains that Bereirah does not work, as the
Gemara itself explains. Therefore, Rashi has no choice but to give another explanation which is
not based on Bereirah. The first explanation utilizes the principle of Bereirah, in that one is able to
determine retroactively that the birds are not designated for use.

However, the Gemara concludes that there is no proof whether or not Beis Shamai maintains that
Bereirah works (because the Mishnah which the Gemara cites as a proof does not actually discuss
a case of Bereirah). Since Beis Shamai may accept the principle of Bereirah, therefore Rashi's
earlier explanation of Beis Shamai, which is based on the principle of Bereirah, remains the more
acceptable explanation for why Beis Shamai prohibits moving the birds.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:4

Generally speaking, animals are considered muktzah on Shabbat and Yom Tov. That is to say, farm
animals whose normal activities are associated with melachot – activities forbidden on those days
– cannot be used. Thus, in the event that an animal is to be slaughtered for food on Yom Tov, it
must be prepared or set aside for such use prior to the beginning of the holiday.

4
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_beitzah_713/

12
The Mishnayot on our daf discuss doves that are set aside for food on Yom Tov. Bet Shammai rules
that the doves must actually be handled to indicate that they have been chosen, while according to
Bet Hillel it is enough to choose them by making a statement about which ones you want. It is
interesting to note that in this case, all agree that the concept of muktzah exists, apparently because
animals are similar to the case of drying fruit, which – as we will see at the end of the tractate – is
something that everyone agrees is muktzah.

In the case of drying fruit, once the fruit is put out to become dried it is clear to everyone that it
has been set aside and will not be eaten – or even touched – until the drying process is complete.
A similar idea exists in our case, where animals are set aside specifically for work (in the case of
doves, they are usually raised to be trained as homing pigeons or carrier pigeons), and cannot be
used for another purpose without a clear statement before the holiday.

The Re’ah points out that this is true only of animals like doves that are not specifically raised to
be used for food. Chickens or geese, for example, which are raised for slaughter, would not require
such preparation. Nevertheless, according to the Yam Shel Shlomo it is appropriate to choose
specific chickens or geese before Yom Tov and set them aside, as well, if they are to be slaughtered
on Yom Tov.

An obvious question that comes up regarding the Gemara‘s discussion of this matter is whether a
person can announce before Yom Tov that the entire dovecote is set aside for slaughter for food on
the holiday. Making such an announcement does not obligate one to use all of the doves, and would
solve the Gemara’s concerns with which birds were actually prepared.

The Rashba argues that someone who makes such a statement can successfully avoid all
problems. Rabbeinu Peretz, Rabbeinu Yerucham and others say that this cannot be done because
no one who raises doves would plan to destroy his entire dovecote, so the statement cannot be
taken seriously.

When Rav Raphael of Barshad, zt”l, first began to search for the ideal way to serve Hashem, he
heard that learning the Zohar Hakadosh was a great segulah for attaining fear of heaven. He
therefore began learning a great deal of Zohar.5 After learning through the whole Zohar, he started
the Zohar Chadash. Towards the end of the Zohar Chadash, there is a warning against being like
Bilam, who was a complete fool despite his great knowledge of serving Hashem. Rav Raphael said
to himself, “If one can know so much and still be a fool, perhaps I should focus instead on
Shulchan Aruch so that my study will bring me to ‫—מעשה‬action.”

He started learning Shulchan Aruch in depth. When he reached Orach Chaim #231, “All of one’s
acts should be for the sake of heaven,” he again felt that something was missing. “Are all of my
actions really l’shem shomayim? Perhaps I should spend more time on mussar!” he wondered.

5
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Beitza%20010.pdf

13
Rav Rafael therefore added study of the Shelah HaKadosh to his schedule. He was so immersed
in the Shelah that he would learn it at every opportunity. He would even take it with him when
waking the townsfolk for davening so that he would not waste a single minute. But after a while
he again felt as if something was missing.

So he traveled to the famous Rav Pinchas of Koretz, zt”l, for advice. Rav Rafael poured out his
heart. “I want to serve Hashem in truth, but everything I have tried has been insufficient” He
was so distressed that he actually fainted. When he came to, Rav Pinchas said, “If you stay with
me, you will come to truth.” Three years later, Rav Rafael dreamed that he was playing cards.
Although his hand started out with black cards, they all turned white in the end. When he shared
his dream with Rav Pinchas, he was given a powerful interpretation. “Your dream is like the
Gemara in Beitzah 10b, about one who designated black birds and found white ones instead.
When you first came to me, you were blackened with worry and stringencies, and this prevented
you from serving Hashem in truth. But now you are white with virtue and purity!”

Mark Kerzner writes:6

The Talmud notices a contradiction: we said that Beit Shammai put fewer limitations on
slaughtering animals for the Holiday (Yom Tov) meal, and Beit Hillel are more strict. However,
right after this we said that Beit Hillel allow more ways to get doves out of a dovecote. The question
is around the joy of the Holiday: which school, of Shammai or of Hillel, wants to enhance it more?

Rabbi Yochanan said, “It is a mistake! Somebody transmitted their opinions incorrectly, and
Beit Shammai should be stricter, as they are wont to be. †But this is not necessarily so. It could
be that Beit Shammai allow slaughtering and covering the blood only in that specific case, where
there is a spade already in the ground, so there is no reason to prohibit it, but normally they would
be stricter.

Beit Hillel, in their turn, permit using a ladder to get to the dovecote because it obviously a ladder
for that, and not for plastering the roof. But in other cases they may follow different logic, not
necessary trying to be lenient. The Talmud finds five more contradictions where Rabbi Yochanan
claims that it is a mistake, but the Talmud is able to explain the opinions as they are recorded,
without reversing them.

Rachel Scheinerman writes:7

Today we continue our exploration of the rules of muktzeh — objects that may not be moved
on Shabbat or a festival — focusing on a very specific case: doves.

6
https://talmudilluminated.com/beitzah/beitzah10.html
7
Myjewishlearning.com

14
In the ancient world, it was common for people to raise doves for food. Ordinarily, doves are
muktzeh. But someone who wished to increase the joy of a festival by slaughtering and eating
doves could go down to their dovecote (essentially, a large birdhouse) on the eve of the festival
and designate a few to become lunch the following day. This process of designating the doves
would change their status so they were not muktzeh, allowing the person to return the next day
and claim them.

In the first mishnah on our page, Hillel and Shammai disagree about the designation process.
Shammai says that one must “shake” the doves intended for festival consumption, while Hillel
says it is sufficient to verbally designate the doves that will show up on the festival table the next
day.

Of course, it’s not difficult to see the potential pitfalls with either method of designation. Doves
can fly around, and they might look alike and get confused with one another. Whether you shook
it or just pointed a finger and said it aloud, how do you know that the dove you picked out as your
festival dinner yesterday is the same dove you’re looking at today? Later commentators suggest
remembering an identifying feature or marking the dove in some way, though the Gemara does
not discuss these options specifically.

While knowing one has claimed the right bird can be tricky, there are certainly cases in which a
person returns on a festival and knows for sure they are now looking at the wrong bird. The second
mishnah on our page addresses this possibility:

If one designated black and on the following day found white, or if one designated white and
found black ... they are prohibited.

It’s safe to assume that pigeons don’t change color overnight. A pigeon that was black on the eve
of the festival will not suddenly be white the next morning. In fact, this is so intuitive that it irritates
the Gemara, which offers the following opening comment on this mishnah:

This is obvious!

The rabbinic view is that the Mishnah is a sacred text full of religious insights — it would not
waste words on things that are obvious. Therefore, the Gemara concludes, we must have
misunderstood it. Rabba offers an alternative reading.

Rabba said: With what are we (actually) dealing here? With a case where one designated both
black and white ones to be slaughtered, and he arose and found black ones in the place where
the white ones had been and white ones where the black ones had been — lest you say these are
the same and they merely changed places.

Rabba has reread the mishnah to make it, well, less black and white. Now, he suggests, the mishnah
is really talking about a case when someone designated both black and white pigeons to eat, and
came back and they were in different places — which makes it more difficult to know whether we
are dealing with the same birds or not. In this case, the mishnah is teaching us, we do not slaughter
the pigeons in order to be on the safe side.

15
Speaking of obvious: It seems obvious to me that this is not what the mishnah originally intended.
For the rabbis, however, that’s not the point. It’s not that original intent doesn’t matter, but original
intent is only one meaning among many that must be considered in the important work of sacred
interpretation. Unlike doves, meaning — for the rabbis — is rarely black and white.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:8

Our daf (Beitzah 10a) explores the Talmudic principle of ‫‘( ברירה‬Bereira’ – meaning
‘clarification’) which concerns an ambiguous situation at a particular moment whose ambiguity
has halachic ramifications on the people or items involved at that moment. Then, at a later time,
the particulars of that situation are clarified, with the question then being whether this clarification
retroactively changes the previously established halachic status of those people or items.

While the principle of ‫ ברירה‬is subject to debate and has wide-reaching implications, on a more
basic level these days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are also about ‫ברירה‬
(clarification). We ask God that while what we may have done in the past year might have been
questionable that He show us grace and pardon us by retroactively seeing the good in some of the
bad that we may have done. And on what basis do we make this petition? Due to the fact that this
too is what we should be doing in these days - by reflecting on what others may have done to us
and possibly adopting a different perspective on their actions and our reactions, while asking others
to do the same for us.

It is quite clear that there are many situations that are not immediately clear to us. But it is equally
clear that there are many situations which, after the fact, can be clarified and understood more
clearly. However, this change of perspective doesn’t happen automatically; ‫( ברירה‬clarification)
needs to be a conscious process.

It has been said that you can’t change the past - which is true. At the same time, you can change
the way you see the past which, as evident from the discussion surrounding the principle of ‫ברירה‬,
can have a direct impact on the present, and this is what we try and do in these days: look back,
see things differently, and feel renewed based on an altogether different perspective on the events
that led us to where and who we are today.

What is the symbolism behind the dove in Jewish literature?

Menachem Posner writes:9
In Song of Songs, the moving love depicting the loving relationship between G-d and His nation,
the "dove" is an adjective often used to describe the bride, the Jewish people.

8
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com
9
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/515373/jewish/What-is-the-symbolism-behind-the-dove.htm

16
Our sages tell us of many wonderful qualities which the dove possesses, qualities which are also
associated with the Jewish people — and hence the use of the dove as our metaphor. Perhaps
some of these wonderful qualities would be appropriate descriptions of your mother?

Here are some of them:

"Just as the dove is only saved by her wings, so, too, the Jews are only saved by the merit of
their mitzvot."1

"The dove said before G-d: 'Master of the universe; let my food be bitter like an olive, but
from Your hands, and not sweet as honey but dependent on the hands of flesh and
blood.'"2

"All other birds rest on a rock or a tree when they tire, but when the dove tires she pushes
off the ground with one wing and flies with the other."3

"Just like a dove once she meets her mate never leaves him for another… just as a dove
whose fledglings are taken from her nest still doesn't abandon her nest…, so are the Jewish
people faithful to G-d."4

17
 The Enduring Symbolism of Doves
From ancient icon to biblical mainstay

Dorothy Willette writes:10

In addition to its symbolism for the Holy Spirit, the dove was a popular Christian symbol before
the cross rose to prominence in the fourth century. The dove continued to be used for various
church implements throughout the Byzantine and medieval period, including the form of oil lamps
and this 13th-century altar piece for holding the Eucharistic bread. Walters Art Museum, Baltimore
Few symbols have a tradition as long and as rich as the dove. A particular favorite in art and
iconography, the dove often represents some aspect of the divine, and its use has been shared,
adapted and reinterpreted across cultures and millennia to suit changing belief systems. From the
ancient world to modern times, this simple bird developed layer upon layer of meaning and
interpretive significance, making it a complex and powerful addition to religious texts and visual
representations.

In the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean world, the dove became an iconic symbol of the
mother goddess. Small clay shrines from the Iron Age Levant depict doves perched atop the
doorways of these mini-temples. On one example from Cyprus, the entire exterior of the goddess’s
shrine is covered with dovecotes. The doves represented feminine fertility and procreation, and
came to be well-recognized symbols of the Canaanite goddess Asherah and her counterpart
Astarte, as well as her Phoenician and later Punic embodiment, Tanit. First-century B.C. coins
from Ashkelon bore a dove, which represented both the goddess Tyche-Astarte and the city mint.

10
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/daily-life-and-practice/the-enduring-symbolism-of-doves/

18
In Rome and throughout the Empire, goddesses such as Venus and Fortunata could be seen
depicted in statues with a dove resting in their hand or on their head.

There is strong evidence in the Hebrew Bible, as well as the archaeological record, that many
ancient Israelites believed the goddess Asherah was the consort of their god Yahweh. Perhaps it is
not so surprising, then, that the heirs of this Israelite religion incorporated the “feminine” symbol
of the dove to represent the spirit of God (the word for “spirit,” ruach, is a feminine word in
Hebrew). The Babylonian Talmud likens the hovering of God’s spirit in Genesis 1:2 to the
hovering of a dove. Indeed, this same “hovering” language is used to describe God’s spirit in
the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as the New Testament.

A dove and two bird-like female figures perch

atop this clay house shrine from the Iron Age. The Dovecotes, or niches for doves, dot the exterior of
dove was widely recognized throughout the this small clay house shrine from Cyprus, while the
Ancient Near Eastern world as a symbol of the goddess beckons to devotees from within. Erich
mother goddess Asherah and her counterparts Lessing.
Astarte and Tanit. Ardon Bar Hama

But that is not the only allusion to a dove in the Hebrew Bible. The best-known example comes
from the flood story of Genesis 6—9. In Genesis 8:8—12, after the ark has landed on the
mountains of Ararat, Noah sends out a dove three times to see how far the flood waters have
receded. The first time it found nothing and returned to the ark. The second time it brought back

19
an olive leaf, so Noah could see that God’s punishment was over and life had begun again on the
earth. (The image of a dove holding an olive branch continues to be a symbol of peace to this day.)
The third time, the dove did not return, and Noah knew that it was safe to leave the ark. A similar
flood story is told in parallel passages in the ancient Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. There, too, the
hero (Utnapishtim) sends out a dove, which returns to the ship unable to find a perch. In fact, from
Ancient Near Eastern records to nautical practices as recent as the 19th century, sailors the world
over used doves and other birds to help them find and navigate toward land. So, while Noah made
use of an ancient sailor’s trick, the dove came to represent a sign from God.

A white dove represents the “spirit of God” that hovered over the face of the
deep (Genesis 1:2) in this, the first of the Creation mosaics at the Cathedral of
Santa Maria Nuovo in Monreale, Italy

Dove imagery is also utilized in several of the prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible. The low,
cooing sound of a dove served as mournful imagery to evoke the suffering of the people of Judah
(see Isaiah 38:14, 59:11; Ezekiel 7:16 and others).

20
 A dove returns to Noah’s ark with an olive branch in its beak, a sign that life had returned to the
earth after the great flood. Sailors throughout history have used birds to guide them to dry land.
Pictured is a detail of a woodcut from the Nuremberg Bible. Credit: Victoria & Albert Picture
Library.

But doves were more than just a soundtrack for a people who had fallen away from God; they were
also an instrument of atonement. Several passages of the Torah (especially Leviticus) specify
occasions that require the sacrifice of two doves (or young pigeons)—either as a guilt offering or
to purify oneself after a period of ritual impurity (including the birth of a child). Several
columbaria, or dovecotes, have been excavated in the City of David and the Jerusalem environs
(by Crawford). These towers were undoubtedly used to raise doves for sacrificial offerings, as well
as for the meat and fertilizer they provided—a popular practice in the Hellenistic and Roman
periods that continued into the modern period.

21
Columbaria, or dovecotes, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in Jerusalem
and throughout the Holy Land. The scarce remains of the tower on the left show a few rows
of niches still standing in the City of David, whereas the underground dovecotes such as the
one on the right, from Luzit, have been remarkably well preserved. Doves and pigeons were
raised for their meat, and their droppings were collected for fertilizer, but they also played
an important role in Temple sacrifice.

The atoning quality of doves led to comparisons in the Talmud and the Targums with Isaac and
Israel. According to these extra-Biblical sources, just as a dove stretches out its neck, so too did
Isaac prepare to be sacrificed to God, and later Israel took on this stance to atone for the sins of
other nations.

Thus, by the time of Jesus, the dove was already rich with symbolism and many interpretations—
as a representation of Israel, atoning sacrifice, suffering, a sign from God, fertility and the spirit of
God. All these meanings and more were incorporated into the Christian use of dove iconography.

Doves appear in the New Testament at scenes associated with Jesus’ birth, baptism and just
before his death. The Gospel of Luke says that Mary and Joseph sacrificed two doves at the Temple
following the birth of Jesus, as was prescribed in the law mentioned above (Luke 2:24). Yet in
the Gospel of John, Jesus angrily drives out all of the merchants from the Temple, including “those
who sold doves” to worshipers there (John 2:16).

22
 During Benjamin Mazar’s excavations at the southwest corner of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, he
recovered a stone bowl that bore the inscription korban (“sacrifice”), as well as finely scratched
drawings of two upside-down (dead) birds. The bowl was probably intended for devout Jews to
bring their offering of two doves or pigeons to the Temple for sacrifice, as commanded in the Books
of Leviticus and Numbers. Erich Lessing

The Holy Spirit descends on Jesus in the form of a dove during his baptism in the Jordan by John
the Baptist. Variations of this scene are told in all four of the Gospels and, as shown here in a 14th-
century Byzantine mosaic from the Baptistery in the Church of San Marco in Venice, the dove
became the quintessential symbol for the Holy Spirit, especially in representations of the Trinity.

23
But perhaps the most familiar dove imagery from the New Testament is recounted in all four of
the Gospels (though in varying forms) at the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist in the Jordan
River. After Jesus came up out of the water, the [Holy] Spirit [of God] came from heaven and
descended on him “like a dove” (see Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32). The
baptism story built on the pre-existing symbol of the dove as God’s spirit (and its many other
meanings) and firmly entrenched it as the preferred representation of the Holy Spirit—especially
in later artistic depictions of the Trinity.

In Renaissance art, a dove became a standard element in the formulaic Annunciation scene,
representing the Holy Spirit about to merge with the Virgin Mary. Doves were also shown flying
into the mouths of prophets in Christian art as a sign of God’s spirit and divine authority. Even
contemporary pop artist Andy Warhol used a (much more commercial) image of a Dove to
represent the Holy Spirit in his, The Last Supper (Dove).

“The Word” enters Mary via rays of light emanating from a dove (representing the Holy Spirit) in
this detail from Fra Filippo Lippi’s Annunciation scene, now in the National Gallery in London.
National Gallery, London

Another source associates a dove with the beginning of Jesus’ life. According to the second-
century Protoevangelium of James, when the Temple priests were trying to choose a husband for
Mary, a dove flew out of Joseph’s rod and landed on his head, marking him as the one selected by
God. In fairytales throughout the world, birds have often been used to signify the “chosen one,”
the true king or even the divine.

24
Before the cross gained prominence in the fourth century, the second-century church father
Clement of Alexandria urged early Christians to use the dove or a fish as a symbol to identify
themselves and each other as followers of Jesus. Archaeologists have recovered oil lamps and
Eucharistic vessels in the shape of doves from Christian churches throughout the Holy Land.

Since ancient times the dove was used to identify and represent the divine. It then helped countless
peoples to envision and understand the many aspects of a God who could not be embodied by an
idol or statue. It continues to be a favorite way to show the hand and presence of God in the world
and remains one of our most enduring symbols.

White doves at the Blue Mosque, Mazar-i-Sharif

Doves as symbols

Doves, usually white in color, are used in many settings as symbols of love, peace or as
messengers. Doves appear in the symbolism of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Paganism, and of
both military and pacifist groups.

25
Early fifth-century BC statue of Aphrodite from Cyprus, showing her wearing
a cylinder crown and holding a dove
In ancient Mesopotamia, doves were prominent animal symbols of Inanna-Ishtar, the goddess of
love, sexuality, and war.[1][2] Doves are shown on cultic objects associated with Inanna as early as
the beginning of the third millennium BC. Lead dove figurines were discovered in the temple of
Ishtar at Aššur, dating to the thirteenth century BC, and a painted fresco from Mari, Syria shows a
giant dove emerging from a palm tree in the temple of Ishtar, indicating that the goddess herself
was sometimes believed to take the form of a dove.
In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Utnapishtim releases a dove and a raven to find land; the dove merely
circles and returns. Only then does Utnapishtim send forth the raven, which does not return, and
Utnapishtim concludes the raven has found land.
In the ancient Levant, doves were used as symbols for the Canaanite mother goddess Asherah.
The ancient Greek word for "dove" was peristerá, which may be derived from the Semitic
phrase peraḥ Ištar, meaning "bird of Ishtar". In classical antiquity, doves were sacred to the Greek
goddess Aphrodite, who absorbed this association with doves from Inanna-Ishtar. Aphrodite
frequently appears with doves in ancient Greek pottery. The temple of Aphrodite Pandemos on the
southwest slope of the Athenian Acropolis was decorated with relief sculptures of doves with
knotted fillets in their beaks and votive offerings of small, white, marble doves were discovered in

26
the temple of Aphrodite at Daphni. During Aphrodite's main festival, the Aphrodisia, her altars
would be purified with the blood of a sacrificed dove. Aphrodite's associations with doves
influenced the Roman goddesses Venus and Fortuna, causing them to become associated with
doves as well.
In the Japanese mythology, doves is Hachiman's familiar spirit. Hachiman is the syncretic
divinity of archery and war incorporating elements from both Shinto and Buddhism.

J. E. Millais: The Return of the Dove to the Ark (1851)

According to the biblical story (Genesis 8:11), a dove was released by Noah after the Flood in
order to find land; it came back carrying a freshly plucked olive leaf (Hebrew: ‫ עלה זית‬alay zayit), a
sign of life after the Flood and of God's bringing Noah, his family and the animals to
land. Rabbinic literature interpreted the olive leaf as "the young shoots of the Land of Israel" or
the dove's preference for bitter food in God's service, rather than sweet food in the service of men.
The Talmud compares the spirit of God hovering over the waters to a dove that hovers over her
young.
In post-biblical Judaism, souls are envisioned as bird-like (Bahir 119), a concept that may be
derived from the Biblical notion that dead spirits "chirp" (Isa. 29:4). The Guf, or Treasury of Souls,
is sometimes described as a columbarium, a dove cote. This connects it to a related legend: the
"Palace of the Bird's Nest", the dwelling place of the Messiah's soul until his advent (Zohar II: 8a–

27
9a). The Vilna Gaon explicitly declares that a dove is a symbol of the human soul (Commentary
to Jonah, 1). The dove is also a symbol of the people Israel (Song of Songs Rabbah 2:14), an image
frequently repeated in Midrash.

Dove with an olive branch, Catacombs of Domitilla, Rome

The symbolism of the dove in Christianity is first found in the Old Testament Book of Genesis in
the story of Noah's Ark, "And the dove came into him at eventide; and, lo, in her mouth an olive-
leaf plucked off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth". Genesis 8:11 And,
also, in the New Testament Gospels of Matthew and Luke, both passages describe after the baptism
of Jesus, respectively, as follows, "And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway from the
water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a
dove, and coming upon him". Matthew 3:16 and, "And the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily
form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am
well pleased". Luke 3:22 The Holy Spirit descending on Jesus and appearing in the bodily form of
a dove is mentioned in the other two Gospels as well (see Mark 1:10 and John 1:32).
The use of a dove and olive branch as a symbol of peace originated with the early Christians, who
portrayed the act of baptism accompanied by a dove holding an olive branch in its beak and also
used the image on their sepulchres.
Christians derived the symbol of the dove and olive branch from Greek thought, including its use
of the symbol of the olive branch,[17] and the story of Noah and the Flood. Although Jews never
used the dove as a symbol of peace, it acquired that meaning among early Christians, confirmed
by St Augustine of Hippo in his book On Christian Doctrine and became well established.
In Christian Iconography, a dove also symbolizes the Holy Spirit, in reference to Matthew 3:16
and Luke 3:22 where the Holy Spirit is compared to a dove at the Baptism of Jesus.
The early Christians in Rome incorporated into their funerary art the image of a dove carrying an
olive branch, often accompanied by the word "Peace". It seems that they derived this image from
the simile in the Gospels, combining it with the symbol of the olive branch, which had been used
to represent peace by the Greeks and Romans. The dove and olive branch also appeared in

28
Christian images of Noah's ark. The fourth century Vulgate translated the Hebrew alay zayit (leaf
of olive) in Genesis 8:11 as Latin ramum olivae (branch of olive). By the fifth century, Augustine
of Hippo wrote in On Christian Doctrine that "perpetual peace is indicated by the olive branch
(oleae ramusculo) which the dove brought with it when it returned to the ark".
In the earliest Christian art, the dove represented the peace of the soul rather than civil peace, but
from the third century it began to appear in depictions of conflict in the Old Testament, such as
Noah and the Ark, and in the Apocrypha, such as Daniel and the lions, the three young men in the
furnace, and Susannah and the Elders.
Before the Peace of Constantine (313 AD), in which Rome ceased its persecution of Christians
following Constantine's conversion, Noah was normally shown in an attitude of prayer, a dove
with an olive branch flying toward him or alighting on his outstretched hand. According to
Graydon Snyder, "The Noah story afforded the early Christian community an opportunity to
express piety and peace in a vessel that withstood the threatening environment" of Roman
persecution. According to Ludwig Budde and Pierre Prigent, the dove referred to the descending
of the Holy Spirit rather than the peace associated with Noah. After the Peace of Constantine, when
persecution ceased, Noah appeared less frequently in Christian art.
Medieval illuminated manuscripts, such as the Holkham Bible, showed the dove returning to Noah
with a branch. Wycliffe's Bible, which translated the Vulgate into English in the 14th century, uses
"a braunche of olyue tre with greene leeuys" ("a branch of olive tree with green leaves") in Gen.
8:11. In the Middle Ages, some Jewish illuminated manuscripts also showed Noah's dove with an
olive branch, for example, the Golden Haggadah (about 1420).
Doves and the pigeon family in general are respected and favoured because they are believed to
have assisted the final prophet of Islam, Muhammad, in distracting his enemies outside the cave
of Thaw'r, in the great Hijra. A pair of pigeons had built a nest and laid eggs at once, and a spider
had woven cobwebs, which in the darkness of the night made the enemies believe that Muhammad
could not be in that cave.

29
 White dove with olive branch, stained glass window in the Denis and Saint
Sebastian church in Kruft, Germany

Doves are often associated with the concept of peace and pacifism. They often appear in political
cartoons, on banners and signs at events promoting peace (such as the Olympic Games, at various
anti-war/anti-violence protests, etc.), and in pacifist literature. A person who is a pacifist is
sometimes referred to as a dove (similarly, in American politics, a person who advocates the use
of military resources as opposed to diplomacy can be referred to as a hawk).
Picasso's lithograph, La Colombe (The Dove), a traditional, realistic picture of a pigeon, without
an olive branch, was created on a napkin at the Monopol Hotel in Wrocław during the World
Congress of Intellectuals in Defense of Peace in 1948. It was chosen as the emblem for the World
Peace Council in Paris in April 1949. At the 1950 World Peace Congress in Sheffield, Picasso said
that his father had taught him to paint doves, concluding, "I stand for life against death; I stand for
peace against war." At the 1952 World Peace Congress in Berlin, Picasso's Dove was depicted in
a banner above the stage.

30
Anti-communists had their own take on the peace dove: the group Paix et Liberté distributed
posters titled La colombe qui fait BOUM (the dove that goes BOOM), showing the peace dove
metamorphosing into a Soviet tank.

Dove: A Symbol of Peace, Healing, and Hope

SHOSHANAH WEISS writes:11

As the pandemic started hovering overhead this past March, life has only become more and more
chaotic. Nothing has really seemed to get back to normal since then. It was sometime during those

11
https://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/the-jewish-people-and-the-dove-a-symbol-of-peace-healing-and-hope/

31
first days that a pair of doves built a nest of tiny twigs outside my kitchen window. Perched right
above my backyard lights, the pair of soft brown doves began “sheltering in place” with my family.
Watching them each day has taught me life lessons from nature’s wonders. My children and I have
become avid bird watchers, checking the nest each day to see if the eggs hatched into chicks. One
of my daughters actually did the mitzvah of shiluach haken, as the mother bird flew away and then
returned to her nest unharmed. Over the past couple months, they have truly been my eye of the
storm. Each morning before I turn on the news, I listen to their cooing sounds. I have felt uplifted
and at peace thanks to their soprano tones. I realized that the symbolism of doves found in the
Torah has always been one of peace, healing, and hope for a better world.

The first appearance of a dove in the Torah is in Parshat Noach. Noach sent out the dove twice
when he was trying to ascertain if the rain had ended and they could exit the ark. According to
Rashi, the flood waters began to recede on the first of Sivan. The second time the dove was sent
out, it brought back an olive branch in its mouth. This became a symbol of peace and healing for
the future of humanity.

Kabbalistic teachings explain that a bird symbolizes the name of Hashem: the head of a bird is like
the letter yud of the divine name (yud-k-vav-k), the body of the bird is like the letter vav and the
two wings are similar to the two hehs. In the Tanya (an early book of Chabad philosophy by Rabbi
Shnuer Zalman), it says that the two wings of a bird represent fear and love of G-d: the left wing
is strength and the right side is kindness. In Shaar Hayechudim by Chaim Vital (the main student
of the famous Kabbalist the ARIZaL), it is written that wings of a bird are like arms for a person.
Love and fear elevate the performance of the 613 mitzvot.

In the Babylonian Talmud, Brachot 53b states that the dove is compared to the Jewish people. In
a quote from Psalms 68:14; it states that even if the Jewish people are steeped in exile, they will
become as exalted as the wings of a white dove, whose wings shimmer like silver and her wingtips
with brilliant gold. A dove saves herself by either flying away or by fighting with her wings, while
other birds fight with their beaks. Since the Jewish people are likened to a dove, the virtue of the
mitzvot are compared to a dove’s wings which protect and save Israel from harm.

Rav Kook further deepens our understanding of the wings of a dove. He said that the mitzvot have
internal and external aspects. The inner purpose of each mitzvah is like a muscle that powers the
wings. The inner meaning of mitzvot is like gold, only understood by great scholars. The outer
wings are covered in silver, a more commonly used metal. The outer silver wings are the outer
expressions that are available to everyone. They are interconnected. Mitzvot therefore benefit all
aspects of a Jewish person.

The Torah teaches us that we can learn good character from every living creature. As it says in Job
35:11; “from the animals of the land, and from the birds of the heaven [He] makes us wise.” The
dove, after all, is a monogamous bird, demonstrating the qualities of fidelity and loyalty. The
fidelity of a dove is meant to teach us that fidelity with our marital partners on earth is important.
It also represents the loyalty that we display to G-d. It is a relationship of mutual trust, with us
dedicating our lives to doing mitzvot and in return finding shelter and strength from the Almighty.
Many years ago, as a student in Jerusalem, I walked to the Kotel for morning prayers at sunrise on
the morning of Shavuot. As the sun came up, a large group of white doves began flying around

32
over everyone in large circles. There was a heavenly aura to this experience. It was a time when
one could experience a glimpse of the revelation from Sinai. During those moments, the doves of
Jerusalem seemed to be placing crowns on our heads as we silently uttered na’aseh v’nishma.

Ruth was the great-grandmother of King David, and is the Matriarch of Moshiach. Interestingly,
if you turn the letters of the name Ruth around in Hebrew it spells out the word tor which means
dove. We read the book of Ruth on Shavuot. The story is essentially about chesed (kindness). As
a pure dove, Ruth’s conversion to Judaism and her humility and dedication to her people are the
foundation for what true royalty means for a Jewish King. In Artscroll’s Megillat Ruth, it is written
that the Torah contains 606 mitzvot, separate from the 7 Noahide laws which are incumbent upon
non-Jews. It is interesting to note that the number 606 is equal to the numerical value of the name
Ruth.” It was from the metaphorical wings of Ruth’s mitzvot that bore the fruits of the Davidic
dynasty. May we merit the ultimate healing of the world at this time and have a chag sameach!

Turtle Dove

“The Ring Neck Dove and the White Dove: Birds of a Feather?”12

The Bible makes numerous references to the turtle dove. Harbinger of tranquility and worthy of
being offered on the altar in Jerusalem, the deep symbolism of the dove is unavoidable. There are
a few dove breeders in the United States, and as fanciers of these birds they inquired as to the
kosher status of the turtle dove. It is doubtful that these people had any intention of consuming the
turtle dove, but rather they wanted to learn all they could about the breed they were raising. Perhaps
it was hoped that if proven kosher a new marketing venue would open. After all, how many people
have pets that could be offered as a sacrifice in the Temple? It should be noted that the Orthodox
Union only certifies food. While it is possible for the Orthodox Union to verify the kosher status
of a species, it is impossible to certify a live bird; the living bird is not food; it is not in its present
form fit for human consumption; and thus cannot be considered kosher.

Before going any further, it is important to explain the origin of the name turtle dove. The dove is
not at all associated with a turtle, but rather a slurring of the Latin which is based on the Hebrew.

12
https://oukosher.org/btus/issues/summer-2016/

33
In biblical Hebrew the dove is the tor. In deference to the Hebraic origins, the Latin name
was turtur, the biblical Hebrew word, tor, twice. When transliterated to English, the
word turtur became the garbled turtle dove. Scientifically, the turtur genus is rather limited,
comprising only a few species. In contrast, in the biblical tradition the number of species which
are considered to be a species of turtle dove is far greater than the number of species scientifically
classified as the turtur genus.

The Talmudic tradition (Tractate Chulin) is that there are a number of species of turtle doves. In
the United States, a few varieties of doves are offered for sale and so I began my research at the
pet store. I live adjacent to the first Petland Discount store. This store is always staffed by the most
knowledgeable and dedicated salespeople as the CEO of the company is said to frequent the store
if for nothing more than the memories of when this was his only location.

The salespeople showed me that there were two kinds of turtle doves for sale. One was the ring
neck dove. The ring neck doves, which are common in pet stores, are not scientifically considered
to be a turtur specie. However, the biblical tradition does classify the ring neck dove as a turtle
dove. The back of the ring neck dove has a black ring of feathers, bordered on both sides by white
rings of feathers. It is from this anatomical feature that the bird was named the ring neck dove. For
two millennia it has been described and documented in the rabbinic literature, often described as
wearing a prayer shawl.

To be sure the scientifically classified turtur are also considered to be turtle doves, but it is the ring
neck that is the best documented. Cost was also a factor; the ring neck doves cost approximately a
fifth of what the least expensive members of the turtur genus would cost. Finally, it was the goal
to breed these birds. The ring neck are much more habituated to people and thus much more likely
to breed in captivity. (While ring neck doves sell for between ten and thirty dollars the exotic doves
start at one hundred dollars, for the more common varieties [palm doves and ground doves]. There
are some exotic doves and pigeons, such as the Queen Victoria Crowned pigeon, which can cost
thousands of dollars.)

Sold beside the ring neck dove, described above, was a white dove. The white dove was the same
size as the ring neck dove, although it was ten dollars more expensive. I could see that the feathers
of the white dove were anatomically identical to the feathers of the ring neck dove, although the
feathers of the white dove were all white. There was no black line to be found anywhere on the
neck. I thought I could identify some feathers on the back of the neck resembling a prayer shawl,
although this prayer shawl was totally white. The problem is that these visual tests would be
insufficient for the determination of the kosher status of the white dove.

Clearly, I would need to prove that these two species were one and the same. I contacted a number
of dove breeders, and they all assured me that the white dove was just a strain of the ring neck
dove. I found this corroborated in the scientific literature. However, since the ring neck dove and
the white dove were often sold together, and that many people housed them together and
considered them the same species, I had to verify their status. To discuss the ring neck without
mention of the white dove would have been a glaring omission.

34
Not far from my home is the Biblical Ornithological Society, an institution dedicated to breeding
rare and endangered biblical birds. As a board member of the Society, I was graciously granted an
aviary to conduct some basic experiments. I took seven doves and introduced them into the aviary.
There were six white doves, some were male and some were female, and there was one male ring
necked dove.

Seeing all was in order, I started to exit the aviary when I realized that the ring neck dove and the
white doves were mating. A few days later the white female produced eggs and out hatched two
ring neck doves. Unfortunately, of all the nesting boxes set up, this was the best. All the other
females started laying eggs in the nest and the babies were soon crushed. I then had to make a half
dozen identical nest boxes and everyone was nesting happily. Sure enough the white doves
produced a clutch, two babies, one was a ring neck and one was a white dove.

With the help of Rafi, a volunteer at the Biblical Ornithological Society, I carefully monitored the
babies. They grew fast and beautifully until finally I had two full grown birds, one a white and the
other a ring neck dove. Most importantly, the ring neck dove was identical to its father. There was
no hybrid vigor, or any other indication of speciation. Rather it seems that the white doves are a
color strain, presumably recessive, of the ring neck dove. As such, it can be confidently concluded
that the ring neck dove and the white dove are strains of the same species. Both are species of the
kosher turtle dove.

As of press time, the turtle doves are nesting again. They have fully acclimated to the aviary. If
you attempt to exit the aviary without dropping a few sun flowers for them to enjoy, you can be
sure that they will follow you right out of the aviary, staying close until your mistake is rectified.

35
Bird study backs Bible: Pigeons, doves sacrificed in ancient
Jerusalem

From the story of Noah and the dove in the Book of Genesis to the issues of ritual sacrifices
and dietary restrictions, birds play a very important role in the biblical text.

ROSSELLA TERCATIN writes:13

Analysis of bird remains excavated in Jerusalem confirmed that specific species of birds – pigeons,
doves – were indeed sacrificed in the Temple as the biblical text suggests, a new study published
in the May issue of the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) showed.

“[Noah] again sent out the dove from the ark. The dove came back to him toward evening, and
there in its bill was a plucked-off olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the waters had decreased on
the earth,” (Genesis 8, 10-11)

13
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/bird-study-backs-bible-pigeons-doves-sacrificed-in-ancient-jerusalem-631819

36
From the story of Noah and the dove in the Book of Genesis to the issues of ritual sacrifices and
dietary restrictions, birds play a very important role in the biblical text.

Zoo-archaeologist Abra Spiciarich, a Ph.D. candidate at Tel Aviv University, started her research
as part of a grant focusing on biblical dietary laws. As she explained to The Jerusalem Post, one
of the areas of interest was a comparison between birds present in Israel’s ancient landscape and
those mentioned in the Scriptures.

Starting from this question, the researcher was able to identify evidence supporting the text also in
the realm of ritual practices, as well as to open a window in how humans and birds interacted in
the land between 3,500 and 2,500 years ago.

Pigeons and doves often appear in the Bible as animals fit to be offered to God. For example, as
described in Leviticus, they were one of the options for an atoning sacrifice for those who
committed several types of sin or who had become impure. Moreover, a mother was required to
bring a turtledove after completing her purification period following childbirth.

However, as Spiciarich pointed out, some scholars were skeptical.

“All the animals that are defined as sacrificial in the Bible are domesticated species, while pigeons
and doves are not what people think as domesticated. Therefore, some biblical scholars stated that
people back then did not sacrifice pigeons or doves but rather chickens, which were domesticated,”
she explained.

The researcher studied bird bones from 19 sites around the region.

Analysis of the remains from sites near the Temple Mount from the First Temple Period or Iron
Age II (1000-586 BCE) documented a large number of doves and pigeons. In sites where
residential areas in Jerusalem stood on the contrary those birds were almost absent while evidence
could be found for chicken consumption.

“Jerusalem is a very unique site, with so many excavations carried in the last century that give
archaeologists the ability to look at different areas in different times,” Spiciarich explained. “I was
able to identify different patterns between public and residential areas.”

The archaeologist pointed out that this trend becomes even more evident by studying animal
remains in Jerusalem from later times.

“There is a big dump dating back to the Roman period and the trash closest to the Temple Mount
presents a lot of pigeons and doves, while the trash from the residential areas has none,” she said.
“It really shows a border on how animals birds used, a topic on which we learn also from other
texts, such as Josephus and the New Testament,” Spiciarich concluded. “The story is reflected both
in texts and in archaeology.”

37
The paper also looked into the questions of what species were commonly used and eaten in the
region starting from the Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 BCE), and highlighted that partridges and
geese were among the most popular birds consumed. Furthermore, the researcher showed how
changes in climate affected the region, its birds and their consumption by local populations.

The Voice of the Turtledove

‫ ֵﬠת ַהָזִּמיר‬,‫יב ַה ִנָּצּ ִנים ִנ ְראוּ ָבָאֶרץ‬ 12 The flowers appear on the earth; the time of singing is
.‫ ִנְשַׁמע ְבַּא ְרֵצנוּ‬,‫ִהִגּיַﬠ; ְוקוֹל ַהתּוֹר‬ come, and the voice of the turtledove is heard in our land;
Song 2:12
Kol HaTor (Hebrew: ‫קול התור‬, .i.e., The Voice of the Turtledove, a reference to Song of
Songs (Song 2:12) was written by Rabbi Hillel Rivlin of Shklov, a disciple of the Vilna Gaon. The
text deals with the Geulah (Era of eschatology and salvation) and describes its signs vis-a-vis an
evaluation of a proposed 999 footsteps of the Moshiach's arrival. The Vilna Gaon believed the
number 999 to be intrinsically connected to the idea of Moshiach ben Yosef, he also felt that this
number is alluded to in the gematria of his own name.
Kol HaTor was first published in Hebrew in 1968 by Rabbi Menachem Mendel Kasher, to whom
the book was passed down over the generations. According to Rabbi Pinchas Winston,
"The original text of Kol HaTor was kept in the manuscript by the Rivlin family, descendants of
Rabbi Hillel Rivlin, for over 200 years. In 1947, Rabbi Shlomo Rivlin, with the advice of the
great Kabbalists of Jerusalem, decided to publish an abridged version of this lengthy and difficult
treatise keeping the Kabbalistic terminology as simple as possible so that it could also be studied
by non-Kabbalists. Therefore, the printed Kol HaTor is not the original text. In 1968 it was
reprinted again by two different editors (unknown to each other), Rabbi Menachem Kasher and
Rabbi Chaim Friedlander (Committee For The Dissemination of Kol HaTor). Rabbi Kasher
omitted the chapter on the confluences of Kabbalah and science called Sha'ar Be'er Sheva (Gate
of The Seven Fields of Wisdom). The B'nei Brak edition, which did contain this chapter, was out
of print for over twenty years, thus making this "lost doctrine" of the GR"A [the Vilna Gaon]
totally unnoticed by scholars and the public. Only recently a new print has appeared in Jerusalem
with the Sha'ar Be'er Sheva."
The text has become popularized amongst the adherents of Religious Zionism who perceive
parallels between current and recent historical events and those forecast in the book. They maintain
that we are currently in the years right prior to the full Redemption and that the indicators
established in Kol HaTor are currently being manifested.
However, some anti-Zionists have disputed the authenticity of Kol HaTor, particularly
Rabbi Moshe Shternbuch, who is a direct descendant of the Vilna Gaon and is the rabbi of the
GRA Synagogue in Jerusalem, which primarily follows the traditions taught and espoused by the
Vilna Gaon. Rabbi Shternbuch argues against the work on theological grounds as well as textual
grounds by drawing attention to certain words in the text that only a speaker of modern
Hebrew would utilize. He first wrote against Kol HaTor in a ten page pamphlet in the year

38
following its publication in 1968 and later expanded upon the matter in his work Teshuvos
VeHanhagos.

39
40
41
42
 The Curious Symbolism of Doves in Literature and Myth

Doves are well-known symbols of peace. Although such symbolism is strongly associated with
Christianity, the associations between doves and peace go back much further than this: in ancient
Mesopotamia, doves were symbols of Inanna-Ishtar, the goddess of love, sexuality, and (perhaps
surprisingly) war. Indeed, the ancient Greek word for ‘dove’, peristerá, may be derived from the
Semitic peraḥ Ištar, meaning ‘bird of Ishtar’. ad will end in 22

Dove symbolism in Christianity

In Christianity, the dove is used symbolically in both the very first book of the Old Testament (the
Book of Genesis) and the very last book of the New Testament (the Book of Revelation). In
Genesis, following the Flood, Noah sends forth a dove from the ark, and the dove came back with
an olive branch in its mouth: a sign that the waters had receded enough for an olive tree to grow.
Since then, of course, doves and olive branches have been well-known symbols of peace –
although, as we’ve already seen, doves had already attracted that association.

Curiously, the raven and the dove also feature in the earlier Epic of Gilgamesh, another pre-
Homeric (and pre-Christian) work of literature from Babylonia. Utnapishtim releases a dove to
find land, but it merely circles the area and returns. After the dove’s failures, he releases the raven,
and when the bird doesn’t return, Utnapishtim concludes that it’s found land.

This is a reversal of what happens in the Biblical account of the Flood (in Genesis 8:6-12), where
the raven is sent out first, then the dove.

43
Dove symbolism in classical myth

But the dove is also found in other ancient belief systems: in classical Greek myth, for instance,
doves were associated with Aphrodite, the goddess of love, and were thus associated with physical
or erotic love, rather than some ‘purer’ love such as religious devotion.

In both Christian and pagan cultures, however, the dove tends to represent an important aspect of
the human soul. As The Penguin Dictionary of Symbols (Penguin dictionaries) observes, it was
perhaps the whiteness of the bird’s feathers, combined with its gentle cooing, which helped to
create this association between doves and the human spirit. Of course, lovers are sometimes said
to ‘coo’ sweet nothings at each other, so we can see how this association came about.

Dove symbolism in literature

In his obscure poem ‘The Phoenix and the Turtle’ (it’s been called the first published metaphysical
poem), William Shakespeare writes about doves, as the title makes clear. Or rather, to our modern
eyes, perhaps doesn’t make clear: many people assume the poem is about the mythical bird that
could rise from the ashes of its own funeral pyre, and a slow-moving shelled reptile known for
eating pizza in the sewers (a reference for any fans of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles there).

But no: Shakespeare is writing about the turtle dove, describing the funeral for the Phoenix and
Turtledove (which represent perfection and devoted love respectively):

Whereupon it made this threne

To the Phoenix and the Dove,
Co-supremes and stars of love,
As chorus to their tragic scene:

Beauty, truth, and rarity,

Grace in all simplicity,
Here enclos’d, in cinders lie.

Death is now the Phoenix’ nest,

And the Turtle’s loyal breast
To eternity doth rest,

Leaving no posterity:
’Twas not their infirmity,
It was married chastity.

Truth may seem but cannot be;

Beauty brag but ’tis not she;
Truth and beauty buried be.

44
To this urn let those repair
That are either true or fair;
For these dead birds sigh a prayer.

As the reference to the ‘Turtle’s loyal breast’ indicates, Shakespeare is drawing upon the centuries-
old symbolism of doves as representatives of love and devotion.

This symbolism of the dove, linking it to peace and love, persisted even in the face of the horrific
events of the twentieth century, and even during massive industrial warfare. In his 1917 poem
‘Insouciance’, the imagist poet Richard Aldington plays on this peace symbolism, writing that the
poems he creates in the trenches fly away from him like ‘white-winged doves’. Doves are
messengers of peace, but pigeons – which are, after all, related to doves – were literal messengers
in the trenches. Messengers of war, we might say.

In the Second World War, another modernist poet, T. S. Eliot, wrote memorably of the air raids
on London in his 1942 poem ‘Little Gidding’. Describing the German bomber plane as a ‘dove
descending’ with ‘flame of incandescent terror’, Eliot combined the man-made plane – a symbol
of death and terror – with the peaceful dove. In doing so, he drew upon the purifying symbolism
of fire, and the idea that London – and perhaps Europe more widely – might rise from the rubble
of the war and be remade (Eliot probably also hoped for a resurgence of Christianity, given his
own beliefs and the strong religious connotations of the dove).

Why Do Doves Represent Love?

45
Remy Melina writes:14

Doves are a year-round symbol of peace but also a romantic Valentine's Day staple of love. Why
are these birds considered so, well, lovey-dovey?

The association dates back to the Middle Ages, when people believed that all birds chose their
mates on Valentine's Day. Although some birds do mate during the middle of February, including
the mistle thrush, blackbird and partridge, most birds ' mating seasons take place during the spring
and summer.

The dove was singled out to represent romance because Greek mythology associated the small,
white bird with Aphrodite, the goddess of love (known in Roman mythology as Venus).
Aphrodite/Venus is often depicted with doves fluttering around her or resting on her hand. Doves
also represent monogamy and loyalty in relationships nice qualities for a Valentine's date because
they tend to stay with the same partner during mating season.

Doves are a year-round symbol of peace but also a romantic Valentine's Day staple of love. Why
are these birds considered so, well, lovey-dovey?

The association dates back to the Middle Ages, when people believed that all birds chose their
mates on Valentine's Day. Although some birds do mate during the middle of February, including
the mistle thrush, blackbird and partridge, most birds ' mating seasons take place during the spring
and summer.

The dove was singled out to represent romance because Greek mythology associated the small,
white bird with Aphrodite, the goddess of love (known in Roman mythology as Venus).
Aphrodite/Venus is often depicted with doves fluttering around her or resting on her hand. Doves
also represent monogamy and loyalty in relationships nice qualities for a Valentine's date because
they tend to stay with the same partner during mating season.

Male doves also help their female partners incubate and care for their young, which helps their
image as devoted, loving birds. In fact, their reputation as symbols of love is so strong that many
love potion recipes popular during medieval times required the heart of a dove.

14
https://www.livescience.com/33001-why-do-doves-represent-love.html

46
 T. S. Eliot's Little Gidding15
Little Gidding is the fourth and final poem of T. S. Eliot's Four Quartets, a series of poems that
discuss time, perspective, humanity, and salvation. It was first published in September 1942 after
being delayed for over a year because of the air-raids on Great Britain during World War II and
Eliot's declining health. The title refers to a small Anglican community in Huntingdonshire,
established by Nicholas Ferrar in the 17th century and scattered during the English Civil War.
The poem uses the combined image of fire and Pentecostal fire to emphasise the need for
purification and purgation. According to the poet, humanity's flawed understanding of life and
turning away from God leads to a cycle of warfare, but this can be overcome by recognising the
lessons of the past. Within the poem, the narrator meets a ghost that is a combination of various
poets and literary figures. Little Gidding focuses on the unity of past, present, and future, and
claims that understanding this unity is necessary for salvation.16

15
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/history/winter/w3206/edit/tseliotlittlegidding.html
16
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Gidding_(poem)

47
Midwinter spring is its own season
Sempiternal though sodden towards sundown,
Suspended in time, between pole and tropic.
When the short day is brightest, with frost and fire,
The brief sun flames the ice, on pond and ditches,
In windless cold that is the heart's heat,
Reflecting in a watery mirror
A glare that is blindness in the early afternoon.
And glow more intense than blaze of branch, or brazier,
Stirs the dumb spirit: no wind, but pentecostal fire
In the dark time of the year. Between melting and freezing
The soul's sap quivers. There is no earth smell
Or smell of living thing. This is the springtime
But not in time's covenant. Now the hedgerow
Is blanched for an hour with transitory blossom
Of snow, a bloom more sudden
Than that of summer, neither budding nor fading,
Not in the scheme of generation.
Where is the summer, the unimaginable Zero summer?

If you came this way,

Taking the route you would be likely to take
From the place you would be likely to come from,
If you came this way in may time, you would find the hedges
White again, in May, with voluptuary sweetness.
It would be the same at the end of the journey,
If you came at night like a broken king,
If you came by day not knowing what you came for,
It would be the same, when you leave the rough road
And turn behind the pig-sty to the dull facade
And the tombstone. And what you thought you came for
Is only a shell, a husk of meaning
From which the purpose breaks only when it is fulfilled
If at all. Either you had no purpose
Or the purpose is beyond the end you figured
And is altered in fulfilment. There are other places
Which also are the world's end, some at the sea jaws,
Or over a dark lake, in a desert or a city--
But this is the nearest, in place and time,
Now and in England.

If you came this way,

Taking any route, starting from anywhere,
At any time or at any season,

48
It would always be the same: you would have to put off
Sense and notion. You are not here to verify,
Instruct yourself, or inform curiosity
Or carry report. You are here to kneel
Where prayer has been valid. And prayer is more
Than an order of words, the conscious occupation
Of the praying mind, or the sound of the voice praying.
And what the dead had no speech for, when living,
They can tell you, being dead: the communication
Of the dead is tongued with fire beyond the language of the living.
Here, the intersection of the timeless moment
Is England and nowhere. Never and always.

II

Ash on an old man's sleeve

Is all the ash the burnt roses leave.
Dust in the air suspended
Marks the place where a story ended.
Dust inbreathed was a house-
The walls, the wainscot and the mouse,
The death of hope and despair,
This is the death of air.

There are flood and drouth

Over the eyes and in the mouth,
Dead water and dead sand
Contending for the upper hand.
The parched eviscerate soil
Gapes at the vanity of toil,
Laughs without mirth.
This is the death of earth.

Water and fire succeed

The town, the pasture and the weed.
Water and fire deride
The sacrifice that we denied.
Water and fire shall rot
The marred foundations we forgot,
Of sanctuary and choir.
This is the death of water and fire.

In the uncertain hour before the morning

Near the ending of interminable night
At the recurrent end of the unending
After the dark dove with the flickering tongue

49
Had passed below the horizon of his homing
While the dead leaves still rattled on like tin
Over the asphalt where no other sound was
Between three districts whence the smoke arose
I met one walking, loitering and hurried
As if blown towards me like the metal leaves
Before the urban dawn wind unresisting.
And as I fixed upon the down-turned face
That pointed scrutiny with which we challenge
The first-met stranger in the waning dusk
I caught the sudden look of some dead master
Whom I had known, forgotten, half recalled
Both one and many; in the brown baked features
The eyes of a familiar compound ghost
Both intimate and unidentifiable.
So I assumed a double part, and cried
And heard another's voice cry: "What! are you here?"
Although we were not. I was still the same,
Knowing myself yet being someone other--
And he a face still forming; yet the words sufficed
To compel the recognition they preceded.
And so, compliant to the common wind,
Too strange to each other for misunderstanding,
In concord at this intersection time
Of meeting nowhere, no before and after,
We trod the pavement in a dead patrol.
I said: "The wonder that I feel is easy,
Yet ease is cause of wonder. Therefore speak:
I may not comprehend, may not remember."
And he: "I am not eager to rehearse
My thoughts and theory which you have forgotten.
These things have served their purpose: let them be.
So with your own, and pray they be forgiven
By others, as I pray you to forgive
Both bad and good. Last season's fruit is eaten
And the fullfed beast shall kick the empty pail.
For last year's words belong to last year's language
And next year's words await another voice.
But, as the passage now presents no hindrance
To the spirit unappeased and peregrine
Between two worlds become much like each other,
So I find words I never thought to speak
In streets I never thought I should revisit
When I left my body on a distant shore.
Since our concern was speech, and speech impelled us
To purify the dialect of the tribe

50
And urge the mind to aftersight and foresight,
Let me disclose the gifts reserved for age
To set a crown upon your lifetime's effort.
First, the cold fricton of expiring sense
Without enchantment, offering no promise
But bitter tastelessness of shadow fruit
As body and sould begin to fall asunder.
Second, the conscious impotence of rage
At human folly, and the laceration
Of laughter at what ceases to amuse.
And last, the rending pain of re-enactment
Of all that you have done, and been; the shame
Of things ill done and done to others' harm
Which once you took for exercise of virtue.
Then fools' approval stings, and honour stains.
From wrong to wrong the exasperated spirit
Proceeds, unless restored by that refining fire
Where you must move in measure, like a dancer."
The day was breaking. In the disfigured street
He left me, with a kind of valediction,
And faded on the blowing of the horn.

III

There are three conditions which often look alike

Yet differ completely, flourish in the same hedgerow:
Attachment to self and to things and to persons, detachment
From self and from things and from persons; and, growing between them, indifference
Which resembles the others as death resembles life,
Being between two lives - unflowering, between
The live and the dead nettle. This is the use of memory:
For liberation - not less of love but expanding
Of love beyond desire, and so liberation
From the future as well as the past. Thus, love of a country
Begins as an attachment to our own field of action
And comes to find that action of little importance
Though never indifferent. History may be servitude,
History may be freedom. See, now they vanish,
The faces and places, with the self which, as it could, loved them,
To become renewed, transfigured, in another pattern.
Sin is Behovely, but
All shall be well, and
All manner of thing shall be well.
If I think, again, of this place,
And of people, not wholly commendable,
Of not immediate kin or kindness,

51
But of some peculiar genius,
All touched by a common genius,
United in the strife which divided them;
If I think of a king at nightfall,
Of three men, and more, on the scaffold
And a few who died forgotten
In other places, here and abroad,
And of one who died blind and quiet,
Why should we celebrate
These dead men more than the dying?
It is not to ring the bell backward
Nor is it an incantation
To summon the spectre of a Rose.
We cannot revive old factions
We cannot restore old policies
Or follow an antique drum.
These men, and those who opposed them
And those whom they opposed
Accept the constitution of silence
And are folded in a single party.
Whatever we inherit from the fortunate
We have taken from the defeated
What they had to leave us - a symbol:
A symbol perfected in death.
And all shall be well and
All manner of thing shall be well
By the purification of the motive
In the ground of our beseeching.

IV

The dove descending breaks the air

With flame of incandescent terror
Of which the tongues declare
The one discharge from sin and error.
The only hope, or else despair
Lies in the choice of pyre of pyre-
To be redeemed from fire by fire.

Who then devised the torment? Love.

Love is the unfamiliar Name
Behind the hands that wove
The intolerable shirt of flame
Which human power cannot remove.
We only live, only suspire
Consumed by either fire or fire.

52
 V

What we call the beginning is often the end

And to make and end is to make a beginning.
The end is where we start from. And every phrase
And sentence that is right (where every word is at home,
Taking its place to support the others,
The word neither diffident nor ostentatious,
An easy commerce of the old and the new,
The common word exact without vulgarity,
The formal word precise but not pedantic,
The complete consort dancing together)
Every phrase and every sentence is an end and a beginning,
Every poem an epitaph. And any action
Is a step to the block, to the fire, down the sea's throat
Or to an illegible stone: and that is where we start.
We die with the dying:
See, they depart, and we go with them.
We are born with the dead:
See, they return, and bring us with them.
The moment of the rose and the moment of the yew-tree
Are of equal duration. A people without history
Is not redeemed from time, for history is a pattern
Of timeless moments. So, while the light fails
On a winter's afternoon, in a secluded chapel
History is now and England.

With the drawing of this Love and the voice of this Calling

We shall not cease from exploration

And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
Through the unknown, unremembered gate
When the last of earth left to discover
Is that which was the beginning;
At the source of the longest river
The voice of the hidden waterfall
And the children in the apple-tree

Not known, because not looked for

But heard, half-heard, in the stillness
Between two waves of the sea.
Quick now, here, now, always--
A condition of complete simplicity
(Costing not less than everything)

53
And all shall be well and
All manner of thing shall be well
When the tongues of flames are in-folded
Into the crowned knot of fire
And the fire and the rose are one.

Little Gidding was the home of a small Anglican religious community established in 1626
by Nicholas Ferrar, two of his siblings and their extended families. It was founded around strict
adherence to Christian worship in accordance with the Book of Common Prayer and the High
Church (or Catholic) heritage of the Church of England. Charles I visited Little Gidding three
times. The community continued for 20 years after Ferrar's death, until after the deaths of his
brother and sister in 1657.
In the 20th century, the poet T. S. Eliot (1888–1965) was inspired by the legacy of the religious
community at Little Gidding. He incorporated historical elements and symbols of it into his long
poem, "Little Gidding", as part of his collection Four Quartets (1945).

54