The Agenda of Shir HaShirim

 On the last day of Pesah (in Israel) this year we read Shir HaShirim.

It occurred to me that the opposition to sacrificial worship that I expressed in my posts of 16 April 2018 and 3 May 2018 may have an ancient antecedent. But I will get to that at the end. I will start with a more general interpretation of the agenda of the unknown author (not King Shlomo) of Shir HaShirim.

(There is lots of linguistic evidence that Shir HaShirim was written in Second Temple times. For what I add at the end of this post, it has to be early Second Temple times. But still Second Temple. So the author can't be King Shlomo.)

I accept that the author's agenda is a metaphorical presentation of the relationship of Israel and God.  I disagree with the standard presentation of that relationship. The author's intent is to reject institutional religion as the true way to relate to God, and to advocate personal relationships.

The structure of the book is a multi-speaker dialogue. The back story is that a girl in her early teens has been recruited to join a king's harem in Jerusalem. Unfortunately, she is already in love with a young shepherd.

The speakers are:

The girl

The shepherd (as imagined by the girl)

The girl's family (as imagined by the girl)

Other girls in Jerusalem

The king

Now I will divide the book by chapter and verse, according to who is speaking. I won't interpret any of the verses in detail, other than to note that Chapter 3 verses 9-11 are dripping with sarcasm.

Chapter 1 verse 1: the author

Chapter 1 verses 2-7: the girl

Chapter 1 verse 8: the other girls

Chapter 1 verses 9-11: the king

Chapter 1 verses 12-13: the girl

Chapter 1 verse 14: the shepherd

Chapter 1 verse 15 - Chapter 2 verse 1: the girl

Chapter 2 verse 2: the shepherd

Chapter 2 verses 3-13: the girl

Chapter 2 verse 14: the shepherd

Chapter 2 verse 15 - Chapter 3 verse 5: the girl

Chapter 3 verses 6-8: the king

Chapter 3 verses 9-11: the girl

Chapter 4 verse 1 - Chapter 5 verse 1: the king

Chapter 5 verses 2-8: the girl

Chapter 5 verse 9: the other girls

Chapter 5 verses 10-16: the girl

Chapter 6 verse 1: the other girls

Chapter 6 verses 2-3: the girl

Chapter 6 verses 4-10: the king

Chapter 6 verse 11-12 the girl

Chapter 7 verses 1-11 : the king (except that second half of verse 1 is spoken by the girl)

Chapter 7 verse 12 - Chapter 8 verse 4: the girl

Chapter 8 verse 5: the shepherd

Chapter 8 verses 6-7: the girl

Chapter 8 verses 8-9: the girl's family

Chapter 8 verses 10-12: the girl

Chapter 8 verse 13: the shepherd

Chapter 8 verse 14: the girl

I follow the standard interpretation of the metaphor, that the girl is Israel and that both the shepherd and the king are God, except that the girl loves only the shepherd and wishes she could escape the king and return to the shepherd. Institutionalized religiosity ("love" of the king) is bad. Personal religiosity (love of the shepherd) is good.

Now as to why this can be interpreted as objecting to rebuilding the Temple. The king is specifically Shlomo, who built the First Temple. "Love" of Shlomo represents centralized sacrificial worship. That is rejected in favor of unique personal relationships with God.

Of course, that is not the only possible interpretation. For example, the author may have been living in Bavel, and may have been rejecting the idea of returning from Bavel to Israel. The "love" of the king represents a collective relationship with God in an ethnically defined territory. The love of the shepherd represents individual relationships with God anywhere.

RaMBaM is Getting His Wish. Slowly.

This post was inspired by a dvar torah last Shabbat (parashat Vayikra). The speaker was not particularly fond of animal sacrifices. He quoted RaMBaM, Moreh Hanevukhim, part 3 chapter 32. In a translation to Hebrew. The original was in Arabic. So I have no problem presenting the quote in a translation to English.

But the custom which was in those days general among all men, and the general mode of worship in which the Israelites were brought up, consisted in sacrificing animals in those temples which contained certain images, to bow down to those images, and to burn incense before them; religious and ascetic persons were in those days the persons that were devoted to the service in the temples erected to the stars, as has been explained by us. It was in accordance with the wisdom and plan of God, as displayed in the whole Creation, that He did not command us to give up and to discontinue all these manners of service; for to obey such a commandment it would have been contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used; it would in those days have made the same impression as a prophet would make at present if he called us to the service of God and told us in His name, that we should not pray to Him, not fast, not seek His help in time of trouble; that we should serve Him in thought, and not by any action.

RaMBaM is almost saying in so many words that in his humble opinion meditation is a higher form of worship than prayer and fasting, and that he would be pleased if meditation would replace prayer and fasting as the primary method of worship.

In my own humble opinion, for about the past 250 years he has been slowly getting his wish. I am not an expert on the history of Jewish liturgical music, so the following is just my impression. I welcome correction by an expert. Song has long been a part of Jewish worship, but until the rise of Hassidut the only singer was the Hazzan. Presumably, Zemirot Shabbat were sung, but that was at home, not in the synagogue. Hassidim all sang together at Shabbat and Yom Tov services. (Readers (if there are any) of my blogs know that I don't have a particularly high opinion of Hassidut, but I want to give credit where credit is due.) In the 20th century, congregational singing as part of public worship spread to mainstream synagogues. A long time ago I read that the founders of Young Israel were givn a nickname in the second decade of the 20th century that reflected their desire to establish congregations in which everyone (or at any rate all the men) sang. Unfortunately, I have not succeeded in finding that nickname with Google.

When I was a kid I davened at Young Israel of Flatbush. I don't remember exactly how they did Lekha Dodi but it wasn't as bad as at Talmud Torah of Flatbush, where I was for Kabbalat Shabbat one or two times. At Talmud Torah of Flatbush, each verse was mumbled by the congregation and then sung by the Hazzan. Maybe at Young Israel of Flatbush each verse was sung by the congregation and then by the ba'al tefillah. I remember being rather pleased when in 1964 I was a freshman at Cornell living in the Young Israel House of Cornell and we all sang Lekha Dodi together, each verse once. Thanks in part to the popularity of composers like Shlomo Carlebach, but maybe mores because the times are ready for it, which would explain why Carlebach tunes caught on in davening, congregational singing now is pretty much mainstream.

That's moving towards RaMBaM's desired mode of worship. Instead of praying to God we all sing about God.

The Gospel According to Stalin

Two books that I am reading now... One is a biography of Vasily Grossman. Vasily Grossman and the Twentieth Century, by Alexandra Popoff, on Kindle. It has a quote from Grossman's last novel, Everything Flows:

Stalinists preached loyalty only to the Party and demanded “thoughtless obedience” from all Soviet citizens: even children were expected to denounce their parents as class enemies. In the eyes of the Soviet state, informers were model citizens. Grossman shows a young Party follower’s typical apprenticeship, designed to extinguish reason and turn the individual into an obedient tool: “ ‘Remember,’ his mentors used to tell him, ‘that you have neither father nor mother, neither brothers nor sisters. You have only the Party.’ ”

The other is The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Matthew 10:37:

Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; ad whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Luke 14:26:

Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.

Draw your own conclusions.

החרדים: עובדי אלילים של ימינו III

 זאת ההתחלה של ריאיון עם העיתונאית החרדית שרי רוט ב"מקור ראשון" 30/10/2020:

גם בשיחת זום אי אפשר להחמיץ את התמונה הגדולה התלויה על קיר ביתה של העיתונאית שרי רוט, ומלווה אותנו במבט חודר לאורך כל הריאיון. זהו דיקונו של הרב אהרון לייב שטיינמן, מגדולי הפוסקים של העולם החרדי-ליטאי, שנפטר לפני כשלוש שנים. כשאני שואל מדוע דווקא תמונה שלו נמצאת שם, ולא למשל של הרב חיים קנייבסקי ייבדל לחיים ארוכים, רוט הודפת בקלילות את הניסיון שלי לחלץ ממנה איזו אמירה ביקורתית כלפי גדול הדור הנוכחי. "הרב שטיינמן הוא הרבה שלי", היא אומרת. "שלושת בניי למדו אצלו בישיבה, ונוצר קשר שאי אפשר לנתק, כשאני רוצה לשפוך שיחי כלפי השם, בערב יום כפור לדוגמא, אני הולכת להתפלל על קברו. כשאני נמצאת בכל מיני צמתים אני שואלת כמובן רבנים חיים מה לעשות, אבל הוא נשאר המודל. איך לנהוג? כמותו".

זה "הרבה שלי" עם סגול תחת ה"ר", דגש ב "ב", וסגול תחת ה"ב". כלומר, הרב שטיינמן הוא האליל שלה.

מעניין. רבה זה מוסג חסידי, ואנחנו מדברים על מנהיג ליטאי.

 "אומרים שהליטאים לקחו קצת מלחלוחית החסידות בשנים האחרונות. אני לא רואה בזה משהו רע. הקשר שלי עם הרב שטיינמן הוא באמת יותר חסידי מליטאי, למרות שהוא לוקח אותי למוסגים ליטאים מאוד - כמו לחנך את ילדיי ללמוד תורה כל החיים. בתור אם חרדית, אני מוכנה לעשות הכל כדי שילדיי ימשיכו ללמוד, כולל קפיצה לכבשן האש.

 בבקשה

לא הגעתי לכדי הניסיון הזה

 חבל

אבל מאמינה שאקפוץ אם אצטרך.

 

American Jews are White.

Originally published 27/8/20

Some "progressive" people of color in the United States lump Jews together with all the other "White" Americans as beneficiaries of White privilege. American Jews tend to be offended by this classification, mostly on the grounds that historically, Jews have been treated all over the world just like people of color are treated in the US, or worse.

 IMHO those people of color are correct. European Jews are people of color. Jews in Moslem lands, to the extent that there still are any Jews there, are people of color. American Jews are white.

The original class structure in the United States at its foundation was:

Protestants from Western and Northern Europe

Catholics from Western and Northern Europe (except Irish)

Other European Christians

Jews

People of Color (initially Negroes, after 1846 also Latinx)

Native Americans

Between the Civil War and World War I the boundary between the top two categories disappeared, leaving:

Christians from Western and Northern Europe (except Irish Catholics)

Other European Christians

Jews

People of Color

Native Americans 

 Between World War I and World War II the next boundary disappeared, leaving:

European Christians

Jews

People of Color

Native Americans

During the Cold War, the next boundary disappeared and the Jews became White:

Europeans

People of Color

Native American

except that after 1965 when the 1924 quotas were removed, South Asians and East Asians started to immigrate in large enough numbers to constitute a separate category, so I suspect that the true structure is:

Europeans

Asians

People of Color (Latinx are still here because they got included in the US by conquest rather than by immigration)

Native Americans

What brings this up now is that today I started reading this book review. This is the first paragraph:

Bess Kalb’s grandmother Bobby was born on a dining room table in Brooklyn; her mother, Rose, a working-class Russian immigrant, “didn’t want to ruin the bed linens.” Nine decades later, not long after Bobby’s death, Kalb is wandering through her grandmother’s apartment in Westchester, N.Y., looking for “tchotchkes” to claim as mementos. But the items she chooses — among them a Limoges egg, a Brooks Brothers shirt, lipsticks by Chanel and Yves Saint Laurent — serve also as a measure of how far her grandmother came in her lifetime: from a “tenement in Brooklyn” to the upscale suburbs; from the bottom of the social ladder to its uppermost rungs. (emphasis added)

QED 

Added 11/6/21 to illustrate that Jews were people of color until the Cold War.

Here is an interesting paragraph from "Agents of Influence", a book about the British agents who worked on US public opinion in 1940-1941 to shift that opinion from isolation to intervention. Maschwitz' job was to pay astrologers to predict Hitler's immanent death. The idea was to chip away at the image of Nazi invincibility and to make Hitler nervous if the horoscopes ever came to his attention. Anyway, here is the paragraph. The time is July 1941.

 

Maschwitz had arrived earlier that month, and right away was introduced to the social complexities of life in Manhattan when his prospective landlord refused to lease him an apartment, explaining that he ran a ‘restricted house’. Maschwitz assured him he had no plans to sell liquor on the premises. The landlord replied that ‘restricted’ meant he would not allow either African-Americans or Jews to live there. Although Maschwitz’s father was Jewish, his mother was not; so the apartment was his.

(Hemming, Henry. Agents of Influence (pp. 169-170). PublicAffairs. Kindle Edition.)

 

 Added 5/7/23

This paper purports to explain how Jews became White. If this is the only set of mechanisms, it does not explain how Christians from Southern and Eastern Europe became White before the Cold War.

 

Added 24/4/24

 

Danielle Romero has a YouTube channel that includes videos about how Irish and Southern/Eastern Europeans became White. Her analyses tend to be too Marxist for my taste, but she documents how non-white these immigrant groups were, depending on where in the USA, through the 1920s.

Added 10/6/24

Danielle Romero claims that Italian Americans didn't become White until after WWII.

 

Added 12/7/24

Here is a quote from The New York Times book review of "The New York Game" about baseball in New York City in the first half of the twentieth century:

 New York’s swelling immigrant population encouraged the search for ethnic prospects — Irish, German, Italian, even Jewish — as long as they were white. (emphasis added)

So Irish and Italian rank above Jewish. But the Jews, although white, weren't White yet. Here is another quote:

In 1919, baseball faced a defining moment when members of the Chicago White Sox, in the pay of gamblers led by the New York City kingpin Arnold Rothstein, conspired to throw the World Series. (The Sporting News blamed it on “dirty, long-nosed, thick-lipped and strong-smelling” immigrant types.)

How Eliyahu Staged the Showdown on Mt. Carmel

The subject of this post is the famous showdown between Eliyahu HaNavi and the prophets of Baal, as described in I Kings chapter 18.

The prophets of Baal came in to the showdown knowing that the best they could hope for was a tie. Their explanation of the ongoing drought was that Baal was being prevented from doing his thing by one or more of the other gods. There was no particular reason to expect Baal to overcome his tormentors today. And they didn't know what Eliahu had up his sleeve. He was the one who got Ahab to organize the showdown. Why now? Why here?

Then Eliyahu framed the issue to be decided in purely monotheistic terms. Verse 21:

וַיִּגַּשׁ אֵלִיָּהוּ אֶל-כָּל-הָעָם, וַיֹּאמֶר עַד-מָתַי אַתֶּם פֹּסְחִים עַל-שְׁתֵּי הַסְּעִפִּים--אִם-יְהוָה הָאֱלֹהִים לְכוּ אַחֲרָיו, וְאִם-הַבַּעַל לְכוּ אַחֲרָיו

Eliyahu let the other side go first in order to have time to set up his "miracle" of fire descending from Heaven. The clues of how he did it are in verse 30:

וַיְרַפֵּא אֶת-מִזְבַּח יְהוָה, הֶהָרוּס

and in verse 38:

וַתִּפֹּל אֵשׁ-יְהוָה, וַתֹּאכַל ... אֶת-הָאֲבָנִים, וְאֶת-הֶעָפָר

Eliyahu chose Mt. Carmel as the location of the showdown because it had a destroyed altar that he could rebuild and because it had access to water (sea water) despite the drought. The "stones" he used to rebuild the altar were special large bricks that he had brought with him for the purpose, bricks whose

main ingredient was quicklime (CaO). The reaction of the quicklime with the water generated enough heat to ignite the wood, and also consumed the "stones".

Calculation: Did the quicklime and the water really get that hot?

The reaction is  _{CaO + H2O -->  Ca(OH)2} , accompanied by the release of 63.7 kilojoules per mole of CaO.

Or per mole of  H₂O, because of the 1:1 ratio of CaO to  H₂O.

Is 63.7 kilojoules enough energy to heat a mixture of a mole of quicklime and a mole of water to the ignition temperature of wood?

The molar heat capacity graph at this Web page suggests that a reasonable approximation to use for the molecular heat capacity of quicklime is 45 Joules per mole degree K. The molar heat capacity of water is about 75 Joules per mole degree K. The specific heat of steam is about 36 Joules per mole degree K. The heat of vaporization of water is 40.65 kilojoules per mole. That leaves 23.05 kilojoules to heat the

quicklime and the water/steam. Assuming an initial temperature of 25C, the energy needed to get to the boiling point of the water is

75 degrees K * 120 Joules/mole-degree-K = 9 kilojoules

which leaves about 14 kilojoules to heat the steam and the quicklime. So the final temperature is 100 degrees C plus

14 kilojoules / 0.081 kilojoules per mole-degree-K = 173 degrees K

So the altar attains a temperature of about 273 degrees C. According to this Web page the "ignition temperature of various woods" is 190 - 260 degrees C. After the wood starts burning, it gets hotter just by burning. Eliyahu had lots of time on his hands at Wadi Krit and in Zarefat to experiment with what kind of wood works best and with what to use to coat a quicklime brick to stabilize it against reacting with the moisture in the air.

אליהו והצרפתית: קריאה בין השורות במלאכים א' פרק י"ז

מלאכים א' פרק י"ז פסוקים ח'-כ"ד

ח וַיְהִי דְבַר-יְהוָה, אֵלָיו לֵאמֹר.  ט קוּם לֵךְ צָרְפַתָה אֲשֶׁר לְצִידוֹן, וְיָשַׁבְתָּ שָׁם; הִנֵּה צִוִּיתִי שָׁם אִשָּׁה אַלְמָנָה, לְכַלְכְּלֶךָ.  י וַיָּקָם וַיֵּלֶךְ צָרְפַתָה, וַיָּבֹא אֶל-פֶּתַח הָעִיר, וְהִנֵּה-שָׁם אִשָּׁה אַלְמָנָה, מְקֹשֶׁשֶׁת עֵצִים; וַיִּקְרָא אֵלֶיהָ וַיֹּאמַר, קְחִי-נָא לִי מְעַט-מַיִם בַּכְּלִי וְאֶשְׁתֶּה.  יא וַתֵּלֶךְ, לָקַחַת; וַיִּקְרָא אֵלֶיהָ וַיֹּאמַר, לִקְחִי-נָא לִי פַּת-לֶחֶם בְּיָדֵךְ.  יב וַתֹּאמֶר, חַי-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אִם-יֶשׁ-לִי מָעוֹג, כִּי אִם-מְלֹא כַף-קֶמַח בַּכַּד, וּמְעַט-שֶׁמֶן בַּצַּפָּחַת; וְהִנְנִי מְקֹשֶׁשֶׁת שְׁנַיִם עֵצִים, וּבָאתִי וַעֲשִׂיתִיהוּ לִי וְלִבְנִי, וַאֲכַלְנֻהוּ, וָמָתְנוּ.  יג וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלֶיהָ אֵלִיָּהוּ אַל-תִּירְאִי, בֹּאִי עֲשִׂי כִדְבָרֵךְ; אַךְ עֲשִׂי-לִי מִשָּׁם עֻגָה קְטַנָּה בָרִאשֹׁנָה, וְהוֹצֵאת לִי, וְלָךְ וְלִבְנֵךְ, תַּעֲשִׂי בָּאַחֲרֹנָה.  יד כִּי כֹה אָמַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, כַּד הַקֶּמַח לֹא תִכְלָה, וְצַפַּחַת הַשֶּׁמֶן, לֹא תֶחְסָר:  עַד יוֹם תתן- (תֵּת-) יְהוָה, גֶּשֶׁם--עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה.  טו וַתֵּלֶךְ וַתַּעֲשֶׂה, כִּדְבַר אֵלִיָּהוּ; וַתֹּאכַל הוא-והיא (הִיא-וָהוּא) וּבֵיתָהּ, יָמִים.  טז כַּד הַקֶּמַח לֹא כָלָתָה, וְצַפַּחַת הַשֶּׁמֶן לֹא חָסֵר--כִּדְבַר יְהוָה, אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר בְּיַד אֵלִיָּהוּ

יז וַיְהִי, אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, חָלָה, בֶּן-הָאִשָּׁה בַּעֲלַת הַבָּיִת; וַיְהִי חָלְיוֹ חָזָק מְאֹד, עַד אֲשֶׁר לֹא-נוֹתְרָה-בּוֹ נְשָׁמָה.  יח וַתֹּאמֶר, אֶל-אֵלִיָּהוּ, מַה-לִּי וָלָךְ, אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים:  בָּאתָ אֵלַי לְהַזְכִּיר אֶת-עֲוֺנִי, וּלְהָמִית אֶת-בְּנִי.  יט וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלֶיהָ, תְּנִי-לִי אֶת-בְּנֵךְ; וַיִּקָּחֵהוּ מֵחֵיקָהּ, וַיַּעֲלֵהוּ אֶל-הָעֲלִיָּה אֲשֶׁר-הוּא יֹשֵׁב שָׁם, וַיַּשְׁכִּבֵהוּ, עַל-מִטָּתוֹ.  כ וַיִּקְרָא אֶל-יְהוָה, וַיֹּאמַר:  יְהוָה אֱלֹהָי--הֲגַם עַל-הָאַלְמָנָה אֲשֶׁר-אֲנִי מִתְגּוֹרֵר עִמָּהּ הֲרֵעוֹתָ, לְהָמִית אֶת-בְּנָהּ.  כא וַיִּתְמֹדֵד עַל-הַיֶּלֶד שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים, וַיִּקְרָא אֶל-יְהוָה וַיֹּאמַר:  יְהוָה אֱלֹהָי, תָּשָׁב נָא נֶפֶשׁ-הַיֶּלֶד הַזֶּה עַל-קִרְבּוֹ.  כב וַיִּשְׁמַע יְהוָה, בְּקוֹל אֵלִיָּהוּ; וַתָּשָׁב נֶפֶשׁ-הַיֶּלֶד עַל-קִרְבּוֹ, וַיֶּחִי.  כג וַיִּקַּח אֵלִיָּהוּ אֶת-הַיֶּלֶד, וַיֹּרִדֵהוּ מִן-הָעֲלִיָּה הַבַּיְתָה, וַיִּתְּנֵהוּ, לְאִמּוֹ; וַיֹּאמֶר, אֵלִיָּהוּ, רְאִי, חַי בְּנֵךְ.  כד וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה, אֶל-אֵלִיָּהוּ, עַתָּה זֶה יָדַעְתִּי, כִּי אִישׁ אֱלֹהִים אָתָּה; וּדְבַר-יְהוָה בְּפִיךָ, אֱמֶת.

:'הרקע הוא בפסוק א

וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלִיָּהוּ הַתִּשְׁבִּי מִתֹּשָׁבֵי גִלְעָד, אֶל-אַחְאָב, חַי-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר עָמַדְתִּי לְפָנָיו, אִם-יִהְיֶה הַשָּׁנִים הָאֵלֶּה טַל וּמָטָר--כִּי, אִם-לְפִי דְבָרִי.

הסיפור בפסוקים ח'-כ"ד מעורר כמה שאלות.

1. אם האלמנה הייתה כל כך ענייה, איך זה שהיה לה בית עם עלייה?

2. מה חשבו השכנים על ההסדר הזה שגבר זר גר באותו הבית עם אלמנה?

3. למה אליהו סיפק קמח ושמן רק לה ולא לכל עניי העיר?

4. בפרק י"ח פסוק י' עובדיהו עבד אחאב אומר לאליהו: "חי ה' אלקיך אם יש גוי וממלכה אשר לא שלח אדוני שם לבקשך ואמרו אין". איך זה שאף אחד בשלטון המקומי לא ידע שאליהו נמצא בצרפת?

אני מציע את ההסבר הזה:

הזמן היה זמן של רעב חזק. לפני בוא אליהו לצרפת, אולי רק זמן קצר לפני בוא אליהו לצרפת, כל אנשי צרפת עזבו את העיר לחפש מקום שעדיין היה שם משהו לאכול, חוץ מהאלמנה ובנה. אינני יודע למה היא נשארה בעיר. אולי מפני שבעלה היה עדיין חי אבל יותר מדי חולה ללכת עם שאר אנשי העיר. ואז בעלה נפטר יום או יומיים לפני שאליהו הגיע לצרפת.

התשובה לשאלה 1: לפני הרעב, האשה ובעלה היו בין עשירי העיר.

התשובה לשאלה 2: לא היו שכנים.

התשובה לשאלה 3: לא היו עוד עניים בעיר.

התשובה לשאלה 4: השלטון המקומי חשב שכל אנשי צרפת נטשו את העיר.