Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 43

Wed, 07 Mar 2007

• 1. Re: [Areivim] vashti (Zvi Lampel)
• 2. Re: vashti (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Vashti's tail (Zev Sero)
• 4. Vashti (bdcohen@optonline.net)
• 5. Re: Vashti (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 6. Re: Vashti (Moshe Yehuda Gluck)
• 7. Re: Tzeit (Arie Folger)
• 8. Vashti (Shmuel Zajac)
• 9. Vashti (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Re: Vashti (Chana Luntz)
• 11. only virgins ? (SBA)
• 12. Re: only virgins ? (Levi Serebryanski)
• 13. Re: vashti (T613K@aol.com)

From: "Micha Berger" micha@aishdas.org Mon, 5 Mar 2007 
RMB:
Could someone post a maqor that says that the default assumption when dealing with a medrash that is "fantastical" is to assume it IS historical?
We have a list of rishonim compiled a year back who say otherwise: the Rambam (who, kedarko beqodesh, goes as far as berating those who take them historically), the Ritva, the Maharsha, the Maharal, the Gra...
ZL:
But what shall we do about the Maharsha R. SBA had cited?:
(4 Mar 2007 Subject: Re: [Avodah] [Areivim] VASHTI'S TAIL ETC :

(Megila 12b): "Omar R' Yosi bar Chanina melamed sheporcho bo tzoraas.
Bemisnita tono: Bo Gavriel ve'oso lo zonov..."
The Maharsho quotes the baal ha'Aruch: "Kol dovor shehu yeser,
sheinu kemidas chavero...koruy zonov..."
And then comments: "Velo yodano mi hichricho lefaresh kach,
ve'eime dezonov mamesh oso lo kebeheimeh...")?
Zvi Lampel
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070306/89c62e68/attachment.htm 

On Tue, March 6, 2007 3:09 pm, R Zvi Lampel wrote:
:> Could someone post a maqor that says that the default assumption when dealing
:> with a medrash that is "fantastical" is to assume it IS historical?
:> We have a list of rishonim compiled a year back who say otherwise: the Rambam
:> ..., the Ritva, the Maharsha, the Maharal, the Gra...

: But what shall we do about the Maharsha R. SBA had cited?:
:> (Megila 12b): "Omar R' Yosi bar Chanina melamed sheporcho bo tzoraas.
:> Bemisnita tono: Bo Gavriel ve'oso lo zonov..."
:> The Maharsho quotes the baal ha'Aruch: "Kol dovor shehu yeser,
:> sheinu kemidas chavero...koruy zonov..."
:> And then comments: "Velo yodano mi hichricho lefaresh kach,
:> ve'eime dezonov mamesh oso lo kebeheimeh...")?

Comments like this are not muchrachim one way or the other.

It would make sense that if Chazal use a mashal, that sometimes a mefareish
would write from within that mashal, trying to understand it rather than
jumping straight to the nimshal.

I admit that it is odd that the Maharsha would go through an explanation and
not dedicate some words to the nimshal.

But, as we establish around twice a year, the Maharsha doesn't require taking
midrashim as historical, nor does he believe their historicity is of real
import. So, I see no other way to understand him in this example.

BTW, something similar in the reverse:

Just as the peirush can run with a mashal, and that doesn't imply he
necessarily holds it is historical, when a peirush runs with a nimshal is
doesn't imply he necessarily holds it is NOT historical.

Giving a nimshal for the nachash and cheit of Gan Eden would be of value
whether HQBH first wrote the mashal in His Torah, or first wrote it in His
History.

Being historical and being a mashal are totally distinct concepts. Showing
that a rishon assumes one doesn't mean we've ruled out the other.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

saul mashbaum wrote:
> RZS:

>> That's very nice, and fits well with the Malbim's take on what was going
>> on behind the scenes (which IMHO was meant more as a commentary on 19th
>> century German politics than on what he thought the megillah really means).

> I find this statement extraordinary. Why do you think this is the case? 
> I'm certainly willing to be convinced, but on the face of it I am *very* 
> skeptical of the accuracy of this statement.

My opinion is based merely on looking at what the Malbim wrote, and
at what was going on in Germany at the time that he wrote it.  I don't
think it derogates from the Malbim's kavod to suggest that he was not
above engaging in a bit of "Purim Torah".

 
> I find perfectly plausible that, for example, Shakespeare's Macbeth 
> contains references to contemporary British politics (the ascension of 
> James I to the throne). Macbeth is, after all, a dramatic work meant to 
> entertain his contemporary audience. Why would the Malbim base his 
> commentary on a book of the Tanach on a transient political situation? 

For one thing, he wasn't writing for us.  He had no way of knowing
that his works would survive the test of time, and still be learned
more than a century later.  He was writing for his own time, and for
his own countrymen.  And the topic is Purim, after all.

I wonder, though, why it's hard to accept that the Malbim didn't
really think the authors of the megillah meant what he wrote, but
easy to accept the very same thing about Chazal.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

"The Chasimas HaTalmud wasn't all that long after the story of the Megillah.
The secular world has records from 500 years ago (think Colombus, Magna
Carta, Crusades, etc.). Probably Chazal had either written records or an
oral tradition as to what happened - that she was evil, that she grew a
tail, etc.

KT,
MYG "

I may be in error, but I think from Megilla to Chatimat hatulmud is 900-1000 years, not 500. 
However, from Megillah to the time of the Tanaim (both pre and post Churban) is closer, 500-600 years.

David I. Cohen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070306/a8112f9e/attachment.html 

Eli Turkel wrote:
> I repeat my previous question - what forced Chazal to assume Vashti has sins and
> was evil. This is not pshat in the pesukim. Again, in accordance with the Malbim
> (and R.Boubil) it could have been just political intrigue.
>   

You are presuming that Chazal's statement is solely the result of an 
intellectual analysis of the feature of the verse. The Leshem in his 
criticism of the Maharetz Chajes strongly rejects this assumption. That 
issue was why Chazal stated that Yosef was tempted to sin when in fact 
the verse doesn't indicate it.

 Page 103 in Daas Torah.

*Leshem*[i] <#_edn1>*(2:4:19): *The critical point is that every Jew is 
obligated to believe with perfect faith that all which is found in the 
words of our Sages?both in halacha, Talmudic agada and medrashim?are in 
their entirety the words of the living G?d. That is because everything 
that they say is with ruach hakodesh (Sanhedrin 48:). This includes even 
that which isn?t relevant to Halacha and deed? Also all their decrees 
and statutes are not the product of human intellect at all but rather 
are the result of ruach hakodesh in which G?d has expressed Himself 
through them. This is the great sound that doesn?t end (Devarim 5:19) of 
the giving of the Torah at Sinai and it expresses itself in the Oral 
Torah?. Thus, the Sages are just like messengers in what they say?. This 
is why the Bal Halachos Gedolos includes the Rabbinic mitzvos with the 
Torah mitzvos since all of them were given by G?d (Chagiga 3b)?We can 
conclude from all this that anyone who tries to analyze the words of the 
Sages in order to establish the nature of their truth places himself in 
great danger. That is because man?s intellect cannot properly comprehend 
this matter and thus a person can come to heresy from the endeavor. This 
is what Koheles (7:16) states: ?Don?t make yourself too wise?why destroy 
yourself?? A person who gets involved in this matter will find it very 
difficult to resist following his human understanding. He will end up 
going back and forth between the view of the Torah and that of his own 
understanding?. The righteous person lives by his faith because that is 
the foundation of the entire Torah?.


------------------------------------------------------------------------


?"? ?' ?' (?? 161).* ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?????? 
?????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ??"? ?????? ?????? ??"? ??????? ?? ???? 
???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?' ??? ???? ?? ????? ?' ?????? 
???? ?????? ???????? ?"? ??"?. ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???. 
???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ??. ??? ?' ?????? ??':...??? 
?? ?????? ?"? ??? ??????? ??????? ???? ?"? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?? 
???? ?' ??? ???? ?? ???? ?' ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? 
????? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ???"?. ?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???? 
?????. ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ?"? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?"? ????? ????? 
?????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ( ?????? ?? ?????? 
?"? ???"?) ??? ??? ???? ??"? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? 
????? ????? ??? ??"? ?????? (?:) . ??' ????? ???"? ????"? ?"? ???? ??"? 
?????:

???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ???? 
????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ???"? 
??? ?? ???? ???? (?:??) ??? ????? ???? ??? ?????. ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? 
?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???????. ???? ???? ???"? 
(??.) ?? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?????????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?????? 
??? ????? ?? ????? ????? ????. ??? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? 
????? ????:

MYG:
"The Chasimas HaTalmud wasn't all that long after the story of the Megillah.
The secular world has records from 500 years ago (think Colombus, Magna
Carta, Crusades, etc.). Probably Chazal had either written records or an
oral tradition as to what happened - that she was evil, that she grew a
tail, etc.

R' David Cohen:?
I may be in error, but I think from Megilla to Chatimat hatulmud is 900-1000
years, not 500. 
However, from Megillah to the time of the Tanaim (both pre and post Churban)
is closer, 500-600 years.


The error is mine - I had in mind Churban Bayis Sheini. Be that as it may,
the Gemara is quoting a Beraisa, presumably significantly before Chasimas
HaTalmud. We certainly have traditions and history that are that old, Leif
Ericson, the Crusades, Magna Carta, the Holy Roman Empire, etc.

KT,
MYG 

Reb Jeffrey Saks wrote:
>  In Israel this creates a problem of wanting to get to Birkhat Kohanim for
> Neilah before Shkiah, then having to shlep out everything else (Avinu
> Malkeinu, etc.) to fill the time. If anyone has a creative solution to this
> problem -- aside from paskening like the Mishnah Brura over the Luach --
> I'd be delighted to hear it.

Yes, we sing Avinu Malkenu in its entirety, quite slowly. If you add E-loheinu 
Shebashamayim in the same manner, you'll get easily to ten minutes. Add some 
stretch to sim shalom and you almost done.

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

 >>I repeat my previous question - what forced Chazal to assume Vashti 
has sins and
was evil. This is not pshat in the pesukim. Again, in accordance with 
the Malbim
(and R.Boubil) it could have been just political intrigue.
<<

But, why did the Megillah tell us about this particular piece of 
political intrigue? And why in such detail? There are plenty of other 
things the Megial doesn't tell us about.

-- Kayza

RET writes:

> I repeat my previous question - what forced Chazal to assume 
> Vashti has sins and was evil. This is not pshat in the 
> pesukim.

My instinct is that it is because they understood the megila, in
totality, as being about everybody getting their just desserts (ie good
triumphing over evil). However, unless you understand Vashti in the way
Chazal do, then what happened to her does (and probably should) lead to
some moral discomfort.  After all, despite the triumph of Esther, and
the total necessity of her being installed as queen, the situation does
feel a bit tarnished if in fact she got the position from a tzadekes who
ended up suffering for her tzidkus. After all (getting back to an old
debate on Avodah) if one is supposed to feel some measure of sorrow as
to the drowning of pharo and the mitzrim in the yam suf, even though
they were both evil and chasing after the Jews, how should we feel about
somebody who would appear to be righteous, and yet whose role in the
narrative is to be pushed aside and disposed of, in order that the Jews
should have a mechanism for being saved.  Can we really have legitimate
and thorough simcha in such a case?  And yet the clear message of the
megilla is not that way (read the concluding psukim) - so I think one
does need to conclude that Vashti must have, in some way, been evil.

> 
> -- 
> Eli Turkel

Regards

Chana

Further to my previous post - the underlying moral question reminds me
of "Those who walk away from Omalas" (any Ursula Le Guin fans out
there?).  In that story, Ursala Le Guin dramatises the moral question
raised, I think by Dostoevsky (I think it was actually a form of repost
to utalitarianism) as to whether it would be moral to have a society
where everybody was completely and utterly happy - bar one individual,
who was completely and utterly wretched, if somehow the happiness of
everybody else was in some way predicated on keeping that one individual
completely and utterly wretched.  Ursula Le Guin dramatises this in
Omalas, the perfect town, except for this one wretched and humiliated
child, who was kept in the most appalling conditions imaginable.  But
that every now and then, there are individuals who feel compelled to
walk away from Omalas, ie they feel morally compelled to reject the
perfect town when it is built on such foundations.

My sense is that Chazal would take the moral perspective of those who
walk away from Omalas (ie is your blood redder than your fellows
applies, even when applied to one versus the many).  So to have the
whole celebration of Purim being based on the unjustified misfortune of
a righteous Vashti would make it morally problematic.  On the other
hand, if indeed Vashti was wicked, then in fact the story has yet
another satisfying moral turn.  And if in fact her natural inclination
was to be brazen rather than modest (ie reveal when she should conceal),
there is a certain mida kneged mida aspect where she becomes too
embarressed to reveal even the nature of the problem (would it have been
too embarressing for her to have said she had tzoraas? - within Jewish
circles yes, because tzoraas has moral links, but would that have been a
problem in Vashti's Shushan to reveal one had an "immoral" disease? - it
might have been a badge of honour.  However a tail certainly conjures up
for me something that I think anybody, and particularly a queen, would
find too embarressing to even want to admit to).

Regards

Chana



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chana Luntz [mailto:chana@kolsassoon.org.uk] 
> Sent: 06 March 2007 23:37
> To: 'avodah@lists.aishdas.org'
> Cc: 'eliturkel@gmail.com'
> Subject: [Avodah] Vashti
> 
> 
> RET writes:
> 
> > I repeat my previous question - what forced Chazal to assume
> > Vashti has sins and was evil. This is not pshat in the 
> > pesukim.
> 
> My instinct is that it is because they understood the megila, 
> in totality, as being about everybody getting their just 
> desserts (ie good triumphing over evil). However, unless you 
> understand Vashti in the way Chazal do, then what happened to 
> her does (and probably should) lead to some moral discomfort. 
>  After all, despite the triumph of Esther, and the total 
> necessity of her being installed as queen, the situation does 
> feel a bit tarnished if in fact she got the position from a 
> tzadekes who ended up suffering for her tzidkus. After all 
> (getting back to an old debate on Avodah) if one is supposed 
> to feel some measure of sorrow as to the drowning of pharo 
> and the mitzrim in the yam suf, even though they were both 
> evil and chasing after the Jews, how should we feel about 
> somebody who would appear to be righteous, and yet whose role 
> in the narrative is to be pushed aside and disposed of, in 
> order that the Jews should have a mechanism for being saved.  
> Can we really have legitimate and thorough simcha in such a 
> case?  And yet the clear message of the megilla is not that 
> way (read the concluding psukim) - so I think one does need 
> to conclude that Vashti must have, in some way, been evil.
> 
> > 
> > --
> > Eli Turkel
> 
> Regards
> 
> Chana
> 

From: Levi Serebryanski <>
From  "Eli Turkel"
  >"In line with medrashim on Megillat Esther I assume someone explains how
Esther could have been married to Mordecai when only virgins were
"invited "to Achashverosh"<
   ====
  My wife pointed out to me that in a latter posuk it says" Vaye'ehav 
hamelech es ester mikol hanoshim vatiso chein vochesed lefonov mikol 
habesulos" which implies that there was a broadening of the selection 
criteria at some point after the initial decree.
>>>

Rashi right there: "Mikol Hanoshim: Habeulos, she'af habeulos kibetz..."

SBA 

However, one can also explain pshat in the Posuk that he loved her more than all the (former) besulos he had already been with, and she had more chein in his eyes than all the ones that he had not as yet been with. After all, the posuk uses 'vaye'ehav' with regard to the noshim, and 'vatiso chein' with regard to the besulos.

SBA <sba@sba2.com> wrote: From: Levi Serebryanski <>
From  "Eli Turkel"
  >"In line with medrashim on Megillat Esther I assume someone explains how
Esther could have been married to Mordecai when only virgins were
"invited "to Achashverosh"<
   ====
  My wife pointed out to me that in a latter posuk it says" Vaye'ehav 
hamelech es ester mikol hanoshim vatiso chein vochesed lefonov mikol 
habesulos" which implies that there was a broadening of the selection 
criteria at some point after the initial decree.
>>>

Rashi right there: "Mikol Hanoshim: Habeulos, she'af habeulos kibetz..."

SBA 



 
---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels 
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070306/2e43ae1c/attachment.htm 

 
 
>>The idea that
the Purim Miracle was characterised by "hester  panim" is itself
merely a drasha, of no better pedigree than these  midrashim.  It's
based on people's observation that Hashem's name  doesn't appear in
the megillah, and nor do explicit nissim.  From this  they developed
a "medrash" about hester panim and hidden miracles, etc., just  as
Chazal did before them.

If our understanding of this late drasha  contradicts our understanding
of Chazal's drashot, then we must surely reject  it and accept them,
rather than the other way around.  Or we can  interpret one or the other,
or both, so that they don't contradict.  But  we certainly shouldn't
take the "hester panim" drasha as an "ikkar" which  must be taken
literally and radically, so that everything that contradicts it  must
be reinterpreted!  And if we're to reinterpret one or the other so  as
to make them fit, there's no reason why the brunt of this exercise  must
fall on the gemara.<< [--RZS]
 
 

>>>>>
The absence of miracles in the Megilla cannot possibly be a mere  
coincidence.  Once you start learning a whole lot of miracle midrashim on  the Megilla, 
you radically change the plain sense of the Megillah -- which is  that no open 
miracles occurred.  IOW hester panim.
 
It may be that the raft of miracles "glommed onto" the Megillah by  various 
medrashim are a way of telling  us that in reality, all daily  occurrences that 
seem "natural" are in reality "miraculous" -- if we had eyes to  see.




--Toby  Katz
=============
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free 
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070307/e0861e26/attachment.html 

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 43
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."