Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 71

Sat, 23 Jun 2012

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:49:35 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Drops of wine (was: Translation of "Yayyin")


On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:14:13AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> The words are very clear, and R' Zev is obviously correct.
> V'nohagim she-shofchim l'ibud ha-makkot, v'ein shotin otam.
>
> The word "otam" clearly refers to the drops of wine.  Unless someone  
> wants to argue that the line is saying "And we are accustomed to spill  
> away the plagues and not to drink them." ...

    We are accustomed to spill them out for the loss related to the
    makkos, and we don't drink [what we spilled].

>          .  If the seifa is talking about the drops, then so is the 
> reisha.

Agreed. But "le'ibud" has its own object specified. And you aren't
telling me what to do with it.

> Shofchim l'ibud means to waste them.  Like "holchim l'ibud" means going  
> to waste.  The idea that "ibud ha-makkot" is a phrase meaning the losses  
> caused by the plagues is utterly foreign to the Hebrew....

This is the point in contention. There is no smooth way to incorporate
"hamakos" otherwise. Zev has so far said that "ibud" doesn't mean loss,
but destroy. So hashavas aveidah is the obligation to return broken
things? He also said that "makos" doesn't mean plagues, but rather the
drops of wine that symbolize it. And on top of both, he is reading the
words as though it were "sheshofechim hamakos le'ibud". How often do you
put the preposition and 2nd object before the first object (unless you
turn the first object into a prepositional phrase with "es")? I find it
impossible to call the resulting reading the simple meaning of the text.

(For "holchim le'ibud", the noun comes first, but that is dissimilar
because the lost item is the subject, not the object.)

>                                                       Nor is the lamed  
> before "ibud" properly translated as "for" or "out of consideration  
> for".  That's an English phrasing that doesn't exist in Hebrew (though  
> it may have gotten into Modern Hebrew by now).

The BDB has "for, to, in regard to". Bereishis 1:29, "lakhem yihyeh
le'okhlah", or as we recently leined "ish ish lamateh".

> I realize that this is simply an extension of the long running dispute  
> between R' Micha on the one hand, and R' Zev and myself on the other as  
> to whether we're supposed to rejoice over the downfall of our non-Jewish  
> enemies...

I would have thought the long litany of medrashim, rishonim and acharonim
who cite "maasei Yadai tov'im bayam" and "binfol oyivkha" as the reason
for half-Hallel on the 7th day of Pesach would have laid that to rest.
We're talking about the Yalquv Shim'on, peschta deRav Qahanah, Medrash
Harninu (which I never heard of, but is quoted by) the Shibolei haLeqet,
the Beis Yoseif, the Taz, the Chavos Ya'ir, the Torah Temimah, R' Aharon
Kotler, and others.

The hashkafic issue is settled: applying "binfol oyivkha" to enemies
who are nakhriim is at least /a/ normative Jewish approach, if not
"the". There is a medrash where Mordechai tells Haman that "binfol" does not
apply, but obviously the ShL and the BY et al knew the medrash. RnCL
posted an iteration or two ago at least one possible explanation. But
one can't dismiss an idea passed down from Chazal to my lifetime as
unJewish, outside eilu va'eilu altogether. Pretty open-n-shut, on
that level.

I also thought this was a revival of the broader topic. But when I
mentioned the above on Areivim, Zev explicitly divorced the discussion
from the broader one. To quote, "In any case, the topic here is not the
Medrash Harninu, which refers only to the hallel on Pesach. The topic
here is the spilling of the makos, and *nobody* says that has to do with
sorrow for the Mitzrim. Nobody. If you claim otherwise *prove it*...."

But if there is no philosophical problem, why the surprise at the idea
that RDFeinstein suggests it?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:24:10 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] tosefta incorporations??


On 22/06/2012 11:54 AM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> why were some beraitos available and
> incorporated into the gemmarra, while
> others were incorporated into the
> toseftas ???

You're mixing categories.  Your question is like "why were some words
of Thomas Jefferson incorporated into the 'The Thomas Jefferson Reader',
while others were incorporated into 'Supreme Court Decisions 1851-1900'?


-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 11:01:52 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] tosefta incorporations??


On 6/22/2012 10:54 AM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> why were some beraitos available and incorporated into the gemmarra, while
> others were incorporated into the toseftas ???

Who says that's the case?




Go to top.

Message: 4
From: "Daniel M. Israel" <d...@cornell.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:47:51 -0600
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Kivrey Avos


On Jun 21, 2012, at 1:42 PM, <T6...@aol.com> <T6...@aol.com> wrote:
> [1] What about the idea that those who have passed away come back and
> go to the simchas of their relatives and descendants? They must know
> about the weddings at least! Or do you have to explicitly invite them
> if you want them to come?

I'm curious, this seems to be a widespread notion, but does anyone have
a mekor?


On Jun 21, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 21/06/2012 2:39 AM, Daniel M. Israel wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> And of course the whole concept is not relevant when one is directly
>>> addressing the niftar, asking him or her to intercede for us.

>> Assuming one holds that this is permitted in the first place.

Yes, clearly there are many who hold this is mutar, or even meritorious.
I was just pointing out, since you seemed to take this practice for
granted, that there are also those who are strongly against it.

But this takes us far afield of the original discussion, which when I
looked back at, puzzled me. REG was questioning whether there is any
value of going to a kever althogether (and whether we see any source for
the practice in Tanach), to which RMB responded with the din of lo'eig
larash. I don't see how that addresses the question.

As far as RZS's point that this doesn't apply to something done for the
kavod (I would say zechus) of the niftar, I see no stirah between RMB
and RZS. The reason not to daven is lo'eig larash, but there is an
exception where the niftar would appreciate it. I've never heard of
anyone objecting to saying tehillim l'ilui neshama within daled amos,
for example.


On Jun 20, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 20/06/2012 3:45 PM, Eliyahu Grossman wrote:
>> I cannot find anywhere in Nach where it says that Yirmiyahu specifically
>> went to between Nebo and Chevron to enlist the aid of the deceased.
> 
> Everything has to be explicit in Nach?!
> 
>> Unless
>> it's a commentary that cites another source and ties them together. Could
>> you cite that source for me? Thanks!
> 
> "Az bahaloch Yirmiyahu al kever Avos".

The original source is a midrash in Eicha Rabba. But this midrash seems
to be more relevant to the question of making requests of meisim then
whether it is good to visit kevarim in the first place.

It seems to me that there are two reasons that one can't learn from
here that it is permissible to ask meisim to intercede for us. First,
the midrash itself is hard to take literally. According to the text in
Eicha Rabba, Yirmiyahu actually went to Machpela, and then to the banks
of the Yarden. In those days, that was a long trip. Given the text of
Tanach, as well as the internal structure of the midrash, it is hard to
support the notion that the incident spanned several weeks of travel.
And once we suggest that the midrash is not historic, it is entirely
reasonable to suggest that it is relating to zechus avos, but not that
we can specifically make requests.

Second (and this is a stronger point, IMHO), HaShem actually commands
Yirmiyahu to go request the Avos to intercede. So this could simply be
a hora'as sha'ah, from which we can learn nothing either way about the
appropriateness of our doing similarly.

--
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:31:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Kivrey Avos



 

On 21/06/2012 3:42 PM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> [1] What  about the idea that those who have passed away come back and
> go to the  simchas of their relatives and descendants?  They must know
> about  the weddings at least!  Or do you have to explicitly invite them
> if  you want them to come? [--TK]

From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
The  common minhag is to go to the graves and invite them.  Do they not  do
that in your family?  (What if the graves are not accessible, or  they
never came to kever yisroel?  Does that mean they don't come?   I don't
know.  Maybe if you invite those whose graves you can access,  they will
inform the others?)



-- 
Zev  Sero         
z...@sero.name    



>>>>>
 
 
"Do they not do that in your family?" Yes we do do that in our family, if  
the cemetery is reasonably accessible. I guess that means my paternal  
grandparents go to family weddings in America and my maternal grandparents go to  
weddings in Israel. But in reality I thought that going to the cemetery and 
 formally inviting the grandparents was just a nice thing to do -- to show 
them  honor and show they are still loved and missed. I assumed they would 
come even  if not formally invited -- and even if they have to cross the 
ocean to get to  the wedding.   I have not yet had the zechus to marry off my 
own  children -- I must ask my brother in Toronto if he sent someone to the 
bais olam  in Bet Shemesh to invite my grandparents to the Toronto weddings.  
I highly  doubt that the siblings in Israel sent anyone to New Jersey to 
invite my  grandparents who are buried there, when they made their children's 
weddings  in E'Y.
 
Anyone know sources re whether the grandparents will come even if not  
formally invited?  And do you have to go the cemetery -- or could you just  kind 
of address the air, or a photo of your grandparents, and invite them that  
way?  And hm, I wonder if you could do something like what Lubs do at the  
Ohel -- send an invitation to the cemetery office, and ask them to read it at 
 the kevarim of the grandparents who are buried there?  I wonder what the  
cemetery workers would think of such a request?  And do you leave the  
invitation there -- on the ground?


--Toby Katz
=============
Romney -- good  values, good family, good  hair


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

 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120622/4989afbf/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:26:14 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] tosefta incorporations??


On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 08:54:03AM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: why were some beraitos available and incorporated into the gemmarra, while
: others were incorporated into the toseftas ???

The Tosefta is a compilation of lower-case-m mishnayos that Rebbe didn't
feel a need to preserve. It was collected by R' Chiyah bar Abba and his
talmid, R' Hoshiah.

The word "beraisa", meaning "outsider", refers to anything not collected
in the Mishnah or Tosefta. According to the Rambam (hadaqamah lePeirush
haMishnah) they were recorded by R' Hoshiah and Bar Kapara. (I guess
those R' Hoshiah had left over after the Tosefta.) But no such compiled
collection reached us. Therefore, any beraisos not found in the Medrashei
Halakhah, Mishnah or Tosefta either reached us in one of the talmuds, or
was lost.

So I think the question is the reverse of RHB's: Why are some beraisos
in the Tosefta, and others not?

Rebbe had a known goal. To record the halakhah as he saw it, and those
alternatives he thought merited consideration. (Or required future
generations knowing they were rejected, see Edios 1:4-5.) This is why
a stam mishnah is like his rebbe, R' Meir, and we say that the general
approach to the mishnah is that of R' Meir's rebbe, R' Aqiva.

Stam Tosefta is keR' Nechemiah, which happens to be R' Chiya bar Abba's
rebbe. Which I would think implies RCbA had a similar goal.

And there was no finite list of mishnayos. They were forms people repeated.
If you met someone knew, he might have one you hadn't heard before. So
there were bound to be mishnayos that weren't needed for either project.

And some of them came up in the discussions of the amoraim recorded in
the Y-mi and in shas.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
F,ax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: cantorwolb...@cox.net
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:23:54 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] Korach


There are several interesting explanations as to why a weekly parashah is named after a rasha.
Actually, one or two m'forshim, in order to justify the title of the parashah, claim he really wasn't 
a rasha, but rather misguided. Whatever the case, how would they explain "Balak?" One way to 
look at it is that you can't judge a book by its title. Secondly, the Torah does not sanitize. Hence,
Balak and Korach is reality and part of learning what not to do. 

What I also find interesting is that the first two letters of Korach's name (kuf, reish) spell "cold."
Korach was, indeed, a cold, calculating indvidual. Also, as a side, the gematria of Korach is 308.
The gematria of kivro is 308. His name turned out to be his burial place. 

There is an even more interesting coincidence with Balak. In the same parashah of Balak, Chapter
23, verse 11 has Balak speaking to Bilaam. He chastises him saying (paraphrase): 'I brought you
here to curse my enemy, but instead, you've blessed him.' Balak is spelled beis, lamed, kuf and  
the word Balak uses for "to curse" is lakov, spelled lamed, kuf, beis. Balak's name turned around 
and backfired.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120622/8c6ea17d/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:40:27 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Drops of wine


On 6/22/2012 12:49 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:14:13AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>    
>> The words are very clear, and R' Zev is obviously correct.
>> V'nohagim she-shofchim l'ibud ha-makkot, v'ein shotin otam.
>>
>> The word "otam" clearly refers to the drops of wine.  Unless someone
>> wants to argue that the line is saying "And we are accustomed to spill
>> away the plagues and not to drink them." ...
>>      
>      We are accustomed to spill them out for the loss related to the
>      makkos, and we don't drink [what we spilled].
>    

I'm sorry, but that's grammatical silliness.  If it were supposed to be 
read that way, it'd say "shofchim *otam* l'ibud ha-makkot".  The objects 
of the verbs are makkot and otam, which clearly indicates that they are 
the same thing.  Sheficha is a transitive verb, and requires an object.  
You don't simply "spill" any more than you can "extinguish".  You have 
to spill *something*.
>>           .  If the seifa is talking about the drops, then so is the
>> reisha.
>>      
> Agreed. But "le'ibud" has its own object specified. And you aren't
> telling me what to do with it.
>    
L'ibud isn't a verb.  As such, we wouldn't expect it to have an object.  
Sheficha l'ibud is spilling something in a way that wastes it.  The word 
"l'ibud" can be seen as an adverbial modifier to the word "sheficha".  
We see this all the time, where a prepositional phrase acts as an 
adverb.  Both in Hebrew and in other languages.

>> Shofchim l'ibud means to waste them.  Like "holchim l'ibud" means going
>> to waste.  The idea that "ibud ha-makkot" is a phrase meaning the losses
>> caused by the plagues is utterly foreign to the Hebrew....
>>      
> This is the point in contention. There is no smooth way to incorporate
> "hamakos" otherwise. Zev has so far said that "ibud" doesn't mean loss,
> but destroy.
That's true.

> So hashavas aveidah is the obligation to return broken
> things?
You may have noticed that ibud and aveida are two entirely different 
words.  They share a root, but then, so do ledabeir (to speak) and 
lehadbir (to exterminate).  Here too, these are different binyanim, and 
laavod (with an alef, rather than an ayin) means to lose or to go lost, 
while l'abeid (the pi'el of that root) means to destroy.  Let's not get 
into Arami oveid avi, which is a whole other barrel of midrashic fish.

> He also said that "makos" doesn't mean plagues, but rather the
> drops of wine that symbolize it. And on top of both, he is reading the
> words as though it were "sheshofechim hamakos le'ibud".

That's exactly what it means.  The drops/spillings symbolize the 
makkot.  We throw them away.  We waste them.  We do not ingest them, 
because that would be icky.  Seriously.  Ibud ha-makkot wouldn't mean 
"loss caused by the makkot".  It's "destruction of the makkot", and if 
you'd prefer, you can translate the sentence as "We are accustomed to 
spill to waste the makkot, and we don't drink them."  And you can have 
that be either "(spill to waste) the makkot" or "spill to (waste the 
makkot)".

> How often do you
> put the preposition and 2nd object before the first object (unless you
> turn the first object into a prepositional phrase with "es")? I find it
> impossible to call the resulting reading the simple meaning of the text.
>    
"Asher lo nasa l'shav nafshi v'lo nishba l'mirma."  You say this at 
least four times every single week.  How would you translate it?

> (For "holchim le'ibud", the noun comes first, but that is dissimilar
> because the lost item is the subject, not the object.)
>
>    
>>                                                        Nor is the lamed
>> before "ibud" properly translated as "for" or "out of consideration
>> for".  That's an English phrasing that doesn't exist in Hebrew (though
>> it may have gotten into Modern Hebrew by now).
>>      
> The BDB has "for, to, in regard to". Bereishis 1:29, "lakhem yihyeh
> le'okhlah", or as we recently leined "ish ish lamateh".
>    

Really?  The BDB?  If you want to concede the argument, just say so.  
Honestly, the BDB?  Let's stick with context.  Something neither Briggs 
nor Driver not Briggs is really big on.  I've seen people use out of 
context translations from the BDB to "prove" that the names of the 
generations from Adam to Noach are talking about Yoshke.

>> I realize that this is simply an extension of the long running dispute
>> between R' Micha on the one hand, and R' Zev and myself on the other as
>> to whether we're supposed to rejoice over the downfall of our non-Jewish
>> enemies...
>>      
> I would have thought the long litany of medrashim, rishonim and acharonim
> who cite "maasei Yadai tov'im bayam" and "binfol oyivkha" as the reason
> for half-Hallel on the 7th day of Pesach would have laid that to rest.
>    
Your choice to misinterpret the Mechaber so that he contradicts a pashut 
Gemara doesn't put anything to rest.  Maasei yadai tov'im bayam is said 
in the context of Hashem silencing the melachim, and very pointedly 
*not* criticizing, let alone silencing Klal Yisrael as we sang "Ashira 
Lashem ki ga'oh ga'ah, sus v'rochbo rama bayam!"  So we're saying, "Yay, 
God!  He drowned them!" and that's fine.  Because it's good and natural 
for us to be happy about such a thing.  Not for Hashem, because they're 
His maasei yadayim.  They aren't ours, so our happiness is good and right.

There are actually very few sources to support your contention that we 
say chatzi hallel on shevii shel Pesach because of maasei yadai tov'im 
bayam, and all of those are properly understood as saying that on a day 
when Hashem is kavayachol mourning His creations, we temper our Hallel.

And in fact, have you looked at the sections we omit when we do chatzi 
hallel?  It's instructive.  Hallel is all about Hashem's greatness.  
Except for the first half of two of the perakim.  Lo lanu includes a 
prayer that idolaters should be struck deaf, dumb, blind, and insensate, 
right after saying that Hashem does anything He likes.  And Ahavti ki 
yishma ends with "kol ha-adam kozeiv".  So we leave off a prayer for the 
destruction of idolaters and a blanket condemnation of people.  In 
context of "maasei yadai tov'im bayam", not to do so could be seen as 
both insensitive and chutzpahdik.

You've chosen to ignore all of the sources that are incredibly explicit 
in saying that binfol oyivcha only applies to fellow Jews.  I'm not 
going to continue trying to convince you, because it seems pointless.

> We're talking about the Yalquv Shim'on, peschta deRav Qahanah, Medrash
> Harninu (which I never heard of, but is quoted by) the Shibolei haLeqet,
> the Beis Yoseif, the Taz, the Chavos Ya'ir, the Torah Temimah, R' Aharon
> Kotler, and others.
>    

No, we really aren't.

> The hashkafic issue is settled: applying "binfol oyivkha" to enemies
> who are nakhriim is at least /a/ normative Jewish approach, if not
> "the". There is a medrash where Mordechai tells Haman that "binfol" does not
> apply, but obviously the ShL and the BY et al knew the medrash. RnCL
> posted an iteration or two ago at least one possible explanation. But
> one can't dismiss an idea passed down from Chazal to my lifetime as
> unJewish, outside eilu va'eilu altogether. Pretty open-n-shut, on
> that level.
>    
Chazal are clear.  As are the chachamim who came after them.  The one or 
two exceptions are only exceptions according to your interpretation, and 
you *cannot* interpret them as disputing Chazal when there's an option 
not to.

> I also thought this was a revival of the broader topic. But when I
> mentioned the above on Areivim, Zev explicitly divorced the discussion
> from the broader one. To quote, "In any case, the topic here is not the
> Medrash Harninu, which refers only to the hallel on Pesach. The topic
> here is the spilling of the makos, and *nobody* says that has to do with
> sorrow for the Mitzrim. Nobody. If you claim otherwise *prove it*...."
>
> But if there is no philosophical problem, why the surprise at the idea
> that RDFeinstein suggests it?
>    

I can't answer that without being oveir on zilzul.

Lisa



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:10:41 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Drops of wine


On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 02:40:27PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>>      We are accustomed to spill them out for the loss related to the
>>      makkos, and we don't drink [what we spilled].

> I'm sorry, but that's grammatical silliness...

I don't think "We are accustomed to spill out for destruction the
[symbol of] the makkos" is plausible. It requires a significant
insertion, and requires believing RDF placed the object after
the prepositional phrase.

But... you do realize that while we are arguing what RDF may have
meant, we're discussing a translation of his work published during his
lifetime, and with no one's name on it (or the translation) but his own.
It's unlikely the author himself agrees that the translation is in error.

And you're correct, it would have to be "The spilling is for the loss
related to the makkos..." I'm even willing to have "for the destruction
related to the makkos", since they did destroy. "Ibud" means to actively
lose; I don't think destruction is the only way to do so, but WRT the
makkos, it was destruction.

>> The BDB has "for, to, in regard to". Bereishis 1:29, "lakhem yihyeh
>> le'okhlah", or as we recently leined "ish ish lamateh".

> Really?  The BDB?  If you want to concede the argument, just say so.   
> Honestly, the BDB?  Let's stick with context...

Ad hominem? Qabel es ha'emes mimi she'omro. I gave examples which you
then ignore.

...
> Your choice to misinterpret the Mechaber so that he contradicts a pashut  
> Gemara doesn't put anything to rest...

There is no interepretation. Quotes Mishlei and the medrash of maasei yadai
in his discussion in the BY of Half Hallel. As do the rest of the litany,
although before the Shibolei haLeqet only the medrash, not binfol.

Why would he do so, what language quibble will you use to turn "the sky
is blue" into saying "the sun is yellow"?

I feel you are grasping at straws that aren't even there.

...
>> But if there is no philosophical problem, why the surprise at the idea
>> that RDFeinstein suggests it?

> I can't answer that without being oveir on zilzul.

If I have to bank on the Beis Yosef's notion of Jewish values over Zev's,
or yours (or R/D Josh's), I won't lose sleep.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             We are what we repeatedly do.
mi...@aishdas.org        Thus excellence is not an event,
http://www.aishdas.org   but a habit.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Aristotle



Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:00:56 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Drops of wine


On 22/06/2012 1:49 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:14:13AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> The words are very clear, and R' Zev is obviously correct.
>> V'nohagim she-shofchim l'ibud ha-makkot, v'ein shotin otam.
>>
>> The word "otam" clearly refers to the drops of wine.  Unless someone
>> wants to argue that the line is saying "And we are accustomed to spill
>> away the plagues and not to drink them." ...
>
>      We are accustomed to spill them out for the loss related to the
>      makkos, and we don't drink [what we spilled].

That is not what it says.  "Otam" in the sentence is what we don't
drink.  But "otam" *has* to refer to something previously mentioned,
and the way you twist the words there is no previous referent.
According to you the object of the verb "shofchim" is only implied;
so how can it be referred to later as "otam"?


>
>>           .  If the seifa is talking about the drops, then so is the
>> reisha.
>
> Agreed. But "le'ibud" has its own object specified. And you aren't
> telling me what to do with it.

Le'ibud is not a verb, and therefore has no object.  The phrase is
"shofchim le'ibud", we spill to waste.


>> Shofchim l'ibud means to waste them.  Like "holchim l'ibud" means going
>> to waste.  The idea that "ibud ha-makkot" is a phrase meaning the losses
>> caused by the plagues is utterly foreign to the Hebrew....

> This is the point in contention. There is no smooth way to incorporate
> "hamakos" otherwise.

Of course there is.  This is simple Hebrew.  "Hamakot" is the object
of "shofchim le'ibud".


> Zev has so far said that "ibud" doesn't mean loss,
> but destroy. So hashavas aveidah is the obligation to return broken
> things?

NO!  I'm sorry, but this is plain illiteracy.  "Aveidah" means something
that got lost, but "le'abed" means to destroy.  What does "hame'abed
mah shenosnim lo" mean?  Not what you tell your kids, but what does it
really mean?  What does "lehashmid laharog ule'abed" mean?  What does
"Avadon" ("Abaddon" in English) mean?  "Le'abed ul'makah ul'cherpah".

The "loss" sense is found (:-)) in "aveidah", "asher yo'vad mimenu",
"avadnu, kulanu avadnu", "ha'ovdim be'eretz Ashur".  It's from the same
root, but a different word; binyan kal rather than hif'il, if I've got
those terms correct.



> He also said that "makos" doesn't mean plagues, but rather the
> drops of wine that symbolize it.

Yes.  That is obvious from the sentence itself, and it's a common idiom.


> And on top of both, he is reading the
> words as though it were "sheshofechim hamakos le'ibud".

Yes.  It is exactly like that.


> How often do you
> put the preposition and 2nd object before the first object (unless you
> turn the first object into a prepositional phrase with "es")?

"Shofchin le'ibud" is one verb phrase; "hamakot" is the only object.


> I find it
> impossible to call the resulting reading the simple meaning of the text.

It is plain.   This is a modern text, casually written; it's got all the
grammatical exactitude of modern rabbinic Hebrew, and you can't analyse
it as if it were a pasuk or something.


>>                                                        Nor is the lamed
>> before "ibud" properly translated as "for" or "out of consideration
>> for".  That's an English phrasing that doesn't exist in Hebrew (though
>> it may have gotten into Modern Hebrew by now).
>
> The BDB has "for, to, in regard to". Bereishis 1:29, "lakhem yihyeh
> le'okhlah", or as we recently leined "ish ish lamateh".

That is "assigned to" or "for the purpose of", not "because of".


>
>> I realize that this is simply an extension of the long running dispute
>> between R' Micha on the one hand, and R' Zev and myself on the other as
>> to whether we're supposed to rejoice over the downfall of our non-Jewish
>> enemies...
>
> I would have thought the long litany of medrashim, rishonim and acharonim
> who cite "maasei Yadai tov'im bayam" and "binfol oyivkha" as the reason
> for half-Hallel on the 7th day of Pesach would have laid that to rest.

No, it wouldn't, because you're misrepresenting half of them.  You are
the one ignoring the explicit gemara which says it's a machlokes between
Mordechai Hatzadik and Haman Harasha, and you're taking Haman's side.


> We're talking about the Yalquv Shim'on, peschta deRav Qahanah, Medrash
> Harninu (which I never heard of, but is quoted by) the Shibolei haLeqet,
> the Beis Yoseif, the Taz, the Chavos Ya'ir, the Torah Temimah, R' Aharon
> Kotler, and others.

Why do you cite the Chavos Ya'ir when he *explicitly disagrees with you*,
as I explained last time.  Did you bother reading it?  Not only does he say
that the ikar is *not* like the medrash Harninu, but he also says that since
we can't just dismiss a medrash, we can explain it away by saying that
Hallel is different because it reflects Hashem's happiness, so if He's not
happy we can't say a whole hallel, even though our own rejoicing is complete.
So according to the Chavos Yair it's *impossible* to say the same about
spilling the makos.


> I also thought this was a revival of the broader topic. But when I
> mentioned the above on Areivim, Zev explicitly divorced the discussion
> from the broader one. To quote, "In any case, the topic here is not the
> Medrash Harninu, which refers only to the hallel on Pesach. The topic
> here is the spilling of the makos, and *nobody* says that has to do with
> sorrow for the Mitzrim. Nobody. If you claim otherwise *prove it*...."

That's right.  And so far you have not proven it, you have not cited
*one single source* for it.  It is a thoroughly goyishe idea, and is
from the shiv'im achor latorah.


> But if there is no philosophical problem, why the surprise at the idea
> that RDFeinstein suggests it?

He does not.  That is your strange mistranslation.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon



Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:32:28 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Drops of wine


On 22/06/2012 4:10 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 02:40:27PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>>> >>        We are accustomed to spill them out for the loss related to the
>>> >>        makkos, and we don't drink [what we spilled].
>> >  I'm sorry, but that's grammatical silliness...

> I don't think "We are accustomed to spill out for destruction the
> [symbol of] the makkos" is plausible. It requires a significant
> insertion, and requires believing RDF placed the object after
> the prepositional phrase.

There is no insertion.  Calling the spilled wine "makkos" is a common
idiom.  I'm sure that when RDF wrote those words in Hebrew it never
occurred to him that someone would think he meant the plagues themselves.
And the object comes after the *verb phrase* "shofchin le'ibud", which
means, practically, "throw out".


> But... you do realize that while we are arguing what RDF may have
> meant, we're discussing a translation of his work published during his
> lifetime, and with no one's name on it (or the translation) but his own.
> It's unlikely the author himself agrees that the translation is in error.

He probably didn't notice it.  If you think that's what he really meant,
feel free to ask him, but I'm confident I know what he meant.


BTW the Chavos Yair *also* says that even according to the Medrash Harninu,
Hashem's sadness at the death of the Mitzrim was only at the moment when
they were drowning, not later.


-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:12:12 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Kivrey Avos


On 22/06/2012 12:47 AM, Daniel M. Israel wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2012, at 1:42 PM,<T6...@aol.com>  <T6...@aol.com>  wrote:

>> [1] What about the idea that those who have passed away come back and
>> go to the simchas of their relatives and descendants?
>
> I'm curious, this seems to be a widespread notion, but does anyone have
> a mekor?

The original source seems to be Zohar Pinchas 120.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14250&;pgnum=44
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14250&;pgnum=45

See also
http://www.bhol.co.il/forum/topic.asp?topic_id=2290202&;forum_id=771


> As far as RZS's point that this doesn't apply to something done for the
> kavod (I would say zechus) of the niftar

I was quoting the Shulchan Aruch.




> the midrash itself is hard to take literally. According to the text in
> Eicha Rabba, Yirmiyahu actually went to Machpela, and then to the banks
> of the Yarden. In those days, that was a long trip. Given the text of
> Tanach, as well as the internal structure of the midrash, it is hard to
> support the notion that the incident spanned several weeks of travel.

Several weeks?!  On foot it's less than a three-day journey (taking the
gemara's measure of 10 parsa'ot a day).  On a horse or donkey it's less.


> And once we suggest that the midrash is not historic, it is entirely
> reasonable to suggest that it is relating to zechus avos, but not that
> we can specifically make requests.

A non-historical medrash still can't say he did something that is assur.




-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 71
**************************************

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..."


< Previous Next >