Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 027

Sunday, April 30 2006

• Re: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• Re: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• Re: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• Re: Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
• Re: Avodah V17 #25
• Re: ArtScroll Machzor?
• Re: pronouncing sheimes
• Re: pronouncing sheimes
• AHS vs MB
• Re: Aruch Hashulchan vs. Mishna Berura

From: Lisa Liel <lisa@starways.net>
>Actually, the  medrash begins with the question of why we say Chatzi 
>Hallel on the  7th day, and gives the story as a motivation.

> How is that  relavant, if I may ask? Nowhere does it even suggest that
> we grieve. Only  that Hashem grieves.

Imitatio Dei is certainly a Jewish value.

But BTW I agree with Lisa that "binfol oyevecha al tismach" does NOT
apply to the fall of our enemies among the nations who wish to kill us,
but only to fellow-Jews with whom we have quarrels (e.g., Shaul towards
Dovid -- Dovid did not rejoice at Shaul's fall).

(However I disagree with Lisa's pedantic correction of RMB's pronunciation
of the word "oyevecha" -- changing the reading to "oyivcha" -- I disagree
not on grammatical grounds but on the grounds of common usage.)

We ARE permitted -- and perhaps required -- to rejoice when our mortal
enemies among the nations are defeated. However, our joy is not unalloyed.

I don't know why Lisa is so insistent on the point that Jews feel no
sadness, no grief, no regret over the loss of life when our enemies are
defeated. Although Golda Meir was not a religious person, her famous
statement was classically Jewish -- to paraphrase -- more than being
killed by the Arabs, we regret having to kill them. We do not dance on
our enemies' graves.

 -Toby  Katz
=============

In a message dated 4/30/2006 10:47:59am EDT, lisa@starways.net writes:
> "Look at us!  We're so holy and pure that we even mourn  for those who
> were trying to kill us!  Now, please, stop hating us,  because we're
> *soooooo* good."  It's craven, but more to the point, it  isn't
> supported by our  mesorah.

I agree with your politics but not with your reading of the Mesorah.

I totally agree that the liberal Jews' drive to show how compassionate
they are and to win the love of Arabs and Harvard professors is craven,
misguided, and doomed to failure.

Nevertheless there is a nekuda in the liberals' hearts that comes from
a genuine Jewish source.

 -Toby  Katz
=============

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 00:46:12 EDT, T613K@aol.com wrote:
>From: Lisa Liel _lisa@starways.net_ (mailto:lisa@starways.net) 

>>Actually, the  medrash begins with the question of why we say
>>Chatzi Hallel on the  7th day, and gives the story as a motivation.

>How is that  relavant, if I may ask? Nowhere does it even suggest
>that we grieve. Only  that Hashem grieves.

>Imitatio Dei is certainly a Jewish value.

Not uncritically. Never uncritically. The Jewish value is that there is
a time and a place for compassion. That not showing compassion when we
should is bad, and that showing it when we should not is equally bad.
Not worse, not better, but equally bad.

>But BTW I agree with Lisa that "binfol oyevecha al tismach" does 
>NOT apply to the fall of our enemies among the nations who wish to 
>kill us, but only  to fellow-Jews with whom we have quarrels (e.g., 
>Shaul towards Dovid -- Dovid did not rejoice at Shaul's fall).

In that case, what basis can there possibly be for moderating our joy
at the destruction of the Egyptians?

>(However I disagree with Lisa's pedantic correction of RMB's 
>pronunciation of the word "oyevecha" -- changing the reading 
>to  "oyivcha" -- I disagree not on grammatical grounds but on the 
>grounds  of common usage.)

Pardon me, but with all due respect, calling an insistence on reading a
pasuk correctly "pedantic" is somewhat outrageous. Furthermore, I am not
"changing" the reading to "oyivcha"; that's the word Shlomo HaMelech
chose to use. The fact that it is commonly misread means nothing.

In Israel, I have heard many people read "im eshkachech Yerushalayim,
tishakach yemini." Reading "tishkach" as "tishakach" because the actual
reading doesn't sound right to their ears. Because in Modern Hebrew,
"If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand forget" sounds dumb.
So they change it to "may my right hand be forgotten". Would you call
it "pedantic" to insist on the correct reading in this case? Would you
claim that the "common"-ness of the error makes it the valid reading?

The Baalei Mesorah went to pains to point out the correct reading of
words. In this case, they specifically said that the word is to be read
"oyivcha". So I'm curious: Do you consider every ktiv in Tanach to be
"pedantic", or just this one?

>We ARE permitted -- and perhaps required -- to rejoice when our
>mortal enemies among  the nations are defeated.  However, our joy 
>is not unalloyed.

I don't think you can claim that without a source. Our joy *is*
unalloyed. Our appreciation of the God Hashem does us in such cases
should be pure.

>I don't know why Lisa is so insistent on the point that Jews feel 
>no sadness, no grief, no regret over the loss of life when our 
>enemies are defeated.

Because I think that it is a foreign idea. One which has leached in
from the outside. Survivor guilt, perhaps. The sin of Shaul ben Kish,
more likely. A merciful people is likely to find inappropriate mercy to
be a common pitfall.

>Although Golda Meir was not a religious person, her famous 
>statement was classically Jewish  --  to paraphrase -- more than 
>being killed by the Arabs, we regret having to kill them.  We do 
>not dance on our enemies' graves.

That's a false dichotomy. We don't dance on our enemies' graves, but
neither do we mitigate our simcha at their defeat simply because some
of them died. To do so is a case of inappropriate compassion. I think
in many cases, we say such things out of a kind of gaavah. "Look at us!
We're so holy and pure that we even mourn for those who were trying to
kill us! Now, please, stop hating us, because we're *soooooo* good."
It's craven, but more to the point, it isn't supported by our mesorah.

Lisa

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 07:22:40 EDT, T613K@aol.com wrote:
>>Every year someone mentions the reason given by the non-O clergy as 
>>"we feel sorrow for the death of the Egyptians" and every year I, 
>>Lisa Liel and Zev Sero mention that this has zero factual basis in 
>>traditional Jewish sources....

>>.... No touchy-feely "nebich the poor Egyptians" naarishkeit, a 
>>bizarre hypothesis that came out from the halls of the Reform and 
>>Conservative clergy in the late 1940's.

>Since my father said it and he was a Gerrer chossid, I do not 
>believe it was a modern, newly made-up explanation.

>There is a Chazal about Hashem saying to the angels, "My creatures 
>are drowning in the sea and you say Shira?!" The true explanation is 
>a combination of sorrow that human beings -- even evil ones -- had 
>to die, and sorrow that a part of Hashem's Creation had to be 
>destroyed for our Ge'ulah to take place.

But the Gemara is explicit in limiting that sentiment to Hashem and the
angels, and *not* to us.

> From Avraham Avinu we see (by implication) that Jews do feel sorrow 
> about the deaths of human beings, even reshaim.

Where do we see that?  I don't think the implication exists, really.

>Also see the ArtScroll Machzor (quoting Sefer Hatoda'ah, whose 
>original source I don't know) that we blow the shofar 99 times to 
>cancel the 100 wailings of Sisra's mother. Why not 100 times? 
>Because we don't totally cancel the tiny part of genuine grief felt 
>by a mother at the loss of her son -- even such a mother and such a son.

I can't comment on what R' Scroll says, except to note that we blow the
shofar 100 times. Not 99 times. Count them.

[Email #2. -mi]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:19:18 -0400, Jacob Farkas <jfarkas@compufar.com> wrote:
R' Micha Berger wrote:
>>>The Perishah, as Lisa finally showed me, points you back to the 
>>>gemara. For all I know, his problem is that if the death of 
>>>Mitzriyim was cause for halving Hallel, what about Chanukah?
>[RnLL replied:]
>>A valid question, in my opinion. And one which casts much doubt on 
>>the idea that we do a partial Hallel to limit our joy due to the 
>>death of people who were coming to kill us. After all, we didn't 
>>kill the Egyptians. We actually killed our enemies on Hanukkah, and 
>>yet we refrain from showing the kind of inappropriate compassion 
>>that R' Micha would like to present as a Jewish value, and we 
>>finish Hallel all 8 days of Hanukkah.

>The Hallel we recite on Hannukah is a Taqanas Hakhamim that was 
>instituted because of the miracle of the oil, as Rashi says (Shabbos 
>21b sv Mai Hanukah - Al eizeh Neis q'va'uhah). That miracle was the 
>catalyst to the Q'va'um va'asa'um yamim tovim b'halel v'hoda'ah. 
>While the military conquest was a part in regaining control of the 
>Beis Hamiqdash and the Avodah, the Gemara nevertheless concluded 
>that it was the miracle of oil that was the reason for Q'vias Yom 
>Tov. This could help explain why we don't take into account the 
>death of those who died in battle. Had the q'vias yom tov and Hellel 
>been for the miracles of unlikely victory, who knows whether full 
>Hallel would be appropriate.

I don't see why it wouldn't. I don't know of a single source that even
suggests that we would shorten Hallel in such a case.

>>I heard the following from R' David Bar Hayim. It says in Mishlei 
>>24:17 "binfol oyivcha al tismach". Oyivcha, and not oyvecha, as R' 
>>Micha mistakenly quoted. In the singular.

>While the Q'ri is Oyivkha, it is spelled like Oyevekha, which could 
>be why many people do quote it thusly. (Has anyone seen a reason why 
>the extra yud before the final kaf?)

I don't know of one, but are you saying that it's acceptable to misquote
a pasuk, even after the correct reading has been pointed out, simply
because the ktiv differs from the kri? I don't understand that.

>>R' Bar Hayim notes that Seder Eliyahu Rabbah at the end of chapter 
>>18 actually refers to the conflict between Mishlei 24:17 and 
>>Mishlei 11:10. Seder Eliyahu Rabbah says on this, "Keitzad yitkaymu 
>>shnei ketuvim halalu?" How can these two psukim coexist? And it 
>>answers by saying that "binfol oyivcha al tismach" refers 
>>specifically to a fellow Jew. Which, R' Bar Hayim points out, fits 
>>the fact that the singular is used in Mishlei 24:17. It doesn't 
>>refer to our enemies, but rather to a personal enemy, or opponent, 
>>and one who is a fellow Jew, to boot.

>Ba'avod Risho'im Rinah is used in the Gemara Sanhedrin 39b on the demise
>of Ahav.

Indeed. Seder Eliyahu Rabba gives an example of a *fellow* Jew. Not just
another Jew. Someone who happens to be Jewish, but who oppresses Jews on
a national level, like Ahav, Yannai, Sharon, or the like, would obviously
not be similar in any way to the example given by Seder Eliyahu Rabba.

>>R' Elazar said: "He doesn't rejoice, but He causes others to 
>>rejoice. We see this clearly when it says 'He will cause you to 
>>rejoice' (Deuteronomy 28:63), rather than 'He will rejoice'. We see 
>>it from that."

>>The Gemara here states, explicitly that *only* Hashem's joy is 
>>diminished. Why? Because the Egyptians are the work of His hands. 
>>They are not the work of *our* hands. And the angels are merely 
>>aspects of Hashem Himself, as we know. The verse "binfol oyivcha al 
>>tismach" applies to the Egyptians here *only* for Hashem Himself. 
>>In the same way that we should not rejoice over the downfall of a 
>>fellow Jew, so too does Hashem restrain Himself (kavayachol) from 
>>rejoicing over the downfall of His creations.

>The concept of Binfol Oyivkha is not one that should be mentioned as 
>hanhagah of HQBH. Read the P'suqim in Mishlei 24:17-18, where in 
>Pasuq 18 [the reason as to why Bifol Oyivkha Al Tismah is because] 
>pen yir'eh hashem v'ra b'einov, v'heishiv mei'alav appo.

I don't think that implies that it cannot be applied to Hashem.
The Egyptians stood against Him; not just against us. But in any case, I
was trying to find a way to answer for those who apply "binfol oyivcha" to
"maaseh yadai tov'im ba-yam". Because such a thing requires an explanation
in the face of the conclusion of that Gemara.

>The message of the Gemara is that HQBH is not happy with the Mapalah of
>R'shaim.  When R' Yosei Bar Hanina mentions hu eino sas aval aheirim
>meisis, he is not specifically referring to Q'riyas Yam Suf, but on the
>earlier meimra of Sh'ein HQBH Same'ah B'mapalasan shel R'sha'im.

But it includes Kriyat Yam Suf. The Gemara makes it perfectly clear
that Hashem does cause us to rejoice in such a case, and there is not
so much as a hint that we are intended to limit that joy. It was not
maaseh yadeinu which drowned in the sea, but maaseh yadav.

>>I do not call the Yalkut Shimoni "naarischkeit". But I can 
>>understand using that term for an idiosyncratic reading of the 
>>Yalkut that disregards the entirety of the Tanach and Gemara.

>The Yalqut Shimoni (quoting the P'siqta) cannot be read or 
>understood any other way, not textually or conceptually. When the 
>Midrash asks why don't we say Hallel after the first day on Pessah 
>as we do on Sukkos and the answer is because it says Binfol Oyivkha 
>Al Tismah, is there a different way to understand this Midrash?

Yes. Despite your insistence that it cannot be seen as referring to
Hashem, I say that it must be seen that way. To do otherwise would be
to invent a machloket that has gone unremarked for centuries. It isn't
reasonable.

>> A religion that's all about the "dialectic tension" would see a
>> machloket between Abbaye and Rabba and say, "Well, maybe both of them
>> are right." The entirety of Shas could be contained in a single
>> volume if that's what Judaism was about.

>Both are right. Halakhah could only be like one of them, though.

But we wouldn't have Abbaye say one thing, Rabba say something
contradictory, and just leave it like that. It would be discussed.
If it wasn't discussed, that tells us that they didn't actually contradict
one another.

>>Furthermore, I don't believe that Judaism is skewed either overly 
>>towards din *or* overly towards rachamim. Not a single verse in the 
>>Tanach suggests that *we* should worry ourselves about the downfall 
>>of our enemies. Not a single Gemara says it either. On the 
>>contrary, there are many verses and several Gemaras which say 
>>exactly the opposite. In the face of this, I cannot see how anyone 
>>could seriously suggest that later sources were essentially 
>>disputing the Gemara and Tanach. They *must* be read differently.

>How would one the aformentioned P'siqta differently?

I've made a suggestion.  You ruled it out.  I stand by my suggestion.

Lisa

Re: <<See the ArtScroll Machzor (quoting Sefer Hatoda'ah, whose original
source I don't know) that we blow the shofar 99 times to cancel the 100
wailings of Sisra's mother. Why not 100 times? Because we don't totally
cancel the tiny part of genuine grief felt by a mother at the loss of
her son>>

I too sympathize with the mother's grief, but where did ArtScroll or
Sefer Hatoda'ah get the information that we blow 99 kolot. I assumed
that even they would know that the custom is to blow 100 kolot (except
for Yekkes who are old fashioned, blow 80, and ignore Sisra's mother).

If this would need proof, I could point out that we blow sets of 10 kolot.
It seems a bit difficult to divide 99 by 10 and get a whole number.

To break it down a bit more, the 10's are blown as a group of one four
and two threes. Omitting one kol, would passel another two or three. so
I still cannot get 99.

Help!

Maybe it's 99 b'li hakollel.

All blessings,
David 

I was asked this question off list: 
> I too sympathize with the mother's grief, but where did ArtScroll or
> Sefer Hatoda'ah get the information that we blow 99 kolot. I assumed
> that even they would know that the custom is to blow 100 kolot

That was my mistake -- blame my inaccurate memory. Sisra's mother wailed
101 times, not a hundred, and we blow the shofar 100 times, as you say,
not 99.

 -Toby  Katz
=============

R' ELPhM Minden asks:
> Do you pronounce the sheimes in the aggadic
> parts of the Haggode in their "liturgical"
> way, or in the modern "lerning" way?

In other words: Do we read them as Adnus and with a heh, or as HaShem
and with a K.

Personally, in the Hagada I read them as Adnus and with a heh, but not
during ordinary learning. Avoidance during learning is a concession to the
popular procedure, and I draw the line at doing it for the Hagada too. If
I had my druthers, I'd say them properly during learning too. Why not?

If one wants to make a case that many times we violate the principle of
breaking a pasuk at the wrong spot, fine, but that's any entirely separate
issue, having nothing to do wih how one pronounces a Shem. (Except for the
irony that if one says an entire pasuk, and alters a Shem into something
else, he thereby creates two half-pesukim.)

But this thread is not about breaking pesukim, its about altering
Sheimos. And what is the motivation to do that? I don't know of
any motivation other than the desire to avoid pronouncing a Shem
needlessly. That's not merely a good idea, but is in the Aseres
Hadibros. But does it apply in these cases? If one reads those nosei
keilim about spilling the wine, is it really a Shem L'vatala? I think
not. It is an essential part of the context!

An even clearer example is when trying to be mekarev someone, and speaking
conversational Hebrew in the process. When the context of the conversation
is about G-d, why on earth would one think to say "Elokim" with a K? It is
not needless! Writing is a whole nother story, since the paper is tangible
and we fear its being discarded shamefully, but not so with verbal words.

Akiva Miller

From: ELPhM Minden <phminden@arcor.de>:
> Do you pronounce the sheimes in the aggadic parts of the Haggode in
> their "liturgical" way, or in the modern "lerning" way? My impression is
> that most people inadvertently handle the text as if it was a tefille,
> though they'd never pronounce the full names when they le(a)rn. Is it
> the nikked?

When the learning is a clear part of a mitzva then you do pronounce
the name of Hashem. Some people would say that when you say the Shema
you are really "learning" rather than "davening" and of course everyone
pronounces the sheim Hashem when saying Shema.

Another perhaps more relevant case in the birchos hashachar, right after
the brochos for learning Torah. You actually recite a passage from Torah
("Yevorechecha Hashem veyishmerecha, etc") as well as a passage from
the Talmud ("Eilu devarim she'ein lahem shiur, etc") in order to make
sure that you didn't say the birchos haTorah levatalah, i.e., that you
did indeed learn at least one thing that day in Torah shebichtav and
in Torah shebe'al peh. And of course, when doing this learning, you do
pronounce the shem Hashem.

Perhaps, again, because it is unquestionably done in order to fulfill
the mitzva of limud Torah after making a bracha, just as reciting the
hagada is unquestionably done in fulfullment of the mitzva.

Whereas with learning done later in the day, perhaps there is doubt as
to whether it's done for a mitzva, and maybe that's why people don't
pronounce the shem Hashem when learning Torah during the day. Maybe if
you learn Torah for the intellectual pleasure or social aspect of it,
there is doubt as to whether it's sufficiently mitzva to enable you to
say shem Hashem?

That's just speculation on my part, of course. But I know that people are
careful in general not to pronounce shem Hashem -- more careful nowadays,
davka because we are more distant from the kedusha of olden times, than
people were, say, in Dovid Hamelech's time, when, it seems, people would
pronounce the shem Hashem when referring to Him in conversation.

Now two tangents some may wish to pursue:

Zemiros: some sing them with shem Hashem, others not. My husband not,
my father yes.

Girls learning Torah shebe'al peh: do the Satmar who don't allow their
girls to learn even Chumash -- let alone Mishna and Gemara -- do they
allow them to say birchos hashachar with those pesukim and the mishna
"Eilu devarim"?

 -Toby  Katz
=============

Here is a quote from R' Dr. Haym Soloveitchik in his famous essay
RUPTURE AND RECONSTRUCTION which details the difference between the
approach of the Aruch Hashulchan and the MB and explains why the MB is
so popular today:

"... In light of my remarks above, I should take care to add that though
the GRA is noticeably absent as an authority in the Arukh ha-Shulhan, that
work is written in the spirit of the GRA, whereas the Mishnah Berurah,
for all its deference to the GRA, is penned in a spirit antithetical
to the one of the Gaon. The crux of the Gaon's approach both to Torah
study and pesak was its independence of precedent. A problem was to be
approached in terms of the text of the Talmud as mediated by the rishonim
(and in the Gaon's case even that mediation was occasionally dispensed
with). What subsequent commentators had to say about this issue, was,
with few exceptions (e.g. Magen Avraham, Shakh), irrelevant. This approach
is writ large on every page of the Biur ha-Gra, further embodied in the
Hayyei Adam and the Arukh ha-Shulhan, and has continued on to our day
in the works of such Lithuanian posekim, as the Hazon Ish and R. Mosheh
Feinstein. The Mishnah Berurah rejects de facto this approach and returns
to the world of precedent and string citation. Decisions are arrived
at only after elaborate calibration of and negotiation with multiple
"aharonic" positions."

>> It took the CC more then TWO decades to write his peirush on JUST OC.
>> "Less analytical and investigative"? I think not... IMVHO,
>> this is analogous to a Rishon whose words appear simple but open a R' Chaim,
>> a R' Shimon Shkop and see the diyukim they make.

> Which of course is the subject of debate (see the Orthodox Forum's
> recent publication on Lomdus (Brisker Torah approach) - did the Rishonim
> (actually IIRC R' Chaim looked at only a few)/ Gemara really intend
> these chilukim. Can we be sure the approach is getting the underlying
> theory correct especially when it does so by downplaying the text? (BTW
> I learn this way too but since reading lomdus am much more self-aware
> of the issues)

Tumim in Kitzur Tokfo Kohen [Siman 124, in Hoshen Mishpat 25] claims
that the mehaber and RMA without a doubt did not intend all the diyukim
that the aharonim were able to conclude from their language, rather it
was through siyata dishmaya that the language in their works remained
consistent with halakhah even without the intention of the author.

Maybe the same can be said for the works of the Rishonim?

Jacob Farkas

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]