Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 034

Monday, May 8 2006

• i ba'is eima
• Re: Adoption
• Re: population of Israel
• Re: Anshei Kneses Hagedola
• 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

Normally an i ba'is eima represents two exclusive possibilities.
Rashi Pesahim 9a s.v. "v'i ba'is eima safek usafek hu" implies that
the second option actually makes use of the first option l'halacha.
Are there other examples of this?

David Riceman 

> I'm doing my tikkkun leil shavuot on this topic. I was thinking of where
> there would be nafka minas as to whether adoption is "keilu ylado"
> literally.

Aveilut

Lisa Liel <lisa@starways.net> wrote:
> the majority of the Jews in the world probably already live
> in Eretz Yisrael.
> So... should we make a list of dinim that are different because of it?
> We could probably start with prosbul going away, no?

Not until each tribe is living in its own territory.

In any case, prosbul doesn't automatically go away, just because shemitta
becomes de'oraita. Prosbul was always a valid way of evading shemitat
kesafim, but before Hillel's takanah it was regarded as unethical, so
no reputable beit din would do it; and since it requires the cooperation
of a beit din in order to work, it was not common. There were probably
individuals throughout the generations who would find an unethical beit
din to rubber stamp their prosbul, but for most people it wasn't an
option. Hillel's chiddush was to declare that because of the economic
realities something had to be done, batei din should cooperate with
and encourage prosbul, even lechatchilah, rather than condemning and
discouraging it.

Had it been de'oraita in his day, he would never have had the chutzpah
to promote a scheme to avoid it, regardless of the economic necessity,
because it would have effectively abolished a practise explicitly
required by the Torah. The fact that it was derabbanan gave him the
right to promote the prosbul. But now that he did permit and promote it,
I'm not convinced that, when shemitah becomes de'oraita again, it would
automatically become unethical again. I think it would require a new
takanah from the Sanhedrin, repealing Hillel's takanah.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

"Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> How long did this institution last? Were its members replaced when
> they died? How did it end-bang or whimper?

My impression has been that the Knesset Hagedolah was not a standing
body, but a convention that met over a period of some months or years,
considered various proposed reforms, accepted or rejected them, and then,
when its work was over, disbanded. Think of a constitutional convention,
or lehavdil the various "Ecumenical Councils" in Xian history.

Shimon Hatzadik was one of the last surviving delegates who had attended
the Knesset Hagedolah.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On May 7, 2006, Jacob Farkas wrote:
> [RSC:]
>> I feel the mekoros reveal that having compassion for the death of evil
>> people is a decidedly un-Jewish attitude. I haven't been following Avodah
>> for a couple of weeks so some of this might have been written already.

> Compassion for the wicked and rejoicing in their demise are quite
> different. The former suggests ignoring justice, the latter is precisely
> what Binfol Oyivkha warns against.

How can you have compassion for someone upon his death when his very
death is supposed to elicit emotions of joy? AFAIC, the idea sounds
incoherent. Like the pasuk I quote just below states, a tzadik rejoices
when he witnesses nikama but the nikama here is inextricably tied to
the downfall/death of the rasha. Thus, the pasuk could synonymously read
"yismach tzadik ki chazah mapala", or perhaps "misa"

>> The pasuk in Tehilim (58) states: 'Yismach tzadik ki chazah nakam,
>> pi'amav yirchatz bi'dam rasha' (a tzadik shall rejoice when he witnesses
>> the recompense [against the wicked], and bathe his feet in the blood of
>> the rasha).

> Next Pasuq, V'yomar adam, akh p'ri latzaddiq akh yeish elokim shof'tim
> ba'aretz. (loosely translated: And man will say, there is a reward for
> the tzaddiq, there is a God who administers justice). This verse is
> explaining why the Tzaddiq would rejoice, and the explanation is because
> this is an execution of justice, and that is worthy of rejoicing. Not
> that Tzaddiqim are gleeful bathing in the blood of the wicked, for its
> own sake, rather they are gleeful that there is justice in the world,
> justice that is visible, justice that can inspire man.

I'm not sure what you mean by "for its own sake". If you mean that the
tzadik is somehow unhappy with the "death" situation and irrationally
divorces the status quo (death) from the ramification (nikama) then why
are they subsequently bathing their feet in his blood? He's dead already!

>> IMO, the Jewish view is that we love whoever Hashem loves and hate whoever
>> he hates. And Hashem loves (frum) Jews and hates rishaim as the pasuk in
>> Malachi states "va'ohav es Yaakov vi'ess Eisaav sa'ney'see".

> I'm not clear how the pasuq in Malakhi indicates that Yaaqov are only
> those who are frum, and I am also unclear how it indicates that Eisav
> means R'sha'im alone.

Through the contrast. Both were sons of Yitzchok and both had the din of
"Jews" but Eisav is referred to in the lashon of Chazal as a Yisrael
mumar. Thus, Hashem loves frum Jews but despises mumrim and apikorsim
even if they are Jews. There are a ton of sources in the pesukim and
Chazal for this.

>> Consequently, we rejoice at the mapala of rishaim. In fact, the Medrash
>> states that
>> Dovid composed 120 mizmorim but was not chosem with haliluya until
>> he foresaw the downfall of the evil as it states 'yitamu chataim min
>> ha'aretz' etc." MR Vayikra 4:7 (Don't ask from Berurya - She was enjoining
>> R' Meir to change rishaim into tzadikim and if this is at all possible,
>> why not? But we are talking about the downfall of people who were wicked
>> to the end and what our attitude should be regarding this downfall)

> I will not ask from b'rur'ya per se, but from her p'shat in the pasuq.
> Hata'im v'lo Hot'im is a very serious hiluq. It doesn't absolve a rasha,
> but it does give perspective to others on how to view niqmas hashem.

But you are asking from Berurya and apparently you didn't understand my
pre-emptive attempt at a teretz. Berurya's pshat is just a drasha in
the pasuk. It is not the pashut pshat. I agree that if it is possible
for somehow take a die-hard atheist, an apikorus etc. and eventually be
mikarev him that one should follow Berurya's pshat in the pasuk. But this
doesn't detract from the pashut pshat in the posuk which refers directly
to the rishaim as Chazal understood the pasuk ("ad shera'a bimapalasam
shel rishaim", not "bimapalaso shel resha") and as the pasuk itself
concludes "u'ri'shaim od einam" not "uresha od eino"

> Should we be happy that the rasha died, or should we be happy that Ra
> is no longer amongst us? The latter is indicated by Hata'im v'lo Hot'im.

No its not. The latter merely indicates what I stated before in the name
of Berurya. However, if the rasha died without teshuva, then ba'avod
rishaim rina! BTY, I am not referring to tinok shenishba and I'm certainly
not referring to a generally frum Jew who does aveiros. Although a Jew,
at the time of an aveia r'l, is called a rasha, this is not the rasha of
the pasuk ba'avod rishaim rina. Rather, I am referring to a lihachisnik
atheist, someone who despises Yiddishkeit, someone who despises Hashem and
His Torah etc. Unfortunately there are thousands upon thousands of such
Jewish mumrim and apikorsim living amongst us, many who are responsible
not only for the disintegration which is eating away at the infrastructure
of our nation but also the patent degeneration of this country's mores.

> Rather than running the risk of repeating in great length what was already
> discussed in the past few weeks, I will summarize by pointing out that
> the Yalqut Shimoni quotes a P'siqta that states that we don't say Hallel
> on 7th day Pessah because of Binfol Oyivkha, see Meshekh Hakhmah [Shemos
> 12:16 sv. U'vayom Harishon Miqra Kodesh vGo'], as well as Manos Haleivi
> [Esther 9:20 sv. Vayikhtov Mordakhai].

I must confess that I've heard this stated before but have never seen it
in Chazal. The Gemara in Eruchin says that we don't say Hallel the last
six days of Pesach because they are not chalukin b'korbinosayhem. When you
supplied a mareh makom above for Chazal offering an additional reason,
I thought I had finally found the source. I looked up the Yalkut where
you were mitzayen but unfortunately could not find it. (Just to confirm,
in my Yalkut, Shemos 12:16 is in remez #201) Could you perhaps locate
the mareh makom in the original pesikta? I'd like to look it up and
see if the context supports your contention. The Gemara in Megilla 16
definitely states openly that the concept of binfol oyvecha does not
apply to umos haOlam so I find it difficult to imagine that there should
be a stira in Chazal but I'll wait and see.

As far as other sefarim other than Chazal espousing this idea, especially
about the umos haOlam, I must respectfully disagree.

> While we can appreciate niqmas hashem in the context of its bringing
> about kavod shamayim, the fact that it has to be done in a way that it
> leads to mapalah, even while necessary, is not in itself a reason to
> rejoice.

Certainly not. Obviously we would rather that everyone fulfilled the dvar
Hashem without requiring retribution. But if one utilizes his bechira
"tzu kemfin a milchama kineged dem Eibishter" he has no one to blame
but himself for his demise. Hashem gave the mitzryim several chances
to be chozer. He gave them one chance, two chances, five chances,
and each time they dug their heels in deeper. So, says Reish Lakish,
"im laLeitzim hu yalitz". "I gave you enough chances" says Hashem. Now,
"Ani mosif licha tum'a al tumasecha". (MR Shmos 13:3 - See also Rambam
Hilchos Teshuva 6:3)

[Email #2. -mi]

On May 7, 2006, I wrote:
> I must confess that I've heard this stated before but have never seen it
> in Chazal. The Gemara in Eruchin says that we don't say Hallel the last six
> days of Pesach because they are not chalukin b'korbinosayhem. When you
> supplied a mareh makom above for Chazal offering an additional reason...

Actually, I just realized that when RMB supplied his original recap
he mentioned the mareh makom as Pesikta D' Rav Kahana Siman 29 189a
(Mandlebaum ed.). I will try and find it and report back.

Simcha Coffer

On Sat, 6 May 2006 23:27:09 -0400, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>So, checking that, I found that ithe idea I took as obvious from the 
>fact that the Pisqa deRK is on Chatzi Hallel, a middle point between 
>not saying it ans daying it, is Rabbeinu Yonah's...
>              Hashem silenced the mal'achim because they had no 
>personal redemption to celebrate. We had a reason for mixed emotions 
>-- the combination of verses, they lack that mixture. (Given that I 
>learned Avos with Rabbeinu Yonah, I was probably working with a 
>memory of that, without realizing where I got the idea from.)

[There was a comment here, but it got mangled during moderation. RnLL,
kindly repost. -mi]

>When Googling for people who quote the Rabbeinu Yonah, I also found 
>R' Moshe Taragin's shiur from Yeshivat Har Etzion at 
><http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/avot/10avot.htm>. I guess we can 
>drag him into the discussion too.

===============
The angels were not permitted to recite hallel because THEIR joy seemed
to be indulging in the suffering of the Egyptians. Invulnerable to
their persecution, and inactive in the historical process, they could not
sense the desecration of Hashem's Name which this miracle relieved. By
contrast, human beings sense Hashem's glorification when history is
altered and the wicked are destroyed, and are therefore permitted to
recite hallel.
....

[Referring to "binfol oyivcha":]
Would this dictum apply to enemies who have already perished? Perhaps
once history has been cemented (after keri'at Yam Suf, for example)
joy may be felt and expressed. Mishlei is not forbidding such conduct as
much as it is warning against "counting our chickens before they hatch."
....

[Summing up:]
Quite possibly, then, joy at the death of evildoers is morally legitimate,
but often strategically unwise. Therefore, retrospectively, after events
have been finalized, the constraints might disappear.

Such an approach, of course, demands an explanation as to why a full
hallel recitation is inappropriate on Pesach. Why must we restrict
our celebration of keri'at Yam Suf, if that historical chapter was
closed centuries ago? One answer, perhaps, is that however legitimate
unmitigated celebration might be, it cannot be formalized by way of the
recitation of hallel to Hashem. Alternatively, we might claim that in
principle hallel may be recited in its entirety, and our practice is
based only partially on this theme of 'triumph moderation.' It is the
combination of this factor and the consideration mentioned by the gemara
in Arakhin, regarding the uniformity of the musaf offerings on Pesach,
that precludes a full hallel recitation. In the absence of this second
factor, a full hallel might, indeed, have been appropriate.
===============

What I don't understand, R' Micha, is how you read that article and
then posted a reference to it as though it supported your position.
When it clearly does exactly the opposite.

>Even with RZL's suggestion, we're supposed to feel bad.

No, we are not. None of the sources you have cited say that we should
feel bad. None of them. Even if your claim that they say we should
restrain our joy was true, that would not imply that we should feel bad.
*No one* says we should feel bad. And in my opinion, that's a horrible
thing to even suggest. It implies a sort of moral ambivalence that
simply is not native to Judaism.

>And the line between feeling bad that their death happened and 
>feeling bad that they so identified with evil that they made their 
>own deaths necessary is blutty.

These are all categories you've created, however. They have no reality
or existence in Torah sources.

>>IMO, the Jewish view is that we love whoever Hashem loves and hate 
>>whoever he hates...

>The whole argument Avraham raises in defense of Sodom vaAmorah 
>complicates that picture. And the Meshekh Chokhmah already cited 
>does so further.

Avraham Avinu raised no argument whatsoever in defense of the reshaim of
Sdom and Amorah. I don't understand this. I don't understand how you can
so blatantly misrepresent something every one of us can, and does, read.
Avraham Avinu defended the theoretical righteous people living in Sdom
and Amorah. He *never* suggested that the reshaim should be spared.

>I would say, though, that you bring a list of ra'ayos that binfol 
>doesn't stand alone without ba'avod resha'im rinah, not that 
>compassion is wrong.

Strawman argument. No one is suggesting that compassion is wrong. But
compassion, like everything else, needs to be appropriate. Misapplied,
it becomes dangerous. That's what Judaism teaches. There are other
religions which see compassion as a value to be applied indescriminately.
I'm positive you aren't suggesting something like that.

>IOW, you proved the existence of the other emotion, but did not 
>disprove the idea that we're supposed to feel both.

Fortunately, the burden of proof isn't on him. It's on someone who
wants to propose a value that is absent from our tradition.

[Email #2. -mi]

On Sun, 07 May 2006 03:03:43 -0400, Jacob Farkas <jfarkas@compufar.com> wrote:
>[RSC:]
>>I feel the mekoros reveal that having compassion for the death of 
>>evil people is a decidedly un-Jewish attitude. I haven't been 
>>following Avodah for a couple of weeks so some of this might have 
>>been written already.

>Compassion for the wicked and rejoicing in their demise are quite 
>different. The former suggests ignoring justice, the latter is 
>precisely what Binfol Oyivkha warns against.

I'm curious to know how you can make that claim in the face of a gemara
that explicitly excludes binfol oyivcha from applying to non-Jews.
Can you offer a single source that applies binfol oyivcha to rejoicing
in the demise of reshaim? Seder Eliyahu Rabbah is quite clear that the
"oyev" in binfol oyivcha is not a rasha at all.

>>The pasuk in Tehilim (58) states: 'Yismach tzadik ki chazah nakam, 
>>pi'amav yirchatz bi'dam rasha' (a tzadik shall rejoice when he 
>>witnesses the recompense [against the wicked], and bathe his feet 
>>in the blood of the rasha).

>Next Pasuq, V'yomar adam, akh p'ri latzaddiq akh yeish elokim 
>shof'tim ba'aretz. (loosely translated: And man will say, there is a 
>reward for the tzaddiq, there is a God who administers justice). 
>This verse is explaining why the Tzaddiq would rejoice, and the 
>explanation is because this is an execution of justice, and that is 
>worthy of rejoicing. Not that Tzaddiqim are gleeful bathing in the 
>blood of the wicked, for its own sake, rather they are gleeful that 
>there is justice in the world, justice that is visible, justice that 
>can inspire man.

I can't help but wonder why you and R' Micha insist on turning this into a
false dichotomy of either grieving for those who seek our harm or "bathing
in the blood of the wicked". It is false. It is misrepresentative.
It is an attempt to draw lines that don't really exist, and I can't
help but feel that it is a form of emotional blackmail. "Agree with us
that Judaism says we mourn at the downfall of the wicked, or you're a
horrible person who bathes in the blood of the wicked." It's insulting,
and I object to it.

>>Consequently, we rejoice at the mapala of rishaim. In fact, the 
>>Medrash states that Dovid composed 120 mizmorim but was not chosem 
>>with haliluya until he foresaw the downfall of the evil as it 
>>states 'yitamu chataim min ha'aretz' etc." MR Vayikra 4:7 (Don't 
>>ask from Berurya - She was enjoining R' Meir to change rishaim into 
>>tzadikim and if this is at all possible, why not? But we are 
>>talking about the downfall of people who were wicked to the end and 
>>what our attitude should be regarding this downfall)

>I will not ask from b'rur'ya per se, but from her p'shat in the 
>pasuq. Hata'im v'lo Hot'im is a very serious hiluq. It doesn't 
>absolve a rasha, but it does give perspective to others on how to 
>view niqmas hashem. Should we be happy that the rasha died, or 
>should we be happy that Ra is no longer amongst us? The latter is 
>indicated by Hata'im v'lo Hot'im.

There is a difference between praying that a rasha should be destroyed
and rejoicing when a rasha is destroyed. In the former case, as per
Bruriya's hiluk, it's better to pray that a rasha should stop being
a rasha. But a rasha who has been destroyed, died b'rish'ato, and we
absolutely do rejoice at his destruction.

>Rather than running the risk of repeating in great length what was 
>already discussed in the past few weeks, I will summarize by 
>pointing out that the Yalqut Shimoni quotes a P'siqta that states 
>that we don't say Hallel on 7th day Pessah because of Binfol 
>Oyivkha, see Meshekh Hakhmah [Shemos 12:16 sv. U'vayom Harishon 
>Miqra Kodesh vGo'], as well as Manos Haleivi [Esther 9:20 sv. 
>Vayikhtov Mordakhai].

None of that means that *we* mourn for the destruction of the 
Egyptians.  Nor even that we lessen our joy.  I recommend that you 
read the article R' Micha posted:
<http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/avot/10avot.htm>

It deals with the question quite cogently, I think.

>I don't know how you determined that it is a Mitzvah to rejoice b'mapalasam.

Because every Torah source says so, I'd imagine.

>While we can appreciate niqmas hashem in the context of its bringing 
>about kavod shamayim, the fact that it has to be done in a way that 
>it leads to mapalah, even while necessary, is not in itself a reason 
>to rejoice.

Hashem's methods are His business, really. We rejoice at the downfall
of reshaim. And most particularly do we rejoice at the downfall of
reshaim who are trying to kill us or enslave us. I can't fathom how
you can say otherwise.

Lisa 

R' S Coffer wrote:
> How can you have compassion for someone upon his death when his very death
> is supposed to elicit emotions of joy? AFAIC, the idea sounds incoherent.
> Like the pasuk I quote just below states, a tzadik rejoices when he
> witnesses nikama but the nikama here is inextricably tied to the
> downfall/death of the rasha. Thus, the pasuk could synonymously read
> "yismach tzadik ki chazah mapala", or perhaps "misa"

But the Pasuq doesn't say that. Precisely because its message is that
the Tzaddiq should rejoice seeing that Yeish din v'yeish dayan rather
than only reading about it. Why is it incoherent that someone should be
happy that courts punish people while at the same time feel bad (or at
least not throw a party) that capital punishment was the only solution.

>>> The pasuk in Tehilim (58) states: 'Yismach tzadik ki chazah nakam,
>>> pi'amav yirchatz bi'dam rasha' (a tzadik shall rejoice when he witnesses
>>> the recompense [against the wicked], and bathe his feet in the blood of
>>> the rasha).

>> Next Pasuq, V'yomar adam, akh p'ri latzaddiq akh yeish elokim shof'tim
>> ba'aretz. (loosely translated: And man will say, there is a reward for
>> the tzaddiq, there is a God who administers justice). This verse is
>> explaining why the Tzaddiq would rejoice, and the explanation is because
>> this is an execution of justice, and that is worthy of rejoicing. Not
>> that Tzaddiqim are gleeful bathing in the blood of the wicked, for its
>> own sake, rather they are gleeful that there is justice in the world,
>> justice that is visible, justice that can inspire man.

> I'm not sure what you mean by "for its own sake". If you mean that the
> tzadik is somehow unhappy with the "death" situation and irrationally
> divorces the status quo (death) from the ramification (nikama) then why are
> they subsequently bathing their feet in his blood? He's dead already! 

Its own sake means with the actual mapala. The Tzaddiq is happy that there
is Neqama, not that there is bloodletting. P'amav Yirkhatz means that the
Neqama was something the Tzaddiq visulized and experienced and not merely
a story he read in the news, it is not a tzivuy to run to a pool of blood.

>>> IMO, the Jewish view is that we love whoever Hashem loves and hate whoever
>>> he hates. And Hashem loves (frum) Jews and hates rishaim as the pasuk in
>>> Malachi states "va'ohav es Yaakov vi'ess Eisaav sa'ney'see".
...
> Through the contrast. Both were sons of Yitzchok and both had the din of
> "Jews" but Eisav is referred to in the lashon of Chazal as a Yisrael mumar.
> Thus, Hashem loves frum Jews but despises mumrim and apikorsim even if they
> are Jews. There are a ton of sources in the pesukim and Chazal for this.

The chapter in malakhi is referring to Eisav the nation, the one whose
descendants lived in Edom. The sequence of the following Pesuqim does
not flow otherwise. See Malakhi 1:3-4, that clearly illustrates that
the Pasuq is referring to a nation.

...
>> I will not ask from b'rur'ya per se, but from her p'shat in the pasuq.
>> Hata'im v'lo Hot'im is a very serious hiluq. It doesn't absolve a rasha,
>> but it does give perspective to others on how to view niqmas hashem.

> But you are asking from Berurya and apparently you didn't understand my
> pre-emptive attempt at a teretz. Berurya's pshat is just a drasha in the
> pasuk. It is not the pashut pshat. I agree that if it is possible for
> somehow take a die-hard atheist, an apikorus etc. and eventually be mikarev
> him that one should follow Berurya's pshat in the pasuk. But this doesn't
> detract from the pashut pshat in the posuk which refers directly to the
> rishaim as Chazal understood the pasuk ("ad shera'a bimapalasam shel
> rishaim", not "bimapalaso shel resha") and as the pasuk itself concludes
> "u'ri'shaim od einam" not "uresha od eino" 

Hata'im V'lo Hot'im is not a drasha. It is Pashut p'shat. Hata'im are
sins, Hot'im are sinners. B'rurya saying Hata'im v'lo Hot'im was just
her way of stressing to her husband that he should not pray for the
death of the biryonim. U'r'sha'im od einam is a natural consequence once
evil has left, for if there are no Hata'im how can there be R'sha'im.
Yitamu Hata'im can include mapalas R'sha'im, in the case where r'sha'im
refuse to repent, in those case bi'ur ra is done with Midas hadin,
but the purpose is bi'ur ra, not mapalas rasha, and that is why it is
hata'im v'lo hot'im.

>> Should we be happy that the rasha died, or should we be happy that Ra
>> is no longer amongst us? The latter is indicated by Hata'im v'lo Hot'im.

> No its not. The latter merely indicates what I stated before in the name of
> Berurya. However, if the rasha died without teshuva, then ba'avod rishaim
> rina! ...                     I am referring to a lihachisnik atheist,
> someone who despises Yiddishkeit, someone who despises Hashem and His Torah
> etc. Unfortunately there are thousands upon thousands of such Jewish mumrim
> and apikorsim living amongst us, many who are responsible not only for the
> disintegration which is eating away at the infrastructure of our nation but
> also the patent degeneration of this country's mores.

B'avod r'shaim rinah because resha has ceased, and Kavod shamayim is
restored, as mentioned earlier in Tehillim 58. Also bear in mind that
through the Mapalah of the Rasha, there can also be a Yeshua for the
righteous, and thus Rinah.

>> Rather than running the risk of repeating in great length what was already
>> discussed in the past few weeks, I will summarize by pointing out that
>> the Yalqut Shimoni quotes a P'siqta that states that we don't say Hallel
>> on 7th day Pessah because of Binfol Oyivkha, see Meshekh Hakhmah [Shemos
>> 12:16 sv. U'vayom Harishon Miqra Kodesh vGo'], as well as Manos Haleivi
>> [Esther 9:20 sv. Vayikhtov Mordakhai].

> I must confess that I've heard this stated before but have never seen it in
> Chazal....

Yalqut Shimoni Vayiqra 23 Siman 654, quoting Psiqta siman 29

> As far as other sefarim other than Chazal espousing this idea, especially
> about the umos haOlam, I must respectfully disagree.

I highly doubt that the Meshekh Hokhma missed the Gemara in Megillah 16,
neither did R' Shlomo Alkabetz (His peirush being on Esther and all...)

You are not bound by their P'shat, but should others choose to agree
with them, it is certainly not un-jewish.

>> While we can appreciate niqmas hashem in the context of its bringing
>> about kavod shamayim, the fact that it has to be done in a way that it
>> leads to mapalah, even while necessary, is not in itself a reason to
>> rejoice.

> Certainly not. Obviously we would rather that everyone fulfilled the dvar
> Hashem without requiring retribution. But if one utilizes his bechira "tzu
> kemfin a milchama kineged dem Eibishter" he has no one to blame but himself
> for his demise. Hashem gave the mitzryim several chances to be chozer. He
> gave them one chance, two chances, five chances, and each time they dug
> their heels in deeper. So, says Reish Lakish, "im laLeitzim hu yalitz". "I
> gave you enough chances" says Hashem. Now, "Ani mosif licha tum'a al
> tumasecha". (MR Shmos 13:3 - See also Rambam Hilchos Teshuva 6:3)

How this translates into our rejoicing in Mapalah, for mapalah's sake,
remains a question.

http://tinyurl.com/z4s35
R' Avigdor Nebenzahl Shlita, quoting R' Hayyim Shmuelevitz ZTL who asked,
What do we pray for when we say Avinu Malqeinu N'qom Leineinu Niqmas dam
avadekha haShafukh, do we ask that Hashem kill six million Germans? He
answers, that we ask that Hashem have them recognize the folly of their
ways and be totally embarrassed by what they have committed. having
them recognize that Torah is forever, am yisrael is forever, and that
all their plans are for naught, and has no chance of success. That is
the Neqama for which we pray for.

U'mimenu Niqakh V'khein Na'aseh...

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         ]