Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 41

Wed, 11 Mar 2015

• 1. Even Appearance of Apostasy (David Wacholder)
• 2. Re: Pshat in Ayin Tachas Ayin ()
• 3. Re: Rambam and Geonim on Loss of Oral Laws (Was: Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah) (H Lampel)
• 4. Re: Rambam and Geonim on Loss of Oral Laws (Was: Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah) (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Rambam and Geonim on Loss of Oral Laws (Was: Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah) (H Lampel)
• 6. Re: Rambam and Geonim on Loss of Oral Laws (Was: Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah) (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Peshat and Drash (Was: Re: Meshech Chochmah on, Kedushah) (H Lampel)
• 8. Re: Peshat and Drash (Was: Re: Meshech Chochmah on, Kedushah) (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Peshat and Drash (Was: Re: Meshech Chochmah on, Kedushah) (H Lampel)
• 10. Language and Ayin Tachat (Herbert Basser)
• 11. Re; Question on the Megillah (elazar teitz)

Flags and identity are deeply valued. Every Shevet of the 12 Tribes had a
Standard, long before the Roman Army. Perhaps they were inspired to fight
for their standard when it was endangered, as later Roman soldiers did.

Fresh upon return from capture of Yrushalayim,- radiating hubris,
victorious Babylonian King Nebuchadnetzar - forces all to bow to him. The
Navi Yechezkel advises the great Daniel - bow today and fight Avodah Zara
on more level playing field when the tsunami has run its course. Daniel
escapes to other places.

Tosafos on Ksubos 33b, fresh in minds of Daf Hayomi followers, debates
why - why - the renowned Chananyah Mishaeil V'Azarya - despite the
sage advice of Yechezkel, publicly refused to bow. Was this private
protest necessary? Was it permissible? Was there an actual statue of
a venerated Deity - or was there only an ambiguous sculpture - called
Andarta? If only a glorification of the great King, not a genuine idol,
why did they override Yechezkel's request for patience? From whence did
they derive their inspiration?

The same question - from the opposite angle - recurred in Shushan. Should
the Jews of Shushan picket outside Achashveirosh's endless banquet? Should
they publicly bow to Haman years later?

Sources tell us - they invoked infinitely strong Heavenly anger, even were
in danger of total destruction - as penalty for such Sins of omission !!

Arguments for bowing and ducking:

Rambam's famous Igeres Hashmad begins with the straw-man, an author who
claimed that if a Christian by force - such as at point of a sword -
forced a Jew to say words of idol worship or bow to an idol, that person
would be considered a traitor to Judaism. Rambam mocks the unnamed
author mercilessly.

Rabeinu Yonah in Shaarei Tshuva takes Rambam's position even further,
asserting that the distaste and disgust the Jew will be left with will
accomplish complete Kapara.

Rabeinu Yonah refuses to lengthen the discussion - the person is already
a Tzadik.

At the opposite extreme stands the charismatic leader, Rabeinu Ephraim
of Bonne/Regensburg. This extraordinary poetic soul reacted strongly to
any appearances of Avoda Zara.

He witnessed the Second Crusade, and was a major chronicler and
Payytan, of grand emotion. Rabeinu Ephraim penned the story of Rav
Amnon excoriating himself for requesting three days to consider how to
reply to demands that he become Christian. Rather Rav Amnon finds it
preferable to undergo torture - as punishment for creating an illusion
or appearance of potential Apostasy. He then appears to a disciple in
a dream and dictates the words of Unetanneh Tokef to him.

There is a very important Halacha point here - Rabeinu Ephraim considered
it a duty to perform acts of Kidush Hashem for appearance's sake.

In the mistakenly titled Siddur Rabeinu Shlomo Ben Shimshon Vsidur
Chasidei Ashkenaz (this Rashbash was teacher or contemporary of Rashi.
More accurately the main sections might better be ascribed to Rabbi
Eliezer Ben Nathan, closer in time to Rabeinu Tam. The Kannai who bemoans
popular nusach that - Chei Haolamim sounds like more than One Deity and
is forbidden - is certainly none other than Rabeinu Ephraim.

Daf Yomi just learnt Tosfos Ksuboth 33b who pithily discusses the Death
Sentences of Chananya Mishaeil V'Azarya. Tosafos suggests there was
actual Avodah Zara. Even a nation-wide edict to bow before actual idols -
remains Yeihareig Ve'Al Ya'avor.

What if it was a mere figure, and the Babylonian King's goal was
habituating them to bowing before ambiguous sculptures - called Andarta?
If so - seemingly one need not risk life and limb to avoid the bowing?
Tosafos curtly mentions that Kidush Hashem - here not clearly defined -
makes it meritorious if one takes the option of never bowing to these
Andarta objects.

This is indeed the season of the massacres during the Crusades, and the
issues in this Tosafos were all too real.

Tosafos in Avodah Zara 3b uses similar logic to explain why enjoying the
Party of the newly coronated King Achashverosh - and or Nebuchadnetzar -
makes an opportunity for such optional Kidush Hashem.

Haflaa on our Tosfos, thankfully asks the question - if this Kidush
Hashem is so optional and for Great Moments, - why is the entire nation
condemned to destruction? In this logic, either risk death now, or risk
annihilation later as a penalty. Haflaa therefore just ignores this idea,
taken by itself. He then finds a unique comparison - which I am scared
to quote, because it is mind boggling. For equal time, the Baruch Taam
(on Haflaa itself) defends Tosafos, and among other things refers to
Parshas Drachim 21 where dire penalties are considered reasonable in
such situations.

The commentary on Chidushei Rabeinu David on Psachim 53b gives a wide
ranging summary of the sugyah. See also 25b ibid.

Tosafos Avodah Zara 3b, ascribing such dire punishment to eating at the
King's majestic ball, rings to me as Rabeinu Ephraim's shitah. Others may
have shared the Shitah, and just looked to RE for added authority. Most
of the material, and the strongest, comes from RE himself.

Historically, we hear that despite his greatness, Rabeinu Ephraim often
wore out his welcome, by never admitting he was wrong (Rabeinu Tam).
Rabeinu Yoeil and Raaviyah always wrote thorough replies against Rabeinu
Ephraim's chumros and pamphleteering. These are spread throughout
Raabiyah, including in the newly published parts in the Deblitsky edition.
Rabeinu Ephraim was far ahead of his time, understanding the utilization
 of lobbying.

I thus feel safe stating that [as of now], the consensus position should
be inclined to permit polite attendance and actions where no clear Avodah
Zara exists.

-- 
David Wacholder

 
From: Marty Bluke via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
"

>>  Here is the Targum  (Vayikra 24:19-20)
19: U'gvar ari yeetein muma bchavrei k'ma di avad kein  yisaveid la.
20: tavra chalaf tavra, eina chalaf eina shina chalaf shina k'ma  dee
yeetein muma baanasha kein yisyahev beh.

The Targum is explicit in  understanding the pesukim literally.<<

 
 
>>>>>
 
 
That is no chiddush, /everyone/ translates the pasuk literally. The  
translation is understood to mean "[the value of] an eye for an eye, [the value  
of] of a tooth for a tooth."  And it has /always/ been understood that way,  
since Sinai.  Had you met Onkelos in the street and asked him, "What did  
you mean by that?" he would have explained it to you the way I just did.  
 
While you're about it you can ask him what he means by saying, "You shall  
not cook a kid in its mother's milk."  While he might not say anything  
about having two sets of dishes, he would certainly say, "You can't cook meat in 
 milk, period, whether or not you know who is the mother of this nice 
little lamb  you are cooking."
 

--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150311/c0fc640d/attachment-0001.htm>

[RZL:]
>> Why R. Avahu decided to resolve this machlokess through compromise 
>> rather pesak is a good question. Rav Hai's explanation that all three 
>> ways were valid to start with partially answers it. But is it not 
>> counter-intuitive to say the Rambam objected to the idea that the law 
>> could have been lost over the ages, yet eschewed Rav Hai's solution in 
>> favor of a new explanation involving loss of the original practice?

>>...my point remains that the Rambam did not hold that oral law 
>> details were immune to loss... Rambam's statement in Sefer HaMitzvos 
>> Shoresh Sheyni: [Temura 16a states] "1,700 [details of mitzvos 
>> generated through] kals va'chomers, gezeyra shavvos and dikdukei 
>> soferim were /forgotten/ during the days of mourning over Moshe 
>> Rabbeynu['s death]. Nevertheless, Osniel ben Kenaz returned them 
>> through his pilpul..." Now, if the forgotten ones were such, how much 
>> many more must have been the original body [of laws generated through 
>> these methods] from which this number was forgotten?..Without doubt, 
>> those dinnim that they brought out through kal vachomer and the rest 
>> of the middos were many thousands, and these were all known during the 
>> life of Moshe Rabbeynu, because [?] in the days of the mourning over 
>> him they were forgotten.

RMB:
> As for other forgotten halakhos... Not only is there the gemara of 
> Osniel ben Kenaz, but also all the "shakhechum vechazar veyasdum" of the 
> Galus Bavel era. There seems to be no indication the Rambam believed any 
> of them led to machloqes, though.

I didn't want to cite the "shakhechum vechazar veyasdum"s because it could
be argued that it is lav davka, and that these were forgotten by many, but
some still retained it. But in Temurah 15b-16a that won't work. Moreover,
the Gemora (clearly according to Rashi's reading) states that the
halachos that were forgotten were decided by majority rule. "Im rabbu
m'tam'in--tam'u; im rabbu t'horin--tiharu." And among these, it says,
was a halacha l'Moshe miSinai over which there was a 5-way machlokess.

Besides, what would be the logic of admitting that the law could be 
lost, but that somehow there would be no machlokess over what it was? 
Something mystical?

RMB:
> Otherwise, his attack on Raavad I (R' Avraham ibn Daud haLevi) 
> would have been far milder.

I'm not committed to the idea that the Rambam's shittah was an 
attack on something Raavad I said. But as I've mentioned before, the 
Rambam only attacks the idea that any of our sages would have differed 
with a proven kabala maintained by another. He attacks the idea that 
machlokess was caused by /one/ of the sages forgetting the mesorah. He 
does not deny that machlokess could be the result of /all/ sages not 
having received the mesorah.

RMB:
> One says that forgetting is the normal source of machloqes, and the 
> Rambam responds that it's "preposterous",

Not sure what you mean. Rambam says "only a mi'ut shekhiach were
forgotten''?

Zvi Lampel

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 07:14:58AM -0400, H Lampel wrote:
: RMB:
:> As for other forgotten halakhos... Not only is there the gemara of 
:> Osniel ben Kenaz, but also all the "shakhechum vechazar veyasdum" of the 
:> Galus Bavel era. There seems to be no indication the Rambam believed any 
:> of them led to machloqes, though.
: 
: I didn't want to cite the "shakhechum vechazar veyasdum"s because it could
: be argued that it is lav davka, and that these were forgotten by many, but
: some still retained it...

I'm not sure that's supportable from the usage itself, but I appreciate
a desire to entirely avoid yet another tangent.

...
: Besides, what would be the logic of admitting that the law could be 
: lost, but that somehow there would be no machlokess over what it was? 
: Something mystical?

Again, I invented that idea of "no 'real' machloqes". There could in
principle be disputes over what the halakhah was, but such disputes
would not be machloqesin in the sense of the word we're using it here.

(Recall that RMH is addressing the question of what the relationship
between the rabbinate and halakhah is. To him, the nature of machloqes
is a major symptom, but only a symptom. He doesn't need the accumulative
and constitutive models to have different outcomes WRT understanding
machloqes; they are models of how TSBP grows, the taamei hamitzvah of
kelalei pesaq.)

The one dispute over halakhah of this sort that we found so far didn't
follow the regular rules. Because we try to hold like everyone. (Which
BTW, might also be motivated by our anyway having 100 qolos in imitation
of eim Sisera.)

The Rambam has to admit the law could be lost in principle for his
usual anti-mystical reasons. Al pi teva, such things may happen. But,
given how vehemently the Rambam rejects the idea that such forgetting
explains the body of machloqesin, I concluded that the Rambam believed
that they were exceeding rare. As I put it before, a mi'ut delo shekhicha.

...
: I'm not committed to the idea that the Rambam's shittah was an 
: attack on something Raavad I said. But as I've mentioned before, the 
: Rambam only attacks the idea that any of our sages would have differed 
: with a proven kabala maintained by another...

I don't know what you mean by "proven". The Rambam discusses and dismisses
the possibility of machloqes being about one side having an accurate
mesorah and another side made a mistake. It is in this context he brings
up Batei Shamai veHillel and shelo shimeshot es rabosam, and denies that
it refers to such errors.

The Rambam does allow for forgetting -- but not someone getting the
mesorah wrong and not realizing information was mangled or details lost.

So, his machloqesin consequent to forgotten information is still
both sides using the TSBP's rules of inference to reach contractictory
conclusions. The factthat the whole being filled in is more recent than
Sinai doesn't impact the dynamics of that dispute.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you're going through hell
mi...@aishdas.org        keep going.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Winston Churchill
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 3/11/2015 10:37 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> ZL: : Besides, what would be the logic of admitting that the law could be
> : lost, but that somehow there would be no machlokess over what it was?
> : Something mystical?
>
> RMB: Again, I invented that idea of "no 'real' machloqes". There could in
> principle be disputes over what the halakhah was, but such disputes
> would not be machloqesin in the sense of the word we're using it here.
Just to make sure I nderstand you correctly, by ''no 'real' machloess'' 
you mean academic machlokess but in practical terms we know we will 
adopt all sides. Correct?
>
> ...The one dispute over halakhah of this sort that we found ... we try to hold like everyone. (Which
> BTW, might also be motivated by our anyway having 100 qolos in imitation
> of eim Sisera.)
Good point.
>
> The Rambam has to admit the law could be lost in principle for his
> usual anti-mystical reasons. Al pi teva, such things may happen. But,
> given how vehemently the Rambam rejects the idea that such forgetting
> explains the body of machloqesin, I concluded that the Rambam believed
> that they were exceeding rare. As I put it before, a mi'ut delo shekhicha.
It may be rare (recall the Shoresh Sheyni citation: If 1,700 were 
forgotten, then the ones that were remembered must have been so much 
more), but his vehemence is /not/ against the idea that such forgetting 
[by all] explains the body of machlokessin. It's against the idea that 
you go on to express:

>> RMB:The Rambam discusses and dismisses
>> the possibility of machloqes being about one side having an accurate
>> mesorah and another side made a mistake. It is in this context he brings
>> up Batei Shamai veHillel and shelo shimeshot es rabosam, and denies that
>> it refers to such errors.
>>
>> The Rambam does allow for forgetting -- but not someone getting the
>> mesorah wrong and not realizing information was mangled or details lost.
> Exactly my argument.
>
> ...
> : ZL: ... as I've mentioned before, the
> : Rambam only attacks the idea that any of our sages would have differed
> : with a proven kabala maintained by another...
>
> I don't know what you mean by "proven".
In the sense of ''Im halacha, n'kabel, v'im la-din, yesh teshuvah,''  
"ha d'Rav lav b'fayrush itmar ella mi'klala,'' and other instances where 
the mere report that someone received a teaching from an earlier source 
does not necessarily mean he is quoting verbatim, and may be his own 
analysis of a statement or an action. (Details in ''Dynamics.'') It 
makes sense that one need not defer to someone's report on the 
assumption it's literally a mesorah, unless that is verified. Hence, the 
masechta "Ediyos.''
> So, his machloqesin consequent to forgotten information is still
> both sides using the TSBP's rules of inference to reach contractictory
> conclusions. The fact that the whole being filled in is more recent than
> Sinai doesn't impact the dynamics of that dispute.
Don't understand your last point.

Zvi Lampel

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:47:44AM -0400, H Lampel wrote:
:> RMB: Again, I invented that idea of "no 'real' machloqes". There could in
:> principle be disputes over what the halakhah was, but such disputes
:> would not be machloqesin in the sense of the word we're using it here.

: Just to make sure I nderstand you correctly, by ''no 'real'
: machloess'' you mean academic machlokess but in practical terms we
: know we will adopt all sides. Correct?

I mean an "academic" and practical dispute over what to do next.

Yes, it does appear from the case of shofar that the Rambam may understand
it to be a general rule that in such cases, we adopt all sides.

This is in distinction to RMH's topic, the creation of new law and
the decision of which interpretation of an existing law is halakhah.
In those cases, a dispute is what I called a "real" machloqes -- where
the Rambam says the new law accumulates from implications, and that's
why two minds and reach different conclusions. In contrast to other
rishonim (and I think it's all the other big name rishonim) who say
it's because Hashem gave us both shitos, even if implicitly, for
beis din to decide which is law.

The difference being, the Rambam
1- considered pesaq a truth-finding mission
2- is following Aristo's logic and insisting that conflicting truths
   cannot coexist.
While Rashi, the Ritva, the Ran, etc...

This directly relates to our discussion of chatzi nezeq tzeroros (BQ
2:1). Rambam holds that halakhah is about finding facts, so he finds
the mishnah's unmitigated peshat is most authortiative, and explains
the gemara in light of a literal read of the mishnah . Rashi (who I
argued was the constitutive camp, even though RMH doesn't mention him)
considers the process to be about creating law, and therefore how the
law evolves from the mishnah to the gemara. Therefore, Rashi explains
the mishnah in light of what would best support the gemara's masqanah.

Another difference between RMH's paper and your own approach (aside
from being centered on slightly different topics) is that he is really
more working from the rishonim's statements of their kelalim, and you
are trying to inductively build a kelal from examples.

...
:> So, his machloqesin consequent to forgotten information is still
:> both sides using the TSBP's rules of inference to reach contractictory
:> conclusions. The fact that the whole being filled in is more recent than
:> Sinai doesn't impact the dynamics of that dispute.

: Don't understand your last point.

This is my iqar point.

I don't think the Rambam has a problem with forgetting, he has a problem
pinning a shitah on forgetfulness or other error.

To him, shitos and the 

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
mi...@aishdas.org        others come to love him very naturally, and
http://www.aishdas.org   he does not need even a speck of flattery.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

RMB:

: According to the gemara (Zevachim 61b, bot), AKhG built the mizbeiach
: in bayis sheini so that the shisin would be within and running to
: the ground under the mizbeiach. This was based on the derashah of
: "mizbach adamah".
: This is a derashah made by AKhG that would pasl the nesachim done in
: bayis rishon!

> HOWEVER, it does raise an oddity... Why would AKhG feel comfortable using
> a power no one before them felt empowered to use? Were the nesachim such
> a touchy issue with the rebuilding of Yiddishkeit after Galus Bavel that
> it warranted special measures?

...It's tempting to say that there was a tremendous need involved: the
entire enterprise of avodas korbonos would be terminated without this
change, since (as the Gemora notes) otherwise the mizbayach would not be
big enough. But this would raise the issue of expediency in deciding to
darshan the pesukim differently, rather than the objective sense one gains
from the Rambam's wording, ''if a later Beis Din sees a different ta'am
[that convinces them] to overturn [the previous Bes Din's pesak derived
through darshanning with the 13 middos], it can overturn and dan as it
seems in their eyes."



> And if it's because the times did warrant
> special measures, did anyone use this authority since?


The AKH did indeed engage in fundamentally innovative measures (reflected
in the fact that Bes Din Gadol gained for ''restoring the Torah to its
ancient [glory]''). The Meiri (Hakdama L'Ahvos) as well attributed to them
two changes, both contra the Rambam's shittos: 1. Prophecy ceased playing
apart in pesak. (According to the Rambam itnever did.) 2. They started
putting the oral laws into written form for private use. (According to the
Rambam, this had always been done since even the time of Moshe Rabbeynu,
for private use.)

I have not found any other example of a Bes Din overturning the drash of a previous one, although there are mentions of its ability to do so.

Zvi Lampel

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:05:54AM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
:> HOWEVER, it does raise an oddity... Why would AKhG feel comfortable using
:> a power no one before them felt empowered to use? Were the nesachim such
:> a touchy issue with the rebuilding of Yiddishkeit after Galus Bavel that
:> it warranted special measures?

: ...It's tempting to say that there was a tremendous need involved: the
: entire enterprise of avodas korbonos would be terminated without this
: change, since (as the Gemora notes) otherwise the mizbayach would not
: be big enough...

But that's not really where they overturned the earlier derashah. Shelomo
haMelekh's BD may have been okay with putting the shisin within the
Mizbeiach. It's that the derashah said that nisachim done into shisin
that do not run to the ground directly under the mizbeiach aren't valid.
Under their new pesaq, the way nisachim were done in bayis rishon wouldn't
be valid. They didn't simply say it's okay to do thing the new way, which
would have left them with insufficient room for qorbanos ("terminated"
might be an overstatement). AKhG also said the old way is no good.

:> And if it's because the times did warrant
:> special measures, did anyone use this authority since?

: The AKH did indeed engage in fundamentally innovative measures
: (reflected in the fact that Bes Din Gadol gained for ''restoring the
: Torah to its ancient [glory]''). The Meiri (Hakdama L'Ahvos) as well
: attributed to them two changes, both contra the Rambam's shittos:
: 1. Prophecy ceased playing apart in pesak. (According to the Rambam
: it never did.) 2. They started putting the oral laws into written form
: for private use. (According to the Rambam, this had always been done
: since even the time of Moshe Rabbeynu, for private use.)

Tangent:
Although the Rambam may have said that pesaq that is *afterward* endorced
by nevu'ah is diverei soferim and on an almost-deOraisa level. So,
leshitaso nevu'ah doesn't play a role in decisionmaking, but it does
impact pesaq.

: I have not found any other example of a Bes Din overturning the drash
: of a previous one, although there are mentions of its ability to do so.

Which is why I was looking for some dire need to use a power no one else
seemed to bother using to pasl nesachim that are next to the mizbeiach.
As I opined, "an oddity".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You want to know how to paint a perfect
mi...@aishdas.org        painting?  It's easy.
http://www.aishdas.org   Make yourself perfect and then just paint
Fax: (270) 514-1507      naturally.              -Robert Pirsig

On 3/11/2015 12:20 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> ... Shelomo
> haMelekh's BD may have been okay with putting the shisin within the
> Mizbeiach. ...
No, because they darshanned ''mizbach adamah'' that the mizbeach had to 
be solid adamah, precluding tubing running through it.
> Zvi Lampel

Hebrew language / ayin tahat ayin


I was some what reluctant to chime in but now that the threads are running
thin I'll point out Ramban to bereishit 45:12-- ... leshon haqodesh ki al
daati hu sefat kenaan-- the holy language is just plain common Canaanite.

Next i'll point out rambam begins part 3, ch 41 of Moreh Nevuchim by noting
the torah says	if one has injured another's body--- as he maimed another
so it shall be done to him. --	if he injured a limb in the body, he shall
be injured in his body-- he adds  "don't try to figure out the fact we
punish these by fines"-- ---   "I have an opinion concerning Talmudic
pronouncements (fiqh) which can only be expressed by word of mouth."---

So since we cannot ask him to explain matters we can only guess what he would say (after looking over his shoulder).---  but clearly its not a drasha for him.


Zvi  Basser
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150311/06e9d198/attachment-0001.htm>

RAFolger wrote:
>>> According to Rav Yaakov Meidan, Achashverosh had become a puppet
>>> king, and Haman was the real regent, though always on his toes,
>>> knowing that the king could regain power. Haman can waltz in because
>>> Achashverosh is in fact subservient to him. Not even when Esther twice
>>> tries to arouse his jalousy by inviting another man to her private
>>>lechaim, does Achashverosh man up. Once she points her finger and says
>>> Haman hara' hazeh, Achashverosh still doesn't act and instead leaves
>>> the scene, clueless. Only once Haman providentially falls on Esther's
>>> bed does Achashverosh man up.<

I replied
>>     This is an idea which has no backing whatever from the p'sukim.
Haman
>> did not "providentially fall on Esther's bed," and it was not finding him
>> in that position that led Achashveirosh to "man up."  Quite the contrary:
>> the only reason he was on the bed to begin with was because he realized
>> that the jig was up.   The pasuk states explicitly that he fell on the
bed
> >"l'vakeish al nafsho . . . ki ra'a ki chal'sa alav hara'a mei'eis
>> hamelech."

RAF responded:
>My reaction: Huh? What about the Midrash Chazal that Haman was pushed onto
>her bed? And evidently it was not the right manner to ask for forgiveness
>by ending up on her bed. Nofel has several connotations. It may indeed mean
>prostrating oneself, but also simply to fall. And here it very much seems
>that is what is meant. Haman omed levakesh al nafsho, and only later is
>nofel, which angers the king.

     He is, of course, correct. I misquoted the pasuk; it states that "
Haman amad l'vakesish," not "nofeil al hamitta l';vakeish."  However, it
does not change the main thrust of my comment, that it is in complete
disregard for the words of the Megilla to say that it was not until
Achashveirosh found Haman on the bed that he "manned up."  Even before
Achashveirosh stormed out in his anger, Haman knew that Achashveirosh had
decided to kill him; he stood "'l'vakeish al nafsho" becuse "ra'a ki
chal'sa eilav hara'a mei'eis hamelech."

EMT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150311/da916671/attachment.htm>

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



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


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


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

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)