The truth about Egyptians drowning
Lisa
Micha Berger without looking it up myself.
In the "Drops of Wine" thread, Micha has cited his "proof" for his view
that we mourn the death of our enemies.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish.moderated/msg/9af404f09bd0d8a6
> The Beis Yoseif (O"Ch 490:4, "Kol") cites the Shibolei haLeqet who
> in turn cites Medrash Harninu (parashas Sukkah; the modern computer
> enhanced edition has someone on the bottom who points you to the Yalqut
> Shim'oni, Parashas Emor, remez 566, but Josh says the reference is wrong):
> shehata'am she'ein gomerin haHallel kol yemei haPesach hu lefi shenitbe'u
> haMitzriyim. (The reason that we do not complete the Hallel all of the
> days of Passover is because the Egyptians were drowned.)
> The Perishah on the bottom of the same page (225b in standard editions
> of the Tur) relates this to the words of Mishlei "binfol oyvekha al
> tismach -- when your enemy falls, do not rejoice".
So says Micha. Now I'm going to tell you what those sources actually
say, because what they say isn't what Micha is telling you. I assume
that Micha is capable of reading a Beis Yosef and a Perisha, and that
he couldn't possibly have misread this so badly. I'm going to assume
that he saw these sources given elsewhere, and simply repeated the
citation without checking himself. Which is fair enough, I guess. I
mean, I've let my intention to look at the sources myself slide until
today, when I got home from work. And hell, I didn't even do it right
away. I read the new issue of Supergirl and the Legion of Superheroes
first. But that's water under the bridge. Now we can discuss what the
Beis Yosef and the Perisha really say, and Micha can stop telling us
something that isn't true.
I expect that he won't acknowedge this correction of his sources, in
the same way that he has chosen not to acknowledge other cases when the
sources he's given have said something quite different than he claims
them to.
So. Tur Orach Chaim 490. Here's the Beis Yosef, starting with the
words "kol hayamim".
"All the days of Chol HaMoed and the last two days of Yom Tov, we read
Hallel, but we don't finish it."
(That's the quote from the Tur that the Beis Yosef is going to
discuss.)
"Thus it is explained in Erchin chapter 2 (10a). And there, they bring
the reason why there's a differences between Sukkot, where we say it
every day, and Passover, where we don't say it every day."
(In other words, on Sukkot, we do a full Hallel every day of Sukkot,
but on Passover, we don't.)
"And the Shibbolei HaLeket (174, 69b) wrote in the name of Midrash
Harninu in Parashat Sukkah, that the reason that we don't finish the
Hallel all the days of Passover is because the Egyptians drowned, and
it's written (Proverbs 24:17): Do not rejoice in the downfall of your
enemy."
(So, so far, Micha got one major point wrong, which is that it isn't
the Perisha who brings this verse, but rather the Beis Yosef himself,
citing the Midrash Harninu via the Shibbolei HaLeket.
(Also, the notes in my edition of the Tur mention that it's not just
the Midrash Harninu via the Shibbolei HaLeket, but also Psikta d'Rav
Kahane, Mandelbaum edition, Siman 29 (189a) and the Yalkut Shimoni in
Emor, Remez 654.)
Now we get to the Perisha:
"And we don't finish it."
(So he starts discussing the Beis Yosef.)
"Because the Egyptians drowned, and he's written: Do not rejoice in the
downfall of your enemy."
(So far, the same thing.)
"This is the reason from recent/late terrors."
("Taam eimim achronim." In other words, this is the reason given
because we're under threat of the goyim going bestial on us.)
"And the Shibbolei Leket wrote it in the name of the midrash, and the
Beis Yosef brought it."
(Just to let us know.)
And then, having explained why the Beis Yosef says something so
obviously out of tune with our tradition, the Perisha goes on to
explain the real reason why we don't finish Hallel the rest of the days
of Passover.
That's what the sources actually say. I apologize for not having
looked it up earlier myself. As a result, I allowed Micha's incorrect
claims about what they say to stand by default. I accept
responsibility for my mistake in doing so.
Lisa
Tim Meushaw
understand how you refutted what Micha said. It sounds to me like he
quoted accurately, though apparently gave one incorrect attribution.
I've included the full post, so the context remains, questions are
interspersed below. Please note I'm not trying to take sides on this
issue or anything, I just don't understand how your post refutes Micha.
On 2006-04-27, Lisa <li...@starways.net> wrote:
> Bli neder, this is the very last time I accept a citation given by R'
> Micha Berger without looking it up myself.
>
> In the "Drops of Wine" thread, Micha has cited his "proof" for his view
> that we mourn the death of our enemies.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish.moderated/msg/9af404f09bd0d8a6
>
>> The Beis Yoseif (O"Ch 490:4, "Kol") cites the Shibolei haLeqet who
>> in turn cites Medrash Harninu (parashas Sukkah; the modern computer
>> enhanced edition has someone on the bottom who points you to the Yalqut
>> Shim'oni, Parashas Emor, remez 566, but Josh says the reference is wrong):
>> shehata'am she'ein gomerin haHallel kol yemei haPesach hu lefi shenitbe'u
>> haMitzriyim. (The reason that we do not complete the Hallel all of the
>> days of Passover is because the Egyptians were drowned.)
>> The Perishah on the bottom of the same page (225b in standard editions
>> of the Tur) relates this to the words of Mishlei "binfol oyvekha al
>> tismach -- when your enemy falls, do not rejoice".
That sounds like what was quoted below, minus the reason we say this is
so as not to piss off the goyim.
(FYI, artscroll mentioned that this is because on sukkot, there's a
different mussaf offered each day, whereas on pesach there isn't; I have
no source to back that up, though)
> "And the Shibbolei HaLeket (174, 69b) wrote in the name of Midrash
> Harninu in Parashat Sukkah, that the reason that we don't finish the
> Hallel all the days of Passover is because the Egyptians drowned, and
> it's written (Proverbs 24:17): Do not rejoice in the downfall of your
> enemy."
>
> (So, so far, Micha got one major point wrong, which is that it isn't
> the Perisha who brings this verse, but rather the Beis Yosef himself,
> citing the Midrash Harninu via the Shibbolei HaLeket.
I'd still say that's a minor point; instead of person A stating it,
person B stated it, but the statement was the same in both cases. So
far I don't see where Micha was horribly wrong.
> (Also, the notes in my edition of the Tur mention that it's not just
> the Midrash Harninu via the Shibbolei HaLeket, but also Psikta d'Rav
> Kahane, Mandelbaum edition, Siman 29 (189a) and the Yalkut Shimoni in
> Emor, Remez 654.)
>
> Now we get to the Perisha:
>
> "And we don't finish it."
>
> (So he starts discussing the Beis Yosef.)
>
> "Because the Egyptians drowned, and he's written: Do not rejoice in the
> downfall of your enemy."
>
> (So far, the same thing.)
>
> "This is the reason from recent/late terrors."
>
> ("Taam eimim achronim." In other words, this is the reason given
> because we're under threat of the goyim going bestial on us.)
Confused again. As in, if we stated another reason for it, the goyim
would be pissed at us? Or do you/the text mean something else?
> "And the Shibbolei Leket wrote it in the name of the midrash, and the
> Beis Yosef brought it."
>
> (Just to let us know.)
>
> And then, having explained why the Beis Yosef says something so
> obviously out of tune with our tradition, the Perisha goes on to
> explain the real reason why we don't finish Hallel the rest of the days
> of Passover.
You went through all that, and as soon as we get to the meat of the
matter and what the text really says, you leave us hanging??? :-) I
felt like someone ripped the last page out of the novel just before the
detective tells us who did the crime!
> That's what the sources actually say. I apologize for not having
> looked it up earlier myself. As a result, I allowed Micha's incorrect
> claims about what they say to stand by default. I accept
> responsibility for my mistake in doing so.
I continue to hope you don't see me as being confrontational in this
email or anything. One question still remains, though; why do we spill
the wine out of the cup? If it were via the index finger, I'd
understand, but that doesn't explain the customs of spilling it out or
using the pinky.
Thanks,
Tim
--
Timothy A. Meushaw
meu...@pobox.com
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
"Mishum eiva" !! Just as I indicated: there is absolutely zero
basis in Jewish tradition for connecting spilling drops of wine
(and even why we recite the half-Hallel during Chol ha'Moed!!!)
with our sorrow over the death of the Egyptians.
The Shibolei haLeket (a doctor BTW) who lived in 13th Century Italy
was also subject to persecution by the gentiles so this too makes
sense.
> "And the Shibbolei Leket wrote it in the name of the midrash, and the
> Beis Yosef brought it."
>
> (Just to let us know.)
>
> And then, having explained why the Beis Yosef says something so
> obviously out of tune with our tradition, the Perisha goes on to
> explain the real reason why we don't finish Hallel the rest of the days
> of Passover.
>
> That's what the sources actually say. I apologize for not having
> looked it up earlier myself. As a result, I allowed Micha's incorrect
> claims about what they say to stand by default. I accept
> responsibility for my mistake in doing so.
>
Nice work ! And to imagine that Micha wrote publicly that you, me
and Zev Sero have an "islamic" version of Judaism.
Josh
> Lisa
>
Lisa
Tim Meushaw wrote:
> I'll apologize once again on this topic, but I personally do not
> understand how you refutted what Micha said. It sounds to me like he
> quoted accurately, though apparently gave one incorrect attribution.
> I've included the full post, so the context remains, questions are
> interspersed below. Please note I'm not trying to take sides on this
> issue or anything, I just don't understand how your post refutes Micha.
Actually, I messed up the translation, because I was in a hurry. Had I
finished it, I wouldn't have made that mistake. Let me redo it from
where I messed up:
"This is the reason for the last days."
(The last days of Yom Tov. I read a-yamim achronim as eimim achronim.
Stupid, sorry.)
"And the Shibbolei Leket wrote it in the name of the midrash, and the
Beis Yosef brought it."
(Just to let us know.)
"And the fact that we don't finish [Hallel] on Chol HaMoed as we do on
Sukkot, the Minhagim (Minhagei Mahara Klausner) wrote that it's in
order that the days of Chol HaMoed shouldn't be seens as better than
the last days of Yom Tov. But in chapter 2 of Erchin (10b), it writes
that the reason that we do it specifically on Sukkot is that each day
has different sacrifices, and is like a Yom Tov of its own. Therefore,
we finish [Hallel]. Which is not the case on the days of Passover,
when even the last day of Yom Tov doesn't have a different sacrifice.
And Rabbenu (the Beis Yosef) wrote this reason in seif 544. See
there."
And in fact, that's precisely what the Beis Yosef does say there. So
if Micha is right, we have the Beis Yosef in a dispute with... the Beis
Yosef. I don't buy that. And even though the Perisha doesn't say that
the Beis Yosef quoted the Midrash Harninu only because of fear of the
goyim, that's the only reasonable explanation I can see. The Gemara in
Sanhedrin 39b says that we don't reduce our rejoycing because the
Egyptians were drowning, and the Beis Yosef himself gives the Gemara's
reason for not saying full Hallel on Pesach.
Lisa
Lisa
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> In article <1146098019.7...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Lisa" <li...@starways.net> writes:
> > "This is the reason from recent/late terrors."
> >
> > ("Taam eimim achronim." In other words, this is the reason given
> > because we're under threat of the goyim going bestial on us.)
>
> "Mishum eiva" !! Just as I indicated: there is absolutely zero
> basis in Jewish tradition for connecting spilling drops of wine
> (and even why we recite the half-Hallel during Chol ha'Moed!!!)
> with our sorrow over the death of the Egyptians.
Sorry. You should have double checked me. Or I shouldn't have started
that post when I knew Havah and Tova were going to be home soon. But I
still contend that this was the reason he brought it down.
Lisa
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> I'll apologize once again on this topic, but I personally do not
> understand how you refutted what Micha said. It sounds to me like he
> quoted accurately, though apparently gave one incorrect attribution.
> I've included the full post, so the context remains, questions are
> interspersed below. Please note I'm not trying to take sides on this
> issue or anything, I just don't understand how your post refutes Micha.
Lisa didn't elaborate. The Prisha (Rav Falk) explains why the Beit
Yosef and Shibolei haLeket (R. Tzidkiyahu haRofeh, 1230-1300) wrote
what they did: coerced or under threat from gentiles (Church) to
indicate that the reason that the Jews only say the half-Hallel
during Chol haMoed Pessach was that they "felt sorrow" for the death
of those poor Egyptians who NEBICH had died. Then he gives the REAL
reason (which really isn't relevant to the topic being discussed
here).
Translation: neither the Rav Yosef Karo (the Beit Yosef born in
Spain in 1488, 4 years before the expulsion of Jews by the Spanish
Inquisition) nor the Shibolei haLeket REALLY believed that the
reason why we say half-Hallel on Chol haMoed Pessach was because
we feel sorrow for the death of the poor Egyptians.
Needless to say, the custom of spilling out drops of wine has
absolutely zero connection to supposed sorrow over the death of
the poor Egyptians. As I indicated, the reason given by the REMA
in Orach Chayim is to remember the metaphoric "Finger of God"
as mentioned in Exodus. That the finger got conflated with spilling
out drops of wine is a sociological question and reminds me of
how the highly erroneous "Custom" of not eating GEBROCHTS (matza
soaked in liquid) devloped [I had given extensive references to this
2 weeks ago].
Last but not least: the supposed Abarbanel as the source of the
custom is also no help since he too was expelled from Spain in 1492.
Josh
Micha Berger
: And in fact, that's precisely what the Beis Yosef does say there. So
: if Micha is right, we have the Beis Yosef in a dispute with... the Beis
: Yosef. I don't buy that. And even though the Perisha doesn't say that
: the Beis Yosef quoted the Midrash Harninu only because of fear of the
As your entire "refutation" is "that's the only reasonable explanation
I can see" you are still making a bald assertion.
So you're suggesting that all three sources, the midrash, the Shibolei
haLeqet, and the Beis Yoseif said something diametrically opposed to
Jewish values because they were afraid of what goyim would think? And
would would they think -- that we're terrible people because we celebrate
with unmitigated joy when G-d helps us win wars? Even if that were
offensive, what would have been so terrible had they stayed silent, or
stuck to the gemara's position? Positing self-censorship had the truth
been insulting to non-Jews is one thing, but also overly creative. But
here you're alleging the truth wouldn't have even raised the subject.
Sorry, you're grasping at straws you made up yourself as "the only
reasonable explanation [you] can see."
There are three reasons given for half-Hallel, one given by the medrash,
and two by the gemara. The Beis Yoseif cites both, but oddly in two
different places. They needn't conflict, as both reasons could be valid,
no dispute between the Beis Yoseif and himself, as MOST halakhos have
more than one motivation. The gemara struggles with the question and
isn't left (neither in Eiruchin nor in Megillah) with one that it likes,
just two half-answers.
The gemara discusses the change in offerings (which doesn't explain
Chanukah) and the notion that Hallel requires being in Israel -- at least,
once it ceased being halachically Canaan.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Today is the 14th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 2 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Gevurah: How does judgment reveal
Fax: (270) 514-1507 G-d?
Micha Berger
: Nice work ! And to imagine that Micha wrote publicly that you, me
: and Zev Sero have an "islamic" version of Judaism.
Let's start with the ad hominem to get it out of the way. This is after
three weeks of your calling the position held by the majority of O,
or at least of contemporary O hagaddah footnote writers, was Christian.
I simply replied in kind -- "X isn't Christian, Y is Islamic". Don't
dish it out if you can't take it.
Back to the substance.
: "Mishum eiva" !! Just as I indicated: there is absolutely zero
: basis in Jewish tradition for connecting spilling drops of wine
: (and even why we recite the half-Hallel during Chol ha'Moed!!!)
: with our sorrow over the death of the Egyptians.
Umm, WADR, you just chose Lisa's admitted projection into the source
over what the sources themselves say. Open the Tur, or at least reread
Lisa's post! She tells you it's not in the source, how do you consider
her unsupported assertion more solid than the actual text in the Beis
Yoseif????
: The Shibolei haLeket (a doctor BTW) who lived in 13th Century Italy
: was also subject to persecution by the gentiles so this too makes
: sense.
And the original source, the medrash?
Would the Romans or Babylonians be offended by the notion that Jews
celebrate their victories without worrying about the losers? For that
matter, would medieval Christians? Even contemporary New Agers might
look down on the idea, but get offended enough to compell someone to
compell allegedly anti-Jewish ideas in print?
I do admire the creativity, though. Just because Lisa was so convinced of
a position, she couldn't see any other resolution to the Perishah's noting
that the Beis Yoseif gives two reasons for the same law. The Perishah
didn't see it as a question, why should Lisa? And when the two of you are
done, our audience will actually think there are two sides to the issue.
Now we can have a debate over whether something actually on the page,
in black and white, in at least three primary sources, is Jewish. Kudos!
:> And then, having explained why the Beis Yosef says something so
:> obviously out of tune with our tradition, the Perisha goes on to
:> explain the real reason why we don't finish Hallel the rest of the days
:> of Passover.
:> That's what the sources actually say. I apologize for not having
:> looked it up earlier myself. As a result, I allowed Micha's incorrect
:> claims about what they say to stand by default. I accept
:> responsibility for my mistake in doing so.
Except that no one but Lisa calls it "something so obviously out of
tune with our tradition". And no one but Lisa claims he's giving
"the real reason".
Again, open the book. The Perishah simply notes that there is a second
reason given in another se'if.
Micha Berger
: I expect that he won't acknowedge this correction of his sources, in
: the same way that he has chosen not to acknowledge other cases when the
: sources he's given have said something quite different than he claims
: them to.
"Quite different"?
: (So, so far, Micha got one major point wrong, which is that it isn't
: the Perisha who brings this verse, but rather the Beis Yosef himself,
: citing the Midrash Harninu via the Shibbolei HaLeket.
Major? Because when the Perishah quotes the Beis Yoseif, I didn't notice
he was including the Beis Yoseif's quoting the verse and therefore thought
he was seconding it?
In the meantime, you agree that associating Half-Hallel with "when your
enemy falls, do not rejoice" (Proverbs) does go back to the medrash and
Shibbolei haLeqet.
: (Also, the notes in my edition of the Tur mention that it's not just
: the Midrash Harninu via the Shibbolei HaLeket, but also Psikta d'Rav
: Kahane, Mandelbaum edition, Siman 29 (189a) and the Yalkut Shimoni in
: Emor, Remez 654.)
AND the medrash that makes the connection was deemed worthy of inclusion
in a number of the major collections of medrash.
How exactly does this WEAKEN my point?
You just showed that regardless of what the Perishah might be saying
about the Beis Yoseif (which you get 180 degrees off).
And I don't see what you're claiming. Is it the Beis Yoseif who felt
pressure to contradict himself and publish something very unJewish, the
Shibolei haLeqet who experienced antisemitic violence, or the author of
the medrash? All three, and the writers of later compendia of midrashim?
And what was the pressure? Who gets offended by someone celebrating
winning at the expense of an enemy -- except if the people were the
enemy themselves (the Egyptians)?
: Now we get to the Perisha:
: "Because the Egyptians drowned, and he's written: Do not rejoice in the
: downfall of your enemy."
...
: "This is the reason from recent/late terrors."
: ("Taam eimim achronim." In other words, this is the reason given
: because we're under threat of the goyim going bestial on us.)
NO... He doesn't say "FROM"! Actually, the Perishah says "this is the
reason OF recent/late terrors"! This, "rejoicing when your enemy falls",
caused the late terrors. I'm sure the locals get hostile when they lose
a battle and the Jewish quarter celebrates.
The quote "ZEHU ta'am eimim acharonim". Do you see a "mei-" or "mishum"?
: And then, having explained why the Beis Yosef says something so
: obviously out of tune with our tradition, the Perisha goes on to
: explain the real reason why we don't finish Hallel the rest of the days
: of Passover.
As I wrote before opening the book, this is simply projection of something
that Lisa wants to be there. He says nothing about "out of tune", or
that there is a real and fake reason in the Beis Yoseif, etc...
BTW, after the words "eimim acharonim", all my Perishah has is "and
see what the Beis Yoseif writes in the name of the Shibolei Leqet"
(with "ha-" omitted in the book name). Nothing pointing me to his use
of an alternative source. You have a corrected copy, and I thank you
for sharing that correction. But it does explain why I didn't mention it.
You're creating a second side to a stroy where there isn't any. As you
yourself found in your enhanced copy of the Tur, the medrash is found
in a number of collections. There is a Jewish source for the idea and
you found more of them than I did!
Lisa
Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:15:55 +0000 (UTC), bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> : Nice work ! And to imagine that Micha wrote publicly that you, me
> : and Zev Sero have an "islamic" version of Judaism.
>
> Let's start with the ad hominem to get it out of the way. This is after
> three weeks of your calling the position held by the majority of O,
> or at least of contemporary O hagaddah footnote writers, was Christian.
> I simply replied in kind -- "X isn't Christian, Y is Islamic". Don't
> dish it out if you can't take it.
I never said anything of the sort, Micha. You are being motzi shem ra
simply because you're annoyed at me. I am not Josh, and nothing he has
said could ever give you justification for making that kind of slur at
me.
Not that I expect you to apologize. That's apparently beneath you.
Furthermore, "He started it!" is fine for 8 year olds. Do you think
it's okay for you?
> Back to the substance.
> : "Mishum eiva" !! Just as I indicated: there is absolutely zero
> : basis in Jewish tradition for connecting spilling drops of wine
> : (and even why we recite the half-Hallel during Chol ha'Moed!!!)
> : with our sorrow over the death of the Egyptians.
>
> Umm, WADR, you just chose Lisa's admitted projection into the source
> over what the sources themselves say. Open the Tur, or at least reread
> Lisa's post! She tells you it's not in the source, how do you consider
> her unsupported assertion more solid than the actual text in the Beis
> Yoseif????
What "unsupported assertion". The Perisha himself points out that the
Beis Yosef brings down the real reason elsewhere. And if you think the
Beis Yosef is being cholek on the Gemara, all I can say is that you
have a very strange understanding of the way Torah works.
> : The Shibolei haLeket (a doctor BTW) who lived in 13th Century Italy
> : was also subject to persecution by the gentiles so this too makes
> : sense.
>
> And the original source, the medrash?
What do you know about that midrash?
> I do admire the creativity, though. Just because Lisa was so convinced of
> a position, she couldn't see any other resolution to the Perishah's noting
> that the Beis Yoseif gives two reasons for the same law. The Perishah
> didn't see it as a question, why should Lisa? And when the two of you are
> done, our audience will actually think there are two sides to the issue.
> Now we can have a debate over whether something actually on the page,
> in black and white, in at least three primary sources, is Jewish. Kudos!
You're reading out of context. You're setting the Beis Yosef up as
challenging the Gemara, based on a late midrash. You know better than
that.
Lisa
Lisa
Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:35:43 +0000 (UTC), Lisa <li...@starways.net> wrote:
> In the meantime, you agree that associating Half-Hallel with "when your
> enemy falls, do not rejoice" (Proverbs) does go back to the medrash and
> Shibbolei haLeqet.
A sefer called Midrash Harninu. Not "the midrash". And yes, I'll
acknowledge that. At the same time, I'll point out that it has
absolutely zero provenance in Chazal, and in fact goes against
everything the Gemara says on the subject. Will you acknowledge that?
Will you also acknowledge that none of this has anything to do with why
we drip drops of wine during the recitation of the Ten Plagues during
the Seder? And will you acknowledge that I never characterized your
new agey attitude as "Christian"? Or will you continue to make false
claims and never acknowledge them?
The moment I realized that I'd made a mistake, I posted an
acknowledgement of it publically. You won't even do so after your nose
has been rubbed in it. Pathetic.
> : "This is the reason from recent/late terrors."
>
> : ("Taam eimim achronim." In other words, this is the reason given
> : because we're under threat of the goyim going bestial on us.)
>
> NO... He doesn't say "FROM"! Actually, the Perishah says "this is the
> reason OF recent/late terrors"! This, "rejoicing when your enemy falls",
> caused the late terrors. I'm sure the locals get hostile when they lose
> a battle and the Jewish quarter celebrates.
Well, I'm at least comforted to know that Rav Micha Berger misread the
Perisha as badly as I did.
Lisa
Tim Meushaw
> In article <slrne5093m....@athens.meushaw.com>, Tim Meushaw <meu...@pobox.com> writes:
>> I'll apologize once again on this topic, but I personally do not
>> understand how you refutted what Micha said. It sounds to me like he
>> quoted accurately, though apparently gave one incorrect attribution.
>> I've included the full post, so the context remains, questions are
>> interspersed below. Please note I'm not trying to take sides on this
>> issue or anything, I just don't understand how your post refutes Micha.
>
>
> Lisa didn't elaborate. The Prisha (Rav Falk) explains why the Beit
> Yosef and Shibolei haLeket (R. Tzidkiyahu haRofeh, 1230-1300) wrote
> what they did: coerced or under threat from gentiles (Church) to
> indicate that the reason that the Jews only say the half-Hallel
> during Chol haMoed Pessach was that they "felt sorrow" for the death
> of those poor Egyptians who NEBICH had died. Then he gives the REAL
> reason (which really isn't relevant to the topic being discussed
> here).
But then she said she mistranslated/misread and corrected it so it
didn't say it was cause of the gentiles. Original:
"And we don't finish it." "Because the Egyptians drowned, and he's
written: Do not rejoice in the downfall of your enemy." "This is the
reason from recent/late terrors." ("Taam eimim achronim." In other words,
this is the reason given because we're under threat of the goyim going
bestial on us.)
But she *meant* to say:
"And we don't finish it." "Because the Egyptians drowned, and he's
written: Do not rejoice in the downfall of your enemy." "This is the
reason for the last days." (The last days of Yom Tov. I read a-yamim
achronim as eimim achronim. Stupid, sorry.)
> Translation: neither the Rav Yosef Karo (the Beit Yosef born in
> Spain in 1488, 4 years before the expulsion of Jews by the Spanish
> Inquisition) nor the Shibolei haLeket REALLY believed that the
> reason why we say half-Hallel on Chol haMoed Pessach was because
> we feel sorrow for the death of the poor Egyptians.
I'm not sure that follows anymore given the correction.
> Needless to say, the custom of spilling out drops of wine has
> absolutely zero connection to supposed sorrow over the death of
> the poor Egyptians. As I indicated, the reason given by the REMA
> in Orach Chayim is to remember the metaphoric "Finger of God"
> as mentioned in Exodus. That the finger got conflated with spilling
> out drops of wine is a sociological question and reminds me of
> how the highly erroneous "Custom" of not eating GEBROCHTS (matza
> soaked in liquid) devloped [I had given extensive references to this
> 2 weeks ago].
Now we have an answer. :-) So the index finger should be used, but
some adapted it to either use the pinky or spill it out. And it's
probably other customs that dictate whether it gets refilled or not
(I've seen both I think).
(I've been here for how many years, and you still haven't learned your
extensive references aren't for me as they all go over my head? Shame
on you. :-) OTOH, the Mishneh Berurah I've heard of!)
Micha Berger
: A sefer called Midrash Harninu. Not "the midrash". And yes, I'll
: acknowledge that. At the same time, I'll point out that it has
: absolutely zero provenance in Chazal, and in fact goes against
: everything the Gemara says on the subject. Will you acknowledge that?
No, it's an alternate. You seem to be insisting either-or.
And in fact, the Beis Yoseif says that both are true. He starts by
pointing you to the gemara, then adds a second reason.
Once the medrash made it into the Yalqut, it's not ignorable in my book.
And does not your edition of the Tur also point you to the Pesiqta deRav?
In which case, it is a "medrash", which happens to appear in Medrash
Harninu. And thus, it's from Chazal.
...
: The moment I realized that I'd made a mistake, I posted an
: acknowledgement of it publically. You won't even do so after your nose
: has been rubbed in it. Pathetic.
Um, condemining me for your assumption that I wouldn't do something I
actually did before your condemnation (but you obviously hadn't read yet
because it's further down in the post)? Calling me "pathetic" to boot. I
just read a post in which you called my use of the word "Islamic" in
contrast to Josh's "Christian" as being "infantile". Is this a case of
"kol haposeil"?
:> NO... He doesn't say "FROM"! Actually, the Perishah says "this is the
:> reason OF recent/late terrors"! This, "rejoicing when your enemy falls",
:> caused the late terrors. I'm sure the locals get hostile when they lose
:> a battle and the Jewish quarter celebrates.
: Well, I'm at least comforted to know that Rav Micha Berger misread the
: Perisha as badly as I did.
Editing your nastiness above would have been more appropriate than
more sarcasm.
Lisa
Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:27:01 +0000 (UTC), Lisa <li...@starways.net> wrote:
> Um, condemining me for your assumption that I wouldn't do something I
> actually did before your condemnation (but you obviously hadn't read yet
> because it's further down in the post)? Calling me "pathetic" to boot. I
> just read a post in which you called my use of the word "Islamic" in
> contrast to Josh's "Christian" as being "infantile". Is this a case of
> "kol haposeil"?
That's a blatant falsehood. You used it not merely towards Josh, but
towards me.
Lisa
Art Werschulz
"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> writes:
> Micha Berger wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:35:43 +0000 (UTC), Lisa <li...@starways.net> wrote:
> > In the meantime, you agree that associating Half-Hallel with "when your
> > enemy falls, do not rejoice" (Proverbs) does go back to the medrash and
> > Shibbolei haLeqet.
>
> A sefer called Midrash Harninu. Not "the midrash".
FWIW, Shemot Rabbah 23:7 cites the incident of Hashem hushing up the
angels who wanted to sing His praises at Yam Suf. However, it goes on
to say that this because he wanted Bnei Yisrael to have the honor of
reciting shirah.
Perhaps people are conflating this with the line from Proverbs?
BTW, the Soncino English edition of same (sorry, I don't have a Hebrew
version) references Bavli Megillah 10b, towards the bottom of the
page. Here, R. Yohanan interprets Shemot 14:20, noting that both this
passage and Isaiah 6:3 (the "qadosh" passage of the qedushah) contain
"zeh el zeh"), from which he derives the fact that Hashem hushed the
angels ("My creatures are drowning", etc.). I would use the term
"gezeirah shavah" here, but the text doesn't use it.
Note that R. Elazar explains that Hashem doesn't rejoice [at the
downfall of the wicked], but He makes others rejoice.
--
Art Werschulz (agw STRUDEL comcast.net)
207 Stoughton Ave Cranford NJ 07016
(908) 272-1146
Micha Berger
: FWIW, Shemot Rabbah 23:7 cites the incident of Hashem hushing up the
: angels who wanted to sing His praises at Yam Suf. However, it goes on
: to say that this because he wanted Bnei Yisrael to have the honor of
: reciting shirah.
: Perhaps people are conflating this with the line from Proverbs?
The two sources Lisa gave tell the story in the context of why Hallel
isn't completed on the 7th day of Pesach. And they're considered
relatively authoritative collections of midrashic material. The
Shibolei haLeqet (or his source use the verse in Proverbs to explain
it.)
Chano
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:e2rrh9$mr0$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> --
> Micha Berger Today is the 14th day, which is
> mi...@aishdas.org 2 weeks in/toward the omer.
> http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Gevurah: How does judgment reveal
> Fax: (270) 514-1507 G-d?
Today is the 15th of the Omer :-)
--
Chano
Lisa
Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 01:22:45 +0000 (UTC), Art Werschulz <a...@comcast.net> wrote:
> : FWIW, Shemot Rabbah 23:7 cites the incident of Hashem hushing up the
> : angels who wanted to sing His praises at Yam Suf. However, it goes on
> : to say that this because he wanted Bnei Yisrael to have the honor of
> : reciting shirah.
>
> : Perhaps people are conflating this with the line from Proverbs?
>
> The two sources Lisa gave tell the story in the context of why Hallel
> isn't completed on the 7th day of Pesach. And they're considered
> relatively authoritative collections of midrashic material. The
> Shibolei haLeqet (or his source use the verse in Proverbs to explain
> it.)
And none of them say that *we* aren't supposed to rejoice over the
downfall of our enemies.
Think it through, people. The first doesn't say "Don't rejoice overly
much without a tinge of sadness there to show that you're all humane
and all over the downfall of your enemy". It says "Don't rejoice over
the downfall of your enemy". If that verse was applicable to how *we*
are supposed to react to the Egyptians drowning (rather than how Hashem
reacted, and how we display sensitivity to Him), we wouldn't say Hallel
at *all* on that day. We wouldn't sing Az Yashir and proclaim with a
second and triumphant tune "They have sunken like lead in mighty
waters!" We wouldn't spend a chunk of the seder on a game of
oneupmanship to see who can read the account with the Egyptians
suffering more and more plagues. We don't just celebrate; we gloat.
And yet, we wouldn't be allowed to even celebrate a little if that
verse applied to *us*. It doesn't. Those who bring it aren't applying
it to us, either.
Lisa
Jonathan J. Baker
>Tim Meushaw wrote:
>> I'll apologize once again on this topic, but I personally do not
>> understand how you refutted what Micha said. It sounds to me like he
>> quoted accurately, though apparently gave one incorrect attribution.
>> I've included the full post, so the context remains, questions are
>> interspersed below. Please note I'm not trying to take sides on this
>> issue or anything, I just don't understand how your post refutes Micha.
>Actually, I messed up the translation, because I was in a hurry. Had I
>finished it, I wouldn't have made that mistake. Let me redo it from
>where I messed up:
>"This is the reason for the last days."
>(The last days of Yom Tov. I read a-yamim achronim as eimim achronim.
>Stupid, sorry.)
And that's where your position fails. Because "last days " is not
mishum eivah, it's just what is done on the last two days.
So let me unpack the whole thing, according to the Perishah::
We don't say full Hallel after the first two days of Pesach:
1) on the last two days, because of the drowned soldiers, and binfol
oyivcha al tisamach (Beis Yosef in the name of all those guys,
and agreed to by Perishah);
2) on Chol Hamoed, because Chol Hamoed shouldn't be seen as better
than Yom Tov (Minhagim - Klausner);
However, Chol Hamoed Sukkot is different because we bring different
sacrifices each day.
So Micha's reading is validated.
As for an "Islamic religion", I've had these arguments with Zev before,
and yes - it's that a) it's the bloodthirsty position (which admittedly
is taken by most of the commentators, probably drawing inspiration from
the end of Al Naharos Bavel), and that according to certain personality
types, it's the ONLY acceptable position. It's the latter that makes it
seem an "Islamic religion" - you must be bloodthirsty, and we'll force
you to believe it.
>"And the Shibbolei Leket wrote it in the name of the midrash, and the
>Beis Yosef brought it."
>(Just to let us know.)
>"And the fact that we don't finish [Hallel] on Chol HaMoed as we do on
>Sukkot, the Minhagim (Minhagei Mahara Klausner) wrote that it's in
>order that the days of Chol HaMoed shouldn't be seens as better than
>the last days of Yom Tov. But in chapter 2 of Erchin (10b), it writes
>that the reason that we do it specifically on Sukkot is that each day
>has different sacrifices, and is like a Yom Tov of its own. Therefore,
>we finish [Hallel]. Which is not the case on the days of Passover,
>when even the last day of Yom Tov doesn't have a different sacrifice.
>And Rabbenu (the Beis Yosef) wrote this reason in seif 544. See
>there."
>And in fact, that's precisely what the Beis Yosef does say there. So
>if Micha is right, we have the Beis Yosef in a dispute with... the Beis
>Yosef. I don't buy that. And even though the Perisha doesn't say that
It's not a tartei disasrei: the Beis Yosef here, according to Prishah,
is talking about Hallel on the last two days. Then the Prishah brings
an extra reason (not better than last days) for Hallel on Chol Hamoed.
Perishah resolves the apparent contradiction, and affirms the Beis
Yosef's reasoning for the last two days.
--
Jonathan Baker | Ehh, you Sivan Sinaitic revelation, you've
jjb...@panix.com | seen 'em all.
Web page http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/