Spilling out drops of wine at the Seder
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Every year we have the question why we spill out drops of wine at the
Seder. Every year someone mentions the reason given by the
non-O clergy as "we feel sorrow for the death of the Egyptians"
and every year I, Lisa Liel and Zev Sero mention that this has zero
factual basis in traditional Jewish sources. I then bring the
real reason as brought by the Darchei Moishe on TUR Orach Chayim
473 that this was a rememberance of "the Finger of God" and mention
that the alleged Abarbanel which quotes the "sorrow" hypothesis doesn't
exist.
All the following sources give the reason why we lift the finger
(or spill out drops of wine) as "etzba eloKim": Magen Avraham OC 473
s"k 28; Aruch haShulchan OC 473 # 24; Mishna Brura 473 #74 and 75;
the Beer Heitev 473 #66. But here's the clincher WHY: the Maharil
(Seder Hahaggada #27) quoting the Rokeach and the Raavya says:
"v'nir'eh li ha'taam d'ratza lomar mikol eilu yatzileinu v'YAVO'U
AL SONEINU [caps mine]..... [and it seems to me that the reason
is that God will save us from all danger and will venge retribution
against our enemies and punish them]
So not only is the "sorrow" hypothesis utter naarishkeit without any
basis whatsoever in traditional sources, the reason given by the Maharil
(Rokeach and Raavya) is 180 degrees different: it's to show how God
will DESTROY our enemies. No touchy-feely "nebich the poor Egyptians"
naarishkeit, a bizarre hypothesis that came out from the halls of the
Reform and Conservative clergy in the late 1940's.
Josh
Steve Goldfarb
>All the following sources give the reason why we lift the finger
>(or spill out drops of wine) as "etzba eloKim": Magen Avraham OC 473
Bzzt! Foul called on the play. You can't do that. There is a custom to
spill out drops of wine. There is also, by some people, a custom to
utilize a finger to do so. You are now trying to claim -- without any
evidence whatsover -- that there is in fact no custom of spilling wine at
all, and never has been. You are asserting, once again without any
evidence, that the one and only custom is to do something with one's
finger, which presumably may or may not involve wine but who knows, since
you haven't brought any evidence.
>s"k 28; Aruch haShulchan OC 473 # 24; Mishna Brura 473 #74 and 75;
>the Beer Heitev 473 #66. But here's the clincher WHY: the Maharil
>(Seder Hahaggada #27) quoting the Rokeach and the Raavya says:
>"v'nir'eh li ha'taam d'ratza lomar mikol eilu yatzileinu v'YAVO'U
>AL SONEINU [caps mine]..... [and it seems to me that the reason
>is that God will save us from all danger and will venge retribution
>against our enemies and punish them]
Once again you hide behind the cloak of ivory tower pseudo-authoritas.
GIVE THE WHOLE QUOTE if you want anyone to consider it as evidence. Your
quote starts with "it seems to me," which is hardly how authoritative
sources generally start, and includes the phrase "the reason" but not the
subject -- the reason for WHAT, exactly? Does he say "the reason we spill
the drops of wine is that God will save us from all danger...?" Or is it
something else? Not to mention the fact that saving, venging, and
punishing aren't exactly what the 10 plagues are about, so at a glance it
wouldn't seem to apply at all anyway.
>So not only is the "sorrow" hypothesis utter naarishkeit without any
>basis whatsoever in traditional sources, the reason given by the Maharil
>(Rokeach and Raavya) is 180 degrees different: it's to show how God
>will DESTROY our enemies. No touchy-feely "nebich the poor Egyptians"
>naarishkeit, a bizarre hypothesis that came out from the halls of the
>Reform and Conservative clergy in the late 1940's.
Prove it. You haven't proved any such thing. PROVE that prior to 1940, no
Orthodox Jew ever spilled any wine at the seder. Can you? If not, then
your claim fails.
Spilling wine -- and note that word, spilling, not "fingering," or
"pointing," or anything else involving digits, which you yourself keep
using -- does not, in and of itself, relate to "the finger of God." You
still haven't addressed that point, and never will, I'm sure.
Further thought experiment - and perhaps there is evidence for this, I
don't know - please provide even one example from "authentic" Jewish
custom where we personify / anthropomorphize / instantize God in such a
manner that would be the equivalent of what you suggest, that "my finger
symbolizes God's finger." When the cohanim sing about the face of God, do
their faces symbolize God's face? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.
Further still -- if this is the true custom, the one and only valid
Judaism, then how come no one but the two of you seem to be aware of it?
It's not much good as a symbol if no one gets it.
--s
--
Micha Berger
reply, minus appeals to R's Teitz and Zivitofsky to chime in. I don't
expect to have anything beyond this to say on scjm.
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 11:08:37PM +0000, R' Dr. Josh Backon wrote [to
Avosah]:
: On another discussion group (soc.culture.jewish.moderated) there is a
: yearly question why we spill out drops of wine at the Seder...
Not quite.
The discussion is whether "when your enemy falls, do not rejoice" applies
to the Egyptians and the like. There wouldn't have been a hew and cry
if it were limited to the original custom. However, the explanation was
declared not only false, but un-Jewish in its compassion on the guilty.
So the conversation got heated, because it became about what something
very fundamental.
(As an aside, R' Teitz does believe that the verse in Proverbs motivates
the spilling of wine and "it is the 'Finger' of G-d" only explains the
variant that uses makes a point of using the index finger.)
From that it grew into a discussion of Half-Hallel on the last
days of Pesach (and therefore on chol hamo'ed too). I figured that if I
could show that there are sources that use the medrash of "the work of My
'Hands' are drowning in the sea and you [angels] are singing?" to apply
"at the downfall of your enemy, do not rejoice" (Proverbs) to to explain
saying Half-Hallel, the question of whether such compassion is "Jewish"
would be closed.
The source I found was the Beis Yoseif on OC 490:4 (d"h "Kol), he in
turn cites earlier sources. Let me present it in historical order as I
understand it at this point in the scjm conversation.
A medrash, which can be found in the Yalqut Shim'oni and Pesiqta deRav
Kahanah (Mandelbaum Edition, siman 29, 189a, found by Lisa), explains
Half-Hallel on the 7th day of Pesach with the story about the mal'achim
drowning.
This medrash found its way into Medrash Harninu, which in turn is quoted
by Shibolei haLeqet. One of the two is the first to cite the pasuq in
Mishlei (24:17), "binfol oyvekha", in this connection. (I can't tell
from the Beis Yoseif's lack of punctuation marks.)
The Beis Yoseif (BY) raises the question twice. In se'if 544 he cites
the gemara in Eirkhin 10b (see also the parallel version in Megillah). An
inconclusive discussion positing both that each day had the same mussaf
as the one before (unlike Sukkos) and the notion that once we settled
Isarael, whole Hallel required being in Israel.
In the BY I found, he mentions the gemara, without saying what it says,
and then the ShL. Twould seem pretty clear the BY supports both theories.
Thus, having compassion on the Egyptians is a Jewish value. Not, as R"D
JB is portraying it, some non-O assimilation of American values.
The Perishah, as Lisa finally showed me, points you back to the gemara.
For all I know, his problem is that if the death of Egyptians was cause
for halving Hallel, what about Chanukah?
Very relavent is R' Ari Z Zivitofsky's Jewish Action column at
<http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5760spring/legalease.pdf>. (Where
he also gives two newer reasons for Half-Hallel.) RAZZ concludes that
"the work of My 'Hands'" is not the reason for Half-Hallel. But along the
way he shows that the idea has a long history in our tradition. And even
of those who reject the explanation, none have a problem with applying
"at your enemy's downfall" to the Eqyptians. He also provides the Taz
(OC 490:3) and Chavos Ya'ir (225) as holding this position. In footnote 5
he presents people who question the validity of this new reason. (New? A
medrash is assumed to be post-Chazal?) As well as R' Aharon Kotler,
who is in support.
But in the meantime, through all of this no one questions our basic issue
-- whether "at your enemy's downfall" means that the joy, while present,
must be incpmplete. In fact, the Torah Temimah doesn't like the medrash's
answer because omitting two half-kapitlach from Hallel is INSUFFICIENT
to say we're curtailing joy. (Still paraphrasing the JA column.)
The idea of diminishing Hallel because of the death of the Egyptians
thus has a long history, from the Yalqut Shim'oni (lit: the Simonean
Selection) -- or even earlier, from the medrashim from which he selects
-- to R' Aharon Kotler (the founder of the yeshiva in Lakewood NJ). "Not
Jewish"? "Naarishkeit"?
So I stand by my insistance that by saying such compassion is unJewish,
one is misrepresenting Judaism as being overly skewed toward din over
rachamim. Judaism recognized the "dialectic tension" and requires us to
both rejoice at the expression of Divine Justice, and feel the pain of
the fact that people created in G-d's Image had to die to accomplish it.
-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?
From owner-...@aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 17:15:52 2006
Return-Path: <owner-...@aishdas.org>
Received: from majordomo2.host4u.net (majordomo2.host4u.net [69.94.105.179])
by plus45.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k3RMFqD27882
for <owner-...@aishdas.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:15:52 -0500
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
by majordomo2.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id k3RMFlJ08263;
Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:15:47 -0500
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:15:47 -0500
Message-Id: <200604272215...@majordomo2.host4u.net>
To: owner-...@aishdas.org
From: owner-...@aishdas.org
Subject: BOUNCE avo...@aishdas.org: Approval required:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on plus45.host4u.net
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=DOMAIN_4U2,NO_REAL_NAME
autolearn=no version=2.63
X-Spam-Level:
X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.500000, version=0.17.5
Content-Length: 3172
Lines: 63
>From do...@aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 17:15:46 2006
Received: from plus45.host4u.net (plus45.host4u.net [69.94.56.93])
by majordomo2.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k3RMFkk08260
for <avodah...@majordomo2.host4u.net>; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:15:46 -0500
Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.231])
by plus45.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k3RMFfD27734
for <avo...@aishdas.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:15:41 -0500
Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i12so1426wra
for <avo...@aishdas.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 15:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
b=K8gwKpIdLKGsnVrO5HbFK6gh8djaIlcYqlYkH4+WoOl3Y4HyNXHteAe9BnHvylpyyNC57ihXuZR73C1XCsxjwB3bVo3HBq2uLdxcEtTpwJKQ+gXT3jeEDB3xM146GIvC5SJW9vOYcA+78I699v0ZP2qxwN2yu9+eN1PP5XTYzTw=
Received: by 10.54.127.1 with SMTP id z1mr244869wrc;
Thu, 27 Apr 2006 15:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.54.92.9 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 15:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <e502ace30604271515h1eb...@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:15:40 -0400
From: "Zev Sero" <z...@sero.name>
Sender: zev....@gmail.com
To: Avodah <avo...@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Drifting of the Hebrew calendar
In-Reply-To: <200604272339....@aishdas.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <200604262115...@majordomo2.host4u.net>
<200604272339....@aishdas.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by majordomo2.host4u.net id k3RMFkk08261
Arie Folger <afo...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> RZS wrote:
>> The proof for this is that bizman habayit
>> they used to declare leap years for several reasons. The equinox was
>> one reason, but even when Rosh Chodesh would fall after the equinox
>> they would still declare leap years if the roads were too muddy, or the
>> lambs were too young, or the barley crop would not be ripe for the Omer.
>> Obviously in such cases both Rosh Chodesh and Pesach would fall more
>> than a month after the equinox. And yet the gemara seems to have no
>> problem with this. This proves that there is no requirement for either
>> Rosh Chodesh or Pesach to be in the first 30 days after the equinox.
> Eh, I always understood that the lambs being too young or the barley
> too unripe is a sign that we are before the equinox.
Why would they need a sign for that? Determining the exact date of the
equinox was not exactly a mystery.
> After all, plants and animals tend to instinctively orient themselves
> according to the astronomical date.
No, they don't. They take their cues from the weather. (Not the
wether:-))
> Since our calendar could drift, these are signs of drift which we
> should look out for. However, nissan would not be in May.
On the contrary, to me this gemara proves that occasionally, if it had
been a long winter, Nissan *would* be in May, or at least late April.
From owner-...@aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 18:56:50 2006
Return-Path: <owner-...@aishdas.org>
Received: from majordomo2.host4u.net (majordomo2.host4u.net [69.94.105.179])
by plus45.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k3RNuoV28559
for <owner-...@aishdas.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:56:50 -0500
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
by majordomo2.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id k3RNuiG09175;
Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:56:44 -0500
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:56:44 -0500
Message-Id: <200604272356...@majordomo2.host4u.net>
To: owner-...@aishdas.org
From: owner-...@aishdas.org
Subject: BOUNCE avo...@aishdas.org: Approval required: Non-member submission from ["David Riceman" <dric...@worldnet.att.net>]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on plus45.host4u.net
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=DOMAIN_4U2,NO_REAL_NAME
autolearn=no version=2.63
X-Spam-Level:
X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.500000, version=0.17.5
Content-Length: 2198
Lines: 49
>From do...@aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 18:56:44 2006
Received: from plus45.host4u.net (plus45.host4u.net [69.94.56.93])
by majordomo2.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k3RNuik09172
for <avodah...@majordomo2.host4u.net>; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:56:44 -0500
Received: from mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.116])
by plus45.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k3RNubV28409
for <avo...@aishdas.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:56:39 -0500
Received: from Ricemanhome1 (134.newark-07rh16rt-08rh15rt.nj.dial-access.att.net[12.75.206.134])
by worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc12) with SMTP
id <20060427235628112005garue>; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:56:29 +0000
Message-ID: <000601c66a56$337c3e70$86ce4b0c@Ricemanhome1>
From: "David Riceman" <dric...@worldnet.att.net>
To: <avo...@aishdas.org>
References: <471ff3f40604230017l719...@mail.gmail.com> <007201c66869$fd9b5c70$caf04b0c@Ricemanhome1> <471ff3f40604250906j53...@mail.gmail.com> <003101c6692d$3bab88a0$f6b64b0c@Ricemanhome1> <444FF927...@mail.biu.ac.il>
Subject: Re: yayin poter kol minei mashkeh
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:56:25 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="utf-8";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869
Ari:
I had trouble with the link. Can you email me the PDF file?
Thanks,
DR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ari Z. Zivotofsky" <ziv...@mail.biu.ac.il>
To: "Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group" <avo...@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: yayin poter kol minei mashkeh
> David Riceman wrote:
>>We all know that once you make the bracha on wine/grape juice you
>>need not make a bracha on another drink. My son asked about arvus.
>>If someone says amen to Friday night kiddush can he drink something on
>>which the bracha is normally shehakol without making a bracha? ...
>
> i discuss this in my article in Jewish Action winter 5763
> https://www.ou.org/publications/ ja/5763/5763winter/LEGAL-EA.PDF
Lisa
Steve Goldfarb wrote:
> In <e2rcjl$1p4$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>
> >All the following sources give the reason why we lift the finger
> >(or spill out drops of wine) as "etzba eloKim": Magen Avraham OC 473
>
> Bzzt! Foul called on the play.
Shh... Don't interrupt while the grownups are talking.
Lisa
Lisa
Micha Berger wrote:
> Josh brought the conversation to Avodah. Here's a translation of my
> reply, minus appeals to R's Teitz and Zivitofsky to chime in. I don't
> expect to have anything beyond this to say on scjm.
And not to leave you all hanging (nor to force you to go elsewhere to
see my answer to Micha), this is the reply I sent to the Avodah list:
On Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:00:15 -0400, Micha Berger
<mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>A medrash, which can be found in the Yalqut Shim'oni and Pesiqta
>deRav Kahanah (Mandelbaum Edition, siman 29, 189a, found by RnLL),
>explains CH on the 7th day of Pesach with the story about the
>mal'achim drowning.
Full disclosure: I have not seen these sources inside. They were
given in the notes section at the bottom of my edition of the Tur,
and I passed on that information when I gave the reference.
>Thus, having compassion on the Mitzriyim is a Jewish value. Not, as
>R"D JB is portraying it, some non-O assimilation of American values.
None of these sources say that *we* are to have compassion on the
Egyptians. Only that Hashem did.
>The Perishah, as Lisa finally showed me, points you back to the
>gemara. For all I know, his problem is that if the death of
>Mitzriyim was cause for halving Hallel, what about Chanukah?
A valid question, in my opinion. And one which casts much doubt on
the idea that we do a partial Hallel to limit our joy due to the
death of people who were coming to kill us. After all, we didn't
kill the Egyptians. We actually killed our enemies on Hanukkah, and
yet we refrain from showing the kind of inappropriate compassion that
R' Micha would like to present as a Jewish value, and we finish
Hallel all 8 days of Hanukkah.
I heard the following from R' David Bar Hayim. It says in Mishlei
24:17 "binfol oyivcha al tismach". Oyivcha, and not oyvecha, as R'
Micha mistakenly quoted. In the singular. And it says in Mishlei
11:10, "ba'avod resha'im rinah". There is joy in the destruction of
the wicked. And in Tehillim 58:11, it says "Yismach tzaddik ki
chazah nakam; paamav yirchatz b'dam ha-rasha." And in Psikta d'Rav
Kahane, it gives two reasons why we do not say full Hallel during
Pesach. The second of these is that the Egyptians drowned.
Given a problem like this, we don't assume a machloket, and we don't
assume diametrically opposed views, because diametrically opposed
views are always addressed as such. Our mesorah does not simply say
two contradictory things and let them sit without comment.
R' Bar Hayim notes that Seder Eliyahu Rabbah at the end of chapter 18
actually refers to the conflict between Mishlei 24:17 and Mishlei
11:10. Seder Eliyahu Rabbah says on this, "Keitzad yitkaymu shnei
ketuvim halalu?" How can these two psukim coexist? And it answers
by saying that "binfol oyivcha al tismach" refers specifically to a
fellow Jew. Which, R' Bar Hayim points out, fits the fact that the
singular is used in Mishlei 24:17. It doesn't refer to our enemies,
but rather to a personal enemy, or opponent, and one who is a fellow
Jew, to boot.
He notes, parenthetically, that Seder Eliyahu Rabbah is mentioned in
Ketubot 17 as having been given over by Eliyahu HaNavi, so it has a
great deal of authority.
R' Bar Hayim further brings the Gemara in Megillah 16a:
[When Haman had to lead Mordechai around on King Ahasuerus's horse,]
he said: "Get up and ride."
[Mordechai] said, "I can't, because I'm weak from days of fasting."
[Haman] bent over [so that Mordechai could use him as a stepstool],
and [Mordechai] climbed up. As he climbed up, he kicked [Haman].
[Haman] said, "Doesn't it say by you: 'Do not rejoice at the downfall
of your enemy' (Proverbs 24:17)?"
[Mordechai] said to him, "Those words refer to a Jew [who is an
enemy]. With regards to your like, it says: 'And you shall tread
upon their high places' (Deuteronomy 33:29)."
So the Gemara itself says what Seder Eliyahu Rabbah says. And lest
you argue that this applies only to Amalekites, the Gemara
specifically says that the verse applies only to Jews.
He also notes the way in which Shirat HaYam is a full blown
celebration of, among other things, the death of the
Egyptians. "Tzallelu k'oferet ba-mayim adirim".
>The idea of deminishing Hallel because of the death of the Mitzriyim
>thus has a long history, from the Yalqut Shim'oni -- or even
>earlier, from the medrashim from which he takes his liqut -- to R'
>Aharon Kotler. "Not Jewish"? "Naarishkeit"?
I will simply say that it is impossible, given all of the sources
that specifically say otherwise, to learn what the Yalkut is saying
the way R' Micha is learning it. What is the alternative? The
Gemara in Sanhedrin 39b says:
"What is the meaning of 'and they did not draw near one to the other
all the night' (Exodus 14:20)? At that time, the ministring angels
wanted to sing praises before the Holy One, Blessed be He. The Holy
One, Blessed be He, said to them: 'The work of My hands is drowning
in the sea, and you're singing praises before Me?'"
R' Elazar said: "He doesn't rejoice, but He causes others to
rejoice. We see this clearly when it says 'He will cause you to
rejoice' (Deuteronomy 28:63), rather than 'He will rejoice'. We see
it from that."
The Gemara here states, explicitly that *only* Hashem's joy is
diminished. Why? Because the Egyptians are the work of His
hands. They are not the work of *our* hands. And the angels are
merely aspects of Hashem Himself, as we know. The verse "binfol
oyivcha al tismach" applies to the Egyptians here *only* for Hashem
Himself. In the same way that we should not rejoice over the
downfall of a fellow Jew, so too does Hashem restrain Himself
(kavayachol) from rejoicing over the downfall of His creations.
I do not call the Yalkut Shimoni "naarischkeit". But I can
understand using that term for an idiosyncratic reading of the Yalkut
that disregards the entirety of the Tanach and Gemara.
>So I stand by my insistance that by saying such compassion is
>unJewish, one is misrepresenting Judaism as being overly skewed
>toward din over rachamim. Judaism recognized the "dialectic tension"
>and requires us to both rejoice at the expression of Midas haDin,
>and feel the pain of the fact that tzalmei E-lokim had to die to accomplish it.
With all due respect to R' Micha, I think this may be one of the
reasons why R' Josh compared this way of thinking to the thinking
common in the Conservative movement. Judaism does not deal in
"dialectic tension". When opposing views exist, we drag them out
into the open and resolve them. It is not an exaggeration, I don't
think, to say that resolving opposing views is the single most
essential characteristic of Torah literature. Far from sitting
happily with "dialectic tension", authentic Judaism is a constant
battle against any such thing.
A religion that's all about the "dialectic tension" would see a
machloket between Abbaye and Rabba and say, "Well, maybe both of them
are right." The entirety of Shas could be contained in a single
volume if that's what Judaism was about.
Furthermore, I don't believe that Judaism is skewed either overly
towards din *or* overly towards rachamim. Not a single verse in the
Tanach suggests that *we* should worry ourselves about the downfall
of our enemies. Not a single Gemara says it either. On the
contrary, there are many verses and several Gemaras which say exactly
the opposite. In the face of this, I cannot see how anyone could
seriously suggest that later sources were essentially disputing the
Gemara and Tanach. They *must* be read differently.
Lisa
Shlomo Argamon
Lisa wrote:
>
> With all due respect to R' Micha, I think this may be one of the
> reasons why R' Josh compared this way of thinking to the thinking
> common in the Conservative movement. Judaism does not deal in
> "dialectic tension". When opposing views exist, we drag them out
> into the open and resolve them. It is not an exaggeration, I don't
> think, to say that resolving opposing views is the single most
> essential characteristic of Torah literature. Far from sitting
> happily with "dialectic tension", authentic Judaism is a constant
> battle against any such thing.
I'll take Rav JB Soloveitchik's view of the nature of Torah and Halakha
(as articulated in, inter alia, Halakhic Mind and Halakhic Man) over
yours, actually. The question of how to resolve the dynamic and
essential tension between multiple equally valid values in Halakha,
when a decision must be made, is also a recurrent theme in the shiurim
of Rav Asher Zelig Weiss (the Minhat Asher), to my understanding.
> A religion that's all about the "dialectic tension" would see a
> machloket between Abbaye and Rabba and say, "Well, maybe both of them
> are right."
There is an essential difference between living in a dialectic tension
in a world that demands action, and just saying "anything goes". Both
Abayye and Rabba express essential truths of Judaism. To determine
Halakha, we must choose. But both are recorded, because lilmod anu
tserikhim.
)|( = 15=21
-Shlomo-
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> In <e2rcjl$1p4$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>
>>All the following sources give the reason why we lift the finger
>>(or spill out drops of wine) as "etzba eloKim": Magen Avraham OC 473
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Bzzt! Foul called on the play. You can't do that. There is a custom to
> spill out drops of wine. There is also, by some people, a custom to
The custom of spilling out drops of wine is also ancient (at least 700
years). Who says there isn't ???
> utilize a finger to do so. You are now trying to claim -- without any
> evidence whatsover -- that there is in fact no custom of spilling wine at
> all, and never has been. You are asserting, once again without any
Reread what I wrote above: "all of the following sources give the
reasons why we lift the finger (OR SPILL OUT DROPS OF WINE) as 'etzba
elokim'". You can't read a simple sentence in English.
> evidence, that the one and only custom is to do something with one's
> finger, which presumably may or may not involve wine but who knows, since
> you haven't brought any evidence.
What ??
>
>>s"k 28; Aruch haShulchan OC 473 # 24; Mishna Brura 473 #74 and 75;
>>the Beer Heitev 473 #66. But here's the clincher WHY: the Maharil
>>(Seder Hahaggada #27) quoting the Rokeach and the Raavya says:
>>"v'nir'eh li ha'taam d'ratza lomar mikol eilu yatzileinu v'YAVO'U
>>AL SONEINU [caps mine]..... [and it seems to me that the reason
>>is that God will save us from all danger and will venge retribution
>>against our enemies and punish them]
>
> Once again you hide behind the cloak of ivory tower pseudo-authoritas.
Go to these sources and see that EACH ONE OF THEM gives the reason why
the finger is lifted (OR WHY DROPS OF WINE ARE SPILLED OUT) as "etzba
elokim". I gave the sources. Go ask someone who reads Hebrew to explain
what's written there.
> GIVE THE WHOLE QUOTE if you want anyone to consider it as evidence. Your
> quote starts with "it seems to me," which is hardly how authoritative
The MAHARIL quoting the Rokeach and the Raavya gives *that* above
reason for spilling the wine. It IS the whole quote.
> sources generally start, and includes the phrase "the reason" but not the
> subject -- the reason for WHAT, exactly? Does he say "the reason we spill
> the drops of wine is that God will save us from all danger...?" Or is it
Yes, precisely. And will destroy our enemies.
> something else? Not to mention the fact that saving, venging, and
> punishing aren't exactly what the 10 plagues are about, so at a glance it
> wouldn't seem to apply at all anyway.
>
It is the sole source for the Darchei Moshe and those that followed
him for why we lift the finger/spill out drops of wine. He quotes the
Maharil (in the Rema).
>>So not only is the "sorrow" hypothesis utter naarishkeit without any
>>basis whatsoever in traditional sources, the reason given by the Maharil
>>(Rokeach and Raavya) is 180 degrees different: it's to show how God
>>will DESTROY our enemies. No touchy-feely "nebich the poor Egyptians"
>>naarishkeit, a bizarre hypothesis that came out from the halls of the
>>Reform and Conservative clergy in the late 1940's.
>
> Prove it. You haven't proved any such thing. PROVE that prior to 1940, no
> Orthodox Jew ever spilled any wine at the seder. Can you? If not, then
> your claim fails.
>
Do you have a learning disability ? I never said that Jews didn't spill
out drops of wine at the Seder. Au contraire ! What I did state is the
REASON why this is done is **not** over sorrow over the death of the
poor Egyptians [this gibberish was concocted in the late 1940's by
members of the non-O clerfy and has zero factual basis or support
in traditional Jewish texts] but because of the metaphorical "Finger
of God". What I just found out this evening after spending 2 hours
checking texts in the Maharil, Abudarham, and a dozen other sources
is that the Maharil in the late 14th century (quoting the Rokeach of
the 12th century and the Raavya , late 12th century) gave the REASON
for ETZBA ELOKIM [Finger of God] as God's vengeance and destruction of
our enemies. And I gave a direct source.
> Spilling wine -- and note that word, spilling, not "fingering," or
> "pointing," or anything else involving digits, which you yourself keep
> using -- does not, in and of itself, relate to "the finger of God." You
> still haven't addressed that point, and never will, I'm sure.
>
> Further thought experiment - and perhaps there is evidence for this, I
> don't know - please provide even one example from "authentic" Jewish
> custom where we personify / anthropomorphize / instantize God in such a
> manner that would be the equivalent of what you suggest, that "my finger
> symbolizes God's finger." When the cohanim sing about the face of God, do
> their faces symbolize God's face? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.
>
I give up.
> Further still -- if this is the true custom, the one and only valid
> Judaism, then how come no one but the two of you seem to be aware of it?
> It's not much good as a symbol if no one gets it.
>
What on earth are you talking about ??
Josh
> --s
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
Lisa
Shlomo Argamon wrote:
> Lisa wrote:
> >
> > With all due respect to R' Micha, I think this may be one of the
> > reasons why R' Josh compared this way of thinking to the thinking
> > common in the Conservative movement. Judaism does not deal in
> > "dialectic tension". When opposing views exist, we drag them out
> > into the open and resolve them. It is not an exaggeration, I don't
> > think, to say that resolving opposing views is the single most
> > essential characteristic of Torah literature. Far from sitting
> > happily with "dialectic tension", authentic Judaism is a constant
> > battle against any such thing.
>
> I'll take Rav JB Soloveitchik's view of the nature of Torah and Halakha
> (as articulated in, inter alia, Halakhic Mind and Halakhic Man) over
> yours, actually. The question of how to resolve the dynamic and
> essential tension between multiple equally valid values in Halakha,
> when a decision must be made, is also a recurrent theme in the shiurim
> of Rav Asher Zelig Weiss (the Minhat Asher), to my understanding.
With all due respect, Shlomo, if you're saying that the Rav said the
Chachamim merely left obviously contradictory positions and statements
to stand in contradiction without so much as a comment on the
contradiction, then either he was wrong, or you are.
Because that's what Micha is saying. He's saying that it's not only
okay, but perfectly normal to have diametrically opposed views within
Judaism, and not a single source that addresses the contradiction.
I say that if you see two views that seem contradictory, and yet no one
has ever seen them as contradictory, you're reading them wrong. Micha
disagrees, and prefers to chalk it up to "dialectic tension".
> > A religion that's all about the "dialectic tension" would see a
> > machloket between Abbaye and Rabba and say, "Well, maybe both of them
> > are right."
>
> There is an essential difference between living in a dialectic tension
> in a world that demands action, and just saying "anything goes". Both
> Abayye and Rabba express essential truths of Judaism. To determine
> Halakha, we must choose. But both are recorded, because lilmod anu
> tserikhim.
And if the view that says we do rejoice, fully and gladly, when evil
enemies meet their doom is in conflict with another Jewish value, it
would be addressed, just as the disagreements between Abbaye and Rabba
are addressed. Or Tosfot would have addressed it, given that their
whole raison d'etre was to go through Shas and ensure that any seeming
contradictions were addressed and, where possible, resolved.
No one does. That omission says that Micha's interpretation cannot be
correct.
Lisa
Tim Meushaw
> In article <e2rdn2$pek$1...@reader1.panix.com>, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> writes:
>> In <e2rcjl$1p4$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>>
>>>All the following sources give the reason why we lift the finger
>>>(or spill out drops of wine) as "etzba eloKim": Magen Avraham OC 473
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>> Bzzt! Foul called on the play. You can't do that. There is a custom to
>> spill out drops of wine. There is also, by some people, a custom to
>
> The custom of spilling out drops of wine is also ancient (at least 700
> years). Who says there isn't ???
That confused me as well.
(Random parts snipped, Moshe would be proud of me)
>>>s"k 28; Aruch haShulchan OC 473 # 24; Mishna Brura 473 #74 and 75;
>>>the Beer Heitev 473 #66. But here's the clincher WHY: the Maharil
>>>(Seder Hahaggada #27) quoting the Rokeach and the Raavya says:
>>>"v'nir'eh li ha'taam d'ratza lomar mikol eilu yatzileinu v'YAVO'U
>>>AL SONEINU [caps mine]..... [and it seems to me that the reason
>>>is that God will save us from all danger and will venge retribution
>>>against our enemies and punish them]
>>
>> Once again you hide behind the cloak of ivory tower pseudo-authoritas.
>
> Go to these sources and see that EACH ONE OF THEM gives the reason why
> the finger is lifted (OR WHY DROPS OF WINE ARE SPILLED OUT) as "etzba
> elokim". I gave the sources. Go ask someone who reads Hebrew to explain
> what's written there.
Is it still true what you said in another thread, that the true custom
should be (or originated as) using a finger, and spilling, though around
for 700 years, is a mistaken custom like gebrokts?
> Do you have a learning disability ? I never said that Jews didn't spill
> out drops of wine at the Seder. Au contraire ! What I did state is the
> REASON why this is done is **not** over sorrow over the death of the
> poor Egyptians [this gibberish was concocted in the late 1940's by
> members of the non-O clerfy and has zero factual basis or support
> in traditional Jewish texts] but because of the metaphorical "Finger
> of God". What I just found out this evening after spending 2 hours
> checking texts in the Maharil, Abudarham, and a dozen other sources
> is that the Maharil in the late 14th century (quoting the Rokeach of
> the 12th century and the Raavya , late 12th century) gave the REASON
> for ETZBA ELOKIM [Finger of God] as God's vengeance and destruction of
> our enemies. And I gave a direct source.
Thank you for spending so much time checking the sources, and for
providing the reason. I for one appreciate it.
Shabbat shalom/Chodesh tov,
Tim
--
Timothy A. Meushaw
meu...@pobox.com
Don Levey
> So not only is the "sorrow" hypothesis utter naarishkeit without any
> basis whatsoever in traditional sources, the reason given by the Maharil
> (Rokeach and Raavya) is 180 degrees different: it's to show how God
> will DESTROY our enemies. No touchy-feely "nebich the poor Egyptians"
> naarishkeit, a bizarre hypothesis that came out from the halls of the
> Reform and Conservative clergy in the late 1940's.
>
I've seen this in hagaddot from the early 1930s. Not that 15 years or
so makes a large difference in the context of hundreds, but does suggest
that the idea has been around longer, and may indeed have another
source (even if I am not equipped to find it).
--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to sal...@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
Steve Goldfarb
>> Bzzt! Foul called on the play. You can't do that. There is a custom to
>> spill out drops of wine. There is also, by some people, a custom to
>The custom of spilling out drops of wine is also ancient (at least 700
>years). Who says there isn't ???
Well, you did, actually. The point is that spilling wine and using a
finger to dispense wine are, at least as a premise, two distinct acts.
Saying that spilling wine in and of itself somehow represents the finger
of god simply doesn't make sense. Now, could dispensing wine with one's
finger symbolize the finger of God? Sure. But that doesn't address why we
spill wine in the first place. In a previous post you recognized this, and
tried to claim that the key to the custom is the finger, not the wine --
but you haven't provided any evidence to support this, and in fact you
just conceded it.
>> utilize a finger to do so. You are now trying to claim -- without any
>> evidence whatsover -- that there is in fact no custom of spilling wine at
>> all, and never has been. You are asserting, once again without any
>Reread what I wrote above: "all of the following sources give the
>reasons why we lift the finger (OR SPILL OUT DROPS OF WINE) as 'etzba
>elokim'". You can't read a simple sentence in English.
See, that's what I'm saying. Spilling out wine and lifting a finger are
two distinct actions. You can't take evidence that applies to one, and
simply assert that it applies to the other as well. I believe you that for
those who have the custom to dispense wine with one's index finger, that
the symbolism behind that is God's finger. No problem. But that doesn't
address the underlying issue of why we spill wine in the first place, with
or without a finger, or with a pinkie.
>> evidence, that the one and only custom is to do something with one's
>> finger, which presumably may or may not involve wine but who knows, since
>> you haven't brought any evidence.
>What ??
The evidence you've brought applies to lifting a finger, but not to
spilling wine in the first place.
>>
>>>s"k 28; Aruch haShulchan OC 473 # 24; Mishna Brura 473 #74 and 75;
>>>the Beer Heitev 473 #66. But here's the clincher WHY: the Maharil
>>>(Seder Hahaggada #27) quoting the Rokeach and the Raavya says:
>>>"v'nir'eh li ha'taam d'ratza lomar mikol eilu yatzileinu v'YAVO'U
>>>AL SONEINU [caps mine]..... [and it seems to me that the reason
>>>is that God will save us from all danger and will venge retribution
>>>against our enemies and punish them]
>>
>> Once again you hide behind the cloak of ivory tower pseudo-authoritas.
>Go to these sources and see that EACH ONE OF THEM gives the reason why
>the finger is lifted (OR WHY DROPS OF WINE ARE SPILLED OUT) as "etzba
>elokim". I gave the sources. Go ask someone who reads Hebrew to explain
>what's written there.
I'll ask again - do they explicitly say "here's why we spill wine?" Or do
they say "here's why we lift a finger?" Because it's all the difference in
the world.
>> GIVE THE WHOLE QUOTE if you want anyone to consider it as evidence. Your
>> quote starts with "it seems to me," which is hardly how authoritative
>The MAHARIL quoting the Rokeach and the Raavya gives *that* above
>reason for spilling the wine. It IS the whole quote.
It can't be, because it doesn't contain either the word "finger" or
"wine." So how do you know that's what he's talking about? Clearly there's
more to the quote.
>> sources generally start, and includes the phrase "the reason" but not the
>> subject -- the reason for WHAT, exactly? Does he say "the reason we spill
>> the drops of wine is that God will save us from all danger...?" Or is it
>Yes, precisely. And will destroy our enemies.
>Do you have a learning disability ? I never said that Jews didn't spill
>out drops of wine at the Seder. Au contraire ! What I did state is the
>REASON why this is done is **not** over sorrow over the death of the
>poor Egyptians [this gibberish was concocted in the late 1940's by
>members of the non-O clerfy and has zero factual basis or support
>in traditional Jewish texts] but because of the metaphorical "Finger
>of God". What I just found out this evening after spending 2 hours
>checking texts in the Maharil, Abudarham, and a dozen other sources
>is that the Maharil in the late 14th century (quoting the Rokeach of
>the 12th century and the Raavya , late 12th century) gave the REASON
>for ETZBA ELOKIM [Finger of God] as God's vengeance and destruction of
>our enemies. And I gave a direct source.
Actually, you did say that spilling out wine is a conflated custom, the
result of confusion over people not understanding what they were supposed
to be doing with their fingers of God.
By the way, I checked out a Chabad haggadah, and they have a completely
different reason. They say NOT to use a finger, and that we're pouring out
wine to symbolize God's "pouring out his wrath." Could be, although it
requires that the symbolism of wine shift in mid-stream and then shift
back, which doesn't make for good symbolism. Otherwise, when we raise our
glass to praise God a few pages earlier, we're toasting him a brimming cup
of wrath.
Of course, the key point here that I think all of the rational /
non-emotionally invested people who may be reading this get, is that it's
not binary -- contrary to what Lisa wrote, the idea that we rejoice and
the idea that we temper our rejoicing by the smallest physical amount
possible don't contradict each other at all, in fact they support each
other.
--s
--
Lisa
Steve Goldfarb wrote:
> In <e2sc7n$ia4$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>
> >> Bzzt! Foul called on the play. You can't do that. There is a custom to
> >> spill out drops of wine. There is also, by some people, a custom to
>
> >The custom of spilling out drops of wine is also ancient (at least 700
> >years). Who says there isn't ???
>
> Well, you did, actually. The point is that spilling wine and using a
> finger to dispense wine are, at least as a premise, two distinct acts.
To you. Your premise is wrong.
> See, that's what I'm saying. Spilling out wine and lifting a finger are
> two distinct actions. You can't take evidence that applies to one, and
> simply assert that it applies to the other as well.
Sure you can. Minhagim morph over the years.
> Actually, you did say that spilling out wine is a conflated custom, the
> result of confusion over people not understanding what they were supposed
> to be doing with their fingers of God.
So he can read. <applause>
> Of course, the key point here that I think all of the rational /
> non-emotionally invested people who may be reading this get, is that it's
> not binary -- contrary to what Lisa wrote, the idea that we rejoice and
> the idea that we temper our rejoicing by the smallest physical amount
> possible don't contradict each other at all, in fact they support each
> other.
Not in the least.
Lisa
Tim Meushaw
> By the way, I checked out a Chabad haggadah, and they have a completely
> different reason. They say NOT to use a finger, and that we're pouring out
> wine to symbolize God's "pouring out his wrath."
We've been talking about spilling wine for a week, and I've had one big
question tickling the back of my head that I haven't asked yet: how the
heck do you pour out the wine without having it go all over the table,
the chair, the floor, the kittel, the person next to you, and the cat
you sold to a gentile (who might not like having wine poured onto their
new pet)? I can barely pour out wine for others at the table for kiddush
without it going everywhere, much less trying to splash it out 13 times
for the plagues! And if you run out of wine partway through, do you
refill?
I like that reason for pouring, though. Dunno if it's any older
sources, but I like it. ;-)
> Could be, although it
> requires that the symbolism of wine shift in mid-stream and then shift
> back, which doesn't make for good symbolism. Otherwise, when we raise our
> glass to praise God a few pages earlier, we're toasting him a brimming cup
> of wrath.
Mmm, now THAT's some tasty wrath! Say, does wrath have to be mevushal?
Though I don't see it as much of an issue; you poured out the wrath,
but what's left is wine. If you refill, you're refilling with wine.
<shrug>
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>
>
>> So not only is the "sorrow" hypothesis utter naarishkeit without any
>> basis whatsoever in traditional sources, the reason given by the Maharil
>> (Rokeach and Raavya) is 180 degrees different: it's to show how God
>> will DESTROY our enemies. No touchy-feely "nebich the poor Egyptians"
>> naarishkeit, a bizarre hypothesis that came out from the halls of the
>> Reform and Conservative clergy in the late 1940's.
>>
> I've seen this in hagaddot from the early 1930s. Not that 15 years or
> so makes a large difference in the context of hundreds, but does suggest
> that the idea has been around longer, and may indeed have another
> source (even if I am not equipped to find it).
So this gibberish was around 15 years prior to when I thought
it came out ?
Trust me: there is NO traditional authentic Jewish PRIMARY source
[Rishon or Acharon] (and I'm not referring to Rabbi Sally or Rabbi
Suzy from the non-O clergy, or for that matter Rabbi Murray or
Rabbi Irving from the O clergy, or even from some naarishkeit
written from Aish haTorah or Artscroll; but to a recognized
Posek who has authored "sefarim") who gives the reason for spilling
drops of wine at the Seder as "sorrow over the death of the
poor Egyptians".
As I stated, the first person who locates a PRIMARY authentic Jewish
traditional source (Rishon or Acharon) gets a crisp $100 bill
airmailed to them. If a check or Paypal is preferred, let me know :-)
Josh
maxine in ri
And here I thought it was something put in by the wine makers to get us
to use more of their product! ;-)
Good Shabbos,
maxine in ri
Steve Goldfarb
>> Well, you did, actually. The point is that spilling wine and using a
>> finger to dispense wine are, at least as a premise, two distinct acts.
>To you. Your premise is wrong.
They are, on the face of it, different. If you wish to establish that they
are in fact the same, then you need to provide evidence for that.
>> See, that's what I'm saying. Spilling out wine and lifting a finger are
>> two distinct actions. You can't take evidence that applies to one, and
>> simply assert that it applies to the other as well.
>Sure you can. Minhagim morph over the years.
They might. But you can't just assert that they have - you have to prove
it. We're asking about B, and you're asserting that A = X therefore B = X.
You can't do that without proving that A = B, which you haven't done.
>> Actually, you did say that spilling out wine is a conflated custom, the
>> result of confusion over people not understanding what they were supposed
>> to be doing with their fingers of God.
>So he can read. <applause>
>> Of course, the key point here that I think all of the rational /
>> non-emotionally invested people who may be reading this get, is that it's
>> not binary -- contrary to what Lisa wrote, the idea that we rejoice and
>> the idea that we temper our rejoicing by the smallest physical amount
>> possible don't contradict each other at all, in fact they support each
>> other.
>Not in the least.
Allright - stop reacting for a second, and think about it. You're at the
seder - you're reading about the 10 plagues. What could people do? They
could shout "huzzah" at each plague to indicate rejoicing - but then,
there are degrees of "huzzah." Are we rejoicing here more, or less then
elsewhere?
How would we even know that we're rejoicing at all? There's no
indicator. How do you symbolize such a thing?
Ah, so we spill out our wine - a small amount. What does it mean? It
defines the end point - it means we're humans, like anybody, and of course
as we were huddled in our homes in Egypt we were afraid and even had some
compassion for our poor Egyptian neighbors (not the soldiers, but those
nice people down the block who lent us milk that one time), but how much?
One drop. One little tiny drop. That is, by minimizing that one little
bit, we're defining how extreme our rejoicing actually is.
Don't forget, at this point in the story it's NOT victory - God has NOT
vanquished our enemies - we don't know yet what's going to happen. At each
plague, will there be another? Will this be enough to change Pharoah's
mind? WILL WE PREVAIL??? It's a STORY, it has a narrative.
The purpose of the seder is to put us there - to put us in the position of
our ancestors at the time, to let us feel what they felt. We weren't the
"finger of God." We didn't feel that - that was the Egyptian sorcerers'
experience, not our experience. Our experience was one - teensy - tiny -
wee -drop of compassion, which by contrast viscerally demonstrates the
extent of our joy. You differentiate white from gray by adding a drop of
black. (or, you can differentiate black from gray by adding a drop of pure
white - your choice)
Not to mention that I wouldn't characterize the act of symbolizing the
finger of God as "rejoicing." That's not how we rejoice - by pointing
angrily? It simply doesn't symbolize "rejoicing," it symbolizes something
else, I'm not sure of what exactly.
--s
--
karenel...@yahoo.com
Don Levey wrote:
> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>
>
> > So not only is the "sorrow" hypothesis utter naarishkeit without any
> > basis whatsoever in traditional sources, the reason given by the Maharil
> > (Rokeach and Raavya) is 180 degrees different: it's to show how God
> > will DESTROY our enemies. No touchy-feely "nebich the poor Egyptians"
> > naarishkeit, a bizarre hypothesis that came out from the halls of the
> > Reform and Conservative clergy in the late 1940's.
> >
> I've seen this in hagaddot from the early 1930s. Not that 15 years or
> so makes a large difference in the context of hundreds, but does suggest
> that the idea has been around longer, and may indeed have another
> source (even if I am not equipped to find it).
>
Orthodoxy quite quickly. My husband and both of his brothers recall
learning it in their O yeshiva/day school in the 1950s, and two other
friends recall it from their (different) yeshivas (no slash there) in
the 1960s. And at our seders, of course, the kids -- from 2 separate O
day schools and one community day school -- all learned it. (I'll add
that all of us who attended after-school Hebrew school programs also
learned it, but I doubt that adds much to the discussion.)
I may have mentioned -- or may not -- that at a Sephardic seder we
attended a couple of years ago, the custom was not to use the finger or
pinky to remove wine, but to mix wine and vinegar in a jar, again (I
was told) to temper pleasure. (I've found this on the 'net as a Greek
custom, BTW, although our hosts were of Egyptian heritage.) It was
thus appear that the pouring of wine is not always attached to the
symbolism of the finger.
Karen Elizabeth
Don Levey
> In article <m3slnxo...@dauphin.the-leveys.us>, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> writes:
> > bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
> >
> >
> >> So not only is the "sorrow" hypothesis utter naarishkeit without any
> >> basis whatsoever in traditional sources, the reason given by the Maharil
> >> (Rokeach and Raavya) is 180 degrees different: it's to show how God
> >> will DESTROY our enemies. No touchy-feely "nebich the poor Egyptians"
> >> naarishkeit, a bizarre hypothesis that came out from the halls of the
> >> Reform and Conservative clergy in the late 1940's.
> >>
> > I've seen this in hagaddot from the early 1930s. Not that 15 years or
> > so makes a large difference in the context of hundreds, but does suggest
> > that the idea has been around longer, and may indeed have another
> > source (even if I am not equipped to find it).
>
>
>
> So this gibberish was around 15 years prior to when I thought
> it came out ?
>
> Trust me: there is NO traditional authentic Jewish PRIMARY source
> [Rishon or Acharon] (and I'm not referring to Rabbi Sally or Rabbi
> Suzy from the non-O clergy, or for that matter Rabbi Murray or
> Rabbi Irving from the O clergy, or even from some naarishkeit
> written from Aish haTorah or Artscroll; but to a recognized
> Posek who has authored "sefarim") who gives the reason for spilling
> drops of wine at the Seder as "sorrow over the death of the
> poor Egyptians".
>
My motivation in continuing to push this is NOT because I have some
emotional attachment to the concept, or that I *want* it to be
true. I'm pushing it because things like this don't arise
ex nihilo, they originated somewhere and for some reason. While
I'm more than happy to accept your thesis, your explanation
of how the custom arose is not one I have found satisfying and
without that I'm not able to both accept your thesis and reject
the custom.
> As I stated, the first person who locates a PRIMARY authentic Jewish
> traditional source (Rishon or Acharon) gets a crisp $100 bill
> airmailed to them. If a check or Paypal is preferred, let me know :-)
>
Josh, if ever I were in the position to be able to demonstrate a
primary source, that would make me happier than the $100.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> In <e2sc7n$ia4$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>
>>> Bzzt! Foul called on the play. You can't do that. There is a custom to
>>> spill out drops of wine. There is also, by some people, a custom to
>
>>The custom of spilling out drops of wine is also ancient (at least 700
>>years). Who says there isn't ???
>
> Well, you did, actually. The point is that spilling wine and using a
> finger to dispense wine are, at least as a premise, two distinct acts.
They aren't. They are BOTH related.
Yes, they also say (in so many words) "here's why we spill wine".
The reason they give for BOTH (spilling and lifting finger) are
identical ["Finger of God" a term used in Exodus].
>
>>> GIVE THE WHOLE QUOTE if you want anyone to consider it as evidence. Your
>>> quote starts with "it seems to me," which is hardly how authoritative
>
>>The MAHARIL quoting the Rokeach and the Raavya gives *that* above
>>reason for spilling the wine. It IS the whole quote.
>
> It can't be, because it doesn't contain either the word "finger" or
> "wine." So how do you know that's what he's talking about? Clearly there's
> more to the quote.
>
You have an incredible amount of chutzpa. How do you know "it can't be"
if you haven't read the actual text ??
>>> sources generally start, and includes the phrase "the reason" but not the
>>> subject -- the reason for WHAT, exactly? Does he say "the reason we spill
>>> the drops of wine is that God will save us from all danger...?" Or is it
>
>>Yes, precisely. And will destroy our enemies.
>
>
>>Do you have a learning disability ? I never said that Jews didn't spill
>>out drops of wine at the Seder. Au contraire ! What I did state is the
>>REASON why this is done is **not** over sorrow over the death of the
>>poor Egyptians [this gibberish was concocted in the late 1940's by
>>members of the non-O clerfy and has zero factual basis or support
>>in traditional Jewish texts] but because of the metaphorical "Finger
>>of God". What I just found out this evening after spending 2 hours
>>checking texts in the Maharil, Abudarham, and a dozen other sources
>>is that the Maharil in the late 14th century (quoting the Rokeach of
>>the 12th century and the Raavya , late 12th century) gave the REASON
>>for ETZBA ELOKIM [Finger of God] as God's vengeance and destruction of
>>our enemies. And I gave a direct source.
>
> Actually, you did say that spilling out wine is a conflated custom, the
I was wrong.
> result of confusion over people not understanding what they were supposed
> to be doing with their fingers of God.
>
>
> By the way, I checked out a Chabad haggadah, and they have a completely
> different reason. They say NOT to use a finger, and that we're pouring out
Correct. There are those who say to simply pour out drops of wine WITHOUT
using one's finger.
> wine to symbolize God's "pouring out his wrath." Could be, although it
**THAT** is precisely the reason given by the Darchei Moshe in the
TUR Orach Chayim and by the Maharil (quoting the 12th century exegetes
Rokeach and Raavya) !! It's God "pouring out His wrath" ['nekama'
(vengeance)] over the enemies of the Jews. And the answer given by
EVERY SINGLE traditional Jewish source. That's why I go through the
ceiling when I read of the non-O clergy giving the reason as "binfol
oyvecha" (supposed sorrow over the death of the poor nebich Egyptians").
And I go through the roof when I see that this idiocy is now quoted
by ignorami from Aish haTorah and even in Artscroll.
> requires that the symbolism of wine shift in mid-stream and then shift
> back, which doesn't make for good symbolism. Otherwise, when we raise our
> glass to praise God a few pages earlier, we're toasting him a brimming cup
> of wrath.
You ain't just whistlin' Dixie !!
What do you think "shefoch chamatcha" in the Haggada refers to ???
>
> Of course, the key point here that I think all of the rational /
> non-emotionally invested people who may be reading this get, is that it's
> not binary -- contrary to what Lisa wrote, the idea that we rejoice and
> the idea that we temper our rejoicing by the smallest physical amount
> possible don't contradict each other at all, in fact they support each
> other.
Wrong. It has zero support in traditional Jewish texts. It's a perversion
of Judaism.
Josh
>
> --s
> --
>
maxine in ri
Tim Meushaw wrote:
> On 2006-04-28, Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote:
> > By the way, I checked out a Chabad haggadah, and they have a completely
> > different reason. They say NOT to use a finger, and that we're pouring out
> > wine to symbolize God's "pouring out his wrath."
>
> We've been talking about spilling wine for a week, and I've had one big
> question tickling the back of my head that I haven't asked yet: how the
> heck do you pour out the wine without having it go all over the table,
> the chair, the floor, the kittel, the person next to you, and the cat
> you sold to a gentile (who might not like having wine poured onto their
> new pet)? I can barely pour out wine for others at the table for kiddush
> without it going everywhere, much less trying to splash it out 13 times
> for the plagues! And if you run out of wine partway through, do you
> refill?
When one is sitting at the table, one has plates in front of one. The
wine glass sits on the plate, and the plate is where the wine is
spilled (unless someone knocks it over with a hagaddah or their
elbow<g>) Since we have allergic guests, we don't allow the cat to
join us at the seder, no matter who she belongs to, since she has the
disturbing habit of enjoying any food that is sitting there, like the
brisket, the greens, the squash. So she either stays with friends,
gets to roam around outside at night, or is locked in the basement.
And when you tip your wine glass, you watch it very carefully so that
you only spill a couple of drops, not the whole thing<g>.
My family's minchag has always been to use the finger to spill the wine
to diminish our joy, but I willing to be taught otherwise.
maxine in ri
Steve Goldfarb
>> Well, you did, actually. The point is that spilling wine and using a
>> finger to dispense wine are, at least as a premise, two distinct acts.
>They aren't. They are BOTH related.
They are related, sure - but you're suddenly claiming that they're
interchangable, and you haven't brought any evidence to indicate that.
>>>>
>>>>>s"k 28; Aruch haShulchan OC 473 # 24; Mishna Brura 473 #74 and 75;
>>>>>the Beer Heitev 473 #66. But here's the clincher WHY: the Maharil
>>>>>(Seder Hahaggada #27) quoting the Rokeach and the Raavya says:
>>>>>"v'nir'eh li ha'taam d'ratza lomar mikol eilu yatzileinu v'YAVO'U
>>>>>AL SONEINU [caps mine]..... [and it seems to me that the reason
>>>>>is that God will save us from all danger and will venge retribution
>>>>>against our enemies and punish them]
>>>>
>> I'll ask again - do they explicitly say "here's why we spill wine?" Or do
>> they say "here's why we lift a finger?" Because it's all the difference in
>> the world.
>Yes, they also say (in so many words) "here's why we spill wine".
>The reason they give for BOTH (spilling and lifting finger) are
>identical ["Finger of God" a term used in Exodus].
"In so many words?" What does that mean? I'm asking you for the actual
words, we know how you interpret the words but that's your reading.
>>>The MAHARIL quoting the Rokeach and the Raavya gives *that* above
>>>reason for spilling the wine. It IS the whole quote.
>>
>> It can't be, because it doesn't contain either the word "finger" or
>> "wine." So how do you know that's what he's talking about? Clearly there's
>> more to the quote.
>>
>You have an incredible amount of chutzpa. How do you know "it can't be"
>if you haven't read the actual text ??
Um, Josh? I did read "the text," that is, what you quoted above, which is
what I'm referring to. I'm saying that you didn't bring down the entire
quote, because you haven't included the subject. Thus, there is clearly
more to the quote than what you've cited here. Otherwise, how would you
be able to claim it has anything to do with Pesach in the first place?
Obviously there's something that comes before what you've quoted, which
sets the stage.
>> Actually, you did say that spilling out wine is a conflated custom, the
>I was wrong.
Ah, nice retraction. You see the problem? You refuse to admit error unless
it's pounded into your face, so therefore nothing you write can be
trusted. Sorry, but that's not honest debate. If you want anyone to trust
what you write (and perhaps you don't) then you when you need to follow up
on your errors and correct them. Even Lisa did that.
>> result of confusion over people not understanding what they were supposed
>> to be doing with their fingers of God.
>>
>>
>> By the way, I checked out a Chabad haggadah, and they have a completely
>> different reason. They say NOT to use a finger, and that we're pouring out
>Correct. There are those who say to simply pour out drops of wine WITHOUT
>using one's finger.
Which utterly refutes your previous claim, that it refers to the *finger*
of God.
>> wine to symbolize God's "pouring out his wrath." Could be, although it
>**THAT** is precisely the reason given by the Darchei Moshe in the
>TUR Orach Chayim and by the Maharil (quoting the 12th century exegetes
>Rokeach and Raavya) !! It's God "pouring out His wrath" ['nekama'
>(vengeance)] over the enemies of the Jews. And the answer given by
>EVERY SINGLE traditional Jewish source. That's why I go through the
>ceiling when I read of the non-O clergy giving the reason as "binfol
>oyvecha" (supposed sorrow over the death of the poor nebich Egyptians").
>And I go through the roof when I see that this idiocy is now quoted
>by ignorami from Aish haTorah and even in Artscroll.
Wait, **THAT** is the reason? I thought the other was the reason? Pouring
out wrath and finger of God aren't the same thing. Even though I know
you'll claim they are. You've just changed reasons in mid-stream. By the
way, feel free to thank me for providing a real source for your own
argument, one that you were apparently unable to find on your own.
>> requires that the symbolism of wine shift in mid-stream and then shift
>> back, which doesn't make for good symbolism. Otherwise, when we raise our
>> glass to praise God a few pages earlier, we're toasting him a brimming cup
>> of wrath.
>You ain't just whistlin' Dixie !!
>What do you think "shefoch chamatcha" in the Haggada refers to ???
Don't know. And yet, I managed to find you a rationale for your side of
the argument that you were unable to spot. Go figure!
>
>>
>> Of course, the key point here that I think all of the rational /
>> non-emotionally invested people who may be reading this get, is that it's
>> not binary -- contrary to what Lisa wrote, the idea that we rejoice and
>> the idea that we temper our rejoicing by the smallest physical amount
>> possible don't contradict each other at all, in fact they support each
>> other.
>Wrong. It has zero support in traditional Jewish texts. It's a perversion
>of Judaism.
The only argument I can make is the simplest: sez you. At this point it's
clear that if Moshe Rabbeinu himself came down and said something
different that you'd jump off a cliff rather than admit you were wrong.
So, I simply can't trust anything you say on this subject - you're much
too emotionally invested in a certain outcome.
--s
--
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
I was wrong. BOTH (spilling and lifting the finger) are concurrent and
BOTH are based on the same source "etzba elokim" [metaphoric 'Finger
of God" the term usedin Exodus 8:14).
>
>> Do you have a learning disability ? I never said that Jews didn't spill
>> out drops of wine at the Seder. Au contraire ! What I did state is the
>> REASON why this is done is **not** over sorrow over the death of the
>> poor Egyptians [this gibberish was concocted in the late 1940's by
>> members of the non-O clerfy and has zero factual basis or support
>> in traditional Jewish texts] but because of the metaphorical "Finger
>> of God". What I just found out this evening after spending 2 hours
>> checking texts in the Maharil, Abudarham, and a dozen other sources
>> is that the Maharil in the late 14th century (quoting the Rokeach of
>> the 12th century and the Raavya , late 12th century) gave the REASON
>> for ETZBA ELOKIM [Finger of God] as God's vengeance and destruction of
>> our enemies. And I gave a direct source.
>
> Thank you for spending so much time checking the sources, and for
> providing the reason. I for one appreciate it.
>
Josh
Lisa
Steve Goldfarb wrote:
> In <1146235678.8...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Lisa" <li...@starways.net> writes:
>
>
> >> Well, you did, actually. The point is that spilling wine and using a
> >> finger to dispense wine are, at least as a premise, two distinct acts.
>
> >To you. Your premise is wrong.
>
> They are, on the face of it, different. If you wish to establish that they
> are in fact the same, then you need to provide evidence for that.
No. You're going at it from the wrong direction. We don't start with
what people seem to be doing right now. We start with what we're
supposed to be doing. If these diverge, we can ask why, but that's
where we start.
> >> See, that's what I'm saying. Spilling out wine and lifting a finger are
> >> two distinct actions. You can't take evidence that applies to one, and
> >> simply assert that it applies to the other as well.
>
> >Sure you can. Minhagim morph over the years.
>
> They might. But you can't just assert that they have - you have to prove
> it. We're asking about B, and you're asserting that A = X therefore B = X.
> You can't do that without proving that A = B, which you haven't done.
And here's why it matters that you're going in the wrong direction.
Since we're starting from what we're supposed to be doing, then when we
see someone spilling the wine, in the absence of any explicit source
that instructs us to spill the wine, we can legitimately conclude that
it is a mistaken version of dipping with the finger.
Once again, it's a burden of proof thing. We *do* have a source for
dipping with the finger. And actually, we also have a source that says
spilling the wine relates to "spill out Thy wrath". What we don't
have, at all, is a source saying to dip or spill because the Egyptians
drowned.
> >> Of course, the key point here that I think all of the rational /
> >> non-emotionally invested people who may be reading this get, is that it's
> >> not binary -- contrary to what Lisa wrote, the idea that we rejoice and
> >> the idea that we temper our rejoicing by the smallest physical amount
> >> possible don't contradict each other at all, in fact they support each
> >> other.
>
> >Not in the least.
>
> Allright - stop reacting for a second, and think about it. You're at the
> seder - you're reading about the 10 plagues. What could people do? They
> could shout "huzzah" at each plague to indicate rejoicing - but then,
> there are degrees of "huzzah." Are we rejoicing here more, or less then
> elsewhere?
If you see a brownish puddle of paint, can you deduce from it what
colors I spilled? You can't work backwards like that, Steve.
> How would we even know that we're rejoicing at all? There's no
> indicator. How do you symbolize such a thing?
>
> Ah, so we spill out our wine - a small amount. What does it mean? It
> defines the end point - it means we're humans, like anybody, and of course
> as we were huddled in our homes in Egypt we were afraid and even had some
> compassion for our poor Egyptian neighbors (not the soldiers, but those
> nice people down the block who lent us milk that one time), but how much?
> One drop. One little tiny drop. That is, by minimizing that one little
> bit, we're defining how extreme our rejoicing actually is.
Nice, but in the absence of any source whatsoever for it, it's just
what Josh and I have been saying. New-agey stuff that fits nicely with
current mores, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Judaism.
> Don't forget, at this point in the story it's NOT victory - God has NOT
> vanquished our enemies - we don't know yet what's going to happen. At each
> plague, will there be another? Will this be enough to change Pharoah's
> mind? WILL WE PREVAIL??? It's a STORY, it has a narrative.
Read it again. It actually isn't. We also drip drops for "blood and
fire and a pillar of smoke", and for the three acronyms. But fine,
ignore that. What you're saying is still your own invention. Judaism
isn't a roll-your-own religion. You can think that, sure. No one is
going to say that your seder wasn't kosher because you have a vivid
imagination and are a bit challenged when it comes to authentic Jewish
concepts.
> The purpose of the seder is to put us there - to put us in the position of
> our ancestors at the time, to let us feel what they felt.
True.
> We weren't the
> "finger of God." We didn't feel that - that was the Egyptian sorcerers'
> experience, not our experience.
That's not relevant. Not all of the seder is dealing with our specific
experiences.
> Our experience was one - teensy - tiny -
> wee -drop of compassion,
Compassion which goes against all of Jewish tradition. Compassion
which lacks any source or support whatsoever. Compassion that is akin
to the compassion shown by King Saul for King Agag. That's not a
Jewish value.
> Not to mention that I wouldn't characterize the act of symbolizing the
> finger of God as "rejoicing." That's not how we rejoice - by pointing
> angrily? It simply doesn't symbolize "rejoicing," it symbolizes something
> else, I'm not sure of what exactly.
Hey, when I drip the drops, I do it to symbolize the spilling of
Egyptian blood. Finger or spilling. It all works just as well.
Lisa
Don Levey
>
> Mmm, now THAT's some tasty wrath! Say, does wrath have to be mevushal?
>
I would imagine that it would be mevushal by definition. Have you ever
seen wrath that *wasn't* boiling?
Scoop
: Tim Meushaw <meu...@pobox.com> writes:
: >
: > Mmm, now THAT's some tasty wrath! Say, does wrath have to be mevushal?
: >
: I would imagine that it would be mevushal by definition. Have you ever
: seen wrath that *wasn't* boiling?
Well, there's /blazing/ wrath, but that would remove all the alcohol...
Tim Meushaw
> Quoth Don Levey:
>: Tim Meushaw <meu...@pobox.com> writes:
>
>: >
>: > Mmm, now THAT's some tasty wrath! Say, does wrath have to be mevushal?
>: >
>: I would imagine that it would be mevushal by definition. Have you ever
>: seen wrath that *wasn't* boiling?
I've heard of icy wrath before, but I bet Craig would have a *lot* to
say on the horrors of freezing wine.
> Well, there's /blazing/ wrath, but that would remove all the alcohol...
If really necessary, though, one can use grape juice in the seder instead
of wine, so the alcohol doesn't seem to be *the* most important factor
(though yes, you should add a little wine to get the flavor of the
alcohol). It leads to the conclusion that the most important part of
the beverage are the Grapes of Wrath.
Don Levey
> On 2006-04-28, Scoop <no-...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > Quoth Don Levey:
> >: Tim Meushaw <meu...@pobox.com> writes:
> >
> >: >
> >: > Mmm, now THAT's some tasty wrath! Say, does wrath have to be mevushal?
> >: >
> >: I would imagine that it would be mevushal by definition. Have you ever
> >: seen wrath that *wasn't* boiling?
>
> I've heard of icy wrath before, but I bet Craig would have a *lot* to
> say on the horrors of freezing wine.
>
It's one way of distilling - jacked brandy.
Art Werschulz
Tim Meushaw <meu...@pobox.com> writes:
> If really necessary, though, one can use grape juice in the seder instead
> of wine, so the alcohol doesn't seem to be *the* most important factor
> (though yes, you should add a little wine to get the flavor of the
> alcohol). It leads to the conclusion that the most important part of
> the beverage are the Grapes of Wrath.
Not to mention the Drapes of Roth.
// Since it's already Shabbat in Jlem, RJosh isn't able to post this, so
// I'll do so in his stead:
The Drapes of Roth
(Alan Sherman)
I'll sing to you a story of a great man of the cloth,
His name was Harry Lewis and he worked for Irving Roth,
He died while cutting velvet on a hot July the fourth,
His cloth goes marching on.
chorus: Glory, glory, Harry Lewis,
Glory, glory Harry Lewis,
Glory, glory, Harry Lewis,
His cloth goes shining on!
Harry Lewis perished in the service of his lord,
He was trampling through the warehouse where the drapes of Roth are stored,
He had the finest funeral his union could afford,
His cloth goes shining on!
With the fire raging 'bout him, Harry stood by his machine,
And when the fireman broke in, they discovered him between,
A pile of roasted dacron and some french fried gabardine,
His cloth goes shining on!
From "My Son The Folksinger"
--
Art Werschulz (agw STRUDEL comcast.net)
207 Stoughton Ave Cranford NJ 07016
(908) 272-1146
Yisroel Markov
<s...@panix.com> said:
>In <e2sc7n$ia4$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>
>>> Bzzt! Foul called on the play. You can't do that. There is a custom to
>>> spill out drops of wine. There is also, by some people, a custom to
>
>>The custom of spilling out drops of wine is also ancient (at least 700
>>years). Who says there isn't ???
>
>Well, you did, actually. The point is that spilling wine and using a
>finger to dispense wine are, at least as a premise, two distinct acts.
IMHO the act in question is "get some wine out of your cup." Then,
there are several variant on how exactly to do it. Who knows three? I
know three! Three ways to get rid of some wine in your cup - spilling
a few drops (not so few when kids are involved), removing with a
finger (index or pinkie), removing with the wrong end of a fork or
spoon.
The reason for this act is what the mefarshim explain, and is what we
are looking for here. The mode of removal is secondary.
>Saying that spilling wine in and of itself somehow represents the finger
>of god simply doesn't make sense. Now, could dispensing wine with one's
>finger symbolize the finger of God? Sure. But that doesn't address why we
>spill wine in the first place. In a previous post you recognized this, and
>tried to claim that the key to the custom is the finger, not the wine --
>but you haven't provided any evidence to support this, and in fact you
>just conceded it.
[snip]
>By the way, I checked out a Chabad haggadah, and they have a completely
>different reason. They say NOT to use a finger, and that we're pouring out
>wine to symbolize God's "pouring out his wrath." Could be, although it
>requires that the symbolism of wine shift in mid-stream and then shift
>back, which doesn't make for good symbolism. Otherwise, when we raise our
>glass to praise God a few pages earlier, we're toasting him a brimming cup
>of wrath.
Finish reading it - it says further that "the wine remaining in the
cup is now the wine of joy, and needs to be refilled so we say Hallel
over a full cup," or words to that effect. I guess it's good enough
symbolism for them :-)
[snip]
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Sheldon Ackerman
primary source. As I mentioned earlier he gives the explanation that Josh
and Lisa are "upset" about, but he prefaces with something like "yesh
lomer" which means that "we can say." Had there been a source he would have
cited it. But as that saying goes, there once was an individual who came up
with a p'shat and asked a rav if one can say it (meaning does it make
sense). The rav responded that sure one can say it. The proof is you are
saying it!
Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in
news:m3bqulo...@dauphin.the-leveys.us:
Steve Goldfarb
>>Well, you did, actually. The point is that spilling wine and using a
>>finger to dispense wine are, at least as a premise, two distinct acts.
>IMHO the act in question is "get some wine out of your cup." Then,
>there are several variant on how exactly to do it. Who knows three? I
>know three! Three ways to get rid of some wine in your cup - spilling
>a few drops (not so few when kids are involved), removing with a
>finger (index or pinkie), removing with the wrong end of a fork or
>spoon.
>The reason for this act is what the mefarshim explain, and is what we
>are looking for here. The mode of removal is secondary.
If that's true, then the "finger of God" explanation fails - how does
pouring wine from a cup symbolize in any way shape or form the "finger of
God?" OTOH, acts can be multi-faceted, there's both the act itself and the
manner in which the act is performed, and it's certainly reasonable to
claim that each has a different symbolism. However, you can't simply
assert that the manner in which the act is performed is the actual intent
of the act, and the underlying act itself is secondary.
In fact, the two explanations directly contradict each other -- if we're
"pouring out thy wrath" then we certainly wouldn't drip little pinky
drops, we'd dose out a nice slosh! And in fact I've seen people do that,
and that seems to be what Chabad suggests doing. But then, where's that
divine finger? OTOH, if it is a "divine finger," then you certainly
wouldn't pour, you'd dunk and drip - and you'd use your right index finger
to do so. Yet, I've never seen (although that doesn't prove the
non-existence of) any haggadah that specifically said something about
using one's right index finger. Because, after all, some people don't use
a finger at all, and those who do typically use their pinky. Hardly
representative of the "finger of God," and not representative at all of
"pouring out they wrath." So the two concepts simply don't work together
at all.
>>By the way, I checked out a Chabad haggadah, and they have a completely
>>different reason. They say NOT to use a finger, and that we're pouring out
>>wine to symbolize God's "pouring out his wrath." Could be, although it
>>requires that the symbolism of wine shift in mid-stream and then shift
>>back, which doesn't make for good symbolism. Otherwise, when we raise our
>>glass to praise God a few pages earlier, we're toasting him a brimming cup
>>of wrath.
>Finish reading it - it says further that "the wine remaining in the
>cup is now the wine of joy, and needs to be refilled so we say Hallel
>over a full cup," or words to that effect. I guess it's good enough
>symbolism for them :-)
Yeah, I saw that, didn't really get it. It was joy, then it's wrath, then
it's joy again -- seems a bit convoluted, but whatever works. The neat
thing about symbols is they can have multiple valid meanings.
--s
--
Lisa
Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 14:31:27 +0000 (UTC), "Steve Goldfarb"
> <s...@panix.com> said:
>
> >In <e2sc7n$ia4$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
> >
> >>> Bzzt! Foul called on the play. You can't do that. There is a custom to
> >>> spill out drops of wine. There is also, by some people, a custom to
> >
> >>The custom of spilling out drops of wine is also ancient (at least 700
> >>years). Who says there isn't ???
> >
> >Well, you did, actually. The point is that spilling wine and using a
> >finger to dispense wine are, at least as a premise, two distinct acts.
>
> IMHO the act in question is "get some wine out of your cup." Then,
> there are several variant on how exactly to do it. Who knows three? I
> know three! Three ways to get rid of some wine in your cup - spilling
> a few drops (not so few when kids are involved), removing with a
> finger (index or pinkie), removing with the wrong end of a fork or
> spoon.
If the cup is full enough, you can tap the plate it's on.
If you take a straw and blow at the wine on a shallow angle, you can
get some drops out.
You can flick the side of the cup (extreme care is needed if it's made
of glass).
You can use a bendy straw to create a syphon effect. Raising and
lowering the end that isn't in the wine can result in spillage.
There should be a contest or something.
Lisa
Micha Berger
: BOTH are based on the same source "etzba elokim" [metaphoric 'Finger
: of God" the term usedin Exodus 8:14).
What does spilling wine have to do with fingers?
:-)BBii!
-mi
Micha Berger
: Trust me: there is NO traditional authentic Jewish PRIMARY source
: [Rishon or Acharon] (and I'm not referring to Rabbi Sally or Rabbi
: Suzy from the non-O clergy, or for that matter Rabbi Murray or
: Rabbi Irving from the O clergy, or even from some naarishkeit
: written from Aish haTorah or Artscroll; but to a recognized
Since you already had me ask R' Teitz who said it too...
And Toby Katz wrote to Avodah that her father, R' Bulman said it too..
:-)BBii!
-mi
Steve Goldfarb
>> They are, on the face of it, different. If you wish to establish that they
>> are in fact the same, then you need to provide evidence for that.
>No. You're going at it from the wrong direction. We don't start with
>what people seem to be doing right now. We start with what we're
>supposed to be doing. If these diverge, we can ask why, but that's
>where we start.
According to Josh, we've been spilling wine for at least 700 years. No one
has suggested that we shouldn't be spilling wine, nor that one is required
to use a certain finger in any particular way. Do you have a source
indicating that the halacha is that one must use one's finger? In any
case, Josh has retracted his claim that it's a mistaken custom, thus --
spilling the wine IS what we're supposed to be doing. So, we are, indeed,
starting with what we're supposed to be doing -- spilling wine. Not
fingering cups. Or pointing in emulation of divine fingers. Spilling.
>> They might. But you can't just assert that they have - you have to prove
>> it. We're asking about B, and you're asserting that A = X therefore B = X.
>> You can't do that without proving that A = B, which you haven't done.
>And here's why it matters that you're going in the wrong direction.
>Since we're starting from what we're supposed to be doing, then when we
>see someone spilling the wine, in the absence of any explicit source
>that instructs us to spill the wine, we can legitimately conclude that
>it is a mistaken version of dipping with the finger.
You can conclude that, but you'd be mistaken. Josh retracted. No one has
provided a shred of evidence that the "proper" minhag is to dip one's
finger. No one. Next!
>Once again, it's a burden of proof thing. We *do* have a source for
>dipping with the finger. And actually, we also have a source that says
>spilling the wine relates to "spill out Thy wrath". What we don't
>have, at all, is a source saying to dip or spill because the Egyptians
>drowned.
We do not really have a source for dipping with the finger, and the two
stories - "finger of God" and "pour out they wrath" are directly
contradictory. Further, no one claimed that we *spill* because the
Egyptians drowned. No one - you keep making that mistake. It's a
parallelism. We spill because that's the custom - that's not the question.
The question is what does the spilling symbolize? See the difference? And,
we have a tradition that the spilling symbolizes compassion for the
plagues. (not the drowning) Symbolism doesn't necessarily need to be
sourced, that's the neat thing about symbols.
The custom exists, and the explanation of the symbolism exists. Those are
facts on the ground. Your claim is that there's no basis in any legitimate
Jewish context for reducing one's rejoicing due to the suffering of
others. Micha found such a source. It's not the reason why we spill, and
Micha never claimed it was -- it's simply proves that the underlying
concept exists, in a different case.
>> Allright - stop reacting for a second, and think about it. You're at the
>> seder - you're reading about the 10 plagues. What could people do? They
>> could shout "huzzah" at each plague to indicate rejoicing - but then,
>> there are degrees of "huzzah." Are we rejoicing here more, or less then
>> elsewhere?
>If you see a brownish puddle of paint, can you deduce from it what
>colors I spilled? You can't work backwards like that, Steve.
It's a symbol, Lisa. If the symbol doesn't communicate, if we aren't able
to read into it, then the symbol doesn't work. You and Josh are claiming
that fingering the wine is a FAILED symbol. I don't think so. Further, I
can deduce the colors -- you used some combination of red, green, and
blue.
>> Ah, so we spill out our wine - a small amount. What does it mean? It
>> defines the end point - it means we're humans, like anybody, and of course
>> as we were huddled in our homes in Egypt we were afraid and even had some
>> compassion for our poor Egyptian neighbors (not the soldiers, but those
>> nice people down the block who lent us milk that one time), but how much?
>> One drop. One little tiny drop. That is, by minimizing that one little
>> bit, we're defining how extreme our rejoicing actually is.
>Nice, but in the absence of any source whatsoever for it, it's just
>what Josh and I have been saying. New-agey stuff that fits nicely with
>current mores, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Judaism.
The story of Pesach is a living story of the Jewish people. Not a dead
tale from long ago.
>> Don't forget, at this point in the story it's NOT victory - God has NOT
>> vanquished our enemies - we don't know yet what's going to happen. At each
>> plague, will there be another? Will this be enough to change Pharoah's
>> mind? WILL WE PREVAIL??? It's a STORY, it has a narrative.
>Read it again. It actually isn't. We also drip drops for "blood and
>fire and a pillar of smoke", and for the three acronyms. But fine,
>ignore that. What you're saying is still your own invention. Judaism
>isn't a roll-your-own religion. You can think that, sure. No one is
>going to say that your seder wasn't kosher because you have a vivid
>imagination and are a bit challenged when it comes to authentic Jewish
>concepts.
You give me too much credit - it's not my invention at all, everyone who's
ever been to a seder - except yours and Josh's - has been exposed to this
concept.
BTW, it isn't what? It isn't a story? Are you kidding me?
>> The purpose of the seder is to put us there - to put us in the position of
>> our ancestors at the time, to let us feel what they felt.
>True.
>> We weren't the
>> "finger of God." We didn't feel that - that was the Egyptian sorcerers'
>> experience, not our experience.
>That's not relevant. Not all of the seder is dealing with our specific
>experiences.
OK, name something that isn't. There could be something, I'm sure, but I
can't think of it. I'm talking specifically in terms of the symbolism of
the seder.
>> Our experience was one - teensy - tiny -
>> wee -drop of compassion,
>Compassion which goes against all of Jewish tradition. Compassion
>which lacks any source or support whatsoever. Compassion that is akin
>to the compassion shown by King Saul for King Agag. That's not a
>Jewish value.
I appreciate that this is something that you aren't physically /
psychologically / emotionally capable of understanding. It's like
explaining color to a blind person. But believe me, just because you can't
perceive it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
>> Not to mention that I wouldn't characterize the act of symbolizing the
>> finger of God as "rejoicing." That's not how we rejoice - by pointing
>> angrily? It simply doesn't symbolize "rejoicing," it symbolizes something
>> else, I'm not sure of what exactly.
>Hey, when I drip the drops, I do it to symbolize the spilling of
>Egyptian blood. Finger or spilling. It all works just as well.
As I said, above.
--s
--
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
I want to see a WRITTEN source as authored by a posek/acharon
prior to the year 1900. A posek/acharon, not some chassidishe
amha'aretz with a diploma who can "macht a moitzi fin a reitach"
[so ignorant that he makes the blessing HA'MOTZI said over eating
bread when he eats a radish]. ARTSCROLL is not a primary source
nor is Aish haTorah nor is Rabbi Bulman.
Again, show me a written source by a Rishon/Acharon (prior to the
year 1900) that the reason why we lift the finger/spill out drops
of wine at the Seder is because of "binfol eyivcha" and you get $100
(cash, check or Paypal).
Sheldon: Rav Elyashiv is my aunt's first cousin. I am a "ben bayit"
at their house. Trust me: he doesn't for a second believe that the
reason for spilling out drops of wine is because of "sorrow" for
the poor Egyptians. He would have a conniption if he knew that he
was being quoted with this perversion of Judaism.
Josh
>
> :-)BBii!
> -mi
Micha Berger
: Again, show me a written source by a Rishon/Acharon (prior to the
: year 1900) that the reason why we lift the finger/spill out drops
: of wine at the Seder is because of "binfol eyivcha" and you get $100
: (cash, check or Paypal).
: Sheldon: Rav Elyashiv is my aunt's first cousin. I am a "ben bayit"
: at their house. Trust me: he doesn't for a second believe that the
: reason for spilling out drops of wine is because of "sorrow" for
: the poor Egyptians. He would have a conniption if he knew that he
: was being quoted with this perversion of Judaism.
I would want to see it in writing. (By your own criterion.)
In the meantime, with a reliable source telling me otherwise, I'm not
inclined to simply run with your assumptions about what R' Elyashiv
would or wouldn't say.
You're also avoiding the primary issue: Your willingness to call a
position with a history running from before the Yalqut to R' Aharon
Kotler some un-Jewish hyper-liberal assimilated PC / Christian value.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony?
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 21:09:28 +0000 (UTC), bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> : Again, show me a written source by a Rishon/Acharon (prior to the
> : year 1900) that the reason why we lift the finger/spill out drops
> : of wine at the Seder is because of "binfol eyivcha" and you get $100
> : (cash, check or Paypal).
>
> : Sheldon: Rav Elyashiv is my aunt's first cousin. I am a "ben bayit"
> : at their house. Trust me: he doesn't for a second believe that the
> : reason for spilling out drops of wine is because of "sorrow" for
> : the poor Egyptians. He would have a conniption if he knew that he
> : was being quoted with this perversion of Judaism.
>
> I would want to see it in writing. (By your own criterion.)
>
> In the meantime, with a reliable source telling me otherwise, I'm not
> inclined to simply run with your assumptions about what R' Elyashiv
> would or wouldn't say.
>
> You're also avoiding the primary issue: Your willingness to call a
> position with a history running from before the Yalqut to R' Aharon
> Kotler some un-Jewish hyper-liberal assimilated PC / Christian value.
>
You miss the point: show me one authentic Rishon/Acharon (prior to
1900) [and I'm not referring to some chassidishe amha'aretz with
a diploma or like in the NOT THE JEWISH PRESS parody we put out in 1979
on our "Meet our Ketanim" column where we interviewed R. Chaim
Hochlieber the 'Krotz of Blitta' who in a pique decided that "eating
on Yom Kippur wasn't so bad as long as you "bentched" afterwards"]
in a written Sefer that the reason why we SPILL OUT WINE at the Seder
is because of "binfol oyivcha", and you get a crispy $100 bill.
Or a check or by PAYPAL :-) Because I put my money where my mouth is.
And please don't quote the supposed Abarbanel because as I demonstrated
(and even gave the URL at //jnul.huji.ac.il) it doesn't exist. Nor quote
some BT who I'm embarrassed to say was allowed to write for Ohr
Sameach, Aish haTorah or even Artscroll. These aren't sources.
KOTLER: what does he write and where did he write it ?
Josh
Micha Berger
: KOTLER: what does he write and where did he write it ?
Read the Jewish Action column (by R' A Zivitofsky) that Lisa already
pointed us to. While is conclusion is that the gemara's reason is the
primary reason, he does present quite well those who defend the medrash's
reason for half-Hallel on the last day of Pesach, or who explain how
the two reasons serve different roles.
I just mentioned a couple of them.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 21:14:57 +0000 (UTC), bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> : KOTLER: what does he write and where did he write it ?
>
> Read the Jewish Action column (by R' A Zivitofsky) that Lisa already
> pointed us to. While is conclusion is that the gemara's reason is the
> primary reason, he does present quite well those who defend the medrash's
> reason for half-Hallel on the last day of Pesach, or who explain how
> the two reasons serve different roles.
Good grief.
I'm not at all interested in half-hallel.
Read my lips: I am interested in the reason they give for
SPILLING DROPS OF WINE at the Seder. You continually and
conveniently ignore this and go off on a tangent.
Repeat: show me any Rishon/Acharon prior to the year 1900
who ever stated (written Sefer) that the reason why we
SPILL DROPS OF WINE at the Seder is because of "binfol oyivcha".
Show me one respected Acharon (even second tier) and you get
a $100 bill airmailed to your house no questions asked.
Remember: WINE. Not Hallel.
Josh
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>> By the way, I checked out a Chabad haggadah, and they have a completely
>> different reason. They say NOT to use a finger, and that we're pouring out
>> wine to symbolize God's "pouring out his wrath."
>
> question tickling the back of my head that I haven't asked yet: how the
> heck do you pour out the wine without having it go all over the table,
> the chair, the floor, the kittel, the person next to you, and the cat
> you sold to a gentile (who might not like having wine poured onto their
> new pet)?
You let the weasels drink it. :-)
Actually you pour it out into the plate that _everyone_ should have
under their cup. Not only for the wine that's intentionaly poured out
but for all that wine that gets accidentially spilled out. Some pages
of my haggadah are almost unreadable because of the wine stains. -:)
> I can barely pour out wine for others at the table for kiddush
> without it going everywhere, much less trying to splash it out 13 times
> for the plagues! And if you run out of wine partway through, do you
> refill?
Why do you "splash"? A litlle dab'll do ya'!
> I like that reason for pouring, though. Dunno if it's any older
> sources, but I like it. ;-)
>
>> Could be, although it requires that the symbolism of wine shift
>> in mid-stream and then shift back, which doesn't make for good
>> symbolism. Otherwise, when we raise our glass to praise God a
>> few pages earlier, we're toasting him a brimming cup of wrath.
>
> Mmm, now THAT's some tasty wrath! Say, does wrath have to be mevushal?
>
> Though I don't see it as much of an issue; you poured out the wrath,
> but what's left is wine. If you refill, you're refilling with wine.
> <shrug>
I guess if you don't have any preconcieved notions "it's easy to see"
what's happening. Thanks Tim.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>> As I stated, the first person who locates a PRIMARY authentic Jewish
>> traditional source (Rishon or Acharon) gets a crisp $100 bill
>> airmailed to them. If a check or Paypal is preferred, let me know :-)
>>
> Josh, if ever I were in the position to be able to demonstrate a
> primary source, that would make me happier than the $100.
What a beautiful thought. Don, you surely have your priorities
straight. That's probably the nicest line I've read on this whole
thread.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
So I wasn't the only only one! Art, what's _wrong_ with us?
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
For some reason I thought of this ditty from Allan Sherman
Oh Harry Lewis perished
In the service of his Lord
He was trampling through the warehouse
Where the drapes of Roth are stored
He had the finest funeral
The union could afford
And his cloth goes shining on
Enjoy.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>
> Sheldon: Rav Elyashiv is my aunt's first cousin. I am a "ben bayit"
> at their house. Trust me: he doesn't for a second believe that the
> reason for spilling out drops of wine is because of "sorrow" for
> the poor Egyptians. He would have a conniption if he knew that he
> was being quoted with this perversion of Judaism.
So next time you go there, ask him.
Lisa
Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 21:14:57 +0000 (UTC), bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> : KOTLER: what does he write and where did he write it ?
>
> Read the Jewish Action column (by R' A Zivitofsky) that Lisa already
> pointed us to. While is conclusion is that the gemara's reason is the
> primary reason, he does present quite well those who defend the medrash's
> reason for half-Hallel on the last day of Pesach, or who explain how
> the two reasons serve different roles.
Micha, you've been changing the subject ever since this thread started.
Could you please look at the subject line and try to understand that
we're discussing something other than Hallel?
I understand that you want to derive some sort of moral lesson from the
Hallel thing, one which I think is indefensible, and then apply it to
the spilling of the wine during seder, when that's indefensible as
well. Focus, please.
Lisa
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> writes:
>> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>
>>> As I stated, the first person who locates a PRIMARY authentic Jewish
>>> traditional source (Rishon or Acharon) gets a crisp $100 bill
>>> airmailed to them. If a check or Paypal is preferred, let me know :-)
>>>
>> Josh, if ever I were in the position to be able to demonstrate a
>> primary source, that would make me happier than the $100.
>
> What a beautiful thought. Don, you surely have your priorities
> straight. That's probably the nicest line I've read on this whole
> thread.
I like the Woody Allan approach: TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN :-)
Josh
Micha Berger
: I'm not at all interested in half-hallel.
: Read my lips: I am interested in the reason they give for
: SPILLING DROPS OF WINE at the Seder. You continually and
: conveniently ignore this and go off on a tangent.
Conveniently? I've never discussed it. You claim the reason given for
spilling is naarishkeit because it's "unJewish". I'm missing how it
isn't Jewish, if a parallel motive IS Jewish.
As I wrote a million times now, whether this is the actual reason for
the custom or not is a far more minor point than one's perception of
the balance uof justice and compassion in Jewish attitude.
Your current challenge at least acknowledges the fact that people whose
opinion you respect who are alive now disagree with you.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Today is the 18th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 2 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Tifferes: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507 balance?
Shlomo Argamon
Lisa wrote:
> Micha Berger wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 21:14:57 +0000 (UTC), bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> > : KOTLER: what does he write and where did he write it ?
> >
> > Read the Jewish Action column (by R' A Zivitofsky) that Lisa already
> > pointed us to. While is conclusion is that the gemara's reason is the
> > primary reason, he does present quite well those who defend the medrash's
> > reason for half-Hallel on the last day of Pesach, or who explain how
> > the two reasons serve different roles.
>
> Micha, you've been changing the subject ever since this thread started.
> Could you please look at the subject line and try to understand that
> we're discussing something other than Hallel?
As I understand it, Micha is objecting to the notion that you and Josh
have promulgated, that the idea (a) "Jews should be upset when their
salvation involves destruction of other human beings" is un-Jewish
(Josh said "Christian"). Regardless of the basis of the custom of
spilling out wine at the seder, if a serious Jewish source can be found
for (a), even in relation to a different practice, then it is a
legitimate Jewish idea, even if you do not like or agree with it.
Someone therefore proferring (a) as an explanation or meaning connected
to the spilling out of the wine is therefore not "un-Jewish". They may
be mistaken, if they claim that (a) is the reason for the custom; but
if they wish to see (a) as a meaning within the ritual, I don't see how
you can call it an "un-Jewish" attitude (even if you disagree).
Micha, please correct me if I misunderstood your position.
)|( = 18 = 24
-Shlomo-
Micha Berger
: As I understand it, Micha is objecting to the notion that you and Josh
: have promulgated, that the idea (a) "Jews should be upset when their
: Someone therefore proferring (a) as an explanation or meaning connected
: to the spilling out of the wine is therefore not "un-Jewish". They may
: be mistaken, if they claim that (a) is the reason for the custom; but
: if they wish to see (a) as a meaning within the ritual, I don't see how
: you can call it an "un-Jewish" attitude (even if you disagree).
: Micha, please correct me if I misunderstood your position.
No need. You got it in one.
What should I worry more about -- whether people know why they dunk
their pinky (much of Litta) or spill wine (Germany) at the seider (in
addition to the Rama's custom of using one's index finger), or whether
people try to inculcate a truly Jewish balance of compassion and justice?
-mi
Eliyahu Rooff
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:e356sd$hjb$2...@falcon.steinthal.us...
apparent outrage expressed by a couple posters at the very idea of
us showing any compassion or sadness at the deaths of the Egyptian
soldiers who were ordered to pursue us and died in the sea and the
firstborn of all ages who died in the tenth plague.
Eliyahu
Shlomo Argamon
Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2006 14:33:08 +0000 (UTC), Shlomo Argamon <arg...@argamon.com> wrote:
> : As I understand it, Micha is objecting to the notion that you and Josh
> : have promulgated, that the idea (a) "Jews should be upset when their
> : salvation involves destruction of other human beings" is un-Jewish ...
> : Someone therefore proferring (a) as an explanation or meaning connected
> : to the spilling out of the wine is therefore not "un-Jewish". They may
> : be mistaken, if they claim that (a) is the reason for the custom; but
> : if they wish to see (a) as a meaning within the ritual, I don't see how
> : you can call it an "un-Jewish" attitude (even if you disagree).
>
> : Micha, please correct me if I misunderstood your position.
>
> No need. You got it in one.
Great!
> What should I worry more about -- whether people know why they dunk
> their pinky (much of Litta) or spill wine (Germany) at the seider (in
> addition to the Rama's custom of using one's index finger), or whether
> people try to inculcate a truly Jewish balance of compassion and justice?
Tongue-on-cheek reply: Depends if you're a Brisker or a Telzer.... :-)
)|( =18 = 24
-Shlomo-
Lisa
The bottom line on that is that all of our primary sources say exactly
the opposite. If Micha, or anyone else, wants to posit that there are
sources that dispute those, and that the contradiction was never noted,
never discussed, never so much as mentioned by any source ever in the
history of the Jewish people, there's not a lot I can do about it,
except to point out that that's not how rabbinic texts work.
Micha tried to appeal to "dialectic tension" to account for this. But
that's an invalid use of the concept. Yes, we have varying views in
Judaism. Eilu v'eilu. Shiv'im panim. But two utterly conflicting
views would not go unremarked all this time. The only acceptable
answer is that there is no view which contradicts the one that says we
do rejoice over the downfall of our enemies.
This is all aside from my personal disgust at the idea that we should
spare any thought for those who would kill us. No one is suggesting
dancing on their graves, but neither should we shed even a fraction of
a tear for them.
Lisa
Lisa
Eliyahu Rooff wrote:
> "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
> news:e356sd$hjb$2...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> > their pinky (much of Litta) or spill wine (Germany) at the seider (in
> > addition to the Rama's custom of using one's index finger), or whether
> > people try to inculcate a truly Jewish balance of compassion and justice?
>
> I think that's the aspect of this thread that's concerned me -- the
> apparent outrage expressed by a couple posters at the very idea of
> us showing any compassion or sadness at the deaths of the Egyptian
> soldiers who were ordered to pursue us and died in the sea and the
> firstborn of all ages who died in the tenth plague.
It's not apparent. It's true outrage. And it's more outrage at the
way in which Micha has tried to intimate that refusing to shed a tear
for the death of those who would have destroyed us is akin to Muslim
barbarism. That's disgusting.
And Eliyahu, what you've done by changing things from the Egyptians who
were pursuing us to "the Egyptian soldiers who were ordered to pursue
us" is at least as bad, if not worse. When the enemy is trying to kill
us, it doesn't matter who they are or why they're trying to do it. The
Jewish view, as brought down even l'halakha in all of our sources, is
that when a nation makes war against us, we do *not* make such
distinctions. Let them desert if they don't want to participate in the
war against us. If they don't, their blood is on their own hands.
The horses with which they pursued us were supplied by the best of the
Egyptians. The ones who believed in God enough that they kept their
horses indoors during the plagues. They tried to kill us. We won.
Let's eat. That's all there is to it. No dancing on graves, but
certainly no tears for them.
Lisa
Steve Goldfarb
>Micha tried to appeal to "dialectic tension" to account for this. But
>that's an invalid use of the concept. Yes, we have varying views in
>Judaism. Eilu v'eilu. Shiv'im panim. But two utterly conflicting
>views would not go unremarked all this time. The only acceptable
>answer is that there is no view which contradicts the one that says we
>do rejoice over the downfall of our enemies.
This is your problem - you see the world in absolute terms. It's black, or
it's white. We rejoice, or we collapse in sorrow. It's permitted, or it's
prohibited. There's no in-between for you. But you don't understand that
Judaism isn't really like that. Even though I'm sure you will insist that
it is.
We are humans - we can hold multiple concepts in our minds at the same
time. Even if they're different.
Further, in this particular case, the two concepts -- rejoicing, and
showing compassion - simply don't contradict. They really don't, even
though I accept that you can't see that. Believe me, though, that it's
your own psychology that's perceiving a contradiction that doesn't really
exist.
>This is all aside from my personal disgust at the idea that we should
>spare any thought for those who would kill us. No one is suggesting
>dancing on their graves, but neither should we shed even a fraction of
>a tear for them.
And that's the bottom line for you - you demand the right to have Judaism
conform to your own comfort level, and your own feelings of disgust. But
you don't get to do that. And the sad part is how you continually project
this onto others, when as you so eloquently display here you're the one
insisting on the right to define Judaism for yourself.
Further, the Egyptian people weren't Amalek. They weren't trying to kill
us. They were just living their lives, tilling their fields, when their
rivers turned to blood, and their cattle died, etc., all because their
leader was intrasigent due to God hardening his heart. Were they our
friends? Absolutely not. At the end of the day are we sorry it happened?
No. But, if it could have happened another way...
--s
>Lisa
--
Steve Goldfarb
>The horses with which they pursued us were supplied by the best of the
>Egyptians. The ones who believed in God enough that they kept their
>horses indoors during the plagues. They tried to kill us. We won.
>Let's eat. That's all there is to it. No dancing on graves, but
>certainly no tears for them.
Passover is about how "we won?" On what planet??? "We won" means that we
contributed. We fought, and we won. That's Purim, that's Chanukah, but
that's absolutely not Pesach. You need to re-read your Haggadah. Focus on
Dayenu - is that the song of people celebrating their victory? I don't
think so. Study the symbolism of the matzoh a bit more.
We were slaves to Pharoah in Egypt, and the Lord our God brought us out.
And he chose to smite the Egyptians. Both for his own purposes - he could
have done it the other way around, too.
Pesach is not a holiday where we go around chanting "we won, we won, boy
are we cool."
--s
--
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> On Mon, 1 May 2006 06:57:52 +0000 (UTC), bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> : I'm not at all interested in half-hallel.
>
> : Read my lips: I am interested in the reason they give for
> : SPILLING DROPS OF WINE at the Seder. You continually and
> : conveniently ignore this and go off on a tangent.
>
> Conveniently? I've never discussed it. You claim the reason given for
> spilling is naarishkeit because it's "unJewish". I'm missing how it
> isn't Jewish, if a parallel motive IS Jewish.
The reason for spilling out drops of wine at the Seder as given by
the Raavya,the Rokeach, the Maharil, the Darchei Moshe in the Tur/Rema
in Shulchan Aruch, the Aruch haShulchan and the Mishna Brura is:
"the Finger of God" who is avenging the enemies of the Jews.
THAT is the correct authentically Jewish reason. What I have lambasted
is the new age, touchy-feely reason as given first by the Conservative
and Reform clergy in the late 1930's and then by some BT ignorami from
Ohr Sameach, Aish haTorah and even by someone at Artsctroll: that we
feel sorrow for the death of the poor nebich Egyptians.
I have stated that this later "interpretation" is utter naarishkeit.
It is absolute gibberish that goes against *the* classic Jewish
approach as taken by the Raavya, Rokeach, Maharil, Darchei Moshe,
Rema, Aruch haShulchan and the Mishna Brura.
>
> As I wrote a million times now, whether this is the actual reason for
> the custom or not is a far more minor point than one's perception of
> the balance uof justice and compassion in Jewish attitude.
>
> Your current challenge at least acknowledges the fact that people whose
> opinion you respect who are alive now disagree with you.
[I will send the next line by private email to Micha so as not to
embarass certain people]
Josh
cindys
<mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:2006May...@mm.huji.ac.il...
> Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> writes:
> > bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>
> >> As I stated, the first person who locates a PRIMARY authentic Jewish
> >> traditional source (Rishon or Acharon) gets a crisp $100 bill
> >> airmailed to them. If a check or Paypal is preferred, let me know :-)
> >>
> > Josh, if ever I were in the position to be able to demonstrate a
> > primary source, that would make me happier than the $100.
>
> What a beautiful thought. Don, you surely have your priorities
> straight. That's probably the nicest line I've read on this whole
> thread.
I agree, and I identify (with Don).
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Vfs5g.5936$TT....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Actually, I think Don's statement would have been better if it had read
"When I am in the position to be able to demonstrate a primary source, that
would make me happier than the $100." I don't think it's a pie in the sky.
It just takes years of hard work (and learning how to navigate one's way
through primary source material). We didn't learn to write a college
research paper in a day, and I have to believe that success in navigating
through primary Judaic source material involves many of the same skills.
Learning the *hows* of how to find what one is looking for is the key to
success more so than having committed thousands of pages of information to
memory. Yes or no?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Don Levey
>
> Yeah, I saw that, didn't really get it. It was joy, then it's wrath, then
> it's joy again -- seems a bit convoluted, but whatever works. The neat
> thing about symbols is they can have multiple valid meanings.
>
Interestingly, physiologically joy and anger (and even more closely:
love and hate) are the same - physical arousal with the same symptoms.
We judge which is which based upon physological and contextual clues.
So wine switching from joy to wrath and back is not unreasonable, even
for anyone who hasn't drunk enough of it at a sitting to have had that
happen personally.
--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to sal...@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
Don Levey
Point taken - I did not intend to imply that I was ruling out the
possibility.
Eliyahu
Lisa wrote:
> Eliyahu Rooff wrote:
> > "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
> > news:e356sd$hjb$2...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> > > What should I worry more about -- whether people know why they dunk
> > > their pinky (much of Litta) or spill wine (Germany) at the seider (in
> > > addition to the Rama's custom of using one's index finger), or whether
> > > people try to inculcate a truly Jewish balance of compassion and justice?
> >
> > I think that's the aspect of this thread that's concerned me -- the
> > apparent outrage expressed by a couple posters at the very idea of
> > us showing any compassion or sadness at the deaths of the Egyptian
> > soldiers who were ordered to pursue us and died in the sea and the
> > firstborn of all ages who died in the tenth plague.
>
> It's not apparent. It's true outrage. And it's more outrage at the
> way in which Micha has tried to intimate that refusing to shed a tear
> for the death of those who would have destroyed us is akin to Muslim
> barbarism. That's disgusting.
>
> And Eliyahu, what you've done by changing things from the Egyptians who
> were pursuing us to "the Egyptian soldiers who were ordered to pursue
> us" is at least as bad, if not worse. When the enemy is trying to kill
> us, it doesn't matter who they are or why they're trying to do it.
You have a problem with the recognition that Egypt didn't have an
"All-volunteer Army" and that the soldiers had no say in the matter?
Most had no more say in their occupation than did our ancestors who
were slaves there. As far as refusing to participate, how many of them
even had enough information to make a rational decision in the matter?
It's akin to how I look back on the North Korean and Vietnamese
soldiers who were out there to try and kill me. Did we fight back with
everything we had? Yes. Did we do everything we could to stay alive?
Yes. But do I rejoice at the number of them who died? No. Real life
isn't a John Wayne war movie, where the bad guys fall and are
forgotten. Every one of them left families who grieved their loss and
suffered from their death and absence. It's nothing to celebrate
without some feeling of compassion. To do otherwise makes us no better
than the worst of them. I encourage anyone who celebrates a war or a
battle to read Mark Twain's "The War Prayer". Victory and defeat both
come with a price. It may or may not be too high a price, but it's a
high price indeed for those it touches.
Eliyahu
cindys
"Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
news:m3lktlm...@dauphin.the-leveys.us...
I never thought you were :-)
Best regards,
---Cindy S .
Lisa
Eliyahu wrote:
> Lisa wrote:
> >
> > And Eliyahu, what you've done by changing things from the Egyptians who
> > were pursuing us to "the Egyptian soldiers who were ordered to pursue
> > us" is at least as bad, if not worse. When the enemy is trying to kill
> > us, it doesn't matter who they are or why they're trying to do it.
>
> You have a problem with the recognition that Egypt didn't have an
> "All-volunteer Army" and that the soldiers had no say in the matter?
> Most had no more say in their occupation than did our ancestors who
> were slaves there.
The hell? Where'd you pull that from? And please, don't be too
anatomically specific.
There's not a single Jewish source in existence that says anything even
similar to what you're claiming. Even Micha won't try and back that
one up. You want to play dueling archaeology with me? I don't suggest
it, but it wouldn't matter even if you did, and even if you won. We
base our observance and our principles on Jewish sources. Period.
> As far as refusing to participate, how many of them
> even had enough information to make a rational decision in the matter?
> It's akin to how I look back on the North Korean and Vietnamese
> soldiers who were out there to try and kill me. Did we fight back with
Oh. Good. God.
Eliyahu, hi. Welcome to Judaism. I hope you'll enjoy your stay.
While you're here, there are a few things you should be aware of.
Judaism is not about reading your personal experiences into Jewish
ritual, waving a wand, and declaring the result "Judaism". Vietnam has
absolutely no bearing whatsoever on Torah values. Torah values can,
obviously, have a bearing on Vietnam, or on anything else, but it's a
one-way street.
If you have a life lesson that can illustrate a principle that's in the
Torah, that's great. But to bring up a life lesson that when applied
as you are doing contradicts a principle in the Torah, that's a Bad
Thing.
Thanks for stopping by, and please come again.
Sheesh.
Lisa
Micha Berger
: THAT is the correct authentically Jewish reason. What I have lambasted
: is the new age, touchy-feely reason as given first by the Conservative
: and Reform clergy in the late 1930's and then by some BT ignorami from
: Ohr Sameach, Aish haTorah and even by someone at Artsctroll: that we
: feel sorrow for the death of the poor nebich Egyptians.
... and R' Teitz also makes your mud slinging list?
But you again call it "new age, touchy-feely" (at least not "Christian",
this time around). That characterization is the only part of your position
I thought worth debating. How is it more "new age, touchy-feely" than
the the idea that Half-Hallel on day 7 of Pesach is because "we feel
sorrow for the death of the poor nebich Egyptians"? The latter has a
pretty well documented history. Even if not the main or final reason for
saying Half-Hallel, which itself is a subject of machloqes, the notion
that we do feel sorrow for them is on pretty solid mesoretic footing.
Lisa
Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2006 17:29:37 +0000 (UTC), bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> : THAT is the correct authentically Jewish reason. What I have lambasted
> : is the new age, touchy-feely reason as given first by the Conservative
> : and Reform clergy in the late 1930's and then by some BT ignorami from
> : Ohr Sameach, Aish haTorah and even by someone at Artsctroll: that we
> : feel sorrow for the death of the poor nebich Egyptians.
>
> ... and R' Teitz also makes your mud slinging list?
>
> But you again call it "new age, touchy-feely" (at least not "Christian",
> this time around). That characterization is the only part of your position
> I thought worth debating. How is it more "new age, touchy-feely" than
> the the idea that Half-Hallel on day 7 of Pesach is because "we feel
> sorrow for the death of the poor nebich Egyptians"? The latter has a
> pretty well documented history.
See, now you're exaggerating. To go from restricting our joy a tiny
bit to "feeling sorrow" is the kind of thing that I'm talking about.
It illustrates the worldview you're trying to impress on Judaism. Even
the sources you've brought, and even as they apply to Hallel, do not
even begin to imply any "sorrow" on our part. At the very most, they
could be seen as indicating that it's okay to restrict our joy in some
small part. Not, mind you, that I think that's a correct reading, but
it's the absolute maximum you can even claim.
But to take that extremely on-the-edge idea and then begin to apply it
elsewhere, as though it's a klal gadol ba-Torah... again, I say this is
you *wanting* to read this idea into the Torah, rather than coming to
it honestly and openly from your learning.
Read the subject line here, Micha. This started with you and others
trying to claim something that had nothing to do with Hallel. Even
were I to accede to your claims about Hallel, which I do not (lest that
be misunderstood), you cannot extend them to other minhagim, which have
absolutely no connection whatsoever to Hallel.
Even according to your claim that there are sources which say we don't
say a full Hallel on the end Yom Tov of Pesach because the Egyptians
drowned then, none of those sources suggest that this reason applies to
Chol HaMoed. The only reason, within your hava amina, that we don't
say a full Hallel on Chol HaMoed, is the technical one that it'd be
strange to say a full Hallel on Chol HaMoed and then downshift to a
half-Hallel for Yom Tov. Even the sources you bring (according to your
interpretation) cannot apply to more than that single day. To read
them into the Seder is an abuse of the sources.
> Even if not the main or final reason for
> saying Half-Hallel, which itself is a subject of machloqes, the notion
> that we do feel sorrow for them is on pretty solid mesoretic footing.
No, Micha, it is not. There is no source that says that *we* even
limit our joy, let alone feel sorrow for them. In fact, there's no
source that says that *Hashem* feels sorrow for them. Only that His
joy is lessened. You've taken this and run with it to create an idea
that is utterly foreign to our mesorah. I wish you'd stop.
Lisa
Yisroel Markov
said:
>Eliyahu wrote:
[snip]
>> As far as refusing to participate, how many of them
>> even had enough information to make a rational decision in the matter?
>> It's akin to how I look back on the North Korean and Vietnamese
>> soldiers who were out there to try and kill me. Did we fight back with
>
>Oh. Good. God.
>
>Eliyahu, hi. Welcome to Judaism. I hope you'll enjoy your stay.
>While you're here, there are a few things you should be aware of.
>Judaism is not about reading your personal experiences into Jewish
>ritual, waving a wand, and declaring the result "Judaism". Vietnam has
>absolutely no bearing whatsoever on Torah values. Torah values can,
>obviously, have a bearing on Vietnam, or on anything else, but it's a
>one-way street.
>
>If you have a life lesson that can illustrate a principle that's in the
>Torah, that's great. But to bring up a life lesson that when applied
>as you are doing contradicts a principle in the Torah, that's a Bad
>Thing.
Do you think it's wrong to invest one's performance of a ritual with
one's personal experience, even while acknowledging that similar
experiences by its creators were not their motivation?
>Thanks for stopping by, and please come again.
>
>Sheesh.
I wish you didn't say that :-(
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Lisa
Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2006 19:42:54 +0000 (UTC), "Lisa" <li...@starways.net>
> said:
>
> >If you have a life lesson that can illustrate a principle that's in the
> >Torah, that's great. But to bring up a life lesson that when applied
> >as you are doing contradicts a principle in the Torah, that's a Bad
> >Thing.
>
> Do you think it's wrong to invest one's performance of a ritual with
> one's personal experience, even while acknowledging that similar
> experiences by its creators were not their motivation?
Not at all. There are three cases:
1. The lesson you derive from your personal experiences matches the
lesson given by the Torah in principle.
2. The lesson you derive from your personal experiences contradicts
the lesson given by the Torah in principle.
3. The lesson you derive from your personal experiences neither
matches nor contradicts the lesson given by the Torah in principle.
It's #2 that I object to strongly. And it's #2 that Eliyahu just
tried.
> >Thanks for stopping by, and please come again.
> >
> >Sheesh.
>
> I wish you didn't say that :-(
What, "sheesh"?
Lisa
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
>> Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> writes:
>> > bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>>
>> >> As I stated, the first person who locates a PRIMARY authentic Jewish
>> >> traditional source (Rishon or Acharon) gets a crisp $100 bill
>> >> airmailed to them. If a check or Paypal is preferred, let me know :-)
>> >>
>> > Josh, if ever I were in the position to be able to demonstrate a
>> > primary source, that would make me happier than the $100.
>>
>> What a beautiful thought. Don, you surely have your priorities
>> straight. That's probably the nicest line I've read on this whole
>> thread.
> --------
> I agree, and I identify (with Don).
Cindy, I appreciate your modesty, but if you can read, translate and
explain a page of Gemoro you can surely demonstrate a primary source.
Oh, you mean that the fact you can r.t.&e. makes you so happy?
Gotcha'.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
>
> Lisa wrote:
>> Micha Berger wrote:
>> > On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 21:14:57 +0000 (UTC), bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> > : KOTLER: what does he write and where did he write it ?
>> >
>> > Read the Jewish Action column (by R' A Zivitofsky) that Lisa already
>> > pointed us to. While is conclusion is that the gemara's reason is the
>> > primary reason, he does present quite well those who defend the medrash's
>> > reason for half-Hallel on the last day of Pesach, or who explain how
>> > the two reasons serve different roles.
>>
>> Micha, you've been changing the subject ever since this thread started.
>> Could you please look at the subject line and try to understand that
>> we're discussing something other than Hallel?
>
> As I understand it, Micha is objecting to the notion that you and Josh
> have promulgated, that the idea (a) "Jews should be upset when their
> salvation involves destruction of other human beings" is un-Jewish
> (Josh said "Christian"). Regardless of the basis of the custom of
> spilling out wine at the seder, if a serious Jewish source can be found
What do you mean "regardless? ? EVERY SINGLE Classic Jewish source
(Raavya, Rokeach, Maharil, Darchei Moshe in Tur/Rema in Shulchan Aruch,
Magen Avraham, Aruch haShulchan, and Mishna Brura) give THE reason why we
spill drops of wine at the Seder as "etzba elokim" [Finger of God] who AVENGES
AND DESTROYS the enemies of the Jews. In prior posts, I gave the precise
references. Yesterday, thanks to Steve's insistence, I even found that
the Biurei haGRA gives the source from the Yerushalmi !! [cryptic
reference which LOOKS like it's from Yerushalmi Pesachim (I wrote it down
and can't find it)
There is not a single solitary source (the supposed Abarbanel doesn't
exist. I gave the URL at //jnul.huji.ac.il for the Abarbanel Haggadah
and there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER to even suggest this] prior to 1900
from any Rishon/Acharon who gives ANY other reason for spilling out the
drops of wine.
So if it's all the greats of the past vs. some member of the C or R
clergy who concocted a bizarre reason for spilling out the drops of
wine, I'll take the authentic Jewish version.
> for (a), even in relation to a different practice, then it is a
> legitimate Jewish idea, even if you do not like or agree with it.
> Someone therefore proferring (a) as an explanation or meaning connected
> to the spilling out of the wine is therefore not "un-Jewish". They may
It is un-Jewish if it goes against EVERY SINGLE Classic Jewish source.
> be mistaken, if they claim that (a) is the reason for the custom; but
> if they wish to see (a) as a meaning within the ritual, I don't see how
> you can call it an "un-Jewish" attitude (even if you disagree).
>
> Micha, please correct me if I misunderstood your position.
Josh
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Surprise ! It's the classic Jewish approach. Micha wants to distort
Judaism in order to make it "palatable" to the assimilated American
Jews on SCJM. It's false and an utter perversion of Judaism. Micha should
see what Pirkei Avot says about "makchish magideh'ha" and the punishment
it entails. And for that matter the Shiurei Bracha on Yoreh Deah 243:3
d"h v'talmid chacham.
Josh
>
> Eliyahu
>
cindys
> > <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
> >> Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> writes:
> >> > bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
> >>
> >> >> As I stated, the first person who locates a PRIMARY authentic Jewish
> >> >> traditional source (Rishon or Acharon) gets a crisp $100 bill
> >> >> airmailed to them. If a check or Paypal is preferred, let me know
:-)
> >> >>
> >> > Josh, if ever I were in the position to be able to demonstrate a
> >> > primary source, that would make me happier than the $100.
> >>
> >> What a beautiful thought. Don, you surely have your priorities
> >> straight. That's probably the nicest line I've read on this whole
> >> thread.
> > --------
> > I agree, and I identify (with Don).
>
> Cindy, I appreciate your modesty, but if you can read, translate and
> explain a page of Gemoro you can surely demonstrate a primary source.
Well, I'm working through it. I have improved a great deal, but I haven't
exactly mastered it. It's a daily plugging away.
>
> Oh, you mean that the fact you can r.t.&e. makes you so happy?
> Gotcha'.
I wasn't being modest. I was being completely serious. Let's take the
example of the question from another thread regarding the prohibition on
entering a church. The question was "Is it always prohibited or only
sometimes prohibited? What is the reason for the prohibition? Does this
prohibition extend to mosques as well?" Now, let's suppose the challenge is
to find meforshim who discuss this issue, (let's not even worry about
finding the answer. Let's just try to find a discussion). How does one
begin? (assuming one doesn't have the Bar Ilan software at one's disposal).
I would assume one first goes to the Shulchan Aruch and finds the section
that discusses this topic. Which section of the Shulchan Aruch would that
be? Orach Chaim? Yoreh Deah? The shulchan aruch has some commentaries. And
these commentaries reference other commentaries. And then we can check out
this material working backward to the increasingly more primary sources,
presuming we can fluently read and translate all the Hebrew. Or maybe we
begin with the gemara and work forward. But first we have to know which
gemaras have some relevance to the subject. Maseches Avodah Zarah should be
a good choice. Then, we learn the Rashi, the tosafos, maybe Rabbenu Chananel
(or the other commentaries that appear in the margins on the same page of
whichever gemara one is using). Then, we go to the back of the gemara and
check out the Rif? or the Rosh? Maybe someone put together a kovetz
meforshim (a compilation of commentaries) for Avodah Zarah. Maybe we should
be checking out the mishneh torah to see what the Rambam has to say on the
topic. Then, fast forward to some more contemporary meforshim. Did R' Moshe
Sternbuch have an opinion on this subject? R' Moshe Feinstein? What does R'
Belsky say? R' David Cohen? I really wish there were such a thing as a
course in learning how to do this research. But the first stumbling block,
as always, is the lack of fluency in Hebrew. Even when one knows what all
the words mean, it's a struggle to put it together. And Hebrew classes (when
you can find them) always focus on modern Hebrew. Yes, it all comes with
time -- a very long time.
In frustration,
---Cindy S.
Chano
<bac...@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:e37jgn$ho2$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> In article <Yvp5g.184$dt5...@fe02.lga>, "Eliyahu Rooff"
> <lro...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
>> news:e356sd$hjb$2...@falcon.steinthal.us...
>>> On Mon, 1 May 2006 14:33:08 +0000 (UTC), Shlomo Argamon
>> <arg...@argamon.com> wrote:
snipped for brevity
>> I think that's the aspect of this thread that's concerned me -- the
>> apparent outrage expressed by a couple posters at the very idea of
>> us showing any compassion or sadness at the deaths of the Egyptian
>> soldiers who were ordered to pursue us and died in the sea and the
>> firstborn of all ages who died in the tenth plague.
>
>
> Surprise ! It's the classic Jewish approach. Micha wants to distort
> Judaism in order to make it "palatable" to the assimilated American
> Jews on SCJM. It's false and an utter perversion of Judaism. Micha should
> see what Pirkei Avot says about "makchish magideh'ha" and the punishment
> it entails. And for that matter the Shiurei Bracha on Yoreh Deah 243:3
> d"h v'talmid chacham.
This may come as a surprise to Micha but the very symbolism of raising or
lifting up the cup of wine and pouring out drops of wine at the seder is to
demonstrate to the Jews that God WANTS the enemies of Israel to be destroyed
and thru the medium of the "five fingers of the hand" this will be brought
about. How so?
I refer you to the Yalkut Shimoni on Parshat Va'era (183) where it begins
"Rebbe Yishmael amar, Chamesh etzba'ot shel yad yemino shel HKBH kulam yesod
geulah..." (Rabbi Yishmael says, the five fingers of God's right hand, all
of them are the foundation of redemption). He then explains (its too long to
repeat here but please check it out) how each finger plays a part in the
saving of Yisrael and the destruction of our enemies. He ends by explaining
that all the fingers of the hand acting together will in the "Atid la'vo"
(the future) bring the destruction of our enemies, "Bahen v'chol ha'yad ba
atid l'hashmid et tzarav ul'hachrit et she'hen oye'vav, Shene'emar, Tarom
yad'echa al tzarecha v'chol oye'vecha yikoretu". (thru them -the fingers-
and the whole hand, will in the future destroy His persecutors and His
enemies, as it says in MICHA 5:8 (YES, MICHA), 'Your hand will be raised
over your enemies and all your adversaries will be destroyed.')
The significance of lifting the cup of wine with ALL four fingers and thumb
of the right hand and tipping out drops of wine is because (according to the
Da'at Zekeynim on Parshat Bo) Moshe did not know which order the ten plagues
would be brought upon the Egyptians, and the staff he held in his right hand
had inscribed on it "D'Z'ACH A'D'ASH B'A'CH'AV, (the order of the Ten
Plagues) consequently he had to flick or tip his right hand when holding the
Mateh (staff) in order to read what was inscribed on it. We similarly hold
the cup of wine in our hand (as if we holding a staff) and tip the wine into
the plate beneath in a symbolic mirroring gesture that thus Moshe Rabbenu
did in order that the enemies of Yisrael could be destroyed.
I hope that the above will end the speculation about misplaced "sympathy for
the destroyed enemies of Israel". This has no place in Jewish tradition and
any sympathy we have should be reserved for those people of Israel who face
death and destruction at the hands of our enemies.
--
Chano
>
>
> Josh
>>
>> Eliyahu
>>
Steve Goldfarb
>The significance of lifting the cup of wine with ALL four fingers and thumb
>of the right hand and tipping out drops of wine is because (according to the
>Da'at Zekeynim on Parshat Bo) Moshe did not know which order the ten plagues
>would be brought upon the Egyptians, and the staff he held in his right hand
>had inscribed on it "D'Z'ACH A'D'ASH B'A'CH'AV, (the order of the Ten
>Plagues) consequently he had to flick or tip his right hand when holding the
>Mateh (staff) in order to read what was inscribed on it. We similarly hold
>the cup of wine in our hand (as if we holding a staff) and tip the wine into
>the plate beneath in a symbolic mirroring gesture that thus Moshe Rabbenu
>did in order that the enemies of Yisrael could be destroyed.
Except, of course, for those who don't -- that is, for those who dip their
pinkies into the wine and flick off a droplet. Or, those who dip their
index fingers.
So, Josh says that we are symbolically representing God himself. (or at
least his finger). You say that we are symbolically representing Moshe
Rabbenu. I say we are symbolically representing ourselves, only
transformed in place and time such that we ourselves are in Egypt.
You know what? We can all (or none) be right. The "truth" of one level of
symbolism doesn't in any way imply untruth of any others. They can all be
true simultaneously. This isn't halacha, don't forget - it's symbolism.
>I hope that the above will end the speculation about misplaced "sympathy for
>the destroyed enemies of Israel". This has no place in Jewish tradition and
>any sympathy we have should be reserved for those people of Israel who face
>death and destruction at the hands of our enemies.
Because, of course, sympathy is finite -- and if you use it up on the
wrong person then you won't have any left. Not.
--s
--
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Thanks! Where were you for 2 weeks when Micha, Lisa and I have been
discussing this ??
Who DO we spill wine ??
The reason WHY we spill wine is given **EXPLICITLY** by the Darchei Moshe
in the TUR OC 473 ["nekama!!"], and by the Maharil Seder HaHaggada # 27 quoting
the Rokeach
and the Raavya: Hashem avenges and destroys the enemies of the Jews. Or as the
Maharil states:
"v'nir'eh li ha'taam, mikol eilu yatzileinu v'yavo'u al soneinu".
In addition, all the following give the reason of "etzba elokim" for spilling
the drops of wine, QUOTING THE MAHARIL: R. Moshe Isserlis this time as the Rema
in OC 473 (here he mentions the Maharil); Magen Avraham OC 473 s"k 28; Aruch
haShulchan OC 473 #24; Mishna Brura 473 #74, 75; Beer Heitev 473 # 26.
What's intriguing is that Biyurei haGRA on OC 473 s'k 45 seems to find a
source for this in the Yerushalmi!! (as usual the GRA is cryptic). It looks to
me
that he's referring to the Yerushalmi Pesachim 68b {"v'eshchat otam al kos
par'o"
and the gemara then quotes a passuk from Yirmiyahu and then Tehillim 11 "ki kos
b'yad Hashem YIMTAR AL RESHAIM" [caps mine]
There is absolutely NO source whatsoever (prior to the year 1900) by any
Acharon [and I'm not referring to some chassidishe amha'aretz with a diploma
who can "macht a moitzie fin a reitach", or to someone like the "Meet our
Ketanim" column in the 1979 parody NOT THE JEWISH PRESS where we discussed
R. Chaim Hochlieber the 'Krotz of Blitta' who in a pique declared that
eating on Yom Kippur wasn't so bad as long as you bentched afterwards :-)]
that the reason for spilling out drops of wine is because of "binfol oyivcha".
And please don't quote the supposed Abarbanel because as I demonstrated (I gave
the URL for //jnul.huji.ac.il where you can read the original manuscript of the
Abarbanel Haggadah) he says NO SUCH THING!!
So if it's between the reason given by our mesorah (Talmud Yerushalmi, Rokeach.
Raavya,
Maharil, Darchei Moshe/Rema, Magen Avraham,. Aruch Hashulchan and the Mishna
Brura)
against some new pshat that has zero basis in Jewish tradition, I'll stick with
the
mesorah. Especially if the new pshat came out from the "hallowed halls" of the
Reform and Conservative clergy in the late 1930's. That it has permeated some
bastions
of Orthodoxy (e.g. Ohr Sameach, Aish haTorah, Artscroll) is an acute
embarrassment.
BTW while going over the Rokeach, I was astounded that virtually EVERY source
he brings
is from the Yerushalmi, so the fact that the Rokeach (late 11th, early 12th
century)
seems to be the first to give the reason makes sense.
To sum up: it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our feeling sorrow
for the
poor, nebich Egyptians. Au contraire!! It is to show how Hashem will DESTROY
our enemies.
Which is completely opposite to the "binfol oyivcha" idea.
Josh
>
> I refer you to the Yalkut Shimoni on Parshat Va'era (183) where it begins
> "Rebbe Yishmael amar, Chamesh etzba'ot shel yad yemino shel HKBH kulam yesod
> geulah..." (Rabbi Yishmael says, the five fingers of God's right hand, all
> of them are the foundation of redemption). He then explains (its too long to
> repeat here but please check it out) how each finger plays a part in the
> saving of Yisrael and the destruction of our enemies. He ends by explaining
> that all the fingers of the hand acting together will in the "Atid la'vo"
> (the future) bring the destruction of our enemies, "Bahen v'chol ha'yad ba
> atid l'hashmid et tzarav ul'hachrit et she'hen oye'vav, Shene'emar, Tarom
> yad'echa al tzarecha v'chol oye'vecha yikoretu". (thru them -the fingers-
> and the whole hand, will in the future destroy His persecutors and His
> enemies, as it says in MICHA 5:8 (YES, MICHA), 'Your hand will be raised
> over your enemies and all your adversaries will be destroyed.')
>
> The significance of lifting the cup of wine with ALL four fingers and thumb
> of the right hand and tipping out drops of wine is because (according to the
> Da'at Zekeynim on Parshat Bo) Moshe did not know which order the ten plagues
> would be brought upon the Egyptians, and the staff he held in his right hand
> had inscribed on it "D'Z'ACH A'D'ASH B'A'CH'AV, (the order of the Ten
> Plagues) consequently he had to flick or tip his right hand when holding the
> Mateh (staff) in order to read what was inscribed on it. We similarly hold
> the cup of wine in our hand (as if we holding a staff) and tip the wine into
> the plate beneath in a symbolic mirroring gesture that thus Moshe Rabbenu
> did in order that the enemies of Yisrael could be destroyed.
>
> I hope that the above will end the speculation about misplaced "sympathy for
> the destroyed enemies of Israel". This has no place in Jewish tradition and
> any sympathy we have should be reserved for those people of Israel who face
> death and destruction at the hands of our enemies.
> --
> Chano
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Josh
>>>
>>> Eliyahu
>>>
>
>
Chano
<bac...@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:e382jh$a2f$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
>
> In article <e37sen$im7$1...@falcon.steinthal.us>, "Chano"
> <ch...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> This may come as a surprise to Micha but the very symbolism of raising or
>> lifting up the cup of wine and pouring out drops of wine at the seder is
>> to
>> demonstrate to the Jews that God WANTS the enemies of Israel to be
>> destroyed
>> and thru the medium of the "five fingers of the hand" this will be
>> brought
>> about. How so?
>
> Thanks! Where were you for 2 weeks when Micha, Lisa and I have been
> discussing this ??
I was busy mopping all the spilt wine!
--
Chano
Yisroel Markov
Nice summary, as usual. Personally, when I want to find something out
quickly, my favorite shortcut is the standard edition of the Mishne
Tora. Even where the text is corrupted, the references to the Gemara
(in Magid Mishne) are good. It also allows me to make a good guess of
where in the Tur to look for the discussion, and from there it's but a
short step to the Shulkhan Arukh.
Also, my edition of Mikraot G'dolot has a wonderful new resource -
reverse look-up of every single verse of the Tora, compiled recently
with computer help. Called Hosafot Beit Aharon, it lists every
instance each verse is quoted in both Talmuds, major midrashim, and
the Zohar. It is very useful in finding halakhic discussions of
d'oraita mitzvot.
Yisroel Markov
>In article <Yvp5g.184$dt5...@fe02.lga>, "Eliyahu Rooff" <lro...@hotmail.com> writes:
[snip]
>> I think that's the aspect of this thread that's concerned me -- the
>> apparent outrage expressed by a couple posters at the very idea of
>> us showing any compassion or sadness at the deaths of the Egyptian
>> soldiers who were ordered to pursue us and died in the sea and the
>> firstborn of all ages who died in the tenth plague.
>
>
>Surprise ! It's the classic Jewish approach. Micha wants to distort
>Judaism in order to make it "palatable" to the assimilated American
>Jews on SCJM. It's false and an utter perversion of Judaism. Micha should
>see what Pirkei Avot says about "makchish magideh'ha" and the punishment
>it entails. And for that matter the Shiurei Bracha on Yoreh Deah 243:3
>d"h v'talmid chacham.
FWIW, this idea (perverse or not) is very popular here in the USA. I
asked all my children old enough to go to school about spilling wine.
They all cited the "compassion/reducing joy" idea. And they all go to
fairly right-wing Jewish schools!
Lisa
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> In article <e37sen$im7$1...@falcon.steinthal.us>, "Chano" <ch...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>
> Thanks! Where were you for 2 weeks when Micha, Lisa and I have been
> discussing this ??
I know. I was going to say the same thing. Chano, we could have used
your help, but better late than never.
Lisa
cindys
"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote in message
news:ir2f5219dae83mgbn...@4ax.com...
Thanks! But it was less of a summary and more of a guess...
>Personally, when I want to find something out
> quickly, my favorite shortcut is the standard edition of the Mishne
> Tora.
What is the shortcut to mastering the Hebrew? :-(
>Even where the text is corrupted, the references to the Gemara
> (in Magid Mishne) are good. It also allows me to make a good guess of
> where in the Tur to look for the discussion, and from there it's but a
> short step to the Shulkhan Arukh.
Okay, I will check this out. BTW, I have found something like this (probably
to a much lesser degree) in of all places the Rashi footnotes in the
Saperstein chumash (that is, not the Rashi itself but the footnotes *to the
Rashi* that reference the relevant gemaras.) It came in rather handy when my
son was writing his bar mitzvah drasha.
>
> Also, my edition of Mikraot G'dolot has a wonderful new resource -
> reverse look-up of every single verse of the Tora, compiled recently
> with computer help. Called Hosafot Beit Aharon
Do you suppose Eichler's has this in stock? :-) Do you remember how much it
cost?
>, it lists every
> instance each verse is quoted in both Talmuds, major midrashim, and
> the Zohar. It is very useful in finding halakhic discussions of
> d'oraita mitzvot.
Thank you! If you don't mind, I will copy and save your response for near
(not distant) future reference. Then again, perhaps the time has come to
avail myself of the use of the Bar Ilan software, the purchase cost of which
I helped underwrite for the local yeshiva (on the condition that I could
have access to the software and the yeshiva computer lab). The yeshiva
rabbis have been very nice and have also invited me to borrow any of the
books from the beis medrash, any time I want. Of course, what I would really
like would be to sit in the beis medrash itself (and learn with the
bachurim), but I have a sneaking suspicion that's probably not going to
happen ;-(
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Micha Berger
: Judaism in order to make it "palatable" to the assimilated American
: Jews on SCJM. It's false and an utter perversion of Judaism. Micha should
: see what Pirkei Avot says about "makchish magideh'ha" and the punishment
: it entails. And for that matter the Shiurei Bracha on Yoreh Deah 243:3
: d"h v'talmid chacham.
Yeah, it's just me... and the Pesiqta deR' Kahanah, the Medrash Harninu
(whoever that is), the Yalqut Shim'oni, the Shibolei haLeqet, the Beis
Yoseif, the Taz, the Chavos Ya'ir, the the Kaf haChaim (who quotes the
Yafeh Leiv), seifer Taamei haMinhagim, Liquei Maharich, the Meshekh
Chomah (who uses the idea to disassocite Purim and Chanukah from their
wars and the death of villians), R' Aharon Kotler, R' Elyashiv (pardon
me if I believe an authorized publication over Josh's guess without
asking him)....
I'm glad Josh is there to straighten us all out. <g>
-mi
--
Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote
Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission?
Micha Berger
: Also, my edition of Mikraot G'dolot has a wonderful new resource -
: reverse look-up of every single verse of the Tora, compiled recently
: with computer help. Called Hosafot Beit Aharon, it lists every
: instance each verse is quoted in both Talmuds, major midrashim, and
: the Zohar. It is very useful in finding halakhic discussions of
: d'oraita mitzvot.
I presume it's a computer enhancement of the old Beis Aharon (hosafot =
additions), which did a nearly-complete job of referencing the gemara
back before computers available. The Beis Aharon is found in the margin
of most Miqra'os Geolodos.
cindys
> On Tue, 2 May 2006 17:23:44 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
<ey.m...@munginame.com> wrote:
> : Also, my edition of Mikraot G'dolot has a wonderful new resource -
> : reverse look-up of every single verse of the Tora, compiled recently
> : with computer help. Called Hosafot Beit Aharon, it lists every
> : instance each verse is quoted in both Talmuds, major midrashim, and
> : the Zohar. It is very useful in finding halakhic discussions of
> : d'oraita mitzvot.
>
> I presume it's a computer enhancement of the old Beis Aharon (hosafot =
> additions), which did a nearly-complete job of referencing the gemara
> back before computers available. The Beis Aharon is found in the margin
> of most Miqra'os Geolodos.
Would this essentially be what the Sapirstein chumash footnotes bring over
(albeit in English)?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <js2f52d16k4av010d...@4ax.com>, Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> writes:
> On Tue, 2 May 2006 12:32:23 +0000 (UTC), bac...@vms.huji.ac.il said:
>
>>In article <Yvp5g.184$dt5...@fe02.lga>, "Eliyahu Rooff" <lro...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> I think that's the aspect of this thread that's concerned me -- the
>>> apparent outrage expressed by a couple posters at the very idea of
>>> us showing any compassion or sadness at the deaths of the Egyptian
>>> soldiers who were ordered to pursue us and died in the sea and the
>>> firstborn of all ages who died in the tenth plague.
>>
>>
>>Judaism in order to make it "palatable" to the assimilated American
>>Jews on SCJM. It's false and an utter perversion of Judaism. Micha should
>>see what Pirkei Avot says about "makchish magideh'ha" and the punishment
>>it entails. And for that matter the Shiurei Bracha on Yoreh Deah 243:3
>>d"h v'talmid chacham.
>
> asked all my children old enough to go to school about spilling wine.
> They all cited the "compassion/reducing joy" idea. And they all go to
> fairly right-wing Jewish schools!
It's a perversion of Judaism. It's a disgrace. An uttter embarrassment.
800 years ago in Spain, the Ri MiGaash would have chopped off the hands
of the principal of this school IN shul ON Yom Kippur in front of the
entire Jewish community for having taught such monumental stupidity.
Josh
Lisa
Micha Berger wrote:
> : Surprise ! It's the classic Jewish approach. Micha wants to distort
> : Judaism in order to make it "palatable" to the assimilated American
> : Jews on SCJM. It's false and an utter perversion of Judaism. Micha should
> : see what Pirkei Avot says about "makchish magideh'ha" and the punishment
> : it entails. And for that matter the Shiurei Bracha on Yoreh Deah 243:3
> : d"h v'talmid chacham.
>
> Yeah, it's just me... and the Pesiqta deR' Kahanah, the Medrash Harninu
> (whoever that is), the Yalqut Shim'oni, the Shibolei haLeqet, the Beis
> Yoseif, the Taz, the Chavos Ya'ir, the the Kaf haChaim (who quotes the
> Yafeh Leiv), seifer Taamei haMinhagim, Liquei Maharich, the Meshekh
> Chomah (who uses the idea to disassocite Purim and Chanukah from their
> wars and the death of villians), R' Aharon Kotler, R' Elyashiv (pardon
> me if I believe an authorized publication over Josh's guess without
> asking him)....
>
> I'm glad Josh is there to straighten us all out. <g>
That's cheap. The discussion is over what those sources mean. You've
read one particular meaning into them (which I consider unjustifiable),
but even that hasn't been enough for you. You've used that to read
that message into other areas that none of those sources are applicable
to.
Listing these sources as you're doing gives the impression that they
are relevant to the topic in which you're currently posting. Which is,
in case you don't want to look up at the top: "Re: Spilling out drops
of wine at the Seder". You are being deliberately misleading, Micha,
and I'm really getting appalled by it. Chotamo shel HaKadosh Baruch Hu
Emet, Micha, and listing these sources in this thread as though they're
relevant to the question is geneivat daat.
The phrase "who uses the idea to disassocite Purim and Chanukah from
their wars and the death of villians" implies that the Meshech Chochma
supports your thesis that we grief for the deaths of our enemies.
That's *appalling*. That is way over the line. Believe what you want
to believe, but don't mislead people with half-quotes and half-truths.
You know damned well that almost no one here is actually going to look
up the sources you mention and see for themselves what they say, and
you know they aren't going to be careful enough reading *your* words to
see that you haven't actually said the Meshech Chochma supports your
binfol oyivcha stuff. Sneakiness is contemptible.
Lisa
Lisa
Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, 2 May 2006 17:23:44 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@munginame.com> wrote:
> : Also, my edition of Mikraot G'dolot has a wonderful new resource -
> : reverse look-up of every single verse of the Tora, compiled recently
> : with computer help. Called Hosafot Beit Aharon, it lists every
> : instance each verse is quoted in both Talmuds, major midrashim, and
> : the Zohar. It is very useful in finding halakhic discussions of
> : d'oraita mitzvot.
>
> I presume it's a computer enhancement of the old Beis Aharon (hosafot =
> additions), which did a nearly-complete job of referencing the gemara
> back before computers available. The Beis Aharon is found in the margin
> of most Miqra'os Geolodos.
Actually, it sounds a bit like an enhanced Torah Temimah, no?
Lisa
Yisroel Markov
<mi...@aishdas.org> said:
>On Tue, 2 May 2006 17:23:44 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@munginame.com> wrote:
>: Also, my edition of Mikraot G'dolot has a wonderful new resource -
>: reverse look-up of every single verse of the Tora, compiled recently
>: with computer help. Called Hosafot Beit Aharon, it lists every
>: instance each verse is quoted in both Talmuds, major midrashim, and
>: the Zohar. It is very useful in finding halakhic discussions of
>: d'oraita mitzvot.
>
>I presume it's a computer enhancement of the old Beis Aharon (hosafot =
>additions), which did a nearly-complete job of referencing the gemara
>back before computers available. The Beis Aharon is found in the margin
>of most Miqra'os Geolodos.
I think you're right. It's actually Hosafot ve-Toldot Beit Aharon, so
that makes sense. B"n I'll double-check the preface, which has blurbs
on all the meforshim present in the sefer. It's a lot more than what's
present in the Sapirstein Rashi.
Cindy, I bought it in the local Israel bookstore for $140. Since it's
a Hebrew sefer, the owner was willing to discount from list (anything
with English is list price only - very un-Jewish :-). He also doesn't
charge sales tax on sefarim, apparently under the "religious article"
exemption in MA law. Buying local came in handy when I discovered a
blank page in B'reishit.
But Eichlers does stock it, in large and medium editions, for $130 and
$85, respectively -
http://www.eichlers.com/details.cfm?Group_ID=538&Product_ID=1733
http://www.eichlers.com/details.cfm?Group_ID=538&Product_ID=1734
cindys
"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote in message
Thank you!
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
>
> Micha Berger wrote:
>> : Surprise ! It's the classic Jewish approach. Micha wants to distort
>> : Judaism in order to make it "palatable" to the assimilated American
>> : Jews on SCJM. It's false and an utter perversion of Judaism. Micha should
>> : see what Pirkei Avot says about "makchish magideh'ha" and the punishment
>> : it entails. And for that matter the Shiurei Bracha on Yoreh Deah 243:3
>> : d"h v'talmid chacham.
>>
>> Yeah, it's just me... and the Pesiqta deR' Kahanah, the Medrash Harninu
>> (whoever that is), the Yalqut Shim'oni, the Shibolei haLeqet, the Beis
>> Yoseif, the Taz, the Chavos Ya'ir, the the Kaf haChaim (who quotes the
>> Yafeh Leiv), seifer Taamei haMinhagim, Liquei Maharich, the Meshekh
>> Chomah (who uses the idea to disassocite Purim and Chanukah from their
>> wars and the death of villians), R' Aharon Kotler, R' Elyashiv (pardon
>> me if I believe an authorized publication over Josh's guess without
>> asking him)....
>>
>> I'm glad Josh is there to straighten us all out. <g>
>
> That's cheap. The discussion is over what those sources mean. You've
> read one particular meaning into them (which I consider unjustifiable),
> but even that hasn't been enough for you. You've used that to read
> that message into other areas that none of those sources are applicable
> to.
>
I spent almost 2 hours going over most of the sources Micha listed.
NOT ONE (repeat: NOT ONE) [certainly not the Beit Yosef, TAZ, and Shibolei
ha'Leket 218 "Seder haHaggadah"] says that the reason why we SPILL OUT
DROPS OF WINE at the Seder is due to "binfol oyivcha". The Chavot Yair
is a book of responsa. Without knowing which Siman, I am unable to
check. There are at least different texts by the title KAF HA'CHAYIM
(one by Sofer and the other by Palaggi).
The Sefer "Taamei haMinhagim" simply lists customs (some ERRONEOUS). It's
no source.
> Listing these sources as you're doing gives the impression that they
> are relevant to the topic in which you're currently posting. Which is,
> in case you don't want to look up at the top: "Re: Spilling out drops
> of wine at the Seder". You are being deliberately misleading, Micha,
> and I'm really getting appalled by it. Chotamo shel HaKadosh Baruch Hu
> Emet, Micha, and listing these sources in this thread as though they're
> relevant to the question is geneivat daat.
>
My opinion exactly. It's dishonest and extremely disingenuous.
> The phrase "who uses the idea to disassocite Purim and Chanukah from
> their wars and the death of villians" implies that the Meshech Chochma
> supports your thesis that we grief for the deaths of our enemies.
> That's *appalling*. That is way over the line. Believe what you want
> to believe, but don't mislead people with half-quotes and half-truths.
> You know damned well that almost no one here is actually going to look
> up the sources you mention and see for themselves what they say, and
> you know they aren't going to be careful enough reading *your* words to
> see that you haven't actually said the Meshech Chochma supports your
> binfol oyivcha stuff. Sneakiness is contemptible.
>
I asked Micha to supply the exact quote (transliterated from the
Hebrew) along with precise reference (chapter/Siman/page) from ANY
of the sources he claims that support his KRUM hypothesis that the
reason why we spill drops of wine at the Seder is to "sorrow" over
the death of the Egyptians.
I'll be waiting for years because THERE AREN'T any!
Josh
> Lisa
>
Micha Berger
: I spent almost 2 hours going over most of the sources Micha listed.
: NOT ONE (repeat: NOT ONE) [certainly not the Beit Yosef, TAZ, and Shibolei
: ha'Leket 218 "Seder haHaggadah"] says that the reason why we SPILL OUT
: DROPS OF WINE at the Seder is due to "binfol oyivcha". The Chavot Yair
: is a book of responsa. Without knowing which Siman, I am unable to
: check. There are at least different texts by the title KAF HA'CHAYIM
: (one by Sofer and the other by Palaggi).
Are you intentionally being obtuse?
I am convinced at this point you're playing this line because you
realize your original epithets were misplaced. (Not to mention
the insults you've lobbed since defending the undefendable.)
Besides, your own cousin's hagadah gives it as a "yeish lomar". Until
you actually get something else in writing, I'm going with what's
in print.
I'm not arguing over the purpose of the custom. I'm arguing with your
description of the explanation that it has to do with the death of
the Egyptians as new-age, touchy-feely, or Christian. Since these sources
show parallel reasoning elsewhere, your characterization is false.
Micha Berger
: It's a perversion of Judaism. It's a disgrace. An uttter embarrassment.
: 800 years ago in Spain, the Ri MiGaash would have chopped off the hands
: of the principal of this school IN shul ON Yom Kippur in front of the
: entire Jewish community for having taught such monumental stupidity.
Still with the absurd rhetoric?
Here's a survey of sources identified so far here and on Avodah, as well
as a Jewish Action column Lisa already cited. It's a long and well
documented list.
Defending your position on the cause of the minhag doesn't make the
other rational un-Jewish. You're pulling a bait-n-switch.
-mi
The Pesiqta deR Kahane (Mandelbaum Edition, siman 29, 189a) tells us that a
reason for CH on the 7th day of Pesach is because of "ma'asei
Yadai tov'im bayam".
This is then quoted by the Mirash Hirninu and the Yalqut Shim'oni (the
Perishah point you to Parashas Emor, remez 566).
The Midrash Harninu or the Shibolei haLeqet (our only source for it) associate
this medrash with "binfol". (I refuse to debate whether his ra'ayah is from
the qeri (text as read) or qesiv (text as written) as that will just confuse
the issue.) This is despite the fact that the pasuq of "binfol" would
literally mean not rejoincing at all, and here it's being used to argue for
ambivalence -- merging the joy of the neis with the sorrow of what was
necessary to be done to the Mitzriyim.
This ShL is given as an alternate reason for CH by the Beis Yoseif
(O"Ch 490:4, "Kol").
Moving on to what I learned from RAZZ's JA column....
The Taz gives this diminution of joy as the reason for CH (OC 490:3),
as does the Chavos Ya'ir (225).
The Kaf haChaim (O"Ch 685:29) brings down the Yafeh haLeiv (3:3)use this
medrash to establish the idea that we mourn the downfall of our enemy
in order to explain why there is no berakhah on Parashas Zakhor.
R' Aharon Kotler (Mishnas R' Aharon vol III pg 3) says that the gemara's
reason for CH (that the qorbanos are the same as for the previous day)
is meant to address only ch"m, and our medrash is the primary reason
for the 7th day of Pesach.
RJFarkas found the Meshekh Chokhmah (Shemos 12:16 "uveyom), who uses
"binfol" and our medrashas an argument for disassociating Purim and
Chanukah from their military victories. He also cites R' Shelomo Alkabetz
(Manos haLeivi 9:20 "Vayikhtov Mordekha") who writes that because "ein
HQBH samei'akh bemapalasan shel rasha'im", we too should not rejoice at
their downfall (mah HU af atah). We therefore celebrate Purim only for
our deliverance.
RJKay points us to the Netziv's into to HaEimeq Davar, Bereishis. He
defines "Seifer haYesharim" as the book about those who showed concern
even for the wicked, that this quality is what defines being yashar. He
holds up Avraham's atittude toward the people of Sedom as an example
for us to follow.
In a post to scjm by Sheldon Ackerman, I learned that R' Elyashiv, in
his hagaddah (pg 106, d"h "dam va'eish..."), writes as a "yeish lomar"
that we spill wine at the seider because at the time of the Mitzriyim's
suffering, Hashem's joy is incomplete.
So, regardless of whether this is /the/ reason for CH on Pesach day
7 or for spilling wine at the seider, or just a lesson one can learn
post-facto from one or both of these, I think we have succeeded in well
establishing the Jewishness of the idea that we have compassion for the
death of even evil people.
One can't say it's an assimilated value that was brought in via C and
R, or promoted by kiruv workers who want a more palatable Judaism to
sell. Nor can you blame me for maintaining some allegedly new shitah in
contrast to the clear words of Chazal. (I mean you can, I can't stop
you. You would just need to first address this long laundry list of
meqoros before I could take it to heart.)
So why doesn't "mi shemeracheim al ha'achzarim" apply? Perhaps because we
aren't talking about ignoring the real need for their distruction. Unlike
Sha'ul, who inappropriately saved Agag, we are not saying the Mitzriyim
should have been spared. Rather, that it's sad that things had come
to this.
Someone who r"l needs to have a leg amputated should have it removed. He'll
mourn its loss and the loss of everything he could have done with it, but
still okay its removal. "Mi shemeracheim" is the doctor who lets the patient
die because he had pity on the leg.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> On Tue, 2 May 2006 22:47:33 +0000 (UTC), bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> : I spent almost 2 hours going over most of the sources Micha listed.
> : NOT ONE (repeat: NOT ONE) [certainly not the Beit Yosef, TAZ, and Shibolei
> : ha'Leket 218 "Seder haHaggadah"] says that the reason why we SPILL OUT
> : DROPS OF WINE at the Seder is due to "binfol oyivcha". The Chavot Yair
> : is a book of responsa. Without knowing which Siman, I am unable to
> : check. There are at least different texts by the title KAF HA'CHAYIM
> : (one by Sofer and the other by Palaggi).
>
> Are you intentionally being obtuse?
I'm being obtuse ?? All I'm asking for is a direct quote (transliterated
from the Hebrew) along with exact reference from ANY of the 'sources"
you listed as SPECIFICALLY (explicitly) explaining the reason for
spilling out DROPS OF WINE as "binfol oyivcha". The Sefer haMinhagim
is not a source.
>
> I am convinced at this point you're playing this line because you
> realize your original epithets were misplaced. (Not to mention
> the insults you've lobbed since defending the undefendable.)
>
> Besides, your own cousin's hagadah gives it as a "yeish lomar". Until
> you actually get something else in writing, I'm going with what's
> in print.
>
> I'm not arguing over the purpose of the custom. I'm arguing with your
Well Lisa, Zev, and I are.
> description of the explanation that it has to do with the death of
> the Egyptians as new-age, touchy-feely, or Christian. Since these sources
> show parallel reasoning elsewhere, your characterization is false.
>
I'm not interested in parallel reasoning which is tautalogical in that
YOU define it as parallel. I'm interested in a DIRECT and EXPLICIT
reason for spilling out drops of wine.
I listed all the classical sources with precise references (Yerushalmi,
Rokeach, Raavya, Maharil, Darchei Moshe/Rema, Magen Avraham, Vilna
Gaon, Aruch hasHulchan and the Mishna Brura [there are also others]
that give the reason for SPILLING OUT DROPS OF WINE as "nekama"
[vengeance: God destroying the enemies of the Jews]. You haven't
provided any DIRECT and EXPLICIT reference. When you do, we'll have
a dialogue because now it's only a monologue.
Josh
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> On Tue, 2 May 2006 20:01:46 +0000 (UTC), bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> : It's a perversion of Judaism. It's a disgrace. An uttter embarrassment.
> : 800 years ago in Spain, the Ri MiGaash would have chopped off the hands
> : of the principal of this school IN shul ON Yom Kippur in front of the
> : entire Jewish community for having taught such monumental stupidity.
>
> Still with the absurd rhetoric?
>
> Here's a survey of sources identified so far here and on Avodah, as well
> as a Jewish Action column Lisa already cited. It's a long and well
> documented list.
>
> Defending your position on the cause of the minhag doesn't make the
> other rational un-Jewish. You're pulling a bait-n-switch.
>
> -mi
>
> The Pesiqta deR Kahane (Mandelbaum Edition, siman 29, 189a) tells us that a
> reason for CH on the 7th day of Pesach is because of "ma'asei
> Yadai tov'im bayam".
Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
>
> This is then quoted by the Mirash Hirninu and the Yalqut Shim'oni (the
> Perishah point you to Parashas Emor, remez 566).
>
Ditto.
> The Midrash Harninu or the Shibolei haLeqet (our only source for it) associate
I actually read the Shibolei haLeket SEDER HA'PESACH (which is his #218)
and says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about spilling out drops of wine.
> this medrash with "binfol". (I refuse to debate whether his ra'ayah is from
> the qeri (text as read) or qesiv (text as written) as that will just confuse
> the issue.) This is despite the fact that the pasuq of "binfol" would
> literally mean not rejoincing at all, and here it's being used to argue for
> ambivalence -- merging the joy of the neis with the sorrow of what was
> necessary to be done to the Mitzriyim.
>
> This ShL is given as an alternate reason for CH by the Beis Yoseif
> (O"Ch 490:4, "Kol").
>
Who says nothing about spilling out drops of wine.
> Moving on to what I learned from RAZZ's JA column....
>
> The Taz gives this diminution of joy as the reason for CH (OC 490:3),
> as does the Chavos Ya'ir (225).
The TAZ (OC 473) doesn't even mention spilling wine. If you have a TAZ
or a Chavot Yair that gives an alternate explantion of why we SPILL
OUT DROPS OF WINE at the Seder, you get $100.
>
> The Kaf haChaim (O"Ch 685:29) brings down the Yafeh haLeiv (3:3)use this
> medrash to establish the idea that we mourn the downfall of our enemy
> in order to explain why there is no berakhah on Parashas Zakhor.
>
But this has nothing to do with spilling wine. If I got a dollar for
every mention of NEKAMA just in the Hagadda of the RITVA, I'd go
on early retirement.
> R' Aharon Kotler (Mishnas R' Aharon vol III pg 3) says that the gemara's
> reason for CH (that the qorbanos are the same as for the previous day)
> is meant to address only ch"m, and our medrash is the primary reason
> for the 7th day of Pesach.
>
But this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with why we spill
out drops of wine at the Seder.
> RJFarkas found the Meshekh Chokhmah (Shemos 12:16 "uveyom), who uses
> "binfol" and our medrashas an argument for disassociating Purim and
> Chanukah from their military victories. He also cites R' Shelomo Alkabetz
> (Manos haLeivi 9:20 "Vayikhtov Mordekha") who writes that because "ein
> HQBH samei'akh bemapalasan shel rasha'im", we too should not rejoice at
> their downfall (mah HU af atah). We therefore celebrate Purim only for
> our deliverance.
Zero relevance.
>
> RJKay points us to the Netziv's into to HaEimeq Davar, Bereishis. He
> defines "Seifer haYesharim" as the book about those who showed concern
> even for the wicked, that this quality is what defines being yashar. He
> holds up Avraham's atittude toward the people of Sedom as an example
> for us to follow.
Zero relevance, especially when it goes against the Yerushalmi, Rokeach,
Raavya, Maharil, Darchei Moshe/Rema, Magen Avraham, VIlna Gaon,
Aruch haShulchan and Mishna Brura who DO GIVE an explicit reason
(quoting the Maharil: God destroying our enemies.)
Find me one heavyweight prior to 1900 (and the Sefer hMinhagim is NOT a source)
who gives an alternative explanation to why we spill out drops of wine
at the Seder and you get $100.
Josh
Micha Berger
:> The Pesiqta deR Kahane (Mandelbaum Edition, siman 29, 189a) tells us that a
:> reason for CH on the 7th day of Pesach is because of "ma'asei
:> Yadai tov'im bayam".
: Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
No, but it does have to do with your calling the suggestion that
the spilling is because Egyptian died "new age" and "Christian".
But you're bright enough to know what I am getting at. Had you
called the suggestion wrong, based on a phantom Abarbanel, but
didn't describe the whole thing at "touchy feely", I wouldn't
have gotten involved in the thread.
I'm not arguing about the source of the minhag. I'm arguing against
your dismissing an answer -- even if it proves to be a wrong answer --
as un-Jewish when it isn't. You mischaracterized Judaism grossly,
portraying it as being near ruthless.
And all that discussion of Half-Hallel does prove that you did
mischaracterize things, that it is Jewish to suggest we do things to
mourn the need for Egyptians to die.
"Ashrei hachevras usenet shenasi shelo meivi qorban chatas al shigegaso."
(al pi R' Yochanan b Zakai Horiyos 10b)
Ken Bloom
> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
Micha *doesn't care* about the drops of wine. He cares about the value
that you said "isn't a Jewish value". So he's brought you sources that
say it's a Jewish value. He doesn't care about the wine. He cares
about the value.
So *please* dismissing his sources by saying
> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
and deal with the value that this purports to teach.
--Ken
--
I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment.
See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures.
Ken Bloom
> In article <1146493879.9...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Shlomo Argamon" <arg...@argamon.com> writes:
>> As I understand it, Micha is objecting to the notion that you and Josh
>> have promulgated, that the idea (a) "Jews should be upset when their
>> salvation involves destruction of other human beings" is un-Jewish
>> spilling out wine at the seder, if a serious Jewish source can be found
> [snop some response]
>> for (a), even in relation to a different practice, then it is a
>> legitimate Jewish idea, even if you do not like or agree with it.
>> Someone therefore proferring (a) as an explanation or meaning connected
>> to the spilling out of the wine is therefore not "un-Jewish". They may
>
>
The idea that we spill wine because we're reducing our joy at the
Egyptian's demise may go against every single classic jewish source.
But the idea that we reduce our joy in any way (specifically Hallel)
most certainly does have a classic Jewish source.
>> be mistaken, if they claim that (a) is the reason for the custom; but
>> if they wish to see (a) as a meaning within the ritual, I don't see how
>> you can call it an "un-Jewish" attitude (even if you disagree).
>>
>> Micha, please correct me if I misunderstood your position.
Micha isn't trying to claim that (a) is the reason for the custom.
He's trying to claim that (a) is the reason for *some* custom i.e.
that (a) is not a "Christian value" as you claimed.
Ken Bloom
Good. Subject changed. You may continue arguing about this with that
in mind. Micha doesn't care about the wine. He cares about finding
good Jewish sources to back up the "Christian value".
Ken Bloom
No. That's only telling you the gemaras that Rashi cites, which is a
completely different set of gemaras.
Ken Bloom
The Torah Temimah discusses what he finds, and may or may not have
made any attempt to be 100% comprehensive. (I've never looked at it on
the inside)
The Toldot Aharon is simply a listing of daf in the gemara. "Such and
such a verse is printed on such and such pages in the gemara". No
analysis -- just "hyperlinks". (And most gemaras have similar
"hyperlinks" listing the whole paseuk where only part of the paseuk is
listed, and the source of the paseuk)
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote approximately as follows:
>> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
>> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
>> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
>> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
>> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
>> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
>> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
>> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
>> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
>> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
>> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
>> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
>> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
>> Nothing to do with spilling out drops of wine.
>
> Micha *doesn't care* about the drops of wine. He cares about the value
> that you said "isn't a Jewish value". So he's brought you sources that
> say it's a Jewish value. He doesn't care about the wine. He cares
> about the value.
But it isn't a Jewish value.
Josh