Drops of wine at the Seder
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <tvhYf.123800$g47....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Beach Runner <b...@nospam.com> writes:
>
>
> Harry Weiss wrote:
>
>> levi...@gmail.com <levi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>YM wrote:
>>>
>>>>levi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Yes, he of Pollard fame.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's all over CNN et al.
>>>>>
>>>>>Jay
>>>>
>>>>A real enemy of Israel...a self-hating Jew or Half-Jew or whatever.
>>
>>
>>
>>>He was not a Jew or a half-Jew. His grandfather converted out of
>>>Judaism. His grandmother and his mother were not Jewish.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Jay
>>
>>
>> Was it his grandfather or father that converted out. B'H the world has one less
>> piece of garbage alive.
>>
>
> My rabbi would teach never to take joy in the misfortune of our enemies.
> That is why we drop out our wine in Passover, so as not to take joy in
> the misfortune or our enemy.
Au contraire !
The reason for spilling out drops of wine when listing the 10 Plagues
is given by the Rema in Darchei Moshe on the TUR Orach Chayim 473: to
remind ourselves that the sorcerers of Pharaoh said that a plague was
the "finger of" [i.e. "caused by'] God.
[Then someone comes out of the woodwork and says that the "heiliger" [tm]
Aish HaTorah hagaddah writes what you say. And another will swear that
Mister Hartman's Conservadox hagadda indicates that the Abarbanel listed
this naarishkeit. Trust me, he didn't. Go to http://jnul.huji.ac.il
then click on English then go to Digitized Old manuscripts. Click on
haggadot and follow the Hebrew until you reach the Abarbanel's Hagaddah.
Try pages 12-15. You'll see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to support
this Conservadox naarishkeit. And Aish haTorah is nothing to write
home about either :-)]
The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim 3:39 indicates that having mercy on the
wicked constitutes cruelty to God's creation.
There is an explicit verse in Proverbs (Mishlei 11:10) that when the
wicked perish, there are shouts of joy.
The gemara (Brachot 9b,10a; Megilla 10b; Sanhedrin 39b) discusses
joy on the downfall of the wicked. The only reason why Hallel isn't said
is that Hallel shows that **God** is happy with the death of his creatures.
However, the song AZ YASHIR was most definitely sung by the Israelites
at the Red Sea who were JOYOUS at the death of the Egyptians.
When arch-enemies of the Jews perish, Jews are to be happy and joyous.
Josh
>
> Of course we need to redouble our efforts for Pollard, he saved many
> Jews. I can't believe the Israeli government has backed off on freeing
> him. We need to write real letters, make real phone calls, and protect
> our own.
Tim Meushaw
>
> In article <tvhYf.123800$g47....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Beach Runner <b...@nospam.com> writes:
>>
>>
>> Harry Weiss wrote:
>>
>>> levi...@gmail.com <levi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>YM wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>levi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, he of Pollard fame.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's all over CNN et al.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jay
>>>>>
>>>>>A real enemy of Israel...a self-hating Jew or Half-Jew or whatever.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>He was not a Jew or a half-Jew. His grandfather converted out of
>>>>Judaism. His grandmother and his mother were not Jewish.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jay
>>>
>>>
>>> Was it his grandfather or father that converted out. B'H the world has one less
>>> piece of garbage alive.
>>>
>>
>> My rabbi would teach never to take joy in the misfortune of our enemies.
>> That is why we drop out our wine in Passover, so as not to take joy in
>> the misfortune or our enemy.
>
> Au contraire !
I knew as soon as I read Beach Runner's post, I darn near posted
something like "cue Josh giving the real reason." Thanks for not
disappointing. :-)
> The reason for spilling out drops of wine when listing the 10 Plagues
> is given by the Rema in Darchei Moshe on the TUR Orach Chayim 473: to
> remind ourselves that the sorcerers of Pharaoh said that a plague was
> the "finger of" [i.e. "caused by'] God.
I had forgotten the reason, and with Pesach next week, I appreciate the
reminder. Is there anything in Gemara on this custom? And, I forget
(and my haggadah is downstairs), do we refill the glass after taking out
the drops of wine?
> The gemara (Brachot 9b,10a; Megilla 10b; Sanhedrin 39b) discusses
> joy on the downfall of the wicked. The only reason why Hallel isn't said
> is that Hallel shows that **God** is happy with the death of his creatures.
> However, the song AZ YASHIR was most definitely sung by the Israelites
> at the Red Sea who were JOYOUS at the death of the Egyptians.
But we do say Hallel at the seder. Does this mean God is happy we're
still around after all this time to rejoice? :-) (Serious question, as
I don't understand what you mean with the first half of your paragraph).
Tim
--
Timothy A. Meushaw
meu...@pobox.com
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> On 2006-04-04, bac...@vms.huji.ac.il <bac...@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>
>> In article <tvhYf.123800$g47....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Beach Runner <b...@nospam.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>> Harry Weiss wrote:
>>>
>>>> levi...@gmail.com <levi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>YM wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>levi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, he of Pollard fame.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's all over CNN et al.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jay
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A real enemy of Israel...a self-hating Jew or Half-Jew or whatever.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>He was not a Jew or a half-Jew. His grandfather converted out of
>>>>>Judaism. His grandmother and his mother were not Jewish.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jay
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Was it his grandfather or father that converted out. B'H the world has one less
>>>> piece of garbage alive.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My rabbi would teach never to take joy in the misfortune of our enemies.
>>> That is why we drop out our wine in Passover, so as not to take joy in
>>> the misfortune or our enemy.
>>
>> Au contraire !
>
> I knew as soon as I read Beach Runner's post, I darn near posted
> something like "cue Josh giving the real reason." Thanks for not
> disappointing. :-)
Practice, practice, practice ! :-)
>
>> The reason for spilling out drops of wine when listing the 10 Plagues
>> is given by the Rema in Darchei Moshe on the TUR Orach Chayim 473: to
>> remind ourselves that the sorcerers of Pharaoh said that a plague was
>> the "finger of" [i.e. "caused by'] God.
>
> I had forgotten the reason, and with Pesach next week, I appreciate the
> reminder. Is there anything in Gemara on this custom? And, I forget
> (and my haggadah is downstairs), do we refill the glass after taking out
> the drops of wine?
>
>> The gemara (Brachot 9b,10a; Megilla 10b; Sanhedrin 39b) discusses
>> joy on the downfall of the wicked. The only reason why Hallel isn't said
>> is that Hallel shows that **God** is happy with the death of his creatures.
>> However, the song AZ YASHIR was most definitely sung by the Israelites
>> at the Red Sea who were JOYOUS at the death of the Egyptians.
>
> But we do say Hallel at the seder. Does this mean God is happy we're
Not the FULL Hallel. What's called "half" Hallel.
> still around after all this time to rejoice? :-) (Serious question, as
> I don't understand what you mean with the first half of your paragraph).
>
> Tim
Josh
Henry Goodman
news:e0t3e3$vk6$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> In article <slrne33kf2....@athens.meushaw.com>, Tim Meushaw
<meu...@pobox.com> writes:
> > On 2006-04-04, bac...@vms.huji.ac.il <bac...@vms.huji.ac.il>
wrote:
> >
> >> joy on the downfall of the wicked. The only reason why Hallel
isn't said
> >> is that Hallel shows that **God** is happy with the death of his
creatures.
> >> However, the song AZ YASHIR was most definitely sung by the
Israelites
> >> at the Red Sea who were JOYOUS at the death of the Egyptians.
> >
> > But we do say Hallel at the seder. Does this mean God is happy
we're
>
> Not the FULL Hallel. What's called "half" Hallel.
>
>
Josh, you must have been half-asleep when you wrote that.
AFAIK, everybody says the full Hallel at the Seder, albeit divided by
the meal. Also in Shacharit on the 1st day (2 days in Chutz laaretz).
Half hallel is said from Chol Hamoed onwards.
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
You're right. It must be that time of year: too much dusting off
books, arranging my office. Cleaning for the holidays.
Josh
Don Levey
> In article <tvhYf.123800$g47....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Beach Runner <b...@nospam.com> writes:
> >
> > My rabbi would teach never to take joy in the misfortune of our enemies.
> > That is why we drop out our wine in Passover, so as not to take joy in
> > the misfortune or our enemy.
>
> Au contraire !
>
> The reason for spilling out drops of wine when listing the 10 Plagues
> is given by the Rema in Darchei Moshe on the TUR Orach Chayim 473: to
> remind ourselves that the sorcerers of Pharaoh said that a plague was
> the "finger of" [i.e. "caused by'] God.
>
> [Then someone comes out of the woodwork and says that the "heiliger" [tm]
> Aish HaTorah hagaddah writes what you say. And another will swear that
> Mister Hartman's Conservadox hagadda indicates that the Abarbanel listed
> this naarishkeit. Trust me, he didn't. Go to http://jnul.huji.ac.il
> then click on English then go to Digitized Old manuscripts. Click on
> haggadot and follow the Hebrew until you reach the Abarbanel's Hagaddah.
> Try pages 12-15. You'll see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to support
> this Conservadox naarishkeit. And Aish haTorah is nothing to write
> home about either :-)]
>
We had this discussion just this past November (according to Google).
As I mentioned then, my Artscroll Hagaddah has this explanation. I
don't think you responded to that one, Josh. Is this a failing that
we should ask Artscroll to address?
--
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.
kepip...@hotmail.com
You might have saved yourself the trouble. According to nameless 'major
posqim' quoted in the 'Peah Cleaning Advice' discussion, you do not
need to dust off books for Pesah. But perhaps those 'major posqim' are
not such major posqim after all. That is my impression. What do you
say?
Giorgies
spent yet another day following your suggestion and strolling in the
park and visited a museum because hired help is doing the cleaning at
our home.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> In article <e0t3ns$vqo$1...@falcon.steinthal.us>, "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> writes:
>> >
>> > Josh, you must have been half-asleep when you wrote that.
>> > AFAIK, everybody says the full Hallel at the Seder, albeit divided by
>> > the meal. Also in Shacharit on the 1st day (2 days in Chutz laaretz).
>> > Half hallel is said from Chol Hamoed onwards.
>>
>> You're right. It must be that time of year: too much dusting off
>> books, arranging my office. Cleaning for the holidays.
>
> You might have saved yourself the trouble. According to nameless 'major
> posqim' quoted in the 'Peah Cleaning Advice' discussion, you do not
> need to dust off books for Pesah. But perhaps those 'major posqim' are
> not such major posqim after all. That is my impression. What do you
> say?
Poskim SHMoskim :-) When the Boss says "Clean!", I stand at attention,
click my heels and tell her, "Jahwol weiblicher Kommandant" and start
cleaning!! Or else I'm in deep doo-doo :-)
Josh
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>
>> In article <tvhYf.123800$g47....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Beach Runner <b...@nospam.com> writes:
>
>> >
>> > My rabbi would teach never to take joy in the misfortune of our enemies.
>> > That is why we drop out our wine in Passover, so as not to take joy in
>> > the misfortune or our enemy.
>>
>> Au contraire !
>>
>> The reason for spilling out drops of wine when listing the 10 Plagues
>> is given by the Rema in Darchei Moshe on the TUR Orach Chayim 473: to
>> remind ourselves that the sorcerers of Pharaoh said that a plague was
>> the "finger of" [i.e. "caused by'] God.
>>
>> [Then someone comes out of the woodwork and says that the "heiliger" [tm]
>> Aish HaTorah hagaddah writes what you say. And another will swear that
>> Mister Hartman's Conservadox hagadda indicates that the Abarbanel listed
>> this naarishkeit. Trust me, he didn't. Go to http://jnul.huji.ac.il
>> then click on English then go to Digitized Old manuscripts. Click on
>> haggadot and follow the Hebrew until you reach the Abarbanel's Hagaddah.
>> Try pages 12-15. You'll see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to support
>> this Conservadox naarishkeit. And Aish haTorah is nothing to write
>> home about either :-)]
>>
> We had this discussion just this past November (according to Google).
> As I mentioned then, my Artscroll Hagaddah has this explanation. I
> don't think you responded to that one, Josh. Is this a failing that
> we should ask Artscroll to address?
Look again. it wasn't ArtScroll, it came from Aish haTorah.
Josh
Beach Runner
Don Levey wrote:
> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>
>
>>In article <tvhYf.123800$g47....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Beach Runner <b...@nospam.com> writes:
>
>
>>>My rabbi would teach never to take joy in the misfortune of our enemies.
>>>That is why we drop out our wine in Passover, so as not to take joy in
>>>the misfortune or our enemy.
>>
>>Au contraire !
>>
>>The reason for spilling out drops of wine when listing the 10 Plagues
>>is given by the Rema in Darchei Moshe on the TUR Orach Chayim 473: to
>>remind ourselves that the sorcerers of Pharaoh said that a plague was
>>the "finger of" [i.e. "caused by'] God.
>>
>>[Then someone comes out of the woodwork and says that the "heiliger" [tm]
>>Aish HaTorah hagaddah writes what you say. And another will swear that
>>Mister Hartman's Conservadox hagadda indicates that the Abarbanel listed
>>this naarishkeit. Trust me, he didn't. Go to http://jnul.huji.ac.il
>>then click on English then go to Digitized Old manuscripts. Click on
>>haggadot and follow the Hebrew until you reach the Abarbanel's Hagaddah.
>>Try pages 12-15. You'll see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to support
>>this Conservadox naarishkeit. And Aish haTorah is nothing to write
>>home about either :-)]
>>
>
> We had this discussion just this past November (according to Google).
> As I mentioned then, my Artscroll Hagaddah has this explanation. I
> don't think you responded to that one, Josh. Is this a failing that
> we should ask Artscroll to address?
Here's from Ask the Rabbi. I realize only one point of view is accepted
here.... But this is an orthodox, respected Rabbi.
Of course, we had a wonderful Rabbi who left for Ohio... I'll always
miss him.
http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/273/Q3/
ear Myron Chaitovsky,
When my brother was a little boy, and I was even littler, our dad asked
us: "Why do we spill out drops of wine when we mention each of the ten
plagues?"
"Because blood was spilled," my brother answered, and my dad approved.
While we rejoice at our salvation, we nonetheless retain our
sensitivities to the suffering of the Egyptians by diminishing our joy,
if only in the mildest extent. This may be why some people don't refill
the cup, in order to drink a bit less wine, and thus reduce the
enjoyment by that amount.
On the other hand, there is reason to refill the cup so that it should
be full to the brim when we say the blessing over it. The prevailing
custom is that the cup is refilled.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Ohr Sameach ? Another BT place.
>
> ear Myron Chaitovsky,
Myron ? I know him and knew his late father (who won a Purple Heart
during WWII). Small world.
>
> When my brother was a little boy, and I was even littler, our dad asked
> us: "Why do we spill out drops of wine when we mention each of the ten
> plagues?"
>
> "Because blood was spilled," my brother answered, and my dad approved.
This rabbi from Ohr Sameach was a BT. He hasn't got the faintest idea
what he's talking about. He brings no sources, no texts to support
his absurd thesis.
>
> While we rejoice at our salvation, we nonetheless retain our
> sensitivities to the suffering of the Egyptians by diminishing our joy,
> if only in the mildest extent. This may be why some people don't refill
> the cup, in order to drink a bit less wine, and thus reduce the
> enjoyment by that amount.
>
Utter gibberish.
> On the other hand, there is reason to refill the cup so that it should
> be full to the brim when we say the blessing over it. The prevailing
> custom is that the cup is refilled.
Again no sources ??
Josh
Tim Meushaw
>> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>>>
>>> [Then someone comes out of the woodwork and says that the "heiliger" [tm]
>>> Aish HaTorah hagaddah writes what you say. And another will swear that
>>> Mister Hartman's Conservadox hagadda indicates that the Abarbanel listed
>>> this naarishkeit. Trust me, he didn't. Go to http://jnul.huji.ac.il
>>> then click on English then go to Digitized Old manuscripts. Click on
>>> haggadot and follow the Hebrew until you reach the Abarbanel's Hagaddah.
>>> Try pages 12-15. You'll see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to support
>>> this Conservadox naarishkeit. And Aish haTorah is nothing to write
>>> home about either :-)]
>>>
>> We had this discussion just this past November (according to Google).
>> As I mentioned then, my Artscroll Hagaddah has this explanation. I
>> don't think you responded to that one, Josh. Is this a failing that
>> we should ask Artscroll to address?
>
> Look again. it wasn't ArtScroll, it came from Aish haTorah.
ArtScroll Mesorah Series, _The_Family_Haggadah_, First Edition, 1994,
page 39. There's a printed note in the margin next to the plagues:
"Some wine is removed from the cup in compassion for the Egyptians.
Although they oppressed us, we must not rejoice at the suffering of
other humans."
Please let us know what R' Avie Gold (listed as writing the marginal
notes in the front) says when you call him about this. :-)
(The haggadah also mentions that the cup is refilled, which Josh forgot
to answer when I asked in a post the other night; thanks Artscroll!)
Tim
Chano
<bac...@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:e0uq46$l2p$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> In article <1144185237.7...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> kepip...@hotmail.com writes:
>> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>> In article <e0t3ns$vqo$1...@falcon.steinthal.us>, "Henry Goodman"
>>> <henry....@virgin.net> writes:
>>> >
>>> > Josh, you must have been half-asleep when you wrote that.
>>> > AFAIK, everybody says the full Hallel at the Seder, albeit divided by
>>> > the meal. Also in Shacharit on the 1st day (2 days in Chutz laaretz).
>>> > Half hallel is said from Chol Hamoed onwards.
>>>
>>> You're right. It must be that time of year: too much dusting off
>>> books, arranging my office. Cleaning for the holidays.
>>
>> You might have saved yourself the trouble. According to nameless 'major
>> posqim' quoted in the 'Peah Cleaning Advice' discussion, you do not
>> need to dust off books for Pesah. But perhaps those 'major posqim' are
>> not such major posqim after all. That is my impression. What do you
>> say?
>
>
> Poskim SHMoskim :-) When the Boss says "Clean!", I stand at attention,
> click my heels and tell her, "Jahwol weiblicher Kommandant" and start
> cleaning!! Or else I'm in deep doo-doo :-)
There are those who rule that it is better to have dust on your books than
doo-doo! :-)
--
Chano
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
I intend to email Rav YGB who is one of the senior editors at
ArtScroll and complain. It's embarrassing that Mister Gold uttered
such stupidity. It seems so entrenched hat I see it even has infiltrated
bastions of Orthodoxy. It doesn't make it any more correct.
Josh
Tim Meushaw
I'd honestly be curious as to his response, and hope you keep me, if not
the rest of the group, informed. :-)
Beach Runner
I guess this is the kind of reason that I doubt I'll stay here much
longer. I absolutely love Judaism. You can say, I hold another opinion
because, and that would be fine. Or consider this... But to only hold
one viewpoint is valid, and others are worthless.
It reminds me of when I picked up some Chasidic hitch hikers in South
Fallsberg. I used to be a musician playing in the Borscht Belt, working
my way through college and grad school. I saw some hitch hikers, and I
figured if I wouldn't pick them up, who would? So I picked them up and
they saw my Jewish star, and immediately started insulting the person
who picked them up. Interestingly, after a conversation at a natural
food store with a Rabbi/Principal at their local school, I was asked to
teach at the same school their children went to, but was headed in
September back to the City to work on my degree. I'm very interested in
learning about other views, learning about history, theological
perspectives.
>
Beach Runner
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
One simple question. Does every Rabbi that writes have to defend their
position when they don't know they are being attacked for not believing
the same as you?
>
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Everyone who holds the title of (O) rabbi is expected to bring sources
to substantiate his thesis. Failing that, to at least have an understanding
of the texts. Had this member of the O clergy brought one reliable
source I would have kept silent. But since there aren't any, the O
clergyman was unable to provide any. I wouldn't have minded even if the
source he would have quoted had been a minority opinion.
Josh
>
>>
Yisroel Markov
said:
>bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> In article <hTBYf.93517$_c.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Beach Runner <b...@nospam.com> writes:
[snip]
>>>While we rejoice at our salvation, we nonetheless retain our
>>>sensitivities to the suffering of the Egyptians by diminishing our joy,
>>>if only in the mildest extent. This may be why some people don't refill
>>>the cup, in order to drink a bit less wine, and thus reduce the
>>>enjoyment by that amount.
>>
>> Utter gibberish.
>>
>>>On the other hand, there is reason to refill the cup so that it should
>>>be full to the brim when we say the blessing over it. The prevailing
>>>custom is that the cup is refilled.
>>
>> Again no sources ??
>>
>> Josh
>>
>I guess this is the kind of reason that I doubt I'll stay here much
>longer. I absolutely love Judaism. You can say, I hold another opinion
>because, and that would be fine. Or consider this... But to only hold
>one viewpoint is valid, and others are worthless.
That's not what happened here. Under discussion is the reason(s) for
an ancient custom. In order to be valid, any viewpoint therefore has
to rely on a source similarly ancient. Otherwise, it doesn't rise
above speculation, and must be dismissed if in conflict with a more
authoritative one.
So Josh is right to ask for sources.
[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
Beach Runner
Ask the Rabbi wasn't entering a debate. He was a respected source.
I'm getting real tired of this. Instead of calling it wrong and utter
gibberish, say you hold another viewpoint, and here's why.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
You don't get it. A "respected source" would provide a reference (proof
text), even if it were a minority opinion from a medieval rabbi whose
opinion isn't followed. But the clergyman from Aish haTorah didn't
supply a reference because there ISN'T ANY! He made it up or simply
rehashed some absurd zero-evidence Conservadox opinion that has zero
validity and has no factual basis.
>
> I'm getting real tired of this. Instead of calling it wrong and utter
> gibberish, say you hold another viewpoint, and here's why.
It doesn't work that way in Judaism (nor in most academic areas).
Josh
Don Levey
>
> You don't get it. A "respected source" would provide a reference (proof
> text), even if it were a minority opinion from a medieval rabbi whose
> opinion isn't followed. But the clergyman from Aish haTorah didn't
> supply a reference because there ISN'T ANY! He made it up or simply
> rehashed some absurd zero-evidence Conservadox opinion that has zero
> validity and has no factual basis.
>
So when did Aish HaTorah originate this point of view?
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>
>>
>> You don't get it. A "respected source" would provide a reference (proof
>> text), even if it were a minority opinion from a medieval rabbi whose
>> opinion isn't followed. But the clergyman from Aish haTorah didn't
>> supply a reference because there ISN'T ANY! He made it up or simply
>> rehashed some absurd zero-evidence Conservadox opinion that has zero
>> validity and has no factual basis.
>>
> So when did Aish HaTorah originate this point of view?
It's not Aish haTorah as an institition. It's some clown whom I'm
embarrassed has a rabbinical degree who teaches at Aish haTorah.
As someone I know used to say re: getting a good maid, "You just can't
get good help anymore!"
Josh
Don Levey
> In article <m3lkuho...@dauphin.the-leveys.us>, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> writes:
> > bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
> >
> >>
> >> You don't get it. A "respected source" would provide a reference (proof
> >> text), even if it were a minority opinion from a medieval rabbi whose
> >> opinion isn't followed. But the clergyman from Aish haTorah didn't
> >> supply a reference because there ISN'T ANY! He made it up or simply
> >> rehashed some absurd zero-evidence Conservadox opinion that has zero
> >> validity and has no factual basis.
> >>
> > So when did Aish HaTorah originate this point of view?
>
>
> It's not Aish haTorah as an institition. It's some clown whom I'm
> embarrassed has a rabbinical degree who teaches at Aish haTorah.
>
> As someone I know used to say re: getting a good maid, "You just can't
> get good help anymore!"
>
Do you know when this may have originated, though?
I remember this explanation from almost 35 years ago, in
haggadot.
Lisa
Okay, we hold another view. And the reason why is that it's the only
view that is authoritative in Judaism. Semantics.
Lisa
Beach Runner
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
>
> You don't get it. A "respected source" would provide a reference (proof
> text), even if it were a minority opinion from a medieval rabbi whose
> opinion isn't followed. But the clergyman from Aish haTorah didn't
> supply a reference because there ISN'T ANY! He made it up or simply
> rehashed some absurd zero-evidence Conservadox opinion that has zero
> validity and has no factual basis.
>
>
>
> It doesn't work that way in Judaism (nor in most academic areas).
>
> Josh
>
>
I do get it. Only Traditional, Orthodox sources are of value, supported
in the technique you approve of, meaning ancient discussions, that must
end up supported with majority decisions about topics that didn't even
exist. Science, logic, common sense are not to be considered.
Thus, the definition here is clearly defined. When Adele was in school,
her free thinking was only allowed if she agreed with what she should
have. And when she didn't, it was the fault of her teachers, no even
considering that maybe her views were the result of intelligent, free
though. Free thought in that arena is a contradiction in terms.
In the case of wine drops, I simply said what I was taught, continue to
have been taught, and demonstrated that other rabbis continue to support
this belief is of value. It demonstrates a set of values which I
consider important. I still follow the basic Hillel statement, "What is
hateful to thyself, don't do to others, all the rest is commentary".
There are other issues I have raised, which demonstrate compassion,
concern for our world, and health, clearly supported with science,
logic, and reason. You won't find an ancient discussion as the topics
were not discussed. Similar discussions support a variety of views.
Take into account science the views become much clearer.
Bob
Lisa
If R' Avie Gold wrote that, he was wrong. It's that simple. The
Gemara is explicit in refuting that suggestion.
Lisa
Eliyahu
Rabbi Zalman Posner and asked him a few questions about halacha. R.
Posner is Rabbi Emeritus at Congregation Sherith Israel, an Orthodox
shul. He answered them in some detail, but didn't give me "sources" or
refer to specific cites. Would you refer to him as "unqualified" or
somehow substandard for not doing so? Why?
Eliyahu
Sheldon Ackerman
news:m3zmixm...@dauphin.the-leveys.us:
> Do you know when this may have originated, though?
> I remember this explanation from almost 35 years ago, in
> haggadot.
>
I've seen it in many haggados as well going back longer than 35 years ago.
BTW the same reason is given for reciting only half Halel on the latter day
of Pesach. The verse is "Binfol oyvecha, al tismach."
Sheldon Ackerman
news:1144446379.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> When I wsa in Nashville a few years ago, I had occasion to visit with
> Rabbi Zalman Posner and asked him a few questions about halacha. R.
> Posner is Rabbi Emeritus at Congregation Sherith Israel, an Orthodox
> shul. He answered them in some detail, but didn't give me "sources" or
> refer to specific cites. Would you refer to him as "unqualified" or
> somehow substandard for not doing so? Why?
>
>
Generally when one publishes a "sefer" there are always "mareh m'komos"
(footnotes from where the halacha is first cited.)
kepip...@hotmail.com
> In article <1144185237.7...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, kepip...@hotmail.com writes:
> > bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> >> In article <e0t3ns$vqo$1...@falcon.steinthal.us>, "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> writes:
> >> >
> >> > Josh, you must have been half-asleep when you wrote that.
> >> > AFAIK, everybody says the full Hallel at the Seder, albeit divided by
> >> > the meal. Also in Shacharit on the 1st day (2 days in Chutz laaretz).
> >> > Half hallel is said from Chol Hamoed onwards.
> >>
> >> You're right. It must be that time of year: too much dusting off
> >> books, arranging my office. Cleaning for the holidays.
> >
> > You might have saved yourself the trouble. According to nameless 'major
> > posqim' quoted in the 'Peah Cleaning Advice' discussion, you do not
> > need to dust off books for Pesah. But perhaps those 'major posqim' are
> > not such major posqim after all. That is my impression. What do you
> > say?
>
>
> Poskim SHMoskim :-) When the Boss says "Clean!", I stand at attention,
> click my heels and tell her, "Jahwol weiblicher Kommandant" and start
> cleaning!! Or else I'm in deep doo-doo :-)
Then it appears I need to learn from you. Your wife says "Clean!", and
so you stand at attention, click your heels, etc, and start cleaning.
My own wife, however, says 'Don't clean! We will hire help to do it'.
What I should have done was to immediately stand at attention, click my
heels and tell her, "Jahwol weiblicher Kommandant" and then take a
stroll in the park.
Giorgies
Visited Metropolitan Museum of Art today. In keeping with the Pesah
spirit, I avoided the Egyptian art wing.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Let's get this straight: the ANGELS (malachim) aren't permitted to
rejoice. However, the JEWS *are* permitted (even required) to
rejoice at the downfall of their enemies.
Secondly, look at the commentaries to WHOM the term "oyvecha"
(your "enemy") refers to.
It's sad that this perversion of Judaism has permeated into bastions
of Orthodoxy.
Josh
Beach Runner
Lisa wrote:
Lisa,
I'm sorry but that is simply saying the reason is, my belief is
authoritative, and thus every other Jews are not.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>
>> In article <m3lkuho...@dauphin.the-leveys.us>, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> writes:
>> > bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> You don't get it. A "respected source" would provide a reference (proof
>> >> text), even if it were a minority opinion from a medieval rabbi whose
>> >> opinion isn't followed. But the clergyman from Aish haTorah didn't
>> >> supply a reference because there ISN'T ANY! He made it up or simply
>> >> rehashed some absurd zero-evidence Conservadox opinion that has zero
>> >> validity and has no factual basis.
>> >>
>> > So when did Aish HaTorah originate this point of view?
>>
>>
>> It's not Aish haTorah as an institition. It's some clown whom I'm
>> embarrassed has a rabbinical degree who teaches at Aish haTorah.
>>
>> As someone I know used to say re: getting a good maid, "You just can't
>> get good help anymore!"
>>
> Do you know when this may have originated, though?
> I remember this explanation from almost 35 years ago, in
> haggadot.
Maxwell House ? Just because someone with a very mediocre Jewish
education translates the Hagadda into English doesn't make him
an authority on Jewish tradition. This touchy-feely Conservadox
gibberish has no Jewish base.
Josh
Beach Runner
Lisa wrote:
That's a start. Sure, say a traditional view is .... and of course I'd
be very interested in the wonderful commentary. At that point I'd be
very intrigues, instead of "you're wrong" and treated in a condescending
manner. I'm very interested in other views and very interested and can
certainly be moved with great thoughts from our history.
> Lisa
>
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
>
>
> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> You don't get it. A "respected source" would provide a reference (proof
>> text), even if it were a minority opinion from a medieval rabbi whose
>> opinion isn't followed. But the clergyman from Aish haTorah didn't
>> supply a reference because there ISN'T ANY! He made it up or simply
>> rehashed some absurd zero-evidence Conservadox opinion that has zero
>> validity and has no factual basis.
>>
>>
>>
>> It doesn't work that way in Judaism (nor in most academic areas).
>>
>> Josh
>>
>>
>
> I do get it. Only Traditional, Orthodox sources are of value, supported
> in the technique you approve of, meaning ancient discussions, that must
> end up supported with majority decisions about topics that didn't even
Correct. Because only these sources satisfy the requirements of
internal reliability and validity. Unless one is the Vilna Gaon,
the Chatam Sofer, or Rav Moshe Feinstein who had an absolute mastery
of a staggering amount of Jewish souce material: they (and only they)
had the privilege to innovate. And they innovated in only very
special circumstances after exploring all the vast amount of prior
literature.
> exist. Science, logic, common sense are not to be considered.
>
> Thus, the definition here is clearly defined. When Adele was in school,
> her free thinking was only allowed if she agreed with what she should
> have. And when she didn't, it was the fault of her teachers, no even
> considering that maybe her views were the result of intelligent, free
> though. Free thought in that arena is a contradiction in terms.
>
You misunderstood me. A student is entitled to ask (in a respectful
way) **ANY** question of his/her teacher. There are no taboo topics.
If a teacher is incapable of answering, he/she should never have
entered the teaching profession in the first place.
> In the case of wine drops, I simply said what I was taught, continue to
> have been taught, and demonstrated that other rabbis continue to support
But what you were taught (and I don't blame you!!) is erroneous. One of my
"jobs" on SCJM is to educate. What these so-called rabbis stated has zero
support in TRADITIONAL Jewish sources.
> this belief is of value. It demonstrates a set of values which I
> consider important. I still follow the basic Hillel statement, "What is
> hateful to thyself, don't do to others, all the rest is commentary".
But you haven't studied the parameters of this adage.
>
> There are other issues I have raised, which demonstrate compassion,
> concern for our world, and health, clearly supported with science,
> logic, and reason. You won't find an ancient discussion as the topics
> were not discussed. Similar discussions support a variety of views.
> Take into account science the views become much clearer.
>
Decisors of Jewish law always check with secular experts in
science and technology on matters they are unfamiliar with. After
gaining a general understanding of what's involved, they will
try and see what decisions of a prior century or era are similar
in legal concept to the current problem.
Josh
> Bob
Lisa
>
> I'm sorry but that is simply saying the reason is, my belief is
> authoritative, and thus every other Jews are not.
No. See, our "belief" is based on sources. It's not just us waking up
one day and saying, "Gee, it's kind of cloudy out. Yeah... and I'm
kinda feeling like Judaism should be like this. So that's what I'm
going to say it is."
You're attributing to us the cavelier attitude of those you're relying
on. That's a mistake.
You don't get to "roll your own". I'm sorry, but you don't. Judaism
is what it is. The Torah is what it is. If it doesn't suit you, that
means you need to change yourself. Not the other way around. It's not
that "my belief" is authoritative, but rather that there is a clearly
established authority in Judaism from the origins of Judaism, and
nothing can change that. Certainly not a bunch of people getting
together and saying, "We hereby establish the Blah-blah-ist Movement.
Blah-blah-ist Judaism says blah-blah, and therefore, blah-blah is an
acceptable Jewish view." Honest to God, Beach Runner, can you even
conceive of how grossly offensive that is? How utterly demeaning it is
for the Blah-blah-ists to take something as Holy as Hashem's Torah,
which we've literally given our lives to keep for thousands of years,
and turn it into last week's politically correct tripe?
Lisa
Micha Berger
a point of using the pointer to remove the wine from the cup. It does
not work if your custom is specifically to use the pinky ("This is the
'Finger' of G-d" commemorated by using our weakest finger?") or the
custom of the Ari and of German Jews of spilling it out.
The question of whether one can rejoice at the downfall of enemies
revolves around whether the quote from Proverbs "binfol oivekha al tismach
-- at the downfall of your enemy, do not rejoice" applies to non-Jewish
enemies. Shemu'el haQatan is cited in Avos as frequently saying it.
See Yalqut Shim'oni Parashas Emor, remez 566 and the Beis Yoseif on
Tur, O"Ch 490:4. They seem to disagree with Josh's and Lisa's thesis
that it's okay not to even mute our joy at the Egyptians' downfall.
-mi
--
Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rabbi Israel Salanter
Lisa
See, the problem is that the view we're disputing here is part and
parcel of a general worldview that wants to remake Judaism in some
western-liberal-fuzzy-wuzzy-nice image. And yes, some of us have a
knee-jerk reaction to that kind of thing. I know I do. It's
sick-making, and it doesn't make me want to respond to it civilly,
because it's insulting.
In this particular case, however, it's far more than just fuzzy-wuzzy.
It's intentionally dishonest. Not you, of course. You aren't being
intentionally dishonest, because you're relying on others. And perhaps
even those others aren't being intentionally dishonest. But there's a
chain of information here, and its source was not merely mistaken, but
intended to deceive. I'm going to show you the source, and you'll see
what I'm talking about.
====================================
Jewish Sources on Rejoicing Over the Downfall of an Enemy
Sanhedrin 39b:
[When we read about the death of Ahab, king of Israel, it says,] "And
joy rang out in the camp" (I Kings 22:36). R' Acha b. Chanina
said: "There is joy in the destruction of the wicked." (Proverbs
11:10); there is joy in the destruction of Ahab son of Omri."
And does the Holy One, Blessed be He, rejoice in the downfall of the
wicked? [But when King Jehoshaphat appointed singers to sing praises
to Hashem for destroying the armies of Ammon, Moab and Edom] it says:
"When [the singers] went out before the army, they said 'Give
thanks to Hashem, because His kindness is eternal'" (II Chronicles
20:21).
And R' Yochanan said: "Why doesn't this acknowledgement say
'because He is good'? Because the Holy One, Blessed be He, does
not rejoice in the downfall of the wicked, as R' Shmuel bar Nachman
said in the name of R' Yonatan:
"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' Yosi bar Chanina 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."
Sanhedrin 94a:
The Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to make King Hezekiah the messiah,
and make Sennecherib Gog and Magog. The attribute of justice said
before the Holy One, Blessed be He: "Master of the Universe: if You
didn't make King David, who sang many songs of praise before You, the
messiah, will You do so to Hezekiah, when You did all these miracles
before him, and he did not sing any songs of praise?"
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)."
====================================
I copied this from a source sheet I handed out once for a dvar I was
giving. The original included photocopies of the actual texts, so that
people could look for themselves and see that I wasn't making it up.
But let me direct your attention specifically to this part:
====================================
"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' Yosi bar Chanina 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."
====================================
I've seen this Gemara cited all my life. Starting from when I was
going to Camp Ramah. But they always leave off the second part.
That's not possible to do by mistake, you understand. No one capable
of reading this Gemara would be capable of taking it out of context in
such a way as to completely reverse its meaning. Not by mistake.
So understand, Beach Runner. It's not that we're trying to be mean by
rejecting this nonsense out of hand. It's anger at an intentional
distortion of something that means quite a lot to us. And you're
merely an inheritor of that anger, just as you're an inheritor of that
distortion.
Lisa
Lisa
Micha Berger wrote:
> Rabbi Dr Josh's explanation works for those (such as the Rama) who make
> a point of using the pointer to remove the wine from the cup. It does
> not work if your custom is specifically to use the pinky ("This is the
> 'Finger' of G-d" commemorated by using our weakest finger?") or the
> custom of the Ari and of German Jews of spilling it out.
>
> The question of whether one can rejoice at the downfall of enemies
> revolves around whether the quote from Proverbs "binfol oivekha al tismach
> -- at the downfall of your enemy, do not rejoice" applies to non-Jewish
> enemies. Shemu'el haQatan is cited in Avos as frequently saying it.
>
> See Yalqut Shim'oni Parashas Emor, remez 566 and the Beis Yoseif on
> Tur, O"Ch 490:4. They seem to disagree with Josh's and Lisa's thesis
> that it's okay not to even mute our joy at the Egyptians' downfall.
With all due respect, could you please specify what in the Yalkut
you're referring to? I've just been through Siman 566, and I don't see
anything relevant to the topic.
The Beit Yosef reference is valid, however. Thanks for providing it.
It's food for thought. But it applies specifically to Hallel, and I
don't see how you can justify extending it beyond that given the
explicit Gemara in Sanhedrin 39b, which I quoted in a different post in
this thread.
Lisa
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Read my lips: if you had to have a heart transplant and the 6th grade
dropout who pumps gas at the local Texaco station said in his esteemed
opinion [tm] that you didn't, whom would you listen to ? Him ? Or the
head of cardiothoracic surgery at Mass General Hospital ?
An unsupported opinion (even by a supposed O rabbi) isn't worth the
paper it's written on. Had the Jewish illiterati given 2 or 3 classic
sources to support his thesis, then fine. But since there aren't any,
he didn't and just parroted a totally unsupported, erroneous notion
that has absolutely zero basis in Jewish tradition.
Judaism isn't a free-for-all. Not every opinion has the same weight.
>
> It reminds me of when I picked up some Chasidic hitch hikers in South
> Fallsberg. I used to be a musician playing in the Borscht Belt, working
You automatically have earned 2 Brownie points with me.
> my way through college and grad school. I saw some hitch hikers, and I
> figured if I wouldn't pick them up, who would? So I picked them up and
> they saw my Jewish star, and immediately started insulting the person
> who picked them up. Interestingly, after a conversation at a natural
> food store with a Rabbi/Principal at their local school, I was asked to
> teach at the same school their children went to, but was headed in
> September back to the City to work on my degree. I'm very interested in
> learning about other views, learning about history, theological
> perspectives.
>
Only if the other views are SUPPORTED. You don't want to learn about
erroneous gibberish.
Josh
>
>>
Ken Bloom
> In article <m34q19q...@dauphin.the-leveys.us>, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> writes:
>> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>>
>>> In article <tvhYf.123800$g47....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Beach Runner <b...@nospam.com> writes:
>>
>>> >
>>> > My rabbi would teach never to take joy in the misfortune of our enemies.
>>> > That is why we drop out our wine in Passover, so as not to take joy in
>>> > the misfortune or our enemy.
>>>
>>> Au contraire !
>>>
>>> The reason for spilling out drops of wine when listing the 10 Plagues
>>> is given by the Rema in Darchei Moshe on the TUR Orach Chayim 473: to
>>> remind ourselves that the sorcerers of Pharaoh said that a plague was
>>> the "finger of" [i.e. "caused by'] God.
>>>
>>> [Then someone comes out of the woodwork and says that the "heiliger" [tm]
>>> Aish HaTorah hagaddah writes what you say. And another will swear that
>>> Mister Hartman's Conservadox hagadda indicates that the Abarbanel listed
>>> this naarishkeit. Trust me, he didn't. Go to http://jnul.huji.ac.il
>>> then click on English then go to Digitized Old manuscripts. Click on
>>> haggadot and follow the Hebrew until you reach the Abarbanel's Hagaddah.
>>> Try pages 12-15. You'll see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to support
>>> this Conservadox naarishkeit. And Aish haTorah is nothing to write
>>> home about either :-)]
Rabbi Jonathan Cohen "The Sephardi Hagadah" Feldheim p73:
The spilling of wine - "Do not rejoice when your enemy falls" Our cup
cannot be "full" as we recall the annihilation of the Egyptains (Prov
24:17 - Abarbanel)
--Ken
--
I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment.
See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> Rabbi Dr Josh's explanation works for those (such as the Rama) who make
> a point of using the pointer to remove the wine from the cup. It does
> not work if your custom is specifically to use the pinky ("This is the
> 'Finger' of G-d" commemorated by using our weakest finger?") or the
> custom of the Ari and of German Jews of spilling it out.
>
> The question of whether one can rejoice at the downfall of enemies
> revolves around whether the quote from Proverbs "binfol oivekha al tismach
> -- at the downfall of your enemy, do not rejoice" applies to non-Jewish
> enemies. Shemu'el haQatan is cited in Avos as frequently saying it.
>
> See Yalqut Shim'oni Parashas Emor, remez 566 and the Beis Yoseif on
> Tur, O"Ch 490:4. They seem to disagree with Josh's and Lisa's thesis
> that it's okay not to even mute our joy at the Egyptians' downfall.
Tsk tsk tsk :-) Quoting secondary sources without actually reading them
first ??? Had you actually read the Beit Yosef on TUR OC 490#4 you would
have seen that he's talking about the recital of the half-Hallel during
Chol haMoed and the last day of Pessach. He quotes the Shibolei haLeket
174 who gives ONE of the reasons why the half-Hallel is recited on these
days as "ma'aseeh yadai tov'im". You of course ignore the fact that AT
THE SEDER we say the **FULL** Hallel. Since the FULL Hallel is recited
at the SEDER and nowhere did the Beit Yosef give the reason why we spill
out wine, your secondary quoting is disingenuous and misleading. And by
the way, #566 in the Yalkut Shimoni is in Parshat Metzora (not Emor) and
deals with Negaim ("leprosy ??") in a house and why God "chas mamono
ha'bazui" even of the wicked. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to
do with why we spill out drops of wine at the Seder. And if the secondary
source you quoted was quoting a tertiary source, [I checked the Yalkut
Shimoni in Parshat Emor for a permutation of "566" and looked at 656]
I also found absolutely nothing whatsoever relevant to your thesis.
Again, I am saddened that this naarishkeit has permeated even bastions
of Orthodoxy even though it has absolutely zero basis in traditional
Jewish thought.
Josh
Beach Runner
Lisa wrote:
http://www.hanefesh.com/edu/Holidays/Passover.htm
Every time one of the plagues is mentioned, we dip our finger in the
wine and spill a drop. This reminds us that our cup of joy is not
complete because people had to die for our salvation. Thus it is
considered insensitive -- after completing the drops -- to lick one's
finger!
Rather than your "pinky" finger, you should use your "pointer finger"
(Etzba in Hebrew), which corresponds to the declaration in the Torah
that the plagues were Etzba Elohim -- "the finger of God" (Exodus 8:15).
You should spill a total of 16 drops -- three for "blood, fire and
pillars of smoke," 10 more for the plagues, and another three for Rabbi
Yehudah's abbreviation.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Another Am ha'Aretz member of the clergy who falsely quotes the Abarbanel ?
See the paragraph directly above (//jnul.huji.ac.il) and READ what I
posted. The Abarbanel says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of the sort.
I see some oysvorf writes something (which has zero basis and zero
support in the traditional literature) and a dozen nuchshleppers (including
Jonathan Cohen) then quotes the false, incorrect material. Utterly
mind boggling.
I see you can't get good "help" any more :-)
Josh
Lisa
Beach Runner wrote:
> > So understand, Beach Runner. It's not that we're trying to be mean by
> > rejecting this nonsense out of hand. It's anger at an intentional
> > distortion of something that means quite a lot to us. And you're
> > merely an inheritor of that anger, just as you're an inheritor of that
> > distortion.
> >
> > Lisa
> >
> http://www.hanefesh.com/edu/Holidays/Passover.htm
So I'm trying to figure out who "Rabbi Bill" is. It says quite a lot
about a site like this one that you can't even find out who's behind
it.
Look. Judaism is what Judaism is. It's not what every Hillel rabbi
(at a guess) says it is. When a rabbi says something that's patently
in conflict with Jewish sources, you're obligated to look into it and
see what's going on. How bloody ironic is it that two frum Jews are
saying: "Use your brains and look for source material", and the rest of
you are saying, "No, we have to accept whatever we're being told on
faith". It's lame.
Lisa
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
>> rejecting this nonsense out of hand. It's anger at an intentional
>> distortion of something that means quite a lot to us. And you're
>> merely an inheritor of that anger, just as you're an inheritor of that
>> distortion.
>>
>> Lisa
>>
> http://www.hanefesh.com/edu/Holidays/Passover.htm
You quote "Rabbi Bill" [that's his email] from the National
Association of Hebrew Students as your source ???
ROTFLMAOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW I just emailed rabb...@hanefesh.com and told him what
I thought of his "scholarship".
Utterly mindboggling how this naarishkeit gets circulated.
Josh
Micha Berger
: Tsk tsk tsk :-) Quoting secondary sources without actually reading them
: first ??? Had you actually read the Beit Yosef on TUR OC 490#4 you would
: have seen that he's talking about the recital of the half-Hallel during
: Chol haMoed and the last day of Pessach. He quotes the Shibolei haLeket
: 174 who gives ONE of the reasons why the half-Hallel is recited on these
: days as "ma'aseeh yadai tov'im". You of course ignore the fact that AT
: THE SEDER we say the **FULL** Hallel. Since the FULL Hallel is recited
: at the SEDER and nowhere did the Beit Yosef give the reason why we spill
But my point stands, despite your dismissive tone.
The idea that we're to feel bad for what happened to the Egyptians still
stands. It's not a hava amina (possibility) in the gemara that it then
rejects... the idea lives on into the rishonim.
-mi
--
Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore
Don Levey
> Beach Runner wrote:
> Okay, we hold another view. And the reason why is that it's the only
> view that is authoritative in Judaism. Semantics.
>
It may be only semantics, but for what it's worth I find it a little
more palatable. I'm more likely to engage in such a conversation,
rather than digging in my heels and becoming defensive. But again,
that's only me.
Don Levey
> In article <m3zmixm...@dauphin.the-leveys.us>, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> writes:
> > bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
> >
> >> In article <m3lkuho...@dauphin.the-leveys.us>, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> writes:
> >> > bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You don't get it. A "respected source" would provide a reference (proof
> >> >> text), even if it were a minority opinion from a medieval rabbi whose
> >> >> opinion isn't followed. But the clergyman from Aish haTorah didn't
> >> >> supply a reference because there ISN'T ANY! He made it up or simply
> >> >> rehashed some absurd zero-evidence Conservadox opinion that has zero
> >> >> validity and has no factual basis.
> >> >>
> >> > So when did Aish HaTorah originate this point of view?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not Aish haTorah as an institition. It's some clown whom I'm
> >> embarrassed has a rabbinical degree who teaches at Aish haTorah.
> >>
> >> As someone I know used to say re: getting a good maid, "You just can't
> >> get good help anymore!"
> >>
> > Do you know when this may have originated, though?
> > I remember this explanation from almost 35 years ago, in
> > haggadot.
>
> Maxwell House ? Just because someone with a very mediocre Jewish
> education translates the Hagadda into English doesn't make him
> an authority on Jewish tradition.
True. But it's interesting to see that it has spread far and wide
throughout Judaism in such a short time. Certainly wide enough
for Aish HaTorah, Artscroll, and the Reform movement to have picked
it up and accepted it.
I do indeed remember seeing it in the Maxwell House Hagadda, but
also in others which (I think) came out at about the same time.
It would be interesting (to me) to find out where this really came
from (and if it truly came from Maxwell House coffee).
> This touchy-feely Conservadox
> gibberish has no Jewish base.
>
That may be, but publications from "standard" Orthodox publishers
such as Feldheim and Artscroll seem to have included it.
Lisa
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> Read my lips: if you had to have a heart transplant and the 6th grade
> dropout who pumps gas at the local Texaco station said in his esteemed
> opinion [tm] that you didn't, whom would you listen to ? Him ? Or the
> head of cardiothoracic surgery at Mass General Hospital ?
>
> An unsupported opinion (even by a supposed O rabbi) isn't worth the
> paper it's written on. Had the Jewish illiterati given 2 or 3 classic
> sources to support his thesis, then fine. But since there aren't any,
> he didn't and just parroted a totally unsupported, erroneous notion
> that has absolutely zero basis in Jewish tradition.
>
> Judaism isn't a free-for-all. Not every opinion has the same weight.
I couldn't say it better. I know a lot of guys with smicha. If I was
allowed to and I had the time, I could get smicha, too. Would my
opinions mean more than they do now on any issue other than the
specific ones I would have had to study to pass the bechinot for
smicha?
My cousin used to call me to discuss halakhic issues before, during,
and after he got smicha. Getting the paper gives you authority in
specifically delineated areas. It doesn't make you other than what you
are. Take one guy who gets smicha and knows... well, whatever he
knows. Put him in charge of a Hillel House or a synagogue, and because
he's expected to take a leadership role there, all of a sudden, he
thinks he's more than he is.
I had a gemara teacher once, who didn't, at the time, have smicha. One
day, someone in the class asked him why he didn't have smicha, and he
said, more or less, "I don't feel like taking time off from learning
Torah to do it." It was a semi-flip answer, but completely valid. He
has smicha now, I understand, but he wasn't any less of a talmid
chacham then because of its lack.
The anti-religious types like to fire the accusation at us that we
accept authority blindly. They pretend that they're all about the
questioning authority. Well, that's bunk. If a rabbi says something
that's patently false, I'll challenge him. If Rabbi Bill says
something that demonstrates his lack of knowledge in the area, I'll
dispute it. If he says a pot is kosher, I probably won't dispute it,
because I lack the detailed knowledge of all the laws involved, but if
he does the selective quoting on thing on the Egyptians drowning, I'll
call him on it without a qualm.
Lisa
Lisa
Hey, such things happen. My partner used to work at a frum day school
in Boston. One of her fellow teachers there was absolutely certain
that the story of Avraham Avinu being tossed into the fiery furnace by
Nimrod was in the text of the Torah. She thought my partner was a
fruitcake to suggest otherwise.
It's appropriate to accept the word of experts. There's no learning,
otherwise, and no progress, because everyone would have to start from
tabula rasa. But that can be taken to an extreme. There's a kind of
mental laziness that a lot of people get into, where it seems they have
no curiosity. No interest in finding out what the sources are. Where
things are from.
My cousin (the one with smicha) used to talk about "is" people and
"ought" people. And how most people are primarily one or the other.
"Is" people deal with the world as it is. "Ought" people deal with the
world as it ought to be. "Is" people accept things. "Ought" people
look into things. The world needs both kinds. "Is" people keep the
world chugging on. "Ought" people ensure that the chugging on doesn't
stay at the level of cavemen.
When I refer to the lack of curiosity that leads people to assume that
Nimrod is in Breishit and that we drip drops of wine because it's just
so sad that the Egyptians drown as "mental laziness", I'm demonstrating
my personal bias. In truth, the world might not do that well if
everyone questioned everything. But this is, in my opinion, why you
wind up with silly stories of this sort making their way into the
Collected Works of R' Arthur Scroll, shlita.
Lisa
Lisa
Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 18:03:38 +0000 (UTC), bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> : Tsk tsk tsk :-) Quoting secondary sources without actually reading them
> : first ??? Had you actually read the Beit Yosef on TUR OC 490#4 you would
> : have seen that he's talking about the recital of the half-Hallel during
> : Chol haMoed and the last day of Pessach. He quotes the Shibolei haLeket
> : 174 who gives ONE of the reasons why the half-Hallel is recited on these
> : days as "ma'aseeh yadai tov'im". You of course ignore the fact that AT
> : THE SEDER we say the **FULL** Hallel. Since the FULL Hallel is recited
> : at the SEDER and nowhere did the Beit Yosef give the reason why we spill
> : out wine, your secondary quoting is disingenuous and misleading...
>
> But my point stands, despite your dismissive tone.
>
> The idea that we're to feel bad for what happened to the Egyptians still
> stands. It's not a hava amina (possibility) in the gemara that it then
> rejects... the idea lives on into the rishonim.
I disagree. It's at the very most a minor view that says we should be
sensitive to *Hashem*. It has nothing to do with compassion for the
Egyptians, may their bones rot. That's modern political correctness
seeping in.
Hashem's creations drowned, and we exercise restraint in the degree of
our celebration *on the anniversary of the day that it happened*.
That's the maximum extent of what the Shibbolei HaLeket says. There is
zero justification for generalizing further.
Nor, I'll point out, is it true that the Shibbolei HaLeket suggests
this is why we don't say full Hallel during Chol HaMoed. That comes
from the fact that we don't say the full Hallel on Shvi'i shel Pesach,
and is completely technical in nature.
Lisa
Ron Aaron
> When I refer to the lack of curiosity that leads people to assume that
> Nimrod is in Breishit
You mean the midrash about Avraham avinu and Nimrod; Nimrod *is* in
Bereshit...
--
Reva Forth - http://ronware.org/reva/
Lisa
Ron Aaron wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:51:00 +0000 (UTC), Lisa <li...@starways.net> wrote:
>
> > When I refer to the lack of curiosity that leads people to assume that
> > Nimrod is in Breishit
>
> You mean the midrash about Avraham avinu and Nimrod; Nimrod *is* in
> Bereshit...
<sigh> Yes, Ron. I should have spoken more precisely.
Lisa
Josh Backon
Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 18:03:38 +0000 (UTC), bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> : Tsk tsk tsk :-) Quoting secondary sources without actually reading them
> : first ??? Had you actually read the Beit Yosef on TUR OC 490#4 you would
> : have seen that he's talking about the recital of the half-Hallel during
> : Chol haMoed and the last day of Pessach. He quotes the Shibolei haLeket
> : 174 who gives ONE of the reasons why the half-Hallel is recited on these
> : days as "ma'aseeh yadai tov'im". You of course ignore the fact that AT
> : THE SEDER we say the **FULL** Hallel. Since the FULL Hallel is recited
> : at the SEDER and nowhere did the Beit Yosef give the reason why we spill
> : out wine, your secondary quoting is disingenuous and misleading...
>
> But my point stands, despite your dismissive tone.
Nowhere does the Beit Yosef indicate that the reason why WINE is
spilled is
because we "feel bad" for what happened to the Egyptians.
> The idea that we're to feel bad for what happened to the Egyptians still
> stands. It's not a hava amina (possibility) in the gemara that it then
> rejects... the idea lives on into the rishonim.
>
Vey iz mir. It deals with why the ANGELS (not Jews) weren't permitted
to rejoice.
That's why Jews sing AZ YASHIR to celebrate their victory over the
Egyptians.
That's why at the Seder, Jews recite the FULL Hallel.
Josh
Eliyahu
Josh Backon wrote:
> Micha Berger wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 18:03:38 +0000 (UTC), bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> > : Tsk tsk tsk :-) Quoting secondary sources without actually reading them
> > : first ??? Had you actually read the Beit Yosef on TUR OC 490#4 you would
> > : have seen that he's talking about the recital of the half-Hallel during
> > : Chol haMoed and the last day of Pessach. He quotes the Shibolei haLeket
> > : 174 who gives ONE of the reasons why the half-Hallel is recited on these
> > : days as "ma'aseeh yadai tov'im". You of course ignore the fact that AT
> > : THE SEDER we say the **FULL** Hallel. Since the FULL Hallel is recited
> > : at the SEDER and nowhere did the Beit Yosef give the reason why we spill
> > : out wine, your secondary quoting is disingenuous and misleading...
> >
> > But my point stands, despite your dismissive tone.
>
>
> Nowhere does the Beit Yosef indicate that the reason why WINE is
> spilled is
> because we "feel bad" for what happened to the Egyptians.
>
>
>
> > The idea that we're to feel bad for what happened to the Egyptians still
> > stands. It's not a hava amina (possibility) in the gemara that it then
> > rejects... the idea lives on into the rishonim.
> >
>
> Vey iz mir. It deals with why the ANGELS (not Jews) weren't permitted
> to rejoice.
> That's why Jews sing AZ YASHIR to celebrate their victory over the
> Egyptians.
> That's why at the Seder, Jews recite the FULL Hallel.
>
us (unlike the deaths of specific individuals such as Haman). Judaism
is a religion of life; not of death. We don't glorify death and
martyrdom, look forward to it, urge our fellow Jews to it, or make a
cult of death. That's one of the big differences between us and Islam.
If I can draw a parallel to military service ... when combat vets from
any war get together, they don't sing songs of joy about all the enemy
soldiers they killed or rejoice at the large numbers of enemy deaths.
Those troops didn't have any choice but to fight against us for the
most part, and there wasn't anything personal about it. While we might
celebrate the deaths of nazi leaders or the cadre of any enemy force,
there's no real joy for anyone in recounting, for instance, the death
of Private Hans Schmidt who froze to death on the eastern front or the
anonymous NVA soldiers who died when we tripped the Claymores outside
our wire.
We should, indeed, celebrate our victory and liberation from the
Egyptians, while still feeling some sadness at the cost with which it
was obtained. It wasn't the individual soldiers who ignored God's
warnings and refused to let our people leave. They had no say in the
matter. Read Mark Twain's "The War Prayer" sometime for a different
perspective on prayers for victory and celebration of war.
Eliyahu
Sheldon Ackerman
news:1144681116....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> I disagree. It's at the very most a minor view that says we should be
> sensitive to *Hashem*. It has nothing to do with compassion for the
> Egyptians, may their bones rot. That's modern political correctness
> seeping in.
>
> Hashem's creations drowned, and we exercise restraint in the degree of
> our celebration *on the anniversary of the day that it happened*.
> That's the maximum extent of what the Shibbolei HaLeket says. There is
> zero justification for generalizing further.
>
> Nor, I'll point out, is it true that the Shibbolei HaLeket suggests
> this is why we don't say full Hallel during Chol HaMoed. That comes
> from the fact that we don't say the full Hallel on Shvi'i shel Pesach,
> and is completely technical in nature.
>
>
The Sefer Taamei Haminhagim brings down the above reason for not saying
whole Hallel on the last days because of "my creations have sunk and you
are saying...shirah". The Sefer Lkutai either Mar-yach or Ma-ha-rich states
the above reason and cites the L'vush as stating it. In addition I think
the sefer Taamei Haminhagim states that the reason we do not say complete
Hallel during Chol Hamoed is so that it should not "be better" than the
latter days of Pesach.
BTW I just got a copy of Rav Elyashav's new Hagaddah. Here is "my"
translation of what he says on page 106 under the heading of "dam v'aysh
u'simros ashan: It is customary for Jews to spill a bit of the wine when
they say the above four words. "V'efsher Lomer" a reason for this custom,
that because at the time of the punishment of the Egyptians, the "simchah"
is not comple by G-d. He then quotes the chazal Maaseh Ydav Tovim B'yam
V'atem omrim shirah...He concludes "L'chayn machsirim m'at m'kos hahayin
hamvateh es hasimchah."
Yisroel Markov
This demonstrates that there is a demand for such an explanation -
that it resonates with a substantial share of the audience. PC
infiltration, if you wish.
>I do indeed remember seeing it in the Maxwell House Hagadda, but
>also in others which (I think) came out at about the same time.
>It would be interesting (to me) to find out where this really came
>from (and if it truly came from Maxwell House coffee).
>
>> This touchy-feely Conservadox
>> gibberish has no Jewish base.
>>
>
>That may be, but publications from "standard" Orthodox publishers
>such as Feldheim and Artscroll seem to have included it.
To this extent, they, too, are demand-driven. You will recognize that
as the charge laid at the C/R door :-)
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
From: bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish.moderated
Subject: Re: Drops of wine at the Seder
Message-ID: <2006Apr11.025705@hujicc>
Date: 11 Apr 2006 02:57:05 GMT
References: <e0sj8e$k9m$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> <m34q19q...@dauphin.the-leveys.us> <hTBYf.93517$_c.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> <e0vloj$u7j$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> <v1QYf.112223$Fw6....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> <c0d8321abeq1aasj2...@4ax.com> <kidZf.99748$_c....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> <e151dq$5qd$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> <m3lkuho...@dauphin.the-leveys.us> <e160gq$omk$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> <m3zmixm...@dauphin.the-leveys.us> <e19mpo$i6k$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> <m3d5fpm...@dauphin.the-leveys.us>
Followup-To: .the-leveys.us>
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Lines: 69
That's the problem. It was "Good to the last drop" :-)
>
> I do indeed remember seeing it in the Maxwell House Hagadda, but
> also in others which (I think) came out at about the same time.
> It would be interesting (to me) to find out where this really came
> from (and if it truly came from Maxwell House coffee).
>
>> This touchy-feely Conservadox
>> gibberish has no Jewish base.
>>
>
> That may be, but publications from "standard" Orthodox publishers
> such as Feldheim and Artscroll seem to have included it.
Nobody's perfect.
Josh
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> "Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in
> news:1144681116....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I disagree. It's at the very most a minor view that says we should be
>> sensitive to *Hashem*. It has nothing to do with compassion for the
>> Egyptians, may their bones rot. That's modern political correctness
>> seeping in.
>>
>> Hashem's creations drowned, and we exercise restraint in the degree of
>> our celebration *on the anniversary of the day that it happened*.
>> That's the maximum extent of what the Shibbolei HaLeket says. There is
>> zero justification for generalizing further.
>>
>> Nor, I'll point out, is it true that the Shibbolei HaLeket suggests
>> this is why we don't say full Hallel during Chol HaMoed. That comes
>> from the fact that we don't say the full Hallel on Shvi'i shel Pesach,
>> and is completely technical in nature.
>>
>>
> The Sefer Taamei Haminhagim brings down the above reason for not saying
> whole Hallel on the last days because of "my creations have sunk and you
> are saying...shirah". The Sefer Lkutai either Mar-yach or Ma-ha-rich states
> the above reason and cites the L'vush as stating it. In addition I think
> the sefer Taamei Haminhagim states that the reason we do not say complete
> Hallel during Chol Hamoed is so that it should not "be better" than the
> latter days of Pesach.
But this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with why we spill out drops
of wine.
>
> BTW I just got a copy of Rav Elyashav's new Hagaddah. Here is "my"
> translation of what he says on page 106 under the heading of "dam v'aysh
> u'simros ashan: It is customary for Jews to spill a bit of the wine when
> they say the above four words. "V'efsher Lomer" a reason for this custom,
> that because at the time of the punishment of the Egyptians, the "simchah"
> is not comple by G-d. He then quotes the chazal Maaseh Ydav Tovim B'yam
> V'atem omrim shirah...He concludes "L'chayn machsirim m'at m'kos hahayin
> hamvateh es hasimchah."
I sincerely doubt that Rav Elyashiv (who is my aunt's first cousin)
wrote this naarishkeit. It's probably that Efrati character again :-)
Josh
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Yes we do. The Song of Deborah (Judges 5:1-31) is an example.
> is a religion of life; not of death. We don't glorify death and
> martyrdom, look forward to it, urge our fellow Jews to it, or make a
> cult of death. That's one of the big differences between us and Islam.
>
>
> If I can draw a parallel to military service ... when combat vets from
> any war get together, they don't sing songs of joy about all the enemy
> soldiers they killed or rejoice at the large numbers of enemy deaths.
> Those troops didn't have any choice but to fight against us for the
> most part, and there wasn't anything personal about it. While we might
> celebrate the deaths of nazi leaders or the cadre of any enemy force,
> there's no real joy for anyone in recounting, for instance, the death
> of Private Hans Schmidt who froze to death on the eastern front or the
> anonymous NVA soldiers who died when we tripped the Claymores outside
> our wire.
>
> We should, indeed, celebrate our victory and liberation from the
> Egyptians, while still feeling some sadness at the cost with which it
> was obtained. It wasn't the individual soldiers who ignored God's
> warnings and refused to let our people leave. They had no say in the
> matter. Read Mark Twain's "The War Prayer" sometime for a different
> perspective on prayers for victory and celebration of war.
Josh
>
> Eliyahu
>
Lisa
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> In article <1144696893....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Eliyahu" <lro...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >
> > At the same time, we don't celebrate the deaths of armies that opposed
> > us (unlike the deaths of specific individuals such as Haman). Judaism
>
> Yes we do. The Song of Deborah (Judges 5:1-31) is an example.
Right. And... uh, what was that other one? Oh, right. Az Yashir.
When we explicitly sing in joy over the destruction of the Egyptians.
Hey, Eliyahu, have you ever read Az Yashir in translation? It's not
just a meek thank you. It's pretty vivid and wild, and it *gloats*.
Lisa
Don Levey
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:04:09 +0000 (UTC), Don Levey
> <Don_...@the-leveys.us> said:
>
> >bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
> >
> >>
> >> Maxwell House ? Just because someone with a very mediocre Jewish
> >> education translates the Hagadda into English doesn't make him
> >> an authority on Jewish tradition.
> >
> >True. But it's interesting to see that it has spread far and wide
> >throughout Judaism in such a short time. Certainly wide enough
> >for Aish HaTorah, Artscroll, and the Reform movement to have picked
> >it up and accepted it.
>
> This demonstrates that there is a demand for such an explanation -
> that it resonates with a substantial share of the audience. PC
> infiltration, if you wish.
>
Perhaps - though in this sort of situation, it continues to look
like there's something behind it (even if there is honest
disagreement over its validity).
> >> This touchy-feely Conservadox
> >> gibberish has no Jewish base.
> >>
> >
> >That may be, but publications from "standard" Orthodox publishers
> >such as Feldheim and Artscroll seem to have included it.
>
> To this extent, they, too, are demand-driven. You will recognize that
> as the charge laid at the C/R door :-)
>
Interesting... So the Orthodox base is demanding more C/R? :-)
Micha Berger
:> The Sefer Taamei Haminhagim brings down the above reason for not saying
:> are saying...shirah". The Sefer Lkutai either Mar-yach or Ma-ha-rich states
:> the above reason and cites the L'vush as stating it. In addition I think
:> the sefer Taamei Haminhagim states that the reason we do not say complete
:> Hallel during Chol Hamoed is so that it should not "be better" than the
:> latter days of Pesach.
: But this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with why we spill out drops
: of wine.
R' Dr Josh said the same about the Beis Yoseif I cited yesterday.
It is still sufficient to show that while we celebrate our being saved
from the Egyptians, we take the time to be fully aware of the human cost.
I have little emotional stake in the question of whether this particular
custom is a product of that value or not. To me, the debate is about
the existence of the value itself.
Zev Sero (in previous rounds of this debate on scj, here and on Avodah)
and Lisa deny it. To me, that creates a very wrong perception of Jewish
values. As though in an attempt to deny the Christian version of "turn
the other cheek" which would allow evil to flourish unopposed, one errs
to the opposite (Islamic?) extent.
If I may descend into ad hominem for a moment: I believe you and Lisa
are looking at the question through eyes that have lived in an Intifadeh
afflicted Israel. This is causing you to be more comfortable finding a
hard line approach to our enemies. But it really isn't consistent with
our traidition.
:> BTW I just got a copy of Rav Elyashav's new Hagaddah. Here is "my"
:> translation of what he says on page 106 under the heading of "dam v'aysh
:> u'simros ashan: It is customary for Jews to spill a bit of the wine when
:> they say the above four words. "V'efsher Lomer" a reason for this custom,
:> that because at the time of the punishment of the Egyptians, the "simchah"
:> is not comple by G-d. He then quotes the chazal Maaseh Ydav Tovim B'yam
:> V'atem omrim shirah...He concludes "L'chayn machsirim m'at m'kos hahayin
:> hamvateh es hasimchah."
: I sincerely doubt that Rav Elyashiv (who is my aunt's first cousin)
: wrote this naarishkeit. It's probably that Efrati character again :-)
Since so many others have written the same, perhaps it's time to be
less sure... Given that you seem to accept that in principle not only
angels but the Jews as well must feel the pain of the loss of "the work of
[G-d s] 'Hands"', and that not everyone who has the curstom to spill wine
does so with their index finger, there is a flaw in the notion that the
sole reason is to commemorate the Egyptian magician's saying "it is the
'Finger' of G-d". Why is it so naarish to connect the two?
-mi
--
Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
mi...@aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar
Micha Berger
: At the same time, we don't celebrate the deaths of armies that opposed
: us (unlike the deaths of specific individuals such as Haman)...
I disagree. We celebrate. But we mute the celebration out of an
acknowledgement that the problem was resolved in a non-ideal way.
We drink the cup of wine. Or, nearly a whole one.
-mi
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 02:02:15 +0000 (UTC), bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> :> The Sefer Taamei Haminhagim brings down the above reason for not saying
> :> whole Hallel on the last days because of "my creations have sunk and you
> :> are saying...shirah". The Sefer Lkutai either Mar-yach or Ma-ha-rich states
> :> the above reason and cites the L'vush as stating it. In addition I think
> :> the sefer Taamei Haminhagim states that the reason we do not say complete
> :> Hallel during Chol Hamoed is so that it should not "be better" than the
> :> latter days of Pesach.
>
> : But this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with why we spill out drops
> : of wine.
>
> R' Dr Josh said the same about the Beis Yoseif I cited yesterday.
>
> It is still sufficient to show that while we celebrate our being saved
> from the Egyptians, we take the time to be fully aware of the human cost.
> I have little emotional stake in the question of whether this particular
> custom is a product of that value or not. To me, the debate is about
> the existence of the value itself.
No we don't !! It's a goyish value.
>
> Zev Sero (in previous rounds of this debate on scj, here and on Avodah)
> and Lisa deny it. To me, that creates a very wrong perception of Jewish
And so do I and the vast majority of O Jews with a yeshiva education.
> values. As though in an attempt to deny the Christian version of "turn
You spend too much time on "machshava". Go ask Rav Teitz or Rav
Bechhofer for the Jewish version.
> the other cheek" which would allow evil to flourish unopposed, one errs
> to the opposite (Islamic?) extent.
>
> If I may descend into ad hominem for a moment: I believe you and Lisa
> are looking at the question through eyes that have lived in an Intifadeh
> afflicted Israel. This is causing you to be more comfortable finding a
> hard line approach to our enemies. But it really isn't consistent with
> our traidition.
>
A nechtiger tug :-) It's how chassidic and yeshivish families (from
Europe) ALWAYS reacted. It has nothing to do with the Intifada. I've felt
this way for almost 6 decades. I thank God 3 times a day for having
parents who grew up in pre-war Europe. I see how utterly assimilated
American Jewry has become and this includes the Orthodox [I now understand
the article by Dr. Hayyim Soloveitchik on the loss of mimeticism
among the American 2nd generation Orthodox]
> :> BTW I just got a copy of Rav Elyashav's new Hagaddah. Here is "my"
> :> translation of what he says on page 106 under the heading of "dam v'aysh
> :> u'simros ashan: It is customary for Jews to spill a bit of the wine when
> :> they say the above four words. "V'efsher Lomer" a reason for this custom,
> :> that because at the time of the punishment of the Egyptians, the "simchah"
> :> is not comple by G-d. He then quotes the chazal Maaseh Ydav Tovim B'yam
> :> V'atem omrim shirah...He concludes "L'chayn machsirim m'at m'kos hahayin
> :> hamvateh es hasimchah."
>
> : I sincerely doubt that Rav Elyashiv (who is my aunt's first cousin)
> : wrote this naarishkeit. It's probably that Efrati character again :-)
>
> Since so many others have written the same, perhaps it's time to be
> less sure... Given that you seem to accept that in principle not only
> angels but the Jews as well must feel the pain of the loss of "the work of
> [G-d s] 'Hands"', and that not everyone who has the curstom to spill wine
> does so with their index finger, there is a flaw in the notion that the
> sole reason is to commemorate the Egyptian magician's saying "it is the
> 'Finger' of G-d". Why is it so naarish to connect the two?
>
Go ask REMT (privately). Doing it publicly would only embarrass you.
Josh
Micha Berger
:> : But this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with why we spill out drops
:> : of wine.
:> R' Dr Josh said the same about the Beis Yoseif I cited yesterday.
:> It is still sufficient to show that while we celebrate our being saved
:> from the Egyptians, we take the time to be fully aware of the human cost.
:> I have little emotional stake in the question of whether this particular
:> custom is a product of that value or not. To me, the debate is about
:> the existence of the value itself.
: No we don't !! It's a goyish value.
And the gemara? And the Beis Yoseif? And the Yalqut?
And all those hagadah writers got it wrong.
Sorry Josh, I don't buy this one.
: You spend too much time on "machshava". Go ask Rav Teitz or Rav
: Bechhofer for the Jewish version.
Umm.. Read the description of TIDE RYGB sent around. RYGB is more of a
humanist than I am.
-mi
--
Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Lisa
Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 02:02:15 +0000 (UTC), bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> :> The Sefer Taamei Haminhagim brings down the above reason for not saying
> :> whole Hallel on the last days because of "my creations have sunk and you
> :> are saying...shirah". The Sefer Lkutai either Mar-yach or Ma-ha-rich states
> :> the above reason and cites the L'vush as stating it. In addition I think
> :> the sefer Taamei Haminhagim states that the reason we do not say complete
> :> Hallel during Chol Hamoed is so that it should not "be better" than the
> :> latter days of Pesach.
>
> : But this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with why we spill out drops
> : of wine.
>
> R' Dr Josh said the same about the Beis Yoseif I cited yesterday.
>
> It is still sufficient to show that while we celebrate our being saved
> from the Egyptians, we take the time to be fully aware of the human cost.
But Micha, that's not true. We take time to be sensitive of Hashem.
We have the one source that says Hashem silenced the mal'achim when
they sang shira (normal, daily shira) while the Egyptians were
drowning. That same Gemara explicitly says that we don't refrain from
rejoicing; just Hashem does. So we're chash to that.
Putting it in terms of "the human cost" is an adoption of goyische
values.
> I have little emotional stake in the question of whether this particular
> custom is a product of that value or not. To me, the debate is about
> the existence of the value itself.
The Jewish value is "b'shaat milchama, ha-tov she'ba-goyim: harog".
That's psak halakha, handed down from Tannaitic times, and brought as
halakha l'maaseh in two different places by the Mechaber in the
Shulchan Aruch. He felt it necessary to bring it down l'halakha
*twice*. And to even give instructions as to how it might be observed
in times when Jews are not able to do so in courts of law.
Furthermore, Chazal discuss the meaning of "milchama". They discuss
the horses that Pharaoh used to chase us. After all, weren't the
horses killed during the plagues? And the answer they give is that the
yir'ei Shamayim among the Egyptians brought their horses inside, and
they were saved. It was the yir'ei Shamayim among the Egyptians who
supplied the horses used to try and bring us back into slavery. And
Chazal speak of this situation and say, "Ein lecha milchama gedolah
mi-zeh".
We do not, like Golda Meir, mourn the human cost among our enemies.
They should choose not to be our enemies. It's not as though we seek
enemies, and if they volunteer for the position, well, they deserve
what they get. When we won the Six Day War, our joy was not lessened
due to the Arab dead in that war; nor should it have been. Such a
thing is an abomination to even suggest.
Justice is a value in Judaism. Justice differs from fairness. The
world isn't fair. But it can damned well be just, and the deaths of
the Egyptians was just. We do not mourn their passing.
> Zev Sero (in previous rounds of this debate on scj, here and on Avodah)
> and Lisa deny it. To me, that creates a very wrong perception of Jewish
> values. As though in an attempt to deny the Christian version of "turn
> the other cheek" which would allow evil to flourish unopposed, one errs
> to the opposite (Islamic?) extent.
Only if you see things in black and white, Micha. Ohad Kamin once
pointed out to me that Christianity is what happens when you raise up
Rachamim as the only value, and deny Din. The result is anything *but*
Rachamim. And Islam is the opposite. It's what happens when you raise
up Din as the only value, and deny Rachamim. Din gets flushed down the
toilet.
We stand in the middle, Micha. We recognize Rachamim in its place, and
we recognize Din in its place. What you are suggesting is nowhere near
that middle place. It's an adoption of Christianized values. It's the
sin of Shaul ben Kish, all over again.
> If I may descend into ad hominem for a moment: I believe you and Lisa
> are looking at the question through eyes that have lived in an Intifadeh
> afflicted Israel. This is causing you to be more comfortable finding a
> hard line approach to our enemies. But it really isn't consistent with
> our traidition.
You're wrong. And if I may descend into ad hominem in return, I
suggest that the fact that you haven't lived in such a situation has
resulted in you living in a kind of ivory tower. To the point where
you have forgotten, or lost sight, of what our tradition actually says.
Do you agree with the Mechaber when he paskens that ha-tov
she'ba-goyim, b'shaat milchama harog? Would you look to find a way to
interpret that out of existence, or would you merely accept that our
tradition isn't always hugs and puppies?
> : I sincerely doubt that Rav Elyashiv (who is my aunt's first cousin)
> : wrote this naarishkeit. It's probably that Efrati character again :-)
>
> Since so many others have written the same, perhaps it's time to be
> less sure... Given that you seem to accept that in principle not only
> angels but the Jews as well must feel the pain of the loss of "the work of
> [G-d s] 'Hands"', and that not everyone who has the curstom to spill wine
> does so with their index finger, there is a flaw in the notion that the
> sole reason is to commemorate the Egyptian magician's saying "it is the
> 'Finger' of G-d". Why is it so naarish to connect the two?
Because it was God's will that they die, and that's a good thing. We
have no tradition whatsoever that we are supposed to feel pain over it.
Read the Gemara, Micha. Even if R' Elyashiv were to say otherwise,
he'd merely be cholek on the Gemara. And I'm sorry, but even Rishonim
aren't allowed to do that.
Lisa
Lisa
Micha Berger wrote:
>
> Umm.. Read the description of TIDE RYGB sent around. RYGB is more of a
> humanist than I am.
You're using categories ("humanist") that aren't relevant. You can't
draw conclusions based on such categories.
Lisa
Micha Berger
:> from the Egyptians, we take the time to be fully aware of the human cost.
:> I have little emotional stake in the question of whether this particular
:> custom is a product of that value or not. To me, the debate is about
:> the existence of the value itself.
: No we don't !! It's a goyish value.
...
: Go ask REMT (privately). Doing it publicly would only embarrass you.
So I asked Rabbi Teitz. In short, he disagrees with Josh and joined the
consensus that we spill wine because "the work of My 'Hands' work is
drowning in the sea." Rabbi EM Teitz sent me something he permitted
I forward to Josh, and hopes to write something longer for public
consumption, hopefully during chol hamo'ed.
Ken Bloom
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 21:33:52 +0000 (UTC), bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> :> : But this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with why we spill out drops
> :> : of wine.
>
> :> R' Dr Josh said the same about the Beis Yoseif I cited yesterday.
>
> :> It is still sufficient to show that while we celebrate our being saved
> :> from the Egyptians, we take the time to be fully aware of the human cost.
> :> I have little emotional stake in the question of whether this particular
> :> custom is a product of that value or not. To me, the debate is about
> :> the existence of the value itself.
>
> : No we don't !! It's a goyish value.
>
> And the gemara? And the Beis Yoseif? And the Yalqut?
>
> And all those hagadah writers got it wrong.
I'm sending the question about the Abarbanel over to avodah. If he
says it in some unexpected place, someone there might have seen it and
be able to tell us where.
(Hopefully it's not too late to get a response)
--Ken
--
I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment.
See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures.
Beach Runner
Lisa wrote:
Lisa,
would you feel sad for collateral damage?
How about infant first born?
Thanks,
Lisa
>
> How about infant first born?
I'm okay with it.
Lisa
Beach Runner
Lisa wrote:
You are?
7) This Midrashic section culminates in the recitation of the Ten
Plagues which God sent against Egypt. There is a Midrash which states
that when god ultimately drowned the Egyptian army in the Sea of Reeds,
the Heavenly Angels wanted to sing praises before God, but God rebuked
them saying, "Silence! Would you sing to Me while my children are
drowning?!" this Midrash shows that even though God was delivering the
Israelites, God still had feelings of pity and mercy towards the
Egyptians whom God was drowning! Based on this sentiment, as each of the
Ten Plagues are recited, we dip a finger into our cup of wine and spill
out a drop for each of the Ten Plagues on to the rim of our plates to
show that our cup of gladness has been diminished because our redemption
had to come about through the death of others.
Tim Meushaw
a) You forgot to say what you were quoting, and you should darn well
know by now you won't convince anybody if you don't say the source,
b) You should know darn well by now you're not going to change anyone's
minds anyway, so why do you continue posting the same bits over and over?
Tim
--
Timothy A. Meushaw
meu...@pobox.com
Lisa
Beach Runner wrote:
> Lisa wrote:
>
> > I'm okay with it.
>
>
> 7) This Midrashic section culminates in the recitation of the Ten
> Plagues which God sent against Egypt.
You are just unbelievable.
I'm not even going to bother retyping this. It's in the same bloody
thread, Beach Runner.
> There is a Midrash which states
> that when god ultimately drowned the Egyptian army in the Sea of Reeds,
Yadda, yadda. There's no such midrash. It's the Gemara, in Sanhedrin
39b. And I quoted it in full here:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish.moderated/msg/27f95be05ee666b2
Read it, learn it, understand it, and recognize the dishonesty of the
people who have quoted the beginning of this while ignoring its
conclusion.
Draw the proper conclusions about the honesty of the author of whatever
you were quoting.
Lisa
Beach Runner
Lisa wrote:
Actually I thought I included the URL.
http://detroit.jewish.com/modules.php?name=Passover_Guide
Lisa
Holy cow. Dan's a Conservative rabbi? I went to college with him. I
taught him how to daven.
He was a nice guy. I'm going to assume that it's ignorance on his
part, rather than dishonesty. And before you start in on me for saying
that, it's not because he disagrees with me. There's no "me" to
disagree with, here.
He says this is a midrash. It's not. It's in the Gemara. And yes,
it's aggadta, so I'll cut him a small amount of slack, because I
wouldn't expect a Conservative rabbi to understand the difference.
He quotes all but the end of the story, or rather, he paraphrases it.
Perhaps he's not even citing it directly. Perhaps he's never even seen
it inside, in which case, the fact that he leaves off the end of the
discussion wouldn't be deliberate deception on his part.
But it's false anyway. Understand, Beach Runner. The fact that this
guy, a friend and sort-of-student of mine, is misrepresenting what the
Gemara says, is not mitigated by his degree from JTS. He's right or
wrong based on what the source itself says. And that means that he's
wrong. Period.
I'm going to e-mail him. This is pathetic.
Lisa
Micha Berger
:> We do not, like Golda Meir, mourn the human cost among our enemies.
I didn't make it up, see the Beis Yoseif who in turn cites the medrash.
:-)||ii!
-mi
Lisa
He doesn't cite it for what you claim he does, and it's aggadta. I
accept Dan Kohn getting the two mixed up, because he's a Conservative
rabbi.
Micha, you cited him as relating to why we don't say full Hallel. The
context of that Gemara shows clearly that we're being sensitive to
Hashem's "feelings", and not reducing our own simcha in any way.
You can keep saying that the Beis Yosef cites that story until you turn
blue in the face, but it's never going to mean what you're interpreting
it to mean.
Lisa
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
You might as well correct him on the other major egregious errors
he made. If I got a dollar for each one, I'd go on early retirement.
It's incredible how one person can make so many errors in 5 paragraphs.
[karpas, why we wash, etc,.]
Josh
>
> Lisa
>
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
A better question to Micha: do you skip the SHFOCH CHAMATCHA AL
HA'GOYIM section of the Haggada ? After all, it isn't "politically
correct". You ought to turn the other cheek :-) Or don't you do
HASIVA either ? [double pun]
Josh
>
> Lisa
>
Micha Berger
: A better question to Micha: do you skip the SHFOCH CHAMATCHA AL
: HA'GOYIM section of the Haggada ? After all, it isn't "politically
You resort to ridicule, which doesn't add merit to your argument. OTOH,
since you're not divorcing my position from that of the Beis Yoseif,
your tone seems pretty inappropriate.
As for your answer, it was Shemu'el haQatan who was chosen to write the
blessing in the Amidah asking for justice against apostates. The man
who turned the verse "when your enemy falls, do not rejoice".
I also noted that although we take wine out of the cup, we still drink
most of the cup.
While you may accuse me of having an overly PC or Christian ("turn the
other cheek") perspective, we aren't Moslems either. We seek a balance
between celebrating the revelation of Divine Justice and the winning of
good over evil and mourning the need for things to come to that point.
:-)||ii!
-mi
--
Micha Berger Today is the 4th day
mi...@aishdas.org in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an
Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others?
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 22:02:51 +0000 (UTC), bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> : A better question to Micha: do you skip the SHFOCH CHAMATCHA AL
> : HA'GOYIM section of the Haggada ? After all, it isn't "politically
> : correct"...
>
> You resort to ridicule, which doesn't add merit to your argument. OTOH,
> since you're not divorcing my position from that of the Beis Yoseif,
> your tone seems pretty inappropriate.
No ridicule. DO you say SHFOCH CHAMATCHA or don't you ? And
if you do, then how do you reconcile it with your "liberal"
thesis ??
Josh
q_q_an...@yahoo.co.uk
> > beach runner wrote:
> > One simple question. Does every Rabbi that writes have to defend their
> > position when they don't know they are being attacked for not believing
> > the same as you?
>
>
> Everyone who holds the title of (O) rabbi is expected to bring sources
> to substantiate his thesis. Failing that, to at least have an understanding
> of the texts. Had this member of the O clergy brought one reliable
> source I would have kept silent. But since there aren't any, the O
> clergyman was unable to provide any. I wouldn't have minded even if the
> source he would have quoted had been a minority opinion.
>
> Josh
>
and it's a jew's right to ask a rabbi for his source.
However, i'll point out that the RAMBAM provides no references (at
least not in his mishneh torah). And I think neither did Rashi(at least
afaik not in his 'written torah' commentary)
Nobody seems to care that Rashi didn't, prob 'cos it's usually quite
clear what midrash he is referring to.
There are long apologetics and excuses, speculating for why the RAMBAM
didn't. I think the reason he gave was that he was on a boat and had
limited access not access to a whole library (that was his situation,
but i'm not sure if that was his reason for that). Surely there are
cases where he could have had a 'note to scholar' where it's not clear
if he is deriving from one source or another.
Still. Rashi or the RAMBAM would've answered with sources had they
been asked.
I think jacko's sephardi RAMBAM scholar - and Ron's Chacham - Jose
Faur , said that he didn't provide referecnes because he expected
people to know the answers. Something like that anyway. I could be more
accurate, but i'm not v. impressed with these excuses.
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan is very thorough in giving references. Check out his
Handbook of jewish thought Vols 1 n 2.
But If the most well known greatest rabbis in jewish history don't
bother, then, well, I think it's pathetic really. But what example does
that set?
At least the RAMBAM was criticised for it. Though they went a bit far.
Micha Berger
: No ridicule. DO you say SHFOCH CHAMATCHA or don't you ? And
: if you do, then how do you reconcile it with your "liberal"
: thesis ??
Of course I do. As did the Beis Yosef. 2nd question answered below, but I
don't know why I expect you to ignore it any less the 2nd time around.
Also, if I'm so overly liberal, what was the Mechabeir (*)?
:> As for your answer, it was Shemu'el haQatan who was chosen to write the
:> blessing in the Amidah asking for justice against apostates. The man
:> who turned the verse "when your enemy falls, do not rejoice".
:> I also noted that although we take wine out of the cup, we still drink
:> most of the cup.
:> While you may accuse me of having an overly PC or Christian ("turn the
:> other cheek") perspective, we aren't Moslems either. We seek a balance
:> between celebrating the revelation of Divine Justice and the winning of
:> good over evil and mourning the need for things to come to that point.
I still believe you are the one twisting our mesorah to justify our common
inability to feel any regret at the death of a Palestinian terrorist. It
would seem, however, that we are /supposed/ to feel both the joy of a
successful raid mixed in with the pain of knowing that G-d's creations
had to be killed.
:-)||ii!
-mi
PS: *) Mechabeir = the author [of the Shulchan Arukh], a/k/a R' Yoseif
Caro, a/k/a Maran Bet Yosef, also the author of the Beis Yoseif.
--
Micha Berger Today is the 5th day
mi...@aishdas.org in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take
Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence?
Beach Runner
Lisa,
Once again, there are indeed other perspectives. There are places where
indeed we take no joy over destruction of our enemies. Clearly, the
part you quote has another view. I can certainly see how you would feel
this supports your view. It may well be an Orthodox majority view.
However, even taking your view, I don't see how a new born child could
have been an enemy. In fact, I find such a view point rather sad and to
me, not in keeping with the spirit of Torah. How do you reconcile this
with Hillel saying "Don't do to others what is hateful to the?". The
Torah itself is indeed filled with contradictions. I'm certainly no
expert in the Gemera, but to me other position can be reached than what
R' Yosi bar Chanina stated. Certainly, many rabbis have reached other
conclusions. You dismiss and insult them because they are not your type
of rabbis. But many have come to the same conclusion.
I do appreciate and find very interesting how you reached your conclusion.
q_q_an...@yahoo.co.uk
Lisa wrote:
> Beach Runner wrote:
> > Lisa wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >>Ask the Rabbi wasn't entering a debate. He was a respected source.
> > >>
> > >>I'm getting real tired of this. Instead of calling it wrong and utter
> > >>gibberish, say you hold another viewpoint, and here's why.
> > >
> > > Okay, we hold another view. And the reason why is that it's the only
> > > view that is authoritative in Judaism. Semantics.
> >
> > That's a start. Sure, say a traditional view is .... and of course I'd
> > be very interested in the wonderful commentary. At that point I'd be
> > very intrigues, instead of "you're wrong" and treated in a condescending
> > manner. I'm very interested in other views and very interested and can
> > certainly be moved with great thoughts from our history.
>
> See, the problem is that the view we're disputing here is part and
> parcel of a general worldview that wants to remake Judaism in some
> western-liberal-fuzzy-wuzzy-nice image. And yes, some of us have a
> knee-jerk reaction to that kind of thing. I know I do. It's
> sick-making, and it doesn't make me want to respond to it civilly,
> because it's insulting.
>
> In this particular case, however, it's far more than just fuzzy-wuzzy.
> It's intentionally dishonest. Not you, of course. You aren't being
> intentionally dishonest, because you're relying on others.
<snip>
how soon before you change your mind?
q_q_an...@yahoo.co.uk
You are quoting Hillel but running against Hillel's intention, what
Hillel meant.
Hillel was born before the united states of america, before the
assimilation in germany. He believed the Tenach and Oral Traditions
that form the Talmud.
It is therefore obvious, that Hillel still Agrees with events where we
rejoiced at the fall of our enemy since those events are in the tenach.
Therefore, it's wrong to quote hillel in supporting your belief that
we shouldn't rejoice in the fall of our enemy.
Whether what Hillel said has Exceptions. Or whether you misunderstood
the heberw meaning of the word. You don't even need to go that far.
Hillel wasn't stating a 'view' that conflicts with certain areas of the
tenach.
You may not know what he meant . I'd have to study it to find out, but
studying it is not necessary for this.
*I know what he doesn't mean.*
For example, he doesn't mean. Do not rejoice in the fall of our
enemies. Any interpretation you invent that contradicts the tenach, is
obviously not what he meant. Because Hillel believed the tenach.
Lisa
Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 22:02:51 +0000 (UTC), bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> : A better question to Micha: do you skip the SHFOCH CHAMATCHA AL
> : HA'GOYIM section of the Haggada ? After all, it isn't "politically
> : correct"...
>
> You resort to ridicule, which doesn't add merit to your argument. OTOH,
> since you're not divorcing my position from that of the Beis Yoseif,
> your tone seems pretty inappropriate.
That's an oversight on Josh's part. I'm divorcing your position from
that of the Beis Yosef, R' Micha. Though I'm sure you'll ignore that
this time as well.
The Beis Yosef speaks of why we don't say Full Hallel on the last night
of Pesach. That last night is the anniversary of the Egyptians
actually drowning. And neither the Beis Yosef nor any other Jewish
source claims that we say a short Hallel because *we* are lessening our
joy.
Nor does the Beis Yosef say anything about this being the reason why we
drip those drops during seder. You're connecting the two, Micha.
That's rhetoric, and in Judaism, rhetoric is tafel to sources.
> As for your answer, it was Shemu'el haQatan who was chosen to write the
> blessing in the Amidah asking for justice against apostates. The man
> who turned the verse "when your enemy falls, do not rejoice".
Turned... did you leave something out here, Micha?
> I also noted that although we take wine out of the cup, we still drink
> most of the cup.
>
> While you may accuse me of having an overly PC or Christian ("turn the
> other cheek") perspective, we aren't Moslems either. We seek a balance
> between celebrating the revelation of Divine Justice and the winning of
> good over evil and mourning the need for things to come to that point.
More rhetoric. Accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being like
Muslims. Sort of "I'm rubber, you're glue." Your rhetoric does not
change the fact that we do not mourn the death of the Egyptians in the
sea in any way, shape or form.
Lisa
Micha Berger
: He says this is a midrash. It's not. It's in the Gemara. And yes,
: it's aggadta, so I'll cut him a small amount of slack, because I
: wouldn't expect a Conservative rabbi to understand the difference.
It's a medrash. The gemara's conclusion is that half-hallel on the majority
of Passover is about
Israel vs other countries, and whether the number of offerings is different
than the previous day.
For the 12th time or so...
The Beis Yoseif (O"Ch 490:4, "Kol") cites the Shibolei haLeqet who
in turn cites Medrash Harninu (parashas Sukkah; the modern computer
enhanced edition has someone on the bottom who points you to the Yalqut
Shim'oni, Parashas Emor, remez 566, but Josh says the reference is wrong):
shehata'am she'ein gomerin haHallel kol yemei haPesach hu lefi shenitbe'u
haMitzriyim. (The reason that we do not complete the Hallel all of the
days of Passover is because the Egyptians were drowned.)
The Perishah on the bottom of the same page (225b in standard editions
of the Tur) relates this to the words of Mishlei "binfol oyvekha al
tismach -- when your enemy falls, do not rejoice".
Look, I'm also distressed by the low level of education necessary to be
a C rabbi, and therefore how little the masses are actually getting. But
in this case, he is correct -- not you or Josh. It's there on the page
of the Tur, black on beige (at least, my copy's pages are beige <g>).
:-)||ii!
-mi
Lisa
Beach Runner wrote:
> Lisa wrote:
> >
> >>There is a Midrash which states
> >>that when god ultimately drowned the Egyptian army in the Sea of Reeds,
> >
> > Yadda, yadda. There's no such midrash. It's the Gemara, in Sanhedrin
> > 39b. And I quoted it in full here:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish.moderated/msg/27f95be05ee666b2
> >
> > Read it, learn it, understand it, and recognize the dishonesty of the
> > people who have quoted the beginning of this while ignoring its
> > conclusion.
> >
> > Draw the proper conclusions about the honesty of the author of whatever
> > you were quoting.
>
> indeed we take no joy over destruction of our enemies. Clearly, the
> part you quote has another view. I can certainly see how you would feel
> this supports your view. It may well be an Orthodox majority view.
No, Beach Runner. You aren't paying attention. You cited Dan Kohn,
who sited a Jewish source. That source is unambiguous. There are no
valid perspectives that involve deriving that message from that source.
If Dan wants to say that this is what he feels, and you want to say
that, hey, a Conservative rabbi says this, so it's a valid perspective,
fine. It's ditzy, but go right ahead. But that's not what's happening
here. This is like if I were to say, "Those who live by the sword
shall die by the sword", and you were to take the 3rd through 6th words
out of that sentence and quote me as saying, "live by the sword". It's
a selective quote which reverses the meaning of what I actually did
say.
There is no perspective that makes it okay to do that. It's a lie.
I'll accept that you aren't lying, because you were relying on what Dan
Kohn wrote. I'll even accept that Dan isn't lying, because he's a
Conservative rabbi, and can't honestly be expected to be able to look
at the Gemara himself. But whoever may have originated the lie, it
remains a lie.
God *damn* it, Beach Runner. I've given you the source. Do I have to
give you a fracking photograph of the page so that you can see with
your own eyes that it's the case? Here:
http://images.e-daf.com/DafImg.asp?ID=3688&size=1
The passage I gave you a translation of earlier in this thread starts
on the 5th line of the center part of the text. But you can skip down
to the 14th line if you like:
V'lo karav zeh el zeh kol ha-layla.
And they didn't come close to one another all the night.
B'otah sha'ah bikshu mal'achei ha-shareit lomar shirah lifnei HaKadosh
Baruch Hu.
At that time, the ministring angels wished to say shirah-praises before
the Holy One, Blessed be He.
Amar lahen HaKadosh Baruch Hu: Maaseh yadai tov'in ba-yam, v'atem omrim
shirah lifanai?
The Holy One, Blessed be He said to them: The work of My hands is
drowning in the sea, and you're saying shirah-praises before Me?
Amar R' Yosi bar Hanina: Hu eino sas, aval acherim meisis.
R' Yosi bar Hanina said: He doesn't rejoice, but He makes others
rejoice.
Dayka nami, dichtiv: Yasis. V'lo k'tiv: Yasos. Sh'ma mina.
This is specified as well, for it's written (Deut. 28:63): And He will
cause to rejoice. And it doesn't say: He will rejoice. We hear it
from this.
That's what the Gemara says. Angels are a part of Hashem. The
metaphor of Hashem preventing them from singing His praises at that
time because the Egyptians were drowning makes sense, because those are
Hashem's creations. But they aren't ours. They're just our enemies.
And it's right and proper for us to praise Hashem for the deaths of the
Egyptians.
There is no valid way to read this Gemara to say what Dan Kohn is
saying. And this is the source that he's citing, whether he's ever
seen it inside or not.
> However, even taking your view, I don't see how a new born child could
> have been an enemy.
You don't have to. The men of the Lamed Hei couldn't see how an old
shepherd could have been an enemy, and that's why they all died. You
don't have to agree, Beach Runner. You can have an opinion that goes
against what Judaism says. That's not dishonest. I may disagree with
you, but I can't say that it's dishonest for you to disagree with what
Judaism says about this or anything else.
What is dishonest is for you to say, "It makes me uncomfortable to
think that Judaism says something I disagree with. Therefore, I shall
declare that Judaism says otherwise, thereby removing the cause of my
discomfort." That's dishonest. That's fraud. Now, I'm using "you"
generically. I don't say that this is what you're doing. Or that if
you are, it's conscious. I'm pointing out that it's a dishonest way to
deal with things. You're the only one who gets to decide whether do
deal with things this way or not.
> In fact, I find such a view point rather sad and to
> me, not in keeping with the spirit of Torah.
You don't get to say what is and what isn't in keeping with the spirit
of Torah. You don't get to remake the Torah in your image. You're
supposed to come to the Torah objectively and see what *it* says. Not
push your own values and judgements on it.
> How do you reconcile this
> with Hillel saying "Don't do to others what is hateful to the?".
How is it even relevant? In the first place, Hillel didn't say that.
He said, "What is hateful to you, don't do to your chaver." Not "don't
do to others." Our enemy in a time of war does not fall into that
category. Words are important in Judaism, Beach Runner. We use them
very precisely. Not randomly and vaguely. Had Hillel wished to say
what you think he said, he could have done so easily. He didn't.
> The Torah itself is indeed filled with contradictions.
In your opinion. If I tell you, "Leave through the back door" and you
go to the back and see no back door, you could say, "Aha, it's a
contradiction." Or you could pull aside the curtain and see the door
that was hidden. Or you could ask me what I meant and find out that
the side of the house you were thinking of as the back side wasn't what
I was talking about at all, because the front door is on the side of
the house.
You could try and figure out what something means, or you could take
the intellectually lazy way out and say that if you don't understand
something as it's said to you, it must be filled with contradictions.
Sometimes, there are things that have apparent contradictions that you
don't even realize have apparent contradictions. Seder night, for
example, we started the seder with "Ha lachma anya": "This is the bread
of affliction." That passage is absolutely riddled with statements
that demand interpretation, but only if you know enough will you even
see the problems that demand a solution. So you see the apparent
contradictions that are on your level, which is fine. But you dismiss
them as contradictions, which isn't what they're for. They're to make
you use that grey stuff in your skull.
There've been many cultures in the world which have used riddles to
teach. Which have even used them as a primary teaching tool. We are
one of them.
> I'm certainly no
> expert in the Gemera, but to me other position can be reached than what
> R' Yosi bar Chanina stated.
That's not true. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding of
Talmudic methodology. When the Gemara ends with a statement like that,
it means that's the bottom line. No one disputes R' Yosi, and you
certainly know enough to know that if anyone had a different view, it'd
be right there.
> Certainly, many rabbis have reached other conclusions.
No, they haven't. Take Dan Kohn, for example. He doesn't even address
what R' Yosi says. The "many rabbis" you refer to have not reached
other conclusions about what R' Yosi said. The best they've been able
to do is to selectively quote so that what R' Yosi says isn't included.
That's fraud. That's dishonesty.
Except, as I said, that most of them are probably unaware of the fraud
and dishonesty that they're passing on, because they've never actually
seen the Gemara inside.
Beach Runner, find me a single "rabbi" of any kind who has addressed
what R' Yosi says and comes up with an "interpretation" that has him
saying other than what I've told you. Go get Jay Lapidus, if you like.
Dan Kohn. I don't care about the denomination. Hell, find me a
Christian Talmudist if you like. They exist. Find me anyone. Or
hell, give me your own interpretation of what R' Yosi is saying.
No, this isn't something ambiguous. Not at all. This is people who
are coming to the source with a pre-conceived notion of what the
message is they want to walk away with, and quoting selectively and
dishonestly in order to do it.
> You dismiss and insult them because they are not your type
> of rabbis. But many have come to the same conclusion.
No, they haven't. Find me one. Find me one who hasn't merely
disregarded that line because it goes against their personal grain and
has actually interpreted it in a way that differs from what I've told
you. Perhaps you want to believe it, but it's not true. You want to
think that they've done this, because the alternative is for you to be
face to face with their intellectual bankruptcy, so you have to assume
that they've done this, and that I merely dismiss them because "they
aren't my type of rabbis". If this is the case, it should be easy for
you to find a single source to prove your point. One, Beach Runner.
That's all you need. I might indeed laugh at a silly and impossible
misinterpretation, but I don't think that'll be necessary. I don't
think any such misinterpretation exists.
> I do appreciate and find very interesting how you reached your conclusion.
The words are right there, Beach Runner. Even the imaginations of the
folks at JTS and RRC and HUC and the rest aren't up to the challenge of
making them mean something else.
Lisa
Lisa
Why do you want me to? How can someone be considered intentionally
dishonest when he doesn't seem able to have informed intent one way or
the other?
Lisa
in...@rambam.biz
HA'GOYIM section of the Haggada ? After all, it isn't "politically
correct". You ought to turn the other cheek :-) Or don't you do
---------------------------
Here we go. In Passaic, NJ, where Rav Micha is, "shfoch chamatcha al
ha'goyim" (pour your wrath onto the goyim) does not seem as appropriate
and necessary to say as in eer hakodesh, where Rav Josh resides, and
there is perhaps a tad more animosity between Yidden and non-Yidden.
Though maybe when we Americans say "shfoch", we're saying it for Eretz
Yisrael, and the European antisemits, etc. like when we say "mashiv
ha'ruach" for Israel?
Actually, I'm embarrased to say I don't recall the "shfoch" passage,
and I read the whole haggadah through twice this year for the first
time, kol hakavod. Where does it occur? I'm gonna look for it during
coffee after I finish this, thanks. Good Moed. Simcha
Henry Goodman
<in...@rambam.biz> wrote in message
news:1145377992....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
After the third cup which is after benching
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
Lisa
Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 09:08:31 +0000 (UTC), Lisa <li...@starways.net> wrote:
> : He says this is a midrash. It's not. It's in the Gemara. And yes,
> : it's aggadta, so I'll cut him a small amount of slack, because I
> : wouldn't expect a Conservative rabbi to understand the difference.
>
> It's a medrash. The gemara's conclusion is that half-hallel on the majority
> of Passover is about
> Israel vs other countries, and whether the number of offerings is different
> than the previous day.
>
> For the 12th time or so...
> The Beis Yoseif (O"Ch 490:4, "Kol") cites the Shibolei haLeqet who
> in turn cites Medrash Harninu (parashas Sukkah; the modern computer
> enhanced edition has someone on the bottom who points you to the Yalqut
> Shim'oni, Parashas Emor, remez 566, but Josh says the reference is wrong):
> shehata'am she'ein gomerin haHallel kol yemei haPesach hu lefi shenitbe'u
> haMitzriyim. (The reason that we do not complete the Hallel all of the
> days of Passover is because the Egyptians were drowned.)
Micha, with all due respect. And this is the umpteenth time for me as
well. That statement is shorthand for the fact that we don't say it on
the last day for that reason, and that we don't say it on the
intermediate days because it makes no sense to say Full Hallel on Chol
HaMoed and then drop down to Half Hallel on chag. You know this.
I acknowledged this source when you posted it, but I pointed out then,
and several times since, and will do so again, that there is no
connection between this and the dripping of drops during the Seder, and
that given the Gemara in Sanhedrin 39b, your interpretation of what the
Beis Yosef says cannot be correct. That's the only source in Chazal
that refers to an issue surrounding the Egyptians drowning, and neither
the Beis Yosef, nor the Shibbolei HaLeket, nor Midrash Harninu, nor the
Yalkut Shimoni, would be disputing the Gemara. You *know* this.
Since they can't be disputing the Gemara here, you can't conclude that
the words you quoted mean that we're reducing our simcha. And kal
v'chomer, you can't possibly read mourning into that, which would go
even beyond reducing our simcha.
And the Gemara makes it abundantly clear that we do *not* reduce our
simcha because the Egyptians died. Only that Hashem's simcha,
kavayachol, is reduced, or moderated.
http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5760spring/legalease.pdf
This is a good discussion of the issue.
But all of this has to do only with Hallel. There *are* no sources for
connecting that with the dripping of drops. You keep connecting them,
and I'm telling you that it's inappropriate. It's you taking a concept
you like and imposing it where it does not apply.
> The Perishah on the bottom of the same page (225b in standard editions
> of the Tur) relates this to the words of Mishlei "binfol oyvekha al
> tismach -- when your enemy falls, do not rejoice".
And yet, the Gemara in Megillah 16a specifically says "Hanei mili
b'Yisrael." That this refers to Jewish enemies. To Ariel Sharon or
Shimon Peres or Yossi Beilin or Yossi Sarid. Not to Haman, and not to
the Egyptians who were pursuing us. I'll have a look at the Perisha,
God willing, when I get home, but if he does say that, then there's a
stira between the Perisha and the Gemara. And I find that hard to
believe.
> Look, I'm also distressed by the low level of education necessary to be
> a C rabbi, and therefore how little the masses are actually getting. But
> in this case, he is correct -- not you or Josh. It's there on the page
> of the Tur, black on beige (at least, my copy's pages are beige <g>).
And the Gemara says otherwise. Tiyuvta.
Lisa
Beach Runner
Lisa,
First thank you for the very well written and supported posting. I can
certainly understand your position and highly response this.
As Cindy says, perhaps my view of what Cindy calls PC, but I don't. I
see Judaism as a warm, caring, evolving and growing religion. It isn't
within the traditional views, and I'd love more discussions the why
views are held, especially when I am wrong to strongly consider other
sages views. Thank you so much.
q_q_an...@yahoo.co.uk
I don't mind whether you do change your mind or not.
Mr/Mrs beach runner shouldn't take this as a criticism of his character
- I wouldn't say he is intellectually dishonest either. But
He isn't dealing with your arguments directly, and it's only a matter
of time till he posts another similar thread.
A previous one was eco kosher/ vegetarianism. Which was dealt with by
others. And a previous thread also on vegetarianism. All were refuted,
but he bounces back. I put it down to his incompetence at refuting the
arguments against him, rather than any malice on his part.
Some of your arguments were very good, particularly the one about
setting up a blah blah judaism movement and then the view is a jewish
view. As an argument for the original long established system.
V. intelligent, and creative of you, to write orthodox arguments that
work regardless of whether the torah is true or not. since he doesn't
accept the torah as truth.
I wonder if .beach runner will accept that his views are *Only*
Inspired by judaism. Or Vaguely related to an aspect of judaism.
beach runner?
He would not find any jewish scholar pre 1800 that agrees with him.
Certainly not the one he quoted - Hillel.
To quote hillel, is either stupid or dishonest. (because it runs
against Hillel's intention / what Hillel meant - since Hillel accepted
the torah e.g. including killing amalek)
He used Rav Kook as an example to support his vegetarianism claim, that
was also wrong - Rav Kook ate chicken on friday night.
.
Lisa
Beach Runner wrote:
> Lisa wrote:
> >
>
> First thank you for the very well written and supported posting. I can
> certainly understand your position and highly response this.
>
> As Cindy says, perhaps my view of what Cindy calls PC, but I don't. I
> see Judaism as a warm, caring, evolving and growing religion. It isn't
> within the traditional views, and I'd love more discussions the why
> views are held, especially when I am wrong to strongly consider other
> sages views. Thank you so much.
Beach Runner, I have yet to see you strongly considering the views of
Jewish sages. Dan Kohn, with all due respect to him, is not a "sage".
He's a guy who has a "rabbi" degree from JTS. And he does not present
a view of his own in any case. Merely a misquote of a Jewish source.
I get that you want to spin your views as being merely "alternative"
views within Judaism. You can only do that if you have sources to back
them up. You can't just pick something out of the air (or off of the
Internet) and declare it a viable and valid alternative.
Lisa