Moshe's Song
Micha Berger
:>And who was it who was not supposed to rejoice
:>over the suffering of the oppressors of the Israelites?
:>What did HaShem call those oppressors?
: Which time? I remember the rebuke to the angels when they
: sang with Miriam: My other children are dying, and you rejoice?
Two comments, a quibble and a non-quibble:
The quibble: it wasn't only Miriam they sang with, it was also the song of
Moses and the Children of Israel, which was probably simultaneous.
The real issue, though, is that while G-d stopped the angels, he didn't stop
the Jews. To this very day, liturgy has us reciting this song every morning.
Including the words, "For in it, horse and rider were overcome in the sea...
G-d is a Master of Was... The chariots of Pharoa and his soldier... and his
best third drowned in the Red Sea..."
While we say full Hallel tomorrow (and outside of Israel, on Fri) we do say
an abbreviated version on the other days of Passover. The Talmud offers a
number of reasons, among them is this medrash. It appears improper to sing
songs of praise on the last day(s) of Passover, the anniversary of the
crossing of the Red Sea. And, if we're not saying it on the last day(s),
it would seem wrong to sing it on the less sacred (but still not secular)
intermediate days.
There is something inherently different between the praise sung by the
actual victims, and those sung by us or by the angels. I'm not sure what.
Judaism believes in destroying evil. Unlike another religion that is so
influential in modern culture, which lauds offering it the other cheek.
Letting evil thrive is to share in the guilt. Ideally you destroy the evil,
not the one doing it. However, if you can't, you kill the wrongdoers to save
the innocent.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 18-Apr-00: Shelishi
mi...@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Rosh-Hashanah 26b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
dltjxx
>>sang with Miriam: My other children are dying, and you rejoice?
>Two comments, a quibble and a non-quibble:
>The quibble: it wasn't only Miriam they sang with, it was also
>the song of Moses and the Children of Israel, which was probably
>simultaneous.
Probably? Interesting, I'd never thought about the songs being
simultaneous..
>The real issue, though, is that while G-d stopped the angels,
>he didn't stop the Jews. To this very day, liturgy has us
>reciting this song every morning. Including the words, "For
>in it, horse and rider were overcome in the sea...G-d is a
>Master of Was... The chariots of Pharoa and his soldier... and
>his best third drowned in the Red Sea..."
>While we say full Hallel tomorrow (and outside of Israel, on
>Fri) we do say an abbreviated version on the other days of
>Passover. The Talmud offers a number of reasons, among them
>is this medrash. It appears improper to sing songs of praise
>on the last day(s) of Passover, the anniversary of the
>crossing of the Red Sea. And, if we're not saying it on the
>last day(s), it would seem wrong to sing it on the less
>sacred (but still not secular) intermediate days.
>There is something inherently different between the praise sung
>by the actual victims, and those sung by us or by the angels.
>I'm not sure what.
Maybe because the actual victims may express praise and
gratitude for their being saved; the angels, however, like
us, not having been the target, can be seen, so to speak,
to be taking sides? I haven't put it clearly; it's an
impression, not anything reasoned. For us to rejoice
would be tantamount to gloating over the destruction of
the Egyptians, who couldn't all have been at fault--unlike
Pharaoh.
>Judaism believes in destroying evil. Unlike another religion
>that is so influential in modern culture, which lauds offering
>it the other cheek.
Which is an absurdity redoubled. Don't be too quick to strike
back, certainly. But don't allow it to continue. "Suffer or
strike. Strike or be struck."
>Letting evil thrive is to share in the guilt. Ideally you
>destroy the evil, not the one doing it. However, if you
>can't, you kill the wrongdoers to save the innocent.
>-mi
The Latin maxim: qui tacit consentere: silence gives consent.
If you don't stop them, you share their guilt.
Deborah
Micha Berger
:>The quibble: it wasn't only Miriam they sang with, it was also
:>simultaneous.
: Probably? Interesting, I'd never thought about the songs being
: simultaneous..
Either way, the medrash in question refers to Moses' song ("Az Yashir", which
is actually the first words of the quote used in prayer, which starts a verse
before the song itself).
: Maybe because the actual victims may express praise and
: gratitude for their being saved; the angels, however, like
: us, not having been the target, can be seen, so to speak,
: to be taking sides?
I was thinking something similar, until I realized that we descendents of
the victims were equally saved. As we will say tonight from the Haggadah,
"Had G-d not taken us out of Egypt, it would be that we, our children, and
our children's children would be in servitude (*) to Pharoa in Egypt."
* The question is asked if this is actually true. Normal historical forces
would have freed us by now. Perhaps "mishubadim", which I rendered "in
servitude" is more accurately "indebted", which is actually the more common
rendering of "shibud" (the Aramaic "shif'il" form of the Hebrew root /`bd/
meaning slave, service and work). IOW, we are thanking G-d for putting us in
His debt, making us covenental partners, instead of being Pharoa's jr.
partners. Perhaps.
A major theme of the seder, Passover, and the holidays in general is that
of not just commemorating the event, but reenacting it. "In each generation
and generation a person is obligated to see himself (another variant: to
show himself) as though he went out from Egypt" (Haggadah).
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 19-Apr-00: Revi'i
mi...@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Rosh-Hashanah 27a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Yeshaiah 1
dltjxx
>I was thinking something similar, until I realized that we
>descendents of the victims were equally saved.
>As we will say tonight from the Haggadah, "Had G-d not taken
>us out of Egypt, it would be that we, our children, and our
>children's children would be in servitude (*) to Pharoa in Egypt."
Here's one of those situations discussed "on several levels".
We're equally saved, as their descendants; however, they were
under direct attack, so to speak, and for them it was much
worse. So they rejoice and give thanks for deliverance from
a host of ills; we, being several times removed, give thanks
for their deliverance, without which we wouldn't exist.
Something like that. I could be projecting; I have a tendency
to feel: serves you right. Which is, of course, wrong.
>*The question is asked if this is actually true. Normal historical
>forces would have freed us by now. Perhaps "mishubadim", which I
>rendered "in servitude" is more accurately "indebted", which is
>actually the more common rendering of "shibud" (the Aramaic
>"shif'il" form of the Hebrew root /`bd/ meaning slave, service
>and work). IOW, we are thanking G-d for putting us in His debt,
>making us covenental partners, instead of being Pharoa's jr.
>partners. Perhaps.
>A major theme of the seder, Passover, and the holidays in general
>is that of not just commemorating the event, but reenacting it.
>"In each generation and generation a person is obligated to see
>himself (another variant: to show himself) as though he went out
>from Egypt" (Haggadah).
>-mi
This is where having children around is wonderful, because they
really get into the re-enactment. We did, when we were kids. Not
only did we re-enact it, we were THERE. (Later, down at the creek,
the oldest of us would take a stick, stand on a rock, scream at the
waters to part, then we'd cross the perilous depths, which were all
of a foot high, maybe.)
Last Sept, a friend and I were explaining the seder to a non-Jewish
friend. He came up with an excellent description: it's like a
passage. When it concludes, you actually feel as if you've
undergone something, and endured it.
Especially when drinking four cups of Maneshewicz: truly the
Wine of Afflication.
Chag sameach l'pesach,
Deborah
PS Let all Israel rejoice! I'm waaaaayyy ahead of schedule.
Simcha Streltsov
: * The question is asked if this is actually true. Normal historical forces
: would have freed us by now. Perhaps "mishubadim", which I rendered "in
: servitude" is more accurately "indebted", which is actually the more common
this is not clear - we did have empires that lasted for 500+ years,
why not six times of that? I am aware of some research suggesting
that "normal" lifetime of a nation is about 1000 years. but if
Jews are an exception, why couldn't Egyptians be?
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
Micha Berger
:: * The question is asked if this is actually true. Normal historical forces
:: would have freed us by now. Perhaps "mishubadim", which I rendered "in
:: servitude" is more accurately "indebted", which is actually the more common
When I repeated this idea to my LOR, he mentioned that he saw it in
"Da'as Torah", written by R' Yerucham Levovitz, the mashgiach of Mir.
So, I feel comfortable removing my "perhaps". Mishubadim, in the shuf'al
(a construction borrowed from Aramaic) doesn't mean enslaved, but indebted.
Therefore, the haggadah does not say "we would still be enslaved", and so
what I thought was a little homily is actually what the words literally say.
He then asked:
: but if
: Jews are an exception, why couldn't Egyptians be?
Well, if we're talking "normal historical forces", we wouldn't be around to
present an exception either. Or to be reading the haggadah, or to be indebted,
etc...
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 24-Apr-00: Levi, Mos
mi...@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Rosh-Hashanah 29b