[Avodah] totafos [was: Lying to protect the simple of faith]

[Richard Wolpoe]

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:30 AM, <T613K at aol.com> wrote:

>   From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com>
> >>I could be wrong but IIRC the Mishna calls a ttoefs as a tachshit a woman
> wers on her forehead <<
>
> >>>>>
> Jastrow says totefes is an ornament worn on the forehead, and Alkalay
> suggests a root from tiftef (tes peh tes peh) meaning to sparkle.
>
>
> *--Toby Katz
> =============*
>

Which suggests the drasha about 4 from foreign languages was not necessarily
due to lack of internal info but was going outside the box  [pun intended!]
to equate  them to 4 parshiyyos.

I humbly suggest that often Jews - including Rabbis - have been
super-imposing models on  how Hazal work w/o taklng what they say at face
value.

Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that Hazal played fast and loose in creating
Halcah from loosely constructe Midrash. I AM suggesting that they Asmachted
some fast and loose Midrash to support existing Tradition.

Example [A piece of myh OWN Purim Torah]
Q: How do we know that Haman was from Amaleik?
A: Because Parshas Amaeli is saumch to parshas Haman [vi.z in Beshlach]

Everyone gives me a good guffaw and thinks my pun is silly
Now waht is Hazal'sdrasha [or pun?]

The source for Haman in the torah is: [Hamin Ho'etz Hazeh..}  al tirkrei
HaMIN ela HaMAN
Now people will Hazal all kinds of creidt for a genius drasha and show how
the orgianl sin is tied to Ameleik etc. etc. and maybe that is true

But I will bet tht had I punned Hamin ho'etz Hazah and Hazal used the
parshas Haman connexion that people would find that drash EQUALLY amazing
and full of valuable insights of how Haman caused fasting which is the
opposite of the food in Parshas Haman and how the money he paid was opposite
of the free food gifted by HKBH etc,.

Point? who says that Hazla's pun was REALLY so specific that it is THE
DEFINITIVE source for Drush etc.?  maybe any o ther pun they would have
picked would have been equally valuable all along and darshaning and
Maggidim would have come up with just as much Torah anyway.   IOW is the
intrinsic DRUSH or the source that counts!

So let's say that Hazal neglected their drash on Totsafos and that one of US
said Totafos refers to a doulbe pair based upon Africki etc. would we be
pilloried for saying it or just following Hazla's own example in other
cases?  Certainly this drasha creates no NEW halachah, the number 4 for the
parshiyos is probably is HLMM anyway so what harm is there?
As I've posted before, the old generation from Eurpore that I grew up with
did not take Hazal quote as seriously as we seem to. Theyseemed to get more
hana'ah out of Hazal's cleverness and wit and were less concerned about
being "frum" about it.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080522/a9d8df55/attachment-0002.htm>