[Avodah] ONE HAND vs. TWO HANDS

[Richard Wolberg]

R' Micha wrote: Doesn't it? You're assuming Hashem's "one hand" is specifically one,
as opposed to saying Hashem said place one hand and left it up to Moshe
to do what he wants with the second.

So, his right hand was deOraisa, and his left was a rabbinic or personal
embelishment in order to express his wholeheartedness -- that he didn't
leave his other hand free to potentially do something else.

How can you say I'm ''assuming'' HaShem's one hand is specifically one? HaShem
SPECIFICALLY says: Lean your HAND... (One hand, not two).  What could be more specific? 
With your argument, you can say that when HaShem told Moshe to speak to the rock, the
speaking was d'Oraisa and his striking the rock was a rabbinic or personal embellishment.
After all, striking the rock was more powerful and certainly was an embellishment. 

Sorry, I can't buy that argument. It isn't cogent. It isn't consistent with how exacting the
Torah has been up to now. To say that Hashem left it up to Moshe to do what he wants
with the second hand is, as the Yiddish expression goes, ''mit groben finger'' (pardon the pun).
If Hashem left it up to Moshe to do what he wants with the second, then what if Moshe wants 
to cover his eyes with the second hand in order to increase his level of kavanna? I think it was
obvious that the second hand would do nothing but remain by his side. I stand by my original 
argument. If Hashem wanted Moshe to lay both hands, He would have commanded: Lean your hands...
Hashem knows the difference between singular and plural.

So my response to the question is ''teiku.''




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110722/0bb7a80f/attachment-0002.htm>