[Avodah] Drops of wine (was: Translation of "Yayyin")

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:14:13AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> The words are very clear, and R' Zev is obviously correct.
> V'nohagim she-shofchim l'ibud ha-makkot, v'ein shotin otam.
>
> The word "otam" clearly refers to the drops of wine.  Unless someone  
> wants to argue that the line is saying "And we are accustomed to spill  
> away the plagues and not to drink them." ...

    We are accustomed to spill them out for the loss related to the
    makkos, and we don't drink [what we spilled].

>          .  If the seifa is talking about the drops, then so is the 
> reisha.

Agreed. But "le'ibud" has its own object specified. And you aren't
telling me what to do with it.

> Shofchim l'ibud means to waste them.  Like "holchim l'ibud" means going  
> to waste.  The idea that "ibud ha-makkot" is a phrase meaning the losses  
> caused by the plagues is utterly foreign to the Hebrew....

This is the point in contention. There is no smooth way to incorporate
"hamakos" otherwise. Zev has so far said that "ibud" doesn't mean loss,
but destroy. So hashavas aveidah is the obligation to return broken
things? He also said that "makos" doesn't mean plagues, but rather the
drops of wine that symbolize it. And on top of both, he is reading the
words as though it were "sheshofechim hamakos le'ibud". How often do you
put the preposition and 2nd object before the first object (unless you
turn the first object into a prepositional phrase with "es")? I find it
impossible to call the resulting reading the simple meaning of the text.

(For "holchim le'ibud", the noun comes first, but that is dissimilar
because the lost item is the subject, not the object.)

>                                                       Nor is the lamed  
> before "ibud" properly translated as "for" or "out of consideration  
> for".  That's an English phrasing that doesn't exist in Hebrew (though  
> it may have gotten into Modern Hebrew by now).

The BDB has "for, to, in regard to". Bereishis 1:29, "lakhem yihyeh
le'okhlah", or as we recently leined "ish ish lamateh".

> I realize that this is simply an extension of the long running dispute  
> between R' Micha on the one hand, and R' Zev and myself on the other as  
> to whether we're supposed to rejoice over the downfall of our non-Jewish  
> enemies...

I would have thought the long litany of medrashim, rishonim and acharonim
who cite "maasei Yadai tov'im bayam" and "binfol oyivkha" as the reason
for half-Hallel on the 7th day of Pesach would have laid that to rest.
We're talking about the Yalquv Shim'on, peschta deRav Qahanah, Medrash
Harninu (which I never heard of, but is quoted by) the Shibolei haLeqet,
the Beis Yoseif, the Taz, the Chavos Ya'ir, the Torah Temimah, R' Aharon
Kotler, and others.

The hashkafic issue is settled: applying "binfol oyivkha" to enemies
who are nakhriim is at least /a/ normative Jewish approach, if not
"the". There is a medrash where Mordechai tells Haman that "binfol" does not
apply, but obviously the ShL and the BY et al knew the medrash. RnCL
posted an iteration or two ago at least one possible explanation. But
one can't dismiss an idea passed down from Chazal to my lifetime as
unJewish, outside eilu va'eilu altogether. Pretty open-n-shut, on
that level.

I also thought this was a revival of the broader topic. But when I
mentioned the above on Areivim, Zev explicitly divorced the discussion
from the broader one. To quote, "In any case, the topic here is not the
Medrash Harninu, which refers only to the hallel on Pesach. The topic
here is the spilling of the makos, and *nobody* says that has to do with
sorrow for the Mitzrim. Nobody. If you claim otherwise *prove it*...."

But if there is no philosophical problem, why the surprise at the idea
that RDFeinstein suggests it?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
micha at aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507