[Avodah] Drops of wine

[Lisa Liel]

On 6/22/2012 12:49 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> 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].
>    

I'm sorry, but that's grammatical silliness.  If it were supposed to be 
read that way, it'd say "shofchim *otam* l'ibud ha-makkot".  The objects 
of the verbs are makkot and otam, which clearly indicates that they are 
the same thing.  Sheficha is a transitive verb, and requires an object.  
You don't simply "spill" any more than you can "extinguish".  You have 
to spill *something*.
>>           .  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.
>    
L'ibud isn't a verb.  As such, we wouldn't expect it to have an object.  
Sheficha l'ibud is spilling something in a way that wastes it.  The word 
"l'ibud" can be seen as an adverbial modifier to the word "sheficha".  
We see this all the time, where a prepositional phrase acts as an 
adverb.  Both in Hebrew and in other languages.

>> 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.
That's true.

> So hashavas aveidah is the obligation to return broken
> things?
You may have noticed that ibud and aveida are two entirely different 
words.  They share a root, but then, so do ledabeir (to speak) and 
lehadbir (to exterminate).  Here too, these are different binyanim, and 
laavod (with an alef, rather than an ayin) means to lose or to go lost, 
while l'abeid (the pi'el of that root) means to destroy.  Let's not get 
into Arami oveid avi, which is a whole other barrel of midrashic fish.

> 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".

That's exactly what it means.  The drops/spillings symbolize the 
makkot.  We throw them away.  We waste them.  We do not ingest them, 
because that would be icky.  Seriously.  Ibud ha-makkot wouldn't mean 
"loss caused by the makkot".  It's "destruction of the makkot", and if 
you'd prefer, you can translate the sentence as "We are accustomed to 
spill to waste the makkot, and we don't drink them."  And you can have 
that be either "(spill to waste) the makkot" or "spill to (waste the 
makkot)".

> 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.
>    
"Asher lo nasa l'shav nafshi v'lo nishba l'mirma."  You say this at 
least four times every single week.  How would you translate it?

> (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".
>    

Really?  The BDB?  If you want to concede the argument, just say so.  
Honestly, the BDB?  Let's stick with context.  Something neither Briggs 
nor Driver not Briggs is really big on.  I've seen people use out of 
context translations from the BDB to "prove" that the names of the 
generations from Adam to Noach are talking about Yoshke.

>> 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.
>    
Your choice to misinterpret the Mechaber so that he contradicts a pashut 
Gemara doesn't put anything to rest.  Maasei yadai tov'im bayam is said 
in the context of Hashem silencing the melachim, and very pointedly 
*not* criticizing, let alone silencing Klal Yisrael as we sang "Ashira 
Lashem ki ga'oh ga'ah, sus v'rochbo rama bayam!"  So we're saying, "Yay, 
God!  He drowned them!" and that's fine.  Because it's good and natural 
for us to be happy about such a thing.  Not for Hashem, because they're 
His maasei yadayim.  They aren't ours, so our happiness is good and right.

There are actually very few sources to support your contention that we 
say chatzi hallel on shevii shel Pesach because of maasei yadai tov'im 
bayam, and all of those are properly understood as saying that on a day 
when Hashem is kavayachol mourning His creations, we temper our Hallel.

And in fact, have you looked at the sections we omit when we do chatzi 
hallel?  It's instructive.  Hallel is all about Hashem's greatness.  
Except for the first half of two of the perakim.  Lo lanu includes a 
prayer that idolaters should be struck deaf, dumb, blind, and insensate, 
right after saying that Hashem does anything He likes.  And Ahavti ki 
yishma ends with "kol ha-adam kozeiv".  So we leave off a prayer for the 
destruction of idolaters and a blanket condemnation of people.  In 
context of "maasei yadai tov'im bayam", not to do so could be seen as 
both insensitive and chutzpahdik.

You've chosen to ignore all of the sources that are incredibly explicit 
in saying that binfol oyivcha only applies to fellow Jews.  I'm not 
going to continue trying to convince you, because it seems pointless.

> 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.
>    

No, we really aren't.

> 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.
>    
Chazal are clear.  As are the chachamim who came after them.  The one or 
two exceptions are only exceptions according to your interpretation, and 
you *cannot* interpret them as disputing Chazal when there's an option 
not to.

> 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?
>    

I can't answer that without being oveir on zilzul.

Lisa