[Avodah] Drops of wine

[Zev Sero]

On 22/06/2012 1:49 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].

That is not what it says.  "Otam" in the sentence is what we don't
drink.  But "otam" *has* to refer to something previously mentioned,
and the way you twist the words there is no previous referent.
According to you the object of the verb "shofchim" is only implied;
so how can it be referred to later as "otam"?


>
>>           .  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.

Le'ibud is not a verb, and therefore has no object.  The phrase is
"shofchim le'ibud", we spill to waste.


>> 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.

Of course there is.  This is simple Hebrew.  "Hamakot" is the object
of "shofchim le'ibud".


> Zev has so far said that "ibud" doesn't mean loss,
> but destroy. So hashavas aveidah is the obligation to return broken
> things?

NO!  I'm sorry, but this is plain illiteracy.  "Aveidah" means something
that got lost, but "le'abed" means to destroy.  What does "hame'abed
mah shenosnim lo" mean?  Not what you tell your kids, but what does it
really mean?  What does "lehashmid laharog ule'abed" mean?  What does
"Avadon" ("Abaddon" in English) mean?  "Le'abed ul'makah ul'cherpah".

The "loss" sense is found (:-)) in "aveidah", "asher yo'vad mimenu",
"avadnu, kulanu avadnu", "ha'ovdim be'eretz Ashur".  It's from the same
root, but a different word; binyan kal rather than hif'il, if I've got
those terms correct.



> He also said that "makos" doesn't mean plagues, but rather the
> drops of wine that symbolize it.

Yes.  That is obvious from the sentence itself, and it's a common idiom.


> And on top of both, he is reading the
> words as though it were "sheshofechim hamakos le'ibud".

Yes.  It is exactly like that.


> 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")?

"Shofchin le'ibud" is one verb phrase; "hamakot" is the only object.


> I find it
> impossible to call the resulting reading the simple meaning of the text.

It is plain.   This is a modern text, casually written; it's got all the
grammatical exactitude of modern rabbinic Hebrew, and you can't analyse
it as if it were a pasuk or something.


>>                                                        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".

That is "assigned to" or "for the purpose of", not "because of".


>
>> 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.

No, it wouldn't, because you're misrepresenting half of them.  You are
the one ignoring the explicit gemara which says it's a machlokes between
Mordechai Hatzadik and Haman Harasha, and you're taking Haman's side.


> 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.

Why do you cite the Chavos Ya'ir when he *explicitly disagrees with you*,
as I explained last time.  Did you bother reading it?  Not only does he say
that the ikar is *not* like the medrash Harninu, but he also says that since
we can't just dismiss a medrash, we can explain it away by saying that
Hallel is different because it reflects Hashem's happiness, so if He's not
happy we can't say a whole hallel, even though our own rejoicing is complete.
So according to the Chavos Yair it's *impossible* to say the same about
spilling the makos.


> 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*...."

That's right.  And so far you have not proven it, you have not cited
*one single source* for it.  It is a thoroughly goyishe idea, and is
from the shiv'im achor latorah.


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

He does not.  That is your strange mistranslation.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
zev at sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
		 are expanding through human ingenuity."
		                            - Julian Simon