[Avodah] Drops of wine

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 09:23:35AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> In previous iterations, we also mentioned the hagaddah of R' SZ Aurbach['s
>> talmidim] and it appears as a "yeish lomar" in that of R Elyashiv (pg 106,
>> "dam va'eish").
>
> I don't think any of these sources suggest that it's because *our* joy  
> is lessened.  Rather, it's because we know that Hashem is, kaveyachol,  
> grieving.  Just as we don't rejoice over the fall of an enemy who is one  
> of our own, Hashem silenced the angels because the Egyptians were His  
> own, even though they had behaved with enmity towards us and Hashem.

Again, that doesn't fit those many many who accept this explanation for
Chatzi Hallel on shevi'i shel Psach.

But I also wonder why we would be expected to have a different response
than G-d's.

Last, I think saying that when the Beis Yoseif et al tie "binfol oyivkha"
to Chatzi Hallel, they are not precluding feeling joy at our being free
from their oppressing us. I believe the point is to call for ambivalence:
sadness at the waste of tzelem E-lokim -- starting with what the Mitzrim
did to themselves and continuing with their death -- simultaneous with
happiness that justice was made manifest, that the wicked are no longer
around to harm us, etc...

> Even widely respected talmidei chachamim can err and confuse alien ideas  
> as our own.  As witness the recent discussion about widely respected  
> talmidei chachamim quoting "Ein navi b'iro" as though it's a Jewish  
> thought, when it's actually from the treyfer sefer.

Some level of emunas chakhamim is required WRT matters of Torah, no?
Otherwise, TSBP is whatever you want it to be, ve'ish hayashar be'einav
ya'aseh.


On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 08:06:26AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> I made the same argument by pointing out that if such compassion were
>> unJewish, so would giving the parallel explanation for Chatzi Hallel on
>> the last day of Pesach. And yet/that/  has a solid pedigree.

> The Chavos Yair neatly disposes of this argument.

The Chavos Yair (#225) not only DOES tie CH on shevi'i shel Pesach to
"maasei Yadai", he says that's why we do not say any special ofanim,
either. (The latter makes much sense, actually.) It's a "yeis ta'am
acheir", but the CY doesn't reject it. And he defends the medrash against
questions based on the gemara seeking another answer.

But your claim wasn't eilu va'eilu, but "unJewish". The Beis Yoseif
et al said it -- the concept is well within the mesorah. If you choose
to reject the Yalqut, the Shibolei haLeqet, the Beis Yoseif, the Taz,
the Maharil (in the name of Rashi), the Kav HaChaim, R' Aharon Kotler
(not to mention the Meshekh Chokhmah WRT Purim and Chanukah), AND THE
CHAVOS YAIR, there could well be al mi lismoch. (Not that I recall anyone
other than a naive reading of the gemara in Megillah, which obviously
has some answer all the above knew.)

You can't simply dismiss someone applying the parallel sevara elsewhere,
eg the drops of wine, out of hand by just declaring it "unJewish".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
micha at aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar