[Avodah] Drops of wine

[Lisa Liel]

On 6/28/2012 9:55 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> 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.
>    

I disagree.  I think it fits all of them.
> But I also wonder why we would be expected to have a different response
> than G-d's.
>    

I don't understand what you're wondering.  They were Hashem's maasei 
yadayim.  Not ours.  Think about the Gemara's take on binfol oyivcha.  
It applies to fellow Jews.  Why?  Because we're connected to them.  
They're family.  Even if we aren't getting along with them, we're still 
family.  Same thing here, kaveyachol.  The Mitzrim were Hashem's 
family.  They were bad and needed to be punished, but the same principle 
that we have with binfol oyivcha explains why (a) Hashem didn't rejoice 
over their destruction, and (b) why it's both okay and normal for us to 
rejoice over their destruction.

We say that Hashem wears tefillin.  Metaphor or not, we're supposed to 
compare ourselves to Him.  Obviously Hashem isn't "bound" by binfol 
oyivcha, but we're supposed to understand the same principle applying in 
the case of His silencing the malachim.  There's a distinction between 
our folk and theirs.  But for Hashem, they're all His folk.

> 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...
>    
It's an interesting vort, but I don't think that sort of distinction 
exists in the Beis Yosef.  When they tie binfol oyivcha to chatzi 
hallel, they're saying what I wrote above.

>> 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.
>    
Right.  And emunat chachamim starts with the Gemara.  I don't buy the 
Beis Yosef lacking emunat chachamim and disputing a mefurash Gemara.  I 
just don't.  And since there is a reasonable understanding of the Beis 
Yosef that *doesn't* contradict the Gemara, I can't fathom anyone trying 
to justify choosing machloket.

Lisa