[Avodah] Drops of wine

[Zev Sero]

On 28/06/2012 10:55 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.

Wrong.  See the Chavos Yair.


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

Hu eino sas, aval acherim meisis.



> 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.

You are completely misrepresenting the CY.  He is not on your side on
this.  First of all, he says that the real reason for half-hallel is the
korbanos, and *not* the Mitzrim.  But to farentfer the medrash Harninu,
he suggests that it applies only to the limited case of whole hallel,
which (he suggests) is only said when Hashem is also happy.  Since when
His creatures die "He is not happy but He makes others happy", our own
joy is undiminished but we can't say a complete hallel.  But he concludes
that that is only to farentfer the medrash, "but according to the truth"
the reason for not saying whole hallel is because of the korbonos.  He
also says that "according to the truth" Hashem's kepeida against the
mal'achim saying shira applied only at the moment that the Mitzrim were
drowning, but the next day when the Jews said shira, the mal'achim
joined in with Hashem's approval, because His moment of sadness was over.

So the CY does not support your position.  In future *please stop* citing
him to that effect.
  


> But your claim wasn't eilu va'eilu, but "unJewish".

That's right.


> The Beis Yoseif
> et al said it -- the concept is well within the mesorah.

Again, see the Chavos Yair, who completely disposes of this argument.


> 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 [...], AND THE
> CHAVOS YAIR, there could well be al mi lismoch.

No, I am not rejecting them, the ones I checked *do not say what you
claim they do*.   On the contrary.  I'm not checking them all again,
but the Maharil explicitly says the opposite, that we spill the makos
in order to direct punishment to Hashem's enemies!  If you claim these
sources support you, please supply mar'ei mekomos.  The CY I've already
shown above rejects your position and neatly limits the effect of any
source that talks about hallel.  So if any of the authorities you claim
above are from Hallel, forget about them, you have no basis for extending
them to the makkos or any other situation.



> (Not that I recall anyone
> other than a naive reading of the gemara in Megillah, which obviously
> has some answer all the above knew.)

It is not "naive", it is the plain and obvious pshat.  How *else* can
one read it?


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

I certainly can and do.  The CY explains how.


-- 
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