[Avodah] Drops of wine

[Lisa Liel]

On 6/29/2012 4:10 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 02:56:03PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>    
>>> 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...
>>      
> What are Hashem's "Emotions" altogether when they are not lessons for
> us to learn from?
>    

You're learning the wrong thing.  What we learn here is that we don't 
rejoice when one of our own falls.

> And where do we ever find that we aren't supposed to be in alignment with
> G-d's desiderata? If it's bad from His "Perspective" that they died, we
> should be elevating our perspective to that we too see the bad.
>    

You're dropping context.  It isn't bad from His perspective that 
Egyptians died.  It's bad from His perspective that His maasei yadayim 
died.  We too should see the bad in our children or fellow Jews 
falling.  You're seeing them as Egyptians, but what you're missing is 
that what the Egyptians were to us, and what the Egyptians were to 
Hashem, are two different things.  We are not supposed to see the 
Mitzrim as our maasei yadayim, because that isn't emulating Hashem; 
that's just sheker.

Judaism doesn't blur distinctions.  Mitzrim are not our relatives.  They 
are, so to speak, Hashem's.  The lesson we learn from Hashem is that you 
don't rejoice when your relatives fall.

>>> 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.
>>      
> That what, that it's for the Jews who died in the Yam Suf? Chatzi Hallel
> is what we're saying, not Him.
>    
No.  Hashem just lost children.  We can still sing praises to Him, but 
to include parts that condemn Hashem's children is tasteless and tacky, 
so we don't do it.  That's what we omit in Chatzi Hallel.  Just two 
pieces that contain condemnations of human beings.  Because to include 
them on Shevii shel Pesach would be like going into a shiva house and 
speaking ill of the niftar.

Are you bothered by the idea that we're supposed to empathize with 
Hashem?  Because I don't see that as problematic in the least.

> I think the real difference between us is:
>    
>>                       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....
>>      
> If all Jews are brothers, all humans are first cousins. Ben Azzai omer,
> "'Zeh seifer toledos adam' -- zeh kelal gadol mizeh."
>    
Meh.  We make a major distinction between us and them.  You can't turn 
Judaism into some sort of universalist pap.  Lo tikom v'lo titor et bnei 
amecha, among many, many others.  And for the record, I think you're 
misinterpreting Ben Azzai as well.  Atem nikraim adam.

>>> 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.
>>      
> Which is what? You said we people aren't supposed to connect the two. So
> how does that fit Chatzi Hallel, expression our praise of G-d for giving
> us a joyous occasion?
>    

I honestly don't see what I said that's so ambiguous.  You know, maybe 
what I need to do is what Rabbi Bar Hayim asked me to do a couple of 
years ago, and write the whole thing up with inline sources quoted, so 
that there's no confusion.

>>>> 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...
>>      
> So taitch the BY for us.
>    
<sigh> Again?  Really?  What part of what I've explained is unclear?  
The Beis Yosef is saying this:

========
We say Chatzi Hallel (omit the parts of Hallel that are condemnations of 
Hashem's children) on Shevii shel Pesach because this is the day when 
Hashem had to drown His children in the Red Sea, and it would be crass, 
crude, and just plain mean spirited to include condemnations of others 
of His children in our praises of Him on that day.  Now... why would we 
think that Hashem was sad about drowning the Mitzrim?  After all, they 
were rotten and bad and nasty and all around villains, right?  Well, 
there are two reasons we think that.  One is the way He stopped the 
malachim from singing shira.  The other is "binfol oyivcha al tismach".  
Just as we understand this as applying to our fellow Jews, so that even 
if the fellow Jew in question is a rotten no-goodnik, we refrain from 
rejoicing, because he's still *ours*, Hashem's relationship, so to 
speak, with the Mitzrim is no less than our relationship with our fellow 
Jews.
========

If there's any part of that that's unclear, please, tell me what it is.  
Because God knows I can't think of any way to say it more clearly.

Lisa