[Avodah] Redemption

[Zev Sero via Avodah]

On 09/06/17 18:36, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote:

>> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not
>> Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge,
>> but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min
>> ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge.

> Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in
> pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world.

Interesting, I'd never heard that. But in that case why "eilai"?  That 
implies wanting something from Me.

>> Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav.

> I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source?

Yismach Tzadik ki chaza nakam, pe`amav yirchatz bedam harasha.  When 
Chushim knocked Esav's head off, his eyes fell onto Yaakov's feet and 
Yaakov sat up and smiled.

>> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because
>> Kel Nekamos Hashem.

> I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD"
> actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is
> often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood.

Yikkom does *not* mean uphold, it means avenge.  There's no such word as 
"yinkom"; the nun disappears into the kuf and becomes a dagesh.  Perhaps 
you are thinking of yakim.

> experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh
> apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem
> mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300
> hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both
> numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than
> "yikom".

For a non-existent word that's pretty good.  I'm relieved that it 
doesn't outnumber the correct word :-)

> In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean
> it's appropriate for us.

It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not something to be 
ashamed of.

>> But there is no issur on taking revenge.  There is only an
>> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are
>> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want
>> revenge against yourself.  But the objection to revenge in
>> itself does not come from any Jewish source.

> Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo
> sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18)

Es benei amecha.


[Email #2. -micha]

On 10/06/17 22:04, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
>: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote:
>: >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any
>: >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8.

>: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase
>: with the same object?  The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei
>: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different
>: objects.

> See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag.
> <http://hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?mfid=47445&rid=159>

This doesn't answer the question.  Lo sikom has the same subject as lo 
sitor.  It's not even the identical object, it's literally the *same* 
object.  So how can we pry them apart?

Beside which, if netira is forbidden against a Jewish non-chaver, then 
how is nekama against him even possible?  Netira would seem to be a 
necessary prerequisite for nekama (which is why the pasuk lists them as 
lo zu af zu).


[Email #3 -mi]

On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote:
> "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" 
> (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will 
> avenge".

Is yinkom even a valid form?  AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that 
have it in Av Harachamim are in error.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
zev at sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all