<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:30 AM, <<a href="mailto:T613K@aol.com">T613K@aol.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial;"><font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2">
<div>
<div>
<div><font style="background-color: transparent;" color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2">From: "Richard Wolpoe" <<a href="mailto:rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com" target="_blank">rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>I
could be wrong but IIRC the Mishna calls a ttoefs as a tachshit a woman<br>wers
on her forehead <<</font></div>
<div><font style="background-color: transparent;" color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div></div>
<div>>>>>><br>Jastrow says totefes is an ornament worn on the
forehead, and Alkalay suggests a root from tiftef (tes peh tes peh) meaning to
sparkle.</div></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" lang="0" size="2"><br><b>--Toby
Katz<br>=============</b></font></div></font></div></blockquote><div><br>Which suggests the drasha about 4 from foreign languages was not necessarily due to lack of internal info but was going outside the box [pun intended!] to equate them to 4 parshiyyos.<br>
<br>I humbly suggest that often Jews - including Rabbis - have been super-imposing models on how Hazal work w/o taklng what they say at face value. <br></div></div><br>Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that Hazal played fast and loose in creating Halcah from loosely constructe Midrash. I AM suggesting that they Asmachted some fast and loose Midrash to support existing Tradition.<br>
<br>Example [A piece of myh OWN Purim Torah]<br><div style="margin-left: 40px;">Q: How do we know that Haman was from Amaleik?<br>A: Because Parshas Amaeli is saumch to parshas Haman [vi.z in Beshlach]<br></div><br>Everyone gives me a good guffaw and thinks my pun is silly<br>
Now waht is Hazal'sdrasha [or pun?]<br><br>The source for Haman in the torah is: [Hamin Ho'etz Hazeh..} al tirkrei HaMIN ela HaMAN<br>Now people will Hazal all kinds of creidt for a genius drasha and show how the orgianl sin is tied to Ameleik etc. etc. and maybe that is true<br>
<br>But I will bet tht had I punned Hamin ho'etz Hazah and Hazal used the parshas Haman connexion that people would find that drash EQUALLY amazing and full of valuable insights of how Haman caused fasting which is the opposite of the food in Parshas Haman and how the money he paid was opposite of the free food gifted by HKBH etc,.<br>
<br>Point? who says that Hazla's pun was REALLY so specific that it is THE DEFINITIVE source for Drush etc.? maybe any o ther pun they would have picked would have been equally valuable all along and darshaning and Maggidim would have come up with just as much Torah anyway. IOW is the intrinsic DRUSH or the source that counts!<br>
<br>So let's say that Hazal neglected their drash on Totsafos and that one of US said Totafos refers to a doulbe pair based upon Africki etc. would we be pilloried for saying it or just following Hazla's own example in other cases? Certainly this drasha creates no NEW halachah, the number 4 for the parshiyos is probably is HLMM anyway so what harm is there? <br clear="all">
As I've posted before, the old generation from Eurpore that I grew up with did not take Hazal quote as seriously as we seem to. Theyseemed to get more hana'ah out of Hazal's cleverness and wit and were less concerned about being "frum" about it.<br>
<br>-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a>