Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 42

Tue, 06 Mar 2007

• 1. Re: the 5th purim mitzva (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Megila is not part of Bible? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Bizmaneihem (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: When did Ta'anis Esther begin? (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Vashti (Moshe Yehuda Gluck)
• 6. Re: Vashti (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Vashti (JRich@Segalco.com)
• 8. Re: Vashti (Zvi Lampel)
• 9. Daryovesh In The Megillah (M Cohen)
• 10. Re: esther and virgins (Zev Sero)
• 11. malbim on 19th century politics (was Vashti's tail) (Samuel Groner)
• 12. achashverosh & virgins (Eli Turkel)
• 13. Re: Megila is not part of Bible? (Michael Kopinsky)
• 14. Re: Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 39 (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Bizmaneihem (Zev Sero)

On Mon, March 5, 2007 6:58 am, R Michael Kopinsky wrote:
: Matanos l'evyonim has to give the aniyim some kind of benefit bo bayom.
: A donation to a school which will help them get a tuition discount months
: from now hardly helps them today.

I do not know if how cash flow is kept in the books is relevant, but typically
a yeshiva collects the money after it is spent. It is therefore quite possible
you're paying them back for money they spent for Purim on talmidim who
couldn't afford it.

(I know, it's a stretch. Please give me credit for trying.)

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sat, March 3, 2007 5:18 pm, R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: Doros Rishhonim (First volume page 262-) has an extensive discussion of
: when the Megila was composed. ... Finally the version we have today was
: completed by the Anshei Knesses HaGodola after Ezra had returned to Israel.

Just noting that this presumes a fact that is in dispute: Which happened
first, Purim or Ezra's return?

Purim is portrayed in Seder Olam as being a key part of the events that bridge
shivat Tziyon (Zerubavel) and Chanukas haBayis (Ezra). Achashveirosh is placed
between Daryaveish and Koreish. Which would probably place Purim before Ezra.

In Pirqe deR' Eliezer, Achashveirosh is after Daryaveish, which means the
second bayis was standing for something like 40 years at the time of Purim.
Well after Ezra's return.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sun, March 4, 2007 9:09 pm, Jonathan Baker wrote:
[Me, a/k/a mi:]
:>>Except that derashah is only for chumash, not kesuvim.

[RZSero:]
:> ?  Who says we don't darshen kesuvim?

[RJJB:]
: And it's the Gemara that darshens bizmaneihim.  Zman-zmanam-zmaneihem is
: explicitly the drash for saying we can lein Megillah on several different
: days.  It's on the first page of the Gemara, attributed to Rabbi Akiva.
: You can say it's just an asmachta, since the whole of Purim is Rabbinic,
: still, it's treated as a drasha in the Gemara.
: It turns out not to be necessary, but it's a legitimate drasha.

If it's an asmachta, then it's not what I meant by "derashah".

I took it for granted that derashah is tied to the Torah being dictated as
opposed to the less precise transmition of Nakh. But thinking about it, I have
no reason for that. Instead, it could be a side-effect of the deOraisa nature
of chumash.

The mitzvos of Purim are unique in being both non-deOraisa and written up in
Tanakh. So maybe this pasuq is a unique case for derashah.

Usually, derashah in the sense of middos shehaTorah nidreshes bahem are
applied to chumash. They can only be applied to chumash since only chumash can
be a true maqor for a deOraisa. Yes, there are what seems to be
counterexamples in shas, but they are farenfered as asmachtos, or as
historical evidence rather than scriptural source, etc...

So the question is whether divrei Soferim and derashah mesh, and the answer
may be a one-off of our case. The nafqa minah would be whether the conclusion
is also divrei soferim (derashah) or or derabbanan (asmachta).

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Thu, March 1, 2007 3:13 pm, R David E Cohen wrote:
: Here's my own theory:
: From the Mishnah and Tosefta, one gets the impression that the mitzvah of
: mikra Megillah is by daytime only, and that like most mitzvos `aseih
: shehazeman gerama, women are exempt...
: R' Yehoshua` ben Levi tells us that one is obligated to read at night (since
: the Jews cried out at night also -- "velailah lo dumyah li"), and that women
: are obligated (since they, too, were included in the miracle).  Perhaps this
: reflects a different, later takanah of Chazal, which gave the observance of
: Purim the additional aspect of attempting to relive the experience that the
: Jews went through....

Which would explain the mitzvah miDivrei Soferim to be limited to men during
the day. If bedi'avad, a woman read megillah for men the night of Purim, would
they be yotz'im?

: If this correct, perhaps one could suggest that Ta`anis Esteir was not part
: of the original observance of Purim, but came as part of the "reliving the
: experience" framework of this later takanah...

As I joined the bandwagon on the "bizmaneihem" thread, it has to be a later
taqanah because Adar 13 is in Megillas Ta'anis as Yom Nikanor. This is a nice
explanation as to why they made the taqanah, and how the nature of the mitzvah
shifted.

In a way, it's a shift from Chanukah's pirsumei nisah to Pesach's "lir'os es
atszmo ke'ilo hu atzmo yatza".

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

R' Eli Turkel:
*I repeat my previous question - what forced Chazal to assume Vashti has
*sins and
*was evil. This is not pshat in the pesukim. Again, in accordance with the
*Malbim
*(and R.Boubil) it could have been just political intrigue.


The Chasimas HaTalmud wasn't all that long after the story of the Megillah.
The secular world has records from 500 years ago (think Colombus, Magna
Carta, Crusades, etc.). Probably Chazal had either written records or an
oral tradition as to what happened - that she was evil, that she grew a
tail, etc.

KT,
MYG 

Eli Turkel wrote:
> But the second opinion rejects that approach, and insists that her
> disfigurement wasn't some mere skin outbreak, but a supernatural
> event, one that requires the instrumentality of Malach Gavriel;
> perhaps the reason why this was necessary was to drive home to her
> that she hadn't merely suffered from bad luck, but was being
> punished for her misdeeds.  >>
> 
> I repeat my previous question - what forced Chazal to assume Vashti
> has sins and was evil. This is not pshat in the pesukim. Again, in
> accordance with the Malbim (and R.Boubil) it could have been just
> political intrigue.

It's certainly not inherent in the pesukim.  From the pesukim one
might conclude that Vashti was a real tzadekes, the innocent victim
of a tyrannical king.  And yet Chazal do take it that way, without
question.  I don't think there's even one opinion recorded that she
wasn't evil, that she didn't deserve her fate.  The Malbim doesn't
say this wasn't her punishment milmaalah; he merely comments on what
motivated *Achashverosh* to make this demand of her in the first
place, and to react to her refusal as he did.
 


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

 

I repeat my previous question - what forced Chazal to assume Vashti has sins andwas evil. This is not pshat in the pesukim. Eli Turkel________________

imvho  it seems empirically  chazal had mesora's concerning certain figutes and unterpreted the text (for good or bad) based on the mesora.

Ktjoel


THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

From: "Eli Turkel" eliturkel@gmail.com Tue, 6 Mar:
Subject: > I repeat my previous question - what forced Chazal to assume Vashti has sins and was evil. This is not pshat in the pesukim. Again, in accordance with the Malbim (and R.Boubil) it could have been just political intrigue.<
A relevant Ramban (and Ibn Ezra) on Breishis (10:9-11):
LIKE [NIMROD,] A MIGHTY HUNTER BEFORE HASHEM--?intending to rebel against Him?--Rashi; and such is the daas of our Rabbis (Eruvin 53a). Rabbi Avraham [ibn Ezra] explains the idea the opposite way al derech peshuto, that Nimrod began to be mighty against the beasts to trap them, and interprets ?before Hashem?: that he would build alters and sacifice the beasts as an offering before Hashem.
But his words are not nir?een, and behold he is making a rasha a tzaddik, /for rabboseinu knew/ his evilness /through [receiving] the transmission/ [of the Torah?s true intent].
(End of Ramban)
Evidently, the Ramban held that regarding basic characteristics of people, Chazal had a mesorah that we must follow in explaining Scripture. The Ibn Ezra gave unscripturally-modified peshat a stronger role. (Remember that based upon peshat, the Ibn Ezra even rejects the Seforno?s non-literal peyrush of the Nachash as the yetzer hara, rather than as being a physical creature).
Zvi Lampel
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070306/d84e96ac/attachment.html 

see R Schwab devrai torah on the Megillah (in the back of his sefer on
chumash) who discusses the lineage of Daryovesh, and concludes from the
Gemara that Daryovesh was not Jewish

(ie was an adopted son to Esther, born from the relationship between
achashverosh and her substitute Esther-shaid)

ayain sham to see his proofs and the interesting nafka minas

Mordechai cohen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070306/0c13bb4e/attachment.htm 

Eli Turkel wrote:
> My wife pointed out to me that in a latter posuk it says" Vaye'ehav
> hamelech es ester mikol hanoshim vatiso chein vochesed lefonov mikol
> habesulos" which implies that there was a broadening of the selection
> criteria at some point after the initial decree.>>

This is clearly stated in the gemara.


> This would mean that Achashverosh also "invited" married wives. Not a
> very good way of keeping friends in the kingdom!

Nor is conscripting every beautiful maiden in the kingdom!  Who would
allow his daughter to be seen in public when she was likely to be
kidnapped and taken to the palace, where the odds were enormous that
she would not be chosen, nor would she come home and marry someone
else, but would spend the rest of her life in the "beit hanashim sheni"?
That's why the gemara says he was a "melech tipesh", and contrasts his
behaviour to that of David Hamelech, who sent people out to find one
girl, and so everybody was eager that his daughter should be chosen.


> Doesn't seem to fit with the other stories of his making the party
> to make friends etc.

And yet it's clear *in the text* that this is how he treated "every
good-looking maiden" in the kingdom.  I think the Malbim explains
that this was his way of establishing that he had absolute power,
and could do whatever he liked, not for the public good but for his
own enjoyment.


> Remember he did not know that Esther was Jewish so this wouldnt
> have been an anti-Jewish act.

There's no hint of antisemitism.  Girls of every nation were taken.


> According to another Medrash that Esther was an old lady at the time
> it is even stranger.

This isn't a medrash, it's common sense.  Mordechai was her first
cousin (explicit in the pasuk), he was exiled in Galut Yechoniah,
11 years before the churban (again explicit in the pasuk), and he
was a member of the Sanhedrin-in-exile (not in the pasuk, but I
don't think anyone would dispute it).  Since semicha is only given
in EY, he had to be old enough at the time of Galut Yechoniah to
have merited and received semicha.  Let's make the unlikely
assumption that he was only 20; that would make him 31 at the
churban, and by this time he must have been in his 90s.  So how
young could his first cousin (and wife) have been?  Even if we
assume a 50-year gap, which seems a little implausible, that still
puts her in her 40s, and no longer in the supermodel category.
And the smaller the gap, and the older Mordechai was when he got
semicha, the older she was.

BTW, that she was his wife is definitely to be taken literally;
the gemara and *all* the rishonim and acharonim take it literally
and seriously, and learn halachot from it.  I think treating it
as some metaphoric medrash would come very close to the edge of
the acceptable range of hashkafa.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

"That's very nice, and fits well with the Malbim's take on what was
going on behind the scenes (which IMHO was meant more as a commentary
on 19th century German politics than on what he thought the megillah
really means)"

>> I find this statement extraordinary. ... Why would the >>Malbim
base his commentary on a book of the Tanach >>on a transient political
situation?

The Malbim may not have been the only 19th century commentator to do
this.  See Gil Perl's Torah u'Madda Journal article on the Netziv,
(available at http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/TUJ%2012%20Perl%2074%2D98%20QX%2Epdf),
particularly the following part:

"First, one would be justified in questioning whether the Tower of
Babel text should be read as a carefully crafted political philosophy
or as contemporary political commentary. After all, the regime
ascribed to Babel by Neziv bears striking resemblance to the regime of
Czar Nicholas I whose iron fist controlled the life of Neziv and his
community from the time he was six years old until he reached the age
of thirty-nine. . . . Thus, Neziv's depiction of Babel as a
totalitarian regime, with officers appointed to watch the every move
of its inhabitants, with people like Abraham persecuted for adhering
to un-orthodox beliefs, and with severe restrictions on travel and
settlement, evokes unmistakable images of Russian Jewish life under
Nicholas's reign. Since Ha'amek Davar was written over the course of
thirty years spanning the final years of the reign of Nicholas and
into the more liberal reign of Alexander I, one cannot date the text
at hand with any precision. However, whether Neziv was critiquing
current events or noting the resemblance between the biblical account
of Babel and the harrowing experiences of his own community but a few
years past, one must allow for the possibility that Neziv's comments
were driven more by his need, as one of Russian Jewry's most visible
and active public leaders, to defend his own community's freedom of
worship rather than by his desire to delineate a universal philosophy
of religious tolerance. Clearly, Neziv did not believe his Hebrew
biblical commentary on Genesis would be read by the Russian Czar or
might influence his national policy, but by emphasizing the parallel
between the past and the present, Neziv might well have intended to
comfort his readers by suggesting that the fate of the Czar and his
supporters would be similar to that of Babel and its inhabitants. By
shifting this text, then, from the realm of universal philosophy to
that of personal political commentary, the tension between Neziv's
apparent pluralism and his readiness to coerce fellow Jews into
maintaining a halakhic lifestyle becomes less acute."

Sammy Groner

I have often wondered: in this context, and/or perhaps in other
contexts, is it possible that we translate the word "besula" too
literally? Could it be that in some cases it can refer to ANY
unmarried girl, regardless of whether she has had sexual relations?>>

Yes we could but how does that help if Esther was married to
Mordecai?

-- 
Eli Turkel

On 3/6/07, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> In Pirqe deR' Eliezer, Achashveirosh is after Daryaveish, which means the
> second bayis was standing for something like 40 years at the time of Purim.
> Well after Ezra's return.

How does this fit with the Gemara about the different calculations of the
70 years?  (Does a PDRE have to fit with a gemara?)

Levi Serebryanski wrote:
> From  "Eli Turkel"

>> In line with medrashim on Megillat Esther I assume someone explains
>> how Esther could have been married to Mordecai when only virgins were
>> "invited "to Achashverosh"

> My wife pointed out to me that in a latter posuk it says" Vaye'ehav 
> hamelech es ester mikol ha*noshim* vatiso chein vochesed lefonov mikol 
> ha*besulos*" which implies that there was a broadening of the selection 
> criteria at some point after the initial decree.

Your wife learns Rashi :-)

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Micha Berger wrote:
 
> Usually, derashah in the sense of middos shehaTorah nidreshes bahem are
> applied to chumash. They can only be applied to chumash since only chumash can
> be a true maqor for a deOraisa. Yes, there are what seems to be
> counterexamples in shas, but they are farenfered as asmachtos, or as
> historical evidence rather than scriptural source, etc...
> 
> So the question is whether divrei Soferim and derashah mesh, and the answer
> may be a one-off of our case. The nafqa minah would be whether the conclusion
> is also divrei soferim (derashah) or or derabbanan (asmachta).

Again, for the question to begin there must be some reason to suppose
that we don't darshen Nach.  And again I ask: ver zogt?   AFAIK not only
do we darshen Nach, but we darshen Mishna.  The gemara often asks why
the Mishna used one word instead of another, and learns halochos from
the unlikely choice.  Of course sometimes it answers that the girsa is
wrong, and the Mishna in fact used the more likely word, so nothing
can be learned from it.  And today we darshen Rishonim, especially
those known for the precision and economy of their language, such as
the Rambam.

Of course the midot for darshening these sources are different than
those for darshening chumash, but what's happening is still drash.
The drash on "bizmaneihem" isn't using the standard midot for
darshening chumash, and indeed there's a machloket in the gemara
on how closely we can analyse the word.  One opinion uses "zman
zmanam zmaneihem" to derive the precise number of extra days on
which the Anshei Kneset Hagdola intended the megilah to be read,
while another opinion just doesn't see it ("lo mashma leih"), and
suffices with learning that there are multiple times, relying on
other methods to derive their number and dates. 

Perhaps this is what you were thinking of.  But perhaps you were
thinking of a different rule: "divrei torah midivrei kabalah lo
yalfinan".  Because the language changed between the composition
of the Chumash and the Nach, one can't use Nach to definitively
explain a pasuk in Chumash, but only to give an indication of
what the Chumash might have meant.  That doesn't at all preclude
darshening each sefer of Nach on its own terms.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 42
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."