In Yeshaya, perek 65, we read:
Rashi writes:
who forsake the Lord The wicked of Israel who adopted paganism and died in their wickedness.Thus, Rashi understands this as paganism, and worshiping the deity of the zodiac, Gad. However, Rashi understands "LaMeni" as "for a number." He is apparently unaware that, just as Gad, Meni was also a pagan deity. (But read on a bit to see that he is aware of this.)
who set a table for Gad The name of a pagan deity on the name of the zodiac, and in the language of the mishnah, (Shabbath 67b) “May my fate be lucky (גָד גַּדִּי) and not fatigued.”
for a number Heb. לַמְנִי. According to the number of the computation of the priests, they would fill basins of mingled wine.
mingled wine wine mingled with water as was customary. Comp. (Prov. 23: 30) “To search for mingled wine” Also (ibid. 9:2), “She mingled (מָסְכָה) her wine.” Some interpret לַמְנִי, to the pagan deities that you appointed (מִנִּיתֶם) over yourselves, but אֶתְכֶם וּמָנִיתִי, which is not punctuated וּמִנִּיתִי with a ‘dagesh,’ indicates that it is an expression of counting.
As noted in Wikipedia, "Gad was the name of the pan-Semitic god of fortune, and is attested in ancient records of Aram and Arabia[.]" And Meni "was the pan-Semitic god of destiny," mentioned "in archeaological records of Aram and Arabia." There is thus Biblical parallelism in play, with Gad placed in parallel to Meni.
Now, need this really be paganism1?
While Gad and Meni (cut and apportion, or thereabouts) are the names of deities which were worshiped by pagans, perhaps Yeshaya is speaking poetically, and exaggerating. He is speaking of those who abandoned Hashem and forget his Holy mountain2 -- וְאַתֶּם עֹזְבֵי ה, הַשְּׁכֵחִים אֶת-הַר קָדְשִׁי. There are two reasons one might do this. One might abandon Hashem in order to worship pagan deities. Or one might stop believing in Divine intervention in the world, and leave all happenings in this world to Fate and Destiny. And this might be the metaphorical intent of the end of the pasuk, הַעֹרְכִים לַגַּד שֻׁלְחָן, וְהַמְמַלְאִים לַמְנִי מִמְסָךְ.
This is brought down practically in the gemara, in Sanhedrin 92a:
ואמר רבי אלעזר כל שאינו משייר פת על שלחנו אינו רואה סימן ברכה לעולם שנאמר אין שריד לאכלו על כן לא יחיל טובו והאמר רבי אלעזר כל המשייר פתיתים על שלחנו כאילו עובד ע"ז שנאמר (ישעיהו סה) העורכים לגד שלחן והממלאים למני ממסך לא קשיא הא דאיכא שלימה בהדיה הא דליכא שלימה בהדיהR. Eleazar also said: He who leaves no bread on the table [at the end of his meal] will never see a sign of blessing, as it is written, There be none of his meat left; therefore shall he not hope for his prosperity. But did not R. Eleazar say: He who leaves crumbs on his table is as though he engaged in idol worship, for it is written, That prepare a table for Gad, and that furnish the drink offering unto Meni? — It is no difficulty: in the latter case a whole loaf is left therewith [i.e., with the pieces], but in the former there is no whole loaf left therewith.
As an interesting digression to modify what we said about Rashi above, here locally on the gemara he asserts that Meni is the name of a particular deity:
שכן עושין, שמניחין שלחן ערוך במאכל ומשתה לשם אותה עבודה זרה שקורין גד, וממלאים כוסות של מרקחים נסוכים לעבודה זרה ששמה מני.
דף נו, א משנה הנודר מן המטה מותר בדרגש דברי רבי מאיר וחכ"א דרגש בכלל מטה הנודר מן הדרגש מותר במטה:דף נו, א גמרא מאי דרגש אמר עולא ערסא דגדא אמרו ליה רבנן לעולא הא דתנן כשהן מברין אותו כל העם מסובין על הארץ והוא מיסב על הדרגש כולה שתא לא יתיב עלה ההוא יומא יתיב עלה מתקיף לה רבינא מידי דהוה אבשר ויין דכולה שתא אי בעי אכיל ואי בעי לא אכיל ההוא יומא אנן יהבינן ליה אלא הא קשיא דתניא דרגש לא היה כופהו אלא זוקפו ואי אמרת ערסא דגדא
הוא והתניא הכופה את מטתו לא מטתו בלבד הוא כופה אלא כל מטות שיש לו בתוך הבית הוא כופה הא לא קשיאמידי דהוה אמטה המיוחדת לכלים דתניא אם היתה מטה המיוחדת לכלים אין צריך לכפותה אלא אי קשיא הא קשיא דתניא רשב"ג אומר דרגש מתיר קרביטיו והוא נופל מאליו ואי דרגש ערסא דגדא הוא קרביטין מי אית ליה כי אתא רבין אמר שאילתיה לההוא מרבנן ורב תחליפא בר מערבא שמיה דהוה שכיח בשוקא דצלעי ואמר לי מאי דרגש ערסא דצלא איתמר איזהו מטה ואיזהו דרגש אמר רבי ירמיה מטה מסרגין אותה על גבה דרגש מסרגין אותו מגופו מיתיבי כלי עץ מאימתי מקבלין טומאה המטה והעריסה משישופם בעור הדג ואי מטה מסתרגת על גבה למה לי שיפת עור הדג אלא הא והא מגופן מטה אעולי ואפוקי בבזיני דרגש אעולי ואפוקי באבקתא א"ר יעקב בר אחא אמר רבי מטה שנקליטיה יוצאין זוקפה ודיו א"ר יעקב בר אידי אמר ר' יהושע בן לוי הלכה כרשב"ג:
MISHNAH. ONE WHO VOWS [ABSTINANCE] FROM A BED IS PERMITTED DARGESH: THIS IS R. MEIR'S VIEW. BUT THE SAGES SAY: DARGESH IS INCLUDED IN 'BED'. IF HE VOWS [ABSTINENCE] FROM A DARGESH, HE IS ALLOWED [THE USE OF] A BED.GEMARA. What is dargesh? — 'Ulla said: A bed reserved for the domestic genius. Said the Rabbis to 'Ulla: But we learnt, When he [sc. the High Priest] was given the mourner's meal, all the people sat on the ground, whilst he reclined on the dargesh. Now, in normal times he does not sit upon it, yet on that day he does! Rabina demurred to this: Let it be analogous to meat and wine, of which at other times he partakes or not, as he pleases, whereas on that day we give them to him? But this is the difficulty. for it was taught: The dargesh was not lowered but stood up [on its legs]. Now if you say that it is the bed of the domestic genius, has it not been taught: He who lowers his bed, lowers not merely his own bed [as mourner], but all the beds of the house? — This is no difficulty:
for it may be similar to the trestle reserved for utensils. For it was taught, If there was a trestle reserved for utensils [in the house], he need not lower it. But if there is a difficulty, it is this: For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: As for the dargesh, its thongs are untied and it automatically collapses; but if the dargesh is the bed of the domestic genius, has it then thongs? When Rabin came, he said, I consulted one of the scholars named R. Tahlifa b. Tahlifa of the West, who frequented the leather-workers' market, and he told me, What is dargesh.? A leather bed. It has been stated: What is a mittah, and what a dargesh? — R. Jeremiah said, [In] a mittah [a bedstead] the strapwork is drawn on top; a dargesh has the strapwork inside.
Thus, the dargesh might be an ערסא דגדא, an arsa degada. What is that? Soncino translates as A "bed reserved for the domestic genius," where by "genius" he means tutelary spirit of the house. Rashi gives it as the mazal of the house.
This comes from Gad, meaning Fortune. And thus can be translated as Mazal. It shares a name with the deity Gad, but that does not mean that it is the deity. But rather, we can interpret this as some quasi (or wholly) superstitious practice, on par with belief in shedim (demons). And this one is reserves for this tutelary spirit which brings good luck to the house. Or perhaps we could say that it is merely a "bed of luck," without elaboration that it is actually for some spirit.Regardless, it would seem that this ערסא דגדא is not prohibited, for the Mishna is permitting people who vowed off beds to use a darga (because it is not classified as such), and does not mention that a darga in general should not be in someone's house. And Ulla, who introduces it, gives no sense that it is negative.
I could offer four different explanations for why setting a table is negative while a bed is not negative:
1. The pasuk was speaking about a deity, with the result of a violation of avoda zara, while the gemara was speaking about good luck in general, or else was speaking of a "domestic genius," which is on par with shedim -- in that Chazal believed in them, and permitted some interaction with them.2. The pasuk was speaking about setting a table and mixing drinks for Gad and Meni, which it thus takrovet avoda zara. Having a special bed for the domestic genius to sleep in does not approach this. Even to shedim, sacrifice is a no-no. Devarim 32:
3. This is not really what ערסא דגדא means. Or Ulla is defining something that was present, but is not saying that it is really a good thing to possess for that reason.
4. Indeed, Rabbi Eleazar, and Rabbenu Yerucham had he lived in those times, would have opposed the darga as well.
I favor (1) and (2), but whatever the source of distinction, it is time to move on to the next item. The custom apparently developed, in certain countries, to set up a table with different foods leMazal hattinnok. Rav Yosef Karo discusses this in Bet Yosef and then in Shulchan Aruch, but we will come to him eventually. He bases himself on Rabbenu Yerucham, who writes:
רבינו ירוחם - תולדות אדם וחוה נתיב יז חלק ה דף קנט טור ד
מה שנוהגין בארצות ידועות לערוך שלחן ולשים עליו מיני מאכלין בלילה שלמחרתו מלין התינוק ואומרי' שעושין אותו למזל התינוק הנולד ראיתי לרבותי שנוהגין בו איסור ומוחין בידם ואומרין שזה בכלל העורכין לגד שלחן כדאמרינן המשייר פתיתין על שלחנו
That which they have the custom in certain lands to set a table and to place upon it various foods on the night which, on its morrow, they circumcise the infant, and they say that they are doing it for the mazal of the infant who has born -- I have seen to my teachers that they treat it as prohibited, and they say that there is in this an issue of {Yeshaya 65} "that prepare a table for Fortune," as we say {in Sanhedrin 92a}, "One who leaves crumbs on his table."Rav Natronai Gaon writes in a teshuva:
תשובות רב נטרונאי גאון - ברודי (אופק) אורח חיים סימן נג
והא דאמר ר' אלעזר (סנהדרין צב סע"א) כל המשייר פתיתין על שולחנו כעובד עבודה זרה, הוא דאמר "לגדא דביתא", דמשמע דעובד לשר הבית
This does not explicitly link it to the practice in the time of Rabbenu Yerucham, but is rather explaining the gemara in Sanhedrin. Note that he does say that when leaving the crumbs, he must explicitly say that it is for the domestic genius, such that the implication is that he is worshiping the officer {sar -- I would propose to emend the resh to a daled, so that it reads shed -- demon} of the house. And this in explaining the pasuk in Yeshaya. We thus have a link to Ulla about darga. And the difference is as I proposed above -- a bed vs. an offering to a shed.
We can extend this to the practice mentioned by Rabbenu Yerucham. They not only set the table, but say it is for the mazal of the infant, implying his tutelary spirit. And this is exactly what Rav Natronai Gaon is talking about, setting the table and making the dedication explicit.
Note that it is difficult to read the gemara, in my opinion, with Rav Natronai Gaon's explanation. After all, the setama digemara had opposed to statements by Rabbi Eleazar about leaving crumbs on the table, and offered the resolution of: "in the latter case a whole loaf is left therewith [i.e., with the pieces], but in the former there is no whole loaf left therewith." If Rav Natronai is right that it is only a problem where he explicitly says that it is for the domestic genius, then there is no contradiction to resolve -- and he has offered a better explanation than the gemara. I would suggest that this particular setamaic statement in the gemara was a rather late insertion, such that Rav Natronai is free to offer his own. But we would need to see more evidence on this one way or another.
Bet Yosef (Yoreh Deah 178:3) cites the issue of leaving crumbs on the table, and notes, and wonders, why all the poskim left out this din.
Radvaz opposes the prohibition, explaining that all the poskim, such as Rosh and Rif, omit this law, and nowadays even those who worshiped them forgot about it, and certainly us. And other elements which must be present, and so on. An excerpt:
This does not explicitly link it to the practice in the time of Rabbenu Yerucham, but is rather explaining the gemara in Sanhedrin. Note that he does say that when leaving the crumbs, he must explicitly say that it is for the domestic genius, such that the implication is that he is worshiping the officer {sar -- I would propose to emend the resh to a daled, so that it reads shed -- demon} of the house. And this in explaining the pasuk in Yeshaya. We thus have a link to Ulla about darga. And the difference is as I proposed above -- a bed vs. an offering to a shed.
We can extend this to the practice mentioned by Rabbenu Yerucham. They not only set the table, but say it is for the mazal of the infant, implying his tutelary spirit. And this is exactly what Rav Natronai Gaon is talking about, setting the table and making the dedication explicit.
Note that it is difficult to read the gemara, in my opinion, with Rav Natronai Gaon's explanation. After all, the setama digemara had opposed to statements by Rabbi Eleazar about leaving crumbs on the table, and offered the resolution of: "in the latter case a whole loaf is left therewith [i.e., with the pieces], but in the former there is no whole loaf left therewith." If Rav Natronai is right that it is only a problem where he explicitly says that it is for the domestic genius, then there is no contradiction to resolve -- and he has offered a better explanation than the gemara. I would suggest that this particular setamaic statement in the gemara was a rather late insertion, such that Rav Natronai is free to offer his own. But we would need to see more evidence on this one way or another.
Bet Yosef (Yoreh Deah 178:3) cites the issue of leaving crumbs on the table, and notes, and wonders, why all the poskim left out this din.
ולא ידעתי למה השמיטו הפוסקים דבר זה
He fixes this by reinstating it in Shulchan Aruch, on the same siman, and also mentioning the prohibition on the practice noted by Rabbenu Yerucham:שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קעח סעיף ג
מי שאכל ושייר פתיתין על שלחנו, ה (א) לא יביא פת שלימה ויניח על השלחן. הגה: ח] יש מקומות שנהגו לערוך שולחן ולשום עליו מיני מאכל בלילה שלמחר מלין תינוק, ו ויש בזה איסור משום העורכים לגד שלחן (ישעיהו סה, יא) (תא"ו ני"ז), ט] אבל לערוך מטה למזל התינוק יש מתירין. (כן כתבו האחרונים). ש
Radvaz opposes the prohibition, explaining that all the poskim, such as Rosh and Rif, omit this law, and nowadays even those who worshiped them forgot about it, and certainly us. And other elements which must be present, and so on. An excerpt:
שו"ת רדב"ז חלק ד סימן רא ד"ה תשובה גרסינן
תדע דהא בעלי הפסקים לא כתבוהו והרא"ש ז"ל בפסקיו כתב מימרא קמייתא דר' אלעזר ואידך השמיטה וכן הריא"ף ז"ל השמיטה ואיך נחוש אנחנו לגד ומני אשר אבד זכרם ואדרבא אני אומר כי המדקדק בזה לא טוב הוא עושה דמשמע דחששא אית בהו דקפיד שלא נעשה כאשר היו עושין. כללא דמלתא דהאידנא כבר נשתכח שם עכו"ם אפי' מעובדיה וכ"ש אנחנו. ותו דלא חיישינן להכי אלא כשהיו מניחים את השלחן ערוך כל היום כדי שיהיה מזומן לעניים אז איכא למיחש אם יביאו פת שלימה משום העורכים לגד שלחן שכן היו עושים מניחין שלחן ערוך במאכל ובמשתה לשם אותה ע"ז שקורין גד וכן כתב עלה רש"י ז"ל.
תדע דהא בעלי הפסקים לא כתבוהו והרא"ש ז"ל בפסקיו כתב מימרא קמייתא דר' אלעזר ואידך השמיטה וכן הריא"ף ז"ל השמיטה ואיך נחוש אנחנו לגד ומני אשר אבד זכרם ואדרבא אני אומר כי המדקדק בזה לא טוב הוא עושה דמשמע דחששא אית בהו דקפיד שלא נעשה כאשר היו עושין. כללא דמלתא דהאידנא כבר נשתכח שם עכו"ם אפי' מעובדיה וכ"ש אנחנו. ותו דלא חיישינן להכי אלא כשהיו מניחים את השלחן ערוך כל היום כדי שיהיה מזומן לעניים אז איכא למיחש אם יביאו פת שלימה משום העורכים לגד שלחן שכן היו עושים מניחין שלחן ערוך במאכל ובמשתה לשם אותה ע"ז שקורין גד וכן כתב עלה רש"י ז"ל.
I am not so sure that this has truly been forgotten. If in the gemara the intent was the deities, then perhaps. But if like Rav Natronai's explanation, that the house demon is intended, many in those days, and even today, are superstitious in this manner.
Rav Yosef Karo appears to believe it has to do with shedim, for he lists it in Yoreh Deah 179:
Rav Yosef Karo appears to believe it has to do with shedim, for he lists it in Yoreh Deah 179:
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קעט סעיף יז
הנוהגים לערוך שלחן עם מיני מאכל בליל המילה ואומרים שהוא למזל התינוק, אסור (ועיין לעיל סוף סימן קע"ח). ש
and this is surrounded on both sides with rules about shedim, such as:
מעשה שדים, אסור. ויש מי שמתיר לישאל בהם כ על הגניבה.
on one side and
לקטר הבית בעשב שיש לו ריח טוב, יש מי כא שאוסר, אא"כ עושה כן כדי להסיר ריח רע.
on the other.
In Bet Yosef (YD 179), he discusses the prohibition of setting up the table:
The Levush compares setting a bed to setting a table, and explains the difference, on the same siman:
מעשה שדים, אסור. ויש מי שמתיר לישאל בהם כ על הגניבה.
on one side and
לקטר הבית בעשב שיש לו ריח טוב, יש מי כא שאוסר, אא"כ עושה כן כדי להסיר ריח רע.
on the other.
In Bet Yosef (YD 179), he discusses the prohibition of setting up the table:
בית יוסף יורה דעה סימן קעט אות יז ד"ה כתב רבינו
כתב רבינו ירוחם (ני"ז ח"ה קנט ע"ד) מה שנוהגין בארצות ידועות לערוך שלחן ולשים עליו מיני מאכל בליל המילה ואומרים שעושין אותו למזל התינוק הנולד ראיתי לרבותי שנוהגין בו איסור ומוחים בידם ואומרין שזה בכלל העורכים לגד שלחן (ישעיה סה יא) עכ"ל. ואיכא למידק עלה מדגרסינן בפרק הנודר מן הירק (נדרים נו.) מאי דרגש אמר עולא ערסא דגדא ופירשו המפרשים דהיינו שהיו נוהגין להציע מטה למזל הבית ומשמע התם דליכא איסורא במילתא דהא מייתי עלה ההיא דתנן (סנהדרין כ.) כשמברין כהן גדול מיסב על הדרגש וכן ההיא דדרגשא לא היה כופהו (שם) דדוחק לומר דהנך בדעבד איסורא מיירי וצריך לומר דשאני שלחן דמפרש ביה קרא העורכים לגד שלחן:
The Levush compares setting a bed to setting a table, and explains the difference, on the same siman:
הנוהגים לערוך שולחן עם מיני מאכל בליל המילה ואומרים שהוא למזל התינוק, כבר כתבנו לעיל סימן קע"ח סעיף ג' שהוא אסור משום העורכין לגד שלחן. אבל העורכים מטה ומציעים אותו למזל הבית אין בו איסור, שלא היה זה מעולם עבודה לעבודה זרה, דבפירוש אמר קרא [ישעיה סה, יא] העורכים לגד שולחן ולא מטה.
Thus, it is to the domestic genius both for darga and the table, but one is established in sefer Yeshayah as Avodah Zara while the other is not.
With all of this in place, we should take a step back and consider that setting up a table lemazal hatinnok can have many different implications.
1. The child is named Mazal, and it is being set up in his honor. (Yes, a joke, by my wife.)
2. Perhaps the (original) intent is not one of sacrifice. Rather than meaning "for the tutelary spirit of the infant," it means "for the good luck of the infant." Some have the custom as well on Rosh haShana, to set a table with various foods, for simanim. And even there on Rosh haShana, customs varied and in some places they just looked at the food but did not eat it.
3. Perhaps the intent was to the Zodiac sign, the constellation, of the infant. This would be really avodat kochavim umazalot.
4. Perhaps it meant the tutelary spirit of the infant, and would be similarly problematic.
I think it could be reason #2, but on the other hand, superstition and belief in shedim was unfortunately prevalent, so #4 certainly is quite plausible.
As such, I would agree with Bet Yosef that this is a problematic practice. And there is no reason to engage in this practice. And when people hear segulot and adopt them without knowing any background to them, they can easily stumble into a problematic practice like this one.
Another problem with segulot is that they evolve, and that new ones come in to being all the time. Bet Yosef, or Rabbenu Yerucham, might have succeeded in quashing this particular manifestation of this segula, new segulot are always being added, and old ones are being modified. Which means that Shulchan Aruch is out of date, and had he been writing today he would have been opposing some of our modern segulot, such as the kabbalah red string and instead of the nichush he writes about, he would have perhaps opposed facilitated communication and consulting Igros haKodesh.
Indeed, Birkei Yosef on YD 179 writes about a similar minhag associated sometimes with childbirth and setting up a table: The Table of Eliyahu. It is not presently in Bar Ilan, so I will type it:
As Birkei Yosef notes, there may indeed be problems with setting it for Eliyahu. I have not yet seen the problems inside, but Eliyahu is a human who "ascended" in some form, and setting a table for him just might be like offering him, rather than Hashem, offerings.
Birkei Yosef says that a certain (unnamed) individual complained about this new custom, saying for many reasons that it is forbidden. But the sefer midrash Eliyahu contains a rebuttal. But a close inspection of the rebuttal reveals that one can rebut some of the rebuttal.
Lucky for us, HebrewBooks.org happens to have the sefer Midrash Eliyahu available. I will not translate it in this particular post but perhaps in a followup post.
This "table of Eliyahu" was apparently a custom in which women, in pain of labor, would vow to make this shulchan shel Eliyahu if Hashem saved them. I will not translate and analyze here, but will post scans. This is not really fair, since this defense in English does not appear in the same post as the offense, but on the other hand, the post is already quite long, and the defense will get its own post.
But I would also note that the kos shel Eliyahu we pour at the seder is not really a cup of wine for Eliyahu, and this is a mistaken belief based on a misinterpretation, as I explained in a prior post. Besides this, if setting up a table for him is problematic, so should setting out a mixed drink for him, for that is the second half of the pasuk in Yeshaya.
The following is from Midrash Eliyahu, Drush 11, page 142 in the aforementioned PDF on the bottom and on. Click on each image to see it larger:
With all of this in place, we should take a step back and consider that setting up a table lemazal hatinnok can have many different implications.
1. The child is named Mazal, and it is being set up in his honor. (Yes, a joke, by my wife.)
2. Perhaps the (original) intent is not one of sacrifice. Rather than meaning "for the tutelary spirit of the infant," it means "for the good luck of the infant." Some have the custom as well on Rosh haShana, to set a table with various foods, for simanim. And even there on Rosh haShana, customs varied and in some places they just looked at the food but did not eat it.
3. Perhaps the intent was to the Zodiac sign, the constellation, of the infant. This would be really avodat kochavim umazalot.
4. Perhaps it meant the tutelary spirit of the infant, and would be similarly problematic.
I think it could be reason #2, but on the other hand, superstition and belief in shedim was unfortunately prevalent, so #4 certainly is quite plausible.
As such, I would agree with Bet Yosef that this is a problematic practice. And there is no reason to engage in this practice. And when people hear segulot and adopt them without knowing any background to them, they can easily stumble into a problematic practice like this one.
Another problem with segulot is that they evolve, and that new ones come in to being all the time. Bet Yosef, or Rabbenu Yerucham, might have succeeded in quashing this particular manifestation of this segula, new segulot are always being added, and old ones are being modified. Which means that Shulchan Aruch is out of date, and had he been writing today he would have been opposing some of our modern segulot, such as the kabbalah red string and instead of the nichush he writes about, he would have perhaps opposed facilitated communication and consulting Igros haKodesh.
Indeed, Birkei Yosef on YD 179 writes about a similar minhag associated sometimes with childbirth and setting up a table: The Table of Eliyahu. It is not presently in Bar Ilan, so I will type it:
יש שנוהגין לעשות שולחן של אליהו, ואחד קדוש ערעור על מנהג זה שהוא איסור גמור. אבל הרב מהר"ר אליהו כהן בספר מדרש אליהו דף נ"ג ע"ב דחה כל דברי הכוונת המערער וקיים המנהג ע"ש טעמו ונימוקו ויש להשיב קצת כאשר יראה המעיין ודוק היתיב
As Birkei Yosef notes, there may indeed be problems with setting it for Eliyahu. I have not yet seen the problems inside, but Eliyahu is a human who "ascended" in some form, and setting a table for him just might be like offering him, rather than Hashem, offerings.
Birkei Yosef says that a certain (unnamed) individual complained about this new custom, saying for many reasons that it is forbidden. But the sefer midrash Eliyahu contains a rebuttal. But a close inspection of the rebuttal reveals that one can rebut some of the rebuttal.
Lucky for us, HebrewBooks.org happens to have the sefer Midrash Eliyahu available. I will not translate it in this particular post but perhaps in a followup post.
This "table of Eliyahu" was apparently a custom in which women, in pain of labor, would vow to make this shulchan shel Eliyahu if Hashem saved them. I will not translate and analyze here, but will post scans. This is not really fair, since this defense in English does not appear in the same post as the offense, but on the other hand, the post is already quite long, and the defense will get its own post.
But I would also note that the kos shel Eliyahu we pour at the seder is not really a cup of wine for Eliyahu, and this is a mistaken belief based on a misinterpretation, as I explained in a prior post. Besides this, if setting up a table for him is problematic, so should setting out a mixed drink for him, for that is the second half of the pasuk in Yeshaya.
The following is from Midrash Eliyahu, Drush 11, page 142 in the aforementioned PDF on the bottom and on. Click on each image to see it larger:
Endnotes:
1) Also, were these deities worshiped in the Babylonian captivity, as has been asserted? The basis for this assertion would presumably be this pasuk. But I think this would assume a Deutero-Isaiah, since the known Yeshaya was pre-exilic:
| א חֲזוֹן, יְשַׁעְיָהוּ בֶן-אָמוֹץ, אֲשֶׁר חָזָה, עַל-יְהוּדָה וִירוּשָׁלִָם--בִּימֵי עֻזִּיָּהוּ יוֹתָם אָחָז יְחִזְקִיָּהוּ, מַלְכֵי יְהוּדָה. | 1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. |
2) (which, by the way, might imply that the Har HaBayit was present but they did not go there, implying before the Babylonian captivity)
6 comments:
What does this imply about Gad the son of Yaakov? Was he named after a pagan god?
not necessarily any more than people named Fortune are named after Fortuna
See my latest post on the subject here.
I have frequently seen Chassidim pour some liquid off from a newly-opened bottle. They've told me that it's "because of sheidim"; that "there are sheidim on the top of the liquid". I'm pretty sure that they're actually following the practice of of people who used to pour a few drops as a libation - maybe to the genius, maybe even to Fortuna. I haven't tried correcting them because (a) better that they act ...; and (b) if they don't know that it's a libation, it isn't one. Thoughts?
quite interesting. I've never seen this, but I haven't been looking.
I would tend to agree in terms of (a) and (b). But it is a great example of how the quasi-superstitious (sheidim after all have a Talmudic support, and practices involving avoiding sheidim a basis in Pesachim 111 - 112, even though we rationalists dismiss their existence) can extend to more theologically / halachically troubling practice.
intent might well matter, as seems to be the case in the subsequent post (about the Table of Eliyahu), at least according to the author of midrash Eliyahu.
חולין קה:-קו
ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דשדי מיא מפומא דחצבא משום ציבתא אמר לי מר משום דאיכא מים הרעים ההוא בר שידא דהוה בי רב פפא אזל לאתויי מיא מנהרא איעכב כי אתא אמרו ליה אמאי איעכבת אמר להו עד דחלפי מים הרעים אדהכי חזנהו דקא שדו מיא מפומא דחצבא אמר אי הוה ידענא דרגיליתו למיעבד הכי לא איעכבי
Post a Comment