The word ובאתות local to Arami Oved Avi refers to Moshe's staff, and the prooftext is Shemot 4:17:
| יז וְאֶת-הַמַּטֶּה הַזֶּה, תִּקַּח בְּיָדֶךָ, אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה-בּוֹ, אֶת-הָאֹתֹת. {פ} | 17 And thou shalt take in thy hand this rod, wherewith thou shalt do the signs.' {P} |
The otot referred to are not the 10 plagues, even though many of the plagues were indeed effected via Moshe's staff. Rather, in context, Hashem gave Moshe three signs to show to the Hebrews and to Pharaoh: the staff becoming a snake and turning back into a staff; Moshe's hand becoming leprous and then becoming healed; and water turning to blood.
This is the sign that Moshe gives that Hashem will redeem the Hebrews.
And then:
The mofetim in the pasuk is a reference to the blood, as is stated in Yoel 2:30:
וְנָֽתַתִּי֙ מֹֽופְתִ֔ים בַּשָּׁמַ֖יִם וּבָאָ֑רֶץ דָּ֣ם וָאֵ֔שׁ וְתִֽימֲרֹ֖ות עָשָֽׁן׃
"And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth blood and fire and pillars of smoke."
Of course, the point is not that the blood described in sefer Yoel is what is referenced in Arami Oved Avi. Rather, the pasuk in Yoel demonstrates that dam can be alluded to be the word mofetim.
But which blood? Some might be misled to think that this is (only) the first makkah, and thus is a stand-in for all the makkos. In context of the staff as otot, it is the blood which stands as a mofeit. This first as a wonder to show the Hebrews, and subsequently as a wonder to show Pharaoh at the Nile. But it is as a wonder, rather than as a makkah.
Incidentally, the common practice (described in many Haggadahs) is to take droplets of wine out of the cup for each of the three final units of this prooftext pasuk:
דָּ֣ם
וָאֵ֔שׁ
וְתִֽימֲרֹ֖ות עָשָֽׁן
This is almost certainly an error, and most probably originated as joke. These three elements have a meaning in the context of sefer Yoel, but are not descriptive of the Exodus from Egypt. My guess is that there was already an existing practice of removing drops of wine from the cup at the makkos: dam, tzfardei, kinim, arov, etcetera, and someone jokingly took it out at this earlier stage, pretending each phrase was a makkah. And then the joke became a tradition, and became an established minhag.
15 comments:
Daily Halacha:
The Ben Ish Hai writes that when we reach the passage in the Haggada of “Dam Ve’esh Ve’timrot Ashan,” someone should hold an especially designated basin, and we pour three drops of wine from our cup into the basin (one for “Dam,” a second for “Va’esh,” and the third while reciting “Ve’timrot Ashan”). We then pour one drop for each plague as we list the ten Makkot (plagues), and then another three drops when we recite the acrostics “Dasach,” “Adash” and “Be’ahab.” One should pour a larger amount of wine for the final pouring when reciting “Be’ahab.” The sixteen pourings, the Ben Ish Hai writes, correspond to the fourteen joints on the hand, the palm, and the forearm, which has significance according to Kabbalistic thought.
Yes, but surely the Ben Ish Chai did not innovate this practice. He described it and added a kabbalistic justification for it.
One can add a kabbalistic justification to anything. Just as Shabtai Tzvi did to his favorite song, the Castilian love song about "Meliselda, the emperor's daughter". And there are kabbalistic explanations to Chad Gadya. It does not mean that it (dam va'esh) did not originate as a joke.
This seems to be mere speculation on your part, which is fine, but I don't know why you are so sure about it.
Torah shlaima pg 126 cites amarcal that calls it a מנהג אבותינו and that Rabeinu Eliezer Hagadol was מנהיג his family to do so. Doesn't prove that it originated with them, but how would you know it started as a joke rather than some mystic or Kabbalist. See there for the reasons given.
He ends with the rokeach who says אין להתלוצץ על מנהג אבותינו הקדושים, but matbe that indicates that there were those like you back then too, and he is addressing them
Actually, forget the last part from the rokeyach, bc he's talking about the whole dipping, not just the first three.
Well, it is certainly possible I am wrong.
But what drives my somewhat flippant dismissal of a kabbalistic is that this is what kabbalists do for **everything**. Find some "pnimiyus" explanation for a mitzvah or practice, and then, even (for example) when the metzius changes, the kabbalistic reason stands.
The reason we say beFeh Amo in Baruch SheAmar. The reason for metzitza befeh. The reason for meat and fish separation.
That a kabbalistic reason exists will not push me to automatically view that reason as a real reason. However, if there is some aspect of it which "smells" mystical or kabbalistic, then the kabbalistic reason is much more plausible and persuasive.
Taking out drops of wine? A common practice, and not only practiced by kabbalists. There is a classic explanation that we are expressing sorrow for the suffering of the Egyptians, which was unfortunately necessary. And this ties in to some midrashim. All within nigleh, and it makes sense. To explain the entirety of the practice (even for detzach adash beachav in short and full) as having to do with the 14 limbs seems (to me, a non-kabbalist) random; and there is a special significance to any number they want or could have come up with. That is why remez is so convenient for "proving" whatever you want.
I definitely share your overall sentiments, BUT that doesn't mean that NOTHING *originates* with kabbalists and taking wine out of the cup doesnt strike me as so rationalist to begin with, notwithstanding your explanation.
You write that it is common practice. But we do many things based on the kabbalists and sometimes it works the other way - that the rationalists have to rationalize a practice based on Kabbala ( as opposed to the kabbalists finding pnimiyus in a common practice).
So maybe it started as a joke, or maybe it was some Kabbalist/mystic who thought that this was a good time
to hint at the 16 פנים of hashems sword.
I wonder whether the pouring or dipping wine is related to "shfoch chamoscha". As for the relationship between the posuk in Yoel to the Seder generally, the passage in Yoel refers to "yom Hashem hagadol vehanora", and so does the end of Malachi that says Hashem will send Eliyah hanavi, who is traditionally believed to visit our sedarim.
What does this mean? I have no idea. But it's an interesting connection.
The Rema in S"A says there must be 16 and in Darkei Moshe gives reasons for the 16.
See more about this in Kaf HaHayim (bottom of that page and the next page).
Interestingly, some communities ONLY pour during Dam Va'eish VeTimerot Ashan - and not by the 10 Makkot, as mentioned here.
It's a joke to say it was a joke.
Except for your second to last paragraph, I don't see that what you wrote adds anything. And I'm not sure why you would have expected it to be persuasive. That the Rama gives a reason for an existing practice, and establishes an existing practice? And therefore the practice must have initially been legit?
What does the Rama say in D"M, btw?
I linked to it so you can read it.
Sometimes, the persuasiveness of my argument comes not from my words, but from what I link to.
I did read what you linked to. but your darkei moshe link was a repetition of the last link, by accident.
it looks to me like an appeal to authority. if you show me the darkei moshe, i can weigh those words on their merits.
Sorry about that.
Here's the link to the Darkei Moshe ד"ה שואלין.
Also, see this page ד"ה ובמגיד and the following page ד"ה ובבהמ"ז.
So at least 2 or 3 kabbalistic explanations for the total number of 16. Who is right, and who innovated a creative answer? (I know, all of them.)
Do you think that before writing this I didn't know that this was a prevalent custom, and that people come up with explanations for prevalent customs?
So far, for me, it is like the Sesame Street song.
One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?
I still see two things which are alike, enumerating makkos by themselves, for the sake of enumerating them, and and action associated with it. And I see one different item, which is not an enumeration of makkos, and is indeed just the tail end of one of the prooftexts, rather than something in and of its own right. But which LOOKS like an enumeration, which would then influence parallel action. I still find that analysis compelling, no matter how many kabbalists produce mystical explanations. Indeed, even if Rav Fish were to produce 60 myriads of explanations (which I am certain he is capable of), I wouldn't be swayed.
kt,
josh
It's a bit odd to say that spill wine counting "dam, v'esh, v'simras ashan" is a minhag shtus when we don't actually know the reason for the minhag for spilling wine during the other 13. It's like those people who mock the idea that Lot ate matza on Pesach, but who apparently have no problem with the idea that he served it to angels who came to warn him about the heavenly destruction of his city.
It occurs to me that something might indicate the age of the minhag - are the last three words emphasised in manuscript haggados, as they usually are in modern ones?
Joe:
in terms of your last question, I haven't looked extensively, but jnul has a bunch of haggadot, from 1492 onward. the one i've been using (pictured above) is:
1590 הגדה של פסח. ש"ן. פרג
סדר הגדות של פסח : עם הבדיקה וקדוש ... וברכות המזון וגם פירש נאה קיצור זבח פסח [מאת ר' יצחק אברבנאל] / שחיבר ... מהר"ר יצחק בן החר"ר אברהם [חיות] ... ; דען גאנצין סדר פון לשון הקודש אויף טאייטשין גימאכט ...
פראג : בית מרדכי בר גרשם הכהן, ש'מ'י' [ש"ן].
with a direct link here. On page 14, there is no special marking of dam va'esh vetimrot ashan. On page 15, on the sidebar of the actual makos, there is a mention of:
"I have seen anshei maaseh accustomed to dipping the smallest finger, called the pinkie (zeret) in the goblet and sprinkling the wine outside the vessel on each plague mentioned. And it seems to me that this is because it hints to כל מחלה אשר שמתי במצרים לא אשים עליך..."
So that would (possibly) indicate to me that it started at the makkos and extended from there.
I agree with you that we don't know the reason for the custom. Even in the absence of such knowledge, though, it seems a safe bet that these targeted **makkos** in particular, as so many of the sprinklings are on a single plague or cluster of plagues.
kt,
josh
Post a Comment