tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post4598021420699205306..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Two Midrashim: Yocheved's Birth and Aharon's Striking the Nilejoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-4318430838774969942007-03-22T17:56:00.000-04:002007-03-22T17:56:00.000-04:00I tried leaving this comment before, but it didn't...I tried leaving this comment before, but it didn't take. I think the inanimate objects "feelings" are referred to in order to make the subject more sensitive. Thus you also have the precept of pants for the kohain to avoid erva exposure to the stones of the ramp.Ariella's bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09409352047101582583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-52332738083588960012007-03-22T11:16:00.000-04:002007-03-22T11:16:00.000-04:00Heh. :)No, the challah doesn't really get embarras...Heh. :)<BR/><BR/>No, the challah doesn't really get embarrassed.<BR/><BR/>I've seen many take this as homily (<A HREF="http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:q4bVIlz9h3MJ:www.nyu.edu/clubs/shalhevet/Rabbi%2520Friedman%27s%2520Shiur/20-Shiur%2520Yisro.doc+cover+the+challah+embarrass&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a" REL="nofollow">including Rav Schacter</A>), teaching a lesson of caring for people's feelings and making sure they are not embarrassed.<BR/><BR/>Of course, this is making use of an existing statement for homiletic purposes. I don't believe that the original statement was intended homiletically.<BR/><BR/>Rather, it was in idiom. "So that you should not shame the challah." Not really shame it, since it is an inanimate object.<BR/><BR/>Rather, there is a halachic hierarchy to foods and the order one blesses on them comes as a result. And there is an order of the day. So as not to show that we are passing over the proper order of blessing on bread first, if were in front of us, and thus not giving the halachic "respect" due it by blessing on it first, we cover the challah.<BR/><BR/>So in the first place, it was idiomatic.<BR/><BR/>Of course, it is great when people take statements like that and derive important homiletic messages from them. For example, this mussar encoded in this story:<BR/><BR/><I>A story is told about two families. Let us refer to them as the families of Reuven and Shimon. One Friday night, Shimon's family was invited for dinner at Reuven's house. As they were about to start kiddush, Reuven realized that the loaves of bread were not covered. Suddenly, he called to his wife, Sarah, "Where is the challah cover?" She responded, "I don't know." Reuven then raised his voice and repeated his question. At that point, Shimon said to Reuven, "Tell me, my friend, what is the purpose of covering the loaves of bread during kiddush?" To which Reuven replied, "It is done in order not to embarrass the bread." As the words rolled out of his mouth, he realized what he had said, and began assisting his wife to find the challah cover. Later that night, he apologized to his wife for embarrassing her in front of the guests. He realized that he was so caught up in the details, that he had missed the whole point as to why it was done.</I>joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-51046191890054045192007-03-22T08:04:00.000-04:002007-03-22T08:04:00.000-04:00If you don't cover the challah for kiddush, does i...If you don't cover the challah for kiddush, does it really get embarrassed?<BR/><BR/>Does the challah therefore have stronger feelings than the sand?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-41499106065443324542007-03-21T13:26:00.000-04:002007-03-21T13:26:00.000-04:00Well...I would say that if you take the Ibn Ezra's...Well...<BR/><BR/>I would say that if you take the Ibn Ezra's position, then you are forced to reject the midrash's version of events as historical.<BR/><BR/>However, you can still say that it was *intended* by Chazal as historical and thus was intended literally.<BR/><BR/>Whether one may say that or whether such is kefirah is a machlokes rishonim. But saying it is literal precludes some of the more farfetched figurative interpretations motivated by the feeling that Chazal must agree with my assessments.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-33588760061019437392007-03-21T13:13:00.000-04:002007-03-21T13:13:00.000-04:00You can't have it both ways. If you take the Ibn ...You can't have it both ways. If you take the Ibn Ezra's position, you are forced to reject the Midrash's version of events in a literal way.Ariella's bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09409352047101582583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-36858266330042283522007-03-21T12:54:00.000-04:002007-03-21T12:54:00.000-04:00yes. though my focus here is what to do with midra...yes. though my focus here is what to do with midrashic literalism once you assume like Ibn Ezra that the Torah would highlight miracles.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-46885515273232886902007-03-21T12:49:00.000-04:002007-03-21T12:49:00.000-04:00Are you not relaying the machlokes between ibn Ezr...Are you not relaying the machlokes between ibn Ezra and Ramban about whether to count Yaakov or Yocheved as #70 and whether the Torah would highlight miracles?Ariella's bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09409352047101582583noreply@blogger.com