Mordecai Kornfeld
Tue, 25 Apr 2006 08:33:29 -0700
x-mailing-list: daf-discuss@shemayisrael.com
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________
Re: GENERAL: Ki Sisa 34:3 V'Ish Lo Yaaleh Imach Rashi
Alex Lebovits asked:
>> In the layning oon the 1st day of Pesach Rashi says that the reason the
>> first Luchos were broken was because they were given "B'Teshuos V'Kolos
>> U'Kehilos"; "V'eyn lecha Noeh min Hazniyuth". And they received an "ayin
>> Horah".
Weren't the Kolos and the whole commotion caused by the Ribono Shel Olam?
And if so how could Ayin Hara affect it? And if it could then why do it? <<
The Kollel replied:
>> Rashi (based on a Medrash Tanchuma) does not say that 'they received an
>> Ayin ha'Ra', but that 'an Ayin ha'Ra was therefore able to have
>> jurisdiction over them'.
What I think he means is this. There were two ways of giving Yisrael the
Luchos, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. They could be given
discreetly, and Tzeni'us is in general, a good thing and therefore safe. On
the other hand, they could be given amidst much pomp and ceremony, which
had the advantage of imbuing the people with the fear of G-d, but leaving
them open to a possible Ayin ha'Ra, which might ensue, depending on the
reaction of other people (or whatever it is that activates Ayin ha'Ra), but
which might not. Hashem opted for the latter method (a risk for the sake of
the vital importance of Yir'as Hashem). Ayin ha'Ra did not have to follow,
but it did (I happened to overhear part of a Shi'ur (about Ayin ha'Ra) on
Sunday, where the Magid Shi'ur ascribed this to Yisrael's flaunting Matan
Torah in the faces of the nations of the world, though I did not hear
whether he quoted a source for this, and if he did, what that source was).
At the end of the day, whatever losses we sustained due to Hashem's
original choice, we gained a vital insight into the importance of Tzeni'us
on the one hand, and the dangers of extravaganza, on the other, as well as
a lesson on how to tackle the age-old question of what to do when faced
with the choice of higher stakes with a risk of losing out vs. stability,
but without the risk.
And that is something which we would not have been able to do, had Hashem
chosen the first method. <<
------
Alex Lebovits responds:
Dear R' Chrysler
Thank you very much for considering and answering my question very well.
You show how careful Rashi was in choosing his words (and how carefully one
should be medayek in them).
And thank you for correcting when the layning actually took place.
While looking for an answer to this question I came across a similar
question in the "Pardes Yosef" on this posuk; where someone asked R' Mayer
Shapiro why he was making such a big extravaganza when opening his yeshiva,
and quoted this Medrash in his question.
R' Mayer Shapiro gave an answer very similar to yours; but added that Moshe
Rebeinu was "moser nefesh" even though he knew a calamity might result
from his actions; seeming to imply that somehow Moshe was the cause of the
extravaganza.
Was Moshe part of the cause of the extravaganza?
Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions.
Kol Tov
Alex Lebovits
------------------------------------
The Kollel replies:
Before taking up your question, let me add a comment made by my
father-in-law, who liked the above explanation. He reminded me of the
Chazal which says exactly the same about the Meraglim. The first set of
spies, they point out, who were sent by Moshe amidst much pomp and
ceremony, failed in their mission; the second set, sent by Yehoshua
'quietly', succeeded.
Interesting, three generations (my father-in-law, myself and my grandson)
contributed to the final explanation.
Now for your question. As far as I can see, the only possible hand that
Moshe can have had in the 'extgravagantza' lies in the Pasuk "And Moshe
took the people out to meet Hashem" (19:17), when he might perhaps have let
things take their own course. But that would hardly justify naming Moshe as
its cause, let alone referring to him as having been Moser Nefesh for it.
As far as I can see, Hashem was the instigator of the 'Kolos u'Verakim',
and Moshe simply obeyed instructions. The only issue that Chazal ascribe to
Moshe (in this regard) is the breaking of the Luchos, which was the end
result of the noise, not the cause.
Perhaps the Pardes Yosef is referring to a Medrash of which I am unaware.
Be'Virchas Kol Tuv.
Eliezer Chrysler.
_______________________________________________
Daf-discuss mailing list
Daf-discuss@shemayisrael.co.il
http://www.shemayisrael.com/mailman/listinfo/daf-discuss_shemayisrael.co.il