Sunday, February 27, 2022

Rischa D'Araisa Season 4 Episode 21: Adeloyada: Equating the Ukrainians with Amalek - Not! With special guest Professor Boris Kogan of Touro College

 

Rischa D'Araisa Season 4 Episode 21: 

Adeloyada

Equating the Ukrainians with Amalek - Not!

with special guest Professor Boris Kogan of Touro College

https://jewishpodcasts.fm/yeshivaofnewark/32934

13 comments:

  1. For those interested in seeing the opinion that I am opposing, see Rabbi Shlomo Aviner's post at https://www.facebook.com/ShlomoAviner/posts/4940471749372365

    ReplyDelete
  2. My post on the topic is at
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/OJADAR/permalink/5029897433720880

    ReplyDelete
  3. Very good show!

    Your opinion that the present generation is nothing like their predecessors and therefore undeserving of our enmity is very reasonable. And the gemara in Sanhedrin 27b states that children don't automatically get punished for parent's sins. The gemara there says that in 2 cases children could be punished for past generation's misdeeds. Either כשאוחזין מעשה אבותיהן בידיהם or even if they don't do the same crimes, if היה בידם למחות ולא מיחו punishment is possible. Neither of these is applicable in the present situation with Ukraine.

    However, that does not mean connecting current events to past generations misdeeds is unwarranted, at least according to a midrash brought by Rashi (Breishit 4:24).

    Rashi says:
    ומדרש בראשית רבה (כג ד): לא הרג למך כלום ונשיו פורשות ממנו משקיימו פריה ורבייה, לפי שנגזרה גזרה לכלות זרעו של קין לאחר שבעה דורות. אמרו: מה אנו יולדות לבהלה, למחר המבול בא ושוטף את הכל. והוא אומר להן: וכי איש הרגתי לפצעי, וכי אני הרגתי את הבל שהיה איש בקומה וילד בשנים שיהא זרעי כלה באותו עוון?! ומה קין שהרג נתלה לו שבעה דורות, אני שלא הרגתי לא כל שכן שיתלו לי שביעיות הרבה! וזהו קל וחומר של שטות, אם כן אין הקב"ה גובה את חובו ומקיים את דברו:

    I do not know how this Rashi understands the gemara in Sanhedrin. If it was just the Midrash I'd say it's a different opinion than the gemara in Sanhedrin, but if Rashi brings it, I don't know how he finds the two compatible. He can't ignore the gemara yet he quotes this Midrash.

    Be that as it may, it would be consistent with Rashi's position based on this Midrash to claim that past generations of evil Ukrainians may have caused future generations of their descendants to suffer even if the current punished generation is innocent of their forefathers’ crimes.

    I'd love to hear your thoughts!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please tell me that I misread Rashi or something. I find the possibility somewhat troubling, of course.

      Delete
    2. 1. Where Chazal tell us it is Divine retribution we can accept that. We can't identify such phenomena on our own.

      2. Lemech, like, presumably, all the progeny of Cain, was following in the evil footsteps of his ancestor. Only under such circumstances that the linkage is probable.

      Delete
    3. 1. That is true as far as establishing fact. But if it is possible in way that is consistent with our hashkafot, that could be enough for some folks. I'm only playing devil's advocate here for those who wish to say Ukraine is suffering retribution for their country's past. Personally, any such claims are way above my pay grade.

      2. Kayin was guilty of murder and the midrash says that Lemech was not guilty of murder. Lemech's question seems valid.
      Also, Rashi doesn't reject Lemech's question by saying Lemech is mistaken about his own actions. Rashi seems to say that even though Lemech is innocent, the decree from 7 generations ago is valid. This needs an explanation, IMHO.

      Delete
    4. 1. It is not consistent with our middos, as talmidim of Avrohom Avinu.

      2. Lemech was not killed for murder. Rashi's point was that he was shogeg. Which is correct. He was killed as a member of the Dor HaMabul.

      Delete
    5. 2. Rashi at this point says Lemech killed no one. He was not even shogeg. A murder never happened. (Earlier Rashi's did explain that Lemech killed, but at this point Rashi changes direction and explains even if Lemech never killed anyone.)

      Rashi also is not really referring to the Dor Hamabul. That would explain the destruction of Kayin and Shem's families. Here Rashi is saying that Kayin's family would have been eliminated in any case. It would seem to be a stretch to say that Kayin's family was destined for the mabul because of Kayin (no matter what their own deeds would be) while Shem's family due to their own actions.

      Rashi is saying that the decree against Kayin is what doomed Lemech, regardless of his generation's own actions.

      To be clear, there can be no doubt that Kayin's family were deserving of the mabul for their own crimes. It's just that even without those crimes Rashi implies that the decree against Kayin would have doomed them.

      Delete
    6. No, it refers specifically to the Mabul.

      ילקוט שמעוני תורה ילקוט שמעוני על בראשית פרק ד רמז לח

      ויאמר למך לנשיו וגו' תבען לתשמיש אמרו למחר מבול בא ונהיה פרות ורבות למארה א"ל כי איש הרגתי לפצעי שיבואו עלי פצעים בשבילו וילד לחבורתי שיבואו עלי חבורות בשבילו אתמהא קין הרג ונתלו לו שבע דורות אני שלא הרגתי אינו דין שיתלו לי ע"ז דורות רבי אומר הרי זה קל וחומר של חשך אם כן מהיכן הקב"ה גובה שטר חובו.

      Delete
    7. Although the Chizkuni is very interesting:

      חזקוני על בראשית פרק ד פסוק כד

      שבעים ושבעה - כאן פרש"י שהיו נשיו פורשות ממנו משקיימו מצות פריה ורביה לפי שנגזר לכלות זרע קין לז' דורות אמרו מה אנו יולדות לבהלה מחר בא המבול ושוטף הכל.
      חז"ק הרי דברים אלו סותרים את אלו אם כן לא פירשו ממנו בשביל כליון הזרע, אלא י"ל כסבורות היו שהמבול בא לכלות דור שביעי לקין שהן בניו של למך זה, ולא הבינו במה שראו באיצטרולגין שלהן שטעו בין למך בנו של מתושאל ובין למך בנו של מתושלח. וזהו שפרש"י לאלתר וזהו ק"ו של שטות. כל לשונו של פרש"י אחר סברתם כלומר אם כדבריו של למך שהקב"ה ותרן כל כך אינו נפרע מן הרשעים ואינו מקיים את דברו שגזר להביא עליהם את המבול.

      Delete
    8. And, off-topic, but a fascinating Malbim (this is the last in a fascinating series):

      מלבים על בראשית פרק ד פסוק כד

      (כד) כי אם קין שהיה הרוצח הראשון בכ"ז אמר ה' שמי שיהרוג אותו ינקם על אחת שבע, כ"ש למך שהוא תקיף יותר מקין והוא מושל ממשל רב, שמי שיהרגנו ינקם שבעים ושבעה פעמים, כי בניו ועבדיו יקחו נקמתו, ולכן אתן נשי למך גורו מפני חרב, כי אשר תמרה את פי תומת. ובזה יספר איך יצאו בני קין לתרבות רעה והתפארו ברצח, עד שגם את נשיהם הפחידו בהרג וטבח והכניעום תחתם לשפחות, וכמו שנודע שבימי קדם היתה האשה קנין בעלה לעשות עמה כחפצו:

      Delete
    9. As an aside, it's fascinating that Lemech's wives only wanted to stop having children (as they viewed it as pointless since they were destined to die) after Lemech was mikayim pru u'rvu.

      Thanks for pointing out the Chizkuni and Malbim.

      Back to the original point, yes, Lemech and family were always going to die in the mabul, but not necessarily for the accepted reason for which the mabul was brought - because of the general sins of mankind (and yes, it's fair to assume Lemech and family were also guilty of those), but Lemech would have perished **no matter what** simply because he's Kayin's descendant. His being guilty of the generations sins can be an additional reason why he's condemned, but even without that, Lemech and all of Kayin's descendants would die at this time because of Kayin’s actions, regardless of any guilt they themselves may or may not have.

      That is the point Rashi is making when citing this midrash, which seems to contradict the gemara in Sanhedrin, and which is so hard to understand.

      Chodesh tov!

      Delete
    10. Thank you! That Malbim is a hum-dinger! If you said that in yeshiva today they'd throw you out in the blink of an eye. But it's very consistent with his read on Achashverosh's demand of Vashti. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, it was about power.

      Delete