- This topic has 11 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
There was an innocent little kid. The cat ate the kid. So the cat deserved to be bitten by the dog. The dog did not deserve to be beaten by the stick, therefore the stick deserved to be burned. The fire did not deserve to be put out, therefore the water deserved to be eaten. The ox did not deserve to be slaughtered, therefore the shochet deserved to be killed. Which means that the Angel of death did not deserve to be slain, so why did The Holy one Blessed be He slay him?
The famous question. And the famous answer: if the (owner of the) kid has an issue with the cat, let them deal direct. Why does the dog mix in? So the whole “cheshbon” has to be re-done.
I believe the Gaon has a piece discussing this. (And perhaps the Dubna Magid as well, not sure).
And I think one can ask more than that. You were asking “al pi chesbon, he was right”. But even if every step of the line was wrong, and the chesbon didn’t work out, and the Malach Hamoves was found to be WRONG — What is the concept of a Malach being wrong? A Malach has no strengths of his own; he is a conduit of HKB”Hs power. The Malach is simply a messenger to carry out HKB”Hs Will. The Malach has no agenda of his own. The Malach HaMoves was created by HKB”H to fulfil a tachlis, and is no less than Malach Gavriel or Michoel. The same is with the Yetzer Hora – they/he are/is just doing what HKBH commanded them. So how can that be wrong??
?? ?????? ?????, ???? ??????? ??????
This is my Pshat in what this Piyut is doing in the Hagadda. It answers the famous question of why the Mitzriim were punished if there was a Gezeira. The answer is what we see here. The cat might have deserved to be punished but the dog was doing what he wanted.
yekke: It is Mashma from all of Sefer Iyov that the Satan/Malach HaMaves has some level of autonomy, whatever that means.
There was an innocent little kid.
What makes you think the kid was innocent?
The cat ate the kid. So the cat deserved to be bitten by the dog.
Alternatively, The cat doesn’t have free will so it doesn’t deserve anything. (And neither di the kid.)
There is a discussion in the Rishonim whether or not animals have bechirah (See Or Hachayim by Yosef-In-The-Pit and the Snakes, and I think Ramba”n there).
The question is how it came to be that a cat ate a kid. Cats typically attack animals smaller than themselves.
The dog was punishing the cat but he also had ulterior motives for doing it. And therefor he is also at fault.
Kids are pretty big when they are old enough to be sold. And all baby animals are innocent.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.