Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Angel of Death + Bas Kol + Elijah

Okay, two questions.

A) Where is the source for the fact that God will kill the Malach HaMaves? (Obviously we say that in Chad Gadya, but where is it originally from?)

B) Are there many places in which Bas Kol means Eliyahu in the Gemara (according to various commentaries?) Can anyone think of some places? Or other places where God and Eliyahu are interchangeable? As we saw in my Akiva post, per the nice Columbia Student, the Maharam Schiff states that the Bas Kol that happens by the Oven of Aknai is really Eliyahu coming to tell us the answer...

43 comments:

yitz.. said...

a) first show me a source (that satisfies whatever criteria you have) for the existence of the malach hamavet and then we can begin to talk about a satisfying source for his being slaughtered..

b) it's not that God and Eliyahu are interchangeable.. A bat kol is never *directly* God, it's always through some middle representative, according to Kabbalah, there are at least two, depending on how you count there are even 3 distinct discreet Eliyahus. The one in your question is a malach. All of HaShem's communication with us is through one malach or another.

Anonymous said...

sukka 52a

Chana said...

yitz,

There are plenty of places, but one that comes to mind is
Midrash Tanhuma on Genesis 39:1

anon,
You rock.

For the record, Joel Rich showed me that Bas Kols show up in Sanhedrin 11a, Sotah 33a, and Chullin 95b. (Now I have to go see if Eliyahu shows up by any of those.)

Chana said...

Yitz,

I scanned the Tanchuma, in case you were curious to see it.

Here is page one. I boxed the part about the Angel of Death.

Here is page two.

Anonymous said...

if u want a super comprehensive bas kol deal-see r reuven margolios in the intro to his edition of shut min hashamayim-there r many more times in chazal (and sometimes we find a bas kol *to* eliyahu)

Chana said...

Anonymous,

Well, a Bas Kol TO Eliyahu doesn't help me at all, because I need a Bas Kol to mean Eliyahu. Or at least for there to be places where it says God and it means someone else (I mean, yes, I can argue that it says Jacob wrestled with God, but it was really an angel but there the lashon is Elohim and the lashon in the Gemara by the Malakh HaMaves is Ha'kadosh Baruch Hu so what I really need is a place where it SAYS Hakadosh Baruch Hu but it means a messenger.) Which I can't find, and is therefore amazingly frustrating.

BUT thank you so much for telling me about R' Reuven Margolios' introduction to the Shut Min Ha'Shamayim.

Chana said...

Anon,

Just checked...Huzzah, it seems like Stern has this book you speak of. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

i understood-i was just showing taht def not everytime can be eliyahu-elohim is a dif story as you well know-and here it doesnt say hkdbh but rather a bas kol which as you will see in that into-means something totally dif

Chana said...

Anon,

I'm reading it now and I see what you're saying. Damn! I really wanted to show that even when it says God explicitly is going to do something (as it does in Sukkah 52a), that can still mean a messenger/ angel does it for Him. But here he says that the Bas Kol is an aspect of God, a form of prophecy, etc, not God Himself. Although it's very interesting, this discussion here regarding why it's a Bas Kol, not a Ben Kol...

HEY! Did you know there's a ton of stuff here about Eliyahu?!

Anonymous said...

bas/ben is just the start there and yes

Anonymous said...

pesachim 114A

Anonymous said...

in tosfos there

Gavi said...

I seem to recall learning that when God wants to do something, it will happen directly by God's "hand" as opposed to an intermediary.

Check out the commentary on the line in the haggada "loh al yedei..." - maybe one of the rishonim will clue in to something...

Chana said...

Thanks for the pointer to Pesachim 114a. Saw this English rendition of that (after I read it inside, don't worry):

Tosfos (Yevamos 14a) asks why do we accept the authority of the Bas Kol that the
Halacha is in accord with Beis Hillel, while in the case of Rabbi Eliezar we
rejected the authority of the Bas Kol?. Tosfos answers that the Bas Kol of Rabbi
Eliezar was only to honor him but not to indicate the Halacha. Alternatively, the
case of Rabbi Eliezar was simply a minority opinion against the majority so of
course he was rejected. The case of Beis Hillel involved a new legal issue, the
question was whether a majority wins even against the superior scholarship of the
minority. The Bas Kol was needed to answer this question for which they had no
precedent and no way of resolving by normal judicial means. According to this
line of reasoning, it is possible that Rabbi Yehoshua only rejected the validity
of the Bas Kol in the case of Rabbi Eliezar but would accept it in other cases
Tosfos concludes, however, that Rabbi Yehoshua claim was a universal one of ‘it
is not in heaven’ and rejected the Bas Kol in all cases. A similar assertion that
Rabbi Yehoshua was not the consensus opinion is found in other gemoras (Pesachim
114a/ Chulin 44a).

(From here. It's the Wed 16 Dec 1998 one on Heaven & Halacha.

Anonymous said...

there r 2 anons here btw

Chana said...

Then can one of you change your username so I can know which one I am talking to? Though I thank you both.

Chana said...

And whichever one of you recommended R' Avraham Korman on the other post (assuming it was one of you), where do I find his commentary on the Oven of Aknai idea?

Anonymous said...

colum student=all anons till the last 2 also not the r korman quoter

Anonymous said...

although im sure you could have guessed that..

Chana said...

Columbia Student,

Not necessarily, actually...for all I know, it's something to read even if one disagrees...But I do want to know where the R' Korman idea is from because it sounds fascinating.

Anonymous said...

i never meant to suggest otherwise-i was refering to style is all-i am not one to "hide" information

Chana said...

Oh! You mean that you always give your sources so that I can look it up later.

In that case- then yes! I just thought you meant you wouldn't read R' Korman, which would have been odd to me...

הצעיר שלמה בן רפאל לבית שריקי ס"ט said...

Man, you guys are such literalists..I mean, you're no Evangelicals, but still..

The Talmid said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Talmid said...

Gavi said...
I seem to recall learning that when God wants to do something, it will happen directly by God's "hand" as opposed to an intermediary.

Check out the commentary on the line in the haggada "loh al yedei..." - maybe one of the rishonim will clue in to something...
See Eicha 3:38 mipi elyon lo sietzei hara'os vehatov. The Nesivos (R' Yaakov of Lisa) in his commentary to Eicha "Palgei Mayim" says that Hashem kind of lets go and allows bad to happen.

Anonymous said...

here it is-yalkut vayishlach #133 in the middle-eliyahu will *slaughter* the "sar of esav" and as it says all over -see malachei elyon "samael"-they are one and the same..... (also zohar rus-
(14) זהר חדש מדרש רות מאמר ויען ה' את איוב מן הסערה
והא כתיב, ויעל אליהו בסערה השמים. רבי נחמיה ורבי יהודה אמרי, כשהעלה הקב"ה אליהו לרקיע, עמד מלאך המות כנגדו:
אמר ליה הקב"ה, ע"מ כך בראתי שמים, שיעלה אליהו לשם. אמר ליה מלאך המות, רבש"ע, עכשיו יהיה פתחון פה לבריות. אמר ליה הקב"ה, אין זה כשאר בריות, ויכול הוא להעביר אותך מן העולם, ואינך יודע כחו. אמר ליה, רבש"ע, תן לי רשות, וארד אליו. אמר ליה רד, מיד ירד. כיון שראה אותו אליהו, הכריחו תחת רגליו, וביקש להעבירו מן העולם, ולא נתן לו הקב"ה רשות. מיד כפף אותו תחתיו, ועלה לשמים. דכתיב ויעל אליהו בסערה השמים:- eliyahu wanted to do this a long time ago

Anonymous said...

.... as i figured thats the idea your looking for....

Chana said...

Anon 11:27,

For the record, I love you.

You just saved a) my life b) my sanity c) my thesis d) I'm dedicating my Honors Thesis to you.

THANK YOU.

Chana said...

Anon 11:27,

OH MY GOD, I just read the Zohar you copied here that suggests that Eliyahu wanted to do this a long time ago but was denied permission but in the future he will be permitted to do so; cannot thank you enough- I owe you.

Anonymous said...

and this
מדרש הנעלם פרשת נח מאמר נח לא בקש רחמים על העולם-
א"ר יצחק, לא זז אליהו משם, עד שנשבע לפני הקב"ה, להורות זכותן של ישראל תמיד. וכל מי שעושה זכות, הוא מקדים ואומר לפני הקב"ה, כך וכך עשה עכשיו פלוני. ואינו זז משם, עד שיכתבו זכותו דההוא גברא. דכתיב, ויכתב ספר זכרון לפניו: might be a key in to the whole "bizarro" idea you once posted about

Anonymous said...

Thank You and you're Welcome

Chana said...

Anon,

I don't understand that last part. Noach was punished for not requesting mercy for the world. Elijah did not move from there (where?) without swearing he would always advocate for/ say worthy things regarding Israel?

I'm confused...help.

Anonymous said...

sorry-heres the whole thing "
מדרש הנעלם פרשת נח מאמר נח לא בקש רחמים על העולם
א"ר אליעזר, מאי דכתיב וילך בכח האכילה ההיא ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה עד הר האלקים חרבה. וכי בכח אכילת עוגת רצפים אזל כולי האי:
אלא א"ר אליעזר, השליך הקב"ה דורמיטה על אליהו, והראהו ענינא דמשה, דיתיב קמיה ארבעין יממין וארבעין לילון, ומכדין דהוה תמן, עבדו ישראל ית עגלא. ובגין דהוה ארבעין יממין וארבעין לילון דלחם לא אכל, ומיא לא שתי, לא אעדי מתמן עד דמחל להן קב"ה:
א"ל לאליהו, כך הוה לך למעבד, ועוד הוה לך למחזי, דאינון בני בני רחימאי, דקבילו אורייתי בטורא דחורב, ודא הוא דכתיב, וילך בכח האכילה ההיא ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה. דחזא עניינא דמשה, דאישתהי קמיה ארבעין יממין וארבעין לילון. ועניינא דישראל, דקבילו אורייתא בטורא דחורב. ודא הוא דכתיב, עד הר האלקים חורבה:
א"ר יצחק, לא זז אליהו משם, עד שנשבע לפני הקב"ה, להורות זכותן של ישראל תמיד. וכל מי שעושה זכות, הוא מקדים ואומר לפני הקב"ה, כך וכך עשה עכשיו פלוני. ואינו זז משם, עד שיכתבו זכותו דההוא גברא. דכתיב, ויכתב ספר זכרון לפניו:-
see radal printed around the pirkei dr'eliezer 15:6 where he summarizes teh idea

Chana said...

Okay, that makes slightly more sense to me (not so much more, I'll admit.) But what bizarre idea am I supposed to be keying into?

Anonymous said...

ah im sorry i was refering to "bizarro" as in "bizarro superman"-'tis like your theory..... and this supports it i think

Chana said...

Okay, I am not getting it.

1) Moshe does not eat bread or drink water for 40 days and 40 nights while learning from God and being up on Har Sinai

2) Eliyahu eats the cake made on coals and with that has strength for 40 days and 40 nights

But why (other than it being interesting) is this something that I should know at this particular moment in time...as in, I don't think I am trying to prove they were Supermen (am I?) Alas...

Anonymous said...

well read the midrash again carefully-but the part i think might be pertinent is that it makes sense now if 1 of them is the accuser, the one that brings the bad acts before gd and now one is the one who bring
s the *good acts* in the exact way the other accuses, each action brought before god etc (google bizarro world)

Chana said...

Okay, I don't think I understand why it "makes more sense now," possibly because I don't get the midrash...I am sorry...

Re: Bizarro World. Interesting. A classmate told me today she hopes that I will be the next Lois Lane.

Anonymous said...

forget the beginning-the line at the end-eliyahu now will bring the good acts before gd and as the radal exxplaind this is as a kapare for him having "accused" bnei yisrael- now we have eliyahu playing the role of the active "anti accuser" and satan we know brings the bad ,plays the role of the accuser-that doesnt fit with your theory?

Anonymous said...

my bizarro reference wasnt important-just a way of saying mirror opposites

Chana said...

Oh, is that what this means? I had not had the chance to look up the Radal, was just reading what you were showing me; yes, that is 100% the theory. Thank you again; how in the world did you find all of this for me?

Chana said...

Just understood the Bizarro World reference- doesn't that sound a little like a confused understanding of the realm of the Sitra Achra? In folklore wandering into the realm of the Sitra Achra is a whole theme, where everything is backwards...did you know we all have doubles in that realm, supposedly? There's a Sitra Achra Chana somewhere...

Anonymous said...

i just meant it as a "cute" title to your theory of opposites- please dont take it too seriously