tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post1508661882056936503..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: A Corporealist Rashi -- *as if*!joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-28618305543621615412009-09-04T11:31:54.954-04:002009-09-04T11:31:54.954-04:00"but i think that Rashi actually shows him to..."but i think that Rashi actually shows him to be a quasi-corporealist, or at least not view that as heretical."<br /><br />I think that it is misleading to label a position such as the Ra'avad as "quasi-coporealist" but I would also add your note:<br /><br />"But he also seems to be careful in his citation of perek Chelek. He says that Chazal say the shaving is meant literally (and if they mean it literally, how can they mean it literally in an allegorical fashion), but he provides no more information, nor any explicit statement that this involves corporeality of God."<br /><br />"but he offers it because it is peshat, not, to my mind, because the alternative is to corporealist."<br /><br />In my post I tried to make it clear that Rashi felt the pshat was allegorical, the question is why? Our tendency to do so is largely influenced my our non-coporealist view of God.Yirmiahuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04967448425332780399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-86184958533539119682009-09-04T08:11:42.994-04:002009-09-04T08:11:42.994-04:00it is relevant to the general discussion, but not ...it is relevant to the general discussion, but not to the particular point in this post.<br /><br />but i think <a href="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2007/07/yeshaya-how-rashi-carefully-avoids.html" rel="nofollow">that Rashi</a> actually shows him to be a quasi-corporealist, or at least not view that as heretical. because i think it shows that Rashi understands Chazal to be corporealist, and yet he does not object to it, but rather presents it as a legitimate alternate, albeit midrashic view.<br /><br />that rashi interprets it allegorically as opposed to literally does not show him to be a non-coporealist, imho. literal is not the same as peshat; and allegorical is not the same as non-peshat.<br /><br />rather, as i learned from some very smart people, literal is often derash. or rather, hyper-literal is often derash. when we read halihorgeni ata omer, to say that Moshe might be "saying" in order to kill, as he did with Egyptian, and thus that Moshe used the Shem Hameforash -- this is hyperliteral. It is also certainly not peshat. It is derash. When someone speaks to his heart, he is not literally addressing that part of his anatomy, but is thinking these things.<br /><br />When Rashi sees poetic imagery, where shaving in general in the Biblical world was seen to be a mark of mourning or else shame, the *peshat* is that it is allegorical. and Chazal's interpretation is clearly literal and midrashic. It should not be surprising for Rashi to offer a peshat which is allegorical, where such is appropriate. <br /><br />but he offers it because it is peshat, not, to my mind, because the alternative is to corporealist.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-33221284826310334432009-09-04T01:47:40.452-04:002009-09-04T01:47:40.452-04:00I'm a little surprised that near as I can tell...I'm a little surprised that near as I can tell you haven't brought up your post which I cite <a href="http://machzikeihadas.blogspot.com/2009/09/critique-of-conspicuous-absense.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Yirmiahuhttp://machzikeihadas.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-21016267382584368312009-08-18T09:44:49.335-04:002009-08-18T09:44:49.335-04:00"but the answer must be broader than what you..."but the answer must be broader than what you indicate"<br /><br />it might be. indeed, i hinted at the idea of malach as God's representative and thus can be called God. and i agree that there are some good answers. but in terms of peshat in Vayera, this particular peshat seems to recommend itself, for many reasons. such that i would dislike it if what was peshat, and understood to be peshat, were pushed off solely for philosophical reasons, where that philosophy might be foreign to Judaism. (in hamalach hagoel oti, it seems probable that this refers to Hashem himself.)<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-17698756965814525732009-08-18T08:40:44.203-04:002009-08-18T08:40:44.203-04:00already know that I disagree with Chazal and vario...<i>already know that I disagree with Chazal and various Rishonim in various matters somewhat associated with theology. For example, I believe that they believed in sheidim, but I don't think sheidim, or leprechauns, exist.</i><br /><br />Funny, I always thought of sheidim as a matter of science, not theology.<br /><br /><i>It seems to be the simplest peshat there that God was not interrupted by the arrival of the three "men," but rather vayera eilav Hashem is an introduction to the appearance of these men.</i><br /><br />There are many other places you must take into consideration, besides Breishit 18. Yaakov's wrestling with the "ish" and being renamed for prevailing against "elokim"; places where "vayomer hashem" and "vayomer malach hashem" are used interchangeable; just to name a couple.<br /><br />This may not indicate corporeality, only that "God" is used as a shorthand for God's representatives as well - but the answer must be broader than what you indicate.<br /><br /><i>As I learned in a class or two, some scholars believe that whenever Rashi says veOmer ani, it is not Rashi who is speaking, but rather his student.</i><br /><br />A good way of testing this would be to check what precedes the phrase. If it's usually a quote from R' Moshe Hadarshan or some external source, then "ani" probably means Rashi. If not, it's probably a student.shlomonoreply@blogger.com