tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post1662307608722575153..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: An earlier assertion of multivalence in veRav Yaavod Tzairjoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-23026008052601912712009-11-23T19:39:10.430-05:002009-11-23T19:39:10.430-05:00oops. while multivalence is certainly only an opti...oops. while multivalence is certainly only an option, the reason i am thinking in terms of multivalence (like Ibn Caspi and Radak) is because of an ambiguity. i wrote in an earlier post (<a href="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-three-fold-ambiguity-of-deliberate.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>) of three difference ambiguities:<br /><br />* lack of the et object-marker<br />* tzair and rav used to denote the one with the firstborn right<br />* the consonantal text allowing for yaavod to be read as "will serve" or "will be served".<br /><br />but you make a good point, in which multivalence and ambiguity is not necessary to arrive at the same conclusion. (though rav fits somewhat better than tzair, and rabbu and tzechru are the equivalent terms in ancient Hurrian inheritance law.)<br /><br />i think that modern scholars looking for multivalence do so because it is a cool feature in the text, and also often allows us to generate a new peshat while simultaneously affirming several older explanations in a sort of "elu veElu".<br /><br />but i see what you are saying. thanks for your insight!<br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-79223316493719774692009-11-23T17:44:46.075-05:002009-11-23T17:44:46.075-05:00Why assume that it is ambiguous? It doesn't sa...Why assume that it is ambiguous? It doesn't say the <b>elder</b> will "yaavod" the <b>younger</b>; it says that the <b>greater</b> will "yaavod" the <b>lesser</b>. <br /><br />If it had said "The elder will dominate the younger" or "the younger will dominate the elder" then it would be clear which nation is greater and which one is lesser. Instead it defines them solely by their relative strength - something open to change. So the meaning of the prophecy is that there will be two nations and that they will not coexist quietly, but they will strive for dominance against each other. This is the same meaning as the traditional one, but it doesn't require an appeal to ambivalence.Joe in Australianoreply@blogger.com