tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post3371320289874252791..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: According to the number of the sons of ...joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-2899390719080723392009-09-28T19:41:05.247-04:002009-09-28T19:41:05.247-04:00IMHO
כי צורת יעקב אבינו חקוקה בכסא הכבוד
Tov yot...IMHO<br /><br />כי צורת יעקב אבינו חקוקה בכסא הכבוד<br /><br />Tov yotzar kovod lishmo - Hashem created the whole world for his kovod.<br /><br /><br />The face of Yaakov Avinu is engraved on the kisei hakovod.<br /><br />That means that the way to achieving kovod of Hashem in olom hazeh is through the shevil of Yaakov Avinu.<br /><br />Therefore ki chelek Hashem amo - we who are the continuation of Yaakov Avinu are the chelek of Hashem becuase we are the means to achieve kovod Hashem in olom hazeh.<br /><br />The purpose of entire world, shivim umos and the benei yisroel is to be machabed Hashem.<br /><br />As the way to this kovod is defined by Yaakov Avinu and subsequently the benei yisroel, the number and gevulos of the shivim umos are defined according to the kernel benei yisroel as a connection to and pathway to them becomign part of that which Yaakov began.<br /><br />pc :-)pchttp://torahdownunder.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-84474028428402927082009-09-17T16:46:59.709-04:002009-09-17T16:46:59.709-04:00thanks.
shana tova.
joshthanks.<br />shana tova.<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-5573755653256351522009-09-17T16:44:45.843-04:002009-09-17T16:44:45.843-04:00Ok, you're right. My apologies.
Shana tova.Ok, you're right. My apologies.<br /><br />Shana tova.YANWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-41513102450030396402009-09-17T16:42:15.705-04:002009-09-17T16:42:15.705-04:00"Way to address my points."
firstly, i ..."Way to address my points."<br /><br />firstly, i don't owe you, or for that matter any commenter, anything. but coming here and writing in a jerky fashion is not a way to convince me to respond to you. from your very first comment, you assumed an antagonistic tone, and that does not put me in a mood to respond.<br /><br />now, i don't know what compels you to take this particular tone. i can imagine that in some people who have gone "off the derech", they feel anger at rabbis or those they perceive as closed-minded frummies. regardless, it does not advance your cause. and i really should just delete all your comments. and i really should have never responded in the first place.<br /><br />i tell this to many rude commenters, some who consider me too heretical, and some who consider me too pious. although usually it comes from the latter.<br /><br />secondly -- though i should not reward you by responding -- i felt that i did acknowledge your points, though you did not flesh them out in full. yes, that adds to plausibility. and in a comment that you said did not "address your points," I wrote that it "certainly works out." i agree, it works out, and quite well. and i even gave further reasons why i think it is quite plausible. what do expect me to do, refute them? why should i do that if i agree with them, and that it adds to the plausibility?<br /><br />i also pointed you to two other discussions of the matter, neither of which i entirely agree with, but which raise interesting points.<br /><br />why do you seem so angry at me?<br /><br />all the best,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-17885020549537172552009-09-17T16:31:17.644-04:002009-09-17T16:31:17.644-04:00Way to address my points.Way to address my points.YAWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-31937159220334044452009-09-17T16:18:32.700-04:002009-09-17T16:18:32.700-04:00ah, now that you are taking a denigrating tone, i ...ah, now that you are taking a denigrating tone, i am entirely convinced!<br /><br />i am sure a "frummy" can speak down to you and cast aspersions on your motivations as well, and you would find it similarly convincing.<br /><br />I <b>said</b> that it was compelling, just not that it was 100%. yes, i said it works out. alas, different people weight evidence in different ways.<br /><br />all the best,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-62654336500445415372009-09-17T16:14:30.468-04:002009-09-17T16:14:30.468-04:00in terms of bnei el, you are right. but it is frag...in terms of bnei el, you are right. but it is fragmentary, so it might be the beginning of bnei elim, bnei El, or bnei elohim.<br /><br />see also the discussion at Torat Emet, which I also don't find entirely compelling.<br />http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_text.html<br /><br /><br />also, *this* is an interesting idea, and well spoken -- an argument that bnei elim == bnei leumim. the author has parallels between Tehillim and Divrei HaYamim, and between the MT and LXX, in other places, showing that <b>this</b> is the meaning of the text.<br /><br />http://tora.us.fm/tnk1/messages/ljon_jorj_ybm_0.html<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-3139776728862639892009-09-17T16:11:49.465-04:002009-09-17T16:11:49.465-04:00Oh please. You're still ignoring all the othe...Oh please. You're still ignoring all the other extremely relevant evidence (e.g. Ugaritic texts, certain Psalms). Deceive yourself if you will; there's nothing I can do to stop you. But the fact is that the correct text and meaning here is much more certain than you are willing to allow.YAWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-71805488660128860902009-09-17T16:01:53.813-04:002009-09-17T16:01:53.813-04:00"It's not just compelling, it's overw..."It's not just compelling, it's overwhelming"<br />"To propose anything else can only be self-deception."<br />not so. rather, this is your own subjective assessment, and since you are excited by this assessment and think it makes sense, you consider it overwhelming and other positions to be self-deception.<br /><br />if you look at other parshablog posts, you will see that i discuss and endorse textual variants in other situations. but i've dealt with a lot of them, and they don't excite me and fill me with the sensation that they *must* be the correct answer, whenever i see one. sometimes yes, and sometimes no.<br /><br />LXX was also pretty early, earlier than DSS possibly, and while we don't have an extant manuscripts from back then, who cares?! it is clear that they based themselves on one. or at the least, i am willing to accept that they based themselves on one. the ability to put one physically in my own hands just adds to the excitement, but does not, to my mind, make it more compelling.<br /><br />there is a brayta in the gemara which is based on our Masoretic text:<br />תניא ר' יוסי אומר אוי להם לבריות שרואות ואינן יודעות מה רואות עומדות ואין יודעות על מה הן עומדות הארץ על מה עומדת על העמודים שנאמר (איוב ט) המרגיז ארץ ממקומה ועמודיה יתפלצון עמודים על המים שנאמר (תהילים קלו) לרוקע הארץ על המים מים על ההרים שנאמר (תהילים קד) על הרים יעמדו מים הרים ברוח שנאמר (עמוס ד) כי הנה יוצר הרים ובורא רוח רוח בסערה שנאמר (תהילים קמח) רוח סערה עושה דברו סערה תלויה בזרועו של הקב"ה שנאמר (דברים לג) ומתחת זרועות עולם וחכ"א על י"ב עמודים עומדת שנאמר (דברים לב) יצב גבולות עמים למספר בני ישראל<br /><br />admittedly, this is a bit later, but it still is pretty darn early. and in other instances, we have conflicts with other variants, also quite early, some of which we would clearly rule in favor of the MSS on plausibility grounds.<br /><br />the idea of apportioning to different gods, or perhaps angels, certainly works out. and what i also neglected to mention in my short discussion, what makes it even more compelling is the <b>continuation</b> in the next pasuk, that כִּי חֵלֶק ה, עַמּוֹ: {ס} יַעֲקֹב, חֶבֶל נַחֲלָתוֹ. while other nations are given over to their guardian angels, not so Israel who has only God. and also pasuk 12, ה, בָּדָד יַנְחֶנּוּ; {ס} וְאֵין עִמּוֹ, אֵל נֵכָר.<br /><br />the transition of כי still bugs me a bit.<br /><br />lectio difficilior can be applied here, since people would not necessarily recognize the meaning of one, and they would switch it for the more common bnei yisrael.<br /><br />so i certainly can argue that it is quite compelling, and i think i said as much in the post.<br /><br />but on the other hand, i am not <b>100%</b> convinced. biblical poetry can be arcane and hard to process. and if bnei elim, where else do we see this phrase? and perhaps it solves too many problems. call this "self-deception" from your perspective if you want, but i (in deceiving myself) don't consider it as such, so much as conservatism.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-25328858165542069672009-09-17T15:25:39.041-04:002009-09-17T15:25:39.041-04:00BTW, IIRC the DSS have "bnei el," not &q...BTW, IIRC the DSS have "bnei el," not "bnei elohim"You Are Weirdnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-11690586748570843582009-09-17T15:11:23.471-04:002009-09-17T15:11:23.471-04:00"That the Dead Sea Scrolls have it explicitly..."That the Dead Sea Scrolls have it explicitly (something I forgot, much to my chagrin) certainly makes the LXX a bit more compelling, but not by much"<br /><br />Only if you ignore everything we know about ANE religion (e.g. Elyon and the council of gods, the "number" of nations, etc.), and all the other texts (Biblical and extra-Biblical) that shed light on the pesukim in question. The DSS is jut a cherry on top: the oldest textual witness containing the version of the text that makes perfect sense (while also making perfect sense of the change too).<br /><br />It's not just compelling, it's overwhelming: the original version of these pesukim were polytheistic, understanding YHWH as one of the gods, our god, our allotment in the council of gods, with the High God doing the apportionment. To propose anything else can only be self-deception.YAWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-44326516905529533882009-09-17T14:55:22.232-04:002009-09-17T14:55:22.232-04:00:)
simple. how long do you think it took to "...:)<br /><br />simple. how long do you think it took to "research" and write this whole post? it was shorter than you think.<br /><br />i remembered from grad school, or perhaps even earlier, the bnei elohim. i forgot that the Dead Sea Scrolls have it explicitly and in Hebrew, and only focused on that the LXX presumably had that in translation (though they say angels). <br /><br />I was going to end there, at the LXX, as the "correct" answer, but then saw the cute things in the Chizkuni and Tiferes Yehonasan.<br /><br />That the Dead Sea Scrolls have it explicitly (something I forgot, much to my chagrin) certainly makes the LXX a bit more compelling, but not by much. *Many* times in LXX we have translations which clearly resulted from variants, so the fact that we actually have an extant sefer does not add much. After all, presumably the LXX had a sefer they were basing themselves on in all those other cases.<br /><br />and i already wrote by the LXX why is is "tantalizing", and that it accords with the idea of angels who are sarim over their nations.<br /><br />i am not sure what you would consider the 'real answer'. while i can see an argument that lemispar bnei elohim being "corrected" because of theological ramifications, but at the end of the day, all we have is a textual variant for which we have two attestations. Is that what you would consider the 'real answer'?<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-2314561020174757412009-09-17T13:43:41.947-04:002009-09-17T13:43:41.947-04:00How did you research and write this lange post wit...How did you research and write this <i>lange</i> post without a) mentioning the DSS and b) offering the real answer??YAWnoreply@blogger.com