tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post3436564730789642518..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Angels or messengers?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-17751344771188057782013-11-16T20:34:12.786-05:002013-11-16T20:34:12.786-05:00the simple reading of the story is clearly that th...the simple reading of the story is clearly that these messengers were normal people, as otherwise why would the last reference to "angels" be to "Malachi Elokim" just a few pesukim before this story (the elokim is supposed to mean something no? though of course Ralbag reads that differently too). so wouldnt the simple meaning of the word "malachim" be normal human messengers (thus the need for the qualifier "elokim")? this made me wonder why the medrash said Rabanan amri Malachim "mamish", shouldnt it say malachei "elokim" as an explanation, and also maybe say "Ve" to indicate argument vs the initial opinion (see midrash here at Part Daled: http://daat.ac.il/daat/olam_hatanah/mefaresh.asp?book=1&perek=32&mefaresh=raba)? <br /><br />when i first read Rashi's reference to "mamish", i actually wondered whether he meant messengers of "Substance" i.e. humans, as opposed to the malachei elokim from earlier. of course the rest of the midrash continues to discuss angels, so it seems that the Rabbanan were probably referring to angels, but IF NOT FOR THAT, this would be an interesting pilpul and minimization of machlokes...Milhouse Trabajohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02961992830808799751noreply@blogger.com