tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post4699366629698997817..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Did they donate four, or five, types of jewelry to the Mishkan? Did the midrashist have a non-masoretic text?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-59519221755394037312010-03-12T15:02:10.713-05:002010-03-12T15:02:10.713-05:00"but I liked the post thanks"
thanks.
&..."but I liked the post thanks"<br />thanks.<br /><br />"I wonder what J Kugel has to say"<br />not sure if he does; but regardless, i am likely a greater expert at this stuff than he is.<br /><br />"I dont think that saying the torah wanted to save our Kavod by leaving out Agul"<br />what kavod or lack is involved in leaving out "agul".<br /><br />"is in any way forced"<br />what is forced is that there is no indication that an <b>extra</b> derasha (over the 5-5) is going on, except for the sudden realization that they are miscounting. i read a lot of midrash, and this is not a normal pattern. as is the miscitation of the pasuk.<br /><br />"it could be the Samaritans did not have that sensitivity"<br />but the Samaritans (and the Greeks, in the Septuagint) were not in the midbar! they got it from us, and made modifications to make the text smoother and to promote Shechem and Har Gerizim as the proper place to worship. and they rejected Torah shebaal peh. Suddenly, they will accept a variant from elsewhere? and decide to be non-sensitive. I don't buy it.<br /><br />have a great shabbos,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-59013462244430133172010-03-12T14:35:56.673-05:002010-03-12T14:35:56.673-05:00I dont think that saying the torah wanted to save ...I dont think that saying the torah wanted to save our Kavod by leaving out Agul and instead saying hinting to it with "col kli"<br />is in any way forced ...it could be the Samaritans did not have that sensitivity <br />this could be a proof that in the Midbar there was more than one variant of the torah that was finally<br />edited by Moshe rabbanu Al pi hashem (who took out the word agul) but the original or other version made it to the samaritans<br />I wonder what J Kugel has to sayUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11320278974028034158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-69953385386159675662010-03-12T14:24:52.900-05:002010-03-12T14:24:52.900-05:00nu nu
but I liked the post thanksnu nu<br />but I liked the post thanksUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11320278974028034158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-61806075230737797272010-03-12T12:43:23.460-05:002010-03-12T12:43:23.460-05:00not at all! indeed, i hinted at this when i wrote ...not at all! indeed, i hinted at this when i wrote in the post <i>"While the pasuk quoted in umah ketiv only lists the four we see in the pasuk, the contrast at the very endis entirely dependent upon there being five."</i> But I should have made my thought process more explicit, and somehow I forgot to do so.<br /><br />What I strongly suspect happened is that in copying the midrash, a scribe "corrected" the citation of the pasuk to match our own version of the pasuk, thus obscuring the true derivation. and did so by stripping out the word agil, thinking it was just a rehashing of the list from below, by accident.<br /><br />in fact, i think i can <b>prove</b> it. the <b>proof</b> is the missing vav of "vetabaat" in the citation of the pasuk.<br /><br />"our" masoretic text has:<br />כֹּל נְדִיב לֵב, הֵבִיאוּ חָח וָנֶזֶם וְטַבַּעַת וְכוּמָז<br />Note the vav in וְטַבַּעַת.<br /><br />the "samaritan" text has:<br />כֹּל נְדִיב לֵב, הֵבִיא חָח וָנֶזֶם טַבַּעַת עגיל וְכוּמָז<br />Note the lack of the vav in טַבַּעַת. this makes a lot of sense stylistically, if we have a parallel set of two lists, with a final conjoining vav in each, instead of one long list.<br /><br />the pasuk, <b>even as in Midrash Rabba</b> in the first instance, is:<br />כל נדיב לב הביאו חח ונזם טבעת וכומז.<br />Note the lack of the vav in טבעת.<br /><br />then, at the end of the citation in Midrash Rabba, we have:<br />חח ונזם טבעת עגיל וכומז<br />Note the vav pattern there, and how it is <b>identical</b> to the vav pattern in the list in the Samaritan pasuk.<br /><br />So my extremely strong suspicion is that at the top and the bottom of the midrash, a citation of the pasuk was made. At the end, it seemed like a mere list, so no scribe "corrected" it. But at the top, it was introduced with ומה כתיב, and then went on to what was clearly a citation of a pasuk, beginning with כל נדיב לב הביאו. and so a "correction" was made from the scribe. such erroneous "corrections" by scribes are par for the course.<br /><br />and this seems to me 1000X more likely than a rather forced and entirely unstated derasha, where agil is inserted not <b>at the end</b> (if it were additional, derived from "kol") and not after nezem (if that is how we derive it, from the ambiguity of nezem), but right in the precise point it appears in the Samaritan verse. And not only that, but the pasuk as cited independently accidentally lost a vav in טבעת such that it now matches the vav pattern of the Samaritan verse. And not only that, but the same vav pattern appears at the end, where it would make sense that it is citation of the verse.<br /><br />To summarize: one side is a forced implicit derash, which does not account for the miscited pasuk and placement of agil; the other side not only accounts for agil but explains other textual features of the "miscited" pasuk and the order of the listed items.<br /><br />And I suspect that I might even have been able to persuade one or two of the meforshim of this. Alas, they did not have the Samaritan text or the LXX text before them...<br /><br />This extra point is so important I am tempted to make it into a separate post. Perhaps next week.<br /><br />shabbat shalom,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-73144549022645609232010-03-12T10:23:44.158-05:002010-03-12T10:23:44.158-05:00If the medrash used a "non mesorah" text...If the medrash used a "non mesorah" text why would he quote the pasuk one line earlier the way we have it ?<br /> ומה כתיב? כל נדיב לב הביאו חח ונזם טבעת וכומז. בנזמים חטאו ובנזמים נתרצה להם,<br />so it seems the text is the same but the the" 5 " he mentions at the end is like the meforshim say etc.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11320278974028034158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-52247015814550683842010-03-12T03:47:11.570-05:002010-03-12T03:47:11.570-05:00i conducted a few clumsy searches when writing thi...i conducted a few clumsy searches when writing this post, but wasn't able to find anything. as far as i could tell, there is no fragment for this particular section. if you or anyone else can find me something, it would be even "better".<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-49533153930391898562010-03-11T23:20:35.774-05:002010-03-11T23:20:35.774-05:00any thing in the dead sea scrollsany thing in the dead sea scrollsUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11320278974028034158noreply@blogger.com