tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post5302381108505457278..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: The Chasam Sofer on the last eight pesukim, or the last twelve pesukimjoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-74540947990649553752011-05-05T17:53:11.461-04:002011-05-05T17:53:11.461-04:00I just looked at the Chasam Sofer on the beginning...I just looked at the Chasam Sofer on the beginning of Parashas Emor (not "Toras Moshe," but "Chasam Sofer al HaTorah"), and he quotes Ibn Ezra "as quoted by Ramban" rather than quoting Ibn Ezra directly. I'm not sure if this indicates that he didn't have access to Ibn Ezra's actual commentary on Chumash (so had to rely on the quotes), or if he purposely quoted him that way as a dig.<br /><br />In any case, I thought it was relevant to this post, so wanted to let you know.<br /><br />BTW, I covered this issue this past year; you can see it at: http://rabbidmk.posterous.com/parashas-vzos-habracha-5771<br /><br />Good Shabbos!<br /><br />DovDov Kramerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08065794771042198986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-30957374262099422322010-09-22T03:27:53.748-04:002010-09-22T03:27:53.748-04:00right. that is rashi, citing a gemara in Sotah. bu...right. that is rashi, citing a gemara in Sotah. but ambiguous poetry is interpretable, and Ibn Ezra doesn't regard this as peshat. he <a href="http://daat.ac.il/daat/olam_hatanah/mefaresh.asp?book=5&perek=33&mefaresh=ezra" rel="nofollow">writes</a>:<br />וירא ראשית לו -<br />הטעם שראה לנפשו ויבקש לו נחלה קודם לישראל.<br /><br />כי שם חלקת -<br />כמו חלק<br /><br />ומחוקק -<br />הוא הגדול והשליט, כמו: לבי לחוקקי ישראל.<br /><br />וספון -<br />כמו: וספון בארז (בתוכם ספונים) [צ"ל בבתיכם ספונים[, שטעמו: שהם ספונים. <br />וכן: קירות הספון. <br />והטעם: כי ראה ארמונים ספונים, שהיו חלק גדולי האמורי.<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-78222520073272742092010-09-21T23:55:51.910-04:002010-09-21T23:55:51.910-04:00See Devarim 33:21, which seems to be saying that G...See Devarim 33:21, which seems to be saying that Gad chose the east side of the Jordan b/c Moshe woulod be buried there.<br /><br />(See http://www.aishdas.org/ta/5766/sukkos.pdf for my suggestion several years ago.)Dov Kramerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08065794771042198986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-54524044708678989932010-09-21T05:22:12.941-04:002010-09-21T05:22:12.941-04:00Chesky:
Thanks. That is quite interesting. I don&#...Chesky:<br />Thanks. That is quite interesting. I don't know, but it seems to increase the odds that he knew this famous Ibn Ezra and was lending it support.<br /><br />Dov:<br />Thanks. It depends on one's methodology, I think. That is, I would say that the reason "Chazal tell us that Moshe was carried..." is that Chazal also spotted this difficulty, or another one, and resolved it in this manner. (Nothing I see on the peshat level of the brachot indicates burial in Gad's portion.) Same for Abarbanel. This is how he interprets the implication of the pesukim. So yes, it answers the question, but another parshan (not me, but the one I am quoting, whose identity I unfortunately cannot recall! -- it is one from my source post) can still use the difficulty and resolve it in another manner.<br /><br />See for example <a href="http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=40224&st=&pgnum=123" rel="nofollow">R' Eleazar miGermayza</a> who says that this that he was buried in the valley is a mashal, for it cannot be literal, as the second half of the pasuk contradicts it.<br /><br />But thanks. Those are also good ways of resolving the question.<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-491925686740001242010-09-21T01:04:24.562-04:002010-09-21T01:04:24.562-04:00I think Abarbanel says that Moshe went up and down...I think Abarbanel says that Moshe went up and down Mt. Nevo numerous times, in order to explain why the tzivuy to go up back in Sefer Bamidbar. This verse implies that he went up for one final time, and never came down.<br /><br />As far as being buried in a valley, not atop a mountain, remember that Mt. Nevo is in Reuvain's portion, but the berachos indicate that Moshe was buried in Gad's portion. Chazal tell us that Moshe was carried from where he died to where he was buried, so there's no issue of his having died on a mountain while being buried in a valley.Dov Kramerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08065794771042198986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-48950504509058618352010-09-20T12:35:17.437-04:002010-09-20T12:35:17.437-04:00 I can’t tell from your quote whether he was makin... I can’t tell from your quote whether he was making the reference you suggest, but the Chasam Sofer did, in general, have a high opinion of Ibn Ezra; in regards to the <i>zemer</i> “<i>Libi Uvesori</i>” the Mattersdorfer Rav quotes the Chasam Sofer has saying the poem proves its author attained <i>ruach hakodesh</i>.Chesky Salomonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03875331170885280327noreply@blogger.com