tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post5303600342319681716..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Rashi's Rocket Shipjoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-18582011326356532702016-10-06T19:01:36.504-04:002016-10-06T19:01:36.504-04:00Another fascinating blog post R. Waxman!
@Shmerl...Another fascinating blog post R. Waxman! <br /><br />@Shmerl would you please help me improve my translation of Sefer Berit Menuḥa?<br /><br />"The generation of the dispersion were clever and shrewd, truly they knew secrets. They said: ‘If we offend we will die as the generation of the flood which engulfed this world. [Let us] marshal forces which the upper ones can not do battle with.' They desired to build a tower fortified that it not fall, that would protect from waters and be immune to fire. From it would spread weapons to kill those who would draw close to destroy them. They desired an image made with the power of the Name, as is written, <i>that we may make us a name</i>. An image to speak to them all that would come to pass and tell them 'Do this but do not do that.' They desired to make for the image wings to cover all the city and fend fire descending from the heavens. That the angel of destruction not rule over them with torrents that fall in the city and on its border. All they did was due to the fear of the flood but the fools did not know <i>a God all-knowing is YHWH and His is the measure of actions</i> (1 Samuel 2:3), that every seraf and all the demons and the forces receive from Him with His permission. High and exalted, what does the blessed Holy One do? Lessen the strength of Ḥafniel and of Sandalfon and start to gauge with two seraphim. He stopped up their impure source of power so that they could not build the structure they desired" (<i>Berit Menuḥa: the Tenth Way</i>). <br /><br />https://thenutgarden.wordpress.com/2016/10/06/let-us-build-us-a-city-and-a-towerwww.thenutgarden.wordpress.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01941575755686521576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-57447588213309772022010-10-10T01:48:15.933-04:002010-10-10T01:48:15.933-04:00besides which, why should these 300 laws apply jus...<i>besides which, why should these 300 laws apply just to migdal bavel, and not any other theoretical flying tower</i><br /><br />I understood it as a manual on building flying machine. I.e. it's not specifically migdal Bovel, but rather technology that <b>was used</b> in migdal Bovel, but which allows to build a flying "tower" in general. This can explain a strangely huge number of mishnayoys on one specific subject.<br /><br /><i>artscroll, btw, takes it as Migdal Bavel being intended, but insists that this is allegory</i><br />Artscroll have their own agendas. I wouldn't trust them on such subjects.Shmerlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14404784573198104036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-31985394786052920232010-10-10T01:43:34.113-04:002010-10-10T01:43:34.113-04:00the purpose of mentioning dor hapalaga was to show...<i>the purpose of mentioning dor hapalaga was to show by example what מגדל means</i><br />Doesn't sound convincing. Rashi is explaining "במגדל הפורח באויר" in Chagigo. Not he word "מגדל". Even in Sanhedrin, he is working with the phrase as a whole, but proposing a different reading in one case (girso change).<br /><br />Even if you assume that in Sanhedrin he's really focusing on "migdal" alone - you can't assume that in Chagigo anymore. Rashi's pirush has local application - i.e. it is explaining the text at hand. While it's helpful to know what Rashi says on relative pieces, it's not required for analysis. And in Chagigo Rashi clearly stating what is is focused on: "במגדל הפורח באויר"Shmerlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14404784573198104036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-8600342305633516672010-10-09T23:30:24.994-04:002010-10-09T23:30:24.994-04:00thanks; i'll try to check it out.
to try agai...thanks; i'll try to check it out.<br /><br />to try again to explain my take on Rashi. Rashi attempts two things for many of his answers. (a) word-sense disambiguation of the word מגדל, and (b) an explanation of how this word fits into context of 300 laws. he does not explain just what the laws about a flying tower would be, but in this particular instance leaves it at just (a), the word sense disambiguation.<br /><br />a most concise method of word sense disambiguation is to provide an example. i would read it as if it said <b>ke</b>-migdal <b>shel</b> dor hapalaga. that is, it is not the shida teiva umigdal, nor is it the upper stroke of the lamed. thus, he is telling us that one should not interpret it as the lamed-stroke, as in the first item. this is a fairly concise method of word-sense disambiguation because the migdal Bavel was clearly a tower, and not a chest or a lamed-stroke.<br /><br />I do not consider this to be "bending" his words. the purpose of mentioning dor hapalaga was to show by example what מגדל means. as i have discovered regarding midrash, often peshat is not the most literal, and insisting on absolute literalness and paying overstress to individual words yields derash rather than peshat. i believe that this is what happened in this instance, as well.<br /><br />(besides which, why should these 300 laws apply just to migdal bavel, and not any other theoretical flying tower?<br /><br />artscroll, btw, takes it as Migdal Bavel being intended, but insists that this is allegory, that it was so tall that it was as if it floated. i disagree with them on both counts.<br />)<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-69665067566542527042010-10-08T17:31:38.180-04:002010-10-08T17:31:38.180-04:00FYI: here is another interesting piece describing ...FYI: <a href="http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=23938&st=&pgnum=123&hilite=" rel="nofollow">here is another interesting piece</a> describing some technomagical characteristics of the migdal.Shmerlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14404784573198104036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-88476573751407209672010-10-08T16:49:47.137-04:002010-10-08T16:49:47.137-04:00References in Sanhedrin discuss the same issue of ...References in Sanhedrin discuss the same issue of מגדל הפורח באויר. Rashi investigates what that can mean. He is interested not just in "tower", but in "flying tower" here, brining different options what it can mean. I'm not sure where you take it from, that he suddenly drops the "flying" aspects, when he switches to migdal Bovel.Shmerlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14404784573198104036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-62049006255870210492010-10-08T16:44:40.269-04:002010-10-08T16:44:40.269-04:00While Rashi himself proposed to change the girso, ...While Rashi himself proposed to change the girso, he brought man deomar, that migdal hapoyreach beavir refers to migdal Bovel. Your statement that he doesn't mean that someone held it for floating in the air doesn't fit Rashi's words: וי"א מגדל דור הפלגה Refers to במגדל הפורח באויר mentioned before. This is pretty straightforward, there is no need to bend Rashi's words to fit it not to mean flying tower.<br /><br />A gut Shabes.Shmerlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14404784573198104036noreply@blogger.com