tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post7227105206028789587..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Was it the Israelites or the Egyptians on the sea-shore?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-86467558553842305322010-01-27T11:29:49.317-05:002010-01-27T11:29:49.317-05:00My strong guess is that Oto HaIsh in this context ...My strong guess is that Oto HaIsh in this context is Mohammed, and not Jesus.<br /><br />Why would I say this? Well, Rambam says וכל מי שנהרג כדי שלא יודה בשליחות אותו האיש, as opposed to other concrete actions. And that perfectly describes the <a href="http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/204" rel="nofollow">Shahada</a>, which is the way in which one converts to Islam. To quote:<br /><br /><i>To convert to Islam and become a Muslim a person needs to pronounce the below testimony with conviction and understanding its meaning:<br /><br />I testify “La ilah illa Allah, Muhammad rasoolu Allah.”<br /><br />The translation of which is:<br /><br />“I testify that there is no true god (deity) but God (Allah), and that Muhammad is a Messenger (Prophet) of God.”</i><br /><br />note that the first part, that there is no true deity but God is not something foreign to Judaism. The only thing extra is "that Muhammad is a Messenger (Prophet) of God"<br /><br />this precisely matches what Rambam says, that יודה בשליחות אותו האיש. In contrast, Christianity is not admitting to the shlichus of Jesus, but to the *divinity* of Jesus. Furthermore, there are other things one must do, concrete actions, such as baptism. And one might need to pray to Jesus, or bow before a cross. That is far different from what Rambam describes, since here it is just the oral admission *as opposed* to concrete actions.<br /><br />regardless, my remarks in the previous comment still seem correct to me, that even if Rambam does mean this, it need not mean that he interprets the Yerushalmi this way.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-59446031400392577132010-01-27T07:39:12.720-05:002010-01-27T07:39:12.720-05:00ah. here:
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/meko...ah. here:<br />http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/mekorot/kidush-2.htm<br /><br />וכל מי שנהרג כדי שלא יודה בשליחות אותו האיש, לא ייאמר עליו אלא שעשה הישר והטוב, ויש לו שכר גדול לפני השם, ומעלתו במעלה עליונה כי הוא מסר עצמו לקדושת השם ית' ויתעלה. אבל מי שבא לשאול אותנו אם ייהרג או יודה, אומרים לו שיודה ולא ייהרג. אבל לא יעמוד במלכות אותו המלך, אלא ישב בביתו עד שיצא אם הוא צריך, ומעשה ידיו יעשה בסתר. כי מעולם לא נשמע כמו זה השמד הנפלא, שאין כופים בו כי אם על הדיבור בלבד. ולא יראה מדברי רז"ל שיאמרו ייהרג ואל יעבור ואל יאמר דבר אחד שאין בו מעשה. אבל ייהרג כאשר יחייבוהו לעשות מעשה, או על דבר שהוא מוזהר עליו.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-70993619556260076662010-01-27T02:16:29.589-05:002010-01-27T02:16:29.589-05:00i couldnt search in the hebrewbooks as it was hard...i couldnt search in the hebrewbooks as it was hard to read. <br />its not in iggeret taiman. its in iggeres kiddush Hashem which is rather short. in my edition, its about 7-8 pages and the reference is on the first page after about a column or two.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-34610645535800985852010-01-27T00:28:15.269-05:002010-01-27T00:28:15.269-05:00i don't have a good copy of it. could you poin...i don't have a good copy of it. could you point out that maamar in this work?<br /><br />http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19755&pgnum=32<br /><br />the page i linked to refers to a certain false mashiach in Yemen at that time as oso haish. but there is likely another reference or two that the OCR software messed up on.<br /><br />certainly at some point, people started referring to Yeshu as Oto HaIsh. I am not certain when. If the Yerushalmi theory is correct, then then. If not, then later. And later might be the time of the Rishonim.<br /><br />Jewish Encyclopedia<br />http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=254&letter=J&search=jesus<br />attributes the earlier authenticated passage referring to Yushka as having illegitimate birth to the mishna in Yevamot, where Ish Ploni is used. But R' Gil Student cites scholars who dispute this.<br />http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesus.html<br /><br />Oso HaIsh could have developed out of Ish Ploni; or else from Hahu Gavra; or else as I tried to establish, a specification of the generalization of a person with negative attributes you don't wish to explicitly name, which is what we see in those sources. This might have been fluid and organic, and might have happened over time in the general language. I don't know that Rambam's usage (if he does use it) is indicative of his learning the Yerushalmi in a specific way...<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-77775532264374869852010-01-26T23:21:50.978-05:002010-01-26T23:21:50.978-05:00a little less than a year ago, you had a blog on i...a little less than a year ago, you had a blog on if oto haish in the yerushalmi is referring to yeshu or not. i saw in the igeres harambam mamar kiddush Hashem that i think he refers to yeshu there at oto haish. even though its not a talmudic source, nonetheless we can maybe assume that the rambam got that name from the yerushalmi which you brought. please let me know if you think the rambam is reffering to yeshu. thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com