tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post8129862020951882743..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Could Devarim be subjective? Or is this theologically treif?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-17600153104089789852013-08-01T00:28:56.408-04:002013-08-01T00:28:56.408-04:00First, other commenters were taking other points a...First, other commenters were taking other points as being sheker, so I was addressing this collectively.<br /><br />Second, you posted this comment after I linked to <a href="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2013/07/where-did-aharon-die.html" rel="nofollow">my follow-up post</a>, in which I made my point clearer that one can say (perhaps kvetch, perhaps not) that this is not a contradiction, but a way of writing, in shorthand. And that it means that Aharon died in the course of later masaot. And how Ibn Caspi (to be posted in short order, post already written) says the same.<br /><br />Which is why I answered in this post about weird Biblical linguistic constructions, and how they are not falsehood.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-90684476269570618872013-07-31T22:51:05.633-04:002013-07-31T22:51:05.633-04:00being one of those commentators you mentioned, I&#...being one of those commentators you mentioned, I'm happy that you addressed my question at length. <br />"The answer is that the transposed order is not "sheker" and it is not an "[in]accurate historical [ac]count". Rather, it is a way of speaking, a dibra Torah kilshon benei adam. See how many times Rashi writes that something is mikra mesuras or is mikra katzer."<br />my problem with this view is that it's quite different writing two alternative views of the same event that don't contredict each other. for example, when moses says that fear of heaven is easy, that's true, because to him it's easy. yet it's also true that for the rest of us it's a dificult task. or take the ויבאש וירום תולעים. this does not necessarily *contradict* that in fact it happened in a different order, the pasuk just says that these two things happened, it doesn't say explicitly how it happened.<br />but your example about aron's death is a flat contradiction of the actual event. aron either died at מוסרה or at hor hahar forty years later. there is no way of saying both are true, therefor, we must admit that the torah lied in one of these accounts. that's called a contradiction, not a different version of the same event. and this would be equivalent to the torah writing explicitly that fear of heaven is an easy task for EVERYONE. imagine a history professor writing two different versions of where and when president lincoln was killed in the very same book, without addressing the contradiction. <br />Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-28263408387613286012013-07-31T06:36:32.714-04:002013-07-31T06:36:32.714-04:00Tal Benschar:
Indeed, "subjective" is a...Tal Benschar:<br /><br />Indeed, "subjective" is a loaded word. I was trying to echo the flavor of the various commenters who objected. Though it is "subjective" in the sense of a speech by a person (as in proof #1, that Moshe said something was easy because for him it is easy).<br /><br />Mohoshiv:<br />First, that is a strange thing to say. Rashbam himself believed in the פשטות המתחדשים בכל יום. And coming up with a new idea is not kefira. Though you are right, maybe from a chareidi perspective it might be.<br /><br />But if you did go into the "substance of [my] post", as well as read the background posts, you might well find that #1 this is rather obvious, and #2 I am giving evidence that **Chazal** in fact held this about Devari. (Though the application is to a degree novel; however, I don't think anyone in Rashi's day was saying 'Yisro wasn't mentioned, so this author knew not Yisro', and had anyone said this to Rashi or Ibn Ezra, I believe he would have looked at them incredulously and said just this, applying this obvious and known idea, that this is Moshe's mussar speech, with a purpose, and the purpose does not include crediting Yisro.) I didn't specifically target Rishonim (though Rashi was mentioned once) because I was focused on Chazal.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-83421344113518427632013-07-31T04:43:33.081-04:002013-07-31T04:43:33.081-04:00Without going into the substance of your post, if ...Without going into the substance of your post, if your thesis is not kefira then a prominent mainstream commentator (and Rashbam and Bechor Shor are mainstream) would have said this already. If you cannot find any great commentator who preceded you, you need to take a good, long, hard look and ask why not.www.mohoshiv.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-81423125507198802722013-07-30T17:11:29.739-04:002013-07-30T17:11:29.739-04:00Your use of the word "subjective" is too...Your use of the word "subjective" is too loaded to convey what you are trying to say. It implies someone writing with a personal agenda, as opposed to a different perspective or for a different purpose.<br /><br />Take the retelling of the appointment of judges story. The purpose of repeating the story is to give Musar -- as Rashi states on the spot -- the Jewish people were so contentious, that Moshe had to set up a court system to handle it. In this way, they missed out on learning from him directly. From the perspective of giving rebuke, the fact that Yisro was the one who suggested it is an unnecessary detail.<br /><br />It doesn't mean that either story is any less "true" than the other, certainly neither are sheker, ch"v. All it means is that one gives over a mussar shmuess differently than one gives over an historical recounting of events. <br /><br />(To use a modern example, the Iggros Moshe, Dibros Moshe and Darash Moshe were all written by the same person, but each has a different style because each has a different purpose and perspective.)Tal Benscharnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-80269443090121869872013-07-30T11:37:27.162-04:002013-07-30T11:37:27.162-04:00R' Josh, I agree with the thrust of your argum...R' Josh, I agree with the thrust of your argument. Those infatuated with the methodology used in Biblical Criticism tend to sieze upon any differences as an indication of different traditions and authorship. I see that tendency as a superficial reading and reconstruction of the text. As you pointed out, Devarim contains a rewriting of earlier material rather than independent accounts. Moshe was free to create a different emphasis. If he wished to minimize the role of Aharon and to omit the role of Yitro and Korach, he had both the ability and reason for so doing. There is sufficient reason to avoid mentioning Yitro and Korach, for example. Yitro disregarded Moshe's plea to remain with them and left for Midian. He thereby cut himself off from mainline Jewish history. It would also have been awkward and distressing to mention Korach when his sons were prominent and respected Levites.<br /><br />I do not claim an ability to answer all the apparent discrepancies between Devarim and the other Chumashim, I would just emphasize the reverence that is expected of a believing Jew towards the Torah. One should exert oneself, it seems to me, to resolve apparent discrepancies within the context of a uniform authorship and divine imprimature.Y. Aharonnoreply@blogger.com