tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post3728611602650582656..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Who buried Moshe? and what this has to do with post-Mosaic authorshipjoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-80231910661784652112010-09-27T15:31:13.325-04:002010-09-27T15:31:13.325-04:00i can imagine various answers on Rabbi Maroof'...i can imagine various answers on Rabbi Maroof's behalf -- e.g. that the point is to establish a terminus ad quo rather than a terminus ad quem, such that the statement is not really false, but just "and onwards". but i haven't read the piece he referred to yet.<br /><br />as i understand Rabbenu Eleazar miGermayza, he is saying that just the portion of the pasuk which states that Moshe was buried in the valley is not historically true, but is allegory. but that the second half is historically true, and refers to Moshe's burial in Chevron via angels.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-44377280073216978832010-09-27T12:05:19.918-04:002010-09-27T12:05:19.918-04:00R' Maroof,
Saying "ad hayom hazeh" m...R' Maroof,<br />Saying "ad hayom hazeh" means 'forever' is also problematic as it is a falsifiable claim. Thus, if in Deut. 3:14 the Torah is claiming the place will be called Chavot Ya'ir forever, or (in 11:4) that Egypt will be utterly destroyed forever, such positions are very difficult to defend. No one calls that place Chavot Yair today (which may be why certain haredim oppose the use of maps?), and Egypt was a world power for over a millennium after the Jews left. I have not seen anyone deal with this issue, but of you know of anything, your insight would be appreciated.<br /><br />R' Waxman,<br />Can you clarify R' Elazar M'germaizah's position? After all, if we know (according to tradition) that Moshe is buried in Chevron, doesn't that mean BOTH verses must be interpreted allegorically and not literally? Or is he saying "ad hayom hazeh" meant in the time of Yehoshua, but much later this secret was revealed?<br /><br />Thanks, and moa'dim l'simcha to all,<br /><br />HillelHillelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-39176309629584913772010-09-21T16:49:09.226-04:002010-09-21T16:49:09.226-04:00yaak:
indeed. ever since i saw it, i've though...yaak:<br />indeed. ever since i saw it, i've thought about how to include it in a post.<br /><br />Rabbi Joshua Maroof:<br />i'll try to check it out. i can justify this logically as "until this very day" where the author knows that the reader, forever, will be reading it.<br /><br />i'm not sure i would agree with this in all cases. for example, these two seem difficult, given context.<br />בראשית פרק מח<br />פסוק ט"ו: וַיְבָרֶךְ אֶת-יוֹסֵף, וַיֹּאמַר: הָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר הִתְהַלְּכוּ אֲבֹתַי לְפָנָיו, אַבְרָהָם וְיִצְחָק--הָאֱלֹהִים הָרֹעֶה אֹתִי, מֵעוֹדִי עַד-הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה.<br /><br />Yaakov is saying that Hashem has aided him his whole life, and now should aid Yosef et al.<br /><br />and:<br />במדבר פרק כב<br />פסוק ל: וַתֹּאמֶר הָאָתוֹן אֶל-בִּלְעָם, הֲלוֹא אָנֹכִי אֲתֹנְךָ אֲשֶׁר-רָכַבְתָּ עָלַי מֵעוֹדְךָ עַד-הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה--הַהַסְכֵּן הִסְכַּנְתִּי, לַעֲשׂוֹת לְךָ כֹּה; וַיֹּאמֶר, לֹא.<br /><br />The she-ass is not saying that she will continue in this way forever. If Camus is mortal, so is this donkey.<br /><br />also:<br />דברים פרק כט<br />פסוק ג: וְלֹא-נָתַן יְהוָה לָכֶם לֵב לָדַעַת, וְעֵינַיִם לִרְאוֹת וְאָזְנַיִם לִשְׁמֹעַ, עַד, הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה. <br /><br />I would read the implication that this is now hopefully changing.<br /><br />also:<br />שמואל א פרק יב<br />פסוק ב: וְעַתָּה הִנֵּה הַמֶּלֶךְ מִתְהַלֵּךְ לִפְנֵיכֶם, וַאֲנִי זָקַנְתִּי וָשַׂבְתִּי, וּבָנַי, הִנָּם אִתְּכֶם; וַאֲנִי הִתְהַלַּכְתִּי לִפְנֵיכֶם, מִנְּעֻרַי עַד-הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה. <br /><br />Shmuel cannot mean he is continuing his leadership forever. He is appointing Shaul!<br /><br />of course, it does often mean something which continues on and on from the point of origin, especially in naming places. but that doesn't mean that the words "ad hayom hazeh" itself carries that implication. <br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-40513886139427978362010-09-21T16:00:05.132-04:002010-09-21T16:00:05.132-04:00The commentary of Daat Miqra interprets "Ad H...The commentary of Daat Miqra interprets "Ad Hayom Hazeh", which appears numerous times in Tanakh, as an idiom meaning "ever", and brings examples to prove the point that it does not imply a later author writing in retrospect.Rabbi Joshua Maroofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12585369620887846940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-76257131769515400782010-09-21T15:54:21.585-04:002010-09-21T15:54:21.585-04:00Never heard that R' Elazar MiGermiza before. ...Never heard that R' Elazar MiGermiza before. It's revolutionary.yaakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08179304707239865515noreply@blogger.com