tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post8260946162316788507..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Toledot: Is Edom Equal to Rome And Christiandom?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-47356710102434777552015-04-08T23:15:01.142-04:002015-04-08T23:15:01.142-04:00Thanks. I just look a look at the pasuk and Targum...Thanks. I just look a look at the pasuk and Targum in question. That is interesting theory and tie-in. However, I would conclude there that the Targum means "on high". More in my answer on <a href="http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/57171/targum-on-obadiah-13-a-reference-to-rome/57193#57193" rel="nofollow">Mi Yodea</a>.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-81699711398217567252015-04-08T01:10:41.492-04:002015-04-08T01:10:41.492-04:00Interesting read! Can you take a look at Yonatan B...Interesting read! Can you take a look at Yonatan Ben Uziel on Obadiah 1:3, and let me know what you think? As a Talmud of Hillel the Elder, he most likely experienced Herod's reign. On the other hand, megilah 3a brings down a tradition that he wrote his targum from Haggai, Zecharia, and Malachi.Baby Sealnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-61599916089259969772011-09-14T11:15:00.880-04:002011-09-14T11:15:00.880-04:001. I am trying to recall where it was that I read ...1. I am trying to recall where it was that I read that someone claimed that when _______ happened the angel took a stick and mud and built the site of Rome, And when _______ happened the walls of Rome were built.<br />2. I was interested in the comments on whether or not all Prophecy has been fulfilled. That would be sad. But here is one that clearly has not: Ezekiel 37:15 to the end.attilashrugshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07967678716845560326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-64715664337527327172008-01-06T22:37:00.000-05:002008-01-06T22:37:00.000-05:00Deuteronomy 4:28 There you will worship man-made g...Deuteronomy 4:28 There you will worship man-made gods of wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or eat or smell.<BR/>Deuteronomy 28:36 The LORD will drive you and the king you set over you to a nation unknown to you or your fathers. There you will worship other gods, gods of wood and stone.<BR/><BR/>Deuteronomy 28:64 Then the LORD will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship other gods—gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known.<BR/><BR/>“I might almost say that the verse in the Bible, occurring repeatedly: 'Thou shalt serve strange gods, wood and stone. (Deut. xxviii. 36, 64), contains an allusion to those who worship the wood and those who worship the stone” Judah Halevi - al Khazari<BR/><BR/>Wood and stone, this refers to the respective religions of Esau - Christianity, and Ishmael – Islam. HaGaon Rebbi Eliyahu of Vilna Aderet Eliyahu on Deut 29:16<BR/><BR/>Spiritual symbolism is important here - The Christian Cross is wood, and inside the Kaaba, the black box the Muslims pray towards, is a stone. No these items are not worshipped per say, but are by their choice symbolic of their religions- All Muslims worldwide must face the kabba when they pray and the stone is the most important part of the kaaba. xtians are commanded ‘Matthew 16:24 "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. (many other examples in NT)<BR/><BR/>Jer 16:13. And I will cast you off this land to a land that you and your fathers did not know, and you shall serve there other gods day and night, for I will show you no favor.<BR/>and you will serve there other gods Targum Jonathan paraphrases: And you will serve there nations that worship idols day and night.<BR/><BR/>14. Therefore, behold days are coming, says the Lord, and it shall no longer be said, "As the Lord lives, Who brought up the children of Israel from the land of Egypt,"<BR/><BR/>Therefore An expression of an oath. Although you betrayed Me, I have an oath that I will redeem you.<BR/><BR/>and it shall no longer be said Our Rabbis expounded: Not that the departure from Egypt shall be uprooted from its place, but the final redemption will be the most important and the departure from Egypt secondary to it.<BR/><BR/>15. But, "As the Lord lives, Who brought up the children of Israel from the northland and from all the lands where He had driven them, " and I will restore them to their land that I gave to their forefathers.<BR/><BR/>Targum Onkelos on Deut 4:28 And there you will serve other nations, worshipers of idols , the work of human hands , wood and stone<BR/><BR/><BR/>Deut 4:25 After you have had children and grandchildren and have lived in the land a long time—if you then become corrupt and make any kind of idol, doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God and provoking him to anger, <BR/>26 I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you this day that you will quickly perish from the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess. You will not live there long but will certainly be destroyed. <BR/>27 The LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and only a few of you will survive among the nations to which the LORD will drive you. <BR/>28 There you will worship man-made gods of wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or eat or smell. <BR/>29 But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul. <BR/>30 When you are in distress and all these things have happened to you, then in later days you will return to the LORD your God and obey him. <BR/>31 For the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which he confirmed to them by oath. <BR/> 32 Ask now about the former days, long before your time, from the day God created man on the earth; ask from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything so great as this ever happened, or has anything like it ever been heard of? <BR/><BR/>33 Has any other people heard the voice of God [a] speaking out of fire, as you have, and lived? <BR/><BR/>34 Has any god ever tried to take for himself one nation out of another nation, by testings, by miraculous signs and wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, or by great and awesome deeds, like all the things the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes? <BR/> 35 You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; besides him there is no other. <BR/>36 From heaven he made you hear his voice to discipline you. On earth he showed you his great fire, and you heard his words from out of the fire. <BR/>37 Because he loved your forefathers and chose their descendants after them, he brought you out of Egypt by his Presence and his great strength, <BR/>38 to drive out before you nations greater and stronger than you and to bring you into their land to give it to you for your inheritance, as it is today. <BR/> 39 Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other. 40 Keep his decrees and commands, which I am giving you today, so that it may go well with you and your children after you and that you may live long in the land the LORD your God gives you for all time.<BR/><BR/>3 times we enetered the Land and 3 times Amalek tried to murder all Jews - Amalek, Haman, Hitler.<BR/><BR/>Coincidence? Of course not!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-30374792389426053932008-01-06T15:26:00.000-05:002008-01-06T15:26:00.000-05:00Correcting my earlier comment:a bit of wrap-up:1. ...Correcting my earlier comment:<BR/><BR/>a bit of wrap-up:<BR/>1. Meforshim are entitled to their opinions, and you can certainly rely on Abarbanel, if you life. However, we are also entitled to evaluate matters ourselves. It is not a matter of blindly following Shadal because of his conclusion, but rather, as a matter of history, he seems correct that it does not seem to be true that (a) Rome was in any way related to the Biblical nation of Edom, or that (b) the early Christians were from Edom (unless we agree to (a)).<BR/><BR/>2. Early midrashim, or gemaras, can possibly prove one of things. They could prove that Rome really *was* Edom, or they could prove that Chazal *thought* that Rome was Edom. If the former, then it is a reason to reject Shadal's interpretation. If the latter, it is *also* a reason to reject some of Shadal, namely his explanation of Chazal's referral to Rome as Edom. For Shadal claimed that this was just a "nickname." (He further argues that even Chazal, in this nickname, only referred to the Roman empire, but not Ibn Ezra's extension to include Christians. And Rome is not very powerful nowadays.)<BR/><BR/>It is possible that it is all a nickname. But it is also possible that, akin to what Shadal writes, they became equated in the popular mindset, because of their hating/hated status, such that they even framed derashot as if Rome = Edom.<BR/><BR/>It is almost inconceivable (to me) that Shadal was unaware of gemaras such as Megillah 6a, when he wrote that Edom is not equal to Rome. For one of Shadal's primary sources is Rashi, and his commentary should be viewed as, in part, responding to Rashi. And Rashi on Bereishit 25, which is one of the places Shadal writes this (see above), writes that:<BR/>Two nations are in your womb [The word גוֹיִם] is written גֵייִם [which is pronounced] like גֵאִים (exalted persons). These were Antoninus and Rabbi [Judah the Prince], from whose tables neither radishes nor lettuce were lacking either in the summer or in the winter. — [From Avodah Zarah 11a]<BR/><BR/>So he knew that some of these midrashim explicitly equated Rome and Edom, on the level of derashot and not just on the level of nickname. Which makes me think he meant it in the broader sense.<BR/><BR/>Whether we agree with him is certainly another matter.<BR/><BR/>Kol Tuv,<BR/>Joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-8355636167271445362008-01-05T19:53:00.000-05:002008-01-05T19:53:00.000-05:00if you are interested in more about Shadal, by the...if you are interested in more about Shadal, by the way, I've been translating sections of his "Vikuach Al Chochmat HaKabbalah." Namely, the parts where he discusses the age of trup and nikkud, whether one is allowed to argue on trup and nikkud, and how classic commentators (Rashi, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Rabbenu Bachya, Abarbanel, and Radak) did exactly that.<BR/><BR/>You can check the latest post on this subject <BR/><A HREF="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2008/01/age-of-trup-part-v.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-60422528978839874702008-01-05T19:44:00.000-05:002008-01-05T19:44:00.000-05:00Peace about Shadal, I understand - you are correct...Peace about Shadal, I understand - you are correct. It's your column you decide the post topic!<BR/><BR/>Kol TuvAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-86424114871488556152008-01-05T19:23:00.000-05:002008-01-05T19:23:00.000-05:00"What is up with you and Shadal?"Because that is t..."What is up with you and Shadal?"<BR/><BR/>Because that is the point of this post. I cited what Shadal has to say. You challenged me about whether Shadal would really say it if he saw these midrashim, and I am responding within his position.<BR/><BR/>Even according to the disputed estimate, Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer is post-Talmudic. 650 is post-Talmudic. (The late dating is based, IIRC, on a reference to the wives of Muhammed, and to the building of a mosque on the Temple mount.) 400 for Esther Rabba would be just about the time of Rav Ashi. Perhaps I will respond more to the point later. <BR/><BR/>Plenty of others hold you can argue with midrashim. But I am indeed responding within Shadal.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-64834316202589017632008-01-05T19:13:00.000-05:002008-01-05T19:13:00.000-05:00You dating of the Midrashim is debated-Aggadic Mid...You dating of the Midrashim is debated-<BR/><BR/>Aggadic Midrash<BR/><BR/>—— Tannaitic ——<BR/>Seder Olam Rabbah<BR/>Baraita of Rabbi Ishmael<BR/>Alphabet of Akiba ben Joseph<BR/>Baraita of the Forty-nine Rules<BR/>Baraita on the Thirty-two Rules<BR/>Baraita on Tabernacle Construction<BR/>—— 400–600 ——<BR/>Genesis Rabbah • Eichah Rabbah<BR/>Pesikta de-Rav Kahana<BR/>Esther Rabbah • Midrash Iyyov<BR/>Leviticus Rabbah • Seder Olam Zutta<BR/>Midrash Tanhuma • Megillat Antiochus<BR/>—— 650–900 ——<BR/>Avot of Rabbi Natan<BR/>Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_RabbaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-79024317167953680942008-01-05T19:10:00.000-05:002008-01-05T19:10:00.000-05:00What is up with you and Shadal? Why are you consta...What is up with you and Shadal? <BR/><BR/>Why are you constantly referring almost only to him?<BR/><BR/>How did you first come across him, and why do you rely so much on his words without balancing them with a variety of other authoritative positions/opinions?<BR/><BR/>Is this seeking the truth?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-15074545219545796732008-01-05T18:20:00.000-05:002008-01-05T18:20:00.000-05:00My point was not about the age of the midrash bein...My point was not about the age of the midrash being alone what makes it authoritative. The point was that there is no distinction between a midrash created by Rabbi X and a peshat created by Rabbi Y. And that just as Shadal can argue on Ibn Ezra, he can argue on others that are darshanim, just as he can argue on pashtanim.<BR/><BR/>But this is not painting myself in a corner that therefore Shadal must accept every early midrash. Indeed, there are many places where he rejects early midrashim! See his peirush on chumash to see what I mean.<BR/><BR/>I have to surrender the computer at the moment. But to give you some dates on the midrashim you mentioned:<BR/>Esther Rabba is post-Talmudic, with parts drawn from early material and some from sefer Yosipon (11th century). It was put together around 12th-13th century.<BR/><BR/>Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer is also post-Talmudic, not before the 8th century.<BR/><BR/>Bereishit Rabba is indeed an early midrash, and is the aggadic material of the Amoraim of Talmud Yerushalmi.<BR/><BR/>Kol Tuv,<BR/>Joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-17506146122293119322008-01-05T18:15:00.000-05:002008-01-05T18:15:00.000-05:00You wrote-"That Rashi interprets it as referring t...You wrote-"That Rashi interprets it as referring to "the day destined for the redemption" does not mean (necessarily) that he understands it as the same prophecy."<BR/><BR/>I did not mean to imply what you are assuming. I meant two seperate points 1 Rashi refers it to the redemtion and 2 based on his commentary they are not seperate prophecies..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-86296718534877705822008-01-05T18:04:00.001-05:002008-01-05T18:04:00.001-05:00Above you make an excellent point "Not all midrash...Above you make an excellent point "Not all midrashim are created equally. There are early midrashim, and there are late midrashim. There are midrashim from the Tannaim,...You are citing this midrash yelamdeinu, but likely this is the only time you have seen anything from this this particular midrash,...This particular midrash is in Yalkut Talmud Torah by Rabbi Yaakov Sikili, and is from the 14th century."<BR/><BR/>Tou are absolutely right "all Midrashim are not created the same". Your logic is based on the time the Midrashim were written and you correctly point the one I quoted was from the 14th century.<BR/><BR/>Okay, let us follow that logic. Please consider these quotes among the earlist Midrashim written. Surely they are not all homiletic and it is very possible these Midrashim may be taken literally as some Midrashim can-<BR/><BR/>Esther Rabah 3, 5: <BR/>Claimed the Collective Soul of Israel before the Holy One, may He Be Blessed: "Master of the Universe, You saw that the evil Esau would come in the future to destroy the Jerusalem Temple, and exile Israel from their Land ... but [why is it that], 'You helped an orphan' (Psalms 10:14) - two orphans that remained of him [Esau], Romus and Romilus: You permitted the female wolf to nurse them, and in the end they stood and built two great towers in Rome." <BR/> <BR/>Breishit Rabah, 67, 6: <BR/>Concerning Esau - "From the fat of the earth will be your home" (Genesis 27:39) - this is Italy.<BR/>Explanation of the Maharzu (Rabbi Zev the son of Israel Issar Einhorn of Horodna): Italy - that is, Rome, as it is written in Josephus [Flavius, an historian who lived at the end of the Second Temple period in Israel], that the son of Elifaz [the son of Esau] sailed to and was made king in Italy, and he stayed there, he and his descendants. Therefore, Rome is considered to be Edom.<BR/> <BR/>Pirkei d'Rebbe Eliezer, 38: <BR/>And Esau took his wives and his sons and his daughters and all the members of his household, and his flocks and all his livestock, and all the property that he had acquired in the Land of Canaan, and he went to another land because of Jacob his brother (Genesis 36:6-8) - And as a reward for uprooting all that was his to make room for Jacob his brother, he was given 100 cities, from Seir until Magdiel, as it is said, "The Chief of Magdiel, the Chief of Iram" (Genesis 36:43) - this is Rome.<BR/><BR/>Also consider how Rashi points out "for all time". How can this be true if Hyrcanus did away with Edom?- Rashi on Exodus 17:16: The hand of the Holy One May He Be Blessed is lifted up above His throne in an oath, that it shall be for Him war and enmity against Amalek for all time.<BR/><BR/>Now what is your refutation? It can't be the age of the Midrashim so you must find something else, which I am sure you will!<BR/><BR/>Shalom!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-8911402872157015942008-01-05T18:04:00.000-05:002008-01-05T18:04:00.000-05:001. yes, I know Rashi. Rashi is presenting his own ...1. yes, I know Rashi. Rashi is presenting his own interpretation, not the *only* possible interpretation. On many different prophecies, if you check out the various commentaries, they present differing interpretations of those prophecies. I do not know what Shadal would say, but the fact that Rashi offers this explanation is no reason that Shadal would be compelled to agree with it.<BR/><BR/>2. That Rashi interprets it as referring to "the day destined for the redemption" does not mean (necessarily) that he understands it as the same prophecy. Prophets can have multiple prophecies, at different times, on the same topic. (Regardless, the prophecy does not start at verse 11.)joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-17866259816306733012008-01-05T17:52:00.000-05:002008-01-05T17:52:00.000-05:00It is a subtopic rather than a new prophecy. Rashi...It is a subtopic rather than a new prophecy. Rashi does mention this as referring to the "the day destined for the redemption" and does not consider them seperate-<BR/><BR/>11. On that day, I will raise up the fallen Tabernacle of David, and I will close up their breaches, and I will raise up its ruins, and build it up as in the days of yore.<BR/>On that day And, after all these will befall him, that day will come, the day destined for the redemption, and thereon…<BR/>I will raise up the fallen Tabernacle of David Jonathan renders: the kingdom of the house of David.<BR/>12. In order that they inherit the remnant of Edom and all the nations because My Name is called upon them, says the Lord Who does this.<BR/>In order that they inherit [I.e, in order that] Israel [inherit] the remnant of Edom etc.<BR/>because My Name is called upon them Heb. אֲשֶׁר, like כִּי, because.<BR/>13. Behold days are coming, says the Lord, that the plowman shall meet the reaper and the treader of the grapes the one who carries the seed, and the mountains shall drip sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.<BR/>that the plowman shall meet the reaper (Lev. 26:5) “And your threshing shall overtake the vintage, and the vintage shall overtake the sowing.” They will not finish plowing until the harvest comes, and they will not finish harvesting until the time of sowing comes.<BR/>shall melt Heb. תִּתְמוֹגַגְנָה. Jonathan renders: shall split. Tilled soil splits when rains come.<BR/>sweet wine Heb. עָסִיס. Good and sweet wine.<BR/>14. And I will return the captivity of My people Israel, and they shall rebuild desolate cities and inhabit [them], and they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine, and they shall make gardens and eat their produce.<BR/>15. And I will plant them on their land, and they shall no longer be uprooted from upon their land, that I have given them, said the Lord your God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-28765531649404645022008-01-03T19:21:00.000-05:002008-01-03T19:21:00.000-05:001)prophecy can often be interpreted in many differ...1)<BR/><BR/>prophecy can often be interpreted in many different ways, and so I don't put too much stock in any one interpretation.<BR/><BR/>In terms of "Sukkat David," in verse 9:11, if I recall correctly from an Amos class I once took, there are different understandings of the phrase. E.g. it could refer to the Temple, or it could refer to the kingship under Davidic reign. If the former, well, Amos prophesied during the first Temple, and the temple was indeed rebuilt, as the second Temple. We need not say it refers to messiah. Even if the latter, it need not refer to mashiach. The Exilarchs traced their lineage back to the Davidic dynasty. As did Hillel. This could be construed as restoring to rule.<BR/><BR/>See here:<BR/>http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:H_FnUy-x-WIJ:www.davidicdynasty.org/word/chart4.doc+hillel+zerubavel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a<BR/><BR/>We might also conceivably say that "David's fallen tent" refers to *Judea*, as a location, rather than specifically Davidic reign. And Hyrcanus would fit the bill, during this restoration of autonomy in Judea, when he attacked Edom. All in all, there are all sorts of explanations, which do not require this to be messianic, which are possible.<BR/><BR/>2) I do not see the comparison between the first and second groups of verses, but comparisons in theme could well be due to the fact that the same prophet said both.<BR/><BR/>That said, my impression that these are (or could be) separate prophecies is based on two factors:<BR/><BR/>i. נְאֻם-ה, "saith the LORD," opens and closes each quote. And it occurs at the end of 12 and the beginning of 13. At the very least, it is a close-parentheses and an open-parentheses.<BR/><BR/>ii. There is a petucha, a Masoretically required gap, between verse 12 and verse 13. See here:<BR/><BR/>http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1509.htm<BR/><BR/>It appears as a {P} or a {פ} at the end of verse 12. This denotes a new topic or subtopic, or prophecy.<BR/><BR/>Kol Tuv,<BR/>Joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-34672986371183406972008-01-03T18:33:00.000-05:002008-01-03T18:33:00.000-05:00One word on Amos -you wrote "Your citation of Amos...One word on Amos -you wrote "Your citation of Amos is one interpretation, but note that you are juxtaposing pasuk 12 with pasuk 13. If you look at the context, you will notice that pasuk 12 ends one prophecy and pasuk 13 begins a new one. It seems fairly straightforward to say that pasuk 11-12 are about the destruction of Edom, back then, while 13 and on, if indeed referring to end of days, has nothing to do with the destruction of Edom.<BR/>"<BR/><BR/>This is clearly one prophecy not two. The fact can be deduceced by comparing verse 11 to verse 15. "I will restore David's (ie Mashiach)tent,...they will possess Edom,,...I will plant Israel in their own land, never to be uprooted again. <BR/><BR/>It's clearly talking about the days of the Mashiach and is one prophecy-<BR/><BR/>Amos 9:11 "In that day I will restore David's fallen tent. <BR/>I will repair its broken places, <BR/>restore its ruins<BR/><BR/>12 so that they may possess the remnant of Edom <BR/>and all the nations that bear my name, [f] " <BR/>declares the LORD, who will do these things. <BR/><BR/>13 "The days are coming," declares the LORD, <BR/>"when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman <BR/>and the planter by the one treading grapes. <BR/>New wine will drip from the mountains <BR/>and flow from all the hills. <BR/><BR/>14 I will bring back my exiled [g] people Israel; <BR/>they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. <BR/>They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; <BR/>they will make gardens and eat their fruit. <BR/><BR/>15 I will plant Israel in their own land, <BR/>never again to be uprooted <BR/>from the land I have given them," <BR/>says the LORD your God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-74045543884401258572008-01-03T18:01:00.000-05:002008-01-03T18:01:00.000-05:00Thanks for your kind words and willingness to deba...Thanks for your kind words and willingness to debate.<BR/><BR/>I'll be in touch,...<BR/><BR/>Shalom,<BR/>Kol TuvAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-49171365018757983402008-01-01T23:21:00.000-05:002008-01-01T23:21:00.000-05:00"Would this not apply to Jesus and Paul in additio..."Would this not apply to Jesus and Paul in addition to Rome?"<BR/><BR/>perhaps it could in theory, assuming Rabbi Eidensohn is correct. But in practice, we would need to do a search on all occurrences of Edom as it occurs in Talmud and see if it is ever used in this context.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-60769522433944727312008-01-01T23:16:00.000-05:002008-01-01T23:16:00.000-05:00You are picking up on my writing style, in which I...You are picking up on my writing style, in which I often qualify what I say. This is not a mark of weakness, that should be picked up upon to reject what I say.<BR/><BR/>See this recent post at KallahMagazine for an expansion upon this idea:<BR/>http://kallahmagazine.com/WordPress/?p=648<BR/><A HREF="http://kallahmagazine.com/WordPress/?p=648" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>To the point you raised. Shadal *does* say no. Read what Shadal says, and he *does* say no. There is no question about it. He said what he said.<BR/><BR/>The thing I am not sure about (and cannot be sure about, because I am not him and he is dead) is how he understands a particular gemara, in light of what he says here. He *could* say (a), or (b), or (c) which I did not mention or did not think of, or (d) he could be wrong. How could I possibly know? Still, (a) and (b) are very plausible to me as explaining Shadal, and I would lean towards (a).<BR/><BR/>The midrash about Tzefo, as mentioned, is quite late, post Ibn Ezra, and Shadal (and Ibn Ezra) can reject the historicity of midrashim. And they do.<BR/><BR/>"Peshat, Rezaz, Derash, and Sod are all valid."<BR/>perhaps, but meaning what. not necessarily literally. And, as mentioned, there is a valid, established school of thought that permits rejecting the historicity of midrashim. (Tzefo building Rome seems parallel to Remus and Romulus building Rome, and the point in the midrash seems that of establishing a country (Eretz), which was attacked.)<BR/><BR/>At any rate, I wish you much hatzlacha in your way -- but if you ever have a crisis of faith that causes you to question Aish's answers, please remember that their's is not the only approach, and that there are other valid Orthodox approaches.<BR/><BR/>Kol Tuv,<BR/>Joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-23966250050454346582008-01-01T23:01:00.000-05:002008-01-01T23:01:00.000-05:00The Talmud uses the term Esau to mean a Jew who to...The Talmud uses the term Esau to mean a Jew who took Jewish ideas but denied Judaism, and it generally refers to Rome. Because Esau was the twin brother of Jacob, indeed, the older brother, the greatest converts, who became the greatest rabbis, are from the Edomite line. Two of the most famous ones are Onkelos, in the time of Hillel, who authored the accepted Aramaic translation of the bible, and Akilas. Both were from the family of the Roman emperor," Rabbi David Eidensohn<BR/><BR/>Would this not apply to Jesus and Paul in addition to Rome?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-88559733221567502962008-01-01T22:56:00.000-05:002008-01-01T22:56:00.000-05:00First you wrote "Should we equate Edom with Rome, ...First you wrote "Should we equate Edom with Rome, or with Christiandom? Once again, Shadal says no"<BR/><BR/>Now you write that he may "understand this as homiletic, akin to how they nicknamed Rome as Edom".<BR/><BR/>Fact is you are not sure.<BR/><BR/>You are a rationalist my friend. I lean in between the mystical and rational.<BR/><BR/>Zepho built Rome,...what he made houses? No children?<BR/><BR/>Peshat, Rezaz, Derash, and Sod are all valid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-50621968517563139962008-01-01T22:27:00.000-05:002008-01-01T22:27:00.000-05:00Shadal has in all likelihood *seen* Megillah 6a-b....Shadal has in all likelihood *seen* Megillah 6a-b. And while it sets up Rome as descendants of Edom, Shadal can either <BR/><BR/>a) understand this as homiletic, akin to how they nicknamed Rome as Edom. See e.g. Maharatz Chayes on the nature of midrash, and how not all are intended literally, but were expounded to make some point.<BR/><BR/>or<BR/><BR/>b) say that this particular gemara is incorrect. See for example Shmuel haNagid and R' Avraham son of Rambam as to the claim that we can argue on midrash, even ones put forth in the gemara. (And many standard parshanim argue on midrashim in ways that do not allow the midrash to be simultaneously true as the peshat.)<BR/><BR/>I think it quite possible, also, that if you ask the Rabbis at Aish HaTorah, they will not be so quick to dismiss Shadal as an acceptable interpretation, at the least.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-26457808580746215272008-01-01T21:32:00.000-05:002008-01-01T21:32:00.000-05:00Before you study Shadal read Megilla 6a and then y...Before you study Shadal read Megilla 6a and then you will see that Shadal's words are "falsehood and lies".<BR/><BR/>and thanks Ruth for your post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-49366827890148054162008-01-01T21:31:00.000-05:002008-01-01T21:31:00.000-05:00yes, see my last comment (three comments up) where...yes, see my last comment (three comments up) where I link to this website.<BR/><BR/>this is the web-source of the midrash under discussion.<BR/><BR/>One point:<BR/>"The Malbim in his commentary to Obadia 1,1 suggests that in addition to genealogical descent, the identification of Rome and Esau is also based on the "founding of their faith by children of Edom, as R. Isaac Abarbanel wrote to Isaiah 34, with proofs."<BR/><BR/>This comment of the Malbim may lead us the supposition that identification of Rome as Esau rests on the very visible traits that Roman, and subsequently Western civilization, shares with the character traits of Esau as he is described in the Chumash."<BR/><BR/>This does not follow. The Malbim is not saying this at all. Rather, as least from what is being quoted, he is extending the designation of "Edom" to include not just genealogical connection but rather any follower of the faith created by Edom, that is, Christianity. The remainder of the essay rests on this supposition, but I do not think the supposition is firmly rooted.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.com