Showing posts with label nitzavim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nitzavim. Show all posts

Sunday, September 06, 2015

Shadal: What, or who, is הוּא חַיֶּיךָ וְאֹרֶךְ יָמֶיךָ?

Shadal’s last comment at the end of parashat Nitzavim reads as follows:

To explain, the trup in the last pasuk of the parasha reads:

לְאַֽהֲבָה֙ אֶת־יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ לִשְׁמֹ֥עַ בְּקֹל֖וֹ וּלְדָבְקָה־ב֑וֹ כִּ֣י ה֤וּא חַיֶּ֨יךָ֙ וְאֹ֣רֶךְ יָמֶ֔יךָ לָשֶׁ֣בֶת עַל־הָֽאֲדָמָ֗ה אֲשֶׁר֩ נִשְׁבַּ֨ע יְהוָ֧ה לַֽאֲבֹתֶ֛יךָ לְאַבְרָהָ֛ם לְיִצְחָ֥ק וּֽלְיַעֲקֹ֖ב לָתֵ֥ת לָהֶֽם׃

And this means that the etnachta is on וּלְדָבְקָה־ב֑וֹ. The etnachta provides a logical pause in the middle of the pasuk. Meanwhile, Shadal would place the etnachta on the word יָמֶ֔יךָ, and redraw all the trup to fit.

The difference is that, according to the standard reading, the break is like this:

to love the LORD thy God, to hearken to His voice, and to cleave unto Him ||

for that is thy life, and the length of thy days; that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD swore unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

And according to Shadal, the break is like this:

to love the LORD thy God, to hearken to His voice, and to cleave unto Him, for HE [Hashem] is thy life, and the length of thy days ||

that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD swore unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

The idea is that He is your life, and so you should choose to love Him and cleave to Him, to dwell on the land. And the reason that it says “for He is your life” is that it says “and to cleave to Him”, in the same manner as “and you who cleave to Hashem, all you are living today.”

We need not dwell on the redrawing of the trup. It is regular and mechanical once you move the etnachta over.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

YUTorah on Nitzavim and Vayelech

parsha banner

Audio Shiurim on Nitzavim-Vayeilech
Articles on Nitzavim-Vayeilech
Parsha Sheets on Nitzavim-Vayeilech
New This Week










Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Hanistaros, and not judging kefira

(See my previous post, on judging kefira.)

Here is a nice explanation by the commentator Maamar, which relates to the latest blow-up. Should we judge people for their kefirah-dik views? He says no, that this is what Hanistaros LaHashem Elokeinu means. I don't think that he would extend this, though, to those who are trying to persuade others of these views, to say that we should not make it clear to those others that the views are outside the pale of our defined normative belief.

Starting on these pesukim in Nitzavim:
טו  כִּי-אַתֶּם יְדַעְתֶּם, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-יָשַׁבְנוּ בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם, וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר-עָבַרְנוּ בְּקֶרֶב הַגּוֹיִם, אֲשֶׁר עֲבַרְתֶּם.15 for ye know how we dwelt in the land of Egypt; and how we came through the midst of the nations through which ye passed;
טז  וַתִּרְאוּ, אֶת-שִׁקּוּצֵיהֶם, וְאֵת, גִּלֻּלֵיהֶם--עֵץ וָאֶבֶן, כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב אֲשֶׁר עִמָּהֶם.16 and ye have seen their detestable things, and their idols, wood and stone, silver and gold, which were with them--
יז  פֶּן-יֵשׁ בָּכֶם אִישׁ אוֹ-אִשָּׁה אוֹ מִשְׁפָּחָה אוֹ-שֵׁבֶט, אֲשֶׁר לְבָבוֹ פֹנֶה הַיּוֹם מֵעִם ה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, לָלֶכֶת לַעֲבֹד, אֶת-אֱלֹהֵי הַגּוֹיִם הָהֵם:  פֶּן-יֵשׁ בָּכֶם, שֹׁרֶשׁ פֹּרֶה רֹאשׁ--וְלַעֲנָה.17 lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the LORD our God, to go to serve the gods of those nations; lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood;



"כִּי-אַתֶּם יְדַעְתֶּם -- From the content of these verses until the end of the parasha it appears to me that all of Israel was not yet purified from the impurities of the deficient beliefs that their fathers inherited in the land of Egypt. And upon this it states וַתִּרְאוּ, אֶת-שִׁקּוּצֵיהֶם. And the proof is that Yehoshua commanded the nation, when they accepted upon themselves the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven, [Yehoshua 24:23]

כג  וְעַתָּה, הָסִירוּ אֶת-אֱלֹהֵי הַנֵּכָר אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבְּכֶם; וְהַטּוּ, אֶת-לְבַבְכֶם, אֶל-ה, אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.23 Now therefore put away the strange gods which are among you, and incline your heart unto the LORD, the God of Israel.'

And Chazal received a tradition that a molten image they brought up with themselves from the Reed Sea.  And behold, the master of prophets [Moshe] knew, via the Soul of Hashem, who made him understand tha there were people in the nation who still, despite all the signs and wonders, did not believe in Hashem and in Moshe His servant with all their hearts, so as not to trust in his blessings
and not to fear his curses, since they thought that these are the mere speakings of lips, the spirit of man established them, and they did not go forth from the mouth of the Supreme. And only from fear of Moshe and fear of the punishment did they serve Hashem in each heart. And upon this it said [in the pasuk above] פֶּן-יֵשׁ בָּכֶם, שֹׁרֶשׁ פֹּרֶה רֹאשׁ--וְלַעֲנָה. That is to say, that now he is but the root [shoresh] but in the multitude of days he will give fruit.

And well did Onkelos translate in accordance with our way, 


כט,יז פֶּן-יֵשׁ בָּכֶם אִישׁ אוֹ-אִשָּׁה אוֹ מִשְׁפָּחָה אוֹ-שֵׁבֶט, אֲשֶׁר לְבָבוֹ פֹנֶה הַיּוֹם מֵעִם ה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, לָלֶכֶת לַעֲבֹד, אֶת-אֱלֹהֵי הַגּוֹיִם הָהֵם:  פֶּן-יֵשׁ בָּכֶם, שֹׁרֶשׁ פֹּרֶה רֹאשׁ--וְלַעֲנָה.דִּלְמָא אִית בְּכוֹן גְּבַר אוֹ אִתָּא אוֹ זַרְעִי אוֹ שִׁבְטָא, דְּלִבֵּיהּ פְּנִי יוֹמָא דֵּין מִדַּחְלְתָא דַּייָ אֱלָהַנָא, לִמְהָךְ לְמִפְלַח, יָת טָעֲוָת עַמְמַיָּא הָאִנּוּן:  דִּלְמָא אִית בְּכוֹן, גְּבַר מְהַרְהֵיר חֲטִין--אוֹ זָדוֹן.
as  גְּבַר מְהַרְהֵיר חֲטִין--אוֹ זָדוֹן -- a man who contemplates transgressions or willful sins. 

(And according to the opinion of Chazal that we brought above in the matter of the idol of Micah, it is possible that it intended with the words אוֹ-שֵׁבֶט [in pasuk 17, cited above] to refer to the shevet of Dan, which strayed after it as is known, and now it speaks about the שֹׁרֶשׁ פֹּרֶה רֹאשׁ--וְלַעֲנָה, and that is the אִישׁ [or isha; now skip o shevet] who is פֹנֶה הַיּוֹם מֵעִם ה

And further, he does not act publicly. Then, Hashem's fury will smoke, etc., until but not including pasuk 21 [Josh: where Hashem will not pardon, and Hashem will separate him from the tribes of Israel, and all the curses of the book shall lie upon him, etc.]. (And Chazal already said that regarding Avodah Zara, Hashem combined thought to action.)

However, when the thought turns to action, and the רֹאשׁ וְלַעֲנָה give fruit, then [Josh: pasuk 21, which talks about comprehensive punishment on all of Israel], וְאָמַר הַדּוֹר הָאַחֲרוֹן.

And it closes with  הַנִּסְתָּרֹת--לַה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ -- this matter is stated directed towards those people who know that their hearts [meaning the hearts of other people] are not complete with Hashem. And he says that even if the hidden secrets of their hearts were revealed before me, even so, I [Moshe] do not have the power to punish them on the ideas of their spirits and upon their thoughts, for the nistarot are to Hashem.

And a great thing said the father of prophets here. And that is that it is not upon the judge to chastise [ליסר] any man on the thoughts of his hears and the beliefs in his heart, if they be known to us prior to their passing into actual actions of man. This because the judges who are placed in the land only judge the actions of man, for the body which acts has its source in the dust, and therefore by law, those who are molded out of material shall bring him in judgement. However, the soul is a divine portion from above, and so only He who Dwells in heaven shall consider its judgement. And this, in my opinion, is the intent of Chazal that a negative commandment which has no action, we do not impose lashes for it."

End quote.

Tangentially, I suspect that that pasuk in sefer Yehoshua comes not necessarily because the Israelites were idolators at that time, but (a) because from Yehoshua's perspective, perhaps they were -- see the context, about the building of the altar, and (b), because of the parallel to Yaakov and his sons in Shechem Note the parallel to trees in both cases, alongside other matching language.

ד  וַיִּתְּנוּ אֶל-יַעֲקֹב, אֵת כָּל-אֱלֹהֵי הַנֵּכָר אֲשֶׁר בְּיָדָם, וְאֶת-הַנְּזָמִים, אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם; וַיִּטְמֹן אֹתָם יַעֲקֹב, תַּחַת הָאֵלָה אֲשֶׁר עִם-שְׁכֶם.4 And they gave unto Jacob all the foreign gods which were in their hand, and the rings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the terebinth which was by Shechem.

Monday, August 26, 2013

What are the nistaros, the hidden sins?

The famous pasuk in Nitzavim reads:

The hidden things belong to the Lord, our God, but the revealed things apply to us and to our children forever: that we must fulfill all the words of this Torah. כח. הַנִּסְתָּרֹת לַיהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ נקודות) וְהַנִּגְלֹת ֹלָֹנוֹּ ֹוֹּלְֹבָֹנֵֹיֹנֹוּ עַד עוֹלָם לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת כָּל דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת:
But what are these hidden things?

According to Rashi, this is a response to the context above, in pasuk 17-20, which indicated punishment for an individual's thoughts [that his heart will turn to follow other gods, and that on hearing the words of this oath, will reassure himself], followed by pesukim 21-27 describing drastic communal punishment. Therefore, this pasuk comes to clarify. In Rashi's words:

The hidden things belong to the Lord, our God: Now, you might object [to God, saying]: “But what can we do? You punish the entire community because of the sinful thoughts of an individual, as Scripture says, ‘Perhaps there is among you a man…’ (verse 17 above), and after this, Scripture continues, ‘Seeing the plagues of that land [and the diseases with which the Lord struck it]’ (verse 21) [which seems to indicate that for the sinful thought of even one individual, the whole land would be struck down with plagues and diseases]. But surely no man can know the secret thoughts of his fellow [that we could somehow prevent this collective punishment!” In answer to this, God says:] “I will not punish you for the hidden things!” [I.e.,] because “[The hidden things] belong to the Lord, our God,” and He will exact punishment upon that particular individual [who sins in secret]. However, “the revealed things apply to us and to our children” [that is, we are responsible for detecting the sins committed openly in our community, and] to eradicate any evil among us. And if we do not execute judgment upon these [open transgressions, over which we do have control,], then the whole community will be punished [because they would be remiss in their responsibility]. There is a dot placed over [each letter of] the words לָנוּ וּלְבָנֵינוּ here, to teach us homiletically that even for open sins [which were not brought to judgment, God] did not punish the whole community-until Israel crossed the Jordan. For then, they accepted upon themselves the oath at Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal, and thereby [formally] became responsible for one another (Sanh. 43b). [When dots are placed over letters of the Torah, this denotes an exclusion of some sort. In our context, our Rabbis teach us that the exclusion refers to the period prior to the crossing of the Jordan.] הנסתרת לה' אלהינו: ואם תאמרו מה בידינו לעשות, אתה מעניש את הרבים על הרהורי היחיד, שנאמר (פסוק יז) פן יש בכם איש וגו', ואחר כך (פסוק כא) וראו את מכות הארץ ההיא, והלא אין אדם יודע טמונותיו של חבירו, אין אני מעניש אתכם על הנסתרות, שהן לה' אלהינו והוא יפרע מאותו יחיד, אבל הנגלות, לנו ולבנינו לבער הרע מקרבנו, ואם לא נעשה דין בהם יענשו את הרבים. נקוד על לנו ולבנינו, לדרוש, שאף על הנגלות לא ענש את הרבים עד שעברו את הירדן משקבלו עליהם את השבועה בהר גרזים ובהר עיבל ונעשו ערבים זה לזה



Rashbam links the nistaros to those he described earlier by the klalot and brachot.

פסוק כח 
הנסתרות לה' אלהינו - כבר פירשתים אצל הארורים על הנסתרות (כי) הנסתרים היו הברכות והקללות, שאין הדבר ליענש ביד בית דין אלא ביד הקב"ה. 

That is, in Ki Tavo. The sins there, as described by Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, and others, are ones committed privately, and Hashem takes care of the punishment. (Thus, they are cursed.) See Rashbam there. Those include a variety of sins.

Ibn Ezra keeps it closer to the overt context, private idolatry:
הנסתרות -הטעם: מי שיעבוד עבודת כוכבים בסתר. 

לה' אלהינו -והטעם: כי משפטו ביד השם והוא יפרע ממנו, ואם היתה בגלוי חיוב לנו ולבנינו לעשות ככתוב בתורה. 

Ramban argues with "meforshim" [presumably Rashi and certainly Ibn Ezra] for saying this refers to private sins of idolatry. Rather, he asserts, it refers to accidental sins. Is he saying that the person is unaware of these accidental sins? I am not sure. Further, he says that Onkelos holds like him:

הנסתרות לה' אלוהינו - על דעת המפרשים: יאמר כי השם אלוהינו לו לעשות משפט בעובדי עבודה זרה בסתר, כי כל התעלומות גלויות לפניו, והנגלות עלינו ועל בנינו לעשות להם את כל דברי התורה הזאת, להכות עובדי עובדה זרה כדין התורה. וגם כפי המדרש (סנהדרין מג ב): כן הוא:

ודעתי בדרך הפשט, כי "הנסתרות" הם החטאים הנסתרים מן העושים אותם, כמו שגיאות מי יבין מנסתרות נקני (תהלים יט יג), יאמר הנסתרות לשם לבדו הם אין לנו בהן עוון אשר חטא, אבל הנגלות שהם הזדונות, לנו ולבנינו עד עולם לעשות את כל דברי התורה הזאת חוקת עולם, שכך קבלנו על אשר ישנו פה ועל אשר איננו פה לדורות עולם. ולפי שהביא באלה לעשות כל המצווה, הוציא מן החרם העושה בשגגה שלא יתקלל באלה הזאת.
ודברי אונקלוס מטין כן, שאמר: 
דמטמרן קדם ה' אלהנא.
ואם כדברי המפרשים ראוי לו לומר דמטמרין לה' אלהנא.

I admit that I am unclear about the Ramban's diyuk in Onkelos here. Onkelos said:

כט,כח הַנִּסְתָּרֹת--לַיהוָה, אֱלֹהֵינוּ; וְהַנִּגְלֹת לָנוּ וּלְבָנֵינוּ, עַד-עוֹלָם--לַעֲשׂוֹת, אֶת-כָּל-דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת.  {ס}דְּמִטַּמְרָן--קֳדָם יְיָ, אֱלָהַנָא; וּדְגַלְיָן לַנָא וְלִבְנַנָא, עַד עָלְמָא--לְמֶעֱבַד, יָת כָּל פִּתְגָמֵי אוֹרָיְתָא הָדָא.  {ס}

Is the diyuk based on the דְּמִטַּמְרָן rather than דְּמִטַּמְרִין ? Or is is the קֳדָם יְיָ rather than ליְיָ? Or both? I think the difference in spelling, which is just a masculine vs. feminine distinction, is incidental, perhaps just a scribal error in the copyists of the Ramban. But the focus is that they are kadam Hashem, before Hashem, as a change from the Biblical Hebrew laHashem. With this change, the meaning is: not before us, such that we need not worry about them. Rather than them being la-Hashem -- for Hashem to punish.

I am not convinced by this diyuk in Onkelos, because the use of kadam as it relates to Hashem is a regular anti-anthropomorphic feature, or a distancing from direct ascription to Hashem, as a mark of kavod.

[Netina Lager mentions this diyuk but does not explain it.]

A final word: Nowadays, should we be focused on the private wrongdoing of others? Yes and no. I am not in favor, in general, of inquiring into the private religiosity of others. E.g. in the hashkafic domain -- so long as people don't go out and make a website to convince others of their views, there is no reason to inquire and cast aspersions on the religious beliefs of some of our more left-wing brethren. Or maybe even to judge them for their beliefs. Bli neder, more on this in another post. Or schools which hold Internet is assur, and take pains to control the private behavior of parents.

On the other hand, many of the sins Rashbam referred to as secret and private sins, in Ki Tavo, had a victim. Someone was secretly perverting justice via bribery, and causing the widow and orphan to suffer. Or cases of incest, where the female victims were not in a position of power, and thus could not make it public. (See Ibn Ezra on these pesukim.) Should we indeed throw up our hands and say that it is up to Hashem to take care of, and we can only take care of the niglot? Well, at the least, when it becomes revealed to us, it is upon us to act and defend the powerless.

Sunday, August 25, 2013

posts so far for parshat Nitzavim

Here is a link to the mobile version of these posts. This will allow you to print each post without worry for the advertisements on the sides.


2012

1. YUTorah on parashat Nitzavim.

2. Nitzavim sources.

2011

  1. Nitzavim sources -- begun in 2008, as links by perek and aliyah to an online mikraos gedolos. Then, in 2009, I added a whole slew of meforshim on the parsha and haftara, organized into sections like midrash, Ibn Ezra and his supercommentators, masorah, and so on. In 2010, further improved and expanded. Now, in 2011, I greatly expanded the number of meforshim. For instance, there are many more meforshei Rashi, and a few kitvei yad of Rashi.
    .
  2. YU Torah on Nitzavim / Vayelech.
    .
  3. Torah is accessible to all --  A lovely homiletic, midrashic, explanation of the pesukim by Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz. We don't need ruach hakodeshmazal, or living in Eretz Yisrael to attain Torah.
    .
  4. Torah on the Moon -- Must we fetch it from there? Did Chazal think we could travel to the moon?
    .
2010

  1. Does Hashem have nostrils? Do they smoke?  I think the Samaritans emended the text because they were uncomfortable with the imagery. Does Rashi endorse a non-corporeal God with his comment?
    .
  2. Length of days -- Does it refer to long life, or long dwelling in the land of Israel?

2009
  1. Is Sefer HaTorah masculine or feminine? Discussing Rashi's explanation of the changing between zeh and zot on the basis of the placement of a tipcha.
    .
  2. Did the Canaanites fool Moshe in the same way the Giveonites did? Trying to understand Rashi, and the way he understood or interpreted the midrash.
    .
  3. Were spirits of future generations present during the covenant in Nitzavim? Tanchuma says yes, but Ibn Ezra doesn't think it is necessary. Abarbanel reinterprets the midrash using philosophical derash, but I don't find it compelling. And I explain how the Tanchuma may have parsed the pasuk differently in order to arrive at this derash.
    .
  4. The trup on the big nose -- how it should be parsed in accordance to the trup, and how it would be parsed if we follow how Shadal would rewrite it if he had his druthers.

2008


  1. Nitzavim as standing or remaining, as a nice blend of peshat and the theme of drash.

2004
  • A source for birchat haTorah
  • The Torah Is Not In The Heavens
    • I suggest that pshat in this instance is the interpretation of the allegory, and that, as a continuation of "it is not too difficult," it means that it is accessible to you.
      The Midrash will take it hyperliterally to refer to Moshe's ascending Mt Sinai, and adds: 



      Moshe said to them, "that you should not say that another Moshe will stand and bring us another Torah from heaven, I therefore preempt this by informing you that there is not left of it in heaven."
      What motivated this midrash? Perhaps this a response to Christians, or to false prophets trying to innovate new law. Also, the "of course" factor - the Jews know Moshe took the Torah from heaven, so what is he adding?
      The Midrash adds other explanation, highlighting the completeness of the Torah brought down - it and the crafts of its trade - humility, righteousness, and uprightness, and the giving of its reward.
      Finally, an anti-Torah u-Madda explanation from Shmuel, who was an astrologer. The Torah is not found in astrologers, whose craft is in {looking at} the heaven. When they protested that Shmuel himself was an astrologer, he responded that he only studied astrology when in the bathhouse. I observe that studying secular matters in the bathroom is a good strategy for increasing time for learning. Note that Shmuel agrees to the value of learning secular subjects such as science, but only at a time when one could not otherwise be learning Torah.
  • A Midrashic Source for Daf Yomi
    • As mentioned above, with the Torah not being in the heavens referring to accessibility/attainability, the Midrash discusses various psukim as referring to Torah seeming unattainable and how one can attain it. Read it all in the post, but it ends with an idea similar to Daf Yomi:


      Rabbi Yannai said, to what is this matter comparable? To a loaf of bread which is suspended in the air {presumably from a string from the ceiling}. The fool says, "who is able to bring it?" And the rational man says, "Did not someone suspend it there?" {And if someone was able to access that space to suspend it there then it must be possible for others to access it as well.} He brings a ladder, or a pole, and brings it {down}. So too he who is foolish says "When will I {have time to} read all the Torah.

      And he who is rational, what does he do? He learns a single perek {chapter} every day until he finishes the entirety of Torah.

      So says Hashem, לֹא-נִפְלֵאת הִוא מִמְּךָ, " it is not too hard for thee." That is, לֹא-נִפְלֵאת הִוא, "it is not too hard." And if it is too hard, מִמְּךָ, "it is from you" that you are not invliving yourself in it. This is what is meant by the verse כִּי הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת.
2003
  • רָאשֵׁיכֶם שִׁבְטֵיכֶם
    • "Your tribes" breaks the order of progression from upper to lower classes. After offering my own improbable suggestion, I go through some of the interesting possibilities.
      Rashi: 
      smichut to mean the heads of your tribes.
      Ramban: Both רָאשֵׁיכֶם and שִׁבְטֵיכֶם are general (
      klal), and the continuation in this and the next verse elaborate.
      Seforno: שִׁבְטֵיכֶם = רָאשֵׁיכֶם
      שִׁבְטֵיכֶם a has at its root שבט, staff, and means leader; The heads who have the shevet, staff, of ruling. (Think of the parallel מטה.)
      Tg Yonatan: Like Seforno, but רָאשֵׁיכֶם of Sanhedrin, שִׁבְטֵיכֶם = officers.

Thursday, October 04, 2012

Vayelech sources -- 2012 edition



by aliyah
rishon (Devarim 31:1)
sheni (31:4), shlishi (31:7)
revii (31:10)
chamishi (31:14)
shishi (31:20)
shevii (31:25)
maftir (31:28)
haftara (Hoshea 14)

by perek
perek 31

meforshim
Geonim (589-1038)

R' Saadia Gaon(882-942) -- see Wikipedia entry:
  1. Arabic translation of Torah, here   at Temanim.org. This is a beautiful PDF, with the Chumash text, Rashi, Onkelos, and Rav Saadia's Tafsir. All of these have nikkud, which is a very nice feature. It also designates the Temani and standard aliyah breaks, and two commentaries, Shemen HaMor and Chelek HaDikduk, on the kriyah, trupnikkud, and dikduk, on the basis of Yemenite manuscripts, which would be worthwhile even absent the other features. Quite excellent, overall.
  2. The same Arabic translation, the Tafsir, here at Google books. No nikkud, Chumash text, Rashi, or Onkelos. But there is a brief supercommentary by Yosef Direnburg at the bottom of each page. 
  3. Collected commentary of Saadia Gaon on Torah  , selected from the writings of various Rishonim and from his commentaries on other works.
Rabbi Yona Ibn Janach (Spain, 990-1050) -- see Wikipedia 

Rishonim (11th - 15th centuries)

Not really Abarbabel
Judaica Press Rashi in English  and Hebrew (France, 1040 - 1105) -- ואני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא ולאגדה המיישבת דברי המקרא, דבר דבור על אופניו
Chizkuni (France, 13th century) -- see Wikipedia  
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Gilyonot 

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Nitzavim sources -- 2012 edition


by aliyah
rishon (Devarim 29:9)
sheni (29:12), shlishi (29:15)
revii (30:1)
chamishi (30:7), shishi (30:11)
shevii (30:15), maftir
haftara (Yeshaya 61)

by perek

meforshim
Geonim (589-1038)

R' Saadia Gaon(882-942) -- see Wikipedia entry:
  1. Arabic translation of Torah,   here  at Temanim.org. This is a beautiful PDF, with the Chumash text, Rashi, Onkelos, and Rav Saadia's Tafsir. All of these have nikkud, which is a very nice feature. It also designates the Temani and standard aliyah breaks, and two commentaries, Shemen HaMor and Chelek HaDikduk, on the kriyah, trupnikkud, and dikduk, on the basis of Yemenite manuscripts, which would be worthwhile even absent the other features. Quite excellent, overall.
  2. The same Arabic translation, the Tafsir,   here at Google books. No nikkud, Chumash text, Rashi, or Onkelos. But there is a brief supercommentary by Yosef Direnburg at the bottom of each page. 
  3. Collected commentary of Saadia Gaon on Torah  , selected from the writings of various Rishonim and from his commentaries on other works.
Rabbi Yona Ibn Janach (Spain, 990-1050) -- see Wikipedia 

Thursday, September 13, 2012

posts so far for parshat Nitzavim

Here is a link to the mobile version of these posts. This will allow you to print each post without worry for the advertisements on the sides.


2012

1. YUTorah on parashat Nitzavim.

2011

  1. Nitzavim sources -- begun in 2008, as links by perek and aliyah to an online mikraos gedolos. Then, in 2009, I added a whole slew of meforshim on the parsha and haftara, organized into sections like midrash, Ibn Ezra and his supercommentators, masorah, and so on. In 2010, further improved and expanded. Now, in 2011, I greatly expanded the number of meforshim. For instance, there are many more meforshei Rashi, and a few kitvei yad of Rashi.
    .
  2. YU Torah on Nitzavim / Vayelech.
    .
  3. Torah is accessible to all --  A lovely homiletic, midrashic, explanation of the pesukim by Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz. We don't need ruach hakodeshmazal, or living in Eretz Yisrael to attain Torah.
    .
  4. Torah on the Moon -- Must we fetch it from there? Did Chazal think we could travel to the moon?
    .
2010

  1. Does Hashem have nostrils? Do they smoke?  I think the Samaritans emended the text because they were uncomfortable with the imagery. Does Rashi endorse a non-corporeal God with his comment?
    .
  2. Length of days -- Does it refer to long life, or long dwelling in the land of Israel?

2009
  1. Is Sefer HaTorah masculine or feminine? Discussing Rashi's explanation of the changing between zeh and zot on the basis of the placement of a tipcha.
    .
  2. Did the Canaanites fool Moshe in the same way the Giveonites did? Trying to understand Rashi, and the way he understood or interpreted the midrash.
    .
  3. Were spirits of future generations present during the covenant in Nitzavim? Tanchuma says yes, but Ibn Ezra doesn't think it is necessary. Abarbanel reinterprets the midrash using philosophical derash, but I don't find it compelling. And I explain how the Tanchuma may have parsed the pasuk differently in order to arrive at this derash.
    .
  4. The trup on the big nose -- how it should be parsed in accordance to the trup, and how it would be parsed if we follow how Shadal would rewrite it if he had his druthers.

2008


  1. Nitzavim as standing or remaining, as a nice blend of peshat and the theme of drash.

2004
  • A source for birchat haTorah
  • The Torah Is Not In The Heavens
    • I suggest that pshat in this instance is the interpretation of the allegory, and that, as a continuation of "it is not too difficult," it means that it is accessible to you.
      The Midrash will take it hyperliterally to refer to Moshe's ascending Mt Sinai, and adds: 



      Moshe said to them, "that you should not say that another Moshe will stand and bring us another Torah from heaven, I therefore preempt this by informing you that there is not left of it in heaven."
      What motivated this midrash? Perhaps this a response to Christians, or to false prophets trying to innovate new law. Also, the "of course" factor - the Jews know Moshe took the Torah from heaven, so what is he adding?
      The Midrash adds other explanation, highlighting the completeness of the Torah brought down - it and the crafts of its trade - humility, righteousness, and uprightness, and the giving of its reward.
      Finally, an anti-Torah u-Madda explanation from Shmuel, who was an astrologer. The Torah is not found in astrologers, whose craft is in {looking at} the heaven. When they protested that Shmuel himself was an astrologer, he responded that he only studied astrology when in the bathhouse. I observe that studying secular matters in the bathroom is a good strategy for increasing time for learning. Note that Shmuel agrees to the value of learning secular subjects such as science, but only at a time when one could not otherwise be learning Torah.
  • A Midrashic Source for Daf Yomi
    • As mentioned above, with the Torah not being in the heavens referring to accessibility/attainability, the Midrash discusses various psukim as referring to Torah seeming unattainable and how one can attain it. Read it all in the post, but it ends with an idea similar to Daf Yomi:


      Rabbi Yannai said, to what is this matter comparable? To a loaf of bread which is suspended in the air {presumably from a string from the ceiling}. The fool says, "who is able to bring it?" And the rational man says, "Did not someone suspend it there?" {And if someone was able to access that space to suspend it there then it must be possible for others to access it as well.} He brings a ladder, or a pole, and brings it {down}. So too he who is foolish says "When will I {have time to} read all the Torah.

      And he who is rational, what does he do? He learns a single perek {chapter} every day until he finishes the entirety of Torah.

      So says Hashem, לֹא-נִפְלֵאת הִוא מִמְּךָ, " it is not too hard for thee." That is, לֹא-נִפְלֵאת הִוא, "it is not too hard." And if it is too hard, מִמְּךָ, "it is from you" that you are not invliving yourself in it. This is what is meant by the verse כִּי הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת.
2003
  • רָאשֵׁיכֶם שִׁבְטֵיכֶם
    • "Your tribes" breaks the order of progression from upper to lower classes. After offering my own improbable suggestion, I go through some of the interesting possibilities.
      Rashi: 
      smichut to mean the heads of your tribes.
      Ramban: Both רָאשֵׁיכֶם and שִׁבְטֵיכֶם are general (
      klal), and the continuation in this and the next verse elaborate.
      Seforno: שִׁבְטֵיכֶם = רָאשֵׁיכֶם
      שִׁבְטֵיכֶם a has at its root שבט, staff, and means leader; The heads who have the shevet, staff, of ruling. (Think of the parallel מטה.)
      Tg Yonatan: Like Seforno, but רָאשֵׁיכֶם of Sanhedrin, שִׁבְטֵיכֶם = officers.

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin