GUEST POST by The CandyManMy friend E is a lot like your typical Orthodox woman in her twenties. Every morning she stands in front of the mirror and figures out how to make herself look good without compromising modesty. When she was dating, she had long discussions with her boyfriend about shomer negiya. When they got married, she had to decide whether to cover her hair. But E is not Orthodox -- she's not even Jewish. E is a devout Muslim, born and raised in Istanbul. Earlier this week, she invited me over to have dinner with her, and with her parents, who are in town and barely speak English. (photo: the Turkish "evil eye," sort of their version of the mezuzah)
I grabbed a bottle of Mendocino Pinot Noir Grape Juice ($12.95 at the neighborhood wine store), plucked a huge lemon from the tree in front of my house, and headed over on an empty stomach. E is a great cook, and let me tell you, the food was delicious. The first course was a lentil soup, amazing taste, I'd never had anything like it. While we were sipping, E let slip to her family that I was Jewish. E's father -- a short, mustached fellow with serious brown eyes -- got very excited about this.
E's dad informed me that there were many Jews in Istanbul. Apparently, the late, great Ottoman Empire had taken in the Jews when they were chased out of Spain by the inquisitors. "Yes, there are many, how do you say, hahams in Turkey," E chimed in. E's father, himself a civil engineer, had recently read a biography of Einstein ("He was religious!") and was greatly impressed. He taught me that inshallah is the Arabic equivalent of im yirtzeh HaShem, gave me a blessing that I should have good luck in my career, and offered to host me and show me around if I ever visited Istanbul. He was very friendly in his somber way and I didn't detect a trace of anti-Semitism in the man. (With his three daughters and his sister at the table, I think he was just happy to have another guy around.)
We retired to the living room, where we sat together on the couch and broke open the grape juice. "Nice color," E's dad complimented, holding his shot glass up to the light (the Pinot Noir grape gives a deep red color, not the dark purple of the concord grapes). We drank the sweet, cool juice with a twist of the lemon I had brought, a wild California lemon with a large rind. "The lemon tree in my garden tastes the same," E's father reminisced. Then E served up flan with caramel. It held together perfectly and had a clean, just-sweet-enough finish. It was one of the best desserts I have had in my entire life. I reminded her husband, a friendly PhD who makes microchips for a cell phone company, that he's a lucky man.
Only once did the Israel/Palestine issue come up (or as E's father malaproposed, the "Isra-el/Phili-stines"). He was opining about how our two cultures had so much in common. "You and I are cousins!" he exclaimed, squeezing my shoulder. "So why are our peoples at war?"
I had a flash. "Sometimes we fight most with members of our own family."
E's father nodded and smiled, his dark eyes flashing. "I understand what you said. I understand."
63 comments:
>(photo: the Turkish "evil eye," sort of their version of the mezuzah)
huh?
Hanging an evil eye near the door is typical, and is thought to protect the house, just like our mezuzah
I thought the mezuzah was there to remind you that G-d is watching over you. Then again, I do tend to make up my own reasons in my head when I don't know the real ones. So this could just be another example of that...
I really enjoied the post. Great story!
No Jessica, you're (relatively) correct. Based on the context in which the mezuza is presented in the Chumash, it is meant to serve as a reminder. Many rabbi's, such as Rambam, condemned those who saw it as an amulet. Bear in mind that the author of this post is an ex-Lubavitcher; Lubavitchers seem especially prone to see the mezuzah as an amulet, hence all the miracle stories about the Rebbe telling people to check their mezuzahs.
Oops, now I realize that this wasn't written by LNM. Are you also an ex-Luby, candyman?
This is the best example of how we can mend bridges. I agree with Lubab, it's a great story and I could almost taste the flan....yummy.
Based on the context in which the mezuza is presented in the Chumash, it is meant to serve as a reminder.
At the risk of getting "hung up" on the side point about mezuzah, which is really irrelevant to the main point of the post...
There is no injunction to post a mezuzah in the Chumash. Those passages are obviously metaphorical to anyone who's read them more than twice. It's a later tradition, based on midrash.
While there is no question that it serves as a reminder (this is the meaning of the metaphor), there are many traditions (even Talmudic ones?) that establish the mezuzah as a protector of the house. The house burned down... didn't you know, they didn't put up a mezuzah! Etc.
Such superstitions are commonplace in Judaism. Most are based on the concept of the evil eye, which IS explicitly mentioned in the Pentateuch (although none of you Orthodox Jews probably have any idea where). Amulets such as chamsa are common, as well.
Google "mezuzah and luck" and the first thing that pops up is the evil eye.
To think that the mezuzah on your door comes straight from the Torah, and that's why everyone does it, is not taking the entirety of Jewish tradition into perspective. Same with just about anything you are likely to do as an Orthodox Jew. Very little of it is Biblical, and all of it has complex reasons.
Are you also an ex-Luby, candyman?
No. Ex-litvak.
LNM,
I really enjoied the post. Great story!
Thx!
Cross-Cultural exchanges rock, great story!
He was of course wrong about being cousins as the Turks are not Semites. That may be partially why they have lower AntiSemitism becuase they are not our cousins they can choose to be like the Iranians who despite not being our cousins hate Israel or they can choose to be more Western as they have.
>Such superstitions are commonplace in Judaism.
Of course. But the question is what was it ORIGINALLY for. And it was never meant as a protector or an amulet. THAT is the distinction between that and the evil eye.
And I am afraid you will need to bring support (outside perhaps karaite tradition) that the mezuzah was to be understood metaphorically.
"There is no injunction to post a mezuzah in the Chumash. Those passages are obviously metaphorical to anyone who's read them more than twice. It's a later tradition, based on midrash."
It says to write them on the door posts of your house. That's hardly metaphorical. And as for tefillin the Egyptians wore phylacteries too. It is only because of a lack of tradition on the part of the Karaites as to what to write that they felt constrained to say that it is all metaphorical. It would be interesting to see if the Sadducees ever claimed metaphor for these things as they were more natuarally connected to traditions than Karaites.
well-written post. even warms my cynical heart.
>And I am afraid you will need to bring support (outside perhaps karaite tradition) that the mezuzah was to be understood metaphorically.
At the risk of mentioning something that everyone knows, unlike their Jewish brethren, the Samaritans do not put up mezuzah scrolls, they literally write/engrave the shema passages on their doorposts.
RG,
It says to write them on the door posts of your house. That's hardly metaphorical. And as for tefillin the Egyptians wore phylacteries too.
glad you brought up phylacteries, b/c those passages (Ex. 13:9 & 13:16) actually prove the point about mezuzah. It's all a metaphor. I have no doubt that the Torah's metaphor is based on some kind of physical thingies people carried about in the ancient near east. Nevertheless, when the Torah says that the passover holiday or redemption of the firstborn "shall be a sign upon your hand", the simplest -- the *only* -- correct, literal interpretation is that these mitzvot serve as "constant reminders" of the Exodus.
HH,
And I am afraid you will need to bring support (outside perhaps karaite tradition) that the mezuzah was to be understood metaphorically.
I came to this conclusion without reading any karaite literature (which btw is not bad on this topic). All you need to read is the Chumash... it's obvious. Anyways, I think the Rashbam says the same thing. Based on your penchant for peshat, you'll come to the same conclusion soon enough, hyrax. In fact, I'd wager that if you check out all four passages over shabbat, learn them inside, in context, you'll come to that same conclusion.
This is the best example of how we can mend bridges
That's what I was going for.
Cross-Cultural exchanges rock
cross-cultural bands also rock
even warms my cynical heart.
Wait till you see my christmas post, you'll be crying.
It's weak on several grounds. First it becomes more clear from the other verses. Second verse sixteen refers to Tefillin of the head so it makes sense that it is referring to something done amongst us. Third it would not be called a metaphor if we would say it in our language. It was the same prosaic talk then. They didn't sound ancient to themselves. If I say you should say blank and it should be a sign on your hand you would not think metaphor.
Then in Deuteronomy it says in chapter 6
...
4. Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord;
5. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.
6. And these words, which I command you this day, shall be in your heart;
7. And you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up.
8. And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.
9. And you shall write them upon the posts of your house, and on your gates...
And in chapter 11 even more explicitly for Tefillin.
...18. Therefore shall you lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.
19. And you shall teach them to your children, speaking of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.
20. And you shall write them upon the door posts of your house, and upon your gates;...
In both cases for Mezuzas there is no mistaking for metaphor as the words are most direct. If each verse can be understood independent of others than why should here you require it to be different?
As for the Rashbam he reaches a metaphorical conclusion for the literal peshat in one of the verses if not all. But I think mine and Karl Marx's famous ancestor was here wrong.
Sorry Candyman, you are making a huge assumption and perhaps coming from a bit of confirmation bias. I think you are reading into the text what you want to and infact, like e-kvetcher points out, the Samaritans write out the passages on the doorstep. I think Jameel just shot a video of them.
So one, you have not shown any conclusive evidence that its metaphor outside of your own reading
and
two, in any case it totally goes against your premise that the evil eye is like the mezuzah, since EVEN if its a metaphor, it was NEVER for superstitious reason, REGARDLESS of what it would come to mean later.
>Anyways, I think the Rashbam says the same thing. Based on your penchant for peshat, you'll come to the same conclusion soon enough, hyrax
Ya, so?? And other people pshat driven would read it differently. The point is, what makes you think it was at some point a metaphor, and at some later time, made into an actual written mezuzah?
RG,
it would not be called a metaphor if we would say it in our language. It was the same prosaic talk then. They didn't sound ancient to themselves. If I say you should say blank and it should be a sign on your hand you would not think metaphor.
The way the phrase is used in Exodus clearly establishes it as metaphorical expression from Biblical Hebrew. It would be like us saying, This ritual will be a string around your finger, reminding you that God took us out of Egypt.
the Samaritans write out the passages on the doorstep.
I suspect that's a Pharisaic influence there. Plenty of folks don't take this passage literally, like the Karaites.
Look, it would be one thing if this were the only example of Orthodox Jews ignoring the simple meaning of the Biblical text. But this happens again, and again, and again. No one I know takes "an eye for an eye" literally. You guys all count the Omer wrong. There's no injunction against milk and meat. There's no injunction that meat must be slaughtered. Etc.
OJ is not consistent with what the Torah actually says.
You are still not bringing any evidence that it is a metaphor. It says "to write," then you bring in Rashbam as if that proves your point. It doesn't. Tfillin was obviously found in qumran BEFORE the emergence of rabbinic Judaism. You can't just say Its metaphor becaust "i say so." And that is pretty much a copout saying the Samaritans were influenced by the Pharisees without any proof or to realize these two groups did not exactly get along.
You obviously still haven't looked up the passages in Exodus, Hyrax. They're all the proof you need. Tzai ul'mad.
Candyman,
"It would be like us saying, This ritual will be a string around your finger, reminding you that God took us out of Egypt."
Indeed, and like that phrase it refers to an actual practice. People actually did/do put strings on their fingers and there actually was a practice of wearing some object on their heads and by their hearts.
"I have no doubt that the Torah's metaphor is based on some kind of physical thingies people carried about in the ancient near east."
Right. So it's a metaphor based on a real practice...which evolved over time but stayed a real practice.
I believe the earliest mention of tefillin is from the Letter of (pseudo)Aristeas, circa 2nd century BCE. "And upon our hands, too, he expressly orders the symbol to be fastened, clearly showing that we ought to perform every act in righteousness..." -159.
http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/aristeas.htm
"It would be like us saying, This ritual will be a string around your finger, reminding you that God took us out of Egypt."
No it's saying these words will be a reminder on your hand and be Tefillin between your eyes. If I said to you I'm giving you instructions and they should be a reminder on your hand and on your forehead you are not going to be busy wondering what metaphor I am giving. You will say I mean write them and have them there.
Further you totally ignore the later verses and make them subservient to the ones you say show them your way. It could be more reasonably argued the other way as we go from your supposed metaphors to the literal. In any event you are going against what you normally do where you make all verses independent of each other and even pitted against each other and then when we suggest a harmony you say it is not true and they each have to be understood separately from one another. You are being arbitrary and further nothing could be more explicit than with what it says about mezuzahs.
And you shall write them upon the posts of your house, and on your gates
I understood this passage to mean literally write it on your gates in the same way we write passages on the ark at shul. For example many arks have "Know Before Who You Stand" embroidered on the cover.
That said I don't think they meant you should literally write out the entire thing on a scroll, put it in a case, and nail to the wall.
OP,
So it's a metaphor based on a real practice...which evolved over time but stayed a real practice.
Yes, this is my view. So, you're with me on this one?
"Yes, this is my view. So, you're with me on this one?"
I think so, but I don't believe it was a Pharisaic invention. The roots of the practice are more likely popularly based - as informed by the verses at issue. The literal interpretation may have been rather early.
Candyman
I give up. You are a man of science and yet you are bringing up nothing but speculations. And when someone brings up to your a Samaritan practice, you just give an off handed response that its copied from the pharisees. Very un scholarly and unscientific of you.
>"Yes, this is my view. So, you're with me on this one?"
>I think so, but I don't believe it was a Pharisaic invention. The roots of the practice are more likely popularly based - as informed by the verses at issue. The literal interpretation may have been rather early.
It doesn't sound like you are agreeing with him. Candyman is basically saying the original authors MEAN'T it as a metaphor. But it sounds like you are saying that the authors merely use metaphoric language to follow an established practice.
HH,
"It doesn't sound like you are agreeing with him. Candyman is basically saying the original authors MEAN'T it as a metaphor. But it sounds like you are saying that the authors merely use metaphoric language to follow an established practice."
I'm not certain. Either they were using a metaphor based on an actual practice or were investing an established practice with new meaning. In either case I don't believe the original meaning of these verses was to write scripture on small parchments and put them in leather boxes to wear.
CandyMan,
Great Post... Sometimes it's hard not to lump all Muslims in with Osama Bin Laden. Glad to hear about the good and decent
The fact is that amongst the Dead Sea Scroll material was also Tefillin. Were Dead Sea Scroll people imitating Pharisees? I think we aught to find out rather than make up history. Holy Hyrax is right CandyMan is just speculating. The simplest explanation is that everyone was writing Mezuzas and Tefillin. Lubab putting Mezuzas in cases and using nails was never the interpretation in question.
"In either case I don't believe the original meaning of these verses was to write scripture on small parchments and put them in leather boxes to wear."
I would say it was to put them in boxes and wear them as the Egyptians also had Phylacteries and it does say "that they may be as frontlets between your eyes."
If there was no reference Tefillin then that would not make sense.
HH,
when someone brings up to your a Samaritan practice, you just give an off handed response that its copied from the pharisees. Very un scholarly and unscientific of you.
Yeah, I agree that was unscholarly and unscientific. But it was obviously just a guess. My main point was that a Samaritan practice proves nothing more than an Orthodox Jewish one. It's got a lot of history behind it.
The best source of "data" on this issue is the texts themselves. The passages in Exodus 13 are clearly metaphoric.
And I am afraid you will need to bring support (outside perhaps karaite tradition) that the mezuzah was to be understood metaphorically.
The ADI Tanach given to every Israeli soldier, stamped by the Rabbanut Hatzva'it Harashit, says the following on Ex. 13:9:
"And it shall be for you as a sign upon your hand" -- this holiday will be for you as a constant reminder, as if it were written on your hand.
They took it from SL Gordon, a great Hebrew commentary you've probably never heard of.
LNM,
I understood this passage to mean literally write it on your gates in the same way we write passages on the ark at shul. For example many arks have "Know Before Who You Stand" embroidered on the cover.
Gordon mentions that this was also a practice among ancient Egyptians. In any case, I think once you recognize that phylacteries is metaphoric, mezuza follows naturally.
RG,
The fact is that amongst the Dead Sea Scroll material was also Tefillin... The simplest explanation is that everyone was writing Mezuzas and Tefillin.
Qumran was much later than the Bible. If phylacteries were so ubiquitous, why are there no examples in Tanach of anyone wearing t'fillin at any point? I must have missed the part where Saul took off his t'fillin before going out to war.
On the other hand, Tanach does have other metaphors along these lines. You would know this if you'd ever actually learned more than five verses of Mishlei:
"Listen, son to your father’s rebuke, and do not leave your mother’s teaching. For they are a crown of grace for your head, and a pearls for your neck." (Proverbs 1:9)
"My son, remember my teaching, and let your heart guard my commandments.... tie them around your neck; write them on the slate of your heart." (Proverbs 3:1-4)
Tzai u'lmad.
>In either case I don't believe the original meaning of these verses was to write scripture on small parchments and put them in leather boxes to wear.
Well, what about the mezuzah?
RG,
CandyMan are you sure E is a devout Muslim? I never heard of Muslim women starting to cover their hair when married.
She fasts Ramadan, and she's definitely quite devout. But you're right, I'm not sure what the story is about her hair. All I know is that her Mom covers her hair, and she doesn't.
HH,
"Well, what about the mezuzah?"
Likewise I suspect there actually was a practice of writing important things on city gates and perhaps even personal homes, but I don't believe the intent was a directive to actually go and copy text to nail to the doorframe.
Frankly, I doubt the population was capable literacy-wise to have the sufficient scribes for it to even be practical. I don't even think the concept of scripture was so established that people put specific stock in the hallowed nature of particular phrases.
These text-based constructs probably came about during the scribal period, after the Babylonian exile.
Though could there have been some other practice that people did which was similar? Maybe some object they put by their doors? Sure.
I think in the end, its all conjecture with no real evidence, but I would like to say something about this comment:
>OJ is not consistent with what the Torah actually says.
It seems with skeptics, there really is no winning. Would you REALLY like to go back to what the Torah says about things? All the time we hear complaining that the Torah is static and new meaning is never put into it. Yet when rabbis do just that, they get accused of going against the text. I will just say this. To chazal, as with many people and the Constitution, the Torah is a living document that changes and breathes. That is just the nature of a a soceity viewing their text. You say we count the omer wrong and side with the Samaritans. In the end its just someone's word against the other.
"You would know this if you'd ever actually learned more than five verses of Mishlei:
"Listen, son to your father’s rebuke, and do not leave your mother’s teaching. For they are a crown of grace for your head, and a pearls for your neck." (Proverbs 1:9)"
Over here it is meant as metaphor because it is referring to teaching itself and not commanding a reminder. Also the metaphor is clear here as to what it is.
"My son, remember my teaching, and let your heart guard my commandments.... tie them around your neck; write them on the slate of your heart." (Proverbs 3:1-4)"
1. My son, forget not my Torah; but let your heart keep my commandments;
2. For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to you.
3. Let not grace and truth forsake you; bind them around your neck; write them on the tablet of your heart;
You are not bidden to write commandments on your neck. You are to have grace and truth bound on your neck and written on the tablet of your heart. Unless we write on our hearts and clearly we don't that writing is also metaphor. It is all very different from what is written in the Torah concerning tefillin and mezuzah. Are Tzitzis also a metaphor according to you?
"Qumran was much later than the Bible. If phylacteries were so ubiquitous, why are there no examples in Tanach of anyone wearing t'fillin at any point? I must have missed the part where Saul took off his t'fillin before going out to war."
Is that the only thing not mentioned. Do we need to mention that generals wore underwear while going to battle Germans? I assume they did. Maybe I'm wrong. But the fact that there is so much mention on binding the commandments in Mishlei as you mention is itself a passing allusion to tefillin it seems. What were they having in reference some other nation's custom but not their own? Your argument is very weak even more so with mezuzah. Further while you are relatively correct that I haven't looked as much in Mishlei don't assume ignorance on my part with the Tanach in general because I will prove you wrong time and again.
Let not grace and truth forsake you;
Gamliel, you are quoting it wrong. Look up the Hebrew, please. Grace and truth are the subject, not the object, of that phrase. It reads,
1. My son, forget not my Torah; but let your heart keep my commandments --
2. For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to you,
3. Grace and truth shall not forsake you -- bind them around your neck; write them on the tablet of your heart;
The "grace and truth" part is a continuation of v. 2, the reward for keeping the commandments. The part about binding around the neck refers back to the words of Torah in v. 1.
If you have access to an old Soncino Tanach series, that's a good place to look up such a thing (although I have not done so)... they probably get the translation right. Or just look at it in the Hebrew.
HH,
Would you REALLY like to go back to what the Torah says about things?
No, certainly not.
All the time we hear complaining that the Torah is static and new meaning is never put into it. Yet when rabbis do just that, they get accused of going against the text.
I love it when a rabbi goes against the text. That proves his salt.
I will just say this. To chazal, as with many people and the Constitution, the Torah is a living document that changes and breathes. That is just the nature of a a soceity viewing their text.
Amen.
"The Candy Man said...
Let not grace and truth forsake you;
Gamliel, you are quoting it wrong. Look up the Hebrew, please. Grace and truth are the subject, not the object, of that phrase. It reads,
1. My son, forget not my Torah; but let your heart keep my commandments --
2. For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to you,
3. Grace and truth shall not forsake you -- bind them around your neck; write them on the tablet of your heart;"
Candyman the Hebrew doesn't solve it. It is saying to bind kindness and truth and this implying the Torah metaphorically to be bound.
It can be rendered as the JPS has:
3. Let not grace and truth forsake you...
If you are right then on the contrary I am even more supported in that it would mean writing commandments and wearing them is seen in this verse directly commanded.
>Amen.
Well then no need to accuse OJ of going against the text. You should be happy it works that way
It can be rendered as the JPS has:
3. Let not grace and truth forsake you...
JPS is taking liberties; there's no subjunctive here. The correct translation is "Grace and truth will not forsake you," a reward for following the commandments. It's a continuation of v. 2, not a novel thought. Remember that verse breaks are not part of the original text.
"Grace and truth" is a common Biblical Hebrew word pair. It's used in the sense of "kindness" or "earned favor" (e.g. the beginning of Hayei Sarah). It's something you receive, not something you control.
Instead of relying on translations, you should take a simple Hebrew grammar class and try to learn through more of the Tanach (without m'forshim... they'll only confuse you and slow you down. Opt for the Soncino translation if you need one, or the Army's ADI Tanach).
If you are right then on the contrary I am even more supported in that it would mean writing commandments and wearing them is seen in this verse directly commanded.
Only if you wear your t'fillin around your neck.
Well then no need to accuse OJ of going against the text. You should be happy it works that way
I don't think OJ does work that way, anymore. At some point, the text was indeed just a springboard for change. Now it's an anchor, weighing us down. And it's not just the Pentateuch, but the Shulchan Aruch, even down to silly minhagim!
There is too much blind loyalty to tradition, and not enough independent thought and original ideas. OJ is stuck in a moment, and it can't get out of it.
I agree, but I think its much more the fault of codifying of the Talmud and SA than it is the Torah. If so, then there is no reason to criticize something like the counting of the omer.
"The Candy Man said...
JPS is taking liberties; there's no subjunctive here. The correct translation is "Grace and truth will not forsake you," a reward for following the commandments. It's a continuation of v. 2, not a novel thought. Remember that verse breaks are not part of the original text."
I know verse breaks were not there that's part of your problem. Even Gentile translations that don't claim loyalty to the text as we have it are not helpful to you in this regard.
"Grace and truth" is a common Biblical Hebrew word pair. It's used in the sense of "kindness" or "earned favor" (e.g. the beginning of Hayei Sarah). It's something you receive, not something you control."
Well the real wording is Chesed VeEmet kindness and truth. It is something controlled by a person Genesis 47:29 And the time drew nearer that Israel must die; and he called his son Joseph, and said to him, If now I have found grace in your sight, put, I beg you, your hand under my thigh, and deal kindly and truly with me; bury me not, I beg you, in Egypt;
Eliezer also speaks of G-d dealing dealing with Abraham through helping Eliezer in the mission to find a bride for Isaac in kindness and truth Chesed VeEmet.
"Instead of relying on translations, you should take a simple Hebrew grammar class and try to learn through more of the Tanach (without m'forshim... they'll only confuse you and slow you down. Opt for the Soncino translation if you need one, or the Army's ADI Tanach)."
A simple Hebrew grammar class? You really underestimate me. Of course I look at translations but I also at the original. Translations are helpful to be able to be figure out what the original is saying or to let you know you are not crazy and really have a good enough Pshat. But you want literalism. Ok here's a try. Chesed Kindness Ve and Emet truth Al don't Yaavucha foresake it. If it was really so independent of what you do it would have to show it more like by saying Lo rather than Al. Deuteronomy Chapter 31
1. And Moses went and spoke these words to all Israel.
2. And he said to them, I am one hundred and twenty years old this day; I can no more go out and come in; also the Lord has said to me, You shall not go over this Jordan.
3. The Lord your God, he will go over before you, and he will destroy these nations from before you, and you shall possess them; and Joshua, he shall go over before you, as the Lord has said.
4. And the Lord shall do to them as he did to Sihon and to Og, kings of the Amorites, and to the land of them, whom he destroyed.
5. And the Lord shall give them up before your face, that you may do to them according to all the commandments which I have commanded you.
6. Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them; for the Lord your God, he goes with you; he will not fail you, LO YAAZVEKA nor forsake you.
It can be translated as truth and kindness will not leave you or that you shouldn't leave it as you are anyhow going to be wrapping them around you. The commentaries I saw support me. The Christian Good News Bible which doesn't give a hoot about loyalty to the Masoretic Text also makes it that whatever is mentioned in the verse has to be wrapped around you. They may not mean much to you but they give support. Afterall you rely on commentary from the army's Tanach when it suits you including from the Rashbam although I think IIRC they only get metaphorical about it saying binding in that posuk and not as a whole.
"If you are right then on the contrary I am even more supported in that it would mean writing commandments and wearing them is seen in this verse directly commanded."
Only if you wear your t'fillin around your neck."
No it would be a support.
Whoops Al Yaazvucha not Al Yaavucha.
RG,
Conjugation of Ya'azvucha:
Root = AZV
person = third person plural
tense = future (imperfect)
This gives "ya'azvu" = they will forsake.
ya'azvucha = ya'azvu otcha = they will forsake you
al ya'azvucha = they will not forsake you
Your preferred translation, "do not forsake them," would be rendered "al ta'azov." That's the imperative, second person, singular. Quite different and completely incompatible with the Hebrew text.
Tzai ul'mad.
HH,
I agree, but I think its much more the fault of codifying of the Talmud and SA than it is the Torah.
That's definitely part of it. Codification was forbidden for a reason, but once they let the genie out of the bottle, it went crazy.
Another thing (a pet peeve of mine) is that OJ rabbis are ordained without having to demonstrate any proper knowledge of Tanach or the Talmud. All they need to know is (part of) SA. So they are never forced to grapple with the historical development of Jewish tradition.
Another thing (a pet peeve of mine) is that OJ rabbis are ordained without having to demonstrate any proper knowledge of Tanach or the Talmud. All they need to know is (part of) SA. So they are never forced to grapple with the historical development of Jewish tradition.
When I was frum this drove me MAD! It helped me let go easier though. There were so few Rabbis (maybe two) that I had any respect for. In fact, I was more fluent in Tanakh and shas then most of my Rabbis and I was only in learning for a short period of time. One Rabbi I knew actually knows shas and poskim damn well. I still think he is a pretty awesome Rabbi in that respect. One other Rabbi I knew was very fluent in Tanakh (though pretty clueless to academia's view) and knew about 75% of shas very well.
However, 99% of "Rabbis" don't even know their own literature from their own perspective. Rashi said in the second perek of Makot (around daf yod) that the only type of person that should be eligible to teach is someone who is baki in Tanakh, Mishna, and Gemara. How can one call oneself an expert on Orthodox Judaism if you don't even know all Tanakh and Shas and Poskim?!
Jameel at the Muqata just put up a post showing the samaritans and their doorpost inscription. Coincidence?
"The Candy Man said...
RG,
Conjugation of Ya'azvucha:
Root = AZV
person = third person plural
tense = future (imperfect)
This gives "ya'azvu" = they will forsake.
ya'azvucha = ya'azvu otcha = they will forsake you
al ya'azvucha = they will not forsake you
Your preferred translation, "do not forsake them," would be rendered "al ta'azov." That's the imperative, second person, singular. Quite different and completely incompatible with the Hebrew text.
Tzai ul'mad."
CandyMan I said it can be translated in more than one way. But it's irrelevant to the meaning. The meaning is the same and it is referring to holding unto truth and kindness. If they are held on by you they will not leave you and you are being told to bind them to you.
"In fact, I was more fluent in Tanakh and shas then most of my Rabbis and I was only in learning for a short period of time."
What kind of Rabbis did you know. I doubt you could have aquired so much Shas and Tanach in so short a period so to know even less is amazing to hear of them.
RG,
The meaning is the same and it is referring to holding unto truth and kindness.
No, the meaning changes depending on how you read it. I read it as a reward. You and JPS read it as an injunction.
You should also not poo-poo grammar. It's where understanding begins.
Fedup,
When I was frum this drove me MAD! ... 99% of "Rabbis" don't even know their own literature from their own perspective.
Nice to hear that I'm not the only one bothered by this.
kvetcher,
Jameel at the Muqata just put up a post showing the samaritans and their doorpost inscription.
Remarkable.
Why are Samaritans excluded from the rest of Judaism, exactly? I think their stuff looks beautiful.
"kvetcher,
Jameel at the Muqata just put up a post showing the samaritans and their doorpost inscription.
Remarkable.
Why are Samaritans excluded from the rest of Judaism, exactly? I think their stuff looks beautiful."
They reject Judaism.
" The Candy Man said...
RG,
The meaning is the same and it is referring to holding unto truth and kindness.
No, the meaning changes depending on how you read it. I read it as a reward. You and JPS read it as an injunction."
I wasn't poo pooing anything. CandyMan there's more than one way to read something. But in any event your reading just doesn't hold up grammatically. It's a reward and an injunction but in any event kindness and truth are what is being said to need to be wrapped around you grammatically.
But in any event your reading just doesn't hold up grammatically. It's a reward and an injunction but in any event kindness and truth are what is being said to need to be wrapped around you grammatically.
No. The thing you're supposed to wrap around your neck is the commandments, not "chesed v'emet." It's just as I originally quoted:
"My son, remember my teaching, and let your heart guard my commandments.... tie them around your neck; write them on the slate of your heart." (Proverbs 3:1-4)
The format of the section forms a kind of chiastic structure:
A = injunction
B = reward
B = reward
A = injunction
In my quote, I just took out the part that describes the reward.
These structures are common in the Hebrew Bible. Nechama Leibovitz and Ahron Lichtenstein are the experts, if memory serves.
Well I haven't seen any evidence of anyone saying like you. I can only say I came up with my Pshat and instead of seeing contrary oppion only saw it upheld.
Well CandyMan the price you'll pay for your exegis in the debate on metaphor versus the literal is that you won't be able to simply pit verse against verse and charge us with kvetching harmony in response to you. As we'll say oh yeah remember your Pshatim. Your entitled to your supposedly Poshut Pshat but it is not what I would have come up with if I would do as you charged me to do namely just look at the wording as is.
I should have said Menachem Liebtag above, instead of Ahron Lichtenstein. The latter is not really a Tanach person.
Hey Candy Man,
Thanks for your recent comment at Unkosher Jesus, much appreciated. I really liked this post. Your epiphany was great, spot-on for that moment. A Romanian friend once made a similar observation about me and a young woman I was constantly arguing with: No one argues harder than the one he is in love with, or some such.
I'll keep posting stuff that helps clear the air about Sen. Obama, when I have the time. Harder these days to get a free moment. Did you make it over to Tikkun? Please keep checking in to Unkosher Jesus. Here are a handful of posts you might find interesting:
Jesus Christ, the nice Jewish boy your mother never told you about (http://www.unkosherjesus.com/2007/04/jesus-christ-nice-jewish-boy-your.html)
Save us from the return of the Latin Mass (http://www.unkosherjesus.com/2007/05/ostende-nobis-domine-misericordiam-tuam.html)
Womenpriests, ecumenism and the Catholic Church: The grace to admit when you're wrong (http://www.unkosherjesus.com/2007/11/womenpriests-ecumenism-and-catholic.html)
Arthur Blecher and the New American Judaism (http://www.unkosherjesus.com/2007/12/arthur-blecher-and-new-american-judaism.html)
Peace,
Unkosher Jesus
Post a Comment