Original intent vs. Today!

This blog was originally intended to go over textual matters with interpretation of those issues. Since then this blog has evolved to something much more! It has now become my personal venting are over frustrations when dealing with those who call themselves counter-missionaries! I feel constantly under attack with this blog serving as my rant area!

So starting today this blog is dedicated to my rants and matters relating to Hebrew/Aramaic texts and their interpretations.

Shalom, 

Yosef Menachem

To settle the score!

In an attempt to settle the matter with “rabbi” Moshe Shulman on whether I am a genuine Apikoros אפיקורוס or whether he is simply huffing and puffing his bully tactics I am going to go ahead and throw this out there and put forth his argument and my response and leave it at that.

First and foremost “rabbi” Moshe Shulman of www.judaismsanswer.com is NOT a Rabbi. He was once a Rebbe at a Chassidic Yeshiva but nothing more. Now that that is in the open lets discuss what he is claiming.

Claim:

“If you insult a counter-missionary (from this point on “CM”) that quotes Rashi then you are insulting Rashi himself.”

This in and of itself is an argument by extension and is not exactly truthful about what I said or about how a disagreement takes place. First and foremost I never said Rashi was incorrect in any understanding of any particular verse. I stated the person making a claim about the verse is not 100% correct about a verse because there are other opinions and factors to consider within Chazal. At this point I quoted another Rishon and the Targum Yonatan to explain what I meant by other factors. I never said anything about Rashi being wrong nor did I hint it. If I had wanted that to be said I would have directly said it but, I would never say that because I’m a good Jew!

The idea that someone like Moshe Shulman would go after me with this particular nonsense reeks of desperation. Think about this, all I basically said was:

Person X is not 100% correct because of factors B and C which show a slightly different light on subject Z illuminated by factor A. While Factors A, B, and C are all 100% true, person X’s understanding is not 100% accurate. So, we must find out why A, B, and C disagree and if there is a common understanding between them.

In essence this one person was showing one piece of a multi-piece puzzle and claiming the “Big picture” is complete. While it is true in Judaism that sometimes you only need one piece of a puzzle to see the big picture, most of the time you need more than just one piece to see it. Rashi saw the big picture and knew why he formulated his opinion in such a way. The common person citing Rashi should always give several opinions on the same subject and then state their support for Rashi for this reason or that over the others. Otherwise a person opens themselves up to broadsides from Chazal and other Mepharshim.

This is what I was doing with the word Lamo למו in Isaiah 44:15. I said the original poster is not 100% correct because of the Targum and Radak saying this. I went on to explain the Radak sees a grammatical and interpretational issue with the text. Radak highlights both but, accepts the interpretation over the grammatical issue. Radak doesn’t disagree with Rashi but, he does raise an important point about how certain words are functioning in the verse. The Targum on the other hand, shows a singular view of the word למו by using מנה “from it” which seems to go against the interpretation put forth by Rashi and Radak. All I did was say this and “rabbi” Moshe Shulman throws a fit and calls me an Apikoros.

Question of the day:

“Can one hold to one Rishon over another?”

Absolutely! There is nothing in Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism that states that you have to hold to one particular Rishon in regards to an interpretation of the biblical text so long as you maintain that view and don’t jump around for convenience. Most Orthodox Jews will defer to Rashi by default on the interpretation of the Biblical text but, there is nothing saying we have to strictly follow Rashi. 
There is a saying from the Talmud that says תרגום ואחד מקרא שנים in which many later commentators and legal codes such as the Shulchan Aruch, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, Tur, and others say that one can substitute Rashi for the Targum Onkelos or read both. OK, but does that say that we can’t hold to another Rishon for the interpretation of the biblical text? No, it does not! It gives prominence and priority for Rashi but, it does not make him the sole authority from which to read the biblical text.

Moral of the Story:

Mr. “rabbi” Moshe Shulman is a very learned bully and won’t hesitate to use it to get his way! If you dare to disagree you are called a heretic, evil, and a host of other names. Take my advice, if you are looking for genuine Countermissionaries who are also licensed counselors, go to Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal, Rabbi Eli Cohen, or Rabbi Michael Skobac. They are actual Countermissionaries and will not degrade you with name calling and bullying if there is a disagreement. The ones to stay away from are Uri Yosef, Moshe Shulman, Stan Levy (NEVERAGAIN1 on Paltalk), and the folks at Messiahtruthforums. Their only purpose is to argue and debate with Christians and not do actual Counter-missionary Work!