Hebrew texts and interpretations
This blog is designed to look at Hebrew and Aramaic texts and view their interpretations both from my personal opinion and from Jewish Tradition.
Monday, October 20, 2014
Why Do Counter-Missionaries keep coming back to me for validation?
Sunday, September 21, 2014
The usage of למו in Isaiah 53:8. Is it singular or is it plural?
Isaiah 44:15(MT)
וְהָיָה לְאָדָם לְבָעֵר, וַיִּקַּח מֵהֶם וַיָּחָם אַף-יַשִּׂיק וְאָפָה לָחֶם אַף-יִפְעַל-אֵל וַיִּשְׁתָּחוּ עָשָׂהוּ פֶסֶל וַיִּסְגָּד-לָמוֹ.
Let’s take a moment to examine the phrase in question and see what it actually reads. If I were reading this verse I would translate the phrase in question as “he that fashions a god and worships it, he that makes a graven image and bows down to it.” It is significant that I back this view up because if you ask a CM how they would translate the verse they will take the word לָמו as if it were referring back to both the “god” and the “idol” or to “Idols” and pluralize it while saying “see it is plural after all. Honestly, as a Jew who studies Hebrew Grammar, I don’t feel that that is quite 100% accurate but I do admit it is possible to read it as the CM’s are reading it.
Why I think לָמו reads as singular in Isaiah 44:15:
The first argument I encountered was that פֶסֶל should be considered a compound singular meaning that it can be singular but intend a plurality much like the Hebrew word עַם "people” functions as in Hebrew. The problem with this view is that it the primary usage of the word doesn’t have this compound singular reading. In fact, this word has verifiable usages of the plural to represent the plural in a number of cases such as Deuteronomy 7:5, 25; 2 Chronicles 33:19, 34:7; 2 Kings 17:41 and so on[i].
למו. כמו לו או כמשמעו (להם), ופי' לפסילים אף על פי שלא זכר אלא אחד רבים הם:
למו Lamo: Like “To him לו” or literally such (some versions read “literally to them”)[ii], The interpretation is “idols פסילים” even though it is only mentioned in the singular, it is plural in reference.
The RaDaK knew exactly what was going on here and to rightly say that in this case Lamo למו is equivalent to “לו.” His sticking point is the interpretation and the lack of using P’silim פסילים with a prepositionל that has a seemingly plural suffixםו which is why he said what he did at the end of this comment.
You also have to contend with the Targum's view and translation of this verse and how it views the reference as singular as well.
Targum Yonatan to Isaiah 44:15:
וֶהֱוֵי לֶאֱנָשָׁא לְאַדְלָקָא וּנְסֵיב מִנְהוֹן וּשְׁחֵין אַף אֲזָא וְאָפָא לְחֵם אַף עָבְדֵהּ דַחֲלָא וּסְגֵיד אִתְּכֵהּ צַלְמָא וּבְעָא מִנֵהּ
The last little part in question of 44:15 in the targum translates as "He makes an idol god and worships it, he forms/casts an image and beseeches from it" The preposition מִנֵהּ has a third person singular suffix ה attached to the preposition מן meaning "From Him/It." This tells us the Targumist saw this as a singular reference when he wrote the Targum.
In my opinion, I would translate Isaiah 44:15 as singular. Evidence from Chazal can lead us to either path of reading whether Singular or plural based on the Commentators and the view of the Targum.[iii]
Is לָמו in Isaiah 53:8 plural or singular?:
Monday, June 16, 2014
Do I follow The Mishneh Torah Alone?
To date I have had several debates on whether I follow the Mishneh Torah alone and what I do with “electricity” and “driving a car” on Shabbat and many others.
Let me go ahead and state perfectly clearly that I primarily rely on the Mishneh Torah for matters of Halachah but not solely.There isn’t a Jew alive that relies solely on one code of Jewish law but rather they consult several in order to properly perform the law itself. The reason is that I use it as my primary source is because it is the only 100% complete codification of Jewish law that we have that is minus the commentary of later Rabbis who give opinions and insert their later minhagim into the commentary as if it is part of halachah itself. The Shulchan Aruch, largely, avoids this as well and is a valid code to follow but, it is incomplete and primarily follows the Rambam’s understanding anyway.
If there is a deficiency in the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, I do go to the Shulchan Aruch and several other codes for understanding and I ignore the Kabbalaistic leaning aspects of it. There is nothing in halacha that says I have to accept or follow kabbalah! If there is I would love for someone to show me the source text.
Electricity:
The question comes as to what I do with electricity on Shabbat?
This is touchy because in order to forbid the use of electricity it would take an act of the full Sanhedrin in order to forbid its usage on Shabbat because it does not have the properties of Fire and would not be considered kindling a flame or any otherMelacha. My attitude is that being unsure doesn’t mean we should just go all out and do whatever with electricity on Shabbat. The best explanation I have found and is very plausible is found at http://www.chayas.com/electr.htm which states as I have stated above and leave it to when a valid Sanhedrin is established to rule on the matter make the determination with the rule and authority of halacha.
Driving a Car on Shabbat:
Do I drive on Shabbat….NO! the internal combustion engine does kindle a flame and you would be liable. Enough said!
Sunday, May 25, 2014
What I have learned debating and discussing issues with counter-missionaries.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Original intent vs. Today!
Sunday, March 2, 2014
To settle the score!
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.
|
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.