An open response to Moshe Shulman's letter to me and others.

Open Letter and response to Moshe Shulman

In many of these paltalk rooms there are a lot of activities that we see going on. A lot of conversing, a lot of arguing and a lot of name calling. The arguments go back and forth over who is right and who is wrong and what is true and what is not. We cannot simply call someone a liar just because we disagree or call them a heretic just because they cite a source that you reject for whatever reason. In this letter of my own I will address the concerns of Moshe Shulman directly and without restraint. I will surely be called many more names after this but this person should heed their own advice on Lashon Hara. From here on Moshe Shulman's own words will be in bold and italicized and I will respond below not in bold or italicized unless there is emphasis.

Before addressing what I want to here, let me restate again what I have said with regards to Psalm 2:12:

1. The translation kiss the Son is a distortion of the text, because of the ‘S’.
2. Even if one used ‘kiss the son’ it does not effect the arguments about Psalm 2 and what it means.
3. Ibn Ezra (and those who quote him) is alone in his view about Psalm 2:12.
4. It is not a distortion if Christians based on the Ibn Ezra say it means kiss the son (while for someone to claim to be Orthodox and maintain that view as being the correct one as opposed to and contrary to Rashi, Radak etc, is problematic.)
5. Ibn Ezra’s commentary is controversial.

While there has been a lot of smoke and screaming, shouting and private personal attacks, there is not one fact that has been brought that changes these facts.

This is Moshe Shulmans reiteration of the arguments on Psalm 2:12. I will address them in the numbered points below.

1. This is a good point to make. When I was in College we learned that all translations are at the mercy of the bias of the translator. But the capitalization is a blatant misrepresentation of the what the translation could be.
2. My response to this would be “so why pay so much attention to it then?” Why not just say “so What!” and move on? It does not prove the christian position anyway.
3. No he is not! Radak also translates נקשו as meaning “Kiss” what Radak does is take בר to be a proper noun and makes the translation “Kiss the pure one.” In a sense Radak agrees with Ibn Ezra on the issue of the translation of Nashku but not entirely on Bar. Radak does relate, as does Ibn Ezra, this to מלך המשיה “The King Messiah” so we do get agreement there as well.
4. For One, Radak helps Ibn Ezra and proposes an alternative still in line with Ibn Ezra's reading. Second, Rashi is not the only Gadol HaDor to consult on the matters of Biblical Interpretation. We also have Maimonides, Nachmanides, Rashbam, Metzudat David, and others. So do not claim a monopoly when there clearly is not one. And not all of the Rishonim agree on every issue either.
5. It is controversial only when theologically inconvenient. Your citation of the Yam Shel Shlomo, does not invalidate the words of Ibn Ezra and it would be insulting to Ibn Ezra to say his words are not true since he was a Gadol Hador!

I wish to turn my attention to the true purpose of this message. The commentaries tell us that an Apikorus is someone who insults Torah scholars, and unfortunately I have seen much of that by people who claim to be Orthodox here, and I feel a need to address this. There is nothing I have said with regards to Ibn Ezra which was not directly from the works of our gadolim. Those who doubt it might want to look at the entry on the Ibn Ezra in the Chida’s Shem HaGadolim. He states there that the ‘objectionable’ portions were not written by the Ibn Ezra. This means that some are of the opinion that what appears in his commentary is not even his own words. There is more there, but I think the point is clear. There is controversy and I said nothing that was my own opinion. I have none, nor do I feel I have a right to one.

Of course now lets get to the real message. You say that “the commentaries say that an Apikoros is one who insults Torah Scholars” The problem Moshe is that I have not insulted one Torah scholar in my entire life. And for you to Insult the Gadol HaDor Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra would place you in that category you are trying to place me. So you are in essence being the pot calling the kettle black. My solution is much simpler and the truth. I accepted the position of one Gadol HaDor over a much later Gadol HaDor. That does not make me an Apikoros, it makes you a bully. You said “that some are of the opinion that what appears in his commentary is not even his own words.” The operative key word to your comment about Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra's words is the word “SOME” meaning there is a lack of uniformity and some disagree with that statement altogether. So with that said the only controversy is in your own head and in the minds of “countermissionaries,” not with the words of Ibn Ezra.

He also wrote a sefer on Ibn Ezra’s commentary in addition to Yam Shel Shlomoh. His commentary Chochmas Shlomo which appears in every printing of the talmud.

There are few gadolim that can be mentioned who are greater then he is. To insult someone who quotes him, or relies on his view, is to attack this Gadol himself and that person would be an Apikorus.

I can name quite a Few Gedolim that are, closer to the source, and just as qualified to be quoted. The problem with your comments, Moshe, is that it is Lashon Hara and I never insulted a person who quotes him nor any other Gadol. What I did do was disagree and choose another Gadol haDor to agree with. That does not make one an Apikoros it makes the person objective and well within the Jewish mainstream.

With regards to the commentaries of Rashi, Ibn Ezra or Radak, I tried to make a point but I am not sure it was understood so I will state it again. To intimate that either of these men when writing their commentaries did not 100% write what they believed to be the true pshat, based on language, grammar and context, is guilty of insulting a Talmud Chocham.

I never stated otherwise about this. My comments regarding the relationship of Midrash and Peshat, how they were not distinguishable from one another. Both were "the opinions of the Teacher or Midrashist and were accepted as authoritative by a long tradition and by the person giving and his audience" are 100%validated by this statement from you. To Insult me by saying you have a few choice words for me on this takes Chutzpah! I have never Insults a Chakam in fact I did them justice by stating what you did just a little bit better.

When Ibn Ezra states a view that shows he is in disagreement with the understanding of Rashi and the Targum, it is because HE believed that to be the truth, and not that Rashi or the Targum were being less then 100% honest. One who says such a thing is outside of Orthodox Judaism. It is one thing to relate that one Gadol had a negative view about a second one, it is another one to impugn something negative about a Gadol oneself.

You seek to Insult Ibn Ezra by saying he is wrong but when someones sides with Ibn Ezra they are wrong. Who exactly is insulting a Gadol? I never said Rashi and others were wrong I simply stated what Ibn Ezra thought and that it is a grammatical possibility and then you call me an Apikoros. YOU stated that Ibn Ezra was wrong so it is not I who insulted a Gadol. You did!

One last point that I would like to make here, there are some who set themselves up as teachers of ‘Judaism’ who are not qualified or who misrepresent things. I long ago learned that the Internet has no way of policing such matters, however to those who claim to be Orthodox I would like to give this advice. The MaRShaL in Yam Shel Shlomo states that his judgment of Ibn Ezra is confirmed because what he writes is being used to support heretics and those of weak faith. Is what you are saying being used to support Judaism, or is it being used by heretics against Judaism? If the later maybe you need to consider if you are capable of relating the truth of Judaism correctly.

I never set myself up to be a teacher of Judaism I only respond to questions that I have an answer for. I always tell those interested in Judaism to seek their LOR(Local Orthodox Rabbi) on Halachic issues. Issues of simple translation of which I have extensive knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic and some others I will offer my insight and a translation along with two other possible translations.

As we have learned from recent developments that the Yam Shel Shlomo is not as binding as you think it is, Moshe. A certain other Rabbi disagreed with you and your assessment of that important work. Just because a commentator uses words or makes a comment that is theologically inconvenient to the countermissionary cause does not make his words any less true than that of Rashi or the Targum. Such a person who would insult a Gadol HaDor would be an Apikoros as you made loud and clear in your opening comments.

To close I would like to say that in many ways these “countermissionaries” have gone beyond the pale of “Normative Orthodox Judaism.” their ideas and use of commentators are on a "a la carte" basis and serve only to do an injustice. When a commentator make a theologically inconvenient comment he is said to be wrong and then thrown out. Orthodox Judaism sees all of the words of the Gadolim to be TRUE! Any comment other than that makes the person an instant apikoros because not only has this person insulted the Gadol HaDor himself but the thousands of years of tradition behind that Gadol. I hope that some will come to their senses and stop the Lashon Hara and stop the dishonest approaches to Torah!

יוסף מנחם