Online Text of Milchmot HaShem by Rabbi Yichyah Qafich

This Text is almost a necessity to read for any Talmidei HaRambam (Student of Maimonides/Follower of Maimonides) who has strong feelings against Kabbalah and its teachings. This text written by Rabbi Yichyah Qafich (Teimani Rabbi) really rails hard against Kabbalah and its followers explaining how they are Idolaters for following Kabbalah, its associated texts, and that their Rabbis are not to be considered anyone of authority because this Mysticism as corrupted their judgment in matters of Halacha. I have a strong opinion about Kabbalah, The Zohar, and Sefer HaBahir. This text will explain, to a degree, why I am a Talmidei HaRambam.

The Hebrew text is linked below. Read and Enjoy!

http://www.chayas.com/milhamoth.htm

Moshe Shulman's claim that George Howard Retracted his claims on the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew

***Disclaimer: I am not a messianic or a christian! I do not hold this work as inspired of any sorts. I simply did a linguistic study on this work in College so this is purely professional in nature******


Not to long ago Moshe Shulman, Famous counter-missionary, made the claim that Professor George Howard, author of "The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" had retracted many of his claims about the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew because of an article by William L. Petersen that criticised Professor Howards claims on the Hebrew gospel of Matthew. I have read both articles and it is not hard to conclude that George Howard, in his response, conceded very few points made by Petersen. Howard criticises Petersen, and rightly so, for having remedial knowledge of Medieval Hebrew and his archaic renderings showing such knowledge. I find it amusing that such bold claims can be made by Moshe Shulman about George Howard and the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew when there is clear evidence in Howards response that he did not concede as many points as was alleged.

Petersens Critique: http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Petersen1998a.html

Howards Response: http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v04/Howard1999.html

Read and see for yourself if Howard really conceded anything. As far as I can tell he kept to his claims.

Shalom,

Yosef Menachem

Is Kitniyot permitted on Pesach?

Is Kitniyot permitted on Pesach?

This has been a very big debate in the Jewish community for many centuries. The Ashkenazim tend to say no and follow the Shulchan Arcuh HaRav which prohibits the consumption of Kitniyot. For the Sefardim and the Mizrachi Jews they follow the Shulchan Aruch, OC 453:1 and thus allow the consumption of kitniyot. There are those of us who do not follow either compositions of Jewish Law. Some of us follow the Mishneh Torah as laid out by the Rambam. Below is what The Rambam wrote in Sefer Chametz U’Matzah regarding the permission of Kitniyot.

Sefer Chametz U’Matzah 5:1

The prohibition against chametz applies only to the five species of grain. They include two species of wheat: wheat and rye; and three species of barley: barley, oats, and spelt. However, kitniyot - e.g., rice, millet, beans, lentils and the like - do not become leavened. Even if one kneads rice flour or the like with boiling water and covers it with fabric until it rises like dough that has become leavened, it is permitted to be eaten. This is not leavening, but rather the decay [of the flour].

א. אין אסור משום חמץ בפסח אלא חמשת מיני דגן בלבד. והם שני מיני חטים שהן החטה והכוסמת. ושלשה מיני השעורים שהן השעורה ושבולת שועל והשיפון. אבל הקטניות כגון אורז ודוחן ופולים ועדשים וכיוצא בהן אין בהן משום חמץ אלא אפילו לש קמח אורז וכיוצא בו ברותחין וכסהו בבגדים עד שנתפח כמו בצק שהחמיץ הרי זה מותר באכילה שאין זה חמוץ אלא סרחון:

The next issue that comes into play from the opposing side is that “you are obligated to follow the minhag of the community in which you reside!” For those of us who chose to become Talmidei HaRambam this becomes a problem to those who do not understand why we have chosen this path. You want to remind them that even the writer of the Shulchan Aruch said in Aovkat Rochel “that those who wish to follow the rulings of the Rambam, should continue following them, even if they are the minority in the congregation (i.e. the community) [text in Hebrew and citation to follow later].”

Conclusion:

Pay attention to the words of the Acharonim, but read carefully the words of the Rishonim! The words of an Acharon can not cancel or negate the words of a Rishon! So, my advice is to be very careful when disagreeing with your Rabbi on this point. You have to handle things very carefully if you take the route of a Rationalistic Talmidei HaRambam and still be an active member of the Kabalistic Jewish community.

Hold your Kitniyot up high, and chow down on Pesach!

Shalom,

Yosef Menachem

Uri's response to my blog post on the Aramaic Targumim and the word בר with my response to Uri!

Below is the response I received from UriYosef in regards to my blog post on the Aramaic Targumim and the meaning of the word בר in Aramaic. The below response tells me several things about where he is going with his line of reasoning.

1. That he is unwilling to take a serious look at the Aramaic Language as we have it. He is only willing to take a narrowed scope of the language and claim "This is it!" and no other views in the Aramaic are valid regardless of the implications contrary to his claims.

2. While I admit that he did not use "midrashic" in association with the Targumim in his article, this was claimed about Uri by the person conveying this blog to Uri. That is where I received the idea that Uri said that the Targumim conveyed midrashic interpretations.

3. That Uri does not want to discuss the natural progression of language as it is associated with word meaning over time. This is in spite of the fact that Uri, fluent in Modern Hebrew, assumes that this natural progression of the Hebrew language maintained the original meaning of Ancient Hebrew words and that he can read the Hebrew Bible based on this assumption. Double Standards are amazing!

4. The unmade claim on Uri's part is that only biblical Aramaic gets the term בר correct in its intent in meaning and others need not apply. The problem is that the textual vocabulary of the Aramaic portions of the hebrew bible are extremely limited and only literary. Uri builds a case from lack of contrary evidence to deduce that "Since the Bible doesnt use בר in the way of meaning "a son" then it must not mean that at all. This is a Fallacy of Silence and of Narrowing the field.

5. He did not address anything I said about the term בר in its usage in the Aramaic Language which shows contrary usage. Uri's only response was to return to his narrow playing field of limited Aramaic vocabulary in the Hebrew bible.

6. The best thing for Uri to do is save his ridicule for when honesty can come before pride. Uri must assume I spent "a lot" of time on my blog post.


Here is my message to Uri:

I did that post in 20 Minutes at 2:30AM. I got the exact response I expected from you! I dispelled the idea that בר is not a stand alone noun meaning "a son" by looking at the Aramaic language, for which you had no answer. I called out your narrowing of the field and argument from silence! Real, earnest, scholarship has to take into account all evidence for and against an argument.   I did this in 20 minutes at 2:30AM having to work the next day at 6:00AM. Imagine what a serious blog post would look like with time and devotion put into it.

You cited in your article all of these instances of the usage of בר in the text but can you show me a place in the Hebrew bible where your claimed root "בְּרָא" is used as simply "a son" in the Aramaic portions of the Hebrew bible? You neglected to cite that in your article and I am curious. Also, did it ever occur to you, Uri, that this term,בְּרָא , can be and usually is, the definite form of the word? In Aramaic the definite form takes an א suffix to denote the definite. Take Ezekiel 18:19 and look at the Targum Yonatan and its usage.

Ezekiel 18:19 (Targum Yonatan)

וַאֲמַרתֻון ותימרון מָדֵין לָא לָקֵי בְרָא בְחוֹבֵי אַבָא וֻברָא דִין דִקשוֹט וְזָכֻו עֲבַד יָת כָל קְיָמַי נְטַר וַעֲבַד יָתְהוֹן מֵיחָא יֵיחֵי׃

Both of these are used for corresponding nouns in the Hebrew. Both words have the definite article in the Hebrew text of Ezekiel 18:19 being הַבֵּן.

At this stage, I do not see even a remote response to these claims perhaps Uri would like to elaborate on some other issues I am taking with him.


At this stage of his article I see two issues with what he wrote:

1.  I never referred to the Targum as Midrashic in my article.  At the bottom of Page 8 I have the following:

The Targum Yonatan, an ancient interpretive translation into the Aramaic vernacular of the
Hebrew Bible, has קָ בִּ ילוּ אוּלְפָנָא (qaBIlu ulfaNA), accept the Law.

2.  The Aramaic of the Targumim came long after the Hebrew Bible was written, so it is a rather weak argument to support his claim by comparing the older Aramaic used in the Hebrew Bible with the more "modern" Aramaic employed in the Targumim.

If this is his idea of scholarship, then he is deluding himself.  We'll see what other sort of misrepresentations he uses when he finishes it.

Uri

The Aramaic Targums: Translation, Interpretation, and Paraphrase.

The Aramaic Targums: Translation, Interpretation, and Paraphrase.

There are some out there who simply do not quite understand what the Aramaic Targumim are and what is included in their text. The Verb לתרגם  means "to translate" in Hebrew. In some cases it can actually mean "To paraphrase" for the purpose of interpretation. From this verb comes the noun תרגום "translation" and מתרגם "Translator." This seems simple enough when looking simply at what the word means, but when we get to the actual Aramaic Targum we can see that this word can encompass more than we originally thought.

Certain people out in the counter-missionary world state that Aramaic Targumim are simply Midrashic interpretations of the actual biblical text. In a recent argument concerning the translation of the Aramaic word  בר "son/son of" I came across a rather sad line of argumentation. I will cite and reference an article by counter-missionary author UriYosef and discuss why I disagree with his analysis that only ברא means "a son" and  בר does not have that meaning.

Uri's Claim:

http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Psa2.pdf

VI. AN EXCURSION INTO THE ARAMAIC DOMAIN

As was noted in Section IV, the common Aramaic noun for son is בְּרָא , not .בָּר

Several applications of the Aramaic term בַּר are present throughout the Aramaic

portions of the Hebrew Bible, and these are shown in Table VI-1.

 

As is evident from Table VI-1, all (undisputed) applications of the Aramaic noun בַּר

in the Hebrew Bible show that the term is used in the possessive construct, son

of…, not as a free standing noun combined with the definite article, the son.

**(Note: I was unable to get the table fully imported due to formatting. I will fix this in the future, but for the time being, go to the link above and scroll down to the section noted for the table. please feel free to read Uri's article to see if I accurately represented his position.)**

Uri's Problem:

The first and foremost problem is that Uri limits his own playing field by claiming that "In the Hebrew Bible" not "in the Aramaic Language." This is a serious fallacious problem in that it takes only a narrow selection of the Aramaic language and does not fully encompass works written in Aramaic. I'm going to give at least two examples from the Aramaic Targumim that shows that בר can and does in fact mean "a son."  Going into great detail about grammar is not necessary since this is not a linguistic analysis but simply a assertion of meaning in the Aramaic language.

Genesis 30:5 (Targum Onkelos)

וְעַדִּיאַת בִּלְהָה וִילִידַת לְיַעֲקֹב בָּר: 

Translation:

"And Bilhah conceived and bore Jacob a son."

Isaiah 9:5 (Targum Yonatan)

אַמַר נְבִיָא לְבֵית דָוִד אֲרֵי רָבֵי אִיתְיְלִיד לָנָא בַּר אִתְיְהַב לָנָא וְקַבֵּל אוֹרַיְתָא עֲלוֹהִי לְמַטְרָהּ וְאִתְקְרֵי שְמֵיהּ מִן קַדָם מַפְלִיא עֵצָה אֳלָהָא גִבָּרָא קַיָם לְעַלְמַיָא מְשִיחָא דִשְלָמָא יַסְגֵי עֲלָנָא בְּיוֹמוֹהִי

Translation:

"The Prophet said to the House of David, For a Child was born to us, to us a son was given; and he will accept the Torah upon himself to observe it, and his name shall be called before the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty G-d, who exists forever, "The anointed one in who's days peace will increase upon us."

I am by no means a rocket scientist but I think we can see plainly how בר is being used in each of these passages and what it clearly means.

The Claim of the targums being midrashic:

Uri has made the claim that these targumim are making midrashic interpretations of the text and that they are not actually translating anything in the text. Let's look at both the Hebrew and Aramaic text of each and let's see if we can determine what is in fact translation, paraphrase, and interpretation.

Isaiah 9:5:

The Hebrew reads:

 כִּי-יֶלֶד יֻלַּד-לָנוּ בֵּן נִתַּן-לָנוּ וַתְּהִי הַמִּשְׂרָה עַל-שִׁכְמוֹ וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּלֶא יוֹעֵץ אֵל גִּבּוֹר אֲבִי-עַד שַׂר-שָׁלוֹם: 

Translation:

For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; and the government is upon his shoulders and his name was called wonderful counselor, mighty G-d, eternal father, a peaceful ruler. Targum Yonatan:

אַמַר נְבִיָא לְבֵית דָוִד אֲרֵי רָבֵי אִיתְיְלִיד לָנָא בַּר אִתְיְהַב לָנָא וְקַבֵּל אוֹרַיְתָא עֲלוֹהִי לְמַטְרָהּ וְאִתְקְרֵי שְמֵיהּ מִן קַדָם מַפְלִיא עֵצָה אֳלָהָא גִבָּרָא קַיָם לְעַלְמַיָא מְשִיחָא דִשְלָמָא יַסְגֵי עֲלָנָא בְּיוֹמוֹהִי

Translation:
 

"The Prophet said to the House of David, For a Child was born to us, to us a son was given; and he will accept the Torah upon himself to observe it, and his name shall be called before the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty G-d, who exists forever, "The anointed one in who's days peace will increase upon us."

Highlighted red are what we can consider to be paraphrasic and or interpretations within the text of Targum Yonatan to Isaiah 9:5 due to the fact that there is no correspondence with the Hebrew text. The remaining which remained black are what can be considered a translation in the real sense of the word in that it contains no exegetical glosses or paraphrasing of the text. To translate the remaining part of the Targum that is not paraphrasic or exegetical we have: "For a Child has been born to us, a son is given to us......His name shall be called.....wonderful counselor, the mighty G-d....."

Genesis 30:5 (Hebrew):

וַתַּהַר בִּלְהָה וַתֵּלֶד לְיַעֲקֹב בֵּן: 

Translation:

"And Bilhah conceived and bore Jacob a son"

Genesis 30:5 (Targum Onkelos):

וְעַדִּיאַת בִּלְהָה וִילִידַת לְיַעֲקֹב בָּר: 

Translation:

"And Bilhah conceived and bore Jacob a son"

The Targum Onkelos seems to exhibit zero paraphrase or interpretation of the verse in question. So there is no need to go into specifics here. 

Conclusion:

Based on the evidence above we can see two things very clearly. One, that בר does indeed mean "a son" in the Aramaic Language as opposed to the claim made by UriYosef that it does not. Second, We can see that the Aramaic Targumim, while it can and does contain paraphrasic and exegetical readings, it does contain actual translation of the text which is also evidenced above. Now, it is up to you to decide on what is truth!

Shalom,

Yosef Menachem

Different sources of Isaiah 9:5[6] DSS, MT and Aramaic Targum withshort analysis of the differences

Isaiah 9:5[6]in the DSS, MT and the Targum Yonatan

By: Yosef Menachem

The Hebrew reads:
כִּי-יֶלֶד יֻלַד-לָנוּ בֵּן נִתַּן-לָנוּ וַתְּהִי הַמִּשְרָה עַל-שִכְמוֹ וַיִּקְרָא שְמוֹ פֶּלֶא יּוֹעֵץ אֵל גִּבּוֹר אֲבִיעַד שַר-שָלוֹם

Translation:
Isaiah 9:5. For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; and the government is upon his shoulders and his name was called wonderful counselor, mighty G-d, eternal father, a peaceful ruler.

Targum Yonatan:

אַמַר נְבִיָא לְבֵית דָוִד אֲרֵי רָבֵי אִיתְיְלִיד לָנָא בַּר אִתְיְהַב לָנָא וְקַבֵּל אוֹרַיְתָא עֲלוֹהִי לְמַטְרָהּ וְאִתְקְרֵי שְמֵיהּ מִן קַדָם מַפְלִיא עֵצָה אֳלָהָא גִבָּרָא קַיָם לְעַלְמַיָא מְשִיחָא דִשְלָמָא יַסְגֵי עֲלָנָא בְּיוֹמוֹהִי

Translation:
The Prophet said to the House of David, For a Child is born to us, to us a son is given; and he will accept the Torah upon himself to observe it, and his name shall be called before the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty G-d, who exists forever, "The anointed one in who's days peace will increase upon us."

Great Isaiah Scroll(1QIsa):

כִי יֶלֶד יוּלַד לָנוּ בֵּן נִתַּן לָנוּ וַתְּיִי הַמִּשְׂוּרָה עַל שִכְמוֹ וְקָרָא שְמוֹ פֶלֶא יּוֹעֵצ אֵל גִבּוֹר אֲבִי עַד שַר הַשָלוֹם

Translation:

For a child has been born to us, a son is given to us. The government is upon his shoulders. His name will be called wonderful couselor, Mighty G-d, eternal father, the peaceful ruler.

The differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls version and the Masoretic text are apparent. The orthographical ones we can overlook as most likely the DSS preserving an ancient vocalization of הַמִּשְׂוּרָה versus that of הַמִּשְרָה andוַתְּהִי and וַתְּיִי in the Masoretic text versus the DSS respectively. My focus now would like to turn to a “tense” change between perfect and imperfect with a consecutive Vav. The Masoretic text displays what could arguably be a past tense reading with וַיִּקְרָא "he was called” but the DSS says וְקָרָא "he will be called.” also note that the Masoretic text does not separate the words אֲבִיעַד but the DSS does separate אֲבִי עַד. One last note to make is that final phrase. The DSS makes the phrase definite by saying שַר הַשָלוֹם "the peaceful ruler” while the Masoretic text does not. These is is the verse from three different sources at your fingertip hope it helps in your interpretation.

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