Clarifying my View on Psalm 2:12

Clarifying my View on Psalm 2:12

I am writing this to clarify my position on Psalm 2:12 and the phrase נַשְּׁקוּ-בַר in the Hebrew bible. There are some out there that just don’t quite get what I am saying and I think I know why. It is simply the lack of listening to what I am presenting.

Over and over I have consistently stated that the phrase itself is very difficult to determine a precise translation or even obtain a sense of the meaning of the phrase נַשְּׁקוּ-בַר. There have been many thorough attempts to define and translate this phrase to lay all doubts to rest, yet the more complex the explanations get, the less we really understand the phrase and its true definition. I will attempt to mend that misunderstanding of what I am trying to say when I state that “I feel the Ibn Ezra is correct.”

The Ibn Ezra makes a point in his commentary that he thinks that the “Kiss the son” translation is a possible translation of the phrase to bolster the claim he is making on his definition. He cites Proverbs 31:2 for the definition of Var/Bar “מַה-בְּרִי וּמַה-בַּר-בִּטְנִי וּמֶה בַּר-נְדָרָי" and relates it back to Psalm 2:7 for its usage of B’nei Atah בְּנִי אַתָּה.This is not at all improbable since Proverbs 31:2, despite the erroneous claims of some, is entirely Hebrew. I believe this is a genuine Northern Israelian Dialect of Hebrew reflecting close proximity to the Aramaic speaking world. more on this below!  

We also have the support of RaDaK, in his commentary, which affirms in many ways Ibn Ezra's rationale for his interpretation of נַשְּׁקוּ-בַר. Radak's adherence to the interpretation of Ibn Ezra on this phrase is interesting despite the fact that he is going into a long polemic and refutation of the Christian position that has arisen from the controversy of this particular verse. I have placed Radak’s full commentary in Hebrew below for reference.

I have decided to dedicate a whole section on the subject of why I feel that Proverbs 31:2-3 is completely in Hebrew of the Israelian dialect and not in Aramaic. In the case of Proverbs 31:2-3 consider the following as we discuss the matter of Hebrew vs. Aramaic. In Proverbs 31:2-3 we have the setting in which the Proverb is being given. It is being given by the mother of king Lemuel of Massa. Massa is considered by scholars to have been somewhere in the Syrian Desert. This would explain the number of Aramaisms being used here and the distinctively high number of Aramaic usages in the entire book of Proverbs well. 

In the text of Proverbs 31:2 we have the usage ofמֶה  before a nonlaryngeal consonant instead of the normativeמַה  as it is used all over the rest of the bible. Consider the rest of the usages in the Hebrew bible of מֶה  before a nonlaryngeal consonant in 1 Samuel 4:6, 4:14, 15:14; 2 Kings 1:7, 4:13, 4:14; Isaiah 1:5; Jeremiah 8:9, 16:10; Haggai 1:9; Psalm 4:3, 10:13,; Job 7:21; Proverbs 31:2. Looking into these further a vast majority, if not all, are set outside the southern Judean tribe or being spoken by someone who is from one of the Northern Tribes. Further evidence is shown by the case ending of the word מְלָכִין in the next verse which exhibits an Aramaic masculine plural case ending indicative of a Israelian dialectic feature. The appearance of this Aramaic case ending and the fact that the normative Hebrew masculine plural case ending מלכים appears in the next verse still being spoken by King Lemuel's mother only makes my case even stronger from a grammatical point of view. The idea expressed here is "style switching" in which, in grammatical terms, the style of Hebrew used in a particular given text switches from one narrative style to another based on setting and speaker. The setting and speaker can work independent of one another as in the Dumah Oracle of Isaiah 21:11-12 as an indication of Style switching. There are many others but this isn't a post on style switching within the biblical text.[1]

Another point that is brought to contention is the idea that the word Var/Bar is missing the Definite article and/or the Accusative and definite article to make it definite and say “the son.” The problem with that view is that these two words, connected with a maqqep, does not have to have either to be definite. For example look at Deuteronomy 1:40 and the usage of יַם-סוּף as being definite and lacking a definite article, preposition, or accusative especially when we find it in the phrase “to the sea of reeds” .דֶּרֶךְ יַם-סוּףTo this point also see Proverbs 28:21 which literally reads “Recognize the face"

  הַכֵּר-פָּנִים and so on. There are numerous examples of words like this that are definite without the accusative or the Definite article represented by אֵת and the letter ה respectively.

As far as נַשְּׁקוּ is concerned Ibn Ezra points out that this could mean kiss and signify a kind of homage due to a king, in this case particularly the King Mashiach. He cites that it is a custom among the nations of the world to kiss the hands of the king by taking their hands and kissing them. This isn’t at all implausible. It is the idea coming from Counter missionaries that says that the Ibn Ezra shouldn’t be listened to or there are attempts by later commentators that seek to discredit him. I accept the rest of his commentary that examines the problems of the wording of this verse and lends credibility toward the idea that it could read as “do homage with a pure heart” as Rashi would seem to suggest. The Ibn Ezra presents all views and isn’t simply cut and dry with his explanation as Rashi tends to be.

An Alternate View of the Psalm:

As I was reading this alternative view I found it quite profound, thought provoking, and a rather wonderful alternative. If you are one of the “do homage” interpreters of the phrase then you will love this. The proposal espoused by Staffan Olofsson in his article “The Crux Interpretum in Psalm 2:12” is to take the view thatבַר  in this phrase means “field/ground.” It was pointed out, quite correctly if I may add, that the Hebrew word Var/Bar בַר takes this meaning in Job 39:4 as well as in Aramaic in Daniel 2:38 and throughout Daniel 4. Olofsson proposes that we should translate the phrase as “Kiss the ground/field” in order to avoid the issues of explaining an Aramaic word used among an otherwise completely Hebrew passage and to avoid grammatical gymnastics trying to explain any emendations to the text. Oloffson explains that “kissing the ground” was a type of homage to a king or worship of a god in the ancient near east. [i]

I don’t necessarily adhere to this view but, Oloffson does make a good argument for this particular reading. The most attractive feature for me is the fact that it avoids the grammatical difficulties that the rabbinic interpretations put forth in order to explain how they arrived at this meaning or that meaning with their subsequent justifications.

My Conclusion:

I feel that we can go either way with the translation and be fine with it. I am perfectly fine as seeing this as “kiss the son” referring back to Psalm 2:7 and having the meaning of simply doing homage to the king by way of a kiss. That is the sense I am gathering from the verse. On another note “Arm yourselves [with] purity” is also possible based on the Hebrew because the verbלנשק  actually has that meaning with the translation of Rav Saadiah Gaon into Arabic supporting this translation. So I am perfectly fine with that as well. The alternative view listed above by Oloffson is soundly based and avoids grammatical and practical problems with the text. The problem with his view is that it takes a very slim, minority, meaning of the word and places it in this spot. Bottom line, we all translate according to our biases in many cases, both Jewish and Christian sides do it. In the cases of something controversial, such as this, when several translations are possible both sides line up according to his/her biases. If I have to translate it I would say “pick one!” Either can be right!

Sources used to formulate my opinion:

Targum to Proverbs 31:2-3

ב   וַי בְּרִי וּוַי בַּר כְּרֵסִי וּוַי בַּר נִדְרַי:

 לָא תִתֵּן לִנְשֵׁי חֵילָךְ וְאָרְחָתָךְ לִבְנַת מַלְכִין  ג

Rav Saadiah Gaon’s Arabic translation of the phrase נשקו בר :

תסלחו נקאא = “Arm yourselves with Purity”

Targum Tehillim of the phrase נשקו בר :

קַבִּילוּ אוּלְפָנָא = Receive Instruction 

Ibn Ezra to Psalm 2:12

נשקו בר. הנה עבדו את ה' כנגד על ה' ונשקו בר כנגד על משיחו והנה פירוש בר כמו מה ברי ומה בר בטני וכן כתוב בני אתה ומנהג גוים בעולם לשום ידיהם תחת יד המלך כאחי שלמה או העבד תחת ירך אדוניו או לנשק את המלך וזה המנהג עד היום בארץ הודו ופן יאנף שב אל השם הנזכר בפסוק הראשון ואם הוא רחוק כמו תבלעמו ארץ איננו שב אל מלת מי כמוכה באלים רק אל אמר אויב וככה והקימו את המשכן עד בואם ויש אומרים כי נשקו מגזרת נשק והטעם נשקו כלי בר והנה בר כמו ברי לבב והיה ראוי להיותו בור או יהיה תקנו הבר או כלי הבר:

Rashi to Psalm 2:12

נשקו בר. זרזו עצמכם בבר לב (נ"א) נשקו בר גר נישמנ"ט בלע"ז, ומנחם פתראותו ל' תאוה כמו (בראשית ג) ואל אישך תשוקתך:

Radak to Psalm 2:12:

נשקו בר: כמו ינשקו לכל אחיו (בראשית מת טו) ובר כמו בן; וכן מה ברי ומה בר בטני (משלי לא ב) או פרושו מן לברי לבב (מזמור עג א) ואם יהיה ענינו בן יהיה פרושו: נשקו זה הבן שקראו האל בן כמו שאמר: בני אתה. וטעם נשקו כמו שהוא מנהג העבד  לנשק יד האדון; ואם יהיה ענינו נקי פרושו: מה לכם ולי, כי אני בר לבב ואין בי עון שתבאו ותלחמו בי, אבל עליכם לנשק לי ולהודות שאני מלך במצות האל. ויתכן לפרש בר מן ברו לכם איש (שמואל א יז ח) על דרך: שאול במיר יי' (שם ב כא ו)

---

[i] The crux Interpretum in PS 2,12

Staffan Olofsson
Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament

Vol. 9, Iss. 2, 1995

---

[1] Rendsburg, Gary A. "The Strata of Biblical Hebrew." Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages XVII 1991: 81-99. Print.

Bodine, Walter R., ed. Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Print.

Discussion on Aramaic in Psalms Round 2!

This is a comprehensive work up of more discussions I have had personally with Uri Yosef and Others concerning whether there is Aramaic in the book of Psalms.

You all may note that I have officially given up on these discussion for the time being. It was not for the lack of a better argument but rather the incapability of some to listen and formulate arguments that show an understanding of Aramaic and its peculiar rules of Grammar that are not shared with Hebrew. Many can consider this discussion, in Email, my official response to the claim by Uri Yosef and others that there is no Aramaic in the book of Psalms. I am posting these emails unedited with every error and lie in tact. the only thing I will be doing is removing email addresses for the privacy of those involved. These reflect more recent discussion that I took a head on approach toward after baiting them into this discussion.

This is the discussion as it starts when I responded to an error.. Originally Uri's response did not include a comment about the  Beyor HaMilot which you will see makes a revealing statement below. But first, the preliminary claims:

My Claim: I am claiming that there is Aramaic in the Psalms and that in Psalm 139:8 the word אסק is in fact an Aramaic word attested only once in the Hebrew portion of the Bible in Psalm 139:8 but is otherwise attested in the Aramaic portions of the Bible in it various grammatical forms.

	Oct 19 (12 days ago)

URI YOSEF RESONDS:

Wrong again!

All Ibn-Ezra says is כמו תרגום (like Targum), i.e., "it has the same meaning as the word in the Targum", not "this is an Aramaic word like the Targum has", because the Hebrew word in Psalms 139:8 is אֶסַּק (note the daGESH [accentuation mark] in the letter ס], transliterated as "eSSAQ"), whereas the Aramaic word in the Targum is אֶסַק (note the absence of the daGESH in the letter ס], transliterated as eSAQ).

Moreover, on p. 765, the Even-Shoshan Hebrew concordance lists אֶסַּק under the Hebrew root verb נסק, not under the Aramaic same root verb! In other words, both Hebrew and Aramaic share this verb. If he wants more proof, then tell him to look it up in the Reuben Alcalay Complete Hebrew-English dictionary, where various forms of the Hebrew root verb נסק are listed under the root verb in various forms, in different stems.

In a message dated 10/18/2012 11:34:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, .com writes:

(11:33 PM) Yosef Menachem2: So Stan was Ibn Ezra Wrong on PSalm 139:8?
(11:34 PM) Yosef Menachem2: calling אסק an aramaic word
NEVERAGAIN1: what did ibn ezra say about psalm 139:8?? please type it

My response was to this particular claim specifically. I had others but this is the one I wanted them to bite on because the case was much stronger here. here was my reponse:

Yosef Menachem menachem.yosef@gmail.com	Oct 21 (10 days ago)

Seriously Uri? This has to be the most dishonest, Pilpul, arguments I have ever seen. You are 100% wrong on all accounts and here is why.

You reference the Even Shoshan but fail to follow it even further. The root of this verb is not נסק it is actually סלק and this verb is used only once in the Hebrew portion of the Bible. In Psalm 139:8. This verb is very well attested in Aramaic, including the Targumim, and its even in the Bible as you will see below. This is where your amateur rating is strongest because you don't even realize that this verb לנסוק doesn't appear as a true Hebrew word till Mishnaic times, in Mishnaic Hebrew, after Aramaic has already had its affect on the language.

Now, You conveniently leave out what the Ibn Ezra says by only quoting him partially. Here is what he really says:

ומלת אסק – כמו תרגוםו כמוהו: אש נשקה ביעקב, כמו עלתה אע"פ שהוא כתוב בשי"ן

And the word :אסק [Just] like the [Aramaic] Targum. It is like this "A fire burst out against Jacob" "just like it (fire) rose up although it is written with a Shin ש

So to tell me that he does not say that it refers to the Aramaic while quoting a Hebrew equivalent is flat out wrong. In fact, the Ibn Ezra describes how it raises and tries to relate it to two words נשק and its translation as the verb לעלות.

Now, you have more to contend with than you think. The Metzudat Tzion and Beiyor HaMilot both refer to this and link it to Aramaic. the Beiyor HaMilot is a bit more specific but here is the Metzudat Tzion.

Metzudat Tzion:

מצודת ציון

"אסק" - אעלה כמו והוסק דנייאל מן גובא (דנייאלו)

Here Metzudat Tzion refers you tothe Aramaic of Daniel 6:24 where the verb is used. First he translates this verb into Hebrew אעלה then he refers you to its biblical use. THANK YOU METZUDAT TZION!

Next we have the Beiyor HaMilot:

ביאור המילות

"אסק". אעלה ובארמית והוסק דניאל מן גובא:

This is amusing by now. Here we see a direct translation into Hebrew אעלהand then saying ובארמית "And [its] in Aramaic!"referring you to the same Daniel 6:24.

Your reference to the dagesh is the biggest pilpul argument of everything in your comments. This word is well attested as being both with a Dagesh and without. We can find it without in Targum Yontan to 2 Samuel 6:2 לְאַסָקָא and with a Dagesh in Targum Onkelos Leviticus 11:3 מַסְּקָא. So your PIlpul argument of "since the word in the Targum doesnt have a Dagesh" is moot, amateurish and tries to split the proverbial hair.

Hebrew and Aramaic do not share this root until much later since  סלק is a loan word from Aramaic that produces theverb  נסק. Of course Reuven Alcalay's dictionary would record it. It's a MODERN Hebrew dictionary with all sorts of Loan words from Aramaic, Arabic, English, Greek, Latin, and so on. This loan word is used as a True Hebrew word in the Mishnah and subsequently in Modern Hebrew. So i'm not surprised at all that later Hebrew adopted this word. However, this does not negate my point. Theword אסק in Hebrew bible is 100% Aramaic and the Commentators above knew it and referred to it.

Shalom,

Yosef Menachem

The Debate doesn't stop there It continues with Uri making a response to something I challenged him on. The lack of a Response for the Beyor HaMilot among others. His response was primarily a repeat of everything he previously said with a non answer to the Beyor HaMilot:

Yosef, is this the missing response? When you send mail you have to include all our addresses including Uri Yosef's. When he responds he will forward it to those names appearing... I did send this to you...if we are missing something let me know..Trust me Yosef, it is not us who are delaying anything its you. Like I said to you in PM, it has been about 6 months now and you still have not given your formal response on your blog and in email refuting Uri Yosef's teaching on Psalms 2:12..WE ALL KNOW THIS.

From Uri Yosef:

In the first place, the root verb for אֶסַּק is נסק not סלק as he claims. He should check out Jastrow's Aramaic/English dictionary. Jastrow has two listings for נסק only as "to go upward, ascend", with many examples of conjugations in which the letter נ is missing (p. 918), and two relevant listings for סלק "to go up, go away, pile up", with many examples of conjugations, none of which have the letter ל missing. Additionally, YM should check נסק in Mattityahu Clark's Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (p. 158) - no reference to Aramaic there whatsoever.

Both in Hebrew and Aramaic grammar there are root verbs that start with the letter נ, which "disappears" under various conjugations of the verb - these verbs belong to the category (גִּזְרָה) of defective verbs called פ״נ. If what YM is claiming were true, the root verb סלק would belong the a defective verb category called ע״ל, i.e., that the middle letter ל of the root verb disappears under various conjugations of the verb, but such a category exists neither in Hebrew nor in Aramaic grammar!

Secondly, his translations of the Hebrew commentaries are stretched to suit his claims, not only with the inserted parenthetical comments, but also in terms of their actual translation. None of these commentaries say explicitly something like "אֶסַּק is an Aramaic word". YM's reference to

Next we have the Beiyor HaMilot:

ביאור המילות

"אסק". אעלה ובארמית והוסק דניאל מן גובא:

This is amusing by now. Here we see a direct translation into Hebrew אעלה and then saying ובארמית "And [its] in Aramaic!" referring you to the same Daniel 6:24.

is also misleading. The Aramaic word that appears in Daniel 6:24 is וְהֻסַּק, spelled in the commentary as והוסק, which isn't the problem. The problem here is with YM's translation of the Hebrew. Specifically, he adds context to his translation of the Hebrew that favors his claim. The proper translation of the Hebrew is:

"אעלה". "אסק - I shall rise", and in Aramaic "והוסק דניאל מן גובא - and Daniel was lifted [up] from the pit".

In other words, the commentator points out that the verb "אסק" means "אעלה", in the same sense as the Aramaic verb "הוסק" means at Daniel 6:24. It is a stretch to say that the commentator means to say that "אסק" is an Aramaic word. The same applies to YM's loose translations of Metzudat Zion and Ibn Ezra.

Honestly Don and all, I'm getting a bit tired of dealing with YM and the others who know just enough to think they know it all.

Uri

Here is the final part and my response to Uri's above response. My comments are in red and this is the final email on the matter.

Yosef Menachem menachem.yosef@gmail.com	Oct 28 (3 days ago)
to

.

Thank you for giving this to me Stan. This will just go to show how Uri likes to treat Aramaic in any time period as if it were modern Hebrew. He is correct on one note that Jastrow's dictionary does not connect the two סלק and נסק but this will soon be taken care of. I am glad he did take the bait on this so let me first be the one to congratulate you Uri on this amateur mistake. Mazal Tov! I will respond to you in Red below so that you can see why I say that you are wrong.

.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:24 PM, <> wrote:

From Uri Yosef:

In the first place,the root verb for אֶסַּק is נסק not סלק as he claims. He should check out Jastrow's Aramaic/Englishdictionary. Jastrow has two listings for נסק only as "to goupward, ascend", with many examples of conjugations in which the letter נ is missing (p. 918), and two relevant listingsfor סלק "to go up, go away,pile up", with many examples of conjugations, none of which have theletter ל missing. Additionally, YM should check נסק in Mattityahu Clark's Etymological Dictionaryof Biblical Hebrew (p. 158) - no reference to Aramaic there whatsoever.

Both in Hebrew andAramaic grammar there are root verbs that start with the letter נ, which"disappears" under various conjugations of the verb - these verbsbelong to the category (גִּזְרָה) of defective verbs called פ״נ.If what YM is claiming were true, the root verb סלק would belong the a defective verb category called ע״ל,i.e., that the middle letter ל of the root verbdisappears under various conjugations of the verb, but such a category exists neitherin Hebrew nor in Aramaic grammar!

Secondly, histranslations of the Hebrew commentaries are stretched to suit his claims, notonly with the inserted parenthetical comments, but also in terms of theiractual translation. None of these commentaries say explicitly something like"אֶסַּק is an Aramaic word".

Actually it is the root word. You are posing your modern Hebrew learning on an Aramaic word without even coming close to understanding Aramaic Grammar.

This in Aramaic is what we call a "Pseudo Geminate." It is one of the few verbs that are designated as a "weak Lamed" verbs in Aramaic. Keep in mind that Aramaic and Hebrew are closely related languages but they are not the same. There are three main verbs that fit this category they are ,הלךְ ,סלק andסבל . Each of these words exhibits a Lamed as the second or third consonant in which the Lamed either disappears or is assimilated in the previous consonant. We are going to focus strictly on סלק.

The Verb סלק exhibits forms that are analogous to the geminate class in its derived conjugations but not in the Pe'al Stem. It has perfectly normal attestations

Perfect: (Sing.) סלקת;(Plural) סלקו

However, in the derived conjugations of the verb סלק it does have performatives, but these are analogous to the geminate class. The ל is completely elided and in compensation the initial consonant is doubled סּ,or this doubling is resolved by a נ. To put this another way, the ל is assimilated to the previous consonant. the attested forms in the Tanakh are as follows:

Haf'el perfect: הֵסִּקוּ

Haf'el infinitive: הֵנְסָקָה

Hof'al perfect: הֻסּק

Breaking it down toyou Uri: You know a lot about Modern Hebrew grammar, but as far as conjugating an Aramaic verb and understanding that some rules in Aramaic are not in Hebrew Grammar shows how much you are missing. If you want to know where this message is brought to you from you can find this in the first grammar book I used in my first class in Aramaic, specifically for Biblical Aramaic. It is called "A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic" by Alger F. Johns. On Pg. 71 and 72.

I have also attached for your viewing pleasure, a scan of Rabbi Ezra Zion Melamed's dictionary inwhich he concurs that this word is in fact from the root סלק. The funny thingis when he translates it into Hebrew he translates it as the verb עלה. Which is why below I am going to call you out on your misrepresentation of Beyor HaMilot and your, lack of, representation of Ibn Ezra.

YM's reference to

Next we have the BeiyorHaMilot:

ביאור המילות

"אסק".אעלה ובארמית והוסק דניאל מן גובא:

This is amusing by now.Here we see a direct translation into Hebrew אעלה andthen saying ובארמית "And [its] in Aramaic!" referring you to the sameDaniel 6:24.

is also misleading.

Umm.....No its not!  The only reason you are trying to say it is misleading is because it is inconvenient and it shows you are ignoring the rules governing Rabbinic Hermeneutics and the interpretation of the Tanakh. The other problem, Uri, is that you have no other attestations of אסק or נסק in the Hebrew portions of the Tanakh. It appears only in the Aramaic portions as described above and below. So you are not telling the whole truth on this one Uri.

 The Aramaic word that appears in Daniel 6:24is וְהֻסַּק,spelled in the commentary as והוסק, which isn't the problem. The problem hereis with YM's translation of the Hebrew. Specifically, he adds context to histranslation of the Hebrew that favors his claim. The proper translation of theHebrew is:

"אעלה"."אסק - I shall rise", andin Aramaic "והוסק דניאל מן גובא - and Daniel was lifted [up] from thepit".

In other words, thecommentator points out that the verb "אסק" means "אעלה",in the same sense as the Aramaic verb "הוסק" means at Daniel6:24. It is a stretch to say that the commentator means to say that "אסק"is an Aramaic word.

Ok, either you don't understand fully Rabbinic Hermeneutics or you completely missed the point that Beyor Hamilot was getting at. When the Beyor HaMilot says אסק: אעלה he is doing the exact same thing as Rabbi Ezra Zion Melamed did in his dictionary. He is translating the word from what it is in the Text to what its Hebrew counterpart is. By translating this word he is also interpreting its meaning. Then when he says ובארמית והוסק דניאל מן גובא we know that he is indicating a proof that this definition of אעלה is true and accurate by association. If you notice that this occurance is one of the instances in the Grammar book I cited as being from the Root סלק with an assimilated ל .  You are trying to take away from the Beyor HaMilot, Metzudat Zion, and the Ibn Ezra what you cannot and should not take away.  

The same applies toYM's loose translations of Metzudat Zion and Ibn Ezra.

I guess if you can't beat them you have to demonize them somewhere. Please due tell me where I am wrong on both of them.

Honestly Don and all,I'm getting a bit tired of dealing with YM and the others who know just enoughto think they know it all.

Uri

Uri, I'm just getting started!

The above is only edited to remove email addresses, names, and redundancies. this is exactly what I wanted to debate Uri Yosef on and I got my wish.I made other claims in order to bait the argument onto my playing field where I can control the flow. Look at the arguments and judge for yourselves on who had the best content, argument, evidence, and coherency. You the audience can decide!

Shalom,

Yosef Menachem

Commentaries on the Tanakh

This is a wonderful website to keep if you are interested in the what Commentators such as Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Ramban say on the Tanakh. For those who can read Hebrew and dont like how some distort the comments of the Rabbis, this is an invaluable resource.

http://www.daat.co.il/daat/tanach/parshanut.htm

The Apocrypha in Hebrew

I know there are some out there that take an active interest in what the Apocrypha says and what it means toward Judaism and Christianity. I find these books to be very interesting as a read into first century Judaism and into certain doctrines and theological beliefs that are common in Christianity. For those who are interested in comparative religions and Textual comparison the apocryphal book in Hebrew can be found at http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/hasfarim/hasfarim.htm

Enjoy the read!

What did Rabbi Yosef Karo really say about those who wish to follow the Rambam regardless whether their fathers or Forefathers did?

The question is a very interesting one! This is especially interesting for those of us who are Talmidei HaRambam or as many call us "Rambamists." I find it amusing that some would seek to twist Jewish Law so much to fit their narrow minded view of who can follow what in Judaism and why. Recently, I had a very short discussion in PalTalk regarding whether or not a person can actually change the minhag that they are currently following to move to a different minhag. I was informed by others that making this change is questionable as it pertains to Halacha and a person should follow the Minhag of their community and of their Family. I was pondering this issue last night and thought that I would write this blog as a response.

The problem with changing a Minhag is that it is a very difficult process and is usually frowned upon. This is not a questionable item nor does it violate a Jewish Law. I informed these persons that a person my obsolve themselves of certain Minhagim by doing Hatarat Nedarim for a majority but some Minhagim, for example the waiting period between eating Meat and Milk, do not require hatarat nedarim to do this in all cases. This especially if the each spose comes from a different minhag. It is the superficial items like that are changed more often than not. But, what about a change in the Code of Jewish Law that a Jew follows? Can this be done Halachicly and without an issue with Chazal? The answer is.....Of Course! In Fact, Rabbi Yosef Karo even said specifically that it can be done regardless of whether the person has it from the community or from his/her ancestors. In Ovkat Rochel, blatantly misrepresented by this person,  says in translation:

"Who is he whose heart conspires to approach forcing congregations who practice according to the Rambam of blessed memory, to go by any one of the early or latter-day Torah authorities?! ...

Is it not a case of a fortiori, that regarding the School of Shammai that the halachah does not go according to them they [the Talmudic Sages] said if [one practices] like the School of Shammai [he may do so, but] according to their leniencies and their stringencies:

The Rambam, is the greatest of all the Torah authorities, and all the communities of the Land of Israel and the Arab-controlled lands and the West [North Africa] practice according to his word, and accepted him upon themselves as their Chief Rabbi.

Whoever practices according to him [the Rambam] with his leniencies and his stringencies, why coerce them to budge from him?  And all the more so if also their fathers and their fathers fathers practiced accordingly: for their children are not to turn right or left from the RaMBaM of blessed memory. And even if communities that practice according to the Rosh or other authorities like him became the majority, they cannot coerce the minority of congregations practicing according to the Rambam of blessed memory, to practice like they do.  And there is no issue here concerning the prohibition against having two courts in the same city [lo tithgodedu], since every congregation should practice according to its original custom.

(Avkat Rochel, She’elot U’Tshuvot  Siman 32.)

The full text can be found at http://www.hebrewbooks.org/636 I will transcribe the relevant portions when I am able at my home computer but the section is סימן לב 

Clearly from the writer of the Shulchan Aruch in Avkat Rochel, Rabbi Yosef Karo says plainly that "WHOEVER PRACTICES, NOT whoever has a family minhag or community minhag, according to the Rambam, may do so and they should not be coerced to do otherwise." He blosters this argument with a  valid Qal VaKomer argument by saying "All the Moreso if their fathers and their fathers fathers practiced accordingly:for their children should nto turn to the right or left of the Rambam of blessed memory."

So to say that I dont understand this or the context of what is being said, when the writing on the wall couldn't be any bigger, is just amazing and dumb! I would love to entertain this debate further and will at a later time discuss this matter in detail. There is basis in Jewish Law to allow this and to essentially misrepresent Rabbi Yosef Karo and basically call him a "liar" is unprecendented and not becoming of anyone who practices Orthodox Judaism.

Dead Sea Scrolls Online

As many know, Google has put out a website that lets you examine various Dead Sea Scrolls in a High resolution Digitized format. Only a select few of the DSS have been done to date but i think this would be a valuable resource for those who are curious and want to know what the DSS look like and say. The link is provided below. Enjoy!

http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/

Pesikta Rabbati link to the Hebrew Text for reference

There have been a few conversations in the PalTalk rooms regarding The Pesikta. Well I took it upon myself to find the Pesikta online for everyone viewing pleasure. the downside is that if you dont know Hebrew and Aramaic this probably wont help you much. But, for those who are looking for this important text and know what you are looking for....Here You Go! Enjoy!!

http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/tohen.asp?id=374