The usage of למו in Isaiah 53:8. Is it singular or is it plural?

The Issue here is the usage of למו  in Isaiah 53:8 and how to actually translate this word. Is it plural or is it singular in Isaiah 53:8? The singular translation is possible here despite the claims to the contrary with some support in the Tanakh and from the Rishonim to say that למו can be singular under certain circumstances. So let me focus on the claims about this word and make the cast that למו can be singular. I offer some evidence to support the singular reading of למו by pointing first to it usage in Isaiah 44:15. Regardless of the evidence I will then show why Isaiah 53:8 is indeed most probably a plural reference with evidence from the Targum to support such a reading.

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].

The idea here is to show that לָמו  is directing the verb וַיִּסְגָּד  “bow down” back to a singular object rather than to a plural object or to more than one. To prove this we must go to the previous clause where we find אֵל וַיִּשְׁתָּחוּ  “a god and worships it.” In this case there is no need to use a prepositional phrase to indicate what is being worshipped. This is instead represented by the pronominal suffix for the third person singular so that we know immediately what is being worshipped. It is referring back to the previous object “a god.”

The same is happening in the next phrase withפֶסֶל וַיִּסְגָּד-לָמוֹ  where the preposition לָמו, along with the verb וַיִּסְגָּד  is referring back to the noun פֶסֶל. Furthermore, Radak comments on this verse recognizing the difficulty of seeing למו as referring to a plural subject. His conflict is between grammar and interpretation. Consider his comments on Isaiah 44:15

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?:

Isaiah 53:8, IMO, can go either way but, the most probable view is that of a plural reading for לָמו in Isaiah 53:8. Consider the verse and the references contained within the verse to be clues.

Isaiah 53:8 (MT)

מֵעֹצֶר וּמִמִּשְׁפָּט לֻקָּח וְאֶת-דּוֹרוֹ מִי יְשׂוֹחֵחַ כִּי נִגְזַר מֵאֶרֶץ חַיִּים מִפֶּשַׁע עַמִּי נֶגַע לָמוֹ.

The plural meaning of לָמו in this case when referring back to עַמִּי as the people who had a plague or a strike upon them due to their collective transgression[iv]. This type of view is actually supported by the reading of the Targum Yonatan in which the Targum uses for the words in question:

 חוֹבִין דְחָבוּ עַמִי עַד לְוָתְהוֹן יִמטֵי׃

“The sins for which my people are guilty shall be cast upon them.”

The Targum clearly understand that the reference here is towards “my people” and that the meaning of the word לָמו is clearly plural by using לְוָתְהוֹן in its translation which is the third person plural suffix הון- on the preposition  לות and  literally means “to/unto them.” The commentators on this verse in near unanimity share the view of the targum in one form or another. To actually go over them would be mundane because the claim that is made by those who truly support a singular reference in Isaiah 53:8 are those who say the medieval commentators “changed the meaning” of the Isaiah 53 and its contents to delegitimize a certain figure. So in the interest of purely looking at the verse I did not include them in this article. If you want the Hebrew of the commentaries for this verse, just ask.

Conclusion:

The case above is strong for לָמו to read as a singular reference in at least one place within the Tanakh with some support. However, the focus isn’t that one spot in Isaiah 44:15 but rather, the focus is on whether or not the reference to לָמו in Isaiah 53:8 is singular or plural. The consensus of views from the targum to the commentaries are that this reference is completely plural. The case I made above shows that there is a higher probability of the Isaiah 53:8 reference to be plural despite the implications of Isaiah 44:15. If you happen to disagree with anything I have said please leave me a comment below so that we can discuss.

---

[i] With an exception in Psalm 97:7 in which the singular does take on the sense and meaning of a plural reference. This by far a true minority of usage in the bible for this particular Hebrew word

 

[ii] The addition of להם does change the dynamic of the comment just a bit. It would indicate that Radak saw a major grammatical problem with the function of the word in this verse but, knew off hand that למו is indeed the same as להם just in a poetic form. This view is supported in Sefer Miklol a grammatical work by Radak.

 

[iii] The view that למו can be singular is a very slim minority in the Tanakh. My only purpose is to say that the singular meaning is possible, not that it is correct, even though my personal opinion is that the singular view in Isaiah 44:15 is the grammatically correct one. I cant go against Chazal so I must adjust, religiously, to say it is a compound singular reference.

 

[iv] I don’t care to speculate on what that transgression is but, suffice to say that is not the purpose of this article. The purpose of this article is to establish the possible readings not a theological Q&A.

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!

What I have learned debating and discussing issues with counter-missionaries.

I have learned how cruel some of them really are to those who dare express ideas contrary to their positions. It can be very taxing on the mind and soul to point out the fundamental flaws in their arguments. I feel that pointing out those fundamental flaws, in hopes that they will learn from this flaw and fix the issue, is just me pissing against the wind. It was so much that I had to stop going on Paltalk to retain my own sanity.

Debating certain CM’s has definitely strained every ounce of patience that I have with those who seek to do nothing but attack, slander, and nearly cyber-stalk me. I have learned that if you challenge some of these people they will threaten you, your family, and threaten to go to you place of learning or work in order to attack you on a more personal level. Each and everything I just described has happened to me because I dared to debate certain methods and content within Judaism to show that Judaism is not as monolithic as is portrayed.

Due to the things above I was forced to retire from the debate arena. I must have made too strong of arguments to warrant the attacks or they just didn't like the fact that I would challenge them on things instead of just blindly accepting the things they wrote and said. Many people think I am an Apikoros, now, because I challenged them. I am most definitely not but, the mere accusation is enough. The fact that I don’t have the opportunity to defend myself to those who they slander my person towards makes the accusation even worse.

Don’t just take what I am saying at face value. If you really want to see all of these things first hand, Challenge their assertions and see what happens. Or, you could just mention my name, Yosef Menachem, and see what reaction you get. It will be negative, harsh, and vulgar so prepare yourself for each of these. I challenge you to ask them a follow up question of “what I said that was incorrect about Judaism or Jewish beliefs?” the answer may shock you. If they say that I slander Rashi, please ask “in what way?” and “Can you give me one example of him slandering Rashi?” The answers there will surprise your or they wont answer at all.

That is a brief non detailed summary of what I have learned so far debating and discussing issues with counter-missionaries. The proof of the truth that I am speaking is in the pudding just do as I stated above and you will see the this unfold before your very eyes.

Shalom,

Yosef Menachem

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!

Nice try but not quite! CMs at it again!

You heard me correctly! The Counter-missionaries are at it again with their attempts to discredit me. To my credit I think I handled this situation pretty well considering the bad names I was called. Below I am going to post links to the websites and add a summary of the comments made. If there is a dispute with my characterization of the events please feel free to make your case in the comments. My moderation is very light unless you are simply spamming.

The matter started off long before this ever came to light but I am going to give a little background on the current situation. A while ago I posted on a forum called Isaiah53.com. Now, to my credit, I did not know that this site is actually run by a messianic organization called “Chosen people ministries.” I simply thought this was a discussion and debate forum where ideas and points of view could be debated. I found out later that it was run by them. I want to make it clear that I do not support their actions and have thus ended my posting there after my response to Moshe Shulman (discussed later). I posted a post in response to some accusations from CMs that the word לָמוֹ in Hebrew only means “to them” and that Isaiah 44:15 reads plural. This claim by CMs also relates to the usage in Isaiah 53:8 and how their view is that לָמוֹ should be read as plural in this verse. I actually agreed that in Isaiah 53:8 it should be read as a plural reference to a compound entity called “Israel!” My problem was Isaiah 44:15 and what it reads.

In my post I noted that the Radak and the Aramaic Targum Yonatan both saw an issue with the plural view for different reasons. Radak’s problem was a conflict between a grammatical reading and the interpretation which he illustrated and solved in favor of the interpretation of פֶסֶל being plural. Radak did note here that grammatically the word לָמוֹ is functioning as the word לו which only made his problem complicated and thus would serve a reference to a possible singular usage of לָמוֹ. The Targum on the other hand goes directly for the third person singular suffix in its use of מִנֵהּ “from it.” I took great care to say that despite this possibility, and my personal opinion, that I maintain the interpretation of the Rabbis. This wouldn’t be good enough for CMs and we will find out why.

Enter Moshe Shulman:

Moshe Shulman is a very popular counter-missionary and has a website called www.judaismsanswer.com. He is sometimes called Rabbi Moshe Shulman or Reb Moshe Shulman, depending on who you are talking to and where you are. He uses the Forum and paltalk nickname of “RebMoshe.” His learning and knowledge is vast and in quite a few ways would exceed my own in the realm of Rabbinic writings. I concede that he has a much more Jewish based learning than I do since he more than likely grew up in the Bobover Chassidic dynasty. To be very clear, Moshe Shulman is not a “Rabbi” as we would think about it. The Bobovers do not simply ordain Rabbis as the Lubavitchers, Breslovers or as other streams of Orthodoxy does. So he is in essence a very learned lay person! I grew up in a very secular household to a gentile Father and a Jewish mother. I became a BT at age 21 and resolved to make up for many of the things I should have learned as a child. I started going to an Orthodox Shul and learned as much as I could from the Rabbi. I resolved to learn Hebrew and be able to do it as well as possible. So I went the College and earned a degree in Hebrew. I was proud of myself and am still pursuing this at the university level to attain a Masters and then Doctorate in NELC. I can read Hebrew now as I should be able to at this age growing up with Hebrew in the household. I am by no means a native speaker but I can carry on a decent conversation minus all of the street slang that comes up every day in Israel and my American accent. I can read and understand Aramaic in its various points in time. Enough about the backgrounds lets dig into what happened!

Some time after I posted a post on Isaiah53.com,[1] I received an email from Moshe Shulman calling me and one other person an Apikoros in his opinion. He only knows me and this other person by our paltalk nicknames but, the accusations start flying. Moshe Shulman is known to be pompass and arrogant at times setting himself at the top of the pedestal of piety while, unless you are a CM, everyone else is lower than he is. He sent me an entire email laying out his feelings and opinions as if they were some sort of fact. Accusing me of Chillul HaShem and being apikoros because I “insulted Rashi and the Sages” by disagreeing with Counter missionaries without citing anything within Jewish law that I would have broken that would indicate that I am as he stated. I am assuming he has never read Hilchot Teshuvah 3:6-8 in the Mishneh Torah or hasn’t recently. It outlines what an Apikoros is in detail while summarizing the Talmudic references in Bavli tractate Sanhedrin. In a private message in Paltalk I made sure to thank him for his kind words and tell him I thought it was cute that he would equate disagreement with a CM with insulting the Sages. Yes, it was all sarcasm but this person needed and deserved it!

In the discussion forums at Isaiah53.com, Moshe Shulman goes on the attack quickly by attacking me as a person and any credibility that I may have. That is usually a last resort for those who know that they are going to have a hard time winning the argument. He then offers his own translation of the Radak and criticizes me for improperly translating the comments and misunderstanding. Sorry Moshe, but the bottom line is that I had to point out what your translation is lacking, why you didn’t translate some things at all and what the Radak’s point actually was. I didn’t misunderstand or mistranslate anything and as of 1/24/2014 there has been no response. It took me two days to get to his post as busy as I am, but this looks like it will end here for the time being. It has been 4 days and counting!

That isn’t everything! There is more and you are going to enjoy this one. I have my own thread at messiah truth discussion forums![2] These are the forums where CM bigwigs like Uri Yosef, Sophiee1, and Moshe Shulman frequent to share ideas and ask questions for answers. In this thread I am played out as being misguided, as “Sides with missionaries,” and an Idiot. The one thing I like about this is that it abruptly ended with a request from a poster ProfBenTziyyon (Professor Mordechai Ben Tziyyon) to look at what I wrote. The good professor ends by saying “I’ll take a look at this idiot’s “other Jewish interpretation of the word lamo in Isaiah 53”[3] when I wake up, too tired now.” Guess what, the crickets are still chirping and the good professor has not even tried. I guess he has been too tired to respond also. 

The moral of this sad story is the Moshe Shulman’s opinion means exactly squat. What matters is what Jewish law says and what I am definitely not and that is an Apikoros! I feel that I have ranted enough on this matter and will leave it to you to decide.

---

[1] http://www.isaiah53.com/forums/12/18

[2] http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/topic/4934/Jewish-interpretation-word-lamo-Isaiah-53?page=-1

[3] http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/reply/65748/another-Jewish-interpretation-of-the-word-lamo-in-Isaiah-53#reply-65748