About Adam
Damon Casale
what is known about Adam and Gan Eden which is not written in the
bible?
For instance, I ran across a vague mention on a web site that Adam was
embalmed, like Joseph was. Is this true?
Damon
cindys
"Damon Casale" <ko...@redshift.com> wrote in message
news:4d3c8876.04020...@posting.google.com...
> Are there any experts in Jewish tradition out there who could tell me
> what is known about Adam and Gan Eden which is not written in the
Part of the reason that you are not receiving satisfactory answers to the
questions you ask is that the questions/answers are often very
time-consuming to research/answer. I have a feeling you would enjoy doing a
lot of your own research, but half the battle is knowing where to look. One
place you could start would be by learning chumash (first 5 books of the
bible) with Rashi. Go to: http://www.foreveryjew.com/chumash/
Some of the questions you ask are answered in the midrash. I know there are
some translations (of midrash) available. You may also be interested in the
Artscroll Tanach series book on Bereshis (Genesis) that I have referenced in
the past, which contains numerous commentaries by multiple rabbis and also
includes a lot of midrash : http://www.artscroll.com/Books/berh.html
>
> For instance, I ran across a vague mention on a web site that Adam was
> embalmed, like Joseph was.
Which website?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Damon Casale
> "Damon Casale" <ko...@redshift.com> wrote in message
> news:4d3c8876.04020...@posting.google.com...
> > Are there any experts in Jewish tradition out there who could tell me
> > what is known about Adam and Gan Eden which is not written in the
> > bible.
>
> Part of the reason that you are not receiving satisfactory answers to the
> questions you ask is that the questions/answers are often very
> time-consuming to research/answer.
No kidding! o_o But that's why I'm looking for an expert who's spent
his or her whole life immersed in this sort of research.
> I have a feeling you would enjoy doing a lot of your own research,
I already do. ;-p :-)
> but half the battle is knowing where to look.
That's my primary difficulty! I'm not familiar enough with the
relevant Jewish literature. I suppose I could devote a couple of
years to studying the Talmud and the various Jewish commentators (like
Rashi and etc.) at least enough so I can get a feel for what topics
they discuss, but I'm impatient. I have questions _right now_. ^_-
> One
> place you could start would be by learning chumash (first 5 books of the
> bible) with Rashi. Go to: http://www.foreveryjew.com/chumash/
Cool! Thanks.
> Some of the questions you ask are answered in the midrash. I know there are
> some translations (of midrash) available. You may also be interested in the
> Artscroll Tanach series book on Bereshis (Genesis) that I have referenced in
> the past, which contains numerous commentaries by multiple rabbis and also
> includes a lot of midrash : http://www.artscroll.com/Books/berh.html
Closed for Shabbat. D'oh!
Wouldn't studying the sages be considered a mitzvah, though? ;-)
(But this is probably an online store, isn't it?)
> > For instance, I ran across a vague mention on a web site that Adam was
> > embalmed, like Joseph was.
>
> Which website?
I don't remember. It's been a month or so since I've seen it. Plus,
it was written from a Christian perspective, quoting from what seemed
to be Christian extra-canonical material. However, I got the strong
impression that this source drew from from even earlier, pre-Christian
traditions, hence my question.
Basically, I don't want a "Christian" answer. I want a Jewish answer.
By the way, here are some more interesting questions, gleaned from the
article on "Adam" in the Jewish Encyclopedia:
"To Adam are ascribed Ps. v., xix., xxiv., and xcii."
Tehilim 5:7-8 says: "Thou destroyest them that speak falsehood;
HaShem abhorreth the man of blood and of deceit [a reference to
Cain?]. But as for me, in the abundance of Thy lovingkindness will I
come into Thy house; I will bow down toward Thy holy temple in the
fear of Thee."
Tehilim 24:1-4 says: "The earth is HaShem's, and the fulness thereof;
the world, and they that dwell therein. For He hath founded it upon
the seas, and established it upon the floods [apparently a reference
to Bereshit 1:9-10]. Who shall ascend into the mountain of HaShem? and
who shall stand in His holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a
pure heart; who hath not taken My name in vain, and hath not sworn
deceitfully."
Was Adam ever allowed to re-enter Gan Eden (since it is symbolic of
the house/mountain of G-d), even temporarily?
"His [Adam's] body, made an object of worship by some semi-pagan
Melchisedician sect, according to the Christian Book of Adam, was
shown in Talmudic times at Hebron, in the cave of Machpelah."
I assume this is why Abraham spent 400 shekels of silver to purchase
that cave. Right?
"He [Adam] is said to have been buried in the 'Cave of Treasures'-a
Christian, rather than a Jewish, idea. Several of these peculiar
features are found again in the Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, a work that
was compiled under Arabic influence."
Is the "Cave of Treasures" therefore a Christian adaptation of a
Jewish idea? The wording here is unclear.
My impression was that this cave was underneath the Temple Mount.
Adam may indeed have been buried there, and later moved to Machpelah.
I'm not sure.
Damon
cindys
> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<ycSUb.44992$%72...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> > "Damon Casale" <ko...@redshift.com> wrote in message
> > news:4d3c8876.04020...@posting.google.com...
> > > Are there any experts in Jewish tradition out there who could tell me
> > > what is known about Adam and Gan Eden which is not written in the
> > > bible.
> >
> > Part of the reason that you are not receiving satisfactory answers to
the
> > questions you ask is that the questions/answers are often very
> > time-consuming to research/answer.
>
> No kidding! o_o But that's why I'm looking for an expert who's spent
> his or her whole life immersed in this sort of research.
I doubt very much that any of the SCJM posters has spent a lifetime immersed
in research of esoteric points of Bereshis. While many of the posters to
SCJM have extensive Jewish educations, the type of approach/learning that
you are looking for is, generally speaking, not the focus of Jewish
education. Learning the written torah (5 books of Moses) is only one piece
of the Jewish educational system, which also includes learning the Prophets
and Writings, Jewish law, Jewish holidays, Jewish history, mishnah, gemara,
Jewish philosophy, Jewish ethics, and Hebrew language. All of this has to be
squeezed into maybe 4 hours a day, at most, and this is in a Jewish day
school and in addition to a secular education. Those who attend a public
school and attend afternoon Hebrew School, learn Jewish subjects for 6 hours
a week at most. Those who attend yeshiva are focused almost entirely on
learning talmud and halacha (Jewish law) with some philosophy and ethics
thrown in.
>
> > I have a feeling you would enjoy doing a lot of your own research,
>
> I already do. ;-p :-)
>
> > but half the battle is knowing where to look.
>
> That's my primary difficulty! I'm not familiar enough with the
> relevant Jewish literature. I suppose I could devote a couple of
> years to studying the Talmud
The talmud is not going to provide the answers to the types of questions you
have been asking.
>and the various Jewish commentators (like
> Rashi and etc.)
>at least enough so I can get a feel for what topics
> they discuss, but I'm impatient. I have questions _right now_. ^_-
Rashi is the #1 commentator on chumash. Did you visit
http://www.foreveryjew.com/chumash/ ? Rashi is a running, verse by verse
commentary on the chumash. When Jews learn chumash, we generally learn with
Rashi, for starters. Those who want to learn more may learn Ramban, and
other commentators, and also midrash, all of which you will find compiled
and in English translation in the Bereshis from the Artscroll Tanach
series - which is the weblink I gave you. This is a two-volume set and over
1000 pages in length total : http://www.artscroll.com/Books/berh.html
>
> Closed for Shabbat. D'oh!
So, call after shabbat.
>
> Wouldn't studying the sages be considered a mitzvah, though? ;-)
Yes, learning torah is a mitzvah for Jews, but so is keeping the sabbath
holy. We can't violate one mitzvah to fulfill another.
> (But this is probably an online store, isn't it?)
Artscroll is a publishing company (not just on-line). You can also order a
regular catalogue, which will be sent to you through snail mail.
>
> > > For instance, I ran across a vague mention on a web site that Adam was
> > > embalmed, like Joseph was.
> >
> > Which website?
>
> I don't remember. It's been a month or so since I've seen it. Plus,
> it was written from a Christian perspective, quoting from what seemed
> to be Christian extra-canonical material. However, I got the strong
> impression that this source drew from from even earlier, pre-Christian
> traditions, hence my question.
>
> Basically, I don't want a "Christian" answer. I want a Jewish answer.
I understand, but for starters, the topic itself is not a focus of Jewish
learning, and secondly, your approach is not a Jewish approach. I don't mean
this as a criticism of you or your learning approach. I am just trying to
explain why you are unlikely to get satisfactory answers on SCJM.
>
> By the way, here are some more interesting questions, gleaned from the
> article on "Adam" in the Jewish Encyclopedia:
>
> "To Adam are ascribed Ps. v., xix., xxiv., and xcii."
>
> Tehilim 5:7-8 says: "Thou destroyest them that speak falsehood;
> HaShem abhorreth the man of blood and of deceit [a reference to
> Cain?]. But as for me, in the abundance of Thy lovingkindness will I
> come into Thy house; I will bow down toward Thy holy temple in the
> fear of Thee."
>
> Tehilim 24:1-4 says: "The earth is HaShem's, and the fulness thereof;
> the world, and they that dwell therein. For He hath founded it upon
> the seas, and established it upon the floods [apparently a reference
> to Bereshit 1:9-10]. Who shall ascend into the mountain of HaShem? and
> who shall stand in His holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a
> pure heart; who hath not taken My name in vain, and hath not sworn
> deceitfully."
>
> Was Adam ever allowed to re-enter Gan Eden (since it is symbolic of
> the house/mountain of G-d), even temporarily?
Not that I am aware of.
>
> "His [Adam's] body, made an object of worship by some semi-pagan
> Melchisedician sect, according to the Christian Book of Adam, was
> shown in Talmudic times at Hebron, in the cave of Machpelah."
This type of thing is not an area of Jewish study. However, I see in the
Bereshis from the Artscroll Tanach Series that Adam and Eve were supposedly
buried there.
>
> I assume this is why Abraham spent 400 shekels of silver to purchase
> that cave. Right?
The way I learned, Abraham paid 400 shekels of silver (an exorbitant price
which far exceeded the value of the land), so that it could never be said
that he/the Jewish people didn't legitimately own the land or had dealt
unfairly when purchasing it. I see in the footnotes in the Bereshis
Artscroll Tanach Series that the land had a tremendous spiritual value
because Adam was buried there. Abraham knew the true value of the land,
whereas Ephron (the Hittite from whom he bought the land) did not. Abraham
(who knew this information from a prophetic revelation) did not share this
information with Ephron, and in fact, although the spirituality was of
tremendous value to Abraham, it was essentially meaningless to Ephron.
According to the footnote, this idea is explored in the Zohar (a book of
Jewish mysticism). However, the bottom line remains that Abraham was willing
to overpay so that it could never be said that he had dealt unfairly with
Ephron. Ephron was the one who had dealt unfairly with Abraham by taking
advantage of his bereavement.
>
> "He [Adam] is said to have been buried in the 'Cave of Treasures'-a
> Christian, rather than a Jewish, idea.
Apparently, it is a Jewish idea.
>Several of these peculiar
> features are found again in the Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, a work that
> was compiled under Arabic influence."
I don't own a copy of this work. All I can tell you is that the footnote in
the Artscroll states: "The spirituality of the cave was a *priceless
treasure* to Abraham."
>
> Is the "Cave of Treasures" therefore a Christian adaptation of a
> Jewish idea? The wording here is unclear.
Possibly.
The information in the Artscroll Tanach series is very extensive and way
beyond the scope of this forum to discuss (in terms of time and length).
Once you obtain the books (two-volume set), I think many of your questions
will be answered. Good luck.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Harry Weiss
Cindy is absolutely correct. The reason we study Torah is to be able to
perform teh Mitzvot corectly and to live our live correctly. The
historical parts are to teach us how to conduct our lives and to give oru
history and to establish the Jewish people's right to Israel.
The vaious historical nuances that you are so intersted in are irrelevant.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>> Are there any experts in Jewish tradition out there who could tell
>> me what is known about Adam and Gan Eden which is not written in
>> the bible.
>
> Part of the reason that you are not receiving satisfactory answers
> to the questions you ask is that the questions/answers are often
> very time-consuming to research/answer.
Another reason is they are not "Jewish" questions, so many here don't
_want_ to bother discussing them.
Moshe Schorr (Speaking from first-hand knowlege)
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
Herman Rubin
cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>"Damon Casale" <ko...@redshift.com> wrote in message
>news:4d3c8876.0402...@posting.google.com...
>> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:<ycSUb.44992$%72...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>> > "Damon Casale" <ko...@redshift.com> wrote in message
>> > news:4d3c8876.04020...@posting.google.com...
>> > > Are there any experts in Jewish tradition out there who could tell me
>> > > what is known about Adam and Gan Eden which is not written in the
>> > > bible.
There may be some tradition, but there is nothing known.
The whole story can only be allegorical, anyhow. This
means that nothing can really be known. How much of
the midrashim are invented out of "whole cloth"? I
am unwilling to believe that Abraham wielded an axe
to cut down idols at age 3.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
ahaleva
> Are there any experts in Jewish tradition out there who could tell me
> what is known about Adam and Gan Eden which is not written in the
> bible?
Yes. R. Hosha'ya. Circa 2nd century CE Tanna.
Wrote a Tannaitic midrash on Genesis known as "Bereshit de Ribbi
Hosha'ya Rabba." It is written in a kind of metaphoric code, as is
all midrash.
It remains the best source on this material. I would also read
Maimonides Guide to see options as to how one might decode such a
midrash.
I doubt anyone here or anywhere will tell you "what is known about
Adam and GE which is not written in the Bible." That is like asking
"Well, what is Newton's Principia about. Just give me the
highlights."
> For instance, I ran across a vague mention on a web site that Adam was
> embalmed, like Joseph was. Is this true?
No idea. No idea why it matters either.
One thing I do know. Gan Eden has really nothing to do with the
"mountain of God" and was never an actual place.
> Damon
Ronnie
Damon Casale
> ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale) wrote in message news:<4d3c8876.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > Are there any experts in Jewish tradition out there who could tell me
> > what is known about Adam and Gan Eden which is not written in the
> > bible?
>
> Yes. R. Hosha'ya. Circa 2nd century CE Tanna.
> Wrote a Tannaitic midrash on Genesis known as "Bereshit de Ribbi
> Hosha'ya Rabba." It is written in a kind of metaphoric code, as is
> all midrash.
>
> It remains the best source on this material. I would also read
> Maimonides Guide to see options as to how one might decode such a
> midrash.
Excellent. I'll see about tracking it down.
[snip]
> One thing I do know. Gan Eden has really nothing to do with the
> "mountain of God" and was never an actual place.
As far as Gan Eden never having been an actual place, there are many
Jews who would disagree. (What else is new?)
And there _is_ a hint in the text that at the very least, it was at a
higher elevation than the surrounding area. A river flowed OUT of it,
parting into four.
Damon
ahaleva
> > "mountain of God" and was never an actual place.
>
> As far as Gan Eden never having been an actual place, there are many
> Jews who would disagree. (What else is new?)
Numbers of subscribers is often less persuasive than the actual basis
of a thesis.
> And there _is_ a hint in the text that at the very least, it was at a
> higher elevation than the surrounding area. A river flowed OUT of it,
> parting into four.
>
> Damon
I do not see that sense in the Hebrew. OTOH I see numerous hints that
the story is allegoric.
I guess it all depends on one's hermeneutic code.
Ronnie
Damon Casale
[snip]
> I doubt very much that any of the SCJM posters has spent a lifetime immersed
> in research of esoteric points of Bereshis. While many of the posters to
> SCJM have extensive Jewish educations, the type of approach/learning that
> you are looking for is, generally speaking, not the focus of Jewish
> education.
I see. Nevertheless, there are Jews who study things like the Zohar
and etc., which are pretty esoteric in and of themselves. But I
concede the point that such Jews may not frequent this group. When I
mentioned that a certain mystical Jewish approach related the twelve
signs of the Zodiac to the twelve tribes of Israel, I got dead
silence.
Even so, see below.
> The talmud is not going to provide the answers to the types of questions you
> have been asking.
Well, certain things you yourself have quoted from it have been quite
valuable already. But I suppose there is a limit to what one can
glean from it. Oh well...
[snip re Rashi, Rambam, etc.]
> > Wouldn't studying the sages be considered a mitzvah, though? ;-)
>
> Yes, learning torah is a mitzvah for Jews, but so is keeping the sabbath
> holy. We can't violate one mitzvah to fulfill another.
Oh? I was under a different impression (although I suppose it depends
on the circumstances).
[snip]
> > Basically, I don't want a "Christian" answer. I want a Jewish answer.
>
> I understand, but for starters, the topic itself is not a focus of Jewish
> learning,
I'm beginning to see that. *sighs*
> and secondly, your approach is not a Jewish approach.
Well, IMHO, I'm using the same symbolic and covenantal focus.
*shrugs*
> I don't mean
> this as a criticism of you or your learning approach. I am just trying to
> explain why you are unlikely to get satisfactory answers on SCJM.
*nods* But see below.
[snip]
> > Was Adam ever allowed to re-enter Gan Eden (since it is symbolic of
> > the house/mountain of G-d), even temporarily?
>
> Not that I am aware of.
Hmm.
Since Gan Eden was a parallel of the Tabernacle and the Temple, and
the Cohen Gadol was able to enter the Holy of Holies once a year on
Yom Kippur, I made this speculation.
By the way, it was symbolically understood in Mesopotamia that life,
creative power and knowledge flowed from "the gods" who ruled from the
headwaters of a river or rivers. The peoples in ancient Mesopotamia
would build ziggurat temples on the bank of a river (usually the
Tigris) and teach what they referred to as "sacred science" in these
temples. It was said that the advanced knowledge of astronomy,
mathematics, engineering, biology, etc., originally came from "the
gods." Since I believe this was only a corrupted understanding that
had been passed down from Gan Eden, it would make sense that once a
year, G-d invited Adam back into Gan Eden to teach him this so-called
"sacred science." Adam's descendants would have preserved this
knowledge in part, but corrupted where it had originally come from
because they rejected the true G-d.
I'm pretty sure there's nothing like this in any source of Jewish
tradition. Call it my "drash" if you will, but my approach is
basically to attempt to project from known cultural and religious
reference points in the various ancient cultures of the world
backwards to Creation. The father of humanity experienced contact
with G-d in Gan Eden, and I am positing that all of humanity
remembered this experience in different ways (and for different
reasons, too). Every single one of the cultures of the ancient world
focuses on the importance of Creation in some way or another. Most of
them make reference to the primordial mound of earth which rose out of
the waters of creation (cf. Bereshit 1:9-10) and there are many other
parallels as well. Therefore, through a study of comparative
religions, I want to try to distill the primordial knowledge and
understanding which came from Gan Eden.
Henry Weiss commented that the reason the Jews study history is in
order to better perform the mitzvot enjoined upon them by G-d. I
would absolutely agree! But I would also point out that not everyone
emphasizes things in exactly the same way. I would also claim that
the study of history helps us to understand where we have been and
thus where we are going. But more than that, it provides a spiritual
perspective on life that one can miss by simply focusing on the ethics
of the bible.
When I first came across the Jewish tradition that Adam and Eve were
given "garments of light" by G-d when they sinned, as their bodies had
shone with an inner light beforehand, I knew that this was true. I'm
sure at least some of you on this newsgroup have heard of a person's
"Kirlian aura," right? For those who haven't, the Kirlian aura is an
energy field that the body somehow produces which appears as a
rainbow-colored aura. It can only be seen when it is photographed
with special equipment. But notice that the glory of G-d is described
as a rainbow-colored aura in Yechezkiel 1:28. This is the Shekinah
surrounding the throne of G-d. Since man is made in the likeness of
G-d, he has this same characteristic (albeit to a much lesser degree).
He shares a measure of the glory of G-d in the form of a Kirlian
aura! This is the spirit which G-d breathed into ha-Adam.
Science thus verifies what the Jews have understood from a spiritual
point of view all along.
I'm only trying to see where looking at things from the point of view
of the historicity of the biblical account, plus what I can learn from
Jewish tradition, leads me. *shrugs*
Damon
Damon Casale
> ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale) wrote in message news:<4d3c8876.0402...@posting.google.com>...
> > aha...@kaplangilman.com (ahaleva) wrote in message news:<865eb4a4.04020...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > One thing I do know. Gan Eden has really nothing to do with the
> > > "mountain of God" and was never an actual place.
> >
> > As far as Gan Eden never having been an actual place, there are many
> > Jews who would disagree. (What else is new?)
>
> Numbers of subscribers is often less persuasive than the actual basis
> of a thesis.
True, but see below.
> > And there _is_ a hint in the text that at the very least, it was at a
> > higher elevation than the surrounding area. A river flowed OUT of it,
> > parting into four.
>
> I do not see that sense in the Hebrew. OTOH I see numerous hints that
> the story is allegoric.
>
> I guess it all depends on one's hermeneutic code.
I suppose it does.
Consider the cultural context of what we are reading, however. Do you
know much about the Creation symbolism of the ancient cultures which
existed around the time of Avraham, for instance? Especially that of
Babylon, since that's where Avraham came from.
Allow me to enlighten you. They too had the concept of a mound of
earth which had risen out of the primordial waters (cf. Bereshit
1:9-10). They too had the concept of rivers flowing out of a sacred
place (cf. Bereshit 2:10). They too had all of these allegorical
concepts, BUT THEY WERE MANIFESTED IN A LITERAL FASHION AS WELL. (And
the same was true of ancient Egypt.)
To give you a good example, the ancient Sumerians and Babylonians
would build ziggurats (which were intended to represent the primordial
mound of earth) on the bank of a river (which was intended to
symbolize the river flowing out of a sacred place).
Finally, this sacred place where "the gods" ruled was always at the
HEADWATERS of such a river, NOT AT ITS MOUTH. In other words, the
ancient Sumerians and Babylonians did NOT locate the "land of Dilmun"
(their version of Gan Eden) at the MOUTHS of the Tigris and Euphrates,
near the Persian Gulf, but at their HEADWATERS!
Consider this. The four rivers which were said to flow out of Gan
Eden were the Tigris, Euphrates, Gihon and Pishon. Those four rivers
do not share a common source today. However, according to Bereshit
10:25, the earth was divided in the days of Peleg. In other words,
the continents separated at that time. (This makes sense because one
can still see where the continents would have fit together, long ago.
If the separation of the continents had happened millions of years ago
as opposed to only thousands, the edges of the continents would have
long eroded away, making it much more difficult to see how they had
once fit together.) Before the continents separated, these four
rivers DID have a common source!
Make sense?
I wouldn't so easily blow off the possibility of a literal account
here if I were you.
Damon
Herman Rubin
Damon Casale <ko...@redshift.com> wrote:
>aha...@kaplangilman.com (ahaleva) wrote in message news:<865eb4a4.04020...@posting.google.com>...
>> ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale) wrote in message news:<4d3c8876.04020...@posting.google.com>...
>> > Are there any experts in Jewish tradition out there who could tell me
>> > what is known about Adam and Gan Eden which is not written in the
>> > bible?
......................
>> One thing I do know. Gan Eden has really nothing to do with the
>> "mountain of God" and was never an actual place.
>As far as Gan Eden never having been an actual place, there are many
>Jews who would disagree. (What else is new?)
>And there _is_ a hint in the text that at the very least, it was at a
>higher elevation than the surrounding area. A river flowed OUT of it,
>parting into four.
This is one of the places where the text essentially
proves itself wrong. Of the four rivers, the first
two are described in glowing detail, and there are
none such nearby; the best guesses I have seen are
that they describe the White Nile and the Blue Nile.
However, the third and fourth rivers do have very
close sources in southeastern Turkey. The Tigris
is barely described, "going eastward to Assyria".
And the Euphrates is merely named. THESE rivers
were well known to the Israelites, and except for
the mountainous regions near their sources, the
geography was well known.
Damon Casale
> In article <4d3c8876.0402...@posting.google.com>,
> Damon Casale <ko...@redshift.com> wrote:
> >As far as Gan Eden never having been an actual place, there are many
> >Jews who would disagree. (What else is new?)
>
> >And there _is_ a hint in the text that at the very least, it was at a
> >higher elevation than the surrounding area. A river flowed OUT of it,
> >parting into four.
>
> This is one of the places where the text essentially
> proves itself wrong. Of the four rivers, the first
> two are described in glowing detail, and there are
> none such nearby; the best guesses I have seen are
> that they describe the White Nile and the Blue Nile.
>
> However, the third and fourth rivers do have very
> close sources in southeastern Turkey. The Tigris
> is barely described, "going eastward to Assyria".
> And the Euphrates is merely named. THESE rivers
> were well known to the Israelites, and except for
> the mountainous regions near their sources, the
> geography was well known.
See my other post. You're only scratching the surface of the issue.
There's a lot more to it than you're seeing. I should know; I take my
hobby of researching comparative cultures and religions very
seriously, and I've learned quite a bit about the cultural context of
Judaism (or prior to Judah's existence, Hebraism? Patriarchalism?) and
can prove exactly what Genesis 1-2 was really getting at.
Damon
ahaleva
>
> Finally, this sacred place where "the gods" ruled was always at the
> HEADWATERS of such a river, NOT AT ITS MOUTH. In other words, the
> ancient Sumerians and Babylonians did NOT locate the "land of Dilmun"
> (their version of Gan Eden) at the MOUTHS of the Tigris and Euphrates,
> near the Persian Gulf, but at their HEADWATERS!
>
> Consider this. The four rivers which were said to flow out of Gan
> Eden were the Tigris, Euphrates, Gihon and Pishon. Those four rivers
> do not share a common source today. However, according to Bereshit
> 10:25, the earth was divided in the days of Peleg. In other words,
> the continents separated at that time. (This makes sense because one
> can still see where the continents would have fit together, long ago.
> If the separation of the continents had happened millions of years ago
> as opposed to only thousands, the edges of the continents would have
> long eroded away, making it much more difficult to see how they had
> once fit together.) Before the continents separated, these four
> rivers DID have a common source!
>
> Make sense?
Only if you keep pushing interpretations onto the Hebrew text that are
not there. You are looking for literalism where allegory exists, as I
see it, e.g. the dor happelaga referring to a geological event and not
a linguistico-cultural event.
This happened in real calendrical time. You think the continents
drifted apart during the life of Nimrod?
> I wouldn't so easily blow off the possibility of a literal account
> here if I were you.
>
> Damon
Show me I'm from Judea.
Ronnie
Herman Rubin
Unless you can provide the documentary material, you cannot
prove anything of the sort. I see a collection of legends,
and there is quite a bit of evidence for that, and also
these legends do not agree with themselves.
We have documentary material that the Sumerians started
out with a river flood story, and this then developed
into a global one. We have documentary material about
the "nations" in the area and the languages spoken
there. We can compare the two lines of descent from
Adam, and see the two versions of the same legend. When
the Flood story is divided into the two claimed sources,
both of them read better than the combination.
SARAYALE
>From: ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale)
>Date: 2/11/2004 9:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
>When I first came across the Jewish tradition that Adam and Eve were
>given "garments of light" by G-d when they sinned,
Mistake. "Kotnot 'or" means garments of skin.
Ronnie
Damon Casale
[re the geography/rivers of Gan Eden]
> >See my other post. You're only scratching the surface of the issue.
> >There's a lot more to it than you're seeing. I should know; I take my
> >hobby of researching comparative cultures and religions very
> >seriously, and I've learned quite a bit about the cultural context of
> >Judaism (or prior to Judah's existence, Hebraism? Patriarchalism?) and
> >can prove exactly what Genesis 1-2 was really getting at.
>
> Unless you can provide the documentary material, you cannot
> prove anything of the sort. I see a collection of legends,
> and there is quite a bit of evidence for that, and also
> these legends do not agree with themselves.
They don't agree with themselves because the symbolism diverged over
time.
You've heard of the Physics concept of the "dual nature" of light,
right? It's BOTH a particle AND a wave, depending on how one analyzes
it. The same type of thing can be said of the symbolism of the
Ancient Near East. These ancient peoples used symbolism to make
"mytho-poetic" statements about the nature of Creation. Divergent
symbolism did not necessarily indicate a conflict of differing schools
of religious thought. On the contrary, divergent symbolism often
coexisted IN THE SAME CULTURE. For instance, Egypt had multiple
different pantheons of gods which were associated with Creation (the
Hermopolitan, Heliopolitan, Theban, etc.). Just as light could be
represented by both a particle and a wave, coexisting Creation
symbolism could be represented by multiple religious schools of
thought in Egypt.
> We have documentary material that the Sumerians started
> out with a river flood story, and this then developed
> into a global one.
Sources, please? (I assume you're implying a connection with the
biblical Flood story, so this is still on topic.)
> We have documentary material about
> the "nations" in the area and the languages spoken
> there.
In the area of Mesopotamia? Yes, I'm familiar with it.
> We can compare the two lines of descent from
> Adam, and see the two versions of the same legend.
Two versions of the same Flood story, you mean?
> When
> the Flood story is divided into the two claimed sources,
> both of them read better than the combination.
The Flood story is actually written from THREE different perspectives.
Have you ever heard of the "toledot" theory of Genesis authorship?
This theory claims that the different authors of Genesis can be
discerned based on the toledot colophons that end each section. Clay
tablets excavated in Mari had their "toledot" titles at the end of the
tablet, rather than at the beginning. According to this theory, this
style was probably copied wholesale from the original records written
on clay tablets and combined into the book of Genesis.
My reference for this is "Ancient Records and the Structure of
Genesis" by P. J. Wiseman.
We find the following toledot in Genesis:
Genesis 2:4a: "These are the generations [Heb. "toledot"] of the
heaven and of the earth when they were created." Author of previous
section = G-d.
Genesis 5:1a: "This is the book of the generations of Adam." Author
of previous section = Adam.
Genesis 6:9a: "These are the generations of Noah." Author of
previous section = Noah.
Genesis 10:1a: "Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah:
Shem, Ham, and Japheth." Authors of previous section = Shem, Ham &
Japheth.
Genesis 11:10a: "These are the generations of Shem." Author of
previous section = Shem.
Genesis 11:27a: "Now these are the generations of Terah." Author of
previous section = Terah.
Genesis 25:19a: "And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham's
son." Author of previous section = Isaac (with an interlude authored
by Ishmael).
Genesis 37:2a: "These are the generations of Jacob." Author of
previous section = Jacob (with an interlude authored by Esau).
Genesis does not end with a proper colophon, since the style of noting
authorship changes with the beginning of the book of Exodus. However,
the author of the last section of Genesis can be discerned from Exodus
1:6: "And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that
generation." There was originally a colophon naming Joseph as the
author which ended the last tablet comprising the book of Genesis, but
when Moses collated these records together and added them to the four
other books comprising the Torah, he removed it and spliced the story
together by using the introductory text in Exodus 1:1-7.
Is this theory absolutely, unequivocably provable? No it isn't,
although it can explain a great many unusual features of the structure
of Genesis - including the THREE Flood accounts (which I'll cover
shortly). But because it fits the cultural context in which these
accounts came into being, it is certainly LIKELY, and should be
skeptically but open-mindedly examined in that regard.
Now on to the three Flood accounts.
Beginning in Genesis 6:11, we have: "And the earth was corrupt before
G-d, and the earth was filled with violence."
Genesis 6:12 says nearly the same thing: "And G-d saw the earth, and,
behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the
earth."
Genesis 6:13 gives it a slightly different twist: "And G-d said unto
Noah: 'The end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled
with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the
earth."
This last verse shows the personal interaction of G-d with Noah.
Since the record of G-d's personal interaction with mankind was
entrusted to Shem, it would make sense if Shem were the author of this
last account.
In fact, Genesis 6:11-17 is written in the form of a chiasmus, but the
chiasmus has an unusual tripartite structure to it:
A - And the earth was corrupt before G-d, and the earth
was filled with violence.
A - And G-d saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt;
for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.
A = Shem - And G-d said unto Noah: 'The end of all flesh
is come before Me; for the earth is filled with
violence through them...'
B - 'Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.'
C - (Ark instructions)
B - And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon
the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the
breath of life, from under heaven.
A = Shem - Every thing that is in the earth shall perish.
There are other, similar tripartite examples in this section of the
bible. Again, this is not PROOF that Shem, Ham and Japheth wrote this
section, but such an unusual tripartite structure does make something
like that much more LIKELY.
Damon
Damon Casale
> ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale) wrote in message news:<4d3c8876.04021...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Finally, this sacred place where "the gods" ruled was always at the
> > HEADWATERS of such a river, NOT AT ITS MOUTH. In other words, the
> > ancient Sumerians and Babylonians did NOT locate the "land of Dilmun"
> > (their version of Gan Eden) at the MOUTHS of the Tigris and Euphrates,
> > near the Persian Gulf, but at their HEADWATERS!
> >
> > Consider this. The four rivers which were said to flow out of Gan
> > Eden were the Tigris, Euphrates, Gihon and Pishon. Those four rivers
> > do not share a common source today. However, according to Bereshit
> > 10:25, the earth was divided in the days of Peleg. In other words,
> > the continents separated at that time. (This makes sense because one
> > can still see where the continents would have fit together, long ago.
> > If the separation of the continents had happened millions of years ago
> > as opposed to only thousands, the edges of the continents would have
> > long eroded away, making it much more difficult to see how they had
> > once fit together.) Before the continents separated, these four
> > rivers DID have a common source!
> >
> > Make sense?
>
> Only if you keep pushing interpretations onto the Hebrew text that are
> not there. You are looking for literalism where allegory exists, as I
What makes it allegorical as opposed to literal? How does one tell?
Like I said before, one can easily compare Jewish religious literature
with that of other ancient cultures, and one will find that elements
such as this often had BOTH an allegorical AND a historical aspect.
Therefore, just because one sees an allegorical aspect does not
AUTOMATICALLY disprove a historical one.
As a matter of fact, the Edenic biblical symbolism backs up a
historical interpretation. But I'm not going to go into why here,
because I'm not about to expose the research I've spent years on to
mere cynical scoffing. If anything, I'd rather have a well-balanced
skeptical (not cynical) and open-minded cross-examination by a
qualified expert or experts.
> , e.g. the dor happelaga referring to a geological event and not
> a linguistico-cultural event.
It was both, not simply the one. That's what makes biblical symbolism
(and the religious symbolism of other contemporary ancient cultures)
so hard to grasp. It often has more than one correct interpretation.
> This happened in real calendrical time. You think the continents
> drifted apart during the life of Nimrod?
What makes that such a hard thing to swallow? After all, what does
Peleg's name mean? Earthquake.
> > I wouldn't so easily blow off the possibility of a literal account
> > here if I were you.
>
> Show me I'm from Judea.
So in other words, you're a cynical Jew. *shrugs*
I'm not sure I'd want to show you. You've blown off what I've
presented thus far. If you were more open to at least the
possibility, even if you were skeptical of it, I'd be more willing to
show you more of my research.
Damon
Damon Casale
You didn't read the article on Parshat B'reshit by the Chief Rabbi, did you?
Damon
ahaleva
> What makes it allegorical as opposed to literal? How does one tell?
Critical judgment and values peculiar to the linguistic speaking
community.
> > , e.g. the dor happelaga referring to a geological event and not
> > a linguistico-cultural event.
>
> It was both, not simply the one. That's what makes biblical symbolism
> (and the religious symbolism of other contemporary ancient cultures)
> so hard to grasp. It often has more than one correct interpretation.
>
> > This happened in real calendrical time. You think the continents
> > drifted apart during the life of Nimrod?
>
> What makes that such a hard thing to swallow? After all, what does
> Peleg's name mean? Earthquake.
No it does not. Source?
It means split. As in pilug leshonoth, or the Talmudic analogue
"palginan dibbura." Or "pelegh elohm male' mayim."
Splitting of tectonic plates or along fault lines always uses "BQ'"
No geologic record of such an event appx 400 years ago. That's why.
>
> > > I wouldn't so easily blow off the possibility of a literal account
> > > here if I were you.
> >
> > Show me I'm from Judea.
>
> So in other words, you're a cynical Jew. *shrugs*
Not exactly. See -- interpretation of language is culturally
dependent.
> I'm not sure I'd want to show you. You've blown off what I've
> presented thus far. If you were more open to at least the
> possibility, even if you were skeptical of it, I'd be more willing to
> show you more of my research.
>
> Damon
Fine.
Shalom alayikh,
Ronnie
ahaleva
I assume you mean Chief Rabbi of the UK. I do not know. I generally
do not read such things, as I find them boring and not offering much
insight.
Nonetheless, no derasha can change an ayin to an aleph. In fact, the
law is if one cannot distinguish these letters, one cannot serve as a
cantor for a minyan. Now why would that be? To insure the meaning is
preserved? I think it's a good bet.
If a language cannot distinguish between "eye" and "nothing", or
"skin" and "light" things can be very confusing. Imagine trying to
say "I saw her skin in her light (the moon; and she lit up my face and
my parched skin thirsted for her waters." A bit of redundant
illiteration to say the least.
Moreover, for the meaning it is crucial to catch that the garments
described are in fact out skin. All exotic interpretations
notwithstanding, this is a profound statement, which connects with
others later in Exodus.
'or means skin no matter how you slice it. En miqra yose midde
peshuto.
Ronnie
ahaleva
I said:
> If a language cannot distinguish between "eye" and "nothing", or
> "skin" and "light" things can be very confusing. Imagine trying to
> say "I saw her skin in her light (the moon; and she lit up my face and
> my parched skin thirsted for her waters." A bit of redundant
> illiteration to say the least.
>
> Moreover, for the meaning it is crucial to catch that the garments
> described are in fact out skin. All exotic interpretations
> notwithstanding, this is a profound statement, which connects with
> others later in Exodus.
I meant to say:
If a language cannot distinguish between "eye" and "nothing", or
"skin" and "light" things can be very confusing. Imagine trying to
say "I saw her skin in her light (i.e., the light of the moon); she
lit up my face and my parched skin thirsted for her waters" with no
aleph/'ayin distnction. A bit of redundant alliteration to say the
least.
Moreover, for the meaning it is crucial to catch that the garments
described are in fact our (natural human) skin. All exotic
interpretations
notwithstanding, this is a profound statement, which connects with
others later in Exodus.
Ronnie
Damon Casale
[snip re the "garments of skin" vs. "garments of light" debate]
> Moreover, for the meaning it is crucial to catch that the garments
> described are in fact out skin. All exotic interpretations
> notwithstanding, this is a profound statement, which connects with
> others later in Exodus.
>
> 'or means skin no matter how you slice it. En miqra yose midde
> peshuto.
Leaving aside the debate for the moment, I understand that there is a
Jewish tradition that the garment of skin that G-d made for Adam was
passed on from father to son until Noah. After the Flood, it was
stolen by Nimrod. *Is* this a Jewish tradition? I don't quite
remember where I read about it.
Also, there seems to be a parallel between the tunic of skin that G-d
made for Adam and the tunics of linen that the priests were supposed
to wear. Both were for the purpose of covering one's sin and
appearing in purity before G-d. Is this what you were referring to?
Damon
Henry Goodman
"ahaleva" <aha...@kaplangilman.com> wrote in message
news:865eb4a4.04021...@posting.google.com...
No need to be so contemptuous about our revered and learned Chief Rabbi Shlita
The drasha can be found at
http://www.chiefrabbi.org/thoughts/bereishith5764.pdf
He gives a list of sources at the end. There is a statement in Berashit Raba
that Rabbi Meir (a Tanna, no less) had a Sefer that spelt Kotnot ohr with an
aleph.
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
Yisroel Markov
(ahaleva) said:
>aha...@kaplangilman.com (ahaleva) wrote in message news:<865eb4a4.04021...@posting.google.com>...
>
>I said:
>
>> If a language cannot distinguish between "eye" and "nothing", or
>> "skin" and "light" things can be very confusing. Imagine trying to
>> say "I saw her skin in her light (the moon; and she lit up my face and
>> my parched skin thirsted for her waters." A bit of redundant
>> illiteration to say the least.
>>
>> Moreover, for the meaning it is crucial to catch that the garments
>> described are in fact out skin. All exotic interpretations
>> notwithstanding, this is a profound statement, which connects with
>> others later in Exodus.
>
>I meant to say:
>
>If a language cannot distinguish between "eye" and "nothing", or
>"skin" and "light" things can be very confusing. Imagine trying to
>say "I saw her skin in her light (i.e., the light of the moon); she
>lit up my face and my parched skin thirsted for her waters"
This quote sounds vaguely familiar. Can you name the source?
>with no
>aleph/'ayin distnction. A bit of redundant alliteration to say the
>least.
>
>Moreover, for the meaning it is crucial to catch that the garments
>described are in fact our (natural human) skin. All exotic
>interpretations
>notwithstanding, this is a profound statement, which connects with
>others later in Exodus.
>
>Ronnie
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
ahaleva
> "ahaleva" <aha...@kaplangilman.com> wrote in message
> news:865eb4a4.04021...@posting.google.com...
> > I assume you mean Chief Rabbi of the UK. I do not know. I generally
> > do not read such things, as I find them boring and not offering much
> > insight.
> >
> > Nonetheless, no derasha can change an ayin to an aleph. In fact, the
> > law is if one cannot distinguish these letters, one cannot serve as a
> > cantor for a minyan. Now why would that be? To insure the meaning is
> > preserved? I think it's a good bet.
> No need to be so contemptuous about our revered and learned Chief Rabbi Shlita
I am not. I am simply expressing my honest reaction to the question.
My opinion is that nearly every modern professional Rabbi's derasha
that I have ever heard or ever read has left me nonplussed. I am not
commenting on your Chief Rabbi per se. Perhaps it is a matter of how
a Rabbis sees his audience and their expectations. I have lived some
years, I have heard and read many Rabbis. I have stopped reading such
things, even when good folks such as your self swear to the erudition
and reverence of the author, so as not to get too nervous.
Our expectations are somewhat different.
> The drasha can be found at
> http://www.chiefrabbi.org/thoughts/bereishith5764.pdf
I read it. It leaves me unsatisfied. It is well written. Few Rabbis
produce the text of their sources. Very nice. Some of the set up is
very interesting, but the resolution is too philosophical, preachy,
Rabbi-esque, abstract, warm and fuzzy, new-agey, what have you. A lot
of the points are at odds with the very Bereshith Rabba you -- and
your Chief Rabbi -- adduce as a source. Especialy as regards Adam pre
and post Eden, and the meaning of all of this. Nonetheless, the idea
about proper nouns is a good one (and relates to ruwwah mallela). The
notion of what clothes of light means I simply do not like at all.
> He gives a list of sources at the end. There is a statement in Berashit Raba
> that Rabbi Meir (a Tanna, no less) had a Sefer that spelt Kotnot ohr with an
> aleph.
And he in no way provides the context or even decodes *at all* this
statement. What exactly is meant by "the Tora of R. Meir"? He was
post Ezra, when the text was rather standardized. "They found in the
Tora of R. Meir" it says, thus it was ganuz bebetho, apparently. Ma
tivo shel sefer kazze?
What is the context of the statement? What did this fact re: R. Meir
mean, at least to the author of the derasha? We are not told.
Obviously as well, R. Me'ir *recited* 'or with an 'ayin, and only had
a "sefer" written the other way, which he did not publish. Why? I
doubt he maintained that this girsa should be followed over and above
Ezra's.
Besides R. Meir's private text, the national version of the pasuq is
"skin." Do you maintain that the rule "en miqra yose midde peshuto"
gets suspended based on a da'ath yehida'ah never publicly proclaimed
by its author? Peshat means the common version, the sensis communis
(millashon lehitpashet, to spread throughout).
Forgetting the Chief Rabbi's derasha for a moment, what do you think
the story about R. Meir means, in context of Bereshith Rabba?
Ronnie
Damon Casale
> ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale) wrote in message news:<4d3c8876.0402...@posting.google.com>...
> > What makes it allegorical as opposed to literal? How does one tell?
>
> Critical judgment and values peculiar to the linguistic speaking
> community.
How about the structure of the language itself?
From what I understand, biblical Hebrew has two tenses that can be
indicated by forms of the verb: the present and the past. The
pluperfect, on the other hand, can be indicated by a change in the
word order. The word order would also change when a new subject was
introduced and special emphasis was being placed upon it. In order to
not introduce confusion, the word order did not otherwise change from
the standard of Conjunction-Verb-Subject-Object EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF
POETIC LICENSE. (Correct me if I have this wrong.) But Genesis is
not written as poetry, as are the Psalms, for instance. In other
words, THE AUTHOR (or authors) OF GENESIS INTENDED FOR IT TO BE
UNDERSTOOD AS HISTORY AND NOT MYTH.
Make sense?
> > > , e.g. the dor happelaga referring to a geological event and not
> > > a linguistico-cultural event.
> >
> > It was both, not simply the one. That's what makes biblical symbolism
> > (and the religious symbolism of other contemporary ancient cultures)
> > so hard to grasp. It often has more than one correct interpretation.
> >
> > > This happened in real calendrical time. You think the continents
> > > drifted apart during the life of Nimrod?
> >
> > What makes that such a hard thing to swallow? After all, what does
> > Peleg's name mean? Earthquake.
>
> No it does not. Source?
I looked it up in a lexicon which gave multiple meanings. I just
looked it up _again_ in a different, online lexicon, and it gave
different meanings. *shrugs* Oh well. That's what I get for not
knowing Hebrew myself.
> It means split. As in pilug leshonoth, or the Talmudic analogue
> "palginan dibbura." Or "pelegh elohm male' mayim."
>
> Splitting of tectonic plates or along fault lines always uses "BQ'"
In biblical Hebrew or modern Hebrew? "Earthquake" in the bible always
seems to be ra'ash (resh-ayin-shin).
> No geologic record of such an event appx 400 years ago. That's why.
4000, you mean. Actually, there are vague indications of some sort of
widespread disaster around 2300 BC (in some of the books I've read,
anyway). Now, the verse itself seems to indicate that the land was
"divided" (meaning apportioned, a-la Devarim 32:8) at that time.
However, this does not rule out any physical phenomena in parallel
with this.
In Yeshaiah 2, we read of the age of peace after the coming of
Moshiach, when "all nations will flow" to Jerusalem. In other words,
this completes the cycle of history from when the nations were divided
at Babel. However, this regathering of all of the nations occurs in
the context of a great shaking of the earth (verses 19-21).
Therefore, it makes perfect sense to me, using the principle of "the
end from the beginning" (Yeshaiah 46:10), to assign an earthquake to
the division at Babel as a parallel.
I've also heard that there is a Jewish tradition that there was an
earthquake when the L-rd passed through Egypt and smote the firstborn.
Is this true? This would seem to make sense because the presence of
the L-rd as a destroyer is often described as being accompanied by the
shaking of the earth (as in Tehilim 97). Since the separation of the
nations at Babel parallels the separation of Israel from Egypt, it
would appear that the earthquake is another aspect of that parallel.
> > > > I wouldn't so easily blow off the possibility of a literal account
> > > > here if I were you.
> > >
> > > Show me I'm from Judea.
> >
> > So in other words, you're a cynical Jew. *shrugs*
>
> Not exactly. See -- interpretation of language is culturally
> dependent.
Well, it's more than simply the interpretation of the language, as you
can see above. But that's all I emphasized this last time around. I
appreciate your correction on the meaning of "peleg," though. I do
want to get things right. :-)
> > I'm not sure I'd want to show you. You've blown off what I've
> > presented thus far. If you were more open to at least the
> > possibility, even if you were skeptical of it, I'd be more willing to
> > show you more of my research.
>
> Fine.
>
> Shalom alayikh,
Can we be skeptical but open-minded now?
Damon
SARAYALE
>Also, there seems to be a parallel between the tunic of skin that G-d
>made for Adam and the tunics of linen that the priests were supposed
>to wear.
How? The word "ketoneth"?
>Both were for the purpose of covering one's sin and
>appearing in purity before G-d. Is this what you were referring to?
I do not think either was to cover any sin, or the latter.
Anyways, no. I was referring to the human skin Adam was clothed in post Eden,
and the ability of Moses to revert back to the original Adamic state by
removing the "veil."
Ronnie
SARAYALE
>Hebrew has two tenses that can be
>indicated by forms of the verb: the present and the past.
What about the future?
>But Genesis is
>not written as poetry, as are the Psalms, for instance. In other
>words, THE AUTHOR (or authors) OF GENESIS INTENDED FOR IT TO BE
>UNDERSTOOD AS HISTORY AND NOT MYTH.
You make an unwarranted jump. Allegory is not myth, it is metaphor. Not all
allegory is written in poetry.
Genesis 1-6 contains much allegory.
>I looked it up in a lexicon which gave multiple meanings. I just
>looked it up _again_ in a different, online lexicon, and it gave
>different meanings.
Hence requiring knowledge of the semantic field and its possibilities.
>In biblical Hebrew or modern Hebrew? "Earthquake" in the bible always
>seems to be ra'ash (resh-ayin-shin).
Vattibaqa ha'adama asher tahtehem.
Heharim raqdeu khe'elim; gebha'oth kibhne son.
>Actually, there are vague indications of some sort of
>widespread disaster around 2300 BC (in some of the books I've read,
>anyway).
Not the times of Nimrod. Not in the *geological* record.
>Now, the verse itself seems to indicate that the land was
>"divided" (meaning apportioned, a-la Devarim 32:8) at that time.
>However, this does not rule out any physical phenomena in parallel
>with this.
Sure it does.
>Therefore, it makes perfect sense to me, using the principle of "the
>end from the beginning" (Yeshaiah 46:10), to assign an earthquake to
>the division at Babel as a parallel.
Conjecture. Based upon your identification.
>Since the separation of the
>nations at Babel parallels the separation of Israel from Egypt, it
>would appear that the earthquake is another aspect of that parallel.
But the txet would say so if that was the case. I do not see this parallel
either. Too much of a stretch for me.
>Can we be skeptical but open-minded >now?
I am what I am. Wyhen I disagree you call me closed minded. But I am a
Hebrew, and I judge your conjectures based upon my culture and my years of
experience with the text as well as 3 semitic languages.
Ronnie
Damon Casale
> >Subject: Re: About Adam
> >From: ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale)
> >Date: 2/19/2004 2:32 AM Eastern Standard Time
>
> >Hebrew has two tenses that can be
> >indicated by forms of the verb: the present and the past.
>
> What about the future?
Can that be indicated by a form of the verb in biblical Hebrew? I
always understood that there was no such verb form.
> >But Genesis is
> >not written as poetry, as are the Psalms, for instance. In other
> >words, THE AUTHOR (or authors) OF GENESIS INTENDED FOR IT TO BE
> >UNDERSTOOD AS HISTORY AND NOT MYTH.
>
> You make an unwarranted jump. Allegory is not myth, it is metaphor. Not all
> allegory is written in poetry.
>
> Genesis 1-6 contains much allegory.
But does that necessarily mean that it is not historical? For
instance, one could say that the division of the United Kingdom of
Israel into two halves was an allegory of the division of man into
"heart" versus "mind." But does that necessarily mean that it was not
historical? (We already have secular evidence that it was, including
the tunnel dug by Hezekiah as well as a ring-seal bearing Hezekiah's
name.)
> >I looked it up in a lexicon which gave multiple meanings. I just
> >looked it up _again_ in a different, online lexicon, and it gave
> >different meanings.
>
> Hence requiring knowledge of the semantic field and its possibilities.
*nods* I know a little, and I try to make use of that without going
beyond the boundaries of my knowledge. Sometimes I goof.
> >In biblical Hebrew or modern Hebrew? "Earthquake" in the bible always
> >seems to be ra'ash (resh-ayin-shin).
>
> Vattibaqa ha'adama asher tahtehem.
>
> Heharim raqdeu khe'elim; gebha'oth kibhne son.
English translation?
> >Actually, there are vague indications of some sort of
> >widespread disaster around 2300 BC (in some of the books I've read,
> >anyway).
>
> Not the times of Nimrod. Not in the *geological* record.
What would you expect to find in the geological record, regarding the
separation of the continents?
> >Now, the verse itself seems to indicate that the land was
> >"divided" (meaning apportioned, a-la Devarim 32:8) at that time.
> >However, this does not rule out any physical phenomena in parallel
> >with this.
>
> Sure it does.
How so? How can absence of evidence be interpreted as evidence of
absence?
> >Therefore, it makes perfect sense to me, using the principle of "the
> >end from the beginning" (Yeshaiah 46:10), to assign an earthquake to
> >the division at Babel as a parallel.
>
> Conjecture. Based upon your identification.
Conjecture, yes, but an educated guess nonetheless based upon what you
might call the "allegorical" structure of the bible.
> >Since the separation of the
> >nations at Babel parallels the separation of Israel from Egypt, it
> >would appear that the earthquake is another aspect of that parallel.
>
> But the txet would say so if that was the case.
Why? Does it mention that there was a "star" that heralded Moses'
birth, which we only find record of in Jewish tradition? That is a
direct parallel to the birth of Immanuel as a sign to King Ahaz in
Yeshaiah 7, as the "great light" of Yeshaiah 9:2 appeared at _his_
birth.
> I do not see this parallel either. Too much of a stretch for me.
*shrugs* Are there any Jewish sources that have drawn such a parallel
between the separation of the nations at Babel and the separation of
Israel from Egypt, though? (It seems to me that there are.)
> >Can we be skeptical but open-minded >now?
>
> I am what I am. Wyhen I disagree you call me closed minded. But I am a
> Hebrew, and I judge your conjectures based upon my culture and my years of
> experience with the text as well as 3 semitic languages.
There's a difference between being skeptical and being closed-minded.
A skeptic would claim that they don't see something, but leave open
the possibility of changing their mind at a future date, based on
either new evidence or consultation with an expert or experts who see
things differently. Someone who is closed-minded would claim that
they don't see something, and not bother to leave open a possibility
of changing their mind at a future date because it's not important
enough to them to do so.
Make sense?
By the way, do you notice how I ask open-ended questions, allowing for
the possibility of changing my mind at a future date? That's part of
what I mean by being open-minded. For example, instead of flat-out
stating that there is no evidence in the geologic record for a
separation of the continents around 2300 BC, you might instead have
asked, how can I label such a separation of the continents as
historical if there appears to be no evidence in the geologic record?
Where _is_ my evidence? That *explicitly* leaves open the possibility
of changing your mind at a future date based upon new evidence.
See my point?
Damon
Henry Goodman
"Damon Casale" <ko...@redshift.com> wrote in message
news:4d3c8876.04021...@posting.google.com...
> sara...@aol.com (SARAYALE) wrote in message
news:<20040219023543...@mb-m18.aol.com>...
> > >Subject: Re: About Adam
> > >From: ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale)
> > >Date: 2/19/2004 2:32 AM Eastern Standard Time
> >
> > >Hebrew has two tenses that can be
> > >indicated by forms of the verb: the present and the past.
> >
> > What about the future?
>
> Can that be indicated by a form of the verb in biblical Hebrew? I
> always understood that there was no such verb form.
>
I think a better formulation is that there are only past and future tenses
(usually called perfect and imperfect) but no real present tense (just a present
participle)
Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)
"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> writes:
More precisely, those are called "aspects" (perfect and imperfect)
and are distinct from tenses. Aspect related to whether an
event/action is complete or not (at the time being discussed). Tense
refers to when the event/action took/takes/will take place. There is
a strong argument to be made that Torah-itic Hebrew does not have
tenses, but only aspect.
Modern English, by contrast, has an extremely elaborate tense system,
allowing one to say things like: "will have been needed" with a
reference time in the future and an event time in the past (relative
to that reference time). Biblical Hebrew doesn't have anything like
that at all.
-Shlomo-
Damon Casale
> >Subject: Re: About Adam
> >From: ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale)
> >Date: 2/18/2004 1:07 PM Eastern Standard Time
>
> >Also, there seems to be a parallel between the tunic of skin that G-d
> >made for Adam and the tunics of linen that the priests were supposed
> >to wear.
>
> How? The word "ketoneth"?
Yes.
> >Both were for the purpose of covering one's sin and
> >appearing in purity before G-d. Is this what you were referring to?
>
> I do not think either was to cover any sin, or the latter.
What's your take on Shemot 28:42-43, then?
> Anyways, no. I was referring to the human skin Adam was clothed in post Eden,
> and the ability of Moses to revert back to the original Adamic state by
> removing the "veil."
Eh? I don't quite understand what you're talking about.
Damon
Yisroel Markov
(ahaleva) said:
>aha...@kaplangilman.com (ahaleva) wrote in message news:<865eb4a4.04021...@posting.google.com>...
>
>I said:
>
>> If a language cannot distinguish between "eye" and "nothing", or
>> "skin" and "light" things can be very confusing. Imagine trying to
>> say "I saw her skin in her light (the moon; and she lit up my face and
>> my parched skin thirsted for her waters." A bit of redundant
>> illiteration to say the least.
>>
>> Moreover, for the meaning it is crucial to catch that the garments
>> described are in fact out skin. All exotic interpretations
>> notwithstanding, this is a profound statement, which connects with
>> others later in Exodus.
>
>I meant to say:
>
>If a language cannot distinguish between "eye" and "nothing", or
>"skin" and "light" things can be very confusing. Imagine trying to
>say "I saw her skin in her light (i.e., the light of the moon); she
>lit up my face and my parched skin thirsted for her waters" with no
>aleph/'ayin distnction. A bit of redundant alliteration to say the
>least.
>
>Moreover, for the meaning it is crucial to catch that the garments
>described are in fact our (natural human) skin.
Really? Fascinating. How do you know that?
>All exotic interpretations
>notwithstanding, this is a profound statement, which connects with
>others later in Exodus.
Could you please elaborate?
Henry Goodman
My reason for writing my previous post was that I read your post as implying
that the Chief Rabbi shlita was an am haaretz who did not know the difference
between an aleph and an ayin. I was sure he had a good reason for this
interpretation so I looked it up and quoted his source.
That having being resolved I do not feel able to debate and defend his drasha in
detail.
I have a point about the sefer Torah which was ganuz bebetho. There is a pasuk
in Ki Tetze (Deut 23;2) where the word daka is spelt with a he but there are
seforim that spell it with an aleph. One Shabbat some years ago my neighbour in
shul remarked that if a sefer Torah was found that spelt it with an aleph then
it could neither be used (since the accepted girsa is he) or corrected (in case
aleph is really correct) so the sefer would be ganuz; I do not know whether what
my neighbour said is halacha lemaasei. It seems to me that Rabbi Meir
inherited or acquired an old sefer where "kotnot or" was spelt with an aleph and
was ganuz it for the same reason. It is well known that Rabbi Meir was
"Choshesh bemiyut" (held one should take account of minority views or
possibilities) which would fit in being machmir over this sefer. Since he held
there was a possibility that aleph was correct he darshaned the posuk that way
as one of "shivim panim latorah" (70 faces of the torah)
ahaleva
> sara...@aol.com (SARAYALE) wrote in message news:<20040218223126...@mb-m19.aol.com>...
> > >Subject: Re: About Adam
> > >From: ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale)
> > >Date: 2/18/2004 1:07 PM Eastern Standard Time
>
> > >Also, there seems to be a parallel between the tunic of skin that G-d
> > >made for Adam and the tunics of linen that the priests were supposed
> > >to wear.
> >
> > How? The word "ketoneth"?
>
> Yes.
To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a shirt is just a shirt. If you want
to assert a "parallel" you need to develop the idea from the text.
> > >Both were for the purpose of covering one's sin and
> > >appearing in purity before G-d. Is this what you were referring to?
> >
> > I do not think either was to cover any sin, or the latter.
>
> What's your take on Shemot 28:42-43, then?
Does not refer to either "sin" or "purity." What is your basis for
asserting it does?
> > Anyways, no. I was referring to the human skin Adam was clothed in post Eden,
> > and the ability of Moses to revert back to the original Adamic state by
> > removing the "veil."
>
> Eh? I don't quite understand what you're talking about.
>
> Damon
The "masve" of Moses was our post Eden regular human skin, and pre
expulsion Adam did not have it. I believe his body shone from within,
as did Moses' after the Sinai experience. Moses could shift at will
between the pre and post Edenic states. I assume Adam in Eden was
akin to Moses up on the mountain. No food, no water, different type
of existence. Moses obviously transformed to get to that state. Adam
devolved to the "normal" state.
The notion of original sin is a borrowing of this idea of Adamic
devolution. Much of early Christian "qabbala" is a borrowing of
midrashic notions such as this one. I am sure Jesus, the apostles,
Jesus' students, and the early church fathers were familiar with this
literature.
Theodor Albeck, the editor of the critical edition of Bereshit Rabba,
wherein appears the statement that the Chief Rabbi cited regarding the
sefer of R. Meir with the variant text, which said "clothes of
**light**", notes ad loc. that this is pluperfect, and refers to the
"clothing" of Adam ***pre*** expulsion from Eden. In this context it
supports my thesis.
(BTW this is what I mean by a reasonable and satisfying decoding of
the R. Meir incident; not just a word association based on
light-light or some general meta-theme).
Ronnie
ahaleva
> My reason for writing my previous post was that I read your post as implying
> that the Chief Rabbi shlita was an am haaretz who did not know the difference
> between an aleph and an ayin. I was sure he had a good reason for this
> interpretation so I looked it up and quoted his source.
> That having being resolved I do not feel able to debate and defend his drasha in
> detail.
I understand.
> I have a point about the sefer Torah which was ganuz bebetho. There is a pasuk
> in Ki Tetze (Deut 23;2) where the word daka is spelt with a he but there are
> seforim that spell it with an aleph. One Shabbat some years ago my neighbour in
> shul remarked that if a sefer Torah was found that spelt it with an aleph then
> it could neither be used (since the accepted girsa is he) or corrected (in case
> aleph is really correct) so the sefer would be ganuz; I do not know whether what
> my neighbour said is halacha lemaasei.
You do know that Ashkenazim and Sepharadim differ on the spelling of
pesu'a dakka. A and Yemenite spell with final aleph, S with heh,
(Moses spelled with neither, of course (no matres lectionis then)).
Lema'aseh each edah would correct the sefer to reflect its official
version. This variant is only as to a mater lectionis, however, and
does nto affet the meaning.
> It seems to me that Rabbi Meir
> inherited or acquired an old sefer where "kotnot or" was spelt with an aleph > and
> was ganuz it for the same reason. It is well known that Rabbi Meir was
> "Choshesh bemiyut" (held one should take account of minority views or
> possibilities) which would fit in being machmir over this sefer. Since he held
> there was a possibility that aleph was correct he darshaned the posuk that way
> as one of "shivim panim latorah" (70 faces of the torah)
I agree. Bereshith Rabba is full of notes regarding variant words
(not just letters) "shemase'u katuv besifro shel R. Meir." But these
are TSBA"P, and thus the sefer was not a true "writing." Debharim
shebe'al pe i atta rashai le'omran bikhtabh. Thus it was ganuz, and
only after he died they found it in his house.
Now, what is the meaning of this "clothes of light" derasha? Albeck,
the editor of Bereshith Rabba, believes it refers to the clothes of
Adam **prior to** the sin of the ess hada'ath. Fine. What does that
mean, though?
Ronnie
Henry Goodman
"ahaleva" <aha...@kaplangilman.com> wrote in message
news:865eb4a4.04022...@posting.google.com...
I have seen a note to this effect but I have a number of Chumashim which I
assume to be Ashkenazi (that is the majority in the UK) and they all spell daka
with a heh.
My neighbour may possibly have been talking about a different pasuk; his main
point was that Rashi had a variant spelling and we dare not correct something
that Rashi accepted.
> > It seems to me that Rabbi Meir
> > inherited or acquired an old sefer where "kotnot or" was spelt with an aleph
> and
> > was ganuz it for the same reason. It is well known that Rabbi Meir was
> > "Choshesh bemiyut" (held one should take account of minority views or
> > possibilities) which would fit in being machmir over this sefer. Since he
held
> > there was a possibility that aleph was correct he darshaned the posuk that
way
> > as one of "shivim panim latorah" (70 faces of the torah)
>
> I agree. Bereshith Rabba is full of notes regarding variant words
> (not just letters) "shemase'u katuv besifro shel R. Meir." But these
> are TSBA"P, and thus the sefer was not a true "writing." Debharim
> shebe'al pe i atta rashai le'omran bikhtabh. Thus it was ganuz, and
> only after he died they found it in his house.
>
> Now, what is the meaning of this "clothes of light" derasha? Albeck,
> the editor of Bereshith Rabba, believes it refers to the clothes of
> Adam **prior to** the sin of the ess hada'ath. Fine. What does that
> mean, though?
Clearly Adam had no physical clothes prior to the sin (veyiheyu shenehem arumim)
so we must assume his skin was lit up in some strange way?
Micha Berger
garments of light.
Tangent: Perhaps the reason why a blind person is an `iveir (the
same spelling and therefore root as leahter/skin) is because he "sees"
by relying on touch.
:-)BBii
-mi
Micha Berger
: Leaving aside the debate for the moment, I understand that there is a
: Jewish tradition that the garment of skin that G-d made for Adam was
: passed on from father to son until Noah. After the Flood, it was
: stolen by Nimrod. *Is* this a Jewish tradition? I don't quite
: remember where I read about it.
Esau killed Nimrod and got the garment. This was the same day that Abraham
died. He returned from the assasination and was hungry, demanding that
red lentil soup. The garment was later put on by Jacob, as part of the
ruse to fool Isaac and get the blessing. On that verse, Bereishis Rabba
retells the above. So yes, it's a Jewish tradition.
But midrashim were repeated for their metaphor content, bot because the
person necessarily believed them as historical. (Nor that he necessairly
didn't -- history is irrelevent to the midrashic mode.)
: Also, there seems to be a parallel between the tunic of skin that G-d
: made for Adam and the tunics of linen that the priests were supposed
: to wear. Both were for the purpose of covering one's sin and
: appearing in purity before G-d. Is this what you were referring to?
: Damon
:-)BBii
-mi
--
Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
mi...@aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905 It is two who look in the same direction.
Micha Berger
: I have seen a note to this effect but I have a number of Chumashim which I
: assume to be Ashkenazi (that is the majority in the UK) and they all
: spell daka with a heh.
And nearly every printed chumash splits Haazinu according to Sephardic practice,
to the point that few even know Ashkenazim stopped for the aliyos in
different places. Usually this would be no big deal, but since Haazinu is
a poem (except for the closing lines), you can only stop in the poem at
the proper points.
Micha Berger
was printed in Soncino (from which the contemporary publisher got the
name), and most chumashim refer back to earlier ones when editing.
:-)BBii
Micha Berger
: I think a better formulation is that there are only past and future tenses
: (usually called perfect and imperfect) but no real present tense (just a present
: participle)
Not just "usually called", that is their role. This is why there are
prophecies that speak about things that will certainly occur in the
future using the past tense.
Also, it explains the reversing vav. "Vayomer" is "He was saying",
where the "was" is implied by the leading vav (also used for "and")
*connecting* it to the point in the naarative. But the imperfect
"yomer" is used for a reason.
As for present tense, "Hu boneh" means "Hs is building" and "He is
a builder". Someone doing something is treated as a property of
the person, an adjective.
But moreso, if an adjective sufficiently describes, Hebrew could omit
the noun. (In english we would say "one" or something.) Thus, some
translate "haKel haGadol haGibor vehaNora" from the start of the amidah
as "The G-d, the Great One, the Mighty One, and the Awe-Inspiring One"
(*), while others have "the great, mighty and aw-inspiring G-d". One u
(* Or as my 11 yr old likes to put it "the totally Awesome" <g>.)
So "boneh" could be a verb, an adjective or a noun (ie an adjective to an
implied noun). That's much to lay onto a present tense word. And says a lot
about the Jewish view of time.
As does the lack of real past and future tenses.
Henry Goodman
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:c15fga$1f1htv$4...@ID-113975.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:33:00 +0000 (UTC), Henry Goodman
<henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
> : I have seen a note to this effect but I have a number of Chumashim which I
> : assume to be Ashkenazi (that is the majority in the UK) and they all
> : spell daka with a heh.
>
>
> And nearly every printed chumash splits Haazinu according to Sephardic
practice,
> to the point that few even know Ashkenazim stopped for the aliyos in
> different places. Usually this would be no big deal, but since Haazinu is
> a poem (except for the closing lines), you can only stop in the poem at
> the proper points.
>
> -mi
Are you saying that the Ashkenazi shul I attend, which stops as printed in
Chumashim, is stopping at the wrong places?
Shavua Tov
Damon Casale
> > > >made for Adam and the tunics of linen that the priests were supposed
> > > >to wear.
> > >
> > > How? The word "ketoneth"?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a shirt is just a shirt. If you want
> to assert a "parallel" you need to develop the idea from the text.
Okay, here goes:
1. The entrance of Gan Eden was on the east side (Bereshit 3:24).
The entrances to the Tabernacle and the Temple were also on the east
side (Yechezchiel 8:16).
2. In the Creation account, Adam and Havah are to "dress" (Heb.
'avodah) and "keep" (Heb. shemirah) Gan Eden. According to Bamidbar
3:6-7, the Levites are to "keep" (Heb. shemirah) the charge and do the
"service" (Heb. 'avodah) of the Tabernacle. These two terms only
appear together in reference to Gan Eden and the Tabernacle.
3. Cherubim were present at the entrance to Eden (Bereshit 3:24) and
were represented as overshadowing the Mercy Seat on the Ark (Shemot
25:17-22). G-d met with man in these two places.
4. Sacrifices were offered at the entrance to Eden (Bereshit 4:3-4)
and at the Tabernacle and Temple.
5. One had to be ritually pure in order to remain in Eden or enter
the Tabernacle or Temple.
Is there a parallel between Gan Eden and the Tabernacle/Temple? You
bet! Therefore, it's LIKELY that the tunics (Heb. ketoneth) that Adam
and Havah wore were meant to symbolize the same thing as the tunics
(Heb. ketoneth) of the priests who ministered at the Tabernacle and
the Temple.
> > > >Both were for the purpose of covering one's sin and
> > > >appearing in purity before G-d. Is this what you were referring to?
> > >
> > > I do not think either was to cover any sin, or the latter.
> >
> > What's your take on Shemot 28:42-43, then?
>
> Does not refer to either "sin" or "purity." What is your basis for
> asserting it does?
It was to cover their nakedness in both cases. Otherwise, they would
"bear iniquity" according to that passage.
> The "masve" of Moses was our post Eden regular human skin, and pre
> expulsion Adam did not have it. I believe his body shone from within,
> as did Moses' after the Sinai experience. Moses could shift at will
> between the pre and post Edenic states. I assume Adam in Eden was
> akin to Moses up on the mountain. No food, no water, different type
> of existence. Moses obviously transformed to get to that state. Adam
> devolved to the "normal" state.
This is an interesting take on Adam and Moses that I hadn't heard
before. It certainly sounds plausible. I'll have to think about it.
:-)
> The notion of original sin is a borrowing of this idea of Adamic
> devolution.
Sort of. Here's an interesting thought, though. If Adam was a son of
G-d and things were created after their kind, how is it that G-d is
eternal and Adam was mortal? This drash answers that question quite
nicely.
> Theodor Albeck, the editor of the critical edition of Bereshit Rabba,
> wherein appears the statement that the Chief Rabbi cited regarding the
> sefer of R. Meir with the variant text, which said "clothes of
> **light**", notes ad loc. that this is pluperfect, and refers to the
> "clothing" of Adam ***pre*** expulsion from Eden. In this context it
> supports my thesis.
I mentioned in another post that the glory of G-d appears as a
multicolored rainbow (Yechezchiel 1:26-28). The "garments of light"
that Adam and Havah were given would have been like this. The
"garment of many colors" that Jacob gave to Joseph would have
symbolically represented these "garments of light."
Interesting!
> (BTW this is what I mean by a reasonable and satisfying decoding of
> the R. Meir incident; not just a word association based on
> light-light or some general meta-theme).
Well, as always, there's more to the story. ^_^
Damon
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>: I have seen a note to this effect but I have a number of Chumashim
>: which I assume to be Ashkenazi (that is the majority in the UK)
>: and they all spell daka with a heh.
>
> And nearly every printed chumash splits Haazinu according to
> Sephardic practice, to the point that few even know Ashkenazim
> stopped for the aliyos in different places. Usually this would be
> no big deal, but since Haazinu is a poem (except for the closing
> lines), you can only stop in the poem at the proper points.
I've heard there is controversy about the number of lines on which
Haazinu is to be written. Have you?
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
Micha Berger
: Are you saying that the Ashkenazi shul I attend, which stops as printed in
: Chumashim, is stopping at the wrong places?
Well, Sepharadi isn't "wrong"... But other than that, yes that's pretty
much what I'm saying. I bet this won't come as a surprise to your rabbi.
-mi
--
Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
mi...@aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites
SARAYALE
>1. The entrance of Gan Eden was on the east side (Bereshit 3:24).
Text does not say that.
>The entrances to the Tabernacle and the Temple were also on the east
>side (Yechezchiel 8:16).
Post Edenic reasons. Most temples faced east for sun worship. Hebrew Temple
faced West to do the opposite.
2. In the Creation account, Adam and Havah are to "dress" (Heb.
>'avodah) and "keep" (Heb. shemirah) Gan Eden.
L'obhdah never means to dress.
>Cherubim were present at the entrance to Eden (Bereshit 3:24) and
>were represented as overshadowing the Mercy Seat on the Ark (Shemot
>25:17-22). G-d met with man in these two places.
God met with man in many places. The kerubhim were only put East of Eden after
God and man ceased to communicate.
>4. Sacrifices were offered at the entrance to Eden (Bereshit 4:3-4)
No. I just do not see that you read the text with adequate precision.
>and at the Tabernacle and Temple.
And on various places pre-Temple.
>One had to be ritually pure in order to remain in Eden
Absolutely not. Not at all!
>Is there a parallel between Gan Eden and the Tabernacle/Temple? You
>bet!
Not based on what I have read thus far.
>Therefore, it's LIKELY that the tunics (Heb. ketoneth) that Adam
>and Havah wore were meant to symbolize the same thing as the tunics
>(Heb. ketoneth) of the priests who ministered at the Tabernacle and
>the Temple.
You really build mental edifices and then take these conjectures as real, so
you base further "parallels" on them.
>It was to cover their nakedness in both cases. Otherwise, they would
>"bear iniquity" according to that passage.
No. Adam and Eve would not "bear iniquity."
> If Adam was a son of
>G-d
Which means? A creation is not a son.
>and things were created after their kind, how is it that G-d is
>eternal and Adam was mortal?
Going in a very non-Hebraic direction.
>I mentioned in another post that the glory of G-d appears as a
>multicolored rainbow (Yechezchiel 1:26-28).
To a particular prophet, maybe. It is subjective. Not the same at all in Ex.
24:17, or 24:10.
>The "garments of light"
>that Adam and Havah were given would have been like this.
Like what?
>The
>"garment of many colors" that Jacob gave to Joseph would have
>symbolically represented these "garments of light."
Only if Jacob saw and used such symbolism, of whihch I am not at all convinced.
>Well, as always, there's more to the story. ^_^
>
But decoding is decoding, and word associations are a different exegetic
method.
Ronnie
Damon Casale
> >Subject: Re: About Adam
> >From: ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale)
> >Date: 2/22/2004 2:17 AM Eastern Standard Time
>
> >1. The entrance of Gan Eden was on the east side (Bereshit 3:24).
>
> Text does not say that.
So the Cherubim are going to be guarding the WALL, rather than the
entrance? Come on, don't be ridiculous.
> >The entrances to the Tabernacle and the Temple were also on the east
> >side (Yechezchiel 8:16).
>
> Post Edenic reasons. Most temples faced east for sun worship. Hebrew Temple
> faced West to do the opposite.
Er, not exactly. The Holy of Holies was towards the west, whereas the
Temple entrance was towards the east. East was the symbolic direction
of rebellion or exile, whereas west was the symbolic direction of
regathering and restoration. Moreover, Judaism was not a _reaction_
to the other religions of the time. It went back to the very
beginning.
> 2. In the Creation account, Adam and Havah are to "dress" (Heb.
> >'avodah) and "keep" (Heb. shemirah) Gan Eden.
>
> L'obhdah never means to dress.
You don't have a JPS, do you? "Dress" = King's English for "service"
or "work." You've heard of the term, "redress" - as in court-ordered
redress - right? It means a SERVICE to rectify a wrong.
> >Cherubim were present at the entrance to Eden (Bereshit 3:24) and
> >were represented as overshadowing the Mercy Seat on the Ark (Shemot
> >25:17-22). G-d met with man in these two places.
>
> God met with man in many places. The kerubhim were only put East of Eden
> after God and man ceased to communicate.
It was the duty of the Cherubim to guard the way to the Tree of Life,
but that did not mean that G-d and man had ceased to communicate.
> >4. Sacrifices were offered at the entrance to Eden (Bereshit 4:3-4)
>
> No. I just do not see that you read the text with adequate precision.
Where else do you think they would have sacrificed? The text doesn't
say that Adam and Havah moved away. In fact, it gives every
indication that they stayed in that area, whereas Cain DID move away.
> >and at the Tabernacle and Temple.
>
> And on various places pre-Temple.
So because sacrifices were offered at other places, that makes Gan
Eden and the Temple totally ordinary places to sacrifice?
You're not getting my point.
> >One had to be ritually pure in order to remain in Eden
>
> Absolutely not. Not at all!
Then why couldn't Adam and Havah re-enter after they had sinned?
> >Is there a parallel between Gan Eden and the Tabernacle/Temple? You
> >bet!
>
> Not based on what I have read thus far.
But is that because it's not there to be seen, or because YOU are just
not seeing it? How would you know?
By the way, do the sages draw any parallels between Eden and the
Temple? (I seem to have the impression that they do. I think I read
about that somewhere.)
> >It was to cover their nakedness in both cases. Otherwise, they would
> >"bear iniquity" according to that passage.
>
> No. Adam and Eve would not "bear iniquity."
Not Adam and Havah, the priests! You mean to tell me that you didn't
get that??? But that very passage in Shemot associates nakedness with
"bearing iniquity." Therefore it is quite reasonable that, because
Adam and Havah's sin is redressed by G-d making them garments of
skins, there is a parallel with clothing oneself with a garment in
order to not "bear iniquity."
> > If Adam was a son of G-d
>
> Which means? A creation is not a son.
The angels were sons of G-d, according to Eyov 38:7. Were they not
creations of G-d as well?
> >and things were created after their kind, how is it that G-d is
> >eternal and Adam was mortal?
>
> Going in a very non-Hebraic direction.
So you mean to say that the sages never commented on this?
> >I mentioned in another post that the glory of G-d appears as a
> >multicolored rainbow (Yechezchiel 1:26-28).
>
> To a particular prophet, maybe. It is subjective. Not the same at all in Ex.
> 24:17, or 24:10.
Just because it's not mentioned that way there means it's subjective?
Or is it that the accounts in Shemot don't describe _every_ detail of
the glory of G-d?
> >The "garments of light"
> >that Adam and Havah were given would have been like this.
>
> Like what?
Light with all of the colors of the rainbow. In other words, Kirlian
auras.
> >The
> >"garment of many colors" that Jacob gave to Joseph would have
> >symbolically represented these "garments of light."
>
> Only if Jacob saw and used such symbolism, of whihch I am not at all convinced.
Even if he himself did not, that's where the symbolism would have
originally come from. You knew that multicolored garments like that
were traditionally given to the firstborn, right? That was a cultural
practice of the times. Whether the symbolism I mentioned above was
_also_ understood at that time is another matter entirely, but it does
not negate its applicability.
> >Well, as always, there's more to the story. ^_^
>
> But decoding is decoding, and word associations are a different exegetic
> method.
I've done more "decoding" than you've seen, because you didn't
understand what I was saying in certain places above.
Damon
ahaleva
> sara...@aol.com (SARAYALE) wrote in message news:<20040222184334...@mb-m12.aol.com>...
> > >Subject: Re: About Adam
> > >From: ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale)
> > >Date: 2/22/2004 2:17 AM Eastern Standard Time
>
> > >1. The entrance of Gan Eden was on the east side (Bereshit 3:24).
> >
> > Text does not say that.
>
> So the Cherubim are going to be guarding the WALL, rather than the
> entrance? Come on, don't be ridiculous.
I could say the same thing.
> > >The entrances to the Tabernacle and the Temple were also on the east
> > >side (Yechezchiel 8:16).
> >
> > Post Edenic reasons. Most temples faced east for sun worship. Hebrew Temple
> > faced West to do the opposite.
>
> Er, not exactly. The Holy of Holies was towards the west, whereas the
> Temple entrance was towards the east. East was the symbolic direction
> of rebellion or exile, whereas west was the symbolic direction of
> regathering and restoration. Moreover, Judaism was not a _reaction_
> to the other religions of the time. It went back to the very
> beginning.
I do not understand that last comment. Maimonides, the Geonim and
many others do see Judaism as a reaction to pagan religions.
> > 2. In the Creation account, Adam and Havah are to "dress" (Heb.
> > >'avodah) and "keep" (Heb. shemirah) Gan Eden.
> >
> > L'obhdah never means to dress.
>
> You don't have a JPS, do you? "Dress" = King's English for "service"
> or "work." You've heard of the term, "redress" - as in court-ordered
> redress - right? It means a SERVICE to rectify a wrong.
No King here last time I looked.
> > >Cherubim were present at the entrance to Eden (Bereshit 3:24) and
> > >were represented as overshadowing the Mercy Seat on the Ark (Shemot
> > >25:17-22). G-d met with man in these two places.
> >
> > God met with man in many places. The kerubhim were only put East of Eden
> > after God and man ceased to communicate.
>
> It was the duty of the Cherubim to guard the way to the Tree of Life,
> but that did not mean that G-d and man had ceased to communicate.
Show us a communication. Bereshith Rabba disagrees with you.
> > >4. Sacrifices were offered at the entrance to Eden (Bereshit 4:3-4)
> >
> > No. I just do not see that you read the text with adequate precision.
>
> Where else do you think they would have sacrificed?
Have no idea. Lots of places. That does not force the issue to one
of either agreeing with you or having to come up with an answer.
I do not believe Eden was a physical place.
> So because sacrifices were offered at other places, that makes Gan
> Eden and the Temple totally ordinary places to sacrifice?
> You're not getting my point.
No kidding!
> > >One had to be ritually pure in order to remain in Eden
> >
> > Absolutely not. Not at all!
>
> Then why couldn't Adam and Havah re-enter after they had sinned?
Other reasons, fer instance -- hey here's one -- eating from the Tree
of Knowledge! Tum'a simply did not exist.
> > >Is there a parallel between Gan Eden and the Tabernacle/Temple? You
> > >bet!
> >
> > Not based on what I have read thus far.
>
> But is that because it's not there to be seen, or because YOU are just
> not seeing it? How would you know?
How would you?
> By the way, do the sages draw any parallels between Eden and the
> Temple? (I seem to have the impression that they do. I think I read
> about that somewhere.)
Show me, I'm from Judaea.
> > >It was to cover their nakedness in both cases. Otherwise, they would
> > >"bear iniquity" according to that passage.
> >
> > No. Adam and Eve would not "bear iniquity."
>
> Not Adam and Havah, the priests! You mean to tell me that you didn't
> get that???
No.
> But that very passage in Shemot associates nakedness with
> "bearing iniquity." Therefore it is quite reasonable that, because
> Adam and Havah's sin is redressed by G-d making them garments of
> skins, there is a parallel with clothing oneself with a garment in
> order to not "bear iniquity."
Just do not see it, sorry.
> > > If Adam was a son of G-d
> >
> > Which means? A creation is not a son.
>
> The angels were sons of G-d, according to Eyov 38:7. Were they not
> creations of G-d as well?
Sons is not literal there. Bene Elohim is a type of angel.
> > >and things were created after their kind, how is it that G-d is
> > >eternal and Adam was mortal?
> >
> > Going in a very non-Hebraic direction.
>
> So you mean to say that the sages never commented on this?
No, I mean what I said.
> > >I mentioned in another post that the glory of G-d appears as a
> > >multicolored rainbow (Yechezchiel 1:26-28).
> >
> > To a particular prophet, maybe. It is subjective. Not the same at all in Ex.
> > 24:17, or 24:10.
>
> Just because it's not mentioned that way there means it's subjective?
No, but it is subjective, as it is not physical, and men perceive it
using their subjective imaginations.
> Or is it that the accounts in Shemot don't describe _every_ detail of
> the glory of G-d?
No account does, ever.
> > >The "garments of light"
> > >that Adam and Havah were given would have been like this.
> >
> > Like what?
>
> Light with all of the colors of the rainbow. In other words, Kirlian
> auras.
This is where I get off the bus.
> > But decoding is decoding, and word associations are a different exegetic
> > method.
>
> I've done more "decoding" than you've seen, because you didn't
> understand what I was saying in certain places above.
>
> Damon
Okay. Can't win em all.
Ronnie
Damon Casale
> > > >1. The entrance of Gan Eden was on the east side (Bereshit 3:24).
> > >
> > > Text does not say that.
> >
> > So the Cherubim are going to be guarding the WALL, rather than the
> > entrance? Come on, don't be ridiculous.
>
> I could say the same thing.
o_O You really don't get why they would be guarding the *entrance*,
do you?
1. Gan Eden was a WALLED garden. The sages said so. (For instance,
there is a tradition that the wall hangings from Gan Eden were re-used
in the Temple.) Else, what would be the purpose of placing the
Cherubim and the flaming sword at the EAST of Gan Eden? Adam and
Havah could just enter in a different way. And if the Cherubim were
simply guarding the whole garden, why specify EAST? So it was
definitely walled.
2. If the Cherubim and the flaming sword were at the EAST of Gan
Eden, logic dictates that the entrance was there.
Again, don't be ridiculous.
> > > >The entrances to the Tabernacle and the Temple were also on the east
> > > >side (Yechezchiel 8:16).
> > >
> > > Post Edenic reasons. Most temples faced east for sun worship. Hebrew
> > > Temple faced West to do the opposite.
> >
> > Er, not exactly. The Holy of Holies was towards the west, whereas the
> > Temple entrance was towards the east. East was the symbolic direction
> > of rebellion or exile, whereas west was the symbolic direction of
> > regathering and restoration. Moreover, Judaism was not a _reaction_
> > to the other religions of the time. It went back to the very
> > beginning.
>
> I do not understand that last comment. Maimonides, the Geonim and
> many others do see Judaism as a reaction to pagan religions.
Post-exilic Judaism, perhaps, but the patriarchal faith of Abraham et.
al was not a reaction to the pagan religions of the time. It had been
handed down from the beginning. The biblical account tells us so.
> > > 2. In the Creation account, Adam and Havah are to "dress" (Heb.
> > > >'avodah) and "keep" (Heb. shemirah) Gan Eden.
> > >
> > > L'obhdah never means to dress.
> >
> > You don't have a JPS, do you? "Dress" = King's English for "service"
> > or "work." You've heard of the term, "redress" - as in court-ordered
> > redress - right? It means a SERVICE to rectify a wrong.
>
> No King here last time I looked.
*facefault* The JPS was written in "King's English." Thee, thy,
thou, etc. You really didn't know that, did you? Google "king's
english" and see what I mean.
> > > >Cherubim were present at the entrance to Eden (Bereshit 3:24) and
> > > >were represented as overshadowing the Mercy Seat on the Ark (Shemot
> > > >25:17-22). G-d met with man in these two places.
> > >
> > > God met with man in many places. The kerubhim were only put East of Eden
> > > after God and man ceased to communicate.
> >
> > It was the duty of the Cherubim to guard the way to the Tree of Life,
> > but that did not mean that G-d and man had ceased to communicate.
>
> Show us a communication. Bereshith Rabba disagrees with you.
Quote it, please. How does it explain G-d communicating with Cain in
Bereshit 4:6-7?
> > > >4. Sacrifices were offered at the entrance to Eden (Bereshit 4:3-4)
> > >
> > > No. I just do not see that you read the text with adequate precision.
> >
> > Where else do you think they would have sacrificed?
>
> Have no idea. Lots of places. That does not force the issue to one
> of either agreeing with you or having to come up with an answer.
Given the logical flow of the narrative, what's the greatest
LIKELIHOOD?
> I do not believe Eden was a physical place.
Ah! That is the problem!
And of course, there are Jews who disagree with you. So why are you
arguing with me as if this were a verboten position to hold?
> > So because sacrifices were offered at other places, that makes Gan
> > Eden and the Temple totally ordinary places to sacrifice?
>
> > You're not getting my point.
>
> No kidding!
My point was that, by bringing up all of the other places that
sacrifices were offered, it begs the question, how are they relevant?
Do they, by themselves, prove or disprove where Adam and Havah (and
Cain and Hevel) might have sacrificed? No, they do not. They don't
even tell us whether it was more or less likely for them to have
sacrificed just anywhere, as opposed to at Gan Eden. Since Adam and
Havah were in CLOSE PROXIMITY to Gan Eden, according to the narrative,
would they have considered it important to sacrifice there as opposed
to anywhere else? You bet!
That was my point. They apparently still desired a relationship with
G-d, otherwise these sacrifices would never have been offered. So,
given that they wanted that relationship, they would have kept it by
remaining close to Gan Eden and sacrificing there.
> > > >One had to be ritually pure in order to remain in Eden
> > >
> > > Absolutely not. Not at all!
> >
> > Then why couldn't Adam and Havah re-enter after they had sinned?
>
> Other reasons, fer instance -- hey here's one -- eating from the Tree
> of Knowledge! Tum'a simply did not exist.
But that was the sin I was talking about. They could not re-enter Gan
Eden after having sinned, because there was no way to purify
themselves from that sin.
> > > >Is there a parallel between Gan Eden and the Tabernacle/Temple? You
> > > >bet!
> > >
> > > Not based on what I have read thus far.
> >
> > But is that because it's not there to be seen, or because YOU are just
> > not seeing it? How would you know?
>
> How would you?
It's a process of study and drawing conclusions. Those conclusions
may or may not be right, but I see a basic difference between you and
I. I consider myself to be a "seeker," whereas I see you as being
content to understand what you already understand. I don't see you as
desirous of understanding things from others' points of view at all.
Rather than asking questions, you often state things as if they were
foregone conclusions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I see.
> > By the way, do the sages draw any parallels between Eden and the
> > Temple? (I seem to have the impression that they do. I think I read
> > about that somewhere.)
>
> Show me, I'm from Judaea.
Unfortunately, I don't have the benefit of years of exposure to the
sources of which I speak. I do have various books which QUOTE from
said sources, but that's about it. My cousin has a book on the Temple
which quotes from these sources regarding the parallels between it and
Gan Eden. If you'd like, I'll borrow it (at my earliest opportunity)
and post said quotes.
> > > >It was to cover their nakedness in both cases. Otherwise, they would
> > > >"bear iniquity" according to that passage.
> > >
> > > No. Adam and Eve would not "bear iniquity."
> >
> > Not Adam and Havah, the priests! You mean to tell me that you didn't
> > get that???
>
> No.
>
> > But that very passage in Shemot associates nakedness with
> > "bearing iniquity." Therefore it is quite reasonable that, because
> > Adam and Havah's sin is redressed by G-d making them garments of
> > skins, there is a parallel with clothing oneself with a garment in
> > order to not "bear iniquity."
>
> Just do not see it, sorry.
*shrugs* Then I don't know what to say. It seems very clear to me.
If you could see it, even if you disagreed, then that would be
something.
> > > > If Adam was a son of G-d
> > >
> > > Which means? A creation is not a son.
> >
> > The angels were sons of G-d, according to Eyov 38:7. Were they not
> > creations of G-d as well?
>
> Sons is not literal there. Bene Elohim is a type of angel.
Sons is not literal here either! Adam was created from the dust of
the earth, of course. But again, you didn't get that, did you?
> > > >and things were created after their kind, how is it that G-d is
> > > >eternal and Adam was mortal?
> > >
> > > Going in a very non-Hebraic direction.
> >
> > So you mean to say that the sages never commented on this?
>
> No, I mean what I said.
If the sages never commented on this, then by default it's
non-Hebraic. But if they did, then it IS Hebraic. That's what I want
to know. Did they comment on Adam's mortal/immortal state before he
sinned or not?
I hope you're not trying to tell me that even if the sages commented
on it, it's non-Hebraic. That would seem to me to be the height of
arrogance.
> > > >I mentioned in another post that the glory of G-d appears as a
> > > >multicolored rainbow (Yechezchiel 1:26-28).
> > >
> > > To a particular prophet, maybe. It is subjective. Not the same at all
> > > in Ex. 24:17, or 24:10.
> >
> > Just because it's not mentioned that way there means it's subjective?
>
> No, but it is subjective, as it is not physical, and men perceive it
> using their subjective imaginations.
So you're saying that Ezekiel did not SEE this literally, but only in
vision? How do you know?
> > > >The "garments of light"
> > > >that Adam and Havah were given would have been like this.
> > >
> > > Like what?
> >
> > Light with all of the colors of the rainbow. In other words, Kirlian
> > auras.
>
> This is where I get off the bus.
So you're saying that you're not even interested in debating this
point. In other words, you're closed-minded on the issue. *shrugs*
Fine.
Damon
ahaleva
> So the Cherubim are going to be guarding the WALL, rather than the
> entrance? Come on, don't be ridiculous.
There is no mention of a wall. I do not share your assumptions, none
of which are reflected in the text.
> > >The entrances to the Tabernacle and the Temple were also on the east
> > >side (Yechezchiel 8:16).
> >
> > Post Edenic reasons. Most temples faced east for sun worship. Hebrew Temple
> > faced West to do the opposite.
>
> Er, not exactly.
Yes, most exactly. The entire edifice was oriented to the West. As
soon as you entered your eye was directed to the buildings at the
western end, which you had to walk upwards to get to. The "action"
all occurred to the West of the entrance.
> The Holy of Holies was towards the west, whereas the
> Temple entrance was towards the east.
Uh, huh.
> East was the symbolic direction
> of rebellion or exile, whereas west was the symbolic direction of
> regathering and restoration.
Nonsense. The Temple of Solomon did not symbolize any of this. Way
too abstract for the Hebrews. "Regathering" was not really in their
mninds.
They did not believe in any original sin, if that is your intent.
There was no restoration therefore to worry about.
> Moreover, Judaism was not a _reaction_
> to the other religions of the time. It went back to the very
> beginning.
It went back only to Sinai. Otherwise no need for a revelation.
> > 2. In the Creation account, Adam and Havah are to "dress" (Heb.
> > >'avodah) and "keep" (Heb. shemirah) Gan Eden.
> >
> > L'obhdah never means to dress.
>
> You don't have a JPS, do you? "Dress" = King's English for "service"
> or "work." You've heard of the term, "redress" - as in court-ordered
> redress - right? It means a SERVICE to rectify a wrong.
It is not commonly used in that sense in this country. It does not
appear with that menaing in most dictionaries. If you want to speak
with me, use the common language of discourse. I do not think or deal
in the translations, as I am fluent in Biblical Hebrew. I deal in the
meaning of the pesuqim when I speak English, and meaning is expressed
in common discourse.
Le'obdah does not mean to serve in the sense of a place. It means to
work, fashion, etc. Man does not serve places.
> > >Cherubim were present at the entrance to Eden (Bereshit 3:24) and
> > >were represented as overshadowing the Mercy Seat on the Ark (Shemot
> > >25:17-22). G-d met with man in these two places.
> >
> > God met with man in many places. The kerubhim were only put East of Eden
> > after God and man ceased to communicate.
>
> It was the duty of the Cherubim to guard the way to the Tree of Life,
> but that did not mean that G-d and man had ceased to communicate.
God and Adam did cease to communicate, if not forever, for a long
time.
> > >4. Sacrifices were offered at the entrance to Eden (Bereshit 4:3-4)
> >
> > No. I just do not see that you read the text with adequate precision.
>
> Where else do you think they would have sacrificed? The text doesn't
> say that Adam and Havah moved away. In fact, it gives every
> indication that they stayed in that area, whereas Cain DID move away.
It does not state that they did scarifice at all. This was a silly
innovation of their sons, both of whose lines disappeared ratehr
quickly. Again you ASSUME, and take your assumption as real.
> > >Is there a parallel between Gan Eden and the Tabernacle/Temple? You
> > >bet!
> >
> > Not based on what I have read thus far.
>
> But is that because it's not there to be seen, or because YOU are just
> not seeing it? How would you know?
Because you have not made one single solitary cogent demonstration of
your theses.
> By the way, do the sages draw any parallels between Eden and the
> Temple? (I seem to have the impression that they do. I think I read
> about that somewhere.)
Then say so and demonstrate the point instead of repeating some vague
"impression" or hearsay about the nebulous "sages.".
> > >It was to cover their nakedness in both cases. Otherwise, they would
> > >"bear iniquity" according to that passage.
> >
> > No. Adam and Eve would not "bear iniquity."
>
> Not Adam and Havah, the priests! You mean to tell me that you didn't
> get that???
Of course, but you are trying to associate that pasuq with Adam and
Eve. Now please stop speaking to me like I am an idiot because I
refuse to accept the fruits of your years of "research" without your
ever having even read one pasuq in the original.
> "bearing iniquity." Therefore it is quite reasonable that, because
> Adam and Havah's sin is redressed by G-d making them garments of
> skins, there is a parallel with clothing oneself with a garment in
> order to not "bear iniquity."
No it really is not, except in your mind. God was not "redressing
sin." They imagined there was something "wrong" with nakedness. If
you could decode the *Hebrew* root "PQH" we could discuss the matter.
> > > If Adam was a son of G-d
> >
> > Which means? A creation is not a son.
>
> The angels were sons of G-d, according to Eyov 38:7. Were they not
> creations of G-d as well?
Your line of argument was based on the quandry of God an immortal
having a son who was mortal. Now you change directions and disclaim
that, saying that the "sons" are not literal sons. Then your quandry
disappears, as the sons of God may be immortal, and Adam is not a real
son at all.
> >and things were created after their kind, how is it that G-d is
> > >eternal and Adam was mortal?
> >
> > Going in a very non-Hebraic direction.
>
> So you mean to say that the sages never commented on this?
Have no idea. If you assert that they did, then say so. I am getting
tired of your generic namedropping of the "sages" with no citation or
context. What sages? When? Where? In what context?
> > >Well, as always, there's more to the story. ^_^
> >
> > But decoding is decoding, and word associations are a different exegetic
> > method.
>
> I've done more "decoding" than you've seen, because you didn't
> understand what I was saying in certain places above.
>
> Damon
I feel I did understand; I distinguish your "decoding" from what I
mean by the term.
I am angered by your repeated insinuation that if I do not agree with
you, or agree to question everything **I** have ever studied, in
deference to *your* studies, then I am "closed minded." That is a
goad and a petty hunting device for the purposes of manipulation.
As is your repeated use of "<shrugs>".
An educated Hebrew may just be convinced that Kirlian auras is
absolutely not the meaning of a pasuq about "kothnoth 'or." He does
not need to repeatedly reconsider that question to satisfy your
characterization of what is and is not "open mindedness" or
intellectual laziness entailing "refusing to move on to new things"
and be a "seeker."
I thus withdraw.
Best of luck on your seeking.
Ronnie
Damon Casale
First of all, you're answering the wrong post. You answered this one
already. Secondly, I can see we're going to get nowhere fast. I
don't think it's worth continuing this discussion. Do you?
> > So the Cherubim are going to be guarding the WALL, rather than the
> > entrance? Come on, don't be ridiculous.
>
> There is no mention of a wall. I do not share your assumptions, none
> of which are reflected in the text.
You didn't answer the issues I raised in my latest post, regarding
this wall.
> > > >The entrances to the Tabernacle and the Temple were also on the east
> > > >side (Yechezchiel 8:16).
> > >
> > > Post Edenic reasons. Most temples faced east for sun worship. Hebrew
> > > Temple faced West to do the opposite.
> >
> > Er, not exactly.
>
> Yes, most exactly. The entire edifice was oriented to the West. As
> soon as you entered your eye was directed to the buildings at the
> western end, which you had to walk upwards to get to. The "action"
> all occurred to the West of the entrance.
That's not what I meant. The Temple wasn't oriented that way to "do
the opposite." It was oriented that way because G-d commanded it to
be. But it was also symbolic of something.
> > The Holy of Holies was towards the west, whereas the
> > Temple entrance was towards the east.
>
> Uh, huh.
>
> > East was the symbolic direction
> > of rebellion or exile, whereas west was the symbolic direction of
> > regathering and restoration.
>
> Nonsense. The Temple of Solomon did not symbolize any of this. Way
> too abstract for the Hebrews. "Regathering" was not really in their
> mninds.
>
> They did not believe in any original sin, if that is your intent.
> There was no restoration therefore to worry about.
You're not getting it because you refuse to acknowledge the part that
Gan Eden plays in all of this. Adam and Havah were exiled EASTWARD
out of Gan Eden. When Moshiach comes, he will enter in through the
eastern gate WESTWARD into the city, arriving at a rebuilt Temple. If
you can't see how that is a cycle of history, "the end from the
beginning," as it were, then we have nothing further to discuss.
As far as regathering not being on their minds, what do you make of
what Shlomo said in Melachim A 8:46-53? Why bother mentioning this in
the context of the dedication of the Temple if it had nothing to do
with regathering?
Furthermore, if the Temple has nothing to do with regathering, why
must it be built prior to the coming of Moshiach, who will regather
all of Israel? (Malachi 3:1-4 and Yechezchiel 37 et. al)
As far as things being "way too abstract" for the Hebrews, how would
you know? Where did that come from?
See below for more on the "original sin" issue (or lack thereof).
> > Moreover, Judaism was not a _reaction_
> > to the other religions of the time. It went back to the very
> > beginning.
>
> It went back only to Sinai. Otherwise no need for a revelation.
It went back to Sinai because the Israelites had forgotten their
covenant with G-d. Joseph had two sons in Egypt. One was named
Ephraim, meaning "to be fruitful." The other was named Manasseh,
meaning "to be forgetful." (Bereshit 41:50-52) The Israelites were
fruitful in the land of Egypt, according to Shemot 1:7. The
implication is that they were also forgetful of their covenant with
G-d. Otherwise, they would not have needed to be reminded of when
Shabbat was in Shemot 16. Right?
Therefore, Sinai was a revelation because they had FORGOTTEN what they
once knew. But what they once knew went back to the beginning.
> > > 2. In the Creation account, Adam and Havah are to "dress" (Heb.
> > > >'avodah) and "keep" (Heb. shemirah) Gan Eden.
> > >
> > > L'obhdah never means to dress.
> >
> > You don't have a JPS, do you? "Dress" = King's English for "service"
> > or "work." You've heard of the term, "redress" - as in court-ordered
> > redress - right? It means a SERVICE to rectify a wrong.
>
> It is not commonly used in that sense in this country. It does not
> appear with that menaing in most dictionaries. If you want to speak
> with me, use the common language of discourse. I do not think or deal
> in the translations, as I am fluent in Biblical Hebrew. I deal in the
> meaning of the pesuqim when I speak English, and meaning is expressed
> in common discourse.
I was using the JPS, which I assumed was a common translation that the
Jews use. If it's not, fine. Which one should I use, given the fact
that I don't know Hebrew myself?
> Le'obdah does not mean to serve in the sense of a place. It means to
> work, fashion, etc. Man does not serve places.
In Bamidbar 3:8, we read that the Levites were to do the SERVICE of
the tabernacle. You're right in saying that they did not serve a
place. They served G-d. But their obligation was fulfilled IN that
place! The same was true of Adam and Havah in Gan Eden.
You're arguing straw-man arguments. You're not getting what I say
because you don't want to get it. You think you have all of the
answers and that my viewpoint is worthless, and you're content to
simply pooh-pooh what I say. That's why I don't think this discussion
is going to get anywhere.
> > > >Cherubim were present at the entrance to Eden (Bereshit 3:24) and
> > > >were represented as overshadowing the Mercy Seat on the Ark (Shemot
> > > >25:17-22). G-d met with man in these two places.
> > >
> > > God met with man in many places. The kerubhim were only put East of Eden
> > > after God and man ceased to communicate.
> >
> > It was the duty of the Cherubim to guard the way to the Tree of Life,
> > but that did not mean that G-d and man had ceased to communicate.
>
> God and Adam did cease to communicate, if not forever, for a long
> time.
G-d and ADAM may have ceased to communicate, BUT THAT WAS NOT WHAT I
WROTE. I said that G-d met with MAN in these two places, not ADAM
specifically. I pointed out in my latest post that G-d communicated
with Cain.
> > > >4. Sacrifices were offered at the entrance to Eden (Bereshit 4:3-4)
> > >
> > > No. I just do not see that you read the text with adequate precision.
> >
> > Where else do you think they would have sacrificed? The text doesn't
> > say that Adam and Havah moved away. In fact, it gives every
> > indication that they stayed in that area, whereas Cain DID move away.
>
> It does not state that they did scarifice at all. This was a silly
> innovation of their sons, both of whose lines disappeared ratehr
> quickly. Again you ASSUME, and take your assumption as real.
You didn't answer my other post. Again, I made the point that the
text specifically tells us that Cain moved away. Therefore, it's
LIKELY that neither Adam and Havah nor Abel moved away prior to Cain's
murder of Abel.
> > > >Is there a parallel between Gan Eden and the Tabernacle/Temple? You
> > > >bet!
> > >
> > > Not based on what I have read thus far.
> >
> > But is that because it's not there to be seen, or because YOU are just
> > not seeing it? How would you know?
>
> Because you have not made one single solitary cogent demonstration of
> your theses.
Oh, I have! But in every case you either haven't responded to the
right post, or you're not willing to see what's there to be seen. A
good example is the whole "service" argument above.
> > By the way, do the sages draw any parallels between Eden and the
> > Temple? (I seem to have the impression that they do. I think I read
> > about that somewhere.)
>
> Then say so and demonstrate the point instead of repeating some vague
> "impression" or hearsay about the nebulous "sages.".
Again, you're responding to the wrong post! Like I said in my other
post, I'm not familiar with the sources themselves. I have books
which QUOTE from the sources, and if you'd like, I can borrow the
relevant book from my cousin which makes reference to this.
> > > >It was to cover their nakedness in both cases. Otherwise, they would
> > > >"bear iniquity" according to that passage.
> > >
> > > No. Adam and Eve would not "bear iniquity."
> >
> > Not Adam and Havah, the priests! You mean to tell me that you didn't
> > get that???
>
> Of course, but you are trying to associate that pasuq with Adam and
> Eve. Now please stop speaking to me like I am an idiot because I
> refuse to accept the fruits of your years of "research" without your
> ever having even read one pasuq in the original.
So because I've not read the original Hebrew, everything I've
researched is worthless. I can see that this argument is going to go
nowhere fast.
You're not an idiot, and I never said you were. But you DON'T want to
see what's there to be seen.
> > "bearing iniquity." Therefore it is quite reasonable that, because
> > Adam and Havah's sin is redressed by G-d making them garments of
> > skins, there is a parallel with clothing oneself with a garment in
> > order to not "bear iniquity."
>
> No it really is not, except in your mind. God was not "redressing
> sin." They imagined there was something "wrong" with nakedness. If
> you could decode the *Hebrew* root "PQH" we could discuss the matter.
It's more than just the meaning of the word that's at stake here.
You're falling victim to the old adage, "to a man with a hammer,
everything looks like a nail." Sorry, but not every problem of
biblical interpretation can be solved by looking at it in the original
Hebrew (although that certainly helps).
There is nothing wrong with nakedness itself, no. But nakedness is
not appropriate ALL THE TIME. Adam and Havah were created physically
mature, but as emotional "newborns." Just as babies are not conscious
of the fact that they are "naked," neither were Adam and Havah!
Taking of the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil gave them
AWARENESS. They became AWARE of the fact that they were naked. In
day-to-day activities, it is appropriate to have proper boundaries
(including boundaries of physical clothing, boundaries of emotional
intimacy, boundaries separating the time for one activity [such as
lovemaking] from the time for another [such as work], etc.) between
people. Adam and Havah became CONSCIOUS of these things ALL AT ONCE,
rather than learning them OVER TIME through the process of MATURING.
They also became conscious of G-d's standards for good and evil, and
felt totally inadequate to handle them.
It was like requiring newborns to become Bar- and Bat-Mitzvah,
basically.
Nakedness basically represented their lack of proper boundaries with
G-d (and also with each other). They did not know how to properly
interact with G-d in a way that would honor Him. G-d commanded that
the Levites be clothed in a certain way, because that was how they
would properly interact with G-d in a way that would honor Him.
(There's more to it than that, of course, but that's the parallel
between these two events.)
NOW do you get it? It had nothing to do with the Christian concept of
"original sin." I don't subscribe to that viewpoint, anyway.
> > > > If Adam was a son of G-d
> > >
> > > Which means? A creation is not a son.
> >
> > The angels were sons of G-d, according to Eyov 38:7. Were they not
> > creations of G-d as well?
>
> Your line of argument was based on the quandry of God an immortal
> having a son who was mortal. Now you change directions and disclaim
> that, saying that the "sons" are not literal sons. Then your quandry
> disappears, as the sons of God may be immortal, and Adam is not a real
> son at all.
Does it disappear if Adam was made in the image and likeness of G-d?
All of G-d's qualities and attributes would have been passed on to
Adam, then! So why weren't they?
> > >and things were created after their kind, how is it that G-d is
> > > >eternal and Adam was mortal?
> > >
> > > Going in a very non-Hebraic direction.
> >
> > So you mean to say that the sages never commented on this?
>
> Have no idea. If you assert that they did, then say so.
I don't know if they did or not, either. It seemed to me that YOU
were asserting that they did not, if you were saying that this was
going in a very non-Hebraic direction. That's why I was asking. If
you didn't know yourself, why did you make such an unwarranted
assertion?
> > > >Well, as always, there's more to the story. ^_^
> > >
> > > But decoding is decoding, and word associations are a different exegetic
> > > method.
> >
> > I've done more "decoding" than you've seen, because you didn't
> > understand what I was saying in certain places above.
>
> I feel I did understand; I distinguish your "decoding" from what I
> mean by the term.
You most certainly did not understand. Otherwise, you would have seen
things that should be quite plain, and you did not. Again, the above
argument about "service" is a good example here.
> I am angered by your repeated insinuation that if I do not agree with
> you, or agree to question everything **I** have ever studied, in
> deference to *your* studies, then I am "closed minded." That is a
> goad and a petty hunting device for the purposes of manipulation.
You're closed-minded if you blow off legitimate questions as if they
don't matter. You're closed minded if you state something as factual
and get angry when I point out a difficulty with what you state. For
example, you stated that there is no evidence for a wall surrounding
Gan Eden. But rather than giving any reasons WHY you believe this,
you were merely content to state it as if it were a foregone
conclusion, and got angry when I disagreed with you.
I later gave specific points of evidence to show why there would have
been a wall. I don't know if you've read that post yet, though, so
I'll wait until you do.
> As is your repeated use of "<shrugs>".
I do that when I choose not to contest something any further. Is
there a problem with that?
> An educated Hebrew may just be convinced that Kirlian auras is
> absolutely not the meaning of a pasuq about "kothnoth 'or."
Fine. But you don't need to act like my view is totally ridiculous.
You can just agree to disagree. But that's not what you did. You
treated that belief (and by implication me as well) with contempt. I
take objection to that.
> I thus withdraw.
>
> Best of luck on your seeking.
*shrugs* Fine.
Damon
ahaleva
> 1. Gan Eden was a WALLED garden. The sages said so. (For instance,
> there is a tradition that the wall hangings from Gan Eden were re-used
> in the Temple.) Else, what would be the purpose of placing the
> Cherubim and the flaming sword at the EAST of Gan Eden? Adam and
> Havah could just enter in a different way. And if the Cherubim were
> simply guarding the whole garden, why specify EAST? So it was
> definitely walled.
You mention (without citation) the "sages" as if they are a homogenous
commodity. They are not. We have no dogma. There are many
Midrashim. Many of which are not accepted by everyone. They are
nearly all metaphoric.
Thus, a statement like you have hearsayed above does not reflect a
belief in an actual wall. Cite the exact quote and understand the
source you rely upon if you want to use it to make a point.
> > I do not believe Eden was a physical place.
>
> Ah! That is the problem!
>
> And of course, there are Jews who disagree with you. So why are you
> arguing with me as if this were a verboten position to hold?
1. Never said "verboten."
2. Who, precisely, are said "there are Jews"? Means nothing to me.
Just a nebulous abstraction. I am not held to the belief of "there are
Jews."
> > > > >One had to be ritually pure in order to remain in Eden
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely not. Not at all!
> > >
> > > Then why couldn't Adam and Havah re-enter after they had sinned?
> >
> > Other reasons, fer instance -- hey here's one -- eating from the Tree
> > of Knowledge! Tum'a simply did not exist.
>
> But that was the sin I was talking about. They could not re-enter Gan
> Eden after having sinned, because there was no way to purify
> themselves from that sin.
Sure there was: teshubha. Transformation. But it had ZERO to do with
the purification rituals of the Law of Moses, which did not then
exist.
But to understand this you need to understand the Jewish view of that
"sin."
NO, one did not need to be rtually pure to remain in Eden, as there
was no ritual purification or defilement at the time.
> That's not what I meant. The Temple wasn't oriented that way to "do
> the opposite."
Oh yes it most certainly was.
> It was oriented that way because G-d commanded it to
> be. But it was also symbolic of something.
No kidding. But the commandments send a message, as you note in the
second sentence.
> > East was the symbolic direction
> > of rebellion or exile, whereas west was the symbolic direction of
> > regathering and restoration.
>
> Nonsense. The Temple of Solomon did not symbolize any of this. Way
> too abstract for the Hebrews. "Regathering" was not really in their
> mninds.
> You're not getting it because you refuse to acknowledge the part that
> Gan Eden plays in all of this.
Or, alternatively, I understand what you theorize it plays, and I just
simply disagree.
> Adam and Havah were exiled EASTWARD
> out of Gan Eden.
Does not say that. The pasuq re: God placing ("vayashken", which has
shades of meaning not conveyed in the English) may be metaphoric.
Even if literal, the "way of the tree of life" does nto indicate any
direction of the casting out of Adam from Eden, which is not specifed
as to direction (parallel to the pasuq which describes Adam's
emplacement in the garden).
> When Moshiach comes, he will enter in through the
> eastern gate WESTWARD into the city, arriving at a rebuilt Temple.
Says whom? The Mashiah I know about, the very same one the "sages" I
studied ubiquitously agree about, is the impetus to build the Temple,
and arrives far in advance of its being built.
> you can't see how that is a cycle of history, "the end from the
> beginning," as it were, then we have nothing further to discuss.
Cycle of history? I do not think the Hebrews accept such a concept.
> As far as regathering not being on their minds, what do you make of
> what Shlomo said in Melachim A 8:46-53? Why bother mentioning this in
> the context of the dedication of the Temple if it had nothing to do
> with regathering?
Pesuqim address future events, not a "regathering" from a past exile
as you assert.
> Furthermore, if the Temple has nothing to do with regathering, why
> must it be built prior to the coming of Moshiach, who will regather
> all of Israel? (Malachi 3:1-4 and Yechezchiel 37 et. al)
Not "must", and actually will not. Who exactly will build it? You
thus mistakenly add the elements (1) regather and (2) post Temple
Mashiah to arrive at an erroneous conclusion.
> As far as things being "way too abstract" for the Hebrews, how would
> you know? Where did that come from?
Hebraic culture.
> > Moreover, Judaism was not a _reaction_
> > to the other religions of the time. It went back to the very
> > beginning.
>
> It went back only to Sinai. Otherwise no need for a revelation.
> It went back to Sinai because the Israelites had forgotten their
> covenant with G-d.
Bullsh*t. Was no such covenant. Show me such a covenant.
> Joseph had two sons in Egypt. One was named
> Ephraim, meaning "to be fruitful." The other was named Manasseh,
> meaning "to be forgetful." (Bereshit 41:50-52)
No, meaning the forgotten one.
> The Israelites were
> fruitful in the land of Egypt, according to Shemot 1:7. The
> implication is that they were also forgetful of their covenant with
> G-d.
Pure conjecture. Based on misassuming a covenant pre-Sinai existed.
> Otherwise, they would not have needed to be reminded of when
> Shabbat was in Shemot 16. Right?
Wrong. Shabbath had been recently commanded to them. not reminded of
when it was, but the rules asscoiated with it. It's significance.
> Therefore, Sinai was a revelation because they had FORGOTTEN what they
> once knew. But what they once knew went back to the beginning.
No Jew can ever agree to this.
> I was using the JPS, which I assumed was a common translation that the
> Jews use. If it's not, fine. Which one should I use, given the fact
> that I don't know Hebrew myself?
No idea.
> You're arguing straw-man arguments. You're not getting what I say
> because you don't want to get it. You think you have all of the
> answers and that my viewpoint is worthless, and you're content to
> simply pooh-pooh what I say. That's why I don't think this discussion
> is going to get anywhere.
Disagree. Accept it. I just DISAGREE. I find your conjectures
misplaced, and sadly lacking in a genuine understanding becasue you do
not know Hebrew, which may not be a sufficient condition for Biblical
exegesis but is very much a NECESSARY ONE!
> It does not state that they did scarifice at all. This was a silly
> innovation of their sons, both of whose lines disappeared ratehr
> quickly. Again you ASSUME, and take your assumption as real.
> You didn't answer my other post.
You did not answer this point. Where do you see Adam and Eve doing
any sacrificing?
> Again, I made the point that the
> text specifically tells us that Cain moved away. Therefore, it's
> LIKELY that neither Adam and Havah nor Abel moved away prior to Cain's
> murder of Abel.
Not persuasive. "Likely" is just conjecture. Sometimes we just have
no information, and conjecture is a silly way to deal with such
lacunae.
> > By the way, do the sages draw any parallels between Eden and the
> > Temple? (I seem to have the impression that they do. I think I read
> > about that somewhere.)
>
> Then say so and demonstrate the point instead of repeating some vague
> "impression" or hearsay about the nebulous "sages.".
>Again, you're responding to the wrong post! Like I said in my other
>post, I'm not familiar with the sources themselves.
Well, I am.
> So because I've not read the original Hebrew, everything I've
> researched is worthless.
Is suspect and not fully researched, I would say. The map is no
substitue for the territory.
> There is nothing wrong with nakedness itself, no. But nakedness is
> not appropriate ALL THE TIME.
Unless you are Adam and Eve in Eden, then it is completely appropriate
all the time.
> Adam and Havah were created physically
> mature, but as emotional "newborns."
Says whom? A newborn is capable of receiving a misva? No way.
>Taking of the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil gave them
>AWARENESS. They became AWARE of the fact that they were naked.
NO. It gave them misplaced imagination and conventions, and so they
invented the first conventionalism : naked = bad.
>Inday-to-day activities, it is appropriate to have proper boundaries
>(including boundaries of physical clothing, boundaries of emotional
>intimacy, boundaries separating the time for one activity [such as
>lovemaking] from the time for another [such as work], etc.) between
>people.
A nice modern sermon.
>Adam and Havah became CONSCIOUS of these things ALL AT ONCE,
>rather than learning them OVER TIME through the process of MATURING.
>They also became conscious of G-d's standards for good and evil, and
>felt totally inadequate to handle them.
"God never showed Adam the Tree of Knowledge and never will"
Direct quote form the sages.
>It was like requiring newborns to become Bar- and Bat-Mitzvah,
>basically.
The ritual you refer to is also non-Hebraic, invented some 400 years
ago.
>Nakedness basically represented their lack of proper boundaries with
>G-d (and also with each other). They did not know how to properly
>interact with G-d in a way that would honor Him. G-d commanded that
>the Levites be clothed in a certain way, because that was how they
>would properly interact with G-d in a way that would honor Him.
>(There's more to it than that, of course, but that's the parallel
>between these two events.)
>NOW do you get it? It had nothing to do with the Christian concept
of
>"original sin." I don't subscribe to that viewpoint, anyway.
I get it, and fully thoroughly and totally disagree.
>Does it disappear if Adam was made in the image and likeness of G-d?
>All of G-d's qualities and attributes would have been passed on to
>Adam, then! So why weren't they?
No they would not. Learn the meaning of "selem" and "demuth" in
HEBREW.
So yes, the quandry does completely disappear.
>> > So you mean to say that the sages never commented on this?
>>
>> Have no idea. If you assert that they did, then say so.
>I don't know if they did or not, either. It seemed to me that YOU
>were asserting that they did not, if you were saying that this was
>going in a very non-Hebraic direction. That's why I was asking. If
>you didn't know yourself, why did you make such an unwarranted
>assertion?
I do not have to prove a negative. You want to make a point, QUOTE
the sages.
>You most certainly did not understand. Otherwise, you would have
seen
>things that should be quite plain, and you did not. Again, the above
>argument about "service" is a good example here.
I do not agree on what is "plain" CAN YOU COMPREHEND?
>You're closed-minded if you blow off legitimate questions as if they
>don't matter.
"legitimate" is a subjective judgment.
>You're closed minded if you state something as factual
>and get angry when I point out a difficulty with what you state. For
>example, you stated that there is no evidence for a wall surrounding
>Gan Eden. But rather than giving any reasons WHY you believe this,
>you were merely content to state it as if it were a foregone
>conclusion, and got angry when I disagreed with you.
The TEXT. You conjecture based on convoluted chains of logic and
linkages requiring many assumptions not at all in the text. Here, one
of them is "the sages ... wall hangings" I have seen no such comment.
You have produced no such comment. Your conjecture has not been
demonstrated. Text has no wall.
>I later gave specific points of evidence to show why there would have
>been a wall.
All conjecture.
>> An educated Hebrew may just be convinced that Kirlian auras is
>> absolutely not the meaning of a pasuq about "kothnoth 'or."
>Fine. But you don't need to act like my view is totally ridiculous.
I feel that it is absolutely ridiculous. Should I flatter you and
dance around my real reactions?
>You can just agree to disagree. But that's not what you did. You
>treated that belief (and by implication me as well) with contempt. I
>take objection to that.
Start providing the bases for your assumptions which you are now well
advised that I do not share. Stop resorting to the nebulous "sages",
fully disclose the history of how you came to your assumptions and
what you sources draw from in arriving at them.
>Damon
Ronnie
Garry
>ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale) wrote
f
>
>> I was using the JPS, which I assumed was a common translation that the
>> Jews use. If it's not, fine. Which one should I use, given the fact
>> that I don't know Hebrew myself?
Study of the Bible on the deep level you obviously desire simply can't
be accomplished by translations. There is simply too much meaning
lost, and too many external viewpoints (of the culture of the language
of the translation) added. This is not a quality issue, but is
inevitable in any translation.
That said, you probably still should update your translation. You are
using the "old" JPS, which dates back to the beginning of the
twentieth century and frankly isn't all that hot. The new JPS (about
20 years old) is far better, and one of the best bible translations
available. It's not online, but it is widely available with and
without commentaries.
_______________________________________
A haggadah that feeds the hungry! A carefully translated and revised version of the Haggadah, handsomely printed.
The entire purchase price goes to charity. http://www.matzoh.net/hagg/main.html
Feel free to contact me thru matzoh.net. Garry
Damon Casale
> >ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale) wrote
> >> Jews use. If it's not, fine. Which one should I use, given the fact
> >> that I don't know Hebrew myself?
>
> Study of the Bible on the deep level you obviously desire simply can't
> be accomplished by translations. There is simply too much meaning
> lost, and too many external viewpoints (of the culture of the language
> of the translation) added. This is not a quality issue, but is
> inevitable in any translation.
I would agree with you, and do want to learn Hebrew in the course of
my biblical studies. Lack of fluency in the original language hinders
(but does not prevent) the kind of studies I enjoy doing.
> That said, you probably still should update your translation. You are
> using the "old" JPS, which dates back to the beginning of the
> twentieth century and frankly isn't all that hot. The new JPS (about
> 20 years old) is far better, and one of the best bible translations
> available. It's not online, but it is widely available with and
> without commentaries.
The difficulty is that I often post from work, and the only
translations I have access to from work are whatever is online. I
found a JPS online, but that's all I've found thus far. I have a
stone edition at home, though (which I enjoy immensely), as well as a
Schocken Bible, so I'm not strictly limited to the JPS.
Thanks for your comments, though. :-)
Damon
Garry
Casale) wrote:
>Garry <s...@spam.com> wrote in message news:<65tv30hj736lpco9q...@4ax.com>...
>> >ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale) wrote
>> >> I was using the JPS, which I assumed was a common translation that the
>> >> Jews use. If it's not, fine. Which one should I use, given the fact
>> >> that I don't know Hebrew myself?
>>
>> Study of the Bible on the deep level you obviously desire simply can't
>> be accomplished by translations. There is simply too much meaning
>> lost, and too many external viewpoints (of the culture of the language
>> of the translation) added. This is not a quality issue, but is
>> inevitable in any translation.
>
>I would agree with you, and do want to learn Hebrew in the course of
>my biblical studies. Lack of fluency in the original language hinders
>(but does not prevent) the kind of studies I enjoy doing.
A matter of opinion....
>
>> That said, you probably still should update your translation. You are
>> using the "old" JPS, which dates back to the beginning of the
>> twentieth century and frankly isn't all that hot. The new JPS (about
>> 20 years old) is far better, and one of the best bible translations
>> available. It's not online, but it is widely available with and
>> without commentaries.
>
>The difficulty is that I often post from work, and the only
>translations I have access to from work are whatever is online. I
>found a JPS online, but that's all I've found thus far. I have a
>stone edition at home, though (which I enjoy immensely), as well as a
>Schocken Bible, so I'm not strictly limited to the JPS.
>
Online, there are many parallel translations available at
http://bible.gospelcom.net/
Although all are xtian, comparing several translations of a given
phrase will be better than trying to get it all from the old jps.
As fof Schocken, I can't say I'm a big fan of Fox's tranlation
either...
>Thanks for your comments, though. :-)
>
>Damon
_______________________________________
Damon Casale
> commodity. They are not. We have no dogma. There are many
> Midrashim. Many of which are not accepted by everyone. They are
> nearly all metaphoric.
Regarding citing my sources, I often write from work, not from home.
And as far as the Midrashim not being accepted by everyone, I'm well
aware of that. My point is not to force you to accept a Midrash that
I myself accept, but for you to acknowledge that I am not going
outside the bounds of Judaism when I make a point. That's what you've
often accused me of doing, and without basis.
By the way, I looked for my cousin's book on the Temple the other day
and it's missing. I'm buying another copy for myself, so as soon as I
do, I'll quote you the primary source citations from it.
I haven't forgotten about this thread.
> > > I do not believe Eden was a physical place.
> >
> > Ah! That is the problem!
> >
> > And of course, there are Jews who disagree with you. So why are you
> > arguing with me as if this were a verboten position to hold?
>
> 1. Never said "verboten."
>
> 2. Who, precisely, are said "there are Jews"? Means nothing to me.
> Just a nebulous abstraction. I am not held to the belief of "there are
> Jews."
I'll quote the specific sources from the Temple book when I get my
copy. Which should be later this week.
> > > > > >One had to be ritually pure in order to remain in Eden
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolutely not. Not at all!
> > > >
> > > > Then why couldn't Adam and Havah re-enter after they had sinned?
> > >
> > > Other reasons, fer instance -- hey here's one -- eating from the Tree
> > > of Knowledge! Tum'a simply did not exist.
> >
> > But that was the sin I was talking about. They could not re-enter Gan
> > Eden after having sinned, because there was no way to purify
> > themselves from that sin.
>
> Sure there was: teshubha. Transformation. But it had ZERO to do with
> the purification rituals of the Law of Moses, which did not then
> exist.
Of course we need Teshubha! But read Tehilim 24. What "holy hill" do
you think it's talking about? Compare verse 2 with Bereshit 1:2 and
9-10.
THAT is the ultimate Teshubha.
> > That's not what I meant. The Temple wasn't oriented that way to "do
> > the opposite."
>
> Oh yes it most certainly was.
Citations? Proof?
> > It was oriented that way because G-d commanded it to
> > be. But it was also symbolic of something.
>
> No kidding. But the commandments send a message, as you note in the
> second sentence.
Then I think we disagree on what it was symbolic of. *shrugs* Fine.
[snippage]
> > When Moshiach comes, he will enter in through the
> > eastern gate WESTWARD into the city, arriving at a rebuilt Temple.
>
> Says whom? The Mashiah I know about, the very same one the "sages" I
> studied ubiquitously agree about, is the impetus to build the Temple,
> and arrives far in advance of its being built.
Malachi 3:1 notwithstanding?
> > you can't see how that is a cycle of history, "the end from the
> > beginning," as it were, then we have nothing further to discuss.
>
> Cycle of history? I do not think the Hebrews accept such a concept.
Yeshaiah 46:9-10 and Ecclesiastes 1:10-11 and 3:15 notwithstanding?
> > As far as regathering not being on their minds, what do you make of
> > what Shlomo said in Melachim A 8:46-53? Why bother mentioning this in
> > the context of the dedication of the Temple if it had nothing to do
> > with regathering?
>
> Pesuqim address future events, not a "regathering" from a past exile
> as you assert.
They were looking forward at the exile then. We're looking backward
at it now. That doesn't mean that the Temple doesn't bracket the
exile on both ends. In fact, that's the whole point.
> > Furthermore, if the Temple has nothing to do with regathering, why
> > must it be built prior to the coming of Moshiach, who will regather
> > all of Israel? (Malachi 3:1-4 and Yechezchiel 37 et. al)
>
> Not "must", and actually will not. Who exactly will build it? You
> thus mistakenly add the elements (1) regather and (2) post Temple
> Mashiah to arrive at an erroneous conclusion.
The "messenger of the covenant" calls for the rebuilding of the
Temple. (Mal. 3:1) This person will "purify the sons of Levi."
(Mal. 3:3) This "messenger of the covenant" is also mentioned in
Daniel 9:27. He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.
In the middle of the week, a false moshiach will set up an idol in the
rebuilt Temple, as King Manasseh did in Melachim B 21.
According to Malachi 4:5-6, this messenger of the covenant is none
other then Eliyahu ha navi.
> > As far as things being "way too abstract" for the Hebrews, how would
> > you know? Where did that come from?
>
> Hebraic culture.
So you're saying that you're an expert on Hebraic culture. Ancient
Hebraic culture at that. Okaaayyy....
> > > Moreover, Judaism was not a _reaction_
> > > to the other religions of the time. It went back to the very
> > > beginning.
> >
> > It went back only to Sinai. Otherwise no need for a revelation.
>
> > It went back to Sinai because the Israelites had forgotten their
> > covenant with G-d.
>
> Bullsh*t. Was no such covenant. Show me such a covenant.
Avraham, Yitzhak and Yaacov's covenant. Don't you know your bible?
> > Joseph had two sons in Egypt. One was named
> > Ephraim, meaning "to be fruitful." The other was named Manasseh,
> > meaning "to be forgetful." (Bereshit 41:50-52)
>
> No, meaning the forgotten one.
Both meanings are appropriate. Hebrew is poetic and idiomatic, making
multiple correct interpretations possible.
> > The Israelites were
> > fruitful in the land of Egypt, according to Shemot 1:7. The
> > implication is that they were also forgetful of their covenant with
> > G-d.
>
> Pure conjecture. Based on misassuming a covenant pre-Sinai existed.
>
> > Otherwise, they would not have needed to be reminded of when
> > Shabbat was in Shemot 16. Right?
>
> Wrong. Shabbath had been recently commanded to them. not reminded of
> when it was, but the rules asscoiated with it. It's significance.
When was Shabbat "recently commanded" to them?
> > Therefore, Sinai was a revelation because they had FORGOTTEN what they
> > once knew. But what they once knew went back to the beginning.
>
> No Jew can ever agree to this.
So you're speaking for every Jew, now?
> > I was using the JPS, which I assumed was a common translation that the
> > Jews use. If it's not, fine. Which one should I use, given the fact
> > that I don't know Hebrew myself?
>
> No idea.
*shrugs* Then I guess it'll have to do for the time being.
> > You're arguing straw-man arguments. You're not getting what I say
> > because you don't want to get it. You think you have all of the
> > answers and that my viewpoint is worthless, and you're content to
> > simply pooh-pooh what I say. That's why I don't think this discussion
> > is going to get anywhere.
>
> Disagree. Accept it. I just DISAGREE. I find your conjectures
> misplaced, and sadly lacking in a genuine understanding becasue you do
> not know Hebrew, which may not be a sufficient condition for Biblical
> exegesis but is very much a NECESSARY ONE!
If you disagree, that's fine. But you're acting as if what I'm saying
has no basis in JUDAISM, when the truth is that it does not agree with
YOUR OWN PERSONAL JEWISH TAKE ON IT.
As far as me not knowing Hebrew, I'm learning. But there are things
that I'm well aware of that you seem to be quite ignorant of. So does
that mean that you should stop studying until YOU know enough to know
what you're doing? I don't think so.
None of us have a full and complete understanding of what it is that
we're studying. That's why studying Torah is a COMMUNITY exercise!
If I'm making mistakes of interpretation because I'm ignorant of
certain things, then I'm making mistakes! That's not the end of the
world. But on the other hand, I know quite a bit more about ancient
Hebraic culture than you would ever acknowledge. I don't expect you
to be able to critique that part of my understanding, even if I DO
trust you to critique my understanding (or lack thereof) of Biblical
Hebrew.
So there we are.
> > It does not state that they did scarifice at all. This was a silly
> > innovation of their sons, both of whose lines disappeared ratehr
> > quickly. Again you ASSUME, and take your assumption as real.
>
> > You didn't answer my other post.
>
> You did not answer this point. Where do you see Adam and Eve doing
> any sacrificing?
I believe Adam officiated. Cain and Abel sacrificed, that much we do
know. And the account doesn't tell us what happened after that, but
there are things that can be put together from secular history and
Jewish tradition that can tell us quite a bit. But I'm not about to
share that here. I don't need the headaches from people who can only
criticize. I'd rather have CONSTRUCTIVE criticism from people who are
truly and honestly seeking to know what really happened.
> > Again, I made the point that the
> > text specifically tells us that Cain moved away. Therefore, it's
> > LIKELY that neither Adam and Havah nor Abel moved away prior to Cain's
> > murder of Abel.
>
> Not persuasive. "Likely" is just conjecture. Sometimes we just have
> no information, and conjecture is a silly way to deal with such
> lacunae.
That depends. There is a mountain behind everything I say, but I
don't see fit to share it here.
> > > By the way, do the sages draw any parallels between Eden and the
> > > Temple? (I seem to have the impression that they do. I think I read
> > > about that somewhere.)
> >
> > Then say so and demonstrate the point instead of repeating some vague
> > "impression" or hearsay about the nebulous "sages.".
>
> >Again, you're responding to the wrong post! Like I said in my other
> >post, I'm not familiar with the sources themselves.
>
> Well, I am.
Good! Now, if you were interested in SEEKING, rather than simply
knowing what you already know, we could get somewhere.
Like I said, the Temple book quotes from the relevant sources. So
when I get that, I'll post them.
> > So because I've not read the original Hebrew, everything I've
> > researched is worthless.
>
> Is suspect and not fully researched, I would say. The map is no
> substitue for the territory.
Again, that's why studying Torah is a COMMUNITY exercise.
> > There is nothing wrong with nakedness itself, no. But nakedness is
> > not appropriate ALL THE TIME.
>
> Unless you are Adam and Eve in Eden, then it is completely appropriate
> all the time.
Are you sure? Can you be certain that they weren't naked because they
didn't know any better?
And you accuse me of making assumptions. ;-)
> > Adam and Havah were created physically
> > mature, but as emotional "newborns."
>
> Says whom? A newborn is capable of receiving a misva? No way.
Well, apparently you're right, since look what happened. ;-p
> >Taking of the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil gave them
> >AWARENESS. They became AWARE of the fact that they were naked.
>
> NO. It gave them misplaced imagination and conventions, and so they
> invented the first conventionalism : naked = bad.
And where do you get that from? How do you know that that
interpretation is right and the one I gave is wrong?
> >Inday-to-day activities, it is appropriate to have proper boundaries
> >(including boundaries of physical clothing, boundaries of emotional
> >intimacy, boundaries separating the time for one activity [such as
> >lovemaking] from the time for another [such as work], etc.) between
> >people.
>
> A nice modern sermon.
There is nothing new under the sun.
> >Adam and Havah became CONSCIOUS of these things ALL AT ONCE,
> >rather than learning them OVER TIME through the process of MATURING.
> >They also became conscious of G-d's standards for good and evil, and
> >felt totally inadequate to handle them.
>
> "God never showed Adam the Tree of Knowledge and never will"
> Direct quote form the sages.
G-d didn't have to. Havah gave Adam the fruit from it. But that has
nothing to do with what I said.
> >It was like requiring newborns to become Bar- and Bat-Mitzvah,
> >basically.
>
> The ritual you refer to is also non-Hebraic, invented some 400 years
> ago.
It was invented based on a Biblical concept that went back at least as
far as Yeshaiah 7:14-16 and likely much further.
> >Nakedness basically represented their lack of proper boundaries with
> >G-d (and also with each other). They did not know how to properly
> >interact with G-d in a way that would honor Him. G-d commanded that
> >the Levites be clothed in a certain way, because that was how they
> >would properly interact with G-d in a way that would honor Him.
> >(There's more to it than that, of course, but that's the parallel
> >between these two events.)
>
> >NOW do you get it? It had nothing to do with the Christian concept
> >of "original sin." I don't subscribe to that viewpoint, anyway.
>
> I get it, and fully thoroughly and totally disagree.
*shrugs* Fine.
> >Does it disappear if Adam was made in the image and likeness of G-d?
> >All of G-d's qualities and attributes would have been passed on to
> >Adam, then! So why weren't they?
>
> No they would not. Learn the meaning of "selem" and "demuth" in
> HEBREW. So yes, the quandry does completely disappear.
I remember studying this from before. If I remember correctly, the
Hebrew word for "likeness" is directly connected with character
attributes.
> >You most certainly did not understand. Otherwise, you would have
> >seen things that should be quite plain, and you did not. Again, the
> >above argument about "service" is a good example here.
>
> I do not agree on what is "plain" CAN YOU COMPREHEND?
Oh, I can see that you cannot, that's for sure. You claimed that the
Levites did not "service" a place, and that Adam and Havah did not
"service" a place. I agreed, but pointed out that the Levites served
IN a place (specifically the Tabernacle and later the Temple). So
when you had a problem with "service" IN Gan Eden, you were mistaken.
It was quite plain, but you did not see it.
> >You're closed-minded if you blow off legitimate questions as if they
> >don't matter.
>
> "legitimate" is a subjective judgment.
Isn't it, though?
> >You're closed minded if you state something as factual
> >and get angry when I point out a difficulty with what you state. For
> >example, you stated that there is no evidence for a wall surrounding
> >Gan Eden. But rather than giving any reasons WHY you believe this,
> >you were merely content to state it as if it were a foregone
> >conclusion, and got angry when I disagreed with you.
>
> The TEXT. You conjecture based on convoluted chains of logic and
> linkages requiring many assumptions not at all in the text. Here, one
> of them is "the sages ... wall hangings" I have seen no such comment.
> You have produced no such comment. Your conjecture has not been
> demonstrated. Text has no wall.
I'll quote the reference when I get the Temple book. Will that make
you happy?
> >I later gave specific points of evidence to show why there would have
> >been a wall.
>
> All conjecture.
Then prove where my logic was flawed! You didn't do that. You just
blew it off.
> >> An educated Hebrew may just be convinced that Kirlian auras is
> >> absolutely not the meaning of a pasuq about "kothnoth 'or."
>
> >Fine. But you don't need to act like my view is totally ridiculous.
>
> I feel that it is absolutely ridiculous. Should I flatter you and
> dance around my real reactions?
Then I suppose there shouldn't be a problem if I consider certain
views of yours to be totally ridiculous. Right?
Remember Voltaire? "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll
defend to the death your right to say it." You're certainly entitled
to feel that I'm believing in something ridiculous. But don't treat
me as if I'm "less than" because of it. That IS what you're doing.
> >You can just agree to disagree. But that's not what you did. You
> >treated that belief (and by implication me as well) with contempt. I
> >take objection to that.
>
> Start providing the bases for your assumptions which you are now well
> advised that I do not share. Stop resorting to the nebulous "sages",
> fully disclose the history of how you came to your assumptions and
> what you sources draw from in arriving at them.
Fine. When I get my copy of the Temple book, and when I have some
time to write from home instead of from work, I'll start there.
Damon
ahaleva
> > commodity. They are not. We have no dogma. There are many
> > Midrashim. Many of which are not accepted by everyone. They are
> > nearly all metaphoric.
>
> Regarding citing my sources, I often write from work, not from home.
> And as far as the Midrashim not being accepted by everyone, I'm well
> aware of that. My point is not to force you to accept a Midrash that
> I myself accept, but for you to acknowledge that I am not going
> outside the bounds of Judaism when I make a point. That's what you've
> often accused me of doing, and without basis.
You have yet to cite ANY source. That is the basis. I know what I
know, and I can react to a statement as being non-Jewish. I doubt
that there are *any* Midrashim, properly construed, that support your
statements.
> By the way, I looked for my cousin's book on the Temple the other day
> and it's missing. I'm buying another copy for myself, so as soon as I
> do, I'll quote you the primary source citations from it.
Until then, there is nothing to talk about. Bear in mind that "a book
on the Temple" is not an original source.
> > > > > > >One had to be ritually pure in order to remain in Eden
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Absolutely not. Not at all!
> > > > >
> > > > > Then why couldn't Adam and Havah re-enter after they had sinned?
> > > >
> > > > Other reasons, fer instance -- hey here's one -- eating from the Tree
> > > > of Knowledge! Tum'a simply did not exist.
> > >
> > > But that was the sin I was talking about. They could not re-enter Gan
> > > Eden after having sinned, because there was no way to purify
> > > themselves from that sin.
> >
> > Sure there was: teshubha. Transformation. But it had ZERO to do with
> > the purification rituals of the Law of Moses, which did not then
> > exist.
>
> Of course we need Teshubha! But read Tehilim 24. What "holy hill" do
> you think it's talking about? Compare verse 2 with Bereshit 1:2 and
> 9-10.
>
> THAT is the ultimate Teshubha.
Your answer goes off on a tangent, and avoids answering me. I said
Adam could have re-enterd Eden with teshubha. You answered as above,
which is not an answer at all. "Sin" is not spiritual materialism. It
is not a thing or a taint. One does not need a ritual (or external
object, agency or **intercessor**) to "purify sin." Without teshubha,
NO ritual operates. In the days of Adam there was no ritual of any
kind. Just one commandment, to a being "slightly less than an angel."
They could easily have entered Eden again with teshubha. They did
not as a matter of choice.
The "holy hill" is a metaphor for the World to Come. So say the
"sages." See Maimonides Code, Teshubha, Chapter 8 or so. The
requirements of that mizmor to enter "har adonai" are NOT the legal
requirements of Temple Mount entry. Read them!
> > > That's not what I meant. The Temple wasn't oriented that way to "do
> > > the opposite."
> >
> > Oh yes it most certainly was.
>
> Citations? Proof?
Read the Guide.
> > > It was oriented that way because G-d commanded it to
> > > be. But it was also symbolic of something.
> >
> > No kidding. But the commandments send a message, as you note in the
> > second sentence.
>
> Then I think we disagree on what it was symbolic of. *shrugs* Fine.
It is NOT fine. You introduce some abstract East = exile ideology
foreign to every classical Jewish source I have ever seen, and I have
seen quite a few, and you cannot support this position.
> > > When Moshiach comes, he will enter in through the
> > > eastern gate WESTWARD into the city, arriving at a rebuilt Temple.
> >
> > Says whom? The Mashiah I know about, the very same one the "sages" I
> > studied ubiquitously agree about, is the impetus to build the Temple,
> > and arrives far in advance of its being built.
>
> Malachi 3:1 notwithstanding?
Of course. Read Maimonides' Code. Chapter 11 of Melakhim. You think
he -- and his Talmudic sources -- missed the verse in Malakhi? You
think R. Aqibha missed it as well? He called Ben Kozibha "mashiah."
> > > you can't see how that is a cycle of history, "the end from the
> > > beginning," as it were, then we have nothing further to discuss.
> >
> > Cycle of history? I do not think the Hebrews accept such a concept.
>
> Yeshaiah 46:9-10 and Ecclesiastes 1:10-11 and 3:15 notwithstanding?
Yes! Of course. You repeatedly throw out pesuqim without any analayis.
Anyone can do that. Even a machine. They do not assert a "cycle of
history." To even BEGIN to examine the issue you need to first
develop what exactly is meant by the idea of "cycle of history." What
are the assumptions underlying such an idea? You are not the
originator of this idea, you know. It has a context.
> The "messenger of the covenant" calls for the rebuilding of the
> Temple. (Mal. 3:1) This person will "purify the sons of Levi."
> (Mal. 3:3) This "messenger of the covenant" is also mentioned in
> Daniel 9:27. He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.
> In the middle of the week, a false moshiach will set up an idol in the
> rebuilt Temple, as King Manasseh did in Melachim B 21.
1. Decode messenger of the covenant from the Jewish point of view.
2. Demonstrate what that refers to exactly and precisely.
> According to Malachi 4:5-6, this messenger of the covenant is none
> other then Eliyahu ha navi.
Not stated in Malakhi 4. There is no Malakhi 4!!!
> > > As far as things being "way too abstract" for the Hebrews, how would
> > > you know? Where did that come from?
> >
> > Hebraic culture.
>
> So you're saying that you're an expert on Hebraic culture.
No, I am saying I am a Hebrew. I know my own culture. Please do not
play these rehtorical games with me.
> > > > Moreover, Judaism was not a _reaction_
> > > > to the other religions of the time. It went back to the very
> > > > beginning.
> > >
> > > It went back only to Sinai. Otherwise no need for a revelation.
>
> > > It went back to Sinai because the Israelites had forgotten their
> > > covenant with G-d.
> >
> > Bullsh*t. Was no such covenant. Show me such a covenant.
>
> Avraham, Yitzhak and Yaacov's covenant. Don't you know your bible?
I seem to know it better than you do, largely by heart and in the
original, with the traditional chant to boot. No shabbath vis-a-vis
the abhoth. No misvoth save ONE. No national Berith between God and
Israel. PRIVATE covenants between God and each forefather.
> > > Joseph had two sons in Egypt. One was named
> > > Ephraim, meaning "to be fruitful." The other was named Manasseh,
> > > meaning "to be forgetful." (Bereshit 41:50-52)
> >
> > No, meaning the forgotten one.
>
> Both meanings are appropriate. Hebrew is poetic and idiomatic, making
> multiple correct interpretations possible.
But not *every* interpretation is possible. Open sets are not the
universe. To be forgetful = "lenashoth." Menashe is a participle.
"Causer to forget." He caused Joseph to forget his abandonment in a
foreign land. To be forgetful is an intransitive verb, and cannot be
in the piel, as is "Menashe."
> > > The Israelites were
> > > fruitful in the land of Egypt, according to Shemot 1:7. The
> > > implication is that they were also forgetful of their covenant with
> > > G-d.
> >
> > Pure conjecture. Based on misassuming a covenant pre-Sinai existed.
> >
> > > Otherwise, they would not have needed to be reminded of when
> > > Shabbat was in Shemot 16. Right?
> >
> > Wrong. Shabbath had been recently commanded to them. not reminded of
> > when it was, but the rules asscoiated with it. It's significance.
>
> When was Shabbat "recently commanded" to them?
Marah. When was it EVER commanded to the forefathers? Every Shabbath
I recite soemthing known as the Qiddush. It does not say Shabbath was
a covenant between God and the Abhoth. It say "beni wubhen bene
Yisrael."
> > > Therefore, Sinai was a revelation because they had FORGOTTEN what they
> > > once knew. But what they once knew went back to the beginning.
> >
> > No Jew can ever agree to this.
>
> So you're speaking for every Jew, now?
I am speaking AS a Jew. A classiclaly trained Rabbanite. Certain
things are fundamental, and this is one of them. You may find some
"Jews" who disagree, but that does not mean much. Not every opinion
of a Jew is a Jewish Opinion.
> If you disagree, that's fine. But you're acting as if what I'm saying
> has no basis in JUDAISM, when the truth is that it does not agree with
> YOUR OWN PERSONAL JEWISH TAKE ON IT.
Nonsense. As nonsensical as Israelites forgetting a pre-Sinaitic
Berith. PROVE SUCH AN ASSERTION. CITE ONE SINGLE JEWISH SOURCE THAT
AGREES WITH YOU.
Until you do, what you say has absolutely NO BASIS at all. It
violates the significance of the fundamental experience of Judaism,
the Sinaitic covenant.
> As far as me not knowing Hebrew, I'm learning.
But you speak as if a master, not a student. Cart before the horse?
> But there are things
> that I'm well aware of that you seem to be quite ignorant of.
Says you.
> So does
> that mean that you should stop studying until YOU know enough to know
> what you're doing? I don't think so.
Question is biased. Assumes the premise that those things which I am
ignorant of which you know are true.
> None of us have a full and complete understanding of what it is that
> we're studying. That's why studying Torah is a COMMUNITY exercise!
> If I'm making mistakes of interpretation because I'm ignorant of
> certain things, then I'm making mistakes! That's not the end of the
> world. But on the other hand, I know quite a bit more about ancient
> Hebraic culture than you would ever acknowledge.
Without knowing any Hebrew? Hebrews, as it happens, equate being part
of a people with speaking its language. I again refer to the qiddush
(for holidays).
> > You did not answer this point. Where do you see Adam and Eve doing
> > any sacrificing?
>
> I believe Adam officiated. Cain and Abel sacrificed, that much we do
> know. And the account doesn't tell us what happened after that, but
> there are things that can be put together from secular history and
> Jewish tradition that can tell us quite a bit. But I'm not about to
> share that here.
Then you have said nothing. Lo hamidrash 'iqqar.
> I don't need the headaches from people who can only
> criticize. I'd rather have CONSTRUCTIVE criticism from people who are
> truly and honestly seeking to know what really happened.
But for one to qualify as a "seeker" **you** get to vet whether they
are or are not. But when **I** vet what is and is not genuine Hebraic
tradition, you object. A double standard.
> > > Again, I made the point that the
> > > text specifically tells us that Cain moved away. Therefore, it's
> > > LIKELY that neither Adam and Havah nor Abel moved away prior to Cain's
> > > murder of Abel.
> >
> > Not persuasive. "Likely" is just conjecture. Sometimes we just have
> > no information, and conjecture is a silly way to deal with such
> > lacunae.
>
> That depends. There is a mountain behind everything I say, but I
> don't see fit to share it here.
But you assert the mountain nonetheless as some authority. Smoke and
mirrors.
> Good! Now, if you were interested in SEEKING, rather than simply
> knowing what you already know, we could get somewhere.
Bad! You judge people you know nothing about simply because they are
precise and will not accept your abstract theories and conjectures.
> Like I said, the Temple book quotes from the relevant sources. So
> when I get that, I'll post them.
>
> > > So because I've not read the original Hebrew, everything I've
> > > researched is worthless.
> >
> > Is suspect and not fully researched, I would say. The map is no
> > substitue for the territory.
>
> Again, that's why studying Torah is a COMMUNITY exercise.
Nonsequitur. To the max. INDIVIDUALs in the community must do the
requisite preparation to even participate.
> Are you sure? Can you be certain that they weren't naked because they
> didn't know any better?
Hell yes. Hebrew root "PQH", as I said before.
> And you accuse me of making assumptions. ;-)
You do. All the time.
> > > Adam and Havah were created physically
> > > mature, but as emotional "newborns."
> >
> > Says whom? A newborn is capable of receiving a misva? No way.
>
> Well, apparently you're right, since look what happened. ;-p
Complete self serving shtuyoth with no informational content.
> > >Taking of the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil gave them
> > >AWARENESS. They became AWARE of the fact that they were naked.
> >
> > NO. It gave them misplaced imagination and conventions, and so they
> > invented the first conventionalism : naked = bad.
>
> And where do you get that from? How do you know that that
> interpretation is right and the one I gave is wrong?
(1) Hebrew lexicon: "Tob" and "Ra." (2) The SAGES. Why when you
misquote the "sages" that's okey-dokey-jokey. But when I *actually*
quote them, it is not acceptable. More double standard?
> > "God never showed Adam the Tree of Knowledge and never will"
> > Direct quote form the sages.
>
> G-d didn't have to. Havah gave Adam the fruit from it. But that has
> nothing to do with what I said.
Has everything to do, but you need to understand it first. I genuinely
believe that you do not. Precisely only Havvah could show him. That
is the whole point. Not that God didn't have to, He would not and
moreover could not.
> > >It was like requiring newborns to become Bar- and Bat-Mitzvah,
> > >basically.
> >
> > The ritual you refer to is also non-Hebraic, invented some 400 years
> > ago.
>
> It was invented based on a Biblical concept that went back at least as
> far as Yeshaiah 7:14-16 and likely much further.
Demonstrate that. Fully and adequately.
Historically not true. No evidence from those who did invent the
ceremoony that that was their intention AT ALL. So, no naked
unsupported conclusions. DEMONSTRATE!
> > >Does it disappear if Adam was made in the image and likeness of G-d?
> > >All of G-d's qualities and attributes would have been passed on to
> > >Adam, then! So why weren't they?
> >
> > No they would not. Learn the meaning of "selem" and "demuth" in
> > HEBREW. So yes, the quandry does completely disappear.
>
> I remember studying this from before. If I remember correctly, the
> Hebrew word for "likeness" is directly connected with character
> attributes.
You cannot define a term by invoking an English word that may have
nothing to do with it. Again you just invoke fuzzy half points.
DEMONSTRATE. You said "all attributes would be passed on." What has
this got to do with your vague recollections the Hebrew word for
"likeness"?
> Oh, I can see that you cannot, that's for sure. You claimed that the
> Levites did not "service" a place, and that Adam and Havah did not
> "service" a place. I agreed, but pointed out that the Levites served
> IN a place (specifically the Tabernacle and later the Temple). So
> when you had a problem with "service" IN Gan Eden, you were mistaken.
>
> It was quite plain, but you did not see it.
No, "le-obhdah" does not at all mean to serve *in* it. It means to
"work it."
Hebrew is VERY precise.
> >You're closed-minded if you blow off legitimate questions as if
they
> > >don't matter.
> >
> > "legitimate" is a subjective judgment.
>
> Isn't it, though?
Yes. Shall we each say it again? A waste of the ">" character would
ensue.
> > >You're closed minded if you state something as factual
> > >and get angry when I point out a difficulty with what you state. For
> > >example, you stated that there is no evidence for a wall surrounding
> > >Gan Eden. But rather than giving any reasons WHY you believe this,
> > >you were merely content to state it as if it were a foregone
> > >conclusion, and got angry when I disagreed with you.
> >
> > The TEXT. You conjecture based on convoluted chains of logic and
> > linkages requiring many assumptions not at all in the text. Here, one
> > of them is "the sages ... wall hangings" I have seen no such comment.
> > You have produced no such comment. Your conjecture has not been
> > demonstrated. Text has no wall.
>
> I'll quote the reference when I get the Temple book. Will that make
> you happy?
Let's see it first. Stop asserting facts not even present.
> > >I later gave specific points of evidence to show why there would have
> > >been a wall.
> >
> > All conjecture.
>
> Then prove where my logic was flawed! You didn't do that. You just
> blew it off.
No, I said the text does not support you and you had not quoted any
"sages" as support. Now play fair or find someone else to foist
ruses, dodges and naked unsubstantiated assertions upon.
> Then I suppose there shouldn't be a problem if I consider certain
> views of yours to be totally ridiculous. Right?
Right!
Ronnie
ahaleva
>aha...@kaplangilman.com (ahaleva) wrote in message:
> > > > > > >One had to be ritually pure in order to remain in Eden
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Absolutely not. Not at all!
> > > > >
> > > > > Then why couldn't Adam and Havah re-enter after they had sinned?
> > > >
> > > > Other reasons, fer instance -- hey here's one -- eating from the Tree
> > > > of Knowledge! Tum'a simply did not exist.
> > >
> > > But that was the sin I was talking about. They could not re-enter Gan
> > > Eden after having sinned, because there was no way to purify
> > > themselves from that sin.
> >
> > Sure there was: teshubha. Transformation. But it had ZERO to do with
> > the purification rituals of the Law of Moses, which did not then
> > exist.
>
> Of course we need Teshubha! But read Tehilim 24. What "holy hill" do
> you think it's talking about? Compare verse 2 with Bereshit 1:2 and
> 9-10.
>
> THAT is the ultimate Teshubha.
Targum and some people do explain the "holy hill" (har adonai) in
Tehillim 24 as the Temple. That pirush is certainly within the bounds
of Judaism. But Teshubha for Adam and Eve does not mean *physical*
return to a place, and has nothing to do with the Temple mount
procured by King David some millenia later.
So, even if the mizmor refers to the Temple (not as yet built, thus
referred to only as the holy mountain by David), please DEMONSTRATE
what that has to do with Adam and Eve, and how you come to such a
conclusion. Mizmor itself has nothing to do with teshubha; has to do
with who merits the Temple to be built in their days, or to procure
the site perhaps. No refernce to Eden.
Simply citing verses does not move towards such a demonstration,
unless the reader agrees with your assumptions and would make the same
connections that you do.
> Damon
Ronnie
Yisroel Markov
(ahaleva) said:
>ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale) wrote in message
>> aha...@kaplangilman.com (ahaleva) wrote in message
[snip]
>> > "God never showed Adam the Tree of Knowledge and never will"
>> > Direct quote form the sages.
>>
>> G-d didn't have to. Havah gave Adam the fruit from it. But that has
>> nothing to do with what I said.
>
>Has everything to do, but you need to understand it first. I genuinely
>believe that you do not. Precisely only Havvah could show him. That
>is the whole point. Not that God didn't have to, He would not and
>moreover could not.
Fascinating. Would you please elaborate or point to a source?
[snip]
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Damon Casale
> ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale) wrote in message
> > aha...@kaplangilman.com (ahaleva) wrote in message
> > > You mention (without citation) the "sages" as if they are a homogenous
> > > commodity. They are not. We have no dogma. There are many
> > > Midrashim. Many of which are not accepted by everyone. They are
> > > nearly all metaphoric.
> >
> > Regarding citing my sources, I often write from work, not from home.
> > And as far as the Midrashim not being accepted by everyone, I'm well
> > aware of that. My point is not to force you to accept a Midrash that
> > I myself accept, but for you to acknowledge that I am not going
> > outside the bounds of Judaism when I make a point. That's what you've
> > often accused me of doing, and without basis.
>
> You have yet to cite ANY source. That is the basis. I know what I
> know, and I can react to a statement as being non-Jewish. I doubt
> that there are *any* Midrashim, properly construed, that support your
> statements.
But there are. I've seen them. And that's the problem. I don't have
access to them right at this moment, but that doesn't mean they don't
exist. And I take great objection to you not giving me the benefit of
the doubt.
> > By the way, I looked for my cousin's book on the Temple the other day
> > and it's missing. I'm buying another copy for myself, so as soon as I
> > do, I'll quote you the primary source citations from it.
>
> Until then, there is nothing to talk about. Bear in mind that "a book
> on the Temple" is not an original source.
I know that. That's why I explicitly said that I would quote THE
PRIMARY SOURCE CITATIONS FROM IT.
Listen to me next time.
[re Adam and Havah]
> > > > They could not re-enter Gan
> > > > Eden after having sinned, because there was no way to purify
> > > > themselves from that sin.
> > >
> > > Sure there was: teshubha. Transformation. But it had ZERO to do with
> > > the purification rituals of the Law of Moses, which did not then
> > > exist.
> >
> > Of course we need Teshubha! But read Tehilim 24. What "holy hill" do
> > you think it's talking about? Compare verse 2 with Bereshit 1:2 and
> > 9-10.
> >
> > THAT is the ultimate Teshubha.
>
> Your answer goes off on a tangent, and avoids answering me. I said
> Adam could have re-enterd Eden with teshubha.
True. But someone just claiming to "return" to G-d is far and away
different from having their "return" tested and found to be a true
commitment. And that is the whole idea of a Moshiach. One who is
committed to choosing right instead of wrong, no matter how difficult
the circumstances. One who, in every instance, crushes the head of
the Evil Inclination (Bereshit 3:15).
The nation of Israel dwelt in the Promised Land "as a stranger" in the
land. It was the land of their inheritance, but until they were
TESTED and found to be COMMITTED to G-d's ways, they could not interit
it in perpetuity. There will come a time when they WILL inherit it in
perpetuity. Right now, Israel is going through some of the most
difficult circumstances imaginable FOR A GREAT PURPOSE. It is a
prerequisite before the age of Moshiach can begin. It is during this
time when we should look for the coming of Moshiach, spoken about in
Tehilim 24.
> You answered as above,
> which is not an answer at all. "Sin" is not spiritual materialism. It
> is not a thing or a taint.
I never said it was.
> One does not need a ritual (or external
> object, agency or **intercessor**) to "purify sin."
Actually, that's not entirely true. In fact the whole idea of a
"suffering servant" is to be a living example of the effects of
others' sins. The nation of Israel should be well aware of that,
given all of the suffering they have gone through because of others'
sins! THEY THEMSELVES can thus be intercessors on behalf of others,
because they KNOW what it's like to be on the receiving end! Remember
G-d's command that we treat the foreigner with dignity and respect
because we were foreigners in Egypt, and were cruelly oppressed? Same
principle.
> Without teshubha, NO ritual operates.
I agree.
> In the days of Adam there was no ritual of any kind.
None that we know of.
> Just one commandment, to a being "slightly less than an angel."
> They could easily have entered Eden again with teshubha. They did
> not as a matter of choice.
Well, we aren't told whether they did or not. But Adam's offspring
certainly haven't. The greatest test of teshubha isn't whether WE can
return to G-d, it's whether we will pass that on to OUR CHILDREN.
That's why Bereshit 3:15 was written the way it was.
> The "holy hill" is a metaphor for the World to Come. So say the
> "sages." See Maimonides Code, Teshubha, Chapter 8 or so.
That's true. But the "holy hill" ALSO represents the place where the
Spirit of G-d hovered over the waters, and land first appeared. This
spot became Gan Eden.
> The
> requirements of that mizmor to enter "har adonai" are NOT the legal
> requirements of Temple Mount entry. Read them!
Would you quote the Temple Mount entry requirements here, since as you
say, you're the one familiar with the sources?
> > > > That's not what I meant. The Temple wasn't oriented that way to "do
> > > > the opposite."
> > >
> > > Oh yes it most certainly was.
> >
> > Citations? Proof?
>
> Read the Guide.
You still haven't given me an online link to where I can find it. I
might be able to find it at the local library or at the synagogue I
visit every so often, but I'd much rather have access to it online,
because it's more convenient.
> > > > It was oriented that way because G-d commanded it to
> > > > be. But it was also symbolic of something.
> > >
> > > No kidding. But the commandments send a message, as you note in the
> > > second sentence.
> >
> > Then I think we disagree on what it was symbolic of. *shrugs* Fine.
>
> It is NOT fine. You introduce some abstract East = exile ideology
> foreign to every classical Jewish source I have ever seen, and I have
> seen quite a few, and you cannot support this position.
I can *biblically* support it. Do I have to show you before you will
give me some credit for being able to put verses together?
> > > > When Moshiach comes, he will enter in through the
> > > > eastern gate WESTWARD into the city, arriving at a rebuilt Temple.
> > >
> > > Says whom? The Mashiah I know about, the very same one the "sages" I
> > > studied ubiquitously agree about, is the impetus to build the Temple,
> > > and arrives far in advance of its being built.
> >
> > Malachi 3:1 notwithstanding?
>
> Of course. Read Maimonides' Code. Chapter 11 of Melakhim. You think
> he -- and his Talmudic sources -- missed the verse in Malakhi? You
> think R. Aqibha missed it as well? He called Ben Kozibha "mashiah."
Just provide the d*mn link, then, and stop acting like you can read
and I can't.
> > > > you can't see how that is a cycle of history, "the end from the
> > > > beginning," as it were, then we have nothing further to discuss.
> > >
> > > Cycle of history? I do not think the Hebrews accept such a concept.
> >
> > Yeshaiah 46:9-10 and Ecclesiastes 1:10-11 and 3:15 notwithstanding?
>
> Yes! Of course. You repeatedly throw out pesuqim without any analayis.
> Anyone can do that. Even a machine. They do not assert a "cycle of
> history." To even BEGIN to examine the issue you need to first
> develop what exactly is meant by the idea of "cycle of history." What
> are the assumptions underlying such an idea? You are not the
> originator of this idea, you know. It has a context.
Of course it has a context. I remember a citation from the Temple
book which claimed that the sages saw the destruction of the Temple in
the exile from Gan Eden. Until I have access to the book again, I
won't be able to GIVE you that citation, but I do remember reading it.
And that's a perfect example.
> > The "messenger of the covenant" calls for the rebuilding of the
> > Temple. (Mal. 3:1) This person will "purify the sons of Levi."
> > (Mal. 3:3) This "messenger of the covenant" is also mentioned in
> > Daniel 9:27. He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.
> > In the middle of the week, a false moshiach will set up an idol in the
> > rebuilt Temple, as King Manasseh did in Melachim B 21.
>
> 1. Decode messenger of the covenant from the Jewish point of view.
> 2. Demonstrate what that refers to exactly and precisely.
>
> > According to Malachi 4:5-6, this messenger of the covenant is none
> > other then Eliyahu ha navi.
>
> Not stated in Malakhi 4. There is no Malakhi 4!!!
What's this, then?
"Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him
in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Behold, I
will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and
dreadful day of the L-RD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers
to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest
I come and smite the earth with a curse."
Are you telling me that's not in any Jewish translation of the Tanakh?
> > > > As far as things being "way too abstract" for the Hebrews, how would
> > > > you know? Where did that come from?
> > >
> > > Hebraic culture.
> >
> > So you're saying that you're an expert on Hebraic culture.
>
> No, I am saying I am a Hebrew. I know my own culture. Please do not
> play these rehtorical games with me.
That's not what I meant. You're an expert on ANCIENT *HEBRAIC*
culture? MODERN *JEWISH* culture, I would buy. (Judah was Hebrew,
but not all Hebrews are Jewish.)
> > > > > Moreover, Judaism was not a _reaction_
> > > > > to the other religions of the time. It went back to the very
> > > > > beginning.
> > > >
> > > > It went back only to Sinai. Otherwise no need for a revelation.
>
> > > > It went back to Sinai because the Israelites had forgotten their
> > > > covenant with G-d.
> > >
> > > Bullsh*t. Was no such covenant. Show me such a covenant.
> >
> > Avraham, Yitzhak and Yaacov's covenant. Don't you know your bible?
>
> I seem to know it better than you do, largely by heart and in the
> original, with the traditional chant to boot. No shabbath vis-a-vis
> the abhoth. No misvoth save ONE. No national Berith between God and
> Israel. PRIVATE covenants between God and each forefather.
So you think the covenants between G-d and each forefather held no
weight for their descendants? Only for the forefathers themselves?
> > > > Joseph had two sons in Egypt. One was named
> > > > Ephraim, meaning "to be fruitful." The other was named Manasseh,
> > > > meaning "to be forgetful." (Bereshit 41:50-52)
> > >
> > > No, meaning the forgotten one.
> >
> > Both meanings are appropriate. Hebrew is poetic and idiomatic, making
> > multiple correct interpretations possible.
>
> But not *every* interpretation is possible. Open sets are not the
> universe. To be forgetful = "lenashoth." Menashe is a participle.
> "Causer to forget." He caused Joseph to forget his abandonment in a
> foreign land. To be forgetful is an intransitive verb, and cannot be
> in the piel, as is "Menashe."
Even if that's the case, the implication is still that they forgot the
covenant with their fathers. For instance, was circumcision only for
Avraham, or for his descendants as well? Why did G-d have to remind
the Israelites of this covenant if they had not forgotten it?
> > > > The Israelites were
> > > > fruitful in the land of Egypt, according to Shemot 1:7. The
> > > > implication is that they were also forgetful of their covenant with
> > > > G-d.
> > >
> > > Pure conjecture. Based on misassuming a covenant pre-Sinai existed.
> > >
> > > > Otherwise, they would not have needed to be reminded of when
> > > > Shabbat was in Shemot 16. Right?
> > >
> > > Wrong. Shabbath had been recently commanded to them. not reminded of
> > > when it was, but the rules asscoiated with it. It's significance.
> >
> > When was Shabbat "recently commanded" to them?
>
> Marah. When was it EVER commanded to the forefathers? Every Shabbath
> I recite soemthing known as the Qiddush. It does not say Shabbath was
> a covenant between God and the Abhoth. It say "beni wubhen bene
> Yisrael."
*shrugs* If you say so. I see a reference to the seventh day in
Bereshit, though. When was it forgotten WHICH day Shabbat was,
whether they observed it as set apart or not? (I assume that's what
you're talking about.) Obviously the Israelites didn't know which day
it was, otherwise G-d would not have had to tell them in Shemot 16.
> > > > Therefore, Sinai was a revelation because they had FORGOTTEN what they
> > > > once knew. But what they once knew went back to the beginning.
> > >
> > > No Jew can ever agree to this.
> >
> > So you're speaking for every Jew, now?
>
> I am speaking AS a Jew. A classiclaly trained Rabbanite. Certain
> things are fundamental, and this is one of them. You may find some
> "Jews" who disagree, but that does not mean much. Not every opinion
> of a Jew is a Jewish Opinion.
Oh? What qualifies as a Jewish Opinion, then?
> > If you disagree, that's fine. But you're acting as if what I'm saying
> > has no basis in JUDAISM, when the truth is that it does not agree with
> > YOUR OWN PERSONAL JEWISH TAKE ON IT.
>
> Nonsense. As nonsensical as Israelites forgetting a pre-Sinaitic
> Berith. PROVE SUCH AN ASSERTION. CITE ONE SINGLE JEWISH SOURCE THAT
> AGREES WITH YOU.
> Until you do, what you say has absolutely NO BASIS at all. It
> violates the significance of the fundamental experience of Judaism,
> the Sinaitic covenant.
Well, as you can see above, you were talking about OBSERVANCE of
Shabbat, whereas I was talking about REMEMBERING WHICH DAY IT WAS.
So what I say DOES have a basis in one particular "Jewish source":
the bible itself. I hope that's sufficient for you.
> > As far as me not knowing Hebrew, I'm learning.
>
> But you speak as if a master, not a student. Cart before the horse?
I am an expert on other aspects of Torah study, mainly in the cultural
context of human history from Creation to the time of Avraham.
Something it seems that few Jews are very familiar with, given the
dearth of responses I've seen to questions on this forum regarding
that time period.
> > But there are things
> > that I'm well aware of that you seem to be quite ignorant of.
>
> Says you.
Yes, I do. If you are enough of an expert on Jewish primary source
material as well as biblical Hebrew to tell me what I don't know, I am
enough of an expert on the cultural context of human history up to the
time of Avraham to tell you what you don't know about it. And there
is apparently quite a bit you don't know.
But that doesn't mean I can't respect what you DO know. And I do.
But just because I DON'T know what you DO, doesn't mean I have
absolutely nothing to offer.
> > So does
> > that mean that you should stop studying until YOU know enough to know
> > what you're doing? I don't think so.
>
> Question is biased. Assumes the premise that those things which I am
> ignorant of which you know are true.
Exactly.
> > None of us have a full and complete understanding of what it is that
> > we're studying. That's why studying Torah is a COMMUNITY exercise!
> > If I'm making mistakes of interpretation because I'm ignorant of
> > certain things, then I'm making mistakes! That's not the end of the
> > world. But on the other hand, I know quite a bit more about ancient
> > Hebraic culture than you would ever acknowledge.
>
> Without knowing any Hebrew? Hebrews, as it happens, equate being part
> of a people with speaking its language. I again refer to the qiddush
> (for holidays).
So Jews which don't speak Hebrew (other than what they recite by rote
in the synagogue) aren't part of the people? I'm sure quite a few
religious Jews (let alone secular ones) would take exception to that.
> > > You did not answer this point. Where do you see Adam and Eve doing
> > > any sacrificing?
> >
> > I believe Adam officiated. Cain and Abel sacrificed, that much we do
> > know. And the account doesn't tell us what happened after that, but
> > there are things that can be put together from secular history and
> > Jewish tradition that can tell us quite a bit. But I'm not about to
> > share that here.
>
> Then you have said nothing. Lo hamidrash 'iqqar.
*shrugs* Why should I say anything here? I don't care to be
browbeaten.
> > I don't need the headaches from people who can only
> > criticize. I'd rather have CONSTRUCTIVE criticism from people who are
> > truly and honestly seeking to know what really happened.
>
> But for one to qualify as a "seeker" **you** get to vet whether they
> are or are not. But when **I** vet what is and is not genuine Hebraic
> tradition, you object. A double standard.
But the problem is that you are not familiar with ALL of the Jewish
primary source material, and there are references which I know of (but
do not YET have access to) which back up what I'm saying. And you're
not giving me the benefit of the doubt that such references do exist.
That, to me, means you're closed-minded on the subject, and not a
"seeker" at all.
> > > > Again, I made the point that the
> > > > text specifically tells us that Cain moved away. Therefore, it's
> > > > LIKELY that neither Adam and Havah nor Abel moved away prior to Cain's
> > > > murder of Abel.
> > >
> > > Not persuasive. "Likely" is just conjecture. Sometimes we just have
> > > no information, and conjecture is a silly way to deal with such
> > > lacunae.
> >
> > That depends. There is a mountain behind everything I say, but I
> > don't see fit to share it here.
>
> But you assert the mountain nonetheless as some authority. Smoke and
> mirrors.
I don't know that you would be any more likely to accept what I've
said even if I DID share more of the "mountain." I don't think what
I'm saying is being given a fair chance, so why should I say more on
the subject?
> > > > So because I've not read the original Hebrew, everything I've
> > > > researched is worthless.
> > >
> > > Is suspect and not fully researched, I would say. The map is no
> > > substitue for the territory.
> >
> > Again, that's why studying Torah is a COMMUNITY exercise.
>
> Nonsequitur. To the max. INDIVIDUALs in the community must do the
> requisite preparation to even participate.
Who defines what the requisite preparation is? What's stopping me
from working with someone who knows biblical Hebrew and can vet what I
come up with?
That's what I meant.
> > Are you sure? Can you be certain that they weren't naked because they
> > didn't know any better?
>
> Hell yes. Hebrew root "PQH", as I said before.
Okay, "PQH" means "to be opened" (as in eyes or ears). When they ate
of the fruit, their eyes were opened, and they KNEW that they were
naked.
"PQH" also appears in Bereshit 21:19, where G-d opened Hagar's eyes
and she SAW a well. Obviously her eyes weren't shut before then (she
wasn't wandering around in the desert with her eyes shut!), and
obviously she didn't know the well was there before G-d "opened her
eyes." So this seems to refer to her becoming CONSCIOUS of the fact
that the well was there.
What's the flaw in that logic? How does this not refer to becoming
more conscious? And why are you stating these things as if they are
foregone conclusions when I can come up with questions that seem to
undermine what you're saying?
> > And you accuse me of making assumptions. ;-)
>
> You do. All the time.
Maybe I do. But that doesn't mean you DON'T. That was my point.
> > > > Adam and Havah were created physically
> > > > mature, but as emotional "newborns."
> > >
> > > Says whom? A newborn is capable of receiving a misva? No way.
> >
> > Well, apparently you're right, since look what happened. ;-p
>
> Complete self serving shtuyoth with no informational content.
I meant that Adam and Havah were not able to obey G-d's simple
commandment, as they were "newborns."
You really don't get what I say sometimes, do you?
> > > >Taking of the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil gave them
> > > >AWARENESS. They became AWARE of the fact that they were naked.
> > >
> > > NO. It gave them misplaced imagination and conventions, and so they
> > > invented the first conventionalism : naked = bad.
> >
> > And where do you get that from? How do you know that that
> > interpretation is right and the one I gave is wrong?
>
> (1) Hebrew lexicon: "Tob" and "Ra." (2) The SAGES. Why when you
> misquote the "sages" that's okey-dokey-jokey. But when I *actually*
> quote them, it is not acceptable. More double standard?
Okay, quote them, regarding what happened when Adam and Havah ate of
the fruit. I'm interested in learning.
> > > "God never showed Adam the Tree of Knowledge and never will"
> > > Direct quote form the sages.
> >
> > G-d didn't have to. Havah gave Adam the fruit from it. But that has
> > nothing to do with what I said.
>
> Has everything to do, but you need to understand it first. I genuinely
> believe that you do not. Precisely only Havvah could show him. That
> is the whole point. Not that God didn't have to, He would not and
> moreover could not.
The text states that Havah gave Adam of the fruit of the tree. How
does this translate into SHOWING Adam the tree? Please explain that.
I'm interested in learning.
> > > >It was like requiring newborns to become Bar- and Bat-Mitzvah,
> > > >basically.
> > >
> > > The ritual you refer to is also non-Hebraic, invented some 400 years
> > > ago.
> >
> > It was invented based on a Biblical concept that went back at least as
> > far as Yeshaiah 7:14-16 and likely much further.
>
> Demonstrate that. Fully and adequately.
>
> Historically not true. No evidence from those who did invent the
> ceremoony that that was their intention AT ALL. So, no naked
> unsupported conclusions. DEMONSTRATE!
According to Yeshaiah 7:16, this child named Immanuel would not be
able to choose between good and evil before a certain age. The
traditional Jewish age of accountability is age 13 for boys and age 12
for girls, if I remember correctly. Whether the idea of a *specific*
age of accountability is meant by Yeshaiah 7:16, the idea that BEFORE
a certain age there COULD BE no accountability certainly is. And that
was my point. I believe that Adam and Havah were not ready to be
accountable to G-d's standards for them when they were first created.
> > > >Does it disappear if Adam was made in the image and likeness of G-d?
> > > >All of G-d's qualities and attributes would have been passed on to
> > > >Adam, then! So why weren't they?
> > >
> > > No they would not. Learn the meaning of "selem" and "demuth" in
> > > HEBREW. So yes, the quandry does completely disappear.
> >
> > I remember studying this from before. If I remember correctly, the
> > Hebrew word for "likeness" is directly connected with character
> > attributes.
>
> You cannot define a term by invoking an English word that may have
> nothing to do with it. Again you just invoke fuzzy half points.
> DEMONSTRATE. You said "all attributes would be passed on." What has
> this got to do with your vague recollections the Hebrew word for
> "likeness"?
The Hebrew for "image" and "likeness" literally refer to what
something looks like. So are you implying that Adam "looked like"
G-d? I was under the impression that the sages did not consider G-d
to have a shape and form, and that G-d creating Adam in His image and
likeness was a reference to character attributes. That's what I
remember from my Intro to Judaism class at the local synagogue. If
you'd care to correct that impression, feel free, but I didn't just
make it up. I got it from the rabbi teaching the class.
> > Oh, I can see that you cannot, that's for sure. You claimed that the
> > Levites did not "service" a place, and that Adam and Havah did not
> > "service" a place. I agreed, but pointed out that the Levites served
> > IN a place (specifically the Tabernacle and later the Temple). So
> > when you had a problem with "service" IN Gan Eden, you were mistaken.
> >
> > It was quite plain, but you did not see it.
>
> No, "le-obhdah" does not at all mean to serve *in* it. It means to
> "work it." Hebrew is VERY precise.
*shrugs* Then I suppose all I can do is wait until I can quote the
primary Jewish source which made this comparison in the first place.
> > > >I later gave specific points of evidence to show why there would have
> > > >been a wall.
> > >
> > > All conjecture.
> >
> > Then prove where my logic was flawed! You didn't do that. You just
> > blew it off.
>
> No, I said the text does not support you and you had not quoted any
> "sages" as support. Now play fair or find someone else to foist
> ruses, dodges and naked unsubstantiated assertions upon.
So if the sages don't make any comments about what I've said (which
they actually do), then a simple "the text doesn't support you" is all
you need to refute my logic?
I'm sorry, but I can't accept that. I need more proof.
> > Then I suppose there shouldn't be a problem if I consider certain
> > views of yours to be totally ridiculous. Right?
>
> Right!
Good. Now, as you said, let's play fair. :-)
Damon
Garry
wrote:
>Quoth Damon Casale:
>: aha...@kaplangilman.com (ahaleva) wrote
>:> Not stated in Malakhi 4. There is no Malakhi 4!!!
>
>: What's this, then?
>
>: "Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him
>: in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Behold, I
>: will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and
>: dreadful day of the L-RD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers
>: to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest
>: I come and smite the earth with a curse."
>
>: Are you telling me that's not in any Jewish translation of the Tanakh?
>
>Yup. I don't know whose bible you're using, but Malachi only has three
>chapters in ours.
Huh? Chapters? I always thought that the division of the bible into
chapters is a midieval christian institution; Jews would reference by
the words or occasionally by the parsha and aliyah. Is there a Jewish
system of chapter numbering? Anybody know about how this originated?
If there's no specific Jewish chapter system, then there certainly
_is_ a chapter 4 of malachai in the xtian one.
Micha Berger
: Huh? Chapters? I always thought that the division of the bible into
: chapters is a midieval christian institution; Jews would reference by
: the words or occasionally by the parsha and aliyah. Is there a Jewish
: system of chapter numbering? Anybody know about how this originated?
The Vilna Gaon tried establishing Jewish chapter numbers, based on the
open paragraphs (or some such). It didn't catch on, as you may have
noticed. But the Koren Tanach has them, as well as the Christian
system.
-mi
Damon Casale
> > you think it's talking about? Compare verse 2 with Bereshit 1:2 and
> > 9-10.
> >
> > THAT is the ultimate Teshubha.
>
> Targum and some people do explain the "holy hill" (har adonai) in
> Tehillim 24 as the Temple. That pirush is certainly within the bounds
> of Judaism. But Teshubha for Adam and Eve does not mean *physical*
> return to a place, and has nothing to do with the Temple mount
> procured by King David some millenia later.
>
> So, even if the mizmor refers to the Temple (not as yet built, thus
> referred to only as the holy mountain by David), please DEMONSTRATE
> what that has to do with Adam and Eve, and how you come to such a
> conclusion. Mizmor itself has nothing to do with teshubha; has to do
> with who merits the Temple to be built in their days, or to procure
> the site perhaps. No refernce to Eden.
>
> Simply citing verses does not move towards such a demonstration,
> unless the reader agrees with your assumptions and would make the same
> connections that you do.
Okay, here is where my expertise comes into play. I've mentioned
before that I've done a great amount of research into the cultural
context of the biblical account. Just so you can see that I know what
I'm talking about, I'll share a *little* of that research here.
Creation stories and/or stories regarding a "sacred place which no man
could enter," etc., crop up in most if not all of the ancient cultures
of the world. For instance, the Sumerian version of Eden was called
the land of Dilmun (which I'm sure you've heard of). But let me start
drawing the most important parallel between all of these ancient
cultures: they all had their own version of the mound of earth which
rose out of the primordial waters of creation (cf. Bereshit 1:9-10).
Sumer claimed that creation occurred when a mound of earth rose out of
the (fresh) waters of Nun after the death of the dragon Tiamat
(representing the salt waters of the ocean). This place was later
called "Nun-ki," literally place (or city) of Nun. (In other words,
the earth rising up out of the waters referred to a specific place as
well as referring to the whole world.) Egypt claimed that creation
occurred at the mound of earth rising out of the watery swamp of Nun.
A bird landed on a stone in the center of this mound, and suddenly
there was light. This bird later became associated with the sun god.
(Compare Bereshit 1:3.) It was on this spot that the Egyptians
claimed they built a temple. However, there were different versions
of this myth which claimed that the city where this temple was built
was Heliopolis, Thebes, or whatever city was appropriate to the
religious school of thought in question. (The place where creation
occurred differed depending on which Egyptian creation mythology you
looked at, in other words.)
Both the Sumerians (and later the Babylonians) and the Egyptians built
ARTIFICIAL MOUNTAINS to represent this mound of earth where creation
had occurred. These were the Sumerian and Babylonian ziggurats and
the Egyptian pyramids.
According to Egyptian mythology, the source of the Nile River was the
Dwat, a spiritual otherworld/innerworld from which the god Osiris
reigned. The mortuary cult of the Egyptians practiced their cultic
rites inside the pyramid tombs where the pharaohs were buried,
facilitating and re-enacting the ascent of the pharaoh's soul from
earth to heaven (because the pyramid represented a link between earth
and heaven). They also taught initiates the "sacred science" which
symbolically "flowed" from the Dwat, down the Nile, to the temples on
the banks of the Nile, inside these temples. The Sumerians taught
"sacred science" in the temples atop the ziggurats which were built
along the bank of a river, often the Tigris. This "sacred science"
also "flowed" from the Sumerian gods (but mainly Enki, the god of
knowledge, also the god of water).
Basically, every culture had their own LOCAL VARIANT of "the place
where creation occurred." They had their own way of representing the
SAME SYMBOLISM. Namely, the "place where creation occurred" was
always a mountain or something representing a mountain. It was always
intimately connected with the primordial waters of creation,
symbolically the source of all life.
Gan Eden is simply the biblical variant of this universal theme. Or,
looking at it from the perspective of the primacy of the biblical
account, Gan Eden was the original and everything else was a
counterfeit by those who had rejected the true G-d. Gan Eden was on a
mountain, representing the mound of earth that rose out of the
primordial waters, parallel to every other ancient culture which made
reference to this same mound of earth. And this is EXACTLY what
Tehilim 24 is talking about:
"A Psalm of David. The earth [Heb. eretz, the land of Eden] is
HaShem's, and the fulness thereof; the world [Heb. tebel, the whole
habitable world], and they that dwell therein. For He hath founded it
[both the land of Eden and the whole world] upon the seas [cf.
Bereshit 1:10, the primordial waters of creation], and established it
upon the floods [cf. Bereshit 2:10-14; these symbolically had their
source in the primordial waters - the aforementioned "seas"]. Who
shall ascend into the mountain of HaShem? [the primordial mound of
earth, the place where creation occurred] and who shall stand in His
holy place? [where the presence of G-d first rested, making it holy]"
If the sages saw a connection with the Temple in this psalm, it's
because there is a biblical overlay between Gan Eden and the Temple.
Both represented HaShem's heavenly throne. But the ascent into the
"holy hill" by David as the "anointed king" was simply a cycle of
history pointing backwards to the casting out of Adam from Gan Eden
and forwards to the entering in of Moshiach, the "anointed king". The
bible speaks in overlays like that all the time. David understood
this cycle of history, which is why he wrote this psalm the way he
did.
By the way, I finally got a copy of the Temple book I've been talking
about. It's titled "The Coming Last Days Temple" by Randall Price.
It's written from a Christian eschatological perspective, but I don't
agree with the author's views (although I do believe a Temple will be
built). However, he has some fascinating material on the Jewish
perspectives on the Temple (going into the Orthodox, Ultra-Orthodox,
Conservative, and Reform). He also gives a multitude of references
from Jewish sources (both primary and secondary) regarding his beliefs
about the Temple, which is why I wanted to buy the book again. What
would be incredibly useful is a book written entirely from a Jewish
perspective on the Temple, with ample citations from primary sources,
but this book I just bought will do for now.
Damon
SARAYALE
>Gan Eden is simply the biblical variant of this universal theme.
Not a mountain.
I reject the notion that the Tora is merely a local variant of a *determined*
universal that every culture has.
>Gan Eden was the original and everything else was a
>counterfeit by those who had rejected the true G-d.
No, they report mountains according to you, and Eden is no mountain.
>Gan Eden was on a
>mountain, representing the mound of earth that rose out of the
>primordial waters
Not written ANYWHERE.
>And this is EXACTLY what
>Tehilim 24 is talking about:
>
I do not buy it.
>If the sages saw a connection with the Temple in this psalm, it's
>because there is a biblical overlay between Gan Eden and the Temple.
Says you.
>Both represented HaShem's heavenly throne.
Says you.
>But the ascent into the
>"holy hill" by David as the "anointed king"
Another forcing of the text to your notions.
>was simply a cycle of
>history pointing backwards to the casting out of Adam from Gan Eden
>and forwards to the entering in of >Moshiach,
Not too Jewish.
>David understood
>this cycle of history, which is why he wrote this psalm the way he
>did.
>
>By the way, I finally got a copy of the Temple book I've been talking
>about. It's titled "The Coming Last Days Temple" by Randall Price.
>It's written from a Christian eschatological perspective
I see.
>However, he has some fascinating material on the Jewish
>perspectives on the Temple (going into the Orthodox, Ultra-Orthodox,
>Conservative, and Reform).
Seen through his non-Jewish eyes. Heeeere we goooo!
>What
>would be incredibly useful is a book written entirely from a Jewish
>perspective on the Temple, with ample citations from primary sources,
Perhaps you should write such a book.
Ronnnie
Yisroel Markov
>Quoth Damon Casale:
>: aha...@kaplangilman.com (ahaleva) wrote
>:> Not stated in Malakhi 4. There is no Malakhi 4!!!
>
>: What's this, then?
>
>: "Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him
>: in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Behold, I
>: will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and
>: dreadful day of the L-RD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers
>: to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest
>: I come and smite the earth with a curse."
>
>: Are you telling me that's not in any Jewish translation of the Tanakh?
>
>Yup. I don't know whose bible you're using, but Malachi only has three
>chapters in ours.
The King James Bible does have the above verse in 4:5. The standard
TaNaKH has it in 3:23. (KJV Malakhi 3 has 18 verses.)
Damon Casale
> >Subject: Re: About Adam
> >From: ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale)
> >Date: 3/10/2004 2:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
>
> >Gan Eden is simply the biblical variant of this universal theme.
>
> Not a mountain.
>
> I reject the notion that the Tora is merely a local variant of a *determined*
> universal that every culture has.
Where do you think that universal culture and symbolism CAME FROM? It
CAME FROM GAN EDEN.
After all, where do you think other cultures got the idea for a
moshiach? A Flood? Etc.
> >Gan Eden was the original and everything else was a
> >counterfeit by those who had rejected the true G-d.
>
> No, they report mountains according to you, and Eden is no mountain.
They report mountains according to the scholarly sources that I have
spent years researching, and which you so easily dismiss. (That makes
you unworthy to be called a scholar in my eyes.) We have only your
claim that Eden is not a mountain. That does not make it so.
> >Gan Eden was on a
> >mountain, representing the mound of earth that rose out of the
> >primordial waters
>
> Not written ANYWHERE.
Tehilim 24.
> >And this is EXACTLY what
> >Tehilim 24 is talking about:
>
> I do not buy it.
I know. Therefore we disagree.
Answering the rest of this post is pointless. You're a stubborn,
skeptical Jew, and that's all I can say.
Damon
Garry
Markov) wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 00:05:28 +0000 (UTC), Scoop <no-...@sonic.net>
>said:
>
>>Quoth Damon Casale:
>>: aha...@kaplangilman.com (ahaleva) wrote
>>:> Not stated in Malakhi 4. There is no Malakhi 4!!!
>>
>>: What's this, then?
>>
>>: "Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him
>>: in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Behold, I
>>: will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and
>>: dreadful day of the L-RD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers
>>: to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest
>>: I come and smite the earth with a curse."
>>
>>: Are you telling me that's not in any Jewish translation of the Tanakh?
>>
>>Yup. I don't know whose bible you're using, but Malachi only has three
>>chapters in ours.
>
>The King James Bible does have the above verse in 4:5. The standard
>TaNaKH has it in 3:23. (KJV Malakhi 3 has 18 verses.)
>
Again, I question how there can be a standard Jewish practice
regarding a Xtain method of organizing the bible.
ahaleva
>> >Subject: Re: About Adam
>> >Gan Eden is simply the biblical variant of this universal theme.
>>
>> Not a mountain.
>>
>> I reject the notion that the Tora is merely a local variant of a
*determined*
>> universal that every culture has.
>Where do you think that universal culture and symbolism CAME FROM?
Cannot be answered standing on a single leg. Read Vico.
Anyhoo, not from the Tora. Your argument is really bass ackwards
here. You find universals, ASSUME the Tora subscribes to them, and
then go on to
project those universals -- and all their cultural baggage -- into the
Tora without basis.
>It CAME FROM GAN EDEN.
Not from the Jewish notion. And even if so, you ignore all the
distortions that may have been introduced.
>After all, where do you think other cultures got the idea for a
>moshiach? A Flood? Etc.
ONE culture has a Mashiah, and not the Jewish version at that. The
fact that you keep harping on what is a purely POLITICAL figure in
Judaism (i.e., Mashiah)as if were more akin to a non-Jewish SPIRITUAL
version is one of the reasons I am skeptical that your studies are
part of Tora.
>> >Gan Eden was the original and everything else was a
>> >counterfeit by those who had rejected the true G-d.
>>
>> No, they report mountains according to you, and Eden is no
mountain.
> They report mountains according to the scholarly sources that I have
> spent years researching, and which you so easily dismiss.
I did not dismiss anything. I said they report MOUNTAINS and Eden is
not a mountain in Jewish sources. At all. Nary a one. Now your
scholars did not make the claim Eden is a mountian, YOU DID.
Middebhar sheqer tirhaq. ("steer away from falsehood")
>(That makes
> you unworthy to be called a scholar in my eyes.)
Barukh poqe'ah ivrim! (Barukh is He who "opens" eyes)
>We have only your
>claim that Eden is not a mountain. That does not make it so.
We have only yours that it is, and no Jewish source of ANY KIND to
back it up. Moreover, your support that it is requires identifying
the Tora with pagan beliefs about the origin of the world (i.e., mouhd
of earth meets primordial waters). This is the stuff of the pagan
cultures we have been commanded to never get involved with. Are you
for real? For three weeks I have repeated this fact and you promised
to adduce sources.
>> >Gan Eden was on a
>> >mountain, representing the mound of earth that rose out of the
>> >primordial waters
>>
>> Not written ANYWHERE.
>Tehilim 24.
Show me mountain = gan Eden there. Tehillim 24 DOES NOT REFER TO GAN
EDEN.
Your assumption is not a source. Har Adonai is not addressing some
"primeval" mountain. Context!
>> >And this is EXACTLY what
>> >Tehilim 24 is talking about:
>>
>> I do not buy it.
>I know. Therefore we disagree.
I know, but YOU PROMISED SOURCES.
>Answering the rest of this post is pointless. You're a stubborn,
>skeptical Jew, and that's all I can say.
In other words, YOU HAVE NO SOURCES, and ARE ANGRY that I will not
take your word and the naked conclusions from your undisclosed
"scholarship" about "comparative religions" as to the meaning of
pesuqim.
Did you think you would just waltz in here and start converting
people?
Did we put out a sign to the effect of "novel ideologies wanted;
name-dropping of "the sages" required"?
Damon
SARAYALE
>From: ey.m...@iname.com (Yisroel Markov)
>Date: 3/9/2004 5:55 PM Eastern Standard Time
> Precisely only Havvah could show him. That
>>is the whole point. Not that God didn't have to, He would not and
>>moreover could not.
>
>Fascinating. Would you please elaborate or point to a source?
See Guide I,2. I'll look for the cite in Bereshith Rabba.
Ronnie
p_al...@hotmail.com
> Again, I question how there can be a standard Jewish practice
> regarding a Xtain method of organizing the bible.
The numbering system in current Tanachs is Xtian in origin. Some
differences are nonetheless present, between Tanach and Xtian bibles,
and even among Xtian editions.
I haven't found an explanation for the discrepancy at the end of
Malachi (same verses, but their chapter 3 and 4 together are all found
in our chapter 3), maybe some printer lost the last page (it's at the
end of Neviim in the Tanach, and is the last book in their OT) and
used some other edition, took a guess, or just got sloppy near the
end.
There are also differences in the Psalms, we count the verse that
introduces the chapter e.g. "A Psalm of David when he ..." and they
don't. The Vulgate has 151 psalms. And there's an edition (in
Slovenian) which moves the last verse of Bereshit 31 into chapter 32
(probably why Czechoslovakia broke up). See "The Problem of Varying
Enumeration of Chapters and Verses in Different Bible Versions" at
http://www.biblija.net/help.en/help.4.en.php
As the chapters have no significance to us, but are just a convention,
this is merely inconvenient, but it's not meaningful.
Damon Casale
> >> *determined* universal that every culture has.
>
> >Where do you think that universal culture and symbolism CAME FROM?
>
> Cannot be answered standing on a single leg. Read Vico.
>
> Anyhoo, not from the Tora. Your argument is really bass ackwards
> here. You find universals, ASSUME the Tora subscribes to them, and
> then go on to project those universals -- and all their cultural
> baggage -- into the Tora without basis.
Not without basis. Like I said, this is only the tip of the iceberg
of what I've studied. The symbolic parallels between ancient Judaism
and the other cultures/religions of the ancient world are enormous.
But I can see you're not open-minded about that, probably stemming
from an unwillingness to consider anything "Gentile" or "pagan" as
containing any truth whatsoever. In other words, you're throwing out
the baby with the bathwater out of a misguided attempt to keep Judaism
"Jewish." Truth is truth, no matter where it is found.
> >It CAME FROM GAN EDEN.
>
> Not from the Jewish notion. And even if so, you ignore all the
> distortions that may have been introduced.
I don't ignore them at all. I'm able to discern fairly well between
what was passed down from Gan Eden and what is a corruption. Most
people are not able to make that discernment, and wrongly assume that
no one else can.
> >After all, where do you think other cultures got the idea for a
> >moshiach? A Flood? Etc.
>
> ONE culture has a Mashiah, and not the Jewish version at that.
Not so. The Sumerians and Babylonians had a Moshiach. So did the
Canaanites. So did the Persians. Etc. You're apparently speaking of
things concerning which you have little expertise.
> The
> fact that you keep harping on what is a purely POLITICAL figure in
> Judaism (i.e., Mashiah)as if were more akin to a non-Jewish SPIRITUAL
> version is one of the reasons I am skeptical that your studies are
> part of Tora.
Bereshit 3:15 is a reference to a Moshiach, whether one is Jewish or
Christian. But the Jews CORRECTLY understand it as ALSO referring to
the promised SONS, plural, meaning the nation of Israel. Christians
don't get that. It's not simply a political figure, although the
concept certainly has that dimension.
Bereshit 3:15 speaks of a descendant or descendants of Havah crushing
the head of the serpent (representing the Evil Inclination). It's
also a reference to a battle between the Sons of Light and the Sons of
Darkness, as spoken of in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Furthermore, Moshiach
is indicated here as a conquering king who singularly defeats the
enemies of Israel, the Sons of Darkness.
> >> >Gan Eden was the original and everything else was a
> >> >counterfeit by those who had rejected the true G-d.
> >>
> >> No, they report mountains according to you, and Eden is no
> >> mountain.
>
> > They report mountains according to the scholarly sources that I have
> > spent years researching, and which you so easily dismiss.
>
> I did not dismiss anything. I said they report MOUNTAINS and Eden is
> not a mountain in Jewish sources. At all. Nary a one. Now your
> scholars did not make the claim Eden is a mountian, YOU DID.
> Middebhar sheqer tirhaq. ("steer away from falsehood")
The bible is meant to be understood in singular, collective, physical
and spiritual dimensions. So when we read of the earth rising out of
the waters, this is both a reference to the whole world and a
particular place. When we read of the Spirit of G-d hovering above
the waters, it was hovering over a particular spot where the earth
later rose up. This spot, where the presence of G-d rested, later
became Gan Eden.
> >(That makes
> > you unworthy to be called a scholar in my eyes.)
>
> Barukh poqe'ah ivrim! (Barukh is He who "opens" eyes)
I was referring to scholars of the secular variety who wrote
concerning these symbolic parallels across most if not all of the
ancient cultures, including ancient Hebraism. You apparently didn't
believe that I wasn't just making it all up.
> >We have only your
> >claim that Eden is not a mountain. That does not make it so.
>
> We have only yours that it is, and no Jewish source of ANY KIND to
> back it up.
See below.
> Moreover, your support that it is requires identifying
> the Tora with pagan beliefs about the origin of the world (i.e., mouhd
> of earth meets primordial waters).
Not at all. The mound of earth rising out of the waters of creation
is found in Bereshit 1:9-10. Therefore, it's not just a pagan
concept. It's also a biblical one.
> This is the stuff of the pagan
> cultures we have been commanded to never get involved with.
You're not getting it. A true understanding of the cultural context
of the early patriarchal faith DOES NOT EXIST apart from what we can
deduce by comparing other religions and cultures of the ancient world.
For instance, remember when Avraham was bargaining for the cave of
Machpelah? Would anyone have understood that it was typical to make
what amounted to ridiculous offers prior to getting down to
bargaining, unless they had studied the cultural context of the times
(as preserved in secular documents which described this practice)?
Judaism doesn't always preserve cultural context. That's something we
can only discover by looking at these other cultures and religions.
But in order to discern between truth and corruption, we must look
for:
1. Similarities of symbolism across the board.
2. Purity of morality versus compromised morality.
It really is that simple.
> Are you
> for real? For three weeks I have repeated this fact and you promised
> to adduce sources.
And so I have. See below.
> >> >Gan Eden was on a
> >> >mountain, representing the mound of earth that rose out of the
> >> >primordial waters
> >>
> >> Not written ANYWHERE.
>
> >Tehilim 24.
>
> Show me mountain = gan Eden there. Tehillim 24 DOES NOT REFER TO GAN
> EDEN.
> Your assumption is not a source. Har Adonai is not addressing some
> "primeval" mountain. Context!
I *AM* looking at the context. Tell me, what do the Jewish
commentators say that "He founded it upon seas and established it upon
rivers" is referring to in this psalm?
> >> >And this is EXACTLY what
> >> >Tehilim 24 is talking about:
> >>
> >> I do not buy it.
>
> >I know. Therefore we disagree.
>
> I know, but YOU PROMISED SOURCES.
I did. I can post them. But will it make any difference? I doubt
it.
Here, quoting from p. 156 of the Temple book:
"This activity of G-d in the midst of His chosen people was
conditioned on obedience to the laws of the Sanctuary (Lev. 26:1-46),
just as G-d's presence in the Garden was conditioned on obedience to
the single law respecting the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
(Gen. 2:17; 3:1-3). In Genesis, disobedience to G-d's command
resulted in man having to toil laboriously with his work producing
only thorns and thistles, or weeds (Gen. 3:17-18). In Lev. 26:16, 20
a similar punishment is threatened. There the Israelites are told
that they would 'sow seed to no purpose' and that their 'land would
not yield its produce, nor the trees of the land yield their fruit.'
Finally, this disobedience would result in exile from the presence of
G-d. In Genesis this exile was from the Garden (Gen. 3:23-24), and in
Leviticus it was from the Land which contained the Temple (Lev.
26:33). THE JEWISH SAGES RECOGNIZED THIS ASSOCIATION AND PRODUCED A
MIDRASH THAT SAID WHEN 'THE L-RD G-D BANISHED HIM [ADAM] FROM THE
GARDEN OF EDEN HE REVEALED TO HIM THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE'
(Bereshit Rabbah 21:8)."
There's the reference for connecting Eden and the Temple, as I said.
Here's the one regarding the parallel between service in Eden and in
the Tabernacle, from p. 200:
"...This parallel between Adam and the Levites is supported by the
fact that the only other uses of the verbs 'serve' and 'guard' as a
pair are found in Numbers 3:7-8; 8:26; 18:5-6, where they are used to
express the duties of the Levites in ministering in and guarding the
Sanctuary. THE JEWISH SAGES EVIDENTLY SAW THIS IDENTIFICATION, FOR IN
THEIR COMMENTARY THEY IDENTIFIED THE PHRASE 'TO WORK AND TO KEEP IT'
[from Gen. 2:15] AS 'AN ALLUSION TO SACRIFICES' (Bereshit Rabbah
16:5)."
The one regarding Gan Eden having a wall (and wall hangings) isn't in
this book. I was mistaken about that. However, I do remember reading
it in a Jewish source. I found *ONE* place that I had seen it: in a
work called Emeq haMelekh, Mishnah 5. This was a work written down in
the 17th century by Rabbi Naftali Ben Ya'acov Elchanon. I'm sure it
appears in other Jewish sources, but this is the only reference to it
that I was able to locate quickly.
Happy now?
It's too late for me to look for any more sources to back up what I'm
saying. (Quarter til one in the morning.) But I'd prefer to look for
rabbinic commentaries on Tehilim 24:2 myself and see if they draw any
connection between this "holy hill" and Gan Eden. But whether they do
or not, I know the connection is there.
But in any case, since Eliyahu ha Navi is supposed to settle difficult
points of doctrine (such as this one), we could always wait and see
what he has to say on the matter. I'm betting no lesser authority -
Jewish or otherwise - would convince you, anyway.
> >Answering the rest of this post is pointless. You're a stubborn,
> >skeptical Jew, and that's all I can say.
>
> In other words, YOU HAVE NO SOURCES, and ARE ANGRY that I will not
> take your word and the naked conclusions from your undisclosed
> "scholarship" about "comparative religions" as to the meaning of
> pesuqim.
You really think I can't back up what I'm saying? Honestly? Geez,
you have a really hard time discerning when someone knows their stuff
or not. (I never get treated like this on the secular forums dealing
with history and chronology, because the people there can easily
recognize that I really know what I'm talking about even if I don't
have a degree in it.)
> Did you think you would just waltz in here and start converting
> people?
Converting people to what?
> Did we put out a sign to the effect of "novel ideologies wanted;
> name-dropping of "the sages" required"?
So you honestly think I'd do something that ridiculous?
Don't tell me. You do, because so many other people out there do the
same thing. Well, I'm not like that. But I don't suppose you'd ever
trust me, would you? No, you're too cynical for that.
Damon
Garry
Thanks! fascinating info and site.
I like having an online bible in latin -- it makes me feel just like
Mel Gibson...
Micha Berger
: introduces the chapter e.g. "A Psalm of David when he ..." and they
Psalms is an altogether different proposition. It's an anthology, not
a book divided artificially into chapters. There was a chaptering of
Psalms since the day it was compiled. Not exactly the same as todays,
but we're not sure of all the details.
:-)BBii
-mi
--
Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905 - Dale Carnegie
SARAYALE
>From: ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale)
>Date: 3/12/2004 6:10 AM Eastern Standard Time
>The symbolic parallels between ancient >Judaism
>and the other cultures/religions of the >ancient world are enormous.
As to the symbols, sometimes, it all depends. As to the symbolized hardly
ever.
Hence the notion of "sacred history" developed by Vico, and in fact Newton.
>But I can see you're not open-minded about that, probably stemming
>from an unwillingness to consider anything "Gentile" or "pagan" as
>containing any truth whatsoever.
You should stop telling me my motives when you do not --and I see are
incapable-- of understanding where I am coming from.
>In other words, you're throwing out
>the baby with the bathwater out of a misguided attempt to keep Judaism
>"Jewish." Truth is truth, no matter where it is found.
Truth is a function of culture. In HEBREW it derives from the root to
believe. There is no "objective truth."
>'m able to discern fairly well between
>what was passed down from Gan Eden and what is a corruption. Most
>people are not able to make that discernment, and wrongly assume that
>no one else can.
Sounds good when you want to foreclose the possibility that someone at least as
intelligent as you are simply disagrees with your conclusions.
>> ONE culture has a Mashiah, and not the Jewish version at that.
>
>Not so. The Sumerians and Babylonians had a Moshiach. So did the
>Canaanites. So did the Persians. Etc.
Not as we Jews mean it.
>You're apparently speaking of
>things concerning which you have little expertise.
>
You misunderstand the notion of Mashiah.
"Do we need to learn the fundamentals of our faith from gentiles?" once said
Maimonides.
>Bereshit 3:15 is a reference to a Moshiach, whether one is Jewish or
>Christian.
I really doubt it. Word associations and nebulous speculation will not make it
so.
>But the Jews CORRECTLY understand it as ALSO referring to
>the promised SONS, plural, meaning the nation of Israel.
Where? What does "the Jews" mean?
>It's not simply a political figure, although the
>concept certainly has that dimension.
It is not but "has that dimension"?
"I did not have sex with that woman Miss Lewinsky." "Depends what you mean by
sex."
>It's
>also a reference to a battle between the Sons of Light and the Sons of
>Darkness, as spoken of in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
A proto Christian document.
>Furthermore, Moshiach
>is indicated here as a conquering king who singularly defeats the
>enemies of Israel, the Sons of Darkness.
Wild speculations based on nothing at all except bluster. Misconstrues the
Mashiah idea in a very "spiritual" and thus non Jewish manner.
>The bible is meant to be understood in singular, collective, physical
>and spiritual dimensions.
How would you know?
>So when we read of the earth rising out of
>the waters, this is both a reference to the whole world and a
>particular place.
Says you with NO BASIS.
[snip to not get too nervous]
>Here, quoting from p. 156 of the Temple book:
A non Jewish source arguing a point not there.
YOU BROKE YOUR PROMISE. You failed miserably to do anything except cite a
secondary source, with no analysis of the context or meaning of the allegedly
quoted statement.
Bye bye.
Ronnie
Damon Casale
> >Subject: Re: About Adam
> >From: ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale)
> >Date: 3/12/2004 6:10 AM Eastern Standard Time
[snip]
> >Here, quoting from p. 156 of the Temple book:
>
> A non Jewish source arguing a point not there.
>
> YOU BROKE YOUR PROMISE. You failed miserably to do anything except cite a
> secondary source, with no analysis of the context or meaning of the allegedly
> quoted statement.
>
> Bye bye.
I NEVER PROMISED TO QUOTE THE PRIMARY SOURCE. You misread what I
said! I only had access to the QUOTATION in this book! I'd have to
go to a library or synagogue to find a copy of the Midrash Rabbah, and
I simply haven't had the time!
You aren't worth it, anyway. I don't need to waste my energy trying
to teach a cynic. You claimed that no such concept existed in a
Jewish source, and then when I *PROVED* that one did - even if I
didn't quote the context - all you could do was criticize. I don't
need that garbage.
Damon
Tim Meushaw
> sara...@aol.com (SARAYALE) wrote in message news:<20040313184829...@mb-m28.aol.com>...
>> secondary source, with no analysis of the context or meaning of the allegedly
>> quoted statement.
>
> said! I only had access to the QUOTATION in this book! I'd have to
> go to a library or synagogue to find a copy of the Midrash Rabbah, and
> I simply haven't had the time!
I'm certainly not going to jump in here for long, but I did want to
point out where you promised primary sources:
> By the way, I looked for my cousin's book on the Temple the other day
> and it's missing. I'm buying another copy for myself, so as soon as I
> do, I'll quote you the primary source citations from it.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C42522AB7 (points to google.com)
Also, Message-Id 4d3c8876.04030...@posting.google.com if your
newsreader supports fetching by that. :-)
I for one was interested in Damon's sources, as a lot of it seemed
far-fetched and reaching to me. On the other hand, Damon had done the
research, not me, so I was prepared to listen. But I also wasn't
convinced by the snippets posted in here. Just my two cents.
Oh, and another reference:
> I know that. That's why I explicitly said that I would quote THE
> PRIMARY SOURCE CITATIONS FROM IT.
That's from http://makeashorterlink.com/?A16532AB7 (Message-Id
4d3c8876.04030...@posting.google.com )
I sure hope this argument isn't about whether Damon would post "PRIMARY
SOURCE" or "PRIMARY SOURCE CITATIONS," cause that'd just be a silly
thing to argue about. :-)
> You aren't worth it, anyway. I don't need to waste my energy trying
> to teach a cynic. You claimed that no such concept existed in a
> Jewish source, and then when I *PROVED* that one did - even if I
> didn't quote the context - all you could do was criticize. I don't
> need that garbage.
This is true. Maybe you both could stop biting at each other? :-)
Tim
--
Timothy A. Meushaw
meu...@pobox.com
SARAYALE
>I NEVER PROMISED TO QUOTE THE PRIMARY SOURCE.
You did. I specifically said a book about the temple is not a secondary
source. You said "I know."
>You misread what I
>said! I only had access to the QUOTATION in this book!
Then you have not properly studied the subject!
>You aren't worth it, anyway. I don't need to waste my energy trying
>to teach a cynic.
I am not your student. Will never be. You are making a point in a discussion
newsgroup. I challenged you to provide sources. You have not.
>You claimed that no such concept existed in a
>Jewish source, and then when I *PROVED* that one did
Your notion of proof is neither Jewish, Academic or anything besides the stuff
of one liners.
You did not prove anything. I have the Bereshith Rabba here in my hand. If
you wold bother to properly prepare your arguments, you would see what I mean.
>all you could do was criticize. I don't
>need that garbage.
What you mean to say is you insist on us taking your word for your conclusions
simply because you make them and claim to be a seeker and an erudite expert on
"Tora."
I find that to be bluster and false. Nothing personal, nothing cynical, no
garbage. Just the reaction of someone who *can* prepare a real argument and
has significant experience in the subject at hand.
One who has studied with genuine scholars wlll not accept much less than
genuine scholarship.
Ronnie
Damon Casale
> > THE PRIMARY SOURCE. You misread what I said! I only had access to the
> > QUOTATION in this book! I'd have to go to a library or synagogue to find a
> > copy of the Midrash Rabbah, and I simply haven't had the time!
>
> I'm certainly not going to jump in here for long, but I did want to
> point out where you promised primary sources:
Err...actually, you misread what I wrote too. See below.
> > By the way, I looked for my cousin's book on the Temple the other day
> > and it's missing. I'm buying another copy for myself, so as soon as I
> > do, I'll quote you the primary source citations from it.
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?C42522AB7 (points to google.com)
> Also, Message-Id 4d3c8876.04030...@posting.google.com if your
> newsreader supports fetching by that. :-)
What I wrote (partially cited above) is that I had access to a book
from a Christian perspective which contained citations from primary
Jewish sources. When I bought the book (which I did), I would quote
the citations it listed. But I was very explicit in stating that I
did NOT have access to the primary sources, only something that cited
from them. I would _like_ to have access to the primary sources, but
that would take some time.
> I for one was interested in Damon's sources, as a lot of it seemed
> far-fetched and reaching to me. On the other hand, Damon had done the
> research, not me, so I was prepared to listen. But I also wasn't
> convinced by the snippets posted in here. Just my two cents.
I appreciate what you're saying. You're skeptical but willing to
listen. If everyone could have that same attitude, we could get along
great. :-)
> I sure hope this argument isn't about whether Damon would post "PRIMARY
> SOURCE" or "PRIMARY SOURCE CITATIONS," cause that'd just be a silly
> thing to argue about. :-)
Indeed.
> > You aren't worth it, anyway. I don't need to waste my energy trying
> > to teach a cynic. You claimed that no such concept existed in a
> > Jewish source, and then when I *PROVED* that one did - even if I
> > didn't quote the context - all you could do was criticize. I don't
> > need that garbage.
>
> This is true. Maybe you both could stop biting at each other? :-)
I'd really, really like to. I don't want the bad vibes that a
knock-down, drag-out argument causes. But my standard is skeptical
open-mindedness, even if one chooses to disagree. If Ronnie can go
there, great. If not, I'd prefer not to continue the discussion.
Damon
SARAYALE
>From: sara...@aol.com (SARAYALE)
>Date: 3/15/2004 9:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
>You did. I specifically said a book about the temple is not a secondary
>source. You said "I know."
Correction. I said it was not a primary source.
Ronnie
SARAYALE
>From: ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale)
>Date: 3/15/2004 9:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
>But I was very explicit in stating that I
>did NOT have access to the primary sources, only something that cited
>from them. I would _like_ to have access to the primary sources, but
>that would take some time.
Then how do you imagine you could, or have, PROVED anything?
>But my standard is skeptical
>open-mindedness, even if one chooses to disagree. If Ronnie can go
>there, great.
I do not do superficial analyses and word associations. I do not accept a book
*about* the temple which makes a speculative point and then mistakenly asserts
"the Jews" support it.
Once again you use verbal subterfuge and shrewdness.
I do not go there either.
I have yet to see you even explain your point. You offer nothing at all
besides some speculative identifications, NOT supported by either the text or
the Tehillim at all, and a "cycle of history" that is really far too pagan for
the Judaism that I know to suborn.
Your standard in deeds, despite seeming words to the contrary, is not
skeptical open-mindedness. It is take it on faith because you say so, and a
complete unwillingness to deal with the possibility that the sources have no
bearing on the conclusions you draw from them.
Ronnie
Damon Casale
> >Subject: Re: About Adam
> >From: ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale)
> >Date: 3/15/2004 9:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
>
> besides some speculative identifications, NOT supported by either the text or
> the Tehillim at all, and a "cycle of history" that is really far too pagan for
> the Judaism that I know to suborn.
You never answered the question of what the sages say about Tehilim
24:2. What is "He founded it upon seas and established it upon
rivers" referring to? You BLEW IT OFF, when that very point could in
part address your problem with this "cycle of history." You are
continually BLOWING ME OFF because you aren't interested in learning,
only in defending your position.
> Your standard in deeds, despite seeming words to the contrary, is not
> skeptical open-mindedness. It is take it on faith because you say so, and a
> complete unwillingness to deal with the possibility that the sources have no
> bearing on the conclusions you draw from them.
Now you're being deliberately deceptive. I *SAID* that I was
interested in reading the original sources. I even asked you for
links to online versions of certain primary sources! (You claimed
that you didn't know of any.) I even said that I was open to
learning, and to changing my mind - and did so when you pointed
something out about Hebrew that I was ignorant of.
But you have continually neglected to answer questions which could
show that I understand something that you do not. A case in point:
You claimed that when the bible spoke of Adam and Havah's eyes being
"opened," that had nothing to do with becoming conscious. I replied
by asking the question, how would one then interpret the text
concerning Hagar's eyes being "opened"? YOU NEVER ANSWERED. I was
open to learning differently. YOU WERE NOT INTERESTED IN ADDRESSING
THIS POINT, ONLY IN DEFENDING YOUR POSITION. Probably because it
showed a good possibility that you were wrong. (But whether you were
right or wrong, I don't care. I'm only interested in learning.)
This has nothing to do with "taking it on faith" because "I say so."
It has to do with you being stubborn and arrogant. If you choose to
be so, that's fine. But I will not allow you to HIDE that fact.
Damon
Damon Casale
> >Subject: Re: About Adam
> >From: ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale)
> >Date: 3/15/2004 2:35 PM Eastern Standard Time
>
> >said! I only had access to the QUOTATION in this book!
>
> Then you have not properly studied the subject!
SO FREAKING WHAT? Does that automatically make my conclusions
invalid? You keep talking about HAVING studied the primary sources,
and then WON'T BOTHER TO QUOTE FROM THEM! I am interested in
learning, but rather than bothering to explain anything, all you can
do is criticize. I DON'T NEED THAT GARBAGE.
Whether you are learned or not, right or not, isn't as important to me
as your ability to communicate what you know. I CANNOT LEARN FROM
YOU. I CANNOT DISCUSS ANYTHING WITH YOU. CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU
INEVITABLY LEAD TO CRITICISM AND INSULTS ON YOUR PART. Therefore,
there isn't any point to continuing this discussion.
Damon
ahaleva
SARAYALE wrote in emssage:
>Subject: Re: About Adam
>From: ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale)
>Date: 3/15/2004 9:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
>
at all
>> besides some speculative identifications, NOT supported by either
the text or
>> the Tehillim at all, and a "cycle of history" that is really far
too pagan >>for
>> the Judaism that I know to suborn.
>You never answered the question of what the sages say about Tehilim
>24:2.
1. Who are "the sages." Have a source? Then cite it. I have yet to
see one.
I do not know "the sages." There is no such homogenous commodity.
>What is "He founded it upon seas and established it upon
>rivers" referring to?
I have your conjecture that this refers to the Garden of Eden which
you equate with the Temple. I rejected that conjecture, with every
pashtan I have ever seen. I TOLD YOU it is taken as Olam Habba, or as
the Temple, as in Targum. Nothing to do with Eden. Nothing to do
with return from exile. YOU FAILED TO RESPOND. You said "even if
there is no explicit conneciton I know it is there." Shall I ask the
court reporter to read back the record?
>You BLEW IT OFF, when that very point could in
>part address your problem with this "cycle of history."
Then address it and stop pushing back on me when you started the whole
issue; it's YOUR thesis; and you cannot seem to defend it with
anything save conjecture. Now you call such a reaction "criticism" as
if that is something bad!!!!!!
Have you ever preached to anyone except your own choir? Of course
it's criticism. You have to make the point. You have to explain, not
just rest your case with the chapter headings. Not insist the
audience is too stupid to see it.
You do not know why I reject absolutely the cycle of history. That is
based on Rabbinic tradition. Now if you really wanted to learn you
would study those Rabbis comments as opposed to repeatedly insisting
that there is such an idea underlying the Hebrew scripture. You will
not find any Jewish sources that buy into the idea. Nearly every
pagan source does. Thus my (and Benamozegh's, Cassutto's, Yahuda's,
Halevi's, Maimonides', etc.) rejection of studying pagan mythology and
simply projecting its ideas onto the Tora as "context". Quite the
opposite.
>You are
>continually BLOWING ME OFF because you aren't interested in learning,
>only in defending your position.
You are continually psychoanalyzing. I'll bet a years' pay you
misconstrue my motives.
I am NOT interested in learning the Hebrew scriptures form someone who
is not a member of the Hebrew speaking community. You are ipso facto
outside the mental world of the text. Tough as that sounds, it is
true. You lack the oral/cultural/linguistic dimension, which, with
Wittgenstein and the Rabbis, is the most important aspect of a text.
>Now you're being deliberately deceptive. I *SAID* that I was
>interested in reading the original sources. I even asked you for
>links to online versions of certain primary sources! (You claimed
>that you didn't know of any.)
It is true. Can't you buy a book? Everything has to be online?
Well, tough. It aint there as far as I know. Why is it my job to
procure your materials? Wanna attend organic chemistry seminar? You
bring your own textbook and models.
>I even said that I was open to
>learning, and to changing my mind - and did so when you pointed
>something out about Hebrew that I was ignorant of.
So?
>But you have continually neglected to answer questions which could
>show that I understand something that you do not. A case in point:
>You claimed that when the bible spoke of Adam and Havah's eyes being
>"opened," that had nothing to do with becoming conscious. I replied
>by asking the question, how would one then interpret the text
>concerning Hagar's eyes being "opened"? YOU NEVER ANSWERED.
NO, my shrewd friend, I referred you to Maimonides' Guide, wherein
lies the answer to this quesiton and to the Adam and Eve issue. Guess
what? Surprise! He CITES AND DECODES BERESHITH RABBA! You did not
read, as you insist on online links which must be spoon-fed to you.
Did ***you*** try to find such links? Why do I have to restate what
is stated better elsewhere? READ.
>I was open to learning differently. YOU WERE NOT INTERESTED IN
ADDRESSING
>THIS POINT, ONLY IN DEFENDING YOUR POSITION.
See above.
>Probably because it showed a good possibility that you were wrong.
Unnh hunh. READ IT. THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK. Avoid the schoolyard
retort for the sole sake of retorting.
>whether you were right or wrong, I don't care. I'm only interested
in >learning.
As in really learning? The equivalent of "beginner's mind" in
Bhuddism? I do not think so.
>This has nothing to do with "taking it on faith" because "I say so."
>It has to do with you being stubborn and arrogant.
The natural next line of argument from a take it on faith guy.
Namecalling.
>If you choose to be so, that's fine. But I will not allow you to
HIDE that >fact.
You are doing a great job of disclosing me. Alas, I'm found out! The
jig is up. Disclosing? Hiding? hmmmm. "He who taints with his own
blemish he taints."
>Damon
Ronnie
Yisroel Markov
Casale) said:
>sara...@aol.com (SARAYALE) wrote in message news:<20040315180908...@mb-m17.aol.com>...
>> >Subject: Re: About Adam
>> >From: ko...@redshift.com (Damon Casale)
>> >Date: 3/15/2004 2:35 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>
>> >You misread what I
>> >said! I only had access to the QUOTATION in this book!
>>
>> Then you have not properly studied the subject!
>
>SO FREAKING WHAT? Does that automatically make my conclusions
>invalid?
No, but it reduces them to the level of guesses.
[snip]
Damon Casale
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:01:52 +0000 (UTC), ko...@redshift.com (Damon
> Casale) said:
>
> >> >You misread what I
> >> >said! I only had access to the QUOTATION in this book!
> >>
> >> Then you have not properly studied the subject!
> >
> >SO FREAKING WHAT? Does that automatically make my conclusions
> >invalid?
>
> No, but it reduces them to the level of guesses.
Only if one will not consider the OTHER sources from which I draw my conclusions.
Damon
Damon Casale
> >24:2.
>
> 1. Who are "the sages." Have a source? Then cite it. I have yet to
> see one. I do not know "the sages." There is no such homogenous
> commodity.
No, I don't have a source *in the Midrashim, the Talmud, etc.* But
since YOU have studied these things, what's stopping YOU from sharing
any commentary from these sources, instead of merely referring to
them?
> >What is "He founded it upon seas and established it upon
> >rivers" referring to?
>
> I have your conjecture that this refers to the Garden of Eden which
> you equate with the Temple. I rejected that conjecture, with every
> pashtan I have ever seen. I TOLD YOU it is taken as Olam Habba, or as
> the Temple, as in Targum. Nothing to do with Eden. Nothing to do
> with return from exile.
Verse *2* has to do with Olam Habba or the Temple? Or just the
"mountain of HaShem" in verse 3?
You really don't take the time to figure out what I'm saying, do you?
> YOU FAILED TO RESPOND. You said "even if there is no explicit conneciton I
> know it is there." Shall I ask the court reporter to read back the record?
Okay, let me translate for you. Even if there is no explicit
connection *in the Midrashim, the Talmud, etc.*, I know that a
connection exists, because I understand the cultural context of
ancient Hebraism.
> >You BLEW IT OFF, when that very point could in
> >part address your problem with this "cycle of history."
>
> Then address it and stop pushing back on me when you started the whole
> issue; it's YOUR thesis; and you cannot seem to defend it with
> anything save conjecture. Now you call such a reaction "criticism" as
> if that is something bad!!!!!!
Uh, no. I'm done arguing with you. I presented an argument based on
evidence from the cultural context. You claimed that that wasn't good
enough for you, and demanded evidence from the primary Jewish sources
- such as the Midrashim, the Talmud, etc. I quoted from them, from
citations in my Temple book. You said I didn't understand the context
which said exactly the opposite of what I was trying to prove, but
then wouldn't quote that context for me. Furthermore, I *ASKED* you
what commentary existed on Tehilim 24 *verse 2*. And either you have
failed to understand what I'm asking for, or you are stonewalling me.
Either way, you're criticizing me and jumping all over me because my
argument doesn't suit your fancy. I'm not going there any more.
> Have you ever preached to anyone except your own choir?
Yes. A brilliant Jewish guy I know in Marin seems to be quite
interested in listening, although I don't expect him or anyone else to
take everything I say on my say-so.
> Of course
> it's criticism. You have to make the point. You have to explain, not
> just rest your case with the chapter headings. Not insist the
> audience is too stupid to see it.
It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with what sources and
what evidence you choose to accept or reject. You rejected my
sources. I asked you for YOUR sources. You haven't even quoted them
in your own defense! You've REFERRED to them but not quoted from
them! So I don't accept your defense, either.
> You do not know why I reject absolutely the cycle of history. That is
> based on Rabbinic tradition. Now if you really wanted to learn you
> would study those Rabbis comments as opposed to repeatedly insisting
> that there is such an idea underlying the Hebrew scripture. You will
> not find any Jewish sources that buy into the idea. Nearly every
> pagan source does. Thus my (and Benamozegh's, Cassutto's, Yahuda's,
> Halevi's, Maimonides', etc.) rejection of studying pagan mythology and
> simply projecting its ideas onto the Tora as "context". Quite the
> opposite.
I understand what you are saying, but that does not explain how we
SHOULD understand passages like Yeshaiah 46:10 and Keholet 3:15. To
my mind, they seem to indicate that there IS a cycle of history. If
you are claiming that there isn't, PRODUCE *CITATIONS* IN YOUR OWN
DEFENSE. I'm not asking you to quote from every relevant source, but
even one citation would help.
I do intend to study the rabbinic writings, but I don't have immediate
access to them at this time. I don't expect you to do ALL of my
studying for me, but when I ask you for source citations, GIVE THEM.
Especially if you're having a problem with me over my LACK of sources
or source citations (sources that you would accept, that is).
> >You are
> >continually BLOWING ME OFF because you aren't interested in learning,
> >only in defending your position.
>
> You are continually psychoanalyzing. I'll bet a years' pay you
> misconstrue my motives.
Perhaps, but I certainly am not misconstruing your unwillingness to
listen. Listening means asking questions, not always making blanket
statements and flat-out denials.
> I am NOT interested in learning the Hebrew scriptures form someone who
> is not a member of the Hebrew speaking community. You are ipso facto
> outside the mental world of the text. Tough as that sounds, it is
> true. You lack the oral/cultural/linguistic dimension, which, with
> Wittgenstein and the Rabbis, is the most important aspect of a text.
That is your choice. I see it as throwing out the baby with the
bathwater. I see it as arrogance that anyone who HASN'T studied the
language can offer nothing of value. You are entitled to your choice,
just as I am entitled to my opinion.
> >Now you're being deliberately deceptive. I *SAID* that I was
> >interested in reading the original sources. I even asked you for
> >links to online versions of certain primary sources! (You claimed
> >that you didn't know of any.)
>
> It is true. Can't you buy a book? Everything has to be online?
I can't afford the $180 or so to purchase a copy of the Midrash Rabbah
right now, no. Perhaps in another couple of months or so. Studying
the primary Jewish sources gets expensive really fast, and that
frustrates me. I've been working on a screenplay about ancient Egypt,
and even *those* sources aren't nearly as expensive as the Jewish
ones.
> Well, tough. It aint there as far as I know. Why is it my job to
> procure your materials? Wanna attend organic chemistry seminar? You
> bring your own textbook and models.
Sorry, I already did the college thing. And I'm not asking you to
procure my materials. I'd be most interested in the context of the
two passages from Bereshit Rabbah that I posted, because you said the
context showed that these passages meant exactly the opposite of what
I was trying to prove. That shouldn't be too hard, especially since
you were the one who made that claim.
> >I even said that I was open to
> >learning, and to changing my mind - and did so when you pointed
> >something out about Hebrew that I was ignorant of.
>
> So?
So you've been claiming that it's not worth learning anything from me
because I don't know biblical Hebrew, but you are mostly unwilling to
share what YOU know and back it up from the appropriate sources. I
don't like that double standard.
> >But you have continually neglected to answer questions which could
> >show that I understand something that you do not. A case in point:
> >You claimed that when the bible spoke of Adam and Havah's eyes being
> >"opened," that had nothing to do with becoming conscious. I replied
> >by asking the question, how would one then interpret the text
> >concerning Hagar's eyes being "opened"? YOU NEVER ANSWERED.
>
> NO, my shrewd friend, I referred you to Maimonides' Guide, wherein
> lies the answer to this quesiton and to the Adam and Eve issue. Guess
> what? Surprise! He CITES AND DECODES BERESHITH RABBA! You did not
> read, as you insist on online links which must be spoon-fed to you.
> Did ***you*** try to find such links?
Yes. I didn't find any. That's not to say that they don't exist, but
I can't seem to find what I'm looking for.
> Why do I have to restate what is stated better elsewhere? READ.
There is a difference between being unwilling to go to the sources and
being temporarily UNABLE. I am temporarily UNABLE to go to the
sources, and you are not making any allowance for that. You're
certainly free to be that way if you want, but I choose not to argue
with you if you won't cite anything here.
> See above.
>
> >whether you were right or wrong, I don't care. I'm only interested
> >in learning.
>
> As in really learning? The equivalent of "beginner's mind" in
> Bhuddism? I do not think so.
That's your mistake, then. My aforementioned Jewish friend has taught
me quite a bit, because I *am* open to learning.
Damon
SARAYALE
>But
>since YOU have studied these things, what's stopping YOU from sharing
>any commentary from these sources, instead of merely referring to
>them?
What's stopping you from reading them?
Certainly nothing has stopped you from jumping to conclusions. I am not a copy
service.
>Verse *2* has to do with Olam Habba or the Temple? Or just the
>"mountain of HaShem" in verse 3?
>
>You really don't take the time to figure out what I'm saying, do you?
For the third time, "har adonai."
>Okay, let me translate for you. Even if there is no explicit
>connection *in the Midrashim, the Talmud, etc.*, I know that a
>connection exists, because I understand the cultural context of
>ancient Hebraism.
With no knowledge of either Hebrew or Jewish sources. I find your claim silly
at best, delusional at worst.
"Hebraism" divorced from Hebrews? Ribbon Ha'olamim!
>Either way, you're criticizing me and jumping all over me because my
>argument doesn't suit your fancy.
No, it resounds as proto-Christian, overly focused on "messiah" and a pagan
cycle of history, which implies determinism. Very not-Hebrew.
>I'm not going there any more.
"Say a little and do a lot."
>You rejected my
>sources.
I saw NO SOURCES. I saw ARGUMENT and conjecture. Parshanut does not work that
way.
>I asked you for YOUR sources. You haven't even quoted them
>in your own defense!
I am not on defense. You have yet to even make a case for me to respond to. I
have merely cross examined thus far.
>So I don't accept your defense, either.
So I've heard.
>If
>you are claiming that there isn't, PRODUCE *CITATIONS* IN YOUR OWN
>DEFENSE.
Defense? Quite simply, ouk. I cited. I am not going to copy in paragraphs.
You can read.
>> It is true. Can't you buy a book? Everything has to be online?
>
>I can't afford the $180 or so to purchase a copy of the Midrash Rabbah
>right now, no.
Ten bucks for the English guide. See why I am frustrated with you?
>So you've been claiming that it's not worth learning anything from me
>because I don't know biblical Hebrew, but you are mostly unwilling to
>share what YOU know and back it up from the appropriate sources. I
>don't like that double standard.
I am unwilling to throw rocks at Mercury.
>There is a difference between being unwilling to go to the sources and
>being temporarily UNABLE. I am temporarily UNABLE to go to the
>sources, and you are not making any allowance for that.
Allowance? If you have not done the work, then you make *no* conclusions.
Lamed leshonekha lomar 'eneni yode'a.
>That's your mistake, then. My aforementioned Jewish friend has taught
>me quite a bit, because I *am* open to learning.
I suspect only because he accepts your vast knowledge of Hebraism uncritically.
Ronnie
Damon Casale
> >You rejected my sources.
>
> I saw NO SOURCES. I saw ARGUMENT and conjecture. Parshanut does not work
> that way.
Okay, that's fair. However, I tried to reply to this request for
sources and my post was rejected. If you still want sources, I can
email them to you privately.
[snip]
> >> It is true. Can't you buy a book? Everything has to be online?
> >
> >I can't afford the $180 or so to purchase a copy of the Midrash Rabbah
> >right now, no.
>
> Ten bucks for the English guide. See why I am frustrated with you?
Title? ISBN? Is it available through Amazon.com, or do I have to go
to a more specialized source?
You say that you're frustrated with me, and yet you continually give
me only half of the information I would need. I have ten times more
reason to be frustrated with you.
The rest of this conversation is going nowhere, so I'm not going to
answer it. I see no need to keep defending myself against incessant
criticism that serves no constructive purpose.
Damon
Lisa
> Truth is a function of culture. In HEBREW it derives from the root to
> believe. There is no "objective truth."
On the contrary. You're quite right about the connection between the
noun emet and the verb l'ha'amin. But you have it backwards. There
*is* objective truth. Truth with a capital T. The verb l'ha'amin,
and its derivative noun emunah, do not mean faith or believe divorced
from reason.
Ani Maamin means "I assert to be true". Not "I believe". That latter
is a verbal shorthand used because it's easier.
Chotamo shel HaKadosh Baruch Hu Emet. There is indeed objective
truth.
Lisa