RA'AMSEIS vs. RA'M'SEIS
3 views
Skip to first unread message
rabbiri...@gmail.com
Dec 18, 2010, 8:14:39 PM12/18/10
to Leining
What is the difference [in meaning etc.] between when this word has a Patach under the Ayyin
Vs
Whwn there's A Sh'va under the Ayin
Gut Voch
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
MG
Dec 18, 2010, 8:25:15 PM12/18/10
to leining
The Eben Ezra maintains that these are two different cities, see his
commentary in the beginning of Shemot. One where Jews lived, and one
where they didn't.
Also see Minchat Shai Bereishit 47:11.
commentary in the beginning of Shemot. One where Jews lived, and one
where they didn't.
Also see Minchat Shai Bereishit 47:11.
Zev Sero
Dec 18, 2010, 8:29:22 PM12/18/10
to lei...@googlegroups.com
On 18/12/2010 8:14 PM, rabbiri...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> What is the difference [in meaning etc.] between when this word has a
> Patach under the Ayyin
> Vs
> Whwn there's A Sh'va under the Ayin
>
> What is the difference [in meaning etc.] between when this word has a
> Patach under the Ayyin
> Vs
> Whwn there's A Sh'va under the Ayin
There is no difference, but it must be read correctly in each case,
just like "keves" and "kesev".
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people�s money
- Margaret Thatcher
Giorgies E. Kepipesiom
Dec 18, 2010, 9:16:23 PM12/18/10
to leining
On Dec 18, 8:29 pm, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
animal. I was taught that ra-am-ses and ra-me-ses were two different
cities. Was I taught wrong?
In any case, you are correct, the two are pronounced differently. Ra-
am-says (in Parsha Shemos) the reader should be careful to pronounce
the patoch under the ayin. And Ra-me-says (in Berayshis), the reader
should be careful to pronounce the shewa-na under the mem; Many
careless readers incorectly pronounce both names Ramsays, eliding both
the patoch under the ayin of Ra-am-says and the shewa-na under the mem
of ra-me-says.
GEK
> On 18/12/2010 8:14 PM, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> There is no difference, but it must be read correctly in each case,
> just like "keves" and "kesev".
>
Are you sure there is no difference? Keves and kesev are the same
>
> There is no difference, but it must be read correctly in each case,
> just like "keves" and "kesev".
>
animal. I was taught that ra-am-ses and ra-me-ses were two different
cities. Was I taught wrong?
In any case, you are correct, the two are pronounced differently. Ra-
am-says (in Parsha Shemos) the reader should be careful to pronounce
the patoch under the ayin. And Ra-me-says (in Berayshis), the reader
should be careful to pronounce the shewa-na under the mem; Many
careless readers incorectly pronounce both names Ramsays, eliding both
the patoch under the ayin of Ra-am-says and the shewa-na under the mem
of ra-me-says.
GEK
Zev Sero
Dec 18, 2010, 9:34:34 PM12/18/10
to lei...@googlegroups.com
On 18/12/2010 9:16 PM, Giorgies E. Kepipesiom wrote:
> On Dec 18, 8:29 pm, Zev Sero<z...@sero.name> wrote:
>> On 18/12/2010 8:14 PM, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> There is no difference, but it must be read correctly in each case,
>> just like "keves" and "kesev".
>>
> Are you sure there is no difference? Keves and kesev are the same
> animal. I was taught that ra-am-ses and ra-me-ses were two different
> cities. Was I taught wrong?
> On Dec 18, 8:29 pm, Zev Sero<z...@sero.name> wrote:
>> On 18/12/2010 8:14 PM, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> There is no difference, but it must be read correctly in each case,
>> just like "keves" and "kesev".
>>
> Are you sure there is no difference? Keves and kesev are the same
> animal. I was taught that ra-am-ses and ra-me-ses were two different
> cities. Was I taught wrong?
I don't know, but it seems implausible. I can't imagine what sort of
evidence anyone could bring for such a proposition. Or why anyone would
propose it in the first place.
MG
Dec 18, 2010, 9:56:18 PM12/18/10
to leining
The "evidence" is obvious! In the beginning of Shemot it says that
the Bnei Yisroel built Raamses; how can that be the same Raamses that
they had dwelt in for years in Goshen referenced in Parashat Vayigash?
Not saying that that argument is ironclad but given the different
spellings and vocalization there is ample room for the interpretation
(as per Eben Ezra) that the cities were different.
See the Minchat Shai I reference above.
the Bnei Yisroel built Raamses; how can that be the same Raamses that
they had dwelt in for years in Goshen referenced in Parashat Vayigash?
Not saying that that argument is ironclad but given the different
spellings and vocalization there is ample room for the interpretation
(as per Eben Ezra) that the cities were different.
See the Minchat Shai I reference above.
Zev Sero
Dec 18, 2010, 10:09:23 PM12/18/10
to lei...@googlegroups.com
On 18/12/2010 9:56 PM, MG wrote:
> The "evidence" is obvious! In the beginning of Shemot it says that
> the Bnei Yisroel built Raamses; how can that be the same Raamses that
> they had dwelt in for years in Goshen referenced in Parashat Vayigash?
> The "evidence" is obvious! In the beginning of Shemot it says that
> the Bnei Yisroel built Raamses; how can that be the same Raamses that
> they had dwelt in for years in Goshen referenced in Parashat Vayigash?
They were living in the *land* of Rameses, not the city.
MG
Dec 18, 2010, 10:54:13 PM12/18/10
to leining
Ok? And the city that they build in Shemot is therefore different
than what was referenced in Vayigash. Or do you dispute that?
> z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people s money
> - Margaret Thatcher
than what was referenced in Vayigash. Or do you dispute that?
> - Margaret Thatcher
Zev Sero
Dec 18, 2010, 11:00:32 PM12/18/10
to lei...@googlegroups.com
On 18/12/2010 10:54 PM, MG wrote:
> Ok? And the city that they build in Shemot is therefore different
> than what was referenced in Vayigash. Or do you dispute that?
> Ok? And the city that they build in Shemot is therefore different
> than what was referenced in Vayigash. Or do you dispute that?
The city obviously had the same name as the land it was in.
For that matter, the Torah often calls things by anachronistic names;
how do we know it was called Rameses at the time? Maybe it didn't get
that name until the city was built?
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people�s money
- Margaret Thatcher
MG
Dec 18, 2010, 11:10:09 PM12/18/10
to leining
You are missing the point. Even if you are correct: New York is a
city in New York state. So what. They are two different "places".
If the posuk says they built Raamses, the city, it was not the same as
the "land" of Raamses.
You had asked what the evidence was for claiming that these two
entities were different. The Eben Ezra says they were different
places. Not at all, as you claim, like "kesev" and "keves" which are
the same thing.
I'm sure there are others who claim they were the same place. And
yes, the Torah does call things by anachronistic names. As I said,
this isn't an ironclad proof. But the Eben Ezra does say this.
There's really nothing to dispute. See the meforshim on the Eben Ezra
if you have an issue.
city in New York state. So what. They are two different "places".
If the posuk says they built Raamses, the city, it was not the same as
the "land" of Raamses.
You had asked what the evidence was for claiming that these two
entities were different. The Eben Ezra says they were different
places. Not at all, as you claim, like "kesev" and "keves" which are
the same thing.
I'm sure there are others who claim they were the same place. And
yes, the Torah does call things by anachronistic names. As I said,
this isn't an ironclad proof. But the Eben Ezra does say this.
There's really nothing to dispute. See the meforshim on the Eben Ezra
if you have an issue.
RJHendel
Dec 19, 2010, 1:44:46 AM12/19/10
to lei...@googlegroups.com
This is a controversy between Rashi and the Minchat Shai. A reference
is
I cite the entire posting since it has useful
lists. (Note this will only be legible in courier fixed font)
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Rashi is Simple Version 2.0 |
| (C) Dr Hendel, Summer 2000 |
| http://www.RashiYomi.Com |
| PERMISSION to reprint WITH this header if NOT for profit |
------------------------------------------------------------
VERSE: Ex01-11e
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
===============
To Baal Koray Yossi Zoiman who raised the issue of whether
>Ra-Me-Sayth< and >Ra-aM-Sayth< are 2 or 1 cities. The
answer turns out to be a controversy between a definite
Rashi vs a possible suggestion of the Masoretic Commentary the
Minchat Shai. We show below that Rashi answered and
refuted this suggestion of the Minchat Shai.
RULE
====
The Bible frequently refers to the same person with 2 or
more names. The extra names frequently signify important
events or changes in the persons life.
REFERENCE: http://www.RashiYomi.Com/ex18-01b.htm
=========
EXAMPLES:
--------
{LIST}
Biblical Figures who had 2 different names: As the footnotes
show the new names can correspond to important events and
changes in the persons life
============================================================
(#) 1st-NAME VERSE WAS RENAMED 2nd-NAME
=== ======== ============== =========== ========
(1) AVRAM Gn17-5 was renamed AVRAHAM*1
(2) SARAY Gn17-15 was renamed SARA(H)*1
(3) HShYaH Nu03-16 was renamed YeHoShuAh*2
(4) YTR Ex04-18;Ex18-1 was renamed YTHRO
(5) Jacob Gn32-28 was renamed Yisroel*3
(6) DeUel Nu01-13,Nu02-14 was renamed ReUel
NOTES
=====
*1 Renamed because of the circumcision and the convenant
*2 Renamed on the occasion of Joshua joining the spies
*3 Renamed because Jacob fought with an angel(and won)
{END OF LIST}
RASHI ON Ex01-11e
=================
The land of >RAAMSAYTH< is mentioned 5 times in the Bible.
As the list below shows there are two pronounciations.
The list also shows the plausibility that these two
pronounciatins refer to one and the same place.
{LIST}
The 5 Biblical verses that mention the Egyptian city of
>RaamSayth<. As the footnotes show(*1) these verses in
and of themselves suggest that only one city is referred to
=================================================================
VERSE PRONOUNCED TEXT OF VERSE
======= =========== ===========================================
Gn47-11 RA-Me-SayTh Pharoh gave Jews good Land, RamSayTh
Ex12-37 RA-Me-SayTh Jews left (Egypt) from RamSayTh
Nu33-03 Ra-Me-SayTh Jews left (Egypt) from RamSayth
Nu33-05 Ra-Me-SayTh Jews left (Egypt) from RamSayth
Ex01-11*1RA-AM-SayTh Pharoh taxed Jews--made Jews build RamSayth
NOTES
=====
*1 The Torah is very clear that
--The Jews >ENTERED< Egypt at RamSayTh
--The Jews >LEFT< Egypt at RamSayth
--The Jews >DURING< their Egyptian stay Built RamSayth
This suggests that there is only one RamSayth
As can be seen, however, from the above list, there are
two pronounciations: RA-AM-Sayth vs RA-Me-Sayth
{END OF LIST}
SUMMARY:
=======
The Minchat Shai, a masoretic commentary states on Gn47-11:
>Since there are two pronounciations perhaps there are 2 places<
Rashi answers the Minchat Shai as follows:
--It is normal to rename something when an important event
or change happens
--Originally, RAAMSAYTH was simply Pasture land for the Jews
--However Pharoh >REMADE< the cities from Shepard cities into
FORTIFIED CITIES(Ex01-11). On this occasion the cities were
renamed: They were no longer called >Ra-Me-Sayth< but instead
were called >Ra-Am-Sayth<.
--This renaming is consistent with the general Biblical pattern
of renaming
--The idea that these two pronounciations refer to the same
place is consistent with the fact that >RAAMSAYTH< is
identified with the ENTRY POINT, DURATION, and DEPARTURE
POINT of the Jews in Egypt.
Since the Minchat Shai only SUGGESTED that there were 2
distinct cities, and since Rashi EXPLICITLY states there
was 1, and since this is consistent with Biblical style
it would seem reasonable to say that Rashi refuted the
suggestion of the Minchat Shai.
COMMENT
=======
Note that Rashi learns the fact that they rededicated the
cities as FORTIFIED cities, from the multiple verses and
multiple names of the city--in fact the changed pronounciation
is explicitly linked (Ex01-11) to the important event that
the cities were now to be fortified cities (Rashi does not
derive this from eg some hidden subtle nuance in the root BNH).
RASHI RULE USED: DOUBLE PARSHAS
---------------------------------------------------
WARNING: The following additional references may be too wordy
However they frequently contain additional information & lists
The hyperlinks only work on the main website
Volume 8 Number 24
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
Volume 8 Number 24
| Rashi is Simple Version 2.0 |
| (C) Dr Hendel, Summer 2000 |
| http://www.RashiYomi.Com |
| PERMISSION to reprint WITH this header if NOT for profit |
------------------------------------------------------------
VERSE: Ex01-11e
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
===============
To Baal Koray Yossi Zoiman who raised the issue of whether
>Ra-Me-Sayth< and >Ra-aM-Sayth< are 2 or 1 cities. The
answer turns out to be a controversy between a definite
Rashi vs a possible suggestion of the Masoretic Commentary the
Minchat Shai. We show below that Rashi answered and
refuted this suggestion of the Minchat Shai.
RULE
====
The Bible frequently refers to the same person with 2 or
more names. The extra names frequently signify important
events or changes in the persons life.
REFERENCE: http://www.RashiYomi.Com/ex18-01b.htm
=========
EXAMPLES:
--------
{LIST}
Biblical Figures who had 2 different names: As the footnotes
show the new names can correspond to important events and
changes in the persons life
============================================================
(#) 1st-NAME VERSE WAS RENAMED 2nd-NAME
=== ======== ============== =========== ========
(1) AVRAM Gn17-5 was renamed AVRAHAM*1
(2) SARAY Gn17-15 was renamed SARA(H)*1
(3) HShYaH Nu03-16 was renamed YeHoShuAh*2
(4) YTR Ex04-18;Ex18-1 was renamed YTHRO
(5) Jacob Gn32-28 was renamed Yisroel*3
(6) DeUel Nu01-13,Nu02-14 was renamed ReUel
NOTES
=====
*1 Renamed because of the circumcision and the convenant
*2 Renamed on the occasion of Joshua joining the spies
*3 Renamed because Jacob fought with an angel(and won)
{END OF LIST}
RASHI ON Ex01-11e
=================
The land of >RAAMSAYTH< is mentioned 5 times in the Bible.
As the list below shows there are two pronounciations.
The list also shows the plausibility that these two
pronounciatins refer to one and the same place.
{LIST}
The 5 Biblical verses that mention the Egyptian city of
>RaamSayth<. As the footnotes show(*1) these verses in
and of themselves suggest that only one city is referred to
=================================================================
VERSE PRONOUNCED TEXT OF VERSE
======= =========== ===========================================
Gn47-11 RA-Me-SayTh Pharoh gave Jews good Land, RamSayTh
Ex12-37 RA-Me-SayTh Jews left (Egypt) from RamSayTh
Nu33-03 Ra-Me-SayTh Jews left (Egypt) from RamSayth
Nu33-05 Ra-Me-SayTh Jews left (Egypt) from RamSayth
Ex01-11*1RA-AM-SayTh Pharoh taxed Jews--made Jews build RamSayth
NOTES
=====
*1 The Torah is very clear that
--The Jews >ENTERED< Egypt at RamSayTh
--The Jews >LEFT< Egypt at RamSayth
--The Jews >DURING< their Egyptian stay Built RamSayth
This suggests that there is only one RamSayth
As can be seen, however, from the above list, there are
two pronounciations: RA-AM-Sayth vs RA-Me-Sayth
{END OF LIST}
SUMMARY:
=======
The Minchat Shai, a masoretic commentary states on Gn47-11:
>Since there are two pronounciations perhaps there are 2 places<
Rashi answers the Minchat Shai as follows:
--It is normal to rename something when an important event
or change happens
--Originally, RAAMSAYTH was simply Pasture land for the Jews
--However Pharoh >REMADE< the cities from Shepard cities into
FORTIFIED CITIES(Ex01-11). On this occasion the cities were
renamed: They were no longer called >Ra-Me-Sayth< but instead
were called >Ra-Am-Sayth<.
--This renaming is consistent with the general Biblical pattern
of renaming
--The idea that these two pronounciations refer to the same
place is consistent with the fact that >RAAMSAYTH< is
identified with the ENTRY POINT, DURATION, and DEPARTURE
POINT of the Jews in Egypt.
Since the Minchat Shai only SUGGESTED that there were 2
distinct cities, and since Rashi EXPLICITLY states there
was 1, and since this is consistent with Biblical style
it would seem reasonable to say that Rashi refuted the
suggestion of the Minchat Shai.
COMMENT
=======
Note that Rashi learns the fact that they rededicated the
cities as FORTIFIED cities, from the multiple verses and
multiple names of the city--in fact the changed pronounciation
is explicitly linked (Ex01-11) to the important event that
the cities were now to be fortified cities (Rashi does not
derive this from eg some hidden subtle nuance in the root BNH).
RASHI RULE USED: DOUBLE PARSHAS
---------------------------------------------------
WARNING: The following additional references may be too wordy
However they frequently contain additional information & lists
The hyperlinks only work on the main website
Volume 8 Number 24
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# (C) Dr Hendel, 2000 *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
Volume 8 Number 24
____________________________________________________________
Refinance Rates at 2.8%
$160,000 Mortgage $434/mo. No Hidden Fees- 3.1% APR! Get a Free Quote
Mortgage.LendGo.com
JECg...@aol.com
Dec 19, 2010, 8:50:58 PM12/19/10
to lei...@googlegroups.com
I always interpreted the Ibn Ezra to mean one was a city and the other
was a region. Not clear to me whether my interpretation is
accurate.
In a message dated 12/18/2010 9:56:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
markgi...@yahoo.com writes:
The "evidence" is obvious! In the beginning of Shemot it says that
the Bnei Yisroel built Raamses; how can that be the same Raamses that
they had dwelt in for years in Goshen referenced in Parashat Vayigash?
Not saying that that argument is ironclad but given the different
spellings and vocalization there is ample room for the interpretation
(as per Eben Ezra) that the cities were different.
See the Minchat Shai I reference above.
On Dec 18, 9:34 pm, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> On 18/12/2010 9:16 PM, Giorgies E. Kepipesiom wrote:
>
> > On Dec 18, 8:29 pm, Zev Sero<z...@sero.name> wrote:
> >> On 18/12/2010 8:14 PM, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> There is no difference, but it must be read correctly in each case,
> >> just like "keves" and "kesev".
>
> > Are you sure there is no difference? Keves and kesev are the same
> > animal. I was taught that ra-am-ses and ra-me-ses were two different
> > cities. Was I taught wrong?
>
> I don't know, but it seems implausible. I can't imagine what sort of
> evidence anyone could bring for such a proposition. Or why anyone would
> propose it in the first place.
>
> --
> Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
> z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people�s money
> - Margaret Thatcher
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.
RJHendel
Dec 20, 2010, 8:50:51 PM12/20/10
to lei...@googlegroups.com
Mark
Your objection to the two "Raamsays" being the same city is "How could
they build an already existing city."
The defense of Rashi (which I cited) explains this. Here are the bullet
points
- They originally (per Vayigash) lived in a rural shepard town
- But when the new King (or same King with new ideas) arose he "changed
everything"
- He decided to re-make Raamsays an industrial complex
- Towards that end he mildly changed the name (Similar to other mild
changes in names when
there is a "new aspect" to the named item - so Abram-Abraham,
Hoshayah-Yehoshua...)
- The statement "They built the city" catches the irony of this Kings
changes: Although they
had lived there for many years (about 20 or so) sheparding and minding
their own business, all
of a sudden the city was industrialized and they had to learn a new
occupation and rebuild the
city to fulfill the Kings whims.
What is "the point" of saying they are the same city: The point is to
show the capriciousness of
Pharoh. He simply whimsically changed things because of his paranoia and
made Jews start over
again.
Also note: Just as there is controversy on whether the "New King" was the
"Same king with different attitudes" or a "Truly new king" so too there
is controversy whether the "new Raamsays" was the same city with a
different city function or a totally new city.
Your point about not being iron clad is valid. I think the point to
emphasize is that the BIble may be making fun of the Kings
capriciousness.
Russell
____________________________________________________________
Refinance Rates at 2.8%
$160,000 Mortgage $434/mo. No Hidden Fees- 3.1% APR! Get a Free Quote
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4d1008877c77f794534st03duc
MG
Dec 20, 2010, 9:29:06 PM12/20/10
to leining
Russell.
As I said in my post, this isn't my own view. This is the Ebn Ezra,
who says this both in Parashat Vayigash and again in Shemot. I'm sure
that Rashi had reasons for his view, and perhaps your parshanut is
correct. But there is an equally valid point of view of the Ebn Ezra,
that these are two different places.
RWWs question was, are these different spellings/vocalizations any
indicator of these being different. I simply quoted the Eben Ezra,
who says that they indeed are. You are more than welcome to prefer
Rashi's approach.
As I said in my post, this isn't my own view. This is the Ebn Ezra,
who says this both in Parashat Vayigash and again in Shemot. I'm sure
that Rashi had reasons for his view, and perhaps your parshanut is
correct. But there is an equally valid point of view of the Ebn Ezra,
that these are two different places.
RWWs question was, are these different spellings/vocalizations any
indicator of these being different. I simply quoted the Eben Ezra,
who says that they indeed are. You are more than welcome to prefer
Rashi's approach.
RJHendel
Dec 21, 2010, 12:01:34 AM12/21/10
to Lei...@googlegroups.com
Mark
Correct. Together we have given plausible defenses of each Rishon with an
explanation of how each Rishon deals with the other's problems as well
the consequences of their intepretation.
Russell
____________________________________________________________
Refinance Rates at 2.8%
$160,000 Mortgage $434/mo. No Hidden Fees- 3.1% APR! Get a Free Quote
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4d1035088e7a2819cdfst02duc
Correct. Together we have given plausible defenses of each Rishon with an
explanation of how each Rishon deals with the other's problems as well
the consequences of their intepretation.
Russell
____________________________________________________________
Refinance Rates at 2.8%
$160,000 Mortgage $434/mo. No Hidden Fees- 3.1% APR! Get a Free Quote
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages