|
Ooh, like I said on Twitter, I'm in. Ground floor for exegesis thread. My Hebrew and Aramaic are strong and real and all of our friends.  We are jumping in with Bereishit, eh?
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
Heck yeah, why/how would we follow laws if there was no world?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:I'm curious if there's a philosophy behind translating 1:1 as "When God began to create the heaven and earth..." as opposed to "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Ancient Hebrew doesn't have some of those nice modern conveniences like punctuation, so I wonder how the translation choice might affect the interpretation. Yes, here's an article about the Alter translation which goes into that translation choice.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2020 02:38
|
|
|
Yes, there are lots of modern commentaries! There is a mnemonic to talk about the different levels of textual reading. Pardes - (an orchard) Pshat - simple meaning of the text; Remez - contextual understanding; Drash - homiletical readings; Sod - secretive, deep meaning. Both modern and older commentaries could address the text at any and all of these levels, though obviously hidden secrets are harder to write about openly. I'm not sure what you mean by scientific but there are myriad Torah commentaries from different angles.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
Yes, u means "and." It's u and not v because of the following phoneme. One difficulty they are dealing with in the text is that -ayim isn't just a plural ending, it denotes that something is doubled. Which makes sense with this creation myth of two waters, two heavens, etc. Like in English, the word water takes on some weird grammatical features. The rabbis of the Talmud probably realized that water and seas were eventually all connected, but that there's still a practical difference between different bodies of water. That's my initial thought as to why R. Yosi offers that explanation. Re the science question, I don't think the people commenting on this text saw it as literal, so they didn't try to make myths reconciled with scientific understanding. I think those kinds of approaches where people try to make everything line up under one materialistic literal interpretation of truth occur later in history.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2020 21:01
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Yeah, I think no one is really served by approaching the Bible as a scientific or historic text. (That said there are some really hilarious incorrect statements about how nature works by Rashi at times, usually when he starts trying to give advice on agriculture and plants. quote:the Exodus itself almost certainly didn't happen anything like the way the book says it did. That's not important, though.) I'll take issue with this, though it may be a matter of terminology between us. Myth is true. It can be so very true that it would be impossible for it to be historically true.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2020 00:28
|
|
|
Angels are definitely more badass and terrifying than birds... And I'm a huge fan of birds. I'm glad we are low volume today because I'm running around getting ready for Tot Shabbat (little kids' Shabbat services), and the Purim carnival coming up. Party!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2020 22:46
|
|
|
I just skimmed today because I'm in Purim preparation land. (Carnival went great! Adult reading+party tonight!) Mar Rattus, could you please bold or include my name or something if you want something translated? That way I won't feel like I'm butting in with the Yerushalmi or whathaveyou... You're doing great without it, I'm also happy to help.  Taanit is one of my favorite tractates because it frankly addresses the question of "what should a community in crisis do?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
Let's do it, I just did a similar story with a bat kol (heavenly voice) (whose judgement gets accepted) in my Talmud group.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2020 23:56
|
|
|
I don't know what the more infamous living creatures from later are. We'll have to find out! Yes, sheretz (pl shratzim) is a creepy crawly. Whoops, being called away, more later.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2020 15:18
|
|
|
Yeah, nefesh chai is like "animate life" or "enlivened souls" depending on context, chayyot is like "living things" or "lives."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2020 15:48
|
|
|
I think they are fighting against the idea that G-d's image would be multiple - either because of angel consultation or because Eve and Adam are both made in G-d's image and are different from one another. Are women not made in G-d's image, or is there more than one G-d? The commentary's position is as follows: Hashem consults with angels on human design Then it says G-d makes them in our image. Singular verb doing the action. In the case of the first people, Adam formed from ground, Eve formed from him BUT from then on, men and women are both created in a singular divine image. Chavah means breathing/living but I'm not sure it's useful for that argument above. Maybe because she's made from a rib?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2020 00:36
|
|
|
The luminaries being cursed on erev Shabbat refers to the 6 things taken away from Adam. Look at Bereishit Rabbah 12:6. (Fwiw we intersected my Talmud chevruta with that Sanhedrin yesterday, we just learned that daf Sunday!) I think the double work that Rashi refers to there is about the manna but I don't have time to check atm. WrenP-Complete fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Mar 12, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:I love that Sanhedrin. LABOR SNAKES are the best.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2020 15:43
|
|
