He was a medieval French Tosaphist and poet and my ancestor. I'll check to see what he said.
HH,
I also stumbled on this online, and I put up a comment on XGH on Saturday night asking for help with this if anyone has actually seen this inside. I'm very skeptical as to the acccuracy of this report. But I didn't get any response there because for the past few days XGHs has been a draw for senseless drivel and juvenile bickering, so I've come here, maybe you guys would help with this. I will be at the library in the near future and I'll make sure to check this out also.
Sorry, I'm still trying to find a copy of the Bekhor Shor so that I look inside. One Rav that I spoke with couldn't belief that a Baalei Tosphos would say such a thing! In the meantime, I'm waiting for the library to deliver me a copy of the JPS Commentary which apparently mentions discusses this.
Forget about being skeptical here. Be skeptical about Wikipedia and DH. This about Schor is from a good enough source for such things I think. It's from a university. Over here in this case Rabbi Bechor Schor felt that two traditions evolved and found their way in. It doesn't mean he thought the Torah contains false information. I'll see what he meant in JPS. But even assuming he felt there were two contradictory stories I am sure he felt that it is for instructional purposes and so not false for the Torah's purposes. One thing I want to also see is if he meant that Moshe incorporated both traditons or that someone else did. Perhaps I can email Menachem Butler who I know and have met yet in person to ask Mark B. Shapiro.
Mevaseretzion sent me this
http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/&#...;רה
I saw the reference to the Bekhor Shor in this context years ago, in a piece by Jacob Milgrom.
I have seen the discussion of the issue in the actual commentary of the Bekhor Shor himself-- but it has been a while, and I'm too tired to get up and walk to the bookshelf in the other room, where his Commentary on the Torah is sitting.
Anyway, if I recall correctly, he basically believes that God took one incident and repeated it in the Torah twice, to be able to give us different details (and perhaps different perspectives?) in the different stories.
As for who R. Joseph Bekhor Shor was-- he was a French Tosafist, a student of Rabbenu Tam. He is quoted as "R. Joseph ben Isaac of Orl
éans" a number of times in the Tosafistic literature (not limited to the Tosafistic comments on the actual page of the printed Talmud). There used to be some controversy about whether the biblical commentator "R. Joseph Bekhor Shor" was identical to the Tosafist "R. Joseph bar Isaac of Orléans", but the scholarly community today has come to accept this identification as correct. (The epither "Bekhor Shor" is not a family name, but rather a nickname for "Joseph", based on the verse "And to Joseph, he said ... his first-born ox (bekhor shoro) is a glory to him..."
HH,
That link doesn't include his commentary on either of the parshiot that have the story of the quail.
I don't know about you guys, but I have 4 words to describe myself at this point:
flab-ber-gast-ed
FedUp, I was simply giving HH the reference to the בכור שור in Hebrew, and an article on his style.
As I told HH I will look this up after work, please God.
Clearly more needs to be understood, MG: how did the Bechor Shor explain the contradictions? Obviously the Bechor Shor held of Divine authorship, and the different perspectives are there for a reason, but how does he explain the contradictions?
I will look into this further, as I said, after work. I am just registering these points for the mental rumination of all involved.
HH, I think the concept 'duplicates' really is a loaded term nowadays. However, it wasn't when he wrote
it. It didn't imply non-divine authorship, for example. You are flabbergasted because of your modern exposure to DH, not becuase of what the bechor shor said, I think.
I am indeed flabbergasted for that reason, and I wonder if he wouldn't be if he lived in our time and knowing what scholars know today.
Also, this whole thing is strange. I mean, if he is right, wouldn't there be a tradition that the Israelites only went through one incident and not two?
Wouldn't they say to their children: "Oh, you see how it says this and this happened happened to us in the Torah? Well, it only happened once, God simply decided for whatever reason to put it in twice"
"I am indeed flabbergasted for that reason, and I wonder if he wouldn't be if he lived in our time and knowing what scholars know today.
Holy Hyrax"
Scholarship he might have been impressed with but DH is only overwhelming to those who are predisposed to accept the word of its practioners. In any event you are flabbergasted but I'm not. I have to say also that the idea of the Torah being given as it is in our hands now is also not as contradictory to scholarship as one would think if one bears in mind that the Torah is not heaven and so we determine it according to our earthly standards and all we trace to Moshe. For instance we have disputes if this or that is from the Torah or the rabbis and we rule sometimes after awhile one way or the other. If the Torah was already given how can we rule on such a matter? We rule because retroactively our opinions become Torah as well, something that could not be if the Torah was not given to us to determine. If Artscroll's text becomes accepted it will be the Torah's exact text for us.
This line of debate is used all over the tanach.
We read a story that sounds just like another story, and we ask if this was the same event, or different, or a repeat or what.
The key line here is this: "He theorized that both of these incidents actually happened once, but that parallel traditions about these events eventually developed, both of which made their way into the Torah."
This is very loaded language and I doubt he would have worded it this way, he most likely would have worded it:
"He theorized that both of these incidents actually happened once, but that parallel lessons about these events needed to be taught, both of which were put into the Torah."
phrases like "made their way" or "parallel traditions" is really deceptive language. The only way the Bekhor Shor would use the phrase "parallel traditions" is if he meant to describe some sort of mechloket between B'nei Yisorel and Moshe or some such thing.
Well, that is why I would like someone to find his actual comment. But it it seems like Mar Gavriel has read it and says the same thing. That it only happened once and God inserted it twice.
Where Go The Boats?
(1)
Dark brown is the river,
Golden is the sand.
It floats along forever,
With trees on either hand.
(2)
Green leaves a-floating,
Castles of the foam,
Boats of mine a-floating
Where will all come home?
(3)
On goes the river
And out past the mill,
Away down the valley,
Away down the hill.
(4)
Away down the river,
A hundred miles or more,
Other little children
Shall bring my boats ashore.
-----by aoc powerlevewling
Commenting by HaloScan
