Suggesting that the Gedolim who assembled our religous cannon weren't all knowing is kefirah. Even more, suggesting that Hashem would have allowed a corrupted version of a sefer to become part of the biblical cannon is kefirah of the highest order.
Nonsense. I enjoy a(n un)healthy dose of kefirah, and this just doesn't make the grade. All that Gottlieb says is that, at the time of the DSS, at least two different versions existed. How is that kefirah? It's patently obvious! The only alternative is to close your eyes and say that the DSS don't exist, but they are your alternative version. I don't see anything within this section of the article to indicate that Gottlieb cast any aspersions on the knowledge of the Masoretes.
Kofrim don't need the DH and all its variants to be a thorn in the side of the charedim. They should stick to lower criticism and semantics which are devasting in their own serpentine ways. The problem is that lower criticism and semantics require specialized knowledge and are difficult disclipines for those who are weak in Greek and semitic languages. Also kofrim always are looking to hit a home run,one knockout argument. THey attach little value to singles.
Why in the world would charaidim be in any way threatened by either lower or higher criticism? They already absolutely deny empirical scientific evidence with regard to the age of world, global flood, and the the scientific knowledge of Chaza"l. How would the much more subjective field of archeology and literary criticism even make a dent in their belief structure. (ie the existence of the DSS may be problematic to their belief structure, however since they don't even accept any of the precepts of archeology its not). On the other hand, all this does (and this YCT book is case in point) is to cause them to see red anytime somebody even mentions the existence of this false and kefiridic goyesha "knowledge".
He didn't merely say that in second temple times there were two versions. He raised the possibility that our version was the corrupted one and the "otehr" version the true words of the navi. If you apply that to chumash, I think it would be reasonable for them to call it kefira. Whether this applies to Nach I don't know.
This isn't so much a Chareidi/ MO issue. There is some openness, but not tons, toward lower textual criticism of Nach among MO, but it's not as if MOxy is in any way associated with such Bible scholarship. I defy you to show me one emendation suggested in Daat Mikra, and if you can show me one (after all, perhaps I'm mistaken) I bet you can't show me five.
I might not be able to show you five emendations of the MT suggested by contemporary Orthodoxy but I can show you dozens of emendations suggested by the Masoretes themselves. Does that matter?
No, because the contemporary Orthodox view will almost uniformly, and vehemently, reject the interpretation of various masoretic markings (eg, sevirin) or ksiv u-kri as being emendations or suggested emendations, despite even the fact that 1. it makes sense and 2. it was suggested by Radak.
This doesn't speak to the categorical statement in the article, but it certainly informs it.
So if the gemara has one version of a pasuk in Nach, and the Masoretes have another, it is kefirah to say that the version of the gemara is the correct one? I guess the Rashba was a kofer.
from the very same website... the CS was also a musmach of YCT?
http://matzav.com/the-chasam-sof...the-exact-date/
"Also kofrim always are looking to hit a home run,one knockout argument. THey attach little value to singles."
maybe you can explain how lower criticism adds up to a home run.
Well, it can add up to a home run because Orthodoxy has painted itself into a corner. If you take the position that to deny one letter is kefirah (a position completely at odds with Chazal), then proving that it's true (and, perhaps, proving it's not kefirah) can knock down the whole house.
Even if not, it's kind of hard to bring it up without asking certain questions. E.g., if they messed up this, why not that?
or to a series of singles, whatever.
"If you take the position that to deny one letter is kefirah (a position completely at odds with Chazal),"
no one takes the position of one letter, even if someone once wrote that as a flourish in an artscroll introduction. the rambam doesn't say one letter for chumash, and he has no ikar on navi. I realize this is a small point in context - though it's not on chumash, which is why I bring it up.
"Even if not, it's kind of hard to bring it up without asking certain questions. E.g., if they messed up this, why not that?"
If you add up all the alleged "messing up" it all doesn't amount to much content wise. Just my opinion.
This isn't so much a Chareidi/ MO issue. There is some openness, but not tons, toward lower textual criticism of Nach among MO, but it's not as if MOxy is in any way associated with such Bible scholarship. I defy you to show me one emendation suggested in Daat Mikra, and if you can show me one (after all, perhaps I'm mistaken) I bet you can't show me five.
Does arguing on the gemara's view about authorship of Nach books count?
From Har Ezion on Parshas Ha'azinu (this may be as far as they are willing to go):
We cannot at this point overlook a different approach to this verse that emerges from a different version of the text documented in the Septuagint and in other translations, and which is found as well in a document from Qumran. This version of the text reads: "He fixed the boundaries of peoples in relation to the numbers of the children of God" ("benei E-l," as opposed to, "Benei Yisrael"). This means that the seventy nations correspond to the seventy angels that constitute the divine entourage (see Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 24). According to this reading, verse 9 completes the idea of verse 8 through contrast. As opposed to those seventy nations, which correspond to the seventy angels and are under their supervision, Israel is God's portion.
I do not bring this version of the text and this interpretation to cast aspersions on the traditional text. I rather mention this exegetical tradition because it is reflected in the Targum Yerushalmi, and the idea it expresses is mentioned explicitly and developed at length by the Ramban in several places in his commentary to the Torah (primarily to Vayikra 18:25).
"even if someone once wrote that as a flourish in an artscroll introduction."
R' Aryeh Kapln has it in his "Handbook of Jewish Thought." In any event, don't dismiss "flourishes." Lots of people base their hashkafah on Artscroll "flourishes."
There's a Rashi in Parshas Teruma who explains a "vov" that we don't have in our Chumash.
But I imagine there's a difference when you are disputing the mesora, as is the case here.
IOW in the case of the Rashi (& other examples like the famous "daka") we don't know what was handed down. In this case we do, and the suggestion is that this was wrong.
>R' Aryeh Kapln has it in his "Handbook of Jewish Thought." In any event, don't dismiss "flourishes." Lots of people base their hashkafah on Artscroll "flourishes."
"Little people," which I believe was anon's point. That said, the hashkafah of the masses is not insignificant. As much as there is top-down there is bottom-up when it comes to common beliefs. Furthermore, this is a common belief which even though simply inaccurate is one which is not countered by any rabbinic authorities, because it is an example of a phony-baloney belief which is viewed as useful for the masses. People make a hashkafic detour a millimeter off and that gets countered to set them straight, but not something like this. It is a useful belief. Furthermore, I daresay more than a few talmidei chachomim of some stature are fairly unaware of the issues, despite R. Akiva Eger's list, and themselves believe that the only issue in the text of Tanakh is maleh and chaser.
As far as the content of Leeor Gottlieb's article (which apparently is really just the transcript of an oral presentation he gave, which explains its style) it is not clear to me what his intention is, if he is positing that the masoretic text is "faulty." Certainly he doesn't attempt the traditional exegetical response to difficult texts, which is to work with the text as it is and try to resolve the difficulty, however just because he shows another text and shows how a Hebrew text of Samuel could look without the difficulty, doesn't mean that he is rejecting our text. In fact, if you asked him if he thinks we ought to print Tanakhs with the Dead Sea text, I'll bet he'd say we ought not to.
Either way, despite the fact that textual criticism of the Bible is not popular and viewed with suspicion and hostility in most circles of Orthodoxy, is his article "outright kefirah," even if he is rejecting the masoretic text? How could this claim (or even a more modest one) be supported? The surprise is that for Yisroel Lichter of course its kefirah, and doesn't require any support any more than saying the sky generally looks blue does. Is this something he got from his rabbeim? Does he just sniff and smell kefirah?
Fred, on the topic, this is from my notes on that passage
--------------------------------
11:10- וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם, נָחָשׁ הָעַמּוֹנִי, בְּזֹאת אֶכְרֹת לָכֶם, בִּנְקוֹר לָכֶם כָּל-עֵין יָמִין; וְשַׂמְתִּיהָ חֶרְפָּה, עַל-כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵלוַ . . .יֹּאמְרוּ אַנְשֵׁי יָבֵישׁ, מָחָר נֵצֵא אֲלֵיכֶם; וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לָנוּ, כְּכָל-הַטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם
This is an interesting choice of words, (“do what is good in your eyes”) considering that Nachash planned on gouging out the eyes of the Jews if he was victorious (11:2 - בְּזֹאת אֶכְרֹת לָכֶם, בִּנְקוֹר לָכֶם כָּל-עֵין יָמִין). Perhaps the word “eyes” should be seen as in quotation marks, as a form of mockery to Nachash.
We aren't required to believe that the sifrei Nach that we possess are identical to the originals or even that the sifrei torah that we have are identical. If the latter were, then how would one account for the minor textual variations that still exist (there were more in olden times). In addition, the easiest way of accounting for the many kri and ketiv variants found in Nach is to assume that they correspond to different source texts. That is not to say that Orthodox Jews should consider Tanach as an evolved text bearing little relationship to the originals. We assume that the text is basically correct, particularly the torah.
As to the the subject matter of Gottlieb's transcribed talk, I am not convinced of his hypothesis. I will readily admit that there were variant texts such as the one used in Qumran, by the writers of the Septuagint, and by Josephus, but those versions may not have been an accepted standard or Pharisaic text. Nor am I convinced that "macharish" always means "silent". Rather, "kemacharish" would mean like some who pretends not to hear. Any such quibbles are far removed from the idea that the tentative thesis by Gottlieb is heretical. That reflects more on current Hareidi haskafa than on reality.
Y. Aharon
I also noticed this and my main problem was with the word 'obviously.'
Re: Artscroll. I'm learning Avodah Zara now with my chavruta, he from an Artscroll and I (because with this mesechta especially I wanted an uncensored text) from Steinsaltz. So we get to the point where the word "Notzri" is replaced with something like "Yom Rishon." Artscroll (like Soncino, I believe) never mentions that Christianity is intended, rather quoting that some form of Babylonian paganism (which would, of course, be foreign to most tannaim) is meant. Of course, the simple fact is that Christianity *is* intended.
However, the fact that Artscroll says, in black and white, that it isn't made it difficult for my chavruta and I to communicate. Here I am quoting manuscripts and telling him to ignore what's on the page in front of him. I think we left it as elu v'elu.
So you can see how a throwaway "flourish" can be quite serious indeed.
Side note: The same daf discusses selling horses for war purposes, which Artscroll defines as "trampling people." I don't know about you, but that's not what horses were used for, and I read in that a person whose sole exposure to horses is when they're ridden by Israeli riot police allegedly trampling charedi demonstrators.
>I also noticed this and my main problem was with the word 'obviously.'
That was really what I jumped on here. It's especially interesting because the author must have felt confident about this being a slam dunk.
As for my cutesy title, I am sure this is not the first time Yated mentioned the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in fact it would be quite interesting to see each and every reference to them that they have ever printed. I suspect that more than once they probably printed something DSS-related perceived as friendly to Yiddishe interests ("Didja know that Rashi and Rabbenu Tam tefillin were found near the Dead Sea?")
Nachum, for the most accurate place to check, see the Munich Talmud (wouldn't you know it? it's down at the moment link).
I looked inside the Artscroll, it quotes the Meiri who, it says, specifically denies it refers to Christians, and claims that it means Babylonian followers of Nebuchadnezzar's cult. Furthermore, it includes this in it's translation (in the filler text).
This gets to an issue that many critics of Artscroll has. Artscroll feels it is entitled to print any traditional source among many and present it as the correct interpretation of X. Which one will they choose? Whichever they are hashkafically most comfortable with. Many of its critics feel that not all traditional interpretations are equally valid, and the one which should be chosen is the one which best conforms with the correct interpretation, same as Artscroll, but that the correct interpretation is not the one which one feels most hashkafically comfortable with, but which conforms most closely to the facts, in this case, what the authentic text of the Talmud reads. Or at least one should present several views, including the one with the mss evidence, and let the reader choose.
Critics of that position will of course counter back that the so-called scholarly position is actually also choosing that which it feels most hashkafically comfortable with, rather than what is objectively the most correct interpretation. Why? Because scholarly folks feel hashkafically most comfortable with manuscripts, realia and history, and these are what they like, rather than the best way to get at the truest interpretations. Furthermore, how can a manuscript give a better and truer interpretation of the Gemara than a rishon?
All in all, an interesting thing you brought up. I'll check the Munich MS when I get the chance. (On second thought, I'll just check the Dikduke Sofrim -- which reads notzrim just as you said, see here.)
Basically, the Artscroll commentary chooses the Meiri's interpretation of a censored text over the most accurate Talmud text in the world, and therefore what is very likely R. Yishmael's actual words and shitta. This, coupled with the logical problem you raised, why is R. Yishmael talking about Babylonians? Of course, it isn't as if Artscroll is unaware or chooses not to use Dikduke Sofrim; it comes up every ten pages or so in their commentary!
Of course, the Amorah interpreting R' Yishmael may have thought he was talking about Babylonians- that is, if there was such a thing as a Babylonian sect that worshipped on Sundays. Of course, that Amorah would have been wrong, but that's stickier than a Rishon.
Another fun Artscroll fact: The last mesechta we did was Makkot. That was Artscroll's first volume, and they have since completely redone it. One interesting difference? The word "rape" was changed to "oneiss" every time it occurred. I know Artscroll used to be pretty frank in their language ("anal sex", for example, pops up in Ketubbot); I wonder what forced the change.
It's funny, because the Meiri is well known for his liberal view of Christianity in general, a view that is supposedly "rejected" by "the mesorah," and here he would seem to be interpreting le-shitaso. I doubt if Artscroll adopts his shittah whole cloth, although I also doubt they are open about it either way. This would seem to cut from the same cloth as their comment on she-hem mishtchavim in Alenu, ayin sham.
"for the most accurate place to check, see the Munich Talmud"
could you explain why you think the Munich ms is the most accurate place to check?
--mivami
Commenting by HaloScan
