Humor in Torah and Talmud, Part 5
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
12 Torah Pesukim & Maamorei Chazal
Here are many of Judaism’s fundamental beliefs brought forth through 12 Torah Pesukim and Maamorei Chazal (teachings of the Sages) which are impor- For tant for every child to know and recite each day. Torah LevI Please check off each box when memorized. 1. TORAH TZIVAH LONU MOSHE MOROSHOH KEHILAS YAAKOV “The Torah that Moshe commanded us is the heritage of the congregation of Yaakov.” (Deuteronomy 33:4) 2. SHEMA YISROEL, AD-DO-NOI ELO-HAI-NOO, AH-DO-NOI ECHOD “Hear O Israel, G-d is our L-rd, G-d is One.” (Deuteronomy 6:4) 3. B’CHOL DOR VODOR CHAYOV ODOM LEEROS ES ATZMO KI-EELOO HOO YOTZO MEE-MITZROYIM “In every generation one must look upon himself as if he personally had gone out of Egypt .” (Pesachim 116b) 4. KOL YIS-RO-EL YEISH LO-HEM CHEI-LEK L-O-LAM HA-BOH SHE-NE- E-MAR V-AMEICH KOO-LAM TZADIKIM, L-O-LAM YIR-SHOO O-RETZ, NEIT-ZER MA-TO-AIY MA’A-SEI YO-DYE LE-HIS-PO-EIR “All Israel have a share in the World To Come, as it is stated (Isaiah 60:21): ‘And Your people are tzadikkim (righteous).’ They shall inherit the land for- ever. They are the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, in which I take pride.” (Sanhedrin 90a) 5. KEE KOROV AILECHO HADOVOR ME’OD B’FEECHO U’VIL’VOVCHO LA’ASOSO “It is within your close reach to follow the Torah in speech, feeling and deed.” (Deuteronomy. 30:14). 6. -
Philo Ng.Pdf
PHILO AND THE NAMES OF GOD By A. MARMORSTEIN,Jews College, London IN A recent work on the allegorical exegesis of Philo of Alexandria' Philo's views and teachings as to the Hebrew names of God are once more discussed and analyzed. The author repeats and shares the old opinion, elaborated and propagated by Zacharias Frankel and others that Philo was more or less ignorant of the Hebrew tongue. Philo's treat- ment of the divine names is put in the first line of witnesses to corroborate this literary verdict. This question touches wider and more important problems than the narrow ques- tion whether Philo knew Hebrew, or not,2 and if the former is the case how far his knowledge, and if the latter is true how far his ignorance went. For the theologians generally some important historical and theological problems, for Jewish theology especially, besides these, literary and relig- ious questions as to the date and origin of religious concep- tions, and the antiquity and value of our sources are involved. Philo is criticized for having no idea2 of the equivalent names used by the LXX for the Tetragrammaton and Elohim respectively. The former is translated KVptOS, the latter 4hos. This omission is the more serious since the distinction between these two names is one of Philo's chief doctrines. We are referred to a remark made by Z. Frankel about ' Edmund Stein, Die allegorische Exegese des Philo aus Alexandreia; Giessen, 1929. (Beihefte Zur ZAW. No. 51.) 2 Ibid., p. 20, for earlier observations see G. Dalman, Adonaj, 59.1, Daehne, Geschichtliche Darstellung, I 231, II 51; Freiidenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, p. -
Introduction
INTRODUCTION Hanne Trautner-Kromann n this introduction I want to give the necessary background information for understanding the nine articles in this volume. II start with some comments on the Hebrew or Jewish Bible and the literature of the rabbis, based on the Bible, and then present the articles and the background information for these articles. In Jewish tradition the Bible consists of three main parts: 1. Torah – Teaching: The Five Books of Moses: Genesis (Bereshit in Hebrew), Exodus (Shemot), Leviticus (Vajikra), Numbers (Bemidbar), Deuteronomy (Devarim); 2. Nevi’im – Prophets: (The Former Prophets:) Joshua, Judges, Samuel I–II, Kings I–II; (The Latter Prophets:) Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezek- iel; (The Twelve Small Prophets:) Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephania, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; 3. Khetuvim – Writings: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, The Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles I–II1. The Hebrew Bible is often called Tanakh after these three main parts: Torah, Nevi’im and Khetuvim. The Hebrew Bible has been interpreted and reinterpreted by rab- bis and scholars up through the ages – and still is2. Already in the Bible itself there are examples of interpretation (midrash). The books of Chronicles, for example, can be seen as a kind of midrash on the 10 | From Bible to Midrash books of Samuel and Kings, repeating but also changing many tradi- tions found in these books. In talmudic times,3 dating from the 1st to the 6th century C.E.(Common Era), the rabbis developed and refined the systems of interpretation which can be found in their literature, often referred to as The Writings of the Sages. -
Shavuot Daf Hashavua
בס״ד ׁשָ בֻ עוֹת SHAVUOT In loving memory of Harav Yitzchak Yoel ben Shlomo Halevi Volume 32 | #35 Welcome to a special, expanded Daf Hashavua 30 May 2020 for Shavuot at home this year, to help bring its 7 Sivan 5780 messages and study into your home. Chag Sameach from the Daf team Shabbat ends: London 10.09pm Sheffield 10.40pm “And on the day of the first fruits…” Edinburgh 11.05pm Birmingham 10.22pm (Bemidbar 28:26) Jerusalem 8.21pm Shavuot starts on Thursday evening 28 May and ends after Shabbat on 30 May. An Eruv Tavshilin should be made before Shavuot starts. INSIDE: Shavuot message Please look regularly at the social media and websites by Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis of the US, Tribe and your community for ongoing updates relating to Coronavirus as well as educational programming Megillat Rut and community support. You do not need to sign by Pnina Savery into Facebook to access the US Facebook page. The US Coronavirus Helpline is on 020 8343 5696. Mount Sinai to Jerusalem to… May God bless us and the whole world. the future Daf Hashavua by Harry and Leora Salter ׁשָ בֻ עוֹת Shavuot Shavuot message by Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis It was the most New York, commented that from stunning, awe- here we learn that the Divine inspiring event revelation was intended to send a that the world has message of truth to everyone on ever known. Some earth - because the Torah is both three and a half a blueprint for how we as Jews millennia ago, we should live our lives and also the gathered as a fledgling nation at the foundational document of morality foot of Mount Sinai and experienced for the whole world. -
The Eye in the Torah: Ocular Desire in Midrashic Hermeneutic Author(S): Daniel Boyarin Source: Critical Inquiry, Vol
The Eye in the Torah: Ocular Desire in Midrashic Hermeneutic Author(s): Daniel Boyarin Source: Critical Inquiry, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Spring, 1990), pp. 532-550 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343638 Accessed: 09/02/2010 04:26 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Critical Inquiry. http://www.jstor.org The Eye in the Torah: Ocular Desire in Midrashic Hermeneutic Daniel Boyarin It seems to have become a commonplace of critical discourse that Juda- ism is the religion in which God is heard but not seen. -
On the Status of the Tannaitic Midrashim Author(S): Daniel Boyarin Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol
Review: On the Status of the Tannaitic Midrashim Author(s): Daniel Boyarin Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 112, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1992), pp. 455- 465 Published by: American Oriental Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/603081 Accessed: 19/08/2010 19:11 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aos. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Oriental Society. http://www.jstor.org REVIEW ARTICLES ON THE STATUS OF THE TANNAITIC MIDRASHIM* DANIEL BOYARIN UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY A critique of Jacob Neusner's latest contribution to Midrashic studies. -
Is There an Authentic Triennial Cycle of Torah Readings? RABBI LIONEL E
Is there an Authentic Triennial Cycle of Torah Readings? RABBI LIONEL E. MOSES This paper is an appendix to the paper "Annual and Triennial Systems For Reading The Torah" by Rabbi Elliot Dorff, and was approved together with it on April 29, 1987 by a vote of seven in favor, four opposed, and two abstaining. Members voting in favor: Rabbis Isidoro Aizenberg, Ben Zion Bergman, Elliot N. Dorff, Richard L. Eisenberg, Mayer E. Rabinowitz, Seymour Siegel and Gordon Tucker. Members voting in opposition: Rabbis David H. Lincoln, Lionel E. Moses, Joel Roth and Steven Saltzman. Members abstaining: Rabbis David M. Feldman and George Pollak. Abstract In light of questions addressed to the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards from as early as 1961 and the preliminary answers given to these queries by the committee (Section I), this paper endeavors to review the sources (Section II), both talmudic and post-talmudic (Section Ila) and manuscript lists of sedarim (Section lib) to set the triennial cycle in its historical perspective. Section III of the paper establishes a list of seven halakhic parameters, based on Mishnah and Tosefta,for the reading of the Torah. The parameters are limited to these two authentically Palestinian sources because all data for a triennial cycle is Palestinian in origin and predates even the earliest post-Geonic law codices. It would thus be unfair, to say nothing of impossible, to try to fit a Palestinian triennial reading cycle to halakhic parameters which were both later in origin and developed outside its geographical sphere of influence. Finally in Section IV, six questions are asked regarding the institution of a triennial cycle in our day and in a short postscript, several desiderata are listed in order to put such a cycle into practice today. -
A Bnei Akiva Shabbaton Guide for the Whole Family
CH G BA-bayit A Bnei Akiva Shabbaton Guide for the Whole Family Wednesday, April 8 - Sunday, April 12 2020 י״ד - י״ז ניסן תש״פ TABLE OF CONTENTS Letter from Rav Shaul Feldman .......................................................1 Wednesday .............................................................................................2 Seder Schedule ......................................................................................6 Thursday ...................................................................................................3 Friday .........................................................................................................4 Shabbat .....................................................................................................5 Resources: Wednesday ....................................................................................7 Thursday ...................................................................................... 23 Friday ............................................................................................ 34 Shabbat ........................................................................................44 Submit all rooming and seating See Packing requests by Wednesday, 12pm to List: Page 2 your madrichim: Mom & Dad LETTER FROM RAV SHAUL It’s All About Community Dear friends, In challenging times we look back to our roots and our sources to try to find a sense of direction. I feel that the days we are in, the Month of redemption, our direction is pretty clear. Yetziat Mitzraim -
Chazal's Metaphoric Approach by Rav Elchan
PARASHAT KEDOSHIM "You Shall Not Place a Stumbling Block Before the Blind": Chazal's Metaphoric Approach by Rav Elchanan Samet 1. Four Interpretations of the Prohibition "You shall not curse the deaf, and you shall not place a stumbling block before the blind. You shall fear your God; I am the Lord." These two prohibitions, of cursing the deaf and leading the blind to stumble, both involve the protection of those particularly vulnerable due to physical disability. Indeed, these two crimes are linked by the single admonition towards the end of the verse: "You shall fear your God." Nevertheless, we will devote our discussion entirely to the second prohibition, addressing the first half of the verse only insofar as it affects our understanding of the second. We present here the four interpretations that have been offered to this verse, in the sequence of their deviation from the simple, straightforward meaning, from closest to furthest: 1. "Blind" refers to an individual who cannot see, and "stumbling block" denotes a physical object, such as a stone or beam, that physically endangers the unsuspecting blind person as he walks. This is the interpretation of the Kuttim, who rejected the Oral Law's extrapolation of Biblical verses. (See Nida 57a, Chulin 3a.) The prohibition according to this approach involves taking unfair advantage of the handicap of another. The earlier prohibition against cursing the deaf would presumably be explained in a similar manner. 2. "Blind" here means anyone, even without any handicap, who does not see the stumbling block placed before him. With respect to this specific danger, he may be considered figuratively "blind." "Stumbling block" refers to a physical trap lying innocuously in one's path, such as a pit with an indiscernible covering. -
Second Power”
Andrei A. Orlov Yahoel as the “Second Power” [an excerpt from A.A. Orlov, Yahoel and Metatron: Aural Apocalypticism and the Origins of Early Jewish Mysticism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017)] ... In his evaluation of Alan Segal's seminal study, “Two Powers in Heaven,” Daniel Boyarin pointed out that Segal's study treated the "two powers heresy” as a phenomenon external to rabbinic Judaism.1 Indeed, Segal viewed the underlying ideology as being foreign to the core of rabbinic orthodoxy,2 and for him, in Boyarin’s words, the problem was "to discover which of the heretical groups were actually called ‘Two Powers in Heaven’ by the earliest tannaitic sages.”3 Yet, Boyarin argues that this so-called “heresy,” as in many other instances in Judaism and Christianity, appears to represent not external, but internal development. Boyarin reminds us that, "almost always the so-called ‘heresy’ is not a new invader from outside but an integral and usually more ancient version of the religious tradition that is now being displaced by a newer set of conceptions...." 4 For Boyarin, the “two powers controversy” thus represents “internal” development, and “it was the Rabbis who invented the ‘heresy’ via a rejection of that which was once (and continued to be) very much within Judaism.”5 The difference between the two approaches, then, is the following: “where Segal seems clearly to imagine an ‘orthodox core’ to Judaism that pre-exists and then develops into what would become rabbinism,” Boyarin 1 Boyarin, “Beyond Judaisms,” 324. 2 Segal argues that, although some scholars have suggested that there was no concept of orthodoxy in rabbinic Judaism, “two powers in heaven” reports show “that the rabbis, in common with their brethren in the diaspora, were concerned about the theological and orthodox center of Judaism when other sectarian groups of their day seemed willing to compromise Judaism’s integrity.” Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, x. -
Studies in Rabbinic Hebrew
Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures Heijmans Studies in Rabbinic Hebrew Studies in Rabbinic Hebrew Shai Heijmans (ed.) EDITED BY SHAI HEIJMANS This volume presents a collec� on of ar� cles centring on the language of the Mishnah and the Talmud — the most important Jewish texts (a� er the Bible), which were compiled in Pales� ne and Babylonia in the la� er centuries of Late An� quity. Despite the fact that Rabbinic Hebrew has been the subject of growing academic interest across the past Studies in Rabbinic Hebrew century, very li� le scholarship has been wri� en on it in English. Studies in Rabbinic Hebrew addresses this lacuna, with eight lucid but technically rigorous ar� cles wri� en in English by a range of experienced scholars, focusing on various aspects of Rabbinic Hebrew: its phonology, morphology, syntax, pragma� cs and lexicon. This volume is essen� al reading for students and scholars of Rabbinic studies alike, and appears in a new series, Studies in Semi� c Languages and Cultures, in collabora� on with the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge. As with all Open Book publica� ons, this en� re book is available to read for free on the publisher’s website. Printed and digital edi� ons, together with supplementary digital material, can also be found here: www.openbookpublishers.com Cover image: A fragment from the Cairo Genizah, containing Mishnah Shabbat 9:7-11:2 with Babylonian vocalisati on (Cambridge University Library, T-S E1.47). Courtesy of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library. Cover design: Luca Baff a book 2 ebooke and OA edi� ons also available OPEN ACCESS OBP https://www.openbookpublishers.com © 2020 Shai Heijmans. -
Translation, Midrash, and Commentary Through the Eyes of Onkelos
TRANSLATION, MIDRASH, AND COMMENTARY THROUGH THE EYES OF ONKELOS STANLEY M. WAGNER Maimonides, in his Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Tefillah (12:10), gives the ori- gin of the Aramaic translation of the Torah. The process began orally with Ezra in the fifth century BCE, and culminated years later with written transla- tions of the Torah into Aramaic. He informs us that Ezra introduced the pub- lic reading of the Torah with a meturgeman , a person who translated Torah passages into Aramaic. Ezra also democratized Jewish education by estab- lishing a new class of interpreters of Torah called soferim who began to re- place the priests as teachers of the people. Ezra was thus responsible for insti- tuting measures that set the stage for a widespread understanding of Torah through translation and interpretation. He was also responsible for setting the stage for the birth of "Rabbinic Judaism" that came into fruition after the de- struction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, and a new understanding of biblical 1 texts that often departed from their literal meaning. While neither Ezra nor his translators produced a written targum accessible to the masses, the process of translating the Bible into Aramaic resulted, be- fore long, in the availability of multiple written targumim, each with its own style and subjectivity. Actually, the oldest Aramaic targum discovered, but only in fragments, was found in Qumran, which means that it must be dated 2 prior to the destruction of the Qumran community in 68 CE. We can safely say that there was a written targum in use by the first or second century BCE.