Pages

Sunday, May 6, 2012

Zeligman’s Lower Bible Criticism - Contradictions in the Torah text


Zeligman’s Lower Bible Criticism - Contradictions in the Torah text


Zeligman attempts to disprove the Torah’s divine authorship by rehashing old and tired arguments which “seems to support the idea that it was written by different people in different time”.  
An excellent analysis of some of the problems of higher and lower bible criticism and how it has been refuted, can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_cardozo.html
1. Zeligman starts with the well known problem of the two seemingly contradictory creation stories. This has been answered numerous times throughout Jewish literary history, but an approach can be found here: http://www.torah.org/advanced/mikra/5770/bereishis.html


2. Zeligman questions how Genesis 15:13 and Exodus 12:40 can state that the Hebrew exile lasted 400 or 430 years when according to Torah

calculations in the Talmud and Midrash, the exile lasted a mere 210 years. Rashi to Gen 15:13 deals with this  by stating that in Gen 15:13, G-d states that Abraham’s offspring (starting with Isaac) will sojourn in a land not theirs for 400 years. Not that they will be in Egypt proper for all of those years. He demonstrates how Isaac was constantly sojourning. Exodus 12:40 is referring to the Jewish (Bnai Yisroel there refers to the generic name for the Jewish collective, not literally Jacob’s sons. This includes Abraham.) collective exile, starting from Abraham’s leaving his home at age 70 to go where G-d told him and ending with the Jewish exodus from Egypt.
Zeligman’s assertion that “Dibrah Torah klashon bnei adam” (The Torah speaks like people), precludes the oral Torah having a different interpretation than of the plain meaning of the text is sheer nonsense. The Torah speaks like people simply means that in the basic understanding of the text, the Torah speaks in human terms since that is whom it is addressing. The Rashi he quotes in Gen 33:20 explicitly states the well known midrashic and talmudic dictum that there are numerous interpretations to the Torah. 70 in fact. Each one valid (in non halachic terms of course) but addressing differing levels of insight, ranging from the basic to the secretive (kabbalistic). 


3 Pants. Question - The Torah commands the priests to wear pants while performing the service on the altar because their strides will expose their nakedness. But the Torah also commands that there be no steps to the altar so that their nakedness be not exposed. But if they are wearing pants why would they expose themselves on the altar? He concludes that one text was written after pants were commonly worn in Persia in 6th century BCE.
Answer: Zeligman descends into speculation land with this. It may well be that pants weren’t commonly worn until the 6th century BCE, but the Torah nevertheless commanded the priests to wear pants anyway as a higher expression of modesty. See a similar idea in Pesachim 3 and Rashi there where the spreading of a woman’s legs is not expressed due to modesty concerns. Actually Zeligman’s question is proof itself that he is wrong. Whoever the author of the Torah is must have known that the ancient Jews didn’t commonly wear pants, for if they did, there would be no need for a divine commandment to ensure that the priests wore pants. They would wear them anyway. As for the nakedness issue, Rashi Ex: 20:23 already answers this.

33 comments:

  1. Most of these "contradictions" have been darshaned to the point of exhaustion by Chazal and later mephorshim. The "Bible Critics" seem to think they have, to use a phrase, discovered America. Ohmigosh! There's two accounts of the creation of man in the Bible! Ohmigosh! Different times are given for the exile in Egypt.
    Their underlying assumption is that the Midrash is not a commentary on Torah based on ancient tradition but a bunch of apologetics and can therefore be dismissed. That, IMHO, is the real intellectual drivel.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Meir,


    Regarding your second answer(2.), it is not apropiate to call Abraham, Yitzhak and Yaacov the sons of Yaacov(Yisrael) I understand if a 12 years old boy would do it but a smart adult would never! Ad cama be cama that god would never say something like that In other words if we base ourself on the Occam´s Razor principle it seems more probable the the author of the Torah made a mistake rather than to think than God does not know how to express himself correctly. Moreover we know how meticulous chazal are with each letter of the torah, being so your answer suggest one of the following: either chazal criteria was totally wrong or there is no system concerning the study of the torah, that meaning we can do whatever we want with the pesukim.

    Regarding your third andswer(3.), you cited Rashi to Exodus 20:23: "so that your nakedness shall not be exposed: Because due to the steps, you must widen your stride, although it would not be an actual exposure of nakedness, for it is written: “And make them linen pants” (Exod. 28:42). Nevertheless, widening the strides is close to exposing the nakedness [of the one ascending the steps], and you behave toward them [the stones] in a humiliating manner. Now these matters are a kal vachomer [a fortiori] conclusion, that if [concerning] these stones-which have no intelligence to object to their humiliation-the Torah said that because they are necessary, you shall not behave toward them in a humiliating manner. [In contrast,] your friend, who is [created] in the likeness of your Creator and who does object to being humiliated, how much more [must you be careful not to embarrass him]!-[from Mechilta]"
    Rashi said: ¨"...widening the strides is close to exposing the nakedness..." How is that? when someone is wearing pants and he strides is close to exposing the nakedness? is Rashi talking about pants with holes in it?
    You said: "Actually Zeligman’s question is proof itself that he is wrong. Whoever the author of the Torah is must have known that the ancient Jews didn’t commonly wear pants, for if they did, there would be no need for a divine commandment to ensure that the priests wore pants. They would wear them anyway. As for the nakedness issue, Rashi Ex: 20:23 already answers this."
    Number one Zeligsman question is not based on the historical data he mencioned but on the contradiction that Rashi seem to failed to reconciliate, the historical data is just to tell you that one of the pesukim was probably added by the 6th century or after. Number two your deduction seems wrong... maybe they did commonly wear pants and the torah said that to assure that no one was going to wear skirts or any other type of cloth ever.

    Please if you have answers to my question correct me if not I and everyone who sees your blog will assume that you do not have answers and probably anyone has.

    Kind Regards,
    Elias

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elias, we base our interpretation of Torah off of what Chazal received in tradition. In any case, the term "Bnai Yisroel" is used over and over again in the Torah, not only as Yaakov's children but also to mean the Jewish collective. Thus it can naturally include the patriarch's who preceded Yaakov. It would be similar to a person discussing history of the United States, who would naturally also include in his discussion that which preceded the year of 1776 (when the USA began).


      Re pants. While the Cohen wore pants even while ascending the altar, there is an aspect of nakedness even with pants without holes. As I explained from Pesachim 3, there is a higher sensitivity we are discussing here. Furthermore, it may be that the Cohen's pants were tight and his anatomy may have been noticeable even with his pants covering it. That "nakedness" was not to be exposed to the altar.

      My point regarding Zeligmans question was simply that neither I, nor you, nor Zeligman, nor anyone know when people knew about pants. I merely pointed out that even if we weren't to take the Bible's word for it - that the Jews of the Bible knew about pants - the Occam's Razor principle you mentioned would tell us that most likely the Biblical author knew about the Jews of Biblical times not wearing pants and wasn't - as you bible critics love to claim - retrojecting his own cultural narrative on the Biblical era. For if he didn't know the facts, he would have assumed they all wore pants as he did and there would be no reason for them to be commanded to do what they already do anyway. Obviously I cannot know that 100% as I didn't live in the 6th century BC. I'm simply saying that Zeligmans faulty logic can be used against him and the simple likelihood shows he is wrong.
      MG

      Delete
    2. Hi Meir,
      Thank you for your diligent answer

      I will intercale my answer below, please follow.

      You said: "Elias, we base our interpretation of Torah off of what Chazal received in tradition. In any case, the term "Bnai Yisroel" is used over and over again in the Torah, not only as Yaakov's children but also to mean the Jewish collective."

      EC 23/07/12

      A)Please give me examples in the Torah were the title Bnei Yisrael was used for someone apart from the sons of Yisrael, and if you are going to tell me that the goyim and the guerim were many times generalized as Bnei Yisrael, I will tell you that this is clearly different because of the following:1. It is understandable that you may omit naming the guerim since they became one of us, although there are certain laws that they seem a cintizen of second category from this insignificant difference we cannot learn that the term is also valid for Yitzchak and Yaacov; "Aba Yisrael and Yisrael Atzmoh". 2. The same logic should be implemented regarding the goyim, it does not seem suficiently significant as to conclude that the Torah has the style of calling Bnei Yisrael to the Aba of Yisrael and Yisrael Atzmoh.

      You Said:
      "Thus it can naturally include the patriarch's who preceded Yaakov. It would be similar to a person discussing history of the United States, who would naturally also include in his discussion that which preceded the year of 1776 (when the USA began)."

      EC 23/07/12
      B)Excuse me Meir but your example does not seem to have any parallel with our topic, as I will explain BH: The term United States is not etymologicaly imcompatible with the territory of the United States, while the name Bnei Israel is, as you now Bnei means "sons of" and neither Yitzchak nor Yaacov are sons of Yaacov. A parallel example would be to call the Native American Indians citizens of the Republic of the United States of America just because they once lived in the same territory. C)But this discussion is unecessary because the pesukim themselves tell us where was the the seed of Abraham going to be enslaved as the pasuk on Bereshit 15:12 says: "And He said to Abram, "You shall surely know that your seed will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and they will enslave them and oppress them, for four hundred years". Please notice that is said in the pasuk "... and they will enslave them..." who is they? no one was mencioned apart from Abraham and his seed. It must be that "they" is reffering to the hosts of the land in which they will be strangers for four humdred years. D)Moreover could you please mencion Meir, when it happened that the Jews were enslaved for 400 years? tradition says in Midrash Seder Olam that they were enslaved in Egypt for 210 years. E)Not only that pasuk sugests that the jews were enslaved for 400 hundred years but a pasuk in Shemot 12:40 suggests that they were enslaved in egypt for 430 years, the pasuk says: "And the habitation of the children of Israel, that they dwelled in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years." So please let me know how is it possible that when god said enslavement he was reffering to the of the covenant between the pieces.


      You wrote:
      "Re pants. While the Cohen wore pants even while ascending the altar, there is an aspect of nakedness even with pants without holes. As I explained from Pesachim 3, there is a higher sensitivity we are discussing here.

      EC 23/07/12
      A) Please, tell me the exact source for that guemara in Pesachim

      Delete
    3. You wrote:
      "Furthermore, it may be that the Cohen's pants were tight and his anatomy may have been noticeable even with his pants covering it. That "nakedness" was not to be exposed to the altar."

      EC 23/07/12

      The verse on Exodus 20:23: "Do not acend my steps, so that your nakedness not be revealed on it" If the nature of the nakedness we are talking about is the one were the pants are to tight, please make understand how not ascending the stairs will help softening the pants.

      I think that my points were not answered as I owuld have liked so I will copy them again and enumerate my arguments so you can answer them in a systematic way for the benefit of our exchange, please try to do the same with the ones I enumerated above at the beginning of today´s conversation.

      I wrote on 22/07/12 EC
      A)(you did tried to respond)Regarding your third andswer(3.), you cited Rashi to Exodus 20:23: "so that your nakedness shall not be exposed: Because due to the steps, you must widen your stride, although it would not be an actual exposure of nakedness, for it is written: “And make them linen pants” (Exod. 28:42). Nevertheless, widening the strides is close to exposing the nakedness [of the one ascending the steps], and you behave toward them [the stones] in a humiliating manner. Now these matters are a kal vachomer [a fortiori] conclusion, that if [concerning] these stones-which have no intelligence to object to their humiliation-the Torah said that because they are necessary, you shall not behave toward them in a humiliating manner. [In contrast,] your friend, who is [created] in the likeness of your Creator and who does object to being humiliated, how much more [must you be careful not to embarrass him]!-[from Mechilta]"
      Rashi said: ¨"...widening the strides is close to exposing the nakedness..." How is that? when someone is wearing pants and he strides is close to exposing the nakedness? is Rashi talking about pants with holes in it?
      You said: "Actually Zeligman’s question is proof itself that he is wrong. Whoever the author of the Torah is must have known that the ancient Jews didn’t commonly wear pants, for if they did, there would be no need for a divine commandment to ensure that the priests wore pants. They would wear them anyway. As for the nakedness issue, Rashi Ex: 20:23 already answers this."
      B)Number one Zeligsman question is not based on the historical data he mencioned but on the contradiction that Rashi seemingly failed to reconciliate, the historical data is just to tell you that one of the pesukim was probably added by the 6th century or after. D)Number two your deduction seems wrong... maybe they did commonly wear pants and the torah said that to assure that no one was going to wear skirts or any other type of cloth ever.

      Delete
    4. Elias,
      A) The Torah uses the term bnai yisroel to mean Jewish collective in many places including Exodus 19. As I said, the term includes anyone ever considered Jewish regardless of whether they were the literal descendants of Israel.

      B) You are wrong with regard to the term United States or any other country's name for that matter. A country's name becomes a term that is used to identify a place even for before it took on that name. Do you think American history classes start only from the time America was named for Amerigo Vespucci!?

      C-D)Your question has already been answered by Ramban 750 years ago. He answers that when one reads the Torah, often one must split up the verse. He gives numerous examples where this is done. He thus reads the verse, "You shall surely know that your seed will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, for four hundred years, and they will enslave them and oppress them." Thus the first part of the verse includes the patriarchs who are included in the calculation of 400 years of wandering and the second part of the verse, for which a time isn't given, refers to the enslavement in Egypt. If you will be taking a literalist reading of the bible without any modification from oral law, then we are wasting our time here, since to me it is clear that written Torah makes no sense without the oral interpretation.

      E)See the Ramban on Exodus 12:40 and almost every other commentary on Torah who explains how to reconcile and read the verses. If you need me to translate it for you, just ask.
      The fact of the matter is that you'll find numerous places in Tanach where the verse gives what seems to be a contradictory or impossible date and it is alluding to another idea or event that one needs the oral law to properly understand the verse. One I just studied is 2 Chronicles 22:2.

      F) Pesachim 3 states "The Beis Midrash of R' Yishmael stated - One must always use a clean expression, for the Torah called something tamei when a male Zav rides on that thing and called it tamei when a women (zavah) sits on the same thing." Rashi - It is not proper to talk about riding and spreading of legs for a women, even though the same law applies (for a zav and zavah) whether they ride or sit on something.
      In other words we are concerned with modesty in terms of how we express our self in Torah. I am using a conceptual comparison here of the way the verses use examples when referring to anatomy.

      G)Pants - I'll explain it again. The Torah is telling the priest not to use steps because when one widens their steps the private parts are bared to the altar. Now, while the pants were covering, still there is a higher sensitivity that the Torah is trying to teach us here. Conceptually, ones private parts are exposed here, even though this isn't to be taken literally, since the pants are indeed covering.

      I merely added that one can alternatively state that there is an aspect of nakedness here since the pants the priest wore may be tight and the outline of his private parts may be "seen" from the alter stones if he were to widen his stride over the altar by climbing up steps.

      I already explained my deduction in the previous post

      Delete
  3. You wrote:
    My point regarding Zeligmans question was simply that neither I, nor you, nor Zeligman, nor anyone know when people knew about pants. I merely pointed out that even if we weren't to take the Bible's word for it - that the Jews of the Bible knew about pants - the Occam's Razor principle you mentioned would tell us that most likely the Biblical author knew about the Jews of Biblical times not wearing pants and wasn't - as you bible critics love to claim - retrojecting his own cultural narrative on the Biblical era. For if he didn't know the facts, he would have assumed they all wore pants as he did and there would be no reason for them to be commanded to do what they already do anyway. Obviously I cannot know that 100% as I didn't live in the 6th century BC. I'm simply saying that Zeligmans faulty logic can be used against him and the simple likelihood shows he is wrong.

    EC 23/07/12

    I will repeat my argument once again: Zeligman argument is not fundamented it whether the they used pants or not in that ephoc, but he just said an interesting historical data. His argument was the following: We have one pasuk that says: Wearing pants inhibits you from showing your nakedness, but there is another pasuk which orders that you should not build stairs so that your nakedness would not be shown, the question is: What nakedness is it going to show if he is wearing pants?


    You said:
    "I'm simply saying that Zeligmans faulty logic can be used against him and the simple likelihood shows he is wrong."

    EC 23/07/12
    Please answer his question so that afterwards we should conclude that he is wrong

    Waiting for your reply,
    Kind Regards,
    Elias

    ReplyDelete
  4. I answered you in my previous comment

    ReplyDelete
  5. A) In Exodus 19 it speaks about the offpring of Yaacov so it is appropiate to call them Bnei Yisrael. How do you deduce from there that the term Bnei Yaacov is so generic that even Yaacov would be included? And even though there were many valid sources ( by the way I am still waiting for them) that does not prove that god would include Yisrael as his own son. And this I am going to explain in the next point.

    B)I agree in your point, we could say that Christopher Columbus arrived to America even though it was not actually named America by then, but our case is different because we are giving a "nationality" that not only did not exist but its own etimology does is not compatible with that is trying to qualify, as Abraham, Yitzchak and Yisrael are not son of Yisrael. But this point is not wrong yet to raise doubts but when we bring to the table the meticoulusness of Chazal when studying gods book, we would suppose that we should always maintain the same criteria but we dont do the same here, maybe you are suggesting that god did not take rythalin that day Jas BeShalom.

    C) I only have chance to read the mikraot guedolot on Shabat since I do not have one in my house, could you please copy it for me in hebrew or translate it in English? Anyhow it is understandable that there is a tradition to read in a certain way when the verse is ambiguous enough to tolerate the interpretation, but tradition does not have the power to change the verses, as it seems from your answer the Ramban does. There is Even Ezra at Daniel 1:1 which also suggest this idea.

    E) Could you please cite the Ramban in hebrew or if you cannot in english please?

    F)Please let me know if I undertood. You are saying that since we have a concept which teaches that we should be aware of not mentioning certain position that express sexuality about a women, then we should not walk with pants on the altar because anyhow some diminute part of our skin that may be shown? Please if you want to retract before I make my argument let me know.

    G) 1.That is the response you must give to reconciliate the verses but from where do you deduce that there exist this higher degree of sensitivity regarding mans nakedness? do you have an alacha or anuthign which support this?
    2. When anyone stands up and widens his leg, the pants do not get tighter at by the zone of the erva. And if you refer that it does at the zone of the legs then I ask you from where do you get the idea that we are so strict regarding mans legs that are covered? You are deducing soome metaphysical knowledge that does not seem to do any sense.

    Thank you for your help
    Kind Regards,
    Elias

    ReplyDelete
  6. A - B)Elias, what is the name that the Jewish collective goes by if not Bnei Yisroel? It is used in many parts of the Torah including Parshas Devarim which we just read. Do you have another name that is commonly used in regards to the Jewish nation in the Torah?

    C-E)I suggest you read the Ramban for yourself and see how he proves his point with examples from other parts of tanach http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/tanach/parshanut/ramban.htm

    F-G)I am saying that we see from Pesachim 3 that there is an extra sensitivity in the Torah regarding expressing the spreading of legs regardless of what the person is wearing. There, it is in regards to a women, but here it is in regards to a man. My source is from the Mechilta there. My other idea was that possibly, since the pants may have been tight (always, not just when he is spreading his legs) there is an extra sensitivity when he spreads his legs up steps since the outline of his anatomy may be "seen" by the steps.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Meir,

    Sorry for the delay but some health problems kept me out of the conversation.

    Regarding your answers:

    A-B) You are right, it is not a kushia.

    C-E) From what I understood the Ramban does not seem to answer the question, because the pasuk in Shemot (12:40)says: "The sojournings of the children of Israel that dwelt in Egypt was 430 years"
    Please notice that those years were in Egypt and not in Jaran or anywhere else. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    F-G) Could you please let me know the page of that mechilta in Pesachim 3?
    Regarding your "other idea" there is a safek sefeika. First, you assume that the Torah is talking about very tight pants, from where did you get that? second, if the torah is talking about that particular case then there must be some metaphysical law that the silhouette of the reproductive organ cannot be exposed to the altar.
    I just seems too much, of course everything is possible but it does not seem plausible.

    ReplyDelete
  8. C-E) Ramban on shmos 12:40 does address the point of why the Torah seems to state that the Jews were in Egypt for 430 years when in fact that is impossible. That Ramban can be found here: http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/olam_hatanah/mefaresh.asp?book=2&perek=12&mefaresh=ramban
    He shows that it means that the Jews were in Egypt until the time of the Jewish sojourning for 430 years total (starting from Abraham in a land not his own), was completed. He shows other places in Torah and Daniel where a similar type of expression is used.

    F-G)It is the Talmud in Pesachim. You are right, I said it is possible he wore tight pants - not definite. In any case the Torah is giving us a lesson in extra modesty as I have explained. You have already seen my views on the issue. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Meir,

    It would be very helpful if you could tell me where exactly does the Ramban reconcialiate the fact that in Shemot 12:40 it is written that the 430 years are IN EGYPT and not in Charan or anywhere else. Moreover it is stated in Bereshit 15:13: "Know well that your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years.", another reason to think that the Torah refers to years of slavement IN EGYPT and not in Charan or anywhere else. On one had it seems like a very superficial question so that the Ramban forgot or said whatever, but what can I say... Do you have an answer?

    F-G) With all respect, sometimes it is better to say I do not know. For you to still holding your opinion you would have to answer my two arguments, thereby showing why is it plausible to conclude that. Here I repost my two arguments: "Regarding your "other idea" there is a safek sefeika. First, you assume that the Torah is talking about very tight pants, from where did you get that? second, if the torah is talking about that particular case then there must be some metaphysical law that the silhouette of the reproductive organ cannot be exposed to the altar.
    I just seems too much, of course everything is possible but it does not seem plausible."


    Kind Regards,
    Elias

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm not sure I understand what is bothering you but I will translate the Ramban's commentary to Shmos 12:40 to the best of my ability: "And the meaning of the verse (Shmois 12:40) is, 'And the dwelling of the sons of Israel that they dwelled in Egypt WAS UNTIL 430 years.' This means to say that they dwelled there until they completed for them these years (i.e. that was said to Abraham in Gen 15:13) 'that they will dwell in a land not theirs.' And the verse is letting us know that now with their leaving (of Egypt) the exile that was decreed upon them (By G-d in Gen 15:13) has been completed and they have been taken out from bondage to freedom. Not that they have been taken out of Egypt and will continue to dwell (in exile) in a land not theirs."
    So Ramban is explaining that the verse doesn't mean to say that they dwelled in Egypt all 430 years of exile, rather that they dwelled in Egypt at the completion of the 430 years of exile (some of which was in Egypt and some in other lands).
    He then quotes Deut 2:14 and Daniel 12:12 which have similar meanings, in order to prove his point

    F-G) Elias, allow me to quote you Rashi to Exodus 20:23 who quotes the Mechilta (from the Tannaic period) as follows: "So that your nakedness shall not be exposed: Because due to the steps, you must widen your stride, although it would not be an actual exposure of nakedness, for it is written: “And make them linen pants” (Exod. 28:42). Nevertheless, widening the strides is close to exposing the nakedness [of the one ascending the steps], and you behave toward them [the stones] in a humiliating manner. Now these matters are a kal vachomer [a fortiori] conclusion, that if [concerning] these stones-which have no intelligence to object to their humiliation-the Torah said that because they are necessary, you shall not behave toward them in a humiliating manner. [In contrast,] your friend, who is [created] in the likeness of your Creator and who does object to being humiliated, how much more [must you be careful not to embarrass him]!-[from Mechilta]"

    The Mechilta understood yours and Zeligman's question and explained that although there won't be actual exposure of nakedness if there were to be steps leading up to the altar (since the Kohen wore pants), widening of steps is still a disgrace to the altar. Clearly there is an extra sensitivity here. I merely proposed A POSSIBILITY that perhaps the Kohanim had tight pants and thus there was a hint of "exposure" of nakedness. I brought a similar idea from Pesachim 3. I do not know if I am right, but I do know that Zeligman's attack doesn't prove anything. If you don't like my answer then don't believe it. But I think the Mechilta is clear.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Meir,

    Thank you for your answer I apreciate it.

    Bellow I will coment on your answer for an better exchange:
    You said:
    I'm not sure I understand what is bothering you but I will translate the Ramban's commentary to Shmos 12:40 to the best of my ability: "And the meaning of the verse (Shmois 12:40) is, 'And the dwelling of the sons of Israel that they dwelled in Egypt WAS UNTIL 430 years.'
    I say: There are two important thing to notice until here, first the pasuk does not say the word "UNTIL" that of course would chage everything. I will cite the verse once again: And the dwelling of Bnei Yisrael THAT THEY DWELLED IN EGYPT was of 430 years"
    From the words THAT THEY DWELLED IN EGYPT is clear that the pasuk is refering to the time that they spent in Egypt, otherwise explain to me why are those words written.
    You said_
    This means to say that they dwelled there until they completed for them these years (i.e. that was said to Abraham in Gen 15:13) 'that they will dwell in a land not theirs.' And the verse is letting us know that now with their leaving (of Egypt) the exile that was decreed upon them (By G-d in Gen 15:13) has been completed and they have been taken out from bondage to freedom. Not that they have been taken out of Egypt and will continue to dwell (in exile) in a land not theirs". So Ramban is explaining that the verse doesn't mean to say that they dwelled in Egypt all 430 years of exile, rather that they dwelled in Egypt at the completion of the 430 years of exile (some of which was in Egypt and some in other lands).

    Very well, but from where the Ramban gets this idea? Did not god said "THAT THEY DWELLED IN EGYPT"? Maybe we have to deduce that Rambans logic is the following: Since the torah is divine then there cannot be mistakes in it, and being that when we read the verse literaly we find that the years that they dwelt in egypt were 430 and that is a mistake, then we must say that there the text cannot be taken literaly, and it should be read as follows: And the dwelling of the children of Yisrael WHO dwelled in Egypt was of 430 years.
    The obvious question to this is: why the pasuk mencioned that the children of Yisrael dwelled in Egypt? is not that obvious? You could answer that because it wanted to enphasize the years that they spent in Egypt in order to teach us that we should not forget... or some other typical dochak perush. Of course that with this criteria you will never find mistakes in any book. Maybe you can find a better answer for me

    Moreover it is written in Bereshit 15:13 "Know well that your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years."
    From this verse you must conclude that they spent 400 years as slaves and simultaneously being opressed which of course never existed being that Yosef and his family had a pretty good time in Egypt. There were also times of peace in the lifes of Abraham, Yitzchak and even Yaacov. And if you want to say that the verse did not mean that they were simultaniously enslaved and opressed but that during a 400year period there were times of oppression and times of slavery, then I would say that you were not taking the verse literaly but that you were reading the verse as follows: " "Know well that your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and DURING A 400 PERIOD they shall be enslaved and oppressed" and not as it is written "Know well that your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years."

    To answer this question we do not need just some an answer but a plausible one.

    Kind Regards,
    Elias


    ReplyDelete
  12. Elias, the Torah states things which must not always be taken literal, as written. That is part of Torah shbaal peh - the oral law. Just today we read that the commandment of hakhel - the king reading the Torah before the people - is performed on the shmitah year. Yet the talmud states that it is actually done the Sukkot following shmitah, when the laws of shmitah still apply, for those things planted in shmitah. If you look at Megillah 9 you will see that the Rabbis were well aware of the problem in this verse and when they translated it to King Ptolemy, they added in the words "in Egypt and in other lands." In almost every parsha, Rashi explains verses by saying, "Sares hamikrah v'darshehu." Split up the verse and explain. I.e. you must change the order of the plain meaning of the verse.

    The Ramban shows us two other places (Deut 2:14 and Daniel 12:12) where the Torah states a certain time period and it is obvious that the word "until" must be understood as part of the text. The Ramban explains the use of the Land of Egypt here is to show us that the 430 years were the final ones of the sojourning and they were not going to be in exile in any other land after Egypt. Furthermore, Ramban in his commentary to Sefer Mitzvos explains that the verse mentions Egypt only because there was their primary exile.

    >>>From this verse you must conclude that they spent 400 years as slaves and simultaneously being opressed which of course never existed being that Yosef and his family had a pretty good time in Egypt.
    I think you are mistranslating the word "v'avadum" which you think means they were enslaved. It could mean slave but eved also means to be subservient to. As in Eved Ivri - the Hebrew servant who most certainly isnt a slave. Or Moshe eved Hashem. Indeed Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his children were never independent but always subservient to the Plishtim, Egyptians, etc. They never had their own land and that lasted 400 years.

    >>>Maybe you can find a better answer for me
    Actually I have a "better" answer for you from Haksav V'hakabbalah, written by R' Yaakov Zvi Mecklenberg. He states that the Hebrew word Umoshav (you are translating it as dwelling) means either that someone stayed somewhere with no plan, or alternatively, the stayed there with plans towards something afterwards. He brings many proofs to this. Here, he says, Umoshav means the second way. I.e. that they dwelled in Egypt for a greater purpose - as a preparation for their receiving the Torah and entrance into the land of Egypt. He reads the verse as follows, "And the dwelling of the bnai Yisroel that they dwelled in Egypt in the 430th year." That is, not that they dwelled in Egypt for 430 years, but their dwelling in Egypt was for the 430th year - the one where they would leave and go on to fulfill their purpose for which they had been enslaved there previously. Does that satisfy you? His explanation can be found here: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14121&st=&pgnum=254

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Meir,

      Thank you for your diligent answer. I will comment on your answer below, please follow.

      You said ¨Elias, the Torah states things which must not always be taken literal, as written. That is part of Torah shbaal peh - the oral law. Just today we read that the commandment of hakhel - the king reading the Torah before the people - is performed on the shmitah year. Yet the talmud states that it is actually done the Sukkot following shmitah, when the laws of shmitah still apply, for those things planted in shmitah. If you look at Megillah 9 you will see that the Rabbis were well aware of the problem in this verse and when they translated it to King Ptolemy, they added in the words "in Egypt and in other lands." In almost every parsha, Rashi explains verses by saying, "Sares hamikrah v'darshehu." Split up the verse and explain. I.e. you must change the order of the plain meaning of the verse.¨

      It seem to me that your answer is the following: There is in fact a contradiction but the torah she be al pe can choose to ignore the simple meaning of the verses. In fact the Ramban ignored the simple meaning many times

      If that is the case by definition there cannot be found any contradiction in the Torah. And your answer would be not be rooted on rational grounds but on faith in the tradition. Dont you agree? Do you blindly believe in it?

      Moreover I think that it is important to notice that Torah she be al pe does not have to be necessarily a tradition from Moshe in Sinai but there can be conclusions of the sages, actually the mayority of the times they are conclusions drawn by the sages own logic ( this deduction I make it from the fact that when it is a tradition of Moshe on Sinai it is specifically mencioned in the talmud) therefore, eventhough the sages have a higher spiritual level, when it comes to a simple task like drawing conclusion from 4 pesukim there is not a difference between them and any other decent rational person. To make this point clearer, imagine you need to peal a banana, would a sage make a better job than any of us? of course the would not, since their spiritual superiority would not be used for that activity, the same can be said of the rational study of pesukim, therefore why would should us blind ourselves from what it is written? Not even to mencion the many different pesukim with difficulties, for example: The shafan and the arnevet being ruminant, stairs and the clothes of the cohen,and much more.

      Why do you choose to answer all this questions with such complex answers? What makes you believe that this is divine?


      Delete
    2. Elias, we are finally making progress. I believe that the evidence suggests that the Torah is a divine book. This is not blind faith but, in my opinion, very rational and logical. If you would like me to show you what the evidence is I can. Now, it is clear to anyone who reads the Torah that if it was written by G-d then there must have been an oral explanation, since almost nothing in the Torah is clear or defined, and there are many seeming contradictions, strange statements, etc. What Jews have always believed - and this is rational with evidence to support it not blind faith as you say - is that the written Torah is to the oral explanation, what notes on a lecture are to the greater lecture. If you heard the whole lecture - the oral law - you will understand the notes. If you haven't heard the lecture, you won't understand the notes. The Torah was written cryptically with seeming contradictions or unclear passages, because there are multiple layers of meaning in each verse. Thus it had to be written to hint and allude to each idea it was giving forth. That is why it doesn't always make sense to read it in the most simple way, but rather according to the way handed down generation to generation starting from G-d to Moses and then the Jewish people at Sinai and in the desert. For a greater explanation of this idea go to http://www.aishdas.org/student/oral.htm

      Delete
    3. Furthermore, it is clear to anyone who studies Talmud that the interpretations of the Rabbis which they bring in the Talmud are all (except where they say that they are Rabbinical enactments) based on laws handed down to Moshe at Sinai. In other words, the oral explanations were given by G-d, but the source for a law in a particular verse, or how one derives the law from a given verse, was not always clear. The Jews were given a code to decipher the source and root from each verse. These are the 13 Hermeneutic Principles that the law is derived from the Torah. When the Talmud talks of "halacha l'Moshe Misinai," a law handed down to Moshe at Sinai, it doesn't mean that only this was handed down to Moshe and nothing else. Rather, as Maimonides explains in his intro to Mishna, these particular laws have no scriptural source at all (in other words they cannot be derived from the Torah text) and we only know them because we have a tradition that G-d told Moses these laws at Sinai.

      Delete
  13. You said:

    >>>Maybe you can find a better answer for me
    Actually I have a "better" answer for you from Haksav V'hakabbalah, written by R' Yaakov Zvi Mecklenberg. He states that the Hebrew word Umoshav (you are translating it as dwelling) means either that someone stayed somewhere with no plan, or alternatively, the stayed there with plans towards something afterwards. He brings many proofs to this. Here, he says, Umoshav means the second way. I.e. that they dwelled in Egypt for a greater purpose - as a preparation for their receiving the Torah and entrance into the land of Egypt

    Elias says:

    This is acceptable

    You said:
    . He reads the verse as follows, "And the dwelling of the bnai Yisroel that they dwelled in Egypt in the 430th year." That is, not that they dwelled in Egypt for 430 years, but their dwelling in Egypt was for the 430th year - the one where they would leave and go on to fulfill their purpose for which they had been enslaved there previously. Does that satisfy you? His explanation can be found here: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14121&st=&pgnum=254

    Elias says: He is making the same as the Ramban, ignoring what it written and changing it for whatever may solve the contradictions.Once again Meir,we have various problematic pesukim, why should give many different answers that ignore the literal meaning of the text instead of simply saying that there is a mistake, this latter answer is supported by the fact that in the bible there are many contradictions like the ones that I mencioned before.

    Even if we would accept this answers another one question rises, what the heck was god thinking when writting this book that misses KEY WORDS? One thing is certain, god made nature, and we do not see those kinds of problems in it. So as we can know a painter from his paitings, we can know god from nature. Being that by observing nature without twists, we must induce the existence of a creator we should also do the same from the Torah, observing it should lead us to his existence. But quite the contrary is happening, even with the many twists, it does not seem plausible that god made this document. This philisophycal idea is also supported by the spread idea that god looked at the torah and built the world, which suggests a parallelism between them.

    I appreciate your answers,
    Kind Regards,
    Elias

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elias, I do not think you are understanding the answer of Haksav V'hakaballah. If you read the verse in the original Hebrew, then his answer makes perfect sense and fits nicely into the verse. He isn't ignoring what was written. Quite the contrary.

      Regarding you latter statements, I refer you to my comments on your previous reply. G-d made many cryptic and seeming contradictory statements in the Torah to allow for the many multiple layers of meaning that He embedded in each verse. See above.

      Delete
  14. May I humbly suggest that you are referring to 'higher' criticism, not 'lower' criticism? I think you should change the title of the post.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thank you for commenting. I believe I have it correct. To quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_criticism#Eclecticism : The phrase lower criticism is used to describe the contrast between textual criticism and "higher" criticism, which is the endeavor to establish the authorship, date, and place of composition of the original text.
    This post discusses the text which is lower criticism.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dear Rab Goldberg,

    Now I realize that I never answered you back.

    Thank you for your answers, i apreciate them

    I think you once told me about a mekor that states that the Torah should not always taken literal becauase the Torah has many layers and it may be that something is actually written for the for deep layer. Do you remember the source? I thik that it was the Radbaz. Could you send em a link of you have?

    PS: I tried to look at our dialogue but could not dint it

    ReplyDelete
  17. The idea that there are many layers of understanding of Torah is on almost every page of talmud and midrash. We constantly derive new ideas from hints and other means of derivation from verses. This is the basic premise of oral law. The Ramban states this explicitely in his intro to Torah, which can be found in English at http://vbm-torah.org/archive/ramban/introtothetorah-scan.htm

    "Everything that was transmitted to Moses our teacher through the forty-nine gates of understanding was written in the Torah explicitly or by implication in words, in the numerical value of the letters or in the form of the letters, that is, whether written normally or with some change in form such as bent or crooked letters and other deviations, or in the tips of the letters and their crownlets, as the Sages have said:27 "When Moses ascended to heaven he found the Holy One, blessed be He, attaching crownlets to certain letters of the Torah. He [Moses] said to Him, 'What are these for?' He [G-d] said to him, 'One man is destined to interpret mountains of laws on their basis.' "28 '"Whence dost thou know this?' He [Rabbi Akiba] answered them: 'This is a law given to Moses on Mount Sinai.' "29 For these hints cannot be understood except from mouth to mouth [through an oral tradition which can be traced] to Moses, who received it on Sinai."

    ReplyDelete
  18. Cardozo's (dated) article is mostly an attack on the scientists and the fact that he believes that the Torah is not subject to scientific investigation:

    "The Torah is a covenantal document and is to be studied as such. It does not inform us of "facts," "history," or "anthropology." It reveals a continuous encounter between God and man, which was set in motion with the revelation at Sinai. It cannot be read but only studied, proclaimed, heard, and experienced. The encounter with its text is a religious act and therefore prefaced with a blessing. For this reason it is untouched and unimpaired by the results of Bible Criticism."

    More historical and apologetic than a refutation of biblical criticism. You can do better than this.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jewish Rebel - your description of bible critics as scientists is ridiculous. Bible criticism is at best conjecture and often the product of people who can't even read the bible in the original Hebrew or have any real knowledge of Semitic languages.

    The fundamental flaw with bible criticism is that it assumes that the bible is a stand alone book with no oral companion. Hence all of its questions/attacks. But it is clear that the Torah had an oral companion which make most of the criticisms groundless. See http://www.aishdas.org/student/oral.htm

    JR You can do better than bible criticism.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Meir: Have you ever even read the Wikipedia entry about Biblical Criticism? If not, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism

    Are you claiming that people like Baruch Spinoza and James Kugel did / do not know Hebrew? Do you know there are many academics in Israel who understand Biblical Hebrew better than you do?

    Biblical criticism does not only point out contradictions that are sometimes solved and sometimes not by an Oral Torah. It often points out anachronisms, or promises in the Torah that never came to fruition (e.g. 1:1-9, where Joshua was promised that "לֹא-יִתְיַצֵּב אִישׁ לְפָנֶיךָ, כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ", something the text itself contradicts). It can also point out some points in the Torah where there is questionable morality or where the history is questionable (like the Exodus).

    I'd urge you to read James Kugel, especially "How to read the Bible". Oh, and, yes, Kugel is a dati Jew himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clearly Kugel and Spinoza knew Hebrew, many bible critics, especially of the 19th century European variety (where bible criticism became fashionable so that they could break away from the bonds of Christianity, which had been so strict) didn't know Hebrew well.

      Re the 'anachronism' in the beginning of Joshua, can you clarify the problem? Was he challenged by other leaders? The problems of morality you raise often stem from a lack of understanding of oral law (i.e. comparing Huckleberry Finn to biblical slavery), or not viewing things in historical perspective (the seven nations and terrorism).

      Though Kugel may practice Judaism, he doesn't believe in a divine Torah, so no thanks.

      Delete
    2. So you admit that many people who understand Hebrew can be involved in BC and know what they're talking about. And are not anti-semites.

      With regards to anachronisms, try this one: “And the Canaanites were then in the land” (Gen. 12:6), or this one: “Now these were the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the children of Israel” (Gen 36:32) -> when Moshe wrote this (supposedly), there were no Israelite kings yet.

      Joshua: Problem was that a promise was made that was never fulfilled. Joshua was never able to fully conquer the land. See also Shoftim 3:

      5 And the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, Hittites, and Amorites, and Perizzites, and Hivites, and Jebusites.
      6 And they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons, and served their gods.

      Morality: How about these topics:

      - Killing gays
      - Women's rights
      - Child marriage
      - Child abuse not being a halachic violation by itself if there is no penetration
      - Annihilating the Canaanites
      - Killing the Amalekites, including women, children and cattle
      - Smiting people because they looked at the Aron (Shmuel alef 6:19)
      - Melachim Beit 2:23-24:

      "And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of Hashem. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

      What a fine, moral code we have.

      Delete
    3. Great. You provided 2 'anachronism's' that will prove my point. 1. “And the Canaanites were then in the land” (Gen. 12:6) - Your point is that at the time of the Torah writing, they were writing as if the Canaanites were no longer in the land. However, since bible critics lack a breadth of knowledge in Torah and proper Hebrew, they translate the word 'az' to only possibly mean 'then', and not to mean 'from then' (The Canaanites were from then - and even now -- in the land). A similar translation as I am giving for the word 'az' is in Genesis 49:4 according to Ibn Ezra. Also see Judges 13;21 where the word 'az' can only mean 'from then' and not just 'then.'

      2.Genesis 36 and the 'kings' of Israel. The word in Hebrew 'melech' doesn't only mean king, it can also mean leader or lord. As in Genesis 37:8, Joseph's brothers aren't asking him if he will be a king over them, since there was no kingship then either. Clearly they were asking him if he intended to lord over them. So the Torah in Genesis 36 is referring to a lord - in this case possibly Moses himself.
      Sorry, no anachronisms here if one knows Torah, with oral Torah and real Hebrew.

      Delete
    4. Regarding Joshua 1;5, you seem to feel that the verse 'No man shall stand up before you all the days of your life; as I was with Moses, so shall I be with you. I will not weaken My grasp on you nor will I abandon you' is only referring to the Jewish people's enemies. I think it is more likely to mean Joshua's enemies - since he is who G-d is addressing. I.e. nobody will challenge his leadership of the people. This is proved from the second half of the verse, "as I was with Moses..." which clearly isn't referring to conquering Canaan, but rather that G-d backed Moses as a leader and nobody, not even Korach, deposed him. G-d is promising to be with Joshua as well. No anachronism here.

      Delete
    5. I'd be happy to address the 'anachronism's' in morality if you'd like, except that to do it justice, I would need to write about these topics extensively. Are you interested in shorter answers? I can do that but it won't make as much sense. Let me know.

      Delete