For Torath Mosheh Jews Only: Who is Hashem?

[rosends]

This, the heavens... this, the earth...

Chagiga 12:20

Since it states “et hashamayim ve’et ha’aretz,” shamayim, actual heaven. aretz, actual earth.

Et = "this one", the actual heaven, the one we can point to with our finger. And the actual earth, "this one", the one I can point to.

How doesn't "this" work?

You can shoehorn "this" anywhere you want it but in verses 7 and 16 it doesn't really work (those are the next two appearances of the word). If you have to then create an interpretive reading of "this, the actual one we can point to" you have created a meaning that the text doesn't have. Can we point our finger to the actual heaven? Is there another heaven we can't point to, so I need "this" as clarification? Additionally, you are positing a simple definition when 2000+ years of understanding has said specifically that that isn't the meaning. Many people also point out Gen 13:5 to show that the word means "with".

The trop also has no pause after the "et" so saying the meaning is "this, the [actual]..." doesn't work.

The p'sukim make sense without the word so trying to pin a necessary meaning on them doesn't work. Look at verse 21. Reading in "(and) this" doesn't add anything to the verse. In pasuk 29, the word simply doesn't fit. 40:19 and 20 also don't use it in a way that "this" would make sense. I don't see how "this" works in any of these cases -- Hebrew has a word for "this": zeh.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I don't have to provide any commentary to an english speaker, because "this, the earth" is a perfectly clear statement with zero ambiguity.

So it sounds like you are the right person to answer David's questions.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Maybe not the KJV, but some translations do a good job. For example, some translations literally translate the word "ya-ahmohd" properly in Exodus 21 which defeats the erroneous claim that the Torah permits a slave to be beaten within an inch of their lives. Which BTW is a common anti-Torah claim that gets tossed around.

So, can you provide David with a translation that answers his questions w/o the need of commentary?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Maybe not the KJV, but some translations do a good job.

Can you give David a list that answers his questions w/o a lot of detail?

 

[dybmh]

You can shoehorn "this" anywhere you want it but in verses 7 and 16 it doesn't really work (those are the next two appearances of the word). If you have to then create an interpretive reading of "this, the actual one we can point to" you have created a meaning that the text doesn't have. Can we point our finger to the actual heaven? Is there another heaven we can't point to, so I need "this" as clarification? Additionally, you are positing a simple definition when 2000+ years of understanding has said specifically that that isn't the meaning. Many people also point out Gen 13:5 to show that the word means "with".

The trop also has no pause after the "et" so saying the meaning is "this, the [actual]..." doesn't work.

The p'sukim make sense without the word so trying to pin a necessary meaning on them doesn't work. Look at verse 21. Reading in "(and) this" doesn't add anything to the verse. In pasuk 29, the word simply doesn't fit. 40:19 and 20 also don't use it in a way that "this" would make sense. I don't see how "this" works in any of these cases -- Hebrew has a word for "this": zeh.

Yes, I can shoehorn it to fit, I can even make it fit in Gen 13:5. So, the other examples brought, obviously work fine for me too.

The trop is a good detail. Thank you for that, that is helpful. Saying the verses are understandable without it doesn't make sense to me, because that implies that there are unneeded words in the Hebrew. Also, I understood zeh as less emphatic.

What's most meaningful to me is "you are positing a simple definition when 2000+ years of understanding has said specifically that that isn't the meaning." OK. If you can point me to a few places where it specifically says "this" is not the meaning, I would very much appreciate it.

 

[dybmh]

So, can you provide David with a translation that answers his questions w/o the need of commentary?

Depends on the question.

 

[dybmh]

Can you give David a list that answers his questions w/o a lot of detail?

Depends on the question

 

[dybmh]

So, can you provide David with a translation that answers his questions w/o the need of commentary?

Can you give David a list that answers his questions w/o a lot of detail?

Maybe a better way of looking at this is: Does the OP *want* me to answer. He probably knows my point of view. It's for lack of a better word, magical. I beleive in miracles, and I read the Torah rather literally. And I employ some common apologetics. He seems to be facinated by *your* point of view. The rationalist, the philosopher, the Torah-scientist. It seems like he knows how believers think and operate.

 

[rosends]

Yes, I can shoehorn it to fit, I can even make it fit in Gen 13:5. So, the other examples brought, obviously work fine for me too.

The trop is a good detail. Thank you for that, that is helpful. Saying the verses are understandable without it doesn't make sense to me, because that implies that there are unneeded words in the Hebrew. Also, I understood zeh as less emphatic.

What's most meaningful to me is "you are positing a simple definition when 2000+ years of understanding has said specifically that that isn't the meaning." OK. If you can point me to a few places where it specifically says "this" is not the meaning, I would very much appreciate it.

I'm not sure how you see it in 13:5 -- Onkelos translates it as "with"
דְּאָזֵיל עִם אַבְרָם

as does Rashi on that verse (and other commentators). Interestingly, the Radak explains using another form of "et" to make it clear how the word could mean "with":
שהיה הולך אתו
ito, being from the word "et" but meaning "with him."


Your point about "unneeded words" is exactly right -- the word has no necessary purpose in terms of literal meaning; it is open to explication and explanation exactly BECAUSE it has no other use. Take a look at the commandment to honor your father and mother. There are a couple of (unnecessary) "et" words there. The talmud (Ketubot 103a) explains that they come to include step parents. If the words had a simple meaning of "this" then step parents would not be included in the halacha! Rashi there cites a dictum from P'sachim 22b, that all instances of "et" are indicators of an inclusive group (as opposed to "this" which would be exclusive).

As to "zeh" being less emphatic, I'm not sure why you see that. Check out Bamidbar 30:2 (and the reference in Rashi to Nedarim 78). Zeh is a very important word and is specific and emphatic.

 

[dybmh]

I'm not sure how you see it in 13:5 -- Onkelos translates it as "with"
דְּאָזֵיל עִם אַבְרָם

as does Rashi on that verse (and other commentators). Interestingly, the Radak explains using another form of "et" to make it clear how the word could mean "with":
שהיה הולך אתו
ito, being from the word "et" but meaning "with him."


Your point about "unneeded words" is exactly right -- the word has no necessary purpose in terms of literal meaning; it is open to explication and explanation exactly BECAUSE it has no other use. Take a look at the commandment to honor your father and mother. There are a couple of (unnecessary) "et" words there. The talmud (Ketubot 103a) explains that they come to include step parents. If the words had a simple meaning of "this" then step parents would not be included in the halacha! Rashi there cites a dictum from P'sachim 22b, that all instances of "et" are indicators of an inclusive group (as opposed to "this" which would be exclusive).

As to "zeh" being less emphatic, I'm not sure why you see that. Check out Bamidbar 30:2 (and the reference in Rashi to Nedarim 78). Zeh is a very important word and is specific and emphatic.

Super useful, thank you.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Maybe a better way of looking at this is: Does the OP *want* me to answer. He probably knows my point of view. It's for lack of a better word, magical. I beleive in miracles, and I read the Torah rather literally. And I employ some common apologetics. He seems to be facinated by *your* point of view. The rationalist, the philosopher, the Torah-scientist. It seems like he knows how believers think and operate.

Well, the OP says Torath Mosheh Jews and you identified as one so I think that makes your perspective valid to his questions. It could be that I just more consistantly try to provide answers his questions, no matter what they are about. Even though now I see I am not good at it.

Besides, if his assessments about me are correct then his questions would be better answered by someone who is has a magical point of view.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

You can shoehorn "this" anywhere you want it but in verses 7 and 16 it doesn't really work (those are the next two appearances of the word). If you have to then create an interpretive reading of "this, the actual one we can point to" you have created a meaning that the text doesn't have. Can we point our finger to the actual heaven? Is there another heaven we can't point to, so I need "this" as clarification? Additionally, you are positing a simple definition when 2000+ years of understanding has said specifically that that isn't the meaning. Many people also point out Gen 13:5 to show that the word means "with".

The trop also has no pause after the "et" so saying the meaning is "this, the [actual]..." doesn't work.

The p'sukim make sense without the word so trying to pin a necessary meaning on them doesn't work. Look at verse 21. Reading in "(and) this" doesn't add anything to the verse. In pasuk 29, the word simply doesn't fit. 40:19 and 20 also don't use it in a way that "this" would make sense. I don't see how "this" works in any of these cases -- Hebrew has a word for "this": zeh.

This is correct.

The point I was making was that what we are discussing is not apparent at all to someone who doesn't know Hebrew. Thus, even if it isn't necessary for the literal translation the discussion we are having now can only happen because we can see (את) in the original text. In order for this conversation to even happen for those who read the translation, they need loads of commentary to expain (את) linquistically, what it means in PaRDeS, and more. Thus, no-one who just wants a simple plain reading would see the word "this" inserted in one translation and not others and then from there understand why it is there in various circumstances and not in others if it were used by a translator.

 

[David Davidovich]

That is why I provided both the English that may be familiar and the Hebrew with which Oral Torah which explains what they mean is derived from. Thus, you could shop all that information around to people who know Hebrew and see if what I stated is used as the source for the concept.

Well, I don't know very many TMJs... really none at all other than just finding out about yourself last year at this forum. However, if I check with other Jews or other Jewish sources, you will then ask: Were they TMJs?

Again, how something written and understood in a several thousand year old language is going to be different than what someone interprets a translation which is not culturally conneced to the original. If every Torath Mosheh Jew agrees that those passages are describing what I mentioned for some of the same reasons there isn't anywhere else you can go with that.

But I don't know how you would be reading it in the literal Hebrew.

Now, reading a translation w/o having an Oral Torah to explain what the original Hebrew meant - of course under those conditions you not see something there. It is like someone in reading Hebrew the statement "break a leg" and stating "I don't see how break a leg means good luck."

That's a really good point that you made, @Ehav4Ever. Because I can see from your statement and from some of your previous explanations that you don't seem to understand the concept of summarizing.

Origins in Theatre​

Bernard Sobel's 1948 Theatre Handbook and Digest of Play explained that actors never said "Good luck," only "I hope you break a leg." Although it was the first time the phrase appeared in print in the theatre world, it certainly wasn't the first time actors said it to each other. There are many possible origins to "break a leg" in the history of theatre.

• wishing for the opposite - An ancient superstition claims that if you really want something, you need to wish for the opposite. When actors really wanted a successful show, they'd wish for the worst possible outcome.
• stomping vs. clapping - Ancient Greek audiences stomped their feet instead of clapping. By wishing an actor to "break a leg," they meant that the show would be so successful that an audience member would stomp so hard they'd break their own leg (perhaps not literally).
• breaking a chair leg - Later audiences, including audiences in Shakespearean plays, would stomp their chairs. A great show meant that at least one chair leg would be broken by the end of the night.
• breaking the leg line - Early actors would line up in hopes to be chosen for that night's performances. When they'd make it on stage, they were known as "breaking the leg line."
• curtsies and bows - Some believe that "break a leg" comes from the way actors' legs bend when they are curtsying or bowing at the end of a good show. A very good show would certainly result in lots of bowing!
• wishful understudies - Edna Ferber's A Peculiar Treasure from 1939 recounts the way understudies would sit in the back row "politely wishing the various principals would break a leg." That way, they'd get to act the part instead.
• the literal broken leg - One theatre legend comes from 18th-century actor David Garrick. His performance of Richard III was so captivating that he didn't even notice his own broken leg — and he finished the entire show!

Break a Leg: Meaning and Origin of a Common Idiom
Therefore, to me, it's not that hard to summarize something and give someone an idea of the answer without given them every little detail.

Lastly, my translation of the text is meaningless in this circumstance since there is no seperation between the Written Tanakh and the Oral Torah any translation I do is going to be based on both of them. You can't have one w/o the other for Torath Mosheh Jews so simply put those verses are where the written element of it is derived from it and the Oral Torah, received from Hashem, Mosheh ben-Amram, and the Nevi'im of Hashem.

Okay, but I don't see what difference it makes whether it comes from the Tanakh or the Torah. Although, apparently, you do.

 

[David Davidovich]

No, it doesn't' mean what it means to them. There is a different basis of what it takes to be one. There are also divisions of what a heretic is, based on what they do, what they hold by, and whether they do so publically. I.e. there are various categories. I was asking that he go into detail for you on this concept and why it is the case. It is not a "beleif" or "faith" issue.

So, then what does it mean to TMJs?

 

[David Davidovich]

There is a reason I stated them. It is connected to the meaning, and etymology, of the word diety.

Okay. Well, that's why I asked. I didn't know if it was an incorrect word or concept for TMJs, and if so, then I wanted to know what their relationship and interaction with Hashem was called. Also, while were on the subject why did someone or something like Hashem call a human like Abraham his friend? Or whatever the word or concept is in literal Hebrew.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

That's a really good point that you made, @Ehav4Ever. Because I can see from your statement and from some of your previous explanations that you don't seem to understand the concept of summarizing.

So, if this is the case it sounds like you need someone else to "summerize" things the way that you like.

 

[David Davidovich]

You have to make sure that is what I actually wrote. Hint: David is not fully explaining what I wrote to him about translations.

Sorry, but I don't remember and of course, I have no idea what the Hebrew lettering is saying.

Besides, is the KJV a good source of translation compariable to knowing Hebrew?

Some people who don't know better would say yes, but very much so not. Although most English translations look just about the same if we are referring to Genesis 1:1.

 

[David Davidovich]

I have been thinking about your two comments here, and another one you made earlier, and I have been going back and going over the responses I have made to your questions in the past. I think this is the point where I will back out of this discussion and any others so that you can the type of answers you want from others who are not evasive and provide to many details.

Okay. No problem. Thanks. But the first thing that I wanted to know about was what I asked about a verse in Daniel. However, I will have to go back and find the question that I asked.

 

[David Davidovich]

It means that making a mistake is not the problem. Not taking immediate corrective action is. In the Tanakh there is a process for making what is called "teshuva" or "shuva." It includes.
1. Realizing the mistake and all the facets of the mistake.
2. Making a personal declaration of not wanting to doing such a thing.
3. Admitting that one made the mistake, with full understanding of the mistake.
4. Making corrective action, and never returning to the mistake.

It is considered that once a person has done that, they have corrected the misstep. In the days when there was a Temple in Jerusalem bringing what is called a Qorban to the Temple was a part of the process.

Again, sin is not a good word. It has a lot of incorrect concepts in the English langauge. BTW I don't conviently skip questions. I answer what I often have time to answer. I do have a job, a family, and Torah based responsibilities you know. Also, I already answered the question in this thread and in others. i.e. whenever I talk about the future Davidic king and the future Israeli nation that keeps Torah I have already addressed your question. i.e. humanity is not in a sinful state. That is a Christian concept. Humanity as a whole can simply make better choices that take on the benefits for all of humanity. There are some humans who are already getting there individually in one level or another.

I haven't found the Daniel question yet, however, I do want to ask other Orthodox Jews about the information above and how it's related to Who is Hashem. Therefore, if Orthodox Jews don't go by a concept of humanity being in a sinful state, then why did Hashem require animal sacrifices in the Torah?

 

[David Davidovich]

Also, what about Psalm 51:3-5 and what are the accurate Hebrew words that should be used in those verses and why did Adam and Eve have such a murderous jerk of a son such as Cain?

And why is it that we grow old and die and get sick along the way as well as some people being born with defects, deformities, and diseases?

And here are two more questions that I think are important and are valid coming from a person who had a Christian upbringing. Therefore, if any Orthodox Jew could answer these questions, I would appreciate it.

P.S. And the English translated word that I am referring to in Psalm 51:3-5 is "sin."