Are there 2 characters? The "his son" refers back to the "ish". The "ish" refers back to God. Isn't God the only subject?
Not exactly -- God is the subject and then an analogy is presented but then it isn't clear if the "his son" refers to the man's son (in the way a man would carry his (own) son) or back to God (in the way a man would carry God's son (any human being)). Any conclusion is an interpretation, the translation of which into English would preclude any other reading.
Agreed. And I considered that. But what I'm trying to figure out is: is this specific verse communicating something complex, or is it communicating something simple?
It is communicating a generally simple image using the usually complex language of biblical text. So, "both."
I understand there are some teachings which are complicated, but is this one of them? Are all teachings from the Torah complicated?
As each word/phrase/idea has at least 4 levels of meaning, and, some would say, 70 facets of understanding, I would say that while much of the Torah can be reduced to a simplistic summary, the Torah's teachings are always complex as well.
Does the notion of "ish" as more than a man fit here? Is "ish" always supposed to connote something more than a man? If not, is there anything else about this verse which would make it into something more complicated than it actually appears to be on the surface?
The fact that the verse uses the word "ish" is already problematic. Then, to wonder what the word "ish" really points to muddies the water. In Yiddish, the word מענטש means "man" but if you call someone a מענטש are you simply commenting on physiology and biology or something more? It depends on context.
I hear you. And yet pushing God out into nethermost regions completely distant and removed from us is not how Moshe describes the relationship God has chosen to have with us. ( I'm going to bring a few quotes. Not because I think you need them, but for others who may be reading this. )
Deut 4:4
וְאַתֶּם הַדְּבֵקִים בַּֽיהֹוָה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶם חַיִּים כֻּלְּכֶם הַיּֽוֹם׃
Sanhedrin 64a:11-12
אתם בית ישראל אינן כן (במדבר כה, ה) הנצמדים לבעל פעור כצמיד פתיל (דברים ד, ד) ואתם הדבקים בה' אלהיכם כשתי תמרות הדבוקות זו בזו
במתניתא תנא הנצמדים לבעל פעור כצמיד ע"י אשה ואתם הדבקים בה' אלהיכם דבוקים ממש
But these quotes are about our relationship to God, not his with us. We are to stick with God by abiding by his laws and not worshipping any other god. The secondary problem is that the Torah, when decribing a relationship, uses language we will understand even if it reduces or overly simplifies (humanizes) divine identity and concepts. That is so we get a glimpse, not because it accurately explains God's identity accurately.
Focusing just on the issue of language, it's equally dangerous/hurtful to claim, as Rambam does, "ואל יטעך מה שבא ב׳אבות׳ מזכרון דבר האלוה להם והראותו אליהם". That is just 1 baby step away from saying, "Don't be mistaken that our ancestors were slaves in Egypt". "Don't be mistaken that the Torah was written by Moses". So, according to Rambam the akeidah was based on a hunch? The whole system falls apart if we cannot trust that what Moshe is teaching is true.
I don't see the problem with the Rambam's contention. He is stating that before the time of Moshe, people didn't get missions to retell God's will to the masses - Hashem merely mentioned what had to do with them and what would happen in the future to their descendents ("אבל היה הדיבור להם במה שהיה מיוחד להם, לא דבר אחר"). I would assume that the Rambam checked the exact language of each interaction between the forefathers and Hashem and found no instances which would qualify. Do you have counter examples that he missed?
What I'm trying to say is, this is a "forest-focused" issue. Is it teaching that God is so distant and so removed and impossible for us to grasp/cleave-to? I vote no.
The message is forest based and the medium is tree based. We can cleave to God by following the teachings but that "cleave" is a vague concept because we cannot localize or humanize God so any human understanding of "cleaving" will fall short. D-b-k has to do with sticking but it is also "follow", "pursue" and "stay close to." So God is both distant and also right next to me. If I think I can get "close" to God because of that local idea then I am forgetting that it is impossible to get closer to God also. That paradox is essential to the idea of God and it develops because God is not like man. I can liken my relationship with God to mine with man, but that captures the essence of relationship as much as saying "I can count to 7" is like "I can count to infinity." Sure, there are similarities on one level, but it also is completely different on another level.
OK. So, if in english "love" is understood in a number of ways with a number of manifestations. And in Hebrew "love" is understood in a number of ways with a number of manifestations. And in virtually any culture anywhere "love" is understood in a number of ways and a number of manifestations. Doesn't this indicate that "love" is a universal concept?
No, it means that the word might be anything BUT universal because that range of manifestations from one culture might not overlap with another, or in a way which isn't the same as how it overlaps with another.
Just because it's complicated and relies on context, doesn't mean it's different. If it's complicated and relies on context everywhere by everyone regardless of the spoken language, then, it's the same thing?
No, it isn't necessarily the same, but it is already different. Whether, after reconciling elements of difference you end up with parallel or connecting ideas, or not is immaterial. The terms and concepts start amidst confusion and we impose our human schema when we try to refine and limit so that we understand.
Yes, blessing and curse are complicated, but the idea of changing a curse into a blessing because of love is simple, isn't it?
I happen to think that that is a really complicated idea. I have no understanding of how it would work, what its limits and parameters are, if it is repeatable, or whether it is immediate.
. So, I'm asking if there is another interpretation of this verse, Deut 1:31, that does not neatly line up with the english translation? And yes, I think we can "excise" the connotation of "ish" as something other than a human man based on "b'noh" "his son".
It lines up as well as any other translation (which understands "carry" "man" and "son" differently) is also in line. Ish could be a specific man, mankind, or a type of man.
If it's highly variable in virtually all languages and cultures, and in the same ways, then it's still universal and the language used becomes irrelevant.
But the various ways are not necessarily identical. So knowing the subtleties fo the original language is essential to understanding intent.
And regarding martyrdom, I think that's a special case. There's a lot going on in the case of martyrdom. But I don't think the commandment is saying that our love should trigger death. I also don't see Rashi, nor the sifrei, nor the Talmud making this direct connection if we look at the Hebrew of what they're saying connected to Deut 6:5. If I'm wrong, please direct me to Hebrew where it is explicitly stated this way.
Rashi on 6:5 writes
בכל נפשך AND WITH ALL THY SOUL
אֲפִלּוּ הוּא נוֹטֵל אֶת נַפְשְׁךָ (ספרי; ברכות נ"ד):
— even though He take thy soul (even though you have to suffer martyrdom to show your love of God) (Sifrei Devarim 32:5; Berakhot 54a, Berakhot 61b).
That seems rather explicit -- we show our love even if that means dying.
I'm reading all of these saying the same thing I said about wine. If a person loves wine, they will still love wine even if the wine kills them. If at the end, they regret the wine, that's when they stop loving wine. Rashi says "with all your soul" - even if it's taken. In other words, even if God kills you, you're still commanded to love God. It doesn't say love God to the point of martyrdom. Am I mistranslating what he said?
So you are denying the entire principle of dying al kiddush hashem? You don't see the idea of the 3 cardinal sins, the avoidance of which must be done even if the penalty is death? As the peninei halacha writes, " 'שצריך אדם להיות מוכן למסור את נפשו על אמונתו בה'" Cleaving to God by following his laws and exclaiming faith, even if it means dying.
If the overlap is the same in most languages and cultures, then it's still lanuage independent. Just because the concept is fluid, doesn't make it unique to one specific language and culture. Do we agree on this?
I disagree with the inevitability of your premise. And I think that a concept's fluidity even if it exists in parallel, heightens the possibility that the understanding of it will be inexact when switching from one culture/language to another.
Is there a word, a single word for "like" in biblical Hebrew? What about "חֵן"? "Favor"? Isn't this having a positive opinion about someone or something but doesn't extend beyond that? In context it seems to be a one-to-one equivalence, "חֵן" = "like"? Then there's the somewhat poetic two-word phrase "טוֹב בְּעֵינֵי" with its opposite "רָעָה בְּעֵינֵי". Isn't this how "like" is communicated in biblical Hebrew?
Like is actually never communicated. The term "to find favor" is often used in terms of ingratiating, or being graced with a very large favor (which would be indicative of something more than a boring "like"). Noach "found favor" in God's eyes -- I don't think that that means that God simply like Noach.
The words "tov b'einei" means "proper in the eyes of" not "like."
---
