tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post6734014398259622322..comments2023-10-30T08:40:59.016-04:00Comments on Wolfish Musings: Sometimes You're Amazed By What You Don't Know: The Rambam and the Eighth Article of FaithBrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-14637959571714709082008-01-15T02:24:00.000-05:002008-01-15T02:24:00.000-05:00I had no idea about this fact either, but it is on...I had no idea about this fact either, but it is one of the major points taught to us in Yeshiva University in their (required) Intro To Bible course.<BR/><BR/>Thanks to that, I can discuss these things with a little more knowledge, as well as have someone to ask about some of the more problematic textual aspects of the Torah. Any further questions you may have could be directed to Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Jeremy Weider - kjwieder@ymail.edu<BR/><BR/>He is very prompt with responding to emails, and can answer most questions about most things Torah related.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04108278704057928735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-66761117994131016052008-01-14T12:23:00.000-05:002008-01-14T12:23:00.000-05:00According to Wikipedia, the authorship of the Ani ...According to Wikipedia, the authorship of the Ani Ma'amins is unknown. <BR/><BR/>The WolfBrooklynWolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-2574688865247038122008-01-14T11:10:00.000-05:002008-01-14T11:10:00.000-05:00Did I miss something, or did no one answer Mark Sh...Did I miss something, or did no one answer Mark Shapiro's question?<BR/><BR/>I'll repeat it: Who wrote the "ani maamins"? Not having been blessed with the privilege of receiving a yeshiva education, I have no idea.Shira Salamonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15989302669175887512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-60909781928754304992008-01-10T01:39:00.000-05:002008-01-10T01:39:00.000-05:00TORONTO YID:also note that ktav ivri does not have...TORONTO YID:<BR/><BR/>also note that ktav ivri does not have terminal letters (khaf sofit, mem sofit, etc.), and that in some instances a ktav ashuri letter can be represented with two different ktav ivri letters<BR/><BR/>but to get back to the matter at hand, can someone check their text and see if it reads like the mosad harav kook one i cited above or like abrahamson's translation.Lion of Zionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10342299133387602141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-77471591828733337412008-01-10T01:35:00.000-05:002008-01-10T01:35:00.000-05:00THE ANSWER:"The Gm' understood the chaseros v'yese...THE ANSWER:<BR/><BR/>"The Gm' understood the chaseros v'yeseros as LETTERS in the discussion of where the middle letter is of the Torah."<BR/><BR/>interesting point from hazal's perspective. but on the other hand, if we are leining and there is a mistake with chaseros v'yeseros (with any of the vowel letters, אהוי), we don't need to take out a new torah. this indicates they are not really important and/or considered letters? (btw, the shaare ephraim says we don't take out new sefer because we are not sure of chaseros v'yeseros altogether).<BR/><BR/>"I haven't seen the RAE you reference; would you point me to it?"<BR/><BR/>i think it is gilyon ha-shas on masekhet shabbat.<BR/><BR/>"My understanding, based on the Maharitz Chayos . . ."<BR/><BR/>where?<BR/><BR/>"a purposeful abbreviation or amalgamation of several psukim into one to shorten the discussion"<BR/><BR/>there are bible manuscripts that are written in such an abbreviated manner. but i'm not sure if the examples r. eger brings down can be attribued to this. (the only example i remember off hand is the famous one from the haggadah of אתנו vs אתכם for the hakham (which of course obviates the need for all the hand wringing over what is really the difference between the hakham and the rasha as far as הוציא את עצמו.<BR/><BR/>TORONTO YID:<BR/><BR/>"The Torah wouldn't have used a different alphabet"<BR/><BR/>the gemara says it may have<BR/><BR/>ktav ivri and ktav ashuri are 2 different alphabets. you don't like the word "alphabet"? fine, call them graphemes, symbols, orthographic representations, etc. but at the end of the day they do not look alike and most people who read one can't read the other. ktav ivri is as different from ktav ashuri as ktav ashuri is from greek and latin (actually greek/latin are pretty close to ktav ivri)<BR/><BR/>for me all this become problematic when rabbis start darshening on the legs and bases of the letters when there is no leg or base for the drash to stand on.Lion of Zionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10342299133387602141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-31821859131289708712008-01-09T22:01:00.000-05:002008-01-09T22:01:00.000-05:00To Lion of Zion:The Torah wouldn't have used a dif...To Lion of Zion:<BR/><BR/>The Torah wouldn't have used a different alphabet. It likely was in what is called Ktav Ivri vs our script today (I believe attributed to Ezra) called Ktav Ashuri.<BR/><BR/>Go to http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/search?q=ktav+ivri<BR/><BR/>to see what Ktav Ivri looks like.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-52448849806092543172008-01-09T14:05:00.000-05:002008-01-09T14:05:00.000-05:00lion of zion:The Gm' understood the chaseros v'yes...lion of zion:<BR/>The Gm' understood the chaseros v'yeseros as LETTERS in the discussion of where the middle letter is of the Torah.<BR/><BR/>The psukim quoted in the Gm' are often corrupted. I haven't seen the RAE you reference; would you point me to it? My understanding, based on the Maharitz Chayos, is these discrepancies are the result of copy errors in the Gm. and/or a purposeful abbreviation or amalgamation of several psukim into one to shorten the discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-21732057886282030482008-01-09T01:11:00.000-05:002008-01-09T01:11:00.000-05:00out = ourout = ourLion of Zionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10342299133387602141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-53297599740865978192008-01-09T01:09:00.000-05:002008-01-09T01:09:00.000-05:00THE ANSWER:"his must be the case because even the ...THE ANSWER:<BR/><BR/>"his must be the case because even the Gm' already recognized there many minor letters "chaseros v'yeseros" missing."<BR/><BR/>technically these are not letters but rather vowels markers. unless you are into gematrias or torah codes, these chaseros v'yeseros are a formality and the yeseros can be dispensed with or you may add more of them in. early hebrew orthography, so the theory goes, did not have yeseros altogether.<BR/><BR/><BR/>see <BR/>http://agmk.blogspot.com/2007/08/hebrew-for-ignorant-historical-overview.html#links<BR/><BR/>also, as long as you are bringing up the gemara, the bavli and yerushalmi may have had more significant differences than just chaseros v'yeseros (see r. akiva eger).<BR/><BR/>and does it bother anyone out torah uses a different alphabet than the one moshe used?Lion of Zionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10342299133387602141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-60520612122930605572008-01-09T00:40:00.000-05:002008-01-09T00:40:00.000-05:00"somehow, whoever composed the Ani Ma'amins felt t..."somehow, whoever composed the Ani Ma'amins felt the need to misstate what the Rambam said and add in the words "that we now possess.""<BR/><BR/>the ani maamin does not misstate the rambam, although abrahamson likely mistranslated him. i'm not sure which edition abrahamson was using for his translation, but the one i have (mosad harav kook) states כל התורה המצויה בידינו עתה היא הנתונה על ידי משה רבנו. abrahamson leaves out the key words המצויה בידינו עתה<BR/><BR/>the questions of what actually this principle actually demands of us has been discussed at length. for some views see, for example, the relevant chapter in louis jacobs, "principles of the jewish faith." i imagine marc shapiro deals with this in his book also, but have not seen it.Lion of Zionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10342299133387602141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-81968179469825376162008-01-08T17:49:00.000-05:002008-01-08T17:49:00.000-05:00I expect that while this point is a good one to ke...I expect that while this point is a good one to keep in mind, it will largely be ignored in hopes it will just go away.<BR/><BR/>Paranoid insertion: who's been watching what the sofers write for all these centuries of chaos? I wonder that every time I look at the painting in my home of a sofer at work. Just sayin...-suitepotato-https://www.blogger.com/profile/04567987879881511630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-86030389587417389512008-01-08T17:03:00.000-05:002008-01-08T17:03:00.000-05:00Even from a fundamentalist perspective, to say tha...Even from a fundamentalist perspective, to say that "one is *required* to believe that the Torah we have today is identical to the one that Moshe gave us" is a shockingly ignorant statement. OK, fine, I understand that most OJ's have an almost total lack of knowledge regarding the masoretic tradition and variant texts, but you'd at least expect folks that are the product of a Rashi-centric tradition to have read his comment to Bereshis 25:6!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-32284762937165921642008-01-08T14:09:00.000-05:002008-01-08T14:09:00.000-05:00Who wrote them?Who wrote them?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-63198559116419167902008-01-08T13:47:00.000-05:002008-01-08T13:47:00.000-05:00This means that we must believe that this entire T...<I>This means that we must believe that this entire Torah, which was given to us from Moshe Our Teacher, may he rest in peace, is entirely from the mouth of the Almighty.</I><BR/><BR/>Would'nt some translate THIS as meaning every word is from God? If a word is post mosaic, it is not from God, but this ikkar is saying that this entire torah is from the God. So how do we square this off with opinions of some post mosaic additions?Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-39030321328231140582008-01-08T13:38:00.000-05:002008-01-08T13:38:00.000-05:00I knew the Rambam did not write the Ani Maamins be...I knew the Rambam did not write the Ani Maamins because my Rosh Yeshiva was very much into discussing these types of things.<BR/><BR/>You can understand the principle just like the Rambam wrote. It is just saying the "whole Torah" we possess was given to Moshe. What does "whole Torah" include? It also doesn't say every letter; rather it means the whole Torah in general, certainly leaving room for letter issues. This must be the case because even the Gm' already recognized there many minor letters "chaseros v'yeseros" missing. R' Yaakov Kaminetsky, in Emes L'yakov on the Torah, points out several places where the Minchas Shai's version of the Torah text varied by a letter from what we have.<BR/><BR/>It is the ignorance of the "masses" which promulgates this myth of a letter for letter transmission.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-91092959817662000722008-01-08T13:06:00.000-05:002008-01-08T13:06:00.000-05:00The ikkar of the prophesy is also mistated. Rambam...The ikkar of the prophesy is also mistated. Rambam wrote that man is able to achieve prophesy. The author of the ani maamin added that all the words of the prophets are true.Holy Hyraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704030181702087485noreply@blogger.com