tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post6496047315625564261..comments2024-01-30T12:26:03.019-05:00Comments on The Blog of Garnel Ironheart: How To Study TanachMighty Garnel Ironhearthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09571194550300367249noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-55039992576339538142013-01-08T23:01:19.895-05:002013-01-08T23:01:19.895-05:00"modern readers suffer from this innate bias ..."modern readers suffer from this innate bias of assuming that our current secular moral system is the pinnacle of human civilization against which all other moral systems, Torah included, must be judged." I chuckled. <br /><br />The Daat Mikra is great and definitely very helpful for ex in a sefer like Daniel (bc of Aramaic). Daniel is an unbelievable sefer!<br /><br />I love Tanach and think it is important to teach students on how to read peshat as a commentary of its own. Each word, the grammatical structure, what is missing, and so forth is very telling. I just finished teaching perek 34, Dina, which the peshat itself says SO much. (I know you were referring to nach but its even applicable to torah).<br /><br />After really teaching and understanding peshat (I could go on a rant here about the importance of teaching grammar and building skills), commentary and each parshan, looking at historical background, needs to be explained. <br /><br />The Rasag is writing a commentary which is also a commentary for his time. There is a reason why he is SO focused on showing how the peshat fits with tradition/oral law, because of the Kaarites. <br /><br />One of my goals in teaching Tanach is to make Torah applicable and to bring the characters to life. I agree, that there is a reason why David was portrayed in that light. Though we can find ways to see how he did not sin (and we should), we can also try to understand why would it be written in a way where it leaves doubt? Why would it say that Reuben "laid" with Bilah if, according to Rashi, he just switched the beds? Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988396893369485100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-61988261371985260452012-12-27T21:22:50.772-05:002012-12-27T21:22:50.772-05:00>>>Were Chazal worried we'd lose our ...>>>Were Chazal worried we'd lose our appreciation of David HaMelech's holiness by reading that story then it likely would not have made the finally cut.<br /><br />Chazal were perhaps assuming that readers of their day would study Tanach with the peirush of... Chazal. The danger is in studying Tanach without that background. <br /><br />>>>Chazal also said the drush under the assumption that their audience was well familiar with the pshat.<br /><br />I beg to differ. Rashbam beginning of VaYeishev points out how even in the days of Chazal pshat was less well known than derash. <br /><br />Rav Kook I think in a few places touches in the difference between the perspective of the prophet vs. the perspective of the legalist/tamudist. IIRC he talks about it in the context of Baba basra 12 chacham adif m'navi (implicitly contrasting the two roles) but I can't recall where offhand. Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-68005665885100600542012-12-27T14:28:09.833-05:002012-12-27T14:28:09.833-05:00Chazal also said the drush under the assumption th...Chazal also said the drush under the assumption that their audience was well familiar with the pshat.<br /><br />Also, it is well to consider the entire corpus of what Chazal had to say about a passage. Somehow, for example, the midrash in perek Cheilek (I think daf 105) which deals with David and Batsheva without any attempt to minimize David's transgression is less popular than ones that do.Mike S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-56728633417547843362012-12-27T08:45:46.758-05:002012-12-27T08:45:46.758-05:00I think your first point is quite valid. However,...I think your first point is quite valid. However, I would disagree with your second. We find other cases where Bnei Yisrael have a non-Israel surname, for example Doeg HaEdomi.Mighty Garnel Ironhearthttp://garnelironheart.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-58503914361649544792012-12-26T23:33:21.891-05:002012-12-26T23:33:21.891-05:00>>>> A good peirush will point out tha...>>>> A good peirush will point out that while David HaMelech faces God's wrath for his sins, when those sins are listed in detail adultery is not amongst them.<br /><br />the reason David's taking batsheva was not a sexual sin because it seems that the king had a prerogative to dissolve a marriage (see Saul and Michal being taken from David and given away to another). and, as for the medrash about the pre-written gittim, why would batsheva need a get, she was married to a hittite (non-jew), a fact which would be another reason she wasn't a "eshet ish"david a.noreply@blogger.com