The rabbit, etc.
Forgive me for asking something that has come up here but I didn’t see you answer. What do you think is the preferred answer to the question of the rabbit and raising immigration? I will list some of the options known to me.
A. The identification of the rabbit with the hare, which engages in self-coprophagy (eating feces for the purpose of re-digestion), which can be interpreted in a certain sense as rumination.
Reference : There are several translations, mainly from the early days, that interpret this way.
Problems : Apparently there were no rabbits in our area until the arrival of the Romans who brought them from the region of Spain. And in general, why would the Torah bother to divide between 2 species that it probably would not have divided between and are not found in the area and not somehow mention the rock rabbit that was common and sometimes eaten? And if you say that this is the desired assumption (because the mustache
B. To say that the Torah really only refers to external signs and does not really refer to the structure of the stomach but only to the way of eating. Therefore, when it says “the ruminates,” it does not mean it in the full anatomical sense.
Justification : It is known from the Gemara that there are internal signs of purity that the Torah did not enumerate, but rather only enumerated signs of identification, and as far as identification is concerned, it is done according to the exterior. Problems : Why confuse things for no reason? After all, this is a list of animals that are not eaten for another reason. Why emphasize that it produces bile when there is really no evidence for this?
third. Changing the accepted definition of ruminating – an argument that the term ruminating in the past referred to the external sign in general and this is the meaning of the term. A similar argument is that the Torah has renewed for us what it considers ruminating – in the Torah’s view, the movements of the mouth and the structure of the skull are sufficient for this.
Justification : The Torah did something similar regarding the camel – in principle, the camel does indeed cloven hooves, but in a slightly different way than the pure animals, and therefore the Torah determined that it does not cloven hooves in order to clarify that, from its perspective, cloven hooves do not include the shape of the camel’s hoof.
Problems : Here too, the question arises as to why confuse and not simply say that this is how rumination is defined. Theoretically, it could be said that the purpose of the Torah is not to be precise in scientific knowledge at all, but only to bring about optimal fulfillment of the mitzvot, but the question here is why confuse? Especially since, as I mentioned, there is no known NFPK for such a definition of rumination. Theoretically, if we find something that spreads a cloven hoof and makes mouth movements of rumination without actually ruminating, we could say that it has NFPK, but I don’t know of such an animal.
D. To say that the Torah included in the rabbit also species of pika that resemble rabbits and among which there are some that engage in coprophagy.
Problems : It turns out that the definition of a rabbit is expanding a bit, especially to species that are also not found in our area.
E. The Torah did not come to renew scientific knowledge, no matter what. If everyone thought it was a moral issue, that is how it would treat it.
Problems : Why commit suicide over this principle like this?
Thank you very much.
I am not knowledgeable about this subject and have not checked it.
So, I will ask you the obvious question: Assuming that you agree that a proven factual error in the Torah would strengthen the claim that the Torah is not from heaven, and you know that there is a claim for the existence of such an error in the Torah, how can a person who wants to do the will of the Creator allow himself not to check such a claim? After all, if the Torah is not from heaven, it means that you are missing the will of the Creator.
The only answer I can think of is that you have a joker argument that makes the issue redundant in the question (similar to the possibility that the creation accounts are an educational lie). Such an argument also needs to show a reasonable motivation on God's part for the Torah to be structured in this way (on the issue of the educational lie, the motivation is clear).
If so, it turns out that there is such a joker argument from your point of view, otherwise you would check the critical question. You are a religious person, what is it actually?
Neither one nor the other. I don't examine this because there are several answers and it's hard to decide between them. It's unlikely that this question will change anything for me, because it won't turn out that there is a factual error in the Torah. For exactly the same reason I don't engage in biblical criticism.
I didn't understand how. After all, it's a question of interests: as long as God has no reasonable interest in writing the Torah in such a way that it looks as if it was written by a human, it was probably written by a human. Don't you agree with that?
The subject is well summarized, in Oren Said's article, ‘The Rabbit and the Rabbit – Raise a Grâ?’, on the blog ‘Torah and Science’, and there is no need to add and ’raise a gr’ 🙂
Best regards, Yaron Fish”l Ordner
But it is not true that the Torah appears to have been written by a human hand. This is the meaning of the various explanations, which resolve the difficulty. What is more, we are talking about one detail, and even if I were convinced about it, I would say that it is a mistaken addition to the Torah. There are verses that seem to have been added later (“to this very day”).
I want to take the discussion in a slightly different direction.
What do you mean by your statement:
“It is not true that the Torah appears to be written by a human”
In your opinion, it appears to be written by another entity (God)?
The Torah is written in the language of humans, like any other text written by humans… I am not clear about what you mean.
Interestingly, according to the Septuagint, the rabbit does not appear and the hare is mentioned in its place. It also says that they are from the land of Egypt. In the Christian world, this argument does not arise in discussions with atheists.
On the 19th of Elul, 5th of September
Philippians – – Shalom Rav,
It seems that the ’rabbit’ in the Torah was identified by the translators of the Septuagint with the hare, because the hares are ‘a small people, and they set their house in the rock’ (Proverbs 30), and their place is in the desert cliffs with the goats (Psalms 111), and therefore they were not known in the valleys of the Nile.
With greetings, Apór
The goats were recognized by the translators of the Septuagint, who translated ‘aqu’ – ‘Tragolaphus’, since the ibex, as a large animal, was brought to Egypt by hunters, but no one was interested in hunting and bringing small antelopes from Egypt.
I was wrong, it says they do not chew the cud. The value of pi in the Septuagint is also very close to the value of pi. In my opinion, we need to check what other versions from the same period say, and then we will be able to conclude what the original version was, because it is very possible that the Septuagint translators changed it because they had a comprehensive Hellenistic education.
In the name of the Lord, may the blessing be upon you
I do not know the extent of the 'comprehensive Hellenistic education' of the translators of the Septuagint. As I have heard, the Septuagint was written in vernacular Greek 'Koine' in Bela, which is as far from the standard Greek spoken and written by the educated Hellenists as the 'Hebrew of Teutsch' is from the German of Goethe and Schiller.
The Septuagint and its ilk 'starred' In Jewish communities where Hebrew and the original text of the Torah had been forgotten, Jews who knew the Torah from a ’second language’ only. In contrast, among the Pharisees, they made sure that every child would dedicate five years of his life to memorizing the text of the Makar from the Book of Genesis to the night, so that when he was an adult he would be able to read in the Torah every section that they would be honored to read in the Torah in the synagogue.
A Jewish society, in which even among its ordinary members, accurate reading of the Bible was a ‘supreme value’, and its spiritual leaders were called ‘scribes’, who knew every letter and every tag in the Bible and demanded from the grammarians of the text laws and ways of life – knew how to preserve the sacred text like the apple of its eye, and I would not go ‘to correct’ Its tradition, preserved throughout the Diaspora, based on adaptations in the language of those who were already immersed ‘up to their necks’ in foreign culture.
With best regards, Amioz Yaron Schnitzel”r
Paragraph 2, line 3
… Make sure that every child devotes five years of his life to memorizing the text of the Bible from morning to night, …
The Septuagint was written for the Jewish diaspora in the Hellenistic world, whose language was Greek. It was never aimed at Greeks and Hellenists who were not familiar with Judaism and Hebrew sources. The translation often literally translated biblical expressions that had no meaning in Greek and were not understandable to a Greek speaker who was not familiar with the Scriptures. Even in the New Testament, expressions that were translated literally appear, and to this day there are disputes in the Christian world about what exactly was meant.
The Hellenistic Jews were familiar with Hellenistic culture. The translators were respected people and it is likely that they had a comprehensive Hellenistic education and were familiar with Greek mathematics, zoology, and philosophy.
The Septuagint translation that we have has also gone through several incarnations, and in order to get as close to the original as possible, you need to know Koine Greek and read it in the original language. Even then, you cannot be sure that there were no later changes to the text and additions.
To know the truth, you need to examine ancient texts and see exactly what is written there. If the Qumran text, for example, is similar to the Septuagint, then it would be possible to assume with high probability that the corruption is in the Masoretic text. If the text is more similar to the Masoretic text, then it would be possible to conclude with high probability that the corruption is in the Septuagint. The more ancient texts are reviewed, the higher the probability.
The original text of the Bible is probably lost. The Masoretic text is even different from the text that Hazal would have, as can be seen in quite a few inconsistencies between Hazal's sermons and the case. For example, in the number of times that Melacha or Melachatu is listed, or in minor corruptions of verses. They probably had a slightly different text than the Masoretic text.
Another possibility that I thought might be that the original text did not include the rabbit and the hare, and there were no examples. The examples were added at a later time by the priests. But but evidence is needed to support this. Otherwise, it is apologetics that is more suitable for Christian converts or missionaries. But this is certainly a reasonable possibility in my opinion.
You got back to me in another thread and said that there was a reference to my question here (does the Torah “look” as if it were written by humans?).
I can't find such a reference here.
If you read the thread again, you will see that this phrase was not coined by me, and I was merely responding to it. His intention was to say that a Torah with errors was not written by the Creator.
I benefit.
To the questioner, you did not at all address the possibility that the Torah provides signs of kosher that could be identified by the ancient Israelites – and not a scientific zoological list. Since the rabbit and the hare move their jaws like a gnat, there was no reason for the ancient and starving Israelites not to eat them when they snorted along the way (and they did not raise them at home…), just like the commandment to send away the nest, this is a commandment for passersby, and all the Ka'bah. Therefore, the Torah says that even though they are “gnats” (and in the small letters it was written – according to your opinion, etc.’) they are forbidden. Because what looks like a duck and makes a gnat is not necessarily a duck. I do not find this argument strong at all. Only assumptions of gamarot and toshab”a complicate the matter to nothing. Let it go. On the contrary, in biblical studies, one is amazed by such verses that teach about the attention and scientific discernment of the priests, the "writers of the Torah," according to their system. This is an advantage and not a disadvantage. (E. P. Olam HaMikra, for example, or in Weinfeld's article on the Sabbath and Isaiah II). Incidentally, I have always been troubled by the "well, not really a difficulty, but a lack of conformity" between the writing, "As an eagle stirs up its nest over its young, it soars" and "carries them on its wings," as if the eagle actually carries its young on its wings. Sounds like a proverb and nothing more. So that's not it. E. Tigai's commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy is the finest scientific commentary there is. Which indicates the eagle (I don't remember its exact name) that does indeed carry its chicks on its wings. And as for the eagle, it is a good bird.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
