A question of course

My sins that caused this wonderful story to be taken away from me. A challenge indeed. Because of her kindness, he said, I waved my hands at him, a numb hand like waving a scythe in a meadow. First option: The report does not come to examine the power relations between the powers, but rather it is a report that deals with God’s leadership in the world (whom He would most like to destroy). The Chaldeans who destroyed the temple built by the Jews certainly deserve to be destroyed. He handed them over to the Persians, meaning that the Persians are his loyal and important emissaries for important missions. Whereas the Romans destroyed the second temple that the Persians built and therefore it is less important and therefore the Romans are probably only his second-class emissaries (he gave them a relatively less important mission). If so, the Persians are more important to him than the Romans. Therefore, the Romans will fall into the hands of the Persians. It is true that when will this happen, since these and those are not in the world, and the Romans did not fall into the hands of the Persians. This is a myth that was refuted in reality. But if the purpose of the myth is only to show that it was important in the eyes of God to destroy Rome, but that the Sages thought that the Persians would do it (because they were the candidates at the time), then its part was fulfilled. Rome was indeed destroyed, but not by the Persians. God’s leadership did indeed lead to the destruction of Rome. Second option: The KOH does deal with the balance of power between the powers. The Chaldeans, who were very powerful, succeeded in destroying a temple built by Jews. The Romans destroyed a temple built by Persians, which required less power. Therefore, it is clear that the Persians, who overcame the Chaldeans, who had immense power, would certainly overcome the Romans, who were less powerful. —————————————————————————————— Shua: My own sins also made this verse disappear from me, and so to this day I have not understood what the translator meant in Lamentations 4:22:
“Sixth, rejoice, daughter of Edom, dwelling in the land of Oz, the cup will pass over you too, you will be drunk and become drunk.”
“The Jews and the Gentiles of Constantinople, who were born in the land of Armenia, were the inhabitants of the land of Egypt. When the time of the Persians came upon you, and the throne of the Jews passed over you, you were filled and emptied.”


And there is something to add, that the words ‘Benahu the sons of Shem’ mean that they are dealing with the family hierarchical relationship between the builder and the destroyer. The Chaldeans are the sons of Ham or Japheth (see Ramban Genesis 11:28. Here too, the translation in Lamentations takes a side in chapter 5 verse 8: “Servants of Ham, their son” – “Benahu the sons of Shem, their son ruled over them”); and the Romans are, as is customary, the sons of Esau from the sons of Shem. And the 16th is like the second option: the Chaldeans are very powerful, for they jumped steps in the proper hierarchy and destroyed the sons of Shem, and the Romans did not become so powerful, since in total they destroyed those lower than them, so it is clear that the Persians will overcome them. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: It should be noted that the verse does not say that the Romans will fall at the hands of the Persians, but only that they too will fall. This did indeed happen. The interpretation of Chazal or the translator apparently did not hold.
Although at first I didn’t understand how the translator writes that Constantine is Karta Dadum. I thought the Eastern Kingdom was later. But now I checked and indeed it was founded in the 4th century AD (and only its name in Israel, Byzantium, is later). Constantinople, named after Constantine, has existed since then. Interesting. Now I saw on Wikipedia about the Book of Lamentations:
Similarly, he interprets the “Edom” mentioned in the Megillah (Lamentations 4:21-22) as a name for “Rome.” [72] In his commentary on these verses, he incidentally reveals a Byzantine period of composition. [73][74] —————————————————————————————— Shua: I forgot the main point and only came up with the translation in Acha. And here is the main point: [It has been years since I read the wonderful book, especially in the Midot Harash series] Are there any more examples of a Qo’ah that does not teach a law (that a person or a frog must observe) but a reality, and is it reasonable to assume that the boundaries of such a Qo’ah are identical to all the rules of the Midot Harash Qo’ah? (For example, here of course, ‘penalties’ from the law. But the question, for example, whether the parts of the law that require verses for them will also apply to such a Qo’ah) —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Chen Chen.
In a realistic scenario, there would be no ink at all. After all, in reality, ink has no meaning (and perhaps neither does the scenario). The “ink” deals with what we know about reality, not reality itself. Thus, if I know that a lion is stronger than a tiger, and I know that a tiger will overcome a cat, then the scenario of a lion will overcome a cat and everything that is weaker than a tiger. That is what I know. But it is clear that in reality a lion will also overcome someone who is stronger than a tiger, but I cannot know this from these data alone (that he overcomes a tiger).