Interpretation of verses by the sages

I didn't understand what it meant that sometimes things are written from the editor's point of view
PS The part related to biblical people in these questions is very simple, the issue is only what Chazal thought

Sometimes there are verses that are indeed placed somewhere in the text, but it was not necessarily said at that moment. The editor writes it and decided to put them there. This is the meaning of the phrase “to this very day”, which was written from a later point of view. Regarding the tendon of the thigh, this is very prominent (therefore the children of Israel will not eat the tendon of the thigh. There it appears “to this very day”, and Tannaim disagreed on the question of when this verse was said).
People who deal with the Bible I do not mean Bible scholars but those who study the Bible. These also deal with what the sages thought. Rabbi Midan, Rabbi Samet, Rabbi Yoel Ben Nun, Rabbi Amnon Bezek and more.

In the book of the eighth chapter of the Bible

Leva B'i – Shalom Rav,

Sennacherib's leadership, as seen in the exile of Israel’ was not to exile a ‘complete exile’, he exiled a large part of the people but left in the land many of the tribes of the Kingdom of Israel, and brought into the land foreign settlers from there and numbered them, the method was to create in each conquered land a mixture of peoples ‘kind by kind’ so that ‘separate and rule’ would exist, thus &#8216Sennacherib confused the nations’ to prevent rebellious organizations.

He apparently also used this method in Ammon. In contrast to the Kingdom of Israel – In the Kingdom of Ammon, the remaining ‘king’ was an autonomous Ammonite ‘vassal’ of Assyria, but the population over which the ‘king’ was ‘mass in Lusa’ of which only a part were authentic Ammonites, and a large part were members of foreign peoples who were exiled to the land of Ammon and were assimilated over time to one degree or another into the absorbing people. Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua can determine that the ’Ammonite– before you – is not necessarily a genetic ‘Ammonite’.

As stated, in Ammon, the ‘king-vassal’ the &#8217mulch on its mass’ Until the days of Jeremiah, it was in Alisa who assassinated his counterpart in the Kingdom of Judah, Gedaliah son of Ahikam, who was appointed by the king of Babylon to rule over the Jewish vinedressers and winegrowers who were left in Judah. Jeremiah prophesies in chapter 40 the prophecy of exile and return about what remained of Ammon.

With greetings, Yaron Fishel Ordner

Such a reality, in which even in Ammon there is no genetically pure Ammonite population, is at the basis of Zeresh's hesitation that Mordecai the Jew is of Jewish descent, since it is possible for a person to be called a Jew after his origin from Judah, the land of Judah. Although he is not ‘of Jewish descent’

The Amoraim who discuss the issues of the Book of Samuel in detail know the book they are discussing very well (unlike certain yeshiva students who know the Bible from browsing polemic websites 🙂 and know very well that the reign of Saul came as a result of Samuel's premature aging.

However, the Sages say that the Holy One, blessed be He, foresaw in advance that it would be necessary to reject Saul from David, and that Samuel would be uneasy about the "undoing of the works of his hands in his days" (which is why Samuel cries out to the Lord all night to ask for Saul), therefore the "reader of generations" planned that old age would overtake him years before, so that he would not appear to have died in the prime of his life.

With regards, Alter Jungleith

On the principle of ‘God's pre-planning’ based on a foreseeable future event, the Sages explain the exclusion of an Ammonite and a Moabite from the prohibition ‘not to enter… in the congregation of God, because God foresaw ‘two good farewells’ in the future – Ruth the Moabite and Naama the Ammonite

The fact that there are verses out of place does not relate to the difficulty of the Book of Samuel, since Samuel's old age is the reason for the appointment of his sons, which is the reason for the appointment of Saul, as the Maharash has already noted, and besides this, old age is also mentioned by the people in their request for the kingship.
4 And all the elders of Israel gathered together; and they came to Samuel, the Lord. 5 And they said to him, Behold, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now therefore make us a king to judge us, like all the nations.
1 Samuel Chapter 8
(Regarding Sennacherib, Jeremiah lived after him, so this is certainly not an excuse)
I am in Gaza, I will really direct the question to those who are more interested in the Bible
Thank you very much

To the owner of the changing nicknames regarding Samuel
A nice idea, the problem is that it doesn't quite fit in the Gemara
The Holy One said, "I will serve you until the days of Saul, not until the days of Samuel, but until the days of Samuel, I will serve you until the days of Saul, not until the days of Samuel. The kingdom of David has already arrived, and no kingdom touches its companion, even as a full-fledged king, the Holy One said, "I will throw old age upon him."
Answered by the Holy One
But you definitely narrowed down the question.

Regarding Sennacherib, let's assume that the excuse you gave is the height of simplicity. The Mishnah also speaks of Moab.
Rabbi Joshua said to him, and that the Ammonites and Moabites are in their place,
From the hands of 44
And concerning him it is written:
Yea, Moab hath been haughty from his youth, and hath kept silence in his watches, and hath not removed from my vessels to my vessels, and hath not gone into captivity; therefore his taste remained in him, and his smell, it was not changed. {3} 12 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will send him spies, and he shall be smitten; And his kidneys shall be broken, and his vessels shall be broken.
Jeremiah 11:11

I think your knowledge of the Bible came from the dance of the Kadesh?

By the way, the prophecy of the return of the children of Ammon contradicts the prophecy of Zephaniah
8 I have heard the reproach of Moab, and the insults of the children of Ammon, with which they have reproached my people, and have magnified themselves at their border. 9 Therefore, as I live, says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, surely Moab will become like Sodom, and the Ammonites like Gomorrah, a desolate wasteland and a salt marsh, a desolation forever.
Zephaniah 2
Perhaps someone like you, who is versed in your Bible from browsing apologetics sites, will be able to resolve the contradiction without disagreeing with the Mishnah that claims that the return of the Ammonites did not occur before Zephaniah.

I don't know how when I wrote the questions I forgot about this difficulty
The GM’ At the end of Makot says
Once again, there were pilgrims to Jerusalem. When they reached Mount Scopus, they tore their clothes. When they reached the Temple Mount, they saw a fox coming out of the Holy of Holies. They began to cry and laugh. They said to him, "Why are you laughing?" He said to them, "Why are you crying?" They said to him, "A place where it is written (Numbers 1:5), "And the stranger who comes near shall be put to death, and now foxes walk about in it, and we do not weep." He said to them, "Therefore I laugh, as it is written (Isaiah 8:2)." And I took faithful witnesses to testify for me, Uriah the priest and Zechariah son of Jebarekiah. And what is the matter with Uriah? Uriah in the First Temple and Zechariah in the Second Temple. But the Scripture hangs the prophecy of Zechariah on the prophecy of Uriah in Uriah. It is written (Micah 3:12). Therefore, because of you, Zion will be a field plowed up. [And] in Zechariah it is written (Zechariah 8:4). Old men and old women still sat in the streets of Jerusalem until it was fulfilled. Uriah's prophecy I was afraid that Zechariah's prophecy would not be fulfilled Now that Uriah's prophecy has been fulfilled, knowing that Zechariah's prophecy is fulfilled in this language, Akiva, our comfort, said to him:
Punishment 24:2
The verse here refers to the departure of the fox as evidence of the fulfillment of Uriah's prophecy. The problem is that the one who prophesied on the "Temple Mount to the high places of the forest" Micah was a prophet in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah. He spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, “Thus says the LORD of hosts: Zion shall be plowed like a field, and Jerusalem shall become a sea, and the mountain of the house like the high places of a forest.” Jeremiah 22 (also found in Micah 32) Regarding Uriah, the verse only says, “And also a man And Uriah the son of Shimei prophesied in the name of the LORD, and he prophesied against this city and against this land according to all the words of Jeremiah. There
and the words of Jeremiah there are
4 And thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the LORD, If ye will not hearken unto me, to walk in my law which I have set before you, and will not hearken unto the words of my servants the prophets, which I sent unto you, and ye have sent again and again, and have not hearkened unto them, then will I make this house a desolation, and this city a desolation. (This) I will curse all the nations of the earth. {P}.
Since Uriah prophesied a normal prophecy of destruction, the proof of the fulfillment of Zechariah's prophecy was given long ago and has nothing to do with the poor fox.
They have already made this question difficult and have made the excuse that it means Uriah spoke like Micah. This excuse is simply not true.

In the city of Badi, in the city of P'yar

Lavayi Hello,

You added the difficulty from Moab, who in the prophecy of Jeremiah (Mah) is mentioned as someone who did not go into exile, and I added the difficulty from Baalis, king of Ammon, who was in Jeremiah's time (and he was the one who sent to assassinate Gedaliah son of Ahikam.

Before I repeat my answer on Shabbat Eve (the best of the two questions), I will explain where the sages learned that Sennacherib confused the nations? The source of these words is Sennacherib's boasting when he came to besiege Jerusalem: "For I said with the strength of my hand I have done it and have removed the boundary of the peoples," and Jonathan translated it: "And I have carried the peoples away from city to city."

This was not only the method of Sennacherib, but also of his predecessors, Tiglath Pileser III, Shalmaneser V and Sargon II, and it continued during the reigns of their successors, the Babylonian kings. In the case of a serious rebellion, almost the entire nation was exiled, and in a less serious case, they were content with exile of the ’elite’, and thus Nebuchadnezzar in the days of Jehoiachin exiled only the ‘deaf and blacksmith’, and when the rebellion changed – he exiled almost the entire nation, leaving only a few ‘vinedressers and winegrowers’ with an autonomous governor.

During the reign of Sennacherib, rebellions broke out throughout the empire. After suppressing the rebellions in Babylon – he turned to suppressing the rebellion in the west and arrived in the region with a huge army. Sidon and the Phoenician cities (except Tyre) were conquered, and Ashdod, Edom, Ammon and Moab surrendered. He imposed a prolonged siege on Jerusalem, proposing Its inhabitants were exiled to a ’land like yours’, a plan that was not fulfilled. According to the Bible, due to a plague that broke out in his army, and according to Sennacherib's boastful inscription due to Hezekiah's agreement to raise taxes for him (and of course I do not expect the boastful Assyrian king to mention the blow he suffered, which caused him to give up on the plan of exile 🙂

According to this, I suggested in Bashan that Sennacherib left the kingdoms of Ammon and Moab in place, but took some of the elites into exile, and settled them with ‘settlers’ from foreign countries who confused the ‘ethnic purity’ of Ammon and Moab. The severe blow to their ‘ethnic purity’ was received by Ammon and Moab at the end of the Persian period when the Nabataeans invaded their lands and completed the process of The ‘confusion of the nations’ that Sennacherib began.

With greetings, Yafo”r

Regarding the contrast between Zephaniah's words about the ‘worldly exile’ and Jeremiah's words about the return of their captivity – it is possible that the sages understood that Jeremiah's later words foreshadowed the softening of the divine decree due to the improvement of their deeds. The commentators probably dealt with this issue.

I noticed that Jeremiah's prophecy about Edom opens with content identical to Obadiah's prophecy, to which the prophet adds additional content. It is possible that the prophecy in the same chapter about Mammon also predates Jeremiah's time, and was included in his book due to his innovation ‘and later I will answer’, and needs clarification.

A. The question of exile did not go unsolved by your beautiful assumptions that still leave exiles
B. The more we minimize the part that happened during the days of Sennacherib, the less likely it is that the Sages really prepared for these theories
C. The Sages assumed that Sennacherib came and confused the nations even where they have no information about it. This assumption must be considered in light of the updated theories
D. If Sennacherib brought only a minority of exiles, then even after assimilation it will be forbidden to marry the mixed race
E. The Sages discussed whether the people known today as Ammonites/Moabites/Egyptians were without any knowledge that they had about their identity as the ancient people and relied on the assumption that they were Jews (and regarding the Egyptians there is a dispute about the conditions whether they returned or not)

In detail according to Shatzel, what he says is Does not resolve the issues (A’ B’)B’ In order to resolve D’ (or the verse in Nehemiah) he added the Nabateans, an incorrect assumption as I wrote in B’

Additional notes
A. On Friday, Shetzel wrote
He exiled a large part of the people but left many members of the tribes of the Kingdom of Israel in the land, and brought foreign settlers to the land, slaughtering and numbering them. The method was to create in each conquered land a mixture of peoples ‘of one kind with another.’ He apparently used this method even in Ammon. In contrast to the Kingdom of Israel – in the Kingdom of Ammon, an autonomous Ammonite ‘king’ remained, but he was an Assyrian ‘vassal’, but the population over which the ‘king’ ruled was a ‘mass of flesh’, only some of which were authentic Ammonites, and a large part were from foreign nations.
Today he wrote (after explaining that the exile was not always complete)
According to this, I suggested in B’Sh that Sennacherib left the kingdoms of Ammon and Moab in place, but took some of the elites into exile, and settled ‘settlers’ from foreign lands in them who confused the ethnic ‘purity’ of Ammon and Moab. The severe blow to their ‘ethnic purity’ was dealt by Ammon and Moab at the end of the Persian period when the Nabataeans invaded their lands and completed the process of ‘confusion of the nations’ that Sennacherib had begun.
Isn’t it terrible that a person is always allowed to change his mind?
B. In Nehemiah it is written
A On that day the book of Moses was read in the ears of the people; and it was found written therein, that Ammon and Moab should never enter the congregation of God. Because they had not met the children of Israel with bread and water; and he hired Balaam against them to curse them, and our God turned the curse into a blessing.
Nehemiah 13
But it can be argued that although at that time Ammon was already in the possession of the True Ammonites were those who had a detailed genealogy (maybe?? Blessed is the believer)
C. The question about Sennacherib is found in Rashid Yadim and in Tos’ Yevamot

In the eighth day of the eighth month of the ninth Ammon and Moab were not exiled by Sennacherib, but he destroyed some of them, as it is written in Isaiah: “In three years, like two hired men, the glory of Moab is taken away, and the remnant is a little, not a great one.” So some of them remained who were not exiled at all, and it is said in the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar, “Moab from his youth and in exile did not go,” except that Sennacherib brought others and settled them in those places that he destroyed, as he did throughout the world. Therefore, any foreigner who comes from the land of the Ammonites is permitted to come in a group, and most of them are from those nations, and any who have separated from the majority of the separated. And some of them have remained in their place ever since, even after Nebuchadnezzar.

We conclude that there are two prophecies about the exile of Moab:

A prophecy from the time of Isaiah, for which a time of ‘three years is allotted’ as two hirelings’ in which it is said that he will remain in Moab ‘a little, but not a great deal’ [in response to the many exiles, Sennacherib, according to the Ramban, brought in foreign settlers who made the Moabites a minority in their land).

And the second coming of Jeremiah, about another exile of Moab (which perhaps took place in the Persian and Hellenistic period, with the Nabatean invasion, in which Ammon and Moab lost their political independence and religious and cultural identity. So in the days of the Tannaim it seems clear that the “dripping on the mud” abounded, and therefore most of the Tannaim believed that the Ammonites and Moabites in their lands were not authentic.

With blessings, may the Tannaim be blessed

The Tannaim’s knowledge that “Ammon and Moab” in it could have existed under the conditions of the Persian and Hellenistic empires, in which the world had become a “global village.” This is what really happened with their Jewish neighbors, who from a few tens of thousands at the beginning of the “Return to Zion” numbered hundreds of thousands or more at the end of the Temple period.

But That among the Jews there were wise prophets, scribes, and members of the Great Knesset, who led the people to continue to see their land as the religious center and not to assimilate into the culture of their neighbors. Among the Moabites and Moabites, it is very difficult to assume the existence of a ‘repatriation’ on these dimensions.

The people of the Great Knesset established a testimony in every place, for which the Torah and the words of the prophets, and the prayers for redemption were the center of their lives. They made sure to make a pilgrimage three times a year, and thus Zion continued to be the spiritual and religious center. And from religious consciousness to actual ascension – the road is short, and therefore, although most of the people still remained in exile – there was a constant and impressive growth in the Jewish settlement during the Second Temple period, until the destruction and suppression of the Bar-Kochba revolt came, which diminished the Jewish settlement in its land

In the book of Proverbs 22:2, Jeremiah 22:2,

Leva Yi – Shalom Rav,

A study of Jeremiah 22 in its original form teaches us that the ’men of the elders of the land’ who counseled on behalf of Jeremiah, compared his ‘harsh words, ‘as if this house were his, and this city would be desolate without inhabitant’ to the harsh words of the legendary Micah: ‘Zion will be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem will become a desolation, and the mountain of the temple will become a forest high place’, Jeremiah, like Micah, prophesies total destruction, and it is our duty to act like Hezekiah, whose response to Micah's harsh prophecy was to ’fear the Lord; and seek the face of the Lord’ And the Lord comforted the mountain of which He spoke;

Surely Rabbi Akiva knew that Uriah the priest and Zechariah the son of Ivarchihu, whom he signed the sale of the field, were not Uriah the son of Shemaiah, who was murdered in the days of Jehoiakim, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, the prophet who was not yet born. But Rabbi Akiva says that Jeremiah did not choose witnesses named Uriah and Zechariah for no reason for the sale transaction, which was intended to make it clear to the people that the exile was temporary, and that eventually we would return to the land. The two witnesses to the sale allude by their names to the two prophets: Uriah the ancient and Zechariah the future. To teach them that the two opposite sides – the terrible destruction and the restoration – are two sides of the same coin. There is a long-term process: the severe destruction – is what paves the way for repentance that leads to restoration and healing.

Rabbi Akiva foresaw the latter back in Genesis. In our generation there are many who have also experienced the horrors of the Holocaust and the horrors of war, but have also seen with their own eyes the rebuilt Jerusalem where very old people sit, alongside children and girls playing in its streets.

With blessings, Amioz Yaron Schnitzel”R

We will leave Nehemiah 13 – for tomorrow

The fact that the Ramban has already written that there is no contradiction between the verse Sha'anan Moab etc. to the exile or destruction of the previous ones does not reduce the question, however, on the appearance of the new place

Continued from yesterday, the excuse of the Tosafot (Yevamot Av 2) and Hersh is that in fact Nebuchadnezzar exiled Ammon and named it after Sennacherib

Shatzel I noticed that you have a habit of ignoring claims that were made that do not fit with your excuses and in this case the entire connection of Rabbi Akiva's words was based on the Temple Mount to the forest platforms

Leva”y – Shalom rav,

Regarding your distinction between Jeremiah's prophecy and Micah's prophecy, I replied that the elders defending Jeremiah tell the king that Micah had already prophesied such a prophecy. Both ‘this house will fall’ and ‘the Temple Mount will become a forest plateau’ have the same meaning: total destruction. This is the nature of a devastated place that becomes a dwelling place for wild animals.

Rabbi Akiva and his fellow Tannaim are well-versed in both direct and indirect readings (and in their time even the common man who, from the age of five to ten, memorized the 24 books of the Bible from morning to night ” mastered the Bible, as the Tannaim for whom the grammar of the readings was the basis for their halachic and religious conclusions), when Rabbi Akiva speaks of the prophecy of Urijah ‘and the Temple Mount to the high places of the forest” (a phrase he preferred because of the fox) – it is clear to everyone that this is a prophecy of Micah, identical in content to the prophecy of Urijah.

Only in an atmosphere of total familiarity with the Scriptures can one instantly evoke the complex associative process that binds the fox in the ’forest heights’, and from there to ’Uriah the priest and Zechariah the son of Ibarakiyeh’, witnesses of Jeremiah's deed of purchase, and from there to ’Zechariah the son of Iddo’, the prophet of consolation.

On the one hand, this seems like a ‘Chassidic wart’ a restraining order, and on the other hand, there is a descent here into the depths of Jeremiah's purchase of the field just before the destruction, in order to express that at the moment of destruction – the seeds of redemption are already sprouting, and the prophecies of destruction and consolation, ‘in one word were spoken’.

If you are privileged to read the Bible and the words of the sages as a source of beliefs, opinions and values, you will also understand the secrets of style and literary design, that complementary contrasts, associations and wordplay are the building blocks of the artistic building. Not ‘mistakes’

With best wishes, Hanoch Hanach Palti-Peinschmacher

The Ramban showed that already during the Assyrian period, most of the Moabites were exiled from their land, for Isaiah prophesies that within three years, “the glory of Moab will be taken away, and the rest will be reduced to a very small amount.”

With blessings, Yaron Fishel Ordner

In the 2nd chapter of the book of the Bible,

Leva Yi, Shalom Rabbi,

To your question, why did the reading of the prohibition against “Samoan and Moabite” lead to separation from marriage with them after the authentic Moabites and Ammonites had already been abolished in the majority?

Rabbi Sherlow’s answer (Samoan and Moabite, Kippa website) to a similar question is beautiful: why did Nehemiah struggle with marriage to Ammonites and Moabites, since the halakhah had already been established: “Samoan and not Ammonite, Moabite and not Moabite”?

And Rabbi Sherlow replied:

Nehemiah does not wage the war against the backdrop of Torah commandments and Ammonite and Moabite prohibitions. Nehemiah waged the struggle against the backdrop of the fact that this was about assimilation. It is possible that formally there is no prohibition, and even more so – It is possible that there was a formal conversion (just as Maimonides explained the story of Solomon's wives).

However, these women brought their foreign culture to the Israeli nation to infiltrate this culture into the Jewish people. Hence the great struggle. The fact that the children grow up as half-Gentiles, and this is expressed in their language – only indicates that Nehemiah's struggle is justified.

I teach you that the fact that they meet halakhic criteria – is not enough, from the point of view of prophecy. The coming examines things from the inside “and the’will see to the heart”, and it determines that despite the fact that this process may have been according to halakhic – it was a process of assimilation. This is how it must be judged, and therefore Nehemiah led the struggle against it.

This is how the conviction to be different can be explained From the Ammonites and Moabites. Halachically, the prohibition does not apply because these are not genetic ‘Ammonites and Moabites’. However, the psychological trait of cruelty and alienation is deeply embedded in the Ammonite-Moabite culture, and the new Ammonite-Moabites have also accelerated this negative character trait.

With blessings, Eliam Fishel Werkheimer

And thus we understand the intention of Chazal in the scroll that the sages of Israel suggested to Ahasuerus to refer the trial of Vashti to the Moabites who have been complacent since their youth. After all, the trial of Vashti exists in Shushan, but the spirit of the judges is truly the spirit of ’complacency’, the alienated indifference devoid of compassion – that characterized the culture Ammonite-Moabite.

Even the identification of ‘Memucan is Haman’, is interpreted by the Mahar’l of the New Light’ not as an identification as heard, since the Gem’ says that Ahasuerus killed the judges who advised him to remove Vashti. The identification is in the working method. Both Memucan and Haman take personal, instinctive anger and turn it into a ‘world-correcting ideology’.

It is not honorable to punish Vashti/Mordechai just like that because she does not respect you. One must find here an ideological threat to the order of government or the family in the entire empire. The woman/people who refuse threaten all the order of society and the state. No less 🙂

A. Regarding the words of the Ramban, the fact that there is another contradiction does not prove that the first one is not difficult (on the contrary, according to Tana and Sheyer?) In particular, it is always possible to invent settlements (according to Tzur).
In the place where you quoted the words of the Rabbi, to which they do not belong,
I do not think it is necessary to add more than the following verses:
On that day, the book of Moses was read in the hearing of the people; and it was found written therein, that my people and my Moab shall not enter the assembly of God, forever. 2 For they did not meet the children of Israel with bread and water; and he hired Balaam against him to curse him, and our God turned the curse into a blessing. 3 And it came to pass, when they heard the law, that they separated every Arab from Israel.
Nehemiah 13
To the substance of his words I will perhaps relate later.

Oops, mistake
The proof of Shatzel named Harban was that if it is already written in Isaiah that Moab was exiled, then there is no contradiction between Shaanan Moab and Hazal's assumption about Sennacherib who confused all the nations
And what I wrote in the previous message was a mistake