Questions about Judaism answered by a Jew!

[rebelishaulman]

So, why was it translated? The LXX was created 200 years before Christianity even existed.

At the beginning of the period of the Second Beit Hamikdash, the Second Temple, the people of Israel lived under Persian dominion. After the fall of the Persian Empire, Greece inherited her place, and Israel was subjugated to Greece. Ptolemy, one of the Greek Kings who succeeded Alexander (The 'Great') of Macedonia, wanted the Jewish Sages to translate the Torah into Greek.

The way he went about it, however, proved his motives were highly questionable. He did not assemble the Jewish scholars all in one place so that they might consult each other on the translation. In the Talmud it is related:

'King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: 'Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher.' G-d put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did' (Tractate Megillah 9).

Ptolemy found that each translation was exactly the same as the other. Even in places where the Sages intentionally altered the literal translation, the results were still identical;

this constituted an "open miracle" and public sanctification of G-d's Name.

If the interpretations of the Elders had varied widely, it would not blemish either the Torah or its interpreters in Jewish eyes, since we know that the Torah is open to different interpretations. To non-Jews, however, any dispute in interpreting the Torah would cast blemish on the Torah, and on the Torah Scholars who interpret it. G-d in His infinite mercy, allowed all 72 scholars to translate the Torah identically, thereby foiling (touche!) the evil plan of Ptolemy.

Examine additional aspects of this incident: A true miracle of translation.

The day on which the 72 Elders concluded their Greek translation of the Torah, the 8th of Tevet, was a day of sorrow for Israel, despite the clear hand of G-d in the events of the day. Although G-d's Providence on behalf of His people was made manifest that day, and though the matter evoked general wonder in non-Jewish eyes, the day was nevertheless a very tragic day. The sages call it as tragic a day for Israel as the day on which the Golden Calf was made.

In Megilat Ta'anit, the Sages described the event as follows:

On the 8th of Tevet, the Torah was rendered into Greek during the days of King Ptolemy, and darkness descended upon the world for three days.' To what may the matter be likened? To a lion captured and imprisoned. Before his imprisonment, all feared him and fled from his presence. Then, all came to gaze at him and said, 'Where is this one's strength?


Likewise the Torah, as long as the Torah was in Hebrew and was interpreted by the Sages, it evoked reverence, and many feared to cast blemish upon it. Even the non-Jews who desired to study the Torah, had no contact with the Torah until he or she had acquired a knowledge of the Holy tongue and the prescribed ways for understanding the Torah.

Once the Torah was imprisoned in the Greek translation, it was as if the Torah were divested of reverence. Whoever wished to, could now gaze at the Torah. Anyone who wanted to find fault with its logic, could now do so, based on the translation. The Sages, therefore, likened the event of this day, to the day on which the Golden Calf was made. For just as the Golden Calf had no reality, and yet its servants regarded it as having real substance, likewise the translation, devoid of the true substance of Torah, allowed non-Jews to imagine that they already knew the Torah.
LINK

And don't Jews today translate the Tanakh? I know many Jews who do not understand Hebrew, how would they have access to the scriptures without it being translated?

Well that is today, but before the wave of assimilation arose on our people, every Jew who followed the Torah and was not Hellenized knew Hebrew. Now it is nessesary for the translations, but at the same time we really need to make sure they understand how Hebrew is different from english. The best example I can give you is one I read:

If you translate "It was raining cats and dogs outside." in Hebrew. The person reading will translate it to mean that cats and dogs were litterally flying onto the earth. Something will always get lost in translation if you do not read the Tanach in Hebrew.
http://www.ou.org/chagim/roshchodesh/tevet/seventy.htm

 

[Grace Seeker]

Truly very interesting. It seems I have been misinformed these many years.

I thought that it was the Jews themselves who wanted to have a copy of the scriptures in Greek as so many of them were affected by the diaspora into Hellenistic lands. I had heard of the miracle of the translation, but again I thought that this was seen as something glorious and a proof that the Jews looked to, not that the Torah was true (that of course being assumed before hand), but that the translation was accurate. but I see that you understand it to be a travesty. If I read you correctly, you are also saying that it is intentionally inaccurate, that these scholars actually intentionally mis-translated some passages and all ended up doing it the same. Or maybe I misunderstood that part of your comments?


So, the LXX is considered a bad translation? You commented that today Jews are glad to have their scriptures in their native tongues. Would not the LXX have been a good thing then, just as translations are today, even if Ptolemy wanted it for evil purposes. After all, G-d is able to take what one intends for evil and still bring good out of it. I would think that while Ptolemy's intent was evil that what G-d helped the sages to produce was nonetheless still good.

 

[rebelishaulman]

If I read you correctly, you are also saying that it is intentionally inaccurate, that these scholars actually intentionally mis-translated some passages and all ended up doing it the same. Or maybe I misunderstood that part of your comments?

More like interpreting it differently. The Hebrew remained the same, but the original greek translation which many of the Christian Bibles are from today. The sages probably had this in mind when they translated it with different wording such which meant the same thing, like liked and adored but could make a difference from a passage in the Talmud that states if a heathen (pagans at that time) is able to understand the Torah, they will try and critisize it and will disgrace it.

This statement seems pretty accurate with the amount of people who hate and critisize the Tanakh/Bible today and make ignorant claims of contradiction.

So, the LXX is considered a bad translation? You commented that today Jews are glad to have their scriptures in their native tongues. Would not the LXX have been a good thing then, just as translations are today, even if Ptolemy wanted it for evil purposes. After all, G-d is able to take what one intends for evil and still bring good out of it. I would think that while Ptolemy's intent was evil that what G-d helped the sages to produce was nonetheless still good.

The translation other than some points are fine. The english translations have been corrected but some Christian Bibles still have errors from the translation, and the majority of languages do not have the proper word for about 99% of each word in the Bible. It is like another reality language wise.

 

[ManchesterFolk]

Do you believe God has emotions?

 

[rebelishaulman]

Do you believe God has emotions?

Hashem has no emotions.

When we say Hashem gets "angry" or Hashem "loves" it is not meant literally. It means that Hashem acts in such a way that it feels to us like He is angry or emotionally happy.

Kind of like when you say about your computer that "it doesn’t like this software" - you don’t mean the computer has emotion; you mean that the computer acted in a way that makes you feel as if it didn’t like the software.

So too when we say Hashem likes or doesn’t like something, we do not mean it literally - we only mean that Hashem acts in a way that feels to us as if He liked or disliked something.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Hashem has no emotions.

When we say Hashem gets "angry" or Hashem "loves" it is not meant literally. It means that Hashem acts in such a way that it feels to us like He is angry or emotionally happy.

Kind of like when you say about your computer that "it doesn’t like this software" - you don’t mean the computer has emotion; you mean that the computer acted in a way that makes you feel as if it didn’t like the software.

So too when we say Hashem likes or doesn’t like something, we do not mean it literally - we only mean that Hashem acts in a way that feels to us as if He liked or disliked something.

Does this mean that in addition to not accepting the source of the comment, that when Christians say "G-d is love", that Jews do not even agree with the concept as even being something which can be attributed to G-d?

 

[rebelishaulman]

Does this mean that in addition to not accepting the source of the comment, that when Christians say "G-d is love", that Jews do not even agree with the concept as even being something which can be attributed to G-d?

The best answer would be: When we use the verb "loves" in reference to G-d we dont mean literal love. G-d has no emotions. We mean merely a description of how He treats people, that is, in a way that if we would treat people like that, we would say that we "love" them. it means a status of importance that G-d bestows on people, where He will sometimes even overturn the laws of heaven and earth for them. But it does not invovle emotions.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Before the wave of assimilation arose on our people, every Jew who followed the Torah and was not Hellenized knew Hebrew. Now it is nessesary for the translations, but at the same time we really need to make sure they understand how Hebrew is different from english. The best example I can give you is one I read:

If you translate "It was raining cats and dogs outside." in Hebrew. The person reading will translate it to mean that cats and dogs were litterally flying onto the earth. Something will always get lost in translation if you do not read the Tanach in Hebrew.

I understand the difficulty associated with any translation. I have used the above example myself in other contexts.

The link you provided made reference to another passage on which I would appreciate your commentary:

there are many verses in the Torah which, if translated literally, would be misunderstood by the non-Jews, and would cause them to deride the Torah sanctity. These verses had to be translated in such a way to preserve the intent of the verse rather than the literal translation.

For example, the sages translated "We will make Man" with "I will make Man" so that the non-Jews would not say that there are more than one G-d. Once again, however, all 72 sages translated all of these difficult verses with the same variation.

Now I recognize this as a reference to Genesis 1:26. The version I normally use translates it "Then G-d said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness'." Now, never have I heard the passage interpreted to mean that there is more than one G-d even though it uses plural pronouns in English.

So, I have several questions:
1) What do you think of the translation that I normally use? How would you word it if you were translating it yourself?

2) How do you understand the passage?

3) While you and I would agree that G-d is one, at least based on my reading of Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The L-RD our G-d, the L-RD is one.", what sense do you make of the plural pronouns which occur not only in Genesis 1:26, but again in Genesis 3:22 and 11:7?

4) Are these plural pronouns also present in Hebrew? Are they present in any other passages that I might not be aware of?

 

[rebelishaulman]

The words in that verse would be better described as "we" and "our", however, there is something called the "majestic plural," i.e. a King speaks on behalf of his kingdom in a plural form. An example is Isaiah 6:6, where G-d says among His retinue of angels "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?"

Rashi has a beautiful explanation: G-d is modeling proper conduct to the reader by showing that one should consult inferiors before acting. Only G-d created man, but G-d showed respect to His subordinates.

 

[snakelegs]

snakelegs, for you:

Sanhedrin 44a: R. Abba b. Zabda said: Even though [the people] have sinned, they are still [called] 'Israel'. R. Abba said: Thus people say, A myrtle, though it stands among reeds, is still a myrtle, and it is so called.

thank you! i never knew this - i appreciate your research.

 

[Grace Seeker]

The words in that verse would be better described as "we" and "our", however, there is something called the "majestic plural," i.e. a King speaks on behalf of his kingdom in a plural form. An example is Isaiah 6:6, where G-d says among His retinue of angels "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?"

Rashi has a beautiful explanation: G-d is modeling proper conduct to the reader by showing that one should consult inferiors before acting. Only G-d created man, but G-d showed respect to His subordinates.

I thought of the Isaiah verse too, but thought there that perhaps the "us" refered to the angels who were also present in the throne room with G-d.

So, say a little more about how the "we" and "our" are to be understood in Genesis 1. Does the Royal We fit that context? G-d is creating human kind, so it can't yet be inclusive of humanity -- though I like the idea, just don't see how it fits? Are you saying that G-d is including the rest of creation in his Royal We? "We" (i.e. all of creation) is including in the making of humankind in the image of who? G-d? or the image of creation?

 

[rebelishaulman]

G-d is creating human kind, so it can't yet be inclusive of humanity --

I believe he is refering to the angels. Rashi comments on Genesis 1:26 saying:

1:26. And G-d said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."​

RASHI:
Let us make man From here we learn the humility of the Holy One, blessed be He. Since man was created in the likeness of the angels, and they would envy him, He consulted them. And when He judges kings, He consults with His Heavenly household, for so we find regarding Ahab, that Micah said to him, (I Kings 22:19): “I saw the L-rd seated on His throne, and all the host of heaven were standing by Him, on His right and on His left.” Now do “left” or “right” apply to Him ?! But rather, [the passage means that] these [angels] were standing on the right to defend, and these [angels] were standing on the left to prosecute. Likewise, (Dan. 4:14): “By the decree of the destructive angels is the matter, and by the word of the holy ones is the edict.” Here too, He took counsel with His heavenly household. He said to them, “Among the heavenly beings, there are some in My likeness. If there are none in My likeness among the earthly beings, there will be envy among the creatures of the Creation. ” - [from Tanchuma, Shemoth 18; Gen. Rabbah 8:11, 14:13]

Let us make man Even though they [the angels] did not assist Him in His creation, and there is an opportunity for the heretics to rebel (to misconstrue the plural as a basis for their heresies), Scripture did not hesitate to teach proper conduct and the trait of humility, that a great person should consult with and receive permission from a smaller one. Had it been written: “I shall make man,” we would not have learned that He was speaking with His tribunal, but to Himself. And the refutation to the heretics is written alongside it [i. e., in the following verse:]“And G-d created (וַיִּבְרָא) ,” and it does not say,“and they created וַיִּבְרְאוּ.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 8:9]

 

[Grace Seeker]

Thank-you. I appreciate you expanding the commentary on the verse. I wanted to give you rep points for helping me to better see from your point of view, but I guess I need to spread them around a bit more before I can add any more to you.

 

[rebelishaulman]

I will be gone possibly for a long time. I have toher duties to attend to, and interfaith dialogue on the internet taking time away from Torah study is a bad thing.

Keep this thread open and once and a while I will answer questions so let the questions pile up, I will allow for myself to answer questions a certain time once and a while.

Have a good day.

 

[Hemoo]

that is really a big thread

i can't read all that pages but i wanted to know what is the books of faith that jews use and rely on

and i want to get all of these books in english or arabic can you give me links to that ????

 

[ManchesterFolk]

I'm not Jewish but:

http://www.artscroll.com/Books/fshas.html
http://www.artscroll.com/Categories/stn.html
http://www.artscroll.com/mishnah.html
http://www.artscroll.com/ramban.html
http://www.artscroll.com/sapirsteinrashi.html

 

[Hemoo]

I'm not Jewish but:

thank you Mr. ManchesterFolk for replying ....

 

[Hemoo]

i have another question about jaudiasm

1 - how does they pure their clothes from impurifications like urine and excrement , .... etc ???

2 - does jews make any sort of cleaning before prayer like ablution ???

 

[rebelishaulman]

i have another question about jaudiasm

1 - how does they pure their clothes from impurifications like urine and excrement , .... etc ???

A washing machine would be fine.

2 - does jews make any sort of cleaning before prayer like ablution ???

Yes. Tevilah (immersion) refers to ceremonies of ritual purity performed by religious Jews .

1. Negel vasser ("Nail water"), when getting up in the morning after a full night's sleep, or even after a lengthy nap, there is the custom to wash one's hands ritually by pouring a large cup of water over one's fingers, alternating three times.
2. Netilat yadayim ("Raising [after ritually washing] the hands") which is done prior to eating any bread with a meal. A special blessing is said. This washing is also done, without any blessing, after touching something deemed "impure" (such as one's private parts, leather shoes, or an insect or animal, or after paying a visit to a cemetery).
3. Mayim acharonim ("After-waters") a minor custom of ritually washing off the tips of one's fingers after a meal, symbolising the removal of material impurity.
4. Before blessing of Asher yatzar ("Who created [the man]"). After having gone to the bathroom (and having either urinated or defecated), the ritual washing of one's hands as a symbol of both bodily cleanliness and of removing human impurity - see Netilat yadayim above.
5. Every Kohen present has his hands ritually washed in synagogue by the Levi'im before uttering the unique priestly blessings on Jewish holidays in front of the entire congregation.
6. Immersion in a Mikvah (pool of "living water"), when a married Jewish woman immerses herself a week after her Niddah period concludes following menstruation and she wishes to resume conjugal relations with her husband. This requires special preparation.
7. The ritual of immersing in a Mikvah is required in Orthodox Judaism the day before (eve of) Yom Kippur.
8. The ritual of immersing in a Mikvah is also required when converting to Judaism.
9. During the Passover Seder the participants ritually wash their hands twice as part of the meal. (Once without a blessing in order to eat some vegetables in "purity", and once with a blessing prior to the eating of the matzah - see Netilat yadayim above.)
10. Tahara, ("Purification"), the ritual washing and cleansing, and immersion in a mikvah if possible, of a Jew's body prior to burial.

 

[Hemoo]

again :
1 - how does the strict jews pure their clothes from impurifications like urine and excrement , .... etc before they pray ???

is it enogh for them to use only a wash machine as you said ..