@HodofHod Oh, I see. Thanks! That's an old question; what led you to it tonight?
G'night all. I don't know if I'll be able to make the parsha chat tomorrow -- hope so! If not, I'll catch the transcript later -- not the same, of course, but better than nothing.
MESSAGE TO THE PARASHA CHAT ROOM: I will not be able to be at the chat room. If anyone can take my place as the Rabenu Bahya commentary handler it would be appreciated.
@IsaacMoses Okay, here's one: e-daf.com/index.asp?ID=1363&size=1: Rav Yitzchak said, "Rabi Yochanan said, 'Yaakov avinu did not die'". Rav Nachman said, "Did the eulogizers (?) eulogize him, and the embalmers embalm him, and the buriers (?) bury him, all for nothing?". He replied, "I'm doresh a pasuk, 'fear not my servant Jacob... your offspring...': it compares him to his offspring: just as they're alive, so is he".
@msh210 Okay, you're doresh a pasuk. That doesn't answer Rav Nachman's objection!
@msh210 Per that sicha that @ShmuelBrill found, that's just it: from their POV he was indeed dead, and needed to be embalmed and buried; that has validity according to Torah too. But on a higher level - the one represented in the verse that R. Yitzchak cites - he is indeed still alive.
@IsaacMoses The expression there is "his true being (which applies also to his bodily existence)." So primarily it seems to apply on a spiritual level, but it also is true in a certain sense bodily (the Rebbe used to also mention in this connection the story in Kesubos, where R. Yehudah Hanassi would come and recite kiddush for his family after his death).
So maybe Yaakov is like Schroedinger's cat: both alive and not-alive at the same time!
@msh210 ,Okay. According to Abarbanel, R' Yochanan is saying that the name "yaakov" (and "yisrael") never died, since it lives on in that his descendants are called by his name. In this, he is explaining why the Torah never actually says "Yaakov died" like it says by the other Avos; since we are not called by the name of Avraham or Yitzchak, but rather by Yaakov's name.
@IsaacMoses It was alive only on a level which they couldn't perceive and therefore was irrelevant to them. Same way as halachah deals with what we perceive with our senses, even if scientifically it's inaccurate (as with microscopic bugs, etc.)
@IsaacMoses R' Hirsch employs that concept to explain why only a minyan can say, e.g. in Barechu - "May H' the Blessed be blessed for ever and ever" An individual can't guarantee that people will keep blessing God "forever," but a community (represented by the minyan) can.
@msh210 , First, you might be interested to know that when Abarbanel quotes the gemara, he leaves out the word "avinu". But even still, I think you misunderstood. The idea is not that the nation lives on, but that Yaakov lives on through having his descendants called by his name.
@jake So the nation somehow embodies Yaakov? Or it's just strictly talking about the name? I think we have to be talking about the nation here, since there are plenty of individuals named Avraham and Yitzchak.
@jake That actually would make sense even if he did have the word "avinu" in his text. Calling him "Yaakov Avinu" rather than plain "Yaakov" itself implies that we're looking at him more as our forefather than as an individual.
@IsaacMoses ... and the fact that the nation is named for him is either the mechanism by which he lives on through it or a representation of the embodiment.
@msh210 Well, it is only a "yesh omrim" in the Gemara - and anyway, they still have to deal with the fact that the Torah actually says "vayamas sham Moshe," unlike with Yaakov
He answers that the difference between Moshe (and Yaakov) to other Tzaddikim (about whom it says "they are found in all the worlds") is that Moshe (and Yaakov) represent "truth". Therefore (unlike other Tzaddikim), they continue affecting the physical world in a physical way.
Found it: Rashbam to that verse. (He also mentions the burning bush, where it starts by saying that Moshe saw "malach Hashem" and then continues with him talking directly with Hashem.)
@jake That itself is a whole discussion among the posekim, about tefillos where we address malachim, or Hashem's middos, or whatever (there've been a couple of J.SE discussions on this)
I see where Malbim actually breaks up the verse into two parts, with "hamalach hagoel osi" joined with the previous verse - Hashem has two ways of taking care of us, supernatural and natural - and then "yevarech" begins a new thought: may Hashem bless them by providing them both kinds of care.
@joshwaxman (To reply to a messsage, hover over the right edge of the message, and click on the arrow you find there. It helps people keep track of mi amar el mi.)
So we have at least three meanings of the verb: to pray on behalf of; whatever it means in "baruch ata H'", and whatever it means when it says God "barech"ed someone
@jake So whoever-it-was's question, above, "what does it mean for the angel to be praying to God?", might (conjecture) be based on a mistranslation... maybe whatever y'varech es han'arim means "should benefit the kids" (or whatever it means when we say God "baruch"s someone).
Do we ever see either immediately or later in history that the tribes whose blessings here included a good deal of criticism (Reuven, Shimon and Levi) resented that or otherwise reacted?
@IsaacMoses Someone (I don't know who) says that Reuven's impetuousness that Yaakov criticized also led to his jumping ahead to take a portion in Transjordan (which the Midrash criticizes as "nachalah mevuheles")
@msh210 Probably, but it might also be seen as something of a reaction: well, if I'm characterized as impetuous, I might as well continue along that path...
@Alex The former explanation seems more fitting to me, given that these blessings were prophetic characterizations of the essential natures of the tribes
I don't get another concept. It says that Levi didn't carry Yaakov's coffin, as he would later carry the Aron. Then it also says that (one of the reasons) Levi wasn't enslaved was because Paaroh felt they were "special" as they were permitted not to carry the coffin. Because they weren't enslaved, they were the spiritual leaders of Bnei Yisrael in exile. If so, they had a stronger ability to withstand the pressure by the Eigel. Therefore, they became Hashem's servants, and carried the Aron.
@jake language develops organically, over time. So malach means messenger. Then, it was often used to refer to messenger of Hashem (either angel or, according to Ralbag, prophet). And from messenger of Hashem, a power on high. And so, from there, any celestial force. And thus, Hashem. Here, by the way, is what we find in the Living Torah, from R' Aryeh Kaplan:
http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=1&CHAPTER=48 "sending an angel (Saadia Gaon; Shmuel ben Chofni Gaon). Or, 'The angel who delivered me...' (Rashi; Abarbanel). Some say that the 'Angel' denotes God's providence (Shmuel ben Chofni Gaon; Ralbag; HaKethav VeHaKabbalah)." Thus, according to Shmuel ben Chofni Gaon; Ralbag; HaKethav VeHaKabbalah, it means Angel with a capital A.
@IsaacMoses right, because people were speaking Hebrew (or proto-Canaanite) for quite a while before. Sort of like how nefesh initially meant neck (see Akkadian; and see azay avar al nafsheinu hamayim hazeidonim) and then developed from there to life and life force, and from there to soul.
@ShmuelBrill They still had bechira, though. They had a leg up on everyone else, true, but they could have chosen to either (a) use their exemption from hard labor to laze around rather than studying Torah, or (b) get swept up like everyone else in the Eigel hysteria. (Knowledge of Torah doesn't necessarily prevent a person from being involved in avodah zarah, after all; see Yeravam and Menashe.) That they didn't made them worthy of getting what was destined for them all along.
@joshwaxman Interesting idea! That's somewhere on your blog, or where?
@Alex I don't recall if I've ever posted it. But nefesh as 'neck' is well known. The 'azay avar al nafshenu' and other such pesukim are obvious enough that most likely someone has said it. And perhaps we can add a support to shechita as being from the neck, as a sort of derasha from the related pesukim.
@jake ki hashbea hishbia? I mean, the Tora doesn't say Moshe took his wineflask out of Mitzrayim, either, but doubtless he did. The Tora lists what we need to know.
There's also someplace (maybe Sefer Hayashar) that actually lists where each of them was buried - each one is somewhere in his respective tribal territory - but I don't recall the details.
@msh210 I think some mefarshim say that he was granted the land surrounding the area of Yehudah where his cities were assigned (in other words, that it was one contiguous territory, just as an enclave within Yehudah).
@Neal It's still set right with my domain registrar, but I see that it doesn't work. Maybe SE did something to prevent such a redirect into a chat room?
I seem to lose connection a some point whenever I participate in the chat. Anyways, thanks to all!
@msh210 I was saying that the Torah feels it needs to tell us that he brought out Yosef's body, but not about the rest. Also, if I recall from by Abarbanel-browsing last year, he believes the other brothers were all left buried in Egypt; not taken out at all.
@msh210 thanks for asking a great question! (as I think about it, though, I'm surprised I didn't upvote it when I first answered it. Maybe I had run out of upvotes for the day, that happens sometimes.
@IsaacMoses yes, actually :). Also, I like making people happy, that's why I give special attention to badge-eligible posts.
@IsaacMoses, although, even though I'm going for the electorate badge, I won't upvote a question that lacks quality. I wouldn't sacrifice my integrity or the quality of this site, useless digital baubles notwithstanding. :-D
@IsaacMoses It's awarded to someone with 25% of his votes on questions. What if he gets the badge and then upvotes some answers: does he lose the badge?
@msh210 I'll bet that question's on MSO somewhere.
... I suspect that badges are awarded due to ~instantaneous conditions and not revoked.
Actually, I strongly suspect that, because I've seen examples of Nice Question/Answer where the votes to explain it aren't there, presumably due to the anti-fraud bot erasing them.
What are badges?
Badges are a way of recognizing users who contribute to the website. There are many ways to contribute, and consequently, there are many badges.
There are three levels of badge ranking. Bronze badges are relatively easy to get, and often help teach users how to use the system...
The part of the above that's relevant to my question is also in:
No, badges are never taken away. That's part of the site's design.
However, if you no longer meet the criteria for a badge (say your "great question" got busted back down to 99 votes), then you won't earn another one of those badges until you "catch up."
This week's topic challenge is Ikkarei Emunah: Fundamentals of Belief. You're encouraged to think of and post good questions on this topic.
What is it?
There's a single topic that people think about during the week and come up with good questions on. The topic is set each Wednesday or so.
What...
No, badges are never taken away. That's part of the site's design.
However, if you no longer meet the criteria for a badge (say your "great question" got busted back down to 99 votes), then you won't earn another one of those badges until you "catch up."
This week's topic challenge is Ikkarei Emunah: Fundamentals of Belief. You're encouraged to think of and post good questions on this topic.
What is it?
There's a single topic that people think about during the week and come up with good questions on. The topic is set each Wednesday or so.
What...
