Language

נמצאו 9 תוצאות חיפוש

1. Mizmor 1

   Rabbi Avi Baumol

   Mizmor 1 addresses the average person’s challenge of facing the evils of the world. The anti-dote to temptation presented in the Psalm is the desire to keep God’s commandments in the Torah. The humanity of King David is addressed. 

2. Linguistic Mirroring

   A Harmonious Story, Part I

   Dr. Yael Ziegler

   The structure of Ruth is a chiastic one. Repetition of key words and phrases is one of many linguistic techniques used. Boaz and Ruth's shared trait of kindness stages them as the main characters. Ruth as the initiator and Boaz completing the task come together to create the Davidic dynasty.

3. Duplication and Contradiction

   Part 3 - Historical Claims of Documentary Hypothesis and Linguistic Layers of the Tanakh

   Rabbi Amnon Bazak

   Another argument that is central to Wellhausen's approach, and which was contested by many in the previous generation is the dating of the Priestly source to the Second Temple Period.

   In terms of subject matter, it is difficult to understand why the Priestly source, which includes major sections of Shemot and Bamidbar and almost all of Vayikra, would include laws that have no connection with the Second Temple Period.

   In light of archaeological finds from the ancient Near East, it became clear that phenomena such as a multitude of ceremonies and sacrifices existed even hundreds of years prior to Israel's entry into the land.

   In general, the study of the development of biblical Hebrew provides a very strong indication that the Chumash predates not only the later Books of Tanakh, but also the Books of the Prophets. This is shown most strongly when we contrast the language of the Chumash with the Books of the Prophets where, despite the general similarity between them, we find a number of motifs that appear exclusively in one but not the other.

   The absence of common expressions from the Torah, found in the Books of the Prophets and variant spellings of the same words would suggest that the Torah’s Hebrew is a more ancient stage of the language than that which is found in the Books of the Prophets. Had some parts of the Torah been written from the period of the monarchy onwards, there would be no reason for these discrepancies.

4. The Letter Lamed and Akeidat Yitzhak

   Dr. Avigail Rock

5. Rabbi Yona ibn Janach

   Dr. Avigail Rock

   Although R. Yona ibn Janach (Ribag) did not author even one full volume dedicated to biblical commentary, his contributions to parshanut have proven momentous.  For Ribag, biblical exegesis represented both the most fundamental basis and the ultimate application of the study of Hebrew language and grammar. His grammatical innovations lay the foundation for biblical exegetes who came after him, thus he should be viewed as an important exegete who influenced parshanut both in his time and in the following generations. He wrote Sefer Harikma and Sefer Hashorashim.

   Ribag had three distinct impetuses for writing Sefer Harikma:

   • Basic understanding of the Hebrew language is an urgent concern.
   • Understanding language is the basis of all knowledge.
   • One cannot understand the Torah without understanding its language.

    

   Some of the grammatical topics that Ribag discusses include:

   • The Lamed of Substitution
   • Derekh Ketzara – various abbreviations used in biblical Hebrew
   • Synecdoche – a type of metonymy in which a general term is used in place of the specific one
   • Syntactic Inversion
   • Roots of Hebrew Words

6. R. Avraham ibn Ezra

   Part 2

   Dr. Avigail Rock

   Ibn Ezra describes his commentary as “the book of the straight,” - a reference to following the way of peshat. Ibn Ezra explains the work as a commentary based on the fundamentals of grammar, language, and stylistic sensitivity and conforming to the requirements of logic and reason.

   Ibn Ezra declares that he is not obligated to previous commentaries, referring both to Midrashic sources and the commentaries of his predecessors.  However, in his commentaries to the halakhic part of the Torah, Ibn Ezra sees himself as bound to the Sages’ exegesis.

   Similarly, Ibn Ezra distinguishes between two types of Midrashic sources: tradition and speculation.  The Ibn Ezra feels compelled to accept a tradition but not an interpretation that they concocted of their own accord.

    

   Ibn Ezra formulates a consistent set of linguistic and grammatical rules in his commentary:

   • The formulation of rules which are adequate for all circumstances. For example he explains the word "Na" as always meaning "now".
   • The meaninglessness of trivial changes; the verse uses synonyms frequently, and there need be no justification for interchanging them. Similarly, there is no reason necessary for variations in spelling. This is applied to differences between the Ten Commandments in Shemot vs. Devarim.
   • The verse will often use a word to refer to multiple items, even though it appears in the text only once.
   • The Torah is written generally according to chronological sequence. Despite this, sometimes there are some divergences from chronological sequence.
   • The juxtaposition of the passages in the halakhic sections of the Torah is significant, not a capricious sequence of laws.

7. What -and Why - are the "Kesamim" sent by Balak to Bilam?

   Rabbi David Silverberg

8. Parashat Noah: Spiritual “Disguised Unemployment”

   Rabbanit Dr. Michal Tikochinsky

9. Sins of the Tongue

   Rabbanit Dr. Michal Tikochinsky