Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea

Ask Judea Torah Show 3

(1/3) > >>

judeanoncapta:
Seeing that this past week got fewer questions than last week, I have decided to make the next show a free-for-all.

Ask as many questions as you want whenever you want.

q_q_:
what is a good way to learn hebrew..

biblical hebrew, not ivrit.

I can sound out the words, but understand hardly any of it.


I could read tenach along with a linear translation, but truth is that even the best translations have problems.  I am thinking maybe I should accept those problems then fix them up with a concordance, after going through it all.

How many roots are there in hebrew? Is the way to learn it, to study all the roots?

The etymological dictionary of biblical hebrew seems to have all the roots, but is 300 pages long. And is a dictionary.  Reading a dictionary seems crazy. But if just the roots cover 300 pages.. Maybe it would take even longer with tenach with linear translation, that will have all variations of each root.

what are your thoughts? any suggestions?



 
 

q_q_:
This is a question about muhleetzah/melisa.

sorry is so long.. I hope it isn`t too long. But it actually is not really subquestions. Just elaboration of the one question .  Since most people have not heard of this word melisa at all. And it has HUGE implications.

Speaking to "the maimonidean", he said that the noachide laws only apply in jewish sovereignty (presumably when we have a king). He provided no evidence of that at all.

But then I realised that perhaps he doesn`t even think they were given to Noah.. It turns out I was right.   I thought about his reasoning..

I was thinking, what is the basis for the idea that 7 laws were given to adam and noah?

first - the name, noachide laws. sheva mitzvot bnei Noah.

second-    the drash on Gen 2:16 where Adam is given a command by G-d.  The drash says that each word of that command refers to each of the noachide laws, making all 7.

People nowadays tend to take drash literally, and say that implies that they were given at that time. But according to this maimonidean, it does not imply that at all. 

He calls these biblical references "melitza"/melisa  which he translates as rabbinical rhetoric.
The term does appear in the Jastrow dictionary.

This is also his argument about the 3 oaths, by the way. That it is melisa.  And so he says no problem going en masse to israel. or I suppose, of rising up against the nations if they over persecute us.. e.t.c.

Do you have any idea what this word "melisa" is all about. And what do you think of his conclusion, or lack of one, concerning the noachide laws ?

The word muhleetza certainly exists and is known! (since it is in the jastrow dictionary)..

The article anti maimonidean demons by jose faur  (which is pro maimonidean) says that anti maimonideans have no concept of melisa. This maimonidean has often said that maimonideans lost, and Nachmonides and Co prevailed..  Most jews nowadays accept kabbalah.

And it seems, are not familiar with the term melisa.

What do you think? What is melisa?!

note- 2 useful pages on noachide laws (you would be familiar with info in these links already. nothing about melisa. just classic stuff)
http://www.geocities.com/rachav/seven_laws_in_genesis.html   (biblical sources)
http://www.geocities.com/rachav/oadnl.html  (talmudic source, with the drash)

Dominater96:
What do you believe to be the perfect type of Tzitzit ? Techelet, which type of techelet, type of material, type of tieing, etc. everything about the tzitzit.

q_q_:
In the previous show, you referred to discussion can israel appoint a King.  You answered that.  And certainly, I guess that if it can appoint a King, then Israel is a malchut.

A problem there is that we need a sanhedrin/court of 71 rabbis.  A psychological criticism of the current sanhedrin.. is that they call themselves "nascent" sanhedrin.  How can a sanhedrin that calls itself that, be considered a sanhedrin. They themselves would not consider themselves strong enough to appoint a King. So, since we have only a self-declared nascent sanhedrin too weak to appoint a king, we still cannot appoint a King.   

And what is to stop 71 mad rabbis in cherem from appointing a Sanhedrin, with shmuley boteach as leader. And then having HUGE authority.   Surely if they are rejected, or unknown, to the majourity of orthodox jews, they cannot even be considered a sanhedrin.

So we still cannot appoint a king in our times.  (if you argue - as 99.99% or 100% of scholars would, that we need a sanhedrin)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page