tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11850330.post115847367361631954..comments2023-08-03T04:54:54.068-04:00Comments on Abacaxi Mamão: Nitzavim - some questionsAbacaxi Mamaohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06604184268628243496noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11850330.post-1158551427818893702006-09-17T23:50:00.000-04:002006-09-17T23:50:00.000-04:00For the curious reader, Rashi's explanation of the...For the curious reader, Rashi's explanation of the dots over "lanu u'livaneinu" is that from the verse, it seems that the hidden things are for God, and the revealed things are for us, meaning that we could be punished for violating the revealed things. The dots, Rashi says, teach us that the Israelites weren't liable for violating the revealed things until they crossed the Jordan River, and accepted upon themselves the oath on Mt. Grizim and Mt. Aival, and were made responsible (areivim) one for the other.<BR/><BR/>Okay. I'm not sure how the dots teach that, but Rashi does say that they are "lidrosh," which may imply a not-quite-pshat reading (in case you couldn't tell by the content of what he says).<BR/><BR/>I heard some sort of drash (sorry I don't remember from whom) at some point about the Israelites accepting the Torah twice--once at Mt. Sinai and once in Persia, after the Purim story happened, when it says "kimu v'kiblu" in the Megillah. This Rashi would seem to imply that there was a third acceptance (or second acceptance, really), which happened after they crossed the Jordan. Interesting things to think about. I sort of feel, post-Enlightenment, at least in modern society, that each individual accepts the Torah and observance upon him or herself, because previous acceptances of it by ancient Israelites seem less relevant, somehow. It's as if we have the choice all over again, and we can each say "na'aseh v'nishma" or ditch it.Abacaxi Mamaohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06604184268628243496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11850330.post-1158516693496231592006-09-17T14:11:00.000-04:002006-09-17T14:11:00.000-04:001) RBF made your first point the subject of his dr...1) RBF made your first point the subject of his drasha. One of the answers: "the souls were present, but the bodies were not." An answer I like more is that the verse is talking about courts - i.e. the decisions/decisors which/who are here today, and the ones which/who are not, implying the continual Rabbinic authority down through the generations to reinterpret the text.<BR/><BR/>2) one explanation for the dots is that when Ezra encountered the three Torah scrolls, they disagreed in 10 places. In those places, he took 2 out of 3, and added the dots to show the doubt present. Another explanation I've heard is that the dots are to emphasise specific kabbalistic teachings, but I don't do much with kabbalah.<BR/><BR/>3) I'm with you: Nitzavim is my favorite Parsha, for exactly the verses you quote.<BR/><BR/>Shana TovaDavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491386537225283381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11850330.post-1158492539491558962006-09-17T07:28:00.000-04:002006-09-17T07:28:00.000-04:00Dots: Rashi gives the frummest explanation given b...Dots: Rashi gives the frummest explanation given by Rashi. The kefiradikke view is that the dots really belong elsewhere in the verse, in places where one would fear to place dots...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com