tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.comments2024-03-11T09:35:51.166+02:00Kotzk BlogRabbi Gavin Michalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14410541880380752479noreply@blogger.comBlogger896125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-57656233823974133192024-03-11T09:35:51.166+02:002024-03-11T09:35:51.166+02:00Thanks. I know that this is one of your specialtie...Thanks. I know that this is one of your specialties. Regarding R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov, Yehuda Liebes has surprisingly shown that his writings mirrored R. Heshil Tzoref, and that he (R. M.M.) may have been responsible for bringing Sabbatian ideas into Lithuania. That might also have something to do with 'rejecting' him as a reliable source.Kotzk Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249905502266813412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-1203671036424703632024-03-11T00:42:22.146+02:002024-03-11T00:42:22.146+02:00Interesting. Perhaps partly for those reasons, the...Interesting. Perhaps partly for those reasons, there seems to be some ambivalence in the higher echelons of the yeshiva world for even Gra stories from reputable sources. A reader left a comment to my article "The Vilna Gaon, Aristotle, and The Solar System"(https://darchecha.substack.com/p/the-vilna-gaon-aristotle-and-the) with a source quoting R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach rejecting outright the significance of a Gra story printed by R' Mendel of Shklov.Boruch Clintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03864323537094915871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-27793435472089060452024-02-15T15:11:54.234+02:002024-02-15T15:11:54.234+02:00QEDQEDCohen Yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10390216916461397207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-9304269827822764532024-02-15T06:45:28.053+02:002024-02-15T06:45:28.053+02:00Thank you for your kind words.
Your simple solut...Thank you for your kind words. <br /><br />Your simple solution was already mentioned in the article: <br /><br />"Islam may also have been theologically considered closer to monotheism." <br /><br />But it's not so simple because also noted in the article is: <br /><br />"Maimonides was not operating solely within Muslim society as he would certainly have been aware of the Catholic Reconquista as well."Kotzk Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249905502266813412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-12976709401385770132024-02-14T23:52:18.158+02:002024-02-14T23:52:18.158+02:00Takes an insidious but nonetheless full fledged ko...Takes an insidious but nonetheless full fledged kofer to tap dance around & bend over backwards due to unwillingness to acknowledge the loftiest self-sacrificing principle what Judaism had considered as sheer FUNDAMENTAL without resort to any other explantation.Something so basic ingrained in all of our blood as schoolchildren in the '80s<br />That European Catholicism was idolatry <br />While Islam wasn't/isn't.That Simple.Cohen Yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10390216916461397207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-75696210903157092892024-01-29T21:14:39.633+02:002024-01-29T21:14:39.633+02:00Long time reader, and enjoy your post.
This is n...Long time reader, and enjoy your post. <br /><br />This is not a new topic. I think it is fascinating that you left out, from the Talmud, the hundreds of recipes for various spiritual maladies. The Talmud has a long history of interacting with e.g Shedim and eating weird special plants etc. Many argue that Reuvans' Mandrakes were psychoactive, and that Yakkov consumed them for their fertility enhancing effects. Many of the Ketoret (even if not cannabis), were added to wine and were used as medicinal products; some were psychoactive without a doubt. <br /><br />Which is the central issue. Drugs, used in the colloquial sense as a psychoactive, also have medicinal properties. It has always been so. Parsing them apart is futile. (Just read today that many of the common drugs mentioned above, are unknowingly used as parasite control; toxic to those small parasites that invade). <br /><br />The fact seems to be, that drugs are part of human life, regardless of religion. And they will be with us for the long haul. These plants and fungi you mention, is simply not capable of being regulated, as we have seen in the U.S. and abroad (in fact, many of our evil enemies use the anti-drug laws to finance great atrocities). Which is probably the reason why the Torah and our Talmudic sages, even having extensive knowledge of various plants and botany, fail to truly lay down any principles. This omission is glaring to me. <br /><br />In the end, G-d wants the heart. I believe, that other than the famous evil narcotics (and even that is used in hospitals), using substances to further a healthy psychological life, is commendable. Certainty, if it is used within health boundaries, and used to bring people together in service of G-d's intention, it is useful. Critics are also necessary, to help fence-up proper methods and guard from evil. Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07251167413903018589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-13782928609129878422024-01-29T03:19:47.910+02:002024-01-29T03:19:47.910+02:00This is very interesting. It's like always sea...This is very interesting. It's like always searching for the latest greatest new restaurant to sample fantastic dishes, when a tasty healthy familiar home cooked meal is often the best solution. scubeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709759285754588686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-34882847301253675112023-12-17T20:09:15.920+02:002023-12-17T20:09:15.920+02:00Six years later and I finally get a reply to my qu...Six years later and I finally get a reply to my question in footnote 4. The reference I was looking for is in TB Yoma 9b. I thank Arthur Etrog very much for this source.<br /><br /><br />Kotzk Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249905502266813412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-42951249476770678912023-12-17T03:37:59.900+02:002023-12-17T03:37:59.900+02:00Al pi thr hakdama to the Mishneh Torah and how the...Al pi thr hakdama to the Mishneh Torah and how the Geonim held, the sealing of the Talmud Bavli was sof hora'a. No later pesakim by any Rabbanim regardless of their madrega has the authority to matir or oser and force Jews to obey him. This authority was lost until we restore the Sanhedrin b'mehera v'yamenu. Likewise, the concept of hierarchy despite lack of real smikha and a Sanhedrin is foreign to the Rambam, Rif, and Geonim. Even the Rishinom themselves like Rashi or Ba'ale Tosafot didn't believe in it otherwise they'd never have dared to be cholek those talmide hakhamim who came before them. <br /><br />Regarding Tannaim or Amoraim being wrong about zoology or science etc, they knew only what was available to them through their days zoology, science etc. If you say it's impossible, they had ruach hakodesh! Simply recall even a gadol like Rabbi Akiva was wrong (thinking Bar Kokhba was mashiach) and humbly admitted when he was. <br /><br />Thus, nothing the Pri Chadash wrote is antithetical to Torah Judaism.Dawidh Yoseph Avrahamihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03055147217816076067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-36647842440425614582023-12-12T08:21:26.304+02:002023-12-12T08:21:26.304+02:00It seems that the tens of letters that initially w...It seems that the tens of letters that initially went to the family of Ruzhin, were found to be grammatically and historically blemished. <br /><br />These should serve as 'markers' for and 'samples' of the untouched original style and content of the letters.<br /><br />When the 300-odd letters were later published in haTamim, they appeared more (although not entirely) 'corrected' and 'polished.'<br /><br />If it is factual that both sets of letters were taken from the same stock, this would indicate some form of literary intervention although without editorial notification.Kotzk Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249905502266813412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-21274639646385038302023-12-12T08:03:05.682+02:002023-12-12T08:03:05.682+02:00Thank you. Indeed, The claim that R. Chaim Lieberm...Thank you. Indeed, The claim that R. Chaim Lieberman knew the forger, appears in an article in Yeshurun by R. Eliezer Katzman. See here: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49193&st=&pgnum=571&hilite=. See also footnote #10 which quotes R. Lieberman as saying (in Yiddish) "that when he (i.e. the forger) saw that they were paying good money, he 'discovered' and wrote more and more." See also the comment here: https://www.ivelt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7646&start=50 in the name of R. Chaim Lieberman that the forger had to marry off a daughter. See also ספר הזכרון לרבי משה ליפשיץ ע' קמ. If this is indeed true, it would support my conjecture that the forger fed Chabad what he knew they wanted to hear and not that it was the RAYATZ himself who fabricated these documents. At any rate, Hilman and Lieberman were two very different people. Prof. Yonatan Meir apparently missed the fine details and thus ended up conflating the two. For more information about the Cherson Geniza, see: https://www.ivelt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7646&start=50 and http://tinyurl.com/47529pep and the Google results here: http://tinyurl.com/mtruuj35 and here: http://tinyurl.com/4anmmxr7. Yadbatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08353993062767193099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-28308257610695694492023-12-12T06:16:13.307+02:002023-12-12T06:16:13.307+02:00Thank you for pointing out that R. Chaim Lieberman...Thank you for pointing out that R. Chaim Lieberman was, in fact, the librarian. I was concerned about the reference to R. Hilman as the librarian, because I could not corroborate that by any other source (I have also spent many years in Chabad). That's why I was careful to attribute that reference. Additionally, I had seen reports that R. Chaim Lieberman claimed that he had 'met the forger.' <br />I will correct that in the text.Kotzk Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249905502266813412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-89227226155012701572023-12-12T04:23:26.387+02:002023-12-12T04:23:26.387+02:006) You cite several times the words of Prof. Yonat...6) You cite several times the words of Prof. Yonatan Meir "R. David Tzvi Hilman, the librarian at the Chabad Library." (Which he repeats in writing in his monograph on the Besht https://blimabooks.com/products/mythological-figure-baal-shem-tov). This is an obvious error. Meir confused R. David Tzvi Hilman with Rabbi Chaim Lieberman (the latter being the Chabad librarian). While this mistake does not invalidate Meir’s scholarly claims, which should be judged on their merits, and can be viewed as a trivial mistake that can be forgiven as a minor oversight, nevertheless such a mistake (which is blatantly and glaringly obvious to any Chabad insider), demonstrates that works of so-called objective scholarship need to be taken with a “grain of salt,” especially when the so-called “expert” makes such a trivial yet embarrassing mistake and academic “faux pas” that betrays his lack of mastery of the topic he is addressing. (Perhaps this error was corrected in the reprinted edition of Meir’s monograph published in August 2023. I have not seen it yet). <br />7) Much ink has been spilled on this issue, and I’m sure that the final word has not yet been written. I just want to point out one significant treatment of this issue in the Hebrew Torah journal Yeshurun vol. 23, pp. 501-572 (available online at: https://hebrewbooks.org/49193), (and BTW the publishers of Yeshurun also evince a certain religious-ideological position that is not free from bias against Chabad). <br />8) In summation, I think it’s fair to say that many people examining these issues are susceptible to one form of bias or another. While I believe that the rabbis and scholars who maintain the Geniza is a forgery are correct, nevertheless, I maintain this issue is also a “test case” in highlighting the fact that it is extremely hard to separate the “objective facts” from prejudices and biases, be they religious, ideological, scholarly, or otherwise.Yadbatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08353993062767193099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-48708732409542604432023-12-12T04:23:06.250+02:002023-12-12T04:23:06.250+02:004) However, there is a difference between saying t...4) However, there is a difference between saying that the Rayatz may have been swayed by “pious naivete” or was susceptible to a “confirmation bias” that led him to believe that the letters from the Geniza were genuine. Under the assumption that Rayatz genuinely believed the Geniza to be true, it makes sense that he would use documents from the Cherson Geniza to bolster his ideological narrative about the origins of Hasidism. This however is a far cry from the allegation that RAYATZ HIMSELF MAY HAVE DELIBERATELY FORGED AND FABRICATED letters from the Cherson Geniza as and Professors Maya Balakirsky Katz and Yonatan Meir insinuate. [Although to be accurate, Yonatan Meir cites this allegation/suggestion not in his own name but as "some raise the possibility that some of these letters may have been forged by the Rayatz himself," in the name of others. See the timestamp 27:13 in his lecture https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=myafhgAzn1Q&feature=youtu.be. Meir himself is more careful and in his lecture. He also states the possibility that Rayatz genuinely believed these letters to be authentic ]. <br />5) I especially find Prof. Maya Katz’s tone of categorical certainty about her claim that “"Hasidic leader R. Yosef Yitzḥak Schneersohn (1880–1950) falsified documents that he claimed belonged to the so-called Kherson Genizah (a repository for discarded sacred texts) to retroactively create authoritative source material for early Hasidism" without furnishing hard evidence highly unprofessional and scholarly defective. Even if it is a possibility that a scholar has to right to entertain, I find the overly confident and categorical statement of fact in which she makes this claim beyond professional academic protocol. This is a severe charge and requires hard evidence to be taken seriously. Until hard evidence is forthcoming it is equally plausible to speculate that there might have been a different forger who for either ideological or financial reasons forged the letters to present a Chabad-centric perspective. (Perhaps an external forger knew what information to feed Chabad that would sell. Other possibilities exist. Who knows?). Applying a "hermeneutic of suspicion" in scholarship is one thing but turning (what is at best) one's lingering suspicion into a foregone conclusion is an academic travesty. I'm not afraid of the evidence. Should hard evidence come to light that proves Rayatz indeed forged some of the Geniza documents, I will accept this claim as fact. Yadbatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08353993062767193099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-91599893306623516292023-12-12T04:22:50.433+02:002023-12-12T04:22:50.433+02:003) It may be true that Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schnee...3) It may be true that Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn had an interest in promoting his own partisan historiographical narrative about Hasidism, and his descriptions of early Hasidism may include anachronistic projections of later realities portrayed “retrospectively” as having been in place from the very inception of the movement. This “retrospective” portrayal and/or description of an idealized “story of origins” would lend gravitas and authority to the contemporary ideology, values, and social realities of Hasidic life that Rayatz sought to bolster in his day. (In other words, the narration of events that occurred בימים ההם (also) serves the purpose of validating the reality of בזמן הזה). Indeed, as a Hasidic Rebbe and ideologue, Rayatz was not an “objective” historian but viewed history through the lens of a particular ideologically-driven narrative. This would be true of any ideologically or partisan-driven approach to history. Yadbatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08353993062767193099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-52780696659001806452023-12-12T04:22:26.593+02:002023-12-12T04:22:26.593+02:00Thank you for this great article.
I have several ...Thank you for this great article. <br />I have several comments and questions.<br />1) I’m curious regarding the process of changing your views on this issue. As the Gemara frequently asks מעיקרא מאי סבר ולבסוף מאי סבר? I assume you were aware of the scholarship back in 2017, but nevertheless, you were still ready to entertain the possibility that the letters from the Cherson Geniza may not (all) be forgeries. What tipped the scale for you now that caused you to change your mind?<br />2) The Cherson Geniza as you write is a “test case.” Indeed, it is a test case for many things, including the different methodologies, assumptions, agendas, and biases that influence the various views on this issue. Whether it is the Rayatz’s own ideological agenda; the agenda of Rabbi Dovid Tzvi Hilman, who was raised in Chabad but later became closer to the Litvaks in Bnei Brak; the agenda of the late Lubavitcher RebbeR. Menachem Mendel zt”l to defend his venerated father-in-law; and the secular academic biases of academics like Professors Maya Balakirsky Katz and Yonatan Meir, who despite their great scholarship, are not completely free from their own tendentiousness and secular-academic biases in trying to “deconstruct” Hasidism and “slaughter sacred cows” and offer their own secular counter-narrative regarding Hasidism.Yadbatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08353993062767193099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-59855531574533137152023-12-09T20:02:23.015+02:002023-12-09T20:02:23.015+02:00Zwi Werblowsky dedicates chapter three of his book...Zwi Werblowsky dedicates chapter three of his book 'J. Karo Lawyer and Mystic' to the textual evidence and the question of who authored the work. His arguments seem quite convincing that it is not a forgery. R. Chaim Vital makes mention of R. Karo's Magid (although he claims he made a few mistakes) [p. 15]. We do know for certainty that the claim of Magidic communication was commonplace among other mystics at that time and into the next century as well.Kotzk Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249905502266813412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-26470044787933010102023-12-08T21:09:07.313+02:002023-12-08T21:09:07.313+02:00I assume Magid Meisharim is a forgery. Is there an...I assume Magid Meisharim is a forgery. Is there any evidence of him claiming to have a maggid before this book shows up 7 decades later? Torahmikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10731757912429402462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-73036493812907020162023-11-13T16:34:28.907+02:002023-11-13T16:34:28.907+02:00The big question is that "if neither of the t...The big question is that "if neither of the two sets of parchments found inside tefillin cases correspond to either Rashi or Rabbenu Tam's view, then where does the oft-repeated idea originate that both types were found?"Kotzk Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249905502266813412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-85567369454699862902023-11-13T14:37:26.767+02:002023-11-13T14:37:26.767+02:00There are two different conceptual distinctions th...There are two different conceptual distinctions that can be made, independently of one another: right-to-left vs. top-to-down <i>direction</i>, and <i>order</i> of sections in either of those two directions. The fact that Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam assumed right-to-left <i>direction</i> (unlike the Dead Sea tefillin) is a given. But the fact that the <i>order</i> in top-to-down direction is the same as the <i>order</i> in Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam tefillin is accurate.<br /><br />Rabbi Goren accurately represents this, discussing it at length, in his article (which I linked in the previous comment).<br /><br />This is not "inventing a disagreement for which we have no evidence." This is abstracting a law into its two conceptual parts, and examining each of the two separately. For both of the two concepts (order and direction) Rabbi Goren adduces evidence.AWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375857624833229195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-80896024169382012632023-11-13T10:48:53.020+02:002023-11-13T10:48:53.020+02:00I have just communicated with Dr. Cohn and he did ...I have just communicated with Dr. Cohn and he did confirm that:<br /><br />"The only disagreement we know about is based on a left - to - right order, as is clear from the Gemara."<br /><br />Dr. Cohn went on to say that:<br /><br />"Anyone saying that Dead Sea tefillin conformed to the order of Rabbenu Tam is inventing a disagreement for which we have no evidence." <br /><br />Kotzk Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249905502266813412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-31283621470335996622023-11-13T04:26:47.648+02:002023-11-13T04:26:47.648+02:00This section of the article is misrepresenting the...This section of the article is misrepresenting the facts (my emphases):<br /><br /> <br />As we have seen, Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam agree that the first two scrolls follow the sequential order as they occur in the Torah [1) and 2)] but they part ways regarding the order of the last two scrolls [3), 4) or 4), 3)]. One would, therefore, expect to find examples of these two variant <b>sequences</b> in the scrolls found near the Dead Sea. However, Cohn points out that: <br /><br />“[W]ithout exception, tefillin parchments found in the Judean desert were not written in such a <b>format</b>…” (Cohn 2007:320). <br /><br />How, then, did such blatant misrepresentation of the <b>order</b> of the scrolls occur?<br /><br /><br />What Cohn is saying is that the <i>format</i> (right to left vs. top to bottom) doesn't match, which Rabbi Goren knew and discusses at length. The Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam order <i>is</i> represented in the ancient tefillin.<br /><br />Rabbi Goren was well aware of the fact that the Wadi Murabba'at tefillin were not written according to the modern halachic practices (right to left etc.). What he does say is that the order was identical, which, as far as I can tell, is in fact the case. He accurately represents the facts presented in <a href="https://archive.org/details/lesgrottesdemura0002unse/page/81/mode/1up?view=theater" rel="nofollow">DJD II, 81</a>, which is the first publication of the Rabbeinu Tam order tefillin, and which mentions the Rashi order tefillin - not "most similar to that of Rashi" (which was a description of a different one from Qumran), but literally in the Rashi order. The Rashi tefillin were not published until 2000 (DJD XXXVIII, 183; which I can't find online; Cohn doesn't claim that the description of the order was inaccurate).<br /><br /><br />Cohn continues to inform us that not only did the order of the scrolls not correspond to Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, but even the actual texts themselves were different from the texts of standard Tefillin today:<br /><br /><br />This is true, but is irrelevant to the claim of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam tefillin being represented, because that claim was made about different tefillin than those. Rabbi Goren did not claim that the Qumran tefillin followed Rashi's or Rabbeinu Tam's orders. In fact, he says explicitly that they do not (<a href="https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/mahanayim/1961/10/15/01/page/6" rel="nofollow">pp. 10-11</a>). The Rabbeinu Tam and Rashi tefillin were found in Wadi Murabba'at and in an unprovenanced cave, respectively.<br /><br />One last comment: Cohn says that Rabbeinu Tam tefillin doesn't represent a tradition, but is based on interpretative considerations only. This is explicitly not true, since Tosafot cite earlier precedent for Rabbeinu Tam tefillin by name, which is by definition a tradition. A tradition doesn't cease to be a tradition when it is subjected to analysis and compared to the text of the Gemara. (And this is even without taking into account the obvious fact that the Gemara itself is tradition, and interpretation of the Gemara is naturally an attempt to understand that tradition.)<br /><br />It therefore remains accurate to say that the order of sections of both Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam tefillin have been attested in tefillin dating approximately to Rabbi Akiva's generation. The issue Cohn raises about their validity in other respects, as well as others, had already been raised by Rabbi Goren. Psychoanalyzing Rabbi Goren's motives is not דרכה של תורה (nor of academia), when his discussion of the scholarly issues based on the same facts is available for analysis.AWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375857624833229195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-26633150489978508662023-11-12T19:37:36.090+02:002023-11-12T19:37:36.090+02:00I agree, but even matters like the notion of Tzura...I agree, but even matters like the notion of Tzuras haDaf (the shape of the printing on pages of the Gemara), which was also formatted by the 16th century Daniel Bomberg non-Jewish printers, has been described as holding mystical secrets. I know that some encourage Gemara study only from such 'officially' shaped folios, especially for children, for the spiritual benefit perceived to be contained therein.Kotzk Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249905502266813412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-56059833101995826102023-11-12T18:10:16.091+02:002023-11-12T18:10:16.091+02:00> "The two middle sections also have a cer...> "The two middle sections also have a certain asymmetry with their textual references being Exodus 13:11 and Deuteronomy 11:13 which fits a typical mystical schema."<br />Great article. But to me it seems unlikely that even the most naive and gullible of mystics would have given that kind of significance to chapter/verse numbering - considering how the modern numbering system is a product of relatively recent (and Christian) printers.Boruch Clintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03864323537094915871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576585332526677688.post-69751633808950905642023-11-12T16:40:04.163+02:002023-11-12T16:40:04.163+02:00Informative stuff. R MM Kasher (linked) suggests a...Informative stuff. R MM Kasher (linked) suggests a most interesting theory as to how this machlokes came to be analogizing it to R Hai Gaons famous theory by teruah as well as showing that in addition to rashi and rabeinu tam there’s also raavad and shimusha rabbah with shimusha rabbah being a mirror image of rashi and raavad the inverse of rt so essentially there are two opinions, one has the v'hayas in the middle (rt and raavad) and the other in the sequence that they appear in the torah (rashi and shimusha rabbah), only machlokes within each group is one of orientation (wearers view or viewer). https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=51450&st=&pgnum=282Nahumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10178001956458508148noreply@blogger.com