Маска третьего лица.

[nedosionist]

Почему принято прикрывать глаза рукой, говоря Шма? Потому что так делал Он.

The Talmud (Berachot 13b) traces this practice to the great Rabbi Judah the Prince. He would often interrupt his Torah lectures for Shema, and his students would observe him passing his hand over his eyes at the moment that he said the verse.(Хабад)

Comments

[nedosionist]

( From Hagiga 10): Talmud would ever play on such natural syntactic ambiguities, for I haven't seen the slimmest evidence to this effect.
;)) Can you state what would could possibly count as such evidence? (slimmest, subjectively convincing etc.; given that by definitions these language constructions are supposed to be ambiguous)

Then Scripture may employ a text which straightforwardly means A and also may mean X but in such a way that X is likely to be rejected by the less knowledgeable reader.
Yes.

a text which straightforwardly means A and also may mean X but in such a way that X is likely to be rejected by the less knowledgeable reader.
Yes, that's how you get ambiguity in a seemingly plain text. Then: how using your conventions, can you possibly express X alone?

[brotherinlaw]

state what would could possibly count as such evidence Obviously, a recognized discovery of a Talmudic play on such a natural syntactic ambiguity would count. For such a discovery to exist, someone as clever as ourselves is required, and we don't doubt such individuals exist and have existed, do we.

With "my conventions," i.e. with a critical level of the knowledge stratification among the intended audience, X alone simply cannot be expressed, hence the phenomenon.

[nedosionist]

В принципе, с моей т.з. использование этих методов в Хумаше важнее, чем в Талмуде, поскольку текст сложнее. Я привел талмудические примеры, поскольку они проще, имхо. Если Вы видите конкретные примеры-кандидаты такой двусмысленности в Хумаше, мы можем обсудить их.

recognized discovery ... someone as clever as ourselves is required
ОК. Но проблема в том, что в этом случае мы полагаемся на внещний (по отношению к себе) авторитет этого Мудреца; т.е. на авторитет Традиции, а не авторитет разума и текста, драш, а не пшат. В свою очередь, цитата из неизвестного маститого комментатора здесь не поможет, поскольку его всегда можно отнести к "той синагоге, куда я не хожу". Он будет либо так же неправ как Вы, либо так же прав, как я. ;)))) Или наоборот. :)

[brotherinlaw]

There is a simple fact that you refuse to heed, with a persistence deserving a better cause. Scripture and the Talmud are different texts with different intended audiences.

Scripture is for everyone, hence, of necessity, intended ambiguities. Examples are abundant; one of the most famous, and self-explaining at that, is Exod.3:14. As well as most others, it has of course nothing to do with the kindergarten verbal or syntax games. Sense A: God reveals to Moses the fact of His Being and presents the expression's shortened version as His name. Note, sense A is not misleading or intended for fools but is utterly correct as usual; it is, however, not the whole spectrum of meanings. Sense X: God reveals to Moses His historical (Rashi) and metaphysical (Avicenna) attribute of existence, and then implies that this is too much for the contemporary people to grasp: "give them, rather, a hint of it, ostensibly just conveying My name to them." Or, with Cain: sense A - Cain murdered Abel unprovoked out of malice; sense X: certainly he killed,

[nedosionist]

Заметно, что Rab said .. : I do not see Rabbi, a у Хабада в первой цитате "his students would observe him", что прямо противоречит гемаре. См. " Элементарное талмудическое противопоставление".