tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post4801164263886133983..comments2023-06-14T10:33:15.008-04:00Comments on Shilton HaSechel שלטון השכל: Skeptics' Parshat Hashavua: Parshat ChukatShilton HaSechelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11445959470426455186noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-38033303598724769062013-07-17T20:58:23.936-04:002013-07-17T20:58:23.936-04:00SH - great post. Yet more dirt on the jewish triba...SH - great post. Yet more dirt on the jewish tribal god yaweh, who was a war god no less !anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-87422401070687774462010-06-17T22:05:24.722-04:002010-06-17T22:05:24.722-04:00Lol! I remember reading that in shul once and thin...Lol! I remember reading that in shul once and thinking "Jeez, thanks, Hertz chumash, for putting all my doubts to rest."Shilton HaSechelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11445959470426455186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-4778230832149490802010-06-17T21:46:43.556-04:002010-06-17T21:46:43.556-04:00Well, here is what J. H. Hertz says in his comment...Well, here is what J. H. Hertz says in his comment on the passage "the book of the Wars of the LORD" (<i>Pentateuch and Haftorahs</i>, 661): "The lines from that book quoted here support the statement that Arnon was the border of Moab. There is no further mention of this book in the whole of Scripture. Ibn Ezra says, 'It was an independent book, in which were written the records of the wars waged by God on behalf of those that fear Him. Many books have been lost and are no longer extant among us; <i>e.g.</i> the Words of Nathan and Iddo, and the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel.'" <br /><br />More interesting, perhaps, is the next part of the comment, which is a quotation from Samson Raphael Hirsch: "'The Book of the Wars of the Lord, like the Sefer Hayashar (Josh. X, 13 and II Sam. I, 18) is a proof that there was no absence of literary activity in the days of Moses. <b>It furthermore proves that the Torah is not the result of such literary activity, otherwise the alleged compiler could have indicated his sources as he has done in this instance</b>'" (emphasis added). Hirsch's reasoning seems to be: the fact that this passage contains an attribution of certain words to another text confirms the divine origin of the Torah; for if the Torah were NOT of divine origin, it would (or could?) furnish references to its sources all over the place, rather than merely in this one passage and a couple of others. The counterfactual hypothetical here seems to me utterly bizarre.Miles Rindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03733605717776262840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-78091705730878706662010-06-17T14:24:00.652-04:002010-06-17T14:24:00.652-04:00Tamir,
I think the language of על כן could go in ...Tamir,<br /><br />I think the language of על כן could go in either direction. But still you make a good point that might take the force out of my question. <br /><br />I guess you could ask the same thing every time the Torah says "such and such a place is called such and such because of such and such" Is the Torah bringing proof to back it up or is it just explaining why the place is called what it is.Shilton HaSechelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11445959470426455186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-36551747549683507012010-06-17T13:29:32.305-04:002010-06-17T13:29:32.305-04:00Why is an omniscient God bringing proof to his ass...<i>Why is an omniscient God bringing proof to his assertion that Arnon is the border of Moav from an external source?</i><br /><br />I think, from the wording of the verses you bring, you've got it back to front: because "Arnon is the border of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites", therefore( the translation, as you quote it, uses 'wherefore') "it is said in the book of the Wars of the LORD ...". This I take to mean that the quote is based on God's assertion, not the other way round.<br /><br />The question should be, rather:<br />Why does God take the bother to prove a quote from another book with "his assertion that Arnon is the border of Moav" ?Tommyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07110984901774311950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-22322480867915251662010-06-17T11:34:18.312-04:002010-06-17T11:34:18.312-04:00I think a lot of clever religious people believe t...I think a lot of clever religious people believe that the Torah's primary audience was the generation it was written in but at the same time the Torah is still valid for all time.Shilton HaSechelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11445959470426455186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-59840551671435405522010-06-17T11:27:15.330-04:002010-06-17T11:27:15.330-04:00...and why would God, who knows the future, refere......and why would God, who knows the future, reference a book that's no longer in print? How could that reference mean anything to me?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com