Targum Onkelos m"Sinai

Home Forums Bais Medrash Targum Onkelos m"Sinai

Viewing 47 posts - 1 through 47 (of 47 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #592565
    The chamelon
    Member

    The Shulchan Aruch H’Rav & MB ? ??”? bring

    ??? ??????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ?????

    ????? ????????? ??? ?”? ???????. ???? ??”? ?”? ???. ???? ?”? ??? ??”?

    Is this included in Torah B’Shivim Lashon that were given at ?????

    #701718
    yitayningwut
    Participant

    No, this is a Gemara in Megillah that says the Targum was given at ????.

    #701719

    yitayningwut

    See Artschroll Megila footnote 19(heb edition) where they cite a Machlokes whether the Aramaic text of Targum Onkels was Sinai given.

    Also See Chidushei Agudos Maharsha Megila 3;1,. I could not figure out what the Maharsha holds re the actual text. It could very well be that he holds that only the Pshat was m’Sinai and was transmitted in Aramaic in free form Ball Peh

    What happened to Torah B’Shivim Lashon that was given at ????

    if Ptolmey neede to commssion a new transaltion?

    #701720
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    So, logistically, how does that work? The targum was given at Sinai, passed down and Onkelos decided to write it down even though he didn’t originate it?

    Or is this a causality paradox?

    The Wolf

    #701721

    Wolf why dont you just go down to the nearest Bais Midrosh that has set of The Art Scroll shas and do a little research. Out of you realm? Then wait until I post the answe I hope to get from

    ASktherabbi.org to the below Question. Hopefully it would shed some light.

    What is a causality paradox?

    3340 Babylonian Exile, Daniel. Aramaic becomes Jewish language. Academies of Torah study flourish in Babylon. Autonomy of internal affairs granted to Jewish community. asktherabbi.org/DisplayQuestion.asp?ID=199

    #701722

    Answer

    Aramaic became the primary language of the Jews of Babylon and Persian, much like Yiddish was the primary language of the Eastern European Jews. Of course, they used Hebrew in prayer, but they basically adopted, and adapted Aramaic as a Jewish language. See Maimonides in the MIshneh Torah, Laws of Prayer 1:4 who states that the beginning of the decline of pure Hebrew was the Babylonian Exile

    Scholar Rabbi Mordechai Becher

    Date Answered October 11, 2010 12:00AM

    #701723
    yitayningwut
    Participant

    I used to think that maybe that gemara in Megilla doesn’t refer to the actual text, but to the explanations contained therein. As Tos. in Brachos 8b (top) says that the Targum often contains things which one wouldn’t have known just by reading the psukim. However, even this is problematic, because the rishonim generally don’t hesitate to argue on the Targum, which is strange if it actually was given at Sinai. I don’t really have a clarity on the issue.

    However, all I was trying to say in my point was that this business of ????? ????? has its source in this gemara, not in ?? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????.

    Wolf-

    The gemara (Megilla ad loc) says it was forgotten and Onkeles restored it.

    #701724

    yitayningwut However, even this is problematic, because the rishonim generally don’t hesitate to argue on the Targum, which is strange if it actually was given at Sinai

    The same Q was bugging me too. If we answer ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??’ than what is so special about Targum Unkelos?

    #701725
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    The gemara (Megilla ad loc) says it was forgotten and Onkeles restored it.

    Does that apply to everything else as well? For example, were R. Tarphon’s opinions in the Mishna forgotten until he “restored” them? Or were they transmitted down throughout the generations and then when young Tarphon was learning in Bais Midrash he must have said to himself “Oh, I guess I’ll have to hold like this when I get older…?”

    The Wolf

    #701726

    Wolf ! To give a full picture of the transmision of Torah shBaal Pes (the Oral Tradition) “forgotten” and “restored” is far beyond the scope of an online forum. Sorry but since I am a FFB and did all my learning in the orgoanl tetx and Yiddish, my library and knowledge of English torah litreature is practically nil. Perhaps some other members of the CR can direct you.

    #701727
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Wolf ! To give a full picture of the transmision of Torah shBaal Pes (the Oral Tradition) “forgotten” and “restored” is far beyond the scope of an online forum. Sorry but since I am a FFB and did all my learning in the orgoanl tetx

    Shloimie, I can learn a gemara in the original language. If you’d care to point me in a direction, I can do the research (even without the Artscroll).

    The Wolf

    #701730

    I am not Shloimie but his Shver

    #701732
    squeak
    Participant

    Lucky Shloimie

    #701733
    yitayningwut
    Participant

    Wolf-

    Not at all. R’ Tarfon’s opinion is R’ Tarfon’s opinion.

    #701734
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    But if whatever R. Tarphon said was given at Sinai, and if (and this, I suppose is a big IF) it was transmitted through the generations, then did the young Tarphon come across his future position while learning the Mishna for the first time?

    The Wolf

    #701735
    yitayningwut
    Participant

    Shloimies Shver-

    The truth is, I wouldn’t be surprised if they simply didn’t hold of this gemara le’maaseh. There are many sources in the ge’onim and early rishonim that say that divrei aggadda, even in the gemara, need not be accepted. And before anyone jumps on me for saying that, please see R’ Hai Gaon and R’ Shreira Gaon in Otzar Hageonim Chagiga pp. 59-60, Shu”t haRambam ed. Mekitze Nirdamim p. 739, and the Ramban in the Vikuach ed. Chavel Vol. 1 p. 308 with the footnote. Also see the Tos. Harosh in Shabbos 12b on the gemara of al yish’al adam etc.

    #701736

    didn’t hold of this gemara didn’t hold of this gemara le’maaseh. I aint jumpin’ but the Baal Hatanya MB &Aruch HaShulchan(???????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???????, ???? ?????? ???? ???, ??????? ???? ????? ?????. ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ) bring it. Even though the Mecahber dosent even though he quotes it in Bais Yosef.

    If you can stomach redaing something in a periodical published by ????? ?????? a Dati Leumi there is a fascinating article @ shaalvim.co.il/torah/maayan-article.asp?id=150

    #701737
    yitayningwut
    Participant

    Wolf-

    Who says that whatever R. Tarfon said was said at Sinai?

    #701738

    ?? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? (?”? ????? ??? ???? ?”?).

    #701739

    ?? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????

    Do is it have to mean that it was transmitted by Moshe Rabeinu at the time? Were the tilei tilei of halachos learned from the tagim

    shel halachos which were expounded by R Akiva & Revealed to Moshe Rabeinu transmitted?

    #701740
    charliehall
    Participant

    Shloimies Shver,

    What is wrong with a DL yeshiva?

    yitayningwut,

    The best proof that we don’t have to accept aggadata as literal comes from the fact that Avraham ben HaRambam’s essay on the matter has for generations been included as the introduction to the Ein Yaakov aggadata compilation.

    #701741

    I was not making statements about DL yeshivas. I do not know yitayningwu and just warned him in case he was Kanai. BTW that was before I saw his post about acceptance of Agadata.

    #701742
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    ?? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????

    Do is it have to mean that it was transmitted by Moshe Rabeinu at the time? Were the tilei tilei of halachos learned from the tagim

    shel halachos which were expounded by R Akiva & Revealed to Moshe Rabeinu transmitted?

    Shver,

    Granted, it’s a possibility that Tannatic opinions were given to Moshe and NOT transmitted down. But, for all practical purposes, there is no difference between Moshe receiving them and never transmitting it and the Tannaim coming up with it on their own.

    If you maintain that it was transmitted, then you have the paradoxical situation I described above (of young R. Tarphon finding his future opinion in the Mishna). If you maintain that it was not transmitted, then you can’t say the Tanna’s opinion is something he received from his rebbe, from his rebbe, from his rebbe… from Sinai.

    The Wolf

    #701743

    Charlie What is wrong with a DL yeshiva?

    I am terribly inquisitive and accessed that article, and found a quote from ???? ?? I Googled that book and found that he was the son of Samuel David Luzzatto (Hebrew: ????? ??? ???????) an Italian Jewish scholar, poet, and a member of the Wissenschaft des Judentums movement in plain yiddish a ????? .

    I should have heeded Shloimies Shver’s warning!

    #701744

    Wolf Shver? I have a son Zev but not a SIL

    I aint gonna bother answering. With my typing and writing u aint gonna get anywhere.

    Why dont you follow my lead and ask asktherabbi.org a preject of Gateways a major major Kiruv outfit with articulate scholars on board, http://www.rabbiullman.com/ask.htm, http://www.chabad.org/asktherabbi/default_cdo/jewish/Ask-the-Rabbi.htm, and let us know.

    #701745
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    With my typing and writing u aint gonna get anywhere.

    Try me.

    The Wolf

    #701746

    Wolf cant u smell a lame excuse? Just “shrugging” u off.

    Got the play on words?

    #701748
    HaQer
    Member

    Wolf seems to think that young R’ Tarfon would have read his name in a mishna before he himself aid the “opinion”.

    The way I understand it is that R’ Tarfon learned the “opinion” from his Rebbeim, they obviously did not say it in his name as he had not yet said it. He then taught it to the next generation and it was therefore written down in his name. Why it was written in his name and not in the name of his Rebbeim is another question, I assume that R’ Yehuda HaNassi was quoting R’ Tarfon directly and therefore R’ Tarfon got his name on it even though R’ Tarfon was quoting his Rebbeim.

    How machlokesim came about is another discussion. We say Eilu v’eilu, it seems that 2 talmidim each interpreted the same teaching in different ways and they are both correct.

    #701749

    HaQer nice try but I still stick to my advice Read & ask PRO’S

    Some books from

    Reading List

    A list of dozens of books on Jewish topics, recommended by the Rabbis of Ohr Somayach http://ohr.edu/4284

    The Infinite Chain: Torah, Mesorah & Man, by Nathan Lopes-Cardozo (Targum/Feldheim) – Philosophical and historic background and verification of the Oral Law.

    The Oral Law, by Harry C. Schimmel (Feldheim) – Description and categorization of the Oral Law (not too technical).

    Challenge of Sinai, by Zechariah Fendel (Hashkafa Publications, N.Y.)- History of the transmission of the Jewish tradition. Anvil of Sinai, by Zechariah Fendel (Hashkafa Publications, N.Y.) – History of the transmission of the Jewish tradition.

    Legacy of Sinai, by Zechariah Fendel (Hashkafa Publications, N.Y.) – History of the transmission of the Jewish tradition.

    #701750
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Wolf seems to think that young R’ Tarfon would have read his name in a mishna before he himself aid the “opinion”.

    Actually, I firmly *don’t* believe that that’s what happened.

    The Wolf

    #701751


    Original Message


    From : Rabbi Leiby Burnham[mailto:rabbilb@gmail.com]

    Sent : 10/13/2010 5:44:24 PM

    To : b*****@koshernet.com

    Cc :

    Subject : FW: Re: Help with a pen pal

    Hi Reb Ben *****,

    That is an excellent question. The problem is a significant one. The gemara records a few times in history that all the chachamim were killed except for one (Shimon Ben Shetach in Yanai’s time, Kiddushin 65A, Bava Ben Buta in the times of Herod, BB 3b) then there is also a number of times in the gemara where we have the ????? ????? ?????? such as the Osios sofios (Shabbas 104A), the shiurim for onshim (Yuma 80A), mitzvas arava (Succha 44A), and Targum (Megilla 3A) (which by the way really Onkelos’ Rebbes’ were the ones who brought it back, as seen in the gemara ????? ?? ???? ? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?????.

    This means that huge amounts of Torah was forgotten entirely, and brought back, and the ENTIRE oral Torah was brought back by single people twice in history. How can we be so certain that it was brought back with exactitude. Normally we support the accuracy of the Torah sh’be’al peh with the concept of rigorous debate and pilpul chaverim keeping it the way it was meant to be, but here we don’t have that!!

    I will try to look into this a bit further before responding to you!

    As far as the last two questions, I think the idea is as follows. Everything was shown to Moshe but not transmitted. Moshe saw that R’ Meir would later argue a certain point based on the interpretation he received from his Rabbeim all the way back to Moshe and Rav Yehuda would argue it the other way based on the interpretation he understood from his Rabbeim all the way back. (The larger question here is how do we understand machlokes if everything goes back to Moshe…)

    I hope the last part is helpful and look forward to getting back to you with more about the first question! Kol Tuv, Leiby

    On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Mr. Ben***** ***** <b*****@koshernet.com> wrote:

    ??”?

    The following is a synopsis of an exchange with a semi torah literate pen pal. Can you give me a brief and succinct reply?

    The Gemara re the Targum says it was forgotten and Onkeles restored it. Does that apply to everything else as well? For example, were R. Tarphon’s opinions in the Mishna forgotten until he “restored” them? Or were they transmitted down throughout the generations and then when young Tarphon was learning in Bais Midrash he must have said to himself “Oh, I guess I’ll have to hold like this when I get older…?”

    Does ?? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? mean that it was transmitted by Moshe Rabeinu at the time?

    Granted, it’s a possibility that Tannatic opinions were given to Moshe and NOT transmitted down. But, for all practical purposes, there is no difference between Moshe receiving them and never transmitting it and the Tannaim coming up with it on their own. If you maintain that it was transmitted, then you have the paradoxical situation I described above (of young R. Tarphon finding his future opinion in the Mishna). If you maintain that it was not transmitted, then you can’t say the Tanna’s opinion is something he received from his rebbe, from his rebbe, from his rebbe… from Sinai.

    ???? ????

    ****

    R’ Leiby Burnham

    Director of Outreach

    Partners In Torah

    248.JUDAISM

    @yby.org">rlb@yby.org

    #701753
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    The following is a synopsis of an exchange with a semi torah literate pen pal.

    Can I ask you on what basis you declare me “semi literate?” From the start of this thread you have made subtle jibes at my knowledge of Torah. You insinuated above that I am incapable of learning Torah without an English translation. Now you refer to me as one who is “semi literate.”

    I kindly ask you to cease with the subtle insults.

    The Wolf

    #701754
    bombmaniac
    Participant

    yes. please cease with the subtle insults. say them straight out.

    on point, i always assumed that the actual halachos were transmitted at sinai but over the course of the years, as chachomim were killed and jews were dispersed, and there could no longer be a consensus, the laws were restored by the discourses of the tannaim and amoraim in the beis hamedrash based on what they had heard from their rebbeim. the reason for machlokes i always assumed was because there could be no overwhelming consensus seeing as the sources of halachic knowledge were few and far between at various parts of jewish history and therefore there were only a few mesorahs each of which had to be challenged an analyzed before they could be accepted as actual halacha.

    as for moshe in the midbar i assumed that he had gotten the exact oral law as a set of specific halachos, not as debates he would have to sift through. that exact halacha was lost through the course of history and had to be restored by the tannaim and amoraim.

    these are assumptions on my part, and i could be wrong, comments please?

    #701755

    Wolf! 1st things 1st. My apologies

    When I wrote Sorry but since I am a FFB and did all my learning in the orgoanl tetx and Yiddish, my library and knowledge of English torah literature is practically nil.. I meant to say, & I do not have the tools.

    #701756
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    yes. please cease with the subtle insults. say them straight out.

    I know you said it in jest, but, in reality, I’d rather have it said straight out. Sly, back-of-the-hand type insults tend to make me sick.

    My policy has always been thus: you don’t like what I say, tell me. We may, in the end, have to agree to disagree, but I’d rather hear straight out that someone thinks I’m a jerk rather than through subtle little “hints.”

    The Wolf

    #701757
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    And I figured who really cares, who knows who Wolf is

    For the record, there are at least two people (that I know of — and possibly more that I don’t know of) on this board who do know who I am.

    The Wolf

    #701758
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    on point, i always assumed that the actual halachos were transmitted at sinai but over the course of the years, as chachomim were killed and jews were dispersed, and there could no longer be a consensus, the laws were restored by the discourses of the tannaim and amoraim in the beis hamedrash based on what they had heard from their rebbeim. the reason for machlokes i always assumed was because there could be no overwhelming consensus seeing as the sources of halachic knowledge were few and far between at various parts of jewish history and therefore there were only a few mesorahs each of which had to be challenged an analyzed before they could be accepted as actual halacha.

    That has usually been my understanding as well.

    as for moshe in the midbar i assumed that he had gotten the exact oral law as a set of specific halachos, not as debates he would have to sift through. that exact halacha was lost through the course of history and had to be restored by the tannaim and amoraim.

    That was always my understanding as well, which led me to another question: It was quoted above that Moshe was shown all that any student would later originate. Of course, that must include records of the debates and arguments over halacha. Was Moshe saddened to see that the “pure” halacha (i.e. that which he received from Sinai) lost and subject to debate?

    The Wolf

    #701759

    So Wolf did you accept my appology/expalnation?

    Still not satisfied that I did not intend “back-of-the-hand type insults”?

    #701760
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    And I figured who really cares, who knows who Wolf is & for that matter who cares what Shloimie’s Shver thinks of him.


    So Wolf did you accept my appology/expalnation?

    Still not satisfied that I did not intend “back-of-the-hand type insults”?

    To paraphrase:

    And I figured who really cares, who knows who Shloimie’s Shver is & for that matter who cares what Wolf thinks of him.

    The Wolf

    #701761
    bombmaniac
    Participant

    i would imagine that he was indeed saddened, but couldn’t do much about it.

    #701762
    The chamelon
    Member

    Hello I was away for a couple of days. What happened to intelligent debate and exchange of opinion and information?

    Wolfish Shloimie’s Shver apologised. He seems to be sincere, so just type the two words ???? ??

    Mod Couldn’t you stick your two cents?

    #701763
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    I suppose this leads to another question… if Moshe was told everything that a Talmid would originate at Sinai, how could he not know the halachos of which death penalty to give to someone who profanes the Shabbos, of daughters inheriting in the absence of sons and concerning Pesach Sheini.

    Certainly these topics were written about by future talmidim and therefore, Moshe should have known about them. Yet, it’s clear that when it came time to apply these halachos, Moshe was clearly unaware of them.

    The Wolf

    #701764
    bombmaniac
    Participant

    as i recall he was punished for being angry by forgetting the halachos…

    #701765
    mosherose
    Member

    “Yet, it’s clear that when it came time to apply these halachos, Moshe was clearly unaware of them. “

    Madua lo yirasem ledabair beavdi bemoshe?!! How can small minded you say that Moshe the gratest person to ever live, the one taught by Hashem himself didnt know the halachos. Who do you think you are? Of course Moshe new the halacha! To say anything else is apikorsus. Moshe knew the answers and he also knew that even tho he knew the answers he was supposed to ask Hashem for the answer to those questions.

    #701766
    mosherose
    Member

    “Wolfish Shloimie’s Shver apologised. He seems to be sincere, so just type the two words ???? ??”

    Dont expect Wolf to forgive. He thinks hes better than everyone else.

    #701767
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    He thinks hes better than everyone else.

    If you’ve followed me on these boards long enough, you’d know that I most certainly do NOT think that.

    The Wolf

    #701768
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    mosherose to the rescue!

Viewing 47 posts - 1 through 47 (of 47 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.