Difference between revisions of "Biblical Parallels Index – Shemot 17/0"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
m |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
<li>See <a href="https://www.etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/torah/sefer-shemot/parashat-tetzaveh/zakhor-evil-amalek">Zakhor: The Evil of Amalek</a>, by R. Alex Israel, for a composite picture of the unique immorality of Amalek based on details gleaned from the various Biblical accounts of conflicts between Israel and Amalek.</li> | <li>See <a href="https://www.etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/torah/sefer-shemot/parashat-tetzaveh/zakhor-evil-amalek">Zakhor: The Evil of Amalek</a>, by R. Alex Israel, for a composite picture of the unique immorality of Amalek based on details gleaned from the various Biblical accounts of conflicts between Israel and Amalek.</li> | ||
<li>See <a href="https://www.etzion.org.il/en/holidays/purim/amalek-moral-argument">Amalek: The Moral Argument</a>, by R. Yaakov Medan, who discusses both the differences between the two accounts and the moral question raised by the obligation to wipe out Amalek. R. Medan notes that one may assume that the two accounts of the war represent two stages, an initial defeat (Devarim), and the ultimate victory (Shemot). He, though, suggests that they represent two distinct wars, with Devarim speaking of Amalek's attack on the "מעפילים".  This, he posits, precipitated a series of persistent, continuous attacks on Israel's weak throughout the forty years in the wilderness.</li> | <li>See <a href="https://www.etzion.org.il/en/holidays/purim/amalek-moral-argument">Amalek: The Moral Argument</a>, by R. Yaakov Medan, who discusses both the differences between the two accounts and the moral question raised by the obligation to wipe out Amalek. R. Medan notes that one may assume that the two accounts of the war represent two stages, an initial defeat (Devarim), and the ultimate victory (Shemot). He, though, suggests that they represent two distinct wars, with Devarim speaking of Amalek's attack on the "מעפילים".  This, he posits, precipitated a series of persistent, continuous attacks on Israel's weak throughout the forty years in the wilderness.</li> | ||
| − | <li>See <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbl.1341.2015.2676?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">The Legal Blend in Biblical Narrative</a>, by | + | <li>See <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbl.1341.2015.2676?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">The Legal Blend in Biblical Narrative</a>, by Professor Joshua Berman, for analysis of cases in which distinct aspects of two sources from the Torah, both dealing with the same issue in different ways, are blended in a narrative found in the Prophets or Writings. Dr. Berman suggests that the narrative of Shaul and Amalek blends motifs found in the passages about Amalek in Shemot and Devarim.</li> |
<li>See <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1509808?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">The Punishment of Amalek in the Jewish Tradition: Coping with the Moral Problem</a>, by Dr. Avi Sagi, for analysis and categorization of commentators’ interpretations of the Biblical narratives and halakhic passages relating to Amalek.  Through this discussion, Dr. Sagi explores the interaction in Jewish tradition between morality, religion, and canonical text.</li> | <li>See <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1509808?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">The Punishment of Amalek in the Jewish Tradition: Coping with the Moral Problem</a>, by Dr. Avi Sagi, for analysis and categorization of commentators’ interpretations of the Biblical narratives and halakhic passages relating to Amalek.  Through this discussion, Dr. Sagi explores the interaction in Jewish tradition between morality, religion, and canonical text.</li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
Version as of 11:48, 11 April 2024
Biblical Parallels Index – Shemot 17
Overview
This index is meant to help the reader explore Biblical parallels, be they two accounts of the same event, stories with similar motifs and themes, or units of text which are linguistically similar and perhaps alluding one to the other. The page includes links to tools that aid in comparison, primary sources that touch upon the parallels, and summaries of and links to articles which analyze them in depth.Israelites’ Complaints
Shemot 16:2-4 is one of a series of Israelite complaints in the desert. Other complaints can be found in Shemot 14:10-14, Shemot 15:22-25, Shemot 17:1-7, Bemidbar 11:5-6, Bemidbar 14:2-3, Bemidbar 20:1-6, and Bemidbar 21:4-7.
Tools
- Use Makbilot BaMikra to find links to the many verses which speak of the nation's various complaints, including descriptions of the events in Tehillim.
Articles and Lectures
- Listen to Sefer Bemidbar: From Doubt to Debate, by Atara Snowbell, for an insightful analysis and close reading of the evolution of the Israelites’ complaints from Shemot 15 through Bemidbar 21, reflecting their increasing faith and independence.
- See מסע בעקבות תלונות עם ישראל במדבר, by Dr. Brachi Elitzur, for a nuanced comparison and contrast of the complaints in the desert along six different parameters: the situation that prompted the complaint, the way that the Torah describes the people and their complaint, the content of their request, the way that the nation relates to Egypt, and the consequences of the complaint.
War with Amalek
The war with Amalek is mention both in Shemot 17 and Devarim 25:17-19. When one compares the passages, one notices that there are significant differences between the two. Chief among these is that only in Devarim does the Torah emphasize Amalek’s cruelty.
Tools
- See Makbilot BaMikra for links to passages from Tanakh which speak of the war against Amalek and the directive to obliterate them, including: Shemot 17:8-16, Devarim 25:17-19 and Shemuel I 15:2-3.
Articles
- See Shaul’s War Against Amalek, by R. Amnon Bazak, for comparison and contrast of the accounts of the war against Amalek in Shemot and Devarim, and the aftermath of these encounters in Sefer Shemuel. He notes that in Shemot the war is described as an affront against God; other nations were awed by God's feats in Egypt and Amalek alone dared to attack. Devarim, in contrast, highlights the human dimension of the war, focusing on how it was an immoral attack against innocents.
- See Zakhor: The Evil of Amalek, by R. Alex Israel, for a composite picture of the unique immorality of Amalek based on details gleaned from the various Biblical accounts of conflicts between Israel and Amalek.
- See Amalek: The Moral Argument, by R. Yaakov Medan, who discusses both the differences between the two accounts and the moral question raised by the obligation to wipe out Amalek. R. Medan notes that one may assume that the two accounts of the war represent two stages, an initial defeat (Devarim), and the ultimate victory (Shemot). He, though, suggests that they represent two distinct wars, with Devarim speaking of Amalek's attack on the "מעפילים". This, he posits, precipitated a series of persistent, continuous attacks on Israel's weak throughout the forty years in the wilderness.
- See The Legal Blend in Biblical Narrative, by Professor Joshua Berman, for analysis of cases in which distinct aspects of two sources from the Torah, both dealing with the same issue in different ways, are blended in a narrative found in the Prophets or Writings. Dr. Berman suggests that the narrative of Shaul and Amalek blends motifs found in the passages about Amalek in Shemot and Devarim.
- See The Punishment of Amalek in the Jewish Tradition: Coping with the Moral Problem, by Dr. Avi Sagi, for analysis and categorization of commentators’ interpretations of the Biblical narratives and halakhic passages relating to Amalek. Through this discussion, Dr. Sagi explores the interaction in Jewish tradition between morality, religion, and canonical text.
