Difference between revisions of "Shabbat Table Topics – Parashat Vaetchanan/0/en"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
m |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
<p>Though many people assume that the entire nation heard all ten of the Aseret HaDibberot directly from Hashem, many commentators suggest that Moshe might have acted as an intermediary for at least part of, if not the entire, experience. Which verses might provide support for each position?</p> | <p>Though many people assume that the entire nation heard all ten of the Aseret HaDibberot directly from Hashem, many commentators suggest that Moshe might have acted as an intermediary for at least part of, if not the entire, experience. Which verses might provide support for each position?</p> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
| − | <li>Ibn Ezra and Rashbam maintain that the nation heard the entire Decalogue from Hashem, but then fear overcame them and they requested that Moshe step in. Had it not been for their fear, Hashem would have relayed the rest of Torah directly as well. How does this reading affect our perception of the uniqueness of the Aseret HaDibberot? Is it problematic to suggest that Hashem might have a change of plan?</li> | + | <li><multilink><a href="IbnEzraDevarim5-5" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraDevarim5-5" data-aht="source">Devarim 5:5</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary20-1" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 20:1</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="RashbamShemot20-15" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamShemot20-15" data-aht="source">Shemot 20:15</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink> maintain that the nation heard the entire Decalogue from Hashem, but then fear overcame them and they requested that Moshe step in. Had it not been for their fear, Hashem would have relayed the rest of Torah directly as well. How does this reading affect our perception of the uniqueness of the Aseret HaDibberot? Is it problematic to suggest that Hashem might have a change of plan?</li> |
| − | <li>Rambam, in contrast, assumes that Hashem spoke directly only to Moshe. The people listened in on their conversation, but heard merely a Divine voice without being able to decipher His words. Rambam is likely motivated by his belief that indiscriminate prophecy is impossible. Do you agree that prophecy is only possible with proper training and preparation, or can anyone reach prophetic levels if Hashem chooses to speak to them? Attempt to bolster your position from other cases in Tanakh.</li> | + | <li><multilink><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim233" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim233" data-aht="source">2 33</a><a href="Rambam Moreh Nevukhim" data-aht="parshan">About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim</a></multilink>, in contrast, assumes that Hashem spoke directly only to Moshe. The people listened in on their conversation, but heard merely a Divine voice without being able to decipher His words. Rambam is likely motivated by his belief that indiscriminate prophecy is impossible. Do you agree that prophecy is only possible with proper training and preparation, or can anyone reach prophetic levels if Hashem chooses to speak to them? Attempt to bolster your position from other cases in Tanakh.</li> |
<li>What ramifications does this dispute have for understanding the main purpose of the Sinaitic revelation? For elaboration, see <a href="The Decalogue: Direct From Hashem or Via Moshe" data-aht="page">The Decalogue: Direct From Hashem or Via Moshe?</a></li> | <li>What ramifications does this dispute have for understanding the main purpose of the Sinaitic revelation? For elaboration, see <a href="The Decalogue: Direct From Hashem or Via Moshe" data-aht="page">The Decalogue: Direct From Hashem or Via Moshe?</a></li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
<p>How would you define the notion "love"?   What does the commandment to love Hashem entail?  Are emotions even subject to one's will? How can you be commanded to feel a certain way? </p> | <p>How would you define the notion "love"?   What does the commandment to love Hashem entail?  Are emotions even subject to one's will? How can you be commanded to feel a certain way? </p> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
| − | <li>Commentators disagree whether the love prescribed is an emotion, a cognitive process or an action. While the Rambam views love of Hashem as an emotional longing, comparable to the love between spouses, Shadal asserts that the commandment is action-oriented and is a metaphoric way of saying that one must be loyal to God and observe His commandments.  Ramban offers a  third possibility, that the mitzvah is one of martyrdom.</li> | + | <li>Commentators disagree whether the love prescribed is an emotion, a cognitive process or an action. While the <multilink><a href="RambamHilkhotTeshuvah10-3" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="RambamHilkhotTeshuvah10-3" data-aht="source">Hilkhot Teshuvah 10:3</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Maimon</a></multilink> views love of Hashem as an emotional longing, comparable to the love between spouses, <multilink><a href="ShadalDevarim6-5" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalDevarim6-5" data-aht="source">Devarim 6:5</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink> asserts that the commandment is action-oriented and is a metaphoric way of saying that one must be loyal to God and observe His commandments.  <multilink><a href="RambanShemot20-5" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot20-5" data-aht="source">Shemot 20:5</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink> offers a  third possibility, that the mitzvah is one of martyrdom.</li> |
<li>Which of the above approaches do you find the most compelling?  Which verses in the unit of "Shema" might support each understanding?   How might each exegete apply his interpretation to other directives involving love of another, such as the commandment to love your neighbor and a foreigner?  For elaboration, see <a href="Ahavat Hashem" data-aht="page">Ahavat Hashem</a>.</li> | <li>Which of the above approaches do you find the most compelling?  Which verses in the unit of "Shema" might support each understanding?   How might each exegete apply his interpretation to other directives involving love of another, such as the commandment to love your neighbor and a foreigner?  For elaboration, see <a href="Ahavat Hashem" data-aht="page">Ahavat Hashem</a>.</li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
<p>There are many differences between the formulations of the Decalogue found in Shemot and in Devarim. How should these variations be understood? Were they engendered by Hashem, Moshe, or both? If the latter, what gave Moshe the authority to do so? Do both versions of the Decalogue have equal status, or does one represent the ideal (and which)?</p> | <p>There are many differences between the formulations of the Decalogue found in Shemot and in Devarim. How should these variations be understood? Were they engendered by Hashem, Moshe, or both? If the latter, what gave Moshe the authority to do so? Do both versions of the Decalogue have equal status, or does one represent the ideal (and which)?</p> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
| − | <li><b> </b>R. D"Z Hoffmann suggests that Moshe initiated the changes in the fortieth year and that they related to the nation's imminent arrival in the Land of Israel. In contrast, Malbim asserts that Hashem Himself made the changes in the aftermath of the Sin of the Golden Calf.  Due to sin, the people no longer merited a miraculous existence, and the Decalogue was amended to fit a nation now governed by laws of nature. How would each position explain all of the differences between the two versions? Can each account for all of the variations? Which approach do you find more compelling?</li> | + | <li><b> </b>R. D"Z Hoffmann suggests that Moshe initiated the changes in the fortieth year and that they related to the nation's imminent arrival in the Land of Israel. In contrast, <multilink><a href="MalbimShemot20-7-10" data-aht="source">Malbim</a><a href="MalbimShemot20-7-10" data-aht="source">Shemot 20:7-10</a><a href="R. Meir Leibush Weiser (Malbim)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Meir Leibush Weiser</a></multilink> asserts that Hashem Himself made the changes in the aftermath of the Sin of the Golden Calf.  Due to sin, the people no longer merited a miraculous existence, and the Decalogue was amended to fit a nation now governed by laws of nature. How would each position explain all of the differences between the two versions? Can each account for all of the variations? Which approach do you find more compelling?</li> |
| − | <li>In contrast to the above exegetes, Ibn Ezra maintains that the Decalogue in Devarim is simply Moshe's paraphrase of Hashem's words. Though some words are different, there is no fundamental difference in meaning. He explains, "המלות הם כגופות, והטעמים כנשמות" and thus a change in wording is insignificant. Do you agree? Is word choice meaningful? How might Ibn Ezra account for the seemingly very different reasons given for the commandment of Shabbat? See Decalogue Differences for elaboration.</li> | + | <li>In contrast to the above exegetes,<multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary20-1_2" data-aht="source"> Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary20-1_2" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 20:1</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> maintains that the Decalogue in Devarim is simply Moshe's paraphrase of Hashem's words. Though some words are different, there is no fundamental difference in meaning. He explains, "המלות הם כגופות, והטעמים כנשמות" and thus a change in wording is insignificant. Do you agree? Is word choice meaningful? How might Ibn Ezra account for the seemingly very different reasons given for the commandment of Shabbat? See <a href="Decalogue Differences Between Shemot and Devarim" data-aht="page">Decalogue Differences </a>for elaboration.</li> |
</ul> | </ul> | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
Version as of 00:44, 2 August 2017
Shabbat Table Topics – Parashat Vaetchanan
Revelation: A "Face to Face" Encounter?
Though many people assume that the entire nation heard all ten of the Aseret HaDibberot directly from Hashem, many commentators suggest that Moshe might have acted as an intermediary for at least part of, if not the entire, experience. Which verses might provide support for each position?
- Ibn Ezra and Rashbam maintain that the nation heard the entire Decalogue from Hashem, but then fear overcame them and they requested that Moshe step in. Had it not been for their fear, Hashem would have relayed the rest of Torah directly as well. How does this reading affect our perception of the uniqueness of the Aseret HaDibberot? Is it problematic to suggest that Hashem might have a change of plan?
- Rambam, in contrast, assumes that Hashem spoke directly only to Moshe. The people listened in on their conversation, but heard merely a Divine voice without being able to decipher His words. Rambam is likely motivated by his belief that indiscriminate prophecy is impossible. Do you agree that prophecy is only possible with proper training and preparation, or can anyone reach prophetic levels if Hashem chooses to speak to them? Attempt to bolster your position from other cases in Tanakh.
- What ramifications does this dispute have for understanding the main purpose of the Sinaitic revelation? For elaboration, see The Decalogue: Direct From Hashem or Via Moshe?
Loving Hashem
How would you define the notion "love"? What does the commandment to love Hashem entail? Are emotions even subject to one's will? How can you be commanded to feel a certain way?
- Commentators disagree whether the love prescribed is an emotion, a cognitive process or an action. While the Rambam views love of Hashem as an emotional longing, comparable to the love between spouses, Shadal asserts that the commandment is action-oriented and is a metaphoric way of saying that one must be loyal to God and observe His commandments. Ramban offers a third possibility, that the mitzvah is one of martyrdom.
- Which of the above approaches do you find the most compelling? Which verses in the unit of "Shema" might support each understanding? How might each exegete apply his interpretation to other directives involving love of another, such as the commandment to love your neighbor and a foreigner? For elaboration, see Ahavat Hashem.
Decalogue Differences
There are many differences between the formulations of the Decalogue found in Shemot and in Devarim. How should these variations be understood? Were they engendered by Hashem, Moshe, or both? If the latter, what gave Moshe the authority to do so? Do both versions of the Decalogue have equal status, or does one represent the ideal (and which)?
- R. D"Z Hoffmann suggests that Moshe initiated the changes in the fortieth year and that they related to the nation's imminent arrival in the Land of Israel. In contrast, Malbim asserts that Hashem Himself made the changes in the aftermath of the Sin of the Golden Calf. Due to sin, the people no longer merited a miraculous existence, and the Decalogue was amended to fit a nation now governed by laws of nature. How would each position explain all of the differences between the two versions? Can each account for all of the variations? Which approach do you find more compelling?
- In contrast to the above exegetes, Ibn Ezra maintains that the Decalogue in Devarim is simply Moshe's paraphrase of Hashem's words. Though some words are different, there is no fundamental difference in meaning. He explains, "המלות הם כגופות, והטעמים כנשמות" and thus a change in wording is insignificant. Do you agree? Is word choice meaningful? How might Ibn Ezra account for the seemingly very different reasons given for the commandment of Shabbat? See Decalogue Differences for elaboration.
