תהלים כב, ד

ואתה קדוש יושב
תהלות ישראל

or

ואתה קדוש
יושב תהלות ישראל

See the comments by Shuvyah at:

http://www.zachicks.com/blog/2012/1/24/is-god-inhabits-the-praises-of-his-people-really-biblical.html?currentPage=5

Note also the discussion of "Israel" and Christian substitution of "God's people"... reinterpreted as Christians!

To translate or not to translate? When is a language no longer itself?

"בתחילת הבריאה, כשברא אלוהים את העולם, והארץ היתה שוממה וריקה..."

"At the beginning of creation, when God created the world/universe, the earth was desolate and empty..."

— Bereshit/Genesis 1:1-2a in the modern Hebrew translation of Avraham Ahuvia, a 90-year-old Israeli kibbutznik

According to BAR:

• “I didn’t say ‘heaven and earth’ but ‘the world,’” Ahuvia said, “because on the second day he created the firmament and called it heaven. In the Bible, the phrase ha-shamayim ve-ha’aretz means ‘the world.’”

• Drora Halevy, national supervisor of Bible studies at the Ministry of Education, claims: “This translation cuts out the heart of the Bible. It reduces the Bible to just another book. In the Bible, form and content are bound together. The translation kills it."

 See also an older article in הארץ.

Shabbat, fire, and modernity

לֹא־תְבַעֲר֣וּ אֵ֔שׁ בְּכֹ֖ל מֹשְׁבֹֽתֵיכֶ֑ם בְּי֖וֹם הַשַּׁבָּֽת׃

שמות לה, ג

Do not burn fire in all your dwellings on the Sabbath day.

Exodus 35:3

What does this commandment mean?

One of the problems we face in trying to keep the commandments of Torah is that most people (anywhere in the world) are not interested in doing so. That makes things harder, since society is not set up to enable observance of the commandments. Rather, we have to struggle against the stream.

Another problem is that even within the minority that does claim to follow Torah, most people do not follow Torah itself but rather an accumulation of centuries of tradition and rabbinic (or other) rulings. These traditions frequently modify, transform, distort, or set aside the actual commandments of Torah. So even those who say they are following Torah are usually not following what it actually says, but something else altogether.

So what about those of us who want to keep Torah in accordance with the actual meaning of the commandments and within our modern life setting? We have to consider each commandment afresh and seek to discern its applicability today. This same question is faced in every age.

With regard to (not) burning a fire on shabbat, the commandment itself sounds pretty clear. However, a number of questions do arise. Here are some of them:

- Does this mean not to start a fire on shabbat, or not to have a fire burning at all?

- What about those who live in cold climates? (One possible answer to this question is that Torah was given as national law for Eretz Yisrael.)

- By saying "in all your dwellings" (בכל משבתיכם), does the mitzvah leave open the possibility of burning a shabbat fire "outside" one's dwelling? E.g., a bonfire in the park? a barbecue in the back yard? (Note that the fire on the altar had to be kept burning by the priests even on shabbat. See Lev. 6:8-13 / ויקרא ו‫,‬ א‫-‬ו . Cf. Maty. 12:5.)

- What is 'fire', beyond the obvious? Is an internal combustion engine (such as in an automobile) an example of fire? The words we use to describe it suggest that it is. But should we adopt a modern scientific definition of 'burning' or 'combustion' -- "the sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species," according to Wikipedia -- when seeking to apply ancient Torah to our lives? Or should we try to think only in terms of what 'fire' (i.e., אש) would have meant to Israelis 3,000 years ago?

- By considering such questions and (hopefully) settling on a general approach, are we creating "our own halacha" just like the rabbis have done? Does it make a difference if one says, "This is my opinion, but you may have a different understanding -- or your time/place may require a different observance"? One crucial aspect of rabbinic halacha is that it is considered to be authoritative. In other words, you and I are supposedly obligated to follow what the council of rabbis has decided. But if one does not adopt this attitude, instead according freedom and discretion to all, is that a better solution?

I found a couple places on the web arguing that Exod. 35:3 was only talking about an "industrial fire" -- and thus fires for cooking, warmth, etc. would be ok on shabbat. However, I personally can't see how that interpretation stems from the text.

I know there are various opinions on the shabbat & fire commandment even among the contributors to this blog! I'd be interested to hear your views.

The Influence of History

Past experience is the foundation on which our beliefs about the desirability of different policies and institutions are mainly based, and our present political views inevitably affect can color our interpretation of the past.

-F.A. Hayek, Capitalism and the Historians

What are the "weightier" matters of Torah?

A while back I was talking with ירמיה about the "weightier matters of the Law" as described in Mt. 23:23:

Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί, ὅτι ἀποδεκατοῦτε τὸ ἡδύοσμον καὶ τὸ ἄνηθον καὶ τὸ κύμινον καὶ ἀφήκατε τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόμου, τὴν κρίσιν καὶ τὸ ἔλεος καὶ τὴν πίστιν· ταῦτα [δὲ] ἔδει ποιῆσαι κἀκεῖνα μὴ ἀφιέναι.

Woe to you Torah scholars and Perushim, pretenders! For you give the tenth of mint, dill, and cumin; yet you have left undone the weightier matters of the Torah: justice, mercy, and faith. But it is necessary to do these things, and not to have left the others undone.

ירמיה, I remember you suggested that the ordinary translation might not be quite right — or else you had some other insight on the last part of the verse in the Jewish-Greek text, and how it should be interpreted. Could you share your thoughts again?

The Value of Context

One central issue for everyone who desires to walk humbly with God is how we understand scripture. I know ליש would be interested in defining which texts are considered "scripture", but for now I'm speaking generally.

There are many questions that arise when we approach these texts. Broadly we may want to know what these ancient texts mean for us today. Naturally, we come with our own assumptions. Some approach them from a critical perspective, attempting to dissect the texts as one would any other ancient text. On the other side, there are those who see it as the eternal Word of God and there is no room for modern critical analysis.

I personally sit somewhere in between. I believe God spoke to people and they wrote it down. I also believe that these human writers were writing in a cultural context. In addition, there is the issue of transmission and questions of scribal errors or additions, but I'm not addressing these right now.

The issue I want to raise is the importance of context. I disagree strongly with the classical Rabbinic approach, in which a verse or phrase can be used to prove their point based on the use of a particular word. Their approach is founded on the assumption that there is no past of future with God's Word. Since it is eternal context is irrelevant. I believe it is dangerous to "pluck" a line out of context to prove a point. Beyond a cultural context there is the immediate textual context. Writers are expressing certain thoughts and we need to try to understand the train of thought. For example, I could use two different phrases in Shaul's letter to the Galations to "prove" opposite ideas. Therefore, when I discuss my understanding of something and I want to show how it is expressed in a particular passage I'll quote it while trying to keep in mind the textual context. I also judge individual thoughts arising from a certain passage against the larger picture I see in scripture.

One significant phrase, for example, which in my opinion has been taken out of context, that influences our daily life in Israel is Ex. 34: 26b: לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו Do not boil a kid in his mother's milk.

Just according to my own logic I've never thought that the intention was eating a cheeseburger. It definitely is not referring to a cream soup with a chicken broth base.
I've read articles examining possible parallels to cultic practices in other ancient cultures to explain what this might mean. In my opinion the textual context tells us a lot, and I only paid attention to this recently.
This commandment is given after instructions regarding the three pilgrim festivals (Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkot). [note: As I continued to read the parashot I realized that this same commandment is given again, Deut. 14:21, in the context of which animals should and should not be eaten.]

V. 25 "Do not slaughter with a fermented thing the blood of My sacrifice; and the sacrifice of the feast of the passover shall not remain till morning:"
V. 26 "the first of the first-fruits of the land you shall bring into the house of the LORD your God; Do not boil a kid in its mother's milk."
It is clear from the context, at least to me, that this is not a general command regarding meat and dairy. The previous commandments very specifically refer to aspects of different festivals. Logic would say that "boiling a kid in his mother's milk" would fit in this same category. Granted I still do not understand the connection and background to this commandment, but I believe based on context alone we can say with a high degree of certainty that it is related to a cultic practice.

My point with this example is that context is vital for proper interpretation. As soon as we read and try to understand any text we interpret it. I don't believe we can be one hundred percent objective, but my hope is that we strive for it.