[Quote from the weekly Parashah of www.netzarim.co.il:]
Jews have been demonized more than any other people. Beginning in 135 CE with the Roman expulsion of Jews from Yәrushâlayim and the consequent establishment of the Christian Church, Jews, Eusebius and other founding historians of the Church document that Christians demonized Jews as "those who have been blinded and rejected by god, blindly following the law of sin and death and servants of Satan." misojudaics resurrect the same arguments periodically, reaching a pinnacle in the Holocaust. It is, thus, both incomprehensible and inexcusable for Jews to resort to demonizing our cousins, the Arabs.
Yet, if the medieval Jewish commentators' interpretation of this week's pâ•râsh•âh′ are correct in holding that the מלאך of Ei•sau′ was, indeed, a "heavenly angel," then the following reasoning, as found in the Artscroll Stone Edition Ta•na"kh′ (Note 32.25-32), results:
"The struggle with the angel. This confrontation was a cosmic event in Jewish history. The Rabbis explained that this 'man' was the guardian angel of Esau (Rashi), in human guise. The Sages teach that every nation has an angel that guides its destiny as an 'intermediary' between it and
But such demonization of any goy, or goy•im′, as servants of Satan isn't compatible with the teachings of Tor•âh′ (י--ה also blessed Ei•sau′—does י--ה thus endorse servants of Satan though there is no evil in י--ה?), isn't logically valid and must be rejected outright.
The correct and logical interpretation of this pâ•suq′ causes the problem to evaporate. We noted back in the 5753 (1992.12) pâ•râsh•âh′ (below) that "angels" isn't a valid rendering for מלאך. In fact, "angels" are an extension of the polytheism motif dating back into our sojourn in Mi•tzәr•ay′im (B.C.E. 1897-1467—Chronology of the Ta•na"kh′from the 'Big Bang') and promulgated by the Greeks in Hellenism, the Romans in Christianity and the Jews in Qa•bâl•âh′.
The trivial questions, propelled by ignorance of Biblical perspective, combined with a penchant for superstitious fabling, are easily answered by rendering מלאך as a human messenger throughout Ta•na"kh′.
- Q: Who, then, is the מלאך with whom Ya•a•qov′ wrestled?
- A: Ta•na"kh′ reads (32.25) ויאבק איש עמו (wa-yei•aveiq ish imo; and wrestled a man with him). Ta•na"kh′ reads איש (ish; man), not מלאך. Thus, Ta•na"kh′ confirms that the interpretation of מלאך when found elsewhere in connection with this account is actually איש, a human messenger, not a fairy-tale "angel."
- A: Ta•na"kh′ reads (32.25) ויאבק איש עמו (wa-yei•aveiq ish imo; and wrestled a man with him). Ta•na"kh′ reads איש (ish; man), not מלאך. Thus, Ta•na"kh′ confirms that the interpretation of מלאך when found elsewhere in connection with this account is actually איש, a human messenger, not a fairy-tale "angel."
- Q: Why did Ya•a•qov′ ask the name of the איש with whom he wrestled if it was his brother?
- A: Throughout the Middle East in those days, men were awarded honorific names for especially meritorious deeds, witness, inter alia, Av•râ•hâm′ (Avram) and Sarah (Sarai) and עשו Ei•sau′ שעיר (Sei•ir; hairy) (Pâ•râsh•at′ Toldot). The practice is also widely attested in Mi•tzәr•ay′im. Ei•sau′ was an outdoorsman who wouldn't be defeated by a "nobody" little brother. He knew that anyone who could defeat him either had previously already earned an honorific title or had earned one now. So he asked his little brother if he had attained an honorific title while in Iraq. When his little brother replied with only his born name, Ei•sau′granted him an honorific name, Yi•sәr•â•eil′.
- A: Throughout the Middle East in those days, men were awarded honorific names for especially meritorious deeds, witness, inter alia, Av•râ•hâm′ (Avram) and Sarah (Sarai) and עשו Ei•sau′ שעיר (Sei•ir; hairy) (Pâ•râsh•at′ Toldot). The practice is also widely attested in Mi•tzәr•ay′im. Ei•sau′ was an outdoorsman who wouldn't be defeated by a "nobody" little brother. He knew that anyone who could defeat him either had previously already earned an honorific title or had earned one now. So he asked his little brother if he had attained an honorific title while in Iraq. When his little brother replied with only his born name, Ei•sau′granted him an honorific name, Yi•sәr•â•eil′.
- Q: Why, then did Ya•a•qov′ ask the name of his big brother?
- A: The flip-side of the conversation, the complementary—and corroborating—reason. Ya•a•qov′ has just been granted an honorific name and he asked, then, what honorific name Ei•sau′ was taking. As the defeated party, however, Ei•sau′ asked "Why do you ask such a silly question? To rub it in?"
- A: The flip-side of the conversation, the complementary—and corroborating—reason. Ya•a•qov′ has just been granted an honorific name and he asked, then, what honorific name Ei•sau′ was taking. As the defeated party, however, Ei•sau′ asked "Why do you ask such a silly question? To rub it in?"
- Q: Why was the איש afraid of dawn?
- A: Interpreting איש as an extra-earthly being that was afraid of the dawn (32.27) suggests some prefigurement of the vampire myth; clearly superstitious. There is, however, a simple explanation why Ei•sau′ was concerned about the dawn. Ei•sau′ was the powerful outdoorsman head of a clan, a nobleman. It wasn't proper for him to be seen as one of a couple of dirty, bloody night brawlers, and even worse to be a dirty, bloody night brawler defeated by his little brother. Like their subsequent peoples, Ei•sau′ and Ya•a•qov′ were noblemen who greatly regarded their sense of honor, personal integrity—and pride. Ei•sau′ wanted to get away from there and clean up.
- A: Interpreting איש as an extra-earthly being that was afraid of the dawn (32.27) suggests some prefigurement of the vampire myth; clearly superstitious. There is, however, a simple explanation why Ei•sau′ was concerned about the dawn. Ei•sau′ was the powerful outdoorsman head of a clan, a nobleman. It wasn't proper for him to be seen as one of a couple of dirty, bloody night brawlers, and even worse to be a dirty, bloody night brawler defeated by his little brother. Like their subsequent peoples, Ei•sau′ and Ya•a•qov′ were noblemen who greatly regarded their sense of honor, personal integrity—and pride. Ei•sau′ wanted to get away from there and clean up.
- Q: With such concerns, why would Ei•sau′ and Ya•a•qov′ agree to one-on-one combat?
- A: As we see with the later instance of Dâ•wid′ and Jalyat (corrupted to "Goliath"), deciding a conflict by two representative champions was preferred to the killing of many people on both sides, often including women and children, in a full battle. Ya•a•qov′ noted his concern (32.8-12) and had sent his own מלאכים (again corroborating that מלאכים are human messengers, not "angels") to arrange this alternative to full conflict (32.4). Hearing the report, however, that Ei•sau′ is approaching with four hundred armed men rather than alone, Ya•a•qov′ is well justified in being concerned.
- A: As we see with the later instance of Dâ•wid′ and Jalyat (corrupted to "Goliath"), deciding a conflict by two representative champions was preferred to the killing of many people on both sides, often including women and children, in a full battle. Ya•a•qov′ noted his concern (32.8-12) and had sent his own מלאכים (again corroborating that מלאכים are human messengers, not "angels") to arrange this alternative to full conflict (32.4). Hearing the report, however, that Ei•sau′ is approaching with four hundred armed men rather than alone, Ya•a•qov′ is well justified in being concerned.
- Q: Why, then, after the one-on-one match does Ya•a•qov′ continue to be afraid of Ei•sau′'s band (33.1ff)?
- A: Prudence.
- A: Prudence.
- Q: If Ya•a•qov′ had only defeated Ei•sau′, then why did Ei•sau′ name him Yi•sәr•â•eil′ commemorating that he had prevailed with Eil (Ël•oh•im′) and man (32.29)?
- A: Conversely, why stipulate "and man" if it wasn't a man? Messengers of Ël•oh•im′ and י--ה weren't always called messengers (מלאכים). Just as one might announce a representative of Microsoft as "Hey, Microsoft is here"; so, too, messengers of Ël•oh•im′ or י--ה were often referred to simply as Ël•oh•im′ or י--ה (see, inter alia, bә-Reish•it′ 18). Like Ya•a•qov′, Ei•sau′, was also a son of Av•râ•hâm′ and, as head of a clan, a nobleman. Noblemen, probably regarded, in the same way, as messengers of Ël•oh•im′, were sometimes referred to in Ta•na"kh′ as Ël•oh•im′. (However, there's no upper and lower case distinction in Hebrew.) So, like other noblemen of his day, Ei•sau′ was regarded, and regarded himself, as properly representing Ël•oh•im′. In defeating Ei•sau′, therefore, Ya•a•qov′ had conquered both Ei•sau′ the Ël•oh•im′ andEi•sau′ the man, thereby earning the honorific appellation Yi•sәr•â•eil′.
- A: Conversely, why stipulate "and man" if it wasn't a man? Messengers of Ël•oh•im′ and י--ה weren't always called messengers (מלאכים). Just as one might announce a representative of Microsoft as "Hey, Microsoft is here"; so, too, messengers of Ël•oh•im′ or י--ה were often referred to simply as Ël•oh•im′ or י--ה (see, inter alia, bә-Reish•it′ 18). Like Ya•a•qov′, Ei•sau′, was also a son of Av•râ•hâm′ and, as head of a clan, a nobleman. Noblemen, probably regarded, in the same way, as messengers of Ël•oh•im′, were sometimes referred to in Ta•na"kh′ as Ël•oh•im′. (However, there's no upper and lower case distinction in Hebrew.) So, like other noblemen of his day, Ei•sau′ was regarded, and regarded himself, as properly representing Ël•oh•im′. In defeating Ei•sau′, therefore, Ya•a•qov′ had conquered both Ei•sau′ the Ël•oh•im′ andEi•sau′ the man, thereby earning the honorific appellation Yi•sәr•â•eil′.
Thus, there was no extra-earthly angelic "spiritual force of evil—Satan himself" anthropomorphically personified as a man wrestling with Ya•a•qov′. Neither demonization of Arabs nor any angelic battle between good angels leading good nations against evil angels leading evil nations is justified. It is all in our hands relying solely upon the direct help of the Prime Singularity to Whom every intelligent and logical inquiry into cosmology inevitably leads—י--ה, not any fairy-tale heavenly battle of "angels." The superstition of evil angels who could mount a battle against the Almighty is a remnant of polytheism.
0 kommentarer:
Post a Comment