Actually the converse is the case, but due to Tiqqun Soferim it got switched around. But, this was not literally done by some "editor" who changed the text. EG see Iqqar siftei Hachamim 1. [Any such idea of an editorial change could be deemed a perfect mis-understanding]
IIRC R Dr. MS Feldblum explained that tiqqun sof'rim is an idiomatic expression simply meaning "euphemism". This is only a slightly different than the Iqqar Sifte Hachamim and the sentiment is similar. It's not an editorial change TO the text; rather a LINGUISTIC change to say one thing but meaning another.
Shalom
RRW
8 comments:
[Any such idea of an editorial change could be deemed a perfect mis-understanding]
So there is no room for disagreement on this point? Even for those versions of Rashi that explicitly state
אלא תיקון סופרים הוא זה (אשר הפכוהו ז"ל לכתוב כן)
I understand that there are different printings, but how are you so sure which is correct? And even with the Midrash Tanchuma, which supports the complete reading in Rashi? Forgive me, but it seems a little arrogant for you to assume that Rashi has to abide by your own personal conceptions regarding the Torah.
Rabbi Wolpoe:
Also have you Seen the Gur Aryeh on Devarim 28:30 on 'yishgelenah' it's quoted in the annotated Rashi edition
-A Friend
I thought I tried to leave a polite comment. Nothing accusatory. Just a gentle although pointed reminder that there are other views to this issue, and your article seemed rather of simplistic. But wow -- the vitriol! I have never seen such a mean, vindicative, nasty, response before. It's as if you had some underlying anger towards anonymous commenters and you decided to take it all out on me. Your blog is usually interesting, but now that I know the condescending and mean-spirited tone you take with people who show the least bit of disagreement, I don't know that I want to continue participating as a reader. I would take a lesson from R. Gil Student in this regard. He takes his readers seriously and engages in respectful repartee, even when the comments are pointed. Please re-read your comments and think about how angry they might appear to someone who didn't have all the mean "skeptical" motives that you assume he did. Your response was downright hurtful (besides not addressing calmly the points I made). I am sorry if you took my comments the wrong way (which it seems you did), but that seems to be no justification for this egregious response.
I guess Rabbi Wolpoe is simply saying that why didn’t Skeptic simply post that there is a difference of opinion as to how to best define Tikun Sofrim and leave it at that that without having to accuse Rabbi Wolpoe of being Arrogant for favouring a single side of the argument.
I think Rabbi Wolpoe has a right to take one opinion and SKPTIC has a right to differ, and there is no need to get all uptight about it
My friends have informed me that 2 wrongs don't make a right. And so if I eschew ad hominems I need to avoid making them myself and So I apologize for any ad hominems and instead I will take another stab at it.
As it turns out, this read of Tiqqun Sof'rim that I advocated was originally the read posited by Iqar Siftei Hachamim as well as my teacher R Dr. MS Feldblum. Subsequently I discovered more support
1. Maharal’s Gur Aryeh
2. Y’fei Toarh Tora,
3. Sefer Yasahn
4. Hachtav v’hakkabalh,
5. Sefer Hazikaron
That contrary parenthetical mentioned by Mr. Skeptic has been dismissed in the Critical Edition of Rashi, as an interpolation from a Talmid And so I fail to see where it is "arrogant" to say that "to read it otherwise COULD be a mis-understanding." No one is forcing anyone that it MUST be that way.
Similarly, no one is forcing Rashi to agree with my point. Rather I'm simply stating how Rashi has been elucidated by none other than Iqar Siftei Hachamim, etc. Attacking me is attacking the messenger. I happen to opine that this IS THE correct read. Rabbis do that all the time. Now, to impugn that Rashi held that Sof'rim literally mucked up the text of the Torah would be heresy as per the Rambam's Iqarim. Mr. Skeptic is [unwittingly?] assigning a position to Rashi that would be heretical as per the Rambam. I don't see a strong reaction as inappropriate here.
Furthermore, Mr. Skeptic's anonymity not only gave him a shot at me personally, he also deprived me of the opportunity to explain my position privately. And that is what irked me. I fail to see that I see every anonymous comment as evil. If they adhere to the rules of engagement – it’s no big deal.
So here’s my frustration with Mr. Skeptic’s comments and ot with him personally
1. Seemed to misread my point
2. Assigned arrogance to my opinion.
3. Saw no need to amend his own comments
4. Despite several LOL's saw vitriol in my comments
5. Mr. Skeptic's felt deprived from his right to his point of view.
I wonder if he saw the Iqar Siftei Hachamim or not.
For the record I have not seen the Midrash Tanhuma - which remains the one source opposed that has not been addressed. This Midrash Tanhuma poses a Problem to the Rambam and his underlying source Talmud Bavli in Sanhedrin 99. The common approach, avoids that clash.
Shalom
RRW
Post a Comment