Volume 41 Number 96
Produced: Sun Jan 25 1:10:23 US/Eastern 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Entering a Church
[Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Free Hebrew-English Word Processor
[Shmuel Himelstein]
Murder (2)
[c.halevi, Shimon Lebowitz]
Murdering the Language
[Gershon Rothstein]
Names: Moses
[David Charlap]
Synagogue disputes-Nice custom
[Russell J Hendel]
Translation of "Lo tirtsach"
[Bernard Katz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:57:40 EST
Subject: Entering a Church
Perry Zamek (MJv41n92) is questioning the year in which Rabbi Yaakov
Meir the Chief Rabbi for Palestine participated in some kind of
"service" on December 9, in the St. George's church in Jerusalem.
Since supreme court justice Gad Frumkin (the author of the cited text)
mentioned that Sir Ronald Storss, the military governor of Jerusalem
participated in that "service," and his term of office in Jerusalem was
1918-1926, we know that the service was not a celebratory ad hoc
service, but rather a commemorative one, on the same date, year/s later.
I am very intersted to know what was Rabbi Jacob Meir doing in the
Cathedral of St. George in Jerusalem on that December 9. If someone
could find the invitation to that occasion, in some archive, we'll all
be enlighten. One reader informed me privately that the Cathedral was
built in the late-middle 1800s.
Gilad J. Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 05:53:00 +0300
Subject: Free Hebrew-English Word Processor
OpenOffice, which is a free word processor and office suite, has the
ability to work in Hebrew and English. It is available at
www.openoffice.org. It is only 65 meg in size. For all practical
purposes, it is compatible with MS Word.
After installing, one needs to set the language setting to Hebrew.
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: c.halevi <c.halevi@...>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:43:30 -0600
Subject: RE: Murder
Shimon Lebowitz raises a very cogent point to my assertion that
>>"Thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation because if we could not
kill, we could not make war or execute a murderer: ergo the correct
translation should be "Thou shalt not murder."<<
Reb Shimon notes >>While I have used this exact argument many
times myself, I cannot but feel a bit uncomfortable when I read Bamidbar
35:30 "lefi eidim yirtzach et ha-rotzei'ach" - on the basis of witnesses
shall the murderer be ... *murdered*?? Obviously in this context the
verb does *not* mean murder, does it?<<
It seems that the Hebrew word "tirtzach/yirtzach" must always be
taken in context. When the Torah says "Lo tirtzach," it means "Thou
shalt not **illegally** shed blood" -- i.e. murder. In the verse
concerning "lefi eidim yirtzach et ha-rotzei'ach" it means Thou shalt
**legally** shed blood via capital punishment.
Yeshaya (Charles Chi) Halevi
<halevi@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:58:16 +0200
Subject: RE: Murder
> It seems that the Hebrew word "tirtzach/yirtzach" must always be
> taken in context. When the Torah says "Lo tirtzach," it means "Thou
> shalt not **illegally** shed blood" -- i.e. murder. In the verse
> concerning "lefi eidim yirtzach et ha-rotzei'ach" it means Thou shalt
> **legally** shed blood via capital punishment.
This looks like we are back to the common "Thou shalt not kill" all over
again. Only now we are saying "this doesn't mean don't kill in war, it
means don't kill *unjustly* or *illegally*".
So we can't complain when people use that translation, the vast majority
of them are not extremist pacifists who wouldn't even execute a
murderer.
Bechavod,
Shimon Lebowitz mailto:<shimonl@...>
Jerusalem, Israel PGP:
http://www.poboxes.com/shimonpgp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Rothstein <rothsteing@...>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:22:46 -0500
Subject: Murdering the Language
Yeshaya (Charles Chi) Halevi wrote:
>At the risk of beating a deceased equine, many people have noted that
>"Thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation. If we could not kill, we
>could not make war or execute a murderer. The correct translation
>should be "Thou shalt not murder."
Indeed, the Zohar says that were it not for the Ta'am Elyon that
separates the 'Lo' from the 'Tirtzach', we would not be able to make war
or execute a murderer. So I guess that "Thou shalt not kill" is not a
bad literal translation of 'Lo Tirtzach'.
Parenthetically, in the past, the 8th (or was it the 9th) of Teves was a
fasting day because it was the day the Torah was translated into Greek.
We see here, based on the Zohar, that "Thou shalt not kill" is not a
complete translation of 'Lo Tirtzach' because the nuances of the Ta'amim
cannot be conveyed.
Best wishes to all.
Gershon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Charlap <shamino@...>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:55:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Names: Moses
Leo Koppel writes:
> A long time ago when I studied ancient Greek, I studied some of the
> anti-Judaism polemic as well as the apologia in ancient (actually mostly
> koine) Greek. One source remarked on the similarity between Moses and a
> common Egyptian name like Ahmoses and between Aaron and a common
> Egyptian name that I have forgotten.
Interesting you should mention this.
The footnotes in the chumash we use at shul every Shabbos (sorry, I
forget the title) mention some of this. I was able to find the same
footnotes on-line (probably the same chumash or based on a common
source, but as I said, I don't remember the title). They are:
http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=2&CHAPTER=1
1:8 A new king(*) who did not know of Joseph ...
* A new king
Or, 'regime' or 'dynasty.' According to tradition, this
occurred around the time of Miriam's birth, which was 2361
(1400 b.c.e.). Hence, the name Miriam denotes bitterness (Seder
Olam Rabbah 3). The 'new king' would then be Thutmose IV, who
reigned 1411-1397 b.c.e.
If we accept the 163 year discrepancy (see note on Genesis
12:15), then this occurred around what would be considered 1563
b.c.e. The New Kingdom, starting with the 18th Dynasty, is
known to have begun in 1575 b.c.e. This started with Ahmose
(Ach-moshe), who drove the Hyksos out of Egypt. Although the
Israelites were not driven out at this time, the Hyksos were a
Semitic tribe, and therefore the changed political climate
would have adversely affected the Israelites. A new surge of
nationalism would also have resulted in prejudice against
foreign elements. (cf. Josephus, Contra Apion 1:14,26. Also see
Yov'loth 46:11).
http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=2&CHAPTER=2
2:10 ... She adopted him as her own son, and named him Moses(*)
(Moshe). 'I bore(*) (mashe) him from the water,' she said.
* Moses
In Egyptian, Moshe means a son. Thus, his naming is prefaced by
a phrase that is literally translated, 'he became to her as a
son' (cf. Ibn Ezra; Hadar Zekenim). Significantly, the suffix
moshe is found (and exclusively so) in the names of many
Pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty, such as Ka-moshe ('son of [Ra's]
majesty'), Ach-moshe (Ahmose; 'son of the moon,' or 'the moon
is born') and Toth-moshe (Thutmose; 'son of Toth'). The word
moshe may indeed be of Semitic origin (see next note, this
verse, 'bore'), introduced by the Semitic Hyksos.
According to other ancient sources, the name Moses comes from
the Egyptian mo (water) and uses (drawn from) (Josephus,
Antiquities 2:9:6, Contra Apion 1:31; Philo De Vita Moses 2:17;
Malbim).
Some sources state that Moses' Egyptian name was Monius (Ibn
Ezra; cf. Abarbanel; Josephus, Contra Apion 1:26, 28). Other
ancient sources claim that Moses' name was preserved among the
Gentiles as the legendary Musaeus, teacher of Orpheus, from
whom the Muses obtained their name (Artapanus, in Eusebius,
Preparatio Evangelica 9:27).
* bore
See 2 Samuel 22:17, Psalms 18:12; note on Genesis 47:11. In
Egyptian, mase or mashe means to give birth. Others see the
word as related to the Hebraic mush, and of Semitic origin
(Rashi; Chizzkuni; Tur; see note, this verse, 'Moses').
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:40:17 -0500
Subject: Synagogue disputes-Nice custom
Carl (v41n89) brings up the issue of disputes in synagogues.
Just wanted to mention a midieval custom I heard from the Rav (Rabbi
Joseph Baer Soloveitchick).
It was the custom in many shules for someone to go up and clap on the
Bimah before Barchu Any outstanding disputes in the shule were settled
BEFORE Barchu so that the congregation could pray in piece.
Would sure make it nicer for us today if this custom was reinstituted.
Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.Rashiyomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 07:24:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Translation of "Lo tirtsach"
Concerning the argument
> > ... "Thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation. If we could not kill,
> > we could not make war or execute a murderer. The correct
> > translation should be "Thou shalt not murder."
Shimon Lebowitz wrote:
> While I have used this exact argument many times myself, I cannot but
> feel a bit uncomfortable when I read Bamidbar 35:30 "lefi eidim
> yirtzach et ha-rotzei'ach" - on the basis of witnesses shall the
> murderer be ... *murdered*?? Obviously in this context the verb does
> *not* mean murder, does it?
I am not sure that either "Thou shalt not murder" or "Thou shalt not
kill" (simpliciter) is a good translation of "Lo tirtsach".
The word "murder" in English means the wrongful killing of a human with
"malicious intent", i.e, with a certain intent (which need not involve
malice in the ordinary sense of that term). There are, accordingly, at
least two conditions that a homicide must satisfy for it to count as
murder: it must be culpable and it must have been done intentionally.
The verb "ratsoach", however, is used in various places in the Torah to
designate actions that pretty clearly do not satisfy one or other of
these two conditions and, so, are not correctly described using the
English word "murder". In addition, the noun "rotse'ach" is sometimes
used to designate individuals that, for similar reasons, cannot be taken
as murderers.
One example occurs in Devarim 4, 41-42, where we are informed that Moshe
had set aside three Cities of Refuge east of the Jordan. Verse 42 says
that these are places of refuge for
rotse'ach asher yirtsach et re'ehu bivli-da'at v'hu lo sanei lo
mitmol ,
which is standardly translated as: "the manslayer that slayeth his
neighbour unawares and hated him not in the past". It would make no
sense to construe this occurrence of "yirtsach" in the sense of
"murder", for then the text would be taken as speaking of someone who
murdered his neighbour but did so unintentionally.
In Bamidbar 35, there are about thirteen occurrences of the verb
"ratsoach" or the noun "rotse'ach", and about seven of them refer to
actions or agents that clearly fall outside the category of murder or
murderer. For example, verse 11 speaks of a "rotse'ach bishgaga"; but
again there is no such thing as an accidental (or inadvertent)
murderer. While most of the occurrences in Bamidbar 35 denote actions
that we might regard as either murder or manslaughter (or agents that we
might regard as either murderers or manslayers), the verse that Shimon
refers to is a bit more problematic, namely
l'fi eidim yirtsach et harotse'ach (Bamidbar 35, 30)
which is standardly translated as: "at the mouth of witnesses shall the
murderer be slain". I agree with Shimon Lebowitz that it would make no
sense to construe the occurrence of "yirtsach" here as meaning either
murder (or manslaughter), for the Torah certainly does not regard a
lawful execution as a culpable homicide.
I have a further problem with translating "Lo tirtsach" as "Thou shalt
not murder", which is that doing so seems to make the commandment
morally vacuous. In general, a moral rule picks out some category of
action, described in nonmoral terms, and attaches a moral concept to
actions so described. Murder is, by definition, morally proscribed: it
is a wrongful killing of a human being. Since the concept of murder
includes that of moral culpability, we learn nothing new, at least
nothing having moral content, when we grasp that murder is morally
forbidden. Accordingly, the rule "Thou shalt not murder", understood as
a moral rule, would be tautologous and, so, devoid of moral
content. (The same objection would also apply to taking "ratsoach" as
meaning simply manslaughter, since manslaughter also involves the notion
of moral culpability.)
I don't know whether there is one consistent way of translating the verb
"ratsoach" in these texts. Let me note, however, that in Sefer
HaMitzvot, the Rambam explicates the mitzvah "Lo tirtsach" in the
following manner:
(289) sh'lo l'haroeg naki sh'ne'emar lo tirtsach
Thus, it seems that (here at least) the Rambam understands the mitzvah
of "Lo tirtsach" as one that enjoins us against killing an innocent
person. As a moral injunction, this makes a lot more sense than "Thou
shalt not murder". Taking the verb "ratsoach" as meaning the killing of
an innocent person is an interesting idea and seems to me preferable to
taking it either as "murder" or "manslaughter"; in fact, except for the
complication introduced by Bamidbar 35, 30, it generally works rather
well.
Bernard Katz
University of Toronto
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 41 Issue 96
