Timeline for Moshe talking to the Mizbeach?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 21, 2012 at 0:13 | comment | added | EEE | You've got to!!!! :D | |
| May 20, 2012 at 23:44 | comment | added | 2345678876543 | That was a separate issue referring to the awkward sentence structure that would emerge if you say that Ito is referring to the Voice, which isn't mentioned until later in that passuk. I came up with an answer to my question that I think I am satisfied with I just don't have time right now to type it up. sorry for the suspense... | |
| May 20, 2012 at 23:39 | comment | added | EEE | Consider your comment: "Pronouns are (usually) used to refer to something that was previously named (i.e. the mishkan, ohel moed) not something that is yet to be named (i.e. the Voice)." That's really the antecedent issue. As to your questions about placement and chronology, that's an issue I thought separate from the antecedent problem. | |
| May 20, 2012 at 16:19 | comment | added | 2345678876543 | *this passuk (2nd line from 2 comments ago) =Bamidbar 7:89, not Bamidbar 1:1 | |
| May 20, 2012 at 3:52 | comment | added | 2345678876543 | This approach would need to explain why the Torah mentions the first time Hashem spoke to Moshe from the Ohel Moed seven prakim after another passuk that clearly states Hashem spoke to Moshe from the Ohel Moed | |
| May 20, 2012 at 3:49 | comment | added | 2345678876543 | My problem with Hashem talking to Moshe seven prakim before was not that it is too far a gap for an antecedent. It was that the mefarshim want to say that this passuk belongs at the begining of vayikra which from the narrative flow seems to be the first time Hashem talks to Moshe from the Ohel Moed. (cont. in next comment) | |
| May 20, 2012 at 3:12 | comment | added | EEE | @AriA Essentially, in order to link pronouns to antecedents that are seemingly absent, Rashi employed a "reference method." This includes analyzing and linking passages that are at a distance (most notably in my example, even looking ahead for something which is normally placed before.) I infer that the distance of seven you mentioned is no barrier for the location of your missing antecedent. | |
| May 20, 2012 at 2:31 | comment | added | 2345678876543 | It's kind of long... Can you please summarize what it says and emphasize which points are most relevant to my question? thank you | |
| May 17, 2012 at 22:37 | comment | added | EEE | If you are to follow the links provided, it is a description of contextual referencing and antecedents based on Rashi and his methods of derivation. It's a sound analysis of the antecedent question you posed. | |
| May 17, 2012 at 22:22 | comment | added | 2345678876543 | Can you quote the Rashi you are referring to? As far as I see, there are two Rashi's on Bamidbar 6:17 and neither of them reference anything outside of that passuk. Also, it looks like you quoted something else in that last box. Can you please identify where that is from? thank you | |
| May 17, 2012 at 18:25 | comment | added | EEE | I've used Nu06-17b as an example of contextual antecedents for the pasuk in the original question. @AriA | |
| May 16, 2012 at 20:43 | comment | added | 2345678876543 | Can you be a little clearer as to which pssukim you are referring to. (like Nu 6:17, if that's what you're trying to say) | |
| May 16, 2012 at 2:41 | history | answered | EEE | CC BY-SA 3.0 |