Timeline for Did Rashi have nevuah?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
30 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 4, 2016 at 16:07 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @Cauthon Indeed your sources are relevant, no doubt, but without proper interpretation they are liable to be misunderstood. A good start at an answer (though most it is probably better as a comment as is; hopefully you can complete it at some point). | |
| Apr 4, 2016 at 16:03 | comment | added | Cauthon | @DoubleAA The OP asked about a term related to RH, and I brought sources who use this term to describe Rashi's work. A discussion about what it means to have RH is a wider one, and should be discussed separately. You can state your opinion that the mentioned sources didn't mean it literally, but then again, you could be wrong. Calling this discussion a "word game" means either you don't understand the importance of the meanings of words in Hebrew, or you simply want to force your opinion over others'. Anyway, I too don't think this is going anywhere, so I won't be commenting here anymore. | |
| Apr 4, 2016 at 15:54 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @Cauthon You now are making a word game out of the phrase "word game". I'm unimpressed. If you'd spend more time trying to describe what it is that's unique about Rashi's work instead of debating how literally some Rishon meant a specific accolade, this answer might become useful. Insisting on certain meanings of words when they clearly don't carry a uniform connotation in the popular mind is not only childish, but confusing and hence wasteful. Find a clearly way to make your point if you want it to be useful. | |
| Apr 4, 2016 at 15:49 | comment | added | Cauthon | @DoubleAA Discussions that revolve around word meanings are actually very importnat in Jewish literature. I think that if you'd ask the people involved in the discussion, most would say that it wasn't wasteful, and that is why they expressed their opinions. | |
| Apr 4, 2016 at 15:46 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @Cauthon Discussions that revolve around word games are generally not beautiful, but wasteful to all involved. Wikipedia even has a whole page about it en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute | |
| Apr 4, 2016 at 15:43 | comment | added | Cauthon | @DoubleAA Beautiful end to the discussion. | |
| Apr 4, 2016 at 15:37 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @Cauthon That entire comment was just meaningless word games, and if you don't see that then it makes sense that you also don't see how this answer post is quite misleading to many people. | |
| Apr 4, 2016 at 14:14 | comment | added | Cauthon | @DoubleAA "semantic games" and "semantic arguments" are not one and the same. I did not call it ruach hakodesh, those sources did. I simply am of the opinion that their meaning should not be interepreted as a totally different meaning than their actual words. I think it is simpler to understand that ruach hakodesh doesn't mean just one specific level of spirituality, simpler at least than to conveniently say that it's "not actually" ruach hakodesh. If the phrase has a complex meaning, it still shouldn't be simplified by explaining it in a completely different way. | |
| Apr 4, 2016 at 14:08 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @Cau How can you think these arent semantic games when you just had semantic arguments with multiple people about the phrase? Sure you can call it RHK if you want, but its so far removed from any classical kind of RHK that presenting it as such without qualification is to most people, who dont grasp the differences, misleading. The Rishonm in this answer assumed people would get it (and indeed to many of us their meaning is obvious). Unfortunately many people nowadays dont so this answer is hence misleading, and your comments emphasizing the "literal" nature of these quotes are incredibly so. | |
| Apr 4, 2016 at 6:31 | comment | added | Cauthon | @DoubleAA As mentioned before, I did not say that the level of ruach hakodesh was the same as Ezra's, but there are indeed different levels (as explicitly written in the tana devei Eliyahu, and other sources), and all I said was that some do say that Rashi has some level of it. I don't think these are semantic games - you're right that they meant to praise Rashi, but that doesn't mean they didn't mean what they said. | |
| Apr 4, 2016 at 2:29 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @Cauthon It's not cancelling. There's no way they (or anyone) thought he was using the same inspirational technique as Ezra was, and also they (and everyone) had exceptionally high respect for him. We can play all the semantic games you want with the words "Ruach HaKodesh" but we all know exactly what they meant. Even all the Rishonim who argued on him vigorously would agree to that, and they all (myself included) mean it as serious praise, not a problem. However you want to understand God's hand working in history, Rashi's works are clearly moving things in the right direction. | |
| Feb 6, 2016 at 6:53 | comment | added | Cauthon | Cancelling out their words by calling them honorifics can go a long way. Their words are clear and to the point. There are other opinions of course, but not accepting the above as what they are is simply turning a blind eye in my opinion.. | |
| Feb 5, 2016 at 20:00 | comment | added | mevaqesh | The quote from Ohr Hachayim is extremely misleading given that the opposite at length in a technical comment elsewhere. Evidently, this flowery appellation utilizes typical rabbinic exaggeration; e.g. כל רז לא אניס ליה, etc etc. If anything it ought to encourage the reader to reconsider some of these other sources, and wonder whether ir not they too were simply utilizing a common rabbinic honorific, rather than attempting to make some technical statement about the nature of Rashi's revelation. | |
| Feb 5, 2016 at 0:17 | history | edited | Cauthon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 152 characters in body
|
| Feb 4, 2016 at 23:36 | comment | added | Yoel Fievel Ben Avram | @Salmononius2 yes, they were there before I posted asking for sources. Read my comments for what I'm looking for. | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 23:28 | comment | added | Salmononius2 | @ShamanSTK 2 of the sources quoted above (The Shela and the Tzeda Laderech) both describe Rashi with the term Ruach Hakodesh, and the others imply at the least some sort of spiritual guidance. Presumably no one considered Rashi a Navi in the Biblical sense, so they must have used the term 'Ruach Hakodesh' to refer to some other form of divine assistance. | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 21:25 | comment | added | mevaqesh | Regarding the last line, it was a common literary device in his day and is not evidence that he considered himself the recipient of any sort of divine revelation. | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 20:57 | comment | added | Yoel Fievel Ben Avram | @LN6595 I'm not arguing; I asked for a source from the kadmonim that either 1) disagrees with the rambam, or 2) redefines ruah haqadosh such that it could reasonably be asserted that rashi has it. | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 20:47 | vote | accept | Gabriel12 | ||
| Feb 4, 2016 at 20:44 | comment | added | LN6595 | @ShamanSTK Ruach Hakodesh is a very broad spectrum. As Cauthon said, the level used in Ketuvim, the level used in Rashi, and the level of modern day gedolim are all different. | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 20:00 | comment | added | Yoel Fievel Ben Avram | @Cauthon I have brought a source that disagrees with your contentions. Do you have a source among the kadmonim that philosophical ideas can be conveyed via ruah haqadosh? | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 19:57 | comment | added | Cauthon | @ShamanSTK I disagree. The term ruach hokodesh is used in many places with different meanings. There's the halacha point of view that you mentioned, but there are also philosophical ideas that were conveyed under the influence of ruach hakodesh, yet even so they are contested (Rabbi Yossef Karo's Magid, and others). The ruach hakodesh you mentioned (Ketuvim) is a higher form which is considered closer to prophecy. Some gedolim say that rabbis today may have ruach hakodesh, and of course they don't mean the same as the "Ketuvim".. | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 19:51 | comment | added | Yoel Fievel Ben Avram | @Cauthon That is a very inaccurate understanding of that phrase. That is a legalistic point that legal rulings are issued by men, which is entirely irrelevant to the question of ruah haqadosh. Ruah haqadosh does imply the inability to contest it. See Moreh Nevukim II:45. Ketuvim were written with ruah haqadosh, and they cannot be disagreed with. | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 19:31 | comment | added | Cauthon | @ShamanSTK I didn't mean to give a complete overview of Rashi and how he is considered in the eyes of Chachmey Yisrael, only to convey that even though he wasn't a prophet, many consider him to have had ruach hakodesh. Of course, many commentators disagreed with him as well (Tosfot, Ramban, Ibn Ezra, and more). Having ruach hakodesh by the way does not mean that the truth lies only there, as we learn from "לא בשמים היא" etc. | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 19:18 | comment | added | Yoel Fievel Ben Avram | Why not include less favorable reviews of rashi, such as ibn ezra, or mention the numerous disagreements with rashi that would undermine the claim of even ruah haqadosh? | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 13:10 | comment | added | Nachmen | Off topic it says .חכם עדיף מנביא translation smart man who learnt torah is more then a navi. | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 11:42 | comment | added | Cauthon | No, it isn't. That's why I started off with the fact that there's no prophecy today (nor was there in Rashi's time). But one could think of Ruach HaKodesh as a lesser level of prophecy. | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 11:40 | comment | added | Gabriel12 | But is that Ruach HaKodesh the same as Nevuah? | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 11:37 | history | edited | Cauthon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Translations added
|
| Feb 4, 2016 at 10:56 | history | answered | Cauthon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |