0

Tehillim 75:11 states

וכל־קרני רשעים אגדע תרוממנה קרנות צדיק

All the horns of the wicked I will cut; but the horns of the righteous shall be lifted up.

Rashi explains that the horns of the wicked refers to Amalek

וכל קרני רשעים: של עמלק

אגדע: כענין שנא' (יחזקאל כ״ה:י״ד) ונתתי את נקמתי באדום ביד עמי ישראל ישראל יגדעו קרן עמלק וגו

However the verse in יחזקאל does not mention cutting the horn of Amalek. I would like to understand what this horn (symbolically) is and why Rashi says that the horns referenced in Tehillim are a reference to Amalek. I did not see any other commentary (from those available on Sefaria) who made a similar connection to Amalek.

  • Is he equating Amalek with his grandfather Edom? – DonielF Feb 20 at 14:46
  • 1
    Your title doesn’t match your body. Suggested edit: Why does Rashi introduce the horn of Amalek? – DonielF Feb 20 at 15:48
  • It looks like Sefaria has a typo on the Rashi to Tehillim 75:11. Mikra'ot Gadolot says "של אויב", not "של עמלק". hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14255&st=&pgnum=275 – Yaacov Deane Feb 20 at 16:30
  • The Ibn Ezra uses the expression, "על בלק" which is close to their typo. – Yaacov Deane Feb 20 at 16:32
  • @YaacovDeane יגדעו קרן anything doesn’t appear in the prooftext, even with the Mikraos Gedolos that reads it as אויב there as well. – DonielF Feb 20 at 16:41
0

There are two aspects to your question.

The first is to try to determine if the text for Rashi’s comments to Tehillim 75:11 as found in the Sefaria version is correct and accurate or not.

Then, the second aspect is to address your primary question as stated in the heading and recapped in your closing paragraph.

On the first aspect, the accuracy of text of Rashi on Tehillim, the authoritative and critical edition of Rashi’s commentary on Psalms by Rabbi, Professor Mayer I. Gruber republished in paperback by JPS in 2004 is important.

As Gruber discusses in detail in pages 158-164, after reviewing over 60 extant handwritten manuscripts, most dating from the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries, he determined that virtually all printed editions, including Parshandatha by Rabbi Yitzchok Maarsen are corrupted and inaccurate. Gruber goes on to explain that he relied primarily on two handwritten manuscripts known as Oppenheim 34 and Vienna 220. The details of why are quite interesting and worth the read if you can find a copy of Gruber’s book, which is currently in print.

The correct text of Rashi to Tehillim 75:11 for the words, “וכל קרני רשעי׳״ is actually:

של עשו הרשע

There is no mention of Amalek whatsoever.

It then adds a final Mem to עגדעם to indicate that they, the Rasha’im from Esav will be cut down, and continues with the citation from Ezekial 25:14.

כעניין שנ׳ ונתתי נקמתי באדום ביד עמי ישר׳ ישר׳ יגדעו קרן עשו

So that resolves your question about the discrepancy concerning the mention of Amalek, which is not found in the Navi Rashi cites. The correct text of Rashi is consistent and accurate with the appropriate Navi.

The second aspect of your question, about what the meaning of this horn is in regard to Esav, can be found in the introduction of Rabbi Eliezer Fishel ben Rabbi Yitzchok of Krakow to his super commentary Parshat Eliezer to Sefer Karnayim with the commentary of Rabbi Shimshon of Ostropole.

In paragraphs 3 and 4, he explains how the concept of horn (קרן) as it pertains to Israel in the context of the final redemption means Moshiach like is found in Habakkuk 3:4 which says, “קרנים מידו לו”. He goes on to explain how this is referring to both Moshiach ben Yosef and Moshiach ben David.

As he explains further on in the book in the 14th discourse, just as there is a Moshiach for Israel (actually two, ben Yosef and ben David) the side of Holiness, there is also an anti-Moshiach for the other side. In the context of Tehillim 75:11, (וכל קרני רשעים של עשו) the Moshiachs of the Rasha’im of Esav.

And this principle, including Rashi referencing Israel and Esav is in keeping with Bereshit 25:23-24 which addresses the conception and birth of the fraternal twins, Yaacov (Yisroel) and Esav. Please take note of Rashi’s comments to the citation from Bereshit.

  • I really want to mark this answer correct however the second part is based on the sefer Karnayim which has been shown to be a forgery see Yehuda Liebes, “Mysticism and Reality: Towards a Portrait of the Martyr and Kabbalist, R. Samson Ostropoler,” in Jewish Thought in the Seventeenth Century, ed. Isadore Twersky and Bernard Septimus, pp. 221–255 (Cambridge, Mass., 1987) – rikitikitembo Feb 27 at 15:10
  • @rikitikitembo You might want to actually read the introduction of Rabbi Shimshon to Sefer Karnayim. Many, many gadolim over many centuries have accepted Sefer Karnayim as authoritative and legitimate. According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimshon, it was likely written by the author of Igeret HaTa'amim which follows the same type of approach. However, Rabbi Shimshon notes that according to many, it was authored by the son of the Ra'avad. – Yaacov Deane Feb 27 at 15:23
  • I have read the sefer, actually before I read professor Liebes's article and reached the same conclusion independently. – rikitikitembo Feb 27 at 17:30
  • @rikitikitembo I'll need to finish reading the article from Tarbitz by Yehuda Liebes (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehuda_Liebes), but from what I have read so far, his issue is not with Sefer Karnayim. It is with Rabbi Shimshon of Ostropole. FWIW, Yehuda Liebes, according to his Wikipedia bio, also denies the legitimacy of the Zohar, and all Breslovers and says that the students of the Gaon of Vilna are heavily influenced by Shabbtai Tzvi. Liebes is definitely not mainstream and, at best, should be considered 'daat yachid'. – Yaacov Deane Feb 27 at 19:10
  • @rikitikitembo You read/learned the entire Sefer Karnayim? Wow, I've been learning it for months and am not close to finishing it (even though it is only 14 small discourses) or comprehending what it is actually saying. For you to just blow right through it and conclude it is a forgery, you must be one of the leading Gedolei Torah of this entire generation! Imagine how all those giants of Torah from all those previous generations simply got it wrong. – Yaacov Deane Feb 27 at 19:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .