Is this interpretation plausible?
Thanks much, in advance!
Scalia
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Scalia |
David & Consecrated Bread |
Lead | |
|
Hello! I'm new here, so please forgive my repetition if this has been asked. Alfred Eldersheim writes the following: "The Sabbath-Law was not one
merely of rest, but of rest for worship. The Service of the Lord was the object in view. The priests worked on the Sabbath, because this service was the object
of the Sabbath; and David was allowed to eat of the shewbread, not because there was danger to life from starvation, but because he pleaded that he was on the
service of the Lord [claiming to be on a mission for the king] and needed this provision."
Is this interpretation plausible? Thanks much, in advance! Scalia |
|||
UriYosef |
|||
Scalia wrote:This has been discussed here before, but I am not sure where that thread is. So, I'll give you my response to your question: Hardly! First, remember who Alfred Edersheim was. Alfred Edersheim was an Austrian Jew born in 1825 who converted to Christianity at the age of 20 and became a minister and prominent Christian scholar. Having converted at the age of 20 testifies to the fact that he had a mininal knowledge of Judaism, at best. Moreover, as a Christian minister, his Job 1 was to defend Christianity and be an apologist for his acquired faith. Second, it is not even clear that David was given the "holy bread" ("showbread"), since it was stictly prohibited by anyone other than priests to consume it. Note that Ahimelech referred only to David's possible uncleanliness and not to the fact that he wasn't a priest. Rabbi Yosef Qimhi, father of our great Sage, Rabbi David Qimhi, suggested that David was given the loaves of the thanksgiving offering (see Leviticus 7:12-15), which may be eaten by non-priests. He then interprets 1 Samuel 21:7 to mean that the only bread other than these which Ahimelech had was the "showbread", which David was not allowed to eat. The other interpretation holds that Ahimelech gave David the "showbread", breaching the Law (see Leviticus 24:9) since, in Judaism, the preservation of life overrides almost all other precepts in the Torah. Third, whose lives were in danger? David and his men were on a secret journey and weren't able to prepare for it since that could have compromised secrecy of their mission. Not so with yeshu and his disciples; they had plenty of time to eat prior to leaving on their trek. Fourth, in whose service were yeshu's disciples who picked the grains on the Sabbath? So, no, the Edersheim interpretation is not plausible since he compares "apples" to "oranges" and also has an agenda. [I haven't even addressed the claim by him about Priests and Sabbath rest.] UriYosef
Our raison d'être:
WHOSOEVER DESTROYS A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE IMPUTES [GUILT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD DESTROYED A COMPLETE WORLD; AND WHOSOEVER PRESERVES A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE ASCRIBES [MERIT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD PRESERVED A COMPLETE WORLD. (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, 37a) The fruits of our effort: The battle against spiritual terrorism is being won, one soul at a time!!!
Last Edited By: UriYosef
06/17/09 19:59:22.
Edited 3 times.
|
|||
Sophiee1 |
|||
|
The Professor wrote:
The T'nach doesn't actually say that Ahimelech gave David לֶֽחֶם הַפָּנִים lehem ha-panim ("show-bread"); what it actually says is We therefore see that the kohén did NOT give David any of the lehem panim, just some "kodesh". There were many kinds of kodesh (i.e. "holy" food), some of which it was perfectly okay for non-kohanim to eat, provided they were not טָמֵא tamé ("unclean"). The Radak (Rav David Kamhi) writes in his commentary on Sh'muel Alef 21:5, פֵּרַשׁ אֲדֹנִי אָבִי ז"ל לַחְמֵי־תוֹדָה שֶׁיּוּכַל זָר לְאָכְלוֹ בְּטָהֳרָה "My honoured father, of blessed memory, explained [that it means] bread that had been brought with a thanksgiving offering, which was permitted to be eaten by anyone, provided they were in a state of טָהֳרָה tohorah".
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
|||
Sophiee1 |
Eidershein | ||
|
From a previous post by UriYosef:
Chrstian apologists & missionaries consider Alfred Edersheim (pronounced Eders - Heim) as one of their big "super stars". They love to cite Edersheims writings as being authoritative and as being as close to the last word about Jewish thought at the time of yeshu as possible. He is also often referred to as a Jewish scholar.
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
Last Edited By: Sophiee1
06/17/09 21:06:48.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
Sophiee1 |
|||
|
From Kosher Judaism
Alfred Edersheim was never a religious Jew. Born to assimilated parents in Austria, he was raised in a secular school ("gymnasium") where Chrstianity was the norm. When he was old enough to leave home, he worked with on a bridge. A couple of chaplains befriended him, and he became a Chrstian, and developed a passion for the Old and New Testaments. He became a prolific writer and was an Evangelist. But to classify him as a Torah scholar is very misleading to say the least.
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
|||
ProfBenTziyyon |
|||
Sophiee1 wrote:
http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל |
|||
Sophiee1 |
|||
|
Don't think so.
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
|||
ProfBenTziyyon |
|||
Sophiee1 wrote:
http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל |
|||
Sophiee1 |
|||
|
Well, Wikipedia's entry says:
Edersheim was born in Vienna (March 7, 1825) of Jewish parents of culture and wealth. English was spoken in their home, and he became fluent at an early age. He was educated at a local gymnasium and also in the Talmud and Torah at a Hebrew school, and in 1841 he entered the University of Vienna (Sophiee: at age 16). His father suffered illness and financial reversals before Alfred could complete his university education, and he had to support himself.Perhaps he worked on the bridge to make extra money and met Duncan there? Don't know for sure.
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
|||
ProfBenTziyyon |
|||
|
Sophiee − You're still not getting my point: the clause "he worked with on a bridge"just doesn't make any sense. I get the impression that the original intention was to say "he worked with [some other individual] on a bridge". http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל |
|||
Sophiee1 |
|||
|
It is a post by Drashi -- why not ask him?
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
|||
ProfBenTziyyon |
|||
Sophiee1 wrote:
http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל |
|||
Scalia |
|||
|
Thank you, everybody! You've certainly helped give me insight into this difficult (for me) passage. Very much appreciated!!
|
|||
drashi |
|||
ProfBenTziyyon wrote:He was a civil engineer. He worked on a bridge. He had co-workers who were doing the construction who were Christians. He worked with them. Hence, he worked with them on a bridge. on a bridge! :D Of course, I have been known to have a typo or two in my day...
|
|||
Sophiee1 |
|||
|
Drashi is that a bridge too far, or a bridge too many?
סופי
And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
|
|||
drashi |
|||
|
Oh yeah, one more thing. David also tells the Priest up front that he and his men are tahor, and so the inference there s that he was requesting
sustenance which would require he and his men to be tahor and was requesting a kind of food hat not only required it, but a kind of food that the
Priest would be permitted to provide. Read the commentaries on that specific pusek and you will see an interesting range of interpretation.
Second, Christians typically use this as a "reason" why Jesus and pals were permitted to work on Shabbat. But if you read Matthew, you will see that at no time does Jesus use this as the real excuse. As far as he was concerned, making up excuses was irrelevant. So he gives the off-the--cuff answer "Hey, the Moshiach is allowed to do what he wants, and so why don't you all go bug off?!?!?" (paraphrasing). Meaning "I am he Moshiach. Just because you blockheads don't want to acknowledge it sn't my problem. As King, I can do what I want." Followed by he and his men going into hiding! Christians want to see a parellel between this and David not acknowledged as king, but being the real king. Of course, for this to work they have to acknowledge that Jesus was only a man, as David was, and that Jesus eventually was crowned, as David was. It doesn't wash. Thirdly (for you trinity buffs!) There is an interesting thread to Matthew. It begins with Jesus defending the Pharisees, supporting them. SOmetime after that p[eriod, we have a time shift and Jesus is frustrated about them, and then later, he is really ticked off at them. A guess (although, keep in mind that I don't hold that these stories ever happened) is that there is a missing gap where he met with them, they said "Nah, nice try, but it doesn't wash. Have a nice life!", and his desire to be Moshiach is thwarted. So the next step is to publically undermine them, which also fails. David was successful in what he did and was a savior of the Jewish people. Jesus failed miserably and the atmosphere of the Jewish people never got better, but degraded, and eventually they lost nearly everything. Jesus, the Anit-Christ! :lol: |
|||
