Generally, we won't be far from the truth if we consider Germany a Sodom spared for the sake of ten just men.. Now, we can see what such a Sodom looks like. Not very encouraging but hopefully worth having been spared.
Я не очень готов причислять начштаба Трескова к праведникам, имхо, он себе несколько льстит; и не уверен, насколько уместна параллель Германии с Содомом. Но с другой стороны, наличие сопротивления и диссидентов в тоталитарный период действительно позволяет сохранить для нации historical continuity, путем создания альтернативной идейной точки опоры в этот период. Аналогична роль диссидентов для сохранения протяженности русскости и затем советскости.
к праведникам: in my understanding, "just men" in the context are those who merely retain some level of decency. параллель Германии с Содомом: in the parallel, I did not mean to retain all traditional or mythological connotations of Sodom; in fact, I hardly meant anything more than this: наличие сопротивления и диссидентов в тоталитарный период действительно позволяет сохранить для нации historical continuity, путем создания альтернативной идейной точки опоры в этот период. Indeed, the Federal Republic was built along the lines of reasoning of those few who survived, such as Fabian von Schlabrendorff. (I don't have Cyrillic here.)
Я не очень готов причислять начштаба Трескова к праведникам... Strictly speaking (and we do have to speak strictly of such matters), he was even a war criminal. Yet he turned out to possess of enough human decency to stand up against the criminal regime. And I think if he, when he was going to die, compared Nazi Germany to Sodom, he had very good reason for it, so we too have good reason to accept the analogy.
>>Strictly speaking...compared Nazi Germany to Sodom...accept the analogy OK, let's speak a bit stricter. :) I can accept the analogy that Resistance to Nazis is like zaddikim to Sodom. An analogy like this implies a functional relationship or a common quality. The qualia defined by this analogy can be described as an ability to stand from the crowd, morality, or as you put it, decency etc. I also agreed that there is a kind of functional similarity vis-a-vis history.
However the similarity end there. They are similar in kind, not in degree. This quality is necessary to be righteous, but not sufficient alone. Calling someone a righteous person, let alone a zaddik, requires more exacting standard. In particular, they failed in their major good deed - killing Hitler. What's left is a good intention weighted the against actual evil they committed and participated in their day jobs.
...They are similar in kind, not in degree. This quality is necessary to be righteous, but not sufficient alone. Calling someone a righteous person, let alone a zaddik, requires more exacting standard. Now you spell it out explicitly, and this is exactly what I disagree with. I don't believe that tsaddik in Gen. 20 means "righteous" in the sense you describe (hence my preference for the "10 just men" formulation). Abraham's line of argument in 20:23 (Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?), and then twice in 20:25, implies that the entire population of the city can be divided into the righteous and the wicked, and no one is left out from this dichotomy, no one would be "neither righteous nor wicked." At the same time "wicked" is well defined, it is not merely a non-hero but a clear transgressor or a clear contributor to collective transgression. Therefore "righteous" in the context is anyone who does not belong to the former category. But in the circumstances of Sodom there can be only few such "righteous": for, in
( ... )
And perhaps it will provide some further clarification if I make a confession: to me, the example of Nazi Germany (and possibly some others) is the reason why the Biblical story of Sodom makes sense at all, in terms of real life - because, taken literally, Sodom, with its collective death punishment by God unleashing elements on the inhabitants, does not make any sense whatsoever. Which btw seems to have been quite a puzzle for the Sages, so the midrash ascribes to Sodomites a long list of specific crimes and villainies. The list is hardly credible and thus of little help.
>>collective death punishment by God unleashing elements on the inhabitants, does not make any sense whatsoever Why not? In a way it is self-inflicted by the corrupt masses.
>>does not make any sense whatsoever That makes it informative.
Even worse, however is a case of collective punishment for individual transgression (see here, p3).
In a way it is self-inflicted... Yes, and that's why the biblical story of Sodom does make sense - as a parable. (After all, they all make perfect sense, either literally or metaphorically.) So, metaphysically (outside time), God destroyed the corrupted masses by creating the world such that corrupted masses must perish in some way. But the literal meaning has God become the empirical (inside time) agent of physical destruction, which (self-evidently, and according to Maimonides) is senseless superstition. (He does enter time, but not like that (e. g. shekhinah).) informative: "2*2=5" is equally (or still more) informative. (On other points, let me time to study your references:)
"(see here, p3)" - that case is truly instructive and interesting by its own virtue but it seems far remote from this page (litigation is not about crime/punishment (therefore Torah and Areopag transferred murder from the former to the latter)).
Я сослался на ту дискуссию в предположении, что проблематичным с Вашей тз. в истории Содома является collective death punishment, т.е. моральное соотношение индивидуальной вины и коллективного наказания. Однако эти дискуссии соотносится и другим образом, если полагать, что описанное наказание Содома (agent of physical destruction) - это метафоричное описание физически-природного феномена, скажем нечто вроде вулканичекого пепла.
если полагать, что описанное наказание Содома (agent of physical destruction) - это метафоричное описание физически-природного феномена, скажем нечто вроде вулканичекого пепла.In principle, this is acceptable, and such rationalizing explanations are generally popular, as they allow us to reconcile (1) the biblical narrative with physics and (2) collective "death punishment" with heavenly justice. However, the problem is that such rationalizations are rather arbitrary human inventions, where the coincidence of a volcano eruption with the "guilt of the community" remains unexplained. After all, volcanoes erupt on "innocent communities" as well. IMHO the best explanation is that (a) punishment on a community is a true reality but it is dissolution of the community, not physical destruction of all its members; (b) since this idea could not be properly understood by 3000-years-ago humans, we have the metaphor of a physical destruction in the biblical story. The factual origin of the metaphor might be, say, a natural calamity that took
( ... )
>>dissolution of the community Это вполне возможная альтернатива; однако несколько спекулятивно, поскольку неочевидна конкретная текстуальная основа для такой интерпретации данного сегмента. Но кроме того, эта интерпретация, хотя априори решает проблему с физическим агентом, сохраняет остальные:...Текстуальная основа укладывается в достаточно обычную схему для символических толкований (СТ). СТ можно считать предпочтительным, если (1) оно согласуется по обобщенному смыслу с текстом (в данном сл.: из "уничтожения общины" вытекает прекращение ее существования как общины, dissolution, и общий смысл - что Содома, каким мы его знаем, больше нет); и (2) если ясно, что СТ в прямом изложении было бы непонятно и/или неверно воспринято древним слушателем. (Например, СТ для "око за око", которое со времен мудрецов mandatory и единственно возможно, было бы неверно воспринято тогда: сочли бы, что выбить глаз соседу - такая же "мелочь", как потоптать его огород, ибо и за то, и за другое наказание качественно одинаково - денежная компенсация
( ... )
Методологически я довольно подозрительно отношусь к априорным символическим толкованиям Торы; полноценная аллегория/ремез чаще появляется в более поздних книгах. В Берешит простое СТ обычно скрывает слои более глубокие смысла. Да, они были уничтожены; как это происходило, или же что конкретно нам сказано? Как пример: "око за око", как я уже написал выше, я читаю позитивно, а не нормативно; если же это так, то соответственно СТ нормативного прочтения не может быть правильным - по построению.
Насчет позитивности здесь непонятно. Ваша исходная позитивность-описательность относилась (если я правильно понял!) к провербиальным констатациям факта, вроде "Карл у Клары украл кораллы, а К. у К. украла кларнет" - условно предполагая одинаковый ущерб, можно вослкикнуть "надо же, око за око". В Торе, однако, "о. за о." - заповедь, сопровождаемая глаголом в повелительном наклонении (lex talionis, т. е. норматив, Исх. 21:23-25, Лев. 24:19-20), и ее приходится как-то интерпретировать: либо буквально (запрещено мудрецами), либо иносказательно (предписано мудрецами, с указанием, как именно).
Reply
Reply
параллель Германии с Содомом: in the parallel, I did not mean to retain all traditional or mythological connotations of Sodom; in fact, I hardly meant anything more than this: наличие сопротивления и диссидентов в тоталитарный период действительно позволяет сохранить для нации historical continuity, путем создания альтернативной идейной точки опоры в этот период. Indeed, the Federal Republic was built along the lines of reasoning of those few who survived, such as Fabian von Schlabrendorff.
(I don't have Cyrillic here.)
Reply
Reply
OK, let's speak a bit stricter. :) I can accept the analogy that Resistance to Nazis is like zaddikim to Sodom. An analogy like this implies a functional relationship or a common quality. The qualia defined by this analogy can be described as an ability to stand from the crowd, morality, or as you put it, decency etc. I also agreed that there is a kind of functional similarity vis-a-vis history.
However the similarity end there. They are similar in kind, not in degree. This quality is necessary to be righteous, but not sufficient alone. Calling someone a righteous person, let alone a zaddik, requires more exacting standard. In particular, they failed in their major good deed - killing Hitler. What's left is a good intention weighted the against actual evil they committed and participated in their day jobs.
Reply
Now you spell it out explicitly, and this is exactly what I disagree with. I don't believe that tsaddik in Gen. 20 means "righteous" in the sense you describe (hence my preference for the "10 just men" formulation). Abraham's line of argument in 20:23 (Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?), and then twice in 20:25, implies that the entire population of the city can be divided into the righteous and the wicked, and no one is left out from this dichotomy, no one would be "neither righteous nor wicked." At the same time "wicked" is well defined, it is not merely a non-hero but a clear transgressor or a clear contributor to collective transgression. Therefore "righteous" in the context is anyone who does not belong to the former category. But in the circumstances of Sodom there can be only few such "righteous": for, in ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Why not? In a way it is self-inflicted by the corrupt masses.
>>does not make any sense whatsoever
That makes it informative.
Even worse, however is a case of collective punishment for individual transgression (see here, p3).
Reply
(On other points, let me time to study your references:)
Reply
Reply
Reply
наказание Содома (agent of physical destruction) - это метафоричное описание физически-природного феномена, скажем нечто вроде вулканичекого пепла.In principle, this is acceptable, and such rationalizing explanations are generally popular, as they allow us to reconcile (1) the biblical narrative with physics and (2) collective "death punishment" with heavenly justice. However, the problem is that such rationalizations are rather arbitrary human inventions, where the coincidence of a volcano eruption with the "guilt of the community" remains unexplained. After all, volcanoes erupt on "innocent communities" as well. IMHO the best explanation is that (a) punishment on a community is a true reality but it is dissolution of the community, not physical destruction of all its members; (b) since this idea could not be properly understood by 3000-years-ago humans, we have the metaphor of a physical destruction in the biblical story. The factual origin of the metaphor might be, say, a natural calamity that took ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Это вполне возможная альтернатива; однако несколько спекулятивно, поскольку неочевидна конкретная текстуальная основа для такой интерпретации данного сегмента. Но кроме того, эта интерпретация, хотя априори решает проблему с физическим агентом, сохраняет остальные:...Текстуальная основа укладывается в достаточно обычную схему для символических толкований (СТ). СТ можно считать предпочтительным, если (1) оно согласуется по обобщенному смыслу с текстом (в данном сл.: из "уничтожения общины" вытекает прекращение ее существования как общины, dissolution, и общий смысл - что Содома, каким мы его знаем, больше нет); и (2) если ясно, что СТ в прямом изложении было бы непонятно и/или неверно воспринято древним слушателем. (Например, СТ для "око за око", которое со времен мудрецов mandatory и единственно возможно, было бы неверно воспринято тогда: сочли бы, что выбить глаз соседу - такая же "мелочь", как потоптать его огород, ибо и за то, и за другое наказание качественно одинаково - денежная компенсация ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment