Маска третьего лица.

[nedosionist]

Почему принято прикрывать глаза рукой, говоря Шма? Потому что так делал Он.

The Talmud (Berachot 13b) traces this practice to the great Rabbi Judah the Prince. He would often interrupt his Torah lectures for Shema, and his students would observe him passing his hand over his eyes at the moment that he said the verse.(Хабад)

Comments

[nedosionist]

( From Hagiga 10): Talmud would ever play on such natural syntactic ambiguities, for I haven't seen the slimmest evidence to this effect.
;)) Can you state what would could possibly count as such evidence? (slimmest, subjectively convincing etc.; given that by definitions these language constructions are supposed to be ambiguous)

Then Scripture may employ a text which straightforwardly means A and also may mean X but in such a way that X is likely to be rejected by the less knowledgeable reader.
Yes.

a text which straightforwardly means A and also may mean X but in such a way that X is likely to be rejected by the less knowledgeable reader.
Yes, that's how you get ambiguity in a seemingly plain text. Then: how using your conventions, can you possibly express X alone?

[brotherinlaw]

state what would could possibly count as such evidence Obviously, a recognized discovery of a Talmudic play on such a natural syntactic ambiguity would count. For such a discovery to exist, someone as clever as ourselves is required, and we don't doubt such individuals exist and have existed, do we.

With "my conventions," i.e. with a critical level of the knowledge stratification among the intended audience, X alone simply cannot be expressed, hence the phenomenon.

[nedosionist]

В принципе, с моей т.з. использование этих методов в Хумаше важнее, чем в Талмуде, поскольку текст сложнее. Я привел талмудические примеры, поскольку они проще, имхо. Если Вы видите конкретные примеры-кандидаты такой двусмысленности в Хумаше, мы можем обсудить их.

recognized discovery ... someone as clever as ourselves is required
ОК. Но проблема в том, что в этом случае мы полагаемся на внещний (по отношению к себе) авторитет этого Мудреца; т.е. на авторитет Традиции, а не авторитет разума и текста, драш, а не пшат. В свою очередь, цитата из неизвестного маститого комментатора здесь не поможет, поскольку его всегда можно отнести к "той синагоге, куда я не хожу". Он будет либо так же неправ как Вы, либо так же прав, как я. ;)))) Или наоборот. :)

[brotherinlaw]

There is a simple fact that you refuse to heed, with a persistence deserving a better cause. Scripture and the Talmud are different texts with different intended audiences.

Scripture is for everyone, hence, of necessity, intended ambiguities. Examples are abundant; one of the most famous, and self-explaining at that, is Exod.3:14. As well as most others, it has of course nothing to do with the kindergarten verbal or syntax games. Sense A: God reveals to Moses the fact of His Being and presents the expression's shortened version as His name. Note, sense A is not misleading or intended for fools but is utterly correct as usual; it is, however, not the whole spectrum of meanings. Sense X: God reveals to Moses His historical (Rashi) and metaphysical (Avicenna) attribute of existence, and then implies that this is too much for the contemporary people to grasp: "give them, rather, a hint of it, ostensibly just conveying My name to them." Or, with Cain: sense A - Cain murdered Abel unprovoked out of malice; sense X: certainly he killed,

[nedosionist]

So your A/X scheme (parables below), was merely a device to express known ambiguity through multiple levels of meaning (PaRDeS)? Then I misunderstood you, and it's unclear why bring it up here. Most of our argument is about identifying pshat/pshat ambiguities.

Scripture is for everyone, hence, of necessity, intended ambiguities.
Since i.f. detected :), I'd better ask you to elaborate of necessity.

kindergarten verbal or syntax games
(Same as here.) It is the Scripture, after all. Perhaps you're aiming at me, but you're hitting Them, and their use of apparent simplicity; I marvel at their literary ingenuity.

The intended audience of the Talmud is students of the Talmud
elitist view (in whatever form) is erroneous
How do you reconcile these views?

With respect to Talmud, you're describing current approach to studying Talmud. To put it a bit differently, you're idealizing (imho, not in a good way) Talmud at the expense of the real one. I used to look at it very similar, I no longer do; Chagiga 10 was helpful in that sense.

[brotherinlaw]

Perhaps you're aiming at me, but you're hitting Them - if so, a happy miss:)

I see as many as two good questions.
elaborate: "of necessity" Of necessity, to address the different strata of the audience, which were not going to go any time soon.
How do you reconcile these views? The tradition going back to the Hillel school is that anyone could become a student. Historically, this was supported by the universally high status of Talmudic education in Jewish communities, despite that students were rather a liability in terms of earning their living.

you're describing current approach ... Chagiga 10 was helpful in that sense. The question of the Talmud's intended audience is historical, not Talmudic. The Mishna ("the repetition [of the Torah]") targeted a potentially universal audience and was still halakha alive, guidance to action; but in the Talmud, it is first of all a scholarly subject, removed to a considerable extent from daily life, whose laws and process of law - with the exception of calendar, petty civil cases and family

[brotherinlaw]

So your A/X scheme (parables below), was merely a device to express known ambiguity... No. But you, unfortunately, were mostly interested in the cases where sense A is not at all the targeted meaning. Such (scriptural) cases are parables and are less interesting indeed. Non-parable cases where sense A is irrelevant and is thus a real false lead are nonexistent; Scripture does not enlighten few at the expense of duping many.

[nedosionist]

you, .. mostly interested in the cases where sense A is not at all the targeted meaning
Во-первых, тут роль играет естественная динамика обсуждения вдвоем в ЖЖ. Я с Вами во многом согласен, поэтому разногласия обсуждаются дольше, чаще, и к сожалению, резче. :)

Во-вторых, этот эффект совершенно не очевиден, и тем интересен, поэтому я к нему регулярно возвращюясь. Можно выделить четыре случая использования, или же уровня понимания пшата в тексте, выражемом фразой А*. Для автора, вкладываемый смысл: 1а) А - простый смысл, 2а) Х - "элитарный", 3а) А,Х - оба; автор выбирает лишь одну из этих ситуаций. Для читателя 1б) А - простой смысл, 2б) А, Х - двусмысленность, 3б)Х - элитарный смысл, 4б)А, Х - оба.

Насколько я могу судить из Вашего последнего коммента, Вас интересует переход от 1б к 2б, и вызывает недоумение переход от 2б к 3б.

Шабат Шалом.

[nedosionist]

The scheme seems to be as follows. Suppose sense A is something easily understood to everyone, and sense X (1) is also correct, (2) understood only with additional knowledge, (3) misunderstood if there is no additional knowledge (so if one does not have additional knowledge one is better off without X). Then Scripture may employ a text which straightforwardly means A and also may mean X but in such a way that X is likely to be rejected by the less knowledgeable reader. ... X alone simply cannot be expressed, hence the phenomenon.

Чуть иначе, у нас есть простой и общепонятный смысл А, представляемый фразой А*, и элитарный смысл Х, представляемый той же фразой. Фраза А* имеет смыслы А, а также Х. Если Вы/автор хотите высказать оба смысла, то все в порядке. Для автора: 1)Х, А -> А*; для простого читателя 2)А* -> А, для элитного 3) А -> Х. Оба намерения были у автора, но при этом возникает вопрос о цели выбора автором двусмысленной формы А*.

Теперь представьте себе, что Вы хотите выразить лишь смысл Х. В этом случае по построению Вы

[brotherinlaw]

Теперь представьте себе, что Вы хотите выразить лишь смысл Х. In this case, parables are used, whose role was discussed in tradition (the Prophets, Maimonides) extensively. Provided sense A is harmless and not misleading; otherwise, the task is canceled.