![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
midrash session 13
Anyway, we are now going to talk about the ram that's caught in the thicket.
(1) R' Eliezer said: from the hills he [the ram] came, that he was grazing [1] there. (2) R' Y'hoshua said: an angel caused him to come from Gan Eden and under the tree of life he was grazing, and he was drinking from the waters that pass under it, and the scent of the ram was wafing in all the world. (3) And when was he given in the garden? (4) At twilight [2] for the sixth day of creation.
(5) All that (the) day Avraham was seeing the ram, caught in this thicket and released and freed, caught in this bush and released and freed, caught in this thicket and released and freed. (6) The Holy One blessed be He said: Avraham, such are the futures of your sons[,] caught in their sins and "thicketed" [3] in kingdoms, from Bavel [Babylon] to Madai [Media], from Madai to Yavan [Greece], and from Yavan to Edom [4]. (7) He [Avraham] said before him: Master of the worlds! It will be thus forever? (8) He said to him: [in] the end they will be redeemed by the horn for this ram -- "Adonai, Adonai [5] in the shofar he will blow and he will walk in the storms of Teman". [6]
[1] The root for "graze" is the same as for "shepherd", but I can't parse out the reflexion in the grammar.
[2] "bein-hashmashot", literally "between suns".
[3] Alternatives welcome. :-)
[4] Allegorically Edom is Rome, but there was also a historical Edom closer to home. I think the rabbis writing this mean Rome.
[5] I had not seen this before. The first of the two words here is literally "Adonai" (lord); the second is the four-letter name of God, with the vowels from the word "Elohim" (another name for God) written in instead. If I understand correctly, this has something to do with not repeating the name of God? The Masorites are apparently responsible.
[6] I went looking for the proof-text, searching "Teman" in all of Nevi'im (prophets), but didn't turn it up. (I did find other uses of Teman, though, so I'm pretty sure I'm not dealing with a spelling-in-transliteration problem.)
We're now at the second paragraph on the second image.
(9) R' Z'charyah said: [oto?] [7] the ram that was created at twilight was running and coming [8] to be sacrificed instead of Yitzchak, and Samuel (?) was standing and "sataning" in order to cancel Avraham Avinu's sacrifice, and two horns were caught between the trees. [We are to infer a causal relationship, I believe. Also, at least one interpretation says this was really the satan, but it says Samuel.] (10) What did the ram do [oto?]? (11) He extended his hand to the outer garment of Avraham. (12) Avraham looked? behind him and he saw the ram, and he extricated [9] him and he offered him instead of Yitzchak his son.
[7] I have a leftover word and don't know what to do with it.
[8] The rabbi translated this "to and fro", I think. Idiom?
[9] I'm taking someone's word for that.
no subject
(4) Technically, I think it would be at twilight for the six days of creation, which means erev Shabbat, not any of the other twilights, somehow. (y'mai = yamim (pl) + shel = days of).
(5) I think your first thicket s/b a tree.
[6] I'm not sure of the cites, but it looks to me like the first one could be the Tanchuma on Vayera, and the third might be Masechet Sanhedrin, daf peh-tet second side. The fifth one might be the Yerushalmi Taanit, daf bet.
[7] oto here is that self-same (ram), or this very (ram).
(9) Samael, not Samuel. More angel-y name.
no subject
I didn't know tongs were among those special creations, but I guess that makes sense!
(4) -- gah, I should have picked up on the plural.
(5) -- trees (that aren't "eitz") and bushes and thickets are all special just-memorize-it vocabulary for me. Looks like I failed to do so. Oops.
[7] Is this just a different word from the "oto" that is a contraction of "et" and a possessive, or is there a relationship and I'm just being dim?
(9) *smacks forehead* Yup, quite clearly!
no subject
It makes more sense if you think of it as et + pronoun rather than et + possessive, so here "oto" means object marker (or pointer to noun) + 3rd person male = him = that specific male singular entity that we already know about.
no subject
no subject
(5) I would understand this as "caught and released and he went out" Also, the first one was a tree, as
[6] The verse is Zechariah 9:14 (Thank you YU Library for having Bar Ilan, and thank you Bar-Ilan for existing)
[7] Oto ha often means "that ", particularly where it has not yet been discussed. In the Talmud, it is often "ההןא גברא" (that man) to introduce a story about a man who did so-and-so.
(9) Agreed again with
(10) What did that ram do? Again the "oto" is to indicate "that self same ram" (as
[9] a slightly more literal translation would be "untied", but that doesn't quite fit. This is להתיר in the sense of מתיר אסורים (frees the bound or imprisoned). Avraham freed the ram from being stuck.
no subject
[6] Interesting -- the translation I searched (Soncino, gives translation credit as David Mandel but no other identifying marks that I see) changes "Teiman" to "south", for no particularly good reason that I can see. I have learned something useful about my sources.
(9) "His horns" makes more sense; thanks for showing me how to see that. (The vav I knew, but not the yud-means-plural rule.)
[9] I didn't recognize the word away from its usual-to-me form. Oops.
(See also my reply to
no subject
(9) The yud is the same yud you know from construct form (Roshei Yeshiva, Batei Midrash). A possessive is essentially a construct form, and a definite construct form at that. That is, if the last in a chain of contructs (eg the hair of the cat of the house of the friend of me) is a person (name or personal pronoun), all the nouns are definite.
no subject
no subject
The word for shepherd is the present (participle?) for the verb resh-ayin-heh which involves herding/pasturing/grazing, so it's used to refer to someone who is currently or routinely does herding/pasturing/grazing.
[5] names of god: y-h-v-h was originally written w/o any vowels (since no words were written with vowels). When the written symbols for vowels were put in (by the Masorites), they put the vowels for "adonai" with the letters for y-h-v-h as a reminder of the word we say instead (I think this is where the idea that the word is pronounced "Jehovah" comes from, but I can't remember a source offhand; in any case, these are definitely not the original vowels). When the word before y-h-v-h is actually adonai, pronouncing y-h-v-h the same way would be confusing and grammatically bizarre, so it's gets pronounced elohim instead and the vowels for elohim are put there as a reminder.
no number, after [8] Samuel is the transliteration for Shmuel (shin-mem-vav-alef-lamed) - the name here is samach-mem-alef-lamed so it's not the same. Also, satan originally meant (roughly) prosecutor or presenter-of-evidence-against-someone (see above re shepherd - same sense of verb used as noun) and only later picked up the fallen angel story.
[9] (see morning brachot) "matir asurim" = frees the bound, so "freed him [from thicket]" = "extricated" makes sense.
no subject
[5] Oh, so when reading I should pronounce it per the hint from the vowels? Interesting. I knew about the "Adonai" vowels and I "know" but can't cite the same thing about "Jehovah", but I hadn't thought to extend it to these vowels. Makes sense!
Samael -- oops. Thanks. That was just sloppy. :-(
[9] I didn't recognize "matir" without its mem. Since the mem isn't part of the root, I shouldn't have become so dependent on it. Fixed now, I think; now we see if it generalizes. :-)
no subject
no subject