Ask me anything about Torath Mosheh

[Redemptionsong]

What does the word 'tsedeq' mean? Can you explain this in English?

 

[rosends]

What does the word 'tsedeq' mean? Can you explain this in English?

This is part of the problem. If I had a document in English and it had the word "set" in it, would it be fair to ask "what does the word set mean" when the word has multiple meanings, uses and shades of meaning depending on context? Attempting to make a single and direct translation without considering the word, its various values, its position within a larger thought schema and its context will lead to confusion.

Tzedeq comes from a root and that root refers to concepts such as rectitude (moral and not), justice, favors, equity and fairness and other ideas. Asking just about the word, or assuming that, because an English traslation choses one element of the word (because the translation needs to put something in that place), the word is limited to that idea is not going to work.

 

[Redemptionsong]

This is part of the problem. If I had a document in English and it had the word "set" in it, would it be fair to ask "what does the word set mean" when the word has multiple meanings, uses and shades of meaning depending on context? Attempting to make a single and direct translation without considering the word, its various values, its position within a larger thought schema and its context will lead to confusion.

Tzedeq comes from a root and that root refers to concepts such as rectitude (moral and not), justice, favors, equity and fairness and other ideas. Asking just about the word, or assuming that, because an English traslation choses one element of the word (because the translation needs to put something in that place), the word is limited to that idea is not going to work.

I'm aware that words can have multiple meanings, but the whole idea of good translation, and transliteration, is to provide a meaning that fits the context. God does not use words loosely, but provides consistency of meaning in order that confusion does not reign!

I'm very happy for you to take up to half a page, or more, if that's what it takes to explain the meaning of 'tsedeq' in the context in which it is found!

 

[rosends]

I'm aware that words can have multiple meanings, but the whole idea of good translation, and transliteration, is to provide a meaning that fits the context. God does not use words loosely, but provides consistency of meaning in order that confusion does not reign!

I'm very happy for you to take up to half a page, or more, if that's what it takes to explain the meaning of 'tsedeq' in the context in which it is found!

But that is what has been happening -- Ehav has been providing extensive context and explanation and asking that you abandon the translations and translational modes that you are starting with. This would even mean abandoning such questions as "what does X mean" as if that can be answered simply and without context. If you are asking about the use of the word within the context of Orthodox Judaism, then you have to buy in to the entirety of Orthodox Judaism's view of words.

So tzedeq means a lot of things, refers to others, and is a code word signalling others. The word tzur, in the same way, means, refers and calls forth a variety of explanations.

 

[Redemptionsong]

This is part of the problem. If I had a document in English and it had the word "set" in it, would it be fair to ask "what does the word set mean" when the word has multiple meanings, uses and shades of meaning depending on context? Attempting to make a single and direct translation without considering the word, its various values, its position within a larger thought schema and its context will lead to confusion.

Tzedeq comes from a root and that root refers to concepts such as rectitude (moral and not), justice, favors, equity and fairness and other ideas. Asking just about the word, or assuming that, because an English traslation choses one element of the word (because the translation needs to put something in that place), the word is limited to that idea is not going to work.

Maybe you could explain to me, exhaustively if necessary, what 'tsedaqah' means in 2 Samuel 22:21,25?

 

[rosends]

Maybe you could explain to me, exhaustively if necessary, what 'tsedaqah' means in 2 Samuel 22:21,25?

Strictly speaking, the word in both verses is כְּצִדְקָתִ֑י (k'tzidqatee) and the simplest translation (the Aramaic targum and other commentators seem to invoke this here) would be "according to that which I earned". Some append "through my behavior in showing faith in God." The primary commentator, Rashi sees this section of the chapter (starting with verse 8) as not applying to David at all, but to the Jewish people on their exodus from Egypt, so he sees the behavior which meritted a particular treatment to be different as it relates to a different subject.

For an interesting selection of "meanings" for the tz-d-q root, you can start here (though this doesn't include Klein's dictionary)

II Samuel 22:21

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I worded my question as plainly as possible!

Not true. Your original question was, and I quote.

Redemptionsong wrote in post #2.
"I'm interested in hearing your interpretation of 2 Samuel 22. Does God come to earth?"

Your question was answered by both myself and rosends.

Is the 'rock' of 2 Samuel 22:3 the same 'rock' as mentioned in Deuteronomy 32:4? Is 'the way of God' perfect?

This was not your original question. So, here is a "Torath Mosheh" answer to what the Hebrew Tanakh states concerning your modified question. In short, Devarim 32:4 is not directly connected to 2nd Shmuel 22:3 in the Hebrew Tanakh are not connected in the way you may be thinking from the English you read.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Strictly speaking, the word in both verses is כְּצִדְקָתִ֑י (k'tzidqatee) and the simplest translation (the Aramaic targum and other commentators seem to invoke this here) would be "according to that which I earned". Some append "through my behavior in showing faith in God." The primary commentator, Rashi sees this section of the chapter (starting with verse 8) as not applying to David at all, but to the Jewish people on their exodus from Egypt, so he sees the behavior which meritted a particular treatment to be different as it relates to a different subject.

For an interesting selection of "meanings" for the tz-d-q root, you can start here (though this doesn't include Klein's dictionary)

II Samuel 22:21

The English provided in the hyperlink is that of the JPS Tanakh translation! Why not discuss the text from this translation, and you can add any commentary you like?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Not true. Your original question was, and I quote.

Redemptionsong wrote in post #2.
"I'm interested in hearing your interpretation of 2 Samuel 22. Does God come to earth?"

Your question was answered by both myself and rosends.



This was not your original question. So, here is a "Torath Mosheh" answer to what the Hebrew Tanakh states concerning your modified question. In short, Devarim 32:4 is not directly connected to 2nd Shmuel 22:3 in the Hebrew Tanakh are not connected in the way you may be thinking from the English you read.

View attachment 60540

Whose translation are you using?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Whose translation are you using?

I am not using a translation. I am taking the Hebrew text and using my years of knowledge of how ancient Hebrew language works and the Torath Mosheh mesoreth from Teimani, Sephardi, Mizrahhi, and Ashkenazi communities to explain to you what the Hebrew Tanakh has.

You do realize I live in Israel right? We don't use English translations around here in the Middle East.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Whose translation are you using?

You do realize that every response I have provided you is me taking a Hebrew text and translating it myself and creating powerpoint slides of both, right? I know ancient Hebrew and several other dialects of Hebrew and Aramaic.

 

[rosends]

The English provided in the hyperlink is that of the JPS Tanakh translation! Why not discuss the text from this translation, and you can add any commentary you like?

That's a fine question. Ignoring for the moment my personal distaste for the JPS translations (historical and current), the choice of any specific translation is the choice to import the interpretive schema of the translators. When working with Jewish texts, all translation is interpretation, and simply reading the translation without understanding all the possible meanings so you can see the choices made by any one translator is useless. So if you want to use the JPS, then that needs to be a starting point for you to start comparing translations and delving into all the other possibilities and learning why the JPS chose the version it did.

It is impossible to discuss "the text" if you are really discussing someone's interpretation of the text - this is why it is essential to have textual discussions anchored in the Hebrew (or, occasionally, Aramaic).

 

[Redemptionsong]

You do realize that every response I have provided you is me taking a Hebrew text and translating it myself and creating powerpoint slides of both, right? I know ancient Hebrew and several other dialects of Hebrew and Aramaic.

Does that make you more proficient than the translators of the JPS Tanakh?

 

[Redemptionsong]

That's a fine question. Ignoring for the moment my personal distaste for the JPS translations (historical and current), the choice of any specific translation is the choice to import the interpretive schema of the translators. When working with Jewish texts, all translation is interpretation, and simply reading the translation without understanding all the possible meanings so you can see the choices made by any one translator is useless. So if you want to use the JPS, then that needs to be a starting point for you to start comparing translations and delving into all the other possibilities and learning why the JPS chose the version it did.

It is impossible to discuss "the text" if you are really discussing someone's interpretation of the text - this is why it is essential to have textual discussions anchored in the Hebrew (or, occasionally, Aramaic).

But, the same case can be made about the Greek of the New Testament. Resort to the original language is necessary to ascertain exact meaning, but a good translation usually takes you close!

If you're to discuss the Tanakh with people who do not understand Hebrew, there has to be a text that can be accessed by all parties as a starting point.

 

[rosends]

But, the same case can be made about the Greek of the New Testament. Resort to the original language is necessary to ascertain exact meaning, but a good translation usually takes you close!

OK, so make that case. Since I have little interest in the gospels, this doesn't bother me. However what does make me wonder is why more Christians don't see the problem and then choose to learn Greek. But that's a topic for a different thread, I guess.

If you're to discuss the Tanakh with people who do not understand Hebrew, there has to be a text that can be accessed by all parties as a starting point.

Yes, the Hebrew, informed by the talmud, the commentaries, the rules for interpretation, and the Jewish mindset and methodology. If you want a short hand, then you can choose a translation to use as long as you recognize the problems inherent in that. Discussion will be tainted but if all participants know the problems, then they can discuss in the light of the inherent limitations.

 

[Redemptionsong]

OK, so make that case. Since I have little interest in the gospels, this doesn't bother me. However what does make me wonder is why more Christians don't see the problem and then choose to learn Greek. But that's a topic for a different thread, I guess.

Yes, the Hebrew, informed by the talmud, the commentaries, the rules for interpretation, and the Jewish mindset and methodology. If you want a short hand, then you can choose a translation to use as long as you recognize the problems inherent in that. Discussion will be tainted but if all participants know the problems, then they can discuss in the light of the inherent limitations.

OK. So, since I only have hard copies of the JPS Tanakh [1985,1999 version], the KJV, and the Amplified OT, shall we use the JPS translation as a starting point?

 

[rosends]

OK. So, since I only have hard copies of the JPS Tanakh [1985,1999 version], the KJV, and the Amplified OT, shall we use the JPS translation as a starting point?

Sure, but it should be on a thread dedicated to a stilted discussion of a translation of text. And you need to be prepared for the introduction of all the supporting material which will provide context.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Does that make you more proficient than the translators of the JPS Tanakh?

What it means is that I am providing you more information than the JPS does. I am also providing information about how I got from the Hebrew to the translation I provided to you. Further, I am doing on the spot translation addressing very specific elements to your question where the JPS is not on the spot and does not address your specific questions because they didn't have them on hand at the time.

Further, if you look in the introduction of the JPS they explain why they used the style of English that they did. I would never use that style and definately not for the reasons they gave. It must also be stated that their translation was geared to Jews who did not know Hebrew BUT also beleive the opposite of what you beleive in some critical areas. Thus, the JPS was not made with Torath Mosheh Jews in mind since most of us know Hebrew and the ones who don't are not prone to JPS as a source and no Torah based Jew makes a Torah based decision on something using an English translation. The Hebrew Tanakh is always THE source.

Lastly, the JPS does not use a wide range of sources from across all ancient Jewish communities, I do. For example, the JPS did not consult sources like (מאור האפלה) or Rabbi Alsheikh's (תורת משה).

So, I would say, "what I am providing has a number advantages over the JPS text/translation" especially since the JPS translators would agree with what I provided especially if they knew the questions you are asking and the background from which the questions are coming from.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

OK. So, since I only have hard copies of the JPS Tanakh [1985,1999 version], the KJV, and the Amplified OT, shall we use the JPS translation as a starting point?

If you look at the OP, this is not the thread for a discussion/debate about English translations. You will need to start another thread for that. Thank you.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Just to make the point clear. This is a video I did a while back to explain what is Torath Mosheh.