Psalms 2:7.

[rosends]

All mysticism, if it's merely mystical, is bunk. There's no legitimate mysticism in the sense of some willy nilly mystical insight unhinged to the literal meaning of the text.

So that's where you and I can meet as brothers and like-minded god-fearers. I will never present unhinged mystical BS. If you can show me, carefully, lovingly, that my so-called mysticism is unhinged from the true and literal meaning of the Hebrew text I will join you in dousing it with fuel and setting it aflame, for at best it's merely sound and fury signifying nothing. . . The Hebrew text is the anchor of the soul so that woe betides any soul who would attempt to speak against it, for it, or apart from it, in a manner that demeans or deconstructs, wrongfully, its complete and utter authority.



John

It is difficult to show you that you are unhinged from the true and literal meaning because you simply deny any explanation or translation that disagrees with yours, The word "nesech" has a meaning. The letters have use and history but not meaning. You simply assert something which suits your very bizarre understanding. When I show you that there is talmudic opinion that goes against your claims, you cry "cover up". You then make up utterly crazy readings which flow directly from your own personal inventions which you position as some sort of special insight that you have and which others don't. Have fun with that.

 

[John D. Brey]

It is difficult to show you that you are unhinged from the true and literal meaning because you simply deny any explanation or translation that disagrees with yours, The word "nesech" has a meaning. The letters have use and history but not meaning.

The true and literal meaning isn't what I, you, my tradition, or yours, want to think it is. The true and literal meaning is the true and literal meaning if we set aside personal beliefs and exegete the words according to the sound principles of exegesis.

. . . When I pull up the root word נסך I get 121 uses in the Tanakh. 99% of those speak of pouring out a drink offering, pouring out, pouring out a molten idol, and just one time, nestled in all those place, the Jewish interpreters interpreted the word to mean "anoint" or "establish."

Where do they get the exegetical support for going against the 120ish times it means "pour out" (or something similar) to say in this one place it means something different? What is the exegesis that supports going against the 99% of those time it means one thing, to say here, in a problematic place (for Jewish tradition), it simply can't mean what it means every other time?



John

 

[rosends]

The true and literal meaning isn't what I, you, my tradition, or yours, want to think it is. The true and literal meaning is the true and literal meaning if we set aside personal beliefs and exegete the words according to the sound principles of exegesis.

. . . When I pull up the root word נסך I get 121 uses in the Tanakh. 99% of those speak of pouring out a drink offering, pouring out, pouring out a molten idol, and just one time, nestled in all those place, the Jewish interpreters interpreted the word to mean "anoint" or "establish."

Where do they get the exegetical support for going against the 120ish times it means "pour out" (or something similar) to say in this one place it means something different? What is the exegesis that supports going against the 99% of those time it means one thing, to say here, in a problematic place (for Jewish tradition), it simply can't mean what it means every other time?



John

First, you have a problem with your underlying contention. The Jewish understanding of the word has to do with pouring and in cases related to people, the pouring is the anointing/pouring of oil (wheras in the case of metal, it means "molten, or cast, poured into a mold"). This would make texts like "I have anointed him king" make sense. However, if you want to see an explanation of an exegete who separates it from the idea of pouring, you might want to start with Joshua 13:21, go to the Targum on Psalms 16:4, and then read the Ibn Ezra on Kohelet 5
"והדבר השלישי אפילו המלות שהם בלשון הקדש יש בהם טעיות גדולות כמו אנסיכה מלכי לפניו והנמצא מזההענין ואני נסכתי מלכי והוא מן הבנין הקל על משקל נפלתי ונדרתי והעתיד אסוך או אנסוך כמו אפול ואדור ומן הבנין הכבד יאמר הפיל והעתיד אפיל וכן מן הסיך יאמר אסיך או אנסיךבהראות הנו"ן כמו ולנפיל ירך והנה יהיה פירוש אנסיכה מלכי אעשה ממנו נסוך כמו בל אסיך נסכיהם מדם"

I find it interesting that you claim that the sacred script if ktav Ivri, then mention that "The Talmud tells us the closed-mem ם is the original. The opened-mem מ is a re-do, " This statement supports the ktav Ashuri argument (though not the 'redo' claim which is wrong. The only closed mem is the sofit, the regular mem is open in Ashuri) and the Ivri mem looks like waves of water, always open and not a redo. So your argument is all confused.

 

[John D. Brey]

First, you have a problem with your underlying contention. The Jewish understanding of the word has to do with pouring and in cases related to people, the pouring is the anointing/pouring of oil (wheras in the case of metal, it means "molten, or cast, poured into a mold").

There's a specific word used for "pouring" oil versus "pouring" a drink offering. And never the twain shall be poured out in place of the other: except Psalms 2:6. Which is what caused the red flag that led to my threads on Psalms 2:6-7.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

However, if you want to see an explanation of an exegete who separates it from the idea of pouring, you might want to start with Joshua 13:21, go to the Targum on Psalms 16:4,

. . . I don't see what you're seeing in the Targum on Psalms? And in the few places, to include Joshua 13:21, where a word based on the root נסך is used for a "priest" a couple things are notable.

In context, a "prince" is a monarch's firstborn such that the prince inherits the throne from his father so that he shant, won't, be anointed king. Secondly, a king never anoints his replacement (and if the replacement is his firstborn son he doesn't get anointed in the first and or the last place). This is crucial in Psalms 2:6-7 since verse 7 says the King in verse 6 is the firstborn son of the father such that neither would this prince allegedly being "anointed" King require anointing, nor would the father do the anointing. Ibn Ezra actually points this out as a gross error in the traditional interpretation of the text; and he does so in the very text of Ibn Ezra you shared from his commentary on Koheleth.

So why is a word related to נסך used to speak of a "prince."

Well, as you know, father Abraham was willing to "pour out" his firstborn son, his legitimate heir, the "prince" of the Abrahamic-covenant, on the altar ala Psalms 2:6. And as you know, a Jewish father symbolically pours out his son on the eighth day, offers his son on the altar on the eighth day, as the very ritual that initiates his son into the covenant. As the sages say, every Jewish firstborn male is a prince. So symbolically they're all poured out נסך on the altar.



John

 

[dybmh]

where a word based on the root נסך is used for a "priest" a couple things are notable.

Please forgive the interjection.

The root of the word in question is not nun-samech-chet. It's "lifted" not "poured".

hyperlink >>> biblehub.com - Strong's Hebrew: 5387. נָשִׂיא (nasiy') -- captain

Edit: Oops.. Wrong word... nevermind

 

[rosends]

There's a specific word used for "pouring" oil versus "pouring" a drink offering. And never the twain shall be poured out in place of the other: except Psalms 2:6. Which is what caused the red flag that led to my threads on Psalms 2:6-7.



John

N-S-Ch is used for pouring fear and metal in Yeshayahu and Yirmiyahu. The root is used for placing something as a covering in Shmot 40, to hedge someone in in Iyov, and is used for anointing in Shmuel II, 12.

M-Sh-KH is used for oil and also for imbuing spirit and establishing in a position (such as in Yesh 61).

 

[rosends]

. . . I don't see what you're seeing in the Targum on Psalms? And in the few places, to include Joshua 13:21, where a word based on the root נסך is used for a "priest" a couple things are notable.

In context, a "priest" is a monarch's firstborn such that the priest inherits the throne from his father so that he shant, won't, be anointed king. Secondly, a king never anoints his replacement (and if the replacement is his firstborn son he doesn't get anointed in the first and or the last place). This is crucial in Psalms 2:6-7 since verse 7 says the King in verse 6 is the firstborn son of the father such that neither would this Prince allegedly being "anointed" King require anointing, nor would the father do the anointing. Ibn Ezra actually points this out as a gross error in the traditional interpretation of the text; and he does so in the very text of Ibn Ezra you shared from his commentary on Koheleth.

So why is a word related to נסך used to speak of a "priest."

Well, as you know, father Abraham was willing to "pour out" his firstborn son, his legitimate heir, the "prince" of the Abrahamic-covenant, on the altar ala Psalms 2:6. And as you know, a Jewish father symbolically pours out his son on the eighth day, offers his son on the altar on the eighth day, as the very ritual that initiates his son into the covenant. As the sages say, every Jewish firstborn male is a prince. So symbolically they're all poured out נסך on the altar.



John

1. The Aramaic is pretty clear, using the root to mean something else (to bring close, accept)

2. You asked for any justification for using the word in Psalms 2:6 in a way other than pour ing out. I provided one. The Ibn Ezra is the rabbinic voice who separates that root from pouring out and he shows his grammatical work, plus he brings other examples where the word is not related to pouring. Most of the rabbinic commentators connect it to pouring out (though indirectly, or in a way slightly different from official anointing, such as the Malbim who says it is l'shon hagdalah, ובא על שנוסכים שמן על ראשו לסימן גדולה ) and he makes an argument against that. He cites the Joshua text which has nothing to do with priests. The word n'sich is not a priest.

3. Trying to make up fanciful explanations that a priest is a monarch's first born (huh?) and that people pour their children ("a Jewish father symbolically pours out his son on the eighth day, offers his son on the altar on the eighth day" -- WHAT? No one offers his son on the altar on any day and no one pours his child) is just weird and useless.

PS - a king doesn't anoint anyone. The priest or prophet anoints the king.

 

[John D. Brey]

read the Ibn Ezra on Kohelet 5
"והדבר השלישי אפילו המלות שהם בלשון הקדש יש בהם טעיות גדולות כמו אנסיכה מלכי לפניו והנמצא מזההענין ואני נסכתי מלכי והוא מן הבנין הקל על משקל נפלתי ונדרתי והעתיד אסוך או אנסוך כמו אפול ואדור ומן הבנין הכבד יאמר הפיל והעתיד אפיל וכן מן הסיך יאמר אסיך או אנסיךבהראות הנו"ן כמו ולנפיל ירך והנה יהיה פירוש אנסיכה מלכי אעשה ממנו נסוך כמו בל אסיך נסכיהם מדם"

I'm shocked you refer to this? It seems like you might be misreading what Ibn Ezra is saying; as I feared I was when I read the Hebrew text. I scratched my head and said he can't possibly be saying what I'm reading him to say since if he is I've missed the most profound justification of my own exegesis there could possibly be.

So I went to Rabbi Strickman who has interpreted most of Ibn Ezra into English. Here's his translation of what Ibn Ezra has to say in the context of this discussion (and in the Hebrew text you posted):

Even the words that are in the holy tongue [in the piyyutim of Rabbi Elazar] contain major mistakes. The word aniskhah (I will pour a libation) in aniskha malki le-fanav (I will pour a libation my king before him) 597 is an example. 598​

Note 598 points out that the liturgical poem Ansikhah Malki is recited during the blessings on Rosh Ha-Shanah and during the repetition of the Amidah. Ibn Ezra then moves on to his exegesis of Psalm 2:6 which he insinuates is distorted in the poems used in liturgy and blessing:

The [third person perfect] hifil form [of the root nun, peh, lamed] is hippil (he threw down). The [first person] imperfect form [of the root nun, peh, lamed] is appil (I will throw down). Similarly, in the imperfect [first person], the word hissikh (he poured a drink offering) 605 becomes assikh (I will pour a drink offering), 606 or ansikhif the nun is present. 607 Compare, lanpil (to fall away) 608 in ve-lanpil yerekh (and the thigh to fall away) (Num. 5:22). Thus (according to the rules of Hebrew grammar), the meaning of ansikhah 609 malki would be, "I will make of him 610 drink offered." 611 Compare, assikh (I will pour a drink offering) in I will not pour their drink-offerings of blood (Ps. 16:4). 612​

The notes back up Ibn Ezra's exegesis. 611 points out that נסך in the hifil means "I will make him into a drink offering." Note 610, stuck right in the middle of what Ibn Ezra says is the correct interpretations, notes "My King." "My King" belongs where the 610 is. Ibn Ezra is literally saying that the correct translation of Psalms 2:6 is "I will make of him, My King, [a] drink offering."

Some say that nasahkti malki (Ps. 2:6) means “I anointed my king.”613 If so, then we have a second error here. 614​

Ibn Ezra points out that even if we accepted the false interpretation, "I anointed my King," we'd have a second error since either a man is anointing God, or God, as Father of his "begotten son" (v. 2:7), i.e., the King in Psalms 2:6, is anointing his firstborn son who would inherit the throne apart from anointing, which, even if the anointing took place, would not be performed by the father.

He goes on to point out dozens of similar exegetical errors and points out that in Shabbat 63a, the Chazal state: "A verse never loses its plain meaning," such that the plain meaning of "pouring out" the King can't be distorted into some other meaning. He states that one of the Jewish wise men of his day said that different words are used to make the verses "rich":

I replied: If you call this line [distortion of the plain meaning] "rich," then Rabbi Elazar's piyyutim contain rhymes that are so poor and poverty-stricken that they have to go begging door to door.​

Which is to say that If the plain meaning of the scripture can be distorted to make the words rhyme, i.e., "rich" (an asinine assumption in itself), then Ibn Ezra wonders out loud why then do only an extreme poverty of all the words in the piyyutim rhyme?



John

​

 

[John D. Brey]

N-S-Ch is used for pouring fear and metal in Yeshayahu and Yirmiyahu. The root is used for placing something as a covering in Shmot 40, to hedge someone in in Iyov, and is used for anointing in Shmuel II, 12.

. . . I don't see any word related to נסך in Samuel chapter 2? And King Messiah was hedged in by a thorn-bush (on his head) while he was being poured out. And the blood, or even the wine, of a drink offering, is used as a covering.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

3. Trying to make up fanciful explanations that a priest is a monarch's first born (huh?) and that people pour their children ("a Jewish father symbolically pours out his son on the eighth day, offers his son on the altar on the eighth day" -- WHAT? No one offers his son on the altar on any day and no one pours his child) is just weird and useless.

PS - a king doesn't anoint anyone. The priest or prophet anoints the king.

. . . I meant to say a "prince" is the monarch's firstborn rather than that a "priest" is. . . I corrected that confusing error.

Throughout Jewish midrashim a father circumcising his son is compared to a sacrifice. And the blood of the offering is used to sanctify and glorify various sacred appurtenances. . . Abraham's own circumcision is compared to all the sacrifices of the Jewish temple ritual. That blood is a drink offering in the most important phase of brit milah: metzitzah.

Since a king doesn't anoint anyone, who's doing the anointing in Psalm's 2:6? Keeping in mind that in verse seven the one allegedly being anointed as King (in verse 6) is said to be the speaker's son.




John

 

[rosends]

I'm shocked you refer to this? It seems like you might be misreading what Ibn Ezra is saying; as I feared I was when I read the Hebrew text. I scratched my head and said he can't possibly be saying what I'm reading him to say since if he is I've missed the most profound justification of my own exegesis there could possibly be.

So I went to Rabbi Strickman who has interpreted most of Ibn Ezra into English. Here's his translation of what Ibn Ezra has to say in the context of this discussion (and in the Hebrew text you posted):

Even the words that are in the holy tongue [in the piyyutim of Rabbi Elazar] contain major mistakes. The word aniskhah (I will pour a libation) in aniskha malki le-fanav (I will pour a libation my king before him) 597 is an example. 598​

Note 598 points out that the liturgical poem Ansikhah Malki is recited during the blessings on Rosh Ha-Shanah and during the repetition of the Amidah. Ibn Ezra then moves on to his exegesis of Psalm 2:6 which he insinuates is distorted in the poems used in liturgy and blessing:

The [third person perfect] hifil form [of the root nun, peh, lamed] is hippil (he threw down). The [first person] imperfect form [of the root nun, peh, lamed] is appil (I will throw down). Similarly, in the imperfect [first person], the word hissikh (he poured a drink offering) 605 becomes assikh (I will pour a drink offering), 606 or ansikhif the nun is present. 607 Compare, lanpil (to fall away) 608 in ve-lanpil yerekh (and the thigh to fall away) (Num. 5:22). Thus (according to the rules of Hebrew grammar), the meaning of ansikhah 609 malki would be, "I will make of him 610 drink offered." 611 Compare, assikh (I will pour a drink offering) in I will not pour their drink-offerings of blood (Ps. 16:4). 612​

The notes back up Ibn Ezra's exegesis. 611 points out that נסך in the hifil means "I will make him into a drink offering." Note 610, stuck right in the middle of what Ibn Ezra says is the correct interpretations, notes "My King." "My King" belongs where the 610 is. Ibn Ezra is literally saying that the correct translation of Psalms 2:6 is "I will make of him, My King, [a] drink offering."

Some say that nasahkti malki (Ps. 2:6) means “I anointed my king.”613 If so, then we have a second error here. 614​

Ibn Ezra points out that even if we accepted the false interpretation, "I anointed my King," we'd have a second error since either a man is anointing God, or God, as Father of his "begotten son" (v. 2:7), i.e., the King in Psalms 2:6, is anointing his firstborn son who would inherit the throne apart from anointing, which, even if the anointing took place, would not be performed by the father.

He goes on to point out dozens of similar exegetical errors and points out that in Shabbat 63a, the Chazal state: "A verse never loses its plain meaning," such that the plain meaning of "pouring out" the King can't be distorted into some other meaning. He states that one of the Jewish wise men of his day said that different words are used to make the verses "rich":

I replied: If you call this line [distortion of the plain meaning] "rich," then Rabbi Elazar's piyyutim contain rhymes that are so poor and poverty-stricken that they have to go begging door to door.​

Which is to say that If the plain meaning of the scripture can be distorted to make the words rhyme, i.e., "rich" (an asinine assumption in itself), then Ibn Ezra wonders out loud why then do only an extreme poverty of all the words in the piyyutim rhyme?



John

​

Sadly, you misunderstand this completely. He rails against R. Hakalir's work, showing grammatical errors. The third problem is that in a line which should be about establishing as king, he uses a form which would properly be tied to a construction of a word for pouring -- not that the root SHOULD be related to pouring. His pointing out that this is an error is precisely the point! The root (as is shown in Joshua, and in his own explanation of the verse in Psalms " המלכתי והטעם שהוא נסיכי כמו חמשת מלכי מדין שהיו נסיכי סיחון" is 'establish as a king'. You wanted someone who separates n-s-ch from pouring, and that is precisely what he is doing, with all the grammar to point out that there are 2 different structures at work, and in the case of Psalms 2, the non-pouring one is intended.

 

[rosends]

John[/QUOTE]

. . . I don't see any word related to נסך in Samuel chapter 2? And King Messiah was hedged in by a thorn-bush (on his head) while he was being poured out. And the blood, or even the wine, of a drink offering, is used as a covering.



John

Hedged in by a thorn bush? What? The text is about closing the sea behind doors. וַיָּ֣סֶךְ בִּדְלָתַ֣יִם יָ֑ם
By the way, "וַיָּקָם֩ דָּוִ֨ד מֵהָאָ֜רֶץ וַיִּרְחַ֣ץ וַיָּ֗סֶךְ וַיְחַלֵּף֙ שמלתו" Sam II, 12, which is what I wrote.

And, no, wine is not a covering

 

[rosends]

. . . I meant to say a "prince" is the monarch's firstborn rather than that a "priest" is. . . I corrected that confusing error.

Throughout Jewish midrashim a father circumcising his son is compared to a sacrifice. And the blood of the offering is used to sanctify and glorify various sacred appurtenances. . . Abraham's own circumcision is compared to all the sacrifices of the Jewish temple ritual. That blood is a drink offering in the most important phase of brit milah: metzitzah.

Since a king doesn't anoint anyone, who's doing the anointing in Psalm's 2:6? Keeping in mind that in verse seven the one allegedly being anointed as King (in verse 6) is said to be the speaker's son.




John

The zohar equates performing the bris with the giving of sacrifices, not saying that the circumcision is compared to one. The Medrash Rabbah on Vayikra draws a connection to the two in that the 8 day rule is important, but there is no comparing the act of circumcision to a sacrifice (and I feel that the Gr'A's statement is an oversimplification, but he says that the circumcision is a template for a sacrifice.) The blood is a drink offering? Metzitzah involves drinking? Are you completely out of your mind?

As for who is doing anointing, King David speaks of God who set him up as a king and called him His son. There is no mention of anointing.

 

[John D. Brey]

As for who is doing anointing, King David speaks of God who set him up as a king and called him His son. There is no mention of anointing.

Rabbi Hirsch, who is no slouch, is forced to use "anointed" since he knows "establish" has even less grammatical life. And if I'm not mistaken, the Targum on the Psalms has "anoint."

It seems like you were trying to justify a "pouring out" other than a drink offering, as way to make it oil? Are you now saying the word doesn't mean "pouring out" but rather "establishing"?

Btw, the Judaica Press Psalms says that it's well-known by Jews that the text is speaking of David's greater son, and that it's only because of how the text lends itself to Christianity that any knowledgeable Jew infers it speaks of David himself.

Heck, it seems pretty clear that the "decree" in verse 7 is speaking of 2 Samuel 7:14. We don't need no stinking Rashi to figure that out do we? <s>

If it's the case that verse 6 is speaking of Messiah, then he doesn't get "established" through any kind of pouring out, or anointing, such that no word associated with pouring out, or anointing, need apply for the position being advertised in Psalms 2:6.



John

 

[rosends]

Rabbi Hirsch, who is no slouch, is forced to use "anointed" since he knows "establish" has even less grammatical life. And if I'm not mistaken, the Targum on the Psalms has "anoint."

The I hope R. Hirsch can answer the Ibn Ezra's grammatical explanation. Many commentators and rabbis do agree that the concept is anoint. You had asked for one who doesn't, so that's what I gave you. The Targum, by the way, has רַבִּיתִי which means "I made greater" or "I raised up" (cf TY on Is 23:4 which has it for גִדַּ֛לְתִּי ).

It seems like you were trying to justify a "pouring out" other than a drink offering, as way to make it oil? Are you now saying the word doesn't mean "pouring out" but rather "establishing"?

I'm saying that the word nasachti could mean pouring out a variety of things if that's the way you want to understand it, and many commentators see it as pouring in the way of an anointing. But others see it as a different word entirely, related to nasich/prince, meaning "I set him up as royalty". Look at the Medrash Tehillim 2:8 which posits a number of meanings and cross references them to other citations.

Btw, the Judaica Press Psalms says that it's well-known by Jews that the text is speaking of David's greater son, and that it's only because of how the text lends itself to Christianity that any knowledgeable Jew infers it speaks of David himself.

The chabad website, which uses the Judaica Press translation has "enthroned." I think that you might be referring to Rashi's comment on 2:1 which says that it refers to both, with the messianic reference being on the level of Drash -- רבותינו דרשו את הענין על מלך המשיח ולפי משמעו יהיה נכון לפותרו על דוד עצמו. What is interesting is that if you move past the medrashic level and cite the talmud, the rerference to the messiah is in the future tense, meaning that while the text might be refering to the messiah, it is to a messiah who has yet to come, invalidating any earlier claimants.

Heck, it seems pretty clear that the "decree" in verse 7 is speaking of 2 Samuel 7:14. We don't need no stinking Rashi to figure that out do we? <s>

I guess you agree with the opinion that Sam 2 7:14 refers to Solomon ("ורבותינו ז"ל דרשוהו על שלמה")

If it's the case that verse 6 is speaking of Messiah, then he doesn't get "established" through any kind of pouring out, or anointing, such that no word associated with pouring out, or anointing, need apply for the position being advertised in Psalms 2:6.



John

If it is speaking on a level of drash about the future messiah, then the verb nasach would have to be looked at as how the Malbim does, "שהוא הנמשח מאתי למשול". (interestingly, the Malbim straddles the 2 meanings "מענין הגדלה, כמו נסיכי סיחון, ובא על שנוסכים שמן על ראשו לסימן גדולה" and sees the second as an linguistic extension of the first).