Which Commentary?

[dybmh]

When researching a question that involves the Tanach, Which commentary is your first stop after Rashi? 2nd? 3rd?

 

[rosends]

When researching a question that involves the Tanach, Which commentary is your first stop after Rashi? Feel free

This depends on a few things:
1. Which "interface" am I using?
If I am using a printed chumash, which ones are in it?
If I am using sefaria online, do I just go down the alphabetical line?
2. What am I looking for?
If I want a word, or a context or a particular kind of discussion I might tailor where I look next
3. What does Rashi say?
Do I need explanation of Rashi, another opinion, or an unrelated point about an area Rashi doesn't discuss?

And probably other variables.

 

[dybmh]

This depends on a few things:
1. Which "interface" am I using?
If I am using a printed chumash, which ones are in it?
If I am using sefaria online, do I just go down the alphabetical line?
2. What am I looking for?
If I want a word, or a context or a particular kind of discussion I might tailor where I look next
3. What does Rashi say?
Do I need explanation of Rashi, another opinion, or an unrelated point about an area Rashi doesn't discuss?

And probably other variables.

Here's a specific example:

I found a comment about the Ammonite's sword in Da'ath Sofrim, but I haven't found anything else to back it up.

I've been clicking thru the english resources on sefaria, but I haven't found anything yet. I looked in Me'Am Loez and Mikraot Gildolot ( sorry if I butchered the spelling ), but still nothing...

for something like this, it's somewhat historical... any ideas?

 

[rosends]

Here's a specific example:

I found a comment about the Ammonite's sword in Da'ath Sofrim, but I haven't found anything else to back it up.

I've been clicking thru the english resources on sefaria, but I haven't found anything yet. I looked in Me'Am Loez and Mikraot Gildolot ( sorry if I butchered the spelling ), but still nothing...

for something like this, it's somewhat historical... any ideas?

Without having the Daat Sofrim handy to see if there are any footnotes, I might go back to the verse in question (which verse is that comment on?) and just plow through in English and Hebrew (and Aramaic).

 

[dybmh]

(which verse is that comment on?)

12:9

and just plow through in English and Hebrew (and Aramaic).

Heehee... that's a challenge for me. But good advice none the less. Thank you.

 

[dybmh]

Without having the Daat Sofrim handy to see if there are any footnotes...

I'm looking at the Moznaim english version; there's no footnotes.

Here's all it says:

"The sword of the Ammonites. This is mentioned not only to state that David is nevertheless held responsible, but also to state that this caused a desecration of G-d's Name, since a symbol of the Ammonite god was engraved on their swords."

And then it moves on to 12:10...

 

[Harel13]

for something like this, it's somewhat historical... any ideas?

Might need a modern commentary, one of those books that discuss various issues in the Neviim and often cite archeological discoveries.
Have you heard of Da'at Mikra? They have some stuff like that in their commentary.

 

[dybmh]

Have you heard of Da'at Mikra? They have some stuff like that in their commentary.

Awesome! Thanks!

 

[rosends]

I'm looking at the Moznaim english version; there's no footnotes.

Here's all it says:

"The sword of the Ammonites. This is mentioned not only to state that David is nevertheless held responsible, but also to state that this caused a desecration of G-d's Name, since a symbol of the Ammonite god was engraved on their swords."

And then it moves on to 12:10...

Yes, I looked it up and saw the same thing -- no attribution. I would love to get the text in Hebrew so I can search for the phrase. In the meanwhile, I would suggest a 2 pronged attack. First, keep looking in commentaries and midrashim and also go to judaism.stackexchange.com and pose the question looking for a source.

 

[Tumah]

Here's a specific example:

I found a comment about the Ammonite's sword in Da'ath Sofrim, but I haven't found anything else to back it up.

I've been clicking thru the english resources on sefaria, but I haven't found anything yet. I looked in Me'Am Loez and Mikraot Gildolot ( sorry if I butchered the spelling ), but still nothing...

for something like this, it's somewhat historical... any ideas?

Since Sefaria doesn't have the Da'as Sofrim, I found it on HebrewBooks.org. Here's the page, complete with footnotes. The Moznaim quote appears to be a bit of a paraphrase.The noted source is Zohar 2:107 and the general idea is definitely there, including the description of the sword's snake like inscription.

 

[dybmh]

Since Sefaria doesn't have the Da'as Sofrim, I found it on HebrewBooks.org. Here's the page, complete with footnotes. The Moznaim quote appears to be a bit of a paraphrase.The noted source is Zohar 2:107 and the general idea is definitely there, including the description of the sword's snake like inscription.

Is the chilul HaShem listed there? I see avodah zarah, but, this is maxing out my Hebrew skills.

 

[Tumah]

Is the chilul HaShem listed there? I see avodah zarah, but, this is maxing out my Hebrew skills.

The word Chillul HaShem doesn't appear in the Da'as Sofrim, that's why I said that they're kind of paraphrasing there. This is what it says:

By the sword of the Ammonites: "By the sword of the Ammonites" was emphasized for two reasons: even though Uriah the Hittite was killed by the sword of the Ammonites, meaning war, he (David) can't absolve himself because he desired for this to happen and this was his intention (B. Shabb. 56). Aside from this, he caused - through his being killed at the hands of the Ammonites - that they (the Ammonites) rejoiced and boasted of this blow they gave to the mighty of Israel. They even decorated the sword with which he was killed, for engraved on it the design of a twisted snake, which was one of their idols. After this, they fought with greater enthusiasm at the possibility that they might prevail over G-d's camp of Israel (Zohar 2:107).

 

[Harel13]

Have you heard of Da'at Mikra? They have some stuff like that in their commentary.

I checked Da'at Mikra. What they bring in reference to "By the sword of the Ammonites" is the Radak who says that David caused Uriah to fall by the haters ("Son'ei") of Israel, which was problematic.
They also write that Uriah's suicide mission was apparently meant for him only, but Yoav decided to not send him alone and sent other warriors, who also died.

 

[dybmh]

not send him alone and sent other warriors, who also died.

Not to send him alone...

Meaning... David's intention was to keep it a secret. But it wasn't a secret.. it was publicized... raising it to chilul? If so, it was raised to that level because of Yoav?

That's where my head's at on this.

Thank you so much.

 

[Harel13]

If so, it was raised to that level because of Yoav?

I saw now in Rabbi Amnon Bazak's book (one of those "modern commentaries" I was taking about previously) that David meant in his command that only Yoav, the top general, would know of the whole plan, and that only Uriah was to die, by having the rest of the soldiers abandoning him during battle.
However, Yoav didn't follow David's command to the exact. Why? Because everyone knows that you can't command soldiers to simply abandon their brother-in-arms in combat. So what he did was set up a clearly-going-to-fail operation - he sent Uriah along with some other soldiers along the city walls, where they were killed by soldiers standing atop the wall (hence the reference to Avimelech, who was killed in the same manner). And David would've probably known this tactical error, so technically David was ordering Yoav to kill several soldiers just to cause the death of one general.
On this, Da'at Mikra says that one of David's mistakes was stooping down to Yoav's level. We see several times during David's life that he's gotten mad at the sons of Tzruyah (one of them being Yoav) for the harshness of their battle tactics and the spilling of unnecessary blood - and here David does the exact same thing!

Rabbi Bazak continues and explains that Yoav wanted his men to know that David caused the spilling of unnecessary blood, so he hinted it by what he told the messenger - he told him to first talk about the men that died by standing near the city walls, which the king will probably get mad at, as it's a childish tactical error, and then, and only then, tell him that Uriah was killed as well. What was the messenger supposed to think? That Uriah's death somehow explains away a tactical error? Answer: No. He was supposed to understand that the whole failed battle was planned out ahead of time in order to bring about the death of Uriah, and this was not his (Yoav's) own failure, but something suspicious on the part of the king.
Similarly, the Midrash (Bamidbar Rabah 23 13) says that after the "failed" operation, Yoav showed his men the original command from David, so they should know the truth.

 

[dybmh]

I saw now in Rabbi Amnon Bazak's book (one of those "modern commentaries" I was taking about previously) that David meant in his command that only Yoav, the top general, would know of the whole plan, and that only Uriah was to die, by having the rest of the soldiers abandoning him during battle.
However, Yoav didn't follow David's command to the exact. Why? Because everyone knows that you can't command soldiers to simply abandon their brother-in-arms in combat. So what he did was set up a clearly-going-to-fail operation - he sent Uriah along with some other soldiers along the city walls, where they were killed by soldiers standing atop the wall (hence the reference to Avimelech, who was killed in the same manner). And David would've probably known this tactical error, so technically David was ordering Yoav to kill several soldiers just to cause the death of one general.
On this, Da'at Mikra says that one of David's mistakes was stooping down to Yoav's level. We see several times during David's life that he's gotten mad at the sons of Tzruyah (one of them being Yoav) for the harshness of their battle tactics and the spilling of unnecessary blood - and here David does the exact same thing!

Rabbi Bazak continues and explains that Yoav wanted his men to know that David caused the spilling of unnecessary blood, so he hinted it by what he told the messenger - he told him to first talk about the men that died by standing near the city walls, which the king will probably get mad at, as it's a childish tactical error, and then, and only then, tell him that Uriah was killed as well. What was the messenger supposed to think? That Uriah's death somehow explains away a tactical error? Answer: No. He was supposed to understand that the whole failed battle was planned out ahead of time in order to bring about the death of Uriah, and this was not his (Yoav's) own failure, but something suspicious on the part of the king.
Similarly, the Midrash (Bamidbar Rabah 23 13) says that after the "failed" operation, Yoav showed his men the original command from David, so they should know the truth.

It's starting to feel like this mystery is wrapping up

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The word Chillul HaShem doesn't appear in the Da'as Sofrim, that's why I said that they're kind of paraphrasing there. This is what it says:

By the sword of the Ammonites: "By the sword of the Ammonites" was emphasized for two reasons: even though Uriah the Hittite was killed by the sword of the Ammonites, meaning war, he (David) can't absolve himself because he desired for this to happen and this was his intention (B. Shabb. 56). Aside from this, he caused - through his being killed at the hands of the Ammonites - that they (the Ammonites) rejoiced and boasted of this blow they gave to the mighty of Israel. They even decorated the sword with which he was killed, for engraved on it the design of a twisted snake, which was one of their idols. After this, they fought with greater enthusiasm at the possibility that they might prevail over G-d's camp of Israel (Zohar 2:107).

Out of curiosity, who here sees this as being in any way historically accurate?

 

[Harel13]

Out of curiosity, who here sees this as being in any way historically accurate?

What, if their swords had a snake (or drakon in Hebrew) on them? Seems to make sense. Archeologists have discovered canaanite arrowheads with the phrase "Ben-Anat" on them, which appears to refer to the canaanite goddess Anat.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What, if their swords had a snake (or drakon in Hebrew) on them? Seems to make sense. Archeologists have discovered canaanite arrowheads with the phrase "Ben-Anat" on them, which appears to refer to the canaanite goddess Anat.

Ok. A couple of things:

• "What" is not really as answer to a yes/no question.
• Noting that something "makes sense" is a far cry from claiming that it's historically accurate.

 

[Harel13]

"What" is not really as answer to a yes/no question

Just making sure I understood your question. Then I offered my answer, in hopes I understood correctly. If you would've said I misunderstood, I would've replayed with a different answer.

Noting that something "makes sense" is a far cry from claiming that it's historically accurate.

Very well. But even if it's not historically true, it wouldn't be a far cry from reality.