Hello! I was pushing myself outside my comfort zone recently and decided to start memorizing the Tanak. To start out I went small and one of the books I now have memorized is Obadiah. It's really incredible the things you pick up on as you're committing these things to memory. It allows the brain to chew on a lot of different aspects of Scripture.
So here are my questions. Why does Benjamin possess Gilead at the end of Obadiah? Why would it not be one of the 2 1/2 tribes that Moshe assigned the land to, *or* why would it not be Judah? And why is Benjamin the only tribe mentioned by name in this account of the People returning to the Promised Land?
I've been mulling this over and I can't figure it out. Thanks for the help on this!
I would like a direct translation of this verse from the Hos 6:2 from the WLC
יחינו מימים ביום השלישי יקמנו ונחיה לפניו׃
how does mî-yō-mā-yim
get translated to after two days? instead can it be translated "from the days (gone by) "?
"If there arises a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment." (Devarim 17:8-9)
My question here is about the "the place which the Lord thy God shall choose." How do we known the place which God shall choose?
And does the difficult judgment that judges cannot solve be easily solved by the Levites?
In Devarim it is commanded to gather — Hakhel — at the end of the Sabbatical year.
But is there a command to gather together on (every) Shabbat or the Moadim?
Of course Vayikra 23 calls such moments Mikra Kodesh or Holy Convocations, but do these really imply that we should gather and keep these days together? Or are these just general statements in order that we should just proclaim these days as different as the other days and keep the holiness of these specific moments? The words "mikra kodesh" could be taken to mean "a declaration of sanctity," referring to the holiness of a day or appointed time. While translated as "a holy convocation" it refers to a group of people assembled for a special purpose; they are called together for a holy meeting, "a set-apart-gathering."
So the question is: If we are really commanded to gather on these days and appointed times, or that these days and appointed times are only to be declared as holy days; i.e. are to be set apart from all other days?
Was the full Torah that is written in the scroll today (The Five Books of Moses) given at Mt. Sinai? Or were just the Ten Commandments and previous events given to Moses and all the Jewish people there with the rest to come later?
As we know, most of the Torah tells about events that occurred after Mt. Sinai. If the full Torah was given at Mt. Sinai, that means that everyone, including Moses, Aaron, and the entire nation would know in advance of their own actions and how they would behave, which could affect their own behavior.
How we are supposed to academically, and religiously, understand the book of Daniel?
Daniel is a noble Jewish youth of Jerusalem, taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. He serves the king and his successors with loyalty until the time of the Persian conqueror Cyrus, while remaining true to the God of Israel.
Question, is this supposed to be Nebuchadnezzar II (605 BC – c. 562 BC)
Most modern scholars see the book of Daniel as actually being written during the reign of the infamous Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE) (the villain of the Chanukah story), although based on older materials.
Question: Do any classical, medieval, or modern Jewish rabbis also see it this way? Any info would be appreciated.
In the book, knowledge of the Babylonian-Persian period (Nebuchadnezzar era) is vague or erroneous. For example,
"Belshazzar (Bel-shar-user) is identified as the son of Nebuchadrezzar and is called "king" (5:1), but we have seen that his father was Nabonidus and that, though he was a regent, he never became a king.
King Darius is called a Mede, the son of Xerxes (Ahasuerus), in Daniel 9:1,
although we know that he was a Persian and the father of Xerxes.
As the story moves into the Greek period, it becomes more accurate. The writer knows of the desecration of God's altar by Antiochus IV in 168 (9:27; 11:31) but not of the restoration of worship by Judas Maccabeus three years later. The book must have been completed between 168 and 165, probably closer to 165. The presence of Persian and Greek loan-words lends support to the Hellenistic dating."
(Old Testament Life and Literature, Gerald A. Larue )
How do we understand this book in an authentically Jewish and also academically responsible way?