[b-hebrew] actual Hebrew question about Daniel 9:25

Steve Miller smille10 at sbcglobal.net
Sat Oct 14 20:56:11 EDT 2006


> From: Shoshanna Walker Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10:03 AM
> 
> Rashi's commentary is very clear except for one paragraph which
> someone else on this list understood very well - if you keep in mind
> that a week is a set of 7 years, and that the time of the word to
> rebuild Jerusalem is not Cyrus saying it, and that the secular date
> of the destruction of the first temple of 586 BC, could be wrong, and
> the Torah could be right.
> 
> Shoshanna
[Steve Miller] If it is so clear, why couldn't you answer my 5
straightforward questions about it below? The problem's I have with Rashi's
commentary on Dan. 9:25 have nothing to do with dates. It is that it
butchers the text of the Tanach. Here are some problems:
-Rashi divides the 70 weeks into 2 parts: 10 weeks (70 years captivity) and
60 weeks (420 years). But the text does not divide it in this way at all,
rather into 7 weeks, 62 weeks and 1 week.
-Rashi starts the 70 weeks, not with a word to restore and rebuild
Jerusalem, as the text says, but with the captivity.
-Rashi says the word to restore and rebuild the Jerusalem is the angel's
speaking to Daniel in answer to Daniel's prayer. But the angel did not give
a word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. This is really strange. Cyrus'
command came just a couple years later. Why didn't Rashi use Cyrus' command
here, which would have been straightforward, instead of swallowing a camel
to try to make the angel's word fit this?

After reading the commentary thus far, I did not want to spend any more time
on it.
-Steve Miller
Detroit
www.voiceinwilderness.info
> 
> 
> > From: Shoshanna Walker Sunday, September 17, 2006 10:39 PM
> >
> > See the entire chapter with Rashi's commentary here
> >
> > http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=16492&showrashi=true
> 
> [Steve Miller] Thank you, Shoshanna. This is a nice website, and I have
> bookmarked it. Rashi's commentary on Dan. 9 is very intelligent until he
> comes to the 70 weeks, and then it makes little sense.
> 
> I can see why you didn't give it here concisely because it doesn't make
> sense. The problems with it are too numerous and obvious for me to even
> spend time to comment on.
> If you state concisely: when did the 70 weeks start and end? What and when
> is the word to rebuild Jerusalem? What are the 49 weeks? The 62 weeks? Who
> is maschiach in v26? Then I will point out the problems.
> 
> If you know the person who maintains the site, tell him that he has a
> gross
> mistake in the commentary on v24. "Seven" weeks should be "Seventy" weeks.
> 
> Have a blessed new year,
> -Steve Miller
> Detroit
> www.voiceinwilderness.info
> 
> >
> > >> From: Shoshanna Walker Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 1:15 PM
> > >>
> > >> Rashi has it all worked out, there are two other opinions of chazal
> > >> that I have since seen - all three of them work out with the 490
> > >> years.
> > >>
> > >> Shoshanna
> > >>
> > >[Steve Miller] - Could you please list concisely how Rashi worked it
> out?
> > If
> > >you already shared it, and I missed it, I apologize. Thanks.
> > >-Steve Miller
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list