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

Shoshanna Walker rosewalk at concentric.net
Mon Sep 25 10:03:20 EDT 2006


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



> 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



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list