tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20257999.post1499505383246788713..comments2024-03-28T15:14:16.180+02:00Comments on Life in Israel: Persian or Hebrew?Rafi G.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00699851287106903971noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20257999.post-50888193481618173132009-03-17T01:54:00.000+02:002009-03-17T01:54:00.000+02:00i dunno if this 'pshat' has a makor or not - and i...i dunno if this 'pshat' has a makor or not - and it is pretty mechudush and would need somethign on the level of Midrashic Authority I think - but assuming that there is a source for this it is really no kashya bichlal - in persioan they changed it to whatever they needed to in the persian language (and this was erased/changed- and in hebrew, the megiallas language the megilla reports this in it's own language. It happens to be that in Hebrew it is a simple thing to hint at - by that nifty extra A but who says that in Persian it was a simple change - i.e. in english they would have wwritten 'or' instaed of 'and' and the maloch would have changed it to 'and'. Same in persian.<BR/><BR/>I really do not see the problem. This is very poshut.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20257999.post-30090987996992079232009-03-15T21:45:00.000+02:002009-03-15T21:45:00.000+02:00some people in the comment section noted that the ...some people in the comment section noted that the standard language for writing down records was Aramaic.<BR/><BR/>so it would work. still, it is certainly not peshat. it is cute.<BR/><BR/>a medrash saying that Haman's son was the scribe is not a problem, since midrashim may contradict one another with impunity.<BR/><BR/>kt,<BR/>joshAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20257999.post-60081190563568129952009-03-12T12:47:00.000+02:002009-03-12T12:47:00.000+02:00It could be that it happens to work in Persian as ...It could be that it happens to work in Persian as well.<BR/><BR/>Anon (1),<BR/>What does Haman's son being the scribe have to do with anything? He may have written in Hebrew. Also, midrashim do not have to "agree" with one another.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20257999.post-25145771418408289262009-03-12T11:51:00.000+02:002009-03-12T11:51:00.000+02:00But why should the "Yodei Dat wa'Din" write down b...But why should the "Yodei Dat wa'Din" write down both (Bigtan and Teresch), although it was just one of them? This is a quite interesting question!<BR/><BR/>In 1 S 29,3 the meaning of או is meant to be "or rather" so perhaps there is in the chronic of the days of the king a judgment (that it was mainly Teresch) written down by the wise men. Possibly the Masorets couldn't explain why there is that 'alef' behind Bigtan and so they thought it is Persian dialect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20257999.post-7195637309335757192009-03-12T11:30:00.000+02:002009-03-12T11:30:00.000+02:00First of all , its a cute vort.Thats the point, no...First of all , its a cute vort.<BR/>Thats the point, no?<BR/><BR/>But the answer isn't true- since the medrash says that Haman's son was the scribe.<BR/>There are other nissim mentioned, since he didn't want to read the chronicles, he kept on turning to other pages and a malach came to turn it back to Mordechai's page.<BR/>And other nissim too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20257999.post-62892905258042091502009-03-12T11:22:00.000+02:002009-03-12T11:22:00.000+02:00I never heard such a bogus vort, man!I never heard such a bogus vort, man!הצעיר שלמה בן רפאל לבית שריקי ס"טhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04835340110056405173noreply@blogger.com