[Avodah] Local, Non-Global or Global Flood

[Arie Folger]

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Zev Sero <zev at sero.name> wrote:
> I've never thought about it, but now that you mention it it makes sense
> to me that the superscriptions weren't added by the authors, especially
> by the other authors whose work David compiled together with his own
> works.  Are we to believe that Moshe called himself "ish ha'elokim"?
> Surely that was added by David, or even perhaps by a later editor.
> Need one be a Bible critic to entertain such an idea?

No, kosher source criticism is possible in Tehillim, as the Talmud
teaches eleven people (David ve'assarah zeqenim) authored Tehillim. In
the Midrash Shir haShirim and Qohelet Rabbah, we even learn of Rav and
R' Yochanan's opinion that the last ba'al hatehillim was Ezra. But
that doesn't answer the question, because we should at least believe
that holy poetry isn't arbitrary, and that the superscriptions are
meaningful.

However, how does the superscription fit the theme of the psalm? No
derasha here, simple peshat, read the content.

> But for the current purpose it doesn't matter who labelled this song
> as for Shabbos.  It seems obvious that whoever it was meant the literal
> day of Shabbos that comes every week.  (The lamed can mean "for" or
> "about"; what I'm saying is that the pshat here is "for", while the
> mishne's drasha treats it as if it meant "about".)

As I wrote, the content of the psalm argues against your
interpretation. Yom is surely meant metaphorically here, or as R'
Micha explains, it's an alternative meaning.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrutá-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle für G"tt?