[Avodah] Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun?

Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org
Wed Jun 13 08:50:54 PDT 2012


On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:07:47AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 13/06/2012 9:58 AM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
>> The Chumash I have says it's a kri u'ktiv. Written without the Yud
>> but pronounced with.

> Where do we find "anav" spelt with a yud?

Unless I went down the list too quickly and missed one of the /`nv/
occurances thinking it was yet another "anu", this is the only
occurance of the word in Tanakh in any spelling.

But in tehillim, we do have anavim, with only a yud after the vavm
in:
    The kesiv version of 9:18. Q'ri is "aniyyim", 
    10:17, 22:26, 25:9x2...

So I too fail to understand the mesoretic note.

>>>  This implies that nekudot are misinai, which used to be universally
>>>  believed.

>> But simply cannot be true.

> Hence the "used to be".  The quoted reason depends on this belief.
> If the modern understanding is true, then this reason can't be.

Well, as I said, the reason can be. Niqud being min haShamayim and niqud
being miSinai are two different things. Particularly since we're talking
about statements made in the Zohar, and thus are already stated within
the context of progressive revelation.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha at aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv



More information about the Avodah mailing list