1. Dolmens from Around the World
http://britam.org/dolmenpics.html Some New Pictures.
Rogem Hiri: Israel's Stone Henge
Dolmens in Ireland
Dolmens in Holland
Dolmens in France and Brittany
Dolmens in Sweden
Dolmens in Denmark
Dolmens in Britain
Dolmens in the Caucasus
esraretin has made a comment on Khazars Not Turkish!.avi:
re u crazy? who re u? historianor wht? khazars were turks and their religion was
FreddieStaton has made a comment on Ten Tribes in the West Brit-Am Biblical
yo homey . didn't jacob lived in canaan before living in padam aram which by the
way was once called nephtali amoung other terms ? didn't jacob lived in around
the late 2200 BC like around 2270/2280's ? my point being that at this time in
african history there were NOT ONE caucasoid on the african continent .. so how
is it that jacob , by your account , a caucasoid and his 12 sons also caucasoids
live on a black continent ? just 2500 AD yrs.ago no white in africa , forget it
around 2280 BC..
(b) Positive. No new positive comments so far but several offered to become YouTube
"friends" or subscribed to receive immediate notification of any new clips. Also
the viewing frequency has increased.
One new short (6.05 minutes) clip which is proving popular is:
Joseph in the End Times
3. Biblical Commentary: The Simple
Meaning Versus Rabbinical Understanding. Different Orthodox Jewish Approaches. Source: The Approach of Classic Jewish Exegetes to Peshat and Derash and Its
Implications for the Teaching of Bible Today
by Yeshayahu Maori
It appears that most teachers attempt to follow the exposition of Hazal [i.e.
the Sages] consistently and without deviation in teaching the legal material in
the Torah.1 In teaching the narrative portions of Torah, on the other hand, many
teachers make an effort to search out the plain sense of the verse (peshat) and
pay little attention to the material in midrashic sources. One symptom of this
approach is that in teaching narrative material more use is made of the
commentaries of such masters of peshat as R. Avraham ben Meir ibn Ezra (ca.
1092-1167, Spain) and R. Samuel ben Meir (ca. 1090-1160; northern France). There
also tend to be fewer reservations about resorting to the writings of authors
who do not share a traditional weltanschauung.
Two factors appear to make for this distinction between halakhic and narrative
material. The major one is that the exegesis of a verse concerned with halakhah
has apparent implications for the actual fulfillment of the commandment (halakhah
lema'aseh); the interpretation of narrative material has no such practical
A sharp distinction between the force of rabbinic statements pertaining to
halakhic and narrative material was made clearly in the introduction of R. David
Zvi Hoffmann (1843-1921; Germany) to his commentary on Leviticus. He contrasts
the decisive authority of rabbinic dicta pertaining to the interpretation of
verses concerned with halakha [Practical legal Application] with the force of
rabbinic comments in the matter of aggadah [Legends and Homiletical Teachings].
A commentator on the Torah?s laws must yield to rabbinic exegesis in legal
sections, since halakha is Sinaitic [from Moujnt Sinia i.e. given by the
Almighty]. But one cannot insist that the interpretation of non-legal passages
was given at Sinai, and there is therefore no necessity to accept them. Hoffman
finds support for his position in the Introduction to the Talmud (printed at the
back of the first volume of the standard Vilna Talmud and attributed to R.
From Hoffmann's comments one may conclude:8 (1) that in narrative sections of
the Torah we are free to interpret as we choose without being subject to the
statements of Hazal, and (2) in halakhic sections we are bound by what is found
in rabbinic sources. ..The license to interpret the Bible in a fashion not in
accord with rabbinic hermeneutics was derived by medieval exegetes from the
words of the Talmud itself when it stresses that, granted the existence of
rabbinic hermeneutical interpretations (derashot), "ein mikra yotse midei
peshuto" (lit., "a text does not depart entirely from its simple sense/ plain
It is obvious that our exegetes did not mean to determine practical halakhah on
the basis of their interpretations ignoring those of the Rabbis, for they
certainly considered themselves bound by the halakhah of Hazal.18 How then, can
we justify their license to interpret halakhic passages in a way which does not
coincide with the midrash of Hazal?19 The conceptual foundation of this freedom
lies in the acceptance of the principle that "there are seventy facets to the
Torah" (Numbers Rabbah 13:15), i.e. that a verse has more than one meaning.
Rashi formulates this principle at the beginning of his commentary to Shir
HaShirim: "God spoke one which I heard as two (Ps. 62:12).' One verse may have
several meanings.. but in the end no verse escapes from its simple sense and
literal meaning .."
R. Meir Leib Malbim (1809-79; Eastern Europe)... and R. Yaakov Zvi Mecklenburg
(1785-1855; Germany), the author of Haketav Vehakabbalah [Scripture and
Tradition], strove to demonstrate that the derashot of Hazal are anchored in the
bedrock of the Hebrew language and its unique characteristics. According to
Malbim (in the Introduction to his commentary of Leviticus), the derashah is the
simple sense [peshat hapashut] which is inevitable and implanted in the depth of
the language and the foundation of the Hebrew tongue." However, despite the
occasional successes of Malbim and Mecklenburg in demonstrating that the derash
which, prima facie, is far from the simple meaning of the verse, may, in fact,
be in conformity with the essence of its simple meaning, they often forced
conformity between the peshat and the derashah in instances where there was no
basis for it.
Brit-Am Comment: The above article is interesting and quotes valuable sources.
His conclusions are in fact more "liberal" than Brit-Am finds necessary.
We are encouraged to learn and understand the Bible as we understand it
according to its simple literal meaning.
In matters of Law they who are Jewish must defer to how the Sages understood the
Law: This applies even if we disagree with how they interpreted certain verses
when reaching their conclusions, cf. Deuteronomy 17:9-11.
The Sages gave interpretations of Biblical Verses not only in legal matters but
in numerous other cases as well.
Where the explanations have no practical legal applications we are not obligated
to accept them as the intended meaning since they were not necessarily meant to
be taken as such.
On the other hand R. Meir Leib Malbim, R. Yaakov Zvi Mecklenburg, Rabbi Shimshon
Raphael Hirsch, and numerous others have shown quite convincingly that quite
often the seemingly "forced" interpretations that the Sages did offer actually
accord with the real meaning of the Hebrew source. See:
#2. When and When Not is Scripture to be Taken Literally?