tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1866132022161856151.post5154348638744969393..comments2023-10-06T15:01:30.680-04:00Comments on The Dikdukian: ועשה בצלאל ואהליאבShtiklerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498936768989355610noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1866132022161856151.post-20250772190897459052011-03-06T04:39:31.894-05:002011-03-06T04:39:31.894-05:00Binny, the Shach is the sefer Sifsei Chachomim by ...Binny, the Shach is the sefer Sifsei Chachomim by Rav Mordechai HaKohen from Sefas about 400 years ago.<br />Incidently, he explains that when Betzalel heard the details of the Mishkan he imagined them in his mind as if he had already made them.Moshehttp://shlomokluger.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1866132022161856151.post-31143616475147654242010-03-13T13:04:42.704-05:002010-03-13T13:04:42.704-05:00בעניין ועשה בצלאל
ידוע רש"י במכות וראב"...בעניין ועשה בצלאל <br />ידוע רש"י במכות וראב"ע <br />אבל לעניין הגרסא בתרגום כל התרגומים המדויקים גורסים "ועבד" ולא ויעבד ואין לנו <br />רשות לשנותELIEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15774695222243851207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1866132022161856151.post-92102615495164058342007-03-16T07:19:00.000-04:002007-03-16T07:19:00.000-04:00I meant a machlokes about whether it is a vav hach...I meant a machlokes about whether it is a vav hachibur or vav hahipuch. The machlokes Rashi and Ibn Ezra assumes that it is a vav hahipuch. I would be hesitant to require people reading Targum for shnayim mikra to read it twice as the Shaarei Aharon suggests.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1866132022161856151.post-42688612226983381722007-03-16T01:14:00.000-04:002007-03-16T01:14:00.000-04:00Do you mean evidence of a מחלוקת regarding אונקלוס...Do you mean evidence of a מחלוקת regarding אונקלוס or regarding how to read the פסוק. Because for that, the רש"י in מכות which is referenced by both the Rogochover and the חזון איש should be enough of a מחלוקת in the proper reading of the פסוק.Shtiklerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07498936768989355610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1866132022161856151.post-16480136426317459402007-03-15T23:09:00.000-04:002007-03-15T23:09:00.000-04:00Regarding the claim that there is a mistake in Onk...Regarding the claim that there is a mistake in Onkolos: <BR/><BR/>The claim is based on a question which both the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh and the Shach [see Torah Shleima and Shaarei Aharon who cite this Shach although I am unsure who he was]answer.<BR/> <BR/>Also, I have yet to see a different version of Onkelos in any manuscript editions, so I would not be so quick to say there is a mistake in Onkolos, and prefer to see the existance of a true machlokes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1866132022161856151.post-74273721795063304462007-03-12T21:11:00.000-04:002007-03-12T21:11:00.000-04:00Both the sefer Hak'sav V'Hakabbalah and the Mahari...Both the sefer Hak'sav V'Hakabbalah and the Maharil Diskin (Thanks for the reference Shtikler)assume there is a mistake in the text of the Targum Onkolos and in actuality he translated the word as do Rashi and Ibn Ezra, in future tense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com