| | 2 Points | 1 Point | 0 Points |
| Content and Creativity | Postings provide comprehensive insight, understanding, and reflective thought about the topic that is substantiated by effective supporting examples. Postings are creatively and fluently written to stimulate dialogue and commentary. | Postings provide moderate insight, understanding and reflective thought about the topic that is substantiated by supporting examples. Postings are generally well written with some attempts made to stimulate dialogue and commentary. | Postings provide minimal insight, understanding and reflective thought about the topic and lack supporting examples. Postings are brief and unimaginative, and reflect minimal effort to connect with the audience. |
| Voice | Postings are written in a style that is appealing and appropriate for the intended audience and a consistent voice is evident throughout | Postings are written in a style that is generally appropriate for the intended audience and an attempt is made to use a consistent voice. | Postings are written in a style that does not fully consider the audience, and the author’s voice is difficult to identify. |
| Mechanics | Writes with no errors in grammar, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. | Writes with minor editing errors in grammar, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. | Writes with major errors in grammar, capitalization, punctuation and spelling. |
Let the blogging begin...
Reflect on whether you think Perek Vav is Yishayahu's first call to prophecy and the start of his mission or whether it represents a shift in the underlying mission of his prophecy.
Zahava said that she couldn't post a comment so I'm trying this as a trial run to see if it lets me post a comment.
ReplyDeleteBased on the material we have covered yesterday and today, so far, it would seem that Perek Vav is Yishayahu's Hakdasha.
ReplyDeleteWe can understand it in that from five things we learned in pasukim Alef through Chet. First, in pasuk alef, it is written: "Bshnat Mot Ooziyahu." [Reminder about Ooziyahu- he was a good king like Shlomo. His rule was marked by economic, political, and military success. However, in the end he became haughty and loved the land. He brought his own kitoret, and as punishment recieved tzaraat. At which time, there was an earthquake.] We know that Yishayahu prophecised during the lifetime of Yishayahu. So if this were the literal death of Ooziyahu, it could not be his initial call, rather, a change in his mission. However, we offered the explanation that this is not his literal death, rather, his spiritual death. When one had tzaraat, one was considered to have died. So this could be referring to Ooziyahu's tzaraat, in which case, Yishayahu could have started prophecising at this time.
Our second support comes from pasuk daled: Smokey pillars filling the Beit Hamikdash, and the shaking of the Beit Hamikdash. This too can be viewed in two different ways.If the smoke and shaking simply refers to G-d's holiness, then this is a change in mission. But, perhaps the shaking refers to the earthquake in the land when Ooziyahu recieved tzaraat.
Then, in pasuk hey, Yishayahu's response to Hashem appearing to him is odd. He says his lips are impure and he is living with impure people. He, as Racheli said, freaked out. Maybe it was simply a change in mission, and he was realizing how angry G-d was, and was scared that Hashem would destroy the Beit Hamikdash and the people. But if this is his hakdasha, he reacts in this way because he is shocked at seeing Hashem, at having Hashem appear to him.
In pasuk zien, Yishayhu says that an angel took a hot coal and pressed it to his lips, to erase his sins. Coal [pain] to remove sin? This isn't something we usually see in Judaism. If this were a change in mission, it might be a mashal for what needs to happen to the people who are so steeped in sin. Maybe teshuva is no longer an option. However, if we see this as the hakdasha, a more likely explanation is offered: People have sins, and in order to prophecise, your sins must be removed. The coal is removing his sins so that he can be holy enough to prophecise.
Lastly, in pasuk chet, Hashem asks who will help Him, and Yishayahu offers. If this is the change in mission, Yishayahu offers so quickly because he has already prophcised before so it is not hard for him to agree, and he is simply aknowledging the change in the mission. If this is the hakdasha, Yishayahu is volunteering and accepting the task of being a navi.
So, while we would like to think the sefer is in order, so far, it seems that perek vav is the hakdasha, and not a change in his mission.
"New Mission"
ReplyDeleteOkay, let me start off by saying that I am not saying that this opinion is totally correct, nor am I saying that it is incorrect. The following is subject to a lot of debate, and I don't think we can really know the true answer. Personally, the reason why I think it is a new mission and not his hakdasha is because I would like to believe that there is an order to the Torah, and especially the Navi. I mean, maybe there is no order to the Torah (,whatever...) but I definitely feel like there's an order in the Navi. It is, after all, man made.. It's not on the same divine level as Torah.
Anyways, don't worry Zahava, I won't just give you that.. It would make it all too easy for you to attack this soon to be amazing post! So, shall I continue to post with some evidence? Okay, here we go:
--The Navi starts off the perek by saying that this all happened "B'shnat mot Uziyahu" "In the year that Uziyahu [King] died".Well, the easiest way to take this is to understand it literally: this all happened in the year that Uziyahu died. Seeing as how we know that Yeshayahu prophesied during Uziyahu's lifetime, it is clear that this isn't his hakdasha. ("Oh, but it could be that it was after he got tzara'at," yes, that is very true. Once again, though, there is no proven answer, only opinion.)
--The next goings on in Chapter 6 is the smokey pillars. It is certainly not a radical idea to say that the smokey pillars represent G-d's (is that how we are supposed to write it? I'm never sure..) holiness and glory which fill up the world. Additionally, there is this ominous and sort of eerie feeling that comes along with this too. See next bullet-point.
--When Yishayahu sees the smokey pillars, he freaks out, basically. Why? Because he realizes how angry G-d is and is fearful that H' will destroy the Temple. This theory comes from specifically focusing on the words "am tamei sfatayim" "a nation of impure lips". Yishayahu wants to do whatever he can to prevent the destruction of the Temple.
--Here's a good one: the whole 'coal as purification' one. This one makes a lot of sense with the "change in mission" method, specifically because it does not make this thing look like some Christian ritual. (Yes, it still makes sense the other way, no doubt..) The coal burning the lips and taking away sins could symbolize what needs to happen to the people who are so steeped in sin. As we know, there are many mashalim , or parables, in the Navi, so it is not surprising that there would be imagery here.This would also show that there is a dramatic change in his mission: his goal is no longer to get the people to do teshuvah, it has come to the point that that isn't an option anymore. ** I hope we learn how this ties into Devarim, because right now I am still not convinced that it means that teshuvah is not an option because I thought we learned specifically that teshuvah was always an option**
-- Also, when Hashem asks, "Who should I send?" Yishayahu says, "Me!!" This doesn't have to be seen as such a heroic type of thing. If this is just his change in mission, then it is easier for him to accept it. Right now it could be like him saying, "Okay, I see that this will be a different mission (but similar, I think..) but I'll do it anyways."
So, that was my comment for tonight. Lastly, I would like to repeat (and hopefully you are bored of this by now) that no matter the arguments either way, there is no really knowing what the answer is.
Bum bum bum..
Just to comment on what Racheli said-
ReplyDeleteI understand that the evidence works both ways: for the hakdaasha and for the change in his mission. However, it really does seem that the evidence is stronger for his hakdasha.
I would like to believe that the navi is in order. It makes no sense for it not to be. It's just confusing, and why would they do that!?
However, there must be a purpose if it is indeed the hakdasha, which we still don't know for certain. But, sometimes things are out of order.
For instance, that story we read in english class, "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge." We first have this man about to be hanged, and then we have a flashback to how he came to be hanged, and then we have his hanging. Let's admit- the story would've been less exciting if it started with his being caught, and then the hanging. Perhaps the hakdasha as perek vav serves the same purpose?
Actually, especially after today, I would have to disagree. The evidence is stronger for change in mission. Unless you would like to believe that Hashem would harden your heart. But whatever, clearly we are all entitled to our opinions and you stated yours.
ReplyDeleteWhat you said about English class: I am very much aware of the style of flashbacks and things being out of order. However, if the Navi was doing this for 'dramatic effect' or whatever, I would think that to be a foolish idea. What's the point? They must have known the confusion it would have on people.
Zahava, I too would like to believe that it was the hakdasha. It does make sense; it seems like a hakdasha. But logic turned me to believe that it must be a change in mission.
I don't know, maybe sometimes we should trust intuition, even though it isn't logical to put the navi out of order. I hate to think it is out of order, and I hate to think G-d hardens our hearts, but I just can't come to terms with the fact that this is a change in mission. It just seems like a hakdasha....
ReplyDeleteIt is so confusing!
Wait- what is so bad about it being change in mission? It could be basically the same thing in the previous perakim but just a bit different. Why does it need to be hakdasha?
ReplyDeleteWhat does change in mission even mean? Because if his mission is changing it's bad for the Jews... like, death or something? Ultimate punishment? His mission is to try and save the Jews and tell them G-ds words... so is G-d being angry? I just don't know. It doesnt sound like a mission changing.
ReplyDeleteWhat does hakdasha even mean? What, just because Mrs. Perl taught us that it could be hakdasha means that hakdasha is all of a sudden this big thing? I am not convinced..Why does it need to be a hakdasha? It would just make more sense according to the story if it was just him changing his mission! Either way it's not good for the Jews. ...
ReplyDeleteIt's just a feeling I have, and it's backed up by evidence that could go either way.. but I just can't understand this as a mission change. What have we read so far that is a mission change... I mean... erg, I don't know, but trust your instincts. If they put this at beginning you'd think it were a hakdasha! maybe we just want to believe that it's a mission because we want it to be in order! and maybe we just can never know....
ReplyDeleteYes, that is the bottom line that I drew in my first post. The bottom line is that we'll never know. Like, how many licks does it take to get to the bottom of a tootsie pop? "The world will never know.." --Exactly.
ReplyDeleteIt's a lot of head tumbling for not knowing... I mean, sitting here, on my chair, during this storm, I can't bring myself to do other homework because I'm just so intrigued by this and need to get a concrete answer!!! But i suppose I'm just going to have to be satisfied with the tootsie roll pop quote...
ReplyDeleteZahava- What's the tootsie roll pop quote?
ReplyDeleteI dont think that either one is the 'correct' answer. I think the terms found in the pesukim suggest that either one could be true. Either that this could be a change in mission, or that this is his initial Hakdasha. When it says B'shnat Mot Uziahu - we could take this to mean two different things. Knowing that Yishayahu prophesized during the days of Uziahu, this could either mean his literal death, which would mean it was a change in his mission. Or it could be talking about when he got tzara'at, which means he could have started prophesizing now, which would mean this was his initial hakdasha. Then when it talks about the smokey pillars and the shaking of the BHMK - this also could mean two different things. Either it represents g-d's glory or holiness, which would be a change in mission. Or it represents the earthquake that took place when Uziahu got tzara'at, which would again represent his initial hakdasha. In pasuk Hay, Uziahu freaks out and tells g-d that he's impure. This response could also tell us two different things. Either that he realizes how angry Hashem is and that he is fearful that He'll destroy the BHMK, which would be a change in mission. Or he was in shock and seeing the vision of Hashem, which would imply that this is his first time prophecizing (hakdasha). Then, Yishayahu says how an angel came and put coal to his mouth to take away his sin - so the coal would serve as a kind of purification. This could either be a Mashal for what needs to happen to the people who are so steeped in sin. Teshuvah's no longer an option, the only thing left is destruction. Which would change Yishayahu's whole entire mission. Or it could be saying that it's normal to have sins, and it's necessary to purify yourself before you could prophesize (speak to/hear from g-d), which would show us that this is his initial hakdasha. When Yishayahu says, Heeneni Shalchani, it could show that it's easier for him - he acknowledges change, but he'll do it anyway. Or it could just show that he volunteered for his mission, which would support that this is his hakdasha. So I think it could really be either one..
ReplyDeleteWell I just had a brilliant thought. Maybe we can just say that the hakdasha and change in mission are interchangeable. There is no right answer. I mean, let's say we agree that it's a change in mission. But the reality is it's he hakdasha. Maybe it's the same thing. Maybe it goes both ways. Not as options, but as realities? Anyone get what I'm saying?
ReplyDeleteYes! I agree! I think we should leave it at that..
ReplyDeleteIn agreement to Racheli’s first comment, that she believes that there is a chronological order in the Tanach but only in the Torah:
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that there is a chronological order in the Torah, since this concept is applied in many parts of the Torah to explain why certain things were said or happened before the action actually happened. To further proof this, there is an example for this is in Shemot 19:8 - before the giving of the Torah, "And all of the people answered together and said, 'All that the L-rd has spoken, we will do.” Only in Shemot 24:7 - after the giving of the Torah it is written "And he took the book of the covenant and read it in the ears of the people, and they said, 'All that the L-rd has said, we will do and we will hear.'" So the explanation for why the Jews said “naasee we nishmah” before they got the torah, is that there is no chronological order. Like Racheli, I believe that that since the concept is “En mukdam umeuchar baTorah”. I think that if this concept would have applied to the Tanach (to the Navi), then this concept would have been worded differently. Therefore I also believe it is a change in mission, and not a Hakdasha since Yeshayahu had rebuked the Jews before. I also don’t think that there are other palces in the Navi where this concept of “en mukdam umeuchar banavi” can be applied, so therefore I think it it makes the explanation for the Hakdasha weaker.
In response to Zahava’s idea about "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge." :
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that the Navi would write this in a non-chronological way to make a dramatic effect and to make it more interesting since the Navi is not some story that tries to simply catch your attention but its in order, to show us what the Jews did wrong and how everyone can learn from it. So in addition to my first comment on why I don’t think it is not in chronological order, I also do not think that the Navi would want to change the chronological order, to make it more interesting but the Navi wants to be clear, and is clearly not the same thing as the Torah.
I'm going to stick with my epiphany, even though I'm sure a lot of people will say it's ridiculous:
ReplyDeleteMaybe the hakdasha and change in mission are interchangeable. There is no right answer. I mean, let's say we agree that it's a change in mission. But the reality is it's he hakdasha. Maybe it's the same thing. Maybe it goes both ways. Not as options, but as realities. It's the same thing at different times, so either way...
About Zahavas last idea: I dont think that both answers are right. I think that one answer must be the right one. We might never know which one is the true answer, but like other questions in life, such as: Is Hashem really real? You can not say that the answer yes and no are both true because I believe that one must be right. If one says yes or no, I think that depends on the belief of the person.
ReplyDeleteThe Hakdasha and the change in mission cannot both be true, since it has to be one or the other. Either all the ideas and proofs of why it is a Hakdasha are the right ones, or all the ideas and proofs of the change in missions are true. Sometimes, both sides of an argument have believable proofs and ideas, but since this is an actually thing that happened, and not an argument like "should abortion be allowed not?", where there are two sides and beliefs where both are correct and have good points, in the debate of whether it is a Hakdasha or change in mission,there is one ulitmate right answer.
Since we haven't finished the perek, I always hope that there will be one point that will make one of the sides more believable than others, so lets just hope that we will find that "changing point" next class, or else it is one of the unanswered questions that we we will have to wait to ask Hashem in heaven.
(Hopefully not though, since I am very curious, and I think you all are also waiting for an answer that will prove that one of the sides is the true, and right one.
Well I agree that sometimes the answer can't be both. But can't you hate and love someone at the same time? Even though those are two conflicting feelings? It is possible.
ReplyDeleteBut also, in this situation, it's not a conflicting situation. You could definitely have a situation work where Hashem says to Yeshayahu for the first time the contents of this perek, and pretty much the same conversation later on.
It could work.
But even in the case of abortion, there are two opinions true. The staunch NO! and the firm belief of YES! But isn't it possible that it could be both? That if something terrible happened and that's why you're pregnant, or your baby will have problems, or you'll be a terrible mother, then you should have an abortion. But then again, if you're a careless person fit to carry the baby to term and either take care of the baby or put it up for adoption? In some instances it can be two different things.
Which seems to be the case here.... even though we don't want to think like that. Sometimes thats just the way it is, where even though you don't like it, it just is like that. Who knows why....
I think that the example of loving and hating the person at the same time is not the same thing as the hakdasha and cahnge in mission. It is possible to feel both of those feelings because you can have them at the same time one second feeling this and then feeling that.
ReplyDeleteChange in mission and Hakdasha is different though since you cannot have it that one second its a change in mission and then later it is a hakdasha. It is either that it is a new mission or just a mission that is changing. Take a person how eats bread. the question is, did he have a new piece of bread or an old one?You cant say that you believe that he had both, since it is either that he finished his old piece of bread or he took a new piece of bread out.
If the situation was though that Hashem says to Yeshayahu the content for the first time then that means its a Hakdasha.So I still don't see how it could work.
Hakdasha and Change in Mission is not the same thing as the argument on abortion though, since abortion can always have different cases and opionions and either one can be right.
But perek Vav is not an argument on an opinion in general but it is an event that happened where you could either have it as a hakdasha or a change in mission, not both.
I get what you're saying, with the bread and everything.
ReplyDeleteSo in response all I can say is this: to me, the evidence so far has been stronger for the hakdasha. But if in the end DOES go either way, there's no point in debating, because as Racheli and tootsie roll pop said, "The world will never know." Except, if it COULD go either way, then why not just say that the navi is in order because it makes the most sense, and while it sounds like a hakdasha, it's probably a change in mission because it goes in order and serves no purpose here as a hakdasha, and that brings me to this:
Why did the commentators even wonder if it's the hakdasha? Logic makes it a change in mission as Sharon and Racheli have pointed out.
I suppose I changed my opinion..
but intuition tells me it sounds like the hakdasha...
Congratulations, Sharon, on the bread analogy. It won me over.
I am glad that the bread analogy got to you. I can also understand why you believe that it is a Hakdasha although I am still stong on the ideas why it is a change in mission.
ReplyDeleteAs to your question why the commentators would even wonder if it is a Hakdasha. I think that sometimes things can be over interperted. For example, a poem. When a poet writs a poem it could easily be overinterpreted, like in 8th grade when Jake told us that Robert Frost once in an interview said that he never had the intentions of making a poem that he wrote so intense like everyone did. The ideas that people had were interesting, and smart, but that was not his intention. Maybe the Navi is the same way, and the Rabbis overinterpreted this?