Political Crossfire Forums

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23266 Location: California

Per my (very limited) understanding of Hebrew, "Shem" or "HaShem" means "Name" and/or "Word" (respectively "the Name" or "the Word"). According to Genesis 10, Shem is the son of Noah, and is the ancestor of the Assyrians, Arameans, Hebrews and other Semitic tribes. Is there some "symbolic" link between "Shem" being a son of Noah (and/or father of Semitic tribes) and "Shem" also meaning "the Word"?

In other words, is there an allegory somewhere in this? :-D

uzi · Joined: 26 Mar 2005 Posts: 998

Shem only means 'name'. I'm not aware of any context in which it would mean 'word'.

HaShem is the unofficial term used to refer to god in order not to use his other names. It means literally 'the name'.

I'm not aware of any relation between this purely unofficial usage 'HaShem' which is there to prevent using god's name in vain, and the name of the son of Noah.

It's an interesting question whether the names have any further meaning, and I'm sure there are plenty of discussions on this subject, but what exactly would you want it to mean?

In my opinion there are far more interesting questions concerning the story of Noah.

See you guys next week.

John · Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 8:53 am Post subject:

Quote: In other words, is there an allegory somewhere in this?

Of course.

But it is to be understood literally first, before any allegory can be understood.

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23266 Location: California

uzi4ufriend wrote: Shem only means 'name'. I'm not aware of any context in which it would mean 'word'.
Yes, my bad... I was having a Blond Moment.. Sorry about that(!) :-D

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23266 Location: California

uzi4ufriend wrote: It's an interesting question whether the names have any further meaning, and I'm sure there are plenty of discussions on this subject, but what exactly would you want it to mean?
I don't really *want* it to mean anything.. I was honestly just curious as to whether there was any commentary on this in the Jewish tradition, and what it mighty be (i.e., what they might think it means)..

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

psholtz wrote: uzi4ufriend wrote: It's an interesting question whether the names have any further meaning, and I'm sure there are plenty of discussions on this subject, but what exactly would you want it to mean?
I don't really *want* it to mean anything.. I was honestly just curious as to whether there was any commentary on this in the Jewish tradition, and what it mighty be (i.e., what they might think it means)..

Yes, it has other, less common, meanings. As far as I remember. :)

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23266 Location: California

Ah-ha!

I knew there was something more than meets the eye here! :-D

According to Ramban, Shem (son of Noah) is one and the same person as Melchizedek, the "priest of God" mentioned in Genesis 14:18 (and again in Pslam 110, and again in the Epistle to the Hebrews 5-7). My source for this is the Stone Edition Chumash (commentary on Genesis 14:18 ).

There's an allegory here in all of this.. I'm sure of it.. :think:

John · Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:47 pm Post subject:

psholtz wrote: Ah-ha!

I knew there was something more than meets the eye here! :-D

According to Ramban, Shem (son of Noah) is one and the same person as Melchizedek, the "priest of God" mentioned in Genesis 14:18 (and again in Pslam 110, and again in the Epistle to the Hebrews 5-7). My source for this is the Sone Edition Chumash (commentary on Genesis 14:18 ).

There's an allegory here in all of this.. I'm sure of it.. :think:

Melchizedek is stated later in the Bible to be without a genealogy. That kind of throws out the son of Noah theory.

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23266 Location: California

John wrote: psholtz wrote: Ah-ha!

I knew there was something more than meets the eye here! :-D

According to Ramban, Shem (son of Noah) is one and the same person as Melchizedek, the "priest of God" mentioned in Genesis 14:18 (and again in Pslam 110, and again in the Epistle to the Hebrews 5-7). My source for this is the Sone Edition Chumash (commentary on Genesis 14:18 ).

There's an allegory here in all of this.. I'm sure of it.. :think:

Melchizedek is stated later in the Bible to be without a genealogy. That kind of throws out the son of Noah theory.
That's a good point ...

Although I suspect that both Melchizedek and Shem are more *allegorical* than they are literal, but yes you bring up a good point ..

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

Here psholtz:

http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/matot/betzer.html

Stone Edition you are using? Oooh la la. :)

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23266 Location: California

Duchifas wrote: Here psholtz:

http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/matot/betzer.html

Stone Edition you are using? Oooh la la. :)
Very interesting!

So "shem" doesn't just mean "name", but it can also mean a "memorial" unto which a name is carved..

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

psholtz wrote: Duchifas wrote: Here psholtz:

http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/matot/betzer.html

Stone Edition you are using? Oooh la la. :)
Very interesting!

So "shem" doesn't just mean "name", but it can also mean a "memorial" unto which a name is carved..

Looks like it.

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23266 Location: California

Duchifas wrote: psholtz wrote: Duchifas wrote: Here psholtz:

http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/matot/betzer.html

Stone Edition you are using? Oooh la la. :)
Very interesting!

So "shem" doesn't just mean "name", but it can also mean a "memorial" unto which a name is carved..

Looks like it.
Do you think there's anything "allegorical" about Shem (son of Noah) and Melchizedek in this sense, though? :think:

(i.e., in the sense of Shem as being a "memorial" w/ names, rather than just a name)..

I asked the rabbis at AskMoses.com, but they're stumped too.. :-D

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

psholtz wrote: Duchifas wrote: psholtz wrote: Duchifas wrote: Here psholtz:

http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/matot/betzer.html

Stone Edition you are using? Oooh la la. :)
Very interesting!

So "shem" doesn't just mean "name", but it can also mean a "memorial" unto which a name is carved..

Looks like it.
Do you think there's anything "allegorical" about Shem (son of Noah) and Melchizedek in this sense, though? :think:

(i.e., in the sense of Shem as being a "memorial" w/ names, rather than just a name)..

I asked the rabbis at AskMoses.com, but they're stumped too.. :-D

I dunno, make any allegory you like. That's what allegories are for. The Bible is full of allegories, however, don't overindulge.

Since on the subject, I can summarize in which cases Jews view something in the bible as allegory, i.e., departing from literal meaning:

1) When our senses tell us that it is not meant literally, e.g., ****:20 where it says Eve was the mother of all life. Obviously that's only an allegory, since she is not the mother of animals.

2) When our intellect disallows the simple interpretation, such as in "for the Lord your G-d is a consuming fire" Devarim 4:24. Obviously G-d's essence is not fire since fire constantly changes, can be lit, extinguished, etc. So in this case there is no choice but to explani the verse as a reference to G-d's revenge or vengeance burning and consuming like a fire.

3) When a clear verse elsewhere contradicts the literal translation, as in "do not test the Lord your G-d"in Devarim6:16 and "test Me please on this" in Malachi 3:10. Can reconcile this either as exception to the rule, or through other means.

4) When a clear tradition tells us that the words are not to be taken literally, like by number of lashes (39, not 40).

So in these four situations, Bible is allegorical, but in no others. Otherwise, if you start taking everything else allegorically, there will be nothing left of the bible.

[This is from the book "Mind Over Matter"]

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23266 Location: California

Duchifas wrote: psholtz wrote: Duchifas wrote: psholtz wrote: Duchifas wrote: Here psholtz:

http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/matot/betzer.html

Stone Edition you are using? Oooh la la. :)
Very interesting!

So "shem" doesn't just mean "name", but it can also mean a "memorial" unto which a name is carved..

Looks like it.
Do you think there's anything "allegorical" about Shem (son of Noah) and Melchizedek in this sense, though? :think:

(i.e., in the sense of Shem as being a "memorial" w/ names, rather than just a name)..

I asked the rabbis at AskMoses.com, but they're stumped too.. :-D

I dunno, make any allegory you like. That's what allegories are for. The Bible is full of allegories, however, don't overindulge.

Since on the subject, I can summarize in which cases Jews view something in the bible as allegory, i.e., departing from literal meaning:

1) When our senses tell us that it is not meant literally, e.g., ****:20 where it says Eve was the mother of all life. Obviously that's only an allegory, since she is not the mother of animals.

2) When our intellect disallows the simple interpretation, such as in "for the Lord your G-d is a consuming fire" Devarim 4:24. Obviously G-d's essence is not fire since fire constantly changes, can be lit, extinguished, etc. So in this case there is no choice but to explani the verse as a reference to G-d's revenge or vengeance burning and consuming like a fire.

3) When a clear verse elsewhere contradicts the literal translation, as in "do not test the Lord your G-d"in Devarim6:16 and "test Me please on this" in Malachi 3:10. Can reconcile this either as exception to the rule, or through other means.

4) When a clear tradition tells us that the words are not to be taken literally, like by number of lashes (39, not 40).

So in these four situations, Bible is allegorical, but in no others. Otherwise, if you start taking everything else allegorically, there will be nothing left of the bible.

[This is from the book "Mind Over Matter"]
These are very wise words...

Thanks for posting them! :-D

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

Shem was the father, the beginning of the family from which the Anointed one will come.
After the Flood God dealt with humanity through this family until the coming of Y'shua HaMashiach.

uzi · Joined: 26 Mar 2005 Posts: 998

cap'n queasy wrote: Shem was the father, the beginning of the family from which the Anointed one will come.
After the Flood God dealt with humanity through this family until the coming of Y'shua HaMashiach.

cap'n, I have a question for you. And for John as well.
Do I or Duchifas go to the Christianity forum and preach about how Jesus was a liar and a fake? Do we go around telling everyone in the Christianity forum that they shouldn't believe in the trinity or the resurrection or whatever? No, we don't.

So why do you guys feel it necessary to go preaching Jesus this and Jesus that all over the Judaism forum??? I don't care if you call him Y'shu or Jesus or the Christ, I don't care. It just seems a little disrespectful coming here in full converting mode instead of just using this forum for what it was meant: discussing Judaism.

Whatever it is you're trying to sell, we're not buying. O.K.?
If you want to discuss the bible we're all for that, but keep your converting slogans down a bit. If we want to hear all about Jesus we'll drop by the Christianity forum and say hello.

John · Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:55 pm Post subject:

Quote: And for John as well.

Actually, please go back and read my posts. I haven't mentioned anyone in particular (even when you asked me to); I've just brought up Old Testament scriptures to look at that have been considered Messianic according to Oral Law. So try not to throw my name around without just cause...

Of course I find the Messianic aspects of Judaism interesting. Who better to examine the actual Old Testament texts than Jews who are definitely unbiased to what I personally believe about this subject??? If examining the Old Testament texts makes you nervous then maybe you need to figure out exactly why that is. Because that's all I have any interest in doing (truly examining the texts)...

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

John wrote: Quote: And for John as well.

Actually, please go back and read my posts. I haven't mentioned anyone in particular (even when you asked me to); I've just brought up Old Testament scriptures to look at that have been considered Messianic according to Oral Law. So try not to throw my name around without just cause...

Quite so.

Quote: Of course I find the Messianic aspects of Judaism interesting. Who better to examine the actual Old Testament texts than Jews who are definitely unbiased to what I personally believe about this subject???

Dude, why you wasting time with us then? Go to a nice orthodox synagogue in your area, find some religious Jew who actually knows the stuff inside out (unlike us here), and have some real fun. :)

Quote: If examining the Old Testament texts makes you nervous then maybe you need to figure out exactly why that is. Because that's all I have any interest in doing (truly examining the texts)...

It's not nervousness, it's just uber-annoying when every other post in the Judaism forum is JC proselytizing. We know that you are fascinated by the guy and see him everywhere, but no offense -- when we look through the Original Testament, he is the last concept we are interested in.

Imagine if in every conversation we had I started throwing in legalese. Sure, it's my right and free speech and all, but it would be really annoying to people who don't care about comparative negligence and contracts. So it's about fundamental politeness, that's all. And your efforts are appreciated.

Get the idea, cap'n?

John · Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 12:56 am Post subject:

Quote: It's not nervousness, it's just uber-annoying when every other post in the Judaism forum is JC proselytizing. We know that you are fascinated by the guy and see him everywhere, but no offense -- when we look through the Original Testament, he is the last concept we are interested in.

I disagree.

It shouldn't annoying at all to have a discussion about Old Testament texts. If they reflect your believes then whats the problem? It's kind of interesting that all I'm doing is asking you to look at your own Bible (in Hebrew), and you automatically accuse me of "proselytizing" about JC.

Why is just looking at the text such a scary thing? Am I saying. "See look here, it's JC!"...No. I'm just asking you to read it and explain what you think it means.