Second Response to Yehezqel Italqi

Yehezqel

In  your response to Annelise you accuse me of “claiming to have a higher  level of samchus (authority) over Tzachi.” In your response to me you tell me  that I am supposed to be the “real rabbi.” (These responses are found in the comment section on this blog.)

 

Yehezqel, at what point in my critique of Shapira do I  invoke “authority”? Please point out to me where in my critique of Shapira do I  attempt to bolster my credibility by calling myself a rabbi?

 

It  is Shapira who is claiming authority as a “Jewish insider” with “encyclopedic  knowledge” and who is pulling the wool over the eyes of people who cannot read  the texts that he is quoting.

 

All  I am doing is exposing his incompetence to the public who cannot read Hebrew. I  do not need to be a rabbi in order to do this. All I need is the ability to read  Hebrew to some level.

 

Yehezqel, it seems that you are proficient in Hebrew;  perhaps your proficiency exceeds mine. In your response to Annelise you speak of  your commitment to the standard of pursuing righteousness which you define as  demanding accountability. This being the case will you have the integrity to  explain to the audience how obvious it is that Shapira misunderstood the words  of the Metzudat David?

 

PS  As a postscript I will address one other point that you made in your response to  me. You take me to task for assuming that Shapira did not realize that the word  k’shachar in the context of the Metzudat David can mean “like dawn.”

 

The  reason I made that assumption is because I was judging him favorably. If he knew  that the word can mean “like dawn” and he still translated it “like blackness”  then his lack of comprehension of the words of the Metzudat David is only more  pronounced.

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Correspondence. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Second Response to Yehezqel Italqi

  1. The only problem with your theory is the fact that if you read the pages in the book before and after that IN CONTEXT you see that I speak of Nehorah! I clearly understood what I am speaking about (hear you again making false assumption). The bottom line is this. Eli Cohen declared to me that Mal. 3:20 is NOT Messianic, care to answer that? Let us cut to the heart of the issue instead of hiding for cover . Your assumptions are wrong in its very core! Thanks G-D that R’ Tevon, Shmot Rabbah would disagree with you, but of course…..I might not understand the Hebrew there as well…..right Yisrael?

  2. Jos says:

    In the beginning there was darkness and light. In history we see darkness and light. And in the future we will see darkness and light. And the Messiah knows darkness and light. And now the day is black, but thank God, we can recognize some dawn. I don’t know Hebrew well, but its funny to see that mutual meaning in that only word of your discussion…

  3. Yehezqel Italqi says:

    “Yehezqel, at what point in my critique of Shapira do I invoke “authority”? Please point out to me where in my critique of Shapira do I attempt to bolster my credibility by calling myself a rabbi?”

    Through your condescending tone of criticism you present your position as legitimate while Tzahi’s is illegitimate. There is no need for me to be a noodnik and try to list these points because according to your confession:

    “All I am doing is exposing his incompetence to the public who cannot read Hebrew. I do not need to be a rabbi in order to do this. All I need is the ability to read Hebrew to some level.”

    “Yehezqel, it seems that you are proficient in Hebrew; perhaps your proficiency exceeds mine. In your response to Annelise you speak of your commitment to the standard of pursuing righteousness which you define as demanding accountability. This being the case will you have the integrity to explain to the audience how obvious it is that Shapira misunderstood the words of the Metzudat David?”

    Proficiency in Hebrew on the internet in irrelevant. I have to let Tzahi himself explain his position in relation to Metzudat David. When the judge orders a person to speak he does not order an outside witness who was not at the scene of the crime. In other word,s since Tzahi wrote RTOTKP, he has to defend his own words, not me. Just as a specialist such as a forensics scientist or psychologist may be called in to explain a matter in court, Tzahi ask me to clarify the pasuk in Yoel in relation to your prosecution. In order to determine the final verdict with Metzudat David is going to be between you and Tzahi.

    “The reason I made that assumption is because I was judging him favorably. If he knew that the word can mean “like dawn” and he still translated it “like blackness” then his lack of comprehension of the words of the Metzudat David is only more pronounced.”

    And as I just proven to you in Tzahi’s defense translating שׁחר as blackness would not be “wrong,” as שׁחר relates to the blackness of dawn. You would have a valid point only if Tzahi would have tried to admit that שׁחר is related to the blackness of night fall (bein hashmashos) and not dawn (ayeles hashachar to hanetz hachama); but he does not and so your criticism of his use of שׁחר is based on trying to find a loop-hole to support your subjective interpretation of what the word שׁחר means.

    • Yehezqel
      I get it – you are to busy being an expert witness so you have no time for integrity. You said enough – but please don’t hesitate to speak more. Both you and Shapira are doing a great job.
      Thanks

      • Dina says:

        Rabbi B.:

        Before, Italqi had zero credibility in my eyes. Now that he has descended into foul-mouthed insults (calling commenters on this blog trolls, dogs, and whores), he has dropped into the negative numbers.

        Soon there will be no other way to go for him but up. I pray for his sake that he take that path.

        • Dina says:

          Like I always say, when you engage in ad hominem attacks, you lose.

          • Yehezqel Italqi says:

            Dina, before judging me look at the so called “ad hominem attacks” those in your own circle make.

            If Yisroel thinks its permissible to give people a pass to post material on his blog which attempts to “slander” people and he does not correct those people then why pull the victim card and try to cry foul about my response?

            Context is everything Dina. If you come to my house and somebody charges you with slander, as the host I would rebuke that person who is speaking out of turn. This lack of accountability among the “anti-missionaries” is nothing new. I have experienced this nonsense in person and online and the number one excuse the anti-missionaries like to tell me in defense of such “ad hominem attacks” is quoting the famous words of Avos; והוי דן את כל האדם לכף זכות.

            To reply to such a poor excuse my Master said: הכר תכירו אותם בפריהם

            I’m don’t casting my pearls before swine.

          • Dina says:

            I have yet to hear Rabbi B. call anyone vicious names, like those you hurled at Blasater and Jim (trolls, poodles, whores). It’s disgusting. I’m not judging you. I’m judging your words.

          • Dina says:

            You can disagree while still keeping a civil tongue in your head.

            You have been uncivil.

          • Dina says:

            I’m not pulling the victim card, since I’m not the one who has been insulted.

          • Dina says:

            Be a man and apologize to them.

      • Yehezqel Italqi says:

        Tisk, tisk, Yisroel. Why are you so sensitive to my response? I never said verbatim “I am an expert witness” so why try to label me as one? Furthermore, since when has my integrity been the topic of discussion. If you never broke bread with me then my integrity is beyond the realm of questioning, especially in relation to your little internet blog. The last I checked this wild west standoff is between you and Tzahi, not me. I only jumped in to take issue with your definition of the word שׁחר, is that a crime on your blog? Can you please read me the bylaws of your blog so I know what questions to ask and what not to ask in order to avoid any emotional disturbances.

        Maybe my bluntness comes off disrespectful? Sorry Yisroel, but I have answered you thoroughly inside and out on the topic of interest.You have responded not so much to the point I was making (which was the Yerushalmi on the word שׁחר), instead you have been going on a soap opera about Tzahi and his “integrity” regarding certain rabbinical sources. Am I the blog’s psychologist, that I should listen to you kvetch about Tzahi?

        In all respect Yisroel I am sure you are a man who loves HaShem greatly; but to avoid going back and forth on this issue which appears to be causing strife I will no longer be responding to your blog.

        kol tuv

        • Jim says:

          Does this mean that you are invading R’ Blumenthal’s virtual space? I can hardly believe it.

          Jim

        • Yehezqel
          I am not sure what part of your post you think offended me. Everything you said, including the Yerushalmi that you quoted, was thoroughly enjoyed by the readers of this blog who are loyal to the Creator of heaven and earth. Perhaps at first glance you came across as abrasive – but in the end your comments were entertaining. If I offended you by labeling you an “expert witness” then I apologize – but you need to realize that in your other comment you sounded like you thought of yourself as one.
          Thanks for joining us

          • Annelise says:

            Yehezqel wrote “If you never broke bread with me then my integrity is beyond the realm of questioning”… you know, Tzahi said basically the same thing to me on Facebook, that I never met him so how could I so misrepresent his character. I wonder if this is a right way of approaching the situation, or whether a person who puts out writings publicly is responsible for the corpus of his or her work to such an extent that those writings should stand as their own witness. After all, we’re talking here not about people but about ideas, and about the integrity in which they are written.

  4. Pingback: As the Sun Spreads its Wings | 1000 Verses

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s