Conference taveng::bagels

	Those are all Christian concepts and entirely irrelevant to Jewish 
theology.

		David

    That's what I thought.  Thanks.
    
    Richard
    

>	Those are all Christian concepts and entirely irrelevant to Jewish 
>theology.
    
    David, what is the interpretation of Genesis 6:1-6 (Nephilim), 
    Numbers 13:33 (Nephilim again after the flood), Isaiah 14:1-21, and 
    Ezekiel 28:11-19.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

The term "sheidim," which occurs fairly frequently in the Talmud and rabbinical
writings, is usually translated as "demons."  Satan, of course, is a Hebrew
word often translated as "adversary."  It occurs in the Prophets.  I don't
think I've seen nephilim translated as demons.  That said, Judaism doesn't
seem to expend a lot of effort on demonology.  I believe David is correct
is saying that the concept of fallen angels is not a Jewish concept.

    But Judaism is aware that they exist, correct?  Any scribe ever comment
    on their origination?  Or maybe commentary on the evil spirit(s) placed
    upon King Saul or Abimelech?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    re .3 and .5

    	To take your first references as an example, the "nephilim" in the
    Torah are the generations whose behavior (or lack thereof!) brought
    about the Flood.  This seems to have been simply the human race (except
    for Noah and his family) at the time.  

    	No, Judaism is not "aware that they exist," whoever "they" are. 
    You're trying to force-fit theology from a couple of thousand years
    later onto scriptures which have an endless capacity for withstanding
    mis-translation and mis-interpretation.  

    		David

    >                     -< You're barking up the wrong tree. >-
    
    Sorry if you took it that way.  I'm just curious about ancient Israel's
    perspective on these passages from the Torah and the prophetic books. 
    I would be surprised if there is complete silence on the subject.
    
>    about the Flood.  This seems to have been simply the human race (except
>    for Noah and his family) at the time.  
    
    I thought this too until I discovered the Nephilim made a post-flood 
    appearance in Numbers 13.  Obviously they weren't on the ark.  Does
    Judaism ever address how this could be?  What about the descriptions of
    Satan in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28?  Do scribes ever provide commentary
    on these passages?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

Is the reference in Numbers 13 where the Israelites send spies into the
promised land and the spies report that the natives look like giants?
I need help here...left my chumash home :-) and I don't have it memorized :-).

Dave

p.s. If I'm right, then the answer is that the spies (except for Joshua and
Caleb) were frightened out of their wits and exagerated the prowess of the
natives. The report was untrue and the Israelites were punished with 40
years of wandering for believing it.

(OK OK, they had been wandering for a year or so already, so the punishment
was 38 or 39 years...)

Yes, I looked it up and Numbers 13 is about the spies sent into the land.

Numbers 13:32-33:

    And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they
    had explored.  They said, "The land we explored devours those living 
    in it.  All the people we saw there are of great size.  We saw the 
    Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim).  We
    seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, aned we looked the same to
    them.

Leslie

What, if anything, does tradition say about Azazel?

/john

    I thought azazel was the Hebrew word for "scapegoat" - the goat that
    carried the sins of God's people into the desert on Yom Kippur.
    
    Mike

re .11

Nope.  I'm still waiting for someone to tell us what Jewish tradition
has to say about Azazel: who he is, where he lived, where he came from,
etc.

/john

    {from "The Fall Feasts of Israel" by Mitch & Zhava Glaser, Moody Press,
     p.88-89}
    
    The Hebrew word for scapegoat is "azazel."  Other than the 4 times it
    is used in Leviticus 16, the word does not appear in the Hebrew
    Scriptures.  Both Jewish and Christian scholars have debated on the
    meaning of azazel.  Some believe it was simply the name of the goat,
    others that azazel was the name of the wilderness where the goat was
    sent to die.
    
    Another school of thought, including that of E.W. Hengstenburg and Keil
    and Delitzsch, suggested that azazel was the chief of the evil spirits,
    a synonym for Satan.  The goat was sent into the wilderness to take
    Israel's sins, which God had forgiven, back to Azazel, the father of
    all sin.  Azazel was not an offering to Satan but rather a living
    demonstration that God had forgiven His people and sent their sins back
    to their source ("Old Testament Commentary" Keil & Delitzsch, vol. 1, 
    p.688).  The intertestamental book of Enoch (8:1) most clearly associated 
    azazel with the chief of demons and Satan himself.  The word azazel, 
    however, is never used in reference to a demon in the Scriptures, and 
    there do not seem to be biblical or linguistic grounds to accept any of 
    these views ("Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament," vol. 1, R.
    Laird Harris, Gleason Archer, and Bruce Waltke, eds. Chicago: Moody,
    1980, p. 1594).
    
    The root of the word azazel contains the idea of removal.  The name
    azazel and the action of sending away the goat was designed to teach
    the Israelites that their sins, once removed, would also be forgotten. 
    The Septuagint, Vulgate, and a number of other ancient translations
    understood azazel to literally mean "the goat that departs."  The word
    is viewed as a combination of "'ez," meaning goat, and "azal," to turn off�
    or away.  Brown, Driver, and Briggs link the word to an Arabic term
    "azala," which means "to banish" or "remove" ("A Hebrew and English Lexicon
    of the Old Testament," ed. Francis Brown, trans. Edward Robinson,
    Oxford: Clarendon Press, p. 786).
    
    A parallel to the azazel is the ceremony of cleansing a cured leper. 
    Two birds were chosen, one to be killed and the other to be dipped in
    its blood.  The live bird was then released, symbolizing to all that
    the curse of leprosy was totally removed from its former victim
    (Leviticus 14:1-9).  The birds were considered one offering, teaching
    the lessons of cleansing by blood and removal of the affliction.

Well, I'm still hoping to hear from someone who can say what Jewish
Tradition says about Azazel, not what modern textual critics say.

How is Enoch meaningful to modern Orthodox Judaism?

/john

.14> Well, I'm still hoping to hear from someone who can say what Jewish
.14> Tradition says about Azazel, not what modern textual critics say.

    	I think you're barking up a nonexistent tree.  From what "modern
    textual critics" say (as in the prior response, as well as in my Hertz
    Chumash), "Jewish Tradition" has always taken Azazel at face value,
    which was the symbolic role/destination of the goat in the Temple
    service.  This may have led to superstitious interpretations of some
    kind of devil or hell, but Jewish practice usually takes care to
    separate itself from superstitions.

    	As I said previously, there is a big difference between Jewish and
    Christian methods of reading and interpreting scripture.  The
    "Judeo-Christian tradition" is really a label used by Christians who
    wish Jews would think and act more like Christians.

.14> How is Enoch meaningful to modern Orthodox Judaism?

    	I dunno, what are you driving at?  

    		David

David, please don't be so hostile.  I'm not barking at all.  Should I?

Can you say a little more about what your Chumash says?  I'm still looking
for an Orthodox Jewish scholar's comments on what is said about Azazel in:

	1. the Syriac version of Leviticus
	2. the Targumim
	3. 1 Enoch
	4. Other Jewish sources.

I'm not particularly interested in what Christian sources say about Azazel.

I'd also like an Orthodox Jewish scholar's view of the meaning to modern
Judaism of the above sources, especially #2 and #3.

/john

re .16

	Well, I'm not a [modern] Orthodox scholar...I grew up in an Orthodox 
synagogue, never claiming to be a "scholar" (in Yiddish, a Talmid chacham), and 
I guess I stopped being Orthodox many years ago.  So I'll defer on your 
questions.

	Sorry if I was a little tactless.  But I do think you're asking 
questions from a perspective that Jewish scholars (of whatever persuasion) don't 
usually consider.  That's all I meant by "barking up the wrong tree"--I don't 
think you're likely to find somebody with these qualifications who will make the 
connections you want.  But I could be entirely wrong about that...

		David