http://www.snopes.com/photos/natural/firerainbow.asp
Perhaps this is, in fact, the rainbow of Noach? It shtims nicely with "Es Kashti nasati be'anan."
YGB
Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer הרב יוסף גבריאל בקהופר
http://www.snopes.com/photos/natural/firerainbow.asp
Perhaps this is, in fact, the rainbow of Noach? It shtims nicely with "Es Kashti nasati be'anan."
YGB
But the berakhah seems to indicate that the regular rainbow is the os beris.
ReplyDeleteSecond, it's not a qeshes (bow), but more of a straight line.
1. The regular rainbow might be a commemoration of the special rainbow.
ReplyDelete2. Assuming this is the rainbow, I would teitch the pasuk: "My [regular] rainbow I have [removed and] placed in the cloud[s]."
I came across an amazing website that I want to share with everyone. I am not connected to it in any way, but think it is amazing. The site teaches Tosfos in two ways A sepreate shiur on each Tosfos or a PDF, they alredy have a few Masechtos thr site is
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tosfos.com/
ramban seems pretty clear in saying that the "bow" of the rainbow has a lot to do with the brit-he specifically compares it to a regular bow and arrow, and the shape of this "rainbow" isn't anything like that.
ReplyDeleteI guess I am struggling why you are trying to make more out of the pasuk than you have to. It is a beautiful picture, the optical phenomena is wonderous and truly highlights the waonder of Hashem, but trying to fit it in this pasuk seems a stretch.
ReplyDeleteIn looking at the pasuk again (and disagreeing with your teitch) I was struck by the last word "be'anan". This is singular - cloud (not clouds), which made me wonder what particular cloud Hashem put His rainbow in? If he meant the sky, He could have said other words, and if He meant the CLOUDS (as would be required for the circumhorizontal arc), then He would have used the plural form.
Thoughts?
P.S. Any ideas about my Yoma question?
First, to "Mort" - I bought myself a handheld, synced it, and lost all my old mail! Could you please resend the Yoma question.
ReplyDeleteWhy am I stuck on this, even though I seem to be contradicting the Ramban? Because it would explain how this event would have been a singularity, and not a common occurence in nature.