Not related to this post - I have been reading IM from the sidelines lately and I love the vibe! You guys got serious energy (sometimes too wild as I've pointed out on RJ;)
I haven't gotten the full culture-war story yet, but coming with an outsider-ish perspective, I wanted to ask about the afterlife. The last few posts on RJ made me ponder a lot about this and I wanted to receive some clarification:
If there is an afterlife, I would think it follows easily that our time spent here on this world is kind of just to get there. Before I became religious I thought this life was a bit meh. Religion was like not a thing. So what we do don't matter. That simple. For some reason we all like to make meaning out of life, but it's all just to feel good. The afterlife card that religion offers makes this game meaningful. Working towards a goal, living for something beyond this grind. Before I was very into science before. I specially loved quantum stuff. Not as a career and I was NEVER into the mathematics but yo, Brian Greene's books were like the best things I've ever read! Actually met him once on a trip to New York at one of his fancy science festivals, really nice guy! But now with religion, I mean science is still cool, sure, but it pales in comparison to what's in store if there is an afterlife. Eternity?? That is freaky stuff. That's reality!
More and more I'm convinced of this Judaism thing, and that means this afterlife thing is legit. If this is all true, you can call me selfish, but like heck I'm not going to give this stuff up. I'm working with a study partner on Chinukh and Minchat Chinukh, getting the Mitzvot down pat (up to number 28 after a year plus!) Because I know that God wants us to learn His Torah and Mitzvot to get a picture of who He is before we kick the bucket. And three weeks ago I disabled my Netflix account and haven't watched a movie with girls since:)
Here is where I believe Haredim get it right. But I think there is a point that this ultra-focus on self perfection, even if correct, can breed selfishness. Now if I understand Luzzatto correctly, he explains that the reward is the connection with God, and being selfless is Godly, thus being selfless will actually help earn that reward. But does that flip the script and make it selfish again? This philosophy rabbit hole is giving me a headache.
The reason this has been bothering me now is because the Rationalists keep saying how Haredim are selfish, and do they have a point? Maybe. But their point is not actually against Haredim. It is against religion (with an afterlife) in general.
The point of the Torah, on both and individual and collective level, is to get close to God. It is this closeness to God that remains when the body dies, leaving the soul, or when the world changes in the future, after the Messianic times. Closeness to God requires worshipping God and constant focus on God, but it also requires perfecting one's character traits by becoming less materialistic and less selfish. A selfish or materialistic person will always be be very far from God.
They don't have a point that we are selfish, since hareidim are actually very generous to people both within and without their community. "Selfish" is just a slur they use for when we don't agree with their policies.
Totally on the same wavelength. I never meant to take their side. It's just that the previous convos on RJ triggered this philosophical storm in my mind.
I relate to what you said above, that Torah study detaches us from all the noise and pulls us closer to God. In my little dive into Torah study, there is nothing quite as real, and it's like this escape from the pettiness of this life. Especially when connecting to those super-clear minds from back in the day.
saw shulman started a discussion at RJ about selfishness/selfishness being a known philosophic paradox. You really brought it out nicely.
I am not either qualified to answer, but I believe it is just another aspect of the idea that our goal in this world is to deal with the duality paradox. It has many forms. (Such as the famous bitachon and hishtadlus question, which is one issue that RJ really doesn't get.) The most basic one is what is known as the צמצום (tzimtzum- basically God creating a 'space' for creation to exist) paradox. On the hand we have the complete oneness of God. On the other hand, there is a world of creation, which is inherently a separation from God. (That's why the Torah starts with a ב as the basic definition of creation is an aspect of duality instead of complete oneness. Similarly, the word ברך is the three letters that represent 2, 20, and 200, as the flow of blessing is in essence the flow of duality.)
This is really what the concept in Kabbala of Nahama dcisufa (that our purpose of working in this world is so our reward in the next will not be a "bread of embarrassment") is all about. Are we creating our reward? No. The reward doesn't need us. In fact, we are creating in ourselves the recognition that we are not creating our reward. However, that recognition is itself the greatest reward, as that is the essence of knowledge of Hashem. To take it a step further, knowledge of Hashem implies being like Hashem. How can a creation be like the Creator? By creating the awareness that he is merely a creation
Which brings us back to the selfishness paradox.
Certainly, it is a paradox, but the paradox is the purpose. Only through realizing that one does not create his reward, but rather creates the awareness that the Creator creates his reward, can this paradox be resolved. The very sense of selfishness is the root of the drive to create the awareness that the only true "self" that exists is God. (The Vilna Gaon explains in several places that this is what the Midrash means when it states והנה טוב מאד זה יצר הרע, And it was exceedingly good; this refers to the evil inclination.)
This is also the purpose of marriage. As the Torah states והיו לבשר אחד, to recognize that 2 can become one. This is only possible if the marriage partners overcome their selfishness and focus on the purpose of their marriage, which is the awareness of God created through their union. This awareness of God stems from the realization that God is the only complete answer to the selfishness paradox. If the selfishness paradox is not resolved, then the marriage bond is very weak. This is the beauty of the union of a religious marriage bond.
This is what Chazal state זכו שכינה ביניהם לא זכו אש אוכלתם, if they merit, God will rest between them (the marriage partners), if they will not merit a fire shall consume them. (I believe the word for fire-אש is an expression for this paradox- א is oneness and ש is שכינה, God's "resting" among us. The ultimate destruction is when the paradox remains unresolved.)
That was epic! I loved all of that! Encore, seriously!
So check this out, see if I'm getting this right: this paradox is actually the paradox of creation, where the purpose is to shed the self (which cannot be totally accomplished because with no self we'd cease to exist) and doing so, we are closing the gap of the paradox because the duality shrinks into (as close to) a oneness (as possible), and the more we dial up the oneness, the less this paradox plays.
Just would change the language a bit. that it turns out we aren't actually shedding the self, but redefining the self as merely an extension of God's will, which is shrinking the duality into oneness.
Well, that depends if we are talking about the animalistic self or the true self. I'd say that the animalistic self needs to be squashed and shredded. But the true self can be simply redefined.
That's exactly the point of קדושה and ייחוד ה'. Everything in this world is the will of Hashem, including our physical desires.
Certainly, the path to reidentification (קדושה) entails much self-negation (פרישות). For a young bachelor to become a baal teshuva in this generation is the ultimate in self-sacrifice. But the ultimate goal is to sanctify and reidentify even the physical desires. In this world we can never let go of self-negation, but only because we haven't yet fully resolved the paradox.
Iy"H you will yet merit to see the beauty of a Yiddish marriage. Nothing in Hollywood compares to it. They think love is just a little dopamine that furthers the evolutionary process. We know that אהבה (love) equals אחד (in the gematria of the letters), and the deepest desire of a human being is to accomplish אחדות (unity, oneness) in this world, an אחדות which reveals the אחדות הבורא in the world, and redefines the identification of self.
Meanwhile, next time you eat contemplate on the beracha, and continue to contemplate as you eat. Slowly, you will realize that the pleasure of eating is merely a steppingstone to the ultimate pleasure of awareness of the Creator.
This is a major focus of the Rishonim's (especially the Ramban's) argument on the Rambam. The Rambam quotes from Aristotle that the sense of touch (and its pleasure) is an embarrassment to us. In the אגרת הקודש המיוחס להרמב"ן it states that this is a שמץ מינות, close to heresy. The Rambam writes that the body has no place in the ultimate reward, whereas the other Rishonim hold that the point of תחיית המתים is so the body should have a part in the ultimate reward.
I am not the one qualified to answer this, but first of all Rav Yisrael Salanter and the Gra were famous for saying that one who makes something out of himself is itself a contribution to society. My Mashgiach once pointed out to me that the first chapter in Mesilas Yesharim actually contain two things. One is that we are in this world for a special purpose, and second, that we are created to become close to God. Coming close to God is extremely enjoyable without the body but selfish is the wrong word. When something is enjoyable because it is meaning it is not like indulging in bodily desires. Now Nefesh Hachaim is famous for saying that there are higher levels than that, but he acknowledges that even without that it is not considered selfish.
Really enjoyed the read. By any chance do you know of a good uniform way of determining the meaning of עד היום הזה in Mikra? I am familiar with the Gemaras and the dialogue between R yeshaya Berlin and noda eyehuda, and the mahalech of the Zecher Yosef, that any time it says when if it were to be in it's time it would be superfluous, it is going on the future. Rav Hirsch echoes this as well. I think it lines up most of the time though I am having a hard time with some in Yehoshua. Do you know of a different way of understanding?
After going through Neviim Rishonim another time since this conversation, I think the words עד היום הזה in some places conclusively prove some sort of "documentary hypothesis" with regards to these Seforim, in particular Melachim and Divrei Hayamim. What I mean is that Melachim was composed of earlier historical texts from earlier authors and later historical texts from later authors. The proof is:
(you might argue that Chazal already deal with this and use this to prove that the Aron still exists. Ok. But al pi pshuto, it definitely proves this was a historical text from before the churban, even though Melachim continues until after.)
I haven't looked at any scholarly works about Tanach recently so it could be what I am saying is already well-known. I did check on the Daas Mikra from the last one in Divrei Hayamim and I feel their pshat is forced. I didn't get a chance to look at Daas Mikra for the Melachim ones.
Thanks. I also looked in since then, and what you are saying is explicit in the Radak in his הקדמה to דברי הימים, that Ezra collected passages from דברי הימים למלכי ישראל and מלכי ישראל as well as other books written chronologically and he was מחברן לספרי הקדש.
The Abarbinel shares this opinion as well, and although he has no pirush on דברי הימים, he says this regarding נביאים ראשונים, scattered in his הקדמות to יהושע שופטים שמואל ומלכים. It's an amazing read, and he brings very solid ראיות to his position, and explains even why it does not contradict חזל, echoing what they say regarding מאן אסקיה. To summarize, יהושע and שופטים were edited by שמואל, (Radak says this in scattered places) שמואל is a combination of 3 sefarim, written by שמואל נתן וגד, while מלכים was edited by Yirmiyahu.
If you would like, I have a full write up going through every single time it says עד היום הזה in tanach, and showing that this is the only explanation that works for all of them, and even drush won't help for many.
I can send it to you if you give me an email address.
Not related to this post - I have been reading IM from the sidelines lately and I love the vibe! You guys got serious energy (sometimes too wild as I've pointed out on RJ;)
I haven't gotten the full culture-war story yet, but coming with an outsider-ish perspective, I wanted to ask about the afterlife. The last few posts on RJ made me ponder a lot about this and I wanted to receive some clarification:
If there is an afterlife, I would think it follows easily that our time spent here on this world is kind of just to get there. Before I became religious I thought this life was a bit meh. Religion was like not a thing. So what we do don't matter. That simple. For some reason we all like to make meaning out of life, but it's all just to feel good. The afterlife card that religion offers makes this game meaningful. Working towards a goal, living for something beyond this grind. Before I was very into science before. I specially loved quantum stuff. Not as a career and I was NEVER into the mathematics but yo, Brian Greene's books were like the best things I've ever read! Actually met him once on a trip to New York at one of his fancy science festivals, really nice guy! But now with religion, I mean science is still cool, sure, but it pales in comparison to what's in store if there is an afterlife. Eternity?? That is freaky stuff. That's reality!
More and more I'm convinced of this Judaism thing, and that means this afterlife thing is legit. If this is all true, you can call me selfish, but like heck I'm not going to give this stuff up. I'm working with a study partner on Chinukh and Minchat Chinukh, getting the Mitzvot down pat (up to number 28 after a year plus!) Because I know that God wants us to learn His Torah and Mitzvot to get a picture of who He is before we kick the bucket. And three weeks ago I disabled my Netflix account and haven't watched a movie with girls since:)
Here is where I believe Haredim get it right. But I think there is a point that this ultra-focus on self perfection, even if correct, can breed selfishness. Now if I understand Luzzatto correctly, he explains that the reward is the connection with God, and being selfless is Godly, thus being selfless will actually help earn that reward. But does that flip the script and make it selfish again? This philosophy rabbit hole is giving me a headache.
The reason this has been bothering me now is because the Rationalists keep saying how Haredim are selfish, and do they have a point? Maybe. But their point is not actually against Haredim. It is against religion (with an afterlife) in general.
If anyone can help me, I'd be delighted.
Yo 😎
The point of the Torah, on both and individual and collective level, is to get close to God. It is this closeness to God that remains when the body dies, leaving the soul, or when the world changes in the future, after the Messianic times. Closeness to God requires worshipping God and constant focus on God, but it also requires perfecting one's character traits by becoming less materialistic and less selfish. A selfish or materialistic person will always be be very far from God.
They don't have a point that we are selfish, since hareidim are actually very generous to people both within and without their community. "Selfish" is just a slur they use for when we don't agree with their policies.
Peace brother ☮️
Totally on the same wavelength. I never meant to take their side. It's just that the previous convos on RJ triggered this philosophical storm in my mind.
I relate to what you said above, that Torah study detaches us from all the noise and pulls us closer to God. In my little dive into Torah study, there is nothing quite as real, and it's like this escape from the pettiness of this life. Especially when connecting to those super-clear minds from back in the day.
Yo 😎
saw shulman started a discussion at RJ about selfishness/selfishness being a known philosophic paradox. You really brought it out nicely.
I am not either qualified to answer, but I believe it is just another aspect of the idea that our goal in this world is to deal with the duality paradox. It has many forms. (Such as the famous bitachon and hishtadlus question, which is one issue that RJ really doesn't get.) The most basic one is what is known as the צמצום (tzimtzum- basically God creating a 'space' for creation to exist) paradox. On the hand we have the complete oneness of God. On the other hand, there is a world of creation, which is inherently a separation from God. (That's why the Torah starts with a ב as the basic definition of creation is an aspect of duality instead of complete oneness. Similarly, the word ברך is the three letters that represent 2, 20, and 200, as the flow of blessing is in essence the flow of duality.)
This is really what the concept in Kabbala of Nahama dcisufa (that our purpose of working in this world is so our reward in the next will not be a "bread of embarrassment") is all about. Are we creating our reward? No. The reward doesn't need us. In fact, we are creating in ourselves the recognition that we are not creating our reward. However, that recognition is itself the greatest reward, as that is the essence of knowledge of Hashem. To take it a step further, knowledge of Hashem implies being like Hashem. How can a creation be like the Creator? By creating the awareness that he is merely a creation
Which brings us back to the selfishness paradox.
Certainly, it is a paradox, but the paradox is the purpose. Only through realizing that one does not create his reward, but rather creates the awareness that the Creator creates his reward, can this paradox be resolved. The very sense of selfishness is the root of the drive to create the awareness that the only true "self" that exists is God. (The Vilna Gaon explains in several places that this is what the Midrash means when it states והנה טוב מאד זה יצר הרע, And it was exceedingly good; this refers to the evil inclination.)
This is also the purpose of marriage. As the Torah states והיו לבשר אחד, to recognize that 2 can become one. This is only possible if the marriage partners overcome their selfishness and focus on the purpose of their marriage, which is the awareness of God created through their union. This awareness of God stems from the realization that God is the only complete answer to the selfishness paradox. If the selfishness paradox is not resolved, then the marriage bond is very weak. This is the beauty of the union of a religious marriage bond.
This is what Chazal state זכו שכינה ביניהם לא זכו אש אוכלתם, if they merit, God will rest between them (the marriage partners), if they will not merit a fire shall consume them. (I believe the word for fire-אש is an expression for this paradox- א is oneness and ש is שכינה, God's "resting" among us. The ultimate destruction is when the paradox remains unresolved.)
Am I clear enough?
That was epic! I loved all of that! Encore, seriously!
So check this out, see if I'm getting this right: this paradox is actually the paradox of creation, where the purpose is to shed the self (which cannot be totally accomplished because with no self we'd cease to exist) and doing so, we are closing the gap of the paradox because the duality shrinks into (as close to) a oneness (as possible), and the more we dial up the oneness, the less this paradox plays.
Is that close?
Yo 😎
Excellent!
Just would change the language a bit. that it turns out we aren't actually shedding the self, but redefining the self as merely an extension of God's will, which is shrinking the duality into oneness.
Well, that depends if we are talking about the animalistic self or the true self. I'd say that the animalistic self needs to be squashed and shredded. But the true self can be simply redefined.
I don't think so.
That's exactly the point of קדושה and ייחוד ה'. Everything in this world is the will of Hashem, including our physical desires.
Certainly, the path to reidentification (קדושה) entails much self-negation (פרישות). For a young bachelor to become a baal teshuva in this generation is the ultimate in self-sacrifice. But the ultimate goal is to sanctify and reidentify even the physical desires. In this world we can never let go of self-negation, but only because we haven't yet fully resolved the paradox.
Iy"H you will yet merit to see the beauty of a Yiddish marriage. Nothing in Hollywood compares to it. They think love is just a little dopamine that furthers the evolutionary process. We know that אהבה (love) equals אחד (in the gematria of the letters), and the deepest desire of a human being is to accomplish אחדות (unity, oneness) in this world, an אחדות which reveals the אחדות הבורא in the world, and redefines the identification of self.
Meanwhile, next time you eat contemplate on the beracha, and continue to contemplate as you eat. Slowly, you will realize that the pleasure of eating is merely a steppingstone to the ultimate pleasure of awareness of the Creator.
This is a major focus of the Rishonim's (especially the Ramban's) argument on the Rambam. The Rambam quotes from Aristotle that the sense of touch (and its pleasure) is an embarrassment to us. In the אגרת הקודש המיוחס להרמב"ן it states that this is a שמץ מינות, close to heresy. The Rambam writes that the body has no place in the ultimate reward, whereas the other Rishonim hold that the point of תחיית המתים is so the body should have a part in the ultimate reward.
I'm married btw:)
Loved that! It's worth responding just to pull more out of you!
I am not the one qualified to answer this, but first of all Rav Yisrael Salanter and the Gra were famous for saying that one who makes something out of himself is itself a contribution to society. My Mashgiach once pointed out to me that the first chapter in Mesilas Yesharim actually contain two things. One is that we are in this world for a special purpose, and second, that we are created to become close to God. Coming close to God is extremely enjoyable without the body but selfish is the wrong word. When something is enjoyable because it is meaning it is not like indulging in bodily desires. Now Nefesh Hachaim is famous for saying that there are higher levels than that, but he acknowledges that even without that it is not considered selfish.
I posted this on RJ but I figure I can get a different vibe here
Really enjoyed the read. By any chance do you know of a good uniform way of determining the meaning of עד היום הזה in Mikra? I am familiar with the Gemaras and the dialogue between R yeshaya Berlin and noda eyehuda, and the mahalech of the Zecher Yosef, that any time it says when if it were to be in it's time it would be superfluous, it is going on the future. Rav Hirsch echoes this as well. I think it lines up most of the time though I am having a hard time with some in Yehoshua. Do you know of a different way of understanding?
I don't have a good uniform way, I don't think there is one. One example (II Samuel 4:2)
וּשְׁנֵ֣י אֲנָשִׁ֣ים שָׂרֵֽי־גְדוּדִ֣ים הָי֪וּ בֶן־שָׁא֟וּל שֵׁם֩ הָאֶחָ֨ד בַּֽעֲנָ֜ה וְשֵׁ֧ם הַשֵּׁנִ֣י רֵכָ֗ב בְּנֵ֛י רִמּ֥וֹן הַבְּאֶֽרֹתִ֖י מִבְּנֵ֣י בִנְיָמִ֑ן כִּ֚י גַּם־בְּאֵר֔וֹת תֵּחָשֵׁ֖ב עַל־בִּנְיָמִֽן׃
וַיִּבְרְח֥וּ הַבְּאֵרֹתִ֖ים גִּתָּ֑יְמָה וַֽיִּהְיוּ־שָׁ֣ם גָּרִ֔ים עַ֖ד הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה׃
Doesn't fit either from the perspective of the reader or the writer, since the very next few pesukim say
וַיְצַו֩ דָּוִ֨ד אֶת־הַנְּעָרִ֜ים וַיַּהַרְג֗וּם וַֽיְקַצְּצ֤וּ אֶת־יְדֵיהֶם֙ וְאֶת־רַגְלֵיהֶ֔ם וַיִּתְל֥וּ עַל־הַבְּרֵכָ֖ה בְּחֶבְר֑וֹן וְאֵ֨ת רֹ֤אשׁ אִֽישׁ־בֹּ֙שֶׁת֙ לָקָ֔חוּ וַיִּקְבְּר֥וּ בְקֶֽבֶר־אַבְנֵ֖ר בְּחֶבְרֽוֹן׃
I hear you, but I think David only killed those two people but the rest of the בארותים still lived in gotam "to this day".
After going through Neviim Rishonim another time since this conversation, I think the words עד היום הזה in some places conclusively prove some sort of "documentary hypothesis" with regards to these Seforim, in particular Melachim and Divrei Hayamim. What I mean is that Melachim was composed of earlier historical texts from earlier authors and later historical texts from later authors. The proof is:
I Kings 8:8
וַֽיַּאֲרִכוּ֮ הַבַּדִּים֒ וַיֵּרָאוּ֩ רָאשֵׁ֨י הַבַּדִּ֤ים מִן־הַקֹּ֨דֶשׁ֙ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י הַדְּבִ֔יר וְלֹ֥א יֵרָא֖וּ הַח֑וּצָה וַיִּ֣הְיוּ שָׁ֔ם עַ֖ד הַיֹּ֥ום הַזֶּֽה׃
(you might argue that Chazal already deal with this and use this to prove that the Aron still exists. Ok. But al pi pshuto, it definitely proves this was a historical text from before the churban, even though Melachim continues until after.)
I Kings 9:20-21
כָּל־הָ֠עָם הַנּוֹתָ֨ר מִן־הָאֱמֹרִ֜י הַחִתִּ֤י הַפְּרִזִּי֙ הַחִוִּ֣י וְהַיְבוּסִ֔י אֲשֶׁ֛ר לֹֽא־מִבְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל הֵֽמָּה׃
בְּנֵיהֶ֗ם אֲשֶׁ֨ר נֹתְר֤וּ אַחֲרֵיהֶם֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֧ר לֹֽא־יָכְל֛וּ בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לְהַֽחֲרִימָ֑ם וַיַּעֲלֵ֤ם שְׁלֹמֹה֙ לְמַס־עֹבֵ֔ד עַ֖ד הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה׃
I Kings 12:19
וַיִּפְשְׁע֤וּ יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בְּבֵ֣ית דָּוִ֔ד עַ֖ד הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה
(after Yisrael was exiled???)
I Chronicles 41-43
וַיָּבֹ֡אוּ אֵלֶּה֩ הַכְּתוּבִ֨ים בְּשֵׁמ֜וֹת בִּימֵ֣י ׀ יְחִזְקִיָּ֣הוּ מֶֽלֶךְ־יְהוּדָ֗ה וַיַּכּ֨וּ אֶת־אָהֳלֵיהֶ֜ם וְאֶת־המעינים [הַמְּעוּנִ֨ים] אֲשֶׁ֤ר נִמְצְאוּ־שָׁ֙מָּה֙ וַיַּחֲרִימֻם֙ עַד־הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה וַיֵּשְׁב֖וּ תַּחְתֵּיהֶ֑ם כִּֽי־מִרְעֶ֥ה לְצֹאנָ֖ם שָֽׁם׃
וּמֵהֶ֣ם ׀ מִן־בְּנֵ֣י שִׁמְע֗וֹן הָלְכוּ֙ לְהַ֣ר שֵׂעִ֔יר אֲנָשִׁ֖ים חֲמֵ֣שׁ מֵא֑וֹת וּפְלַטְיָ֡ה וּ֠נְעַרְיָה וּרְפָיָ֧ה וְעֻזִּיאֵ֛ל בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׁעִ֖י בְּרֹאשָֽׁם׃
וַיַּכּ֕וּ אֶת־שְׁאֵרִ֥ית הַפְּלֵטָ֖ה לַעֲמָלֵ֑ק וַיֵּ֣שְׁבוּ שָׁ֔ם עַ֖ד הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה׃
I haven't looked at any scholarly works about Tanach recently so it could be what I am saying is already well-known. I did check on the Daas Mikra from the last one in Divrei Hayamim and I feel their pshat is forced. I didn't get a chance to look at Daas Mikra for the Melachim ones.
Thanks. I also looked in since then, and what you are saying is explicit in the Radak in his הקדמה to דברי הימים, that Ezra collected passages from דברי הימים למלכי ישראל and מלכי ישראל as well as other books written chronologically and he was מחברן לספרי הקדש.
The Abarbinel shares this opinion as well, and although he has no pirush on דברי הימים, he says this regarding נביאים ראשונים, scattered in his הקדמות to יהושע שופטים שמואל ומלכים. It's an amazing read, and he brings very solid ראיות to his position, and explains even why it does not contradict חזל, echoing what they say regarding מאן אסקיה. To summarize, יהושע and שופטים were edited by שמואל, (Radak says this in scattered places) שמואל is a combination of 3 sefarim, written by שמואל נתן וגד, while מלכים was edited by Yirmiyahu.
If you would like, I have a full write up going through every single time it says עד היום הזה in tanach, and showing that this is the only explanation that works for all of them, and even drush won't help for many.
I can send it to you if you give me an email address.
Thanks. I would love to see it, happygoluckypersonage@gmail.com
Excellent, thank you!
Absolutely loved this. Powerful ending.