- This topic has 737 replies, 58 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
what you think may be “mutually exclusive” in fact of reality your understanding is what may not be exclusive.
Okay, so please explain to me how Iyov could have existed and not existed. Explain to me how Beis Din could have executed a BSUM and yet never executed one.
The Wolf
Just speculating on my part, but perhaps one was referring to a physical sense and the other a metaphysical sense.
(Wow, over 400 posts on a thread less than a week old!)
hereorthere – Chazal based many of their statements on observations and on the science available to them in their times. Chazal were not exposed to telescopes or microscopes or oceanic life or travel around the earth and were therefore handicapped in some of their knowledge base.
cherrybim: Chazal most certainly were not handicapped, as they received divine assistance in their every word and breath. The terminology they utilized in explaining concepts to the masses often utilized common observations, but their knowledge encompassed Kol HaTorah Kulah from Maasei Breishis through Matan Torah and further.
Just speculating on my part, but perhaps one was referring to a physical sense and the other a metaphysical sense.
Doubtful. I’m positive they were arguing about the reality. The argument about BSUM in Sanhedrin makes it clear that they were arguing about physical reality of whether or not there was a BSUM.
The Wolf
See my earlier comment about metzius.
(This comment was a response to a now deleted post.)
Throughout our generations there were people who thought of themselves as more knowledgeable than our great Rabbis of the past because of the science current to their times and therefore discredited our Rabbis sources of knowledge as divine. What happened then is Chazal’s halacha became something which they chose not to practice either. For if one believes that Chazal’s or any of our great sages sources are not divine, whatever they held were merely whatever was then the accepted truth, then why follow their halacha c”v?
Whoever believes only the written Torah is divine could end up c”v like the Karaite sect who did not believe that the oral Torah was written with divine inspiration.
Chazal were maybe not malochim in a literal sense, however they were definitely on a higher spiritual level than we can comprehend.
Wolf, you wrote” I suppose this is a seperate discussion of whether or not everything Chazal said is from a divine source or if they were effected by their contemporary culture or science.” With all due respect, you are not the one to determine IF something that Chazal said was from a divine source or effected by their contemporary culture.
We cannot dispute Chazal, only those great Rabbis that are on their level could. What we can do is try to clarify their positions, which I feel I have done in my previous post.
Wolf, you asked me for sources and as I have explained in my previous post, as a woman I would not know where to find sources to support my opinion. If I would see all the passages from Chazal regarding this issue I feel I could base my opinion on their wording alone.
In fact, Hashem created a completed mature world 6000 years ago which quite probably was millions of years old. Hashem didn’t create Adom as a baby or the trees as saplings but He created them complete and fully mature. So too the earth. We don’t know the intricacies of maise b’reishis. There are numerous questions when learning parshas b’reshis and the chachomim have advised us to just move on.
While chazal were b’keyim in Astronomy, it was from the perspective of an earthling and not from the perspective of telescopes in space.
And no matter how much you jump up and down and deny it, in gemara Sanhedren, which we in daf yomi just completed and in other places, it’s apparent that chazal were not privy to certain facts concerning the sun’s movement around the earth.
It’s more apparent that you didn’t understand the Gemarah Sanhedrin. Nothing wrong with saying ich vaist nisht. Rashi also says so sometimes.
Correction: Omitted Earth’s rotation…
cherrybim, the sun can revolve around the planet Earth as well as the earth revolving around the sun as in space it’s all relative. The heavenly bodies are revolving around each other. Some scientists talk about the subject matter of relativity.
In any case, is science conclusive as of today? Do scientists know everything there is to learn about the world? Definitely not! Experimenting and exploration is going on full force by tens of thousands of scientists in hundreds of feilds. We have not arrived at the sum total of all truths, which will iy’H be when Moshiach comes and our eyes will behold the truth.
Until then what we know today can become outdated because of new data tommorow. Now Moshiach should be here by then,but our generation who believes in science that we know today to be facts will be definitely be proven otherwise in 150 years hence and we will look like fools just as we look at the people who believed those “facts” of 150 years ago to be true.
Let’s agree to not debate geocentricity here, again, shall we?
See my earlier comment about metzius.
Please explain it to me then. I do not understand how you can explain that Bais Din executed a physical BSUM and didn’t execute a metaphysical one (or vice versa).
Please explain to me how it’s possible to reconcile that Iyov both existed and did not exist by saying it’s physical and metaphysical.
The Tanaiim in Sanhedrin argue about whether the Torah was given in our present Hebrew script or the old Ivri script. The Torah was only given in one script — no opinion in the Gemara says it was given at Sinai in both. Please explain how this is not an argument in metzius.
Also in Sanhedrin (25a) there are two opinions about a Shor HaBor. One says that it is a chayah, one says it is a behaimah. Please explain to me how this is not an argument about metzius.
In Rosh Hashanna there is a dispute about whether the flood began in Cheshvan or Iyar. Please explain to me how this can be explained as a physical/metaphysical manner.
In short, I’ve brought you several examples of cases where Chazal argue about metzius. Your have, to date, failed to explain how these disputes square with your statement (your example of being physical/metaphysical clearly cannot account for these disputes).
The Wolf
yitayningwut:
Getting back to the earlier “equality” discussion here, I found some additional points on this topic.
Regarding the discussion of the husband ruling his wife, per Bereshis, see the Ramban on Bereishis 3:16.
Your dismissing of the pasuk in the Torah’s saying he shall rule over her as merely a curse and not the ideal isn’t tenable, especially without you being equally dismissive of the part of the pasuk saying a wife “desiring” her husband is not necessary, since its only a curse.
Anyways, that point aside, see support for what I’m saying in Likutim on the mishna in Kerisus and in Torah Temima, Bereishis 3:16, note 22 that the husband “ruling” the wife is actual halacha and the Torah ideal, not just a curse.
Further supporting this is the Mishna Kerisos 6:9 and Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Ishus 15:20.
Then there is the halacha that all of a wife’s money/property (acquired after marriage) belongs to the husband (Bava Kama 87a). And that only brothers (and not sisters unless there are no brothers) inherit their father. (Bamidbar 27:8 and S”A CM 276:1)
Kesuvos 48a-48b (Mishna) – A girl is always in her father’s “Reshus”, until she enters her husband’s “Reshus” for Nisu’in.
Hereorthere, I think you are really stretching if you say I am illogical for using the term marriage vs relationship. What is especially ironic is that womens liberation is THE BEST ANTIDOTE to abusive marriages as it teaches women to stand up for themselves and gives them the proper tools to be able to leave an abusive marriage.
Both men and women do illogical things for love.
I didn’t say those who stayed because of love were logical. I don’t claim that all women are logical. Nor do I claim all men are logical.
I’m not ignoring facts and you seem to be getting worked up over this. I wonder if you are threatened by the idea that women can be great secular leaders?
I never claimed that a male police officer is doing the exact same thing as a female police officer. What I did say was that IF they are both doing the same tasks, then they should be paid the same. The truth is, pure strength is not always the best way to guage the effectiveness of a cop or firefighter. If you have all brawn, but no brains, its often useless and can get a cop or firefighter in trouble. If you have all brain and no brawn, in certain positions you are fine. I think a balance of both is best. Just because a man is 6’2″ and 250 lbs doesn’t mean he is a good cop. A woman can be an excellent detective and be short and not that strong.
Do you know any cops? My cousin is one. A friend of mine was a detective. My friend’s husband is a cop.
I love how you quantify the level of illogical. There are women who think “handsome southern gentleman” (AKA Bill Clinton) would make a great president because handsome southern gentlemen are generally upstanding, moral citizens. You can explain any illogical idea to make it sound more logical, but unless you are judging the persons actions and personality, you are making an illogical choice.
I didn’t say our union employees are well paid – I said they get EQUAL pay. And they should. There are many job functions where men and women are doing the exact same thing and expected to produce the same amount. Gender should NOT play a role.
I’ve been on construction jobs where someone came over and complained that only one of the crew was working. I always had a logical reason – one was a fire guard, one was waiting for a permit for different work, it was unsafe for multiple people to be working at the same time at that function etc. From the outside, it always looks like “the big bad utility/transit/road crews etc” is taking advantage of the little people. Con Ed negotiates with their union just as the MTA does.
As to lower the height requirements – a good cop will you tell you that using strength is a LAST resort, not a first resort. Cops are given tools to contain situations and each person needs to tailor it to the right situation. Sometimes, that means pairing up a smaller person with a larger one and having a great combination of brain and brawn. Do you think cops go around roughhandling people all the time?
EDITED
Why is everyone ignoring my R’ Hillel moshiach reference?
(and thanks mod for reading my other megillah)
Wolf, Rabbis over the centuries have debated the paradoxes of Chazal’s words. The Torah is full of secrets that still need to be discovered.
There are answers to these questions and if one explores the subjects thoroughly one can find the answers. Let’s take for example the question of Iyov. Did he exist or didn’t he? Here’s my opinion on Chazal’s seemingly condradiction. As far as I know, Iyov wasn’t Jewish, but he was a tzaddik so I’m not sure if the term lhavdil should be used in this case but I will use it just in case it should. L’havdil eilef alfei alofim Yoshke, is considered the “messiah” in the Christain religion. Did Yoshke exist? Definitely. But he was a mere mortal and not the “messiah” as the Christian’s claim. Therefore, he existed but he did not exist as the being the Christian’s claim he was.
This explains Chazal’s contradiction. Iyov existed. He probably did suffer tremendously. But in other ascriptions that were attributed to him, he did not exist.
There are answers to our questions. However, there is a fine line that one must watch not to cross and that is the boundry of knowing that as humans it is simply impossible to know all the answers. We can try to find answers but there are things that we will never know the answer to because we are mere mortals.
In Judasim it is healthy to ask and think, there’s no need to act like robots, on the other hand we must realize our limitations.
kasha, you have a very simplistic and unhealthy view of the term that a woman is merely a chefetz.
1. a chefetz cannot refuse not to be bought. A woman may choose not to marry at all. Unlike a man, a woman has no chiuv to get married.
2. Were a woman an object to be aquired then she would not be able to refuse a person who wants to aquire her, like a slave could not refuse to who would buy him, or a chefetz demanding who it’s owner should be.
That is regarding whether a woman is an object.
There is a completely different factor of whether women are equal to men. Now of course those who believe that women are mere objects will surely not think that women are equal to men. However since women are NOT objects we can discuss equality. As I have already pointed out on a previous post, women are different but equal to men. How that is carried out in terms of how a husband treats a wife is depended on the makom.
Now halacha doesn’t change, however lets take an example of a slave. You have all the halachas in the Torah regarding a slave. Were a person to own a slave in modern times, even if he acts within the parameters of halacha, he will be considred a cruel person by everyone, including the Rabbis.
Therefore, while halacha doesn’t change minhag hamokom does and it would be cruel to treat a wife as women would be treated in Chazal’s or Rambam’s times.
Clearheaded,
You missed the point. *I* don’t have any questions about Iyov, Ben Sorer UMoreh or any of the other points I mentioned. To me they aren’t contradictions, they are arguments. I’m perfectly fine with one Tanna saying Iyov existed and the other saying that it’s just a parable. I don’t have a problem with one Tanna saying a BSUM never existed and the other saying that not only did he, but he even sat on his grave.
My question wasn’t about Iyov, BSUM or any of the other topics I mentioned — it was about Kasha’s statement that Chazal never argue about metzius when they very clearly do. I don’t have a problem with Chazal arguing about metzius. Kasha, for some unknown reason, seems to think this is an impossibility.
The Wolf
clearheaded:
I believe you are confusing me with another poster, as in none of my comments on this thread have I brought up the “chefetz” (or “object”) issue.
As far as the “equality” issue, the sources I quoted above, as well as previous comments I posted here, clearly indicate otherwise. Just as an orange isn’t “equal” to an apple (or better than an apple), men aren’t “equal” to women (or better than women.) So no, men and women are not equal.
As far as the husbands “ruling” their wives, as brought from the Torah – Chumash Bereishis [and the cited meforshim above] is concerned, this is nothing to be ashamed of. Is one ashamed that the King of his country is his ruler? No, such is the natural state of affairs. Same as between husband and wife.
Then there is the halacha that all of a wife’s money/property (acquired after marriage) belongs to the husband (Bava Kama 87a).
Yes, but she can opt out of that if she wants. It’s her option — not her husbands. She can decide if it’s more advantageous to her if her husband supports her or if she keeps her own money. I’d say *she* has the upper hand here, not the husband — who does not have the option.
And that only brothers (and not sisters unless there are no brothers) inherit their father. (Bamidbar 27:8 and S”A CM 276:1)
True — but unmarried sisters can petition the estate for support — and their claim comes *before* that of any brothers/sons. And, the wife’s claim for the Kesuba also comes before any brothers/sons can inherit.
The Wolf
Is one ashamed that the King of his country is his ruler?
If your kingdom consisted of only the king and one other s/he might be.
Can two people be called a kingdom?
The Wolf
Wolf:
You missed my primary point. Just as a King ruling his national subjects is the natural state of affairs, so too a husband ruling his wife is the natural state of affairs. Aside from it being written explicitly in the Torah itself, and expanded upon by the meforshim, it is common sense.
(Feminism of course has dulled contemporary society’s common sense though, and even people mostly unaffected by feminism onslaught against society, tend to feel after affects of the degeneration it has wrought, and even they fall prey to some or many of feminisms subtle and overt messages of “equality.”)
SJS: Take a look at Rashi on 99a.
No, you missed my point. My point was that your “king” analogy is flawed.
— Two people are not a kingdom
— In ancient times a king usually had absolute power. Husbands do not
— A king is not required to support his subjects (it’s usually the other way around).
Find a different analogy.
The Wolf
Wolf: I don’t know why you bother.
Primarily because I enjoy a good argument.
The Wolf
“Okay, so please explain to me how Iyov could have existed and not existed. Explain to me how Beis Din could have executed a BSUM and yet never executed one.”
This is my personal take on the subject. Whether or not Iyov existed is not so important. As with Midrash, it is the LESSON we learn from his story that is important. The idea that someone who has everything wonderful in his life but fails to worry about or daven for others less fortunate than himself, and that we need to be empathetic to others who are suffering, is one lesson. The idea that everything can be taken away in the blink of an eye, and therefore we are all equal in the eyes of Hashem, is also a lesson. The idea that nothing is in our control is another lesson. And finally, the lesson that no matter how bad things seem, they can always change. Just as the good does not last forever, neither does the bad, and the bad is a way of teaching us things that are meant for our benefit.
In the case of the BSUM, I would believe there might have been such a person, but even if not, we are being reminded what is supposed to happen in such a case. The description in graphic detail of a B”D execution, is enough of a deterrent for most people.
GAW, I’ll look a little later. You always respond, so thank you 🙂 Does Rashi explain how its not a contradiction? I thought R’ Hillel’s opinion was rejected by everyone else.
Kasha what excactly do you want to prove when you bring from “Kesuvos 48a-48b (Mishna) – A girl is always in her father’s “Reshus”, until she enters her husband’s “Reshus” for Nisu’in”, if it’s not that a woman is an object to be ruled over?
Now what happens when she decides not to marry? Furthermore, what happens if she doesn’t have a father who takes care of her i.e. abandoned her or he died? And what happens if she doesn’t have any brothers either to be under their reshus?
The mishna, in my humble opinion is clearly talking about who has an obligation to take care of the woman, but not that she is under a reshus as an object.
The orange/ apple analogy that you bring forth proves my point – not yours. Apples and oranges are euqal in the terms of being classified as fruits, however they are different fruits.
The husband should be TREATED as a king and the wife as a queen simply because that’s simply what they are. As to who rules over whom, as I continue to mention that is mekom (in this case not only place, but time as well) minhag. Therefore if there would be a king in England he would rule over his queen equaly as his queen rules over him. In other words, they are both figureheads and on equal footing.
Kasha, I’m getting tired of arguing with you so even though I might not answer your predicted confutation, I have not conceded deafeat.
clearheaded:
“As to who rules over whom, as I continue to mention that is mekom (in this case not only place, but time as well) minhag.”
Absolutely incorrect. It isn’t minhug hamokem, as it is an EXPLICIT pasuk in the Torah (with associated meforshim) that the husband rules his wife.
“Therefore if there would be a king in England he would rule over his queen equaly as his queen rules over him. In other words, they are both figureheads and on equal footing.”
Incorrect again. Today they are just figureheads. But when they had actual power, and there was both a King and Queen of England, the King had absolute power over the Queen. (Sometimes he would even behead her on a whim. Look at English history.) This was typical of secular Kingdoms. But in any event, I’m talking about Torah law.
Wolf, I like your point that a king doesn’t support his subjects, it’s the other way around. That certainly shows that that a husband has different responsibilities than a king and therefore the analogy of a husband ruling over a wife as a king over his subjects doesn’t apply.
Today they are just figureheads. But when they had actual power,
Actually, that’s not technically correct. The Queen has considerable power. Every Act of Parliament requires her assent to become law*. She has the power to dissolve Parliament as well.
Granted, no British monarch has exercised those powers in a looong time (no monarch has withheld assent since 1707) — but in theory they do have them.
The Wolf
* So much so that even His Majesty’s Abdication Act of 1936 (passed for Edward VIII) required his Assent to become law. Therefore the very last act that Edward did as king was to (in effect) assent to his own abdication.
Wolf:
My point was that in relation to the King, the Queen was under his jurisdiction.
I did not address whatever powers the Queen had in relation to others.
Kasha what excactly do you want to prove when you bring from “Kesuvos 48a-48b (Mishna) – A girl is always in her father’s “Reshus”, until she enters her husband’s “Reshus” for Nisu’in”, if it’s not that a woman is an object to be ruled over?
clearheaded: I quoted verbatim an explicit Mishna, without offering an interpretation. The interpretation was yours, not mine.
Hereorthere, how about when politicians use governemnt money to fund their “leisure spending”?
How many politicians are unfaithful and its ultimately thier downfall?
Think about a recent NY politician. Were his choices logical?
In secular society, women can be great leaders.
My point was that in relation to the King, the Queen was under his jurisdiction.
I understood that. But my point that your analogy is flawed still remains by virtue of the fact that a marriage is NOT a kingdom for the reasons I explained above.
Also, your silence regarding your assertion that Chazal do not argue about metzius is deafening.
The Wolf
It was just an analogy. Analogies tend not to be perfect.
The main point I am making is that were talking about an explicit pasuk in the Torah.
clearheaded: I quoted verbatim an explicit Mishna, without offering an interpretation. The interpretation was yours, not mine.
Yes, but the Mishna is *clearly* talking about a Ketana/Na’arah. NOT an adult.
The Wolf
an explicit pasuk in the Torah.
So, do you think it’s wrong for women to take painkillers during childbirth? It’s also an explicit pasuk in the Torah that women should bear forth children in pain (or sorrow).
The Wolf
Wolf: yitay already made that argument, and I’ve addressed it above (on this page.)
It’s also an explicit pasuk in the Torah that women will bear forth children in pain (or sorrow).
I opted for the pain so I could avoid the sorrow.
Wolf: yitay already made that argument, and I’ve addressed it above (on this page.)
I looked over your post on this page and I do not see where you addressed this particular point.
Please restate — is it wrong (or against the Torah ideal — as you put it) for a woman to try to alleviate her pain in childbirth?
The Wolf
Do you care to comment on 80’s point, that it says “will”, not should?
The same pasuk says she shall desire her husband. Do you feel its okay if she neglects that part of the pasuk?
And more importantly than all that, I’ve cited that the ruling is actual halacha and the Torah ideal, not just a curse.
Analogies tend not to be perfect.
Yes, but in order for it to be valid, it has to have *some* commonality (other than the one you are trying to assert by bringing the analogy in the first place).
Please indicate what the commonality is between a marriage and a kingdom that led you to draw the analogy.
The Wolf
BTW, regarding the Mishna in Kesuvos I quoted, I read it last night but don’t have the mesechta here now. It says “she enters her husband’s “Reshus” for Nisu’in”, so how is it talking about a ketana?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.