Subscribe: parshablog
http://parsha.blogspot.com/feeds/comments/default
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
daas torah  elokim  gamliel  gender equality  gender  parse pasuk  rabban gamliel  rabban  rashi  torah  tzelem elokim  tzelem 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: parshablog

parshablog





Updated: 2017-12-03T18:12:36.668-05:00

 



Matter of fact, the Torah starts with the Aleph. S...

2017-12-03T08:32:42.291-05:00

Matter of fact, the Torah starts with the Aleph. Soon this and much much more will be unveiled.



Have you changed your mind yet?

2017-11-22T05:33:51.124-05:00

Have you changed your mind yet?



There is actually a video of Rav Chaim confirming ...

2017-10-17T09:48:46.669-04:00

There is actually a video of Rav Chaim confirming the story, albeit without the embellished details. It was on Matzav or Yeshiva World a few years ago and might be on youtube



I wonder if you would make the connection between ...

2017-10-16T18:34:00.478-04:00

I wonder if you would make the connection between today's miracle stories and the ones written about in the Torah.



"It doesn't matter what he says, what mat...

2017-10-16T14:13:10.650-04:00

"It doesn't matter what he says, what matters is what you can read into his words. QED."

No, it matters what he says. And he said it, in the post, very clearly, with no assertion that it is not true. (What he chose to bury in the comment section, after being called on it, is another matter. Note that in that comment, he is saying that no one of his sources *actually says* that, and that he is not 'claiming' that. It still is, or can be, left as a clear inference that one would / should make based on what was written.)

You will find very sparse discussion in Chazal and Rishonim on how to parse the pasuk, unless the interest is to extract this **very point** of whether there is gender disparity in being created betzelem.

That does not mean that my parse is based on an interest in supporting gender equality. As opposed to how to understand HaAdam (as Abarbanel, the species), then oto (again species), and then otam (because of the agreement with the two nouns).

Chazal did not differentiate between male in female in halachot where the source is tzelem elokim. Though that can come from various parses. The creation of one entity betzelem which was then split does not need to entail the removal of tzelem elokim from the female of the species, instead of an order in which it happened.



Does anyone writing before the advent of modern ge...

2017-10-16T14:06:38.727-04:00

Does anyone writing before the advent of modern gender relations parse the pasuk to support gender equality?

Who said anything about gender equality? This digression into semi-related topics is why people like you come across as irrational.



There is no logical way to come up with the conclu...

2017-10-16T13:24:27.701-04:00

There is no logical way to come up with the conclusion that women were not created B'Tzelem Elokim. When I read blog posts like that, I get so mad. Instead of taking the two sources as Yechidim and showing how they are wrong, he takes it as proof that misogamy is OK. His chosen moniker makes me want to throw Torah into an open cesspit and pretend I never even heard of it.



It doesn't matter what he says, what matters i...

2017-10-16T12:56:47.767-04:00

It doesn't matter what he says, what matters is what you can read into his words. QED.

Thanks for explaining how you parse the pasuk. Does anyone writing before the advent of modern gender relations parse the pasuk to support gender equality?

"Like, when you think about it, man, Chazal, the Rishonim and the Aharonim were all for gender equality. Proto-feminists, way ahead of their time!"

I've never posted on here before, and think this is probably about enough.



No, the Daas Torah blog does not start with that q...

2017-10-16T10:53:38.579-04:00

No, the Daas Torah blog does not start with that quote, at least not in English. He translates the pasuk entirely differently. And I am not pointing and sputtering. I am explaining how to parse the pasuk. (Separately but related, the first creation is macro-level, and the second account of creation is micro-level, and the tzelem elokim is the same thing to which the Nachash refers and then Hashem restates, that mankind is now like us. that is, ladaat tov vera and to choose == tzelem elokim.)

I then assert... Yes, I do, based on the quote I provided and BOLDED.

"and by extension that only males are human and not females". He can 'clarify' whatever he wants in the comments. He explicitly equates the two in his post.

"what he thinks about get refusal is completely irrelevant to whether he's right or wrong on this issue"

No, it really isn't. It is, in part, BECAUSE he does not think women are betzelem elokim, and that, as he tries to legitimize elsewhere, that you should love your wife like you love your horse, that he supports things such as get refusal. It is part of the same stupidity and sickness.

"that's one more of each than you quote in support of your position"
Indeed, I am not relying here on cited authorities. Though IIRC, in the comments, there were plenty of sources in Chazal showing men and women equally covered under tzelem elokim.

Are you the same 'b' who used to post here with inane and irrelevant comments?



The Daas Torah blog brings extensive quotes from e...

2017-10-16T10:35:05.930-04:00

The Daas Torah blog brings extensive quotes from established sources in support of his reasoning.

All you bring is a quote from the Chumash, which the Daas Torah author starts with, and then point and sputter, with an ad hominem about the author (what he thinks about get refusal is completely irrelevant to whether he's right or wrong on this issue).

You say that he latches onto one Rishon and one Acharon-that's one more of each than you quote in support of your position.

You then claim that he asserts that only men are human, but he explicitly says in the comments (5th one down): "I am not aware of anyone actually saying such a thing (that woman are not human beings or that being human is dependent on tzelem elokim-B)and I am not claiming that they are not human beings."

Not a very respectable approach, intellectually speaking.

(please note that I'm not expressing an opinion on whether Daas Torah is right or wrong in his assertion.)




2017-10-16T10:32:28.396-04:00

This comment has been removed by the author.



Interestingly, this Passuk is used by Rambam in hi...

2017-10-16T05:45:55.766-04:00

Interestingly, this Passuk is used by Rambam in his Hakdomo to Perek Chelek to decry those who believe every Chazal to be literal.



Rambam in his Hakdomo to Perek Chelek uses this Po...

2017-10-16T05:45:02.187-04:00

Rambam in his Hakdomo to Perek Chelek uses this Possuk to decry those who believe every Chazal to be literal.,



Josh, Nidah 31a, R. Papa observed: It is this that...

2017-09-30T07:10:58.290-04:00

Josh, Nidah 31a, R. Papa observed: It is this that people have
in mind when they say, ‘Shake off the salt* and cast the flesh to the dog**. *Metaph. for the soul, ‘the preserver of the human body’.
**Proverb. The lifeless body is of little more value.

What is importance of salt to human body and soul? When was salt first started using?



no need to assert Rashi didn't have sitting on...

2017-09-05T06:16:30.256-04:00

no need to assert Rashi didn't have sitting on Har Habayis as a girsa. there are explanations that the latter rabban gamliel sat on har habayit as part of the procedure. look at the braysa on Sanhedrin 11b:

ת"ר אין מעברין את השנים אלא ביהודה דואם עיברוה בגליל מעוברת העיד חנניה איש אונו אם עיברוה בגליל אינה מעוברת א"ר יהודה בריה דרבי שמעון בן פזי מאי טעמא דחנניה איש אונו אמר קרא (דברים יב, ה) לשכנו תדרשו ובאת שמה כל דרישה שאתה דורש לא יהיו אלא בשכנו של מקום

'We are Me'aber the year only in Yehudah. If it was made Me'aber in Galil, it is Me'ubar; Chananya Ish Ono testified that if it was made Me'aber in Galil, it is not Me'ubar.(R. Yehudah brei d'R. Shimon ben Pazi): Chanayah learns from "l'Shichno Sidreshu u'Vosa Shamah" - all Drishos (investigations) must be in Hash-m's Shechunah (region, i.e. Yerushalayim, which is in Yehudah).'

So he wouldn't have done it in Yavneh, perhaps.

I think Rashi is motivated more by the gemara. Depending on the girsa, it is strongly possible that the setama degemara misidentified Rabban Gamliel as the latter one. (Depends on where Rav Pappa ends, and whether דעברוהו ends with a vav or not.) If it does, then Rashi is indeed just following that line.



Another vague possibility is that gemara misidenti...

2017-09-05T01:16:52.472-04:00

Another vague possibility is that gemara misidentified raban Gamliel



I reviewed Rashi. He gave a marvelous explanation....

2017-09-05T01:13:19.746-04:00

I reviewed Rashi. He gave a marvelous explanation. One is forced to assume that his girsa did not have יושב על גב מעלה בהר הבית.
Also
דילמא בתר דעברוהו can mean ibur hachodesh hence 30 day month



prior page is more confusing בשמואל הקטן וכשמת אמר...

2017-09-04T16:46:56.498-04:00

prior page is more confusing
בשמואל הקטן וכשמת אמרו עליו הי חסיד הי עניו תלמידו של הלל אף הוא אמר בשעת מיתתו שמעון וישמעאל לחרבא וחברוהי לקטלא ושאר עמא לביזא ועקן סגיאן עתידן למיתי על עלמא

this statement of Shmuel hakatan would only make since prior to hurban ( hence Shimon and Ishmael), however this story is taking place in Yavne and he is known from here and berachot to be the colleague of Raban Gamliel of Yavne.???



See also these two sources, which (first) place Ra...

2017-09-04T11:34:32.781-04:00

See also these two sources, which (first) place Rabban Gamliel the Elder at that place, and (second) place this story as happening to Rabban Gamliel the Elder.

http://yaggada.haifa.ac.il/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=111:2011-03-14-15-24-59&catid=3&Itemid=1564

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6494-gamaliel-i



Thanks. 100%, I agree with your identification. ...

2017-09-04T11:32:10.577-04:00

Thanks.

100%, I agree with your identification. I was actually planning a follow up post to suggest this, and more. The key words are שהיה יושב על גב מעלה בהר הבית.

The "problem" is that this is not how Rashi explains it, as referring to the later Rabban Gamliel. As Rashi writes, first,

תקיפי קמאי - רבן גמליאל שהיה נוהג שררה וזורק מורא בתלמידים כדאשכחן בבכורות

and second, Rashi understands the answer of:

דילמא בתר דעברוהו

as referring to:

דילמא בתר דעברוהו - לרבן גמליאל מנשיאותו נעשה עניו:

which again would be the latter Rabban Gamliel, who was removed. So all of this would be according to Rashi. (See IIRC R' Yaakov Emden as well as R' Reuven Margolios for more). But I agree, change it to Rabban Gamliel the Elder and things fall into place.

However, it turns out that there are other girsaot of the gemara, which remove the final vav, making the gemara's answer as:

דילמא בתר דעברוה

perhaps, it was after they intercalated the *year*. Which is, I think, what you are saying.

Still, the gemara has to be answering a question, and it has to be something internal to the story. That would be whether ab initio you can use only one indication to prompt the intercalation of the year.

I would still put the break of Rav Pappa's statement in the same place, and put תקיפאי and לעינוותני to refer to the amount of days they need to add, between the tekufa and the onah.






Dear Josh I am one of your staunch admirers, but i...

2017-09-04T04:27:40.442-04:00

Dear Josh
I am one of your staunch admirers, but in this instance I have to point out to the error.
Rabban Gamliel is identified as by you as one of Yavne. Hence suggestion that it's after his removal, and translation "arrogant". All of that is wrong
This is rabban Gamliel hazaken sitting on temple mountain before the hurban hence "after its intercalation" and " great or mighty" would be the correct understanding.
He is clearly not arrogant since he is including the opinion of his colleagues


Brunch Yuabov



Interestingly enough todays daf (Sanhedrin 21a) st...

2017-08-06T04:37:18.422-04:00

Interestingly enough todays daf (Sanhedrin 21a) states that there was a physical difference between Jewish and non-Jewish women, Jewish women had no pubic hair while non-Jewish women did (which is why Tamar did because she was teh daughter of a Yefas Toar). This would seem to contradict those rishonim you quoted who say that there are no physical differences between Jews and non-Jews.



All this Ignoring the fact that the God those God ...

2017-07-23T15:32:06.183-04:00

All this Ignoring the fact that the God those God fearing Republican fear is the Christian God, not the Jewish one, which makes the entire argument a bit pointless.



It looks like these examples are applications of ז...

2017-07-11T02:32:25.604-04:00

It looks like these examples are applications of זה נהנה וזה לא חסר. For the קרבן פסח, obviously no one else loses if there's a פסח שני. For the case of בנות צלפחד, the daughters are careful to ask למה יגרע, "why should he (our father) lose out?" If he was not included, his family, and by extension, his שבט would lose out on an area of land they might have otherwise received. Their relatives correctly noted that, as first taught, the inheritance rules would cause the property to shift to another שבט when the daughters married out. Thus, the caveat brings the rules of inheritance back into the realm of "לא חסר", by ensuring that a daughter's inheritance stays within the family.



Yes; that is a possibility. Another is that, despi...

2017-06-25T21:04:10.269-04:00

Yes; that is a possibility.
Another is that, despite the impossibility, they understood that that was what Rav was saying - he is getting to do this impossible.