"Who knows what decree that Rabbi Shimon wanted to annul with these holy souls Not "Who knows what degree that Rabbi Shimon wanted to ask God to annul with these holy souls". Without those extra 3 words, you've got a version of X-ianity on your hands here.
That Rav Shimon not only dressed as chassidim do today, but was also as obese as they are today?
And that's despite: מכאן היה ר' שמעון בן יוחאי אומר לא נתנה תורה לדרוש אלא לאוכלי המן הא כיצד היה יושב ודורש ולא היה יודע מהיכן אוכל ושותה ומהיכן היה לובש ומתכסה
Nope! Abaye said: Although there is room for both opinions, many have acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and combined working for a living and learning Torah, and although they engaged in activities other than the study of Torah, were successful in their Torah study. Many have acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai and were not successful in their Torah study. They were ultimately forced to abandon their Torah study altogether.
He is saying for yechidim they can devote themselves to Torah only, but for the mass population, they need Torah & melacha. He's not saying its assur for the masses to have professions. Or is he? He refers to his father in law ztl letter.
on Shemot 20.9 שֵׁ֤֣שֶׁת יָמִ֣ים֙ תַּֽעֲבֹ֔ד֮ וְעָשִׂ֖֣יתָ כׇּֿל־מְלַאכְתֶּֽךָ֒׃
תעבוד. עבודה היא מלאכה שמביאה לידי פרנסה כעובד אדמתו או עובד אדוניו. וכל אדם עבד לעצמו. כלשון חז״ל בב״ר עה״פ ויהי האדם לנפש חיה והיינו דכתיב ביו״ט כל מלאכת עבודה. היינו מלאכה שבא לפרנסה ולא לתענוג לצורך אותה שעה:
what you are apparently interpreting Rav Elyashiv as saying is the opposite of what he is saying - or to put it another way, you are claiming that the majority should only learn, like Rav Shimon, and only a few individuals should work or pursue a profession. That is essentially the Ponovezh/gateshead mashgiach point of view.
If you argue for mass kollel, there's More problems. Do not use the Torah as a spade with which to dig. So the workaround for this is to be paid as if you were doing something that you don't want to do eg a doctor, a lawyer, a CEO. Once upon a time there were very great rabbonim who took very little compensation. However as chareidism has become mass market, it's about having your cake and eating it.
Everything we discussed speaks about TIDE being best practice, and Theft being a downshot of kollel life. If there's a successful way to do it that is honest, then all the best kavod.
Perhaps he was more lenient than his predecessors, who considered basically all Jews as Yechidim, and hence anyone , even /especially orthodox Jews who did train in a profession, were not hamon am, but apikorsim. The exception, of course, is a big doctor who treated all the Gedolim, and he was one of the 36 tzaddikim.
You can see yeridot hadorot though, since today, someone can be a serial adulterer and molestor/rapist and still be tzaddik.
“Who knows what decree that Rabbi Shimon wanted to annul” My theory. Rabbi Shimon wanted to annul the anti-Torah decrees of the evil Roman Emperor. This is like SCOTUS docket number 21-1263 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/328230 Denied May 16, 2022.
Yes I love Marvin Gerber and Nathan Lewis fighting evil anti-Israel protests from 2003 in front of a shul in Michigan. I quote from 21-1263: “This case is about vitriolic anti-Semitic picketing that have occurred week after week, year after year, since 2003, in front of the Beth Israel Congregation synagogue in Ann Arbor, Michigan every Sabbath morning as the congregants attend worship services. This Amicus Brief demonstrates the exceptional importance of the issues raised in Petitioner’s petition for a writ of certiorari by highlighting the dangerously anti-Semitic nature of the conduct at issue in this law-suit.”
In parshat במדבר “The Levites, however, shall camp round about the Tabernacle of the Testimony, that wrath may not strike the assembly of the Children of Israel; and the Levites shall safeguard the watch the Tabernacle of the Testimony.’” (Numbers 1:53). העמק דבר במדבר פרשת במדבר פרק א פסוק נג והלוים יחנו וגו'. לעיל דכתיב וסביב למשכן יחנו, היה משום כבוד וצורך המשכן, וכאן הוסיף הכתוב שיחנו סביב למשכן בשביל שמירת ישראל, באשר היה השראת שכינה בגלוי במשכן, על כן עלולים ישראל להענש על איזה חטא, כמו חוטא בסמוך לפלטרין של מלך, על כן באו הלוים והגינו על הקצף: ושמרו הלוים וגו'. וגם להיפך שישמרו את ישראל שלא יתקרבו למשכן העדות. ויש לפרש עוד דהוא הוספת ביאור לדקמיה, היינו עוד אופן שמירה חיצונית, דמשכן העדות היינו כח התורה היה שומר את ישראל מנחשים ועקרבים במדבר כידוע, שהיו זיקי אש יוצאין מן הארון ושורף נחשים ועקרבים, ועתה צוה ה' שגם הלוים ישמרו אותה משמרת של משכן העדות, היינו שיתעסקו בתורה, ובזכותם יהיו ישראל נשמרים, כמו על ידי כח משמרת העדות:
Divine Providence rests on a shul even in Michigan. The Jews in Michigan are in danger for showing disrespect to the Divine Presence if they allow the anti-Israel protests from 2003. God’s wrath may strike. Bravo Marvin Gerber and Nathan Lewis going to SCOTUS. The SCOTUS website shows, for all to see, the evil of the protesters since 2003. Marvin Gerber and Nathan Lewis did a kiddush Hashem.
Will this lead to less evil protests? Did Rabbi Shimon hiding 70 years in a cave reduce the evil of the Roman Empire? Rabbi Shimon wrote the Zohar. We love Rabbi Shimon..
“Who knows what decree that Rabbi Shimon wanted to annul” My theory. What did Rabbi Shimon seek to accomplish in his lifetime? We're alive today in Israel, a mighty and feared nation, because of the likes of Rabbi Shimon.
This is the link to my article out today: www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=117380
Wow page views 14,000! Update on Aranoff v Aranoff. I hear nothing. I trust that the Appellate Div 2nd Dept deposited my $45 check I sent them (their required fee). I’ll either appear on the court’s calendar or they’ll send me in writing a rejection of papers notice.
Torah thought daf hayomi Yevamot 82b “We learned, THE HERMAPHRODITE MAY MARRY [A WIFE]! [ נושא. This shows that he is regarded as a proper male. As such he should confer upon his wife the right to eat of the breast and the shoulder. How then could Resh Lakish maintain supra that he does not?] Read, If he married [ נישא i.e., if marriage had already taken place it is valid in so far as to require a letter of divorce for its dissolution since it is possible that he is a male. Originally, however, no such marriage is permitted owing to the equal possibility that he is not a male but a female], But, surely, it was stated MAY MARRY! [Implying that marriage may be contracted in the first instance.CF. supra n.1] And even in accordance with your view what is the meaning of BUT MAY NOT BE MARRIED [BY A MAN]? [ נישא. Perfect. Surely this cannot refer to marriage in the first instance but to a marriage already performed?] Consequently it must be granted that as MAY . . . BE MARRIED [ נישא. Perfect. Surely this cannot refer to marriage in the first instance but to a marriage already performed?] implies an act that had already been performed, so also MAY MARRY implies an act that had already been performed. It may still be urged: No [The two expressions are not identical]; MAY MARRY implies that the act is permissible; but MAY NOT BE MARRIED [ נישא. Perfect. Surely this cannot refer to marriage in the first instance but to a marriage already performed] implies, not even if the act had already been performed [The difficulty against the view of Resh Lakish consequently remains, while the opinion of R. Johanan receives confirmation].”
My theory. The Talmud is debating the progressive agenda of the transgender. “Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth. Some transgender people who desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another identify as transsexual. Transgender, often shortened as trans, is also an umbrella term; in addition to including people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (trans men and trans women), it may also include people who are non-binary or genderqueer. Other definitions of transgender also include people who belong to a third gender, or else conceptualize transgender people as a third gender.The term transgender may be defined very broadly to include cross-dressers."
The opinion of R. Johanan is the halacha here. The transgender Kohen marries a woman—fine. She may eat of the Kohen’s portions. The transgender marries a man---terrible. They are subject to stoning. Beautiful. We stay with he she father mother etc and not adopt parent one parent two etc. Wow 29,000 page views.
Daf hayomi Yevamot 85a “Behold, however, [the prohibition against] defilement [for the dead] which is a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all [having been given to priests only. v. Lev. XXI, 1ff.] and [yet the sole] reason [why it is inapplicable to woman is] because the All Merciful wrote The sons of Aaron [Ibid. 2] and not the daughters of Aaron; had, however, no such text been available [lit., but (if) not so] it would have been assumed that women also come under the same obligation. What is the reason? Obviously [lit., not?] because of the deduction Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab! [Which shows that even a prohibition which is not applicable to all would be assumed to be applicable to women by deduction from Rab's text!] No; this might have been deduced from They shall not take [Lev. XXI, 7, from which it has been deduced (supra 84b, end) that women are subject to the same prohibitions as men even where the prohibitions are not applicable to all. Hence the necessity for the text of Lev. XXI, 1 , which excludes women. From Num. v, 6, however, it may still be maintained, deduction could be made only in respect of a prohibition that is applicable to all.].”
Beautiful. My theory. The Torah commands men Kohen not to marry a divorcee etc: “They shall not marry a woman who is a zonah or a chalalah, and they shall not marry a woman who has been divorced by her husband; for each one is holy to his God. You shall sanctify him, for he offers the food of your God; he shall be holy to you,; for holy am I Hashem, Who sanctifies you.” (Leviticus 21:7-8).
A clear Torah you shall not applicable only to men Kohen. So, the woman who is a divorcee, zonah, or chalalah and marries a Kohen---she’s not in violation of a Torah you shall not command. Good. Why?
This is a man’s world. When Susan accepted the get 2/17/1993 she requested: I starting dating. I had 21 dates in 2 weeks, all non-divorcees, non-zonahs, and non-chalalahs. I found Yemimah, my present wife, thank you God. But women, imagine, a divorcee or a convert for all kinds of reasons desperately seeking a husband to spend the rest of her life with---very difficult to find dates. It’s man’s world.
The Yevamot 85a says if she marries a Kohen, only he, the Kohen, is in violation of a Torah you shall not. Maybe this divorcee or convert married an irreligious or ignorant Kohen, whatever. Our wise Sages say: don’t harass the woman. Better if the divorcee or convert did not marry a Kohen. But what she did she did.
Our Sages say, harass only the man Kohen who married a divorcee or convert. He must pay her Kethubah and maintenance etc. Our Torah is so magnificent and wise. Wow 30,000 page views.
Torah thought this week’s parsha נשא “Speak to the Children of Israel: A man or woman who commits any of man’s sins by commit a trespass against Hashem, and that person shall become ---guilty; and they shall confess their sin that they committed; he shall make restitution for his guilt in its principal amount and add its fifth part to it, and give it to the one to whom he is guilty.” (Numbers 5:6-7).
Yevamot 84b “For Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab and so it was taught at the school of R. Ishmael: When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit [Num. v, 6]; Scripture compared the woman to the man in respect of all the punishments in the Torah! [whether flogging or kareth]”
My theory. The Torah gave a courtesy to women certain sins no punishment of flogging such as a divorcee or convert marrying a Kohen. These are rare exceptions. Otherwise women and men are treated the same. I remember IsraelReader and Moe Ginsburg mad at me for siding with the convert that concealed that he was a convert when he married the young daughter of the multi-millionaire father in Brooklyn. I hear nothing on the latest. Plain reading of the passages the woman that conceals that she is a convert and marries a Kohen in violation of Leviticus 21:7, she is not guilty of violation of Leviticus 21:7 because Leviticus 21:7 is a command to male Kohen only. People conceal skeleton in the closet = The expression 'a skeleton in the closet' refers to a secret source of shame, potentially ruinous if exposed, which a person or family makes efforts to conceal.
Daf hayomi Yevamot 85a “Behold, however, [the prohibition against] defilement [for the dead] which is a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all [having been given to priests only. v. Lev. XXI, 1ff.] and [yet the sole] reason [why it is inapplicable to woman is] because the All Merciful wrote The sons of Aaron [Ibid. 2] and not the daughters of Aaron; had, however, no such text been available [lit., but (if) not so] it would have been assumed that women also come under the same obligation. What is the reason? Obviously [lit., not?] because of the deduction Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab! [Which shows that even a prohibition which is not applicable to all would be assumed to be applicable to women by deduction from Rab's text!] No; this might have been deduced from They shall not take [Lev. XXI, 7, from which it has been deduced (supra 84b, end) that women are subject to the same prohibitions as men even where the prohibitions are not applicable to all. Hence the necessity for the text of Lev. XXI, 1 , which excludes women. From Num. v, 6, however, it may still be maintained, deduction could be made only in respect of a prohibition that is applicable to all.].”
Beautiful. My theory. The Torah commands men Kohen not to marry a divorcee etc: “They shall not marry a woman who is a zonah or a chalalah, and they shall not marry a woman who has been divorced by her husband; for each one is holy to his God. You shall sanctify him, for he offers the food of your God; he shall be holy to you,; for holy am I Hashem, Who sanctifies you.” (Leviticus 21:7-8).
A clear Torah you shall not applicable only to men Kohen. So, the woman who is a divorcee, zonah, or chalalah and marries a Kohen---she’s not in violation of a Torah you shall not command. Good. Why?
The Yevamot 85a says if she marries a Kohen, only he, the Kohen, is in violation of a Torah you shall not. Maybe this divorcee or convert married an irreligious or ignorant Kohen, whatever. Our wise Sages say: don’t harass the woman. Better if the divorcee or convert did not marry a Kohen. But what she did she did.
Our Sages say, harass only the man Kohen who married a divorcee or convert. He must pay her Kethubah and maintenance etc. Our Torah is so magnificent and wise. Wow 29,000 page views.
asking of/praying to the dead.
ReplyDeletedid the Amoraim dress as Chassidim do?
ReplyDeleteNot just Tannaim, but also Moshe Rabeinu.
ReplyDeletePraying through the dead is not Kefirah. Your agent need not be alive.
ReplyDeletedepends on how you do it
ReplyDeletethere are actually 2 issurei d'oraita to contend with:
1) To not enquire of the dead
2) To use an intermediary for prayer
The dead has no email or way of answering someone above the ground - so to ask them to intervene for you for something, is quite ridiculous.
וְחֹבֵ֖ר חָ֑בֶר וְשֹׁאֵ֥ל אוֹב֙ וְיִדְּעֹנִ֔י וְדֹרֵ֖שׁ אֶל־הַמֵּתִֽים׃
"Who knows what decree that Rabbi Shimon wanted to annul with these holy souls
ReplyDeleteNot "Who knows what degree that Rabbi Shimon wanted to ask God to annul with these holy souls". Without those extra 3 words, you've got a version of X-ianity on your hands here.
That Rav Shimon not only dressed as chassidim do today, but was also as obese as they are today?
ReplyDeleteAnd that's despite:
מכאן היה ר' שמעון בן יוחאי אומר לא נתנה תורה לדרוש אלא לאוכלי המן הא כיצד היה יושב ודורש ולא היה יודע מהיכן אוכל ושותה ומהיכן היה לובש ומתכסה
There are differing approaches to these parameters, as I expect you know. See שו”ת מנחת אלעזר א:סט versus say שו”ת אגרות משה חלק או”ח ה סימן מג ...
ReplyDeleteR Shimon is the foundation of haredi liffestyle as per machlokes of R Ishmael vs R Shimon in Brochos 35B
ReplyDeleteותָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: near top
Nope!
ReplyDeleteAbaye said: Although there is room for both opinions, many have acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and combined working for a living and learning Torah, and although they engaged in activities other than the study of Torah, were successful in their Torah study. Many have acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai and were not successful in their Torah study. They were ultimately forced to abandon their Torah study altogether.
How did predecessors of Rav elyashiv ztl, who opposed ideas like YU, Torah u maddah, deal with this gemara?
ReplyDeleteThe gemora is clear and obvious
ReplyDeleteSome say this view of Rav Shimon was just after he came out of the cave but later he agreed with R Yishmael
in other words, certain groups who opposed learning a trade are denying this gemara.
ReplyDeleteNope!
ReplyDeleteYou don't understand the gemora
Reread what Rav Eliyashiv wrote
He is saying for yechidim they can devote themselves to Torah only, but for the mass population, they need Torah & melacha. He's not saying its assur for the masses to have professions. Or is he?
ReplyDeleteHe refers to his father in law ztl letter.
Haamek Davar
ReplyDeleteon Shemot 20.9 שֵׁ֤֣שֶׁת יָמִ֣ים֙ תַּֽעֲבֹ֔ד֮ וְעָשִׂ֖֣יתָ כׇּֿל־מְלַאכְתֶּֽךָ֒׃
תעבוד. עבודה היא מלאכה שמביאה לידי פרנסה כעובד אדמתו או עובד אדוניו. וכל אדם עבד לעצמו. כלשון חז״ל בב״ר עה״פ ויהי האדם לנפש חיה והיינו דכתיב ביו״ט כל מלאכת עבודה. היינו מלאכה שבא לפרנסה ולא לתענוג לצורך אותה שעה:
what you are apparently interpreting Rav Elyashiv as saying is the opposite of what he is saying - or to put it another way, you are claiming that the majority should only learn, like Rav Shimon, and only a few individuals should work or pursue a profession. That is essentially the Ponovezh/gateshead mashgiach point of view.
ReplyDeleteThe gemorah is clear that the ideal is Rav Shimon
ReplyDeletebut that it didn't work for most but if it did it should be followed
why then, elsewhere does the gemara equate this approach to teaching theft?
ReplyDeleteAre you serious?
ReplyDeleteIf the gemara says it, then I'm not joking.
ReplyDeleteThe gemora clearly is not saying what you want it to say
ReplyDeleteNobody holds that everyone must learn a trade.
If you argue for mass kollel, there's More problems.
ReplyDeleteDo not use the Torah as a spade with which to dig.
So the workaround for this is to be paid as if you were doing something that you don't want to do eg a doctor, a lawyer, a CEO.
Once upon a time there were very great rabbonim who took very little compensation. However as chareidism has become mass market, it's about having your cake and eating it.
Still cherry picking
ReplyDeleteBottom line the Talmud and normative Judaism disagrees with your hashkofa
Everything we discussed speaks about TIDE being best practice, and Theft being a downshot of kollel life. If there's a successful way to do it that is honest, then all the best kavod.
ReplyDeleteNope! that is your extremely biased reading - not the gemorah
ReplyDeletereread the gemorah
very nice
ReplyDeleteHere is Rashi on Kiddushin 29a:
כאילו מלמדו ליסטות - דכיון דאין לו אומנות ויחסר לחמו ילך בפרשת דרכים וילסטם את הבריות:
Since Rambam is also generally pro Torah u madda, then mainstream halacha seems to follow this view.
You have to understand how Rav Eliashiv, z"l, defined terms. Hamon Am = everyone but the Chareidims. The yechidim = the entire Chareidi community.
ReplyDeletePerhaps he was more lenient than his predecessors, who considered basically all Jews as Yechidim, and hence anyone , even /especially orthodox Jews who did train in a profession, were not hamon am, but apikorsim. The exception, of course, is a big doctor who treated all the Gedolim, and he was one of the 36 tzaddikim.
ReplyDeleteYou can see yeridot hadorot though, since today, someone can be a serial adulterer and molestor/rapist and still be tzaddik.
“Who knows what decree that Rabbi Shimon wanted to annul” My theory.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Shimon wanted to annul the anti-Torah decrees of the evil Roman Emperor. This is like SCOTUS docket number 21-1263 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/328230 Denied May 16, 2022.
Yes I love Marvin Gerber and Nathan Lewis fighting evil anti-Israel protests from 2003 in front of a shul in Michigan. I quote from 21-1263: “This case is about vitriolic anti-Semitic picketing that have occurred week after week, year after year, since 2003, in front of the Beth Israel Congregation synagogue in Ann Arbor, Michigan every Sabbath morning as the congregants attend worship services. This Amicus Brief demonstrates the exceptional importance of the issues raised in Petitioner’s petition for a writ of certiorari by highlighting the dangerously anti-Semitic nature of the conduct at issue in this law-suit.”
In parshat במדבר “The Levites, however, shall camp round about the Tabernacle of the Testimony, that wrath may not strike the assembly of the Children of Israel; and the Levites shall safeguard the watch the Tabernacle of the Testimony.’” (Numbers 1:53).
העמק דבר במדבר פרשת במדבר פרק א פסוק נג
והלוים יחנו וגו'. לעיל דכתיב וסביב למשכן יחנו, היה משום כבוד וצורך המשכן, וכאן הוסיף הכתוב שיחנו סביב למשכן בשביל שמירת ישראל, באשר היה השראת שכינה בגלוי במשכן, על כן עלולים ישראל להענש על איזה חטא, כמו חוטא בסמוך לפלטרין של מלך, על כן באו הלוים והגינו על הקצף: ושמרו הלוים וגו'. וגם להיפך שישמרו את ישראל שלא יתקרבו למשכן העדות. ויש לפרש עוד דהוא הוספת ביאור לדקמיה, היינו עוד אופן שמירה חיצונית, דמשכן העדות היינו כח התורה היה שומר את ישראל מנחשים ועקרבים במדבר כידוע, שהיו זיקי אש יוצאין מן הארון ושורף נחשים ועקרבים, ועתה צוה ה' שגם הלוים ישמרו אותה משמרת של משכן העדות, היינו שיתעסקו בתורה, ובזכותם יהיו ישראל נשמרים, כמו על ידי כח משמרת העדות:
Divine Providence rests on a shul even in Michigan. The Jews in Michigan are in danger for showing disrespect to the Divine Presence if they allow the anti-Israel protests from 2003. God’s wrath may strike. Bravo Marvin Gerber and Nathan Lewis going to SCOTUS. The SCOTUS website shows, for all to see, the evil of the protesters since 2003. Marvin Gerber and Nathan Lewis did a kiddush Hashem.
Will this lead to less evil protests? Did Rabbi Shimon hiding 70 years in a cave reduce the evil of the Roman Empire? Rabbi Shimon wrote the Zohar. We love Rabbi Shimon..
Cherry picking as usual!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.academia.edu/36015462/Avraham_Rami_Reiner_R_Yosef_Shalom_Elyashiv_as_a_Halachic_Decisor_Modern_Judaism_33_3_October_2013_260_300?email_work_card=reading-history
ReplyDeleteRav Elyashiv decisor, also cherry picking?
“Who knows what decree that Rabbi Shimon wanted to annul” My theory. What did Rabbi Shimon seek to accomplish in his lifetime? We're alive today in Israel, a mighty and feared nation, because of the likes of Rabbi Shimon.
ReplyDeleteThis is the link to my article out today: www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=117380
Wow page views 14,000! Update on Aranoff v Aranoff. I hear nothing. I trust that the Appellate Div 2nd Dept deposited my $45 check I sent them (their required fee). I’ll either appear on the court’s calendar or they’ll send me in writing a rejection of papers notice.
Torah thought daf hayomi Yevamot 82b
ReplyDelete“We learned, THE HERMAPHRODITE MAY MARRY [A WIFE]! [ נושא. This shows that he is regarded as a proper male. As such he should confer upon his wife the right to eat of the breast and the shoulder. How then could Resh Lakish maintain supra that he does not?] Read, If he married [ נישא i.e., if marriage had already taken place it is valid in so far as to require a letter of divorce for its dissolution since it is possible that he is a male. Originally, however, no such marriage is permitted owing to the equal possibility that he is not a male but a female], But, surely, it was stated MAY MARRY! [Implying that marriage may be contracted in the first instance.CF. supra n.1] And even in accordance with your view what is the meaning of BUT MAY NOT BE MARRIED [BY A MAN]? [ נישא. Perfect. Surely this cannot refer to marriage in the first instance but to a marriage already performed?] Consequently it must be granted that as MAY . . . BE MARRIED [ נישא. Perfect. Surely this cannot refer to marriage in the first instance but to a marriage already performed?] implies an act that had already been performed, so also MAY MARRY implies an act that had already been performed. It may still be urged: No [The two expressions are not identical]; MAY MARRY implies that the act is permissible; but MAY NOT BE MARRIED [ נישא. Perfect. Surely this cannot refer to marriage in the first instance but to a marriage already performed] implies, not even if the act had already been performed [The difficulty against the view of Resh Lakish consequently remains, while the opinion of R. Johanan receives confirmation].”
My theory. The Talmud is debating the progressive agenda of the transgender. “Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth. Some transgender people who desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another identify as transsexual. Transgender, often shortened as trans, is also an umbrella term; in addition to including people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (trans men and trans women), it may also include people who are non-binary or genderqueer. Other definitions of transgender also include people who belong to a third gender, or else conceptualize transgender people as a third gender.The term transgender may be defined very broadly to include cross-dressers."
The opinion of R. Johanan is the halacha here. The transgender Kohen marries a woman—fine. She may eat of the Kohen’s portions. The transgender marries a man---terrible. They are subject to stoning. Beautiful. We stay with he she father mother etc and not adopt parent one parent two etc. Wow 29,000 page views.
Daf hayomi Yevamot 85a
ReplyDelete“Behold, however, [the prohibition against] defilement [for the dead] which is a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all [having been given to priests only. v. Lev. XXI, 1ff.] and [yet the sole] reason [why it is inapplicable to woman is] because the All Merciful wrote The sons of Aaron [Ibid. 2] and not the daughters of Aaron; had, however, no such text been available [lit., but (if) not so] it would have been assumed that women also come under the same obligation. What is the reason? Obviously [lit., not?] because of the deduction Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab! [Which shows that even a prohibition which is not applicable to all would be assumed to be applicable to women by deduction from Rab's text!] No; this might have been deduced from They shall not take [Lev. XXI, 7, from which it has been deduced (supra 84b, end) that women are subject to the same prohibitions as men even where the prohibitions are not applicable to all. Hence the necessity for the text of Lev. XXI, 1 , which excludes women. From Num. v, 6, however, it may still be maintained, deduction could be made only in respect of a prohibition that is applicable to all.].”
Beautiful. My theory. The Torah commands men Kohen not to marry a divorcee etc: “They shall not marry a woman who is a zonah or a chalalah, and they shall not marry a woman who has been divorced by her husband; for each one is holy to his God. You shall sanctify him, for he offers the food of your God; he shall be holy to you,; for holy am I Hashem, Who sanctifies you.” (Leviticus 21:7-8).
A clear Torah you shall not applicable only to men Kohen. So, the woman who is a divorcee, zonah, or chalalah and marries a Kohen---she’s not in violation of a Torah you shall not command. Good. Why?
This is a man’s world. When Susan accepted the get 2/17/1993 she requested: I starting dating. I had 21 dates in 2 weeks, all non-divorcees, non-zonahs, and non-chalalahs. I found Yemimah, my present wife, thank you God. But women, imagine, a divorcee or a convert for all kinds of reasons desperately seeking a husband to spend the rest of her life with---very difficult to find dates. It’s man’s world.
The Yevamot 85a says if she marries a Kohen, only he, the Kohen, is in violation of a Torah you shall not. Maybe this divorcee or convert married an irreligious or ignorant Kohen, whatever. Our wise Sages say: don’t harass the woman. Better if the divorcee or convert did not marry a Kohen. But what she did she did.
Our Sages say, harass only the man Kohen who married a divorcee or convert. He must pay her Kethubah and maintenance etc. Our Torah is so magnificent and wise. Wow 30,000 page views.
Torah thought this week’s parsha נשא “Speak to the Children of Israel: A man or woman who commits any of man’s sins by commit a trespass against Hashem, and that person shall become ---guilty; and they shall confess their sin that they committed; he shall make restitution for his guilt in its principal amount and add its fifth part to it, and give it to the one to whom he is guilty.” (Numbers 5:6-7).
ReplyDeleteYevamot 84b
“For Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab and so it was taught at the school of R. Ishmael: When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit [Num. v, 6]; Scripture compared the woman to the man in respect of all the punishments in the Torah! [whether flogging or kareth]”
My theory. The Torah gave a courtesy to women certain sins no punishment of flogging such as a divorcee or convert marrying a Kohen. These are rare exceptions. Otherwise women and men are treated the same. I remember IsraelReader and Moe Ginsburg mad at me for siding with the convert that concealed that he was a convert when he married the young daughter of the multi-millionaire father in Brooklyn. I hear nothing on the latest. Plain reading of the passages the woman that conceals that she is a convert and marries a Kohen in violation of Leviticus 21:7, she is not guilty of violation of Leviticus 21:7 because Leviticus 21:7 is a command to male Kohen only. People conceal skeleton in the closet = The expression 'a skeleton in the closet' refers to a secret source of shame, potentially ruinous if exposed, which a person or family makes efforts to conceal.
Daf hayomi Yevamot 85a
ReplyDelete“Behold, however, [the prohibition against] defilement [for the dead] which is a prohibition that is not equally applicable to all [having been given to priests only. v. Lev. XXI, 1ff.] and [yet the sole] reason [why it is inapplicable to woman is] because the All Merciful wrote The sons of Aaron [Ibid. 2] and not the daughters of Aaron; had, however, no such text been available [lit., but (if) not so] it would have been assumed that women also come under the same obligation. What is the reason? Obviously [lit., not?] because of the deduction Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab! [Which shows that even a prohibition which is not applicable to all would be assumed to be applicable to women by deduction from Rab's text!] No; this might have been deduced from They shall not take [Lev. XXI, 7, from which it has been deduced (supra 84b, end) that women are subject to the same prohibitions as men even where the prohibitions are not applicable to all. Hence the necessity for the text of Lev. XXI, 1 , which excludes women. From Num. v, 6, however, it may still be maintained, deduction could be made only in respect of a prohibition that is applicable to all.].”
Beautiful. My theory. The Torah commands men Kohen not to marry a divorcee etc: “They shall not marry a woman who is a zonah or a chalalah, and they shall not marry a woman who has been divorced by her husband; for each one is holy to his God. You shall sanctify him, for he offers the food of your God; he shall be holy to you,; for holy am I Hashem, Who sanctifies you.” (Leviticus 21:7-8).
A clear Torah you shall not applicable only to men Kohen. So, the woman who is a divorcee, zonah, or chalalah and marries a Kohen---she’s not in violation of a Torah you shall not command. Good. Why?
The Yevamot 85a says if she marries a Kohen, only he, the Kohen, is in violation of a Torah you shall not. Maybe this divorcee or convert married an irreligious or ignorant Kohen, whatever. Our wise Sages say: don’t harass the woman. Better if the divorcee or convert did not marry a Kohen. But what she did she did.
Our Sages say, harass only the man Kohen who married a divorcee or convert. He must pay her Kethubah and maintenance etc. Our Torah is so magnificent and wise. Wow 29,000 page views.