Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> Judaism
I Am Very Disturbed by This Gemara
  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

Laiya




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Aug 10 2017, 1:00 pm
marina wrote:
Look I get that a couple isn't always going to have Tantric 5ex and become one soul. Sometimes it's just fun.

But this is the opposite extreme. A person that you have no long term connection to, someone you're just marrying for a day, for the fun and nothing else. And in the next city it will be fun with someone else.

We all agree that 5ex can and should be fun and sometimes just a release and nothing more. But isn't that in the context of a meaningful relationship? Or are we okay with literally one-night stands?


I don't understand this particular gemara and it bothers me. Although I feel silly even saying that. It makes it sound like there are other gemaras that I do understand. I've never learned gemara so I'm not equipped to evaluate.

But, I also can't accept, based on this, that Torah does not value a meaningful relationship between husband and wife, because that would require ignoring too many other sources that indicate the opposite.
Back to top

theoneandonly




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Aug 14 2017, 1:27 am
Marina,

In response to all of your posts saying "but they discuss all the complex halachic ramifications re nidda etc so it must be literal, why else would they be discussing it!" Well, they may very well be discussing it for the intellectual exercise. Like "tovel v'sheretz b'yado"--if you go to a mikva holding a bug, you are still tamei. But in order for someone to be accepted as a member of sanhedrin, he had to be able to give a certain number of proofs that you would actually be tahor. Why bother discussing it if it is so obviously not applicable l'halacha, since the halacha is that you are tamei? As an intellectual exercise, to show logical/critical thinking, etc etc. So too here, the discussion may just be to develop and hone halachic reasoning skills even though the case has no bearing in actual halacha.
Back to top

imasoftov




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Aug 14 2017, 2:02 am
theoneandonly wrote:
Marina,

In response to all of your posts saying "but they discuss all the complex halachic ramifications re nidda etc so it must be literal, why else would they be discussing it!" Well, they may very well be discussing it for the intellectual exercise. Like "tovel v'sheretz b'yado"--if you go to a mikva holding a bug, you are still tamei. But in order for someone to be accepted as a member of sanhedrin, he had to be able to give a certain number of proofs that you would actually be tahor. Why bother discussing it if it is so obviously not applicable l'halacha, since the halacha is that you are tamei? As an intellectual exercise, to show logical/critical thinking, etc etc. So too here, the discussion may just be to develop and hone halachic reasoning skills even though the case has no bearing in actual halacha.

Why would the Gemara put the names of actual rabbis (Rav and Rav Nachman) into a theoretical discussion as having done the act under discussion? Is there a Gemara about a rabbi who not only proved that a sheretz was tahor, but also acted upon it?
Back to top

theoneandonly




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Aug 14 2017, 10:43 am
imasoftov wrote:
Why would the Gemara put the names of actual rabbis (Rav and Rav Nachman) into a theoretical discussion as having done the act under discussion?


To illustrate the example. "Reuven and Shimon went to town and asked if anyone wants to marry them for the night." "Well, that would be a halachic problem because no one would know who the father is." "Ok, so what if the father is famous? Rav and Rav Nachman went to town..."

imasoftov wrote:
Is there a Gemara about a rabbi who not only proved that a sheretz was tahor, but also acted upon it?

No idea; I never claimed to know all of shas.
Back to top

imasoftov




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Aug 14 2017, 1:55 pm
theoneandonly wrote:
To illustrate the example. "Reuven and Shimon went to town and asked if anyone wants to marry them for the night." "Well, that would be a halachic problem because no one would know who the father is." "Ok, so what if the father is famous? Rav and Rav Nachman went to town..."

When learners say "Reuven and Shimon did ..." those names usually1 aren't in the Gemara. Let's say they're learning the start of Bava Metzia, they might say "Reuven and Shimon are each holding onto a garment, Reuven says 'I found it' and Shimon says the same thing", but what the first Mishna there says is "Two hold a garment, one of them says 'I found it' and the other says 'I found it'".

The Gemara could have added an exception to the rule about not marrying women in different cities by adding "But what if he's famous? In that case, it's permitted." instead of telling us the names of two rabbis who did it.

1. After searching for all places that the name Reuven appears in the Bavli, I found 28 pages on which it's a placeholder. Still, most of the time that learners use the name, they've used it for clarity even though it's not there. In any case, the page under discussion isn't one of the,


Last edited by imasoftov on Wed, Aug 16 2017, 3:24 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

marina




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Aug 14 2017, 2:38 pm
Can you imagine if someone in the gemara wrote, " hey, say the Satmar Rebbe and Lubavitcher Rebbe come to town and say who wants to marry me for a day to protect me from sin..." and then we'd be like, hey it was just a hypothetical for the intellectual exercise, don't get all bent out of shape, just like saying Ploni and Ben Ploni.
Back to top

das




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Aug 14 2017, 2:50 pm
marina wrote:
Can you imagine if someone in the gemara wrote, " hey, say the Satmar Rebbe and Lubavitcher Rebbe come to town and say who wants to marry me for a day to protect me from sin..." and then we'd be like, hey it was just a hypothetical for the intellectual exercise, don't get all bent out of shape, just like saying Ploni and Ben Ploni.


You need to stop thinking that our brains think of things in the same way. Lehavdil, take the comic book Tintin, now seen as racist and imperialist. The examples used for their hypothetical scenario doesnt jibe with ur 2017 brain? You'll be seen as backward thinking in 3017.

I know nothing about teh gemara in question. I'm just pointing out that the above comment is nonsensical in historical context.
Back to top

goodmorning




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Aug 14 2017, 3:04 pm
imasoftov wrote:
When learners say "Reuven and Shimon did ..." those names aren't in the Gemara. Let's say they're learning the start of Bava Metzia, they might say "Reuven and Shimon are each holding onto a garment, Reuven says 'I found it' and Shimon says the same thing", but what the first Mishna there says is "Two hold a garment, one of them says 'I found it' and the other says 'I found it'".

The Gemara could have added an exception to the rule about not marrying women in different cities by adding "But what if he's famous? In that case, it's permitted." instead of telling us the names of two rabbis who did it.


Well, there's the Gemara that begins on the bottom of Kesuvos 91b: אמר רמי בר חמא ראובן שמכר שדה לשמעון שלא באחריות ואתא שמעון ומכרה לראובן באחריות

https://www.sefaria.org/Ketubo.....ng=bi
Back to top

imasoftov




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Aug 14 2017, 3:53 pm
goodmorning wrote:
Well, there's the Gemara that begins on the bottom of Kesuvos 91b: אמר רמי בר חמא ראובן שמכר שדה לשמעון שלא באחריות ואתא שמעון ומכרה לראובן באחריות

https://www.sefaria.org/Ketubo.....ng=bi

OK, I will look at all 89 times that the Bavli says "Reuven" and see how many times the name is used as a placeholder and not about the son of Yaakov, the tribe, or someone else by that name. I'll do that instead of Shimon because Rabbi Shimon is the fourth most often mentioned rabbi in the Mishna (that includes "the chachamim"), appearing hundreds of times.
http://drewkaplans.blogspot.co......html

There was also a Tanna named Rabbi Reuven but he doesn't appear very often.

This may take a while.
Back to top

goodmorning




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Aug 14 2017, 4:26 pm
imasoftov wrote:
OK, I will look at all 89 times that the Bavli says "Reuven" and see how many times the name is used as a placeholder and not about the son of Yaakov, the tribe, or someone else by that name. I'll do that instead of Shimon because Rabbi Shimon is the fourth most often mentioned rabbi in the Mishna (that includes "the chachamim"), appearing hundreds of times.
http://drewkaplans.blogspot.co......html

There was also a Tanna named Rabbi Reuven but he doesn't appear very often.

This may take a while.


That depends on whether you are trying to verify the veracity of the statement "Reuven and Shimon ... those names aren't in the Gemara [as generic terms for people]" or counting how many times it's false.
Back to top

goodmorning




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Aug 14 2017, 4:29 pm
(But here's another, and it gets Levi in there too. Gittin 82b: בא ראובן וקידשה חוץ משמעון ובא שמעון וקידשה חוץ מראובן ומתו שניהם מתיבמת ללוי ואין אני קורא בה אשת שני מתים

https://www.sefaria.org/Gittin.82b?lang=bi)
Back to top

PinkFridge




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Aug 14 2017, 6:00 pm
marina wrote:
Can you imagine if someone in the gemara wrote, " hey, say the Satmar Rebbe and Lubavitcher Rebbe come to town and say who wants to marry me for a day to protect me from sin..." and then we'd be like, hey it was just a hypothetical for the intellectual exercise, don't get all bent out of shape, just like saying Ploni and Ben Ploni.


Yeah, but consider the source. This isn't some random blogger or creative midrashist writing this.
The idea is that sometimes there are hypothetical discussions with practical applications. If using real names of people of stature are necessary for said discussion, then those names will be used.
Disclaimer: I haven't studied the gemara in question, the back and forth here, links, etc. But this is a mehalech that makes sense to me.
Back to top

cbsp




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Aug 14 2017, 7:41 pm
imasoftov wrote:
When learners say "Reuven and Shimon did ..." those names aren't in the Gemara. Let's say they're learning the start of Bava Metzia, they might say "Reuven and Shimon are each holding onto a garment, Reuven says 'I found it' and Shimon says the same thing", but what the first Mishna there says is "Two hold a garment, one of them says 'I found it' and the other says 'I found it'".




After finishing Yevamos with Daf Yomi my husband quipped "now I know why we read on Simchas Torah so many times 'Yechi Reuven v-al yamus' (from vZos Habrachah) - he keeps dying all through Yevamos!"
Back to top

marina




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Aug 15 2017, 8:05 am
das wrote:
You need to stop thinking that our brains think of things in the same way. Lehavdil, take the comic book Tintin, now seen as racist and imperialist. The examples used for their hypothetical scenario doesnt jibe with ur 2017 brain? You'll be seen as backward thinking in 3017.

I know nothing about teh gemara in question. I'm just pointing out that the above comment is nonsensical in historical context.


sure. if you see this gemara as reflecting the patriarchal norms of its times, there is really no problem.

if you view the gemara as part of Torah which guides us forever, then yeah it's a problem
Back to top

penguin




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Aug 15 2017, 11:24 am
Quote:
sure. if you see this gemara as reflecting the patriarchal norms of its times, there is really no problem.

if you view the gemara as part of Torah which guides us forever, then yeah it's a problem
I see it as both, no contradiction.

The Torah guides us forever. All our modern day halachic works are based on the Gemara, as interpreted and applied to new problems (such as electricity) by Rishonim, Acharonim, and present day scholars. However, the Gemara itself reflects the norms of its times, therefore I don't need to get insulted or disturbed by the way in which ideas are expressed.

Works for me.
Back to top

mommy3b2c




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Aug 15 2017, 11:34 am
penguin wrote:
Quote:
sure. if you see this gemara as reflecting the patriarchal norms of its times, there is really no problem.

if you view the gemara as part of Torah which guides us forever, then yeah it's a problem
I see it as both, no contradiction.

The Torah guides us forever. All our modern day halachic works are based on the Gemara, as interpreted and applied to new problems (such as electricity) by Rishonim, Acharonim, and present day scholars. However, the Gemara itself reflects the norms of its times, therefore I don't need to get insulted or disturbed by the way in which ideas are expressed.

Works for me.


Same here.
Back to top

PurpleandGold




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Aug 15 2017, 12:00 pm
My husband once read to me from a sefer by a late Achron (think Chofetz Chaim's time period) that smoking is wonderful for the lungs and general health! And this is definitely a posek who authored sefarim that we rely on for current halachik decisions. The fact that accurate scientific knowledge about smoking had not yet reached his area of Europe doesn't disqualify this posek's Talmudic logic from influencing our halachik mesorah.

When I come across disturbing gemarah passages that objectify women, I think "Wow, what a time period for women. The world went through so much tragedy and human suffering to get to the point we are today, when thank God women (and dark skinned people, and servants, etc) have more respect and dignity.". But the halacha derived from the scenario is still relevant, and can be applied to more contemporary circumstances.

It all goes back to the sin of Adam and Chava, when the world was plunged from light to darkness, and everything appears the opposite of what it seems. And there will be 6000 years of suffering as the world's consciousness evolves, with confusion regarding the most important aspects of life. True Torah perspective on s-xuality is certainly one man and one woman in a loving, respectful relationship, as Adam and Chava were originally created. And thank God we are closer to the time period of truth!
Back to top

imasoftov




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Aug 16 2017, 3:26 am
goodmorning wrote:
Well, there's the Gemara that begins on the bottom of Kesuvos 91b: אמר רמי בר חמא ראובן שמכר שדה לשמעון שלא באחריות ואתא שמעון ומכרה לראובן באחריות

https://www.sefaria.org/Ketubo.....ng=bi

After running a search on two different copies of the Gemara, I have amended my previous post, but not my objection to the idea that rabbis whose names are given are placeholder names like Reuven and Shimon.
Back to top
Page 8 of 8   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Judaism

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Bright child struggling with Gemara
by amother
13 Mon, Nov 13 2023, 6:39 am View last post
by SYA
Apraxia and Gemara
by miami85
11 Wed, Sep 20 2023, 11:21 am View last post
Dr Richard Notto - I am quite disturbed
by amother
28 Fri, Aug 11 2023, 6:17 am View last post