Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«3 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Mors Rattus
Oct 25, 2007

FATAL & Friends
Walls of Text
#1 Builder
2014-2018


Tias posted:

If this is too weird just say so, but.. Are there arguments that making golems aren't dangerous?

Well, sort of. Making golems is a holy and righteous act, because you are trying to act in a manner similar to God.

Making golems is a dangerous and potentially blasphemous act, because you are trying to be like God.

Golems are not inherently dangerous because of what they are - the Golem of Prague's dangers vary depending on the version of the story, but the act of creating a golem is dangerous not because of the golem itself, but because you are performing the symbolic role of God in creating man from dust. If you aren't extremely holy and pious yourself, and if you aren't approaching it in the proper mindset of humility and the idea that God is acting through you, rather than you commanding miracles, that's the real problem.

e: like, the Golem of Prague, it should be understood, is essentially a positive being, and a golem made by a sufficiently holy person with a sufficiently holy mindset is not inherently a problem and would not be especially dangerous. At least, not moreso than making a human.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Tias
May 25, 2008

Deyr fe,
deyja fraendr,
deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn,
at aldrei deyr:
domr um daudan hvern.


Read up on the golem of Prague and uh, that's some bad rear end poo poo.

This part of the wiki is particularly neat:

quote:

Some Orthodox Jews believe that the Maharal did actually create a golem. The evidence for this belief has been analyzed from an Orthodox Jewish perspective by Shnayer Z. Leiman.

And why wouldn't they? The power of God is the power of God.

I'm trying to get through Leiman's perspective now, but it is dense, drat.

Mors Rattus
Oct 25, 2007

FATAL & Friends
Walls of Text
#1 Builder
2014-2018


Genesis 2:9 posted:

And from the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that was pleasing to the sight and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and bad.



Basically, just taking the stance that the Garden's plants were not [I]created[/I[ late, just, the Garden got planted after plants were made.

Genesis Rabbah 13:1 posted:

Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai Said: Three things are of equal importance, and these are them: earth, humankind, and rain. Rabbi Levi Bar Hiyya said: And these three are from three letters, to teach you that if there's no earth there's no rain, and if there's no rain there's no earth, and without either of them there's no humankind.

I'm not sure what relevance this has.



Just some vocab here.

Genesis 2:10-11 posted:

A river issues from Eden to water the garden, and it then divides and becomes four branches.
The name of the first is Pishon, the one that winds through the whole land of Havilah, where the gold is.



So we get some cross-referencing with verses from Habbakuk and Isaiah here, which is mostly notable because no one ever talks about the Book of Habbakuk, what with him being one of the most minor minor prophets. Genesis Rabbah gives us...

Genesis Rabbah 16:2 posted:

“The name of one is Pishon…” (Bereshit 2:11) This is Migdal Pishtan and its waters flow abundantly. “…that is the one that encompasses all the land of Havilah…” (ibid.) There was not yet a place called Havilah, and it says that the river encompasses it? That is strange! Rather, “tell the end from the beginning…” (Yeshayahu 46:10) “…where there is gold,” (Bereshit 2:11) gold there certainly was. “And the gold of that land is good…” (Bereshit 2:12) R’ Yitzchak said ‘happy is he in whose house it is, happy is he in whose company it is.’ R’ Abahu said ‘the Holy One gave a great good to His world – a man breaks a gold piece into smaller pieces, and he can buy many things with it.’ Resh Lakish said ‘the world was not fit to use gold, why was it created? For the Holy Temple, as it says “And the gold of that land is good…” like that which it says “…this good mountain and the Lebanon.” (Devarim 3:25) “…there is the crystal and the onyx stone.” (Bereshit 2:12) R’ Ibo said ‘you think this is referring to the crystal of apothecaries? Let another verse clarify it for you “…and its appearance was like the appearance of crystal.” (Bamidbar 11:7) Just as this refers to a precious stone, so too that refers to a precious stone.’

So basically the argument put forth by Reish Lakish here is that God made the gold of Havilah for use in the Temple, and that's why gold exists and is mentioned here.

Genesis 2:12-13 posted:

(The gold of that land is good; bdellium is there, and lapis lazuli.)
The name of the second river is Gihon, the one that winds through the whole land of Cush.



Vocab! Berakhot is Talmud and...the section on river names doesn't actually talk about the Gihon/Gichon.

Genesis 2:14 posted:

The name of the third river is Tigris, the one that flows east of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.







Berakhot 59b posted:

And Rami bar Abba said that Rav Yitzḥak said: One who sees the Euphrates River near the bridge of Babylonia recites: Blessed…Author of creation. The Gemara adds: And now that the Persians have rerouted the course of the river, one only recites the blessing from Beit Shavor upriver. Downriver, it no longer flows as it did at creation, so there one does not recite the blessing: Author of creation. Rav Yosef said: One only recites the blessing from Ihi Dekira upriver. And Rami bar Abba said: One who sees the Tigris on the bridge of Shabistana recites: Blessed…Author of creation.

The Gemara proceeds to explain the names of these rivers. What is the source of the name Ḥidekel [Tigris]? Rav Ashi said: Its name is an acronym derived from the fact that its waters are sharp [ḥadin] and light [kalin] and therefore good for drinking. What is the source of the name Perat [Euphrates]? It is so named because its waters are fruitful [parin] and multiply [ravin]; there are many fish in it.

As for the Tigris River, Rava said: The inhabitants of the city Meḥoza are sharp because they drink the water of the Tigris; they are red because they engage in conjugal relations in the daytime; and their eyes move constantly because they live in dark houses.

Interesting to see what they thought, given they were very familiar with the area. Ketubot 10b says...

Ketubot 10b posted:

GEMARA: What is the relationship between the term almana and its meaning, widow? Rav Ḥana of Baghdad said: A widow is called an almana after the maneh, one hundred dinars, which is the sum of her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: With regard to a widow from betrothal, whose marriage contract is two hundred dinars and not a maneh, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Since they called this widow from marriage almana, this widow from betrothal they also called almana.

The Gemara asks: That explains the use of almana in the terminology of the Sages. However, with regard to the term almana that is written in the Torah, what is there to say? The rabbinic ordinance that the marriage contract of a widow is a maneh was not yet instituted. The Gemara answers: The Torah employs the term almana because the Sages are destined to institute the sum of a maneh for her in her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: And is a verse written for the future? The Gemara answers: Yes, indeed it is, as it is written: “And the name of the third river is Tigris; that is it which goes toward the east of Asshur” (Genesis 2:14). And Rav Yosef taught: Asshur, that is Seleucia. And did that city exist when the Torah was written? Rather, the Torah is referring to that city because it was destined to exist in the future. Here too, the Torah employs the term almana because a widow was destined to have a marriage contract of a maneh instituted for her.

'The Torah does not need to ignore things that didn't exist at the time the events it is describing took place' seems relatively normal, IMO. Like, they're going to refer to Assur/Assyria and Cush because those are useful geographic markers for their intended original audience, even though the Creation well predates those places. Genesis Rabbah 16, except for Verse 2 above, is untranslated.



Vocab.

Mors Rattus
Oct 25, 2007

FATAL & Friends
Walls of Text
#1 Builder
2014-2018


Genesis 2:15 posted:

The LORD God took the man and placed him in the garden of Eden, to till it and tend it.



Genesis Rabbah 16:3 is untranslated, but essentially it seems to be that Rashi is saying God didn't teleport Adam into Eden, but rather asked him nicely to go in and he did.

Genesis 2:16-18 posted:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat;
but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for as soon as you eat of it, you shall die.”
The LORD God said, “It is not good for man to be alone; I will make a fitting helper for him.”



The Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer is a work by an Italian rabbi somewhere in the 700s or 800s, traditionally held to originate far earlier in the writings of R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and his disciples, from 100-200 CE.

Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer 12 posted:

ADAM IN PARADISE
WITH love abounding did the Holy One, blessed be He, love the first man, inasmuch as He created him in a pure locality, in the place of the Temple, and He brought him into His palace, as it is said, "And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it" (Gen. 2:15). From which place did He take him? From the place of the Temple, and He brought him into His palace, which is Eden, as it is said, "And he put him into the garden of Eden to dress it" (ibid.). Perhaps thou wilt say: To plough (the fields) and cast out the stones from the ground. But did not all the trees grow up of their own accord?

Perhaps thou wilt say: There was some other work (to be done) in the garden of Eden, (such as) to water the garden. But did not a river flow through and issue forth from Eden, and water the garden, as it is said, || "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden" (Gen. 2:10)?

What then is the meaning of this expression: "to dress it and to keep it"? (The text) does not say "to dress it and to keep it" except (in the sense) of being occupied with the words of the Torah and keeping all its commandments, as it is said, "to keep the way of the tree of life" (Gen. 3:24). But the "tree of life" signifies only the Torah, as it is said, "It is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon it" (Prov. 3:18).

And (Adam) was at his leisure in the garden of Eden, like one of the ministering angels. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: I am alone in My world and this one (Adam) also is alone in his world. There is no propagation before Me and this one (Adam) has no propagation in his life; hereafter all the creatures will say: Since there was no propagation in his life, it is he who has created us. It is not good for man to be alone, as it is said, "And the Lord God said, It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him an help meet for him …" (Gen. 2:18).

Rabbi Jehudah said: If he be worthy she shall be an help meet for him; if not, she shall be against him to fight him.

So, basically, God decides that Adam must be able to have sex and procreate to distinguish him from God, who does neither thing, that the beasts and plants might not worship Adam.



Yevamot is Talmud.

Yevamot 63a posted:

And Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “I will make him a helpmate for him [kenegdo]” (Genesis 2:18)? If one is worthy his wife helps him; if he is not worthy she is against him. And some say a slightly different version: Rabbi Elazar raised a contradiction: It is written in the Torah with a spelling that allows it to be read: Striking him [kenagdo], and we read it as though it said: For him [kenegdo]. If he is worthy she is for him as his helpmate; if he is not worthy she strikes him.

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yosei encountered Elijah the prophet and said to him: It is written: I will make him a helpmate. In what manner does a woman help a man? Elijah said to him: When a man brings wheat from the field, does he chew raw wheat? When he brings home flax, does he wear unprocessed flax? His wife turns the raw products into bread and clothing. Is his wife not found to be the one who lights up his eyes and stands him on his feet?

The idea that women are the deciders of the worth of men is an interesting one; it is also one which the rabbis seem uninterested in pursuing further, however. Also it's an argument from pun, because we're doing that.

Tias
May 25, 2008

Deyr fe,
deyja fraendr,
deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn,
at aldrei deyr:
domr um daudan hvern.


Mors Rattus posted:

The idea that women are the deciders of the worth of men is an interesting one; it is also one which the rabbis seem uninterested in pursuing further, however.

Incidentally, this point is central to the eddas of norse mythology. Whereas men will pronounce judgment on the worth of men, often it's women who mercilessly taunt and shame folks into following said judgment!

paradoxGentleman
Dec 10, 2013

Goodness no, now that wouldn't do at all!


Hi! First of all, this is very interesting and I can't wait to hear more.
Second of all, there seems to be a problem with the first post. There's a part that goes like this:

ářŕůéú ářŕ IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED

I take it those are supposed to be the original letters and they didn't register properly for some reason?

Mors Rattus
Oct 25, 2007

FATAL & Friends
Walls of Text
#1 Builder
2014-2018


paradoxGentleman posted:

Hi! First of all, this is very interesting and I can't wait to hear more.
Second of all, there seems to be a problem with the first post. There's a part that goes like this:

ářŕůéú ářŕ IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED

I take it those are supposed to be the original letters and they didn't register properly for some reason?

Yeah, the Hebrew got hosed by the forum, so after the first post I switched to screenshots.

Posts likely to start again tomorrow, my transition to work from home was not smooth but I’ve finally gotten a work space separated from my normal life space.

Mors Rattus
Oct 25, 2007

FATAL & Friends
Walls of Text
#1 Builder
2014-2018


Genesis 2:19 posted:

And the LORD God formed out of the earth all the wild beasts and all the birds of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that would be its name.



So first, we reconcile the fact that birds are stated in one place to be made from waters and another to be made from earth: swamps, which are both. Regarding their naming, we turn to Talmud...

Chullin 27b posted:

The Gemara relates an excerpt of an exchange between a Roman government official and Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. And furthermore, the official asked Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai: One verse states: “And God said: Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creeping animals, and birds will fly” (Genesis 1:20); apparently birds were created from the water. And it is written: “And from the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the air and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them” (Genesis 2:19); apparently birds were created from the land.

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to him: They were created from the mud. He saw his students looking at each other, wondering. He said to them: Does it trouble you that I dismissed my enemy with a flimsy pretext? Actually, it is from water that birds were created. And why does the verse state that they were formed from the ground and that God brought them to Adam? In other words, why are they mentioned in the second verse? It is not because they were actually formed from the ground, but only because they were brought to Adam so that he would call them names.

And some say that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai spoke to that officer with a different formulation, i.e., he said to him that the birds were created from the water. And he stated the first formulation, that the birds were created from the mud, to his students, because it is written: “And from the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the air” (Genesis 2:19). According to this explanation, the birds are mentioned there not only because Adam called them names, but also because they too were created from the ground.

So here we get a bit of reasoning on why anyone cared about the mud: it was R. Yohanan ben Zakkai defeating a Roman official in debate by dismissing a gotcha question. Now, the question as to whether this apparent contradiction of earth and ground even matters is left open by Chullin, which provides two contradictory stories about whether or not it really mattered. Rashi supports the second formulation, it appears. Meanwhile, in Genesis Rabbah...

Genesis Rabbah 17:4-5 posted:

... Said R’ Acha: In the hour that the Holy One came to create the human, He ruled [together] with the ministering angels. He said to them: “Let us make a human [in our image]”. They said to him: This one, what good is he? He said: His wisdom is greater than yours. He (God) brought before them beast and animal and bird. He said to them:

This one, what is his name? and they didn’t know. He made them pass before Adam. He said to him: This one, what is his name? [Adam] said: This is ox/shor, and this is donkey/chamor and this is horse/sus and this is camel/gamal. And you, [He said], what is your name? [Adam] said to him: I? It would be right/yafeh to be called Adam, since I was created from the ground/adamah. And I, [God said], what is my name? He said to him: It would be right for you to be called my Lord /Adonai, since you are lord/adon to all the creatures.

So I can't see the part Rashi is referring to, which is probably just not translated, but we find God showing the wisdom of Adam by having him name the beasts, himself and God. (Well, giving God one of His names, anyway. There are so many! This one's not even the most important one.)



And this appears to just be an explanation that the names Adam gave the animals are their eternal, true names, which is to say, in Hebrew.

Genesis 2:20 posted:

And the man gave names to all the cattle and to the birds of the sky and to all the wild beasts; but for Adam no fitting helper was found.



This is, sadly, another part of Genesis Rabbah 17:4 that is untranslated.

Genesis 2:21 posted:

So the LORD God cast a deep sleep upon the man; and, while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot.



Some interesting vocab: the word used is "side" rather than "rib," taken literally. And the rabbis in the Talmud do not assume it means rib. As we see in the cite:

Eruvin 18a-b posted:

Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar also said: Adam was first created with two [deyo] faces, one male and the other female. As it is stated: “You have formed me behind and before, and laid Your hand upon me” (Psalms 139:5). Similarly, it is written: “And the tzela, which the Lord, God, had taken from the man, He made a woman, and brought her unto the man” (Genesis 2:22). Rav and Shmuel disagree over the meaning of the word tzela: One said: It means a female face, from which God created Eve; and one said: Adam was created with a tail [zanav], which God removed from him and from which He created Eve.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that tzela means face; it is understandable that it is written: “You have formed me [tzartani] behind and before.” However, according to the one who says that tzela means tail, what is meant by the verse: “You have formed me [tzartani] behind and before”?

The Gemara answers that this verse is to be understood as bearing a moral message, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami said: Behind means Adam was created at the end of the act of creation; and before means that he was first for punishment.

The Gemara asks: Granted, it is understandable that Adam was behind, or last, in the act of creation, meaning that he was not created until the sixth day, Shabbat eve. However, before, or first, for punishment, what does this mean? If you say that he was punished first because of the curse pronounced in the wake of the sin involving the Tree of Knowledge, there is a difficulty. Wasn’t the snake was cursed first, and afterward Eve was cursed, and only at the end was Adam cursed?

Rather, this refers to the punishment of the Flood, as it is written: “And He blotted out every living substance which was upon the face of the ground, both man and cattle, creeping things and fowl of the heaven” (Genesis 7:23). This indicates that the punishment began with man.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was originally a face or side of Adam; it is understandable that it is written: “Then the Lord God formed [vayyitzer] man” (Genesis 2:7). Vayyitzer is written with a double yod, one for Adam and one for Eve. However, according to the one who said that Eve was created from a tail, what is conveyed by spelling vayyitzer with a double yod?

The Gemara responds: This is interpreted homiletically, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, as Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said: This comes to emphasize that which one says to himself in every circumstance: Woe unto me from my evil inclination [yetzer] if I perform the will of my Maker, and woe to me from my Maker [Yotzri] if I perform the will of my inclination.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was a face, it is understanable that it is written: “Male and female, He created them, and blessed them, and called their name Man in the day when they were created” (Genesis 5:2), which indicates that from the very beginning of their creation, He fashioned two faces, one for the male and the other for the female. However, according to the one who said that Eve was created from a tail, what is the meaning of the verse: “Male and female, He created them”?

The Gemara answers: It can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu raised a contradiction between the verses: On the one hand it is written: “Male and female, He created them,” in the plural, and on the other hand it is written: “So God created man in His own image, for in the image of God He created him” (Genesis 1:27), in the singular. At first, the thought entered God’s mind to create two, and ultimately, only one was actually created.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was a face, it is understandable that it is written: “And He took one of his sides and closed up the flesh in its place” (Genesis 2:21). However, according to the one who said that Eve was created from a tail, what is meant by the verse: “And He closed up the flesh in its place”?

Rav Zevid said, and some say it was Rabbi Yirmeya, and some say it was Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: It was necessary to say that the fleshed closed up only with regard to the place of the incision.

The Gemara challenges the other opinion: Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was created from a tail; it is understandable that it is written: “And the Lord God built the tzela” (Genesis 2:22), as it was a completely new building. However, according to the one who said that Eve was a complete face or side, what is the meaning of: “And He built”? What needed to be built?

The Gemara responds: This must be interpreted homiletically, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, as Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya interpreted homiletically the verse: “And the Lord God built the tzela.” This verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, braided for Eve her hair, and then brought her to Adam, as in the coastal towns, they call braiding hair building.

Alternatively, the verse: “And the Lord God built,” can be understood as a description of Eve’s basic shape, as Rav Ḥisda said, and some say it is taught in a baraita: This verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, built Eve like the structure

of a storehouse. Just as a storehouse is built wide on the bottom and narrow on top, in order to hold produce without collapsing, so too a woman is created wide on the bottom and narrow on top, in order to hold the fetus.

The Gemara cites an exposition of the end of the previously cited verse: “And brought her unto the man” (Genesis 2:22). This verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, was Adam the first man’s best man, attending to all his wedding needs and bringing his wife to him. From here we learn that a greater individual should serve as a best man for a lesser individual and should not feel bad about it as something beneath his dignity.

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that Eve was a face or side of Adam, which one of them walked in front? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is reasonable to say that the male walked in front, as this is proper behavior, as it was taught in a baraita: A man should not walk behind a woman on a path, even if she is his wife. If she happens upon him on a bridge, he should walk quickly in order to catch up to her and consequently move her to his side, so that she will not walk before him. And anyone who walks behind a woman in a river, where she has to lift up her skirt in order to cross, has no share in the World-to-Come.

At which point we get sidetracked into arguments over how one should treat women with money and whether it is ever acceptable to walk behind a woman. This takes up a lot of space. But the important thing to me is that the rib idea appears to be a wholly later invention. The second, female face and the tail are both older ones, and the ones which the Talmudic rabbis were more concerned with. Symbolically, I favor the face, because I believe it creates a greater argument towards symbolic equality, which is an important thing to be able to argue from.



I can't find any reference in the cite to whatever Rashi is talking about here. Berakhot 62b is primarily concerned with pooping etiquette, the threat of toilet demons and the places where you are and are not allowed to spit.



Sanhedrin 39a posted:

The Roman emperor said to Rabban Gamliel: Your God is a thief, as it is written: “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man and he slept; and He took one of his sides, and closed up the place with flesh instead” (Genesis 2:21). The daughter of the emperor said to Rabban Gamliel: Leave him, as I will respond to him. She said to her father: Provide one commander [dukhus] for me to avenge someone’s wrongdoing. The emperor said to her: Why do you need him? She said to him: Armed bandits came to us this past night, and took a silver jug [kiton] from us, and left a golden jug for us. The emperor said to her: If so, would it be that armed bandits such as these would come to us every day. She said to him: And was it not similarly good for Adam the first man that God took a side from him and gave him a maidservant to serve him?

The emperor said to her: This is what I was saying: But if it is good for Adam, let God take his side from him in the open, not during the time of his deep sleep, like a thief. She said to him: Bring me a slice of raw meat. They brought it to her. She placed it under the embers, and removed it after it was roasted. She said to him: Eat from this meat. The emperor said to her: It is repulsive to me. Although he knew that this is how meat is prepared, seeing the raw meat made it repulsive to him. She said to him: With regard to Adam the first man as well, had God taken her from him in the open, she would have been repulsive to him. Therefore God acted while Adam was asleep.

This is the start of a series of stories about R. Gamliel owning the emperor. This time, however, he gets his rear end owned by his own daughter. I have no idea why the emperor's daughter is a scholar or interested in helping R. Gamliel explain theology to the Roman emperor, but I like her!

MollyMetroid
Jan 20, 2004

Trout Clan Daimyo


Probably was Emperor Tedius.

She was just sick of his poo poo.

A Wild Animal
Dec 20, 2019

by LITERALLY AN ADMIN


I would like to hear more about the Karaites. During the Shoah, they successfully argued to the Nazis that they were not Jewish; and thus escaped the Genocide that claimed so many of the Jews of Crimea. Yet I understand that the Karaim are considered Jewish by most other Jewish Groups. This is all that I know of their culture, and it is a Fascination.

A Wild Animal fucked around with this message at 05:41 on May 8, 2020

toplitzin
Jun 13, 2003


A Wild Animal posted:

I would like to hear more about the Karaites. During the Shoah, they successfully argued to the Nazis that they were not Jewish; and thus escaped the Genocide that claimed so many of the Jews of Crimea. Yet I understand that the Karaim are considered Jewish by most other Jewish Groups. This is all that I know of their culture, and it is a Fascination.

If you smelled of Jew in the Shoah you were gone.

I think I recall they argued with the Tsar that they weren't the Jews that killed Jesus. As a result they got to survive unmolested/avoid the pogrom for longer in Russia.

toplitzin fucked around with this message at 14:03 on May 9, 2020

Mors Rattus
Oct 25, 2007

FATAL & Friends
Walls of Text
#1 Builder
2014-2018


I'll be trying to get this going again, hellworld has...not made it easy to want to sit down and type a lot.

The big difference is that the Karaim accept only the Written Law - that is, the actual text of the Torah - and not the Oral Law that accompanies it and makes up quite a lot of Jewish tradition. They also aim for the most clear, obvious and literal meaning of the Written Law as possible, whereas other Jewish traditions will do things like say 'okay so this whole kid and its mother's milk thing comes up three times without context, it clearly has to mean something besides the literal.' The Karaim also reject rabbinical authority, and believe it is the duty of every person to study Torah individually and reach their own decision on its meaning.

They still accept the idea of interpretation and interpretative halakha, but only if it agrees with the straightforward meaning of the Law. They are on some matters stricter in general than other Jews and in some matters more lenient. The fact that their practice and tradition are in many ways quite different is one way they were able to convince people they were a different religion in order to escape some oppressions; it didn't always work, but you can't really blame them for trying. (They also track birth Judaism patrilineally rather than matrilineally.)

E: The status of Karaites as Jews or not is also, sadly, a matter of debate in Israel these days, from what I've found. A number of Orthodox rabbis want to argue that they don't count as Jews; the Karaites in Israel disagree.

Mors Rattus fucked around with this message at 14:22 on May 9, 2020

Mr Enderby
Mar 28, 2015



Really enjoying this thread.

Can you explain what the status is of this commentary in modern Judaism? For example, would any rabbinical Jew accept these commentaries as part of their tradition? Or would certain denominations (might not be the right word) favour certain early Rabbis and disagree with others?

Also, do we have any surviving commentary from before the destruction of the second temple?

lifg
Dec 4, 2000
The Young Turks committed the Armenian Genocide.


Muldoon

Mors Rattus posted:

The big difference is that the Karaim accept only the Written Law - that is, the actual text of the Torah - and not the Oral Law that accompanies it and makes up quite a lot of Jewish tradition. They also aim for the most clear, obvious and literal meaning of the Written Law as possible, whereas other Jewish traditions will do things like say 'okay so this whole kid and its mother's milk thing comes up three times without context, it clearly has to mean something besides the literal.'

What do they think of "God created man in his own image"?

A Wild Animal
Dec 20, 2019

by LITERALLY AN ADMIN


Mors Rattus posted:

I'll be trying to get this going again, hellworld has...not made it easy to want to sit down and type a lot.

The big difference is that the Karaim accept only the Written Law - that is, the actual text of the Torah - and not the Oral Law that accompanies it and makes up quite a lot of Jewish tradition. They also aim for the most clear, obvious and literal meaning of the Written Law as possible, whereas other Jewish traditions will do things like say 'okay so this whole kid and its mother's milk thing comes up three times without context, it clearly has to mean something besides the literal.' The Karaim also reject rabbinical authority, and believe it is the duty of every person to study Torah individually and reach their own decision on its meaning.

They still accept the idea of interpretation and interpretative halakha, but only if it agrees with the straightforward meaning of the Law. They are on some matters stricter in general than other Jews and in some matters more lenient. The fact that their practice and tradition are in many ways quite different is one way they were able to convince people they were a different religion in order to escape some oppressions; it didn't always work, but you can't really blame them for trying. (They also track birth Judaism patrilineally rather than matrilineally.)
Thank You for this Explanation. The Jewish Peoples of the Caucasus have been so nearly forgotten; it is reassuring that Some still remember their Cultures; for Judaism is not just one Way, but a Myriad of Ways that add up to Oneness. Do you know, how are Young Karaim taught to interpret the Torah, if not by a Rabbi?

quote:

E: The status of Karaites as Jews or not is also, sadly, a matter of debate in Israel these days, from what I've found. A number of Orthodox rabbis want to argue that they don't count as Jews; the Karaites in Israel disagree.
Orthodox Rabbis can be Full Of poo poo at some times; they are just as prone as non-Rabbis to Madnesses; and Petty Prejudices.

Mors Rattus
Oct 25, 2007

FATAL & Friends
Walls of Text
#1 Builder
2014-2018


lifg posted:

What do they think of "God created man in his own image"?

They take the Law by its most obvious and literal interpretation, but that doesn’t mean they have to do so with the non-halakhic parts. Their focus on individual reading makes it hard to generalize, tho, and I’ve never met a Karaite in person.

I also don’t know a ton about who they turn to for teaching.

For more modern commentaries you probably want to ask Wren, but I’ve personally never seen a Tanakh that didn’t include a Rashi.

Talmud predates the second temple falling, so we definitely have pre-Second Temple Destruction stuff, and a lot of it.

Lutha Mahtin
Oct 10, 2010

My rampant shitposting has broke my brain beyond repair. I have no redeemable qualities and wish to be put out of my shitposting misery for good. TIA!

Mors Rattus posted:

I'll be trying to get this going again, hellworld has...not made it easy to want to sit down and type a lot.

The big difference is that the Karaim accept only the Written Law - that is, the actual text of the Torah - and not the Oral Law that accompanies it and makes up quite a lot of Jewish tradition. They also aim for the most clear, obvious and literal meaning of the Written Law as possible, whereas other Jewish traditions will do things like say 'okay so this whole kid and its mother's milk thing comes up three times without context, it clearly has to mean something besides the literal.' The Karaim also reject rabbinical authority, and believe it is the duty of every person to study Torah individually and reach their own decision on its meaning.

They still accept the idea of interpretation and interpretative halakha, but only if it agrees with the straightforward meaning of the Law. They are on some matters stricter in general than other Jews and in some matters more lenient. The fact that their practice and tradition are in many ways quite different is one way they were able to convince people they were a different religion in order to escape some oppressions; it didn't always work, but you can't really blame them for trying. (They also track birth Judaism patrilineally rather than matrilineally.)

E: The status of Karaites as Jews or not is also, sadly, a matter of debate in Israel these days, from what I've found. A number of Orthodox rabbis want to argue that they don't count as Jews; the Karaites in Israel disagree.

imo this would be a lot easier and clearer if you just did the most basic explanation of the term "rabbinical judaism"

sinnesloeschen
Jun 4, 2011


Jess's election will be the *crack ping* heard around the world.






lmao


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5EmnQp3V48

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

A Wild Animal
Dec 20, 2019

by LITERALLY AN ADMIN


toplitzin posted:

If you smelled of Jew in the Shoah you were gone.

I think I recall they argued with the Tsar that they weren't the Jews that killed Jesus. As a result they got to survive unmolested/avoid the pogrom for longer in Russia.
That was the Tsar, many years before the Holocaust. To the Nazis they made the Argument that they were not Jewish; but instead followed a Mosaic Faith of many cultures, and were the descendants of ethnic Tatars and Khazars who had converted to Judaism; thus they survived, long enough at least to flee the Crucible of Europe to safety else where.

The Krymchaks, their Brothers, attempted this same Argument, but un successfully, and were slaughtered almost in their Entirety; as were the Ashkenazim of the Krym Peninsula. The few Krymchaks who survived with out Migration did so by joining the Red Army, escaping the Nazis by facing them directly in Battle. Upon returning to Krym, their Claim of Tatar Ancestry - not accepted by the Nazis - was unfortunately accepted by the Soviets; this new Tyranny was deporting all Tatars of Krym because they were believed to be Nazi Collaborators; and so the Krymchaks, who had claimed to be Tatars only to avoid the Nazis, and who had been obliterated by the Nazis, returned from serving with the Red Army against the Nazis to find them selves exiled to the Deserts of Uzbekistan for being Nazis. Many Hundreds died in this Exile; a large proportion of those who had escaped the Holocaust; a further blow to a people already on the Verge of Extinction.

Such is the Krymchak Life.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«3 »