1 Wife...

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Simon the Arborist	1 Wife...	Lead	[-]
Posts: 37 (11/25/08 09:52:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : None Hi All, Just wondering if you can help me with this. I was wondering about the origins of having only one wife. The way I understand it is that some Jews adopted this practice at some time in order to get along better with other cultures (possibly xian ones) whilst others in countries (possibly Arab) where permitted to have more that one wife. As far as I'm aware Torah does not forbid a man from having more than one wife, is it an xian thing? Are there people in Israel today with more than one wife? Well wishes, Simon.
Rabbi Daniel		#1	[-]
Posts: 2507 (11/25/08 13:47:15) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	While our Torah does allow us to have more than one wife we see from our Torah personalities that that never really was the practice. About 1000 years ago Sage named Rabbi Gershom made a rabbinic edict actually forbidding a second wife which was accepted by the whole of European/Ashkenazic Jewry. By that time, however, there were long established, yet very distant Jewish communities in remote Arabic lands which were virtually cut off from the rest of the Jewish world. They did hear about the edict and were not bound to it. As I understand it, when the state of Israel extracted these Jewish communities out from their hostile host countries, there were a small number of men who had more than one wife. Why does D.C. spend gazillions looking for intelligent life in space? Because all the unintelligent positions have been taken.
Simon the Arborist		#2	[-]
Posts: 38 (11/25/08 17:14:40) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Rabbi Daniel, As always I am greatful for your answer(s). Any idea why Rabbi Gershom made the edict and what it was based on? I presume that before the "1000 years" it was OK to have more than 1 wife. I've not been on this site for a while and trust you are well. Many thanks to all of you for doing such a good job. Well wishes, Simon.
Rabbi Daniel		#3	[-]
Posts: 2508 (11/26/08 00:34:56) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Great point/question. I shouldn't have left that open for misinterpretation. Rabbi Gershom lived most of his life in Maintz, Germany [although born in france, 940-1040]. Maintz would eventually be wiped out by the Crusades. While those murderous rampages were not premised on the blood libels, I would argue that the 'other' murderous rampages which WERE premised on the blood libels show that the truth and reality of Jewish law was not a necessary ingredient in how we "got along" with other cultures. We Jews at large, [the religious ones,] and certainly our most wise know that ONLY our adherence to Torah gives us a chance of survival with the "other cultures." Bending Jewish law to make others happy will only brings us trouble. Even if those two don't do it for you, Rabbi Gershom enacted many edicts, the most famous being the aforementioned. Another was that a man could no longer give his wife a divorce without her consent. If Rabbi Gershom was concerned of other cultures he would not have brought Judaism's permission to divorce to the public forum. But wait, there's more. Rabbi Gershom forbade reading mail and messages directed to another person without their permission. That only would wipe out 75% of today's media industry. I also have to imagine, [and I am biased,] such a proclamation might have been appreciated by the Xtian masses but the higher ups, with the power- who used that power to control the masses, would not have smiled favorably on such a declaration. Hoping by now to have clearly shown the irrelevance of other cultures' cultures to Jewish law, so why did Rabbi Gershom make the decree? There's a concept which pervades all of creation called atrophy, degeneration, deterioration, diminution... The farther a thing is from it's source the weaker it becomes. Works with water pressure, air pressure, electric currents, light... and people! Humanity began with Adam and Judaism began [officially] with Mt. Sinai and the farther we get from each the weaker we become. In all faculties and capacities. [The monkeys in the white suits think our predecessors grunted and only now they do the thinking. One year in a Jewish school of higher education would stand up against the accumulated knowledge of 4 years at any university. Anyway...] While we were once able to maintain a proper spiritual and emotional relationship with more than one wife, we no longer could. About 1000 years ago Rabbi Gershom took something little practiced and made it not-in-practice. Similarly diminished was man's capacity to carry the singular vote to end [G-d forbid] a marriage. Again, before the 1000 years it was "ok" but not recommended practice. In 24 books of Jewish tradition, sans the monarchy there was almost no one who had more than one wife. Why does D.C. spend gazillions looking for intelligent life in space? Because all the unintelligent positions have been taken. Last Edited By: Rabbi Daniel 11/26/08 00:56:36. Edited 1 times.
ProfBenTziyyon		#4	[-]
Posts: 1471 (11/26/08 02:57:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	B'réshιt 2:24 reads עַל־כֵּן֙ יַֽעֲזָב־אִ֔ישׁ אֶת־אָבִ֖יו וְאֶת־אִמּ֑וֹ וְדָבַ֣ק בְּאִשְׁתּ֔וֹ וְהָי֖וּ לְבָשָׂ֥ר אֶחָֽד׃ Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife and they shall become one flesh. Rashi: When they mate and the female becomes pregnant, the fœtus is formed from both their bodies and in the child their flesh becomes one. [from Treatise Sanhedrin, folio 58a] The major commentators all point out that God decreed a man should "leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife" - NOT "to his wives". I would suggest that in earlier times polygyny (but never polyandry) was tolerated as a matter of necessity due to the much higher mortality rate among males as compared with females because of losses in warfare, hunting accidents etc - otherwise there would have been an unacceptably high frequency of females without any partner. However, just because polygyny was tolerated does not mean it was widely practised and, in any case, the Torah only permitted a man to have multiple wives if he had the means to support them all properly. http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל
Simon the Arborist		#5	[-]
Posts: 39 (11/26/08 03:17:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Rabbi Daniel, Thanks again, I found your answer super, (and even think I understand it :-). I like the atrophy explanation. I was even going to dig a little deeper and ask what that means for gentiles, but if I follow the logic of what you say I come up the the answer... If it's hard enough (now, another 1000 years on) for a Jew (being married to more than one woman), what chance does a gentile have of bringing it off with sucess? By the way, I don't live that far away from Mainz (Germany) would this be the same place? Warm regards, Simon.
Simon the Arborist		#6	[-]
Posts: 40 (11/26/08 04:41:56) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Rabbi Daniel, You've got me thinking now. You said... "There's a concept which pervades all of creation called atrophy, degeneration, deterioration, diminution... The farther a thing is from it's source the weaker it becomes. Works with water pressure, air pressure, electric currents, light... and people! Humanity began with Adam and Judaism began [officially] with Mt. Sinai and the farther we get from each the weaker we become." Having thought about the above, I'm not sure that the concept of atrophy can be applied to Judasim (Now I'm a bit nervous after having said that so I'll explain). I work with trees, they are "autotrophic" basically meaning they feed themselves (and lots of other life forms in the process, they are indeed very "Good for food") If a tree dies atrophy takes over but when living it's almost as if the opposite is going on, the tree is getting stronger. The more water, air and light it absorbs the stronger it gets!!! (and the more it is able to provide for those that depend on it). So back to Judaism, yes it (officially) began with Mt Sinai, but as you point out, that was just the start. At that time something quite wonderful (Torah) was "injected" into it. I put it to you that... as a whole Judaism has not got weaker over the years but (like the tree), STRONGER. If you think about it, at the time the Jewish people didn't exactly show signs of great maturity, even while G-d was talking face to face with Moses. Surely as we enter the time of Massiah (may it come today) Judasim, like the tree, will be even stronger than ever, not weaker? Perhaps I did not understand the point you made about getting further away from Sinai and if so I'm sorry to have bothered you with my waffle, but you did seem to be suggesting that the further we move away from Adam/Sinai the weaker we get. Anyway, time to do some work. Well wishes, Simon
Rabbi Daniel		#7	[-]
Posts: 2509 (11/26/08 18:54:13) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	"I was even going to dig a little deeper and ask... but if I follow the logic... I come up the the answer..." Impressive! That occurs so rarely these days. [i]"I'm not sure that the concept of atrophy can be applied to Judasim."['i] Again, touche. WE JEWS have been getting weaker, in study and observance, ever since Sinai. WE know less than previous generations knew and therefore observe more [added fences and early warning systems] in order to accomplish the same things that earlier generations accomplished with less. A tree strengthening itself in its own growth- as does... every other animate object on the planet- is not a contradiction to saying that trees today are somehow weaker than they were 100, 500, 1000 years ago. Since you're a tree expert, if the first thing Adam did in the garden was cut down a 50 foot ceder, how many rings would he have found? [ProfBenTziyyon, Honest to goodness, I tried releasing your post and it didn't release. Assuming I hit the wrong link I tried it again, more carefully, and it still did not release. I took that as a sign from G-d and have not tried a third time.] Why does D.C. spend gazillions looking for intelligent life in space? Because all the unintelligent positions have been taken.
Rabbi Daniel		#8	[-]
Posts: 2510 (11/26/08 19:01:41) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Seems the glitch was on my end. That being the case: profbentziyyon wrote, "I would suggest that in earlier times polygyny..." That is a very practical, logical and common misconception. G-d does always have our best interests in mind so it should be no wonder that many mitsvos have many physical, emotional and practical benefits that accompany their observance. But those should never be misconstrued as reasons for the mitsva. Please let's not let cross talk interfere with the flow of this thread. Why does D.C. spend gazillions looking for intelligent life in space? Because all the unintelligent positions have been taken.
Simon the Arborist		#9	[-]
Posts: 42 (11/27/08 03:53:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Rabbi Daniel, Ah the cross talk... As you'll see below I've done by best to keep all three balls up in the air at the same time. As for the 1 wife ball... What about Jacob and the 4 mothers of not an insignificant number of his children? Have there been any other examples of (Jewish) men with more that one wife? Now comes the getting stronger ball... You said... "WE JEWS have been getting weaker, in study and observance, ever since Sinai." I can understand that divisions may have come between you since then (Sinai) and could well of caused you as a people to be weaker as a result. However when those divisions are removed and you become united again I personally think you will be much stronger. Surely your ability to "accomplish the same things that earlier generations accomplished", has never changed. (I'm thinking that because it has always been G-ds hand at work and that your strength and ability has always come through Him) So what about that tree ball? (I almost started with this one for obvious reasons) First of all what I find the most interesting is... How on earth did he cut down a 50 foot Cedar tree? I've cut a few trees down in my time but have always used tools, and you say that the trees where stronger back then? the mind boggles. Did he have a sharp tongue? As for the rings... As far as I understand it there would have been no "rings" only 1 big ring. As there where no seasonal changes at the time the tree would have been in a state of constant growth. It is the fluctuation of the seasons that give us the rings we know today. So much so that in many cases it's possible to date the time of a trees death (or serious injury) to within a few weeks by analysing the size and development of the cells within and individual growth ring. Well wishes, Simon. PS... I'm not sure if the above wasn't more like cross fire than cross talk, I hope you'll be able to make something of it.
Rabbi Daniel		#10	[-]
Posts: 2511 (11/28/08 00:49:39) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Thanks Simon, [I did a better job of cutting out the cross talk. ;)] Ball #1. "As for the 1 wife ball... What about Jacob and the 4 mothers of not an insignificant number of his children? Have there been any other examples of (Jewish) men with more that one wife?" I did not to say "You will NEVER find a case of polygamy..." I thought I was stating how very few times we see it occurring. Because it was permissible but was not encouraged. Jacob had clearly intended to marry only Rachel but he ended up married to Leah. And so he married Rachel second. When his wives had shown themselves unable to bare children they gave Jacob their maidservants. Something we've already seen by Abraham. Ball #2. "I can understand that divisions... Surely your ability to "accomplish the same things that earlier generations accomplished", has never changed...." I'm not speaking about divisions. I'm speaking about... men compared to angels and donkeys compared to men. Our ability to accomplish has absolutely changed. Big time. Or should I say, SMALL time! We are judged for who we are, when we are. So I do not have to accomplish what they had to accomplish. But there is no comparison. If I see myself as a man, they were like angels back then. If I see them as merely men, then I am a donkey compared to them. We are midgets riding on the shoulders of giants. But if the gold ring is 50 feet away, and first generation giant is only 25 feet tall, and the next generation is 15, and the next is 7 and the next is 3, then it's the 3 footer who grabs the gold ring for everyone. But he cannot begin to compare his accomplishments to those who came before him. That is how so small a generation as ourselves is exactly what we need to reach the ring and bring the Messiah even if the giants before us were not able to bring him. Ball #tree. "As far as I understand it there would have been no "rings" only 1 big ring." Are you understanding what you're understanding. Let's say it would take 50 years to grow a 50 foot ceder. Then Adam would have cut down the tree and found 50 rings. Because G-d created things miraculously as they were to be! Looking normal! Not looking miraculous. There would have been the number of rings you'd normally find in a 50 foot ceder tree. So you're saying the tree would have had one ring BECAUSE after 50 years of unchanging climate such a tree only would have one ring and NOT it was one ring because it grew the day before. Is that right? Why does D.C. spend gazillions looking for intelligent life in space? Because all the unintelligent positions have been taken.
Rabbi Daniel		#11	[-]
Posts: 2512 (11/28/08 01:06:44) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	As an aside: Being unfamiliar with something asserted above by another, I checked a half dozen of the major commentaries [Rashi, Ramban, Sforno, Ibn Ezra, Baal Haturim, Malbim, Torah Temimah] and NON of them say "clinging to his wife, not wives." The Talmud sources the words "his wife" THREE times and not once says "wife, not wives." [It extrapolates HIS wife not ANOTHER MAN'S wife.] This is from where Noahides learn adultery is forbidden. The Rashi quoted above [that a man and wife become one in a child] can occur between a man and 4 wives. He is one with each in their children. So that Rashi, standing alone, is irrelevant to this thread, and following it through it undermines the position of the one who brought it. I used to be able to delete erroneous and irrelevant posts from threads to maintain a simple, clean path for the questioner [and readers]. Now I can't. So I have to expose the errors. After specifically asking for the thread to be kept clean, and having been responded to with yet another erroneous post, now I deleted them. Furthermore, as an Ask-the-Rabbi thread, we are not here to teach personal opinions. We are interested in Judaism. You are certainly free to ask anyone their personal opinion. Please do so in a PM or in the general discussion forum. When you repeated the question to me that you asked him, I took the liberty of removing that whole side conversation, for clarity sake. Sorry for dragging you through all this. A number of clarifications were necessary. Please don't get caught up in this or worry about comment. Let's just continue with the wonderful conversation we've been having. If you have more questions.... Why does D.C. spend gazillions looking for intelligent life in space? Because all the unintelligent positions have been taken.
Simon the Arborist		#12	[-]
Posts: 43 (11/28/08 03:34:29) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Rabbi Daniel, This time I will start with the tree... I was saying that the tree would have had only one ring because in (say) 50 years of unchanging climate such a tree would only have one ring. Like I said, the annual rings we know today are caused by the changes in seasons, a tree grows faster in spring/ early summer than it does in late summer/autumn (and hardly at all in winter). The cells are bigger in the earlier part of the growing season and smaller and more compact as the (growing) season draws to a close, which gives us the "steps" or rings we see when we look at a cross section of wood. My understanding is that these seasonal changes came later (after the great flood). So I am guessing that before that time (of the flood) the growth would have been constant. You are right... I am not saying that it would have had only 1 ring becuse it was only growing for 1 day. So, back to only 1 wife. It is writen... Leviticus 18v 18 "And thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her lifetime." The above text seems to be saying that (and I stress seems) `it is OK to take a woman to be a rival wife as long as it's not her sister`. Can you see how I could draw this conclusion from the above text? As Torah is forever, what basis did Rabbi Gershom have for his edict that a man should have only 1 wife? ie that he should take no woman to be a rival to her (his wife) what-so-ever. There must have been one (a reason), to say that it was no longer practiced is not true because as you have said in other areas of the world it was (and possibly is) still going on. I am in no way seeking to challange the Rabbis edict but rather to understand the practice of having only 1 wife. As I said earlier on in the conversation, I suspected (and it seems now unfairly) that there was some sort of xian influence in the only 1 wife situation we accept as normal today and wanted clarification. Now last but by no means least... The issue of growing stronger or getting weaker. You said "That is how so small a generation as ourselves is exactly what we need to reach the ring and bring the Messiah even if the giants before us were not able to bring him." My question to you is this... How tall will Messiah be? My understanding is that he will be a man, not an angel or a donkey. For us (or you) to be able to "bring" (or be ready to recive) Massiah there must have been some development. I'd likie to understand more about this concept of getting weaker because as of now I just don't "get" it. Well wishes Simon. ps. I'm a little supprised not to have heard from Sophie, is she Ok, on holiday or just keeping out of it? If you have any contact with her please pass on my regards.
Rabbi Daniel		#13	[-]
Posts: 2513 (11/28/08 15:02:56) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Fascinating, about the tree. So it was a bad choice for an example but the point you understood, and explained how it wouldn't apply. [Again, an impressive thinker and communicator.] If you would have been plopped down in the Garden of Eden and saw Adam standing net to the tree, him appearing 30 years old and the tree appearing 50 years old, you would have asked him, "Nice tree. Did your father plant that?" "Nice smile. How old were you when all your baby teeth fell out?" "Do you have any idea how much lint collects in the belly button in a year?" A star 10,000,000 light years away from earth which showed up on day 3 had the appearance that it was 10,000,000 years old otherwise how would the light have reached us already. Because of all this, plus the change in seasons, as you mentioned, it is no surprise that today's scientists have no idea what they are talking about. ADD TO THAT the matter of decline in the generations and G-d only knows [and that's true] what aspects of nature are no longer what they used to be. So all calculations based on today's collected data which is presumed to have existed 100's and 1000's of years ago are all in error. "Leviticus 18v 18 "And thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her... it is OK to take a woman to be a rival wife as long as it's not her sister." That is correct. It makes no sense at all to warn not to take a second wife who is a sister if one can not take a second wife at all. As we have been saying, biblically, a man was allowed to have a second wife. There was no obligation to take a second wife. It was not part of service, holiday or ceremony. It was permitted. And that's not in a vacuum. A marriage is supposed to accomplish something. There are responsibilities on the part off all involved. If the Rabbis see that harm is going result and not the intended good then they have the authority to get involved. Man's obligation to have children can be fulfilled with one wife so, again, forbidding a second does not interfere with that obligation. If a man and wife do not have children for 10 years then they can divorce and remarry [others] in hope that they will then be blessed with children. There is a couple I know of who did this and were blessed with children. "How tall will Messiah be?" About yea high. "as of now I just don't "get" it." Understandable. It contradicts decades of western liberal brainwashing. "Evolution," "Survival of the fittest," "Modern man..." all a bunch of nonsense. Not nonsense. Deliberate distortions and outright lies in order to discard the yolk of responsibility implicit in recognizing the Creator. Either Hitler or Goebbels [his minister for propganda], y'sh, said that if a lie is told enough times it will be believed. We saw it then. We see it now. Why does D.C. spend gazillions looking for intelligent life in space? Because all the unintelligent positions have been taken.
Simon the Arborist		#14	[-]
Posts: 44 (11/29/08 17:10:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Rabbi Daniel This is getting deeper and deeper. "A star 10,000,000 light years away from earth which showed up on day 3 had the appearance that it was 10,000,000 years old otherwise how would the light have reached us already. Because of all this, plus the change in seasons, as you mentioned, it is no surprise that today's scientists have no idea what they are talking about." Indeed... but how could they? For one thing I'm not so sure time has always stayed the same, 10,000,000 years in todays time may not have taken so long back then. as you say. it may have only taken a few days. Also the star could well have been created 10,000,000 years old. If we go back a few days we read that "And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light". Did this light travel outwards like it would if I shone a laser into darkness? If so where was it heading? Back to G-d? (Is there any other place it could go?) There is much we do not undersatnd, perhaps that's a good thing. However... perhaps it is possible to know things without understanding them. I must say it's a joy to talk about such things, that said I would like to stay with the subject (of only 1 wife) for just a little longer if I may. You said... "Man's obligation to have children can be fulfilled with one wife so, again, forbidding a second does not interfere with that obligation". That being so, my question is... Then why forbid it? There must have been a reason. Appart from your assertion that we are all getting weaker (implying that we are now unable to cope with more than 1 wife) you have not been able to give me an answer that makes sence (to me). Am I being dence? Perhaps I should not even be asking such a question as the answer could well be beyond my understanding anyway? Like the man said... "Therefore have I uttered that which I understood not, things too wonderful for me, which I knew not." However he also went on to say something quite wonderful... "I had heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear; but now mine eye seeth Thee;" What an experiance that must have been. Well wishes, Simon.
Rabbi Daniel		#15	[-]
Posts: 2514 (11/29/08 19:41:35) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Not so sure we're going deeper. I'd say broader. Taking an idea that was hard to understand in one application and trying to bring clarity through another application. "'A star 10,000,000 light years away from earth...' I'm not so sure time has always stayed the same... Also the star could well have been created 10,000,000 years old." A) Einstein did "prove" time is relative so that's one variable and B) The start being created 10M years old is Adam being created 30 years old and the tree being created 50 years old. "And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light". Did this light travel outwards...?" Since the sun was not created till day three the light on day one was not that kind of light at all. It was a light that was able to co-exist WITH darkness which is why the verse says G-d separated the light from the darkness. "There is much we do not undersatnd... However... perhaps it is possible to know things without understanding them." Well, we know that YOU don't understand it because you never had a Jewish education. Don't feel bad. Most Jews haven't either. Of course we can know without understanding. Starting a car, taking an aspirin, waiting for the tide to come in... most have no understanding of these things but know what they are and the results. AND, as we've been talking about this all along, every generation knows LESS THAN THE PREVIOUS. That doesn't mean a guy can't create a VCR which no one knows how to use even in his own generation. Let alone previous. Does that make modern man smarter. No. Just modern. There is a great deal we don't understand because we are finite beings and G-d's wisdom in His Torah is infinite. Knowing less is not a good thing but it is a reality. But we have books 1500 years old talking about the earth being a ball and gravity and how seasons work and orbits and constellations. Even moon cycle to the 5th decimal point. Because when you have a book from your Creator, all the universe is in it. Just a question of WHO can access it. And none of those people need a VCR. "Appart from your assertion that we are all getting weaker (implying that we are now unable to cope with more than 1 wife) you have not been able to give me an answer that makes sence (to me). Am I being dence? You are certainly not being dense [aside from your three typo's in that one sentence]. You asked a question. I gave an answer. You like your question better than my answer. It happens. I'll still try to elaborate further. While Judaism does allow divorce, that does not mean it doesn't see divorce as a tragedy. In fact, divorce is a terrible tragedy. Sometimes it is the only option but it is not [should not be] an option of choice. It is a Jewish point of view, applied in certain contexts, that millions of people are stopped from doing something positive when there is a likely hood of averting even ONE single tragedy. [Also very contrary to liberal western brainwashing.] It COULD BE [because I don't know] that maybe this was part of the reasoning behind Rabbi Gershom's edict when it became apparent that many of these relationships would not succeed. "I had heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear; but now mine eye seeth Thee;" What an experiance that must have been. The righteous do love rebuke. Especially from the Top. The academic said, "Why don't you put him in an institution, have a life of your own?" The Jewish mother responded, "What meaning would my life have?"
Simon the Arborist		#16	[-]
Posts: 45 (12/01/08 04:10:25) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Rabbi Daniel wrote: "Well, we know that YOU don't understand it because you never had a Jewish education. Don't feel bad. Most Jews haven't either." Rabbi Daniel, It's true, i don't and I haven't. However I don't feel bad, in fact it feels good to be able to talk about such things with you. Through the process I hope that my understanding is growing. I'm guessing here... and my guess is that as part of a Jewish education students are encouraged to question things for themselves (at times), so that their learning is more that just about remembering facts and figures but leads them to a personal understanding of the subject. "You asked a question. I gave an answer. You like your question better than my answer. It happens." As it happens I like your answer(s) very much, it's just that when thinking about them my (uneducated) mind kicks in and I find your answers leading to more questions, hence my interest in Rabbi Gershom's edict, and my thoughts on the qualities of the first light. [The way I see it is that this "first" light played a significant roll in the suns (and all other matter for that matter) creation, from a physical point of view.] "Just a question of WHO can access it. And none of those people need a VCR." I like it. "AND, as we've been talking about this all along, every generation knows LESS THAN THE PREVIOUS." That's something I'll have to accept because is something you have taught me.( lets face it, if I didn't think you worth listening to I wouldn't ask you so many questions) Please don't feel offended if I question what you say, it's just that, like I said, my uneducated mind keeps kicking in. Now for the difficult bit.... "While Judaism does allow divorce, that does not mean it doesn't see divorce as a tragedy. In fact, divorce is a terrible tragedy. Sometimes it is the only option but it is not [should not be] an option of choice. It is a Jewish point of view, applied in certain contexts, that millions of people are stopped from doing something positive when there is a likely hood of averting even ONE single tragedy. [Also very contrary to liberal western brainwashing.] It COULD BE [because I don't know] that maybe this was part of the reasoning behind edict when it became apparent that many of these relationships would not succeed. " I thought that the edict may have been because the Jewish people lived in quite a hostile environment (Those in Europe) and as a result the Rabbi made the edict for their safety which would fit with what you say above ( to avert a tragedy). And as you have already said it still complies with Torah observance, as man is not required to have more than one wife. Now the tricky bit... Could not this edict (forbidding more than one wife) have lead to even more divorce? (for example through lack of children after 10 years). Perhaps he (Rabbi Gershom) understood this as he went on to make another edict about divorce? (Was it him who made the edict about both parties needing to be in agreement or have I got that wrong?) If that is so then it's interesting that he is known for two significant edicts, one about having only 1 wife and the other to do with making it harder to get divorced from the 1 wife. "The righteous do love rebuke. Especially from the Top." Interesting that you use the word rebuke, I prefer the word... Discipline in Jobs case, (Training expected to produce a specific character or pattern of behavior, especially training that produces moral or mental improvement. or To train by instruction) I got the feeling from reading Job that G-d liked him, so much so that He did something quite wonderful for him. He (Job) may not have understood the methods G-d used at the time, but by the end of the story he did seem to have got the message. Have a good week, Well wishes, Simon
Rabbi Daniel		#17	[-]
Posts: 2515 (12/01/08 21:51:27) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	"[The way I see it is that this "first" light played a significant roll in the suns (and all other matter for that matter) creation, from a physical point of view.]" Understandable but the former had nothing to do with that latter. "Please don't feel offended if I question what you say." No offense at all. The bedrock of Jewish education is questions and answers. "Jewish people lived in quite a hostile environment (Those in Europe) and as a result the Rabbi made the edict for their safety which would fit with what you say above ( to avert a tragedy)." Again, understandable but the former had nothing to do with that latter. A tragedy is traversing G-d's will. A tragedy is not performing G-d's will in the face of our enemies. The Torah says to blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah. The Rabbis said lest someone transgress Shabbos by carrying a shofar in the public domain [such carrying is forbidden on Shabbos] they stopped Shofar blowing on Shabbos. That was stopping millions of Jews over thousands of years from blowing a shofar on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah so that not even one Jew accidentally break Shabbos, G-d forbid. Makes you appreciate what it means to break Shabbos. "Could not this edict (forbidding more than one wife) have lead to even more divorce? (for example through lack of children after 10 years)." You mean since the man has children from a second wife he does not have to divorce the first wife? And if she wants kids too bad for her? "Perhaps he (Rabbi Gershom) understood this..." If you're thinking that maybe you came up with something that maybe he understood... uh, as I've been trying to tell you, if we're men, he's an angel. If he's just a man, we're donkeys. "The righteous do love rebuke. Especially from the Top." "Interesting that you use the word rebuke, I prefer the word... Discipline." That's why it's the righteous who love rebuke. ;) That is actually an expression from the Talmud. So it was not my choice of words but theirs. Rebuke, discipline, a what-for-and-how-do-you-do... Same thing. Why does D.C. spend gazillions looking for intelligent life in space? Because all the unintelligent positions have been taken.
Bradley	Time, Point of view	#18	[-]
Posts: 97 (12/01/08 23:19:29) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I am not a rabbi but hope the following quick fly-by is acceptable in the "ask the Rabbi forum". ___________________________________________________ Quote: "A star 10,000,000 light years away from earth which showed up on day 3 had the appearance that it was 10,000,000 years old otherwise how would the light have reached us already." ____________________________________________________ Subject to correction by Torah scholars, my understanding is that Torah does not state that the sun et al was created on the 3rd day (ie "showed up on day3"), but rather that it became visible. Under the thick atmosphere of Venus, the diffused light of the sun would be perceptible but the sun itself would not be discernable to the human eye from that planet's surface. A CNN correspondent quipped tonight that it may be better that the White House send out Channukah cards showing "Judah the Maccabee" fighting off the Syrians (sic) instead of the cards sporting Xmas trees which were in fact sent out this year. From such a statement, a viewer can be forgiven for confounding modern "Syrians" with the utterly different Greek Seleucid dynasty of antiquity meant in the aforesaid statement. Such is the difference in the meaning of a word when used in colloquial usage as opposed to its use within a technical discipline. For example, the phrase "A star 10,000,000 light years away from earth" when said by a scientist always carries with it the unsaid but understood notion " as seen from the time-space coordinates of my current viewpoint"! Einstein's law of Relativity described in theory the now measurable reality that one (earth) minute on the sun passes slower (from our perspective) than on the moon. Similarly, when viewed from the point of the origin of the universe, one day of 24 hours can easily be understood to represent millions of years when that same amount of time is viewed from our post hoc peripheral viewpoint (post 6 days plus 5000 years of expansion). These concepts are not so difficult to master but are counter intuitive and do require study&thinking, the lack of which explaims why so many disdainfully declare conflict between science and religion (read-Torah). Only in the last few years has the understanding of modern science begun to echo the astounding insights of ancient Jewish sages, such as the Ramban (aka Nachmanides) nearly one thousand years ago, (for example, that time itself had a beginning from our point of view-"Misheyesh, yitfos bo zman"). b
Rabbi Daniel		#19	[-]
Posts: 2516 (12/02/08 00:49:03) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	"I am not a rabbi but hope the following quick fly-by is acceptable in the "ask the Rabbi forum". We'll see how it goes. Subject to correction by Torah scholars...." Consider yourself corrected. It was created on day 4. [I corrected me too. Not day 3.] Maybe we can say it was "put into place" on day 4 which is another conversation but being there and just not visible... nah. "Einstein's law of Relativity... " Dr. Gerald Schroeder does the math in great detail in his book, Genesis and the Big Bang. Certainly a possible answer to a question difficult for some. Other than that first paragraph it was alright. Why does D.C. spend gazillions looking for intelligent life in space? Because all the unintelligent positions have been taken.
Simon the Arborist		#20	[-]
Posts: 46 (12/02/08 07:30:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Rabbi Daniel wrote: "A tragedy is traversing G-d's will. A tragedy is not performing G-d's will in the face of our enemies. " I though I had made the point clear, that the edict (to only have 1 wife) may not have interfered with Torah observance because a man is not required to have more than one wife. "The Torah says to blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah. The Rabbis said lest someone transgress Shabbos by carrying a shofar in the public domain [such carrying is forbidden on Shabbos] they stopped Shofar blowing on Shabbos. That was stopping millions of Jews over thousands of years from blowing a shofar on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah so that not even one Jew accidentally break Shabbos, G-d forbid. Makes you appreciate what it means to break Shabbos." Here you seem (I stress seem) to contradict what you said above... If Torah says to blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah then surely there is a requirement to blow it (on Rosh Hashanah) no matter what. The Rabbis may have been wise (beyond my understanding) but surely even their wisdom pales into insignificance compared to the One who gave us Torah. I find the thought of tinkering with Torah, however good the intentions are, to be a little alarming. Again that's probably down to my lack of understanding of the Rabbis understanding. (note...I almost didn't include this paragraph (point) as I though it must some how be obvious that the requirement to not break Shabbos would take precedence over the requirement to blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah, however as Rosh Hashanah is also a very important day I decided to leave it in and see what you have anything more to say about it) "You mean since the man has children from a second wife he does not have to divorce the first wife?" Yes, that's what I meant. He would not have to divorce the first wife in order to have children. He may love her very much and the only reason he would even consider divioce would be because of lack of children. If he could take a second wife (or even the servant of the first) there may be no need for divorce. "And if she wants kids too bad for her? " I'm not sure about that. I guess if the man takes a second wife and she (the second wife) does have children it could cause the first wife a lot of pain. However if they divorce (man and first wife) and the first wife remarries and still has no children the pain could be even greater. (Makes me feel sad just thinking about it) "That's why it's the righteous who love rebuke. ;)" That made me smile. "That is actually an expression from the Talmud. So it was not my choice of words but theirs. Rebuke, discipline, a what-for-and-how-do-you-do... Same thing." It's possible (although I doubt it) that the Hebrew words mean the same thing, but in English they are quite different. Discipline is more to do with training or instruction, rebuke however means something like "to criticize or reprove sharply; reprimand". In my understanding Job was a righteous man and (also in my understanding) worthy of instruction. It may seem like I'm splitting hairs but the (Jobs) story conveys to me a message of blessing not reproach or criticism. Through the process Job learned a lot more about the The One for whom he had so much love, regard and respect. Hence my comment about the choice of word. I'll now wait quietly for you to blow my assumptions apart :-) Well wishes, Simon

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

1 Wife...

1 Wife...

Quick Reply