Wait a minute, having seven sons who served as High Priest implies that six of them died! What kind of a reward was that?
Simon, Her most famous son was Yishmael. The gemarah (Yoma 47a) says that at least twice Yishamal went for a walk between services on Yom Kippur and was disqualified after he became ritually impure. Both times a different brother was the back up kohen. The implication is this happened 7 times.
Was just gonna ask that. Wouldn't it mean that they all dropped like flies?
Interesting that Yishmael becoming impure so that his brothers take over is seen as a merit to the mother.
Not necessarily. The Talmud says Yishmoel went to the shuk between services and got sprayed with saliva. This disqualified him, so his brother the back up took the bridge, and finished up as kohen godol.
OK, so the son getting sprayed with saliva (didn't realize this makes you tamei) is a merit to the mother. 
The AskMoses answer really irks me with its ahistorical analysis. It talks about the woman and man become bound to each other exclusively and that the woman shows this by covering her hair. Only problem is that the man isn't bound to the woman and without the takana, he could take many more wives and mistresses. So, the man isn't bound and doesn't have to do anything to show this either.
Well, I thought of her but didn't mention it. I guess that doesn't count. I never knew that. I feel better now.
The gemarah (Yoma 47a) says that at least twice Yishamal
I should say it may not have happened twice. It may be two different versions of the same story....
>Was just gonna ask that. Wouldn't it mean that they all dropped like flies?
No, only in the Orthodoxy Theory of Every Midrash Shtims With Every Other Midrash.
No, only in the Orthodoxy Theory of Every Midrash Shtims With Every Other Midrash.
Excellent, excellent point, though TBF it isn't "midrash" that says the Kohen Godol had a life term.
Is it?
Your point doesn't make sense. I simply didn't realize a person who takes over for a disqualified kohen gadol is also considered kohen gadol. I assume once the service is over, the guy goes back to being a normal kohen, right? Also, who determines who the backup is? I assumed it would be a son rather than a brother.
No the backup for Yom Kippur is arranged by the Sages, or the Temple officers. Not nec a son or brother.
>Excellent, excellent point, though TBF it isn't "midrash" that says the Kohen Godol had a life term.
Is it?
Don't be so literal. I didn't mean midrash as much as I meant Jewish sources that are quoted, however it seems the source is medieval Jewish legend and it is recorded in the Zohar. However, it is a little known fact that midrashim are not only from Talmudic times, but are also medieval, so I think this qualifies as a midrash.
Okay, so the reward for covering your hair indoors may not be having 7 kids become high prietsts, but that doesn't take away from the fact that there was an established custom at the time of the gamara of some women covering their hair indoors ("Many women have done this[.]").
Slow down. Wht source is midieval Jewish legend?
Also, the kohen godol having a life term is, ircc, in the talmud.
And if you're going to use a technical term like midrash, please use it correctly.
Yishamal went for a walk between services on Yom Kippur
Dude, the KG doesn't leave Temple seven days before YK, should he leave on YK itself? Shas doesn't say it was on YK.
Dude, the KG doesn't leave Temple seven days before YK, should he leave on YK itself? Shas doesn't say it was on YK.
Shas implies it was on Yom Kippur. (Two were kohen godol on the same day) And IIRC, some one (rashi? Art scroll? says it was between services. I will check it out)
>Slow down. Wht source is midieval Jewish legend?
That kohen gadols who were reshaim died in the kodesh ha-kedashim.
>Also, the kohen godol having a life term is, ircc, in the talmud.
That may have been theoretically so, but for much of the 2nd Temple period they were changing constantly. So it is still an example of making midrashim shtim.
>And if you're going to use a technical term like midrash, please use it correctly.
Ok, wise guy. Please explain a "technical term like midrash."
What is a midrash?
Daf Yomi Advancement Forum (at least) says it happened ON Yom kppur
http://www.dafyomi.co.il/yoma/po...s/yo-ps-
047.htm
What is a midrash?
Per Shmuel Hanagud midrash aggada is anything in the Talmud that isn't halachic. The claim that the priest served a life term is halacha (isn't it?) so its not midrash aggada, and because it is not based on a homileticul explanation of a verse its not midrash halacha either.
I see.
But I would think the text implies it happened on an ordinary day.
וראתה אמן שני כהנים גדולים ביום אחד
and not
וראתה אמן שני כהנים גדולים בשנה אחת
This “popular understanding“ is the way the story is understood by every Rishon and Achron I know. Chazals response is not seen as “debunking” or questioning the greatness of her hidder in tznius.
In Midrash it quotes the same story but instead of the Rabbi’s responding "Many women have done this, but didn't receive your reward." They respond “They said on her the verse Kol Kevuda Bas Melech Penima” this version surly attests to the fact that Chazal agreed with her.
>Slow down. Wht source is midieval Jewish legend?
That kohen gadols who were reshaim died in the kodesh ha-kedashim.
Yoma 9a says there were 300 KGs in 420 years, and Rabbi Yochanan deduces that hardly any survived a year. The thing about the kodesh kedoshim, though, isn't mentioned there, and indeed the gemarah says some of these rishaim died later.
This “popular understanding“ is the way the story is understood by every Rishon and Achron I know. Chazals response is not seen as “debunking” or questioning the greatness of her hidder in tznius.
Please share some rishonim and achronim who take the story this way. I am not aware of any and would like to see it inside.
In Midrash it quotes the same story but instead of the Rabbi’s responding "Many women have done this, but didn't receive your reward." They respond “They said on her the verse Kol Kevuda Bas Melech Penima” this version surly attests to the fact that Chazal agreed with her.
In the second version (quoted by Rashi, right? From the Yerushalmi, IIRC) perhaps they agreed with her, or perhaps they were trying to find some justification for what she said by providing a proof text, without indicating agreement or disagreement. In the Yoma parallel they clearly don't agree with her.
Anonymous | 07.06.09 - 1:46 pm | was me
But I would think the text implies it happened on an ordinary day.
וראתה אמן שני כהנים גדולים ביום אחד
The problem with saying the story happened twice is that Yishamael returns as KG after being disaqualified (he's the original KG in both stories) yet elswhere we're told a disqualified KG never gets his job back...
but that doesn't take away from the fact that there was an established custom at the time of the gamara of some women covering their hair indoors ("Many women have done this[.]").
Not necessarily.
For one thing, it doesn't say, "MOST women have done this." It says "many," which can mean more than a few, but rather less than the majoriy.
Also, it could reflect a fad at the time or newly emerging practice. The Burkah Rebbetzin from a couple of years ago was said to have had "many" followers, but in reality, the number was quite small compared to the number of observant women in Israel.
For one thing, it doesn't say, "MOST women have done this." It says "many," which can mean more than a few, but rather less than the majoriy.
I like the fad idea.
Imagine nowadays if some woman with many children were to attribute her merit to the fact that she went to Amain parties. Liekwise, the rabbis would say "many woman do this... etc."
so if i never uncovered my hair and we were in the times of the Beit Hamikdash my sons could be Kohen Gadol? no...we arent Kohanim. i am toast before i even start, so why bother 
Wait, why the hell was Yishmael going to the shuk on Yom Kippur between services? He wasn't planning to buy something, was he? He could have been tempted to buy something when he was in the shuk, so why did he not construct a fence around the Torah? Why wasn't he hanging out in the shtibe—err, beis hamikdash—learning Mishnayos Yoma or something?! What a mechutzif!
Scazon, I agree with Heshy that it seems hard to say this happened right ON Yom Kippur, and not before hand, yet this is what some of the side commentaries say...
Anyway, what's the point of this discussion? The story tells us a couple things
a) In-doors hair-covering was not the norm, and merited a special reward
b) In-house hair-covering is a nice chumra
DovBear,
Any Reshon or Achron that quotes this story with regards to Tzniut obviously maintains that there is a connection between this story and Tzniut.
Off the top of my head the story is quoted by the Rama (Darki Moshe) and by Igros Moshe etc,
why the hell was Yishmael going to the shuk on Yom Kippur between services
Remember the KG also served as a figurehead. Maybe an occasion required that.
פעם אחת יצא וסיפר עם {הגמון} אחד בשוק
Any Reshon or Achron that quotes this story with regards to Tzniut obviously maintains that there is a connection between this story and Tzniut.
Off the top of my head the story is quoted by the Rama (Darki Moshe) and by Igros Moshe etc,
Can you tell me exactly where to look, please? We need to see what they said, before we can decide what they meant, right?
Meanwhile, do you disagree with the plain, straight translation?
a) In-doors hair-covering was not the norm, and merited a special reward
b) In-house hair-covering is a nice chumra
Well your (a) is debated,(who says it merited a reward? Kimchit! Was she right? Unclear.) and your (b) doesn't follow from the story. (who says its nice?)
Neither is clear from how the story is told in Yoma 47a
who says its nice?
They didn't tell her this is just a baseless chumra God doesn't care, so please don't bother. What they said is: nice, but not enough.
What they said is: nice, but not enough.
Are you making stuff up now? That isn't what they said at all. Look in the Gemarah. They say "Many women have done this, but didn't receive your reward."
Your interpreting it, which is fine, but don't confuse your interp with what the Talmud says they said.
Maybe the KG went to the shuk to see which Jewish stalls were open. (My parents liked to do this on Rosh Hashanah.)
-JS: Based on the Klal ma'alin b'kodesh etc. chazal stated that the replacement KG would remain KG to some degree, not return to his previous status.
-DovBear: Volpo's Leket shichichas hapeah will give you more mekoros for the chumra then you'll ever need.
I find people that believe in these unclear (at best) stories and look for every little thing they can possibly do that is a segulah for brilliant, accomplished kids to ridiculous (I heard once that there was a holy rebbetzin, the 2nd lubavitcher rebbe's wife, I believe, who said tehilim 142 over and over again during sex, never left the house, never addressed her husband by his first name, was careful to never step on a fingernail or toenail, and never even saw herself naked and look at the children she merited!).
I think we need more stories about the irreligious women who never went to mikvah, conceived while niddah, ate treif while pregnant, didn't keep shabbos and yet somehow miraculously had accomplished children.
הרמ"א בדרכי משה ( אה"ע סי' קט"ו ) : דצניעות מיהא הוי, ששום אשה לא תראה שערה כלל אפי' בבית כמו שמצינו במעשה דקמחית שזכתה משום זה שיצאו ממנה כהנים גדולים.
DB,
See above ...Seems clear .....no?
No, not clear at all. His reading doesn't fit the plain meaning of the passage. You see that, don't you?
DovBear,
I was proving my point that the Ramah read it that way and it's not just a the popular/Ask Moses version.
Well, no you haven't proved that at all. Now its the popular/Ask Moses/Rama version. The question I ask applies to the Rama, too: How can we say what he says given what the passage says?
I honestly don't see how you can translate that passage per the Ramah. He must have some parrael that he is using instead. In the version of the story told in Yoma the theory is clearly Kimchits and the sages don't seem to agree with it.
Well, you have to ask why her story is even recorded in the first place, especially if the sages don't agree with her rationale.
DovBear,
Since the Midrash’s version indicates that Chazal accepted her reason, I see no problem in reading the girsah in yumah in a way that dose not contradict it.
Maybe Chazal are saying that although in her case she witnessed the reward physically many who did the same did not witness the reward.
Maybe the sages felt that there must have been some additional chumros that she did not disclose. i.e. “many women have done this, but didn't receive your reward” what else are you not disclosing.
I general chazal’s statement “many women have done this, but didn't receive your reward” begs for an explanation.
How can everyone expect her reward when not everyone is a Kohain to begin with (and not all Kohanim are eligible to become a Kohain Gadal)
JS, that happens all the time. Lots of discredited, or partially discredited opnions are still included in the Talmud, and this isn't even an official opinion, but a view expressed in a story. Like I said, very common.
>Per Shmuel Hanagud midrash aggada is anything in the Talmud that isn't halachic. The claim that the priest served a life term is halacha (isn't it?) so its not midrash aggada, and because it is not based on a homileticul explanation of a verse its not midrash halacha either.
See, that's the problem with narrowly defining it as a technical term. This definition actually excludes the Rabbot and all midrashic collections that are external to the Talmud!
Since the Midrash’s version indicates that Chazal accepted her reason, I see no problem in reading the girsah in yumah in a way that dose not contradict it.
The midrash's version is a parralel, and there's no indication there that her theory was accepted, only that a possible proof-text was suggested.
See, that's the problem with narrowly defining it as a technical term. This definition actually excludes the Rabbot and all midrashic collections that are external to the Talmud!
Okay okay point taken. Lets not belabor this.
I didn't belabor it, I simply defended myself against your view that I used the term incorrectly.
DB,
Also,
The words “but didn't receive your reward” are not what it says (it says “lo alu b’yadom”) , the literal meaning is more along the lines of “were unsuccessful”
JS, that happens all the time. Lots of discredited, or partially discredited opnions are still included in the Talmud, and this isn't even an official opinion, but a view expressed in a story. Like I said, very common.
Of course. I was just wondering aloud why the compilers of the gemara bothered to record this. Obviously gemara is more than halacha, but I wonder why this story made the cut.
sorry i made a mistake..
I said "v'lo he'ilu" ... and it did not help
Right, so the plain meaning of the passage doesn't fit with the common/Ramah telling.
DB - I should say it may not have happened twice. It may be two different versions of the same story....
The two versions are different, in the first version, ישבב takes over for him, and in the second version, יוסף takes over for him. So according to the gemara, it did happen twice.
Mark, it still could be two different versions of the same story. Its not clear if the Gemarah "thinks" it happened twice, or if the gemrah is just giving two different accounts of the same event.
Think - How can everyone expect her reward when not everyone is a Kohain to begin with (and not all Kohanim are eligible to become a Kohain Gadal)
I don't read it as "your kids will become the kohen gadol" if you do this, but rather "your kids will be meritorious" or something similar. The KG perhaps was just in her specific case (especially since that sentiment was enunciated only be her referring to her family, and not by Chazal, who in fact disagree with the reason).
DB - Mark, it still could be two different versions of the same story. Its not clear if the Gemarah "thinks" it happened twice, or if the gemrah is just giving two different accounts of the same event.
And as is very common in the gemara, it could be two people speaking, one Rabbi says it occurred one way with one brother taking over, and a different Rabbi thinks it occurred a different way with a different brother taking over.
Are there any other uses of "ושוב אמרו" in the gemara that might indicate that a different speaker is beginning?
Also how do they know that the spittle came from a non-Jew?
And how would the Chachamim even ask her such a question in the first place? Wouldn't modesty forbid such a question? Especially since the answer might be so intimate that it isn't discussed between anyone other than a man and wife (and even then maybe not).
I also don't understand the Gemara right before this story when Rabbi Yishamel ben Kimchit is first introduced.
First of all, why introduce him with his mothers name instead of fathers name as is customary (I think)?
Second of all, where is the boasting about his mother? And is boasting by a KG appropriate?
Third of all, what is all this about the Zera? And does it really say "שכבת זרע" in the Gemara and in what context exactly?
Maybe more later, have to run for a bit.
Love this post and equally love the thread.
The Rama is troubling, but it could also be anachronistic. When we find chumras that are particular to time and place it can be hard to project our life and times upon that chumra.
As per Hadassa's post and subsequent thread, head covering is tough enough, let's not make it even tougher
I was taught the AskMoses version as a yeshiva student and I have to be honest I thought 7 sons sounded more like a punishment than a reward!
My mother, who always covered her hair even in the house, merited seven daughters of varying levels of religious practice so I guess you just never know.
I do know woman who cite this story as one reason to cover one's hair and insist that if women only knew what it did for their children they would all cover their hair. To me, the story, as it's taught in girls' yeshivot, is just another scare tactic / bribe in an arsenal of anecdotes to convince women to cover up. I know nothing of the various interpretations of what might or might not have been said.
This is all very simple if you add in the final line of the story, which is Kimchit's response to the sages (usually left out of these accounts for reasons of modesty):
Tanu Rabanan: Kimchit had seven sons and all of them served as Kohen Godol. The Sages said to her: "What did you do to merit this?" She replied: "The walls of my house never saw the hairs on my head" Replied the Sages: "Many women have done this, but didn't receive your reward." And Kimchit replied: "Yeah, but is their hair as sexy as mine?"
Besides, since when is doing one 'trick' sufficient to produce pious children?
And since when do pious children come from pious parents?
And since when is a kohen gadol automatically a pious person?
And was there any "reward" for Kimchit? Or having 7 kohen gadol children is reward for her?
This whole thing is troubling...
E Fink - This whole thing is troubling...
It sure is. Not to mention the most obvious question as to why the Gemara related this story here in middle of discussing the avodah (is it the avodah?).
What's the rest of the Rama¿ is there more?
Mark:
The gemara is a free flowing discussion and can include whatever it feels like, I am more disturbed by the importance this sugya has taken in recent years...
In the book I quoted in an earlier post on DB (about the rebbetzin whose prayer was disturbed by possibly visible elbows), the only reward women receive for dressing modestly are righteous sons. But the punishments if she doesn't--oy! And everyone pays. Like the 4 young avreichim who died in a car accident, leaving behind more than 50 orphans. All because of lack of tznius.
-e-fink: Who said that Kimchis was a one trick pony? It would stand to reason, as with all cases of true piety, that she was truly an upright and pious person in all matters, ad kdei kach that she didn't show her hair to the walls etc.
Will you claim the principle of education that teaching by example - i.e. by being pious oneself, does not bring up the children in an atmosphere of piety and thus raise pious children? Come now.
Every parent desires the best for their children, wants them to reach their fullest potential. Is seeing her 7 sons reach the position of the spiritual leaders of the Jewish people not a 'nachas' and reward worthy of true piety.
If ma'aseh kimchis is brought down by the Rema is it our place to say let's not bring more burdens then those placed upon us?
Will you claim the principle of education that teaching by example - i.e. by being pious oneself, does not bring up the children in an atmosphere of piety and thus raise pious children? Come now.
Corrrect me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the KG was appointed because of lineage and eligibility, not piety. The massive instructions he would recieve from others before beginning his service implied that he really didn't know what he was doing (or couldn't be trusted because of belonging to some other sect).
Tzip:
that was one my points that Mottel glossed over
Mottel:
It is all possible, but not all that convincing...
(R' Tzadok says clearly that many very pious folks have unpious children)
DovBear, How many classical sources will you need before you accept that the ask moses understanding is the mainstream one, and your (mis)understanding is not?
Can you produce a significant percentage of classical sources that read it the way you do?
Michael so far we have just the Rama and no others and as you surely saw from the thread there are many puzzling things about the Ramas reading. If you have others throw them on the pile but at the end of the day the best argument not the most famous name will be what carries the day.
s seeing her 7 sons reach the position of the spiritual leaders of the Jewish people not a 'nachas' and reward worthy of true piety.
--
Mottel why would this be a nachas for a truly pius women in an era when any wealthy ignoramous could buy the job and it was held frequently by men from other sects?
the ask moses understanding is the mainstream one
Who cares what's "mainstream"? I want to know what's true.
E. Fink,
Can you really not think of any sources in traditional Jewish texts that point to having righteous children as a reward for righteousness? IOW, are you really that ignorant?
What moron would call himself a Rabbi, and then ask, K'ilu Lfi Tumoi, And was there any "reward" for Kimchit?
Besides, it doesn't even have to be interpreted as a Segulah. It could just be that her point was that the Gemara is saying that she was extremely zealous in observance, and did not rely on lightweight rabbis such as yourself, and, as a result, her kids grew up with a deepseated respect for Torah, and a Yiras Shomayim that led them to achieve greatness.
But, E. Fink, I can assure you that if you don't think that having seven sons grow up to be Kohanim Gedolim is a reward, you have nothing to worry about, even if you are a Kohen. The Kalus that you exhibit on this forum is surely communicated to your children, and Hashem will certainly bless you with children that are far, far from Kohanim gedolim.
Tzip your recollection is correct. The Mishna takes it for granted that ignoramouses would end up with the job
Before I research it, I want to know how many sources it will take to convince someone that cannot even read a blatt gemara without translation that the reading of the Gedolei Yisroel throughout history is more likely to be correct than his reading.
Any if the reward was really seven KG sons as the ramah reads it does it follow that Kimchit was some kind of seer? After all it was she and not the sages or a bas kol who decided the seven KG sons came from extreme modesty. Maybe she said a lot of tehillim too and that was the real reason.
EFink don't worry about Micheal the meshichist. He tries to bully people out of asking questions and thinking creativly but it rarely works. If he keeps it up Ill send him to play with deganev and other disrupters. I am starting to see that the conversation really improves when the mean ones are excluded...
Michael I don't think anyone really cares what the gedolim said. Were more interested in havimg some very good questions resolved. Instead of reaching for insults and names you can drop why don't you smile and join the fray on the frays own terms. We want to know why the plain meaning of the passage is ignored and how our questions are resolved. Can you offer any help at all or are you here just to scold?
If you want your blog to be a nice left-center echo chamber, go ahead and exclude me.
The question that he asked was ridiculous for someone that claims to be a Rabbi. It is the kind of thing that an unlettered lay person might ask, because the unlettered lay person does not understand the difference in cultural mores between 21st century America, and other periods in Jewish history. but, a person that claim to be a Rabbi that insists that he has no idea how having seven sons be Kohanim Gedolim would be construed as a reward for kimchis is just being disingenuous, and deserves to be called out.
DB:
It's okay, I would like Michael to read this:
Michael:
Personal attacks notwithstanding, you failed to understand my comment.
The point is that this maamar chazal HAS ALWAYS bothered me and it should bother you too.
You misquote me, insulted me and failed to produce one ounce of sensible, coherant thought in your comment.
ALL I SAID WAS:
Since when is doing one 'trick' sufficient to produce pious children?
And since when do pious children come from pious parents?
And since when is a kohen gadol automatically a pious person?
And was there any "reward" for Kimchit? Or having 7 kohen gadol children is reward for her?
No where did I say any of the things you said I said.
Lets start with this. Why is it so clear to you her kids achieved greatness? The KG seat was bought and sold in those days. Can you explain?
Michael I don't want an echo chamber but I don't think I want bullies either. Obviously you think Kimchis was rewarded for extreme modesty. Can you tell us why? Is it based on her say so? If so why is that enough given all the very good questions raised on this thread.
Michael:
I assumed you were at least familiar with 2nd Tempe Judaism,
The KG was appointed. It was a cushy position but only lasted until YK as we say during YK davening (the part where most people are sleeping during Mussaf).
Also the plain meaning of the passage is that the Sages rejected kimchits theory. If this isn't what you think it means Id like to have your reasoning.
Also the plain meaning of the passage is that the Sages rejected kimchits theory. If this isn't what you think it means Id like to have your reasoning.
OKm just took a moment to look at the Gemara inside.
You ask why I think that the message of the gemara is that Kimchis' deeds are praiseworthy, and the implication is that she was rewarded.
This is how I understood the Gemara when I learned it, and it is also how it has been understood by anyone that has ever discussed it in my hearing.
I just looked at it inside, and every Meforash that I saw understands it in this way. The meforshim I saw were Rashi, Maharasha, and Tosfos Yeshanim.
We Jews don't treat gemara like a text that we just discovered. The gemara was handed to us by the previous generations, so if an understanding the overwhelming consensus, then it becomes our default understanding as well.
Unless you have very strong evidence to suggest that everybody else understood it wrong, you should assume that the consensus is correct.
At a guess, I would say that the reason that all of the Meforshim understood the gemoro in this way, and not in your way would be that there are so many alternate sources that come to that conclusion, plus that was the kabbalah that they had, plus there are easy ways to read our text that the gemoro was emphasizing that it was not the specific act of covering hair, but the Yiras Shomayim that comes with it that brought the zechus.
As for the question of why would we assume that a KG is a great person, Maharsha says that obviously this R' Yishmael ben Kimchis is one of the four KG who served for a long term, because they were Tzadikim.
Obviously, the sages that made the comment to Kimchis held her, and her sons' achievements, in high esteem, which tells you that the main KG (R' Yishmoel) and his brothers, were meritorious.
You owe Ask Moses an apology, but, based on track record, I don't think that they should hold their breath
As for you, E. Fink,
You said: " Was there any reward for Kimchit?"
That clearly implies that you don't think that traditional Judaism holds praiseworthy children to be a reward for parents.
That makes you ignorant of Jewish sources from Sefer Breishis to the jokes of "my son, the doctor".
But, the problem is that you are not ignorant. You are deliberately obfuscating...
The KG was appointed. It was a cushy position but only lasted until YK as we say during YK davening (the part where most people are sleeping during Mussaf).
E. Fink, if you had taken even a moment to look it up before spouting off, you would have seen the Maharsha that I referenced in my last post, which explains this.
For a passage that has been bothering you for a long time, you seem to have done remarkably little research.
signing off for now, I might be back in a couple hours
Michael:
I don't see why I owe Askoshe any apology. They weren't criticized.
You, on the other hand, owe the entire thread an apology for your rude behavior and also to me for repeating again that canard that I never apologize when wrong. Here is yet another example to add to the many you hace already been given.
http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2008...ad-
blogger.html
Please note it. Dead or alive, the LR would not want his hasid to behave as you have.
I just looked at it inside, and every Meforash that I saw understands it in this way. The meforshim I saw were Rashi, Maharasha, and Tosfos Yeshanim.
I already told you that you won't win this argument by citing the most famous name. We want to hear an argument. Why do you think Kimchis was actually rewarded, and that the Sages agreed. Do you have a reason? Or are you just relying on the big names and presuming/hoping that they had reasons? If they latter, fine but boring. If the former, please share the reasoning with us.
Michael:
(If you ever come back.)
The part that was always bothering me is that L'Halacha we now Sar B'Isha Erva and that applies to saying Krias Shema in front of a woman who is married with no head covering.
How does this fit in with Kimchis?
My other questions asked earlier were food for thought, perhaps more, perhaps less. It was worth asking for your disproportionate reaction alone...
How exactely do you breed a kohen gadol in a time where there is no beith hamikdash? Or with a husband who is not a kohen?
E.
Do you agree that the Gemara is clearly saying that having seven children who served in the Kehuna Gedola was a reward for Kimchis? If so, why would you ask whether Kimchis was rewarded?
Do you agree that the Chachomim that asked Kimchis the question understood the fact that all of her sons merited the Kehuna Gedolah as a great thing for her and for her sons? (as all of the Meforshim understood it) If so, why would you ask whether it was a reward for her? Or whether a Kohen Gadol is automatically a pious person, when in this case it is clear that the kohanim Gedolim were praiseworthy.
And I don't see how the issue of Sar B'Isha Erva is a Stira to Kimchis?
In the comments Dovbear said:
I don't see why I owe Askoshe any apology. They weren't criticized.
In the post, DovBear said
Unfortunately for the Kimchit copycats, the popular/Ask Moses version is a significant distortion of what the Talmud actually says.
In what world is characterizing someone's take of the Talmud as a significant distortion not a crticism?
Let's get the facts straight.
Every Jewish thinker that has been cited on this comment thread (four have been cited so far,) as well as many contemporary Jewish leaders that cite the Kimchis story read the same Gemara as DovBear, and came to the conclusion that DovBear calls a significant distortion.
Michael:
It's not a stirah. I just wonder what Kimchis thought she was accomplishing?
It is as if I said 'I have children who are Kohanim Gedolim because I have 4 meals on Shabbos'.
There is no source (other than this story) that gives value to covering one's head when no one is around. It is a practical halacha, to cover a halachic erva.
In defense of DB that is a ridiculous misconstruing of what DB said.
He said that Ask Moses was merely following popular opinion which is not a criticism, just a statement of fact.
To answer your questions Michael:
I always learned the gmara kpshuto (as you recommend). It ALWAYS bothered me. Where does this chumra come from? Is this a chumra that should be adopted etc? The chachamim agreed to this?
These questions bothered me.
Reading it like DB, answers my questions.
SImple as that.
Now, if you are asking me to learn Pshat and say why the Meforshei HaShas all learned the story this way (and, BTW, the book is not yet closed, because it is entirely possible that somebody learns it like DovBear, we just have not had him cited yet, but, if he is produced, he is clearly a minority opinion. Unfortunately, I am in a place where I cannot do more than look at a Gemara with just Maharsha and Rosh in the back, so I can't be of much more help, but maybe others can continue the research and see if any reputable reader of Shas supports DovBear's reading. )
I would say the following:
The other places where the story is cited (midrash Rabbah, Yerushalmi (i am going from memory here, so I could be wrong), the implication is that the sages agreed with her. for example, in Yerushalmi, they cite a Pasuk that explains the relationship between Tznius and the Kehuna Gedola. The Gemoro was taught from generation to generation, starting with the authors, and the Meforshim knew that this was not a case of Midrashos Chalukos, but that the comment of the sages as recorded in our Gemara was in consanance with the other versions, wherein the sages agreed with her.
You can name all the big names you like who you claim (though no quotes were provided) support the mainstream understanding. Name some more. Name them all. But until you back it up with an *explanation* no one here is impressed. (nor is anyone obligated to be impressed) My reading is a straight translation of the passage and so far you haven't been able to tell us why it doesn't work.
and DB's does work...
Let's get the facts straight.
Every Jewish thinker that has been cited on this comment thread (four have been cited so far,) as well as many contemporary Jewish leaders that cite the Kimchis story read the same Gemara as DovBear, and came to the conclusion that DovBear calls a significant distortion.
Ha now YOU are distorting, Michael. Yes you.
A straight reading of the passage reveals that KIMCHIS (not the Talmud and not the sages) is the one who decided she was rewarded for extreme modesty. This is reported as HER opinion. As I read it the Sages disagree. Who among your great thinkers says specifically that (a) it was someone other then Kimchis's own view that her modesty was rewarded and (b) that the Sages agreed with her.
Id like their names please and then afterwards perhaps you can go to the bother of finally explaining why such a reading isn't a distortion of the passage.
It does work. It's just not the reading supported by all of the experts in the field, that we have seen so far.
There are many text that could support various readings, in all fields. It is bad practice for someone to ignore the consensus opinion of experts, especially when those experts were privy to an unwritten context which you are not privy to.
It's especially bad practice to characterize that expert-supported reading as a "significant distortion".
And, E. Fink, it is particularly bad practice to defend someone by calling a direct quote of his a "ridiculous distortion."
He called the popular opinion a "significant distortion" then he claimed that he never crticized it.
as I have suggested the parralel versions DO suggest that the Sages agreed with her opinion but its not at all conclusive. The may have cited the prooftext simply in an attempt to justify her opinion and not because it was inherently correct. Meanwhile it remains true that the plain meaning of our passage has Kimchis stating an opinion and the sages providing empirical evidence that suggests she has committed the "true true unrelated" mistake.
No he said he did not criticize Ask Moses.
Ask Moses was just providing the consensus opinion.
It happens to be the consensus is a distortion.
I gave you the names. Rashi and Rama both make it clear that the gemara accepts that the reason for her merit was her Tznius of covering her hair indoors. Tosfos Yeshanim and Maharsha both make it clear that having 7 sons serve as Kohanim Gedolim was a great merit. There may be many, many others, but I don't have access to Seforim where I am.
And, I already speculated (I emphasize speculated, because, again, I don't have access to Seforim) why it is not a distortion of the passage.
There are obviously many ways that the sages words could have been interpreted. 1) A dismissal of Kimchis' assertion (as you interpreted it.) 2) A wry comment on the mysteries of the ways of heaven. 3) a warning to other women that the Segulah of Tznius=KG does not always work, though it worked this time. And many others.
The Meforshei Hashas probably had a contextual tradition that this was not a Midrash Choleik vis a vis the Yerushalmi, and other sources.
Therefore, they understood the story to be teaching that there is a great maaleh in covering your hair inside the home, and that it was in this merit that that Kimchis had 7 sons etc.
It happens to be the consensus is a distortion.
Unless the word distortion has a completely benign sense, this is nuts.
Are the laws of meat and milk Chazal's distortion of the Torah? Is that what they taught you in Rabbi School?
The popular opinion is a significant distortion of the passages plain meaning but all askmoses does is repeat it. I don't think they are responsible for it.
As for your big names it remans to be seen if they are guilty of repeating the distortion too. I ask you again directly. Do any of them say it wasn't kimchis's own opinion? do any of them claim its a fact (and not just her best guess) that extreme modesty produced the reward? Do any of them claim the sages agreed with her? If so how do they read what I read as their objection?
Tosfos Yeshanim and Maharsha both make it clear that having 7 sons serve as Kohanim Gedolim was a great merit.
HA as I suspected. This ISN'T what I called a distortion! We all agree the sages thought having seven KG sons was a reward!!! So these are two experts who don't (yet) seem to disagree with me at all.
Michael:
Do you think random insults help you prove a point?
Stick to the argument and so will I. If you want to play name calling games I learned not to do that in "Rabbi School".
Are the laws of meat and milk Chazal's distortion of the Torah?
What are you talking about?
Seriously.
Rashi and Rama both make it clear that the gemara accepts that the reason for her merit was her Tznius of covering her hair indoors.
Do they see it in OUR passage or a parralel. If in ours where and how?
DovBear if someone walks into a law school or a court, and cites a statute, and gives a "plain reading" of that statute, without attention to how the statute has been understood by judges and legal scholars throughout his history, he is not being smart, he is being silly.
Let's face facts:
Your post implies that those who adopt the practice of covering hair indoors are following a "significant distortion" of the Gemara. After all, you described your discovery of the "correct" reading of the Gemara as being "unfortunate for the Kimchis copycats".
It turns out, however, that the greatest scholars have always understood there to be a Hora'a from this gemara that it is praiseworthy to cover one's hair indoors, and that this is a Segulah (or natural cause) for children that will be of the stature of the Kohanim Gedolim.
So, your "plain reading", and accompanying critique of the practice of being strict to cover one's hair indoors, and the concurrent hope that it will bring with it the Segulah described in the Gemora, is similar to the guy described above, who would be laughed out of any law school in the country.
E. fink,
The Torah says "Do not cook a baby goat in his mother's milk" Chazal interpreted that as a prohibition against mixing milk and meat in cooking.
That is the consensus interpretation, and, in Judaism, it becomes the correct reading. Anyone that would call it a distortion is a heretic and a fool.
In the same sense, it is clear that the Meforshei Hashas did not learn the Gemara like DovBear, they learned it like Ask Moses. For DovBear to call that a distortion is ...
For you to defend it is ...
If the Meforshei Hashas all learn a certain way, then, by definition, they are not distorting the Gemara.
Let's be clear. DovBear had no idea that Rashi and Rama both understand the Gemara the way they do. He was shooting from the hip, he was wrong, and now he is twisting in the wind, and you are backing him up...
No Michael that is not analogous. Not at all.
The halacha is clear regarding meat and milk. 3 times in the chumash, eating, cooking, hanaa etc., it is all clear.
This is a story, with a weird ending brought down in some texts as halacha.
Do you think Rashi's walls saw the hair of Rashi's wife? How about the Rama? Seriously. What do you think?
Well, I can tell you for sure, they kept basar b'chalav.
That is the issue here. An obscure story with some apparent non-halachic ramifications.
Do any of them say it wasn't kimchis's own opinion? do any of them claim its a fact (and not just her best guess) that extreme modesty produced the reward?
Rama says it as a fact, not as her opinion.
Rashi cites the Yerushalmi as an explanation of her words, but, it is clear that Rashi holds that the Yerushalmi and Bavli agree.
No, E. The question is whether DovBear was correct in saying that the Ask Moses understanding of the Gemoro is a distortion. The gravity of the two cases is irrelevant.
You, no doubt, realize this so why would you bring up that distinction.
DovBear, did you know that Rashi and Rama both interpret the Gemara the Ask Moses way? And, if not, would you still have posted that the Ask Moses version is a distortion, if you had known it?
This argument is ridiculous. First of all, the gemara clearly states that chazal was quite dubious regarding Kimchis' stated reason for having good sons. But the whole story is quite suspect due to the questions I raised above and the others. Finally, the Rama, Rashi, Tosfos Yeshanim, and the Maharsha were all human beings and therefore cannot know for sure what Hashem decided to reward Kimchis with for the chumras she took upon herself. This is a story in the gemara, just like the hundreds of other stories. And they are usually there for us to learn something from them.
I think we are meant to learn from this story, that if you are a good and pious person, you will probably have good children that will make you proud. And it also stands to reason.
the gemara clearly states that chazal was quite dubious regarding Kimchis' stated reason for having good sons.
Says Mark, after reading a passage, in translation, without asking what thousands of years of Jewish scholarship have said on the subject.
yawn...
It turns out, however, that the greatest scholars have always understood there to be a Hora'a from this gemara that it is praiseworthy to cover one's hair indoors, and that this is a Segulah (or natural cause) for children that will be of the stature of the Kohanim Gedolim.
Michael according to your own answers to my questions above this is NOT what any of the four big names under discussion actually said; also according to your own own account of what maharsha and TY say they may not disagree with my reading at all; if they do you as yet have not told us how.
So stop playing games please.
And though I was not familiar with the Rama (and still don't see where he disagree with me) I did check Rashi on the page and Im looking at it now. Its not perfectly clear to me that he HOLDS like you say he does; rather he is explaining the prooftext suggested in the yerushalmi. He is NOT saying the segulah works nor does he say the sages on yoma 47a think it works. So after all that hot angry air we don't have anyone save perhaps the Rama explicitly disagreeing with my reading nor do we have any big name reading the sages on yoma 47a in a way that has them agreeing with Kimchit's theory.
Here are the REAL facts
Rashi on Yoma 47a merely explains the prooftext. He does NOT say kimchit is right nor does he say the Sages said she was right.
So Rashi doesn't disagree with me at least not on Yoma 47a
Per Michaels own words Tosfos Yeshanim and Maharsha don't disagree with me either. He said "both make it clear that having 7 sons serve as Kohanim Gedolim was a great merit." This is obviously the view of the sages. (why else did they ask kimchit the original question) and unless theres more to what they said then Michael shared, neither TY nor Maharsha disagree with my reading either.
This leaves us with just the Rama. Ill get to him in a second but for now it should be obvious to all that Michaels shirt tearing about me disagreeing with the peopld he cited holds no water at all. (though see above where I say the best argument not the biggest name will win the day)
Im really annoyed at Michael for misrepresenting Rashi and for saying Maharsha and TY disagreed with my reading when what he cited from them didn't relate to my reading at all.
Quite aggravating to have wasted so much time with someone who was just angrily and nastily trying to defend his cherished belief though he had no solid back up.
Michael - Says Mark, after reading a passage, in translation, without asking what thousands of years of Jewish scholarship have said on the subject.
yawn...
What are you talking about, I am reading the Gemara straight.
"אמרו לה חכמים מה עשית שזכית לכך אמרה להם מימי לא ראו קורות ביתי קלעי שערי אמרו לה הרבה עשו כן ולא הועילו"
If you disagree, what do you think "אמרו לה הרבה עשו כן ולא הועילו " means instead? It's simple Hebrew, not even Aramaic!
I don't think Michael knows what he means or if he does he hasn't deigned to tell us. Michaels not interested in figuring out the text. He doesn't care about learning torah. All he wants to do is defend his beloved idea and he's obviously not willing to examine the possibility that his beloved idea is wrong. Instead hed rather rudely insult Rabbi Fink wildy misrepresent Rashi and claim that Meharsha and TY disagree with me though this is not apparent from even his own cites. The old story: when cornered throw up lots of dirt.
Hey, if you want your kids to be Kohanim Gedolim, you should remarry without Yibum or Chalitzah (Yebamot 15b).
"אני מעיד לכם על שתי משפחות גדולות שהיו בירושלים משפחת בית צבועים מבן עכמאי ומשפחת בית קופאי מבן מקושש שהם בני צרות ומהם כהנים גדולים ושמשו על גבי המזבח"
dovbear:
i agree with you about the conflict between the yerushalmi and bavli, and about rashi's intent in bringing the yerushalmi.
kt,
josh
michael, i can see many reasons why the gemorah there would be brought where it does. it mentions in the source text for what the remo is commenting on that if we were to forbid women from going out into the courtyard without a head covering, "they would not remain any kosher women in the decendents of avraham"
I haven't given the issue as much iyyun as it needs, but the two statements are connected, and i'm not completely sure how yet, i would need to see where this gemorah is quoted, how and by whom, it is possible that they are using the gemorah for something else, it is also possible that the gemorah does not mean exactly what we think it means.
To whit, it is possible this gemorah was intended as a remark about stupid women acting like idiots. (they may have been mocking her)
It is also possible that they are saying that this action was a good action, but having seven of her children serve as cohanim gedolim was bad, and so this action was not what brought her this merit.
it is also possible that having seven kohanim gedolim was good (but one was not so good, meaning that it was her children who were good enough to be chosen to be the deputies)
there are a myriad other possible ways to interpret her statement, and as i said, i think this is a tzarich iyun moment.
However, it is also possible that chazal prefered the alternative reading to this one, but what shaychus does kol kavuda bas melech penima have to do with this, and the previous material yishmael ben kimchis is not particularly lauditory. . .
Thank you Josh.
Thank you Yoni.
I want to explain again why I say the AskMoses/popular approach is a distortion and ask again if anyone among the bold names disagree.
AskMoses/popular say "kimchit was rewarded for covering he hair" that is they make it seem like a fact.
In Yoma however it is very clear that this is only Kimchits opinion and whether or not the sages agreed is an open question.
Rashi on the page (despite Michaels lies) does not settle the question and if Maharsha or TY do Michael as yet hasn't told us how. His cites from them are off point.
So aside from the Rama (which still must be reviewed in context) my point is as yet unopposed.
The fact is that Rashi on the page brings, from yerushalmi, the explanation of the connection between Tznius and KG.
If, as you seem to believe, there are medroshois Chalukois, and acc. to Yerushalmi, the opinion of Kimchis stands as the Maskanah (that there is a connection), but, acc. to bavli, the opinion of Kimchis is refuted by the sages, how would it make sense for Rashi to bring the Derasha of Yerushalmi as an explanation for Kimchis in the Bavli, when according to bavli, all Kimchis is is a superstitious old lady.
Im really annoyed at Michael for misrepresenting Rashi and for saying Maharsha and TY disagreed with my reading when what he cited from them didn't relate to my reading at all.
I am so sorry that you are annoyed. If you go back and look at the comment thread, at the time, there was also an argument as to whether having sons that were Kohanim Gedolim should be construed as a Sechar or not. You seemed to be taking up that point as "one of the excellent (sic) questions against the Rema's reading." I brought Maharsha and Tosfos Yeshaim in connection with that.
In addition, Maharsha does mention, in passing, that the seven sons were in Zechus of her Tznius.
Because Kimchis held like the Yerushalmi, this Rashi is supporting her position with the Yerushalmi. That was Kimchis rationale.
We do NOT know what the Bavli held according to Rashi.
Kimchis held like the Yerushalmi, this Rashi is supporting her position with the Yerushalmi.
Did you forget that, in the Yerushalmi, it is the sages who said these words?
So?
There are obviously many ways that the sages words could have been interpreted. 1) A dismissal of Kimchis' assertion (as you interpreted it.) 2) A wry comment on the mysteries of the ways of heaven. 3) a warning to other women that the Segulah of Tznius=KG does not always work, though it worked this time. And many others.
Those were my words from 10:45 last night. So it seems pretty silly of you to say that I don't deign to give my explanation. again, I emphasize that it is speculation, because I don't have access to Seforim to research it.
Again, I emphasize that it is even possible that there are Gedolei Yisroel that interpret the Gemara the way DovBear did. We have not seen them yet. The important point is that, as far as has been discovered to this point, the consensus interpretation of the Gemara is that Kimchis was right, and it is silly for amatuers like DovBear to call the consensus opinion a distortion, just as it would be silly for some Frum amatuer to say that the consensus interpretation of some scientific data is a distortion of that data.
Can everyone imagine how hard DovBear, and all his buddies would be laughing at that?
why is Gemara interpretation any different.
When you walk on a straight path, you meet others.
response to E. Fink
So, acc. to DovBear, the sages in Bavli completely dismiss the words of Kimchis, as being baseless. Yet, I am menat to believe that Rashi would support those words, in the flow of the Shas in Bavli, with a Derasha that is accepted as Maskana in Yerushalmi. It is not the Derech Hashas at all.
response to Yoni:
You wanted to know what the connection of Kol Kevudah Bas Melech Penimah is to Kehuna Gedola. THat is the Derosha of Yerushalmi, brought in Rashi. The hemshech haposuk is M'MishbTzois Zohov Levusha, which is interpreted as an allusion to the Bigdei Kohein Gadol.
DovBear, if you had known about the Rama, would you still have called what Ask Moses says a "distortion"?
Josh seems to think Rashi writes this way...
http://parsha.blogspot.com/2009/
...yerushalmi.html
And, IIRC there are other examples of Rashi giving the drasha of a hava amina or an alternative pshat...
w would it make sense for Rashi to bring the Derasha of Yerushalmi as an explanation for Kimchis in the Bavli,
__
He's not doing that. What Rashi does is bring and explain the yerushalmy's proof text. He does not say kimchit was right nor does he say that the sages said she was right.
Michael keeps claiming lots and lots of rabbis disagree with my claim that the hair segulah is presented only as Kimchits theory and that it isn't obvious that the sages agreed with her. Unfortunately he has to date not backed that up.
Where is this Rama again? Is it in SA? Because I don't see any Ayin Mishpat on this sugya?
On Josh's blog, he quotes the two versions, and says that "one should read this as a dispute rather than trying to harmoize in favor of the Yerushalmi"
I challenge Josh to produce his source for this reading.
I will stipulate that, absent any sources, the text supports the reading, but it is silly to use that kind of reasoning when we have the Rama who brings it L'Halacha, and we also have Rashi, which Josh twists away from with some sentences that don't really address the problem with Rashi bringing a thought from an entirely different stream of interpretation into Bavli.
It is in Darche Moshe
The Rama based on the out of context quote above seems only to be agreeing with kimchit. AskMoses is still a distortion because the present as fact (kimchit was rewarded) when in Yoma this is merely her personal theory.
No one provided yet reads it differently.
The source is cited above in the comment thread
DOv, You know that many contemporary Rabbis bring this Gemara...right?
For example, the Lubavitcher Rebbe mentioned it several times, with the standard interpretation
And, E. Fink, if Rashi (IN SHAS) does this all the time, you should be able to produce a couple examples, no?
AskMoses is still a distortion because the present as fact (kimchit was rewarded) when in Yoma this is merely her personal theory.
How do you know that askmoses is quoting the bavli, maybe they are quoting the Yerushalmi?
Note: the above was said only L'shitoscha. The consensus of sages is that there is no dispute between bavli and yerushalmi.
If you were a grown up, trying to actually have a scholarly discussion, you would have said something like:
It is strange that everyone brings Kimchis as if she is a hard and fast source for this idea, when a pshat reading of the Gemoroa seems to indicate that the Chachomim disagreed with her.
The Rama says that she was merited...as a result of her Tznius. How is that not reading the sages as agreeing with Kimchis? Unless you want to say that the Rema holds that it is a Machlokes bet. Kimchis and the Sages and he paskens like kimchis. Note: I am suggesting that as a joke, it is obviously a ridiculous line of thought
How do you know that askmoses is quoting the bavli, maybe they are quoting the Yerushalmi?
In the yerushalmy this is also only kimchits opinion. In the Bavli the sages disagree with her. In the yerushalmy they give a prooftext (which MAY suggest they agreed with her) NOWHERE do the sages or the gemarah explicitly say she was right.
So the question is on the Rama. He (from the out of context quote above seemingly) agrees with her. Fine. But for what reason? We are entitled to ask and entitled to have an answer.
And Michael I don't know what the LR did or did not say. If he also agreed with Kimchit and gave a reason for agreeing please share it. The mere fact that he and the Rama agreed with kimchit is an interesting bit of knowledge to have I suppose but my main arguments still stand. Here they are again: In Yoma the segulah is presented as Kimchits opinion and the sages seem to disagree. The fact that the LR and the Rama seem to agree with kimchit is no counter to my points.
I think Rashi also sees the sages in the Bavli as disagreeing with Kimchis and he brings the yerushamys prooftext as an attempt at harmonization....
Michael:
Regardless of how we understand the gemara, if the gemara is not brought l'halacha what is its value according to the LR and the other Rabbis?
i would add that to understand Bavli, and the phrase הרבה עשו כן ולא הועילו, it might be useful to see how that phrase is used elsewhere.
we have in brachot 35b:
אמר אביי הרבה עשו כרבי ישמעאל ועלתה בידן כר' שמעון בן יוחי ולא עלתה בידן
as well as nidah 70b:
מה יעשה אדם ויחכם אמר להן ירבה בישיבה וימעט בסחורה אמרו הרבה עשו כן ולא הועיל להם אלא יבקשו רחמים ממי שהחכמה שלו
kt,
josh
WOW..what bekius!!!
The Remuh was, no doubt,unaware of these gemaros.
Would LOVE it is Micahel would admit he was wrong about Rashi, and also wrong to say that DY and Maharsha disagree with my reading.
I've already said that Rama seems to be agreeing with Kimchit, though I still criticize the mainstream/AskMoses version which makes kimchit's opinion seem like the Gemarah's statement of fact.
snort. while the rema might have, or might not have, had these gemaras in mind, that he takes a position does not necessarily mean that he interprets the gemara a certain way.
for instance, he could be favoring the Yerushalmi over the Bavli in citing this. even if not, his local concern is not to give peshat in a gemara (and the particular phrase), but to give peshat in the words of the Tur (given the points raised by the Beis Yosef) which seemed to imply that certain conduct was not hagun, and to note that Tur agreed that such conduct was hagun but that there is a positive tznius trait to it -- giving a citation from the gemara and enough of a citation to help identify it as exemplary behavior. it would be different, imho, if Rema's intent was to comment on that particular gemara and explain what each phrase meant.
see the Tur, Beis Yosef, and Darkei Moshe here (also the Prisha's attempted answer into the diyuk into Tur's language):
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager....num=333&
hilite=
meanwhile, this is by no means the only instance in which a story is told over slightly differently in Bavli and Yerushalmi, in a meaningful way.
kt,
josh
snort
If you were a grown up, trying to actually have a scholarly discussion
Well, I'm not and as you've been here since 2005 its rather disingenuose of you to act so surprised.
Also, I don't accept musar about manners from the likes of you. You're far too nasty, over far to many comments to have any credibility there.
I think that the reason Kimchit's explanation is so popular is because it is easy. Everyone wants to raise pious, worthy children. It is a difficult process, involving lots of effort, time, attention, and love. And honestly a parent can do everything right and still have the child grow up with problems.
But along comes the story of Kimchit and behold! If you cover your hair all the time, even when alone in your house, all your child rearing worries go away. Very few people will believe this literally, but still, they'll think, what can it hurt? And so we see the sheitel covered mother yelling at her kids for some offense or another and completely ignoring the fact that tzniut is a whole package including attitudes, and not just about covering up.
We see this magical thinking elsewhere - someone, the Brookly Wolf I think, calls its "vending machine Judaism." Another good example is the comment of the Ari that one who cleans their house for pesach perfectly will be free of sin all year long. Cleaning your house perfectly is an huge effort - but so much easier and clearer than doing a cheshbon hanefesh, doing teshuvah, and constantly having kavanah in all your mitzvot.
"vending machine Judaism"
Ha, I like that!
I prefer authentic home-made Judaism
hmn, comments dissapearing
DovBear, I have been away from my computer for a day, so have not been able to respond.
You say that I should admit that I was wrong about Rashi.
I don't really get where you are coming from.
There are two possibilities.
1) Rashi understood the Bavli to be arguing, L'Maskana, with the Yerushalmi. (Midroshois Chalukois)
2) Rashi believed that the Bavli and the Yerushalmi were on the same page.
The fact that Rashi brings the Derasha of the Chachomim from yerushalmi, to explain the mehalech Hagemara in Bavli, is reason to believe that he holds that they are on the same page. By bringing that Derasha, he puts the statement of Kimchis in Bavli onto the same plane as the statement of Kimchis in Yerushalmi, i.e., a statement that was accepted as part of Jewish thought by the Chachmei Yisroel.
Josh Waxman states that he disagrees with this. But, the burden of proof is on him. He needs to produce examples of Rashi bringing from Yerushalmi, Stam, in a way that is not in accordance with the Maskana of Bavli. He needs to produce a Meforash that explains the Bavli as being a Midrash Choilek on the Yerushalmi.
I will grant you that an unadorned reading of the Bavli might lead you to your conclusion.
But, the gemara does not exist in a vacuum.
DovBear Said:
I've already said that Rama seems to be agreeing with Kimchit, though I still criticize the mainstream/AskMoses version which makes kimchit's opinion seem like the Gemarah's statement of fact.
Do you criticize the rema also? How dare the Rama not agree with DovBear's reading of bavli?!?! Why the great scholars Josh Waxman and E. Fink have both affirmed that DovBear's reading is correct, not mention the talmidim Mark and Yoni. Josh Waxman even made a blog post about it. The Rama should hang his head in shame, the poor fellow.
Michael, instead of being silly, why don't you attempt to explain the Rama's reading. We don't think it works. We're entitled to our opinion. We'd like to know how he sees what he says he sees. These are legitimate questions, (and also more appealing then your blind godol worship, and angry outbursts.)
"But, the burden of proof is on him"
no, it isn't. it is possible to interpret it in two different ways. as such, each is equally possible without further evidence. the burden of proof is as much on you as on me.
add to that that the dibbur hamatchil is on the woman's statement, rather than on the conclusion of the gemara (where the dibbur hamatchil is really the best clue we have, and is very often useful for determining Rashi's intent on Chumash) and it convinces me that this is rashi's intent. feel free to disagree.
"He needs to produce a Meforash..."
why? do we have any meforshim *either way* that clearly explain the Bavli like you? and do they clearly explain how they do it?
no, the Rema does not count. "Do you criticize the rema also?" did the Rema *say* he was explaining the Bavli, rather than utilizing the midrash or Yerushalmi? do you know how he understands the Bavli, and interprets that last statement. no, you are assuming this. anyway, this all amounts to an appeal to authority rather than an attempt to grapple with the text.
kt,
josh
There are two possibilities.
1) Rashi understood the Bavli to be arguing, L'Maskana, with the Yerushalmi. (Midroshois Chalukois)
2) Rashi believed that the Bavli and the Yerushalmi were on the same page
OK, Rashi believed that the teachings of the Yerushalmi and the BT were identical, just as he believed that that MT was immaculate and without error. In his Torah commentary he brings midrashim to solve the perceived problems in the MT; in our example from Yoma 47a he is bringing a drash from the Yerushalmi to explain away a problem he perceives in the BT.
I believe that he, like me, read the BT as saying the Sages disagree with kimchis. However, unlike me, Rashi thought the Yerushalmi and the BT could not possibly disagree, so he brought the prooftext from the Yerushalmi as an attempt at harmonization.
Now, I avoid Rashi's problem in two ways. First, I don't see the Yerushalmi as nec. saying the Sages agreed with kimchis. I see them as attempting to explain her opinion w/o nec. saying she was right.
Second, the Kimchis story in the BT is not the same story as the one told in the Yerushalmi. I agree the two talmuds are describing the same event, but the discriptions are different; obviously the story evolved/became modified as it was passed from one generation to the next. At the very least the BT's way of telling the story is different from the Yerushalmi's telling which suggests... something. (Remember, the Yerushalmi's redactor chose to tell the story one way; the BT's redactor decided to tell it differently.)
I don't think that the conclusion/interpretation reached by the redactors of the BT necessarily has to agree with the comnclusion/interpetation of the Yerushalmi's redactor some 500 years earlier. In other words, I'm not restricted by Rashi's premise. I'm not forced to find ways to harmonize the two versions of the story. I'm content with saying the Yerushalmi redactor had one point to make, while the BT's redactor wanted to say something else, perhaps even something contradictory.
I just thought of an even more important question (that Michael will somehow find a way to dismiss).
Let's go back about 1500 years (before the SA, the Rema, etc). Since the Yerushalmi was completed about 200 years before the Bavli, what possible reasoning could the writers of the Bavli have to claim that the Chachamim dismissed the reason provided by Kimchis if the Yerushalmi said otherwise? Did they question the sages that came before them or did they accept what they said without question?
the question operated under the assumption that all material in the Talmud dates to the period of redaction. i don't accept that assumption.
we often find conflicting Tannaitic sources, and these sources differ from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael. From Mishnayot to Braytot to Toseftot. in this instance, the אמרו לה הרבה עשו כן ולא הועילו is in Hebrew, rather than Aramaic, and is part of a Tannaitic source cited and introduced with Tno Rabanan.
and while some may posit that the entirety of Yerushalmi was available to the Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael (see e.g. Rif), I don't think that this is a solid assertion.
kt,
josh
and while some may posit that the entirety of Yerushalmi was available to the Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael (see e.g. Rif), I don't think that this is a solid assertion.
Whether or not the entirety
of the Yerushalmi was available isn't relevant here, because it is clear that this particular story was known to the writers of the Bavli. So the question stands - why did the Bavli Rabbanim come to a different conclusion than the Yerushalmi Rabbanim?
"because it is clear that this particular story was known to the writers of the Bavli"
no, it is clear that this particular story was known in the form that they had it. it does not mean that they also had the textual derivation for Kimchit's version, or that the story ended there, will the Sages approval.
(and again, it seems to me likely that this variant they had was already variant in Tannaitic times.)
kt,
josh
However, unlike me, Rashi thought the Yerushalmi and the BT could not possibly disagree
Why would Rashi think this, when there are hundreds of cases wherein they do disagree, even in the retelling of stories?
As proof to Josh's assertion that the Bavli form is Tannaic, it is brought as a Tanu Rabbanan, which means that it is a Beraisa, plus the whole thing is in Hebrew, which usually means that there is no Amora-era interpolation.
no, the Rema does not count. "Do you criticize the rema also?" did the Rema *say* he was explaining the Bavli, rather than utilizing the midrash or Yerushalmi? do you know how he understands the Bavli, and interprets that last statement. no, you are assuming this. anyway, this all amounts to an appeal to authority
Josh, if you look in the Darchei Moshe that is printed in the new Tur with Tziyunim, you will see that they are Metzayein to Yoma 47a. I know that it is not a proof to what the Rama had in mind, but it furthers my assertion that the standard understanding of the Bavli is that Kimchis' words are accepted.
The same is true about the Maharsha's discussion on the issue, even though it is not a proof, it lends credence to the notion.
This is not an appeal to authority. DovBear is the one who decided to criticize Ask Moses for communicating the standard version. He should apologize, because he, and you, are on thin ice with your non-standard interpretation.
anyway, this all amounts to an appeal to authority
Josh, have you ever the expression "Az men geit oif a gleichen veg, treft men menschen"?
Is that an appeal to authority, or an acknowledgement that it is more likely that all Jews in the world got something right, than it is that you did.
Do a google search for Kimchis
and you will find http://books.google.com/books?id...result&
resnum=6 - The Biala Rebbe learns the Gemara like the standard model.
http://www.sichosinenglish.org/b...glish/14/
23.htm - the lubavitcher Rebbe
The Vishnitzer Rebbe
http://israel613.com/books/DRESS...C_HALACHA-
E.pdf
Not to mention the Rama, Rashi,
Perhaps we should make the DovBear corrolary to the above statement:
Az men Geit oif a krumen veg, treft men E. Fink un Josh Waxman.
If you want to have an intelligent conversation about what the Gemara means, by all means, do so, but start off by acknowledging that the standard interpretation is standard for a reason - because it is, most likely, correct.
Finally, in my google search, I found this here - http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vo...7/
v07n017.shtml :
2. Harbei asu k'kimchis vlo alsa beyadam. Rabbi Yaakov Genack explained
the gemara to mean that one should imitate kimchis only if one has the
right kavvanos. Empty copying of chumros is meaningless.
Not a terrible explanation...
Why would Rashi think this, when there are hundreds of cases wherein they do disagree, even in the retelling of stories?
He seems to think that here.
This is not an appeal to authority. DovBear is the one who decided to criticize Ask Moses for communicating the standard version. He should apologize, because he, and you, are on thin ice with your non-standard interpretation.
Thin ice with who? What's going to happen to us if we're wrong? Who is harmed by free and open discussion of a Talmudic passage? I'm not sure what's making you so nervous, but I suspect the LR and his view are part of the answer.
Anyway, the plain meaning of the passage supports Josh and me. I, honestly, don't see any other way to read it, and so far only the Rama reads it differently I'd love to be able to ask him why. Is there a supercommentary that sheds some light?
As for Rashi, I think its poshut that he reads the Sages as disagreeing with
Kimchit. Because of how he reads the Yerushalmy he doesn't see how this can be, so he brings the Yerushalmy as an attempt at harmonization.
But even if this interp is not correct, we still don't have Rashi saying plainly that Kimchit was right, or that anyone agreed with her.
In fact, ttbomk NO ONE says that. The Rama implies, it and lots of silly school teachers have said she was right, but where are the great men who support that, and based on what?
We still don't know.
Not to mention the Rama, Rashi
Not Rashi, as noted.
SO three Hasidic rebbas read it your way. I am not a hasid. Do any of them explain why they arrived at this interpretation? because that's what missing, and you won't talk me out of my reading until you provide the rational for yours.
yes, as i said, appeals to authority. i am more interested in how they would understand the "problematic" phrase, and whether their explanation is compelling.
i would add that i would consider is quite possible that the writings of Rav Moshe de Leon would influence certain readers to prefer the Sages favoring Kimchis. Because in his sefer, he made covering of the hair almost mandatory, with all sorts of negative spiritual repercussions when the women do not:
"Rabbi Chizkia said, 'Cursed is the man who allows his wife to expose hairs of her head beyond their covering. Covering the hair is one of the acts of modesty that should be performed even in the home (i.e. not just in public). The woman who allows some of her hair to be uncovered in order to exhibit it causes poverty to descend on her home, her children not to reach the prominence they could have achieved, and an impure spirit to dwell in her home. What precipitates such misfortunes? The hair that she exposed within her house! If the effect of an indoor exposure is such, imagine what damage is caused by exposing hair outdoors… A woman should, therefore ensure that not even a single hair is uncovered even when she is indoors, and all the more so when she goes outdoors.'"
kt,
josh
Thin ice with who? What's going to happen to us if we're wrong? Who is harmed by free and open discussion of a Talmudic passage?
Just to clarify, i mean that you are on thin intellectual ice.
As for Rashi, I think its poshut that he reads the Sages as disagreeing with
Kimchit. Because of how he reads the Yerushalmy he doesn't see how this can be, so he brings the Yerushalmy as an attempt at harmonization.
This paragraph is incomprehensible. If it is Poshut that in Bavli, the sages disagree with Kimchis, and it is Poshut that, in Yerushlamy, they agree with Kimchis, then, by definition, we have a case of Midroshois Chalukois, which would not turn Rashi's hair at all. Rashi is a big boy, he has seen Midroshois Chalukois before. There are, as I stated, hundreds of examples of disagreements between Bavli and Yerushalmi.
If Rashi is trying to harmonize between Bavli and Yerushalmi, then, by definition, he is reading one or the other differently. Since he brings the Derasha of Yerushalmi as a commentary to Bavli, it seems that he is accepting the notion that the sages agreed with Kimchis.
Josh Waxman did not say that Rashi is trying to harmonize between Bavli and Yerushalmi. The weight of the evidence is against him, but at least his position has a degree of logical consistency. Your position, as stated in the quoted paragraph, is simply incomprehensible.
And where did the Zohar get it from?
yes, as i said, appeals to authority. i am more interested in how they would understand the "problematic" phrase, and whether their explanation is compelling.
Josh, I notice that your blog is filled with appeals to authorty. For example, in your examination of ehrlich, you reject his text-based interpretation Nitzmadim by appealing to the expert opinion that sacred prostitution was not a widespread ANE practice.
Is that an appeal to authority? Or, perhaps, it is just a recognition that it is silly to march out on a limb when the experts in the field have a consensus.
But, let's agree on one thing. When DovBear made his ignorant posting, he was not aware of the wealth of Jewish sources that support the Ask Moses version of the story. The thrust of his post stands refuted. It is an interesting conversation - trying to figure out whether the Bavli and Yerushalmi agree, but it is certainly fair to say that the Talmud says that Kimchis was rewarded for covering her hair by having seven sons that are Kohanim Gedolim. We know that many great Jews read the Talmud that way, and, at the very least, it is certainly true about Talmud Yerushalmi.
It is clearly silly to call that version a "significant distortion".
Dovbear, of course, was not aware of any of this, so he posted what he posted. But, now, with knowledge comes responsibility, to correct the post to reflect what he now knows.
And, finally, if you want my opinion of what the Gemara means, I have already suggested two expalnations, and quoted a third from somebody whose name I do not recognize. I think that all of them are adequate.
I further think that your attempt to discern the meaning of Lo Hoila Lahen from analogy to the sugya of Rashbi is flawed, because there it is talking about a lifestyle, and the meaning of Lo Hoila is that they did not manage to maintain it.
If that is the meaning here, then it would mean that many women tried to keep their hair covered indoors, but did not manage to do it, which is clearly not the intent that DovBear wants it to be.
Micahel, of course I knew that mainstream opinion. I call it the mainstream opinion didn't I? I don't consider anything Hasidic to be mainstream, so I don't really care what any rebba says. As for the Rama, I've already said I didn't know about it, though as of yet, no one has satisfactorily explained the basis of his reading. Josh's speculation about kabalistic influence is interesting.
No one else from the achronim or rishonim has been shown to agree with the mainstream opinion, an important point you keep ignoring.
If it is Poshut that in Bavli, the sages disagree with Kimchis, and it is Poshut that, in Yerushlamy, they agree with Kimchis, then, by definition, we have a case of Midroshois Chalukois, which would not turn Rashi's hair at all. Rashi is a big boy, he has seen Midroshois Chalukois before. There are, as I stated, hundreds of examples of disagreements between Bavli and Yerushalmi.
If Rashi is trying to harmonize between Bavli and Yerushalmi, then, by definition, he is reading one or the other differently. Since he brings the Derasha of Yerushalmi as a commentary to Bavli, it seems that he is accepting the notion that the sages agreed with Kimchis.
Not necessarily. He may, for some as yet unknown reason, believe that the Sages had to have agreed with Kimchis. Unfortunately, this isn't what the BT says. So Rashi did what he does all over chumash when he runs into a posuk that conflicts with a previously held idea, and attempted to smooth out the problem by citing a drash.
Is that an appeal to authority? Or, perhaps, it is just a recognition that it is silly to march out on a limb when the experts in the field have a consensus.
You've yet to show any consensus among the experts. The teaching of Hasidim don't always qualify, and certainly not if they don't explain themselves.
We know that many great Jews read the Talmud that way, and, at the very least, it is certainly true about Talmud Yerushalmi
No we don't. You keep saying this, and we keep pointing out you are wrong. Only the Rama is clearly against my reading, and perhaps the 20th century hasidim you mentioned, who may have been speaking polemically and not actually respondig to the text
"Josh Waxman did not say that Rashi is trying to harmonize between Bavli and Yerushalmi. The weight of the evidence is against him"
what evidence is there about Rashi's intent?!
"And where did the Zohar get it from?"
where does the zohar get many of the things it gets, some of which are at odds with the gemara? once you start innovating some evil mystical connection between a woman's hair and the evil serpent, all sorts of things develop. and not all of them come from the gemara.
"Josh, I notice that your blog is filled with appeals to authorty."
filled? you point out one example. at the time Erlich made his assertion, that was the scholarly consensus. though it has gone the other way. but the scholars do not (hopefully in general) operate via appeals to authority. they have arguments back and forth as to the meaning of the archeological evidence, which is all very out in the open, and which one can examine. if erlich is basing himself on archeological conceptions of it, then the open discussion has gone the other way, based on solid proofs. i am not familiar with the particular proofs, and i wanted to use a shorthand because my posts are long enough and time consuming enough already, but if someone wanted to argue the other way, i would look into it and see what is compelling and convincing.
and i have looked into various claims of scholars in the past and not found them convincing. for example, about the Egyptian origin of Moshe's name. And here I take on the Anchor Bible's scholarly emendation of the naming of Levi.
here, i am not even sure that Rama and Rashi are even reading the Bavli this way (I don't see it in Rashi at all), but the assumption is that since X and Y are saying it, investigation stops and their reading is the most compelling and convincing reason. even though i am pretty sure that absent any sources other sources, and no sides to favor, you would say that pashut peshat is as i said.
here, because he was convinced that Rema read the gemara a certain way, in response to pointing out the phrase in parallel gemaras (which was not intended btw to necessarily favor either side - i could possibly construct an argument in the opposite direction), i got a snarky response of:
"WOW..what bekius!!!
The Remuh was, no doubt,unaware of these gemaros."
that is, an appeal to authority as a means of evading even contemplating the merits of various positions.
"And, finally, if you want my opinion of what the Gemara means, I have already suggested two expalnations, and quoted a third from somebody whose name I do not recognize. I think that all of them are adequate."
which is good, and takes away from the mere appeal to authority. but do you think these are the the most compelling explanations? why should they be preferred?
"I further think that your attempt to discern the meaning of Lo Hoila Lahen from analogy to the sugya of Rashbi "
that they did not manage to maintain it is a possible rendition of that particular parallel. would you say the same for the gemara in niddah? and if a reinterpretation, why is that preferable, on its merits?
kt,
josh
No one else from the achronim or rishonim has been shown to agree with the mainstream opinion, an important point you keep ignoring.
I finally had a chance to look in some Meforshei Hashas, and I found that the Chasam Sofer (in Sefer Chiddushei Chasam Sofer Hashalem - which includes his Derashos), brings the story and assumes that Kimchis is correct.
I also found the Meiri who learns the Gemara according to the standard model, and seems to address your question, though the Meiri is pretty cryptic. He says that Kimchis was rewarded for her Tznius, and then says "And even though many did like her and it did not help them - Blessed be the Baal Hamoznaim"
I am taking this to mean something similar to what I said at 10:45 on 7/6
2) A wry comment on the mysteries of the ways of heaven. 3) a warning to other women that the Segulah of Tznius=KG does not always work, though it worked this time.
Basically, what I think the Meiri is saying is that G-d - the Master of the Scales - weighs each person's deeds, and it is not for us to question why one person is rewarded in a certain way for a meritorious act, and another is not. And that is the point of the chachomim, explaining that even if a certain behavior is connected with a certain reward, there is no garauntee that it will work for every person, because G-d is the Baal Hamoznaim.
So, we have poshut Peshat in Rashi (who is brought also by Tosfos Rabbeinu Peretz), the Meiri, the Rama, the implication of the Maharsha, the Chasam Sofer, and contemporary Chasidic Rebbbes, as well as a few non-Chassidic authors who you can find by googling. Is that enough?
No one else from the achronim or rishonim has been shown to agree with the mainstream opinion, an important point you keep ignoring.
I finally had a chance to look
So you confess that until now you were repeating an unsubstantiated allegation as if it were fact? Thanks.
Try not to do it again.
So, we have poshut Peshat in Rashi (who is brought also by Tosfos Rabbeinu Peretz), the Meiri, the Rama, the implication of the Maharsha, the Chasam Sofer, and contemporary Chasidic Rebbbes, as well as a few non-Chassidic authors who you can find by googling. Is that enough?
(1) We don't have Rashi
(2) We may have the Meiri. After your incorrect assertions about Maharsha and TY (not to mantion your wrong reading of Rashi) I'm hesitant to accept your interp.
(3) We don't have the Maharsha, based on your own cites above.
(4) I don't trust your interp of Chasam Sofer either. See (2)
(5) I don't care about contemporary hasidic rebbas, and anyway presume they are speaking polemically, and not giving a reading of the passage.
(6) The non hasidic ones (liek AskMoses?) are also speaking imprecisely, colloquially or polemically. I want to see someone acknowledge the problem and give an interpretation of the words which fits with the claim that the Sages agreed with Kimchis.
Meanwhile, anyone who says "The Talmud says Kimchis was rewarded because " is inadmissible, because this isn't what the Talmud says at all (my original claim) What it says is that Kimchis claimed she was rewarded... and the Sages may or may not have agreeed with her.
but do you think these are the the most compelling explanations? why should they be preferred?
Josh, it seems like, in all areas except Torah, you are deferential to the consensus of scholars. Why is Torah different?
Don't forget, the Talmud is not a book that was discovered, after years of being unknown. There is a chain of interpretation. When you analyze a text, you need to take the "way that text has always been learned" into account. If we see that, at every stage of Talmud interpretation, the Talmud is being read to mean that Kimchis' answer was accepted by the sages, that makes such a reading preferable. It is not appeal to authority. It is simply logical to assume that the Talmud means what Jews throughout the ages have thought it means.
You folks have gotten into the habit of abandoning that principle. But, that abandonment only makes sense in one of two situations.
1) Where we have access to some information that the earlier Doros did not have, such as when the question is the correct translation of a word, and we have more sources to compare the word to.
2) (And this one is less acceptable) Where we have access to a methodology that has been developed in after the opinions of the earlier Doros formed. Here to, you could argue that your point of view has merit because you are using a sound methodology that they did not use.
But, in this case, which is neither of the two, your argument is hollow.
After all, reading a sugya and figuring out the Maskana L'Halacha, and comparing various sources, and determining whether or not they are in harmony is the bread and butterof people like Rashi, The Rama, etc.
In that case, you are very foolish to go off on a limb and insist, that, despite the fact that they looked at the very same evidence that you are looking at, your conclusion is stronger. It is the height of hubris, and it really makes all of your other conclusions suspect as well. It shows that you really have no idea when you are out of your depths.
I could sit here all day and explain why Rashi and the Rama and the Meiri and the Chasam Sofer learned the way they did. Afshi Machlokes Lo Mefashinan; Kabala Hi B'Yadam, etc.
But, the bottom line is that it is not cowardice to acknowledge that the Chachmei Yisroel of all doros know how to learn a shtickel gemoro
Dovbear,
When the argument started, I asked how many sources it would take.
I guess I should have known the answer.
A kup ken men nit oroifshtelen.
And, I already explained to you, that, at the time that I brought up maharsha and Tosfos Yeshanim, there was an argument about whether the Talmud believed that having seven sons as KG was a merit, and I brought the TY and Maharsha to prove that it was.
However, the implication of the Maharsha is that he accepts Kimchis' explanation for her Zechus, so I think that it is still part of the picture.
Did you even bother to look at the Maharsha, the Meiri, the Chasam Sofer inside?
Besides, your argument about Rashi is fundamentally flawed because you think that Rashi Al Hatorah and Rashi al Hashas have the same methodology, when they do not. Anyone that know how to learn understands that.
Finally, your argument that the Chasidic rebbes are speaking polemically invalidates your post. In whatever context the Rebbes bring Kimchis (and the Rama brings Kimchis) Ask Moses brings Kimchis in the same context. Your criticism of Ask Moses can only stand if you are willing to direct that same criticism to all the others. But, since you excuse the others of "speaking polemically" as if they would distort the words of the Shas to make a point, excuse Ask Moses in the same way.
"Josh, it seems like, in all areas except Torah, you are deferential to the consensus of scholars."
because i am engaged in talmud torah, which requires evaluation of the sources. if i were a linguist, i would study linguistics and use my sechel as well. i don't believe that merely parroting sources without grappling with them is as on high a madreiga of learning.
anyway, there is an imaginary consensus. citing commentators who don't say it and reading it into them is not the same as a consensus.
again, you don't have consensus. tha majority of rishonim are silent on the matter. you found a meiri, a rishon (though not known until recently) and a chasam sofer (what page?) just now. until that point, you call that a consensus?
what does the Rashi say? (He doesn't.) Rif? Ran? Rosh? Tosafot? Rambam? Ramban?
At the very least, I would treat it as a tabula rasa, and then
(i will add that DovBear is not the first one to innovate that this is the meaning of the Bavli, or that the Bavli is much less enthusiastic endorsement than the Yerushalmi. i heard this many years ago, though i do not remember from whom.)
but citing a rashi which does not say it, and citing a maharsha which does not say it, and claiming they do, does not form a consensus. and even with a consensus, i believe one is supposed to consider all sources from scratch. even in terms of a psak halacha.
kt,
josh
Josh,
Let's add up what we know:
The Yerushalmi quotes the response of the Chachomim that praises Kimchis, and even brings a Derasha to justify her explanation.
Rama says as a fact that Kimchis was rewarded for her covering her hair with seven sons KG.
Chasam Sofer - as I said, it is in Chiddushei Chasam Sofer Hashalem al asar, but they bring it from one of his Deroshois - brings it as a Dovor Hapashut, and connects it to a Derash from ? on a Posuk in shir hashirim.
Meiri brings Kimchis as correct, and explains DovBear's question
Maharsha explains at length why the chachomim assumed that the 7 sons were in Kimchis' Zechus, and not in the Zechus of her husband. The implication is that they were, in fact, in her Zechus. (True, it does not mean that the Zechus is the one she identified. But, it is also hard to understand why the Maharsha would go through the whole explanation to justify something that the Chachomim essentially dismissed.)
Rashi explains Kimchis' words by bringing the Derasha from Yerushalmi. (I know that you believe that he could still be learning the words of the Chachomim as a dismissal, and be bringing the Derosha of the Yerushalmi to explain the words of Kimchis, that the Chachomim snorted at. But, I have challenged you to produce an example of Rashi Al Hashas doing that. I know he brings Midrashim al Hatorah all the time that are not L'Maskanah. But, al Hashas? Where?
All contemporary Chachomim that we have found say that kimchis was rewarded in the way that the Rama does.
Yet, you still justify DovBear in saying that, when someone says that the Talmud tells a story that Kimchis was rewarded for covering her hair with seven sons KG, it is a significant distortion of what the talmud says?!?
Even you saying that One should read this as a dispute in attitude, rather than trying to harmonize it, likely in favor of the Yerushalmi
is hubristic, because we see all of the Chachomim harmonizing it.
Finally, I have said repeatedly that it is conceivable that someone could read the Gemara in the way that DovBear does, and I don't think that it is an impossible reading. I just think that it is clear that the consensus of Chachmei Yisroel don't read it that way. Why? Maybe you are right! Maybe the Chachmei Yisroel know, from kabala, the importance of covering hair, and that drives them to understand the Gemara in a way that will increase observance of this important custom, not decrease.
here, btw, is someone before DovBear who noted this: Rabbi Elazar Teitz, on mail-jewish:
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arc.../
mj_v42i77.html
and here is a random person:
here is someone else:
http://www.urimpublications.com/
...Product_Code=hr
and another random person:
http://www.hashkafah.com/Sheitel...450.html&
st=140
and another random person:
http://
wolfishmusings.blogspot.c...snootiness.html
this does not mean anything. just that this interpretation of the gemara does seem to jump out at you.
what does Artscroll say on this?
kt,
josh
So you confess that until now you were repeating an unsubstantiated allegation as if it were fact? Thanks.
No, as I said several times on this thread, I was away from most of my seforim, and the only things that I had access to were a Tur - Darkhei Moshe, and the Gemara Yuma, which is why I only cited those sources.
Now I finally got to a place with Seforim, and I looked for 20 minutes, and found the Meiri and Chasam Sofer.
I don't have artscroll where I am.
Have you looked up the Meiri?
here was an argument about whether the Talmud believed that having seven sons as KG was a merit, and I brought the TY and Maharsha to prove that it was.
Though this doesn't relate to the post, or to my reading you continue to act as if it does.
When you analyze a text, you need to take the "way that text has always been learned" into account.
You can but you don't have to.
Looking at how someone read it in the 18th century tells you how someone read it in the 18th century. It may, or may not, tell you how it was read in the 14th and so on. There's nothing inherently wrong with starting and finishing with the text itself.
but citing a rashi which does not say it, and citing a maharsha which does not say it, and claiming they do, does not form a consensus
Well said.
I'm glad you also see Michale's little tricks.
In that case, you are very foolish to go off on a limb and insist, that, despite the fact that they looked at the very same evidence that you are looking at, your conclusion is stronger
So its a good thing I didn't do that. Go back and look. I never said the Ramah was "wrong" What I did was say I didn't agree, and expressed a desire to know how rationale. Be honest and man up to your mis charecterization of what occured
Besides, your argument about Rashi is fundamentally flawed because you think that Rashi Al Hatorah and Rashi al Hashas have the same methodology, when they do not. Anyone that know how to learn understands that.
As I do, too. But it seems that on this spot he is doing what he does in Chumash. Check his language.
What I did was say I didn't agree, and expressed a desire to know how rationale.
No, You said it was a significant distortion of the Talmud. You can't get away from that. You thought that you had caught Ask Moses out, but, B'Kedaira Shebishel Bo Nisbashel.
no, i am away from my seforim. can you scan in the chasam sofer?
"Josh, Let's add up what we know:"
you were speaking of a consensus well before that.
yerushalmi:
not necessarily relevant. as i said, it can easily be a machlokes, and it seems to me to be so.
rema:
never explained the gemara explicitly. he is trying to explain what could motivate the language in Tur (I personally don't think one should make any diyuk in the Tur), and so had to explain kimchit's actions as tznius. which he could do, or else identify kimchit, by saying this. and he has the yerushalmi and midrash to rely upon. though even if this was not what granted her that status, it still would be something which is a sign of extra tznius.
can you scan in the chasam sofer? i don't see it on hebrewbooks.
the meiri is here, at the bottom of the first column:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager....=30927&
pgnum=90
No, You said it was a significant distortion of the Talmud. You can't get away from that. You thought that you had caught Ask Moses out, but, B'Kedaira Shebishel Bo Nisbashel.
What Ask Moses said IS a distortion!
Look at what they wrote and compare it with the passage itself!
They said: In the Talmud there is a famous story about a certain woman by the name of Kimchit who was careful that “the walls of her house should not see the hairs of her head.” She was rewarded with seven sons who served as High Priests.
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE TALMUD SAYS
It may be how the Rama reads it, but that's NOT WHAT IT SAYS
And what you need to do in order to regain some credibility is admit that for three days you've been tossing around sand about Maharsha, Rashi and TY. Josh sees it. I see it.
I also say again that despite your slanderous lies I never said the Rama was wrong. I merely asked for the idea behind his reading, which he, nor any of his super commentaries seem to have supplied.
And, I already explained to you, that, at the time that I brought up maharsha and Tosfos Yeshanim, there was an argument about whether the Talmud believed that having seven sons as KG was a merit, and I brought the TY and Maharsha to prove that it was.
I know, though you subsequently pretended that these two readers disagrees with my reading. This proved to be false.
at first impression, i would read the Meiri as follows.
the gemara brings the story of Kimchis and her great merit in being tzanua in general. She attributed her having this many sons as kohanim gedolim because of this, and this alone. the sages reject this because of the many counter-examples. rather, it is not a segulah, but rather an overall evaluation of the person and his merits. (his meaning her; and perhaps even outside the realm of tzniut.)
meiri continues: umikol makom, midat hatzniut meshubachat harbei uvenashit yoter.
what is the need for the umikol makom? that even though this one thing will not grant you kohanim gedolim, it still is part of general tznius, and it is good for women to adopt these chumros.
i would not jump to read Meiri as saying that the Sages are not rejecting it as the reason. but i may well be misreading the Meiri.
kt,
josh
uvenashit should read uvenashim
what do you say, btw, to the rif when he diverges from the consensus in understanding a gemara? for one example of many, see here:
http://alfasi.blogspot.com/2005/...-
continues.html
(i know, i am not the rif. but the point is that talmud torah can involve diverging from consensus, and the tradition of interpretation (if there was one) in explaining a gemara.
kt,
josh
I don't have a scanner.
You are definitely misreading the Meiri.
Bichlal, the Meiri doesn't give a running commentary on Shas, he sort of summarizing that which arises from the Shakla V'Taryah.
It is clear that he is saying that Kimchis attributed her Zechus to the walls of her house (which he explains as a Haflagah) not seeing her hair, and he says that even though many did this and did not merit it, Boruch Baal Hamoznaim - a phrase that you completely ignore in your analysis - which I take to mean, as I explained earlier, that the Chachomim are not dismising Kimchis, just explaining that you can't neccessarily duplicate her results, because Hashem is the Baal Hamoznaim.
And, he says, nevertheless (even if you can't expect to duplicate here results) Tznius is a really good thing, especially for women.
Josh, I don't say that everybody has to interpret a gemara in lockstep. Nobody says that, except the imaginary chareidim that DovBear argues with.
But, it is 2009 and we have been learning Gemara for 1500 years. It is reasonable to assume that if a Pirush in Gemara is not taken on by hundreds of years of sages toiling to understand the gemara, and throwing out hundreds of explanations, it is probably not right.
The only exceptions to this logic (I am speaking from a secular perspective, now) are the two examples I cited above - where there is more information available, or a new methodology available.
rabbi michel yehuda lefkowitz, one of the roshei yeshivah of Ponevitz, is probably also not right. it seems to be that he is reading the Chachamim's response as an objection:
http://www.shtaygen.co.il/?Categ...&
ArticleID=4090
בגמרא בשבת [דף מ''ג] אמרו, על קמחית שהיו לה ז' בנים וזכתה שכולם שימשו בכהונה גדולה, שאלוה חכמים במה זכתה לכך, אמרה להם, מימי לא ראו קורות ביתי שערות ראשי. מיום שעמדה על דעתה נהגה בצניעות כזאת שאפילו בתוך ביתה בחדרי חדרים לא נראו שערות ראשה. אמרו לה [חכמים] הרבה עשו כן ולא הועיל להן, יש נשים רבות שנהגו במנהג זה ולא הועיל להן לזכות בבנים בדרגה זו ששימשו בכהונה גדולה. בגמרא לא כתוב שהשיבה להם על זה.
"It is reasonable to assume that if a Pirush in Gemara is not taken on by hundreds of years of sages"
how do you know that it was not taken on? are you extrapolating from the very few data points? is it possible that since this is such a straightforward reading of the gemara, the many who are silent did not deem it necessary to explain the obvious?
see his answer though...
"a phrase that you completely ignore in your analysis"
no i don't. read what i wrote again. "rather, it is not a segulah, but rather an overall evaluation of the person and his merits." you may argue with my interpretation, but that does not mean i ignored it.
kt,
josh
how do you know that it was not taken on? are you extrapolating from the very few data points
That's exactly what he was doing. As you so aptly noted he was speaking of a worldwide universal consensus before he found a single person who agreed, and even now he's struggling to make the few round pegs he's found fit the square holes.
josh - the meiri is here
I read the Meiri, and at the end, he says -
"ובמקום אחר אמרו כל כלה שהיא צנועה בבית המים זוכה ויוצאים ממנה מלכים ונביאים"
I don't understand this at all. There are many problems -
1. Where exactly is this "makom acher" where this is written?
2. Aren't almost all kallot modest in the "bet hamayim"? (what is the bet hamayim anyway? I am assuming Mikvah for now.)
3. How is is possible that every single kallah will have kings and neviim from their line?
4. Besides, there are no more neviim, and there weren't at the time of the Meiri either.
5. The use of the word "כל", all, may allow us to more accurately gauge his usage of parables to encourage better behavior on the previous text regarding Kimchit. Of course in the previous sentence, he uses the word "ראוי" which is much less definite than "כל" in the last sentence.
בבית המים should read beveis chameha, her in-law's house. without researching it, i would guess that this is based on Tamar, who midrashically covered her face in her in-law's house, and was the ancestress of the Davidic dynasty.
btw, here is Ritva on that gemara. basically, he cites Rashi, using the same dibur hamatchil, in citing the yerushalmi.
oops, here:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager....num=438&
hilite=
josh - בבית המים should read beveis chameha, her in-law's house. without researching it, i would guess that this is based on Tamar, who midrashically covered her face in her in-law's house, and was the ancestress of the Davidic dynasty.
Yes, it seems to be bebeit chameha, the scan isn't very good (and bet hamayim made no sense to me in the first place). So, does this imply that not every kallah covered her hair in her in-laws home?
i don't think specifically hair is implied, rather than tznius, and perhaps even excessive forms of it. but i don't know if it includes hair. tamar, e.g., covered her *face*. it might be more, or less. (this will intersect with a whole bunch of other gemaras, and their interpretations, in terms of sear beisha evra, and what the chatzer and mavuy are, and whether that is when men are present or not, etc.)
kt,
josh
I prefer the Meiri's explanation to that of Rav Lefkovitz. The Meiri learns the original statement to include an overall attention to Tznius. I think that, at the bottom line, the point the Chachomim are making according to the Meiri is an important one - one that DovBear would do well to learn, if he wasn't so busy misunderstanding the Gemara.
The point that is that even if we say someone merited something because of a certain practice, that does not mean that those results can be duplicated in a double blind experiment. Because, in the end of the day, G-d is the master of the scales...
Now Josh, knowing that there are all these different interpretations (we have the two contemporary Pshotim cited by Genack and Lefkovitz, and the Meiri's explanation, as well), do you still say that the Bavli and Yerushalmi are Midroshois Chalukois?
Do you still say that Rashi cites a Derasha to explain a Hava Mina, in one Sugya, despite the Sugya that he is citing from being at odds with the Sugya that he is explaining?
Do you still say that the Rama is Paskening like the Yerushalmi over the Bavli?
Do you still say that the Maharsha is Koching in explaining a wrong-headed Hava Amina, instead of a Maskana?
There is still room for you to climb down gracefully...
rabbi lefkowitz, before giving his explanation at least (and possibly after as well), seems to deem it a *possible* reading, that the Chachomim are contradicting her.
and yes, i still maintain that reading of the gemara, because it seems to be the most straightforward reading. i am not *embarrassed* by this interpretation, such that i should climb down gracefully. while different readings are possible (and were always possible), i will pick the one i think is most correct.
yes, i still think that this is correct about rashi, and that you are arguing from that which is not there. and who says the Rema is "paskening"? does he say anything lehalacha in shulchan aruch? how do you know he is not just explaining the position of the Tur to the best of his ability, with the source that matches best?
i'll have to see the Maharsha again.
but when it comes down to it, i don't believe you have the "consensus" you claim to have; and even if you did, i would seriously consider what they have to say and then state my own opinion.
that said, i don't think my own peshat is that far off from Meiri and Rabbi Lefkowitz, that they are saying (to her) that it is not this one practice alone which gives her this reward.
(this "azus panim" is a cultured trait, and one i think it important to develop in myself for various reasons. it makes my learning better, imho.)
kt,
josh
scazon - Wait, why the hell was Yishmael going to the shuk on Yom Kippur between services? He wasn't planning to buy something, was he? He could have been tempted to buy something when he was in the shuk, so why did he not construct a fence around the Torah? Why wasn't he hanging out in the shtibe—err, beis hamikdash—learning Mishnayos Yoma or something?! What a mechutzif!
Maybe that KG was an "Am HaAretz"? The gemara (actually the mishna) in Horayot (13a) allows for such a possibility -
"אבל אם היה ממזר תלמיד חכם וכהן גדול עם הארץ ממזר תלמיד חכם קודם לכהן גדול עם הארץ"
B"H
I find it silly that a woman covering her hair inside her house is considered "extreme," simply as it is not a halachic requirement, according to many.
In this day and age with a lot of women's gaivah being thrown around, a little extra tzni'uth couldn't hurt.
Unfortunately, a lot of women [and men] forget that tzni'uth is not just about covering up physically; it's also about displaying a modest personal presentation in public.
Here is a report of an excellent shi'ur by the Toldos Aharon Rebbitzen, which no doubt will be considered "extreme."
http://shearim.blogspot.com/sear...ron%
20Rebbitzen
Unfortunately, a lot of women [and men] forget that tzni'uth is not just about covering up physically; it's also about displaying a modest personal presentation in public.
And it's even more than this - it's maintaining a modest persona, both private and public. Not just physically, which is all most people do today, as they've forgotten the rest.
Whoops. I meant to say "personality," not "personal."
Hey? Where is the onslaught of attacks I was expecting? {Not that I was trying to be attacked or anything.}
Maybe people ignoring me {especially those of you in hutz laAretz} for being so "primitive" and "unenlightened."
BY - Hey? Where is the onslaught of attacks I was expecting? {Not that I was trying to be attacked or anything.}
This thread is pretty much over, not too many people are paying attention anymore.
Commenting by HaloScan
