#parshanut

[judaismandsuch]

So as what one would commonly call an 'Orthodox' Jew, but alt, I will give you my take:

Yes and no.

'It' is, in modern English, absolutely wrong. While some people choose to use 'it' to refer to themselves, 'it' is viewed as a diminutive by and large - one refers to objects or animals as 'it', and even animals barely. If you go up to 99% of indivuduals, and refer to them as 'It' they will take offence, and rightly so.

Now, that may change in the future, in which case 'it' would be acceptable, but for now it is very much not.

'They' is funkier, now it is definetly not in the same class as 'It', but Hebrew has plural pronouns (admittedly, masc. and fem. but they do exist), and while HaShem is occasional referred to in the plural (debatable between the rabbis if HaShem is actually referring to Himself in the plural, or if He is talking to the angels, but I digress). But HaShem is never referred to by any of the prophets in the plural (i.e. HaShem may at one point say 'we' when seemingly only reffering to Himself, but at no point does Moshe say 'You' [plural]-note I could be wrong about this, but feel free to correct me if you have a source direct from tanach that is not ketuvim).

Now, combine that with the fact that it could appear that you are reffering to multiple entites, or implying that HaShem is a myriad of entities in one.... and you really shouldn't. This becomes more a case of Maras Ein than Chillul HaShem (imo), but this is another one where the shift in English can be in your favour.

Now, one thing that is definetly acceptable is reffering to HaShem in the feminine ('She' 'Her'), we know this because, as others have mentioned, Hebrew is fully gendered, and Moshe Refers to HaShem in the feminie 'you'.

(BaMidbar/Numbers 11:15):

So I personally alternate between He and She.

Then also, one should capitalise the pronouns one uses when talking about G-d.

Now, are you insulting HaShem? Ehhh..... That is talmudic debate. But it is incumbent upon us to show utmost respect, which includes following conventional linguistic norms of respect.

But yeah, lmk if you have further questions!

I'm a Jew myself but asking for others opinions.

So like I use they/it pronouns for HaShem generally. Just because it matches with my idea of G-d as not being humanoid and therefore not being attached to any specific genders and generally being more of a force of nature than personal.

But I grew up in a household that was much more cultural than religious. So I don't know how religious Jews feel about this. Am I insulting HaShem by using the wrong pronouns? Am I like misgendering god? That seems extremely mean.

.

[judaismandsuch]

A Brilliant Biblical Commentary that I can't Believe

Now, as many of you may know Humanity/ Man is Created twice in Breishit (Genisis) the First time in Breishit 1:27: "And G-d created man in His image....male and female He Created them."

The Second time in Breishit 2:7, and finished in 2:22: "...[G-d] formed man from the dust of the earth.....and Man became a living being." "[HaShem] fashioned the rib He took from man into a woman." (obv a bunch of stuff happens between verse 7 and 22).

Now important notes: 1)There is a lot of established commentary on all of this, but that means there is too much to succinctly summaries other views, so if you are curious about the established interpretations for all this look it up yourself. 2) All the garden of Eden stuff is a cohesive story in chapter 2-3, not mentioned at all in relation to the first creation.

Anyways there is a lot of explanation and reconciiation of these verses, as it is troubling the HaShem would describe the creation of humanity twice, and the stories be very different. There are answers, brilliant ones, bad ones, etc. But I believe I am the first to have this response.

So... it is indeed troubling, until you look a few chapters later, specifically chapter 6.

Now between chapter 2 and 6 a bunch of stuff happens: The garden of Eden, Cain and Abel. Cain taking a wife. The First city builder, the first smiths, the first tent dwellers (more accuaretly the specific ancestor of those, but w/e). The descendents of Cain and Seth, the subtle decrease in life span, etc.

Now aside from the general "Wow this is bullshit, it human civilization didn't progress in that manner." or "Humanity never had a lifespan that long!" Bad faith arguments, you run into an issue.

Who the fuck are they marrying? Hell, it's implied that there are other humans around when Cain kills Abel, where did those guys come from?

Again, loads of commentary but here we are going to my tying all this together:

Chapter 6: The Children of G-d and the Nephilim. 6:2: "The children of G-d saw how beautiful the daughters of Man (or humanity) were, and took wives from among those that pleased them." 6:4:"It was then that the Nephilim (lit. the fallen) appeared on earth when the children of G-d cohabited with the daughters of Man who bore them offspring, they were the Heroes of Old, Men of Great renown."

Now, this has it's own issues, mainly: What the fuck? Who are the children of G-d? Who are the fallen (Nephilim)? And who the hell are the Heroes of Old?

Again, loads of answers for all that already. (BTW, in Numbers/Bamidbar 13:33 Nephilim are mentioned again. by the spies, who use the word to mean 'giant', since that is a quotation of a human speaking, whereas this is not, I can safely ignore "Nephilim means giant" in my exegesis).

Now my commentary (though clever you, you may have already put it together!)

We already have fallen children of G-d mentioned: Adam and Eve. Them getting kicked out of the Garden of Eden can definitely be considered 'Falling'.

And if we consider that there were two separate 'Humans' those in the Garden (Adam and Eve), and those outside from chapter one, we get the answer to who Cain and Seth are marrying.

And then, from Adam's line we get a list of Great Humans: The City Builder, The Smith, The Musician. They could definitely be considered the heroes of old.

Are there issues with this explanation? A couple, none (scripturally) too challenging. Is this explanation original? As far as I know: Yes. But that may just mean my research is garbage.

But the biggest problem with this explanation?

It DEMANDS a fully literal acceptance of that portion of Breishit. If HaShem intended for it to be metaphorical, or a pat explanation b/c creation wasn't important, why would there be an interlock of the two stories?

There wouldn't be.

And I am NOT a (full) biblical literalist. (I do believe that one has to be within a small margin of error a biblical literalist from Avraham to the end of the Torah for Judaism to have validity).

So I have this beautiful, pat, explanation that I can't believe.

Terribly Annoying.

[torahgalus]

Terumah

we face each other we face each other we face each other wings almost, barely, touching, heads bowed wings reaching, earnestly, above and we will not look at you; we refuse to be worshipped. sometimes we will be looking just above you,  beyond you, towards a bare and brilliant hill-- mostly, we will face each other. wings stretching  heads bowed, almost, as if in mourning, we strive for the holy but are bound to this earth, this ark, each other.  perhaps we will look down and find it was holy, always, too--perhaps our gaze will skip over yours for the briefest moment as we turn from the hill, and we  will see your naked yearning and turn away from it. we will face each other, the space of a finger, a kiss, between us.  we cannot help you.  we are not God, that you should worship us.  only gold desperately alive, shading the Torah with every chiseled feather.

[copperbadge]

I mean, arguably you'd want to check with -your- rabbi, and since you gotta pick a rabbi with similar sensibilities about judaism as your own (and/or pick up your rabbis sensibilities about judaism, "In all of these moments, when the Torah is given over from teacher to student, it is never clear who is the teacher and who is the student. There are just words, and light." -ParshaNut on ki tisa) so find urself a rabbi who finds dragons rad!

It’s kind of a good question to ask when interviewing to find a rabbi, isn’t it? “What are your thoughts on a) dragons on mezuzahs and b) the kosher nature of dragons?” (Someone did a book on this but I haven’t looked into it in detail yet.) Even if they don’t have an answer ready, a reaction says a lot. 

One of the small silver linings of the pandemic is that with everything going online, I can get a much wider experience of various synagogues than I would otherwise to begin with. Friday night service in Chicago, Saturday morning service in Boston, Wednesday drasha from Baltimore...

[alyssumlovesthecosmere]

I do think that there would still be a differentiation of generations. Yes, the mishna etc would not be written down, but they would not be all called tana'im

it maybe won't be tanaim-amoraim-savoraim-geonim-rishonim-achronim-achronei achronim, but it would be something

also hebrew would evolve and change, and maybe there'd be specific diaspora dialects? similarly to yiddish and ladino, except *way* more hebrew than the diasporic languages (similar to how arabic dialects work)

there would probably be arguments about which accent/dialect is the Most Historically Correct one for reading the torah, except it would have somewhat higher stakes

shuls would be much less used, and be much closer to what batei midrash (beit midrash plural) are!

i do think that eventually things *would* get written down, just for the sake of record-keeping, but it wouldn't be considered *nearly* as important as knowing All Of Oral Torah by heart and knowing how to argue it

we'd have smicha that *actually goes back* all of those generations (and in our timeline ended with rabbi yehuda ben bava's students getting smicha from him and being the last to get it)

honestly i'm just thinking about the language. Because if you look at english - two thousand years ago it's unreadable to the lay person. And if you look at arabic, which would be a much better comparison due to there being a central text- WOW there is so much difference between spoken and not, but also that was probably always the case! where quranic arabic was different than spoken one at the time. So *how* would the language be different? how well would we be able to understand the tanach? how would parshanut change?

Just had a shower idea about an alternative history where the Second Beit HaMikdash is still around in modern times....

-The field of dermatology is dominated by Cohanim because they're the only ones who can diagnose tzara'at and they want to be as educated as possible

-Airlines that fly to Israel are built to have livestock storage for people bringing korbanot

-Pigeons never became feral en masse, at least in Israel and in areas with a high population density of Jews, because dove-keeping stayed extremely prevalent due to their use in korbanot

-Price caps were enacted on transportation to and from Israel during the pilgrimage seasons

-The astronomical observatories in Israel are considered sacred sites because of their usage in determining the months.

-The old method of fires on high points to announce the new month is still used in Israel and some nearby regions because of tradition, but once Jews became established further and further across the globe, a communication center was established in the Temple compound. At first, it used messenger pigeons, horseback runners, and ships. It was upgraded once the telegram was invented, then again when audio radios were invented, again when telephones were invented, again when television was invented, and again when the Internet was invented.

[mexashepot]

A trope I absolutely go wild for is when very visibly Jewish actors play antisemitic characters like

The actor: *Looks so intensely familiar, like he could be a cousin of a friend of mine, we’ve probably sat at the same shabbat table at her place once, where we enthusiastically argued about... anything and everything, really, from politics to what seasonings a certain dish requires and what Rashi ACTUALLY meant in that one parshanut of his, exchanged Tanach-jokes, sang random songs together (but we started from the Tradional Lecha dodi, in our defense), later on motsash he sent me the recipe he used for that lit meat with veggies dish, over which I’ve uttered ‘you may have a certain passion and dedication to having Bad interpretations of pshat but damn can you cook*

The show: *see that character with dark curls and kind brown eyes over there? that character HATES Jews and wants to murder as many of them as possible*

Me: 

LeChayim, dude I’ve probably sat at a shabbat table with and whose cooking and singing I enjoyed but whose pshat interpretations I rolled my eyes over, whom I’m supposed to believe is a Jew-hater now

[garden-ghoul]

Hello, I've been lurking on your j tag and while I'm too cautious to ask any questions personally, I wonder if you have any recommendations for books (particularly fiction) about Judaism or told with Jewish philosophical ideas/themes (particularly something accessible and non-appropriative to converts). If this is offensive or prying or inappropriate I'm very sorry, tell me and I won't bother you again.

oh anon I’m so sorry I have read, like, 1 jewish book total. I’m not a big reader of Improving Books (gives me The Anxiety) and also I can’t find anything by rabbi gershon winkler, who comes highly recommended for Weird Jews I think? my rabbi did give me a very cute little intro book by anita diamant called “choosing a jewish life” (specifically about why and how people convert, VERY accessible). diamant also did “living a jewish life” which  I haven’t finished it because I’m bad at reading improving books. I really enjoyed about a 3rd of jewish magic and superstition, which has a lot of weird magic and like, the complexity of folk practices, and talks about how jewish mysticism has been appropriated by christians, which is very interesting.

as for books with jewish philosophical themes… uhhh… I’m so sorry I don’t really read any fiction that isn’t fanfic of anime. this is very embarrassing for me. but my general practice is to zoom in on what I feel are jewish philosophical themes in, say, naruto, and go “naruto is jewish because I like it.” that said, try reading unsong. it’s not about jews but it’s about a specific branch of jewish mysticism and it has a solid answer to the question “why is so much horrible stuff happening if g-d is omnipotent and benevolent?” maybe not one you agree with, but you know. I’M SO SORRY THIS IS THE ONLY FICTION I HAVE READ. I hear cute things about shira glassman’s books though.

and this isn’t a book, but try going through the ParshaNut archives, I really really love their commentary and methods. I guess you already saw that one if you were in my tag but hey. oh I’m also pretty fond of ten minutes of talmud because the talmud is Unreadable but, in fact, very interesting if you look at it from the right angle.

[swamp-spirit]

Home alone, time to blast the Parshanut podcast

[rambanyomi]

Ramban for: Bereshit Perek Daled Psukim Yud Gimel-Tet Vav (4:13-15)

וַיֹּאמֶר קַיִן, אֶל-יְהוָה גָּדוֹל עֲו‍ֹנִי מִנְּשֹׂא: הֵן גֵּרַשְׁתָּ אֹתִי הַיּוֹם מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה, וּמִפָּנֶיךָ אֶסָּתֵר וְהָיִיתִי נָע וָנָד בָּאָרֶץ וְהָיָה כָל-מֹצְאִי יַהַרְגֵנִי: -And Cain said to G-d, "My sin is too big to carry. For today you have banished me on earth and I will hide from you, and I will wander the land and all those who find me will kill me".

I really like the parshanut the Ramban gives to this. It's so believing in humans.

Anyways

the Ramban says that when Cain is saying that his sin is too heavy to carry he is recognizing that what he did was horrible. (And the hiding thing is from shame.)

And what's more, he is telling G-d when he says that all that find him will kill him that G-d is in charge of everything and without G-d's protectieven animals can kill you (it is generally agreed that "all those who find me" are wild animals, not other people).

And so he is saying I know that I did something horrible, and I understand this because you banished me, but if you don't protect me I will die because you are great, which I obviously didn't understand properly before from my sacrifice. (

הֵן גֵּרַשְׁתָּ אֹתִי הַיּוֹם מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה וּמִפָּנֶיךָ אֶסָּתֵר וְהָיִיתִי נָע וָנָד בָּאָרֶץ וְהָיָה כָל מֹצְאִי יַהַרְגֵנִי. וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ יְהוָה לָכֵן כָּל הֹרֵג קַיִן שִׁבְעָתַיִם יֻקָּם וַיָּשֶׂם יְהוָה לְקַיִן אוֹת לְבִלְתִּי הַכּוֹת אֹתוֹ כָּל מֹצְאוֹ.-For today you have banished me on earth and I will hide from you, and I will wander the land and all those who find me will kill me." And G-d told him, "Because of this anyone who kills Cain will be cursed for seven generations", and G-d put to Cain a sign that all those who find him will not kill him.

note: I translated the "seven generations" according to Unkulus, and not according to the Ramban's commentry, because I'm not paying attention to that commentry and I needed a translation to use because it was hard to understand. All the rest is my own translation.

The Ramban says that G-d didn't give Cain a sign as how we would think of it exactly, but a dog. The dog would be able to smell danger and lead Cain in the right direction. 🐶

[askjumblr]

Hullo! Timely question: what are your favourite parsha commentary books, in English (or French - or German if there's a gem - but I can't read Hebrew, sadly)?

Last year, I was reading along with Rabbi Shai Held's "The Heart of Torah", plus Rabbi David Kasher's class and weekly Hadar newsletter, and dipping into other resources periodically (Rabbi Sacks Covenant & Conversation online, the JTS and Pardes podcasts, etc.) I would like to add one book for weekly reading this year and I am debating between a bunch of options - considering Rabbi David Kasher's "Parshanut", or "The Women's Torah Commentary" (Ed. Rabbi Elyse Goldstein), Rabbi Josh Feigelson's "Eternal Questions", Rabbi Mark Asher Goodman's "Life Lessons from Recently Dead Rabbis: Hassidut for the People"...

...any thoughts / books you really love?

.

[psi-phenom]

Does being a witch mean you have to turn away from your religion for example god. This sounds rude and it not meant to sorry!!

Absolutely not! You can practice witchcraft as a means to honor your god or you can practice witchcraft recreationally as a hobby and keep your spiritual practice separate.

It’s going to depend on how literally you want to read your scripture too. For example, in Abrahamic religions people often quote Exodus 22.18 “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,” to condemn witchcraft but there are many ways to interpret this line.

There is some parshanut in Judaism on this verse that I’ve heard that interprets this line in a way I really appreciate: https://kevah.org/learn/parshanut/witch-hunting-parshat-mishpatim/

“The Torah includes the prohibition on witchcraft…not so much out of an anxiety around occultism, but as one of a series of cases that illustrate the way men lure women into illicit, secret agreements, even as they might publicly condemn such behavior. That explains the Torah’s choice to describe the witch as female…The Torah is calling out the hypocrisy of a society of men who would openly denounce certain kinds of behavior, but are in fact the very reason such practices exist. If these men truly wish to live in a society without witchcraft, rather than going out and hunting down the sins of others, they ought to work on controlling the spirits within themselves that give these forces life.”

[judaismandsuch]

So this is Fun!

Genesis has 2 slightly different versions of creation of man (there is a lot of commentary on it, I won't get into it).

The first one in Genesis 1, Says "And God created humankind in the divine image, creating it in the image of God— creating them male and female." [1:28]

The second one (that you more or less correctly quoted/refrenced) has a few interesting deviations/points you may have missed: - It takes place in the Garden of Eden (well, man was created elsewhere, then moved to the Garden, and stayed there until kicked out). So we can assume that deep sea creatures, or really ocean life in general was not available for the naming.

-In 2:19 the full quotation is "whatever the Human called each living creature, that would be its name." Which more means that G-d gave man the ability to name every creature, and that Humanities names for them would be what they were called, but not that Man had at that point named everything.

-In 2:20 (the next verse) "And the Human gave names to all the cattle and to the birds of the sky and to all the wild beasts; but no fitting counterpart for a human being was found" (Sefira Translation)

So it lays out what Man got around to naming before Eve, and it very specifically wasn't everything. Just really the big easy things, no bugs or fish.

In fact a common style of interpretation would be that Adam/Human/Man avoided those creatures for some reason.

Perhaps he thought that mammals or birds could be friends, so he named them to try and find company, but didn't bother with bugs or fish b/c they are not really companion creatures?

But yeah, good question, now you have one answer!

Note: This is Parshanut, a large body of work. There are almost definitely better explanations out there, Rashi, Rashbam, Rambam, Ramban, Abarbanel, and hundreds of others.

I just went with a basic on the spot commentary/explanation.

Maybe there is another one out there more to your liking!

(Also, most Jews, including religious ones, don't view this portion as literal, but we will still try to explain it!)

That last post made me think about something:

Adam didn't get Eve until he named (according to the ESV translation of the Bible) "Every living creature" (Genesis 2:19)

How did he name the marine animals?

I mean I guess he can't die yet so he just takes a little swim into the deep ocean and finds the nefarious anglerfish.

Abrahamic faiths help.

[numinous-queer]

Hey Jewish followers!

Does anyone know of someplace to find radical queer and/or liberal parshas? (Or is it parshot? Parshiot?) I have been looking primarily at @parshanut, but am hoping to broaden my perspective somewhat. Does anyone have any recommendations?

[devilryrevelry]

lhinelle replied to your post “Okay I’m reading the bible for reasons and I could… use some help...”

try looking at a Jewish source for that story--every week in Jewish services we go through a section of the Torah and read it, the commentary, and do our best to understand what's going on there. I bet @parshanut has a good explanation!

I plan on going into more depth later on. I’m currently just reading through the 1599 Geneva Bible and writing a summary of it so I have a basic understanding to build on.

I’m actually trying to learn Hebrew so I can properly read the Torah. ouo It probably makes a lot more sense there, haha! I was just wondering if anyone had a quick explanation of what was up.

[mexashepot]

One of those debating TV shows but it's just me resurrecting Chazal and fighting with them over their parshanut of the tanach

Everyone ends up arguing with everyone and no-one is ever right or wrong bc shiv'im panim la'torah and no conclusion is ever reached but at the end of each ep everyone goes to eat together (the arguments continue all throughout lunch obviously, because of course they would)

Rashi sometimes translates Hebrew and Aramaic into Old French just because he can

[garden-ghoul]

This week’s parsha is parshat vayeira, which contains both Abraham’s plea for the salvation of Sodom and the binding of Isaac. Last night we were talking about why Abraham defied G-d to try to save the hypothetical fifty righteous people in Sodom but did not defy G-d to save his own son. And today I was reading out a related parshanut (ParshaNut’s excellent analysis of parshat toldat) in which the author draws a strong parallel between the binding of Isaac (the Akeidah) and the incident where Jacob tricks his father Isaac into blessing him as firstborn. The connection is the word hineini, I am here. At the Akeidah it is Abraham who says this. Here I am, my son. And both Ray and I were simultaneously struck with a strong feeling about “You Want It Darker,” where the word hineini is sung as a chorus.

It’s pretty clear to me that this song’s central metaphor is the Akeidah, smothered in feelings of inadequacy, guilt, anger, and grief. Cohen takes the point of view of Abraham in this song, but he speaks as we: he is speaking for all of humanity. The third verse depicts a firing squad getting ready to execute prisoners, struggling with ‘middle class and tame’ demons, which I read as about the Shoah. And there’s a link here: we’ve heard over and over that the Nazis were just obeying orders as they killed millions of innocent people. You want it darker? We kill the flame. We kill our light, our children, or Am Yisrael. I believe Cohen is saying that anyone could be Abraham if they think they hear G-d calling them--or something else they revere and fear. And there is no angel to hold them back.