Vil’amsburg Diaries: Simchas mit Nachas
[Serial Fiction]
My cell phone vibrates. Nuchem taught me how to set it on vibrate when I’m in shul or, as I am now, at a simcha. Breindy wanted me to look around to see if it would be suitable for Yidi’s Bar Mitzveh. As if I can afford a place like this to begin with. Maybe it’s the caterer she wanted me to check out. He just sent out the appetizer – sautéed liver on it’s own edible cracker-plate. It’s all the rage these days and quite tasty too.
Again my pocket vibrates. It must be a txt message. A neier meshigas, which, like the cell-phone itself, the world would be better without.
“I am going to take the test tomorrow,” the text says.
Wow. A test. I thought those days were behind us. Breindy knows by now when she’s pregnant. She always did, really. The only reason she would get the pregnancy test kit was to get me to believe. And she was always right. So, another baby now. Oy, I hope I had pure thoughts when we did the mitzvah; I want God-fearing children.
Another little mouth to feed now. The costs add up so quickly. We had some money set aside for Nuchem’s wedding but we’ve been using it for Yidi’s Bar Mitzveh. What can I say though? It doesn’t look like Nuchem will be getting married anytime soon. But I shouldn’t say that; al tiftach peh la’soton. He just decided to go to Israel for Lag Ba’omer. How? I’m not paying for the trip, I told him. So he said he’s paying it on his own; has his own money. Where in God’s name does he earn money from? I don’t want to know.
I just hope the next baby is a girl. They’re just so much easier to raise. A girl has to kill someone to be considered bad. Or wear makeup before she’s married. Boys have many more rules. It gets complicated, and one is easily branded a “bum” for not entirely fitting the mold.
“Der eibershter zol takke helfen…” The speech is winding down. This is my cue to leave. I go over to Yanki, the baal simche, or Reb Yankel, as he likes to be called, and wish him a heartfelt mazel tov.
I think I’m too old for another baby. I should have einiklech by now, I mutter to myself as I ignite the car engine. And the name? Oy, that’s where all the trouble starts. Baby’s hardly born, and the aggravation begins. Who to name her after? Breindy’s family will insist we name her after her great-aunt Janet. Well, not Janet, but Esther, or Esther Yachet. There’s some controversy over her name. She died childless, and her tombstone just says Esther, but one cousin brought home pictures from the great-great-grandmother’s tombstone in Debrezcin on which the inscription reads, “Hu’ishu Hachashivu Ve’hatzniu Esther Yachet bas Reb Mordche Shmiel z”l.” She must have been named after this great-great-grandmother, it stands to reason, and it’s the war that made her, or us, forget her real name.
No one in the family wants to name their kids after her. Her husband Uncle Itchy promised my brother-in-law Mendy ten thousand dollars to name his daughter after Janet. Uncle Itchy died before he could make good on his promise. “Not a big deal,” Mendy says, “I named her after Esther from the megilleh anyway.” You see, she wasn’t heimish. First of all, she lived in Queens. The family wasn’t close at all. She didn’t cover her hair and there was some suspicion that she sometimes wore pants. Who knows if she even kept Shabbos? A lost neshama.
The war destroyed everything. She had children back in derheim. Sweet little kids, killed somewhere in that godforsaken land of unspeakable horrors, their bones probably buried in some mass grave, if there were any bones to be buried at all. No one really knows, and Janet never spoke about it. I can’t imagine the agony. Maybe that’s why she turned out the way she did. A little baby girl would be the perfect answer to Hitler yemach shemoi.
Nuchem’s home. What wind blew him in here? I still can’t get over him saying he’d pay for his trip himself. He’s sitting on the couch reading some book, looks like he’s studying it. Not bad, I think to myself; can’t remember the last time I saw him reading. Then I notice the DMV logo, and I realize it’s the prep book for the driving test. Bucherim aren’t supposed to drive, and he knows it. But I have no energy left to argue. I don’t know how I’ll manage to father the new little girl on the way; odd how I’m already thinking – hoping? – it’s a girl, because if it isn’t bin ich oif tzures.
He looks up at me as I put my good hat, the one I keep for simchas and the like, back in the box. “Did you get my text?” He asks.
”Which text?”
”I’m going for my road test tomorrow.”
He probably wonders why I stand dumbfounded. Zol er zein gebentcht.
Printable Version
Abe! Hazzak u’barukh! for the beautiful shiur in beth midrah un-pious;]
Were/are you a school teacher? I sense a fine explanatory skill. Thanks
Like this comment?
0
Abe . . . thank you. That was absolutely awesome.
Like this comment?
2
Whoa, a goddamn Masterpiece, Abe. All the more reason to comment on this issue, sparring with a worthy adversary is hard to come by these days.
So with no further ado;
You write;
“Every yeshiva bucher knows the mamar Chazal that says “One should pray that sweets should not enter his body, rather than pray for words of Torah to be absorbed”. Reason being, Chazal believed that as long as one is occupied with attending to his bodily/animalistic needs, above and beyond what one needs to sustain a normal and healthy lifestyle, one can not achieve a higher intellectual and spiritual state”
Well, not exactly,
“Every Yeshivah Bochur knows”. Yeshivah Bochurim do not go by what they see or learn, they go by what they are taught and inculcated.
For every Gemarah you mention that are against Reshus pleasures, there are counter Gemarahs where not allowing yourself pleasure is frowned upon. There’s the famous Yerushalmi where God will be angry at you why you didn’t enjoy “my beautiful mountains”. Or the Gemarah that explains why a Nazir brings a Korban, “Lo Dayach Mah She’osroh Toirah. We are able to interpret many Mammorey Chazal in any direction we prefer. The Bracha on trees [birchas Ilones] claims that god created the trees so that people should enjoy it. The approach that righteousness is connected with less physical pleasure is not so clear cut in Chazal. Ramchal claims that this approach is due to the typical frum guy being a dumbass [Gas Hasechel].
You write,
“But note that the advice is for the above mentioned reason. It is only sex for sex’s sake that is dissuaded. Indulging in instant physical gratification doesn’t do anything for one’s development of character, or spiritual nor intellectual pursuits.
Hmm.. Not exactly,
Well, pray show me where sex for sex sake is frowned upon in Chazal. I remember the problem being only if it’s not wholesome loving and passionate sex. Don’t give me later Rishonim who have been tainted by Aristotelian asceticism.
You write,
“For the believing person who sees life as a means to an end, this advice makes perfect sense”
Well, not exactly,
I would think that a believing intelligent person should go beyond this silliness of “means to an end”. The Sfas Emes writes that the deepest Toirah of Chasidus is that serving hashem is “bimkoimoi”, it is NOT a means for anything. All we have to do is let go of our ego and frickin go with the flow of life, the flow of Being, actually be Being (Yedativ Ve’Hayisisv) no holds barred, no punches pulled. Take it all in enjoy it to the hilt. And yes Abe, sex for sex sake, Mammesh Le’shmoh, as Chazal interpret Le’shmoh ‘Aseh Devorim Leshem Peolom’. Do it for it’s own sake, never do anything for another future cause, (not even for the cause of trying to accomplish this very concept mentioned here, for then too you are already not doing it simply for the sake of doing it)or as New Agers would say “live in the moment”.
Ve’Attoh Mah Hashem Elokecho Shoel Me’Imcha, Ein Ve’Attoh Eloh Loshun Teshuvah. Living in the flow of existence without any ideas, ideals, plans, memories, etc. (what is Ego if not our whole database of ideas on how things are, how it will be [supposedly], rather than dropping all these notions and just ALLOWING ourselves to be what IS.), no living for the future or the past, Living “Ve’Attoh”.
Come on Abe, “means to an end”? Where the ultimate end is what? BEING having fun. Shashuim Atzmium, Nisaveh Hakodush Boruch Hu… It all ends up in just fun and pleasure. As R’ Chaim of Sanz was want to say. Dont want anything, Dont want to be anything, Don’t even want to be an Ehrlicha Yid. Just let go. How about not living with all kinds of Ends in mind, which culminate in the ultimate bridge to nowhere.
Granted, this last critique is not simple to convey and definitely not simple to live by.
More comments on your piece to follow….
Like this comment?
0
Finally, citations. And from a talmud chochom, nuch dertzi. Thank you, Abe.
Like this comment?
0
Boruch, the thrust of Abe’s comment was to prove that the idea that having passionate sex is a good one according to Chazal, has earlier sources. All you did was strengthen the point.
You say “We are able to interpret many Mammorey Chazal in any direction we prefer”. Have you just shot yourself in the leg?
” The approach that righteousness is connected with less physical pleasure is not so clear cut in Chazal. Ramchal claims that this approach is due to the typical frum guy being a dumbass [Gas Hasechel]. ”
Can you tell me where that Ramchal is? In Mesilas Yesharim he writes that refering to people who “shake very hard when davening, with all sorts of funny movements.” Sounds familiar?
Like this comment?
0
Oh, and I didn’t realize that Laura is a “heimishe”! Vus tit zich, lurra (with a ringing R)?
Like this comment?
0
Abe,
You have given me some impetus to clarify the issue for myself. I’m glad to share it with you, and with everyone here, for whatever it’s worth.
Aseh Devorim Le’Shem Peolom, means (possibly) to do it for the sake of doing it, i.e. allowing myself do do things simply because this is what flows.
Think about it this way. do we typically need a reason for NOT doing anything? The fact that we have nothing to get done right now is not really the direct REASON for us not doing anything. It simply allows us to be in our natural state. We therefore can rightfully say that we are not doing anything simply for the sake of ‘not doing’, i.e. no other reason for ‘not doing’.
Change needs a reason. Status quo doesn’t . When we are in an unguarded moment we get a little closer to being in our natural state. When we do something subconsciously then too we are closer to our natural state. Sub-consciousness is when we are not willful in our actions it just ‘happens’, based on what our (perceived) reality is.
When doing things on a subconscious level It doesn’t feel like we are trying to change anything we are just going along with our flow of Life.
Now take for example when we don’t know what is the right course of action, we will typically allow ourselves to do what naturally happens, we don’t have that strong willfulness.
This approach should really apply to our whole existence, not really pushing for any direction. We will be ok with any kind of reality, any kind of outcome. [Hen Ve'lav Shovin Etzlo] We can accept any outcome because we have no strong notions of how things ought to be. We divest ourselves from our database of how we have configured and structured our view of reality, and of our own self within that reality. We let go of our strong individual filter that we call consciousness, we let go of our ego. We allow reality to be what it really is.
Yet surely we will act, for if our natural instinct is to scratch an itch, we will have no reason not to allow ourselves to go along with our current natural state. Accepting reality as it is, is also accepting the fact of my existence and my drives. But it is accepting the facts of other peoples existence just as well.
It is as if we are standing outside ourselves and just observing this whole game called ‘I’. We will then not think of ourselves creating ‘change’, it will feel like we are just allowing our status quo to continue. Action will be like Non-Action, no [external] ‘reason’ for action, The ultimate “Bimkoimoy of the Sfas Emes. Doing for no reason other than simply doing. Aseh Devorim LeShem Peolom.
Like this comment?
0
Kaf,
Mesilas Yeshorim in Hakdamah. Something along the lines of that because only Gas HaSechel’s are the frummies, it starts to seem that being very frum is all about Viduyim Aruchim Tzomos Koshim and Amiras Mizmorim Harbeh.
I agree that it can argued that while Tzomos Koshim are not recommended by Ramchal, he still requires a life with little physical pleasure.
Yet I vaguely recollect that in his letters where he’s referring to his many detractors claim of living a physically comfortable life, he there too claims that being holy is not related to not having pleasure.
But Laura would need exact citations (maybe rightfuly so).
Like this comment?
0
Kaf,
I wasn’t trying to really prove with certainty what Chazal approach was. More so when we consider the fact that Talmud is a compendium of many different opinions and schools of thought, as MP has already mentioned.
It only was to question Abe’s postion taken from, yes, the famous Maamor of Ad SheAtoh Mispallel Ve’Chulu.
Abe,
I reread your piece again. Other than the few points I already commented about, I must say that I’m in total awe.
This is Mammesh a Tshuvah worthy of a Gaon (a Revolutionary Gaon, that is).
But even more than the knowledge involved, I can see how this may have tremendous consequences.
Think of what will happen if all of us and all of our wonderful brothers and sisters will be taught that it is important, nay, required, to make sure the woman is pleasured to the point of orgasm.
It may jolt us all out of our goal of Harmony in the house and catapult us into the goal of LOVE in the house.
Marriage will not be all about making Simchas and having Nachas. It will start being about Loving each other to the point of being one Al Ken Yazov Ish Oviv Ve’imo Ve’dovak Be’Ishto Ve’Hoyoh LeBosor Echod.
If we will see the righteousness of making love and having sex, we may stop seeing our marriage as a child producing partnership. We will then not be so inclined to be the biggest producer of said enteprise
And what will happen then?? Good question.
Like this comment?
0
Boruch;
“And what will happen then?? Good question.”
But why would you care what would happen then? Just live it, man, live it!
Boruch, what are YOU smoking? I’d love some of that myself!
Like this comment?
0
Abe,
your comment is worth for PHD thesis! Awesome work.
If you look in the achroinim you will see practical reasoning why if the woman “comes” first then it will be a boy. And Coming in this context refers to Ovulating. Not Orgasmic.
“מאי טעמא שאם הזריעה
תחילה יורדת טיפת האיש למעלה ממנה וכורכת
אותה וגובר כח החום של איש על כח הקור של
אשד. ויהיה זכר. והפכו אם הזריע הוא תחילה
יורדת טיפתה למעלה וכורכת טיפתו וגובר כה
הקור שלה על כח החום של איש ותהיה נקיה
כענין מי שלמעלה רציח שלמטה.”
בית אהרן שמיני
“וקשה להבין ינלע״ד
ע״פ דאיחא בספרים הטעם מדוע זאח כשהאש׳
מזרעת תחילה יולדח זכר . עעם אחד איחא
שהולך אחר המחשבה שהוא קדם שהאשה
מחשבתה על הזכר בשעת שהוא מזרעת וע״כ
מתגבר מחשבתה שהיא קדם . ואס הוא מזריע
תחילת אז אזלינן בתר מחשבתו שהוא על הנקבה
שהוא מקדם”
In the same Gemara in Niddah it says. A woman only becomes pregnant close to her Ves”t [period](Rav Yitzchak) and Rav Yochanan says only close to her Mikva. Which is all related to ovulating.
You are left to explain how that fit’s in with your beautiful teshuv”a.
Like this comment?
0
Choila(s ahavah, maybe?)
Abe is not beholden to what every Achron etc. will interpret the text.
It should be pointed out that in the pre-scientific ideas of anatomy and biology, it was very reasonable that just like when a male is having orgasm that is when he’s being Mazria (seeding), as is, i dare say, blatantly obvious, so it was extrapolated to the female, that when she’s having orgasm that is when she is being Mazria (seeding, adding her part to the deal). Seeding and Orgasm are the same event.
BTW I think I’ve written a pretty interesting Mehalech in Lishmoh and in the fundamental concept of Chasidus.
But nobody is taking note, Other than Kaf, who asks what I smoke. BOO HOO
You would think that Kaf, who, according to tradition, is involved in filling up the room with smoke, would be a little more circumspect with smoke accusations.
Kaf, on your smoke it can be said that Rabim Chalolim Hepilu [traditionaly it was the Tzedukim who got the brunt of it.]
Kaf, do you get my drift? Or, Kishmoy Ken Hee, you need to be spoon fed?
Like this comment?
0
I think you are smacking together kaf al kaf, which as we know, old chassidim wouldn’t do without a shinui. My kaf derives from the kaf which comes as punishment for what happens al kaf hayerach, where you get smoked , and not the other way around.
Like this comment?
0
I would like to thank all of you that liked and had nice things to say about my comment. I am humbled and honored by the amazing titles I have been given (school teacher, revolutionary, goan and talmud chochem). Someone should tell my wife. She might like me more.
Boruch - On your first comment regarding other Chazal that encourage one to take part in the God-given pleasures of the world, I don’t disagree with that at all. In fact, I had carefully written that one shouldn’t indulge “above and beyond what one needs to sustain a normal and healthy lifestyle”, and I had also used the word “excessive”.
In my opinion, the best way to reconcile these otherwise conflicting Chazals would be with the famous approach of the Rambam (in his preface to Mishnayos Avos, also known as the book of Eight Chapters), he states that a person should conduct his life by always choosing thederech h’mamutza – the middle ground. Additionally, in his commentary on the 5th perek of Avos, he categorizes a person that denies himself all worldly pleasures, as a sinner.
As to your approach on ‘mehalech in leshmo al pi Chassidus’, my apologies. I tried to really understand your point, but I found it floating just a bit out of grasp. In some sense I came away from that feeling like I tossed you a solid volley ball, and I received in return ephemeral soap bubbles. I chased those bubbles with the wand, but when trying to address it, they keep falling apart. I’d like to think it was good though, and sure enough you cracked me up with your last comment. But truth be told, I am really not concerned that a comment on Unpious will change the frum community’s outlook on marriage.
Should that happen, I’ll be more than glad to take the credit for it.
Choilah – the Gemara you mention regarding the time when a woman is most prone to conceive, is in no way contradicting the Gemara of mazria tchilah. All the Gemara is saying that if one fulfills the mitzvah of onah properly, then when his wife conceives, it will be a boy.
Now as to those Rishonim like the Ramban in Parshas Sazria, that have explained this as a scientific process, if we read it carefully, we will find that he is not disagreeing with the orgasm aspect. The Ramban quotes the above mentioned Gemara (Nida, pg 31) and goes on to explain that one shouldn’t interpret this Gemara as to say that a woman has sperm just like a man. But rather, one should understand that the Gemara refers to the ovarian follicle that at the end of intercourse, flows to meet the man’s sperm in order for conception to occur. According to the Ramban, if the follicle moves toward the sperm first, she will conceive a boy.
When speaking of the end of intercourse, we clearly understand what that is in regard to a man. But what are we referring to as far as a woman is concerned? What do they mean by ‘end of intercourse’ which is supposed to get her body to react and move said follicle to meet the sperm? I think we can agree that he is referring to an orgasm.
(Medically we know that an orgasm indeed has an effect on the uterus, and some pregnant women even get contractions from them.)
What still needs to be explained is why the Ramban and others saw the need to add the scientific process to explain this Gemara. Why not just stick to the more simple interpretation that the boys are a reward for fulfilling the mitzvah of onah properly? But I think that the answer is right there in front of us. After the abovementioned statement from Reb Tzudek, the Gemara quotes the Amora Rav Katina as saying “I have the ability to make all my children boys”. Rashi says that he would do so by holding back from coming too soon. Now one has to wonder how he could have been so certain that this ‘process’ would work. After all, a reward doesn’t always come through as expected, since other negative behavior might interfere. So then by Rav Katina saying it with such certainty, the Ramban and others concluded that there has to be a scientific process to this as well.
With this explanation with can also understand as to why the Gemara quotes Rav Katina in the first place. On the surface Rav Katina is not really adding anything to the previous statement of Reb Tzudek. All he does is brag about his capability to refrain from ejaculating prematurely. That’s absolutely wonderful – for him, but in itself it does not tell us anything we need to know. Yet with the above explanation Rav Katina is in fact telling us a lot.
There is also a Gemara (in Brochos, pg 60) that says that for up to 40 days in a woman’s pregnancy one can pray for the fetus to be born a boy, after which it will be considered a ‘false prayer’. This Gemara goes on to ask how it is that one can still pray for a boy even then. Didn’t it depend on who was mazria first? Here again it seems that if it were just a matter of a reward, then why would the Gemara ask this question? So again we see that the according to the Gemara there is a scientific process to this. The Gemara even goes on to answer that this is referring to a case of when both are ‘mazria’ at the same time?
That sure sounds like the ultimate experience.
Doesn’t it?
—-
I apologize for being so late with my response. I do have a day job.
Like this comment?
0
Kaf,
Oy vey, and I thought that the sudden and abrupt dizzying changes in your reality (conceptually, that is) which you are obviously experiencing, has already done its job to teach you about letting go, and not feeling it as a punishment.
Or is your response just a smoke screen, like you and Umachtah love to do once a year.
Like this comment?
0
Thanks Rav Abraham!
While we are on topic I would like a vote. Who would you crown the gibbo”r (strong man) the one who refrains from sex or the one is holding back ejaculating. Both of course do it to make certain the sperm turns into testosterone. LOL.
This man here would take three girls over one boy any tine.
Like this comment?
0
Abe, interesting stuff.
You define the term mazriah (lit: emit semen) as female orgasm. Hmm. That’s a curious translation, dontyathink? You build your pshetel on that definitio which you arrive to by this line of reasoning:
A. Mazria, which is male ejaculation, has two parts; impregnation and orgasm
B. Of the two simultaneous parts for men, it is broken up to two events for women. So which is the word referring to when speaking of women? Impregnation or orgasm?
C. You scratch the first for women, since there is no way to know when a woman is impregnated (and chazal imply that there’s a way to know when a woman is mazriah by talking of waiting with male ejaculation until she is “mazriah”)
D.Therefore, mazriah for a woman means part 2, orgasm.
E. Hence chazal is speaking of female ‘mazriah’ with concern for a woman’s orgasm and pleasure etc.
Your definition describes, if nothing more clearly, an oversimplification. The faulty logic is at point B when you narrowed the definition down to two possibilities. There is an obvious third, that woman was incorrectly understood by chazal from a male paradigm in which, in an ancient mindset influenced by Greek thinking, before science told them how women experience sex and reproduction, chazal believed in the idea of conception in which both partners contribute seed– that is, both are somehow mazriah. If you think of the context in which this was said, one in which understanding of female reproduction was laughably superstitious (i.e. a pregnant woman can be impregnated in Ketubot 39a, the nature of menstrual blood as different than other blood in Niddah 17b, human miscarriage of bird or living animal in Nidah chapter 3 21a, blood is made into women’s milk in Niddah 9a, and let’s not forget the conception of boy by behavior not chance in Nidda 28a – as you noted, etcetra etcetra…) it’s reasonable to conclude that the term was meant to denote not orgasm but conception because it’s used to speak of reproduction (not love or the woman). This mazriah/conception may or may not have been thought to happen with orgasm. Typically, except by apologists, it is understood that chazal speaks of conception.
Like this comment?
2
SS you give a whole bunch of jibberish. Of course woman give seeds likeman. They release eggs.
Having said that. Abe is most certainly right about his interpretation of mazria. If you follow the sugya in niddah 31 there us no other way of learning it. My dear SIL used to talk of those am haaratzim that think mazria refers to cum. Her proud younger sister would repeat it with such zest.
Turns out the joke is on you. (I know she is reading,smiles)
Like this comment?
1
Choileh, “ofcoarse a woman gives seed likeman [she is mazriah]. She gives and egg” once a month, w/o stimulation, fyi.
Huh! [Scratch head] I thought we said being mazriah is orgasm. Ah, well. You’re right. It’s giving an egg.
I was saying, in Jibberish (the official language), that mazriah does not mean anything in the realm of the reality of female reproduction. It probably means a strange idea chazal had about how women reproduce. History supports that very imaginitive but incorrect views of women and reproduction were held, as does the talmud prove itself. It’s the same thinkers that held demons beheld menstrating women. Heck, in this context mazriah may mean the widely believed, well known theory of the stork. Mazriah tchilah is when the stork climatically and spontaneously arrives in the lover’s bed, upon which the man is mazriah in great joy, after which the swaddle is unwound and a baby boy beholden! Ah, well, nonsense goes around. Chazal surely taught us about that.
No nonsense quote:
The Biblical verse “If a woman emits semen and bears a manchild” (Leviticus 12:2) is interpreted by the Talmudic Sages and more recent Jewish sources to mean that if a woman emits her “semen” first, she will bear a male child but if the man emits his semen first, she will bear a female child. The Sages of the Talmud thus claimed to have known the secret of determining one’s baby’s sex. However, whether “emitting one’s semen first” refers to orgasm, ovulation, both or neither, is not clear.
PMID: 292634 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE
Like this comment?
2
Choila nefesh: (nebuch). A women is born with all the eggs of her life, did you know that? The egg is released by ovulation and not by making love, the male sperm only fertilizes the egg. It’s very clear Chazal were following the old way of thinking as Shpitz pointed out, that both men and women contribute to a fetus by a release of an orgasm of some sort which IS wrong and has nothing to do with sexual orgasm.
Chazal had the entire anatomy of the women wrong if you ever studied hilchus nidah some are pointed out by Shpitz and there are many more It comes to mind Talmud Bechores 42 stating that the male organ has a separation inside one side is urine on the other sperm and if the seperation wall gets damaged the male becomes sterile (soris) and can’t marry a Jewess which is a gross error there is no separation in there.
Like this comment?
0
Abe, bravo! Was that your Bar Mitvzah pshetel? And if you want your wife to like you more, have you tried, errr, your own R’ Tzudek’s advice?
Like this comment?
1
Kaf,
Who knows if my words came across wrong. Understand please, your name is all about being thrown (conceptually) from one reality to another, abruptly and violently. It helps us let go, and live in the moment. Gevald. Have a wonderul trip.
It’s obviously just my fun interpretation.
Maybe we even let go of God too. Ayin.
The Secret (hidden aspect) of the universe is God. The Secret of God is Ayin. so Ayin is Razin De’Razin.
BTW, a secret is not because I or you happen not to know it. It’s because it always is the non-articulated, non-defined aspect of things. It just stays murky, yet as powerful as ever.
Kaf Umachtah are in Kodshei Hakodoshim of the God who just loves the smoke smell of Korbanos, and they give Him an extra strength dosage of this smoke, Ad Shetismaleh Habais Kulo Oshon. Rest assured that this will get us our rain and shit.
Like this comment?
0
It’s obvious from your comments that you think that Chazal were a bunch of left-back mindless stupid drunks. I am actually surprised that you didn’t mention an even more absurd Chazal in this area to further prove your point. (Or maybe you haven’t gotten that far in your diligent studies in Gemara. ) In mesechtas niddah it says that a boy is born facing down and a girl face upward. Not only were they clueless in science, but they were so ignorant that they didn’t even know the basic facts of life! What a bunch of imbeciles.
It would be a waste of my time to try to convince you otherwise. It’s a shame though that some of the readers on this blog that may have not yet been contaminated by the poison of skepticism and arrogance, may unfortunately go away with the impression that what you are saying is actually correct.
Which is why, in spite of my better judgment, I am going to point out that all the issues that you and others keep pointing out for the sole purpose of making Chazal look bad, have already been dealt with – in detail. For those that are interested in explanations and answers by such great scholars, like Reb Avrum Ben H’Rambam (printed together with the Kisvi H’Rambam), The Maharal, and so many others. Anyone that has ever bothered opening a Gemara and has studied even one page, can attest to the fact that one thing is for certain – these guys ain’t no fools.
Now on to the topic on hand:
Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that Chazal had no clue on how the human autonomy works. Even more, let’s assume they believed in some old Greek myth that a woman and a man alike contribute sperm and that is how a child is conceived. Now let’s try to review the statement of Reb Tzudek and see what makes more sense.
A. Chazal speak of some ancient Greek science (which is just an assumption on your part, based on absolutely no ‘proof’ besides this particular Gemara. To make a statement like that, you’d need more. But that is besides the point.) Let’s then say that Chazal made a statement that they erroneously believed is pure science. It doesn’t explain why Reb Tzudek is talking about a reward when he is (according to you) merely repeated some scientific hogwash.
But then that would certainly benefit your theory that Chazal were a bunch of morons.
Or there is option B:
Chazal are indeed speaking of an orgasm, and Reb Tzudek’s statement then makes perfect sense – as I explained in my above comment. The downside is that now Chazal come out looking pretty sophisticated and way ahead of their times. Which that can’t be! Because then you might have to reconsider on how you see Chazal and the other things they had to say.
Like this comment?
2
There’s an important distinction between the drunk and the misinformed. I’ve tried both. The latter is decidedly less fun.
Chazal were misinformed. It’s neither A nor B, but C. Many great thinkers were misinformed, all klutz computers are overinformed. We appreciate when there’s innovation or a paradigm shift in a line of reasoning even if the information on which the reasoning is built and/or the conclusion is wrong. On the other hand, we agree that those that are correctly informed about life, ie how a woman reproduces (anyone?), are not exactly the elite clique of sober genuises with brilliant theories. Anyone can click here and here and here and –click: transformation— uh, no. You still won’t be the next Chazal. Take it from me. Still a pumpkin.
Knowing is time based; thinking is timeless with bad thinking most of the time. A mamar of wisdom from this Chazal.
Those that don’t believe in prophesy are not surprised nor disappointed that chazal were misinformed. How could they have known more than the knowledge of the time? It’s only expected. But it’s still relevant. What chazal were trying to say is a question believer or disbeliever want to understand. Based on the knowledge of language and history your definition of what they meant is a nice tweak, but was not the intention of the word Mazriah/Emit Semen. Incorrect definition, but good thinking.
Like this comment?
1
“which is just an assumption on your part, based on no ‘proof’ besides this particular Gemarah. To make a statement like that, you’d need more.”
Gee, this cite is haunted by the gilguls of the teachers pet.
“Rabbi Isaac and according to the tradition attributed to the tannaim it is possible to learn from the verse that if the women is מזרעת first, which, according to their understanding of the word, she emits semen, the fetus sex would be male and if the father emits his semen first, the fetus’ sex will be female. In the subtext we notice the idea that the male and the female both produce semen, and from the mixture of the two kinds of semen the embryo’s body is created. In these Babylonian sources we find for the first time a “dual-seed theory” clearly stated, a theory which was widespread in ancient times.
The “three partners” tradition from TB Niddah, which appears on the same page, is based on this theory, as it is expressed by the wordsאדום שהאשה מזרעת …, literally: “the red material emitted by the woman.” There, as in a previous source, the word מזרעת is understood as semen emission and the understanding is that a women’s seed is red as blood and its nature is similar.
Source
Like this comment?
1
Shpitz,
i.e. a pregnant woman can be impregnated in Ketubot 39a
This was last year in the news:
“Arkansas couple Todd and Julia Grovenburg found out that they were having a baby and then discovered they were having two bundles of joy — but the babies aren’t twins. An ultrasound revealed that a male fetus was conceived a full two-and-a-half weeks after the woman became pregnant with a baby girl, according to reports from local media. The Grovenburgs’ obstetrician confirmed the case to Arkansas television station KFSM-TV.
The pregnancy is believed to be a case of a rare condition known as superfetation, or conceiving while pregnant.”
Like this comment?
2