Women are not owned, etc. (spinoff) - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 32 Old 10-11-2004, 01:04 PM - Thread Starter
 
BelovedBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HOME!! Northern Israel
Posts: 3,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This is a spinoff of rainbow's abortion politics thread.
Quote:
Off topic: the ancient Hebrews understood charting as a form of bc.
This is an interesting speculation, but I don't see evidence for that in the torah. I see G-d deseigning the world a certain way and I see that the fertile time of a woman comes in cycles following the time after loss of potential life (the niddah period) we have had plenty of discussion on what this is about here in this forum, btw.
Quote:
If you look at the rules on when a man and woman can have sex in Leviticus, you find she is only allowed to be approached during her most fertile time of the month.
This is FALSE.
Quote:
Her being "unclean" during her non-fertile times means she will be most likely to be ovulating when approached for relations. Having sex during your most fertile time also increases your chance of conceiving a boy (important to the patriarchal Hebrews), as sperm that carries genes for a boy are less long lived and have the best chance of fertilizing an egg right at the peak of fertility.
That is realy interesting seeing as orthodox men do not have a shortage of women to marry. I have friends who have all girls, half and half, etc, all different combinations and THEY ALL follow these laws, so I don't see how what you are saying is true. At all.
Quote:
Of course. It is all about the patriarcy. Men owned their wives. Men owned their children. And they wanted sons.
Noone owns anyone in torah law. If sons are what is wanted why is the obligation to "be fruitful and multiply" fulfilled either after a boy AND a GIRL or after two of each, but not with one boy or ten boys?

Mom of 5 boys- 13, 10, 8, 2 : and newbie Aug. 24th, '09 . babywearing advocate . Cook, baker, homemaker, wife to a man with another woman's kidney (live altruistic, unknown donor).
BelovedBird is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 32 Old 10-11-2004, 01:07 PM
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I see it differently BB. I mean no disrespect.
DaryLLL is offline  
#3 of 32 Old 10-11-2004, 01:11 PM - Thread Starter
 
BelovedBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HOME!! Northern Israel
Posts: 3,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
What the law is is what the law is. That is a fact. You cannot see a fact differently. If something cannot be bought and sold it is not owned. If something is available more times than you say, then you are wrong. If there are two kinds when you say only one is possible you are missing something somewhere. Simple as that.

Mom of 5 boys- 13, 10, 8, 2 : and newbie Aug. 24th, '09 . babywearing advocate . Cook, baker, homemaker, wife to a man with another woman's kidney (live altruistic, unknown donor).
BelovedBird is offline  
#4 of 32 Old 10-11-2004, 04:49 PM
 
Rainbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,702
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I to, respectfully disagree. I'll talk with you when you're willing to talk with me
Rainbow is offline  
#5 of 32 Old 10-11-2004, 06:57 PM
 
Rainbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,702
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liek I said BB, this isn't a challenge- if you could show me how women weren't owned under the law I'd love to learn.
Rainbow is offline  
#6 of 32 Old 10-11-2004, 07:28 PM - Thread Starter
 
BelovedBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HOME!! Northern Israel
Posts: 3,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Women weren't owned and aren't today either. If they are possesions how does the husband (owner) go about selling them, as he can with all of his other possesions??

The answer is he can't because he doesn't own her.

It would be worthwhile for you to learn what slavery is in jewish law as well.


As far as your giving me a bunch of english verses, what is that supposed to prove? Definately not what judaism believes and what is in the torah UHUH.
Learn torah in its entirety including the oral torah and commentaries, spend some time in torah observant society and then you might have a clue. I am not being cheeky, but I can't spend hours debating with you all the basics of my faith.
As far as niddah (tumah) laws, we have covered that before in the forum- do a search.
It might answer some of your question to read all the jewish oriented threads here. You can also gain alot from www.jewfaq.org www.aish.com and other jewish websites. For christianity related questions www.jewsforjudaism.com is good.
Happy learning!

Mom of 5 boys- 13, 10, 8, 2 : and newbie Aug. 24th, '09 . babywearing advocate . Cook, baker, homemaker, wife to a man with another woman's kidney (live altruistic, unknown donor).
BelovedBird is offline  
#7 of 32 Old 10-11-2004, 07:52 PM
 
Rainbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,702
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm so confused by you mama. As far as I know the Religious studies portion is to disect and study religion. It feels to me you are saying"This is the way it is. If you present something contrary I'll tell you that you are wrong and send you to some websites I approve. I want to tell you that you are wrong, but I don't have time to get into any discussion about it." And that simply isn't that interesting to me. I come to message boards for dialogue. I'm sorry but an essay on something is not the same as reading the actual law or seeing actual verses.

I could make an essay on Christianity that would make it sound like the ultimate peace loving- equality enforcing religion on the planet- but I know from experience that simply isn't the case with Christianity in general so I don't put much value in essays or summaries. I want text, or actual law quotes if I am to be proven wrong. With ANY religion or discussion.

Sorry I can't quote directly from the hebrew Torah- I simply don't have access. I do look it up by hebrew words and cross reference various lexicons for varification of meaning. (bolded for emphasis) I could get my Hebrew texts and my lexicons out and write it out that way, but ti simply would take to long. With English verses I can cut and paste- and it is much easier to read for most of us.

ETA: Don't forget to, that we were discussing the OT WRT to Christianity not Judaism when you brought quotes from that thread out to point out the error of our ways. I think I clarified that early on.
Rainbow is offline  
#8 of 32 Old 10-11-2004, 08:17 PM
 
NatureMama3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Catching life's curveballs
Posts: 5,647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I do agree with BB that you can't fully understand the meaning by reading english only.

The verse about Eve and childbirth for instance is one prime example. The word used for "pain" (most english versions) is not used "pain" anywhere else when it is used. That is a very slanted interpretation that was made at a time when the Church (roman catholic at the time) taught that women SHOULD suffer in childbirth to "redeem" themselves for the "sin" of having married. (a good book on that whole subject is The Joy of Natural Childbirth by Helen Wessel)

Trying to understand a theological point (such as the status of women) without going to the original languages and contexts will only leave a person frustrated.
NatureMama3 is offline  
#9 of 32 Old 10-11-2004, 08:19 PM
 
NatureMama3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Catching life's curveballs
Posts: 5,647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
For that purpose, I have found a Young's Analytical Concordence invaluable. If it can't give me the answer, it can at least point me in the right direction.
NatureMama3 is offline  
#10 of 32 Old 10-11-2004, 08:35 PM - Thread Starter
 
BelovedBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HOME!! Northern Israel
Posts: 3,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So how about you answer my question?

You want me to spend hours writing out a post when you won't even read what was already written, here, in this forum. Uhuh.

This thread was started because Daryl wrote "the hebrews" (aka, jews) in her post. I'm not discussing the other thread. I'm discussing torah laws, that Daryl paraphrased, and doesn't understand, yet is misrepresting for everyone ignorant of torah law to now "know". The questions I posed in the OP were ignored. Clearly everyone is not obligsted to answer all questions posed to them here. Daryl made statements that she then refused to discuss when I questioned her, not even by refering me to other websites or other threads. I cannot teach you torah from a to z on this message board. If this is something you are interested in the is a whole bunch of reading you can do. If you want to maintain that you know because source outside of the people that actually live according to the laws have told you so, thay is your choice, your right, your everything.

Quote:
I'm sorry but an essay on something is not the same as reading the actual law or seeing actual verses.
That is what I am trying to tell you. You cannot, at least at this stage in your life, it is thouroughly impossible for you, to "read the law". This isn't the constitution. Torah is not written that way. First you need to know the actual languag, the letters, the nuances. Then you need to sit with a teacher and learn. For hours. There is nothing I can show you that will help you understand easily.

Mom of 5 boys- 13, 10, 8, 2 : and newbie Aug. 24th, '09 . babywearing advocate . Cook, baker, homemaker, wife to a man with another woman's kidney (live altruistic, unknown donor).
BelovedBird is offline  
#11 of 32 Old 10-11-2004, 09:27 PM
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelovedBird

This thread was started because Daryl wrote "the hebrews" (aka, jews) in her post.
No. I said Hebrews and I meant Hebrews. Ie: folks from 1500-700 BCE. Not from 100 CE or 1300 CE or the 21st century.

I try to differentiate people from Canaan, Israel, Judah by using specific terms. I would use Jews for the people dispersed from Judea/Israel after the sack of Jerusalem, and their descendants to the present day.

I think you, as a Torah observant and may I say, conservative Jew, believe G-d literally handed Moshe the Torah and told him oral Torah ca 1200 BCE. Other Jews (and secular Biblical scholars) think this is a tradition, not literal fact. Other Jews think the ancient ones did the best they could at explaining and defining their world, their relationship to their diety ca 700 BCE, and then in more modern (100 CE into medieval) times rabbis reinterpreted the ancient laws through the prism of their current situations. With much heated debate.

Perhaps you are just as frustrated with Reform Jews as StacyL is with Novus Ordo Catholics.

I did not want to answer you, BB, b/c I don't like to talk to you when you get all testy.
DaryLLL is offline  
#12 of 32 Old 10-11-2004, 10:09 PM - Thread Starter
 
BelovedBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HOME!! Northern Israel
Posts: 3,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
When you say "hebrews" you are talking about my people, the jews.

Mom of 5 boys- 13, 10, 8, 2 : and newbie Aug. 24th, '09 . babywearing advocate . Cook, baker, homemaker, wife to a man with another woman's kidney (live altruistic, unknown donor).
BelovedBird is offline  
#13 of 32 Old 10-11-2004, 11:09 PM
 
Rainbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,702
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If it helps any BB- any opinion I have about oppression of women is more about history than religion. The history of humans oppresses women, and I haven't seen anything to make me believe that the history of Judaism is exempt from that. Buddhism is a religion I adore and respect, and Buddhist nations have history of oppressing women as well. It is just a fact of history, but not at all a component of their religion.

You want me to believe Judaism is exempt from this historical detail, and I have not seen anything to convince me otherwise. And yes, I did searches on all three of the sites you linked to.

I'm sorry, but I can't really say that I feel like discussing this when you sound (perhaps by perception) very sarcastic and short- as if your view is the only correct one. I just don't see the point.
Rainbow is offline  
#14 of 32 Old 10-11-2004, 11:18 PM
lab
 
lab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: everywhere baby!
Posts: 3,588
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
:

Isn't it amazing how threads differ...........

Trying to do the right thing with three kids and a hubby. 
ds20, dd18, ds17
lab is online now  
#15 of 32 Old 10-11-2004, 11:40 PM
 
Rainbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,702
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think a little respect goes a long way in successful, balanced threads
Rainbow is offline  
#16 of 32 Old 10-12-2004, 05:01 AM
 
merpk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Didn't read the whole other thread.

And whether or not someone accepts whole the concept of the Torah as Divine or man-created is not relevant to BB's point, IMO. She's pointing out that there are statements presented as fact that have no relevance to how real life descendents of "Hebrews" (an English word ) live and know Torah law. And whatever evolving that Torah law may have done through the millenia, certain facts are unchangeable.

As in, there was no overflow of boys. Sorry, but confining sexual relations to two-plus weeks out of the month does not mean mostly boys. (I've got 2&2 myself )



Am not denying the oppression of women throughout history, myself. Am not denying that women are not in entirely the same playing field as men in Jewish Torah life, either. Am saying, though, that it is irrelevant to understanding the nidda laws and how it is lived and its effect on Jewish life and Jewish marriage and Jewish women. And not only is it irrelevant, but to mix the two distorts any possible understanding of it.





Would like to know the source of all this makhlokes (argument) so will dig around the other thread now ...



merpk is offline  
#17 of 32 Old 10-12-2004, 08:36 AM - Thread Starter
 
BelovedBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HOME!! Northern Israel
Posts: 3,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Judaism DOES differ. Judaism is the first society/ religion, that I know of where there is a marriage CONTRACT. Where the agreement of marriage is treated similar to a business agreement. The obligations of the parties is in writing. Without this agreement there CAN be marriage but it is very frowned upon and considered incomplete. Marriage without kesubah is only kedushin, consecration of the union. For this, the woman must be given something worth over a prutah. If she takes it they are married. If she does not, they are not. SO IS HE BUYING HER FROM HERSELF??

No, judaism is not all about egalitarian practice because it does not view men and women as the same, with the same spiritual makeup. None is better or worse, but different. THIS is AGAIn something that has been covered here. Do a search for torah and read all the threads. We have discussed this before. Ask Kama, maybe she remembers.

And this whole respect, snide comments- I cannot help that you are asking questions on a culture completely foreign to you with a totally different language. While when you question Christianity you are talking about a culture that YOU lived in and a religion that you practiced that uses YOUR native language. So of course it is easier and quicker for christians to give you the answers you seek. That is just a fact.

Thanks Amy.

Mom of 5 boys- 13, 10, 8, 2 : and newbie Aug. 24th, '09 . babywearing advocate . Cook, baker, homemaker, wife to a man with another woman's kidney (live altruistic, unknown donor).
BelovedBird is offline  
#18 of 32 Old 10-12-2004, 09:14 AM
 
candiland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Waiting for Calgon to take me away.
Posts: 3,890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
No, judaism is not all about egalitarian practice because it does not view men and women as the same, with the same spiritual makeup. None is better or worse, but different.
I didn't read the other thread and it's very early here, so I'm a bit brainfogged I just saw this point made and wanted to make one of my own.

Like any religion or spiritual belief on the face of the planet, different ppl define Judaism in different ways. What I quoted above from BB says it perfectly; I actually believe that true feminism doesn't DENY the inherent, fundamental differences of men and women but celebrates them and uses the strengths of both sexes to the fullest advantage. I think that's why so many ppl confuse certain belief systems with sexism; we're taught that "modern" people DON'T focus on the differences between men and women.......... and when ppl DO focus on those differences, they believe women are being degraded in some way.

For example: not sleeping in the same bed until a woman's postpartum bleeding stops. It's not because she is unclean; it is, rather, a sign of respect for the woman... giving her plenty of space to rest and recuperate, bond with the baby, not feel pressured to have sex with her husband... same thing with not having sex during certain times of the month. Maybe (correct me if I'm wrong?) the closest word the English language has for this is "unclean".... but it doesn't mean what we think it does (if that makes any sense at all ).

My old therapist was orthodox and he was explaining that women are the invisible force running it all. That if a woman asks a man to leave the home, he must leave. That a woman is technically in charge of their house and home life and her decisions are the rules. Sure, there are families who's husbands treat them like property... but that's with any culture, any religion, any people... it's not necessarily an overriding and unwritten rule... it's just how some ppl decided to interpret it for themselves.

I think that it's hard interpreting Jewish law with the English language without MISinterpreting it. I still consider it a patriarchal religion because all the figureheads are male... or, should I say, just because all the figureheads are male doesn't necessarily make it a patriarchal religion if the women are in the background pulling the strings?

I've befuddled myself and I have to get ready for my dentist appt. Three hour dentist appt!! Yuck. Luckily I have Valium for this excursion
candiland is offline  
#19 of 32 Old 10-12-2004, 09:35 AM - Thread Starter
 
BelovedBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HOME!! Northern Israel
Posts: 3,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
As far as threads here, you can start with these:
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ighlight=torah

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ighlight=torah

(CO gives a great explaination of what gemara is here) http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ighlight=torah

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ighlight=torah

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ighlight=torah ("family purity" laws)
Quote from me there:
Quote:
A person with a soul has a level of (tahorah/ kedusha) purity/ holiness. Creation of life is a higher spiritual level of tahorah and kedusha. A pregnant woman is considered to be on a higher spiritual or holiness plane bacause she contains more than one soul (holy spark from G-d). A woman who is at the fertile point of her cycle, at the point where the egg is ready or is about to be ready to be fertilized has more "holiness" because of the potential creation of life. A woman whose body has let go of that potential life (by birth, miscarriage or menstruating) now has a void of that holiness, her body no longer containing that other potential life. Therefore she immerses in the mikva to begin te cycle again, in holiness and purity.
Men have a similar status when they have an immision of semen, because that is also a potential for creating life.
I think the facts of longer postpartum tumah period for birth of girls is covered elsewhere as well, but if not, girls are potential "life (sanctity) providers" so the loss (birth, loss from being in the mother's body) of them is more tumah creating, it leaves a bigger void of holiness.
The rest of my "torah" search is here:
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...2&pp=20&page=9

I just saw Candiland posted to this thread while I was searching and typing, will reply to that too, soon. In short, my life experience has pointed to the more deeply torah observant a society is (more a reality in Israel than outside) the more matriarchal the society is. For example a man has no embarrassment saying "I have to ask my wife". Men and even teenage boys pushing strollers, walking with small kids is common place. There is no "macho" idea that caring for your kids and "listening" to your wife in not manly. Women are viewed as "in charge" of the house and family. I don't bring this as proof because it is purely anecdotal, but this is a view/ lifestyle that comes from torah. And don't forget, sex in judaism is the MAN"S obligation to his wife. NOT the otherway around. Isn't that against the norm of current AND ancient society? And it has always been that way in our belief system.

Mom of 5 boys- 13, 10, 8, 2 : and newbie Aug. 24th, '09 . babywearing advocate . Cook, baker, homemaker, wife to a man with another woman's kidney (live altruistic, unknown donor).
BelovedBird is offline  
#20 of 32 Old 10-12-2004, 10:29 AM
 
Rainbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,702
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelovedBird

And this whole respect, snide comments- I cannot help that you are asking questions on a culture completely foreign to you with a totally different language. While when you question Christianity you are talking about a culture that YOU lived in and a religion that you practiced that uses YOUR native language. So of course it is easier and quicker for christians to give you the answers you seek. That is just a fact.
No you can't help it, except that you keep opening the door to questions- I'm not nagging you to answer them and you ARE choosing to respond with snide comments- that is your choice. I just don't have to like it. Twice now you've made comments directed at least slightly my way, and when I ask questions as a response I get met with rudeness. Sorry but no thank you- I'll stop biting.

I don't not speak, nor do I have plans to learn your native language. Therefore I can not understand.

Now you're making assumptions about me though, I thought you knew that English was not my native language? It was the 3rd language I learned. I've become pretty good at coming over language barriers and making do with study aids and assistance.
Rainbow is offline  
#21 of 32 Old 10-12-2004, 10:30 AM
 
Rainbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,702
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks for the links, that helps alot- wading through the old ones without any memory of them isn't exactly easy.
Rainbow is offline  
#22 of 32 Old 10-12-2004, 11:19 AM - Thread Starter
 
BelovedBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HOME!! Northern Israel
Posts: 3,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I opened the door? This thread was not addressed to you. It was not a response to anything you wrote. How is that me inviting questions from you?
If you have a personal problem with me or my posting "style" I really suggest you take it to PM.

Yeah, I guess I should have said, a language that you clearly speak (more or less) fluenly and can read and write in proficiantly, which is not the same as "native". I apologize, for assuming and forgetting what little I know of your background.

And now you are making an assumtion about ME and forgetting MY background. My native language is english, through and through.

Mom of 5 boys- 13, 10, 8, 2 : and newbie Aug. 24th, '09 . babywearing advocate . Cook, baker, homemaker, wife to a man with another woman's kidney (live altruistic, unknown donor).
BelovedBird is offline  
#23 of 32 Old 10-12-2004, 11:50 AM
 
Rainbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,702
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
ok, but it specifically said ti was in reply to my thread. The last one specifically commented on something I had said. So, however indirectly, your bringing it up from conversation I've been in or things I've said and then disliked my questioning it.

I do apologize, I rarely use the term native language- it was just fresh on my tongue during that post. I was saying that it is obvious I can't have an accurate clue without speaking Hebrew, and I have no intention of learning it (working on my 4th takes up enough of my time) so if I can't accurately discuss the law and learn about it without learning Hebrew than I guess I can't learn.

I guess maybe I've misunderstood what religious studies were. I *thought* when someone made a statement about religion we could discuss it and study it. If I come here and say "I believe this" I feel like I am inviting in depth discussion of it. Perhaps others do not feel the same.
Rainbow is offline  
#24 of 32 Old 10-12-2004, 11:55 AM
 
Rainbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,702
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
And for the record, I thought I was very gentle in saying "my interpretation could be wrong" "it isn't a challenge" "I'd love to learn"

I just don't quite get why my thoughts and questions have to be met with such frustration? It really does turn me off to discussing or learning with you.
Rainbow is offline  
#25 of 32 Old 10-12-2004, 12:09 PM - Thread Starter
 
BelovedBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HOME!! Northern Israel
Posts: 3,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
ok, but it specifically said ti was in reply to my thread. The last one specifically commented on something I had said. So, however indirectly, your bringing it up from conversation I've been in or things I've said and then disliked my questioning it.
It was a SPINOFF from "your" thread, commenting on a post NOT of yours. I have no idea what that has to do with any post of yours. This thread was posted so I could comment on statements made, possibly discuss them, without derailing a pretty active thread and turn the discussion off topic.
What is "the last one"? Last what? Last post? where? Last thread? I'm confused.

Maybe this should go to Pm or email.

you can eml me at [email protected]

Mom of 5 boys- 13, 10, 8, 2 : and newbie Aug. 24th, '09 . babywearing advocate . Cook, baker, homemaker, wife to a man with another woman's kidney (live altruistic, unknown donor).
BelovedBird is offline  
#26 of 32 Old 10-12-2004, 12:13 PM
 
Rainbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,702
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
LOL- you ASKED what other thread, sorry I told you. The point was that I feel attacked whenever I ask a question about statements you make.

I will not, and can not discuss things with you because I feel (no accusations of intentions, just my feeligns) extremely disrespected and I do not wish to anymore.
Rainbow is offline  
#27 of 32 Old 10-12-2004, 12:20 PM - Thread Starter
 
BelovedBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HOME!! Northern Israel
Posts: 3,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Mom of 5 boys- 13, 10, 8, 2 : and newbie Aug. 24th, '09 . babywearing advocate . Cook, baker, homemaker, wife to a man with another woman's kidney (live altruistic, unknown donor).
BelovedBird is offline  
#28 of 32 Old 10-31-2004, 12:03 PM
 
BinahYeteirah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaryLLL
No. I said Hebrews and I meant Hebrews. Ie: folks from 1500-700 BCE. Not from 100 CE or 1300 CE or the 21st century.

I try to differentiate people from Canaan, Israel, Judah by using specific terms. I would use Jews for the people dispersed from Judea/Israel after the sack of Jerusalem, and their descendants to the present day.

I think you, as a Torah observant and may I say, conservative Jew, believe G-d literally handed Moshe the Torah and told him oral Torah ca 1200 BCE. Other Jews (and secular Biblical scholars) think this is a tradition, not literal fact. Other Jews think the ancient ones did the best they could at explaining and defining their world, their relationship to their diety ca 700 BCE, and then in more modern (100 CE into medieval) times rabbis reinterpreted the ancient laws through the prism of their current situations. With much heated debate.
Okay, fine. No problem.

So if we read the Torah only (1st five books of the Bible), which you think of as belonging to the Hebrews, we can see that no where does it mention that men and women can only be together during the fertile period of a woman's cycle (e.g. supposedly starting on cycle day 12 or later).

If you read Leviticus 15:19-28, you will see that there are two different cases being discussed. The first is discussed from verses 19-24. The second is discussed from verse 25 to verse 28. If you read the Hebrew, you will see that the first case is described using the word "niddah", and the second the word, "zavah". Niddah is called the "state of separation for a seven day period". This is a woman's menstrual period. Zavah is called, "outside her period of separation", e.g. non-menstrual bleeding.

Each case has different procedures to be followed as described in these verses. For the menstrual bleeding, i.e. niddah, the woman can "be purified" after seven days have passed, assuming her bleeding has stopped. This means a woman could then be with her husband on the 8th day after the beginning of her period. The 8th day of a woman's cycle isn't necessarily in the average woman's fertile time.

A close reading of these verses does not support the thesis that men and women were only allowed to have sex during a woman's fertile time.
BinahYeteirah is offline  
#29 of 32 Old 10-31-2004, 12:11 PM
 
BinahYeteirah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If we include the laws of the Oral Torah, however, the earliest day of the cycle that a woman could be with her husband is day 12. The Talmud (Niddah 66a) states that since it is difficult to distinguish between niddah and zavah bleeding (menstrual bleeding vs. annovulatory, mid-cycle, or other bleeding related to illness, etc.), the stringencies of some of the zavah laws were applied to all women who observed uterine bleeding. The Talmud also states that, "Jewish women accepted upon themselves..." That is, that Jewish women took the extra waiting period upon themselves before the Rabbis established it as law.
BinahYeteirah is offline  
#30 of 32 Old 10-31-2004, 12:43 PM
 
BinahYeteirah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So Jewish women would usually go to the mikvah and to be with their husbands on day 8 of the cycle according to the Biblical law, or on the evening of day 12 or so of the cycle according to the Rabbinic law.

Okay?

I am assuming that the theory that this system was designed to produce male children is based upon modern knowledge of sex selection methods such as the Shettles Method.

According to the Shettles Method guidelines, assuming ovulation at the average cycle day 14, sex on these days would favor the conception of girl babies, as sex 2-4 days before ovulation favors the slower, hardier X chromosome sperm.

I'm not sure it matters, though, since a simple search of the 'net turns up as many detractors as advocates of this and similar "sex selection" methods.
BinahYeteirah is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off