A Jewish Side Blog

Hi, I'm Daniel! This is a side blog dedicated to Judaism, I am happy to answer asks, give advice, but I aint a rabbi.

[judaismandsuch]

Pinned/about me!

I didn't pin my last about me, so I thought I would restate it, adjust it, and Pin it.

This is a side blog dedicated to Judaism, answering random asks that come across my dash, etc.

A few Notes About Me/My Perspective:

I am Religious, but I don't like to use the term Orthodox as that comes with...baggage. I am Ashkenazi, so though familiar (and appreciative!) of the other groups (Sphardi, Temani, mena, Ethiopian) I am not as knowledgeable about specific tradition variations. There are 70 faces (at least) to the Torah, but there are wrong interpretations. So if I answer a q. I will try to account for my view (obv. the correct one), as well as mention the 'simplest' interpretation, and prob a few other takes. But if the view is based on a stupid take, I will call it such. I am knowledgeable but I am not a rabbi, so some answers to more esoteric stuff may be vague/bad. But I will mention those when they come up. I will always try to be respectful, but if it seems an ask is in bad faith, well.....

Now, I have answered/made posts on a bunch of topics, so I decided to start keeping a list:

Conversion related: x x x x

Death related: x x

Yom Kippur/Rosh Hashana: x x

Torah/ Tanakh: x x x x x x

Antisemitism/Judaism in Media: x x x x x x

Comparative Religion: x x x x x

Kosher: x

Misc: x x x x x x x

I skipped some of my posts, and a few are repeated in a couple headings. I may or may not add to this as time goes on.

BTW, if there is an Aspect of Judaism you are curious about, feel free to send me an Ask!

[jewish-hot-takes]

Salt and pepper kugel is the best noodle kugel. People should make it more instead of that sweet nonsense

.

[judaismandsuch]

seconded

[jewish-hot-takes]

Hot take but parashat Naso absolutely could have gotten away with just saying the list of gifts once and then naming the 12 representatives of the tribes who presented that set of gifts, rather than repeating the list over and over again. I know when you’re an eternal infinite being writing a book, concerns like time to read a section or parchment to write it aren’t really issues for you, but still.

.

[judaismandsuch]

I absolutely love this take, because 1) I fully agree with it 2) given the classic Jewish exegesis* view that each word in the Torah is absolutely essential and intentional by G-d**, saying that it HaShem should have done it differently is a super hot take. 3) I am sure the anon is aware of 2, making it funnier.

For those unaware of the full context, at the end of parshat Nasso the leaders/'princes' of each tribe bring gifts to HaShem, they all bring the exact same thing, word for word, and the entire section takes 70 lines, and makes Naso the longest parsha.

For those curious, the one of the classic commentaries about why it was done this way was to show that though 100 people may help/donate/volunteer in the exact same way, you need to recognize each individual for their own contribution, not simply be happy with the final outcome and do a general 'thank you' (it ties also into some stuff with the same individuals a few parshiot earlier, but that is beyond the scope of a brief tumblr write up). [for the pedantic, I said one of and am combining/simplifying]

*classic, not __ movement. This is the approach taken by pretty much any commentator you choose to name, as well as the approach used in halchik discussions in the talmud, etc.

**You don't need to hold that way, but biblical commentary gets really dumb when the answer to 'why is this phrased [] way?' can be "scribal error" or "it doesn't matter"

[judaismandsuch]

when is someone considered ethnically Jewish?

That is so beyond the scope of anything I can comment on it's almost funny.

Religious questions? Sure History and evolution of Judaism? Got it Biblical Commentary and translation? No problem! Ethnicity? Uh.... fuck, what even is an ethnicity?

note: I do not want people in my inbox explaining ethnicity, I do understand that Judaism is an ethnoreligion and get the concept in general. But if you are trying to seperate 'ethnically Jewish' from 'halachically Jewish' and 'Culturally Jewish' you get into such a mess that I'm gonna just shove it in a corner and ignore it

[hyperpotamianarch]

in terms of cosmere jews, what do you think is the prevailing view on the Weeping? I could see it going either way, as a mashiv haruach type of thing or a three weeks kind of deal.

Since the diaspora, holidays connected to agriculture or the holiday cycle weren't completely a thing. It does depend on whether we go on my and Spring's version of Cosmere Jews - where they come from their own planet - or we're just having Jews somehow exist on Roshar. And even within my and Spring's version, there's the question of how they keep the calendar. I do believe we ended up agreeing they'd use a local calendar due to the need for Pesach to be in the spring (which doesn't go well with how they do stuff in the southern hemisphere, but that's a different matter IMO). Due to that, Pesach is half a Rosharan year from the Weeping. So...

The weeping is actually around when their Rosh haShanah, Yom Kippur and Sukkot fall. Probably. So, more of a Mashiv haRuach approach. Though, quite honestly, with how Rosharan weather works, they either keep the "according to Eretz Yisrael" laws or have a very, very different system in place. One where Mashiv haRuach is more of a year round thing, while Morid haGeshem might be a Weeping only thing.

[judaismandsuch]

So we would 100% need to determine the form of "Jews Inexplicably in the Cosmere" because that has an obvious impact.

Assuming we go with: 'Earth facsimile is in the Cosmere, which is Shard free so we can ignore the impact of a shard on the evolution of Judaism (along with readily accesible magic), and assume Judaism would have evolved to be as it is now on Earth.'

I think we would have to go with 'Calendar According to Israel' (which would cause a lot of havoc becuase of non-standard year length, etc.), the 'Season' issue is completely irrelevant because Roshar doesn't have seasons. So regardless of going with Roshar calander or not, spring doesn't exist.

(From the Coppermind wiki)

(if you are wondering why the word 'Season' was used in the books, they use it to refer to temporary weather patterns of like... 2 weeks)

In addition the presence of 2 moons would cause some havoc with a moon based calender, so tying the Jewish calander to another planet is really the only logical choice.

[homochadensistm]

While it is correct to say that Kippot (in their modern style) are, well, relatively modern.

And it is also correct to say that 'men always covering their hair even when just out and about' is even more modern (1800s or so), it is very incorrect to imply that Jewish men covering their hair is an Ashkenazi invention.

Aside from it being mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch, which is Sephardi not Ashkenazi (both hold by it, but the Ashkenazi use a secondary commentary upon it that the Sephardi don't), the idea of Jewish men keeping their hair/head covered seriously predates the 16th century.

(Even if the first mention of it was in the Shulchan Aruch it would by definition have to predate it, as the Shulchan Aruch was a summation of laws as practiced, it did not introduce new ones.)

Head coverings are directly talked about in the talmud twice (once in reference to a young man who always kept his head covered, it fell off and he immediately stole something [Shabbat 156b], once a rabbi refused to take on a student on the basis that he didn't cover his hair, and was therefore unmarried/more likely to sin [kiddushin 29b]).

Now technically neither of those are kippot, as the word was not used at the time, and probably were refering to turbans, and neither of those are written in the structure of commands.

But it is clear that when the Talmud was being codefied (4th century or so) it was common for (at the very least) married Jewish men to go about with hair coverings, so it demonstrates a pretty shitty knowledge and understanding of Judaism to say

'Kippahs are a 16th century Ashkenazi invention that has nothing tangible to do with Judaism'.

Huh? I never said that. I specifically said that the KIPPAH is a 16th century Ashkenazi invention that has nothing tangible to do with Judaism, which is an absolute fact. You even quoted it properly. Covering your head in a religious setting has always been a thing in Jewish tradition, but walking around with a hat (any hat) outside of prayer and your home is entirely modern. Even in the very well known example you chose to use a head covering is a social signifier (married), unlike the modern use of any Jewish head covering, all of which are modern inventions that absolutely have nothing to do with Judaism.

[judaismandsuch]

"Covering your head in a religious setting has always been a thing in Jewish tradition" and "KIPPAH is a 16th century Ashkenazi invention that has nothing tangible to do with Judaism" are directly contrary statements.

The Kippah is a head covering worn by Jews, there are stories and conversations about Jews wearing head coverings for religious reasons from the talmud. Therefore the Kippah has something tangible to do with Judaism!

I chose 2 citations, one of which was related to marriage, the other was not.

Both stated that the head covering was worn at all times, and was contextually clearly a Jewish tradition. There are also multiple other stories and opinions about the wearing of headcoverings from the mishna, responsa, agadot, etc. through the middle ages.

Yes, the modern appearance of our head coverings is modern (so is the way we design our shuls, you wouldn't take that to say they have nothing to do with judaism because the fucking architecture is different). Yes, the universality of wearing a head covering at all times is modern (the sources I quoted showed head coverings worn at all times. There are multiple commentaries on Shulchan Aruch that say it should be worn at all times). Saying 'kippa is a "modern" ashkenazi invention with nothing tangible to do with Judaism' is not the same as saying 'the most common version of the specific head covering we call a kippah now, and the ubiquity of it's use, is Ashkenazi in nature'.

Like yeah, fine, small round kippas are modern. But when people talk about the history of kippot in Judaism (unless they are really splitting hairs), they are talking about the general forms of head coverings.

I do not know how you can read things that say 'various Jews have worn head coverings for religious reasons for millenia' and then go 'the kippa has nothing tangible to do with Judaism', it is a misrepresentation of information so intense it boggles the mind.

[homochadensistm]

Apples and oranges. A sudra is not a kipa, and none of the head coverings mentioned in the Talmud resemble or allude to a kipa. The kipa is indeed a modern invention, that has nothing to do with Judaism because none of the religious sources mentioning head coverings describe anything even remotely similar to a kipa, and because the way it is used today is not even close to what it was originally intended to achieve in שולחן ערוך. You are making things up in ur head to get mad and קטנוני about and theyre only just touching the surface. Wait until you find out just how much of modern Jewish tradition is actually a collection of 20th century phenomena that have no ancient religious or cultural roots whatsoever!

[judaismandsuch]

"Jewish religious head covering A, has nothing to do with Judaism despite the existence of ancient Jewish religious headcovering B" is a stupid as fuck statement.

Words and designs change. I don't argue that, because that'd be dumb.

'none of the religious sources mentioning head coverings describe anything even remotely similar to a kipa,'

Is a true statement, in that neither source really describes the head covering:

In the SHulchan Aruch it says:

If anything between a straw hat, and someone elses hand counts as a valid head covering from the Shulchan Aruch's perspective, I challenge you to cite a source that describes the design of what the writer intended.

The Talmud also doesn't describe what the head covering is:

(Incidently, Rav Huna's statement about head covering is pretty similar to how the Kippa is treated today. Did you actually bother to read either of the sources?)

I fucking know how much modern Jewish practice is influnced by outside cultures and random happenstance in the last 200 years.

Had you stated 'The kippah has been worn by jews around the world for 2000 years' I'd have also called you an idiot who thinks they know more about Judaism than they actually do, and brought the sources linking the kippah to Juden Kaps, as well as responsa from famous rabbis in the 17th century stating head coverings are unecessary to prove it.

You can admit you made a mistake, or misphrased something.

It's ok to learn something new

[homochadensistm]

[judaismandsuch]

Thank you for illustrating exactly how receptive you are to new data!

[homochadensistm]

While it is correct to say that Kippot (in their modern style) are, well, relatively modern.

And it is also correct to say that 'men always covering their hair even when just out and about' is even more modern (1800s or so), it is very incorrect to imply that Jewish men covering their hair is an Ashkenazi invention.

Aside from it being mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch, which is Sephardi not Ashkenazi (both hold by it, but the Ashkenazi use a secondary commentary upon it that the Sephardi don't), the idea of Jewish men keeping their hair/head covered seriously predates the 16th century.

(Even if the first mention of it was in the Shulchan Aruch it would by definition have to predate it, as the Shulchan Aruch was a summation of laws as practiced, it did not introduce new ones.)

Head coverings are directly talked about in the talmud twice (once in reference to a young man who always kept his head covered, it fell off and he immediately stole something [Shabbat 156b], once a rabbi refused to take on a student on the basis that he didn't cover his hair, and was therefore unmarried/more likely to sin [kiddushin 29b]).

Now technically neither of those are kippot, as the word was not used at the time, and probably were refering to turbans, and neither of those are written in the structure of commands.

But it is clear that when the Talmud was being codefied (4th century or so) it was common for (at the very least) married Jewish men to go about with hair coverings, so it demonstrates a pretty shitty knowledge and understanding of Judaism to say

'Kippahs are a 16th century Ashkenazi invention that has nothing tangible to do with Judaism'.

Huh? I never said that. I specifically said that the KIPPAH is a 16th century Ashkenazi invention that has nothing tangible to do with Judaism, which is an absolute fact. You even quoted it properly. Covering your head in a religious setting has always been a thing in Jewish tradition, but walking around with a hat (any hat) outside of prayer and your home is entirely modern. Even in the very well known example you chose to use a head covering is a social signifier (married), unlike the modern use of any Jewish head covering, all of which are modern inventions that absolutely have nothing to do with Judaism.

[judaismandsuch]

"Covering your head in a religious setting has always been a thing in Jewish tradition" and "KIPPAH is a 16th century Ashkenazi invention that has nothing tangible to do with Judaism" are directly contrary statements.

The Kippah is a head covering worn by Jews, there are stories and conversations about Jews wearing head coverings for religious reasons from the talmud. Therefore the Kippah has something tangible to do with Judaism!

I chose 2 citations, one of which was related to marriage, the other was not.

Both stated that the head covering was worn at all times, and was contextually clearly a Jewish tradition. There are also multiple other stories and opinions about the wearing of headcoverings from the mishna, responsa, agadot, etc. through the middle ages.

Yes, the modern appearance of our head coverings is modern (so is the way we design our shuls, you wouldn't take that to say they have nothing to do with judaism because the fucking architecture is different). Yes, the universality of wearing a head covering at all times is modern (the sources I quoted showed head coverings worn at all times. There are multiple commentaries on Shulchan Aruch that say it should be worn at all times). Saying 'kippa is a "modern" ashkenazi invention with nothing tangible to do with Judaism' is not the same as saying 'the most common version of the specific head covering we call a kippah now, and the ubiquity of it's use, is Ashkenazi in nature'.

Like yeah, fine, small round kippas are modern. But when people talk about the history of kippot in Judaism (unless they are really splitting hairs), they are talking about the general forms of head coverings.

I do not know how you can read things that say 'various Jews have worn head coverings for religious reasons for millenia' and then go 'the kippa has nothing tangible to do with Judaism', it is a misrepresentation of information so intense it boggles the mind.

[homochadensistm]

Apples and oranges. A sudra is not a kipa, and none of the head coverings mentioned in the Talmud resemble or allude to a kipa. The kipa is indeed a modern invention, that has nothing to do with Judaism because none of the religious sources mentioning head coverings describe anything even remotely similar to a kipa, and because the way it is used today is not even close to what it was originally intended to achieve in שולחן ערוך. You are making things up in ur head to get mad and קטנוני about and theyre only just touching the surface. Wait until you find out just how much of modern Jewish tradition is actually a collection of 20th century phenomena that have no ancient religious or cultural roots whatsoever!

[judaismandsuch]

"Jewish religious head covering A, has nothing to do with Judaism despite the existence of ancient Jewish religious headcovering B" is a stupid as fuck statement.

Words and designs change. I don't argue that, because that'd be dumb.

'none of the religious sources mentioning head coverings describe anything even remotely similar to a kipa,'

Is a true statement, in that neither source really describes the head covering:

In the SHulchan Aruch it says:

If anything between a straw hat, and someone elses hand counts as a valid head covering from the Shulchan Aruch's perspective, I challenge you to cite a source that describes the design of what the writer intended.

The Talmud also doesn't describe what the head covering is:

(Incidently, Rav Huna's statement about head covering is pretty similar to how the Kippa is treated today. Did you actually bother to read either of the sources?)

I fucking know how much modern Jewish practice is influnced by outside cultures and random happenstance in the last 200 years.

Had you stated 'The kippah has been worn by jews around the world for 2000 years' I'd have also called you an idiot who thinks they know more about Judaism than they actually do, and brought the sources linking the kippah to Juden Kaps, as well as responsa from famous rabbis in the 17th century stating head coverings are unecessary to prove it.

You can admit you made a mistake, or misphrased something.

It's ok to learn something new

[homochadensistm]

While it is correct to say that Kippot (in their modern style) are, well, relatively modern.

And it is also correct to say that 'men always covering their hair even when just out and about' is even more modern (1800s or so), it is very incorrect to imply that Jewish men covering their hair is an Ashkenazi invention.

Aside from it being mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch, which is Sephardi not Ashkenazi (both hold by it, but the Ashkenazi use a secondary commentary upon it that the Sephardi don't), the idea of Jewish men keeping their hair/head covered seriously predates the 16th century.

(Even if the first mention of it was in the Shulchan Aruch it would by definition have to predate it, as the Shulchan Aruch was a summation of laws as practiced, it did not introduce new ones.)

Head coverings are directly talked about in the talmud twice (once in reference to a young man who always kept his head covered, it fell off and he immediately stole something [Shabbat 156b], once a rabbi refused to take on a student on the basis that he didn't cover his hair, and was therefore unmarried/more likely to sin [kiddushin 29b]).

Now technically neither of those are kippot, as the word was not used at the time, and probably were refering to turbans, and neither of those are written in the structure of commands.

But it is clear that when the Talmud was being codefied (4th century or so) it was common for (at the very least) married Jewish men to go about with hair coverings, so it demonstrates a pretty shitty knowledge and understanding of Judaism to say

'Kippahs are a 16th century Ashkenazi invention that has nothing tangible to do with Judaism'.

Huh? I never said that. I specifically said that the KIPPAH is a 16th century Ashkenazi invention that has nothing tangible to do with Judaism, which is an absolute fact. You even quoted it properly. Covering your head in a religious setting has always been a thing in Jewish tradition, but walking around with a hat (any hat) outside of prayer and your home is entirely modern. Even in the very well known example you chose to use a head covering is a social signifier (married), unlike the modern use of any Jewish head covering, all of which are modern inventions that absolutely have nothing to do with Judaism.

[judaismandsuch]

"Covering your head in a religious setting has always been a thing in Jewish tradition" and "KIPPAH is a 16th century Ashkenazi invention that has nothing tangible to do with Judaism" are directly contrary statements.

The Kippah is a head covering worn by Jews, there are stories and conversations about Jews wearing head coverings for religious reasons from the talmud. Therefore the Kippah has something tangible to do with Judaism!

I chose 2 citations, one of which was related to marriage, the other was not.

Both stated that the head covering was worn at all times, and was contextually clearly a Jewish tradition. There are also multiple other stories and opinions about the wearing of headcoverings from the mishna, responsa, agadot, etc. through the middle ages.

Yes, the modern appearance of our head coverings is modern (so is the way we design our shuls, you wouldn't take that to say they have nothing to do with judaism because the fucking architecture is different). Yes, the universality of wearing a head covering at all times is modern (the sources I quoted showed head coverings worn at all times. There are multiple commentaries on Shulchan Aruch that say it should be worn at all times). Saying 'kippa is a "modern" ashkenazi invention with nothing tangible to do with Judaism' is not the same as saying 'the most common version of the specific head covering we call a kippah now, and the ubiquity of it's use, is Ashkenazi in nature'.

Like yeah, fine, small round kippas are modern. But when people talk about the history of kippot in Judaism (unless they are really splitting hairs), they are talking about the general forms of head coverings.

I do not know how you can read things that say 'various Jews have worn head coverings for religious reasons for millenia' and then go 'the kippa has nothing tangible to do with Judaism', it is a misrepresentation of information so intense it boggles the mind.

[generallemarc]

Christian/Jewish theological buffs, am I missing something in regards to 1 Samuel 15 and the destruction of Amalek?

My translation is the New American Bible revised version, and its footnotes can sometimes be a bit imprecise. At this point and several others it points out that the sacred authors often phrased things as "the Lord said etc etc" when it was actually just a prophet saying it and not a literal proclamation from God, because prophets were seen as being constantly speaking for God and thus there was no difference, as they saw it, between "the Lord said to Israel" and "Samuel said to Israel", for example. This is highlighted in 1 Samuel 15:3 regarding what appears to be a command by God to kill literally everyone in Amalek, man woman and child; the footnote brings back up the substitution of "the Lord" for the prophet in question, pointing out that the supposed command from God was just how semi-nomadic tribes in the region operated at that time(which seems like they wanted to say it was a retroactive justification but weren't allowed to) and that God would never command the slaughter of the innocent.

All well and good, but there then seems to be a contradiction a few verses later, where Samuel rebukes Saul for not destroying livestock and other valuables, as "God" had supposedly told him to destroy absolutely everything. This seems like a textbook case of a prophet abusing their authority, pre-David no less, as Samuel is now saying that God is upset that Saul didn't obey a command that wasn't actually from Him. But the footnotes seem to now operate under the idea that the Lord really had chosen to strip Saul of the crown because of this incident, which makes them contradict themselves on the same page, or at least it seems like it. Am I missing something here? Any theological perspective with knowledge of the text is appreciated, Christian or otherwise. I believe that Samuel is a single book in the Tanakh as opposed to two, if there's any confusion on my numbering.

[judaismandsuch]

That is not a view I have ever heard, and is honestly pretty surprising to me?

The closest Jewish view is that, on occasion, it might say 'The Lord said to Israel' and mean 'The Lord said to Samuel to say to Israel', but that does not at all seem to be the view espoused in your translation.

A prophet claiming to have a message from G-d that they made up in its entirety would make them a false prophet, and subject to punishment, regardless of any 'true' prophecies they had in the past.

And, as @jewishgay4il said: This is not the first time the destruction of Amalek comes up. It is commanded by G-d in the 5 books of Moses, so it clearly isn't something that Samuel made up. (Exodous 17:14 'blot out all rememberance of Amalek' kinda implies the kids as well).

So there really isn't a Jewish perspective on this 'contradiction' because there is no contradiction.

And I am kinda curious as to why your translation created one/espouses the view that a prophet would just claim they were speaking for G-d when they weren't?

[generallemarc]

It's possible I'm misreading at least one of these footnotes-despite orginiating from 1970 at the earliest they can often read like they were written decades earlier, and when dealing with such nuanced topics and having to also give context for translations from ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek and languages that're thousands of years old, another layer to sift through can quite possibly cause more misunderstandings even as it tries to solve them.

I'm also, on reading my original post back, definitely attributing more malice to Samuel than either the book or the footnotes do. He's never described as making this up, but I concluded that that would have to be the case in order to explain the disconnect. But that's my conclusion, or rather supposition, not the book's or the commentator's.

It is commanded by G-d in the 5 books of Moses,

I do remember the commentator's notes on this, as they mentioned that this was going to come back in 1 Samuel. Since the dates of authorship of the Old Testament, particularly the older books, are impossible to pin down, a theory put forward, though not fully endorsed, was that parts like these could have been back-filled, to oversimplify things. And in Genesis there were already alot of short passages of the "and this is why this place has this name" variety, with some of them seeming to contradict what those figures were already doing in the overall progression, so it wouldn't be the first time that the idea of something not being quite as literal as the text would imply is brought up.

And while the commentator, writing in 1970 and working directly for the Vatican, was likely unable to get away with saying this flat out, the footnote in 1 Samuel regarding Amalek quite explicitly stated that God has never condoned the slaughter of innocents, which to me is the commentator saying "I believe this part of the book is a historical account retroactively given divine intent". A view which I would agree with, tbh. I'm not done with 1 Samuel yet and there's of course tons more scholarship on this book and the wider Old Testament that offers insights I don't have yet, but from all I've read so far(started with Genesis and proceeded linearly) this does seem like a confounding of historical account with divine message in order to legitimize actions as being divinely ordained.

[judaismandsuch]

It took me a minute to formulate a reply because that way of looking at tanakh is so foreign to Jewish thought it just is hard to say much more than: what?

To begin with I am aware that historians and scholars have various views about the point in time of compilation of different books, authors, etc. I am ignoring that completely because you asked for a theological view, so that isn't super relevant. Second, I am not speaking for all Jewish streams of thought, I am speaking for the common ones/ the ones most held by our various commentators. Any individual Jew may have a completely different view on the background of the books.

That being said:

From a Jewish theological perspective the 5 books of moses we have now are believed to be identical to how they were given by G-d to Moshe, and passed down accurately (with any differences being so minor they cannot impact the meaning of a sentence)*.

The rest of the books are viewed to be divenely inspired to various degrees, the interpretation of that meaning is somewhat more open, but generally the way I have heard people view it is "The information and prophecies are accurate, the details may not be." (so if it says 10000 people, they probably meant 'a lot of people').

The entire Jewish commentary perspective more or less breaks down if we don't view it that way.

For example if we take a view that it is possible that a given book is written post fact by another author, or any part of it was 'back filled for explanation' the book cannot possibly be commented on in any useful way beyond "interesting historical point". If we held that, the answer to the question 'Why did they phrase it that way?' the answer is 'oh, that part was a backfill'.

If we say that Samuel made up something, we would have to remove the entire section. Like.... I just can't give you a 'Jewish theological answer' because that question doesn't exist in Jewish theology.

Now, the question of "Why dis G-d command Saul to kill innocent children?" is a question that we deal with, and one I can answer.

*I am aware that Reform does not fully believe in the divinity of the Torah authorship, but my point still stands. And that belief is relatively recent all things considered/

[generallemarc]

Christian/Jewish theological buffs, am I missing something in regards to 1 Samuel 15 and the destruction of Amalek?

My translation is the New American Bible revised version, and its footnotes can sometimes be a bit imprecise. At this point and several others it points out that the sacred authors often phrased things as "the Lord said etc etc" when it was actually just a prophet saying it and not a literal proclamation from God, because prophets were seen as being constantly speaking for God and thus there was no difference, as they saw it, between "the Lord said to Israel" and "Samuel said to Israel", for example. This is highlighted in 1 Samuel 15:3 regarding what appears to be a command by God to kill literally everyone in Amalek, man woman and child; the footnote brings back up the substitution of "the Lord" for the prophet in question, pointing out that the supposed command from God was just how semi-nomadic tribes in the region operated at that time(which seems like they wanted to say it was a retroactive justification but weren't allowed to) and that God would never command the slaughter of the innocent.

All well and good, but there then seems to be a contradiction a few verses later, where Samuel rebukes Saul for not destroying livestock and other valuables, as "God" had supposedly told him to destroy absolutely everything. This seems like a textbook case of a prophet abusing their authority, pre-David no less, as Samuel is now saying that God is upset that Saul didn't obey a command that wasn't actually from Him. But the footnotes seem to now operate under the idea that the Lord really had chosen to strip Saul of the crown because of this incident, which makes them contradict themselves on the same page, or at least it seems like it. Am I missing something here? Any theological perspective with knowledge of the text is appreciated, Christian or otherwise. I believe that Samuel is a single book in the Tanakh as opposed to two, if there's any confusion on my numbering.

[judaismandsuch]

That is not a view I have ever heard, and is honestly pretty surprising to me?

The closest Jewish view is that, on occasion, it might say 'The Lord said to Israel' and mean 'The Lord said to Samuel to say to Israel', but that does not at all seem to be the view espoused in your translation.

A prophet claiming to have a message from G-d that they made up in its entirety would make them a false prophet, and subject to punishment, regardless of any 'true' prophecies they had in the past.

And, as @jewishgay4il said: This is not the first time the destruction of Amalek comes up. It is commanded by G-d in the 5 books of Moses, so it clearly isn't something that Samuel made up. (Exodous 17:14 'blot out all rememberance of Amalek' kinda implies the kids as well).

So there really isn't a Jewish perspective on this 'contradiction' because there is no contradiction.

And I am kinda curious as to why your translation created one/espouses the view that a prophet would just claim they were speaking for G-d when they weren't?

[askjumblr]

I started writing something about names/naming conventions, and I wanted to ask about Hebrew names. The last time I was studying Judaism in a classroom setting was uh over a decade ago, so I might be misremembering. I know through friends that Jewish people have a Hebrew name, and from what I vaguely remember, it can be either patronymic or matronymic depending on the gender of the person. For example, a man might have the Hebrew name "David ben Daniel" or "David son of Daniel", while a woman might have the name "Chana bat Rachel," or "Chana daughter of Rachel." Is that accurate?

I just got really into researching matronymic naming conventions, because in my culture it's exclusively patronymic (aka your family name is from your father, your father's father, etc etc). Thanks in advance for the answers, and also thanks to the person who runs this blog bc I've asked a dozen questions over the years and every time it's been so helpful. Hope everyone has a great day.

.

[judaismandsuch]

The name is contextually patronymic or matronymic, not gender based, but it may seem gender based because of how men/women are involved in different aspects of Judaism. [N.B. certain aspects of this may not be true of Reform, but it is otherwise accurate]

While there are different rules of thumb for when you use either, and traditions may change between groups slightly, the most common version is 'If you are praying for the individual to heal from something it is 'ben/bat [mother's name]' vs all other times 'ben/bat [father's name]'.

I have also seen people say 'if tribal affiliation is relevant (or would have been 2300 years ago) it is father's name, otherwise mother's name'. (so, wedding stuff that would include land inheritance, what honours you recieve during prayer, etc.).

Both more or less add up to same practical application, and in Orthodox communties it gives the appearance that men are usually referred to as [father's name] while women go by the mother's, but that is because women tend not to be called up for the torah and other honours when the Father's name would be used, but do get prayed for which uses the mother's name.

Some people always use both names (ben/bat mother v father), some people prefer to use their mother's name, etc.

While I have been to one Partnership Minyan where everyone decided individually how they wanted to be called up, which did cause some gender bias (men chose either father's name or both, while women did father's or mother's or both), that was a unique situation, and very much an exception.

This is a very long winded way to say: Regardless of any other factors: when in the exact same situation*, men and women should be refereed to in the same way. It may appear that they get referred to differently, but that is only because they tend to be in different situations more or less often.

*a men and women being named in prayer for the sick, called up to the bimah, named in a ketubah, etc.

[askjumblr]

I have no idea what kind of Jew I am. I don't think I'm Orthodox, but idk what I'm supposed to actually be. Both my parents are Jewish, pray every shabbat, celebrate all the holidays, but not perfectly kosher (I don't always check for a kosher symbol, just ingredients) and am also gay. What kind of label do I even say I am? Do I even need one? I know my family is Mizrahi, but that's not the kind of label I'm talking about.

.

[judaismandsuch]

Ignoring the fact that 'Orthodox' 'Reform' etc. are basically only Ashkenazi movements, no matter what you do not need to subscribe to labels like that.

I am Ashkenazi and I do not use those terms to refer to myself at all.

If someone asks you can say 'I keep kosher more or less, and am Shomer Shabbat' (I don't know if you do, but it seems like your family does?), or 'my parents do [x] and I do [y]', or do other descriptions of your practice as that is what people are normally asking.

If you go to an Ashkenazi Shul (which you might) you can say that you attend an [x] minyan but are/are not part of the movement.

Orthodox/Conservative/Reform are more theological/philosophical views (in theory/origin at least) than true descriptors of practice.

Labels exist to be useful, if you don't feel like you belong to one, don't say that you do.

When people ask me what I am I say 'Religious' if they press I say 'I'm shomer shabbat, shomer kashrut, and put on teffilin daily', if they for some reason continue to press for a movement, I tell them to fuck off.

[misguidedandperplexed]

Every so often I'll have a Realization that a secular name is actually a translation of a name from the Torah or another Hebrew word. They're not necessarily difficult to connect (though some spellings are truly wild) but I just never made the connection before.

The most mind-blowing one for me was Ichabod (איכבוד), but today's Realization is Tobias (טוביה).

[knight-of-skyloft]

Elizabeth (אלישבע) got me real bad.

[misguidedandperplexed]

How did they even get from Elisheva to Elizabeth??

Is now a good time to also mention that the inconsistency of yud being translated into J or I or E makes me mad? There's like no rhyme or reason to it. If you're going to steal our names at least be neat about it!

[ladymaplecourt]

Susan/Suzannah coming from Shoshana was one that was hiding in plain sight for me

On the flip side, it boggles me to no end that Isabel also comes from Elisheva and not from Izevel. Like look at those two Hebrew names and tell me which one is closer to the end result.

[acleverforgery]

And Jessica is יִסְכָּה (Yiscah)

Listed among the descendants of Haran in early Bereishis, possibly another name for Sarah Imeinu

[magnetothemagnificent]

James, Seamus, and Jaime are from Yaakov (יעקב) and it drives me crazy.

Matthew is from Matityahu (מתתיהו)

Ian, Sean, Giovanni, John, Jean, Jane, Siobhan, and Joanna are all ultimately from Yochanan (יוחנן)

Thomas is technically from Aramaic, but its meaning is present in Hebrew as well, and means "twin" (תאמא in Aramaic, תאום in Hebrew). Teomim is an old Ashkenazi surname, for example.

Sharon is from שרון, which means plain/field.

[judaismandsuch]

Did not know about Jessica, fun!

One that gets me a bit is Devorah/Debra, not because it isn't obvious (it is), but because I perceive the names so differently.

As for "inconsistency of transliteration" I believe blame for that falls on Latin which doesn't have the letter 'Y', and only formally distinguished the 'y' sound from the 'i' sound and assigned it specifically to 'J' in the 1500s (I think, I just wanted to fact check that Latin always used 'J' as 'Y' and fell down a massive rabbit hole).

So depending on whether the name in question came through Latin or from Greek, and when it came in, the transliteration changes.

[judaismandsuch]

Hey All

Look, usually I post a discaimer on halchic stuff that it is my opinion, I am not a rabbi, etc.

On occasion I do not, sometimes because I am over tired, sometimes because I think I responded to an opinion question not an in depth halacha one. Feel free to shoot me a message if you disagree with the lack of disclaimer on one of them.

And if you disagree with my answer? DM me, or reblog my response to argue the point. Judaism is about disagreements and discussions.

But do you know what you shouldn't do?

Send me anon hate calling me a heretic, an apicorus, a liar, that my answers are chillul HaShem etc.

I will not respond, it is beneath the dignity of anyone on here who knows enough to have a disagreement to do it in that way.

I try to answer questions with consideration, with keeping in mind both the individual who is asking and halacha, I avoid getting nasty as much as I can.

I'd appreciate it if you could do the same curtiosy to me.

Or if not, at least be off of anon so I can know who I am talking to.

[askjumblr]

Sorry if this has been asked before but why do Yehudim in English say Jews and Judaism and generally spell names as most goyim do for example Mosheh as Moses or Yehuda as Judah, is it so goyim have an easier time interacting and understanding?

.

[judaismandsuch]

For a variety of reasons, and it depends on the person!

Sometimes it is definetly that it is easier to talk to non-Jews with the words they are familiar with, and people will switch it up when only in a conversation with other Jews.

Another one (which is true of me at least) is that "Yehudim" (and others) is not an English word, and if I am speaking English I prefer to use English words when one exists.

A similar logic can go for the names as well.

I am sure that there are a lot of other reasons as well!

[jompsjnngurdsn]

No Jews on the Artemis II mission because it was gonna be during Passover and the last time an astronaut opened the door for Elijah it went really poorly.

[askjumblr]

Hii this is for modern orthodox please!

For leavers day my class has decided to go with nuns. Now i really do not want to dress up as a nun but my friends who i was goong to do a different costume with now wants to do nuns and really don't want to be the odd one out but I also rlly do not want to dress up as a nun

If I'm only wearing the costume within school where everybody knows it to be a costume, does that make it better? I know it's basically avoda zarah but my friends do not want to take into consideration any of the other 20 options I've offered and I'm literally left with no choice

Do I wear a different costume and be the odd one out on my last day of school ever or do I wear the costume only in school where people know it's a costume

Thank you!

.

[judaismandsuch]

So, first of all: Your friends are being inconsiderate and you should make it clear that they are being assholes, though I totally understand why you may not want to do that.

That being said: don't wear a cross or crucifix and it is not Avodah Zarah. The nun outfit in and of itself has no religious iconography built in, so at worst you are dealing with Maras Eyin (though anyone who knows you are Jewish should be able to put 2 and 2 together).

I personally wouldn't do that as a costume for a few reasons, mainly that dressing up as a clergy member of a religion that I'm not part of leaves a weird taste in my mouth. I'd rather christians not dress up as rabbis, so I won't dress as priests (or nuns).

But if you really want to match, but don't feel comfortable still, I reccomend going as a particular nun from a movie that is recognizable. Like Maria from Sound of Music (she was studying in the nunnery! she counts), or one of the Nuns from Sister Act. (also, isn't there a horror movie with someone dressed as a nun?) It gets around a few of the issues listed above (imo).